8/12/2019 AnnMG

1/12

A. Montemayor-Borsinger, Instantial and conventional representations inscientific knowledge construction, in C. Jones and E. Ventola (eds.) New

Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning Equinox Publishing Ltd,

London, U.K.

Chapter 8

Instantial and conventional representations in scientific knowledge construction

Ann Montemayor-Borsinger

Abstract

This chapter examines how the realization of ideational meanings in scientific articles changes as an

author gathers experience by using the notions of Instantial and Conventional representations.

Instantial representations are multifunctional expressions that have been especially modeled to createnew combinations of meanings. These expressions may be used for issues that are concerned with

interpretation or controversy, and often involve additional strands of interpersonal meanings. In

contrast, conventional representations are well established expressions that are commonly used in agiven field of research. These two types of representations were proposed for the analysis of an

extended corpus of articles in physics published in international journals. An interesting finding that is

confirmed by the present more detailed and qualitative case study is how the different uses of these

representations affect the distribution and flow of ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings. The

analysis shows that scientific knowledge construction may be enhanced by instantial combinations ofcontent and argumentation in subject position, which point towards a strategic use of unmarked Theme

for new, sometimes controversial, meanings that simultaneously function as the nub of the argument.

1 Introduction

Systemic Functional Linguistics has had a long standing interest in the role language plays in the

creation, communication and negotiation of scientific discourse. This chapter is a detailed case study of

how a physicist changes his grammatical subject representations in two research articles published

within a decade of each other in international refereed journals. Grammatical subject is crucial when

composing texts as it represents the nub of the argument: something by reference to which the

proposition can be affirmed or denied (Halliday 1994: 76), and is the element on which the validity of

the information is made to rest (ibid.). A study over time of different representations in grammatical

subject with increased experience provides significant information on changes in the communication

and negotiation of scientific knowledge,and provides a better understanding of how established

scientists choose to convey the results of their research.

Section 2 considers the situational context of the texts. Section 3 focuses on methodological

aspects of the text analysis by discussing Hallidays concept of grammatical metaphor and

introducing the notions of Conventional and Instantialrepresentations of scientific knowledge.

Section 4 examines how grammatical subjects change with increased experience in publishing research

articles, with a marked tendency towards more instantial representations. The last section discusses the

linguistic and pedagogical implications of this case study, which is in agreement with statistical results

1

8/12/2019 AnnMG

2/12

obtained from studying a larger corpus of research articles.

2 The situational context of the two articles

Since this study derives its motives from a larger project concerning research writing in the sciences, an

understanding of the context in which scientific articles are written is necessary to ensure the effective

interpretation of the analysis of the texts. In what follows characteristic features of the corpus are

briefly discussed in relation to the writing and publishing contexts.

2.1 The writing context

Montemayor-Borsinger (2005, 2007) presented a study of an extended corpus of research articles

published in international refereed journals. It was set up to analyze representational changes in

grammatical subject by asking ten established physicists to submit their first article and two later

articles that they had written on their own. Publications of the articles in international refereed journals

were necessary to ensure they were socially validated texts as regards both language and scientific

ideas. The physicists concerned have all published well over fifty articles, sometimes co-authored, and

regularly act as referees themselves. Here I examine in more detail conventional and instantial subject

representations in two articles, written by one of the researchers: his first article and an article

published a decade later.

With respect to co-authorship, clarification is needed. In physics, teamwork is the norm, and it is

customary for young researchers to publish their first articles with their supervisors. They generally

start by writing parts of the article, which are then edited and often rewritten by supervisors. Once

physics students have completed their PhD, they carry on working in research groups. However, within

these highly collaborative settings, there are physicists who tend to work on their own and publish on

their own. Alternatively, there are physicists who carry out the research work in collaboration with

others, but tend to be the ones who end up writing the article. A distinction has thus to be made

between the writer of an article, i.e. the one who actually puts into words what has been done, and its

co-authors, i.e. the team of researchers who, by actively taking part in the research process, make the

writing of the final article possible. In other words, articles in physics may have several authors, which

does not necessarily mean that all of them have actually written the article. This is because physics

requires both mathematics and words. The research process necessarily involves many different aspectssuch as detailed calculations, computational and laboratory work, results under the form of equations,

tables and figures, decisions to be taken about which equations, tables or figures should be presented,

how they should be presented, in what order, etc As one informant, working in theoretical physics,

put it during an interview(personal transcription, slashes indicate pauses):

physicists use mathematics and they couldnt not use mathematics/ but mathematics isnt all it

