Academic communication is now widely seen as a social activity where writers interact with their audience. Various studies have shown that authorial presence is one of the key strategies for achieving this interaction. This corpus-based study examines the degree of authorial presence through the use of first person pronouns (I, we, my, our, me, us) in 150 qualitative and 150 quantitative research articles in Applied Linguistics using the concordance freeware AntcConc.3.4.1w (Anthony 2014). The analysis shows a greater use of self-mention by qualitative research writers compared with their quantitative counterparts, suggesting that research design determines the degree of personal involvement in academic communication within the same discipline. It also suggests that while quantitative research is considered “objective” in nature, the writers still position themselves in their writing and try to interact with their audience. Qualitative analysis of discourse functions of subject pronouns showed great similarity between the two sub-corpora (qualitative and quantitative), stating results/claims and elaborating arguments as being the most frequent functions.

 

Keywords: authorial-presence; first person pronouns; qualitative research article; quantitative research article; discussion section

 

DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-01  

Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate Business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. Sage Open, October-December, 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244015610796

Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc 3.4.1w. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html (accessed 15/July/2014)

Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J. & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals, 1997-2006. The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 93(1), 79-90.

Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 5(2), 97–116. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.

Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y. & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 20, 192-202. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001

Chang, Y-Y. & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers?. In C. N. Candlin, & H. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices (pp. 146–167). London: Longman.

Hooi, C. M. & Munir Shuib. (2014). An analysis of hedging devices in complaint business letters. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 14 (3), 123-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403-08

Dobakhti, L. (2011). The Discussion Section of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Generic Structure and Stance Features. University of Malaya.

Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic Voices Across Languages and Disciplines. (A. H. Jucker, Ed.) Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fred, L. (2005). Research in Applied Linguistics: Becoming a Discerning Consumer. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harwood, N. (2005a). Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 37(8), 1207–1231. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012

Harwood, N. (2005b).“We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory ... The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 26(3), 343–375. doi:10.1093/applin/ami012

Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 20(3), 207–226.

doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 34, 1091–1112. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. Vol. 7(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuation, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies. Vol. 8(2), 1-23. www.um.es/ijes

Hyland, K. (2012) Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Writing. Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (Eds.) (2013). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ivanič. R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ivanič, R. & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing. Vol. 10, 3–33. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J. & Heng, C. S. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 19(1), 65–74.

Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 18(2), 121 138. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6

Lafuente Millán, E. (2010). Extending this claim , we propose …” The writer ’ s presence in research articles from different disciplines. Ibérica, 20, 35–56. www.aelfe.org/documents/02_20_Lafuente.pdf

Martínez, 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. Vol. 14(3), 174–190. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001

Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes. Vol. 9(2), 86–101. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007

Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 6(2), 143–162. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002

Navidi, S. & Ghafoori, N. (2015). A Comparative Study of the Interactional Functions of "Stance" and "Engagement" between the "Introduction" and "Discussion" Sections of Articles in the Field of Applied Linguistics. DU Journal,

Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol. 8 (5), 634-647.

http://dujournals.eu.pn/Special-issues/47.pdf

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System. Vol. 30(4), 479–497. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7

Starfield S. (2015). First person singular: Negotiating identity in academic writing in English, in Djenar D; Mahboob A; Cruickshank K (Ed.), Language and identity across modes of communication, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, (pp. 249 - 262). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614513599

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The I in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 18, S23–S39. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5

Tardy, C. M. (2005). It's like a story: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 4(4), 325-338. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005