Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program Alexander M. Baratta * School of Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Received 21 January 2009; received in revised form 18 August 2009; accepted 20 August 2009

Abstract Nominalizations tend to be associated with academic writing as they can assist in maintaining an impersonal tone, often by deleting a human agent within a given sentence. There are additional functions, such as helping to create textual cohesion, all of which have relevance in the production of quality academic texts. Based on the previous work regarding the use of nominalizations within academic writing (Biber, 1988; Biber et al., 1998; Guillen Galve, 1998; Charles, 2003), a question arises which this paper seeks to address. If we assume that nominalizations, to an extent, are a feature of accomplished academic writing, what are the implications for their use within each year of an undergraduate degree program—how do students develop their use of nominalizations? For purposes of addressing this question, the academic writing of six undergraduate students was analyzed throughout each year of their degree course. The six participants studied on an academic program entitled ‘Language, Literacy and Communication’ (LLC), part of the School of Education at The University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, with the results demonstrating that nominalizations do not necessarily play a prominent role within the academic writing of this community. # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Nominalization; Writing development; Cohesion; Stance

1. Introduction While previous studies have focused on nominalization use and/or frequency in academic writing (Biber, 1988; Biber et al., 1998; Guillen Galve, 1998; Charles, 2003), few studies, if any, have analyzed how students’ use of nominalizations develops throughout an undergraduate degree program. Most studies tend to focus on writing development from broader perspectives such as developing an understanding of essay writing skills (HoadleyMaidment, 1997), rhetorical patterns used in essay writing (Spack, 1997) and development of an academic identity in one’s writing (Ivanic, 1998). Previous studies of nominalizations within academic writing have focused on their use and frequency within the writing of a variety of academic disciplines (Biber, 1988); their use and frequency within spoken and written contexts (Biber et al., 1998); the use of nominalizations to produce grammatical metaphor in the texts of medical journals (Guillen Galve, 1998); and their frequency within the writing of two specific disciplines, politics and materials science (Charles, 2003). There are two studies, however, which do focus on the use of nominalizations within the context of writing development. Derewianka (1995) investigates the linguistic development of a child’s writing from childhood to * Tel.: +44 161 275 3453; fax: +44 161 275 7215. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.007

1018

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Table 1 Frequency distribution of nominalizations within academic writing, fiction and speech (Biber et al., 1998:60) (normalized to a basis of a million words per text: both academic writing and fiction consist of about 3 million words each; spoken English has about 500,000 words).

Nominalizations Per million words

Academic writing

Fiction

Spoken English

2.7 million words 44,000

3 million words 11,200

.5 million words 11,300

adolescence, with grammatical metaphor the main focus. A further study by Ventola (1996) discusses the linguistic processes involved with non-native English speakers’ academic texts in terms of packing information into clausal structures, which often involves the use of nominalizations. However, the gap which the current study seeks to exploit is the development of nominalization usage within the specific context of an undergraduate degree program, thereby contributing to the literature with regard to nominalization development in writing. With regard to the frequency of nominalizations within various contexts, the study of Biber et al. (1998) analyzed several categories of speech (e.g. telephone conversations, prepared speeches) and non-academic written English (e.g. romance novels, mystery novels), in addition to the analysis of essays from several academic disciplines (e.g. politics, mathematics); the results show a much higher use of nominalizations in academic writing, thus providing a starting point for the research presented in this paper (Table 1). Biber et al. (1999:61) claim that the reason for the higher frequency of nominalizations within academic writing is that the function of nominalizations within this context is ‘‘to treat actions and processes as abstract objects separated from human participants’’, whereas fiction and speech ‘‘are more often concerned with people and use verbs and adjectives to describe how they are behaving’’. The results of the study might therefore suggest that nominalizations are perhaps a fairly prominent linguistic feature used within academic writing, and according to Ravelli (1996:380), nominalizations are ‘‘prestigious, technical and formal, rather than coming from a more everyday realm’’. This further suggests another important rhetorical effect produced by the use of nominalizations, which first-year undergraduate students might wish to aspire to. There are opposing views within the literature, however, which might suggest that students need not always strive for a high frequency of nominalizations within their academic writing. The previous claims of Ravelli concerning the use of nominalizations within academic writing point toward the specialist belief, one which argues for a more ‘highbrow’ level of writing within academic texts. However, there is also the populist belief that ‘‘academic prose should be comprehensible to some generalized reader such as ‘‘the man on the street’’ or a high school graduate’’ (MacDonald, 1980:56), which might suggest to limit the use of nominalizations, as excessive use can, according to Kirkman and Turk (1982:118), mean that writing is robbed ‘‘of its impact and energy’’. Zinsser (1980:109) further believes that too many nominalizations can create ‘‘typically dead sentences’’. If we take the findings thus far presented, it might be suggested that a simple balance is therefore needed regarding one’s use of nominalizations (though this is admittedly hard to quantify); moreover, there may indeed be discipline-specific writing conventions with regard to how frequently nominalizations are used. Biber (1988), Halliday (1994) and MacDonald (1994) regard the scientific community, for example, as being noted for a prominent nominalization use, with MacDonald stating that nominalizations have more use in ‘‘compact fields within science’’ (page 173). Swales (1998) mentions that the soft social sciences display ‘‘an authorial voice and narrative elements’’ (page 171), which may suggest less reliance on nominalizations, based on an increased use of first person, a linguistic feature which can contribute to an authorial voice. MacDonald goes on to report that within her own writing samples from the history and literature departments, there is a ‘‘comparatively less nominalized style’’ (page 174). This has implications for the academic writing within the LLC program, which is part of the Humanities, as are history and literature. The study of Charles (2003) investigates nominalization use and frequency within politics and materials science essays, thus shedding additional light on discipline-specific writing. Charles reports, for example, that the essays in politics use nominalizations more frequently than materials science as a means to express writer stance (see Thompson and Ye, 1991; Barton, 1993; Thetela, 1997; Ivanic, 1998; Baratta, 2009), due to the more prominent function of persuasive argumentation within this discipline, which relies on revelation of personal opinion and evaluation. She further states that the overall negative evaluation offered through nominalized stance within the politics essays is perhaps due to ‘‘recursive knowledge-building in the discipline of politics’’ (page 322).

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1019

Regarding the function of nominalized stance, Biber et al. (1999) suggest two specific categories, attitudinal and epistemic. Attitudinal nominalizations ‘‘report personal attitudes or feelings’’ (page 974); epistemic nominalizations comment ‘‘on the status of information in a proposition’’ (page 972). Both types of nominalizations share the same function, however, of revealing the writer’s feelings and opinions. A nominalization such as atrocity can be used to reveal the writer’s opinion; for example, in the context of an academic essay arguing against child abuse (e.g. the atrocity of child abuse must be stopped). Finally, the research of Guillen Galve (1998) discusses the use of nominalizations as a means of providing grammatical metaphor (Halliday, 1988) within medical texts, stating that ‘‘written medical English, not unlike most scientific English, is highly metaphorical, in the sense of grammatical metaphor’’ (page 384). The constructed examples below illustrate this use of metaphor: (1) (1)

a. b.

Alcohol addiction lost him his job. Because he was addicted to alcohol, he lost his job.

