Nominalizations in humanities research articles in SINTA- and Scopus-indexed journals by Indonesian authors: An insight of its frequency and indexing matters

Ida Bagus Widya Udayana; Aris Munandar

doi:10.12928/notion.v7i1.10499

Authors

Ida Bagus Widya Udayana Universitas Gadjah Mada
Aris Munandar Universitas Gadjah Mada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/notion.v7i1.10499

Keywords:

Nominalization, Academic Writing, Indonesian Authors, Indexed Journal, English Humanities Articles

Abstract

Academic writing can be challenging for non-native speakers who do not have a linguistic sense of a particular language. Academic writing has a unique structure that differentiates it from other texts, i.e., it contains clauses modified to convey more compact information. This paper investigates nominalizations in English Humanities Research Articles (EHRAs) by Indonesian authors published in nationally and internationally indexed journals. Forty corpora of EHRAs become the data source of this paper. Specifically, 20 research articles were from a SINTA 2-indexed journal, and 20 were from a Scopus-indexed journal. This paper employs the Sketch Engine application to identify nominalization types these articles used when conveying ideas. A quantitative t-test was employed to determine the significance of nominalization frequency in these articles. The results show that the authors of EHRAs in SINTA-and Scopus-indexed journals used two categories of nominalizations. The t-test indicates no significant difference between the English nominalization in articles from Scopus- and SINTA-indexed journals. Despite no statistically significant difference, the density of the articles is affected by a small percentage of nominalization. This can be attributed to a specific insight into how Indonesian authors' writing structure is no different in these indexed journals. This implies that the authors have achieved the standard proficiency of two categories of nominalization.

References

Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.

Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1017–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.007

Biadi, M. E. & Zih, H. (2021). Representation of Muslims through passivization and nominalization in British news media discourse: The times online newspaper as a case study. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 41(4), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2022.2029012

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99–132). London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.006

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Congrad, S., & Finnigan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language. Pearson Education Limited. xxviii + 1204 pp. ISBN 0-582-237254

Briones, S. F. & Sastre, S. (2003). Grammatical metaphors in scientific English: A metafora gramatical no ingles cientifico. The ESPecialist, 24(2), 131–142. ISSN 0102-7077

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Upcycling. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved April 8, 2024 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Cantos G. P. (2002). Do we need statistics when we have linguistics? DELTA: Documentação de Estudos Em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 18(2), 233–271. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502002000200003

Charles, M. (2003). A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1

Cullip, P. F. (2000). Text technology: The power-tool of grammatical metaphor. RELC Journal, 31(2), 76-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100204

Derewianka, B. (1995). Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence: The role of grammatical metaphor [PhD Thesis]. Macquaire University.

Downing, A. & Locke, P., (2006) English grammar: A university course. 2nd ed. Abingdon and New York: Routledge

Fatonah. (2014). Students’ understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientific text. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v4i1.602

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s stigma tell us? Journal for English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002

Guillen, G. & Ignacio. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00002-2

Halliday, M.A.K. (1999). The language of early childhood. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Heidari K. Z., Jalilifar, A., & Don, A. (2021). On the significance of disciplinary variation in research articles: Perspectives from nominalization. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1890872

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5

Holtz, M. (2009). Nominalisation in scientific discourse A corpus-based study of abstracts and research articles. In Michaela Mahlberg, Victorina González-Díaz & Catherine Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005

Jalilifar, A., Zhila, H. K., & Alexannee, D. (2018). Nominalization in academic writing: A cross- disciplinary investigation of physics and applied linguistics empirical research articles. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(2) 83–118. https://www.doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4632

Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9233-x

Lee, J., Darius, S., Marvin, L., & Jonathan, W. (2018). Assisted nominalization for academic English writing. In Jose M. Alonso, Alejandro Catala & Mariët Theune (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Interactive Systems and Language Generation (2IS&NLG), 26-30, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-6706

Lilis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Louis, A. (2013). Predicting text quality: Metrics for content, organization and reader interest [Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations.665, University of Pennsylvania]. 665. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/665

Meluzzi, C., Pinelli, E., Valvason, E., & Zanchi, C. (2021). Responsibility attribution in gender-based domestic violence: A study bridging corpus-assisted discourse analysis and readers’ perception. Journal of Pragmatics, 185, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.023

Noguti, V. (2016). Post language and user engagement in online content communities. European Journal of Marketing, 50(5/6), 695–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2014-0785

Omidian, T., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2021). Parameters of variation in the use of words in empirical research writing. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.11.001

Politzer-Ahles, S.G.T. & Ghali, S. (2020). Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 47, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895

Purves, A.C. (1988). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. New York: Sage.

Robles, J. S., DiDomenico, S., & Raclaw, J. (2018). Doing being an ordinary technology and social media user. Language and Communication, 60, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.03.002

Rodgers, E. (2017). Towards a typology of discourse-based approaches to language attitudes. Language and Communication, 56, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.04.002

Safriyani, R., Laras A.M., Nur H.M., & Wichda E.F. (2020). Critical thinking in English academic essay: Indonesian teacher’s voice. Proceedings of the International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2019) (pp. 139-142). Atlantis Press. https://www.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200427.028

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400

Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and Native-English-Speaker writing: The research and its implications. In C. Severino, J. Guena, and J. Butler (eds.). Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 209–19). New York: Modern Language Association of America Modern Language Association of America.

Subramaniam, R., & Kaur, S. (2023). Specialised learner corpus research: A review for future directions of the global and Malaysian contexts. Teflin Journal, 34(1), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v34i1/176-193

Sudirman, A., Gemilang, A.V., & Kristanto, T.M.A. (2021). The power of reflective journal writing for university students from the efl perspective. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.19105

Terblanche, L. (2009). A comparative study of nominalisation in L1 and L2 writing and speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.1.4.752

Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785270

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tian, M. & Yuxin, Z. (2023). Exploring nominalization in academic writing: A comparative study of shipbuilding and oceanography engineering and linguistics. Athens Journal of Philology, 10(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajp.10-2-2

Ventola, E. (1996). Packing and unpacking of information in academic texts. In: Ventola, E. and A. Mauranen (eds). Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153-194.

Vilinbakhova, E. & Escandell-Vidal, V. (2020). Interpreting nominal tautologies: Dimensions of knowledge and genericity. Journal of Pragmatics, 160, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.014

Ward, S. M., (2016). Knowing, experiencing, and reporting: Social memory and participant roles in a Tibetan woman’s oral history. Language & Communication, 49, 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.04.001

Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003619961

Yusuf, Q., Jusoh, Z., & Yusuf, Y.Q. (2019). Cooperative learning strategies to enhance writing skills among second language learners. International Journal of Instruction 12(1), 1399-1412. http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12189a

Yusuf, Y. & Yusuf, Y.Q., Wildan, Yanti, N., & Anwar, H. (2022). Analyzing metaphorical greetings in traditional lullabies of the Acehnese Ratéb Dôda Idi. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 83–108. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rXJcJd-WmYhXu0qaR2f6r6Oc_Mv6vVxW/view