Author-Related Concepts in Academic Writing Revisited: A Scoping Review

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Introduction: Various linguistic mechanisms and devices are applied in academic writing to communicate the opinion and valuations of the authors and engage with their readers. The concepts of author’s voice, stance and identity stand out among numerous notions describing various aspects related to the author in the written academic discourse. The scoping review aims to synthesize the knowledge on those concepts in the international publications with a view to defining frequently and interchangeably used terms.

Method: This scoping review sticks to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses  (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews, the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and PСC framework.

Results: The review synthesized 40 publications on the author-related concepts indexed in the Scopus database. The documents were distributed among three thematic clusters: Cluster 1. Identity in academic writing and author-related concepts. Cluster 2. Authorial voice in academic discourse. Cluster 3. Author’s stance. The data extracted from the documents under review on the key author-related concepts in academic writing – author’s voice, stance and identity – allowed to sum up the definitions and major features supporting the understanding of those concepts.

Discussion: The review proved that the terminology in the field is rather unclear and ambiguous. The key concepts tend to be used interchangeably. The limitations of the review were incorporated in some eligibility criteria, including publications in other languages, geography, and types of publications. Future reviews may focus on the publications dwelling upon authorial engagement with readers indexed in databases other than Scopus to give a more realistic picture.          

Conclusion: The findings may become the background for future research on authorial voice, stance, identity in academic discourse as well as other author-related concepts.

作者简介

Elena Tikhonova

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: etihonova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8252-6150
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Lilia Raitskaya

Moscow State Institute of International Relations

Email: etihonova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2086-6090
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

