SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2019 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

It was found that…: Introductory it Patterns by Native and Non-Native Authors

Fatih Güngör
Pages
473–493
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Introductory it pattern, as in it was found that, is of significance in academic writing but the use ofintroductory it might be challenging especially for native- and non-native students and non-nativeacademic writers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introductory it pattern, as in it was found that, is of significance in academic writing but the use ofintroductory it might be challenging especially for native- and non-native students and non-nativeacademic writers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study uses data from the MCRA-L1 and MCRA-L2 corpora of MCRA (MultilingualCorpus of Research Articles) corpus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results revealed that therewere 38 different introductory it patterns in the MCRA-L1 and 66 in the MCRA-L2, and the frequencyand percentages showed the tendency of the Turkish authors to overuse the introductory it-structures intheir research articles.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introductory it pattern, as in it was found that, is of significance in academic writing but the use ofintroductory it might be challenging especially for native- and non-native students and non-nativeacademic writers. However, few studies have been conducted to compare the use of introductory itpattern by native and non-native scholars. This study investigates the frequencies, variability andfunctions of the introductory it patterns in the research articles of native and non-native academicprofessionals. The study uses data from the MCRA-L1 and MCRA-L2 corpora of MCRA (MultilingualCorpus of Research Articles) corpus. The size of each corpus was one million words. In order to extractintroductory it patterns, four-word lexical bundles were searched for through WordSmith Tools with acut-off point of 5 times per million words for 4-, 5- and 6-word bundles. The results revealed that therewere 38 different introductory it patterns in the MCRA-L1 and 66 in the MCRA-L2, and the frequencyand percentages showed the tendency of the Turkish authors to overuse the introductory it-structures intheir research articles.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güngör, F. (2022). It was found that…: Introductory it Patterns by Native and Non-Native Authors. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 473–493. https://ajindex.com/articles/507019

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ädel, A. (2014). Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.09.001
  2. Allen, D. (2010). Lexical bundles in learner writing: An analysis of formulaic language in the ALESS Learner Corpus. Komaba Journal of English Education, 1, 105-127. Retrieved from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/105-127.pdf
  3. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bal, B. (2010). Analysis of four-word lexical bundles in published research articles written by Turkish authors (Unpublished MA dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_theses/2/
  4. Baratta, A. M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1406-1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
  5. Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241- 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
  6. Beason, L. & Lester, M. (2012). A commonsense guide to grammar and usage (6th ed.). Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at.: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman. Byrd, P., & Coxhead, A. (2010). On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5(5), 31-64. Retrieved from http://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume05/Article02.pdf
  8. Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2006). Developing Chinese scientists’ skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(3), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.002
  9. Charles, M. (2006). Revealing and obscuring the writer’s identity: Evidence from a corpus of theses. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Di