Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

It is suggested that…or it is better to…? Forms and meanings of

subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing
Guiping Zhang*
Department of English, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research has shown that extraposition is more frequent in academic writing than in
Received 18 July 2014 speech and that students and non-English speaking academic writers have problems with
Received in revised the use of extraposition. With the explosion of scientific popularization over the past
form 18 February 2015
decades, popular writing has also become an important register in English for academic
Accepted 20 February 2015
Available online
purposes. However, few studies have been devoted to comparing the use of extraposition
in academic and popular writing. This study attempts to reveal how subject it-extrap-
osition is used in the two registers based on an analysis of the extraposed subjects in the
Keywords:
Subject it-extraposition
academic and popular writing subcorpora in the British component of the International
Academic writing Corpus of English (ICE-GB). Differences are identified between the two registers in both the
Popular writing forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition. Results show that, in academic writing,
Extraposed sentence passive verbs are more frequent in the main clauses of extraposed sentences, and the most
Main clause predicate common extraposed clause is that-clause rather than to-clauses. Semantically, academic
writing is more concerned with explanation and negotiation rather than evaluation. The
results of this study can be used in designing activities in EAP to raise students' con-
sciousness of register variations in the use of subject it-extraposition and help students to
grasp this construction.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

There have been many studies on the linguistic features of academic writing over the past decades. One strand of such
studies is concerned with comparison of the linguistic features of academic writing with those in other registers, especially
speech (e.g. Biber, 1988; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999). With the explosion of scientific popularization in
recent years, popular writing has also become an important register. As the Royal Society's report in 1985 argued, public
understanding of science can be a major element in promoting national prosperity, in raising the quality of public and private
decision-making and in enriching the life of the individual. According to Bowler (2009), over the last two decades, scientists
have realized that they need to make a more serious effort to engage with how their work is presented to the public.
However, few studies have compared the linguistic features of academic writing with those of popular writing, which is
viewed as “rhetorical transformation” of academic writing (Swales, 1990: 125). Academic writing, including research articles,

* RM 303C, Fung King Hey Bldg, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong. Tel.: þ852 39435710.
E-mail address: zgp3021@126.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004
1475-1585/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

academic books and textbooks, is texts written by academics mainly for academics. In contrast, popular writing, including
popular science books and articles in newspaper, magazines or journals, is intended for the public. Academic writing strives to
explain the research and convince the readers of the truth of the findings, while popular writing tries to “balance between the
two facets of what made literature about science attractive to the public: information and entertainment” (Bowler, 2009: 4).
Fahnestock (1986: 279) maintained that the main purpose of popular writing (“scientific accommodations” in his terms) is to
“celebrate rather than validate”, and that popular writing needs to resort to “epideictic rhetoric” so that the audience can
recognize the significance of information.
Extraposition is a special type of postponement involving the use of anticipatory it for the postponed linguistic element as
in examples (1) and (2). In a sentence with subject it-extraposition, the main clause expresses the stance of the writer and the
extraposed element presents the content of the proposition.

(1) In a perilous nuclear world, it is surely possible for leaders and communicators to appreciate that the benefits which
come from manipulating the national identity dynamic are short-term and short-sighted. (ICE-GB W2A-017 #43:1)
(2) It was suggested that time spent on the development of the system would be amply repaid if it made entry of data more
speedy for the employee. (ICE-GB W2A-016 #96:1)

With impersonal it as provisional subject, this construction can disguise the source of opinion, thus making it appear
more impersonal or objective (e.g. Herriman, 2000a; Hewings & Hewings, 2002). Therefore, it has been found that
extraposition is more frequent in academic writing than in speech and some other registers. According to Biber et al. (1999:
676), the overall frequency of extraposed that-clauses of conversation, fiction, news and academic prose is “more than 200
times per million words, rising to more than 500 times per million words in academic prose”. Herriman (2000b) found that
the frequency of extraposition in the Popular Lore text category of the LancasterdOslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB) of British
English is 1.73 times per 1000 words (p. 218) while in the Learned and Scientific category, it is 3.19 times per 1000 words (p.
220).
€
Studies have revealed that both native and non-native students (Adel, 2014; Charles, 2000; Hasselgård, 2009; Herriman,
2013; Hewings & Hewings, 2002; Hyland & Tse, 2005a; Thompson, 2009) as well as non-native speaking academic scientists
(Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005) need to improve their use of such a construction. There have been studies on the use
€
of extraposition in academic writing, but most of them excluded extraposition with passive matrix predicates (e.g. Adel, 2014;
Groom, 2005; Rodman, 1991; Ro € mer, 2009), or focused only on extraposed that clauses (Hyland & Tse, 2005b). Herriman's
(2000b) study involved different types of main clause patterns and extraposed elements, but covering 15 text categories
in LOB, it could not systematically compare the functions of subject it-extraposition in the Learned and Scientific category and
Popular Lore, which can be viewed as corresponding to the academic and popular writing registers in this study because they
are similar in their readership and sources of texts.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate subject it-extraposition in the two registers in a more comprehensive way by
including all types of main clause patterns and extraposed elements and by comparing both the forms and meanings of this
construction. To achieve this purpose, this study seeks to address the following research questions:

1. How frequent is subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing?

2. Which types of clauses are extraposed in the two registers?
3. What are the clause patterns of extraposed sentences in the two registers?
4. What meanings are conveyed by main clause predicates of extraposed sentences in the two registers?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Syntactic analysis of subject it-extraposition

Most previous studies on subject it-extraposition involve its syntactic analysis, namely, the types of extraposed clauses or
syntactic constraints of extraposed elements (e.g. Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Kaltenbӧck, 2004; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, &
Svartvik, 1985). But Mair (1990) and Collins (1994) are among the few who formulated the main clause patterns of extraposed
sentences. Since this study attempts to give a comprehensive description of the use of extraposed sentences in the two
registers, in addition to classification of extraposed elements, it involves an analysis of the main clause patterns of not only
extraposed infinitive clauses investigated by Mair (1990), but also other forms of extraposed elements. Therefore, I followed
Collins' (1994: 10e11) classification in analyzing the main clause patterns of extraposed sentences, which identified four
major types of clause patterns:

