5.1 CMFEs in N,S and H
This section presents an overall picture of the distribution of CMFEs in the three disciplines.Table 5.1 lists the occurrences and frequencies of all the seven types of CMFEs in the three disciplines.
Table 5.1 Comparison of various types of CMFEs in N,S and H
Table 5.1 presents a complex but interesting picture about the comparison of various types of CMFEs in three disciplines.Firstly,it is found that the CMFEs in H occupies a frequency of 560.9 instances per 100,000 words.This tension decreases obviously to a frequency of 371.5 in S,and then decreases again to a frequency of 311.9 in N.This phenomenon indicates that the authors in N devote a lower proportion of CMFEs to specific content than those in S and H.
Secondly,it is noticed that in each discipline,there are great differences among the frequencies of each sub-type of CMFEs:the range in N varies from 12.5 to 117.6,in S from 15.3 to 132.4,and in H from 44.2 to 140.6.That is to say,the authors in each discipline have their own tendency in using CMFEs.For example,in N,positive additive CMs are the most favored,with the frequency of 117.6.In S and H,the authors incline to use spatio-temporal CMs most,with the frequency of 132.4 and 140.6 respectively.What’s more,the authors in N tend to use spatio-temporal CMs(65.7 per 100,000 words)as the second favoured type while in S,positive additive CMs are the second favoured and in H,the authors like to use positive comparative CMs.Finally,the distribution of the specific type of CMFEs also presents many differences.The striking differences can be shown in Table 5.1 above and Figure 5.1 below.
Figure 5.1 Comparison of CMFEs in various disciplines
As illustrated in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1,appositive and clarificative CMs appear much more frequently in H(44.2 per 10,000 words)and S(34.6 per 10,000 words)and in N(12.5 per 10,000 words).Comparatively,these two types of CMFEs are the least favored types in N and H.In specific,there are both similarities and differences in using concrete appositive and clarificative CMs among the three disciplines.These differences are presented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Comparison of specific appositive and clarificative CMs in N,S and H
续表:
Seen from Table 5.2,the use of appositive CM for example and the clarificative CM indeed occur more frequently than the other CMs in all of the three disciplines.In N,for example occurs 72 times in 234 CMs,in S 144 occurrences in 648 CMs,and in H 143 in 827 CMs.This CM is typically used to set up examples or instances so as to support the proposed view points,which then implicitly indicates that it could be employed to fulfill the expectancy.Indeed is the most favored clarificative CMs,with the occurrences of 26,134,208 in N,S and H respectively.However,there is an obvious difference between the CMFEs in H and those in S and N:each CM has their place in H butsome CMs do not even exist in S and N.For example,in N,the frequencies of CMs for instance,in sum,to sum up,in short and anyway are zero.The same situation also occurs in the CMs in particularly,to conclude,to sum up,to summarize and in any case in S.That is to say,the authors in H not only use the appositive and clarificative CMs most frequently,but also most diversely.All these phenomena tally to the nature of disciplines.Since how these CMs could help to construe authorial stance has been explained in Chapter 4 when referring to the overall features of CMs,it is not necessary to list more examples.
As to causal CMs,they are more frequently used in S,with the frequency of 78.5,compared with the frequency of 41.7 in N and 68.5 in H.What’s more,causal CMs in S are the third favored type except for spatio-temporal and positive additive CMs.Table 5.3 lists the distribution of specific causal CMs in N,S and H.
Table 5.3 Comparison of specific causal CMs in N,S and H
Seen from Table 5.3,the authors in S use causal CMs most frequently,with the frequency of 78.5.There are two types of causal CMs:those introducing reason and those indicating result.It is found that in N,CMs introducing reason(19.4 per 100,000 words)are less frequently used than those introducing result(22.3 per 100,000 words).This situation is different in S and H.This phenomenon indicates that the authors in N focus on the importance of the result,which tallies to the nature of N.Among the five types of causal CMs introducing reason,because is the most frequent CM in three disciplines.It introduces an element that justifies the preceding proposition and fulfills the expectations set in the preceding proposition.
