An Exploration of Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing

Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English Language, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran


The view that academic writing is purely objective, impersonal and informational, which is often reflected in English for Academic Purposes materials, has been criticized by a number of researchers. By now, the view of academic writing as embodying interaction among writers, readers and the academic community as a whole has been established. Following this assumption, the present study focused on how second/foreign language writers enact, construct, and invent themselves through writing. In this study, the theoretical stance on identity is grounded on Ivanič’s (1998) four interrelated aspects of writer identity, namely autobiographical self, discoursal self, authorial self, and possibilities for self-hood in the socio-cultural and institutional contexts. Hyland’s model of metadiscourse (2004a) was used as the analytical tool for analyzing texts. Based on a corpus of 30 research articles, the overall distribution of evidential markers, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions were calculated across four rhetorical sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion and Conclusion) of the research articles. According to the results of this study, identity is a critical aspect of writing which should be brought into the mainstream of second/foreign language writing pedagogy through consciousness -raising or the specific teaching of certain features.


Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined  communities: Reflections  on  the  origin  and  spread  of  nationalism. London, England: Verso.
Angélil-Carter, S. (1997).Second  language  acquisition  of spoken  and  written  English.  TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 263-287.  
Banjeni, B. & Kapp, R. (2005). Identities in transition: Shifting conceptions of home among “Black” South African university students. African Studies Review, 48 (3), 1-19.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Block, D. (2006). Multilingual identities in a global city: London stories. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London, England: Continuum.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power.(G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.).Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burneikaite, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59(3), 38-46.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical Ethnography of a Sri Lankan Classroom: Ambiguities in Student Opposition to Reproduction through ESOL.”(Reprinted from TESOL Quarterly.). InC. Candlin and N. Mercer (Eds) . English language teaching in its social context: A reader.  (pp.208-226). London, New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. & Adrian W. (2011). Multilingual Communication and Language Acquisition: New Research Directions, Reading Matrix, 11(1), 1-15.
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cherry, R. (1988). Ethos vs. Persona: Self –representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 5(3), 251-276.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., &Steffensen, M. (1993).Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71.
Currie, P. (2001).On  the question  of  power and control. In T. Silva & P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.29-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dahl, T. (2004).Textual  metadiscourse  in  research  articles: a  marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
Davis, A. & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College Composition and Communication, 48, 527-542.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power.London: Longman.
Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging  across  different disciplines and  rhetorical sections of research articles. [Papers from the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference] (
Flottum, K. Dahl, T. &Kinn, T. (2006).Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The Use of we in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.
Goffman, E. (1969). The  presentation  of  self  in  everyday  life. London, England: Penguin Press.
Gosden, H. (1993). ‘Discourse Functions of Subject in Scientific Research Articles’, Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56–75.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996).Theory and practice of writing.London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35–67.
Hawkins, M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (1), 59-82.
Harwood, N. (2005a). "We do not seem to have a theory…The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap": Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.
Harwood, N. (2005b). "Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that ": A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academicwriting across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.
Harwood, N. (2005c). I hoped  to  counteract  the  memory  problem, but  I  made  no  impact whatsoever:Discussing methods in computing science using I. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 243-267.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 432-454.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2001a). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic writing. Longman, London.
Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2001c). Bringing in the reader. Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing.ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358.
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann   Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions:Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices.Linguistic and Education, 16, 363-377.
Hyland, K. (2005d). Digging up texts and transcripts:  Confessions of a discourse analysis.In P.K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writingresearch: Perspectives on the
process of knowledge construction (pp. 177-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss:  Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse.Applied linguistics, 7, 173-192.
Ivanič, R. (1995). Writer identity. Prospect, 10 (1), 8-31.
Ivanič, R., (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220-.240.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
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.
Kaplan. R. B. (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985), Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). On the origin of contrastive rhetoric.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 257-260.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–35.
Nero, S. (2006). Language, identity, and education of Caribbean English speakers.World Englishes, 25, 501–511.Newkirk, T. (1997). The performance of self in student writing. Portsmouth, NH:    Boynton/Cook.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL QUARTERLY, 31, 409-421.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman.
Norton, B. &Toohey, K. (2002). Identity and  language  learning.  In R.B. Kaplan. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp.115-123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. M. (2008).English may be my second language, but I’m not ‘ESL’. College Composition and Communication, 59 (3), 389-419.
Ouelette, M. (2008). Weaving strands of writer identity: Self as author and the NNES  “plagiarist”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 255-273.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Arnold.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Compositing and Communication, 40, 459-466.
Sieber, T. (2004). Excelling in the critical study of culture: The multilingual multicultural student advantage. In V. Zamel& R. Spack. (Eds.). Crossing thecurriculum: Multilingual learners in college classrooms (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of 2  meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Starfield, S. (2004). “Why does this feel empowering?” In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 138-157).Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Starfield, S. (2007). New directions in student academic writing. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds).The international handbook of English language teaching, Vol. 2 (pp. 875-890). Norwell, Mass: Springer Publications.
Swales, J. M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985).Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163–190.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H.G., (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136-151.
Wilkins, D.A. (1999). Applied linguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.).Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 6-17). Amsterdam: Elsevier.