A Comparative Study On The Use Of First Personal Pronouns In Journal Research Articles

This thesis reports a comparative study on the use of first personal pronouns in the journal research articles by Chinese English learners (CEL) and native English speakers (NES), with an attempt to see to what extent the authors manifest themselves in the academic writing with the use of first personal pronouns, and to tell how different the Chinese scholars are from the native English speakers in employing this rhetoric strategy. With the use of two self-compiled corpora, namely the CEL corpus and NES corpus, comprising a total of 60 journal research articles from the fields of medicine, economics and linguistics, the thesis presents quantitative and qualitative information concerning the frequency, the discoursal functions and the distribution of the first personal pronouns in each rhetoric section of the research articles. The statistic data reveal that the CES differ considerably from the NES in the employment of the first personal pronouns.The major findings include: a) Compared with the NES corpus, the CEL corpus displays a much lower frequency in the use of the first personal pronouns in the academic writing, indicating CEL's preference for author invisibility;b) The CEL tend to be more averse to using the singular form I than the NES;c) The CEL are more likely to avoid using the first personal pronouns to help display a strongerauthorial presence than the NES;d) The first personal pronouns in each rhetoricj section of the research articles are not evenly distributed in both corpora. For example,while the first personal pronouns are most densely packed in the section of Discussion in the NES corpus, they occur most frequently in the section of Introduction in the CEL corpus.In addition, this thesis also seeks to provide some tentative explanations for these rhetoric differences. The cultural difference may be one of the major influencing factors. Whereas Anglo-Saxon academia tends to encourage the writers to take an independent and individual stance, the Chinese counterpart may be reluctant to promote an individual self by means of first personal pronouns because of itsassociation with individual rather than collective identity. Other possible reasons lie in the different education systems, absence of clear instructions from the writing manuals, etc. Finally, pedagogical implications are suggested in the thesis based on the findings.