Search

This study investigates the discursive construction of identity in the largely neglected register of evaluative journal articles (e.g., critiques, rebuttals). The study looks at how disciplinary identity is constructed in this register through the use of the subjective first-person pronoun I from a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) perspective. This is done through the analysis of: (1) the variation of I in evaluative journal articles across six disciplines (i.e., Applied Linguistics, Biology, History, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science) and (2) the process types (e.g., material, mental) that authors use with I to construct a particular disciplinary identity. Findings show that social science and humanities authors use I much more frequently than hard science authors, but also that the frequency of I in the hard sciences is not negligible when compared to previous research. Another important finding is that disciplinary differences are reflected in both the frequency and use of process types. The findings are highly relevant for teaching graduate students discipline-appropriate ways of identity construction in evaluative registers, such as critiques. • Hard and soft fields differ in terms of identity projection in evaluative texts. • It is not uncommon for hard science authors to use I in evaluative writing. • Process types help identify differences in the use of I across disciplines. • Material processes are the most commonly used process type in hard sciences. • Mental processes are the most commonly used process type in humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Several previous studies have investigated the use of questions to facilitate interactions in academic lectures in tertiary education. However, the issue of how disciplinary cultures influence the patterns of questions in lectures has received little attention. Therefore, this study aims to examine the interdisciplinary differences in professors’ use of questions in terms of both their forms and functions. The corpus used in this study consists of 15 small-class lectures from three academic divisions: Humanities & Arts (HA), Social Sciences & Education (SS) and Physical Sciences & Engineering (PS). These data are a subset of the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE). Previous studies on academic spoken English have reported that, compared with other contextual factors, the disciplinary culture seems to exert a more critical influence on the use of various linguistic features. However, the results of this study show far more similarities than differences across different disciplines. Based on the major findings pertaining to the use of question forms and functions across the three divisions, it is suggested that for questions in academic lectures at the tertiary level, the influence of genre seems to outweigh that of disciplinary culture. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]