Document Type : Research Articles


1 Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, ORCID:

2 PhD Candidate of TEFL, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran


This study aimed at investigating the manifestations of objectivity in American academic texts across different disciplines and various time spans. To achieve this, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) was surveyed in terms of the frequency of occurrence of the four identified linguistic features (i.e., passive voice, impersonality, hedging, and attitude markers) as the indicators of objectivity (e.g., Alvin, 2014; Bal-Gezegin & Baş, 2020) to find the cross-disciplinary differences during the last twenty years. The results indicated that passive voice was employed differently across the academic disciplines of COCA and the notion of impersonality was more realized in hard sciences in comparison to soft ones. Moreover, the findings revealed a decline in the occurrence of passive voice through time in all the academic disciplines. In addition, hedging and attitude markers were more manifested in hard sciences probably due to the writers’ inclination to be judged objectively. Finally, objectivity was shown to have a steady increase in American academic texts implying that, though the authors of academic texts revealed less inclination to employ passive voice to avoid difficulty and ambiguity, they have employed less personal authorial references to stick to the notion of objectivity and impartiality during the recent years.


Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

بررسی میان رشته ای و پیکره-بنیاد مظاهر "بی طرفی علمی" در متون پژوهش های دانشگاهی

Authors [فارسی]

  • دکتر محمد صابر خاقانی نژاد 1
  • مریم آذریان 2
  • فاطمه جوانمردی 2

1 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبانشناسی و زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

Abstract [فارسی]

