Writer Identity in Academic Writing

Introductory statement

Academic writing has traditionally been thought of as a kind of impersonal, faceless discourse. However, recent research has suggested that there is room for negotiation of identity within academic writing, and thus academic writing need not be stripped of a writer’s identity. In this paper, I explore the notion of writer identity in an academic article by focusing on the use of first person pronouns. My main argument is that writers are aware of, and make efficient use of writer identity in order to make their message understood. In order to prove my argument I used a set of six different identities that stand behind the first person pronouns in academic writing. I applied this framework to an ELT article from Tesol Quarterly, and focused my research on how the identity of the writer is revealed through uses of first person pronouns, and then discussed the implications of the results.

What is writer identity in academic writing?

Academic writing is a specialized form of writing that is used to convey ideas, concepts, and arguments to a scholarly audience. In academic writing, writers are required to demonstrate a high level of expertise in their subject area, and to present their ideas and arguments in a clear, concise, and well-structured manner. However, in addition to these technical requirements, academic writing also involves the development of a writer identity that is grounded in the writer’s experiences, values, and beliefs. In this section, we will explore the concept of writer identity in academic writing, and examine how it can influence the way in which writers approach their work.

At its most basic level, writer identity refers to the ways in which a writer understands and presents themselves as a writer. This can include a writer’s beliefs about the role of writing in their life, their motivations for writing, and the values that they bring to their work. In academic writing, writer identity can also encompass a writer’s relationship to their subject area, their expertise in their field, and their understanding of the scholarly conversation surrounding their topic.

One of the key ways in which writer identity can influence academic writing is through the writer’s choice of voice and tone. Voice refers to the way in which a writer presents themselves to their audience, and can include elements such as style, tone, and persona. Tone, on the other hand, refers to the writer’s attitude towards their subject matter, and can range from objective and analytical to personal and emotional. In academic writing, writers may choose to adopt a more formal or objective voice in order to convey a sense of authority and expertise, or they may choose to adopt a more personal and emotional tone in order to connect with their audience on a deeper level.

Another way in which writer identity can influence academic writing is through the writer’s use of evidence and argumentation. Writers who feel a strong connection to their subject area may be more likely to seek out and present evidence that supports their own beliefs and values, while writers who are more detached from their subject may be more inclined to present evidence in a more neutral or objective manner. Additionally, a writer’s level of expertise in their field can influence the strength and persuasiveness of their arguments, as well as their ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments.

Finally, writer identity can also influence the way in which writers approach the writing process itself. Writers who feel a strong sense of connection to their work may be more likely to engage in a process of exploration and discovery as they write, while writers who feel less connected may be more focused on achieving a specific outcome or meeting a particular set of requirements. Additionally, writers who feel a sense of ownership and investment in their work may be more likely to take risks and experiment with different forms and styles of writing, while writers who feel less invested may be more cautious and conservative in their approach.

To conclude, writer identity is an important aspect of academic writing that can influence the way in which writers approach their work, from the choice of voice and tone to the use of evidence and argumentation. By understanding and developing their own writer identity, academic writers can better connect with their audience, strengthen their arguments, and engage in a more productive and fulfilling writing process.

Introduction

In this paper I will base my assertions and discussions on two articles. The first article, which has provided the framework for my study, is written by Ramona Tang and Suganthi John, and is entitled The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. It was published in English for Specific Purpose (no. 18, 1999, S23-S39). The second article, Options of identity in academic writing by Ken Hyland, has helped me construct the rationale and understand the general issues concerned with writer identity. It was published in ELT Journal (Vol. 56/4, October 2002, pp. 351-358).

Using the two articles mentioned above as guidelines, I will identify, analyze and discuss the writer identity in Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning by Bonny Norton Peirce. This article was published in Tesol Quarterly (Vol. 29, No.1, Spring 1995). I had two central aims when looking at the article subject to research: (1) to determine if the writer uses the first person pronoun in her writing; and (2) to determine the roles that are behind these first person references. The findings are highlighted in Results of Analysis and Discussion of the present paper.

Terminology

Recent research has emphasized that disciplines have different views of knowledge, different research practices, and different ways of seeing the world. Thus, academic writing is not the uniformly faceless prose that it is often thought to be, but it displays peculiarities between fields of study. All these differences are reflected in diverse forms, arguments and expressions, including the writer identity. By ‘writer identity’ we understand the use and/or the absence of first person pronouns, both in the singular and plural forms (e.g. I, me, mine, we, us, our and ours). The extent to which authors can intrude into their texts and mark their personal involvement by using first person pronouns, clearly varies between disciplines.

Generally, writers in the ‘hard sciences’ and engineering prefer to downplay their personal role to highlight the issue of their study. The preferences for joint authorship in the sciences and engineering explains the greater use of plural forms in those disciplines. By using fewer author pronouns, writers in the sciences adopt a less personal style in order to help strengthen an impression of objectivity by subordinating their own voice to that of their results.

In ‘soft knowledge’ domains, such as humanities and social sciences the arguments and assertions are less precisely measurable and clear-cut than in the ‘hard sciences’. Thus, the presence of the writer identity is more obvious, and a personal stance can help promote an impression of confidence and authority. For this reason, writers use the first person pronoun when they are presenting their claims and bottom-line results. Writers also intrude into the text to link themselves with their main contribution.

Thus, we can say that effective academic writing depends on appropriate language choices, and that the ‘writer identity’ refers to the various ways the writers employ their personal perceptions in different contexts.

Rationale

Traditionally, academic writing had been considered as being dry and impersonal. This kind of writing involves an objective exploration of ideas that transcend the individual. Numerous textbook and style guides advised the writers to leave their personalities aside, and subordinate their views to rigid conventions of anonymity. However, recent research has shown that academic writing is no longer regarded as distant and impersonal, but as a genre where the writer’s presence is felt more and more significantly. Thus, the issue of how writers create identities for themselves in their academic writing has become once again the subject of research.

Method

In this section, various ways in which the first person pronoun may be used in academic writing are presented. Research has shown that not all instances of ‘I’ are exactly alike, and that a degree of power wielded by authorial presence is to be noted through a particular instance of use of the first person pronoun. The following categories are based on Tang and John’s research, and include: ‘I’ as the representative, ‘I’ as the guide, ‘I’ as the architect, ‘I’ as the recounter of the research process, ‘I’ as the opinion-holder and ‘I’ as the originator.

‘I’ as the representative can be identified with the first person pronoun, usually in the plural form ‘we’ or ‘us’. These personal pronouns can refer to: something general, as in It resulted in the language we know today. (we = people); a smaller group, as in We know that Romanian is a Latin language. (we = linguists); and a particular state of affair, as in The goods we have today reflect many centuries of development. The examples above show the fact that the first person pronoun reduces the writer to a non-entity, because the reader does not find out anything about the person who writes the lines.

‘I’ as the guide through the essay can be better understood if we think of the essay as a ‘new language lesson’ and the writer as the ‘teacher’ during the student’s presence in class. Using this metaphor, we can see the role of the guide as being the person who shows the reader through the essay, much as a teacher teaches the students the new lesson. The guide locates the reader and the writer in time and place, presents the readers the main points of the essay, and concludes his/her findings. Verbs of perception (e.g. see, note and observe) are usually clear references that the first personal pronoun (usually in its plural forms of we or us) has the role of the ‘guide’.

‘I’ as the architect is usually realized by the usage of the first person singular, ‘I’. The writer is the person who writes, organizes, structures and outlines the material in the written paper. There is not a clear-cut difference between ‘I’ as the guide and ‘I’ as the architect, but it is useful to have in mind the fact that ‘the guide’ merely seems to show the reader through an already existing terrain, while ‘the architect’, as the words suggest, creates a structure in the writing process.

‘I’ as the recounter of the research process describes or recounts the various steps of the research process. These might include reading source texts, interviewing subjects, collecting data etc. Material process verbs or ‘doing’ verbs (e.g. work, read, interview, collect), frequently used in the past tense, signal the presence of ‘I’ as a recounter of the research process.

‘I’ as the opinion-holder can be found in the instances where the writer shares an opinion, view or attitude with regard to known information or proved facts. Verbs of mental processes of cognition (e.g. think) usually are an indicator that the writer takes the position of the ‘opinion-holder’.

‘I’ as the originator can be found in academic writings where the writer advances his/her own ideas in the paper. It is thus understandable that when the writer is ‘the originator’ the ideas presented are new. The usage of “I” as the originator gives the writer the opportunity to claim his/her authority, and express some form of ownership over the written work.

Results of Analysis

Using the method described above, I have identified all the instances of writer identity in Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning by Bonny Norton Peirce (Tesol Quarterly, Spring 1995). For the sake of better organization, my results and discussion will be split into the following conventions:

(1) the first section of Bonny’s study (pp.9-13) will be referred to as Part 1: The Introduction;

(2) the second section entitled “THE STUDY: IMMIGRANT WOMEN AS LANGUAGE LEARNERS” (pp.13-14) will be referred to as Part 2: The Study;

(3) the third section entitled “THE THEORY: SOCIAL IDENTITY, INVESTMENT, AND THE RIGHT TO SPEAK” (pp. 14-18) will be referred to as Part 3: The Theory;

(4) the fourth section entitled “THE ANALYSIS: IDENTITY, INVESTMENT, AND LANGUAGE LEARNING” (pp. 18-25) will be referred to as Part 4: The Analysis; and

(5) the final section entitled “THE IMPLICATIONS: CLASSROOM-BASED SOCAIL RESEARCH” (pp. 25-28) will be referred to as Part 5: The Implications.

Table 1: Distribution of first person pronouns across the article of research

Discussion

It is easy to notice in Table 1 that none of the five parts of Bonny’s article have any instances of ‘I’ as the representative and ‘I’ as the guide. From this I can understand the fact that the author does not intend to play a passive role in her article. Already a member of the academic community (a postdoctoral fellow at the Modern Language Center, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada), the author does not need the acceptance of the linguists community. What she intends to do in the article is to bring the topic of her research to light and present her findings and conclusions.  In order to achieve this she does not have to use the writer identity as the representative or the guide.

