3.1 The Framework for the Analysis of Construing A...
The focus of this current study is on how CMs could construe authorial stance in the academic papers which are distributed evenly in the disciplines of N,S and H and written respectively by AEs and ANEs at the same time.Figure 3.1 shows the framework for analyzing the constructions of authorial stance via CMs in this dissertation,and then the interpretation of the figure will be provided.
Figure 3.1 The framework for analyzing the construction of authorial stance via CMs
As Figure 3.1 shows,the whole analyzing framework is approached from the perspective of SFL(e.g.,Halliday,1994;Halliday & Matthiessen,2004).On the whole,the dissertation will deal with the construction of authorial stance via CMs.What’s more,the chosen EAPs are in three different disciplines(N,S and H)and are written by AEs and ANEs respectively.As to CMs,they are divided into CMs which fulfill the expectations(henceforth CMFEs)and CMs which counter the expectations(henceforth CMCEs),among which the various sub-types will be analyzed later.
In the domain of SFL,CMs are generally analyzed as logical devices to connect clauses to make the whole text cohesive.In this current study,CMs supply a reference to delve into its interpersonal function,i.e.,to construe authorial stance.
The analysis of CMs are selected from EAPs which are in three different disciplines and written by AEs and ANEs respectively,so the CMs are analyzed and compared according to the nature of various disciplines and the linguistic-cultural backgrounds of AEs and ANEs.Therefore,there will be similarities and differences in the use of CMs across disciplinary communities and AEs and ANEs will show their inclinations in using CMs based on their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
There is no basic criteria to classify CMs.For example,Dancygier &Sweetser(2000)find the interchangeable relationship between if and because.Lyons(1977)widens the concept of conditionality to comprise temporal and causal relations.van Dijk(1977)suggests listing because,therefore,consequently,and while as conditional connectives.Biber et al.(1999)take conjunctions as linking adverbials and separate linking adverbials into six types:enumeration and addition such as first,lastly,summation such as in sum,to conclude,apposition such as in other words,that is,for example,result/inference such as therefore,consequently,contrast/concession such as on the other hand,in contrast,as well as transition such as by the way.
As Section 2.1.2 illustrates,authorial stance in this dissertation is defined as the epistemic and affective judgements and attitudes conveyed by the author in the author-reader interaction,which could fulfill or counter the reader’s expectations.In this sense,the parameter of expectation could be considered as a kind of interaction between the authors and the readers in the current research.Hoey(2001:5-7)emphasizes that“texts gain their meanings from a reader’s interaction with them”.That is to say,all the text types could be considered as the visible achievements of a purposeful and effective interaction between the authors and the readers.The authors have a purpose in communicating to the audiences and produce a text which will achieve that purpose.
Hunston & Thompson(2000:22-25)identify four parameters of evaluation:good-bad,certainty,expectedness and importance,among which expectedness represents how evident one linguistic expression such as in fact is to the audience,or expected by the audience and this parameter has an added text-oriented function in that it can lead the audiences to the intended coherence of what they are reading or listening.In their illustration,authorial stance along the parameter of expectedness seems frequently to function at a point-to-point level in textual terms.Thus,this parameter can serve to connect steps in an argument together,to signal how a proposition fits in with the authors’opinions and their assumptions about the readers’views,of what constitutes“normalness in relation to the topic that has been previously introduced”(Hunston &Thompson,2000:26).Thus the parameter of expectation(Hoey,2001)or expectedness(Hunston & Thompson,2000),is considered as a crucial criterion to classify CMs when dealing with their functions in construing authorial stance.
Furthermore,according to Hunston & Thompson(2000:24-25),there are two modes to treat the parameter of expectation:fullfil and deny/counter.Based on this criterion,CMs in this dissertation are divided into two categories:CMFEs and CMCEs.
Starting from the textual function of the conjunctions,Halliday &Matthiessen(2004:541)set out the system of conjunction into three types:elaboration,extension and enhancement,among which the immediate sub-types are at the same time listed in delicacy in Figure 3.2.
As Figure 3.2 shows,elaborating relation is divided into two categories:apposition and clarification.According to Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:540-543),some elements are re-presented or restated,either by expositions or by examples when appositive conjunctions such as in other words,for example are used.If the clarifying conjunctions such as in particular,in short are employed,the elaborated element is reinstated,summarized,made more precise or in some other way clarified for purpose of the text.
Furthermore,in their illustration(Halliday & Matthiessen,2004:543-544),there are three sun-types of the extending relation:the additive,the adversative and the varying.Seen from Figure 3.2,additive conjunctions could be positive(e.g.,and,furthermore),negative(e.g.,nor)or adversative(e.g.,but,on the other hand).The adversative conjunctions are taken as a separate type since Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:543)propose that they play a particularly crucial part in discourse.
Figure 3.2 The system of CONJUNCTION(partly from Halliday & Matthiessen,2004:541)
Last but not least,Figure 3.2 also presents that enhancing conjunctions are divided into four types:manner conjunctions,spatio-temporal conjunctions,matter conjunctions and causal-conditional conjunctions.According to Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:542-546),manner conjunctives create cohesion by comparison(e.g.,similarly,in a different way)and by reference to means(e.g.,thereby),among which comparative conjunctions may be either positive(e.g.,likewise)or negative(e.g.,in a different way).Spatio-temporal conjunctions such as then,next,meanwhile,at this point and lastly are all considered as typical cohesive devices which are generally used metaphorically and these conjunctions(e.g.,there in there you are wrong)are defined as matter conjunctives.Based on the interpretation of Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:544-547),it can be seen that causal conjunctions such as because,since,for,as a result are usually used as prominent cohesive devices.Furthermore,the figure above also shows that conditional conjunctions are divided into positive conditions such as in that case,negative conditions such as otherwise and concessive conditions such as nevertheless.
