THE IMPLICATIONS OF IDEATIONAL METAPHORS ON GRAMMATICAL INTRICACY AND LEXICAL DENSITY IN ACADEMIC WRITING: A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTIC APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i3.p642-655Abstract
This study aims at investigating the types of ideational metaphor used in scientific texts and analyzing its implications on grammatical intricacy (GI) and lexical density (LD). The data are limited to the scientific articles published on International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research (IJSTR) Volume 10 - Issue 5, May 2021 Edition. This journal aims to promote the theory and practice of sciences, technology, innovation, engineering and management. A qualitative descriptive methodology is applied to this study. In analyzing the data, there are two grand theories used; Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (1985) to analyze the ideational metaphors and LD & GI formula proposed by Gerot, Linda, and Wignel (1995). An electronic based is also applied to count number of words and clauses containing in the discourse chosen which can be downloaded from http://www.usingenglish.com/resources/. This study found that ideational metaphor impacted on lexical density by showing the dense information conveyed through nominalization and condensed complex clauses. The lexical density found from the data (three representative articles) is 36.75, 49.48 and 40.51. Ideational metaphor also impacted on the grammatical intricacy shown from the lower rate which is 1.29,1.31, and 1,24. Ideational metaphors characteristic are shown in the nominalization formed from the condensation of subordinate clauses into phrases, the change of process to noun dominated by relational process to goals or agent. This study is expected to be beneficial to lecturers and writers to consider applying ideational metaphors in their academic writing and to English teachers and lecturers to (re)consider the LD and GI of textbooks readibility for students.
Â
Keywords:Â Ideational Metaphor, SFL, Scientific Text, Lexical Density, Grammatical Intricacy
References
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., & Leech, G. (1999). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. International journal of corpus linguistics, 4(1), 185-188.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. A&c Black.
Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Queensland: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. A&c Black.
Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Queensland: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An lntroduction to Functional Grammar (2^ nd edition). I, ondon: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd edition London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Sonstruing Experience through Meaning.
Hasan, R. (2005). Language and society in a systemic functional perspective. HASAN, R.; MATTHIESSEN C.; WEBSTER, JJ Continuing Discourse on Language. London: Equinox Publishing LTD, 55-78.
Kazemian, B., Behnam, B., & Ghafoori, N. (2013). Ideational grammatical metaphor in scientific texts: A Hallidayan perspective. International journal of Linguistics.
Liardét, C. L. (2016). Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 16-29.
Ngongo, M., & Benu, N. (2020). Interpersonal and Ideational Metaphors in the Writing of Thesis Texts of Undergraduate Students of English Study Program: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Approach. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 6(2), 113-120.
Shahab, S., & Asl, H. D. Ideational Grammatical Metaphor in Pharmaceutical Research Articles.
Sirait, A. (2017). The Conceptual Metaphors of Parts Of Human Body: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach (Doctoral dissertation).
Tian, X. (2013). Distinguish Spoken English from Written English: Rich Feature Analysis. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 72-78.