Example (1a) is metaphorical as the congruent form which involves a verb denoting a process (i.e. to be addicted) is now coded as a noun, thereby functioning in the sentence as a thing instead, and not a process as in (1b). Further, grammatical metaphor can also involve, as does (1a), the placing of a non-human subject in the sentential position of agent; in the context of the sentence in example (1a), however, it is clear that only a human, directly or indirectly, could be responsible for the loss of someone’s job. In other words, it wasn’t alcohol that ‘personally’ caused the loss of a person’s job. Halliday (1994:352) regards nominalizing as ‘‘the single most powerful resource for creating grammatical metaphor’’, which thus reveals another important use. Research by Unsworth (1997:201), however, suggests that even within the science community, there has been a ‘‘backing off from present extremes of nominalization and grammatical metaphor to accommodate a more process centred technical discourse’’. While it is not the intention of this paper to focus specifically on discipline-specific conventions for nominalization use, to include the conflicting information within the literature (Zinsser, 1980; MacDonald, 1994; Unsworth, 1997), it was felt necessary to briefly discuss this area for the following reasons. First, by being more aware of different uses and frequencies of nominalizations in various disciplines, it has helped the author to avoid approaching the students’ writing in the current study with a rigid mindset, one which presupposes that nominalizations are a common feature within academic writing overall, regardless of discipline. Second, by being aware of the various functions of nominalizations, such as stance revelation, it has helped to analyze their use in the LLC writing samples from a more informed perspective. The studies described, then, collectively show the importance of nominalizations in academic writing overall, as well as the rhetorical functions of nominalizations within various disciplines. What these studies do not offer, however, is a focus on how academic writers develop their use of nominalizations, instead presenting the results of nominalization usage as a static moment in time. What we therefore do not know is how accomplished academic writing, at least with regard to nominalization use, reached that stage. If analyzing the earlier written texts of students, for example, might we expect to find overall lower frequencies of nominalizations? This is especially relevant to the study of Charles (2003), which focused on MA theses and PhD dissertations, two academic genres in which a high standard of writing is of course expected. Assuming that academic writing in general favors an impersonal tone, with nominalizations a linguistic means to achieve this goal, then it might be interesting to see if a student’s frequency of nominalizations increases throughout the duration of a degree course, to rectify more overtly personal writing in his/her first year, for example. This is the kind of development that this paper seeks to discover. Consider the following examples: (2) (2)

a. b.

I discovered similar findings on this subject during the research. The discovery of similar findings on this subject during the research. . .

Example (2b) shows how the deletion of the agent allows for more objectivity in that the focus is now placed on the discovery itself, as opposed to who did the discovering. Furthermore, if considering discipline-specific writing conventions, then higher nominalization frequencies might be expected in order to meet the standard of ‘good’ writing in the particular discipline. The previous work of MacDonald (1994), for example, states that nominalizations do have more use in scientific fields, but less so in the

1020

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Humanities disciplines. Clearly, nominalization usage in different academic communities must follow that community’s standards for appropriate usage. Hoadley-Maidment (1997:57) states that learning the rules of one’s community, to include the linguistic conventions of academic writing, ‘‘is an essential task for students as they are acculturated into the academic community’’, with Charles (2006:18) reiterating this statement in the following manner: students need to learn ways to build knowledge that is ‘‘appropriate both for their specific purposes and within their disciplinary community’’. The implication might be that, broadly speaking, science students may need to learn to refer to themselves less within their texts, with nominalizations being one linguistic solution, whereas history or literature students might need to forego a more impersonal tone, in favor of using first person instead. Ivanic (1998), for example, regards the first person as a way to advance knowledge throughout the essay, revealing the ‘‘most powerful authorial presence’’ (S29), with Day (1994:166) encouraging students to ‘‘renounce the false modesty of previous generations of scientists’’ (166) regarding the use of third person pronouns (e.g. the author believes. . .). As example (2b) has briefly illustrated, a nominalization can remove the need for self-mention, and therefore, a discipline in which first person use is encouraged, or at least not proscribed, may regard a high frequency of nominalizations as simply unnecessary. Therefore, while not a focus of this paper per se, the implications for discipline-specific writing conventions will nonetheless inform the discussion of the results. Ultimately, it is not really a question of how much nominalizations feature as part of an academic community’s writing; it is the focus of this paper to essentially shed light on how the six students develop in their nominalization usage throughout the three years of their degree course,1 which can subsequently reveal how the LLC program regards the use of nominalizations in the academic writing of its students. What functions do the nominalizations serve in the six students’ writing and how does their frequency change from year to year? These questions will be addressed, after first discussing additional uses for nominalizations within academic writing. 2. Nominalization use in academic writing: cohesion and retrospective labeling Besides their use in contributing to an impersonal academic tone, nominalizations can also maintain cohesion in academic texts. This is based on a nominalization functioning as the theme in a sentence, thus providing a reference to previous discourse, while preceding new information – the rheme – within the same sentence. Halliday (1988:168) summarizes the overall effect of the theme preceding the rheme with the following statement: ‘‘where the Theme is also Given, and thus typically refers to something that has gone before, it performs a powerful cohesive function in a text: ‘you remember what I said just now? – well we’re going to move on from there’’’. MacDonald (1994) refers to this rhetorical phenomenon as ‘compacting’, with Unsworth (1997:201) elaborating, referring to nominalized cohesion as creating a ‘‘chain of reasoning’’ by moving on to the next step, but only by first summarizing ‘‘what has gone before as the point of departure’’. The example below illustrates how theme and rheme combine within a sentence and how the use of a nominalization within the thematic position in sentence two helps to achieve cohesion and subsequently advance the text: (3)

The group decided on a way to solve the problem. The solution was to cut back on break times.

In sentence two, the nominalization solution acts as the theme, in that it refers back to its verbal counterpart, solve, which is the rheme of the previous sentence. The rheme of sentence two then follows solution; in this manner, cohesion is achieved. A final use of nominalizations again relates to the work of Charles (2003) and deals with the subject of writer stance, presented now in more depth. Specifically, Charles uses the term retrospective labeling to describe nominalizations placed in subject-head position which not only provide cohesion, but have the potential to also reveal the writer’s opinion or evaluation of a given subject within the text (often the rheme of the preceding sentence). The example below illustrates this dual function: (4)

1

The government recently banned cigarette smoking in all public buildings. This eradication has not met with favor by many members of the public. In the United Kingdom, a BA course is generally three years.

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1021

In example (4), the nominalization eradication simultaneously contributes to textual cohesion and stance revelation, in that the government ban mentioned in sentence one has been reinterpreted as eradication in sentence two, thus suggesting that the writer believes the ban is perhaps excessive. At the same time, eradication, by referring back to the previous sentence, before introducing the subsequent rheme of sentence two, establishes textual cohesion. In summary, nominalization use in academic writing is suggested to be a worthy feature of investigation, based on the potential to create a more objective tone, assuming that is what is needed, while simultaneously being able to reveal writer stance and maintain textual cohesion. In addition, by analyzing the use of nominalizations throughout an undergraduate degree course, it is hoped that information can be gleaned regarding how students specifically use nominalizations, their frequency of use and finally, the extent to which their development regarding the use of this feature constitutes writing proficiency within their discipline. 3. Nominalization criteria for the analysis For analytical purposes within this paper, both gerunds and derived nominalizations were counted, though for the latter category, only nominalizations with the following suffixes were included: -tion, -ment, -ity and -ness, borrowing from the study of Biber (1988), in which the same criteria were established. Biber et al. (1999:59) regard these four suffixes as being ‘‘productive endings in English’’, based on their frequent occurrence within academic writing. Charles (2003) further discusses the categories of metalinguistic (Francis, 1994) and non-metalinguistic nominalizations (which could either be derived or gerund within the present study), which refer to the rhetorical function of the nominalization. Metalinguistic nominalizations are those which the writer uses to refer to propositions within the text. As Charles (2003:316) puts it, ‘‘they instruct the reader to interpret the linguistic status of a proposition in a particular way’’. For example, nominalizations (and nouns) such as point, distinction and expression are metalinguistic in that they refer to the discourse of other theorists, such as the point that Smith (1999) makes is valid. Non-metalinguistic nominalizations refer to the writer’s perception of ‘‘real world events and actions’’ (Charles, 2003:316), those which are outside of the textual world. Words such as effect, result and observation are nonmetalinguistic according to Charles; an example of usage could be the result of the government’s decision is discussed below. However, Charles’ analysis fails to capture the complexities of context, as any one of the given words can refer to events within or outside of the text depending on the specific context in which they are used. For example, the word effect is classed as non-metalinguistic by Charles, yet it could easily fit within the metalinguistic category also: (5)

The effects of gang violence are seen everywhere in the neighborhood.

