The Functionality of Lexical Patterns in Achieving Written Text Unity in English as a Foreign Language General Writing at Omar Ibn Al Khatab Secondary School in Jordan

This research paper aims at exploring the functionality of lexical patterns in achieving written text unity in English as a foreign language general writing at secondary school level in Jordan b in general and in secondary school for boys at Omar Ibn Al Khatab Jordan at Al Qaser Directorate of Education in particular.Sample consists of 20 students selected randomly. In order to achieve the study’s objectives two research instruments used namely; Hoey's (1991) Matrix of Lexical Patterning. Quantitative data analysis results are expressed


Introduction
Reviewed literature indicates that course materials and text books are not adequate enough to teach students to write skillfully since they basically focus on the grammaticality of the sentence without providing enough attention to text unity (Morris, 2007). However, Hoey (1991) criticizes the focus on the grammaticality and mastery of sentence structure. He demonstrates that the focus on grammar without treating the unity of the text does not sound an appropriate mechanism to produce actual writing. He argues that the use of conventional methods of writing, especially in Jordan, does not help writers produce true writing and error free written text. (Johns, 1990). Originally, the main goal of these conventional methods was to achieve awareness of the language system and to build students' competence by means of controlled performance, Johns says. Alas, this goal has not been achieved in the country of Jordan (Al Natsheh, 2007).
In this context Al Natsheh argues that teachers and learners of English writing should not regard writing skills from a sentence level point view, but rather at the discourse level. This is similar to the opinion of Hoey (1991) who proposes that the teaching of writing should move further than the sentence level and the focus on the mastery of grammar.
Thus, this research is needed in the Jordanian learning situation where students face problems in producing coherent and cohesive written texts.
In a Jordanian EFL writing context, there is usually no variation in the use of new approaches in teaching writing to EFL students. Teachers more often look at a written piece as a final product checking and reviewing their students' writings word by word and correcting every single error they observe in their writing. This really is considered as time -consuming and labor intensive. Interestingly, however, their efforts are not appreciated or valued, for students still replicate their previous mistakes and errors (Khuwaileh, 2006). This research which adopts the discourse analysis perspective is concerned with lexical repetition and patterning at the discourse level unlike other studies which are more concerned with errors and cohesion at sentence level. Discourse analysis is unlike other approaches as it deals with sentences as a unit connected with a particular function within the entire linguistic context and not as a separate unit (Paltridge, 2006). It helps language teachers to understand the processes involved in learning English as a foreign language by providing them with the appropriate teaching techniques. Discourse analysis also considers the EFL students' writing difficulties and problems by proposing that the process of producing a written text is more than joining sentences to each other (Leki, 1995b).
Because of this gap between students' needs and teachers' instructional methods, teachers of writing are not sure how to help their students communicate fluently, to write cohesively, and to be more autonomous writers of academic and workplace written texts. (Brazilay & Elhadad, 1999).
According to scholars such as Phillips and Hardy (2002) coherent writing should be accurate in both content and form, in which the syntactic and semantic aspects of language are maintained. Such pieces of writing would normally meet the demands and expectations of the reader, decoder, or audience (Lee, 1996).
In this context, , Hedge (1989) argues that researchers who wish to carry out research that is related to the writing skill could focus on specific issues such as what makes a good writing, how to produce a good piece of writing, what are the requirements for creating a coherent, unified, organised, and well-developed piece of writing and so on. The information from such research can be used to devise plans and strategies to improve and develop the writing ability of students (Berzlamovich, Egg and Redeker, 2008). Zamel, 1983;Bex, 1996;Leki, 2002 argue that writing is a very demanding process that requires high mental effort to join clauses and sentences so that they become a cohesive and coherent written text. It requires the skilful use of words, lexical items and vocabulary to inform the reader what he needs to know by being explicit, coherent, clear, economical, unified, grammatical, organized, and well-developed (De Beaugrande, 1987;Sridevi, 1996;McCarthy, 2002).

Previous Research
Research on linguistic issues at discourse level has developed rapidly over the past two decades. Investigation of cohesion and coherence relations in writing at discourse level is one of the more specific areas that have gained prominence (Wang, 1998;Hyland, 2004bHyland, , 2004c. The significance of such studies cannot be denied as linguistic knowledge that can be a helpful insight to provide solutions to language based-problems (Mourtaga, 2004).
-Al Natsheh (2007) conducted a study to investigate the use of cohesion in written works produced by 10 th grade students at public and private schools in Al Karak Directorate in Jordan. Sample of the study consists of 50 male and 50 female students. This research used Halliday andHasan's (1976, 1984) taxonomy of cohesion and coherence. The findings of the study show that, both public and private schools' students are unfamiliar with some of the cohesive devices such as ellipsis and grammatical connectors. Also, the results of the study reveal that, 85 % of the students need to give more attention to the writing skills in general and to the use of cohesion in particular. The researcher recommends that students at both private and public schools be taught and trained on how to use cohesive devices in order to create overall coherent written texts.
- Kai (2008) conducted a study in China to investigate the differences and similarities in lexical cohesion patterns between native speakers of English (NS) and non-native speakers of English (NNS). The sample of the study consisted of 30 abstracts that involved both NS and NNS. The population of the study was selected from Chengdu University of Technology. The researcher used both qualitative and quantitative methods. The data analysis involved the use of SPSS for quantitative data and Hoey's (1991) matrix of lexical repetition for textual analysis. The study used Halliday and Hasan (1976) theory of text cohesion and coherence as the back-up and based on Hoey's (1991) model for the analysis of the research findings.
The findings of the study revealed that NS abstracts tend to use more complex lexical repetitions than NNS ones that contained a high rate of simple lexical repetitions. Also, the results of the study reveal that the patterning of lexical repetitions in the sample abstract texts occupied a central place in the comprehension and organisation of the abstract texts. In addition, the findings of the study shows that, Hoey's (1991) oriented approach with its attendant categories of lexical cohesion patterns accurately reflect their non-linear complexity, and there are similarities and differences among the frequency of lexical cohesive devices between NS (46%) and NNS (4%) dissertation abstracts.
-Csomay and Cortes (2009) conducted a study to combine the lexical pattern studies with discourse studies and to investigate the relationship between lexical bundles' position, lexical bundle discourse function, and discourse structure. The study was conducted at San Diego State University, USA. The corpus of the study consisted of classroom teaching texts (84 lexical bundles) from T2KSWAL (Biber et al;Biber, Cornard and Cortes, 2004). The study was based Halliday and Hasan 's (1976) and Hoey's (1991) notion of lexical cohesion. The findings of the research study reveal that positioning lexical bundles and their discourse functions within a discourse structure provide further evidence of the linguistic characteristics of these units, and lexical patterns of discourse in the 84 selected bundles.
In conclusion, any kind of investigation should always start with lexical items as they contain the basic meaning in a written text (Lee, 1990). The researcher also observes that many research studies (Shakir, 1991;Jin, 1998;Teich and Fankhauser, 2003;Wong, 2004;Yanmin, Wang, and Guan, 2005;Klebanov and Shamir, 2006;Morris, 2007;MacMillan, 2007;Al Natsheh, 2008;Kai, 2008 andCsomay andCortes, 2009) adopt both Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Hoey's (1991) framework in their investigations of lexical cohesion and its contribution to the written text's overall cohesion. Although, there are many studies that investigated cohesion and coherence, no studies have so far examined the use of lexical repetition and patterning by EFL learners, particularly in a Jordanian context.
In this regard, the present study adopts Hoey's (1991) framework of lexical cohesion to analyze the difficulties which Jordanian EFL students face in producing coherent and meaningful written texts by investigating the functionality of lexical patterns. Since the functionality of lexical patterns plays a crucial part in establishing an overall coherent written text, the researcher wishes to conduct a detailed investigation on the functionality of lexical patterns (different kinds of lexical patterns are in the form of central sentences, topicopening sentences, topic-closing sentences, and other lexically bonded sentences are significant in producing coherent, unified, and meaningful written texts.

