This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ABSTRACT NOUNS IN L2 ENGLISH ARTICLE USE

presented by

YUE SHI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Teaching English to Speakers
Arts of Other Languages

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
3 ‘ 5' — /0

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDueindd

 

 

ABSTRACT NOUNS IN L2 ENGLISH ARTICLE USE
By

Yue Shi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

2010

ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT NOUNS IN L2 ENGLISH ARTICLE USE
By
Yue Shi
The present study aims to investigate the influence of both countability and semantic
context on learners’ article choices before abstract nouns, with a focus on the potential
interaction between them. An elicitation task was created using three different types of
nouns (count, noncount, and both) within two semantic contexts (definite and indefinite).
Chinese participants completed the elicitation task and rated the confidence of their
article choices. A subset of the participants were interviewed to reflect on their choices.
The results indicate that when Chinese ESL learners use English articles before abstract
nouns, they tend to be more accurate with [+countable] nouns and [+definite] nouns,
while making more errors with [-countable] nouns and [-definite] nouns. Their self-rated
confidence scores do not correlate with their test scores. When asked to explain their
decisions, learners mostly refer to semantic context as the reason why they choose a
certain article. The interaction between countability and semantic context was not found

in the present study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... l

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 11
METHOD ............................................................................................ 14

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 19
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX .......................................................................................... 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table l Participating students ..................................................................... 14
Table 2 Words chosen for elicitation task ....................................................... 15
Table 3 Correct rate ................................................................................. 20
Table 4 Confidence score ......................................................................... .21
Table 5 Learner responses ......................................................................... 22
Table 6 Error types ....................................................................... ‘ ........... 23
Table 7 Count/definite .............................................................................. 29
Table 8 Count/indefinite ........................................................................... 30
Table 9 Noncount/definite ........................................................................ 31
Table 10 Noncount/indefinite ..................................................................... 35
Table 11 Both/definite ............................................................................. 37
Table 12 Both/indefinite ........................................................................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Huebner’s (1983) semantic wheel ....................................................... 3
Figure 2 Celce—Murcia and Larsen-Freeman’s (1999) classification of English article
system ........................................................................................ 5

Figure 3 Test scores ................................................................................ 19

Introduction

Because of its high complexity, the English article system, which includes the
indefinite article a(n), the definite article the, and the zero article 0, is one of the most
difficult structural elements for ESL learners. Historically, it has often been considered
very difficult, if not impossible to teach (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). A survey
conducted by Covitt (1976) ranked the teaching of English article system first among
difficult tasks for ESL teachers. Quite a few ESL instructors have explored different
approaches and techniques for teaching article usage and examined the effectiveness of
such instruction (Master, 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1994, 1995; McEldowney, 1977; Pica,
1983; Whitman, 1974); while others (Huebner, 1983; Master, 1987; Parrish, 1987; Tarone
& Parrish, 1988; Thomas, 1989) have investigated the acquisition of English articles from
a linguistic perspective.

Due to the extreme complexity of the English article system, this study attempts to
examine only one aspect of its usage — how abstract nouns affect learners’ article choices.
The goal of the present study is to determine for native speakers of Chinese, a language
that lacks articles, what patterns and errors can be identified when they use articles before
abstract nouns, and what accounts for their choice — noun countability, semantic context,
or the possible interaction between the two. Although this study is limited in its
theoretical frame, it could still contribute to a better understanding of how ESL learners

with one particular Ll background process a difficult aspect of English article use.

Theoretical Background

The English article system has long been a subject of interest for linguists, given its
complex usage and the difficulty involved in analyzing it. It is considered especially
difficult for learners whose first language (L1) does not have articles, as research has
shown that articles are particularly difficult for learners to acquire when their L1 lacks a
similar grammatical system, such as Chinese, Japanese and Russian (Ionin, Zubizarreta,
& Maldonado 2008, Zdorenko & Paradis 2008). Consequently, a number of studies have
been conducted to offer descriptive accounts of how ESL learners from article-less Ll
backgrounds learn and use articles in their interlanguage (Bergeron-Matoba, 2007; Butler,
2002; Mizuno, 1999; Parrish, 1987; Robertson, 2000; Yoon, 1993; Young, 1996).

Although some earlier studies made significant contributions to the understanding of
the topic, Bickerton’s (1981) work is arguably the most important and enlightening, as it
renders a new and unique systematic approach to the analysis of the use of the English
article system. According to Bickerton, the use of the English articles — a, the, and O — is
governed by the semantic function of the noun phrase (NP) in discourse. The
classification of the semantic fimction of an NP is determined, he argued, by two binary
discourse features: (a) whether a noun is a specific referent (+SR, -SR), and (b) whether
the bearer knows the referent (+HK, -HK). Based on such an analysis, there are four
possibilities for NP reference.

Type 1 is (-SR, +HK), also known as “generics”, where a, the, or 0, can all be used.

For example, a/the snake is a dangerous animal/snakes are dangerous animals. Type 2 is

2

(+SR, +HK), where the is required, as in the example Can you feed the dog, please? Type
3 is (+SR, -HK), which calls for a or 0, as in I bought a new cell phone today. Type 4 is
(-SR, -HK), where a or 0 is used. For example, Do you have a pencil I can borrow? This

classification is employed by Huebner (1983) in his famous semantic wheel model

(Figure 1).

 

2. +SR 1. -SR
+HK +HK
3. +SR 4. -SR
-HK -HK

 

Figure 1. Huebner’s (1983) semantic wheel (p. 133).

Recent studies have replaced the classification scheme of HK and SR with one of
definiteness and specificity. Ionin, Ko, and Wexler (2004) defined the terms as follows:
definiteness occurs when “the speaker and hearer presuppose the existence of a unique
individual in the set denoted by the NP,” and specificity occurs when “the speaker intends
to refer to a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP and considers this individual
to possess some noteworthy property” (p. 5). A definite NP requires the article the, and an

indefinite NP requires the article a. The feature definiteness considers both the speaker

3

and hearer, and specificity considers the speaker only. The two features are combined to
produce four different contexts as shown below.
1. [+definite, +specific]: the
I ordered an orange juice, but I think something is wrong with mew—ice.
2. [+definite, -specific]: the
I would like to interview the winner of this year’s American Idol. whoever it is.
3. [-definite, +specific]: a
A friend of mine is coming to see me tomorrow.
4. [-definite, -specific]: a
I want to buy agjfl for John’s birthday. What do you think I should get him?
English articles do not encode the feature specificity. As the above examples have
shown, only the feature definiteness determines the article use, regardless of the values of
specificity. According to Ionin et a1. (2004), languages can be divided into two groups:
article grouping by definiteness, as in English, and article grouping by specificity, as in
Samoan. As the article choice parameter is not relevant to article-less languages, L2
speakers of English from article-less Lls might exhibit fluctuations between the
definiteness setting and the specificity setting before they would ultimately settle for the
proper setting of English. This claim is called the fluctuation hypothesis (FH). This kind
of fluctuation between definiteness and specificity in article choices is also identified in
L1 Russian speakers in Ionin, Zubizarreta, and Maldonado (2008) and L1 Japanese

speakers in Snape (2005).

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) classified the English article system by
combining semantic context with noun type. Since all English nouns are either common
nouns (e.g., boy, country, dog), or proper nouns (e.g., Adam, Mary, China); and all
common nouns are either count nouns (e. g., book, shirt, theory), or noncount nouns (e.g.,
water, clothing, firmiture), they classified the English article system as shown in Figure 2.

Common Nouns
Count Noncount

Singular Plural

 

Definite the the the

 

Indefinite a/an 0 Q

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Adapted from Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman’s (1999) classification of
English article system (p. 272).

However, while much research on L2 English article acquisition has considered the
role of semantic context, namely the features of definiteness (or HK) and specificity (or
SR), there has been less consideration of the role countability plays in English learners’
usage of articles. It has always been clear that semantic context is not enough to
determine correct article uses in English, as the definite article the is reported to be the
easiest among the three articles to acquire because, in theory, it can be used with singular
or plural nouns and count or noncount nouns, while the indefinite article a is only used
with singular count nouns (Butler, 2002; Hawkins, 2001; Lee, 2008; Master, 1990; Park,

2005). As indicated in a longitudinal study conducted by Parrish (1987) with a Japanese

5

learner of English, the definite article seems to be acquired before the indefinite article.
Thomas (1989) also found that the correct use of the indefinite article was delayed. As,
English learners start to use the more fiequently, they have been found to go through a
period of overgeneralization of the definite article (Hawkins et al., 2006; Ionin, K0 &
Wexler, 2004; Liu & Gleason, 2002; Parrish, 1987; Thomas, 1989; Zegarac, 2004).

Among those who directly addressed the role countability plays in L2 learners’
production of articles, Master (1987) asserted that countability “appeared to cause the
most persistent difficulty in article acquisition” (p. 181). Yoon (1993) found in L1
Japanese speakers a correlation between intuitive countability judgments made for nouns
presented with no context and article decisions made later on a gap-filling task. Butler
(2002) found that lower-level learners were unaware of nouns that could be countable in
one context and uncountable in another. In addition, participants across proficiency levels
“often cited the difficulty of determining countability for indivisible entities” (p. 471)
such as nouns like theory or atmosphere. Hiki (1991) found that L2 English learners
made most countability misjudgrnents with abstract nouns on an editing task and were
least accurate in article use with abstract nouns on a writing task.

The term abstract is here understood as a feature which signifies that the referent of
a noun is not clearly discemable as a discrete object or entity (Trenkic, 2008). For
example, for abstract nouns (life, mood, imagination, taste, atmosphere), it is difficult to
visualize them as individuals. Some researchers (Butler, 2002; Hiki, 1991; White, 2009)

believe that learners will as a result make more errors with abstract nouns. However, no

6

studies have exclusively looked at abstract nouns while investigating learners’ article use.

The studies cited above rarely linked the NPs’ count status and semantic context.
Yoon (1993) and Hiki (1991) did not look at article choices in definite contexts. Butler
(2002) discussed learners’ misjudgment of countability, but did not report the semantic
contexts in which NPs were presented. Although Young (1996) found that learners tended
to mark NPs with singular count status with a and NPs with noncount status with 0, it
was unclear if this tendency was detected in both definite and indefinite contexts.

Snape (2005) included noncount nouns as well as singular and plural nouns in an
elicitation task similar to the one used in Ionin et a1. (2004). As predicted by the PH, the
Japanese participants exhibited variation between a and the before singular nouns and
variation between the and 0 before plural nouns in the [-definite, +specific] context.
However, for noncount nouns in the same context, variation was found between a and O.
The author interpreted the result to indicate that the learners had correctly based their
article decisions on [~definiteness] but failed to determine the NPs’ count status. More
interestingly, the Japanese participants in Snape (2005) also showed variation between
the and 0 before noncount nouns in the [+definite, +specific] context. Snape accounted
for this result as L1 influence, given that Japanese does not distinguish between count
and noncount nouns. Thus Japanese participants may have paid too much attention to the
determination of count status and their uncertainty over noun countability distracted them
from considering the semantic context of a NP. The same explanation could also apply to

the previous variation between a and 0, where 0 choices in the [-definite, +specific]

7

context may have had nothing to do with judgment of [-definiteness], but could have
been the result of learners’ fluctuation between exclusive attention to count status and
attention to semantic context.

White (2009) found that both noun type and semantic context were significant
predictors of indefinite article choice and zero article choice, whereas only semantic
context was significant in predicting definite article choice — noun type did not favor or
disfavor this choice. He asked 41 advanced-level ESL learners fiom article-less L1
backgrounds to participate in a forced-choice elicitation test. The participants were asked
to read short dialogues and choose a, the, or 0 for target items, and then to explain their
choices and rate the degree of confidence for each choice. Each item was one of three
noun types (imaginable count, abstract count, and noncount) within one of four semantic
contexts ([+definite, +specific], [+definite, -specific], [-definite, +specific], and [-definite,
-specific]). White found three common errors in the results: 1. choosing zero articles for
nouns identified as noncount in definite contexts, 2. identifying abstract count nouns as
noncount, and 3. identifying noncount nouns as count. In explaining those errors, White
argued that abstract nouns created more difficulty for learners to judge countability; he
also adopted Snape’s (2005) assertion that learnerslwould at times pay too much attention
to countability and forget to look at semantic context.

Finally, since the present study aims to look exclusively at How Chinese speakers
use English articles, it is important to briefly introduce how similar linguistic aspects

function in Chinese. Many researchers have classified Chinese as a language that does

8

not have articles (Robertson, 2002; Trenkic, 2007), but there are noun modifiers that have
similar functions (Li & Thompson, 1981). According to Li and Thompson (1981), a
Chinese noun phrase in context is either referential or nonreferential, with the difference
being if the noun phrase is used to refer to an entity. Referential NPs generally carry a
pre-noun modifier, while nonreferential NPs do not. This is demonstrated in example 1
and example 2.
Referential:
(1) W0 you fl ge jiejie.
I have one CL sister
“I have a sister.”
CL = classifier
Nonreferential:
(2) Ta shi laoshi.
he is teacher
“He is a teacher.”

In the first sentence, jiejie (sister) refers to a specific person, thus it carries the
modifier yi (one); in the second sentence, laoshi (teacher) is not used to refer to any
particular person, but rather to describe a quality of the NP. As a result it does not carry a
modifier. Furthermore, referential NPs can be either definite or indefinite: a definite NP
carries a demonstrative modifier, while an indefinite NP carries a numeral modifier. This

is shown in example 3 and example 4.

