Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The acquisition of morphology poses a substantial challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners.

“The pretest-analysis of this study reveals a significant aspect of previous researchers who state that the acquisition of morphology poses a substantial challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners (DeKeyser, 2000(DeKeyser, , 2003;;Ullman, 2001;Ellis, 2005Ellis, , 2009;;Spit et al. 2022).”

• cites DeKeyser, 2000 sourcePartly supported

  Hypothesis 3 reports that many English morphosyntactic structures, including some uses of the plural morpheme, were not learned well by many learners who arrived after age 16. The Conclusions and Implications section says children are better at implicit acquisition, while adults rely on explicit learning. The study concerns L2 learners in an English-speaking environment, however, so it does not directly establish the claimed difficulty for EFL learners specifically. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Ullman, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ellis, 2005 sourceDisputed

  In “Explicit Focus on Implicit Tuning” (page unavailable), Ellis says morphology poses major problems for L2 learners, but gives the opposite explanation from the claim: learners continue to process these forms implicitly, and more conscious involvement is needed. The passage does not single out adult EFL learners or contrast their learning with that of young learners. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Overt instruction enhances L2 learners' morphological knowledge and enhances the ability of L2 learners writing skills in the target language.

“The findings of this study support previous studies that overt instruction enhances L2 learners' morphological knowledge and enhances the ability of L2 learners writing skills in the target language (Khan, 2022;Wagner, 2017;Schuwerk, 2004;Krashen, 1989;Stephens, 1977).”

• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Wagner, 2017 sourceDisputed

  The Conclusion (section 7; page unavailable) does not report that overt instruction improves morphological knowledge or writing skills. Instead, it says instruction focused on morphological analysis would be of little help if learners rely on analogical generalization, while suggesting only that a crosslinguistic focus on forms could benefit English-speaking learners of German. The paper does not assess writing skills. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Schuwerk, 2004Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners.

“A clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners (Khan, 2022;Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011;Llach, 2010;Bowers and Kirby, 2009).”

• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011 sourceCould not verify

  Section 9.3 reports a relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary-test scores in EFL learners, not between morphological awareness and writing. A search for writing and written performance found only a mention of writing as a skill taught to the students (section 9.1), with no finding about its relationship to morphological awareness. (LLM, conf=0.77)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Llach, 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The order of acquiring grammatical morphemes is almost the same across a wide range of ESL learners, regardless of their mother tongue.

“The study showed that the order of acquiring these grammatical morphemes is almost the same across a wide range of ESL learners, regardless of their mother tongue.”

• Also stated in: § Discussion · plain

  “Finally, the findings of the current study correspond to the results of previous research by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) concerning the input processing aspects such as frequency, perceptual salience, morpho-phonological regularity, and semantic complexity that the order of acquiring grammatical morphemes is almost the same across a wide range of ESL learners, regardless of their mother Tong”

• cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The test adopted the use of twenty words for morpheme recognition and knowledge.

“The test also adopted the use of twenty words for morpheme recognition and knowledge.(Altarawneh and Hajjo, 2018).”

• cites Altarawneh and Hajjo, 2018 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Acquiring inflectional morphemes by Arabic EFL learners in Saudi Arabia requires further research.

“Acquiring inflectional morphemes by Arabic EFL learners in Saudi Arabia requires further research (Khan, 2022;Abdalla, 2020;Wahid and Farooq, 2019).”

• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Abdalla, 2020 sourcePartly supported

  The Suggestions for Further Research (page not specified) propose studying EFL curricula’s treatment of English morphemes and comparing English and Arabic morphemes. The Abstract describes Saudi EFL students’ difficulties with pronouncing noun and verb morphemes. These passages support further research on related morpheme difficulties, but do not specifically call for research on how Saudi Arabic EFL learners acquire inflectional morphemes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Wahid and Farooq, 2019 sourcePartly supported

  The Participants section (p. 5) identifies the learners as Saudi undergraduates with Arabic as their first language, and the study examines their inflectional morphology. The Conclusion (p. 14) calls for further work in morphology, but gives compounding and other processes as examples; it does not specifically call for more research on acquiring inflectional morphemes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The effectiveness of explicit instruction in facilitating the acquisition of irregular inflectional forms among EFL learners remains unexplored worldwide, particularly in the Saudi context.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Oxford Quick Placement Test aligns with the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and is widely used in research.

“As part of the university admission requirements, they completed the Oxford Quick Placement Test, which aligns with the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and is widely used in research (Lemhöfer and Broersma, 2012;Wang and Trefers-Daller, 2017).”

