Impersonal, General, and Social

Abstract

The impersonalizing role passive voice plays in scientific discourse is well known. Analysis of the Methods sections of nine medical research articles shows that metonymy is another frequent strategy used to create anonymous authors/agents. Discourse agents were categorized into four semantic domains: familial lay, nonfamilial lay, authorial professional, and nonauthorial professional. Agents were investigated in relation to impersonalization and social identity. Results show that although possessive/causative metonyms produce generic participants and reduce most rival researchers to “previous studies,” significant health professionals are often referred to in terms of representational/locative metonyms, highlighting their authoritative social identities. Additionally, authors are either highly visible or, if they choose to disguise themselves, they do so quite drastically using impersonalization devices or agentless passives. In contrast, for other researchers and health professionals, co-occurrence of metonymy and passive voice is generally avoided; nevertheless, these agents are usually more hidden than are the present authors.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2007-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088307302946
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Also cites 25 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1017/S026719059919010X
  2. 10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00189-4
  3. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
  4. 10.1136/bmj.315.7117.1181
  5. 10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1229
  6. 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00034-8
  7. 10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1019
  8. 10.1177/030631277600600302
  9. Givón, T. (1994). The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In …
  10. 10.1136/bmj.312.7042.1326
  11. 10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun
  12. 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
  13. 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
  14. 10.1136/bmj.317.7172.1558
  15. 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W
  16. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
  17. 10.1177/0957926502013004453
  18. 10.1136/bmj.318.7196.1443
  19. 10.1136/bmj.323.7306.194
  20. 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90287-E
  21. 10.1136/bmj.325.7371.1007
  22. 10.1016/0272-2380(81)90004-4
  23. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X
  24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.004
  25. 10.1136/bmj.38258.507928.55
CrossRef global citation count: 30 View in citation network →