5. The choice of and between I and we:the principles and the constrains

In terms of the choice between I and we, although the two FPPs are both obvious self-representation expressions and are subjective, these two words differ in immensely for the Chinese EFL student. In the students' texts, in comparison to we, the singular FPP I is considered as more personal and egocentric because it refers to the writer himself/herself in the texts. It is threatening because the novice writer may consider I as an expression of being authorial and may feel that he/she would lack the support of his/her peers. The plural FPP we, on the other hand, could be the writer himself/herself, the writer and the reader, and the writer and the whole academic community. Therefore, the concept of singularity and collectiveness leads to the choice between the singular I and the plural we. Based on the textual functions discussed in the previous chapters, in this section I would propose and discuss a set of principles that guide the student writers to choose either I or we or other impersonal expressions.

1)The principles

The principles discussed in this study are the influences and motivations that encourage the student writers to choose I and/or we in their academic discourse. They are the reasons or triggers leading to the usage of the FPPs in the dissertations. More specifically, the novice writers are guided by the principles to choose I and/or we purposefully in their dissertations. The word“principle”is used in line of Leech (1983)when he talks about the difference between rules and principles. The difference between these two is that rules are essentially a question of either a yes or a no. The notion of principles is more flexible than rules in that it can be“applied to a certain extent”(Leech,1983:21). In this respect, Principle seems to be the right word that applies to this study because, as will be discussed in the following, the student writers apply these principles flexibly and strategically in their writing.

(1)Reader Friendly Principle (I and we)

The Reader friendly principle may be expressed as“Make your organisation of the text clear”. Academic writing is inherently interactive. With the knowledge of who the potential readers of the academic text may be, the student writers use rhetorical strategies accordingly. One of these rhetorical strategies is the usage of I and we to show awareness of the readership when a writer engages in the construction of his/her discourse. Specifically, being reader friendly means to present the readers a well-organised and readable text.

This Principle is most obviously presented by expressions of metadiscoursal organisers in the student's dissertations, for example, the expression I have discussed. Recognising the existence of the potential readers, the novice writers frequently include the reader and“guide”(Tang &John,1999)them through the text. By using the metadiscourse expressions with the FPPs, the writers explicitly present the outline of their texts. For example, they could prepare and guide the readers by expressions such as I / we will discuss; and remind and restate what has been dis cussed or mentioned, for example, I / we have discussed / mentioned. From the writers' point of view, the use of the FPPs is seen as an effective means of signalling directly to the readers of their essays. It is a tacit way to show their awareness of the potential readers and extend their friendliness to them by explicitly displaying the organisation of the text and the information that needs to be recounted and emphasised in the essays. It is expected that the readers would appreciate the well-organised discourse with identifiable clues and clear statements about the layout and the thread of the texts.

Influenced by the Reader Friendly Principle, the writers'effort of discourse organisation may be appreciated when the readers are able to follow the text easily. Nonetheless, as there is no personal opinion involved and the use of I and we is not face-threatening, there is a propensity for this choice to lead to the overuse of some expressions like I / we will discuss or I / we have discussed / mentioned in the undergraduates'texts. Comparatively, it is found in this study that with more academic training, the postgraduate students use fewer instances of I and we and more impersonal expressions to organise the text to ensure the readability of their texts. Meanwhile, in some cases, the Reader Friendly Principle overlaps with the Alignment principle, especially when the word we is chosen.

(2)Alignment Principle (we)

The Alignment Principle is to“Present yourself as a member of the community and be persuasive”. The use of the collective FPP is influenced by two issues, which can be viewed as complementing each other. One is to align potential readers, the other is to avoid obvious self-projection. In both cases, the writers choose we to solicit solidarity (Hyland,2002,2004)and avoid confrontation. This principle includes the following two aspects.

· Writers include themselves and the readers as members of a community

Effective communication between an addresser and an addressee in academic writing means both of them share background knowledge of that field, preferably, in the same academic community. For instance, it would be difficult to ask a Business and Management expert to examine a dissertation on Shakespeare, or to ask an English Literature professor to decide how good an article on the cross-cultural aspects of the international soft drinks trade between China and UK is. Knowing that the reader of their dissertations would be someone with expertise in that discipline, the student writers use we to include themselves into that academic community so that they can converse with the examiners, i.e. the readers of their theses. Briefly, one aspect of the Alignment Principle is that the writers purposefully include themselves into the disciplinary community with shared disciplinary knowledge.

