Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Lang. Sci.

Sec. Bilingualism

Volume 4 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/flang.2025.1633610

Word-likeness ratings of English-like nonwords by Arabic and Chinese learners of English: Implications for assessing proficiency

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia
  • 2Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China
  • 3Psychology College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The present study investigated English learners' subjective word-likeness ratings of English-like nonwords. For both native Arabic and Mandarin speakers learning English, the subjective word-likeness ratings correlated with objective phonotactic probability measures of those nonwords. Although there were no differences between the subjective word-likeness ratings of Beginner and Advanced English learners, the word-likeness ratings of Beginner and Advanced learners did differ from the ratings provided (in a previous study) by native English speakers, suggesting that subjective ratings of phonotactic knowledge may be useful in measuring the extent to which phonological knowledge approaches native-like levels. The results of the present study underscore the important role of phonotactic knowledge in language proficiency. Implications of these findings to second language learning are discussed, with an emphasis on how the nonword rating task might be used as a novel and efficient method to assess one aspect of language proficiency.

Keywords: phonotactic probability, word-likeness ratings, proficiency, assessment, learner intuition

Received: 10 Jun 2025; Accepted: 28 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Aljasser, Wang and Vitevitch. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Michael S Vitevitch, Psychology College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.