A Discourse Analysis Of First Position Nominal Groups In Research Article Titles.docx

A Discourse Analysis of First Position Nominal Groups in Research Article Titles Alex Rath Shih Hsin University Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the forms, structures, and functions of methodological nominal terms in the titles of research articles. A corpus of titles was analyzed to examine the way methodological nominal terms structure Theme/Rheme, yield coherence, and summarize the article. The 2,639 titles analyzed in the study come from 99 SSCI journals published in 2008 in the field of linguistics. A group of 562 titles (21.29%) from the corpus containing methodological nominal groups was coded for Theme/Rheme structures. The most frequent headword in the group, effect, appeared in 152 (5.76%) of the titles. Examples of title structures containing headwords effect, analysis, and application are presented to show how nominal groups and Theme/Rheme yield coherence. Summarization of research article content seems to be more effective when a methodological nominal term ties disciplinary content terms together.

Keywords: research articles; methodological nominal groups; Theme/Rheme; cohesion; coherence; summarization 1. Introduction This paper explores the forms, structures, and functions of methodological nominal terms in research article titles. The specific focus of this study is the cohesive function of methodological nominal groups in first position in titles. The cohesive force produced by these first position nominal terms holds together many titles that are little more than strings of nouns connected by prepositions. Using this structure, titles can effectively summarize the content of the article. Creating a one-line summarization, a brief and comprehensive account of a longer text, is usually accomplished by combining methodological and disciplinary content. Creating a good title is a skill that is needed by researchers worldwide, though it can be challenging for novice and expert writers alike. In order to better understand this situation, this paper examines methodological nominal terms in titles in order to demonstrate how effective summarization is achieved. What cohesive elements connect nominal groups in titles? How does this cohesive process yield a summarization of an article? One possible explanation is that titles are Theme/Rheme structures. Theme/Rheme construction yields coherence and produces summarization. Methodological nominal terms and Theme/Rheme structures tie together the disciplinary content nominal groups in the title. While most titles start with content terms, a minority start with research process terms, and these titles are different. Methodological nominal terms in first position usually produce a more effective summarization of the research article. The reason these titles are more effective is that methodological nominal terms in first position have a dual function. When the dual function is at work, nominal groups in Theme/Rheme title structures can yield coherence and produce a summarization. This relationship might be described as nominal

groups + Theme/Rheme + coherence = summarization. Simplifying the relationship in this manner is not meant to suggest a numerical function, but it presents the essence of the relationship. In addition, it emphasizes the components of title text being discussed in this study. This article explores how and why the titles with methodological nominal groups in first position are more effective summaries.

1.1 Nominal groups in titles Previous research on titles suggests that the dominant lexicogrammatical structure is the nominal group (Haggan, 2004; Soler, 2007; Wang & Bai, 2007). While the majority of the terms in titles are disciplinary content descriptors (Yitzhaki, 1997), many

titles contain both research process and disciplinary content phrases. Given the prevalence of nominal groups that describe the research process in titles, one might ask if these terms are subject descriptors of the study, or if they have another function. The perspective from library scientists (Voorbij, 1998) and professional editors (Goodman, Thacker, & Siegel, 2001) is that these nominal groups are merely keywords. There is, however, more than one way to explain the importance of methodological nominal terms. When viewed from a functional grammar perspective (Halliday, 1998), the dominance of nominal group structures is said to be due to the need to name complex things and processes in a concise way, but nominalization by itself does not explain how summarization of research article content is achieved. Disciplinary specificity is typically accomplished with pre- and postmodification of headwords. As Soler (2007) stated, “The straightforward materialization of informativity is evidenced through a piling up of pre- and post-modifiers, which enables scientists to account for findings synoptically” (p. 98). By “synoptically,” Soler means that the outcome is a synopsis, or what might be called a summarization of the content of the article. The synoptic function is an essential aspect of the research article title, and the principal lexicogrammatical structure that performs this function is the nominal group. As Soler stated, “The nominal group construction contributes thus to revealing the specification of the object of study meeting the readers’ particular need as these titles map the main subject matter of the papers within the corresponding scientific field” (p. 98). There seems to be broad agreement that nominal group construction performs this task (Anthony, 2001; Haggan, 2004; Hartley, 2005; Sagi & Yechiam, 2008; Wang & Bai, 2007). While many books about research writing offer suggestions about titles (Day, 1998; Swales & Feak, 2004), there is rarely any discussion of nominal group structures. Most of the advice about titles is focused on content. For example, Swales and Feak (2004) state titles “should indicate the topic of the study” and the “scope of the study,” and they suggest that “it may also be helpful to also indicate the nature of the study (experiment, case report, survey, etc.), but this is not always required” (p. 278). Discussion of titles often includes advice about common problems in titles. For example, the Publication Manual of the American

