摘要：By its nature, AW represents adversity compared to other types of writing. It owns the characteristics of more notable patterns and language usage compared to other writing styles such as literary works, news, etc. Without discriminating the language used, this kind of writing generally bears similarities across languages due to the description and representation of scientific concepts. Therefore, there stands a must that objectivity is observed in AW as much as possible. In terms of language usage, diverse structures may be seen to be used in varied frequencies. Within this study, articles written in English and published in scientific journals covered by high ranking field indices such as Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index/Health Sciences Library, and American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information were perused depending on their related fields classified as the Social Sciences, Natural and Applied Sciences, and Health Sciences, and then active/passive dispersion of these articles was identified through descriptive content analysis. The results suggest that active structure usage (61%) in overall analysis outnumbered that of passive (39%); the decline in its utilization depending on fields is rather significant, in that while the gap between active (74%) and passive (26%) usage in Social Sciences is rather wide in favor of active construction, we can observe a significant narrowing of the divide in Natural and Applied Sciences (60% active, 40% passive), and Health Sciences (51% active, 49% passive). The findings of this descriptive study may contribute to prospective research carried out in the specified fields in AW.
