Abstract
Although academic writing has been seen as an objective form of writing, recent studies have shown that it is a form of social interaction and not totally impersonal. In line with this view, Hyland (2002) stated that academic writing is also strongly linked with the manifestation of authorial presence across the text. Included in the interactional metadiscourse framework devised by Hyland (2005), self-mentions enable writers to express their beliefs, show attitudes, become a part of the community, and interact with their readers. Consequently, academic texts become more credible, accountable, and interactive by the manifestation of authorial presence through self-mentions. This paper analyses the use, distribution and discourse functions of self-mentions, the we-oriented authorial presence in particular. The corpus of the study consisted of 200 Results and Discussion sections from research articles (RAs) published in the field of engineering and technology, totaling approximately 270,000 words. Both manual and automatic analyses were employed to achieve more accurate results and the verbs most frequently collocated with an explicit authorial we presence were also analysed manually. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses clearly showed that the most frequent function used in Results and Discussion sections in the field was explaining a procedure with 723 instances (54.69%), and that the least frequent functions which writers employed were describing themselves and making a claim/prediction, each with two instances (0.15%). The qualitative analysis showed that writers employed authorial presence to achieve different discourse functions (such as explaining a procedure, stating goals, describing themselves and making a claim or prediction), but preferred to avoid using more argumentative and interactional functions (describing themselves and making a claim or prediction), which can be strongly associated with the purpose of evading interaction with the readers.
Highlights
Until recently, academic writing was perceived as a unbiased reflection of neutral and accurate facts (Hyland, 2001)
Academic writing has been seen as an objective form of writing, recent studies have shown that it is a form of social interaction and not totally impersonal
Academic writing has lost the cachet of being neutral, objective, and one-sided and has included interaction between readers and authors within its scope (Hyland, 2005). This development shows that academic writing reflects reality and that authors can achieve an interaction with their readers
Summary
Academic writing was perceived as a unbiased reflection of neutral and accurate facts (Hyland, 2001). Academic writing has lost the cachet of being neutral, objective, and one-sided and has included interaction between readers and authors within its scope (Hyland, 2005). This development shows that academic writing reflects reality and that authors can achieve an interaction with their readers. As this idea gains more popularity among researchers and in academic contexts, researchers have been giving more attention to how interaction can be achieved in academic texts In line with this development, the concept of ‘metadiscourse’ (MD) has gained greater awareness
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
