Audronė BITINIENĖ

MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC STYLE

Scientific style has not yet been studied comprehensively, since interest has focused primarily on terminology and its systematization, rather than on the structure of scientific style. In fact, the functioning of lexical and syntactic elements characterizes the distinctiveness of a style more clearly than morphology does. It is therefore often assumed that morphology is uninformative and cannot constitute a layer of typical linguistic means (Mistrik, 1965, 44–45). However, the earliest statistical studies of morphological elements (of scientific and literary styles, conducted by the author of this article (Pikčilingis, 1971, 284–286)) show that this level of language, too, can differentiate and integrate distinct varieties of the standard language.

This article presents not a complete description of the morphological structure of scientific style, but only a few parameters of linguistic features that may depend on the influence of extralinguistic and linguistic factors. The differentiating power of these parameters is particularly informative when qualitatively different styles—scientific and literary—are compared. Such a comparison is meaningful if, in studying morphological structure, the unit of analysis is not a fragment of text but a sentence, which shows the actual distribution of parts of speech and their correlation. Since quantitative changes in linguistic features may depend on specific stylistic factors, the sample of scientific style (38.5 thousand words) was stratified, i.e., substyles and branches (fields) of science were taken into account. In distinguishing substyles, account is taken of how particular texts function in the sphere of scholarly activity and of the distinctiveness of extralinguistic factors—the relationship between sender and recipient. What are these substyles, and how do they differ?

Texts in the theoretical substyle are intended for a qualified recipient (the knowledge bases of the two participants in the communicative act are almost identical), who is capable of thinking in abstract categories, synthesizing complex scientific information, and assimilating it creatively. The sender seems to identify with the recipient: the sender conveys the very latest information and, in seeking objectivity, often engages in polemics with specialists in the same or a related field, expecting the information provided to be understood adequately.

11

The sender of the instructional substyle does not identify with the recipient—the knowledge bases of the two participants in the communicative act differ. In texts of this type, particular attention is paid to the recipient: the sender is interested in how scientific information is remembered, i.e., in feedback. Instructional texts contain less objective information; only the most relevant material, corresponding to specific teaching objectives, is systematically presented in a didactic manner. Claims are explained, with examples, illustrations, and other nonverbal elements of text organization, rather than being so much proved or substantiated by experimental results. Special linking constructions emphasize connections with particular parts of the text and thereby direct the recipient’s attention. The recipient must remember not only the information but also the form in which it is conveyed. Thus, implicit communication takes place between the participants in the communicative act.

In the scientific-methodological substyle, the sender is a qualified specialist in a particular field, while the recipient is a specialist who seeks to put the latest and most suitable scientific discoveries into practice. Texts in this substyle, drawing on specific scientific research or experiments, present various recommendations for improving activities in a given field of science (for example, specifying an effective production technology, the most suitable way to grow plants or raise animals, or a teaching method). In texts of this substyle, scientific information is conveyed in a more concrete and less condensed form.

The science popularization substyle differs fundamentally from those discussed above. Its sender is a qualified specialist, while its recipient is entirely undefined (most often, a specialist in another field or a person without specialized education); therefore, relevant and interesting scientific information is conveyed in an adapted, simple form: specialized scientific terms are avoided, and concreteness, persuasiveness, and even individuality are sought. Alongside the reporting function are the expressive and appellative functions (Župerka, 1983, 104). The constructive principle of the science popularization substyle is the blending of the features and linguistic characteristics of scientific, journalistic, everyday conversational, and even literary styles.

