On alternating pre-modified and post-modified nominals such as aspirin synthesis vs. synthesis of aspirin: Rhetorical and cognitive packing in English science writing

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the alternation between pre-modified and post-modified nominals, such as aspirin synthesis as opposed to synthesis of aspirin. This type of alternation has been previously explained in terms of rhetorical function (whether the item is ‘given’ as opposed to ‘new’), and phraseology (whether the item is seen as a ‘packed’ lexicalised term, or an ‘unpacked’ expanded nominal). In this paper, we suggest that other factors may also be involved, and we examine four specific cases from two different varieties of scientific English (Scientific Research Articles vs. Science Forums). Here we investigate the underlying constraints that govern this alternation, and we try to establish whether there is a preference for writers to ‘unpack’ nominal groups early on in a text and then to ‘re-pack’ them later on. Overall, we suggest a number of parameters that may explain the choice of one structure over another. Finally, and more generally, we show that this grammatical variation is a particularly productive resource in English nominal groups, and as such contributes to the rhetorical and cognitive construction of scientific demonstration in particular and scientific discourse more generally.

Term and translation variation of multiword terms

“…Although some MWTs are fixed, it is evident that most of them are very often prone to variation (e.g. air/atmospheric/air-borne/airborne pollutant), as has been explained in different studies (Bowker 1998;Fernández-Silva & Kerremans 2011;Daille 2017;Giacomini 2018;Gledhill & Pecman 2018;Cabezas García & Chambó in press;inter alia).…”

“…In the same line, Bowker & Hawkins (2006) affirm that variation cannot be attributed to the carelessness of subject field experts, but rather to their desire for precision and the carefulness invested in their choice of expression. On the one hand, variation sometimes happens with a specific purpose (Bowker 1998;Fernández-Silva et al 2009;Kerremans 2017;Freixa & Fernández-Silva 2017;Gledhill & Pecman 2018), and, on the other, it can also reveal the novelty of concepts (i.e. neologisms) (Cabré 1993;Picton 2011).…”

“…Along these lines, Fernández-Silva (2016) points out that MWT variants that emphasize different perspectives of the same concept contribute to knowledge construction. Accordingly, Gledhill & Pecman (2018) argue that English N+of+N MWT variants (e.g. release of plumes) usually convey knowledge rich contexts, while N+N MWTs (e.g.…”