This aspect of the Alignment Principle is best illustrated by expressions of we such as as we (all)know and we know that. In this case, the writer includes the readers into a community. This community can be general. In these cases, we can be anyone who shares the common knowledge that is known to almost everyone, for example, the common knowledge of “different coun tries have their own advantages and disadvantages”(UGBM 05704). The community construed by the writer may also be restricted. It may be restricted to an academic community of a certain discipline. Bearing in mind that the readers of the dissertations are experts of the related disciplines, the student writers use we to include people, by their own assumption, who know or should have known the disciplinary knowledge. This we, particularly in the phrases that comprise the FPP, such as as we know and we know that are limited to the members of a specific community with whom the writers align. When motivated by this Alignment Principle, either the writers take it for granted that the proposition is known to the audience that reads the article, or the writers deliberately do so because they harbour a pre-conceived impression that whoever reads the text should have known the propositions and that there is no need to argue or question those propositions further. This knowledge community in a sense, is marked off by the writer. However, the knowledge is field specific, which may or may not be accepted as known by those involuntarily included as readers. There are chances that they would question the proposition because they are compulsorily taken into a community that they may or may not belong to, or be familiar with. Therefore, this principle can be a double-edged sword. If the readers acknowledge the shared knowledge, it is likely that they will agree with the writer. If they do not think that the proposed knowledge should be presented as“as we know”but needs further explanation, the writers put themselves in the firing-line to be criticised by choosing we.

To summarise, when student writers include themselves as members of a community, there are two types of knowledge common to those in these academic circles. One is that the knowledge is common information, which is probably shared by a very large section of society. The other is field-specific knowledge that is construed by the writers and passively subscribed to by the reader. In this context, the knowledge is used as a launching platform for later discussion but will not be discussed in detail, as it is deemed as known by the writer.

· Writers align with the readers to seek agreement and avoid negation

A thesis needs to be convincing, which is another aspect of the Alignment Principle. To prove the credibility of their interpretation, viewpoints or understanding of the text, the writers deliberately draw in their readers. According to Hyland (2001), the employment of we is to realise the rhetorical purposes of seeking solidarity and crafting reader agreement in the text. The interaction between the writer and the readers in academic discourse occurs as the writer acknowledges the presence of the readers and tries to seek alignment and avoid self-predicted negation from the reader. This aspect of alignment can be illustrated by the phrase we can see in the students' texts(262 instances in the corpus). By using we, the writer is strategically saying that“the conclusion or the interpretation is not my own postulation”(see Example 3).

3 From the above statistics we can see that American interviewees evaluate experiential needs higher than social needs. They look for brands that can fulfil their desire for change. Newness or emotional expressions are valued most for the demonstration of their personalities. (PGBM 0059)

Regarding this choice of we instead of I, it has been argued that the researcher only uses this phrase when“they are confident enough that the readers would agree with them”(Harwood, 2005). Although it is doubtful in this study if the student writers used this expression with the same confidence, it is likely that they would have at the very least, sought to secure their arguments and/or viewpoints so as not to be challenged by the experts who grade their dissertations.

(3)Modesty Principle (I and we)

This Modesty Principle is indeed, “Be modest”. It encourages the writer not to be too assertive and not claim too much authority and originality. It is motivated by two concerns on the writers' side. One is to avoid being too assertive or arrogant when they express opinions or deliver propositions. The other is to foster a special relationship or affinity between the student writers and the expert readers. In these texts, the student writers want to present their personal opinions in their theses but, at the same time, do not want to sound overtly assertive to warrant disapproval or criticism.

This principle marks the proposition as belonging to the writer themselves, but in a humble manner. One example of the Modesty Principle is the expression I think. There has been some research about how the verb think and the expression I think in academic settings could mean humble, tentative, unsure, and polite in academic settings (Biber et al.,2002; Fløttum et al., 2006; Harwood,2005; Hyland,2001,2003,2005; Quirk et al.,1985). However, just by looking at the bigram I think, it is hard to decide whether the writer is being modest or assertive. I will show later in the Authority Principle section that this expression may also be indicative of the writers' self-confidence. Looking at the extended discourse is probably the only way to decide what the writers are aiming for, being modest or being assertive. In this study, when modesty is needed, I think is often found paired with expressions such as personally, for me etc. (see Example 4). By adding these adverbial expressions in the sentences, the writers attempt to state that the proposals are personal, which may or may not be true and could be disagreed with if the readers think otherwise.

