Who claims, who aligns? “I think” vs “we think” as epistemic and engagement resources in Spain-based English PhD theses
Submitted: 2025-09-17
|Accepted: 2026-03-31
|Published: 2026-07-24
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Keywords:
stance, engagement, first-person, doctoral theses, authorial we
Supporting agencies:
Abstract:
This study asks who claims and who aligns in Spain-based English PhD theses by comparing I think and we think as epistemic and engagement resources. A 550-thesis corpus (2011–2021) across five disciplines is analysed, retrieving matrix and parenthetical tokens (with/without that), excluding non-clausal strings, and hand-coding a stratified sample for function (epistemic assessment, engagement/alignment, mitigation) and we-scope (exclusive authorial, inclusive reader, community-referential). Quantitatively, I think is Humanities-led, while we think is a low-frequency but widespread alternative and the preferred first-person evaluator in STEM; diachrony shows stability overall with mid-decade plural prominence in the Natural Sciences. Qualitatively, I think marks author-owned readings, often as zero-that comment clauses, whereas we think recruits readers or projects community consensus, typically in matrix position with that. These choices redistribute accountability and manage dialogic space. The study concludes with implications for supervision and EAP pedagogy, highlighting the Spanish authorial we and offering practical diagnostics for intentional footing in academic writing.
References:
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
Aijmer, K. (1997). I think—an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2012). Sentential evidential adverbs and authorial stance in a corpus of English computing articles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 25(1), 15–31.
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2014). Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In M. Bondi & R. Lorés Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 21–42). Peter Lang.
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015a). On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality: Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0002
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015b). The functions of seem and parecer in early medical writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564517
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015c). Sentential epistemic and evidential devices in Spanish and English texts on computing. In J. R. Zamorano-Mansilla, C. Maíz, E. Domínguez, & M. V. Martín de la Rosa (Eds.), Thinking modally: English and contrastive studies on modality (pp. 383–408). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Alonso-Almeida, F., & Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (2019). Modal verb categories in CHET. In I. Moskowich, B. Crespo, L. PuenteCastelo, & L. M. Monaco (Eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus (pp. 150–165). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.08alo
Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (2017). Apparently, fairly and possibly in The Corpus of Modern English History Texts (1700–1900). In F. Alonso-Almeida (Ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English scientific writing: Evidence from the Coruña Corpus (pp. 93–109). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (2019). An analysis of certainly and generally in Late-Modern English history texts. Research in Language, 17(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0011
Álvarez-Gil, F. J., & García-Alonso, N. (2019). Analysis of the linguistic expression I think in a corpus of late modern English scientific texts. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 25(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.20420/rlfe.2019.380
Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016a). Mitigation of claims in medical research papers: A comparative study of English- and Spanish-language writers. Communication & Medicine, 13(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.28424
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016b). A contrastive study of the hedges used by English, Spanish, and Chinese researchers in academic papers. In F. Alonso-Almeida, I. Ortega-Barrera, E. Quintana-Toledo, & M. E. Sánchez-Cuervo (Eds.), Input a word, analyze the world: Selected approaches to corpus linguistics (pp. 477–492). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Phraseology in specialised language: A contrastive analysis of mitigation in academic papers. In G. Corpas Pastor & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Computational and corpus-based phraseology: EUROPHRAS 2019 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11755, pp. 61–72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30135-4_5
Chang, M. H., Luo, Y. W., & Hsu, Y. K. (2012). Subjectivity and objectivity in Chinese academic discourse: How attribution hedges indicate authorial stance. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 293–329.
Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. John Benjamins.https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148
Harwood, N. (2005a). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … in this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207–1231.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Harwood, N. (2005b). ‘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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5
Kaltenböck, G. (2010). Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 237–266). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_012
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115
Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
Lim, N.-E. (2011). From subjectivity to intersubjectivity: Epistemic marker wo juede in Chinese. In Y. Xiao, L. Tao, & H. L. Soh (Eds.), Current issues in Chinese linguistics (pp. 265–300).
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins.https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
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(Suppl. 1), S23–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-M
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–74). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
