Category Archives: Author identity

Enhancing Learner Engagement through Translanguaging Pedagogy: A Reflective Narrative from a Multilingual ELT Classroom in Nepal

Author identity, Creative Writing, Critical Thinking, Education in General, Reflections, Teacher Training, Teacher's Experience/anecdotes, Teaching Tips, , ,
Mr. Khem Raj Rauteda

Introduction

Teaching English in a linguistically diverse classroom presents a complex challenge, particularly in a multilingual context like Nepal, where students bring with them rich linguistic backgrounds from their homes and communities. I teach at Sharada Secondary School, a community school located in Itahari, Sunsari. Since 2022, I have been working with students from various ethno-linguistic backgrounds, including Tharu, Rai, Limbu, Maithili, and Nepali. Reflecting on my experience of teaching English in such a diverse setting, I initially employed an English-only approach as the medium of instruction, instituting rules that enforced speaking only English in the classroom. I felt a sense of satisfaction as the class remained silent. However, after some time, I began to realize that the students’ silence and passivity were not conducive to effective learning. This reflection prompted me to adopt more reflective practices, which are essential for teachers’ professional growth and for addressing the everyday challenges that arise in teaching (Rauteda, 2024b).

The disengagement of my students became a significant concern for me. I encountered numerous challenges during class, particularly regarding student motivation and engagement. I observed that many students were hesitant to speak, fearful of making mistakes, and often remained passive throughout the lessons. This situation forced me to reflect critically on my teaching methods and seek alternative pedagogical approaches. Consequently, I adopted translanguaging as an intervention in the classroom—an approach that allows students to utilize their full linguistic repertoire in the learning process (Gaarcia & Wei, 2014; Phyak, 2018; Rauteda, 2022; 2024a). This reflective writing aims to provide an in-depth analysis of a moment when my teaching successfully engaged the majority of my students through a planned intervention using translanguaging pedagogy within a PAR framework. In this discussion, I outlined what I did, what the students did, and the reasons I believe the lesson was effective, supported by theoretical insights and research findings.

The Problem Identified: A Disengaged and Struggling Classroom 

At the beginning of my career, I worked at private colleges in the Kathmandu Valley, where monolingual instruction was preferred in ELT classrooms. This practice shaped my teaching habits. After passing the Teacher Service Commission (TSC) examination, I became a permanent teacher at a government school, where I attempted to apply the methods I had previously used in private colleges. Initially, my English classes were dominated by monolingual practices, focusing solely on English instruction, as dictated by the traditional curriculum. However, I quickly noticed that my students were hesitant to participate. Even basic questions often went unanswered. Their lack of confidence and visible anxiety toward English created a barrier to meaningful engagement. I found my students completely silent in the classroom. Despite using various materials such as pictures, slides, and English-language videos, the students remained passive and showed little interest. I then realized that this silence was a result of implementing a monolingual instructional approach in a multilingual setting. In this context, Garcia and Wei (2014) argue that monolingual methods in multilingual environments can alienate learners and limit their ability to express their understanding.

The students’ silence, lack of participation, and poor writing skills indicated a need for change. I realized that their home languages were being ignored in the classroom, causing English to feel disconnected from their everyday lives. As a teacher in a multilingual community, this contradiction deeply troubled me. One day, I asked my learners in the Nepali language why they remained silent in my class. They explained that they did not understand the language I used during lessons. The majority of them requested that I incorporate both Nepali and English in the classroom to enhance their understanding. Consequently, their demands and my realizations prompted me to seek alternative ways of teaching English in a multilingual context. This led me to consider translanguaging pedagogy through participatory action research (PAR).

Planning for Change: Participatory Action Research as a Tool

In response to students’ disengagement and lack of motivation, I chose to conduct action research within my ELT classroom to address the identified issues. I made this decision with the belief that action research provides practical solutions to everyday challenges and fosters professional growth for teachers (Rauteda, 2025a). Subsequently, I planned to implement PAR, which is a cyclical process comprising planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Cohen et al., 2018). PAR allowed me to include my students as co-participants in the learning process. I designed a translanguaging-based intervention that enabled students to utilize their full linguistic repertoires (Garcia, 2009; Rauteda, 2022). According to Garcia and Wei (2014), translanguaging involves deploying students’ complete linguistic abilities without strictly adhering to the boundaries typically associated with named languages (national and state languages). Based on the benefits of using hybrid language practices in ELT classrooms, I aimed to employ translingual practices to create space for students’ home languages in the learning environment. Through PAR, I sought to transform my pedagogical approach by engaging students in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner. Additionally, my goal was to enhance student engagement in classroom activities through empowerment, while also seeking pedagogical empowerment for myself.

