Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-31T12:38:10.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identity in Written Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2015

Paul Kei Matsuda
Paul Kei Matsuda*
Affiliation:
Arizona State Universitypmatsuda@asu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides an overview of theoretical and research issues in the study of writer identity in written discourse. First, a historical overview explores how identity has been conceived, studied, and taught, followed by a discussion of how writer identity has been conceptualized. Next, three major orientations toward writer identity show how the focus of analysis has shifted from the individual to the social conventions and how it has been moving toward an equilibrium, in which the negotiation of individual and social perspectives is recognized. The next two sections discuss two of the key developments—identity in academic writing and the assessment of writer identity. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the implications and future directions for teaching and researching identity in written discourse.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 35 , March 2015 , pp. 140 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davila, B. (2012). Indexicality and “standard” edited American English: Examining the link between conceptions of standardness and perceived authorial identity. Written Communication, 29 (2), 180–207.

This study explores the relationship between the indexicality of textual features—those that are associated with standard and non-standard edited American English—and the perceived identity of the writer—particularly the writer's ethnic background. The researcher interviewed composition instructors and found that the influence worked both ways—the perception of non-standard textual features shaped the readers’ perceptions of the author while the perceptions of author's ethnic background influenced the readers’ identification of non-standard texts. This study offers an additional way of exploring author identity that goes beyond the analysis of textual features by highlighting the reader's role.

Hyland, K. (2012a). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.

This book explores textual manifestations of writer identity in academic contexts by bringing together a series of corpus-based studies. Adapting the perspective that identity is constructed through the negotiation between individuals and social conventions, this book examines textual features are used to construct writer identity in academic contexts. Using corpora of various academic genres such as thesis acknowledgments, web pages, biographical statements, undergraduate reports and journal articles, this study shows individual identity is constructed through the use of various socially shared conventions.

Hyland, K., & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

This edited collection brings together represent various theoretical and methodological traditions to explore two key terms that have come to play an important role in the understanding of identity in academic writing: stance and voice. It begins with overviews of recent conceptions of stance and voice, followed by examinations of these concepts in various academic genres—including both professional and student genres. Professional genres examined in this collection include academic and medical research articles, biographical statements and textbooks. Student genres include PhD theses, undergraduate students’ final year reports, student essays, and graph commentaries. The final section explores variations in stance and voice across various media, disciplines and cultures.

Jeffery, J. V. (2011). Subjectivity, intentionality, and manufactured moves: Teachers’ perceptions of voice in the evaluation of secondary students’ writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46 (1), 92–127.

This study examined how voice, an aspect of writer identity, is manifested in writing assessment, focusing on how students’ identity was constructed in secondary-level writing teachers’ assessment of student writing. The researcher conducted a series of interviews with nine secondary school teachers as they read narrative and expository texts, and identified which textual features were associated with voice and how those perceptions varied across genres and individual readers. The results suggested the importance of writer's intentionality as perceived by the readers, which is associated with literary description and appraisal features that amplify the subjectivity of the writer.

Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249.

