Search

Although previous preconceived notions discourage authors from asserting their presence in research articles (RAs), recent studies have substantiated that the use of self-mention markers offer a means to establish authorial identity and recognition in a given discipline. Few studies, however, explored specific sections of research articles to uncover how self-mentions function within each section's conventions. Exploring the use of self-mention markers, the present study aimed at comparing the method sections written by native English writers and L-1 Persian writers in the field of psychology. The corpus contained 120 RAs, with each sub-corpora including 60 RAs. The RAs were then examined structurally and functionally. The data were analyzed both quantitatively, using frequency counts and chi-square analyses, and qualitatively through content analysis. The findings indicated a significant difference between English and Persian authors concerning the frequency of self-mentions and the dimension of rhetorical functions; however, the differences in the dimensions of grammatical forms and hedging and boosting were found insignificant. Native English authors were inclined to make more use of self-mentions in their research articles. The findings of the current study can assist EAP and ESP novice researchers in taking cognizance of the conventions of authorial identity in each genre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although previous preconceived notions discourage authors from asserting their presence in research articles (RAs), recent studies have substantiated that the use of self-mention markers offer a means to establish authorial identity and recognition in a given discipline. Few studies, however, explored specific sections of research articles to uncover how self-mentions function within each section's conventions. Exploring the use of self-mention markers, the present study aimed at comparing the method sections written by native English writers and L-1 Persian writers in the field of psychology. The corpus contained 120 RAs, with each sub-corpora including 60 RAs. The RAs were then examined structurally and functionally. The data were analyzed both quantitatively, using frequency counts and chi-square analyses, and qualitatively through content analysis. The findings indicated a significant difference between English and Persian authors concerning the frequency of self-mentions and the dimension of rhetorical functions; however, the differences in the dimensions of grammatical forms and hedging and boosting were found insignificant. Native English authors were inclined to make more use of self-mentions in their research articles. The findings of the current study can assist EAP and ESP novice researchers in taking cognizance of the conventions of authorial identity in each genre.

Copyright of Adab Al-Kufa is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents the analysis of Russian self-mentions – elements of authorization comprising “the voice of the author” – in evaluative academic discourse. These are phrases containing fi rst person personal pronouns and possessive pronouns (я; мы; меня; мне; нам; нас; мой; наш). Self-mentions include two-member constructions (мы считаем; мы полагаем; как мы хорошо знаем; я уверен), one-member constructions (допускаю; заметим; согласимся), phrases with pronouns in oblique cases (нам кажется; у меня замечание; нам думается) and possessive pronouns (на наш взгляд; с моей точки зрения; по нашему мнению). The research is based on 64 offi cial review reports given by offi cial opponents and external reviewers to dissertations on linguistics, literary criticism, history, chemistry, physics and medical science. Self-mentions are regarded as part of the so-called pragmatic framework of communication formed by discourse markers – elements of the supplementary level of communication providing the setup of the discourse in the context of its logical arrangement, cohesion, consecution, composition and regulating the interaction between the author and the addressee. The research aims at the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the use of self-mentions in the speech genre of the dissertation review report and attempts to determine the factors infl uencing this use. Self-mentions used in evaluative academic discourse help create the eff ect of ecological, positive communication: they are viewed as hedges which subdue the critical stance of the report’s contents or as boosters which highlight the achievements of the reviewed research, create the atmosphere of closeness and solidarity with the addressee and on the whole enhance the persuasive eff ect within academic communication. Among the factors determining the use of self-mentions the author of the article singles out the academic sphere (discipline), the genre of academic discourse and gender. The research proves that self-mentions are more typical of reviews written by humanitarians than by natural scientists. It is also shown that we-self-mentions prevail over I-self-mentions and men use self-mentions more frequently than women.

In academic writing, writers intend to use the linguistic term "metadiscourse" to guide, to make their readers interact, and to persuade them through interactive and interactional levels of metadiscourse. The current study attempts to examine the interactional metadiscourse markers in Hawthorne's novel "The Scarlet Letter" in its simplified Oxford edition. The selected data consists of ten samples. The study aims to identify the frequencies and function of each marker in interactional metadiscourse. Two hypotheses are utilized to achieve the aims: First, the interactional metadiscourse markers have an essential impact on audience persuasion. Second, the writer interacts with readers in the text, using a higher frequency of self-mentions markers. To validate these hypotheses, the procedure includes the following steps: Presenting a literature review, using Hyland's (2019) metadiscourse model, selecting data samples, analysing the selected data using qualitative and quantitative methods, and presenting and discussing the findings. The results indicate that interactional metadiscourse markers have significant functions in persuading the reader through writing. In addition, self-mention markers are employed frequently since these markers project writers in the text to persuade their readers by attracting their attention to the mood and atmosphere of the novel.

Authorial identity construction is one of many professional rhetorical strategies employed by authors in academic review genres. Authors usually create a persona to represent themselves, their seniority in the field, and the community to which they belong. The author’s visibility is made possible through several rhetorical devices. Perhaps the most remarkable way of such authorial identity construction in the review article genre is self-mentions. The aims of this research are (1) to find out what types of self-mention are frequently used in review articles, (2) to determine the frequency of use and distribution of self-mentions in the review articles, and (3) to investigate the rhetorical function of self-mentions in the different analytical sections of the review articles. The data, drawn from a randomly selected corpus of thirty-two review articles, were analysed using WordSmith Tools Version 6. The findings indicated that first-person plural pronouns were more frequently used than singular pronouns in the whole corpus except in the two review texts. It was also observed that the frequency of occurrence for the exclusive and inclusive pronouns was very close to each other. Most importantly, the inclusive pronouns were used not only as a politeness strategy to appreciate the readers and keep the writers’ claims balanced but also as a persuasive tool to seek the readers’ agreement in the evaluation of research developments. This study revealed that authors construct various professional personas as a rhetorical strategy to carve their authorial identity and credibility in the review article genre. The findings of this study have pedagogical implications in the field of academic writing in applied linguistics as well as other disciplines.

The current research aimed at investigating the authorial identity through explicit self-mention markers (I, me, my, we, us, and our) in English research articles written by Indonesian authors. For this purpose, we employed a mix-methods research design consisting of two analysis phases. First, the quantitative analysis was represented by analyzing the frequency of self-mention markers in the corpus of 200 linguistics and applied linguistics research articles using the corpus tool AntConc ver. 3.9.5 (Anthony, 2020). The corpus was compiled from ten journals indexed in SINTA 1 and 2 in the latest five years (2017-2021). Second, the qualitative phase was represented by concordance analysis to interpret the discourse function of self-mention markers in use. We refer to Hyland's taxonomy (Hyland, 2002). Our findings have discovered that Indonesian authors use self-mention in various functions. This research shows the novice authors the extent to which authors can exploit self-mention markers in English research articles and how expert authors in reputable national journals use self mention markers to obtain essential functions to mark their authorial identity. Thus, this research is expected to add insight to EAP/ESL courses to encourage novice writers to construct and represent their identity in conveying their arguments firmly using these self-mentions markers.