Abstract

This article describes five political scientists’ interview-based accounts of appropriate and inappropriate use of the pronouns I and we in academic writing. The informants talked about pronoun use with reference to one of their own journal articles and also by referring to other informants’ texts. Beliefs about appropriate and inappropriate use varied widely, and it was emphasized that the discipline encompasses a number of subdisciplines, which helps account for these differing pronoun preferences. The insights and implications of the study are discussed, and a heuristic that combines corpus-based and interview-based approaches to the investigation of pronouns is proposed. The corpus-based part of the heuristic provides the researcher with data on typical disciplinary patterns of pronoun use, whereas the interview-based part provides accounts of informants’ motivations and intentions that inform their pronoun use. It is argued that the heuristic could be adapted to investigate other linguistic features in academic writing.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2006-10-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088306293921
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Also cites 17 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  2. 10.3998/mpub.8903
  3. 10.4324/9780203224342
  4. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.10.002
  5. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  6. 10.1093/applin/ami012
  7. 10.4135/9781412986120
  8. 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
  9. 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
  10. 10.1177/1461445605050365
  11. 10.1075/swll.5
  12. 10.1017/S0958344005000613
  13. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
  14. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
  15. 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
  16. 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x
    International Journal of Applied Linguistics  
  17. 10.1093/applin/21.1.3
CrossRef global citation count: 38 View in citation network →