_1688891747 20230709083547000 Rovedar Daryoushbabazadeh@gmail.com Rovedar Journal of Contemporary Language Research J. Contemp. Lang. Res. 2980-8065 06 25 2023 2 2 Penghua Zhang Yi Pan 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. 06 25 2023 72 83 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 10.58803/jclr.v2i2.69 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/view/69 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/download/69/67 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/download/69/67 Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8). Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. Available at: 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. Available at: 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, London. Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej15/r14.html 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796 10.3366/cor.2013.0041 Carciu, O. M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica, 18, 71-92. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/287024096005.pdf 10.1093/applin/aml021 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100856 10.18488/journal.23.2018.74.115.121 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. Available at: https://b2n.ir/t86485 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012 Ho, D. (2018). Notepad++ (version 7.5.6) [software]. Available at: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/downloads/v7.5.6/ 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. Available at: 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. 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0 10.1177/1461445605050365 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0 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. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.002 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004 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. 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 (pp. 44-49). Manchester, UK. Available at: https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ea24eb724e7415be7d9083f4a20fd764/fluctuator 10.1093/applin/13.3.302 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009 Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://b2n.ir/a87269 10.1017/CBO9781139524827 10.3998/mpub.2173936 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003 10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1864 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.