2

8/12/2019 AnnMG

3/12

8/12/2019 AnnMG

4/12

The two articles were published within a decade of each other, a sufficiently long period of time

for capturing significant changes in meaning-making as a researcher gains experience. A serious

problem affecting longitudinal studies is that they tend to suffer case losses: all the more so in the case

of extended time spans. In order to prevent such loss of information, the present analysis was designed

as a retrospective longitudinal study where there was one data collection point, when the researcher

was asked to furnish his first article and a later article of relevance.

3 Changes in representational practices over time

Another important consideration for such a study is the setting up of coding frames that will capture

these changes in the representation of scientific knowledge with increased experience. An effective

approach is offered by taking as a starting point Hallidays examination of grammatical metaphor

(1993: 69-85, 1998: 196-206). Halliday looks at metaphor, not as a variation in the meaning of an

expression, but as a variation in how a meaning is expressed. In science registers he distinguishes two

different types of grammatical metaphor: a referring or taxonomising type and an expanding or

reasoning type. He highlights the different roles both types have in scientific discourse because of the

different things they enable writers to do. Type 1 (the referring or taxonomising metaphor, so-called

because it refers via heavily nominalised technical classes) is concerned with the way scientists name

their objects of study. Examples of Type 1 referring metaphors are technical terms such as the

following that are found in the present corpus: The Boltzmann equation, The general solution,

Numerical analysis, Reaction-diffusion systems, Global coupling, Internal deterministic noise

etcType 1 metaphor has also been named distillation by Martin (1993) because it has compacted

and changed the nature of familiar expressions: just as a vat of whisky is both less voluminous anddifferent in kind from the ingredients that went to make it up. (1993: 172).

Type 2 (the expanding or reasoning metaphor) is used for building up technical classes into

flows of argument. Two examples taken form the present corpus are:A full understanding of the role of

global coupling in the dynamics of extended complex systemsand The question of the equivalence

between these two sources of asymmetrywhere, in both cases, the scientist has nominalised reasoning

processes of argumentation.

Another way of considering Hallidays distinction between Type 1, referring/taxonomising

metaphors, and Type 2, expanding/reasoning metaphors, is that the former is already part of the

enduring technical jargon of a given field of research, whilst the second constructs new scientific

representations. Halliday observes that there is a continuum between the two types since Type 2,

expanding / reasoning metaphors, may become distilled into Type 1, referring / taxonomising

metaphors, if they have become part of the language system. Hallidays continuum has to do with time.

He distinguishes three different types of time. The first is the time of the unfolding of the text -

logogenetictime. The second is the time of the evolution of the language -phylogenetictime. The third

4

8/12/2019 AnnMG

5/12

is the time of growth and maturation of the user of the language - ontogenetictime (cf. Halliday 1998:

222-223), the latter being the main concern of the present research. Writers can base their scientific

representations on the readily accessible wordings conventionally used in their field. Alternately,

writers may want to create tailored wordings that precisely fit into a particular stretch of discourse to

convey complex and sometimes controversial reasoning processes. They are in a position to do so once

they have deeply reflected upon and assimilated the substance with which they are working, and have

made the material their own, as it were: hence the concepts of Conventional vs. Instantial

representations that was set up and discussed in detail in previous works (Montemayor-Borsinger 2005,

2007).

Conventional subjects are commonly used representations within the research field concerned, as

in Example (1) from the present corpus (grammatical subject in bold).

(1) Global couplingplays a relevant role in models of many real systems driven by long-range interactions.

In contrast, instantial subjects are expressions which have been especially composed to express new,

sometimes controversial representations, as in Example (2) from the present corpus (grammatical

subject in bold).

(2) A full understanding of the role of global coupling in the dynamics of extendedcomplex systems-to the levels already reached in the case of diffusive coupling- willrequire the study of other types of local dynamics.

The need for a new taxonomy originated from difficulties encountered in previous studies that

examined changes in scientific knowledge construction (Montemayor-Borsinger 2001). It was found

that most of the highly specialised terms used in physics articles were both phenomenal and

epistemic in the sense given by Peck MacDonald (1992) because they identified both objects of study

and knowledge making elements that push science forward. However, these highly specialised terms

differ in the level of writer creativity involved. The Conventional versus Instantial distinction is an

effective way of studying representational changes with increased knowledge related both to subject-

matter and to ways of writing about it. Writers can base their language choices on the readily accessible

representations conventionally used in their field. On the other hand, writers may want to create

tailored representations that represent new, complex and/or controversial issues. Hence the importance

of distinguishing between these Conventional vs. Instantial representations that will be discussed indetail in the case study presented in the following section.

4 A discussion of the differences between Text 1 and Text 2

I shall now compare and contrast the representation of scientific knowledge in grammatical subjects in

two articles written and published by the same researcher at different times. His first article was

5

8/12/2019 AnnMG

6/12

published in 1988, and will hereafter be referred to as Text 1. The other was published in 1997, and

will hereafter be referred to as Text 2. The researcher works within an area of theoretical physics:

statistical mechanics. Work in this area of research is based on models for systems that can only be

described in terms of statistical probabilities, because information concerning these systems is

incomplete. As stated above, the two articles were published within a decade of each other in

specialised journals aimed at an audience of statistical physicists.

4.1 Percentages of conventional and instantial subjects in each text

The relative distribution of grammatical subject choices in the two articles is shown in Table 8.1. Apart

from the Conventional and Instantial representations proposed here, another class of grammatical

subjects was necessary to account for all the subjects in the articles. These were Participant subjects,

based on a taxonomy initially proposed by Davies (1988) and discussed in Gosden (1993). This type of

subject representation is relatively straightforward to recognise on the basis of lexical clues. Participant

subjects represent writers, and are mostly worded as we or our work, our results, etc.

Table 8.1 Subject representations in the two articles

Text Year Participant Conventional Instantial

1 1988 8% 77% 15%

2 1997 3% 63% 34%

Table 8.1 shows appreciable differences between Text 1 and Text 2. In Text 2, the percentages of

participant and conventional subjects are significantly lower than in Text 1, while those of instantial

subjects are more than double. In Text 1 all participant subjects are worded as we as shown in

Example (3) taken from Text 1.

(3) (Text 1)

Weobtain exact solutions for inhomogeneous systemsWe have extended the analysis of the discrete two-velocity model

Wehave found similar solitonic solutions etc.

In Text 2 participant subjects are both lower in quantity and expressed differently, with a particularly

noticeable absence of we representations. When asked about this in an interview, the researcher

pointed out that he had deliberately tried to avoid appearing at all by either using the impersonal one

as shown in Example (4),or verbs in the imperative that enjoin the reader to consider or suppose as

in Example (5):

(4) (Text 2)

Oneshould be interested in characterizing the forms of collective evolution,

6

8/12/2019 AnnMG

7/12

(5) (Text 2)

Consider a set of N identical elements Without loss of generality, suppose r>0

4.2 Relative proportions of conventional vs. instantial subjects

Another way of looking at differences between the two articles is to look at the relative proportion of

conventional and instantial subjects in each one. These proportions are as follows. In Text 1 there are

five times more conventional subjects than instantial ones, whereas in Text 2 there are only just over

twice as many. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 respect these proportions, and show some of the wordings found in

conventional and instantial subjects in each article. Hence, for each fifteen conventional subjects there

are only three instantial subjects in Text 1, whereas there are seven instantial subjects in Text 2. Tables

8.2 and 8.3 show the first fifteen conventional subjects and the corresponding proportion of instantial

subjects as each article unfolds. As a reminder, conventional subjects are technical terms that refer, via

heavily distilled technical wordings, to methods, models and phenomena. Instantial subjects, on the

other hand, are more complex realisations that have to do with particular reasoning and argumentation

processes as the discourse unfolds.

