Lexogramatical Analysis of Science and Literature Book Blurbs
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study deals with book blurbs. It aims to identify the ways in which science book blurbs differ from and/or similar to literature book blurbs and to explore what kinds of lexogramatical features are used in science and literature book blurbs. To meet these aims this study focuses on sixteen science blurbs in different disciplines involving (Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, Biology, Computer Science, Linguistics, Agriculture) and sixteen literature book blurbs in four different disciplines involving (Novel, Drama, Poetry, Literature).The data are analyzed based on Halliday’s transitivity system (2004). The results revealed that the most common processes that is involved in science and literature book blurbs are material and relational process. The texts of science are longer than literature book blurbs. Simple sentences (45.56% in literature, 53.7%in science) and active voice (83.6 % in science, 86% in literature) are the dominant structures in both disciplines. Finally Science and literature book blurbs have the same tendencies in applying transitivity systems.
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to
functional grammar third edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Grossi, B., and Bruit, S. (2015). Blurbs in fiction: A genre-based, linguistic and
semantic Analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pisa, Pisa).
Grivina, V., and Zirker, A. (2019). The Blurb and Its Role as Para text. Eberhard
Karls Universität Tübingen.
Valor, M. L. G. (2005). Advertising books: A linguistic analysis of blurbs. Ibérica
, (41-62).
Maskoliūnaitė, A., Ruzaitė, J., and Vaičenonienė, J. (2013). Comparative
analysis of English and Lithuanian back-covers and back-cover
annotations (Doctoral dissertation Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas).
Jones, L. A. (2007). The Great Cover-Up. School Library Journal, 53(6), (44-47).
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL.TESOL quarterly,
(4), (693-722).
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics: London, UK:
continuum
Raeisi, M., Dastjerdi, H. V., and Raeisi, M. (2019). Lexico-grammatical analysis
of native and non-native abstracts based on Halliday’s SFL model.Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 9(11), 1388–1395.
Martı́nez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by
analysis of the transitivity structure. English for specific
purposes, 20(3), (227-247).
Sari, I. D., Syarif, H., and Amri, Z. (2019). An analysis of compound sentences
in students’ writing. In Seventh International Conference on Languages and
Arts (ICLA 2018), 301, (341-348).
Verspoor, M., and Sauter, K. (2000). English sentence analysis: An introductory
Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Werner, Patricia K. and Spaventa, Lou. (2002). Mosaic 1 Grammar. New York:
McGraw-Hill Contempory.
Fornkwa, M. J. (2021). English Sentence Patterns in Cameroonian Book Blurbs.
In International Journal of English Language Studies, 3(5), (05-15).
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of written and spoken English. Harlow: Longman.