Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 5:1 (2019) ► pp.33–62
Extraposition in learner and expert writing
Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 13 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
Abstract
Subject extraposition (e.g. it is important to remember) is generally considered to be a formal
construction that learners, whose writing is often said to be overly informal, have been found to struggle with. This study
investigates to what extent register and text type can be used to explore learners’ reportedly “informal” use of this
construction. Learner writing is compared to expert writing from several different registers and to native-speaker student
writing. The results show that there are important differences across both registers and text types. Furthermore, while the
learners’ use is most like that of the experts’ academic writing, certain similarities to the non-academic registers were also
noted. The results additionally suggest that earlier claims about the informal status of learner writing seem mainly to have been
influenced by the text types included in the corpora previously investigated.
Keywords: extraposition, register, learner writing, expert writing, informality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous research on extraposition
- 3.Material and method
- 3.1Corpora used in the study
- 3.2Method
- 4.Results and discussion
- 4.1A comparison across registers
- 4.1.1An overview
- 4.1.2A more detailed analysis of the adjective-verb pairings
- 4.2A comparison across text types
- 4.1A comparison across registers
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (46)
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2008). Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness? In G. Gilquin, S. Papp & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 35–53). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
(2014). Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 161, 68–80.
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). London: Longman.
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
BNC-15. Subset of the British National Corpus (BNC) sampled by Henrik Kaatari at Uppsala University in 2012.
Burnard, L. (2007). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Available at: [URL] (accessed June 2017).
Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English. The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2013). Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 357–390.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Norwood: Ablex.
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 Million Words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL] (accessed June 2017).
Evert, S. (2006). How random is a corpus? The library metaphor. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54(2), 177–190.
Glynn, D. (2014). Correspondence analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods in cognitive semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–485). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook + CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Granger, S., & Petch-Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes: Journal of English as an International and Intranational Language, 15(1), 17–27.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277.
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), 237–260.
Hasselgård, H. (2009). Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 121–139). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Herriman, J., & Boström Aronsson, M. (2009). Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Kaatari, H. (2016). Variation across two dimensions: Testing the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density principle on adjectival data. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 533–558.
(2017). Adjectives complemented by that- and to-clauses: Exploring semantico-syntactic relationships and genre variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kaltenböck, G. (2005).
It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–159.
Kassambara, A., & Mundt, F. (2017). factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.4. Available at: [URL] (accessed June 2017).
Larsson, T. (2014). Introducing the Advanced Learner English Corpus (ALEC): A new learner corpus. Poster presented at VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20 January, 2014.
(2016a). The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221, 64–79.
(2016b). The introductory it pattern in academic writing by non-native-speakers students, native-speaker students and published writers: A corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
(2017).
The importance of, it is important that or importantly? The use of morphologically related stance markers in learner and expert writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 57–85.
. (2018). Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME journal, 42(1), 13–40.
(Forthcoming). A syntactic analysis of the introductory it pattern in non-native-speaker and native-speaker student writing. In M. Mahlberg & V. Wiegand (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics, Context and Culture. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18.
Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text-types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Corpus compiled at the Centre for English Corpus Linguistics at Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium.
Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Oksefjell Ebeling, S. (2013). Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead (pp. 277–288). [Corpora and language in use – Proceedings 1]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107–118). London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: [URL] (accessed April 2017).
Ramhöj, R. (2016). On clausal subjects and extraposition in the history of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 140–162.
Smith, E. L. (1986). Achieving impact through the interpersonal component. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing (pp. 108–119). London: Frances Pinter.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2005). Co-varying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Yue, Chunxiao
Larsson, Tove
Paquot, Magali, Tove Larsson, Hilde Hasselgård, Signe O. Ebeling, Damien De Meyere, Larry Valentin, Natalia J. Laso, Isabel Verdaguer & Sanne van Vuuren
Wang, Zhong, Weiwei Fan & Alex Chengyu Fang
Larsson, Tove, Magali Paquot & Douglas Biber
2021. On the importance of register in learner writing. In Corpus-based approaches to register variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103], ► pp. 235 ff.
Schwarz, Sarah & Erik Smitterberg
2020. “If anyone would have told me, I would have not believed it”. In Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 97], ► pp. 283 ff.
Varga, Mirna
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