 

Conceptual Understanding of Translanguaging

Translanguaging is a language practice used by bilingual and multilingual speakers, wherein individuals naturally, dynamically, and purposefully utilize various languages and linguistic resources simultaneously (Garcia, 2009). This concept was first developed by Cen Williams in 1994, who created opportunities for students to alternate languages in their reading and writing, as well as in their receptive and productive skills (Garcia & Leiva, 2014). Translanguaging refers to the intentional mixing of different languages (Rauteda, 2024a). As Garcia (2009) notes, translanguaging involves the use of multiple linguistic practices by bilingual individuals to navigate their bilingual environments. Multilingual speakers can fluidly transition between languages, viewing their linguistic repertoire as a cohesive system (Canagarajah, 2011). Scholars have referred to translanguaging using various terms, including ‘polylingualism’ (Jorgenson, 2008), ‘metrolingualism’ (Pennycook, 2010), ‘codemeshing’ (Canagarajah, 2011), and ‘pluriliteracy’ (Garcia, 2009). From a language use perspective, translanguaging is a flexible and strategic approach that employs multiple languages (Garcia & Wei, 2014). This approach can assist students in developing both their cognitive and socio-emotional skills while leveraging the diverse and dynamic language practices of learners (Garcia & Kleyn, 2016; Vogel & Garcia, 2017). Consequently, translanguaging serves as a valuable practice for multilingual learners, addressing diversity in the classroom and promoting social justice by maximizing the use of each learner’s linguistic repertoire. It can also empower disadvantaged students who face barriers solely due to language differences. Moreover, Li Wei (2011) introduces the concept of a “translanguaging space,” which serves as a framework illustrating the setting in which students can utilize all their linguistic, cultural, and epistemic assets in the learning process. In my classroom, instead of separating languages, I embraced them as complementary resources. I encouraged students to use languages they are familiar with, such as Tharu, Maithili, Limbu, or Nepali, to express their thoughts, scaffold their learning, and produce creative outputs.

Implementing Translanguaging Pedagogy

As a teacher-researcher, I implemented translanguaging using various strategies at different stages. In the following sections, I present details on how I enacted translanguaging within a PAR framework, the impact of this intervention on my teaching, and what the intervention achieved. This information is organized into themes and subthemes.

Designing the Activity

I designed an activity focused on creating or collecting stories in the languages that students are proficient in. The purpose of this activity was to enhance their writing skills, encourage interaction, and appreciate local knowledge. Additionally, it aimed to promote co-learning and bridge the gap between the classroom, content, and community.

For this task, I divided the class into eight heterogeneous groups, mixing students from different language backgrounds. This grouping encouraged peer learning and cross-cultural dialogue. Each group created and collected stories in their preferred languages. They then presented these stories in the classroom and discussed them among group members. After the discussions, the stories were translated into multiple languages, including Tharu, Nepali, English, and Rai. Finally, the stories were compiled and presented as multilingual, multimodal storybooks. As a post-method teacher, I aimed to theorize my practice and apply theoretical concepts, using these activities to scaffold my students’ learning. I wanted to connect them with their culture, language, and community. Consequently, this activity aligned with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, particularly the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which emphasizes the importance of social interaction and scaffolding in learning (Vygotsky, 1978).

What the Students Were Doing

Students engaged in various activities both individually and in groups. They created and collected stories, participated in discussions, made presentations, translated texts, transformed stories into multimodal formats, and even organized them into a book. Their involvement in these activities led to significant changes in their behavior and attitudes. The intervention fostered collaboration, cooperation, engagement, and motivation among the students, helping them develop a sense of agency (Rauteda, 2022; 2024; Rauteda & Luitel, 2025; Rauteda, 2025b). Moreover, this experience transformed the students’ behavior. Those who had previously remained silent became active participants, displaying excitement while collecting stories from elders in their communities. Sharing these stories in class instilled a sense of pride in them. They began to view their languages and cultures not as obstacles but as bridges to learning English. In their groups, students discussed word choices, translated idioms, and assisted one another in crafting coherent narratives. The classroom evolved into a lively, collaborative space filled with energy and multilingual dialogue. Students not only practiced English but also enhanced their thinking, reading, and writing skills.

