Conclusiones y discusión

There are a variety of ways to realise the authorial voice, and self-reference in an academic text with a variety of personal, impersonal and other pronouns available for this purpose. Firstly, in terms of discussing personal pronouns, English has an incomplete set of pronouns. This means that there is some potential for confusion. Pronouns, in particular personal pronouns, are usually used in reference to specific people. Impersonal pronouns however are used on the contrary to facilitate universal, generic or unspecified references on the part of the interlocutor (Reilly et al. 2005: 187). This can add some potential ambiguity, especially as a pronoun such as ‘we’ could be used to state a ‘universal’ us, the reader and the writer, the ‘royal us’, or another, as yet unspecified grouping (190). Brown and Yule (1993) state that this is comprehended widely, although not necessarily effectively recreated. An in-depth list is laid out by Reilly et al. (2005: 189) as follows:

Instances of personal pronouns (and determiners).  1st _{person singular pronouns; I, Me, Mine (my).}

 1st _{person plural pronouns; We, Us, Ours (our).}

 3rd _{Person singular pronouns; He, Him, His (pronoun and determiner) She, Her} (pronoun and determiner) Hers

Instances of Impersonal pronouns (and determiners).

 1st _{person plural pronouns; We, Us, Ours (our).}

 2nd _{person singular pronouns; You (both as a subject and object) Yours (your).} 3rd Person Pronouns.

 Impersonal 3rd _{person; One, You}  Existential pronouns; there  Extraposition pronouns; it

 Partitive pronouns; any, anybody, anyone, anything, some, somebody, someone, something.

 Universal pronouns; All, Both, Every, Everybody, Everyone, Everything.

Other pronouns.

 Relative pronouns; That, what, which, whom  Demonstrative; That, these, this, those Pronominal replacements.

 The third person descriptor (e.g. the author has written)

 Replacement of the author with their product (in which the author is replaced with their product but demonstrates their ownership e.g. my paper/ our book)  Depersonalized replacement of the product (in which the author is replaced their

product but depersonalised e.g. this book / the book)

 Indirect position of the author (though use of passives) (Reilly et al., 2005: 5-86) Use of passive construction.

Furthermore, in addition to the construction of voice by means of lexical choices, we may remember that there are grammatical options as well. Any transitive event, linguistically speaking will demonstrate rhetorical choices, such as elements of grammatical voice. These elements are typically lumped together under BE or GET

passives. MacDonald, (2015a) demonstrated a greater spectrum of forms and meanings, however, Reilly (2005) uses the following functional approach:

 Full (verb to BE) passive: (i.e. with ‘by’).

 Truncated (verb to BE) passive: (i.e. without ‘by’).  Full (verb to GET) passive: (i.e. with ‘by’).

Truncated (verb to GET) passive: (i.e. without ‘by’) (Reilly et al. 2005: 195).

Such choices are used to help craft the interlocutor’s perspectives. Elements such as the passive and similar voices are used to add the following rhetorical features:

i. Agentless. ii. Detached. iii. Impersonal. iv. Generalized.

v. Without attribution (Reilly et al. 2005: 191).

Self-mention:

Self-mention constitutes a central feature of academic discourse, since it contributes not only to the writers’ construction of a text but also to the rhetorical self. This is often achieved through the authorial pronoun, which promote the following identities:

i. Competent rhetorical self.

ii. Competent scholarly identity necessary to be effective.

To these effects, the use of self-reference provides a number of discourse functions. These are laid out as follows:

i. Firstly, that of Self benefits. Expressing; Personal gain, - The least threatening form of self-reference function. - Found in small numbers.

ii. Next, that of Stating a purpose. Expressing Revealing the discourse purpose, - Signals intention.

- Provides overt structure for the text.

- Demonstrates a higher degree of personal procedure (Hyland, 2002a: 1101).

iii. Explaining a procedure. Expressing; Revealing the discourse purpose. - Metatextual variation of stating a purpose (explained above).

- Demonstrates a lower degree of personal of personal exposure (Hyland, 2002a: 1102).

iv. Elaborating an argument. Expressing; Setting out a line of reasoning., - High frequency found in professional academic texts.

- Very limited use in student writing.