 “Subject þ Predicator þ Complement”

 “Subject þ Predicator”
 “Subject þ Predicator þ Object”
 “Subject þ Predicator þ Indirect Object þ Direct Object”
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 3

2.2. Semantic classification of the main clause predicates of extraposed sentences

There has been a proliferation of semantic classification of the main clause predicates of extraposed sentences. Most of
them are only concerned with the adjectives used in the main clauses of extraposed sentences (e.g. Biber et al. 1999; Charles,
2000; Groom, 2005; Kaltenbӧck, 2004; Mindt, 2011), while some involve not only adjective phrases but also noun phrases
and prepositional phrases in the main clause predicates (e.g. Collins, 1994; Herriman, 2000a). As Herriman (2000a: 584)
rightly put it, “there is no set of exhaustive, semantic categories in which meanings may be organized and there are no
foolproof, clear-cut criteria by which semantic categories may be clearly distinguished from one another.” I selected
Herriman’s (2000a: 585e586) classification as theoretical framework for the semantic analysis of main clause predicates,
because her study not only specifies the definition of different categories and subcategories with examples, but also provides
the semantic classification of all the main clause predicates in her study in an appendix, which proved to be a very useful
reference for classifying the matrix predicates in the present study. She distinguished four semantic domains of matrix
predicates other than passive verbs in LOB:

 Epistemic modality including those predicates expressing “the speaker's opinion of the truth of the content of the
extraposed clause …” (e.g. it is clear/true/likely), the speaker's claim of “the existence or coming into existence of the
content of the extraposed clause (e.g. it happens/follows), and “the perception of the existence of the content of the
extraposed clause …” (e.g. it occurred to me) (p. 585)
 Deontic modality representing “obligation, i.e. the speaker's opinion of the degree of obligatoriness of the content of the
extraposed clause (e.g. it is necessary/imperative/our duty), … and volition (intention, desire, or will) of the speaker or a
participant in the clause as regards the content of the extraposed clause …” (e.g. it is desirable/preferable) (p. 585)
 Dynamic modality typically involving a participant's “ability or power to carry out a course of action” and subdivided into:
potentiality (potential success and thus also the ease or difficulty) (e.g. it is difficult/impossible/practical); circumstances (i.e.
speed, manner, safety, cost) (e.g. it is safe/dangerous/quicker), and human attribute (i.e. the speaker's opinion of certain
properties which can be attributed to the subject of the extraposed clause as a result of his or her actions in that clause …”)
(e.g. it is arrogant/considerate) (pp. 585e6)
 Evaluation involving general evaluation (“favourability or unfavourability”) (e.g. it is good/better/a pity), appropriateness
(“correctness or suitability”) (e.g. it is relevant/right/disgraceful), significance (“degree of importance”) (e.g. it is important/
significant/noteworthy), frequency (e.g. it is usual/common/unusual), emotive reaction (e.g. it is tempting/interesting/not
surprising), and responsibility (contingency or inevitability) (e.g. it is no accident/no coincidence) (p. 586).

Since Herriman's classification does not include passive verbs as matrix predicates in extraposed sentences, a framework
must be selected for the semantic classification of matrix verbs of extraposed sentences. I adopted Biber et al.’s (1999:
361e364) semantic classification of single-word verbs, which distinguishes seven major semantic domains of verbs:

 Activity verbs which are concerned with what people do (e.g. use, give, make, build, perform, measure)
 Communication verbs involving such communication activities as speaking and writing (e.g. describe, discuss, debate,
argue, introduce, suggest)
 Mental verbs describing cognitive states and activities (e.g. know, believe, remember, understand, consider, design, study,
investigate), which also include attitudinal or emotional states (e.g. prefer, love, enchant)
 Verbs of existence or relationship denoting a relation or a state exists between entities (e.g. include, represent, define, link,
associate, relate, influence)
 Verbs of facilitation or causation indicating a new state of affairs brought about (e.g. cause, allow, require, need, influence)
 Verbs of simple occurrence reporting the occurrence of events (e.g. develop, grow, increase, change)
 Aspectual verbs denoting the stage of progress of events or activities (e.g. keep, continue, hold).

3. Methods

3.1. Corpus

This comparative study is based on the academic writing and popular writing (also termed non-academic writing) sub-
corpora in the informational writing category of ICE-GB (the British component of the International Corpus of English). The
ICE-GB corpus consists of one million words sampled across 32 text categories (200 written and 300 spoken texts), and all
samples date from 1990 to 1993, which is intended as a representative sample of British English (Nelson, Wallis, & Aarts,
2002).
This corpus was used in this study for several reasons. First, it is syntactically parsed as will be discussed below. Secondly,
the sample size of subject it-extraposition in the two subcopora is manageable for such a study. More importantly, the
subcorpora of academic writing (labeled W2A) and popular writing (labeled W2B) in the ICE-GB corpus are parallel (85,628
and 86,643 words respectively), each consisting of 20 texts of around 2000 words in four major disciplines d humanities,
social sciences, natural sciences and technology.
4 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

3.2. Data retrieval

Every sentence in the ICE-GB corpus is parsed for syntactic structure. In addition, the corpus is supplied with a
retrieval software, the International Corpus of English Corpus Utility Program (called ICECUP III), which allows the users
to search for individual words as well as abstract syntactic structures (Nelson et al., 2002). In this study, the samples of
the subject it-extraposition in the two registers were extracted by searching the function of “Provisional Subject” through
the Fuzzy Tree Fragments (FTFs for short) used in the ICECUP III software. In academic writing, 184 instances of provi-
sional subject were found, but one was excluded because it is conditional if-clause, which is a debatable case, because
extraposed conditional if-clause as in (3) and when-clause are not viewed as extraposed subjects by Quirk et al. (1985:
1392). Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 962) also noted that “as if phrase cannot function as subject, so there is no question
of extraposed subject analysis for this construction”. Similarly, five such instances were also excluded from the 163 in-
stances of provisional subjects in popular writing because their extraposed clauses are conditional if-clauses, as if-clause,
and before-clause as in (4) and (5).

