Syntactic Structures to Report Facts in Descriptive Writing: Thai EFL Learners in a National Competition

Abhinan Wongkittiporn

Authors

Abhinan Wongkittiporn Lecturer, English Language Department, Rangsit University

Keywords:

applied linguistics, descriptive writing, syntactic structures, Thai EFL learners

Abstract

This study investigated syntactic structures to report facts as produced by Thai EFL learners. The study was divided into two phases. The first phase was a linguistic phase called documentary study. USA government tourism websites were observed to observe how syntactic structures are used to report facts. The conceptual framework of observations follow Radford’s (2009) English syntax of generative model and Kearns’ (2011) truth conditional theory. The online documentary research showed four syntactic structures to report facts including passive constructions, subjective complements, existential there constructions and transitive complements. These constructions became the prototypical members of syntactic structures for the study in the second phase. The second phase was a quantitative study in applied linguistics. This experiment was made up of Thai EFL learners, which was based on a purposive sampling method. The participants were 67 Thai mattayom students in Thailand. They participated in the national competition of English writing. The program was organized in 2024 by a Thai private university with the support of the Ministry of Culture, Thailand. These 67 students were instructed to write descriptive writing essays of 180-200 words. The data of syntactic structures to report facts was manually coded into the inferential statistical program SPSS 29. Accordingly, the results of the study were analyzed and reported. The results showed there was a statistically significant relationship between mattayom students’ English writing and syntactic structures to report facts where the p-value was 0.001. When comparing the results of Thai mattayom students with a previous study of American high school students, the discussion showed that both groups’ linguistic competence in English are similar syntactically and semantically. However, the difference between the two groups was a function of language use which was the pragmatic discourse of given and new information. Cohesion was found as Thai mattayom students’ major problem. The results of this study contribute to all schools in Thailand regarding the functions of language use. This issue should be taken into consideration by all Thai schools and stakeholders regarding how Thai mattayom students should be taught this knowledge called cohesion and coherence to improve their linguistic competence and increase their English writing effectiveness.

References

Andersen, H. (2001). Markedness and the theory of linguistic change, Henning Andersen (ed.)., In Actualization (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 219) (pp. 21–57). Benjamins.

Andrews, E. (1990). Markedness theory. Duke University Press.

Anthony, L. (2018). Introducing English for specific purposes. Routledge.

Brown, J. D. (2004). Resources on quantitative/statistical research for applied

linguists. Second Language Research, 20(4), 372-393. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658304sr245r

Culicover, P. W. (2021). Language change, variation, and universals. Oxford University Press.

Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2006). The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(9), 413-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.007

Diessel, H. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University

Press.

Elyıldırım, S. (2017). Avoidance strategy in foreign language production. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, 28(1), 231-242.

Fang, Z., Cao, P., & Murray, N. (2020). Language and meaning making: Register

choices in seventh-and ninth-grade students' factual writing. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100798.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100798

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2014). An introduction to language. Wadsworth Cencage Learning.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, K. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Jiménez-Fernández, A. (2020). Information-structure strategies in English and Spanish translation. Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 83-107.https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.4195

Kearns, K. (2011). Semantics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, K. (2015). A pragmatic-functional account for information structures. Academic Journal of Linguistics Research, 37(1), 25-53.

Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language learning, 27(1), 93-107.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00294.x

Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 Difference, L1-L2 Similarity or L2 Complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011657

Liu, J., et. al. (2024). Analyzing the dynamic co-movement between tourism and expected economic growth considering extreme events. Tourism Economics, 30(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816622112944

Lyons, J. (1978). Noam Chomsky. Penguin Books

Marsden, E., Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2013). Second language learning theories. Routledge.

McCarthy, T. (1998). Descriptive writing. Scholastic.

Mohammad, A., Al-Mofti, K. W., & Hussein, J. (2020). Difficulties of writing in English encountered by Iraqi EFL learners at university level. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(15), 5157-5163. https://doi.org/10.24271/garmian.2070322

Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their error; essential language teaching series. The Macmillan Press.

Nuyts, J. (2015). Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics, 86(1), 106-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015

O’neill, D. (2005). Talking about new information: the given/new distinction and children developing theory. Janet Wilde Astington & Jodie A. Baird. In Why language matter for theory of mind (pp. 84-100). Oxford University Press.

Phoocharoensil, S. (2011). Collocational errors in EFL learners' interlanguage. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(3), 103-120.

https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12112

Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English sentence structures. Cambridge University Press.

Radford, A. (2020). Analysing English sentence structure: An intermediate course in syntax. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1970). A non- contrastive approach to error analysis. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, San Francisco, March 1970.

Sanders, T. J. M., & Canestrelli, A. R. (2012). The processing of pragmatic

information in discourse. Hans-Jörg Schmid, Berlin (eds.). Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 201-232). De Gruyter Moutonhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.201

Saragih, E. E. & Siti, N. S. (2017). An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of

students’ Descriptive writing, English Journal, 11(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.32832/english.v11i1.1514

Septianasari, L. (2019). An analysis if students’ errors in transforming active to

passive sentence. The Journal of English Language Teaching, and Applied Linguistics [JELA], 1(2), 54-60.

Smolka, V. (2011). The end-weight and end-focus principles in rhematic subjects. Theories and Practices, 7(1), 79-110.

Smolka, V. (2017). What comes first, what comes next: Information packaging in written and spoken language. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica, 1(1), 51-61

Swan, A. (2016). Practical English grammar. Oxford University Press.

Timyam, N. (2014). An analysis of learner use of argument structure constructions: A case of Thai learners using the passive and existential constructions in English. Linguistics Journal, 8(1), 60.

Trenkic, D., & Pongpairoj, N. (2013). Referent salience affects second language article use. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 16(1), 152-166.https://doi.org/10/1017/s1366728912000156

Wardiman, A. et al. (2008). English in focus: For grade VII junior high school. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, DEPDIKNAS.

Wongkittiporn, A. (2021). Adverbial clauses in English cookbooks. Thoughts, (1), 72-104.

Wongkittiporn, A, (2022). Semantic interpretations of passive constructions in business news articles. Journal of Language, Religious and Culture, 11(2), 1-29.

Wongkittiporn, A. (2023a). Pragmatic perspectives of the raised DP in raising and passive constructions in applied linguistics articles. Liberal Arts Review, 18(1), 40-64. https://doi.org/10.14456/lar.2023.3

Wongkittiporn, A. (2023c). Agentless passive in English novels. Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University Journal, 17(2), 46-57.

Wongkittiporn, A. (2023d). Syntactic variations of the raised DP in passive voice via pragmatic discourse of givenness. Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University, 11(2), 219-246.

Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and transfer Errors: their common based and (possibly)differential effects on subsequent learning’. TESOLQuarterly, 14(4), 469-479.