Bookreview
JohnFlowerdew&RichardW.ForestSignallingNounsinEnglish:
ACorpus-BasedDiscourseApproach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press2015,xviii+pp.286.(ISBN978-1-107-02211-9(hb))
ReviewedbyFeng(Kevin)Jiang(CAES,UniversityofHongKong)
Comparedwithadjectives,adverbsandverbs,nounshavebeenregardednotso
muchasinterpersonalandpersuasivebutasaneutralandobjectifiedabstraction
(Halliday2003)andthushavebeenlessexaminedasaninteractiveandrhetorical
featureindiscourse.However,probablysinceHalliday&Hasan’s(1976)proposal
that“generalnouns”setuplexicalcohesionintexts,therehasbeenagrowing
attentiongiventoasimilarkindofabstractnouns,suchasfact,issueandclaim,
albeitunderarangeofdifferentnames.“Shellnouns”(Schmid2000)and“signal-
lingnouns”(Flowerdew2003)areperhapsthetwomostcitedtermsamongthem
(seeBenitez-Castro2015forareviewofrelatedstudies).DivergingfromSchmid’s
cognitivelinguisticviewofthesenounsas“conceptualshells”,Flowerdewtakesa
corpus-baseddiscourseapproachtothesignallingfunctionofthesenounsand
explorestheirpedagogicalimplications.ThisbookrecastsFlowerdew’sprotracted
interestandresearchinsignallingnouns,offeringacomprehensiveinvestigation
andaddingtothecurrentbodyofknowledgeonthefunctionofthistypeoflan-
guage.
Thereare11chaptersinthisbook,coveringthedefinition,linguisticfeatures
andidentificationofsignallingnouns(Chapters1–5),thecorpusandmethodol-
ogyusedinthisstudy(Chapters6–7),theresultsanddiscussion(Chapters8–10),
andtheconclusion(Chapter11).Intheopening,signallingnounsarefirstdefined
as“abstractnounswhicharenon-specificintheirmeaningwhenconsideredin
isolationandwhicharemadespecificintheirmeaningbyreferencetotheirlin-
guisticcontext”(p.1).Thisdefinitionessentiallyincludesthebasicfeaturesofsig-
nallingnouns.Semantically,themeaningofthesenounsremainsvague,without
theadditionalspecificationrecoveredfromtheneighbouringtext.Thisspecifica-
tion,whichisreferredtoasthe“lexicalspecification”or“lexicalrealisation”of
signallingnouns,anchorsthenounstothehereandnowoftexts(p.2).Intermsof
discourse,moreover,theymaintaintextualcontinuityandorganiseacohesivetext
sincetheystandinforotherstretchesoftext,eitheranaphoricallyorcataphori-
cally,andsignalhowthesestretchesoftextaretobeinterpretedinrelationtothe
surroundingdiscourse.Thesignallingfunctionofthesenounscanoperatewithin
FunctionsofLanguage23:1(2016),143–148.doi10.1075/fol.23.1.06jia
issn0929–998X/e-issn1569–9765?JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
144Bookreview
theclauseoracrossclauses.Flowerdew&Forestemphasisethat“signallingnouns
arebestunderstoodnotonlyasalexicalandstructuralphenomenon,butalso
fromtheperspectiveofdiscourse”(p.6).
Thesemantic,grammaticalanddiscoursefeaturesofsignallingnounsarefur-
therdetailedinthefollowingthreechapters.Chapter2addressesanumberof
commongrammaticalstructuresinwhichsignallingnounsoccur.Overall,sig-
nallingnounstendtooccurindefinitenounphrases;toco-occurwithproximal
demonstrativesthisandthese,butnotwithdistaldemonstrativesthatandthose;to
bepre-modifiedbyquantifiers;totakeapost-nominalthat-,to-,wh-,orgerund
complementclause;andtobeabletooccurinthesubjectpositionin“Noun+be
+Nominalisation”.Previousstudiestendtoidentifythistypeofabstractnounson
thebasisofthesegrammaticalstructures(e.g.Schmid2000),butFlowerdew&
Forestcontendthatthispracticefailstoreflectthetypicalpatternsofuseofmost
signallingnounsbecauseitgivesadeceptiveviewofwhichsignallingnounsare
mostfrequentandinwhichpatterns.
