From I to D: Pronominal Discourse Functions Across the Sections of Research Articles

Mónica Chávez Muñoz


Academic writing has been recently defined as a social activity in disciplinary communities and cultures. As a result, there has been an increasing interest in the study of self as author, focusing on the way writers represent themselves in texts and how writers interact with readers. Additionally, authorial presence has been analysed across languages and across sections of the research article. This study explores the usage pattern of pronominal discourse functions across sections of 60 research articles in the fields of linguistics, psychology and educational research in English and Spanish. Drawing on a modified version of Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy of pronouns, I explain the frequency and usage of pronouns in each section of the research articles. The analysis of items revealed some differences and similarities in terms of linguistic choices writers make in a specific section of the research article in both languages.



Research articles, text analysis, personal pronouns, metadiscourse, contrastive linguistics

Full Text:



Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 277-289.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. In M. Holquist, trans. by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SHRE & Open University Press.

Bernhardt, S. A. (1985). The writer, the reader and the scientific text. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15, 163-174.

Bhatia, V.K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.

Bolivar, A. (1986). Interaction through written text: a discourse analysis of newspaper editorials. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham.

Bolivar, A. (2001). The negotiation of evaluation in written text. In M. Scott & G. Thompson, (Eds.), Patterns of text (pp. 129–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.

Carciu, O.M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Iberica, 18, 71-92

Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10(1): 39-71.

Davies, F. (1994). From writer roles to elements of the text: Interactive, organisational and topical. In L. Barbara and M. Scott (Eds.), Reflections on language learning (pp. 170-183). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Harwood, N. (2003). Person markers and interpersonal metadiscourse in academic writing: A multidisciplinary corpus based study of expert and student texts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University College, Kent.

Harwood, N. (2005a). ‘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, 1207-1231.

Harwood, N. (2005b). ‘I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using I. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 243-267.

Harwood, N. (2005c). ‘We do not seem to have a theory…. The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375.

Harwood, N. (2006). (In) appropiate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23, 324-350.

Heslot, J. (1982). Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of scientific texts in English. In Hoedt (Ed.),Pragmatics and LSP (pp. 83–103). Copenhagen: Copenhagen School of Economics.

Hickey, L. (2005). Politeness in Spain: Thanks but no thanks. In L. Hickey, & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 317-330), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Hirano, E. (2009). Research articles introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 240-250.

Hopkins, A., & A. Dudley-Evans (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-22.

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Discliplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C .N. Candlin, & K. Hyland, (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 122–142). Malaysia: Longman

Hyland, K. (2000). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56 (4), 351- 358.

Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication , 18, 549-574.

Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363-377.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 155-177.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions. Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-63.

Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen M.S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (3), 253-272

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kim, C. K. (2009). Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: A corpus-based study in terms of textual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2086-2099.

Kim, C. K. and Thompson, G. (2010). Obligation and reader involvement in English and Korean science popularizations: A corpus-based cross cultural text analysis. Text & Talk, 30, 53-73.

Kuo, C.H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-38.

Lores Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author's voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text & Talk, 31, 173-819.

Lim, J.M.H. (2006). Methods sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 282-309.

Markus, H.R., & Katayama, S. (1991). Cultures and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253

Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 174-190.

McCarthy, M. (1993). Spoken discourse markers in written text.. In J. M. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox. (Eds.), Techniques of Description (pp. 170–182). London: Routledge

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. Harlow: Longman.

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, 86-101.

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.

Nwogu, K.N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 119-138.

Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando: Academic Press.

Nystrand, M. (1989). A social interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66-85.

Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Starfield, S. & Ravelli, L.J.(2006). ‘The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist’: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 222-243.

Shaw, P., & Liu, T.K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254.

Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 251-261.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tang, R., & John, S (1999). The I in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23-39

Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillet, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 123-140.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1): 58-78.

Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1): 103-127.

Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English Economic text. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 279-294

Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I / who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 163-90.

Widdowson, H. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.