Email this article EXPLORING LEXICAL COMPLEXITY IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY ACROSS DISCIPLINES
Abstract
This study examines the lexical complexity of scientific writing. It specifically focuses on the degree of lexical density and lexical diversity in the results and discussion sections of research articles. Using a qualitative approach with quantification to back it up, this study scrutinized 60 results and discussion sections of research articles written by Tunisian linguistics and engineering scholars. The analysis was conducted using the lexical complexity analyzer developed by Lu (2010). Moreover, descriptive analysis and the independent T-test were conducted to ascertain the statistical distinctions between the discussion and results sections of linguistics and engineering disciplines. The findings suggest that engineering scholars wrote in a more concise and information-dense style, with a greater lexical density, while linguistics scholars used a broader range of linguistic forms, resulting in more diverse and richer expressions. The differences in writing style can be attributed to the nature of the disciplines and the types of research conducted within each field. The results obtained from this study may offer valuable implications for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing instructions.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2010, June). A web-based System for automatic measurement of lexical complexity. 27th Annual Symposium of the Computer-Assisted Language Consortium (CALICO-10), Amherst (pp. 8-12). http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16499.07208
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham and Philadelphia: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Up.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00044-4
Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100996
Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A tool kit for higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
Cunningham, K. J. (2017). A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.005
Dewi, R. (2017). Lexical and syntactic complexities in undergraduate students’ research articles and their correlations to their quality. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 5(3), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.17977/um030v5i32017p12
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2018). Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 646–674. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005
Gholami, J., Mosalli, Z., & Bidel Nikou, S. (2012). Lexical complexity and discourse markers in soft and hard science articles. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(3), 368–374.
Gilmore, A., & Millar, N. (2018). The language of civil engineering research articles: A corpus-based approach. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.002
Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 1–16.
Gray, B. (2015). On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary variation and structural complexity. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber (pp. 49–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meanings. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55–82). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). London, UK: Falmer.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Halliday, M. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, UK: Longman.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00058.x
Jalilifar, A., White, P., & Malekizadeh, N. (2017). Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2017/2/272781
Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers, 53, 61–79.
Khany, R., & Kafshgar, N. B. (2016). Analyzing texts through their linguistic properties: A cross-disciplinary study. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 23(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2016.1169848
Kyle, K. (2020). Measuring lexical richness. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 454–458). New York, NY: Routledge.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12560396
Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002
Lu, C., Bu, Y., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Torvik, V., Schnaars, M., & Zhang, C. (2018). Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24126
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02l
Nizigama, E., & Mahdavirad, F. (2021). Hedging and boosting in the introduction and discussion sections of english research articles: A cross-cultural study of papers written by native and non-native academics. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 108–123. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.24763187.2021.10.1.7.1
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7
Pérez-Guerra, J., & A. Smirnova, E. (2023). How complex is professional academic writing? A corpus-based analysis of research articles in “hard” and “soft” disciplines. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 0(20), 149–183. https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i20.4357
Rasmeenin, C. (2006). A structural move analysis of MA thesis discussion sections in applied linguistics (Doctoral dissertation). Mahidol University.
Shahrokhi, M., Sadeghi, S., & Dehnoo, M. A. (2013). lexical cohesion patterns in research articles: Hard science vs. soft science disciplines. International Journal of Social Science & Education, 4(1), 196–204.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the text-linguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00022-3
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the second international congress of applied linguistics (pp. 443–452). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wignell, P. (1998). Technicality and abstraction in social science. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 297–326). London, UK: Routledge.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v27i1.6790
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Mouna Ayadi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Indexed and abstracted in:
LLT Journal Sinta 2 Certificate (S2 = Level 2)
We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 2 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree No. Surat Keputusan 158/E/KPT/2021. Validity for 5 years: Vol 23 No 1, 2020 till Vol 27 No 2, 2024
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt, e-ISSN 2579-9533 and p-ISSN 1410-7201, is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.