Volume 28, Issue 4 (12-2022)
Research on Information Science and Public Libraries 2022, 28(4): 448-464 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Samaei S M, Rasuli B. Syntactic properties of the language of scientific communication in the Persian scientific works. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries 2022; 28 (4) :448-464
URL: http://publij.ir/article-1-2419-en.html
URL: http://publij.ir/article-1-2419-en.html
Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc) , rasuli9@gmail.com
Abstract: (1543 Views)
Purpose: The language of science is one of the social types of Persian language, which is used by the educated classes in scientific works and contexts. The purpose of this research is to present an overall picture of the syntactic properties of the Persian scientific language. Thus the types of sentences, types of tenses, verb tenses, and syntactic constructions have been identified in the scientific texts, their statistics have been presented, and their content has been analyzed.
Method: The research questions were addressed through documentary research method, which is one of the methods categorized into the qualitative approach. To identify the syntactic properties of the language of science, 90 articles in scientific-research publications in two research domains (humanities and basic sciences) and three academic fields (linguistics, geology, and chemistry) were purposefully sampled. These articles are entered into the "QDA Miner Lite" in the form of text, read, and coded.
Findings: Around 1390 codes were extracted and analyzed from these works. The findings of the research showed that one of the common syntactic properties of the Persian scientific language was the use of the indicative mood and the simple present, simple past tense, and present perfect. In addition, Persian-speaking researchers (authors) prefer to use simple sentences, and write their works in a passive voice. The indicative mood with 377 codes and the simple present tense with 325 codes were the most frequent themes in the coding process. Therefore, it seems Persian-speaking authors of scientific works have tried to use writing structure which is polite. For example, they prefer to write their works in a passive voice in order to say their thoughts and opinions politely. In addition, probably, Persian-speaking authors are following the writing traditions from past centuries, which is not compatible with recent science communication’s basics.
Originality/value: This study is the first attempt to identify the characteristics of the language of science in the Persian language through the empirical data. The findings of this research can be useful for teachers and educational institutions in teaching the language of science. In addition, institutions such as the Academy of Persian Language and Literature can take advantage of these findings in their policies. The findings of this research are also useful in computational linguistics.
Method: The research questions were addressed through documentary research method, which is one of the methods categorized into the qualitative approach. To identify the syntactic properties of the language of science, 90 articles in scientific-research publications in two research domains (humanities and basic sciences) and three academic fields (linguistics, geology, and chemistry) were purposefully sampled. These articles are entered into the "QDA Miner Lite" in the form of text, read, and coded.
Findings: Around 1390 codes were extracted and analyzed from these works. The findings of the research showed that one of the common syntactic properties of the Persian scientific language was the use of the indicative mood and the simple present, simple past tense, and present perfect. In addition, Persian-speaking researchers (authors) prefer to use simple sentences, and write their works in a passive voice. The indicative mood with 377 codes and the simple present tense with 325 codes were the most frequent themes in the coding process. Therefore, it seems Persian-speaking authors of scientific works have tried to use writing structure which is polite. For example, they prefer to write their works in a passive voice in order to say their thoughts and opinions politely. In addition, probably, Persian-speaking authors are following the writing traditions from past centuries, which is not compatible with recent science communication’s basics.
Originality/value: This study is the first attempt to identify the characteristics of the language of science in the Persian language through the empirical data. The findings of this research can be useful for teachers and educational institutions in teaching the language of science. In addition, institutions such as the Academy of Persian Language and Literature can take advantage of these findings in their policies. The findings of this research are also useful in computational linguistics.
Type of Study: qualitative |
Subject:
Theoretical Research on Library and Information Science
Received: 2022/07/5 | Accepted: 2022/10/3 | Published: 2022/12/31
Received: 2022/07/5 | Accepted: 2022/10/3 | Published: 2022/12/31
References
1. آشوری، داریوش (1375). زبان فارسی و کارکردهای تازه آن. در دربارۀ زبان فارسی (زیرنظر نصرالله پورجوادی). تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، 279-307.
2. آقاگل‌زاده، فردوس؛ و عباسی، زهرا (1391). بررسی وجه فعل در زبان فارسی بر پایۀ نظریۀ فضاهای ذهنی. ادب‌پژوهی 6(20)، 154-135.
3. تاج الدین، ضیاءالدین؛ و عشقوی، ملیحه (1392). آموزش زمان‌های فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان: مقایسۀ روش‌های تدریس ساختاری و ارتباطی. علم زبان، 1(1)، 83-108. https://ls.atu.ac.ir/article_28_19d6be2217d3c62f03661ef40b92b2e8.pdf
4. حق‌شناس، علی‌محمد (1387). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: وزارت آموزش‌و پرورش.
5. حق‌شناس، علی‌محمد (1372). در جست‌وجوی زبان علم. در مجموعه‌مقالات سمینار زبان فارسی و زبان علم (زیرنظر علی کافی). تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، 167-175.
6. رضایی، والی (1389). نگاهی تازه به ساخت مجهول در زبان فارسی. مجلۀ پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 2(1)، 19-34. https://journals.ui.ac.ir/article_17194_052a5c4b4cfe54eaafd1fc60b01e9b04.pdf
7. زندی، بهمن؛ و همکاران (1384). ویژگی‌های زبان علم در کتاب‌های شیمی دورۀ متوسطه ایران. پیک نور، 12، 38-48.