Works on Lithuanian stylistics (Pikčilingis, 1971; Župerka, 1983) quite reasonably acknowledge the differentiation of scientific style in only one direction, setting aside those varieties of scientific style that

12

which are related to the specific nature of a particular science and are defined as “the selection of language elements and their relationships in texts on the same subject matter” (Андреев 1967, 27; Хофман 1986). This division of scientific style is not functional-stylistic, since it ignores the complex of non-linguistic factors that determine functional styles and their postulates, giving precedence to just one factor—that of content (subject matter). However, when studying scientific style using statistical methods, it is useful to establish whether texts from one branch of science differ from those from another, since researchers of functional styles themselves constantly emphasize the existence of two poles among scientific disciplines—the humanities, and mathematics and technology (Сенкевич, 1976, 42; Galperin, 1977, 310). It is apparently not expedient to study texts from individual branches of science: at present, the tendencies toward integration rather than differentiation of the sciences prevail, so it is possible to limit the discussion to the humanities, natural sciences, and mathematics and technology.

First, we will discuss the functioning of parts of speech (see Table 1).

Table 1. Frequency of parts of speech.

Functional style | Parts of speech | Noun | Adjective | Numeral | Pronoun | Verb | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Particle | Emotional-expressive | Scientific | 40.0 | 12.5 | 2.7 | 6.9 | 18.1 | 6.3 | 3.8 | 7.6 | 1.9 | – | Fictional | 29.8 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 11.1 | 23.7 | 7.9 | 6.6 | 8.9 | 4.8 | 0.2

In scientific and fictional-style texts, nouns are the most frequently used of all parts of speech, but their distribution is not uniform. The predominance of nouns in scientific style is a feature of nominative style. Even a medium-length scientific-style sentence of 17–22 words may contain from 7 to 14 nouns (such sentences make up 41.6%). For example: The classics of phonology (for example, Trubeckojus) were convinced that phonetics and phonology are completely independent branches of science (Gird, F, 14). The meaning of derivation is determined by the entire structure of the derived form (derivational

13

base, formant, and their specific relationship), which becomes apparent from the position of the derived form against the background of the base word (Urb, ŽDT, 149).

Qualitative characteristics are especially important in scientific style; without a noun, they are conveyed by adjectives, which are used twice as often as in fictional style. Both of these parts of speech increase the informativeness of a text and help convey factual information (Гальперин, 1981, 28).

The predominance of nouns and adjectives is associated with the specific feature of scientific style—abstractness—and with its non-specific features—conciseness and static character.

The tendencies in fictional style are opposite: the high frequency of verbs (and the higher frequency of adverbs) indicates the dynamic character of this type of text, since what comes to the fore is not description or reasoning, characteristic of scientific style, but narration of events, changes in the characters’ states, and so on (finite verb forms account for 66.5%, compared with 43.9% in scientific style). Therefore, we can apparently assert that the relevant linguistic feature distinguishing scientific and fictional style is the ratio of nouns to verbs in the text (the substantivity coefficient is 2.2 and 1.5, respectively).

Pronouns differentiate the functional styles under discussion. They are used less frequently in scientific style and more frequently in fictional style. This uneven distribution of pronouns is determined by the different ways in which texts are organized. In fictional style, pronouns substitute for nouns (personal pronouns account for 63.2%, compared with 31.2% in scientific style; demonstratives, 30.5% and 23.5%, respectively); scientific style seeks precision and therefore tends to repeat the terms themselves. Precision results in a lower frequency of particles, while objectivity leads to the elimination of emotionally expressive words belonging to parts of speech. The predominance of prepositional phrases in fictional style is due to the fact that their principal element is most often a verb, which is used less frequently in scientific style. On the other hand, the higher frequency of phrases without prepositions in scientific style is also prompted by a specific feature of scientific style—abstractness, since “the meaning of prepositional constructions is more concrete than that of case meanings” (Paulauskienė, 1994, 387). Differences in the frequency of other parts of speech are not as obvious and apparently depend on the frequency of correlated parts of speech. What effect does the functioning of parts of speech

14

does internal differentiation of scientific style exist?

The frequency of nouns as a relevant feature of scientific style depends little on the specifics of the substyle (nouns are most frequent in texts of the instructional substyle – 42.2%) or the field of science (only texts in the natural sciences differ – 42.1%).