• cites Lemhöfer and Broersma, 2012 sourcePartly supported

  The Method section (Part 4: Quick Placement Test) says the QPT groups learners into levels linked to the Common European Framework, supporting the CEFR alignment. The Introduction says it is only “occasionally used” in L2 studies and is too long and costly to serve as a standard tool in psycholinguistic studies, so it does not support “widely used in research.” (LLM, conf=0.89)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Wang and Trefers-Daller, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The acquisition of morphology poses a significant challenge for EFL learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners.

“Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has shown that the acquisition of morphology poses a significant challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners (DeKeyser, 2000(DeKeyser, , 2003;;Ullman, 2001;Ellis, 2005Ellis, , 2009;;Spit et al. 2022).”

• cites DeKeyser, 2000 sourcePartly supported

  In Hypothesis 3 (page not provided), the paper reports that many learners who arrived after age 16 had not learned several basic morphosyntactic structures well, even after decades in an English-speaking environment. In Conclusions and Implications (page not provided), it says children are better at implicit acquisition and adults rely on explicit learning, but cautions against extending its age findings to foreign-language classes with limited weekly instruction. It therefore does not establish the stated challenge specifically for EFL learners. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Ullman, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ellis, 2005 sourcePartly supported

  In “Explicit Focus on Implicit Tuning” (page unavailable), Ellis says morphology presents major problems for L2 learners. But he attributes the difficulty to continued implicit processing shaped by the first language, not to adults learning explicitly. The passage does not establish the claim’s EFL-specific or adult-versus-young-learner comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

This study's results support previous research's findings that explicit teaching of words' internal structure in foreign languages helps improve EFL learners' fluency, reading and editing skills, and explicit exposure to morphological structure enables learners to speak and write new words in the target language.

“Additionally, this study's results support previous research's findings that explicit teaching of words' internal structure in foreign languages helps improve the EFL learners' fluency, reading and editing skills, and explicit exposure to morphological structure enables the learners to speak and write new words in the target language (Khan, 2022;Lee and Choi, 2020;Badawi, 2019).”

• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Lee and Choi, 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Badawi, 2019 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The findings of this study align with previous research studies that morphological knowledge builds the ability to understand complex lexemes and enhances writing and reading competence.

“The findings of this study align with previous research studies that morphological knowledge builds the ability to understand complex lexemes and enhances writing and reading competence (Ginsberg et al. 2011;Wagner, 2017).”

• cites Ginsberg et al. 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Wagner, 2017 sourceCould not verify

  The Conclusion (page not available) reports that intermediate learners of German could form new verb inflections by analogy. It does not address whether morphological knowledge improves understanding of complex lexemes or reading and writing competence; searches for those outcomes found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

The results demonstrated a p-value less than 0.001 for all three hypotheses, favouring the alternative hypothesis and rejecting the null hypothesis.

“The results demonstrated that a p-value less than 0.001 for all three hypotheses developed in the study posited in favour of the alternative hypothesis and rejected the null hypothesis.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Group 1, the experimental group (n = 37) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3500 (SD = 0.10282, SEM = 0.01714).

“the experimental group (n = 37) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3500 (SD = 0.10282, SEM = 0.01714)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Control Group 1 morpheme recognition mean is 1.3461 (SD=0.09982, SEM=0.01765), N=32.

“Control Morpheme_ Recognition Group_1 32 1.3461 0.09982 0.01765”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Experimental Group 2 vocabulary knowledge mean difference from test value 0 is 1.32162 (95% CI 1.2626-1.3806), t=45.422, df=36, p<0.001.

“vocabulary Knowledge_ group 2 45.422 36 <0.001 <0.001 1.32162 1.2626 1.3806”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Group 2, the experimental group (n = 37) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3216 (SD = 0.17699, SEM = 0.02910).

“the experimental group (n = 37) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3216 (SD = 0.17699, SEM = 0.02910)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Control Group 2 morpheme recognition mean is 0.5563 (SD=0.14701, SEM=0.02599), N=32.

“Morpheme_ Recognition Group_2 32 0.5563 0.14701 0.02599”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The group's vocabulary knowledge is significantly greater than the test value of 0, as shown by the fact that all mean differences are less than 0.001.

“The group's vocabulary knowledge is significantly greater than the test value of 0, as shown by the fact that all mean differences are less than 0.001.”

May combine two claims.

