1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 英語母語及非母語者轉折連詞之篇章關係: 以語料庫為本的研究
Discourse Relations of Adversative Connectives in the Writing of Native and Non-native Speakers of English: A Corpus-based Study
作者 王若曦
Wang, Jo-Hsi
貢獻者 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
王若曦
Wang, Jo-Hsi
關鍵詞 轉折連詞
篇章關係
語料庫分析
第二外語寫作研究
Adversative connectives
Discourse relations
Corpus analysis
EFL/ESL writing
日期 2016
上傳時間 10-Aug-2017 09:38:53 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨於調查四個轉折連詞包括on the other hand、in/by contrast、 on the contrary 以及 nevertheless 在美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 以及學習者語料庫(ICNALE) 使用之不同情形及第二語學習者的使用錯誤分析。
本研究從美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 蒐集了四百篇文本(每個轉折連詞各一百篇)以及從學習者語料庫料庫 (ICNALE) 蒐集了一千八百篇學生的寫作，學生的文章分別來自台灣、香港、新加坡、菲律賓的大學生以及母語人士。本研究假設為:雖然四個轉折連詞被歸類為同一類轉折連詞 (adversative type)，各個轉折連詞的語義及用法應有所不同。本研究語料分析主要分為兩部分，第一部分分析各個轉折連詞中的篇章關係 (discourse relation)，調查四個轉折連詞上下文的不同反義的語義情況。第二部分聚焦於轉折連詞上下文中的主題分布 (topic categorization)，旨於發現是否特定轉折連詞出現於特定主題之內。
研究結果經由語料分析發現，四個轉折連詞有特定傾向的篇章關係和主題分布。在學習者語料庫中，本研究發現第二語言學習者比起母語人士，使用更多轉折連詞於寫作中，特別是on the other hand 以及nevertheless。台灣學生以及英語為第二外語學生在上下中，常將on the other hand的篇章關係使用為in addition 之用法。在連詞nevertheless方面，雖然學生使用頻率較高，但多為誤用情況，顯示出學生對於該轉折連詞的不熟悉情況。而in/by contrast 和on the contrary 皆不常出現於第二語言學習者和母語人士的寫作中。本研究最後提出在英語教學上的建議：在課堂上教導轉折連接詞時，應需加強語意以及上下文方面的探討，並訓練學生正確文句之間的邏輯關係。
The present study adopts corpus analysis to investigate four adversative connectives (ACs), including on the other hand, in/by contrast, on the contrary, and nevertheless in the native corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and in the leaner corpus, the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English, (ICNALE). The comparison of the two corpora and the common misuse by L2 learners are also presented.
The data comprise of 400 texts in COCA (100 texts for each AC) and 1800 essays written by students in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, and by native speakers in ICNALE. The research hypothesis is that although the four ACs are classified in the same ‘adversative’ type, their meanings and uses are different from one another. The adoption of corpus helps to find the patterns of each AC. The data are analyzed from two perspectives: one is the discourse relation while the other is topic categorization. The discourse relation refers to the relations of the preceding and following co-texts of the AC. The topic categorization, on the other hand, aims at finding if there are specific topics that are frequently occurred with certain ACs and if these topics are consistent before or after the occurrences of the Cs.
The findings confirm the prediction that by analyzing the data in COCA, each AC exists in certain discourse relations and topics. The present study finds that different from native speakers, L2 learners often use on the other hand as ‘addition’ yet a great number of uses of nevertheless are viewed as misuse. As for on the contrary and in/by contrast, both native speakers and L2 learners seldom apply the ACs in their writing. The present study also provides the common misuse patterns in ESL/EFL students’ writing. It is hoped that the findings have implications for teachers and learners to be aware of the differences of ACs.
參考文獻 Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial
connectors in advanced Swedish learners` written
English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on
computer (pp.80-93). New York: Longman.
Anthony, L. (2005, July). AntConc: design and development
of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical
writing classroom. In IPCC 2005. Proceedings.
International Professional Communication Conference,
2005. (pp. 729-737). IEEE.
Bell, D. M. (2010). Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(7), 1912-1927.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., &
Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. London: Longman.
Bose, M. N. K. (2005). A text book of English Language
Teaching for Indian Students. New Century Book House,
Ltd, Chennai.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of
English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar
Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher`s Course (2nd ed). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chen, C. W. Y. (2006). The use of conjunctive adverbials
in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL
learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
11(1), 113-130.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize
grammar teaching in the 21st century?. Tesol Quarterly,
34(3), 548-560.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error
analysis (pp. 14-25). Groos.
Cotos, E. (2014). Enhancing writing pedagogy with learner
corpus data. ReCALL, 26(02), 202-224.
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives.
ELT journal, 44(4), 316-325.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge
University Press.
Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). A comparison of
internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay
writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of
English. RELC journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Fisiak, J. (1981). Contrastive linguistics and the
language teacher. Janus Book Pub/Alemany Pr.
Gardezi, S. A., & Nesi, H. (2009). Variation in the
writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan:
The ACse of conjunctive ties. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S.Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the
interface of corpus and discourse (pp.236-250). London:
Continuum.
Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2007). Spoken features in
learner academic writing: Identification, explanation
and solution. In Corpus linguistics conference CL2007.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the
English essay writing on native and non‐native EFL
speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Halliday, M.A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in
English. New York: Longman.implications. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491-518.
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced
learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope
with English vocabulary. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237-258.
Hung, M.F. (2003) A Study on the Use of Conjunctions in
Compositions by Taiwanese Senior-high-school Students.
Master’s theses, National Chengchi University.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions:
Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of
second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of
data-driven learning materials (pp. 1-13).
