Exploring Nominalization in Physics and Applied Linguistics Textbooks with Different Levels of Difficulty: Implications for English for Specific Purposes

This study sought to investigate the variational use of nominalization in Physics and Applied Linguistics textbooks representing the hard and soft ends of the continuum of sciences, respectively. The study also aimed to compare and contrast the functions of nominalization used in the respective textbooks. To do so, 16 textbooks, eight in each discipline, suggested by experts in each field were selected; four of the textbooks in each discipline were the representatives of a higher level of linguistic difficulty and the other four exemplified a lower level. Analysis involved extracting nominal expressions and estimating nominalization density. The results showed that besides minor variations, we could identify little appreciable difference in the way nominal expression types are rendered in Physics and Applied Linguistics textbooks. It can also be concluded that nominalization is not regarded as characteristic of all academic disciplines but it might be possible to arrange disciplines on a cline of nominalization. This being so, one argument raises doubts over the use of nominalization as a rhetorical strategy to increase density or technicality at least in some, if not in many, disciplines. The idea appears premature, and thus further research might reveal more disciplinary tendencies and inclinations.