See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336486098

Academic writing in Romania: a contrastive analysis of BA thesis

introductions in Romanian and English

Article · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 635

4 authors, including:

Cristina Băniceru Mirela Borchin

West University of Timisoara West University of Timisoara
14 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dumitru Tucan
West University of Timisoara
45 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dumitru Tucan on 13 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CICCRE I / 2012

Cristina Ana BĂNICERU, Academic writing in Romania: a

Mirela Ioana BORCHIN, contrastive analysis of BA thesis
Claudia Ioana DOROHOLSCHI, introductions in Romanian and
Dumitru TUCAN English1
(Universitatea de Vest din
Timişoara)

Abstract: The present study investigates certain aspects related to the interaction between ‘traditional’ Romanian academic
writing and academic writing in English, by a comparative analysis of a corpus of introductions to BA papers in literature
and linguistics defended in June 2011 at the Faculty of Letters, History and Theology of the University of Timişoara. We
looked at introductions produced in Romanian and in English, in an attempt to see to what extent the two sets of writing
conventions interact, as well as whether an increasing influence of the Anglo-Saxon model could be established. We
undertook a bottom-up analysis of the texts, focusing on two main aspects: the move structure of the introductions and the
deictics used. We identified 7 moves most typically used in the corpus of diploma paper introductions, and concluded that
the “descriptive” moves and steps (introducing the topic, presenting the structure of the paper) prevailed over the more
“reflective” moves (summarising previous research, indicating a gap in previous research), which may suggest an
incomplete and mechanical adoption of the Anglo-Saxon model. However, we found that all introductions tended to be
concise and employed a limited number of moves, which seems to be a recent development under the influence of English
writing conventions. Subsequently, we analysed deictics as linguistic tools which ensure textual coherence and cohesion
and help build discursive and metadiscursive strategies. We found no significant difference between the papers written in
English and those written in Romanian, neither in terms of moves, nor in terms of deixis, which suggests that the diploma
paper introduction is fairly cohesive as a sub-genre, at least within our corpus, and that the Anglo-Saxon model has
influenced papers written in Romanian and in English to a similar extent.
Keywords: Romanian academic writing, genre analysis, BA thesis introductions, move analysis, deictics

Rezumat: Studiul de faţă investighează câteva aspecte ale interacţiunii dintre scrierea academică românească
tradiţională şi cea anglo-saxonă, analizând comparativ un corpus format din introducerile la lucrările de licenţă susţinute
în 2011 la Facultatea de Litere, Istorie şi Teologie a Universităţii de Vest din Timişoara, în română şi engleză, în
domeniile lingvisticii şi studiilor literare. Am urmărit să stabilim – în acest segment – în ce măsură se exercită influenţa
modelului anglo-saxon în scrierea academică românească actuală. Pentru aceasta, am avut în vedere două aspecte:
mutările/paşii retorici şi modul de utilizare a deicticelor. Am identificat în corpusul analizat şapte tipuri de mutări
retorice şi, comparându-le frecvenţa, am tras concluzia că mutările „descriptive” (introducerea temei, prezentarea
structurii lucrării) sunt mult mai frecvente decât cele „reflexive” (raportarea la cercetările anterioare, indicarea unei
insuficienţe în cercetările anterioare pe care îşi propune să le corecteze lucrarea de licenţă), fapt ce sugerează o preluare
mecanică a modelului de scriere anglo-saxon. Oricum, am observat că toate introducerile sunt concise şi conţin un
număr limitat de mişcări retorice, în conformitate cu o tendinţă recentă de a adopta şi adapta convenţiile de scriere
academică din spaţiul anglo-saxon. În cele din urmă, am analizat comparativ elementele deictice ca unelte lingvistice
responsabile de realizarea coerenţei şi coeziunii textuale, a unor strategii discursive şi metadiscursive. În concluzie, în
această analiză nu am găsit diferenţe semnificative între introducerile scrise în română şi cele scrise în engleză, nici în
ceea ce priveşte mişcările retorice, nici în ceea ce priveşte uilizarea elementelor deictice, ci asemănări constante care
dovedesc, pe de o parte, că în corpusul nostru introducerea la lucrarea de licenţă este destul de unitară ca sub-gen, iar pe

1
The research was undertaken within the SCOPES project No. IZ74Z0_137428 Literacy Development in the
Humanities: Creating Competence Centres for the Enhancement of Reading and Writing Skills as Part of University
Teaching (LIDHUM), funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

331
 CICCRE I / 2012

de altă parte, că în spaţiul academic românesc modelul anglo-saxon a fost urmat în aceeaşi măsură în ambele categorii
de lucrări (scrise în română şi în engleză).
Cuvinte-cheie: scriere academică în România, analiza genului, introduceri la lucrarea de licenţă, mutări retorice,
deictice