4 Personally, I think that issuing a film is the same as issuing a commercial product in the market. The market investigation and analysis could not be omitted, as well as the mature schedule and plan. (UGBM 04407)

In these texts, by saying it is his/her personal opinion with the modest aspect of I think, the writer of each example tries to find a balance between the justification of their personal view and also concurrently avoids being too self-assured to be criticised by the examiners.

The employment of the plural FPP we could possibly be due to the influence of the Modesty Principle as well. In the current study, there are many instances of we co-occurring with modal verbs, can and may as in we can say and we may find. The modal verbs in these expressions are used to soften the assertiveness of the interpretation or the arguments in the texts, which leaves room for the writers to have their ideas put forward, and at the same time, give the readers flexibility to agree or disagree. This is also the reason why the writers choose the collective personal pronoun, we instead of I. By using the expressions such as we can say that, the writers are saying:“this(proposition)may or may not be true, however, we worked it out together”. In short, the writers try to be modest and persuasive with the expression, we cay say that.

The expressions chosen for the Modesty and Alignment Principles somehow overlap. Similar expressions may illustrate both the Modesty and the Alignment Principles. This indicates that a single expression may be influenced by one or more than one principle. This multi-faceted feature of the principles will be discussed further later.

(4)The Authority Principle (I and we)

The Authority Principle can be interpreted as“Be authoritative, or be assertive strongly”. One of the most important uses of the two FPPs I and we is to present authorial voices in academic writing. These writers seek to claim these understandings or perspectives as their original property or contribution(Tang&John,1999:29). This is the principle that contrasts with the Modesty Principle in the sense that one allows one to proudly claim authorship, whilst the other allows one to remain less conspicuous.

· The choice of I

To claim authority in the texts is one of the motives that influences the writers to choose I in their dissertation. By using I, the writers show their confidence and commitment to their understanding or propositions. The verbs collocating with I could be the verbs of cognitive act, for example, think and believe. The verb, argue, which implies saying with confidence, is also included in this group. When the writers want to show confidence on the proposed entity they choose I. With the intention of establishing their authority in the texts, the writers choose I to collocate with verbs of strong assertive connotations, for example, I argue and I believe. The expression, I think, which is chosen because of Modesty Principle, can also be chosen for the Authority principle. In such circumstances, it can be quite assertive when it is looked at in wider context of the students' theses. For example, a student writer (UGEL 04006)paired I think with the assertive expression beyond any doubt to stress the point. The single FPP I is also used to present academic achievement in the corpus. This only applies to the dissertation genre, which is in accordance with Harwood (2005). Being possibly the most important piece of writing in the student writers' education, the students are expected to present their learnt disciplinary knowledge. This includes not only the intention to impress the examiners with their ability to conduct research, with their skills in academic writing but also what they have learnt, read and done during their years of study. This attempt to influence may be found in the expressions, for example, I used and I found when the students recount their research procedures.

The Authority Principle is partly influenced by the assessment in academia that research should have a theoretical and/or practical implication. With this expectation in the forefront, the choice of the first-person pronoun I is usually used to specify the writer's disciplinary contribution. For undergraduate and the postgraduate student writers, it may be challenging for them to claim what they found to be of any significant importance. Nonetheless, the students face the dilemma that if they were to claim the contribution as those of the authors. It would be too bold, particularly by using I. Conversely, if there was no theoretical or practical implication stated, it may suggest that the research was of little importance. Under this pressure, some students choose I to emphasis the significance of the originality of their research. From this perspective, the Authority Principle may or may not be a positive influence on the student writers.

· The choice of we

Being authorial in an academic text requires one to be original to a large extent. In those single authored dissertations, the choice of we could indicate the dilemma that the student writers are facing. The apprentice writers position themselves to claim ownership and credit by using the FPP when they present their points of view in their written work. Meanwhile, being aware that they are communicating with professionals via the dissertation, they may also attempt to avoid the criticism of being over confident. Consequently, they tend to choose the plural first-person pronoun we instead of I, even though the interpretation or viewpoint is generated completely by the writers themselves. Therefore, there is a conflict between the Authority Principle and the Modesty Principle.

In addition, the Authority Principle is also reflected from the choice of we when it is used to provide suggestions or recommendations in the students' dissertations. These examples could be the phrase we can learn as in Example 5.

