Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices【Articles】

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices
L2 冠詞選択におけるばらつきを解く
OGAWA Mutsumi（小川睦美）

Abstract
This paper addresses the issue of second language (L2) learners’ variability in English articles from the perspective of interaction of context and noun type. While the role of semantic
contexts (i.e., definiteness, specificity) is commonly suggested to account for article choices(Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, 2004), some studies have documented different degrees of contextual
effects according to the type of noun that follows articles (Snape, 2008; Trenkic, 2008;
White, 2009). A forced-choice elicitation task on English articles (the, a, ø) involving count(singular, plural), mass, and flexible nouns (nouns that can equally be interpreted as countand mass) was administered with Japanese learners of English at three different proficiency
levels. Results showed that L2 learners are less sensitive to semantics of the context where
mass and plural nouns are involved, suggesting that the fluctuation between definiteness andspecificity interacts with countability and number of nouns in context. In conclusion, thisarticle argues that L2 learners experience a more prolonged learning difficulty with thecount-mass distinction than with definiteness in the acquisition of articles.

1. Introduction
English articles have been known as a grammatical property which imposes great difficultyon second language (L2) learners, especially those who lack articles in their first language(L1), such Japanese, Russian, and Korean. The following examples illustrate the task facing
those learners:(1) a. The cat is drinking the milk.
b. A cat is drinking milk.
c. The cats are drinking the milk.

― 51 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

d. *A cats are drinking *a milk.
e. Cats are drinking milk.
f. *Cat is drinking milk.
Some nouns can take both the and a: cat in (1a) and (1b). Others can be preceded by the, but
not a: cats and milk in (1c) and (1d). Some nouns can occur with a zero article ø, cats andmilk in (1e), but some cannot as in cat in (1f). On top of this distribution of noun types, L2
learners must establish meaning contrasts determined by different choices of articles. A
number of existing studies have documented variability in L2 article use, such as substitutionof the for a, and a for the, as well as omission of articles. Although such errors are often
observed until quite advanced stages of proficiency, they are not random, indicating thatlearners may posit certain non-target-like hypotheses during development.
Huebner (1985), Parrish (1987) and Thomas (1989) attempted to explain L2 development in English article acquisition on the basis of two semantic notions: hearer knowledge(i.e., whether an entity referred to is already known to the hearer) and specific referent (i.e.,
whether a specific entity is being referred to). Since the three classical studies, research has
progressed in the direction of scrutinising effects of contextual semantics, focusing on definiteness and specificity (Ionin et al., 2004 and many others). However, some recent studies
have remarked that there is a gap to fill in the domain regarding the effect of nominal properties such as the count-mass distinction and singular-plural contrast (Snape, 2008; Trenkic,
2002; White, 2009). The current paper investigates how relevant factors (e.g., definiteness,
specificity, count-mass distinction, plurality) contribute to the selection of articles by Japanese learners of English. In particular, the main purpose of this study is to demonstrate themagnitude of those variables by statistically calculating their individual contributing power toeach article choice: the, a/an, and ø.

2. Literature review
2.1. Fluctuation hypothesis
One of the typical errors found in the learner’s article use is the overuse of definite articles
in indefinite contexts, as in (2). Under the context where John does not know what Mary got
for her birthday as well as the referent bicycle has never appeared in their conversation, thecorrect choice of article will be the indefinite article a.
(2) John: What did you get for your birthday yesterday?
Mary: I got lots of things, but my father bought me *the bicycle and I love it the
most.

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 52 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

This substitution error is likely to occur systematically in certain contexts, whereby a semantic notion specificity causes the definite article to be misused in specific indefinite contexts(Ionin et al., 2004; Thomas, 1989). Ionin et al. (2004, p. 5) define definiteness and specificity
as follows:1）(3) [+definite]

If a determiner phrase (DP) is definite, then the speaker and hearer presuppose theexistence of a unique individual in the set denoted by the noun phrase (NP):(4) [+specific]
If a DP is specific, then 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.
Possible semantic contexts where articles are used can be characterised by combinationof the two notions. For instance, there are specific and non-specific definite NPs, both ofwhich are marked by the definite article the in English. In (5), the speaker intends to refer toa particular individual who wins the race, who is marked as [+definite] because there will be
only one person who can be the winner of any race. The speaker also knows this person as afriend, which makes the winner [+specific] because the speaker considers him/her to possess a noteworthy property of being a friend. On the other hand, in (6), the speaker is simply
referring to whoever happens to be the winner without intention to refer to a certain individual with noteworthy property, which then lets the winner defined as [–specific].
(5) [+definite/+specific]
e.g., I want to talk to the winner of the race. She is a good friend of mine.
(6) [+definite/–specific]
e.g., If you want to talk to the winner, wait until the end of the race.
In indefinite contexts, the indefinite article a/an is used for singular nouns, and the zeroarticle ø for plural and mass nouns. There are also specific and non-specific indefinite NPs.
Specificity in indefinite contexts can be distinguished by whether or not an article can be
replaced with referential this. In colloquial English, when an NP refers to something specificas well as noteworthy to the speaker ([+specific]) but not identifiable to the hearer ([–definite]), referential this can replace articles, as shown in (7). In contrast, replacing is not
infelicitous in non-specific contexts in (8), where the speaker does not intend to refer to aparticular entity.

