Objectifying Science: Impersonalization in English Research Articles From Different Disciplines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1210.14Keywords:
academic discourse, disciplinary variation, impersonalization, personification, agentless passiveAbstract
English academic writing has often been characterized as being direct, accurate, and objective. One way of achieving objectivity is through the use of a communicative strategy called impersonalization. The present research examines linguistic devices that academic writers have at their disposal to avoid explicit reference, especially to themselves, and to detach themselves from the information they convey. It also addresses the question of whether this impersonalization strategy is expressed differently across different disciplines. For these purposes, a corpus of 45 primary empirical research articles from the fields of linguistics, medicine, and natural sciences were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively with the help of corpus linguistic method. The results of the research showed that impersonalization in English research articles could be expressed through the use of agentless passive constructions and impersonal constructions. The results indicate that English academic discourse is marked by the use of agentless passive constructions (199.17 tokens per 10.000 words) to express impersonalization, which was primarily used to serve as writer-oriented hedging functions. The study also revealed highly significant differences in the use of impersonalization in linguistics, medicine and natural sciences. This seems to suggest that impersonalization in English academic discourse is expressed differently in different fields of study.
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Alley, M. (1987). The craft of scientific writing. Prentice-Hall.
Amdur, R. J., Kirwan, J., & Morris, C. G. (2010). Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles. Amwa Journal, 25, 98–104.
Atkinson, D. (1996). The Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25, 333–371.
Banks, D. (1996). The passive and metaphor in scientific writing. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 5(2), 13–22.
Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. Equinox.
Biber, D., Johnson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Biber, D., & Jones, J. K. (2009). Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 1286–1304). Walter de Gruyter.
Blevins, J. P. (2003). Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226703002081
Bolsky, M. I. (1988). Better scientific and technical writing. Prentice-Hall.
Bondi, M. (2005). Metadiscursive practices in academic discourse: Variation across genres and disciplines. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities (pp. 3–30). Niemeyer.
Bondi, M., & Silver, M. (2004). Textual voices: A cross disciplinary study of attribution in academic discourse. In L. Anderson & J. Bamford (Eds.), Evaluation in oral and written discourse (pp. 117–136). Officina Edizioni.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Busà, M. G. (2005). The use of metadiscourse in abstracts.: A comparison between economics and psychology abstracts. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities (pp. 31–48). Niemeyer.
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 83–113). Academic Press.
Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery…”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1
Conrad, S. (2018). The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 38–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864
deBakey, L. (1976). The scientific journal: Editorial policies and practices. Guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors. Mosby.
Downing, A. (2015). English grammar: A university course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (2006). English grammar: A university course (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Givón, T. (1994). The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In T. Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion (pp. 3–44). John Benjamins.
Gomez, P. C. (2002). Do we need statistics when we have linguistics? DELTA, 18(2), 233–271.
Hacker, D. (2008). Rules for writers (6th ed.). Bedford.
Halloran, S. M. (1984). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3(1), 70–83.
Hedge, M. N. (1994). A coursebook on scientific and professional writing in speech-language pathology. Singular Publishing Group Inc.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It’s interesting to note that. . .”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purpose, 21, 367–383.
Hinkel, E. (2004a). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2004b). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamin.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. Longman Pearson Education.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17–45). Peter Lang.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, Interaction and the Construction of Knowledge: Representing Self and others in Research Writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge University Press.
Kitagawa, C., & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 739–759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Pergamon.
Lachowicz, D. (1981). On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2(2), 105–114.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd edition). University of Chicago Press.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.
Larsson, T. (2017). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
Lee, D. Y. W. (2008). Corpora and discourse analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 86–99). Routledge.
Lipson, C. (2005). How to write a BA thesis: A practical guide from your first ideas to your finished paper. University of Chicago Press.
Luukka, M.-R., & Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schrӧder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 168–187). Walter de Gruyter.
Lyngfelt, B., & Solstad, T. (Eds.). (2006). Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. John Benjamin.
Malchukov, A., & Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 19–56). John Benjamins.
Malchukov, A., & Siewierska, A. (Eds.). (2011). Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. John Benjamins.
Manser, M. (2006). The facts on file: Guide to good writing. Infobase Publishing.
Marín Aresse, J. I. (Ed.). (2002). Conceptualization of events in newspaper discourse: Mystification of agency and degree of implication in news reports. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. . M., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with functional grammar. Arnold.
Martín-Martín, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.
Master, P. A. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 15–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90013-M
Matthews, J. R., & Matthews, R. W. (2008). Successful scientific writing: A step-by-step guide for the biological and medical sciences (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
Meyer, C. F. (2004). English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Minitab. (2017). Minitab 18 Statistical Software. Minitab, Inc.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.
Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. In R. Markkanen & H. Schrӧder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 64–79). Walter de Gruyter.
Penrose, A. M., & Katz, S. B. (2003). Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Rodman, L. (1994). The active voice in scientific articles: Frequency and discourse functions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24, 309–331.
Rundblad, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088307302946
Rundblad, G. (2008). We, ourselves and who else? Differences in use of passive voice and metonymy for oneself versus other researchers in medical research articles. English Text Construction, 1(1), 23–40.
Sanjaya, I. N. S. (2013). Hedging and boosting in English and Indonesian research articles [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University.
Sanjaya, I. N. S. (2015). Revisiting the effects of sociocultural context and disciplines on the use of hedges in research articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 116–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.838
Schreiber, J., & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational research: The interrelationship of questions, sampling, design, and analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools version 5. Lexical Analysis Software.
Sheen, A. P. (1982). Breathing life into medical writing: A handbook. Mosby.
Siewierska, A. (2008a). Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. Agent-centred perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-968X.2008.00211.X
Siewierska, A. (2008b). Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. Verbal strategies. In M. González, J. L. Mckenzie, & E. Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspective (pp. 3–26). John Benjamins.
Strunk Jr., W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Pearson.
Swales, J. (1983). Developing materials for writing scholarly introductions. In R.R. Jordan (ed.) Case studies in ELT (pp. 188-200). Collins ELT.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X
Taylor, R. B. (2005). The clinician’s guide to medical writing. Springer.
van Aertselaer, J. N. (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in the representation of agency. In J. I. Marín Aresse (Ed.), Conceptualization of events in newspaper discourse: Mystification of agency and degree of implication in news reports (pp. 89–103). Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere]. Trepo. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/67148.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83–102.
Vold, E. T. (2006). The choice and use of epistemic modality markers in linguistics and medical research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 225–249). Peter Lang.
Zhang, G. (2015). It is suggested that…or it is better to…? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004