5 We can learn much from its financial structure and measures of supervision to establish a free and fair competitive environment and a complete legislation net. But there is a basic line we should remember:no matter what we draw from others, we should combine our own cultures and practices with other successful measures. (UGBM 68061)

By using these expressions, the novice writers give advices on, for example, how to run a business in the Business and Management discipline, and on how to live a decent or happy life in the Literature discipline. In Example 5, this function is further stressed by next expressions of we, we should remember and we should combine in the following sentence. In the texts where suggestions or advice are provided by using we, the writers present themselves as experts of the discussed field. By the choice of we, they claim their own authorship by self-initiated viewpoints as members of the community.

(5)Passivation Principle

This Passivation Principle is in essence, “Avoid I and we in the academic text”. Differing from the above principles that choose both of the two FPPs or either one of I or we, this is the principle of not using I or we in academic writing practice(e.g. it is believed that). This principle is most likely asserted by the EAP instructors in the EFL classrooms. Out of a pre-conceived no tion that that academic discourse needs to be objective and avoid personal intrusion, the employment of the FPPs is consequently restricted. Thus, instances of I and we are encouraged to be replaced by the passive voice to avoid personal representation in the discourse. Disciplinary requirement could possibly be the reason to avoid the FPPs, for example, computer science, a hard discipline that requires hard empirical results. However, the usage of these two FPPs is not prohibited in expert discourse. Harwood (2005)found 0.2 per 1,000 words of I and 7.30 per 1,000 words of we that are used for self-mention in ten published papers from two of the most prestigious journals of the Computer Science discipline. As argued by Harwood(ibid), these instances are used for the assertion of newsworthiness and originality in the experts' papers. The clear instruction of not using the FPPs in the students' dissertations and the purposeful uses of I and we in the published papers show gaps between EAP classroom instruction and real practice in academia.

2)The multi-faceted nature of the principles

The multi-faceted nature of the principles refers to the fact that obeying one principle also means conforming to the other principle(s). For example, the Reader Friendly Principle and the Alignment Principle coincide to a large extent. Being reader friendly not only provides an uninterrupted reading experience but also helps with interacting with the readership positively to build solidarity, and to align oneself with the readers. Likewise, the alignment with the readers is likely to happen if the writer and the readers belong to a same disciplinary community. Being reader friendly is more probable with a readable and cohesive text than a text that is poorly organised. Both principles could lead to the choice of the FPP, we. One example could be the expression as we have discussed. One purpose of using we in this phrase is to remind the readers of the previous discussion. An additional purpose would be to highlight the joint effort of the writer and the reader. If the writer chooses one principle, he/she is also likely to choose the other. In some expressions, the Reader Friendly, Alignment and Modesty Principles overlap in the choice of we, too. For instance, the expression as we can see is when the writer directs the reader to the forthcoming content, which is reader friendly. This expression also includes the reader in interpreting research results by using we, which is alignment. At the same time, we and the possibility modal verb, can in this expression, we can see suggest some element of modesty.

The principles might also come into conflict with each other (cf. Leech 1983). For instance, there is an obvious paradox between the Modesty Principle and the Authority principle. Following the Modesty principle, the choices can be I, we or other impersonal expressions. When the FPP, I is chosen, it is used with other expressions to present modesty, for example, personally in Example 4. Being modest may result in using we, which implies a collectiveness and joint effort. The Modesty principle may also lead to not using the FPPs. The expression it may be interpreted that in Example 6 illustrates this point. The interpretation is made by the writer himself/herself; however, with the impersonal expression, the understanding is presented in a humble manner.

6 To a certain extent, it may be interpreted that Doctor Reefy would rather isolate himself and let himself become a grotesque than break the barriers, fearing those inevitable misunderstanding, because he cannot find a successful means of communication. (PGEL 0053)

Influenced by the Authority Principle, the use of I could help the writer to claim sole responsibility to his/her viewpoint. Alternatively, the students can also assert an opinion without the employment of I and we. One of the choices is to use evaluative structure, like it is... that /to, and cleft sentences. The choice between being modest and being authorial depends on what impression the writers want to impress their readers. It could be either a humble community member or a confident author. Between the two, choice of one almost always tends to overrule the other. Being modest means being humble and not boasting, while being an author and asserting achievement and contribution could suggest quite the opposite.

