lang acquisition

8/7/2019 lang acquisition

1/74

i

First Language Influencing Hong Kong Students English Learning

Submitted By

Man So Shan Susan

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of Master of Arts

at The University of Hong Kong

July 2006


2/74

ii

Abstract of thesis entitled

First Language Influencing Hong Kong Students English Learning

Submitted By

Man So Shan Susan

For the degree of Master of Artsat The University of Hong Kong

in July 2006

This research investigates the negative effects of first language that interferes the

learning of second language in the written compositions of two groups of subjects, who

are from two diverse ability classes of a local Chinese Medium of Instruction (CMI)

secondary school. Approximately more than 100 pieces of English compositions written

on two separate topics were collected, identified, analyzed and explained with a focus on

two specific errors, which are omission of verb and inappropriate use of adverb very. In

additions, the findings of the study reveal that the more capable class still face difficulties

in avoiding the two specific errors, although they have the data shown that they have

slightly fewer errors than the less capable class. The study concludes that influence of

first language do interfere with second language acquisition.


3/74

iii

Declaration

I hereby declare that this dissertation represents my own work and that it

has not been previously submitted to this or any other institutions in application for

admission to a degree, diploma, or other qualification.

Signed: ___________________________

Man So Shan, Susan

Date: July, 2006


4/74

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude for those who helped me and supported meduring the period to complete my thesis.

Firstly, I sincerely thank Dr. Stephen Matthews, my supervisor, for his inspiring guidance

and valuable advice throughout my research for this dissertation. I also greatly appreciate

his patience and support, in which have strengthened me to continue my work during the

hardship.

Thank you to all my Form two students, the participants in the present study. Without

their written works for data collection, my study would hardly be completed.

I would like to thank all the teachers of the course and staff in the Department of

Linguistics, which have offered me tremendous help and inspiration for my work in the

whole two years of study.

Last but not least, I would also like to give my warmest thanks to my family, friends andcolleagues, whose encouragement, patience and support have kept me going during this

period of sleepless nights.


5/74

v

Table of Contents

Abstract iiDeclaration iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables and Figures vii

Abbreviations viii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of the problem 1

1.2 Purpose of the study 4

1.3 Significance of the study 4

1.4 Background of the study 6

1.5 Context of the research 7

1.6 Research issues 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review 92.1 Studies of Second Language Acquisition 9

2.2 Input hypothesis 12

2.3 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA) 13

2.4 Error Analysis (EA) 16

2.5 Interlanguage (IL) 18

Chapter 3: Methodology 21

3.1 Subjects 21

3.2 Data Collection 23

3.3 Procedure 24

3.4 Data Analysis 24

3.4.1 Three sub-groups of omission of main verb 25

3.4.1.1 Omission of copular verb 25


6/74

vi

3.4.2 Inappropriate use of adverb very 26

Chapter 4: Results 28

4.1 The number of errors made by subjects from Class A 28

4.2 The number of errors made by subjects from Class B 30

4.3 The comparison of the frequency of errors made by Class A and Class B 32

Chapter 5: Discussion 36

5.1 Study of sentence structure in terms of English and Cantonese Grammar 36

5.2 Study of adverb in terms of English and Cantonese Grammar 385.3 Analysis on research issue 40

5.3.1 Discussion on Omission of verb 40

5.3.2 Discussion on Inappropriate use of adverb very 43

5.4 Analysis on research issue two 44

Chapter 6: Conclusion 48

6.1 An overview of the research 48

6.2 Suggestions for future research 49

Reference 50

Appendices

Appendix 1 -- List of errors of Class A: Fear of Halloween 54

Appendix 2 -- List of errors of Class A: Cartoon Characters 55

Appendix 3 -- List of errors of Class B: Fear of Halloween 56Appendix 4 -- List of errors of Class B: Cartoon Characters 57

Appendix 5 -- Sample essays from subjects of class A in English 58

Appendix 6 -- Sample essays from subjects of class B in English 61

Appendix 7 -- English composition Marking code used in school 64

Appendix 8 -- Guidelines of Composition one: Fear of Halloween 65

Appendix 9 -- Guidelines of Composition two: Cartoon Characters 66


7/74

vii

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Frequency of Errors for Class A 28

Table 2 Frequency of Errors in Composition 1: Fear of Halloween 29

Table 3 Frequency of Errors in Composition 2: Cartoon Characters 29

Table 4 Frequency of Errors for Class B 30

Table 5 Numbers and Percentages of students in each class with relevant errors 32

Table 6 Numbers of Students with Both Errors 32

Table 7 Average number of errors made by students with errors in each class 34

Table 8 Data of Three Sub-groups of Omission of Verb in Both Compositions 40

Table 9 Number of sentences without any relevant errors 46


8/74

viii

Abbreviations

CA Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

CI Comprehensible Input

CEI Chinese-English Interlanguage

CMI Chinese as a Medium of InstructionEA Error Analysis

ESL English as a second Language

EFL English as Foreign Language

IL Interlanguage

L1 First Language

L2 Second Language

SLA Second Language Acquisition

UG Universal Grammar


9/74

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Statement of the problemNowadays, with an estimation of roughly about 6000 languages being

currently spoken all over the world, and with only some 200 countries, a simple

assumption shows that some countries and people must be bilingual, trilingual or

even multilingual ( Dewaele, Housen & Wei, 2003). Apart from their mother tongue,

more and more people acquire a second language or maybe even a third language for

various reasons, such as academic, migration, personal interest or even employment

reasons. Moreover, with the advance of bilingualism or multilingualism, language

education system and foreign language teaching also contributes to the spread of

multilingualism.

In the case mentioned above, it is hard to get precise figures about the

numbers of monolingual native speakers in the world. However, in reverse, it may be

slightly easier to estimate the number of people who are speaking a second language.

English is used widely all over the world for certain purpose. Taking English as a

example, according to the British Council in 1999, there are a billion people studying

English as a second language or even a third language in the world (Cook, 2003).

Hong Kong is a bilingual international city in which both Chinese and English

are legislated as official languages through the Official Language Ordinance in 1974.

As being a British colonized city before the handover in 1997, teaching English as a

second language (TESL) or Foreign Language (TEFL) has been taking place in Hong


10/74

2

Kong since the 1840s (Evan, 1998). Compared to the education systems in most

Western countries, the education system in Hong Kong offers fewer choices to

students. Although nowadays most students start acquiring their English language as

early as in Kindergartens or nurseries, most of them receive formal English Language

training after they enter primary school. However, except the limited number of

students who enter the well-known English primary schools, the rest of the local

students follow a rigid six-year primary school curriculum and are taught entirely

through the lingua-franca in Hong Kong, Cantonese.

During the six years of mainstream schooling in primary school, pupils are

supposed to acquire the basic English grammar skills and to be able to carry out

simple conversations with teachers and peers. Following that are five years of

secondary schooling, in which English-medium education was introduced from the

1960s, at which time Hong Kong was a major trading centre and English was an

important tool for communication. Although it was the official policy for secondary

schools to use English as the medium of instruction for the entire curriculum before

the mother-tongue educational policy before 1998, in reality, lessons were conducted

in a mixed code of Cantonese with some English words, but textbooks and

examinations were in English (Littlewood & Liu, 1996). After the transfer of

sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, the importance of Putonghua has inevitably

increased due to the close relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland China

in terms of business, educational and cultural aspects, mainstream schools are no

longer conducting their curricula in English, but in the mother tongue of the majority


11/74

3

of population, Cantonese, so as to promote the official language policy for citizens to

be trilingual in Cantonese, Putonghua and English, as well as biliterate in written

Chinese and English (Jim, 2005) .

Since most of the population speak Chinese (Cantonese) in their daily life,

despite extensive exposure of English language in this bilingual city and once a

traditional established English-medium education system, students English

proficiency was claimed to be declining and their motivation to learn English as a

second language was dramatically low.

