Cover not available

In:Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing
Edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 18] 2018
► pp. 59–79

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 3
The power of English

I and we in Lithuanian, Lithuanian English and British English research writing

 | Vilnius University
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.03sin
Abstract
The use of I and we in research writing has been acknowledged as one of the most powerful means to mark author stance, however there are substantial differences in personal pronoun preferences depending on the disciplinary and cultural background of the writer. This chapter investigates the use of personal pronouns in linguistic research articles written by Lithuanian scholars in English and in Lithuanian, and by British English speakers in English. The results suggest that most Lithuanian scholars choose a more explicit author stance expression when they write in English, even though the frequencies and some functions of I and we in the English speakers’ texts tend to be different from those in the Lithuanian scholars’ articles.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Personal pronouns in research writing
  • 2.Data and methods
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1General frequencies of personal pronouns I/aš and we/mes and their forms
    • 3.2I/aš and its semantic and pragmatic profile
    • 3.3We/mes and its semantic and pragmatic profile
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (29)
References
Bennett, K. (2007). Epistemicide! The tale of a predatory discourse. The Translator, 13(2), 151–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duszak, A. (1997). Introduction. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 1–8). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gotti, M. (Ed.). (2009). Commonality and individuality in academic discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of ‘I’ and ‘we’. Text & Talk, 27(1), 27–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009) Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Sancho Guinda, C. (Eds). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011a). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text & Talk, 31(2) 173–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). The study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, R., Mur-Dueñas, P., & Lafuente Millán, E. (Eds.). (2010). Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(2), 86–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(2), 143–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P., & Šinkūnienė, J. (2016). Self-reference in research articles across Europe and Asia: A review of studies. Brno Studies in English, 42(1), 71–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sala, M. (2008). Argumentative styles as cultural identity traits in legal studies. Linguistica e Filologia 27, 93–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanderson, T. (2008). Interaction, identity and culture in academic writing: The case of German, British and American academics in the humanities. In A. Ädel & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings (pp. 57–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools (version 5). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 343–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1997). English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16(3), 373–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šinkūnienė, J. (2014). Lietuviškojo humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų diskurso ypatybės: Mokslo studija [Insights into Lithuanian scientific discourse of the Humanities and Social Sciences]. Vilnius: VU leidykla.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (ms). [Electronic dissertation]. University of Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vladimirou, D. (2007). ‘I suggest that we need more research’. Personal reference in linguistics journal articles. In C. Gabrielatos, R. Slessor, & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Papers from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching. Volume 1. Papers from LAEL PG 2006 (pp. 139–157). Lancaster: Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yakhontova, T. (2002). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216–232). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Hint, Helen, Helena Lemendik, Christer Johansson & Djuddah A. J. Leijen
2025. Decoding Metadiscourse Markers in Estonian Academic Texts: A Language-Specific Perspective. Written Communication 42:1 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Šinkūnienė, Jolanta
2025. Stance and Engagement in Expert and Novice Research Writing: An Intercultural, Cross-Generic Study of Personal Pronoun Use. In Analytical Perspectives on Text Analysis, ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Ruskan, Anna & Greta Maslauskienė
2024. Metadiscourse in Lithuanian linguistics research articles: A study of interactive and interactional features. Kalbotyra 76 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo
Gobekci, Erika
2023. Rhetorical structure and linguistic features of research article abstracts in the humanities: the case of Lithuanian, English, and Russian. Taikomoji kalbotyra :19 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Maslauskienė, Greta
2023. Speaker stance and engagement across disciplines in Lithuanian university lectures: the case of mes ‘we’ in medicine and business administration. Taikomoji kalbotyra :19 ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo
Ruskan, Anna, Helen Hint, Djuddah Arthur Joost Leijen & Jolanta Šinkūnienė
2023. Lithuanian academic discourse revisited: Features and patterns of scientific communication. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Jürine, Anni, Djuddah Leijen, Helen Hint, Jolanta Sinkuniene, Diāna Laiveniece, Christer Johansson & Nicholas Groom
2021. Academic Writing in the Baltic States. Educare :1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Maňáková, Monika
2021. Self-mention in the academic discourse of ELF writers. Topics in Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Hůlková, Irena, Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova, Renata Jančaříková & Josef Schmied
2019. Intercultural variation in academic discourse: Theme zones and the build-up of coherence in research articles. Topics in Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Murillo, Silvia
2018. Not the same, but how different?. In Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing [AILA Applied Linguistics Series, 18], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue