Deneyimsiz Türk Yazarların İngilizce Akademik Yazma Hatalarına Derlem Odaklı Bir Bakış

Öz

Yabancı dil konuşuru yazarların akademik amaçlı İngilizce (EAP) türünde yazarken dilsel zorluklar yaşadığı bilinir. EAP alanında, genç Türk yazarlar da sıkıntı yaşarlar, ama çoğu zaman bu yaşadıkları dilsel sorunları çözmede ve uluslararası saygın dergilerde yayın yapmada yeterli öznel ve kurumsal desteği bulamayabilirler. Bu araştırma yazısı, bu alandaki eksikliğe dayanarak, anadili Türkçe olan bilim insanlarının akademik İngilizce yazma konusunda karşılaştıkları güçlükleri öğrenen derlemi (TICLE) tabanlı olarak irdeleyip bunları anadil derlemiyle (COCA) kıyaslayarak ilgili yapıların yaygın kullanımlarına ilişkin örnekler sunmayı hedefler. Akademik İngilizce yazmadaki üç temel zorluk alanında – eşdizimsel kalıplar, edimsel uygunluk, söylem özellikleri – yayımlanmış öğrenen hatalarını irdeleyen 158 makale incelendi. Geçmiş verilerin çözümlemesi ile evrensel aradili ve Türk öğrenenlere özel zorluk oluşturan 68 temel belirtici dört ana başlık altında sınıflandırıldı. Bu dört temel alan, (1) bazı dilsel özelliklerin aşırı kullanımı veya bazı akademik yazmaya ilişkin tipik dilsel özelliklerin az kullanımı ya da hiç kullanılmaması, (2) bazı sözbilim ögelerinin yanlış kullanımı ve imla hataları, (3) sözcüklerin hatalı kullanımı ve dizilimi ve (4) anadiline özgü sözcük kalıplarının İngilizceye aktarılması sonucu tuhaf söyleyişler elde edilmesi olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulguların tartışılması kısmında, Türk bilim insanlarının yazılarını daha iyi hale getirebilmelerine yardımcı olmak hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmanın son kısmında, Türk yazarların akademik İngilizce yazmalarını özerk bir şekilde geliştirmelerine yardımcı olabileceği düşünülen birtakım veri tabanları tanıtılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngilizce Akademik Yazma
• Öğrenen Derlemi
• Deneyimsiz Türk Akademik Yazarlar
• İngilizce Söyleyiş Biçimi
• kalıp sözler

A Learner Corpus Driven Approach to Novice Turkish Authors’ EAP Use Tendencies

Öz

It has been accepted that foreign language-speaker authors experience linguistic challenges when writing in English for academic purposes (EAP) genre. Novice Turkish writers also experience linguistic insecurities in the field of EAP. Yet, oftentimes, they may not find sufficient personal and institutional support in solving EAP related linguistic difficulties, which plays a decisive role in the rejection of their contribution in high profile English language journals. To occupy this niche, this study aims to examine the linguistic difficulties experienced by Turkish-speaking novice writers through a corpus-driven approach. Some 158 articles exploring learner errors in three main difficulty areas in EAP writing – collocational patterning, pragmatic appropriacy, and discourse features – were analyzed to highlight several problems which ‘non-native’ learners experience when writing academic articles. The literature review analysis has revealed some 68 linguistic markers that pose a special challenge to novice writers. These constructs are problematic due to both universal interlanguage and also Turkish learners’ L1 backgrounds. The learner corpus (TICLE) occurrences of the features being studied were compared with the native corpus (COCA) data to present examples of the prevalent uses of these constructs. Linguistic difficulties learners experience when writing academic articles were grouped under four main headings. These four main areas are (1) excessive use of some linguistic features or little or no use of typical linguistic features of EAP, (2) misuse of some syntactic elements and punctuation errors, (3) incorrect use and sequencing of words, and (4) using unidiomatic phraseologies because of transferring the word patterns specific to Turkish to English. The findings of the study are expected to help Turkish academics improve their writing. In the last section of the article, some databases are introduced to help Turkish writers develop their academic English writing autonomously.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• English For Academic Purposes
• Learner Corpus
• Novice Turkish Academic Research Authors
• English Phraseology
• Formulaic Expressions

Kaynakça

1. Abasi, A. R. (2012). The pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report from a Persian-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 195-220. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.010
2. Ackermann, & Chen, Y.-H. (2013). Developing the Academic Collocation List (ACL) – A corpus-driven and expert-judged approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.08.002
3. Adel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and nonnative speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81-92.
4. Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. İçinde S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 80-93). Addison-Wesley, Longman.
5. Altun, H. (2021) The Comparison of ‘Evaluative That Clauses’ in Novice and Expert Writers' Abstracts. Dil Araştırmaları, 15(28).
6. Altun-Evci, H. (2014). English as an International Language: International English Teachers' Perceptions. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
7. Ammon, U. (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities. Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2017). “Second Language Writing” Publications in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis. Publications, 5(4). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/1/4#cite