Kachru, B. B. (2006). The English language in the outer
circle. World Englishes, 3, 241-255.
Keenan, E. O., Schieffelin, B. B., & Li, C. N. (1976).
Topic as a Discourse Notion: A Study of Topic in the
Conversations of Children and Adults in Subject and
Topic.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford
University Press.
Lake, J. (2004). Using ‘on the contrary’: the conceptual
problems for EAP students. ELT journal, 58(2), 137-144.
Leedham, 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(4), 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.
Liu, D. (2008). Linking adverbials: An across-register
corpus study and its implications. International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491-518.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in
argumentative writing produced by Chinese
undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Milton, J. C., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based
study of logical connectors in EFL students` writing:
directions for future research. In Studies in lexis.
Proceedings of a seminar on lexis organized by the
Language Centre of the HKUST, Hong Kong (Language
Centre, HKUST, Hong Kong, 1993).
Mudhhi, S. K., & Hussein, R. F. (2014). A Corpus–based
Study of Conjunctive Adjuncts in the Writings of Native
and Non-native Speakers of English. English Linguistics
Research, 3(2), p18-32.
Narita, M., Sato, C., & Sugiura, M. (2004). Connector
Usage in the English Essay Writing of Japanese EFL
Learners. In LREC.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size
test. The language teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
Park, Y. Y. (2013a). How Korean EFL Students Use
Conjunctive Adverbials in Argumentative Writing. English
Teaching, 68(4).
Park, Y. Y. (2013b). Korean College EFL Students` Use of
Contrastive Conjunctions in Argumentative Writing.
English Teaching, 68(2).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, J., & Svartvik, J.
(1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Sanders, T., & Maat, H. P. (2006). Cohesion and
coherence: Linguistic approaches. reading, 99, 440-466.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis.
Language learning, 24(2), 205-214.
Selinker, L., & Rutherford, W. E. (2013). Rediscovering
interlanguage. Routledge.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for
graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Williams, H. (1996). An analysis of English conjunctive
adverbial expressions in English. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices
in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at
different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education,
23(1), 31-48.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
100551014
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1005510141
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chung, Siaw-Fongen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王若曦zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Jo-Hsien_US
dc.creator (作者) 王若曦zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Jo-Hsien_US
dc.date (日期) 2016en_US
dc.date.accessioned 10-Aug-2017 09:38:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 10-Aug-2017 09:38:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-Aug-2017 09:38:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1005510141en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111708-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100551014zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨於調查四個轉折連詞包括on the other hand、in/by contrast、 on the contrary 以及 nevertheless 在美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 以及學習者語料庫(ICNALE) 使用之不同情形及第二語學習者的使用錯誤分析。
本研究從美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 蒐集了四百篇文本(每個轉折連詞各一百篇)以及從學習者語料庫料庫 (ICNALE) 蒐集了一千八百篇學生的寫作，學生的文章分別來自台灣、香港、新加坡、菲律賓的大學生以及母語人士。本研究假設為:雖然四個轉折連詞被歸類為同一類轉折連詞 (adversative type)，各個轉折連詞的語義及用法應有所不同。本研究語料分析主要分為兩部分，第一部分分析各個轉折連詞中的篇章關係 (discourse relation)，調查四個轉折連詞上下文的不同反義的語義情況。第二部分聚焦於轉折連詞上下文中的主題分布 (topic categorization)，旨於發現是否特定轉折連詞出現於特定主題之內。
研究結果經由語料分析發現，四個轉折連詞有特定傾向的篇章關係和主題分布。在學習者語料庫中，本研究發現第二語言學習者比起母語人士，使用更多轉折連詞於寫作中，特別是on the other hand 以及nevertheless。台灣學生以及英語為第二外語學生在上下中，常將on the other hand的篇章關係使用為in addition 之用法。在連詞nevertheless方面，雖然學生使用頻率較高，但多為誤用情況，顯示出學生對於該轉折連詞的不熟悉情況。而in/by contrast 和on the contrary 皆不常出現於第二語言學習者和母語人士的寫作中。本研究最後提出在英語教學上的建議：在課堂上教導轉折連接詞時，應需加強語意以及上下文方面的探討，並訓練學生正確文句之間的邏輯關係。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The present study adopts corpus analysis to investigate four adversative connectives (ACs), including on the other hand, in/by contrast, on the contrary, and nevertheless in the native corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and in the leaner corpus, the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English, (ICNALE). The comparison of the two corpora and the common misuse by L2 learners are also presented.
The data comprise of 400 texts in COCA (100 texts for each AC) and 1800 essays written by students in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, and by native speakers in ICNALE. The research hypothesis is that although the four ACs are classified in the same ‘adversative’ type, their meanings and uses are different from one another. The adoption of corpus helps to find the patterns of each AC. The data are analyzed from two perspectives: one is the discourse relation while the other is topic categorization. The discourse relation refers to the relations of the preceding and following co-texts of the AC. The topic categorization, on the other hand, aims at finding if there are specific topics that are frequently occurred with certain ACs and if these topics are consistent before or after the occurrences of the Cs.
The findings confirm the prediction that by analyzing the data in COCA, each AC exists in certain discourse relations and topics. The present study finds that different from native speakers, L2 learners often use on the other hand as ‘addition’ yet a great number of uses of nevertheless are viewed as misuse. As for on the contrary and in/by contrast, both native speakers and L2 learners seldom apply the ACs in their writing. The present study also provides the common misuse patterns in ESL/EFL students’ writing. It is hoped that the findings have implications for teachers and learners to be aware of the differences of ACs.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………iii
Chinese Abstract…………………………………………………………………ix
English Abstract…………………………………………………………………xi
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………1
1.1 Motivation…………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………… 4
1.3 Significance of the Study……………………………………………5
1.4 Research Questions..……………………………………………………… 5
1.5 Summary of the Chapter…………………………………………………… 6

Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………………… 7
2.1 The Definition of Connectives……………………………………………7
2.1.1 Connectives in English Grammar……………………………………… 7
2.1.2 Connectives as Metadiscourse………………………………………… 11
2.2 The Studies of Connectives……………………………………………… 13
2.2.1 The Corpus-based Studies of Connectives…………………… 13
2.2.2 Propositional Frames and Patterns of Adversative
Connectives (ACs)…………………………………………………………………………………16
2.2.3 The Concept of Antonym in ACs…………………………………………20
2.3 The Misuse of ACs…………………………………………………………………………… 22
2.4 Summary of the Chapter……………………………………………………………………27

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………………29
3.1 The Corpora in the Present Study…………………………………………29
3.1.1 COCA………………………………………………………………………… 29
3.1.2 ICNALE……………………………………………………………………… 30
3.2 Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………………32
3.2.1 Extracting Data from COCA……………………………………………… 33
3.2.2 The Use of AntConc Software………………………………………… 35
3.3 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………… 37
3.3.1 The Discourse Relations…………………………………………………37
3.3.2 The Topic Categorization……………………………………………… 42
3.3.3 The Percentage and Frequency in the Present
Study………………47
3.3.4 The Ambiguity of Categorization………………………………………47
3.4 Summary of the Chapter…………………………………………………… 48

