Synthesis Paper

The term voice has received rapid attention of the researchers, especially, in L2 writing
practice. Despite the interest of researchers, it is observed that there is a disconnectedness
between research and L2 writing practices. This paper synthesizes information from three
sources in order to understand the concept of voice and negotiation as one of the tools to
develop voice in L2 writings of graduate students. Canagarajah (2014) studies a case of teacher
and student interaction and emphasizes on adopting dialogical pedagogy to help students
develop their voice. He also investigates what negotiations are involved in developing voice and
how do interlocutors appropriate the effect of writers voice. Fujioka (2014), though does not
discuss the notion of voice explicitly, he studies disciplinary socialization of a graduate student
which involves development of voice in L2 writings. It can be easily implied from reading Fujioka
(2014) that voice is a dynamic phenomenon and can only be achieved by mutual negotiation
and consideration of students cultural background and academic expectations. The most
important provision of this study is that during this process of socialization, learning can happen
in multi-directions including transformation of the student, professor and changes in community
practices. Both writers have presented a profound discussion of voice, role of negotiation and
relation between reader and writer. I believe that Hervila & Belcher (2001) will help to build on
the above discussion. Hervila & Belcher (2001) identify the problems with the way the notion of
voice is used in research and pedagogical practices. The authors (Hervila & Belcher, 2001)
have drawn attention to how students with established L1 voice develop their voice in L2 starting
as Novice L2 writers. The study takes into account case study of 3 L2 multilingual graduate

students to show trajectory of their development of voice in L2 writing and concludes that non
native university students prior writing experiences and their cultural expectations should be
accounted for in L2 classroom communities. These three studies are very significant in
understanding voice as a notion for L2 writing practices especially with regards to Non-Native
Speakers (NNS) university students. In this paper, I will build on relationship among these three
studies to show how each of these articles compliment one another. The discussion that follows
here will mainly focus on the understanding of voice as it is developed in the process of
disciplinary socialization.
Hervila & Belcher (2001) problematize the definition of voice by highlighting issues with
the way people mis-understand voice. According to this study, the first problem with the interest
in teaching voice is the way voice is satisfactory defined. Elbow (1994, as cited in Hervila &
Belcher, 2001) states, [voice] has been used in a loose and celebratory way as to mean almost
anything. This lose definition of voice has caused complexities for novice L2 writers to
understand it and thus eventually employ it in their writing. For novice L2 writers, in many cases,
voice in their L2 (especially English) often conflicts their own established L1 voice. This
conflicting situation is further deteriorated and leads to second problem (as identified in Hervila
& Belcher, 2001) where professors and their classroom practices fail to acknowledge and
address the conflicting concepts of voice in L1 and L2. Thus forcing students to transform from
their L1 voice to L2 voice without having understood the L1 voice of students on part of
professors or experts in academic community. Hervila & Belcher (2001) state the third problem
by calling this notion of voice as western, romantic or individualistic (p. 83) implying that such

perspective of voice brings in a flare of prejudice against international students L1 voice. The
discussion of the problems identified in this study urges the researchers and classroom
practitioners to adopt a neutral and holistic definition of voice. Canagarajah (2014) seems to be
successful in addressing these problems. In his study, he takes voice as the amalgamated
dialogical effect . The heuristic of voice that Canagarajah discusses consists of identity, role,
subjectivity and awareness and is holistic in its nature. This study does not consider voice as
lose or meaning anything (Elbow, 1994; as cited in Hervila & Belcher, 2001) In his discussion
of Kyoko and her professor, he has explained the success of developing a co-constructed
voice (p.1) through involving in negotiation to provide classroom affordances. The version of
voice adopted in Canagarajah (2014) provides a well defined framework through which
pedagogical practices in L2 writing classes can be informed in order to help students develop
voice. This article also strives to change the perception of voice being western notion by
stressing on the need of introducing negotiation of the assignments during the course of studies.
This aspect of voice pedagogy provides a room for understanding cultural differences. In the
case of Kyoko, this aspect of voice pedagogy is evident. In this endeavor, Canagarajah has also
addresses the third critical problem identified by Hervila & Belcher (2001). By adopting
dialogical pedagogy, a teacher can actually account for students established L1 voice. It is
evident from the case study that dialogical pedagogy has a potential for negotiation between
students and teachers. Canagarajah (2014) seems to be successful in providing a holistic
approach to teach voice in L2 writing classrooms. This discussion is further elaborated

in

another article that In her study of a case of students disciplinary socialization, Fujioka (2014)

concluded that transformation flows in all the directions in an activity influencing all the agents.
The conclusion was drawn from the case study of a student and professors interaction in a
course which results into the changes in beliefs and practices of both these agents in learning
process. Base on beliefs of Hervila & Belcher (2001) and Canagarajah (2014), Fujioka (2014)
also avoids using voice in its traditional lose definition. Fujioka (2014) looks convinced by the
belief that voice can be developed by increasing the participation of a novice in a community of
practice by placing them in close interaction with experts of the social practices in that
community. In academic environment this community of practice is university, experts are
professors and novices are students who are learning L2 writing. Fujiokas (2014) study
revealed that increased participation help students realize the standard experts expect novices
to achieve and establish. cultural expectations vary from individual to individual based on their
exposure and knowledge of cultures other than their own. Fujioka (2014) strong believes that
when cultural expectations of students, especially international students, are taken into
consideration during voice teaching endeavors, students can develop and establish voice in
their L2 Writing more effectively. At this point Fujioka (2014) acknowledges the third problem
identified by Hervila & Belcher (2001) that while teaching voice students established L1 voice or
any former experience with voice in any language is overlooked. By stressing on accounting for
students cultural expectations, Fujioka (2014) addresses this crucial gap and provides a
solution to this problem. During the academic and professional socialization of the novice
students in L2 writing, clash of cultural expectations and challenges of legitimate or
understandable defense of professors position is possible. If teachers do not acknowledge

students prior experience with voice in their L1, they will often misunderstand students
tendency to rely on their L1 voice. This belief leads us to the nest important conclusion from
Fujioka (2014) that during a learning process or activity transformation occurs in all the agents
involved. While novice students transform from L1 voice to L2 voice, professors and classroom
material also undergo a change that gives fair value to students L1 voice. Voice in L2 can be
effectively learned by these students. The above discussion of voice in the light of three papers
can be summarized that voice has to be defined on a strict parameter so that there should not
any loophole left, students L1 has to be given due acknowledgment, and Voice should not be
fixed as something western rather individual cultural expectations have to be considered. The
programs teaching voice will be effective if these insights are taken into consideration.
The discussion leads us to some of the possible future consideration on the question
whether or not the voice in L1 facilitates or hinders the development of voice in L2. Moreover the
study can be further investigated to find if negotiation is as important and essential for the
development of voice as it is considered. The study has provides insights for the classroom
teachers of L2 writings who can draw their methodology on the basis of conclusion presented by
these authors so that effectiveness of teaching in relation to diverse cultures can be validated.