این مطالعه با هدف بررسی نمودهای "بی طرفی علمی" در متون  پژوهشهای دانشگاهی در رشته های مختلف و در بازه­های زمانی مختلف انجام شده است. به همین منظور،  متون دانشگاهی پیکره COCA (پیکره انگلیسی معاصر آمریکایی) از نظر فراوانی وقوع چهار شاخص زبانی افعال مجهول، استفاده از زبان غیر شخصی، نشانگرهای  بیان نگرش وتلطیف کننده های زبانی به عنوان مضامین "بی طرفی علمی" در بازه زمانی 20 سال اخیرمورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که افعال مجهول به طور متفاوتی در نه رشته دانشگاهی به کار گرفته شده اند و استفاده از زبان غیر شخصی در علوم تجربی در مقایسه با علوم انسانی و اجتماعی بسیار متفاوت بوده است. علاوه بر این، یافته ها حاکی از آن بود که وقوع افعال مجهول در طول زمان در همه رشته های دانشگاهی به صورت چشمگیری کاهش یافته است. همچنین، استفاده از زبان غیر شخصی، نشانگرهای  بیان نگرش وتلطیف کننده های زبانی در رشته های علوم و مهندسی احتمالاً به دلیل تمایل نویسندگان این رشته ها به قضاوت عینی تر وغیر شخصی تر وقوع بیشتری داشته است. به طور کلی نتایج بیانگر آن بودند که "بی طرفی علمی" به صورت پیوسته در متون پژوهشهای دانشگاهی افزایش یافته و این بدان معناست که اگرچه نویسندگان مقالات دانشگاهی تمایل کمتری به استفاده از افعلال مجهول داشته اند، آنها از زبان غیر شخصی وتلطیف کننده های زبانی در راستای پرهیز از بیان نظرات شخصی در سالهای اخیر بیشتر بهره برده اند.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • متون پژوهش های دانشگاهی
  • مظاهر "بی طرفی علمی"
  • بررسی پیکره-بنیاد
  • پیکره انگلیسی معاصر آمریکا (COCA)
Abuelwafa, M. (2021). Legitimation and manipulation in political speeches: A corpus based study. Procedia Computer Science, 189, 11-18.
Afshar Mameghani, A. R., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2017). Realization of attitude and engagement markers in students’ presentations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(2), 73-77.
Alonso, R. A., Alonso, M. A., & Mariñas, L.T. (2012). Hedging: An exploratory study of pragmatic transfer in nonnative English readers’ rhetorical preferences. Ibérica, núm, 23, 47-63. Doi: 106573/1426.1092.IBRECA
Alvin, L. P. (2014). The passive voice in scientific writing. The current norms in science journals. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), 1-16.
Amdur, R. J., Kirwan, J., & Morris, C. G. (2010). Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 25(3), 98-110.
Atkinson, D. (1996). The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675-1975: A socio-historical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25, 333-371.
Baise, A. (2020). The objective–subjective dichotomy and its use in describing probability. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(2), 174-185.
Bal-Gezegin, B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62.
Baratta, A. M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 1406-1421. 2008.09.010
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bednarek, M. (2008). Emotion talk across corpora. Palgrave Macmillan.
Blagojević, S. (2009). Expressing attitudes in academic research articles written by English and Serbian authors. Facta Universitatis: Linguistics and Literature, 7(1), 63-73.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Fløttum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles: Comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 218-239. 1473-4192.00032
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.
Chang, M. H., Luo, Y. W., & Hsu, Y. K. (2012). Subjectivity and objectivity in Chinese academic discourse: How attribution hedges indicate authorial stance. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 293-329.
Cigankova, N. (2016). Grammatical expression of impersonality in LSP texts and translations. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 231, 99-106.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Cunha, I. d., & Montané, M. A. (2019). A corpus-based analysis of textual genres in the administration domain. Discourse Studies, 21(3), 3-33.
Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: An analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
Ding, D. D. (2002). The passive voice and social values in science. Technical Writing and Communication, 32(2), 137-152.
Dueñas, P. M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50-72.
Dumin, L. M. (2010). Changes in the use of the passive voice over time: A historical look at the American Journal of Botany and the changes in the use of the passive voice from 1914-2008. Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma.
Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 1-9.
Egbert, J., & Baker, P. (2021). Using corpus methods to triangulate linguistic analysis. Routledge.
Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9-
Elheky, M. A. (2018). Hedging in scientific and social texts: A comparative analysis of business and social texts. Scholar Journal of Applied Sciences and Research, 1(8), 10-19.
Fløttum, K. (2014). Linguistic mediation of climate change discourse. La revue du GRAS, 65, 7-20.
Ghafar Samar, R., & Amini, S. (2015). A comparative study of personal and impersonal meta-discourse in academic writing. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 4(2), 53-66.
Gherdan, M. E. (2019). Hedging in academic discourse. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 16, 123-127. 10.1515/rjes-2019-0015
Harmon, J. E. (1992). An analysis of fifty citation superstars from the scientific literature. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22, 17-37.
Harwood, N. (2005). A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 1207-1231.
He, Y. and Wang, H. (2012). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality markers in Chinese research articles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 77(17), 199-208.
Humphrey, J. D. & Holmes, J. W. (2008). Style and ethics of communication in science and engineering. Synthesis lectures on engineering, 3(1), 1-14.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. University of Michigan Press ELT.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-191.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Khaghanine­jad M. S., Jafari, S. M., Eslami, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2021). An investigation into the application of “concluding transition signals” in academic texts: A corpus-based analysis. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 8 (1), 1-15.
Khodadady, E., Alavi, M. & Khaghaninezhad, M. S. (2012). Schema-based instruction: A novel approach of teaching English to Iranian University students. Ferdowsi Review, 5 (1), 3-21. 10.1080/10.5296/ijl.v4i1.1213
Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Chan, S. H. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74.
Kim, L. Ch., & Lim, J. M. (2015). Hedging in academic writing: A pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607. https://
Koskinen, I. (2020). Defending a risk account of scientific objectivity. British Journal of Philosophical Science, 71(4), 1187-1207.
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2008). The construction and promotion of new knowledge in text. In R. Lorés-Sanz, P. Mur-Dueñas and E. Lafuente-Millán (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres (pp. 61-80). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508.
McArthur, T. (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford University Press.
Millar, N., Budgell, B., & Fuller, K. (2013). ‘Use the active voice whenever possible’: The impact of style guidelines in medical journals. Applied Linguistics 34(4), 393-414. https://
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, 86-101.
Nunn, R., Brandt, C., & Deveci, T. (2018). Transparency, subjectivity and objectivity in academic texts. English Scholarship Beyond Borders, 4(1), 71-102.
Pagliawan, D. L.  (2017). Feature style for academic and scholarly writing. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 6(2), 35-41. 10.13140/RG.2.2.15511.73120
Rodman, L. (1994). The active voice in scientific articles: Frequency and discourse functions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24(2), 309-331.
Rundbald, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250-277. 10.1177/ 0741088307302946
Sameri, M., & Tavangar, M. (2013). Epistemic modality in academic discourse: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(4), 127-147. JAL.2020.674922
Samigullina, A. D. (2018). Teaching first year students features of academic writing (complexity, formality, objectivity, responsibility). Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 2(14), 38-41. 10.18454/RULB.2018.14.2.2
Sanjaya, I. N. S. (2013). Hedging and boosting in English and Indonesian research articles. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States.
Seoane, E. (2013). On the conventionalization and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70-99.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. English for Academic Purposes, 2, 343-357. 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X
Šimanskienė, G. (2005). Developing the profile of assessment criteria in academic writing. MA Thesis, Vilnius Pedagogical University, Vilnius.
Sorayyaei Azar, A., & Hashim, A. (2019). The impact of attitude markers on enhancing evaluation in the review article genre. Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 153-173. /gema/issue/view/1171
Subagio, U., Prayogo, J. A., & Iragiliati, E. (2019). Investigation of passive voice occurrence in scientific writing. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 3(1), 61-66. ijolte.v3i1.7434
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102.
Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190.
Vergaro, C. (2011). Shades of impersonality: Rhetorical positioning in the academic writing of Italian students of English. Linguistics and Education, 22, 118-132. 10.1016/j.linged.2010.11.001
Williams, J. M. (2005). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (8th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Zhang, C., & Schwarz, N. (2020). Truth from familiar turns of phrase: Word and number collocations in the corpus of language influence acceptance of novel claims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 1-6. 10.1076/JESP.2020.11.001.549034-54