参考

  1. Ädel, A. (2022). Writer and reader visibility in humanities research articles: Variation across language, regional variety and discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.001
  2. Alghazo, S., Al Salem, M.N., & Alrashdan, I. (2021). Stance and engagement in English and Arabic research article abstracts. System, 103, Article 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102681
  3. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/101080/1364557032000119616
  4. Azar, A.S., & Hashim, A. (2022). Analysing authorial identity construction in the review article genre in applied linguistics. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 94-114. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21898
  5. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
  6. Baratta, A.M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 1406-1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
  7. Barbara, S.W.Y., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, S. (2024). A corpus-based comparison of linguistic markers of stance and genre in the academic writing of novice and advanced engineering learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), Article 284. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02757-4
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.
  9. Candarli, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
  10. Chen, R. (2020). Single author self-reference: Identity construction and pragmatic competence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, Article 100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100856
  11. Chen, S. (2024). Mining emotions in academic writing: A subdisciplinary probe into medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 74, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2024.01.002
  12. Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press.
  13. Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jaing, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
  14. de Magalhães, M.B., Cotterall, S., & Mideros, D. (2018). Identity, voice and agency in two EAL doctoral writing contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.001
  15. Deng, L., Cheng, Y., & Gao, X. (2024). Engagement patterns in research article introductions: A cross-disciplinary study. System, 120, Article 103204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103204
  16. Doncheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003
  17. Dong, J., Liu, Y., & Lu, X. (2023). A discourse dynamics analysis of academic voice construction: Disciplinary variation, trajectories, and dynamic interaction patterns. System, 119, Article 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103181
  18. Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2014). Measuring the voice of disciplinarity in scientific writing: A longitudinal exploration of experienced writers in geology. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.001
  19. Fløttum, K. (2006). Medical research articles in the comparative perspectives of discipline and language. In M. Gotti, & F. Salager-Meyer (Eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written context (pp. 251-269). Bern.
  20. Fløttum, K. (2010). A linguistic and discursive view on climate change discourse. ASp, 58, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1793
  21. Fogal, G. G. (2020). Investigating variability in L2 development: Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz005
  22. Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.
  23. Hanauer, D. I. (2015). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314563023
  24. He, F. (2020). Identity construction in academic writing of student writers who use English as an additional language: A Literature Review. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0033
  25. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice. The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83-106.
  26. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  27. Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
  28. Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
  29. Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in the final year reports. In K. Hyland & S. C. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.134–150). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825
  30. Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
  31. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
  32. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2023). Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13(4), 903-924. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.40220
  33. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
  34. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing (vol. 5). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  35. Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and education, 18(3), 220-245.
  36. Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.
  37. Kashiha, H. (2024). Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, Article 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101364
  38. Khamkhien, A. (2025). The art of referencing: Patterns of citation and authorial stance in academic texts written by Thai students and professional writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 74, Article 101470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101470
  39. Le Ha, P. (2009). Strategic, passionate, but academic: Am I allowed in my writing? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.09.003
  40. Lee, K., & Ye, Y. (2023). Uncovering the dimensionality of authorial voice in the integrated writing task: A confirmatory factor analysis study. System, 117, Article 103115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103115
  41. Li, A.W. (2024). Bilingual returnee scholars’ identity in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 64, Article 101112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101112
  42. Li, Y., & Deng, L. (2021). Disciplinarily capable and personally unique: Voicing disciplinary identity in personal statement writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, Article 100949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100949
  43. Lillis, T. (2009). Bringing writers’ voices to writing research. Talk around texts. In A. Carter, T. Lillis, & S. Parkin (Eds.), Why writing matters. Issues of access and identity in writing research and pedagogy (pp. 169-187). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  44. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
  45. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9
  46. Matsuda, P.K., & Tardy, C.M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001
  47. Mhilli, O. (2023). Authorial voice in writing: A literature review. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 8, Article 100550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100550
  48. Mo, Z., & Crosthwaite, P. (2025). Exploring the affordances of generative AI large language models for stance and engagement in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 75, Article 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101499
  49. Mu, C. (2024). Citation choices in L2 novices’ and experts’ literature review sections: A functional discourse analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, Article 101361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101361
  50. Mur-Duenas, P., & Sinkuniene, J. (2016). Self-reference in research articles across Europe and Asia: A review of studies. Brno Studies in English, 42(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2016-1-4
  51. Pearson, W.S., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, Article 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
  52. Qi, Q., & Zhao, C.G. (2023). Discoursal scholarly identity in research writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, Article 101052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101052
  53. Ryan, E., & Wilde, G.A. (2024). Two voices, one paper: Using storywork to reassess the impact of academic language on “English Learners” in Alaska. Linguistics and Education, 84, Article 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2024.101344
  54. Shen, Q., & Tao. Y. (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. Plos One, 16(3), Article e0247981. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247981
  55. Stock, I., & Eik-Nes, N.L. (2016). Voice features in academic texts - A review of empirical studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.12.006
  56. Strauss, S., Feiz, P. (2013). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. Routledge
  57. Sun, Q., Kuzborska, I., & Soden, B. (2022). Learning to construct authorial voice through citations: A longitudinal case study of L2 postgraduate novice writers. System, 106, Article 102765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102765
  58. Sun, Y., Yang, K., & Chen, G. (2024). The research trends of corpus-assisted stance research (2004-2023): a systematic literature review. Current Psychology, 43(48), 37167-37182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07130-x
  59. Tan, X., Xu, W., & Wang, C. (2025). Voice in AI-assisted multimodal texts: What do readers pay attention to? Computers and Composition, 75, Article 102918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102918
  60. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first-person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, Article S23eS39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
  61. Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho-Guinda (eds.). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 34-48). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825
  62. Tardy, C.M., & Matsuda, P.K. (2009). The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308327269
  63. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horseley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., & Akl, E.A. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–73. https://doi.org/107326/M18-0850
  64. Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x
  65. Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001
  66. Yang, W. (2016). Evaluative language and interactive discourse in journal article highlights. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.01.001
  67. Yasuda, S. (2022). Natural scientists’ perceptions of authorial voice in scientific writing: The influence of disciplinary expertise on revoicing processes. English for Specific Purposes, 67, 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.03.001
  68. Yoon, H.-J. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002
  69. Yoon, H.-J., & Tabari, M.A. (2023). Authorial voice in source-based and opinion-based argumentative writing: Patterns of voice across task types and proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, Article 101228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101228
  70. Zhang, G. (2023). Authorial stance in citations: Variation by writer expertise and research article part-genres. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.002
  71. Zhang, J., Lee, G.I., & Chan, M.Y. (2024). Systematic Literature Review of Crosslinguistic Analysis of Stance Markers in EFL Learners’ Academic Writing in English. World Journal of English Language, 14(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n1p19
  72. Zhang, W., & Cheung, Y.L. (2018). The construction of authorial voice in writing research articles: A corpus-based study from an APPRAISAL theory perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 53-75. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/2/320261
  73. Zhao, C. G. (2013). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212456965
  74. Zhao, C.G., & Wu, J. (2022). Perceptions of authorial voice: Why discrepancies exist. Assessing Writing, 53, Article 100632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100632

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载


Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名 4.0国际许可协议的许可