| Teaching Articles Home |

Volume 38
Professional Teaching Articles
August 2009
Article 1

Formats
PDF

Title
Negotiating Identity from Auto-ethnography: Second Language Writers’ Perspectives

Author
Pisarn (Bee) Chamcharatsri

Bio
Pisarn “Bee” Chamcharatsi is a Ph.D. student in Composition and TESOL at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught both high school and college writing in Bangkok, Thailand. His research interests includes L2 writing, identity, creative writing, World Englishes, and discourse analysis.

Abstract
Recently, the concept of identity construction has been the focus of research in the field of  composition and TESOL. Second language (L2) learners have to negotiate their identities in their social milieus. For this purpose, autoethnography is a valuable task for L2 learners as it allows them to explore their cultural background and identities. The aim of this paper is to examine how such learners construct their identities in the academic setting of an American university. By examining five written autoethnographies, the author found some interesting topics, pronoun references, and authoritative and inner voices, which are discussed in detail. Also presented is the implementation of autoethnography in the L2 writing classroom and how that might contribute to L2 writing pedagogy.

Keywords: Autoethnography, voice, social identity, post method pedagogy, World Englishes

Introduction
Language is a set of arbitrary symbols whose meaning societies agree upon. Kramsch (1998) identified that language and culture are woven together in a complex relationship. The first of which is “language expresses cultural reality” (p. 3), meaning that people express their experiences, ideas, and facts including the attitudes and beliefs they have within them. Second, “language embodies cultural reality” (p. 3), not only in the sense that people express themselves through the use of language, but also that people in a community create experiences by using language; for example, by using different media, tone of voice, accent, style, gesture and facial expressions. Last of all, “language symbolizes cultural reality” (p. 3), which means language is considered to be a sign, that is both a signifier of and signified with cultural value. This sign with the given meaning is the socially constructed meaning, supported by Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982) in that communication has a vital role in “the exercise of power and control and in the production and reproduction of social identity” (p. 1).
   The notion of the construction of self or “self-categorization” (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 225) is when one tries to categorize oneself as a member within a community. The process of “self-categorization” can be done through both verbal and written forms. Bulcholtz and Hall (2004) further explain that the construction of self as an individual is not “driven by…pre-existing and recognizable similarity but…agency and power” (p. 371). The expectations of individuals of members of their communities lead to expected behaviors (Bailey, 2001; Bulcholtz & Hall, 2004; Harre as cited in Ivanic, 1998; Moonwomon-Baird, 2000; Norton, 1997; Stets & Burke, 2000).
   Social identity, according to Norton (1997), is “the relationship between the individual and the larger social world” (p. 420). In other words, identity is constructed in situ. This idea is supported by Tajfel (as cited in McNamara, 1997) in that “individuals…allocate others (and themselves) to category membership [of] in-group and salient out-groups to this membership” (p. 562). Writing, however, has not been perceived as an act of socially constructed identity until recently (Canagarajah, 2004; Ivanic, 1994, 1998; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Prior, 2001; Tang & John, 1999).
   Textbooks and writing guides on the market suggest that writing should be impersonal and discourage students from developing their voices in writing (Ramanathan & Atkinson as cited in Zamel, 1997), yet others argue that all writing, including academic writing, is an act of identity representation (Hyland, 2002; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Kramsch, 1998; Zamel, 1997). However, Williams (2006) discusses that identity in written discourse can be found both in personal and in academic writing. I agree with Williams, that all writing is indicative of constructing identity. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1995) state that the style of language that people use – grammar, word choice, rhetoric – “is a very important component of self -constitution” (p. 470).
   First-year students entering into college struggle to find their own voice and are required to enroll in different classes, including college writing courses, in which they have to write their assignments and journals according to course requirements. Students, both L1 and L2 speakers of English, need to negotiate their academic identities and their literacies in order to fit into the university context. They also have to adapt themselves in many ways, including the way of writing assignments to meet the needs of the courses. Students have to renegotiate their rhetorical discourse to fit into the institutions where they belong.
   Furthermore, first-year students have to position themselves in a new setting, which leads them to a reconstruction of their identities (Hyland, 2002; Ritchie, 1989). Different assignments draw out the multiple identities of students depending on their interests and their rhetorical organization of the assignments.
   Academic writing requires students to negotiate their identities to fit into the academic discourse. Elbow (1991) succinctly defines academic discourse as “[the] academic language that reflects sound understanding of what they are studying in disciplinary courses” (p. 137). Swales used the word “sociorhetorical discourse” (as cited in Hinkel, 1999, p. 91), which is defined as being “accepted in a community of writers and readers who function within a framework of communicative goals, conventions, socialization processes, and solidarity moves” (Swales as cited in Hinkel, 1999, p. 91). However, some writing assignments or prompts are decontextualized and distanced from students’ experiences and backgrounds, which creates impersonal writing in which students’ voices are hindered.
   As for second language (L2) learners, they have the additional difficulty in that they need to negotiate their resources between their native language (L1) and English in terms of rhetorical features. Moreover, they also have to write their assignments to fit into an academic discourse that they may not be familiar with or they may not have practice in. It is then necessary for them to put themselves in the learning process of a new academic discourse. When working on English writing assignments, L2 learners not only struggle with the language barrier, but also with the cultural and rhetorical differences between languages.
   Ivanic (1998) identifies four aspects of writer identity as the: “Autobiographical self, discourse self, self as author and possibilities for self-hood” (p. 23). In this article, I will focus on the “autobiographical self” (p. 23), which is a process of identity construction from a social context that shapes the way students position themselves in academic writing and “their way of representing these experiences to themselves which constitutes their current way of being” (p. 24).
   Autoethnography allows L2 learners to enter different academic discourse from their own cultural background, a process which can be referred to as the construction of self in academic writing. Russell (1999) further elaborates on this by stating that “autoethnography is a vehicle and a strategy for challenging imposed forms of identity and exploring the discursive possibilities of inauthentic subjectivities.” In this article, I analyze five L2 autoethnographies and how the participants construct their identities in their writing. The implementation of autoethnography in L2 writing courses is discussed as well as how this study contributes to the field of L2 writing pedagogy.

