Clarification

There is an overall significance among the three disciplines in the use of Clarification connectives, while between-discipline differences were not found. The following discussion focuses only on the four subcategories of Clarification

(Dismissive, Particularizing, Summative, and Verifactive) because Distractive (e.g.

順道一提 shùndàoyìtí ‘by the way’) and Resumptive (e.g. 回到剛剛所說的 huídào gānggāng suǒ shuō de ‘to get back to the point’) were not identified in the databank and there is only one occurrence of Corrective (e.g. 更確切地說 gèng quèqiè di shuō

79

‘to be more precise’) in the humanities abstracts (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Number and Frequency (per 100 clauses) of Clarification connectives Humanities Engineering Social Sciences

Corrective 更確切地說(1) particular’ is used most frequently by all writers and accounts for a large proportion (14 out of 15 particularizing connectives) in the engineering writers’ use of

Clarification; (ii) that writers in the humanities, compared with writers in the other two disciplines, use the Particularizing and Summative with the greatest variety; (iii) that 其實 qíshí ‘in fact’ is chosen by the humanities writers, while 事實上

shìshíshàng ‘in fact’ is preferred in the social sciences abstracts; and (iv) that the

80

engineering writers do not use the Summative and Verifactive connectives at all. The four points are discussed respectively in the following.

The first observation is that the engineering writers, compared with writers in the other two disciplines, rely on a restricted range of connectives to clarify arguments, especially on the use of Particularizing connective 其中 qízhōng ‘in particular’ (see example (6)).

(6) 本論文採用有機以及無機材料，分別研究其在軟性電子元件之應用。其中，

將著重於高分子二極體整流器以及非晶態氧化物薄膜電晶體在軟性電子之應 用。Eng-[1]

‘This study adopted organic and inorganic materials to investigate the application of flexible electronic devices. In particular, we focus on the application of polymer diode rectifiers and amorphous oxide TFTs on the flexible electronic devices.’

(7) 全文以倫理、法律、邏輯三大面向加以探討《韓非子》的規範思想。其中析 論《韓非子》為學界所廣泛注意的法、術、勢三大政治哲學的核心主張 Hum-[3]

‘This study explores the thought of norms in Hanfeizi from ethics, law, and logic.

In particular, we focus on the fa, shu, and shih of Hanfeizi, which are generally paid attention to by the academic circles.’

(8) 對於台灣地方政治之研究，以往多數集中於對權力取得之途徑與分析，也因 此多數集中在選舉相關的議題上，其中又以地方派系的探討為主要的課題。

SS-[24]

‘The studies of local governance in Taiwan have been focused on the analysis of the ways of acquiring authority, and thus most studies pay attention to the issues of election and to the investigation of local fractions in particular.’

As shown in extracts (6)-(8), the engineering writers particularize the application of materials and techniques due to their concern with the ‘mastery of physical

environment’ and practical applications (Becher 1987, 1994). In the humanities and

81

social sciences articles, on the other hand, writers specify the aspects under discussion (example (7)) and the issues under scrutiny (example (8)). From a within-discipline point of view, the heavier reliance of 其中 qízhōng ‘in particular’ in the engineering abstracts can be attributed to scientific writers’ needs in clarifying the conditions under which the experiment was taken. With the help of 其中 qízhōng ‘in particular’, the readers can build a connection between a general aim of the study and

experimental specifications.

The second observation is that the humanities writers use the Particularizing and Summative connectives with the greatest variety. In (9), the writer delineates the social backgrounds under which his claims are made. In (10), the writer uses an explicit linking device to help readers recapitulate the purpose of study.

(9) 本文主旨在討論當代德國著名的哲學家哈伯瑪斯所提出的「話語倫理學」，

闡釋在當代社會的文化衝突中，尤其處於後形上學時代，社會行動如何獲得 合理且有效的規範 Hum-[4]

‘This dissertation intends to discuss the discourse ethics of Habermas, expounding on the cultural conflict in the modern society, especially in a post-metaphysical era, in which how the social acts obtain reasonable and effective norms.’

(10) 總之，本論文的主要目標是要探討克莉絲蒂的小說文本與小說的社會背景 兩者的關係。Hum-[20]

‘In brief, this study attempts to investigate the relation between texts and social backgrounds of Christie’s novels.’

These two examples also explain why the humanities writers exploit the largest number of Clarification connectives. Clarification is important because writers’ line of reasoning is ‘reiterative’ and the style of writing is ‘river-like.’ That is, the relatively

‘loosely-structured’ way of argumentation urges the humanities writers to make more use of connectives when they demonstrate the logical relations among claims (Becher

82 1987, 1994).

The third observation is that the humanities writers prefer Verifactive connective 其實 qíshí ‘actually’, while the social sciences writers tend to use 事實上

shìshíshàng ‘in fact’. In (11), 其實 qíshí ‘actually’ clarifies the logical connection between the verified clause and aforementioned arguments, expressing writer’s disagreement with the view in the literature. In (12), the writer uses 事實上 shìshíshàng ‘in fact’ to show his subjective assertions toward what is going to be argued about, instead of verifying the truth in the reality.

(11) 戴震思想其實離開孟子較遠，反與荀子有許多相似之處。Hum-[8]

‘The thought of Tai Chen is actually distant from that of Mencius; instead, it shares many similarities with the thought of Xunzi.’

(12) 事實上，台糖公司落實蝴蝶蘭產業之發展並使之商業化，必須透過三個面 向予以說明 SS-[20]

‘In fact, the commercialization of Taiwan Sugar Company’s orchid industry should be elucidated in the following three aspects.’