All the p-values are lower than 0.001, which strongly indicates that the null hypothesis (that the mean equals zero) is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

“All the p-values are lower than 0.001, which strongly indicates that the null hypothesis (that the mean equals zero) is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Experimental Group 1 vocabulary knowledge mean difference from test value 0 is 1.35000 (95% CI 1.3152-1.3848), t=78.780, df=35, p<0.001.

“Experimental vocabulary Knowledge_ group 1 78.780 35 <0.001 <0.001 1.35000 1.3152 1.3848”

May combine two claims.

The p-values are all less than 0.001, demonstrating strong evidence against the null hypothesis (the test result of 0) and pointing to a considerable vocabulary knowledge gap between the groups.

“The p-values are all less than 0.001, demonstrating strong evidence against the null hypothesis (the test result of 0) and pointing to a considerable vocabulary knowledge gap between the groups.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Experimental Group 2 morpheme recognition mean is 0.3676 (SD=0.19292, SEM=0.03172), N=37.

“Morpheme _Recognition Group_2 37 0.3676 0.19292 0.03172”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Control Group 1 vocabulary knowledge mean difference from test value 0 is 1.30625 (95% CI 1.2409-1.3716), t=40.761, df=31, p<0.001.

“Control vocabulary Knowledge_ group 1 40.761 31 <0.001 <0.001 1.30625 1.2409 1.3716”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Experimental Group 1 morpheme recognition mean is 1.3405 (SD=0.11371, SEM=0.01869), N=37.

“Experimental Morpheme _Recognition Group_1 37 1.3405 0.11371 0.01869”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Control Group 1 consists of 32 participants with a mean morpheme usage of 0.5297 (SD = 0.16794).

“Control Group 1 consists of 32 participants with a mean morpheme usage of 0.5297 (SD = 0.16794”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Group 2, the control group (n = 32) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3859 (SD = 0.011376, SEM = 0.02011).

“In Group 2, the control group (n = 32) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3859 (SD = 0.011376, SEM = 0.02011)”

The quote only partly states this claim.

In the control condition, morpheme use in writing for Group 2 had a mean difference of 0.58281 (95% CI 0.4945-0.6711), t(31)=13.467, p<.001.

“Morpheme use in writing Group 2 13.467 31 <0.001 <0.001 0.58281 0.4945 0.6711”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Group 1, the control group (n = 32) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3063 (SD = 0.18128, SEM = 0.03205).

“In Group 1, the control group (n = 32) had a mean vocabulary size of 1.3063 (SD = 0.18128, SEM = 0.03205)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Control Group 2 vocabulary knowledge mean difference from test value 0 is 1.38594 (95% CI 1.3449-1.4270), t=68.918, df=31, p<0.001.

“vocabulary Knowledge_ group 2 68.918 31 <0.001 <0.001 1.38594 1.3449 1.4270”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction of irregular inflectional forms improves the word recognition ability of foreign language learners and can efficiently transform this skill into writing.

“As a result, the current study findings demonstrated that explicit instruction of irregular inflectional forms improves the word recognition ability of foreign language learners and can efficiently transform this skill into writing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Through pair and group work, learners are engaged in metalinguistic discussions and reflections on the structures and processes involved in irregular inflectional forms.

“Additionally, through pair and group work, learners are engaged in metalinguistic discussions and reflections on the structures and processes involved in irregular inflectional forms.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit irregular inflectional morphological instruction had a positive transformative effect on learners' knowledge, demonstrated by accurate structure and proper implication in their writing skills in posttests.

“A positive transformative effect of explicit irregular inflectional morphological instruction on learners' knowledge is demonstrated by the accurate structure with the proper implication of their writing skills in posttests exemplified in Table”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The control group had N = 32, mean = 0.5563, standard deviation = 0.14701, and standard error mean = 0.02599.

“control group: N = 32, Mean = 0.5563, Standard Deviation = 0.14701, Std.Error Mean = 0.02599.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction of inflectional irregular morphemes significantly improves and facilitates foreign language learning.

“This study's findings support both the 'Input Processing Theory' and the 'Processability Theory' by demonstrating the effectiveness of inflectional morphological explicit instruction.”

• Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain

  “The pretest and posttest results between the control and experimental groups revealed that explicit instruction of inflectional irregular morphemes significantly improves and facilitates foreign language learning, given the abovementioned variables and the hypotheses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Experimental Morpheme Recognition group 1 had N = 37, mean = 1.3405, standard deviation = 0.11371, and standard error mean = 0.01869.

