Academic writing as a locus of grammatical change
The development of phrasal complexity features
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Colloquialization in writing
- 1.2Register features of present-day academic writing
- 1.3Two types of historical development: The need for quantitative corpus-based research
- 1.4Goals of the study
- 2.Corpora and analytical methods
- 3.The historical evolution of academic writing: Quantitative increases and functional extensions of phrasal complexity features
- 3.1General patterns of historical change: Phrasal and clausal complexity features
- 3.2Nouns as noun pre-modifiers across written registers
- 3.3Prepositional phrases as noun post-modifiers across written registers
- 4.Summing up: Academic writing as a locus of historical change
-
Notes
-
References
References (40)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aronoff, Mark. 1985. Orthography and linguistic theory: The syntactic basis of Masoretic Hebrew
punctuation. Language 61(1): 28–72. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baratta, Alexander. 2009. Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1406–1421. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes 15: 133–163. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989a. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration,
explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics 15(2): 223–250. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crespo García, Begoña & Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, Isabel. 2010. CETA in the context of the Coruña Corpus
. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(2): 153–164. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fennell, Barbara. 2001. A History of English. Malden MA: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles. 1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 143–166. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard W. 2014. Signalling Nouns in Academic English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Groom, Nicholas. 2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 257–277. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Martin, James R. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly. 2005. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in
abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24: 123–139. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–382. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McWhorter, John. 2001. The Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of “Pure” Standard English. New York NY: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wells, Rulon. 1960. Nominal and verbal style. In Style in Language, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), 213–220. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Xiao, Richard. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes 28(4): 421–450. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2011. ARCHER: past and present (1990–2010). ICAME Journal 35: 205–36.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.