Students in Hong Kong no longer see the importance of English Language as

an international language or communication tool to the world, but regard the language

primarily as a compulsory subject for their examinations (Jim, 2005). They have

realised that English is not personalized and is detached from their first language

knowledge (Law, 2005). They are learning the language mainly for its academic

attainment and career purposes, but there is lack of chance to extend their language

experience outside their education pathway. The lack of real meaningful use of the

language in their everyday life and increasingly examination-oriented curriculum

decreased the students willingness in learning and exploring the use of language

outside the classroom. Especially for local students in mainstream schoolings, they

are often discouraged and could not be convinced of their ability to acquire the

language.


12/74

4

In the past few years, there were numbers of educational policies and

teachers training aimed to raise the standard of English of both the students and

teachers in Hong Kong. However, in order to enhance the English level of the people

in Hong Kong, particularly language learners in schooling, the problems should be

located and relevant teaching principles and methods should be used.

1.2 Purpose of the study

From my experience as being an English Teacher in a local Chinese-medium

of instruction school (CMI), it is very common for second language learners marking

mistakes during the language learning process due to the interference from their first

language (L1). As the great differences in both spoken and written language system

of their L1 Chinese and L2 English, Chinese L2 learners of English have difficulties

in learning tenses, subject-verb agreements, prepositional phrases, active and passive

voice, certain aspect of morphology etc (Law, 2005).

By collecting samples and examining students production of English output

in the form of written format, this study investigates how and the reasons why first

language interferes second language learners in the omission of verb in the written

sentences. At the same time, how the L1 influence the L2 learning and result in the

grammar errors which are related to the modification of adverbs. In order to exam the

above areas, this study would focus on the grammar errors collected from two groups

of form two students.


13/74

5

1.3 Significance of the study

The role of the native language in the process of second language learning has

been debated for over 2000 years (Gass, 1996). In order to find out how second

language learning is strongly influenced by language learners first language (L1), a

profile of students errors, in terms of both spoken and written formats, is essential for

investigation. However, for the purpose of this study, only written data are collected

and used for analysis. According to Corder (1981), it is important to collect samples

from learners and have some knowledge of the errors they made, so as to make

researchers easier to understand learners second language acquisition mechanism

and as well as for teachers to provide suitable error-elimination strategies to improve

the learners language learning.

Corder (1981) pointed out two justifications for studying learners errors.

Theoretically, the study of errors can provide insights into the process of second

language acquisition and at the same time the phenomenon of interlanguage, which is

the systematic knowledge of a second language that is independent of both the

learners first language and second language (Ellis, 1985). Pedagogically, the study of

errors can provide contributions to second language methodology and pursue the goal

of error reduction and elimination in second language learners learning process.

The main purpose of this study is that of the pedagogical justification, in

which the result of this study could provide useful pedagogical suggestions for

language teachers in improving learners standard of English. By identifying and


14/74

6

categorizing the learners error, a study of the psychological process of how the errors

occur should be carried out (Corder, 1981). Therefore, in this study, it is aimed to

observe an emerging pattern of the common errors that was produced by learners and

was mainly caused by the interference from their first language. In other words, with

the analysis of these patterns of common errors and the understanding of second

language acquisition theories, it may be possible for teachers to understand and

explain the errors made by learners and at last come up with some effective teaching

strategies or methods to enhance the language learning.

1.4 Background of the study

Within the past few decades, there are strong debates of ones role of native

language in the process of second language learning (Gass, 1996). It is a popular

belief that second language learning is strongly influenced by learners first language

(L1). No matter from foreign accents in second language (L2) speech to inappropriate

non-verbal behaviour, language learners are all too familiar with experiencing

interfering effects from their native language. When it comes to the interference

effects of first language, it is a generally accepted that first language (L1) plays a

negative role to learners second language acquisition (SLA), that is, L1 interferes or

intrude into the learning of L2 (Ellis, 1985).

This research investigates the negative effects of L1 (Cantonese) that

interferes the learning of L2 (English) in written composition of two groups of

subjects, who are from two separate classes of a local CMI secondary school and their


15/74

7

first language refers to their mother tongue, Cantonese. While it is the language that is

widely spoken in the majority population in Hong Kong, it is also the only language

they used in their daily life to communicate with their family members and peers. As

mentioned above, English language is one of the core subjects in students curriculum

in both primary and secondary schooling, as well as the most popular second

language learnt by Hong Kong students. This study identifies two common problems

that L2 Chinese learners would face and frequently made by the influences of first

language in their written composition.

1.5 Context of the research

The present research involves 2 groups of Form two students from a co-

educational middle Band 2 Chinese as a Medium of Instruction (CMI) school in New

Territories. The total of 82 written compositions was collected from Class A and the

total of 36 written compositions was collected from Class B. Two composition titles

with guidelines and vocabulary were given to students to complete their composition

within the lesson, therefore it is expected that the samples may be fairly homogenous

in terms of structure and content. The learners first language (Chinese) influence on

the acquisition of their second language (English), in terms of the effects on learners

omission of main verb in written sentences and modification of adverb very in

writing, were examined.


16/74


17/74

9

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Over the last couple of decades, there is great flux in second language

research direction, traditions and assumptions. At the same time, literacy in the

second language has become a significant topic for discussion in research into the

language processes and education policy (Cook & Bassetti, 2005). In this chapter,

there is an overview of some studies of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and the

role of first language (L1), some related studies in this area that includes the Input

Hypothesis, Contrastive Analysis (CA) Hypothesis, Error Analysis (EA),

Interlanguage (IL) Hypothesis and the Universal Grammar Model (UG).

2.1 Studies of Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is not a uniform and predictable

phenomenon but a complex process that involves many interrelated factors (Ellis,

1985). According to Ellis (1985), Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers to the

subconscious or conscious processes by which a language other than the mother

tongue is learnt in a natural or a tutored setting. No matter the learning process is

obtain by acquiring the second language through exposure or learning in conscious

study, it is a language development in various aspects that covers phonology, lexis,

grammar and pragmatic knowledge, but has been largely confined to morphosytax

(Ellis, 1985).

During the study of language, it is often interesting to make distinction

between competence and performance, particularly in how competence develops in


18/74

10

both the first and second language acquisition. According to Chomsky (1965),

competence consists of the mental representation of linguistic rules which constitute

the speaker-hearers internalized grammar, whereas performance consists of the

comprehension and production of language. Although we are interested in the

development of competence of a second language learner, it is impossible to have

direct inspection to ones internalized grammar. Therefore, performance, which is the

actual utterances or production, is used to examine how a learner performs and what

is going on inside the learners head (Ellis, 1985).

As SLA refers to all the aspects of language that the language learner needs to

master, it is doubtless that learners L1 interferes with the acquisition of the new

language system (L2) when the acquisition could not be isolated and there is already

prior knowledge of the first language in their mind (Cook, 1993). According to Ellis,

1985, no matter whether there were differences between the language system of L1

and L2 or the L1 and L2 systems were similar, the learners L1 knowledge would

interfere with the L2 and in the latter case, it would actively aid the L2 learning. The

similarities between L1 and L2 caused the two language system functioned positively,

while the differences in systems caused negative effects. This process was named as

Language transfer or crosslingusitic influence (Ellis, 1985). Corder (1978) has a

similar view that the closer the language system of the learners native language (NL)

and target language (TL) they are, the greater transfers would occur in the acquisition

and the vice versa.


19/74

11

The terms positive and negative transfer stem from psychological research in

the behaviorist tradition and were commonly used to describe the language transfers

in the 1970s (Ringbom, 1987). Positive transfer was taken to mean that the first and

second language habits are the same, in other words, first language had a facilitating

effect on the second language, whereas negative transfer, or also named as

interference, was caused by proactive inhibition and result in errors in the learners

production (Ringbom, 1987). Thus, differences in L1 and L2 language systems create

learning difficulty and errors occurs, while similarities in language systems facilitates

rapid and easy learning (Ellis, 1985).

