SYNTACTIC INTERPRETATIONS OF ADJECTIVE CLAUSES AND REDUCED ADJECTIVE CLAUSES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examined syntactic interpretations of adjective clauses and reduced adjective clauses in order to discover the similarities and differences between the two constructions. The dataset of applied linguistics research articles was gathered from Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Journal of English for Specific Purposes due to their indexation in SCOPUS Q1 database. The dataset of novels as written in English was gathered from Peter Pan and The Secret Garden due their best-seller status (www.amazon.com). The dataset of a travel guidebook was gathered from France: Inspire/ plan/ discover/ experience, which is a country where tourists visit the most. A total number of approximately 600,000 words equally divided into the three datasets are made up of 44 tokens, referring to sentences. The analytical framework follows generative grammar to see the system of the two constructions. After the process of the data analysis, three linguists whose mother tongue is English were asked to validate the data analysis in order to ensure validity and reliability. The results in this study show that the adjective clauses in applied linguistics research articles, novels and a travel guidebook in English occur at 64 percent, 75 percent, and 81.82 percent, respectively. This phenomenon is explained by space limitation, pragmatic aspects of end-weight principle and pragmatic aspects of least effort requirement. It is expected that the results of this current study will be useful for learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in order to apply the use of adjective clauses and reduced adjective clauses in writing applied linguistics research articles, novels and a travel guidebook in English correctly and appropriately
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
I and co-author(s) certify that articles of this proposal had not yet been published and is not in the process of publication in journals or other published sources. I and co-author accept the rules of the manuscript consideration. Both agree that the editors have the right to consider and make recommendations to the appropriate source. With this rights offering articles that have been published to Panyapiwat Institute of Management. If there is a claim of copyright infringement on the part of the text or graphics that appear in the article. I and co-author(s) agree on sole responsibility.
References
Barrie, J. M. (2022). Peter pan. Chiltern.
Burnett, F. H. (2021). The secret garden. Chiltern.
Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 149-150.
Li, J., & Ye, T. (2023). Patterns and functions of I in academic writing: From a local grammar approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, 1-13.
Luzon, M. (2023). Forms and functions of intertextuality in academic tweets composed by research groups. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 1-16.
McGill, A. (2021). France: Inspire/plan/discover/experience. Penguin Random House.
Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English sentence structure. Cambridge University Press.
Ren, B., & Zhu, W. (2023). A Chinese EFL student’s strategies in graduation thesis writing: An activity theory perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, 1-13.
Smolka, V. (2011). The end-weight and end-focus principles in rhematic subjects. Theories and Practices, 7(1), 79.
Swan, M. (2016). Practical English usage. Oxford University Press.
Wongkittiporn, A. (2021a) Analysis of non-restrictive clauses in interior design texts. Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research in Asia, 27(1), 35-78.
Wongkittiporn, A. (2021b). Semantic denotations of non-restrictive relative clauses in English clinical anatomy textbooks. Liberal Arts Review, 16(2), 39-62.