Definite:
(3) Gei wo gel ben shu.
give me that CL book
“Give me that book.”
CL = classifier
Indefinite:
(4) W0 he 1e m bei shui.
I drink AM three cup water
“I drank three cups of water.”
AM = aspect marker
In the first sentence, shu (book) is definite and carries the demonstrative modifier
nei (that); in the second sentence, shui (water) is indefinite and carries the numeral
modifier san (three). However, it should be noted that being referential or not is not a
quality of a NP, as it depends on the intention of the speaker, so it varies from context to
context. Furthermore, it would be wrong to assume that the demonstrative modifier nei
(that) is equivalent to the English article the, as it is not obligatory in all definite contexts.
That is shown in example 5:
(5) W0 shangzhou mai de pingguo huai le.
I last week bought RM apple bad AM
“The apple I bought last week is bad.”

RM = relative marker; AM = aspect marker

10

Po-Ching and Rimmington (1998) noted that the use of demonstrative modifiers zhei
(this) or nei (that) indicates definite contexts, while the use of numeral modifier yi (one)
indicates indefinite contexts, but if these modifiers are required in a certain context
depends on various factors such as the presence of adjectives or pronouns.

The above examples also show that countability is not marked in Chinese, as both
count nouns (e.g., jiejie “sister”) and noncount nouns (e. g., shui “water”) can take
numeral modifiers.

In summary, studies (Butler, 2002; Hiki, 1991; White, 2009) have stressed abstract
nouns as the problem for learners with article-less Lls in judging countability of NPs.
While many other studies looked at NPs’ count status and semantic context individually,
Snape (2005) and White (2009) found interaction between the two aspects. Their work is
the main inspiration of the present study.

Research Questions

The present study aims to investigate the influence of both countability and semantic
context on learners’ article choices before abstract nouns, with a focus on the potential
interaction between them. An elicitation task was created using three different types of
nouns (count, noncount, and both) within two semantic conteth (definite and indefinite).
Count nouns are nouns that are usually countable (e.g., idea, strategy, possibility);
noncount nouns are nouns that are usually uncountable (e. g., help, research, advice);
“Both” nouns are nouns discussed in Butler (2002) that can be countable in one context

and uncountable in another (e. g., work, time, experience). Chinese participants completed

11

the elicitation task and rated the confidence of their article choices. A subset of the
participants were interviewed to reflect on their choices. The data from these tasks were
analyzed in order to answer the following research questions.

1. When encountering abstract nouns, how do noun countability and semantic
context affect learners’ accuracy rate in using articles? Do they perform better
with count, noncount, or “both” nouns; in definite or indefinite contexts?

2. How do participants rate the confidence of their article choices with different
countability types and semantic contexts?

3. What accounts for their choices - noun countability, semantic context, or
something else? Do they emphasize one aspect and overlook another? Or is there
an interaction between them?

Hypotheses

For RQl, it was hypothesized that learners would make more errors with noncount
nouns and “both” nouns, and be more accurate with count nouns. Snape (2005) accounted
for learners’ errors with noncount nouns as failure to determine the NPs’ count status.
Butler (2002) reported learners’ problems in knowing that nouns can be countable in one
context and uncountable in another. Thus these misjudgnents are expected to lead to
more errors from learners. Also according to Hiki’s (1991) finding that L2 English
learners had the most problems determining the countability of abstract nouns, the
participants were expected to show variation between a and 0 when they made errors.

With regard to semantic context, it was predicted that learners would have. higher

12

accuracy rate in definite contexts than in indefinite contexts, because the can be used with
nouns of any count status and is thus arguably the easiest among the three articles to
acquire. Both Parrish (1987) and Thomas (1989) found that the correct use of the
indefinite article was later than the definite article. Many researchers (Hawkins et al.,
2006; Ionin, Ko & Wexler, 2004; Liu & Gleason, 2002; Parrish, 1987; Thomas, 1989;
Zegarac, 2004) reported that learners have the tendency to overgeneralize the definite
article. Thus the most common error here is expected to be learners choosing the for
indefinite contexts.

For RQ2, due to previous findings on learners’ difficulties in determining noun
countability (Butler, 2002; Hiki, 1991; Yoon, 1993), learners were expected to have more
uncertainty with noncount nouns and “both” nouns. This uncertainty was expected to
translate into lower confidence ratings for article choices with these noun types. Learners
were also predicted to be less confident with indefinite contexts since using the was
reported to be easier for them.

For RQ3, it was predicted that noun countability and semantic context would
emerge as the most mentioned reasons by learners in explaining their article choices
(compared with other possible responses, such as first/second mention). Semantic context
was expected to appear more frequently because when learners judged a semantic context
to be definite and therefore used the, there was technically no need to mention noun
countability. In addition, given Snape’s (2005) and White’s (2009) findings that learners

may at times pay too much attention to count status and as a result neglect to look at

13

semantic context, it was also hypothesized that learners would use noun countability to
explain their (incorrect) a and 0 choices in definite contexts.
Method

Participants

Participants are 25 English as L2 learners from China who are enrolled as full-time
students at a large Midwestern university. None of them were taking ESL classes at the
time of the experiment. A language background questionnaire was used to ensure that the
participants had reached college-level English proficiency and had relatively similar
amounts of exposure to English. Their information is shown in Table 1.

Table l

Participating Students

 

 

 

Chinese participants N=25
Gender

Female 1 6

Male
Average age 22 (Range: 18-27)
Average years of living in the US 2 (Range: 1-5)
Average TOEFL iBT score 91 (Range: 64-1 09)
Test Instruments

The test instruments, which included a forced-choice elicitation task and a
confidence rating task, were constructed to test participants’ article knowledge and how

confident they were with their article choices (see Appendix).

14

The elicitation task contained a total of 18 short dialogues, all of which used abstract
nouns as target NPs and each was designed to elicit a particular article (a, the, or O). The
indefinite article was displayed as a/an so that no choice was required based on
phonological features. Each of the three noun types contained six target items. Type 1
(count nouns) was comprised of idea, rumor, possibility, suggestion, strategy, and
surprise; type 2 (noncount nouns) was comprised of research, safety, help, violence,
advice, and hospitality; type 3 (“both” nouns) was comprised of lifie, time, liberty, culture,
work, and experience. All of these 18 NPs were randomly placed in two different
semantic contexts (definite and indefinite), so that participants were exposed to issues of
both countability and definiteness while completing the task. Table 2 shows the
distribution of target items in each of the six categories formed by both features.

Table 2
Words Chosen for Elicitation Task

 

 

Count Noncount Both

Definite rumor, suggestion, safety, help, time, culture
strategy hospitality

Indefinite idea, possibility, research, violence, life, liberty, work,
surprise advice experience

 

The confidence rating task requires participants to note their confidence levels for
the 18 article choices. Confidence for each decision is expressed by marking one of the
three possibilities:

I. I am not confident at all with my choice. My answer is a guess.

15

2. I am somewhat confident with my choice. My answer may be right.

3. I am very confident with my choice. My answer is definitely right.
Interviews with some of the participants were also conducted in order to give them a
chance to reflect upon their own article choices and to explain their strategies for article
use. This will be discussed in more detail below.
Procedure

All 25 participants met individually with the researcher for the experiment. Each
participant was given 20 minutes to complete the forced-choice elicitation task and the
confidence rating task. The instruction of the test paper did not explicitly state whether
participants should rate confidence after they completed the whole test or if they should
do so after each item, but in reality all of them chose to give their ratings after each item.
The test papers were collected by the researcher when both tasks were completed.