Methodology
Data were collected from first-year international undergraduate students who took College Writing at an American university in the United States for a semester. There were two major writing tasks for students to fulfill in this course: Poetry Book and an Autoethnography paper. The Poetry Book assignment asks students to write their poems on students’ personal experiences, while autoethnography asks each student to pose a question relating to his/her experience. In each assignment, students were allowed to choose their own topic of interest reflecting their own experiences for both assignments. Prior to writing their autoethnography, students were asked to read Duncan’s (2004) Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art and Muncey’s (2005) Doing autoethnography, as written samples.
   Apart from the professor, five graduate student tutors were also in class to help students with their writing process. One tutor would work with and be responsible for four to five students who he/she worked with. Students could consult with the tutors and the professor regarding any problem concerning the class and assignments. I was a volunteer tutor in this course, which allowed me to be a participant observer. Apart from having access to their papers, I also interviewed each participant regarding their writing process and opinions on the course and the assignments.

Participants
The participants in this study were five first-year undergraduate students who were enrolled in College Writing. Table 1 below shows the participants’ background information. They had not had any learning experiences abroad outside their respective countries at the time this study was conducted. Taiwanese students were in the one-year exchange program.

Table 1: Overview of participant backgrounds

Participants’ Autoethnographies
In this section, I will introduce the five participants’ autoethnographies and discuss how each participant represents him/herself in their writing.

Claire

It is so amazing to get along with people and know different cultures. Life is full of adventures, novelties, and warmness. I like the world, the people, and the life, and myself (original quote).

Claire told the story of how English changed her life starting when she was in fourth grade, although she thought that her mother was the one who wanted her to learn English. In her interview with her mother, her mother said, “it was not my decision to force you and your brother to learn English, it was you telling me that you wanted to study English…” (original quote).
   While working on this assignment, Claire found she had some resistance to the English language and began missing classes, which contradicted her prior eagerness to learn.

I was the youngest student in my English class, and I was so frustrated… Being inconfident and stressed, I refused to go to the class and started to dislike English at that moment (original quote).

   Later both her mother and her teacher encouraged her to rejoin the class once again, which was a critical incident and a turning point for Claire in her English learning experience.

I was glad I did so, because after a few weeks, I had developed a sense of achievement in English. …English turned out to be my best companion, which really took a vital part in my life (original quote).

Other evidence that she cites in her autoethnography is related to language use and how she uses language successfully it in different contexts.

Languages are a very important skill when studying abroad, by which the gap between people from different countries can be bridged (original quote).

Juby

In my family, it would be weird to say “I love you,” but I could feel my parents; love through their movements and eyes (original quote).

 

Juby reflects upon her acting experience in Taiwan and how that experience contributed to her life, including her second language learning experience. Reading Juby’s autoethnography; ‘How did the experience of acting in the play King Lear contribute to my life?’ resembles reading a play itself. Along with this paper is a DVD of her performance. While reading, she also includes some footage so that readers can play those scenes and read along with the paper.

I do not want to make you feel boring or sleepy throughout this paper, so do watch the following section in the DVD when you almost pass out or you can take it as a great start of this paper (original quote).

This excerpt shows that Juby writes in a witty way. In her paper, she discusses the importance of her family, of teamwork, and how it feels to act in a second language.

Rita

We lie down in the middle of this world
We feel dark at night, in our room
Countless wide gaps between everyone
I’ve opened my eyes, I see nothing
Others crying,
I got up and found a mountain
I’m a lark released from its cage
Wind, speak to me, so I can sign again
I see the light in a distant place
I know I will catch it   (original quote).

In Rita’s autoethnography, ‘How did dormitory life in TW [Taiwan] contribute to my ability to contend with dormitory life at [this university]?’ she discusses her experiences living in dorms and boarding school since she was 12 years old and how this experience has formed her personality and her sense of self today.

I always take this experience for a very important part of my life…I feel most part of my personality got built in this dorms. …I have had 8 years of dormitory experience before I have come to America (original quote).

Interestingly, she develops an argument that she is emotionally independent of her parents by contrasting her own experiences with others.

Since I have lived in the dorm, I had more freedom; it is strange to others, because for them, they think they have few freedoms if they live in the dorms, but not me (original quote).

Although she formulates the argument that she is emotionally independent, Rita needs someone to look up to as a mentor as well as a friend to share her good and bad times with. In her paper, she always consults with her floor assistant whenever she has problems.

When I knew she [a floor manager] is two years older than me, I felt like she is my older sister, and then we became best friend eventually (original quote).

Kenny

You may delay, but time will not (original quote).

In his autoethnography Kenny discusses time management in his paper entitled ‘What’s the importance of time management of being a college student?’ Kenny discussed his transition from being a high school student to a college student, his aspirations, and the ‘price’ he has to pay for the freedom he has gained.

Since I entered college, I had more freedom of my time and my parents won’t push me anymore as they did during senior high school. It was a good thing but, on the other hand, it would be a deadly thing of my life (original quote).

I loved to be a college student is because I knew I would have more freedom than I was (original quote).

Even though he knows what he has to do to achieve better grades, Kenny still cannot force himself to do so.

I always started to do my homework right before the due, since I thought the papers would be too hard so that I could finish all of them in a short time. …I was always dying because of 8 pages paper plus a bunch of reading (original quote).

Interesting enough, academic work is the last on the list of the activities he ranks when he enters college.

Since I entered college, because of clubs, extracurricular activities and academic work, I was used to stay up late (original quote).

At the beginning of his college career, he seemed unprepared to be a college student, but later he appears to have matured in that he is aware of what he has to do after learning the hard way for not managing his time well.

            I paid a heavy price for it, my future, health and money (original quote).

Hiro

Please don’t call it okonomiyaki. I prefer eating a piece of paper to eating it (original quote).

‘How can I take having American foods without complaint!?’ is the title of Hiro’s autoethnography. In his paper, he juxtaposes himself to his international friends, who always complain about food in the dining hall. Unlike his friends, he enjoys eating American college food.

I don't get stressed with having American foods because I don't have particular personal feelings toward American foods (original quote).

Although Hiro shows that he is able to become accustomed to American food, he still has some resistance towards it.