As the way of individual L2 learners learn and the use of their L2 knowledge

are different, there is no learner learning L2 in exactly the same way. Apart from the

dominant role of L1 plays in SLA, there is a whole range of learner factors that

potentially influences the way in which the L2 is acquired. Age, aptitude, cognitive

style, motivation and personality are the five general factors that contribute in some

depth to individual learner differences in SLA research (Ellis, 1985). However,

according to the investigation done by Ellis (1985), these individual leaner factors

account for only a substantial amount of the variance in the learning rate and learning

outcomes in the L2 learners, but did not affect the performance in ones natural

sequence of L2 development.


20/74

12

2.2 Input Hypothesis

It is claimed that Input Hypothesis, which was introduced by Stephen Krashen,

was one of the most controversial theoretical perspectives found in the set of

hypotheses about second language learning (Brown & Douglas, 1993).

The term Input Hypothesis has been commonly used since the early 1980s,

after the most popular terms Monitor Model and Acquisition- learning

Hypothesis(Brown & Douglas, 1993). The hypothesis simply stated by Krashen

(1985) as the human acquire language in only one way, that is by understanding

messages or by receiving comprehensible input. In other words, language

acquisition depends upon the comprehension of what other people are saying,

provided that learners are hearing meaningful speech and endeavours to understand it

(Cook, 1993). Krashens theory claimed that listening is the crucial activity within

second language learning, thus, he emphasis on listening (Cook, 1993). L2 learners

could not acquire a new language if they fail to understand the language in context.

At the same time, speaking is unnecessary or is positively harmful, as Krashen

believes that Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. (Cook, 1993). The

hypothesis also linked to the idea of if input is understood and enough of it, the

necessary grammar is automatically provided. ( Mitchell & Myles, 1998). As an

example given by Cook (1993), if ones learn the set of English pronoun by heart or

consciously understand the various meanings of English tenses, to some extent ones

knows about English. However, this learnt knowledge is not enough to be used to

express the language.


21/74

13

As Krashen claims that language acquisition occurs with acquirers

understanding of the input language through listening or reading that is a bit beyond

his or her current level. If the acquirer is at stage or level I, the input of his or her

understanding should contain i+1 (Krashen, 1981). In other words, the language that

learners are exposed to should be just far beyond their current competence, which

they could still understand, but still be challenging for them to make progress (Brown

& Douglas, 1993).

Unfortunately, Krashens Input Hypothesis has been treated separately from

the other hypotheses and was not widely accepted by psychologists. The terms of

conscious and unconscious in second language learning, Comprehensible Input (CI)

and no interface between acquisition and learning studies, has arose psychologists

wide disagreement (Brown & Douglas, 1993). A number of empirical research

studies done by various linguists, such as Long (1983, 1988) and Ellis (1990), have

all shown that instruction in conscious rule learning can aid the performance of

successful communicative competence in second language learning (Brown &

Douglas, 1993). Second language is clearly a process which degrees of learning and

of acquisition can be beneficial upon learners style and strategies (Brown & Douglas,

1993).

2.3 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA)

It was believed that in the 1950s and early 1960s, many works were based on

the need to produce pedagogically relevant materials for effective language teaching


22/74

14

and learning (Gass & Selinker, 1994). In order to make teaching as efficient as

possible, with Lado as one of the movers, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA) was

developed to make comparison of target language with the native language so as to

find out and predict the real problems. In other words, CA was founded on the

assumption that languages can be compared and the underlying belief of CA is that

native language has significant influence over the learning pattern of the target

language (Ellis, 1985). With CA predicting the potential errors occur from the

interference from the learners L1 and L2, the approach is aiming at solving the

practical problems of language teaching and developing appropriate instructional

practices and materials that could help learners to prevent from producing errors

(Lado, 1957).

According to Wardhaugh (1970), CA had both psychological aspect and

linguistics aspect, which in the psychological aspect, CA is divided into strong and

weak forms. The strong form claims that errors can be predicted by identifying the

difference between the target language and native language. However, the weak form

is used to identify errors occurred as a experience of interference and it has to be

worked with the Error Analysis in order to identify the errors before using the CA

hypothesis (Ellis, 1985). Regarding to the linguistic aspect of CA, the comparison of

languages was carried out by structuralist linguistics with it emphasizing on the

importance of scientific description of languages and it is based on a description of

the different categorises that make up the patterns of a language (Ellis, 1985). The

differences among languages were emphasized by Bloomfield (1933) as this The


23/74

15

differences ( among language) are great enough to prevent our setting up any system

of classification that would fit all languages.. However, without common categories,

the problem of comparison of languages was ignored, but ideally CA should be on

universal catergories so as to realise one language to another linguistically (Ellis,

1985).

CA was developed in order to predict the areas of difficulties that language

learners experience in L2 with the specific L1, however, the assumption of this

influence was a negative one (Ellis, 1985). In early 1970s, CA was facing attack.

Doubts arose concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict errors when

researchers started to investigate in depth with empirical studies. Theoretical criticism

regarding to the feasibility of comparing languages and methodology of CA came

into sight. CA was challenged whether it could be used to improve the effectiveness

and efficient of language teaching (Ellis, 1985).

By carrying out empirical researches, existence of non-interference errors was

recognized (Ellis, 1985). Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974) examined this issue

empirically. They identified four types of errors according to their psycholinguistic

origins:

1) Interference-like errors, which are errors that reflect native language

structure but not found in first language acquisition data.

2) First language developmental errors, which do not reflect native language

structure but are found in first language acquisition data.


24/74

16

3) Ambiguous errors, which are errors that cannot be categorized as either

interference-like or development errors.

4) Unique errors, which neither reflect first language structure nor found in

first language acquisition data.

In their research, they calculated all the frequency of the errors of speech data

made by Spanish- speaking English learners, particularly in morphological features

like past tense inflections. After eliminating the ambiguous errors, they claimed that

85 percent of errors were developmental and only 3 percent of all errors were the

result of interference. From their studies and similar researches, they argued that L2

learners do not organize the second language by transferring or comparing with their

first language, however, they rely on their ability to construct their L2 as independent

system, which is a same way as in L1 acquisition (Ellis, 1985). Although other

researchers does not bear out with the studies done by Dulay & Burt (1973), the

comparison of L1 and L2 in CA was less certain to predict and explain very much

about in SLA (Ellis, 1985).

2.4 Error Analysis (EA)

Human learning is fundamentally a process that involves the making of

mistakes. It is believed that mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations and erroneous

assumptions play an important role in aspects of learning virtually any skill or

acquiring information (Brown & Douglas, 1993). Language learning is like any other

human learning, which is it is inevitably to make countless mistakes in the process of

acquisition and indeed will impede that process if they do not commit errors and then


25/74

17

benefit in turn from various forms of feedback on the errors (Brown & Douglas,

1993). As noted by Corder (1967), a learners errors are significant in providing

researchers evidence of how the language is acquired or learned, what strategies or

procedures the learner is using in the discovery of the language. Therefore, it is

suggested that the mistakes that a person made in the process of acquiring the second

language should be analyzed carefully, as it may contain important keys to

understand the process of second language acquisition (Brown & Douglas, 1993).

Before any discussion of Error Analysis (EA), it is crucial to make a

distinction between mistakes and errors, which they are technically very different

phenomena. According to Brown & Douglas (1993), a mistake refers to a

performance error that is either a random guess or a slip, which it is a failure to

utilize a known system correctly. All language learners, no matter in native language

or second language acquisition, will also make these sort of breakdowns or

imperfections in the process of producing speech. However, an error is a noticeable

deviation from grammar of a native speaker and reflecting the interlangauge

competence of the learner (Brown & Douglas, 1993). Corder (1967, 1981) has a

similar approach, while mistake is a slip of tongue and do not indicate the

competence or proficiency of ones second language, an error is a reflection of a

learners transitional competence and it is an indicator of learners level of linguistic

competence.