Psychological Association (2001), after a general description of the function of title text, suggests what to avoid. The APA Manualadvises against starting a title with a phrase such as A Study because it is “redundant” and “serves no useful purpose” (p. 11). Given the consistent and systematic nature of manuals of style (Bennett, 2009), it is simple enough to follow the suggestions in writing books, style guides, and manuscript submission guidelines about how to write titles and produce workable title text. However, instruction manuals do not usually contain analysis of the canonical forms of academic and scientific writing. This type of discussion is the province of genre analysis (Swales, 1990) and systemic functional grammar (Halliday, 1994).

1.2 Theme/Rheme in Title Text Theme/Rheme, a framework for structuring clauses and connecting phrases, does not seem to have been applied to research article title text. However, it has the potential to explain title text due to its emphasis on the first position term in the clause. According to Halliday (1994, p. 37-38), Theme comes first, as it is “the starting-point for the message,” and Rheme is “the remainder of the message.” Theme/Rheme can be broadly described as a method for structuring information. In this structure, Halliday (1994) explains, “Information, in this technical grammar sense, is the tension between what is already known or predictable and what is new and unpredictable” (p. 296). A general definition of thematic structure refers to larger chunks of text. In this broader use, as Martinez (2003) explains, theme “refers to the organization of information within individual clauses, and, through this, to the organization of the larger text” (p. 105). This study uses a narrower definition where Theme is a clausal framework through which the Rheme of a clause can be interpreted (Fries, 1994). According to Fries, there is a marked association between Theme/Rheme and information structure, and especially between Theme and the text in the first position of a clause. Fries defines Rheme as the “independent conjoinable clause complexes” (p. 229) which follow the Theme. A narrow definition of Theme/Rheme can be used to analyze many short lines of text such as T-units, clauses, sentences, and research article titles.

Most of the past work on theme markers in research articles has focused on clauses and sentences. For example, Gosden (1992) examined clause constituents such as according to our results which structure thematic flow. Similarly, Flowerdew (2003) studied signalling phrases such as the following advantages, which establish links within and across clauses. Links between theme markers have also been studied. Lores (2004) investigated theme markers in abstracts and Martinez (2003) compared differences between in theme markers between methods and discussion sections. Much of this work on theme markers addresses Theme/Rheme, and it demonstrates that Theme/Rheme is a useful framework for analyzing the lexicogrammatical structure and the informational organization of research articles. Theme/Rheme analysis can be used to examine interactions between research process and disciplinary content nominal groups in title text. However, title text is different from most of the text analyzed in previous work on Theme. According to Swales (1990), certain types of research writing genres “in Functional-Sentence-Perspective terminology are heavy on rheme but light ontheme” [original italics] (p. 168). Title text, due to the requirement that it be short and concise, does not use most of the theme markers which cue readers about information organization. Typically, thematic structure moves from general to specific (Gupta, 1995), but titles tend to have fewer general terms and more specific terms. While many topic-fronting terms such as concerningcan be found in academic writing (Green, Christopher, & Mei, 2000), they are almost always removed from titles due to space considerations. The most common title structure is a series of specific nominal groups which summarize the content of the research article, not clausal structures with signalling phrases.