― 53 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices(7) [–definite/+specific]
e.g., You should go and see a film/this film at the TOHO Cinemas tonight – it’ssuperb and directed by Steven Spielberg.
(8) [–definite/–specific]
e.g., You should go and see a film/??this film at the TOHO Cinemas tonight – don’t
just sit at home.
English distinguishes [±definite] by articles; however, there are some languages whichmark specificity by articles. For example, Samoan differentiates articles on the basis of[±specific]: le for specific or se for non-specific, marking neither definite nor indefinite by articles. Given such cross-linguistic contrasts, Ionin, Ko, and Wexler (2003, p. 248) proposed the
Article Choice Parameter (ACP), under which both definiteness and specificity are universal
semantic notions listed in the inventory of universal grammar (UG) and a language with two
articles distinguishes them on the basis of either definiteness (e.g., English) or specificity(e.g., Samoan). Ionin et al. (2004) have adapted the idea of this parameter to the L2 article
acquisition, advocating the Fluctuation Hypothesis (FH). According to the FH, L2 learners
fluctuate between different parameter-settings of the ACP until the input leads them to set
the parameter to the appropriate value. For instance, the FH predicts fluctuation to occur incontexts where the values of the two features conflict, such as [–definite/ +specific] and[+definite/–specific] contexts. L2 learners in the course of English article acquisition arethen predicted to show a tendency to mark [±specific] by articles, resulting in using the more
often in [–definite/+specific] than in [–definite/–specific] contexts, and more a/an or ø in[+definite/–specific] than in [+definite/+specific] contexts.
2.2. Problems in the FH
Although the FH seems to give a plausible account to the overuse of definite articles, there
are some flaws in the analysis of the article distribution in Samoan. Tryzna (2009) illustrates
that Samoan does not actually distinguish specificity within definite contexts, marking both
specific and non-specific definite nouns with le, as shown in (9). Samoan articles mark nonspecificity only in indefinite contexts.
(9) a. [+definite/+specific] le maloe.g., I want to talk to the winner of the race. She is a good friend of mine.
b. [+definite/–specific] le maloe.g., If you want to talk to the winner, wait until the end of the race.
c. [–definite/+specific] le puloue.g., I’m looking for a hat. I must have left it here yesterday.
d. [–definite/–specific]
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

se pulou― 54 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choicese.g., I’m looking for a hat to go with my new coat.
(Adapted from Table 1 in Tryzna, 2009, p. 71)
Another problem is that the distribution of articles was only reviewed with regard to singular count nouns, not with plural and mass nouns. In English, any noun can be preceded by
the in definite contexts, whereas in indefinite contexts, a is given to singular count nouns andø to plural and mass nouns. In Samoan, however, singular and plural nouns are differently
marked in definite as well as in specific indefinite contexts. For instance, Samoan has no plural marker like English –s. A non-specific (indefinite) article ni is used for plural entities,
whereas absence of an overt article indicates the NP being plural and specific, as illustratedin (10). Thus, nouns without an overt article refer to specific plural entities in contrast topresence of the article ni (Mosel & Hovdhaugen, 1992).
(10)

le teinegirl [+specific]

ø teinegirls [+specific]

ni teinegirls [–specific]

According to Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992, p. 94), furthermore, there is no morphosyntactic distinction between mass and count nouns in Samoan. For example, vai ‘water’ can form
the nucleus of both singular and plural NPs. Hence, the absence of an article, which is a plural form syntactically, indicates a specific denotation as a number of units or portions of massproperty (i.e., ø vai interpreted as certain units of water like glasses of water or bottles ofwater), and the size and configuration of the units or portions are understood from the context (Mosel & Hovdhaugen, 1992, p. 269).
To sum up, some intra-linguistic differences exist in morphological marking between
singular and plural NPs across specificity and definiteness both in Samoan and in English.
Table 1 is the summary of article distributions in both languages and predicted fluctuation
for L2 English articles.

Table 1
DP type[–def/–spec]

Summary of specificity and definiteness interaction

Specificity setting(e.g., Samoan)
singularplural

se

ni

le

ø

[–def/+spec][+def/–spec]

Definiteness setting(e.g., English)
singularplural/mass

a

ø
the

[+def/+spec]― 55 ―

L2-English
fluctuation
singularplural/mass

a

ø

a

the

ø

the

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

The FH claims that fluctuation can be observed where the two settings (i.e., specificity anddefiniteness settings) give different results, predicting the erroneous use of a/ø in [–definite/+specific] contexts. If the singular-plural (mass) contrast is assumed to be part ofuniversal semantics which prompts a morphological marking either through articles or plural markers, the two settings also differ in how the number contrast is realised in definite
contexts: In Samoan, the number feature is incorporated in articles and specified by le or ø,
whereas English uses a single morpheme the for both singular and plural NPs and the number is independently marked by the presence or absence of –s. If L2 learners are susceptible
to different settings of universal semantics which require morphological distinction, the FH
may need to predict fluctuation between singular and plural NPs in definite contexts in L2
English. Theoretically speaking, in other words, L2 learners could opt for making a distinction between singular and plural NPs by articles even in definite contexts.
2.3. Effects of noun types
Despite its explanatory power for common patterns in L2 article use, some studies havequestioned the validity of the FH. For instance, it is not clear to what extent the FH canaccount for variability found with different types of noun: singular, plural, and mass nouns.
Many studies which investigate the acquisition of English articles in relation to the FH havecommonly used singular count nouns and produced similar results supporting the FH (Garcia Mayo, 2009; Hawkins et al., 2006; Kim & Lakshmanan, 2009; Snape, 2005, 2009; Tryzna,2009). However, studies including plural count and mass nouns have reported divergent findings, suggesting no consensus regarding fluctuation with plural and mass nouns. A summaryof the results of previous studies which investigated suppliance of the in indefinite contexts isTable 2
L1

Suppliance ofin indefinite contexts in previous studies (%)
Singular

Proficiency

Plural

Mass

+spec

–spec

+spec

–spec

+spec

–spec

Inter.