26/74

18

Error Analysis has both pedagogical and a psycholinguistic aim, which errors

could provide useful information to sequence items for teaching and devise remedial

lesson (Ellis, 1985). In fact, learners do make errors and these errors can be observed,

analyzed and classified to reveal some principles of the language operating within the

learner that led to a surge of study of learners errors. This is named as Error Analysis

(EA) (Brown & Douglas, 1993). There are number of procedures for Error Analysis

that spelled out in Corder (1974): 1) Collect Samples; 2) Identify Errors; 3) Classify

Errors; 4) Explain Errors; 5) Evaluate Errors. After the steps in conducting Error

Analysis, the main purpose of EA, as mentioned as above, is pedagogic (Ellis, 1985).

According to Brown & Douglas (1993), it is argued that EA easily superseded

CA as learners do not actually make all the errors that CA predicted they should. It is

also suggested that learners from disparate backgrounds tend to make similar errors in

learning the target language (Brown & Douglas, 1993).

2.5 Interlanguage (IL)

According to Selinker (1972), Interlangauge (IL) refers to learners versions

of the target language. It is the systematic knowledge of a second language which is

independent of both the learners first language and the target language. Corder (1971)

used the term idiosyncractic dialect to describe the idea that learners language is

unique to a particular individual and the rule of the learners language are odd to the

language of that individual as well. IL is a product of interaction between L1 and L2,

therefore through this IL Hypothesis, learners are trying to construct a linguistics


27/74

19

system of their own and progressively reach the target system (Yip, 1995). Second

language learners are forming their own self-contained linguistics system of the target

language, which this system is neither the system of their native language, nor the

system of the target language (Brown & Douglas, 1993). Thus, according to Yip

(1995), by definition, ILs are incomplete, intermediate and in a state of flux.

As IL reflects the system of language learners that composed of numerous

elements from both their native language and target language, Adejemian (1976)

refines the IL Hypothesis and suggested three important characteristics of IL. The

first characteristic is systematicity, which means that an interlanguage is systematic

from the beginning and cannot be a random collection of entries. The structure of it

should be coherent and amenable to systematic linguistic analysis (Yip, 1995).

The second characteristic is permeability, which refers to the susceptibility of

IL to infiltration by L1 and L2, that is the dynamic character of IL (Yip, 1995).

Adjemian claimed that permeability is unique property to IL and IL is constantly

subject to a number of impinging forces that target rules may be partially acquired or

improperly generalized (Yip, 1995).

The last characteristic of IL is fossilization, which is the persistence of

plateaus of non-target-like competence in the IL (Selinker & Lakshamanan, 1992).

Fossilization is a linguistic phenomenon which linguistic items, rules and subsystems

that speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL,


28/74

20

regardless of the age of the learners or amount of explanation and instruction they

received in the target language (Selinker, 1972).

Since the formulation of IL, a number of studies concerning IL were done.

According to Yip (1995), the transitional language characteristic of Chinese speakers

learning English as a second language was named as Chinese-English Interlanguage

(CEI). It is a natural human language, with its own unique grammar and structural

features, involving the two specific linguistic systems: Chinese as native language

and English as target language. It shows the transitional competence of Chinese

learners of English.


29/74


30/74

22

communicate with their family members and peers. Therefore, students seldom have

exposure to English language outside the classroom.

The two groups of subjects were from two separate classes. The first group,

which is named as Class A in this study, are 41 Form two students (19 girls and 22

boys, mean age fourteen years old). Students in Class A are believed to have

relatively higher English proficiency than the other group of subjects. They were

assigned to this class as their academic results of the previous year in general were

located at the top 40% of students in the same form in school. The second group,

which is named as Class B in this study, are 18 Form two students (6 girls and 12

boys, mean age fourteen years old). Compared to Class A, students in Class B are

believed to have relatively lower standard of English proficiency, as they were

located at the bottom 20% of students, according to their academic results of their

previous year of studies in general. Students are comparatively weak in all their

academic subjects within the curriculum, thus small-class teaching was introduced for

this class. Because of this, the 18 students in Class B were a sub-group from the

bottom 20% of students, in other words, the class was divided into two groups from

the original total number of students in a class of 39.

Both groups of students had already acquired the basic grammar of English

since their early primary school studies and are required to study English as a second

language in the school curriculum. Both groups of students were taught by the same

English teacher using the same set of textbooks and materials in class. Within the


31/74

23

academic year, students were scheduled to take six 70 minutes blocks of English

lesson per cycle with the same English teacher, where there were 26 cycles in the

school year. All the six blocks of English lessons were divided to develop students

four macro skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Grammar teaching and

library skills were incorporated in the reading lessons and there is at least one block

of writing lesson per cycle.

3.2 Data Collection

The data for this dissertation was collected from both two groups of subjects.

Two pieces of guided composition, which were completed in different periods of time

during the school year, were collected respectively from both groups. Both groups of

students were required to write on the same topics, Fear of Halloween and Cartoon

Characters with the same guidelines and vocabulary provided, while one of the

compositions is a narrative writing and the other is pictorial descriptive writing.

After the instruction and explanation from the teacher on the topic, students were

required to write at least 150 words within the 60 minutes class period. All data were

primary data, with students as the author of the composition and students did not

receive any outside help, but they were allowed to look up in dictionaries and ask for

teachers help. Students were assumed to be highly motivated in order to obtain a

good result in their daily marks. Besides, students were not informed of the data

collection before they did the writing task in order not to affect their performance in

the task. The composition guidelines and sample data from both groups of students

can be found in the Appendix 4.


32/74

24

3.3 Procedure

The study investigated the reasons why Chinese L2 learners of this study tend

to omit the main verb and use the adverb very with a main verbs in the written

sentences, and how often they omit the main verb or use the adverb verb

inappropriately in written English sentences.

Using the steps of Error Analysis (EA) mentioned above in Chapter 2 by

Corder (1974), data were collected, identified, classified, and explained and evaluated.

All the sample compositions collected were read carefully and marked with the

marking code system, which was used throughout the year at school (Appendix 3).

After identifying and classifying the errors made by each group, the methods of

simple tallying of total error count was used and comparisons were made among two

groups of subjects and across the two types of errors. By adding up all the data

collected from each group, it will be easier to investigate the frequency of errors that

each group has made. Apart from the quantitative analysis, a qualitative analysis of

subjects performance in each error from both compositions was made to have a more

in-depth view for the research.

3.4 Data Analysis

When marking the compositions, all the errors related to omission of main

verbs and inappropriate use of adverb very were identified. The errors of omission


33/74

25

of main verbs were generally classified into 3 groups, while the inappropriate use of

adverb very was not classified into any subgroups.

3.4.1 Three sub-groups of omission of main verb

In process of data identification, there are two general phenomenons that

could be found: omission of copular verb and omission of other verbs, such as action

verb or auxiliary verb. The omission of copular verb could also be divided into two

sub-groups.

3.4.1.1 Omission of copular verb

According to The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Chalker, 1995), the

term copula verb indicates the single verb be, particularly when it is linking a

subject with a complement.

a) Sentences with an adjective used predicatively

One of the errors that subjects made in terms of omission of copula verbs was

sentences using adjectives predicatively, as the meaning of very in the subjects L1

is functioned as a verb. Most of the errors contain the adverb very. Some sample

sentences are shown as follows:

(1) Turtle very frightened.

(2) Superman very happy.

(3) It very funny.


34/74

26

b) Sentences with a prepositional phrase

Prepositional phrase contains a preposition and object or complement. It

functions as an adverbial or post-modifier after noun phrases (Chalker, 1995). In the

set of data collected, there is tendency of subjects omitting the verb, but using a

prepositional phrase with in or to, which both prepositions function as a verb in

subjects L1. Some of the sample sentences are shown as follows:

(1) One day, a superman and a superturtle ^ in a police station.

(2) Superman and Turtle ^ in the detective agent.

(3) One day, cosmos police stars and his friend supertunel (superturtle) ^ in

police station.