-Research Methods and Procedures
This study uses quantitative design in collecting needed data for analysis. The independent variable in this study is the functionality of lexical patterns amongst the respondents, and the dependent variable is the students written texts. This case study analyses the use of cohesive devices that promote lexical cohesion via lexical patterns to gain a deeper insight and thorough understanding of their use in the essays produced by student with the topic of marriages in Jordan. The findings will be categorized under two criteria: product-based and process-based criteria. In the product -based criterion, analysis on the functionality of lexical patterns, content and the overall rating of the written texts will be provided. Subsequently, in the process-based criterion, The present research will adopt the approach of detailed analysis of the functionality of lexical cohesion. It also takes an approach of simple quantitative description of the lexical cohesive links found in the written essays.

-Population and Sample
Population was generated by Omar Ibn Al Khatab Secondary School students at Al Qaser Directorate of Education in Southern Jordan for the academic year 2017/ 2018 The total population of this study constituted (40 students).
Sample of the study was chosen randomly from study's population. It consists of 20 students. Each participant was asked to write 150-200 words an article like about "marriage traditions in Jordan"

Findings' Discussion
Data analysis showed several and varied results such as: Student writers who show 100 % use of simple lexical repetition in their written texts do not have the ability to use other types of lexical repetitions. Also, the frequent use and high density of simple lexical repetition in students' written essays may be related to their use and repetition of simple vocabulary again and again in their writings Therefore, simple lexical repetition is the most frequently used type of repetitions found in the students' written essays. This finding agrees with other scholars' findings such as Zhu (2001) and Kai (2008). They state that EFL students tend to avoid the use of complex words when attempting to produce a piece of writing.
According to Hoey (1991) complex lexical repetition (CR) occurs when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme but are not identical, or when they are formally identical, but have different grammatical functions. This type of lexical repetition is also prominently found in some of the written compositions while it is completely absent in others. Complex lexical repetitions appear to be the second commonly used type of repetitions but not in the same degree as simple lexical repetition. The use of complex lexical repetition is discussed with some examples below: Example: The words marriage in S1 and marry in S13 are examples of the use and occurrence of complex lexical repetition in written text 11 (T11). Also, the words choice in S13 and choose in S9 are examples of the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) in this text. S1. "Marriage has many ways to be done in our country either by parents or by the persons themselves". S13. "Unless the person who wants to marry is satisfy with the choice of his parents". S13. "Unless the person who wants to marry is satisfy with the choice of his parents". S9. "When she choose the bride for her son".

Example:
In text 12 (T12), the use of marrying in S1 and marriage in S2 and the words: choosing in S1 and choose in S9 exemplify CR. S1. "I prefer choosing and marrying the girl I love rather than having may marriages arranged by parents". S2. "First off, I think that marriages someone you do not know is too big a gamble to take". S1. "I prefer choosing and marrying the girl I love rather than having may marriages arranged by parents".

Example:
In text 14 (T14), the occurrence of the words choose in S1 and choice in S4 and the words choice in S8 and chosen in S12 reveals the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) S1. "The right of choose and freedom which the most important thing in marriage". S4. "But in the other case when the choice related to the bride and groom this make them responsible for their choice". S8. "This is because the most important thing in the marriage is the right of choice". S12. "The first type will be chosen".

Example:
The following examples are taken from written text 16 (T16). The use of complex lexical repetition (CR) in this text can be observed in the use of the words responsibilities in S3 and responsible in S4 as well as the occurrence of the words choices in S3 and choose in S6. S3. "Couples who choose each other has own responsibilities about their own choices and behaviors". S4. "They share their life with every single second with high level happiness in their own accounts long they'll be the ones responsible for their selves". S3. "Couples who choose each other has own responsibilities about their own choices and behaviors". S6. "Since they couldn't choose the others unless they have what are calling that the advisory of their own ancestors and the help from their parents as well".

Example:
The repeated occurrence of the words successful in S2 and successfully in S4 is an example of the use of complex lexical repetition in written text 17 (T17). The use of the words choosing in S3 and choose in S6 is another example of the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) in the same text. S2. "And every person needs his / her marriage to be a successful and happy all his / her life". S4. "In some cases, marriages are arranged by the parents successfully". S3. "The process of choosing the partner is different from country to country and from person to a person" S6. "Men for her mother to choose the suitable woman who is beautiful, well educated, work, good manner and from a good family".

