Why is Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank my first recommendation?
By Adam Frick · Illustrated draftWhat if the idea is clear but the connection is missing?
For me, Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank is the best online resource available to writers. In much of the writing I see, the main difficulty lies between the ideas rather than inside the individual ideas. A sentence makes sense on its own, yet the reader must work out why the next sentence follows. Because that missing relationship matters to the argument, I want the writer to make the connection visible. Why leave your reader to supply a piece of reasoning that you already understand?
The University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank[1] starts from the job the language needs to do. Alongside sections of a research paper, the resource groups patterns by functions such as comparison, causality and transition. Through that organisation, you can ask what you mean before hunting for a more impressive word. Manchester also advises adapting the patterns to your own writing. My enthusiasm concerns that practical help, rather than a measured ranking of every writing website.
Clear sentences still need a clear relationship.
Show the link between clear facts.
Constructed teaching exampleThe survey covered one department. The sample cannot represent the whole university. A wider survey is needed.
Because the survey covered one department, the sample cannot represent the whole university. To address that limit, a wider survey is needed. Until the wider survey is complete, the conclusion should concern the sampled department.
Distinguish a contrast from a concession.
Constructed teaching exampleIn contrast to the first trial, the second trial used a smaller sample.
In spite of the smaller sample, the second trial produced a more precise estimate.
Keep the strength of the link honest.
Constructed teaching exampleBecause of the new policy, staff turnover fell.
The fall in staff turnover coincided with the new policy. The timing alone does not establish a cause.
Carry the old question into the new section.
Constructed teaching exampleThe survey has several limitations. Recommendations follow.
In view of the survey’s limited coverage, the next section proposes a trial rather than a university-wide policy.
Choose the relationship before the phrase.
Begin by saying the connection in ordinary words. If the next finding differs, use the comparison section[2] to help name the comparison. If you are explaining why something happened, consult the causality section[3] and check whether the evidence supports a cause or only an association. When the argument changes direction, the transition section[4] can help carry the earlier point into the next question.
What relationship are you claiming?
- Comparison
- In contrast to the earlier result, …
- Concession
- In spite of the smaller sample, …
- Reason
- Because the survey covered one department, …
- Development
- Building on that distinction, …
A polished link still needs honest reasoning.
In spite of my enthusiasm, Phrasebank cannot decide whether your claim follows from your evidence. A causal phrase can overstate an association, while a concession can invent an expectation that the earlier sentence never established. In view of those risks, I recommend the section on cautious language[5] alongside the linking patterns. My preference for a named reference also goes further than Manchester’s guidance, which includes single-word connectors.
Research gives a reason to make the relationship the priority. A 2019 study by Kleijn and colleagues[6] added or removed connectives in 20 authentic Dutch texts read by 794 adolescents. The study found different comprehension effects for different relationships, rather than a uniform benefit from adding connectors. In relation to my recommendation, those findings support careful selection; the experiment did not test Phrasebank or prove that longer English phrases always help.
References and evidence
- University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: organisation, intended users and adaptation guidance. ↩
- University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: Comparing and contrasting. ↩
- University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: Explaining causality. ↩
- University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: Signalling transition. ↩
- University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: Being cautious. ↩
- Kleijn, Pander Maat and Sanders (2019). Comprehension Effects of Connectives Across Texts, Readers, and Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 56(5–6), 447–464. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257. ↩
- University of Manchester. About Academic Phrasebank: rhetorical moves, authentic sources and selection criteria. ↩
Read the evidence and its limits.
My description of the writing I encounter is a teaching observation, not a measured prevalence claim. My recommendation of Phrasebank as the best resource is a personal judgement. Manchester’s account of the resource’s development[7] explains the use of authentic academic sources and communicative functions. The same account includes a native-speaker naturalness criterion, so my recommendation does not mean that every selection principle represents my proposed international consensus.
The Dutch comprehension study distinguishes local effects from global comprehension. A post-hoc analysis found a global benefit for difficult texts, while the local effects varied by relationship. The study reports better comprehension with causal and contrastive connectives but poorer comprehension with additive connectives. Because the study concerns Dutch adolescent reading, I use the findings to qualify my teaching argument rather than to claim a universal English formula.