40.0

15.0

35.0

10.0

0.0

5.0

Adv.

20.0

5.0

20.0

5.0

5.0

10.0

Upper Inter. - Lower Adv.

50.0

8.0

58.0

19.0

Inter.

37.0

40.0

20.0

20.0

Adv.

23.0

15.0

8.0

13.0

Chinese

Adv.

22.0

5.0

18.0

18.0

RussianUpper Inter.

36.0

7.0

Korean

Adv.

22.0

4.0

Japanese1
2

Japanese
Polish12Japanese (Snape, 2005); Japanese (Hawkins et al., 2006); Polish and Chinese (Tryzna, 2009);
Russian and Korean (Ionin et al., 2004), whose proficiency levels are estimated in comparison toother studies.
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 56 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

shown in Table 2. Looking at singular nouns, fluctuation is observed in the form of moreuses of the in [+specific] than in [–specific] contexts. On the other hand, studies with plural
nouns demonstrated that the was used to mark [+specific] by Japanese learners, whereas nosuch overuse was found with leaners whose L1s were Polish or Chinese, both of which werearticle-less languages. Moreover, a study including mass nouns reported no overuse of the asa specificity marker.
In addition, some research pointed out that learners with lower proficiency spread øacross plural and mass definite contexts (Snape, 2005; Tryzna, 2009). Table 3 summarizes
percentages of erroneous article uses in specific definite contexts reported in previous studies.

Table 3 Suppliance of
L1
Japanese
SpanishSyrian Arabic
Frenchandarticles in [+definite/+specific] contexts in previous studies (%)

Proficiency

Singular

Plural

Mass

a

ø

a

ø

a

ø

Inter

10.6

6.6

2.0

26.0

6.1

34.4

Adv

7.2

3.9

1.0

18.0

1.7

32.8

Inter

4.4

5.0

4.0

11.0

2.8

13.3

Adv

1.1

1.7

2.8

6.1

0

6.1

Inter

4.0

2.0

1.0

9.0

5.0

22.0

Adv

1.0

0

2.0

4.0

0

17.0

Inter

6.0

0

8.0

4.0

1.0

25.0

Adv

2.0

0

0

9.0

0

8.0

Japanese and Spanish (Snape, 2008), Syrian Arabic and French (Sarko, 2009)

If the misuse of ø with plural and mass nouns occurs due to misunderstanding of definite
contexts as indefinite, the use of a with singular count nouns should equally be expected atsimilar rates. However, it is unlikely and even learners with L1s which have articles (i.e.,
Spanish, French, only definite articles in Syrian Arabic) exhibit slightly higher suppliance ofø with plural nouns and greater use with mass nouns, compared to a with singular nouns.
Thus, this tendency cannot be explained solely by hypotheses regarding semantic contexts,
such as the FH.
In short, there was a tendency of learners to extend the definite article into indefinite
contexts (i.e., fluctuation), especially with singular count nouns (Ionin et al., 2004 among
others), sometimes with plural count nouns (Hawkins et al., 2006; Tryzna, 2009), but neverwith mass nouns (Snape, 2005). Furthermore, the zero article is extensively used with pluraland mass nouns in definite contexts, which casts a doubt in the assumption that it is only thesemantic context that predominantly influences L2 learners’ article choice. A potential rea-

― 57 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

son for the diverging findings in the literature regarding the specificity effect and noun types
may be task effects. For instance, some studies only used singular count nouns, the majorityof which were nouns referring to human (e.g., student, friend). In such a case, the countability and number of target nouns in the task are so obvious that learners can spare morecognitive resources to concentrate on contextual information, which may help them recognise subtle differences between specific and non-specific referents. These differences may
possibly be overshadowed by judgment of countability and number when various types ofnouns are involved in a task.
2.4. Other approaches to L2 variability of articles
English has some nouns which can occur equally well as count and mass depending on context, as in (11) and (12). Such nouns as brick and fear are called flexible nouns in this article.
(11) a. Builder knows how to lay bricks properly.
b. This house is built of brick.
(12) a. I have a fear of spiders.
b. She ran away from fear.
Native speakers rely on context to determine whether nouns are to be either count or mass,
resulting in correct article choices between a and ø. For example, even though they perceive
nouns in isolation from context as mass (e.g., water), they can use contextual information tointerpret them as count when necessary (e.g., Could I get a water, please?). L2 learners are,however, reported to have certain preferences to regard nouns as either count or mass on
the basis of what class they belong to (i.e., individual, material, abstract, proper nouns), irrespective of the context which actually provides one particular interpretation (Hiki, 1990).
The biased countability judgment in L2 was also reported by Yoon (1993), who claimed thatL2 learners would judge noun countability by intuition and stick with their intuitive countability to decide which article to use, a or ø.
In relation to the effect of nouns, other studies have taken different approaches to calculate and compare weights of influencing factors for each article choice (i.e., the, a, ø), such as
noun type, countability and number, thematicity, the position of NP in the clause, and so on(White, 2009; Young, 1996). In particular, White (2009) examined effects of semantic contexts (i.e., [±definite] and [±specific]) and three noun types: imageable count (e.g., book,creator, play), abstract count (e.g., life, style, environment), and noncount (e.g., bread, money,
furniture). As expected, results revealed that semantic context was the only significant predictor for the choice of the and that the choices of a and ø were significantly influenced byboth semantic context and noun type. Interesting was that the effect of semantic context
proved to be stronger than that of noun type for the use of a, whereas noun type was stron総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 58 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

ger than context in the case of ø. In other words, L2 learners tend to rely more on context
when they use the and a, but noun type when they use ø. It is therefore highly probable thatthey would use ø invariably with particular noun types, regardless of what kind of context
nouns are embedded in.
White (2009) additionally elicited explanations from learners why they had chosen certain articles. The analysis of learners’ self-monitoring showed that in indefinite contexts, theychose articles systematically on the basis of the countability they assigned to nouns; that is,they used a with nouns which they thought were count and ø with nouns which they
regarded as mass. This is consistent with Hiki’s (1990) claim. Moreover, a tendency wasreported that learners used ø even in definite contexts when they considered nouns as mass,and Snape (2008) also documented the flooded use of zero articles with definite mass nouns.
All the above findings imply that L2 learners’ difficulty with article use lies not only in discriminating differences between semantic contexts (definite vs. indefinite), but also inrecognising correct countability and number of nouns (singular, plural, vs. mass). It may bethis interweaving aspect of several features that makes article choice problematic for L2
learners and perhaps brings different levels of learning tasks at different stages in L2 development.

3. Research
3.1. Research questions
This study examines the extent to which each factor related to articles (i.e., definiteness,
specificity, count-mass distinction, number marking, noun flexibility) contribute to the choiceof the definite, indefinite, and zero article respectively. It also aims to reveal how the magnitude of each factor may change in the course of L2 acquisition.
3.2. Participants
Fifty-three participants took part in the study and were all recruited in a university in the
United Kingdom. Table 4 shows participant information. There were 15 native speakers forthe control group (NC), and L2 learners were divided into three proficiency levels based on
the scores of Oxford quick placement test (UCLES, 2001): 12 lower intermediate (LI), 15
upper intermediate (UI), and 11 lower advanced learners (LA). All the learner groups weresignificantly different from each other in terms of English proficiency (F(2, 35) = 100.482, p< .0005). Neither correlation between the onset age of their English learning and the proficiency score (r = .204, p > .05) nor between the length of stay in English speaking countries
and the proficiency score (r = .285, p > .05) was found.

― 59 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

Table 4

Participant information

Groups

QPT score(range, %)Age (range)

Onset age of English
learning (range)

Length of stay inmonth (range)

Lower Inter.
(n = 12)35.8(30-39, 59.7%)

26.1 (21-35)

11.8 (9-13)

11.3 (3-60)

Upper Inter.
(n = 15)43.7(40-47, 72.9%)

23.7 (20-29)

12.1 (10-13)

21.5 (1-102)

Lower Adv.
(n = 11)50.0(48-53, 83.3%)

25.5 (19-31)

12.2 (11-13)

35.7 (1-84)

Native(n = 15)n/a

24.3 (19-36)

n/a

n/a

3.3. Instrument
A task was designed in a forced-choice elicitation format, where participants read short dialogues and chose an article from the, a/an, or ø described as ‘̶’ in the task. Semantic
contexts were controlled according to the combination of definiteness and specificity definedby Ionin et al. (2004). Specificity was operationalized in terms of speaker knowledge, namely,
whether the speaker explicitly showed or denied knowledge about the referent. Explicit
speaker knowledge was described by the mention of the referent after the target NP was
introduced in the dialogue. There were four contexts as in (13) – (16):(13) [+definite/+specific]
Mark: We had so much fun in the zoo today.
Christina: Yeah, with lots of cute animals! Which animal did you like the best?
Mark: Well, I think I liked (a, the, ̶) pony. It was very friendly and fun riding on it.
Christina: Me too! It was so adorable.
(14) [+definite/–specific](Phone conversation)
Jim: Hi, is Max there?
Carrie: Hi, Jim. He’s out at the moment.
Jim: Do you know where he’s gone?
Carrie: He said he’s ordered a replacement for (a, the, ̶) bowl of his food processor. I didn’t know he had such a thing, but I think he’s gone to get it in the town.
(15) [–definite/+specific]
Jane: Did you do anything fun this weekend?
Ian: Yes, I went to Sherwood Forest. And when I was walking there, I found (a, the,
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 60 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices̶) castle deep in the forest. It seems to be known as the Haunted Tower by local
people.
(16) [–definite/–specific]
Terry: Does your neighbour Mr Sadler have any pets?
Cindy: I don’t know. But I think he used to have (a, the, ̶) cat. I never saw it
myself, but my mom sometimes heard it meowing in our garden.
Target nouns were selected from the words used in Taler and Jarema’s study (2007),
which investigated English native speakers’ processing of the count-mass distinction. The
items were controlled for frequency, concreteness, and imageability. There were two major
types of nouns: flexible (i.e., nouns which can be interpreted equally well as count and mass)
or non-flexible type (i.e., nouns with a strong preference for either count or mass interpretation, typical count or mass nouns). Frequency rates of target nouns and their familiarity rates
for Japanese learners of English were considered in the item selection. First, nouns wereranked based on a word familiarity list in Yokokawa (2009) as well as the frequency based on
the British National Corpus. The entire procedure resulted in the selection of 48 nouns asshown in Table 5: 24 flexible nouns, and 24 non-flexible nouns.
Table 5