InChapter3,whichdealswiththesemanticfeaturesofsignallingnouns,
theauthorsestablishthatthesenounsareoftenlexicalsuperordinates,generally
drawnfromthepoolofabstractnouns.Althoughsignallingnounsareanopen-
endedsetofitems,theyexhibitbothaconstant(context-independent)andavari-
able(context-dependent)meaning.Variablemeaninglexicallyspecifiesthecon-
stantmeaningofasignallingnouns,butimportantlytheauthorsmaintainthatthe
context-dependentreferentshouldinvolveaconstrualofprocessorastretchof
discoursebecausethisreflects“aprocessofgrammaticalmetaphorwhichhasen-
codedaclausalstructureintheformofanominalstructure”(p.28).Furthermore,
drawingonthe“processtypes”oftheexperientialrepresentationofmetafunc-
tions(Halliday&Matthiessen2014),Flowerdew&Forestproposeafreshnew
semanticcategorisationofsignallingnouns:act,idea,locution,fact,modalfact,
andcircumstantialfacts.Theyaddthatthereisnoconstantone-to-onerelation
betweensignallingnounsandsemanticcategorybecausesomenounshavemore
variableuses.
Chapter4elaboratesonthediscoursefeaturesofsignallingnouns,andthis
seemstobetheauthors’mainclaimforthesenouns.Signallingnounsarebest
viewedaslexicalsignalsofcoherencerelationsindiscourse(p.35).Flowerdew&
Forestsuccessfullydemonstratetherelevanceofthesystemoflogico-semanticre-
lations(Halliday&Matthiessen2014:443–549)tothediscoursefeaturesofsignal-
lingnouns.Whatisofparticularinterestinthissystemfortheauthors’purposes
isthatitbringsthosesemanticrelationshipshavingtodowithmentalandverbal
activity(projection)intothesamesystemasothercoherencerelations(expansion).
Theauthorsfurthernotethat“thesystemallowsmentalandverbalsignalling
nounssuchasconcept,idea,andnotion(SFLlogico-semantictype=projection:
Bookreview145
idea)andclaim,statement,andargument(SFLlogico-semantictype=projection:
locution)tobeplacedinasystemalongsideitemsexpressingcausalrelationssuch
asproblemandevidence(logico-semantictype=expansion:enhancement)or
matchingrelationssuchasequation,fact,andthing(logico-semantictype=ex-
pansion:elaboration)”(p.36).However,thereisacaveatthattherelationshipbe-
tweensignallingnounsandparticulartypesofprojectionandexpansionisproba-
bilistic(p.43),sincesomenounsarecloselyassociatedwithaparticularrelation
andsignalthatrelation,whileothersmaysignaldifferentrelationsdependingon
theirroleinthediscourse(forexample,thingoccursasasignalofbothexpansion
andenhancement).
Chapter5spellsoutthecriteriaforhowtheauthorsdeterminewhatcon-
stitutesasignallingnounintheirstudy.Thebroadcriterionforsignalling-noun
membershipisencapsulation—equativeencapsulationwithlexicalspecificspro-
videdelsewhereinthetext.Thenmorespecificcriteriaaregivenintermsofbi-
valentsignallingnouns,logogenesis,andpre-andpost-modifiers.Thesedetails
areinterestingandinstructiveforthosewhohaveexaminedsuchnounsandmet
similarpracticalproblems.Forexample,anumberofabstractnounsarebivalent
becausetheytypicallylicensetwocomplements,onlyoneofwhichisstrictlyequa-
tive,though.Takethefollowingsentenceasanillustration,“Onewaytoensure
thatitdoesnotbeginistorefusetovalidateanysupplyshockwhatsoever”.Inthis
example,bothto-infinitiveclausesarecomplementsofway,andbothprovidelexi-
calspecificsforthissignallingnoun.However,onlythesecondisequative—only
thisclausespecifiesthecontentofway,withthefirstactingasakindofpurpose
clause.
InChapter6,theauthorsdescribethecorpusandmethodologyusedintheir
study.DuetoaconcernwithEnglishforAcademicPurposesandpedagogicalim-
plications,thecorpus,whichtheyrefertoastheFlowerdewCorpusofAcademic
English(FCAE),wasdrawnfromvarioussourcestoincludeequalweightingof
academicjournals,textbooks,andlectures.Itcomprisestextsdrawnequallyfrom
thenaturalandthesocialsciences.Withineachofthesedivisions,fivedisciplines
werechosen.Thenaturalsciencesdivisionincludesbiologicalscience,chemis-
try,engineeringscience,physics,andecology,whereasthesocialsciencesdivi-
sionconsistsofeconomics,politicsandinternationalrelations,law,sociology,and
businessstudies.Foreachdivision,textsfromthreegenres—lectures,journal
articles,andtextbookchapters—wereincluded,withthesametopicsbeingcov-
eredforeachgenre.Thusthecorpusdataisvaluableintermsofvariedgenresand
disciplines.Astheauthorsreport,thecorpuswassearchedwithconcordancers
(WordSmithandAntConc)andafullwordlistforeachsub-corpuswasgenerated.
Allabstractnounsfromtheselistswereselectedforfurthermanualexamination
takingintoaccountthewidertextualcontextforpotentialacross-clauserelational
146Bookreview
functionofsignallingnouns.Tofollowuptheirmethods,theauthorsprovideaset
ofexamplesofeachofthediscursiveandsyntacticpatternsofthetagsforpartsof
speechandforsignalling-nounrealisationsinthecorpusinChapter7.
Chapter8givesanoverviewofsignallingnoundistributionsinthecorpus.It
isfoundthatsignallingnounsarefrequentlyusedinacademicdiscourse,averag-
ingapproximatelyonesignallingnounper37words,andthereisatotalof845
typesofsignallingnounsinthecorpus,withcasetakingthehighestfrequency.
Signallingnounsoccurmoreofteninthesocialsciencesthaninthenaturalsci-
ences,withtheformercomprisingroughly70%ofthetotalnumberinthecorpus.
Type-Tokenratiosfurthershowthatthereissomewhatmorerepetitionofsig-
nallingnounsinthenaturalsciencescorpusthanthesocialsciencescorpus.The
authorsattributethisdifferencetotheobservationthatthenaturalsciencesrely
onagreaternumberofspecifictechnicaltermswhicharefullylexicalisedwithin
eachdisciplineanddonothavesignalling-nouncounterparts.Intermsofgenres,
thejournalscontributethehighestproportionofsignallingnouns,ataround40%
ofthetotalinthecorpus.Textbooksandlecturesbothhaveapercentageofap-
proximately31%.Reason,analysis,andproblemarefoundtobespreadacrossall
disciplinesandgenres.
Asregardssemanticcategories,itisshowninChapter9thatthereisadescend-
ingorderoffrequencyofsignallingnounsfromfact,idea,circumstance,locution,
acttomodelact.Thefactcategoryatthetopmakesup26.1%ofallinstances.
Andtherelativefrequencyofthesemanticcategoriesisnotconsistentacrossthe
subjectfields,buttheideaandactcategoriesturnouttobethemostandleast
frequentrespectivelyinthesocialsciences.Itisalsointerestingtonotethatbiol-
ogyaccountsfor32.3%ofcircumstanceasopposedto24%forthenaturalsciences
overall,and40.6%forlocutionoccurinengineeringasopposedto22.4%overall.
Althoughthesemanticcategoriesdonotshowmuchgenericvariation,consider-
ablevariationisobservedbetweenthetwomajordivisionsofnaturalsciencesand
socialsciencesacrossgenres.Factandcircumstanceoccurmostfrequentlyinthe
naturalsciencelectureswhilethesocialsciencejournalsmakethemostfrequent
useofidea.Thenaturalsciencetextbooksuselocutionmorefrequentlythanthe
socialsciencestextbooks,whichuseactandmodelthemost.
Theresultsastothelexico-grammaticalanddiscoursepatternfrequenciesare
presentedinChapter10.Overall,across-clausespecificationpatternsfillthetop
positionsinthefrequencyranking,withanaphoricrelationsbeingmorecommon
thancataphoricones.Yet70%ofthesetwopatternsarefoundinthesocialsci-
ences,andthisisalsothecasewiththe“signallingnoun+be+that-clause”struc-
ture.Besides,muchvariationisalsoregisteredinthedistributionofthestructural
patternsbygenre.Nearlytwo-thirdsofthecross-clausecataphoricpatternare
foundinjournals,possiblyduetothegenre’suseofprospectivesignallingnouns
Bookreview147
inabstractsandintroductionsections.Textbooksusethepatternsof“signalling
noun+appositive”and“signallingnoun+relationalprocessverb+deverbal
noun/adjectivespecifics”morefrequentlythandoothergenres.Lastly,lectures
makethemostfrequentuseofthe“signallingnouns+be+that-clause”patternin
thecorpus.
InChapter11,afterasummaryoftheirstudy,theauthorsrecognisealimita-
tioninthestudy,i.e.thatintersubjectivityissuesinthecodingcannotbeavoided
becauseofthemanualanalysisadopted.Theyalsopointoutthatthestudyispri-
marilyatheoreticalandquantitativeoneandthatthereisrelativelylittlephra-
seologicalorqualitativeanalysisofexamplesincontext(p.186).However,future
researchisrecommendedtolookatthedistributionofsignallingnounsacross
thedifferentrhetoricalmovesofthedifferentgenresortotakeacross-linguistic
approachtocomparingtheuseofsignallingnounsinEnglishandotherlanguag-
es.PedagogicalimplicationsarealsodiscussedintermsofEnglishforAcademic
Purposes.Theirfindingsonthedifferencesofsignallingnounsusedacrossdisci-
plinesandgenreswouldprovideusefulinputforteachingmaterialsinlanguage
classrooms.Theyalsomakeanappealtoraisestudents’consciousnessofthelex-
ico-grammaticalanddiscoursefeaturesofsignallingnounsbymeansofeither
data-driventeachingorgenre-basedpedagogy.
AsFlowerdewhasacknowledged(p.xvi),he“borrowed”thetermsignalling
fromMichaelHoey’s(1979)SignallinginDiscourse.However,thismaylimitthe
perspectiveofthisvolumeonsignallingnounstothediscussionofhowsignalling
nounshaveimportantdiscoursefunctionsinestablishinglinksacrossandwithin
clauses.IntermsofthemetafunctionsofSFL(Halliday&Matthiessen2014),this
researchlensisprimarilyconcernedwiththetextualfunctionsoftheseabstract
nouns.AlthoughinChapter1theauthorsmentionthatasignallingnounlabels
thestretchoftexttowhichitrefersandthislabelmayincludeattitudinalfeatures
(p.3),theirsemanticcategoriesofsignallingnounsmayblurthisaspectofthe
functionofsignallingnouns.Forexample,thenounadvantagefallsintothefact
groupintheircategory,presentingthereferentinformationasuncontested.This
failstoaccountforitsinteractionalroleinconveyingapositiveevaluationofan
entityoraction.
Itisimportanttoseehowthesenounshelptoformulateacohesiveandcoher-
entflowofinformation,whichreflectsawriter’sexpectationandcareforreader’s
processingneeds.However,toexploreinteractivefeaturesofsignallingnounsonly
intermsofwriters’implicitassumptionsaboutthereactionsofreadersgivesan
incompletepicture(Thompson2001:59).Thisisbecausetextualinteractionalso
involvesthewriters’moreorlessovertinteractionwiththeiraudience,byappear-
inginthetexttocommentonandevaluatethecontent(Hyland2005;Thompson
2001).Signallingnounscertainlyareoneinstrumentinwriters’rhetoricaltoolbox
148Bookreview
forachievingthisinterpersonalmeaning.SeefurtherJiangandHyland(2015)for
arecentstudyofthisdimensionoftextualinteractioninwhichtheyprefertocall
them“stancenouns”todenotetheirexpressionofawriter’spointofviewtowards
thespecifiedreferentcontent.
ThisvolumegivesagoodsummaryandanextensionofJohnFlowerdew’s
interestandresearchconcerningwhathereferstoassignallingnouns,although
itisstillquantitativeinnature.Thestudyshowstheinteractiveanddiscourse-
organisingfeaturesofthistypeofabstractnounsandthedisciplinaryandgeneric
variationintheserespects.Thusthisbookwillbeavaluablereferencetothose
whoareinterestedinthesystemicfunctionsofnounsandlanguageeducators
withinacademicwritingandreading.
References
Benitez-Castro,Miguel-Angel.2015.Comingtogripswithshell-nounhood:Acriticalreviewof
insightsintothemeaning,functionandformofshell-nounphrases.AustralianJournalof
Linguistics35(2).168–194.doi:10.1080/07268602.2015.1005001
Flowerdew,John.2003.Signallingnounsindiscourse.EnglishforSpecificPurposes22(4).329–
346.doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0
Halliday,M.A.K.2003.Grammar,societyandthenoun.InM.A.K.Halliday&JonathanWebster
(eds.),Onlanguageandlinguistics,50–73.London:Continuum.
Halliday,M.A.K.&RuqayiaHasan.1976.CohesioninEnglish.London:Longman.
Halliday,M.A.K.&ChristianM.I.MMatthiessen.2014.Halliday’sintroductiontofunctional
grammar,4thedn.London:Taylor&Francis.
Hoey,Michael.1979.Signallingindiscourse.Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham.
Hyland,Ken.2005.Metadiscourse:Exploringinteractioninwriting.London:Continuum.
Jiang,Feng(Kevin)&KenHyland.2015.‘Thefactthat’:Stancenounsindisciplinarywriting.
DiscourseStudies17(5).529–550.doi:10.1177/1461445615590719
Schmid,Hans-J?rg.2000.Englishabstractnounsasconceptualshells:Fromcorpustocognition.
Berlin:deGruyter.doi:10.1515/9783110808704
Thompson,Geoff.2001.Interactioninacademicwriting:Learningtoarguewiththereader.
AppliedLinguistics22(1).58–78.doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.58
|
|
