The Implementation of Structural Linguistic Approach through the Analysis of English Clauses into Phrases to Develop Achievements of Native Indonesian Speaking Students of English

Muhammad Basri D.¹, Andi Tenri Ampa², Kaharuddin³

¹English Department of Faculty of Letters, UMI Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

²English Education Department of Postgraduate Program, Unismuh Makassar, Indonesia

³English Department of Faculty of Letters, UMI Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: The article was concerned with the syntactic analysis of English clauses into phrases based on the structural linguistic approach. The materials had covered the illustrations of the use of brackets and tree diagram to identify the constituents of phrases within the English clauses.  The research aimed to reveal the power of structural linguistic approach through the analysis of constituents constructed in phrases to develop the students’ English achievements. The method had been organized to conduct an experimental design, including pre-test, treatment, and post-test. The test which was classified as an objective type consisted of 18 kinds of syntactic constituents. The research samples consisted of 40 persons. The course materials had been assumed as feed provided to the course participants. The data were organized and processed to obtain a mean percentage for each syntactic constituent. The findings revealed that the native Indonesian speaking students of English gained the improvements of the syntactic constituents manipulated in phrases being derived from clauses. The comparison between the results of pre-test with 41.53% and those of post-test with 66.39% had been done, so that the progress of achievements after treatment was obviously indicated to be significant (59.86%). The power of feed provision through analyses was also indicated to give positive effects to the given students as the course participants. The approach through the two kinds of analyses were profitably implemented for the sake of developing the students’ English achievements.

KEYWORDS: Structural Linguistics, English Phrases and Clauses, English Achievements

INTRODUCTION

[The influence of global information that is moving very rapidly makes language very important to play the role of social status and social function, so that all of them can be applied properly in the scope of linguistic and non-linguistic issues. It has already been grasped that English is mostly used as a tool for communication. Crystal (1997) states that English has become the global language of the world and has become the first largest language in terms of the number of countries that use English as an official language. And, until now the language is still known as a language that ranks first as an international language and a global world language. In another perspective by O’Neil. (2010) who states that English is the third largest in terms of the number of native speakers, namely 341 million people, with at least 140 countries, after Mandarin with 874 million people from 16 countries, and Hindi (India) with 366 million people from 17 countries.

Linguists see language as a form, namely sounds or letters, and then combine them into larger units into words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and so on. The merging of these linguistic elements is also done to reveal our thoughts on something. Hence, this problem is the scope of syntax (Bell, 1986; Harrison, 1987; Prasad & Sebastian, 2014). It is stated by Yusifova (2013) that syntax establishes an organized system of the form and meaning of a thought. Any thought in language can be expressed in different forms which allow two semantic descriptions in a sentence to appear: real or concrete and idiomatic or figurative.

The division of English clauses can be broadly divided into independent and dependent clauses (Jackson, 1985). The research focuses on the discussion of independent clauses, which are constructed from categories of phrases that occupy their respective functions. Knowledge of linguistic structures is referred to as competence, while the realization of this knowledge in actual events is referred to as performance. The problem of competence and performance is definitely very important in language learning (Titone & Danesi, 1985; Basri, et al., 2013).

The view of the structuralist approach states that language learning must proceed gradually and systematically in the form of a set of habits. So, structural linguistics specifically states the importance of mastering language elements that are separate from the target language, for example the need to identify: phonology, vocabulary, and grammar. Listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills must also be separated from each other because they are considered important to test one thing at a time (Heaton, 1989). Further, the instructors need specific knowledge and skills to assess and explain specific patterns of student’s abilities and difficulties (Nelson, 2013).

The syntax area includes English phrases and clauses. Phrases are words or groups of words that form certain meanings according to linguistic rules. Phrases can identify objects, show actions, and explain grammatical elements in sentences (Ravindra, 2016). Previous research found that phrases are very important to analyse distribution clauses using machine translation (Phopiphat&Kongakchandra, 2015). Also, Linzen& Baroni (2021) have conducted research on the syntactic abilities of neural networks that have rapidly expanded beyond agreement to include other various syntactic phenomena.

