Nominalization in Applied Linguistics and Medicine: The Case of Textbook Introductions and Book Reviews

• Authors: Alireza Jalilifar , Seyedeh Elham Elhambakhsh , Peter R. White
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study explored variational use of nominalization in 600 textbook introductions and 200 book reviews in applied linguistics and medicine. The nominalized expressions were identified in the texts, the frequencies of the nominalization types were counted, and eventually a chi-square test was administered. Analysis of nominalization patterns across the different informational/promotional moves revealed divergent patterns in the two disciplines but insignificant differences across the genres in focus. The density of nominalizations was acknowledged in the applied linguistics introductions and book reviews. However, functional variations in the use of nominalizations were found only in the introductions. As for the proportion of nominalization to grammatical metaphor, results demonstrated a lower tendency towards nominalizing scientific information in the medicine corpus. Further research is needed to see how nominalization is exploited in other genres and other disciplines.

Keywords

EN

book reviews; introduction; nominalization; systemic functional linguistics

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 281-302

Dates

published

2018-09-30

Contributors

author

Alireza Jalilifar

• Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran

author

Seyedeh Elham Elhambakhsh

• Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran

author

Peter R. White

• University of New South Wales, Australia

References

• Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel and Hossein Salarvand. 2013. Book prefaces in basic, applied, and social sciences: A genre-based study. Journal of World Applied Sciences, 28(11), 1618–1626.
• Alcaraz-Ariza, María Ángeles. 2010. Complimenting others: The case of English-written medical book reviews. Fachsprache, 31(1– 2), 50–65.
• Banks, David. 2003. The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. In: Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers and Louise J. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, 127–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Banks, David. 2005.On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 347–357.
• Baratta, Alexander M. 2010. Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1017–1036.
• Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
• Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. Genre mixing in academic introductions. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 181–195.
• Bhatia, Vijay K. 2002. Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4(1), 3–19.
• Bhatia, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
• Bloor, Tom and Meriel Bloor. 2004. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
• Bunton, David. 2002. Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In: John Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Discourse, 57–75. London: Longman.
• Coffin, Caroline, Curry, Mary J., Goodman, Sharon, Hewings, Ann, Lillis, Theresa M. and Joan Swann. 2003. Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. London: Routledge.
• Diani, Giuliana. 2007. Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: a cross disciplinary study. In: Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani (eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. 87–105. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dudley-Evans, Tony. 1986. Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc dissertations. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Talking about Text: Studies Presented to David Brazil on his Retirement, 128–145. Birmingham: ELR.
• Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
• Farahani, Ali Akbar and Yaser Hadidi. 2008. Semogenesis under scrutiny: Grammatical metaphor in science and modern prose fiction. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 51–82.
• Galve, Guillén I. 1998. The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalization occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 363–385.
• Gea Valor, Maria-Lluisa and María Mar del Saz Rubio. 2000-2001. The coding of linguistic politeness in the academia book review. Pragmalingüística, 8–9, 165–178.
• Gesuato, Sara. 2004. Read Me First: Promotional strategies in back-cover blurbs. Paper presented at the 2nd Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies Conference, Belfast, 25th-26th June. [Online] Available from: http://www.units.it/∼didactas/pub/unipd/presIVACS2004.doc Accessed: 14th March 2015.
• Giannoni, Davide Simone. 2009. Negotiating research values across review genres: A case study in applied linguistics. In: Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani (eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, 17–33. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Glanzel, Wolfgang and András Schubert, 2003. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56 (3), 357–367.
• Gray, Bethany and Douglas Biber. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.
• Groom, Nicholas. 2009. Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In: Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani (eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, 122–39. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed., revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). London: Arnold.
• Halliday, Michael A. K. and James R. Martin. 2005. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Halliday, Michael A. K. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
• Halliday, Michael A. K. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
• Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. Nominalization as grammatical metaphor: On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In: Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers and Louise J. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, 65–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ho, Victor. 2010. Grammatical metaphor in request e-mail discourse. Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 1– 24.
