Acceptability of English Non-Words: ENG vs.

non-ENG Major Arabic Speakers

Abdulmajeed Alotaibi
Languages, Linguistics & Comparative Literature • Florida Atlantic University

1. Background & RQ 3. Results 4. Discussion

Topic: Results - Summary:
• The acceptability of possible and impossible ENG non- Table 1. Means z-scores for ENG and non-ENG major
• High z-scores → possible n-w
students.
words by ENG and non-ENG major ARB speakers. ➢ ENG major students:
• Coleman and Pierrehumbert (1997): • Higher z-scores → possible n-w
Group possible impossible Diff. p
• Lower z-scores → impossible n-w
- The similarity between non-words and actual words ENG major 0.86 -0.86 1.73 < .001
influences wordlikeness judgments. Implications:
Non-ENG major 0.31 -0.31 0.62 .03
• Trapman and Kager (2009): • Possible n-w > impossible n-w
Diff. 0.55 -0.55 • Possible n-w → more acceptable by ENG major
- Language experience plays a role in distinguishing
p < .001 < .001 students
between possible and impossible non-words.
• Impossible n-w → less acceptable by ENG major
RQ & Hypothesis:
students
• Do ENG major students judge ENG non-words differently Fig. 1. Means z-scores • The hypothesis was supported.
from non-ENG major students? (**= significant at .01 level, ***= significant at .001 level)
• For ENG major students, possible non-words will be more 1 Potential confounds:
0.86 ***
acceptable, and impossible non-words will be less 0.8
*** **
• 3 of the non-ENG major students were not
acceptable when compared to non-ENG major students. 0.6 cooperating.
0.4 0.31 ***
• Sample size
2. Methodology 0.2
• Online experiment credibility
- 0.86 - 0.31 Forthcoming :
0
Participants: -0.2 possible impossible • Add more participants
• ENG major (n= 10), non-ENG major (n= 10) • Lab experiment
-0.4
• L1 = Arabic
-0.6
• Age 19 to 25 y. o.
• Recruited from Shaqra University. -0.8
-1 5. References
Stimuli: ENG non-ENG
• Possible ENG non-words (n= 10); e.g. crous
• Impossible ENG non-words (n= 10); e.g. pdelle Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic
• Randomized phonological grammars and acceptability. arXiv
Table 2. Results of the 2-way ANOVA
Task: preprint cmp-lg/9707017.
• Grammaticality judgment task (google forms website)
Factor dfs F P
• Rating the acceptability on Likert scale (1 to 5) Trapman, M., & Kager, R. (2009). The acquisition of
• Responses converted to z-scores Major (ENG, non-ENG) 1, 36 0 1 subset and superset phonotactic knowledge in a second
language. Language acquisition, 16(3), 178-221.
Data analyses:
Word (possible, impossible) 1, 36 176.23 < .001
• 2-factor ANOVA
• IVs: major (ENG , non-ENG); word (possible, impossible) Major X word 1, 36 39.32 < .001
• DV: Speakers averages of z-scores
• Pairwise comparison (paired and 2-sample 2-tailed T-tests) Contact email: alotaibia2015@fau.edu