本研究旨在探討英語為外國語的台灣英語研究所研究生，在撰寫英語教學與語言學學術文章時，使用英語連接性副詞和英語為母語的學術人士有何差異。資料來源於台灣當地英語教育學術論文集以及國際級語言學術期刊，將所收集到的期刊文章，備份成電子檔分別儲存在「台灣學生語料庫」與「專業母語人士語料庫」當中。
本研究運用語料庫大量語料的特色採取量化研究，並針對學生相較於母語人士使用情況找出較常使用及較少使用的連接副詞，來進行質性分析。該研究方向分成五大類：(一)台灣學生在使用副詞連接詞的總體頻率是否與英語為母語的學術人士相近 (二)台灣學生利用連接副詞來表達各語意頻率是否與英語為母語的學術人士相近 (三)台灣學生將連接副詞置於句子當中的位置是否與英語為母語的專業人士相同 (四)台灣學生是否能選用符合文章形式的連接副詞 (五)質性探討台灣學生使用連接副詞的問題。
研究結果顯示，台灣學生與專業母語人士一般，傾向於使用固定種類的連接副詞，於此使用的類型侷限於少數，而在總體頻率上沒有顯著的差異，然而台灣學生在連接副詞總體頻率上，與先前研究一致，傾向偏高。而各語義類型的連接副詞總體數量上，兩組人員也沒有顯著的差異，然而台灣學生有偏好使用連接副詞來表達某些語義的傾向，且有些語義偏向少用。就連接副詞於句子中的擺放位置，近乎顯著水準的，台灣學生偏好將連接副詞置於首位；針對連接副詞的形式，台灣學生與專業母語人士一般，多用正式的連接副詞於學術文章當中，只有少數的三個連接副詞的形式選擇上兩組人士有所差異。
綜合量化研究，結果顯示該批台灣研究生在連接副詞使用上近乎與專業母語人士類似，而就質性分析所得結果，研究發現這批台灣學生仍舊有些問題，問題可歸類成誤用與冗贅使用兩種。誤用的情形有兩類，一是語意相近的連接副詞混淆，誤以為語意相近在各種情況都能互通使用，二是利用連接副詞來掩飾篇章上下語意不連貫情形，誤以為使用連接副詞即可平飾文章前後語順不連接情況。至於冗贅使用情形也可歸類成兩類，一類是過度泛用，尤其是連結性的連接副詞(additives)，經常的出現在學生文章當中，這一類型基本上並不至於造成語意衝突而影響閱讀理解，然而另一類的冗贅使用，例如相對類型的連接副詞(contrastives)，台灣學生語料庫當中出現過在沒有語意相對情況下使用相對類型的連接副詞，這類型的冗贅使用，容易誤導讀者，造成閱讀理解困難。
有鑑於此研究發現，本文末提出了一些語料庫為本的課堂可行的活動，來訓練研究生連接副詞於學術性文章的運用。並期待未來研究能進一步的深入探討該主題。

The present study aims to explore the use of conjunctive adverbials in academic writing by Taiwanese graduate students of English and to examine if there is any discrepancy between their use with that of the professional native writers. Data for investigation were collected from ELT-related proceedings published in Taiwan and from relevant international applied linguistics journals. These articles were transformed into machine-readable formats and categorized and respectively stored in the Taiwanese Learner Corpus and Professional Writer Corpus.
This research benefiting from the advantages of corpus analysis adopts a quantitative approach to examine data. Qualitative analysis is also employed to study the conjunctive adverbials which are more frequently and less frequently applied in the Taiwanese writers’ writing based on the results of per 10,000 word discrepancy analysis.