- A high risk function (Hyland, 2002a: 1103).

v. Stating results/ claims. Expressing; Making claims. - The most self-assertive function.

- The most-high risk (face-threatening danger of interpersonal faiulure).

Due to high risk, only usually found in professional academic texts (Hyland, 2002a: 1103).

-

vi. First person acknowledgements. The acknowledgement of the contribution and support.

- A sporadic use of 1st person.

- Considered peripheral. (Hyland, 2002a: 1106-7).

vii. Personal Interactions. In terms of use, 1st person pronouns are typically used in 2 different cases, according to Vergaro (2010:124). These are listed as follows:

1. Stating the purpose of the paper. 2. The Metadiscourse function.

- Where the purpose of the paper is not always stated, and the outlining of the paper takes place instead.

- This feature is found typically in papers, throughout the body of the text.

- In these cases, pronouns are commonly found, with no need for evaluation, or high-risk strategies.

2.3. Academic Discourse:

Ken Hyland describes academic discourse as “ways of thinking and using language which exists in the academy” (2009: 1). He goes on to state that “its significance, in large part, lies in the fact that complex social activities like educating students, demonstrating learning, disseminating ideas and constructing knowledge, rely on language to accomplish”. Academic discourse is a very wide cognitive field, and, as such, it is important for an academic environment to maintain norms of practice amongst practitioners of the academic community. However, there is more to academic discourse than just the day to day business of a scholarly society, as Hyland claims, “academic discourse does more than enable universities to get on with the business of teaching and research. It simultaneously constructs the social roles and relationships which create academics and students” (Hyland, 2009: 1). In this respect, Van Dijk (1997: 3) discusses the crucial need for individuals to access the discourses of their intended communities and, suggests that; “by accomplishing discourse in social situations, language users at the same time actively construct and display such roles and identities.”

Finding access to the discourse of academic environments is essential for developing writers and is key to developing identity and voice as part of that community, as West, Lazar and Kramarae (1997: 97) so eloquently phrase it, they are; “…recasting the sociolinguistic notion of ‘speaker identity.” According to Hyland this is because “academic writing is not just about conveying an ideational ‘content’, it is also about the representation of self” (2002a: 1091). This interaction with discourse thus plays a key role in the development of the individual academic elements such as viewpoints, actions and, crucially, the stance of its members.

2.3.1. Acquisition of written academic discourse.

Academic discourse does not refer just to academic style, or “register” (Sperling, 1996). Higher education students learning to enter an academic community of writers

need to learn both the conventions and genres of their discipline (Bizzell, 1982) and the current issues important to the field of study (Bazerman, 2011). Academic discourse involves using academic sources to create knowledge through constructing contribution to the understanding of a topic, for example by offering new concepts and understanding (Hauptman et al, 2003; Sternberg, 2010; Veit, 1998;). Findlow(2006) highlights how academic education has an important role in ‘classifying, defining and forming bodies of knowledge that rely on ‘the interconnectedness of language and mindsets, medium and message’ (20). The need to develop discourse skills in English academic writing as well as grammatical efficiency as a means for entry into discourse communities is well established in literature (Trabelsy, 2015: 353; Modhish, 2012). For Hyland the centrality of a writer’s pragmatic competence is the ability to construct representations of themselves in their work, which are both credible and aligned with pre-existing social identities in whatever community the writing takes place (2002a: 1091). Despite the expected similarities between different communities of practice, working within the same linguistic or cultural area, Koutsantoni, (2003) and Hyland (2000) found that real pragmatic differences exist in the way in which academic discourse is constructed between publications from different subject areas.

Hyland goes on to discuss the inherent challenges encountered by new practitioners of a discourse community, as they seek to recreate themselves in new roles and identities, which may well differ from those which they bring with them. These particular rhetorical identities, which are defined by a writing community, will accomplish a commonality in written practice through various rhetorical and interactive elements. Visible examples such the use of first person pronouns and possessive determiners, which distinguish successful practice, are examples of features that novice members of the community may find most difficulty acquiring (Hyland, 2002a: 1092). In this way, a writer needs to gain control of the many voices present in their text, especially their own authorial voice, which is both able to guide the reader through the strands of consciousness represented by the voices of others in the text but also to speak with appropriate authority and reassurance. As Hyland explains; “writers have to select their words so that readers are drawn in, influenced and persuaded. Our use of these resources, and the choices we make from the alternatives they offer, signal who we are” (Hyland, 2002a: 1093).

Literary communities of practice are based on the shared practice and socialisation that takes place within the context of schools, universities, or even academic publications (Perez, 2004b: 37). These are the places where community members are socialised into the practices of the community by their very engagement with it. Our interaction with a discourse, especially regarding academic literacy, is therefore something that is developed through a series of ventures into the community that practices that discourse. We are therefore conditioned and socialised, or ‘apprenticed’ into our knowledge of academic discourse over time and through our very engagement with the practices of the academic community. For example, reading the work of others, helps writers to write in an academic style (Duff: 2010: 427) and engage in the shared academic norms. This is of particular interest to this project and requires further investigation into different constructs of discourse in academic communities of practice.

2.3.2. Modality and Discourse.

Modality can be described as a form of interpersonal meta-function (Halliday, 2014) and is thus an important consideration when dealing with the complex web of interpersonal relations within texts, such as those established between the writer and their audience and other textual participants. This is particularly important given the failures in these areas demonstrated in constructing academic texts within Gulf states such as Oman (see section 2.2.2.) in addition to well documented differences in interpersonal relations with authorities from Western norms (Al-Shabbani, 2015) and an underdeveloped literary culture in which writing skills are poorly developed (Al- Mahrooqi and Tuzlukova, 2014). Deontic modality is thus a key point of language with which to understand the interpersonal application of obligation relating to academic authority.

When discussing the role of modality in discourse, much of the work that has taken place in this regard has been within the realm of philosophy, which although useful is not the context of this study Another alternative source for developing concepts surrounding modality is that in the English language teaching communities which, although relevant and providing practical solutions to issues such as language development and difficulties, is often manifested without sufficient theoretical depth, being in the form of educationally orientated teaching material in which modality is typically reduced to the teaching of lexical features. What is certain is that when

considering the nature of modality in English discourse, we are approaching a highly complex semantic and lexical field.

Over the last half century there have been various attempts to systematise our knowledge regarding lexicalised modal features. Lassiter argues that some approaches to modality are too restrictive in several ways (2001, 20) and as such, it is important that the use of modality and related features represented lexically are carefully considered. In this respect, Kratzer (2012: 4) and Lassiter (2014: 1) define a difference in the manner in which deontic modality is realised in comparison to that of epistemic modality. From this perspective, when identifying the presence of a large range of semantic diversity within the same sets of lexical items, (Lassiter, 2011) identifies the following four semantic functions found associated within the semantics of modal verbs:

i. Epistemic modality: When something must be so given what is known, e.g. There must be alien lifeforms given the sheer size of space.

ii. Deontic modality: when there is obligation that something must be done, e.g. You shall not steal.

iii. Teleologic modality: when something must be done to accomplish what needs to be accomplished, e.g. Before we can see the results, we will process the data.

iv. Bouletic modality: Nonbinding social obligations or personal desires, e.g. we simply must visit London.

Although these could all be seen as very specific areas of modality, there is a significant amount of semantic overlap between some of these elements. Looking at the above the bouletic category could be seen as a form of non-binding social deontic modality. In the same manner, teleological forms could be seen as self-imposed responsibility and as such would also include part of the deontic modal spectrum.

2.3.4. Deontic Discourse:

In terms of understanding different forms of discourse, and the roles which they can fulfil within a text, Ochs (1996) identified a number of attitude categories that are of interest to this project. Although there are further classifications suggested by various authors, this simplistic breakdown of main attitudinal categories allowed me to choose an appropriate discursive context with which to focus the study:

i. Epistemic attitude: Fundamentally concerned with the transfer of knowledge, Ochs relates this to ‘cognising’ interlocutors expressing evidential features establishing the level of truth of their proposition.

ii. Deontic attitude: Primarily relating to prescriptive propositions which promote or impose a degree of obligation.

iii. Affective attitude: Discourse concerned with the emotional stance taken by an interlocutor in relation to a concept or stance.

