Annika Norlund Shaswar Doctoral student Department of Language Studies Umeå University Sweden

LITERACY PRACTICES IN EVERYDAY LIFE AND IN SECOND LANGUAGE EDUCATION

1

INNEHÅLL Literacy practices in everyday life and in second language education........................................................1 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................3 2 The design of the doctoral research .......................................................................................................................3 2.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Participants ..............................................................................................................................................................3 2.3 Methods for producing and documenting data .........................................................................................3 2.4 Theoretical framework.......................................................................................................................................4 2.4.1 Social literacies ...............................................................................................................................................4 2.4.2 Literacy event, literacy practice and literacies .................................................................................4 2.4.3 History of literacy ..........................................................................................................................................5 2.4.4 Text, interaction and context....................................................................................................................5 2.4.5 Identification and identities ......................................................................................................................5 2.5 Methods of analysis...............................................................................................................................................6 2.5.1 Grounded theory, ethnography and New Literacy Studies ..........................................................6 2.5.2 Discourse analysis .........................................................................................................................................8 2.5.3 Language choice and code switching ....................................................................................................8 2.5.4 The expressive values of language ...................................................................................................... 10 2.5.5 Pronouns and personal suffixes .......................................................................................................... 10 3. Final reflections .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature............................................................................................................................................................................ 13

2

1 INTRODUCTION Annika: And when you were working, did you read and write anything at work? Sangar: Yeah, like you have to write every day your daily report. And give it to your supervisor. So… yeah, just daily report, and if you had any requisition to request for the… for the… for the generator let’s say.

This is an extract from one of my interviews with Sangar. He talks about the daily reports and requisitions he used to write when he worked as a foreman at a fish project in Iraq. Sangar is one of the participants in my doctoral study on literacy practices in everyday life and literacy practices connected to second language education. Sangar and the other participants in my doctoral study are adult Kurds who have immigrated to Sweden and are learning Swedish as a second language. In this paper I will give an outline of the theoretical and methodological design of the study. In the second part of the paper, under the headline “Methods of analysis”, I will present and exemplify the methods I use for the analysis of data, and there I will focus on one part of the data, namely interviews.

2 THE DESIGN OF THE DOCTORAL RESEARCH 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to research connections and disconnections between the participants’ literacy practices in the domain of second language (L2) education on the one hand in and the domains of everyday life on the other hand. I analyse how the participants read, write and in other ways interact with and around texts in these domains. The connections between literacy practices, values and identities are a central part of the study. I try to find answers to these questions: What literacy practices do the participants take part in within the domain of L2 education and in the domains of everyday life? How do they take part? How do they value the literacy practices? Which are the connections between literacy practices and identities in these domains? How are the participants’ personal histories of literacy connected to the literacy practices they take part in today within the different domains?

2.2 PARTICIPANTS The participants are five Kurdish adults, three female and two male, who have immigrated to Sweden from Iraqi or Iranian Kurdistan. Presently they are learning Swedish as a second language on a basic level in the school form SFI, Swedish for immigrants. SFI is a school form organized by the Swedish municipalities. It is open for persons above the age of 16, registered as citizens in a Swedish municipality, who lack basic knowledge of Swedish. Refugees who have recently arrived in Sweden and immigrants who are unemployed can receive supplementary benefit when taking Swedish courses at SFI.

2.3 METHODS FOR PRODUCING AND DOCUMENTING DATA Applying ethnography as a methodological framework, I have conducted semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. When I conducted the observations I focused on the 3

literacy events which the participants took part in during lessons. In the interviews I asked about their personal histories of literacy, literacies in everyday life and literacies connected to learning Swedish. The language used in the interviews was Kurdish with four participants and interchangeably Kurdish and English with one participant, Sangar. The interviews were documented by audio recordings and field notes. The classroom observations were documented by audio recordings, field notes and video recordings. During interviews as well as observations, photographs were taken of texts, artifacts and the literacy environments of classrooms and homes. Some texts were also collected.