Quantitative results have indicated that the Taiwanese writers applied conjunctive adverbials almost to the same extent as the professional native writers. Both groups of writers were inclined to employ a fixed and limited set of conjunctive adverbials. The discrepancies of the overall occurrences of conjunctive adverbials between the two groups did not indicate significant differences. Yet, the result of the overall frequency analysis was consistent with previous research that non-native writers tend to apply more conjunctive adverbials in writing. Regarding the semantic relations realized by the used of conjunctive adverbials, both the Taiwanese writers and professional native writers did not show significant differences. Some semantic relations, however, tended to be marked more frequently by the Taiwanese writers. Furthermore, the Taiwanese writers also had a strong preference for the initial use of conjunctive adverbials and such a difference between the two groups of writers nearly hit a significant difference. As to register sensitivity, these Taiwanese writers had little difficulty selecting stylistically appropriate conjunctive adverbials in academic writing as few instances of informal register occurred but three conjunctive adverbials occurred differing in styles in the two groups’ writing.
Similar to the results of the quantitative analysis, the qualitative analysis indicated that most conjunctive adverbials examined were used quite effectively. However, there were still instances of deviant use identified. The deviant use included misuse and redundant use. The misuse resulted from two major sources: one is that conjunctive adverbials of similar semantic meanings were treated interchangeably when the situation did not allow so; the other is due to poor logicality shown in the inappropriate choice of adverbials to chunk irrelevant ideas together with the use of additives. The redundant use can also be categorized into two kinds. One is excessive use and this is particularly common in the use of additives to mark overtly the connectedness between sentences. This type of use after all will not hinder comprehension. However, the second type of redundant use, such as the use of contrastives to connect information with no contrastive value, will impede mental processing and cause confusion.
In the end of this research, concordancing-based classroom activities are suggested to train graduate students’ use of conjunctive adverbials in academic writing. Further research is expected to further look into this very subject.

Bibliography

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.
Aronsson, Mia Bostrom. (2003). On clefts and information structure in Swedish EFL writing. In Granger, Sylviane & Stephanie Petch-Tyson. (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Research New Applications, New Challenges (pp.197-210). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi B.V.
Axelsson, Margareta Westergren & Hahn, Angela. (2001). The use of the progressive in Swedish and German advanced learner English – a corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 25, 5-30
Ball, R. (1986). A Dictionary of Link Words in English Discourse. London: Macmillan.
Bell, David M. (2004). Correlative and non-correlative “on the other hand.” Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2179-2184.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bolton, Kingsley, Hung, J. & Nelson, G. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7, 165-182.
Carrell, Patricia L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.
Carrie, Leung. (2005). A contrastive comparison of the use of major English conjunctions by American and Hong Kong university students. Bachelor thesis, Lund University, Sweden.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishing Company.
Chang, Finn Yu-Fen. (2003). An Investigation of Parts of Speech in Interlanguage: Subordinators in Taiwan Learners’ English Writing. Master Thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44, 316-325.
Crystal, David. (2000). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Cock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3, 59-80.
Field, Y. & Yip, L. M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 25(1), 15-28.
Ford, Cecilia. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, Bruce. (1998). Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Description and Theory (pp.301-326). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gabrielatos, Costas. (2005). Corpora and language teaching: just a fling or wedding bells? TESL-EJ, 8 (4).
Download, 7/4/2004 【on-line】
Available: http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej32/a1.html
Garton, James. (1996). Interactive concordancing with a specialist corpus. On-CALL 10, 1.
Download, 6/28/2004 【on-line】
Available: http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/garton101.html
George, H.V. (1963). A verb-form frequency count. English Language Teaching, 18 (1), 31-37.
Granger, Sylviane. (Ed). (1998). Learner English on Computer. London: Longman.
Granger, Sylviane. (2002). A bird’s eye view of computer learner corpus research. In Granger, Sylviane, Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching ((pp. 3-33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Granger, S. & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15, 17-27.
Granger, Sylviane, Hung, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.) (2002). Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Green, Christopher F., Christopher, Elsie R. & Mei, Jaquelin Lam Kam. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: a corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 99-113.
Greenbaum S. & Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hinkel, Eli. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068.