Target nouns

FlexibleNon-flexible
Count

Singular

Plural

Mass

candy

onionscane

beetlebells

beauty

debt

pipes

cloud

bowl

buttons

beef

dessertprayers

peppercastleclocksdamagemaple

pumpkins

talentcat

dragonsfabricrope

ribbons

threaddonkeyengines

pork

salad

stonesturkeyeagle

fountainssugar

shadow

strings

wire

pony

helmets

traffic

steaktreasures

wonderticketmedalswax

Singular

PluralMass

They were presented in singular, plural, or mass form in the task. In this study, singularmeans a countable form which requires the indefinite article in indefinite contexts, whereas
mass indicates an uncountable feature which selects the zero article in indefinite contexts.
Therefore, there were 8 singular, 8 plural and 8 mass forms in each noun type. The items
were also tested in a lexical decision task conducted to the same participants in a different― 61 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

study, so that it was proved that the participants were fairly familiar with the items: response
accuracies of 95.67% by Lower Inter., 97.14% Upper Inter., 99.24% Lower Adv., and 99.40%
Native.
The distribution of semantic contexts and noun types along with the choice of correct
articles is shown in Table 6. There were four types of sematic contexts, each containing two
types of nouns (flexible and non-flexible) in three forms (singular, plural, and mass). It in
total made six different noun types in one context. There were two tokens for each combination of semantic context and noun type. In total, the task contained 48 dialogues. The
environment of the target NPs was set under the following criteria: no adjectives wereattached, most of them were in the object position of the sentence, and some were a predicate of prepositional phrases. The task was checked by two native speakers of English prior
to the experiment and they provided target answers correctly.
Table 6
Semantic settings

Distribution of correct articles
FlexibleNon-flexible

sing.

plur.

mass

sing.

plur.

mass

+definite / +specific

the

the

the

the

the

the

+definite / –specific

the

the

the

the

the

the

–definite / +specific

a

ø

ø

a

ø

ø

–definite / –specific

a

ø

ø

a

ø

ø

4. Results
The overall accuracy of each group is as follows: LI 61.7%, UI, 70.6%, LA, 77.5%, NC 89.6%.
The accuracy of the native control may arguably be considered low. An individual item analysis revealed that there were nine items to which the native participants showed less than 80%
of agreement. Although exclusion of those items improved the accuracy to 94.6%, it did not
remarkably change interpretations of statistical robustness and trends that will be discussed
in the following sections. In addition, there was one participant whose accuracy rate was
68.1%. Exclusion of this person increased the native group’s accuracy to 91.2%; however, thetotal variability of the group was unlikely to stem from this participant. Therefore, all the test
items as well as participants were included in the following analyses.
Generalized estimating equations (binomial logistic regression with repeated data) were
performed in order to estimate how much each independent variable contributes to article
choice. The analysis was conducted for each article by each group. There were three dependent variables: the, a/an, and ø. Independent variables were named as follows: definiteness(definite or indefinite), specificity (specific or non-specific), flexibility (flexible or non-flexible),
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 62 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

mass (count or mass), and plurality (plural or singular). In the regression analysis, the reference category was set to be the latter of the pair. For example, indefinite is the reference
category for the variable definiteness. Therefore, positive statistical values indicate an effectfor definite over indefinite, while negative ones for indefinite over definite. For the convenience to create dummy variables for noun types, mass nouns were set as the reference
category against singular count nouns, although the variable name mass was chosen insteadof count. The following sections report statistical results of unstandardized coefficients (B),standard errors (SE), standardized coefficients (ȕ), and exponentiated beta coefficients (Exp(B)). Important in this analysis are standardized coefficients and exponentiated beta coefficients. The former is an indicator with which the degree of contribution of each variable tothe choice of an article can be measured and directly compared against that of other variables. The latter shows odds ratio that tells you how much a change in the independent
variable increases or decreases the probability of article choice. For instance, if Exp (B) of
definiteness is 3 for the choice of the, then it means that the is three times more likely to bechosen when the context is definite than when it is indefinite.
4.1. Binomial logistic regression <the>
Table 7 shows results of the definite article choice. Definiteness was the most significant
determinant for the choice of the in all groups. The two intermediate groups, LI and UI,
depended primarily on [+definite] feature of the context to use the, which was in fact the only
Table 7

Binomial logistic regression for the choice of the definite article ()

LI

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)UI

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

Flex.

0.13 (0.21)

.015

1.14

Flex.

0.22 (0.15)

.024

1.24

Plural0.54 (0.28)

.055

1.71

Plural–0.05 (0.22)

–.005

0.96

Mass

0.43 (0.25)

.045

1.54

Mass

–0.16 (0.19)

–.017

0.85

Def.

1.75 (0.26)***

.191

5.78

Def.

2.89 (0.41)***

.315

17.98

Spec.

0.02 (0.21)

.002

1.02

Spec.

0.14 (0.24)

.016

1.15

Constant–2.16 (0.22)

Constant–2.59 (0.42)

LA

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)NC

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

Flex.

–0.31 (0.14)*

–.035

0.74

Flex.

0.18 (0.22)

.022

1.19

Plural–0.34 (0.36)

–.036

0.71

Plural0.48 (0.37)

.056

1.61

Mass

–0.91 (0.22)***

–.098

0.40

Mass

–1.09 (0.30)***

–.128

0.34

Def.

4.16 (0.39)***

.445

63.85

Def.

5.00 (0.34)***.554

148.07Spec.

0.18 (0.20)

.021

1.20

Spec.

0.03 (0.23)

.004

1.04

Constant–2.94 (0.37)

Constant–2.20 (0.36)*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

― 63 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

significant factor. The advanced and native groups showed the variable mass to be significant
along with definiteness. However, it was presumably caused by two items in mass condition(sugar, pepper) which happened to produce fewer uses of the in [+definite/+specific] contexts
than expected. This explanation is supported by the fact that mass in these two groups exhibited negative values, indicating that the was less likely to be used when nouns were mass. It
is therefore an item-specific error, rather than a systematic pattern.
Looking at standardized coefficient values ȕ, furthermore, definiteness weighed morethan the other variables, and the effect became stronger as L2 proficiency increased (.191 →.315 → .445). This is also evident in exponentiated beta coefficients Exp (B), such that theprobability of choosing the in definite contexts is 5.78 times as much as that in indefinite contexts in LI, 17.98 times in UI, and 63.85 times in LA, clearly indicating that learners become
capable of distinguishing [+definite] from [–definite] and correctly draw on [+definite] forthe use of definite articles. In contrast, another contextual factor specificity was not significant
and made very little contribution. None of the three nominal properties (i.e., flexibility, plural,mass) had meaningful effects. One exception was the advanced learners, who showed a significant main effect of flexibility. Although its contributing power was much less thandefiniteness, the result indicated that the was less likely to be used with flexible nouns thanwith non-flexible nouns.
4.2. Binomial logistic regression <a/an>
Table 8 presents results for the choice of a/an. First of all, a/an was used with plural nouns
Table 8Binomial logistic regression for the choice of the indefinite article (LI

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

UI

Flex.

