Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:00:54.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sociolinguistic implications of academic writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Eugene A. Nida
Eugene A. Nida
Affiliation:
American Bible Society, 1865 Broadway, New York, NY 10023
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The language of academic journals tends to become so technical that only specialists are able to understand the unnecessarily complex features of vocabulary, syntax, discourse, and format. This seems particularly unfortunate at a time when the results of present-day scholarship in linguistic and cultural anthropology need to be as widely accessible as possible. An examination of problems in two articles in Language and one in the American Anthropologist points out the nature of the difficulties and some of the solutions. (Sociolinguistics, academic dialects, writing, jargons, English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 477 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Garrett, A. (1990). The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66:261–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, B. (1991). Twice-born, once conceived: Meaning construction and cultural cognition. American Anthropologist 93:9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66:221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar