Keywords: self-mention, Master’s thesis, scientific language, metadiscourse, discourse analysis
The requirement that a scientific text should be neutral and objective not only affects substantive issues, but alsolinguistic choices, including how to refer to oneself. The Estonian language offers numerous relevant options, the most natural of which are the first-person singular (for a single author) (Töös analüüsin… ’In the thesis I analyse…’) and the first-person plural (for collective authorship) (Töös analüüsime… ’In the thesis we analyse…’), both of which make an explicit mention of the author’s presence in the text, whereas the third person (Autor analüüsib… ’The author analyses…’), a metaphoric person (Töö analüüsib… ’The thesis analyses…’), the indefinite person (Töös analüüsitakse… ’lit. In the thesis it is analysed…’) and forms of the generic person (Võib analüüsida… ’One can analyse…’) exemplify implicit language use, which enables keeping the author to the background, if not pushing them out of the text altogether.
Taking a metadiscursive approach to the 320 Master’s theses defended in the University of Tartu through 2013−2015, was attested that the impersonal is an accepted way of self-mention in all fields of research. This has become a norm supported by recommendations met in various instructions and guides. The impersonal is rivalled by mina ’I’, but only in the humanities and social sciences. The first person is rare in the sciences and medical papers, but there are a few graduation papers, where a single author refers to himself or herself using the first person plural form meie ’we’. The use of the third person pronoun, a metaphoric person or the generic person is occasional and may dominate but in single cases.
Riina Reinsalu (b. 1982), MA, University of Tartu, Junior Researcher, riina.reinsalu@ut.ee
References
Abdi, Reza 2009. Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking; A comparison of Persian and English research articles. – Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, kd 1, nr 212, lk 1−15.
Baratta, Alexander M. 2009. Revealing stance through passive voice. – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 41, nr 7, lk 1406−1421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
Dahl, Trine 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 36, nr 10, lk 1807−1825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Geertz, Clifford 1988. Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gillaerts, Paul, Van de Velde, Freek 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. – Journal of English for Academic purposes, kd 9, nr 2, lk 128−139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Harwood, Nigel 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, kd 37, nr 8, lk 1207−1231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Harwood, Nigel 2005b. ‘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, kd 26, nr 3, lk 343−375.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
Hyland, Ken 2002a. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 34, nr 8, lk 1091−1112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, Ken 2002b. Options of identity in academic writing. – ELT Journal, kd 56, nr4, lk 351−358.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351
Hyland, Ken 2005a. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. – Discourse Studies, kd 7, nr 2, lk 173−192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, Ken 2015. Metadiscourse. – The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (nr 2). Toim Karen Tracy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, lk 997−1007.
Kasik, Reet 2007. Sissejuhatus tekstiõpetusse. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar 2011. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 43, nr 12, lk 3068−3079.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Mäekivi, Helika 2017. Kui meede julgustab programmi. – Tõlkimise tahud. Koost ja toim Katrin Hallik, Katre Kasemets. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut, lk 60-73.
Nemvalts, Peep, Kapanen, Airi 2012. Verbivormidest väitekirjade eestikeelseis kokkuvõtteis. – Ettekanne. II eesti teaduskeele konverents Tallinna Ülikoolis 7. detsembril 2012.
Pérez, Marta Aguilar, Macià, Elisabeth Arnó 2002. Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? – Atlantis, kd 24, nr 2, lk 7−21.
Reinsalu, Riina 2014. Kuidas viidata teadustekstis iseendale? – Ettekanne. III eesti teaduskeele konverents Tallinna Ülikoolis 6. detsembril 2014.
Reinsalu, Riina 2016. The fight between personal and impersonal style in scientific texts.- Ettekanne. 8th AILA-Europe Junior Research Meeting in Applied Linguistics. Tallinn, May 19, 2016.
Tallinna Ülikool 2013. Eesti keel kõrghariduse ja teaduskeelena (uuringu sisuaruanne).
http://dspace.ut.ee/handle/10062/40694
Tang, Ramona, John, Suganthi 1999. The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. – English for Specific Purposes, kd 18, nr S1, lk S23−S39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
