folks,
i have not contributed to this thread because i am overloaded with
obligations but want to add my view on this.
i think it is a mistake to consider the issue of pronoun use a mere
stylistic issue. the royal "we" as in "we the crown decided (for you)" is
intended to make dissension difficult: a modern example would be the ceo
concluding: "we all are in agreement on this, aren't we?" -- silence.
the first person pronoun I denotes the speaker, the author, and the WE when
there are more than one. using I enables the reader to know who is
accountable for what was done or is said. ignoring first person pronouns
when an action is reported, a choice is behind what is stated or a claim is
made leaves open who is accountable for it and this is a linguistic game to
avoid accountability and claim unquestionable truths. i do not think there
are unquestionable truths and i am opposing this stance.
making it difficult to be accountability is a practice in science writing
relative to which i believe chris rust started this threat. to claim
objectivity means hiding one's contribution to an argument or report. it
suggest that reality spoke through its data, not I/WE. when reality speaks
what it says becomes undeniable, unquestionable, and the reader is expected
to accept what is said as factual accounts. i think we should rule out the
devious practice of using that linguistic trick (of disclaiming
accountability by not using personal pronouns) to invoke objectivity when
one is responsible for what is written.
my suggestion is to use I/WE when we report what we did, thought, or brought
forth.
we do not use third person pronouns IT/THEY when we quote others or report
on measurements, data or theories attributable to others.
accordingly, we should refrain from saying "it was found" when it is we who
were the ones who did the analysis.
we should not say the definition of X is Y when it is we who either define X
as Y or select that definition among other definitions published elsewhere.
we should not claim knowledge to be in books when we are the ones who have
read them with gain -- knowledge is embodied in a reader or actor
etc.
as a reviewer, i would say the use of I and WE is not a mere stylistic
preference. it foregrounds or hides the author. in judging the appropriate
use i would ask what truth games the author is playing with the reader when
not using first person pronouns for what the author should be held
accountable
on the issue of using full names for authors, there are style manuals, such
as apa, that rule it out. publishers like that because it saves a miniscule
amount of print space. when publishing in journals, i have found it
difficult to oppose their requirements. when publishing larger works i have
always insisted on full names and succeeded. when asking for conference
papers those who write requests for proposals have the ability to ask for
references with author's full names.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Swanson,
Gunnar
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I, We, The Author
Is the question about referring to oneself in the third person as opposed to
a phony omnipotent third person? (The author of this email isn't sure how
this plays out in actual writing.) Certainly using the plural only makes
sense if there are multiple authors, the author is speaking for a group, or
the author is Queen Elizabeth.
I have no question that who did what should be described accurately. While
the pretentious jock habit of referring to oneself may be slightly
obnoxious, there's nothing specifically inaccurate about it. (Gunnar Swanson
is not a pretentious jock. Gunnar Swanson just likes saying his own name.)
By the same token, calling oneself "the author" may be stuffy but not
inaccurate. Acting as if your actions were some sort of natural phenomenon
is, of course, inaccurate.
A defense of the practice of putting oneself in the third person is a
stylistic consistency. Much academic writing is in an authoritative voice
and a sudden introduction of the first person could be a bit jolting. Using
"this author believes x" in such writing could be a reasonable solution to a
reading flow problem.
For many people (including this reader), much academic writing is clumsy
because of academic conventions. Saying "Ken Freidman pointed out the
problem of Space Food Sticks as art in his 1983 "Fluxus and the High Tech
Snack Industry" flows better than "There is a problem with Space Food Sticks
as art (Freidman 1983.)" The extra few words seem to be worth the space,
especially considering the lack of brevity of other aspects of academic
writing.
Teena's comment about full names rings true not just as a feminist statement
but as a humanizing one. Referring to authors as authors rather than as
authoritative disembodied texts not only has a humanistic value but is
arguably a more accurate description of the world.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
at East Carolina University:
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 328 2839
|