Shell noun constructions and their congruent expressions in research articles : diachronic and disciplinary variations

Abstract

Shell nouns are a group of abstract nouns (e.g., fact, idea, evidence, problem) which act as conceptual shells for a more detailed chunk of information within their immediate context (Schmid, 2000). Their occurrence in the text typically relies on a limited set of lexico-grammatical patterns, known as shell noun constructions (e.g., SN-that, This-SN, This-be-SN, SN-be-that patterns) (Schmid, 2000; Flowerdew & Forest, 2016). Extensive research has explored their rhetorical functions in marking authorial stances in academic writing (e.g., Charles, 2003, 2007; Jiang, 2015). However, these studies have often overlooked that, in performing various rhetorical functions, shell noun constructions represent linguistic choices of nominalization associated with a more abstract, formal and scientific style of writing (Halliday, 2004). Shell noun constructions have congruent expressions that serve similar functions in alternative grammatical forms, which are related to more concrete, informal and literal expressions along the stylistic continuum (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). This study breaks new conceptual ground by examining the use of shell noun constructions in tandem with their congruent expressions in academic discourse. Specifically, it investigates how diachronic and disciplinary factors, both essential in academic discourse research, interact to shape their usage over time and across disciplines. Grounded in the theory of grammatical metaphors, an analytical framework was developed in which subtypes of shell noun constructions are viewed as being restructured from, and thus mapped to an array of congruent structures (i.e., reporting clauses, evaluative clauses, logico-relational verbs and linking adverbials). The study adopted a mixed methods approach with an explanatory sequential design, integrating quantitative corpus analysis of research articles with qualitative text-based interviews with their authors. The quantitative analysis focused on a corpus of 480 research articles from two historical periods (1981-1985 and 2016-2020) across four distinctive disciplines: physics, chemical engineering, sociology and education. These disciplines represent two widely discussed divisions of knowledge fields: hard versus soft disciplines, and pure versus applied disciplines. The qualitative analysis triangulated the quantitative findings by conducting semi-structured interviews with 15 informants, who discussed their considerations behind their language choices in their research articles. The diachronic investigation uncovered several diachronic trends, including a notable decline in the use of shell noun constructions, a decrease in the integration of cognitive ideas and viewpoints, and significant changes in the expression of logical relations. The cross-disciplinary study suggested that variation primarily occurs between hard and soft disciplines. Soft disciplines used shell nouns, cognition expressions, discourse expressions and status expressions significantly more frequently than hard disciplines. The examination of their interaction uncovered diachronic trends unique to individual disciplines. These quantitative findings were substantiated and contextualized by interview data gathered from disciplinary insiders. The observed diachronic differences reflect the combined influence of the informalization of academic discourse and the functional interrelationships among various linguistic resources. Disciplinary differences are attributable to the knowledge-knower structures characteristic of hard and soft disciplines and the distinctive knowledge-making practices valued by disciplinary communities. The disciplinary variation in diachronic trends is linked to the rise of interdisciplinary in recent decades. Methodologically, the present study introduced a novel analytical framework for examining shell nouns from a nominalization perspective. Empirically, the findings highlighted the evolving nature of academic discourse and the distinctive knowledge-making practices valued by different disciplines. Pedagogically, the findings can inform the curricular content of ESP/EAP programs, where shell noun constructions and their congruent expressions as functionally equivalent expressions have not been adequately addressed.