L1 (Akan) Interference Errors in L2 (English) Writing: The Case of ...

American Journal of Language and Literacy Original Research Article

American Scholarly Research Association A1

www.ASRAresearch.org

L1 (Akan) Interference Errors in L2 (English) Writing: The Case of

Three Junior High School Students in Ghana

Dr. Charles Owu-Ewie¹*, Dr. Charllote Fofo Lomotey²

1 Faculty of Ghanaian Languages Education, University of Education, Winneba, 2 Faculty of

Foreign Languages and Communication Studies, University of Education, Winneba

* [email protected]

Citation: Owu-Ewie, C., & Lomotey, C.F. (2016). L1 (Akan) interference errors in L2 (English)

writing: the case of three junior high school students in Ghana. American Journal of

Language and Literacy, 1, A1-A18. Retrieved from

http://www.ASRAresearch.org/ajll-vol-1-no-1-2016/

ABSTRACT

This paper focused on Junior High School (JHS) students’ errors resulting from L1 (Akan)

interference in written production of L2 (English). The study used purposive sampling to select

ninety (90) written essays of fifteen Akan speakers in the Junior High School. Data was collected

by use of documents (students’ written essays). The content analysis approach was used to

analyze writing errors of students in these essays having to do with L1 interference. The study

found that transliteration, omissions, wrong word use, L1 induced spelling errors and wrong

pronoun use were the errors that occurred in the students’ writings as a result of L1 interference.

It was also identified that transliteration and omission errors were the most frequently committed

L1 interference errors in the writings of Akan speakers learning English in the Junior High

School. The implications of this study to the improvement of English writing instruction of Akan

students studying English are discussed.

Key Words: second language acquisition, L1 transfer, L2 writing, L1 interference, interlanguage

INTRODUCTION

In an attempt to ensure good writing skills among L2 learners, many L2 teachers place emphasis

on writing problems in syntax, lexis and discourse aspects. However, L2 (English) teachers tend

to neglect the problem of students’ native language and culture interfering with their L2 writing

(Latiff & Bakar, 2008). L1 interference is a crucial factor to consider in L2 writing instruction.

L1 interference refers to the influence of native language structures on students’ performance

and development in the target language (Hashim, 1999). When L2 learners are writing in the

target language some, of their L1 characteristics show up in their writing. Many sentences that

L2 learners write are more acceptable in their native language than in English (L2) due to direct

translation from L1 into English. Their Akan language structures and culture undisputedly

interfere with their written English. Students carry over the habits of Akan language into English,

such as the habit of Akan forms and meaning into English sentences. As a result, L1 interference

is common in their written English.

mailto:[email protected]




Within the L2 classroom, research shows that L1 has a small but important role to play in

communicating meaning and content (Nation, 2003). Nation indicates that the role of L1 use in

L2 classroom helps learners gain the knowledge needed to reach a higher level of L2

performance. Though L1 use in L2 classroom is seen to be facilitative, it is identified that L1

interference is one of the several sources of errors learners make in learning the L2 (Krashen,

1988). Second language learners in their quest to master the target language assume that certain

features of the native language are universal and can be applied to the L2 situation. Though there

are some universal features about languages, there is variability. As Maniam (2010: 4) puts it

“although human languages have a great deal in common, which enables us to translate from one

language to another without much difficulty, they are also very different from one another in

many aspects”. As a result, learners L2 production may consist of errors emanating from their L1

knowledge. Students produce pieces of writing containing correct grammar structures as well as

appropriate vocabulary items and content. However, many sentences make more sense in the

students’ L1 than in English due to direct translation from L1 into English. To be able to correct

errors L2 learners make, teachers need to know the source of the error; whether it is interference

errors, developmental errors, context of learning or communication strategies errors. One source

of error which should be a concern to L2 teachers is L1 interference errors. As Beardsmore

(1982) suggests, many of the difficulties a second language learner has with the phonology,

vocabulary, and grammar of L2 are due to the interference of habits from L1. There is therefore

the need to look at these types of errors in learners’ writings and their implications to improving

students’ writing. This paper contributes to knowledge in the field of error analysis in L2 writing

and the influence L1 has on L2 writing structure regarding Akan learners of English.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review in this study is organized around two major areas: approaches to L1

interference study and L1 interference in L2 writing.

Approaches to L1 Interference Study

There are four approaches to L1 interference in L2 learning. These are Contrastive Analysis

(CA), which is the traditional approach, Error Analysis (EA); the contemporary approach,

Interlanguage Analysis (IA) and Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) as the modern approach (Latiff &

Bakar, 2007). In this study, the first three will be discussed.

Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive Analysis (CA) is the study and comparison of any two languages. CA holds the view

that the structure of the first language affects the acquisition of the second language (Lado, 1957).

The theory originated from Lado’s (1957) linguistics across cultures and underpinned

linguistically and psychologically by structuralism and behaviorism respectively. Contrastive

Analysis, which is the primary approach to the study of L1 interference, focuses on the

comparison of the linguistic systems of the two languages, especially the sound and grammar

systems of L1 and L2 to find solutions to L2 instruction problems (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).

CA is seen to be intuitively appealing because, as Brown (1987) indicates, there are many errors

in the L2 which are attributed to the negative transfer of the native language to the target

language. However, CA as a theory was not successful in predicting difficulties (Hughes, 1980).