English phrases have five types or categories that are very essential in language learning. The five categories are noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP), adjective phrase (AdjP), adverb phrase (AdvP), and prepositional phrase (PrepP). English NP is an earlier phrase that must be mastered because this type can fulfil four functions, namely: subject, object, complement, and adjunct. The predicate function can only be filled by the VP category. Thus, those are described by Jackson (1985) regarding the functions and categories of English phrases. It is further emphasized that the subject function is usually filled by NP; predicate function is always filled by VP; object function can be filled by NP or PrepP; complement function can be filled by NP or AdjP; and the adjunct function can be filled by AdvP, PrepP, or NP.

Phrases have certain functions that must be used correctly in clause construction. Phrase function is very important to fill in the subject (S), predicate (P), object (O), complement (C), and adjunct (A). Syntactic analysis that reduces functions simultaneously is very helpful for students to recognize the elements and then the elements that make up a phrase. Thus, the phrases and their functions must be mastered by students in learning English.

A phrase is a word or a group of words that can stand as a grammatical unit. It should be clarified that PrepP can function as an object; this is called the object of a preposition (Finch, 2002). According to Ali(2018), an object is an entity or participant who experiences an action performed by the doer of the action. Syntactically, English objects can be direct or indirect. Then, Ruby (2001) states that an object is an entity that gets an action from a subject.

A study of syntax contains analyses. The well-known analyses are bracketed, immediate constituent, and tree diagram analyses. Each of these has a definite use to make the students understand for identifying and classifying the syntactic categories with their functions. The subject requires competence and performance and the linguistic knowledge and language skills. Therefore, to design a model for the instructional materials of the English syntax, we need to know all syntactic matters with these analyses.

It is common knowledge that English phrases become a big problem for students in learning English because there are differences in the strings of words from Indonesian. It has been found that each part of word order of the subject, verb and complement in Indonesian and English is different. In Indonesian, the subject can be placed at the end of the sentence, while in English, it will be a passive sentence (Azami &Sholihah, 2021). Based on these problems, it is necessary to have a solution with various alternatives, such as contrastive analysis of the two languages, syntactic analysis with various variants, and so on. In this study, the discussion will focus more on the analysis of the use of round brackets and the analysis of tree diagrams which are variants of syntactic analysis based on the application of the concept of structural linguistic thinking.

METHOD

The research used an experimental design that aimed to describe the students’ English achievements and their progress in identifying the syntactic constituents. The design was based on these steps: pre-test, treatment, post-test, and comparison. For the purpose ofexplaining the progress after treatment, the research design had been conducted as follows:

Pre-test                                         Post-test

Treatment

Comparison

Pre-test had been done before treatment as the starting point. After the pre-test, the treatment was conducted. The treatment was the provision of course materials that had been assumed as feed to the course participants, namely native Indonesian speaking students of English. The purposive sampling was treated to the third semester students who had taken English as their major subject. The research samples consisted of 40 persons. Those students had to learn the learning materials concerning the illustrations of syntactic analyses of round brackets and tree diagrams. Those variants of syntactic analysis were based on the concept of structural linguistics. An example of the material was presented as follows:

The clause: The gardeners will eat their lunch under the tree.

(1) Analysis by using round brackets:

The gardeners (S:NP) will eat (P:VP) their lunch (O:NP) under the tree (A:PrepP);

The (id) gardeners (H) will (mod) eat (lex v) their (id) lunch (H) under (prep) the tree (NP); the (id) tree (H).