Personal interviews were conducted with 12 selected participants directly after they
finished the test papers in order to find out what had accounted for their article choices.
The data gathered from the interviews was intended to be discussed in a more descriptive
manner rather than as a quantitative analysis, which was why only a subset of participants
were interviewed. The selection of the interviewees was based on the amount of time they
had available for the experiment, without regard to their personal and academic
information. The format of the interview was similar to Butler’s (2002), where the
researcher went through each item one by one with the participants, asking them to

explain why they had chosen a certain article for each dialogue. The interviews were

16

conducted in Chinese rather than the target language so that the participants could
accurately describe their decision-making process to their full knowledge. Their oral
responses were recorded for coding and firrther analysis.

Data Analysis

To address RQl, tables were created to show the firll distribution of learners’ article
usage throughout the 18 test items. The tables were made based on the six categories
formed by countability/semantic context of NPs and were designed to display how many
participants made the right choice for each item as well as the articles they chose when
they were wrong. A correct rate was calculated for each NP category to find out how
noun countability and semantic context affected learners’ performance in choosing
articles. In order to determine if there was a significant difference in correct rate between
NP categories, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using SPSS.

To address RQ2, participants’ confidence ratings, which had been marked on a 1-3
scale, were computed as values given to each test item. A Pearson product moment
correlation (Pearson’s r) was first performed to see if there was a correlation between
learners’ test scores and confidence scores. Similar tables were then created to show the
distribution of learners’ confidence scores in each NP category. A total confidence score
was calculated for each NP category to find out how noun countability and semantic
context influenced learners’ confidence in choosing articles. A two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there was a significant difference in

confidence scores between NP categories.

17

In order to address RQ3, participants’ oral explanations were transcribed and coded
as reference to definiteness, countability, first/second mention, NP modifier, feeling, and
not sure. These six categories were developed based on learners’ responses, after
examining the data. Definiteness and countability refer to learners’ responses that directly
addressed NPs’ count status and semantic context. This includes cases where variations of
the words “definiteness” and “countability” were counted as if they belonged to the
bigger categories. For example, “its just any one out of many” was counted as referring
to definiteness and “the word is singular” was counted as referring to countability.
First/second mention refers to learners’ explanations that a certain article was chosen
because the NP was mentioned for the first/second time. NP modifier indicates learners’
belief that a NP’s adjectival modifier was the reason why a certain article was required
(e.g., the right strategy). Feeling refers to learners’ responses that did not mention a
specific reason for an article choice but stressed the choice felt right. Not sure includes
cases where learners simply said “I don’t know/I ’m not sure.” The total number of how
many times each reason was mentioned were calculated to see the general trend of what
learners used to explain their article choices. Individual responses will be looked at for
particularly interesting learner errors which may suggest any neglect of countability or
semantic context, or any interaction between them. Special attention will be paid to if,
according to Snape (2005) and White (2009), learners would sometimes get too distracted
by count status and thus forget to look at semantic context. This will be discovered by

looking at if learners would use noun countability to explain their a and 0 choices in

18

definite contexts.

Results
RQI : When encountering abstract nouns, how do noun countability and semantic context
aflect learners ' accuracy rate in using articles? Do they perform better with count,
noncount, or “both ” nouns; in definite or indefinite contexts?
When it comes to learners’ general performance on the forced-choice elicitation task,

their scores are displayed in Figure 3.

 

Mean = 13.72
Std. Dev. = 1.595
N = 25

 

 

 

 

 

b

(.0

 

Frequency

 

 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Total Number of Correct Answers

Figure 3. Test scores.
As shown in Figure 3, most participants did relatively well in the task, with 20 of them

scoring above 12 (18 is a perfect score) and none with a score lower than 10. However

19

none of the participants received a perfect score and the best among them had 2 items
wrong.

When the 18 items were divided into 6 categories formed by the count status and
definiteness of the NPs, the correct rate for each NP category is displayed in Table 3,
which shows how noun countability and semantic context affected learners’ performance

in choosing articles.

 

 

Table 3
Correct Rate

Count Noncount Both
Definite 75% 88% 88%
Indefinite 93% 44% 77%

 

A two-way ANOVA with both countability and definiteness as within-subjects
variables (countability has three levels: count, noncount and “both”; definiteness has two
levels: definite and indefinite) indicates significant differences in learners’ scores with
both factors.

Countability: F (2, 48) = 10.67; p = .000; up2 = .31

Definiteness: F (1, 24) = 11.64; p = .002; n,’ = .33

Post-hoe shows that with countability as the factor, learners’ scores with count nouns
are significantly higher than their scores with noncount nouns (p = .001), but the
difference between count nouns and “both” nouns is not significant (p = .484). At the

same time, learners’ scores with count/noncount nouns are significantly higher than their

20

scores with noncount nouns (p = .012). When definiteness is the factor, Post-hoc shows
that learners performed significantly better in definite contexts than in indefinite contexts
(p = .002).

RQ2: How do participants rate the confidence of their article choices with diflerent
countability types and semantic contexts?

Learners rated their confidence for each item on a 1-3 scale. A Pearson product
moment correlation (Pearson’s r) was first performed to see if there was a correlation
between learners’ test scores and confidence scores. The result indicates that there was
not a significant correlation between the two scores (r = .190, n = 25, p = .364,
two-tailed).

Again the 18 items are divided into 6 categories formed by the count status and
definiteness of the NPs, and a confidence score was given to each NP category to find out
how noun countability and semantic context influenced learners’ confidence in choosing
articles. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Confidence Score

 

 

Count Noncount Both
Definite 203 1 86 194
Indefinite 1 85 192 l 81

 

A two-way ANOVA with both countability and definiteness as within-subjects

variables shows that learners’ confidence scores do not differ significantly when

21

countability is the independent variable (F (2, 48) = .993, p = .378, npz = .04). However,
when definiteness is the factor, there is a significant difference between learners’
confidence scores with definite contexts and indefinite contexts (F (1, 24) = 7.143, p
= .013, npz = .23). Post-hoc also shows that learners were significantly more confident in
definite context than in indefinite context (p = .013).
RQ3: What accounts for their choices — noun countability, semantic context, or
something else? Do they emphasize one aspect and overlook another? Or is there an
interaction between them?

Participants’ oral responses were coded and categorized based on different
references they used to explain their article choices. The total numbers of how many

times each reason was mentioned were then counted and the results are shown in Table 5.