What I Was Doing as a Teacher

As a teacher, I shifted my role from the sole authority to a facilitator and co-learner. I moved around the groups, providing language support, answering questions, and encouraging dialogue. I praised their efforts in both languages and emphasized the value of their home languages. Instead of correcting every mistake, I focused on meaning-making and creative expression. I also created space for students to present their stories to the whole class, which boosted their confidence. This student-centered pedagogy reflects Freire’s concept of dialogic education (Freire, 1970), where learning emerges through mutual dialogue and respect.

 Classroom Outcomes of Translanguaging Pedagogy through PAR

The primary objective of implementing this pedagogical strategy was to enhance student engagement in ELT classrooms and to develop students’ writing proficiency in English. The integration of translanguaging pedagogy within a PAR framework proved to be particularly effective in a multilingual and culturally diverse classroom. This approach not only supported students’ linguistic and academic growth but also improved classroom management by fostering greater learner participation, collaboration, and empowerment. Through this intervention, students were encouraged to draw upon their full linguistic repertoires, which made learning more inclusive, dynamic, and responsive to their lived experiences. The following sub-sections illustrate the transformative outcomes of this pedagogical approach, highlighting how translanguaging through PAR contributed to culturally and linguistically responsive teaching, enhanced literacy and language development, increased learner agency, and strengthened classroom relationships.

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy

Teaching is more effective when it is closely connected to culture and language. Research studies (Garcia & Wei, 2014; Phyak, 2023; Rauteda, 2022) have shown that language instruction is most effective when linguistic and cultural diversity are celebrated and respected in the classroom. Furthermore, these practices can lead to increased engagement, motivation, and academic achievement (Gay, 2010). During the project, the students worked on local phenomena. They wrote, collected, and translated stories from their local context and even used their home language. This practice helped them connect with their culture. By validating cultural norms and local languages, I was able to teach in a culturally and linguistically responsive way. It fostered the students’ identities and made them proud of their culture and language, which boosted their confidence. Throughout the project, the students became more motivated and confident, and they developed a more positive attitude towards their learning. By integrating home languages into the classroom, I created a safe space where students felt seen, respected, and capable. Thus, translanguaging enabled me to be accountable to local culture and language, enhancing my students’ engagement and motivation in the classroom.

 Enhanced Literacy and Language Skills

The intervention significantly enhanced both literacy and language skills among the students. Through activities such as storytelling, translation, and group discussions, students cultivated a range of literacies. They learned to navigate between languages, structure narratives, and articulate complex ideas. This aligns with Hornberger’s (2003) “Continua of biliteracy” model, which advocates for literacy development across diverse languages and modalities. Furthermore, as students engaged in tasks like searching for equivalent words in online dictionaries and Google, they also improved their digital literacy. Ultimately, they became more familiar with the structure and organization of books. This experience demonstrates that involving students in multilingual activities can effectively foster both language skills and digital literacy.

 Increased Participation and Agency

Agency refers to an individual’s capacity to act, initiate actions, self-regulate, or effect change in their circumstances. It can also be viewed as a form of resistance (Giddens, 1984; Ortner, 1984). Additionally, agency encompasses an individual’s ability to apply principles or theories in specific contexts. In this case, the intervention served to enhance the agency of both the teacher and the students, as they challenged the monolingual instruction and enacted micro-level resistance in the classroom through translanguaging (Rauteda & Luitel, 2025). Moreover, the students assumed greater ownership of their learning. Group work fostered accountability and collaboration, empowering them to become autonomous learners willing to take risks in their education. Consequently, they developed a stronger connection with each other and the classroom environment. Their engagement increased as they transitioned from passive recipients of knowledge to active creators of knowledge.

