1887
Volume 21, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper focuses on the use of certain linguistic features conveying impersonal style in late Modern English scientific prose (1700–1900). Samples are taken from two subcorpora of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing, one from the humanities (Philosophy) and the other from natural sciences (Life Sciences). The methodology applied is based on Biber’s (1988) Multidimensional Analysis, consisting of a study of register variation as manifested through sets of co-occurring linguistic features with a shared discursive function. The aim of the present study is to detect variation across scientific disciplines, genres, and subject matter. Findings are compared to those found in both diachronic and contemporary reference corpora.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.03mon
2016-11-28
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, D
    (1999) Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazerman, C
    (1984) Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14(2). 163–196. doi: 10.1177/030631284014002001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014002001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beal, J
    (2004) English in Modern Times: 1700-1945. London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2012) Late Modern English in its historical context. In I. Moskowich & B. Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘Playne and Simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900 (pp.1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.173.01beal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.173.01beal [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D
    (1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2001) Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.200–214). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S
    (2001) Introduction: Multi-dimensional analysis and the study of register variation. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.3–12). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. , Conrad, S. , & Reppen, R
    (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E
    (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 65(3), 487–517. doi: 10.2307/415220
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1997) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas Tarkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen (pp.253–275). Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2001a) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.66–83). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2001b) Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.108–123). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D. , Finegan, E. , & Atkinson, D
    (1994) ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring a Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In U. Fries , P. Schneider & G. Tottie (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Papers from the 14th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zurich 1993 (pp.1–13). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D. , & Gray, B
    (2013) Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Camiña, G
    (2012) Accounting for observations of the heavens in the 18th century: New nouns to explain old phenomena. In I. Moskowich & B. Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘Playne and Simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900 (pp.93–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.173.06cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.173.06cam [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Noun Formation in the Scientific Register of Late Modern English: A Corpus-Based Approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of A Coruña, A Coruña.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Camiña, G. , & Lareo, I
    (2016) Editorial policy in the Corpus of English Philosophy Texts . In I. Moskowich , G. Camiña , I. Lareo & B. Crespo (Eds.), ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy (pp.45–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Carkin, S
    (2001) Pedagogic Language in Introductory Classes: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Textbooks and Lectures in Biology and Macroeconomics (Unpublished doctoral Dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chafe, W. , & Danielewicz, J
    (1987) Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp.83–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Conrad, S
    (1996) Academic Discourse in Two Disciplines: Professional Writing and Student Development in Biology and History (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.). Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.94–107). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Crespo, B
    (2011) Persuasion markers and ideology in eighteenth century philosophy texts. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 17, 199–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2016) Genre categorisation in CEPhiT. In I. Moskowich , G. Camiña , I. Lareo & B. Crespo (Eds.), ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy (pp.25–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Csomay, E
    (2000) Academic lectures: An interface of an oral and literate continuum. Novelty, 7(3), 30–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. De Smet, H
    (2006) The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version). Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Görlach, M
    (2004) Text Types and the History of English. New York, NY : Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197167 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gorsuch, R.L
    (1983) Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gotti, M
    (2001) The experimental essay in Early Modern English. European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 221–239. doi: 10.1076/ejes.5.2.221.7307
    https://doi.org/10.1076/ejes.5.2.221.7307 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2003) Specialized Discourse: Linguistic Features and Changing Conventions. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Granger, S
    (1997) On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in Academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In J. Aarts , I. de Mönnink & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English Language and Teaching (pp.185–198). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gray, B
    (2011) Exploring Academic Writing Through Corpus Linguistics: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Greenbaum, S
