Abstract

It is important to investigate how authors of first language (L1) and second language (L2) shape self-representation in academic texts and to assess the findings from both linguistic and cultural perspectives, thus shedding light on academic writing pedagogy, which has received limited attention. Comparing of L1 and L2 academic texts reveals how authors build their authorial identities, contributes to a better understanding of cross-linguistic academic writing conventions, and provides guidance for pedagogical practices for both native and non-native writers. This study aims to investigate the use of self-mentions in L1 and L2 Turkish research articles (TRAs) through three dimensions of analysis: realizations, rhetorical functions, and the distribution of explicit and implicit authorial references. To this end, a dataset of 26 TRAs was analyzed, comprising 13 written by native Turkish authors (TA) and 13 by non-native authors (NTA) from diverse cultural backgrounds. The corpus was compiled through criterion-based sampling of multi-authored research articles published in the journal Education and Science between 2015 and 2022. A mixed-methods design, combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches, was employed to obtain more comprehensive findings. Firstly, the grammatical forms of implicit and explicit authorial references were analyzed according to Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse and a search list compiled by Güçlü (2024) for Turkish self-mentions. Secondly, these references were functionally analyzed and classified based on Hyland’s (2002) framework of discourse functions of self-mentions, as well as a search list developed by Solsun and Akbaş (2022) from previous studies on the rhetorical functions of self-mentions in Turkish. Thirdly, explicit and implicit authorial references detected in the TA and NTA corpora were compared in terms of grammatical forms and rhetorical functions. Both corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches were employed to identify previously unrecognized grammatical forms and rhetorical functions of authorial references. The frequency, usage patterns, and rhetorical functions of explicit and implicit self-mentions were examined through both manual corpus analysis and the corpus analysis tool AntConc 4.2.0 to facilitate data interpretation. In addition, log-likelihood analysis was performed to assess the statistical significance of the distribution patterns between the corpora. The findings indicate that Turkish authors employed self-mentions more frequently than their non-native counterparts, a tendency that may be attributed to the implicit authorial references embedded in their articles. Both corpora predominantly feature implicit authorial references, most notably agentless passives and animate or inanimate determiner phrases (DPs) functioning as agents. On the other hand, the analysis reveals that while first-person plural pronouns are rarely used, first-person plural suffixes serve as the primary means of explicit authorial reference in Turkish academic writing. Moreover, in both corpora, self-mentions perform similar rhetorical functions, such as describing research procedures. Based on these findings, I argue that authors’ visibility choices may be shaped by genre-specific language use, linguistic characteristics, culturally grounded epistemologies, relationships within the academic community, prescriptive educational traditions, and personal preferences. Overall, this study provides insights into how academic authors construct their authorial selves in both L1 and L2 contexts, thereby contributing to the design and development of academic writing pedagogy and materials.

Keywords: Turkish research articles, Authorial identity, Explicit authorial references, Implicit authorial references, L1 and L2 academic writing, Self-mention, Form and function