(2) Analysis by using a tree diagram:

(2) Analysis by using a tree diagram:

S

Cl

S:NP                  P:VP       O:NP A:Prep P

id        H       mod   lex v   id    H   prep   NP

id    H

The gardeners will  eat  their  lunch under the  tree

Notes: The meanings of the symbols used in the above analysis were as follows:

S (Sentence), Cl (clause), S: NP (Subject: Noun Phrase), P: VP(Predicate: Verb Phrase), O: NP (Object: Noun Phrase), A: PrepP (Adjunct: Prepositional Phrase), id (identifier), H (head), mod (modal), lex v (lexical verb), prep (preposition), and NP (Noun Phrase).

Treatment as the teaching learning processes coped with the teacher’s instructions and the students’ activities. The treatment was conducted by providing the students with sufficient examples of analyses of English clauses into phrases. They were instructed to master the materials within a week period through autonomous learning and small talk by a lecturer. The materials had been submitted to the students before a meeting schedule. At the moment, the opportunity was available to make use of network-based learning system in which the result of a learning activity was delivered electronically using computers and computer-based media. For example, the students were joining the course meeting through the application of Google Meet. The applications that had been available in the students’ mobile phones and laptops changed the ways easier to learn and the users felt enjoyable.

After the treatment, the post-test was done. The pre-test and the post-test instruments consisted of 18 categories with their constituents which had been designed in the objective test construction of 30 items. The type of objective test was a multiple choice with four alternatives. The two test instruments were different, the difficulty level was the same. When the post-test had been done, the last step was to make the comparison between for getting the difference between the results of pre-test and those of post-test as the effects of treatment. The given effects had to be interpreted after the data had been organized were analysed by using a mean score percentage. The purpose of classification and interpretation of analysis results was to formulate the research statements.

III.  RESULTS

The main parts presented in the results include (1) The students’ syntactic achievements in pre-test, (2) The students’ syntactic achievements in post-test, and (3) The students’ progress of syntactic achievements.

The students’ syntactic achievements in pre-test

Table 1: The students’ syntactic achievements in pre-test

The lowest achievement in the syntactic categories and constituents occurs in noun phrase (NP) which functions as an adjunct (15.00%), prepositional phrase (PrepP) which functions as adjunct (17.50%), and non-lexical verbs which functions as predicate (22.50%). This achievement type is found below the score of 30%. The syntactic categories and constituents which have been achieved above 30% are Noun Phrase functioning as object, prepositional phrase functioning as object, adjective phrase functioning as complement, adverb phrase functioning as adjunct, head, adjective, identifier, lexical verb, and modal. The lower achievements of the syntactic categories and constituents occur between 32.50% and 47.50%. Of the 18 syntactic items that are pretested, only six items are achieved 50% and above by students of the English literature study program, namely noun phrase which functions as the subject, verb phrase which functions as predicate, quantifier, preposition, adverb, and conjunction. This achievement is classified as a higher result than the other syntactic items. As a result, the mean score in this pre-test is 41.53%. What is problematic as described in pre-test will be a concern to focus on syntactic categories and constituents that are still low in achievement.

The students’ syntactic achievements in post-test

Table 2: The students’ syntactic achievements in post-test

The results of data analysis in the post-test show that the native Indonesian speaking students of English obtain an increase in the syntactic categories and constituents with the average score percentage reaching 66.39%. None of them is still in the percentage below 30% and only three of the 18 items that have been tested have a score percentage below 50%. The three items are a prepositional phrase which functions as an object (45.00%), a Noun Phrase which functions as an adjunct (47.50%), and an identifier which functions as a pre-modifier in an NP (45.00%). The other syntactic categories and constituents reach the score percentage of above 50.00%, i.e. ranging from 55.00% to 92.50%. The results of students’ syntactic achievements in post-test indicate that the feed provision through analyses is powerful to give positive effects to the university students majoring in English. The approach through the two kinds of analyses, round brackets and tree diagram, are obviously advantageous to manipulate for developing the students’ syntactic achievements of English. It is kindly recommended to implement the two variants of analyses based on a view of structural linguistics.