2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.4.1 SOCIAL LITERACIES A social literacies approach, or a social practice perspective, implies that literacies are embedded within certain epistemologies and that they cannot be studied in isolation from these (Street 1984, Street 2003:77-78, Street 2009:23). A literacy is always ”ideological” in that it is rooted within a certain conception of the world. When teachers and students step into the classroom they bring with them their experiences of reading and writing and their perceptions of themselves and their identities in relation to the literacy practices they engage in. Contextual aspects like place, time, culture, economy and political circumstances influence people when they interact with a text in reading, writing or talking about it (Barton & Hamilton 1998, Barton 2007). Observations of this kind have been made within the interdisciplinary research field of New Literacy Studies (NLS) (e.g. Heath 1983, Barton, Hamilton & Ivanič 2000, Street 2003).

2.4.2 LITERACY EVENT, LITERACY PRACTICE AND LITERACIES The concepts of literacy event and literacy practice are central to research on literacy from a social practice perspective (Barton & Hamilton 1998, Barton 2007, Ivanič 2009, Hamilton 2000, Ivanič et al. 2009:49-53). The concept of literacy event is useful as a starting point for the analysis of literacy from this perspective. The reason for the usefulness of this concept is that it signifies a concrete observable occasion when people act or interact with or around written text, e.g. by reading, writing or talking about it. An example of a literacy event is when Naz , a Kurdish woman who participates in the study, writes a text message to one of her daughters. Literacy practices are general, culturally formed patterns for using literacies in a society and the understandings, attitudes and habits formed around them (Baynham 1995:1, Barton 2007:3637). This concept is entirely abstract and it is valuable in that it “forms a bridge between literacy as a linguistic phenomenon and the social context in which it is embedded.”(Baynham 1995:54) For instance Naz has ideas, values and habits connected to the literacy practice of writing text messages. Literacy practices in their turn form literacies which are connected e.g. to specific domains, institutions or societies. Consequently there is not one but many different literacies, (Barton & Hamilton 1998, Barton 2007:37-40). The literacy of a domain can be described in terms of a number of coherent literacy practices related to the purposes of i.e. the domain. This means that the literacy of the school domain is different from the literacy of the home domain. 4

2.4.3 HISTORY OF LITERACY An individual’s personal history of literacy comprises the experiences of literacy practices s/he has had in her/his life. (Barton & Hamilton 1998:12). In my study, history of literacy denotes literacy practices which the participants have taken part in before they initiated their present studies of SFI.

2.4.4 TEXT, INTERACTION AND CONTEXT For the conceptualization of the relations between text, interaction and context I have been inspired by CDA, critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1992, 2001). I conceive of written and spoken text as embedded within the processes of interaction and the social conditions of the broader context where the text is produced and interpreted (Fairclough 2001:21, Ivanic 1998:41). This means that to properly understand and analyse a text, for example a transcription of an interview, I need to look at it in connection to its broader discursive context. By this I mean that I need to know when, where and why the text was produced and I also need information about its sociopolitical and historical context (Wodak 2011:42).