1.3 Coherence but not cohesion As Swales (1990) has pointed out, many aspects of research writing “evince in Hallidayan terms coherence but little cohesion” (p. 168). This is due to the format requirements that create “islands on a string, islands that only those with specialist knowledge and experience can jump across” (p. 168). Specialists can read these disconnected chunks of text and achieve coherence. Coherence is usually defined as a semantic concept that relates one lexicogrammatical realization to another in ways that produce a meaningful text (Halliday, 1994). Coherence is a broader concept than cohesion. Cohesion, by comparison, is a more technical construct. According to Halliday (1994), “There are four ways by which cohesion is created in English; by reference, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical organization” (p. 309). Traditionally, cohesion is believed to tie together nominal groups and produce coherence. The coherence yielded by a title is expressed through lexicogrammar. Despite the absence of many common theme markers, first position terms in titles often determine Theme, and what follows is frequently interpreted as Rheme. Even though a title is an isolated line of text, title text can refer cataphorically to the following research article. Cataphoric cohesion refers to a term or phrase “in the following text” as opposed to anaphoric cohesion which references a phrase “in the preceding text” (Halliday, 1994, p. 314). The common conception is that the title refers to the following article, but it is often untrue. Title text often contains exophoric references, defined as textual items “linking ‘outwards’ to some person or object in the environment” (p. 312), or referencing the disciplinary area of study or topics outside the article. This is possible because, as Halliday and Hasan (1976) explain, “Cohesive relations have in principle nothing to do with sentence boundaries” (p. 8). In theories of cohesion, another element is necessary for an interpretation of referential terms, but the presupposed element may not be a single sentence: “The presupposed element may, and often does, consist of more than one sentence” (p. 170). Likewise, not all elements are immediately before or after the term with the cohesive ties. Sometimes, the text necessary for interpretation “may not be found in the text at all” (p. 14). When stating that the presupposed meaning cannot be found in the text, Halliday and Hasan are discussing exophoric ties, as these references take the reader outside the text. Exophoric references are rarely cohesive at the sentence level, but many readers can connect them. For example, titles which include amusing references to popular movies are exophoric in that the movie has nothing to do with the research and is usually never discussed in the article. Of course, most titles contain terms which are used inside the research article, making the ties cataphoric.

There is another interpretation of titles that can be offered for ties that take the reader outside the title text. The function of the title text is to produce summarization for the reader, and the summarization is used independently of the article. The summarization, therefore, is a new and separate creation, and it is structured to function in a broader database and index environment where it is not immediately followed by the research article. As a result, it has only a general cataphoric link to the following research article. As a unique summarization, the title needs coherence, but immediate anaphoric and cataphoric cohesion is not of paramount importance. This type of general coherence can be achieved using nominal group structures (Francis, 1994). Naturally, both research process and disciplinary content terms can be used to generate coherence which summarizes content. Titles that start with methodological terms, as opposed to disciplinary content terms, seem to function more effectively as summarization statements when read separately from the research article. This article attempts to explain how and why these are more effective titles whether attached or separated from the article.

2. Methodology 2.1 Corpus During the summer of 2009, the author and two research assistants used the Social Science Research Index (SSCI) (Thomson Reuters, 2010) website to collect the titles in the corpus. Using this on-line resource, identifying the title of each record was simple. The database has a title field, and the citation software package Endnote X2 used to capture the database content has a clearly marked title field. Titles from letters to the editor, book reviews, and other non-research texts were not included in the corpus. After downloading and cleaning up the texts, the corpus contained 2,639 titles.

2.2 Analytical Technique Coding was done by the author and one research assistant. This process was been refined through a series of research projects (Rath, 2009a, 2009b, 2010). It was completed using the qualitative data analysis software package NVivo 8. The history, development, and functionality ofNVivo have been described by Richards (2002). This study employed the NVivo function called tree nodes to categorize the titles. The analytical technique focused on coding nominal groups. Using systemic functional grammar markers as a guide for coding, the process involved categorizing nominal groups and placing them in smaller and smaller categories until the tree nodes captured the variation associated with Theme/Rheme structures starting with methodological nominal terms. Since the focus was on Theme/Rheme, this analysis of nominal groups started with separating and categorizing first position methodological nominal terms. All titles in this group were coded by the headword in the nominal group. Titles which did not initially fit into a category were placed in a temporary node and then recoded later. After analyzing the first position nominal groups, the titles were coded for ties to disciplinary content terms. Altogether, it took about ten rounds of coding to place the data in tree nodes. 3. Results Table 1 shows the ten research process nominal groups which appeared in the titles in the corpus. As a percentage of the total corpus, just a little over 21% of the titles contain research process nominal groups in first position. The most frequently used headword among the methodological nominal terms was effect which appeared in 152 (5.72%) titles. Other headwords appeared infrequently. The term application appeared in only 11 titles. Nominal groups can contain general research headwords such as study and terms which relate to research constructs such as factor. Headwords can appear alone, as in a study or they can be

