{"title":"Discipline-Specific Writing and Embedded Clauses: The Case of Cell Biology and Classics","authors":"Alvin Ping Leong","doi":"10.1080/00437956.2023.2270875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractResearch work on the grammatical features of academic writing has revealed that science writing relies more on phrases and nominalization, and humanities writing on clauses. Embedded clauses, however, occur at the rank of a word phrase, and the extent to which the two genres differ in their use of embedded clauses is not well understood. To address this gap, this study investigated the occurrence rates (per 1,000 words) of 10 categories of embedded clauses in a corpus of 40 research articles from cell biology and classics. The analysis relied on a modified form of the Hallidayan framework. The results reveal that classics articles use more embedded clauses, and biology articles, more ranking clauses. As embedding involves layering, this finding implies a more complex clausal structure in the case of classics articles. With only two exceptions, the rates of embedded clauses are higher in classics articles than in biology articles. The exceptions involve the greater use of –ed and –ing relative clauses in biology articles, particularly in the adjunct position. The higher rates of non-finite relatives in biology articles reflect the condensed nature of science writing. Further work involving text samples from more disciplines and interdisciplinary fields is recommended.Keywords: science writinghumanities writingembedded clausesgenre Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlvin Ping LeongAlvin Ping Leong lectures at the Language & Communication Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He obtained his PhD degree from the National University of Singapore in 2001 under a research scholarship. His book publications include “Theme and rheme” (Peter Lang, 2004) and “Transforming literacies and language” (co-editor with Caroline Mei Lin Ho and Kate T. Anderson; Continuum, 2011). His research interests are in grammar, systemic-functional linguistics, and discourse analysis.","PeriodicalId":46752,"journal":{"name":"WORD-JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL LINGUISTIC ASSOCIATION","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WORD-JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL LINGUISTIC ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2023.2270875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
AbstractResearch work on the grammatical features of academic writing has revealed that science writing relies more on phrases and nominalization, and humanities writing on clauses. Embedded clauses, however, occur at the rank of a word phrase, and the extent to which the two genres differ in their use of embedded clauses is not well understood. To address this gap, this study investigated the occurrence rates (per 1,000 words) of 10 categories of embedded clauses in a corpus of 40 research articles from cell biology and classics. The analysis relied on a modified form of the Hallidayan framework. The results reveal that classics articles use more embedded clauses, and biology articles, more ranking clauses. As embedding involves layering, this finding implies a more complex clausal structure in the case of classics articles. With only two exceptions, the rates of embedded clauses are higher in classics articles than in biology articles. The exceptions involve the greater use of –ed and –ing relative clauses in biology articles, particularly in the adjunct position. The higher rates of non-finite relatives in biology articles reflect the condensed nature of science writing. Further work involving text samples from more disciplines and interdisciplinary fields is recommended.Keywords: science writinghumanities writingembedded clausesgenre Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlvin Ping LeongAlvin Ping Leong lectures at the Language & Communication Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He obtained his PhD degree from the National University of Singapore in 2001 under a research scholarship. His book publications include “Theme and rheme” (Peter Lang, 2004) and “Transforming literacies and language” (co-editor with Caroline Mei Lin Ho and Kate T. Anderson; Continuum, 2011). His research interests are in grammar, systemic-functional linguistics, and discourse analysis.
摘要对学术写作语法特征的研究表明,科学写作更多地依赖于短语和名词化,而人文写作更多地依赖于分句。然而,嵌入式从句出现在一个词短语的级别上,两种体裁在使用嵌入式从句方面的差异程度尚不清楚。为了解决这一差距,本研究调查了来自细胞生物学和经典的40篇研究论文的语料库中10类嵌入子句的发生率(每1000个单词)。分析依赖于哈利达扬框架的一种改进形式。结果表明,经典类文章使用的嵌入条款较多,生物学类文章使用的排序条款较多。由于嵌入涉及分层,这一发现意味着在经典文章的情况下,一个更复杂的条款结构。除了两个例外,经典文章中嵌入从句的比例高于生物学文章。例外情况包括在生物学文章中更多地使用-ed和-ing关系从句,特别是在修饰语位置。生物学文章中较高的非有限亲属比例反映了科学写作的浓缩性质。建议进一步开展涉及更多学科和跨学科领域的文本样本的工作。关键词:科学写作人文写作嵌入条款类型披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。其他资料梁振平先生在新加坡南洋理工大学语言与交流中心讲课。2001年获新加坡国立大学博士学位。他的著作包括《主题与述文》(Peter Lang, 2004)和《转化文学与语言》(与Caroline Mei Lin Ho和Kate T. Anderson共同编辑;连续体,2011)。主要研究方向为语法、系统功能语言学和语篇分析。