Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing

Open access


The introductory it pattern, as in ‘It is important to note that information was added’, is a tool used by academic writers for a range of different rhetorical and information-structural purposes. It is thus an important pattern for students to learn. Since previous research on student writing has indicated that there seems to be a correlation between form and function of the pattern, the present study sets out to investigate this more systematically in non-native-speaker and nativespeaker student writing in two disciplines (linguistics and literature). In doing so, the study adds to and extends previous research looking into factors such as NS status and discipline. It uses data from three corpora: ALEC, BAWE and MICUSP. The results show that there is indeed a correlation between form and function, as the most common syntactic types of the pattern each display a preferred function and vice versa. While very few differences across NS status were found, there were certain discipline-specific disparities. The findings, which could be useful for teaching students about the use of the introductory it pattern, also have implications for the automatized functional tagging of parsed corpora.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ädel Annelie. 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.

  • Advanced Learner English Corpus (ALEC). Corpus compiled in 2013.

  • Biber Douglas Stig Johansson Geoffrey Leech Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

  • Biber Douglas and Randi Reppen. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In S. Granger (ed.). Learner English on computer 145–158. London: Longman.

  • British Academic Written English (BAWE). Corpus compiled at the Universities of Warwick Reading and Oxford Brookes in 2004–2007.

  • Fox John and Jangman Hong. 2009. Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects Package. Journal of Statistical Software 32 (1): 1–24. URL:

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

  • Herriman Jennifer. 2013. The extraposition of clausal subjects in English and Swedish. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.). Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson 233–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Herriman Jennifer. 2000. Extraposition in English: A study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause. English Studies 81 (6): 582–599.

  • Heuboeck Alois Jasper Holmes and Hilary Nesi. 2008. The BAWE corpus manual. Available online from accessed on March 21 2014.

  • Hewings Martin and Ann Hewings. 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.

  • Huddleston Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hunston Susan and Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Hyland Ken. 1996. Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13 (2): 251–281.

  • Hyland Ken. 2008a. Persuasion interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8 (2): 1–23.

  • Hyland Ken. 2008b. Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18 (1): 41–62.

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

  • Larsson Tove. 2016. The introductory it pattern in academic writing by nonnative-speaker students native-speaker students and published writers: A corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Department of English Uppsala University Sweden.

  • Larsson Tove. 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.

  • Larsson Tove. Forthcoming. A syntactic analysis of the introductory it pattern in non-native-speaker and native-speaker student writing. In M. Mahlberg and V. Wiegand (eds.). Corpus linguistics context and culture. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Mair Christian. 1990. Infinitival complement clauses in English: A study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Michaelis Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht. 1994. On nominal extraposition: A constructional analysis. In K. E. Moore D. A. Peterson and C. Wentum (eds.). Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmore 362–373. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

  • Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Ann Arbor MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Corpus compiled at the University of Michigan in 2009.

  • Miller Philip H. 2001. Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics 39 (4): 683–701.

  • Mindt Ilka. 2011. Adjective complementation: An empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Mukherjee Joybrato. 2006. Corpus linguistics and English reference grammars. In A. Kehoe and A. Renouf (eds.). The changing face of corpus linguistics 337–354. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Peacock Matthew. 2011. A comparative study of introductory it in research articles across eight disciplines. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16 (1): 72–100.

  • Quirk Randolph Sidney Greenbaum Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London UK: Longman.

  • R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. Available at:

  • Ramhöj Rickard. 2016. On clausal subjects and extraposition in the history of English. PhD dissertation: University of Gothenburg 2016. Gothenburg.

  • Römer Ute. 2009. The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7 (1): 140–162.

  • Römer Ute and Matthew B. O’Donnell. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6 (2): 159–177.

  • Scott Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools version 6 [Computer software]. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.

  • Thompson Paul. 2009. Shared disciplinary norms and individual traits in the writing of British undergraduates. In M. Gotti (ed.). Commonality and individuality in academic discourse 53–82. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Zhang Guiping. 2015. It is suggested that…or it is better to…? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 1–13.

Journal information
Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1289 502 14
PDF Downloads 280 197 19