• Holmes, Richard. 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, Mônica. 2009. Nominalization in scientific discourse: A corpus-based study of abstracts and research articles. In: Michaela Mahlberg, Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz and Catherine Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference Liverpool, UK. September 25th. [Online] Available from: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/ Accessed: 4th May 2015.
• Hopkins, Andy and Tony Dudley-Evans. 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–122.
• Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
• Hyland, Ken. 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
• Hyland, Ken. 2009. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.
• Hyland, Ken and Giuliana Diani. 2009. Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
• Hyon, Sunny. 1996. Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693–722.
• Jalilifar, Alireza, Alipour, Mohammad and Sara Parsa. 2014. Comparative study of nominalization in applied linguistics and biology books. RALs, 5(1), 24–43.
• Jalilifar, Alireza, and Zeinab Golkar Musavi. 2016. Genre analysis and genre-mixing across various realizations of academic book introductions in applied linguistics. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 111–138.
• Kuhi, Davud. 2008. An analysis of move structure of textbook prefaces. Asian ESP Journal, 7, 63–78.
• Kuteeva, Maria. 2013. English in academic and professional contexts. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1–6.
• Lindholm-Romantschuk, Ylva. 1998. Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas within and among Disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Lock, Graham. 1996. Functional English Grammar: An Introduction for Second Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lorés Sanz, Rosa. 2012. (Non-)critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: A cross-cultural study of evaluation. In: Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani (eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, 143–160. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Marefat, Hamideh and Shirin Mohammadzadeh. 2013. Genre analysis of literature research article abstracts: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study. Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), 37–50.
• Martin, James R. 1990. Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In: Frances Christie (ed.), Literacy for a Changing World. 79–117. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Martin, James R. 1993. Genre and literacy: Modelling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: Issues in Teaching and Learning, 13, 141–172.
• Martin, James R. 2003. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In: Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 142–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Martin, James R., Christie, Frances and Joan Rothery. 1987. Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In: Ian Reid (ed.), The Place of Genre in Learning: Current Debates, 35–45. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
• Motta-Roth, Désirée. 1998. Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures. In: Inmaculada Fortanet, Santiago Posteguillo, Juan C. Palmer and Juan. F. Coll (eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes, 29–59. Castellón: Collecció Summa, Sèrie Filología/9.
• Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–38.
• Paltridge, Brain. 1997. Genre, Frames, and Writing in Research Setting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Römer, Ute. 2005. “This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though…”: Negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female authors. In: Elena Tognini Bonelli and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Strategies in Academic Discourse, 97–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Römer, Ute. 2008. Identification impossible? A corpus approach to realizations of evaluative meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language, 15(1), 115–130.
• Salager-Meyer, Françoise and María Ángeles Alcaraz-Ariza. 2004. Las reseñas de libros en español: estudio retórico y diacrónico. Spanish in Context, 2(1), 29–49.
• Samraj, Betty. 2005. An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141–156.
• Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2001. Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459.
• Shaw, Philip. 2004. How do we recognize implicit evaluation in academic book reviews? In: Del Lungo Camiciotti and Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, 121–140. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Shaw, Philip. 2009. The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews? In: Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani (eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genre in University Setting, 217–235. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Taverniers, Miriam and Louise, J. Ravelli. 2003. Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Sorayyaei Azar, Ali. 2012. The self-promotion of academic textbooks in the preface section: A genre analysis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 34(2), 147–165.
• Sušinskienė, Solvegia. 2009. Textual functions of nominalizations in English scientific discourse. Žmogus ir žodis, 11(3), 58–64.
• Sušinskienė, Solvegia. 2010. Nominalization as a cohesive device in British newspaper editorials. Filologija, 15, 142–150.
• Swales, John. M. 2004. Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, Geoffrey. 1994. Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.
• Tse, Polly and Hyland, Ken. 2009. Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In: Ken Hyland and Marina Bondi (eds.), Academic Discourse across Disciplines, 177–202. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Văn, Luan. 2011. A Study on Grammatical Metaphor in English Business Letters (M.A. Thesis). Hanoi: Vietnam National University.
• Vassileva, Irena. 2010. Critical book reviews in German. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 354–367.
• Wenyan, Gao. 2012. Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86–93.
• Xue-feng, Wang. 2010. Grammatical metaphor and its difficulties in application. US-China Foreign Language, 8(12), 29–37.
• Zepetnek, Steven T. D. 2010. Towards a taxonomy of the preface in English, French, and German. Neohelicon, 37(1), 75–90.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/rela-2018-0018