Table 8.2 The first fifteen conventional and corresponding three instantial subjects as Text

1 unfolds

Conventional grammatical subjects Instantial grammatical subjects

1 The Boltzmann equation The interest in this equation

2 The Boltzmann equation Simplified models for the considered systems

3 The velocity of a one-dimensional gas

molecule

The interaction between a two-velocity gas and a

background for the spatially homogeneous case

4 The general solution

5 Numerical analysis

6 Particular exact solutions

7 The Boltzmann equation

8 These processes

9 Solitonic distribution functions

10 The velocities for the one-dimensionalmodel gas

11 The Boltzmann equations

12 The bilinear operator (2.2)

13 The positive coefficients

14 The 2x2 matrix A = (aii)

15 The density n and the current j

7

8/12/2019 AnnMG

8/12

Table 8.3 The first fifteen conventional and corresponding seven instantial subjects as

Text 2 unfolds

Conventional grammatical subjects Instantial grammatical subjects

1 Reaction-diffusion systems The study of complex behavior in extended systems

2 Global coupling Other coupling mechanisms in particular, global

coupling

3 Long-range interactions Forms of collective behavior produced by globalcoupling

4 This paper This kind of ordered entrained evolution which hasbeen observed in systems formed by either identical or

slightly different elements

5 Models of coupled bistable elements A full understanding of the role of global coupling in

the dynamics of extended complex systems to thelevels already reached in the case of diffusive

coupling

6 Internal deterministic noise The same models, added with suitable harmonic

forcing,

7 The mathematical model The behavior of the coupled system for k = 1

8 A critical phenomenon

9 Section III

10 Results

11 The individual dynamics

12 The evolution of xi

13 The solution to Eq. (1)

14 Global coupling

15 The coupling constant k

In a similar way to what was noticed for participant subjects, these quantitative differences are

accompanied by qualitative ones. Instantial subjects increase both in number and in complexity in Text

2. The fourth and fifth instantial subjects found in this text and shown in Table 8.3 are two good

instances of particularly complex representations. In Example (6), they are reproduced in bold, in the

context of their respective clauses.

(6) Fourth and fifth instantial subject found in Text 2

This kind of ordered entrained evolution which has been observed in systemsformed by either identical or slightly different elementsis part of a wide class of

possible behaviors with nontrivial features, including clustering, chaotic collective

dynamics, and desynchronization. [new paragraph]

Although much attention has recently been paid to these sets of globally coupled

oscillators, a full understanding of the role of global coupling in the dynamics of

extended complex systems to the levels already reached in the case of diffusivecouplingwill require one to study other types of local dynamics.

These particularly complex instantial subjects are found throughout Text 2, and are much rarer in Text

1, as shown in the concluding paragraphs of each article in Examples (7) and (8). The grammatical

subjects are in bold.

8

8/12/2019 AnnMG

9/12

(7) Concluding paragraphs of Text 1

For this Boltzmann equation, wehave found similarity solitonic solutions,representing shape-preserving distribution functions moving along the spatial

coordinate. These solutionswere expanded in power series of the similarity

variable, obtaining recursive algebraic equations for the coefficients. This scheme

allows the calculation of the distribution function with an arbitrarily small error.

The recursive equationscan be solved in a closed form if remotion andregeneration processes are neglected. In this particular case, an acceleration in the

relaxation to equilibriumis observed when the density of the background

increases. This effectapplies for each point, as the step soliton passes on it.Furthermore, the value of the equilibrium currentdepends on the background

distribution, through eq. (2.3b). These resultsare the generalisation to the spatially

inhomogeneous case of the main conclusions obtained for the homogeneous

system [7]. They are expected to hold for more realistic gas models. (Zanette 1988:

617)

In the concluding paragraphs of Text 1, only one of the eight main grammatical subjects could be

considered as being instantial, i.e. an acceleration in the relaxation to equilibrium, which may be

justified on the basis of post-modification ofacceleration

. But even so the function of this subject isnot one of argumentation, but merely the presentation of a certain type of acceleration. There is one

participant subject we, and the remaining six subjects are all conventional wordings. In contrast, most

of the subjects in the concluding paragraph of Text 2 are instantial in nature:

(8) Concluding paragraph of Text 2

This interpretation of the model of globally coupled bistable elementsinspires the

proposal of several generalisations that are indeed worth considering. For instance, it

would be interesting to analyze the effect of an asymmetry in the potential of Eq. (1),such that only one stationary stateis truly stable whereas the otherbecomes

metastable. This intrinsic preference for one of the statescan be compared with the

evolution in the bistable symmetric potential from an asymmetric initial condition, as

described by Eq. (10). The question of the equivalence between these two sources ofasymmetry--the potential or the initial condition--arises then quite naturally. A second

generalisation, which is certainly relevant to the model of opinion formation,is to

admit the possibility that the coupling constant is not the same for all the elements, but is

chosen at random for each element from a prescribed distribution. In physical models,

this form of quenched disorderwould represent some kind of spatial inhomogeneity.To the author's knowledge, the effects of inhomogeneities in the coupling strengthhas

not been considered, up to this moment, in the literature on globally coupled systems.