As I can avoid eating stereotyping American foods, such as hot dogs and hamburgers, whenever I want, I do not feel stress about eating them so much (original quote).

Throughout his autoethnography, he mainly focused on Japanese food and how his experiences with a variety of regional foods contributed to his perception about food at this point.

Discussion
As stated earlier, writing is socially constructed and I have shown this concept through my participants’ autoethnographies. In analyzing these autoethnographies, I cannot discuss the social context without addressing the pronoun references used in their papers, which are elaborated upon in the next section. Apart from the social construction of their identities, voice – authoritative voice – in the participants’ writing is also individually discussed.

Pronoun Reference
The pronoun references used in these autoethnographies are ‘I’ and ‘you’, which include impersonal ‘you’ and ‘we’. The pronoun ‘I’ is used when the participants address themselves situated in different contexts. Tang and John (1999) argue that the pronoun ‘I’ shows the “high level of authority within the text, where ‘authority’ has elements of both… ‘to control to command others’ and ‘knowledge or expertise in a particular field’” (p. S26). Examples can be seen in those excerpts in the previous Participants’ Autoethnographies section.
   Another interesting pronoun reference, ‘you’ can be found when the participants address readers directly. Due to limited space, these examples have been included in the Authoritative Voice section below. These participants discuss and lead readers through their valuable and exciting experiences. Claire, Rita, Kenny, and Hiro use the second person pronoun (you) when they want to position themselves as authorities that others can refer to in the future regarding their experiences. They set themselves up as experts in those issues. Only Juby does not explicitly address her readers directly; however, she implicitly shares her experiences and implies what readers should do when they are in the same situation. The pronoun ‘you’ addresses readers directly, which shows their authoritative voice and the position of their identities and their stances.
   The pronoun ‘we’ I found mainly in Juby’s paper. Interestingly, this pronoun reference is not often discussed within the study of the social construction of identity through writing. However, I think this pronoun reference shows another aspect of identity in a writer’s social milieu. I believe the pronoun ‘we’ does not directly address the readers; however, it serves as a bridge to readers that not only ‘you’ the readers, but ‘I’ the writer share the same situation. It also gives a sense of deference to the readers.
   The concept of voice as a self representation has been discussed by Ivanic and Camps (2001) who claim that voice is perceived as the spectrum from “very assertive and authoritative to being very tentative and deferential to other authoritative sources” (p. 7). They further elaborate that it is “one of many aspects of the writer’s discoursally constructed identity” (p. 8). The concept of voice as discussed earlier is emphasized by Canagarajah (2004) who asserts that it depends on the “level of voice that we gain agency to negotiate…the self, adopt a reflexive awareness…, and find forms of coherence and power that suit our interest” (p. 268). To conclude, the concept of voice does not deal with its authoritative nature alone, but also the use of pronoun reference.

Authoritative Voice
Claire writes her autoethnography with the voice of a student who has more learning experiences abroad despite the fact that this is her first time studying and living in another country. Even though she went to England for a one-month English program and spent one academic year as an exchange student in the United States, she asserts herself so confidently that other international students might want to take her advice.

Plus, do not be afraid of opening your mouth to communicate and getting along with people. Last but not least, do not hesitate to ask for help whenever you are in trouble (original quote).

Claire also is a good example for others who want to study abroad. She demonstrated herself as a successfully acculturated foreign student who has tackled the issues that most foreign students face. She also shows that she understands the differences between American culture and her own culture.

I know it is a cultural difference that Americans emphasize on individualism, but Taiwanese tend to be in a group (original quote).

She further emphasizes that blending into the culture one is in, is important and is a valuable experience. She eagerly accepts the challenge, while most other exchange students might see the process as an obstacle due to language barriers.

If one person stays at the dorm or with friends from their country all the time, they won’t really experience the local culture, which is a big miss and regret (original quote).

From the excerpt below, Claire further positions herself as an expert and role model for other exchange students to look up to, referring to the making of friends as an easy process between ‘families’.

Making friends from your own country and different countries is the same thing. We are all from different families just like different countries, different cultures. We are all different…so we have to give ourselves a chance to shorten the distance and others a chance to know ourselves (original quote).