Example 6
In text 23 (T23), the use of complex lexical repetition can be seen in the repetition of the words tradition in S1 and traditional in S7. Also, in the repetition of the words think in S4 and thought in S8. S1. "In my opinion, in my country the marriage is a tradition". S7. "Both of theme traditional and love marriage that is a good". S4. "But I think when the young choose the girl that is a good". S8. "But I thought love is better than in my opinion".

Example:
In text 24 (T24), the occurrence of the words unsuccessful in S1 and successful in S10 and the use of the words disagree in S1 and agree in S7 , are two examples of the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) in this text. S1. "Marriage that is arranged by the parents is almost unsuccessful one and I disagree with it". S10. "On the other hand, marriage that is arranged by people who choose their own marriage partner is almost a successful marriage". S1. "Marriage that is arranged by the parents is almost unsuccessful one and I disagree with it". S7. "Because neither the husband nor his wife agree about this". Example: In text 28 (T28), the repetition of the words understanding in S1 and understand in S12 as well as the occurrence of the words success in S9 and successfully in S11 are examples of the use of complex lexical repetition (CR). S1. "In my countries, most of marriages are by parents and without love and without understanding". S12. "The men and women they understand each other's". S9. "So, I think this marriage doesn't success". S11. "In the other countries -the marriage come by love successfully".

Example:
In text 39 (T39), the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) can be observed in the use of the words marriages in S1 and marrying in S5 and the occurrence of the words traditional in S8 and tradition in S10. S1. "Marriages are important part in our life". S5. "And after marrying and bringing children the couplet". S8. "And there are a love story between them the marriage being better than traditional marriage". S10. "But in Arabian world tradition of this marriage is common".

Example:
The use of the words choice in S2 and choose in S5 in text 41 (T41) is another example of the use of complex lexical repetition (CR). Likewise, the occurrence of the word marriage in S6 and marry in S8 exemplifies the use of complex lexical repetition in this written text. S2. "This marriage comes from choice of both them". S5. "This marriage choice on love continues both this way not good to choose". S6. "But the marriage in other country is tradition choice". S8. "I hat this way to marry must choice both of them".
The analysis on the use of complex lexical repetition (CR) shows that the percentage of the occurrence of this type of repetition varies from 0 % to 48.6 %. This is observed in T18 and T12 respectively. Also, the analysis shows that use of complex lexical repetition in the students' written compositions is not as frequent as simple lexical repetition. However, CR is more commonly used than the other kinds of lexical repetitions such as simple paraphrase (SP), hyponymy, superordinate's and co-reference as follow: Another type of repetition is the simple lexical paraphrase. According to Hoey (1991, simple lexical paraphrase (SP) occurs when a lexical item is substituted with another lexical item in context without a loss or gain in meaning. This type of change in grammatical context occurs in verb-form paradigm but the lexical items must share a similar context of occurrence to prevent any modification in lexical meaning. A simple lexical paraphrase consists of simple partial paraphrase (SPP) and simple mutual paraphrase (SMP).. In terms of the use of the simple lexical paraphrase (SP) in the written compositions (Text1 until Text 20), the analysis reveals that there is a complete absence of simple lexical paraphrasing: neither simple partial paraphrase (SPP) nor simple mutual paraphrase (SMP) were observed. Also, the use of hyponymy (HY) by student writers was zero percent. based on the analysis of the 20 written compositions, students did not use any form of superordinate (SUP). The total number of repetitions in the overall written essays varies from 3 to 252 (T49 and T4 respectively). Out the total number of repetitions found in the 20 written essays, this type of lexical cohesion (SUP) also recorded the same percentage as hyponymy (HY) which is 0 %. The percentage of the use of superordinate (SUP) by student writers across written compositions may be related to the students' lack of the skills to use this type of repetition. Researchers whether in ESL or EFL contexts such as Wong (2004), Kai (2008) and Csomay and Cortes (2009) found that, EFL and ESL learners lack the skills and ability to use other types of lexical repetitions. Also, they add EFL and ESL learners do not possess an appropriate deposit of complex lexis which affect their use of the different types of lexical repetitions and patterning. Analysis reveals that all the20 written compositions did not have any co-reference repetition. Hence, the focus will be on the use of the earlier two types of lexical repetition (simple lexical repetition and complex lexical repetition) which recorded the highest percentage in use by the student writers In conclusion, the findings of the analysis concur with Zhu (2001), Miao (2002), Wong (2004), Kai (2008) and Csomay and Cortes (2009)'s findings. They state that the use of simple lexical repetition more frequently than complex repetition is very normal in EFL students' written essays. Also, they add that the lack of occurrence and absence of other types of lexical repetitions such as SPP, SMP, HY, SUP and Co-ref is one of the phenomena that characterizes the written work of EFL students. Because they use simple lexis and words more than complex varieties of words. In sum, the use of the different kinds of lexical repetitions (simple lexical repetitions, complex lexical repetitions, simple lexical paraphrases, hyponymy, superordinate, and co-reference repetitions) in students' written compositions varies from one student to another. This finding concurs with Zhu (2001) and Miao's (2002) study which also reveals that the use of the simple lexical repetition (SR) is a common phenomenon in English as a foreign language (EFL) setting who found out that EFL and ESL students use only types of repetitions (SR and CR). student writers recorded a lower use of complex lexical repetition compared to simple lexical repetition It varied between 0 to 80 repetitions across the 20 essays. Moreover, the use of simple lexical paraphrase (SP) which includes simple mutual paraphrase (SMP) and simple partial paraphrase (SPP) did not vary between student writers. Thus, the analysis of written texts did not reveal any use of simple lexical paraphrase which is the same with regards to the use of hyponymy (HY), co-references (CO-REF), superordinate (SUP Also, the analysis of the written texts did not show any use of substitutions ellipsis. This means that, SP, HY, CO-REF and SUP are not common in the written texts of the Jordanian English Language and Literature students at Rabah secondary school. One more note worth mentioning is that it can be concluded that the students make use of lexical items to create lexical relations through the different kinds of repetition so that they can produce an overall coherent text. It can also be noted that such usage also varies from one student to another. This suggests that the use of lexical items is dependent on the students' lexical knowledge and mastery of vocabulary as some of them tend to use simple lexical items while others tend to use complex items. The lexical patterns generated from students use of lexical repetition According to Hoey (1991), a sentence is considered as a central sentence or essential to the text if it refers and is referred to the most by other sentences in the written text. But, if a sentence does not refer or is not referred to by the rest of the sentences in the written text, it is considered a marginal sentence.