9. Bal Gezegin, B. (2019). Lexical bundles in published research articles: A corpus-based study. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 520-534. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586188
10. Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
11. Benfield, J. R., & Howard, K. M. (2000). The language of science✩. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 18(6), 642-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1010-7940(00)00595-9
12. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical Bundles in Conversations and Academic Prose. İçinde H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Rodopi.
13. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: the influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000025
14. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
15. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
16. Biber, D., Johansson, S., & Conrad, S. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
17. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
18. Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.10.002
19. Buckingham, L. (2014). Building a Career in English: Users of English as an Additional Language in Academia in the Arabian Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 6-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.124
20. Can, C. (2009). İkinci dil edinimi çalışmalarında bilgisiyar destekli bir Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derlemi: ICLE'nin bir altderlemi olarak TICLE. Dil Dergisi, 144(Nisan-Mayıs-Haziran).
21. Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-taking through metadiscourse in doctoral dissertations 1. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching,, 6(1), 128-142.
22. Canagarajah, S. (1996). Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435- 472.
23. Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for academic purposes, 1(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00007-3
24. Canagarajah, S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. İçinde C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 233-248). Lawrence.
25. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Routledge.
26. Canagarajah, S. (2014). Local knowledge when ranking journals: Reproductive effects and resistant possibilities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(28), 1-23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n28.2014
27. 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/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.002
28. Casanave, C. P., & Vandrick, S. (2003). Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in scholarly publication. Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Charles, M. (2011). Adverbials of result: Phraseology and functions in the Problem–Solution pattern. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.01.002
30. Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
31. ColloCaid. (2021). Academic Collocation Errors and Other Problems Database http://www.collocaid.uk/2021/01/26/academic-collocation-errors-and-other-problems-database-released/
32. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The Processing of Formulaic Language. Annual review of applied linguistics, 32, 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074
33. Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in Freshman composition. İçinde R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 131-145). Benjamins.
34. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397-423.
35. Cortes, V. (2008). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora, 3, 43-57.
36. Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316-325.
37. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2010). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 663-688.
38. Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(2), 85–96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008
39. Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
40. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? IRAL, 47, 157-177.
41. Egan, T. L., & Dirdal, H. (Eds.). (2017). Cross-linguistic correspondences: From lexis to genre. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
42. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
43. Englander, K., & Lopez Bonilla, G. (2011). Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-Anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13, 395-416. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1461445611403261
44. Fazel, I. (2019). Writing for Publication as a Native Speaker: The Experiences of Two Anglophone Novice Scholars. İçinde Pejman Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novıce writers and Scholarly Publıcatıon: Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillan.
45. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862
46. Flowerdew, L. (1998). Integrating expert and interlanguage computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. ESP Journal, 17(4), 329-345.
47. Flowerdew, L. (2001). The exploitation of small learner corpora in EAP materials design. İçinde M. Ghadessy & R. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 363-379). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
48. Flowerdew, L. (2002). Corpus-based analyses in EAP. İçinde J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 95-114). Harlow: Longman.
49. Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Lew, R., Roberts, J. C., Rees, G. P., & Sharma, N. (2019). Developing a writing assistant to help EAP writers with collocations in real time. ReCALL (Cambridge, England), 31(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344018000150
50. Gardner, S., & Han, C. (2018). Transitions of Contrast in Chinese and English University Student Writing. Educational sciences: Theory & practice, 18(4), 861-882. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0067
51. Gilquin, G. (2000/2001). The integrated contrastive model. Spicing up your data. Languages in Contrast, 3(1), 95-123.
52. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Writing sections. İçinde M. Rundell (Ed.), Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (2nd ed., pp. IW1-IW29). Macmillan Education.
53. Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. İçinde K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast. Text-based cross-linguistic studies. Lund Studies in English (Vol. 88, pp. 37-51). Lund University Press.
54. Granger, S. (2008). Learner Corpora in Foreign Language Education. İçinde N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2 ed., Vol. 4, pp. 337-351). Springer.
55. Granger, S. (2009). The Contribution of Learner Corpora to Second Language Acquisition and Foreign language Teaching. İçinde K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 13-32). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
56. Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non‐native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 971X.1996.tb00089.x
57. Güngör, F., & Uysal, H. H. (2020). Lexical bundle use and crosslinguistic influence in academic texts. Lingua, 242, 102859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102859
58. 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.
59. He, Z. (2020). Cohesion in Academic Writing: A Comparison of Essays in English Written by L1 and L2 University Students [Article]. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 10(7), 761-770. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1007.06
60. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford University Press.
61. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
62. Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. İçinde J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse. (pp. 115-130). Routledge.