The students’ progress of syntactic achievements

Table 3: The students’ progress of syntactic achievements

The average percentage of students’ progress in achieving English syntax is 59.86%. The progress achieved is supported by the syntactic elements which have improved greatly. The biggest increase was achieved by noun phrase which functions as an adjunct (216.67%), prepositional phrase which also functions as an adjunct (214.29%), and non-lexical verb which functions as a predicate of a sentence (255.56%). This can be seen in the comparison between pre-test and post-test on noun phrase which functions as an adjunct (15.0% < 47.50%), prepositional phrase which also functions as an adjunct (17.50% < 55.00%), and non-lexical verbs that function as a predicate of a sentence (22.50% < 80.00%). The progress achieved by students in these three syntactic elements reaches greater and extraordinary results compared to other elements.

The extraordinary achievement above was followed by other syntactic elements, namely head (92.31%), adjective (73.33%), lexical verb (86.67%), and modal (100%). This can be seen in each comparison between pre-test and post-test on head (32.50% < 62.50 %), adjective (37.50% < 65.00%), lexical verb (37.50% < 70.00%), and modal (35.00% < 70.00%). The progress achieved by students in these syntactic elements achieves greater results than the other elements. In fact, the other syntactic elements are also progressing, although the progress achieved is under 60.00%. Thus, it can be said that the use of both types of analysis based on a structural linguistic approach has shown excellent results. Therefore, the two analyses that have been used are very helpful for students to improve their syntactic competence achievements.

DISCUSSION

The greatest increase was achieved by noun phrase which functions as an adjunct (216.67%). In the test item ‘noun phrase ‘They needed to visit the areas a few weeks ago,’ the underlined phrase is categorized as a noun phrase (NP). The phrase ‘a few weeks ago’ consists of a string of words: a few (quant) weeks (N-mod) ago (H). It is stated by Ampa and Basri (2020) that the nouns as a subject and an object were the most wide-spread functions in sentences. The complement was the third group of a number of patterns and nouns as adjuncts were the least used group. Then, Yu (2020) argues that nouns and classifiers were in a crossing relationship, where the role of classifiers is similar to that of adjectives that modified nouns. And,Aikhenvald (2000) also argues that classifiers were strictly described as numeral classifiers. So, after the provision of materials, the students’ achievements increased from 15.00% to 47.50%. The example of analysis assisted the students to know that an NP might also be used as an adjunct. Their previous competence was limited to the functions of an NP as a subject and a predicate. Besides, the research results reveal that the students mostly used general noun and repetition of lexical cohesion devices in their essays (Ampa and Basri, 2019).

A prepositional phrase (PrepP) also functions as an adjunct. The students have obtained greatest increase of this category (214.29%). In a clause ‘Those pupils are learning biology in the classroom,’ contains a PrepP functioning as an adjunct. A PrepP has a unique in its construction which is different from the other phrase categories or types. The PrepPconstruction consists of preposition + NP in which ‘in’ is a preposition and ‘the classroom’ is an NP. The term ‘adjunct’ is unfamiliar for the students, but after having a look at the diagram they get competence of this. The power of the diagram will show the reality to them.

The progress of non-lexical verb which functions as a predicate of a sentence reaches 255.56%. This clause can be analysed as John’s jacket (S:NP) was (P:VP) on the table (A:PrepP) last night (A: NP). The VP of ‘was’ is a non-lexical verb which functions as a predicate in a clause. Cf: The clause ‘My family wants to know where you stay now’ contains a lexical verb, that is the word ‘wants’. The listener understands the meaning of the verb ‘wants’, but the word ‘was’ does not have any meaning, but it must be used for grammatical function. If the word ‘was’ is used in this context ‘My brother was learning English when I saw him’, it is not a lexical verb, but it is a primary auxiliary. To make a distinction between the present and the past forms of ‘be’ as non-lexical verb and as a primary auxiliary is the most problematic issue in syntactic structure. The previous findings by Ishaku (2020) reveal that syntactic errors were mostly caused by incomplete mastery of English in Nigeria and also by interference from students’ first language. Another problematic issue is closely related to the morphological process. In this context, the language user combines with another in order to form a new word (Ampa, et al., 2019), but native Indonesian speaking students of English have distinctive ways to do so. However, the making use of the two variants of the syntactic analysis really assists the students to develop their syntactic achievements.