(3) … it would be strange indeed if after a glimpse of life in a Los Angeles penthouse apartment they did not find their own
living conditions squalid and inadequate. (ICE-GB W2A-019 #51:1)
(4) Sometimes it appears as if social workers cannot win in the eyes of the public, no matter what they do. (ICE-GB W2B-
017 #12:1)
(5) Being blessed with a shade of inspiration and a suitably strange sense of humor, it wasn't long before the innards were
plucked out and replaced with a slightly different circuit. (ICE-GB W2B-032 #7:1)

Thus, respectively 183 and 158 samples of subject it-extraposition were retrieved in the academic and popular writing
subcorpora.

3.3. Data analysis

In the frequency analysis, three different measures were used to provide a clear picture of how frequent subject it-
extraposition is in academic and popular writing. Despite the similar size of the two subcorpora, the number of
subjects in them is different (6144 vs. 7322). Since what is investigated in this study is subject extraposition, oc-
currences of subject it-extraposition per thousand subjects were regarded as the main criterion for frequency
comparison. Chi-square was used for the statistical hypothesis testing. According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1391),
extraposition “operates almost exclusively on subordinate nominal clauses”. In order to show how frequently the
extraposable subjects are extraposed in the two registers, percentage of extraposed subjects out of all the subject
clauses is also provided. For the convenience of comparison with previous studies, frequency in terms of occurrences
per thousand words is also given.
As regards the classification of verbs into semantic domains, Biber et al. (1999: 361) mentioned a problem: “for some verbs
there is no single correct classification, since they can be used with different meanings belonging to more than one category”.
For example, the verb take which was classified as an example of Activity verb in Biber et al. (1999: 367) can also be a verb of
Facilitation or Causation when it means require. Since the sample in this study is fairly small, manual analysis has been carried
out to overcome this problem. Instead of coding each verb form by one label without differentiating their meanings as in
some large-scale research, I classified verbs with different meanings as they are used in different contexts. For example, it is
found that the verb take in this study was not an Activity verb, but a verb of Facilitation or Causation as in (6). In addition, the
phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs (rather than just the single-word verbs) were analyzed as one semantic unit, so point
out in (7) was classified as Communication verb.

(6) The concentrations of sodium, potassium and calcium inside and outside cells are very different, and it takes energy to
maintain these concentration gradients. (ICE-GB W2A-024 #31:1)
(7) It was pointed out that they were not levied according to ability to pay, so that rich and poor boroughs might pay the
same amount. (ICE-GB W2B-019 #70:1)

For semantic comparison, no significance testing was used because it is unlikely to find statistical differences between the
semantic subcategories due to the small sample size of the present study and the multiplicity of the subcategories. Thus, the
difference in the semantic classification measured in percentage only represents linguistic difference.

4. Results

4.1. Frequency of subject it-extraposition

In academic writing, there are 183 extraposed (74.7%) and 62 non-extraposed subject clauses (25.3%), while in popular
writing there are 158 extraposed (72.5%) and 60 non-extraposed subject clauses (27.5%). As shown in Table 1, the frequency of
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 5

Table 1
Frequency of it-extraposition subjects.

Per 1000 subjects Per 1000 words %

Academic writing 29.8 (183/6144) 2.1 (183/85628) 74.7 (183/245)
Popular writing 21.6 (158/7332) 1.8 (158/86643) 72.5 (158/218)

Table 2
Types of extraposed clauses.

that- to- wh- -ing zero Total

Academic writing % 50.8 47 1.6 0.6 0 100
Na 93 86 3 1 0 183
Popular writing % 39.2 54.8 3.8 0.6 2.5 100
N 62 85 6 1 4 158
a
Note: N ¼ raw frequency.

subject it-extraposition in academic writing is 29.8 per 1000 subjects or 2.1 per 1000 words, whereas in popular writing it is
21.6 per 1000 subjects, or 1.8 per 1000 words. As can be seen, subject it-extraposition is more frequent in academic writing by
all three measures. In terms of occurrences per 1000 subjects, the subject it-extraposition in academic writing is significantly
more frequent (c2 ¼ 9.19, p ¼ 0.002). This probably has to do with the convention of objectivity of academic writing.

4.2. Forms of the subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing

4.2.1. Types of extraposed clauses

Table 2 shows that, in academic writing, the most common type of extraposed subject clauses are that-clauses (50.8%) as in
(8), followed by infinitive to-clauses (47%), while in popular writing, the most common type is infinitive to-clauses (54.8%) as
in (9), followed by that-clauses (39.2%). The frequency of that-clauses in academic writing is significantly higher (c2 ¼ 4.59,
p ¼ 0.032). This is probably because this construction has been used to express different meanings in the two registers, which
result in different predicates and thus different types of extraposed elements.

(8) It has been observed that there is little evidence that Anglo-French tension “was any more unbearable in 1293 than it
had been earlier”. (ICE-GB W2A-010 #25:1)
(9) … and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the young Dickens, walking through these fitfully illuminated streets,
watching the passers-by, did not create his own stories out of his head just as he had done in the Marshalsea. (ICE-GB
W2B-006 #109:1)

Among the extraposed subject clauses, there are also interrogative subordinate clauses (wh-) introduced by how far, how
much, and to what extent in academic writing as in (10), and by why, whether, how long, how quickly, and if (meaning whether)
in popular writing as in (11). In popular writing, there are also four extraposed zero that-clauses as in (12). In both registers, all
the extraposed non-finite subjects are to-infinitive clauses except one -ing participle clause.

(10) We know the energy cost of pumping 1 mol, but it is unknown how much energy is used for this process per unit time
in the body as a whole. (ICE-GB W2A-024 #33:1)
(11) It is not clear how long they stayed here e … (ICE-GB W2B-006 #47:1)
(12) We were advised to have our luggage ready as it was quite possible we might be flying on to Rio de Janeiro. (ICE-GB
W2B-004 #111:1)

Among the to-infinitive clauses, there are eight for-to clauses in academic writing and 11 in popular writing as in (13) and
(14).

(13) It was quite impossible for them to find replacements for losses upon this scale, and they resorted to paying preachers
stipends to travel around circuits. (ICE-GB W2A-006 #30:1)
(14) It's all too impersonal and distant for these assets to flourish. (ICE-GB W2B-013 #66:1)

4.2.2. Main clause patterns of extraposed sentences

Table 3 presents the percentage and raw frequency of the three different main clause patterns. As shown in Table 3, the
most common main clause pattern of the extraposed sentences in the two registers is “subject þ predicator þ complement”
(SPC) as in (15) to (18), but this pattern is less frequent in academic writing than in popular writing (68.3% vs. 76.6%), though
no significant statistical difference was found.
6 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

Table 3
Distribution of the main clause patterns of extraposed sentences.

Academic Popular
SPC 68.3% (125) (113 ADJPs, 9 NPs, 3 PPs) 76.6% (121) (100 ADJPs, 21 NPs)
SP 31.7% (57) (46 passives, 10 copular, 1 intransitive) 20.2% (32) (20 passives, 8 copular, 4 intransitive)
SPO 0.6% (1) 3.2% (5)
Total 183 158

(15) It is significant that they thought it necessary to provide any justification at all. (ICE-GB W2A-001 #48:1)
(16) It seemed natural to the monks to turn to France, now the seat of architectural fashion. (ICE-GB W2B-003 #79:1)
(17) Having accepted over the years this level of government intervention and market manipulation, it really should not
have been such a steep hill to climb to accept state ownership and management. (ICE-GB W2B-016 #18:1)
(18) The concentration of free calcium inside cells is lower than outside by about two orders of magnitude, and it is of crucial
importance for many vital processes that the internal concentration should be maintained at the correct level. (ICE-GB
W2A-024 #36:1)

In this pattern, the most frequent verb of extraposed sentences in academic writing is be (118 out of 125), the others
being become (four occurrences), appear, seem, and prove (one occurrence each). In popular writing, the most frequent
verb is also be (111 out of 121), and the other verbs are seem (six occurrences), become (three occurrences), and look (one
occurrence). As regards the complements of the main clause verbs, the overwhelming majority are adjective phrases
(ADJPs) as in examples (15) and (16), especially in academic writing. In academic writing, noun phrases (NPs) are also
used as complements of main clause verbs in the SPC pattern (9 out of 125) as in (17), but the frequency is much lower
than in popular writing (21 out of 121). In academic writing, there are also three prepositional phrase matrix predicates
as in (18).
The second most common pattern in both registers is “subject þ predicator” (SP) as in (19), (20) and (21), but the pro-
portion of this pattern is significantly higher in academic writing than in popular writing (31.7% vs. 20.2%) (c2 ¼ 5.22,
p ¼ 0.022), probably because of the preference for passive verbs in the main clauses by academic writing (46 out of 57 or 80.7%
vs. 20 out of 32 or 62.5% in popular writing). This demonstrates that passive verb predicates represent an important type of
predicates of extraposed sentences in academic and popular writing.
Intransitive and phrasal verbs are also used in such a pattern, including happen in academic writing, and transpire, fall,
follow and turn out in popular writing as in (20) and (21).

(19) Too often it is simply assumed that disagreement over values within a community is proof of the subjective character of
the rival attitudes. (ICE-GB W2A-005 #37:1)
(20) In more distal platform areas, it could happen that the prograding tidal flats did not arrive, so that subtidal conditions
were maintained throughout. (ICE-GB W2A-023 #99:1)
(21) In the 1960s, it turned out that Yugoslavia's national question was much more serious than in the 1930s. (ICE-GB W2B-
007 #91:1)

The “subject þ predicator þ object” (SPO) pattern as in (22) is very rare in both registers, with one instance in academic
writing and five in popular writing.

(22) However it needs a fair bit of experience to keep them properly and most of them die in captivity fairly soon. (ICE-GB
W2B-021 #79:1)

4.3. Meanings of main clause predicates of extraposed sentences

In the following, the semantics of the main clause predicates of extraposed subject clauses in the two major main clause
patterns (SPC and SP) will be analyzed respectively.

Table 4
Semantic classification of the predicates in SPC main clause pattern.

Epistemic Evaluative Dynamic Deontic Total

Academic 39.2% (49) 32.8% (41) 16% (20) 12% (15) 100% (125)
Popular 35.5% (43) 36.4% (44) 20.7% (25) 7.4% (9) 100% (121)
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 7

Table 4a
Subdivision of the evaluation semantic category.

Academic Popular
Significance 34.2% (14) 11.4% (5)
Appropriateness 29.3% (12) 36.4% (16)
Frequency 17.1% (7) 2.3% (1)
Emotive reaction 14.6% (6) 25% (11)
General 2.4% (1) 22.7% (10)
Responsibility 2.4% (1) 2.3% (1)
Total 100% (41) 100% (44)

4.3.1. Meanings of the predicates in the SPC main clause pattern

As shown in Table 4, in academic writing, the most common semantic category of predicates in the SPC pattern
is Epistemic modality which denotes the Truth of the content of the extraposed clause as in (23) and (24). It will
be clear from the previous chapter that … in (23) conveys the certainty of the following proposition. In (24), it is
possible to … means that the following proposition can be true. Epistemic predicates are slightly more frequent in
academic writing (39.2% vs. 35.5%), indicating that academic writing is more concerned with the likelihood of
propositions.

(23) It will be clear from the previous chapter that the innovations currently being implemented in industry and business
involve both technological and organizational systems. (ICE-GB W2A-011 #2:1)
(24) In such a simple act it is possible to glimpse far more clearly than in any number of statistics the pressure of a highly
defined and stratified society, literally forcing the young boy down into a position of deference. (ICE-GB W2B-006
#31:1)

The second most common semantic category is Evaluation which is slightly less frequent in academic writing than
in popular writing. Moreover, the subcategories of the Evaluation category in the two registers differ (see Table 4a): In
academic writing Significance as in (25) is the most common Evaluation, accounting for 34.2% of the Evaluation
category, followed by Appropriateness (29.3%) as in (26). In popular writing, the most common category is Appro-
priateness (36.4%) followed by Emotive Reaction (25%) as in (27) and General Evaluation as in (28). Evaluation of
Frequency of the extraposed proposition as in (29) is also quite common in academic writing (seven occurrences),
while it occurs only once in popular writing. This indicates that popular writing prefers to evaluate whether the
following proposition is appropriate.

(25) In identifying needs it is important to take account of needs which may appear in the future but have not yet been
identified. (ICE-GB W2A-016 #92:1)
(26) It is thus absurd to suggest that the empire was designed to keep up the supply of slaves, especially in the period after
Augustus, when the policy was normally to defend the provinces already annexed without enlarging Roman domin-
ions. (ICE-GB W2A-001 #44:1)
(27) It is interesting to remember, in this connection, how important a part wills and legacies play in Charles Dickens's
fiction; (ICE-GB W2B-006 #22:1)
(28) … as a general rule it is better to walk a short distance fast than a long distance slowly. (ICE-GB W2B-022 #92:1)
(29) Thus it is not uncommon to find facultative ponds which contain only a few species of algae with one species dominant.
(ICE-GB W2A-021 #73:1)

As shown in Table 4, the matrix predicates concerning Dynamic modality are slightly less frequent in academic writing
(16% vs. 20.7%). The majority of the predicates in this semantic category are Potentiality as in (30) and those representing
Circumstance as in (31) are very rare.

(30) It was difficult to get used to the enormous change that came over the Department in August. (ICE-GB W2B-012 #30:1)
(31) It is not safe to overindulge any instinct and, just as the more overt appetites can be controlled for self-interest, so the
identity dynamic can also be controlled. (ICE-GB W2A-017 #56:1)

The proportion of the matrix predicates expressing Deontic modality is more frequent in academic writing (12% vs. 7.4%).
Most of the Deontic matrix predicates are concerned with Obligation as in (32), while the Volition subcategory as in (33) is
rare.

(32) For the third class of theory to appear inside a program, it is necessary for its generalities to be backed up by enough
specific details to allow the program to compute something of interest. (ICE-GB W2A-035 #34:1)
8 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

(33) Given that we all have very different experiences, it is safe to assume that, for a whole range of subjects, our views will
differ from those of friends and neighbors. (ICE-GB W2B-017 #82:1)

Appendix A (Tables 7 and 8) gives semantic classification of all the matrix predicates in the SPC pattern in the two registers.

4.3.2. Meanings of the predicates in the SP main clause pattern

Table 5 shows semantic classification of the verbs in the main clauses of extraposed sentences in the “subject þ predicator”
pattern by Biber et al.’s (1999) semantic classification of single-word verbs. As shown in Table 5, the three major semantic
domains of the matrix verbs in this clause pattern in both registers are Mental verbs as in (34), Communication verbs as in
(35) and verbs of Existence or Relationship as in (36). It can be seen that Mental verbs and Communication verbs are more
frequent in the extraposed sentences in academic writing, while the proportion of Existence or Relationship verbs is very
close in extraposed sentences in the two registers. Such mental verbs as assume, expect, believe specify how academic writers
are involved in the extraposed proposition.

(34) Little information is available on the composition of the microbial population, but it might be expected that an
increased number of nitrifying bacteria will be present. (ICE-GB W2A-021 #89:1)
(35) It can, indeed, be argued that each new potential for experiencing a variety of cultural, political, and/or economic
aspects of a society results in a further potential for novel schisms and syntheses; (ICE-GB W2A-012 #17:1)
(36) If it appears that an accident has wider implications that should be communicated to the industry or to inspectors
dealing with the industry, the relevant NIG provides a channel for doing so. (ICE-GB W2A-018 #95:1)

In addition, verbs of some other semantic types are also used (3.5% in academic and 24.3% in popular writing), including
verbs of Facilitation or Causation as in (37), verbs of simple Occurrence as in (38) and Activity verbs as in (39) (see Table 5).

(37) … it takes 5 m2 (55sq ft) of forest to make a single hamburger. (ICE-GB W2B-028 #57:1)
(38) If social workers are seen to adopt a hard line approach and remove children from home without the benefit of
indisputable evidence of actual abuse, they can be severely criticized at a later date for being heavy handed if it
transpires that the grounds for their concern were ill founded and that they made a genuine error of judgment. (ICE-GB
W2B-017 #14:1)
(39) And when that happens, it doesn't necessarily follow that slowly restoring the boundary conditions to their previous
values will cause the climate to flip back into the state it used to be in. (ICE-GB W2B-025 #52:1)

Appendix B (Table 9) gives the semantic classification of all the verbal matrix predicates in the two registers.

4.4. Meanings of main clause predicates and types of extraposed subject clauses

Table 6 illustrates the distribution of the types of extraposed subject clauses used with different semantic categories of
main clause predicates in the SPC clause pattern. As shown in Table 6, respectively 67.3% and 65.1% of the extraposed subjects
used with the Epistemic category of main clause predicates in academic and popular writing are finite clauses. Conversely, in
the Evaluative category, the percentages are respectively 29.3% and 36.4%. Interestingly, none of the Dynamic predicates in
both registers are used with extraposed finite clauses. All the Difficulty/Ease main clause predicates are used with extraposed
to-infinitive clauses. Also, none of the Deontic predicates in popular writing and a small percentage (13.3%) in academic

Table 5
Semantic classification of matrix verbs in extraposed sentences.

Mental Communication Existence Others Total

Academic 51.7% (30) 27.6% (16) 17.2% (10) 3.5% (2) 100% (58)
Popular 37.8% (14) 18.9% (7) 18.9% (7) 24.3% (9) 100% (37)

Table 6
Distribution of extraposed finite and non-finite subject clauses and matrix predicates semantics.

