The interaction between Nunation and English definiteness: the case of L1 Najdi and Hijazi speakers

L2 acquisition of English articles is often problematic. Whether an L1 has articles and how it grammaticalises definiteness and indefiniteness can influence L2 English article use. English has two indefinite articles (a and ø) and one definite article (the). Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and many Arabic dialects have a definite article (al-), while indefiniteness is realised differently: MSA and some dialects (e.g., Saudi Najdi) have a phonologically overt indefinite marker known as nunation (tanwin), whereas other dialects (e.g., Saudi Hijazi) do not and pattern more like English ø. This study investigates whether the presence of nunation in the L1 (Najdi vs. Hijazi) affects L2 English use of definite articles, despite the two dialects being otherwise similar and both using al- for definiteness regardless of specificity. The novelty lies in including both dialect and nunation as variables to explain potential differences in L2 English article use. The study addressed two research questions: (1) Will Najdi and Hijazi speakers use the in similar ways regardless of the presence or absence of nunation? (2) Do semantic features (definiteness and specificity) affect the use of the?

Prior work on Arabic speakers’ English article use shows mixed results. Crompton (2011) analyzed 95 essays from UAE university students (varied Arabic varieties and proficiency) and found considerable inaccuracy with a tendency to overuse the; dialects and proficiency were not teased apart. Abudalbuh (2016) used a multiple-choice test with 30 Jordanian learners (beginner to advanced) and found advanced learners near-native, while lower-proficiency learners were less accurate, especially in [+D, -S] and [-D, +S] due to fluctuation; dialect not specified. Alhaisoni et al. (2017) examined 150 Saudi EFL students’ writing and reported omission errors (64.1%) most common, followed by insertion (27.5%), without clarifying which articles or participants’ dialects. Alhothaly (2020) used oral and forced-choice tasks with 104 Saudi students at two universities (one in Hijaz, one in Najd) and found high accuracy with the and fluctuation only in [-D, +S]; dialects were not specified. Aboras (2021) studied 32 highly proficient Saudi postgraduates in the UK; they were highly accurate in definite contexts and not sensitive to specificity; dialects not specified. To probe nunation’s effect on a and ø, Alzamil (2023) found Najdi speakers more accurate with a than Hijazi speakers, with Hijazi showing semantic fluctuation. Overall, similar L1 backgrounds (Arabic) still yielded divergent findings, suggesting finer-grained L1 dialectal features (e.g., nunation) may partly account for differences in L2 article use.

Participants: 56 total—24 Najdi speakers (mean age 18.1) from a secondary school in Riyadh, 24 Hijazi speakers (mean age 18.3) from a secondary school in Jeddah, and 8 native English speakers from the UK (mean age 38.6) as a control to validate materials. Dialect membership was self-reported to ensure inclusion, as city of residence alone does not guarantee dialect. All Saudi participants began English in grade 4; in government schools, English is taught by native Arabic-speaking teachers, and English articles receive limited explicit coverage. No participant had taken extra English courses. Instruments: (a) Oxford Quick Placement Test (60 items, 30 minutes) to assess proficiency; (b) a multiple-choice article test adapted from Ionin et al. (2004), widely used in SLA. The multiple-choice test contained 24 short dialogues targeting definite contexts only, split into 12 singular and 12 plural, each with 6 [+D, +S] and 6 [+D, -S]. Each item required choosing the appropriate English article (the, a, or ø). Native English speakers pre-tested for ambiguity and also took the test; no issues were reported. Procedure: Tests were administered on separate days (class periods are 45 minutes). First, participants took the placement test; most were at elementary level. Only elementary-level learners were retained for analyses (others could complete tests but were screened out). UK data were collected online and used to confirm clarity rather than for group comparisons. Coding and analysis: Both correct and incorrect article choices were counted to reveal error patterns, not just accuracy. Descriptive statistics were computed in Excel 2019; inferential statistics were conducted in SPSS 25 using non-parametric tests due to violation of normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Analyses compared Najdi and Hijazi groups overall and across semantic settings and number (singular/plural).