 

 

Table 5
Learner Responses

Definiteness Countability lst mention Modifier Feels right Not sure
Count/def l 7 2 9 0 4 1
Count/indef l 6 4 3 0 6 5
Noncount/def 1 7 3 3 1 6 3
Noncount/indef l 0 1 2 6 0 3 5
Both/def l4 3 0 1 4 l
Both/indef 2 1 1 0 1 0 8 8
Total 95 34 22 2 3 l 23

 

22

The results show that learners mainly referred to the definiteness of a NP when they
were asked to explain their article choices, with five other reasons mentioned at various
times. Definiteness is also the predominant reason for choosing an article in each NP
category with the exception of noncount/indefinite NPs, where countability was referred
to most frequently by the learners.

In addition, the types of learners’ errors were looked at in order to help understand
the causes of those errors. Calculations were done to show that when a, the, and 0 were
correct answers, respectively, how many times learners made the right choices, and when

they did not, how many times they chose each wrong answer. The results are displayed in

 

 

 

Table 6.
Table 6
Error Types
Correct answers
Answers given a (N=125) the (N=200) O (N=125)
a 117 l 8 36
the 3 163 26
0 5 19 63

 

Note. 1. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

2. N refers to the total times when each article was the correct answer.

In the present study, when the correct answer is a, the choice of the is viewed as
learners’ problem with definiteness, and the choice of 0 is viewed as learners’ problem

with countability; when the is the correct answer, the choices of both a and 0 are viewed

23

as learners’ problem with definiteness; when 0 should be chosen, the choice of a is
viewed as a problem with countability, and the choice of the is viewed as a definiteness
problem. This reasoning is in line with Snape’s (2005) and enables the researcher to draw
conclusions on how NPs’ count status and semantic context influence learners’
performance in using articles. Thus, a simple calculation of Table 6 shows that among the
107 total errors made by the learners, 41 (38%) of them are countability errors, while 66

(62%) of them are definiteness errors.

Discussion

General Implications

For RQl, the results are largely in line with the hypotheses in showing that learners
had more problems with noncount nouns and indefinite contexts (see Table 3). A
significant difference was found in learners’ performance between count and noncount
nouns, which echoes Snape’s (2005) finding that learners generally have greater difficulty
judging the countability of noncount nouns. It should be noted that Snape (2005) only
looked at concrete nouns, so the present study shows that the same pattern could also be
found with abstract nouns. However, learners seemed to perform equally well with “both”
NPs, as no significant difference was found between the count and “both” categories.
This differs from the hypotheses and Butler’s (2002) finding that learners would have

problems knowing some NPs can be countable in one context and noncount in another. In

24

the present study learners seemed to have few problems with those nouns since they did
significantly better in that category than with noncount nouns. This may have something
to do with particular lexical items in that category, which will be discussed with learners’
responses below when each category is analyzed. At the same time, the results yield the
same finding in Liu and Gleason (2002) that learners’ accuracy rate is higher in definite
context than in indefinite context because the is easy to choose (both correctly and
incorrectly) as it spares learners the burden of having to deal with the NP’s count status.
For RQ2, the results of the present study are surprisingly different from the
hypotheses and previous studies. No significant correlation was found between learners’
test scores and confidence ratings, which means that learners were not less confident in
test items they made the most errors with. This can be interpreted as showing that
learners strongly believed in some of the wrong judgments they made and were not
hesitant with their choices. Both Hiki (1991) and Yoon (1993) found greater uncertainty
among learners with noncount nouns, thus learners in the present study were expected to
present lower confidence ratings with noncount and “both” nouns than with count nouns.
But again that was not proved to be true in the results (see Table 4). The same explanation
could also apply here: the fact that learners make errors with one NP doesn’t necessarily
mean they perceive that NP to be difficult. The typical example in the present study is
research. 19 out of 25 participants chose a for this item and 17 of the 19 gaveit a 3 (most
confident) as their confidence rating. The reason why learners overwhelmingly perceived

research to be countable will be addressed below. At the same time the only significant

25

difference in confidence scores was found between definite contexts and indefinite
contexts. This can be interpreted as learners’ ease with the translated into greater
confidence when choosing it.

For RQ3, it was predicted that learners would mostly turn to noun countability and
semantic context in explaining their article choices, with semantic context mentioned the
most. The results largely echo the hypotheses (see Table 5). It should be noted that when
asked to orally explain their decisions, participants almost never mentioned more than
one reason. It is understood that this doesn’t necessarily mean they only thought about
one reason when they completed the test (e. g., a participant may have thought about both
countability and definiteness but only commented on definiteness), but it would at least
prove that learners overwhelmingly thought definiteness was more worthy of mentioning
than countability as well as any other issues. This is not surprising because when the was
the correct answer, there was technically no need to mention countability. This also seems
to counter Snape’s (2005) and White’s (2009) assertions that noun countability would at
times distract learners from paying attention to semantic context. However, a closer look
at the results shows that the only time learners mentioned countability more than
definiteness occurred with noncount/indefinite NPs, where they made the most errors by
misjudging the count status of research and advice. This at least seems to indicate that
certain lexical items, whose count status was proved to be the most difficult for learners
to judge, did draw their attention to countability.

But is it enough proof that there is a link between countability and semantic context?

26

A focus of the present study is to investigate if an interaction exists between the two
aspects. Both Snape (2005) and White (2009) gave an affirmative answer to that question,
arguing that when their participants incorrectly chose 0 before noncount nouns in
definite contexts, they paid too much attention to the judgment of the nouns’ countability
and therefore forgot to consider definiteness. Their conclusion was when a NP’s count
status is difficult for the learners to decide, it will distract them from looking at its
semantic context. However, it is hard to be sure about when participants chose 0 over the
in definite contexts, if they really did not look at definiteness, or they did and simply
decided it was indefinite. It is impossible to know without actually asking the participants
what they were thinking when they made certain choices. That is why the present study
adopted the after-test interviews, which allowed the researcher to see if there were any
cases where participants chose a or 0 in definite contexts and only mentioned
countability while explaining their choices. Those cases were not found in the present
study, which does not support Snape’s (2005) and White’s (2009) assertion that such
interaction exists between countability and semantic context.

So what are the reasons behind learners’ errors in the present study? It has been
found that the reasons vary with different lexical items. In order to answer that question,

each NP category will be discussed separately.

Count/Definite

Table 7 displays all 25 learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the

27

count/definite NP category. Previous findings have shown that with the NPs being both
countable and definite, this should be a category learners felt most comfortable with. This
seemed to be true for rumor and suggestion, where learners made very few errors and
rated their confidence high. However, the case was very different with strategy, which
elicited much more learner errors and received much lower confidence ratings. The
variation was found between a and the. In order to discover the reason behind this result,
the original test item needs to be looked at.

5.

Charles: I just watched the Presidents address on health care reform. I think it was

pretty good.
Brandon: I agree. I think talking to people directly was (a, the, 0) right strategy to
adopt.

