25.12.2013 Views

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4. RHETORIC AND THE WORLD OF SCIENCE IN THE EModE PERIOD<br />

the importance ordinarily bestowed on human beings: we are the clausal center of our<br />

world; physical objects are at the clausal center of the world of science.”<br />

In general terms, scientific texts are usually hard to read. If they are compared to<br />

other genres, the first striking difference is the amount of technical vocabulary they<br />

include. This may seem the reason why people not mastering this specific terminology<br />

have problems when facing scientific writing. It is obvious that some of the concepts are<br />

far removed from everyday words, and they pose a problem for understanding. However,<br />

as Halliday and Martin (1993: 71; see also Biber and Gray 2011) state, in the case of<br />

science, “[t]he difficulty lies more with the grammar than with the vocabulary. (…) The<br />

problems with technical terminology usually arise not from the technical terms<br />

themselves but from the complex relationships they have with one another.”<br />

Out of the seven difficulties which characterize scientific English, as discussed by<br />

Halliday and Martin (1993: 71 and ff.), only three will be examined here, since they are<br />

closely related to nominalizations, the object of analysis of this study. They are lexical<br />

density, syntactic ambiguity and grammatical metaphor; the other difficulties mentioned<br />

by Halliday and Martin are interlocking definitions, technical taxonomies, special<br />

expressions and semantic discontinuity.<br />

Lexical density refers to the number of content words in a text. In spoken English,<br />

the density of lexical items is usually low, whereas in planned, written English, as is the<br />

case of scientific English, this density increases (cf. Albentosa-Hernández and Moya-<br />

Guijarro 2001: 446; see also Ventola 1996: 153). As Biber and Gray (2011: 55-56) argue,<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!