Although each of these categories is distinctive in nature, there are certain similarities between epistemic and affective discourse categories. Epistemic and affective stance is described as having an “especially privileged role in the constitution of social life” (Ochs 1996: 420) being used in general social contexts found in everyday life. This in effect means that they are generally considered, less formal, social oriented forms of communication. In this manner, the deontic category is unique in the fact that it deals with discourse concept that while still an inherent part of academic practice (being prescriptive in nature) is significant as a means of demonstrating and exposing overt and more deeply rooted attitudes towards authority and power.

In terms of approaching deontic discourse from the perspective of modality, there have been several models which have attempted to break this category of discourse down into different illocutionary types, with categories such as expressive modality (indicating a subject’s state of mind) (Searle, 1969) and dynamic modality (indicating the internal capability of a subject) (Palmer, 2001). These forms of modality may also be more typically associated with the two non-deontic discourse categories. However, several elements are relevant to this project and deontic discourse more generally. These are laid out in the foundational work of Searle, (1969) and Bach and Harnish, (1979):

i. Assertive modality: An imposed commitment by an interlocutor. In academic contexts, these can be instances in which an author may suggest a course of action on the part of a reader or a more generalised audience.

ii. Directive modality: An interlocutor’s commitment. The role of directive modality is less commonly associated with academic discourse as it may contain commands as well as requests, which can be viewed as less in keeping with Western academic values.

iii. Commissive modality: Commitments by an interlocutor imposed by themselves, either of social or formal nature, which could be seen as more typically associated with reflective discoursal functions in Western academic contexts.

2.4. Critical Stance.

A major part of the discourse discussed in the section above has touched on elements of stance construction, especially in relation to modality. In this regard it would be appropriate to discuss this key discourse feature in more detail. Ochs sees “stance” as one of four dimensions that relate to language and culture and defines it as “a socially recognized disposition” (1996: 2) which refers to a supposed universality within a specific social context. Stance is one of a number of important aspects in the construction of genres of academic writing. Despite the fact that academic writing aspires to objectivity, stance-taking reflects critical attitude and is still a major aspect of the construction of an academic text. Grey and Biber (2012: 15) state that stance is the linguistic mechanism that conveys personal attitude and assessment, and although being the subject of a variety of studies and being an area of substantial interest over the past twenty-five years, it is still a subject deemed contentious and ambiguous (Guinda and Hyland 2012: 1). In all genres, including those considered more impersonal, there are indicators of stance. Verschueren observes that ‘In spite of the overall descriptive purposes… the texts are full of expressions that reveal beliefs, goals, aspirations, intentions etc…and topics are often clearly anchored into concerns that are ‘personal for the author’. (2002: 93). In this respect, writers will have strong opinions linked to the themes in their research and as Hyland informs us, stance taking enables a writer to ‘get behind’ their propositions and demonstrate their personal view towards them. (2002a: 1094).

2.4.1. Expressing stance in academic writing.

As a key element of academic writing, stance can be realised in a variety of different manifestations depending on the culture and the nature of the discourse community of which the stance-taker is a part. According to Grey and Biber in English there are, “no obligatory grammatical elements to express stance” (2012: 190). Instead, they draw attention to the fact that English uses a range of grammatical devices and word choices to fulfil the function of stance-taking. Grey and Biber (2012) among others, also highlight a number of related threads of research that have been

demonstrated as functional approaches to analysing stance-taking in written academic discourse. These approaches are outlined by analyses as follows:

1. Lexical level analysis.

A number of approaches to analysing stance in discourse can be described as lexical-level analyses which primarily focus on analysing propositions by the lexemes chosen to denote the attitudes and levels of certainty with which a writer may wish to present in their text.

a. Hedging.

Hedging, as discussed by Hyland (1998) refers to linguistic markers that are applied to limit a speaker’s commitment to a proposition. This form of stance-taking takes place primarily through linguistic items such as modal verbs (such as might, may or could) adverbs of modality (such as possibly, certainly and obviously) and stance adjectives (controlling extraposed to-clauses). Hedges, as described by Biber (2006) have two major functions, firstly they indicate the accuracy of a proposition and secondly, they limit the writer’s commitment to a proposition.

b. Labelling Nouns.

Another area of stance-taking in discourse that has begun to attract attention from researchers is the use of nouns to construct discourse. Such nouns (e.g. claim,