Building Relationships

Establishing a good rapport is crucial for effective teaching and learning. In my research, the intervention played a significant role in fostering positive relationships between the teacher and students, as well as among the learners themselves. The activities allowed me to connect with my students on a deeper level, enabling me to learn about their lives, traditions, and communication styles. This emotional connection not only built trust, which is vital for successful learning, but also encouraged students to share personal experiences, which has proven beneficial for their psychological well-being. As they began to support one another, share ideas, and collaborate, they expressed a preference for group work as part of their assignments. As a result, teaching became more effective, promoting linguistic inclusivity, collaborative learning, real-world applications, a redefined role for teachers and students, and opportunities for creative expression.

Conclusion

This reflective narrative demonstrates how the implementation of translanguaging pedagogy within a PAR framework significantly enhanced learner engagement in a multilingual English classroom. By integrating students’ home languages alongside English, I was able to create a culturally responsive environment where learners felt valued, confident, and motivated. The intervention not only promoted active participation, literacy development, and student agency but also transformed my own role from a traditional authority figure to a facilitator and co-learner.

The experience reveals several key insights. First, monolingual approaches can silence learners in linguistically diverse classrooms, whereas translanguaging affirms students’ linguistic and cultural identities. Second, translanguaging fosters collaboration and mutual respect, enabling learners to connect classroom activities with the knowledge they bring from their communities. Third, these practices contribute to broader educational goals by promoting equity and social justice in language teaching.

For teachers in similar contexts, this reflection suggests that translanguaging can serve as a potent pedagogical tool for bridging gaps between students’ lived experiences and classroom learning. Although this account is based on a specific classroom experience, it emphasizes the importance of embracing multilingual resources in ELT. Future reflective and research-based studies could further explore how translanguaging can be systematically integrated into classroom practices across Nepal.

References

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(1), 1–28.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Garcia, O. & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199-216). Springer.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education for the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley Black-Well.

Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Garcia, O., and Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging theory in education. In O. Garcia and T. Kleyn (eds), Translanguaging with multilingual students, (pp. 23–47). Routledge.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). Constitution of society polity press. Cambridge.

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy. Multilingual Matters.

Jorgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 161–176.

Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222-1235.

Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126-166.

Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. Routledge.

Phyak, P. (2018). Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: A response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal. In K. Kuchah & F. Shamim (Eds.), International Perspectives in Teaching English in Difficult Circumstances (pp. 49-70). Palgrave.

Phyak, P. (2023). Translanguaging as a space of simultaneity: theorizing translanguaging pedagogies in English medium schools from a spatial perspective. Modern Language Journal, 107(1), 289-307.

Rauteda, K. R. (2022). Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in multilingual ELT classrooms: Exploring perceptions and practices [Master’s Thesis]. Tribhuvan University.

Rauteda, K. R. (2024a). Unveiling pedagogical translanguaging: Investigating teachers’ translingual practices and purposes in ELT classrooms. English Language Teaching Perspectives, 9(1-2), 51–66.

Rauteda, K. R. (2024b). Bending back to the professional activities: Unveiling the role of reflective practice in teachers’ professional development. Journal of NELTA Gandaki, 7(1-2), 98–110.

Rauteda, K. R. (2025a). English language teachers’ knowledge, use, and perceived effectiveness of action research for professional development. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies (IJELS), 11(1), 39-52.

Rauteda, K. R. (2025b). Translanguaging for transformation: Identity, equity, and pedagogical resistance in Nepalese ELT classrooms. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies (IJELS), 11(2), 150-162.

Rauteda, K. R., & Luitel, B. (2025). Teachers’ pedagogical resistance of EMI through classroom translanguaging in Nepalese science classrooms. IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching), 9(2), 441-456.

Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit & L. Moll (Eds.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Author’s Bio: Mr. Khem Raj Rauteda is an MPhil scholar at the Graduate School of Education, Tribhuvan University, and a Lecturer of English Education at Janta Multiple Campus, Itahari. He has been actively involved in academic publishing for over five years, contributing research articles to both national and international journals. Rauteda has also served as a reviewer for several scholarly publications and has presented numerous papers at national and international conferences. His areas of interest are Translanguaging, CDA, Multilingualism, and Teachers’ Professional Development. He can be reached at krauteda@gmail.com.