–0.06 (0.17)

–.007

0.94

Plural–4.54 (0.41)***

–.458

0.01

Mass

–1.61 (0.31)***

–.172

0.20

)

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

Flex.

–0.35 (0.17)*

–.035

0.71

Plural–5.06 (0.56)***

–.455

0.01

Mass

–1.64 (0.22)***

–.154

0.19

Def.

–1.21 (0.31)***

–.138

0.30

Def.

–1.65 (0.25)***

–.165

0.19

Spec.

–0.59 (0.25)*

–.068

0.55

Spec.

–0.61 (0.24)*

–.061

0.54

Constant

1.83 (0.27)

Constant

1.65 (0.21)

LA

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)NC

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

Flex.

–0.36 (0.28)

–.041

0.69

Duality–0.22 (0.34)

–.020

0.80

Mass

–1.88 (0.32)***

–.209

0.15

Mass

–4.52 (0.78)***

–.405

0.01

Def.

–2.06 (0.33)***

–.228

0.13

Def.

–4.83 (0.67)***

–.431

0.01

Spec.

–0.91 (0.31)**

–.102

0.40

Spec.

–0.51 (0.26)*

–.047

0.60

Constant

1.66 (0.28)

Constant

2.20 (0.43)*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 64 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

by neither the advanced nor native groups. Zero instances cannot be analysed in regression
analysis; therefore, the variable plural was excluded from the analyses of the two groups.
This removal itself has proved that NPs with plural marker –s is a significant indicator toeliminate the choice of a/an from article options that L2 learners may select.
Plural was also significant in the two intermediate groups, and mass and definitenesswere significant predictors in all the groups; however, they appeared differently in terms ofdegrees of contribution in each group. Negative values in the table indicate the direction of
the effect, such that a negative value in the case of plural means that the singular form has astrong effect. The LI learners relied on nominal properties (–.458 for plural, –.172 for mass)
more strongly than on definiteness (–.138). The value of mass became slightly lower in the UI
group (–.154), whereas definiteness increased its value (–.165). These changes in the values
indicate that learners in early stages of L2 learning tend to use information such as nouns
being pluralised or countable to select a/an, regardless of the fact that the context is indefinite. As they increase knowledge in the L2, they may shift focus to contextual information
instead of keeping dominant attention to nominal properties. Definiteness in fact gained more
explanatory power as proficiency got higher (–.138 → –.165 → –.228). Consequently, theadvanced group showed a contribution pattern close to that of native speakers, as indicatedin the ȕ weights of both groups.
As for specificity, it proved to be one of the significant determinants, but its predictive
power was not as large as the other variables. The reliance of [–specific] is presumably due
to the fact that L2 learners selected a/an in a fluctuation context [+definite/–specific] more
frequently than in [+definite/ +specific], indicating that they used [–specific] as a cue for the
choice of a/an. Lastly, a significant effect was detected with flexibility in the UI group. It technically implies that a/an was more likely to be used with non-flexible than flexible nouns.
However, it did not have a particular pattern indicating more uses of a/an with all sorts of
non-flexible nouns. It was therefore merely an accumulated result of a/an being used slightly
more often with some non-flexible nouns than with flexible nouns.
4.3. Binomial logistic regression <ø>The last analysis shows results for the choice of ø in Table 9. In the native control group,
plural, mass, and definiteness were the most influential factors, and they contributed to a similar extent. The L2 groups also showed significances with those variables; however, thestrengths of the variables varied. For instance, plural weighed the most of the three in all theL2 groups, indicating that ø is more likely to be used with plural nouns than singular nouns(.370 → .374 → .399). Mass, which signifies the use of ø with mass over singular countnouns, was the second strongest (.245 → .264 → .335). Interestingly, although definitenesswas not as dominant as plural or mass especially in the intermediate groups, it generated themost remarkable change, that is, the largest increase in contributing power in the course of― 65 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

Table 9Binomial logistic regression for the choice of the zero article ( )ȕExp (B)UI

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)–0.10 (0.22)

–.011

0.90

Flex.

0.07 (0.13)

.008

1.07

3.76 (0.21)***

.370

43.08

Plural3.51 (0.24)***

.374

33.50

LI

B (SE)

Flex.
PluralMass

2.43 (0.23)***

.245

11.36

Mass

2.42 (0.23)***

.264

11.23

Def.

–1.10 (0.13)***

–.119

0.33

Def.

–1.82 (0.19)***

–.212

0.16

Spec.

0.53 (0.26)*

.058

1.70

Spec.

0.36 (0.24)

.043

1.43

Constant–2.97 (0.38)

Constant–2.10 (0.20)
ȕExp (B)

–.009

0.92

LA
Flex.

B (SE)

ȕExp (B)

0.55 (0.19)**

.067

1.74

NC
Flex.

B (SE)–0.08 (0.25)

Plural3.67 (0.46)***

.399

39.16

Plural4.86 (0.55)***.468

129.21Mass

3.02 (0.37)***

.335

20.59

Mass

5.74 (0.58)***.539

311.56Def.

