Tazegül, A. B. (2015). Use, misuse and overuse of ‘on the
other hand’: a corpus study comparing Englısh of
native speakers and learners. International Online
Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2(2).
53-66.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/70/109
USE, MISUSE AND OVERUSE OF ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’: A
CORPUS STUDY COMPARING ENGLISH OF NATIVE SPEAKERS
AND LEARNERS
Assiye Burgucu Tazegül
Kafkas University
sy_brgc@yahoo.co.uk
Assiye B. Tazegül (PhD candidate) is an English lecturer at the Department of English
Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters of Kafkas University. Her areas of research
centre on Language Analysis, Language in society, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, and
pragmatics.
Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere
without the written permission of IOJET.
mailto:sy_brgc@yahoo.co.uk
Tazegül
118
USE, MISUSE AND OVERUSE OF ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’: A
CORPUS STUDY COMPARING ENGLISH OF NATIVE SPEAKERS
AND LEARNERS
Assiye Burgucu Tazegül
sy_brgc@yahoo.co.uk
The spoken word belongs half to the one who speaks it and half to the one who hears.
French proverb
Abstract
This study investigates the use of ‘on the other hand’ as a logical connector in the academic
writing of Turkish doctoral students. The learner corpus used is composed of academically-
advanced non-native students’ doctoral dissertations (applied and theoretical linguistics
fields) and the study also compiled the control corpora, the first one is a corpus of academic
essays written by professional native speakers and the second control corpus is The Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA). Students’ own writings are made comparisons
between established writers’ papers in their field and COCA. Despite different genres,
established writers’ edited papers are preferred instead of native students’ doctoral
dissertations, it gives corpus analysis comparing with genres. The results revealed that the
overall frequency of ‘on the other hand’ used by the Turkish doctoral students were greater
than that used by the professional writers. However, the Turkish doctoral students did use ‘on
the other hand’ in proper manner as natives did, that is, there was not a misused situation
from the point of academically-advanced non-native users. The findings also showed that,
according to the COCA results, ‘on the other hand’ is more frequent in academic genre, less
frequent in spoken, magazine, fiction and newspaper genres, respectively.
1. Introduction
The use of connectives has always been a trouble spot for second or foreign language
learners (SLL/FLL) of English. For example, the use of ‘on the other hand’, ‘besides’,
‘therefore’ ‘so’, ‘that is’, ‘furthermore’, ‘still’ as connectives appears to be problematic.
(Chen, 2014;Bolton, Nelson, & Hung 2002; Leedham & Cai, 2013; Heino, 2010). There may
be various reasons for this, in terms of qualitative perspective; misuse, including a lack of
awareness of semantic properties and syntactic positioning of it, additionally overuse and
underuse could also led to important problem with regard to quantitative perspective (Tseng
& Liou, 2006). According to literature, the causes of overuse and misuse are lined up as
learners’ first language interference, because as Mauranen (1993) states connector usage can
vary from one language to another, also misleading lists of connectives in textbooks
demonstrated, improper mechanical exercises on some connectives are other reasons (Crewe,
1990; Kuo, 2002).
This paper makes an attempt to study the use of ‘on the other hand’ in the academic
writing of Turkish EFL doctoral students, instead of high-school, college, undergraduate
students’ writings, because a great deal of research on connectives has been conducted on
mailto:sy_brgc@yahoo.co.uk
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
119
those EFL students’ writings, (c.f. Bolton, Nelson, & Hung, 2002; Milton &Tsang, 1993;
Tseng & Liou, 2006; Yeung, 2009). Additionally, some of the learner corpus studies revealed
that higher usage or misuse of particular linking adverbials (e.g., besides, on the other hand).