It also lacks any satisfactory measure of differences. In the view of Wardhaugh (1970), the

assumption of CA is quite unrealistic and unpredictable, and it is considered simplistic in terms

of L2 acquisition. The claim of CA that the native language is the main factor affecting L2

learner’s errors is limited in argument. As a result of the criticisms, Wardhaugh (1970) proposed

the “weak version” which recognizes the significance of interference across languages. Oller and

Ziahosseiny (1970) however proposed a moderate version to fill the gap between the two earlier

versions. The moderate version holds the view that interference is more likely to occur when

there is similarity between the items to be learned and already known items (Brown, 2006).

Despite these challenges, the idea of L1 interference continues to be applicable as part of Error

Analysis in L2 acquisition.

Error Analysis (EA)

In reaction to the weaknesses found with Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis (EA) emerged in

the 1960s to demonstrate that the errors L2 learners make are not always due to the learners’

native language but due to other complex factors. The model holds the view that factors like

communicative strategies, and the quality of second language instruction result in L2 errors

(Hashim, 1992). Other sources of errors identified by Richards and Schmidt (2002) are

overgeneralization errors, simplification errors, developmental errors, communication-based

errors, L1 induced errors, avoidance errors and overproduction errors. EA deals with the

learners’ performance in terms of cognitive processes. It recognizes the input learners receive

from the target language. The basis of Error Analysis is the fact that learners’ errors provide us

with an understanding of the underlying process of second language acquisition (Erdogan, 2005).

According to Corder (1975), EA is reserved for the study of erroneous utterances produced by

groups of learners of a language. Keshavars (1997) suggests that there are two branches of error

analysis; theoretical and applied. According to Keshavars, theoretical error analysis is concerned

with process and strategies of second language learning and the similarities with first language

acquisition. Applied error analysis, on the other hand, deals with organizing remedial courses

and devising appropriate materials and teaching strategies based on the findings of theoretical

error analysis. In this study, theoretical error analysis is more relevant.

Error Analysis is also criticized as a model which confuses explanatory (process) and descriptive

aspects (product) and also that the error categories lack precision and specificity (Dulay, Burt &

Krashen, 1982). James (1998) indicates that EA does not take into consideration the strategy of

avoidance in L2 learning. Schachter and Celce-Murcia (1977) identify six potential weaknesses

in Error analysis. These are the analysis of errors in isolation, the classification of identified

errors, statements of error frequency and identification of points of difficulty. Others are the

ascription of causes of systematic errors and the biased nature of sampling. Notwithstanding,

Error Analysis has added a layer to the analysis and classification of L2 students’ errors.

Interlanguage

Interlanguage is the type of language produced by second language or foreign language learners

in the process of learning a target language (Latiff & Bakar, 2007). The term ‘interlanguage’ was

first introduced by Selinker in reference to the “interim grammars constructed by second

language learners on their way to the target language” (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 60). According to

McLaughlin, interlanguage can mean two things: the learner’s system at a single point in time

and the range of interlocking systems that characterizes the development of learners over time. In




the view of James (1998), interlanguage is a system which holds a half-way position between

knowing and not knowing the target language. Interlanguage can also be explained as the L2

learner’s language system structured between the native language and the target language. It is

an approximative system (Nemser, 1971 cited in Brown, 2006) because the learner makes

successive attempts towards the target language. Interlanguage is synonymous with learner

language, while Corder calls it transitional competence. As an authority whose ideas have

influenced Interlanguage, Selinker sees interlanguage as a separate linguistic system resulting

from the learner’s attempt to produce the target language norm (McLaughlin, 1987).

In this study, the Contrastive Analysis (CA) approach to the study of errors is used because it

addresses the central aim of the study, which is to analyze L1 interference errors in students’ L2

(English) writing. One may argue for the use of the Error Analysis approach but it is not used

because it is all encompassing involving analysis of all errors (L1 interference, communicative

strategies, the quality of second language instruction and cognitive processes as sources of

students’ errors). EA deals with analysis of error in general as opposed to Contrastive Analysis

which deals with studying only L1 interference errors in L2 learning.

L1 Interference in L2 Writing

Research has shown that L2 writers employ their L1 skills in their writing of the L2 they are

learning. They adopt L1 composing strategies to compensate for possible deficiencies in their L2

proficiency and as a tool to facilitate their writing process (Karim & Nassaji, 2013). In writing,

learners use L1-based strategies like metacognitive, cognitive, and social/Affective. The learner

undisputably transfers skills in the L1 to the L2. In the 1970s and 1980s, language transfer theory

postulated that L1 has negative effect on L2 learning (James, 1980; Lado, 1957; Liu, 2002).

However, this assumption has changed over the years; there has been corrective movement in

recent years arguing that L1can have both positive and negative influence on L2 learning

(Selinker, 1983). Positive transfer refers to the process where the L1 knowledge facilitates the

acquisition of an L2, while negative transfer involves the process whereby L1 knowledge

interferes with and thus negatively impacts L2 acquisition. The learners through this create their

language what Selinker (1983) refers to as “interlanguage”. L1 transfer plays an important role in

the development of interlanguage. Transfer is viewed as a cross-linguistic process because it

results from not only the influence of the L1 but also from any other language the learner has

previously acquired (Odlin, 1989). The role of L1 transfer presently is viewed not only as an

intricate mental process but also as an inventory of strategies L2 learners employ in their L2

acquisition (Wolfersberger, 2003; Mu & Carrington, 2007). L1transfer is a mental and

communicative process through which second language learners develop their interlanguage

skills by activating and using their previous linguistic knowledge (Faerch & Kasper, 1987 cited

in Karim & Nassaji, 2013). It must be noted that L1 transfer can be found in any aspect of

language (Urdaneta, 2011).

Language transfer is a phenomenon where the learner’s native language has influence on her/his

L2 production, in speech or writing. Transfer in L2 writing is both a learning device and as a

strategy to solve communication problems faced by L2 learners (Karim & Nassaji, 2013). In the

L2 learners’ attempt to write a text, they use transfer as a device to convey their thoughts

(Mahmoud, 2002). By so doing, they formulate hypotheses about the L2 and test those




hypotheses for their efficacy. This phenomenon happens because many of the composing/writing

strategies in the L1 are the same in the L2 so L2 learners may be able to transfer these forms to

their L2 writing. Cumming (1990) indicates that learners who have already learned the processes

in process writing are prone to using the same strategies in their L2 writing.

When such transfers occur, there are bound to be interference. L1 interference is seen as an

important aspect to keep in mind in the development of all four basic skills an L2 learner

requires; listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In most cases, the L2 learner uses the L1 as a

tool to making the process easier and faster. From observation, learners of a second language

tend to transfer grammatical structures in their native language to the target language (Lado,

1957). Such transfers can sometimes cause interference in the second language learning process.

At this point it is crucial to distinguish between “transfer” and “interference”. Dulay, Burt and

Krashen (1982) indicate that when patterns of the first and the L2 are similar, learners tend to use

the L1 structures to help them in the production of the second language. When these patterns are

identical, the correct language form is produced and "positive transfer" occurs but sometimes the

transfer conflicts with L2 rules resulting in “interference" errors or negative transfer. Interference

occurs because the proposition that languages share similar features do not account for learners’

information in learning a foreign language (Bley-Broman, 1989). There are sometimes some

features that are inconsistent with language universals. Thus, languages with marked universals

are more difficult for L2 acquisition than those with unmarked universals (Parker & Riley, 2000).

Research has shown that L1 plays a major role in L2 writing (Karim & Nassaji, 2013). For

example, Kubota (1998) has found in a study among Japanese ESL students that L2 students

used similar patterns from L1 in their essay writings. He found that L2 writers transfer

organization and rhetorical patterns from the L1. L2 learners also use their L1 knowledge to

assess appropriate word order and to compare cross-linguistic equivalents (Cumming, 1990). In

addition, research has shown that L2 students transfer rhetorical strategies, metacognitive

strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies in their writing acquired from their

knowledge of such skills in the L1 (Mu & Carrington, 2007). It is not only in the above skills

that transfer occurs but also in language structure (grammar transference). Kim (2002) and

Maniam (2010) have also identified that there is frequency of occurrence of grammar

transference in the L1 into the L2. In the same instance, Barto-Sisamout, et. al. (2009) discovered

in a study of Spanish students learning English that transferability of native language grammar

and structure exists when acquiring a second language (English). It is also realized that there is

L1 lexical interference in L2 writing concerning collocation, plural words, general-meaning and

literal word translation (Nattama, 2002). These researches are been supported by Hung (2000) in

a study of Thai ESL students. He found that written English assignments were influenced by

their L2 grammar structures which include subject-verb agreement, auxiliaries, noun,

determiners and clause/sentence structure. L1 interference is undisputedly predominant in L2

writing, which L2 teachers should put in efforts to minimize such a phenomenon before it

becomes part of the L2 learner’s repertoire of writing.

One other area in the literature worthy of review for this paper is the Hierarchy of Error

difficulty model proposed by (Stockwell, Bowen & Martin, 1965 cited in Brown, 2002). This

model is used to determine or predict the relative difficulty of a given target language. Out of this

model, Prator (1967; cited in Brown, 2002) formulated six categories of hierarchy of difficulty to




suit both grammatical and phonological features of a language. These categories (Level 0 –

Level 5) include transfer (Level 0) where there is no difference or contrast between the L1 and

target language, coalescence (Level 1) where two items in the L1 become one in the target

language, underdifferentiation (Level 2) where an L1 item is absent in the target language and

reinterpretation (Level 3) where an item in the L1 is given a new shape or distinction in the target

language. Others in the category are overdifferentiation (Level 4) where an item in the L2 bears

no similarity to the L1 item and split (level 5) where one item in the L1 becomes two in the

target language. These categories might be crucial in determining which L1 interference error

will be most commonly committed by students learning a particular second language and why.

This will help answer the second research question posed later in the study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to:

1. Identify L1 interference errors that occur in the writings of Akan speaking students in

Junior High School in Ghana.

2. Identify the frequently committed L1 interference errors in the English writings of Akan

speaking students in Junior High School in Ghana.

3. Examine the implications of this phenomenon in English language writing instruction in

the Junior High School.

Research Questions

The study basically found answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the L1 interference errors that occur in the English essay writings of Akan

speaking students in Junior High School in Ghana?

2. What are the most frequently committed L1 interference errors in the English writings of

Akan speaking students in Junior High School in Ghana?

3. What implications does this phenomenon have in English language instruction in the

Junior High School?

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study in L2 writing cannot be underestimated. The study is significant to

both second language teachers and learners and second language planners. To language teachers

it is envisaged that it will expose them to the sources of learners’ errors in their writing so that

they can help learners overcome the problem. Besides, the study is believed to help teachers

know how to teach for positive transfer by teaching the similarities and differences that exist

between the structures of the two languages (Akan and English). This is likely to improve their

teaching of English language. In addition, students will have their performance in English

improved because they will be exposed to the contrast between their native language and English

which will help them to do positive transfer. The study is likely to provided second language

planners with input on how to design appropriate language programs for Junior High School

students. It will also be beneficial to any researcher who will to conduct a similar research in

Ghana.