17 out of 25 participants misused a for this item, which clearly indicates that their
problem lies in the judgment of definiteness of the NP strategy. White’s (2009)
participants were found to have trouble classifying abstract nouns as countable, which
was not the case here. A look at participants’ explanations for this item reveals that only 2
participants out of 12 interviewed mentioned countability as the reason why they chose a,
which again differs fiom the previous hypotheses that leamers’ disproportionate attention
to countability would lead to insensitivity to semantic context. In other words, learners
successfully determined that strategy was countable, but most of them failed to judge the

semantic context as definite. One learner explicitly used “first mention” in explaining her

28

article choice, arguing that the correct answer should be a because strategy was being
mentioned for the first time.

So why didn’t learners in the present study think strategy was definite? How is this
item different from those of rumor and suggestion? The reason may be the modifier
“right”. Even though none of the participants interviewed said anything about the
influence of a modifier regarding this item, Trenkic (2007, 2008) found a higher degree
of accuracy of article usage when nouns were not modified by adjectives. When nouns
were modified by adjectives, the participants made more errors in article uses. So the fact
that learners in the present study misjudged the semantic context of strategy might have
nothing to do with countability, but rather due to the burden of having to express two

pre-noun modifiers at the same time.

 

 

 

Table 7
Count/Definite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the O l 2 3
Rumor 0 25 O O 4 21
Suggestion 1 24 0 0 4 21
Strategy 1 7 7 1 0 14 l 1

 

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

Count/Indefinite

Table 8 displays learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the

29

count/indefinite NP category. It is obvious from the results that learners did quite well
when the NPs were both countable and indefinite. Once more they seemed to have no
problem classifying abstract nouns as countable. Learners were less certain about their
choices with possibility and surprise than with idea, but they made mostly accurate
choices regardless. Previous analysis has proven that learners’ test scores and their
confidence ratings in general do not correlate, which is in line with results in this
particular category where learners might feel an NP is difficult but are still able to judge

its countability and semantic context correctly.

 

 

 

Table 8
Count/Indefinite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the 0 l 2 3
Idea 25 O 0 l 2 ‘ 22
Possibility 22 1 2 3 1 3 9
Surprise 23 0 2 3 11 ll

 

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

Noncount/Definite

Table 9 displays learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the
noncount/definite NP category. This is the most uniform category in the present study
because participants gave the exact same performance with the 3 NPs in the category. The

indefinite article a was never chosen by the learners, which highlights their perfect

30

judgment of the count status of the 3 testing words. Countability was only mentioned 3
times when learners explained their article choices, while definiteness was referred to 17
times in comparison. This again yields little evidence that learners’ consideration of
countability would make them insensitive to semantic context. One interesting response
came with the word safety, in the following dialogue:

8.

Jordan: How did that meeting go? Did the parents say anything special?

Brian: Yeah, most of them were just concerned with (a, the, 3) safety of their

children in the neighborhood.

This participant explicitly said the reason she chose the was because the word safety has a
“modifier” after it. This strategy was discussed in Liu and Gleason (2002) as a useful tool
in determining an NP to be definite. However, in the present study “having a modifier”
was only cited twice as an explanation to article choices, which clearly shows that the

majority of learners are very much unaware of this tactic.

 

 

 

Table 9
Noncount/Definite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the 0 l 2 3
Safety 0 22 3 4 4 17
Help 0 22 3 3 6 16
Hospitality 0 22 3 1 13 l l

 

31

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

Noncount/Indefinite

Table 10 displays learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the
noncount/indefinite NP category. This is the category where learners in the present study
made the most errors and provided the most interesting responses. First of all, the
majority of learners made wrong article choices with research and advice, but not with
violence, even though the 3 words share the same features in terms of count status and
semantic context. When they did make errors, the variation was predominantly between a
and 0, which is a clear indicator that the problem lies in the judgment of countability of
those two words. Second of all, learners’ confidence ratings were not lower in this
category in comparison with other categories. In fact with the NP research — the word
eliciting their worst performance among all 18 NPs — 17 out of 25 participants were “very
confident” with their article choices. Furthermore, this is the only category where
countability was cited more by the learners than definiteness as the reason in explaining
their article choices, which proved that learners did pay more attention to countability
with this category, but they failed to determine that research and advice were noncount
nouns.

So why were most learners aware that violence was uncountable, but not research
and advice? Many researchers (Bergeron-Matoba, 2007; Butler, 2002; Mizuno, 1999;
Parrish, 1987; Robertson, 2000; Yoon, 1993; Young, 1996) have suggested strong Ll

transfer effect in how learners use articles. Robertson (2000) particularly found that

32

Chinese ESL learners would often omit articles because their L1 is article-free. In the
present study, Chinese participants overused articles rather than omitting them, but the
explanation could be the same. According to Li and Thompson’s (1981) work, in Chinese
if a noun is referential in a context, it generally carries pre-noun modifiers; if a noun is
used in a nonreferential way, it usually does not. Among the three test items in the present

category, a difference was discovered regarding this particular issue.

Dan: Its been about six months since you began your PhD. program. What have
you been doing?

Caitlin: Well, I am doing (a, the, 0) research on water pollution.

10.

Calvin: That guy is totally annoying. Maybe I should go beat him up.

Tara: I understand how you feel. But you should know that (a, the, 0) violence is
never the answer:

11.

Jason: You look very confused. Is everything okay?

John: I ’m trying to draw a poster for the meeting next week, but now I need (an, the,
0) advice on how to make it look better:

In test items 7 and 11, the speaker was using research and advice to refer to specific

entities — research that Caitlin was doing on water pollution, and advice that John was

seeking to improve his poster. However, in test item 10 the speaker was only using

33

violence to make a general comment. Thus in Chinese research and advice would be
referential in this case and carry pre-noun modifiers, while violence would be
nonreferential in the sentence and does not have a pre-noun modifier. So it is possible that
this knowledge translated into learners’ belief that these two words would require an
article in English. What might have made it even more confusing for the learners was the
word suggestion, which has the same meaning in Chinese to advice and also appeared in
the study as a test item, but is a countable noun — learners might think these two words
share the same count status.

In order to further investigate if Ll transfer is at work, all 18 test items were
translated into Chinese to see if any of them would require a certain pre-noun modifier
because the nouns were referential in the contexts, and how that might have influenced
learners’ English article choices. Attention was paid to if it was more likely for the
learners to choose the when the demonstrative modifiers zhei (this) or nei (that) were
required, and to choose a when the numeral modifier yi (one) was required. It turned out
that 4 out of 18 test items would carry a pre-noun modifier in Chinese, with test item 2
requiring the demonstrative modifier zhei (this), and test items 3, 6, and 18 requiring the
numeral modifier yi (one). It should be noted that the correct article choice for test item 2
was the, while the correct answer for test items 3, 6 and 18 was a. Learners’ accuracy
rates for these 4 test items were 100%, 88%, 92% and 92%, respectively, which was
considerably higher when compared with other test items which were nonreferential in

the equivalent Chinese sentences and did not require a pre-noun modifier. While the

34

limitation of this calculation is obvious, due to the small sample size and the fact that it
was based on translation, which can be structured differently by different people, it could
at least provide some evidence that L1 transfer effect might have attributed to learners’
article decisions in the present study by making it more likely for them to use articles

before nouns that would require pre-noun modifiers in Chinese contexts.

 

 

 

Table 10
Noncount/Indefinite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the 0 l 2 3
Research 19 2 4 l 7 17
Violence 2 1 22 1 ll 13
Advice 15 3 7 O ll 14

 

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

Both/Definite

Table 11 displays learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the both/definite
NP category. Previous analysis has shown that learners’ article choices tended to be more
accurate when the NPs could be both countable and uncountable, than when the NPs
were strictly uncountable, even though their confidence ratings did not significantly differ
between these two categories. Learners seemed to have no problem at all deciding that
both time and culture in their respective contexts were uncountable, since a was never

chosen. Some variation was detected between the and 0 with the NP time, indicating that

35

the problem was solely about definiteness. Butler (2002) found that learners would have
problems knowing some nouns can be countable in one context and uncountable in
another, which usually leads to learner errors. However, in the present study both time
and culture were presented in contexts that called for their uncountable forms, which
learners were apparently more familiar with. This could explain their perfect judgment of
countability in this category, as they did not have to consider the fact that the NPs also
had a countable form.

So why did culture seem more “definite” than time? Since 25 out of 25 learners
correctly chose the for culture, but only 16 did so for time.

14.

Chris: I have been practicing for so long. When do I get to play?

Brandon: Be patient. You will get your chance when (a, the, 2) time is right.

16.

Charles: So tell me, what do you like the most about the summer in China?

Brandon: I would say that I enjoyed (a, the, 0) culture most. Chinese people live

very diflerently from us.

In test item 16, the definiteness of the NP culture could be easily discovered fiom the
dialogue, since culture obviously referred to Chinese culture. In test item 14, what time
referred to was more difficult to'objectify. Trenkic (2008) suggested that learners with
article-less Lls may understand the definite article as signifying that which is identifiable

and the indefinite article as signifying that which is unidentifiable. But sometimes they

36

fail to understand that the determination of identifiability is up to the speaker’s
assumption of the bearer, not themselves. In this case some learners might decide time
was not definite because they themselves were not sure what it referred to. The same
point could be proven by learners’ responses in the interview: 10 of them said they chose
the for culture because it was definite, but only 4 of them said the same thing about time.

Their uncertainty over time’s semantic context evidently led to more errors with this NP.

 

 

 

Table 11
Both/Definite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the 0 1 2 3
Time 0 16 9 2 1 0 l 3
Culture 0 25 O O 8 17

 

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

Both/Indefinite

Table 12 displays learners’ article choices and confidence ratings of the
both/indefinite NP category. The results once again showed learners’ nearly perfect
judgment of count status of the 4 NPs, with the variation between a and @ being close to
none. This is in line with the participants’ good performance with NPs that can be both
countable and uncountable. The NP that stuck out with more learner errors was work,
where variation was found between the and 0. The test item is shown below:

17.

37

Mike: Do you have a role model?
Lauren: My father. He is one of those down-to-earth guys who just enjoy (a, the, 0)
work and put their hearts into it.

14 participants chose the for this item, apparently believing that work was definite. Their
confidence rating for this item was also lower than the other 3 NPs in this category,
indicating the difficulty learners had in determining the NP’s semantic context. The
reason why many learners thought work in the dialogue was definite may be similar to
the reason with the NP time: learners misjudge the definiteness of a NP by letting their
own identifications of what a NP refers to decide their article choices. One learner
provided an especially interesting response during the interview: “I drink work is definite
because it refers to ‘my father’s wor ”’, she said, “but that’s what I think. I don’t know if

that’s what Lauren meant... I’m not sure.”

 

 

 

Table 12
Both/Indefinite
Article choice Confidence rating
a the O 1 2 3

Life 24 0 l 1 8 16
Liberty 0 6 l9 4 7 14
Work 0 14 11 4 ll 10
Experience 23 2 0 2 5 18

 

Note. Bold font reflects accurate article choices.

38

In the end, the present study exclusively looked at learners’ performance with
abstract nouns, since no studies have done so before. While that makes it impossible to
compare the potential differences in learners’ performance between abstract nouns and
concrete nouns, it is valuable in showing that some previous findings by other researchers
could also stand with the present study. Snape’s (2005) participants made more article
errors with noncount nouns than with count nouns when encountering only concrete
nouns, which also emerged as a finding in the present study with only abstract nouns.
Butler (2002), Hiki (1991) and White (2009) stressed the role abstract nouns play in
leading learners to make countability errors — the same kind of errors were also identified

in the present study.

Conclusion

The present study shows that when Chinese ESL learners use English articles before
abstract nouns, they tend to be more accurate with [+countable] nouns and [+definite]
nouns, while making more errors with [-countable] nouns and [-definite] nouns. Their
self-rated confidence scores do not necessarily reflect the real problems they face with
difficult NPs, as they are at times more confident with less accurate article choices. When
asked to explain their decisions, learners mostly refer to semantic context as the reason
why they choose a certain article, though it says little about whether or not their
decision-making process normally does not involve count status, since they made more

errors with definiteness than they did with countability.

39

Previous studies have cited the judgment of countability as the most persistent
problem in learners’ article use (Butler, 2002; Master, 1987; Yoon, 1993), especially with
abstract nouns (Hiki, 1991). However, the present study has suggested that semantic
context causes equally as many problems, if not more, as countability does. Both Snape
(2005) and White (2009) concluded that learners’ exclusive attention to countability is the
main cause of many learner errors with articles, but little evidence was found in the
present study to support that assertion. Instead, learner errors seemed to result from L1
transfer effect, the presence of adjectival modifications, and false conception of
definite/indefinite identification, though more evidence is needed to support those
assumptions. The study once again shows the extreme complexity of understanding how
ESL learners make article choices.

Limitations and Future Studies

Among the shortcomings of the present study is the small number of NPs in each
countability/definiteness category. Having more target items on the elicitation task would
enable a more confident interpretation of the quantitative results. For example, it is hard
to determine if learners’ poor performance with the noncount/indefinite NPs was solely
due to the influence of semantic features and noun types, or simply the unfamiliarity with
particular lexical items including research and advice, since there were only 3 NPs in that
category. A greater number of target items in the future studies would allow for more
certain conclusions regarding noun countability and semantic context.

Another limitation may be the fact that when learners were interviewed about their

40

article choices, they tended to give the shortest possible answers so that their responses
might not fully reflect the whole picture of their decision-making process. An alternative
approach is for participants to complete the elicitation task while following a think-aloud

protocol. This measure may shed more light on learners’ thinking process.

