An Intercultural Comparison of Authors' Self-mention and Identity Construction in English Agricultural Abstracts by Chinese and International Writers
Article Sidebar
PDF downloads: 44
XML-Crossref downloads: 10
XML-DOAJ downloads: 11
Crossref Citations: 0
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Authors’ self-mention is unavoidably used in research articles; however, there are still controversial views on their use. The current study aims to find out what types of self-mentions are employed by Chinese and non-Chinese writers to construct different authorial identities and what causes the similarities and differences.
Methodology: A corpus-based comparative analysis was conducted on agricultural research abstracts written by Chinese and non-Chinese writers to compare three types of entities by using Chi-square and Antconc.
Results: It was revealed that abstracts by Chinese writers and non-Chinese ones were significantly different in their use of first-person plural forms and their determiners, research-oriented nouns, and discoursal nouns. Further, it was shown that different authorial identities as a researcher, discourse constructor, and arguer were constructed by human entities and inanimate entities with some preferred main verbs in specific tenses and voices.
Conclusion: The present study showed that Chinese writers differed significantly from international writers in using self-mentions and authorial identities due to different views on personal involvement, pragmatic considerations, cultural background, and writing environment. It was also found that personal involvement coexists with the impersonality of the abstract in using self-mentions in abstract writing. The current study can be conducive to abstract writing for novice writers and second language learners in choosing different self-mentions to construct different authorial identities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Funding data
References
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8). Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press/SRHE. https://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/ publications/academic-tribes-and-territories(c5a666ed-2d03-45ab-8264-b62a6d2b27c2)/export.html
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman. http://tesl-ej.org/ej15/r14.html
Can, T., & Cangir, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
Cao, Y. , & Xiao, R. (2013). A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora, 8(2), 209-234. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/cor.2013.0041
Carciu, O. M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica, 18, 71-92. https://www.redalyc. org/pdf/2870/287024096005.pdf
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021
Chen, R. (2020). Single author self-reference: Identity construction and pragmatic competence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100856
Dong, T., & Qiu, L. (2018). Research on self-mentions and author identity in academic English writing. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 7(4), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.18488/ journal. 23.2018.74.115.121
El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005
Fløttum, K., Kinn, T., & Dahl, T. (2006). We now report on… versus let us now see how… : Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi Paganelli (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines. (pp. 203-224). P. Lang. https://b2n.ir/t86485
Friginal, E., & Mustafa, S. S. (2017). A comparison of U.S.-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Ho, D. (2018). Notepad++ (version 7.5.6) [software]. https://notepad-plus-plus.org/downloads/v7.5.6/
Hu, G., & Cao, F.Z(2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press. https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/16/64/46/166446791290060341825141443050686319042/SILEBR_2003_023.pdf
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman, London.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006
Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 3-33. https://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/i-am-how-i-sound-voice-as-selfrepresentation-in-l2-writing(ab645ce5-3458-49fb-8faf-6bbcac83d67c).html
Liang, M. (2013). TreeTagger for Windows (Multilingual Edition), 3.0.
Liang, M., Li, W., & Xu, J. (2010). PatternBuilder 1.0.
Liu, S. F. (2011). Author's self-mentions and identity construction in Chinese and English abstracts. Contemporary Rhetoric, 166(4), 85-88.
Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. K. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.esp.2013.09.002
McGrath, L. (2016). Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
National Standard of the People's Republic of China. (1986). GB 6447-1986. Rules for abstracts and abstracting. China Standard Press, Beijing.
Peacock, M. (2011). A comparative study of introductory it in research articles across eight disciplines. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(1), 72-100. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.1.04pea
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester, UK. https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/ 2ea24eb724e7415be7d9083f4a20fd764/fluctuator
Shaw, P. (1992). Reasons for the correlation of voice, tense, and sentence function in reporting verbs. Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.3.302
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X
Shaw, P., & Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2008.07.009
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. https://b2n.ir/a87269
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Swales, J. M. (2019). The futures of EAP genre studies: A personal viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003
Tavakoli Gheinani, M., & Tabatabaei, O. (2017). A structural move analysis of the abstract section of ISI articles of Iranian and native scholars in the field of agricultural engineering. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(3), 109-122. http://consortiacademia.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRSLL/IJRSLL_v7i3/1864_final.pdf
Wu, G. Q. (2013). Xuéshù lùnwén zuòzhě zìchēng yǔ shēnfèn gòujiàn——yī xiàng jīyú yǔliàokù de yīnghàn duìbǐ yánjiū. Jiěfàngjūn wàiguóyǔ xuéyuàn xuébào [Authors' self-mentions and identity construction in academic papers: A corpus-based comparative study of English and Chinese]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 36(3), 6-11.
Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press