The Acquisition of Definiteness and Specificity in English: A Case Study with Saudi-Arabic Learners of English Using an Online Task

Definiteness with Arabic learners has been explored by many researchers such as Jaensch and Sarko (2009) and Sarko (2009). The majority of previous studies have used an offline task and focused on identifying the types of errors which learners were committing. Conversely, the present study will use an online reaction time task to investigate the learners’ accuracy in judging [±definite and ±specific] in a series of sentences. The aim of the study is to ascertain the accuracy of participants in judging grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in terms of definiteness and specificity in English, and also to identify which factors have the greatest effect on this accuracy. The study will examine the process of article acquisition from the perspective of universal grammar using the following hypotheses: The Representational Deficit hypothesis (RDH) by Hawkins and Chan (1997), the Feature Reassembly hypothesis by Lardiere (2009) and the bottleneck hypothesis by Slabakova (2008, 2009, 2015). Thirty-two Saudi learners have completed a grammatical judgment task that was designed using OpenSesame to incorporate a reaction time test along with two vocabulary tests (Yes/No and Lex30) and a proficiency test. The results showed no effect on definiteness and specificity with the Saudi-Arabic learners. Moreover, the findings demonstrated that there is no difference in reaction time which could be attributed to [±definite and ±specific]. Receptive vocabulary knowledge and proficiency affected the learners’ accuracy in judging article use in English, but no such effect was found for the learners’ productive vocabulary knowledge. Additionally, L1 negative transfer has been observed in Saudi-Arabic learners of English particularly with low-level learners.

Download Full-text

Acceptable Levels of Tonal and Broad-Band Repetitive and Continuous Sounds during the Performance of Nonauditory Tasks

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.803 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 81 (3) ◽

pp. 803-816 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Ulf Landström ◽

Anders Kjellberg ◽

Marianne Byström

Keyword(s):

Reaction Time ◽

Sound Pressure ◽

Broad Band ◽

Reaction Time Task ◽

Simple Reaction Time Task ◽

Reasoning Test ◽

Band Noise ◽

Time Test ◽

The Difference ◽

Reaction Time Test

Three groups of 24 subjects were exposed to a 1000–Hz tone or broad band noise in a sound chamber. During the exposures subjects were engaged in an easy reaction time test or a difficult grammatical reasoning test. For each exposure and work subjects adjusted the noise to a tolerance level defined by its interference with task performance. During the simple reaction-time task significantly higher sound-pressure levels were accepted than during the reasoning test. At the tonal exposure, much lower levels were accepted than during the exposure to broad-band noise. For continuous sound exposures much higher levels were accepted than for noncontinuous exposures. For tonal exposures the difference was approximately 5 dB, for the broad-band exposures approximately 9 dB. In a separate study the effects of the noncontinuity of the noise and pauses were analysed. The raised annoying effect of the noncontinuous noise was not more affected by the noncontinuity of the noise periods than by the noncontinuity of the pauses. The results imply that the annoying reactions to the sound will be increased for repetitive noise and that the reaction is highly influenced by the over-all noncontinuity of the exposure.

Download Full-text

Modeling Within-Person Variance in Reaction Time Data of Older Adults

GeroPsych ◽

10.1024/1662-9647/a000045 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 24 (4) ◽

pp. 169-176 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Philippe Rast ◽

Daniel Zimprich

Keyword(s):

Reaction Time ◽

Cognitive Aging ◽

Reaction Times ◽

Reaction Time Task ◽

Reaction Time Data ◽

Scale Model ◽

Time Data ◽

Time Task ◽

The Mean ◽

Second Wave

In order to model within-person (WP) variance in a reaction time task, we applied a mixed location scale model using 335 participants from the second wave of the Zurich Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging. The age of the respondents and the performance in another reaction time task were used to explain individual differences in the WP variance. To account for larger variances due to slower reaction times, we also used the average of the predicted individual reaction time (RT) as a predictor for the WP variability. Here, the WP variability was a function of the mean. At the same time, older participants were more variable and those with better performance in another RT task were more consistent in their responses.

Download Full-text