3.4.1.2 Omission of other verbs

From the set of data, a small number of samples were neither using an

adjective predicatively nor using a prepositional phrase as a verb, but missing the

action verb or auxiliary verb have. Thus, these samples were classified into one sub-

group.

(1) They ^ (have) nothing to do.

(2) Oh! My friend was scary and ^ (play) tricks to me it is very horror.

3.4.2 Inappropriate use of adverb very

As the influence of subjects L1, they tend to use the adverb very as a verb,

which the sentences are grammatically meaningful after word by word translation

from L2 to L1. Some samples are shown as follows:


35/74

27

(1) We very like celebrate Halloween because we think celebrate Halloween

is very exciting.

(2) I very like dressed up contums (costumes).

In the process of data collection, correct use of verb and adverb very were

also observed and identified, given that the subject has made the corresponding errors

in the same pieces of composition. The frequency of correct use of verb and adverb

very from every sample essay was also tallied for reference, although it is beyond

the scope of this research.


36/74

28

Chapter 4 Results

With all the errors for each group of subject being identified and tallied, this

chapter presents the data and patterns that have been found from the research. Besides,

data comparisons of the two groups of subjects will also be included. A set of detailed

list of errors made by subjects from the two classes on both topics of composition can

be found in Appendix 1 to 4. Some sample compositions and used teaching guidelines

can also be found in Appendix 5 to 9.

4.1 The number of errors made by subjects from Class A

The frequency of errors made by subjects from Class A in both pieces of

compositions has been listed out in Table 1. From the table, there are total 41 students

in Class A, thus 41 pieces were collected from the class. Out of 41 pieces of

compositions, 18 of them, that is 43.90% of the total essays, contained errors of either

omission of verbs or inappropriate use of adverb very in composition one: Fear of

Halloween and 19 of them, that is 46.34% of the total essays, contained any of the

two errors in composition two: Cartoon Characters.

Table 1 Frequency of Errors of Class A

Number of essays Number of essays

with errors Percentage of compositions

with relevant errors

Composition 1: Fear of Halloween 41 18 43.90%

Composition 2:Cartoon Characters 41 19 46.34%


37/74

29

As mentioned above, there is the number of 18 pieces and 19 pieces of

compositions out of 41 pieces containing the two errors respectively. In composition

one: Fear of Halloween, a total number of 10 errors of omission of verb (Data can

be found in Table 2) were found in 9 pieces of compositions (refer to Table 5),

whereas the total number of 18 errors of inappropriate use of adverb very (refer to

Table 2) were found in 12 pieces of compositions (refer to Table 5). Among all the

subjects, only 3 of them made both of the errors in the same piece of composition

(Table 6).

On the other hand, in composition two: Cartoon Characters, a total number

of 37 errors of omission of verb (refer to Table 3) were found in 18 pieces of

compositions (refer to Table 5), whereas the total number of 3 errors of inappropriate

use of adverb very (refer to Table 3) were found in 2 pieces of compositions (refer

to Table 5). From the data shown in Table 6, none of the subjects made both of the

errors in composition two.

Table 2 Frequency of Errors in Composition 1: Fear of Halloween

Class Total number

of errors

Total number and percentage of

omission of verb

Total number and percentage of inappropriate use

of adverb A 28 10 (35.7%) 18 (64.3%)

B 21 10 (47.6%) 11 (52.4%)

Table 3 Frequency of Errors in Composition 2: Cartoon Characters

ClassTotal number

of errors

Total number and percentage of

omission of verb

Total number and percentage of inappropriate use

of adverb

A 40 37 (92.5%) 3 (7.5%)

B 26 20 (76.9%) 6 (23.1%)


38/74

30

To conclude, there is slightly more numbers of essays containing both relevant

errors in composition two than composition one (Table 1). In composition one,

subjects in Class A made more errors in inappropriate use of adverb very than the

errors of omission of verb (Table 2). However, in composition two, an opposite

phenomenon was found. There are only 7.5% of errors with appropriate use of adverb

very, but an extremely high percentage of 92.5% of errors with the omission of verb

(Table 3).

4.2 The number of errors made by subjects from Class B

The frequency of errors made by subjects from Class B in both pieces of

compositions has been listed out in Table 4. In total, 18 pieces were collected from

the class for both of the compositions topics. Out of 18 pieces of compositions, 10 of

them, that is 55.6% of the total pieces, contained errors of either omission of verbs or

inappropriate use of adverb very in composition one: Fear of Halloween and 11 of

them, that is 61.1% of the total pieces, contained any of the errors in composition two:

Cartoon Characters.

Table 4 Frequency of Errors of Class B

Number of essays Number of essays

with errors Percentage of compositions

with relevant errors

Composition 1: Fear of Halloween 18 10 55.56%

Composition 2:Cartoon Characters 18 11 61.11%


39/74

31

The trend of the findings are similar to Class A, however, the figures of Class

B is slightly higher than Class A. In composition one: Fear of Halloween, a total

number of 10 errors of omission of verb (refer to Table 2) were found in 6 separate

pieces of compositions (refer to Table 5), whereas the total number of 11 errors of

inappropriate use of adverb very (refer to Table 2) were found in 7 pieces of

compositions (refer to Table 5). Among all the essays with errors, 4 subjects made

both of the errors in the same pieces of composition (Table 6).

Meanwhile, in composition two: Cartoon Characters, a total number of 20

errors of omission of verb (refer to Table 3) were found in 9 pieces of compositions

(refer to Table 5), whereas the total number of 6 errors of inappropriate use of adverb

very (refer to Table 3) were found in 6 pieces of compositions (refer to Table 5).

From the data shown in Table 6, only 3 of the subjects made both of the errors in

composition two.

In conclusion, a same phenomenon was found as Class A, there is slightly

more numbers of essays containing both relevant errors in composition two than

composition one (Table 4). Similar phenomenon was also found in the frequency of

errors of both of the compositions. In composition one, there is a higher number of

errors found in inappropriate use of adverb very than the errors of omission of verb

(Table 2). However, in composition two, a totally opposite phenomenon was found.

There is less number of errors with appropriate use of adverb very, but a higher

number of errors with the omission of verb (Table 3).


40/74

32

Table 5 Numbers and Percentages of students in each class on the relevanterrors

Composition 1: Fear of Halloween

Composition 2:Cartoon Characters

ClassTotal number of students

among the classOmission of verb

Inappropriateuse of adverb

Omission of verb

Inappropriateuse of adverb

A 41 9 (22.0%) 12 (29.3%) 18 (43.9%) 2 (4.9%)

B 18 4 (22.2%) 8 (44.4%) 9 (50.0%) 6 (33.3%)

Table 6 Numbers of Students with Both Errors

Class

Composition 1: Fear of Halloween(Students/Number of

essays with errors)

Composition 2: Cartoon Characters(Students/Number of

essays with errors)

A 3/18 0/19

B 4/10 3/11

4.3 The comparison of the frequency of errors made by Class A and

Class B

In conclusion, both groups of students made a number of errors in the two

compositions. However, Class B tends to have a relatively higher percentage of errors

made than Class A, with the percentage of 55.56% and 61.11% respectively in

containing errors in both compositions. In other words, there is slightly more than

half of the group of students has difficulties in making sentences with appropriate

verb and adverb very. It is also noted that both Classes of subjects made errors in

composition two: Cartoon Characters than composition one. From the data shown in

Table 1 and Table 4, although subjects in Class A are believed to be a more capable

group, there is only less than 20% difference in their performance of making the

relevant errors in both of the compositions.


41/74

33

The frequency of relevant errors found in both groups of students in the two

compositions was shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. From the data in Table

2, it is obvious that both classes of subjects made more errors in using the adverb

very inappropriately. However, this was not the case in composition two, which the

omission of verb had a much higher percentage of errors than composition one. As

there is different number of total students in each group, this data did not reflect the

view of which class has made fewer errors in each of the compositions.