   Juby’s authoritative voice in her autoethnography is not explicitly shown throughout her experience. Interestingly she emphasizes her authority in the Acting in the Second Language section.

As I said before, observing people was the first step to imitation and I must say that imitation is not only important in acting but also in learning English (original quote).

Another important element I found when analyzing Juby’s paper is that she uses the pronoun ‘we’ throughout the paper. I see that the use of a pronoun reference like this reflects her own drama experience since acting consists of teamwork; in other words actors have to work with each other within a set period of time.

Everyone was like a small screw in a robot; the robot would walk if we work together and do our best in our own job (original quote).

The metaphor of being a part of a robot she employed when discussing her King Lear experience continues in her reflection upon the concept of teamwork.
   Rita positions herself as an authority who has more experience than others in terms of living in a dorm.                                                                                        

Another advantage I gained from my dormitory life: speak out. Always, when I see something unreasonable or someone do something bad on me, my reaction is to speak out to defend myself, or more than defend, I am trying to protect myself (original quote)

   
[Conclusion section] Everyone must have thier own experiences to try to be independent. Maybe we all are worried about ourselves when we have to do something for the first time. …What I learn from my experience is positive, I want to share my experiences with you, and maybe it will help in some way when you do something in the first time (original quote).

Further, she gives some suggestions to others who are thinking about or even who are living in the dorm at the moment.
   In Kenny’s conclusion section of his paper, he positions himself as an experienced person who learns the value of time and time management.

I’ve spent all my college learning knowledge and also about my life. Past three years, I’ve learned so many things and I paid a heavy price for it, my future, health, and money. However, I’m not regretted, for I’m improved now, in so many ways. Therefore, I wish you, no matter whom you are, student or you are going to be student, while you’re reading my paper, will pay less for the same lessons like mine (original quote).

   Hiro’s authoritative voice comes from his experiences about food culture that in the past did not meet his expectations. His experiences led him to be more open-minded about food in different countries. By contrasting his Japanese and American food, he positions himself as an expert in Japanese food and as a successful international student who can acculturate into enjoying American food culture.

Most foreigners think that there is only one particular type of ‘Japanese food’. However, the truth about Japanese cuisine is that it varies according to region, even if they call it the same name (original quote).

If you have an opportunity to have dinner with your American friends at their home, I would say ‘don't be afraid of eating American foods. Just enjoy it’ (original quote).

Apart from the food culture, Hiro also suggests other international students should learn how to cook so that they will not be frustrated as he was in his food experiences.

If I did not cook well, I would suffer the feeling of missing foods that I really like. …Thus, I suggest you to learn how to cook when you want to eat on campus as soon as possible (original quote).

While analyzing Hiro’s paper, I noticed that his personality changed over time. In the past, he was a picky person about food, but he seemed to have changed his perception of foreign foods.

I decided to try not to expect my favorite foods as I tried to avoid the certain type of stress that I felt when I saw my grandmother’s way of cooking. …’don't expect too much from daily food because you’re enjoying special like in a different culture’ (original quote).

From this excerpt, Hiro certainly sets a personal standard for food that he is familiar with.

I was not familiar with American home cuisine…it tasted delicious and I liked it as soon as I ate it, even though I’d never had it before (original quote).

This might have been the turning point for Hiro in changing his attitude towards American food culture. He had never set any ‘standards’ about American food since he never ate anything else apart from fast food. In his conclusion, he gives advice on his perspective about food saying, “just take your time, find something you like here, and be grateful you’re eating it” (original quote).

Inner Voice
One further point of interest has emerged in my participants’ autoethnography papers, that of the inner voice, “mental voice” (Moonwomon-Baird, 2000). This is as an act of negotiating identities within oneself and works as a self-assurance tool in positioning oneself in the identity construction in writing.

I kept asking myself if I should study abroad; I started to become hesitant about my determination of studying abroad…I am still eager to study abroad, I heard a confirming voice from the depths of my heart: I care, I care! I do care about the interview!...the only thing that I wanted to tell myself was, “America, here I come!” (Claire’s paper).

