How do we make ourselves heard in the writing of a research article? A study of authorial references in four disciplines

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Australian Journal of Linguistics Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/07268602.2020.1753011
Mohsen Khedri, Konstantinos Kritsis
{"title":"How do we make ourselves heard in the writing of a research article? A study of authorial references in four disciplines","authors":"Mohsen Khedri, Konstantinos Kritsis","doi":"10.1080/07268602.2020.1753011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examined the use of personal (exclusive first-person plural pronouns) and impersonal (abstract rhetors, periphrastic passives and it-clauses) authorial references in a corpus of 160 research articles in applied linguistics, psychology, environmental engineering and chemistry. The aim was to see if personal and impersonal authorial references, as realized by the rhetorical options chosen, are predisposed to differences across disciplinary rhetorical cultures. The results indicated disciplinary variations in both the frequency and use of personal and impersonal authorial references, especially when the disciplines were compared for contrasting effects. While the applied linguistics and psychology writers favoured the use of exclusive first-person plural pronouns to construct their authorial persona, the environmental engineering and chemistry writers preferred a more detached interpersonal style by opting predominantly for periphrastic passives. Also, the results showed differences in the incidence of use of personal and impersonal authorial references across discourse functions, which could be attributed to the adoption of different interpersonal strategies within the disciplines. The present results are expected to extend our understanding of disciplinary variations towards the use of authorial references in tandem with discourse functions in research articles in the selected disciplines, particularly in the relatively unexplored disciplines of chemistry and environmental engineering.","PeriodicalId":44988,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Linguistics","volume":"40 1","pages":"194 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07268602.2020.1753011","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2020.1753011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examined the use of personal (exclusive first-person plural pronouns) and impersonal (abstract rhetors, periphrastic passives and it-clauses) authorial references in a corpus of 160 research articles in applied linguistics, psychology, environmental engineering and chemistry. The aim was to see if personal and impersonal authorial references, as realized by the rhetorical options chosen, are predisposed to differences across disciplinary rhetorical cultures. The results indicated disciplinary variations in both the frequency and use of personal and impersonal authorial references, especially when the disciplines were compared for contrasting effects. While the applied linguistics and psychology writers favoured the use of exclusive first-person plural pronouns to construct their authorial persona, the environmental engineering and chemistry writers preferred a more detached interpersonal style by opting predominantly for periphrastic passives. Also, the results showed differences in the incidence of use of personal and impersonal authorial references across discourse functions, which could be attributed to the adoption of different interpersonal strategies within the disciplines. The present results are expected to extend our understanding of disciplinary variations towards the use of authorial references in tandem with discourse functions in research articles in the selected disciplines, particularly in the relatively unexplored disciplines of chemistry and environmental engineering.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在撰写一篇研究文章时,我们如何让自己的声音被听到?四个学科的作者参考文献研究
摘要本研究在应用语言学、心理学、环境工程和化学领域的160篇研究文章中,考察了人称(排他第一人称复数代词)和非人称(抽象修辞、周边被动语态和it从句)作者参考的使用情况。其目的是观察个人和非个人的作者参考,如所选择的修辞选项所实现的,是否倾向于不同学科修辞文化之间的差异。研究结果表明,在个人和非个人作者参考文献的频率和使用方面存在学科差异,尤其是在比较学科的对比效果时。虽然应用语言学和心理学作家倾向于使用排他性的第一人称复数代词来构建他们的作者形象,但环境工程和化学作家则倾向于更超然的人际风格,主要选择边缘被动语态。此外,研究结果还表明,在不同的语篇功能中,个人和非个人作者参考的使用率存在差异,这可能归因于学科内采用了不同的人际策略。目前的结果有望扩展我们对学科变异的理解,即在选定学科的研究文章中,特别是在相对未探索的化学和环境工程学科中,使用作者参考文献和话语功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Language corpora in Australia The GeSCA repository: Gesture and Sign Corpus of Australia Building a searchable online corpus of Australian and New Zealand aligned speech The longitudinal corpus of language acquisition, maintenance and contact: Warlpiri & Light Warlpiri Analyzing online public discourse in Australia: Australian Twittersphere and NewsTalk corpora
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1