( Field & Yip, 1992; Lei, 2012; Milton,1999; Tanko, 2004). The focus in this paper has been
solely on one problematic linking adverbial “on the other hand” and its usage , apparently the
aforementioned studies investigate several linking adverbials and found the most problematic
ones. Some of the previous studies (e.g. Leedham & Chai, 2013, Yeung, 2009) focused on “
besides, therefore etc.” however there is a gap the existing literature about the use of ‘on the
other hand’ in more standard varieties of English and non-native advanced English users.
To be able to use certain individual adverbials appropriately and effectively, the researcher
has investigated the question exactly why and how Turkish advanced EFL learners has
misused/overused ‘on the other hand’ in their academic writings.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the occurrence of ‘on the other hand’ in terms of
particular academic usage though corpus-based research comparing native speakers’ and
learners’ English and also by using corpus examples as well as constructed examples, the
researcher investigates what kind of problems that may arise when learners do not have the
necessary knowledge and mastery over the use of ‘on the other hand’. The research questions
addressed in the study are as follows:
1. How frequently do the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as a
control corpus and published academic writers (native & non-native) in the disciplines of
Applied and Theoretical Linguistics use ‘on the other hand’ as logical connector?
2. Do non-native users (compare with control corpora) gain the knowledge and acquire
the ability to use ‘on the other hand’ correctly? What kind of problems may arise if
users do not have necessary knowledge?
2. Literature Review
Adverbial connectives such as ‘furthermore’, ‘thus’, ‘therefore’, ‘on the other hand’ are
used for connecting sentences, create textual cohesion between them and also they state the
writer’s perception of the relationship between two units of discourse. They have been called
‘linking adverbials’ (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999), ‘signal
expressions’ (Jenkins, 1986), ‘cohesive conjunctions’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), ‘linking
expressions’ (Raimes, 1987), ‘logical connectors’ (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973). The native
speakers (NS) and SLL/FLL use these adverbials appropriately to make clear the connections
between their ideas in their writings. However, what is ‘appropriate’ in using connectives is a
complicated question, because, as Conrad (1999) states that they have a number of
characteristics (i.e. they are optional, cover variety of meaning, appear in a variety of
grammatical forms and they can occur at different positions in the clause) that make them
distinctive as grammatical structures.
‘On the other hand’ is one of these logical connectors (adversative, contrastive), most
dictionaries (e.g. Oxford Advanced Learner’s English, 2013; Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, 2005) gross as meaning, “introduce different points of view, ideas, especially two
opposite ways of thinking about a situation”. Similar to the dictionaries, ELT textbooks also
classify ‘on the other hand’ in the category as the contrastive conjunction. Biber et al. (1999)
state that ‘on the other hand’ is in the category of contrast/concession, it contains items that in
some way mark incompatibility between information in different discourse units, or that
signal concessive relationships. It clearly marks contrasts, alternatives, or differences; they
have used following sentence to show it.
Tazegül
120
Contrastive/Concessive
Administration officials, notably the White House Chief of Staff and Deputy Treasury
Secretary, were irked by his independence. On the other hand, Taylor reportedly is well -
regarded by Treasury officials for his low-key, out-of-the-lime-light style. (NEWS)
(Biber et al., 1999, p.878)
‘On the other hand’, the conjoining function of discourse connectives, is minimally to join
two sentences. It is categorized as a contrastive adverbial connector within concessive sub-
category; however ‘on the other hand’ can take part in different sub- types as well such as
replacive, antihetic (Babanoğlu, 2012). These sub-categories have important nuance among
each other, that is, whereas concessive is used where one unit is seen as unexpected in the
light of the other, replacive helps to replace an item with a more important one, and antithetic
introduces direct antithesis when an item contrasts the preceding one (Babanoğlu, 2012).
In the literature, for learners of English, the use of connectives has repeatedly been
mentioned as a problem area. Use, overuse, misuse have been searched, with overuse being
the most predominant, leading to problems of coherence of the discourse (Biber et al.1999;
Milton & Tsang, 1993; Silva, 1993; Yeung, 2009). The logical connector ‘on the other hand’
is typically overused and misused by SLL/FLL (Field & Yip, 1992; Milton, 1999).