–2.56 (0.17)***

–.303

0.08

Def.

–4.35 (0.44)***

–.447

0.01

Spec.

0.54 (0.25)*

.066

1.72

Spec.

0.24 (0.28)

.026

1.27

Constant–2.12 (0.39)

Constant–3.47 (0.55)*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

L2 development (–.119 → –.212 → –.303). It can therefore be surmised that when learners
select ø, they start out looking for clues in nouns and gradually rely on context at later stagesof L2 acquisition. As seen with the advanced group, the balance of the three variables got
closer to the pattern seen with the native speakers.
Moreover, the effect of flexibility was only evident with the advanced learners, indicatingthat they accepted ø more often with flexible nouns than non-flexible nouns. Although specificity showed a significant effect with the lower intermediate and advanced groups, it did notcontribute as much as the other significant variables did.

5. Discussion
The statistical results in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 are summarised in Table 10. Standardized coefficients ȕ were modified in terms of direction of values according to the features
presented in the table, and exponentiated beta coefficients Exp (B) were also recalculated
against the opposite value.
First, all the groups mostly agreed about influential factors specified for each article
choice: [+definite] was specified for the definite article, [–plural], [–mass], and [–definite] forindefinite a/an, and [+plural], [+mass], and [–definite] for zero ø. Interestingly, the degree towhich L2 learners rely on each factor differed by each article as well as by proficiency. In thetwo intermediate groups, [–definite] is considerably less contributing than [–plural] for a/an
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 66 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

Table 10 Summary of standardized coefficients β of influential factors for article choice (
2)

Group

the

Lower Inter.

[+definite] .191 (5.78)[–plural] .458 (93.51)[–mass] .172 (4.98)[–definite] .138 (3.36)[–specific] .068 (1.81)

a/an[+plural] .370 (43.08)[+mass] .245 (11.36)[–definite] .119 (3.00)[+specific] .058 (1.70)

Upper Inter.

[+definite] .315 (17.98)[–plural] .455 (158.25)[–mass] .154 (5.15)[–definite] .165 (5.23)[–specific] .061 (1.84)[+plural] .374 (33.50)[+mass] .264 (11.23)[–definite] .212 (6.14)

Lower Adv.

[+definite] .445 (63.85)[–plural] *[–mass] .209 (6.57)[–definite] .228 (7.82)[–specific] .102 (2.49)[+plural] .399 (39.16)[+mass] .335 (20.59)[–definite] .303 (12.98)[+specific] .066 (1.72)

Native[+definite] .554 (148.07) [–plural] *[–mass] .405 (91.48)[–definite] .431 (124.67)[–specific] .047 (1.67))

ø[+plural] .468 (129.21)[+mass] .539 (311.56)[–definite] .447 (77.12)* This is the strongest variable, as a/an is never used with plural nouns.

and [+plural] for ø. It indicates that the learners relied on the nominal property [±plural] tochoose a/an and ø rather than sematic context [–definite]. Furthermore, it can be assumed
that the smaller the factor contribution is, the easier it is to be overridden by others. For
instance, the intermediate learners showed [+definite] as a dominant feature for the, but it is
not a factor as strong as [–plural] for a or [+plural] for ø. Therefore, the may be interferedwith by a/an when nouns are definite singular, or by ø when definite plural. The connection
between articles and the relevant factors are then assumed to become stronger along withincreased L2 knowledge and experience. Consequently, for example, the feature [+definite]of context gets more valued for the use of the and starts to compete with the other choices.
This is presumably how the use of a and ø may retreat from definite contexts over the time.
In fact, the use of indefinite articles with definite singular nouns decreased (LI 50.00% → UI
33.33% → LA 20.45%). Although some decrease was observed in the use of ø with plural
nouns, they were still supplied with zero articles in definite contexts at comparably highrates throughout all proficiency levels (LI 42.71%, UI 36.44%, LA 31.82%). Therefore, the difficulty using the with plural nouns may stem from other unknown factors.
As a matter of course, there were correct uses of the with singular and plural nouns.
Even though the contributing power of [+definite] is relatively weaker in the intermediategroups, learners’ focus on the semantic contrast between [+definite] and [–definite] may let
the win over a and ø. The concentration on contextual information may be hindered by com-

― 67 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

plex judgments of such as whether nouns are countable or not, and singular or not; therefore,
L2 learners may probably experience relative easiness to supply definite articles to typicalcount or mass nouns, whose countability is clearer than flexible nouns. Although such speculation was not empirically supported by the statistical analysis in this study, it may beinteresting to clarify it in a carefully designed experiment which controls the burden of interpreting semantic contexts and nominal properties simultaneously.
Moreover, the indefinite and zero articles differ within each group in terms of thestrength of [–definite] in relation to other nominal properties (i.e., [±plural], [±mass]). In the
LI group, the strengths of [–definite] for both a and ø are not hugely distinctive, and they aresmaller than the effects of nominal properties. The UI group relates [–definite] more closelywith the zero article than with the indefinite article, and the gap becomes even greater in the
LA group. Within the factors specified for the zero article, however, [–definite] is still smaller
than nominal factors of [+plural] and [+mass] even at an advanced proficiency level. Thisfinding is in line with the previous study by White (2009), which noted more reliance onnoun type than on context for the choice of zero articles by advanced learners. As to the features specified for the indefinite article, by contrast, White (2009) found that semantic
contexts (i.e., combinations of [±definite] and [±specific]) were more influential than noun
type, although his study did not include plural nouns. The present study similarly observedthat a semantic context [–definite] contributed to the choice of a/an more strongly than anominal property [–mass] in the advanced group, let alone the non-plural form to be themost significant factor.
Lastly, the learners showed a gradual increase in the strength of [±mass] in the use ofindefinite (.172 → .154 → .209) and zero articles (.245 → .264 → .335). The findings suggest that they incorporate count-mass information into the choice of articles in indefinite
contexts, resulting in singular count and mass nouns to be correctly distinguished in article
use at a later stage in L2 acquisition. However, the development of [±mass] is still minor
when compared to the increase in the contribution of semantic context [–definite] for indefinite (.138 → .165 → .228) and zero articles (.119 → .212 → .303). This comparison may
ultimately imply that L2 acquisition of the count-mass distinction may pose more prolonged
and complicated learning tasks than that of definiteness.

