Cover not available

Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 25:2 (2025) ► pp.209–236

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

Academic voice in the rhetorical construction of author identity

An intercultural rhetorical perspective

ORCiD logo with link | Shanghai Maritime University, China
Published online: 25 September 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00049.mu
Abstract
This paper compares the linguistic features contributing to the construction of academic voice in English, Chinese and Translation corpora consisting of 180 research article introductions (RAIs) in the fields of biology, geology, and technology. The study reveals significant differences in the strategies for constructing academic voice across languages. In comparison to the English Corpus, the Translation Corpus exhibits higher or nearly equal normalized frequencies of certain linguistic features, such as hedges, first-person pronouns, and passivizations. This pattern may suggest that Chinese authors project a less confident, less committed, and less interactive voice in academic English discourse. Moreover, the uncritical academic voice that emphasizes authority in Chinese-authored English RAIs may be attributed to their mother language background. Finally, we discuss the implications of this study for multilingual professional writing and the teaching of academic writing within the paper.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Understanding of academic voice
    • 2.2Linguistic features contributing to voice construction in academic discourse
    • 2.3Intercultural rhetorical studies related to academic voice
  • 3.Research design
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2Taxonomy of linguistic features contributing to academic voice construction
    • 3.3Corpus annotation and data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1General description of the frequency of the linguistic features
    • 4.2Contrastive analysis at the lexico-grammatical level
    • 4.3Contrastive analysis at the syntactic level
    • 4.4Contrastive analysis at the discourse level
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N. 1995. Genre knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, V. 2001. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, U. 2011. Intercultural Rhetoric in Second Language Writing. Michigan: University of Michigan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebeling, S. O. and Ebeling, J. 2020. Contrastive Analysis, Tertium Comparationis and Corpora. Nordic Journal of English Studies 19(1): 97–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elbow, P. 1994. Introduction. In Landmark Essays on Voice and Writing, xi–xvii, P. Elbow (ed.), 1–24. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. 1986. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: Willey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 1999. Problems in Writing for Scholarly Publication in English: The Case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3): 243–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions. TESOL Quarterly 35(1): 121–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, G. C. 2017. Academic Voice in Scholarly Writing. The Qualitative Report 22(1): 179–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. 2011. Hedging and Boosting in Abstracts of Applied Linguistics Articles: A Comparative Study of English — and Chinese-medium Journals. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2795–2809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Wang, G. 2014. Disciplinary and Ethnolinguistic Influences on Citation in Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 141: 14–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, W. and Qin, H. 2015. The Construction and Concordance of English-Chinese Parallel Diachronic Corpus. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies 31: 14–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 13(3): 239–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1091–1112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Disciplinary Identity: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Milton, J. 1997. Qualification and Certainty in Ll and L2 Students’ Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2): 183–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Sancho Guinda, C. (eds). 2012. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanič, R. and Camps, D. 2001. I Am How I Sound: Voice as Self-representation in L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(1–2): 3–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, J. 2011. Xing He vs. Yi He in English-Chinese Translation: Analysis from the Perspective of Syntactic Construction. Perspectives 19(3): 189–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, N. and Lee, T. 2013. Authorial Voice in Academic Writing: A Contrastive Perspective. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 36(4): 17–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loi, C. K. and Kim, J. M. 2013. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Article Introductions. Discourse Studies 15(2): 129–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, R. 2011. 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
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez, 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(3): 174–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. 2001. Voice in Japanese Written Discourse: Implications for Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 101: 35–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts. English for Specific Purposes 121: 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCambridge, L. 2019. If You Can Defend Your Own Point of View, You’re Good: Norms of Voice Construction in Student Writing on an International Master’s Program. English for Specific Purposes 541: 110–126. 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
Moreno, A. I. and Suárez, L. 2008. A Framework for Comparing Evaluation Resources Across Academic Texts. Text & Talk — An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies 28(6): 749–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2008. The UAM Corpus Tool: Software for Corpus Annotation and Exploration. Proceedings of the XXVI Congreso de AESLA. Almeria, Spain, 3–5 April, 2008.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramanathan, V. and Kaplan, R. B. 1996. Audience and Voice in Current Ll Composition Texts: Some Implications for ESL Student Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 5(1): 21–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scollon, R. 1994. As a Matter of Fact: The Changing of Ideology of Authorship and Responsibility in Discourse. World Englishes 13(1): 33–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stock, I. and Eik-Nes, N. L. 2016. Voice Features in Academic Texts: A Review of Empirical Studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 241: 89–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1986. Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 7(1). 39–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, R. and John, S. 1999. The ‘I’ in Identity: Exploring Writer Identity in Student Academic Writing Through the First Person Pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 181: 23–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. 2012. Current Conceptions of Voice. In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, K. Hyland and C. Sancho Guinda (eds), 34–50. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, G. and Chen, T. 1991. Linguistic, Cultural, and Subcultural Issues in Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese Scientific Texts. Applied Linguistics 12(3): 319–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Ye, Y. 1991. Evaluation in the Reporting Verbs Used in Academic Papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics 121: 365–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, P. 2012. Achieving a Voice of Authority in PhD Thesis. In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, K. Hyland and C. Sancho Guinda (eds), 119–133. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wang, Y. and Nelson, M. E. 2012. Discursive construction of authorial voice in English book reviews: A contrastive analysis. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(1). 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, R. Z. and McEnery, T. 2010. Corpus-based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, X. and Nesi, H. 2019. Differences in Engagement: A Comparison of the Strategies Used by British and Chinese Research Article Writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 381: 121–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Y. 2013. Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 50(1): 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, C. G. 2013. Measuring Authorial Voice Strength in L2 Argumentative Writing: The Development and Validation of an Analytic Rubric. Language Testing 301: 201–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, F. and Zhan, J. 2020. Understanding Voice in Chinese Students’ English Writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 451: 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue