The “I” in interaction: authorial presense in academic writing
Keywords:Research articles, Personal pronouns, Contrastive linguistics
This study explores the discourse functions of personal pronouns and verb forms referring to writer and reader interaction in a corpus of 60 research articles in the fields of linguistics, psychology and educational research in English and Spanish. Drawing on Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy I elaborate and refine their categories, and propose I as the Interpreter as a new role in the continuum of writers’ authorial presence. The analysis reveals that both English and Spanish writers make extensive use of pronominal discourse functions. However, Spanish writers use them more sparingly and prefer different functions when signalling their presence such as pointing to their role as interpreters of data rather than recounters of the research process or originators of an original contribution to the field.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). “The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin” in M. Holquist, trans. by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes andterritories: Intellectual enquiry and theculture of disciplines. Buckingham: SHRE & Open University Press.
Bernhardt, S. A. (1985). “The writer, the reader and the scientific text”. Journal of Technical Writingand Communication, 15, 163-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/X9D9-V33E-REN0-PDQM
Bolivar,A. (1986). Interaction through written text: a discourse analysis ofnewspaper editorials. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham.
Bolivar, A. (2001). “The negotiation of evaluation in written text” in M. Scott & G. Thompson (eds.), Patternsoftext, 129–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non school socialscience texts. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). “Metadiscourse in popular andprofessional science discourse” in W. Nash (ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 118-136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Davies, F. (1994). “From writer roles to elements of the text: Interactive, organisational and topical” in L. Barbara and M. Scott (eds.), Reflections on language learning, 170-183. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gea-Valor, M.L. (2010). “The emergence of the author’s voice in bookreviewing: A contrastive study of academic vs. non-academic discourse.” In Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres, R. Lorés-Sanz, P. Mur-Dueñas and E. Lafuente-Millán (eds.), 117-136. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge.
Harwood, N. (2003). Person markers and interpersonal metadiscourse in academic writing: A multidisciplinary corpus based study of expert and student texts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University College, Kent.
Harwood, N. (2005a). “Nowhere has anyone attemptedâ€¦ In this article I aim to do just that”. A corpus based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Harwood, N. (2005b). “I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using I”. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 243-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.10.002
Harwood, N. (2005c). ‘We do not seem to have a theoryâ€¦. The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
Hickey, L. (2005). Politeness in Spain: Thanks but no thanks. In L. Hickey, & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe(pp. 317-330), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hoey, M.(2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2001). “Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles”. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). “Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.London: Continum
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuo, C.H. (1999). “The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles”. English for Specific Purposes, 18,121-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
Martinez, I. A. (2005). “Native and non native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 174-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001
McCarthy, M. (1993). “Spoken discourse markers in written text” in J. M.Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox. (eds.), Techniques of Description, 170–182. London: Routledge
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Molino, A. (2010). “Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles”.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 86-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). “I/wefocus on’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6,143-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity betweenwriters and readers.Orlando: Academic Press.
Nystrand, M. (1989). “A social interactive model of writing”.Written Communication, 6,66-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001005
Sheldon, E. (2009). “From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles”. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 251-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
Starfield, S. & Ravelli, L.J.(2006). “The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist’: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 222-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.004
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting. Glasgow: CUP.
Tang, R., & John, S (1999). “The I in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through first person pronoun”. English for Specific Purposes,18,23-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillet, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 123-140.
Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text,15,103-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1918.104.22.168
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication, 36, 83-93.
Vassileva, I. (1998). “Who am I / who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian”. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics 8, 163-90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.