41

APPENDIX
English Article Tasks
Instructions:
1. You have 20 minutes to finish the tasks.
2. Please read the following short dialogues and circle the proper articles (a/an,
the, or O) for the nouns.
3. After you finish, please rate how confident you are with your choice on a
1 to 3 scale as shown below. Please write down the number next to each
dialogue.
(1). I am not confident at all with my choice. My answer is a guess.
(2). I am somewhat confident with my choice. My answer may be right.

(3). I am very confident with my choice. My answer is definitely right.

1. Bob: Our TV is still not working. Do you know how to fix it?

Mike: I don’t know. Maybe when James comes home, we can come up with (an, the,

0) idea.

2. Jenny: I have heard that John and Jennifer are back together. I just can’t believe it.

Serena: Where did you hear (a, the, 0) rumor? That’s so not true!

3. Dave: Hey, how do you think our football team will do at the end of the season?

42

Jared: I’m not sure yet. Going to a game in the final round is definitely (a, the, 0)

possibility.

. Mary: I’m going to talk to my advisor about the study abroad program.
Chris: I wouldn’t count on what she says. (A, The, O) suggestion she gave me last

time totally didn’t work.

. Charles: I just watched the President’s address on health care reform. I think it was
pretty good.
Brandon: I agree. I think talking to people directly was (a, the, 9) right strategy to

adopt.

. Chris: So you really didn’t know there would be a birthday party waiting for you at
home?

Blair: Not at all. That was (a, the, 0) total surprise.

. Dan: It’s been about six months since you began your PHD program. What have you
been doing?

Caitlin: Well, I am doing (a, the, 0) research on water pollution.

. Jordan: How did that meeting go? Did the parents say anything special?

43

10.

11.

12.

Brian: Yeah, most of them are just concerned with (a, the, 0) safety of their children

in the neighborhood.

Maria: I’m sorry you had to go through that entire process at the university. I know
that’s very complicated.
Jacob: It’s okay. The staff there were very nice and offered me exactly (a, the, 6) help

I needed.

Calvin: That guy is totally annoying. Maybe I should go beat him up.
Tara: I understand how you feel. But you should know that (a, the, 0) violence is

never the answer.

Jason: You look very confused. Is everything okay?
John: I’m trying to draw a poster for the meeting next week, but now I need (an, the,

0) advice on how to make it look better.

Sally: I heard you went to spend Thanksgiving with your roommate’s family. How
was it?
Jake: It was great. His parents treated me like their own son and I really appreciated

(a, the, 0) hospitality.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Bob: Do you usually get up this early to exercise?

Mike: I do. Living (a, the, 0) healthy life is very important to me.

Chris: I have been practicing for so long. When do I get to play?

Brandon: Be patient. You will get your chance when (a, the, 0) time is right.

Grace: How was your history class today? What did you learn?
Karen: Well, we learned that (a, the, 0) liberty is something our forefathers fought for

and thus is very precious.

Charles: So tell me, what do you like the most about the summer you spent in China?
Brandon: I would say that I enjoyed (a, the, 0) culture most. Chinese people live very

differently from us.

Mike: Do you have a role model?
Lauren: My father. He is one of those down-to-earth guys who just enjoy (a, the, 0)

work and put their hearts into it.

Andrea: Did you have fun at Disney Land?

Mark: I did. We don’t have that in our country. It was (a, the, 0) unique experience.

45

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bergeron-Matoba, J. (2007). Acquisition of the English article system in SLA and the
Missing Surface Inflection. The University of Queensland Working Papers in
Linguistics, 1. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from
http://www.library.uq.edu.au/oj s/index.php/qupl/article/view/9/ l O

Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.

Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An
analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring
the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451-480.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher 19 course (2'“1 ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Covitt, R. (1976). Some problematic grammar areas for ESL teachers. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Hawkins, R., Al-Eid, S., Almahboob, I., Athanasopoulos, P., Chaengchenki, R., Hu, J .,
Rezai, M., Jaensch, C., Jeon, Y., Jiang, A., Leung, Y.I., Matsunaga, K., Ortega,
M., Sarko, G., Snape, N. & Velasco-Zarate, K. (2006). Accounting for English
article interpretation by L2 speakers. E UROSA Yearbook, 6: 7-25.

Hiki, M. (1991). A study of learners’ judgment on noun countability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI:
Karoma Publishers.

Ionin, T., Kc, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of
specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 2-69.

Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic
knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118,

46

 

 

554-576.

Lee, E. (2008). Advanced NNS teachers' different error patterns on English articles
depending on a task type. English Language & Literature Teaching, 14, 109-130.

Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar:
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Liu, D., & 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.

Master, P. (1987). A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the
English article system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles.

Master, P. (1988a). Teaching the English article system (Part 1). English Teaching
Forum, 26, 2—7.

Master, P. (1988b). Teaching the English article system (Part 2). English Teaching
Forum, 26, 18—25.

Master, P. (1990). Teaching the English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly, 24,
461—498.

Master, P. (1994). Effects of instruction on learning the English article system. In T.
Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 229-252). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher & G.
Braine (Eds), Academic writing in second language: Essays on research and

pedagogy (pp. 183—204). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McEldowney, P. L. (1977). A teaching grammar of the English article system.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 95—1 12.

Mizuno, M. (1999). Interlanguage analysis of the English article system: Some cognitive
constraints facing the Japanese adult learners. International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching, 3 7, 127-153.

Park, T. (2005). English article use by advanced Korean EFL learners. Foreign Language

47

Education, 12, 35-59.

Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for
learners of ESL. Language Learning, 3 7, 361-383.

Pica, T. (1983). The article in American English: what the textbooks don’t tell us. In N.
Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp.
222-233). London: Newbury House Publishers.

Po-Ching, Y., & Rimmington, D. (1998). Basic Chinese: A grammar and workbook.
London: Routledge.

Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese
learners of English. Second Language Research, 16, 135-172.

Snape, N. (2005). The uses of articles in L2 English by Japanese and Spanish learners.
Essex Graduate Student Papers in Languages and Linguistics, 7, 1-23.

Tarone, E., & Panish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of
articles. Language Learning, 38, 21-44.

Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language
learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 335-3 55.

Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: Beyond the
representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language

Research, 23, 289-327.

Trenkic, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars:
Determiners or adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 1-18.

White, B. (2009). Accounting for L2-English learners’ article choices. MSU Working
Papers in SLS, 1, 14-37.

Whitman, R. L. (1974). Teaching the article in English. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 253—262.

Yoon, K. K. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perceptions of noun countability
and indefiniteness vs.zero article use. IRAL, 3], 269-289.

Young, R. (1996). Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R.
Bayley & D. Preston (Eds), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation

48

(pp. 135-175). Amsterdam: John Benjarnins.

Zdorenko T., & Paradis, J. (2008). The acquisition of articles in child second language
English: Fluctuation, transfer or both? Second Language Research, 24, 227-250.

Zegarac, V. (2004). Relevance theory and the in second language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 20, 193-211.

49

 

a

 

"illilllijllljilllliliilllllillllES