Self-Mention — Interactive Module
Diagnose · Coach · Practice · Apply. Self-mention markers put the writer explicitly into the text — as 'I', as 'we', or as a named role — to claim responsibility for choices and claims.
Four key functions of self-mention in academic writing
Self-mention is the set of devices a writer uses to refer to themselves in the text: singular first person, exclusive authorial 'we', nominal self-reference ('this study'), and agentive stance verbs that assign an action to the author. Disciplines differ sharply in how much of this is tolerated — what reads as confident in linguistics can read as unscientific in some experimental sciences.
Singular self-mention
First-person singular: I, my, me.
Direct claim ownership; standard in single-author humanities and social science writing.
- InitialI argue that the distinction between hedges and boosters is gradient rather than categorical.
Marks a claim as interpretive rather than settled fact.
- InitialIn my view, the corpus is too small to support a generalisation of this scope.
Ties a finding explicitly to the writer's own analytic work.
- InitialMy analysis shows a steady increase in hedging density across drafts.
Slightly more combative than 'argue'; signals an anticipated counterview.
- InitialI contend that this pattern reflects genre convention rather than individual style.
Weaker than 'argue'; can read as opinion rather than a supported claim if overused.
- InitialI believe the discrepancy stems from differences in coding reliability.
Many journals in the natural and experimental sciences prohibit first-person singular entirely.
- InitialAs I have shown, the effect disappears once outliers are removed.
Choose the right marker
- I argueI contendwhen a single author wants to own an interpretive claim directly.
- my analysis showswhen reporting a finding that is specifically the writer's own analytic work.
- in my viewfor genuinely interpretive claims that are not fully settled by the evidence.
- as I have shown— in fields that ban 'I' (much of biomedicine, physics), replace with 'as this analysis has shown' or a passive construction.
Exclusive authorial we
We, our — referring only to the author(s), not the reader.
Standard for co-authored papers; refers only to the authors, not the reader.
- InitialWe argue that engagement markers deserve separate treatment from stance markers.
Ties the claim to the authors' own evidence base.
- InitialOur data suggest that self-mention density correlates with disciplinary norms more than with author confidence.
Reports a result as the authors' own finding.
- InitialWe found that novice writers avoid self-mention even where it is expected.
Frames a claim as bounded by the authors' specific procedure.
- InitialIn our analysis, hedges outnumbered boosters by roughly three to one.
Softer than 'we argue'; useful for interpretive rather than evidentiary claims.
- InitialWe believe this asymmetry reflects the risk profile of overstatement in this field.
Slides from exclusive 'we' (author only) into a false inclusive 'we' that presumes shared knowledge.
- InitialAs we all know, qualitative coding is inherently subjective.
Choose the right marker
- we arguewe found thatfor co-authored papers reporting joint claims or findings.
- our data suggestwhen the claim is closely tied to the authors' own dataset.
- in our analysisto bound a claim to the authors' specific procedure, not a general truth.
- as we all know— readers may not, in fact, know this; state the claim and cite support instead.
Nominal self-reference
This study, the present paper, the researcher.
The most neutral and widely accepted form of self-reference across disciplines.
- InitialThis study examines how self-mention density varies across four academic disciplines.
Common in article introductions to state scope.
- InitialThe present paper focuses on written rather than spoken academic discourse.
Useful when distinguishing this analysis from a prior one in the same paper.
- InitialThe current analysis extends the earlier model to include disciplinary variation.
Common in qualitative and applied fields as a distancing alternative to 'I'.
- InitialThe researcher coded all transcripts independently before reconciling disagreements.
Slightly more formal variant of 'this study'; common in thesis writing.
- InitialThe present research builds on Hyland's (2005) model of metadiscourse.
Archaic, self-conscious formality that reads as insincere in modern academic prose.
- InitialThe author humbly submits that the framework may generalise to other genres.
Choose the right marker
- this studythe present paperas the default, discipline-safe way to set scope, especially early in a paper.
- the researcherin qualitative or applied fields where 'I' is discouraged but full passive feels evasive.
- the current analysisto distinguish this analysis from an earlier one in the same text.
- the author humbly submits— drop the false modesty; state the claim plainly: 'this paper suggests'.
Agentive stance
Verbs that assign an act of claiming to the author: I argue, we propose.
Assigns the act of arguing directly to the writer; strong in humanities and social sciences.
- InitialI argue that genre expectations, not individual style, drive most of the variation observed.
Frames a contribution — a model, method, or framework — as the authors' own act.
- InitialWe propose a four-way taxonomy of self-mention that separates person from grammatical role.
Combines nominal scope-setting with an explicit agentive claim.
- InitialIn this paper I show that disciplinary training predicts self-mention avoidance better than genre alone.
Stronger commitment than 'suggest'; use only when the evidence is decisive.
- InitialWe demonstrate that removing self-mention markers reduces perceived authorial credibility.
Explicitly frames the claim as a stance among competing alternatives.
- InitialI take the position that hedging and self-mention interact rather than operate independently.
Double-hedges an agentive claim into near invisibility; the false modesty undercuts the stance it is meant to assert.
- InitialI would humbly like to suggest that the model may need revision.
Choose the right marker
- I argue thatin this paper I showfor single-author papers making a strong, ownable claim.
- we proposewhen presenting a new model, method, or framework as a contribution.
- we demonstrate thatonly when the evidence is strong enough to support a decisive verb.
- I would humbly like to suggest— use a plain agentive verb instead: 'I suggest' or 'this paper suggests'.
Disciplinary variation & confident ownership
Self-mention is a claim of responsibility — how much of it is welcome depends entirely on the field.
- Humanities, applied linguistics, and much social science expect and reward 'I' and 'we' for original claims.
- Nominal forms ('this study', 'the researcher') are safe defaults across almost every discipline.
- Agentive verbs ('I argue', 'we propose') should be reserved for the writer's own genuine contribution, not routine description.
- Many experimental and biomedical journals still ban first-person singular outright — check house style before drafting.
- False inclusive 'we' ('as we all know') presumes shared knowledge the reader may not have.
- Archaic false modesty ('the author humbly submits') reads as insincere rather than polite in contemporary prose.
Nominal self-reference ('this study examines...') is the conventional way to open scope statements.
Agentive verbs ('I argue', 'we demonstrate') belong right where the writer commits to the strongest, most ownable version of a claim.