1. Contrasting writing cultures in contemporary Romanian academia

A historical survey of the emerging modern Romanian culture in the 19th century would show
not only an interesting mixture of European influences, but also a certain degree of conflict between these
models, which occasionally acquires the features of a canonical battle. At the beginning of the 20th
century, two of the most celebrated Romanian literary critics and cultural analysts, G. Ibrăileanu (1908)
and E. Lovinescu (1924-1925)2, acknowledged these influences, and despite their opposing ideological
backgrounds, they both considered the French model to have prevailed. The preeminence of the French
influence emerged, according to E. Lovinescu, as the sign of a political effort to shape Romanian culture
following the political, ideological and institutional model generated by the French Revolution, and the
subsequent developments of the ‘bourgeois modernity’ (i.e. social modernity and political modernity).
Despite an important chorus of opposing voices (‘the critical spirit’ seen by G. Ibrăileanu as a necessary
filter in adapting Western models to the particular situation of Romania), almost every institutional aspect
of modern Romania was shaped according to French models. This influence included the Romanian
educational system, and the end of the 19th century marked the beginning of a long-term influence of
French academia on Romanian academia. Thus, almost every aspect of the institutional layers of the
Romanian educational system was built from scratch under the influence of French practices, including
the ‘writing culture’ in general, and academic writing in particular.
The main mechanism of adapting French writing practices to the Romanian culture was one
of imitation, followed by a process of consolidation in every form of writing undertaken in academia -
although these forms were never explicitly assumed and rarely theorized3. The few ‘theoretical’
reflections about writing in Romanian were concerned mostly with the practical, attitudinal, formal,
and technical aspect of writing (i.e. preparing the ‘research’, how to take reading notes, how to make
references, etc.). The tone of these theoretical ‘writings about writing’, derived from the individual
experiences of various authors, was often sententious and prescriptive4. The ‘traditional’ Romanian
practice of writing can be characterized as implicit, ‘author oriented’, ‘concerned with style’, lacking
theoretical reflection and an appropriate methodological approach. Although creative and diverse, the
lack of a meta-discursive consciousness generates ambiguities and confusions.
However, the main problem concerning writing practices in the Romanian educational
system was that this implicit treatment generated a centrifugal dynamics of academic writing practices.
This is the main cause of the lack of unity in the Romanian academic and educational system, more and
more visible in today’s globalized scientific and educational context.
If we analyze what has happened in Romanian academia since the nineties, we can notice a
rising Anglo-Saxon influence that amplified the lack of unity inside the Romanian educational system. At

2
Ibrăileanu 2000, Lovinescu 1992.
3
In speaking of the French academic writing model, we should note that in the last two decades it has undergone a
significant process of change under the influence of the Anglo-American model (Cf. Delacambre, Reuter 2010: 17-
18; Donahue 2008, Cislaru 2009; Vlad 2010).
4
“It is recommended that, after having finished writing a research paper, one should let the paper “cool”..as the
saying goes and not publish it immediately.” (Rad 2008: 50, our translation); “As far as the writing of the BA
paper is concerned, the relationship between teacher and student is one of great importance […] ‘What do I do
after I have chosen the topic [of my BA paper]?’ ‘Make yourself some sandwiches and move into the library!’”
(Vintilă 2008: 7, our translation).

332
 CICCRE I / 2012

present this influence has been increasing due to the new ‘virtual’ communication techniques, to the good
reputation and efficiency of the British and American educational system, and to the prestige of its
linguistic instrument – English – that became the ‘lingua franca’ of global academic communication [Firth
1996; House 2002; Mauranen, Ranta (ed.) 2009]. Therefore, the Romanian educational system has lately
been directly interested in the methods and practices of British and American academic writing.
The natural consequence of this interest is the interference (sometimes conflicting, sometimes
confusing) of the two models of writing, an interference that can be noticed at various levels and in
various academic fields. But the most eloquent image of these contrasting interferences can be seen in
the social sciences and the humanities. In these fields the inconsistencies are generated by the strong
tradition of ‘national’ academic writing contrasting with the increasing access to international
bibliography and the need to adapt writing to current globalizing tendencies in academia.
An applied and detailed study of these contrasts should necessarily precede a debate about
the writing models to be adopted and/or adapted to the cultural particularities and educational dynamics
of today’s Romania. We should also note that this analysis and debate are all but non-existent in
contemporary Romanian academia5. The few recent studies about writing practices (Gherghel 1996,
Chelcea 2003, Şerbănescu 2000, Rad 2008) are concerned, on the one hand, with a functional stylistic
analysis and, on the other hand, with general recommendations that echo the traditional corpus of style
and editing norms (as discussed in Avramescu 1960, Munteanu 1967, Barborică 1978 etc.).
These contrasts and interferences become visible very early, from the very first stages of
academic formation, the BA degree. This is why the present study will focus on a corpus of writing that
consists of introductions to BA theses, in an attempt to investigate some of the current transformations
in Romanian academic writing.

2. Description of the study

2.1 Background
In Romania, the first tier of higher education concludes, as stipulated in the 2011 Law of
Education, with a BA thesis (lucrare de licenţă), which simultaneously offers students an opportunity of
apprenticeship in writing in their discipline and an opportunity to undertake research (“l’écriture
d’apprentissage et l’écriture de recherche” Vlad, Codleanu 2010:155). While there are national standards
as to the specific competences graduates in a certain disciplines should acquire during their years of study,
there are no centralized guidelines or standards in what the BA paper itself is concerned, with faculties
across the country establishing their own requirements of length, structure, content and citation styles, or
leaving these to the discretion of individual supervisors. BA papers are produced under the guidance of a
supervisor, then submitted and defended in front of an examining board.
2.2 Corpus
The present study focuses on introductions to BA papers defended in June 2011 at the
Faculty of Letters, History and Theology of the University of Timişoara by students of English and
Romanian. They submitted these at the end of a 3-year degree in Philology which prepares them to
become teachers, translators or researchers, and in which they study a combination of Romanian and a
foreign language or two foreign languages (one ‘Major’ and one ‘Minor’). Students may choose to
write their BA thesis on a topic related to their studies (literature, linguistics, cultural studies, etc.), in
either of the languages they specialize in.
Out of all papers defended in June 2011, we selected those in linguistics and literary studies,
in Romanian and English, as follows:
Romanian language: 29 papers;