METHODOLOGY

This is a case study involving Junior High School (JHS) students from three schools in Winneba

in the Central Region of Ghana. For confidential reason, the names of the schools are withheld.

The study used purposive sampling technique to select essay writings of fifteen students in JHS

2. Five students were selected from each school. Junior High School 2 students were selected

because they are at the midpoint of the JHS program and have a year to write their final

examination so identifying their problems in writing and helping them overcome such problems

before their final examination is crucial. These students have at least studied English (as a

subject) for seven years and as medium of instruction for five years. The students use the L1

(Akan-Fante/Twi) at home most of the time and are studying the language as a subject in the

Junior High School. They are native speakers and literate in Akan (Fante). The students speak

only Akan (Fante) as their L1 language. This was purposeful done because if they speak another

native language, it might also influence their writing in English. It would have been a daunting

task to establish whether the interference errors were from Akan (Fante) or the other native

language. Out of the fifteen students used for the study, 7 were females and 8 males. Ninety (90)

essays from the students on six different topics were selected for analysis. The essays were either

written in class or were done as homework. Out of the ninety essays selected, fifty were written

in class and forty written as homework. The essays selected were on the following topics:

1. Describe a member of your family you like most.

2. Write a letter to a friend describing your school.

3. Write about what you normally do after school

4. A journey or excursion I have made.

5. The work my father/mother does.

6. Who is more important; a teacher or a doctor?

To ensure that ethical issues are observed, the researchers contacted the teachers of the students

for permission to use the students’ exercises for the study. After they have agreed, the students

concerned were also contacted. The students concerned willingly agreed for their work to be

used. The teachers and students were assured that the information corrected will be used only for

this study and that their names will not be used. The researchers then asked the teachers in the

selected schools and classes (JHS2) to photocopy the written essays of the students. The

researchers went to the schools a week later for such document and purposefully selected ninety

essays belonging to the fifteen students. An essay was selected because it contained L1

interference errors, which is the focus of the study.

The Contrastive Analysis (CA) approach was used as the theoretical framework to analyze errors

in these essays which were the result of L1 interference. There were other errors like subject-

verb agreement errors identified but they were not of concern to this paper because they were not

L1 induced. An error in this study means the student used the deviant element twice or more. For

example, if a student misspells a word and continues to use the wrong form, it was considered as

an error but if afterwards he/she writes the subsequent ones correctly, it is considered a mistake.

This was then not counted as an error in the analysis. The data was analyzed using content

approach. In this way, the L1 interference errors found in the essays were pulled out. The data

was reduced to meaningful units to readers by way of categorizing and coding the errors

identified under the appropriate domain. In addition, the L1 interference errors were presented on




a bar chart to identify their frequency of each error. The researchers selected only essays which

were written by Akan (Fante and Twi) speakers. These essays were selected because the

researchers are native speakers of Akan and could therefore judge errors which were Akan (L1)

interference induced. The researchers besides being native speakers hold Bachelor degrees in

Akan (Fante) and MPhil in Teaching English as a Second language. The researchers in analyzing

the data, created the following error categories: transliteration, wrong word use, wrong pronoun

use, omission (article/determiner or to-infinitive) and spelling errors. After the categories were

created, the individual errors were coded under the respective category. It must be noted that

some errors belonged to one or more error categories. For example, I has big head belongs to

omission error and at the same time literal translation error. In such a case, the error will be

discussed under the error category it appears. In another situation, if a student makes the same

error twice or thrice, it is counted only once but the error is counted, if it is made by another

student.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The findings and discussions of the study were made based on the three main research questions

posed earlier.

What are the L1 interference errors that occur in the English essay writings of Akan

speaking students in Junior High School in Ghana?

This question sought to find out the various errors committed in the English essay writings of

Akan speakers in the Junior High School. Analysis of the L1 interference errors recorded from

the essays were grouped under the following: errors of literal translation/transliteration, omission

of article/determiner and to-infinitive, wrong pronoun use, spelling errors and wrong word use.

These errors are fully discussed with examples in the ensuing sections.

Transliteration Errors

Transliteration according to Crystal (2003) is the conversion of one writing system into another.

Crystal adds that each item in the source language is given an equivalent item in the target

language. For example,

Dan tuntum no yɛ fɛw

House black the is nice (some Akan students of English write house black instead of black house

in English) because in Akan the adjective comes after the noun but it is the reverse in English).

Transliteration errors are errors which are direct rendition from the L1 to L2, sometimes

disregarding the rules of the second language. The following were some transliteration errors

identified in the study:




Table 1. Examples of transliteration errors from the study

Errors of Literal translation/transliteration

i. *“After class, we go to sowing place and learn”

ii. *“I am also in the age of 11 year”

iii. *“I am slim body”

iv. *“[…] we came Winneba”

v. *“My school is not cement”

vi. *“I have small small fingers]”

vii. *“We go to acting place”

viii. *“I want to go to further my education”

ix. *“They make noise in my face”

x. *“[…] become someone in future”

xi. *“When we got to the Salaga, we went to the palace”

xii. *“[…] want to come and celebrate some”

xiii. *“[…] pregnant comes

xiv. *“[…] go to sowing place and learn”

xv. *“Me and my sister went to the place”

The above examples though ungrammatical in English, when literally translated to Akan are

grammatically acceptable so it is possible to conclude that these errors are as a result of L1

interference. For example, *After class, we go to sowing place and learn which in Akan is

Yɛpon skuul a, yɛkɔ adzepambea kosua adze.

(if) We close school, we go sowing place go learn something (instead of When we close school

we go to the tailor’s shop to learn)

… we came Winneba (instead of We came to Winneba)

… yɛbaa Winneba

We came Winneba when translated to Akan as above is acceptable because the infinitive (to) is

absent in Akan. Errors of literal translation/transliteration come about as a result of

overdifferetiation (Level 4 hierarchy of difficulty) or split (Level 5 hierarchy of difficulty)

according to Prator (1967 cited in Brown, 2002). In another instance, example (vi) above “I have

small small fingers” though unacceptable in English is an acceptable structure in Akan because

the adjective is reduplicated to indicate something very small and plurality i.e.

Mowɔ nsatsea nketsenketse[redupl).

I have finger small small

In Akan, pregnancy is seen as something that comes from the man; so the Akans say nyinsɛn aba

(pregnancy has come). This explains the error in (xiii) above e.g. My mother does not have

money so when pregnancy comes I will stop school instead of My mother does not have money so

when I become pregnant I will stop school.




This finding is consistent with Mahmoud (2000) who found traces of transliteration of grammar

and vocabulary in the composition writing of Sudanese University students. L1 students do this

because their knowledge of L1 is most readily available as a linguistic resource they use to solve

L2 communication problems.

Omission Errors

Omission errors in this study involve the use of the determiner/article and “to” – infinitive. In

English, the determiner/article “a/an, the, that, this, etc.” co-occur with the noun, especially when

the noun is in isolation e.g. a book, an antelope. In the same instance, “to”-infinitive most often

occurs with verbs e. g. to dance, to eat. These phenomena do not exist in Akan.

In Akan,

however, there seems to be no equivalent usage to encompass the function of the above-

mentioned grammatical items. Theoretically speaking, Akan is less marked with reference to

“a/an” and “to” – infinitive. As a result, it is argued in this paper that Akan students learning

English as a second language are apt to disregard the use of “a/an” and “to” in their L2 written

production. The following are examples selected from the students’ writing assignments that

justify this hypothesis:

Table 2. Omission errors

Omission of article/determiner and to- infinitive

i. *“I has big head” (omission of “a”)

ii. *“[…] go to sowing place and learn” (omission of “the”)

iii. *“[…] you are not going fail this in this moment” (omission of ‘to”)

iv. *“I have mentioned them and […]” (omission of “to”)

v. *“I am very handsome boy” (omission of “a”)

vi. *“He is very hard working man” (omission of “a”)

vii. *“[…] to become nurse […]” (omission of “a”)

viii. *“I came Winneba […]” (omission of “to”)

xvi. *“[…] we came Winneba”

ix. * “Doctor is very good worker” (omission of “a”)

x. * “When we went to Kakum we saw antelope (omission of “an”)

xi. * “I go dance at university after school every day” (omission of “to”

and” the”)

xii. *”Sometimes there was big cloud in the hospital but doctor

…” (omission of “a” and “the”)

The errors above occurred in the students’ writings as a result of what Prator terms

overdifferentiation (a Level 4 difficulty error) in the case of the articles an/a, the and

reinterpretation (Level 3 difficulty error) for the infinitive to. In Akan, when nouns are learned in

isolation no article is used because it does not exist in the language e.g. nɛɛse (a nurse), adaka (a

box), ɔsono (an elephant). This may explain why errors like I has big head, instead of I have a

big head, I am very handsome boy (instead of I am a very handsome boy), and He is very hard

working man instead of He is a very hard working man. Also, the infinitive to is entirely new to

Akan students because they do not exist in their native language. This makes it use by Akan

students quite difficult so they tend to overlook it in their writing. Examples are you are not

going fail this in this moment, instead of you are not going to fail this time, I came Winneba,

instead of I came to Winneba and I have mentioned them instead of I have mentioned to them.




Example (xi) I go dance at university after school every day is an interesting error to look at. It

has two omissions; “to” and” the”. The sentence should have been I go to dance at the university

after school every day. Initially, one will be tempted to conclude that this is a typical omission

error but could it be that it is the influence of the use of Ghanaian Pidgin English? This is beyond

the scope of this paper but for now it is seen as an omission error.

L1-Induced Spelling Errors

The way learners of a target language pronounce words to a large extent influence how the words

are spelt or written (Hassan, 2014). There is considerable effect of phonetics on writing. L1

speakers learning a second language have difficulty producing certain sounds in the L2,

especially when those sounds do not exist in the native language. For example, learners of Akan

with English as their native language have problem pronouncing sounds like tw /ʨɥ/, ny /ɲ/ and

dw /ʥ ɥ/, because such sounds do not exist in their language. So our American students learning

Akan (Twi) make spelling errors like na instead of nya (to get/have) because they always

pronounced /ɲ/ (ny) as /n/ and write twi /ʨɥi/, as tui /tui/. In the same way, Akan learners of

English have difficulty pronouncing the inter-dental sounds /ð,Ɵ/ (th) because these sounds are

absent in Akan. The study identified that these sounds were replaced with the alveolar sounds /d/

or /t/ so we found spelling errors like dat for that, teet for teeth which are L1 induced because of

how the words are pronounced. In some cases ht endings were replaced with /t/. This

phenomenon was confirmed when students were asked to pronounce words which the

researchers suspected were wrongly spelled in their essays because of faulty pronunciation. The

frequently committed error in this category was th changing to d or t as in the examples below:

*When we went for excursion I wrote down everytin we did instead of When we went for

the excursion I wrote down everything we did.

My moder has white teet instead of My mother has white teeth.

First, I tout teachers were more important than docta instead of First, I thought teachers

were more important than doctors.

I tank my parents for sending me to school instead of I thank my parents for sending me

to school.

Dat day we were happy, dat we went for the excursion instead of That day we were happy,

that we went for the excursion.

The dead man we saw was a tief instead of The dead man we saw was a thief.

The driver stopped trice before we reached the place instead of The driver stopped thrice

before we reached the place.

The last example was an instance where /or/ was replace with /a/ as in the example A docta is

important than the teacher instead of A doctor is important than the teacher. One would have

expected that the student would have written teacher as teacha but this was not the case. One

therefore wonders whether this was a genuine spelling mistake or a L1 interference error. There

was an example where /l/ was replaced with /r/ as in Sometimes there was big cloud in the

hospital but doctor care for them instead of Sometimes there was big crowd in the hospital but

the doctor cares for them. The explanation I can ascribe to this error is that in Akan (Twi) /l/ and

/r/ are allophones as in the examples awareɛ /awarɪɛ/, awadeɛ /awadɪɛ/ and awaleɛ /awalɪɛ/ (all

meaning marriage). There was an instance where /r/ was replaced with /l/ as in the error We

collect our mistakes after writing essays instead of We correct our mistakes after writing essays.




Pronoun-Use Errors

The study identified that students used wrong pronouns to represent nouns/noun phrases in their

writing. Students most of the time used the following pronouns wrongly: he/she, me/I, his/her,

we/us and him/her. These errors occurred as a result of L1 interference. Akan has one item for

each of the pairs mentioned: ɔno (ɔ-) for he/she, me for I/me, the possessive pronoun ne for

his/her, hɛn for we/us and the object pronoun no for him/her. Prator refers to such errors as split

since one item in the native language becomes two in the target language which requires learners

to make a new distinction. This type of error is of Level 5 difficulty on Prator’s hierarchy of

error difficulty category. Students most often overlook the distinction and stick to what pertains

in their native language. It might also be due to the fact that L2 teachers do not draw students’

attention to this distinction in their teaching; perhaps they are not aware of it. This might explain

why students made the following errors:

i. *“My senior sister bought books for his small sister” instead of “My senior sister bought

books for her small sister.

ii. *“[…] They have patience for we children” instead of […] They have patience for us

children.

iii. *“She is dark in complexion and his height is 2 meters instead of she is dark in

complexion and her height is 2 meters.

iv. *“My sister is lazy. He is late to school every day” instead of My sister is lazy. She is late

to school every day.

v. *“She gave it to I” instead of She gave it to me.

vi. Miss Koomson teach at our school but his husband lives in lives in Accra instead of Miss

Koomson teaches at our school but her husband lives in lives in Accra.

One might read cultural undertone or interference to this phenomenon because the Akan society

like most African ethnic groups are men dominated but at this level, I am examining this from a

pure grammatical error point of view and not with any cultural underpinning. There is no overt

gender differentiation in the linguistic structure of Akan.

Wrong Word Use

Some of the learner errors in this category are apparently derived from Akan thinking flow. That

is, students may literally translate some words from Akan directly to English, which looks odd to

native speakers of English. This is a word-level error. Such an error occurs because one word

(item) in Akan becomes two or more in English. This requires that learners make a new

distinction in their use but this is not always the case of Akan learners of English. This is what

Prator refers to as ‘split” error (Level 5 on the hierarchy of difficulty). Lennon (1991) refers to

such error as substitution. For instance, in Akan, yew/yera means to get lost or to miss, yɛ means

to do or to make, or is, ewiei means end or result, ahoɔdzen means strength or energy, bɔn means

crime or sin. These explain why the following sentences from students’ writings are

unacceptable in English but are acceptable when translated to Akan:

i. “While in the forest we lost our way” instead of While in the forest, we missed our way.

ii. “[…] the mistake you did” instead of […] the mistake you made.

iii. “In the result you suffer in life” instead of in the end…

iv. “I work hard so I have no strength left in the evening to learn” instead of I work hard so I

have no energy left in the evening to learn.

v. “My sister stole my pen. This is sin […]” instead of My sister stole my pen. This is a

crime […]




These English words in Akan are polysemous and that the learners’ errors emerge from their

inability to select the appropriate sense of the word.

What are the most frequently committed L1 interference errors in the English writings of

Akan speaking students in Junior High School in Ghana?

Besides examining the L1 induced errors, one other purpose of this research question was to

identify the most frequently committed L1 interference error in the writings of Akan speaking

students in the JHS learning English as a second language. Knowing the frequency of the type of

L1 interference errors in L2 writing of students is crucial because it makes the English teacher

aware of where attention should be paid to in the teaching process. The data collected portrayed

the following: In all, there were 320 errors identified; 115 (35.9%) transliteration errors, 98

(30.6%) omission errors, 67 (20.9%) spelling errors, 21 (6.6%) pronoun use errors and 19 (6.0%)

wrong word use errors. Below is the frequency of the L1 interference errors identified in the L2

writing of students used in the study:

Table 3. Frequency of L1 interference errors identified

L1 Interference Errors Frequency Percentage

Transliteration 115 35.9

Omission 98 30.6

Spelling 67 20.9

Pronoun Use 21 6.6

Wrong Word Use 19 6.0

Total 402 100%

The information above can be represented diagrammatically on the bar chart as below:

Figure 1. Bar-chart of frequency of L1 interference error in JHS writing

From the graph above, it can be seen that transliteration errors, omission errors, spelling




errors, wrong pronouns use errors and lastly wrong word use errors (lexical error) were the

L1 interference errors identified. Using Prator’s 1967 categories of hierarchy of error

difficulty (cited in Brown, 2002) as the framework, one would have expected that wrong

word use and wrong pronoun use errors will be the most frequently committed errors because

they are Level 5 and the last on the error difficulty hierarchy. These errors however were the

least committed among students in JHS because the two phenomena are not many in the

language (Akan) (when compared with other word classes in the language) but it is not that

students know how to use them appropriately. There are only a few pronouns in the

language and a few Akan words with split meanings in English. The same interpretation can

be ascribed to why omission error is a Level 4 difficulty error (overdifferentiation) on

Prator’s model but is the least committed error. Transliteration error is the most frequently

committed error because almost every error committed can be assigned to this category. This

error comes about as a result of a combination of overdifferentiation (Level 4) and split (level

5).

What implications does this phenomenon have in English language instruction in the

Junior High School?

This study has pedagogic implications for the teaching and learning of English in Junior

High Schools in Ghana. According to Bhela (1999), an understanding of the L1 syntactical

structure and the type of errors made in the L2 assists in the teaching and learning process.

The study will help English language teachers teaching Akan learners of English to predict

possible future errors in the target language (English) and may begin to attribute a cause to an

error with some degrees of precision. In addition, the Ghanaian L2 teacher can also build up

a picture of the frequency of types of errors so that they can find out whether, L1

interference, or teaching techniques or problems inherent in L2 are the major causes of the

learner’s errors. In this way, it will be possible to plan remedial English language instruction

classes to give specific help to Akan learners of English with writing problems.

To help students overcome such problems and improve their writing in English, the

classroom teacher should adopt teaching and specific learning strategies that will assist

students. Teacher intervention in this instance is crucial because it can provide learners with

specific information and strategies aimed at overcoming these L1 interference problems.

a. In the first place, the English (L2) teacher where possible must have a working

knowledge of the learner’s native language and the L2 to be able to determine the

source of the error and the type. This is likely to present a challenge to most English

teachers in Ghana since they have not learned their L1 to know how the language

works, though they might be speakers of the language. Besides, most teachers are

teaching in areas where their L1 is different from the L1 of the students. It is therefore

suggested that students majoring in English in the university should learn a Ghanaian

language as a minor subject. A similar arrangement can be made for students

majoring in Ghanaian language studies to study English as a minor. In this way, they

will be able to identify L1 interference errors and deal with them appropriately.

b. English and Ghanaian language teachers should make conscious efforts to teach the

similarities and differences in the structures being taught between the two languages

(L1 (Akan) and English). For example, Sheen (2007) indicates that overt attention




should be given to targeted syntactic contrasts between the two languages (native

language and English) to reduce L1 interference error rates. Teachers should be able

to demonstrate to students that all L1 (Akan) strategies might not be useful and

effective for successful L2 (English) writing. This will help teachers train their

students to reflect on the way they process writing in both L1 and L2.

c. English language teachers teaching Akan students learning English should make

conscious effort to teach for transfer so that their learners will learn to transfer

appropriately. Opportunity should be given to learners to practice structures learned

in the English language (L2).

d. English language teachers should be trained adequately in second language teaching

e.g. in error analysis and error correction so that they can deal with L1 interference

errors effectively.

e. English language teachers should be proficient (oral and written) in English so that

learners can emulate them as models. Learners copy the language their teachers use in

class; what students use and write in class is a replica of what they hear and see in

class.

f. English language teachers teaching students with Akan as their L1 should use

effective language teaching strategies to assist them to overcome L1 interference in

L2 writing. Chamot and O'Malley (1987) categorize strategies that teachers and

students can use to improve L1 interference in L2 writing into metacognitive,

cognitive and socio-affective. Such strategies can be beneficial to L2 learners in their

writing.

A metacognitive strategy that is found to be effective with L2 learners

includes selective attention. English language teachers should decide in

advance to pay attention to certain features/structures in the L2, for

example, the use of articles which are absent in the native language.

Teachers should provide correct models and rules for guidance. Besides,

students should be made to edit their own writing to do away with L1

interference errors. This is often unfamiliar and initially difficult for L2

students, especially 2nd year JHS students who have limited knowledge in

English but as time goes on they will get use to it. In order to apply these

strategies, learners must be able to perceive correct and incorrect language

forms.

English language teachers teaching Akan students should apply cognitive

strategies like repetition with illustrations. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen

(1982) indicate that as language teachers we need to provide a certain

amount of formal feedback to our learners. They should indicate the

location and nature of the L1 interference errors and then provide students

with the opportunity for self-correction. Enough examples should be

provided by teachers to illustrate feedback to an error.

g. English language teachers should create a classroom environment which will

motivate learners to practice new skills and structures learned. Such classroom

environment should be devoid of intimidation so that students can take risks and test

hypothesis of structures learned in the L1 with new inputs they receive in the L2.

h. Additionally, English language teachers should get their students to talk in both L1

and L2 in class in a communicative way because oral proficiency in a language




enhances writing proficiency (McLaughlin, 1982).

