{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037034968159982126, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010780918333147134, 'mean_word_length': 5.021863437605113, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating the English ADJECTIVE OF Construction in Academic Writing

This study investigates the English [ADJ of] construction in academic writing. The target construction represents a subclass of the predicative adjectives (The children are happy.) in English. While the predicative adjectives have long been recognized to function either as a subject complement (e.g., The children are happy.) or object complement (e.g., He made the children happy.), typically found in copular constructions, these adjectives with a complement such as a prepositional phrase (incapable of..., suggestive of..., etc.) are less discussed in the literature. The purpose of this study is therefore to examine this group of adjectives to see what particular roles they play in academic writing. A cross-disciplinary investigation was carried out to identify possible variations among disciplines. The corpus results showed that cross-disciplinary variations are only found in the extent of predicative adjective premodification and description of mental state, both of which are far more common in the humanities and social sciences than natural sciences and medicine. The uniformity across discipline calls for attention to instruction in the field of English for Academic Purposes.


Introduction
The English adjectives can be distinguished into attributive and predicative types. While the attributive adjectives occupy the prenominal position (e.g., a beautiful day), the predicative adjectives are postverbal (e.g. This is particularly important.). Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999) compared the distribution patterns of these two types of adjectives across four genres (conversation, fiction, news, and academic prose) and found that the attributive adjectives are highly distributed in the academic genre as compared to the other genres. The predicative adjectives, on the other hand, do not seem to occupy a fair share in academic writing. However, to date, not much discussion has been given to the predicative adjectives in academic writing. Most importantly, their discourse functions remain unelucidated. Quirk, Greenbauum, Leech, Svartvik (1985) explained that the predicative adjectives may function either as a subject complement (1) or object complement (2).
(1) The children are happy.
(2) He made the children happy.
(Examples taken from Quirk, 1985: 417) It is also possible for the predicative adjectives to complement clauses as shown in (3).
(3) I consider what he did foolish. (Quirk, 1985: 417) As illustrated in (3), the predicative adjectives can be found to complement clauses in addition to noun phrases. Biber et al. pointed out that the predicative adjectives characterize their preceding target from a postmodifying position or called postposed (Biber et al., 1999: 519). A group of predicative adjectives that draw our interest in this study are those carrying a complement in the form a succeeding of-phrase, as in underlined in (4)  Example (4) demonstrates a copular construction predicated by the adjective incapable which is complemented by an of-phrase. In contrast, example (5) does not involve a copular construction but contains a postposed adjective suggestive which is also complemented by an ofphrase. Biber et al. considered the case in (4) where the predicative adjective complements a copular verb as a subject predicative, whereas the predicative adjective in (5) complements the direct object, which is referred to as an object predicative (p.515). In general, these predicative adjectives are polyvalent (Haugen, 2013) or with more than one argument which is reminiscent of verb valency patterns. Previous work on predicative adjectives in academic writing mainly focused on stancetaking constructions in association with the introductory it which can be found in patterns such as [it v-link ADJ that] (e.g., it is clear that) and [it v-link ADJ to-inf] (e.g., it is important to) (Biber, et al., 1999;Hewings & Hewings, 2002;Peacock, 2011;Larsson, 2016). In a cross-disciplinary study, Peacock compared how four science disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental science) and four non-science disciplines (business, language and linguistics, law, and public and social administration) differ in terms of how [it v-link ADJ that] and [it v-link ADJ to-inf] constructions are used in research articles. The results indicated that these two patterns are more commonly used by non-science fields, particularly by academic writers in law, as compared to the science fields. While these two patterns serve an important evaluative function in academic writing and have drawn much research attention, other patterns associated with predicative adjectives are comparatively less well studied. The evaluative function of [ADJ of], the target construction investigated in this work, can be seen in (6) and (7) below.
(6) The same may be true of its addition to the 1018 entry that the meeting... (HXX-530) (7) I was one of a "lost generation" who remained blissfully ignorant of the major advances in preventative health care. (EWX-774) Example (6) illustrates how the predicative adjective functions to take an epistemic stance, and (7) exemplifies an evaluative stance. Example (7) also differs from (6) in terms of the presence of a modifying adverb blissfully. The use the adverb seems to change the evaluative adjective to something more positive in tone.
To investigate the roles predicative adjectives might play in academic writing of different disciplines, our research questions are formulated as the following. (ii) What disciplinary variations exist?
To answer these research questions, a corpus-based approach was taken to analyze the adjectives in the [ADJ of] construction.