5
The only study we have identified so far is Vlad, Codleanu 2010.

333
 CICCRE I / 2012

Romanian literature: 21 papers;

English language: 6 papers;
Literature in English: 13 papers.
2.3 Assumptions and research questions
We aimed to compare the introductions produced in English and the introductions produced in
Romanian, in similar disciplines, in an attempt to establish to what extent “traditional” Romanian writing
norms and Anglo-Saxon writing norms interact, as well as to establish whether an increasing influence of
the Anglo-Saxon model could be established. Since a significant percentage (65 %) of the authors are
graduates of both Romanian and English (majoring in one or the other), we assumed that some of them
had probably been exposed during their years of study to both sets of writing conventions.
Introductions to academic texts have been widely discussed in Anglo-Saxon academic writing,
starting with Swales’ discussion of the research article (Swales and Feak 2004: 175), and continuing with
a number of researches who have extended and adapted Swales’ model to other types of introductions (e.g
Dudley-Evans, in Berkenkotter 1991: 198). Therefore, they provide a useful starting point in a comparison
of Anglo-Saxon and Romanian writing norms. Also, since they are most often written after the rest of the
BA thesis has been written, they allow a certain degree of insight into the way in which students
understand the structures, processes and significance of their own writing and research work.
We therefore used the introductions as a way of gaining insight in the way in which students
negotiated the two sets of norms. A contrastive analysis of the ways in which students managed the
introductions to their diploma papers would also help us understand current practices, clarify what
constitutes successful practice, and eventually enable us to propose a set of guidelines which would guide
both staff and students in writing BA theses.
2.4. Method
We undertook a bottom-up analysis of the texts, focusing on structure, moves, and deictics as
elements of textual coherence and cohesion, and, at the same time, as tools in discursive and
metadiscursive strategies. At these levels, the overlappings between the two writing cultures, Romanian
and Anglo-Saxon, can be better observed and analysed. Also, the rhetorical moves together with the
aforementioned cohesive elements and discursive strategies define the introduction as a separate sub-
genre in itself. Thus, our research is aimed at bringing a valuable contribution to the field of genre
analysis. We did not focus on aspects of editing and page layout, on citation norms, which are an
important aspect to consider when discussing the contrast between English and Romanian academic
writing, but which are not extensively illustrated in introductions. At the same time, these
aspects/features do not define the introduction as a sub-genre. For the same reasons, the choice of
subjects and research methods were not treated in this article.
3. Move Analysis. The logical structure of Introductions to BA papers
The analysis of moves, as developed by Swales and by the other researchers who followed in
his footsteps, is particularly useful in defining genre. “Move analysis is a helpful tool in genre studies
since moves are semantic and functional units of texts, which can be identified because of their
communicative purposes and linguistic boundaries.” (Ding 2007:370)
We considered Swales’ well-known three-move model of introductions to research articles
(Swales and Feak 2004: 175), as well as the adaptations made by Dudley-Evans to discuss master’s
theses in scientific fields (1986, cited in Berkenkotter 1991: 198) and the suggestions made by
Berkenkotter et al. (1991) in adapting Swales’ model to PhD thesis introductions. Since our purpose
was not to see whether the papers conform to the Anglo-Saxon writing standards, but to understand the
Romanian genre, we adopted a bottom-up approach (Lieungnapar and Watson Todd 2011: 2), and
attempted to identify moves present in the texts themselves, and establish whether there was any
consistent pattern of moves, as well as any noticeable differences in the moves used by students who
write in English and those who write in Romanian.

334
 CICCRE I / 2012

Since the acquisition of genre in Romanian writing teaching is predominantly implicit and
genres are often not clearly defined, genre research would positively inform both teaching and learning.
In the specific context of the diploma paper, an explicit genre pedagogy which includes a discussion of
moves may provide a useful and clear framework for students to build their own texts upon, one which
can be easily understood and practiced by beginning writers. While the explicit approach may
admittedly somewhat limit students’ own creativity in tackling the genre, it would however present a
number of significant additional pedagogical advantages, such as helping the writer clarify his or her
position towards the research undertaken, and encouraging the young writer-researcher’s self-
reflectiveness and meta-discursive awareness. Last but not least, it would provide ground for discussion
among researchers and instructors upon genre and genre pedagogy.
We were able to identify the following moves and sub-moves/steps (those in italics belong to
Dudley-Evans, cited in Berkenkotter 1991: 198):
Move 1: Introducing the topic
(i) Framing the topic within the field
(ii) Introducing the particular topic
(iii) Explaining the title
Move 2: Stating personal motivation for the choice of the topic
Move 3: Claiming/stating scientific relevance of the topic
Move 4: Summarizing previous research
Move 5: Preparing for Present Research by
(i) Indicating a gap in previous research
(ii) Indicating a possible extension of previous research
Move 6: Introducing Present Research by:
(i) Stating the aim of the research or
(ii) Describing briefly the work carried out
Move 7: Presenting the structure of the paper

100
90 Limba romana

80
70 Literatura
romana

60
50 Limba engleza

40
Literatura
30 engleza

20
10
0 M1.1 M1.2 M1.2 M2 M3 M4 M5.1 M5.2 M6.1 M6.2 M7

Fig. 1 - Results: moves analysis (% of each category) (Limba română – Romanian language; Literatura
română – Romanian literature; Limba engleză – English language; Literatura engleză – English literature)

