Moyosoluwa Andrea Titus-Adewunmi

EAP 506

Professor PJ Moore

27th November, 2019

LANGUAGE ANALYSIS

In Global Affairs language and grammar choices often vary depending on what the article

is about or who wrote the article. In the article “Who follows whom? A coincidence analysis of

military action, public opinion and threats” (Haesebrouck, 2019, P. 753) the author used various

language and grammar styles. According to Swales and Feak (2012), there are choices that can be

made in regard to academic writing style. In this article by Haesebrouck (2019), from the very

beginning he applied Swales and Feak (2012) first language analysis feature. When addressing

this article, the author does not use the first-person pronoun I as he is the only author for this article.

However. using phrases such as “This article…” (Haesebrouck, 2019, p. 753), “This study aims to

fill…” (Haesebrouck, 2019, p. 753). I believe the author’s use of this is because he discusses

various sections of the article, therefore the use of this phrase helps him give the readers a clearer

explanation of what the entire study consists of.

The author choice of negative speech in the article where majority of the time he uses

phrases such as “So far, no empirical study has …” (Haesebrouck, 2019, p. 753) or when he

attempted to identify a contrast “In contrast, there was no UN endorsement...” (Haesebrouck, 2019,

p. 758), “…although there is no documentation of polish ...” (Haesebrouck, 2019, p. 763). I believe

this choice is more appropriate for an academic writing. Haesebrouck (2019) also barely uses

expressions such as “and so forth”, “etc”, majority of his explanation and list are detailed. For

instance, when identifying states or countries the author never fails to list all similar to how he
explains “the matters of NATO-led Operations in Afghanistan…operations in Afghanistan and

Libya. This authors lack of the expressions “etc.”, “and so forth” shows how important detailing

is to him as a writer and researcher as well as his consideration for readers who may not be aware

of the details of the research. He gives detailed explanations in order to giver the reader a better

understanding of his work.

When referring to the readers and audience he does not use the word “you”, instead in the

attempt to address his readers, he references what he needs his reader to look at in the text

(Haesebrouck, 2019). For example, “figure 2 summarizes this casual model” (Haesebrouck, 2019,

p. 756), once he addresses his readers by stating “(see above)” (Haesebrouck, 2019, p. 758). The

use of this gives the writing more formality and more detailed explanation. Throughout the article

the authors language choice he uses indirect questions more often. Swales and Feak (2012) stated

that the use of direct questions is an effective way of drawing the reader’s attention to an important

point, direct question however, are seen as informal. Haesebrouck (2019) uses indirect questions

regularly in this research study, for instance “…why threats had less impact on...” (p. 764), “…less

impact on public opinion and why domestic conditions…” (p. 764). This research article does not

apply much frequency to past tense. The authors use words such as “confirms”, “provides”. I

believe the use of present tense is due to how recent this article is.

With his choice in language style I believe Haesebrouck (2019) is formal and ensures that

his study be formal as well. He also believes deeply in in details as he provided detailed

explanations of terms that so readers may not be aware of such as “CNA”. He provides a detailed

explanation of every concept that was incorporated into the academic research, giving even readers

who may not be familiar with this field a decent understanding of his object of study which is ‘the
effects of the threats of military actions, manipulations of public opinion and citizens on the efforts

of government’ (Haesebrouck, 2019).

REFERENCES

Haesebrouck, T. (2019). Who follows whom? A coincidence analysis of military action, public

opinion and threats. Journal of Peace Research, 56(6), 753-766.

Swales, J., & Feaks, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press.