Epistemic Evaluative Dynamic Deontic

Academic
Finite 67.3% (33) 29.3% (12) 0 13.3% (2)
Non-finite 32.7% (16) 70.7% (29) 100% (20) 86.7% (13)
Popular
Finite 65.1% (28) 36.4% (16) 0 0
Non-finite 34.9% (15) 63.6% (28) 100% (9) 100% (25)
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 9

writing are used with extraposed finite clauses. It seems that the different meanings expressed by such a construction can
have an influence on the types of extraposed elements.
In the SP clause pattern, 89.5% of the matrix verbs in academic writing and 75.7% in popular writing are used with
extraposed finite clauses.

5. Discussion

As discussed below, the results from this study, on one hand, affirm previous research findings, and on the other hand,
yield some new findings.

5.1. More frequent use of subject it-extraposition in academic writing and preference for passive matrix predicates in extraposed
sentences by academic writing

This study shows that subject it-extraposition is more frequent in academic writing. This provides further evidence for
previous findings by Biber et al. (1999) who found that the frequency of extraposed that-clauses in academic prose is much
higher than in conversation, fiction, and news, and by Herriman (2000b) who noted that the frequency of extraposition in the
Learned and Scientific category more than doubled that in Popular Lore.
Conventionally, academic writing has been viewed as ‘dispassionate description of truth’ (Penrose & Katz, 1998:
169), a register in which the facts ‘speak for themselves’. However, the interpersonal functions of academic writing
have been noted in substantial research on academic writing (e.g. Hunston, 1993; Hyland, 1998, 2002; Hyland & Tse,
2005a; Kuo, 1999). Hunston (1993) claimed that scientific writing is not just factual but also contains a considerable
amount of attitudinal meaning. According to Hyland and Tse (2005a: 124), “academic writers are contributing to an
ongoing scholarly debate, they are simultaneously seeking to present propositional information while persuading
readers of their claims.” Therefore, on one hand, academic writers need to involve themselves in the written
communication. On the other hand, they have the objective or impersonal convention of the academic community to
observe. Then, subject it-extraposition can meet this purpose and disguise their opinion in objectivity.
Such a function of subject it-extraposition has also been noted by Collins (1994: 19e20) who found “a large array of
thematic expressions used to convey ‘objective modalities’”, by which the speaker can ascribe “to an unspecified source the
responsibility for an assertion”. Thus, he concluded that extraposed sentences provide the means for “claiming objective
necessity or certainty for what in fact may be a matter of opinion”. Similarly, Herriman (2000b: 212) observed that it enables
writers “to conceal the source of their opinion, if wished, thus making it appear to be objective”, and giving it “an appearance
of objectivity and generality”.
Interestingly, the dominance of the “subject þ predicator þ complement” matrix pattern revealed in this study is close
to Collins' (1994: 11) result of 70.5% in his contemporary Australian English corpus of writing and speech. However, the
proportion of the “subject þ predicator” pattern in academic writing (31.7%) is significantly higher than in popular
writing (20.2%), which is very close to the 20.5% in a corpus of Australian writing and speech used by Collins (1994). This
can be attributed to the more frequent use of passive verbs in the main clauses of extraposed sentences in academic
writing. The proportion of passive matrix predicates of subject it-extraposition in academic writing attested in this study
is much higher not only than in popular writing but also than in the 15 text categories in LOB, which is roughly one
quarter (Herriman, 2000b: 206). When subject it-extraposition with passive matrix verbs (e.g it is suggested that …)
instead of the active pattern (e.g I/we suggest that …) is used, the writing seems to be more impersonal. Therefore, passive
predicates are a very important type of matrix predicates of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing, and
I argue that studies on extraposition in these two registers would not be complete without inclusion of this type of
extraposition.

5.2. Prevalence of explanation and negotiation over evaluation in academic writing

More frequent matrix predicates in the Epistemic category and less frequent matrix predicates in the Evaluative
category indicate that academic writers are more concerned with the extent to which the extraposed proposition is
true by specifying whether it is possible, clear, apparent, likely, or unlikely than whether it is nice, better, best, or
interesting, because it is necessary for successful academic writers to persuade their readers to accept their ideas
(Charles, Hunston, & Pecorari, 2009). In addition, when making value judgment of the extraposed proposition, writers
of academic writing are more likely to evaluate the Significance and Frequency of the extraposed proposition than
making General Evaluation about it as in popular writing. For instance, all the 11 instances of important in academic
writing in this study are used to explain the procedure or process as in (40) and (41) rather than evaluate the
importance of the product.

(40) For marine animal lines that might move on to land through sandy shores and sand dunes, it is important to consider
the final step in the transition, between dune soils and inland terrestrial soils. (ICE-GB W2A-022 #81:1)
10 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

(41) It is important in NDT inspection to be able to differentiate between these two categories so that problems of structural
integrity are spotted early. (ICE-GB W2A-036 #63:1)

The higher proportion of Deontic and lower proportion of Dynamic matrix predicates demonstrate that academic writers
are more likely to provide the precondition for the feasibility of a process or the validity of the proposition as in (42) than
commenting on the potential success of the extraposed proposition or how easy or hard it is as in (43). This seems to reflect
Myers' (1990: 142) observation that in popularizing articles, “the plant or animal, not the scientific activity, is the subject” and
that “the syntax and vocabulary emphasize the externality of nature to scientific practices”.

(42) For the third class of theory to appear inside a program, it is necessary for its generalities to be backed up by enough specific
details to allow the program to compute something of interest. (ICE-GB W2A-035 #34:1)
(43) In fact, as you switch between different Tones while programming, it's all too easy to forget which Tone, if any, the physical
position of a slider refers to. (ICE-GB W2B-031 #50:1)

In addition, more frequent use of Mental verbs in the main clauses of extraposed sentences in academic writing
reveals academic writers' involvement with the extraposed proposition (e.g. assume, believe, conclude, decide etc.). More
frequent Communication matrix verbs (e.g. suggested, argued, admitted) in academic writing indicate that the extraposed
proposition in academic writing is more negotiable. The negotiability of academic writing is not only evidenced by the
higher proportion of Communicative verbs, but also by the more negotiable verbs suggested and argued as the most
common Communicative matrix verbs used in academic writing instead of the more assertive announced in popular
writing.
Findings from the semantic analysis in this study provide empirical evidence for the observations and findings about the
communicative functions of academic writing in previous research. According to Hyland (2008: 2), “academic writing is
persuasive” and “at the heart of the academic persuasion is, then, the writers' attempts to anticipate possible negative re-
jections to their claims. Therefore, they not merely present the results but also elaborate on the process, and they negotiate
their arguments by such words as suggesting, arguing, or even admitting. The tendency that scientific writing is less concerned
with overtly providing value judgments and more with establishing factual information was also observed by Herriman
(2000b).
In contrast, the texts in popular writing were intended for a wider readership both to entertain and inform non-expert
readers. Popular writers “must usually be explicit in their claims about the value of the scientific discoveries they pass
along” (Fahnestock, 1986: 279). Therefore, evaluative matrix predicates is more frequent in the subject it-extraposition in
popular writing.

