Early modern english scientific text types: different levels of linguistic complexity?

Romero-Barranco, Jesús

Abstract

Complexity was first defined by Simon as hierarchies of different elements originating from simplicity (1962: 468). In Linguistics, Givon (2009) has analysed syntactic complexity from the point of view of language typology; Dahl (2004) and Nichols (2009) have assessed grammatical complexity cross-linguistically; and Blankenship (1974), Chafe (1982) and Maas (2009) have studied the different levels of complexity in spoken and written registers. Furthermore, Lehto (2015) elaborated a diachronic analysis of the levels of complexity among different text types in early Modern English legal material, based on Biber’s works on linguistic complexity. Biber (1992) identified some key linguistic features associated with reduced complexity (i.e. that deletions, contractions or clause coordination, among others) and increased complexity (i.e. nominalizations, phrasal coordination or passive constructions, among others). These features occur in different patterns across different registers and the calculation of their frequency allows for the assessment of the level of complexity in different kinds of texts. In itself, the concept of complexity has not been hitherto evaluated in early English medical writing, especially considering its different text types. In the light of this, the present paper analyses the levels of linguistic complexity in two early Modern English medical treatises housed in Glasgow, Glasgow University Library, MS Hunter 135: a surgical treatise (ff. 34r-73v) and a recipe collection (ff. 74r-121v). These two treatises conform as the ideal input for this study inasmuch as they represent two text types of medical writing and, consequently, they allow for the comparison in terms of linguistic complexity. According to Pahta and Taavitsainen (2004), theoretical treatises were the most formal text type while remedybooks represented the popular medical knowledge, surgical treatises falling in-between these two. Therefore, the analysis sheds light on the differences between two of the branches of medical writing in early Modern English. The present study, therefore, has been conceived with the following objectives: a) to identify the complexity features present in these two witnesses; and b) to analyse the different levels of complexity in both text types. In order to carry out such an analysis, the linguistic features identified by Biber (1992) will be retrieved and their frequency calculated. Furthermore, textual organisation will be also analysed as it certainly contributes to the level of complexity of a particular text. On methodological grounds, the texts have been transcribed following semi-diplomatic conventions so that editorial intervention is kept to a minimum. After the transcription, the texts have been POS-tagged so that automatic searches could be carried out by way of a conventional concordancer. These texts are part of The Málaga Corpus of Early Modern English Scientific Prose (available at http://modernmss.uma.es), a corpus that aims to provide a sample of ca. 1,000,000 POS-tagged words of early Modern English scientific prose.

Early modern english scientific text types: different levels of linguistic complexity?

Author: Romero-Barranco, Jesús

Year: 2017

Source: https://riuma.uma.es/xmlui/bitstream/10630/13796/3/Early%20Modern%20English%20Scientific%20Text%20Types.pdf

