Chapter published in:
Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change
Edited by Richard J. Whitt
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85] 2018
► pp. 117–146

Academic writing as a locus of grammatical change

The development of phrasal complexity features

| Iowa State University
| Northern Arizona University
Based on large-scale corpus analysis, this study challenges the notion that academic writing is conservative and resistant to change by documenting linguistic innovations that have emerged in academic writing over the past 200 years. The study explores the dramatic patterns of change that have culminated in the present-day phrasal discourse style of academic writing. The study demonstrates that academic writing today employs a dense use of phrasal complexity features which were minimally used in earlier historical periods. Cross-register comparisons show that these features have largely not been adopted in other spoken and written registers, and none to the extent as in academic writing. The results, which illustrate that these changes have been both quantitative and functional in nature, thus challenge not only the view that academic writing is resistant to change, but also the claim that grammatical innovation originates primarily in speech.
Published online: 08 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.85.06gra
References

References

Aktas, Rahime Nur & Cortes, Viviana
2008 Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 3–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1985 Orthography and linguistic theory: The syntactic basis of Masoretic Hebrew punctuation. Language 61(1): 28–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baratta, Alexander
2009 Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1406–1421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes 15: 133–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Dimensions of variation among 18th century registers. In Towards a history of English as a History of Genres, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds), 89–110. Heidelberg: C. Winter. (Reprinted in Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds) 2001, 200-214).Google Scholar
2006 Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
1989a Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In To Explain the Present: Studies in Changing English in Honor of Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), 253–276. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. [reprinted in Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds) 2001, 66–83]Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward & Atkinson, Dwight
1994 ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In Creating and Using English Language Corpora, Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany
2010 Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics 15(2): 223–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul
2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie
2003 ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 313–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crespo García, Begoña & Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, Isabel
2010 CETA in the context of the Coruña Corpus . Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(2): 153–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David
1998 Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997, Suzanne Romaine (ed.), 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fennell, Barbara
2001 A History of English. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1981 Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 143–166. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard W.
2014 Signalling Nouns in Academic English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany
2015 Linguistic Variation in Research articles: When Discipline Tells only Part of the Story [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groom, Nicholas
2005 Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 257–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1988 On the language of physical science. In Registers of Written English, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 162–178. London: Pinter. (reprinted in Halliday 2004).Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Martin, James R.
1993 Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999 “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly
2005 Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24: 123–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1998 Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred
2000 Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009 Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2006 Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John
2001 The Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of “Pure” Standard English. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali
2004 Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 13], Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds), 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Rulon
1960 Nominal and verbal style. In Style in Language, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), 213–220. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard
2009 Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes 28(4): 421–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
2011 ARCHER: past and present (1990–2010). ICAME Journal 35: 205–36.Google Scholar