5.4 Discussions of the Disciplinary Differences
Based on the the quantitative analysis of the distribution of CMs in various disciplines,it is found that in the discipline of H and S,especially H,both CMFEs and CFCEs are much more frequently and variously used than those in N.Bazerman(1981)points out that the whole mode of argumentation differs radically between such fields as biochemistry,English literature and the sociology of science.Section 3.3.2 in this current research explains the nature of various disciplines and the disciplinary influence on the linguistic choice.In this section,it is necessary to discuss the reasons of the disciplinary differences in the distribution of CMs and some implications.
Based on the research of Becher(1994),it is found that the nature of the disciplines influences the writing conventions.Comparatively,the disciplines of S and H depend on integrative understanding of complex interrelationships(Becher,1994:161),and the contents of the EAPs tend to justify the theories.Each discipline has its own conventions and practices in order to make the discourse meaningful.Hyland(2009:9)draws a cline with the hard sciences at the left end and the softer social sciences in the middle and the softest humanities at the right end,and compares the nature of sciences and humanities.Alll these differences are presented in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 Continuum of academic knowledge(Hyland,2009:9)
Seen from Figure 5.3,it is clear that sciences are empirical and focus on the reporting of experimental findings in a highly structured genre with more concentrated readership.
Natural sciences are closely related with experiments and quantitative results,and the contents of the EAPs in this discipline is with a high factual content(Becher,1994).The authors usually downplay their personal role and“disguise their interpretative activities behind linguistic objectivity”(Hyland,2009:13)in order to prove that the research results will be the same no matter who conducts it.Therefore,the least frequently used CMFEs and CMCEs in natural sciences is one way of minimizing the author’s role and downplaying his/her personal evaluation and judgement.Just as what Section 3.3.2 illustrates,the authors in the discipline of natural sciences incline to focus on the generalisations(Becher,1994)and therefore put more weight on research methodologies,procedures and equipment rather than argument.According to Hyland(2009),natural sciences favor cumulative knowledge and the authors and readers in the discourse community are usually familiar with the former researches.So it is not necessary to highlight the presentation of the authors and the expectations of the readers.What’s more,using CMs in the EAPs can be considered as an efficient way to allow the authors to cut directly to the heart of key issues in the text.However,succinctness and simplicity in EAPs are valued by both editors and scientists in natural sciences(Hyland,2009:16),so it is natural to find the least CMs in N.In fact,based on the quantitative analysis,some lexicogrammatical realizations of CMs such as for instance,anyway does not appear in the corpus of natural science.
Comparatively,the softer disciplines such S and H[1]are interpretive and greatly depend on argument in a more fluid discourse with more varied readership.The authors in S and H emphasize their own contribution to the research while looking for agreement for it.What’s more,the knowledge structure in S and H are more dispersed(Hyland,2009:11),so the readership is more heterogeneous and the authors incline to use the CMs more frequently and more variously in order to form a unified and shared context with the readers.Hyland(2009:15)points out that“successful communication in the soft field depends on the author’s ability to invoke the sense of a real writer in the discourse”.
Apart from the great influence of the nature of different disciplinary communities,the impact of the individual author’s personal preference determined by experience,confidence,personality,etc.is also of great importance in explaining the different distribution of CMs.This can explain why the authors in each discipline have their own preference for using CMs.
All in all,CMs in this dissertation reflects the authors’expectations from the readers in their implicit communication.The authors and readers in the discourse communities of N,S and H have different inclinations based on the disciplinary conventions and practices.Based on the above discussion,Table 5.15 shows the general nature of N,S and H based on their research methodologies,the role of the authors,the types of knowledge and the writing demands,so as to explain why there are less CMs in N than those in S and H.
Table 5.15 Nature of disciplinary communities in the distribution of CMs in the dissertation
Seen from Table 5.15,in construing authorial stance,natural sciences are different from social sciences and humanities in research methodologies,contents,author’s roles,types of knowledge,writing demands etc.These differences influence the expectations from the readers,and then influence the use of CMs.