Out of a total of 10 instances of the first person pronoun used in Part 1: The Introduction four of them (40%) fall into the ‘I’ as the originator category (for examples see Appendix). The reason that stands behind this fact is that Part 1: The Introduction is where the author expresses the novelty of her research. She succeeds in presenting her ideas though the usage of such phrases as propose, take the position, argue and support. It is also important to mention that there are three (30%) instances of ‘I’ as the opinion-holder, which means that she expresses opinions of someone else’s views in order to build the theoretical background of her study. The instances where ‘I’ stands for the architect (10%) and for the recounter of the research process (10%) make out of Bonny’s first part of the article a proficient way of building up and recreating the backdrop of research. Thus, Part 1: The Introduction contains all the necessary elements to make its message clearly understood.

Out of a total of 6 instances of the first person pronoun used in Part 2: The Study five of them (83%) fall into the ‘I’ as the recounter of the research process. This is only natural due to the fact that this part of Bonny’s article deals with the presentation of her research, which meant collecting data from diaries, questionnaires, individual and group interviews, and home visits. She makes use of such phrases as I helped teach, I invited, I based my research questions, etc., which only highlight the fact that she underwent through all the necessary academic demands when doing her project.

In Part 3: The Theory the total instances of the first person pronoun used are 16. The number of first personal pronouns that express ‘I’ as the recounter of the research process and ‘I’ as the originator is equal, i.e. five instances (31%) each. This can be explained by the fact that what the writer does in this part is to present her new theory based on the research she has previously done. It is important to mention that there are four (25%) instances of ‘I’ as the architect which only help the writer to build the discourse she needs in order to sustain her ideas. This part has the highest percentage (30%) of usage of first person pronouns in the whole article, thus being the center and most important part of her research.

Out of a total of 11 instances of the first person pronoun used in Part 4: The Analysis five of them (45%) fall into the ‘I’ as the originator category. This is due to the fact that this section analyses her findings. The other instances of writer identity present in this part are equally shared by uses of ‘I’ as the architect, as the recounter, and as the opinion holder in a percentage of 18%. These are used skillfully by the author in order to create a believable presentation of her opinions.

Out of a total of 11 instances of the first person pronoun used in Part 5: The Interpretations, six (54%) fall in the ‘I’ as the originator category. ‘I’ as the recoutner of the research process is represented by four (36%) instances of writer identity. This is only normal if we consider this final section of Bonny’s article as her conclusions. The conclusions are meant to restate the topic-problem and go through the most important evidence that sustains the writer’s own opinions.

Conclusion

Out of a total of 54 instances of the first person pronoun used in Bonny’s article, 20 (37%) fall into the ‘I’ as the originator category. Instances of ‘I’ as the recoutner of the research process are 18 (33%) in number. This means the writer identity in the article is very strong, but is also based on thorough research. When the article was published for the first time in 1995 the issue of social identity in the context of language learning was not dealt upon by many linguists. That is why, when writing her article the author had to make use of numerous instances of first person pronouns.

What this paper has shown is the fact that each section of Bonny’s article made use of writer identity in order to suit her discourse. Probably, Bonny Norton Peirce was not aware of this fact, but her being part of the academic community for a long time has subconsciously influenced the decision she made regarding language use when she wrote her article.

Appendix

Following are examples for each category of writer identity from Bonny’s article. The first person pronouns have been underlined in each example:

‘I’ as the architect

• “… I drew in particular on Weedon’s (1987) conception of social identity or subjectivity.” (p.14-15)
• “I will demonstrate below that although it might be tempting to argue that Eva was essentially an introverted language learner…” (p. 16)
• “… I wish to highlight data that addresses the question….” (p.18)

‘I’ as the recounter of the research process

• “From January to June 1990 I helped teach a 6-month ESL course to a group of recent immigrants at Ontario College in Newtown, Canada.” (p.13)
• “I also drew a substantial amount of data from two detailed questionnaires…” (p.14)
• “… my research on immigrant women in Canada develops questions…” (p.18)

‘I’ as the opinion-holder

• “… a theory of social identity that I hope will contribute to debates on second language learning.” (p.12)
• “In my view, the conception of investment rather than motivation …” (p.17)
• “I suggest that the reason why Martina refused to be silent…” (p.21)

‘I’ as the originator

• “I take the position that if learners invest in a second language…” (p.17)
• “I wish to argue that Martina’s investment in English was largely structured…” (p.21)
• “As Eva continued to develop what I have called an identity as a multicultural citizen…” (p.25)

References

1. Hyland, Ken, Options of identity in academic writing, in ELT Journal, Vol. 56/4, October 2002, pp. 351-358.
2. Peirce, Bonny Norton, Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning, in Tesol Quarterly, Vol. 29, No.1, Spring 1995.
3. Tang, Ramona and John, Suganthi, The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun, in English for Specific Purpose, no. 18, 1999, S23-S39.
4. Photo source

Initially published in “Studii de Stiinta si Cultura”
(p. 9-13, An III, Nr 4 (11), December 2007)