Author Identity in Academic Writing

Author identity
Ashok Raj Khati

Introduction

Students in higher education are supposed to write different forms of assignments during their studies such as essays, research papers, dissertations, articles, reports, etc. These assignments are commonly referred to as “academic writing” which follows certain conventions of structure, style and content. Through academic writing, scholars communicate with other scholars in their fields of study, their disciplines. Academic writing is a style of writing that is objective, unbiased, and focuses on supporting information with credible data and evidence. Furthermore, it is geared toward contributing to the body of knowledge on a topic or field of study. The language in academic texts tends to be “precise, impersonal and objective” (Hartley, 2008, p.3) in the sense that the writer avoids value judgments and biases and uses formal vocabulary, and references. As the academic writing is characterized by evidence-based arguments, precise word choice, logical organization, and an impersonal tone (Valdes, 2020), it allows researchers and students to contribute to the area of knowledge and academic debate. In this connection, this essay intends to introduce the voice of author in academic writing and discuss the concept of author identity from social perspective.

Voice of Author in Academic Writing

Students in higher education face several challenges in learning academic writing in Nepali and other contexts. University students with no prior experience of academic writing generally follow the models of academic style from the previous studies. It sometimes results the loss of students’ voice in their writing and also leads to other unethical issues such as copyright infringement and plagiarism. Morita (2000) points out that student’s linguistic, sociocultural and psychological difficulties affect their engagement in the classroom. One of her indications is that students’ academic entry in a new community also influences their academic performance. For the research level students, to create an impression of an academic writer drawing on certain discursive and non-discursive features in a particular piece of writing has been a real challenge in the beginning years in higher education institutions.

Academic writing carries the voice of writer following certain styles and established writing conventions. If we understand produced texts especially in higher education as social interactions, then constructing a ‘recognizable’ and authoritative identity in academic writing involves students dealing with the competing claims of individual creativity and knowledge on the one hand and the sets of values, attitudes to knowledge and linguistic forms embodied in the discourse of their discipline on the other (Morton & Storch, 2019). On the issue of the voice, Guerin and Green (2012) emphasize the importance of developing a strong authorial presence in doctoral writing. It obviously marks the shift from student writer to a writer that can position their research authoritatively within their discipline. Therefore, the identity is not optional in all academic writing; all texts say something about the writer, their position or the point of view, carry authorial voice, and use some textual features, although some are more marked than others.

In academic writing, it is important not only to present ideas, facts, and conclusions but to also have a stance of the writer. When a student writer is able to consistently communicate that particular point of view in their writing, they are using their voice. To establish credibility in the writing, it is necessary for writers’ opinions to be based on evidence rather than unsupported generalizations. In most academic writing, it is also necessary to express one’s voice in which the writer is synthesizing literature, developing theories or conceptual frameworks, and most importantly, advancing a new perspective. The voice of the writer can also be expressed in research papers, particularly in the discussion section as the writer makes the transition from the study’s results to arguments and conclusions. In doing so, many writers especially beginners in academic writing bury their voice in quotes from more established researchers. Although the ideas may be based on existing literature, the conclusions need to be based on writer’s original thoughts which clearly communicate his or her point of view or the stance (Brown, 2014).

Many writing scholars describe writing as a mode of identity expression. In this line, Hyland (2002a) describes academic writing as not simply an expression of content, but also a “representation of self”. In the similar line, Williams (2003) portrays writing as a reflection of the person on the page and writing is a deliberate construction and expression of identity on a page. It indicates how writer identity is interconnected with the expression in the text. Teaching writing through the lens of identity could help student writers understand how they can develop, express, and organize their unique thoughts and analytical stances on topics (Williams, 2006b). This understanding of students’ perceptions of themselves as writers is an important first step in developing academic writing and writer’s self in their writing.

Author Identity

To discuss author identity, it can fairly be helpful to reflect on who I am as I write research papers, journal articles and academic blog pieces. When I write those papers, I am bringing to varieties of commitments based on my interests, values and beliefs which are built up from my own academic history as an academic writer and research level student. In this regard, I am not a neutral being conveying the objective results of my research papers in my writing. I am someone who has been engaged with the larger academic community in Nepal for a decade. I have been writing and researching in the areas of language teaching, academic writing and education for a decade. I am a writer with a multiple social identity. I have an idea of the sort of person I want to appear in the pages of my research papers and other type of articles: ethical, insightful, critical, original and committed. I think I not only want to meet the requirements of writing of publishers, but also want to be a member of the academic discourse community. Therefore, I want to appear ethical, insightful, critical, original and committed in my writing that specify my academic, social and authorial roles and identities.

