Discursive and rhetorical features of inclusive we in scientific writing: a corpus-based study of English-language research articles on ecology

Abstract

Despite the traditional view of scientific discourse as objective and impersonal, contemporary research articles actively employ strategies of authorial presence and reader positioning. One of the key linguistic resources is the first-person plural pronoun we which may refer either to the author(s) of the article (exclusive we, we=the author(s)) or to a wider scientific community (inclusive we, we=author(s)+readers). In this way, we allows writers to regulate their visibility in the text and to establish a relationship with the reader. The article examines the discursive and rhetorical functions of inclusive we in English-language research articles on ecology. The study is based on a corpus of 100 co-authored research articles published in leading ecology journals between 2019 and 2022. Adopting a mixed-methods approach that combines corpus analysis with functional discourse interpretation, the study examines the pronouns we, our and us as functionally equivalent resources. The analysis identifies five functions of inclusive we: establishing shared epistemic ground, indicating gaps and limitations in knowledge, framing future research perspectives, expanding the scope of addressee inclusion, and engaging the reader in the co-construction of scientific reasoning. Thus, inclusive we contributes to modeling collective agency, reduces the distance between authors and readers, modulates authorial responsibility, and presents scientific knowledge as a shared and ongoing process.

References

1. Kozhina M.N. 1972. O rechevoi sistemnosti nauchnogo stilya sravnitel'no s nekotorymi drugimi [On the speech consistency of scientific style in comparison with some others]. Perm', Izd-vo Permskogo gos. un-ta. (In Russ.)
2. Kotyurova M.P., Bazhenova E.A. 2008. Kul'tura nauchnoi rechi: tekst i ego redaktirovanie: uchebnoe posobie [Academic writing culture: Text and editing: A textbook]. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow, Flinta: Nauka. (In Russ.)
3. Mikolaichik M.V. 2018. Mestoimeniya pervogo litsa i drugie sredstva samoupominaniya v angloyazychnom nauchnom ekonomicheskom diskurse: korpusnoe issledovanie na materiale anglo-amerikanskikh i rossiiskikh annotatsii [First-person pronouns and other means of self-mention in English-language academic economic discourse: A corpus-based study of Anglo-American and Russian abstracts]. Vestnik Cherepovetskogo gos. un-ta, no. 5(86), pp. 90–99. (In Russ.)
4. Prasko M.V. 2024. Variativnost' proyavleniya avtorskogo nachala v nauchnoi annotatsii: sravnenie gumanitarnogo i estestvenno-nauchnogo diskursov [Variation in the manifestation of authorial presence in research article abstracts: A comparison of the humanities and natural science discourses]. Zhanry rechi, no. 4 (44), pp. 338–346. (In Russ.)
5. Razinkina N.M. 1989. Funktsional'naya stilistika angliiskogo yazyka [Functional stylistics of English]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola. (In Russ.)
6. Ädel A. 2022. Writer and reader visibility in humanities research articles: Variation across language, regional variety and discipline. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 65, pp. 49–62.
7. Dogan-Ucar 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, no. 1(15), pp. 180–204.
8. Harwood N. 2005. 'We do not seem to have a theory … The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap': Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, no. 3(26), pp. 343–375.
9. Hyland K. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, no. 4(18), pp. 549–574.
10. Hyland K. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, no. 3(20), pp. 207–226.
11. Hyland K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, Continuum.
12. Kuo C.-H. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, no. 2(18), pp. 121–138.
13. Swales J. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
14. 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, vol. 18, suppl. 1, pp. 23–39.
15. Wang S., Tseng W.-T., Johanson R. 2021. To we or not to we: Corpus-based research on first-person pronoun use in abstracts and conclusions. SAGE Open, no. 2(11).
16. Williams-Camus J.T. 2025. A systematic analysis of first-person identity roles in agricultural sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 75, article 101506.
17. Zhao N. 2023. A corpus-based comparison study of first-person pronoun we in English-language abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 63, article 101244.