Hung, Meng-fen. (2003). A Study on the Use of Conjunctions in Compositions by Taiwanese Senior-high-school Students. Master Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Hunston, Susan. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. & Francis, G.. (1998). Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 45-72.
Johns, T. F. (1991a). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning'. In Johns, T.F. and King, P. (Eds.), Classroom Concordancing (pp. 1-13). Birmingham: ELR.
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Y. (Eds.) (1998). Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kao, Kai-huang. (2003). On Bare Singulars in Taiwan Learners' English Writing. Master Thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Ke,Yu-shan. (2004). Form-function Mappings in the Acquisition of If-conditionals: A Corpus-based Study. Master Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Kennedy, G.. (1992). Preferred ways of putting things. In Svartvik J. (Eds.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics (pp.335-373). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Kenny, Graeme. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Lee, Eun-Joo. (2004). A corpus-based analysis of the Korean EFL learners’ use of Conjunctive Adverbials. 영어교육 (English Teaching), 59 (4), 283-301.
Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 2-23). London: Longman.
Leung, Carrie. (2005). A contrastive comparison of the use of major English conjunctions by American and Hong Kong university students. Bachelor Thesis in General Linguistics. Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Lund University, Sweden.
Lin, Hsiu-Ling Irene. (2002). On the Omission of Be in Taiwan Learners’ English Writing. Master thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Liu, Anne Li-Er. (2002). A Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Investigation of Verb-Noun Miscollocations in Taiwan Learners’ English. Master thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Lornez, Gunter. (1998). Overstatement in advanced learners' writing: stylistic aspects of adjective intensification. In Sylviane Granger (Eds.), Learner English on Computer (pp.53-66). London and New York: Longman.
Lorenz, Gunter. (1999). Learning to cohere: Causal Links in native vs. non-native’ argumentative writing. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk and Eija Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create It and How to Describe It (pp. 55-76). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Matthews, P.H. (1997). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.
McEnery, Tony. & Gabrielatos, C. (2005). English corpus linguistics. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), Handbook of English linguistics. London: Blackwells.
McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew. (1996). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meyer, C. F. (1991). A Corpus-based study of apposition in English. In: K. Ajmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics (pp.166-181). London: Longman.
Milton, John. (1999). Lexical thickets and electronic gateways: making text accessible by novice writers. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes & Practices (pp. 221-243). Harlow: Longman.
Milton, J. & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students' writing. In Pemberton R. and Tsang E (Eds.), Studies in Lexis (pp. 215-246). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST).
Neff, Joanne, Dafouz, E., Herrera, H., Martinez, F., Rica, J. P., Diez, M., Prieto, R. & Sancho C. (2003). Contrasting learner corpora: the use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In Granger, Sylviane & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Research New Applications, New Challenges (pp.211-230). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi B.V.
Neuner, Jerome L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 92-103.
Owen, C. (1993). Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: Lexico-grammatical description for language learners. Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 167-187.
Parrot, Martin. (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R & Greenbaum S. (1973). A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Rutherford, W.E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and
Teaching. London: Longman.
Scott, V. (1996). Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1997). Reading concordances. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Spiegel, D.L.& Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children’s
writing revisited. Research in the Teaching of English, 24 (1), 48-66.
Summers, Della et al. (Eds.) (1995). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Oxford: Longman Group UK Limited.
Swales, John M. & Feak, Christine B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills: A Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tankó, G. (2004). The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. In Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp.157-181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
Tiernery, R. & Mosenthal, J. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17 (3), 215-229.
Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: design, development and applications. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson and T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference (pp. 800-809). UK: Lancaster University.
Williams, H. (1996). An Analysis of Conjunctive Adverbials Expressions in English. Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation in Applied Linguistics, UCLA.
Witte, S.P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 22, 189-204.
Yang, Ruiying & Allison, Desmond. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264-279.
Zamel, V. (1983). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37, 22-29.