Adjectives are distributed even more consistently, since the range of variation does not exceed even one percentage point. Pronoun frequency differs in methodological texts (4.5%), in which there is a tendency to keep repeating the same concept names (quite unnecessarily). The opposite tendency is characteristic of humanities texts (pronouns make up 9.0%). Their authors strive for expressive variety and seek new shades of connective relations; for example (particles make up 2.4%).

The lower frequency of nouns (36.3%) and adjectives (9.8%), and the higher comparative proportions of pronouns (8.8%), verbs (19.0%), adverbs (7.7%), and even particles (3.7%) in popular science texts show that orientation toward a non-specialist addressee shapes a distinctive distribution of parts of speech.

Next, we will examine the distribution of two further parameters—the cases of nouns and the tenses of verbs.

Table 2. Frequency of noun cases

Functional style Nominative Genitive Dative Accusative Instrumental Locative Vocative Scientific 27.2 41.7 4.2 13.8 6.3 6.8 – Literary 30.6 26.8 2.9 24.0 7.8 6.8 1.1

As can be seen, scientific and literary styles are differentiated by a distinctive structure of noun cases. The locative case, used evenly in texts of both functional styles, can be regarded as a linguistic constant, i.e. a non-relevant feature, whereas the genitive case is an obvious relevant linguistic feature. The predominance of the genitive (which, together with the nominative, makes up as much as 68.8%) in scientific texts is associated with spe

15

A characteristic feature of the scientific style is abstractness: a quality expressed by a noun is perceived not only as more autonomous, but also as more abstract than a quality expressed by an adjective (the two are linked to the head word by a reciprocal relation of concretization). In other words, the frequency of the genitive, and to some extent the dative, depends on the noun’s ability to combine into complex-structure formations (often terms) (verbal nouns govern these cases and are particularly frequent in theoretical texts). The accusative is almost twice as frequent in the literary style as in the scientific style. The frequency of this case is undoubtedly associated with the stylistic feature already mentioned—dynamism: the verb often correlates with the noun in the accusative, and to some extent also with the instrumental. Therefore, a relevant linguistic feature that reveals the specificity of the literary style is the frequency of the accusative. The systematic nature of both functional styles determines the distribution of the other cases—the nominative, dative, and instrumental.

Genitive-case nouns are distributed evenly not only across different substyles but also across texts in various fields of study (there are fewer genitives in humanities texts—38.4%). The variation range of the other cases is statistically informative, but in practical terms indicates only the possible diversity in the composition of scientific-style texts. Theoretical texts contain fewer accusative-case nouns (10.5%), but more nominative-case nouns (30.0%). The frequency of these same cases differentiates humanities texts: as the frequency of the genitive decreases (38.4%), the frequency of the nominative (29.2%) and accusative (15.9%) increases. The variation range of cases that account for a small comparative share—the dative and instrumental—depends little on the influence of extralinguistic factors (variation range: 0.8%). The case-frequency structure of popular science texts is not statistically informative: essentially, only the genitive (36.7%), and to some extent the nominative (28.8%), frequencies differ, while the distribution of the other cases is relatively constant. Thus, a tendency toward stereotypical expression is also evident in texts of this type: nouns in two cases, rather than three (as in the literary style), make up the majority of the text. The same tendencies toward stereotypicality can be observed when comparing the use of verb tenses (see Table 3).

16

Table 3. Frequency of verb tenses

Functional style

Verb tenses

Present

Simple past

Frequentative past

Future

Scientific

73,3

23,7

0,4

2,5

Literary

27,4

62,5

3,6

6,5

It can be seen that the frequency of verb tenses differs substantially in texts of the two functional styles, since opposite patterns have been observed in the use of the two main tenses—the present and the simple past: in the scientific style, present-tense forms outnumber simple-past forms by more than three to one, whereas in the literary style the simple past is used 2.5 times more frequently. In scientific texts, unlike literary texts, the present tense is used with a generalizing meaning (in the context of abstract nouns), so a contrast between abstractness and concreteness can be discerned. In a scientific text, it is important to record and establish the existence of real-world phenomena, their relations, processes, or regularities, which are relevant not only to the addresser but also to the addressee. For example: Almost all cartilaginous fish live in the seas (Mač SG, 86). The language system consists of rules and abstract elements (Gird F 71).