(6)

According to Smith (1999), the effects of gang violence are seen everywhere.

Example (5) uses effect(s) in a non-metalinguistic sense, simply as a means to describe a real-world event. In example (6), however, the word effect(s) is being used in conjunction with academic research, and hence suggests, broadly speaking, more of a metalinguistic use, as the word ultimately refers to the textual world. While it can be argued that Charles has already taken contextual factors into consideration, hence her referral to the categories of metalinguistic and non-metalinguistic, she treats the words which belong within each category rather rigidly. This means that using Charles’ analysis, words such as effect and result will always belong to the non-metalinguistic category, and words such as point and distinction will always belong to the metalinguistic category. It is not so much that two categories of nominalizations are insufficient; rather, it is limiting to assign a group of nominalizations and nouns to only one of the two categories, without considering the issues of context, in which the nouns in one category may indeed belong to the other depending on how they are used. It is from this narrower contextual focus that the revised semantic categories as used in this paper derive. 3.1. Non-metalinguistic In agreement with Charles’ criteria, non-metalinguistic nominalizations are those which are not based on, nor refer to, the words of other authors/researchers (e.g. which we might expect to find as part of a literature review). In other words, non-metalinguistic nominalizations are those that (student) writers choose themselves as the means to write

1022

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

their texts. Therefore, non-metalinguistic nominalizations do not, as much as can be possibly determined, derive from textbook reading. For example, in the paragraph directly above, the nominalization agreement would be categorized as nonmetalinguistic, precisely because it has been chosen by the author himself as the way to construct meaning. Therefore, it ‘belongs’ to the author, part of a more general, everyday usage. 3.2. Textual Textual nominalizations, however, are those which do derive from the research of other authors and we might expect to come across this category of nominalization as part of a literature review, as mentioned, or a paraphrase of someone else’s work. The specific criteria for the textual category is now presented, which itself is divided into two separate sub-categories. First, any and all nominalizations which can be attributed to previous research, theories and findings, are textual. This attribution is often conventionally marked by the writer by means of an accompanying author’s name and year of research, such as Ivanic (1998). Therefore, with the exception of course of direct quotations which involve words not attributable to the student, paraphrases within the student’s text and/or any sections of discourse which discuss what an author has said involve the use of textual nominalizations. To understand how a given nominalization can function in both categories, we might consider the nominalization acquisition. If textual analysis determines that the word is referring to the work of the researcher Steve Krashen, specifically his concept of subconscious acquisition, then this would be a textual nominalization. On the other hand, if analysis of a writer’s text determines that the nominalization is being used in a more general sense, chosen by the writer and not referring to the words of other researchers, then this would be a non-metalinguistic categorization. A hypothetical example might be the university’s acquisition of private land proved to be invaluable regarding the goal to expand its music department. The second sub-category of textual nominalizations concerns the use of jargon, vocabulary which is textual in the sense that it has more use and perhaps added meaning within the world of academia, to include academic research. This can be a somewhat subjective classification. For example, the nominalization education is suggested to be nonmetalinguistic when used within a generalized context (e.g. there are many mature students in education nowadays). However, if used in the context of Higher Education, it is classified as textual as it is felt that within the context of using capital letters, the nominalization education is more ‘jargon-like’ in that the expression suggests a specific academic concept and is perhaps used more within written academic texts than within society overall. An example can be seen with the British university publication THE (Times Higher Education). In this context, the use of capital letters does not simply designate a magazine title, in which capital letters would be commonly used; the capital letters also serve to signify an academic discourse community. While such classifications can not be asserted as absolutely accurate (e.g. a survey would be needed to determine how many educators vs. laypeople are aware/unaware of certain terms), they do provide a degree more accuracy in that added consideration is at least given to the context in which certain words occur and are used. This is not to suggest, however, that jargon relates to vocabulary which is simply not understood by laypeople within society (i.e. those outside of academia). For example, the vast majority of the population surely understands what is meant by the nominalization bilingualism (though this is a nominalization not included in the counts), yet this is a word classified as textual on the grounds that it has more academic currency in that it is a subject of research and even today, current academic debate (i.e. there are still differing opinions as to what exactly the term means). In addition, the fact that the subject is researched indicates that it is more relevant within academic circles, whereas the term as used by laypeople is usually more general: a term referring to people who can speak two languages, without regard as to any further definition or the challenges and implications for those who grow up bilingually. One specific reason for the textual classification of the word bilingualism is the complexity of the issue within academia as opposed to a more general definition in society, as suggested above. For example, within academia, bilingualism is defined in the following ways:  Someone who can speak two languages without necessarily having fluency.  Having complete spoken fluency in two languages.  Someone who can communicate in two languages (suggesting that the mere understanding of a second language, without the ability to speak it, is sufficient to be classified as bilingual).

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1023

Table 2 Nominalization categories. Category

Examples

Derived Gerund

Entertainment, happiness, scarcity and negotiation The writing of the report was difficult

Table 3 Nominalization functions. Function (which includes both categories above)

Examples

Non-metalinguistic Textual

There is a great deal of entertainment available on the Internet (a) According to Kinsella (1999), there is a great deal of entertainment available on the Internet (b) There is much reliance on interdisciplinarity in education nowadays There is an inability of the government to solve the crisis

Attitudinal

Table 4 Sentential position of nominalization. Retrospective labels

The government solved the crisis. The resolution was based on several factors.

