The Acquisition of the English Spatial Prepositions: in, on, and at by Saudi EFL Students
Abstract
This study investigates the acquisition of the three English spatial prepositions: ‘in’, ‘on’, and ‘at’ by 100 Saudi EFL students within the framework of the Markedness Theory. From the markedness point of view, marked/infrequent structures are more difficult in acquisition compared to their corresponding unmarked/frequent structures. English and Arabic differ in the way they express the semantic relations of these prepositions. This is assumed to pose difficulties in learning for EFL students where learners compare the English prepositional system to that of Arabic and resort to literal translation; thus, L1 transfer takes place. The study aims to provide insight into the challenges that Arab EFL learners encounter when learning English and to fill a gap in the literature of second language acquisition regarding the acquisition of prepositions by Arab EFL learners when semantic asymmetries are attested. Results show that the unmarked preposition ‘in’ is learned easily because its Arabic equivalent ‘fi’ covers more functions in the native language. As for the prepositions ‘on’ and ‘at’, results show that participants are struggling to learn them because only a few meanings correspond between ‘on’ and its Arabic equivalent ‘ʕala’, and that Arabic lacks an equivalent for ‘at’.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The difficulty in learning 'on' is due to the limited correspondence between the meanings of 'on' and its Arabic equivalent 'ʕala'.
“This is due to the limited correspondence between the meanings of 'on' and its Arabic equivalent 'ʕala' .”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Alhammad's (2023)
Arabic lacks an equivalent preposition for 'at', contributing to learners' struggle in understanding and using English prepositions.
“Additionally, Arabic lacks an equivalent preposition for 'at' , further contributing to the learners' struggle in understanding and using these English prepositions.”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Alhammad's (2023)
Alhammad's (2023) findings indicate that participants encounter difficulties in learning 'on' and 'at'.
“For example, Alhammad's (2023) findings indicate that participants encounter difficulties in learning 'on' and 'at' .”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Alhammad's (2023)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Albelihi, H. H. M., & Al-Ahdal, A. (2024) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-024-00303-y · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Alhammad, R.
- Affiliations
- Majmaah University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Alhammad, Reham
- ORCID
- Alhammad, Reham
- Venue
- WORD
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-04-03
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-204
- ISSN
- 0043-7956 (ISSN-L)
- 2373-5112
- OpenAlex
- W4382562747
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- WORD (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Majmaah University (R-2023-463)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- spatial prepositions, preposition acquisition, markedness theory, Arabic-English contrastive analysis, first language transfer, literal translation, semantic asymmetry, Saudi EFL learners, second language acquisition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review