First person singular: Negotiating identity in academic writing in English

Author(s):  
Sue Starfield
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Janks

This article offers a first-person account of an academic writing workshop from the perspective of a participant. What is significant is that the workshop combines traditional and creative writing approaches to the teaching of academic writing. This provides new insights into a process of academic writing that can have a significant effect on the quality of the writing and a reader’s engagement with it.


Human Affairs ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-298
Author(s):  
Joshua Bernard Baum

Abstract Most academics write in a dispassionate, third-person voice. That stylistic choice is so expected in academic contexts that when an evocative, first-person voice is used instead, it feels unsettling and out of place to many of us. But why should we react so negatively to such a subversion of expectations? Is it because of the subversion itself, or is it because of an inherent incompatibility between evocative writing and realist analytical traditions? In this paper I’ll show that the freedom of first-person, evocative writing in autoethnography is a strength to be embraced rather than something to be avoided. I’ll further show how offering readers a more complete sensory understanding of experience and meaning isn’t incompatible with realist analytical traditions. I will do this through an exploration of my current research on childhood sexual abuse, which has inspired me to set aside my initial unease with evocative writing and embark on a journey from autoethnographic skeptic to advocate.


SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402110088
Author(s):  
Shih-ping Wang ◽  
Wen-Ta Tseng ◽  
Robert Johanson

A growing trend exists for authors to employ a more informal writing style that uses “we” in academic writing to acknowledge one’s stance and engagement. However, few studies have compared the ways in which the first-person pronoun “we” is used in the abstracts and conclusions of empirical papers. To address this lacuna in the literature, this study conducted a systematic corpus analysis of the use of “we” in the abstracts and conclusions of 400 articles collected from eight leading electrical and electronic (EE) engineering journals. The abstracts and conclusions were extracted to form two subcorpora, and an integrated framework was applied to analyze and seek to explain how we-clusters and we-collocations were employed. Results revealed whether authors’ use of first-person pronouns partially depends on a journal policy. The trend of using “we” showed that a yearly increase occurred in the frequency of “we” in EE journal papers, as well as the existence of three “we-use” types in the article conclusions and abstracts: exclusive, inclusive, and ambiguous. Other possible “we-use” alternatives such as “I” and other personal pronouns were used very rarely—if at all—in either section. These findings also suggest that the present tense was used more in article abstracts, but the present perfect tense was the most preferred tense in article conclusions. Both research and pedagogical implications are proffered and critically discussed.


2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian A. Williams

This corpus-based study examines first-person verbs in Methods sections in English and Spanish. Quantitative analysis was based on rhetorical Move categories and qualitative analysis on linguistic profiles (collocation, colligation, semantic preference and semantic prosody). Both the English and Spanish subcorpora had more texts without first-person verbs than with this verb form. However, in the texts with this feature, the frequency was significantly higher in Spanish and the distribution of the rhetorical Moves associated with the first-person forms was also significantly different. The qualitative analysis revealed that in the English texts, the first-person signals the reasoned choice of a non-standard procedure (32 tokens) compared to only seven standard procedures, whereas in the Spanish texts the distribution was even (25 and 26 tokens, respectively). The results support cross-cultural differences in discourse functions that have implications for both translation and academic writing in cross-cultural contexts.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Ingrid Kristine Hasund