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
  2. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
  3. Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In A. Łyda & K. Warchał (Eds.), Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
  4. Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2017). An exploratory study on authorial (in)visibility across postgraduate academic writing: Dilemma of developing a personal and/or impersonal authorial self. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbaş, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp.139-174). Peter Lang.
  5. Akbaş, E., Dağdeviren-Kirmizi, G., & Kirmizi, Ö. (2024). “Here, we investigate if there is…”: A functional investigation of self-mentions in research article abstracts. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 47(2), 196-218. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2024-0203
  6. *Alshamrani, S. M., & Aldahmash, A. H. (2020). A systematic review of research articles on science education published in the ESERA proceedings from 2011 to 2017. Education and Science, 45(202), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8441
  7. Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University, Tokyo. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
  8. *Ateş, A., & Ünal, A. (2022). Roma mothers' experiences with their children's schools. Education and Science, 45(210), 299-319. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.11176
  9. *Bacakoğlu, T. Y., & Taş, İ. D. (2020). The ımpact of immediate vicinity training on academic success and environmental attitudes of the fourth graders in the primary school. Education and Science, 45(203), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8521
  10. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in an academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (232), 713-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097
  11. Basal, A., & Bada, E. (2012). Use of first-person pronouns: A corpus-based study of journal articles. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and Educational Studies, 4(3), 1777-1788.
  12. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier and V. Viana (Eds.), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities (pp. 163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
  13. Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
  14. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., & Leech, G. (1999). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 185-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.1.11lee
  15. Boshrabadi, A. M., Biria, R., & Zavari, Z. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers: The case of economic articles in English and Persian newspapers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.2p.59
  16. Carciu, O. M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, (18), 71-92.
  17. *Chang, M., Lachance, D., Lin, F., Al-Shamali, F., & Chen, N. S. (2015). Enhancing orbital physics learning performance through a hands-on kinect game. Education and Science, 40(180), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.3145
  18. Chang, Y-Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp.145-167). Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390-8
  19. Chen, R. (2020). Single author self-reference: Identity construction and pragmatic competence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (45), 100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100856
  20. *Chua, Y. P., & Chua, Y. P. (2017). Developing a grounded model for educational technology leadership practices. Education and Science, 42(189), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6705
  21. *Çakmak, Z., Akgün, İ. H., & Kaçar, T. (2022). Social studies teachers' views on the 7th grade social studies teacher guidebook and its removal: A Q method analysis. Education and Science, 47(210), 217-238. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10897
  22. Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (20), 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
  23. Doğan-Uçar, A., & Akbas, E. (2022). A corpus-driven cross-disciplinary study of inclusive and exclusive “we” in research article abstracts. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 180-204.
  24. Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9-30.
  25. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2018). Intercultural and interdisciplinary variation in the use of epistemic lexical verbs in linguistics and economics research articles. Linguistica Pragensia, 28(2), 154-167.
  26. *Eliçin, Ö., & Tunalı, V. (2016). Effectiveness of tablet computer use in achievement of schedule-following skills by children with autism using graduated guidance. Education and Science, 41(183), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.5358
  27. Esmer, E. (2018). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 216-228. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.292927
  28. Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2015). Identity in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (35), 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051400021X
  29. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203340769
  30. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
  31. Güçlü, R. (2024). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretimi ders kitaplarında “ben” ve “biz”: Bir üstsöylem çözümlemesinde kültürel yansımalar. Türkbilig, 2024(48), 141-176. https://doi.org/10.59257/turkbilig.1451198
  32. Güçlü, R. (2025). The use of metadiscourse markers in L2 Turkish opinion texts by native Albanian students. International Journal of Turkish Teaching Research, 5(2), 288-316.
  33. *Gülsün, Y., & Köseoğlu, P. (2020). Determining biology teachers' neuromyths and knowledge about brain functions. Education and Science, 45(204), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8456
  34. *Han, S., & Kim, H. M. (2020). Components of mathematical problem solving competence and mediation effects of ınstructional strategies for mathematical modeling. Education and Science, 45(202), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7386
  35. 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(8), 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
  36. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
  37. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341
  38. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400103
  39. Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
  40. Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
  41. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
  42. Hyland, K. (2003). Self‐citation and self‐reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204
  43. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  44. Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers’ discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, (49), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
  45. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5
  46. Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology and Education, 5(3), 177-186.
  47. Kafes, H. (2017). Citation practices among novice and expert academic writers. Education and Science, 42(192), 441-462. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6317
  48. Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(5), 1639-1648.
  49. *Kanyılmaz, B. M., & Yücel, E. Ö. (2020). The evaluation of teachers’ in-class practices and opinions for developing analytical thinking skill of primary school students in the course of science. Education and Science, 45(204), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8876
  50. Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (70), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.068
  51. Kornfilt, J. (1996). On copular clitics in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, (6), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.6.1996.762
  52. *Köysüren, D. A., & Deryakulu, D. (2017). Effects of changes in educational policies on the emotions of ICT teachers. Education and Science, 42(190), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6991
