English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Research 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.

Discipline-Specific Writing and Embedded Clauses: The Case of Cell Biology and Classics