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

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


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.

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

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 Analysis of four-word lexical bundles in published research articles written by Turkish authors (Unpublished MA dissertation).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

Baratta, A. M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1406-1421.

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.

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.

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

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.

Charles, M. (2006). Revealing and obscuring the writer’s identity: Evidence from a corpus of theses. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics (pp. 147-161). London: BAAL/Equinox.

Charles, M., Hunston, S., & Pecorari, D. (2009). Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing.

Collins, P. (1994). Extraposition in English. Functions of Language, 1(1), 7–24.

Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33-43.

Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London: HarperCollins.

Gilquin, G. (2006). Highly polysemous words in foreign language teaching: How to give learners a flying start. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Université Paris 7 – Denis Diderot, 1-4 July 2006 (pp. 58-60). Retrieved from

Granger, S. (2002). A birds-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257-277.

Güngör (2016). Crosslinguistic analysis of lexical bundles in L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Turkish research articles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Education, Gazi University, Ankara.

Güngör, F., & Uysal, H. H. (2016). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles used by native and non-native scholars. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 176-188.

Hacker, D. (2003). A writer’s reference (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

Herriman, J. (2000). The functions of extraposition in English texts. Functions of Language, 7, 203-230.

Herriman, J. (2013). The extraposition of clausal subjects in English and Swedish. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 233-260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367- 383.

Hewings, M. & Hewings, A. (2004). Impersonalizing stance: A study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published academic writing. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 101–116). London: Arnold.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361-386.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5-29.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29-53. Retrieved from

Hunston, S. (2002). Pattern grammar, language teaching, and linguistic variation: Applications of a corpus-driven grammar. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 167-183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. USA: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2008a). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62. 4192.2008.00178.x

Hyland, K. (2008b). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8, 1-23. Retrieved from

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.

Ingvarsdóttir, H., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2013). ELF and academic writing: A perspective from the expanding circle. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 123–145.

Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26-38.

Jacobs, R. A. (1995). English syntax: A grammar for English language professionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jalali, H., Rasekh, A. E., & Rizi, M. T. (2009). Anticipatory 'it' lexical bundles: A comparative study of student and published writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3(2), 177-194. Retrieved from

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157-181.

Kaltenböck, G. (2003). On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it. English Language & Linguistics, 7(2), 235-255.

Kaltenböck, G. (2005). It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119-159.

Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.

Larsson, T. (2017). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57-70.

Lorenz, G. (1998). Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: stylistic aspects of adjective intensification. In S. Granger & G. Leech, Learner English on computer (pp. 53-66). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes, 10(1), 15-33.

McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1-11.

Montgomery, S. (1996). The scientific voice. New York: The Guildford Press.

Oakey, D. (2002). Formulaic language in English academic writing. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 111-130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Öztürk, Y. (2014). Lexical bundle use of Turkish and native English writers: A corpus- based study (Unpublished MA dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.

Paquot, M. (2013). Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 391-417.

Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14(1), 240-261.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84-94.

Rodman, L. (1991). Anticipatory it in scientific discourse. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21(1), 17-27.

Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 141–163.

Salazar, D. (2010). Lexical bundles in Philippine and British scientific English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 41, 94–109. Retrieved from

Salazar, D. (2014). Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing: Applying a corpus-based study to language teaching (Vol. 65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Scott, M. (2016). WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A. (2013). Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 214-225.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Thompson, P. (2009). Shared disciplinary norms and individual traits in the writing of British undergraduates. In M. Gotti (Ed.), Commonality and individuality in academic discourse (pp. 53-82). Bern: Peter Lang.

Wang, Y. (2018). As Hill seems to suggest: Variability in formulaic sequences with interpersonal functions in L1 novice and expert academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 12-23.

Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, G. (2015). It is suggested that… or it is better to…? Forms and meanings of subject itextraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 1-13.

Kaynak Göster