335
 CICCRE I / 2012

After identifying the moves used in the introductions, we came to the following results:
Move 1 (introducing the topic) with its sub-move (introducing the particular topic) and move 7
(presenting the structure of the paper) are the only ones well-represented in all the papers examined.
The use of these two moves could point to the rather metadiscursive and mechanical feature of the
majority of the introductions in question, taking into consideration the minimal reflection that
accompanies them.
Due attention should be given to the moves which are unevenly represented in the analysed
corpus. One such move is M1.1 (framing the topic within the field) and M 2 (stating personal
motivation for the choice of the topic), both encountered mainly in the papers on Romanian linguistics
and English literature (approximately 70% percent for each category). An explanation for the
‘popularity’ of the second move could be given by its subjective and personal characteristics. Students,
most of the time, are more eager to give a subjective motivation for their choice rather than offer an
objective justification. This is quite obvious if we compare the high percentage of M 2 in comparison
with the rather medium percentage of M 3 (claiming scientific relevance of the topic). For the second
move we have approximately 70% for Romanian language and English literature and roughly 30% and
50% for English language and Romanian literature, respectively.
Also, M 6 (introducing present research), which could be called ‘the practical and
methodological move’, is unequally encountered in the papers discussed. The first sub-move, M 6.1,
which states the aim of the research, is mostly represented in the English BA papers, possibly due the
students’ exposure to the concept of thesis statement. The fact that students have were asked to state the
main argument in an essay during undergraduate courses could be an explanation for their use of the
above-mentioned move. The brief description of the work carried out or the method used (M 6.2) is to be
found in the introductions to Romanian language and English literature papers. A possible explanation
could be given by the supervisors’ different requirements. However, if we take into consideration the
weak representation of M 4 and M 5 in the great majority of the introductions analysed, moves which
establish a link with previous research and which are directly connected with M6, we notice the students’
mechanical adoption of all the three moves. Also, the status of the BA paper as research is not clearly
defined; therefore students are not “claiming territory” in Swales’ sense, but instead claiming alliance,
affinity with one idea or another. Not all of them understand the diploma paper as research; some
understand it as demonstrating knowledge and making choices between existing ideas, rather than
producing new ones. At the same time, their lack of experience should be taken into consideration. The
BA thesis is practically their first extensive paper, and summarizing, indicating a gap in knowledge and a
possible extension of previous research require extensive reading on a given topic. Thus, M 4
(summarizing previous research) is well-represented in English literature papers, approximately 70%,
whereas the other three domains score less than 25%. M 5.1 and M 5.2 have an even lower representation
in all the papers analysed with 0% for English language for indicating a gap in previous research and 0%
for both English and Romanian language for indicating a possible extension of previous research.
Additionally, moves defining research are reduced to formal aspects such as the explanation of
the title (M 1.3). The reason why explaining the title appears as a distinct rhetorical move is due to the fact
that for most institutional purposes the title is seen as synonymous to the topic (e.g. when topics of
diploma papers are proposed by a supervisor, what the supervisor proposes is a list of titles, so students
choose a title rather than a topic). Explaining the title therefore amounts to an explanation of the topic.
As seen from the above move analysis, the Anglo-Saxon model has interacted with and has
influenced the ‘traditional’ Romanian writing norms to a considerable degree. Certainly, we are
referring here to the ‘introduction to academic papers genre’, not to the whole papers. Nonetheless,
both the papers written in Romanian and those written in English adopt these norms rather
descriptively and mechanically, without a conscious selection of the methodology. The fact that there is
not a major difference in the logical structuring of the papers analysed suggests that this model
functions as a “scriptural routine” (De Nuchez quoted in Vlad 2010: 156, our translation). The use of

336
 CICCRE I / 2012

the Anglo-Saxon model is probably due to its being imposed by the supervisor rather than by students’
deliberate selection of the necessary moves. Students seem unaware of the functionality of these logical
steps, whose purpose is to achieve a rhetorical effect on the reader.