6. Conclusions
The analyses of the effects of nominal properties and semantic contexts in this paper haveempirically revealed an intertwined picture of several factors underlying the variability in L2
article use. More specifically, the study has demonstrated L2 learners’ initial concentration
on nominal properties and increased attention to semantic contexts at late phases in the L2
article acquisition, showing that learners with low proficiency draw on noun types when they
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 68 ―

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices

choose the indefinite and zero articles, whereas advanced learners focus more on semantic
contexts. It has verified that the fluctuation between definiteness and specificity interacts
with countability and number of the noun in context. Furthermore, contextual information ofdefiniteness is gradually considered important as a distinction between the definite andindefinite articles; however, the zero article remains to be closely linked to nominal properties instead of indefiniteness of context. The findings of this research in conclusion proposesthat L2 learners may experience more persistent problem with the count-mass distinction
than with definiteness in the acquisition of English.

Notes1）Linguistic features are conventionally indicated in the form of [± feature]. For instance, the man is
described as bearing [+definite] [–mass] [+singular] features, men as [–definite] [–mass] [–singular],and water as [–definite] [+mass].
2）There are other factors which appeared to be significant for the LA (flexibility, mass) and Native groups(mass); however, they are excluded here because they seemed to have been caused by some itemspecific errors.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all the participants in this research, which formed part of the author’s Ph.D.
dissertation completed at the Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, UK. Allerrors and misinterpretations are solely due to the author.

References
Garcia Mayo, M. d. P. (2009). Article choice in L2 English by Spanish speakers. In M. d. P. Garcia-Mayo & R.
Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: empirical findings and theoretical implications(Vol. 49, pp. 13-35): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hawkins, R., Al-Eid, S., Almahboob, I., Athanasopoulos, P., Chaengchenkit, R., Hu, J., Rezai, M., Jaensch, C.,
Jeon, Y., Jiang, A., Leung, I., Matsunaga, K., Ortega, M., Sarko, G., Snape, N. and Velasco-Zarate, K.
(2006). Accounting for English article interpretation by L2 speakers. EUROSLA Yearbook, (1), 7-25.
doi: 10.1075/eurosla.6.04haw
Hiki, M. (1990). The judgment of noun countability by Japanese college students : Where is the difficulty?
JACET bulletin(21), 19-38.
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning,(2), 141-163. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01022.x
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2003). Specificity as a grammatical notion: Evidence from L -English article
use. Paper presented at the WCCFL 22 Proceedings.
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language― 69 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices
Acquisition,(1), 3-69. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2

Kim, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (2009). The processing role of the Article Choice Parameter. In M. d. P. GarciaMayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: empirical findings and theoretical
implications (Vol. 49, pp. 87-114): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mosel, U., & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan Reference Grammar: Scandinavian University Press Oslo.
Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for learners of ESL. Language Learning,(3), 361-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00576.x

Sarko, G. (2009). L2 English article production by Arabic and French speakers. In M. d. P. Garcia-Mayo & R.
Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: empirical findings and theoretical implications(Vol. 49, pp. 37-66): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Snape, N. (2005). The use of articles in L2 English by Japanese and Spanish learners. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, , 1-23.
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the nominal mapping parameter in L2 English: definite article use and thecount–mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,(1), 63-79. doi: 10.1017/

s1366728907003215
Snape, N. (2009). Exploring Mandarin Chinese speakers’ L2 article use. In N. Snape, Y. I. Leung & M. S.
Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in honor of Roger Hawkins (Vol. 47, pp. 27-51).
Taler, V., & Jarema, G. (2007). Lexical access in younger and older adults: The case of the mass/count distinction. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale,(1), 21-34. doi: 10.1037/cjep2007003
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,(3), 335-355. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400008663

Trenkic, D. (2002). Formmeaning connections in the acquisition of English articles. EUROSLA Yearbook,(1), 115-133. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.2.09tre
Trenkic, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars: Determiners or
adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1017/s1366728907003185

Tryzna, M. (2009). Questioning the validity of the Article Choice Parameter and the Fluctuation Hypothesis:
Evidence from L2 English article use by L1 Polish and L1 Mandarin Chinese speakers. In M. d. P. Garcia-Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: empirical findings and theoretical
implications (Vol. 49, pp. 67-86): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
UCLES (2001). Oxford Quick Placement Test. Oxford University Press.
White, B. (2009). Accounting for L2-English learners’ article choices. MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies, (1), 14-37.
Yokokawa, H. (2009). Database for L Research & Pedagogy: English Word Familiarity for Japanese EFL
Learners -Sounds-: Kuroshio Publisher.
Yoon, K. K. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability and indefinite vs.
zero article use. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL),
289. doi: 10.1515/iral.1993.31.4.269
総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）― 70 ―(4), 269-

Accounting for the Variability of L2 Article Choices
Young, R. (1996). Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston(Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (Vol. 10, pp. 135-175): John Benjamins Publishing Company.

― 71 ―

総合文化研究第 25 巻第 2・3 号合併号
（2020.3）