摘要：

【目的】 从第一人称代词视角对比分析中外学者医学SCI论文作者身份构建策略的异同和变化趋势,为国内学者了解国际学术社群写作规约的最新变化提供借鉴。【方法】 建立时间跨度为30年的中外学者医学论文语料库,对第一人称代词的使用形式、频数和“we”的语篇功能进行定性和定量分析。【结果】 中外学者论文第一人称代词的类型和分布、“we”语篇功能的分布较为相似,但标准频数的差异具有统计学意义。1988—2008年,中国学者论文的第一人称代词和“we”高风险话语功能的标准频数均低于国外学者论文,但是在2018年,中国学者论文的第一人称代词标准频数上升到68.35,达到与国外学者论文相当的水平(66.54);中国学者论文中“we”高风险话语功能的标准频数上升到25.17,高于国外学者(20.55)。【结论】 中国作者不断向国际学术话语社群的写作规约靠拢,并通过使用第一人称代词构建更加明确和权威的作者身份,但是对个别话语功能的使用仍然低于国外作者。

关键词: 第一人称代词, 作者身份构建, 语篇功能, 医学论文

Abstract:

[Purposes] A comparative study on the strategies of constructing authorial identity in medical SCI papers written by Chinese and foreign scholars is conducted from the perspective of first-person pronouns to find out their similarities and differences as well as dynamic changes, so as to help Chinese scholars understand the latest changes in the writing conventions of international academic community. [Methods] A corpus containing medical SCI papers written by foreign and Chinese scholars in the past thirty years was constructed and used for qualitative and quantitative analysis of the forms and frequencies of first-person pronouns as well as the discourse functions of "we". [Findings] The type and distribution of first-person pronouns as well as the distribution of discourse functions of "we" are similar between native and non-native medical writing, but the normalized frequencies are significantly different. The normalized frequencies of first-person pronouns and high-risk function of "we" used by Chinese scholars are lower than those of foreign scholars from 1988 to 2008. However, the normalized frequency of first-person pronouns used by Chinese scholars increases to 68.35 in 2018, which is comparable to that of foreign scholars(66.54); the normalized frequency of high-risk function of "we" increases to 25.17, which is significantly higher than that of foreign scholars(20.55). [Conclusions] Chinese authors continue to move closer to the writing conventions of international academic discourse community by building a more explicit and authoritative presence through first-person pronouns though they still underuse certain discourse functions compared with foreign authors.

Key words: First-person pronoun, Authorial identity, Discourse function, Medical paper