This essay, for example, might involve among other things, what I have read and heard about author identity, my disciplinary backgrounds, my previous experience in presenting and discussing ideas about identity in writing, and my interest in identity in academic writing. Furthermore, in this written paper, I am also constructing the voice of an academic writer by drawing on certain discursive features such as nominalization, use of hedges and boosters, reporting verbs, APA style citations, self-mention, and nondiscursive features, such as the choice of topic, description of research setting and the attention to historical details which creates the impression of an academic writer.

When people are producing texts, they are not only doing writing–presenting ideas in textual form –but are also being writers –creating a variety of meanings in the writing context (Rahimivanda & Kuhi, 2014). Being writers when they produce text, they are not assembling words and phrases, rather they carry their voice in the text following certain styles and established writing conventions. Through writing, researchers and writers instigate academic conversations in the academic community.  While making social interactions, the writers do not make the collection of ideas in the text, they are the people who create different meanings out of them in a particular context. And the text becomes a place where knowledge and writer’s identities are constructed.

In understanding identity in written discourse, it is important to distinguish between the identity positions of the writer that is external to discourse, such as the demographic information, and identity as constructed and negotiated through discourse. Although these two aspects of identity are inextricably tied to each other, my writing is mainly guided by the contemporary approaches to identity in written discourse, not as the material reality projected through writing but as a social construct that is mediated by written discourse. In other words, identity does not just reside in the text, it is not simply the sum of textual features, rather it is a social construct created in the complex interaction among various elements of writing (Silva, 1990), including the relationship between the writer and the reader, who interact through the text in a particular situational context (Hyland, 2008a). It evidently indicates that studying author identity in academic writing discourse requires not just an understanding of textual features but the perceptions and experiences of identity both by writers and readers.

Defining author identity, Pittam et al. (2009) say it is the sense a writer has of themselves as an author and the textual identity they construct in their writing. The simple meaning it implies that author’s sense of himself or herself as an author in the text construct his or her author identity. However, the definition excludes the social aspects of the writing such as interaction with readers mediated through the produced text. Thus, defining identity in written discourse has not been an easy task because the conception of voice has evolved drastically over the last few decades and because the shift has been a gradual and layered process, with multiple definitions coexisting (Matsuda, 2015).

Ivanic’s Framework of Author Identity

Despite the existence of various definitions, Ivanic (1998) provides a useful, overarching framework for understanding identity in writing. For him, identity is a plural, dynamic concept encompassing four interrelated strands of selfhood or writer identity: autobiographical self, discoursal self, self as author and possibilities for selfhood.

The autobiographical self refers to the writer’s sense of self—a writer’s sense of their roots, of where they are coming from—which is socially constructed. In other words, what a writer brings into his or her act of writing is an autobiographical self.  It is historically constructed and shaped by the past experiences and literacy practices with which he or she has been familiar with. Discoursal self is the self-representation in texts, which emerges from the text that a writer creates. It is constructed through the discourse characteristics of a text that reflects values, beliefs and power relations in the social context in which they were written. Therefore, the impression is created through the features of written discourse, which is also referred to as voice (Matsuda, 2001). The self as author is an aspect of the discoursal self, is the sense of being the author that the writer perceives and projects in written discourse. It is a sense of authorial identity that the writer develops and is perceived by the readers. The same piece of writing may be valued and assessed differently depending on the level of confidence and authority that is projected by the writer and perceived by the reader.

Ivanic (1998) makes clear that these aspects of writer identity are neither completely discrete nor mutually exclusive. They are also both enabled and constrained by the possibilities for self-hood, socially available identity options and discursive resources. It refers that the discourse is not just a set of textual features but it embodies socially shared assumptions and practices that allow people to construct their identity or ways of being in society. Those resources may include various discourse features and argumentative strategies from various genres that enable the writer to construct a sense of identity appropriate for the situation. These four elements are intertwined to make up the concept of a ‘writerly self’ (Starfield, 2007), an author identity in writing. For Ivanič and many other scholars, all aspects of writer identity are emerging and changing over time as well as socially constructed.

Thus, the writer’s identity does not singularly reside in the writer, the text, or the reader; rather identity is part of the interpersonal meaning that is negotiated through the interaction among the writer and the reader mediated by the text. Despite several definitions, contemporary definitions of writer identity in the literature seem to be converging as the identity in written discourse is multiple and dynamic which is constructed through socially shared resources for meaning making.