“Experimental Morpheme Recognition group 1: (N = 37, Mean = 1.3405,Standard Deviation = 0.11371, Std.Error Mean = 0.01869.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Learners' knowledge is demonstrated by the accurate structure and proper implication of their writing skills in posttests (Table 8).

“learners' knowledge is demonstrated by the accurate structure with the proper implication of their writing skills in posttests exemplified in Table 8.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Experimental Morpheme Recognition group 2 had N = 37, mean = 0.3676, standard deviation = 0.19292, and standard error mean = 0.03172.

“Experimental Morpheme Recognition group 2: (N = 37, Mean = 0.3676, Standard Deviation = 0.19292, Std.Error Mean = 0.03172.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The differences in morphology between Arabic and English make it necessary to explore explicit morphological instruction to address Saudi learners' difficulties and enhance second language acquisition.

“The differences in morphology between these two languages make it necessary to explore explicit morphological instruction to address their difficulties and enhance second language acquisition among Saudi learners.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The effectiveness of explicit instruction in facilitating the acquisition of irregular inflectional forms among EFL learners remains unexplored worldwide, particularly in the Saudi context.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Irregular forms in English are often created through changes in the base form of the word itself.

“However, irregular forms in English are often created through changes in the base form of the word itself, such as 'go' changing to 'went' or 'run' changing to 'ran'.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit exposure to L2 helps learners acquire forms and word retention levels.

“Explicit exposure to L2 helps learners acquire forms and word retention levels (Schmidt, 1990).”

• cites Schmidt, 1990 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Providing explicit rules and explanations helps learners understand and internalise irregularities, enhancing their second language acquisition and proficiency in irregular forms.

“Providing explicit rules and explanations helps learners understand and internalise irregularities, enhancing their second language acquisition and proficiency in irregular forms.”

May combine two claims.

The results support the hypotheses that overt instruction of inflectional irregular morphological knowledge transfers to EFL learners' writing skills and facilitates L2 acquisition.

“The results support the hypotheses developed initially in this study that overt instruction of inflectional irregular morphological knowledge transfers to the EFL learners' writing skills and facilitates L2 acquisition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

No research has been done on irregular inflectional morphemes to investigate the transformative effects of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional form acquisition among EFL learners concerning morpheme recognition and transferring it to writing.

“Moreover, no research has been done on irregular inflectional morphemes to investigate the transformative effects of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional form acquisition among EFL learners concerning morpheme recognition and transferring it to writing.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Group 2 provides a baseline for comparison.

“It is this latter group that provides a baseline for comparison.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The successful transformation from the morpheme recognition stage to productive use in writing demonstrates the acquisition of inflectional morphemes.

“Notably, the successful transformation from the morpheme recognition stage to productive use in writing demonstrates the acquisition of inflectional morphemes.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Grammaticality Judgement Tasks (GJT) and written assignments on sentences were used as the instruments for this study to triangulate and validate the findings.

“Grammaticality Judgement Tasks (GJT) and written assignments on sentences were used as the instruments for this study to triangulate and validate the findings (Appendix A).”

May combine two claims.

Explicit exposure to morphological forms positively affects the acquisition of the target language and causes better language gains.

“Explicit exposure to morphological forms positively affects the acquisition of the target language and, in turn, causes better language gains (Khan, 2022;Fotos, 1994;Swain, 1998).”

• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Fotos, 1994 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Swain, 1998Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

This study highlights the effectiveness of explicit teaching of morphemes and comprehensible input for morpheme acquisition.

“In addition, to know whether or not explicit instruction in morphology influences the learning of English inflectional morphemes, particularly the irregular ones in learners whose native language is not English, this study highlights the effectiveness of explicit teaching of morphemes and comprehensible input, i.e. contextualised material for morpheme acquisition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Processability Theory focuses on the developmental stages of language acquisition and highlights the importance of explicit instruction in guiding learners through these stages.

“The Processability Theory, on the other hand, focuses on the developmental stages of language acquisition and highlights the importance of explicit instruction in guiding learners through these stages.”

• cites Pienemann, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The transformative effect of explicit irregular inflectional morphemes on learners' writing skills in English did not receive attention from previous researchers.

“Also, the transformative effect of explicit irregular inflectional morphemes on learners' writing skills in English did not receive attention from previous researchers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

In the Saudi context, explicit instruction is particularly suitable for bridging the gap between Arabic and English morphological systems.

“In the Saudi context, where Arabic and English have different morphological structures, explicit instruction proves to be particularly suitable for bridging the gap between the two systems.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Input Processing Theory posits that learners process input through cognitive mechanisms including attention, perception, and memory, leading to language acquisition.

