چکیده:
The present study aimed to explore how nominalization is manifested in a sample of Physics and Applied Linguistics research articles (RAs), representing hard and soft sciences respectively. To this end, 60 RAs from discipline-related professional journals were randomly selected and analyzed in light of Halliday and Matthiessen’s (1999) taxonomy of nominalization. Comparing the normalized frequencies indicated that articles in Applied Linguistics differ significantly from their counterparts in Physics as they include more nominalized expressions. Moreover, the analysis brought out the findings that deployment of nominalization Type Two is significantly different from the other three types of nominalization in each discipline. Subsequently, the obtained expressions were put into their context of use in order to extract the most prevalent patterns of nominalization in the RAs. The investigation into the embedded patterns introduced 15 common patterns for Physics and Applied Linguistics RAs. Chi-square analyses suggested statistically significant differences in using only four patterns. Finally, implications accrue to the findings in reference to academic writing teachers and course designers.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Nominalization in Academic Writing: A Cross-disciplinary Investigation of Physics and Applied Linguistics Empirical Research Articles Alireza Jalilifar Corresponding author, Associate Professor, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran a.
com The present study aimed to explore how nominalization is manifested in a sample of Physics and Applied Linguistics research articles (RAs), representing hard and soft sciences respectively.
Subsequently, the obtained expressions were put into their context of use in order to extract the most prevalent patterns of nominalization in the RAs. The investigation into the embedded patterns introduced 15 common patterns for Physics and Applied Linguistics RAs. Chi-square analyses suggested statistically significant differences in using only four patterns.
g. , Abdi, 2011, 2009; Abdollahzadeh, 2011; Gillaert & Van de Velde, 2010; Hu & Cao, 2011; Hyland, 2008, 2003; Jalilifar, Alipour & Parsa, 2014; Jalilifar, Saleh, & Don 2017a; Jalilifar, White, & Malekizadeh, 2017b; Ren & Li, 2011; Samraj, 2005; Zarei & Mansoori, 2012; Yang, 2014).
There has been a considerable surge of attention to research on nominalization through the study of the academic texts employed in different scientific disciplines (Biber & Gray, 2013; Babaii & Ansary, 2005; Comrie & Thompson, 2007; Halliday & Martin, 1996; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Heyvaert, 2003; Jalilifar et al.
The need to study disciplinary differences motivates researchers to shed more light on nominalization in academic writing, investigating how nominalization is manifested in the sample experimental RAs of Physics and Applied Linguistics, representing hard and soft sciences respectively, to reveal the probable intrinsic disciplinary peculiarities in the deployment of nominalization which seem to have been underrepresented in the existing literature.