Challenging stereotypes about academic writing

Complexity, elaboration, explicitness

Douglas E Biber, Bethany Gray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

115 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The stereotypical view of professional academic writing is that it is grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly. In contrast, spoken registers, especially conversation, are believed to have the opposite characteristics. Our goal in the present paper is to challenge these stereotypes, based on results from large-scale corpus investigations. Our findings strongly support the view that academic writing and conversation have dramatically different linguistic characteristics. However, the specific differences are quite surprising. First, we show that academic writing is not structurally 'elaborated' (in the traditional sense of this term). In fact, subordinate clauses - especially finite dependent clauses - are much more common in conversation than academic writing. Instead, academic writing is structurally 'compressed', with phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases. Additionally, we challenge the stereotype that academic writing is explicit in meaning. Rather, we argue that the 'compressed' discourse style of academic writing is much less explicit in meaning than alternative styles employing elaborated structures. These styles are efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of information from relatively short, condensed texts. However, they pose difficulties for novice readers, who must learn to infer unspecified meaning relations among grammatical constituents.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2-20
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of English for Academic Purposes
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2010

Fingerprint

stereotype
conversation
Elaboration
Academic Writing
Explicitness
Stereotypes
expert
linguistics
discourse

Keywords

  • academic writing
  • complexity
  • conversation
  • elaboration
  • explicitness
  • noun phrase
  • research articles
  • textbooks

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

Challenging stereotypes about academic writing : Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. / Biber, Douglas E; Gray, Bethany.

In: Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 9, No. 1, 03.2010, p. 2-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c30071c4564a4f70b1dff08d84a7a742,
title = "Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness",
abstract = "The stereotypical view of professional academic writing is that it is grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly. In contrast, spoken registers, especially conversation, are believed to have the opposite characteristics. Our goal in the present paper is to challenge these stereotypes, based on results from large-scale corpus investigations. Our findings strongly support the view that academic writing and conversation have dramatically different linguistic characteristics. However, the specific differences are quite surprising. First, we show that academic writing is not structurally 'elaborated' (in the traditional sense of this term). In fact, subordinate clauses - especially finite dependent clauses - are much more common in conversation than academic writing. Instead, academic writing is structurally 'compressed', with phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases. Additionally, we challenge the stereotype that academic writing is explicit in meaning. Rather, we argue that the 'compressed' discourse style of academic writing is much less explicit in meaning than alternative styles employing elaborated structures. These styles are efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of information from relatively short, condensed texts. However, they pose difficulties for novice readers, who must learn to infer unspecified meaning relations among grammatical constituents.",
keywords = "academic writing, complexity, conversation, elaboration, explicitness, noun phrase, research articles, textbooks",
author = "Biber, {Douglas E} and Bethany Gray",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "2--20",
journal = "Journal of English for Academic Purposes",
issn = "1475-1585",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenging stereotypes about academic writing

T2 - Complexity, elaboration, explicitness

AU - Biber, Douglas E

AU - Gray, Bethany

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - The stereotypical view of professional academic writing is that it is grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly. In contrast, spoken registers, especially conversation, are believed to have the opposite characteristics. Our goal in the present paper is to challenge these stereotypes, based on results from large-scale corpus investigations. Our findings strongly support the view that academic writing and conversation have dramatically different linguistic characteristics. However, the specific differences are quite surprising. First, we show that academic writing is not structurally 'elaborated' (in the traditional sense of this term). In fact, subordinate clauses - especially finite dependent clauses - are much more common in conversation than academic writing. Instead, academic writing is structurally 'compressed', with phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases. Additionally, we challenge the stereotype that academic writing is explicit in meaning. Rather, we argue that the 'compressed' discourse style of academic writing is much less explicit in meaning than alternative styles employing elaborated structures. These styles are efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of information from relatively short, condensed texts. However, they pose difficulties for novice readers, who must learn to infer unspecified meaning relations among grammatical constituents.

AB - The stereotypical view of professional academic writing is that it is grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly. In contrast, spoken registers, especially conversation, are believed to have the opposite characteristics. Our goal in the present paper is to challenge these stereotypes, based on results from large-scale corpus investigations. Our findings strongly support the view that academic writing and conversation have dramatically different linguistic characteristics. However, the specific differences are quite surprising. First, we show that academic writing is not structurally 'elaborated' (in the traditional sense of this term). In fact, subordinate clauses - especially finite dependent clauses - are much more common in conversation than academic writing. Instead, academic writing is structurally 'compressed', with phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases. Additionally, we challenge the stereotype that academic writing is explicit in meaning. Rather, we argue that the 'compressed' discourse style of academic writing is much less explicit in meaning than alternative styles employing elaborated structures. These styles are efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of information from relatively short, condensed texts. However, they pose difficulties for novice readers, who must learn to infer unspecified meaning relations among grammatical constituents.

KW - academic writing

KW - complexity

KW - conversation

KW - elaboration

KW - explicitness

KW - noun phrase

KW - research articles

KW - textbooks

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649238273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77649238273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 2

EP - 20

JO - Journal of English for Academic Purposes

JF - Journal of English for Academic Purposes

SN - 1475-1585

IS - 1

ER -