Theomniscientauthors,orimpersonality

1、The omniscient authors, or impersonalityAbstract： Arguably， novice writers were warned of using “ I”，“ we”， or equivalents in an academic essay of hard sciences to “pretend to a scientific scholarly style ”( Spack， 1988， p.39 )， although the issue of impersonality and its interdisciplinary variation

2、s have been documented in the research literature ( Hyland， 2002). Now， it was partially acknowledged that authors were omniscient ， as captured by Ivanic？ & Camps ( 2001)： “There is no such thing as impersonal writing ” . ( p.5) However, as self-mention was obviously subjective ， it followed that n

3、atural science RAs should be more objective to include few “I” s or “we” s. To attest to this belief ， this paper investigated whether there were self-mentions in 4 published works (of renown journals ) written by Chinese scholars from the Chemistry Department.Key words：self-mention ；research articl

4、e；co-authorship ； group contribution中图分类号： H319 文献标识码： A 文章编号： 1672-1578( 2015) 04-0006-02In these 4 RAs， no “I” was spotted， whereas “we”，“us”， and “ our” were frequently used. The frequencies of “we (and alike)” instances were 12 ( Zhang， et al.， 2013)， 8 ( Xiong， et al.， 2011)， 11(Xiong， et al.，

5、2012)， and 5 (Lv， et al.， 2013). The average is 9 instances/RA( 36 instances/228 sentences ). The proportions of sentences containing self-mentions were 14%( 12/86 )，18%( 8/45 )， 21% (11/52 )， and 11%( 5/45 ) respectively ， which were unexpectedly high. For example ：1. In conclusion ， we have report

6、ed a novel Cu (OTf)2- catalyzed annulation (Xiong, et al., 2011 , p.3) (found in conclusion part )2. Very recently， we realized the copper-catalyzed benzylicC?CH and aromatic C?CH dehydrogenative-cross-coupling( DCC) reactions( Xiong, et al.,2012 ,p.2246) (found in theintroduction part )3. To our de

7、light, other one carbon synthons were alsoeffective in ( Lv, et al.,2013,p.6440) (found indata-analysis part)(3)showcased the authors effort to present thedesirable findings as a “phenomenon ” that made the team “delightful ”. It could otherwise just be omitted without influencing the presentation o

8、f the same fact. However ， in（1），（2）， and （3） the authors deliberately chose to use “we+report-word ”， deviating from the “impersonality rule ”. Among other rhetorical reasons ， this may also be caused by the co-authorship. Usually an RA as such is seen as a research team product ， whose results and

9、 findings cannot be overtly contributed to any single participant. As Ivanic ？ & Camps （2001） also pointed out ， “ writers do not construct these self-representations from an infinite range of possibilities but from culturally available resources. ”（ p.5） Under the Chinese ideology which emphasized

10、respect for others/community and no direct self-boosting ， “ we” thus became the strongest booster of self-mention instead of “ I”. Although this may legitimize the hypothesis that “ I” in RAs written by one single researcher may occur equally frequently ， “ I” was unlikely to occur in a published E

11、nglish RA written by a Chinese scholar ，“戈，I“丄/since “ I”was aggressively much more “assertive” （ seeRamanathan & Atkinson ，1999，p.48 & Atkinson ， 1997）than “ we” in a collectivist culture like China. This was a preliminary thought about the “ we” and “I”differences inrelation to the cultural ideolo

12、gies of China ， which “ downplay individual display of knowledge ”（ Kagan，1986 & Slavin，1983， cited in Heath ，1991，p.12-14 ， in Ramanathan &Atkinson， 1999， p.45）. This echoed with Scollon s （1991） analysis of Taiwanese students struggles of self-expression ： the Chinese culture lessened “individuali

13、stic sense of self ” （Scollon & Scollon， 1991， p.4）， or “ independent construal of self” （ Markus & Kitayama ， 1991） . On the other hand ， the “interdependent norm ”（Markus & Kitayama ， 1991） “ seeks to accommodate others and in return receives enduing social support ”. （ Chu， 1985， cited in Scollon

14、， 1991， p.4） For instance， a striking feature of these 4 RAs was that “ we” was mostly used in collaboration with “ report ”， “ hypothesized ”， or “ found ”， etc. This not only reflected a direct link between group human agents and their contribution to mankind ， but also reduced the individual burd

15、en of responsibility ， seeking for the return favor of “ social support ” from the team ，“ safer” for the first author to present a scientific account ；“ I”， self-mentioning the first author ，was too risky.9Ramanathan ， V.， & Atkinson ， D.Individualism ， academic writing ， and ESL writers. Journal o

16、f Second Language Writing， 1999.8（ 1）， 45?C75.10 Slavin ， R. When does cooperative learning increase student achievement ？ Psychological Bulletin ， 1983.94（ 3）， 429-445.11 Scollon ， R. Eight legs and an elbow： Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions. In Launching the literacy decade ： A

17、wareness into action. Proceedings of the Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy. Multiculturalism and citizenship. （ pp.1-4 ） . Toronto ： Inter national Reading Association. 1991.12 Scollon ， R.， & Scollon， S. W. Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes，

18、 1991. 10， 113-125.13 Spack， R. Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community ： How far should we go ？ TESOL Quarterly ， 1988. 22（ 1）， 29?C51.14 Xiong ， T.， Li， Y.， Bi X.， Lv.， Y.， & Zhang， Q. Copper-Catalyzed Dehydrogenative Cross-Coupling Reactions of N-para-Tolylamides through Successive C H Activation： Synthesis of