In short,Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:541-548)list a delicate figure about conjunctions based on their cohesive function.In this current analysis,this figure can not explain how these conjunctive types and their sub-types could help construe authorial stance.Thus,it is necessary to draw a new classification of the CMs in this current research,based on the parameter of expectation.Hoey(2001:43)points out that“reader and writer are like dancers following each other’s steps”.The author will try to use various linguistic devices to anticipate what the readers might expect so that the readers will get enhanced opportunities to guess correctly what is going to happen next.Then in this way the author is successful in aligning the readers to agree with his/her viewpoints in the writer-reader interaction and construe his/her authorial stance.For example,
(25)Each microblogger effectively controls how he/she is perceived by others.In other words,microbloggers manage their images primarily through the self-presentation process.(H,ANEs)
In Example(25),the author uses appositive CM in other words to restate what microblogger is.This CM signals that in the clause leading by in other words,the readers will expect another similar interpretation or characterization,which is either more concrete or more general of the previous preposition.Thus,the author construes himself as a reasonable person who has a similar opinion as the readers.Consider another example,
(26)Because the audience pays more attention to senior faculty,the senior’s voice carries more power.In turn,a more powerful voice draws more attention.Nevertheless,it could be problematic if a society gave undue respect to seniority and authority.(H,ANEs)
The author in Example(26)presents his/her own point of view about the importance of seniority and authority.The CM nevertheless counters the positive expectations of the importance of seniority set up in the preceding clause.The author at first states that the senior faculty receives much attention.Then it is natural for the readers to expect more information about the seniority and authority.But the author uses nevertheless to indicate that the juxtaposition of the two clauses conflicts with what is expected.Based on the criterion of expectation,Table 3.1 lists the specific classification of CMs in the dissertation.
Table 3.1 A new classification of conjunctive markers in the dissertation
续表:
Seen from Table 3.1,this dissertation proposes that CMFEs assume a common ground between the authors and readers in terms of what is expected.Appositive CMs such as in other words,clarificative CMs such as for example,causal CMs such as because,spatio-temporal CMs(including matter conjunctives such as here and there),positive additions such as moreover,positive comparisons such as similarly and positive conditions such as in that respect are classified in the category of CMFEs.Comparatively,CMCEs signal the relationship of counter-expectation in that the author display two conflict propositions by indicating that the proposition in the second clause is not expected in the light of what has preceded it.Adversative CMs such as but,varying CMs such as on the contrary,concessive CMs such as however,negative additive CMs such as nor,negative comparative CMs such as in a different way and negative conditional CMs such as unless,otherwise are categorized as types of CMCEs.
As to the lexicogrammatical realizations of the two types of CMS,Chapter 1 classifies them according to their frequencies and the CMs needed to be analyzed comprise 44 conjunctions,51 conjunctive adverbs,8 numerals and 29 prepositional phrases.However,it is still not sufficient for analyzing the relationship between CMs and authorial stance.It is necessary to classify them based on the parameter of expectation.
In this dissertation,there are 30 CMCEs,among which there are 4 adversative CMs(but,on the other hand,neither,whereas),8 varying CMs(on the contrary,instead,regardless,by contrast,besides,except that,rather than,alternatively),7 concessive CMs(though,although,nevertheless,albeit,nonetheless,yet,however),1 negative additive CM(nor),4 negative comparative CMs(in a different way,in comparison,by comparison,elsewhere)and 5 negative conditional CMs(even if,even though,even when,otherwise,unless).Comparatively,there are 120 CMFEs,which occupy a much higher proportion than CMCEs.Among the CMFEs,there are 4 appositive CMs(in other words,that is,for example,for instance),18 clarificative CMs(in general,of course,indeed,in fact,actually,in particular,particularly,in conclusion,in sum,to conclude,to sum up,to summarize,in short,whether or not,whether,anyway,at least,in any case),16 causal CMs(because,since,as,for,in that,therefore,so,so that,hence,consequently,as a result,for this reason,accordingly,thus,thereby,then),32 spatio-temporal CMs(at first,at last,first,second,third,firstly,secondly,one,two,three,in the first place,in the second place,for one thing,to begin with,to start with,from the beginning,afterwards,meanwhile,last,finally,eventually,after all,now,till,before,after,until,where,here,while,whilst,when),6 positive additive CMs(furthermore,in addition,moreover,and,again,once again),12 positive comparative CMs(or,like,as well,in the same way,by the same token,as if,as though,in this way,in this regard,in this sense,equally,either)and 14 positive conditional CMs(if,as long as,so long as,in case,once,merely,as soon as,provided that,provided,given that,now that,even,still,in that case).
Table 3.2 The lexicogrammatical realizations of CMs in the dissertation
Table 3.2 lists all the conjunctive devices needed to be analysed in the dissertation.This is only a general classification of the CMs in this current research.Sometimes one CM could express various semantic meanings.Deng(2012)points out that and can be interpreted as taking the great variety of relations in the context such as additive,causal,temporal,and contrast.So in this dissertation it is necessary to analyze this polysemous CM.
The following sections will give a thorough explanation of the concepts and theories related with the theoretical framework in Figure 3.1.The primary work is to interpret the key notions in SFL which is closely related with this theoretical frame.Then other key terms which are related with authorial stance such as discourse community,disciplinary differences and cultural-linguistic differences are introduced later.