Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Context and Text
Vol. 4:1 (2022) ► pp.61–83

Some linguistic features of the physical sciences research article before, during and after the First World War

 | Université de Bretagne Occidentale
Previous studies suggest that in times of great turbulence scientific writing becomes more conservative. In order to see whether this is true of the period of the First World War, a sample of research articles in the field of the physical sciences for the years 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930 was studied. Features relating to process types, passives, first person pronouns, themes and nominalisation were considered. This showed that while there was little evidence for the initial conjecture, it was frequently the case that the direction of change altered during the period 1910 to 1920. This change was often maintained in the following decade. Thus, there are significant changes occurring in the period 1910 to 1920 which warrant further study.
Keywords: first person pronoun, First World War, mathematical process, nominalisation, passive voice, Proceedings of the Royal Society, process type, scientific research article, systemic functional linguistics, theme
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Process types
  • 3.Passive voice
  • 4.First person pronoun subjects
  • 5.Themes
  • 6.Nominalised processes
  • 7.Discussion and final thoughts
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.20011.ban
References (50)
References
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Banks, David. 1994. Writ in water: Aspects of the scientific journal article. Brest: ERLA, Université de Bretagne Occidentale.Google Scholar
. 2008a. The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2008b. The significance of thematic structure in the scientific journal article, 1700–1980. In Nina Nørgard (ed.), Systemic functional linguistics in use. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communications, 29. [URL]
. 2016. On the (non)necessity of the hybrid category behavioural process. In Donna R. Miller & Paul Bayley (eds.), Hybridity in systemic functional linguistics: Grammar, text and discursive context, 21–40. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2017. The birth of the academic article: Le Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions 1665–1700: Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2018. The effects of revolution and war on academic discourse, 1785–1835, Textes & Contextes, 13 (2). [URL]
. 2019a. SFL and diachronic studies. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 410–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019b. A systemic functional grammar of English: A simple introduction. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Turbulent periods and the development of the scientific research article 1735–1835. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 22 (1). Available online 27.08.2021. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barber, Charles L. 1962. Some measureable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In Frank Behre (ed.), Contributions to English syntax and philology, 21–43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Cooray, Mahiinda. 1967. The English passive voice. English Language Teaching 21 (3). 203–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stephania & Elke Teich. 2018. Using relative entropy for detection and analysis of periods of diachronic linguistic change. In Alex Beatrice, Setphania Degaetano-Ortlie, Anna Feldman, Anna Kazantseva, Nils Reiter & Stan Szpakowicz (eds.), Proceedings of workshop on computational linguistics for cultural heritage: Social sciences, humanities and literature, 22–33. Santa Fe: New Mexico.Google Scholar
Ding, Daniel D. 2002. The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32 (2). 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dušková, Libuša. 1971. On some functional and stylistic aspects of the passive voice in present-day English. Philologica Pragensia 141. 117–143.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 1994. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon & Michael Reidy. 2002. Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1987. Language and the order of nature. In Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant & Colin MacCabe (eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature, 135–154. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Reprinted in Michael A. K. Halliday, On language and linguistics, volume 3 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 116–138. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum, 2003.Google Scholar
1988. On the language of physical science. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features, 162–178. London: Pinter. Reprinted in Michael A. K. Halliday & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science. Literacy and discursive power, 54–68. London: Falmer Press, and in Michael A. K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science, 140–158. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1998. Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In James R. Martin & Robert Veel (eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 185–235. London: Routledge. Reprinted in Michael A. K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science, 49–101. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Michael A. K. Halliday. 2004a. The language of science, 159–180. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2004b [1997]. On the grammar of scientific English. In Michael A. K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science, 181–198. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2004c [1999]. The grammatical construction of scientific knowledge: The framing of the English clause. In Michael A. K. Halliday. 2004. The language of science, 102–134. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hassan. 1989. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1971. The sentence in written English: A syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Gerold Schneider & Elena Seoane. 2016. The use of the be-passive in academic Englishes: Local versus global usage in an international language. Corpora 11 (1). 29–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Melanie Röthlisberger & Elena Seoane. 2021. Predicting voice alternation across academic Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17 (1). 189–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20 (3). 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Options of identity in academic writing? ELT Journal 56 (4). 351–358. [URL]. DOI logo
. 2010. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 91. 116–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33 (3). 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2017. Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes 451. 40–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2018. “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes 511. 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kermes, Hannah, Stefania Degaetano-Ortieb, Ashraf Khamis, Jörg Knappen & Elke Teich. 2016. The Royal Society Corpus: From uncharted data to corpus. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Marko Grobelnik, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Helene Mazo, Asuneion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation. Portorož, Slovenia, 1928–1931.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel & Begoña Crespo (eds.). 2012. Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubino, Raphael, Stephania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Elke Teich & Josef van Genabith. 2016. Modelling diachronic change in scientific writing with information density. In Yuji Matsumoto & Rachmi Prasad (eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2016, 750–761. Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1999. From “Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken…” to “Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on…”: A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810–1995). Iberica. Revista de la Asociasión Europea de Lenguas para Fines Especificos 11. 5–28.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise & Nahirana Zambrano. 2001. The bitter sweet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1). 141–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastovsky, Nikelaus Ritt & Herbert Schendl (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000, 191–209. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena & Marianne Hundt. 2018. Voice alternation and authorial presence: Variation across disciplinary areas in academic English. Journal of English Linguistics 46 (1). 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena & Lucia Loureiro-Porto. 2005. On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESP Across Cultures 21. 106–116.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena & Christopher Williams. 2006. Changing the rules: A comparison of recent trends in English in academic scientific discourse and prescriptive legal discourse. In Marina Dossena & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on domain-specific English, 255–276. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Päivi Pahta (eds.). 2011. Medical writing in early modern English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke, Stenfania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Peter Fankhauser, Hannah Kermes & Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski. 2016. The linguistic construal of disciplinarity: A data-mining approach using register features. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (7). 1668–1678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2004. Introducing functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Valle, Ellen. 1999. A collective intelligence: The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community, 1665–1965. Turku: Anglicana Turuensia.Google Scholar