Ea ly Mode n English Scien i ic Tex Types: Di e en Le els o Linguis ic
Complexi y?
Jesús Rome o-Ba anco, Uni e si y o Málaga
Abs ac
Complexi y was i s de ined by Simon as hie a chies o di e en elemen s
o igina ing om simplici y (1962: 468). In Linguis ics, Gi on (2009) has analysed
syn ac ic complexi y om he poin o iew o language ypology; Dahl (2004) and
Nichols (2009) ha e assessed g amma ical complexi y c oss-linguis ically; and
Blankenship (1974), Cha e (1982) and Maas (2009) ha e s udied he di e en le els
o complexi y in spoken and w i en egis e s. Fu he mo e, Leh o (2015) elabo a ed
a diach onic analysis o he le els o complexi y among di e en ex ypes in
ea ly Mode n English legal ma e ial, based on Bibe ’s wo ks on linguis ic
complexi y. Bibe (1992) iden i ied some key linguis ic ea u es associa ed wi h
educed complexi y (i.e.
ha
dele ions, con ac ions o clause coo dina ion, among
o he s) and inc eased complexi y (i.e. nominaliza ions, ph asal coo dina ion o
passi e cons uc ions, among o he s). These ea u es occu in di e en pa e ns
ac oss di e en egis e s and he calcula ion o hei equency allows o he
assessmen o he le el o complexi y in di e en kinds o ex s.
In i sel , he concep o complexi y has no been hi he o e alua ed in ea ly
English medical w i ing, especially conside ing i s di e en ex ypes. In he
ligh o his, he p esen pape analyses he le els o linguis ic complexi y in
wo ea ly Mode n English medical ea ises housed in Glasgow, Glasgow Uni e si y
Lib a y, MS Hun e 135: a su gical ea ise ( . 34 -73 ) and a ecipe collec ion
( . 74 -121 ). These wo ea ises con o m as he ideal inpu o his s udy
inasmuch as hey ep esen wo ex ypes o medical w i ing and, consequen ly,
hey allow o he compa ison in e ms o linguis ic complexi y. Acco ding o Pah a
and Taa i sainen (2004), heo e ical ea ises we e he mos o mal ex ype while
emedybooks ep esen ed he popula medical knowledge, su gical ea ises alling
in-be ween hese wo. The e o e, he analysis sheds ligh on he di e ences be ween
wo o he b anches o medical w i ing in ea ly Mode n English. The p esen s udy,
he e o e, has been concei ed wi h he ollowing objec i es: a) o iden i y he
complexi y ea u es p esen in hese wo wi nesses; and b) o analyse he di e en
le els o complexi y in bo h ex ypes.
In o de o ca y ou such an analysis, he linguis ic ea u es iden i ied
by Bibe (1992) will be e ie ed and hei equency calcula ed. Fu he mo e,
ex ual o ganisa ion will be also analysed as i ce ainly con ibu es o he le el
o complexi y o a pa icula ex . On me hodological g ounds, he ex s ha e been
ansc ibed ollowing semi-diploma ic con en ions so ha edi o ial in e en ion is
kep o a minimum. A e he ansc ip ion, he ex s ha e been POS- agged so ha
au oma ic sea ches could be ca ied ou by way o a con en ional conco dance . These
ex s a e pa o
The Málaga Co pus o Ea ly Mode n English Scien i ic P ose
(a ailable a h p://mode nmss.uma.es), a co pus ha aims o p o ide a sample o
ca. 1,000,000 POS- agged wo ds o ea ly Mode n English scien i ic p ose.
Re e ences
Bibe , Douglas. 1992. “On he Complexi y o Discou se Complexi y: A
Mul idimensional Analysis”.
Discou se P ocesses
15: 133–163.
Blankenship, Jane. 1974. “The In luence o Mode, Submode, and Speake P edilec ion
on S yle”.
Speech Monog aphs
41.2: 85-118.
Cha e, Wallace L. 1982. “In eg a ion and In ol emen in Speaking, W i ing, and
O al Li e a u e”. In Tannen, Debo ah (ed.),
Spoken and W i en Language:
Explo ing O ali y and Li e acy
. No wood: ABLEX. 35-53.
Dahl, Ös en. 2004.
The G ow h and Main enance o Linguis ic Complexi y
. Ams e dam:
John Benjamins.
Gi on, Talmy. 2009.
The Genesis o Syn ac ic Complexi y
. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
Maas, U z. 2009. “O ali y e sus li e acy as a dimension o complexi y”. In
Sampson, Geo ey,
Da id Gil and Pe e T udgill (eds),
Language Complexi y as an E ol ing Va iable
.
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. 164–177.
Leh o, Anu. 2015.
The Gen e o Ea ly Mode n English S a u es: Complexi y in
His o ical Legal Language
. PhD Disse a ion. Uni e si y o Helsinki.
Nichols, Johanna. 2009. “Linguis ic Complexi y: A Comp ehensi e De ini ion and
Su ey”. In Sampson, Geo ey, Da id Gil and Pe e T udgill (eds.),
Language Complexi y as an E ol ing Va iable
. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess. 110-125.
Pah a, Päi i and I ma Taa i sainen. 2011. “An In e disciplina y App oach o Medical
W i ing in Ea ly Mode n English”.
Medical W i ing in Ea ly Mode n English
,
edi ed by I ma Taa i sainen and Päi i Pah a. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess. 1-8.
Simon, He be A. 1962. “The A chi ec u e o Complexi y”.
P oceedings o he
Ame ican Philosophical Socie y
106.6: 467-482.