Chapter Four: Results………………………………………………………………49
4.1 The Distributions in COCA………………………………………………… 49
4.1.1 The Distributions of Discourse Relations of the
Four ACs in COCA…… 49
4.1.2 The Distributions of Four ACs of Topic
Categorization in COCA……… 51
4.2 The Patterns of the Four ACs in ICNALE………………………………54
4.2.1 The Overall Distributions of ACs in ICNALE……………54
4.2.2 The Analysis of Students’ Use of ACs in ICNALE…55
4.2.2.1 The Patterns of On the Other Hand……………………………56
4.2.2.2 The Patterns of In/By Contrast…………………………………59
4.2.2.3 The Patterns of On the Contrary………………………………60
4.2.2.4 The Patterns of Nevertheless……………………………………61
4.3 The Comparison of the Use of ACs in COCA and
ICNALE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………64
4.4 The Misuse of ACs……………………………………………………………………………………65
4.5 Summary of the Chapter……………………………………………………………………68

Chapter Five: Discussion………………………………………………………69
5.1 The Patterns of the Four ACs in COCA…………………………………69
5.2 The Use of ACs in the Writing of NNS (Non-Native
Speakers) and NS (Native Speakers) in ICNALE……………74
5.3 The Misuse of ACs……………………………………………………………76
5.4 Summary of the Chapter………………………………………………………77

Chapter Six: Conclusion…………………………………………………………79
6.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………………79
6.2 Implications and Suggestions for Teaching…………………80
6.3 Limitations of the Present Study……………………………………… 83
6.4 Suggestions for Future Study…………………………………………… 85

References………………………………………………………………………… 86

Appendices………………………………………………………………………… 90
Appendix 1: Park (2013b) Categorization of Contrastive Conjunctive Adverbials.…………………………………………………90
Appendix 2: The Table of Mutual Conversion of Proficiency Level Adopted in ICNALE …………………………………………91

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Different Frameworks of Adversative
Connectives………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
2.2 Table 2.2 Hyland (2004) A Model of Metadiscourse in
Academic Text………………………………………………………………………………………………12
2.3 Studies of the Distributions of Textual
Relations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
2.4 The Checklist of Contextual Features for on the
contrary by Lake (2004)……………………………………………………………………19
2.5 The Findings of Misuse Patterns in the Studies of
(1990), Park (2013b), and Hung (2003)……………………………………25
3.1 The Extracted Data from COCA…………………………………………………………30
3.2 The Written Data from ICNALE in the Present
Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
3.3 The Level Indices of CEFR and ICNALE……………………………… 32
3.4 The Imported Data in MS Word for Data Analysis………35
3.5 The Definitions and Criteria for Discourse
Relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
3.6 The Categories and Definitions of Topics………………………44
4.1 The Discourse Relations of the Four ACs in COCA……50
4.2 The Consistency of Topic of the Four ACs………………………52
4.3 The Topic Categorization of the Four ACs………………………53
4.4 The Frequency of Occurrences of ACs in ICNALE…………55
4.5 The Comparison of the Use of On the Other Hand………56
4.6 The Comparison of the Use of In/By Contrast………………59
4.7 The Comparison of the Use of On the Contrary……………61
4.8 The Comparison of the Use of Nevertheless……………………62
4.9 The Comparison of Discourse Relations in COCA and
ICNALE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………63
5.1 The Patterns of the Four ACs………………………………………………………70
5.2 The Misuse of Word Meaning in the Present Study……76