Drawing on Matsuda's (2001) definition of voice as the “amalgamative effect of the use of discursive and non-discursive features that language users choose, deliberately or otherwise, from socially available yet ever-changing repertoires” (p. 40), this study examined the construction of author identity in the blind review process of a manuscript for an academic journal. The study established the importance of writer identity in academic context and showed that writer identity is constructed by the readers not through a pre-determined set of textual features but through the use of discursive and non-discursive features that became salient in the process of reading and evaluating an academic manuscript. The finding of this study, was later verified in a survey study of editorial board members for various international journals.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (Emerson, C., ed.; Holquist, M., ed. and trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition to Communication, 53 (1), 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S.W. (2006). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 413–60.Google Scholar
Belcher, D. D. (2009). How research space is created in a diverse research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 (4), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (eds.). (2001). Voice in second language writing [Special issue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (4), 227–322.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. (2012). Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 101–115). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
Britton, J. N. (1971). What's the use? A schematic account of language function. Educational Review, 23 (3), 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7, 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1996). Correspondence. ELT Journal, 50 (4), 369–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cherry, R. D. (1988). Ethos versus persona: Self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 5 (3), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorising the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22 (4), 503–528.Google Scholar
Coles, W. E. Jr. (1988). The plural I—and after. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton.Google Scholar
Coles, W. E. Jr., & Vopat, J. (1985). What makes writing good: A multiperspective. Washington, DC: Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24 (1), 67–87.Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5, 309–326.Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In Purves, A. C. (ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 138–159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56–73). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, E. P. J. (1965). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2014). The WPA outcomes statement for first-year composition. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cox, M., Jordan, J., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Schwartz, G. G. (eds.). (2010). Reinventing identities in second language writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Davila, B. (2012). Indexicality and “standard” edited American English: Examining the link between conceptions of standardness and perceived authorial identity. Written Communication, 29 (2), 180–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePew, K. E., & Miller-Cochran, S. (2010). Social networking in a second language: Engaging multiple literate practices through identity composition. In Cox, M., Jordan, J., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Schwartz, G. G. (eds.), Reinventing identities in second language writing (pp. 273–295). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
DiPardo, A., Storms, B. A., & Selland, M. (2011). Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum. Assessing Writing, 16, 170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ede, L. (1989). Work in progress: A guide to writing and revising. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Elbow, P. (1968). A method for teaching writing. College English, 30 (2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elbow, P. (2007). Voice in writing again: Embracing contraries. College English, 70 (2), 168–188.Google Scholar
Enos, T., & Brown, S. C. (1992). Defining the new rhetorics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Faigley, L. (1989). Judging writing, judging selves. College Composition and Communication, 40 (4), 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218–231). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author?Language, counter-memory practice. (Bouchard, D. F. & Simon, S., trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. (1984). Towards defining expository prose within a theory of text construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written genres (pp. 15–33). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice written in academic genres (pp. 85–100). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1997). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, I. (1987). Voice as juice: Some reservations about evangelic composition. College Composition and Communication, 38, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haswell, R. (2005). Researching teacher evaluation of second language writing via prototype theory. In Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 105–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hatch, J. A., Hill, C. A., & Hayes, J. R. (1993). When the messenger is the message: Readers’ impressions of writers’ personalities. Written Communication, 10 (4), 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, A. (2012). Stance and voice in academic discourse across channels. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 187–201). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as appraisal: Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 51–68). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008a). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1 (1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008b). “Small bits of textual material”: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27, 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2012a). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2012b). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134–150). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 10, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jeffery, J. V. (2007, November). Discourses of writing in high-stakes direct writing assessments. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Jeffery, J. V. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in U.S. state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14 (1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffery, J. V. (2010). Voice, genre, and intentionality: An integrated methods study of voice criteria in the evaluation of secondary students’ writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Jeffery, J. V. (2011). Subjectivity, intentionality, and manufactured moves: Teachers’ perceptions of voice in the evaluation of secondary students’ writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46 (1), 92–127.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinneavy, J. (1980). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. New York, NY: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 43–70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Llosa, L., Beck, S. W., & Zhao, C. G. (2011). An investigation of academic writing in secondary schools to inform the development of diagnostic classroom assessments. Assessing Writing, 16, 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunsford, A. A., & Ede, L. (1984). Classical rhetoric, modern rhetoric, and contemporary discourse studies. Written Communication, 1 (1), 78–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrorie, K. (1970). Telling writing. New York, NY: Hayden Books.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community. Computers and Composition, 19 (1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2011, April). Conceptions of voice in writing assessment rubrics. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K., & Bommarito, D. (in press). Constructivism. In Bennett, J. M. (ed.), Sage encyclopedia of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2010). World Englishes and the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 44 (2), 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K., & Jeffery, J. V. (2012). Voice in student essays. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 151–156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7–25.Google Scholar
Petrić, B. (2010). Students’ conceptions of voice in academic writing. In Petrić, B. (ed.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres (pp. 324–336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (1996a). Correspondence. ELT Journal, 50 (1), 88–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodromou, L. (1996b). Correspondence. ELT Journal, 50 (4), 371–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D., & Williams-James, M. (1997). The impact of writer nationality on mainstream teachers’ judgments of composition quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salger-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Luzardo Briceño, M. (2012). The voice of scholarly dispute in medical book reviews, 1890–2010. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 232–248). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sancho Guinda, C. (2012). Proximal positioning in students’ graph commentaries. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 166–183). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40 (4), 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In Kroll, Barbara (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11–23). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, M. (2012). Voice and stance across disciplines in academic discourse. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 202–217). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of second language writing, 11, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. C. (1969). Prose with integrity: A primary objective. College Composition and Communication, 20, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. C. (1972). The authentic voice: A pre-writing approach to student writing. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 34–48). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C., & Matsuda, P. K. (2009). The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26 (1), 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD thesis. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 119–133). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tse, P. (2012). Stance in academic bios. In Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 69–84). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (Matejka, L. & Titunik, I. R., trans.). New York, NY: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yancey, K. B. (ed.). (1994). Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Yeh, S. S. (1998). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5 (1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, Y. (2007). Engaging literacy: A biliterate students’ composing practices beyond school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, Y. (2010). Identity matters: Theories that help explore adolescent multilingual writers and their identities. In Cox, M., Jordan, J., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Schwartz, G. G. (eds.), Reinventing identities in second language writing (pp. 303–323). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Zhao, C. G. (2012). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30 (2), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, C. G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13, 153–70.Google Scholar