Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 156–169
© Alenkina T., 2021
UDC: 
808.1

The structure of academic writer identity in L2 book reviews by Russian undergraduates: Voice and stance [in English]

Alenkina T. 1 (Dolgoprudny, Russian Federation)
1 Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 774
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article focuses on theoretical and practical aspects of academic writer identity. The theoretical aspect comprises the analysis of the Anglo-American bulk of research devoted to the problem of writer identity in the academic written discourse. The purpose of the article is to define the structure of writer identity, its voice and stance. The practical objective of the study is to investigate the identity of novice academic writers represented in their language choices as well as to describe the mechanism of such choices. In order to accomplish the purpose of the research, three types of writer positioning are distinguished: ideational, interpersonal, and textual.
Materials and Methods. The theoretical analysis is based on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach and Rhetorical Genre Studies as well as recent developments of ESP. The analysis of empirical data has been conducted using the methods of discourse analysis as well as qualitative and quantitative methods of data processing. The study reveals the voice and stance represented by lexico-grammatical means of the English academic written discourse. The conducted experiment introduces the context of ESP and models the situation of the implementation of the genre approach in the Academic Writing course in the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, which is one of the leading technical universities in Russia. The research materials include texts of academic book reviews written in English by Russian undergraduates.
Results. The study has revealed the social nature of writer identity determined by the genre hybridity of a book review. It is shown that identification and positioning are in direсt connection with the source text; thus, while choosing a textbook or a general science book, the writer identity is getting to be collective or professional. Depending on the functional style of the source text, the rhetorical markers are changing as well. Thus, while choosing a textbook, students are writing for the teacher and addresses the student audience; at the same time in case of the general science text, the student rises to the level of an expert and addresses the scientific community. The popular science text helps work out the individual voice while the author’s style is changing toward the creative one and the dialogue between the writer and the reader is taking an intimate coloring. Subjectivity markers (adjectives with the negative value, boosters) are getting to be typical for the Russian linguistic and academic culture.
Conclusions. The article concludes that constructing the socially-predetermined writer identity is an essential skill for students and academics. The writer identity is fluid and changeable depending on the social context – academic discourse and genre characteristics. The genre of a book review that combines objectivity and subjectivity gives an opportunity to construct writer identity according to the choice of the source text. The writer identity is culturally-predetermined and connected with the standards of Russian linguistic culture, academic rules and traditions of teaching English as a foreign language in Russia.

Keywords: 

Writer identity; Book review; Voice; Stance; Positioning; Negative value; Booster.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:46513830

For citation:
Alenkina T. The structure of academic writer identity in L2 book reviews by Russian undergraduates: Voice and stance [in English]. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 156–169. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2104.08
References: 
  1. Atkinson D. L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2003, vol. 12 (1), pp. 3–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6
  2. Flowerdew J., Wang S. H. Identity in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2015, vol. 35, pp. 81–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051400021X
  3. Elbow P. Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. URL: https://peterelbow.com/writing_with_power.html
  4. Mauranen A., Bondi M. Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2003, vol. 2 (4), pp. 269–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00045-6
  5. Englebretson R. (ed). Stancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164
  6. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 280 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825
  7. Ritzenberg A., Mendelsohn S. E. How scholars write. Oxford University Press, 2020. 352 p. URL: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-scholars-write-9780190296735?cc=us&lang=en&#
  8. Fang Z. Linguistic features of academic writing. Demystifying academic writing: Genres, Moves, Skills, and Strategies. New York, Routledge, 2021, pp. 10–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003131618-3
  9. Elbow P. Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. URL: https://peterelbow.com/writing_with_power.html

10. Martin J. R., Rose D. Genre relations. Mapping culture. London: Equinox Publishing, 2008. 300 p. URL: https://2lib.org/book/2797085/224f79?id=2797085&secret=224f79

11. Ramanathan V., Atkinson D. Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, vol. 8 (1), pp. 45–75. URL: https://www.academia.edu/35993559/Individualism_academic_writing_and_ESL_writers

12. Vassileva I. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 2001, vol. 20 (1), pp. 83–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0

13. Siepmann D. Academic writing and culture. Meta, 2006, vol. 51 (1), pp. 131–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/012998ar

14. Molino A. Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2010, vol. 9 (2), pp. 86–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007

15. Prior P. Voices in text, mind, and society. Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2001, vol. 10 (1–2), pp. 55–81. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00037-0

16. Khutyz I. P. Engagement features in Russian and English: A cross-cultural analysis of academic written discourse. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2013, vol. 13 (1), pp. 1–20. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23748264

17. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford Linguistics, OUP, 2001. 240 p. URL:https://books.google.ru/books/about/Evaluation_in_Text_Authorial_Stance_and.html?hl=ru&id=k8nSuoF0-XoC&redir_esc=y

18. Biber D., Finegan E. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 1989, vol. 9 (1), pp. 93–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

19. Hyland K. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2010, vol. 9 (2), pp. 116–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

20. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford Linguistics, OUP, 2001. 240 p. URL:https://books.google.ru/books/about/Evaluation_in_Text_Authorial_Stance_and.html?hl=ru&id=k8nSuoF0-XoC&redir_esc=y

21. Hyland K., Diani G. (eds.) Academic evaluation. Review genres in academic settings. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009. 256 p. URL: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780230224339

22. Hisiao C. Attitudes: Authorial stance in the review genre of Taiwanese MA graduates. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 2019, vol. 7 (2), pp. 171–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1902171H

23. Zhao C. G., Llosa L. Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 2008, vol. 13 (3), pp. 153–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.10.003

24. Lancaster Z. Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2016, vol. 23, pp. 16–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006

25. Rowland N. J., Knapp J. A., Fargo H. Learning “Scholarship as Conversation” by writing book reviews. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 2019, vol. 2 (3), pp. 20–28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18833/spur/2/3/6

26. Tse P., Hyland K. “So what is the problem this book addresses?” Interactions in academic book reviews. Text and Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Discourse Communication Studies, 2006, vol. 26 (6), pp. 767–790. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/110.1515/TEXT.2006.031

27. Salager-Meyer F. Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: Hedging. European Science Editing, 2011, vol. 37 (2), pp. 35–37. URL: https://scholar.google.ru/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Rgkp21AAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=Rgkp21AAAAAJ:4TOpqqG69KYC 

28. Matsuda P. K. Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2015, vol. 35, pp. 140–159. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000178

29. Molino A. Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2010, vol. 9 (2), pp. 86–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007

30. Hyland K. Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 2002, vol. 56 (4), pp. 351–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351

Date of the publication 31.08.2021