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
Published online: 6 April 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.20011.ban
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.20011.ban
Abstract
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.
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
References (50)
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific
discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London,
1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banks, David. 1994. Writ
in water: Aspects of the scientific journal
article. Brest: ERLA, Université de Bretagne Occidentale.
. 2008a. The
development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical
context. London: Equinox.
. 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.
. 2017. The
birth of the academic article: Le Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions
1665–1700: Sheffield: Equinox.
. 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.
. 2021. Turbulent
periods and the development of the scientific research article 1735–1835. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics 22 (1). Available online 27.08.2021.
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.
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.
Ding, Daniel D. 2002. The passive voice and social
values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication 32 (2). 137–154.
Dušková, Libuša. 1971. On
some functional and stylistic aspects of the passive voice in present-day English. Philologica
Pragensia 141. 117–143.
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.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The
social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Halliday, Michael A. K. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s
introduction to functional grammar (4th
edition). Abingdon: Routledge.
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.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing
science: Literacy and discursive
power. London: Falmer.
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1971. The sentence in written English: A
syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific
texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Hundt, Marianne, Melanie Röthlisberger & Elena Seoane. 2021. Predicting
voice alternation across academic Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 17 (1). 189–222.
Hyland, Ken. 2001. Humble
servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific
Purposes 20 (3). 207–226.
. 2002. Options
of identity in academic writing? ELT
Journal 56 (4). 351–358. [URL].
. 2010. Constructing
proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for
Academic
Purposes 91. 116–127.
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2016. Change
of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written
Communication 33 (3). 251–274.
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2017. Is
academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific
Purposes 451. 40–51.
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2018. “In
this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific
Purposes 511. 18–30.
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.
Moskowich, Isabel & Begoña Crespo (eds.). 2012. Astronomy
‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and
1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seoane, Elena & Lucia Loureiro-Porto. 2005. On
the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESP Across
Cultures 21. 106–116.
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.
Taavitsainen, Irma & Päivi Pahta (eds.). 2011. Medical
writing in early modern English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