 Wei (2000) further discusses levels of bilingualism, such as the balanced bilingual, who has the same proficiency in two languages, whereas a dominant bilingual speaks one language better than the other. Considering the complexity involved with a definition of bilingualism in academia, as opposed to a ‘societal’ definition, it can be suggested that it is a word with more use within academic contexts and hence, textual in its function. It is conceded that some may find a degree of subjectivity within the analysis; however, this is an inevitable aspect of this paper. The students’ frequency of retrospective labels, whether they reveal stance or not, is also included in the analysis. Unlike Charles’ analysis which focuses solely on retrospective labels used in conjunction with the deictic this, the analysis adopted here focuses on retrospective subject-head labels overall, regardless of the deictic which precedes them, if any. Furthermore, nominalizations used to reveal stance, regardless of sentential position, are also included in the frequency counts. Though Biber et al. (1999) separate nominalized stance into the two categories outlined earlier, within the analysis adopted here, all nominalizations used to reveal stance are classified more broadly as attitudinal in toto. It was also decided to place the results of attitudinal nominalization frequencies in a separate table (Table 11) as stance revelation seen within a group of undergraduates who are essentially finding their way amongst academic writing is an important area to investigate and worthy of its own focus, albeit one which is part of the overall analysis of nominalization use. Furthermore, a point also worth mentioning is that all nominalizations can exhibit several functions. For example, a gerund may also be analyzed as non-metalinguistic and further be used as a retrospective label; likewise, a derived nominalization may also function as a retrospective label and be attitudinal in nature. In terms of retrospective labels, these can be derived or gerund in category and include any one of the three functions outlined in Table 3; full categorical information is provided in the next section. In summary, the following categories, functions and sentential position of nominalizations are included in the frequency counts (Tables 2–4). 4. Data and method The research employs a case study approach, in which the academic writing of six undergraduate students was analyzed throughout the duration of their degree program. In year one at the time the participants were enrolled, LLC students took eight courses, then seven in year two. The final year was, and still is, comprised of several optional

1024

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

courses, with the exception of the dissertation, a 12,000 word research report, which is mandatory. The six students’ anonymous names are Janet, Gladys, Collette, Wendy, Dorothy and Sarah, and their results are presented in that order. The six students were all eighteen when they entered university (the normal starting age in the UK), with the exception of Dorothy, who is a mature student with a background as an IT trainer (though she declined to give her age). For purposes of analysis, three essays were selected from both years one and two, in addition to the dissertation for year three. It was felt that analysis of the dissertation, as opposed to a sample of third year essays, was a more fitting choice in order to better see how students had developed in their use of nominalizations. Schleppegrell (2001:437) considers academic research papers (which the final-year dissertation is) to be ‘‘the most advanced of the school-based genres’’. Therefore, based on the fact that the LLC students’ final year coursework culminates with an advanced piece of academic writing such as a 12,000 word dissertation, it is suggested that the dissertation is perhaps a more relevant measure of how far students’ overall writing skills have developed since they began their program, as opposed to analysing several shorter final-year essays. With the exception of the dissertation, each essay is 2000 words long and the essays comprise a range of subjects, a summary of which is now given: Class code ED 1101

Year 1

ED 1201

1

ED 1902

1

ED 2201

2

ED 2401

2

ED 2501

2

ED 3912

3

Class title Aspects of Language (A focus on personal language use, such as accent, idiolect or one’s bilingual status) Aspects of Literacy (A focus on one’s personal literacy practices, such as reading, computer ability, e-mailing and so on) Communication and Culture (A discussion of the e-mail communication that took place between the LLC students and six South Korean university students) Acquisition of Literacy (A case study involving an investigation of a child’s reading and writing development) Communication and the World of Work (A discussion of any communication mediums used within the workplace, such as the non-verbal communication involved with the clothing employees wear, to analysis of recruitment posters for McDonalds) Ethnographic Research (Again, a broad selection of research topics which involve the need for ethnographic research, such as working with schoolchildren to investigate their prejudice regarding physical appearance) Dissertation (Students are free to choose any topic that fits within any of the three strands of language, literacy and/or communication. Topics range from bilingualism, discourse in filmic dialogue and interdisciplinary studies)

While it could be argued that the nominalization development of just six students is somewhat limited, it is suggested that the author’s ‘insider’ status within the students’ academic program has helped to gain a deeper understanding of the writing conventions of the LLC program. This means that the analysis of the students’ linguistic usage has been informed by a great deal of additional knowledge, which goes beyond merely relying on the essays alone as the means to help determine proficient academic writing within the LLC program. First, the author has been a lecturer within the LLC program since fall 2003, which has subsequently contributed to an increased awareness of the program’s overall writing conventions. This awareness has been facilitated by several factors:  Essays from many different course units throughout all three years of the program have been marked and second marked by the author, which has led to an increased awareness of the style of writing that is common within the program.  The former program director was interviewed by the author, which helped to answer the question regarding what is considered to be proficient writing style within the LLC program (her answers are integrated within the discussion of results in section 6). Moreover, the author’s awareness of writing conventions within the LLC program has recently led to the initiation of an academic writing course for LLC students (in addition to an LLC academic writing handbook), which seeks to

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1025

specifically teach students how to write within the LLC program, as opposed to taking a more broad approach which focuses on academic writing in general. Therefore, the analysis of the six students’ linguistic development, and subsequent interpretation, is part of a broader picture in which the writing style of LLC academic essays is understood by the author, based on having taught within the program for several years and currently serving as program director, in addition to having interviewed the previous director for the present research, in order to help understand what constitutes ‘good’ academic writing within the program. Although some of the participants were taught by the author, this did not involve teaching them within any of the six course units mentioned on the previous two pages; nor were their dissertations supervised by the author. 5. Results of students’ nominalization use and frequencies This section presents the results of students’ nominalization usage, providing tables to show the frequency counts throughout all three years, in addition to offering examples of students’ nominalization use. Nominalizations are marked in bold within the text samples, with the following numbering system used to identify the various categories and functions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Derived nominalization Gerund Retrospective labels Textual nominalization Non-metalinguistic nominalization Attitudinal nominalization

While the category of attitudinal nominalizations appears in the key, they are not included in the students’ graphs. The justification for this decision, as has already been given, is that attitudinal nominalizations are considered worthy of a separate count, in addition to the fact that, as they appear with an overall low frequency throughout all three years of the students’ analyzed essays, it was felt to be a wise choice to place this category of nominalization in its own table (Table 5).

Table 5 Nominalization frequency counts for Janet (frequency count per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

17.6 26.3 22.2

10.7 17.5 15.6

6.9 8.8 6.6

0 0.2 0.1

3.6 4.9 8.5

13.2 20.6 13.1

1026

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

The writing sample below derives from the Aspects of Language essay, in which Janet discusses her bilingual status in German and English. As can be seen, there are no nominalizations used (i.e. at least not those which are included in the analysis). A great many essays within the first year of the LLC program tend to focus on personal aspects of one’s life, such as literacy practices or language use. Moreover, there is a tendency for students to incorporate a great deal of personal reflection within their essays throughout the course, a quality which is valued within the LLC community. Based on these factors, the sample below is suggested to be quite typical of LLC writing, seen with a prominent use of first person, which might suggest less reliance on nominalizations: As my parents are both from different countries, my mother from the English speaking part of Canada and my father from Germany, I grew up bilingually. My family moved to Germany shortly after my birth and as my mother could not speak any German, English was the only language spoken at home. When I started going to kindergarten at the age of three, I learned to talk German. I quickly picked up the language and by the time I went to primary school I spoke German at home and in my social life. However, as my mother carried on speaking to me in English and would often insist that I answered back in English instead of German, I was fairly confident in understanding the language, but not as confident in speaking it. When visiting my mother’s family I sometimes had to rely on her to translate for me. I also had a strong German accent in my English. However, by year two, more research-based papers are produced. Though this does not proscribe personal voice, it can lead to more inclusion of textual nominalizations, based on increased reference to theorists. A sample from Janet’s Acquisition of Literacy essay is provided: Kress (1994) hypothesised that children’s written work at different stages points to an understanding {2, 4} which is very distinctive, independent and valid on its own. Through their writing {2, 4} one can see something of their social class. As will be discussed below I think that this is true of Sarah’s work. From her writing style and content it is obvious that she is very familiar with children’s stories and one can assume that she comes from an educated background as reading {2, 5} and writing {2, 5} seem to play a big part in her family’s life. There is less self-mention and more reliance on textual nominalizations, which the first two bolded words are based on the fact that they are used in conjunction with the research of Kress. The latter two nominalizations are used in an everyday sense, or to put it another way, are deemed by the author as being attributable to Janet, not a researcher. However, a final sample below derives from the second-year Communication and the World of Work essay, in which the more personal side of LLC essay writing can still be seen, in addition to several non-metalinguistic nominalizations: As I get very nervous when giving presentations {1, 5} I tried some of these techniques for my presentation {1, 5} so that I would not show my nervousness {1, 5} as much. I tried breathing calmly, keeping my hands still by holding my cue cards and making eye contact with the audience. As I still felt nervous throughout the presentation {1, 5} I was sure that this had been conveyed to the audience but after reading the feedback sheet I was surprised to find that most people thought of the presentation {1, 5} as being very professional with good voice intonation {1, 5} and involvement {1, 5} of audience and no mentioning {2, 5} of nervousness {1, 5}. Therefore, personal voice is contended to be a common feature within LLC writing, both in a general sense (e.g. reflection on personal experience) and a linguistic sense (i.e. using first person). It is ultimately suggested that the typical LLC essay is one of personal exposition, in which personal voice, along with the need for textual engagement in order to explain various topics, is called for. This has implications for nominalization use, which of course can result in impersonal writing (Table 6).

