Bulgarian ‘we’ and audience involvement
in academic writing
The present paper examines the functions of the audience-involving pronoun ‘we’ in Bulgarian academic writing, more specifically in reviews of linguistics books. The analysis is based on a modified version of speech-act theory combined with discourse production strategies. A comparison is also made with the use and functions of the academic ‘we’ in the genre of the research article. Special attention is paid to the various linguistic means of expressing reference to the first person plural which are available in Bulgarian as a pro-drop language. The conclusions deal with some issues of review authors’ motivation for writing (or not writing) reviews, as well as with the academic standards concerning the choice of evaluation – positive or negative.
References
Austin, John
.
1962.
How to Do Things with Words
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Austin, John
.
1973. “
Speech acts.” In
Readings for Applied Linguistics
,
J.P.B. Allen and
Pit S. Corder(eds), The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, vol.1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bakhtin, Mihail
.
1986. “
The problem of speech genres and the problem of the text in linguistics, philology and the human sciences: An experiment in philosophical analysis.” In
Speech Genres and Other Late Essays
(trans.
V. McGee),
Caryl Emerson and
Michael Holquist(eds), 250–317. Austin: University of Texas Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang.
1981.
Introduction to Text Linguistics
. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bondi, Marina and Silver, Mark S.
2004. “
Textual voices: A cross-disciplinary study of attribution in academic discourse.” In
Evaluation in Spoken and Written Academic Discourse
,
Laurie Anderson and
Julie Bamford(eds), 121–141. Roma: Officiana.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelen, Herman
.
2011. “
Against Assertion.” In
Assertion
,
Jessica Brown and
Herman Cappelen(eds), 21–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Dijk, Teun and Walter Kintsch
.
1983.
Strategies of Discourse Comprehension
. London: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eßer, Ruth.
1997.
Kulturelle Geprägtheit Wissenschaftlicher Textproduktion und ihre Konsequenzen für den Universitären Unterricht von Deutsch als Fremdsprache
. München: iudicium Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferrara, Alesandro
.
1985. “
Pragmatics.” In
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol.2, Dimensions of Discourse
,
Teun van Dijk(ed.), 137–158. London: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fröhlich, Gerhard.
2003. “
Kontrolle durch Konkurrenz und Kritik? Das ‘wissenschaftliche Feld’ bei Pierre Bourdieu.” In
Pierre Bourdieus Theorie des Sozialen
,
Boike Rehbein,
Gernot Saalmann and
Hermann Schwengel(eds), 117–129. Konstanz: UVK.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fløttum, Kjersti, Kinn, Torodd and Dahl, Trine.
Gea-valor, Maria-Lluisa
.
2010. “
The emergence of the author’s voice in book reviewing: A contrastive study of academic vs. non-academic discourse.” In
Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres
,
Rosa Lores-Sanz,
Pilar Mur-Duenas and
Enrique Lafuente-Millan(eds), 117–135. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giannoni, Davide Simone.
2007. “
Metatextual evaluation in journal editorial.”
Textus
XX: 57–82.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graefen, Gabriele
.
1997.
Der Wissenschaftliche Artikel – Textart und Textorganisation
. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M.A.
K.
1985.
Introduction to Functional Grammar
. London: Edward Arnold.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya.
1976.
Cohesion in English
. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haverkate, Henk
.
1983. “
Strategies in Linguistic Action.”
Journal of Pragmatics
7: 637–656.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffmann, Lothar
.
1985.
Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache
. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken
.
2004.
Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing
. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken and Diani, Giuliana.
2009.
Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings
. Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
James, Carl
.
1980.
Contrastive Analysis
. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Korhonen, Riitta and Kusch, Martin.
1989. “
The rhetorical function of the first person in philo-sophical texts – the influence of intellectual style, paradigm and language.” In
Text. Interpretation. Argumentation
,
Martin Kusch and
Hartmut Schröder(eds), 61–76. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kretzenbacher, Heinz
.
1995. “
Wie durchsichtig ist die Sprache der Wissenschaften?” In
Linguistik der Wissenschaftssprache
,
Heinz Kretzenbacher,
Harald Weinrich(eds), 15–39. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey
.
1983.
Principles of Pragmatics
. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Loffler-Laurian, Anne-Marie
.
1980. “
L’expression du locuteur dans les discours scientifiques.”
Revue de Linguistique Romane
44: 135–157.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lores-Sanz, Rosa, Mur-Duenas, Pilar and Lafuente-Millan, Enrique
(eds).
2010.
Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres
. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Myers, Greg
.
1989. “
The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.”
Applied Linguistics
10: 1–35.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicolova, Ruselina
.
2008.
????????? ?????????: ??????????
. [Bulgarian grammar: morphology.] Sofia: University of Sofia Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pashov, Pet
?r.
2002.
????????? ?????????
. [Bulgarian grammar] Sofia: Hermes.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
Poppi, Franca
.
2009. “
How stable is the construction of an author’s professional identity? Variations in five editions of P. A. Samuelson’s Economics.” In
Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse
,
Maurizio Gotti(ed.), 215–232. Bern: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanz, Rosa L.
2009. “
(Non-) Critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: A cross-cultural study of evaluation.” In
Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings
,
Ken Hyland and
Giuliana Diani(eds), 143–160. Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, John
.
1969.
Speech Acts: An Essay the Philosophy of Language
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spillner, Bernd
.
1989. “
Stilelemente im fachsprachlichen Diskurs.” In
Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania
,
Wolfgang Dahmen,
Günter Holtus,
Johannes Kramer and
Michael Metzeltin(eds), 2–19. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, John M., Ahmad, Ummul K., Chang, Yu-Ying, Chavez, Daniel, Dressen, Dacia F. and Seymour, Ruth.
1998. “
Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing.”
Applied Linguistics
19(1): 97–121.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsohatzidis, Savas
(ed.).
1994.
Foundations of Speech Act Theory
. London, New York: Routledge
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vassileva, Irena
.
1998. “
Who am I/who are we in academic writing?”
International Journal of Applied Linguistics
8(2): 163–190.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vassileva, Irena
.
2000.
Who is the Author? (A Contrastive Analysis of Authorial Presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse)
. Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vassileva, Irena
.
2002. “
Speaker-audience interaction: The Case of Bulgarians Presenting in English.” In
The Language of Conferencing
,
Eija Ventola,
Celia Shalom and
Susan Thompson(eds), 255–276. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vassileva, Irena
.
2006.
Author-Audience Interaction: A Cross-Cultural Perspective
. Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vassileva, Irena
.
2010. “
Critical book reviews in German.”
International Journal of Applied Linguistics
20(3): 354–367.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ventola, Eija
.
1998. “
Meaningful choices in academic communities: Ideological issues.” In
Making Meaningful Choices in English
,
Rainer Schulze(ed.), 277–294. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weinrich, Harald
.
1989. “
Formen der Wissenschaftssprache.” In
Jahrbuch 1988 der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
, 119–158.
Widdowson, Henry
.
1979.
Explorations in Applied Linguistics
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wills, Wolfram
.
1997. “
Hedges in Expert-Language Reviews.” In
Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts
,
Raija Markkanen and
Hartmut Schröder(eds), 134–147. Berlin/New York.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wüest, Jakob.
1988. “
Textsorten kontrastiv betrachtet: Die Präsenz des Autors in linguistischen Publikationen.” In
Linguistische Studien: Studien zur Sprachkonfrontation
,
Gerd Wotjak(ed.), 125–136. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Kozubíková Šandová, Jana
2019.
Audience involvement in academic book review articles : an English and Czech comparative study.
Brno studies in English :2
► pp. [101] ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.