Example
Text 4 has a total number of 22 sentences. The two-figure sentence-coordinates ranges from 0 to 7, the lexically bonded sentences are 18, the lexical bond varies from 1 to 6 and 4 sentences have no-lexical bonds. which presents the analysis of text 4, it can be noted that the text has 6 central sentences, 4 marginal sentences, 9 topic- S5. In some country, parents choose marriage partner this related to their own traditional culture.

(Central Sentence)
S6. When someone wants to marry, he doesn't choose his partner.

(Central Sentence)
S7. But their father chooses to them.

(Marginal Sentence)
S8.I think that this is wrong thing because the one who wants to marry has his own freedom and he should not pay attention to what their parents choose.

(Central Sentence)
S9. The person who wants to marry he/she may look to specific one.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S10. And her/ his parents tell them you should marry this person by obligatory way.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S11. But I prefer that the everyone should choose his / her other half.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S12. So, this made a lot of trouble that they leave each other.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S13. Marry based by choose of parent and the result as examined above this make problems between families and this way u you fined little family success.
(Central Sentence) S14 Also, I prefer that it should be agreement between the parents and their kids in this subject 'marriage". (Marginal Sentence) S15. My father chose to my brother his wife and their marriage is success.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S17. For those who choose their own marriage I think that their marriage is success in 80 %.
(Topic Opening Sentence) S18. Because when they choose their marriage partner, they are look for specific thing in the behavior of their marriage partner.
(Topic Closing Sentence) S19. When one wants to marry he / she search for good one to make successful marriage.

(Central Sentence)
S20. I think love before marriage is important thing.
(Margina lSentence) S21. So when they love each other they will not make his lover angry.
(Topic Closing Sentence) S22. People choosing their marriage partner they are success in their marriage.