8. سمائی، سید مهدی و بهروز رسولی (1398). طرح شناسایی ویژگی‌های زبانی زبان علم در متون علمی فارسی. پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک).
9. صادقی، علی‌اشرف (1375). زبان معیار. در دربارۀ زبان فارسی (زیرنظر نصرالله پورجوادی). تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، 29-40.
10. کشانی، خسرو (1371). اشتقاق پسوندی در زبان فارسی امروز. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
11. ملکان، مجید (1372). مشکلات رواج زبان فارسی به‌عنوان زبان علم. در مجموعه‌مقالات سمینار زبان فارسی و زبان علم (زیرنظر علی کافی). تهران: مرکز نشر، 467-480.
12. مهرآوران، محمود (1394). الگوی شناور در ساخت جمله های مرکّب با توجه به کاربرد زمان افعال. فنون ادبی، 7(2)، 87-108. https://liar.ui.ac.ir/article_19745_f36a96fb3171167f32c3041cc566d3d4.pdf
13. زمان دستوری. (1399، 15 بهمن) در ویکی‌پدیا. https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C
Abdumannonovna, A. D. (2022). German As the Language of Science: Problems and Perspectives. World Bulletin of Social Sciences, 7, 22-24.
14. Ahmad, J. (2012). Stylistic features of scientific English: A study of scientific research article. English language and literature studies, 2(1), 47-55. [DOI:10.5539/ells.v2n1p47]
15. Brock-Utne, B. (2016). English as the language of science and technology. In Human rights in language and STEM education (pp. 109-127). [DOI:10.1007/978-94-6300-405-3_7]
16. De Groot, H. (2016). Dutch as the language of science and technology in Japan: The Bangosen lexical works. Histoire Epistémologie Langage, 38(1), 63-82. [DOI:10.1051/hel/2016380104]
17. Donovan, C., & Coleman, J. (2018). The language of science in the reading and writing of student scientists. Science and Children, 56(1), 62-67. [DOI:10.2505/4/sc18_056_01_62]
18. Drubin, D. G., & Kellogg, D. R. (2012). English as the universal language of science: Opportunities and challenges. Molecular biology of the cell, 23(8), 1399-1399. [DOI:10.1091/mbc.e12-02-0108] [PMID] []
19. Duke University. (2022). Passive Voice in Scientific Writing. Duke University. https://sites.duke.edu/scientificwriting/passive-voice-in-scientific-writing
20. Flink, T., & Kaldewey, D. (2018). The Language of Science Policy in the Twenty-First Century. Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century, 4, 251. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctv8bt0z7]
21. Gallaudet University. (2021). Using the Passive Voice in Scientific Writing. Gallaudet University. https://www.gallaudet.edu/tutorial-and-instructional-programs/english-center/grammar-and-vocabulary/writing-sentences/using-the-passive-voice-in-scientific-writing
22. Garvin, P. L. (1959). The standard language problem: concepts and methods. Anthropological Linguistics, 28-31.
23. Guardiano, C., Favilla, M. E., & Calaresu, E. (2007). Stereotypes about English as the language of science. AILA Review, 20(1), 28-52. [DOI:10.1075/aila.20.05gua]
24. Hamel, R. E. (2013). L'anglais, langue unique pour les sciences? Le rôle des modèles plurilingues dans la recherche, la communication scientifique et l'enseignement supérieur. Synergies Europe, (8), 53-66.
25. Jalilifar, A., Bardideh, A., & Shooshtari, Z. (2018). From academic to journalistic texts: A qualitative analysis of the evaluative language of science. Teaching English as a Second Language (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 37(1), 127-158.
26. Leather, Simon R. (1996). The case for the passive voice. Nature, 381(6), 467. https://www.nature.com/articles/381467a0.pdf [DOI:10.1038/381467a0] [PMID]
27. Levy- Leblond, Jean- Marc. 2013. "La Science au defi de la Langue." synergies Europe, (8), 19-28.
28. Normand, M. P. (2019). The language of science. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(3), 675-688. [DOI:10.1007/s40614-017-0123-8] [PMID] []
29. Patterson Williams, A. D. (2020). Sustaining disciplinary literacy in science: A transformative, just model for teaching the language of science. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(3), 333-336. [DOI:10.1002/jaal.1100]
30. Quine, W. V. (1957). The scope and language of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 8(29), 1-17. [DOI:10.1093/bjps/VIII.29.1]
31. Ragab, A. (2017). "In a Clear Arabic Tongue": Arabic and the Making of a Science-Language Regime. Isis, 108(3), 612-620. [DOI:10.1086/694316]
32. Reeves, C. (2005). The Language of Science (1st ed.). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203597125]
33. Roelli, P. (2021). Latin as the Language of Science and Learning (p. 646). De Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110745832]
34. Terrall, M. (2017). French in the Siècle des Lumières: A Universal Language?. Isis, 108(3), 636-642. [DOI:10.1086/694162]
35. Utrecht University. (2015). A guide for scientific writing. Utrecht University. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://students.uu.nl/sites/default/files/ge0-aw-guide-for-scientific-writing-2016.pdf
36. van Driel, S., Slot, E., & Bakker, A. (2018). A primary teacher learning to use scaffolding strategies to support pupils' scientific language development. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(2). [DOI:10.20897/ejsteme/3115]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