4. Analysis of deictics
The next step was to analyse a class of pragmatic elements called deictics. This class ensures
both textual coherence and cohesion. It also plays an important metafunctional role in referring to other
parts of the paper, mainly pointing out their position within the overall structure of the work. The complex
behaviour of deictics allows us to treat them as fundamental linguistic tools used to build discursive and
metadiscursive strategies.
Deictics form a class of pragmatic words which points to the fact that, before the advent of
writing, the primary means of communication was face to face interaction. Since the presence of both
the addresser and the addressee in the communicative context made the specification of their names
useless or rendered the stipulation of proximity or of the moment of enunciation by linguistic
sequences/constituents redundant, many aspects belonging to the context of communication were
identified by special deictic signs.
Tying speech with context, deictics are considered one of the basic pragmatic phenomena.
According to Levinson (1983: 54), “the single most obvious way in which the relationship between
language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves, is through the phenomenon
of deixis.” There are three main categories of deictics, corresponding to the pointers of the three
fundamental elements of the context of communication: the speaker (I), the place where the speaker is
(here) and the moment of speech (now). Anne O’Keeffe et al. argue that I – here - now is generally
referred to as the axis around which the system of deictics develops. In this “egocentric organization of
the deictic system” the addresser “casts himself in the role of the ego and relates everything to his view
point” (2011: 42). Similarly, Peter Grundy claims that the lexical items I, here and now belong to “a
highly grammaticalized system and assume addressee knowledge of the identity (in case of I), the
spatial location (in the case of here) and the temporal location (in the case of now) of the speaker in
order to identify referents in relation with this point of origin” (Peter Grundy 2004: 46). In relation with
these “central” deictics, there are more linguistic signs functioning as pointers of person, time and
space, thus enriching this pragmatic class of words: you, we (deictics of person); then/ from now on;
yesterday/ today/ tomorrow (deictics of time); there, this/that/these/those (deictics of place).
Generic senses of deictics are encoded in the system of language, while their particular senses
of use depend on the context of communication. James Paul Gee (2010: 8-9) calls deictics “shifters”
since “their reference shifts with each different context of use”. Also, according to the same author,
when addressers use deictics, they presume that their addressees can infer from the context to what
those specific deictics refer. For instance, the generic sense of this is “proximity” in time (this morning/
this week/ this semester, etc.) or space (this room/ this whiteboard/ this friend, etc.).
Comparing the way in which core aspects of the context of communications are encoded in
the Romanian and English grammar systems, we noticed remarkable differences between the way in
which primary gestures of indicating person, space and time were expressed in these languages. In the
case of personal pronouns denoting the addressee, Romanian has distinct forms for singular (tu) and
plural (voi), while English uses the same form (you) for both singular and plural. Moreover, when
indicating proximity, distance, difference and identity by the use of pronouns, the Romanian
demonstrative pronouns are more numerous, due to the fact that they denote the oppositions of gender
and number in all the situations mentioned above, while the English demonstrative pronouns do not
render the gender. Similarly, when these pronouns refer to identity, they do not point out the number.
Let’s compare, in this respect, the demonstrative pronouns used for indicating proximity:
acesta/aceasta, aceştia/acestea with this (it), these; for indicating distance: acela/aceea, aceia/acelea
with that, those; for referring to difference: celălalt/cealaltă ceilalţi/celelalte with the other, the others
and for denoting identity: acelaşi/aceeaşi, aceiaşi/aceleaşi with the same. This explains why there are

337
 CICCRE I / 2012

more deictic forms in the introductions written in Romanian than in those written in English. However,
even if the number of deictics is different, their functions are identical in the four sets of introductions
used in our comparative study.
In the particular context represented by the introductions to diploma papers, deictics have
three main functions. Firstly, they identify the speaker and the addressee by indexical pronouns (I, we).
Secondly, they achieve textual coherence by using demonstratives with anaphoric uses (this, it, these,
those etc.). Thirdly, deictics point to other components of the paper in the introductory discourse,
which has the subsequent role of introducing another text (here, now, in this chapter/ part, in the first/
last chapter/ part etc.).
To compare the functions of deictics in the introductions analysed, we drew the following table.

Deictics in the context of introductions to diploma papers (LIT, 2011, R- E)

Introductions The functions of deictics

to
Nr. diploma Identifying Assuring textual cohesion Introducing parts of
Crt. papers speaker/addressee the paper Obs.

În această calitate (antecedent: În primul capitol, în al 1. Alte deictice:

cuvânt primar), această temă doilea capitol, în Lexicul românesc
1. (antecedent: adverbul), o capitolul al treilea, de astăzi, limbajul
Romanian *mă voi referi, noi (ne clasificare a acestora ultimul capitol, în care astăzi se
Language propunem), pentru noi (antecedent: locuţiunilor această lucrare, aici numeşte „de
(este interesant) adverbiale), în acest capitol (în capitolul al lemn”, răsturnarea
(antecedent: capitolul al IV-lea), patrulea), în conjuncturii
valori pe care acesta le are următoarele capitole, existente până
(antecedent: numele predicativ), referindu-ne aici (în acum, vocabularul
utilizării acestora (antecedent: lucrare) la otografie, limbii române de
unităţilor frazeologice), limbile ortoepie, morfologie, azi, în societatea
din care acestea au fost sintaxă şi lexic, două de astăzi, până în
împrumutate (antecedent: părţi, cel de-al doilea acest moment,
îmbinările de cuvinte), rolul capitol, cel de-al chiar şi în zilele
acestora (antecedent: treilea capitol, cea de- noastre, în
proverbelor), un alt aspect a doua parte, în ultimele decenii,
(antecedent: utilizarea ultimele pagini, în ziua de azi, un
prefixelor), dintre acestea capitolul I, capitolul II, subiect tabu
(antecedent: sufixele capitolul III, capitolul astăzi, până în
diminutivale), consemnarea IV, în acest prim acest moment,
acestora (antecedent: a capitol, în ultimul chiar şi acum, în
tendinţelor de deviere de la subcapitol al acestei zilele noastre,
normă), aceasta reprezintă prime părţi a lucrării, după mai bine de
(antecedent: analogia), acest această lucrare de trei decenii;
fenomen (antecedent: orientarea licenţă, ultima parte a
spre Apus), această temă lucrării, un alt capitol,
(antecedent: subordonata primul (capitol). The extent and
atributivă), aceasta (antecedent: importance of the
luciditatea), English language
today, in
nowadays society,
in today’s society,

2. Altă funcţie de
tip coeziv: funcţia
de anticipare a
demonstrativelor:
în acest proces...
de îmbogăţire a
vocabularului

338
 CICCRE I / 2012

muzical, un alt
aspect... crearea
termenilor
muzicali, în alte
culturi... atât
europene, cât şi de
peste ocean, alte
aspecte precum:
contextul,
intonaţia...; acest
punct de
rezistenţă este
însuşi titlul; aceste
stări de
nimicnicie,

