This study examines the composing process and authorial agency of a college ESL writer as she remediated an argumentative essay into a multimodal digital video. Employing principles of sociosemiotic ethnography, and drawing on the concepts of resemiotization and recontextualization, the study investigated multiple types of data, including an argumentative paper, video transcript, multimedia video, interview transcripts, and observation notes. Data analysis shows that her choice and orchestration of modal resources were shaped by her textual identity construction work, efforts to accommodate perceived audiences, and previous experience with the medium. Remediation with multimedia offered the student more semiotic resources to expand authorship, but the contextual forces of audience and medium bounded her authorial expression. The student’s multimodal writing illustrated discursive processes of negotiating and performing authorial positions for rhetorical goals with awareness of the linguistic, social, and cultural contexts of text production. This investigation ultimately aims to expand aspects of multimodal writing and literacy practice by examining the discursive nature of the design process in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts.
AdamiE.KressG. (2014). Introduction: Multimodality, meaning making, and the issue of “text.”Text & Talk, 34(3), 231–237.
2.
AndersonK. (2013). Contrasting systemic functional linguistic and situated literacies approaches to multimodality in literacy and writing studies. Written Communication, 30(3), 276–299.
3.
BartonD.PottsD. (2013). Language learning online as a social practice. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 815–820.
4.
BerkenkotterC. (2001). Genre systems at work. DSM-IV and rhetorical recontextualization in psychotherapy paperwork. Written Communication, 18(3), 326–349.
5.
BernsteinB. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
6.
BezemerJ.KressG. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.
7.
BolterJ.GrusinR. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DooleyK. (2008). Multiliteracies and pedagogy of new learning for students of English as an additional language. In HealeyA. (Ed.), Multiliteracies and expanding landscapes: New pedagogies for student diversity (pp. 102–125). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
10.
EgginsS. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
11.
FaircloughN. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research. In WodakR.ChiltonP. (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis (pp. 53-70). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
12.
FraibergS. (2010). Composition 2.0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 62(1), 100–126.
13.
FraibergS.YouX. (2012). A multilingual and multimodal framework for studying L2 writing. EFL Writing Teaching and Research, 1(1), 22–33.
14.
GeorgeD. (2002). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 11–39.
15.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
16.
HafnerC. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 655–685.
17.
HafnerC. (2015). Remix culture and English language teaching: The expression of learner voice in digital multimodal compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 486–509.
18.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
19.
HullG.NelsonM. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261.
JewittC. (2005). Multimodality, “reading,” and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315–331.
22.
JewittC. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
JewittC.KressG. (2003). Introduction. In JewittC.KressG. (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
24.
KernR. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
KressG. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge.
26.
KressG. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22.
27.
KressG. (2009). What is a mode? In JewittC. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 54–67). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
28.
KressG. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge.
29.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
LamW. S. E. (2013). Multilingual practices in transnational digital contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 820–825.
31.
LamW. S. E.Rosario-RamosE. (2009). Multilingual literacies in transnational digitally mediated contexts: An exploratory study of immigrant teens in the United States. Language and Education, 23(2), 171–190.
32.
LeuD. (2002). Exploring literacy on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 55, 466–472.
33.
LotheringtonH.JensonJ. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226–246.
34.
MachinD. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
McKeeH. (2006). Sound matters: Notes toward the analysis and design of sound in multimodal webtexts. Computers and Composition, 23(3), 335–354.
37.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
NelsonM. E. (2006). Mode, meaning, and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 56–76.
39.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
40.
OddoJ. (2013). Discourse-based methods across texts and semiotic modes: Three tools for micro- rhetorical analysis. Written Communication, 30(3), 236–275.
41.
PalmeriJ. (2012). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
42.
PriorP. (2005). Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: A response to Gunther Kress’ “Gains and Losses.”Computers and Composition, 22, 23–30.
43.
PriorP. (2010). Introduction: Exploring semiotic remediation. In PriorP.HengstJ. (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
PriorP. (2013). Multimodality and ESP research. In PaltridgeB.StarfieldS. (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 519–534). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
45.
PriorP.ThorneS. (2014). Research paradigms: Product, process, and social activity. In JakobsE.- M.PerrinD. (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 31–54). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
46.
SchleppegrellM. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
47.
SelfeC. (2009). Aurality and multimodal composing. College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 616–663.
48.
ShinD. (2017). Multimodal mediation and argumentative writing: A case study of a multilingual writer’s metalanguage awareness development. In HarmanR. (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 225–242). New York, NY: Springer.
49.
ShinD.CimaskoT. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 376–395.
50.
ShipkaJ. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
51.
SmithB.PachecoM.AlmeidaC. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36(3), 6–22.
52.
SteinJ. (2011, April24). Using video to combat job stress: On Xtranormal, a movie site, people let off steam by satirizing their workplaces. Los Angeles Times, p. A22.
53.
SteinP. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights and resources. London, UK: Routledge.
54.
TardyC. M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarity and individuality in a multimodal genre. Computers and Composition, 22(3), 319–336.
55.
TooheyK.DagenaisD.FodorA.HofL.NuñezO.SinghA.SchulzeE. (2015). That sounds so cooool: Entanglements of children, digital tools and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 461–485.
56.
TustingK. (2015). “I am a peacemaker”: Writing as a space for recontextualizing children’s identity in a Catholic First Communion preparation course. Written Communication, 32(3), 227–253.
57.
UnsworthL. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
58.
van LeeuwenT. (2003). A multimodal perspective on composition. In EnsinkT.SauerC. (Eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse (pp. 23–61). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
59.
van LeeuwenT. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London, UK: Routledge.
60.
van LeeuwenT. (2015). Multimodality in education: Some directions and some questions. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 582–589.
61.
VanniniP. (2007). Social semiotics and fieldwork: Method and analytics. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 113–140.
62.
WarnerC. N. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 69–87.
63.
WickmanC. (2010). Writing material in chemical physics research: The laboratory notebook as locus of technical and textual integration. Written Communication, 27(3), 259–292.
64.
WolfeJ. (2005). Gesture and collaborative planning. Written Communication, 22(3), 298–332.
65.
YangY.-F. (2012). Multimodal composing in digital storytelling. Computers and Composition, 29(3), 221–238.
66.
YiY. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacies in the learning and teaching of second and world languages. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(4), 158–169.
67.
YiY.HirvelaA. (2010). Technology and “self-sponsored” writing: A case study of a young Korean American. Computers and Composition, 27(2), 94–111.
