English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes

journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the

theory
Cassi L. Liardét*
Macquarie University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Linguistics, Building C5A, Rm. 518, New South Wales, 2109, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article presents an elaborated framework for mapping learners’ development of
nominalizations, one prominent realization of the linguistic resource, grammatical meta-
phor (Halliday, 1993; Martin, 2008). The framework emerges from a larger, corpus-assisted
Keywords: analysis of the Chinese Longitudinal Learner Corpus (CLLC), 520 Chinese learner texts
Nominalization collected during the students’ first four semesters of university (Liardét, 2013b, 2014,
Grammatical metaphor
2015). Over the past few decades, SFL research has provided rich descriptions of nomi-
Academic writing
nalizations (e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Taverniers, 2006); however, little has been
Systemic functional linguistics
Corpus linguistics
done to empirically describe deployment quality and map learners’ development onto-
genetically, over time (Baratta, 2010). The proposed framework outlined in this paper
seeks to identify how learners develop nominalization proficiency by accounting for in-
termediate realizations that may otherwise be dismissed as mistakes. These nuanced
descriptions are illustrated throughout using excerpts from the CLLC and the paper con-
cludes with pedagogical recommendations for apprenticing learners to advanced nomi-
nalization proficiency.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Nominalization and academic writing

A key feature of academic discourse is the move toward static representations of language that reorganize dynamic,
spoken interactions into lexically dense, noun-dominated language (Hunston, 2002; Hyland, 2008, 2009; Ravelli, 1996). The
prevalent use of nouns, and specifically, nominalizations “to present densely packed information” is a key feature of academic
prose (Biber, 1988, pp. 28-29; see also Biber, 2006; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Charles, 2003; Gebhard,
Chen, & Britton, 2014; Guillen Galve, 1998; Hyland, 2004a, 2004b, 2008; Tognini-Bonelli, 2008). Although these descriptions
are particularly salient within scientific discourses (Halliday, 1988; 2004), research has identified nominally-oriented lan-
guage as a central feature across various disciplines (Coffin, 2006; Coffin et al., 2003; Martin, 1993; Martin & Veel, 1997;
Schleppegrell, 2001; Schleppegrell & Achugar, 2003; Schleppegrell, Greer, & Taylor, 2008).
The construct of nominalization is elaborated within the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL),
which identifies nominalization as one pattern of a larger construct, grammatical metaphor (hereafter, GM; Halliday &
Matthiessen, 1999; Taverniers, 2006). SFL views language as a semiotic system mapped across planes of expression and
content. Within the content plane, the layers of wordings (lexico-grammar) and meaning (semantic) exist in a stratified
relationship of realization (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 26; Martin & Rose, 2008, 2003). When the functional realizations

* Tel.: þ61 02 9850 6704.

E-mail address: cassi.liardet@mq.edu.au.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.04.004
0889-4906/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 17

Figure 1. Congruent realization (Variation A).

of language at the level of the discourse semantics matches that of the lexico-grammar, the relationship can be described as
congruent (Martin, 2008). Typically spoken or ‘unprepared’1 language is realized in this congruent pattern. However, when
language is written or more ‘prepared’, these relationships often become scrambled and the meanings of the discourse se-
mantics are realized in an unnatural or ‘non-matching’ relationship described as incongruent or metaphorical (Halliday, 1993).
Different lexico-grammatical patterns of the same meanings can be mapped across these strata in either congruent or
incongruent relationships. For example, the meanings of Sentence A can be realized by the following three patterns:

A. Because more people are immigrating to Sydney, properties cost more money.
B. Due to INCREASED IMMIGRATION2 to Sydney, properties cost more money.
C. Sydney’s IMMIGRATION GROWTH has led to increased property COSTS.

In Variation A, the two clauses (i.e., more people are immigrating to Sydney, and properties cost more money) are realized in a
congruent (i.e., expected, natural) relationship, linked causally through the conjunction because. In other words, the partic-
ipants3 (more people, Sydney, properties, more money) are realized congruently in the lexico-grammar as nominal groups, the
processes (are immigrating to, cost) are realized congruently as verbal groups, and the relator (because) is realized congruently
as a conjunction, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The second and third variations demonstrate alternative wordings and increasingly ‘static’, nominally-oriented re-
alizations. In Variation B, the initial clause is reconstrued metaphorically as a circumstance: due to INCREASED IMMIGRATION to
Sydney. In this reconstrual, the process, immigrating, is realized as a nominalization, IMMIGRATION, and the co-occurring
participant (i.e., more people) is reorganized to modify this nominal group: increased IMMIGRATION to Sydney. Furthermore, the
congruent relator, because, is deployed metaphorically as a prepositional phrase: due to. These metaphorical realizations are
identified in Figure 2 through the broken lines.
Although the second variation demonstrates increased lexical density (i.e., the two clauses have been condensed into one),
Variation A can be packaged further. In Variation C, the initial clause is reconstrued as a nominal group, Sydney’s IMMIGRATION
GROWTH. The relator, because, is realized as a verbal group, has led to, and placed in relation to a reconstrual of the latter clause as
the nominal group, increased property COSTS. Within these statically-oriented nominal groups, three nominalizations are
deployed: IMMIGRATION, GROWTH and COST. The remapping of these meanings onto the lexico-grammar is illustrated in Figure 3.
Within SFL analysis, the reconstrual of the relator because in Variation A as a logical circumstance (i.e., prepositional group,
due to) in Variation B and as a logical process (i.e., verbal group, has led to) in Variation C is referred to as logical GM. The
deployment of logical metaphors is important for advanced achievement of academic writing as it allows for newly nomi-
nalized expressions to be placed within cause and effect networks, an important characteristic of formal, academic discourse
(Halliday, 1989; Hyland, 2009, p. 7; Martin & Rose, 2003, p. 148). However, for reasons of scope, the current paper will focus

1
The distinction of ‘prepared’ and ‘unprepared’ speech is used here following Biber’s (1988) descriptions of spontaneous speech acts (i.e., ‘unprepared’)
and non-spontaneous speech (i.e., ‘prepared’). Although language is often mapped along a continuum of spoken to written discourse (e.g., Hyland, 2009),
often language characteristic of written expression is delivered in the spoken mode (e.g., academic lectures, broadcasts, etc.; see also Biber & Conrad’s, 2001
distinction of ‘involved’ and ‘informational’ discourses). Thus, additional characterizations of ‘prepared’ speech allows for language expression delivered in
alternative modes (i.e., written or spoken).
2
For clarity, nominalizations are annotated using small capital letters.
3
Throughout this study, SFL transitivity descriptions are used to describe the experiential representations of language: processes (verbal groups),
participants (nominal groups), and circumstances (adverbial groups and prepositional phrases) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Furthermore, participant or
nominal group constituents are referred to as Thing (i.e., noun), Quality of Thing (i.e., adjective) and Quality of process (i.e., adverb). Note: clause elements
are annotated using lower case letters; group constituents are capitalized.
18 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

Figure 2. Incongruent realizations mapped onto the lexico-grammar (Variation B).

Figure 3. Incongruent realizations mapped onto the lexico-grammar (Variation C).

solely on the deployment and development of two distinct types of experiential GM4 that constitute nominalizations: process
or verb as a Thing (e.g., achieve as ACHIEVEMENT) and Quality or adjective as a Thing (e.g., safe as SAFETY).

2. Grammatical metaphor and nominalization research

One of the earliest and most extensive descriptions of GM is provided in Ravelli’s (1988) framework. Ravelli’s (1988, 1999)
research provides two tests for evaluating whether an expression is functioning metaphorically, that of derivation and
agnation. The test of derivation identifies incongruent forms through an examination of their suffixes such as the meta-
phorical process ACHIEVEMENT deriving from the congruent process to achieve through the derivational suffix –ment. The second
test of agnation, or the etymological evolution of a word, refers to the idea that the incongruent or metaphorical form will be a
semantic alternative to a corresponding congruent from. Using the test of agnation, a GM can be “unpacked” into its
congruent expression. For example, the GM perception can be unpacked into the congruent processes think or perceive
(Ravelli, 1988, p. 141; 1999, p. 77).
Overall, research has identified the stratal tension that enables nominalization and GM, identified tools for testing its
incongruence, and accounted for its contribution to the achievement of academic texts, yet little has been done to develop a
framework for describing the quality of the nominalization’s deployment (Baratta, 2010). For example, Derewianka (1995)
and Ravelli (2003) note learners’ generalized application of derivational suffixes to produce inappropriate or non-existent
nominalizations (e.g., increasement, stopness) but simply classify these as ‘mistakes’ attributed to normal learning pro-
cesses rather than exploring how such errors may contribute to the development of full control over incongruent language. In
their detailed analysis of school discourses, Christie and Derewianka (2008) move a step further by characterizing learners’

4
In addition to these two patterns, SFL’s stratified theory of language also identifies the patterns of process as Quality of Thing (e.g., achieve as ACHIEVABLE)
and Process as Quality of process (e.g., compete as COMPETITIVELY).
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 19

Table 1
CLLC Number of words (tokens) and average text length per semester (Liardét, 2013b, p. 99).

Sub-corpora (Semester) Total number of words Total number of texts Average length per text
Semester 1dCLLC 1 18,814 130 145
Semester 2dCLLC 2 37,634 130 290
Semester 3dCLLC 3 33,581 130 258
Semester 4dCLLC 4 34,708 130 267

deployment of embedded clauses as ‘forerunners’ of GM (p. 28). However, there remains a significant need for detailed and
systematic descriptions of GM deployment, both of its developmental or ‘forerunner’ forms and of its full and appropriate use.
To illustrate this need for understanding intermediate forms as pathways toward full control, the following excerpts can be
examined.

1. The DIFFERENT of the culture sometimes make ARGUE with us (A51595)

2. It may lead to the UNSTABLEMENT of economic (A2178)

Under current practice, the nominalizations DIFFERENT, ARGUE and UNSTABLEMENT in Excerpts 1 and 2 may be excluded from an
analysis of nominalizations, disregarded as ‘mistakes’. However, as Ravelli (2003) argues, “it is in the exploration of actual
instances of data that the need to augment or adjust the theory of metaphor becomes evident” (p. 44). Thus, despite the
established networks for identifying and analyzing GMs, there remains a need to systematically examine larger numbers of
texts to identify intermediate occurrences of GM to more fully characterize learners’ pathways of nominalization proficiency.

3. The study

Research into learners’ development of GM often focuses on first language users of English and documents its emergence
in early adolescence, typically in conjunction with a shift in curriculum toward the written mode (e.g., Christie, 2002; Christie
& Derewianka, 2008; Foley, 1994; Halliday, 1993). In more recent years, however, studies have increasingly examined English
as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ development of GM and the role it plays in
academic success (Byrnes, 2009; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Colombi, 2006; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010; Schleppegrell,
2004). The current study seeks to expand upon these studies by examining Chinese EFL learners’ development of GM
across their first two years of university education. In just the past three decades, the number of Chinese learners of English
has grown to become the largest concentration of EFL learners in the world (Lam, 2002; Wang & Gao, 2008) and the number
of Chinese students enrolling in western universities is continually expanding. Thus, increasing focus on this large de-
mographic is important for future investigations into ESL and EFL development.
The present study employs an adapted corpus-assisted methodology that combines the delicate understandings of SFL
with the computational resources of corpus linguistics. The texts analyzed in this study are part of the Chinese Longitudinal
Learner Corpus (CLLC), a specialized corpus of 130 students’ persuasive texts collected from four consecutive semesters of
university study (i.e., each of the 130 students wrote one text during each of the four semesters, contributing four texts each
for a total of 520 texts). These exposition essays were written in a simulated examination situation in response to a single
prompt6 patterned after the Chinese National Test for English Majors (TEM; Cheng, 2008; Zou, 2003). Furthermore, the
argument genre was chosen for its prevalence in the academic context (Chen & Foley, 2004, p. 190; Martin, 1985). This
specialized corpus does not claim to be representative of all Chinese EFL learners,7 nor does it attempt to be representative of
academic writing. However, this focused design provides some insight into the linguistic patterns Chinese EFL learners deploy
when writing academic texts.
The CLLC consists of four subcorpora, each representing one of the four semesters. Although the same prompt and time
allotment was used each of the four semesters, the length of texts varied substantially, as illustrated in Table 1.
The adapted methodology comprises three cyclical stages of analysis conducted on each of the four subcorpora. Although
most corpus investigations into nominalizations employ corpus-tagging software (e.g., Baratta, 2010; Biber, Conrad, Reppen,
Byrd, & Helt, 2002), the present study aims to include atypical realizations that would otherwise not be picked up in such
analyses. Therefore, the first stage of the adapted methodology involved a manual analysis of a sample corpus (i.e., fifty texts).
During this manual analysis, all instances of GM were recorded and compiled into a central list of forms.