CONCLUSION

The main objective of this paper was to identify L1 interference errors that occur in the

English essay writings of Akan speaking students in Junior High Schools in Ghana. It was

also to identify the most frequently committed L1 interference errors in the English writings

of Akan speaking students in Junior High Schools in Ghana and the implications of this

phenomenon in English language teaching and learning in the Junior High School. The study

identified that the L1 interference error committed in the writing of Akan students were

transliteration, L1 induced spelling errors, omission errors, wrong pronoun use, and wrong

word use. The study also identified that the most frequently committed L1 interference error

was transliteration, followed by omission errors, spelling errors wrong pronoun use and

wrong word use in that order. The implication of this study to L2 teaching is that L2 teachers

should be conversant with learners’ L1 and have adequate training in L2 teaching strategies.

Besides, L2 teachers should be proficient in English and use effective teaching strategies that

will minimize L1 interference in L2 writing of their students.

REFERENCES

Barto, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer effects in bilingual sentence

processing. Retrieved from http//w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp16/awp%2016Bbarto-

sisamout on 12/3/13

Beardsmore, H. B. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Tieto, Avon. Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory

case studies of native language interference with target language usage. International

Education Journal, 1 (1), 22-31.

Bley-Broman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S.

Gass, and M. J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspective on second language

acquisition (pp. 41-52). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). New

York: Longman.

Chamot, A.U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). A cognitive academic language learning

approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-49

Corder, S. P. (1975). Error Analysis, Interlanguage and Second Language Acquisition.

Language Teaching, 8, 201-218

Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed). Cambridge,

Cambridge University press

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language

composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreigh languages. Infernational Review of




Applied Litrjiriistics. 7, 11-36.

Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin

University Journal of the faculty of Education, 1(2), 261-270.

Hashim, A. (1992). Crosslinguistic influence in the written English of Malay

undergraduates.

Journal of Modern languages, 12(1), 59-79.

Hassan, E. M. I. (2014). Pronunciation Problems: A case study of English language

students at Sudan University of Science and Technology. English Language and

Literature Studies, 4(4), 31-44. Retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/ells.

Hughes, A. (1980). Problems in Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. ED192573.

Hung, T. (2000). Interlanguage analysis as an input to grammar teaching. PASAA, 31(1),

1-12.

James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. New York: Longman.

James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.

Kabota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese

University students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 7,

69-100.

Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2013). First language in second language writing: An

examination of current research. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching

Research, 1(1), 117-134.

Keshavars, M. H. (1997). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahmana

Pub.

Kim, S. (2002). Transfer and access to universal grammar in adult second language

acquisition. Retrieved from http//dissertation.ub.rug.nl/faculties/arts/2002 on

10/3/13.

Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition,

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1988). “The role of first language in second language acquisition.”

Second language acquisition and second language learning (pp.64-69).

Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Michigan: The University of Michigan

Press.

Lakkis, K. & Malak, M. A. (2000). Understanding the transfer of prepositions. FORUM,

38 (3). (Online edition:

http//:exchanges.state.gov/Forum/vols/vol38/no3/p26.htm)

Latiff, R. A. & Bakar, A. N. (2007). Interference of Bahasa Malaysia (L1) in English

(L2) essay writing among rural Malay Secondary school students in Malaysia.

Malaysia Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102.

Lennon, P. (1991). Error: some problems of definition and identification". Applied

Linguistic, 12(2), 180-195.

Liu, Jinkai. (2002). A Study of L1 Strategy Transfer in L2 Acquisition [J]. Modern

Foreign Languages (Quarterly), 25, (3), 250-258.

Mahmoud, A. (2002). Interlingual Transfer of Idioms by Arab Learners of English. The

Internet TESL Journal, 13 (12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/

Maniam, M. (2010). The influence of first language grammar (L1) on the English




LANGUAGE (L2) writing of Tamil School students: A case study from

Malaysia. Language in India, 10, 1-209.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Second Language Learning and Bilingualism in Children and

Adults. Handbook of Applied Psycholinguistics. S. Rosenberg (Ed) New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mu, C. & Carrington, S. (2007). An intervention of three Chinese students’ English

writing strategies. TESL-TJ, 11(1), 1-23.

Nattama, P. (2002). The university undergraduates’ errors in English writing. Journal of

languages and Linguistics, 20(2), 66-99

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL

Online Journal.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer, cross-linguistic influence in language learning.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Parker, F., & Riley, K. (2000). Second-Language Acquisition.” Linguistics for non-

linguists: A primer with exercises. MA: Allyn & Bacon

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of

composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.

Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English language

Teaching 25, 204-219.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied

linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman.

Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and its Effect

on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.

Schachter, J. & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some reservations concerning error analysis.

TESOL Quarterly, 11(4), 441-451.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language

aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 255-

283.

Selinker, L. (1983). Language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language

transfer in language learning (pp. 33-68). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Urdaneta, J. L. L. (2011). Spanish-English writing structure interferences in second

language learners. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 5, 158-179.

Wardhaug, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4.

Wolfersberger, M. (2003). L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer. A look at

lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ, 7, 1-15.

Copyright: © 2016 Owu-Ewie & Lomotey. Authors retain copyright and grant American Scholarly Research

Association a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License. Users can share, adapt, and make commercial use of articles as long as proper credit

is given to authors and the original publisher.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

L1 (Akan) Interference Errors in L2 (English) Writing: The Case of ...

Documents

Transcript of L1 (Akan) Interference Errors in L2 (English) Writing: The Case of ...