The extraordinary achievement above was followed by other syntactic elements. The term ‘head’ (H) reaches the progress of 92.31%, The term ‘H’ is really understood by the students after they have got the illustrations of syntactic constituents through the variants of analyses. The clause ‘My uncle went down the valley last night’ consists of three heads: uncle, valley, and night. These are the heads of NPs. If the head is a noun, it must be an NP.  The NP has four functions in a clause, i.e. as subject, object, complement, and adjunct. So, only a predicate function is not filled in by an NP, because the VP category must always fill in this position. Because of syntactic function, the noun phrase is remarked as the most important phrase in English and Albanian languages, while other phrases have limited syntactic functions (Mahmudi, 2021). There are some syntactic features, such as adjective phrase, adverb phrase, noun phrase, and verb phrase (Li (2022).

Another greater achievement that can be seen in a comparison between pre-test and post-test is an adjective which is used as a pre-modifier of thehead. The comparative achievement of this constituent occurs as a pre-test which is fewer than a post-test (37.50% < 65.00%). An example of this constituent is shown in this clause, that is ‘Some people went to another islandlast Wednesday.’ The word ‘last’ is an adjective which is used to a modify the proper noun‘Wednesday.’ So, ‘last Wednesday’ is an NP; last (adj) Wednesday (H). This NP is used as an adjunct in the clause. After the students have got the materials, they already know the function of this adjective as a pre-modifier of the head in an NP. The materials which have been illustrated through the syntactic analysis will be very fruitful for developing their achievements in which the progress reaches 73.33%.

One of the extraordinary achievements that has been reached by students is a lexical verb. The progress of achievement between pre-test and post-test is 86.67%. The calculation of this progress is the result of the post-test minus the result of the pre-test divided by the result of the pre-test then multiplied by 100% (70.00-37.50/37.50×100%= 86.67%). This progress indicates the successful way for obtaining an increase of syntactic achievements. The lexical verb which is used in this clause ‘His father’s friends liketo listen to the English news’ is the word ‘like.’ In syntactic analysis, the word ‘like’ in this context is a VP functioning as a predicate. The object in this clause is not a phrase, but it is an infinitive clause; it is specifically called as ‘to infinitive clause’. The types of subordinate clause in English are well-known as the problematic issues in the English syntax, so that the implementation of analyses must be promptly done. Syntactic analysis is needed to assess the relationship between the words in the sentence and the grammatical structure of the sentence, so that the actual meaning of the sentence can be obtained. This type of analysis pays attention to the order of words in a sentence, where this aspect is ignored by a lexical analysis.

In a clause ‘You can represent the others tomorrow afternoon’, a modal auxiliary can be seen. The underlined word ‘can’ is a modal which is used to represent the other modal auxiliaries in English. The term ‘modality’ is defined as a category that includes one type of speech act or level of certainty with what is said (Matthews, 2005; Cain, 2007; Wided, 2010). It should be introduced to the students that a modal is never followed by an infinitive with to. The result of post-test is greater than that of a pre-test (70.00% >35.00%), so that the progress reached in this constituent is 100%. It is trusted that the implementation of a syntactic analysis will be beneficial for the students in learning English as a foreign language in Indonesia. Research findings by Abbas &Mugair (2018) reveal that speakers of Iraqi dialects were able to use different types of clauses to convey general and predicative meanings simultaneously. The feed provision through analyses gives positive effects to their syntactic achievements. And, the development of technologies changes the ways easier to learn and the users feel enjoyable. Thus, network-based learning system assists both lecturer and students to be in the smooth communication for the teaching and learning processes.

