Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Written Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harwood, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

(In)appropriate Personal Pronoun Use in Political Science

A Qualitative Study and a Proposed Heuristic for Future Research

Nigel Harwood

University of Essex, United Kingdom

This article describes five political scientists’ interview-based accounts of appropriate and inappropriate use of the pronouns I and we in academic writing. The informants talked about pronoun use with reference to one of their own journal articles and also by referring to other informants’ texts. Beliefs about appropriate and inappropriate use varied widely, and it was emphasized that the discipline encompasses a number of subdisciplines, which helps account for these differing pronoun preferences. The insights and implications of the study are discussed, and a heuristic that combines corpus-based and interview-based approaches to the investigation of pronouns is proposed. The corpus-based part of the heuristic provides the researcher with data on typical disciplinary patterns of pronoun use, whereas the interview-based part provides accounts of informants’ motivations and intentions that inform their pronoun use. It is argued that the heuristic could be adapted to investigate other linguistic features in academic writing.

Key Words: corpora • interviews • research heuristic • disciplinary writing conventions

Written Communication, Vol. 23, No. 4, 424-450 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088306293921
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
T. Dahl
The Linguistic Representation of Rhetorical Function: A Study of How Economists Present Their Knowledge Claims
Written Communication, October 1, 2009; 26(4): 370 - 391.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
T. Lillis
Ethnography as Method, Methodology, and "Deep Theorizing": Closing the Gap Between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research
Written Communication, July 1, 2008; 25(3): 353 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]