To illustrate this paradox, I shall present one example from the corpus and shall attempt to rewrite it to illustrate the range of choices at the writer's disposal. In Example 7, the expression“Personally speaking, I think”, can be considered as following the Modesty Principle. In this sentence, the writer expresses humbly that his/her suggestion may or may not be considered as the right choice. The rewritten A, could be a claim to authority. In rewriting it, I removed the expression“Personally speaking”from the original sentence. The expression I think and the modal verb should imply an authorial voice without staking a claim for the opinion held. The writer can present assertiveness that the proposal is his/her understanding, and not anybody else's. The rewritten B also projects authority to a certain degree. Even though I deleted the whole“Personally speaking”, I think, and changed the sentence to an impersonal statement, the modal verb of obligation should still imply authoritativeness. The difference is that the writer is less visible in B than the original sentence and A. In giving this example, I aim to illustrate the conflict between the Modesty Principle and the Authority Principle. In this example, even with the same expression, I think, it can suggest either modesty or authority. The pragmatic effect has to be one or the other. With respect to the authoritativeness between the rewritten versions of A and the rewritten versions of B, I would argue that A is more authoritative than B. In A, the FPP, I clearly projects the writer and prioritises the personal ownership, whereas in B, the writer is less visible. Consequently, the statement is still authoritative but weaker than A because of the invisibility. In short, whether it is appropriate to use the original sentence, the rewritten A or B, depends on the wider context and also depends on which principle the writer decides to follow. The writer could be modest (Example 7), or authoritative (rewritten A), or less visible and less authoritative (rewritten B).

7 Personally speaking, I think the company should hold a press conference at this point to show a concern attitude to the public. The theory of equivocal communication strategy advocated by Susan may take some effect at the beginning of the crisis. To sum up, J&J took massive actions to restore the company's image. All of the actions taken can be referred to the theories of crisis communication. (PGBM 0114). (The Modesty Principle)

· Rewritten A:I think the company should hold a press conference at this point to show a concern attitude to the public. (The Authority Principle)

· Rewritten B:At this point, the company should hold a press conference to show a concern attitude to the public. (The Authority Principle)

The principles are guidelines and not restrictions. The dissertation writers who choose I and we purposefully and strategically not only meet the requirements of the theses but also impress their potential examiners. In essence, the writer-reader relationship in this study is not expert to expert as in research articles, but rather, student to teacher. This unbalanced writer-reader relationship affects the principles of choosing the FPPs in the students' theses. Even if a writer follows these principles, the readers may or may not be similarly minded as what the writers had envisaged. For example, if a writer chooses I to be modest, the reader may interpret it as an assertive expression to claim authority. As noted above, the principles are guidelines that the writers appear to be following. Whether these guidelines are working or not may depend on how the writers express themselves in an expanding context or even across the whole texts. Apart from these principles that motivate the students to use I, we and other impersonal expressions in their academic discourse, there are a few other factors which may also influence the students' use of the two FPPs. These are discussed below.

3)Other factors in the use of I and we

This section discusses other factors that may encourage or discourage the use of I and we in the students' essays. Firstly, I and we, especially we, are a part of fixed expressions, for example, as we have mentioned and as we can see. Therefore, the choice of using we is to some extent dependent on the choice of these particular phrases. This is a characteristic peculiar to the use of fixed phrases. It is proposed that each of these fixed phrases is seen as one distinct unit with a certain meaning and should therefore be processed holistically.

Secondly, the limited information about academic conventions might discourage the students from using the two FPPs. The advice given about the academic conventions in the academic writing classroom might also discourage the students from using I and we. In my experience, academic conventions are summarised as“do not use the first person pronouns”. Further, there is no instruction on when and where FPPs would be appropriate in academic texts. It is taken for granted by some academic writing teachers and most of the novice writers that the FPPs are subjective and face-threatening. Therefore, the students are advised to use other expressions. The most popular alternative is probably the passive voice. Alternatively, if the students choose the FPPs, they would prefer to use we to I, as stated in the Principle section. The reason for this less than desirable advice is due to the shortage of time available for teaching academic writing in China. It may also be possible that the instructors of academic writing also consider the use of FPPs in an academic text as being too subjective and informal. The advice given may be construed according to the teachers' understanding, in which case, it may or may not necessarily convey an accurate assessment of when the use of I and we may be appropriate.

Thirdly, there could be a cultural factor that is involved in the choice of I and we. Chinese culture is more inclined to collectivism and stresses less on individualism. In China, self is mostly collectively constructed (Hyland,2002; Ramanathan & Atkinson,1999). Chinese people tend to use more we than I to present themselves in both spoken and written language. It is a sign of collective effort and a means of being humble, both of which are highly valued virtues in China. The greater number of instances of we to interpret the research or express viewpoints in the students' dissertations might also be influenced by the highly valued Chinese collective culture. This culturally influenced aspect of I and we in academic writing needs cross-cultural examination, which is beyond the scope of this study.