Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 27:2 (2020) ► pp.143–173

Nominalisations in scientific English

A tristratal perspective

| Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
This paper examines nominalisation in scientific discourse in English, focusing on a distinction between what I will refer to as ‘live’ and ‘dead’ grammatical metaphors. Live metaphors refer to a nominal realisation of an ideational discourse semantic figure; dead metaphors are found in the same nominalisations as live metaphors, but they realise an entity rather than a figure. The distinction is made by drawing on a tristratal approach that is informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics and that considers nominalisation simultaneously from the perspectives of field, discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. Although the paper focuses on nominalisation, it illustrates a broader line of argumentation that can be extended to the analysis of ideational discourse semantic meanings in general.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1A trinocular vision of language
    • 2.2Grammatical metaphor
    • 2.3Live and dead grammatical metaphor in scientific discourse
  • 3.The data
  • 4.Identifying the meanings of nominalisations from a tristratal perspective
    • 4.1Looking from above
    • 4.2Looking from around
      • 4.2.1Interaction of nominalisations with interpersonal meanings – appraisal
      • 4.2.2Interaction of nominalisations with textual meanings – identification
    • 4.3Looking from below
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16055.hao
References (40)
References
Barthes, Roland. 1975. An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New Literary History, 237–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Neil A. & Jane. B. Reece. 2005. Biology. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Christie, Frances & Beverly Derewianka. 2008. School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Doran, Y. J. 2017. The discourse of physics: Building knowledge through language, mathematics and image. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry Allan Jr. 1965. Linguistics and English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1968. Contrastive analysis in discourse structure. (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 21). Georgetown University Institute of Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1998. Things and relations. In J. R. Martin & Robert Veel (eds.), 185–235.Google Scholar
2007[1988]. Some basic concepts of educational linguistics. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Language and education (The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol.9), 341–353. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hao, Jing. 2015. Construing biology: An ideational perspective. Sydney: University of Sydney PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Hao, Jing & Sally Humphrey. 2012. The role of ‘coupling’ in biological experimental reports. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 5(2). 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), 166–202.Google Scholar
2008. Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying ‘nominalization’. Discourse & Society 19(6). 801–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory: Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
2017. Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in ancient history and biology secondary school discourse. In J. R. Martin, Karl Maton & Beatriz Quiroz (eds.), Onomázein, 111–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matruglio, Erika. 2014. Humanities’ humanity: Construing the social in HSC modern and ancient history, society and culture, and community and family studies. Sydney: University of Technology PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & M. A. K. Halliday. 1997/2009. Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Marvin Lam. 2010. Key terms in systemic functional linguistics. Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay L. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. 1946. Politics and the English Language. Horizon 13(6). 252–265.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ravelli, Louise. 1999 [1985]. Metaphor, mode and complexity: An exploration of co-varying patterns (Vol. no. 121). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
Rothery, Joan. 1994. Exploring literacy in school English (Write it right: Resources for literacy and learning). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2014. Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalisation: Fractal patterns in linguistic change. Paper presented at the 25th European Systemic Linguistic Conference, Université Paris Diderot, Paris.
Unsworth, Len. 1997. “Sound” explanations in school science: A functional linguistic perspective on effective apprenticing texts. Linguistics and Education 9(2). 199–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 1998. Extended reality: Protonouns and the vernacular. In J. R. Martin & Robert Veel (eds.), 266–296.Google Scholar
Wignell, Peter. 2007. On the discourse of social science. Darwin: Charles Darwin University Press.Google Scholar
Wignell, Peter, J. R. Martin & Susan Eggins. 1993. The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), 151–183.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. 2011. Grammatical metaphor in Chinese: A corpus based study. Functions of language 18(1). 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Zhou, Jiangping
2023. Complexity of grammatical metaphor: an entropy-based approach. Semiotica 2023:252 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Castro, Claudia & Teresa Oteíza
2022. Historical explanations in the Rettig Report: The role of interpersonal grammatical metaphors. Discourse & Society 33:5 ► pp. 581 ff. DOI logo
Usyk, Pryimak & Siliutina
2022. The role of English linguistic terminology in modern scientific discourse. Mìžnarodnij fìlologìčnij časopis 13:1 ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Jiaojiao & Jiangping Zhou
2022. A Corpus-Based Study of Semantic Categorizations of Attracted Adjectives to the it BE ADJ clause Construction. SAGE Open 12:2 ► pp. 215824402210912 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Dongbing
2021. The Nominal Group in Khorchin Mongolian: A Systemic Functional Perspective. <i>WORD</i> 67:3 ► pp. 350 ff. DOI logo
Dreyfus, Shoshana & Jing Hao
2020. A multi-stratal perspective on circumstantial meaning. Journal of World Languages 6:1-2 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R.
2020. Genre and activity: a potential site for dialogue between Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Mind, Culture, and Activity 27:3 ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.