3. Tendinţa de
impersonalizare:
lucrarea de faţă
este structurată în
n capitole/ această
lucrare îşi
propune/ lucrarea
de faţă prezintă/
lucrarea are ca
obiectiv/ lucrarea
se structurează în
trei capitole,
lucrarea de faţă
vrea... , lucrarea
urmăreşte etc.,
the present paper,
Eu (am încercat să.../ Acest ţinut (antecedent: India), În prima parte a
Romanian n-am reuşit să...), acesta (antecedent: orientalul); lucrării, în cadrul
2. Literature lucrarea mea de aceasta (antecedent: situaţia din acestui capitol
licenţă, titlul lucrării India); acestuia (antecedent: (capitolul introductiv),
mele de licenţă. curentului romantic), acestea capitolul întâi, în
(antecedent: temele romantice), cadrul ultimului
dintre toţi aceştia (antecedent: capitol, în aceste
scriitori şi eseişti consacraţi), concluzii, cele două
acestora (antecedent: celor doi subcapitole, la
autori), acelea (antecedent: începutul celui de-al
realitatea vs. irealitatea), doilea subcapitol,
acesteia (antecedent: operei acesta din urmă,
Orele), acestui roman această lucrare, la
(antecedent: Iubita începutul primei părţi,
locotenentului francez), acelaşi partea a doua, ultima
tipar (antecedent: studiu parte a lucrării, aici (în
comparativ), acest teatru primul capitol),
(antecedent: teatrul lui Lucian această lucrare, şase
Blaga), de acolo (antecedent: capitole, dintre care
literatura fantastică), acesta primul..., iar
(antecedent: fantasticul), acela următoarele cinci
(antecedent: motivul), pe acest capitole..., în capitolul
subiect (antecedent: daimonul), trei, în ultima parte,
acest lucru (antecedent: ultimul subcapitol, în
stabilirea unor priorităţi), prima parte a lucrării,
destinele acestora (antecedent: de aici am făcut
emigranţilor), aceste romane trecerea spre..., primul
(antecedent: Inimi cicatrizate şi capitol..., următorul
Vizuina luminată), acesta capitol, întâlnim aici...,
(antecedent: raportul real-ireal), în următorul
cu acesta (antecedent: Max subcapitol după

339
 CICCRE I / 2012

Blecher), această concluzie această paralelă,

(antecedent: eşti dedesubtul urmează..., de aici (de
lucrurilor), în acest fragment la capitolul teoretic)
(antecedent: citat), în acestea am făcut trecerea
(antecedent: comunităţile spre..., următorul
tradiţionale), aici (antecedent: capitol, în capitolul
strategiile de supravieţuire), final, trei subdiviziuni,
această etnie (antecedent: etnia în finalul lucrării, în
rromă), în acea perioadă acelaşi capitol (al III-
(antecedent: perioada lea), capitolul 1,
comunistă), în această categorie capitolul 2, capitolul 3,
(antecedent: categoria literaturii capitolul 4, aici, în
de sertar), analiza acestora cadrul acestui capitol,
(antecedent: poemelor). în cadrul acestuia (al
ultimului capitol),
acest prim capitol,
partea a doua a
lucrării, ultima parte a
lucrării (capitolul trei
însoţit de concluzii), în
această teză, în
capitolul final.
I have chosen, I found, Its sound and form (antecedent: The first chapter, in the
English I will make a English vocabulary), this subject second chapter, the
3. Language presentation, I will (antecedent: the phrasal verbs), third chapter, in the
present, I will start, I it deals with (antecedent: first last chapter, the fourth
will go on speaking chapter), all these aspects one, in this paper, the
about, I will give (antecedent: transitivity, last section, at the end,
examples, I will intransitivity), this idea this diploma paper,
analyze, I will make (antecedent: phrasal verbs are
statistics, I will make a used in formal texts too), these
comparison, I aim at, I difficulties (antecedent: most
will try to analyze, I common difficulties in
will try to make a analyzing the phrasal verbs),
detailed analysis, these analyses (antecedent:
statistic analyses), this type of
language (antecedent: figurative
my research/ diploma language), all of these devices
paper/ entire work/ (antecedent: using metaphors,
statistics, avoiding offence), those tabloid
words (antecedent: sex,
defecation, death), this new
if we are ignorant of...,
concept (antecedent: concept of
we may be much
competence), upon this premise
embarrassed, we will
(antecedent: necessary
discuss, we need to
knowledge of euphemisms),
look at specific types,
speak it as a first language
(antecedent: English), from this
fact (antecedent: the high
number of foreign speakers of
English), its status (antecedent:
status of international language),
its position (antecedent: position
of the English language), this
(antecedent: bad press), it
(antecedent: language), this
process (antecedent: process of
replying), it (antecedent: process
of communication), its usage
(antecedent: language)
I have chosen, I have It (antecedent: the vampire), it In the first chapter, the
English found, I tried to (antecedent: sunlight), it initial part of the first
4. Literature discuss, I have chosen, (antecedent: life), it (antecedent: chapter, the second
I will talk about, I will literature), this subject half, the second

