Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Collectivity: 'We' across languages and contexts
Edited by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 239] 2014
► pp. 287–308

Bulgarian ‘we’ and audience involvement 
in academic writing

| New Bulgarian University, Bulgaria
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.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.19vas
References (50)
References
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 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
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
de Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang.1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics . London: Longman.Google Scholar
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
Bondi, Marina. 2009. “Polyphony in academic discourse: A cross-cultural perspective on historical discourse.” In Cross-linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse , Eija Suomela-Salmi and Fred Dervin(eds), 83–108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, Herman. 2011. “Against Assertion.” In Assertion , Jessica Brown and Herman Cappelen(eds), 21–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Trine. 2009. “Author identity in economics and linguistics abstracts.” In Cross-linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse , Eija Suomela-Salmi and Fred Dervin(eds), 123–134. Amstedam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diani, Guiliana. 2009. “Exploring the polyphonic dimension of academic book review articles in the discourse of linguistics.” In Cross-linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse , Eija Suomela-Salmi and Fred Dervin(eds), 135–150. Amstedam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension . London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eßer, Ruth.1997. Kulturelle Geprägtheit Wissenschaftlicher Textproduktion und ihre Konsequenzen für den Universitären Unterricht von Deutsch als Fremdsprache . München: iudicium Verlag.Google Scholar
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
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
Fløttum, Kjersti, Kinn, Torodd and Dahl, Trine.2006. Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Giannoni, Davide Simone.2007. “Metatextual evaluation in journal editorial.” Textus XX: 57–82.Google Scholar
Graefen, Gabriele. 1997. Der Wissenschaftliche Artikel – Textart und Textorganisation . Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya.1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haverkate, Henk. 1983. “Strategies in Linguistic Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 637–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Lothar. 1985. Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing . Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Diani, Giuliana.2009. Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings . Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Carl. 1980. Contrastive Analysis . London: Longman.Google Scholar
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
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
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Loffler-Laurian, Anne-Marie. 1980. “L’expression du locuteur dans les discours scientifiques.” Revue de Linguistique Romane 44: 135–157.Google Scholar
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
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2008. ????????? ?????????: ?????????? . [Bulgarian grammar: morphology.] Sofia: University of Sofia Press.Google Scholar
Pashov, Pet?r. 2002. ????????? ????????? . [Bulgarian grammar] Sofia: Hermes.Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula. this volume. “Contructing collectivity with ‘we’: An introduction.” In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts , Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay the Philosophy of Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Stanchev, Svilen. 2007. “Pragmatics, word order and cross-reference: Some issues with pronominal clitics in Bulgarian.” In Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse , Christopher S. Butler, Raquel Hidalgo Downing and Julia David(eds), 233–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Tsohatzidis, Savas(ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory . London, New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Vassileva, Irena. 1998. “Who am I/who are we in academic writing?” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(2): 163–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
. 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
. 2006. Author-Audience Interaction: A Cross-Cultural Perspective . Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Critical book reviews in German.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(3): 354–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.