The Concept of Voice in Academic Writing - Assignment Example

My 25 Apr 2007 The Concept of Voice in Academic Writing The concept of voice is a useful tool for developing their skills in academic writing as well as for readers of academic texts. This is especially true when the reader/writer understands the roles of everyone involved in an academic writing assignment and how they potentially influence the writers voice; the nature of several different types of voice; and what debates surround the concept of voice in writing. In this paper, we examine each of these aspects of the quality of voice in writing. The importance of voice in writing stems from the fact that "everything you write says something about you" (Ivanic & Simpson 144). The act of writing produces a text, but at the same time also constructs the identity of the writer. The writer needs to be conscious of this and strive to reveal the identity that is intended. The writer chooses language that initiates the type of relationship desired with the reader. According to Ivanic and Simpson, using the pronoun I in writing makes the writer more responsible for their ideas and sets the stage for the writer to assert personal, original ideas. After seeing the words I used in a text, readers are able to trust the writer that the ideas put forward have actually been thought about. Ivanic and Simpson characterize the roles of everyone involved in the process of a student undertaking a writing assignment. First, there is the instructor assigning the writing assignment that will be judged; this instructor has the power to dictate the expected form the writing should take and poses a challenge to the student. All writers are affected by what they have read; in the case of students, the books they read are mostly academic books written by ex-students. One of the problems with academic writers, according to Simpson, is that the writers are motivated to write by self-promotion, instead of to question old ideas and stimulate new ideas about the subject at hand. These self-promoting, or ego-I, writers use impersonal language instead of I or we; their sentences are long, with many nouns, abstractions and generalizations instead of sentences with verbs, words for people, and examples that an idea-promoting, or committed-I writer would typically use (Ivanic & Simpson 148). The committed-I style of writing is also more informal and similar to speech, and is therefore more accessible to readers. The student undergoing a writing assignment first plays a role as a reader of academic texts. A reader expects that a text will "give information, spark ideas, increase understanding" (Ivanic & Simpson 149). To this end, a reader must ask themselves: do I understand the text? ; do I agree with it?; do I like the way it is written?; and do I want to accept the identity or role of thinking in the way this text expects me to?. When reading academic texts, the student can become trapped into reproducing the content and language style that was encountered. In order to avoid this, a student must recognize whos who in the writing process; in other words, it is crucial that a student is able to see the writer behind the ideas and differentiate this with herself/himself. The student must also be selective, making decisions about what parts of the writing he/she wants to identify with. This is important in order to avoid becoming trapped by other peoples construction of knowledge, use of language, and identity. Other people that are involved in the writing process include the subjects of the academic writing. This may be people behind the statistics or generalizations encountered in the reading that students undertake prior to a writing assignment. All of these people involved in the writing assignment process can influence the writer’s style and choice of language, and therefore the experience of voice in her/his writing. In his essay “The Pleasures of Voice in the Literary Essay,” Peter Elbow has categorized the different types of voice that are found in literary essays into three main types: audible voice, which describes how much we are able to hear the text; dramatic voice, or the revelation of the writer’s character; and one’s own voice, which has three sub-categories of its own. Audible voice is present within texts that make use of the same “syntax, rhythms and word choice characteristic of speech” (Elbow, “Pleasures of Voice” 213). Using these qualities as well as the diction of speech gives writing the quality of a voice. Audible voice can also be described as sonorous writing, which is rhythmic and poetic. Although sonorous writing may not be like speech, and may not use words we would actually use in speech, the writing can still be experienced as sound. This type of writing has an existing-in-time quality. According to Elbow, writing has the energy to give the impression of noise if it “records thinking going on rather than completed thought” (“Pleasures of Voice” 216). When present, this energy of the writing seems to flow out of the text to the writer, doing the work for the reader, instead of the reader feeling required to supply the energy to read the text. Elbow suggests that the purpose of voice is to draw a reader into the text (“Pleasures of Voice” 232) in this way. Texts that use voice well communicate meaning to the reader in an experience of sound. The quality of voice in writing is increased by metaphors and adjectives that call attention to the writer at work behind the text. This is especially evident if the writer uses a metaphor which shows their creativity is at work, linking ideas in imaginative ways; or if an adjective is used that clearly reveals the author’s opinions or beliefs. Dramatic voice is the voice that gives clues to the character and personality of the writer (Elbow, “Pleasures of Voice” 217). Although, texts do not have the same degree of this type of voice, and the character of an author is easily hidden or even masked. Dramatic voice clues include the sentence structure, rhythm, cadence, choice of words and subject matter, and degree of self-revelation within the text. Elbow characterizes “one’s own voice” as the relation of the text to the actual writer. He sub-categorizes this into three further categories: distinctive, recognizable voice; having a voice or authority to speak; and authentic voice. The distinctive, recognizable voice is often described in the common phrase “finding her own voice.” This quality of voice is often found to be lacking in new writers who follow the style of other writers, but is then found when a writer develops a unique style. Having a voice or the authority to speak is a quality of writing that exudes the writer’s self-assurance and self-trust that they have something important to say. The lack of this type of voice is voicelessness or emptiness. This condition can result from the writer’s experience of lack of respect or support. Authentic voice is the most controversial category within Elbow’s analysis. According to Elbow, searching for this type of voice violates the intentional fallacy. This is because every text contains two authors (Elbow, “Pleasures of Voice“ 224): the author implied by the writing and the actual author behind the text that may never be known. This means there are two ways to read a text: as framed and complete, which emphasizes the implied author as