2.4.5 IDENTIFICATION AND IDENTITIES Whenever a person takes part in a literacy event, like for instance when Naz discusses a newspaper article with the other students in the SFI-classroom, identification is taking place (Ivanič 1998:32-33). Consequently the connection between literacy practices and identification is a central aspect of this research. I conceive of identification as a continuous, never finished process. People create and modify themselves as they take part in the varying activities of their day to day lives (Holland et al. 1998:18). Thus the noun identity in its singular form makes a misleading concept since it leads thoughts to a fixed essence (Hylland Eriksen 2005:175, Ivanič 1998:11, Ivanič 2006:7). Instead I prefer the concept identification for referring to the process that is taking place, and identities for the different social groups a person identifies with. The process of identification can be described as relational and situational (Hylland Eriksen 2005:180-181, Bellander 2010:47, Bucholtz 1999:209). Depending on whom the individual interacts with and what situation s/he is in, the identification changes. An individual is who s/he is in relation to other individuals or other groups which are different or similar to her/him. For example, according to my analysis, Naz’ identification as a student is in focus when she and her classmates discuss a newspaper article in the classroom during a lesson, but her identification as a mother is more central when she writes a text message to her child. People’s identities influence and are influenced by the literacy events and literacy practices that they participate in. Texts that they read, write and discuss – like school tests, tax forms and curriculum vitae – present them with identities (Holland et al. 1998:26-27). They are expected to see themselves and act as tax payers, students or unemployed. The individuals can comply with these identities or resist them. Not only in texts but also in activities like reading, writing or discussing a text together, do people offer each other specific identities by expecting each other to act in a certain way or in accordance with certain identities. In these identification processes, the individual is neither totally free to be whoever or whatever s/he wants to be, nor totally constrained by structural factors, like gender, race or ethnicity. The powerful discourses, 5

through which identification occurs, are in some contexts overwhelming. But often the possibility of resistance remains as an alternative to the individual. Some identities are defined by and related to a specific action or activity which the individual takes part in (Bellander 2010:42-43, 47-48). For example Naz takes part in literacy practices as a student, a newspaper reader and a bank customer. Connected to these identities are certain rights and obligations which influence for instance how the teacher or student takes part in interaction in writing questions or answers, giving or responding to assessments of answers etc. This makes these identities possible to catch sight of from the “outside”. It is possible for an observer to see them take place. Other identities, such as ethnicity and gender, are not related to specific activities. Consequently they are more complex and elusive to analyse.

2.5 METHODS OF ANALYSIS Although the material of the study has been produced by means of interviews as well as observations, in the rest of this paper I will concentrate on the analysis of interviews.

2.5.1 GROUNDED THEORY, ETHNOGRAPHY AND NEW LITERACY STUDIES It is not possible to make a clear cut distinction between the meaning conveyed by means of language and the form of language. Meaning and form are intertwined and interdependent (cf Fairclough 1992:89). But as long as the researcher is aware of this interdependency I believe that in the process of analysis it is possible to focus more on one of these aspects of language at a time. The main focus in my analysis of the interviews is on meaning, or in other words on what the participants convey about their literacy practices. In other words I look into what the participants read, why they read, together with whom they write, in which languages they discuss texts and so on. The design of this analysis focused on meaning is inspired by ethnography (e.g. Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, Aull Davies 2008) and to some extent grounded theory (e.g. Strauss & Corbin 1990). The conceptualization and analysis of the literacy practices of the participants also starts out from a conceptual framework containing different interacting aspects of literacy events or practices. The aspects included in this framework have been elaborated by researchers within New Literacy Studies (Heath 1983:386, Hamilton 2000, Barton 2007:33ff, Ivanič 2009:100ff, Ivanič et al 2009:47ff). How the aspects of literacy events and practices are connected to different questions is illustrated in figure 1 below.

6

What?

Aspects content

Why?

of

a

literacy purposes

Who?

event

or

practice audiences

Under what conditions?

languages, genres, styles and designs

flexibility and constraints

roles, identities and values

How?

modes and technologies

actions and processes

participation

Figure 1: Aspects of a literacy event or practice (Ivanič et al. 2009:50)

