The Acquisition of English Articles by A

The Acquisition of English Articles by Arabic Speakers
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
Dina Awad (BA, MA, Dip)
Supervisor: Professor A. Siewierska
English Language and Linguistics
Lancaster University
April 2011
Abstract
Mastering the English Article system is a long term challenge for L2 learners. The
difficulty originates from the fact that appropriate usage requires stacking multiple
functions into limited forms, the numerous exceptions to the rules and the mismatch
between the grammatical criteria of countability and number that determine the
appropriate supply of the indefinite article and the lexical-pragmatic values on which
definiteness depends. Differences between the first and target languages can also
cause problems even for advanced learners. We investigated the use of English
articles in the production of Arab university students by collecting data from three
different tests that varied in the degree of control and the type of knowledge they
examine. Development was followed cross sectionally after dividing the participants
into three proficiency level groups according to their scores on the Oxford Placement
Test. Statistical analyses were performed to calculate the differences across groups,
tasks and compare between learners’ use of the two articles. The results were also
compared to findings from other L2 studies to determine whether the development
map corresponds to/differs from the tendencies of learners from other L1
backgrounds.
It was found that Arabic influenced the participants’ decisions to a large
extent, especially at lower levels. In other respects error patterns paralleled those of
other L2 learners. The definite article was mastered before the indefinite while the
correct marking of non-referential bare nominals (zero article) seemed to be the most
difficult aspect of article use to master. The results suggest that task type influenced
learner’s choices considerably. Finally, faulty associations between definiteness and
linguistic notions of specificity, pre-modification and concreteness in learner
hypotheses caused variability in L2 article production.

Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................... 9
2.1 The Article System in English ................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Definiteness ................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Countability and Number ............................................................................ 26
2.2 Article Contexts ..................................................................................................... 31
2.2.1 Definite article environments: ..................................................................... 31
2.2.2 Indefinite article environments ................................................................... 34
2.3 The article system in Arabic .................................................................................. 35
2.3.1 Definiteness ................................................................................................. 36
2.3.2 Indefiniteness .............................................................................................. 38
2.3.3 Comparison of article use in Arabic and English ....................................... 40
2. 4 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ................................................................... 42
2.4.1 Acquisition of Articles by L2 learners of English ...................................... 48
2.4.2 Acquisition of articles by Arab learners ..................................................... 51
2.5 Learner Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 52
2.5.1 Specificity ................................................................................................... 53
2.5.2 Premodification ........................................................................................... 56
2.5.3 Concreteness ............................................................................................... 58
Chapter Three: Methodology ................................................................................... 61
3.1 Required data ......................................................................................................... 61
3.2 Participants ............................................................................................................. 64
3.3 Task Design ........................................................................................................... 65
3.3.1 The Writing Task (T1) ................................................................................ 66
3.3.2 Stories Task (T2) ......................................................................................... 68
3.3.3 Grammaticality judgment test (T3) ............................................................. 71
3.4 Administrating Tests .............................................................................................. 77
3.4.1 Pilot ............................................................................................................. 77
3.4.2 OPT ............................................................................................................. 77
3.4.3 Tasks ........................................................................................................... 79
3.5 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 80
3.5.1 Accuracy ..................................................................................................... 83
3.5.2 Error types ................................................................................................... 84
3.5.3 Article Choice ............................................................................................. 87
3.5.4 L1 and IL..................................................................................................... 91
3.5.5 Learner Hypotheses .................................................................................... 94
3.6 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 108
Chapter Four: Results ............................................................................................. 110
4.1. Task 1 .................................................................................................................. 113
4.1.1 Accuracy ................................................................................................... 115
4.1.2 Errors ......................................................................................................... 117
4.1.3 Learner Hypotheses .................................................................................. 122
4.2 Task 2 ................................................................................................................... 128
4.2.1 Accuracy ................................................................................................... 129
4.2.2 Grammatical Errors ................................................................................... 130
4.2.3 Choice Errors ............................................................................................ 133
4.2.4 Replacement Errors ................................................................................... 136
4.3 Task 3 ................................................................................................................... 143
4.3.1 Accuracy ................................................................................................... 144
4.3.2 Errors ......................................................................................................... 147
4.4 Cross-Task results ................................................................................................ 158
4.4.1 Accuracy ................................................................................................... 158
4.4.2 Errors ......................................................................................................... 162
4.4.3 Learners Hypotheses ................................................................................. 171
Chapter Five: Discussion ......................................................................................... 177
5.1 Stages of acquisition ............................................................................................ 178
5.1.1 Accuracy ................................................................................................... 178
5.1.2 Errors ......................................................................................................... 187
5.2 Task Type Variation ............................................................................................ 202
5.2.1 Review of performance by task ................................................................ 203
5.2.2 Task effect by PL group ............................................................................ 217
5.3 Learner hypotheses .............................................................................................. 242
5.3.1 Specificity ................................................................................................. 242
5.3.2 Premodification ......................................................................................... 256
5.3.3 Concreteness ............................................................................................. 267
Chapter Six: Conclusion.......................................................................................... 273
References ................................................................................................................. 277
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 291
Appendix 1: Information Sheet and Consent Form ........................................... 291
Appendix 2: Background uniformity survey ..................................................... 293
Appendix 3: Task 1 ............................................................................................ 294
Appendix 4: Task 2 ............................................................................................ 295
Appendix 5: Task 3 ............................................................................................ 300
Chapter One: Introduction
The, a, and an are some of the most frequent words in the English language according
to COBUILD’s list of the ten most frequent words in English (Sinclair 1991). The
ranks first in this corpus of 20 million words, while a(n) comes fifth. Articles are also
among the most frequent function words in English (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-
Freeman, 1999). Some researchers consider bare nominals, or the absence of any
articles, as an article itself which they refer to as the zero article (Quirk et al. 1991). If
the zero article is identified with replacing both a(n) and the in indefinite plural and
uncountable contexts, it can be considered as the most frequently used article in
English (Master 1997).1
However, despite the high frequency of occurrence in natural discourse,
advocates of the communicative approach in second language learning (cf. Canale and
Swain 1980) hold that articles might not be essential devices to achieve
communicative success. Brown (1973) wonders whether supplying articles is really
necessary for effective communication in English as a first language. Batainah (2005)
mentions that English articles can be disposed of, since they are regularly dropped
from newspaper headings and telegraphic messages while Leech (2006b) expects
articles to eventually disappear in the expanding world of L2 English.
Pica (1983), on the other hand, maintains that incorrect article usage can
impede communication when, for example, used in reference to items in one
participant’s experience but not in the other’s. Moreover, misuse of English articles
can, at least, be perceived as a sign of ‘foreignness’ by many native speakers. This is
1
We acknowledge Master’s differentiation between zero and null articles replacing a and the
respectively. In this study however both terms will be referred to as zero.
1
evident in popular fiction where erroneous article supply gives the impression that the
speaker is not in total command of English, i.e., a foreigner who uses correct but not
target-like English. Agatha Christie’s Poirot is an example of a well known fictional
character who is made to commit numerous article errors to emphasise that he is not a
native speaker of English.
The English articles are important because of their role as functional categories
required in linguistic expressions to signal meaning associated with the propositional
level as the and a(n) denotate the definiteness status of referents, whether definite or
indefinite (±DEF). The definite article implies that the speaker/writer assumes the
hearer is able to identify the referent. It maintains relevance in discourse and creates
cohesion within a text. The indefinite article indicates that the speaker/writer thinks
the referent cannot be identified by the recipients. It also has a cardinality function
(Lyons 1999) which is restrictive to singular countable entities.
The notion of (in)definiteness is universal but its grammatical representation in
syntax varies from one language to another which can present a challenge for second
language learners (2LL) especially those whose L1s lack articles (–ART) (Goad and
White 2004, Master 1997). Notorious as one of the most difficult features of English
to be learned or taught (Kaluza 1963, Brown 1973, Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982,
Pica 1983, Master 1990 inter alia), misuse of articles ranks highest among L2
learners’ errors (Covitt 1976 cited in Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999,
Richards and Simpson 1974). Sharma (2005) established that article errors account for
60.37% of the total number of errors committed by L1 Indian learners of English,
while Thu (2005) found that article errors constituted 31.5% of all other errors made
by L1 Vietnamese learners. Thus, it is possible that articles represent an area of
2
‘considerable prominence in any error analysis’ reflecting learners’ overall linguistic
competence (Oller and Redding, 1971: 85) (emphasis added).
Article errors in learners’ production are pervasive in the sense that they do not
necessarily decrease as proficiency increases. The misuse of English articles has been
known to persist up to advanced levels (Anderson 1984) and the mistakes that many
competent L2 learners make could become a source of frustration. The difficulties in
mastering the English articles are worth pursuing especially when errors may
undermine the L2 speaker/writer’s linguistic ability in professional circles (cf. Nagata
et al. 2005).
The difficulty that learners have with articles is often attributed to the
complicated system in which the English articles operate. As multiple functions are
stacked into one form, the speaker has to be aware of the noun’s countability, number
and definiteness at the same time (cf. Master 1990). Consider, for instance, the
example in (1):
(1). She ate an apple.
In the above sentence, choosing ‘an’ requires knowledge of:
1. Definiteness: Apple is neither uniquely identified nor known to the hearer.
2. Countability: +Countable.
3. Number: Singular
4. Phonetic rule: A singular indefinite noun beginning with a vowel requires
the supply of ‘an’ rather than ‘a’.
3
Furthermore, socio-cultural knowledge is also required to attain native-like mastery of
article use especially in expressions of figurative or idiomatic meanings. For example,
the noun love in the expression: in love is usually left unmarked. This is not done
because of the noun’s unknown definiteness status or its uncountability, but mostly
because of the pragmatic interpretation it carries by conventional usage.
In addition to the complications inherent in the English article system,
learners’ L1 might also have an impact on the L2 acquisition process (Gass 1996,
Leung 2001, Snape et al. 2006, Garcia Mayo 2008). This is particularly true when the
L1 lacks a grammatical category which is present in the L2 (Master 1997, Odlin 2003,
Hawkins and Chan 1997).
Arabic is spoken as a first language by around 200 million people in the Arab
world and as a second language by many others. It includes many regional dialects
whereby various pronunciations are found, yet the grammatical notions of
definiteness/indefiniteness, countability and number remain uninfluenced by regional
variation in the spoken register. Lipiński’s (2001) comprehensive review of Arabic
dialects confirms that in addition to a number of lexical variations, the differences
between these dialects are largely phonological. Mitchell and El-Hassan also stress
that ‘Regional differences [in Arabic] are lexical and phonological before they are
grammatical’ (1994:2). In a comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and
Kuwaiti dialects, Brustad (2000) observes that there are a couple of
expressions occasionally used in certain dialects to function as quasi-articles such as
some /ʃi:/ and one /wahid/. However, the overall system is quite stable throughout the
dialects. Other than that, the extensive chapter on definiteness/indefiniteness in those
four dialects does not list any other variation.
4
Although Arabic is a language that has grammaticalised definiteness,
indefiniteness is indirectly expressed through the absence of the definite article. In
formal, standard and classic Arabic, indefiniteness can be (optionally) represented by
small, non-morphemic accents suffixed to words. Possessing one overtly marked
article in the form of a prefixed clitic /al/, Arabic is considered as a language with
articles (+ART). Yet, the absence of an explicit or obligatory marker of indefiniteness
in Arabic can present a challenge to Arab learners in mastering the English indefinite
article.
Therefore, it is not surprising, as researchers of SLA of articles confirm, that
Arab learners too struggle with acquiring and mastering the English articles. Kharma
(1981) found that misuse of articles was one of the highest reoccurring errors in a
study on Kuwaiti students majoring in English. Diab (1996) asserts that article errors
constituted almost 28% of all grammar errors in Lebanese students’ writing. In
Yemen, Al-Samawi (2004) found that article errors represent 38.4% of all overused
expressions in students’ English writing.
A few studies have addressed the difficulties that L1 Arabic (L1Ar) learners
encounter in mastering the English articles and offered a variety of explanations to the
causes of common errors. Studies by researchers such as Kharma (1981) Maalej
(2004), Batainah, (2005) and Sarko (2008) have provided valuable insight into the
acquisition of both the form and function of articles, despite having focused on
isolated features of the English article system (EAS) rather than comprehensively
addressing their occurrence in multi-variable contexts. These studies have suffered
from several limitations in scope. Firstly, the method used to elicit data is largely
based on form-focused tasks which usually investigate accuracy rather than target-like
use (TLU). Secondly, the grouping of participants is decided by academic level (in
5
university or high school) rather than by performance tests that determine proficiency
level (PL). Finally, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of definiteness
between traditional, more grammar based approaches and modern linguistic theory.
To determine appropriate article use in the elicited data, this study will be informed by
more recent theoretical frameworks developed by linguists such as Hawkins (1991),
Lyons (1999) and Langacker (2008), whereby context, relevance and consciousness
have a larger role in deciding definiteness rather than relying merely on grammatical
aspects of accuracy.
The fact that most well-known SLA studies were predominantly administered
to learners whose L1s lacked an article system (–ART) (Hakuta, 1976, Yamada and
Matsuura 1982, Pica 1983, Tarone 1985, Master 1987; Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989,
Yoon 1993, Young 1996, Mizuno 1999, Robertson 2000, Trenkic´ 2000, Butler 2002)
while SLA studies on L1s with articles remain relatively scarce, necessitates further
research into SLA of articles by learners from languages with articles.
This study aims to investigate the acquisition of the English articles (a, an, the)
by adult female native speakers of Arabic who are studying in the United Arab
Emirates University (UAEU) in the Emirates. It seeks to examine the stages of
development learners go through as their second language improves. Therefore, a
cross-sectional approach will be followed to review the progress of three proficiency
level groups as determined by the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). This includes
finding out which article is mastered before the other and why; what kind of
difficulties are encountered at each proficiency level and which aspects of article use
are easier or more difficult to master at each proficiency level. This is achieved
through exploring learners’ ability to provide the appropriate article in different NP
6
environments. Ultimately, we hope to provide a plausible explanation of the
underlying causes of these outcomes.
Another question that this study will address is the extent to which the first
language affects learners’ performance in the L2. Our findings will be compared to
those from other studies on SLA of articles by learners from other language groups in
order to detect similarities and/or differences in the acquisition patterns. If the
outcomes are not identical, it could be suggestive of possible cross-linguistic influence
of Arabic on L2 article production. Alternatively, parallelisms in learning behaviors
should lend support to advocates of broader developmental tendencies in L2
experience, regardless of the L1.
Finally, we seek to determine whether some errors are caused by faulty
associations between definiteness and certain (non-article-related) linguistic notions of
specificity, pre-modification and concreteness. Learners’ hypotheses will be reflected
in their use of English articles under different testing conditions. A comparison
between the L1/L2 grammars will be conducted to highlight the differences in the
morpho-syntactic representations of these notions in the two languages. Contrastive
elements might prove to have an effect on learner performance especially at lower
proficiency levels where L1 influence is at its highest (Odlin 1989, 2003). The error
patterns should reveal the extent to which pragmatic, structural and lexical features of
the Arabic NP affect L2 article choice.
The following chapter will review the background literature for this study. It
includes a summary of the basic theoretical concepts that determine article use such as
definiteness and some of the well-known SLA studies on articles. It also presents a
brief account of articles in Arabic, the findings of SLA studies administered on Arab
7
learners and finally a summary of linguistic notions that might affect learner
hypotheses about the L2. Chapter 3 is concerned with the method through which data
is collected, categorised and analysed as well as the approach followed for grouping
participants according to their proficiency level. The numerical and statistical results
emerging from the study are described in the fourth chapter. In this part, quantitative
findings across tasks and groups are outlined in tables, charts and diagrams. A
comprehensive discussion of the results and their relation to other studies on L2
articles is given chapter 5. Finally, the conclusion offers a summary of the most
significant findings of this study.
8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In this chapter, an attempt is made to review the form and function of articles in
English which entails discussing the major criteria that determine the grammaticality
and appropriateness of the supply of each article. The most important element is
definiteness, for both articles, and countability and number for the indefinite article. In
addition to these basic notions, contextual, pragmatic and communicative elements
may be involved in determining appropriate article choice. The second part of the
chapter will identify the NP environments in which the supply of each article is
considered obligatory and the contextual conditions required for their supply. The
third part of this chapter presents a brief account of the article system in Arabic. This
is followed by a basic comparison of the main elements involved in article use in the
two languages. The findings of some of the well known studies in second language
acquisition (SLA) of articles in general as well as those administered on Arab learners
in particular will be discussed in section 4. Finally, we will consider the theories that
suggest a connection between certain linguistic notions (specificity, premodification
and abstractness) and L2 article use in learner hypotheses.
2.1 The Article System in English
The Articles the and a(n) in English occur as free morphemes classified under
determiners. The definite article falls into the determiner position of the definite
phrase (DP) (Lyons 1999), while the indefinite article is projected in the determiner
position of the cardinality phrase (CardP) since, in addition to indefiniteness, it signals
number. Some researchers consider the absence of the and a(n) as an article itself
termed the zero (Ø) or null article (see Master 1997). Others accept the indefinite
9
determiner ‘some’ as another indefinite article (Quirk et al. 1991:274). Diagram (1),
based on Yule (1998), summarises the classic grammatical view of article use in
English.
Noun
Indefinite Definite
Uncountable Countable
Singular Plural
Starts with
Vowel Consonant
Ø an a Ø the
Figure (1) Illustration of article use in English
Explaining the meaning and the function of the articles requires a better understanding
of the concept of definiteness as well as the notions of countability and number that
determine the appropriateness of article choice. Therefore, there is a need to take a
closer look at these concepts and their relation to the article system in English.
10
2.1.1 Definiteness
Definiteness is a universal category of meaning found in all languages, with or
without articles. Languages may differ in the way they express definiteness or
indefiniteness; whether in the form of explicit marking (English, French, Arabic) or by
variation in sentence structure whereby the identifiable NP is shifted to the topical
position (e.g. Chinese, Serbian, etc.).
Although definiteness encompasses all types of referential expressions such as
pronouns, proper names, demonstratives as well as syntactically salient expressions in
article-less languages, in this study, the term will be used within the scope of article
use only. Definite expressions can be semantically, pragmatically or structurally
identifiable (Searle 1969), whereas the definite article represents grammatical
definiteness. The definite article results from the process whereby lexical or pragmatic
identification is realised in a discrete linguistic feature. Lyons (1999) emphasises the
need to distinguish between definiteness as a grammatical feature and definiteness as a
category of meaning. The latter is often glossed as the ‘identifiability’ of a referent. In
this sense, definite descriptions can be replaced by demonstratives, while grammatical
definites cannot. Thus, the definite article is a ‘morpho-syntactic category,
grammaticalising a pragmatic category of identifiability’ (ibid: 282). Similarly,
Lambrecht (1994) holds that definiteness is ‘the imperfect grammatical reflection of
the non-discrete pragmatic category of identifiability’ (p.92) (emphasis added).
Indefiniteness on the other hand relates to expressions that result from not using the
definite article in corresponding expressions’ (Chesterman 1991: 417). In addition to
the value of indefiniteness, the indefinite article has a cardinality function to denote
singular number.
11
In previous research on the use of articles, attempts have been made to explain
how the article system in English works by adopting various theoretical approaches.
The following sections will explore some established linguistic theories on
definiteness with regards to articles only.
2.1.1.1 Uniqueness
Uniqueness has been associated with the definite article ever since Russell (1905)
claimed that a definite expression means that its referent exists and is unique. Löbner
(1985: 282) holds that definites have a universal interpretation of ‘referring to one
object in every case’. If we accept this argument, how can definite plurals fit into this
theory? Halliday (1976) proposed that definiteness reflects the individuation of an
item or a group of items that sets it/them apart from all others belonging to the same
kind or category. This would require sufficient endophoric (textual) or exophoric
(non-textual) information. In other words, uniqueness does not imply singularity.
Rather, plural nouns can be unique if treated as one group of items set apart from
others by the virtue of being identified.
However, semantically unique referents in a certain context are not always
definite. Indefinite singular referents can be equally unique. Example (2) from Thu
(2005: 41) will help illustrate this fact.
(2) Helen sang well and won a prize
It is possible that this prize was the only one in the contest, yet the employment of the
indefinite article is plausibly felicitous. Hence, uniqueness is a trait that both definite
and indefinite expressions share. Similarly, definite NPs are not always unique. For
12
example, the definite article in (3) and (4) is used with referents that can implicate
more than one person:
(3) He was the son of a poor farmer.
(4) I do not want my daughter to marry the lover of her sister.
(Löbner (1985: 304)
In both instances, the uniqueness parameter is flouted because in (3) the son does not
necessarily mean the farmer had one son only. Similarly, in (4), the lover is by no
means unique because the sister could have had more than one lover, yet the use of
definite article is felicitous. This suggests that the uniqueness of a referent cannot
solely justify its definite status, or the successful employment of the definite article.
The disambiguation of the references in examples 3 and 4 above can be realised if the
context is restricted to a particular one which both interlocutors recognise. This is
further discussed in the following sections.
2.1.1.2 Familiarity
The use of the definite article has been traditionally related to known/given
information shared between the speaker and the listener, while indefiniteness is mostly
related to unknown information. Christopherson (1939) was the first to describe
definite references as known information. He proposed that definiteness depends on
the notion of ‘familiarity’ which entails that a noun becomes definite if it is familiar.
In this sense, definiteness represents ‘old’ knowledge as opposed to ‘new’ information
which is assumed indefinite (Chafe 1976). Heim (1982) developed the familiarity
13
hypothesis into one of the most influential theories in this respect. She puts forward
that the definite status of a given noun depends on whether or not the information is
familiar to both interlocutors. If the referent is previously mentioned in discourse then
the information is known to the hearer and the familiarity condition is fulfilled and
definiteness established. Indefinite expressions were subdivided by Prince (1992) into
brand new and unused entities. In contrast, old or re-introduced information is definite
information. Prince stresses that it is the hearer’s role to judge whether the information
provided is new or old according to available clues in the discourse.
Bickerton (1981) considers that the hearer’s knowledge is an essential element
in determining the definiteness status, and therefore the appropriate article used with a
given noun. Bickerton’s model combines both hearer’s knowledge (±HK) and
specificity of reference (±SR) as the criteria that determine article choice. These
criteria, in four combinations, were proposed to cover most known uses of the English
article system as illustrated in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Bickerton's NP environments for article use
[-SR] [+HK] the, a, Ø Generic
[+SR] [+HK] the referential definite
[+SR] [-HK] a, Ø referential indefinites, first mentions
[-SR] [-HK] a, Ø non-referential nouns: attributive indefinites, non-
specific indefinite
The above categorisation has been widely influential in SLA studies of articles. This
will be discussed in more detail in the forthcoming sections of this chapter. Although
hearer’s knowledge has been considered an indispensible criterion in determining
14
article choice in various NP environments, the appropriate use of the definite article,
according to Schaeffer and Mathewson (2005), depends mainly on the speaker’s
perception of familiarity, i.e. if the speaker believes that the information is known to
the hearer, the referent would become definite, but if the speaker thinks that the
referent is not known to the hearer, it becomes indefinite. The third possibility is when
the information is known to neither speaker nor hearer, the referent is then indefinite
and non-specific.
There are many instances in natural language whereby the definite article is
acceptably supplied with new information. I.e., newly introduced referents can
become compatible with definiteness. Accordingly, unfamiliarity does not necessarily
entail indefiniteness. Consider the underlined NP in the example below:
(5) I bought a new car but the tyres seem old.
The use of the definite article in the above example is appropriate because it is part of
most people’s epistemic knowledge that cars come with tyres and therefore the tyres
in (5) refer exclusively to the car previously mentioned. This type of use was first
termed as bridging by Clark and Haviland (1974, 1977) and then as ‘associative
anaphoric reference’ by Hawkins (1978).
As first-mention definites exist, familiarity, as a conditional prerequisite to
definiteness, fails to justify such instances. The familiarity theory also fails to explain
the use of the definite article with new information that is not within the scope of
epistemic knowledge or associative reference. The definite article can be used with
15
referents that will only be identified later in the text. This type of use is often termed
as catopharic reference, examples of which can often be found in fiction.2
2.1.1.3 Information Structure
It is more likely that the information structure of an utterance will be presented as
given-new (cf. Halliday 1967) since it is known, in most canonical structures, that the
more accessible precedes less accessible material and that the given information
precedes new information (Givón 1983, Allan 1986). This position is supported by
Anderson et. al. (1991:674) who confirm that the nature of dialogue seems to prefer
placing known information in the topic position of sentences/utterances while new/
unknown information is mostly presented in the comment position. Logically, this
theory would lead to one possible outcome which is that given information is definite
while new information is indefinite. This is illustrated in the diagram below.
Initial position subject topic given information definite
While given information is typically definite and new indefinite, this need not be
the case. Lyons (1999, following Hawkins 1978)3 argues that new information can be
definite if it has been introduced to be explained and made salient later in discourse.
2
See Emslie and Stevenson’s (1981:326) analysis of first-mention definites in literature. Epstein (2002)
also provides ample examples from classic literature with referents known to the writer, not the reader,
being definite despite first mention. For a full review see Walter (1975).
3
Hawkins’ (1978) Accommodation Theory: The recipient is invited [by the speaker] to locate the
referent through previous or forthcoming information, then becomes more willing to
accept/accommodate a definite NP of the intended referent.
16
i.e., the position of a definite expression in an utterance can occur before it is
explained. The following example further illustrates this:
(6) We are looking for the vandals who broke into the office yesterday (Lyons
1999:10).
It is most unlikely that the addressee knows the identity of the vandals being
introduced at the beginning of an utterance as new information that is unfamiliar to the
hearer, yet a definite article is appropriately used. Hawkins (1978) suggests that it is
the ‘inclusiveness’ of forthcoming explanation which justifies this type of usage.
Based on a larger contextual derivation and degrees of coherence and relevance
(Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995, Zegarac 2004), a referent can be identified through
further explanation, linguistically termed as cataphoric reference. Furthermore, Poesio
and Vieira (1998) examined the use of the definite article in newspaper corpus and
found that 50% of definite descriptions are newly introduced referents in discourse,
while 18% are bridged (associative anaphoric) references. In other words, almost 70%
of definite descriptions are not associated with a prior entity occurring in natural
discourse. Therefore, the structure of information in discourse does not relate to
definiteness in a straightforward way (Chafe 1976) since, regardless of the NP’s
position in an utterance, a referent can be identified by the recipient, if enough clues
are provided.
2.1.1.4 Pragmatic
Historically, the definite article is known to have evolved from the deictic terms this,
that. Hence pragmatic values of definiteness are embedded in the available literature
17
on the definite article. In this sense, the identifiability of a referent is largely
dependent on the immediate context in which the utterance is used, rather than its
semantic value or the grammatical conditions of its use. The listener, in a particular
situation, can then identify the referent that is seen or heard as it is immediately
accessible through physical presence. Searle’s (1969) Speech Act Theory proposes
that conversation is composed of implied messages (Conversational Implicatures)
dependent on and relevant to the situation in which the utterance was used. The
illocutionary force (ibid) of these utterances transcends the literal meaning of the
individual components in order to deliver the speaker’s intended message to the
listener. The amount of information the speaker provides has to be precisely adequate.
This is what Grice (1975) termed the Quantity maxim (Q) according to which the
speaker’s contribution in a conversation is successful if it is as informative as
required, not more and not less. Having the appropriate quantity of information will
enable the listener to correctly identify the referent through the Implicatures (I)
provided in context (ibid). Similarly, pragmatic knowledge enables the reader to
correctly identify the referent as it occurs within limited setting of a textual context.
To fulfil the conditions that require the supply of the definite article, Roberts (2003)
asserts, the referent needs to be unique in a context, textual or spoken.
The concepts of quantity and identifiability (Searle 1969) were first put
together by Kempson (1975) as truth conditionals for definiteness. The Q and I
principles were analysed and re-presented by Levinson (1987) as the key criteria
responsible for the derivation of conversational implicatures. Hawkins (1991) later
applied these concepts to his description of definiteness, whereby the pragmatic
setting (P-set) is paramount in determining definiteness. Hence the quantity of
information implied in the conversational context should be sufficient to help the
18
listener identify the referent, i.e. the supply of the definite article becomes obligatory
if there is enough information in the situational discourse.
In terms of article use, Zigarac holds that the definite article is used when the
speaker wishes to indicate that it is ‘sufficiently clear from the situation which
particular thing ….the speaker has in mind’ (2004: 200) (emphasis added). In this
case, the hearer may actually have little information about the noun that the speaker
has in mind and might ask for further clarification. The Location theory, advocated by
Hawkins (1978:167), suggests that when the speaker/writer introduces a definite
referent in discourse s/he is instructing the listener/reader to locate the relevant
information that contributed to establishing its definiteness status within the shared
pragmatic set in which the referring expression occurs. This is all based on the
hypothesis that the speaker/writer assumes that what little information is available is
adequate to form an idea of the referent. In other words, the speaker would have used
the definite article, being the stronger of the two articles (Hawkins, 1991: 417) if at all
possible. Indefinite expressions on the other hand are used when the speaker is not
sure if the knowledge presented is enough to identify the referent or not.
2.1.1.5 Specificity
There has been constant debate in the literature about the relation between
definiteness, specificity and article use. Quirk et al. (1985), for example, distinguish
between specific and generic references in their description of article use. Bickerton
(1981) found that NPs are divided according to notions of specificity in Creole
languages, and proposed that specificity of reference is one of the two main elements
of definiteness while the other is the information status of the referent, being either
19
known or unknown to the hearer. Bickerton presented the well-known Semantic
Wheel which combines both specificity of reference and knowledge as preconditions
to achieving definiteness. The model was later developed by Huebner (1983) who
reformulated the criteria of specificity (±SR) and hearer knowledge (±HK) into four
NP environments that determine article use. It follows that if a referent was both
specific and known (+SR +HK), the supply of the would become obligatory. It is
worth mentioning that, according to this approach, the definite status of a referent is
traditionally dependent on the hearer’s knowledge, while specificity on the other hand
is decided by the speaker.
The notion of specificity had originally evolved from Frege’s (1892) analysis
of natural language semantics (for a full review, see Horn 2007). Fodor and Sag
(1982) proposed that specificity lies in the speaker’s intention to refer to an entity of a
noteworthy property. This influential description was later confirmed by Givón (1984)
who stressed that what makes an expression refer is the speaker’s intent. If the
intention of the speaker is not to refer to a particular entity, then the reference
becomes non-specific or attributive (Donnellan 1966) and vice-versa. A specific NP
means that its description refers to a particular entity in the real world (Brinton 2000:
292) rather than to any item/person with general prototypical attributes that fit all
members of that kind.
Unlike some other languages (e.g. Samoan) which encode specificity, English
actually does not. Lyons suggests that although both definite and indefinite NPs are
‘potentially referring’ (1999: 166), the distinction of specificity/ non-specificity
applies equally to both articles. In other words, indefinite NPs can bear either specific
or non-specific readings, as in examples (7a) and (7b) below. Similarly, definite
20
descriptions can have both specific or non-specific readings as in examples (8a) and
(8b).
(7) a. Peter intends to marry a bank manager (even though he doesn’t get on at all
with her)
b. Peter intends to marry a bank manager (even though he hasn’t met one yet)
(from Lyons 1999)
(8) a. I want to buy presents for the children (whom I teach in my class)
b. I want to buy presents for the children (who might attend the party)
The bank manager in (7a) is specific because she is a particular individual whom Peter
knows, whereas in (7b) the referent could be any one who fits the description of a
bank manager, and therefore non-specific. Similarly, the definite referent in (8a) is
specific because the speaker knows these children, their names, age, number as they
are a particular group that stand out from all others (see Langacker 1997), whereas in
(8.b) the reference is not specific because there could be an unlimited number of
children whom the speaker does not know anything about (their names, age group,
number, etc.).
The specificity of a given referent in discourse does not always fall clearly into
either specific/ non-specific dichotomy; rather it varies in degrees. Givón (1993)
observes that NPs exhibit a continuum of referentiality, ranging from non-referring to
fully referring expressions depending on the ease/difficulty of access. However, given
the scope and limitations of this study, the specificity status of a reference will have to
be considered as either specific (+SP) or non-specific (-SP) to simplify task design,
data calculations and subsequent analysis.
21
Non-specificity, on the other hand, is related to the non-individuation of
referents. Non-specific or generic expressions are kind-referring lexical items that
stand for a whole class of analogous units. Langacker (1997) asserts that with
generics, the generalisation is global rather than local, i.e., instead of being applied to
a limited number of occurrences, the referent equally characterises a group.
Grammatically, it is possible to supply any article form to deliver a generic reference
without appreciable difference in meaning, as in examples (9), (10) and (11) below.
(9) A lion is a fierce animal
(10) The lion is a fierce animal
(11) Lions are fierce animals
The expression fierce animal equally applies to the singular and the plural, the definite
and the indefinite as it refers to a kind with typically similar qualities which people
recognise through their epistemic knowledge of the world (cf. Goldsmith and
Woisetschlaeger 1982). It is clear from the above examples that distinctions of
in/definiteness become neutralised in generic contexts, because the focus is on a whole
set rather than on a specific member of a set (Lyons 1999). In other words, these
nouns become semantically neither definite nor indefinite, but could be better
described as being class identifiable (ibid: 236).
However, there are certain expressions where one article is preferred because
of custom or convention, while using another article becomes less preferable or at
least non-native like within the same context. For example, the relatively low
occurrence of generic a(n) in corpora suggests that the indefinite article does not have
a strong generalising power (Master 1987) yet, in certain regional dialects in the US, it
22
was the more preferable option in delivering generic meanings (Hong and Seonkyung
2001). Furthermore, despite the neutrality of articles in generic referencing, there is a
formality element that affects appropriate article choice. Celce-Maurcia and Larsen-
Freeman (1999) consider the indefinite article as the least formal while generic the is
believed to be more formal and bare plurals were presented as the most formal.
However, a study done by Master (1987) confirms that generic the was more frequent
in scientific journals than other article(s). Finally, it has been widely acknowledged
that the bare plurals are inherently ambiguous and therefore mostly non-referential
(Weir 1986, Krifka 1995, 2003, Behrens 2005). This quality makes bare plurals the
most popular form of generics in written discourse.
2.1.1.6 Cognitive
Salmon-Alt and Romary (2000), following Langacker (1991), suggest that reference
can be established cognitively across domains rather than being dependent on the
individual descriptions of the entities themselves. Therefore, both definite and
indefinite articles can be grammatically used with both new and old information,
unique and non unique NPs, specific and non-specific referents. It is hence necessary
to introduce a more accurate description of the linguistic criteria that determine the
conditions of appropriate article use.
Strawson’s (1950) notion of presupposition was later incorporated into
cognitive literature and became essential in later interpretations of definiteness. Thus,
it is when the speaker presupposes, rather than knows, that the hearer is familiar with
the information in an utterance that the referent becomes definite. According to the
cognitive approach, definiteness depends mostly on the status of a referent in the mind
23
of the speaker or his supposition about the mind of the addressee. By knowing ‘other
minds’ (Givón 1989: 207), cognitive theory does not approach definiteness on the
basis of knowing the identity of the referent, but addresses it from the angle of mental
representations of the referent in question (Lambrecht 1994:335) in the interlocutors’
minds. If the entities have similar representations in the interlocutors’ mental spaces
(Fauconnier, 1994), and the interlocutors achieve mental contact the referent becomes
definite. The task of a speaker is to assess the hearer’s cognitive environment, and to
choose which article to use to accordingly.
Chafe (1976) posits that givenness is not a category of knowledge but of
consciousness where information is active, inactive or re-activated in discourse.
According to Gundel et al. (1993) determiners restrict possible referents by
conventionally signalling different cognitive statuses within a hierarchy of givenness.
In definite constructions, the speaker assumes that these signals are available in the
present memory and attention state of the addressee which would enable them to
identify the intended referent. Lambrecht (1994) presented an argument which
combined the traditional view of familiarity with the more cognitive notion of
accessibility. He classified information types as categories of either consciousness or
knowledge. If the category is consciousness-related, definite expressions will result
from ‘activated’ information, believed by the speaker to be currently available in the
consciousness of the hearer (Chafe 1976). ‘New’ information, on the other hand, is the
information which is either accessible (familiar) to the hearer, but not presently
available in their consciousness, or inaccessible and therefore indefinite. As categories
of knowledge, given and new mark the distinction between the entities believed by the
speaker to be either active (ibid) or accessible, and therefore identifiable, or
24
inaccessible and therefore unidentifiable. The division can be schematically
represented as in Figure 2:
Category of Consciousness: GIVEN NEW
The status of the referent: Activated Accessible Inaccessible
Category of knowledge: GIVEN NEW
Figure 2. Information Status and accessibility of referents
Epstein et al. (1996) maintain that the function of the definite article is to signal that a
referent is ‘accessible from the point of view of both speaker and hearer’ (p. 109).
Therefore, felicitous use of the definite article is contingent not only on the hearer’s
knowledge (familiarity theory), but also on the speaker’s assessment of the hearer’s
knowledge (ibid: 100), i.e., it is up to the speaker to assume whether the hearer is able
to identify the information referred to in discourse or not.
A cognitive explanation of the use of the definite article with new information,
otherwise inaccessible in the traditional view of familiarity (see example 6) is that the
definite article triggers a frame. Within this frame (context) the referent is evoked
(activated) as the speaker invites the listener to search for a route or a path (Epstein
2002, Langacker 2008) to follow in order to identify the referent through further
information in discourse.
The degree of accessibility of a referent then depends on the relevance of such
information and its spatial/temporal distance to the referent (Ariel 1988) as well as its
25
prominence (Epstein 2002). This forms a continuum of levels of activation, ranging
from highly active (accessible) to non-active (inaccessible) information. If the referent
represents a prominent idea, then it can be easily recalled by using the definite article
to re-activate this idea. If the information cannot be accessed, then indefiniteness
arises as a result of lacking information on the part of the listener, or an
underestimation on the part of the speaker about the hearer’s knowledge.
In the previous sections, several theories that describe definiteness have been
presented. The concepts in this overview approach definiteness from different angles
providing a wide spectrum of possible explanations which should help analyse learner
production in the Discussion chapter.
2.1.2 Countability and Number
The countability status of a noun plays a crucial role in determining the
grammaticality of article use in indefinite NPs and, combined with the number value,
whether or not the indefinite article is to be obligatorily supplied. Countable entities
are defined as those that can stand independently as individual units (e.g. chair, pen,
idea, etc) but can also be pluralised (e.g. chairs, pens, ideas). On the other hand,
uncountable entities represent ‘conceptual information about substances and
abstractions’ (Yule 1998:31). They include mass substances (e.g. rice, sugar, water)
and some collective nouns (e.g. humanity, furniture) and abstract notions. 4
4
Certain collectives are compatible with singular verbs (e.g. government, family, crowd) under
restrictive contextual conditions. For a detailed account see Depraetere (2003)
26
To capture the distributional characteristics of countability, Langacker (1991,
1997) proposes that nouns can be categorised according to their boundedness. A
bounded entity is separate, enclosed and delimited and can be thus conceived as a
single item or group. Unbounded entities on the other hand, cannot be individuated
into separate items/units. The noun water, for instance, is uncountable because it
cannot be cut and divided into smaller units. Another way to conceptualise the
count/non-count distinction is based on the fact that the two classes of nouns in
English are drawn from two separate semantic domains (Chierchia 1994) whereby a
countable noun denotes a set of individuals or items while an uncountable noun
denotes portions of substances or fusions of materials whose denotational domain
does not consist of individuals. Sensitivity, for example being a human emotion,
cannot be individuated or calculated and is therefore uncountable.
Yet Countability is neither categorically polarised nor consistently
dichotomous. There are numerous instances where nouns, formally categorised into
one countability class, occur with characteristics of the other, as in the examples (12,
13) below.
(12) Can I have a coffee?
(13) It was a sudden death
It is known that mass nouns (coffee) and abstract nouns (death) are uncountable which
usually prohibits the supply of the indefinite article, yet both (12) and (13) are
grammatically correct as well as semantically logical. One explanation, offered by
Quirk et al. (1985), suggests that some nouns possess Dual class memberships (p: 247),
27
i.e., the same noun can be countable in one context but uncountable in the other.
According to Langacker, a formally-uncountable noun can be conceived as bounded
(countable) if it occupies a ‘circumscribed portion of quality space’ (1991: 18) which
distinguishes from other substances such as the cup or the mug in which the coffee, in
(12), is put in.
Another countability shift is noticed in contexts where proper nouns, typically
uncountable, exhibit qualities of countable nouns in enumeration by permitting the
presence of the plural suffix (14.a) and the indefinite article in (14.b):
(14) a. All the Johns that I know are intelligent
b. A Mr. John called this morning.
Traditionally, proper nouns are considered uncountable, yet the singular and the plural
forms in the examples above are grammatical and the expressions are commonly
acceptable. Furthermore, with regards to articles, the use of the both definite and
indefinite articles is felicitous.
Chesterman (1991) discerns article choice in overlapping cases of countability
on the basis of typical use. For example, nouns such as Furniture typically reject the
indefinite article, while others, such as ‘humanity’ conventionally reject the presence
of the definite article. However, the examples in 14.a and 14.b do not represent the
typical uses of proper nouns. Instead, John is grammatically used as a common noun
because it represents a name borne by more than one person and thus permits the use
of articles.
28
Abstract nouns, known to represent attitudes, statuses and emotions (e.g.
wealth, happiness, hatred) are largely uncountable, yet there are many abstract nouns
that are countable (e.g. feeling, joy, thought, etc.). In certain occurrences, abstract
nouns -perceived as uncountable- can shift in class into countable entities (Quirk et al.
1985).5 Consider the following example from Master (1997:225)
(15) It has a wonderful rhythm.
Master explains that it is the evaluative modifier wonderful that causes the shift in the
countability status of the word rhythm, because, in this context, the expression is
reduced from the original: It has a wonderful [kind of] rhythm. Therefore, the
indefinite article refers to the missing words rather than the uncountable abstract noun
rhythm. Similarly, the use of the indefinite article with a generically uncountable noun
in (13): It was a sudden death is appropriate because the writer -probably a journalist-
assumes that the readers would be able to guess that there is a missing (countable)
noun, which bears the meaning of accident/incident/case and therefore requires the
supply of the a(n). Cognitively, the elliptic expression signifies the speaker/writer’s
confidence that the recipients will easily fill-in the information gap by drawing on
their epistemic knowledge of the world.
In this sense, the argument that formulaic expressions (or set phrases) require a
special use of articles6 (Nettle and Hopkins 2003) because they seemingly violate
traditional classifications of countability, will collapse since article use can be
explained by the hypotheses of countability shifts, dual-class memberships (Quirk et
al. 1985) and the range of a countability continuum determined by context (Allan
5
For a range of comparative phrases with countability shifts of nouns, see Master (1997).
6
Many Grammar textbooks have a separate section for special or exceptional cases of article use. See
for instance Swan and Walter (2001).
29
1981). For instance, a noun that is originally classified as countable, occurring in the
singular form, can become uncountable in certain contexts with a generic
interpretation, referring to a kind rather than an individual instance/item/person
(Chesterman 1991, Behrens 2005). As a result, the obligatory indefinite article
becomes redundant. On the other hand, the supply of the indefinite article can become
obligatory in certain contexts with uncountable nouns as in example (15) below.
(16) A person without a past is someone without a future.
Past and future are conventionally uncountable, yet the use of the indefinite article is
equally acceptable in both NPs. Hence, instances of countability shifts, as in the
examples above, should not be conceived as exceptions to the rules. Rather, the
context becomes the parameter against which the appropriateness of such occurrences
is measured. The interlocutors in a given context are supposed to possess situational
knowledge that enables them to deduce the intended the referent even in cases of
ellipses. Countability, therefore, describes the context, not the head noun itself. This
view explains all exceptions, shifts and dual-memberships. For instance, in example
(12) the speaker, probably a customer in a cafe bar or a guest at a friend’s house,
realises that the quantity of information is enough for the listener, perhaps the waiter
or the host, to realise that the utterance is contracted and that the indefinite article is
referring to a cup of coffee, rather than the amount of coffee. Contextual knowledge
can also justify the shifts in the countability statuses of proper nouns. In (14.a), Johns
is a contraction of the longer version of the phrase: all the men that are called John
into this shorter form. In (14.b) the indefinite article is referring to the missing word:
person: A person, whose name is John called this morning.
30
Finally, one of the most influential views on countability presented by Allan
(1981, 2001) suggests that countability should be construed as a continuum rather than
a dichotomy. Some words are inherently more countable while other expressions are
less susceptible to countability although in some contexts they might assume a
countable position. In this study, however, we shall have to dichotomise NPs into
either Countable or non-Countable categories based on context in which they occur to
facilitate the analysis of test results and the processing of statistical calculations.
2.2 Article Contexts
2.2.1 Definite article environments:
It seems from the above that definiteness is based on two basic notions of
identifiability by both speakers and uniqueness within a particular context. Therefore,
a referent becomes definite when it is uniquely identifiable by interlocutors in a
mutually manifest pragmatic (P) set online. Hence, NP environments, in which the
articles are known to occur, are considered obligatory when there are certain
conditions which necessitate the suppliance of either article to ensure grammatical
correctness. Failing to do so could result in grammatically unacceptable constructions
or at least ambiguous and misleading references. These contexts may vary in certain
language communities. A study by Hollmann and Siewierska (2011) for example,
examined the phenomenon of definite article reduction (DAR) in the Lancashire
dialect, a variety spoken in the North West of England. In this study, however, the
criteria which determine obligatory environments of definite article will be defined
according to broader terms that transcend the limitations of particular regional
31
conditions. The approach we follow is derived from Liu and Gleason’s (2002)
classification of (non-generic) contexts of definite article use, which, in turn is based
on the theory of definiteness advanced by Hawkins (1978) and Lyons (1999).
Accordingly, the supply of the definite article is necessary if the referent is introduced
to the addressee either textually, pragmatically or is part of the interlocutors’ common
knowledge. The following is a summary of NP environments in which the supply of
the definite article becomes ‘obligatory’ in verbal and textual communication.
1. If the head noun is previously introduced in the textual context
(second/subsequent mention)
I bought a book. The book was expensive.
2. If the head noun is conventionally associated with a previously mentioned noun
(Associated anaphoric reference, bridging)
I went to a wedding. The bride was beautiful.
3. If the head noun is semantically unique in a universal sense/ larger situational
context:
The sun is shining.
The world is a stage.
4. If the head noun is unique in a smaller situational context of a certain community
or group:
Where is the teacher? (A student asked another in the same lecture hall)
32
5. If the head noun is physically/immediately present (seen, heard). Deictic
reference.
Can you please pass the salt?
6. If the head noun is identified by explanatory modifiers such as defining/
explanatory relative clauses. Forward identification/cataphoric reference
The car that she bought is new.
7. If the head noun is adjectivally premodified with a superlative adjective:
He is the fastest runner in the world.
8. If the head noun is preceded by semantically unique expressions: the only; the
same
33
2.2.2 Indefinite article environments
Indefinite interpretations are analysed as implicatures that result from the absence of
the definite article. i.e., a NP becomes indefinite when it does not meet the conditions
required for definiteness. The I-principle, represents implicatures of not using the
definite article. In other words, the speaker uses a(n) because it was not possible to
have used the.
Heim (1991) ascribes this lack of definiteness to either one of the following
possibilities: the referent exists, but is not unique (17.a); or it does not exist in the
speaker’s knowledge of the hearer’s mind (17.b).7
(17) a. I bought a new bag (any one bag in the world)
b. I bought a new bag (which you have never seen/heard of before).
Although (a) and (b) are exactly identical, the reasons for not using the definite
article are different because in each case one of the conditions for definiteness is not
fulfilled. While indefiniteness is only indirectly implied -by the absence of the definite
article- it is the cardinal property of a(n) which explicitly and directly refers to the
singular status of the noun. This is why a singular indefinite NP has been branded by
linguists as a cardinal phrase (CardP) (Lyons 1999). Since the indefinite article had
originated from the numeral one, both are mutually exclusive as they both indicate
singularity and occupy a similar position (Specifier) in the NP. Possessing the
numerical value disqualifies the indefinite article from being the equivalent
7
While Heim’s (1982) theory on definiteness depended mostly on the familiarity condition, her later
work (1991) shows an incorporation of pragmatic and cognitive concepts into the previous proposals.
34
counterpart of the definite article. Rather, as is the case with the definite article, the
polar opposite of the indefinite article is no article.
The Absence of the indefinite article signals that the noun is indefinite and that
it is not singular, i.e. either plural or uncountable. NPs without articles are known as
bare nominals, yet in many SLA studies on articles, nouns in bare constructions are
frequently described as being modified by the zero (Ø) article. The zero article is not
the only marker of indefinite plurals. Another indefinite determiner is the quantifier
some which is considered by many researchers as the plural form of the indefinite
article. Yet unlike the indefinite article, its use is not obligatory and therefore its
absence does not make the utterance ungrammatical. Furthermore, while bare plurals
are largely non-referential, the indefinite plural determiner some is often used
referentially.
2.3 The article system in Arabic
In this section, we will review the usage of articles in Arabic and briefly outline their
form and function in the Arabic NP structure. A basic contrastive analysis with
corresponding notions from English will also be presented in an attempt to highlight
potential sources of learner errors.
Arabic is a Semitic language formally categorised as a language with article(s)
(+ART) because definiteness is grammaticalised. However, there is no explicit and
obligatory marking of indefiniteness. In that sense, it is similar to Hebrew
and Bulgarian which are two other languages that possess a definite article but do not
require overt marking of indefinite nouns. This fact does not necessarily entail
35
deficiency in functional categories because the semantic notion of indefiniteness is
available in these languages but its morphological representation is not compulsory.
While definite descriptions can be both specific and non-specific (±Specific)
in Arabic, indefinite expressions are mostly used in specific references. Specificity is
largely indefinite; generic reference is all definite (Hawas 1989).
2.3.1 Definiteness
Definiteness in Arabic is grammaticalised as well as obligatory. The definite article is
transcribed as a bound affixal morpheme /al/, which occurs as a proclitic prefix to the
head noun as is shown in example 18.
(18) ‫ﺃﻠﺑﻴﺖ‬
Al-bait
The house
Similar to English, the definite article in Arabic occurs before nouns and adjectives. It
is similarly supplied in all the obligatory contexts of the English definite article (see
2.1.3). However, unlike the English articles, the definite article in Arabic is not a free
morpheme. Another difference lies in the function of the definite article. In addition to
identification, the definite article in Arabic is largely used in most generic references
regardless of the level of formality or convention. Arabic is comparable to French and
Greek in the sense that definite descriptions can carry both specific and generic
readings.
36
With regards to information structure, known, given, information mainly
occurs in the subject position of most canonical structures and is considered as topic,
whereas the complement position is typically reserved for new, indefinite information.
Therefore, subjects are largely definite while predicates are indefinite in canonical
structures. The verb usually precedes the subject in classic Arabic, but colloquial
dialects apply the SVO order more often. Adjectives occur post-nominally and agree
with nouns in number, definiteness and gender. The definite article /al/ does not
necessarily render the adjective uniquely identifiable or a superlative (as is the case in
English). Rather, the vacuous definite article (Lyons 1999) serves as a sign that links
the definite noun to its adjectives: Definite article + N + definite article + adjective:
)19( ‫ﺃﻠﺑﻴﺖ ﺍﻠﮐﺒﻴﺭ‬
Al-bait al-kabeer
def-house def-big
The big house
It is worth mentioning that in generic contexts, the definite singular form is often
preferred to the plural (cf. Kremers 2003, Maalej 2004, Schulz 2004). Hence, a
complement to the NP could be: The house is usually larger than the flat. In Arabic,
this would be interpreted generically, whereby the scope of reference is extended
beyond a certain, uniquely identifiable, house, to the larger group that includes all
houses in the world.
An expression can be equally definite in both Arabic and English in genitive
constructions, but the syntactic position of the definite article in a canonical NP is
different. Syntactically, Arabic is a determiner-genitive (DG) language which allows
37
possessives to occur in the determiner position (Hawas 1989). In this respect it is
similar to English, but the difference between the two languages lies in the structure of
the genitive constructions. In Arabic the definite article is part of the complement
rather than the topic. This topic, although unmarked, is semantically definite through
being post-modified with a grammatically definite noun. Price in (20) and plan in (21)
are uniquely identified by being limited to the context of the following definite noun.
(20) *Price of the oil has gone up (from task 3).
(21) *Plan of the government is to build new schools.
2.3.2 Indefiniteness
Indefiniteness in Arabic is grammatically expressed by the absence of the prefix /al/ in
a given NP. It is enough indication of the indefinite status of a given NP. Thus, unlike
languages with two or more articles such as French, English, Spanish or Italian in
which the marking of indefinite singular nouns is obligatory, indefinite marking is
optional in Arabic. Therefore, its absence does not render a given utterance
ungrammatical. Furthermore, indefiniteness markers are exclusively limited to the
formal, written classic register while in the spoken, regional dialects of Arabic there is
no audible indefinite article (Schulz 2004).
To mark indefiniteness in classic Arabic, a small sign or accent termed
‘tenween’ in Arabic or nunation in English (Smith 2001) is suffixed to nouns. There
are three types of nunation: /in/, /un/ and /en/. The choice depends on the function of
the noun; A Subject suffix is pronounced /un/ and is transcribed as a small sign above
the last letter. Object suffixes on the other hand are pronounced /en/ and are
38
transcribed above an /a:/ sound added to the last letter, while accents for nouns that
fall within a prepositional phrase are pronounced /in/ (Smith 2001) and are transcribed
under the last letter. The indefinite markers are almost unnoticeable because the
suffixed noun remains identical in form to the un-suffixed one because indefiniteness
markers are represented in small accents written over or under the last letter of the
word.
Structurally, both SV/VS sentence structures are permissible in Arabic.
Moreover, unlike English, indefinite nouns are premodified with indefinite adjectives
(Adj + N) as in example (22) below
(22) ٌ‫ﺑﻴﺖٌ ﮐﺒﺑﺭ‬ ‫ﻫﺫﺍ‬
Haatha bait-un Kabeer-un
Dem:prox house-N-Indef-Sg big-Adj-Indef-Sg
This is a big house
Countability in Arabic is very similar to English in the sense that there is a difference
between singular and plural noun forms and that most mass and abstract nouns are
uncountable. Nonetheless, there are a few instances where the two languages do not
share the exact perceptions of noun countability. Some nouns which are largely
uncountable in English are countable in Arabic. These include many abstract concepts
(e.g. information, advice, work, time experience, luck, news, help and knowledge),
some mass nouns (e.g. equipment, paint, chalk, wood,) and a few collective nouns
(e.g. sheep). The opposite is also true but extremely limited. In other words, there are
only a few cases where nouns which are countable in English, (e.g. life) are
39
uncountable in Arabic. Such lexical disparities in classification across languages
(Quirk et al. 1985, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999) may lead to misuse of
articles by L2 learners (Yoon 1993). With regards to number, the indefinite markers
in Arabic do not have a cardinality function as accent suffixes occur equally with
singular, plural or uncountable nouns.
As the Arabic speaking media is moving towards accepting vernacular
versions of spoken Arabic, indefiniteness is becoming less explicitly marked even in
formal contexts. This discrepancy between the formal and informal, or spoken and
written discourse, causes most Arabic speakers to neglect marking indefiniteness
especially when the absence of indefinite markers does not render utterances
ungrammatical. These facts, in addition to some lexical disparity in countability, could
turn into constraints that limit L2 acquisition because of the possible negative transfer
of these features into the target language.
2.3.3 Comparison of article use in Arabic and English
Hawas (1989) offers a comprehensive, cross linguistic analysis of the major
differences in the article systems of Arabic and English as well as a review of the
main structural and semantic elements that characterise representations of definiteness
in these languages, in addition to other influential factors such as countability and
number. A more modest attempt is presented in Table 2 below outlining some of the
basic factors that distinguish article use in Arabic and English.
40
Table 2 Comparison of articles between Arabic and English
Linguistic
English Arabic
criteria
Obligatory supply Obligatory supply
Definite article
To uniquely identify To identify and generalise
Obligatory Optional
Indefinite article
To classify one item as non- To classify one or a group of
uniquely identifiable items as non-uniquely
identifiable
Prenominal Postnominal
Uncountable Countable
Adjectives
Agrees in (in)definiteness with
No definiteness value
the head noun
Abstract nouns Largely indefinite Always definite
Generic Mostly indefinite plural Always definite
Mostly singular
Genitive case Definite subjects Definite predicates
41
2. 4 Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
The term acquisition refers to the collection of processes that lead to production, use
and ultimately, full attainment of another language. It therefore encompasses the
different ways of internalising language, ‘be it learning a system or picking up useful
expressions’ (Crystal 1987). A distinction between acquisition and learning was
originally made by Krashen who maintained that acquisition ‘is very similar to the
process children go through in acquiring first language’ (1981:1). Accordingly,
language is attained naturally through exposure and produced communicatively with
meaning as the target. Learning on the other hand refers to the knowledge gained
through classroom instruction, expressed mostly in formal contexts with large focus
on accuracy. However, since it is difficult to be absolutely certain of the source of the
participants’ L2 knowledge, whether it came solely from instruction, or was a result of
individual interest in reading novels or watching films in English, in this study the two
terms will be used interchangeably regardless of the source, means and targets.
Traditionally, SLA studies have approached L2 data from the perspective of
Universal Grammar (UG). Supporters of UG believe that humans are endowed with
an innate language faculty that enables them to acquire (any) language through
accessing subconscious knowledge of universal concepts (principles). The forms of
these abstract concepts are represented in actual languages, each of which has its own
set of descriptors (parameters) that vary from one language to the other. In the
process of acquiring a second language, learners will have to adjust the settings of
their L1 parameters to new L2 values. Some very well known studies in SLA support
the UG theory (e.g. Dulay and Burt 1972, Epstein et al. 1996 inter alia). However, UG
theorists hold different positions with regard to the degree of accessibility learners
have to UG principles and the extent to which L1 parameters are operative in the L2
42
process. Some hold that L1 parameters affect production but to a certain stage when
they switch to the L2 grammars (The Full Access Full Transfer hypothesis. Schwartz
and Sprouse 1996). Others propose that it is the UG, not the L1 parameters, that
influence initial analyses of the L2 (Full Access hypothesis. Epstein et al. 1996).
Partial availability suggests that only some UG principles are accessed directly
without going through the L1 parameters (Schachter 1990, Johnson and Newport
1991, among others). In this sense, the role of UG is often perceived as the opposite to
that of the L1. However, the argument that UG and L1 provide opposite explanations
to second language production/error is not always valid, since the UG theory does not
exclude the role of the L1 in the learning process. Rather, the power of the first
language has often been considered influential by UG theorists.8 Therefore, in this
study, the term developmental will be used to refer to the similarities in L2 production
when error patterns, orders of acquisition and learning strategies are common among
learners of divergent L1 backgrounds. On the other hand, variation can become
evidence of transfer in the production of learners of a particular language group once
erroneous usage patterns are traced to the systems found in learners’ L1s.
However, the question of whether or not the strategies employed in the
processes of acquiring second language knowledge are innately generated or UG
governed is beyond the scope of this study. In other words, this is not an attempt to
find evidence for or against the presence of UG principles and parameters in learner
data or the extent to which they are operative. Nevertheless, some UG-based SLA
theories that address the L2 acquisition of articles (e.g. the Missing Surface Inflection
hypothesis (MSIH) Prévost and White 2000, the Failed Functional Features
8
For a full review, see White (1998).
43
hypothesis (FFFH) Hawkins and Chan 1997; the Representation Deficit hypothesis
(RDH) Hawkins 2004) will be considered as possible interpretations of our findings.
Usage-based studies on the other hand view L2 acquisition as part of a larger
cognitive process whereby language ability is not separable from epistemic knowledge
and the acquisition of L1 and L2 is not identical. According to this approach, learners
abstract regularities from the input and construct new forms in the L2. Usage based
models better account for L2 errors since they accommodate a multiplicity of
interacting factors such as the type of input, level of awareness and the attentional
demands of various tasks (see also Skehan 1989). The processabilty of L2 knowledge
in learners’ minds is dependent on the syntactic category of the form,
lexical/grammatical complexity of the item learned and its perceptual salience in
context (Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001) among other factors. Furthermore, the
frequency of input plays a determinant role in the way L2 progresses (cf. Ellis 2002,
Gass 2002). Usage-based theories, such as Goldberg’s (2009) Constructionist
Approach offer a more comprehensive view of SLA since cognitive, pragmatic and
processing constraints are equally involved in measuring L2 achievement. More
importantly, UG is not excluded as a language acquisition device (LAD) while
learners’ first language remains one of the most influential elements in the L2 process.
Incongruent SLA development patterns were reported in studies involving
learners from different L1 backgrounds as the semantic and syntactic properties of the
L1 are believed to affect the L2 production. The effect of L1 semantics is reported in
a study by Snape et al (2006) on Spanish and Japanese learners. Incompatible results
were found in the two L1 groups’ use of the definite article in specific and non-
specific contexts. Similarly, Ionin et al. (2008) compared the performance of L1
Russian with L1 Spanish learners and found discrepancies in their interpretations of
44
specificity-definiteness with regards to article use. The syntactic properties of
learners’ L1 have also been noticed in L2 production as was recorded by Jarvis (2002)
in a study on Finnish and Swedish learners. Transfer is believed to be manifest in the
overextension of analogy of L1 rules into L2 structures (Ellis 1994: 59).
Advocates of the Contrastive Analysis (Lado 1957) believe that the presence
of a feature in L1 facilitates the acquisition of the same feature in L2 (Ard and
Hombarg 1983, cited in Mclaughlin 1987). Brown (1994) maintains that ‘interference
can actually be greater when items to be learned are more similar to existing items
than when items are entirely new and unrelated to existing items’ (p. 201). Ringbom
(1987), among others, holds that similar L1/L2 representations of functional,
grammatical and lexical categories can lead to positive transfer evident in earlier
emergence and faster mastery. Similarly, Goad and White (2004) propose that if
certain features of the L2 functional morphology, such as the articles, are not available
in the learners’ L1, then negative transfer of the L1 prosody (prosodic transfer) is
expected to occur in learners’ production.
If we assume that only syntactic features available in L1 are easily acquired,
while others -absent from the L1- are not, then learners’ performance will always
remain non-target-like (Smith and Tsimpli 1995, Hawkins and Chan 1997,
Franceschina 2001, Hawkins 2001) because there is a shortage in corresponding
representation.
In SLA literature it is typical that in acquiring a second language, learners go
through a series of phases through which production deviates from the target language
(TL) but is not necessarily attributable to influence of the learners’ first language.
Selinker (1972) proposed that such errors can be explained if the language produced
45
by learners was perceived as being an Interlanguage (IL). This notion
comprehensively covers L2 production during all stages of second language
development from the initial point of emergence, or the onset of production (Ellis
1994), until full attainment, which indicates the learners’ mastery of the target
language. Richards (1971) identifies five distinct processes of the IL phenomena:
1. Hypercorrection.
2. Over-generalisation.
3. Ignorance of rules and restrictions.
4. Incomplete applications of rules.
5. Falsely hypothesised concepts.
Richards’ study analysed non-target like use of articles and ascribed learner errors to
the universal language learning tendencies listed above. Towell and Hawkins (1994)
suggest that in addition to the known IL causes, L2 errors can be ascribed to a
subconscious transfer of the L1 mental grammar into the IL production, followed by a
staged development of the IL towards more target like L2. Many SLA researchers
have assigned great significance to the learners’ first language (L1) in influencing the
L2 learning process and have ascribed learners’ production to transfer whether
positive or negative (Gass 1996, Goad and White 2004, Ellis 2006). The argument for
and against first language effect on SLA is based on the extent of its influence and the
type of influence. Most researchers agree that the first language is most influential at
earlier learning stages or at lower proficiency levels (Odlin 1989, 2003, Schwartz and
Sprouse 1996, Slabakova 2000, Haznedar 2001, inter alia) since it is the primary
source from which newly acquired knowledge is built. Haznedar stresses that there is
46
‘compelling evidence for L1 transfer in … early L2 English’ (2001: 24 emphasis
added).
Research in SLA has also been concerned with the way L2 notions evolve in
learners’ minds through examining written or spoken output administered under
various testing conditions. It has been reported that learners draw upon different types
of knowledge, depending on the manner through which knowledge is received, how
the information is stored and the way it is accessed in production. The distinction
between the two types of knowledge originated in the philosophical literature (see
Ryle 1949). Linguists who adopted this idea distinguished between learned and
acquired competence (Krashen 1982); controlled and automated production
(Anderson 1983); explicit and implicit knowledge (Bialystok 1987, 1988); declarative
and procedural ability (Anderson 1980, Levelt 1989), analysed and automatic forms
of representation (Ellis 1984), integrated linguistic competence and conscious
intellectual understanding (Hale 1988) and performative and propositional knowledge
(Crystal 2000). Recently, the terms conscious/subconscious became more popular in
referring to the two types of knowledge (see Roehr 2005 for example). In this study,
both types of knowledge were considered in the design of the tests and data analysis.
The next section will include a brief review of literature on the acquisition of
articles with special attention to L1 Arabic (L1Ar) learners. A summary of certain
linguistic notions L2 learners have been known to hypothetically associate with article
use will also be presented.
47
2.4.1 L2 Acquisition of Articles
The two articles in English have not been reported to be acquired at the same time nor
follow the same route of development in SLA. Studies show that each article is
produced and mastered at variable IL stages and to incur different error types (e.g.
omission, overuse, etc.) at different PLs. Several criteria, such as learners’ L1, PL and
task type, in addition to various NP contexts, to name but a few variables, determine
the L2 development map of each article separately.
Many researchers ascribe L2 errors to the influence of their first language
(Huebner 1983, Master 1987, Ringbom 1987, Odlin 2003, Young 1996, Goad and
White 2004 inter alia). L1 induced errors are supposed to account for up to one third
of all 2L errors (George 1971, Abisamra 2003) or more (cf. Habash 1982). Most
researchers agree that syntactic and semantic differences between the L1 and the L2
result in ‘negative transfer’, while it is known that similarities lead to positive transfer
(Ringbom 1987) which, in effect, facilitates learning (Lado 1957).
In the field of article acquisition, transfer depends on the presence or absence
of a feature in the L1. There is a common view in SLA that learners with –ART L1s
have more difficulty in acquiring the EAS than learners with +ART L1s. Masters
(1987) contends that learners whose L1 possess articles are at an advantage in their
second language acquisition of English articles. L2 studies have since confirmed
Master’s theory. For example, Spanish and Greek (+ART L1) learners in Hawkins et
al.’s (2006) study performed better than their Japanese counterparts. The proposal that
there is an advantage to possessing articles in learners’ L1 is evident in the delayed
emergence of articles and the higher inclination to omit articles in the production of
learners from –ART L1s. The mastery of the bare-plural/uncountable nouns and the
48
higher overuse rates of the zero (Ø) article by learners from article-less backgrounds
further substantiates the former hypothesis. A study by Young (1996) on Czech and
Slovak learners yields that the two articles only emerge at later IL stages, while the
failure to supply articles (omission) might persist onto more advanced stages. Similar
findings were reported by Thomas 1989, Master, 1997, Trenkic´ 2002 and Ekiert
2004). Similarly, Paradis and Zdorenko (2008) recorded more omissions in the L2
production of Korean, Chinese and Japanese (–ART) learners of English than in the
production of Spanish, Arabic and Romanian (+ART) learners.
It was also found that the omission stage is usually followed by a phase in
which the definite article, rather than the indefinite, is overused in indefinite contexts.
This universal phenomenon in article acquisition is known as the ‘the-flooding’ stage.
It is worth mentioning that the flooding of the definite article is reported to occur after
initial omission stages, but well before mastery of both English articles (Huebner
1985, Parrish, 1987, Thomas 1989, Chaudron and Parker, 1990 and Master, 1987).
This pattern seems to be reflected in most L2 production regardless of L1.
Most studies report that the mastery of the definite article precedes that of the
indefinite (Huebner 1983, Master 1997, Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989) while mastering
a(n), according to Thomas (1989) is at least significantly delayed. Parrish’s student
did not master indefinite contexts until Time 9, which is a relatively late stage in the
12 set phases of her L2 learning time. The relative delay in acquiring the indefinite
article has been attributed to its multiple functions (cardinality, indefiniteness) by
many SLA researchers (Master 1997). Others, such as Haznedar and Schwartz (1997),
Lardiere (1998), and Robertson (2000) hold that the variability in L2 production is
caused by the difficulty in mapping surface morphological forms, i.e., articles, onto
49
abstract notions (e.g. definiteness, countability, number). This position is known as the
Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (MSIH) (Prévost and White 2000) which was
followed by Slabakova (2000) in her study on Bulgarian learners of English.
From a developmental perspective, the RDH (Kuribara 1999, Hawkins 2004)
offers an explanation for the difficulty in mastering the indefinite article. It suggests
that the delay is caused by the absence of formal representation of certain L2 features
from learners’ IL. This hypothesis is supported by many researchers in the field such
as Snape (2008). It is also noticeable that the indefinite article was found to be better
supplied in existential (There + is + a(n) + N) and have constructions (Huebner 1983,
Butler 2002, Yule 1998) as most indefinite singular phrases are learned as formulaic
chunks, especially in formal education (Trenkic´ 2000).
It is worth mentioning that this progression in L2 article acquisition
corresponds to the sequence reported in studies on the L1 acquisition of English. It has
been frequently reported that bare nominals (zero article) temporally precede the
emergence of articles (cf. Zehler and Brewer 1981, Cziko 1986, Roeper 2003).9
Researchers ascribe early absence of articles to delay in the emergence of functional
categories while overuse of the definite article, according to studies in
psycholinguistics, is ascribed to child ego-centricism (cf. Maratsos 1976). Thus a child
(speaker) would consider a referent as definite if it is identifiable to them disregarding
the perspective of the hearer.
9
See also Clahsen et al. 1994 and Chierchia et. al. 1999
50
2.4.2 L2 Acquisition of articles by Arab learners
All studies on L1Ar learners’ acquisition of English articles agree that the definite
article is the first to be acquired, while producing appropriate bare plurals was found
to be the most difficult. In the well-known study by Kharma (1981) on Kuwaiti high-
school and university students, it was revealed that the last article to be acquired and
mastered was the zero (Ø) article. Al-Fotih also found that the highest percentage of
errors in the cloze tests he administered on Yemeni students was the misuse of the
zero (Ø) article. These results are divergent from findings obtained from other studies
on learners with –ART L1s.
However, researchers also provided evidence for the tendency of Arab learners
to overuse the definite article (Kharma 1981, Batainah 2005, Maalej 2004) across
indefinite contexts. Yet researchers such as Habash (1982), Diab (1996), Al-Fotih
(2003) and Kharma and Hajjaj (1989) attribute the error to the negative transfer of the
generic definite in Arabic while others, such as Abi Samra (2003) and Batainah (2005)
believe that overuse is caused by the universal L2 phenomenon of the-flooding.
According to the MSIH Arab learners are expected to experience greater difficulty in
producing new L2 features, such as the indefinite article, because there is no
equivalent formal representation available in their L1.
On the other hand, another group of studies argue that errors made by Arab
learners are compatible with those made by learners from other L1s. In this sense, the
variability in article production is developmental and experienced by all L2 learners.10
The impact of Jordanian learners’ first language was considered ‘minimal’ (2005:13)
10
As L2 development occurs during the various stages of Interlanguage (IL), the terms developmental
and IL will be used interchangeably to describe common tendencies in SLA. Despite the subtle
differences between the two terms, the universal learning processes that these expressions convey is in
contrast with variability caused by the influence of a particular L1.
51
by Batainah. Along the same lines, Abi Samra (2003) asserts that L1 cannot account
for more than one third of the errors made by Lebanese learners. Similar to results
obtained from learners with –ART L1s, Arab learners have managed to better supply
the indefinite article in existential and have constructions (Maalej 2004, Batainah
2005, Abi Samra 2003).
The effect of other linguistic notions such as NP structure, ontology and
referentiality on Arab learners’ L2-production of articles will be reviewed in the
following section.
2.5 Learner Hypotheses
Learning a second language involves a continuous process of hypothesis making,
testing and experimenting. During the various IL stages, hypotheses are either
sustained by positive evidence or dropped because of negative feedback. It is possible
that learners’ interpretations of the L2 input and the variability in production are
derived from associations between certain forms and functions of features in the L2
with the syntax and lexis of the L1. Previous knowledge thus provides the basis on
which hypotheses of the L2 rules are formulated, but L1 can also constrain the
hypotheses learners make on L2 grammars (Schachter 1983).
To find out whether there learners hypothetically associate certain linguistic
notions with definiteness, several studies examined L2 error patterns and compared
between the error rates in two contrasting NP environments: one with the linguistic
notion present and another without. If the overuse rate of one article, for example, was
found to be significantly higher in the context with the linguistic notion present, then
52
there is definitely an association between article use and that particular criterion and
vice-versa.
In this section, we will review three linguistic notions which have been
considered in earlier studies to affect 2LL’s use of the EAS. They include the notion
of specificity, the structural aspect of adjectival premodification, and the ontological
concept of concreteness/ abstractness.
2.5.1 Specificity
Errors made in L2 production of English articles have been attributed to difficulties
learners encounter with the specific / non-specific distinction (Hakuta 1976).
Traditionally, it was conceived that learners associated definiteness with hearer’s
knowledge (±HK) (Huebner 1983, Young 1996, Master 1997). i.e., the overuse of the
definite article was considered to be the result of overestimating the hearer’s
knowledge and vice-versa. Huebner (1983) postulates that after the initial the-flooding
stage, the definite article gradually recedes from non-specific (indefinite) contexts.
However, many others regard the overuse of the in indefinite contexts as being due to
the encoding of specific readings as definite. Thomas (1989) observed that most
instances of overuse were in referential (indefinite) contexts and therefore contends
that the definite article is associated with its referential function -as opposed to HK- in
learner hypothesis. This view is corroborated by other studies such as those of
Trenkic´ (2002) and Butler (2002) where it was found that learners attributed
referential meanings to the English articles, i.e. the definite article is associated with
[+SP] referents while the indefinite article was associated with [–Sp] reference.
53
Recently, there has been a debate in the SLA literature about the effects of
specificity on L2 article use brought about by Ionin, Ko and Wexler (henceforth IKW)
(2003) who presented a hypothesis suggesting that 2LL of English go through a stage
of fluctuation (FH) between the values definiteness (±Def) and specificity (±Sp) when
using articles, until, after being exposed to sufficient input, target-like accuracy is
attained. During the fluctuation phases, articles in L2 production encode either
specificity or definiteness. Using articles to represent specificity (rather than
definiteness) is similar to Creole languages which divide NPs according to notions of
specific/non-specific meanings (Bickerton 1981). The fact these studies were all
administered on learners of –ART L1s must be taken into consideration. Hawkins et
al. (2005) as well as Snape et al (2006) compared the outcomes of two L1 groups of
learners, one group with +ART L1 background and the other from a –ART L1
background. Both studies noticed that learners from +ART L1s did not fluctuate (i.e.,
associate definiteness with specificity) while learners whose L1s lacked articles did.
On the other hand, a group of researchers rejected the L1 effect in the
definiteness-specificity fluctuation. Paradis and Zdorenko (2008), for example, claim
that there is fluctuation but it is a developmental error that overrides transfer. Their
study was based on two groups of young L2 learners; One group with –ART L1s
(Chinese, Korean and Japanese) and the other was from a +ART L1s (Arabic,
Romanian and Spanish). They found that children from both language groups
substituted a(n) with the in [–def +Sp] contexts; thus associating specificity with
definiteness. This is in line with the proposal forwarded by Matthewson et al. (2001)
which claims that (all) learners of English go through a stage in which specificity is
associated with definiteness. Their study was administered on 25 American children
54
from the Northeast region of the US where the influence of a Salish11 language is
predominant.
However, this hypothesis might not apply to L1Ar learners, especially if we
assume a strong L1 influence since in Arabic, as in Greek and Hungarian, generic
reference is grammatically definite (Kremers 2003, Behrens 2005). The example
below is a literal translation of a popular phrase in Arabic.
(23) *In choosing a flight, the most important thing is the safety.
(From task 3)
Such occurrences of generic-the are probably common in L1Ar learners’ production
and frequently observed by English language teachers across the Arab world. In a
study on Tunisian university students, for example, Maalej (2004) confirms that one
of the main impediments to learners’ mastery of English articles was the overuse of
the with bare plurals in generic contexts. In other words, L1Ar learners do not
randomly flood the definite article across indefinite contexts; rather, the tendency to
overuse is limited to –specific (generic) contexts (ibid.). In a study on Yemeni learners
of English, Al-Fotih (2003) reported similar findings. Conversely, Sarko (2008) found
that Syrian learners predominantly selected the definite article in [–def +Sp] contexts.
It is difficult to confirm this view because, despite the random occurrences of non-
referential the in L2 production, not many studies have addressed the alternative
possibility of a [+def] [–Sp] association especially in the production of learners whose
L1s employ the definite article in generic referencing.
11 Salish refers to a group of endangered languages including St’át’imcets (also known as Lillooet)
spoken in the southwest region of British Columbia, Canada. In these languages, specificity, rather than
definite determiners, encodes identifiability.
55
2.5.2 Premodification
SLA Researchers have noticed that nouns modified by adjectives seem to be treated
differently by L2 learners than unmodified nouns (cf. Young 1996, Jarvis 2002). In
general, learners have been frequently reported to better supply the indefinite article in
non-premodified constructions [Art + N] than in adjectivally premodified ones [Art +
Adj + N]. Trenkic´ (2000) reports higher omission rates in premodified contexts. She
explains that articles and adjectives compete for the same determiner position in the
IL syntax (in –ART languages),12 once that position is filled with another element
(i.e., adjectives) articles will be omitted. Similarly, Jarvis (2002) found that Finnish (–
Art) learners were more reluctant to mark nouns -modified by adjectives- with articles
than Swedish (+ART) learners. Hawkins et al. (2005) justify higher omission rates by
Japanese (–ART) learners by proposing that learners’ mental activation levels [of
referents], dependent on the strength of connection between head noun and article,
decrease when the article and the head noun are syntactically separated by an
adjective.
Another view is that negative transfer accounts better for errors made in cases
where the basic word order of the two languages differs (cf. Odlin 1989). i.e., there is
a relationship between the acquisition of rules governing L2 article use and NP
structure of the L1 (Zobl 1986): if the L1 and the L2 differ in the sequence of nouns
and adjectives, there will be a delay in mastering the articles caused by restructuring
the L1 rules to comply with those of the TL (see also Givón 1984, Bickerton 1981).
Parodi et al (1997) also confirm that there is a strong influence of L1 DP syntactic
properties on the L2 production. Goad and White (2004) suggest that Prosodic
12
Hypothetically, Arabic can also fall into the category of –ART L1s where indefiniteness is concerned
since it lacks an overt morphological representation of indefiniteness.
56
Transfer from the L1 (PTH) is responsible for the higher omission rates of articles in
modified contexts (Art + Adj + N) made by SD, (see also Goad et al. 2003, White
2003) whose L1 (Turkish) lacks a morphological representation of definiteness.
Although Turkish is the exact opposite of Arabic where articles are concerned,
i.e., indefiniteness is explicitly marked while there is no grammatical representation of
definiteness, in principle, PT could be equally operative in the L2 production of L1Ar
learners. In other words, the absence of an indefinite marker in Arabic would provide
an opportunity for higher indefinite article omissions in modified constructions.
However, the opposite was found to be true in a study by Hamdallah (1988) as Arab
learners overused, rather than omitted, the indefinite article before adjectivally
modified nouns. Hamdallah maintains that ‘learners over-generalised the rule that
requires the use of a before adjectives followed by singular nouns’ (p.218) and applied
it to plural nouns premodified by adjectives because L1 Arabic learners were ‘unable
to recognise that a refers to the noun that follows the adjectives’. It is not surprising
that L1Ar learners dealt with adjectives as singular nouns (ibid) since in Arabic,
adjectival modification largely is post-nominal (cf. Fassi-Fehri 1999). Therefore,
syntactically, modification in Arabic is the mirror image of that in English (Kremers
2003).13 It is expected that the different syntactic structure of Arabic and English as
well as the absence of an indefinite marker will present a challenge to L1Ar learners
in the process of acquiring the EAS.
13
Shlonsky (2004) describes modification in all Semitic languages as being the opposite of that in
English.
57
2.5.3 Concreteness
In theory, concrete nouns refer to tangible objects, largely perceived as solid and
discrete items with limited boundaries occupying a certain space. They are first order
entities (Lyons 1977) that can be individuated into separate items or grouped as
homogenous units bounded together (Langacker 1997, 2008)). Therefore, concrete
denotations can be singular, plural (countable) or mass (uncountable) nouns. Abstract
notions, on the other hand, are categorised as second order entities (Lyons (1977) and
usually refer to non-solid, amorphous substances such as attitudes, feelings, events or
attributes which are largely intangible. Expressions such as wealth, happiness, hatred
sadness (see Countability 2.1.2) cannot be separated into individual units neither
could descriptions such as ‘cumulative, distributive, or homogeneous’ possibly apply
to abstract nouns (Joosten 2003:220). Thus, while concrete nouns can be ±COUNT
and ±Singular, abstract nouns are largely uncountable (ibid).
In contrast, abstract notions can be either countable or uncountable in Arabic.
For example, nouns such as wealth and sadness are countable whereas happiness and
hatred are not. In terms of (in)definiteness, although there is no grammatical relation
between the ontological status of a referent and its definiteness status, abstract nouns
notably occur in indefinite contexts (Larsen-Freeman and Murcia 1999). However, in
genitive constructions abstract references can be definite since they become the
possession of a certain person, group, or object. Notice, for example, the difference
between ‘geography’ in (24) and (25):
(24) You must study geography (INDEF).
58
(25) Tom studied the geography (DEF) of England. 14
In Arabic, however, abstract denotations are systematically definite (Kremers 2003,
Schulz 2004).
Richards (1976) postulates that it is not only the grammatical complexity that
influences the order of second language acquisition but also the difficulty of the
lexical concepts expressed by that category. Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994,
1996) maintain that lexical categories can transfer from learners’ L1 to L2. Hence, it
is tenable to expect that variability in article production might be influenced by the
ontological properties of the head noun and its definiteness status in the first language.
Van Patten et al. (2004) concede that there is a form-meaning relationship in L2
production. In this sense, learners might associate the meaning of the head noun with
the form of article chosen in that context.
Trenkic´ (2002) reported that Serbian learners made form-meaning
connections in their L2 use of articles as the overuse of the definite article was
significantly higher in concrete than abstract contexts. Conversely, the indefinite
article was produced equally well with abstract and concrete nouns. This pattern
suggests that there is an inclination to associate definiteness with concreteness; and,
according to Trenkic´, abstract notions as sometimes perceived as individuated
discrete items. Similarly, Hua and Lee (2005) found that the ontological category of
the NP affects the sequence of L2 acquisition by Chinese learners of English as their
grasp of singular countable noun rules appeared earlier in concrete, rather than
14
In Arabic genitive constructions the predicate becomes obligatorily definite (see example 16 above)
59
abstract contexts; and therefore, their awareness of the rules governing the use of the
indefinite article was also higher when the (singular) head noun was concrete.
Yet, results reported from studies on L1Ar learners do not yield identical
association patterns. The influence of L1/L2 variation is evident in the results of a
study by Diab (1996) who examined the writing of Lebanese students and recorded
significant overuse instances of the definite article in abstract contexts. Equally,
Tunisian students overused the definite, rather than the indefinite, article with abstract
nouns (cf. Maalej 2004). Despite the previous proposals which suggest association in
learner hypothesis between concreteness and definiteness, results emerging from L1
Arabic studies suggest that errors can be triggered by associating definiteness with
abstractness. In this study, we aim to find out whether the ontological status of the
head noun causes variability in L1Ar learners’ choice of articles.
60
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter three presents the approach followed in conducting this research. In section
3.1, the necessary information required to form the database of this study is identified.
Section 3.2 describes the participants who volunteered to take the tests, their
background and language levels. The design of each of the three tasks is explained in
Section 3.3. Task Design examines the rationale for implementing different tests in
terms of knowledge type, focus and degree of control while details of data elicitation
and test administration are reported in section 3. 4. The fifth part explains the
techniques followed in analysing the data, and offers a basic account of how accuracy
rates and error types were calculated. In addition, this part provides the grounds for
investigating hypotheses underlying article use in learner production in relation to
certain linguistic notions. Section 5 of this chapter also reviews the peculiarities of
evaluating input from various tests. The final part of the chapter points out the
practical limitations of this study.
3.1 Required data
The data required for this study should cover a wide range of L2 production including
a variety of forms, structures and lexemes in order to act as a sample corpus of article
use by Arabic speakers. For example, the data should include definite and indefinite
descriptions of countable and uncountable nouns in singular and plural forms. This
necessitates a good number of participants to provide statistically reliable data.
There is also a need for the elicited data to reflect various degrees of overall
L2 knowledge in order to follow the effect of the second language development on
article production. This was achieved through a cross-sectional analysis of learner
61
input to capture the stages that learners go through as their English improves. The
information needed was taken from participants within a succession of proficiency
levels in an attempt to follow, synchronically, the L2 progress which might otherwise
be operationalised longitudinally. It is accepted by theorists and applied by field
researchers (e.g. Raymond and Fisher 2002) that the variation across different
proficiency groups can reflect, to a large extent, some aspects observed in diachronic
change. Accordingly, preliminary tests had to be conducted to ensure appropriate
banding of L2 levels by an internationally recognised examining authority. Tests such
as The Oxford Quick Placement Test (OPT 2001) have been used in similar studies to
determine L2 learners’ proficiency levels in English (Hawkins et. al. 2005, Snape et al
2006, Al-Thubaiti 2007, Pongpairoj 2007 and Garcia Mayo 2008 inter alia).
Furthermore, there was a need for participants to be of similar L1 background
in order to enable the researcher to measure the extent of L1 transfer in learner
hypotheses by applying linguistically contrastive criteria (see Table 2 in 2.2.3). A
similar L1 background also helped distinguish between L1 influenced errors from
more developmental tendencies in L2 article use.
Expected variance in performance is not only tied to proficiency level but is
also dependent on the type of test from which the data originates. Many researchers
have confirmed that different task types yield different results (Tarone 1983, 1985;
Tarone and Parrish 1988, Krashen 1982, Skehan, 1998), i.e., a one group of learners
might demonstrate different tendencies, accuracy rates and error patterns depending
on the form of the test. Hence, it was necessary to explore the performance of learners
on a range of tasks to ensure obtaining balanced and objective results.
62
Tests vary in the type of knowledge they explore (Bialystok 1982), the degree
of control exercised over learner production, and in whether the focus of learners is
directed to meaning or form (see Long 1991). Therefore, there is a need for three
types of tests: a free production task, a cloze test and a grammaticality judgement test.
Deployment of these types is necessary to obtain data that is most reflective of
students’ knowledge produced in different testing environments. Data collected from
free production helps explore learners’ spontaneous use of the L2. This type of test
taps into learners’ implicit (automated) knowledge of language (Krashen 1982,
Paradis 1994) which is derived mostly from hypotheses structured on the basis of
target features noticed in the input (Ellis 1994). With minimum control by the
examiner in the directions, such tests would entice participants to communicate their
ideas and feelings, i.e. the main focus of such tests is on meaning.
On the other hand, the collected data should also provide evidence for
learners’ explicit knowledge of the L2, gained mostly from formal pedagogical
instruction. Cloze tests, such as multiple choice exams, generally reflect learners’
meta-linguistic knowledge about language. The information obtained from this type of
tests helps assess learners’ awareness of the formal properties of articles, such as
countability or number. This is usually achieved through a higher degree of
production control by means of precise, largely restrictive, prompts that drive
attention maximally towards form and accuracy.
The data collected from either type of test should also reflect learners’
hypotheses about article usage. In the context of this particular study, NPs were
analysed in terms of specificity, premodification and their ontological status to find
out whether or not article use was affected by specific and non-specific reference,
63
adjectivally premodified and non-adjectivally premodified structures as well as
abstract and concrete meanings. The results should enable us to verify if L1Ar learners
associate L2 articles with linguistic notions of referentiality, premodification and
ontology, respectively.
3.2 Participants
The participants in this study are a group of female students from the United Arab
Emirates University (UAEU) studying in different colleges and departments including
English (e.g. Literature, Translation and TESOL) and non-English majors. The study
was conducted on the women’s campus in Al-Ain city.
After having acquired ethical clearance from the university administration to
perform the tests, volunteer participants were asked to sign a consent form stating
their agreement to take the tests in question. Both Arabic and English versions of the
consent forms were provided.
The students were then asked to answer a few questions aimed at ensuring
background uniformity (see Appendix 2). The purpose of the questionnaire was to
confirm that the participants were homogeneous in terms of age, first language,
parents’ language, length of residence in English speaking countries and number of
years of formal study of English and finally type of school attended.
To be eligible to take part in the study, participants should not have lived in an
English-speaking country for more than three months nor been to an English medium
school. All participants had to be native speakers of Arabic, regardless of nationality,
with native Arabic-speaking parents. Most of the participants were Emirati but there
were also a few other Arab nationals. Those who qualified to take the tests had all
64
taken English language classes under the same state-curriculum for 8 years,
comprising two years in primary school and six years in high school, with an average
of five hours per week. In addition, students of the UAE University have all had a one
year intensive course of English in the University General Requirements Unit
(UGRU) before starting their majors in various colleges and departments in the UAE
University.
Also included in this study is a group of twelve native speakers of English who
work as lecturers/professors in different disciplines in the UAE University. They
kindly volunteered to act as a control group by answering the questions in the cloze
test and the GJT.
3.3 Task Design
The aim of the tasks designed for this study was to thoroughly investigate learners’
acquisition of English articles through examining their competence and performance
under various testing environments. To achieve this purpose, three tasks were
designed to elicit various kinds of information based on the type of knowledge
involved, focus and degree of control. The three tasks were: a free composition task, a
multiple-choice blanks test and a grammaticality judgment test (GJT). Ultimately,
these tests should help find how production patterns vary from one test to the other.
The three tasks vary in the priority of attentional resources (see Skehan 2003).
It has been proposed that performance goals in L2 production include communication
on the one hand and grammatical accuracy on the other (see Crookes 1989, Mehnert
1998, Ortega 1999, Skehan 1998). Focus in the three tasks is scaled from full attention
65
to meaning in the writing test (T1) to full attention to form in (T3), with T2 possessing
variable degrees of both elements.
The variety in test types also provides the researcher with multiple
perspectives on learners’ types of knowledge. The writing test mainly taps learners’
communicative competence (Hymes 1972) derived from their subconscious
understanding of articles, while controlled tests with explicit questions that prompt
article production tap the learners’ conscious metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 (see
chapter 2 section 3). In terms of the control exercised by the examiner, the three tests
range from very little in free production to full control in T3.
3.3.1 The Writing Task (T1)
The writing task is a test designed to elicit learners’ unrestrained L2 production with
attentional configurations directed towards communication (Hu 2002). As a free
production task, this test could help investigate learners’ implicit knowledge (Krashen
1982, Paradis 1994, Muranoi 2000, Ellis 2004) acquired through exposure and
positive evidence.
In the prompts, the learners were asked to describe their hometowns in essays
of 350- 500 words in length. The question is not entirely unfamiliar as UAE
University students come from different emirates and they are often asked to introduce
themselves in terms of the emirates they come from. Learners were also directed to
include information about the location, tradition, life style and tourist attractions of
their hometowns, but no reference to article use was mentioned. The topic provides
students with an opportunity to express themselves freely and creatively, and a variety
of forms and structures would be produced to cover the NP descriptions required for
66
this study. For example, when participants described some noticeable features of their
hometowns, new information was introduced. This ensured the availability of
indefinite constructions. Definite expressions, on the other hand would result from the
repetition of or elaboration on the former mentioned information.
The data required to examine learner hypotheses and assumptions with regards
to associations between article use and certain linguistic notions (specificity,
adjectival premodification and concreteness/abstractness), were obtained from the
produced text without the learners’ conscious introspection of the underlying
grammatical rules. The wide scope of the topic should facilitate the inclusion of
specific and generic references, while the suggestions in the rubric to discuss culture,
traditions and values should help produce some abstract notions needed for the
dataset. Furthermore, the instruction to describe hometowns was intended to help
furnish the data with sufficient adjectives.
Free production tests are known to accrue higher accuracy rates (Tarone 1983,
Tarone and Parrish 1988, Foster and Skehan, 1996) typically attributed to learner
strategies such as avoidance, common to free production tasks, which would
eventually lead to a decrease of grammatical errors. Nonetheless, such tasks are also
likely to incur high erroneous instances since learners, unaware of the purpose of the
test, would be inclined to omit articles. In this case, accuracy outcomes could be
negatively affected (Hakuta 1976) as the erroneous occurrences might balance the
overall high accuracy rates accrued in such tests causing results to become more in
line with those emerging from more controlled tests.
67
3.3.2 Stories Task (T2)
The second task is a fill-in-the-blanks test comprising six short stories of diverse
themes but comparable lengths. With the articles removed from the original text, the
stories were used as a forced-elicitation test. In the prompts, the participants were
directed to fill in the blanks with one of the articles (a, an, the) or to leave blanks
empty (Ø) if no article was required. When the data was analysed, the quantifier
‘some’ was also accepted as a grammatically correct marker of indefinite plurals,
though not mentioned in the prompts.
The text used in this study was first used by Trenkic´ (2000) on L1 Serbian
learners of English, but many changes to the original version had to be implemented
in order to make it more suitable for the needs of this study. One such change was to
add a few explanatory modifiers such as relative pronouns, in order to make the
definiteness status of the entities in question unambiguous and the supply of the
definite article more obligatory. A case in point is illustrated in (1).
(1) Original: _____ party they had last night.
Altered: _____ party which they had last night.
In addition, some events and contexts in the stories were adapted to be more culturally
suitable for the Emirati environment. For example, the break-up between a girl and
her boyfriend was turned into a friends’ row, and, in another story, the drink bottles
left after a party were crossed out. Furthermore, the number of blanks was reduced
after removing NPs in which appropriate use of articles requires knowledge of
formulaic or idiomatic expressions which might carry meanings other than those
68
corresponding to the sum of their individual constituents (Cowie and Mackin 1975,
Seidl and McMordie 1992). For cultural suitability and avoidance of set-phrase
structures, the blank number (135) in story (4) of the original test (He might be in
____ love) was removed. The final alteration was to simplify some vocabulary that
might have constituted an additional challenge to the participants.
The criteria required to build the dataset for this study are naturally available
in the texts of the stories. There are 120 definite NPs and 98 indefinite NPs, 166
countable and 55 uncountable; 125 singular nouns and 93 plurals. The text also
includes 55 premodified nouns, 23 of which are definite and 30 indefinite. In addition,
the stories comprised 57 abstract notions, 64 generic and 110 specific references.
Therefore, T2 covers all possible NP contexts to elicit the necessary information with
frequent occurrences of the listed variables. The results were calculated in
percentages to rationalise comparisons across contexts.
The goal of introducing this type of task is that it represents a mixture of focus,
control and knowledge types. Firstly, although the learners’ focus was driven mainly
towards form, the content of this task was utilised as a source of meaning.
Accordingly, the opportunity of forward and backward referencing should have
helped participants to better realise which article is more suitable for the available
contexts. Secondly, in terms of control, T2 is traditionally considered a cloze test
because the specific directions given in the prompts limit the items participants are
allowed to insert in the slots and thus exclude other options. Participants also have no
choice with regards to the structural position of blanks as this is pre-determined by the
examiner.
69
Due to the fact that the text is authentic, it was not possible to ensure that all
variables were equally represented. For example, the number of concrete nouns, in the
total dataset of six stories, was 161, while only 57 occurrences were classified as
abstract. This type of task is therefore often referred to as semi-controlled (see
Trenkic´ 2007, Swan 2005) because of contextual effects on the outcome. In terms of
knowledge type, the results that emerge from this test are expected to be largely
attributable to metalinguistic knowledge since learners would have to consciously
decide on which article to employ, drawing on rules they have been formally taught at
school. Proponents of the communicative approach believe that the interpretation of
the cloze test results does not accurately reflect learners’ understanding of a certain
feature in the L2 because, unlike natural communication where the focus is on
meaning, such tests raise awareness of form and limit the language to the options
available in the prompts. Therefore, the results will reflect only a part of learners’
knowledge giving ‘an inadequate view of how learners actually use articles’ (Thomas
1989:339) [emphasis added]. However, Oller and Conrad (1971) asserted that data
collected via cloze-tests can differentiate levels of proficiency more adequately.
Furthermore, in more recent SLA studies, researchers hold that cloze, content-based
tests, such as T2 can reflect, to certain extents, both implicit as well explicit types of
knowledge (see Skehan 1998, 2003, Hu 2002, Roehr 2004).
Thus, on the basis of the criteria according to which the three tasks were
chosen, T2 can be placed midway between T1 and T3 in all the respects discussed.
70
3.3.3 Grammaticality judgment test (T3)15
The term Grammaticality Judgement refers to a kind of test carried out in many well-
known studies on second language acquisition. Its purpose is to examine learners’
ability to accept the usage of a certain feature in the L2 as correct or to reject it as
wrong (cf. Chaudron 1983, Birdsong 1989, Ellis 1991). What determines the
acceptability of one utterance and the unacceptability in such tests is the NS’s
judgements. When the test was piloted, only two responses were allowed from the CG
despite the fact that many utterances included may vary in their degree of
acceptability (Schütze 1996:70) in the target language. However, no inconsistencies
were found in the NS’ data.
It is the third test in this study, introduced as a complementary method of data
elicitation to supplement the results obtained in the stories and the writing tasks. This
task was originally made up of 40 sentences which comprised grammatically correct
and incorrect sentences. The number was reduced to 37 after it was piloted on a group
of native speakers (see section 3.4.1). Most of the incorrect instances were taken from
student essays in the college writing courses. In the prompts, participants were asked
to judge each underlined NP16 as either ‘correct’ (√) or ‘wrong’ (X) in the target
language.
The NPs chosen in the design of T3 covered the basic variables that determine
article choice, namely, definiteness, countability, number. In addition, to meet the data
requirements, both specific and non-specific references were included, adjectivally
premodified and non-premodified constructions as well as abstract and concrete
15
A full discussion and review of the design features of grammaticality judgement tests can be found in
Mandell (1999) and Ellis (1991).
16
The instruction to judge underlined NPs rather than the full sentences was done to emphasise the
investigated head noun/phrase, thus avoiding possible confusion with other nouns in the same sentence
71
contexts were incorporated. This resulted in multiple combinations of variables. For
example, the underlined NP in (2) a wish was categorised as
–Def +Count +Singular +Spec –Premodified –Concrete:
(2) I made a wish and it became true.
An attempt was made to ensure reasonable representation of these variables in the test
which would result in multiple combinations. The number of various constructions is
adequate for the purposes of the test, but having an equal number of multiple
combinations would result in a number too large for the scope of this study.17 Instead,
an approximate number of contrastive values for each variable were selected in order
to provide a balanced representation of selected items. For example, out of 36
countable nouns, 17 were singular while 19 were plural. Similarly, out of 22 specific
references, 9 were definite while the others were indefinites. There were 9 indefinite
singular nouns, 3 of which were adjectivally premodified.
In addition to a methodical combination of the major variables that determine
article use, on a micro-level, definite descriptions were designed to cover the most
typical definite environments (see section 2.2.1). To avoid ambiguity, the indications
to the necessity of supplying the definite article were emphasised by, for example,
adding an identifying relative pronoun in the immediately following context
(examples 3, 5) or using superlatives (example 4).18
17
It would be practically unfeasible if there was an equal representation of all the criteria in multiple
combinations of variables, the total number of instances would be the result of 6 NP descriptors and
their negative counterparts (12) in and correct and erroneous instances of both articles (omission,
overuse, replacement) in addition to the zero article. The total number would at least be 14 to the power
of 14.
18
The examples include both correct and incorrect instances.
72
(3) *I bought a same cheap computer that my friend has. (semantically unique)
(4) Emirates mall is the biggest mall in the UAE (superlative)
(5) I found the book that you gave me very interesting (post-
modification/cataphoric reference)
(6) *Aisha went to a wedding. She said a bride was beautiful (bridging/associated
reference)
Furthermore, with contexts limited to sentential scope in T3, the referents were in
close proximity to the syntactic position of the articles which, in effect, could have
facilitated access to the available information (see Ariel 1988) and emphasised the
necessity of the presence of articles. The above examples include two erroneous
instances in a randomly ordered list of correct and incorrect NPs. Most incorrect
examples in T3 were selected from students’ essays in the Writing course. For
example, a couple of sentences in the test show the overuse of the indefinite article
without a head noun. The erroneous sentences were taken from students’ essays in the
Writing course at UAE University. The structure [a/n + adjective + missing noun] is
exemplified in (7) and (8) from T3.
(7) *Fatima is hardworking because she wants to be a successful in her job.
(8) *My ambition is to become a fluent in English
To investigate learners’ ability to recognise the ungrammatical overuse of the
indefinite article, it was supplied with uncountable or plural nouns (e.g. a gold, and a
dresses) as well as with nouns of contrastive L1/L2 countability status, such as advice
and information which are countable in Arabic. Similarly, awareness of definite article
73
omissions was examined via instances where the structural position of definiteness in
genitive constructions is different in the two languages, such as is shown in the
following sentences:
(9) *Damascus is capital of Syria
(10) *Price of oil has gone up
In addition to errors of omission, overuse instances of the definite article were
included to test learners’ ability to detect a more subtle form of misuse. For example,
the noun milk in ‘the milk is necessary for babies’ is expected to be marked incorrect
if interpreted generically as it fails to denote kind, i.e., all the milk in the world.
Rather, a more preferable, target-like, option would be a bare nominal, as no article
(zero Ø) is required to deliver similar meanings. However, the same NP could be more
acceptable if interpreted within a different context, when, for example, the speaker is
referring to a particular bottle of milk. The same is true for the NP in example (6)
Aisha went to a wedding. She said a bride was beautiful if the utterance referred to an
occasion where many couples are getting married and one bride was beautiful. In this
sense, article use becomes a matter of choice that depends largely on the particulars of
certain contexts, relevance to other pieces of information in the setting, the speaker’s
intent and the listener’s interpretation of the message. If this further information
relating the particulars of each setting were to be provided, extra text will be required
to clarify various interpretations which allow degrees of acceptability. This in turn
will change the format of this test to content-based, similar to the other two tests,
instead of being decontextualised and discrete. A cross task comparison of
performance under different conditions would thus not be possible. Moreover, since
74
the items that remained in the test after the pilot were only those with 100%
agreement by the CG, it was necessary to find out whether learners were able to infer
the same prototypical meaning of each item as understood by the NS. In other words,
students were forced to process the limited information available to them within each
discrete sentence, and base their judgements on the face value of each utterance.
Therefore, no more than one answer was accepted for each item.
In designing T3, we implemented maximum control in the sense that the
participants had no part in the input, were forced to make conscious decisions with
respect to constructions they might have otherwise avoided and within a context
where information cannot be inferred as it does not extend further than the sentential
level. Generally, GJTs force learners to compare existing structures and forms to rules
they learned (Richards 1976, Gass 1996, Alderson 1997) through periods of EFL
instruction. Thus, in all likelihood, such tasks reveal more of learners’ explicit
understanding about language (Robinson 1996, Trenkic´ 2000) than how the L2 might
be produced for communicative purposes. i.e., it is a different cognitive demand that
this type of test places on learner production.
The focus on form and accuracy rather than communication in GJT (cf.
Granfeldt 2000) has been considered a shortcoming by many researchers (Bialystok
1982, Birdsong 1989, Ellis 1991, Norris and Ortega, 2000). In addition, the reliability
of the results incurred from sentence-based, decontextualised tests is often questioned
(Gass 1994, Yule 1998). However, GJTs have been defended as being one of the best
methods of measuring L2 competence without distractive elements (Ellis 2004,
Mandell 1999). Besides, these tests can yield results that help the researcher study
learners’ purely receptive type of knowledge, produced with the least processing
effort. Finally, despite their limitations, form- focused tests offer an alternative
75
perspective to results emerging from communicative tests so that outcomes can be
compared across the two types of tests, providing a more comprehensive
understanding of learners’ IL. Researchers such as Bialystok (1979), Sorace (1985)
and Alderson (1997) used GJT which required identification of the errors as well as
corrections and stating of the violated grammatical rules. One of the most popular and
frequently cited studies on SLA of articles is a paper by Butler (2002) where he
depended on a GJT for his data collection from Japanese learners of English.
The argument between the proponents and critics of GJTs is not entirely
polarised. Some SLA researchers have suggested that there could be a more balanced
stand. Sorace (1996), for instance, proposed that when learners are asked to judge the
grammaticality of an utterance, it is more likely that they would rely on their
subconscious knowledge, but if more time was available to them, learners would be
able to access their explicit knowledge more easily. Therefore, rather than dispensing
with tests of this kind as entirely unreliable, GJTs can certainly serve as rough
indicators of learners’ knowledge and can, under certain conditions, reflect a part of
learners implicit understanding of the L2 (see Roehr 2004). Hence, it becomes
possible to assume that the results this test yields are valid and reliable, especially if
some were compatible with those emerging from more communicative tests (such as
T1) and more content-based tests (such as T2). In other words, results from GJTs,
cautiously interpreted, could serve as supplementary evidence to consolidate findings
deduced via other means.
76
3.4 Administrating Tests
3.4.1 Pilot
Both cloze test and GJT were first answered by native speakers. The responses were
collected, entered and analysed to be used as key in deciding correct/appropriate
article supply in the learner data collected from T2 and T3. One blank in T2 had to be
cancelled because the three choices mentioned in the prompts (a/n, the, zero) were all
provided for the same blank by various NS participants (see 3.5.4.2). Three sentences
were eliminated from T3 based on feedback from the CG who thought that
definiteness in those instances was ambiguous because of the possibility of multiple
interpretations of the same utterance. Only the undisputed NPs with 100% agreement
by NS remained in the test. This action brought down the total number of questions
the GJT to 37.
We piloted the tests with nine students, assigning three participants to each
level group of lower, intermediate and advanced proficiency. The tests were run and
the information was entered, categorised and analysed. Based on the results, it was
decided to keep T1 and T2 as originally designed, and to change the prompts in T3 by
removing the request to justify the responses. This was done because the explanations
provided in the pilot were largely subjective and proved difficult to analyse
statistically.
3.4.2 OPT
A total of 80 participants signed the consent forms and answered the background
uniformity survey. 21 students were eliminated because their answers did not meet our
requirements. For example, a few students had studied in English speaking countries.
77
The remaining 59 students took the Quick Oxford Placement Test (2001). Observed
by teachers, the potential participants were given 50 minutes, the duration of one class
session, to answer the questions in the test.
After the tests were marked, the learners were divided into three major groups
according to their scores in the OPT. The system we applied for banding was not
exactly identical to the one in the OPT descriptions but was more suitable to our
needs. This was because it was impossible to find Beginners (0-10) or Breakthrough
participants (scoring below 20/60) since passing the IELTS entry exam with a
minimum band of 4.5 (equivalent to lower intermediate level) is a prerequisite to
entering the UAE university. Similarly, it was impossible to find Very Advanced
participants (55/60), as the highest score was 53/60. This would have placed all our
students in the intermediate group. Instead, participants with OPT scores of
Elementary level (30 out of 60) were placed into the weakest group (G1). G2 included
participants whose scores ranged between 33 and 43. This range covers OPT Lower
Intermediate and average Intermediate levels. Finally, the highest group (G3) included
students with 45 points and above, covering both Upper Intermediate and Advanced
learners by the OPT definitions.
To further enhance the distinction between the three sections and to facilitate
ensuing cross-group analysis of the data, we increased the gaps between the PLs. Ten
subjects were eliminated from the tests for scoring totals of 31, 32 and 44 in the OPT
because they were considered borderline marks between the three groups. Thus the
difference between the three groups became more distinct. The number of participants
in each group averaged 19-20 students.
78
To ensure the consistency of responses at each level, an SD test was run. It
was found that the data were normally distributed within groups and significantly
different when compared across groups (see chapter 4).
3.4.3 Tasks
T1 was administered before the other tasks to keep learners unaware of its purpose
and their production least influenced by the explicit instructions in T2 and T3. The
amount of time allocated to perform this task was a maximum of 50 minutes under the
supervision of teachers. With time pressure, participants had little chance to revise
their writing and reflect on accuracy. The pressure was intended to the increase the
opportunity of communicative production (see Sorace 1996 for time effects).
After having completed T1 without prior knowledge of the purpose of the test,
learners were given/emailed the stories test with clear instructions to provide articles
in the slots. Thus, they became aware of what they were being tested on. The
participants were allowed to return/email their completed sheets of T2 within a
maximum of one week. The reason for having plenty of time allocated for responding
to this test was to induce learners to carefully consider the questions and give them
more chance to focus on form and accuracy. This time should enable students to take
into account the consciously learned rules of L2 while revising their answers. Thus,
the probability of spontaneous and immediate response was minimised. Accordingly,
the results should better reflect learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about language
than their competence or implicit knowledge of the L2.
After answering the stories task, the learners were asked to take the
grammaticality judgement test (T3). Most responses were completed immediately as
79
little effort was required in marking NPs as right or wrong. However, as in the case of
the administration of T2, the learners were given plenty of time to answer the GJT to
ensure that the extra time provide the opportunity to reflect on their original responses
and make the necessary changes before handing back the question sheets.
The disparity between the time pressure in administering T1 and the more
flexible time limits of the blanks test and the GJT was aimed at controlling the type of
information each type of task conveys and to set the two types of knowledge further
apart causing the division between the two test types more distinctly dichotomous for
data analysis purposes. As the production in T1 was immediate while learners were
under time pressure to communicate their ideas, little attention was paid to form and
accuracy, as rapid judgements are known to reflect implicit knowledge. With extra
time allowed for responding to the cloze test and the GJT, the results should reflect
learners’ explicit knowledge since they had the opportunity to compare the NPs in the
tests and the formally learned rules of the L2. Robinson (1996), for example, allowed
participants to make the judgements in their own time to elicit data that reflects
conscious understanding of the L2 grammar.
Unfortunately, because of time limitation and practical restrictions, we were
unable to re-run the tests with the stories (T2) and the sentences (GJT) presented in a
different order. Doing so might have yielded dissimilar results (see Cowart 1997) to
the ones we obtained.
3.5 Data Analysis
Describing the data collected from the tests tasks and the three groups necessitates
categorising the data entries, which include both NP descriptions and the analysis of
80
article use. The NPs occurring in the tasks were first categorised according to the
criteria that determine article use, i.e. their definiteness, countability and number
(Quirk et al 1991, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999). Hence the NPs in the
task design and data analysis were described as possessing or lacking these features:
a. Definiteness (±def)
b. Countability (±Count)
c. Number (±Singular)
In addition to the above descriptions, to find out if article use is affected by other
linguistic notions, the NPs were described in terms of specificity of reference,
modification and ontological status.
d. Referentiality (±Specific)
e. Adjectival premodification (±Premodified)
f. Ontological status (±Concrete)
The second type of analysis involves article use. The main division was into either
correct or incorrect. Erroneous article use was further subdivided into errors of
omission, overuse and replacement (substitution). The NPs in 11 and 12 are examples
of omission and overuse errors (respectively) taken from students’ essays submitted
for the writing task.19
19
Each participant was given a sequence number and a code for proficiency level (A, B and C)
followed by a letter to refer to the type of task taken while NPs were numbered by order of appearance
in the essay. For example, 14CW4 refers to student number 14 whose PL is C (highest group), W is the
sign of the writing task and 4 is the number of the NP in one essay.
81
(11) *It’s quite big town (14cw4)
(12) *He told us an interesting stories (1aw22)
According to the above categories, the NP in the first sentence was described as [–def]
[+Count] and [+Sing] while in the article use section it was categorised as incorrect
and the type of error was that of omission. The NP in the second sentence was [–def]
[+Count] [–Sing]. The article use was incorrect and the type of error was that of
overuse.
However, classifying article errors is not always as straight forward as the
above examples suggest. Responses from the native speakers in T2 for example,
varied in some contexts although no grammatical errors were made. This case calls for
introducing a third type of analysis which does not solely depend on grammaticality,
but rather on how favourable or frequent one choice is. A detailed account of what
constitutes choice errors is explained in sections (3.5.3).
Results emerging from all tests were calculated in percentages and compared
across PL groups and test types to find out if there is any statistically significant
difference in certain error types or accurate/appropriate rates of either article. The aim
of comparing results across groups was to follow learner progress with regards to
article use, while cross-test comparison should help reveal the effect of task type
variation on outcomes.
Finally, there is a need to define what constitutes accuracy, what makes one
use correct and the other incorrect, and to clearly distinguish between various error
types in order to establish a rationale for considering one response more acceptable
82
than the other. The following section will provide a detailed account of the
parameters used to determine the appropriateness of articles used in each NP context.
3.5.1 Accuracy
In the data analysis, correct article use includes the grammatical and appropriate use
of the, a, an and correct unmarking of indefinite plural and uncountable nouns (zero
article). To find out the rates of correct or target-like usage (TLU), accuracy rates
were calculated by dividing the number of correct occurrences supplied in obligatory
contexts (SOC) relative to the sum of all the NP environments in which articles should
have appeared multiplied by the number of participants in one group.
Number of observed occurrences (SOC)
TLU =
Total number of obligatory contexts X number of students
The calculation above was used to measure the degree of accuracy for both articles as
well as correct marking of indefinite uncountable and plural nouns (accurate zero) in
different NP environments. Since the number of obligatory contexts varied across
tasks, outcomes of the above calculations had to be measured in percentages to allow
comparisons across tasks and across groups of varying numbers of participants.
Correct article supply primarily implies accurate use which largely refers to
grammatical correctness, but it also includes appropriate or suitable responses. While
the former entails rules without which an expression would be totally unacceptable,
83
such as the use of the indefinite article with a plural noun, the latter relates more to
target-like norms and common preferences with varying degrees of suitability, such as
the overuse of the definite article in certain contexts. The distinction between the two
uses is further described in section 3.5.3. Details relating to minor discrepancies in
analysing types of correctness in each task are described in section (3.5.6).
3.5.2 Error types
The second perspective in data analysis is concerned with error types. It has been
customary in SLA studies to examine learner errors with the aim of establishing areas
of difficulties, IL tendencies and find possible indicators to the stages of acquisition.
The development patterns which emerge from these results should help the researcher
to follow the progression of learners’ IL. Cross-group comparisons of error rates can
reflect the shifts in learners’ performance as their proficiency level improves while
cross-task analysis of the same error type can show the effect of task variation on the
development map. Article errors can be divided into three main categories: omission,
overuse (or commission Hakuta 1976:340) and replacement errors.
84
3.5.2.1 Overuse
An error of overuse refers to instances where articles should not have appeared (Pica
1983). In principle, the formula used in calculating errors was similar to the one used
for accuracy, i.e., the observed instances were compared against the total number of
contexts where such occurrences were expected to appear. For example, to calculate
the percentage of overuse errors of a(n) with uncountable nouns in one group, the
following equation was used:
Number of incorrect supply of a(n)