Table 6 Nominalization frequency counts for Gladys (frequency per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

22.1 19.5 41

17.7 15.8 37.6

4.4 3.7 3.4

0.3 0.5 0

1.3 3.7 16.6

20 14.3 23.7

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1027

Through Gladys’ use of a retrospective label – this prohibition – the sample below demonstrates that the directives for essay assignments are regarded as excessive; the nominalization prohibition arguably carries a lot of emotional weight and implies a certain disagreement with the directives on the part of Gladys. In addition, the nominalization functions to provide cohesion, in that the sentence prior to it has been encapsulated, thus prohibition is the theme of sentence three. Whilst thinking about the literacy practices associated with a university lecture, two more interesting points occurred to me. Firstly, when a hand-out is given providing information {1, 5} on guidelines for assignments {1, 5} or similar, often a sentence beginning ‘‘Do not. . .’’ can be found. This prohibition {1, 3, 6} implies that the activity {1, 5} mentioned is a probable one. Acquisition of Literacy essay, year one Regarding the frequency of nominalizations, Gladys’ writing, unlike that of Janet, drops in the second year by 2.6. However, this is not necessarily unexpected based on the suggested nature of LLC writing, with the continuation, to some extent at least, of a generally personal tone in year two, even within the context of research-based essays, which might not warrant a prominent usage of nominalizations. However, Gladys’ increased use of nominalizations in year three (a total of 21.5) is suggestive of the more formal nature of the dissertation, the previous directives2 for which are provided below: ‘‘Your dissertation should be written in the third person, in the passive voice, and the past tense. You should not use personal pronouns (I, you, me, etc.). The exception to this is if you are performing, for example, an ethnographic study and wish to include your interpretations of your environment or experiences.’’ Faculty of Education, University of Manchester Handbook (2001–4:14) The corresponding rise of textual nominalizations in Gladys’ writing within year three (a rise of 12.9 between years two and three), also supports the suggestion that a large research paper would undoubtedly rely more on reference to the words of other authors and theorists. The guidelines for writing the dissertation at the time the six students were enrolled also make it clear that a shift in tone is expected, via less use of first person, if any, and more use of passives. This directive is suggested to influence the use of nominalizations in the students’ final-year dissertations and is again put forth as a possibility for the rise in nominalizations overall, in particular the textual variety, for several of the students (as will be discussed in turn) (Table 7).

2

The current dissertation directives allow for use of first person, offering students the freedom to decide for themselves how much, if at all, they feel it necessary to use this linguistic feature.

1028

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Table 7 Nominalization frequency counts for Collette (frequency per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

23.3 22.9 37.7

17.5 19.5 34.7

5.8 3.4 3

0.4 0.1 0.4

1.6 3.9 19.3

20.6 18.1 17.8

The text sample below is taken from the World of Work essay in year two: In terms of text I feel a greater balance would need to be struck between the topics of research and those aspects of the University that would be directly relevant to students. The devotion {1, 3, 6} of one paragraph to the city of Manchester seems bizarre as it has so much to give culturally and socially. Students wanting to discover such information {1, 5} would be disappointed with what is relayed and may even assume that Manchester is limited culturally, which is incorrect. To many, the word ‘devotion’ may mean something to the effect of ‘a strong feeling of love toward someone’, demonstrated by attention given to an individual. On the other hand, devotion also means ‘the act of spending a lot of time and energy on a project to make it successful’. This definition may seem more ‘general’, and less revealing of stance, in that the object is inanimate, rather than human. However, the nominalization devotion is regarded as a revelation of stance for the following reasons. The paragraph which precedes the writing sample above involves a lengthy discussion on the positive and negative attributes of a leaflet advertising The University of Manchester to prospective students. Here Collette gives her opinion, in terms of design and content. Therefore, seen in this broader contextual light, Collette is revealing her attitude as she is criticizing the designers of the leaflet in that they spend, in her opinion, too much time discussing a matter that is less important to herself (i.e. the research at the University) and less time on a subject that Collette personally feels is more important to all students; the city of Manchester. In conjunction with the word ‘bizarre’, it is all the more apparent that Collette is somewhat critical of the leaflet’s design and a reasonable paraphrase of the second sentence might be ‘it is bizarre that the designers give so little emphasis to something so important’; clearly, Collette’s attitude is revealed. Collette in many ways fulfils the suggestions made thus far with regard to nominalization movement, in particular between years two and three: there is a decrease from year one to year two of nominalization frequencies (a total of 0.4) and a more significant rise in frequency between years two and three of 14.8 (and with one exception, a higher frequency of non-metalinguistic to textual nominalizations). In addition, the frequency increase of textual nominalizations between years two and three of 15.4 offers more support to the suggestion that this is a reflection of the LLC writing conventions: a more informal tone in years one and two and more formal writing for the final year dissertation with increased references to the works of other researchers.

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1029

The higher frequency of textual nominalizations in Collette’s work in year three is higher than that seen in the year three work of Janet (a rise of 3.6) and Gladys (12.9). This might be a result of the individual direction that her dissertation takes. Collette’s dissertation focuses on the representation of deaf people in the media and unlike the dissertations of the majority of the students within this study, it does not involve participants, which, when used as part of a study, could result in a higher frequency of non-metalinguistic nominalizations based on a focus on people in society as part of one’s study, as opposed to a greater reliance on the research of other authors. In addition, Janet’s dissertation involves a case study on bilingualism, which arguably led to more focus on the individual (i.e. a bilingual German boy) and resulted in more use of non-metalinguistic nominalizations, hence a smaller increase between years two and three of textual nominalizations for Janet (Table 8). Table 8 Nominalization frequency counts for Wendy (frequency per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

