1887
image of Elaboration, compression and explicitness across sub-registers of popular and academic writing in Hong Kong
English
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19007.seo
2020-08-07
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baratta, A.
    (2009) Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1406–1421. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D.
    (2006) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2019) Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies1.42–75. 10.1075/rs.18007.bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18007.bib [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Egbert, J. and Zhang, M.
    (2018) Using corpus-based analysis to study register and dialect variation on the searchable web. InE. Friginal (ed.), Studies in Corpus-Based Sociolinguistics, 83–111. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. and Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Grammatical complexity in academic English. Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511920776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. & Hopper, P.
    (eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, W.
    (1996) Inferring identifiability and accessibility. InT. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view (pp.37–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dorgeloh, H., & Wanner, A.
    (2010) Introduction. InH. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.1–26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226485.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, T.
    (1992) The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5–55. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gray, B.
    (2013) More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. 10.3366/cor.2013.0039
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0039 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015a) On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary variation and structural complexity. InV. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics. In honor of Douglas Biber (pp.49–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.66.03gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.66.03gra [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015b) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenbaum, S.
    (1996) Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Habibie, P., & Hyland, K.
    (Eds.) (2019) Novice writers and scholarly publication. authors, mentors, gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hundt, M.
    (2015) World Englishes. InD. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.381–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.022 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. 10.3366/cor.2016.0084
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2016.0084 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyland, K.
    (2006) Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. InK. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0446‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015) Genre, discipline and identity. English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32–43. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Imo, W.
    (2010) Mein Problem ist/mein Thema ist (‘My problem is/my topic is’): How syntactic patterns and genres interact. InH. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.141–166). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. International Corpus of English (www.ice-corpora.uzh.ch/en/design.html). 10.1515/9783110226485.1.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.1.141 [Google Scholar]
  25. Irvine, J.
    (2001) ‘Style’as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. InP. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp.21–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kachru, B. B.
    (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. InR. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kruger, H. & van Rooy, B.
    (2016) Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide, 77(1), 26–57. 10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru [Google Scholar]
  28. (2018) Register variation in written contact varieties of English. A multidimensional analysis. English World-Wide, 39(2), 214–242. 10.1075/eww.00011.kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00011.kru [Google Scholar]
  29. (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:  10.1017/S1360674319000017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000017 [Google Scholar]
  30. Leech, G., M. Hundt, C. Mair & N. Smith
    (2009) Change in contemporary English. A grammatical style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondorf, B.
    (2010) Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. InH. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp.219–245). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226485.2.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.2.219 [Google Scholar]
  32. Neumann, S.
    (2013) Contrastive register variation: A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110238594
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238594 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schneider, E.
    (2007) Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  34. Seoane, E.
    (2006) Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. InC. 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]
  35. (2012) Givenness and word order: A study of long passives in Modern and Present-Day English. InA. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2013) On the conventionalisation of the passive voice in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70–99. 10.1075/jhp.14.1.03seo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.14.1.03seo [Google Scholar]
  37. Seoane, E., & Hundt, M.
    (2018) Styling academic Englishes: authorial presence across disciplines. Journal of English Linguistics, 46(1), 3–22. 10.1177/0075424217740938
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424217740938 [Google Scholar]
  38. Setter, J., Wong, C. S. P., Chan, B. H. S.
    (2010) Hong Kong English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Suárez-Gómez, C.
    (2014) Relative clauses in Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(3), 245–268. 10.1177/0075424214540528
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424214540528 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00032‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X [Google Scholar]
  41. Tse, P. & K. Hyland
    (2010) Claiming a territory: Relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1880–1889. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.025 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Wood, A.
    (2001) International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. InJ. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.71–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008 [Google Scholar]
  44. Xiao, R.
    (2009) Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. World Englishes, 28(4), 421–450. 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/rs.19007.seo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19007.seo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Passives; Hong Kong English; Academic writing; Relative clauses; Popular writing
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