Overuse of a = %
Total number of [–Def –Count] NPs X Number of students
To apply the above formula, NP types and article use were described and summed. A
similar method was used to examine the overuse of the indefinite article with plural
nouns simply by changing the [–count] contexts into [–Sing] ones. The overuse rates
of the definite article were calculated by dividing the total number of overuse
instances in learner data by the total number of indefinite NPs and multiplied by the
number of students in one PL group.
3.5.2.2 Omission
The ‘Omission’ of articles is an inclusive term widely used in SLA to refer to errors
resulting from the failure to supply either article in obligatory contexts (T1 and T2) or
not being able to recognise that an article is missing (in T3). If the definite article was
not supplied in uniquely identifiable contexts or a/n was not placed before indefinite
countable singular nouns, an error of omission is thereby committed.
85
To calculate omission rates numerically, the sum of omission instances in
the responses of each PL group was divided by the total number of obligatory contexts
relevant to each article in each task multiplied by the number of participants in each
group. The figure resulting from such formula was then converted into a percentage to
facilitate cross group and cross task comparisons,20 as was the case with overuse
errors explained above. For example, to calculate the indefinite article omissions made
by the weaker group in task 2, we added up the omission instances, then divided them
by the total number of [–Def] [+Count] [+ Sing] NPs in that test, multiplied by the
number of students in G1.
3.5.2.3 Replacement errors
Replacement (substitution) errors refer to the employment of one article instead of the
other. In other words, to substitute a-for-the or the-for-a, but such errors do not
include a/the for zero or vice-versa.
Given the fact that countability and number are decisive variables in the use of
the indefinite article but not the definite, replacement errors had to be calculated in a
manner that would make the two NP contexts more comparable. Hence, only
+Singular +Countable nouns were selected to examine replacement errors while
±Definiteness value remained as the only common denominator that determines the
use of either article. Practically, countability and number became constants while
(in)definiteness was considered a dependent variable. Replacement errors were
calculated by applying the following formula to database entries:
20
This was done because the number of obligatory contexts in each task was not identical.
86
Total number of erroneous use of a
a-for-the = %
Total number of [+def] NPs X no. of participants in one group
This method differs from the one used for calculating overuse errors in that it does not
include the overuse of the indefinite article in [–def] [–Count] or [–Sing] NPs. A
similar calculation was used to examine the error of replacing the indefinite article
with the definite. The latter type of error is expected to be more frequent than the for a
errors because of the influence of learners’ L1.
3.5.3 Article Choice
The types of article use described in the previous section were further subdivided
according to whether the use is the native speaker’s first choice or not. This preference
might vary from one community to the other according to well-known social (non-
linguistic) factors such as region, gender and age (cf. Hollmann and Siewierska (2011)
for the suggestion that in definite article reduction in Lancashire dialect identity may
play a role as well). Therefore what might be considered as the NS’s favourable use in
one community might not be the same option in another.
In addition to being grammatically correct or incorrect, article use was also
described according to NS preference or choice determined by custom and
convention. In other words, an expression might be grammatically correct but not
native-like and can be therefore considered as an IL error of choice. Grammatically
inaccurate descriptions largely involve violations of the rules governing the use of the
indefinite article which can be summarised into the following points:
87
a. Using the indefinite article with indefinite plural nouns.
b. Using the indefinite article with indefinite uncountable nouns.
c. Failure to supply the indefinite article with indefinite singular nouns.
The types of misuse listed above include errors of overuse (a) and (b), and omission
(c). On the other hand, instances of grammatically incorrect the, are rarer because
definiteness depends mostly on the semantic value of an utterance (see Literature
Review 2.1.1). In other words, people’s assumptions about the availability of a
mutually manifest P-set in which the referent would exist and is uniquely identifiable
are not limited to one interpretation, therefore, in the one context, with the same
distribution of information, there can be more than one possible answer. This
necessitated finding a new category to include such use. In this study, following
Trenkic´ (2000), this type of use is termed as choice.
The erroneous choice of articles is a common problem in L2 English (Huebner
1983; Tarone 1985; Parrish 1987; Tarone and Parrish 1988; Thomas 1989; Master
1990; Trenkic´ 2002; Leung 2001; Ionin and Wexler 2003; Ionin et al. 2004).
However, this type of error is more difficult to determine than grammatical errors
since it is usually caused by varying perceptions of definiteness, a semantic quality,
rather than the more concrete values of countability and number.
SLA studies report that when choice errors occur in learners’ data, they are not
random (Enç 1991) but rather caused by the lexical meanings attributed to forms (for a
discussion of form-meaning connections see VanPatten et al. 2004). For example, if
learners associate the with the notion of specificity, they would overuse the definite
article in [–def +Sp] contexts (IKW 2003), possibly without affecting the
grammaticality of the utterance. However, such non target-like use could lead to
88
ambiguity and misunderstanding, prompting the listener/reader to ask for further
clarification as in this hypothetical dialogue:
(13) a. I bought the bag.
b. Which bag?
a. The one we both saw at the shops yesterday!
The speaker in (13a) assumes that the listener (13b) can uniquely identify the referent
in a limited context; whereas it seems that the referent is not known, judging by the
response in (13b). This ambiguity could have been avoided if speaker A used the
indefinite article. It is also clear from the example above that choice errors can be
made by some NS.
There were difficulties in determining the criteria that make the use of one
article less favourable than the other. In other words, there was a need to define what
constitutes a choice error. One suggested parameter is the frequency of use (see Ellis,
N 2002). The reoccurrence of a particular noun, or what Huebner (1985), following
Givón (1983), terms as persistence in discourse can be an indicator of the more
popular forms in certain contexts. For example, the indefinite plural/uncountable form
(zero article) is preferable in expressing generic meanings to the use of the definite or
indefinite articles (Langacker 1991, Onishi and Murphy 2002, Behrens 2005).
Another way to measure suitability or appropriateness is to examine the
contextual effect (Sperber and Wilson 1986) of relevance which influences the degree
of importance (Huebner 1985). The distance between referent and article calculated by
the number of clauses to the left of the noun can also determine whether a pronoun or
the repetition of the head noun would be more preferable than the use of an article.
89
Ariel (1988) found that other definite descriptions are preferred to the if the distance
to the referent was shorter. For example, pronouns are preferred for second mention
expressions within the same sentence, while demonstratives are more likely to appear
within the same paragraph. The definite article is typically used for less-accessible
referents within a paragraph or across paragraphs (ibid).21 In short, despite the
grammatical correctness of various structures that express similar meanings, there is a
stereotypical use that is preferred in natural dialogue and authentic text. Accordingly,
in this study, an error of choice in article use was set according to the following
factors:
a. The NP does not violate any grammatical rules of countability and number.
b. It is not the most widely used form by NS to deliver the same meaning in
similar contexts.
c. Other expressions might be more favourable under certain structural settings.
Hence, erroneous article use was categorised as either grammatically incorrect or
permissible but as an error of choice. For example, the overuse of the indefinite article
can be a grammatical error in some contexts and a choice error in others.
a. If ‘a/n’ is used with uncountable or plural nouns then it falls under
grammatical error type
b. If ‘a/n’ replaces ‘the’ with singular countable nouns, then it is an error of
choice.
21
Ariel 1990, 2001 used the term recency to describe the relevant distance that determines the choice
definite descriptions.
90
In this sense all replacement errors in this study are choice errors since only singular
countable NPs were selected to measure both types of replacement, i.e., only
definiteness remained a variable. Cases where the definite article replaces the
indefinite with newly introduced information, as is used in fiction, are not perceived
as wrong or non-native-like because these do not violate rules of countability and
number. However, such use makes the retrieval of the explanatory signals less
felicitous as the reader continues to search for relevant cues to identify the referent,
cataphorically.
3.5.4 L1 and IL
As we aim to analyse learner data qualitatively as well as quantitatively, it was
necessary to address the source of errors in L2 production. Most SLA researchers
agree that errors committed by L2 learners are usually ascribed to either transfer from
learners’ first language (L1) or to known norms of behaviour during the various stages
of L2 acquisition, better known as Interlanguage, regardless of their mother tongue.
Although error types overlap in many ways and are sometimes difficult to
discriminate between, what distinguishes those attributable to L1 influence from those
that result from common L2 processes is that the first type might be traceable to the
rules, structures and morphology of the learners’ L1 while the latter can be found in
the production of 2LL with various L1s.
Recall from section 2.3 that English and Arabic are not analogous in their
representation of indefiniteness, as English possesses an obligatory and explicit
marker of indefiniteness, while the indefinite marker in Arabic is covert and optional.
The two languages also differ in the function of the definite article because the non-
specific reference is always definite in Arabic. These discrepancies, in addition to the
differences mentioned in section 2.3.3, might lead to negative transfer to the TL. For
91
example, the absence of an indefinite article in Arabic can cause higher omission rates
than those of the definite. Furthermore, dissimilar lexical settings that underlie the use
of the definite article might cause overuse in generic references. However, despite the
fact that these errors can be attributed to transfer from Arabic, they can also be a part
of a more common pattern found in IL, regardless of the L1.
In order to identify possible sources of errors, certain features that affect
article use, as well as other features under investigation, were compared between the
two languages. If the error rates in instances where there is a divergence between the
two languages proved to be significantly higher than their correct counterparts, then
this could strongly suggest the presence of cross linguistic influence. Conversely,
similarities with tendencies and error patterns recorded in findings of studies on other
L1s would point towards common tendencies which are part of the L2 acquisition
process. For example, if higher error rates were recorded in contexts where there is a
disparity in L1/L2 countability status, it is probable that there is a certain degree of L1
transfer, since dissimilarity in countability notions between the first and the target
language is known to be one of the major causes for article errors (Yamada and
Matsura 1982, Yoon 1993, Butler 2002, Al-Fotih 2003, Hua and Lee 2005). On the
other hand, if errors were found to be higher in all uncountable than in plural contexts,
and similar findings were observed in other studies on L2 acquisition of articles, this
could provide grounds for supposing that L2 learners find it more difficult to
recognise the irregular morphological structure of uncountable nouns (being without
s) than plurals, regardless of the L1.
Table (3) demonstrates possible article errors resulting from transferring L1
patterns onto the TL in NP environments of contrastive L1/L2 natures, with examples
92
from learners’ production.22 The linguistic variables include those that determine
article use, in addition to other notions that learners might wrongly associate with
article use.
22
All examples are from T3
93
Table 3 Grammatical versus choice types of errors
Linguistic Evidence of negative L1

Example
features transfer
Using a(n) with uncountable/

My brother did a good
Countability plural Ns that are countable in
housework.
Arabic.
Overusing the in indefinite non- Reading the books fills

Specificity
referential contexts people’s time.
Overuse of the definite article The most important thing is

Ontology
with abstract Ns the safety.
Omission of obligatory
Fatma became successful
Syntax indefinite article with
business woman.
premodified NPs
Using the in the complement
Structure position of partitive ‘of’ Price of the oil.
constructions
3.5.5 Learner Hypotheses
In this study, the theories underlying L2 use of articles by L1Ar learners were
examined from three different angles: The pragmatic notion of specificity; the
structural aspect of adjectival premodification, and the semantic value of the
abstractness/concreteness of the head noun. The effects of these three different factors
on article use were studied to help gain some insights into learners’ internal
94
hypotheses about the L2, i.e., whether or not faulty associations exist between
definiteness and these notions (see chapter 2 section 2.3). The findings were compared
to those from other studies concerned with the effect of similar concepts on L2 article
production. The following sections will explain how the presence of such associations
was observed and calculated in our database.
3.5.5.1 Specificity
To investigate the relation between specificity and definiteness in learner hypotheses
(IKW 2004), instances in which the definite article was overused in [-def] [+SP]
contexts were compared against those made in [-def] [–Sp] references. If systematic
oversupply in either (indefinite) context was found, it would point towards a faulty IL
connection between the interpretation of definiteness and the pragmatically-
determined referentiality status of the NP. To further validate our findings, counter-
hypothesis tests were run (see Skehan 1989, 1998) to find out whether a parallel
connection exists between the indefinite article and non-specificity.
95
3.5.5.2 Premodification
Previous research (Parodi et al. 1997, White 2003, Goad and White 2004) has
indicated that the prosodic structure in learners’ L1 negatively influences their L2
production. In this study, this claim was investigated by examining article use in
adjectivally premodified structures in Arab learners’ production. Omission patterns of
the indefinite article in [+Premod] NPs were observed and contrasted against the rates
in [–Premod] contexts. If the results yielded significant differences between the two
environments, it would be possible to postulate that the position of the noun in the NP
affects the L2 supply of articles by Arab learners. Counter tests were performed to
examine learners’ predisposition to overuse of the definite article in similar NP
contexts.
3.5.5.3 Concreteness
The third aspect of learner hypotheses with regards to L2 article use examined in this
study was the IL association between definiteness and abstractness/concreteness. In
order to achieve this, error rates were contrasted in both lexical contexts (cf. Trenkic´
2000). Critically different results would mean that learners’ choices of articles could
be influenced by the ontological status of the head noun, possibly originating from the
transfer of L1 lexical notions (Hamdallah 1988, Diab 1996, Maalej 2004). If this was
the case, higher overuse occurrences of the definite article would be expected to
appear in abstract NP environments. Accordingly, definiteness could therefore be
more associated with abstractness, rather than concreteness. As a confirmatory
measure, we also tried to find out if the L2 meanings of the indefinite article were
associated with abstract or concrete concepts.
96
3.5.6 Task variation
Every NP produced by learners (in the free production test) or prepared by the
examiner (in the cloze and GJ tests) was analysed according to the following criteria:
identifiability (definite/indefinite), countability (countable/uncountable), and number
(singular/plural). Entries were also categorised in terms of premodification, specificity
and concreteness.
NP values were considered as constants; whereas the Article Use section
represented the variables examined. L2 use of a/n, the and zero was analysed with
respect to accuracy and error (overuse; omission; replacement). A further subdivision
divided article use into grammatically incorrect and choice errors. This table illustrates
how article use was determined by matching the type of article usage, be it correct or
incorrect, with certain criteria in the NP description accordingly filtered from the
database.
97
Table 4 Article use calculation based on NP description
Article Use Noun Phrase description
Correct the Def=1
Correct a/n [Def=0] + [Count=1] + [Sing=1]
Correct 0 [uncountable] [Def=0] + [Count=0]
Correct 0 [plural] [Def=0] + [count=1] + [Sing=0]
Omission ‘the’ Def=1
Omission a/n [Def=0] + [Sing=1]
Overuse a/n [–count] Count=0
Overuse a/n Plural [Count=1] + [Singular=0]
Overuse ‘the’ Def=0
a/n for the [Def=1] + [Singular=1]
The for a/n [Def=0] + [Singular =1]
Overuse the [–Sp] [Def=0] + [Specific=0]
Omission a/n premod [Def=0] + [Sing=1] + [Premod=1]
Overuse the abstract [Def=0] + [Concrete=0]
98
In all three tests, we calculated article use based on the description of NPs as filtered
in the Excel data sheets. However, because these tasks vary in length, focus and
degree of control, there were some minor differences in the methods of data analysis
for each test. For example, the overuse of the definite article was considered an error
of choice in T1 because its supply in indefinite contexts, although not target-like, does
not violate any grammatical rules. On the other hand, the overuse of the in T2 was
regarded as a grammatical error in instances where the answers did not match any of
the NS responses in a particular blank, and a choice error in cases that matched the
exceptional few from the control group. Finally, due to the nature of T3, the inability
to recognise overuse instances as incorrect was considered a grammatical error of
judgement. Further details of task-specific data analysis are discussed in the following
sections.
3.5.6.1 T1
When data from this test was analysed, only instances where the presence of the
definite article is deemed necessary were categorised under [+def] (please refer to
obligatory contexts in the Literature Review 2.2.1). This renders the definite article as
the sole representative of definiteness while other semantically definite descriptions,
such as proper nouns and pronouns were not coded as [+def]. The reason is that if
such NPs were described as [+def], the supply of the definite article in electronic data
would be automatically required once the NP description is compared against article
use, leading to confusion in subsequent calculations.
Expressions which exclude articles were exempted from being analysed in the
database. They include:
99
a. Quantifiers: many, lots of, much
b. Determiners: every, any, each, no, none, another
c. Demonstratives: this, that , those, these
d. Possessive pronouns
e. The numeral one.
However, the determiner some was accepted as a correct indefinite plural marker in
this test only.
Other expressions that were not categorised in the descriptions were those
without head nouns. In these cases, article use was described and calculated, but it was
practically impossible to analyse the NPs, which could include both correct as well as
incorrect instances of oversupply. These examples from participants illustrate how
such occurrences can be wrong in one context but completely acceptable in another:
(14) They consider him the best. (Correct the).
(15) *He wanted to be a successful. (Incorrect a).
In both correct and incorrect instances, only article type of use was entered.23
There were cases in this task in which head nouns were preceded by Arabic
proper nouns that have the definite article (al) as part of the name, (e.g. Alain
museum). Such instances might lead to the omission of the obligatory the because
students rely on the definiteness of the Arabic counterpart. For example, many
students preferred to use ‘Alain city’ instead of the genitive structure (The city of
Alain) which led to dropping the English definite article. In both cases ‘city’ bears a
23
Cases without NP descriptors were not compared against article use in data calculations. Instead,
article use in such instances was counted separately.
100
definite value either grammatically through the morphological presence of the Arabic
definite article (al), or semantically as a part of a proper noun. However, the problem
becomes more complicated when the NP structurally requires grammatical
definiteness as in the following example:
(16) Alain museum is interesting to new comers in Alain. Part of (the) Alain
museum shows traditional weapons.
Practically, we depended on capitalisation or quotation marks to distinguish between
what learners intended to be considered proper nouns and those that were treated as
common nouns.
(17) It was known as an oasis. common (Ref: 5BW)
(18) It means ‘oyster’. common (Ref: 10AW)
(19) The meaning of ‘Saad’ is big hole. proper (Ref: 8aw)24
In the article-use section of the data analysis, all of these instances (17, 18 and 19)
were categorised under ‘correct zero’.
Correct use of the definite article was decided according to the contexts of
obligatory supply (2.2.1) but if the deployment of the definite article was extended
beyond these contexts, such as to non-referential expressions,25 or was not
24
These are samples from students in groups 1 and 2.
25
According to published research, including corpus-based studies, bare plurals seem to best represent
non-referential expressions as the most widely applied form to deliver generic, kind-referring meanings,
as is observed by a number of theorists (e.g Chesterman 1991, Onishi and Murphy 2002, Partee 2005,
Behrens 2005) as well as SLA linguists (e.g. Huebner 1983, Trenkic´ 2000 and Thu 2005). Thus, it is
possible to consider that alternative options constitute errors of choice, although they are not incorrect.
101
appropriately supplied in obligatory contexts, the misuse was treated as a choice error
since, unlike the overuse and omission of the indefinite article, no grammar rule was
violated, rather, definite article errors are perceived as errors of meaning (cf. Trenkic´
2000).
The relationship between the definite article and referentiality has always been
complicated. It was sometimes difficult to justly categorise the specificity status of
references in learner data since the intention to refer is entirely subjectively
determined. In this test, the parameter used to distinguish ±specific contexts depended
on whether the expression referred to particular entities within the context of the
student’s essay, or to all similar entities of prototypical descriptions in the world (see
Abbott 2000, 2003). In this sense, we followed Salmon-Alt and Romary’s (2000)
approach whereby referentiality can be deduced from the domain in which the referent
operates.
Finally, unlike T2 and T3 where idiomatic and culturally-bound formulaic
expressions were deliberately avoided, the appearance of such NPs was inevitable in
the data obtained from T1. Each of these instances was judged individually according
to the context in which they occurred. The fact that more native-like structures and
expressions would have been preferred in certain instances was ignored. The only
variable considered and analysed was learners’ choice of articles. 26
For example, a student from the weak group wrote that her town did not have electric power supply.
Later, she said the town is naturally beautiful but We suffer from this lack in the service (Student
reference 2aw).
26
Other errors concerning parts of speech, vocabulary or structure which might have had an indirect effect on
learners’ choices of articles were not taken into consideration. Instead, NPs were analysed on article use only.
102
Learner data Native like choice
(20) As a conclusion in conclusion
(21) The houses of people People’s houses
3.5.6.2 T2
For the purpose of the analysis of the results, the 6 stories were treated as a single set
of data. The set contained a total of 217 full NPs, identified as target contexts. Each
target context was classified according to criteria that determine article use
(definiteness, countability, number), in addition to specificity, premodification and
concreteness. Correctness and suitability depended on the degree to which the native
speaker group provided consistent answers.
Accuracy and error were determined by NS responses. Most blanks in the
stories task were unanimously supplied with the same article by all NS participants.
Agreement on one article per blank (100% consistency) dictates the obligatory supply
of a similar response from learner data. Therefore, in such cases, there was only one
acceptable (correct) answer in learner data, which made the other two remaining
options impermissible in data analysis, although they would not necessarily be
considered grammatically incorrect per se.
In cases where responses from the CG were not consistent, the appropriateness
of learners’ answers was determined by the level of agreement among the native
speakers. If the majority of NS (more than 6 out of 12) agreed on one article for one
particular blank, the corresponding answer from learners was considered correct. On
the other hand, if the answers from the learner database matched the responses
provided by the minority of NS for a given blank (fewer than 6 out of 12), the answer
103
was categorised under choice error, leaving one remaining article which was
automatically excluded as an incorrect option.
Finally, if the CG participants produced all three possible answers (a/n, the, zero)
for the same blank, it was omitted from the test because the purpose of the question
was defeated as no incorrect option was left available. This case happened in one
blank in story 4 which led to its cancellation.
(22) The position of ______ top politician.
Variability in NS responses represents different individual readings of definiteness,
possibly because of textual distance between article and referent, recurrence in
discourse (persistence) (Huebner 1985) or the prominence of the referent in the
consciousness of the participants (Chafe 1987). Alternatively, disparate responses can
be the result of dissimilar perceptions of entities in the world, as in example below:
(23) _____window was open (story 2).
Most NS filled in the blank with the indefinite article, assuming that the average size
house has more than one window, with any one of them open while the few who
chose to use the instead, might have assumed the speaker to be looking at a certain
window (referent physically present) or the only window in the limited P-set of the
kitchen mentioned in the preceding discourse.
104
Some respondents from the CG asked if supplying possessive pronouns would be
more suitable in certain blanks, but they were instructed to limit their answers to the
options available in the prompts, namely a(n), the and zero.
3.5.6.3 T3
Since the description of the NPs was pre-designed in the controlled tasks, article use
in the GJT was directly analysed according to whether it corresponded to or differed
from the answer key decided by NS responses. Thus, accepting only one correct
answer implies that expressions that are most unlikely to be used by NS in natural
discourse, though grammatically correct, had to be regarded as incorrect. This means
that there were no choice errors in this test. The remaining techniques of analysis
followed in categorising data entries from T3 were congruous with the approach
followed in the other two tests (T1 and T2).
Unlike the grammatically incorrect instances where the indefinite article is
supplied before uncountable or plural nouns such as a + gold (6) and a + dresses (7),
it would be difficult to rule out the possibility of the definite article occurring with
mass and abstract nouns in certain occasions. However, since no choice-error options
were permitted in this test, non-native-like occurrences of the definite article had to be
marked wrong in the key. For example, the underlined nouns in (24) and (25) were
expected to be marked incorrect by the CG despite the fact that the constructions do
not violate any obvious grammatical rules. NSs did consider them erroneous because
the definite article is deemed redundant with abstract and mass nouns in most non-
referential readings.
105
(24) In choosing a flight, the most important thing is the safety.
(25) ‘The milk is necessary for babies’
As the occurrence of the definite article in a similar situation of example (24) is
implausible, learners were expected to reject this utterance for its improbability.
Similarly, the example in (25) is expected to be marked wrong if it was referring to a
kind of substance with indistinguishable universally-common attributes. In this case,
the zero article would be the more appropriate choice (Chesterman 1991, Behrens
2005, Onishi and Murphy 2002, Partee 2005). However, the same expressions can be
accepted if interpreted within a limited context in which the speaker is referring to a
certain safety measure or a particular bottle of milk which the listener might be able to
recognise.
In addition to the dichotomous categorisation of responses, another constraint
in analysing data from this task was the limited amount of context available for each
instance. The meaning of referents in discontinued expressions had to be drawn from
what the narrow sentential scope of the NP permitted the reader to understand. Thus,
without sufficient information available in the text, responses are expected to largely
reflect the students’ epistemic knowledge of the world. The lack of content restricts
the denotation of NPs in T3 to common generalisations and does not allow further
interpretations that could have been possible in alternative environments.
Recall example (6), given in the description of T3: Aisha went to a wedding.
She said a bride was beautiful. On impulse, the first reading establishes a logical
connection between the two sentences through ‘bridging’ or ‘associated anaphora’
106
which should lead to automatic rejection of the indefinite article as the reader
recognises that the definite article would have better expressed the thought. However,
if there were a context in which the bride was one of many, such as on occasions in
which several couples celebrate their weddings at the same place/time, the supply of
an indefinite singular form could have been feasible. Nevertheless, the expression
remains awkward, since, in a similar situation, a NS would have probably expressed
the same idea differently (e.g. One of the brides was beautiful; or There was a bride
who was beautiful). The lack of prior/further explanation does not encourage
presuming alternative interpretations beyond the typical usage (Chesterman 1991) in
the context of a wedding ceremony where there is usually one bride only. Therefore,
despite the limited context in this task, the conventional 27uniqueness (of one bride) in
a limited setting (of a wedding) helps make definiteness obligatory whereas choice to
use the indefinite article becomes less acceptable.
Another example from T3 illustrates how the use of the definite article could
have been permitted under different contextual conditions in which more detailed
information about the referent was available.
(26) When I needed the pen in the last exam, Fatma gave me hers.
If the NP in (26) was part of a story in which the pen had been mentioned in former
discourse with some distinctive quality, such as being the speaker’s favourite or has
been given to her as a present, the use of the definite article would have been
accepted. However, given the limitation of the individual sentence, the interpretation
would have to bear a [–def] value because the referent cannot be uniquely identified.
27
Definiteness in Conventional contexts is listed among Liu and Gleason’s (2002) list of non-generic
uses of the based on Hawkins’ (1987) uniqueness theory.
107
3.6 Limitations
Because of practical restrictions of time and space as well as the empirical nature of
this study that combines a multiplicity of proficiency levels, testing tools and criteria
investigated, certain theoretical and methodological elements could not be included.
This section points out these limitations and describes the alternative measures
followed in conducting the tests and analysing the results.
1. As was confirmed by the pre-testing data, all participants even of the lowest
PL, did produce articles, therefore emergence, as the primary stage of
production in SLA, was not included in this study.
2. In analysing the data, the two forms of the indefinite article (a, an) were treated
similarly in terms of obligatory suppliance or erroneous use (omission,
overuse). However, the replacement of one form with the other was simply
considered as an incorrect choice of article. This case happened only once with
one student in T2 and was therefore ignored.
3. Despite the possibility of countability shifts of nouns (from countable to
uncountable and vice versa) depending on NP context (Allan 1981), or the
notion that some nouns have a ‘dual class membership’ (Quirk et. al. 1985,
Celce-Murcia 1999), a basic taxonomy of countable/uncountable was applied
in the data analysis in order to facilitate NP description and categorisation of
108
article use in T2 and T3. Yet, the countability status of nouns in the free-
production task was decided on according to the context of each essay.
4. Although an attempt was made to provide equal instances of variable
combinations when designing the cloze test and the GJT, it was extremely
difficult to have exactly identical numbers of each variable as this would
require too large a number of examples for the scope of this study.
Nevertheless, we made every effort to provide a balanced representation of
contrasting variables.
5. The number of participants in each PL group was very close but not exactly
equal. There were participants who took one test but not the other. Therefore,
in addition to the numerical outcomes, the results were calculated in
percentages.
6. The expressions low, intermediate and advanced used to describe proficiency
level groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively were used according to the parameters set
for this study (see 3.4.2) although learners’ band of proficiency level might not
be termed as such under a different language testing apparatus.
7. Despite the subtle theoretical differences between subdivisions of specificity
readings such as wide/narrow-scope, or de re/de dicto (see Jaszczolt 1997), a
basic dichotomy of [–/+Sp] references was followed in categorising NPs to
facilitate data description and statistical analysis.
109
Chapter Four: Results
This chapter presents the results obtained from analysing the data elicited from the
three tests taken by participants of the three PL groups. This will include the
performance of each group in terms of accuracy and error rates. Learners’ hypotheses
are also examined to find out whether or not faulty associations exist between certain
linguistic features and article use, and if so, to what extent. The first three parts will
cover the results from each test separately; while a cross-task analysis of performance
rates will be reported in the fourth part.
In order to ascertain the validity of grouping the participants into three separate
sections according to proficiency level, entries from each student within a PL group
were calculated separately. Once the responses of each student were summed up
and measured against the key, they were compared to the totals of other participants
within the same group. The results showed the data to be normally distributed within
each group.
While the placement test was used to allocate participants into groups
according to their proficiency level, statistical analysis was performed to ensure that
the difference between the three groups was significant to justify the separate
categorisation. This was calculated using non-paired two-tailed t-test assuming equal
variance between the three groups with 95% confidence, comparing two groups at a
time. The higher means emphasise the better performance by the upper groups. Tables
5 and 6 below show the homogeneity of responses from participants within one group
on the one hand, and the statistically significant difference in the performances of
participants across the three groups (G1 v G2: p<0.0001, G1 v G3: p<0.0001 and G2 v
110
G3:p=0.0057) on the other. The figures reflect the results obtained from both T2 and
T3.
Table 5 Similarities within each PL and cross group differences in T2.
n M CI at 95% p
G1 15 124.07 ±7.89
G1 v G2
<0.0001
G1 v G3
G2 20 159.1 ±8.26
<0.0001
G2 v G3
0.0057
G3 16 177.57 ±8.57
Table 6 Similarities within each PL and cross group differences in T3
n M CI at 95% p
G1 15 23.13 ±1.73
G1 v G2
<0.0001
G1 v G3
G2 19 30.05 ±1.71
<0.0001
G2 v G3
0.0477
G3 18 32.35 ±1.26
111
In categorising data entries from the three tests, the criteria used for measuring
accuracy/error rates in learners’ production depended primarily on grammatical
correctness, and secondly on correctness of choice. Recall from Section 3.5.1 that
correct article use meant the use of the definite article with uniquely identifiable NPs
in obligatory contexts, the indefinite article with non-identifiable, countable, singular
NPs and no article (or some) with unidentifiable plural/uncountable NPs in non-
referential contexts.
The information is presented in percentages because the number of criteria
compared was not identical. For example, the number of obligatory definite contexts
is not exactly equal to that of obligatory indefinite contexts. This is especially true in
the free composition where it was up to the individual participant to decide upon the
form and type of each NP.
In addition to numerical and percentage-based calculations, the data was
statistically analysed. We performed a Z-test to find the equality of proportions across
groups, article use and tasks based on the null hypothesis.28 We tested our hypothesis
at 5% level of significance.
28
This is based on the supposition that there is no statistical difference between the proportions of any
two groups.
112
4.1. Task 1
The selected sentences from the free writing test contain 1800 NPs, excluding those
preceded by possessive S, possessive pronouns and most proper nouns (see
Methodology 3.5.6.1). The remaining number of selected NPs ranged between 35-45
NPs per student across groups, with G2 producing the highest number of NPs per
student.
The essays produced by the three PL groups were first broken down into
individual NPs and entered into Excel spreadsheets. Each NP was broken down
according to values of definiteness, countability, singularity, specificity, pre-
modification and concreteness. Next, the article use in each NP was classified as
either correct or incorrect. Incorrect article use is further dissected into omission,
overuse (grammatical) and choice errors. Table 7 provides an example of how NPs
and article use were categorised and analysed in the database.
113
Table 7 Datasheet sample from one of the participants in task (1).
Ref Article Use NP description
.
No. Student name The A 0
Overuse
Overuse
Concrete
Omission
Omission
Countable
Premod
Specific
Correct
Correct
Correct
Definite
Singular
11
aw
1 a special place to live 1 1 1 1 1