18.8 16.5 33

14.8 13 24

4 3.5 9

0.1 0 0.2

2.6 4.2 7.8

16.2 12.2 25

The text sample below demonstrates the classification for textual and non-metalinguistic nominalizations. Information is non-metalinguistic as it is used by Wendy in a general sense; arguments, however, is classed as textual on the grounds that it is referring to arguments in an academic sense—ongoing debates and theories regarding a particular subject, as opposed to using the word in a general manner, such as me and my friend had an argument over the phone. Although it seems more reliable to obtain information {1, 5} covertly, there are ethical issues attached. Gilbert (2000) states that some believe covert methods to be a ‘‘violation of the principle of informed consent’’ with the subjects being ‘‘kept in ignorance’’ resulting in a complete ‘‘invasion of privacy’’. One of the commonest arguments {1, 4} is that researchers are pretending to be people that they are not. Ethnographic Research, year 2 The next writing sample again shows the basis for classification within this paper. The term interdisciplinarity is classified as textual in that it clearly refers to a concept which is arguably common in education nowadays, or a term that is at least discussed more within academic contexts. The nominalization education, as part of higher education, is classified as non-metalinguistic, as it is discussing higher education in a general sense which most people would understand. Earlier in her dissertation, however, Wendy had used the expression with capital letters, Higher Education, and as discussed on page twelve, education is regarded as textual in this context, in that the capital letters suggest an official entity, a use more common in academic texts perhaps, therefore suggesting the academic, hence textual, world. The following literature review begins by discussing interdisciplinarity {1, 4} in quite general terms, offering possible definitions {1, 5} of what interdisciplinarity {1, 4} means, its course of development {1, 5} and what

1030

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

role it can play to improve student learning {2, 5} in higher education {1, 5}. Advantages, disadvantages, challenges and opinions of those within higher education {1, 5} are brought to light, along with examples of previous interdisciplinary programmes. The literature review then seeks to focus upon the role of communication {1, 5} within interdisciplinary learning {2, 4}, highlighting communication barriers, the effects of language and the importance of communication {1, 5} within the field. Dissertation, year 3 The frequency movements of Wendy’s nominalizations are similar to those within Collette’s writing: a significant frequency increase of nominalizations overall between years two and three (16.5 for Wendy) and a higher frequency of textual nominalizations within the dissertation compared with years one and two. The frequency decrease of 2.3 for Wendy’s nominalization use between years two and one, though minimal, completes the suggested writing patterns of the LLC community: a shift from more personal writing in the first two years to more impersonal writing based on the dissertation guidelines (Table 9). Table 9 Nominalization frequency counts for Dorothy (frequency per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

40.1 42.6 39.4

29.1 29.5 31.1

11 13.1 8.3

0.1 0.1 0.1

9.7 14.9 8.1

30.2 27.6 30.7

Below is a sample of writing which discusses the Korean cultural mindset, based on e-mail communication with a Korean university student. As the first two nominalizations are in broad reference to a scholar – Confucius – they are classified as textual. The nominalization dignity, however, is classed as non-metalinguistic, partly due to the fact it appears within a sentence which begins with the expression in other words; this expression strongly suggests a personal paraphrase of Confucian teachings on the part of Dorothy One of the key principles on Confucian teaching {2, 4} focuses heavily on the family as the prototype of all social organizations {1, 4}. In other words a person is not an individual primarily but a member of a family, maintaining harmony through dignity {1, 5}, self-respect and prestige - very typical of the collectivist family. Communication and Culture, year one The following two samples show again how the nominalization education, when discussed in reference to adult education, is textual, as adult education, while a commonly understood term nowadays (and indeed, many adults are involved with this), is nonetheless being used in connection with a theorist. Therefore, the nominalizations are based on the work of Jarvis, not Dorothy per se.

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1031

Jarvis (1995) points out that in the late 70s the term ‘adult education’ {1, 4} carried connotations {1, 4} of a stereotypical liberal education {1, 4} belonging to the middle class as a leisure time pursuit. Ethnographic research, year two Knowles (1990) suggested it would be more desirable to employ the term ‘education {1, 4} of adults’ to encompass the liberal, general or vocational purposes behind those learning processes undertaken by people having achieved the status of adult. Ethnographic research, year two Dorothy has the highest frequency of nominalizations which is attributed to the fact that as an IT trainer, she has had more exposure to writing in her career and to an extent a higher quality of written and oral communication has been expected of her, partly due to the fact that she communicates with many students whose native language is not English (e.g. Urdu and Gujarati speakers). This demonstrates how the results of students’ nominalization usage which deviates from suggested patterns of linguistic usage within the LLC community points to the inevitable fact that when analyzing the writing of a specific community, individual writing patterns and results will emerge, based on individual backgrounds—in this case, Dorothy’s background as a career woman, whose position has arguably helped her to develop a more formal tone of prose. It is also interesting that along with the highest frequency of nominalizations, Dorothy’s writing within all three years also revealed a comparative lack of first person (Table 10). Table 10 Nominalization frequency counts for Sarah (frequency per 1000 words).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Nominalizations

Derived

Gerunds

Retro. labels

Text. noms

Non-meta. noms

23.5 24.9 24.2

18.1 20 17.7

5.4 4.9 6.5

0.1 0 0.4

4.3 4.5 5.7

19.1 20 18.4

The two samples below illustrate both the personal and the theoretical seen within the students’ essays. The first sample demonstrates a great deal of personal reflection, whereas the second sample of writing shows how students are still expected to relate their discussion and findings to the previous work of theorists, common to the writing of any academic discipline of course. When I began to write the first email message to my Korean partner I was very worried about what the best way would be to establish the communication {1, 5}. I had no idea how much English the Korean could understand, so I decided to avoid any slang terms and try to make the English I write as clear as possible. This was quite difficult, as I did not want to oversimplify my English and cause offence to my partner if he could write English perfectly well. Communication and Culture, year one

1032

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Herring (1996) identifies the proposition {1, 4} that non-verbal behaviour is regarded as carrying much more weight than verbal behaviour. A major problem within virtual interaction {1, 5} through email is that because you are not able to see the person with whom you are communicating, simple indicators such as facial expressions, tone of voice, and mannerisms cannot be detected. Communication and Culture, year one Sarah’s minimal frequency increase of textual nominalizations between years two and three, while still exhibiting a prominent use of non-metalinguistic nominalizations, is suggested to be based on her dissertation’s focus. As it involves a case study focusing on the role and duties of several bilingual classroom assistants, there is subsequently a great deal of explanation in the analysis and discussion section based on the administered questionnaires; this results in fewer nominalizations and as the discussion refers mostly to events outside the text, the nominalizations that are used are predominantly non-metalinguistic, seen, for example, in the sentence Joan identifies the restriction of the bilingual assistant in the school. . .. In this sentence, an assistant is clearly identifying a general issue, at least in her mind, with regard to the challenges of being a bilingual assistant in the classroom. A final sample of Sarah’s writing is provided, reflecting this less nominalized style within the discussion section of her dissertation: The respondent who answered ‘sometimes’ to this question stated that they only felt valued for the work done with newly arrived pupils and for translating any materials. The respondent who stated that they did not feel valued for their expertise within the school claimed that ‘‘teachers are frightened of your knowledge, they are happy only if they are in full control’’. Therefore, the previous discussion with regard to how one’s individual background can affect the use and frequency of nominalizations, might also be applied, albeit broadly, to the topic of the dissertation. As was mentioned previously, a case study focus might result in fewer textual nominalizations, and more reliance on non-metalinguistic nominalizations instead, which is suggested to be the case with Sarah. 5.1. Frequencies of nominalized stance Regarding the use of nominalizations to reveal stance, Table 11 below reveals the mean frequencies within the students’ written work, to conclude with a brief discussion. It is suggested that a possible reason for the overall low frequency of nominalized stance is due to the fact that, given the more personal nature of LLC writing, students choose to reveal stance in a more direct manner. This in fact has been seen with a high frequency of first person in conjunction with a cognitive verb and a thatcomplement or zero complement, such as I believe it is necessary to investigate into what the term ‘language change’ actually means (taken from Gladys’ Aspects of Language essay). As the original study also analyzed the students’ use of that-complements and zero complements, it was discovered that these linguistic features were quite commonly used by the students. The overall mean frequencies for that-complements in particular are as follows: 8.3 (year one), 10.2 (year two) and 9.4 (year three). While this linguistic feature was also used of course to simply elaborate on propositional material contained in the discourse, and not evaluate per se, stance revelation through the use of a that-complement was found to be quite prominent within the students’ writing. Therefore, a more direct linguistic means used to reveal stance is suggested to be a reason for fewer nominalizations being used for this purpose. Table 11 Frequency of attitudinal nominalizations out of total nominalization usage (frequency per 1000 words).

