A Corpus-Based Approach To The Use Of Grammatical Metaphor In Academic Writing: Distinguishing The Abstract Complexity Written In Linguistic And Science
Abstract
The objective of this research was to find out the types of grammatical metaphor in experiential function that are mostly used in both of the articles and to describe the distinguish of abstract written in linguistic and science article. The descriptive qualitative method was applied in this study of grammatical metaphor specifically in experiential function in the abstract written in linguistic and science. The findings were shown that the material processes in those types were most frequently applying on the linguistic and science abstract. It was showed that there were 12 categories (7 material process in linguistic article or 77.8% and 5 material process in science article or 62.5%) out of 35 categories of the sentences from both abstract selected. The use of from material process was dominating the abstract of linguistic and science, and it had been as the characteristics of the abstract in the experiential function specially in material process. The results of this research could be extra information in studying grammatical metaphor that focused on ideational metaphor that is experiential function and logical function, interpersonal metaphor, and textual metaphor.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Banks, D. (2003). The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. In
Barlow, M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 1-38
Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (1999). Introduction: integrating approaches to the study of writing. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 1e18). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Christie, F. & B. M. Derewianka. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. 1st edn. London: Continuum.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79.
Dash, N. (2008). Corpus linguistics: An Introduction. Dorling Kindersley: New Delhi, India.
Devrim, D. Y. (2015). Teaching grammatical metaphor: Designing pedagogical interventions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Discourse & Society 19(6).801–810.doi:10.1177/0957926508095895
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context.
John M. Norris, (2009). Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity.
Liardet, C. L. (2016). Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory.Journal of English fo Specifice Purposes .https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.04.004.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday, & J. R. Martin (Eds.). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221e267). London: The Falmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (2008). Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying nominalization‟.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518.
Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Kortmann, & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic complexity. Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining, and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1995). Exploring literacy in school English (Write it right resources for literacy and learning). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Simon Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers & L. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics, 127–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Thomson, E. & L. Droga. (2012). Effective academic writing. Putney: Phoenix
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55311/aioes.v5i2.307
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Darryl Katriana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
AlAdzkiya International of Education and Social (AIoES) Journal
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
Main Campus
Jl. Mukhtar Basri No 3 Medan Timur, Medan -Sumatera Utara
E-mail: aioesjournal@gmail.com, Website: Asrar Aspia