According to previous corpus research (Leedham & Cai, 2013), the researchers analyzed
the data of two-thousand-word corpus of Chinese learners compared with various expert
corpora. A simple frequency counting reveals that ‘on the other hand’ has been overused and
misused by the Chinese students. Additionally, Bolton, Nelson and Hung (2002) compared
the use of connectives in Hong Kong EFL students and native British students’ of the
International Corpus of English (ICE) to a sample of published academic writing and the
results showed that a tendency for both groups of students to overuse connectors, when
compared to published academic writing; while native speakers did not use, Hong Kong
students commonly overused some connectives, ‘on the other hand’ was one of these
connectives (the others were ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘therefore’, ‘moreover’). Babanoğlu (2012)
investigated the use of adverbial connector in L2 writings of Turkish adult learners. To
understand whether any similarities existed or not (any L1 interference), the researcher
searched Turkish learner corpus and compared it with native speakers corpus. Additionally, it
is also compared with other two different language corpus (Japanese and Spanish). The
results showed that some connectors were overused and ‘on the other hand’ has been
overused in Turkish International Corpus of Learner English (TICLE) and Spanish
International Corpus of Learner English (SPICLE).
Although the problem of ‘on the other hand’ has often been observed by some researchers,
hereinbefore, there has not been a thorough investigation of the question of exactly how and
why ‘on the other hand’ has been misused and overused. This paper makes an attempt to
study one of the logical connectors, ‘on the other hand’, which seems to be particularly
problem-prone. It aims at unraveling the native patterns of use, as compared with those of
learners, taking Turkish learners’ English as an example. To achieve the aim, the researcher
concentrates on corpus linguistics with relatively large amounts of textual data grounded in a
variety of theoretical perspectives.
Corpus studies within second/foreign language writing research have increased and some
studies have featured the use of connectives. As the other researchers have done, the present
study will use corpora to explain various occurrence of ‘on the other hand’ and this kind of
corpus studies serve a representative for the grammar of a whole language variety and
empirical data for testing hypotheses of grammar theories (McEnery & Wilson, 2001).
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
121
Conrad (1999) also states that corpus linguistics is a growing field, it not only provides some
facilities for language teachers, users, learners who want to understand and design effective
materials for their studies, but also beyond classroom, it analyzes the actual patterns of use in
natural texts, indicates the interactions of many aspects of a concordancing and
lexical/lexico-grammatical analyses, and differences in use across language varieties can all
be analyzed together and can all be tied to the communicative functions fulfilled by the
feature.
3. Methodology
3.1 Corpora
3.1.1.Learners’ corpus
The Turkish learner corpus used in the present study is composed of 20 applied and
theoretical linguistics doctoral dissertations (1,477,660 running words and 45,840 sentences).
The reason for the selection of dissertations only in the discipline of applied and theoretical
linguistics was that, the doctoral candidates at departments of foreign languages
have satisfied English language requirement at sufficient level and most of such candidates
have chance to take academic writing lectures as practical support to write their dissertations
and additionally they are allowed to write their dissertation in English language. The doctoral
dissertations were downloaded at random from the Internet (Council of Higher Education-
Thesis Center).
3.1.2.Control corpora
English native speakers’ corpora, consisting of two different corpora, the first one is the
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA - 450 million words, all genres; 91
million words are only used in academic genre (Davies, 2013)), there are 19.769 occurrences
of the connector ‘on the other hand’ in the COCA, 7.638 words occur in academic texts, and
the second control corpus is 100 published journal articles in seven international English-
language journals (987.193 words). The researcher randomly choose the articles from seven
recognized journals, such as System, Lingua, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of English for
Academic Purposes.