Considering that syntax is one of the fields of structural linguistics that is essential to be built and developed in the English curriculum because this science has a role to improve a person’s ability to improve his English skills, both spoken and written language domains. It is stated by Rodríguez‐Ortiz, et al. (2021) that syntax was a part of the domain of oral language, while oral language affected reading comprehension. This experts’ opinion can also be interpreted that one’s level of syntactic ability can affect the level of reading comprehension. The research results reveal that there were three components which had been included as the greatest feasibility to be used in teaching the English Syntax (95.00%), namely: thesuitability of students’ dailylives,the accuracy of the English vocabulary, and the accuracy of the English grammar (Basri and Ampa, 2019). Furthermore, the previous research by Brimo et al. (2017); Mokhtari & Niederhauser (2013); Cain (2007) reveal the role of syntax in the development of reading skills. Besides, Potekhin (2021) will, based on the data analysis, formulate a null hypothesis which states that linguistic and syntactic features of the literary work can be used in predicting its reader rating. Basri, et al. (2020) point out that the percentage rate of 81.66% indicated that among the 20 items of skills the pharmacy students needed to acquire the specific skills for their reading aspect development, such as the need to follow simple written directions in reading (95.00%), to understand rules and regulations (87.00%), and to recognize familiar words on simple notices (86.00%).

CONCLUSION

The average score percentage of achievement in the syntactic categories and constituents in the pre-test is 41.53%. The main problematic issues faced by the students before treatment mostly occur in noun phrase (NP) which functions as an adjunct(15.00%), prepositional phrase (PrepP) which functions as adjunct (17.50%), and non-lexical verbs which functions as predicate (22.50%). Of the 18 syntactic items that are pretested, there are a number ofsyntactic categories and constituents that occur between 32.50% and 47.50%, for examples, NP functioning as object, PrepPfunctioning as object, AdjP functioning as complement, and AdvP functioning as object. However, the results of the post-test show that the native Indonesian speaking students of English obtain an increase in the syntactic categories and constituents with the average score percentage reaching 66.39%. The results of students’ syntactic achievements in post-test indicate that the feed provision through analyses is powerful to give positive effects to the university students majoring in English. The approach through the two kinds of analyses, round brackets and tree diagram, are obviously advantageous to manipulate for developing the students’ syntactic achievements of English. It is kindly recommended that the English lecturers of syntax implement the two variants of analyses based on a view of structural linguistics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research results have supported   to be published internationally by our colleges in our faculties for the sake of science and technology development. We, the authors, should really express indebtedness and our thanks to all parties.