Janet Gladys Collette Wendy Dorothy Sarah

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

0.8 0.8 1.1 0 0.2 0.1

0.8 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4

0.6 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.1

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1033

Table 12 Annual mean frequencies of nominalizations (frequency per 1000 words). Year

Mean

1 2 3

24.2 25.5 32.9

6. Discussion of results This section now presents a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the students’ nominalization frequencies (Table 12). The frequency increase of nominalizations between years one and two is minimal—just 1.3. Though the students’ second year essays involve more research-based projects than those in year one, there is still allowance made for personal interpretations within the research, such as in the Communication and the World of Work essay. This personal focus might explain why the frequency increase is minimal, since a more personal tone might lead to less use of nominalizations, as has been discussed. Moreover, based on the research of MacDonald (1994), the Humanities (to which the School of Education belongs) are not regarded as a community which relies on a high frequency of nominalizations, as pointed out in the Introduction; the results here seem to support her findings. The increase between years two and three of 7.4, however, might be connected to the directive to avoid using first person, which could in turn lead to a higher frequency of nominalizations (while the previous dissertation guidelines did not prohibit use of first person completely, they certainly limited its use). As Schleppegrell (1997:51) explains, ‘‘the expression of grammatical agency can be avoided by several means in English, including through passivization, use of ergative verbs, and nominalization’’, with grammatical agency referring to ‘‘the presence in the clause of the participant which carries out the action of the verb’’ (Schleppegrell, 1997). Therefore, it is suggested that the directives for the dissertation have contributed indirectly to a higher frequency of nominalizations in year three. An increase in nominalization use, however, might also be based on the reading that the students have done throughout the three years of their degree. In other words, perhaps students have subconsciously acquired the style of writing found in their textbooks which may indeed make greater use of nominalizations. Having become familiar with this style of writing, students might associate it with more prestige and have thus attempted to emulate it within their dissertation, which is worth 40% of the students’ degree classification. Though the dissertation involves several revisions based on feedback from one’s supervisor, it is argued that supervisors would not necessarily have suggested students use nominalizations as a means to avoid first person usage within their dissertations. This argument is based on two factors. First, throughout the six years of the author’s time within the LLC program, none of the lecturers’ feedback has ever commented on the use of specific linguistic features (i.e. suggesting the need to avoid certain features, such as first person, or use a feature with increased frequency, such as nominalizations). Feedback has consistently been more broad, focusing instead on the students’ analytical skills (or weaknesses); knowledge and understanding of the subject; consistency of their essays’ focus; and the formatting. Second, based on having read a variety of dissertations when the earlier directive to avoid first person was enforced, the expressions most commonly used which allowed students to offer a personal opinion without relying on first person usage were it is believed and/or the author believes. It is based on these two factors that the argument has been put forward that nominalization usage by students has not been inspired by lecturer feedback. The mean increase of 5 in the use of textual nominalizations between years two and three might also be due to the fact that the dissertation, as a detailed research paper, is expected to involve more references to other authors than perhaps the first and second year essays. The contention within this paper, then, is not that the students have failed to adhere to a strict academic template regarding appropriate nominalization use, if one even exists; what is under discussion, however, is the suggestion that the students’ writing has arguably demonstrated the specific linguistic conventions of the LLC community, one in which more personal expression allows for a somewhat more informal, personal tone, to include use of the first person. This statement is further strengthened by the words of the former program director, who sought to have ‘‘a bit of both’’ (i.e. personal vs. impersonal) within the students’ writing and thus strike a balance between ‘‘the head and the heart’’, as she put it (i.e. a balance between writing that resembles a personal journal and that which is void of any human presence).

1034

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Tellingly, she also said that the LLC program does not encourage students to ‘‘ape the conventions’’ of formal academic writing as seen in professional journals. Charles’ (2003) research is also relevant with regard to helping to suggest the general linguistic direction that essays written within the LLC community might take. As is the case with the materials science essays that were analyzed as part of her research, essays written within the LLC community are ‘‘primarily directed to the performance of experiments’’ (page 316) and this indicates students discovering for themselves just what the results of their experiments are (e.g. investigating perceptions toward people based on the clothing they wear), as opposed to using a higher frequency of metalinguistic nouns (here, textual) which one would expect when referring more frequently to the research and experiments of others. Within her own study, Charles further confirms that materials science essays rely less on metalinguistic nouns and nominalizations and more on the non-metalinguistic variety. Indeed, the students’ essays in the present study contain a consistently higher frequency of non-metalinguistic nominalizations than the textual variety, seen with an overall mean frequency of 60 for non-metalinguistic nominalizations, compared with an overall mean frequency of 21 for textual nominalizations. This is perhaps surprising when considering that the criteria adopted for the category of textual nominalizations within this study might allow for a higher frequency of textual nominalizations to be included. Therefore, the higher frequency of non-metalinguistic nominalizations is in keeping with any academic community which, among other things, allows for more personal experimentation and analysis, even to the extent of allowing students to choose their own dissertation subject (as almost all programs admittedly do), thus giving undergraduates a degree of autonomy. However, it is acknowledged that there is a category of nominalizations within the students’ essays which could be considered the ‘default’ category. This refers to nominalizations which appear with great frequency largely based on the subject matter of the essay itself. For example, in the Communication and Culture essay, it is unsurprising that the nominalization communication appears quite often, as the subject of the essay is cross-cultural communication. Moreover, there are a group of nominalizations which are used by ‘default’ in that the verb (or adjectival) form is arguably a more questionable choice. For example, consider the nominalizations opportunity and community, in which the nominalization opportunity is perhaps more commonly used than the adjective opportune, and the nominalization community is arguably more commonly used than the verb to commune. Nonetheless, such nominalizations meet the criteria for inclusion within the counts, based on their suffixes. Regarding retrospective labeling, there is a low frequency throughout and clearly no significant increase or decrease at all. MacDonald’s (1994) research states that the Humanities and the Social Sciences make less use of encapsulation/ compacting, and this is offered in support of the results presented here regarding retrospective labeling. Furthermore, the nature of LLC writing often tends toward the discussion of events in a step by step manner, as seen in the text sample below: After reading Enid Blyton books for example my friends and I would ‘act out’ the stories pretending for instance that we were twins at a boarding school. When I read books now, it is to broaden my horizon, for example by reading ‘Sophie’s World’ by Jostein Gaarder. . .Aspects of Literacy, year one The word choices of after and when. . .now, serve to orient the reader with regard to time, akin to first I did this, then I did this, now I do this. A paraphrase might be before I would act out the stories and nowadays I read books to broaden my horizons. The point is that cohesion is achieved without the need for a retrospective label. In addition, cohesion is also achieved within LLC writing without reliance on more direct means to perform this textual function. This can be seen in the text sample below with the italicized portions in particular: Indirectly, I learnt to recognise both the Korean language through my partner’s MSN display name and the Korean appearance through the picture that my partner sent to me of himself. The clothes worn in this picture did not look different to clothes worn in my culture. (see Appendix E). I also discovered things about Korean culture from the mailing list that was set up for my course-mates and I. Amongst other things, their partners had told them that Koreans eat dog, which caused quite a stir because that is almost unthinkable in this culture due to dogs being ‘man’s best friend’. Not unusually, I had some stereotypes and assumptions {1, 6} in mind at the beginning {2, 5} of the exchange. . . Communication and Culture, year one The clothes worn refers to appearance in the previous sentence, though clothes is not synonymous with appearance. Nonetheless, the word has a lexical connection as clothes relate to one’s appearance. In this sense, cohesion is

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

1035

established. I also discovered helps to move the text forward as the word also alerts the reader that additional information regarding the cross-cultural communication is about to be introduced. Amongst other things is a fairly common expression, perhaps more so within spoken contexts, and serves to introduce new information about a proposition (e.g. amongst other things, we saw a film in the city), while also continuing on from the rheme of the previous discourse, namely, Gladys’ discovery of a new culture. Not unusually again shows how cohesion is maintained, and how the text is simultaneously moved forward. First, not unusually serves to introduce Gladys’ admission of her stereotypes and assumptions about an unfamiliar culture, suggesting that it is basically ‘not unusual’ to foster stereotypes if unfamiliar about a culture different from one’s own. In addition, the mention of stereotypes connects with the information in the previous sentence about Koreans eating dog meat and therefore, it is ‘not unusual’ that Gladys fostered stereotypes about Koreans based on the Western concept of dogs being ‘man’s best friend’. In short, we can see how textual connections are maintained, in a manner of writing which is suggested to be quite typical for the LLC community. Finally, the use of the nominalization assumptions does not of course rely on positioning in the subject-head position to make its presence felt, functioning as a stance marker in that Gladys is revealing her attitude by virtue of admitting to having had preconceived notions about a foreign culture. Finally, in concurrence with the research of Biber et al. (1998), the gerund also appears in this study with comparatively less frequency than derived nominalizations. 7. Conclusion This study has attempted to offer information on the role that nominalizations play within an academic program, having first discussed the various rhetorical effects and functions of nominalizations within academic writing as a whole. Based on analysis of the six students’ essays throughout their degree course, and based on the author’s suggested insider status within the LLC community, it is argued that due to the relatively personal nature of LLC writing, the use of nominalizations to produce a more impersonal tone is somewhat uncommon. The exception is seen within the previous directives for the dissertation, in which avoidance of first person may be achieved in part with the use of nominalizations. Within LLC writing, textual references are of course required throughout all the essays, as is the case with academic writing within all disciplines, but as mentioned, a great deal of the essays focus on personal experience and/or personal interpretations. This does not mean that personal voice within LLC writing is more important than the support provided from textual references, but arguably, personal voice within the LLC community is perhaps simply more relevant than in other disciplines. The implication of the results, though perhaps obvious, is that discipline-specific writing conventions are an integral aspect of determining writing proficiency. While it can be argued that nominalizations are a fairly prominent feature within academic writing for a variety of reasons, we need to ask what the implication is for their function and frequency within various disciplines. While Swales (1998) contends that the hard sciences make especially prominent use of nominalizations, in particular to encapsulate previous discourse, the LLC community makes less frequent use of them, partly as a result of more first person usage instead. To conclude, based on the nature of LLC writing, it is suggested that the students have demonstrated proficiency with regard to their nominalization development: not generally relying on nominalizations to any great extent until the final year dissertation, in which the comparatively more formal tone required is assisted via a frequency increase for the most part of nominalizations. Therefore, it is contended that the students, by producing a more informal tone within essays from years one and two, before linguistically having to ‘shift gears’ for the demands of their dissertation, have indeed demonstrated proficient development with regard to nominalization usage and development within the writing of their academic community. References Baratta, Alexander, 2009. Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (7), 1406–1421. Barton, Ellen, 1993. Evidentials, argumentation and epistemological stance. College English 55 (7), 745–769. Biber, Douglas, 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, 1998. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward, 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education, Harlow. Charles, Maggie, 2003. 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 (4), 313–326.

1036

A.M. Baratta / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 1017–1036

Charles, Maggie, 2006. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25 (3), 310–331. Day, Robert, 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Journal. Oryx Press, Phoenix, Arizona. Derewianka, Beverly, 1995. Language Development in the Transition from Childhood to Adolescence: The Role of Grammatical Metaphor. PhD Thesis. Macquarie University. Francis, Gill, 1994. Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In: Coulthard, M. (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 83–101. Guillen Galve, Ignacio, 1998. The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (3), 363–385. Gilbert, Nigel, 2000. Researching Social Life. Sage, Los Angeles, CA. Halliday, Michael, 1988. On the language of physical science. In: Ghadessy, M. (Ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. Pinter, London, pp. 162–178. Halliday, Michael, 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, London. Herring, Susan, 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic. Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hoadley-Maidment, Elizabeth, 1997. From ‘story’ to argument: the acquisition of academic writing in an open-learning context. Language and Education 11 (1), 55–68. Ivanic, Roz, 1998. Writing and Identity. John Benjamins, Philadelphia. Jarvis, Peter, 1995. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: Theory and Practice. Routledge Falmer, London. Kirkman, John, Turk, Christopher, 1982. Effective Writing. E & F.N. Spon, New York. Knowles, Malcolm, 1990. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Gulf Publishing Company, London. Kress, Gunther, 1994. Learning to Write. Routledge, London. MacDonald, Susan, 1980. The literary argument and its discursive conventions. In: Nash, W. (Ed.), The Writing Scholar. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 31–62. MacDonald, Susan, 1994. Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press. Ravelli, Louise, 1996. Making language accessible: successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics & Education 8 (4), 367–388. Schleppegrell, Mary, 1997. Agency in environmental education. Linguistics and Education 9 (1), 49–67. Schleppegrell, Mary, 2001. Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education 12 (4), 431–459. Spack, Ruth, 1997. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication 14 (1), 3–62. Swales, John, 1998. Other Floors, Other Voices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Thetela, Puleng, 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2), 101–118. Thompson, Geoff, Ye, Yiyun, 1991. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics 12 (4), 365–382. Unsworth, Len, 1997. ‘‘Sound’’ explanations in school science: a functional linguistic perspective on effective apprenticing texts. Linguistics and Education 9 (2), 199–226. Ventola, Eija, 1996. Packing and unpacking of information in academic texts. In: Ventola, E., Mauranen, A. (Eds.), Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 153–194. Wei, Li, 2000. Bilingualism Reader. Routledge, London. Zinsser, William, 1980. On Writing Well. Harper, New York. Alexander M. Baratta teaches within the Language, Literacy and Communication (LLC) program within the School of Education at The University of Manchester, United Kingdom. He also serves as program director and has recently initiated an academic writing course for first year undergraduate students. His interests in academic writing are within the areas of writing development, writer stance and discipline-specific writing conventions.