2018
DOI: 10.2478/rela-2018-0018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nominalization in Applied Linguistics and Medicine: The Case of Textbook Introductions and Book Reviews

Abstract: Abstract Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study explored variational use of nominalization in 600 textbook introductions and 200 book reviews in applied linguistics and medicine. The nominalized expressions were identified in the texts, the frequencies of the nominalization types were counted, and eventually a chi-square test was administered. Analysis of nominalization patterns across the different informational/promotional moves revealed divergent patterns in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides, a large number of comparative researches keep appearing on the use of nominalizations to expose disciplinary differences and variations in academic discourses, for example, Jalilifar et al (2014Jalilifar et al ( , 2017, Gonzalez and Valeska (2019), Marr and Mahmood (2021), Ahmad (2012), He and Yang (2018), etc. There is a demonstration that nominalizations in academic discourses are not sensitive across disciplines, and some of the above studies indeed verified that there is no significant variation across disciplines on nominalization in scientific language (Jalilifar et al 2014, He and Yang 2018, and other studies revealed nominalization was designed with the universality and technicality without mentioning any disciplinary differences nominalization used (Ahmad 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, a large number of comparative researches keep appearing on the use of nominalizations to expose disciplinary differences and variations in academic discourses, for example, Jalilifar et al (2014Jalilifar et al ( , 2017, Gonzalez and Valeska (2019), Marr and Mahmood (2021), Ahmad (2012), He and Yang (2018), etc. There is a demonstration that nominalizations in academic discourses are not sensitive across disciplines, and some of the above studies indeed verified that there is no significant variation across disciplines on nominalization in scientific language (Jalilifar et al 2014, He and Yang 2018, and other studies revealed nominalization was designed with the universality and technicality without mentioning any disciplinary differences nominalization used (Ahmad 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, a large number of comparative researches keep appearing on the use of nominalizations to expose disciplinary differences and variations in academic discourses, for example, Jalilifar et al (2014Jalilifar et al ( , 2017, Gonzalez and Valeska (2019), Marr and Mahmood (2021), Ahmad (2012), He and Yang (2018), etc. There is a demonstration that nominalizations in academic discourses are not sensitive across disciplines, and some of the above studies indeed verified that there is no significant variation across disciplines on nominalization in scientific language (Jalilifar et al 2014, He and Yang 2018, and other studies revealed nominalization was designed with the universality and technicality without mentioning any disciplinary differences nominalization used (Ahmad 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 2. Nominalizations “condense information by expressing concepts in an incongruent form which is very valued in scientific registers” (Jalilifar et al, 2014), p. 36. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%