Article title: Scripting your voice as a method for achieving originality
Authors: Dean, L.
Journal: Media Practice and Education
Bibliometrics: Volume 21, Number 3, pages 171–184
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2020.1760588
When the above article was published online and in print, the following sentences included incorrect citations:
Page 172: ‘Coupled with this, theorists debate if writer’s voice is singular or plural, such as Elbow who states ‘our mouths are full of other people’s tongues and voices’ (1995, 5).’
Pages 175–176: ‘Those that do teach voice, generally characterise it as Bowden initially did. He states, ‘when I first heard the term “voice” used to describe writing, I immediately assumed it to mean the message that writers want to convey through their written pieces’ (Bowden 1995, 173).’
Page 176: ‘With that said, Sperling and Appleman (2011) maintain that voice should be defined as symbiotic.’
Page 179: ‘For example, Elbow (2007) maintains that a writer can come to know their inner voice/s through presence on the page, but what encompasses presence on a page is unclear, thus supporting Cummins’s claim.’
Page 179: ‘Sperling and Appleman (2011) argue that presence is the viewpoint of the writer, which supports Foucault’s notion that a ‘text always bears a number of signs that refer to the author’ (1979, 22).’
The corrected citations and sentences should be as follows:
Page 172: ‘Coupled with this, theorists debate if writer’s voice is singular or plural, such as Bakhtin who states ‘our mouths are full of other people’s tongues and voices’ (Elbow 1995, 5).’
Pages 175–176: ‘Those that do teach voice, generally, characterize it as Riyanti initially did. He states, ‘[w]hen I first heard the term “voice” used to describe writing, I immediately assumed it to mean the message that writers want to convey through their written pieces’ (Riyanti 2015, 28).’
Page 176: ‘With that said, Paul Prior (2001) maintain that voice should be defined as symbiotic.’
Page 179: ‘For example, Elbow (1981, 1995) maintains that a writer can come to know their inner voice/s through presence on the page, but what encompasses presence on a page is unclear, thus supporting Cummins’s claim.’
Page 179: ‘Romano (2003) argues that presence is the viewpoint of the writer, which supports Foucault’ s notion that a ‘text always bears a number of signs that refer to the author’ (1979, 22).’
In addition, when the above article was published online and in print, the following reference was omitted in error: ‘Romano, T. 2004. “The Power of Voice.” Educational Leadership, 62 (2): 20-23. Accessed February 11, 2019. http://educationalleader.com/subtopicintro/read/ASCD/ASCD_344_1.pdf.’. This has now been added to the online version.
Finally, when the article was published, the following references were included but full details were omitted:
‘Yancey, K. B. 1994. Voices on Voices: Perspectives, Definitions, Inquiry. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.’
‘Bakhtin, M. 1981. “Entries ‘Dialogism’ and ‘Heteroglossia’.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays 1: 269–434.’
These references have now been corrected, as follows:
‘Yancey, K. B. 1994. “Introduction: Definition, Intersection, and Difference- Mapping the Landscape of Voice.” In Voices on Voices: Perspectives, Definitions, Inquiry, edited by Kathryn Blake Yancey, vvi-xxiv. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.’
‘Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, translated by Carl Emerson and Michael Holquist, edited by Michael Holquist. Texas: University of Texas Press.’
In addition to these changes, further minor language changes have also been made to this article.
This article is available both online and in print. The online version has been corrected.