4. Findings
4.1 Frequencies compared
4.1.1 The Corpus of Contemporary American English - COCA
It is very useful to see the contrasting list of genres from the corpus, to help determine and
find of ‘on the other hand’ in various genres. As can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2
(frequency & percentage chart), ‘on the other hand’ is more frequent in academic genre
(83%) and it has a similar frequency of occurrence in fiction (21%) and newspaper (24%),
spoken (40%) and magazine (42%) genres. That is, there are marked differences non-
academic and academic genres. In other words, there is a significant difference between
them.
Tazegül
122
40,5
21,55
42,71
24,74
83,87
0
20
40
60
80
100
Spoken Fiction Magazine Newspaper AcademicP
e
r
c
e
n
ta
g
e
o
f
'
o
n
t
h
e
o
th
e
r
h
a
n
d
'
Figure 1. Frequency use of ‘on the other hand’ in the COCA
Figure 2. Percantage ( per million ) of ‘ on the other hand ‘ in the COCA
4.1.2 Native speakers’ corpus (Published academic writings) & Non-native speakers’ corpus
(Published doctoral thesis)
A frequency count was also made of the instances of use of ‘on the other hand’ in the
native speakers’ corpus. The frequencies of occurrence of ‘on the other hand’ in the experts’
and learners’ corpora were compared. There is a register difference in the native speakers’
corpus compare with learners’. The researcher found that, compared to the native speakers’
usage of ‘on the other hand’, the Turkish students used it more in their thesis than their native
counterparts. As can be seen from Table 1 the Turkish doctoral student writers used ‘on the
other hand’ most often. In other words, the professional writers used this connector less often
than the Turkish doctoral writers (2% versus 9%). Though the findings did show overall
overuse of ‘on the other hand’ by the Turkish learners, a closer look indicated that the
Turkish writers did use ‘on the other hand’ in proper manner as natives did, that is, they did
not misuse the under-researched connector ‘on the other hand. It has been explained in detail
the following section.
3882
1949
4081
2269
7638
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Spoken Fiction Magazine Newspaper Academic
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
a
n
c
e
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
123
Table 1. Frequency and percentage use of the linking adverbials in the native speaker corpus
Control
Corpus
Learner
corpus
Raw
frequency
Frequency
per million
words
% Raw
frequency
Frequency per
million words
%
‘on the
other hand’
176 138 2
%
388 573 9
%
4.2 Discourse pattern of use
4.2.1 (Some) Concordance lines from the COCA.
Table 2 shows that some sample lines of ‘on the other hand’ chosen from the COCA
academic genre. In the present experts’ corpus, ‘on the other hand’ is often used as a
contrastive connector as concessive and antithetic roles. Below is a typical example: “…
Islam, on the other hand, rejects ontological proximity between god, nature amd man and
establishes an ontological hierarcy”. (antithetic) or “ … before the enigmas of sexuality,
woman, and male identity, on the other hand. In this respect, he has something in common
with the emasculated Philip Salomons”. (concessive). Mostly, it gives a new thought after a
conclusion is drawn on a previous argument.
Table 2. Concordance lines of ‘on the other hand’ in academic genre.
4.2.2 (Some) Concordance lines from Learners’ corpus and the learners’ use of ‘on the
other hand’ as a connector.
In the learners’ corpus, ‘on the other hand’ is frequently found at the beginning of the
sentences mostly as a concessive, antithetic, replacive as has been seen in-group (a) on the
Tazegül
124
other hand, it also reflects and compares different viewpoints, opposing argument in-group
(b) sentences.
(a)
-On the other hand, unlike general proficiency test, on the other hand, testing pragmatics is very
complicated because there are no true or false answers. (antithetic)
-On the other hand, the massage is ambiguous in the second example. (concessive)
-On the other hand, such permutations cannot be applied in English; the basic word order of
English is SVO, and English has an inflexible word order. (concessive)
-On the other hand, this activity cannot be named as a personal writing because the previously
given leading questions restrict the… (antithetic)
-Perceptions of teachers and parents, on the other hand, do not differ. (concessive)
-Part II, on the other hand, includes some interview questions prior.(concessive)
Although, on the other hand, conveys concession relation and adversative relation (the incompatibility is
between an implication of the first clause and an implication of the second clause). (replacive)
-A comparable corpus on the other hand does not contain translations but consists of texts from
different languages which are similar or comparable with regard to a number of parameters such as
text type, formality, subject-matter, time span, etc. (antithetic)
-Communicative stress, on the other hand, focuses on the degree of communicative competence.
