An optimality-theoretic analysis of Iraqi EFL students’ production of English plural forms

Abstract

Many Iraqi Arabic-speaking learners of English encounter challenges in pronouncing plural endings such as /s/, /z/, and /ɪz/. This study applies Optimality Theory (OT), a linguistic framework that explains pronunciation choices through ranked phonological constraints, to analyse how Iraqi university learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) generate English plural allomorphs (/s/, /z/, /ɪz/). Fifteen Iraqi undergraduate English majors pluralized three monosyllabic nouns (dish, reef, road), each triggering a different plural allomorph. These words exemplify the range of phonological challenges Arabic-speaking learners face. Students’ outputs were evaluated against an OT constraint hierarchy (SS >> A_GREE >> M_AX >> D_EP >> I_DENT) to identify optimal (correct) versus suboptimal (incorrect) pluralizations. Results showed that only nine of 45 plural productions were optimal. Accuracy was highest for road (3/15 correct) and reef (4/15), whereas dish had the lowest accuracy (2/15). Suboptimal forms stemmed from constraint violations, such as breaching D_EP (vowel insertion (epenthesis)), violating A_GREE/I_DENT (incorrect voicing assimilation), contravening M_AX (omission of the plural suffix), and violating SS (unresolved sibilant clusters). The errors observed can be attributed to negative transfer from Arabic: Learners inserted vowels, reflecting Arabic phonology’s inclination towards consonant–vowel syllable structures (e.g. pronouncing roads as [rəʊdɪz]), and misassigned voicing because of the absence of similar voicing assimilation rules in Arabic (e.g. pronouncing reef as [riːfz]). Limited exposure to varied English inputs and insufficient corrective feedback possibly exacerbated these issues. This study illustrates the effectiveness of OT in identifying pronunciation challenges and emphasizes particular first language (L1) transfer effects impacting Arabic-speaking learners. Pedagogically, the analysis supports focused pronunciation instruction through cluster simplification drills and voicing contrast exercises. By discerning frequent constraint violations, teachers can better target phonological habits shaped by L1 interference. Thus, applying OT to pluralization yields both theoretical insight into cross-linguistic phonology and practical guidance for improving pronunciation teaching for Arabic EFL learners.

Keywords

Arabic EFL learners English plural allomorphs interlingual interference Optimality Theory (OT)phonological transfer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ababneh

(2018). English pronunciation errors made by Saudi students. European Scientific Journal (ESJ), 14, 244–261.

Abdulrazzaq

A.H.

(2023). Generative phonology models of universal grammar: Constraint-based optimality theory as opposed to the rule-based SPE model. Alustath, 62, 428–437.

Al-Janaideh

Mahadin

(2015). The acquisition of the English plural morpheme and the regular past tense morpheme by Arabic-speaking students in Jordan. International Review of Social Sciences, 3, 512–534.

Al-Jarf

(2022). Difficulties in learning English plural formation by EFL college students. Online Submission, 5, 111–121.

Al-Saidat

E.M.

(2010). Phonological analysis of English phonotactics: A case study of Arab learners of English. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 121–134.

Altarawneh

S.M.

Hajjo

M.H.

(2018). The acquisition of the English plural morphemes by Arabic-speaking EFL learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6, 34–39.

Archangeli

D.B.

Langendoen

D.T.

(1997). Optimality theory: An overview. Blackwell.

Aronoff

Fudeman

(2022). What is morphology? (3rd ed.). John Wiley.

Assunitan

(2023). An optimality-theoretic analysis of some phonological errors produced by Saudi female learners of the English language. Psycholinguistics, 33, 29–56.

10.

Boersma

Hayes

(2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.

11.

Boersma

Weenink

(2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 6.0 [computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org (accessed October 2025).

12.

Broselow

(1984). An investigation of transfer in second language phonology. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 22, 253–269.

13.

Broselow

Chen

S.I.

Wang

(1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261–280.

14.

Cook

(2016). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.

15.

Derwing

T.M.

Munro

M.J.

(2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.

16.

Ellis

(2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

17.

Flege

J.E.

Davidian

R.D.

(1984). Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 323–347.

18.

Hago

O.E.

Khan

W.A.

(2015). The pronunciation problems faced by Saudi EFL learners at secondary schools. Education and Linguistics Research, 1, 85–99.

19.

Hassan

R.S.

(2023). English consonant clusters difficulties for EFL Iraqi learners. Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Studies, 4, 23–30.

20.

Honeybone

Salmons

(Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford University Press.

21.

Hyland

(Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.

22.

International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Jarvis

Pavlenko

(2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.

24.

Kager

(1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Lombardi

(1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 267–302.

26.

McCarthy

J.J.

(2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.

27.

McCarthy

J.J.

(2006). Restraint of analysis. UC Santa Cruz: Festschrifts. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8j31x9md (accessed October 2025).

28.

McCarthy

J.J.

(2008). Doing optimality theory: Applying theory to data. John Wiley.

29.

McCarthy

J.J.

Prince

A.S.

(1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Student Association), Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.

30.

Naseri

Z.S.

Ahmadinasab

Kadhem Jawaad

(2024). An optimality theoretic-based analysis of consonant cluster pronunciation errors among Iraqi EFL learners. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 16, 97–118.

31.

Prince

Smolensky

(2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Wiley.

32.

Ryding

(2005). A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press.

33.

Selinker

(1972). Interlanguage. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–231.

34.

Tesar

Smolensky

(2000). Learnability in optimality theory. MIT Press.

35.

Thyab

R.A.

(2016). Mother-tongue interference in the acquisition of English articles by L1 Arabic students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 1–4.