    (1988) Syntactic devices for compression in English. In J. Klegraf & D. Nehls (Eds.), Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday (pp.3–10). Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hyland, K
    (1995) The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  36. Johansson, S
    (Ed.) (1982) Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , & Goodluck, H
    (1978) Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lareo, I
    (2009) El Coruña Corpus. Proceso de compilación y utilidades del Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy (CETA). Resultados preliminares sobre el uso de los predicados complejos en CETA. In P. Cantos Gómez & A. Sánchez Pérez (Eds.), A Survey on Corpus-based Research (pp.267–280). Murcia: Asociación Española de Lingüística de Corpus.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lareo, I. , & Esteve-Ramos, M.J
    (2008) 18th century scientific writing. A study of make complex predicates in the Coruña Corpus. ICAME, 32, 69–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McEnery, T. , & Wilson, A
    (1996) Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Monaco, L.M
    (2016) Abstractness as diachronic variation in CEPhiT: Biber’s Dimension 5 applied. In I. Moskowich , G. Camiña , I. Lareo & B. Crespo (Eds.), ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy (pp.99–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Moskowich, I
    (2011) “The golden rule of divine philosophy” exemplified in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 17, 167–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2012a) CETA as a tool for the study of Modern Astronomy in English. In I. Moskowich & B. Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘Playne and Simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900 (pp.35–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.173.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.173.03mos [Google Scholar]
  44. (2012b) “A smooth homogeneous globe” in CETA: Compiling late Modern Astronomy texts in English. In N. Vázquez (Ed.), Creation and Use of Historical English Corpora in Spain (pp.21–37). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2013) Eighteenth century female authors: Women and science in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(4), 467–487. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2013.857570
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2013.857570 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2016) Philosophers and scientists from the Modern Age: Compiling the Corpus of English Philosophy Texts. In I. Moskowich , G. Camiña , I. Lareo & B. Crespo (Eds.), ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy (pp.1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Moskowich, I. , Camiña, G. , Lareo, I. , & Crespo, B
    (Eds.) (2016) ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Moskowich, I. , & Crespo, B
    (2007) Presenting the Coruña Corpus: A collection of samples for the historical study of English scientific writing. In J. Pérez Guerra , D. González-Álvarez , J.L. Bueno-Alonso & E. Rama-Martínez (Eds.), Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed: New Insights into Late Modern English (pp.341–357). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (Eds.) (2012) Astronomy ‘Playne and Simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.173
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.173 [Google Scholar]
  50. Moskowich, I. , & Monaco, L.M
    (2014) Abstraction as a means of expressing reality: Women writing science in late Modern English. In M. Gotti & D.S. Giannoni (Eds.), Corpus Analysis for Descriptive and Pedagogical Purposes (pp.203–224). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Moskowich, I. , & Parapar, J
    (2008) Writing sciences, compiling science: The Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. In M.J. Lorenzo Modia (Ed.), Proceedings from the 31st AEDEAN Conference (pp.531–544). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ochs, E
    (1979) Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax (pp.51–80). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Oxford English Dictionary Online (3rd. ed.) (1989) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved fromdictionary.oed.com/ (last accessedDecember 2012).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Reppen, R
    (2001) Register variation in student and adult speech. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp.187–199). Essex: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rissanen, M. , Kytö, M. , Kahlas-Tarkka, L. , Kilpiö, M. , Nevanlinna, S. , Taavitsainen, I. , Nevalainen, T. , & Raumolin-Brunberg, H
    (1991) The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Smith, N. , & Seoane, E
    (2013) Categorizing syntactic constructions in a corpus. In M. Krug & J. Schlüter (Eds.), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, (pp.212–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511792519.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.015 [Google Scholar]
  58. Svartvik, J. , & Quirk, R
    (Eds.) (1980) A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Taavitsainen, I. , & Pahta, P
    (Eds.) (2004) Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. (Eds.) (2010) Early Modern English Medical Texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.160
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.160 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tabachnick, B. , & Fidell, L
    (1996) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Thompson, S
    (1982) The passive in English: A discourse perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. UNESCO
    (1988) Proposed International Standard Nomenclature for Fields of Science and Technology UNESCO/NS/ROU/257. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Weiner, E. & Labov, W
    (1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 29–58. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700007441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007441 [Google Scholar]
  65. Xiao, R
    (2009) Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. Word Englishes, 28(4), 421–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2009.01606.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01606.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21.4.03mon
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): change , late Modern English , Multidimensional Analysis , Scientific register and variation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error