• Overall accuracy with the in definite contexts did not differ between Najdi and Hijazi groups (Mann–Whitney r=0.04, P=0.739); mean accuracies approximately 78.4% (Najdi) and 78.8% (Hijazi).
• Descriptive accuracy by context (percent choosing each article): • Singular, [+D, +S]: Najdi—The 73.0%, A 20.6%, Ø 6.3%; Hijazi—The 82.5%, A 5.6%, Ø 11.9%. • Singular, [+D, -S]: Najdi—The 78.6%, A 19.0%, Ø 2.4%; Hijazi—The 71.4%, A 2.4%, Ø 26.2%. • Plural, [+D, +S]: Najdi—The 86.5%, A 8.7%, Ø 4.8%; Hijazi—The 84.9%, A 6.5%, Ø 9.5%. • Plural, [+D, -S]: Najdi—The 75.4%, A 12.7%, Ø 10.3%; Hijazi—The 76.2%, A 4.8%, Ø 18.3%.
• Between-group inferential comparisons (Mann–Whitney): • Singular, [+D, +S]: The r=0.31, P=0.036 (Hijazi more accurate); A r=0.48, P=0.001 (Najdi used a* more than Hijazi); Ø r=0.22, P=0.126 (ns). • Singular, [+D, -S]: The r=0.24, P=0.102 (ns); A r=0.53, P<0.001 (Najdi a* more); Ø r=0.73, P<0.001 (Hijazi Ø* more). • Plural, [+D, +S]: The r=0.01, P=0.642 (ns); A r=0.09, P=0.408 (ns); Ø r=0.29, P=0.048 (Hijazi Ø* more). • Plural, [+D, -S]: The r=0.03, P=0.809 (ns); A r=0.034, P=0.019 (Najdi a* more); Ø r=0.32, P=0.026 (Hijazi Ø* more).
• Within-group comparisons showed both groups preferred the significantly over a and Ø across all contexts; generally, a was chosen more than Ø, with some plural contexts for Najdi showing no significant difference between a and Ø.
• Specificity effects: Both groups were more accurate with the in specific than non-specific contexts, especially in plurals. Significant specificity effects included: Najdi plural—The r=0.31, P=0.031; Ø r=0.29, P=0.041. Hijazi singular—The r=0.37, P=0.011; Ø r=0.48, P=0.001. Hijazi plural—The r=0.33, P=0.021; Ø r=0.36, P=0.013.
• Error tendencies: Najdi speakers overused a*; Hijazi speakers overused Ø*. Presence of L1 nunation (Najdi) appears to bias learners toward a* in L2, while lack of nunation (Hijazi) biases toward Ø*.
• Despite these tendencies, overall accuracy with the remained similar between groups across definite contexts.

Addressing RQ1, the presence or absence of nunation did not affect overall accuracy in using the in definite contexts; Najdi and Hijazi learners performed similarly when all definite contexts were combined. However, when broken down by semantic setting and number, dialect-related tendencies emerged: Najdi learners overused a*, while Hijazi learners overused Ø*. These patterns suggest L1 transfer at the level of non-target choices: overt L1 indefiniteness marking (nunation) in Najdi may promote a* in English, whereas lack of overt indefiniteness in Hijazi aligns with Ø* choices. The study underscores the importance of considering dialect as a variable in L2 acquisition research, as minor L1 differences can yield distinct error profiles. Addressing RQ2, both groups exhibited sensitivity to specificity, with higher accuracy for the in [+S] than [-S] contexts (particularly in plurals). This indicates that low-proficiency L1 Arabic learners may sometimes align article use with specificity rather than definiteness, contrary to the expectation that [+article] languages rely on definiteness. While this partially challenges the Fluctuation Hypothesis for the present low-proficiency sample, the author posits that increased L2 input may eventually lead learners to set the parameter correctly to definiteness. The findings advocate analyzing all article choices (the, a, Ø) to understand underlying influences, not just accuracy with the target form.

This study is the first to examine the potential effect of L1 nunation and dialect (Najdi vs. Hijazi) on L2 English definite article use. Overall, Najdi and Hijazi learners showed similar accuracy with the in definite contexts. Nevertheless, their non-target choices diverged: Najdi learners overused a*, and Hijazi learners overused Ø*, indicating dialect-specific transfer from the presence or absence of nunation. Both groups were sensitive to specificity, showing higher accuracy in specific contexts despite both English and Arabic linking article use to definiteness. The work highlights dialect as a crucial variable in SLA research on articles and suggests that with more L2 exposure, learners may converge on definiteness-based parameter settings. Future research should incorporate less controlled tasks (e.g., oral production) and broaden L1/dialect coverage to test generalizability and the persistence of nunation effects.

• Sample limited to one L1 background (Saudi Arabic) and two dialects (Najdi, Hijazi); broader cross-dialectal and cross-linguistic sampling is needed.
• Reliance on controlled, forced-choice instruments may constrain performance; spontaneous/less controlled tasks could reveal additional patterns.
• Relatively small sample sizes after screening to elementary proficiency level.
• Oral tasks could better probe nunation effects but are challenging for controlling semantic features and noun types.