Who projects what, and how? Disciplinary variations in that-clause projection in research articles

Abstract

This study investigates how projection through that-clauses varies across four academic disciplines: Biology, Linguistics, Media & Communication, and Information Science within a functional framework that considers who is projecting, what content is projected, and how projection is linguistically realized. A balanced corpus of 4000 that-clauses (1000 per discipline) was analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings show overlapping but discipline-specific patterns. Biology mainly projects current empirical findings through concealed sources and relational verbs, construing knowledge as impersonal and evidence-based. Information Science shares this evidential orientation yet stands out for its higher author visibility, limited use of prior research, and unusually frequent mental verbs, forming a pattern that blends impersonal reporting with reader-directed guidance. Media relies heavily on previous studies and human voices and favours verbal processes, constructing knowledge as socially situated and intertextually negotiated. Linguistics combines the sciencesuse of concealed or abstract sources with Media's openness to human voices, and stands out for its frequent projection of theoretical and methodological statements that integrate empirical description with theoretical interpretation. Across the four disciplines, that-clauses function as a central resource for integrating information with evaluation, thereby embodying deeper epistemological values. The study contributes to our understanding of disciplinary discourse and provides insights for both discourse analysts and academic writers in training.