Overall, Nat displays the language of a mature writer by means of low grammatical intricacy, high lexical density and a variety of nominalisations. Tables 5- 14 and 5-15 show the calculation of grammatical intricacy and lexical density, which will later be explained together with the use of nominalisations:
Table 5-14: Grammatical intricacy in Nat’s essay
Stage Analysed Sentences Clauses Grammatical Intricacy
Thesis 11 17 1.54** Argument 1 10 21 2.10 Argument 2 14 29 2.07 Argument 3 15 36 2.40* Conclusion 6 12 2.00 Total 56 116 2.07
133
Table 5-15: Lexical density in Nat’s essay
Stage Words Lexical Items Lexical Density
Thesis 206 113 54.85 Argument 1 216 111 51.39** Argument 2 274 153 55.84 Argument 3 366 196 53.55 Conclusion 94 54 57.44* Total 1,156 627 54.24
(* indicates the highest scores, while ** indicates the lowest scores.)
Grammatical intricacy, which tends to reflect a “spoken like” use of language with several clauses chained together, varies among the generic stages of Nat’s text. Generally speaking, the grammatical intricacy scores are quite consistent: 1.54-2.00 in the Thesis and the Conclusion stages, against 2.07-2.40 in the Argument stages. The incidence of grammatical intricacy is lowest in the Thesis stage, where more than half of the total clauses are simplexes. After that, the second lowest count of grammatical intricacy is in the Conclusion stage, where clause simplexes and clause complexes are equally combined. The grammatical intricacy scores are higher in the Argument stages, where more clause complexes are employed to accommodate ideational content. This is understandable as at times information is deliberately unpacked. In this way it could be argued that grammatical intricacy is used strategically by this writer.
The high scores of lexical density, on the other hand, indicate that the whole essay is comparable to an academic article. Based on the lexical density, which is an indicator of conventional academic text, all stages score more than 50%, with the total average of 54.24. As mentioned in Chapter 4, in Ure’s collected texts (1971, cited in Ventola 1996), the lexical density of an academic article was 52.8%. The highest lexical density is in the Conclusion stage, where the writer tends to summarise all ideas mentioned earlier in a concise way. With the use of nominal elements to compact information, conciseness is achieved.
Contributing to the overall high lexical density is the compact constructions of lexical matter. To package meanings to create a very compact text, Nat builds up meaning by means of
134
pre-modifying (the head noun functioning as Thing is underlined):
oil crisis; socio-economic components; positive social behaviour; financial dimensions; inter-personal or inter-group dynamics; social structure; three major factors; gainful employment; a good quality education; several years of medical practice; physical and mental wellness; medical costs; proper medical care; top performance; career success; family income; family financial support
or post-modifying:
stagflation of the economy such as expensive goods…; knowledge that doctors gain…; knowledge they have learned; population having good health…; lack of money
or both pre and post modifying:
social and economic factors that characterise the individual or group…; three major factors that can impact on how a high salary is earned; professional occupation such as doctor, lawyer, lecturer and engineer; accurate treatment to patients; an important socio-economic factor leading to…; key factor to achieve…; affordable opportunities to achieve more; one’s quality of life
Moreover, nominalisations are employed in all Argument stages to reason “inside rather than between clauses”. In this way, reasoning is “buried” rather than “overt” (Halliday & Martin 1993; Martin 1991). Below are some such examples with an attempt at unpacking Nat’s reasoning:
(in the first Argument stage)
Buried Reasoning
Knowledge that doctors gain from their education and hand-on experience from their internship is essential for providing accurate treatment to patients.
Overt Reasoning
Doctors need to provide accurate treatment to patients. But they can do so only if they gain knowledge from their education and hand on experience from their internship.
(in the second Argument stage)
Buried Reasoning
Work dedication and higher performance can give them more chances for promotion than those who have poor health.
Overt Reasoning
When healthy people dedicate themselves to work and perform better, it is possible that their bosses will promote them instead of people who have poor health.
135 Buried
Reasoning
Professional athletes are a good example to show that good health is a key factor to achieve their top performance and career success.
Overt Reasoning
Professional athletes must have good health. Otherwise, they would not be able to perform well. Also, they would not succeed in their career.
Buried Reasoning
Illness and injuries can cause them a decline in world ranking and income.
Overt Reasoning
When they are ill and injured, they will not rank as high in world record as they used to. Also, their income will be lower.
(in the third Argument stage)
Buried Reasoning
Living in the big city for attending higher education could be unaffordable for students from poor families.
Overt Reasoning
Students need to live in the big city so that they can attend a university for higher education. But students from poor families might not afford money to live in the big city. Thus, they cannot have higher education
As seen in the “overt reasoning” (congruent) version, possible lines of refutation are much more clear. Real-world sequences are identified with explicit human Actors (doctors; healthy people, bosses; professional athletes; students, children from poor families) and concrete actions (provide, gain; dedicate, work, perform, promote; perform, succeed; rank; live, attend). Also, the implicit hypothetical nature of the argument is made explicit through the modalities (need to, can do so; it is possible that… will promote, must have, would not; may not rank… as they used to; need to live, can attend, might not afford, cannot have), as well as the logical-semantic relators realised by conjunctions (But… only if; When, Otherwise, Also, When; so, But, Thus).
By choosing buried reasoning, however, Nat’s argumentation is strengthened. Had the overt reasoning been used, the reader might have more chances to argue. For example, in one overt reasoning version of the second Argument stage (Professional athletes must have good health. Otherwise,… they would not succeed in their career), one might argue back by pointing to other examples of successful disabled athletes. Similarly, in the overt reasoning version of the third Argument stage (Students need to live in the big city so that they can attend a university for higher education…), one might argue that distant learning is an available option for those students.
136
Also, by suppressing overt reasoning, Nat’s thesis sounds more plausible. Presenting interpretation as a fact is a strategy in line with the discourse community practice, which favours buried rationale (Martin 1985).