REFERENCES

1. Abbas, A. M., &Mugair, S. K. (2018). A Morpho-syntactic Analysis of Modal Verbs in Iraqi Dialects: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 107-112.
2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Ali, F. Q. (2018). Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of English and Arabic Objects: A Contrastive Study. Al-Adab Journal, 2(126), 1-8.
4. Ampa, A.T. and Basri D. M. (2019). Lexical and Grammatical Cohesions in the Students’ Essay Writing as the English Productive skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1339 (012072), 1-6.
5. Ampa, A.T., Basri D.M., and Ramdayani, S. (2019). A Morphophonemic Analysis On The Affixation In The Indonesian Language,8(7), 267-273
6. Ampa, A.T. and Basri D. M. (2020). The Assessment of Students’ Competencies in Noun Phrase Constructions Based on the Syntactic Functions. Asian EFL Journal, 27(2.3), 288-307.
7. Arlotto, A. (1972). Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Azami, M. I., &Sholihah, F. A. (2021). Contrastive Analysis on Syntactic Word Order of Indonesian and English Academic Writing. English Teaching Journal: A journal of English Literature, Linguistics, and Education, 9(2), 70~77.
9. Basri, D. M., Ampa, A. T. & Junaid. (2013). Syntactic Errors IXin Descriptive Paragraphs by Native Indonesian Speaking Students of English. IJL. 5 (5): 125-137.
10. Basri, D. M., and Ampa, A.T. (2019).The Feasibility of Syntactic Teaching Materials Development through IFDAD Model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1339(012071), 1-5.
11. Basri D.M., Ampa, A.T., and Ramdayani, S. (2020). A Needs Analysis of ESP Design for Pharmacy Students, 16(4), 271-289.
12. Bell, R. T. (1987). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
13. Brimo, D., Apel, K. & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57–74.
14. Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship? Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28(4), 679–694.
15. Crystal, D. (1997). A World Language in the Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Finch, J. (2004). Basic Linguistic Terms and Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Harrison, N. (1986). Successful Writing. Peter Francis Publishers, Great Britain.
18. Heaton, J. B. (1989). Writing English Language Tests. New Edition. New York: Longman, Inc.
19. Ishaku, J. N. (2020). Analysis of Syntactic Errors in Essays of HND1 Students of Federal Polytechnic, Mubi, Adamawa State. Journal of Languages, Linguistics, & Literary Studies, 9(3), 142-150.
20. Jackson, H. (1985). Analyzing English: An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Pergamon, Oxford.
21. Li, L. (2022). Analysis of Syntactic Complexity and Semantic Coherence of Academic English Writing Based onParticle Swarm Optimization. Mobile Information Systems, 2022.
22. Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2021). Syntactic structure from deep learning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 195-212.
23. Mahmudi, R., & Mahmudi, M. I. (2021). Noun phrases and their syntactic functions in English and Albanian Language.  Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies, 10(4), 10-17.
24. Matthews, R. (2005). Modal Auxiliaries Constructions TAM and Interrogatives. In Fachinetti / Krug / Palmer(eds). London: Longman.
25. Mokhtari, K. & Niederhauser, D.S. (2013). Vocabulary and syntactic knowledge factors in 5th grade students’ reading comprehension. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(2), 157–170. Retrieved from. https://search.proquest.com/docview/ 1720064226?accountid=14744.
26. Nelson, N. W. (2013). Syntax development in the school-age years: Implications for assessment and intervention. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39(3), 9-17.
27. O’Neil, D. (2010) Language Contact. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
28. Phopiphat, P &Kongakchandra, R. (2015). The Recognition System of Sentential Noun Phrase Structure Using Conditional Random Field Model. IJAIA. 6 (4): 53-62.
29. Potekhin, A. (2021). Lexical and Syntactic Features for Reader Rating Prediction. English Teaching Journal: A journal of English Literature, Linguistics, and Education, 9(2), 70~77.
30. Prasad, R. & Sebastian, M. P. (2014). A Survey of Phrase Structure Learning Methods for Text Classification. IJNLC. Vol. 3 (2), pp. 33-46.
31. (2016). Morphological Analysis of Verb Phrase in English Teaching. RJELAL. 4 (3): 558-564.
32. Rodríguez‐Ortiz, I. R., Moreno‐Pérez, F. J., Simpson, I. C., Valdés‐Coronel, M., & Saldaña, D. (2021). The influence of syntactic knowledge on reading comprehension varies as a function of oral vocabulary in Spanish‐speaking children. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(3), 695-714.
33. Ruby, C. (2001). Writing and Grammar.Newyork: Prentice Hall.
34. Titone, R. & Danesi, M. (1985). Applied Psycholinguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
35. Wided, B. (2010). Dissertation: Modality in English, French, Arabic Biomedical Discourse: A Contrastive Study of Drug Information Leaflets. Al-Geria: Mentouri University.
36. Yu, J. I. A. X. I. N. G. (2020). Syntactic-semantic analysis of classifiers in Mandarin. University of Rochester working papers in the language sciences, 8 (1). MIT Press.
37. Yusifova, G. I. (2013). Syntactic Features of English Idioms. IJEL. 3 (3): 133-138.