Nominalization in Academic Writing: A Cross-disciplinary Investigation of Physics and Applied Linguistics Empirical Research Articles

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

2 University of New South Wales

Abstract

The present study aimed to explore how nominalization is manifested in a sample of Physics and Applied Linguistics research articles (RAs), representing hard and soft sciences respectively. To this end, 60 RAs from discipline-related professional journals were randomly selected and analyzed in light of Halliday and Matthiessen’s (1999) taxonomy of nominalization. Comparing the normalized frequencies indicated that articles in Applied Linguistics differ significantly from their counterparts in Physics as they include more nominalized expressions. Moreover, the analysis brought out the findings that deployment of nominalization Type Two is significantly different from the other three types of nominalization in each discipline. Subsequently, the obtained expressions were put into their context of use in order to extract the most prevalent patterns of nominalization in the RAs. The investigation into the embedded patterns introduced 15 common patterns for Physics and Applied Linguistics RAs. Chi-square analyses suggested statistically significant differences in using only four patterns. Finally, implications accrue to the findings in reference to academic writing teachers and course designers.

Keywords


Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking; A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212, 1-15.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics. 43, 288-297.

Ahmad, J. (2012). Stylistic features of scientific English: A study of scientific research articles. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1), 47-55.

Alise, M. A. (2008). Disciplinary differences in preferred research methods: A comparison of groups in the Biglan classification scheme (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL journal7(3), 113-126.

Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.

Banks, D. (2005). On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific text. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 347–357.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, 9, 1-27.

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. London: Arnold.

Cameron, J. S. (2011). Comprehend to comprehension: Teaching nominalization to secondary ELD teachers (Master thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1500013)

Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A tool kit for higher education. London: Routledge.

Comrie, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2007). Lexical nominalization. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (vol. 3, 2nd edition) (pp. 334‒381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57-70.

Ezeifeka, C. R. (2014). Grammatical Metaphor in SFL: A Rhetorical Resource for Academic Writing. UJAH: Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities12(1), 207-221.

Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Fatonah, F. (2014). Students’ understanding of the realization of nominalization in scientific text. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics4(1), 87-98.

Galve, G. I. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalization occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 363-385. Retrieved from http://www.docin.com.

Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1-31.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.

Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

Hadidi, Y., & Raghami, A. (2012). A comparative study of ideational grammatical metaphor in business and political texts. International Journal of Linguistics4(2), 348-365.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1999).The language of early childhood. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (2005).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning, a language based approach to cognition. New York: Norfolk.

Heyvaert, L. (2003). Nominalization as grammatical metaphor. On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In S. Vandenberge, M, Taverniers, & J. Ravelli, (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 65-99). Retrieved from http:// www.books.google.com.

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321-337.

Holtz, M. (2009). Nominalization in scientific discourse: A corpus-based study of abstracts and research articles. In M. Mahlberg, Michaela, V. Gonzalez-Diaz & C. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference Liverpool, UK. Retrieved December 25, 2014 from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of pragmatics43(11), 2795-2809Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics17(4), 433-454

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-45). Frankfort: Peter Lang.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum: London.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jalilifar, A. R., Saleh, E. & Don., A. (2017a). Exploring nominalization in the introduction and method sections of applied linguistics research articles: A qualitative approach. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 14, 64-80.

Jalilifar, A. R., White, P., & Malekizadeh, E. (2017b). Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 1-20.

Jalilifar, A., Alipour, M., & Parsa, S. (2014). Comparative study of nominalization in applied linguistics and biology books. Research in Applied Linguistics5(1), 24-43.

Jalilifar, A. (2012). Academic attribution: Citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics22(1), 23-41.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education5(3), 177-186.

Kazemian, B., & Hashemi, S. (2014). Nominalizations in scientific and political genres: Asystemic functional linguistics perspective. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2), 211-228. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2514388

Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19-36.

Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 280-294.

Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http:// www.books.google.com.

Mair, C., & Leech, G. (2006). Current changes in English syntax. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon. (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 318- 342). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.

Moltmann, F. (2007). Events, Tropes, and Truthmaking. Philisophical Studies, 134(3), 363-403.

Nivalas, M. L. (2011). Hedging in college research papers: Implications for language instruction. Asian EFL Journals, 35-45

Noonan, M. (2007). Complementation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, (Vol. 2, 2nd edition, pp. 52‒150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oztürk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.

Pun, F. K., Webster, J. (2009). Building of academic discourse in university students’ writing. In ASFLA Conference: Practicing Theory: Expanding Understandings of Language, Literature and Literacy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities: Theory and application for (L1 and) L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second Language Writing9(2), 171-191.

Rathert, M., & Alexiadou, A. (Eds.). (2010). The semantics of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Vol. 22). Walter de Gruyter.

Ren, H. & Li, Y. (2011). A Comparison Study on the Rhetorical Moves of Abstracts in Published Research Articles and Master’s Foreign-language Theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166.

Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in the applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22 (4), 365-385.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: RA abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156.

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in RAs: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.

Sarani, A., & Talati, A. (2015). Nominalization in the writing of novice vs. experienced members of academic community: a comparative study. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(2), 203-231.

Samar, R. G., & Talebzadeh, H. (2006). Professionals write like this: The case of ESP/EAP experimental research article abstracts. In first Post-Graduate Conference, University of Tehran, Iran.

Starfield, S. (2004). Word power: Negotiating success in a first-year Sociology essay. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized framework (pp. 66-83). London/New York: Continuum.

Sušinskienė, S. (2004). Grammatical metaphor in scientific discourse. KALBOTYRA, 54(4), 76-83.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English for academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, J. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.

To V., Lê T., & Lê Q. (2013). A comparative study of nominalization in IELTS writing test papers. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 4, 15-21.

Vazquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. 21, 171-190.

Vu Thi, M. (2012). Grammatical metaphor in English pharmaceutical discourse. Unpublished MA thesis. Vietnam.

Wenyan, G. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86-93.

Yang, B. (2014). Using Non-Finites in English Academic Writing by Chinese EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 42-52. 

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2012). An analysis of disciplinary distinction between Persian and English: A case study of computer sciences. Journal of MJAL, 4(1), 1-15.

Zucchi, A. (1993). The language of propositions and events. Issues in the syntax and semantics of nominalization. Dordrecht: Kluwer