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 The Search Page of Nevertheless……………………………………………………33
3.2 The Page of Concordance Lines of Nevertheless………………34
3.3 The Page of Expanded Co-text of Nevertheless…………………34
3.4 The Concordance Lines of AntConc…………………………………………………36
3.5 The File View of AntConc………………………………………………………………………36		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1131517 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1005510141en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 轉折連詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 篇章關係zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語料庫分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 第二外語寫作研究zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Adversative connectivesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Discourse relationsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corpus analysisen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) EFL/ESL writingen_US
dc.title (題名) 英語母語及非母語者轉折連詞之篇章關係: 以語料庫為本的研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Discourse Relations of Adversative Connectives in the Writing of Native and Non-native Speakers of English: A Corpus-based Studyen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial
connectors in advanced Swedish learners` written
English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on
computer (pp.80-93). New York: Longman.
Anthony, L. (2005, July). AntConc: design and development
of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical
writing classroom. In IPCC 2005. Proceedings.
International Professional Communication Conference,
2005. (pp. 729-737). IEEE.
Bell, D. M. (2010). Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(7), 1912-1927.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., &
Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. London: Longman.
Bose, M. N. K. (2005). A text book of English Language
Teaching for Indian Students. New Century Book House,
Ltd, Chennai.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of
English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar
Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher`s Course (2nd ed). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chen, C. W. Y. (2006). The use of conjunctive adverbials
in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL
learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
11(1), 113-130.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize
grammar teaching in the 21st century?. Tesol Quarterly,
34(3), 548-560.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error
analysis (pp. 14-25). Groos.
Cotos, E. (2014). Enhancing writing pedagogy with learner
corpus data. ReCALL, 26(02), 202-224.
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives.
ELT journal, 44(4), 316-325.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge
University Press.
Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). A comparison of
internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay
writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of
English. RELC journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Fisiak, J. (1981). Contrastive linguistics and the
language teacher. Janus Book Pub/Alemany Pr.
Gardezi, S. A., & Nesi, H. (2009). Variation in the
writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan:
The ACse of conjunctive ties. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S.Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the
interface of corpus and discourse (pp.236-250). London:
Continuum.
Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2007). Spoken features in
learner academic writing: Identification, explanation
and solution. In Corpus linguistics conference CL2007.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the
English essay writing on native and non‐native EFL
speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Halliday, M.A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in
English. New York: Longman.implications. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491-518.
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced
learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope
with English vocabulary. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237-258.
Hung, M.F. (2003) A Study on the Use of Conjunctions in
Compositions by Taiwanese Senior-high-school Students.
Master’s theses, National Chengchi University.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions:
Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of
second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of
data-driven learning materials (pp. 1-13).
Kachru, B. B. (2006). The English language in the outer
circle. World Englishes, 3, 241-255.
Keenan, E. O., Schieffelin, B. B., & Li, C. N. (1976).
Topic as a Discourse Notion: A Study of Topic in the
Conversations of Children and Adults in Subject and
Topic.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford
University Press.
Lake, J. (2004). Using ‘on the contrary’: the conceptual
problems for EAP students. ELT journal, 58(2), 137-144.
Leedham, 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(4), 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.
Liu, D. (2008). Linking adverbials: An across-register
corpus study and its implications. International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491-518.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in
argumentative writing produced by Chinese
undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Milton, J. C., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based
study of logical connectors in EFL students` writing:
directions for future research. In Studies in lexis.
Proceedings of a seminar on lexis organized by the
Language Centre of the HKUST, Hong Kong (Language
Centre, HKUST, Hong Kong, 1993).
Mudhhi, S. K., & Hussein, R. F. (2014). A Corpus–based
Study of Conjunctive Adjuncts in the Writings of Native
and Non-native Speakers of English. English Linguistics
Research, 3(2), p18-32.
Narita, M., Sato, C., & Sugiura, M. (2004). Connector
Usage in the English Essay Writing of Japanese EFL
Learners. In LREC.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size
test. The language teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
Park, Y. Y. (2013a). How Korean EFL Students Use
Conjunctive Adverbials in Argumentative Writing. English
Teaching, 68(4).
Park, Y. Y. (2013b). Korean College EFL Students` Use of
Contrastive Conjunctions in Argumentative Writing.
English Teaching, 68(2).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, J., & Svartvik, J.
(1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Sanders, T., & Maat, H. P. (2006). Cohesion and
coherence: Linguistic approaches. reading, 99, 440-466.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis.
Language learning, 24(2), 205-214.
Selinker, L., & Rutherford, W. E. (2013). Rediscovering
interlanguage. Routledge.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for
graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Williams, H. (1996). An analysis of English conjunctive
adverbial expressions in English. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices
in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at
different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education,
23(1), 31-48.		zh_TW