Authorial Pronoun We

Capturing Politeness in EFL Academic Writing

  • Lely Tri Wijayanti Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
  • Nur Indah Sholikhati Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
  • Exwan Andriyan Verrysaputro Universitas Jenderal Soedirman


This study aims to decipher the use of authorial pronoun we as a politeness strategy in the EFL academic writing. The data consist of 56 published research articles taken from the Corpus of State University of Malang Indonesian Learners’ English. The articles were written by Indonesian undergraduate students co-authored with their thesis supervisors. Attempting to categorize pronoun we into inclusive, exclusive, and ambiguous types in the co-authored texts, we identify seven functions of the authorial pronoun. The result unveils that the ambiguous authorial pronoun we appear to be the most frequently used politeness device to minimize face threatening acts (FTA).


Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software].
Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow’s Response to “Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers,” by Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(1), 71–76.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Burke, P. J. (2008). Writing, Power and Voice: Access to and Participation in Higher Education. Changing English, 15(2), 199–210.
Conrad, S. (2018). The Use of Passives and Impersonal Style in Civil Engineering Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 38–76.
Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 327–338.
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, 26(3), 343–375.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207–226.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125.
Kitagawa, C., & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 739–759.
Luzón, M. J. (2009). The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL Engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 192–206.
Martı́nez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 227–247.
McCrostie, J. (2018). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. Icame Journal, 32(1), 97–114.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.
Myers, G., & Lampropoulou, S. (2012). Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1206–1218.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(l), 45–75.
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, 18(September 1998), S23–S39.
Wang, S. P., 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, 11(2).
How to Cite
WIJAYANTI, Lely Tri; SHOLIKHATI, Nur Indah; VERRYSAPUTRO, Exwan Andriyan. Authorial Pronoun We. J-Lalite: Journal of English Studies, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 76-84, june 2022. ISSN 2723-357X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 06 dec. 2022. doi: