This article describes five political scientists’ interview-based accounts of appropriate and inappropriate use of the pronouns I and we in academic writing. The informants talked about pronoun use with reference to one of their own journal articles and also by referring to other informants’ texts. Beliefs about appropriate and inappropriate use varied widely, and it was emphasized that the discipline encompasses a number of subdisciplines, which helps account for these differing pronoun preferences. The insights and implications of the study are discussed, and a heuristic that combines corpus-based and interview-based approaches to the investigation of pronouns is proposed. The corpus-based part of the heuristic provides the researcher with data on typical disciplinary patterns of pronoun use, whereas the interview-based part provides accounts of informants’ motivations and intentions that inform their pronoun use. It is argued that the heuristic could be adapted to investigate other linguistic features in academic writing.
Atkinson, D. (2001). Scientific discourse across history: A combined multi-dimensional/rhetorical analysis of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 45-65). Harlow, UK: Longman.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
5.
Bernhardt, S. A. (1985). The writer, the reader, and the scientific text. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 15(2), 163-174.
6.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Casanave, C. P. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 83-110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.
Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. M. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145-167). Harlow, UK: Longman.
10.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
11.
Gragson, G., & Selzer, J. (1990). Fictionalizing the readers of scholarly articles in biology. Written Communication, 7(1), 25-58.
12.
Gragson, G., & Selzer, J. (1993). The reader in the text of “The Spandrels of San Marco.” In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 180-202). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
13.
Harwood, N. (2005a). “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.
14.
Harwood, N. (2005b). “Nowhere has anyone attempted... In this article I do just that”: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1027-1231.
15.
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.
16.
Harwood, N. (in press). Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of “I” and “we.” TEXT&TALK.
17.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT & TALK, 18(3), 349-382.
19.
Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
20.
Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
21.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
22.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
23.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24.
Kaltenböck, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65-84.
25.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
26.
Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
27.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Leech, G. (1991). The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 8-20). London: Longman.
29.
Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
30.
MacDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9(4), 533-569.
31.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
32.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
34.
Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221-236). New York: Longman.
35.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English. Harlow, UK: Longman.
38.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39.
39.
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(2), 163-190.
40.
Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 3-25.
42.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