340
 CICCRE I / 2012

approach, I used (antecedent: The Waves), here chapter, the other two
narrative point of (antecedent: in chapter three), its parts, the third chapter,
view, I focused, I importance (antecedent: the last in chapter one, in
weave literary chapter), it (antecedent: fantasy), chapter two, in the last
psychoanalytical its foundation (antecedent: chapter, five chapters,
criticism with the fantasy), it (antecedent: the the first one being an
narrative, I leave conflict between good and evil), introductory one, in
behind, I analyze, I here (antecedent: in the second the second chapter, in
continue analyzing, I chapter), here (antecedent: in the chapter three, the last
draw on the powerful third and last chapter), it chapter, this paper, in
and abundant motifs (antecedent: Ulysses), its the third and final
and symbols, I depict, characters (antecedent: the chapter, the last
I render, I chose (to novel), this book (antecedent: section, in the last
dedicate), I have Ulysses), it (antecedent: this subchapter, the next
structured my paper, I book), this context (antecedent: two chapters, the final
will relate it to, I will problems of morality), all these part, in the following
try to emphasize, I will elements (antecedent: orality, chapter, the first one,
show, I will choose, I humour etc.), it (antecedent: the second one, the
will show, I will orality), that (antecedent: Jewish fifth chapter, in my
present, I will follow, I identity), that (antecedent: first chapter, in the
will make reference, I Jewish jokes), this theory latter half of the
will debate, I want to (antecedent: theory of humour), second chapter, in the
outline, I emphasized, this character (antecedent: first part, in the fourth
I wrote, I selected, I Portnoy), this (antecedent: chapter,
identified, I used, I autobiographical identity), these
wanted, I will call novels (antecedent: the three
them, I will apply it, I novels), this idea (antecedent:
will explain, I decided fiction transforms reality), it
to refer to, I will take a (antecedent: the notion of
closer look at, I will gender), it (antecedent:
try to see, I will biography), it (antecedent: the
illustrate,I will talk first chapter), this genre
about, I will link, I will (antecedent: dystopia), this
talk about complex concept (antecedent:
dystopia), this phenomenon
We define, we speak, (antecedent: distopia), this
we took into account, social issue (antecedent:
we found, we will feminism), it (antecedent: The
focus, we encounter, heart of darkness), this domain
we find out, we realize; (antecedent: theory of literature),
this (antecedent: the way we live
my paper, my critical our lives), this (antecedent:
views, my work, in my American identity), it
diploma paper, my (antecedent: the second chapter),
commencement, my these (antecedent: embedded
appreciation, my narratives), these (antecedent:
subsequent desire, my techniques), this culture
choice, my own views, (antecedent: African-American
in my opinion, my culture), these books
research, my purpose, (antecedent: Alice books).
my choice.

In order to interpret the information shown in the above table, we have to start from the
following set of observations:
a) Personal deictics are used only to indicate the speaker.
b) Demonstratives are used to connect a part of the discourse to the previous part, not only as
a sign of textual cohesion, but also of coherence, pointing to the same referent as before.
c) Numerals and some demonstratives are used to point to different parts of the paper or to
the paper as a whole, functioning as metatextual elements.
The pronouns which point to the speaker (author of the text) are I and we (Romanian eu şi noi).
Actually, in this respect, we is just a form of politeness, conventionally used in Romanian scientific papers

341
 CICCRE I / 2012

as a synonym for I. It always refers to a single author in the case of the diploma paper, never being used to
stand for the first person plural, which would indicate more authors or an author-reader relationship. The
fact that we encountered the first person plural we that referred to a single author in the papers written in
English is very suggestive of the overlapping of the two writing cultures.
In the introductions written in Romanian the use of personal deictics is very limited. In
Romanian academic papers, authors do not refer to themselves using the first person singular, which is
only implied by the form of the verb: mă voi referi. Therefore, one can notice the sporadic occurrences
of the forms of the first person: eu (I) and noi (we). In the introductions written in English the deictic
referring to the speaker is very frequent (mostly I). There are at least two explanations for this use. The
first reason is given by the necessity to indicate the person in the flexional system of the English
language. The second explanation is linked to many authors’ practice of emphasizing their contribution
in writing the paper. Conversely, Romanian authors choose to “de-personalize” their voice, transferring
all merits to the paper itself. This difference speaks about the two still distinct “traditions” of academic
writing, since all students writing a diploma paper were free to choose between the two solutions,
namely pointing to the author or pointing to the paper itself.
The main role of demonstratives found in the introductions written in Romanian and in
English is that of establishing connections with the previous part of the discourse. This explains the
high frequency of acesta, aceasta, acestea in Romanian and this, it, these in English, as pointers of
proximity. Thus, on the one hand, they establish the coherence of the discourse and, on the other hand,
the necessary cohesion by the use of anaphoric devices (see the anaphoric use of demonstratives, both
pronouns and adverbial modifiers of time and place).
The most relevant distinction that we have to draw here is not that between the languages
used, but between the topics. While in the papers approaching language issues, the range of references
is limited to certain categories, in the papers on literary issues there is a larger variety of references (see
the antecedents of acesta, this and it respectively).
The great popularity of Move 7 (presenting the structure of the paper) motivates to a large degree
the use of equivalent categories of deictics in all papers analysed. On the one hand, the demonstrative deictics
refer to the paper as a whole, on the other hand, different numeral expressions point the place of some parts in
the structure of the paper. Therefore, no major differences are seen at this level.
The way in which deictics are used does not depend so much on the language in which the
introductions are written, but on the benefits they bring to respecting the demands of this sub-genre.
They help generate a specific context of communication, organizing a formal, short and concise
discourse, which motivates and presents another type of discourse, the BA paper itself. While there are
some minor differences in the Romanian and English discursive strategies used for pointing out the
author or for referring to previous parts of the same discourse, there are almost no discrepancies in the
use of deictics as metadiscursive strategies that refer to the paper as a whole or to its different parts.