part of a methods term as in case study. Given the variability of methodological nominal groups, it is necessary to examine sample titles to get a better sense of their usage. Table 1 Number and Percentage of Common Methodological Nominal Terms in 2009 SSCI Linguistics Titles (n=2639) Titles Containing Terms

Frequency

Percentage

effect

152

5.76

study

117

4.43

case

76

2.88

analysis

52

1.97

model

51

1.93

role

51

1.93

development

23

0.87

factor

16

0.61

relationship

13

0.49

application

11

0.42

562

21.29

Sub-Total Other Titles

2077

78.71

Total

2639

100.00

3.1 The headword analysis The headword analysis, appearing in 52 (1.97%) titles, can be found in a wide variety of methodological nominal groups, from data analysis to narrative and identity analysis. Example 1 presents a typical title: (1) Quality Analysis of Journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics The headword analysis has quality as a pre-modifier. Example 1a shows the title divided into three nominal groups: (1a) /1/ Quality Analysis /2/ of Journals /3/ in TESOL and Applied Linguistics / It can be argued that Quality Analysis, because it is in first position in the title, is the subject of the research paper. However, Quality Analysis is a methodology, and methodological nominal groups are rarely the dominant content descriptor of research articles. It is the first in a series of nominal groups, as shown in Example 1b: (1b) / A / of B / in C and D / Nominal group titles such as Example 1b have to be interpreted by the reader as an interaction of the Theme/Rheme structures, as presented in Example 1c: (1c) (Theme) Quality Analysis / (Rheme) of Journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics The Theme, Quality Analysis, informs the reader how to interpret the Rheme, Journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics. Without the tying function of Theme/Rheme in Example 1, the reader would simply be given a list of keywords (Quality, Journals, TESOL,

Applied Linguistics) linked by prepositions and a conjunction (of, in, and). The first position term in Example 1c, Quality Analysis, functions both as a content descriptor and a theme marker. The content being specified is Quality Analysis, but that term also links the second and third terms together, explaining the relationship between two terms and using of and in to help structure the

relationship. While disciplinary content words may be able to accomplish this function by themselves, methodological nominal groups have, here, taken on this role. Many titles utilize this structure to produce a coherent summarization. There is considerable variability in titles using the research process nominal group headwordanalysis. Examples 2-6 present a few of the 52 instances when analysis appeared in the corpus: (2) An Analysis of Word Decision Strategies among Learners of Chinese (3) Split Analysis of Gradable Adjectives in Spanish (4) A Psychometric Analysis of Functional Category Production in English Agrammatic Narratives (5) The Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of South Korean and Australian English Apologetic Speech Acts (6) Bayesian Analysis of Recognition Memory: The Case of the List-Length Effect These five examples progress from simple to complex. Example 2 has a general Theme statement, An Analysis. Theme specification in the Example 2 functions in spite of lacking methodological detail. Examples 3-5 highlight the dual role of research process terms in first position of nominal group title structures. Example 6, for example, is a compound title structure, and it shows how two short lines of text can be tied together by the term in first position of the first half of the title. Not all uses of the word analysis are Theme Markers. In Examples 7-8, analysis is not in first position. Example 7 presents a title where the term only describes the research process: (7) Accounting for Moral Judgments in Academic Talk: The Case of a Conversation Analysis Data Session Likewise, in Example 8, the term, Reanalysis, refers to a theory of cognition and is part of a disciplinary content specification: (8) Accounting for Regressive Eye-Movements in Models of Sentence Processing: A Reappraisal of the