63. Hyland, K. (2007). Disciplinary discourses. University of Michigan Press.
64. Hyland, K. (2008a). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International journal of applied linguistics, 18, 41-62.
65. Hyland, K. (2008b). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes(27), 4-21.
66. Hyland, K. (2009). English for Professional Academic Purposes: Writing for scholarly publication. İçinde D. Belcher (Ed.), In English for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice (pp. 83-105). University of Michigan Press.
67. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000037
68. Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
69. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
70. Hyland, K., & Pejman, H. (Eds.). (2019). Novice writers and scholarly publication : Authors, mentors, gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillan.
71. Jones, S., & Sinclair, J. M. (1974). English lexical collocations. A study in computational linguistics. Cahiers de lexicologie, 24, 15-61.
72. Jordan, R. R. (1990). Academic Writing Course (2 ed.). Longman.
73. Kachru, B. B. (1982). The other tongue. English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
74. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in l2 writing using fine‐grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal (Boulder, Colo.), 102(2), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468
75. Lake, J. (2004). Using ‘on the contrary’: The conceptual problems for EAP students. ELT Journal, 58(2), 137-144.
76. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb‐Noun Collocations in Second Language Writing: A Corpus Analysis of Learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2010.00621.x
77. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Contexts: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. Routledge.
78. Liu, D. (2008). Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491-518. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu
79. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859.
80. Martı´nez, I. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 103-123.
81. Mauranen, A. (2009). Introduction. İçinde A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 1-9). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
82. Milton, J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and interlanguage corpora in the design of an electronic language learning and production environment. İçinde S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 186-198). Addison-Wesley, Longman.
83. Milton, J., & Tsang, E. (1991). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. İçinde R. Pemberton & E. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in Lexis (pp. 215- 246). The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
84. Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
85. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. J. Benjamins Pub. Co.
86. Olsson, A., & Sheridan, V. (2012). A case study of Swedish scholars’ experiences with and perceptions of the use of English in academic publishing. Written Communication, 29(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/0741088311428566
87. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A Research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492-518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
88. Öztürk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
89. Öztürk, Y., & Köse, G. D. (2016). Turkish and native English academic writers?: Use of lexical bundles. The journal of language and linguistic studies, 12(1), 149-165.
90. Paquot, M. (2008). Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. İçinde S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Benjamins.
91. Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. Continuum.
92. Paquot, M. (2013). Lexical Bundles and L1 Transfer Effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 391-417. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq
93. Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14(1), 240-261.
94. Paquot, M. (2015). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research, 33(1), 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315620265
95. Paquot, M. (2017). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research, 33(1), 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315620265.
96. Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098
97. Pérez-Llantada, C., Plo, R., & Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 18-30. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
98. Petric, B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 213-228. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.09.001
99. Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M., & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3-8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003
100. Rundell, M. (Ed.). (2007). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (2 ed.). Macmillan Education.
101. Rundell, M., & Granger, S. (2007). From corpora to confidence. English Teaching Professional, 50, 15-18.
102. Sasaki, M. (2003). A scholar on the periphery: Standing firm, walking slowly. İçinde C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 211- 221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
103. Sasaki, M. (2020). Living on the periphery: Cause of despair or source of hope? İçinde L. Plonsky (Ed.), Professional development in applied linguistics: A Guide for graduate students and early career faculty (pp. 60-62). John Benjamins.
104. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research. Applied linguistics, 31(4), 487-512. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058
105. Strauss, P. (2017). “It’s Not the Way We Use English”-Can We Resist the Native Speaker Stranglehold on Academic Publications? Publications, 5(4), 27. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/4/27#cite
106. SuvarnaRagini, C. (2019). Developing Lexical Accuracy in Communication Using Webtools. Language in India, 19(5), 208.
107. Swales, J. M. (2004). The role of English in the research world. İçinde Research genres: explorations and applications (pp. 33-59). Cambridge University Press.
108. Taşçı, S., & Öztürk, Y. (2021). Post-predicate that-caluses controlled by verbs in native and non-native academic writing: A corpus-based study. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 18-33. doi:https://doi.org/10.29140ajal.v4n1.486
109. Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of Academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280.
110. Tseng, Y.-C., & Liou, H.-C. (2006). The effects of online conjunction materials on college EFL students’ writing. System, 34, 270-283.
111. Uçar, S., & Yükselir, C. (2017). A Corpus-Based Study on the Use of the Logical Connector 'Thus' in the Academic Writing of Turkish EFL Learners. English language teaching (Toronto), 10(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p64
112. Walková, M. (2020). Transition markers in EAP textbooks. Journal of English for academic purposes, 46, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100874
113. Wray, A. (2013). Formulaic language. Language teaching, 46(3), 316-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000013
114. Yoon, C. (2016). Concordancers and dictionaries as problem-solving tools for ESL academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 20(1), 209-229.
115. Yüksel, H. G., & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of Experience: Metadiscourse in the Texts of Novice Non-Native, Novice Native and Expert Native Speaker. Advances in language and literary studies, 9(3), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.3p.104