5.3. Interaction between meanings of main clause predicates and types of extraposed clauses

The data show that interaction exists between the meanings of main clause predicates and the type of extraposed clauses.
A similar tendency in the use of subject it-extraposition is perceived in both registers despite their different proportion: In the
SPC main clause pattern, Epistemic predicates favor finite clauses (predominantly that-clauses) as extraposed elements, while
Evaluative predicates prefer non-finite subject clauses. Dynamic and Deontic predicates are very rarely used with extraposed
finite clauses.
Mair (1990: 25) observed that “matrix predicates representing Epistemic modality do not normally occur with
extraposed infinitival clauses”. Herriman (2000a) who excluded extraposition with passive matrix predicates also
found that among the subject it-extraposition in the LOB corpus, 64% of the subject that-clauses represent Epistemic
modality (p. 587), that a large proportion (40%) of the matrix predicates of extraposed infinitival clauses in the LOB
corpus represent Evaluation (p.590), that a small proportion (4%) of the extraposed that-clauses in LOB represents
Deontic modality (p. 588), and that there was only one instance of extraposed that-clause for Dynamic matrix
predicates (p. 589). This study demonstrates that such an interaction exists no matter whether the extraposed ele-
ments are infinitival clause or that clause, and no matter whether the matrix predicates are adjectives or passive
verbs. This provides further evidence for Sinclair’s (1991: 65) observation that “there is a strong tendency for sense
and syntax to be associated”.
In addition, this study also indicates that behind this general trend, the type of extraposed subject clauses used
with different semantic categories of matrix predicates are also word-specific. For instance, despite the predomi-
nance of extraposed finite clauses used with Epistemic predicates, the adjective possible predicator is mostly used
with extraposed to-infinitive complement clauses (16 out of 20 in academic writing and 12 out of 16 in popular
writing).

6. Conclusion

To conclude, this study shows that the anticipated different readership of academic writing and popular writing
has resulted in differences in the use of subject it-extraposition construction. Subject it-extraposition is more
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 11

frequent in academic writing and a larger proportion of extraposed elements in academic writing are finite clauses.
This study also reveals more frequent use of “subject þ predicator” matrix pattern because of the preference for
passive matrix verbs in subject it-extraposition by academic writing. With respect to the meanings conveyed by the
matrix predicates of subject it-extraposition, it is found that Epistemic and Deontic categories are more common in
academic writing, while Evaluation and Dynamic categories are more prevalent in popular writing. This study has
also identified regularity in the interaction between the forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in the two
registers.
Given the differences found in forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in the two registers, EAP practitioners
should be conscious of register variations in teaching such a construction. The lists of classifications provided in this
study can be used to develop various activities or exercises (e.g. blank filling exercises on choice of predicates for
extraposed sentences or of the extraposed elements) to help students grasp the use of this construction. EAP practitioners
may also need to explain the differences in meanings expressed by different predicators in the same semantic category to
help students use this construction to express their stance more accurately in their academic and popular writing
practice. Since this study is based on general academic writing, the lists are more suitable for general academic writing
courses. In addition, they can also serve as a starting point for more discipline-specific activities. For example, EAP
practitioners can ask students to compare the forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in their own disciplines
with those in this study.
While this study has yielded some interesting and useful findings, it has several limitations. First, since the classi-
fication was based on quite small corpora and not all texts are full texts, they may not well represent the two registers.
Second, this study did not address disciplinary variations evidenced by several studies (e.g. Charles, 2000; Groom,
2005). Thirdly, the semantic classification involves subjectivity. Therefore, a larger sample of subject it-extraposition
is needed to provide further evidence for the findings in this study. In addition, more research remains to be done on
subject it-extraposition with passive matrix predicates, which was mostly excluded in previous studies on
extraposition.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to my supervisor Professor Gerald Nelson for inspiring me to do this research. I appreciate the comments
and advice of the JEAP editor and reviewers. I would also like to thank Professor Gwendolyn Gong for her valuable advice
about how to revise the paper and Professor Peter Collins for generously sending me the offprint of his 1994 paper by
post.

Appendix A

Table 7
Semantic classification of the main clause predicates in the SPC clause pattern used with different types of extraposed subject clauses in academic writing.

Category that-clause to-clause

EMPISTEMIC Truth 30: clear (8), possible (4), unlikely (4), likely (2), 16: possible (16)
apparent (2), true (2), the case (2), axiomatic (1);
evident (1), inescapable (1), no defense (1),
symptomatic (1), well-known (1)
EVALUATIVE Emotive reaction 4: not surprising (2), disappointing (1), of interest (1) 2: tempting (2)
Significance 3: important (1), of crucial importance (1), significant (1) 10: important (10)
General evaluation 1: a pity (1) 0
Frequency 0 7: usual (2), uncommon (2), unusual (1), common (1),
an anomaly (1)
Appropriateness 3: a mistake (1), relevant (1), as well (1) 9: absurd (1), foolish (1), idealistic (1), illegal (1),
logical (1), unrealistic (1), unreasonable (1),
the practice of … (1), stupid and dangerous (1)
Responsibility 1: no accident 0
DYNAMIC Ease/Difficulty 0 17: difficult (11), hard (2), harder (1), impossible (2),
practical (1)
Circumstance 0 3: quicker (1), safe (1), late (1)
DEONTIC Obligation 1: imperative (1) 12: necessary (10), our duty (1), the duty of … (1)
Volition 1: desirable (1) 1: desirable (1)

Note: Four matrix adjective predicates are not included in the above table because their extraposed clauses are not that-clause or to-clause: one occurrence
of worth in the Significance subcategory of Evaluation used with -ing clause, two occurrences of not clear used with to what extent and how far clauses and one
unknown used with how much clause in the Epistemic Truth subcategory.
12 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13

Table 8
Semantic classification of the main clause predicates in the SPC clause pattern used with different types of extraposed subject clauses in popular writing.

