Comparative analysis of use of first-person pronouns as markers of author's presence in the text of scientific article: gender aspect
https://doi.org/10.51955/2312-1327_2026_1_164
Abstract
The article investigates how authorial identity is expressed in academic texts, focusing on gender-specific patterns in the use of first-person pronouns. The study sought to compare the repertoire and pragmatic functions of first-person pronouns in texts written by male and female authors. The conceptual framework for this comparative analysis was based on R. Tang and S. John’s classification of the pragmatic functions of pronouns. Female authors tend to express their authorial presence more frequently through personal and possessive pronouns than male authors. Female authors typically adhere to canonical usage, employing singular pronouns for roles like “architect”, “researcher”, “opinion-holder”, and “originator”, and plural pronouns for “representative” and “guide”. Male authors often use singular pronouns in roles where plural forms are expected. While female authors actively use pronouns for reader-dialogue-oriented functions, male authors more frequently self-identify as creators of new knowledge. The study suggests that pronoun usage in academic texts is influenced not solely by gender but also by factors like the scientific field, genre, and evolving norms of academic writing
About the Authors
Ksenia A. Medvedkina
Northern (Arctic) Federal University
named after M.V. Lomonosov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of sciences (philology)
Northern Dvina Embankment, 17, Arkhangelsk, 163002
Ekaterina S. Mikhailovskaya
Northern (Arctic) Federal University
named after M.V. Lomonosov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of sciences (philology)
Northern Dvina Embankment, 17, Arkhangelsk, 163002
References
1. Bouchard D. (2021). Three conceptions of nativism and the faculty of language. Language Sciences. 85(2): 101384. DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101384. EDN TZSFAW.
2. Cousens Ch. (2020). Are ableist insults secretly slurs? Language Sciences. 77: 101252. DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101252. EDN SBAZJJ.
3. Danis N. (2022). A corpus analysis of disciplinary identity in evaluative journal articles: A Systemic Functional Linguistics approach. English for Specific Purposes. 68: 87-101. DOI 10.1016/j.esp.2022.07.003. EDN FFHZGI.
4. Durrant Ph. (2022). Studying children’s writing development with a corpus. Applied Corpus Linguistics. 2(3): 100026. DOI 10.1016/j.acorp.2022.100026. EDN CGGJAT.
5. Junnier F. (2020). Finding voice in biology: A diachronic analysis of self-mention in the discussions of an L2 scholar. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 47: 100889. DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100889. EDN KVRBOX.
6. Kaneyasu M. (2024). Final tteyuu as a mockery stance marker: Multifunctionality and ongoing semantic change in Japanese social media. Journal of Pragmatics. 221: 13-31. DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.12.013. EDN TAEZWP.
7. Meyerhoff M. (2023). Responses to CAT at 50: Reflections on accommodation from a sociolinguist. Language Sciences. 99: 101570. DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101570. EDN KMSTJT.
8. Petrovic J. E. (2022). Linguistic appropriation and/or dispossession: Two sides of the Marxist coin. Language Sciences. 94: 101501. DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101501. EDN DTUKXO.
9. Samraj B. (2024). Disciplinary differences in lexical bundles use: A cautionary tale from methodological variations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 70: 101399. DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101399. EDN DRPFGQ.
10. Smith N. (2020). Conversationalization and democratization in a radio chat show: a grammar-led investigation. Language Sciences. 79: 101269. DOI 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101269. EDN DWPPHJ.
11. References
12. Abdurrahman N. H. (2017). An Investigation in Different Language Choice through Personal Pronouns in the Twitter. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2(1): 1-13.
13. Alkhrisheh H., Aziez F., Alkhrisheh T. (2019). A Study on Gender and Language Differences in Written Texts. Research and Innovation in Language Learning. 2(2). 120-138.
14. Argamon S., Shimoni A. R., Fine, J. (2003). Gender, Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written Texts. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 23(3): 321-346. DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2003.014.
15. Bacang B. G., Rillo R., Alieto E. (2019). The Gender Construct in the Use of Rhetorical Appeals, Hedges and Boosters in ESL Writing: A Discourse Analysis. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles. 25(5.2): 210-224.
16. Biber D., Conrad S., Reppen R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 312 p.
17. Boldyreva A. A., Kashkin V. B. (2002). Features of the expression of the author's “I” in scientific discourse (based on the material of English and Russian written texts). Language, communication, and the social environment. 2: 99-108. (In Russian)
18. Bolsunovskaya L. M., Najdina D. S. (2015). The modes of authors position expression in scientific and popular science discourses. Fundamental research. 2(15): 3413-3416. (In Russian)
19. Cheung Y., Lau L. (2020). Authorial voice in academic writing. Ibérica. 39: 215-242. DOI 10.17398/2340-2784.39.215.
20. Coates J. (2016). Women, Men and Language. A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. Routledge, London, New York, 2016. 245 p.
