Recurrent Multi-word Sequences: Syntactic Structure and Function in EFL Student Writing Texts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i2.12429Keywords:
Recurrent Multi-word Sequences; EFL Writing; Syntactic Structure; Discourse Function; Learner CorpusAbstract
This study addresses the limited empirical attention to how Recurrent Multi-word Sequences (RMS) reflect syntactic structure and function in EFL students’ writing, particularly in the English Language Education Study Programme (ELESP), Universitas Negeri Gorontalo. It examines how students use RMS in terms of syntactic structure and function and compares the writing patterns of third-semester and fifth-semester students. A qualitative comparative design was employed using a learner corpus consisting of 143 student writing texts, with 98 texts from third-semester students and 45 texts from fifth-semester students. Data were analyzed using AntConc to identify four-word RMS based on frequency and range, followed by concordance analysis to examine their syntactic structures and discourse functions. The findings reveal a clear difference in syntactic patterns between the two cohorts. Third-semester students predominantly used noun phrase (NP)-structured RMS, accounting for 66.7% of their total RMS frequency, whereas fifth-semester students predominantly used verb phrase (VP)-structured RMS, accounting for 66.3%. Functionally, discourse organizers were dominant in both cohorts, representing 79.5% of RMS in the third-semester corpus and 64.2% in the fifth-semester corpus. However, fifth-semester students showed a higher proportion of stance expressions, increasing from 20.5% in the third-semester corpus to 35.8% in the fifth-semester corpus. The findings suggest a shift from topic-centered and referential language patterns toward more verb-centered, general academic, and evaluative patterns as students progress to a higher semester. Pedagogically, the findings imply that EFL writing instruction should provide greater attention to recurrent academic language patterns, particularly varied noun and verb phrase constructions, discourse organizers, and stance expressions, to support students’ syntactic development, cohesion, and ability to express academic arguments more effectively.
References
Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students’ Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspectives.
Alawerdy, A. S., & Alalwi, F. S. (2022). Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1053310
Albelihi, H. (2022). A corpus-based investigation of phrasal complexity in a corpus-based investigation of phrasal complexity in l1, l2 phd students, and expert writers in education l1, l2 phd students, and expert writers in education field field. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/educ_llss_etds/
Appel, R., Geluso, J., & Feng, H. H. (2024). An examination of phrase-frames in L2 english academic writing: Exploring relationships with writing quality. System, 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103349
Casal, J. E., & Yoon, J. (2023). Frame-based formulaic features in L2 writing pedagogy: Variants, functions, and student writer perceptions in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2023.03.004
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). LEXICAL BUNDLES IN L1 AND L2 ACADEMIC WRITING. 14(2), 30–49. http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/chenbaker.pdf
Cortes, V. (2013a). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
Cortes, V. (2013b). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, & Viviana Corted. (2004). Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118271643
Ha, M. J. (2022). Syntactic Complexity in EFL Writing: Within-Genre Topic and Writing Quality 1. In Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal (CALL-EJ) (Vol. 23, Number 1).
Halliday, M. A.K. & Hasan, K. (1976). 1976_Cohesion in English .pdf. 374.
Husnaini, H. (2022). Development of Self Esteem-Oriented Micro Teaching Materials for IAIN Palopo English Education Students. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 538-560.
Ismayanti, D., & Syam, A. T. (2022). The Community Manipulation through Big Brother’ s Tyranny in George Orwell’ s Nineteen Eighty-Four. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(2), 1556â-1569.
James R. Nattinger and Jeanette S. DeCarrico. (1994). LEXICAL PHRASES AND LANGUAGE TEACHING Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. xvi + 218. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 254–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013000
Ken Hyland. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. https://studylib.net/doc/8902747/as-can-be-seen--lexical-bundles-and-disciplinary-variation?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Li, Y. K., & Fang, A. B. (2022). Synergistic effects of multiword sequences structure, function, frequency and association on raters’ evaluations of essay quality. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026658
Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098
Quoc Tuan, N., Thi Bao Trang, N., & Vu Quynh Nhu, N. (2023). USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN PARAGRAPH WRITING BY EFL STUDENTS AT ENGLISH LANGUAGE CENTERS IN VIETNAM. In VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES (Vol. 39, Number 3).
Wang, W., Chen, W., Shi, S., Tong, L., & Duan, M. (2024). A Corpus-Based Study on Cohesion Development in Writing by EFL Novices. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15(3), 772–786. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1503.10
Wray, A. (2013). Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(3), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000013
Yang, Y., Yap, N. T., & Ali, A. M. (2022). A Review of Syntactic Complexity Studies in Context of EFL/ESL Writing. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i10/14843
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Indah Nuraini Gusasi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