Now I will give a brief explanation and exemplification of these aspects. Content refers to the topics and messages of the texts read, written, discussed or otherwise produced or used in the literacy practices or events. Language, genres, styles and designs of texts include linguistic, visual and material characteristics. Examples of semiotic modes are spoken language, written language and visual material. Technologies used in literacy practices are for instance computers, notebooks, glitter pens, textbooks (Ivanič et al. 2009:51). Focusing on purposes of literacy events and practices in the analysis means asking why a person is reading, writing or talking about text. What is s/he is aiming to achieve by the literacy event or practice that s/he is engaging in? Often there is not only one, but many different purposes behind a literacy event or practice (Ivanič et al. 2009:53). For example, the purpose of engaging in a literacy event can be connected both to the individual’s own life goals and to the practices of a formal institution. This can be exemplified by the literacy practice of doing homework. When Naz sits in her kitchen reading or writing a text which her teacher has assigned for her, this action is connected to the purpose of the formal institution of SFI-school. But at the same time the action is connected to her own purpose of learning Swedish so that she can apply for a course to become a child minder. Flexibility and constraints in the model of Ivanič et al. (2009:65) concern the impact of contextual factors on the participants, namely time, space, resources and who has the power to decide over the shaping of the literacy practice (cf. Bernstein 1999, Moss 2001). In researching the connections and disconnections between literacies connected to home and classroom, I find it fruitful to clearly define and separate what is connected to the concrete context from what is to do with the sociotextual domain (cf Pahl 2008:86). By context I refer to the physical place and the point in time when the literacy event takes place. Following Purcell-Gates (2007:20) I refer to sociotextual domains as “domains of social activity that contextualize social textual activity that reflects social relationships, roles, purposes, aims, goals, and social expectations”. Such domains are sometimes supported by powerful social institutions, like school (Barton 2007:38). A comprehensive purpose of literacy practices in the sociotextual domain of the school is learning. 7

Actions and processes refer to the acts of reading, writing or talking about a text (Ivanič et al. 2009:59) The concepts also refer to the wider activity that a literacy practice is part of, like reading the homepage of an employment office as part of the activity of finding a job. Audiences refers to the intended readers of a text, i.e. the persons whom the text is written for. Participation concerns the persons who take part in the literacy practice (Ivanič et al. 2009:55). Roles, identities and values in the framework of Ivanič et al. (2009:56) includes “the social positioning of participants, the possibilities for selfhood which are available to participants in a practice, the values they bring to the practice, and the values associated with participation in it.”I do not use the concept roles as I believe that it leads thoughts to something you can easily and voluntarily walk into and out of.

2.5.2 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Discourse analysis is in this study conceived of as the analysis of written and spoken language. When it comes to identification, which is an important aspect of literacy practices, I need to analyse not only what the participants say in the interviews, but also how they say it. The reason for this is that identification takes place in language, i.e. in the linguistic discursive strategies used by the participants in the interviews. Discourse analysis will enable me to analyse the connections between the linguistic strategies they use, the literacy practices which they talk about and their identification. Discourse analysis can also help me to catch sight of the diversity and constant change of the participants’ identities in connection to the literacy practices which they tell me about. For the analysis of the interviews I have chosen to concentrate on a limited number of linguistic strategies which I believe are central for analyzing identification in relation to literacy practices, namely language choice, code switching, expressive values of language, and pronouns and verbal suffixes which denote person and number. On the basis of the analysis inspired by ethnographic analysis and grounded theory I select interview samples for the discourse analysis. Samples which seem to say something interesting about the connection between identity and literacy practices are selected. Fairclough’s suggestion on looking for “moments of crisis” has been one way of making these selections (1992:230). At these occasions, something goes wrong in the communication between me and the interviewee, like for instance a misunderstanding. Signs of such “moments of crisis” can be hesitations and repetitions. Below I will describe and exemplify my analysis of the discursive aspects I have chosen to concentrate on.

2.5.3 LANGUAGE CHOICE AND CODE SWITCHING By language choice I mean a choice made in a bi- or multilingual setting where a person has two or more languages to choose between (Bani-Shoraka 2005:30). I define code switching as “the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or conversation”(Grosjean in Jonsson 2005:103). Language choice and code switching are seen as “key linguistic means of negotiation of identities discussed in the bilingualism literature” (Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004:22).