21. Emel'yanova O. P. (2019). Genre characteristics of academic paper. Kazan Science. 6: 57-63. (In Russian)
22. Ghiasi G., Sainte-Marie M., Larivière V. (2019). Making it personal: Examining personalization patterns of single-authored papers. 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. 2088-2093.
23. Goicoechea A. (2018). Expression of authority in academic writing: a comparative study of the usage of first-person pronouns between genders. Dissertation. 2018. 34 p.
24. Graneva I. Yu. (2009). Pronoun we and the problem of the lingual conceptualization of the world. Issues of cognitive linguistics. 2: 82-87. (In Russian)
25. Gu L. (2013). Language and Gender: Differences and Similarities. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities, and Management. 248-251.
26. Harwood N. (2005). Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics. 37: 1207-1231.
27. Ishikawa Y. (2015). Gender Differences in Vocabulary Use in Essay Writing by University Students. Procedia. 192: 593-600.
28. Khoutyz I. P. (2012). Interactivity signals in academic discourse: inclusive pronouns. Maikop State Technological University Bulletin. 3: 64-68. (In Russian)
29. Korotkina I. B. (2014). Academic literacy first: misconceptions encountered by Russian authors in writing for international academic journals. Scientific periodicals: problems and solutions. 2(20): 34-39. (In Russian)
30. Kuo C. H. (1999). The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes. 18(2): 121-138.
31. Labov W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change. 2: 205-254.
32. Lakoff R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Source: Language in Society. 2(1): 45-80.
33. Lassan Je. (1998). Discourse subject as text organizational structure. Text as an object of multidimensional research: Collection of articles of the scientific and methodological seminar "Textus". Stavropol’, 121-128. (In Russian)
34. Llach M. (2010). Exploring the Role of Gender in Lexical Creations. Gender Perspectives on Vocabulary in Foreign and Second Languages. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 74-92.
35. Medvedkina K. A., Mikhaylovskaya E. S. (2020). Comparative analysis of pragmatic functions of first person pronouns in English and Russian academic texts. World of Science. Series: Sociology, Philology, Cultural Studies. 11(3): 19. (In Russian)
36. Mills S. (2014). Using Corpora to Analyse Gender Paul Baker. Gender and Language. 9(3): 493-495.
37. Mirzapour F. (2016). Gender Differences in the Use of Hedges And First Person Pronouns in Research Articles of Applied Linguistics and Chemistry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 5: 166-173.
38. Moskowich I. (2020). Personal Pronouns in CHET and CECheT: Authorial Presence and Other Nuances Revealed. Studies About Languages. 1: 56-73.
39. Newman M. L., Groom C. J., Handelman L. D. (2008). Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14000 Text Samples. Discourse Processes. 45(3): 211-236.
40. Sechenova E. G. (2009). Statistical and probabilistic model of the gender-dependent author's self in a scientific course. Tyumen', 2009. 26 p. (In Russian)
41. Sechenova E. G. (2012). Gender identity in the focus of modern scientific discourse. Tyumen State University Bulletin. 1: 86-91. (In Russian)
42. Shirokih A. Yu. (2002). The use of first-person pronouns in English scientific economic discourse and teaching academic English to non-linguistic students. Business. Education. Law. 2: 183-191. (In Russian)
43. Solov'eva N. V. (2021). The use of personal pronouns in scientific articles: "yakanye" or "mykanye". Philology in the XXI century. 1(7): 66-74. (In Russian)
44. Solov'eva Yu. O. (2022). Self-presentation of the author in the text of a popular scientific article on legal subjects (based on the article by N. Kolokolov “Take care of pockets, bags, suitcases”). Moscow State University Bulletin. Ser. 19. Linguistics and Intercultural communication. 3: 130-139. (In Russian)
45. Sovetov I. M. (2009). Personal pronouns in text formation. Kostroma State University Bulletin. 2: 125-129. (In Russian)
46. 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(S1): S23-S39.
47. Tannen D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 203 p.
48. Vassilieva 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. 2(2): 163-190.
49. Wakerkwa D. (2023). Being Involved or Informative: Gender Differences in the Use of Pronouns and Specifiers in Writing Conclusions. Leksema: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra. 8(1): 11.
50. Weatherall A. (2002). Gender, Language and Discourse. London: Routledge, 2002. 192 p.
Review
For citations:
Medvedkina K.A., Mikhailovskaya E.S. Comparative analysis of use of first-person pronouns as markers of author's presence in the text of scientific article: gender aspect. Crede Experto: transport, society, education, language. 2026;(1):164-179. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.51955/2312-1327_2026_1_164
Views:
262
JATS XML
Email this article 