SENTENCE COMPLEXITY IN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING: A SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ COMPOSITIONS

Authors

  • Samia Moustaghfir Doctor of Education, Arts and Pedagogical Engineering Research Laboratory, Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco orcid.org/0009-0000-7673-8413
  • Abdelmounaim Ramila PhD Candidate, Language and Society Laboratory, Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco orcid.org/0009-0004-1101-3576

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v8i3.642

Keywords:

critical thinking, syntactic complexity, EFL writing, higher-order thinking, sentence structure

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigates the impact of explicit instruction in critical thinking (CT) on the syntactic complexity of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' argumentative writing. Specifically, it explores whether teaching CT enhances the use of complex sentence types, namely compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences, as indicators of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Intact EFL classes (N = 100), randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, participated in a pre-test and post-test design. The experimental group received CT instruction embedded within their writing course, while the control group followed a standard curriculum. Syntactic complexity was measured using metrics such as Mean Length of Sentence (MLS), number of clauses per sentence, and frequency of complex sentence types (compound, complex, and compound-complex). Post-test results revealed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in all complexity measures. Specifically, the experimental group demonstrated higher mean sentence length, t(98) = 8.87, p < .001, d = 1.78; more clauses per sentence, t(98) = 10.12, p < .001, d = 2.03; greater use of complex sentences, t(98) = 7.21, p < .001; and compound-complex sentences, t(98) = 6.47, p < .001. These findings suggest that explicit CT instruction fosters not only higher-order thinking but also measurable syntactic development, highlighting a strong link between cognitive and linguistic complexity in EFL writing.

 

Author Biographies

  • Samia Moustaghfir, Doctor of Education, Arts and Pedagogical Engineering Research Laboratory, Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco orcid.org/0009-0000-7673-8413

    Dr. Samia Moustaghfir holds a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Ibn Tofail in Kenitra, Morocco. She is also an experienced ESP (English for Specific Purposes) teacher with over ten years in the field. Her interests include applied linguistics, critical thinking, TEFL, ESP, artificial intelligence and syntax.

  • Abdelmounaim Ramila, PhD Candidate, Language and Society Laboratory, Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco orcid.org/0009-0004-1101-3576

    Abdelmounaim Ramila is a high school teacher with a B.A. degree in English Studies, linguistics as a major, and an M.A. degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). Currently, he is pursuing a doctorate degree at the Language et Société Research Laboratory, University of Ibn Tofail, Morocco. His interests include applied linguistics and syntax.

References

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587975

Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?. Reading and writing, 22(2), 185-200. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5

Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9

Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 384-414. Retrieved from https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/biber/Biber/Biber%20(1986).pdf

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/variation-across-speech-and-writing/A546CF5ED8F8E62F1432CB2F369CF356

Biber, D. (1994). An analytical framework for register studies. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 31-56. https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/162e816223841ba5cc4031fbd2bd80d4c/sourcefilter

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2002). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman, 1999. Hard-back Ģ69. Pp. xii+ 1, 204. Reviewed by Manfred Krug, University of Freiburg. English Language and Linguistics, 6(379-416). Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Grammar_of_Spoken_and_Written_English.html?id=qSlHEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Register_Genre_and_Style.html?id=0HUhombmOJUC&redir_esc=y

Biber, D., & Jones, J. K. (2009). Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics. In Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 1286-1304). De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/biber/Biber/Biber_offprint.pdf

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: the influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223-250. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics/article/grammatical-change-in-the-noun-phrase-the-influence-of-written-language-use/AE0D25C8DE604BEB23602923DCC9C7B9

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Being specific about historical change: The influence of subregister. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104-134. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003087991-12/being-specific-historical-change-douglas-biber-bethany-gray

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units—A response to WeiWei Yang. Tesol Quarterly, 47(1), 192-201. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43267782

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639-668. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059

Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Ablex. Retrieved from https://www.sweetstudy.com/sites/default/files/qx/16/03/03/11/chafe_paper1.pdf

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. Retrieved from https://www.colinphillips.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/chomsky1965-ch1.pdf

Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493–510. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/3588238

Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455-472). Academic press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012174698-8/50045-X

Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 6-13. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1494634.pdf

De Clercq, B., & Housen, A. (2017). A cross‐linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315-334. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12396

Edmonds, B. (1999). Syntactic measures of complexity. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2330748_Syntactic_Measures_of_Complexity

Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, cultural identity, and education in Morocco. Boston, MA: Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b104063

Halliday, M. A. (1979). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. Function and context in linguistic analysis, 1, 57-79.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1994). Writing Science: Literacy And Discursive Power. CRC Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Writing_Science.html?id=O-_BjTuJ40kC&redir_esc=y

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Hallidays-Introduction-to-Functional-Grammar/Halliday-Matthiessen/p/book/9781444146608

Hinkel, E. L. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. Tesol Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588505

Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 35(1), iii-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165818

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719

Hyland, K. L. (2016). Teaching and Researching Writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198451

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language learning, 16(1). Retrieved from https://www.colby.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Kaplan_CR_1965.pdf

Leki, I. (2017). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315084442

Lu, X. (2011). A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers' language development. TESOL quarterly, 45(1), 36-62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859

Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of second language writing, 29, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003

Myhill, D. (2009). Children's patterns of composition and their reflections on their composing processes. British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 47-64. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40375555

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044

Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 492-518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492

Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of second language writing, 29, 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008

Ostler, S. E. (1987). English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, 169-185.

Rimmer, W. (2006). Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language testing, 23(4), 497-519. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt339oa

Sa'Adeddin, M. A. A. (1989). Text development and Arabic-English negative interference. Applied linguistics, 10(1), 36-51. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ385569

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317

Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of information: Challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 288-307. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181f90878

Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written communication, 33(2), 149-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527

Wilson, L. O. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl Bloom’s taxonomy revised understanding the new version of Bloom’s taxonomy. The Second Principle, 1(1), 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.quincycollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/Anderson-and-Krathwohl_Revised-Blooms-Taxonomy.pdf

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Second_Language_Development_in_Writing.html?id=IboEPPjPGgkC&redir_esc=y

Downloads

Published

2025-09-21

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 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).