8

To give an example of language choices made in my interview data, four of the five participants spoke in Kurdish in all the interviews, but one, Sangar, interchangeably spoke in English and Kurdish. Why did Sangar sometimes in the interviews switch from his mother language Kurdish into English? Is there a connection between Sangar’s language choices in the interviews, the literacy practices which he engages in and his identification in connection to these? These questions can be discussed in relation to the extract below where Sangar talks about the importance of not forgetting his English. In this interview he had just told me that he had applied for an evening course in English: Annika:Is it both eh spea… to speak and to read and write or is it just ….Which which part of it is it [is most important…] Sangar: [Well I liked to ] Annika: … to keep do you think? Sangar: All all is important for me. Writing and reading and stud… and and and speaking for me is all all important, because it may it may in the future like if I had a job. If you have English it will be good. In everywhere. Like if I had a job in in Norway then you don’t need to speak Swedish. You have English. Annika: M. Sangar: Some kind of my profession is need to speak English. Annika: Okay. Sangar: Yeah. So it’s it’s better to to not forget the language. Annika: M. Sangar: I’m not saying that I don’t wanna s…I don’t want to s… learn to Swedish. But I don’t want to get lo… I don’t want to lose that language also.

Sangar believes that proficiency in English is going to be important for his finding a job. He identifies himself as a person with a profession in which fluency in English is important. And he says this in English. According to my analysis the fact that he mainly speaks English in the interviews is, at least partly, connected to his professional identity and to his identity as an international person who is not limited by national borders. This makes him more motivated to take part in literacy practices in English than in Swedish. For an example of code switching we can look at the extract below. Here Sangar and I are talking about the languages which were used for instruction when he went to school in Iraq: Annika: M But how… Did you… Hamooi ba arabi bo ian… Kurdiish? Was everytning in Arabic or, In Kurdish also? Sangar: Wollah I studied in Kurdish but then you have also different… This is all in Arabic… eh, in Kurdish. But in Arabic you have different book… Arabic… Annika: Yeah, Sangar: Arabic grammatic

Here I switch into Kurdish, but Sangar resists the invitation from me to switch language. Instead he continues to speak in English. It is interesting that he prefers to speak in English when he describes his experiences of reading and writing in school in Iraq, because the languages he used in school were Kurdish and Arabic. Consequently he probably has a larger vocabulary in his mother tongue Kurdish than in English when it comes to words connected to school and schooling. But still, in the interviews, he prefers to speak in English when he talks about his schooling. 9

2.5.4 THE EXPRESSIVE VALUES OF LANGUAGE For the analysis of the expressive values of language I have been inspired by appraisaI theory and critical discourse analysis (Martin & White 2005, Folkeryd 2006, Fairclough 2001:92f). For an example of this, we can look at an interview extract where Sangar talks about reading the Koran. I have bolded and underlined words which I believe express the values Sangar brings to this literacy practice and how he values the practice. Annika:In the… in the morning when you have breakfast do you read anything at the table? Sangar:Yeah I read Koran. Every day I read Koran. Annika:Okay Sangar:That’s a kind of secret. I don’t like to say it but I say it. Because somebody he’s if he’s a eh reading kind of Koran he should not say it. Annika:W..Why not? Sangar:Because you do it it’s between you and your God. Annika:Okay. Yea. Sangar:And you don’t need to say it and you… Annika:Mm. Sangar:You explain to the people “Okay I’m reading Koran, I’m…” You don’t want to say it. You don’t need to say that. Annika:Mhm Sangar: But I read every day three pages. Because because I believe it. Annika: M Sangar: And it’s it’s it keep you safe. And it’s na… It keep you safe Annika:M Sangar:And keep you relax. Annika:M Sangar:And everybody who is reading Koran is keeping relax.