5
Texts in the CLLC are identified according to the semester in which they were collected (i.e., ‘A’ represents first semester texts; ‘B’ represents second
semester texts; etc.) and a four-digit number to represent the anonymized participant.
6
The prompt was, “As international communication and transportation increase and improve, the world is becoming more connected. As a result,
languages and cultures have crossed national boundaries to influence people around the world. Write a composition of about 300 words to discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of globalization and its influence on China”. The same prompt was used each semester to ensure learner familiarity with the
topic. Although this repetition may narrow the variation of GM used in these texts, the consistency of topic and text type reduces the research variables to
be considered in the comparative longitudinal analyses.
7
All references to ‘Chinese EFL learners’ hereafter serve as abbreviated reference to the participants in the study and do not presume representation of all
Chinese EFL learners.
20 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

Notably, during the first stage, many of the nominalizations identified were deployed inappropriately in the learners’ texts.
However, using the tests of derivation and agnation outlined above (Ravelli, 1988, 1999), all instances of language functioning
metaphorically were included in the analysis due to the study’s larger focus on learner development. For example, in Excerpt
3, UNDERSTAND is derivationally deployed as a process (i.e., understand) yet it functions metaphorically as a Thing (i.e., the
UNDERSTANDING).

3. It not only promote our languages COMMUNICATION but also improve the UNDERSTAND between different countries. (B5159)

The nominalizations identified in the first stage of analysis form the basis for the subsequent concordance analysis of the
second stage. Each of the nominalizations (e.g., UNDERSTANDING, INNOVATION, etc.) was entered into the corpus software using
wildcard functionality to ensure that all variations of the form are included (i.e., plurals, misspellings, etc.; Bennett, 2010;
Scott, 2004). The wildcard function casts a wider net in the search for similar forms. For example, to examine all instances of
the nominalization UNDERSTANDING, “understand*” may be entered into the Wordsmith search tool with the wildcard asterisk
“*” (Scott, 2004). Such a search returns all instances of UNDERSTANDING but also includes alternative forms such as the plural
UNDERSTANDINGS, the incomplete metaphorical UNDERSTAND (as illustrated in Excerpt 3) and the congruent alternative
understand.
This stage of the methodology required further manual analysis to delete any congruent instances (i.e., any variation
not functioning metaphorically). For example, in the KWIC (Key Word in Context) excerpt illustrated in Figure 4, influence
functions congruently as a process in concordance lines 1–4 and 6 (e.g., many bad cultures also influence many young
people, Line 2, Text A2094). However, in the remaining lines (i.e., 7–14), INFLUENCE functions incongruently as a nomina-
lization (e.g., GLOBALIZATION has good and bad INFLUENCE too, Line 12, Text A5164). During this stage of the analysis, the
congruent occurrences of influence (i.e., in Lines 1–4, and 6) were removed to ensure that only the metaphorical oc-
currences remain.
Once the nominalization concordances were compiled, they were analyzed quantitatively for frequency and variation and
qualitatively for metaphorical control and metaphorical enrichment. In brief, metaphorical control refers to “the degree of
completeness and control of the reconstrual of a congruent realization into a grammatical metaphor” (Liardét, 2013b, p. 71).
In other words, metaphorical control accounts for the varying levels of intermediacy students may achieve in the process of
gaining full control over the reconstrual (e.g., the misapplication of an affix as in BANKRUPTION for BANKRUPTCY). The second
qualitative descriptor, metaphorical enrichment, refers to “the degree and quality of meaning” or the “commitment and for-
mality infused into the lexis” (Liardét, 2013b, p. 92; see also; Hood, 2008; Ward, 2007). Enrichment here is used to describe
the varying levels of technicality, formality and nuanced meaning committed to the metaphor, such as the distinction be-
tween the less enriched term, the KILL, and its more enriched synonyms: SLAUGHTER (kill þ animals þ for food), MURDER
(kill þ human being þ unlawful), MANSLAUGHTER (kill þ human being þ without malice or aforethought), HOMICIDE (kill þ human
being þ intentional, premeditated) and ASSASSINATION (kill þ human being þ motivated by political or religious reasons) (Liardét,
2015, pp. 39-40).

Figure 4. Concordance excerpt of INFLUENCE (Liardét, 2013b, p. 67).

 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 21

Figure 5. Nominalization variation (i.e., the number of distinct nominalization forms; Liardét, 2013b, p. 132; Note: variation is illustrated using raw frequencies).

The third and final stage of the adapted methodology involved a whole-text analysis of nominalizations and their textual or
logogenetic8 impact. During this whole text examination, instances of nominalization were analyzed for their contribution to
the text’s cohesion and argument development through the tools of anaphoric reconstrual (i.e., the pattern of reconstruing
previously deployed congruent meanings metaphorically in subsequent Theme position) and nominal group elaboration (i.e.,
reconstruing multiple co-occurring meanings into a single metaphorical nominal group; Liardét, 2013b; 2014, 2016).

4. An elaborated framework

Using this adapted Corpus and SFL methodology, the nominalizations were examined quantitatively, for variation and
frequency of occurrence, and qualitatively, for metaphorical control and metaphorical enrichment. Finally, nominalization
patterns were analyzed for logogenetic impact. The following sections detail these descriptions, using the findings of the CLLC
to illustrate how they contribute to a more holistic understanding of nominalization proficiency.

4.1. Quantitative variation & frequency findings

The first aspect of the elaborated framework investigates how many different forms of nominalization are deployed,
quantifying the learners’ repertoire of nominalizations. Notably, the Chinese learners in this study consistently expand their
paradigmatic choices for construing experiential meanings nominally across each of the four semesters. As Figure 5 illus-
trates, in the CLLC, 185 different forms of nominalization (e.g., DEVELOPMENT, REALIZATION, COMPETENCE) are deployed in the fourth
semester compared to 64 different forms deployed in the first semester, demonstrating a nearly three-fold increase.
During the second stage of the analysis, the identified forms were used to collate concordances of all instances of nom-
inalizations deployed across the entire CLLC (i.e., all 130 texts each semester) to quantify the prevalence of nominalizations
across the four semesters. Due to the variation of text lengths across the four semesters, these calculations were normalized
according to instances per 10,000 words. Figure 6 outlines the overall frequency of nominalization construal across the four
semesters.
As Figure 6 illustrates, the frequency of nominalizations increases in similar incidence with the expansion of paradigmatic
choices (i.e., from 164 in the first semester to 360 in the fourth semester). Thus, gradual and consistent quantitative devel-
opment can be mapped across the four semesters. Arguably though, the qualitative characterizations of these occurrences are
necessary to reveal how successfully the learners gain proficiency over this resource.

4.2. Metaphorical control findings

The first qualitative measurement of nominalization proficiency describes the degree of metaphorical control the learners
demonstrate over the completeness of the reconstrual. A detailed, manual examination of the CLLC reveals two macro dis-
tinctions of intermediate metaphorical control. The first involves intermediacy in the reconstrual itself (i.e., gerund nouns,
gerundive nominalizations, incomplete reconstruals and non-word reconstruals); the second involves fully reconstrued

8
Logogenetic impact examines the effect of the GM on the way in which the text unfolds (i.e., logogenetically, or the unfolding of meanings across text;
Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). In other words, when nominalizations are deployed, these static expressions can be commented on, evaluated and placed
within cause and effect networks. Although nominalizations have the potential to impact the overall structure of the text in these ways, not all instances are
used to achieve these textual features. Therefore, logogenetic impact examines the effects of nominalizations on the structuring of the text (Liardét, 2013a,
2013b, 2016).
22 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

Figure 6. Frequency of nominalizations deployed in the CLLC (normalized per 10,000 words; Liardét, 2013b, p. 136, p. 136).

experiential metaphors with infelicitous inflections or intermediate modification (i.e., infelicitous pluralization and co-text
intermediacy). These six patterns of intermediate metaphorical control are outlined in Table 2.
Notably, across the four semesters, the Chinese learners deploy most nominalizations with full metaphorical control. In
the first semester, only 16.9% of all nominalizations demonstrate intermediacy. Across the subsequent semesters, this number
gradually decreases to only 7.4%, as illustrated in Figure 7.
Although proportionately infrequent overall, these instances of intermediacy remain problematic and often distract from
the text’s meaning, likely detracting from the learners’ overall success when deploying nominalizations. Most notably, the
more detailed analysis presented in Figure 8 reveals how the Chinese EFL learners increasingly deploy these patterns of
intermediacy across the four semesters.
In short, although the Chinese EFL learners decrease the proportion with which they deploy these intermediate re-
alizations, Figure 8 reveals that the overall incidence of these problematic patterns generally increases (i.e., with the exception
of gerund nouns and incomplete reconstruals), suggesting that further intervention is necessary. Therefore, a close exami-
nation of the types of intermediate metaphorical control is necessary to explore the specific obstacles learners may face when
deploying nominalizations and to diagnose how best to remediate these infelicities.

4.2.1. Gerund noun

The first pattern of intermediate metaphorical control involves the deployment of gerund nouns. First identified in
Fawcett’s (1980) network of congruency (p. 93), gerund nouns function metaphorically, yet maintain their morphological
gerund verbal form (-ing; see also Abney, 1987; Siegel, 1998). In the CLLC, the incidence of gerund nouns is varied across the
four semesters, with only five forms occurring in more than one semester (i.e., COMMUNICATING, INVADING, STUDYING, THINKING and
TRAVELING), as illustrated in Excerpts 4–7.

4. Some cultures have effect on children’s GROWING and STUDYING (A5086)

5. Cultures of different countries have a MIXTURE and EXCHANGE through people’s TRAVELING (B2058)
6. Too much INFORMATION, including bad INFORMATION, affect people’s right THINKING (C3023)
7. We should know the disadvantages brought by GLOBALIZATION just like culture INVADING and crisis. (D3131)

Table 2
Intermediate metaphorical control characterizations of nominalization (Liardét, 2013b, p. 80).

Characterization Description Intermediate examples “Full” realizations

Gerund noun Maintain morphological gerund verbal form (–ing) original THINKING original THOUGHT
yet function metaphorically as the Head of a nominal group people’s EXCHANGING people’s EXCHANGE
Gerundive nominalization a gerund noun as the Head of a nominal group, the SPREADING of the SPREAD of
employing a ‘the þ gerund þ of’ pattern the WIDENING of the EXPANSION of
Incomplete reconstrual processes or Qualities that function metaphorically the UNDERSTAND between the UNDERSTANDING
as Things, yet fail to take on the appropriate morphological affix countries between countries
the DIFFERENT of the DIFFERENCE of the
the culture culture
Non-word reconstrual processes or Qualities that function metaphorically BANKRUPTION BANKRUPTCY
as Things, yet adopt an inappropriate affix, resulting UNSTABILIZATION DESTABILIZATION
in a non-existent word
Infelicitous pluralization fully deployed metaphor inappropriately marked as a KNOWLEDGE the KNOWLEDGE
countable or mass noun many EVIDENCES substantial EVIDENCE
Co-text intermediacy fully deployed metaphor with inappropriately dramastic DEVELOPMENT dramatic DEVELOPMENT
reconstrued co-text science ACHIEVEMENT scientific ACHIEVEMENT
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 23

Figure 7. Proportion of intermediate metaphorical control per semester (Liardét, 2013b, p. 141).

As these excerpts illustrate, many gerund noun nominalizations take on qualities of nominal groups, either through pre-
modifying possessives (e.g., children’s GROWING and STUDYING, people’s TRAVELING) or Epithets (i.e., adjectives; e.g., right THINKING,
culture INVADING). Although these gerund nouns function metaphorically, they demonstrate intermediate metaphorical control
through their incomplete realizations on a cline toward full nominal reconstruals. In other words, gerund nouns would be
more readily distinguished as nominalizations if they were deployed in their nominal form (i.e., GROWTH, STUDY, TRAVEL, THOUGHT
and INVASION).

4.2.2. Gerundive nominalization

The second characterization of metaphorical control intermediacy is gerundive nominalizations (also referred to as deverbal
nouns; Siegel, 1998, p. 2; see also Abney, 1987; Wasow & Roeper, 1972). While similar to the deployment of gerund nouns,
gerundive nominalizations appear more static through their inclusion of a pre-modifying the– and a post-modifying –of
(Heyvaert, 2003, 2008). In the CLLC, the rate of gerundive nominalizations increases slightly across the four semesters,
suggesting that students increasingly rely upon this pattern for constructing nominalizations. Excerpts 8–11 illustrate the
most commonly deployed forms of gerundive nominalizations.

8. With THE COMING OF GLOBALIZATION, all the Chinese give up some old minds (A4002).
9. With THE DEVELOPING OF the society, there are so many different opinions about people (C2155)
10. China has deeply influenced by the GLOBALIZATION, especially after THE ENTERING OF WTO. (B1133)

Figure 8. Frequency per type of intermediate metaphorical control per semester (i.e., normalized per 10,000 words; Liardét, 2013b, pp. 142-143, 153).
24 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

11. THE SPREADING OF INFORMATION and technology helps one country to find out its WEAKNESS (C3023)

Similar to the deployment of gerund nouns, each of these gerundive nominalizations has a more static nominal alternative
(i.e., ARRIVAL, DEVELOPMENT, ADMISSION, and SPREAD). In conjunction with a slight decrease in gerund noun deployment, however, the
increased reliance on gerundive nominalizations may indicate development toward fuller nominalization reconstrual.

4.2.3. Incomplete reconstrual

The third characterization of intermediate metaphorical control in the nominalization itself is incomplete reconstrual. Such
nominalizations function metaphorically, but fail to take on the full morphological characteristics of the intended metaphor,
demonstrating a derivational difficulty. Notably, incomplete reconstruals are also found in other studies into Chinese learner
development (e.g., Chen, 2003; Chen & Foley, 2004). For example, in their 2004 analysis of Chinese and English GM, Chen and
Foley hypothesise that this pattern of intermediacy is an L1 transfer error resulting from an absence of morphological change
in the deployment of Chinese nominalizations (pp. 101-102).
In the CLLC, incomplete reconstrual is one of the most prevalent types of intermediate metaphorical control. In these
nominalizations, the process often fails to shed a distinct verbal inflection (e.g., ding as in CHALLENGING, Excerpt 12) or simply
fails to take on a nominal suffix (e.g., dment as in DISAGREE, Excerpt 13). In some instances, the fragmented nominalization is
the result of an incomplete reconstrual to the appropriate alternative agnate. For example, in Excerpt 16, the presumed
congruent clause (the environment is paying the price for developing our country) could appropriately be realized as the COST of
the environment; however the incomplete agnate pay is deployed instead.

12. China, as a developing country, faces chance and CHALLENGING. (B1132)

13. COMMUNICATIONS between Chinese and other countries, so there are more DISAGREES and ARGUES. (B4130)
14. And this provide a great CONVENIENT for your common life. (B5115)
15. As a result, the SAFE of everyone’s economy may be very dangerous (A4161)
16. We ask ourself whether it is worth developing our country on the PAY of environment (C4177)

Although these nominalizations function metaphorically and begin to achieve the valued effects of reconfiguration made
possible through the incongruent realization, the prevalence of incomplete reconstruals remains problematic and may
detract from the text structuring effects the metaphorical expression achieves. When assessed, such instances may be
identified as misspellings or lexical errors, and thus may be disregarded as mistakes rather than commended for their role in
reorganizing a text statically. Therefore, although the Chinese EFL learners demonstrate some development through
decreased frequency of incomplete reconstruals, instruction may be necessary to ensure learners successfully eliminate all
such occurrences.

4.2.4. Non-word reconstrual

The fourth characterization of intermediate metaphorical control is the non-word reconstrual. Similar to the deployment of
incomplete nominalizations involving the omission of morphological inflections, non-word reconstruals are the result of
misapplied affixes. Although the reconstrual functions metaphorically, its morphological structure is non-existent in the
target language.
Non-word realizations reflect their appropriate alternative closely enough that the intended nominalization can be readily
elucidated from the context. For example, in Excerpt 17, the word convince is functioning as a Thing and through the co-text,
the meaning of CONVENIENCE can be deduced.

17. Many new INNOVATIONS brings us so much CONVINCE and COMMUNICATIONS. (B3083)
18. The domestic companies came under threat of BANKRUPTION as they’re not very COMPETITIVE. (C4151)
19. But on the other hand, it may lead to the UNSTABLEMENT of economic since every country is connected tightly. (A2178)

More typically, non-word realizations result from the misapplication of a nominal inflection. For example in Excerpt 18,
the Quality bankrupt is deployed with the nominal suffix –tion rather than the appropriate form, BANKRUPTCY. Similarly, in
Excerpt 19, the nominal suffix –ment is misapplied to the Quality unstable rather than the somewhat irregular, but appro-
priate, –ization suffix with the negating prefix de– (i.e., DESTABILIZATION).
Interestingly, the learner who wrote Excerpt 19 in Semester 1 attempts to reconstrue the same nominalization (i.e. un-
stable as DESTABILIZATION) in the second semester, providing a glimpse of individual development. In the second semester, this
learner deploys the appropriate suffix –ization (Excerpt 20), yet misapplies the prefix un– rather than the appropriate prefix
de–.

20. It may lead to UNSTABILIZATION of economy. (B2178)

Overall the incidence of non-word realizations is rare in the CLLC; however, their deployment provides some insight into
learner processes of reconstruing Qualities and processes as Things, and thus, a specific area for future intervention.
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 25

4.2.5. Infelicitous pluralization

Once the nominalization is appropriately reconstrued, two additional characterizations of intermediate metaphorical
control are identified. The first descriptor is infelicitous pluralization. When reconstruing the process or Quality as a
Thing, learners may achieve the appropriate morphological form, yet may not know whether the newly formed nom-
inalization is treated as a countable entity. In other words, learners inappropriately pluralize uncountable “mass” nouns
through the –s grammatical inflection or a preceding quantification determiner such as a or many (e.g., a KNOWLEDGE, many
EVIDENCES), or they omit the necessary –s inflection in countable nouns (e.g., all the ACHIEVEMENT), as illustrated in Excerpts
21–23 below.

21. They can be more open and obtain more KNOWLEDGEs about the world. (A3112)
22. This has caused great DAMAGEs to developing countries’ environment and their people’s HEALTH. (C3129)
23. All the ACHIEVEMENT are due to the globalization. (A2077)

Notably, the incidence of infelicitous pluralization remains steady across the four semesters of the CLLC, with no deci-
pherable improvement, suggesting that the appropriate application of plurals is an area that may require explicit ‘awareness
raising’ instruction to ensure that newly reconstrued nominalizations are appropriately modified.

4.2.6. Co-text intermediacy

The final characterization of intermediate metaphorical control is the inappropriate or incomplete reconstrual of the
nominalization’s co-text. In the process of reconstruing a nominalization, there is often a concurrent transformation of the co-
occurring meanings. For example, the nominal group ‘fast SPEED of the economy DEVELOPMENT’ in Excerpt 24 could be unpacked to
the clause the economy develops quickly, demonstrating three grammatical shifts: first, the process to develop is reconstrued as
the Thing DEVELOPMENT; second, the Thing, economy is reconstrued as the pre-modifying Classifier economic; and finally, the
Quality of process quickly is reconstrued as a Thing, SPEED.

24. Nowadays, with the fast SPEED of the economy DEVELOPMENT, GLOBALIZATION is becoming normal. (A5043)
25. Your economy can have speedful DEVELOPMENT (C5071)

However, while the central nominalization (DEVELOPMENT) is appropriately deployed and the Quality of process (quickly) is
realized as a Thing (SPEED), the Thing (economy) is not properly reconstrued into the Classifier economic, thus demonstrating
co-text intermediacy. This pattern of co-text intermediacy is further illustrated in the non-word reconstrual of the Epithet
SPEEDFUL in Excerpt 25, and illustrates how full and appropriate metaphorical control often involves several layers of successful
reconstrual, thus requiring even greater proficiency over the deployment of incongruent language.

4.3. Metaphorical enrichment

The second qualitative measurement of nominalization proficiency is metaphorical enrichment. When language is
deployed metaphorically, both the congruent and incongruent meanings of the lexis are conflated to achieve greater
commitment. For example, Hood (2008) argues that the nominalization LOSS in the excerpt below is instantiated with both the
meanings of the congruent process lost and the incongruent Thing LOSS (p. 360).

Congruent: She lost the opportunity to apply for the job.

Incongruent: The LOSS of opportunity cost her dearly.

This layering of meanings can further be achieved through paradigmatic lexical choices that commit greater meaning
through specialized or technical lexis. For example, the nominalizations CHANGE and MODIFICATION both represent process as
Thing reconstruals (i.e., from the processes change and modify), yet their meanings and usage are distinct. The metaphor
MODIFICATION construes meanings of a partial or minor adaptation, whereas CHANGE can be used more generically to describe any
differentiation. These two forms can be mapped as semantically linked through synonomy but varied along a cline of generic
and specific lexis (Schleppegrell, 2001, p. 444). Therefore, in terms of increasing degrees of enrichment, MODIFICATION dem-
onstrates greater enrichment than its synonym CHANGE. The metaphor CHANGE can further be enriched through more specified
‘circumstantial markers’, illustrating the value of paradigmatic alternatives such as AMENDMENT, TRANSFORMATION, VARIATION, FLUC-
TUATION and MUTATION, as mapped in Table 3.
In the CLLC, Chinese learners deploy varying degrees of enriched nominalizations across the four semesters. For example,
the nominalization ADVOCACY (i.e., the ADVOCATING of; Excerpt 27) from a fourth semester text demonstrates greater enrichment
than the nominalization SUPPORT (Excerpt 26) deployed in the second semester through the added circumstantial meanings to
support and þto fight on behalf of. Similarly, the nominalization COST deployed in a second semester text (Excerpt 28) is
somewhat general and less enriched than its alternative EXPENDITURE (Excerpt 29) through its increased circumstantial
meanings þcosts and þto disburse funds.
26 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

Table 3
Map of metaphorical enrichment for CHANGE (Liardét, 2013b, p. 81).

Metaphor Degree of enrichment Denotation Enrichment markers

CHANGE make or become different
MODIFICATION (þ) a partial or minor change ¼make or become different þ minor/partial
AMENDMENT (þ) a minor change for accuracy ¼make or become different þ for accuracy
TRANSFORMATION (þ) Dramatic, thorough change ¼make or become different þ dramatic
VARIATION (þ) alternative change ¼make or become different þ as an alternative
FLUCTUATION (þþ) irregular rise/fall change ¼make or become different þ irregularly þ rise/fall
MUTATION (þþ) Change in form or nature ¼make or become different þ full transformation þ genetic structure

26. There are not any SUPPORT, for example, money and strong army for them to develop their country. (B1121)
27. GLOBALIZATION promote THE ADVOCATING OF ideas of democracy freedom. (D5010)
28. COMPETITION among companies will urge them to use new technology to reduce the COST and require them to improve
their SERVICE. (B1149)
29. The international companies all over the world are certain to change people’s expenditure structure. (D4093)

Further distinctions of metaphorical enrichment can be seen through the choice of nominalizations occurring in the early
semesters compared to those found exclusively in later semesters. To illustrate these distinctions of development, Table 4
identifies those metaphors found only in the first two semesters as compared to those found in the latter two semesters.
The most pronounced distinction between the early and later semesters is the degree of variation found in Semesters 3
and 4. While this is accounted for in the quantitative analyses, this variation also illustrates increased degrees of enrichment
in the later semesters through increased language play. For example, in Semesters 3 and 4, learners deploy multiple gram-
matical forms of the same word (e.g., EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYMENT, and EMPLOYER; DESTROYER and DESTRUCTION; CONSUMER and CONSUMPTION;
LEADER and LEADERSHIP). The Chinese learners also demonstrate increased enrichment through multiple variations of the same
meaning. For example, the idea of BELIEF (Excerpt 30) is also realized in PERSPECTIVE (Excerpt 31) and VIEW (Excerpt 32); similarly,
the meaning of COMBINATION (Excerpt 33) is also realized in the variations INTEGRATION (Excerpt 34) and INTERACTION (Excerpt 35).

30. Because of culture differences, different nations of different BELIEFS can lead to war. (C5043)
31. So we should have a PERSPECTIVE on GLOBALIZATION and do research on it. (C5164)

Table 4
Nominalizations deployed exclusively in Semesters 1–2 compared to Semesters 3–4.

Semesters 1 & 2 Semesters 3 & 4

ACHIEVEMENT INFORMATION ABSORPTION CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PREPARATION
ADJUSTMENT INNOVATION ACCEPTANCE CREATION IMPORT PROFIT
ADVENTURE INVADOR ACTION DEBATE INFORMATION PROGRAMMER
ARGUMENT LEARNERS ADMINISTRATION DEFINITION INNOVATION PROPOSITION
ASSOCIATION LOOK ADVANCE DESTROYER INTEGRATION PROSPERITY
BEHAVIOUR MAKING ADVENT DESTRUCTION INTERACTION REFORM
BOND MISUNDERSTANDING ADVOCACY DISCUSSION INVESTOR REGULATION
BUILDING MIXTURE AGREEMENT DISPUTE JOINING RELATION
COLLECTION MOTIVATION AIM DOMINATION LEADER RETRIBUTION
COMING OBSTRUCTION ALTERATION EDUCATOR LEADERSHIP REVOLUTION
COMMITMENT OPPONENT ANIMATION EMPLOYEE LIFE RISE
COMPARISON POLLUTION ASSISTANCE EMPLOYER LOVE SALE
DEATH PREFERENCE ASSOCIATION EMPLOYMENT MEANING SEEKING
DEVOTION PROGRESS ATTENTION ENJOYMENT MEASURE SENSE
DISAGREEMENT QUESTION ATTRACTION ENTERING MELTING SHARING
DISCRIMINATION REALIZATION BARRIER EXCHANGE MEMBER SOLUTION
EMISSION RECOGNITION BEGINNING EXPENDITURE MODERNIZATION SPEAKING
ENDING RECOMMENDATION BELIEF EXPENSE MOTIVATION SPREAD
ENTRANCE REDUCTION BOOM EYE MOVEMENT STRATEGY
EXCEPTION REFLECTION CHOICE FAILURE OPENING SUCCESSOR
FORCE REFORM CLASH FASCINATION OWNER SUPPLY
FORMATION STORMING COLLABORATION FEELING PARTICIPANT TASTE
GUIDE STRIKE COMBINATION FLUCTUATION PAYMENT TENDENCY
HIT SUFFERING COMING FORGETTING PERCEPTION TRANSACTION
HOST SUPPORT CONCEPT HAVE PERFORMANCE UNITY
INDUSTRIALIZATION CONCEPTION HAVE-NOTS PERSECUTION VALUE
CONCERN HELPER PERSPECTIVE WIDENING
CONCLUSION HOPE POLLUTION WINNER
CONSIDERATION HUNT POPULATION WORK
CONSUMER IDENTITY PRACTICE WORKER
CONTENT IMAGINATION
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 27

32. Countries exchange their VIEWS about policies, economy and MANAGEMENT in order to build a better society (D4068)
33. According to Marxist Philosophy the COMBINATION is universal and everyone and everything has some kind of RELATION
(D5120)
34. The GLOBALIZATION is bringing a INTEGRATION of China and the rest countries in the world. (C3083)
35. GLOBALIZATION undoubtedly contributes a lot to the INTERACTIONS among the countries. (D3092)

Overall, this language variation tends to increase the degrees of enrichment found in the nominalizations deployed in later
semesters; however, not all of these variations are valued in academic texts. In the first two semesters of the CLLC, the Chinese
learners mostly deploy non-human entities (i.e., with the exception of HOST, INVADER, LEARNER, and OPPONENT). As the learners begin
playing with the language and deploying greater variation in Semesters 3 and 4, however, they increasingly deploy human
entities such as DESTROYER (Excerpt 36), HELPER (Excerpt 36), and EMPLOYEE (Excerpt 37; other examples include: WINNER, WORKER,
LEADER, OWNER, SUCCESSOR and EDUCATOR). In general, academic discourse privileges impersonal language that moves away from
naming or describing the actors. Therefore, these human entity nominalizations are classified as less enriched than their non-
human equivalents (i.e., HELP, DESTRUCTION, and EMPLOYMENT).9

36. We cannot judge casually whether it is a HELPER or a DESTROYER (D3070)

37. Less developed countries with flourished economy based on AVAILABILITY of cheap EMPLOYEES are highly important (D1079)

Apart from this slight trend towards less enriched human nominalizations, the metaphorical enrichment analysis outlines
subtle distinctions of increased enrichment in the final two semesters when compared to Semesters 1 and 2. However, the
continued deployment of less enriched forms coupled with the increased use of human metaphorical entities suggest that
learners require guidance towards more valued realizations.

4.4. Logogenetic impact

The final aspect of the elaborated framework involves an examination of a nominalization’s deployment across larger
stretches of text to measure the logogenetic impact, or the effect of the nominalization on the text’s cohesion and structure.
Due to the extensive manual analysis required to identify these patterns, five participants’ texts were selected for the whole-
text, logogenetic analysis (i.e., the same five learners’ texts were examined each of the four semesters for a total of 20 texts).
Although this small-scale analysis provides some insight into the ways the Chinese EFL learners’ deployment of nominali-
zations impacts the overall text development, these findings serve as initial insights rather than conclusive developmental
findings.
Two patterns of anaphoric reconstrual and nominal group elaboration are employed here to qualify this impact. Anaphoric
reconstrual refers to the deployment of congruent expressions followed by incongruent, repackaged reconstruals of those
same meanings, typically placed in Theme position of a subsequent clause to build cohesion and develop an argument
(Baratta, 2010, p. 1020; Halliday, 1988, p. 168; Liardét, 2014, p. 307; 2016, pp. 111-112). For example, in Excerpt 38, the
congruent process, invest, is anaphorically reconstrued as the nominalization INVESTMENT and placed in Theme position of the
latter clause, creating cohesion through a ‘given-new’ prosody (see also Schleppegrell, 2001, pp. 443-445; Wang, 2010, p. 33).

38. On the one hand, thanks to GLOBALIZATION, businessmen can invest their money in many different countries, rather than
in their own country, which enables them to make more money and help other countries to develop as well. Overseas
INVESTMENT has become a vital MOTIVATION for China’s fast DEVELOPMENT. (C3129)

Further illustrated in Excerpt 38 is the second logogenetic impact descriptor, nominal group elaboration, which involves the
repackaging of multiple co-occurring experiential meanings into a single, lexically dense nominal group: a vital MOTIVATION for
China’s fast DEVELOPMENT. In this example, the co-occurring congruent experiential meanings China develops quickly and to
crucially motivate, are repackaged into a single, lexically dense construction, allowing it to be brought into relationship with
the previously reorganized nominalization, overseas INVESTMENT. Thus, this repackaging of information allows for extended
explanations and evaluations of these newly condensed nominal clause elements.
In the analysis of the CLLC, no significant development is noted across the four semesters of the study. This lack of
development among this sample of five participants suggests that although the Chinese learners deploy nominalizations
more frequently (i.e., a nearly three-fold increase from Semester 1 to Semester 4), they are not exploiting the full potential of
nominalizations to effectively condense information and cohesively move their arguments forward. Thus, learning to deploy
nominalizations for the distinct purpose of developing the text’s cohesion and building its arguments is a critical area for
future instruction.

9
Note, the most appropriate reconstrual of the nominalizations HELP and DESTROYER in Excerpt 37 may require another pattern of experiential metaphor,
process as Quality of Thing (i.e., to help as BENEFICIAL and to destroy as DETRIMENTAL), to achieve the clause: we cannot judge casually whether it is BENEFICIAL or
DETRIMENTAL.
28 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29

5. Conclusion

This paper has mapped a nuanced framework for characterizing the deployment of nominalizations, both quantitatively
and qualitatively, in isolation and across larger stretches of text. These detailed descriptions allow for a fuller understanding of
how learners deploy the resources of nominalization, accounting for intermediate realizations that may be otherwise dis-
regarded as simple errors or misspellings.
The elaborated framework provides a multidimensional view of learner development beyond the current practice of
identifying the presence of nominalizations in academic texts. Of particular significance is the identification of six inter-
mediate metaphorical control patterns. These intermediate nominalization reconstruals often achieve the incongruent effects
of lexical density, increased condensation and text cohesion; however, such instances may require instructional intervention
to ensure learners are able to deploy these nominalizations and their co-occurring meanings in their full and appropriate
morphological and inflectional form. For example, instructors could incorporate specific examples of these intermediate
forms to raise student awareness of these problematic patterns for editing within their own texts. Similarly, the qualitative
description of metaphorical enrichment allows for the measurement of specialized meanings instantiated into the text. As
academic discourse values technical fields and foregrounds events rather than Actors, increased metaphorical enrichment
correlates with learners’ development of academic literacy. Therefore, the descriptions of metaphorical enrichment
contribute to the overall evaluation and mapping of nominalization proficiency. Instructors could incorporate these dis-
tinctions in the curriculum to develop learners’ skills in selecting more appropriate and enriched variations.
Although these detailed characterizations of nominalizations in isolation contribute to our understandings of nominali-
zation proficiency, it is equally necessary to examine a nominalization’s logogenetic impact to measure its effect on the text.
This final layer of analysis is critical for developing proficiency over this resource as it ensures learners effectively integrate
nominalizations for text development rather than simply inserting such language without a distinct purpose.
In summary, nominalizations are a key feature of academic discourse and learners tend to develop this resource even in
the absence of explicit instruction into their use. The detailed examination of learners’ development reveals key areas where
curriculum interventions may most effectively equip learners to harness the full potential of deploying nominalizations and
constructing academically valued texts. Thus, this elaborated framework of nominalization analysis contributes to the
growing body of research into academic discourse and advanced academic literacy.

References

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (Doctoral dissertation). USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of
Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts.
Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1017-1036.
Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press/ELT.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.
175-196). Oxford: Blackwell.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-
48.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20,
55-56.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing development in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy,
assessment. Modern Language Journal. supplement, 94.
Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery.”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326.
Chen, Y. P. (2003). An analysis of the grammatical problems in Chinese EFL students’ expository writing: A systemic functional perspective. Singapore
Tertiary English Teachers Society (STETS), 2, 1-10.
Chen, Y. P., & Foley, J. A. (2004). Problems with the metaphorical reconstrual of meaning in Chinese EFL learners’ expositions. In L. Ravelli, & R. A. Ellis (Eds.),
Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 190-232). London: Continuum.
Cheng, L. Y. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25, 15-37.
Christie, F. (2002). The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In M. J. Schleppegrell, & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced
literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 45-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
Colombi, M. C. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students of Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language
learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147-163). London: Continuum.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.
Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
Derewianka, B. (1995). Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence: The role of grammatical metaphor (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University, Department of Linguistics.
Fawcett, R. P. (1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of a
communicating mind. Heidelberg: Groos.
Foley, J. A. (1994). Moving from ‘common-sense knowledge’ to ‘educational knowledge. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, H. W. Kam, & V. Saravanan (Eds.),
Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 245-267). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy
practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106-125.
Guillen Galve, I. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics,
30, 363-385.
 C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 44 (2016) 16–29 29

Halliday, M. A. K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features (pp.
162-178). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Toward a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York:
Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder.
Heyvaert, L. (2003). Nominalization as grammatical metaphor: On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In A. M. Simon-Van-
denbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 65-99). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Heyvaert, L. (2008). On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea, 42, 39-82.
Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts: Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education, 19, 351-365.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners’ experiences. World Englishes, 21, 245-256.
Liardét, C. L. (2013a). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 161-178.
Liardét, C. L. (neé Fawcett) A corpus-assisted study of Chinese EFL learners’ development of academic literacy (Unpublished PhD Thesis) 2013b, The University of
Sydney, Department of Linguistics; Sydney, Australia.
Liardét, C. L. (2014). A ‘speedful development’: Academic literacy in Chinese learners of English as a foreign language. In M. Gotti, & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.),
Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes (pp. 303-324). Bern: Peter Lang.
Liardét, C. L. (2015). Academic literacy and grammatical metaphor: Mapping development. TESOL International Journal, 10, 29-46.
Liardét, C. L. (2016). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 109-118.
Martin, J. R. (1985/1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday, & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and
discursive power (pp. 221-267). London: The Falmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (2008). Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying ‘nominalization’. Discourse and Society, 19, 827-836.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1997). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
Ravelli, L. J. (1988). Grammatical metaphor: An initial analysis. In E. H. Steiner, & R. Veltman (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-oriented
approaches (pp. 133-147). London: Pinter.
Ravelli, L. J. (1996). Making language accessible: Successful text writing for museum visitors. Linguistics and Education, 8, 367-388.
Ravelli, L. J. (1999). Metaphor, mode and complexity: An exploration of co-varying patterns. Monographs in systemic functional linguistics, Department of
English Studies. University of Nottingham.
Ravelli, L. J. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen,
M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 185-220). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2010). Toward mastering the discourse of reasoning: Use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal, 94, 181-197.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431-459.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli, & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic
writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172-189). New York: Continuum.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12, 21-27.
Schleppegrell, M., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 174-187.
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L. (1998). Gerundive nominal and the role of aspect. In J. Austin, & A. Lawson (Eds.), The proceedings of ESCOL ’97. CLC Publications.
Taverniers, A. M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus, 90, 321-332.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2008). Corpora and LSP: Issues and implications. In C. Taylor-Torsello, K. Ackerley, & E. Castello (Eds.), Corpora for university language
teachers (pp. 31-48). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Wang, X. F. (2010). Grammatical metaphor and its difficulties in application. US-China Foreign Language, 8, 29-37.
Wang, W. F., & Gao, X. S. (2008). English language education in China: A review of selected research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
29, 380-399.
Ward, J. (2007). Collocation and technicality in EAP engineering. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 18-35.
Wasow, T., & Roeper, T. (1972). On the subject of gerunds. Foundations of Language, 8, 44-61.
Zou, S. (2003). The alignment of language teaching syllabus and language testing: TEM 8 test development and administration. Foreign Language World, 98,
71-78.

Cassi Liardét is a Lecturer of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, where she convenes Academic Communication units and oversees the development
of the Macquarie University Longitudinal Learner Corpus (MQLLC), a unique diachronic corpus of learner assignments. Her research interests include
grammatical metaphor, academic literacy, genre-based pedagogy, Systemic Functional Linguistics and Corpus Linguistics.