Abstract

The present study explored nominalization use in a sample of research articles (RAs) of various types in physics and applied linguistics. To this end, 134 RAs from the related journals of these disciplines were carefully selected and studied to identify occurrences ofnominalization. Results indicated that the authors in applied linguistics significantly used more nominalization than their counterparts in physics. Moreover, the analysis brought out the findings that the deployment of nominalization Type Two (i.e., processes) is significantly different from the other three types of nominalization in each discipline. Further analysis showed no significant difference among various types of RAs regarding nominalization use in physics contrary to applied linguistics. In applied linguistics, one striking result emerging from the study was the frequent use of nominalization in experimental RAs. In addition, the study suggested 15 patterns of nominalization in the empirical RAs of the two disciplines. Of these, the RAs demonstrated distinct trends in using four patterns. This study has important implications in reference to academic writing teachers and course designers.

摘要

本研究探讨了在物理和应用语言学中各种类型的研究文章（RA）样本中的名词化使用。为此，我们从这些学科的相关期刊中精心挑选了134个RA，并对其进行了研究，以查明这些疾病的发生情况。名词化。结果表明，应用语言学的作者使用的名词化程度明显高于物理学中的同行。此外，分析得出的结论是，在每个学科中，第二种类型的名词化（即过程）的部署与其他三种类型的名词化有很大不同。进一步的分析表明，与应用语言学相反，在物理上名词化使用方面，各种类型的RA之间没有显着差异。在应用语言学中，这项研究得出的一个惊人结果是实验性RA中频繁使用名词化。此外，该研究还提出了两种学科的经验RA中的15种名词化模式。其中，RA展示了使用四种模式的独特趋势。