2 place to work 1 1 1 1
3 has relatives 1 1 1
4 I live in small town 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 the most beautiful town 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 in the world 1 1 1 1 1
It has many places which
7 1 1 1
attract tourists
8 from all over the world 1 1 1 1 1
9 It has mountains 1 1 1
beaches where you
0 1 1 1
breathe
11 fresh air 1 1 1
12 and farms where you find 1 1 1
13 different kinds of 1 1 1
14 fruit and 1 1
15 Vegetable 1 1 1
It has the most important
16 1 1 1 1 1 1
factor which are
17 Safety 1
18 Quietness 1
19 and purity 1
whenever I have a
20 1 1 1
problem
21 my place in the society 1
22 small simple houses 1 1 1 1
23 to villas 1 1 1
24 and from simple work 1 1
25 to complicated one 1 1 1 1
26 the person without 1 1 1 1 1
27 Past 1 1 1
28 will be without future. 1 1 1
29 in the same time 1 1 1 1 1 1
114
4.1.1 Accuracy
The results emerging from the weaker and intermediate groups show significantly
higher accuracy rates of the definite than the indefinite article (p=0.0079). G1,
employed the definite article correctly 150 times in 199 obligatory contexts (75%),
while the indefinite article a(n) was correctly supplied 64 times in 106 indefinite
singular contexts (59%). This suggests that L1Ar learners initially perform better on
the definite than the indefinite article. G2’s performance also showed significantly
higher accuracy rates of the definite than the indefinite article (p=0.0395). The
advanced group, however, performed better on the indefinite article, though not
significantly so. Cross group analysis reflects sustained improvement in performance
on both articles, as is illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8 Accuracy rates in Task 1 compared across groups
Correct Correct
n % p % p
the a/an
G1 19 150/199 75 G1 v G2 64/106 60 G1 v G2
0.0276 0.0277
G2 17 245/293 84 G2 v G3 86/116 73 G2 v G3
0.3742 0.0080
G3 12 191/221 86 G1 v G3 57/64 89 G1 v G3
0.0039 0.0003
It seems that learners gradually improve their performance on both articles starting
with higher rates on the definite than on the indefinite articles. This is evident in the
significant difference rates across groups. However, while the improvement on the
115
indefinite article was noticeable, the difference between the performance of G2 and
G3 on the definite article was not significant (p=0.3742).
In this task, the development pattern of the indefinite article diverges from the
definite. Although the two lower groups did not perform on the indefinite article as
well as they did on the definite, i.e., the accuracy rates of the definite article were
higher, the progress was more consistent correlating positively with PL. In other
words, there was less progression on the definite article between the intermediate and
the advanced groups.
With regards to indefinite contexts, NPs in the singular did not constitute more
than 25%-27% of learners’ production, whereas the use of bare plurals was more
preferable across the board averaging around 75% of all indefinite NPs. Participants in
G1 produced 106 indefinite singular NPs which counted for 28% of all indefinite NPs.
The remaining 72% of NPs were bare plurals. This choice is not random. G1
appropriately used bare nominals 226 out of 279 instances, which is 80% of the time.
The accuracy rate of the zero article improved to 85% in the production of the
intermediate group and to 91% in that of the advanced. Out of all correct indefinite
plural/uncountable nouns, accuracy rates were higher in indefinite plural NPs than in
uncountable ones all across PLs. The difference is noticeable in Table 9.
116
Table 9 Correct marking of indefinite plural and uncountable nouns in T1
Group n Plural % Uncountable %
G1 19 177/213 83 49/66 74
G2 17 208/238 87 86/107 80
G3 12 124/131 95 32/41 78
4.1.2 Errors
Erroneous occurrences in article use formed 26% of all the produced NPs by the
weaker group, 19% by G2, and 12% of all G3’s production. It is worth mentioning
that Choice errors were higher than grammatical errors for all PLs.
4.1.2.1 Omission
The omission of the indefinite article was the highest of all grammatical errors
recorded in G1’s production (44%). It constituted 34% of all grammatical errors made
by G2, and 18% of all grammatical errors made by G3. G1 omitted the indefinite
article 42 times in 106 contexts. In percentages: weaker learners failed to supply a(n)
40% of the time with singular indefinite NPs. The intermediate group omitted the
indefinite article 30 times in 116 indefinite NP contexts (26%) while the advanced
group omitted a(n) in 11% of obligatory contexts. Omission rates of the indefinite
article seem to decrease regularly and significantly as PLs improve.
117
In analysing learner data from T1, omissions of the definite article were
considered as choice -rather than grammatical- errors since it is the semantic, rather
than the grammatical, value that is being flouted. These omissions were generally
lower than those of the indefinite article across groups perhaps because the learners do
not feel the same semantic pressure to additionally mark indefiniteness by an article.
G1 omitted the definite article in 48 obligatory instances, which is 24% of all definite
contexts. The rate dropped down to 17% in G2’s production and further down to 12%
by G3. Although the omission rates of the definite article are generally low in this
task, as PLs improved, they dropped significantly down as learners’ PL progressed
from G1 to G2 (p=0.0476)
As the accuracy rates of the definite article were found to be higher than the
indefinite, the omissions of the definite article in the two lower groups were
considerably rarer than omissions of the indefinite article. In other words, G1 and G2
omitted the indefinite article significantly more than the definite (G1 p=0.0059, G2 p=
0.0476). The gap between the omissions of the two articles became smaller as overall
proficiency improved (see Figure 1). More advanced learners (G3) omitted the
definite article slightly more (1%) than the indefinite.
Figure 1 Omission rates of the definite and the indefinite articles across groups in Task 1
118
4.1.2.2 Overuse
The results obtained from T1 reveal fewer overuse errors of the definite article than
originally expected. In G1, non-referential indefinite plural/uncountable nouns were
unconventionally preceded by the definite form 52 times out of 385 obligatory
contexts (14%). This is relatively low. Yet the overuse rate dropped down to 10% in
G2’s (47 out of 461) production and further down to 6% only by G3 (14 of 236)
which means that learners gradually drop the unnecessary definite article from
indefinite contexts as their PL improves. It is worth mentioning that the overuse of the
definite article was not considered ungrammatical in T1 because it does not violate
any grammatical rules of countability or number; rather, its presence depends on the
speaker/writer’s assumptions about the state of the referent in the recipient’s mind,
whether it can be recognised as uniquely identifiable or not. Therefore, all overuse
instances of the definite article in the free production task were considered as errors of
choice.
Not many NPs in the singular were produced by our participants at any level.
Singular indefinite NPs did not represent more than 25-28% of all indefinite contexts
produced in T1. This relatively low production rate may undermine the reliability of
results relating to error or accuracy rates, yet it is important to notice learners’
preferences which certainly did not include many indefinite singular constructions. A
comparison with results that emerge from similar contexts in other tasks will be
carried out in the section reviewing Cross-Task results to help validate these
observations.
119
The total number of errors resulting from the overuse of the indefinite article,
whether grammatically or by choice, was no more than 25 instances across PLs, most
of which were choice errors. The ungrammatical supply of a(n) [with plural and
uncountable nouns] totalled (7%) with an average of 2.3% in each PL group.
Although the error rate is low, it is worth mentioning that G3 overused the indefinite
article more often than the two weaker groups. The positive correlation between error
rate and proficiency level in this exceptional case will be discussed in the following
chapter.
When the overuse of the definite article was compared to that of the indefinite
in the writing of the two weaker groups, the difference in the error rates was
significant. We found that choice errors caused by the overuse of the definite article
were considerably more frequent than the ungrammatical supply of the indefinite
article. The results of the advanced group, however, reveal a much smaller difference
between the overuse rates of a(n) and the. Table 10 illustrates the sharp contrast in
overuse patterns between the two articles.
Table 10 Overuse rates of a/n and the in Task 1
P
n= the % a(n) %
the : a
G1 19 52/385 13.51 6/279 2.15 p<0.0001
G2 17 47/461 10.20 8/345 2.32 p<0.0001
G3 12 14/236 5.93 4/172 2.33 0.0603
120
It is noticeable that the overuse of a(n) with plural nouns did not exceed 1% in the
outcome of any PL group, whereas the overuse of a(n) with uncountable nouns was
more recurrent (5%). However, both types of indefinite article errors are relatively low
compared to the rates of the overuse of the definite article.
4.1.2.3 Replacement Errors
There are two possible replacements errors: the supply of the indefinite article with
uniquely identifiable referents (a/n for the); and the supply of the definite article in
indefinite contexts (the for a/n). Since it has always been grammatically acceptable for
the definite article to replace the indefinite while the reverse is not always possible
(e.g. the head noun was plural/uncountable), only +Count + Sing contexts were
selected for both error types. Thus the probability of occurrences of both articles is
relatively approximated. With grammatical incorrectness excluded, the
appropriateness of article use becomes a matter of preference. Therefore, in this study,
all replacement errors are considered as choice errors (see chapter 3).
Choice errors form 59% of all errors committed in T1; a considerably higher
rate than that of grammatical errors (41%). In analysing data entries for this task, it
was evident that despite the low rates of replacement errors, the definite article was
the preferred option, especially for weaker learners, as it replaced the indefinite at
least three times as many in +Count + Sing contexts (see Table 11). It was also
interesting to see that the inclination to substitute a with the was reduced with
improved PLs while the production of the indefinite article in definite contexts
increased steadily.
121
Table 11 Replacement errors across PL groups in Task 1
a for
Groups n= the for a % %
the
G1 19 5/106 4.7 1/111 0.9
G2 17 4/116 3.4 2/161 1.2
G3 12 2/64 3.1 4/116 3.4
4.1.3.1. Specificity
Results from the free writing task indicate that there is a clear association between
specificity and article use in learner production especially at lower PLs. Confirming
earlier predictions, learners from all groups overused the definite article more
frequently in non–specific contexts. Out of a total of 52 occurrences, G1 overused the
definite article 39 times in–Sp (indefinite) contexts, compared to 13 only in [–def
+Sp] contexts. In percentages 75% of all overuse instances were non-specific while
25% only were in indefinite specific NPs. Fewer errors were made in the higher group
as G2 overused the 29 times in [–Sp] contexts out of a total of 47 overuse instances,
while not more than 18 occurrences were observed in specific indefinite contexts. In
percentages, 62% of all overuse errors by G2 were in non-specific contexts while
overuse in specific contexts was 38%. The association between non-specificity and
definiteness became significantly weaker in the production of the higher group, but
the preference remained unchanged as 64% of all overuse errors were noted in [–Sp]
122
NPs, and only 35% was recorded in indefinite referential contexts, as is illustrated in
Table 12.
Table 12 The overuse of the in T1 in ±Sp contexts compared to total overuse errors
n Non-Specific % Specific %
G1
19 39/52 75 13/52 25
G2
17 29/47 62 18/47 38
G3
12 9/14 46 5/14 35
The difference between the overuse rates in +/–Sp contexts was more significant at
lower levels (p=0.0335) whereas the difference in overuse rates in the production of
the two upper levels was not significant.
When the overuse errors in the two –/+SP contexts were calculated separately,
i.e. without comparing them to the total overuse errors, a different error map emerged
(see Table 13).
Table 13 Overuse of the in specific/non-specific contexts
G1 G2 G3
n=19 n=17 n=12
Non-
16% 11% 7%
Specific
Specific 9% 9% 5%
123
It is evident from Table 13 that there was a steady decline of overuse rates in non-
specific contexts as learners advanced while a smaller reduction in errors was noticed
across groups when the NP environments were specific.
There was little difference between the overuse rates of the lower and
intermediate groups in specific contexts, but what was evident was that these overuse
rates were both lower than those in –specific contexts, which could be an apparent
indication of L1 influence in the weaker groups.
An opposite pattern was observed with regards to the indefinite article. The
majority of learners’ production shows that the indefinite article was better supplied in
specific contexts, while almost no generic meanings were expressed using the
indefinite article. What is interesting is that the overuse of the indefinite article in both
+/–Sp contexts increased as learners’ English improved. This will be further discussed
in the following chapter.
4.1.3.2. Premodification
The results emerging from the weaker group show that the indefinite article was
omitted more in non-premodified contexts than in adjectivally premodified ones. G1
learners omitted the indefinite article 17 times in 41 non-premodified indefinite
singular NPs. In percentages, they failed to supply a(n) in 41% of all obligatory
contexts; while in premodified contexts there were only 25 omissions in 65 cases
(38.5%). As learners’ PLs improved, this pattern was reversed as higher omissions
were recorded when the head noun was adjectivally premodified. The intermediate
group omitted the indefinite article more often in Adj + N constructions (31%) than in
non-premodified ones (16%). The rate of omission before modified nouns was almost
double the rate of omissions in non-premodified contexts. In this respect, the
124
performance of G2 was in line with that of the advanced group as the errors made by
G3 in premodified contexts were 71% of all indefinite article omissions, while only
28% of omission errors were observed in nouns not preceded by an adjective.
Learners in this group omitted a(n) in 13% of all obligatory contexts where the head
nouns were premodified, but error rates were not higher than 7% with non-
premodified singular nouns.
Figure 2 Omission of the indefinite article in ±Premodified constructions in T2
It is clear from Figure 2 that the improvement across PLs was noticeable, i.e.,
omission rates were significantly reduced as learners progressed from G1 to G2. The
errors continued to fall in G3’s production with growing association between the
article with the head noun, rather than the adjective.
Similar outcomes were recorded with respect to the definite article. Omission
rates were consistently higher in premodified constructions in the production of
125
learners from all PLs, but the difference between omission rates in the two contexts
was more substantial in the weaker group’s production (p=0.0399). Despite the
regular decrease in omission rates with the overall L2 improvement, the cross group
comparison reveals that the gaps between PLs was not as noticeable as in the case of
the indefinite article. This is evident in the non-significant P values in statistical
calculations as shown in Table 14.
Table 14 Omission of the in ±Premodified constructions in T1
Non-
n= % Premod % p
Premod
G1 19 22/117 18.80 26/82 31.71 G1 v G2
0.1167
G2 17 29/199 14.57 20/94 21.28 G2 v G3
0.3692
G3 12 13/134 9.70 14/87 16.09
The results show a significant correlation between article use and the semantic value
of concreteness in learners’ writing, especially at lower PLs. Learners of all
proficiency levels supplied the definite article more readily when the head noun is
abstract.
126
Table 15 Overuse of the definite article in abstract and concrete contexts
Groups concrete % Abstract %
G1 33/285 11.58 19/100 19.00
G2 28/303 9.21 19/158 12.03
G3 7/165 4.24 7/71 9.86
The figures and percentages in Table (15) confirm that the overuse of the definite
article in both semantic contexts decreased as PLs improved but the reduction in error
rates was most noticeable between G2 and G3 in concrete contexts (p<0.0288).
Despite the fact that the majority of nouns produced in students’ writing were
concrete, abstract NP environments attracted higher overuse rates of both articles, i.e.,
overuse rates of the indefinite article were also higher in abstract contexts. For
example, six instances of a(n) overuse were recorded in G1’s production four of
which were with abstract nouns but only two were found in concrete contexts. In other
words, the overuse of the indefinite article in abstract environments was double the
rate of its overuse in concrete contexts. In the production of the two upper groups,
however, the difference was smaller and not as significant, but the preference was
similar.
It is worth mentioning that in both ontological contexts, the definite article was
overused more frequently than the indefinite. For example, in concrete contexts, G2’s
overuse rate of the was 9%, while the overuse rate of the indefinite article was 1.2%.
127
A comparison between the overuse rates of the two articles in abstract contexts is
illustrated in Figure (3).
0.25
0.2
0.15
a
0.1 the
0.05
0
G1 G2 G3
Figure 3 Overuse proportions of both articles in abstract contexts
4.2 Task 2
The second test is a cloze test, made up of six short stories with some articles removed
and replaced by blanks. The results emerging from the stories task (T2) represent the
outcome of comparing students’ responses in each blank to those of native speakers in
the control group. Therefore, what constitutes a grammatical error is the unavailability
of a similar response in the CG data. Similarly, an answer is considered correct if an
identical form is produced by a NS in that particular blank. However, since not all
responses of the CG were similar, learners’ responses were considered ‘correct’ if
they matched the form produced by the majority of NS, and as errors of choice if they
matched the answers provided by the minority of NS (see section 3.5.3.2).
128
4.2.1 Accuracy
A regular pattern of development is detected in the use of both articles across various
NP environments as PLs improve, i.e. a steady rise in accuracy rates was found to be
significant across groups as presented in the figures of Table 16 below.
Table 16 Accuracy rates across groups in T2
Groups n the % p a(n) % p
G1 15 1214/1890 64.23 G1 v G2 468/690 67.83 G1 v G2
<0.0001 <0.0001
G2 20 1906/2520 75.63 G2 v G3 753/920 81.85 G2 v G3
<0.0001 <0.0001
G3 16 1752/2016 86.90 G3 v G1 629/736 85.46 G3 v G1
<0.0001 0.0467
Unlike the results obtained from T1, the difference between the accuracy rates of the
definite and indefinite articles was not significant in G1’s and G3’s production, but
the intermediate level students performed significantly better on the indefinite than the
definite article (p<0.0001).
With regards to appropriate article use in indefinite plural/uncountable
contexts, the rates were low, but there was significant progression across PL groups.
The majority of the CG left 45 NPs unmarked while only 26% of the responses from
the weaker group were correct. The accuracy rates in G2’s results were higher (56%)
129
and further improvement was evident in G3’s answers as the accuracy rate rose to
64%. Finally, learners from all PL groups performed best on the definite article and
worst on the zero article in this task.
4.2.2 Grammatical Errors
In this task, grammatical errors refer to all responses that do not match any of the CG
data (see Methodology 3.5.6.2). Therefore, unacceptable learner responses include
omission, overuse and replacement errors of either article.
4.2.2.1 Omission
In the 45 indefinite singular NPs included in this task, learners in the weakest group
failed to supply the indefinite article 78 times out of 690 (45 blanks X 15 participants)
obligatory contexts. The omission rate for G1 was therefore 11% only. It fell to 4.4%
(41 out of 920) in G2’s production as the intermediate group supplied the indefinite
article better in obligatory contexts. With improved PLs, only 2.9% (22 out of 736)
total blanks were missed by G3.29 The gradual decrease in omission rates of the
indefinite article was most significant as learners advanced from lower to
intermediate PL (G1: G2 p<0.0001).
29
The number of total obligatory contexts varies according the number of students taking the test in
each group.
130
Figure 4 Omission errors of the definite and indefinite articles in obligatory contexts
The omissions of the definite article were lower than those of the indefinite in G1’s
production. The weak learners failed to supply the in only 8% of the blanks that were
unanimously filled with the definite article by the CG. The omission rates were
slightly reduced in G2’s production (7.3%) but the results from G3 seem to suggest
that the omission of the was considerably reduced to 4% which signals significantly
better performance (G2: G3 p<0.0001).
Apparently, the omission errors of both articles decreased with progress
towards the TL but a closer look at the error map shows that the two articles were
divergent in their development: while participants in G1 omitted the indefinite article
significantly more frequently than the definite (p=0.0116), the image was reversed in
the results of G2 as learners supplied the indefinite article better than the definite in
obligatory contexts (p=0.0007). The gap in omission rates drew closer to improved
131
L2 knowledge as no significant difference was found in the omission rates of the two
articles in G3’s results.
4.2.2.2 Overuse
Because of the nature of this task, there were far more instances of overuse than
omission errors. Overuse in this task is defined as the supply of any form of article in
instances where none of the NS did so.
Since none of the NS control group committed ungrammatical errors of
indefinite article overuse, the criteria that describe NPs and the ‘key’ answers (against
which learners’ responses are measured) were one and the same. The results show that
there is a regular and systematic decline in the overuse of a(n) as PLs improve.
G1overused the indefinite article in 27% of the impermissible contexts, whereas the
overuse rate in G2 was 15%. G3 overused the indefinite article 169 times across 2688
uncountable/plural contexts (6%). Therefore the progress was significant across PL
groups (p<0.0001).
It is worth mentioning that learners in the weaker group had more difficulty in
recognising the unsuitability of supplying the indefinite article in uncountable contexts
while better performance was recorded in plural contexts. G1 participants incorrectly
oversupplied the indefinite article within uncountable contexts, which is significantly
more than they did with plural NPs (p<0.0032) while the difference in overuse rates of
uncountable and plural contexts in groups 2 and 3 was not significant. However, what
was interesting to find is that the development across groups was significant in both
plural and uncountable NP environments (see Table 17).
132
Table 17 Overuse of the indefinite article in uncountable and plural contexts
uncount % p plural % p
G1 G1 v G2 G1 v G2
174 /450 39 76/270 28
n=15 <0.0001 0.0145
G2 G2 v G3 G2 v G3
108/600 18 71/360 20
n=20 <0.0001 0.0002
G3 G3 v G1 G3 v G1
42/480 8 28/288 10
n=16 <0.0001 <0.0001
The definite article was overused in G1’s responses 355 times in 1365 indefinite NP
contexts. In percentages, it is 26% of all blanks marked as indefinite by NS. This rate
was reduced to 18% in G2 production as learners in the intermediate group over
supplied the definite article 319 times out of 1820 possible NPs which NS did not
mark as definite. Fewer still overuse errors were made by more advanced learners in
G3 (15%). Finally it is worth mentioning that in the blanks test, there was little
disparity in the overuse rates between a(n) and the in the G1’s results, whereas the two
upper groups overused the definite article significantly more frequently than the
indefinite (G2: p=0.0097, G3: p<0.0001).
4.2.3 Choice Errors
Choice errors are grammatically permissible options of article use, yet they are not the
options preferred by the majority of NS. In this section, we will review the results
133
from the three groups of learners in relation to the exceptional responses provided by
the few NS in the CG with instances of grammatical30 overuse excluded.
Recall from chapter 3 section 5.6.2 that not all the CG responses were
categorised into either analogous or semi-analogous key, as there was one case
(example 45. top politician) where the three possible options (a(n), the, zero) had all
been supplied for one blank, which consequently led to the blank being dropped from
our calculations.
4.2.3.1 The
Participants from G1 overused the definite article in 25% of the NS choices while the
better group’s error rate was 15.75%, which is significantly lower than that of G1
(p<0.0017). Choice error rates of the were 12.3% in G3’s production, but the
difference between the performance of the intermediate and advanced groups was not
significant.
4.2.3.2 a(n)
The choice to use the indefinite article in contexts which most NS considered
definite31 was less favourable than applying the definite article in blanks which the NS
considered indefinite. However, the decrease in the error rates of indefinite article
choices was categorically more regular in pattern across the PL groups. This too is not
clear. The weaker group supplied the indefinite article in almost 11% of the available
choice contexts whereas the error rate in the performance of the intermediate group
30
In T2, Grammatical errors refer to all forms of responses in learner data that are not found in any of
the CG choices.
31
This type of use denotes the supply of the indefinite article in countable singular NP contexts which
only few NS assigned it indefinite meanings.
134
fell to 3.5% which is statistically lower than that of G1(p= 0.0010). The G3 data also
revealed a substantial decrease in choice error rates (G2: G3 p< 0.0001) as participants
chose to use the indefinite article in only 0.8% of possible choice contexts.
4.2.3.3 Zero
What learners seemed to be mostly struggling with is recognising that indefinite
plural/countable nouns should not be marked by articles. Surprisingly, it was G2’s
answers (rather than the weaker group) that approximated the responses made by the
NS consulted. It was also interesting to note that little cross group improvement was
noticed as PLs improved.
Table 18 Choice errors of the zero article
Groups n Ø %
15 8/60 13.33
1
2 20 21/80 26.25
3 16 9/64 14.06
With regards to overuse patterns in the blanks test, the preference to use the definite
article in NPs which most NS considered indefinite, was statistically stronger
(p<0.0001) than the use of the indefinite article by all PL groups. Although all
participants overused the definite article more frequently, the preference was more
135
notable in the weaker groups’ production, while the difference between the error rates
of the two articles became smaller as PL improved.
Figure 5 illustrates how error rates decreased with progress in PLs. It also
shows that learners had consistently overused the definite article more frequently (in
singular indefinite contexts) than the indefinite article in (singular) definite contexts.
Figure 5 Comparison between choice errors of a(n) and the in T2
4.2.4 Replacement Errors
Replacement errors refer to instances of suppliance of one article form in blanks
where the majority of NS in the CG chose to supply another. In order to approximate
the number of possible occurrences of both articles, only singular NPs were selected.
Thus, by excluding countability and number, the variables were restricted to those
involving definiteness alone.
136
In the results emerging from G1, the definite article was used as a substitute
for the indefinite in 24% of all singular indefinite constructions. The replacement error
rate dropped significantly down to 17% in G2’s production (p=0.0003). The decrease
in substitution errors rate was greater between G1 and G2’s performance, but the
difference between the two upper groups was not significant. G3 used the to replace
a(n) in 111 NPs in a total of 736 indefinite article contexts (15%). The distinction
between the two error types is shown in Figure 6.
30.00%
26%
25%
25.00%
20.00%
17%
15% 15%
15.00% the for a
a for the
10.00%
6%
5.00%
0.00%
G1 G2 G3
Figure 6 Replacement errors in T2 compared across groups
On the other hand, the indefinite article replaced the definite article more frequently in
the production of the weaker group. 29% of all definite singular contexts were
oversupplied with a(n), while G2 preferred to supply the indefinite article in 18% of
all definite singular contexts which is statistically significant (G1:G2 p<0.0001). The
advanced group used a(n) in 7.7% of all contexts that were considered definite by the
137
majority of NS which also signals a considerable improvement from the intermediate
group (G2:G3 p<0.0001).
The replacement rates of both articles fell gradually as PLs improved, but it
was more noticeable in contexts where the definite article was replaced by the
indefinite (a for the) as the gaps between groups were larger and the differences in the
error rates more significant. This tendency is in line with overuse/omission patterns in
which error rates concerning the indefinite article show a sharper and more regular
improvement than those of the definite.
4.2.5.1 Specificity
To find out if article use was influenced by the specificity status of the referent, nouns
were divided into [–def +Sp] on one hand and [–def –Sp] on the other. Overuse
instances of the definite article were then compared across the two indefinite contexts.
We found that the definite article was employed more frequently in (indefinite) non-
specific contexts than in (indefinite) specific contexts by participants from all the PL
groups.
The difference between overuse instances of the in +/–Sp contexts was
statistically significant in G1’s production, with higher percentages recorded in non-
specific NP environments (p=0.0335). G2 also overused the definite article more
frequently with [–def] [–Sp] nouns, but the gap between the two contexts was not as
large as the one observed in the weaker learners’ performance. Similarly, the higher
group applied the slightly more often in non-specific contexts.
138
Table 19 Overuse of the definite article in indefinite -/+Specific contexts
Groups n= –Sp % +Sp %
G1 15 39/241 16.18 13/144 9.03
G2 20 29/269 10.78 18/192 9.38
G3 16 9/131 6.87 5/105 4.76
From the figures in Table 19, it is evident that overuse of the definite article in [–def]
[–Sp] noun phrases decreased as PLs rose, yet the records do not reveal statistically
substantial improvement rates across groups.
We also investigated the effect of specificity on learners’ use of the indefinite
article. The results indicate very few occurrences of unnecessary a(n), circa 1%
average per PL group. But it is worth acknowledging that despite the low overuse
rates, most instances of supply were recorded in [+SP] contexts across all groups.
The effect of premodification on article choice was measured by comparing learners’
ability to supply the indefinite article in premodified (+Premod) and non-premodified
(–Premod) NP contexts. The obtained results confirm that lower and intermediate PL
learners omitted the indefinite article more frequently in instances where the head
noun was not premodified. In fact, when occurrences of omission in the two contexts
were compared, it was found that out of the 78 singular indefinite nouns, G1 omitted
the indefinite article 50 times before bare nouns and 28 times only before modified
nouns. In percentages: 64% of omission instances were made in –Premd contexts
139
while 35.8% of omissions were in +Premd constructions. A similar pattern was
observed in the performance of G2. There were 41 instances of indefinite article
omissions; 27 of which were noted in –Premd contexts (66%), while the remaining 14
were in +Premd NP environments (34%). The reverse of these choices was observed
in G3’s performance, since more omissions of the indefinite article were committed
before adjectivally premodified nouns.
Another test was conducted to examine participants’ responses against those in
the CG data. The results were similar to those found in the first test: the two weaker
groups supplied the indefinite article better with adjectives, while the more advanced
group made significantly more omissions in +Premd environments (p=0.0438).
Further details are presented in Table 20.
Table 20 Omission rates of the indefinite article in ±premodified contexts in T2.
Group n +Premd % p –Premd % p
G1 15 27/258 10.47 50/405 12.35

G1 v G2 G1 v G2
0.0015 p<0.0001
G2 20 14/380 3.68 27/540 5.00
G3 16 14/304 4.61 G2 v G3 8/432 1.85 G2 v G3
0.5503 0.0057
Table 20 shows that the decrease in error rates across PL groups in premodified NP
contexts is somewhat erratic: Although participants made significantly fewer
omissions as they progressed from G1 to G2, the sudden slight rise in errors by G3 in
+Premd contexts disrupts the expected pattern of progression in performance. On the
140
other hand, the cross-group change in –Premd environments is evidently more steady
and regular, perhaps because of the absence of the distraction of the modifying
adjective.
To further investigate learner trends in article use with regards to premodified
nouns, the use of the definite article was also examined. The results show very low
omission rates and very small differences between the two NP contexts in the
production of all the groups. However, it was interesting to find that the omission
pattern was the mirror image to that of the indefinite article since the weak group
supplied the better in +Premd and made more omissions in –Premd constructions
while better PL learners omitted the definite article more frequently in +Premd
contexts. This is illustrated in Table 21.
Table 21 Omission of the definite article in ±Premodified contexts
Group Nonmodified % Modified %
G1
113 / 1475 9.60 36/375 7.69
n=15
G2
131 / 1960 5.40 27/500 6.68
n=20
G3
70 / 1568 3.00 12 / 400 4.46
n=16
141
The results indicate that the supply of the definite article was more frequent in
instances where the head noun bears an abstract (–Concrete) semantic value. The
weaker group overused the definite article in 31.5% of the NPs which NS considered
indefinite, while fewer overuse rates were observed in concrete ones (25.3%). The
difference between misuses by G1 in the two environments (+/ –Concrete) was
statistically significant (p=0.0340). The intermediate group overused the definite
article 113 times out of 440 abstract indefinite contexts (26%) compared to 206 times
in 1320 concrete contexts (18%) which was also a significant difference (p<0.0001).
Fewer overuse rates were recorded in G3’s results, yet learners’ preferences remained
the same. More advanced participants over-supplied the definite article in 23% of
(indefinite) abstract contexts while only 15% of indefinite concrete nouns were
preceded by the. Again, the difference between overuse rates in the two ontological
environments was considerable (p<0.0001).
Figure 7 Overuse of the definite article in Abstract and Concrete contexts
142
Figure 7 illustrates how the ontological status of a referent affected L1Ar learners’
choices of the definite article. Moreover, the concreteness/abstractness status also
influenced, although to a lesser degree, learners’ choices of the indefinite article.
Evidently, participants from all PL groups marked abstract nouns more often than
concrete nouns with the indefinite article. In the production of participants from all
groups, significantly higher overuse errors were recorded in abstract domains (G1
p<0.0001, G2 p<0.0001, G3p<0.0001). As learners’ L2 knowledge became better,
fewer overuse errors were made in both environments (G1: G2 p<0.0001, G2:G3
p<0.0001). This is an indication that the association between articles (form) and
concreteness/abstractness (meaning) weakens as TL proficiency develops.
Proportionately higher overuse rates remained within definite descriptions in
both abstract and concrete contexts. Therefore, the supposition that there is a stronger
inclination to associate definiteness, rather than indefiniteness, with abstract notions
still holds.
4.3 Task 3
The third test (GJT) was designed to find out learners’ ability to decide on the
grammaticality of underlined NPs within discrete decontextualised sentences. The
results were based on correctly identifying accurate or erroneous article use and
marking them as either correct or wrong, respectively. Therefore, no choice errors
were included.
143
The effect of the extreme directness and high control of this task was evident
in the sharper contrasts observed in the results and the distinct differences of the
performances between groups.
4.3.1 Accuracy
The results emerging from this test show a positive correlation between accuracy rates
and L2 knowledge. This was true throughout the results from the three PL groups
whereby the higher the PL, the higher the accuracy rates. Learners’ recognition of
accurate definite descriptions was particularly high; 88% of all definite NPs were
correctly marked in G1’s production. G2 managed to correctly mark 92% of contexts
where the was used while G3 scored a very high (98%) accuracy rate.
On the other hand, the accuracy rates of the indefinite article were much lower
than those of the definite in the production of weaker learners where the difference
between the accuracy rates of the two articles was found to be statistically significant
(p=0.0079). The more advanced group, however, scored slightly higher rates in their
responses to singular indefinite than to definite NPs. In percentages, the weaker
participants recognised 66.6% of correct singular indefinite NPs. This rate improved
sharply in G2’s performance to 91%, while participants from G3 were able to
acknowledge all correctly marked singular indefinite NPs. The improvement on the
indefinite article across PLs was substantial in this task as significant gaps were found
between groups (G1:G2 p=0.0020, G2:G3 p=0.0192). The difference in the
performance of all three groups in T3 is evident from the percentages in Table 22.
144
Table 22 Correct marking of definite and singular indefinite NPs in T3
Group n The % a(n) %
1 15 53/60 88.33 30/45 66.67
2 19 70/76 92.11 52/57 91.23
3 17 67/68 98.53 51/51 100.00
In contrast to the higher accuracy rates on the two articles, participants seem to have
had difficulty in realising that non-referential bare nouns do not usually require the
presence of articles. This is evident in the fact that participants from all groups judged
most correctly unmarked indefinite plural/uncountable NPs as incorrect. Therefore,
the lowest accuracy rates in this test were found in learners’ reaction to unmarked
nouns. G1 achieved a 69% accuracy rate. In numbers, there were 80 correctly marked
bare nouns in 120 contexts. A slight improvement was observed in the performance of
G2 as they were able to identify correct zero-determiner nouns 112 times in 152
instances of similar contexts; in percentages, 74% of indefinite plurals were properly
marked. G3 recognised correct occurrences 90% of the time as advanced participants
were capable of distinguishing122 correct zero article instances out of 136 NPs. It is
worth mentioning that although learners’ accuracy rates increased with higher
proficiency levels, the scale of improvement across groups is not notable. This is
illustrated in figure (8).
145
120
99 100
100 92 91 91
88 90
80
67 69
Correct the
60
Correct a
40 correct 0
20
0
G1 G2 G3
Figure 8 Percentages of accurate marking of NPs in T3
As Figure 8 demonstrates, the gap in performance between articles diminishes
gradually as learners L2 knowledge improves. The chart also illustrates the systematic
rise of indefinite article accuracy rates while negligible variation is observed in the
rates of the definite article. Finally, it appears that learners were more aware of
appropriately unmarked plural nouns than uncountable nouns in indefinite contexts.
Performance patterns did not vary considerably with improved proficiency levels.
Table (23) clearly shows how accuracy rates were higher in plural NP contexts across
PLs.
Table 23 Correct marking of indefinite NPs in plural and uncountable contexts
Group n Uncountable % Plural %
G1 15 38/60 63.33 45/60 75.00
G2 19 61/76 80.26 68/76 89.47
G3 17 60/68 88.24 62/68 91.18
146
4.3.2 Errors
4.3.2.1 Omission
In this task, definite descriptions were purposely designed to cover various contexts of
obligatory supply (see definiteness chapter 2 section 1.1) such as physically present or
universally unique referents. We will present the omission maps of the definite and the
indefinite articles respectively. Learners in G1 could not identify 30.6% of NPs with
definite article omissions. G2 failed to recognise 18% of similar instances. The error
rates fell sharply with improved PLs as G3 participants were able to identify most
definite article omissions missing only 5.8% of the total NPs. Hence, the difference in
the error rates between the two upper groups was significant (G2:G3 p=0.0060).
Unsurprisingly, learners were not as able to detect instances of indefinite
article omissions as well as they were of the definite. In the production of the weaker
group, NPs with omitted a(n) were mistaken as correct 37.7% of the time. This
relatively high error rate dropped considerably down to 16.7% in G2’s results. Thus
the improvement scale between G1 and G2 was statistically considerable (p=0.0006).
With better awareness of the indefinite article supply, G3 accepted only 10.7% of
omission instances. The difference between learners’ performance on the two articles
as well as the gradual decrease in error rate is shown in Table 24.
147
Table 24 Omission rates of both articles in T3
Group n= the % a(n) %
G1 15 23/75 30.67 34/90 37.78
G2 19 18/95 18.95 19/114 16.67
G3 17 5/85 5.88 11/102 10.78
In comparing the performances on both articles, it seems that G1 were better at
recognising omissions of the definite article than the indefinite. In G2’s results, little
difference is noticed between participants’ behaviour on both articles, but they were
slightly more able to identify indefinite article omissions. G3 performed better on the
definite than on the indefinite article as they accepted twice as many instances of
indefinite article omissions as they did of the definite article. However, cross article
evaluations did not yield statistically significant results.
4.3.2.2 Overuse
There was apparent progress in error-recognition with learners advancing from
beginner to intermediate levels. As participants’ L2 proficiency improved, they were
more capable of noticing the unnecessary supply of the definite article in (–def) non-
referential contexts. G1 marked 42% of NPs where the was overused as correct, while
learners in the two upper groups viewed overuse instances as correct in only around
14% of the time. It is clear that this error rate is significantly lower than that of the
weaker group (G1:G2 p<0.0001) while no great difference was observed in the
achievement of learners from G2 and G3.
148
The overuse pattern of the indefinite article was predictably more regular than
that of the definite article. Error rates decreased proportionately maintaining a steady
pace between the PL groups. G1 participants accepted more than half of the
ungrammatical NPs as correct while participants from G2 marked 47% of these
instances as correct. More advanced learners’ recognition of indefinite article overuse
in this test was 37% erroneous.
Table 25 Overuse of the definite and indefinite articles in T3

p
Group n the % a(n) %
the: a
G1 15 58/135 42.96 43/75 57.33 0.0437
G2 19 24/171 14.04 45/95 47.37 <0.0001
G3 17 23/153 15.03 32/85 37.65 <0.0001
As is shown in Table 25, the gap between the overuse rates of the two articles was
substantial across PLs because participants from all groups accepted the overuse of the
indefinite article more readily than the definite, causing higher overuse rates of the
indefinite article.
The ungrammatical supply of a(n) was much better recognised in NPs where
the indefinite article preceded plural nouns than it was in uncountable contexts. In
other words, participants from all PL groups were not as able to notice overuse
instances in mass environments. The difference between the two contexts was
statistically significant (G1:G2 p=0.0105, G2:G3 p<0.0001) and visibly noticeable in
Figure 9.
149
Figure 9 Overuse of the indefinite article in uncountable and plural contexts in T3
4.3.2.3 Replacement
Despite the fact that only singular nouns were selected in assessing replacement
errors, in this test both types of replacement errors are considered grammatical errors.
Thus, unlike the approach followed in analysing similar errors in T1 and T2 in which
definiteness is the only variable, there are no choice errors in the GJT (see chapter 3,
section 5.6.3).
The results show that the definite article replaced the indefinite in 31% of
possible instances in the production of the weaker group. In other words, G1
participants failed to recognise a third of the instances with replacement errors. The
two upper groups performed distinctively better (p=0.0395) in identifying the-for-a
cases as the error rates in their responses dropped down to 15% and 14%.
150
Similarly, the replacement errors were also reduced with improved PL in
contexts where the indefinite article substituted the definite. While G1 participants
mistook 27% of a-for-the occurrences as correct, G2 failed to acknowledge only 5.2%
of replacement NPs. Furthermore, it was interesting to find that none of the students in
G3 accepted any of the erroneous instances. It is easier to track the progress of groups
and compare their performance on the two articles by considering the figures in Table
(26).
Table 26 Replacement errors in T3
Group n the for a % a for the %
G1 15 14/45 31.11 4/15 26.67
G2 19 8/57 14.04 1/19 5.26
G3 17 8/51 15.69 0/17 0.00
It is apparent from the comparison of replacement errors in definite and indefinite NP
environments that learners tended to replace the indefinite article with the definite
more readily than the opposite. This was more evidently true in G3’s results since a
wider gap was observed between the replacement rates of the two articles (p=0.0020).
151
4.3.3.1 Specificity
The results emerging from T3 confirm that learners were better able to recognise
overuse instances of the definite article32 when the reference was specific, while non-
referential overuse of the was largely accepted as correct. As PL improved, the error
rates decreased steadily and the differences between error rates in +/–Sp domains
gradually diminished.
NPs with the definite article overused in [–Sp] contexts were marked as correct
75% of the time by G1, whereas only 25% of the total number of erroneous the was
mistaken as correct when the referent was specific. In other words, G1 accepted non-
specific use of the three times more often than the specific, causing differences
between the two contexts to be significant (p<0.0001). The results from G2 suggest
increased levels of error recognition, i.e., fewer overuse NPs were marked as ‘True’ in
both +/–Sp contexts. Although error rates dropped significantly down from G1’s
responses (G1:G2 p<0.0001), acceptability of overuse remained considerably higher
in [–Sp] contexts (p=0.0474). The largest proportion of errors (62.5%) made by
intermediate level learners were in [–Sp] contexts while only 37% were in specific
ones. Thus, G2 participants misjudged the non-referential presence of the definite
article twice as often as they did when the referent was specific. Similarly, higher PL
learners overused instances of the more often when the supply was in (indefinite) [–
Sp] environments. The improvement in G3’s responses however can be noticed in the
fewer number of errors, in addition to the smaller gaps between the two specificity
contexts. The overuse rate in [–Sp] contexts was 65.5% compared to a lesser 43.4% in
[+SP] environments.
32
The term Overuse refers to the employment of the definite article in indefinite contexts, regardless of
the specificity status of the NP.
152
Another type of calculation was conducted to examine learners’ responses to
overuse instances by comparing rates in the two [-Sp/+Sp] NP environments. The
results obtained from this method confirm those that emerged from the former, i.e., all
instances of overuse of the definite article, regardless of context, are reduced as PL
improves, yet the inability to recognise overuse errors in [–Sp] contexts is more
prevalent across PLs. The breakdown of findings in numbers and percentages is
presented in Table 27 below.
Table 27 Overuse of the definite article in -/+Premodified constructions in T3
Group n +Sp % –Sp %
1 15 14/45 31.11 44/90 48.89
2 19 9/57 15.79 15/114 13.16
3 17 10/51 19.61 13/102 12.75
4.3.3.2 Pre-modification
A comparison of the omission errors of the indefinite article in premodified (+Prmd)
and non-premodified (–Prmd) contexts reveals that the weaker learners were better
able to notice omissions in adjectivally premodified constructions. In terms of error
analysis, this means that omission rates were higher in bare nouns. In contrast,
participants from the highest group performed better in –Premd setting.
Participants from G1 marked 6 out of 15 singular indefinite NPs with omitted
a(n) as correct in premodified contexts, while they were less able to notice its absence
directly before a singular noun (14/30), which caused omission rates to become
153
higher. The distribution of errors in contexts found in G2 responses echoed the results
of G1, i.e., learners better noticed the omitted article when the head noun was
preceded by an adjective. Intermediate PL participants failed to recognise the missing
article a few times (3/15) in modified compositions, but the error rate was higher
(8/38) in NPs without adjectives. G3 participants, on the other hand made fewer
mistakes in both +/–Prmd contexts, and their preferences were quite the opposite of
those in G1 and G2 since they were better at identifying omissions when there were
no adjectives preceding the head noun (1/34) than in cases of premodification (2/17).
Figure 10 Omission of the indefinite article in +/-Premodified constructions in T3
It is worth mentioning that the progress across groups was statistically distinctive in –
Premod NP environments (G1:G2 p=0.0228, G2:G3 p=0.0121).
Another calculation was performed to verify the distribution of total omission
errors across the two NP structures. The results confirmed the pattern found in the first
calculation across PLs. It proved that out of all omission errors made by the weaker
154
group, 30% were in premodified contexts as compared to 70% in non-premodified
ones. The rates observed in G2’s responses closely approximated G1’s proportions.
However, the error pattern was remarkably reversed in G3’s production with better
recognition of omissions in non-premodified constructions., i.e. lower error rates were
observed in –Prmd NPs (33.33%) than in premodified ones (66.67%).
With regards to the definite article, a corresponding tendency was found in the
results emerging from learners’ responses to premodification. Weaker learners marked
omission NPs as correct more recurrently in –Prmd environments while more
advanced group mistook overuse in +Prmd NPs more often. Finally, it is worth
mentioning that significant improvement in performance was noticed through larger
gaps across PL groups in non-premodified rather than in modified contexts (G1:G2
p=0.0102, G2:G3 p=0.0121).
Figure 11 Omission of the definite article in +/-Premodified contexts in T3
155
The difference between the overuse of the definite article in abstract and concrete
contexts is the most significant of all other learner-associations in this task. As the
proportions of overuse were compared across abstract and concrete concepts, it was
found that G1 accepted the overuse of the definite article with abstract nouns in 53.3%
of the cases (24/45) compared to 37% in concrete contexts (34 errors in 90 possible
NPs). G2 participants made fewer mistakes than the weaker group in both contexts,
but they still considered the overuse of the definite article more acceptable when the
meanings were abstract (26.3%) than when they were concrete (7.8%). Hence the gap
between overuse in +/–Concrete environments was significant (p=0.0037). The results
emerging from G3 confirm the previous hypothesis as learners misjudged 35% of
overuse instances in abstract NPs as correct while less than 5% of erroneous responses
were detected in concrete contexts. This indicates that the difference between errors in
the two ontological environments remained significant (p<0.0001). To compare
learners’ performance in the two contexts, see the percentages in Table 28.
Table 28 Overuse rates of the definite article in -/+ concrete contexts in T3
Group N Abstract % Concrete %
1 15 24/45 53.33 34/90 37.78
2 19 15/57 26.32 9/114 7.89
3 17 18/51 35.29 5/102 4.90
156
The cross-sectional map indicates that overuse rates were significantly reduced as
groups improved from beginner to intermediate levels in both abstract (G1:G2
p=0.0042) and concrete (G1:G2 p<0.0001) domains. However, error rates remain
invariably higher in abstract NPs in the responses across PLs.
Finally, investigating the overuse of the indefinite article across ontological
contexts yielded similar findings as we found that the indefinite article was overused
significantly more frequently in abstract, rather than concrete contexts by all groups,
as is explained in Table 29.
Table 29 Overuse of the indefinite article in Abstract and concrete contexts in T3
p
Group n Abstract % Concrete %
Abs: Conc
G1 15 23/30 76.67 24/60 40.00 0.0002
G2 19 33/38 86.84 13/76 17.11 <0.0001
G3 17 28/34 82.35 4/68 5.88 <0.0001
157
4.4 Cross-Task results
In cross task analysis, we calculate d values by comparing the responses of each group
across the three tests. However, this cannot be directly achieved because the number
of dependent variables differs from one test to the other. For example, when the
supply of a(n) was evaluated, the responses entered were measured against the total
number of obligatory (indefinite countable singular) contexts, which, in turn, vary
from one test to another. In T1, for instance, there were 385 indefinite singular
countable nouns produced by students, while in T2 46 blanks had to be filled with a(n)
compared to 9 similar NPs in the GJT. Therefore the only way to examine the effect
on task type on accuracy, errors and learner hypotheses is weigh the figures in
percentages.
4.4.1 Accuracy
In general, learners’ performance on the indefinite article was considerably less
accurate than their performance on the definite across tasks. The highest accuracy
rates of the definite article were achieved in T3 while the highest accuracy rates of the
indefinite article were achieved in T2. Conversely, the lowest rates of both articles
were recorded in T1 as shown in Figure 12.
158
Figure 12 Accuracy of the definite and indefinite articles by G1 across tasks
Task 2 yielded the least differences in accuracy rates of both articles while the gap
was considerably wider in T1 and T3.
4.4.1.1. the
The highest accuracy rates of the definite article were observed in T3, reaching
statistically significant rates than the rates in the other two tasks. This was true for all
groups except when comparing T1 and T2 rates in G3’s results. On the other hand, the
lowest rates for the two weaker groups were scored in T2 while G3’s results were
weakest in T1.
159
Table 30 Accuracy rates of the definite article
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
75.38 64.23 88.33
G1
0.0005 p<0.0001 0.0118
83.62 75.63 92.11
G2
0.0005 p<0.0001 p<0.0001
86.43 86.90 98.53
G3
0.8431 p<0.0001 p<0.0001
From the results reported in Table 30, it seems that cross-group improvement is more
noticeable in T2 than in the other two tasks because the difference in accuracy rates
across the three PL groups is more systematic and regular.
4.4.1.2 A(n)
As far as the accuracy of the indefinite article is concerned, little statistical variation
was recorded between tasks 1 and 2 in the results of all PL groups, yet the cross-group
progression was more noticeable in T1 than in the other two tasks, as the percentages
in table 31 illustrate.
160
Table 31 Correct indefinite singular marking across tasks
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
60.38 67.83 66.67
G1
p=0.1419 p=0.4584 p=0.8729
74.14 81.85 91.23