In some sentences, the meaning of an action occurring in the present fades entirely, while the verb denotes a permanent property of the subject (this meaning is very close to that of adjectives or participles), e.g.: Albumins dissolve in water (Jas O Ch 65); Trees with bark on the sunny side become very hot (Dag AE 58); In the lungs, hemoglobin combines with oxygen <...> (Jas O Ch 202).

The basis for creating an artistic image is not so much the present as events that have already passed (generalization through a concrete image). The narrative predominant in the literary style entails a purposeful alternation of all verb tenses, including the frequentative past.

The frequency of the present tense does not depend at all on the substyles that form the core of the scientific style, but varies somewhat more ac-

17

... in texts of different scientific fields, since in the introductory sections of works in the natural sciences and when describing experiments, the simple past tense is somewhat more frequent (25.7%, cf. present tense – 72.3%). Texts of various substyles differ only very slightly in the frequency of the simple past tense. Only in methodological texts does the account of the course of theoretical experiments and the application of possible results in practice imply a greater proportional share of this tense. The future tense, being distributed relatively evenly across texts in the humanities and natural sciences, differentiates texts in physics and mathematics. In reasoning and especially in proving theorems, an essential element (a convention of texts in this substyle) is the future tense, e.g.: Now we will present a general definition of the mean of a random variable. The mean of a random variable <...>, defined on a probability space <...>, will be called the integral <...> (Kub TTMS 165).

Verb tenses differentiate popular science texts, since the predominance of the present tense (65.7%), the somewhat less frequent simple past tense (28.8%), and the relatively common future tense (5.3%) form a distinctive structure whose parameters do not overlap with the parameters governing tense use in literary style.

The parameters discussed show that the morphological structure of functional styles depends to a great extent (it is not passive, as is often assumed) on the influence of non-linguistic factors and can differentiate distinct functional styles. Within scientific style, most parameters fluctuate but remain within its norms. It would be inaccurate to claim that texts in different scientific fields are written in distinct scientific styles. The position of the popular science substyle remains unclear, since the parameters examined fluctuate in one direction. Therefore, popular science style can be examined separately, as having a somewhat different structure at the level of interaction among various functional styles.

Abbreviations

Dag AE – Dagys J. Augalų ekologija. – V.: Mokslas, 1980.

Gird F – Girdenis A. Fonologija. – V.: Mokslas, 1981.

Jas OCh – Jasinskas L. ir kt. Organinė chemija. – V.: Mokslas, 1979.

Kub TTMS – Kubilius J. Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics. – V.: Mokslas, 1980.

Urb ŽDT – Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija. – V.: Mokslas, 1978.

18

Literatūra

1. Mistrik J. Slovenská štylistika. Bratislava: Sloven. ped. nakl-vo, 1965.

2. Paulauskienė A. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams. V.: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1994.

3. Pikčilingis J. Lietuvių kalbos stilistika. V.: Mokslas, 1971. T. I.

4. Župerka K. Lietuvių kalbos stilistika. V.: Mokslas, 1983.

5. Андреев Н. Д. Статистико-комбинаторные методы в теоретическом и прикладном языкознании. Л.: Наука, 1967.

6. Хофман Л. Научный стиль – социолект – языковые барьеры социолингвистический аспект научной речи// Типология текста в функционально стилистическом аспекте. Пермь, 1990. С. 4–10.

7. Сенкевич М. П. Стилистика научной речи и литературное редактирование. М.: Высшая школа, 1984.

8. Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М.: Наука, 1981.

19