Literature Review
In their comprehensive work, Francis, Hunston, and Manning (1998) analyzed the [ADJ of n] pattern based on The Bank of English and identified at least 16 categories as shown in Table  1. was based on both the spoken and written discourse, further work is necessary if we want to consider disciplinary specificity in academic writing. Biber et al. (1999) also considered predicative adjectives in their register study. They found that predicative adjectives usually lack a complement in conversation (e.g., We'll find out what's wrong.) as compared to those found in fiction, news, academic prose, all of which are written genres. Among the four registers, fiction contains the highest proportion of predicative adjectives where descriptive use of a state of mind or emotion is common (e.g., afraid, aware, glad, happy). In contrast, the predicative adjectives in academic prose either denote epistemic stance (e.g., clear, true, likely) or allow the writer to commit to an evaluative stance (e.g., important, essential, difficult, necessary).
Embarking from previous studies, the purpose of this study is to examine the linguistic context where these predicative adjectives are used by taking into account of their semantic and syntactic features in academic writing.

Methodology
The analysis of this is divided into two parts. First, a list of commonly used adjectives was to be compiled based on their frequencies in the corpus. The second part involves a statistical analysis based on the categorization of the semantic and syntactic features of the adjectives.

Corpus Query
The British National Corpus was used through the BNCWeb platform to gather the corpus data. Prior to the query search, several subcorpora were created by using the user-defined function of BNCWeb to select four academic genres including two non-science genres, humanities and social sciences, and two science genres, natural sciences and medicine, as listed in Table 2. A query string (_AJ0 of) was used for each subcorpus and after the frequency breakdown function was applied, the results were downloaded in a text file. All the results were then pooled together in a metafile for further analysis. The top 20 most frequent results from each subcorpus were examined and compared. Any mis-placed items were removed from the lists and replaced with another item ranked next in the frequency breakdown lists. For example, important of is listed in all four subcorpora within the top 20 ranking. However, upon a closer examination of the concordance lines showed that they did not carry a predicative role. These items were therefore removed. The same procedure was also applied to few mis-tagged items (e.g., centile of, Carboniferous of).

Statistical Analysis
After obtaining the query results from the BNCWeb as described in Section 3.1, the results were randomized and 100 instances of the concordance lines were extracted from each subcorpus and copied onto an Excel file for further analysis. The data were re-grouped into sciences (natural sciences and medicine) and non-sciences (humanities and social sciences) to avoid sparse data for Chi-squared tests. Next, the data were annotated according to their semantic classes, syntactic roles, and presence or absence of adverbial premodification as shown in Table 3. In the process of annotation, about one quarter of the data (49 for non-sciences and 51 for sciences) were excluded. Most of these data either contain a mistagged form (e.g., revealing of) or were found to be a preposed adjective (e.g., the most important of).
The remaining 151 and 149 instances were subjected to Pearson's Chi-squared test and graphically visualized by using the vcd package (Meyer, Zeileis, & Hornik, 2017) with the R program.

Results
The results section will be divided into two subsections. Section 4.1 presents the corpus results which list the frequency distribution of top 20 most commonly used adjectives for each discipline. Section 4.2 presents the results of statistical analyses.

Corpus Results
To answer the first research question which asks for the most commonly used adjectives in the [ADJ of] construction, the BNCWeb was used to identify possible disciplinary variation. The corpus results are summarized in Table 4.  Table 4 demonstrates a number of quantitative differences across the four subcorpora. First, there is a tendency for more frequent use of [ADJ of] in the non-science disciplines, i.e., humanities and social sciences, as compared to the science disciplines, i.e., medicine and natural sciences. 2 Another variation can also be found within each knowledge field: humanities field outnumbers social sciences and natural sciences field outnumbers medicine. A closer examination of the [ADJ of] construction with the four disciplines was carried out. Table 5 presents the frequency of occurrence for the humanities and social sciences, whereas Table 6 presents the frequency of occurrence for medicine and natural sciences.  Table 5 shows, there is a great similarity between the two soft-applied disciplines. First, in both disciplines the top three instances are the same, namely, aware of in (6) capable of in (7) and true of in (8).
(6) The counsellor must also be aware of the words that are being used… (CE1-66) (7) packer (1977) has shown that baboons are capable of reciprocal altruism. (CM2-294) 2 See Hyland (1998Hyland ( , 2000 for references on the distinction between hard and soft disciplines.

(8) This was only slightly less true of the industries unconnected with coal and iron. (CM6-553)
As observed from the corpora, the majority of these predicative adjectives function as the subject complement (shown above), only a handful of instances serve as the object complement as shown in (9) and (10) Both (9) and (10) illustrate the writer's use of capable of to postmodify the preceding NP (underlined). While there is a high proportion of overlaps between the [ADJ of] instances across the two soft-applied disciplines, one discrepancy found between the two is the ranking order. Otherwise, the two closely related disciplines demonstrate a very high degree of association. Table 6 juxtaposes the frequency of [ADJ of] instances from two hard knowledge disciplines, medicine and natural sciences. A comparison between the two disciplines demonstrates a higher proportion of differences. First, the top three instances are not the same, though both cover up to 30 per cent of the data. A comparison of the hard knowledge fields show some areas of discrepancies which are not found in the two soft-applied disciplines. First, there are several disciplinespecific [ADJ of] instances including upstream of, downstream of, distalmost of, and Dalradian of, all of which can only be found in the natural sciences corpus as shown in two examples, (11) and (12).  In (11), upstream of is used as a subject complement to describe the relative position of the grammatical subject, these DH sites.
If we compare all the four corpora, we would find that medicine appears to be more closely related to the humanities and social sciences rather than with natural sciences. The only exception is devoid of. This adjective phrase is only found in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences but not found in the medicine corpus. Example (12) and (13) illustrate devoid of in the humanities and natural sciences, respectively.

Statistical Results
Three factors, semantic class, syntactic role, presence or absence of adjective premodification, were considered in this study to inspect if the predicative adjectives are used differentially by academic writers in the non-sciences and sciences. Association plots were used to visualize the differences between the two disciplines for each category based on the values of Pearson residuals. Statistically significant results are represented in shades of blue and red while non-significant results are in gray. First of all, no significant findings were found for syntactic roles. In other words, both disciplines exhibit similar pattern in how predicative adjectives are used in complementation.
Regarding the use of premodification before predicative adjectives such as adverbs (e.g., entirely, obviously, generally, substantially), the results are presented in Figure 1 by means of an association plot. This plot indicates a significant difference between the two disciplines when we consider the degree of predicative adjectives premodification. The annotated data suggest academic writers in nonsciences tend to premodify the adjectives more than those in sciences. Examples (14) and (15) illustrate the case in non-sciences. Other adverbs used include partly, acutely, highly, well, increasingly, very, mostly, quite, fully, totally, potentially, particularly, and generally. They appear to connotate the writer's stance in addition to the adjectives. Figure 2 presents the association plot for semantic classes of predicative adjectives. Only one class, 'cognition', was found to be significantly different. Under this category, there are adjectives like aware of, unaware of, fond of, wary of, undreamed of, conscious of, unsure of, oblivious of, and supportive of. Sentences (16) and (17)  The results indicated that the academic writers in non-sciences seem to have more chance to describe one's mental state than those in sciences. In general, the differences between the two disciplines are not overwhelming when considering academic writer's use of predicative adjectives. Only two cross-disciplinary differences were identified: the use of premodification before the predicative adjectives and the use of cognitive predicative adjectives. In both cases, there are higher proportion of use found in the non-sciences than the sciences fields.

Conclusion
In this study, we examined the instances of the [ADJ of] construction to see how they vary in terms of disciplines. The results showed more areas of common grounds with the top 20 most frequent instances. While the adjective predicates can serve both as the subject complements and object complements, they are much rarer found as object complements. There are two types of subject complements. The first refers to those constructed with a copular construction. The second is postposed directly after the grammatical subject. The latter cases appear to carry more condensed information than the former. Statistical significant differences were found in two categories, both of which are more commonly found in non-sciences than sciences. It was found that there are more premodifiers used preceding the predicative adjectives and more use of the predicative adjectives belong to the semantic class of 'cognition' by academic writers in non-sciences than sciences. Part of the results of this study also conforms to previous research findings demonstrating the use of some predicative adjectives for reporting (e.g., indicative of, suggestive of, supportive of) and for evaluation (e.g., true of, typical of, critical of, guilty of, suspicious of, skeptical of) which are important for research writing.
The current study has only examined three factors, the presence of premodification, syntactic roles, and semantic classes, in association with the predicative adjectives in academic writing. More research is required to determine the influence of other factors including the semantic classes of the of-following complement. It would also be interesting to compare the reporting adjective predicates with those equivalent in other parts of speech (e.g., indicative of vs. indicate vs. indication, suggestive of vs. suggest vs. suggestion).
We would like to end this study by pointing to the high degree of uniformity across four disciplines, humanities, social sciences, medicine, and natural sciences when the [ADJ of] construction is under scrutiny. This characteristic of [ADJ of] is important for teaching L2 academic novice writers. The results showed that a number of [ADJ of] (e.g., capable of, indicative of) can be used as an object complement to postmodify a preceding NP, while others (e.g. true of, aware of) only function as subject complement.