As students may make more than one errors within the same composition,

Table 5 represents the number of students, which in the same case the number of

compositions, contains the relevant errors. It is shown that nearly the same amount of

about 22% of students out of 41 in Class A and 18 in Class B has contained the error

omission of verb in composition one. However, for the inappropriate use of adverb

very, there is only roughly 15% differences in between the two classes has

contained this error in their composition. This indicates that Class B has more

students using the adverb very incorrectly in composition one. In composition two,

although both classes has an approximately close percentage on the error of omission

of verb, the percentage rose dramatically from about 22% to 43.9% and 50%

respectively, whereas 1 student out of 2 in Class B may make this error. While there

was a relatively large number (18) of students made error on omitting the verb in

composition one in Class A, there is only 2 students, with 4.9%, having difficulties

with the usage of adverb very. The significant figure is much lower than 33.3% of

Class B in the same piece of writing. However, it can be also noted that, in terms of


42/74

34

the inappropriate use of adverb very, there were fewer errors in both classes in

composition one than composition two.

In order to have a better view of the frequency of errors made by Class A and

Class B, the following tables, Table 7 and Table 5, should be looked together. By

calculating the average number of errors made by students, who contain errors in their

writing, a different observable fact has occurred. On one hand, in the data of

composition one, 2.5 errors were made by each student who made mistakes in their

writing. This is much higher than the average number of errors 1.1 in Class A. On the

other hand, regarding to the inappropriate use of adverb very, Class A has a slightly

higher number of errors per students than Class B. A similar trend occurs to

composition two simultaneously.

From the above comparison of both of the compositions, it has shown that

students in Class B are more frequent in omitting the verb in writing, while students

in Class A are more frequent in using the adverb very inappropriately.

Table 7 Average number of errors made by students with errors in each classComposition 1:

Fear of HalloweenComposition 2:

Cartoon Characters

Class Omission of verb Inappropriateuse of adverb Omission of verb Inappropriateuse of adverb

A 1.1 1.5 2 1.5

B 2.5 1.3 2.2 1

Note : The outcome is calculate as follows: Total number of errorsTotal number of students with the relevant

error

For example: Class A omission of verb in Composition oneThe average number of error made by each student with errors: 10/9 = 1.1


43/74

35

The data from Table 6 may point out an interesting phenomenon that there are

relatively fewer subjects containing both of the relevant within the same piece of

composition in Class B, particularly in composition two, none of the subjects in Class

B made both of the errors in the composition. In other words, subjects from Class B

tends to have difficulties in either omission of verb or inappropriate use of adverb

very, in contrast, a small number of subjects from Class A made both of the errors

in the same pieces of composition. With Class A assumed to be the more capable

class, this reflects that students in Class A may accidentally make a slip mistake or

having difficulties in their level of linguistic competence, which was mentioned

above in Chapter 2 Error Analysis.

After the presentation of the above findings, further analysis and discussion on

the data will be given out in the next chapter.


44/74

36

Chapter 5 Discussion

Before analyzing the results and explaining the research questions in details, it

is essential to take a deeper look at some distinctive features of sentence structures of

English and Cantonese, regarding to the two relevant errors that has been included in

this study.

5.1 Study of sentence structures in terms of English andCantonese grammar

It is broadly accepted that Cantonese and English are two languages with great

differences. One is a distinctive and diverse dialect of Chinese, which is largely

differs from the Standard Chinese in pronunciation, some in vocabulary and grammar,

but spoken widely in the Pacific Rim (Yip & Matthews, 1999), while the other is an

international language that was widely used by billions of speakers all over the world

as a mean of communication. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2 in Language transfer,

with the great differences in languages of L1 and L2, L1 will interfere the learning of

L2. The greater the differences between the NL and TL, the more errors will occur

from L1 influence. In order to understand the influence of Cantonese to English

language learners, comparative study will be applied to show the linguistic

similarities and differences between Cantonese structure (L1) and English structure

(L2).


45/74

37

According to Leech (1989), an English sentence is the major unit of grammar.

A simple sentence consists of one clause, which generally has a subject and a verb,

while object can be optional if there is an intransitive verb. Word order is also an

important feature in English language, which is the order of the elements in a

sentence or the clause, such as subject, verb and object. In English, word order is

rather fixed, as the order indicates which element is the subject or object. If the word

order is disrupted, the sentence may be less acceptable or ungrammatical. The most

common word order founded in statement is: Subject Verb Object, Complement

or Adverbial. For example:

Subject Verb Object

She has left the letters.

This has shown that English is a SVO language in most of the cases.

Cantonese, the native language of the subjects in this study, is a isolated

language with little grammatical morphology, like pluralization, subject-verb

agreement or tense. According to Yip & Matthews (1999), although there is more

freedom of word order than English, the word order of Cantonese is fairly rigid and

replies heavily to express the grammatical relations in subject and object. Similar to

English, the basic word order for simple sentence is: Subject Verb Object, thus it

is also a SVO language. For example:


46/74

38

Subject Verb Object

Ngh Ngoi Kuih

I love him/her

In short, Cantonese is not very different from English in this aspect, which the

basic word order for simple sentences of both of languages is: Subject Verb

Object. This may raise an interesting question of why the subjects in this study will

omit the verb in a simple sentence, given that both languages are SVO languages.

This will be discussed later in this chapter.

5.2 Study of adverb in terms of English and Cantonese

grammar

According to Leech (1989), adverb is used to add information to another word,

such as adjective or another adverb. Adverbs have many different kinds of meaning.

In this section, only adverb of degree very will be discussed. The adverb very is

used as a modifier to show a high degree and it must come before the word they

modify. The most common order is:

adverb + adjective

very expensive

However, in Cantonese, although one of the functions of reduplication

adjectives is as adverbs, Cantonese lacks a systematic means of forming adverbs from

adjectives Yip & Matthews, 1994). Because of this, the English adverb very is used


47/74

39

as an adjective marker hu in Cantonese, which means good, to modify the

predictive adjective (Yip & Matthews, 1994).

As the unique features of Cantonese, it is no distinction between adjective and

verb. Therefore, adjectives in English are often described as stative verb, which is

the verbs that describe the state or condition, in Chinese linguistic system. In these

case, adjectives act very much like verbs, particularly when the copular verb to be is

not used with adjective and some adjectives may even take the aspect markers like

verbs. The modifier hu (very) is usually used before the predicative adjective with

similar meaning good or very, whereas the meaning is much weaker than in English.

As mentioned above, predicative adjective do not require the copular verb to be

with hu functioning as an adjective marker, it is noticed that it sometimes can not

make a complete sentence without hu (Yip & Matthews, 1994; 1999). For example:

Kuih n paih hu h is m

s/he these days very happy

Shes happy these days.

* Kuih n paih h is m (An asterisk * represents ungrammatical)

To conclude, with the different linguistic features of the adverb very in

Cantonese and English, a more detailed discussion on the findings of the subjects, in

terms of how their L1 interferes their L2, will be discussed in the following section.


48/74

40

5.3 Analysis on research issue one

Referring back to the two main research questions mentioned in Chapter 1.6,

first, the reason why do Chinese L2 learners of this study tend to omit the main verb

and use the adverb very as a main verb in the written sentences.

5.3.1 Discussion on omission of verb

As mentioned earlier, from the point of view in English grammar, a simplesentence contains a subject, verb and optional objects or complement. The verb is an

essential unit in the sentence. However, from the findings in Table 2 and Table 3,

subjects from both of the classes in the study tend to omit the main verb in the

sentences, particularly in composition two; there is a high percentage of errors

indicating that subjects omit the verb in their writing. In section 3.4 Data analysis, the

findings were identified and classified to three sub-groups, which may help to explain

the phenomenon.