Sangar says that reading the Koran is “kind of secret” and something the reader of it “should not say” anything about because it is “between you and your God”. Reading the Koran is something private which he wants to keep to himself. He reads the Koran because he “believes” in it. The reading keeps him “safe” and “relax(ed). The adjectives “safe” and “relax(ed)” describe Sangar’s positive evaluation of this literacy practice and his emotional reactions connected to it. He identifies as a person who reads the Koran because of the way reading the Koran makes him feel. Hereby he also identifies as someone whose literacy practice of reading the Koran is connected to individual reasons and choices. In the interview Sangar is interacting with me, a Swede, and the interview takes place in Sweden, a very secularized and individualistic country. I find it possible that these aspects of interaction and context are influencing him in his identification and the valuation he expresses connected to reading the Koran.

2.5.5 PRONOUNS AND PERSONAL SUFFIXES I also analyse use of pronouns and personal suffixes1 in the interviews. What I mean by this is illustrated with the interview from Sangar where he talks about reading the Koran. Below I have bolded and underlined the pronouns Sangar uses to refer to the person who reads the Koran.

1

In Kurdish person and number are often expressed in verbal personal suffixes where English and Swedish uses pronouns.

10

Annika:In the… in the morning when you have breakfast do you read anything at the table? Sangar:Yeah I read Koran. Every day I read Koran. Annika:Okay Sangar:That’s a kind of secret. I don’t like to say it but I say it. Because somebody he’s if he’s a eh reading kind of Koran he should not say it. Annika:W..Why not? Sangar:Because you do it it’s between you and your God. Annika:Okay. Yea. Sangar:And you don’t need to say it and you… Annika:Mm. Sangar:You explain to the people “Okay I’m reading Koran, I’m…” You don’t want to say it. You don’t need to say that. Annika:Mhm Sangar: But I read every day three pages. Because because I believe it. Annika: M Sangar: And it’s it’s it keep you safe. And it’s na… It keep you safe Annika:M Sangar:And keep you relax. Annika:M Sangar:And everybody who is reading Koran is keeping relax.

When Sangar talks about reading the Koran, he switches between the personal pronoun “I”, and the more general pronouns “you”,” he”, “somebody” and “everybody”. In the first part of this extract he uses the pronoun “I” and thus refers to himself and his own personal reading of the Koran. It is possible that this is caused by my way of posing the question to him in the interview. In asking “…do you read anything at the table?” I refer specifically to him, and to his reading in a particular context. Sangar answers “Yeah I read Koran. Every day I read Koran.” My analysis of this extract has led me to the conclusion that Sangar is not comfortable with talking about himself and his own reading of the Koran in such a personal way. Therefore, in the middle of his next turn, he switches from “I” into the general pronouns “somebody” and “he”. By changing pronouns he generalizes his statement of why he does not want to talk about reading the Koran. Hereby he makes what he says less personal. Using general pronouns is a strategy which helps him express that reading the Koran is not characteristic only for him as an individual but is a literacy practice in which other people also engage. He can talk about it but at the same time somewhat distance himself from what he says. At the same time Sangar’s use of the pronouns “somebody”, “you”, “he” and “everybody” can be seen as an effort to gain more credibility for his experiences of what reading the Koran is like. “Everybody” who reads the Koran stays relaxed. Consequently Sangar is not alone. He shares these experiences with many other persons.

3. FINAL REFLECTIONS Is it possible to combine ethnography and discourse analysis in the process of analysis? These two fields in some aspects seem to have contradictory perspectives on how data should be conceived of and analyzed. Before I started the process of analysis I had as my rather naïve aim to concentrate on what the participants tell me about their literacy practices. I was rather unaware of the interconnection between what is said in interviews and how it is said. Now I have realized that language is not transparent. The possibility of simply seeing through language and 11

finding the information one is looking for behind it does not exist. What I have access to in the interviews is not the participants’ literacy practices in themselves, but the participants discourses about those literacy practices. But still it is the literacy practices in the lives of the participants which are my main interest, and these practices take place outside of the interviews. To come to terms with this tension in how to look at my interview data, I have decided to follow Hammersley and Atkinson (2008:97): For us, there are two legitimate and complementary ways in which participants´ accounts can be used by ethnographers. First, they can be read for what they tell us about the phenomena to which they refer. Second, we can analyse them in terms of the perspectives they imply, the discursive strategies they employ, and even the psychosocial dynamics they suggest.