G2
p=0.0702 p<0.0001 p<0.0001
89.06 85.46 100.00

G3
p=0.3812 p<0.0001 p=0.0050
G1 scored the highest accuracy rates of a(n) in T2, but their results did not differ
greatly across tasks, with accuracy rates ranging between 60-67%. The more advanced
groups performed considerably better in T3 than in the free production task and the
stories task.
It is worth mentioning that the delay in production of the indefinite article is
not as noticeable in certain syntactic formulae such as memorised chunks learned at
earlier stages of L2 acquisition. Existential and have constructions show higher
accuracy rates of the indefinite article especially in T1.
4.4.1.3 Zero
Learners’ ability to leave indefinite plural/uncountable nouns unmarked depended to a
large extent on task type. All PL groups scored invariably higher accuracy rates in the
161
free writing test than they did in the controlled tests whereby the lowest accuracy rates
of the zero article were observed in T2.
Table 32 Correct indefinite marking of plural and uncountable nouns
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 81.00 p<0.0001 26.81 p<0.0001 69.17 p=0.0141
G2 85.22 p<0.0001 56.35 p<0.0001 73.68 p=0.1648
G3 90.70 p<0.0001 63.67 p<0.0001 89.71 p=0.7718
There were significant differences in achievement across tests by G1, while closer
rates were observed in the performance of the two upper groups as T3 rates
approximated the rates recorded in T1, without much statistical variation, as is evident
in Table 32 above.
Test type however did not influence the variation observed in learners’
reaction with regards to plural and uncountable contexts. In all the three tests,
participants from all PL groups were better able to unmark/notice indefiniteness in
plural rather than uncountable NPs.
4.4.2 Errors
In this section, article errors will be compared across the three tests and presented in
three sections of overuse, omission and replacement. The first two types of article
misuse cover both grammatical and choice error while the latter is exclusive to choice
errors (see chapter 3 section 5.3). For example, overuse of the indefinite article is a
162
grammatical error if it is used before plural/uncountable nouns but it can also be a
grammatically permissible error when the referent is singular but uniquely
identifiable. Similarly the omission of the indefinite article is a grammatical error if it
precedes an indefinite singular noun, but it is regarded as an error of choice if it is
frequently used for generic reference, or it does not sound native-like. Errors
concerning the definite article are largely semantic, but in T2 if responses did not
agree with the majority it was regarded as less acceptable than the same error when
committed in T1. The overuse of the definite article, for example, was regarded as a
choice error in the free composition task when it was employed with referents that are
not uniquely identifiable. Therefore, to avoid inconsistency, the following section will
review article misuse in general regardless of the particular parameters employed in
each test.
4.4.2.1 Overuse
4.4.2.1.1 The
The was overused more frequently in T2 and T3 than in the free production task. For
example, G1 overused the definite article 52 times out of 385 indefinite NPs in T1, but
in T2 the overuse rates were much higher (355 out of 1365). The highest overuse rates
were recorded in T3 where G1 participants accepted 58 out of 135 instances of
overuse as correct. Similarly, the intermediate group made relatively fewer errors of
overuse in T1 (47/461) than in the stories task (319/1820) and the GJT (24/171). In
line with the performances of G1 and G2, the advanced group overused the few times
in T1 (14/236) but doubled the rate in the stories test (219/1456) and the GJT
(23/153). Hence all overuse rates proved to be significantly different from one task to
another, as Table 33 demonstrates.
163
Table 33 Overuse rates of the definite article across tests
T1 T1 v T2 T2 T2 v T3 T3 T1 v T3
G1 13.51 p<0.0001 26.01 p<0.0001 42.96 p<0.0001
G2 10.20 p<0.0001 17.53 p=0.4093 14.04 p=0.1323
G3 5.93 p<0.0001 15.04 p=0.9977 15.03 p=0.0054
4.4.2.1.2 A(n)
Similar to the findings on the overuse of the definite article, the results indicate that all
participants oversupplied the indefinite article more frequently in T2 than in T1 while
exceedingly higher rates were observed in the GJT.
Table 34 Overuse of the indefinite article across tasks
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 2.15 p<0.0001 27.02 p<0.0001 57.33 p<0.0001
G2 2.32 p<0.0001 14.73 p=0.0015 47.37 p<0.0001
G3 2.33 p=0.0014 6.29 p<0.0001 37.65 p<0.0001
164
In Table 34, significantly diverse rates are listed across tests in the results obtained
from all PL groups.33 However, it was interesting to notice the dissimilar routes of
cross-group progression in T1 and the two other tests: while the production of
indefinite article increased as learners’ overall English improved in the writing task,
the error rates correlated negatively with PL in the cloze test and the GJT, i.e., fewer
overuse errors were made as competence levels rose.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that task type did not influence learners’
choices in oversupplying the indefinite article more frequently with uncountable NPs
whereas error rates in countable plural contexts remained consistently lower.
4.4.2.2 Omission
4.4.2.2.1 The
The omission of the definite article was considered an error of choice in T1, a possible
grammatical or choice error in T2, depending on the number of responses by CG
members, and a grammatical error in T3 (see chapter 3 section 5.6). Nevertheless, in
reviewing omission patterns across tests, these differences in categorisation were
temporarily ignored. It was found that T2 accrued the lowest error rates, significantly
below the rates observed in T1 and T3. The highest omission errors however were
committed in T1, except for the intermediate group whose highest rates were recorded
in T3.
33
The percentages shown in table (34) represent overuse instances with both plural and uncountable
nouns.
165
Table 35 The omission of the definite article across the three tests
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 24.12 p<0.0001 7.88 p<0.0001 30.67 p=0.2853
G2 16.72 p<0.0001 7.34 p=0.5753 18.95 p=0.0012
G3 12.22 p=0.0002 4.07 p=0.4834 5.88 p=0.0602
The p values in Table (35) indicate that while the differences between T2 and the
other tests were significant, the number of errors in learners’ composition (T1) and the
GJT did not vary greatly. In all tests, occurrences of definite article omissions were
reduced with improved PLs.
4.4.2.2.2 A(n)
The failure to supply the indefinite article in obligatory (indefinite singular) contexts
was greatly affected by task type. Similar to the pattern of definite article omissions,
the highest omission rates of a(n) were incurred in T1 by all participants. On the other
hand, the lowest omission rates were recorded in T2. In other words, a(n) was better
supplied in the blanks test while it was more difficult for learners to supply a(n) where
necessary in their written composition.
166
In this regard, the figures prove that all PL groups performed significantly
better in T2 than in T1 and T3 as fewer omission errors were made in the blanks test
than in the other two tests, as Table (36) shows.
Table 36 Omission of the indefinite article across tasks
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 39.62 p<0.0001 11.30 p<0.0001 37.78 p=0.7915
G2 25.86 p<0.0001 4.46 p=0.0443 16.67 p=0.0030
G3 10.94 p=0.0442 2.99 p=0.0129 10.78 p=0.9754
Despite the significant cross-task differences in omission errors, the results from all
tests confirm that rates were consistent with PLs, decreasing regularly and
systematically as learners’ overall English competence improved.
In most cases, more omissions of the indefinite article were made than the
definite across tests except for a slightly higher overuse of a(n) by the intermediate
group in the cloze test. It is worth mentioning that the delay in production of the
indefinite article is not as noticeable in certain syntactic formulae such as memorised
chunks learned at earlier stages of L2 acquisition. Existential and have constructions
show higher accuracy rates of the indefinite article especially in T1.
167
4.4.2.3 Replacement errors
The purpose of studying learners’ patterns of replacement of one article by the other is
to find out if learners’ preferences of article use were affected by task type. The results
in this section do not include bare nominals or what is termed as the zero article.
Instead, only countable singular nouns were included in this comparison keeping
definiteness as the only variable to balance the number of possible replacement
occurrences between the two articles. Thus, the results provided in this section (the-
for-a and vice versa) reflect choice, rather than grammatical errors.
The lowest the-for-a errors were recorded in T1. The rates were significantly
lower than those observed in T2 and T3. This is true for all PL groups. The higher
rates of replacement in the cloze test and the GJT were not considerably different from
one another (see the percentages in Table 37) and therefore no significant differences
were incurred between T2 and T3.
Table 37 Replacement of the indefinite article with the definite (the-for-a) across tasks
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T3 v T1
% % %
G1 4.72 p<0.0001 24.78 p=0.3724 31.11 p=0.0002
G2 3.45 p<0.0001 17.39 p=0.7450 14.04 p=0.0226
G3 3.13 p<0.0001 15.08 p=0.9085 15.69 p=0.0233
A-for-the replacement errors were significantly higher in T2 and T3 while not many
learners chose to supply the indefinite article in definite contexts in their writing. The
168
substitution of the by a(n)34 in T1 was minimal, not exceeding 0.9% by the weaker
group, 1.2% by the intermediate and 3.4% in the production of more advanced
learners. Although these rates are certainly low, there was a gradual increase in error
rates with improved English levels. In this sense, G3 learners made more errors of
overuse than the two weaker groups. This however was not the case in the blanks test,
since error rates dropped with PL progress. Participants of lower and intermediate PLs
accepted replacement errors more readily in T3 than they did in the writing test,
scoring significantly higher rates but it was interesting to find out that the advanced
group did not mark any erroneous a-for-the NP as correct in T3. Therefore, task
affected the results when the rates of the free writing were compared against those in
T2 and 3, but no statistical variation was proven between the GJT and the stories task
in the results of all PLs. A breakdown of cross-task significance rates is available in
Table (38).
Table 38 Errors of Substituting definite by the indefinite article (a-for-the) across tasks
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T3 v T1
% % %
G1 0.90 p<0.0001 25.62 p=0.9275 26.67 p=0.0245
G2 1.24 p<0.0001 14.74 p<0.0001 5.26 p=0.1547
G3 3.45 p=0.2041 5.71 p<0.0001 0.00 p=0.0418
34
These are Choice errors as the indefinite article is supplied with singular countable but possibly
definite nouns.
169
By comparing the replacement rates of the two articles, most results indicated that the
definite article was the more favourable option, while a-for-the was the exception to
the rule. Even in cases where the indefinite article was preferred, the rates remained
extremely low. In tasks 1 and 3, for example, weaker and intermediate participants
preferred the definite article to the indefinite, but in T2, instances where a(n) replaced
the were slightly more frequent (1%). The error map of more advanced learners was
different to some extent. Although participants in this group chose the-for-a more
often in the cloze and GJTs, in T1, instances where the definite was substituted by the
indefinite were a fraction higher (0.4 %) than the rates of using the definite article to
replace the indefinite. Both types of replacement errors in T1 were statistically lower
than their counterparts in the two other tasks as is shown in the Tables 37 and 38.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that, with regards to definiteness, overuse errors
were generally higher than replacement errors.35 In other words, the supply of the in
(indefinite) plural/uncountable contexts was significantly more frequent than
occurrences where it replaced the indefinite article. This fact was more evident in the
weaker group’s production across tasks with significant difference rates between the
two errors. The results from G2 echoed the choices of the weaker group but the
difference between the two errors was less noticeable in T2 and. In T3, overuse and
replacement errors were almost equal, with a small difference of 1.7%. G3 in T1
behaved like the other groups, but the difference between replacement and overuse
errors was insignificant.
35
Both types of errors refer to the unnecessary supply of the definite article in indefinite contexts.
170
4.4.3 Learners Hypotheses
In this section we report learners’ responses to notions of specificity, premodification
and ontology in three tests to find out the effect of task type on their performance.
4.4.4.1 Specificity
Results emerging from all three tasks show that participants, especially the two lower
PLs, overused the definite article more frequently in (indefinite) non-referential
contexts than in (indefinite) specific ones. The overuse rates of the definite article in
Specific contexts were the lowest in T1. This is no surprise as all overuse errors in the
writing task were significantly fewer than in the other two tests. A breakdown of the
percentages and P values across tests is presented in Table (39).
Table 39 Overuse of the definite article in specific contexts
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 9.03 p<0.0001 31.40 p=0.9676 31.11 p=0.0025
G2 10.78 p<0.0001 21.67 p=0.0160 13.16 p=0.6057
G3 6.87 p<0.0001 18.96 p=0.0980 12.75 p=0.1392
T1 yielded significant differences between the overuse rates of the in (indefinite) +/–
Sp contexts. In T2, however, the difference between the errors made in the two
contexts was not statistically significant although overuse rates were higher in [–Sp]
environments. In T3, the most significant difference in error rates of specificity was
evident in the results obtained from G1 while little variation was noticed in G2’s
171
responses. What is most interesting is the shift noticed in the performance of the
advanced group in both cloze test and GJT as they overused the definite article more
frequently in specific, rather than non-specific contexts. However, the difference
between the ‘higher’ overuse rates in [–Sp] contexts is not significant in both tasks.
There were sporadic instances when learners opted to use the indefinite article
in non-specific NP environments. This type of overuse was minimal in the free writing
test, but with a progression map opposite to that of the definite. In other words, while
overuse rates of definite decreased with improving PLs, the proportions of a(n)
production grew as PLs advanced (see section 4.1.3.1). Non-referential employment
of a(n) increased in T2 with significantly higher rates than those observed in T1
(p<0.00001), while the highest [–Sp] recurrences were recorded in T3, as all
participants accepted the uncommon use of generic a(n) more readily than in the other
two tests (G1 p<0.0001, G2 p<0.0001, G3 p<0.0001).
The results indicate that the supply or the failure to supply the indefinite article was
affected by the presence/absence of a premodifying adjective in the NPs. As discussed
in the previous sections, the omission of a(n) was more frequent in non-premodified
contexts in the results of weaker learners whereas more advanced learners omitted the
indefinite article (or accepted its omission) more frequently in modified constructions.
Task variation affected omission patterns in –/+Premd NP environments.
Participants of all proficiency levels omitted the indefinite article in both NP
constructions the least in T2. The highest rates of omissions by the weak group were
scored n T3 while the two upper groups omitted a(n) most frequently in T1. Cross-
172
task variation was more noticeable in the results of weaker learners as statistically
significant differences were found between T2 and T1 in G1 and G2’s production, but
test type had a smaller effect on more advanced learners.
Figure 13 The omission of a(n) in +/-Premodified constructions across tests
Figure (13) illustrates the decrease in errors as PLs improve, as well as the reduction
in the gaps between the results of different tests by each group. More importantly, the
chart demonstrates how much lower the omission rates are in T2 than in the other two
tests, while the proportions in T1 approximated those reported in T3 in responses from
the weaker and the more advanced groups.
It is also interesting to observe how the choices of each group alternate between –
/+Premd NPs in accordance with task type especially by G2 participants. In T1, the
intermediate group for example made more omissions in Premd contexts while in T2
and T3, the same group omitted the indefinite article more frequently in non-
173
premodified contexts. The effect of task type was less influential on the more
advanced learners. In all three tasks, G3 made more omissions before premodified
nouns than non-premodified.
Task-type did not have a large affect on learners’ inclination to oversupply the definite
article more often with abstract than concrete nouns without exception. In this regard,
there were no inconsistencies throughout PLs. However, the influence of test variation
can be noticed in the increase of errors in more controlled tests. The highest overuse
rates were recorded in T3 where learners mistook the incorrect instances of overuse as
correct especially with abstract nouns. The second highest overuse rates were scored
in T2 although the difference between the errors in the two ontological contexts was
not statistically significant. On the other hand, T1 yielded the lowest overuse rates
among all tasks, as evident in the cross-task significance rates presented in Table 40.
Table 40 The overuse of the definite article in abstract contexts across tests
T1 T2 T3
T1 v T2 T2 v T3 T1 v T3
% % %
G1 19.00 p=0.0075 31.52 p=0.0055 53.33 p<0.0001
G2 12.03 p<0.0001 25.68 p=0.1702 26.32 p=0.0012
G3 9.86 p=0.0026 22.44 p=0.0684 35.29 p=0.0008
174
Despite the differences in error rates across tasks, participants’ choices remained
unchanged in the sense that the overuse of the remained significantly more recurrent
in abstract than in concrete domains (see Figures 14 and 15).
Figure 14 Overuse of the definite article by G1 in abstract and concrete contexts across tasks.
Figure 14 shows that the overuse instances in the weaker group’s results were more
frequent in abstract environments. The chart also demonstrates that error rates
increased steadily with the increase in the degree of control in each test, reaching its
peak in T3.
Advanced learners’ choices were similar to those of the weaker group. In fact,
the gap between overuse errors in abstract and concrete contexts increased with
improved PLs. Furthermore, the tendency to oversupply in T2 and T3 remained
unchanged, as is shown in Figure 15.
175
Figure 15 Overuse of the definite article by G3 in abstract and concrete contexts across tasks
Finally, this chapter presented the findings of this study in numbers and percentages
and, where the differences were significant, P values. The results were compared
across groups and tasks. These included correct and erroneous instances of both
articles as well as the zero article in learner data. The following chapter offers a
detailed explanation of possible interpretations of these findings.
176
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter discusses the findings reported in the Results chapter and attempts to
present possible explanations of the causes that underlie learners’ L2 article use. The
section considers the stages of article acquisition as learners progress from one PL to
the other; the effect of task variation on learner performance within each group and
possible learner hypotheses in which an association is made between certain linguistic
notions and definiteness/indefiniteness.
The occurrence and patterning of responses from participants will be presented
within the larger SLA perspective and compared with findings obtained from other
studies on L2 acquisition of English articles in particular. This will cover both types of
L1 backgrounds: those which possess and those which lack an article system.
The content of this section is divided into three main parts. The first part
addresses the progress of acquisition of English articles by Arabic speakers. In this
part, the results are closely examined and analysed cross-sectionally based on the
broad changes noticed in article use and preference by different proficiency level
groups, without the particular digressions that result from task type variation. In the
second part, the effect of task type on learners’ results is discussed by looking at the
changes in the performance of each PL group across the three tests. These effects will
be analysed qualitatively according to the type of knowledge that each task examines
as well as quantitatively in numbers, percentages and significance rates. The third and
final part reviews the possible hypotheses that might be underlying learners’
performance and affecting their choices of L2 articles. This will be presented with
177
regard to the associations which learners make between certain linguistic notions on
the one hand and definiteness/individuation on the other.
5.1 Stages of acquisition
In this section, we follow the participants’ varying patterns of article use as learners
progress from beginner levels to higher stages of upper-intermediate and advanced
proficiency levels, by considering the correct/incorrect responses of article use across
tasks. Learners’ performance will be reviewed in general as is common in each group,
excluding the atypical outcomes caused by test type.
Since this study is a cross-sectional one, it could be easily assumed that the
higher the PL of the group is, the fewer the errors learners will make, while accuracy
rates will rise. This principle is largely true but does not categorically apply to all
findings. Several investigators, such as Sang et al. (1986) and Milanovic (1988 cited
by Bachman 1991) concede that the structure of production changes as the level of
proficiency changes. In this sense, it is possible for learners’ of a lower PL to perform
better on a certain aspect of the second language. This is so because the learning
process is a series of continuously changing assumptions that learners subconsciously
make on particular domains of IL.
5.1.1 Accuracy
In this study instances of appropriate supply of the definite article were higher than
overuse or replacement error rates across tasks and across PL groups.
178
5.1.1.1 G1
Generally, G1’s performance on the definite article was better than on the indefinite in
all three tests, but this was especially true for participants in the two lower PL groups.
On the surface, the average accuracy rate of the definite article in all three tasks (75%)
appears higher than originally estimated for participants of similar PLs, and indeed
higher than definite article accuracy rates reported in other studies (Ekiert 2004, Thu
2005, inter alia). However, if the flooding stage, the dramatic rise in the use of the
definite article, (Huebner 1983, see also section 2.3.1) is taken into account, it casts
doubt on how controlled the EFL learners’ production of the definite article is, even
when it approaches native-like standards. It is likely that at least some of the correct
uses are caused by uncontrolled overuse of the form, rather than being a result of
careful consideration on the learners’ part.
The results of this study suggest that the stage of flooding in the L2
development of the definite article is concurrent with the stage of lower supply/higher
omission of the indefinite article. This was most noticeable in the weaker group’s
performance, which suggests that this study on university students started at the same
stage where Kharma and Hajjaj’s (1989) finished. The results from G1 are similar to
the description of article use by the high-school-graduates in Kharma’s study.
Therefore, it seems possible that by the end of high school/beginning of university
education, L1Ar learners find the definite article by far the easier to master, with
learners scoring the highest accuracy rates, while the indefinite article is the most
difficult, with learners scoring the lowest accuracy rates.
179
One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the different functional
categories that need to be acquired in the case of the two articles: cardinality for a(n)
and definiteness for the (Lyons 1999). It would be easier to acquire the definite article
because it directly indicates definiteness and can occur with both singular and plural
nouns. However, a(n) only indirectly indicates indefiniteness and can only occur with
singular nouns which is a grammatical requirement. Number is not the only decisive
element, the mass vs. count noun distinction is also implicated. Therefore, it is not
surprising that the stage of encoding definiteness precedes that of indefiniteness
(Chaudron and Parker 1990) and mastering the functions of the indefinite article
seems to be more difficult than those of the definite (Avery and Radišić 2007).
Another possible explanation of the higher accuracy rates of the definite article
is the type of error involved in using each article. Errors concerning the definite
article, whether of omission or overuse, do not contravene the grammaticality of an
utterance while misuse of the indefinite article, i.e. its presence with plural or
uncountable nouns (overuse) or its absence in singular indefinite contexts (omission)
renders the NP ungrammatical. Hence, it is more likely that the definite article would
accrue lower error rates where grammaticality is concerned. However, despite being
grammatically permissible, misuse of the definite article can be unacceptable or non-
native like if employed with non-uniquely identifiable referents because the referent
might become ambiguous to the recipient.
From an L1 transfer perspective, the fact that indefinite NPs in Arabic are
morphologically unmarked can present a valid justification for the late emergence and
mastering of the indefinite article, especially in meaningful interaction. It is generally
accepted that while the ease of acquisition depends on the presence of a marker in
180
both first and second languages (Odlin 2003), features unavailable in learners L1 take
longer to acquire (Master 1997) because the process of mapping a feature that is not
present in learners’ L1 onto their IL structures requires more effort and would
therefore be more difficult (Goad and White 2004). Consistent with our expectations,
the accuracy rates of the indefinite article remain low until proficiency levels improve.
5.1.1.2 G2
The accuracy of the definite article remained higher than that of the indefinite in the
intermediate learners’ production. This result is not exclusively caused by the
presence of the definite article in learners’ L1. Except for two known studies (Leung
2001, Young 1996), most researchers tend to agree that mastering the definite article
precedes that of the indefinite regardless of the learners’ L1 background. This
supposition is corroborated by findings from many studies administered on L1Ar
learners (Kharma and Hajjaj 1989, Maalej 2004, Hamdallah 1988) as well as studies
on other L1s including –ART languages (Hakuta 1976, Huebner 1983, Master 1987,
Thomas 1989, Zdorenko and Paradis 2008, Yamada and Matsuura 1982) which hold
that definiteness, as a semantic concept, is at least encoded before indefiniteness
(Chaudron and Parker 1990). Therefore, it seems that the higher accuracy rates of the
definite article compared to those of the indefinite, especially at earlier stages, is a
common feature in SLA studies regardless of the L1.
With PL improvement, the production of the indefinite article increased, which
led to an increase in the accuracy rates. This was not only noticed in the production of
participants in this study, but also in studies on both ±ART L1s (Huebner 1983,
Yamada and Matsuura 1982, Kharma 1981 inter alia). Due to overall language
181
improvement, the overuse of the definite article with non-uniquely identifiable
referents was reduced. In T3, for instance, the accuracy rates of both articles were
almost identical which suggests that under different conditions, such as higher focus
on form, the use of the indefinite article may improve. This was true in T2 as well
whereby the indefinite article was better supplied than the definite by the same PL
group. It is not surprising that G2’s understanding of the indefinite article is better
than that of G1, but the accuracy rates are also largely affected by task-type variation.
This will be further elaborated on in the following section.
Many researchers in the field of L2 article acquisition corroborate the
supposition that mastering the indefinite article follows that of the definite in IL
development (Master 1987, Thomas 1989, Snape and Velasco-Zarate 2005, Trenkic´
2007) regardless whether the L1 possesses or lacks articles. Avery and Radišić (2007)
ascribes the incompatible rate of acquisition to the fact that more time is required to
better understand the cardinality function of the indefinite article in addition to its
semantic value of indefiniteness. Cardinality involves awareness of singular/plural as
well countable/uncountable distinctions.
5.1.1.3 G3
As learners proficiency levels improve, so do their accuracy rates on the indefinite
article, approaching those of the definite, and perhaps higher, such as in the results
from T1 and T3. However, unlike the results from the two lower groups, there was
little difference in the accuracy rates of G3’s performance on the definite and
indefinite articles. The non-significant rates in the results of this group are interesting
because they mark a shift in production tendencies. The lower group’s accuracy rates
182
on the definite article were higher than on the indefinite because of the reasons
discussed above, yet not significantly better. Therefore, the learning curve, according
to available accuracy rates, seems to start with higher awareness and a better supply of
the definite article, but this tendency however seems to gradually change, as PLs
improve, towards a better conceptualisation of the indefinite article. Thus the gap
noticed in correct use of the two articles at earlier stages becomes smaller as the L1
influence decreases and the newly acquired indefinite marker is incorporated into
learners’ IL.
The delayed production and mastery of the indefinite article as compared to
the definite in L2 English has been often reported on in regard to learners from
various L1 backgrounds (e.g. Huebner 1983, Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989, Master 1997
Chaudron and Parker 1990, Garcia Mayo 2008). Thus, it is conceivable that the
earlier command of the definite article/ the later command of the indefinite article are
attributable to developmental trends. This view is shared by Arab researchers such as
Abi-Samra (2003) and Batainah (2005) who hold that L1Ar learners’ performance is
largely in line with that of learners from other L1s whilst the negative L1 transfer does
not account for more than a small proportion of their errors. Nonetheless, according to
a report for the UNRWA programme in Jerusalem, Habash (1982) postulates that
most errors committed by Arab learners of English are caused by negative interference
from L1Arabic rather than by any other learning difficulties.
5.1.1.4 Correct zero marking across groups
Judging by the accuracy rates of the marking of bare nominals, or the zero article, our
results go to prove that it was most difficult for L1Ar learners to leave indefinite
183
plural and countable NPs in non-referential contexts unmarked. The low accuracy
rates of the zero article was one of the most prevalent and observable facts across
tasks, especially for lower PL participants. The tendency to overuse articles in these
contexts confirms the findings of well-known studies on L1Ar learners such as
Hamdallah (1988), Maalej (2004), Sarko (2008) and Batainah (2005). However, such
error is rarely established as common in many studies on SLA of English articles,
since researchers have often found that the failure to supply articles, rather than
overuse them, whether in spoken or written discourse, was the most noticeable error
that persisted well into the production of advanced 2LL (Jarvis 2002, Yamada and
Matsuura 1982, Master 1987, Thomas 1989, Parrish 1987, Ekiert 2004). However, the
fact that these studies were administered on –ART L1 learners must be taken into
consideration because presence or absence of an article system in the first language
has been known to affect L2 article use (Schachter 1983, Master 1997, Parodi et al
1997, Goad and White 2003) and, in effect, learners’ order of acquisition.
If the discrepancy between our results and those from other studies is analysed
contrastively (CA), the lower accuracy rates of the zero article, or learners’ inability to
recognise that non-referential indefinite plural/countable NPs should be left unmarked,
are probably due to the difference in function between the definite articles in the
native and target languages. So while the main function of the definite article in
English is to identify, the function of the definite article in Arabic is to generalise
(Kremers 2003) as well as to uniquely identify (see Table 2 in 2.3.3). The overuse of
the definite article in non-referential contexts where no article should have appeared
can be therefore drawn from lexical associations of definiteness carried over from the
L1 (Snape et al 2006).
184
The weaker group produced very few bare nominals in the free writing task,
overused both articles in T2 and failed to recognise overuse instances in T3. Therefore
their accuracy rates of the zero article were quite low. With improved PLs, more bare
(plural and uncountable) NPs were produced (T1), overuse errors of both articles
dropped (T2) and there was a better recognition of overuse instances (T3). Thus the
accuracy rates of the zero article improved.
Accordingly, it seems that learners at more advanced PLs, start approaching
native like standards in their preference to employ the zero article in generic contexts
despite the grammatical acceptability of both articles to fulfil the same function.
Dropping the definite article from non-referential contexts seems to be one of the most
difficult aspects of L2 article acquisition for L1Ar learners to master and is not likely
to take place until later IL stages. Finally, the results seem to suggest that learners
responded better to number, a feature available in both their first and TL, than they did
to countability which bears some divergent qualities. This is extended to the
performance of advanced learners who performed better on plural than non-countable
nouns.
5.1.1.5 Conclusion to Accuracy
Based on the results obtained in this study, it is evident that learners found it easier to
accurately produce the definite article than the indefinite. Therefore, in line with the
findings of most studies of articles in SLA , regardless of the L1, it is clear that the
acquisition of definiteness precedes that of indefiniteness. This is perhaps the case
because of the different functions involved in the correct use of each article. The
disparity between the results of this study and others remains in the order of
185
acquisition of the zero article; whether it precedes or follows that of the indefinite. In
other words, which concept is easier or more difficult for learners to command? Is it
the fact that most bare nominals, in plural or mass form, used generically should be
left unmarked in English, or that of the need to place a(n) before a singular countable
noun regardless of the type of reference? Our results show that learners found it easier
to master the indefinite article than the zero. Therefore, according to the accuracy
rates in this study, the order of acquisition of articles is: The, a(n), zero. On the other
hand, some researchers have reported that the order of acquisition of L2 English
articles was zero, the, a(n), (Master 1987, Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989, Liu and
Gleason 2002) while others such as Lightfoot (1998) hold that the order of acquisition
is the, zero, a(n).
These findings should only be considered as an indicator for future research
since variable approaches in data collection and/or methods of analysis were followed.
For instance, the higher accuracy rates of the definite article could have also been
caused by the different methods through which the correct use of each article was
measured. The correct use of the definite depended on the writer’s assumptions about
the reader’s knowledge of the referent or their ability to find that referent. Therefore,
most uses could be judged as appropriate, or at least grammatically acceptable,
although they might not be what the NS would have preferred. Such productions of
[+def] NPs were categorised under choice errors rather than absolute errors. On the
other hand, the correct use of the indefinite article depends on multiple grammatical
elements in addition to the semantic parameter; a fact which narrows the range of
acceptability according to function and would result in lower accuracy rates.
186
5.1.2 Errors
This section attempts to provide a possible rationale for learners’ errors in article use.
Misuse of English articles generally includes errors of omission where an article
should have been supplied in obligatory contexts; errors of overuse, where no article
should have been used, and finally replacement errors when one article was
erroneously substituted by the other. The results discussed in this part reflect the
general error patterns as observed in the results of each PL group, regardless of the
exceptions in the outcomes that resulted from task type variation.
5.1.2.1 Omission
Omission is the technical term for the failure to voluntarily supply articles in
obligatory contexts (T1), the incorrect article choice (T2) or the inability to recognise
that an article is missing (T3). In general, this type of error can be both grammatical,
such as the absence of the indefinite article with indefinite countable singular nouns,
or an error of choice, such as the omission of the definite article when its presence or
absence does not affect grammaticality. As discussed earlier, definiteness depends on
the speaker’s assumptions of the hearer’s ability to uniquely identify a referent in a
pragmatic set, which could vary from one situation to the other. However, if the
referent is felicitously accessible to the hearer, providing the definite article can
become obligatory under certain conditions (see 2.2.1). The criteria that we used to
determine the obligatory supply of a given referent in T1 were based on Hawkins’
(1978) description of definiteness as uniquely identifiable and Liu and Gleason’s
(2002) categories of obligatory contexts in which non-generic the operates, namely
physical and textual availability as well as situational or universal uniqueness. In the
187
controlled tests (T2 and T3), obligatory supply was determined by responses from the
majority of the NS control group (For further detail, see 3.5).
Our results show that in all three tests, the weaker group invariably omitted the
indefinite article more frequently than the definite. The results are similar to
Trenkic´’s (2000) as the indefinite article was omitted significantly more often by L1
Serbian learners, while the definite article was generally better supplied. This is an
expected behaviour because of the stronger L1 influence in earlier learning stages
(Berman and Olshtain 1983, Slabakova 2000, Mahmoud 2002, Sharma 2005 inter
alia) drives the non-obligatory markedness of indefiniteness in Arabic to be negatively
transferred into the TL. Eckman (1977) posits that L1 structures that are different from
L2 structures, especially if (typologically) less marked will be transferred to the target
language. Therefore it is not surprising that with both criteria present in Arabic, L1’s
effect is perhaps stronger.
Where indefiniteness is concerned, Arabic, similar to Hebrew and Bulgarian,
does not categorically fall under either +ART or –ART languages because it possesses
an obligatory definite article but does not enforce the supply of its indefinite
marker(s). In this sense, it is possible to attribute the higher omission rates of a(n) to
the absence of a overt and compulsory marking of indefiniteness in the L1. This
proposal corroborates Prévost and White’s (2000) MSIH36 whereby learners
experience difficulty in mapping abstract syntax onto surface morphological forms
(cf. Haznedar and Schwartz 1997, Lardiere, 1998, 2000, White 2003).
High omission of the indefinite article is often reported by researchers on SLA
of English articles by L1 Arabic learners, such as Batainah (2005), Maalej (2004) and
36
Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis
188
Kharma (1981). The omission of the indefinite article can be an indication of the way
learners’ demonstrate their conceptualisation of indefiniteness by the absence of the
definite article.
In computerised corpus analysis, indefiniteness can be negatively defined since
‘the absence of the itself is a mark of indefiniteness’ (Leech 2006:13). This argument
stands as another possible explanation of the failure to supply the indefinite article in
obligatory contexts as its presence might be considered by some students as
(communicatively) redundant. In this sense, leaving a referent unmarked, such as the
case in Arabic and article-less languages, signals the existence of the ‘primary
counterpart’ of definiteness, i.e. indefiniteness (Arabski 1979). Goad and White
(2004) propose that ‘failure to consistently produce overt morphology cannot be
attributed to failure to represent the relevant morphosyntactic features’ (p. 125
emphasis added) because it may appear under different conditions, such as in forced
elicitation tasks. Hence, failure to produce the indefinite article does not necessarily
imply that learners are not aware of indefiniteness as a concept. Jarvis (2002) believes
that the higher omission of articles by Finnish learners does not necessarily represent a
‘simplified register’, rather, ‘it represents the L1 Finnish convention of avoiding…
redundant markers … when these properties of a NP are already salient in a given
discourse context’ (416).
It is possible that the difficulty L2 learners have with supplying the indefinite
article has pragmatic origins. According to the recoverability principle proposed by
Givón (1983), the most continuous referents need the least marking, i.e. there is lesser
need to overtly mark NPs for (in)definiteness if the information encoded in the NP is
recoverable from the context. The information being that of [–def] represented by the
absence of a definite form and +Sing represented by the absence of a plural marker
189
(s). In learners’ assumption, the provision of the indefinite article becomes redundant
because the underlying assumption is that the speaker is being ‘as informative as
required’ (cf. Searle’s 1969 Speech Act Theory and Grice’s 1975 quantity maxim).
Thus, higher omission rates of the indefinite article can be seen to follow. This line of
argumentation is also adopted by Robertson (2000) in analysing L2 article use/misuse.
Robertson (2000) holds that if the encoded information is recoverable from context,
the article may be dropped when it is within the scope of an immediately preceding
co-referential NP. He terms this as the Pro drop tendency in SLA.
The non-contrastive approach to error analysis is followed by many
researchers in SLA such as Richards (1971), George (1971), Abisamra (2003),
Batainah (2005) and Zdorenko and Paradis (2008) who ascribed most L2 article errors
to factors beyond L1 influence. Thus, an alternative explanation for the high omission
rates of the indefinite article in L2 production can be the multiple functions that this
article entails (Avery and Radišić 2007). This is supported by a good number of
studies on –ART L1s which report higher omission rates of the indefinite than the
definite articles. In a study on Japanese learners, for example, Yoon (1993) observed
an overall low percentage of indefinite article supply in obligatory contexts. Hence,
higher omissions of the indefinite article in the primary stages of IL becomes
comprehensible once the added difficulty of the cardinality function is acknowledged.
L2 Learners, regardless of L1 background, should be aware of the intricate relation
between the semantics of a given noun and the morpho-syntactic representation of its
singularity/ plurality on the one hand and its countability status on the other. The
problem becomes more intricate when we consider the fact that most nouns cannot be
simply categorised into either countable or uncountable. Rather, the learner has to be
familiar with the range of NP environments in which a shift in the countability status
190
can occur as result of semantic, rather than structural effects of the contexts (Allan
2001). The higher processing effort that the indefinite article places on learners
inevitably leads to reluctance in production. If given the choice, learners might resort
to economy of effort (Richards and Sampson 1974) and simply prefer the definite
article to the indefinite in their production.
With improved overall proficiency of English, the learners’ production of the
indefinite article increased and thus fewer omissions were committed. As a result, the
gap between the omission errors of the two articles became smaller with learners
beginning to realise the necessity to employ the indefinite marker. At a later learning
stage, as is evident from the results of G3, there was an increase in the omission rates
of the definite article. So while the omissions of the indefinite article were
considerably reduced in G3’s results, there was an increase in the omission rates of the
definite article in obligatory contexts. This is certainly an irregular pattern, since the
error rates and PLs correlate positively. Yet such tendencies are not out of the
ordinary if the accumulative effects of factors such as over-generalisation of new rules
and repeated classroom instruction (cf. Selinker 1972) are taken into account.
Learners might have been repeatedly instructed by their EFL teachers not to overuse
the definite article. Having learned that the definite article in English does not refer
attributively quite as often as it does referentially, learners tend to extend this rule to
unsuitable contexts (Ellis 1985) causing higher omission rates. According to Ellis, this
is a form of hypercorrection.
The omission lines of the two articles seem to evolve in almost opposite
directions. Learners start with a low production / high omission stage of the indefinite
article while the omission rates of the definite are quite low. This stage is followed by
191
a decrease in the omission rates of the indefinite article, thus closing the gap between
the omission rates of the two articles. The higher group’s performance is characterised
by a drop in the omission rates of the indefinite article while the error rates of the
definite article rise. However, even if there were more errors made by higher PL
learners and the overall pattern of development of the two articles is reversed, it is a
sign of progress in the learning continuum because these changes reflect the
development of learners’ hypotheses (Selinker 1972, Ellis 2004) with regards to the
functions of the English articles.
5.1.2.2 Overuse
The other type of error known to be committed by L2 learners in article use is the
suppliance of articles in NP environments where they are not required. The term
‘overuse’ covers the misuse of either article with NPs that are usually left bare (Ø
article) by most native speakers. This definition distinguishes overuse errors, where
either article is overused with bare nouns; replacing the zero article, from replacement
errors, where either article replaces the other. The latter will be discussed in the
following section.
As discussed in chapter 3 section 5.3, overuse instances can be either
grammatical or choice errors, depending on the article that is overused. Firstly, the
overuse of the indefinite article with uncountable or plural nouns is ungrammatical in
any context and is an unacceptable option regardless of meaning and communicative
intent. On the other hand, the overuse of the definite article does not affect
grammaticality, as definite descriptions depend largely on the speaker’s perception of
the hearer’ ability to uniquely identify a referent and therefore this type of article
192
misuse is often considered as a lexical error of choice by many L2 researchers such as
Trenkic´ (2000), Nagata et. al. (2005) and Thu (2005). We followed this rule in
categorising learners’ errors in T1, applied it when only a minority of the CG chose to
use the definite article in a given blank (T2) or accepted it as a correct option (in T3).
For a full overview of the criteria used for categorising error types, please refer to
Section3.5.2.
Learners in the weaker group seem to have overused the definite article
indiscriminately across indefinite contexts. Most of these instances include flooding
the definite article into non-specific contexts regardless of the countability or number
descriptions of the head noun. Although learners’ awareness of particular aspects of
the procedural meaning of the vary (Zegarac 2004), associating the definite article
with non-referential meaning was predominant in the lower group’s production and
continued, to a lesser degree, well into the responses from the intermediate group.
Since ‘the most prominent and most frequent type of device for encoding generic
meaning’ is the indefinite plural (Behrens 2005:283, Partee 2005), this type of use was
marked as an error.
Most known studies on L1Ar learners reported the tendency to overuse the
definite article in indefinite contexts (Maalej 2004, Kharma 1981, Kharma and Hajjaj
1989, Hamdallah 1988, Batainah 2005). In a study on Chinese and Arabic speakers,
Garcia Mayo (2008) found the overuse of the is strongly influenced by learners’ L1s
but improved significantly with better proficiency. The predisposition to overuse the
definite article by Arabic speakers originates from the fact that generic reference can
only be referred to by the definite article /al/ in Arabic.
193
However, the overuse of the definite article at lower PLs is not by any means
exclusive to L1Ar learners. Similar findings were reported in SLA studies on other
L1s, including languages that possess or lack a formal representation of articles
(Thomas 1989, Young 1996, Huebner 1983, 1985, Andersen 1977, Nagata et al 2005).
In a study by Master (1987) on Japanese learners of English, for example, the definite
article was flooded into indefinite contexts although Japanese does not possess an
article system. Few researchers, however, believe that overuse of the definite article is
not of much consequence. Lightfoot (1998), for example, believes that the overuse use
of the in generic meanings was not one of the most noticeable errors in Japanese
learners’ L2 article acquisition. This is probably because overusing the definite article
does not affect grammaticality on the one hand, and can be regarded as a sign of
progress compared to the higher omission rates in the production of learners of –ART
L1s. In our results, the main cause of the low accuracy rates of the zero article was the
constant overuse of the definite article in indefinite contexts, and if this is not regarded
as sufficiently problematic, the overuse of the definite article is at least non-native-
like. Furthermore, what distinguishes the overuse by L1ArL and other learners from –
ART L1s, is that the overuse instances of the definite article by our participants are
non-referential whereas findings from –ART L1 studies suggest that the definite
article was reported to be overused mostly in referential (+SR)37 contexts as learners
apply it to deliver specific meanings in indefinite contexts (Thomas 1989, IKW 2004).
This issue will be discussed further in Section 5.3.1.
As learners progressed, the overuse rates of the definite article were reduced.
The initial stage of the flooding at lower PLs is followed by a more careful use as
learners begin to change their hypotheses towards the target language and feel there is
37
Specific Reference. See Literature review for Huebner’s environments for article use.
194
a lesser need to employ the definite form in non-referential contexts. G3 learners seem
to realise that it is the uniqueness element that lexically distinguishes the English
definite article from its Arabic counterpart, and that its presence in English is
unnecessary unless the referent is uniquely identifiable to the hearer/reader.
It is worth mentioning that overuse of the in generic contexts occurred much
more frequently than generic a(n). This was especially true in the weaker group’s
production. This result confirms that the presence of a feature in the L1 (the definite
article) facilitates the second language acquisition of the same feature (Master 1997,
Ard and Hombarg (1983) cited in McLaughlin 1987, Odlin 2003) while the
acquisition of features that are unavailable in the L1, in this case the indefinite article,
are more difficult to master and are usually acquired at later stages (Master 1987).
Although the overuse instances of the indefinite article were considerably
lower than those of the definite, their effect on the grammatical correctness of the
sentence is more serious. It is interesting to observe the dissimilarity in learners’
tendencies of overuse. Unsurprisingly, the most preferred choice was the definite
article, followed by the indefinite, while the least preferred option was leaving
indefinite (plural and uncountable) nouns unmarked. This pattern of acquisition runs
counter to findings of other studies especially those on learners with –ART L1s
whereby omitting both articles was found to precede the stage of overuse (Master
1997, Huebner 1983). However, in line with many studies, cloze tests are known to
trigger higher overuse than omission errors. It is also noticeable that learners’
inclination to overuse the definite article in indefinite contexts is stronger than the
propensity to do the opposite, which is an established phenomenon in SLA literature
on articles regardless of L1 (Trenkic´ 2000, Thomas 1989).
195
It is also evident that learners from all three PL groups and in all three tasks
overused the indefinite article more frequently with uncountable than with plural
nouns. Countability has been signalled as one of the most common difficulties that L2
learners of English encounter, regardless of the L1. Researchers on –ART L1s such as
Hiki (1991), Yoon (1993) and Snape (2008) have reported similar findings.
One of the possible causes of this problem is that determining the countability
status of a given noun depends critically on the context in which it occurs rather than
on the class of the head noun itself. In other words, nouns can shift from countable to
uncountable and vice-versa depending on parameters other than the simple
categorisation of countable/uncountable. Some nouns, such as money, paper,
experience, shift their countability status (Chesterman 1991) or are of a dual
countability membership (Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia 1999). Allan (1980)
suggests that nouns fall into a continuum of countability contexts, from the extremely
countable to the extremely uncountable (e.g. chair and fear, respectively). Therefore,
when learners are unable to detect the countability status of a given noun, they have
difficulty determining what Langacker (1991) terms as the degree of boundedness of a
given entity; i.e. they are unable to perceive whether or not the referent represents a
separate entity or not. For example, in a study on Japanese (–ART L1) learners of
English, Butler (2002) proposes that the problem of correctly marking uncountable
nouns stems from the fact that ‘the countability detection required for the proper usage
of articles is often found at the whole-NP level’ (p. 467). Countability can be
challenging to the 2LL which impedes correct article use.
A second possibility for the higher overuse rates of the indefinite article with
uncountable nouns is that in the absence of the plural marker, nouns are
196
morphologically similar to indefinite singular nouns. Learners might be more
conscious of the unsuitability of adding the indefinite article before a noun in the
presence of the plural suffix (s/es) than they are with uncountable nouns where no
feature is present to indicate that the insertion of the indefiniteness marker is
ungrammatical. Moreover, the fewer overuse errors of indefinite article before plural
nouns by L1Ar learners can be a result of a higher awareness of plurality marking.
The structural presence of plural markers in the form of suffixal clitics in Arabic
makes the plural marker in English more prosodically salient and easier to identify
than uncountable nouns.
Although there is no explicit indefiniteness marker in Arabic, overuse of the
indefinite article can be L1 induced as higher overuse rates were noticed in cases
where the head noun was of a contrasting L1/L2 countability status; i.e. countable in
one language, but uncountable in the other. For example, higher overuse rates were
observed in the GJT with nouns such as information, advice and work which are
countable in Arabic. On the other hand, there might be a non-contrastive explanation
to this error. Batainah (2005), in a study on Jordanian university students proposes
that the overuse of the indefinite article is due to the IL strategy of avoidance in the
sense that by overusing the indefinite article, learners are trying to avoid making
omission errors. In other words, learners think it is better to supply the article than to
risk making an error of omission. However, I think that this strategy is also indirectly
caused by L1 negative transfer since Batainah’s explanation implies that the stage of
overuse is preceded by a stage of omission during which learners might have received
feedback from their EFL teachers instructing them to supply the indefinite article.
197
Finally, it is possible that learners’ overuse of the indefinite article results from
learners’ perception of number in generic reference. Once learners recognise the
generic reference of a given NP, they apply their own conceptualisation of the non-
referential function which is often represented in the singular form (Hawas 1989,
Fehri 2004) instead of the bare plural/uncountable which is more common in generic
referencing in English (Behrens 2005, Partee 2005).
With L2 improvement, the former tendency is reversed. The higher PL group
overused the indefinite article more frequently than the definite. According to well
known studies in SLA (Selinker 1972, Ellis 1994, Towell and Hawkins 1994, Krashen
1982) introducing a new element, in this case the indefiniteness cardinality marker,
into the learners’ IL can result in over-generalising the newly acquired grammatical
rule at later PL stages. Abi Samra (2003) also postulates that most errors are caused by
an over-application of a new rule.
The irregular developmental pattern whereby overuse of the definite article
decreases with the advancement of PLs while the production of the indefinite
gradually increases is probably caused by a combination of factors. Deciding whether
this outcome is a result of L1 transfer or IL developmental strategies is beyond the
scope of this study. So far the results suggest that elements of both contribute to
learners’ decisions on article use.
If we exclude learners’ correct production of the indefinite article learned
produced as formulaic chunks, especially in have and existential (to be) constructions,
which are usually learned in earlier stages of 2LL, it becomes clear that the emergence
stage of the indefinite article in meaningful communication is delayed at least until the
overall L2 proficiency reaches intermediate levels (cf. Kharma and Hajjaj 1989).
198
From our results, it seems that the very low production/high omission stage of the
indefinite article coincides with the flooding stage of the definite. The definite article
is then gradually dropped from non-referential contexts, while the indefinite begins to
appear in written production, but occurs more frequently in form-focused tests.
Therefore, we may speculate that by the time L1Ar learners start dropping the definite
article from non-uniquely identifiable contexts, they are experiencing a higher
production rate of the indefinite article, which could reach a flooding stage at more
advanced stages. This phenomenon has been recorded by studies on L1Ar learners
such as those of Hamdallah (1988) and Batainah (2005).
The difference in the overuse rates of the two articles was more noticeable in
the production of the weak and advanced groups than in the production of the
intermediate group. While the definite article was overused significantly more
frequently than the indefinite by G1, the advanced group overused the indefinite
article more frequently than the definite. One may conclude that this shift of
tendencies is due to the shift from L1 influenced production at lower levels where the
function of the definite article is extended to include non-referential use, to the over-
application of the newly acquired feature in the TL which is the indefinite article. The
difference in overuse rates was least noticeable in the production of the intermediate
group as their IL stage marked the transitional period whereby both influences were
equally present.
It is clear that the processes of acquiring the two articles develop
incongruently. Kellerman (1977) as well as Chaudron and Parker 1990 have
confirmed that a and the develop independently of each other in learners’ IL. It is
possible to propose that in L1Ar learners’ production, the developmental map suggests
that the two articles progress in inverse directions. In other words, while the overuse
199
of the definite subsides, the production of the indefinite article increases and fewer
omission errors are made.
5.1.2.3 Replacement
Replacement refers to the misuse of one article in a position where the other article
would have been chosen as a more preferable option by a native speaker of English. If
learners are able to assign ‘correct meanings’ to article forms, there should be no
substitution errors, but if they are not able to do so, then substitution errors should
occur, reflecting the meanings that learners have principally associated with article
forms at different proficiency levels. The results of this study indicate that
replacement errors did not occur quite as frequently as expected. In fact this error type
was the lowest occurring of all errors across tasks.
In this section, grammatical correctness is excluded since only countable and
singular forms are considered. Hence, article choice becomes a matter of preference
where the only remaining variable for a given NP is its definiteness status (see
3.5.2.3). Appropriateness or suitability of one article rather than another depends on
the presence or absence of certain criteria that determine whether the definite article is
required or not (see Definite Contexts in section 2.2.1). 38 Therefore, in this study,
replacement or substitution errors are all errors of ‘choice’ rather than grammatical
errors.
Learners of all PL groups preferred to use the definite article in indefinite
singular NP constructions significantly more frequently than the employment of the
indefinite article in singular definite contexts across tasks (except for the advanced
38
These criteria may vary from one test to another.
200
group in the free writing task which will be discussed in detail in the following
section). The preference of the definite article over the indefinite is common in the
production of L1Ar learners of English and has also been reported in various studies
on acquisition of English articles, including those on learners from –article L1
backgrounds (Hakuta 1976, Yamada and Matsuura 1982, Thomas 1989, Huebner
1983, Master 1987, Parrish 1987) while the substitution of the definite article by the
indefinite was rarely reported as the norm. It is most likely that this distribution of
replacement errors is not random; rather, it may be a consequence of an uncontrolled
use of definite constructions while learners go through ‘the’ flooding stage. The
following phase witnesses a gradual decrease of the-for-a replacement errors as
proficiency levels improve.
On the other hand, a couple of studies have reported that the overuse of the
indefinite article relative to the definite was more common. Leung (2001) reported
that Vietnamese learners of English preferred to substitute the definite article with the
indefinite. Similar observations were made by Young (1996) who studied SLA of
articles by Czech and Slovak learners of English. These exceptional outcomes might
be due to certain methods of data elicitation and/or analysis, or particular test types
with different focus and demands. To ascertain which of the two replacement norms is
more common than the other in IL, a larger scale of investigation is required to
provide a solid proposition. However, it is not one of the immediate concerns of this
study.
Higher replacement errors caused by substituting the indefinite article with the
definite can also be L1 induced as the indefinite marking is optional in MSA while the
definite article is more likely to replace the indefinite as it is used non-referentially. In
201
a study on Indian learners, Sharma (2005) attributed the replacement errors to the
influence of the learners’ L1 as the learners made more errors replacing the definite
article with the indefinite. This he attributes to the fact that Hindi has an obligatory
indefinite marker but no definite, as it conveys definiteness, like other Indo-Aryan
languages, via word order and in the case of objects, the use of case marking
(McGregor 1995). Although the nature of the difficulty is the reverse of what it is in
Arabic, the main principle underlying the cause of replacement errors is similar.
So far, the results suggest that L1s appears to have a stronger influence on
learners’ use of the indefinite article while their competence on the definite article
approaches native-like accuracy. Similarities with learners from other L1
backgrounds can be observed in learning strategies, such as avoidance, hyper-
correction and order of acquisition, but error patterns and preferences at each learning
stage seem to be more related to learners’ own L1 influence.
5.2 Task Type Variation
Recall that the task types used in this study were a free production test, represented by
the writing task (T1) and two close tests: contextualised information gaps (T2) and
grammaticality judgement test (T3). The major differences between the tasks lie in the
focus and goal, degree of control, and the kind of knowledge that learners draw upon
to provide the required information.
The results of this study show that the type of task affected the performance of
each PL group to different extents. By observing the differences in accuracy, overuse
202
and omission rates within each PL group, the influence of task variation can be
detected through the divergent patterns of article use.
5.2.1 Review of performance by task
Different tasks tap different types of knowledge (Bialystok 1982, Tarone and Parish
1988, Krashen 1982) and affect the way learners produce the TL. It has been found
that task type could drive production to the extent that one group would project
incompatible, and sometimes contrastive, error maps if tasks were of different focus.
Tarone and Parish (1988) and Skehan (1998) refer to ‘Task induced L2 variation’. The
common view is that form focused tasks generally reflect explicit analysed knowledge
whereas more spontaneous, communicative tasks involve L2 learners’ implicit
knowledge (Krashen 1982, Paradis 1994, Muranoi 2000, Ellis 2004, inter alia).
In a study on L1 Serbian learners of English, Trenkic´ (2000) found that the
weakest group performed better on the task that required least attention to form while
the highest PL group performed better in the task that required the highest attention to
form. Ingram (1985) studied the language of ESL students in Australia and EFL
students in China and reported radically different correlations between communicative
and structure-based tests. Similarly, our results show that participants’ performance
varied according to task type. In addition, diversity in article use was also noticed
across tests. While the definite article was felicitously employed in the task with more
attention to meaning, the indefinite article was supplied more appropriately in tasks
with more attention to form.
203
5.2.1.1 T1
Researchers have found that more accurate production is observed in communicative
tasks than form-focused tasks. In other words, free production tests are known to yield
lower error rates (Bialystok 1982, Tarone 1985, Foster and Skehan 1996, Skehan and
Foster 1999). In general, researchers have attributed better L2 performance to
avoidance strategies that L2 learners are known to resort to (Mizuno 1985, Tarone and
Parrish 1988, Ellis 1994). Through free production, learners have the opportunity to
replace articles with other determiners, pronouns or simply by choosing different
sentence structures can rely on plural forms. In this test, most learners opted for
producing plural/uncountable nouns three times more often than singular nouns in
indefinite contexts.
The highest accuracy rate of the zero article was scored in this test. Learners’
production of bare nominals was most appropriate in T1 than any other test.
Moreover, better performance was observed in the production of indefinite plural
nouns than uncountable nouns across PL groups. From a contrastive approach to error
analysis, plurality marking is morphologically salient in both languages while many
nouns belong to different L1/L2 countability categories (cf. Hawas 1989, Thubaiti
2007).
The argument that meaning-based tasks yield lower error rates does not apply
to omission errors in this test as the highest omission rates of the indefinite article
were made in T1 by all PL groups. The highest omission errors of the definite article
were also made in T1 by the advanced group. With less attention to accuracy and
more focus on expressing thoughts and feelings, it is expected that learners would pay
less attention to form. When compared with the lowest rates of omission in the cloze
204
test and, to a lesser extent, the GJT, T1 seems to have accrued the highest instances of
omission. This lends support to Granfeldt’s (2000) observation that accuracy will
decrease if learners’ attentional resources39 are channelled towards goals other than
accuracy. Furthermore, learners might have found it redundant to mark a nominal
overtly for indefiniteness when its semantic indefinite status has already been inferred
by the absence of a definite marker.
Beside task focus, another factor that contributed to bringing about these
results is the time pressure that learners were under when this task was administrated.
Time pressure adds a processing constraint on participants preventing them from
contemplating the forms they produced (cf. Sorace 1996, Robinson 1996).
With regards to overuse of both articles, the percentages of errors were
radically lower in T1 than in the cloze test and the GJT. The low overuse rate of the
indefinite article with plural and uncountable indefinites does not necessarily imply
better L2 aptitude, competence or awareness of relevant grammatical rules. Instead,
the outwardly correct use of ‘zero’ might well be the outcome of learners’ reluctance
to produce indefinite singular NPs which require the supply of the indefinite article.
The lowest replacement error rates were also recorded in T1 despite a clear
preference of the definite article by the weaker groups and the indefinite by the higher
PL participants. In general, the weaker group seemed to prefer the definite article over
the indefinite as they overused it to replace the indefinite four times as often as they
did the opposite. The ratio was reduced with progressing PLs since the intermediate
group only used the-for-a twice as often as the indefinite to replace the definite. At a
later learning stage, the higher group’s replacement rates became very close, i.e. the
39
For Attentional Resources and task variation see Bialystok and Ryan (1985)
205
difference between the rates of replacing the-for-a were almost equal to those of
replacing a-for-the, with the indefinite article preferred. This is probably a result of
learners’ recently increased awareness of the importance of supplying the indefinite
article. Moreover, this result could have been equally influenced by the receding
influence of L1 represented by the drop in the overuse rates of the definite article
before singular indefinite contexts as the generic use of the definite article with
singular nouns is substantially common in Arabic. Although acceptable in certain
expressions in English (I can’t imagine how life was before the invention of the
telephone; She plays the piano) it is not likely that learners have been sufficiently
exposed to authentic material which would enable them to detect similar uses and
employ them unprompted. The singular NP is certainly not the most widely used form
to deliver generic reference in English; rather ‘generically introduced entities are
conceptually plural’ (Onishi and Murphy 2002:97) and largely unmarked (Behrens
2005). This case could be a typical example of what Smith and Tsimpli (1995) refer to
as misanalysis of L2 material based on the argument that features instantiated in the
L1 could lead to negative transfer.
Oblivious to the purpose of the task, the results from production tests better
reflect learners’ communicative competence (Hymes 1972) in the TL as they would
use it in real-life situations (Lightbown and Spada 1999, Power 2003) and provides
the researcher with a sample of the language used in non-test situations (Skehan
1989).
206
5.2.1.2 T2
Many SLA researchers believe that form-focused tests could, partially, reflect
learners’ proceduralised competence, as the ability to provide the required information
in gaps or judge correctness does not depend entirely and exclusively on the rules that
participants learned through classroom instruction. There are also researchers who
hold that cloze tests can also reflect, to a certain extent, learners’ communicative
ability and implicit knowledge (Ellis 2004, Skehan and Foster 1997, Roehr 2004).
Richards (1976), for example, contends that the ability to supply a missing word in a
sentence depends on the learners’ overall knowledge of the syntax and word
distribution in the TL, and therefore controlled tests are as valid a tool in predicting
competence as any other. In this light, the results from T2 and T3 could also be
employed to measure participants’ knowledge of language use and not only
knowledge about the second language (Roehr 2004). We believe that this is true only
if the cloze test was contextually based on a meaningful content rather than based on
contextless, discrete sentences.
It is hardly surprising that the improvement rate in the supply of the indefinite
article, a feature not available in L1, is regular and systematic in T2, while the
development map of the definite article seems more erratic. It is probable that learners
found it more difficult to dispose of their transferred assumptions about the meaning
and function of a form already established in their L1 (Ringbom 1987).
All PL groups overused both articles more in T2 than in T1. Since learners of
all PLs seem to have been keen on supplying items to fill in the blanks in T2, this
error can only be ascribed to the task’s layout/design. What might have contributed to
higher overuse rates in this task is the direct prompting to the purpose of the task to
207
supply articles (or to leave blanks unmarked) which actually limits the choices in the
determiner position to articles only while no other determiners or pronouns that occur
in more authentic text can be used. As mentioned previously, some researchers
concede that with blanks tests there is tendency for learners to provide rather than to
refrain from providing articles. Liu and Gleason (2002) have argued that learners,
especially of low ability, are inclined to fill in every blank with a or the if they had the
chance to do so. Snape and Velasco-Zarate (2005) found that articles were supplied by
both Japanese (–art) and Spanish (+ART) learners more frequently in the blanks test
than in the production test. In this study, the urgency of supplying the blanks with
articles being more attractive than leaving them unmarked, led to inappropriate over-
marking of nominals with non-referential readings which, in effect, caused the
accuracy rates of the ‘zero’ article in this test (26%) to be the lowest of all tests.
Some overuse errors might be caused by overgeneralisation on the learners’
part as a result of a transfer of previous training, since most textbooks and classroom
instructions attribute definiteness to the sequence of occurrence of a referent in a
given text. Hence, it is very important to note that it is not the first/second mention
distinction that decides article choice, but rather the reader’s belief that the referent is
uniquely identifiable in a particular context.
The tendency for overuse in blanks tests has been firmly established in the
testing literature which means that some researchers, such as Ekiert (2004) who did a
study on Polish learners of English articles, refrained from using this type of task in
eliciting data. Our findings comply with earlier findings and this has been taken into
account in assessing when the results point towards higher accuracy or overuse rates.
Because the frequency of each error type differs according to the task performed
208
(Kharma 1981, Mizuno 1985, Tarone 1985, Tarone and Parrish 1988), it is possible to
argue that gap tests can give learners a false impression that an item is missing and
thus prompt them to oversupply in blanks. Another factor that may have contributed to
this result is the participants’ awareness of the subject matter of the test through the
direct prompts, which might have intensified the need to supply articles.
The replacement error pattern in T2 was interesting since the weaker learners’
performance exhibited a very small difference between the two types of substitution
errors. This behaviour is similar to that of the advanced group in T1. This
phenomenon offers some insights into the question: how far do testing types
constitute a valid tool for examining learners’ knowledge? The weak group’s error
pattern resembled that of the higher PL group when the test was examining their
explicit knowledge of article use. Both groups opted to replace the definite article by
the indefinite more frequently than the expected the-for-a option. The intermediate
group (G2) remained in favour of using the definite article to replace the indefinite,
yet, statistically, there was no significant difference between the two replacement
errors. This could be a sign of a stage of hesitation and altering hypotheses; a typical
attribute of intermediate PL learners.
The responses of G3 in the blanks test (T2) were in line with their performance
in the GJT (T3) as the replacement of the indefinite article with the definite (the-for-a)
was the more favourable choice, significantly higher than the a-for-the error. On the
other hand, the indefinite article replaced the definite more frequently in the free
composition test (T1). Hence it is possible to propose that the replacement error map
in the cloze and the GJT is a mirror image of the one that emerges from T1.
209
It seems that the inclination of weaker learners to consistently choose the
definite article over the indefinite proceeded gradually towards a better supply of both
articles with improved L2 levels to reach a stronger preference for the indefinite by
the G3 learners. In T2 however, the substitution by lower ability participants was
more in favour of a-for-the, but as PLs improved, the definite article became more