Selective Reanalysis Hypothesis In Examples 7 and 8, the terms Conversation Analysis and Reanalysis are in the Rheme. The absence of this dual function often produces titles that lack specificity. Example 9 presents a title with only a general summarization of the article: (9) Genre Analysis, ESP and Professional Practice The pattern of the title in Example 9 appears similar to Example 1, but it has fewer prepositions, as shown in example 9a: (9a) / A / B / and C / Example 9 includes the headword analysis in the disciplinary content term Genre Analysis. In this title, the reader will probably assume that the author is discussing the relevance of Genre Analysis (as a content term) to the field of ESP, not the use of genre analysis as a methodological term. However, the relationship of the three nominal groups to each other is limited to a general association among the terms. The reader might wonder what aspects of Professional Practice are being addressed or how general terms such as Genre Analysis and ESP are being used in the discussion of Professional Practice. As such, Example 9 does not

function well as a summarization of the specific content of the research article, though it does offer three general terms that seem to describe the direction the article will take.

3.2 Other methodological nominal terms The most frequent methodological nominal term, effect, appeared in 152 (5.76%) of the titles in the corpus. The nominal group, The Effect appears in Example 10: (10) The Effect of SpeechEasy on Stuttering Frequency, Speech Rate, and Speech Naturalness The methodological nominal term in first position, Effect, structures the following disciplinary content nominal groups in the Rheme. The pattern of this title can be described as follows in Example 10a: (10a) / The A / of B / on C, D, and E / In the case of Example 10, removing The Effect would yield the title in Example 10b: (10b) SpeechEasy on Stuttering Frequency, Speech Rate, and Speech Naturalness The first position term ties the nominal groups in the Rheme together and necessitates the use of the preposition on to yield the appropriate lexicogrammatical structure. While the preposition oninforms the reader that there is a cause and effect relationship, the relationship is a little unclear without the first position term, and the truncated version has a grammatical problem. The inclusion of the methodological nominal term sets up the relationship among the topics being studied in a way that a list (e.g. A,

B, C, and D) fails to do. The term effect is not the only research process term to function is this way. The least frequently used methodological nominal term from Table 1, application, which appeared in only 11 (0.42%) of the titles in the corpus, also performs this function, as Example 11 demonstrates: (11) The Application of Evidence-Based Practice to Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments The ability of the reader to guess the meaning of the title in Example 11 without the Theme marker is limited. The preposition to in the remaining title, Evidence-Based Practice to Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments, does not clearly signal the reader about a relationship. With

the methodological

nominal

term, application,

and

the

preposition, to, the

causal

relationship

betweenEvidence-Based Practice and Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments can be understood. Example 11 highlights the dual function of the first position term.

3.3 Titles with disciplinary content in first position The majority of the titles, accounting for nearly 80% of the corpus, contained disciplinary content terms in first position. An analysis of 50 titles randomly selected from the corpus was conducted as a comparison. Of the 50 titles, 42 (84%) started with a disciplinary content nominal group. The 42 titles with disciplinary content terms in first position were coded for Theme/Rheme ties. The titles in the comparison sample range in structure from nominal group titles, such as Example 12, to question titles, as shown in Example 13.

(12) A National Voice for the Language Profession at the Federal/National Level (13) Is Overt Repetition Critical to Expressive Word Learning? The Role of Overt Repetition in Word Learning with and