Both 其實 qíshí ‘actually’ and 事實上 shìshíshàng ‘in fact’ signal writers’

rhetorical stance in the argumentation and denote metatextual meanings (Wang et al.

2011). In the soft disciplines, such as the humanities and social sciences, 其實 qíshí

‘actually’ and 事實上 shìshíshàng ‘in fact’ can help writers strengthen their

arguments and increase the argumentative force via counterclaiming. They not only serve cohesive functions on the interactive level but also express a subjective epistemic stance toward the propositions on the interactional level.

The fourth observation is that the engineering writers do not use the Summative and Verifactive connectives in their abstracts. The lack of explicit Summative markers suggests a detached attitude by the writer and less involvement of the reader. This is

83

partly because the engineering writers deal with the knowledge in the physical world, and they care more about the quantitative results which are presented with self-contained figures. Therefore, they exploit less linguistic resources to help readers recapitulate the arguing content and have a lower degree of reader involvement.

Furthermore, the engineering writers do not use the Verifactive connectives because the knowledge content per se has a high degree of factualness, thus the writers need not to strengthen the factualness of their arguments by using the Verifactive resources.

In conclusion, the heavier reliance on the use of 其中 qízhōng ‘in particular’ in the engineering abstracts is accounted for by the writers’ needs in clarifying

experimental specifications. For the humanities writers, the frequent use of Clarification can be explained by their reiterative style of reasoning and the philosophical knowledge content. As to the disciplinary preference in the social sciences, writers tend to choose 事實上 shìshíshàng ‘in fact’, which is used to express writers’ subjectivity rather than to verify a fact.

4.3 Extension

Extension involves Addition, which adds propositions to the preceding one either positively or adversely, and Variation, which presents a subtractive, replacive, or alternative relation among propositions.

4.3.1 Quantitative results

In terms of the overall use of Extension connectives across disciplines, as shown in Table 4.9, writers use the Variation subcategory with an overall statistical difference (p-value = .043). The Addition subcategory, on the other hand, showed no overall significance in use.

84

Table 4.9 Across-discipline comparison of Extension Humanities Engineering Social

Sciences F Sig.

Addition M 3.03 2.33 2.93

1.178 .313

SD 2.076 1.709 1.929

Variation M .63 .23 .37

3.251 .043*

SD .718 .568 .556

* p < .05

Table 4.10 presents the results of between-discipline comparison of Variation.

Writers in the humanities use the Variation connectives significantly more than writers in the engineering (p-value = .042).

Table 4.10 Multiple comparison of Variation across disciplines

Mean Mean Mean Difference Sig.

Humanities .63 vs. Engineering .23 .400 .042*

Humanities .63 vs. Social Sciences .37 .267 .296 Engineering .23 vs. Social Sciences .37 -.133 1.000

* p < .05

As will be shown in Table 4.13, the significantly higher frequency of humanities writers’ Variation connectives can be mainly attributed to the Replacive subcategory (9 in the humanities and 0 in the engineering), where nine instances were found in the humanities while zero in the engineering. This is related to the rhetoric functions of Replacive connectives, which set up a claim in opposition to a previous argument or refute the common assumptions of disciplinary knowledge, and the functions thus do not conform to the scientific knowledge-building conventions which seek common grounds on prior methodologies and results.

In order to discern the categorical differences within each discipline, paired samples t-tests were applied to compare the Addition and the Variation subcategory (see Table 4.11). The results showed that all of the three disciplines have significant categorical differences; that is, the numbers of Variation connectives in each

discipline are significantly fewer than those of Addition.

85

Table 4.11 Within-discipline comparison of Extension

M SD t Sig. (2-tailed)

Humanities Addition 3.03 2.076

7.255 .000*

Variation .63 .718

Engineering Addition 2.33 1.709

5.887 .000*

Variation .23 .568

Social Sciences

Addition 2.93 1.929

6.605 .000*

Variation .37 .556

* p < .05

The significant lower frequency of Variation may be accounted for by three reasons. First, the Variation connectives are not as common as the Addition in terms of extending and strengthening the previous arguments. Using Addition connectives is a comparatively simple and direct way of linking arguments, either positively or adversely. Second, the Addition connectives can express a ‘positive’ tone in the connection of arguments, while the Variation conveys a rather ‘negative’ prosody, which is less preferred in the academic written argumentation. Third, among the three subcategories of Variation, Alternative connectives (e.g. 或者 huòzhě ‘or’) were not found in the databank because all of the identified 或者 huòzhě ‘or’ denote a

propositional ‘or’ meaning rather than a metadiscoursal ‘alternatively’ meaning.

Therefore, the Variation connectives are used far less frequently than the Addition connectives.

As to the subcategories of Addition, positive Addition outweighs the other two subcategories (negative Addition and Adversative) because it provides a favorable way of linking arguments, changing the topic at present or making a further statement.

4.3.2 Qualitative discussion

The subcategories of Addition involve positive Addition (e.g. 此外 cǐwài ‘in addition’), negative Addition (e.g. 既不…也不 jìbù…yěbù ‘neither…nor’), and Adversative (e.g. 但 dàn ‘but’). They connect the following arguments with the

86

previous ones by continuing or changing the current topic. The subcategories of Variation consist of Replacive (e.g. 而 ér ‘instead’), Subtractive (e.g. 除了 chúle

‘except’), and Alternative (e.g. 或者 huòzhě ‘alternatively’), showing an extended relation by counter-claiming (the Replacive) or by making an ‘except’ meaning (the Subtractive).