Page |1

HOME WORK ASSIGNMENT 01

Topic: Answer the Questions based on the Tachihara &

Goldberg (2020) Paper

Submitted by:
Ahsan Raza
Subject: Bilingualism and Language Planning
Registration Number:
L1F18MPAL0005
Semester: 04
Submitted to:
Assistant Professor Tahir Saleem

Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences (FASS)

University of Central Punjab, Lahore (UCP)
 Page |2

Question Number 01
Answer
This paper incorporates five experiments in order to check the proficiency of L2 speakers.
If we arrange the five experiments based on this paper structure, we come to realize that the
experiment number 1, 2 and 3 are based on Co-Relational Research in which the factors are just
estimated without manipulation in field environment and found a connection between them.
Experiment number 1, 2 and 3 give the factual investigation that permits the researcher to
anticipate the results and make speculations.
On the other side of the experiment number 4 and 5 which are based on Quasi-
Experimental Research to find the factors. In which the independent variables are being observed
to find the factors for dependent variables. In this research design which involves the
manipulation of the independent variables to observe the effects dependent variables. This sort of
research configuration is being utilized in light of the fact that sample size and it does not permit
randomization and accessibility of control gathering. Another contrast between the investigations
is that experiment number 1, 2 and 3 incorporate judgmental tests while experiment number 4
and 5 incorporate assignment to check the memory of the members. A task based on memory is
provided to know either they are able to recall the computing alternatives or not. The five
experiments shows that the participants are decided based on finding of experiments. In
experiment number 4 and 5 it is being seen that subsequent to performing the judgmental tasks
either the L2 participants can review the sentence structure or not.
Question Number 02
Answer
This examination study shows that the researchers utilized Amazon Mechanical Turk to
gather information since it is increasingly productive strategy to lead an exploration concentrate
by gathering the information as it includes PCs to gather the information more rapidly and viably
instead of traditional human exertion, thus an efficient technique. It is a compelling ease
approach, plausible for the researchers and it offers better approaches for contemplating
completing the task. Amazon Mechanical Turk may not be unsurpassed gainful in light of the
fact that the requesters might not need to record the tax documents, however laborers need to
report their independent work salary history. It is a best path for analysts since it complete plan
scale work rapidly and proficiently.
 Page |3

Pros and Cons of Collecting Data

Overall, the sample collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk is likely to be more diverse
than a sample of undergraduate students. Participants are generally older, more geographically
representative and more diverse than participants collected from undergraduate samples.

The reliability of data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk has not been found to be
significantly different than data collected by other means. Participants who respond using
Amazon Mechanical Turk generally answer reliably and consistently as evidenced by high test-
retest reliability rates even after a period of 3 weeks.

Amazon Mechanical Turk software supports the embedding of other survey software
(e.g., Qualtrics). In this regard, many different types of research methodology are possible using
Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, including longitudinal, qualitative, and mixed methods.

Research shows that users of Amazon Mechanical Turk have some fundamental
differences from the general population. Amazon Mechanical Turk workers are more educated,
less religious, and more likely to be unemployed than the general population. If a researcher is
trying to investigate specific trends within minority populations, such as levels of religiosity, or
educational differences, these cultural differences could confound future results and limit
generalization.

The range of ages and socioeconomic statuses of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers
could be more limited than those found in the general population. While Amazon Mechanical
Turk appears to include a diverse sample of workers, logically, older adults might be less likely
to utilize technology. Fundamentally, Amazon Mechanical Turk requires the usage of some web-
based platform along with the availability of the technology to accommodate such activities (e.g.,
a computer, a laptop). With older adults and those within lower socioeconomic statuses, many
might not have access to the technology needed to use Amazon Mechanical Turk. Additionally,
particularly with older adults, there might be a lack of familiarity with web-based services such
as Amazon Mechanical Turk, leading to a lower likelihood of use.
 Page |4

Question Number 03

Answer

The researcher included L2 speakers who evaluated their capability in English to be 85 or

lower however the issue with this choice model could be the self capability rating, since
individuals for the most part attempt to give themselves great score as they would prefer not to
be humiliated, that is the reason the rating by L2 speakers about their capability could be
considered as one-sided. Here the researchers are not looking at the capability of L2 speakers. So
the worth can be not the same as 85 possibly it very well may be high or lower, right now is hard
for analysts to choose which one of the members they ought to incorporate or exclude. Such of
the decisions are as yet problematic for researchers.
Question Number 04
Answer
In this paper, we can find in experiment number 1 the researcher’s improvements
configuration comprises four kinds of sentences as reference section S1 shows. The sentences
target unconventional, unacceptable filler, acceptable filler and Baseline acceptable filler. In this
judgmental task the researcher tested the participants on these four types of stimuli because they
wanted to analyze the L2 speaker’s proficiency and how they would rate their judgments for
unconventional sentences when computing alternatives already exist and L1 participants
confirmed it too .The participants are asked to rate how acceptable or natural surrounding are the
28 provided sentences .Another reason for this stimuli is it to make the participants familiar with
the task.
 Page |5

Question Number 05
Answer

Independent Variable (s) Dependent Variable (s)

Experiment 1 Conventional Competing Alternatives Target Unconventional Sentences

Experiment 2 Target Unconventional Sentences The Intended Paraphrase

Experiment 3 The Target Unconventional The Target Unconventional

Sentences Sentences

Experiment 4 Competing Alternatives Unconventional

Experiment 5 Target Unconventional Sentences Conventional Competing

and Competing Alternatives Alternatives
 Page |6

Question Number 06
Answer
 Page |7

Question Number 07
Answer
In experiment number 02 while providing the paraphrasing task the researchers asked the
coders to be blind to make unbiased results. Coders in a research study are supposed to define the
data and make fair judgments that can help in making inferences. Coders work as independently
and impartially. The researchers asked the coders to ignore minor spelling, capitalization, article
choice and tenses differences between the paraphrases and the intended target competing
alternatives in order to code passive forms of the target competing alternatives as correct target
paraphrases. In other words they should ignore the sentence structure because paraphrasing
should convey the meaning of or focus the meaning rather than the text .We can say that
according to the researcher these are minor mistakes that can not affect the sentence
interpretation.
Question Number 08
Answer
Subgroups are the subsets of participants. The researchers may divide the participants
into small groups because of the size of sample in order to compare and contrast the findings of
the sub-groups. Researchers divide the participants on the basis of demographic characteristics
like age, education or gender and sometimes may be like other variables such as attitude of the
participants towards a specific target or object.
The goal of sub grouping is to explore the distinction that how the participants respond to
stimuli or alternatives. Their response can be classified quantitatively or qualitatively to make
fair inferences. In experiment number 04, 280 participants are selected for two types of
conditions. They are divided into two subgroups. The two conditions are:
1. Competing alternative condition
2. Control condition.
Sub-group of L1speaker and speakers of L2 were exposed to these conditions to assess
their exposure to competing alternatives followed by judgment task.