Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 2:2 (2020) ► pp.275–305

Elaboration, compression and explicitness across sub-registers of popular and academic writing in Hong Kong English

ORCID logo | Universidad de Vigo
| University of the Balearic Islands
In this study we examine elaboration, compression and explicitness in academic and popular writing in an Outer Circle variety of English, that of Hong-Kong, as represented in the International Corpus of English corpus. As Biber and Gray (2016) show, contemporary academic discourse is structurally compressed at NP level (rather than elaborated) and inexplicit in the expression of meaning. The linguistic features selected for analysis are short passives, which are compressed and inexplicit, and adnominal relative clauses, which represent the opposite tendency, that towards elaboration and explicitness. We focus on register variation through analyzing, first, differences between academic and popular writing, and second, interdisciplinary variation in four sub-registers: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and technology.
Keywords: Hong Kong English, Academic writing, Popular writing, Relative clauses, Passives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: A register approach to Hong Kong English
    • 2.1Popular and academic writing in the International Corpus of English: Context, function and sub-disciplinary areas
    • 2.2Adnominal relative postmodifiers and passives clauses
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Passives in HKE academic and popular writing
    • 4.2Relative clauses in HKE academic and popular writing
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19007.seo
References (44)
References
Baratta, A. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 1406–1421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies 11.42–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J. and Zhang, M. (2018). Using corpus-based analysis to study register and dialect variation on the searchable web. In E. Friginal (ed.), Studies in Corpus-Based Sociolinguistics, 83–111. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 91, 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English. Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, H., & Wanner, A. (2010). Introduction. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 1–26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2016). Do all roads lead to Rome?: Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 233–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 301, 5–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (2013). More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary variation and structural complexity. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics. In honor of Douglas Biber (pp. 49–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Habibie, P., & Hyland, K. (Eds.), (2019). Novice writers and scholarly publication. authors, mentors, gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. (2015). World Englishes. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 381–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. & Mair, C. (1999). ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres. The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(2), 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Schneider, G., Seoane, E. (2016). The use of the be-passive in academic Englishes: Local vs global usage in an international language. Corpora, 11(1), 29–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Genre, discipline and identity. English for Academic Purposes, 191, 32–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. (2010). Mein Problem ist/mein Thema ist (‘My problem is/my topic is’): How syntactic patterns and genres interact. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 141–166). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. International Corpus of English ([URL]). DOI logo
Irvine, J. (2001). ‘Style’as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 21–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English. A multidimensional analysis. English World-Wide, 39(2), 214–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). A multifactorial analysis of contact-induced change in speech reporting in written White South African English (WSAfE). English Language and Linguistics. E-pub before print. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., M. Hundt, C. Mair & N. Smith. (2009). Change in contemporary English. A grammatical style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B. (2010). Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 219–245). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, S. (2013). Contrastive register variation: A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, E. (2006). Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt & H. Schendl (Eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000 (pp. 191–211). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012). Givenness and word order: A study of long passives in Modern and Present-Day English. In A. Meurman-Solin, M. J. López-Couso & B. Los (Eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English (pp. 139–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). On the conventionalisation of the passive voice in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, E., & Hundt, M. (2018). Styling academic Englishes: authorial presence across disciplines. Journal of English Linguistics, 46(1), 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setter, J., Wong, C. S. P., Chan, B. H. S. (2010). Hong Kong English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, C. (2014). Relative clauses in Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(3), 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tse, P. & K. Hyland. (2010). Claiming a territory: Relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 1880–1889. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, B., Terblanche, L., Haase, C. & Schmied, J. (2010). Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide, 31(3), 311–349.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R. (2009). Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. World Englishes, 28(4), 421–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Batchelor, Jordan
2023. Scientists say: Patterns of attribution in popular and professional science writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65 ► pp. 101273 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.