being the most important; and viewing the text as flawed and incomplete in an attempt to sense the actual writer behind the writing. Elbow states that the two authors analyzed in his paper “clearly ‘perform’ and adapt or create voices” (“Pleasures of Voices” 226). This writing technique can clearly complicate trying to find the authentic voice of the author in their writings, but reading enough of a writer can give the impression of what passages resonate, being in the “right relationship to the writer” (Elbow, “Pleasures of Voices” 226). It is this quality of resonance that signifies an authentic voice. Passages that have this quality of resonance may still be unlikable to us. It is possible to have this reaction to a piece of writing if we genuinely do not like the personality behind the writing. But the quality of resonance can still be there if as a reader we are able to determine that a passage seems to fit the rest of the voice of a writer that we have experienced in other passages. In order to be able to detect a writer’s authentic voice, it is necessary to hear a lot of discourse by that writer. A lot of reading of a particular writer must be done before it can be determined how a passage relates to a writer. A lack of authentic voice can be determined when the writing is inconsistent or gives mixed signals. Authentic voice is particularly important for persuasive writing, because a lack of authentic voice may cause the reader to distrust the writer, leading the reader to ignore the writer’s argument. Concentrating on developing the quality of voice within writing seems to be a good strategy in the effort to develop good writing. “The ear is probably our most trustworthy organ of discrimination in writing” (Elbow, “Pleasures of Voices” 229). To this end, audible voice can probably best be developed by reading a proposed text out loud, so that the writer can hear the effect the text has as an audible experience. In later work, Elbow lists the different types of voice in five equal categories: audible voice or intonation; dramatic voice; recognizable or distinctive voice; voice with authority; and resonant voice or presence ("Everyone Can Write" 193). Of these, the first four are non-controversial. Elbow claims the last meaning of voice is controversial but still a useful concept in writing. Even without making any distinctions between these different types of voice, Elbow believes it is still easy to judge the degree of voice within a piece of writing because the different types of voice often appear together. Elbow states that there are three debates surrounding voice in writing ("Everyone Can Write" 184), but that they should not be seen in black and white. These debates are: discourse as text versus discourse as voice; whether ethos is a real virtue or the appearance of virtue within rhetoric; and whether voice is a function of the self or of a role. The first debate concerns "a choice about how to think about discourse: as semiotic text or as voiced utterance" (Elbow, "Everyone Can Write" 185). If the view is taken that discourse is purely text, then this implies the view that there is no one speaking to anyone. One case of this is mathematical writing, where the symbols can be taken to have meaning without there being a conversation between writer and reader. If the opposite view is taken, that discourse is taken as voice, then this is an example of viewing text through a rhetorical lens rather than a stripping-away lens. But Elbow advocates making use of both lens. The debate surrounding the relation of ethos to virtue in rhetoric is an ancient debate, going back to the times of Plato and Aristotle. This debate centers around the status that a student of rhetorical principles (a student of the elements used in writing and speaking) would assign to ethos (the values and character) of the writer. Plato was part of a group who believed that persuasion depends on genuine virtue in the speaker and that "readers get a sense of the real speaker and his or her real virtue or lack of virtue through the words on the page" (Elbow, "Everyone Can Write" 190). In contrast, Aristotles "Rhetoric" shows that he considered rhetoric to be strategic, and accepted the appearance of goodness as sufficient to persuade hearers. This ancient debate contains the modern debate of the relationship between voice and identity. The modern debate is a question of whether we are hearing the actual author through their use of language and this quality of voice within writing, or if voice is just a way for the author to create a role or mask. According to Elbow, modern rhetorical studies have a strategic or pragmatic stance in which we are creating an identity when we write ("Everyone Can Write" 190). It is considered an idealistic stance to hold that people have identity existing apart from their language, and that readers can try to determine whether this identity is revealed in the text. But this idealistic view seems to be the closest to Elbows view. In my view it is hard to use the first person I in all writing, especially in such topics as science. Years of reading science textbooks that rarely contain the words I and we has probably ingrained into me the habit of impersonalizing writing. Although, it is more common with popular science books to use a more personal style of writing, and to express personal beliefs and opinions about subjects. Maybe that is why these books are often more enlightening and memorable than the information gleaned from most textbooks. A study of the issues surrounding voice in writing, such as the issues discussed above, can be useful for developing a writers awareness. For instance, it is a common misconception that when we write something we are alone. Realizing all the different people involved in an academic writing assignment can be helpful to writers, in order to increase their awareness of potential influences on their writing voice. Likewise, a greater awareness of the several different meanings of voice within writing can help developing writers, as this opens up several different ways the writer can strive for the quality of voice. Thinking about the debates surrounding voice in writing, which have roots in ancient times, is also helpful to a developing writer like myself because it can stimulate a writers own thought about the nature of voice in writing and the nature of writing itself. I agree with Elbow that there is no black and white way of characterizing voice within writing. Ordinarily writing is probably just a mask of the author, due to the writers inexperience or propensity for privacy. However, voice as a concept in writing is a useful tool for writers to get their meaning across in an effective and memorable way. It is also valuable to diligent readers who want to catch the occasions when the real identity of the author shines through a piece of writing. Works Cited Elbow, Peter. Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ---. "The Pleasures of Voice in the Literary Essay: Explorations in the Prose of Gretel Ehrlich and Richard Selzer." Literary Nonfiction: Theory, Criticism, Pedagogy. Ed. Chris Anderson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989. 211-34. Ivanic, Roz and John Simpson. "Whos Who in Academic Writing?" Critical Language Awareness. Ed. Norman Fairclough. New York: Longman Publishing, 1992. 141-73. Read More