Thus I regard combining ethnography and discourse analysis as a way of trying to catch hold of the interconnection between what takes place in and beyond my research data. This interconnection is something I will keep reflecting on as I continue analyzing the data and writing the thesis.

12

LITERATURE Aull Davies, Charlotte (2008) Reflexive Ethnography – A guide to Researching Selves and Others. London & New York: Routledge. Bani-Shoraka, Helena (2005) Language Choice and Code-switching in the Azerbaijani Community in Tehran – A Conversation Analytic Approach to Bilingual Practices. Uppsala: Uppsala university. Barton, David (2007) Literacy – An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Barton, David & Hamilton, Mary (1998) Local Literacies – Reading and Writing in one Community. London: Routledge. Barton, David, Hamilton, Mary & Ivanič, Roz (2000)(eds) Situated Literacies – Reading and Writing in Context. London & New York: Routledge. Baynham, Mike (1995) Literacy Practices – Investigating Literacy in Social Contexts. London & New York: Longman. Bellander, Theres (2010) Ungdomars dagliga interaktion – En språkvetenskaplig studie av sex gymnasieungdomars bruk av tal, skrift och interaktionsmedier. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. Bernstein, Basil (1999) ”Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 20 (2) p. 157-173. Bucholtz, Mary (1999) “’Why Be Normal’: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls” Language in Society Nr 28:203-223. Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman (2001) Language and Power. London: Longman. Folkeryd, Jenny Wiksten (2006) Writing with an Attitude. Appraisal and Student Texts in the School Subject of Swedish. Uppsala: University of Uppsala. Hamilton, Mary (2000) “Expanding the New Literacy Studies – Using photographs to explore literacy as social practice” in: David Barton et al. (eds) Situated Literacies – Reading and Writing in Context. London & New York: Routledge. Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (2007) Ethnography – Principles in Practice. London & New York: Routledge. Heath, Shirley Brice (1983) Ways with words – Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Holland, Dorothy et al. (1998) Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press. Hylland Eriksen, Thomas (2005) Vad är socialantropologi? Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Ivanič, Roz (1998) Writing and Identity – The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Piladelphia: John Benjamins. 13

Ivanič, Roz (2006) “Language, learning and identification” in Richard Kiely et al Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics. London & Oakville: Equinox. Ivanič, Roz (2009) “Bringing literacy studies into research on learning across the curriculum.” In: Make Baynham & Mastin Prinsloo (ed) The Future of Literacy Studies. New York; Palgrave Macmillan. Ivanič, Roz et al. (2009) Improving Learning in College – Rethinking literacies across the curriculum. London & New York: Routledge. Jonsson, Carla (2005) Code-switching in Chicano Theater – Power, Identity and Style in Three Plays by Cherríe Moraga. Umeå: Umeå university. Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Moss, Gemma (2001) “On Literacy and the Social Organisation of Knowledge Inside and Outside School” in: Language and Education. 15 (2 & 3), 146-161. Pahl, Kate (2008) “Habitus in children’s multimodal text-making: A discussion” in Mastin Prinsloo & Mike Baynham Literacies, Global and Local. Amsterdam / Phildadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. Pavlenko, Aneta & Blackledge, Adrian (2004) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Purcell-Gates, Victoria (2007) Cultural Practices of Literacy – Case Studies of Language, Literacy, Social Practice and Power. New York & London: Routledge. Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research – Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publications. Street, Brian (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, Brian (2003) “What’s new in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice” I: Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol. 5 (2). Street, Brian (2009) “The future of ‘social literacies’” in M. Baynham & M. Prinsloo (eds) The future of Literacy Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wodak, Ruth (2011) “Critical Discourse Analysis” in: Ken Hyland & Brian Paltridge (eds) The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

14