4.4 Summary
This chapter presents an investigation of the overall features of CMFEs and CMCEs.In this investigation,the great numbers of CMs found in the EAPs are collected and classified into two types based on the parameter of expectation:CMFEs and CMCEs.There are seven types of CMFEs:appositive CMs,clarificative CMs,causal CMs,spatio-tempora CMsl,positive additive CMs,positive comparative CMs and positive conditional CMs.Table 4.16 lists the comparison of the occurrences and frequencies of these seven types.
Table 4.16 Comparison of various types of CMFEs
Seen from Table 4.16,the 102 CMFEs in the chosen EAPs account for 22,913 times,with the frequency of 1397.5 per 100,000 words.The frequencies of positive additive(318.3 per 100,000 words)and spatiotemporal CMs(338.3 per 100,000 words)are both very high.Comparatively,spatio-temporal CMs are much more various than positive additive CMs.Appositive and clarificative CMs are less frequently used,with the frequency of 31.4 and 59.9 respectively.The frequencies of positive comparative(201.1),positive conditional(142.1)and causal CMs(188.7)are similar.Results in Table 4.16 then are changed into Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Comparison of various types of CMFEs
Specifically,in positive additive CMs,and accounts for the largest proportion.In spatio-temporal CMs,where,when and while achieve the highest frequencies.For example and indeed are the two top appositive and clarificative CMs separately.Causal CMs are divided into CMs introducing reasons and CMs introducing results.For the former,because and since are typical;for the latter,therefore and thus are used more frequently.The authors in the chosen EAPs favor or most when using positive comparative CMs.If is the most popular positive conditional CM.In analyzing if-clause,the value of modal expressions in the matrix clauses are investigated.Those of low value are frequently manifested,and this distribution complies with the nature of EAPs.A similarity of these seven types of CMFEs is that there is a big gap between the most frequently used CMs and the least frequently used ones.
Comparatively speaking,there are six types of CMCEs:adversative CMs,negative CMs,varying CMs,concessive CMs,negative comparative CMs and negative conditional CMs.Table 4.17 lists the comparison of the occurrences and frequencies of these six types.
Table 4.17 Comparison of various types of CMCEs
As the above table suggests,the 30 CMCEs in the chosen EAPs appear 8057 times,arriving at the frequency of 827.8.Concessive CMs make the greatest contribution,with the highest frequency of 505.6.Adversative CMs are also abundantly distributed(191.8 per 100,000 words).In comparison,varying,negative comparative and negative conditional CMs are not so frequently used as concessive ones.Thus the table could also be interpreted in the form of Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Comparison of various types of CMCEs
In particular,but is the most typical adversative CM.Rather than is used most frequently in varying CMs.However and although are the most favored concessive CMs.When referring to negative comparative CMs,the gap between elsewhere,which arrives at the highest frequency and the others are very great.By contrast,the difference of the frequencies among various negative conditional CMs are not so obvious.Apart from the classification and distribution of these two semantic types of CMs.Polysemous CM and is specifically analyzed for it could convey various meanings in construing authorial stance.Based on the explanation above,it is clear to conclude that the authors incline to use more CMFEs,when expressing their attitudinal and epistemic stances in their interaction with the readers.CMs not only connect main ideas,but also reflect the authors’awareness of the interrelationship between propositions and readers’expectations.Hyland(2002)points out that“connectives are potentially risky way of seeking to build a connection with readers as they instruct them to act or see things in a way determined by the writer”.In discourse community of EAPs,the authors and the readers share the same conventions and values,so it can explain why CMFEs occur more frequently than CMCEs.
In this dissertation,authorial stance is defined as the epistemic and affective judgements and attitudes conveyed by the author in the authorreader interaction,which could fulfill or counter the reader’s expectations.The quantitative results,showing more uses of CMFEs than CMCEs in the EAPs,indicates that the academic writers incline to persuade and align their audiences by fulfilling their expectations.In this kind of author-reader interaction,the authors can avoid the the unfavorable situation in which the readers’expectations are not fulfilled and they will drop the text at any time.However,since both the authors and the readers of EAPs are members in the academic communities and they will share similar cultures and conventions,most of the readers will try to interpret the clauses even though they could not match their expectations.All in all,both CMFEs and CMCEs can help to express the author’s stance,and the reader’s understandings depend on his/her ability to interpret the juxtaposition of clauses.
In the following two chapters,the features of CMs discussed in Chapter 4 will be analyzed in different disciplines and in EAPs by AEs and ANEs.
【注释】
[1]In the dissertation,the frequencies for comparison throughout this dissertation are made with a proportion of per 100,000 words.