Adelia Januarto, Tofan Dwi Hardjanto


Unlike previous studies focusing on disciplines and genres displaying regularities in terms of findings, recent studies investigating cultural differences in authorial presence, even in the same language and context suggest contradictory findings, and thus, emphasize the importance of further research to clarify native and non-native English-speaking authors’ variation of showing presence overtly in their texts. Here, we aim at exploring how Indonesian and British authorial presence is linguistically shown in applied linguistics research articles (RAs), and investigating the roles of the linguistic markers of authorial presence in their immediate context. Using data from the two groups of academic authors, we demonstrate that the native English-speaking authors in general tend to be more explicitly visible than their non-native English peers in English RAs and indicate a stronger preference for displaying reader-friendly attitude by showing presence when signposting and providing explicit guidance to their audience.


explicit authorial presence, research articles, Indonesian and British authors

Full Text:



Abdi, J., & Farrokhi, F. (2015). Investigating the projection of authorial identity through first person pronouns in L1 and L2 English research articles. International Journal of Language and Literature, 3(1), 156-168. doi: 10.15640/ijll.v3n1a21

Ädel, A. (2008). Metadiscourse across three varieties of English: American, British, and advanced learner English. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 45-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Al-Shujairi, Y. B. J. (2018). What, which and where: examining self-mention markers in ISI and Iraqi local research articles in applied linguistics. Asian Englishes, 1-15. doi: 10.1080/13488678.2018.1544699

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bhat, D. N. S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Can, T., & Cangir, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100796. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796

Carciu, O. M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical writing. Ibérica, 18, 71-92.

Carter, S., Guerin, C., & Aitchison, C. (2020). Doctoral writing: Practices, processes and pleasures. Singapore: Springer.

Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9-30.

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: a discourse community view. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and style in academic discourse (pp. 11-39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005

Endley, M. J. (2010). Linguistic perspectives on English grammar: A guide for EFL teachers. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Hinds, J. (2001). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Landmark essays on ESL writing (pp. 63-72). New York: Routledge.

Hryniuk, K. (2018). Expressing authorial self in research articles written by Polish and English native-speaker writers. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 621-642. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.5

Huang, Y., & Rose, K. (2018). You, our shareholders: metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text & Talk, 38(2), 167-190. doi: 10.1515/text-2017-0041

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English text construction, 1(1), 5-22. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl

Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27(2), 159–188. doi: 10.1177/0741088309357846

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274. doi: 10.1177/0741088316650399

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001

Januarto, A., & Hardjanto, T. D. (2020). Authorial presence in English research articles by native and non-native English scholars. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(2), 241-254.

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006

Khedri, M. (2016). Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(3), 403-430. doi: 10.1515/psicl-2016-0017

Kübler, S., & Zinsmeister, H. (2015). Corpus linguistics and linguistically annotated corpora. London: Boomsbury.

Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientifc journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6

Laba, I. N., & Rinayanthi, N. M. (2018). Buku ajar Bahasa Indonesia berbasis karya tulis ilmiah. Sleman: Deepublish.

Livnat, Z. (2010). Impersonality and grammatical metaphors in scientific discourse. The rhetorical perspective. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues(41), 103-119.

Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author's voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 31(2), 173-193.

McGrath, L. (2016). Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 86-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004

Mur-Dueñas, P. (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. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied linguistics, 10(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.1

Purwo, B. K. (1984). Deiksis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: PN Balai Pustaka.

Rokhmansyah, A., Rijal, S., & Purwanti. (2018). Bahasa Indonesia untuk perguruan tinggi. Semarang: Unnes Press.

Salski, Ł., & Dolgikh, O. (2018). Reader versus writer responsibility revisited: A Polish-Russian contrastive approach. In M. Chitez, C. I. Doroholschi, O. Kruse, Ł. Salski & D. Tucan (Eds.), University writing in Central and Eastern Europe: Tradition, transition, and innovation (pp. 89-102). Cham: Springer.

Sari, E. M. P., & Aini, N. (2019). Writing for academic purpose: A blended learning handout. Ponorogo: Myria Publisher.

Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.

Seoane, E., & Hundt, M. (2017). Voice alternation and authorial presence: Variation across disciplinary areas in academic English. Journal of English Linguistics, 46(1), 3-22. doi: 10.1177/0075424217740938

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. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001

Sugihastuti, & Saudah, S. (2016). Buku ajar Bahasa Indonesia akademik. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Susanti, Y., Kurnia, F. D., & Suharsono. (2017). Interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction of dissertations: Differences across English proficiency level. A Journal of Culture, English Language, Culture & Literature, 17(2), 270-291. doi: 10.24167/celt.v17i2

Susanti, Y., Kurnia, F. D., & Suharsono. (2018). Authorial presence in Indonesian doctorate students’ dissertations. Proceeding Icon-ELite, 1(1), 542-553.

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, S23-S39. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5

Thomas, R. M., & Brubaker, D. L. (2001). Avoiding thesis and dissertation pitfalls: 61 cases of problems and solutions. London: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Walková, M. (2018). Author’s self-representation in research articles by Anglophone and Slovak linguists. Discourse and Interaction, 11(1), 86-105. doi: 10.5817/DI2018-1-86

Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 60-73. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.003

Wijana, I. D. P. (2008). Bahasa Indonesia untuk penulisan ilmiah. Yogyakarta: Araska Printika.

Xia, G. (2018). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of first-person pronouns in academic English writing. Text & Talk, 38(1), 93–113. doi: 10.1515/text-2017-0032



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal METALINGUA Indexed by:

SINTAGoogle ScholarOCLC World CatISJDGARUDAPKP IndexCrossref 


@2016 Jalan Sumbawa Nomor 11 Bandung 40113 Laman:

Powered by OJS, edited by donz