Table 8 Data of Three Sub-groups of Omission of Verb in Both Compositions

Class

Sentences with an adjective used predicatively

Sentences with a preposition phrase

Omission of other verbs

A 25 6 13 B 19 4 3

Total 44 10 16

From the data shown in Table 8, there is a comparatively large number of

errors in sentences omitting the verb, but using a predicative adjective. As mentioned

in section 5.2, it is a distinctive feature of Cantonese using a predicative adjective


49/74

41

with the adjective marker hu , functioning as a verb in the sentence. In this case, the

copula verb to be is omitted. This is a remarkable influence from native language

(Cantonese) to target language (English). It has shown that subjects has tend to use

the English adverb very as the same as the adjective marker hu (very) in

Cantonese, in other words, students has translated the meaning of the sentence

directly from Cantonese to English. This L1 induced error occurs as the first language

pattern is different from the second language and subject transferred the pattern by

using the linguistic knowledge of their first language.

Apart from the adjective used predicatively, a small number of subjects used a

prepositional phrase instead as a verb in their writing. In general English,

prepositional phrases are a group of words composed of a preposition and normally a

noun phrase. It is used to express different meanings, such as place, time or reason

(Leech, 1989). However, in Cantonese, the characteristics of absence of word class

morphology, the existing of prepositions in Chinese is unknown (Yip & Matthews,

1994; 1999). The function of preposition in Chinese is played by two different types

of word: coverb and localizer. In this case of omission of verb is using the coverb

and its object to modify the verb, at the same time, functioning as a prepositional

phrase in English. These coverb behave like verbs in many respects. From the

findings of the subjects, they tend to use the preposition in / at , as hi and to as

heung in Chinese, as a locative coverb with a following property word (Yip &

Matthews, 1994). For example:


50/74

42

yai yat ciujan tong wugwai hi king kuk

One day, superman and turtle in police station.

One day, a superman and a superturtle is in a police station.

It is suggested that hi , in the above case, is referring to in or at in

English prepositional functions. It has the properties of verbs rather than prepositions.

It is argued that with respect to Putonghua, the coverb hi may treat as a verb in all

their manifestations, in the case of their characteristic use as coverb invariably

involves a serial verb construction. From the above sample, it is once again shown

that L2 learners are transfer their prior knowledge of L1 into the construction of an

interlanguage. It is a noticeable transfer of linguistic structure from native language to

target language (Yip, 1995).

The finding of the last sub-group, which is the omission of other verbs, was

mainly missing the action verb or auxiliary verb have. As a similar case to sub-

group one, subjects tend to use the following noun, adverb or adjective as a verb,

however, they were not using the adjective marker hou (very) with the predicative

adjective. It is also believed to be a negative language transfer from L1 to L2.

In summary, the language errors of omission of verb were attributed to

interlingual confusion that arise the influence of transfer from mother tongue. As

learners are supposed to acquire the Basic English grammar of simple sentence


51/74

43

structure in primary education, this error is an indicator of learners unsatisfactory

level of linguistic competence.

5.3.2 Discussion on Inappropriate use of adverb very

On the surface theory of language transfer, which refers to word by word

translation from L1 to L2, may used to explain the phenomenon of students using the

adverb very inappropriately, however, studies of interlanguage has shown that when

there is another systematic trend of language transfer occurs, a deeper investigation

should be made.

In fact from the data set, students were using the adverb very in most of the

cases as the modifier hou (very) to modify the verb and the adjective that mentioned

above in section 5.3.1. According to Francis & Matthews (2005), it is argued that to

distinguish adjective from other verbs, an intensifier such as the default intensifier

hou (very) should be used with a property word or a stative verb. In order words,

property words corresponding to adjectives in English are members of the category of

verbs in Cantonese. With the absent of the intensifier hou , the sentence will not be

completed. From the set of data, sentence (c) from B25 in Appendix 4 and sentence

(b) from A19 in Appendix 1 are some examples of stative verbs, such as like, was

used directly after the default intensifier as a verb. This class of verbs allows

modification of the intensifier hou.


52/74

44

Apart from the above cases of inappropriate use of adverbs, some of the

samples have shown features of subjects having difficulties in distinguishing the verb

and adjective, as the samples can not be directly translated back into L1. Although

both L1 and L2 of the subjects are SVO languages and the adverb very has been

used to modify the verb and adjective, the sentences are still ungrammatical. Sentence

(a) from B16 and sentence (c) from B36 in Appendix 4 are some examples of

ungrammatical sentences; both sentences are ungrammatical in L1 and L2. As from

the sample B16 sentences (a), either the word feel of safe can be modified by very,

therefore the placement of verb may be treated as wrong choices of placement.

To conclude, as the set of findings can not provided a better view of the real

interpretation, further developed experiment should be done in order to have a more

detailed understanding.

5.4 Analysis on research issue two

Regarding to the research question of the frequency in omitting the main verb

or modifying the adverb verb in written English sentences between the two groups

of subject, some of the findings was presented in Chapter 4. However, whether the

more capable class (Class A) has fewer errors than the less capable class (Class B), a

more in-depth study will be discussed in this section.

In section 4.3, a simple comparison was made on various data shown in Table

1 to 6. It has shown that in terms of frequency of errors made by subjects from each


53/74


54/74

46

Table 9 Number of sentences without any relevant errorsComposition 1:

Fear of HalloweenComposition 2:

Cartoon Characters

ClassTotal number of students

among the class

Sentences with correct

verb Appropriateuse of adverb

Sentences with correct

verb Appropriateuse of adverb

A 41 14 84 15 45 B 18 19 71 7 33

Total 33 155 22 78

Although students from Class A are more frequent in using the adverb

inappropriately, at the same time, figures shown in Table 9 that the number of

sentences without any relevant errors written by subjects who contain errors in their

writing in higher than Class B, particularly in the number of sentences using adverb

appropriately. This interesting phenomenon may be explained by the length of

composition written by students from different classes. It can be observed from the

writings that students from Class A tend to have a longer piece of writing than Class

B, which means that students in Class A tried to cover all the composition guidelines

in details to enrich the content, therefore this may result in higher frequency of errors.

However, comparing to writing of Class A students, work from Class B is much

shorter and a small number of writings did not use the guidelines fully.

Another observable phenomenon from the findings is that composition one:

Fear of Halloween is a topic which involves more human emotional words. Therefore,

students tend to use more adjectives with adverb of degree very to express humans

feelings. As mentioned before, Class A students used more sentences in the writing,

thus more errors occurred. On the other hand, composition two: Cartoon Characters is

a narrative writing that involves a lot of actions, so more sentences with verbs are


55/74

47

used. From the nature of the two compositions, it can explain why there was a certain

amount of errors respectively.


56/74

48

Chapter 6 Conclusion

This chapter outlines a conclusion and recommendation for future research to

conclude the whole research.

6.1 An overview of the research

The present study suggested that the second language acquisition in English of

two groups of local secondary school Form two language learners are influenced by

their first language, Cantonese, particularly in two distinctive grammatical items. By

collecting and analyzing the written data, it is undeniable that their native language is

interfering, in some extent, their learning of target language. After comparing and

contrasting the idiosyncratic features of their L1 and L2, it is suggested that influence

of first language to second language inevitably does exist; however, it does not exist

by the means of direct word by word translation, but after identifying the difference

between the target language and native language. As the belief of Contrastive

Analysis, errors not only being identified, it could be predicted.

After reading the findings and data collected from the subjects, it is noted that

students in the study as second language learners of English are lack of a categorical

distinction in parts of speech between their L1 and L2. As mentioned earlier,

Cantonese is a diverse language with the characteristics of absence of word class

morphology. This causes English learners difficulties in categorizing and identifying

the word classes, such as the finding shown in Chapter 5.3.2, which students are

unable to make distinction between verb and adjective. This reflects in the way that


57/74

49

students used adjective without the verb to be and use of adverb very with stative

verb.

Although the ability of two groups of subjects are known before the study,

among all the data, there is no significant discovery showing that the more capable

class (Class A) perform better than the less capable class (Class B) in terms of

linguistic competence. This may reflect that more effective and efficient pedagogical

strategies should be introduced to assist and facilitate both groups of learners.

6.2 Suggestion for future research

Future investigation on this topic is worthwhile as a better and clear view of

distinctive linguistics features may provide educator with a better insight in SLA.