favourable by G2 and significantly more frequent than the-for-a errors in the
production of G3. The contrastive developmental trends in the two tasks reflect the
variation in task focus, degree of control and knowledge type. The higher the control
of the task and its focus on form, and the more the reliance on consciously learned L2
grammar rules, the better learners perform on the indefinite article. Conversely, with
focus on meaning, learners depend more on their implicit knowledge, in which the L1
influence is stronger, and produce the definite article more frequently.
5.2.1.3 T3
It is clear from the above that the highest accuracy rates for both articles were
achieved in T3. This is perhaps due to a few task-type related factors. Firstly, the
participants in this study are all formally instructed EFL learners with very limited
exposure to the target language, so it is not surprising that their performance would be
better in tests which focus on form (Thu 2005). Furthermore, with the extra time
allowed to students in this test, it was expected that learners would have a better
chance to reflect on the questions and draw more upon the abstract rules they formally
learned before consciously deciding on one answer. Thus, it is no wonder that this
task had incurred higher accuracy rates.
210
The other factor that has contributed to the sharp contrasts in accuracy rates
between the results of this task and T1 is the fact that the underlined NPs fall within
the sentential focus, rather than the extended paragraph /cross paragraph of the
content-based framework of the other two tests. The shorter structural distance could
have helped learners become more aware of the lexical connection between referent
and article and has thus enhanced the relevance between the two to optimal levels
(Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995). Tracing referents, their countability status and
number is therefore facilitated through higher importance, repetition (persistence) and
shorter distance between article and referent (Huebner 1985) 40 leading to better
judgement. This diverges from the more contextualised text found in T1 and T2, and
indeed in authentic material, where the distance is longer, and where, in several
instances, other determiners, demonstratives or pronouns could be more preferable
(Ariel 1988).
Finally, despite the attempt to cover as many variable combinations as possible
in a balanced representation of grammatically correct/incorrect instances, the number
of underlined NPs remains limited. Being the shortest of all the three tests entails that
the GJT required the least processing effort whereby factors such as stress, exhaustion
and fatigue, known to negatively affect learners’ performance (Thomas 1989,
Batainah 2005, Trenkic´ 2007, Sarko 2008) were at minimal levels.
A closer inspection into the results of T3 reveals that there are large gaps and
sharp contrasts in the accuracy/error rates as well as between PL groups. For example,
while the difference between replacement errors across PL groups’ in T1 was not
40
Later, Epstein (2002) used the term Prominence to describe similar notions.
211
significant, in T3, the difference between the performance of learners from G1 and G2
on the one hand, and G1 and G3 on the other was highly significant.
Other differences were noticed in the error maps of task 3. The excessive
overuse of the definite article evident in the results of T1 and T2 was not recorded in
T3. Rather, it was the overuse of the indefinite article which participants from all PL
groups failed to recognise. Since participants’ responses, from all PLs, were uniformly
similar in this regard, it is highly probable that this is a product of the design of the T3
itself rather than any other cause such as PL or the nature of free/controlled tests in
general.
High overuse of the indefinite article in this test is rarely found in the
production of lower ability learners; This is confirmed by the results of tasks 1 and 2,
as well as evidence from personal experience in the EFL classroom. Therefore, this
particular error pattern, noticed exclusively in the GJT, could undermine the validity
of the results emerging from this test. However, such errors can be the effect of
extreme focus on form and accuracy exercised in this task, coercing learners into the
hyper-correction stage whereby omissions at previous IL stages are replaced with
overuse. This will be further discussed in the following section (5.2.2).
Similarly, learners were less able to notice the absence of the indefinite than
the definite article. It is possible that they assumed that the absence of the definite
article is sufficient to indicate that the NP is indefinite. Failure to recognise both
overuse and omission of the indefinite article is perhaps due to the form of the
indefinite article itself. Being, in most instances, a single letter makes it easier to miss
than the morphologically salient definite.
212
In the GJT learners of all PLs unanimously recognised the substitution of the
indefinite article by the definite as erroneous more frequently than the replacement of
the definite by the indefinite. With maximum attention to form, learned mainly
through explicit instruction, learners performance on the indefinite article was better
than on the definite in this task. In other words, learners were better able to recognise
the misuse of the indefinite article than the misuse of the definite by relying mostly on
their metalinguistic understanding of indefiniteness and cardinality. This result
confirms the fact that T3 is a form-focused test which explores explicit knowledge.
Yet when this result (preference of a over the) is compared with the results from T2
where the definite article replaced the indefinite more frequently by the two upper
groups, the relation between task type and knowledge type becomes questionable. Our
results support Dienes and Perner’s (1999) claim that the division between explicit
and implicit types of knowledge is more of a continuum than a dichotomy.
Furthermore, we propose that the difference between the design/format of T2 and T3
plays a decisive role in determining substitution patterns.
In T3, the weaker group performed significantly better on the definite article
while the accuracy rates from the intermediate group showed no difference in the
supply of both articles. The stronger group performed better on the indefinite article.
The replacement error pattern complies with the general findings on learners’
performance in the other tests and lends support to the argument that the results from
the GJT are in line with the overall results from other tests. It exemplifies the relation
between article use and PL as presented earlier (5.1.1) in the broader scale of
acquisition norms. In short, T3 results suggest that as PLs are low, the accuracy rates
of the definite article are relatively high, but, as PLs improve, the indefinite article is
better supplied and its omission rates are reduced, while the definite article is dropped
213
from many contexts, including obligatory ones. Thus, the gap between the accuracy
rates of the two articles becomes smaller.
However, the high accuracy results of T3 cannot be totally reliable a means of
measuring learners’ L2 ability, since the accuracy rates of the definite article in this
test for example range between 88% by G1 and 98% by G3, which are well above the
levels determined by the scores in the OPT. Moreover, the accuracy rates in the GJT
are higher than the average results found in the other two tasks, despite the fact that
T2 and T3 are both controlled tasks. The accuracy rates of the definite article in T2 for
example (G1: 64%, G2: 75%, G3: 86%) better reflect participants’ proficiency level
by being more compatible with the scores in the OPT. In all likelihood, the disparity
between most of the results from T1 and T2 on the one hand and T3 on the other can
be ascribed to the only difference between T3 and the other two tests which is the fact
that the GJT is presented in a de-contextualised format of discrete sentences, whereas
article choice in both T1 and T2 is largely based on information available in the
context. Furthermore, despite the attempt to provide as many variable combinations as
possible, the number of instances for each variable-combination set remains limited in
T3. This fact might have affected the results.
In addition to the above, there are certain problems inherent to GJTs in
general. Having the highest degree of control on learner production, allowing
participants only to mark questions as right or wrong, makes it difficult to determine
whether the learner is guessing the answer or making conscious decisions. For
example, if a learner chooses to mark all instances as correct (or incorrect)
indiscriminately, without actually reading or considering any of the questions, a 50%
accuracy result could still be achieved.
214
In previous SLA studies, the reliability of the results that emerge from GJTs
has often been questioned. Birdsong (1989) for example argued that metalinguistic
knowledge of L2 examined in highly controlled tests that focus on form does not
reflect linguistic competence. He also stresses that in GJTs learners are more likely to
judge a sentence as incorrect rather than correct [emphasis added]. Research by Ellis
(2004) substantiates Birdsong’s propositions as he found that among 19 SLA studies
published between 1997 and 2001, which depended on GJT as the data elicitation tool,
only two reported some measure of reliability.
5.2.1.4 Appropriate zero marking across tasks
There was no difference across groups in their performance on the zero article.
Participants from all PLs scored the highest accuracy rates in the free production task
(T1) while the lowest accuracy rates of correctly (un)marked indefinite plural and
uncountable NPs were recorded in T2. This is perhaps self explanatory since
appropriately produced bare nominals might not only be the result of learners mastery
of the L2 generic function; rather this could be a direct effect of the ‘simplification’
technique known in SLA. In other words, it is difficult to determine whether leaving
indefinite plural/countable nouns unmarked is based on actual knowledge of how to
employ generic references in English or on a mere lack of awareness of the
importance of supplying overt marking without being directed to do so in a meaning-
focused task such as T1. On the other hand, the deliberate prompting in T2 raises
learners’ awareness of the importance of supplying articles in the available blanks. In
addition, learners were more readily inclined to fill in the blanks rather than leave
them empty, although this was one of the options in the prompts. The effect of
215
learners’ response to blanks (see 5.2.1.2) was that the participants from all groups
scored the lowest accuracy rates of the zero-article in task 2. This result confirms that
the accurate outcome of T1 cannot be traced learners’ familiarity with the fact that
non-referential NPs are preferably left unmarked by NS of English (Behrens 2005,
Partee 2005). It is more likely that appropriate use of the zero article is tied to the
attributes of T1 discussed earlier (5.2.1) namely, higher omission/ lower overuse rates.
In other words, learners’ refrained from supplying words they conceived as
unnecessary, i.e., or that the absence of articles would not stop them from delivering
their ideas.
By comparison, participants from all PL groups performed better on the plural
than on the uncountable nouns in tasks 1 and 3, while the difference was less evident
in T2 where the accurate occurrences were almost identical due to comparable overuse
instances. It is worth mentioning that when non-countable nouns were selected for T3,
only a few were L1/L2 contrastive while the majority were uncountable in both
languages. Yet many learners failed to realise that the use of the indefinite article in
these cases is grammatically unacceptable. It is therefore conceivable that number is
acquired and mastered before countability (Butler 2002, Thu 2005).
5.2.1.5 Conclusion to performance by task
A comprehensive comparison of performance across tasks reveals that the progress
from discourse-driven towards grammatically-driven production, from the ‘least
obvious’ to the ‘most obvious’ contexts, parallels the diachronic development in L2,
(cf. Robertson, 2000). In other words, the PL of the EFL learner is reflected in the
focus of each task; the higher focus on accuracy, the better the performance.
216
5.2.2 Task effect by PL group
5.2.2.1 G1
5.2.2.1.1 Accuracy
It is clear that even at very low PL, (G1) learners did produce both articles, which
negates the supposition that learners do not produce enough articles at beginner levels.
This fact also negates the theory that presumes that the zero article is acquired first.
The results emerging from all these tests suggest higher accuracy rates for the definite
article than what many studies on –ART L1s (e.g. Trenkic´ 2002, Master 1997, Ekiert
2004, Butler 2002, inter alia) seem to suggest.
The weaker group performed best in T3 where the highest accuracy rates of
the definite article were achieved, while their weakest performance was recorded in
T2. Although the accuracy rates in T1 were lower than those in T3, they were higher
than originally expected. We believe that two reasons underlie this performance.
Firstly, as many researchers (e.g. Mizuno 1985, Kharma and Hajjaj 1989) concede,
the higher accuracy rates observed in production-based tasks may be attributed to
avoidance strategies that are unavailable to learners in more controlled tests.
Secondly, the relatively better performance might be due to the fact that the presence
of features in the L1 that are similar to those in the L2 lead to positive transfer which
ultimately facilitates the process of L2 acquisition (Ringbom 1987).
However, the accuracy rates of the definite article in T1 were significantly
lower than the scores obtained from T3. It is possible that the higher rates in T3 do not
imply learners’ sensitivity to the importance of the hearer’s perspective or, according
to Heim (1982), the common background parameter, since, by definition, most
grammaticality judgement tests lack the communicative element on which sharedness
217
of information is based. Our results are also contrary to Trenkic´’s (2000) claim that
the correct use of the definite article -by L1 Serbian learners of English- is attributable
to the speaker’s assumptions about the recipient’s knowledge. Rather, we propose
that with respect to the high accuracy rates of the definite article , the stronger
influence of the L1 at lower PLs (Snape 2006, Paradis and Zdorenko 2008, Hawkins
and Chan 1997) could be interpreted as a sign of positive transfer of L1 semantic
properties into L2 contexts since both Arabic and English have almost identical
conditions for obligatory suppliance (cf. Liu and Gleason’s (2002) list of non-generic
the contexts as an interpretation of J. Hawkins (1991) theory of definiteness).
That the accuracy rates of the definite article are significantly lower in T2 may
be the result of variation in the method through which the data was analysed. In task 2,
the learners’ answers had to strictly match the control group’s responses to be
considered accurate. If the learners’ answers did not match the CG, they were
categorised incorrect. On the other hand, accuracy in T1 data was judged on the basis
of grammaticality, which renders contextually unsuitable responses errors of choice
(see section 3.5.3).
Learners from this group showed little disparity in their performance on the
indefinite article across the three tasks since, consistent with our expectations, the
accuracy scores were consistently low with no cross-task significance recorded.
Hence, the effect of task type on the weaker group’s performance on the indefinite
article was quite minimal. Therefore, we may assume that G1 learners lack the
competence to appropriately supply the indefinite article felicitously where it is
deemed obligatory whether the indefinite article was expected to be produced
218
automatically (T1), supplied in obligatory contexts (T2) or its absence recognised
(T3).
Despite the insignificant range of variation across tasks, the best suppliance of
the indefinite article was observed in the blanks test (T2) while the poorest results
were found in T1. We may speculate that the failure to supply the required indefinite
marker in obligatory contexts in T1 was probably most affected by the lack of
prompting in the rubric to the purpose of this test, which, if used, could have alerted
learners to the necessity of any obligatory supply. The better supply in the blanks test
is in turn the effect of direct instructions. It is also possible, since the focus in this task
(T1) is to negotiate meaning, the L1 could have exerted a stronger influence on
weaker learners’ production. i.e., the participants could have carried the semantic
notions from Arabic in which the absence of a definite marker in a noun phrase can be
enough indication of its indefiniteness. In principle, however, this concept is not
entirely limited to Arabic. For example, Leech (1992) contends that ‘it is convenient,
from many points of view, to regard an initial determiner as obligatory for English
noun phrases, so that the absence of an article is itself a mark of indefiniteness.’
(1992:15).
The failure to provide the indefinite article in T1 can also be driven by
learners’ assumption that its absence does not constitute a hindrance to successful
communication of ideas, which is the goal of the free writing test. It is likely that
weaker learners have subconsciously applied the Economy Principle (Poulisse 1997)
whereby maximal comprehensibility is achieved while exerting minimal processing
effort.
219
Supposing that the above hypothesis were true, T2 would have been expected
to yield higher accuracy rates of the definite article since learners were alerted to
supply articles. Instead, there was higher overuse of the indefinite article in positions
where the definite article should have appeared (see the section on Replacement
Errors below). Consequently, the accuracy scores of the definite article plunged to
their lowest levels in all tasks. The use of the indefinite article confirms that learners
rely more on their explicit knowledge in cloze tests which is known to precede the
implicit, at least for adult EFL learners (Dulay et al. 1982, Ellis 2004).
Finally, from a non-contrastive perspective, the accuracy rates being higher in
T1 than in T2 could have resulted from the dissimilar methods through which its use
was analysed in the two tasks. In T1 the correct use of the definite article depended on
the learner’s own assumptions of the hearer’s knowledge of a referent; a subjective
decision with a wider range of acceptability, whereas the correct use in T2 was set
against the responses from the majority of NS in the control group, which limited the
options of acceptability.
The highest accuracy rates of correct marking of bare nominals (zero article)
were achieved in T1. Cautiously interpreted, high accuracy rates do not necessarily
imply that lower PL learners are able to discern generic from specific (or attributive
from referential) meanings in their choices of articles. Rather, it is more likely the case
that the absence of overt marking is a trait noticed throughout T1, evident through the
highest omission rates scored in this task. Perhaps article supply was not perceived as
an essential hindrance to communicating meaning (Leech 2006b). Contrary to the
common belief regarding the primary acquisition of the zero article (Master 1997,
Young 1996, Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989), we propose that the order of acquisition, if
220
based on high accuracy rates, might not be a result of learners’ consciously associating
non-referential meanings with bare plural /mass NPs; rather, it could well be a matter
of negligence or ignorance of the importance of article supply. Once the cognitive
environment changes into declarative and the learners’ awareness is raised, such as is
the case in T2, overuse errors are committed and the accuracy of bare nominals
plunges to the lowest levels. Therefore, it is possible to propose that the high accuracy
rates of bare nominals in T1 are not an indication of early acquisition or that the zero
article is acquired before the other two articles.
Accuracy rates show that the weaker group performed significantly better on
the definite than the indefinite article in T1. This is consistent with our predictions for
several reasons. When learners are given the choice, the definite article presents a
safer option of the two articles since it collapses the more complicated aspects of
countability and number which affect the grammatical accuracy of a NP. In addition,
most studies on learners from both ±art L1s confirm that the definite article is
mastered at an earlier IL stage than the indefinite (Huebner 1983, Master 1987,
Parrish 1987, Thomas 1989, Zdorenko and Paradis 2008).
Similarly, the members of G1 recognised the correct use of the definite article
in the GJT better than they did the indefinite. Therefore, it would seem what learners
are consciously aware of, regarding the correct usage of the indefinite article, does not
extend to recognition of correct instances. The similarity in G1’s behaviour on the
meaning-focused task and the form-focused task might undermine the supposition of
task type effect on learners’ performance. In other words, the free-versus-cloze task
distinction in this respect is a not a crucial element in determining article choice.
However the task-type effect is more noticeable in the variation of accuracy rates that
221
emerged from T2 as there was no significant difference between the accuracy rates of
the two articles in the stories task. Thus, in T2, the weaker learners’ performance
approximates the advanced group’s closer accuracy rates. This reveals that learner’s
explicit understanding of the rules that govern the use of the indefinite article is better
than their implicit knowledge. However, since T2 is the only task that presented a
different accuracy pattern, we propose that this variation is perhaps more due to the
higher overuse rates of both articles that this type of task has yielded rather than to
actual awareness of obligatory supply of the indefinite article.
If we accept that low accuracy rates of the indefinite article across tasks is
caused by a stronger influence of the L1 at this stage, the accuracy rates of the definite
article would be expected to be higher across the board regardless of task type. In fact,
the results suggest that the two lower PL groups performed slightly better on the
indefinite article than the definite in T2, with accuracy rates matching those of the
definite by G1, and significantly higher than those of the definite by G2. Therefore, it
is not possible to exclude other factors from being as effective in determining the
current map of L2 articles.
5.2.2.1.2 Errors
Earlier studies on SLA of articles suggest that production tasks yield lower error rates
than objective tasks because of the avoidance strategy (cf. Tarone and Parrish 1988,
Mizuno 1985, and Maalej 2004); i.e. learners resort to using other determiners such as
quantifiers and demonstratives, freely, to reduce the risks of committing errors caused
by using the wrong article. Judging by the results found in this study, the above
proposal is restricted to the accuracy rates of the definite article, since the accuracy
222
rates of the indefinite achieved by the two lower groups are higher in T2 than in T1
and, similar to their performance in T1, the weaker learners also performed
significantly better on the definite article than on the indefinite in the GJT.
Furthermore, the error map in T3 does not match the one in T2 because the two upper
groups performed better on the indefinite than the definite in the blanks test.
Therefore, the proposition that free tests result in lower error rates is debatable since
various factors such as the presence/absence of an L2 feature in the L1 as well as
learners’ PL are also crucial in determining accuracy/error rates.
5.2.2.1.2.1 Omission
The failure to supply a(n) with indefinite singular countable nouns was the most
noticeable difficulty in the lower group’s performance across tasks as the omission of
the indefinite article was the higher than all other errors. Furthermore, G1 participants’
omission rates of the indefinite article were significantly higher than the definite
across tasks. Tsimpli’s (2003) conviction that the absence of features in the L1 causes
syntactic representations in L2 production to become defective applies to the
difficulties which L1Ar learners experience since the language lacks a dedicated
marker of indefiniteness.
That little variation was found in the omission rates of the same group across
tasks indicates that this group of learners possesses incompatible levels of explicit and
implicit types of knowledge or indeed lack thereof. Despite the small differences in
omission rates across tasks, the weaker learners omitted the indefinite article more
frequently in T1 than in the cloze test and the GJT. From a transfer perspective, this
was mainly because the grammaticalised form of definiteness is already available in
the learners’ subconscious and thus easily automated in free production whereas the
223
indefinite article is mostly learned through explicit instruction and is more accessible
in tasks that draw on metalinguistic information such as T2 and T3. G1’s higher
omission rates of the indefinite article in T1 implies that this newly acquired feature
has not yet reached the point when the rules become internalised enough to be
produced in communicative discourse. The shift from knowing the abstract rules to
automatically exercising them in meaningful contexts has been proposed by several
SLA researchers (cf. Ellis 2004, Roehr 2004. Accordingly, learners’ theory-building
skills (Anderson 1983) allow declarative knowledge to evolve into communicative
usage given time and sufficient practice (see also DeKeyser 1998, 2003).
While this group scored the highest omission rates of the indefinite article in
T1, the highest omission rates of the definite article were observed in T3. The
availability of content in T1 and T2 offers a better opportunity to grasp meaning
through forward and backward referencing which enables learners to establish the
connection between the referent and the article and realise its definiteness. On the
other hand, the de-contextualised format of T3 puts the communicative burden on the
reader whose role is to resolve the ‘referential puzzle’ (Jaszczolt 1997) without
sufficient information about the referents. Within the sentential focus of meaning,
students might presume that the information provided is adequate and clear and no
definite marking is required to establish relevance between article and noun.
The contrast between this group’s performance in T1 and T3 stems from their
understanding of the roles of each article. The rules which determine the appropriate
supply of the definite article are tacitly available in the learners’ subconscious, despite
the low PL. On the other hand, their understanding of the conditions that necessitate
providing the indefinite article is better reflected in tasks that investigate declarative,
224
metalinguistic knowledge about the second language, and would perhaps need to be
evoked by deliberate prompting.
5.2.2.1.2.2 Overuse
The significant differences in the overuse rates across tasks are strongly suggestive of
learners’ errors of overuse being dependent on task type. The highest overuse rates for
both articles were observed in the results from T3, while the lowest overuse rates were
in T1. Given that these rates were scored by the same participants within one PL
group, the significantly lower overuse rates of the indefinite article in T1 may not be
entirely due to learners’ developed awareness of article use. Instead, it could well be
attributed to the absence of direct prompts which might have alerted learners to supply
articles. Furthermore, a stronger L1 influence at this IL stage dictates that the absence
of an overt indefinite article implies that the NP is of [–def] semantic value. Learners,
regardless of the first language, are not expected to overuse a feature that is non-
existent in their L1. However, when prompted, the weaker learners’ production of the
indefinite article increased to rates approximating those achieved in T2 and T3. The
higher production rates of the indefinite article in T2 and T3 do not necessarily imply
that learners would be capable of producing this article automatically in obligatory
contexts because in the production task, the highest error rate was that of failing to
supply the indefinite article rather than overusing it.
In principle, our participants’ notions of definiteness should be close to the TL
since the conditions that render the supply of the definite article obligatory are quite
similar in both Arabic and English (i.e. the referent being available textually;
225
physically or semantically unique) (2.2.3). Therefore, despite the inappropriate supply
of the definite form in non referential contexts, in T1, with meaning in focus, the
overuse rates did not reach the extent observed under the influence of prompting in the
cloze test or the underlining of NPs in T3. Yet, the definite article in the writing task
was overused significantly more frequently than the indefinite, while the same group
overused the indefinite article more than the definite in T3.
In T2, the overuse rate of both articles was almost identical. Hence it becomes
safe to assume that task type is a decisive factor in determining learners’ overuse
patterns.
5.2.2.1.2.3 Replacement
Task effect was most noticeable in replacement errors as the production/answers of
G2 varied from one task to another according to the focus of each test. In T1, weaker
participants chose the definite article in place of the indefinite four times more
frequently than vice versa. The reasons underlying the mastering of the definite
article before that of the indefinite are developmental, namely the cardinality function
that the indefinite article involves, and L1 influence, i.e. the absence of an explicit
marker of indefiniteness in Arabic. A similar error pattern was observed in the results
from the GJT (T3) where learners’ ability to recognise the- for- a instances as
incorrect was better than recognising a- for- the replacements. However, the
difference in the reaction to T1 and T3 was noticeable, as the gap between recognising
the two types of replacement errors (a-for-the vs. The-for-a) in T3 was not as large as
it was in T1. This may be due to the varying length and requirements of each task. In
T1 learners were expected to write essays with a minimum of 350 words which would
226
accrue more errors while T3 was more limited. A more plausible explanation for this
variation in performance is that learners are better able to accurately employ L2
information (of the indefinite article) that they were taught when the focus of the task
is on form and the requirements are explicitly stated, as in the case of T3.
However, this proposal does not apply to the results from T2 where the
replacement rates of the two articles were very close. Moreover, instances where the
indefinite article was used in place of the definite were slightly more frequent than
those where the definite replaced the indefinite. Although the difference is small, G1’s
preference of a-for-the to the-for-a is indicative of the amount of influence that task
focus exerts on learners’ choices. It could have been the result of an attempt to provide
an equal number of both articles throughout the blanks. In other words, the preference
of a- over- the is due to the design of T2 rather than the learners’ awareness of
indefinite marking. An argument in favour of this possibility is that G1 chose to
replace the indefinite article by the definite in the other two tests (T1 and T3) which
have different focus and examine different abilities. Therefore, G1’s performance in
T2 becomes the exception, not the norm. In this sense, it seems that the division of
task type into free vs. close is not the only source of variation in L2 production.
Rather, the format and the design of the task is a critical element that led to incurring
the present results.
The pattern observed in T3 is similar to the one in T1 as the weaker learners
preferred the definite to the indefinite article. This is in line with G1’s better
performance on the definite article in general. The weaker group had supplied the
definite article better than the indefinite, achieving higher accuracy and lower
omission rates across tasks. However, the difference between the two replacement
227
errors in T3 was not significant as is known of results obtained from the GJT (see
section 4.3.2.3). This is perhaps due to the different type of knowledge that T3 taps
into. Although learners had found it more difficult to mark instances where the
indefinite article was replaced with the definite as incorrect, their recognition of the
necessity to supply the indefinite article was better than it was in T1. This is because
the task’s requirements were clearly stated and the focus on form was maximised. In
effect, this helped reduce the difference between the performance maps of the two
articles. Therefore, the gap between the two replacement errors was insignificant.
Hence, it is reasonable to argue that weaker L1Ar learners’ formal knowledge of the
indefinite article is better than their ability to supply it communicatively.
5.2.2.2 G2
5.2.2.2.1 Accuracy
When comparing the accuracy rates of a(n) and the across tasks, it is noticeable that
the gap between the accuracy rates of the definite and indefinite articles in both T1
and T2 decreased as learners PL improved. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that the
levels of learners’ implicit and explicit levels of understanding article use become
more compatible with overall progress in L2.
Similar to the weaker group, the intermediate group also scored the highest
accuracy rates for the definite article in T3. The accuracy rates of the indefinite article
were also highest in T3. Therefore the highest accuracy rates for both articles were
achieved in T3. However, the difference between G2’s performance on the two
articles can be noticed in the fact that the lowest rates were scored in different tests.
While the weakest performance on the definite article was found in T2, the lowest
228
accuracy rates of the indefinite article were recorded in T1. The variance in the error
pattern is apparently attributable to the requirements and focus of each task.
Since the definite article has a semantic equivalent in the participants’ L1, the
grammatical representation of definiteness is more accessible in L2 production.
Therefore, it is not surprising that G2 did better on the definite in the test that
examines their implicit knowledge (T1), as is expected in communicative tasks. On
the other hand, since the morphological representation of indefiniteness is not readily
available in learners’ subconscious, it is likely that accurate use would be more
evident in tests that depend mainly on explicitly learned information and assess
metalinguistic knowledge of the L2. Conversely, this entails that lower accuracy
should be expected in tasks that do not provide directions that activate the newly
learned L2 form.
Furthermore, the design of T2 could have contributed to raising the accuracy
rates of the indefinite article as the blanks, being in the syntactic position of the
determiner, may have triggered learners’ awareness of the necessity of supplying the
indefinite article and directed them to search for a singular noun in the following NP.
However, the significant difference between the accuracy rates of the indefinite article
in tasks 1 and 2 suggests that the higher accuracy rates in T2 cannot be considered as a
true reflection of the learners’ actual competence in correctly supplying the indefinite
article wherever its presence is deemed obligatory in meaningful discourse. Rather,
the low rates in T1 suggest that the grammatical rules that control article use in
English have not yet become internalised enough to be spontaneously produced in
communicative settings without prompting. Dulay et al. (1982) argue that errors in
form-focused tests occur when formally learned rules have not yet become part of the
229
learners’ linguistic competence, i.e. learners need time to practice their explicitly
learned L2 rules in order to be able to produce grammatically appropriate forms. In
addition to being the cause for errors, the proposal submitted by Dulay et al. applies
equally to accuracy rates of the indefinite article in T2 and T3 as an indication of
learners’ awareness of the conditions that necessitate the supply of the indefinite
article.
In T3, the intermediate group’s results diverged from those observed in T1 and
T2 in regard to accuracy. Thus, G2’s performance resembled that of the higher, rather
than the lower, PL group. The disparity between the two patterns confirms that G2’s
awareness of the grammatical rules of article use, examined in T3, is one step ahead of
their communicative abilities (competence) in T1 where their knowledge of how
articles operate is reflected. It seems that learners from G2 have improved their
declarative knowledge of the grammaticality of the indefinite article and have
therefore approached the rates of the advanced group. This is not merely an effect of
moving further away from L1 influence since improved performance on the indefinite
article is considered as a broader IL tendency having been recorded in studies on –
ART L1 learners’. For example, Chaudron and Parker (1990) found that Japanese
learners’ control of the indefinite form increased with better L2 proficiency.
5.2.2.2.2 Errors
SLA researchers, such as Hawkins and Chan (1997) and Prévost and White (2000),
ascribed the difficulty 2LL have in the employment of a feature that does not exist in
their L1 to a failure in mapping functional features present in the L2 onto their
production of the target language. In other words, learners rely on L1 syntax in their
230
L2 production especially at lower PLs. These theories apply mostly to the high
omission rates of the indefinite article observed in the responses from the lower group.
It is a typical occurrence of what Eckman (1977) describes as the most difficult aspect
to acquire in the target language, namely the production of a feature which is
unmarked in the L1 but marked in the L2. This was what happened in T1.
The performance of this group was considerably affected by task type. We
noticed that their average rates of omission were analogous to the weaker group’s
results in the free production task while being closer to the advanced group in the
controlled tests. In the free production test, although there were fewer omissions by
this group than by the weaker group, G2’s performance was similar as intermediate
PL participants omitted the indefinite article more frequently than the definite.
Learners might have found it redundant to mark a nominal overtly for indefiniteness if
its semantic indefiniteness is already inferred by the absence of the definite marker.
However, the lowest omission errors of both articles were in the cloze test. This lends
support to the theory that the presence of blanks urges learners to supply rather than
omit articles (Trenkic´ 2000, Snape and Velasco-Zarate 2005). Furthermore, learners
from G2 made more omissions of the definite than the indefinite article. By scoring
higher omission errors of the, G2’s performance approximated that of the advanced
group.
The shift is caused by the types of knowledge that each task triggers. Through
classroom instruction, intermediate PL learners have become more aware of the
conditions of indefinite article employment and at the same time they are beginning to
realise that it is not common practice by NS or in authentic text to supply the definite
article with indefinite plural/uncountable nouns.
231
Advocates of teaching articles (e.g. Master 1997) in the EFL/ESL classroom
propose that explicit teaching of rules can lead to automated use, i.e., for a learner to
know how a feature operates precedes the eventual ability to voluntarily apply these
rules in communicative settings (VanPatten 1994, De Keyser 2003; Doughty 2003;
Ellis 2001; Norris and Ortega 2001). Yet more time is needed for this declarative
knowledge to become internally proceduralised and consequently produced in
meaningful output such as in T1. Evidently, the two types of knowledge, implicit and
explicit, do not evolve simultaneously and as the above mentioned studies confirm,
the intermediate group’s performance in free production was one stage behind their
performance in T2 and T3.
5.2.2.2.2.2 Overuse
There was a smaller disparity between the overuse rates of the two articles in the
production of the intermediate group as compared to the weaker group’s performance,
i.e. while the weaker group overwhelmingly preferred to replace the indefinite by the
definite article, this preference was less noticeable in G2’s production. The decreased
difference in the overuse rates may be seen as a mark of change in learners’
hypotheses and understanding of article use and as a fluctuation typical of the stage in
IL in question.
The intermediate group produced the highest overuse errors of the definite
article in T2 and the lowest in T1. This is self explanatory as in T2, there were
awareness raising prompts towards supplying, rather than omitting articles whereas
there were none in T1. Similarly, the lowest overuse rates of the indefinite article were
recorded in T1. This is attributable not only to the just mentioned absence of prompts
232
in T1, but also to the fact that that intermediate PL EFL learners in general and L1Ar
learners in particular, do not voluntarily overuse forms that are unavailable in their L1.
However, unlike the overuse errors of the definite article, the highest overuse
rates of the indefinite article were observed in T3. In judging the appropriateness of
article use in T3, G2 learners rely maximally on their conscious knowledge in
interpreting the grammatical system of the indefinite article. That the highest overuse
rates of the indefinite article were scored in T3 is tied to it being the task with the
highest focus on form and analysed knowledge learned through explicit instruction. In
this sense, G2 approaches the more advanced group most closely in T3 in
overproducing the indefinite article as it examines the strongest aspect of their
knowledge. The newly acquired L2 feature is overused (Selinker 1972) because it
might have been misanalysed as a general form that signals indefiniteness, regardless
of countability or number, i.e., a counterpart of the definite article. Thus this type of
overuse is an example of what is referred to in SLA literature as partial understanding
of TL features (Richards 1976) that leads to a flooding stage similar to the one
observed before mastering the definite
Despite the higher PL, intermediate learners still preferred to substitute the indefinite
article with the definite across tasks, but the cross-group development is noticed in the
decrease in the gap between the two replacement errors. In T1, the replacement of the
definite article for the indefinite was four times higher than the replacement of the
indefinite for the definite. In T2, G2 learners replaced the indefinite article with the
definite more frequently than replacing the definite article with the indefinite, but by
being more aware of the requirements of the task, they managed to produce the
233
indefinite article more frequently than in T1 and thus the gap between the two types of
replacement errors was reduced to the degree of no significance. It seems that not
only the prompts in T2 had activated learners’ awareness of the indefinite article, but
also the nature of the test itself, i.e. it being a gaps test encouraged learners to supply
both articles, including the indefinite. Therefore, it was not surprising that the definite
article replaced the indefinite only twice as many times as the indefinite article
replaced the definite in T1. In comparison with G1’s fourfold replacement rate in T1,
this is considered an improvement.
In T3, although form-focused and with prompts, G2 learners preferred the
definite article to the indefinite in their choices. Nevertheless, the difference in the
replacement rates in T3 is more extreme, a predictable effect of GJTs, as the
distinction was significantly varied. (For a full discussion of GJT see section 5.2.3).
The results indicate that G2 learners preferred the definite article to the indefinite in
all three tests.
5.2.2.3 G3
Task type had a smaller effect on G3’s performance with regards to accuracy rates
between the two articles in all three tests. However, the advanced group were more
susceptible to task type variation in their use of the indefinite article.
234
5.2.2.3.1 Accuracy
Similar to the performance of the two lower PL groups, the highest accuracy rates of
the definite article remained in T3 but with a significantly smaller gap of variation
across tasks.
The highest accuracy rates of this group’s performance on the indefinite article
were also observed in T3. Because of their increased ability in mastering the indefinite
article, G3 participants managed to identify all the correct instances of indefinite
article occurrences in the GJT, scoring the highest accuracy rates possible. With
slightly lower accuracy rates than T3, more advanced participants also managed to
appropriately supply the indefinite article in most obligatory contexts in T1, obtaining
higher accuracy rates on the indefinite than on the definite article. The only test where
the accuracy rates of both articles were almost equal was T2. It is worth mentioning
that G3’s highest error rates of the indefinite article were not observed in T1, as is the
case with the two lower groups, but rather in T2. This low error rate was not caused
by the omission of a, but rather the overuse of a(n).
Although the prompting in T2 raised learners’ awareness to the necessity of
supplying articles, it may have encouraged them to overuse the indefinite article
which consequently contributed to lowering the accuracy rates. The difference
between correct the and its overuse was not significant in T2. However, in T3 the
same participants were better able to recognise correct definite contexts and identify
overuse instances. As learners had the most limited opportunity to contribute freely to
the task, their responses were most accurate.
235
Since the difference in the performance of G3 participants on the two articles
was not significant in any task, we can assume that with stronger L2 ability, learners’
mastery of the two articles becomes more compatible and their choices less
susceptible to task variation.
5.2.2.3.2 Errors
The disparity in the omission rates of the two articles was insignificant in G3’s
production. While the omission rates of the two lower groups showed significant
difference between the two articles, the gap in the omission rates decreased with
improved PLs. Weaker learners from G1 and G2 omitted the indefinite article more
frequently than the definite in the writing task (T1), but G3 participants made more
omissions of the definite than the indefinite article in T1. Since task (T1) reflects
subconscious knowledge whether acquired through exposure to L2 materials or learnt
through formal instruction, learners’ command of the indefinite article has become
more internalised to be produced in communicative output. On the other hand, the
definite article is dropped from many contexts, including obligatory ones, because
after increased awareness of overuse errors in non-uniquely identifiable contexts,
learners might be experiencing a stage of hyper-correction which results in higher
omission errors of the definite article.
Despite the fact that T2 is a cloze test mainly examining explicit knowledge,
the results from T2 are quite similar to those from T1 in the sense that the omission
rates of the definite article, although significantly fewer than in T1, were also higher
than the omissions of the indefinite article.
236
However, results from T3 reveal that the same group of participants accepted
the instances of indefinite article omissions as grammatically correct more often than
instances where the definite article was omitted. Statistically, this was interpreted as
more omissions of the indefinite than the definite article.
Hence, the error map in the omission rates here does not seem to be divided by
task type since similar results were observed in two tasks of different focus while
results from the other cloze test do not follow the same line. Rather, this phenomenon
calls for finding a common denominator between the form and meaning-based tasks
(T1, T2) that sets them apart from the divergent pattern observed in T3. One element
that presents itself as the most probable factor in determining this divergence is that of
content since both the free composition and stories tasks are content-based while T3 is
composed of discrete sentences. Within the focal constituent of the sentence, learners
had a better opportunity to recognise the absence of the definite marker because of the
structural proximity between the determiner position and the referent, giving the
participant a ‘very small amount of … information .. to focus on, or be ‘active’ at any
one time.’ (Chafe 1987: 22). Thus referents become more prominent (Huebner, 1985)
and highly accessible. On the other hand, in more authentic discourse a pronoun is
usually the more preferable option for shorter distance referencing (Ariel 1988, 1990).
To follow Ariel’s criteria for definiteness, there is a smaller number of antecedent
competitors in a sentence-based test and a higher importance given to the NP since it
is underlined in T3. Hence, the conditions of unique identifiability become more
accentuated and the omissions of the definite article become less acceptable and its
absence more visible. Thus, a referent in the preceding phrase can be felicitously
retrieved since all conditions of optimal relevance (cf. Sperber and Wilson 1995) are
satisfied within the frame of the immediate context.
237
The results from T1 and T2 solidly confirm previous findings that with
increasing proficiency levels, there is increased production and fewer omissions of the
indefinite article. Simultaneously, the definite article is systematically dropped from
non referential contexts (Cziko 1986, Chaudron and Parker 1990, Habuto 2000, Ekiert
2004) and sometimes more omissions of the definite article are committed before a
more target like production is reached.
5.2.2.3.2.2 Overuse
In the first part of this chapter, we mentioned that the most noticeable improvement in
learners’ production was the significant and systematic drop in the overuse rate of the
definite article with progressing proficiency standards. Yet, the error pattern relating
to task variation was not quite divergent. Similar to the performance of the weakest
group, the highest overuse rates of both articles were recorded in T3 and the lowest
overuse rates of both articles were recorded in T1. It therefore seems that these error
norms are a result of task variation, while the error rates are governed by PLs.
The overuse rates of the definite article were identical in T2 and T3, while T1
showed significantly lower rates. The results of overuse errors are clearly divided
according to task type, i.e. the cloze test with attention to form yielded higher overuse
rates than the free production task. Furthermore, as the error rates of overusing the
indefinite article fell regularly and significantly with the improvement in the PL in
both T2 and T3 in line with expectations of developmental progress, this was not the
case in the results obtained from T1. Although the overuse of both articles was
particularly lower in T1 than in the controlled tests, the total level of overuse by the
advanced group was slightly higher than that of the two weaker groups in the free
238
composition task. At first sight, this could be interpreted as a form of regression
because this irregular developmental pattern suggests that the overuse rates increased
as PLs improved.
To make more mistakes at higher PLs contradicts Oller and Redding’s (1971)
claim that overall second language competence and performance on articles correlate
positively. On the other hand, some researchers such as Lightfoot (1998) found that
learners’ performance on articles does not necessarily reflect their overall PL.
Batainah (2005) also found that senior Jordanian learners overused the indefinite
article more frequently than lower ability learners.
The overuse of the indefinite article could be the result of hyper-correction due
to classroom experience since it is known that ArL1 learners are constantly instructed
to mark singular indefinite NPs with the indefinite article, which could result in over
application of these instructions into uncountable and plural contexts, i.e., this error is
caused by a ‘transfer of training’ (Selinker 1972) from experienced at previous
learning stages. Richards (1971) maintains that failure to observe restrictions of
countability and number in article use may be due to analogy. In our case, the analogy
can be based on formulaic expressions learned as chunks such as existential [there is +
a(n)] or [have/has + a(n)] acquired at former IL stages and rationalised into a deviant
usage with uncountable / plural nouns. G3 equally accepted the erroneous overuse
instances of a twice as often as the definite in T3.
Although the advanced learners made more overuse errors of the indefinite
article than the weaker groups in T1 and T3, it can be an indication of progress. The
tendency to overproduce a newly acquired feature in IL is common and it usually
follows the initial stage of emergence (Thomas 1989 add, Ekiert 2004, Garcia Mayo
239
2008). It can also be the result of hyper-correction as learners try to avoid omission
errors committed during their previous learning experience at lower PLs.
L1Ar learners experience a mapping problem of the L2 feature (a/n) into IL
grammar, more similar to the Japanese rather than the Spanish learners in Snape and
Velasco-Zarate’s (2005) study, or learners from –ART than +ART L1s in the study by
Zdorenko and Paradis (2008). Therefore one may expect even the G3 to overuse the
definite article more than the indefinite in tasks that examine explicit knowledge or
even in any form-focused test which has content. This group overused the definite
article twice as many times as the indefinite in T1 and T2 where the lowest accuracy
rates of the indefinite article were recorded.
If the stronger inclination to fill in the blanks (rather than to leave them empty)
in T2 is added to the stage of flooding of a(n) that the advanced group is already
experiencing, the higher overuse errors would become inevitable and would
eventually contribute to lowering the accuracy rates in this task. Therefore, we believe
that the exceptional pattern of close accuracy rates observed in T2 is more relevant to
the design of this test than the usual performance observed in the production of G3.
As in the case of the choices of the two lower groups, the participants from G3 scored
the lowest replacement errors in the free production task (T1) while the highest
replacement errors were observed in T3.
G3’s awareness and their improved use of the indefinite article bridged the gap
and balanced the rates of the two replacement errors in T1, with a slight preference for
240
the indefinite article. The shift is in accordance with the development map in article
use discussed earlier whereby representational deficit (Hawkins 2004) of a cardinality
marker in the L1Ar leads to a low production at the beginning followed by a stage of
over-application of the newly acquired feature, before a more target-like use is
reached. If we suppose that, in marking indefiniteness, Arabic is an –ART language,
G3’s implicit understanding of the indefinite article expressed in their choices in T1,
corresponds to findings from Leung (2001)’s study on Japanese (–art) learners who
preferred to substitute the by a more often than a by the.
However, this development map was reversed in the cloze test and the GJT.
The higher PL learners’ preference was for the definite article to replace the indefinite.
In fact, the difference between the two types of replacement errors was more
significant in G3’s production than in that of the lower ability learners as none of G3
participants accepted a for the as correct. It is clear from the above that the most
decisive element in learners’ choices of articles was task focus. G3’s mastery of the
indefinite article has obviously progressed into their implicit competence as expressed
in the free composition task, while their awareness of conditions determining
obligatory supply of the definite article is revived in tasks that focus on form. It is
worth mentioning that this trend is the exact opposite of the one noticed in the
performance of the weakest group.
241
5.3 Learner hypotheses
In the SLA literature, it is widely acknowledged that learners go through a process
called ‘hypothesis formation’ (Schachter 1983, 1992) in which the learner
incorporates all the imperfect conceptualisations that she or he has of the L2 to
construct a hypothesis about a given feature in the L2. The sources of information that
form these hypotheses could originate from the learner’s L1, but they could also be
caused by incomplete understanding of the TL rules (Richards 1971) or from over-
generalising newly acquired L2 rules to other contexts in which they do not apply
(Selinker 1972, Gass 1996, Ellis 1994). Throughout the IL process learners’
hypotheses change and affect their L2 production.
There have been several studies that addressed the effect of associating certain
linguistic concepts and article use in learners’ hypotheses (see section 2. 5). In this
section we will attempt to examine the hypotheses that underlie L1Ar learners’
choices of articles by careful consideration of the error patterns obtained from the
three tests. We will also try to present a possible rationale for these assumptions,
whether induced by L1 interference or developmental, cross-linguistic tendencies. The
role of task focus and task design will also be discussed as influential variables.
The L2 hypotheses examined in this study involve three linguistic notions of
specificity, premodification and the abstractness/ concreteness of the head noun.
5.3.1 Specificity
One of the most influential hypotheses regarding learner associations with respect to
L2 acquisition of articles is that of definiteness and specificity ( IKW 2004). In order
242
to determine whether or not there is association in the learner hypotheses between
specificity and definiteness and whether the type of task affected learner choices, the
overuse of the definite article in two indefinite NP environments [+/–Sp] was
compared.
5.3.1.1 G1
Weak learners used the definite article to refer specifically as well as non-specifically
in all tests. Their accurate supply of the definite article in [+def] contexts was
significantly higher than erroneous occurrences in indefinite contexts (overuse and
replacement).
In the free production (T1) the definite article was overused significantly more
frequently in [–def] [–Sp] contexts than in [–def] [+Sp] contexts by G1 learners. In
other words, there were more overuse instances in non-referential plural/mass NPs
referring mostly to kinds (cf. Chierchia 1998) than in specific NPs referring to a
particular thing or group of things (Zegarac 2004).
The above information implies that overuse (the supply of the in zero-article
contexts) instances were greater than replacement errors (the-for-a) throughout PL
groups and across tests since most [–def] [–Sp] NPs do not require marking while
almost all [+SP] [–def] NPs are singular and therefore necessitate the supply of the
indefinite article. The stronger tendency to overuse rather than to replace was
certainly more evident in the production of the weaker learners in T1.
The higher error rates in T1 are in contrast to Tarone and Parrish’s (1988)
observation that the accuracy of articles supplied in referential contexts was higher in
243
communicative tasks. The outcome also differs from those of Trenkic´’s (2000) study
on Serbian speakers where the weaker group performed better, in this respect, in the
task that required least attention to form.
As in the case of general overuse errors, the lowest rates of overusing the
definite article in [–def] [±Sp] contexts were scored in T1 due to the same grounds as
those discussed in the previous section (5.2. 2). In T2 the weaker learners made more
overuse errors, yet they maintained the preferences of T1 as they continued to supply
the definite article in [–def] [–Sp] contexts more frequently than in [–def +Sp] ones
but not significantly so. The role of blanks cannot be ruled out as a potential factor
that evidently yields higher frequency (cf. Paradis 1994, Ellis 1994 Trenkic´ 2000,
Snape and Velasco-Zarate 2005) of both articles. Therefore it seems that the increased
production of the indefinite article minimalised the supply of the in the limited
number of blanks in T2, causing the overuse and replacement errors to be almost
identical. The effect of the design of T2 as well as its higher focus on explicit
knowledge known to attract better accuracy rates, is evident in the smaller difference
between replacement and overuse errors of the.
Again, in T3, the overuse rates of the definite article in [–Sp] contexts was
higher than in (indefinite) [+SP] ones, but unlike the results of T2, the difference
between the two errors was significant. It is hardly surprising as T3 has proven to
yield higher significance rates (see 4. 4. 2. 3). The consistency in the error pattern
across tasks suggests that variation in task focus and knowledge type have little effect
on G1’s choices where specificity is concerned. The finding corroborates Dienes and
Perner’s (1999) argument that representations of knowledge are more of a spectrum
244
rather than a dichotomy of extreme opposites. Hence, learners’ responses varied in
number and significance rates but not in pattern.
However, in this regard, our results contradict findings from many studies on
L2 learners of –ART L1s (Trenkic´ 2007, Kaku 2006, Thomas 1989, Parrish 1987
inter alia) in which specificity was found to be associated with definiteness at earlier
IL stages. On the other hand, studies on +ART languages in this regard indicate that
there is no significant overuse of the in [–def +Sp] contexts (Snape et al 2006,
Hawkins et al. 2005). However, the question of whether definiteness is associated
with non-specificity in +ART languages in which the definite form is used generically
(e.g. Greek, French) has not been often addressed nor thoroughly investigated. It is
also worth mentioning that in the most widely cited studies on L2 specificity-
definiteness confusions are based on data collected through controlled tests with focus
on form, and not many have analysed communicative output from free production.
Thus, when the findings of this study are compared to other findings, the criterion of
task type/focus must be taken into consideration.
In short, statistical outcomes suggest that learners’ initial tendency is to
associate the grammaticalised form of definiteness with the semantic value of non-
specificity since erroneous overuse before (indefinite) [–Sp] referents was higher than
overuse in (indefinite) [+SP] contexts, especially in the task that focuses more on
meaning and examines learners’ implicit communicative competence. This clearly
indicates that the influence of the Arabic (see 2.3.3) in which the definite article is
used to generalise as well as to specify (see also Hawas 1989, Maleej 2004, Kremers
2003) is stronger at lower stages and more evident in less controlled production.
245
5.3.1.2 G2
There was a marginal difference between the overuse rates of the definite article in
non-specific indefinite contexts and in [–def +Sp] contexts in the intermediate group’s
performance in the writing task. In that sense, G2’ performance paralleled the pattern
observed in the performance of the lower group (in T1) since these participants
associated the with non-specificity more frequently than with specific references,
although significance rates between the two overuse errors was much lower than G1.
In T2, learners’ choices continued to evince a preference for the definite
article in [–Sp] contexts, yet, with more focus on accuracy and awareness of task
demands the error rates were closer, i.e., the number of overuse instances in specific
indefinite contexts approached the number of overuse instances in non-specific
references. This means that G2 learners’ performance in T2 was closer to that of the
advanced group. The approximating number of overuse of the definite article in ±Sp
environments suggests a state of hesitation and uncertainty typical of intermediate
stage of IL in which hypotheses formulated in earlier experience are questioned.
Since our results do not tally with findings of known L2 studies in this respect,
the possibility arises of a strong L1 influence especially at lower PLs. G2 learners
seem to be having difficulty in breaking away from the Arabic notions of specificity in
which the definite article /al/ is the least explicit marker (Aziz 1993:132) that serves to
denote generalised conceptions as well as specific (cf. Kremers 2003:53, 169).
Behrens (2005) postulates that the use of the in Arabic is expected in generic contexts
because it is a discourse referent-marking language in which non-referential
expressions are conceived as definite since they are perceived as part of people’s
established epistemic knowledge. In this sense, weaker L1Ar learners are possibly
246
trying to de-link definiteness from non-specificity triggered by the L1 settings in the
same way that Chinese learners go through a mental process of de-linking definiteness
from plural number marking as part of their IL process towards TL attainment
(Lardiere 2007).
In T3, the intermediate learners overused the definite article more in specific
contexts than in non-specific; i.e., they were better at recognising overuse instances
when the reference was non-specific. Although this constituted an error of overuse in
both cases, it is indicative of a shift in learner hypothesis from associating definiteness
with non-specificity to associating definiteness with specificity, which, in a way, is a
form of progress as learners are progressively adjusting their conceptualisations
towards a more target like setting.
It is not surprising that learners’ preference to overuse the definite article in [–
def +Sp] contexts was more evident in T2 than in T1, since, as a cloze test, it can
reveal more explicit knowledge of L2 rules which participants could have learned
through negative evidence in the EFL classroom. However, the results in T2 are less
extreme than those that emerge from T3 in the sense that although overuse instances
of the were more frequent in [–def +Sp] contexts, no significant differences were
found between the errors across the two NP environments in T2. This is possibly
attributable to the design of T2 where the availability of context is a common
denominator with T1, which helps drive the participants’ attention more in the
direction of meaning as a goal (Richards, J 1976, Dulay et al. 1982, Krashen 1982,
Hulstijn and Hulstijn 1984, Granfeldt 2000) and eventually balances the focus of this
test between the two extremes of T1 and T3. Since the L1 transfer is more operative in
meaning-based environments, non-referential overuse of the definite form is more
247
likely to reoccur, reducing the contrast between the two specificity contexts. On the
other hand, being more direct and form-focused than T1, T2 raised the participants’
awareness of specificity as a precondition to most L2 meanings of the definite form.
This set participants to try and retrieve particular information about referents directly
available in the preceding/following NPs. Once this particular information is
recovered, it lowers the probability of ambiguity, inherent in genericity (Krifka 2003)
and thus specificity becomes a more favourable option.
Hence, it is conceivable that the learning curve with respect to specificity
seems to go beyond the cross-sectional level to include task type variation. The way in
which G2’s performance changed across tasks is an indicator of progress towards TL
production in the same way the improvement in the PL affects the results. While the
production of the intermediate group clearly paralleled the choices of weaker learners
in T1, overuse rates in [+/-Sp] contexts were almost identical in T2. In T3 however,
the responses of group 2 participants were more in line with the advanced group in
associating definiteness more with specificity. Therefore, it would be safe to propose
that G2’s performance on specificity is weakest in the most communicative task and
strongest in the most controlled, form-focused test.
5.3.1.3 G3
The advanced group performance also showed a similar pattern to that of G2 across
tasks in overusing the definite article more frequently in non-specific than specific
contexts. The oversupply of the definite article in [–Sp] contexts was more evident in
T1, while the two controlled tasks yielded a reduced rate of overuse in indefinite [–Sp]
contexts and an increased tendency to associate the definite article, rightly or wrongly,
248
with specific referents. This pattern goes to prove that the TL terms of specificity were
possibly drawn from learners’ conscious knowledge about the L2 rather than their
automated ability to supply the article. Nonetheless, advanced learners made fewer
overuse errors than the two lower groups (see 4. 4. 2. 1), and did not associate
definiteness with non-specificity as often as the weaker learners did. This confirms
Huebner’s (1983) proposal that dropping the definite article from non-referential
contexts is not mastered until later stages (Tarone and Parrish 1988, Ekiert 2004).
Rather, G3 participants’ overuse rates of the definite article in [–def +Sp] NP
environments in T1 almost matched those in [–def] [–Sp] contexts. Thus, G3
participants were ahead of the intermediate group in their implicit ability to
appropriately associate the definite article with specificity.
In T2 most overuse instances that this group made were in specific contexts,
but in the GJT, specific overuse was significantly higher than generic overuse. In
short, G3 started with a slight prevalence of the generic the in T1 and moved towards
specificity in T2 but with higher focus on explicit knowledge in T3. In short this
group exhibited a better understanding of the relation between specificity and
definiteness in English. Therefore, it seems that the more controlled the task is, the
more specific the references become. Although what is being compared is two
contexts of the same error, relating definiteness to specificity can be regarded as a step
towards the TL.
Although the difference between overuse of the in specific and non-specific
contexts in T1 was not statistically significant, the fact that the rates were higher in [–
Sp] environments constitutes a crucial argument against the FH (see section 2.5.1).
SLA research has shown that the overuse of the definite article in [–def] [–Sp]
249
contexts occurs indiscriminately at the flooding stage which takes place at earlier IL
levels (Huebner 1983, Master 1987). Conversely, overuse in these contexts persisted
in the production of L1Ar to higher PLs when this stage was supposed to have been
passed. However, fluctuation between definiteness and specificity for learners from –
ART L1s is challenged by other researchers. According to Kaku (2006) advanced
Japanese learners were not sensitive to reference because specificity was not
associated with the definite article. It is not clear whether Kaku’s finding is based on
lack of understanding of specificity and definiteness or perhaps on the extended
influence of the L1 into advanced IL stages.
Since the function of the Arabic definite article (al) is to generalise as well as
to specify (Kremers 2003), an alternative reading of L1 influence presents itself as an
explanation to G3’s performance in the writing task, which better reflects learners’
implied understanding of the definite form. The argument that the L1 has a stronger
role in causing this error, namely the overuse of the definite article in [–Sp] contexts,
is supported by findings from other studies on L1Ar learners such as those by Maalej
(2004), Hamdallah (1988) and Kharma and Hajjaj (1989).
5.3.1.4 Conclusion to Specificity
The results of this study indicate that an overwhelming majority of participants
employed the indefinite article only referentially, while most overuse instances of the
definite article were in non-specific (indefinite) contexts. Therefore it seems that
participants have employed articles in a manner that corresponds to the settings of
specificity-definiteness in Arabic whereby referential meaning is largely indefinite
250
while generic reference is entirely definite (Maalej 2004, Kremers 2003). In other
words, indefinite NPs are mostly specific but definite descriptions can carry both
specific and non-specific readings.
As the definite article does not appear to be often overused in (indefinite)
specific contexts by weaker and intermediate learners, and its overuse in [–def +Sp]
contexts is limited to form-focused tests, it is possible to corroborate the proposal
forwarded by Hawkins et. al. (2005) on the existence of a dual ACP41 whereby
learners from +ART L1s do not fluctuate between specificity and definiteness (see
section 2.5.1). However, this does not by any means prove that L1Ar learners
hypothesise that definiteness, per se, is non-specific. Rather, we propose that the
misuse of the definite article in non-referential contexts by Arab learners is caused by
L1 processing constraints (Zobl and Liceras 1994) whereby the grammaticalised form
of definiteness is employed in non-referential meanings as well as referential. The
generic definite article in Arabic functions as a meaningless filler (Lyons 1999:290)
and thus, similar to Tsimpli’s (2003) description of the generic definite article in
Greek, it lacks the semantic value while possessing a purely grammatical function.
Hence, it is possible to confirm the existence of a fluctuation phase in learner
hypothesis between the notion of specificity and definiteness marking but with
outcomes reversed to those originally proposed by IKW (2003, 2004).
Developmentally, results indicate that learners start with the assumption that
most generic references, not necessarily ‘uniquely identifiable’, are marked with the
definite article. This is probably due to the attributive function of the definite article in
Arabic. The overuse starts to decrease with improved PL as learners begin to doubt
41
Article Choice Parameter (IKW 2004). See Literature Review.
251
their former suppositions and drop the definite marking from NPs that bear a –
Specific value. The development is a possible indicator of the gradual abandonment of
the hypothesis that associates article use with specificity. In other words, the
definiteness-specificity map suggests that learners start with a stronger association
between non-specificity and definiteness, which is later weakened by better overall L2
abilities. The shift in preferences is evident in G3’s higher overuse of the in
[+SP](indefinite) contexts. It signals the constant change in learners’ understanding of
the meaning and use of the definite article and that their hypotheses are under
continual revision. Although the form of the definite article is acquired at early PLs, it
takes learners time to realise the subtle differences between its function in the L1 and
the target language (cf. Ellis 1985).
It is possible that L1Ar learners are experiencing a Salish stage42 of language
acquisition (Mathewson and Schaeffer 2000) during which the definite article is used
without its presuppositional value i.e. without the familiarity/common ground
condition (Heim 1982). The progress towards associating the definite article more
with specificity and less with genericity is attained at higher PL and visibly more
evident in controlled tasks. This could be interpreted in terms of increased sensitivity
to the uniqueness element in the meaning of the English definite article which restricts
its referential domain to identifiability of a particular person/thing/situation etc.
(Hawkins 1987, Lyons 1999).
Other studies on L1 Arabic confirm that there is higher overuse of the definite
article in non-specific contexts (Kharma and Hajjaj 1989). A comprehensive study
42
Mathewson and Schaeffer (2000, 2005) propose that language learners go through a Salish stage
during which their determiner system parallels that of Salish languages (e.g. the language spoken in
British Columbia) where no determiners are required to represent the familiarity component of
definiteness, while the ±Sp distinction is formally represented.
252
carried out by Maalej (2004) on the use of determiners in Tunisian students’ L2
compositionssuggests that what impedes progress most is the use of the with indefinite
plurals; which confirms a distinct association between non-specificity and
definiteness. Batainah (2005) also found that Jordanian learners of English never used
the indefinite article non-referentially. However, not all researchers agree that L1Ar
learners overuse the definite article more frequently in non-referential contexts. By
comparing the performance of two sets of learners; L1 French and L1 Arabic, Sarko
(2008) found that Arab learners selected the in [–def +Sp] NP environments more
frequently than in [–def –Sp]. These results differ from the results found in T1 where
non-referential overuse of the definite article exceeded the error rates in [–def +Sp]
contexts. We propose several factors that might have contributed to the discrepancy
between our results and Sarko’s. Firstly and most importantly, the method of data
collection that Sarko employed was a forced-choice elicitation task while most
instances of non-referential overuse in this study are recorded in the free production
test. However, Sarko’s findings correspond more closely with the results emerging
from our cloze and GJ tests. Secondly, there is the range of the participants’ PL. The
weakest group in Sarko’s study was of a lower intermediate level, while our weakest
group included participants who tested ‘elementary’ by the OPT bands. This affects
the results since the higher the PL, the more specific the choices were. It is worth
mentioning that the Oxford Placement Test was used to determine proficiency levels
in both studies. Finally, the presence of directions in Sarko’s study primed participants
to insert the articles (a, an, the, Ø) in the gaps, while our participants were unaware of
the exact purpose of taking T1. These reasons may fully account for the difference in
the results and the more target-like performance of the Syrian participants. Therefore,
in order to compare our results with other studies, it is essential that the variables of
253
method, task focus and selected sample of participants be taken into consideration to
ensure reliability and validity of the samples before drawing on similarities and/or
differences (Skehan 1989).
As a confirmatory measure of substantiating the validity of our findings, the
FH was tested on the indefinite article as well as the definite to determine whether
learners assumed that it was associated with non-specificity or not. We found that the
generic use of the indefinite article was almost non-existent in the written production
task and extremely limited to just a few instances in the cloze tests. Rather, the
majority of our participants, especially weaker learners, opted for the definite singular
form as a favoured option to deliver generic meanings. Contrary to the FH, the use of
the indefinite article by most learners of variable PLs was mainly in [–def +Sp]
contexts.
This further confirms that the settings of the ACP as proposed by IKW are
reversed for L1Ar learners, as it is indefiniteness, rather than definiteness, which is
more associated with specificity in learners’ hypothesis on specificity.
Non-specific use of the indefinite article in general has been reported as one of
the common errors in SLA studies on –ART L1s (Cziko 1986 (cited in Habuto 2000),