without Semantics Examples 12 and 13 are common forms of titles. The majority of the titles which start with a disciplinary content term are strings of nominal groups as seen in Example 12. The first position nominal group, A National Voice, does not contain a tie to the following terms, but the prepositions function to a certain extent as linking terms. Question titles, such as Example 13, are relatively infrequent, and they are difficult to parse into nominal groups. In Example 13, the first position nominal term is Overt Repetition, and it does not contain a tie to the following terms. The question has coherence, but the coherence is not principally a function of the first position term. Some titles cannot easily be categorized as common forms. In the case of Example 14, the title is an ambiguous question.: (14) On Whose Shoulders? Although it could be categorized as a question title, Example 14 does not follow the common format because it fails to include disciplinary content terms that summarize the article. There is neither Theme/Rheme construction nor a meaningful cataphoric relationship to the content. Given the easy access to full-text articles on line, the content of the article was checked to determine if the title was completely exophoric. The first sentence of the introduction reads as follows: “The title of this piece refers to Newton’s only known modest remark: ‘If I have seen farther than other men, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants’ (Wilks, 2008, p. 471). The reference to Newton’s famous saying has a superficial rhetorical function in the article. References to Newton, which appear briefly in the introduction and conclusion of the article, fail to summarize the content. Therefore, the title, On Whose Shoulders?, is both an incomplete derivative form and an ambiguous summarization. Of the 42 titles starting with disciplinary content terms, only seven titles contained first position terms that produced ties to terms in the Rheme. Example 15 includes a Theme marker that ties the Rheme statement: (15) A Novel Format for Teaching Spanish Grammar: Lessons from the Lecture Hall While it is hard to measure the strength of the tie, the Theme marker, A Novel Format, seems relatively weak. As a first position term, A Novel Format does not by itself offer a strong suggestion that details of the program will follow, though it can be used to connect the second (for Teaching Spanish Grammar) and third (Lessons) nominal groups. This brief comparison suggests that when disciplinary terms are in first position terms they can yield Theme/Rheme structures, and titles which connect nominal groups through Theme/Rheme have potential to yield coherence and produce a more effective summarization. 4. Discussion It seems possible to increase the effectiveness of summarization in titles of research articles. Both general and specific methodological nominal terms have a useful purpose in titles. The dual function of research process nominal groups in first position suggests that, contrary to what theAPA Manual (2001) suggests, it is possible to use methodological terms to order and define the following content terms. As such, the use of methodological nominal terms is more than just for the purpose of informing the reader about the research process. Research process nominal groups are a functional element which yields coherence and summarization. Titles using this structure yield more concise summarization than other title forms such as enigmatic questions or amusing phrases. In most studies of titles, there is some discussion of how to produce effective titles. For example, Wang and Bai (2007) suggest that the preference for nominal groups “may be determined by [their] powerful ability to compact information in an

economical way” (p. 395). They explain that “researchers, practitioners, and students who wish to publish their RAs [research articles] in peer-reviewed journals are recommended to adopt nominal groups” (p. 398). Yet, most comments about which form of title is most effective tend to address the question at the level of the whole title, as Wang and Bai do when they suggest that nominal group titles are more effective than full-sentence and question titles. Naturally, these findings are of interest to researchers and to English for Academic/Specific Purposes practitioners who teach research writing. To explain the effectiveness of titles, Soler (2007) suggests that “analysis of the internal title variables” (p. 101) is needed. Although titles with methodological nominal terms in first position seem to be a minority, comprising only a little over 20% of the corpus, they seem to be better able to tie disparate content terms together compared to disciplinary content terms in first position. One possible explanation for their effectiveness is the way they yield Theme/Rheme structures. Theme/Rheme structures what is already known and what is new and unpredictable. In general, Theme/Rheme ties together methodological and disciplinary content nominal groups. For example, the term analysis and its variant forms can be found in both research process and disciplinary content nominal groups. It can function in both the Theme and Rheme parts of a title. Since much of the research reported in academic journals is new and unpredictable, Theme/Rheme has become a useful way to tie together disparate nominal groups. By starting with a known methods term (the Theme), it is possible to show a relationship between terms not normally used together (in the Rheme). Some Theme markers overtly structure this arrangement. The research headword relationship, one of the infrequently found terms in this corpus, can be used to yield titles where the terms in the Rheme are explicitly ordered, as in The Relationship between B and C. The widely used methodological term effect structures relationships between nominal terms, as can be seen in The Effect of B and C on D. In this type of title, the methodological term in the Theme orders the following terms in the Rheme. The Theme informs the reader about the causal relationships among B, C, and D. A more common title pattern is Example 1, A of B in C and D. This type of title pattern ties together the nominal groups using the Theme/Rheme structure, but it does not use an ordering term such as relationship or effect. In the case of Example 1, Quality Analysis of Journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics , the Theme is a research process nominal group (Quality Analysis), and the following nominal groups are the Rheme. The outcome of this title structure is a summarization of the disciplinary content of the research article structured by the term in first position, Quality Analysis. Of course, the findings of this study must be limited to the analysis of research process nominal groups in first position, how they yield cohesion, and how they generate summarization of the content of a research article, as the titles with disciplinary content in first position, constituting about 80% of the corpus, were not fully coded and analyzed. The research process nominal groups analyzed in this study do not account for a large percentage of the terms in first position. The most common headword, effect, accounts for fewer than 6% of the nominal groups in first position. First position may not be the dominant place for research process nominal groups as these terms regularly appear in other places in titles. It seems likely that interaction among nominal groups can occur regardless of where they are located. However, title patterns of research process nominal groups in other locations have yet to be analyzed. 5. Conclusion The main purpose of this paper has been to explore the impact of methodological nominal terms on titles. It should be noted that this study has been primarily concerned with the cohesive function of research process nominal groups in titles, though there was some discussion of disciplinary content terms. The outcome of this type of research, as Wang and Bai (2007) suggest, affects the impact factor of journals, and in particular the acceptance of articles at peer-reviewed SSCI journals. Examining methodological nominal terms suggests that global grammar models cannot account for all the variation, hence the need for fields such as English for Specific Purposes to articulate the less obvious functions of these genres. First position methodological nominal group titles seem more effective, but additional research is necessary to support this claim. Soler (2007) has called for additional research on the construction of titles in larger databases compared to titles which appear in other contexts. Additional research is needed in two other areas. First, for titles with methodological nominal terms, the role of these terms in places other than first position needs to be analyzed. Do these terms still perform the dual function when

