This article describes an investigation in which I explored an impression that I had developed in earlier work that the grammatical subjects in scientific discourse are markedly long. An examination of a sample of scientific discourse produced evidence that makes a fairly strong case that on the average the grammatical subjects in the sample are markedly long. A stronger case can be made that many of the specific subjects in the sample are very long indeed, probably long enough to draw some attention to themselves in most any kind of discourse. I identify three pressures that I believe operate on scientists to produce very long grammatical subjects: The pressure to be precise, the pressure to be concise, and the pressure to be efficient and progressive in constructing a set of claims that will remain true within a framework of knowledge that has been built up over time. I conclude by exploring some possible connections between both the grammatical subjects in and the overall style of the sample of discourse and what Jerome Bruner calls the paradigmatic mode of thought.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, C.
(1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectro-scopic articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163-196.
2.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Blazewicz, P.R.
, & Miller, J. C. (1988). Nonlinear optical processes in xenon and krypton studied by two-color multiphoton ionization. Physical Review A, 38, 2863-2870.
4.
Bolinger, D.
(1980). Language—The loaded weapon. New York: Longman.
5.
Brown, G.
, & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bruner, J.
(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
DeLucia, E. H.
, Schlesinger, W. H., & Billings, W. D. (1988). Water relations and the maintenance of Sierran conifers on hydrothermally altered rock. Ecology, 68, 303-311.
8.
Editors. (1988). Notice to authors of papers. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110, 8A-10A.
9.
Fowler, R.
, & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 185-213). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
10.
Fries, P. H.
(1983). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In J. S. Petöfi & E. Sözer, (Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts (pp. 116-152). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
11.
Garvey, W. D.
(1979). Communication: The essence of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
12.
Givón, T.
(1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13.
Greenbaum, S.
(1989). A college grammar of English. New York: Longman.
14.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
15.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1987a). Language and the order of nature. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant, & C. McCabe (Eds.), The linguistics of writing, arguments between language and literature (pp. 135-154). New York: Methuen.
16.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1987b). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55-82). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Halliday, M.A.K.
, & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
19.
Journet, D.
(1990). Writing, rhetoric, and the social construction of scientific knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 33, 162-167.
20.
Kinneavy, J.
(1971). A theory of discourse. New York: Norton.
21.
Kintanar, A.
, Alam, T. M., Huang, W., Schindele, D. C., Wemmer, D. E., & Drobny, G. (1988). Solid-state 2H NMR investigation of internal motion in 2′-deoxythymidine. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110, 6367-6372.
22.
Lautamatti, L.
(1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In V. Kohonen & N. E. Enkvist (Eds.), Text linguistics, congnitive learning and language teaching (pp. 71-104). Turku, Finland: Finnish Association for Applied Linguistics.
23.
Lebel, M. H.
, Freij, B. J., Syrogiannopoulos, G. A., Chrane, D. F., Hoyt, M. J., Stewart, S. M., Kennard, B. D., Olsen, K. D., & McCracken, G. H. Jr. (1988). Dexamethasone therapy for bacterial meningitis. New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 964-971.
24.
MacDonald, S. P.
(1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge-making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569.
25.
Martin, J. R.
(1986). Intervening in the process of writing development. Writing to mean: Teaching genres across the curriculum. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Occasional Paper Number 9, 11-43.
26.
Nichols, J.
(1988). Nominalization and assertion in scientific Russian prose. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 399-428). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27.
Quirk, R.
, Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
28.
Swales, J.
(1983). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham: Aston University ESP Research Report.
29.
Swales, J.
(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
31.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 72-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1992). Noun phrases and the style of scientific discourse. In S. P. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing, essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 328-348). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
33.
Wells, R.
(1960). Nominal and verbal style. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213-220). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34.
Williams, J. M.
(1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
35.
Williams, J. M.
(1989). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
36.
Witte, S. P.
(1983). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers' judgments of student writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
37.
Witte, S. P.
, & Cherry, R. (1986). Writing processes and written products in composition research. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 112-153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
