6.5　Summary

Similar to Chapter 5,this chapter is also statistically the heaviest.In this chapter,the occurrences and frequencies of CMFEs and CMCEs,as well as their sub-categories are collected,counted,analyzed and compared.It is found that AEs use the CMFEs and CMCEs more frequently than ANEs.All in all,based on the whole chapter,the findings of the analysis can be given as follows.

Firstly,the frequencies of both CMFEs and CMCEs are higher in EAPs written by AEs than those by ANEs.Moreover,AEs not only use more CMFEs but also employ high-frequency types more variously.This could be proved by the statistic analysis in Table 6.1 and Table 6.9.

Secondly,as to the specific types of CMs,there are differences in their frequencies.For example,ANEs employ a higher proportion of positive conditional CMs than AEs,while the frequencies of clarificative CMs in AEs’s EAPs are much higher than those in ANEs’EAPs.

Finally,the forms of the lexicogrammatical realizations used by AEs are more various.For example,as to the positive additional CMs,it is observed that the greatest cultural-linguistic difference lies in the distribution of and.Moreover,in the causal CMs,AEs prefer to imply a proposition by using since and in that while ANEs prefer to use because.

The data analysis in this chapter presents a general picture that AEs employ more CMs than ANEs in the academic writing.That is to say,AEs present a more vigorous interaction with their audiences by fulfilling or countering the expectations,and thus construe the authorial stance more obviously in the author-reader interaction.As to the influencing factors,different writing conventions,the roles of authors and readers,different kinds of cultural shifts and different rhetorical patterns are closely related with the different distributiosn of CMs in the EAPs written by AEs and ANEs.