Scholars have recently begun to conceive of literacy practices as drawing from resources that are simultaneously situated and extracontextual. In particular, studies of transnational literacy affirm the importance of both locality and movement in literacy studies. Continuing this inquiry into the situated and dispersed nature of transnational literacy, the author investigates the distinct effects that shuttling between national contexts have on the accumulation and use of genre knowledge. Specifically, through a case study of one Third Culture Kid student writer, the author reports on how her genre knowledge develops in response to transnational relocations between Italy and the United States and the way this transnational genre knowledge informs her writing of a high-stakes in-school genre. This case illustrates the value of rhetorical genre studies for understanding the situated and dispersed nature of transnational literacy and begins to outline the distinctiveness of transnational boundary-crossing practices.
ArtemevaN.FoxJ. (2010). Awareness versus production: Probing students’ antecedent genre knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 476-515.
2.
BahktinM. M. (1981). Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel. In HolquistM., (Ed.), EmersonC.HolquistM. (Trans.), Dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 84-258). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
BahktinM.M. (1986). Speech genre and other late essays (Ed. EmersonC.HolquistM. Trans. McGeeW.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.
5.
BhatiaV. K. (2001). Analysing genre: Some conceptual issues. In HewingM. (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications: Papers in honour of Tony Dudley-Evans (pp. 79-92). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
6.
BitzerL. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
7.
BlommaertJ.M.E. (2001). Investigating narrative inequality: African asylum seekers’ stories in Belgium. Discourse and Society, 12(4), 413-449.
8.
BlommaertJ.M.E. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrandtD.ClintonK. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356.
10.
BrennerM. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. B.SkutaukaiteA.GraceE. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357-370). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BrunaK.R. (2007). Traveling tags: The informal literacies of Mexican newcomers in and out of the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 18, 232-257.
12.
CampbellK. K.JamiesonK. H. (1978). Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.
13.
ConsignyS. (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy Review, 7, 175-186.
14.
de la PiedraM.T.AraujoB. (2012). Transfronterizo literacies and content in a dual language classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(6), 705-721.
15.
DevittA. (1993). Generalizing about genre: New conceptions of an old concept. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 573-586.
16.
DingH. (2007). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 368-392.
17.
DuffyJ. (2007). Writing from these roots: Literacy in a Hmong-American community. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
18.
FarrM. (2006). Rancheros in Chicagoacaán: Language and identity in a transnational community. Austin: University of Texas Press.
19.
FreadmanA. (2002). Uptake. In CoeR. M.LingardL.TeslenkoT. (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 39-53). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
20.
GoffmanE, (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
21.
GuerraJ. (1998). Close to home: Oral and literate practices in a transnational Mexicano community. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
HeathS. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
JamiesonK. H. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61(4), 406-415.
24.
KellC. (2006). Crossing the margins: Literacy, semiotics, and the recontextualisation of meanings. In PahlK.RowsellJ. (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (pp. 147-172). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
25.
KellC. (2009). Literacy practices, text/s and meaning making across time and space. In BaynhamM.PrinslooM. (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 75-99). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
LevittP.SchillerN. G. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. In KhagramS.LevittP. (Eds.), The transnational studies reader: Intersections and innovations (pp. 284-298). New York: Routledge.
27.
Lorimer LeonardR. (2013). Traveling literacies: Multilingual writers on the move. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 13-39.
28.
MillerC. (1994). Genre as social action. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-42). London: Taylor & Francis. (Original work published 1984)
29.
ParéA.SmartG. (1994). Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 146-155). London: Taylor & Francis.
30.
PollackD.van RekenR. (1999). Third culture kids: The experience of growing up among worlds. Boston: Intercultural Press.
31.
ReiffM. J.BawarshiA. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composition. Written Communication, 28(3), 312-337.
32.
RounsavilleA.GoldbergR.BawarshiA. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FWY students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. Writing Program Administration, 32, 97-110.
33.
SanchezP. (2007). Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a meta-narrative across borders. Linguistics and Education, 18, 258-282.
34.
SchryerC. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10, 200-234.
35.
SchryerC. F. (2000). Walking a fine line: Writing negative letters in an insurance company. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 4(14), 445-497.
36.
SchutzA.LuckmannT. (1973). Structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
37.
SilversteinM.UrbanG. (Eds.) (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
StreetB. V. (Ed.). (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
StreetB. (2003). The limits of the local—Autonomous or disembedding?International Journal of Learning, 10, 2825-2830.
40.
SwalesJ. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
VatzR. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6, 154-161.
42.
VieiraK. (2011). Undocumented in a documentary society: Textual borders and transnational religious literacies. Written Communication, 28(4), 436-461.
43.
WarrinerD. S. (2007). Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, and identity. Linguistics and Education, 18(3), 201-214.