Bickerton 1981, IKW 2003/4). However, Trenkic´ (2000, 2002) posits that L1 Serbian
learners of English consistently attributed referential meanings to the indefinite article.
Our results in this regard are in line with Trenkic´’s as they reveal only few
occurrences where the generic function was expressed by the indefinite article.
Moreover, these instances were limited solely to responses from G1 in the controlled
tasks. We believe that these responses were incidental because none of the participants
produced such expressions in the free writing task. Therefore, there is not enough
254
evidence to substantiate the claim that non-specificity is associated with indefiniteness
in learners’ hypothesis, apart from the very few task-induced occurrences where the
indefinite article is used non-referentially. Rather, the fact that the vast majority of
indefinite article use was noticed in specific referencing refutes the FH as originally
advocated by IKW (2003).
More recently, some SLA studies compared between two groups of learners
from ±ART L1s. Hawkins et al. (2005) and Snape et al (2006) found that learners
whose L1s lacked articles showed patterns of fluctuation but the groups from +ART
L1s correctly associated definiteness, rather than specificity, with article use. In a
study on Mexican and Russian learners of English Ionin et al. (2008) found that L1
Russian learners fluctuated between the concepts of specificity and definiteness
whereas the Spanish (+ART) L1 learners did not.
The argument for L1 influence fails if the scarcity of non-specific occurrences
of a(n) in T1 is taken into consideration. Attributive employment of the indefinite
article was exclusively limited to T2 and T3, while none of the participants,
volunteered to use singular indefinite constructions non-referentially in their free
composition. Furthermore, it is the singular form, rather than indefiniteness, that is
often used to deliver generic meaning in Arabic (see Section 2.3.3).
The generic use of the singular indefinite is an example of an error that is not
caused by negative transfer. Such errors exist in IL (Richards 1971, Nemser 1971,
Gass and Selinker 2001) and are considered part of the L2 acquisition process. The
supply of the indefinite article in [–Sp] environments is neither L1 induced as there is
no explicit indefinite marker in Arabic, nor is it common practice in English to refer
generically by means of the indefinite article, except in certain language communities
255
(cf. Maurcia and Freeman 1999, Abbott 2001, Hong and Seonkyung 2001). Thus, a
more probable explanation for this use is that erroneous L2 production which cannot
be justifiably traced to the learners’ L1 or the TL reflects arbitrary attempts frequently
observed during the developmental stages of interlanguage (Richards 1971, Selinker
1972, Gass 1996, Odlin 2003).
As participants from all PL groups systematically used the indefinite article in
specific contexts in T1 and T2, the exceptional preference to use the indefinite article
to deliver generic meaning in T3 was logically and primarily a result of task variation
in both focus and form/design. The direct prompts in the cloze test and the underlining
of NPs in T3 alerted students to the importance of supplying articles. However, while
the blanks in T2 caused random oversupply (see 5.2.1.2) the underlined NPs in T3
yielded maximum attention to form. Furthermore, its de-contextualised design
increased the focus on accuracy rather than meaning and the reliance on explicit
knowledge where the indefinite article is more operative in the L2.
5.3.2 Premodification
When L1Ar learners fail to provide the indefinite article before singular unidentified
NP contexts, they might be assuming that the absence of the definite article indirectly
signals that the NP bears a [–def] semantic value (see section 5.1.2.1). This was
evident through the higher omission errors of the indefinite article across tasks.
However, when adjectival premodification, or the lack of it, affects omission patterns,
the question of word-order effect arises as it might be the cause underlying the
variability in learner performance (cf. Odlin 1989). We assume that the difference in
the syntactic position of adjectival modification in the two languages presents learners
256
with an additional constraint to accommodate L2 syntactic structures. Various
researchers have proposed that the L1 structure can be transferred to L2 production
(Odlin 1989, Brown 1991, Parodi et al. 1997). SLA studies have also found that the
syntactic properties of the L1 affect the use of articles in the L2 production, (Young
1996, Jarvis 2002, Prévost and White 2003, Trenkic´ 2008).
In investigating L1Ar learners’ hypothesis regarding the use of the indefinite
article in premodified constructions, there are three aspects of the L1/L2 contrast
which need to be taken into account: the absence of an explicit indefiniteness marker;
the fact that adjectives agree with nouns in number and (in)definiteness, and finally
that the syntactic position of adjectival modifiers is post nominal in Arabic. In this
section, we will review how learners of different proficiency levels responded to
modification across the three tasks.
5.3.2.1 G1
Unlike studies on –ART languages (Trenkic´ 2008, Jarvis 2002, Young 1996) which
reported greater difficulty in supplying articles before premodified nouns, the results
of this study confirm that L1Ar learners, especially at lower PLs, had more difficulty
in providing a(n) when the head noun was not premodified than when it was in
premodified environments.
The higher overuse of the indefinite article with adjectivally premodified
nouns in all tasks and by all groups invalidates the proposition that articles and
adjectives compete for the determiner position (Trenkic 2007). Furthermore, it is not
possible that even the lower PL learners assume that the adjective has occupied the
syntactic position of the determiner, since adjectives post-modify nouns in Arabic and
257
the definite article is already present and grammatically realised in Arabic as a
prefixed clitic to adjectives as well as nouns. Hence, there were few occurrences in
learners’ free composition where the indefinite article was graphically part of the
adjective as shown in the following example.
1. *Al-Ain is anice town
This is an obvious case of prosodic transfer of the L1 syntax whereby the newly
acquired article is prosodified as a prefixed clitic in the same manner that its
counterpart is presented in Arabic.43 Similar examples have been observed by EFL
teachers of introductory writing courses in the UAE University. This error has also
been reported by other researchers as one of the most common errors in L1Ar
learners’ written production (see also Batainah 2005).
G1 omitted the indefinite article more frequently in non-premodified nouns
across tasks and uniformly overused it in premodified constructions with no distinct
variation caused by task type. Similar findings were reported in studies on L1Ar
learners such as Hamdallah (1988) and Maalej (2004). However, the effect of task
type was noticed in the higher occurrences of omission errors in T1 and the lowest
being observed in T2, which is line with our overall findings of task effects (see
5.2.1).
Finally, a few instances were recorded whereby weaker participants used the
indefinite article with adjectives without a noun in the free production test. This
phenomenon was also noticed by Batainah (2005) as Jordanian learners also used the
indefinite article with adjectives without a noun. Hence, based on this distinct error
43
Selkirk (1996) forwards that functional material can be prosodified in the form of affixal clitics (such
as the case in Arabic) or free clitics (English).
258
pattern, it is possible to propose that the indefinite article is possibly associated with
the adjective rather than the noun in Arab learners’ IL hypothesis. This supports
Hawkins and Chan’s (1997) theory of failed functional features hypothesis (FFFH) as
they proposed that the difference in L1/L2 syntax constrains the representation of the
indefinite article in L2 production.
5.3.2.2 G2
With regards to premodification, the intermediate group was the only group whose
omission patterns were sensitive to task type while the weaker and the more advanced
groups were unanimous in their choices and preferences.
In G2’s free composition, the indefinite article was better supplied with bare
nouns and omitted more often before adjectives. Therefore, G2’s choices were closer
to those of the advanced group. On the other hand, in T2 and T3, the indefinite article
was frequently omitted before bare nouns while better supply was recorded in
premodified constructions, a performance which renders the responses of G2 to be
more in line with those of the weaker group. This is another instance whereby G2
results approximated those of G1 in the free production task (see section 4.4.4.2). This
distinct error pattern is incongruous with the usual patterns observed in G2’s
production in the controlled tests where the results of the intermediate group was more
compatible with the performance of the advanced (G3). On a closer look, this
behaviour would not seem unusual since learners’ ability to use the articles in
premodified contexts in English is mostly derived from their conscious knowledge
about the L2 which form-focused tasks examine. This ability exceeds their skill to use
articles properly in communicative tasks in which they rely more on the subconscious
knowledge from the first language to express meaning. In other words, as the cloze
259
and GJ tests examined learners’ explicit knowledge, it is more likely that learners
would be more aware of the L2 grammatical rule which relates the function of the
article with the head noun, rather than the adjective that it precedes. The blanks could
have alerted learners to the necessity of supplying the indefinite article by encouraging
them to actively seek for the singular noun that follows the adjective in the NP before
supplying the required article. Similarly, in T3 the focus being limited to the sentential
scope and the inclusion of the head noun in the underlined part of the sentence could
have contributed to better recognition of the relevance between article and noun,
without being misled by the adjective that separates the two.
More probably, the basis for the incompatibility of the error pattern recorded
in this respect with other observations noted in the responses of learners to the three
tasks is that what is being considered here is not a comparison of accuracy or error
rates across tasks, but rather a comparison of learners’ reaction to two different NP
environments in which the same error could possibly occur.
However, in all the tasks there was little difference between error rates in
premodified and non-premodified contexts. This is perhaps because uncertainty and
indecisiveness are typically characteristic of the intermediate stages of language
learning. Nevertheless, the tendency to appropriately employ the indefinite article in
modified contexts was more apparent in the form-focused tests. These results are
incompatible with Trenkic´’s (2000, 2008) study in which Serbian speakers of all PLs
were statistically more likely to omit articles before nouns modified by adjectives than
with non-modified nouns (pp. 232. emphasis added) .
The map of overuse in premodified contexts entails an association between
article and adjective. However, this was limited to the indefinite article, while the
260
Missing Surface Inflectional Hypothesis (Prévost and White 2000) cannot account for
L1Ar learners’ errors with regards to the definite article.
5.3.2.3 G3
The advanced group’s performance with regards to modification was unanimous
across tasks. Participants from G3 supplied the indefinite article significantly better in
non-premodified contexts while higher omission rates were recorded before pre-
modified nouns. These choices mark a total shift from the model in the results by the
weak group. It means that with better L2 proficiency, learners’ conceptualisation of
cardinality/individuation on the one hand and the English sentence structure on the
other has possibly led to a disassociation of the adjective from the indefinite marker in
learners’ IL hypothesis. Thus, this group’s behaviour is more in line with findings of
other SLA studies.
Although the advanced group’s performance was consistent in all three tasks,
the participants supplied the indefinite article better in T2 than in the other two tests,
while their weakest performance was in T1. These results are consistent with the
overall omission patterns according to task type (see 5.2.1.1) as T1 revealed the
highest omission rates while the lowest were in T2.
According to Trenkic´ (2000, 2008), higher omission occurs in adjectivally
premodified constructions because the determiner position is occupied by the
adjective which renders the article supply unnecessary. In other words, omission
occurs because adjectives and articles are competing for the same modifier position in
learners’ IL grammars. This explanation, however, does not apply to L1Ar learners’
hypothesis as the syntactic position of a determiner is already established in their
261
subconscious through the existence of a definite form in Arabic. Goad and White
(2004) maintain that the failure to supply the indefinite article in premodified contexts
is a result of adjectives acting as distracters from the head noun. The latter explanation
is more plausible with respect to Arab learners because of the postmodifying position
of adjectives in Arabic syntax, and could therefore stand as a valid rationale to the
existing difficulty.
The apparent similitude of this study with findings from other studies that
address the effect of premodification on L2 article production (e.g. Parodi et al. 1997,
Trenkic´ 2000, Prévost and White 2000, Sharma 2005, Pongpairoj, 2007,) is put into
question once the PL is taken into consideration. In the aforementioned studies, this
inclination was noticed at lower PLs while in this study, it was the advanced learners
who supplied the indefinite article better when the head noun was – Premd and
omitted it more when the head nouns were adjectivally premodified. Hence, although
the error pattern is similar, the development of learners’ hypothesis is inconsistent.
Through the progression observed in the error patterns of the three PL groups,
it is more plausible that the cause of frequent omission of a(n) in modified
constructions by G3 is a form of hyper-correction rather than a competition between
article and adjective for the determiner position. Once learners begin to internalise the
grammatical rule that relates the indefinite article to the noun rather than the adjective,
the supply in obligatory contexts improves. However, at later IL levels, the newly
acquired rule becomes overgeneralised to the extent that makes learners supply the
article appropriately before indefinite singular nouns but refrain from doing the same
when they are presented with adjectives. Although both responses, regardless of
premodification, are errors of omission, we assume that the shift to omission in
262
premodified constructions signals a more advanced learning stage of internal
processing of L2 rules.
SLA research has confirmed that switch of error types is a significant marker
of L2 progress as learners are not known to attain TL levels before going through
various stages of different types of errors (Corder 1967, 1981, Selinker 1972, Ellis
1985, Prévost and White 2000, Towell and Hawkins 1994). Therefore, when omission
instances occur more often before bare nouns, this suggests an association of the
indefinite marker exclusively with the adjective, whereas omitting the indefinite
article in [+Premod] environments indicates a more target-like assumption based on
the realisation that the indefinite article modifies nouns, not adjectives.
5.3.2.4 Conclusion to Premodificiation
Our findings corroborate the PTH44 proposed by Goad and White (2004) whereby
learners’ appropriate use of articles in premodified constructions is influenced by
constraints on prosodic structures carried over from the L1. In Arabic, the constraints
are represented by the absence of an overt indefiniteness marker and the post-nominal
position of adjectival modification that contribute to the low suppliance of functional
morphology (ibid) in L2 production. A combination of the aforementioned factors has
restricted the weaker learners from supplying the indefinite article before singular
indefinite nouns.
The structural proximity between determiner and head noun as well as the
post-modifying position of adjectives in Arabic makes adjectivally premodified
structures in English more challenging especially to weaker L1Ar learners. G1 tended
44
Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis
263
to supply the indefinite article better in adjectivally pre-modified constructions as
premodified singular constructions (a(n) + Adj + N) are likely to have been learned as
chunks in elementary stages, while non-modified head nouns are left unmarked,
ensuing a higher omission rate.
In a study on Swedish learners of French, Granfeldt (2000) found that the
presence of an adjective did not affect determiner production negatively. Actually,
higher omissions of determiners (13.5%) were recorded in non-modified constructions
while only (2.8%) of determiners were omitted in adjectivally premodified contexts.
The lack of structural similarity between the L1 and L2 in presence/absence of
explicit marking of singular indefinite NPs on the one hand and the licensing of
grammatical definiteness of adjectives in [the + adj + the + noun] constructions in
Arabic on the other, might have led L1Ar learners to the misconception that the
indefinite article can be attributed to the adjective in the same way as the definite
article is affixed to the adjective in the L1. The fact that adjectives are grammatically
definite in Arabic could have led learners to assume that it is the adjective, rather than
the noun, which the articles modify (Hamdallah 1988). The free composition test
exhibits multiple examples of how learners have graphically attached the indefinite
article to the adjective which corresponds to the affixal definite marking of adjectives
in the L1. Batainah (2005) concedes that one of the trends she recorded in the
production of Jordanian learners of English was ‘writing the indefinite article as part
of the noun following it’ (P.65).
An opposite pattern was observed in the performance of the two upper groups
who produced a(n) better with non-modified head nouns. This marks a shift in
learners’ conceptualisation of L2 structure. With more input and instruction, more
264
advanced learners’ awareness of the necessity to supply the indefinite article before
singular indefinite nouns increased. It is a step farther from the effects of L1 and more
in line with IL tendencies observed in other studies. The higher omissions in
premodified contexts are in line with findings from other studies including those on –
ART L1s. This error is explained by researchers as a structural representation deficit
where adjectives can become distracters, replacing the determiner position in learners’
cognition, misleading them away from the necessity of obligatory suppliance in that
particular structure.
It is not only the omission errors that suggest an association between the
indefinite article and the adjective in learners’ hypothesis, but the hypothesis is further
consolidated by the statistical records of overuse errors. The indefinite article was
consistently overused by all learners across tasks more frequently in premodified
environments. These tendencies were more evident in the communicative test and in
the production of the weaker group when a stronger L1 influence is operative (Jarvis
2000, Haznedar 2001, Siegel 2003, Odlin 1989, 2003). On the other hand, the
performance of the intermediate and advanced level groups was not quite as
discriminate. Parallel to the decreasing rates of omission errors before bare nouns, G2
and G3 learners overused the indefinite article less frequently in premodified contexts.
In their composition, better learners became more reluctant to overuse the indefinite
article with premodified nouns, but due to their improved ‘analysed’ knowledge about
language, even fewer overuse errors were observed in the cloze and GJ tests. This
means that as PLs improve, learners begin to disassociate the indefinite article from
the adjective.
265
In general, the L2 acquisition process of the indefinite article observed in this
study (see section 4.4.1.2) suggest that there was a gradual and systematic
improvement from failure to supply to a stage of a better supply and finally a tendency
to overuse. However, where premodification is concerned, this tendency is reversed;
i.e., learners start with a better supply of the indefinite article when a noun is
adjectivally premodified and shift gradually, as their PLs improve, to omitting the
indefinite article more often in such constructions. This shift in learner performance
signals a newer stage in learner hypothesis regarding the structure of L2 in which
learners begin to dissociate the article from the adjective and increasingly link it to the
head noun itself.
Variability in L2 article use is proposed to be caused by the syntactic structure
of English where adjectives are placed between the determiner and the head noun, a
position that can be misrepresented, according to Trenkic´ 2007, for the determiner
itself leading to omissions in premodified constructions. SD, the Turkish learner of
English, in White’s (2003) study was reported to have omitted the indefinite article
significantly more frequently in premodified constructions (70%).45 However, what is
happening with the L1Ar learners is quite the contrary, whereby higher overuse of
both articles is observed at lower PLs while more omissions are evident as learners’
L2 improves.
Adjectival premodification exerts a negative influence on the production of
articles caused by the difference in syntactic representations in the L1 and the TL.
Learners seem to apply L1 syntax to L2 lexical items (Hawkins and Chan 1997).
Therefore, a dissimilar error pattern emerges from the one reported by studies on
45
. Turkish has the same prosodic structure of Arabic regarding the position of articles as affixal clitics.
266
learners from –ART languages. The variation is noticeable in two main trends. Firstly,
L1Ar learners overused, rather than omitted the indefinite article in premodified
contexts. Secondly, L1Ar learners failed to supply the indefinite article only, rather
than both articles in non-premodified constructions. Therefore, contrary to Trenkic´’s
(2007) explanation, we propose that in weaker L1Ar learners’ hypothesis, the errors
are caused by the association of the indefinite article with the adjective, and not
because the article and the adjective are competing for the determiner position.
5.3.3 Concreteness
Similarities and/or differences in lexical connotations of nouns between the L1 and the
L2 have been reported to affect L2 production (Trenkic´ 2000, Kuribara 2003). Some
went as far as to propose that it is the lexical -rather than functional- categories that
are solely transferable from the L1 to the L2 grammars (Vainikka and Young-
Scholten1994, 1996). Since no significant differences were found in the outcomes of
the three PL groups, the discussion of the results will be confined to the variation
found across tasks.
Previous studies on SLA articles provide evidence for the existence of a
misconception in L2 learners’ IL grammars in which the ontological status of an NP
affects the choice of articles. Articles have been reported to be used in a more native-
like manner in concrete environments before being mastered in abstract contexts (Hua
and Lee 2005, Richards 1976). Trenkic´ (2000) reported overuse instances of the
definite article occurring more frequently with concrete nouns, because, according to
Trenkic´, Serbian learners perceived the definite article as discrete and concrete
267
(ibid:293). On the other hand, in research on a newspaper corpus published in English
but written by L1 Japanese journalists, Nagata et al. (2005) found that many abstract
nouns were needlessly preceded by the definite article.
There are variable accounts of the extent of L1 influence on L2 article
production. Supporters of the non-contrastive approach to error analysis propose that
learners from different L1 backgrounds experience similar difficulties in SLA
(Richards 1971, Nemser 1971) and that the effect of the L1 does not account for more
than a third of learners’ errors (Abi Samra 2003). Proponents of this approach in SLA
have observed similarities in the performance of learners from various L1
backgrounds. Paradis and Zdoenko (2008) did a study on learners from ±art L1s and
found that L1 influence was limited in the sense that learners from both –ART and
+ART L1 backgrounds committed the same errors. On the other hand, many
researchers have acknowledged the effect of the first language on learners’
performance.
However, studies on L1Ar learners’ contradict findings of most studies on –
ART L1 learners. Higher overuse rates of the definite article were found in abstract,
rather than concrete contexts. Researchers such as Maalej (2004) and Diab (1996)
have reported a faulty association in learner hypothesis between definiteness and
abstractness. Abstract nouns seem to have attracted higher overuse rates of both
articles. Maalej for example, maintains that the use of the with abstract nouns is one of
the major impediments to L2 progress.
Our results, in line with findings from studies on L1Ar learners, show a
stronger tendency for marking abstract nouns more often with articles than concrete
ones. The tendency to overuse articles in abstract contexts was evident in the
268
production of participants of different PL groups and in all three tasks. The uniformity
of the responses and the similarity with findings from studies on L1Ar learners leads
us to advance a proposal that the misassociation between the ontological status of the
NP and its definiteness is a result of negative transfer from the L1. Similar to reports
by Diab (1996) on Lebanese students and Maalej (2004) on Tunisian students, in this
study, the influence of the grammatical definiteness of abstract nouns in Arabic is
reflected in L2 article production.
Despite the unified response to mark abstract rather than concrete nouns with
articles by all PLs, task type appears to have affected learners’ choices of articles. A
comparison of the overuse patterns of each article reveals that in T1, learners of all
PLs overused the definite article significantly more frequently than the indefinite to
mark abstract contexts. T2 results exhibited similar outcomes with the exception of
results from the weaker group which indicated slightly higher overuse rates of a. In T3
however, this preference was reversed. There was a shift towards marking abstract
nouns significantly more frequently with the indefinite rather than the definite article.
The switch from one extreme to the other can only be explained in terms of task type
and task focus since there was no discernible variance in the reaction of participants of
different PLs.
In T1, learners produced almost twice as many concrete as abstract nouns. This
could be the outcome of the prompts to describe hometowns which entails writing
about places, tourist attractions and people. All of these ‘things’ or first order entities
(Lyons 1999) tend to be concrete (ibid). More importantly, learners have shown a
strong preference to construe abstract notions as grammatically definite in T1 ensuing
higher overuse of the definite article. This confirms earlier proposals that unprompted
269
free production tests make L2 learners rely mostly on hypotheses subconsciously
influenced by their L1 –in which case all abstract notions are grammatically definite–
to communicate meaning.
On the other hand, the indefinite article was the more favourable option in
marking abstract contexts in T3. This choice is in line with learners’ general
performance in T3 where higher awareness, recognition and acceptability of the
indefinite article were noticed. Therefore, despite the prominent preference to mark
abstract rather than concrete nouns with articles, it is obvious that L2 article choice
was strongly affected by the shift in the focus of each task.
The odd phenomenon of G1 in T2 can be ascribed to the focus on conscious
knowledge in which the indefinite article is known to be better employed. In addition,
the design of the task with gaps seemed to have encouraged arbitrary overuse of either
article. Both of these factors had a stronger affect on weaker learners (see 5.2.1). It
would also be possible to adopt Trenkic´’s interpretation of this exceptional outcome
especially if we accept that Arabic could be categorised as a –ART language with
regards to overt indefinite marking. However, since similar behaviour was not
observed in the free production of G1, this interpretation cannot account for the close
overuse rates of the two articles in T2.
Judging by the results from T1 and T2, Trenkic´’s proposal of association
between the definite article and discreteness/concreteness in learners IL cannot be
plausibly accommodated; neither could findings from studies on Russian and Chinese
learners whereby article use was deemed more felicitous in concrete environments (cf.
Richards 1976, Hua and Lee 2005). Rather, learners have more probably resorted to
270
grammatical representations of ontological notions from their L1 and mapped them
onto the L2 syntax.
Similar to previous findings, the development in learner-hypothesis with
regards to the effect of the ontological environment on article use can certainly be
followed through the effect of task types –rather than PLs- on article choice. The three
tasks ranged in the type of knowledge they examined from the implicit (in T1) to the
most explicit (T3); in the degree of control from the minimum (where no directions to
article use were made in the free composition task) to the maximum control in T3
where learners were only allowed to judge statements without any contribution to the
test and finally, in terms of focus, as tasks ranged from the highest attention to
communicating meaning (T1) to the form-driven, underlined NPs in T3 (see 3.3)
Learners’ responses followed these criteria as they have all marked abstract nouns
with the definite article in T1; with both articles in T2 but comprehensively preferred
the indefinite article in T3.
Although what is being analysed in the data is the same type of error, namely
overuse, the shift from choosing the in T1 towards a(n) in T3 can be construed as
some form of progress. In other words, the early meanings of (in)definiteness linked
with the L1 norms of presenting abstract notions were most evident in T1. Learners
gradually moved towards more declarative use in T2 whereby the interpretation of the
definite form is gradually divorced from its L1 representation in abstract
environments. The performance in the last test the participants took (T3) reflects
higher awareness of the grammatical rules governing article use regardless of the
ontological category the NPs belong to. The responses also incorporate a widely
adopted L2 developmental strategy of over-applying a newly acquired feature, namely
271
the indefinite article. Therefore, it seems that more control and higher focus on form
and accuracy help trigger a disassociation process in L1Ar learners’ hypotheses.
5.3.3.4 Conclusion to Concreteness
In learner hypothesis, the ontological category of the NP affects article choice; yet the
association was consistently directed towards abstract rather than concrete contexts.
Learners from all PLs produced almost identical responses, whereby abstract, rather
than concrete contexts were more readily marked with articles. The significant
differences between overuse rates in abstract and concrete contexts demonstrate that
learners from all PL groups associated definiteness more readily with abstract, rather
than concrete notions.
To verify our findings, we investigated the omission rates of the indefinite
article in +/–Concrete NP environments and found that they were remarkably close.
This result confirms the supposition that abstractness is more associated with
definiteness, rather than indefiniteness in learners’ hypothesis.
Definiteness is therefore not associated with concreteness in L1Ar learners’
assumptions; neither is indefiniteness associated with abstractness. Instead, we may
propose that it is the vacuous the (Lyons 1999) that is over applied onto abstract
domains by L1Ar learners due to constraints from the first language most evident in
communicative production.
272
Chapter Six: Conclusion
In this study, we found that L1Ar learners acquire and master the definite article well
before the indefinite. The most difficult aspect of article use to master was the zero
article. Based on our findings, the acquisition order for Arab learners is therefore the
a(n) Ø, which echoes findings from SLA studies on Arab as well as other
learners from various L1 backgrounds.
Larger discrepancy in accuracy rates between a(n) and the was noticeable at
lower proficiency levels. This lends support to the claim that syntactic features
unavailable in learners’ L1 do not emerge until later in SLA, since Arabic is a
language that has an overt definite article but lacks overt marking of indefiniteness.
The acquisition patterns of the two articles were found to be divergent, almost
contrastively so. As the definite article was initially flooded (overused in indefinite
contexts), hyper-correction in later stages led to more omissions in obligatory
contexts. On the other hand the indefinite article failed to be supplied where necessary
by weaker learners, but ended with being overused by G3. Although primarily
attributable to the different functions of articles, dissimilar properties of
morphological representation in L1/L2 NPs could have also had a bearing on delaying
the mastery of the indefinite article. It is also possible that the progression of the
indefinite article in L2 follows the developmental map of the definite article but with
deferred attainment. The process of acquisition could be therefore summarised into
these consecutive stages:
Omission Emergence Overuse Mastery
273
The results were significantly affected by task-type variation. Communication
oriented free production (T1) yielded lower overuse rates of both articles, but higher
omission rates than those found in the cloze and GJ tests. Unprompted, learners
appear to think that failing to supply articles does not hinder communication, or is at
least preferable to the use of a structure which they consider difficult. On the other
hand, higher accuracy rates were observed in T2 and T3. It leads us to believe that
learners’ awareness of L2 rules, formally taught and learnt, is better than their
competence abilities in communicative settings. The influence of learners’ L1 was
more easily noticeable in the free production task.
The design in T2 seems to have enticed learners to randomly oversupply
articles in blanks which led to higher overuse errors and lower omission rates than
recorded in the other two tests. Generally, the accuracy rates in the stories test were
higher than those in T1 as the focus shifted more towards explicit knowledge of L2.
With focus channelled maximally towards grammatically correct performance,
T3 yielded higher accuracy and significantly sharper differences among PL groups.
However, the better achievement observed in the GJT must be carefully interpreted
because, with content limited to the sentential level, the results do not practically
reflect learners’ communicative abilities.
With regards to learner hypotheses, the outcomes of this study suggest that
there is a relation between article choice and specificity. Learners associated the
definite article more often with non-specificity while the deployment of the indefinite
article remained predominantly referential across PLs and tasks.
274
Unlike findings in other studies, premodified nouns accrued higher overuse
errors of both articles especially at lower PLs, while higher omission rates were found
in non-premodified NPs in learners’ free writing. Similarly, the ontological status of
the head noun affected L2 choice of articles. Yet unlike Serbian learners of English
(Trenkic´ 2000, 2002) who associated definiteness with concrete substances, L1Ar
learners overused the definite article more often in abstract NP contexts. Similar
preferences were made with regards to the indefinite article.
The effect of Arabic was most perceptible in learner hypotheses underlying L2
article use, since our results were incompatible with those found in similar studies. We
support the claim that errors, especially at lower PLs, are partly driven by negative
transfer from the L1. Yet many developmental tendencies parallel those reported in
research conducted on learners of various L1s such as the over application of TL
goals, hyper-correction of previous mistakes, simplification and omission. In this
sense, we agree with Sharma (2005) that in error analysis, common developmental
strategies, complement, rather than contradict, L1 influence in L2 production. In our
view, both accounts are reliable at different PLs.
Some findings in this study can provide evidence for UG-based theories. The
L1 transfer being more prevalent in the production of weaker learners -while the
production of higher PLs is in line with that of learners from other L1s- lends support
to the Full Access/ Full Transfer Hypothesis proposed by Schwartz & Sprouse (1994,
1996). Similarly, the delayed mastery the indefinite article can be ascribed to the
Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins and Chan 1997) or the
Representation Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins 2004) since both theories claim that the
representation of an L2 feature which is absent from the L1 constrains second
language acquisition.
275
However, usage-based theories can better account for the available results
since they admit a hierarchy of learnability (Johnson and Newport 1991) in which the
sequence of acquisition is controlled by the lexical-grammatical complexity of the
target component in addition to other elements including learners’ cognitive
development as well as the frequency of input (Ellis 2002). The Processability
hypothesis (Levelt 1989, Pienemann and Håkansson 1999), for example, can justify
the earlier mastery of the definite article as the representation of the concept of
definiteness in the form of the requires less processing effort than that required for
a(n) because the latter lacks the one-to-one relationship between form and meaning
while the notions of countability and number are decisively involved.
SLA studies should consider the integration of a wider range of variants that
affect the L2 process as there is no single interpretation that can account for all the
complexities of language acquisition.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that despite variability observed in L2
production, we believe that the errors participants made were principled rather than
random. The shifts in error types and patterns, as learners’ L2 improved, may be
indicative of progress in IL. Generally, with higher PLs, fewer errors were made and
production became more target-like.
276
References
Abbott, B. (2001): Definiteness and indefiniteness. In L.R. Horn and Greory G. Ward
(eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Abbott, B., (2000). Definiteness and identification in English. In Németh T. Enikö, (ed.)
Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics
Conference (2). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association. pp 1-15.
Abbott, B., (2003). Specificity and referentiality. Abstract for the workshop: Direct
Reference and Specificity. ESSLLI (15). Vienna.
Abi Samra, N. (2003). An Analysis of Errors in Arabic Speakers’ English Writings.
American University of Beirut. Retrieved from:
http://abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacq-erroranalysis.html
acquisition, accuracy methodology. Working Papers on Bilingualism 14: 47-82.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Alderson, J., Clapham, C., and Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language
aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 1: 93–121.
Al-Fotih, T. A. (2003), Acquisition of the English articles by Arabic-speaking students.
Indian Linguistics, 64: 157-174.
Allan, K (1980). Nouns and Countability. Language 56: 541-67.
Allan, K (2001). From a to the. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (1).
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic Meaning. vol. 1, London: Routledge.
Al-Samawi, A. (2004). Redundant terms in Yemeni students’ FL writing: A case study
showing another evidence of language transfer. Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences, UAE University 20 (1):55-80. United Arab Emirates.
Al-Thubaiti, K. (2007). Age Effects on the Acquisition of Uninterpretable Features by
Proficient Saudi Arabic Speakers of English. Proceedings of the Fifth University of
Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research (CAMLING).
Andersen, R. W. (1977). The impoverished state of cross-sectional morpheme
Anderson, A. H., Clark, A. and Mullin J. (1991). Introducing information in
dialogues: forms of introduction chosen by young speakers and the responses
elicited from young listeners. Journal of Child Language 18: 663–87.
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Harvard University
Press.
Arabski, J (1979). Errors as Indications of the Development of Interlanguage. Katowice.
Polland. Uniwersytet Slasky.
Ard, J. and Hombarg, T. (1983). Verification of language transfer. In Gass. S and
Selinker, L (eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley MA; Newbury
House.
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Avery, P. and M. Radišić (2007). Accounting for Variability in the Acquisition of
English Articles. In Alyona Belikova et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference
on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp 1-11.
Aziz, Y. Y. (1993). Explicit and Implicit Reference in Arabic-English Translation. Babel
39: 129-150.
Bachman, L., F. (1991). What Does Language Testing Have to Offer. TESOL Quarterly.
25 (4): 671-704.
277
Batainah, R. (2005). Jordanian Undergraduate EFL Students’ Errors in the Use of the
Indefinite Article. Asian EFL Journal.
Behrens, L. (2005). Genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective Linguistics 43–2: 275–
344.
Berman, R. and E. Olshtain. (1983). Features of first-language transfer in second
language attrition. Applied Linguistics (4) 2: 222-234.
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language
Learning. 29: 81–103.
Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied
Linguistics. 3: 181–206.
Bialystok, E., and Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development
of first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon, and T.
G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition,cognition, and human performance: Vol. 1.
Theoretical perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 207–252.
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Brinton, L., J. (2000): The Structure of Modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, R. (1973). Development of the first language in the human species. American
Psychologist, 28: 97-106.
Brown, R. (1991). Group work, task difference and second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics 12 (1) OUP.
Brustad, K. (2000). The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Georgetown University Press.
Butler, Y.G (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English article: An
analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the
English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 451-480.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1: 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M., and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar book. Los Gatos, Sky
Oaks Production (2).
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N.
Li, (Ed.) Subject and Topic. Academic Press: New York. pp. 23–55.
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In: Tomlin, Russell (Ed.),
Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Typological Studies in Language. (6): 21–51.
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Chaudron, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgments: A review of theory,
methods and results. Language Learning 33: 343–377.
Chaudron, C., and Parker, K. (1990). Discourse markedness and structural markedness:
The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12:
43–64.
Chesterman, A. (1991). On Definiteness. A Study with Special Reference to English and
Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chierchia, G. (1994). Syntactic bootstrapping and the acquisition of noun meanings: the
mass-count issue. In B. Lust, M. Suner, and J. Whitman (eds.) Syntactic Theory and
First Language Acquisition: Cross-linguistic Perspectives (1). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
278
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics
6:339-405.
Chierchia, G., M. Guasti and A. Gualmini. (1999). Nouns and articles in child grammar
and the syntax/semantics map. GALA Conference Proceedings. Potsdam.
Christopherson, P. (1939). The Articles: A study of their Theory and Use in English.
Munksgaard. Copenhagen.
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., and Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure. In T.
Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative
grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 85–118.
Collin’s Birmingham University International Language Database (COBUILD).
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics 5 (2):161-170.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence
Judgments. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage.
Cowie , A. and Mackin , R. (1975). Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and Interlanguage Variation. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 11:367-383.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. CUP.
Crystal, D. (2000). On competence and performance and related notions. In F. Brown, K.
Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language
acquisition (pp. 11–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cziko, G. (1986). Testing the language hypothesis: A review of children’s acquisition of
articles. Language 62: 878-898.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and Explicit Learning. In C. J. Doughty and M. H.
Depraetere, I. (2003). On Verbal Concord with Collective Nouns in British English.
English Language and Linguistics 7: 85-127 Cambridge University Press.
Diab, N. (1996). The Transfer of Arabic in the English Writings of Lebanese Students
The ESP, São Paulo, 18 (1): 71-83 editors, European Second Language Association
Yearbook: Volume 2.
Dienes, Z., and Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge.
Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22: 735-755.
Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. The Philosophical Review
75: 281–304.
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement. In
C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 256-310.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1972). Goofing: an Indicator of Children’s Second
Language Learning Strategies. Language Learning 22, 2. 235-252.
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language
Learning. 27 (2): 315-330.
Ekiert, M. (2004). Acquisition of the English Article System by Speakers of Polish in
ESL and EFL Settings Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in
TESOL and Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 1-23.
Ellis N. C. (2006). Language Acquisition as Rational Contingency Learning. Applied
Linguistics (27) 1: 1–24. Oxford University Press.
279
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A Review with
Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition (24): 143–188.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and learner variability. In H. Burmeister and
P. Rounds (Eds.) Variability in second language acquisition. Proceedings of the tenth
meeting of the Second Language Acquisition Forum. Eugene: University of Oregon.
pp. 25–60.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. OUP.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning 51(1): 1–
46.
Ellis, R. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge. Language
Learning (54) 2: 227–275.
Emslie, A. and R. Stevenson (1981). Pre-school children's use of the articles in definite
and indefinite referring expressions. Journal of Child Language 8: 313-28.
Enç, M. (1991). The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse
referents. Cognitive Linguistics (12), 4: 333-378.
Epstein, S., S. Flynn, and G. Martohardjono (1996). Second Language Acquisition:
Theoretical and Experimental Issues in Contemporary Research. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 19: 677–758.
Fassi Fehri, A. (1999). Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Linguistica
53(2): 105-154.
Fassi Fehri, A. (2004). Nominal classes, reference, and functional parameters, with
particular reference to Arabic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 41 –108.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural
Language. Cambridge University Press.
Festschrift for Tracy David Terrell. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fodor, J. and I. Sag (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 5: 355–398.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second
language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 18: 299-323.
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An
assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research 17, 213-47.
Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference. Translation by Geach and Black, reprinted in
A. W. Moore (Ed.), Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1993).
pp. 23-42.
Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2008). The acquisition of four nongeneric uses of the article the by
Spanish EFL learners. System 36: 550–565.
Gass, S. (1994). The reliability of second-language grammaticality judgments. In E.
Tarone, S. Gass, and A. Cohen (Eds.) Research Methodology in Second Language
Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 303–322.
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language
transfer. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia
(eds.), 317–345. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gass, S. and Selinker, R. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course
(2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp:112-135.
George, H. V. (1971). English for Asian learners: Are we on the right road? English
Language Teaching 25: 270-277.
280
Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Spoken English. In Givón, T. (ed) Typological
Studies in Language. John Benjamins. Amsterdam. pp. 343-63.
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction Vol. I. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, Code and Context. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A functional introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goad, H and L. White (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection effects of L1 prosodic
structure. EUROSLA Yearbook 119-145.
Goldberg, A. (2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics (20)
1: 93–127.
Goldschneider, J.M. and R. DeKeyser (2001). Explaining the natural order of L2
morpheme acquisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants.
Language Learning 51: 1–50.
Goldsmith, J. and E. Woisetschlaeger (1982). The logic of the English progressive.
Linguistic Inquiry 13: 79–89.
Granfeldt, J. (2000) The acquisition of the determiner phrase in bilingual and second
language French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 263-280.
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.) Syntax
and Semantics 3. Academic Press, New York, 41-58.
Gundel, J. K., N. Hedberg and R. Zacharski (1993) Cognitive Status and the Form of
Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language (69), 2: 274-307.
Habash, Z. (1982). Common Errors in the Use of English Prepositions in the Written
Work of UNRWA Students at the End of the Preparatory Cycle in the Jerusalem Area.
Retrieved from http://www.zeinab-habash.ws/education/books/master.pdf
Habuto, J. (2000) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis. Study of Japanese ESL students
and the Acquisition of the English Article System. Classroom Second Language
Acquisition.
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second
language. Language Learning (26): 321-351.
Halliday, M. A. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of
Linguistics, 3: 199–244.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. England: Longman Group.
Hamdallah, R. (1988). Syntactic Errors in Written English: Study of errors made by Arab
students of English. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Lancaster University. UK.
Haviland, S. and Clark, H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a
process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 13:
512–21.
Hawas, H.M. (1989). The articles in English and Arabic: A contrastive study. Indian
Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (2): 23-52.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality
predictions. Journal of Linguistics (27): 405-442.
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of universal grammar in second
language acquisition. Second Language Research 17 (4): 345-367.
Hawkins, R. (2004). Explaining full and partial success in the acquisition of second
language grammatical properties. Paper presented at J-SLA, Gunma Prefectural
Women’s University, Gunma, Japan.
Hawkins, R. and Y. Chan (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in
second language acquisition: the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis. Second
Language Research 13 (3): 187–226.
281
Hawkins, R., S. Al-Eid, I. Almahboob, P. Athanasopoulos, R. Chaengchenkit, J. Hu, M.
Rezai, C. Jaensch, Y. Jeon, A. Jiang, I. Leung, K. Matsunaga, M. Ortega, G. Sarko, N.
Snape, K. Velasco-Zarate (2005). Non-target-like article use in L2 English;
implications for current UG-based theories of SLA. EUROSLA.
Hawkins, R., Al-Eid, S., Almahboob, I., Athanasopoulos, P., Chaengchenkit, R., Hu, J.,
Rezai, M., Jaensch, C., Jeon, Y., Jiang, A., Leung, I., Mtsunaga, K., Ortega, M.,
Sarko, G., Snape, N. and Velasco-Zarate, K. et al (2006). Accounting for English
article interpretation by L2 speakers. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Medved Krajnovic and J.
Mihaljevic Djigunovic (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (6): 7-25. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies In
Second Language Acquisition, (23): 1–39. The United States of America.
Haznedar, B., and Schwartz, B.D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2
acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, and A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the
21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 21: 257–268.
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, published (1989); New York.
Garland.
Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In
Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, 164-190. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Heim, I. (1991). Articles and definiteness. In A. Stechow and D. Wunderlich, (Eds.),
Handbook of Semantics. Aninternational handbook of contemporary research. Berlin:
W. de Gruyter. pp. 487-535.
Hiki (1991). A Study of Learners' Judgement of Noun Countability. Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University. In Snape, (2008). Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
Cambridge University Press.
Hollmann, W. and A. Siewierska (2011). The status of frequency, schemas, and identity
in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive
Linguistics 22:25-54.
Hong, R. and J. Seonkyung (2001). The L2 Acquisition of Articles in English: The
Effects of the Age of Arrival and the Length of Residency in the United States. Paper
delivered at the University of Southern California USC. Retrieved in (2007). from:
http://www.hichumanities.org/AHproceedings/R%20G.%20P.%20Hong%20and%20S
%20Jeon.pdf
Horn, L. (2007). Toward a Fregean pragmatics in Kecskes and L. Horn (eds.),
Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Mouton.
Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in
second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24:347–86.
Hua, D. and T. Hun-Tak Lee (2005). Chinese ESL Learners’ Understanding of the
English Count-Mass Distinction. In Laurent Dekydtspotter et al. (eds.) Proceedings of
the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference
(GASLA), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 138-149.
Huebner, T. (1983). A Longitudinal Analysis of the Acquisition of English. Ann Arbor
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in Interlanguage Syntax. Language Learning
35:141-63.
Hulstijn, J. H. and W. Hulstijn (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing
constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning 34 (1):23-43.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguisitcs, London: Penguin. pp. 269-293.
282
Ingram, D. E. (1985). Australian second language proficiency ratings (ASLPR). In John
H.A.L. De Jong (Ed.) Standardization in Language Testing (1990). Aila Review (7).
Ionin, T., and Wexler, K. (2003). The certain uses of 'the' in L2 English. In J. M.
Liceras, H. Zobl and H. Goodluck. Somerville, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th
Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 6) Conference: L2
Links, Cascadilla Press, pp. 150-160.
Ionin, T., H. Ko and K. Wexler (2004). Article semantics in L2-acquisition: the role of
specificity. Language Acquisition 12:3–69.
Ionin, T., Ko, H., and Wexler, K. (2003). Specificity as a grammatical notion: Evidence
from L2 English article use. In G. Garding and M. Tsujimura (Eds.) WCCFL 22
Proceedings. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 245–258.
Ionin, T., M. Zubizarreta and S. B. Maldonado (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge
in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua 118:554–576.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24:387-418.
Jaszczolt, K. (1997). The default de re principle for the interpretation of belief utterances.
Journal of Pragmatics 28:315-336.
Johnson, J. and E. Newport (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of
language: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition
39: 215–58.
Joosten, F (2003). Accounts of the Count-Mass Distinction: A Critical Survey.
Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31 (1).
Kaku, K. (2006). Second Language Learners’ Use of English Articles: A Case Study of
Native Speakers of Japanese. CLO/OPL 34:63-74.
Kaluza, H. (1963). Teaching the English articles to speakers of Slavic. Language
Learning, 13:113-124.
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second
language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:58-145.
Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kharma, N. (1981). Analysis of the errors committed by Arab university students in the
use of the English definite/indefinite articles. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 19:331-345.
Kharma, N. and A. Hajjaj (1989). Errors in English among Arabic Speakers: Analysis
and Remedy. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second language Acquisition and Second language learning.
Prentice Hall International.
Kremers, J. M (2003). The Arabic noun phrase. LOT. The Netherlands.
Krifka, M. (1995). Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In G.
N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, pp.398–411.
Krifka, M. (2003). Kinds of Kind reference: Bare Plurals –Ambiguous or not? Semantics
and Linguistic Theory (13). University of Washington at Seattle.
Kuribara, C. (1999). Resettability of a syntactic parameter: acquisition of category D in
English by adult Japanese speakers. In Robinson, P., (ed.), Representation and
Process: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific second language research forum (1): 13-22.
Tokyo.
Kuribara, C. (1999). Resettability of a syntactic parameter: acquisition of category D in
English by adult Japanese speakers. In Robinson, P., (Ed.), Representation and
283
process: Proceedings of the Third Pacific second language research forum. (1): 13-
22. Tokyo.
Kuribara, C. (2003). Subjects and Verbal Inflections in SLA: In defence of full transfer /
limited access model. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research (5): 17-
40. Kansai University. Osaka.
Lado, R. (1957). The Necessity for a Systematic Comparison of Languages and Cultures.
Linguistics across Cultures. Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers, Ann Arbor.
University of Michigan Press, pp. 1-8.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: topic, focus, and the
mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
Langacker, R.W (2008). Cognitive Grammar. A basic Introduction. OUP
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application.
Vol.2. California: Stanford University Press.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language
Research, 14: 1–26.
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features and forms in second language acquisition. In
Archibald, J. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Malden, MA:
Blackwell, pp. 102-129.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Acquiring (or Assembling) Functional Categories in Second
Language Acquisition. In Belikova et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Conference
(GALANA). Somerville, pp. 233-244.
Leech, G. (1992). Introducing English Grammar. London, Penguin.
Leech, G. (2006a). A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh University Press.
Leech, G. (2006b). English as a Lingua Franca. LAEL Conference Proceedings,
Lancaster University.
Leung, Y. K. (2001). The Initial State of L3A: Full Transfer and Failed Features. In X.
Bonch-Bruevich, W. J. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins, and H. Nguyen, (Eds.)
The Past, Present, and Future of Second Language Research: Selected Proceedings of
the 2000 Second Language Research Forum, Cascadilla Press, Massachusetts.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a practical pragmatic
reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned (Revised Edition)
Lightfoot, A. R. (1998). Japanese Second-Language Learners and the English Article
System: A study in Error Analysis. University of Leeds. UK. Retrieved from:
http://ardle.net/linguistics.html.
Lipiński, E. (2001). Semitic languages: outline of a comparative grammar. Peters.
Liu, D., and Gleason, J. I. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of
English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24: 1-26.
Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.
Long (Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
pp. 313-348.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. De Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (Eds.) Foreign language research
in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam. John Benjamins, pp.39-52.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
284
Maalej, Z. (2004). On The Misuse of Determination in Arab Students’ Writing.
Unpublished paper submitted to the University of Manouba-Tunis, TUNISIA.
Retrieved from: www.executivetranslators.com.
Mahmoud, A. (2002). Interlingual Transfer of Idioms by Arab Learners of English. The
Internet TESL Journal 8 (12). Sultan Qaboos University. Oman.
Mandell, O. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality judgment tests in second
language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 15:73–99.
Maratsos, M. (1976). The use of definite and indefinite reference in young children.
Cambridge: University Press.
Master, P (1987). A Cross-linguistic Interlanguage Analysis of the Acquisition of
Articles. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of California. Los Angeles.
Master, P (1987). Generic the in Scientific American. English for Specific Purposes 6
(3):165-186.
Master, P. (1990). Teaching the English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly
24:461–478.
Master, Peter (1997). The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy.
System, 25: 215-232.
Matthewson, L. and J. Schaeffer. (2000). Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of
article systems. in J. Gilkerson, M. Becker, and N. Hyams (eds.) UCLA Working
Papers in Linguistics: Language Development and Breakdown, University of
California: Los Angeles, pp: 1-39.
Matthewson, L., Bryant, T. and Roeper, T. (2001). A Salish stage in the acquisition of
English determiners: Unfamiliar ‘definites’. Proceedings of SULA: The Semantics of
Under-represented Languages in the Americas. University of Massachusetts
Occasional Papers in Linguistics (25) Amherst, pp. 63–71.
McGregor, R. S. (1995) Outline of Hindi grammar with exercises. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mclaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second-language Learning. Arnold
Mehnert, U. (1998). The Effects of different lengths of time for planning on second
language performance. Sudies in Second Language Acquisition, 20:52-83.
Milanovic (1988). The construction and validation of a performance-based battery of
English language progress tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London
University, Institute of Education.
Mitchell, T.F. and S.A. El-Hassan (1994). Modality Mood and Aspect in Spoken Arabic
Kegan Paul International, London, New York.
Mizuno, H. (1985). A psycholinguistic approach to the Article System in English. JACET
Bulletin 16:1-29.
Mizuno, M. (1999). Interlanguage analysis of the English article system: Some cognitive
constraints facing the Japanese adult learners. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 37: 127-152.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on Form Through Interaction Enhancement: Integrating
Formal Instruction Into a Communicative Task in EFL Classrooms. Language
Learning 50 (4): 617-673.
Nagata, R. Tatsuya Iguchi, Kenta Wakidera, Fumito Masui, and Atsuo Kawai (2005).
Recognizing Article Errors in the Writing of Japanese Learners of English. Systems
and Computers in Japan 36 (7):54-62.
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximate systems of foreign language learners. IRAL 9: 115-23.
Nettle, Mark and Dianna Hopkins (2003). Developing Grammar in Context. CUP
Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research
Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language Learning 50 (3): 417-528.
285
Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-Linguistic Influence, in Catherine J. Doughty, Michael H. Long
(Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 436-486.
Oller, J. W. and E. Z. Redding (1971). Article usage and other language skills. Language
Learning 21 (1): 85-95.
Oller, J., and C. Conrad. (1971). The cloze technique and ESL proficiency. Language
Learning 21:183-195.
Onishi K. H. and G. L. Murphy (2002). Discourse model representation of referential and
attributive descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes 17 (2): 97–123.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 21: 108-48.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications
for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of
languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 393–419.
Parodi, T., B. D. Schwartz, and H. Clahsen (1997). On the L2 Acquisition of the
Morphosyntax of German Nominals. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 15: 1–43.
Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for
learners of ESL. Language Learning 37: 361–383.
Partee, B. H. (2005). Semantic Typology of Indefinites. Course handout of the Research
Seminar on Topics in Formal Semantics (MGU). Retrieved from
http://people.umass.edu/partee/MGU_2005/MGU055.pdf.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult Acquisition of English as a second language under different
conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33: 465-97.
Pienemann M. and Håkansson, G. (1999). A unified approach towards a theory of the
development of Swedish as L2.A processability account. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 21: 383–420.
Poesio, M. and R. Vieira (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description
use. Computational Linguistics 24: 183–216.
Pongpairoj, N (2007). Are L2 English Article Choices UG-regulated? Cambridge
University Conference Proceedings in Language Research CAMLING. pp: 213-220.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Some Words in Defense of the Psycholinguistic Approach: A
Response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81 (3): 324-328.
Power, T. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching: The appeal and poverty of
Communicative Language Teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.btinternet.com/~ted.power/esl0404.html
Press.
Prévost, P. and White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second
language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language
Research 16: 103-133.
Prince, E (1992). Subjects, Definiteness and Information Status. In Mann and Thompson
(eds.) Discourse Description. John Benjamins.
Quick Placement Test (2001). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Quirk R. S., Greenbaum, G. Leech, and G. Svartik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.
Quirk R. S., Greenbaum, G. Leech, and G. Svartik (1991). A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. Longman (2nd Edition).
Raymond, W., J. A. Fisher, and A. F. Healy (2002). Linguistic knowledge and language
performance in English article variant preference. Language and Cognitive Processes.
17 (6): 613–662.
286
Richards, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language
Teaching Journal 25: 204-19.
Richards, J.C. (1976). The Role of Vocabulary Teaching. TESOL Quarterly.10 (1): 77-
89.
Richards, J.C. and G.P. Sampson (1974). The study of learner English. In J. Richards
(Ed.) Error Analysis. Perspectives on second language acquisition. Essex: Longman
pp. 3-18.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of The First Language In Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, G. (2003). Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy
26: 278-350.
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese
learners of English. Second Language Research (16) 2: 135-172.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit,
incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18: 27–67.
Roehr, K. (2004). Exploring the role of explicit knowledge in adult second language
learning: language proficiency, pedagogical grammar and language learning
strategies. Centre for Research in Language Education (CRILE) Working Papers (59).
Lancaster University, UK.
Roehr, K. (2005). Metalinguistic Knowledge in Second Language Learning: An
Emergentist Perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Lancaster University, UK.
Roeper, T. (2003). Watching Nounphrases Emerge: Seeking compositionality. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.
Russell, B. (1905). On Denoting. Mind 14: 479-593.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London. Huchinson.
Salmon-Alt, S. and S. Romary (2000). Reference Resolution within the Framework of
Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science Quarterly (1).
Sang, B., Schmitz, H.J., Vollmer, J. and Roeder P.M. (1986). Models of second language
competence: a structural equation approach. Language Testing 3: 54–79.
Sarko, G. (2008). Morphophonological or Syntactic Transfer in the Acquisition of
English Articles by L1 speakers of Syrian Arabic? Proceedings of the 9th Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. In Roumyana Slabakova et al. (Eds.),
GASLA Conference Proceedings. Cascadilla Project. Somerville, MA. pp. 206-217
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language Transfer. In S. Gass and L. Selinker
(Eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition.
Second Language Research. 6:93–124.
Schaeffer, J. and Matthewson, L. (2005).Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of
article systems. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 53–101.
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and
Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schulz, E. (2004). A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge
University Press.
Schwartz, B.D. and R. Sprouse. 1996 L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research 12: 40-72.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidl, J. and W. McMordie (1992). Oxford Pocket English Idioms. Oxford University
Press.
287
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-
231.
Selkirk, E. O. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In J.L. Morgan and K.
Demuth (eds.), Signal to Syntax. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp: 187-213.
Sharma D. (2005). Transfer and Universals in Indian English Article Use. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 27: 535–566.
Sharma, V. A. (1981). Syntactic Errors as Indices of Developing Language Proficiency
in Arabic Speakers Writing English at the Intermediate and Advanced Levels of
English as a Second Language. Ph.D. Thesis. Indiana University.
Shlonsky, U. (2004). The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114: 1465–1526.
Siegel, Jeff (2003). Substrate influence in creoles and the role of transfer in second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (2):185-209.
Sinclair, J.M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press, UK.
Skehan, P. (1989). Language Testing. Language Teaching. 22:1-13 Cambridge
University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based Instruction. Language Teaching. 36:1–14.
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing
conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1): 93−120.
Skehan, Peter (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: the L2 acquisition of telicity marking in
English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics 38 (4): 739–770.
Smith, B. (2001). Learner English. A Teacher’s guide to Interference and other
problems. OUP.
Smith, N. and Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). The mind of a savant. Language Learning and
Modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Snape, N. (2005). The uses of Articles in L2 English by Japanese and Spanish Speakers.
Paper submitted to The Annual Conference on Language Acquisition, University of
Cambridge. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 7: 1–23.
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the Nominal Mapping Parameter in L2 English: Definite
article use and the count–mass Distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11
(1). Cambridge University Press.
Snape, N., Y.-k. Ingrid Leung, and H-C. Ting (2006). Comparing Chinese, Japanese and
Spanish Speakers in L2 English Article Acquisition: Evidence against the Fluctuation
Hypothesis? In Mary Grantham O’Brien, Christine Shea, and John Archibald, (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
Conference (GASLA). pp: 132-139.
Sorace, A. (1985). Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-poor
environments. Applied Linguistics 6: 239–254.
Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition
research. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.) Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 375–409.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Blackwell.
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On Referring. Mind 59: 320–344.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction.
Applied Linguistics. 26 (3): 376-401.
Swan, M. and C. Walter (2001). The Good Grammar Book. Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of "communication strategy." In C.
Faerch and G. Kasper (Eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London:
Longman, pp. 61-74.
288
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: a study of style-shifting in
morphology and syntax. Language Learning. 35: 373-404.
Tarone, E. and Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: the case of
articles. Language Learning 38: 21-44.
Thomas, M (1989). The Acquisition of articles by native and non-native speakers of first
and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 10, 335-355.
Thu, H. N. (2005). Vietnamese Learners Mastering English Articles. Doctoral thesis.
University of Groningen. Retrieved from:
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/2005/h.n.thu/thesis.pdf
Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. (1994): Approaches to second language acquisition.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp: 317–61.
Trenkic´, D. (2000). The acquisition of English articles by Serbian speakers.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Cambridge University.
Trenkic´, D. (2002). Form-meaning connections in the acquisition of English articles. In
Foster-Cohen, S., Ruthenberg, T. and Poschen, M. (eds.) European Second Language
Association Yearbook 2. John Benjamins, pp:115-33.
Trenkic´, D. (2007). Variability in L2 article production - beyond the representational
deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23 (3): 289-327.
Trenkic´, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars:
determiners or adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and cognition, Cambridge
University Press, 11: 1-18.
Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Clitics and determiners in L2 Greek. In Juana M. Liceras et al.
(eds.), Proceedingsof the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
Conference (GASLA 2002). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp 331-
339.
Vainikka, A., and Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase
structure. Second Language Research 12: 7–39.
VanPatten, B. (1994). Cognitive aspects of input processing in second language
acquisition. In P. Heshemipour, I. Maldonado, and M. van Naerssen (Eds.),
Van Patten, B., Williams, J., and Rott, S. (2004). Form-meaning Connections in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walter, J. (1975) The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction. Modern Language
Association 90 (1): 9-21
Weir, Cyril (1986). Communicative Language Testing. University of Exeter.
White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with
inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6 (2):129-141.
Yamada, J. and N. Matsuura, (1982). The use of the English article among Japanese
students. RELC Journal 13: 50-63.
Yoon, K.K. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability
and indefinite vs. Ø article use. International Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 269-
289.
Young, R. (1996). Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R.
Bayley and D. R. Preston (Eds.) Second language acquisition and linguistic variation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 135-175.
Yule, G (1998). Explaining English Grammar, OUP.
Zdorenko, T. and Paradis, J. (2008). The acquisition of articles in child second language
English: Fluctuation, transfer or both? Second Language Research 24 (2): 227-250.
Zegarac, V. (2004). Relevance theory and the in second language acquisition. Second
language Research, University of Luton, 20 (3): 193-211.
289
Zehler, Annette M. and William F. Brewer. (1982). Sequence and Principles in Article
System Use: An Examination of A, The, and Null Acquisition, Child Development 53:
1268–1274.
Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and Transfer Errors: Their Common Bases and
(Possibly) Differential Effects on Subsequent Learning. Tesol Quarterly. 14 (4).
Zobl, H. (1986). A functional approach to the attainability of typological targets in L2
acquisition. Second Language Research, 2 (1):16-32.
Zobl, H. and Liceras, J. (1994). Functional Categories and Acquisition Orders. Language
Learning 44 (1):159-180.
290
Appendices
Appendix 1: Information Sheet and Consent Form
INFORMATION SHEET
As part of my studies in the Department of Linguistics in Lancaster University, UK, I

