Strategic Use of L1 in Idiom Processing Among Saudi EFL Learners: A Quantitative Analysis of Proficiency and Comprehension Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiom processing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts presents significant challenges for learners, particularly regarding the role of first language (L1) influence and strategy selection. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which Saudi EFL learners rely on L1 in processing English idioms and identify effective strategies for enhancing idiom processing abilities among EFL learners. Additionally, the study examined the relationship between proficiency levels and strategy selection patterns. The study employed a quantitative research design with 66 participants (44 females, 22 males) from varying proficiency levels at a Saudi Arabian university. Data collection involved a comprehensive assessment tool measuring strategy use, processing time, and comprehension success across three idiom types (identical, similar, and different). A test was used to determine proficiency levels, and performance data were analyzed using correlation analyses and multiple regression. Analysis revealed a high prevalence of L1 translation strategy usage with strong effectiveness ratings. A significant positive correlation emerged between L1 strategy use and idiom processing accuracy. Success rates varied notably across idiom types and proficiency levels.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".