(D.H. Zanette 1997: 3257)

Five of the eight subjects in the concluding paragraph of Text 2 are instantial wordings whose function

is that of discussing results, i.e. This interpretation of ... , only one ..., This intrinsic preference for ...,

The question of the equivalence between ..., A second generalisation, which is certainly relevant to ....

Example (8) shows a much more sophisticated use of argumentation strategies where the writer does

not overtly comment on the results, but rather hands over the agency to abstractions that combine

ideational representations of content with interpersonal meanings of evaluation and negotiation. The

function of such a combination is to account for the writers interpretations in ways that will be

perceived as being more objective by fellow researchers.

9

8/12/2019 AnnMG

10/12

8/12/2019 AnnMG

11/12

than just seeking advice at the editing level, there comes a point when they want to discuss in more

detail how to communicate and negotiate new meanings. A systemic functional perspective takes into

consideration these fundamental questions on meaning-making and the different ways the language of

science may regrammaticise experience by grammatical metaphor (Halliday and Martin 1993;

Halliday 1998). It also considers simultaneously the discussion of content: i.e. ideational strands of

meaning, the evaluation of content: i.e. interpersonal strands of meaning, and information flow

organisation: i.e. textual strands of meaning.

A greater focus on grammatical subject choice can be a very effective way of enhancing novice

researchers awareness of how to communicate more effectively, especially when there is little time

and heavy pressure to publish. The type of analysis presented here highlights possible options offered

by grammatical subject to suit different communicative aims and to enhance effective discourse flow.

Devising instantial subjects that are ideationally purposeful, interpersonally strategic and textually

suitable is an important step towards improving the discussion of results, where the linguistic choices

that scientists make affect the way in which findings are perceived by their respective research

communities.

References

Bazerman C. 1984. Modern Evolution of the Experimental Report in Physics: Spectroscopic Articles in

Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science 14: 163-196.Davies, F. 1988. Reading between the lines: Thematic choice as a device for presenting written viewpoint

in academic discourse. The ESPecialist, 9(1/2),173-200.

Gosden, H. 1993. Discourse Functions of Subject in Scientific Research Articles.Applied Linguistics, 14/1,56-75.

Halliday M.A.K. 1993. Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R.

Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp. 69-85). London: The Falmer

Press.Halliday M.A.K. 1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold Publisher.Halliday, M.A.K. 1998. Things and Relations. In J.R. Martin and R. Veel (Eds.),Reading Science: Critical

and functional perspectives on discourses of science(pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.

Martin J.R. 1993. Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R.Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp. 166-202). London: The Falmer

Press.

Martin J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.)Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse(pp. 142-175). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Martin J.R. and Rose D. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clauseLondon and New

York: Continuum.

Montemayor-Borsinger A.2001. Linguistic Choices in Two Research Articles in Physics: Study of an

Authors Development. The ESPecialist, 22(1),51-74.Montemayor-Borsinger A.2005. Authorial Development in Research Writing: coding changes in

grammatical subject The ESPecialist26/2, 82-104.

Montemayor-Borsinger A. (forthcoming) Text-type and Texture: the potential of Theme for the study ofresearch writing development Text-type and TextureG. Thompson and G. Forey (Eds.) Equinox

Publishing Ltd.

Peck MacDonald S. 1992. A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledgemaking. Written Communication(9), 533-569.

11

8/12/2019 AnnMG

12/12

Thomspon G. and Zhou J. 2000. Evaluation and Organization in Text: The Structuring Role of Evaluative

Disjuncts In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (2000)Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the

Construction of DiscourseOxford: Oxford University Press.

Corpus references

Zanette, D. H. 1997. Dynamics of globally coupled bistable elements Physical Review E55: 3247-3259.

Zanette, D. H. 1988 Solitonic solutions for the generalised two-velocity Boltzmann equation Physica A

153: 612-618.

12