(replacive)
-Debilitating anxiety, on the other hand, is not favored because it may inhibit the FL learning
process. (concessive)
-Qualitative data, on the other hand, consist of more holistic information based on observations
that may not generally be converted into quantities or numbers such as, classroom observations or
interviews. (replacive)
-Words with procedural meaning, on the other hand, encode information about how these
representations are to be used in inference, they tell you how to 'take' these representations.(replacive)
(b)
-On the other hand, as Lynch (1996) further discusses, using multiple sources of data and
analysis techniques does not necessarily provide consistency of data in this study which seeks to
understand the perceptions of different groups.
-On the other hand, the study of Nunan (1992) on the interactive decisions of ESL teachers
indicated that teachers’ instructional decisions were related little to language concerns.
-On the other hand, Situation 16, in which the speaker is a customer representative at a bank who
keeps a customer waiting, gave results close to the intended design.
-Fraser (1999), on the other hand, defines DMs as a type of pragmatic markers which occur as
part of a discourse segment but are not part of the propositional content of the message conveyed,
which do not contribute to the meaning of the proposition.
-On the other hand, emotional expression was used by American participants significantly more.
4.2.3 (Some) Concordance lines from Experts’ corpus and the experts’ use of ‘on the other
hand’ as a connector.
The data of the native speakers’ writings reflects that they used a small number of logical
connector ‘on the other hand’ in their writings; moreover, they mostly preferred to use ‘on
the other hand’ in company with ‘on the one hand’, while it was never encountered in
Turkish doctoral students’ writings.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
125
As is seen from following samples, the professional writers apparently had great
awareness of the rhetorical force of the present connector being used. The common semantic
meaning was obviously contrastive (concessive, replacive, antithetic, respectively).
Syntactically, the use of ‘on the other hand’ was mostly the first word of sentences or if it
was in mid-sentence, aforementioned, it was used in company with ‘on the one hand’,
-They can also signal that an item has a similar force to a preceding one (e.g. equally, similarly) or,
on the other hand, assess an item as adding greater weight to a preceding one. (replacive)
-On the other hand, some dimensions of Altenberg and Tapper’s study are not included here
considering the scope of the study. (concessive)
-On the other hand, Hoye (1997) explains that formal downtoners (e.g. fairly, merely, nearly,
partly, partially, sufficiently) are pre- dominant in formal and written discourse. (different
viewpoint, opposing argument)
-On the other hand, one can point to syntagmatic units, some collocations, that do not correspond
to syntactic constituents and one might also claim that the language associated with spoken usage
is quite different from the example sentences underspinning syntactic rules. (antithetic)
-On the other hand, German man does not have the flexibility with respect to gender and number
that Egerland observes for Scandinavian man, French on, and Italian si. (concessive)
-The international teaching assistants, on the other hand, did not exploit choices of pitch and
pause consistently to create recognisable intonational paragraphs, leading Pickering (2004) to
conclude that “ITAs may be unable to make the finer distinctions between key choices needed for
the pitch sequence structure”(concessive)
-Firth, that relate language in use to, on the one hand, the study of texts, and, on the other hand,
the study of society or culture. This aspect of corpus linguistics, which goes beyond
lexicogrammar and takes on a broader framework, is well rep- resented by Stubbs
(1996).(replacive)
-On the one hand, a dismissal of facts about usage as being of no theoretical interest to, on the
other hand, the view that the wide- spread use of collocations and the heavy functional load that
they bear means that any framework adopting a strict grammar/lexicon division is
untenable.(replacive)
-On the one hand, they suggest that, despite the time-consuming nature of the analysis of corpus
data, intermediate students still saw benefits in their corpus activity. On the other hand, they raise
a concern about students at this level—those who might, in fact, need or benefit most from corpora
because of their intermediate level of ability—ultimately turning away from corpus use and its
possible benefits out of frustration over what is involved in such use. (replacive)
-Section 3 provides further corroborating evidence for the two types of arbs based on their effect on
subsequent discourse, while also demonstrating surprising differences between, on the one hand,
the definite and variable arbs, and on the other hand, the non-arbitrary definites and indefinites.