Category that-clause to-clause

EMPISTEMIC Truth 24: likely (5), possible (4), unlikely (3), 15: possible (12), unknown (1), defense (1), no defense (1)
true (3), clear (2), apparent (2), arguable (2),
obvious (1), probable (1), fact (1)
EVALUATIVE Emotive reaction 1: surprising (1) 9: interesting (2), tempting (2), fascinating (1), poignant (1),
surprising (1), embarrassing (1), a relief (1)
Significance 4: noteworthy (2), important (1), significant (1) 0
General evaluation 1: a measure of your … 9: better (2), best (2), good (1), nice (1), useful and valid (1),
a bigamy (1), a national pastime
Frequency 0 1: common practice (1)
Appropriateness 7: disgraceful (1), right (1), relevant (1), 9: logical (1), illogical (1), natural (1), reasonable (1),
right and proper (1), no wonder (1), enough (1), an advantage (1), wise precaution (1),
any wonder (1), a common misconception (1) natural human reaction (1), all too impersonal and distant (1)
Responsibility 1: no coincidence (1) 0
DYNAMIC Ease/Difficulty 0 23: impossible (5), difficult (4), hard (3), easy (3), easier (3),
a problem (1), an impossible task (1), no easy task (1),
a relatively simple matter (1), such a steep hill to climb (1)
Circumstance 0 2: safe(1), dangerous (1)
DEONTIC Obligation 0 6: necessary (6)
Volition 0 3: preferable (1), the layers' function (1), desirable (1)

Note: Six matrix predicates are not included in the above table: Four Epistemic predicates (not clear, doubtful, not evident, questionable) used with extaposed
interrogative clauses introduced by how long, whether, why clauses, one surprising Emotive Reaction predicates in the Evaluation category used with how
quickly clause, and one worthwhile in the Significance subcategory of Evaluation used with extraposed -ing clause.

Appendix B

Table 9
Semantic classification of the matrix verbs in the SP clause pattern used with different types of extraposed subject clauses in academic and popular writing.

Domain Academic writing Popular writing

Mental that-clause 25: known (3), assumed (2), estimated (2), expected (2), 12: found (3), estimated (2), agreed (1),
found (2), realized (2), accepted (1), agreed (1), believed assumed (1), envisaged (1), proved (1),
(1), calculated (1), concluded (1), considered (1), implied remembered (1), supposed (1), wondered (1)
(1), observed (1), presumed (1), remembered (1), suspected
(1), verified (1)
to-clause 5: decided (1), deemed (1), desired (1), intended (1), 1: decided (1)
thought (1)
Communication that-clause 16: suggested (6), argued (5), claimed (2), noted (2), 7: announced (2), noted (1), put (1), said (1),
admitted (1) suggested (1), pointed out (1)
to-clause 0 0
Existence or relationship that-clause 9: seem (4), appear (3), be (2) 7: turn out (3), be (2), seem (1), be more that (1)
to-clause 1: be (1) 0
Facilitation & Causation that-clause 0 0
to-clause 1: take (1) 4: take (3), need (1)
Occurrence that-clause 1: happen (1) 2: transpire (1), come (1)
to-clause 0 0
Activity that-clause 0 1: follow (1)
to-clause 0 2: fall (1), make (1)

Note: One Existence verb (remain) used with extraposed subject if-clause (meaning whether) in popular writing is not included in the above table.

References
€
Adel, A. (2014). Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: a case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 16, 68e80.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
Bowler, P. J. (2009). Science for all: The popularization of science in early twentieth-century Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Charles, M. (2000). The role of an introductory it pattern in constructing an appropriate academic persona. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives:
Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 45e59). Reading: Centre for Applied language Study, University of Reading.
Charles, M., Hunston, S., & Pecorari, D. (2009). Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing.
Collins, P. (1994). Extraposition in English. Functions of Language, 1, 7e24.
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275e296.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: an exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 257e277.
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. 121e139). John Benjamins Pub. Co.
 G.P. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 1e13 13

Herriman, J. (2000a). Extraposition in English: a study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause. English Studies, 81,
582e599.
Herriman, J. (2000b). The functions of extraposition in English texts. Functions of Language, 7, 203e230.
Herriman, J. (2013). The extraposition of clausal subjects in English and Swedish. In K. Aijmer, & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive
linguistics: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 233e260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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, 367e383.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57e73). New York: Pinter
Publishers.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437e455.
Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56, 351e358.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of
English Studies, 8, 1e23.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005a). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123e139.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005b). Evaluative that constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12, 39e64.
Kaltenbӧck, G. (2004). It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English. Wien: Braumüller.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121e138.
Mair, C. (1990). Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mindt, I. (2011). Adjective complementation: An empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nelson, G., Wallis, S., & Aarts, B. (2002). Exploring natural Language: Working with the British component of the international corpus of English. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Penrose, A., & Katz, S. (1998). Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rodman, L. (1991). Anticipatory IT in scientific discourse. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21, 17e27.
Ro
€mer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar. Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140e162.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists
in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 41e64.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The public understanding of science. (1985). London: Royal Society. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group.
Thompson, P. (2009). Shared disciplinary norms and individual traits in the writing of British undergraduates. In M. Gotti (Ed.), Commonality and in-
dividuality in academic discourse (pp. 53e82). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Guiping Zhang is currently a PhD student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong majoring in Applied English Linguistics. She was previously a professor of
English education and her research interests include ESP, ELT, corpus-based English language studies and second language acquisition.