Textuell makt : Fem gymnasieelever läser och skriver i svenska och samhällskunskap
The aim of this thesis was to study how five students linguistically express textual power in conversation and writing about reading, as well as to investigate their possibilities to linguistically express textual power. The study was performed within some of the literacy practices in the subjects o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | Swedish |
| Published: |
Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för språkdidaktik
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-55028 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:isbn:978-91-7447-219-6 |
| Summary: | The aim of this thesis was to study how five students linguistically express textual power in conversation and writing about reading, as well as to investigate their possibilities to linguistically express textual power. The study was performed within some of the literacy practices in the subjects of Swedish and Social Studies at the social sciences programme in upper secondary school. “Textual power” is here defined as both ability and possibility: to position oneself in relation to the text, to read/interpret critically and to show mobility in the actual literacy sphere. Two analytical tools were used: Langer’s theories about envisionment building and Martin & White’s appraisal framework for attitude and engagement. The linguistic expressions are contextualised in a model inspired by Linell. I base my discussion of the students’ mobility in the actual literacy sphere on the New Literacy theories of Barton and Street, while Anward gives the means to understand text-reproducing practices. The results indicate that the students used a limited range of positions in relation to texts, rarely expressed critical literacy and showed limited mobility in the actual literacy spheres. The students’ possibilities to linguistically express textual power were determined by the design of the teaching contexts. The students were given few possibilities to develop their ability to linguistically express textual power. To compensate for this, the students used a strategy of task solving. This caused a gap between ideally desired and actually produced text. The acceptance of the gap can be explained if the practice is considered text-reproducing. The literacy sphere where the students found themselves seems to consist of an ecological system based on a consensus-driven text-reproducing practice where critical and comparative reading and writing do not take root and thrive. |
|---|