(replacive)
4. Discussions and Conclusion
This present paper makes an attempt to study one of the logical connectives, the meaning
and use of ‘on the other hand’ by studying on a control corpus of 100 published articles in
seven international journals of linguistics to use as the norm of the analysis and expert
corpora, dictionary definitions, as well as comparing and contrasting the experts’ use with
that of the learners, using Turkish learners’ English as an example. It is important to note that
all non-native speakers whose thesis were analyzed in this study were academically advanced
and proficient L2 learners, who had received years of exposure to and instruction in L2 use in
English language environments. Additionally, the expert corpora (the COCA and
professional native writes paper) were searched hypercorrectly. Firstly, in the line with the
Tazegül
126
aim of this study, the obtained results have revealed that the total results of frequency
analysis of ‘on the other hand’ in Turkish doctoral students’ corpus indicated similar
conditions to previous researches. Overall overuse of ‘on the other hand’, in learner corpus
obtained from the frequency analysis indicate identical conditions with many of the previous
research studies (Babanoğlu, 2012; Biber et al.1999; Milton & Tsang, 1993; Silva, 1993;
Yeung, 2009). That is, non-native users overused the present under-investigated connector.
On the other hand, even though the COCA results show that ‘on the other hand’ is more
frequent in academic genre (in all field), the data of the native speakers’ writings (in applied
and theoretical linguistics field) reflect that they used a small number of logical connector ‘on
the other hand’ in their papers and natives mostly prefer to use ‘on the other hand’ in
company with ‘on the one hand’.
Secondly, in terms of semantics, the findings allow concluding that the Turkish doctoral
students did use ‘on the other hand’ in proper manner as natives did, they had gained the
knowledge and acquire the ability to use ‘on the other hand’ correctly. It is also important to
note that, previous studies have always compared high-school, college, undergraduate
students’ writings with native speakers’ writings and mostly the revealed a significant
differences between them. There are also studies comparing academic articles in terms of
cohesive devices, for example, Milton and Hyland (1999) investigated NS and NNS
students’, who were similar ages and educational level, essay scripts to identify the lexical
devices and formulaic expressions that learners employ to express academic claims. The
researchers contrasted corpora of comparable genres and size. Results showed, in parallel
with similar studies(e.g. Hu, Brown & Brown,1982; Milton & Tsang, 1993; ) NNSs have
tended to use the wrong types of words and expressions and have used too limited a variety
of words and word chunks. On the other hand, Hinkel (2003) compared academic essays
written by first-year NS and academically-advanced NNS students in terms of median
frequency rates and focused on deictic, modifying, intensifying adverbials and adverb
clauses. The results reveal that academically advanced and proficient NNS students have
learned how to use adverbs and adverbial clauses grammatically and syntactically, however
the greatest differences between the essays of NS and NNS are the frequency rates of
amplifiers and emphatic adverbs, both types are very common in spoken informal language.
It shows NNSs use adverbials correctly but have some restriction of lexical features common
in the written discourse. The present study also allows us to deduce if non-native learners are
academically advanced and proficient, they can use adverbial connectors correctly, even the
problematic ones, such as ‘on the other hand’. The only difference between native and non-
native writers, natives mostly preferred to use ‘on the other hand’ in company with ‘on the
one hand’, while it was never encountered in non-natives’ paper.