they appear in the Rheme portion of the title? Do they perform the dual function when they have a prominent position in the second half of compound titles? Second, for titles with disciplinary content terms in first position, research is needed on how these terms structure Theme/Rheme. Do they perform the dual function in the same way as methodological nominal terms? These findings suggest practical applications. Researchers and teachers working in English for Specific Purposes can utilize these findings. Researchers writing titles for articles could draft two versions of the title, one starting with a methodological nominal term and the other starting with a disciplinary content term, and compare them to see which summarization is more effective. Professors can use these findings to teach the reading and the writing of titles for research articles in graduate seminars. Knowledge of genre allows practitioners to have a greater understanding of their discourse communities and become more productive members. Given the importance of titles, these findings should be of help to many different members of the English for Specific Purposes community. References Anthony, L. (2001). Characteristic features of research article titles in computer science.IEEE Transactions on Professional

Communication, 44(3), 187-194. Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 43-54. Day, R. A. (1998). How to write & publish a scientific paper (5th ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in

written text analysis (pp. 83-101). London: Routledge. Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329-346. Fries, P. H. (1994). On theme, rheme, and discourse goals. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),Advances in written text analysis (pp. 229-249). London: Routledge. Goodman, R. A., Thacker, S. B., & Siegel, P. Z. (2001). What's in a title? A descriptive study of article titles in peerreviewed medical journals. Science Editor, 24(3), 75-78. Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles.English for Specific Purposes,

11(3), 207-224. Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 99-113. Gupta, R. (1995). Managing general and specific information in introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 59-75. Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of

Pragmatics, 36, 293-317. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin, & R. Veel, R. (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hartley, J. (2005). To attract or inform: What are titles for? Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 203213. Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes,

23(3), 280-302. Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journals in English. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 103-123. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rath, A. (2009a). Chinese and English titles in Taiwanese law reviews: How many nominal groups are needed to achieve clarity? Tapestries: A Journal of Literature and Linguistics, 3, 153-164. Rath, A. (2009b). Clear and effective titles for Chinese and English law review articles.Soochow Law Review, 6(2), 179-199. Rath, A. (2010). The use and misuse of A Study in research article titles. Taoyuan Journal of Applied English, 4, 33-42. Richards, T. (2002). An intellectual history of NUD*IST and NVivo. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,

5(3), 199-214. Sagi, I., & Yechiam, E. (2008). Amusing titles in scientific journals and article citation. Journal of Information

Science, 34(5), 680-687. Soler, V. (2007). Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 90-102. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Thomson Reuters. (2010). Social science citation index – linguistics – journal list.Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=J&SC=OT Voorbij, H. J. (1998). Title keywords and subject descriptors: A comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social science. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 466-476. Wang, Y., & Bai, Y. (2007). A corpus-based study of medical research article titles.System, 35(3), 388-399. Wilks, Y. (2008). On whose shoulders? Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 471-486. Yitzhaki, M. (1997). Variation in informativity of titles of research papers in selected humanities journals: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 38(2), 219-229.