AbstractStudies show that intermediate and advanced learners of English overuse informal features in their academic writing, and researchers recommend that instructional material is developed to raise learners’ awareness of this overuse. In Norway, little research has been done on younger learners’ writing, and no previous study exists of how instructional material such as textbooks deal with informality. The present article investigates how all English textbooks published for lower secondary school under the current curriculum deal with informality in writing. The findings show that eight out of nine textbooks include instruction on informality. The most frequently mentioned informal features are informal opening/closing phrases and forms of address in letters, contractions, abbreviations, slang, exclamations, and expressions of modality, evaluation and subjective stance, all of which are known from previous research and/or style manuals. The textbook instructions focus on when to use these features and, more importantly, when to avoid them. Rather unexpectedly, there is little focus on the first person pronoun as an informal feature, which is notable, considering its importance in the literature. First person pronoun usage is, however, a controversial topic, and it is possible that most textbook authors have decided to leave it for later stages. It is also possible that the textbook authors do not consider it an informal feature.The survey provides a backdrop for future research on pupils’ writing by focussing on one aspect of the school context in which this writing is produced, namely the textbooks. Keywords: informal language; English L2 writing, textbook analysis Uformelt språk i engelsk skriving: Hva sier lærebøkene? SammendragForskning viser at elever på videregående skole og universitetsstudenter bruker for mange uformelle språktrekk i sin akademiske skriving, og forskere anbefaler at det utvikles læremateriell for å heve innlæreres bevissthet om dette temaet. Det er gjort lite forskning i Norge på yngre elevers skriving i engelsk, og det finnes ingen studier av hvordan læremateriell i engelsk, slik som lærebøker, behandler temaet uformelt språk. Denne artikkelen undersøker hvordan samtlige engelske lærebøker publisert for ungdomsskolen etter Kunnskapsløftet (LK06) behandler temaet uformelle språktrekk i skriving.Analysen viser at åtte av ni læreverk inkluderer noe instruksjon om uformelt språk. De uformelle trekkene som nevnes oftest er uformelle åpnings- og avslutningshilsner og uformelle tiltaleformer i brev, sammentrukne former, forkortelser, slang, utrop, og uttrykk for modalitet, evaluering og subjektive holdninger, alle vel kjente fra tidligere forskning og/eller fra språkbruksbøker. Lærebøkenes instruksjoner fokuserer på når det er passende og upassende å bruke disse trekkene i skriftlige tekster.Noe uventet er det lite fokus på førstepersonspronomenet I som et uformelt trekk, hvilket er påfallende med tanke på hvor sentralt temaet er i forskningslitteraturen. En forklaring kan være at temaet er kontroversielt, og det er mulig de fleste lærebokforfatterne mener det er for tidlig å behandle det på ungdomsskolen. Det er også mulig at lærebokforfatterne ikke anser førstepersonspronomenet for å være et uformelt trekk.Studien bidrar med kunnskap som er relevant for framtidig forskning på elevers skriving ved at den fokuserer på ett aspekt ved skolekonteksten som denne skrivingen foregår i, nemlig lærebøkene. Nøkkelord: uformelt språk, skriving i engelsk som andrespråk/fremmedspråk, lærebokanalyse


Author(s):  
Ju Chuan Huang

Abstract This study explores the rhetorical structure and linguistic features of research article abstracts in an applied discipline. Recently, many emerging applied disciplines have evolved to incorporate knowledge from a variety of disciplinary areas. Therefore, the writing style may vary within one discipline. While most studies have compared rhetorical variations between disciplines, few have examined sub-disciplinary variations. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which variations exist among research article abstracts in three sub-fields of one applied discipline: marine engineering. A small specific corpus consisting of 60 marine engineering abstracts was compiled. By examining similarities and differences in the rhetorical structure, frequently used verbs, tense, and the use of first person pronouns, the analysis showed that sub-disciplinary variations existed among the three sub-fields. For example, the abstracts in the sub-field of automatic control (a discipline closely related to electronic engineering) differ from the abstracts of the other two sub-fields as for rhetorical structure, verb tense, and frequency of use of first-person pronouns. The findings of this study indicate that English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instructors should take into account sub-disciplinary preferences when teaching academic writing so that students can make informed choices when writing in their specific sub-field.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Callies

This paper examines novice writers’ strategies in the (non-)representation of authorship in academic writing drawing on data from the Corpus of Academic Learner English and a native-speaker control corpus. The analysis focuses on the quantitative and qualitative use of pronouns, subject placeholders, as well as verbs and inanimate nouns that frequently occur in academic writing. The findings indicate that even advanced learners are insecure about the (non-)representation of authorship in academic texts, but lack the resources to report events and findings without mentioning an author-agent. The learner data evidence a significant overrepresentation of first person pronouns and subject placeholders as default strategies to suppress the author-agent. This imbalanced clustering is argued to be due to a significant underrepresentation of constructions with inanimate nouns as subjects that are preferred reporting devices in abstracts and research articles in the humanities. The paper concludes by addressing implications for language teaching, testing and assessment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document