In summary, all of this data on academic English is investigated various aspects, (i.e.
control corpora and learner corpus). In comparison to natives and non-natives (academically
advanced), the connector ‘on the other hand’ is overused by non-natives and underused by
natives. This result has reported similar overuse by non-natives in a great deal of study in
literature. However, as aforementioned, while some non-native users (college, high-school,
undergraduate students) both overuse and misuse this connector, it has not occurred in
academically advanced users’ writings. They use this kind of problematic connectors as
natives do.
5. Limitation and future research
The current study is limited in terms of focusing on only one linking adverbial ‘on the
other hand’ and representing a wide range of frequency distribution in texts, it presents
‘frequencies’. Even though it has been done discourse analysis, keyword analysis and
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
127
relationship analysis could be done for statistical significance. These limitations of this study
give ground for future research. For future research, more focus may be placed on more than
one linking adverbial, it can be investigated the most misused/overused adverbials using by
non-native advanced English learners and focusing on the use of several linking adverbials in
their writings and the control corpus could be selected in the same genre.
Tazegül
128
References
Babanoğlu, M.P. (2012). A corpus-based study on Turkish EFL learners’ written English:
The use of adverbial connectors by Turkish learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student
writing: research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong ICE-HK.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165–182.
Chen,P. (2014). The comparison of intermediate and advanced Chinese learners’ use of
English adverbial connectors in academic writing. International Journal on Studies in
English Language and Literature (IJSELL) 2(8), 85-92.
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316–325.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2005). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Conrad, S.M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers.
System, 27, 1-18.
Davies, M. (2013). Google Scholar and COCA-Academic: Two very different approaches to
examining academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12, 155–165.
Field, Y., & Yip, L. (1992). A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English
essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal,
23(1), 15–28.
Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068.
Hu, Z., Brown, D. & Brown, L. (1982). Some linguistic differences in the written English of
Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication, 1, 1, 39-49.
Kuo, M.L. (2002). Discourse markers of ‘‘because and so’’ in Taiwanese EFL students’
written and spoken discourse. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Tsing-Hua
University, Hsinchu-Taiwan.
Leedman, M. & Cai, G. (2013). Besides . . . on the other hand: Using a corpus approach to
explore the influence of teaching materials on Chinese students’ use of linking
adverbials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 374–389.
Lei, L. (2012). Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese
doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 267–275.
McEnery, T., & A. Wilson (2001). Corpus linguistics (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Edinburg
University Press.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study.
Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Milton, J. (1999). Lexical thickets and electronic gateways: Making text accessible by novice
writers. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices
(pp. 221–243). London: Longman.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2015, 2(2)
129
Milton, J., & Hyland, K. (1999). Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of
L1 and L2 writers. In R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland, & M. Lam (Eds.), Language
analysis, description and pedagogy pp. 147-161.
Milton, J., & Tsang, E. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’
writing: directions for future research. In R. Pemberton, & E. S. C. Tsang (Eds.),
Studies in Lexis (pp. 215–246). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology.
Heino, P. (2010). Adverbial connectors in advanced EFL learners’ and native speakers’
student writing. An unpublished bachelor degree project. Stockholms University,
Sweden.
Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinctive nature of L2 writing: the ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 657-677.
Tankó, G. (2004). The Use of Adverbial Connectors in Hungarian University Students’
Argumentative Essays. In J. Sinclair (ed.). How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.
John Benjamins. 157-181.
Tseng, Y. & Liou H. (2006). The effects of online conjunction materials on college EFL
students’ writing. System, 34, 270-283.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s English–Turkish Dictionary. (2013). Oxford University Press.
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S.(1973). A University of Grammar of English. Longman, London.
Yeung, L. (2009). Use and misuse of ‘besides’: A corpus study comparing native speakers’
and learners’ English. System, 37, 330-342.
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/