have been asked to carry out a study involving a translation task, free writing and a
multiple choice cloze test. Later, I am going to analyse the test results and will look
for particular features that will help me to find out Arab learners’ difficulties and
stages in acquisition of the English article system.
I have approached you because I am interested in learning about the way Arabic
speakers learn English articles. The session will take about 30 minutes.
I would be very grateful if you would agree to take part.
You are free to withdraw from the study at any time. At every stage, your name will
remain confidential. The data will be kept securely and will be used for academic
purposes only.
If you have any queries about this project, please feel free to contact me on
dina.awad@uaeu.ac.ae
Dina Awad
291
CONSENT FORM
Project title: Acquisition of English articles by Arabic speakers
1. I have read and had explained to me by Ms. Dina Awad the Information Sheet
relating to this project.
2. I have had explained to me the purposes of the project and what will be
required of me, and any questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I
agree to the arrangements for my participation as described in the Information
Sheet.
3. I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I have the right
to withdraw from the project any time.
4. I have received a copy of this Consent Form and the accompanying

Information Sheet.
Name:
Signed:
Date:
292
Appendix 2: Background uniformity survey
Name: ________________________ ID ____________________
Background uniformity survey
Please answer the following questions:
1. What is your date of birth? (yyyy)
2. Is Arabic your first language?
3. What is your nationality?
4. Is Arabic the first language of your parents?
5. Do you speak English at home?
6. What are you studying/ what is your major?
7. Have you stayed in an English speaking country for more than three
months?
8. Have you attended an English medium / international school?
9. Have you ever taken any extra courses in English outside
school/university?
10. How many years have you been studying English?
Thank you very much
Dina Awad
293
Appendix 3: Task 1
Name:________________________ ID number: ____________________
Writing Task
Write an essay describing your hometown in detail. You can include information
about its location, tourist attractions, history, life style and people. Try to write a
minimum of 350 to 500 words maximum in one hour.
294
Appendix 4: Task 2
Fill in the gaps with ‘a’, ‘an’, ‘the’ or leave the blank empty (Ø) if you think no article
is needed.
Story 1
1____ two mountaineers were walking across some hills when they met 2____ old
hunter. 3____ worried hunter warned them to be very cautious since several wolves
and 4____ bear were roaming 5____ hills, causing 6____ serious problems to 7____
peasants of 8____ nearby villages.
Suddenly, 9____ rifle-shots were heard in the distance, and 10____ three men spotted
11____ two figures running along 12____ stream at the foot of 13____ hill. They
were wearing 14____prison uniforms and were carrying 15____ guns and 16____
bag.
Feeling very afraid, 17____ mountaineers and 18____ hunter hid behind 19____ bush.
From there, they could see (20)____ runaway prisoners slowing down, looking
around, taking off (21)____ prison uniforms and putting on 22____ clothes that they
took out from 23____ bag. Then they hid 24____ guns under 25____ big tree.
26____ moment later, 27____ flock of 28____ sheep followed by 29____ dog and
30____ shepherd appeared from around 31____ hill.
32____ prisoners went to 33____ shepherd and asked him something. 34____ dog
started to bark furiously at 35____ strangers, but 36____ owner calmed it down.
Then he left 37____ dog to watch 38____ sheep and led 39____ prisoners over
40____ small bridge into 41____ forest on 42____ other side of 43____ stream.
44____ hunter and 45____ mountaineers emerged from behind 46____ bush and ran
after them. Before they reached 47_____ bridge, they saw 48____ poor shepherd and
49____ prisoners running back quickly, followed by 50____ bear. 51____ hunter
aimed at 52____ angry beast and fired. He fulfilled 53____ promise which he gave to
54____ villagers that he will soon free them from 55____ fear which 56____ bear was
295
spreading. Now he only had to take care of 57____ wolves. At that moment, one of
58____ mountaineers took 59____ blanket out of 60____ backpack which he was
carrying, and threw it over 61____ prisoners when they crossed 62____ bridge. He
jumped on them and tied them down. 63____ escape attempt did not succeed.
Story 2
64____ fact that Ahmed had organised 65____ graduation party while Saeed was
away annoyed Saeed very much. But when Saeed entered 66____ small kitchen that
they shared, he became very angry! Although 67____ fan was working and 68____
window was open, he could still smell 69____ stale smoke of 70____ cigarettes.
71____ table was turned upside down and 72____ chair was broken. 73____ fridge
was left open and now water was dripping out of it.
74____ milk and 75____ flour were spilt over 76____ cooker and 77____ dirty
saucepan was standing on 78____ top of it all. 79____ filthy sink was full of 80____
dirty plates and 81____ glasses and 82____ broken cup was thrown in 83____ bin.
Someone had taken 84____ sugar and 85____ coffee out of 86____ cupboard, and left
87____ slice of 88____ bread with 89____ butter and 90____ honey on it uneaten.
91____ knife was lying on 92____ dirty floor.
Story 3
Stephan had 93____ exciting day yesterday. He had finally become 94____ member
of 95____ Parliament. He was always 96____ dreamer, and since 97____ time when
he was in 98____ navy, he hoped to rise to 99____ position of 100____ top politician.
In the past, while he was sailing 101____ seas from 102____ Equator to 103____
North Pole, he would spend 104____ long night hours on 105____ deck staring into
106____ dark water of 107____ sea or looking at 108____ stars and 109____ moon in
110____ sky, dreaming of days to come.
Yesterday, while he was crossing 111____ bridge over the river Thames on his way to
112____ Parliament, he noticed 113____ strange light which 114____ sun was casting
296
in 115____ water. Then, as he was approaching, he spotted 116____ Prime Minister
getting out of 117____ big black car, waving to 118____ reporters who were waiting
at 119____ entrance.
120____ masses of 121____ people were in 122____ streets hoping to see 123____
Queen who was coming to give 124____ traditional opening speech to 125____
members of Parliament.
Story 4
When Amna asked Mariam several months ago whether she can help her with her
project, Mariam refused and said that she did not have time and did not agree to take
126______ responsibility of doing other students’ homework.
127_____ fact that Amna asked 128____ question annoyed Mariam. Several days later
they had 129____ argument and Mariam informed her that 130____ friendship was
over.
After 131____ incident, Mariam changed her room in the hostel and Amna felt lonely
and tried to absorb 132____ shock. She was still living in 133____ room that they had
been sharing together since the beginning of the semester.
134____ idea that Mariam might now have new friends in her new hostel, made Amna
jealous. She spent 136____ days reading 137____ magazines and browsing138____
websites. When she was told by one of 139____ students in the hostel that joining
140____ club reduces 141____ stress, Amna agreed.
But 142____ club couldn’t erase 143____ memory of 144____ loss.
Then, one day, 145____ friend took her out for 146____ picnic, and Amna told her
147____ news. 148____ friend asked her to make 149____ wish. Amna thought and
came to 150____ conclusion that she wanted 151____ new roommate. She wanted
someone whom she could have 152____ sincere friendship with.
153____ sympathetic friend told her that she must be full of 154____ confidence to get
what she wanted and to expect 155____ something good to happen. That was 156____
recipe for 157____ success in 158____ life.
297
First, she decided to get rid of 159____ jealousy. Looking into herself, she realised
that 160____ source of her jealousy was 161____ deep feeling of 162____ insecurity.
She decided to go to 163____ students’ party. 164____ thought of going to new places
and meeting 165____ new people cheered her up. Thus, she made 166____ first step
towards 167____ happiness. She liked 168____ way she was dealing with 169____
problem now. She was feeling much stronger and was regaining 170____ faith in
herself.
Story 5
When the Gold Rush started, Jim went to 171____ West. He stopped at 172____ little
mountain river where, 173____ people were saying, 174____ gold had recently been
discovered. All Jim could see was 175____ water and 176____ sand at 177____
bottom of 178____ river. But since he had 179____ patience and 180____ courage, he
decided to stay and never regret 181____ choice.
Since 182____ river often flooded 183____ banks, leaving 184____ mud behind, Jim
decided to build himself 185____ little house, way up in 186____ mountain where
187____ tall grass was growing.
Every day he would cross 188____ mud, come to 189____ water and sieve 190____
sand until darkness. One day, something shone bright at 191____ bottom of 192____
sieve! He found 193____ gold!
In 194____ evening, he hid it carefully in 195____ tall grass behind 196____ little
house, but 197____ next morning 198____ unfortunate man found out that 199____
gold had disappeared.
298
Story 6
200____ woman is sitting at 201____ table in 202____ small dirty kitchen and she is
reading 203____ book. It is about 204____ beautiful young woman in 205____ love.
She is standing in front of 206____ mirror in 207____ spacious, nicely decorated
room, and is combing her hair. There is 208____ knock at 209____ door. She opens it
and 210____ handsome young man enters 211____ room.
At that moment, 212____ woman in 213____ kitchen also hears 214____ knock at her
door. She puts down 215____ book and opens 216____ door.
217____ stout old man enters 218____ kitchen and 219____ poor old lady bursts into
tears.
299
Appendix 5: Task 3
Some of these sentences are correct, others are wrong. Put (√) next to sentences if
you think the underlined part is correct, and (x) next to the sentence in which the
underlined part is incorrect.
1. An old man walked into a hospital to see his son. The first thing the man did was
ask for the room number.
2. At a dinner table: “Can you please pass me salt?”
3. Reading the books fills people’s free time.
4. I asked the shopkeeper for bottle of water.
5. You can ask a friend to help you answer this question.
6. At the jewellers: ‘I have a gold that I would like to sell.’
7. My sister bought a dresses for the wedding party.
8. No thank you. I don’t take the sugar in my tea.
9. Damascus is capital of Syria
10. I made a wish and it came true.
11. When I needed the pen in the last exam, Fatma gave me hers.
12. Aisha went to a wedding. She said a bride was beautiful.
13. I found the book that you gave me very interesting.
14. A sign at the cinema says: ‘the children are not allowed to see the film unless
accompanied by parents.’
15. The team has plans to win this match.
16. My friend has degree in Science.
17. All plants need sunlight, oxygen and water to live and grow.
18. Fatima became successful business woman
19. We can’t go up that mountain. My father has the fear of heights.
20. Our small company succeeded in making the relationships with other companies.
21. Our teacher gave us an advice.
22. A wife reminding her husband: ‘Remember to buy bread on your way back.’
23. Emirates is the biggest mall in the UAE
24. There should be a balance between economic development and respect for the
environment
25. In choosing a flight, the most important thing is the safety.
26. Teacher to student: ‘You must find a better book to read.
27. Research has proved that women make better managers than men.
28. I must warn you: There are mice in this flat.
29. The milk is necessary for babies.
30. People should have clean drinking water.
31. New manager in our company is very serious.
32. My brother did a good house work
33. Ali always takes a very nice pictures.
34. In the past, there was the old tree in our garden, but they cut it down.
35. Layla bought detective novels from the bookshop yesterday.
36. I bought a same cheap computer that my friend has.
37. Their hard work finally led to success.
300

The Acquisition of English Articles by A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Acquisition of English Articles by A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Acquisition of English Articles by Arabic Speakers

Dina Awad (BA, MA, Dip)

Supervisor: Professor A. Siewierska

English Language and Linguistics

compared to findings from other L2 studies to determine whether the development

map corresponds to/differs from the tendencies of learners from other L1

It was found that Arabic influenced the participants’ decisions to a large

learner’s choices considerably. Finally, faulty associations between definiteness and

linguistic notions of specificity, pre-modification and concreteness in learner

hypotheses caused variability in L2 article production.

Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

uncountable contexts, it can be considered as the most frequently used article in

English (Master 1997).1

However, despite the high frequency of occurrence in natural discourse,

communicative success. Brown (1973) wonders whether supplying articles is really

necessary for effective communication in English as a first language. Batainah (2005)

articles to eventually disappear in the expanding world of L2 English.

impede communication when, for example, used in reference to items in one

can, at least, be perceived as a sign of ‘foreignness’ by many native speakers. This is

target-like English. Agatha Christie’s Poirot is an example of a well known fictional

native speaker of English.

required in linguistic expressions to signal meaning associated with the propositional

(Lyons 1999) which is restrictive to singular countable entities.

The notion of (in)definiteness is universal but its grammatical representation in

learners’ errors (Covitt 1976 cited in Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999,

60.37% of the total number of errors committed by L1 Indian learners of English,

by L1 Vietnamese learners. Thus, it is possible that articles represent an area of

competence (Oller and Redding, 1971: 85) (emphasis added).

competent L2 learners make could become a source of frustration. The difficulties in

undermine the L2 speaker/writer’s linguistic ability in professional circles (cf. Nagata

(1). She ate an apple.

In the above sentence, choosing ‘an’ requires knowledge of:

1. Definiteness: Apple is neither uniquely identified nor known to the hearer.

4. Phonetic rule: A singular indefinite noun beginning with a vowel requires

the supply of ‘an’ rather than ‘a’.

article use especially in expressions of figurative or idiomatic meanings. For example,

because of the pragmatic interpretation it carries by conventional usage.

In addition to the complications inherent in the English article system,

Hawkins and Chan 1997).

whereby various pronunciations are found, yet the grammatical notions of

definiteness/indefiniteness, countability and number remain uninfluenced by regional

variation in the spoken register. Lipiński’s (2001) comprehensive review of Arabic

dialects confirms that in addition to a number of lexical variations, the differences

grammatical’ (1994:2). In a comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and

Kuwaiti dialects, Brustad (2000) observes that there are a couple of

expressions occasionally used in certain dialects to function as quasi-articles such as

dialects. Other than that, the extensive chapter on definiteness/indefiniteness in those

four dialects does not list any other variation.

indefiniteness is indirectly expressed through the absence of the definite article. In

formal, standard and classic Arabic, indefiniteness can be (optionally) represented by

small, non-morphemic accents suffixed to words. Possessing one overtly marked

articles (+ART). Yet, the absence of an explicit or obligatory marker of indefiniteness

Therefore, it is not surprising, as researchers of SLA of articles confirm, that

constituted almost 28% of all grammar errors in Lebanese students’ writing. In

expressions in students’ English writing.

causes of common errors. Studies by researchers such as Kharma (1981) Maalej

addressing their occurrence in multi-variable contexts. These studies have suffered

level (PL). Finally, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of definiteness

more recent theoretical frameworks developed by linguists such as Hawkins (1991),

research into SLA of articles by learners from languages with articles.

Emirates University (UAEU) in the Emirates. It seeks to examine the stages of

development learners go through as their second language improves. Therefore, a

cross-sectional approach will be followed to review the progress of three proficiency

through exploring learners’ ability to provide the appropriate article in different NP