چکیده:
Language, science and politics go together and learning these genres is to learn a language created for codifying, extending and transmitting scientific and political knowledge. Grammatical metaphor is divided into two broad areas: ideational and interpersonal.This paper focuses on the first type i.e. Ideational Grammatical Metaphor (IGM), which includes process types and nominalization. The main objective of the current work is to analyze a corpus comprising 10 scientific and 10 political texts. The IGM framework was used to carry out an analysis on these texts to pinpoint their similarities and dissimilarities. The analysis indicates that IGM has dominated political and scientific texts and surprisingly is used exactly with the same frequency in both genres and the prevailing process types in both are material and relational types. Consequently, the tone of the writing is more abstract, pretentious and formal. In science, instances of IGM enable technicalizing and rationalizing; and in politics they deal with dominance, provocation and persuasion toward an intended objective. Based on the findings of this study, some implications can be drawn for academic writing and reading as well as translators and teachers involved in writing and reading pedagogy.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The analysis indicates that IGM has dominated political and scientific texts and surprisingly is used exactly with the same frequency in both genres and the prevailing process types in both are material and relational tYJ?eS.
Keywords: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Grammatical metaphor, Ideational Grammatical Metaphor, Nominalization, Process types, Scientific and Political texts.
Employing Halliday's & Matthiessen's model (1999) of analyzing some sentences regarding GM, this study aims at analyzing and comparing two different kinds of texts and investigating the possible similarities and discrepancies in scientific and political texts in terms of IGM and their respective frequencies.
Because of time constraints, only 10 scientific and 10 political texts, approximately 6000 words of each genre, were used as the corpus in order to pinpoint and analyze the frequency of Nominalization and process types for each nominalized word, and also to compare and contrast to find similarities and discrepancies between two genres in terms of IGM.
In revising literature, several studies (Eggins, 1994; Halliday, 1985, 1994; Taverniers, 2003, 2004, 2006 & Woods, 2006) have analyzed and revealed one or some distinguished properties of Nominalization by fits and starts, but Vandenbergen et al (2003) and Wang (2011) have investigated and classified all characteristics of Nominalization in details in the following way in which it has six features and also most of these characteristics are apparent in all the extracted nominalized expressions in political and scientific texts of this study as follows: 1.
Frequency of IGM Instances in Scientific and Political Texts The frequency of process types in both of the genres are represented in tables 4.