Academic writing and identity: evaluative discourse in academic papers across cohorts of 20th century linguists

Abstract

Abstract Using a cohort sequential quantitative design and evaluative features drawn from Systemic Functional Grammar, this study investigates diachronic variation in linguists’ use of evaluation to perform scholarly identities in English academic writing. More specifically, it focuses on the use of statements, commands, modality, comment assessment, and positive and negative lexis, in early and late career papers from 30 linguists born between 1905 and 1960. These linguists were grouped into three cohorts based on year of birth and studied in terms of variation along developmental and cross-generational timescales. Within the developmental timescale, scholars were found to use more evaluation in early career writing than in late career writing. Cohort-specific developmental changes are identified in the frequency of modality and comment assessment. Developmental and cohort-specific trends are found to occur within the backdrop of an overall decrease in the use of evaluative language within the discipline. Results point to a complex diachronic model of academic identity enactment in writing, whereby evaluative features pattern in similar or different ways depending on the timescale considered.