The Power of Writers in by-Phrase Agents: Textual Analysis in Research Methodology
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examined the power of writers in by-phrase agents used in applied linguistics research methodology. Previous studies focused on agentless passive voice in medical texts, academic texts, and business news. The results showed that people contextually interpreted the omitted agents of passive voice widely known agents, such as doctors, researchers, and businesspeople. Although the writers know the agents are contextually known and therefore use passive voice, it is intriguing to explore why they spell out the by-phrase agents in applied linguistics methodology. To investigate this fact, the study's method was purposive sampling. The data were SCOPUS Q1 databases from System, English for Specific Purposes and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and reputable international publications.
There were 45 applied linguistics research methodologies. The researchers collected all passive voice constructions with by-phrase agents in the methodology section and found a total of 52 tokens. The data analysis followed the PDI theory (power, distance, and imposition) (Brown & Levinson, 1987), the sociolinguistic framework of power and distance. The results of this study showed that the researchers discovered the power of artful passive voice through morphological and syntactic analysis. The researchers found the morphological feature in the plurality marker -s in 50 percent of the cases. The syntactic features of combined NP (noun phrase) and collective NP were found at 28.85 percent and 19.23 percent, respectively. The discussion in this study reveals that morphological inflections and syntactic noun phrases reflect the sociolinguistics of democratic power in English-speaking contexts. Even though the quality of a writer’s academic writing is influenced by various factors, the results of passive constructions and by-phase agents in this study allow us to visualize the formal tone of academic writing in English.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
References
Almahameed, Y. S., Bataineh, K. B. A., & Ammari, R. M. G. (2022). The use of passive voice in news reports for political purposes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(6), 1196-1202.
Amdur, R. J., Kirwan, J., & Morris, C. G. (2010). Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 25(3), 98-103.
Bao, J., Hu, G., & Feng, D. (2024). En route to becoming researcher-teachers? Chinese university EFL teachers’ boundary crossing in professional doctoral programs. System, 127, 103514.
Behbahani, H. K., & Karimpour, S. (2025). Exploring the impact of computerized dynamic assessment on the explicit and implicit knowledge of reflexive pronouns: The mediating role of brain dominance. System, 128, 103537.
Birner, B. J. (2006). Semantic and pragmatic contributions to information status. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 38(1), 14-32.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chien, S. C., & Li, W. Y. (2024). Perceptions of supervisors and their doctoral students regarding the problems in writing the doctoral dissertation results section. English for Specific Purposes, 76, 14-27.
Chomsky, N. (2014). The minimalist program. Massachusetts, USA: MIT press.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power. London, UK: Routledge.
Fromkin, V., et al. (2014). An introduction to language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Han, J., & Li, M. (2024). Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context. System, 126, 103502.
He, P., & Lo, Y. Y. (2024). Exploring language teacher education through researcher-practitioner co-construction of differentiated instruction. System, 127, 103540.
Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. New York, USA: Springer.
Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2022). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London, UK: Routledge.
Kearns, K. (2011). Semantics. London, UK: Palgrave.
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York city. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
language interaction. System, 129, 103565.
Leong, P. A. (2021). The passive voice in scholarly writing: A diachronic look at science and history. Finnish Journal of Linguistics, 34, 77-102.
Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127, 103529.
Liu, Y., & Chang, P. (2024). Exploring EFL teachers’ emotional experiences and adaptive expertise in the context of AI advancements: A positive psychology perspective. System, 126, 103463.
Lubis, M. Y. A., Mirati, R., & Lubis, Y. (2024). Passive voice and active voice in sentence structure. Journal of Psychology, Counseling and Education, 2(1), 59-64.
McCombie, S., & Masaeed, K. A. (2025). L2 Arabic pragmatics in the classroom: Insights from language instructors’ beliefs and practices. System, 128, 103546.
Meyerhoff, M. (2018). Introducing sociolinguistics. London, UK: Routledge.
Moerman, D. E. (2007). Agreement and meaning: rethinking consensus analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 112(3), 451-460.
Nazari, M., Keshvari, Z., & Hu, G. (2024). Contributions of an emotion-oriented professional development course to the ecology of language teacher agency. System, 127, 103542.
Nelson, G., & Greenbaum, S. (2018). An introduction to English grammar. London, UK: Routledge.
Przeworski, A. (2024). Who decides what is democratic? Journal of Democracy, 35(3), 5-16.
Radden, G. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English sentential structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2023). Analysing English sentence structure: An intermediate course in syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae-Hak Y., Andreas K. & Craige R. (Eds.). Papers in semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49). Ohio, USA: The Ohio State University Press.
Rodríguez-Vergara, D. (2017). A systemic functional approach to the passive voice in English into Spanish translation: Thematic development in a medical research article. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 1-17.
Smolka, V. (2017). What comes first, what comes next: Information packaging in written and spoken language. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica, 1(1), 51-61.
Swan, M. (2015). Practical English usage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Trofimovich, P. et. al. (2025). Exploring the linguistic signature of interpersonal liking in second
Wang, W., & Yeh, M. (2024). The effect of instruction on the development of L2 interactional competence: Listener responses in Chinese as a second language. System, 127, 103511.
Wongkittiporn, A. (2022). Semantic interpretations of passive constructions in business news articles. Journal of Language, Religion and Culture, 11(2), 1-29.
Wongkittiporn, A. (2025). Form, function and genre. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Yaghmaie, F. J. A. M. (2003). Content validity and its estimation. Journal of Medical Education, 3(1), 25-27.
Yu, B., & Wang, W. (2025). Using digital storytelling to promote language learning, digital skills and digital collaboration among English pre-service teachers. System, 129, 103577.
Yumei, F., & Zixin, X. (2024). Exploring Chinese EFL student teachers' emotions and emotion-regulation strategies in peer feedback on microteaching. System, 129, 103589.
Zhan, S., & Zhong, S. (2025). A latent profile analysis of future selves and grit among multilingual learners: Associations with language learning engagement. System, 129, 103590.
Zhang, R., Zou, D., & Cheng, G. (2025). ChatGPT affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. System, 128, 103561.
Zou, B., et al. (2024). Exploring EFL learners’ perceived promise and limitations of using an artificial intelligence speech evaluation system for speaking practice. System, 126, 103497.