The second and third frequently used causal CMs in three disciplines are since and as respectively.According to Quirk et al.(1972),since and as tend to present a cause or reason that is presupposed to be true.In this sense,the use of since and as denotes a positive epistemic stance.For example,
(73)Disequilibrium in family firms is a particularly relevant issue,since it seriously challenges maybe the most important characteristic of family firms,which is their‘legacy’nature,i.e.the fact that they are basically assets which are transmitted generation to generation.
(H,AEs)
(74)As Rosendo did not have any children of his own,he chose successors from his extended family,favouring those who had worked the hardest and were the most committed to existing businesses.(S,AEs)
In Examples(73)and(74),since and as indicate some known information and imply a presupposition.Based on the known facts,the readers are naturally aligned by the authors.The high frequencies of because,since and as in three disciplines prove the necessity of known information in construing authorial stance and fulfill the expectation.
Among the CMs indicating result,therefore is the most frequent marker in N and S while thus occurs most frequently in H.According to Biber et al.(1999),result-introducing CMs indicate the authors’conclusions or to link claims to supporting data.The analysis of Table 5.3 shows that therefore has frequencies of 5.7 in N,9.0 in S and 3.7 in H.That is to say,the frequency of therefore in S is nearly twice higher than its frequency in N,and nearly three times higher than its frequency in H.The results directly show the importance of therefore in N and S.Explanations are provided in examples below:
(75)As discussed previously,Hamilton and colleagues(Hamilton et al.,2008)explored a number of other cytokines including the antiinflammatory IL-10,which antagonises the effects of TNF-αand IL-6.Therefore,this suggests the need to assess a wider panel of both pro-and antiinflammatory cytokines while simultaneously measuring behaviour in a murine model of cerebral toxocariasis.(N,AEs)
(76)Since students may have had different levels of topic knowledge,the prompts and associated mind maps were systematically alternated in each workshop and at each time of testing.Therefore,there was random assignment of topics for both the pre-test and post-test measures and mean scores were composed of approximately equal numbers of responses to each prompt.(S,AEs)
In Examples(75)and(76),therefore produces immediate practical results of states or action.In this sense,it not only functions to enable readers to process the propositions introduced by them,but also guarantees the the reliability of the truth of the propositions.In H,thus is the most frequently used CM.As shown in Table 5.3,thus has a frequency of 8.1 in H,7.8 in S and 3.6 in N.A close inspection of the context of thus shows that it is frequently associated with evaluation,which could also explain why in the corpora of H thus is mostly found.In Example(77),thus is closely related with the hypothesis that knowledgeable individuals are likely to estimate a larger third-person perception.
(77)Individuals who were actually more knowledgeable than others were more skeptical about the accuracy of the news because reports about the radioactive pollution caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident were sensational and inaccurate.Thus,they would be more likely to estimate a larger third-person perception than would those who were actually less knowledgeable.(H,ANEs)
Another phenomenon needed to be mentioned is that there is no occurrence of for this reason in N,compared with a frequency of 0.3 in S and 0.5 in H.
All in all,causal CMs could help to develop the authors’argument and embody personal opinions.They are important grammatical devices for fulfilling the expectations set in previous clauses.Compared with the three CMFEs mentioned above,spatio-temporal CMs present a more interesting phenomenon.Table 5.4 shows a comparison of the 32 spatiotemporal CMs in three disciplines.
Table 5.4 Comparison of specific spatio-temporal CMs in N,S and H
续表:
Table 5.4 shows the specific information of the 32 spatio-temporal CMs in the corpus.The results of the comparison can be described in the following three aspects.Firstly,the frequencies of these devices show that when and where are the most preferred temporal and spatial CMs respectively in these three disciplines.In H,when has a frequency of 46.7 per 100,000 words,and in S has fewer cases,with a frequency of 38.6 per 100,000 words,and then the frequency decreases to 18.3 in N.The corpora of S has the most frequent occurrence of where(29.9 per 100,000 words),which decrease to 19.8 in H and 15.2 in N.
Secondly,it is found that in each discipline there are great differences in the frequencies of individual CMs.The whole range is from 0 to 18.3 in N,from 0 to 38.6 in S,and from 0 to 46.7 in H.Especially,the zero-frequency CMs are the most abundant in N,reaching 14 CMs,and the number decrease to 7 in S,and then only 1 in H.The unequal frequencies of spatio-temporal CMs indicate that the corpus of N does not use as many types of CMs as the corpora of S and H.This also conforms with the nature of N.
Finally,these CMs could not only construe chronological relations but also express various communicative purposes.It is noticeable that H has the most spatio-temporal CMs,with the frequency of 140.6,which is double that of N(65.7).This indicates that the authors in H use more spatio-temporal conjunctive expressions to communicate ideas with readers.Table 5.5 lists the specific information of positive additive CMs in the three disciplines.It is obvious that and takes up nearly 90% of the whole CMs in each discipline.N has the most frequent positive additive CMs,with the frequency of 117.6.Positive additive CMs are used to adjoin one process to another,implying no causal or temporal relationship between them.So they implicitly fulfill the expectations set in the former clauses.The quantitative analysis in Table 5.5 shows that the authors in N incline to use such implicit devices more frequently since natural sciences are generally considered to be as objective as possible.The analysis of and will be conducted in Section 4.3.As to positive comparative CMs,Table 5.6 shows the comparison of their occurrences and frequencies in N,S and H.
Table 5.5 Comparison of specific positive additive CMs in N,S and H
Table 5.6 Comparison of specific positive comparative CMs in N,S and H
Seen from Table 5.6,the corpus of H has the most positive comparative CMs,with the frequency of 127.1,and this decreases to 57.4 in N and then 16.6 in S.Or accounts for the largest proportion of the total number of the positive comparative CMs in each discipline.According to Quirk et al.(1972:563),or usually denotes an alternative relation.In Example(78),the two propositions connected by or is in common in the forms of definition of uniqueness and difference.
(78)In this sense,uniqueness and difference are defined in terms of an ontology or a nonontological ontology,or defined in terms of a cosmology of the equality of inequality.(H,ANEs)
The last type of CMFEs is positive conditional CMs.Table 5.7 presents their occurrences and frequencies in N,S and H.
Table 5.7 Comparison of specific positive conditional CMs in N,S and H
The occurrences and frequencies of the positive conditionals in the three disciplines are shown in Table 5.7.The conditionals in H account for the largest proportion,with the frequency of 74.1.It is also noted that in Table 5.7 if takes up the largest proportion in the three disciplines.Of the 316 items of conditionals in N,264 are if.At the same time,there are 142 ifs among the 287 devices of conditionals in S.In H,there are 1110 items among the 1387 instances.
A deeper examination of Table 5.7 indicates the infrequencies of certain items.For example,the frequencies of as long as,so long as,in case,as soon as,provided that,provided,now that,still and in that case are all lower than 1.
All in all,Section 4.1 introduces the occurrences and frequencies of seven types of CMFEs in N,S and H.Generally speaking,it is found that the authors in N devote a smaller proportion of CMFEs to specific content than those in S and H.The authors in each discipline have their own preference for using CMFEs.Specifically,the distribution of various sub-types of CMFEs and concrete grammatical realizations of these subtypes also present many differences.For example,the authors in H not only use the appositive and clarificative CMs most frequently,but also most variously.As to causal CMs,the authors in N focus on the importance of the result.Because is the most frequent CM in three disciplines.It is also noticeable that spatio-temporal CMs,positive comparative CMs and positive conditional CMs in H all account for the largest proportion,among which when,or and if are the most favored CMs respectively.