Furthermore, this offers valuable information for teachers to raise learners

consciousness of different linguistic features in the target language as well as to help

teachers to reflect and develop teaching strategies to enhance the learners

development of second language.

Apart from the above, for prospective researcher who may work more on this

study, it is advisable to record the students correct use of sentences, with the

particular features, may provide a more comprehensive data to the research. In

addition, experiments may be carried out to test the students knowledge in the

particular language features, such as placement of verb or usage of adverb very, so

as to have a plain statistics for examination.


58/74

50

Reference:

Adjemian, C. (1976). On the Nature of Interlanguage Systems. Language Learning 26 . 297-320

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.

Brown, H. & Douglas, H. (1993). Principles of language learning and teaching . USA:

Prentice Hall Inc.

Chalker, S. (1995). The Little Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar . U.K.: Oxford

University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition . Basingstoke:

Macmillan.

Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the Second Language on the First. England: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.

Cook , V. & Bassetti, B. (2005). Second Language Writing Systems . UK: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of

Applied Linguistics, 5 : 161-169.

Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review

of Applied Linguisitics IX: 149-59

Corder, S. P. (1974). Error analysis in J. Allen and S. Corder (eds). The Edinburgh

Course in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


59/74

51

Corder, S. P. (1978). Language distance and the magnitude of the learning task.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2/1.

Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage . Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Dewaele, J., Housen, A. & Wei, L. (2003). Bilingualism: beyond basic principles .

Imprint Clevedon; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters

Donmall, B.G. (1985). Language Awareness. NCLE Reports and Papers, 6. London:Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Dulay, H., Burt, M & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two . New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dulay, H. & M. Burt. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language learning

23: 245-58

Dulay, H & M. Burt. (1974). You cant learn without goofing in Richards (ed.).

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Evans, Grant R. (1998). Political Cults in Southeast Asia and East Asia, in I. B.

Trankell and L. summers (eds), Cultural and Politics in Asian Societies. SwedenUppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology.

Francis, E. J. & Matthews, S. (2005). A multi-dimensional approach to the category

verb in Cantonese. Journal of Linguistics 41 , 269-305.UK: Cambridge University

Press.


60/74

52

Gass, S. (1996) Second language acquisition and linguistic Theory: the role of

language transfer. In Ritchie, W & T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of second language

acquisition . USA: Academic Press.

Gass, S & L. Selinker. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: an introductory course.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jim, M. H. (2005). A Study of Lexical Errors in Cantonese ESL Students Writing .

MA Thesis. The University of Hong Kong.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications . London:

Longman.

Krashen, S. (1981). Effective second language acquisition: Insight from research . In

J.E. Alatis, H. B. Altman and P.M. Alatis (eds). The Second Language Classroom:

Direction for the 1980s . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: applied Linguistics for Language

Teachers . Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Law, M. H. C. (2005). The Acquisition of English Subject-Verb Agreement by

Cantonese Speakers. MA Thesis. The University of Hong Kong.

Leech, G. (1989). An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage . UK: Longman.

Littlewood, W. & Liu, N. (1996). Hong Kong Students and Their English . Hong

Kong: Macmillan Publishers (China) Ltd.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10, 3.

209-231.


61/74

53

Selinker, L. & Lakshamanan, U. (1992). Language Transfer and Fossilization: The

Multiple Effects Principle. Gass & Selinker 1992. 197-216.

Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4:

123-30.

Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: from Chinese to English . Amsterdam.:

John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Yip, V & Matthews, S. (1994). Cantonese: a comprehensive grammar. London:Routledge.

Yip, V & Matthews, S. (1999). Basic Cantonese: Grammar & Workbook. London.:

Routledge.


62/74

1

Appendix 1

Class: AComposition 1: Fear of HalloweenTotal No. of Compositions in Class A: 41No. of Compositions with Errors: 18

StudentClass No.

Samples

A3 (a) It ^ so fun.A6 (a) I very like dressed up contums(contumes).A9 (a) I will ^ with my friend in Halloween meeting a party.

A11 (a) Sometime I will decoration a very scary Haunte House.A12 (a) I ^ happy because I celebrate Halloween with my best friends.A13 (a) Play TV game only play 30 minutes, but very happy.A14 (a) We very like celebrate Halloween because we think celebrate Halloween is very exciting.

(b) I hope can very quick in Halloween night.A15 (a) It ^ so drak(dark), we can't see each other.A16 (a) I was very twenty many candies.

(b) I ^ feeling this Halloween very funny.A18 (a) This Halloween was very happy, because I got lot of sweet, the sweets are very good too.

(b) I think next year I will play rick(trick) or treat and apple bobbing, too, because they are verygoodplay for me.

A19 (a) It's very good feel.(b) I very like go.(c ) We will very enjoy it.

A20 (a) I with my friends celebrate halloween because I very like Halloween.A22 (a) Oh! My friend was scary and ^ tricks to me it is very horror, but anyway we played very happy.A27 (a) My friend David he like dressed a ghosts, spiderman, badman very cartoons.

(b) In my friend - Joy is very not correct.

(c) I ^ very happy.(e) and we cooperation ^ very good.

A30 (a) Period of time we had very more to laugh at nonsense.(b) In the street, I and friend ^ very happy.

A35 (a) We always ^ scary to people and children.A38 (a) Then decorated our classroom very horror.A39 (a) We will decorated the home to very beautiful.

TotalNote: Words in bracket are the correct spelling of the vocabulary.

5 4


63/74


64/74

3

Appendix 3

Class: BComposition 1: Fear of HalloweenTotal No. of Compositions in Class B: 18

No. of Compositions with Errors: 10

StudentClass No.

Samples

O

B7 (a) Is very good play a day.(b) but very beatifull(beautiful)(c ) I ^ very happy have a classroom!(d) I saw the street have very a lot of pretty girl and handsome boy.(e) Very looked funny.(f) I bought very a lot of prentes(present).

B12 (a) I will ^ happy.B15 (a) I very likes HalloweenB18 (a) I very scary because

(b) because this five people dressed up monster costurns(costumes) ^ very real(c) I had ten sweets Miss Chan ^ very generous.(d) I feel this Halloween ^ very funny buy(but) scary.

B19 (a) I feel this Halloween ^ very happy because It was my first in celebrate Halloween.B22 (a) I very a lot of candies.B28 (a) It ^ very funny.B30 (a) We buy more of them this because us is very want to eating.

(b) We are very happy, because this close is very looked funny.

(c) In Ocean Park, my friend ^ very scared play the rides games and play the apple bobbing myfriend fall in to the water.B34 (a) I was got very sweet

(b) ...but my friends ^ very small because they sleep on the bed.B39 (a) This halloween was very good to play, I very love this.

TotalNote: Words in bracket are the correct spelling of the vocabulary.

5 6


65/74

4

Appendix 4

Class: BComposition 2: Cartoon CharactersTotal No. of Compositions in Class B: 18No. of Compositions with Errors: 11

StudentClass No.

Samples

B3 (a) Suddenly they ^ very happy.(b) It was because there is a hugh comet heading directly from the Earth, this comet ^ very quick in Earth.(c ) Superman ^ video telephone.(d) Turtle ^ very frightened.(e) Superman very not happy.(f) Superman ^ very happy.(g) Superman is a very hero.

B5 (a) In police station, the Turtle and Superman very free, because no crimes to solve and no buddies to fight, so very

boring.B7 (a) My ^ very boring.

(b) Man Man and turlte(turtle) ^ very unhappy.B12 (a) There ^ a huge comet heading directly from the Earth!

(b) What ^ we do now!B16 (a) They are very feel safe life.B18 (a) They are in police station, very boring, because in here no crimes to solve.

(b) The comet very fast fly to the earth.B19 (a) Have one day, superman and Mr. Turtle in office,

(b) It very quiet.B24 (a) One day, superman and turtle ^ in the alert doing now.

lang acquisition

Documents

Transcript of lang acquisition