“The Input Processing Theory posits that learners process input through various cognitive mechanisms, including attention, perception, and memory, leading to language acquisition.”

• cites VanPatten, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

According to Input Processing Theory, explicit instruction can aid learners in processing input more effectively, thereby facilitating the acquisition of target language structures.

“According to this theory, explicit instruction can aid learners in processing input more effectively, thereby facilitating the acquisition of target language structures.”

• cites VanPatten, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Irregular inflectional forms require learners to memorise individual forms rather than rely on regular patterns.

“Irregular inflectional forms, characterised by unpredictable morphological changes, require learners to memorise individual forms rather than rely on regular patterns.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The effects of explicit instruction in L2 morphology eventually appear in students' writing.

“The result of the affixes test provided evidence that the effects of explicit instruction in L2 morphology eventually appear in students' writing.”

• cites Ross and Berwick (1991)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Students' understanding of the rules governing using morphemes improves with explicit instruction.

“Moreover, it finds that students' understanding of the rules governing using morphemes also improves with explicit instruction.”

• cites Schuwerk (2004)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Input Processing Theory states that L1 acquisition happens accidentally, but L2 acquisition requires explicit exposure to the target language.

“However, the 'Input Processing Theory' states that L1 acquisition happens accidentally, but L2 acquisition requires explicit exposure to the target language, which is vital to the current study.”

• cites VanPatten, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The reviewed literature revealed the significance of overt morphological instruction.

“In conclusion, the reviewed literature revealed the significance of overt morphological instruction, demonstrated variation in the morphological structure between Arabic and English, and finally, revealed the importance of the current study in filling the gap.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The cited studies highlight the relevance of the Input Processing Theory and the Processability Theory in guiding the design and implementation of effective explicit morphological instruction.

“The cited studies support the significance and effectiveness of explicit instruction in addressing the challenges posed by irregular inflectional forms and highlight the relevance of the Input Processing Theory and the Processability Theory in guiding the design and implementation of effective explicit morphological instruction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The irregular inflectional phenomenon between English and Arabic remained unexplored.

“Still, the irregular inflectional phenomenon between English and Arabic remained unexplored.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Explicit instruction has an impact on L2 learners' recognition of third person singular 's', progressive 'ing', and indefinite article.

“The study concludes that explicit instruction does have an impact on L2 learners' recognition of these forms.”

• cites Schuwerk (2004)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The cited studies support the significance and effectiveness of explicit instruction in addressing the challenges posed by irregular inflectional forms.

“The cited studies support the significance and effectiveness of explicit instruction in addressing the challenges posed by irregular inflectional forms and highlight the relevance of the Input Processing Theory and the Processability Theory in guiding the design and implementation of effective explicit morphological instruction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

All participants voluntarily participated in the study and provided prior consent by submitting the necessary forms.

“All participants voluntarily participated in the study and provided prior consent by submitting the necessary forms.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction significantly improved learners' accuracy and use of word forms.

“Explicit instruction significantly improved learners' accuracy and use of word forms (Yucel-Koc, 2015).”

• cites Yucel-Koc, 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The researcher holds a PhD in English linguistics with extensive experience in research and teaching English Language at various universities for over 16 years.

“The researcher holds a PhD in English linguistics with extensive experience in research and teaching English Language at various universities for over 16 years.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The reviewed literature revealed the importance of the current study in filling the gap.

“In conclusion, the reviewed literature revealed the significance of overt morphological instruction, demonstrated variation in the morphological structure between Arabic and English, and finally, revealed the importance of the current study in filling the gap.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Learners benefit from explicit instruction and ample practice in processing and producing language forms.

“According to these theories, learners benefit from explicit instruction and ample practice in processing and producing language forms.”

• cites VanPatten, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Pienemann, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Formal written approval was obtained from the Scientific Research Committee at the English Language Skills Department, Common First Year at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 2023.

“A written formal approval was obtained from the Scientific Research Committee at the English Language Skills Department, Common First Year at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 2023.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The study's aim necessitates a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design.

“As the study aims to investigate the transformative effects of explicit morphological instruction on acquiring irregular inflectional forms by EFL Saudi learners, it necessitates a pretestposttest quasi-experimental design.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The errors could be due to a lack of knowledge because a foreign language requires excessive explicit exposure to automatisation and proceduralization.

“It could be a lack of knowledge for the learners because a foreign language requires excessive explicit exposure to automatisation and proceduralization.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A foreign language requires excessive explicit exposure to automatisation and proceduralization.

