Identity Construction In English And Chinese Research Articles: A Contrastive Study

Recent research has suggested that the research article (RA) is not an impersonal convention-bound prose of transmitting information, but an institutionalized mechanism for RA writers to project authorial identity through the interaction with readers. With the wide acknowledgement of its interactional nature, the study of the interpersonal dimension of the RA has been one of the most productive areas of discourse studies over the past decade. Nevertheless, the contrastive study of the interpersonal features of RAs between different languages is relatively overlooked. So far there has been no contrastive study between English and Chinese RAs concerning the interpersonal dimension.This dissertation presents an empirical contrastive study on how English and Chinese RA writers construct authorial identity. The study focuses on the interpersonal features of RA writing by elaborating how RA writers project their stance and engage with readers. A corpus is built consisting of 70 experimental or data-based RAs (35 in English and Chinese, respectively) in the field of linguistics and applied linguistics. The frequency and distribution of stance and engagement resources of RAs between the two languages are explored by following Hyland's (2005a) model of academic interaction and genre analysis theory. Then a pragmatic study is made to analyze the underlying factors that contribute to the differences between the RAs of these two languages.The findings demonstrate that both English and Chinese RA writers are more inclined to convey their stance than engage readers in RA writing. However, significant differences between the English and Chinese RAs are found. First, the English RA is viewed as a communicative contract from a personal writer to a personal reader whereas the Chinese RA is conceived as a statement of general truth that readers may learn. Second, in style the English RA is like a dialogue between the writer and reader while the Chinese RA is more like a monologue delivered by a solitary writer. Third, English RA writers have a stronger desire of"promotion"than Chinese RA writers. Fourth, English RA writers are comparatively more ready to invite collaborative efforts from readers than Chinese RA writers. However, the study suggests that Chinese RA writers do not follow the traditional norms of academic writing scrupulously. The high frequency of self-mention markers and boosters used to make claims suggests Chinese RA writers'strong attempt to present their position in the text.These interpersonal features contribute to the manifestations of RA writers'authorial identity. First, English RA writers tend to identify with readers and show a more acute sense of audience than Chinese RA writers. Second, individual self constitutes the main aspect of English RA writers'socio-cultural identity while collective self is the prominent aspect of Chinese writers'. Third, as regards professional identity, English RA writers present themselves as a discourse constructor while Chinese RA writers choose to present themselves mainly as a researcher. Fourth, English RA writers'institutional self is weak whereas Chinese RA writers'institutional self is notable. From the perspective of social psychology, the different manifestations of authorial identity demonstrate English and Chinese RA writers'different perceptions of ethical canons, of the politeness concept, and of principles for producing and interpreting utterances, as well as their different ways of implementing academic norms.The findings of this contrastive study have implications for RA writing and the teaching of RA writing. In today's research world, which is moving towards the globalization of academic interaction, an awareness of the differences in academic norms and rhetorical strategies can enhance smooth academic communication in inter-cultural situations.