Variation

The multiple comparison has indicated that the humanities writers use the Variation connectives significantly more than the engineering writers. As already noted in Section 4.3.1, the statistical difference may arise from the Replacive subcategory, with nine instances found in the humanities while zero found in the engineering; social sciences writing is situated in the middle. Table 4.13 provides the detailed frequencies.

91

Table 4.13 Number and Frequency (per 100 clauses) of Variation connectives Humanities Engineering Social Sciences Replacive 而(3)

Table 4.13 demonstrates that the Replacive (e.g. 反 fǎn ‘instead’) connectives are not used by the engineering writers. That is because the Replacive connects a

counterclaim with the preceding arguments, and the counterclaim conveys a tone of refusal or denial to the established facts, thus the semantic function of Replacive does not conform to the conventions of scientific studies, which seek to have a common ground with the established knowledge. On the other hand, the humanities and social sciences writers use the Replacive connective as a means to increase the scope of their arguments by making reference to similar lines of thought or presenting a

counterclaim to strengthen the main proposition, as shown respectively in the following two examples.

(20) 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]

92

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

(21) 政策措施中的各種規範與限制，反倒加深社會對這兩個族群的偏見或烙 印。SS-[22]

‘The various regulations and restrictions in the policy strengthen the social biases and stigma toward the two ethnic groups instead.’

Both examples show writers’ subjective judgment toward the arguments.

Comparatively, if the engineering writers present counterclaims, the force of their argument might be weakened because the arguments in the hard applied discipline are mainly based on the objective truth.

Subtractive

Table 4.13 shows that the frequencies of Subtractive do not differ very much in the three fields of study.

(22) 此中差異與歷程的推演，除攸關陰陽五行理論的修正外，也蘊藏帝國思維 的調整。Hum-[11]

‘Apart from being closely related to the modification of yin-yang and the five elements, the progression of differences embodies the adjustments of the thoughts of empire.’

(23) 除黃光製程外，其餘製程均整合在 ICP-RIE 機台中完成 Eng-[20]

‘Except the fabrication of yellow light, the other fabrication processes are integrated into the ICP-RIE chamber.’

(24) 除了市場規模及市場型研發部門與研發區位選擇呈現負向關係外，其他皆 與區位選擇呈現正向關係 SS-[16]

‘Except for the negative correlations between the scale of market/type of R&D unit and R&D locational choices, the rest variables have the positive correlation with R&D locational choices.’

93

In the humanities example (22), the writer does not only elucidate the key ideas in argumentation, but also devotes personal interpretation to the ideas under scrutiny. In the engineering example (23), however, the writer objectively reports the procedure of experiment and does not add subjective concluding remarks toward the content of arguments. In other words, while writers use the Subtractive connective in their arguments, the linked propositions may be either subjectively or objectively oriented, depending on the fields of study at issue. In the social sciences example (24), the writer reports the results of research with an objective orientation, which is similar to the use of Subtractive in the engineering example.

In conclusion, disciplinary difference lies in the Variation subcategory, especially in the use of Replacive connectives between the humanities and engineering writers.

The humanities writers have the highest frequency, while the engineering writers do not use it at all. Furthermore, varying degrees of subjectivity are observed in the Subtractive subcategory, with the humanities writers having a higher degree of subjectivity than the social sciences or engineering writers.

4.4 Enhancement

The Enhancement includes four subcategories: (i) Spatio-temporal, (ii) Manner, (iii) Causal-conditional, and (iv) Matter. Within each logico-semantic relation, various subcategories are involved. The following section reports the quantitative results.

4.4.1 Quantitative results

Due to the sophisticated classification of Enhancement, the presentation of quantitative results is divided into two sub-sections: (i) across-discipline comparison and (ii) within-discipline comparison.

94 Across-discipline comparison

The analysis of variance revealed no significant results for the across-discipline differences (see Table 4.14), thus it might suggest that the four subcategories are common linking devices for all academic writers to present inter-clausal relationships in Chinese writing.

Table 4.14 Across-discipline comparison of Enhancement Humanities Engineering Social

Sciences F Sig.

Spatio-temporal

M 1.37 1.10 1.57

.565 .570

SD 1.586 1.398 2.063

Manner M 1.47 1.23 1.57

.323 .725

SD 1.634 1.478 1.813

Causal-Conditional

M 1.87 2.60 2.17

1.134 .326

SD 1.592 2.111 1.949

Matter M 1.07 .53 .70

1.476 .234

SD 1.258 .900 1.466

* p < .05

Within-discipline comparison

As shown in Table 4.15, the use of the four subcategories of Enhancement demonstrates a similar pattern for all disciplines, viz. Causal-conditional > Manner ≥ Spatio-temporal > Matter. The difference in the engineering and social sciences is statistically significant, suggesting that the within-discipline distribution of the four subcategories is more heterogeneous.

95

Table 4.15 Within-discipline comparison of Enhancement

M SD F Sig.

Humanities

Spatio-temporal 1.37 1.586

1.408 .244

Spatio-temporal 1.10 1.398

9.801 .000*

Spatio-temporal 1.57 2.063

3.242 .025*

With an overall significant difference in the engineering and social sciences, the t-tests were administered to compare the means in each of these two disciplines. Table 4.16 and Table 4.17 present multiple comparisons of Enhancement in the two

academic fields. As can be seen, of the four subtypes of Enhancement, writers in the Engineering and Social Sciences use the Causal-conditional connectives significantly more than the Spatio-temporal and Manner connectives, respectively. This suggests that the engineering and social sciences writers are more concerned with the causal-conditional relations among propositions and prefer to guide readers through the logical inferences with markers that indicate such relations.

Table 4.16 Multiple comparison of Enhancement within the engineering

M M MD Sig.

Spatio-temporal 1.10 vs. Manner 1.23 -.133 .710 Spatio-temporal 1.10 vs. Causal-conditional 2.60 -1.500 .006*

Spatio-temporal 1.10 vs. Matter .53 .567 .094 Manner 1.23 vs. Causal-conditional 2.60 -1.367 .010*

Manner 1.23 vs. Matter .53 .700 .020*

Causal-conditional 2.60 vs. Matter .53 2.067 .000*

* p < .05; M = Mean, MD = Mean Difference

96

Table 4.17 Multiple comparison of Enhancement within the social sciences

M M MD Sig.

Spatio-temporal 1.57 vs. Manner 1.57 .000 1.000 Spatio-temporal 1.57 vs. Causal-conditional 2.17 -.600 .279 Spatio-temporal 1.57 vs. Matter .70 .867 .084 Manner 1.57 vs. Causal-conditional 2.17 -.600 .227

Manner 1.57 vs. Matter .70 .867 .066

Causal-conditional 2.17 vs. Matter .70 1.467 .001*

* p < .05; M = Mean, MD = Mean Difference

In conclusion, writers use the subcategories of Enhancement in a similar way:

Causal-conditional > Manner ≥ Spatio-temporal > Matter. In the engineering and social sciences abstracts, the Causal-conditional connectives are used significantly more than the Matter. This seems to correspond to the nature of argumentation. Causal relation is fundamental to human perception and experience. It is central to both the

“representation of human knowledge and other cognitive processes such as predicting, explaining, and comprehending” (Noordman and Blijzer 2000:35). Academic writing is a representation of knowledge and theory and therefore writers need causal markers to make explicit the relations between propositions.

4.4.2 Qualitative discussion

The following sections discuss the Spatio-temporal, Manner, Causal-conditional, and Matter respectively.