May combine two claims.

Students' learning of inflectional morphemes can transfer to their writing skills and improve their ability to use them correctly.

“These findings suggest that students' learning of inflectional morphemes can transfer to their writing skills and improve their ability to use them correctly.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Three EFL teachers and researchers with ample research experience and PhD degrees in linguistics were invited to validate the tests' consistency using SPSS software (Cronbach's alpha).

“After conducting the study's pretest and posttest, three EFL teachers and researchers with ample research experience and PhD degrees in linguistics were invited to validate the tests' consistency using SPSS software (Cronbach's alpha).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations leads to automatisation of grammatical rules.

“access the automatisation of grammatical rules through intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations (Ullman, 2004).”

• cites Ullman, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

This study's results correspond to previous research findings that word formation is key in developing spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and lexical processing and writing, and EFL learners with lexical competence score holistically in writing composition.

“This study's results also correspond to previous research findings, which support the argument that word formation is key in developing spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and lexical processing and writing, and EFL learners with lexical competence score holistically in writing composition (Masrai, 2016;Karimi, 2013;Crossley and McNamara, 2012;Crossley and McNamara, 2009;Engber, 1995).”

• cites Masrai, 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Karimi, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Crossley and McNamara, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Over-generalisation in language acquisition is a normal process that happens at the developmental stages of language learning.

“Moreover, over-generalisation in language acquisition is not a surprising phenomenon but rather a normal process that happens at the developmental stages of language learning (Marcus et al. 1992).”

• cites Marcus et al. 1992 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The reliability of the assessment tools used in the study was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, which demonstrated strong internal consistency.

“The reliability of the assessment tools used in the study was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, which demonstrated strong internal consistency.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the study.

“Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The ethical approval was requested and granted in April 2022, before the commencement of data collection.

“The ethical approval was requested and granted in April 2022, before the commencement of data collection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The findings of this study reveal the significance of the Input Processing Theory by VanPatten (1996) and The Processability Theory by Pienemann (1998).

“Also, the findings of this study reveal the significance of the Input Processing Theory by VanPatten (1996) and The Processability Theory by Pienemann (1998).”

• cites VanPatten (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Pienemann (1998) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

“The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.”

May combine two claims.

Rich, contextualised and comprehensible input is far more effective in bringing about morpheme acquisition and vocabulary development in learners.

“the study findings support the argument that rich, contextualised and comprehensible input is far more effective in bringing about morpheme acquisition and vocabulary development in learners (Stephens, 1977;Krashen, 1989;Khan, 2022).”

• cites Stephens, 1977Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Krashen, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The Processability Theory demonstrated how the morphological structure changes from one form to another, providing necessary support through visual representations to advance through stages.

“It clearly demonstrated how the morphological structure changes from one form to another, providing necessary support through the help of visual representations to advance through these stages.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction and exposure to input play a crucial role in language acquisition and the mastery of irregular morphological structures.

“This supports the notion that explicit instruction and exposure to input play a crucial role in language acquisition and the mastery of irregular morphological structures.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The findings indicate that the practical application of explicit morphological instruction through PowerPoint, which includes visual aids such as charts, diagrams, and infographics, helps improve learners' memory, cognitive mechanisms, and data input processing in learning a foreign language.

“The findings indicate that the practical application of explicit morphological instruction through Pow-erPoint, which includes visual aids such as charts, diagrams, and infographics, helps improve learners' memory, cognitive mechanisms, and data input processing in learning a foreign language.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The informed consent process was conducted in March 2023 before distributing the questionnaires.

“The informed consent process was conducted in March 2023 before distributing the questionnaires.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the study and their rights to withdraw at any time without any consequences.

“Participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the study and their rights to withdraw at any time without any consequences.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit morphological instruction can result in language acquisition and better morphological structure.

“The findings support previous studies concerning the application of the Input Processing Theory and the Processability Theory in explicit morphological instruction, which can result in language acquisition and better morphological structure (Lee, 2021;Khan, 2022;Schenck, 2022).”

• cites Lee, 2021 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Khan, 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Schenck, 2022Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of King Saud University.

“Approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of King Saud University.”

May combine two claims.

Explicitly explaining morphological rules caught the learners' attention during the instruction, which enhanced learners' input and facilitated language learning.

“The Input Processibility Theory is effective because explicitly explaining morphological rules caught the learners' attention during the instruction, which enhanced learners' input and facilitated language learning.”