CORPUS BASED ANALYSIS OF FIRST-PERSON PRONOUNS IN RESEARCH PROPOSALS WRITTEN BY RUSSIAN STUDENTS

Ivan Grigoriev, Alexandra Sokolova

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1904423G
First page
423
Last page
430

Abstract


Although displaying authorial stance is an inseparable component for Anglo-American academic writing tradition, it seems to be problematic for those who are at the beginning of their academic writing career. The use of first-person pronouns is the most vivid principle of moving from formality and objectivity to uncovering the authorial stance and thus to involving the reader into the discussion. The paper focuses on the way novice writers use first-person pronouns for self-positioning. A corpus of Research Proposals written by Russian students majoring in five different subjects has been analyzed to establish discourse functions of first-person pronouns used, as well as to identify what has the major influence on the use of pronouns for authorial stance: disciplinary field or traditions of Russian academic writing. The research showed that socio-cultural traditions in writing influence greatly the way the students explain their position: ‘polite we’ not only outnumbers ‘I’ occurrences, but could substitute it in violation of conventions; disciplinary differences in discourse and textual features of the first-person pronoun use are not very visible but still play a part in academic writing. The findings from this research have implications for EAP curricula developers.

Key words: authorial stance, research proposal, self-positioning, academic genres.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, UK: Longman.

Cadman K. 2002. English for Academic Possibilities: the research proposal as a contested site in postgraduate genre pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 85–104.

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, 20, 192-202.

Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fløttum K. 2009. Academic voices in the research article Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse, Suomela-Salmi E., Dervin F. (eds.),

John Benjamins Publishing Company, P.109-122.

Fløttum K., Dahl T., Kinn T., Gjesdal A. M., Vold E. T. 2007. Cultural identities and academic voices. In: Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, Fløttum K. (ed.), Cambridge Scholars Publisher. P. 14-39.

Guinda, C. S., Hyland, K. 2012. Introduction: A content-sensitive approach to stance and voice. In K.Hyland, C.S.Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in written academic genres. (pp. 1-11). Palgrave Macmillan.

Harwood, N. 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … 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(8), 1207–1231.

Hyland K. 2002. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.

Hyland, K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.

Hyland, K., Jiang F. 2017. Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes. 45. 40–51.

Işik-Taş E.E. 2018. Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers’ discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26–38.

Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. 2001. I am how I sound: Voice as representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 3–33.

Kuo, C. H. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

Schemeleva I. 2015. The revealing pronouns: the role of 1st person pronouns in defining in English and Russian research articles in sociology. In: BALEAP Biennial Conference "The Janus Moment in EAP: Revisiting the Past and Building the Future", 179-186.

Shchemeleva I., Smirnova N. 2018. Academic Writing in a Russian University Setting: Challenges and Perspectives. In: Chitez M., Doroholschi C., Kruse O., Salski Ł., Tucan D. (eds.) University Writing in Central and Eastern Europe: Tradition, Transition, and Innovation. Multilingual Education, vol 29. Springer, Cham.

Swales, J. M. 1996. Occluded genres in the academy: the case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Vassileva, I. 2000. Who is the author? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard.

Walková, M. 2019. A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 60-73.

Wingate, U. 2012. “Argument!” helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154.

Yakhontova T. 2006. Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153–167.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1904423G

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)

ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)



Publisher:

University of Niš

Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, Serbia
Phone:    +381 18 257 095
Telefax:  +381 18 257 950


© 2013 by University of Niš, Serbia