Page 1 of 14
860
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal Ȃ Vol.7, No.6
Publication Date: June 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.76.8487.
Ahmad, J. (2020). Medical English vs. Literary English: A Contrastive Analysis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 860-873.
Medical English vs. Literary English: A Contrastive Analysis
Professor Jameel Ahmad
Faculty of Applied Studies, KAU.
Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
The present study tends to determine what kinds of linguistic features
and styles distinguish medical English from literary English. Corpus
analyses of both varieties were taken into account. Ten scientific
research papers drawn from each genre were linguistically analyzed. It
was found that the kind of English used in medical sciences is marked
with accuracy, precision and hybridized language mixed with Latin and
French. Medical scientists reveal proven facts and findings whereas
literary writers just illustrate their creative thoughts with illusions,
allusions and figurative language. Literary language contains non
universal features and reveals the literary writer’s inner self which
doesn't at all need extraneous and empirical evidence to pen down the
overflow of his spontaneous expression. On the contrary, medical
language needs empirical experience and experimental validity. The
investigation also suggests that medical English contains more
passivation, nominalization, lexical density and foregrounding which
are found far less in literary English. Moreover, medical scientists unlike
literary artists, are adhered to a clearly defined IMRAD structure which
contains Introduction, Methods, Result and Discussion sections.
Keywords: Medical Texts, literary texts, empirical study, imaginative
language, inner self, exterior.
INTRODUCTION
Heterogeneity of academic disciplines gives rise to numerous varieties of English. Hence, medical
English is not a variety in the same way as literary English. Medical English distinguishes from
literary English in its nature and function. The contrastive analysis will manifest thematic, lexical
and syntactical disparities that exist between the two genres. Medical English is marked with
precision, exactness, verifiable research findings and departure from an individual’s whims and
fancies. For example, a medical scientist needs authentic experiment to validate the accuracy of his
medical discovery whereas a litterateur just reveals what he feels regardless of any external
verification. At thematic level, literary language is imaginative, emotive and reflective of inner and
spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling. It contains literary devices such as illusion, allusion,
epigraph, euphemism, foreshadowing, imagery, simile, metaphor, personification and so forth. A
famous English poet, Joan Keats in his poem “Ode to a Nightingale” is willing to overcome the trial
and tribulation of his life on “viewless wings of poesy”. He does so for his inner satisfaction that
needs no verifiable validity but a medical scientist has to prove every bit of his findings with valid
and empirical evidence.
Page 2 of 14
861
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020
The idea to do research on this topic occurred to me while I was writing a textbook on English for
Health Sciences. While pursuing this venture, I made an extensive and an intensive reading of
medical books, research papers and medical leaflets. On the contrary, while doing graduation and
post-graduation in English literature during 1986-1992 I had a chance to read a lot of literary
research papers, English novels, drama and poetry. The amalgamation of these two varied
experiences in both medical and literary texts motivated me to make a contrastive analysis of these
two genres which have never been touched upon before. Just a few separate studies either on
medical English or on literary English were found on Google search, but a contrastive analysis of
both the genres have never been taken into account. This motivated me to take a pioneering venture
to analyze both the varieties contrastively and to come up with a sound conclusion. In medical
sciences, the empirical findings have precedence over the style of artistic presentation. A medical
scientist’s main concern is to maintain experimental accuracy and exactness of his research
outcomes rather than to rely on metaphorical presentation. Hence, medical English is bereft of any
artistic and sensuous pleasure whereas literary English titillates human pleasure and aggravates
human impulse. Medical vocabularies containing Greek and Latin origin differ from ordinary and
literary vocabularies because medical diction and lexicons do not trigger human excitements.
Medical English was found more direct and free from allusion, euphemism, imagery, foreshadowing,
allegory, alliteration, anaphora, hyperbole, situational irony, metonym, oxymoron, paradox,
personification, and so forth.
According to Ding, D. (2002), medical texts are marked with “impersonal style.” By
impersonalization, the author means that “there could have been anyone, or any research could
have been carried out, the research still would have come to the same conclusion.” This
impersonalization is realized when the author frequently uses passive voice in order to become
universally accepted. According to Swales (1ͻͻ0), “passive voice is one of the most frequent
strategies in medical text.” According to Marin, Arrese. J. I. (ʹ00ʹ), passivation strengthens
“credibility, reliability and objectivity.”
Statement of the problem
My teaching experience with ESP courses propelled me to write a textbook on English for Health
sciences. Before I took a decisive step I made a meticulous study of medical texts whereas my
extensive exposure to English literature had yielded enough knowledge about the features of
literary English. Besides, nowhere did I find the solid contrastive analysis of these two genres. This
has further strengthened my idea that to do a contrastive research on these two different varieties
is no less than a pioneering effort to enrich the scope of empirical research on the two contraries.
Therefore, I took this venture to explore the contrastive linguistic features of medical and literary
texts.
There is no dearth of research done separately on these two varieties, but to bring these two
vicissitudes parallel and make a comparative study might be a ground breaking research. A few
studies about linguistic features of medical texts and literary texts, no doubt, were carried
separately, but a contrastive analysis has never been touched upon till date. For example, on the one
hand, Marco, M. J. C. (ʹ000), Romich J. (ʹ001), Wulff H.R., (ʹ00Ͷ), Maglie R. (ʹ00ͻ) , Mićić, S. (ʹ011),
Monica Sarton , ( 2013), made an intensive research on linguistic features of medical texts . On the
other hand, Eagleton, T. (1983), Van Peer, W. (1991), Zwaan, R. A. (1993), Miall, D. S., and D. Kuiken
(1994). Culler, J. (1997), Carter, R. (2004) and many more researchers wrote about literary
language and literary devices, but none of them made a comparative study of both the contraries.
Page 3 of 14
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8487 862
Ahmad, J. (2020). Medical English vs. Literary English: A Contrastive Analysis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 860-873.
This has instilled in me enough curiosity to bring these two different disciplines together and to
make an in-depth contrastive analysis in order to expand the scope of research beyond limit.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Taking into account the views of previous researchers and authors on the said topic I found that no
such contrastive analysis of medical and literary English was found before. However, researchers
were found reflecting their insight on these two genres separately. Mc Morrow (1998) opined that
medical researchers encompass a greater degree of impersonality, accuracy, exact reporting and
hypothesizing. Anita Sheen (1982) was of the view that scientists prefer passivation to make their
research findings sound more empirical and universal. On the contrary, the literary language
represents author’s personality and highly imaginative impulse. Roman Jakobson (1ͻ0) a leading
formalist, is of the view that a piece of literature bears literariness, and imagination is the source of
literariness.
Zwaan (1993) considered stylistic variation, defamiliarization and modification of personal
meaning as the major components of literariness. Van Peer (1991) purported elegant delineation
as the major component of literariness. To him, foregrounding, a noticeable feature of literary
language represented via meter, rhyme, repetition and other patterns which completely lack in
medical language. In an empirical study, Miall and Kuiken (2001) also considered imagination as
the salient feature of literary language. Carter (1997) asserted that literariness means
defamiliarization and deviation makes departure from linguistic norms. McMorrow (1998) further
revealed that Greco-Latin heritage is still the major source for coining new medical terminologies,
because they are precise and easier to understand. According to Mićić (ʹ009) medical English is
based on “Greco-Latin and Anglicized terms.” Marco (ʹ000) explored that medical research papers,
medical textbooks and leaflets are full of semi-restructured phrases and medical jargons which are
unusual in literary piece of writing and every day speech. Berghammer (2006) also considered
Greek and Latin as the major source of medical terminology. One of the prominent features of
medical English is that noun strings occur frequently with adjectives forming a concept (Mićić
2011). Parkinson (2000) is of the view that medical texts characterize nominalized verbs,
adjectives, technical phrases and extended nominal groups/collocations.
According to Maglie (2009), medical English is characterized by semantic univocity which means
there is no synonym of medical terms but only one term governs the conceptual meaning. Another
famous linguist, Halliday (2006), found high lexical density in medical texts since a process is
transformed into a more abstract phenomenon. In other words, a cluster of complex nouns
containing pre- and post- modifying elements frequently occur in medical texts. Fang, Schleppegrell,
& Cox, (2006) said scientists use nominalization to pack information into text and to retain a
universal acceptability. Kazemian and Hashemi (ʹ01Ͷ) argued that nominalization is a “prevailing
feature of scientific text.” In addition, Fatonah (ʹ01Ͷ) focusing on nominalization proposed that
teachers should create awareness about the importance of nominalization in scientific writing.
According to Scarpa (2008:41), the use of noun phrases and nominalization allow authors to
introduce new information and retain objectivity. Wulff (2004) opined that most of the medical
terminologies are coined from the Hippocratic texts of the 5th and 4th century BC. Dirckx (2005)
also explored that Hippocrates and his successors wrote a large number of medical texts in Greek.
Berghammer (2006) explored that most of the medical terminologies consist of prefixes and
suffixes which are drawn from Greek and Latin.