5. Conclusions, limitations and extension

The long-term influence of French writing practices on Romanian academia has gradually
been replaced by the Anglo-Saxon model of academic writing. The adoption of the Anglo-Saxon
writing norms by the Romanian academia is firstly due to the fact that the French culture is starting to
lose ground. Secondly, academics need to write in English in order to get international recognition, as
English has become the ‘lingua franca’ of academic communication.
While doing the analysis of the moves used in the introductions to the BA theses, we noticed
students’ widespread adoption of Move 1 (introducing the topic) with its sub-move (introducing the particular
topic) and move 7 (presenting the structure of the paper). The extensive use of these rather “descriptive”
moves to the detriment of the more “reflective” moves – M4 (summarizing previous research) and especially
M5.1 and M5. 2 (indicating a gap in and a possible extension of previous research) – may suggest the
mechanical adoption of the Anglo-Saxon model. However, we must note the lack of elaborate rhetorical
strategies and the adoption of a more concise style, reflected in the relatively low number of moves and in the

342
 CICCRE I / 2012

use of clearer and shorter sentences. This newly acquired terse style, found in all the four sets of
introductions, is a proof of the increasing influence of the Anglo-Saxon model.
As far as the analysis of deictics is concerned, we compared the use of pronominal deictics in
the Romanian papers with those written in English, taking into account the fact that Romanian
demonstrative pronouns are more numerous due to the grammatical categories of gender and number,
which are both poorly represented in the English language. We also paid attention to the situations in
which deictics were used and we also focused on their various functions. Thus, we could conclude that
with only one exception – the uncommon use of “we” in the introductions written in English to indicate
one author – the pragmatic class of deictics was used identically in all the four sets of introductions. Its
main function was to give coherence and cohesion to the text. At the same time, deictics have a
metadiscursive role, as they help define the introduction to the BA thesis as a separate sub-genre.
All in all, the analysis of moves and deictics in the four sets of introductions showed a
tendency towards embracing a uniform manner of writing this part of the diploma paper, which has the
features of a distinct sub-genre of academic writing. We may also conclude that the Anglo-Saxon
model of writing introductions is dominant, almost generalized.
Nonetheless, it must be specified that the analysis of this corpus can only yield a limited sample
of the writing practices involved, restricted to a certain context and a certain time frame. The papers
analysed were produced under the guidance of a restricted number of supervisors from one institution,
hence the features noticed may or may not be generalizable. In an environment as dynamic as Romanian
universities, a long-term study would be needed in order to capture the evolution of writing practices at
University level. Other factors would need to be taken into account, such as what constitutes successful
writing, or the effect of educational reforms in the wake of the Bologna process, the competence of
graduates, the topics offered by university syllabi, etc.

References
Avramescu, Aurel. 1960. Introducere în documentarea ştiinţifică. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.
Barborică, Elena, Mirela Teodorescu and Liviu Onu. 1978. Introducere în filologia română. Bucureşti :
Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.
Berkenkotter, Carol, Thomas N. Huckin, and John Ackerman. 1991. ‘Social context and socially constructed
texts: the initiation of a graduate student into a writing research community.’ In Bazerman, Charles, and
James G. Paradis (eds.). Textual dynamics of the professions: historical and contemporary studies of
writing in professional communities. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ding, Huiling. 2007. ‘Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to
medical and dental schools.’ English for Specific Purposes 26, pp. 368–392.
Firth, A. 1996. ‘The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and
Conversation Analysis.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (2), pp, 237-259.
Gee, James Paul. 2010. How to do Discourse Analyses. New York and London: Routledge.
Gherghel, N. 1996. Cum să scriem un articol ştiinţific. Bucureşti : Editura Ştiinţifică.
Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
House, J. 2002. ‘Developing Pragmatic Competence in English as a Lingua Franca’. In Knapp, K. and
Meierkord, C. (eds.). Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 245-267.
Ibrăileanu, Garabet. 2000 (1908). Spiritul critic în cultura română. Chişinău: Cartier.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieungnapar, A. and Watson Todd, R. 2011. ‘Top-down versus Bottom-up Approaches toward Move
Analysis in ESP.’ Proceedings of the International Conference on Doing Research in Applied
Linguistics. Thonburi: King Mongkut’s University of Technology, pp. 1 – 10. Available:
http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/dral/PDF%20proceedings%20on%20Web/1-10_Top-down_versus_Bottom-
up_Approaches_toward_Move_Analysis_in_ESP.pdf

343
 CICCRE I / 2012

Lovinescu, Eugen. 1992. Istoria civilizaţiei române moderne (1924-1925). Bucureşti: Minerva.
Mauranen, Anna, and Elina Ranta (eds.). 2009. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Munteanu, Stefan. 1967. Introducere în filologia română. Timişoara: Univ. din Timişoara, Facultatea de Filologie.
O’Keeffe, A. et al. 2011. Introducing Pragmatics in Use. New York and London: Routledge.
Rad, Ilie. 2008. Cum se scrie un text ştiinţific. Iaşi: Polirom.
Şerbănescu, A. 2000. Cum se scrie un text. Iaşi: Polirom.
Swales, John M., and Christine B. Feak. 2004. Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and
skills. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press.
Vintilă, Mona. 2008. Cum să elaborăm o lucrare de licenţă. Timişoara: Ed. UVT.
Vlad, Monica and Mioara Codleanu. 2010. ‘Les jeunes chercheurs roumains face aux pratiques de l’écrit
universitaire en FLE. Le cas des introductions des mémoires de recherche dans le domaine des sciences
humaines’. In Synergies Pays Scandinaves, no.5, pp. 155-169.

344

View publication stats