…when I think back, I started to ask myself the question: Will my dormitory life in Taiwan help me to contend with dormitory life at [name of the university]? Can I overcome the difficulty I have in a foreign country? (Rita’s paper).

I kept telling myself, ‘it’s easy so don’t worry after this movie, wouldn’t be too late’…I started to realize that I was in trouble because it was obviously that I couldn’t finish it in a night (Kenny’s paper).

These excerpts show the participants’ reflections within their autoethnograpy papers. This is what I call the self-reassurance process, helping those who are constructing identities to be more certain and more confident in what stances they are taking.

Implications for L2 writing pedagogy
As stated earlier, most academic writing assignments are decontextualized and distanced from L2 learners, even though some might argue that these writing genres will prepare learners to become full members of a so-called academic discourse community. In one sense, it may be legitimate to say that L2 learners can enter the learning community without much struggle when they need to write for classes. However, I see this as a marginalization of their backgrounds and the cultural resources they possess.

Post method Pedagogy
L2 learners are equipped with valuable resources about their culture and their experiences in learning English. Instead of ignoring these resources, writing teachers should emphasize their students’ heritage and their identities. Kumaravadivelu (2003) stresses

the need to treat learners as cultural informants so that they are encouraged to engage in a process of classroom participation that puts a premium on their power/knowledge, on their subjectivity and identity (p. 546).

   Autoethnography is one of many writing genres and, in my opinion, should be promoted and implemented in L2 writing classes. This genre encourages L2 learners to focus on enhancing and reflecting upon their cultural understanding. It also gives learners an opportunity to explore and value their own experiences “…[to] liberate them and make them ‘truly creative in integrating experience, imagination, and knowledge…” (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 149). I personally agree with Canagarajah and Widdowson’s (1994) concept of ownership of language in which “…all uses of language are creative in the sense that they draw on linguistic resources to express different perceptions of reality” (p. 384).  This will in turn give students a sense of true proficiency in language learning; as stated by Widdowson, “…[they] are able to take possession of the language, turn it to [their] advantage, and make it real for [them]” (1994, p. 384). Ivanic (1998) points out that this helps L2 learners to “create their sense of self-worth: their sense of status in relation to others in a range of social situations.” This means that by using autoethnography in the writing classroom L2 students can develop their own voice and value their own experiences.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sharon K. Deckert and Dr. David Ian Hanauer, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), for their support in this project. I also would like to thank Dr. John Adamson and my two reviewers for giving comments and suggestions on this manuscript and my participants Jessica Legg and Astrid Parrish for giving me suggestions to improve this manuscript.

References
Bailey, B. (2001). The language of multiple identities among Dominican Americans. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(2), 190-223.

Bulcholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369-394). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 134-150). New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2004). Multilingual writers and the struggle for voice in academic discourse. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 266-289). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art [Electronic Version]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from http://www.ualberta.ac/~iiqm/backissues/3_4/pdf/duncan.pdf

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1995). Constructing meaning, constructing of selves: Snapshots of language, gender, and class from Belten High. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 469-507). New York: Routledge.

Elbow, P. (1991). Reflections on academic discourse: How it relates to freshmen and colleagues. College English, 53(2), 135-155.

Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 1-21). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 90-108). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358.

Ivanic, R. (1994). I is for interpersonal: Discourse construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 3-16.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Critical language pedagogy: A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.

McNamara, T. (1997). Theorizing social identity: What do we mean by social identity? Competing frameworks, competing discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 561-567.

Moonwomon-Baird, B. (2000). What do lesbians do in the daytime? Recover. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(3), 348-378.

Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography [Electronic Version]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/4_1/pdf/muncey.pdf

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.

Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55-81.

Ritchie, J. S. (1989). Beginning writers: Diverse voices and individual identity. College Composition and Communication, 40(2), 152-174.

Russell, C. (1999). Autoethnography: Journeys of the self [Electronic Version]. Experimental Ethnography. Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://www.haussite.net/haus.0/SCRIPT/txt2001/01/russel.HTML

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.

Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The 'I' in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39.

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377-381.

Williams, B. T. (2006). Pay attention to the man behind the curtain: The importance of identity in academic writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 710-715.

Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 341-352.