  53. Kuhi, D., Tofigh, M., & Babaie, R. (2013). Writers’ self-representation in academic writing: The case of computer engineering research articles by English versus Iranian writers. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.164
  54. Kuo, A. D. (1999). Stabilization of lateral motion in passive dynamic walking. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 18(9), 917-930. https://doi.org/10.1177/02783649922066655
  55. Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, (46), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
  56. Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text and Talk, 31(2), 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.008
  57. Luzón, M. J. (2009). The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL Engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.04.001
  58. Martínez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 174-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001
  59. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study. Peter Lang.
  60. Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Swales, J. M. (2020). Academic Englishes: A standardized knowledge?. In A. Kirkpatrick & R. Sussex (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 659-676). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003128755-45
  61. Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(3), 23-40.
  62. Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
  63. Muñoz, M. C. (2013). The “I” in interaction: authorial presence in academic writing. Revista De Lingüística Y Lenguas Aplicadas, (8), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1162
  64. Mur-Dueñas, P. M. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
  65. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
  66. *Nikdel, F., Jokar, A., & Noshadi, N. (2021). Perceptions of classroom environment, satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and academic emotions: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. Education and Science, 46(208), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9812
  67. *Novovic, T., & Micanovic, V. (2020). Fears in early childhood in the views of children and preschool teachers in preschool institutions. Education and Science, 45(204), 185-206. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7753
  68. *Özyürek, A., & Şahin, F. T. (2015). Anne-çocuk ilişkisinin ve baba tutumlarının çocukların ahlaki ve sosyal kural anlayışları üzerine etkisi. Education and Science, 40(177), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.3672
  69. Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7
  70. *Romero, I. M., del Mar García, M., & Codina, A. (2015). Developing mathematical competencies in secondary students by introducing dynamic geometry systems in the classroom. Education and Science, 40(177), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2640
  71. Rongen Breivega, K., Dahl, T., & Fløttum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French, and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics, and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 218-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00032
  72. *Safranj, J., Volarov, M., & Oljaca, M. (2020). Serbian version of foreign language classroom anxiety scale: Psychometric analysis. Education and Science, 45(204), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7826
  73. *Sarıtepeci, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The effect of blended learning environments on student's academic achievement and student engagement: A study on social studies course. Education and Science, 40(177), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2592
  74. *Sezer, Ş., & Engin, G. (2020). School principals’ views on selecting, training and appointment of administrator for schools: A case study. Education and Science, 46(206), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.9621
  75. Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
  76. Solsun, A., & Akbaş, E. (2022). Establishing authorial presence by the exclusive-we: A functional approach to self-mentions in engineering research articles. Participatory Educational Research, 9(3), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.66.9.3
  77. *Su, X., Huang, X., Zhou, C., & Chang, M. (2017). A technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) scale for geography teachers in senior high school. Education and Science, 42(190), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6849
  78. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
  79. *Şen, Z., & Doğan, A. (2021). An examination of teachers’ attitudes towards bullying, their coping strategies for handling bullying, and perceived school climate. Education and Science, 46(207), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.8942
  80. *Tahir, L. M., Musah, M. B., Al-Hudawi, S. H. V., & Daud, K. (2020). Becoming a teacher leader: Exploring Malaysian in-service teachers’ perceptions, readiness and challenges. Education and Science, 45(202), 283-310. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7362
  81. Tang, R. (2006). Addressing self-representation in academic writing in a beginners’ EAP classroom. Journal of Language and Learning, 5(2), 76-85.
  82. 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(1), S23-S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
  83. Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri (Thesis No. 558309) [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  84. *Tavşancıl, E., Altıntaş, Ö., & Ayan, C. (2017). An investigation of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 in terms of formative assessment use: Turkey example. Education and Science, 42(190), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.4874
  85. *Tomczyk, Ł., & Wąsiński, A. (2017). Parents in the process of educational impact in the area of the use of new media by children and teenagers in the family environment. Education and Science, 42(190), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.4674
  86. Underhill, R. (1979). Turkish grammar. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  87. Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, (53), 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.003
  88. Webb, C. (1992). Using the first person in academic writing: Objectivity, language and gatekeeping. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(6), 747-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01974.x
  89. Wu, G., & Zhu, Y. (2014). Self-mention and authorial identity construction in English and Chinese research articles: A contrastive study. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v10i2.28557
  90. *Xie, S., Zeng, S., Liu, L., Wei, H., Xu, Y., & Lu, X. (2022). Predicting geospatial thinking ability for secondary school students based on the decision tree algorithm in mainland China. Education and Science, 47(210), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10367
  91. Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
  92. Yang, C. (2009). A comparative study of metadiscourse in English and Chinese academic book reviews. Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology, 22(6), 942-945. https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/17843284/A_Comparative_Study_of_Metadiscourse_in_English_an.htm
  93. *Yurtbakan, E., Erdoğan, Ö., & Erdoğan, T. (2020). Impact of dialogic reading on reading motivation. Education and Science, 46(206), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.9258
  94. *Zeljić, M., Boričić, M. D., & Maričić, S. (2021). Problem solving in realistic, arithmetic/algebraic and geometric context. Education and Science, 46(208), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.8887

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

Güçlü, R. (2025). Self-mention in L1 and L2 Turkish research articles: realizations, functions and distributions. Education and Science, 50(224), 169-198. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2025.2497