🔧На сайте запланированы технические работы
25.12.2025 в промежутке с 18:00 до 21:00 по Московскому времени (GMT+3) на сайте будут проводиться плановые технические работы. Возможны перебои с доступом к сайту. Приносим извинения за временные неудобства. Благодарим за понимание!
🔧Site maintenance is scheduled.
Scheduled maintenance will be performed on the site from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM Moscow time (GMT+3) on December 25, 2025. Site access may be interrupted. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your understanding!

 

The role of language transfer in Arabic-speaking EFL learners’ comprehension of scope ambiguity in doubly quantified sentences


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This study examines the influence of language transfer on Arabic-speaking EFL learners’ understanding of quantifier scope ambiguity and the impact of their first language on resolving three types of doubly quantified sentences. Fifty English literature and applied English students from the University of Jordan participated, split into two groups: 25 with medium proficiency and 25 with advanced proficiency. A 14-item test with doubly quantified sentences and static pictures assessed how English proficiency influences comprehension of scope ambiguity across three patterns: numerical, universal, and existential quantifier sentences. Results indicated that higher proficiency participants better understood existential quantifier sentences, which are more complex. However, proficiency did not significantly affect comprehension of universal or numerical sentences. Numerical sentences were the most challenging due to ambiguity in linking numbers and objects, while universal sentences were easier due to their predictable meaning. In line with language transfer theory, the data analysis suggests that L1 syntactic structures influence the processing of doubly quantified sentences, with participants exhibiting tendencies to favour interpretations aligning with familiar L1 patterns. The study concludes that language transfer plays an important role in the accurate identification of scope ambiguity interpretations, particularly when L2 structures diverge from L1 norms, and provides recommendations for future research.

About the authors

Dana Makhlouf

The University of Jordan

Email: danamakhlouf344@icloud.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-0888-0712

Aseel Zibin

The University of Jordan

Email: a.zabin@ju.edu.jo
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2509-064X

Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh

The University of Jordan

Email: a.altakhaineh@ju.edu.jo
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7605-2497

References

  1. Abdullaev, Z. K. (2021). Second language learning. Mental Enlightenment Scientific-Methodological Journal, 6, Article 1.
  2. Adam, M. H. (2024). Postsecondary Arabic-speaking English as a foreign language learners’ perceptions of learning English sentence structure [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. Walden University ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=17535&context=dissertations
  3. Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2022). Compositionality in N+ N compounds in Jordanian Arabic and English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 67(1-2), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2022.1
  4. Altakhaineh, A. R. M., Zibin, A., & Al-Kalbani, F. (2024). An analysis of Arabic tautology in English compounds used in customer-service settings in Jordan: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 220, 62-72.
  5. Apresjan, V. (2019). Pragmatics in the interpretation of scope ambiguities. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 421-461. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0022
  6. Chung, E. S., & Shin, J.-A. (2023). Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity. Second Language Research, 39(3), 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221079741
  7. Dangzeng, Z. (2021). A study on the influence of positive transfer of mother tongue on Tibetan college students’ foreign language learning. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 5(4), 82-86. https://doi.org/10.26689/jcer.v5i4.2087
  8. Demir, C. (2020). Lexical and structural ambiguities in student writing: An assessment and evaluation of results. African Educational Research Journal, 8, 100-108. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.8S3.20.077
  9. Dey, M., Amelia, R., & Setiawan, A. (2024). The impact of age on second language acquisition: A critical review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(3560), 3560-3570. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i5.27958
  10. Fortuny, J., & Payrató, L. (2023). Ambiguity in linguistics. Studia Linguistica, 78(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12221
  11. Heydari, P., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Error analysis: Sources of L2 learners’ errors. Theory and practice in language studies, 2(8), 1583-1589. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.8.1583-1589
  12. Isurin, L. (2021). Does language transfer explain it all? The case of first language change in Russian-English bilinguals. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(4), 908-930. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-4-908-930
  13. Julaika, S., Hasanah, N., Aswatdi, H., Sari, K., Gani, L. F., & Ismahani, S. (2025). Exploring student awareness of sentence construction: The role of misplaced words and phrases in one-clause sentences. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Sains Ekonomi dan Edukasi, 2(1), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.62335/mj5bjg98
  14. Kelley, A., & Kohnert, K. (2012). Is there a cognate advantage for typically developing Spanish-speaking English-language learners? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(2), 191-204.
  15. Kim, M. (2010). Korean EFL learners’ interpretation of quantifier-negation scope interaction in English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, 163-183. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.4.201812.535
  16. Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48(3), 243-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90042-T
  17. Lado, R. (1957). Sentence structure. College Composition & Communication, 8(1), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc195722464
  18. Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304894147
  19. Liang, X. (2024). The effects of language transfer on Chinese English learners’ oral learning and teaching strategies. Arts, Culture and Language, 1(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.61173/e9wgze93
  20. Liceras, J. M., & Díaz, L. (1999). Topic-drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 15(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899678128123
  21. Löhr, G. (2022). What are abstract concepts? On lexical ambiguity and concreteness ratings. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(3), 549-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00542-9
  22. Marinova‐Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588095
  23. Marsden, H. (2024). Quantifier scope. In T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & R. Slabakova (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, morphosyntax, and semantics (pp. 412-425). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003412373
  24. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. MIT Libraries. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16287
  25. Odlin, T. (2022). Explorations of language transfer. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788929554
  26. Otwinowska, A., & Szewczyk, J. M. (2019). The more similar the better? Factors in learning cognates, false cognates and non-cognate words. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(8), 974-991. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1325834
  27. Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2008). Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 459-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701255317
  28. Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.190
  29. Philipp, M., & Zimmermann, M. (2020). Empirical investigations on quantifier scope ambiguities in German. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 24(2), 1450163. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2020.v24i2.914
  30. Pitkäranta, S. (2024). Metalinguistic awareness and language transfer from L2 English to L3 Swedish in cognate translation [Master’s thesis, University of Oulu]. University of Oulu Repository. https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/handle/10024/50824
  31. Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658318809147
  32. Saba, W. S., & Corriveau, J. P. (2001). Plausible reasoning and the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Studia Logica, 67, 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010503321412
  33. Sasson, A., Schiff, R., & Zluf, B. (2024). Syntactic knowledge in a foreign language: Examining cross-language transfer effects in L2 noun phrase comprehension. Reading and Writing, 38, 1483-1508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10569-w
  34. Scontras, G., & Pearl, L. S. (2021). When pragmatics matters more for truth-value judgments: An investigation of quantifier scope ambiguity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), Article 110. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5724
  35. Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C. Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.198
  36. Setiawan, R. G. (2014). Investigating ambiguity in EFL student writing [Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana]. Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana Repository. https://repository.uksw.edu/handle/123456789/5468
  37. The Scope Fieldwork Project. (2008). Quantifier scope. UD Linguistics and Cognitive Science. https://udel.edu/~bruening/scopeproject/scopeproject.html
  38. Villalta, E. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20(2), 115-162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.2.115
  39. Westerståhl, D. (2007). Remarks on scope ambiguity. In E. Ahlsén (Ed.), Communication, action, meaning (pp. 43-55). European Language Resources Association.
  40. Wu, M. J., & Ionin, T. (2022). Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, 38(3), 607-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321992830
  41. Yang, Y. (2019). Negative transfer of mother tongue in the second language writing: Case studies of English learners in Yunnan Normal University, China. In Proceedings of the 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference INTED2019 (pp. 6106-6109). IATED.
  42. Žegarac, V., & Pennington, M. C. (2000). Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 165-190). Continuum.
  43. Zhang, L. (2023). Native language transfer in vocabulary acquisition: An empirical study from connectionist perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14(2), 446-458. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1402.21
  44. Zhou, Y. (2008). Towards a dynamic, ambiguity -rich semantics – inspired by a corpus study on the negation quantifier scope ambiguity [Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304629094
  45. Zibin, A. (2016). The comprehension of metaphorical expressions by Jordanian EFL learners. Sage Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016643144
  46. Zibin, A., Allawama, A., Akayleh, M., & Naimat, K. (2024). Investigating Arabic-speaking EFL learners’ understanding of French gender markers: A typological primacy model approach to a third language. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), Article 2328898. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2328898

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Training, Language and Culture