(Topic Closing Sentence)
According to Hoey's (1991) notion of lexical patterns, if the 6 central sentences (S5, S6, S8, S13, S15, and S19) are grouped together, they provide a brief summary of the central theme or idea of this written composition. When these sentences are put together with other lexically bonded sentences (topic-opening and topic-closing), they make the written composition more coherent. The brief summary of written text 4 can be seen when the central sentences appended below are read.
S5. "In some country, parents choose marriage partner this related to their own traditional culture".

(Central Sentence)
S6. "When someone wants to marry he doesn't choose his partner".

(Central Sentence)
S8. "I think that this is wrong thing because the one who wants to marry has his own freedom and he should not pay attention to what their parents choose".
(Central Sentence) S13. "Marry based by choose of parent and the result as examined above this make problems between families and this way u you fined little family success".
(Central Sentence) S15. "My father chose to my brother his wife and their marriage is success".
(Central Sentence) S19. "When one wants to marry he / she search for good one to make successful marriage.

Example 2
This example is extracted from Text 1. As presented in Table 4.9 (refer to page,169), written text 1 contains 24 sentences in which the two sentence-coordinates ranges from 0 to 2, the number of lexically bonded sentences is 3, the number of lexical bonds varies from 1 to 2, and 20 sentences have no-lexical bondage. Out of the 24 sentences, there are 1 central sentence and 2 topic -closing sentence. This can be seen in Text 1 as follows: TEXT (1) S1. I think, It's commonly that the partner choose for their child his or her husband.

(Marginal Sentence)
S2. This thing has advantage and disadvantage.

S3.
It's advantage that the parents will never in sometime choose not suitable person. S24. Whose I want, But I know they will let me choose any one But not him.

(Marginal Sentence)
This written text (Text 1) recorded a low percentage of lexical bondage between sentences due to its high number of marginal sentences i.e. 21 sentences. The overall cohesion of this written text is very weak because of the low density of lexical bondage among sentences across the written text. If all these sentences (S18, S19 and S20) are grouped together, a brief summary of the written texts is provided to its reader but the overall cohesion of the written text would still remain weak. This is because the written text contains too many marginal sentences compared to the central sentences. In other words, the overall cohesion of the written text is affected even if these sentences are included.
Based on the earlier discussion related to the lexical patterns generated from the students' use of lexical repetitions, it is realized that the formation of lexical patterns by the lexical bonds between sentences and clauses enhances the overall cohesion of a written text. By analyzing the summative effects of the texts, it would be possible for one to obtain an overall overview and perception of the compositions produced by the student writers.
In general, the different kinds of lexical patterns whether in the form of central sentences, topic-opening sentences, topic-closing sentences , and other lexically bonded sentences are significant in producing coherent, unified, and meaningful written texts. This finding is compatible with Wong (2004) and Kai (2008)'s claim, who state that central sentences and other lexically bonded sentences are very crucial for establishing the overall cohesion of written texts. This is due to the fact that when the central sentences, topic-opening sentences, topicclosing sentences are put together they would enable the reader or interpreter to draw an overall conclusion of the written text. Hence, lexical repetition and patterning have the cohesive effect on the organization of the written text that would help to create a coherent text. of the lexical patterns generated by Jordanian students.
The discussion in the previous sections on lexical cohesion reveals that lexical repetition and patterning are very important in creating the overall cohesion and coherence of the written text.

Conclusion
There are lexical patterns of textual organization from the lexical bondage created by the use of the different types of lexical repetition in the written compositions produced by Jordanian English Language and Literature students at Mut'ah University. The findings show that the presence and absence of lexical patterns affect the overall cohesion of the written compositions.
Also, the results reveal that compositions that have many marginal sentences did not provide a meaningful summary to their readers. On the other hand, written compositions that contained a higher number of central sentences provided a more coherent summary to their readers. A meaningful summary is able to provide the readers with more understanding to what they have read. For instance, T17, T18, T35, T45, T49, and T56 This study reveals and reflects the opinion of experts in the Jordanian ministry of education as follow: "Our Jordanian students have insufficient vocabulary and limited words to express ideas and thoughts when given a writing assignment to work on. They find it difficult to meet the writing requirements because of the