Author Identity as a Social Construct

The writer identity has become an important area of investigation in the literature. Identity had been an important consideration in North American writing studies since the 1960s; however, the concept of writer identity has not been included in the descriptions of written discourse in applied linguistics. Roz Ivaniˇc (1998) was among the first to articulate the role of identity in academic writing and he provides an overarching framework for understanding identity in academic writing. Hyland (2000) calls attention to the importance of interpersonal meaning in shaping interactions in academic writing genres, paving the way for studies of social identity in academic writing. However, because of the dominance of the individualistic view of writer identity, the study of identity in academic writing did not receive a major focus of research.

In 2001, the Journal of Second Language Writing published a special issue on voice (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001). Some scholars (e.g. Stapleton, 2002) argued that the place of voice was overstated in the literature and called for a shift of emphasis to topics that were more important for academic writing, such as ideas and argument.  Nevertheless, many researchers continued their efforts to focus even more on voice in academic writing. Matsuda (2001) states the 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 repertoire” (p. 40). This definition of voice in the written discourse as the effect recognizes the role of the reader as well as the writer and the text. In 2007 and 2009, Matsuda and Tardy examined the construction of an author’s discursive identity and concluded that the images of the author were triggered by both discursive features (e.g., signs of author’s language background, sentence structures, careful editing, and writing style) and nondiscursive features (e.g., breadth and depth of knowledge, topic choice, representation of the field, description of the research setting, theoretical framework, and research method). It indicates that author identity is not only constructed solely in the text, it is also created by the readers who go through the text.

Matsuda (2015) very notably, states that identity in written discourse involves both empirical reality that can be described and measured e.g., demographics and textual features and phenomenological reality that exists in people’s perceptions e.g., social constructs. In this connection, text-oriented approaches of writer identity are useful in describing how identity is manifested through textual features. However, an understanding of identity is not complete without a consideration of the writer’s choices as well as the readers’ perceptions that is triggered by various discursive and non-discursive features. Thus, the focus of analysis in the literature has shifted from the individual to the social conventions and how it has been moving toward the negotiation of individual and social perspectives.

Conclusion

The literature supports that identity in written discourse is a complex phenomenon, as it involves both empirical and phenomenological realities. Moreover, identity in written discourse is not external to discourse, it is not simply the sum of textual features, rather it is a social construct, a text mediated interaction between the writer and the reader in a particular situational context. Therefore, understanding identity in academic writing requires not just an understanding of textual features but the perceptions and experiences of identity both by writers and readers.

The author: Ashok Raj Khati is a PhD student at the Faculty of Education, Far Western University Nepal. He is also associated with Sainik Awasiya Mahavidyalaya (Military residential college run by Nepal Army) located in Kailali district where he serves the institution in the capacity of the principal.

References

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (eds.). (2001). Voice in second language writing [Special issue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 227–322.

Brown, A. B. (2014, April 16). Hiding in plain sight: The problem of authority for academic authors [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.academiccoachingandwriting.org /academic-writing/academic-writing-blog/iii-hidingin-plain-sight-the-problem-of-authority-for-academic-authors

Guerin, C., & Green, I. (2012). Voice as a threshold concept in doctoral writing. Narratives of transition: Perspectives of research leaders, educators and postgraduates, Conference proceedings of 10th Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference.

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. NY: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002a.). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.

Hyland, K. (2008a). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22.

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

Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35–53.

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.

Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–159.

McKinley, J. (2017). Identity construction in learning English academic writing in a Japanese university. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14 (2), 228-243.

Morton, J. & Storch, N. (2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of second language writing, 43, pp. 15-23.

Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170.

Rahimivanda, M. & Kuhi, D. (2014). An Exploration of Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.  Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 1492-1501.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In Barbara Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11–23). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Starfield, S. (2007). New directions in student academic writing. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds). The International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 2, 875-890.

Valdes, O. (2020, August 27). An Introduction to Academic Writing. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-academic-writing-1689052

Williams, B. T. (2003). The face in the mirror. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 47(2), 178-182.

Williams, B. T. (2006b). Metamorphosis hurts: Resistant students and myths of transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(2), 148–153.