Acquisition of prenominal adjective order by Jordanian EFL learners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how Jordanian EFL learners manage to learn the order of English prenominal adjectives, shedding light on learners' cognitive processes and the possible impact of their first language. It focuses on two-, three- and four-adjective sequences to identify the areas of difficulty and their sources. The authors of the present study relied on their experience. They referred to some experts in Arabic grammar to compare the students' order of English prenominal adjectives with the order of Arabic adjectives to inform the degree of their mother tongue's influence. A test based on the order of prenominal adjectives suggested by Svatko (1979) was used for data collection to achieve the study objectives. The study participants were 42 Jordanian advanced EFL undergraduate students at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University in Jordan. The study results revealed that Jordanian EFL learners encounter great difficulties in using prenominal adjectives, especially as the complexity of sequences increases. The overall percentage of correct answers across all categories is 35%. The results also showed that intralingual errors outweighed interlingual errors, scoring 77%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it