Iranian Scholars’ Revision of Their Submitted Manuscripts: Signaling Impersonality in Text

Document Type : Research Article


1 Shahid Chamran University of AhvazAhvaz

2 Ahvaz Jundishapour University of Medical Sciences

3 Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz


Nonnative English-speaking scholars have often been reported to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their English native counterparts when it comes to writing a publishable research article (RA). When they submit their manuscripts to English-language journals, they sometimes receive comments criticizing their faulty English. One area of difficulty for these authors is the grammaticalization of neutrality, impersonality, and objectivity. Relying on systemic functional linguistics (SFL), as the analytic framework, and by comparing the transitivity systems of the manuscripts written by the scholars prior to submission with their after-publication version, this study investigated how this is achieved during the revision process. Results suggest that revisions tend to put the authors in the background of the text. This involves increasing the presence of relational processes and reducing the number of material ones, and as far as voice is concerned, the proportion of passive processes in relation to the active ones increases.


Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 113-126.
Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.
Biber, D., & B. Gray. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S. Spinks S., & Yallop, C. ( 2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell.
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012) Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 64-75.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 663-688.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.
ElMalik, A., & Nesi, H. (2008). Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 87-96.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145.
Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 243-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-149.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16.
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Special Purposes, 14, 37-57.
Gosden, H. (2003). “Why not give us the full story?”: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985, 1994). An introduction to functional grammar (1st and 2nd eds.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. New York/London, Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2008). Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Writing science in a second language. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article Discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177-186.
Kharabaf, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2012). Science growth in Iran over the past 35 years. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 17(3), 275-279.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lachowicz, D. (1981). On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2(6), 105- 115.
Marco, M. J. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 63-86.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003, 2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (1st and 2nd eds.).London: Contiuum.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R., (2005). The language of evaluation, appraisal in English. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Martínez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.
Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. ESP Journal, 10, 15-33.
Myers, G. (1992). “In this paper, we report . . .”: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 295-313.
Pérez-Llantada Auría, C. (2011). Heteroglossic (dis)engagement and the construal of the ideal readership: dialogic spaces in academic texts. In V. Bhatia, P. S. Hernández & P. Pérez-Paredes (Eds.) Researching specialized languages (pp. 25-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121-132.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Helping content area teachers work with academic language: Promoting English Language learners’ literacy in history. Santa Barbara, CA: UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Shaw, P., & Vassileva., I. (2009). Coevolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290-305.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (1990). English grammar. London: Harper-Collins Publishers.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the
submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing:
Intercultural and textual issues
(pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Thompson, B. (1993). The use of statistical significance tests in research: Bootstrap and other alternatives. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 361-377.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.