See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234113545

The Impact of Chinese ESL Learner Interlanguage on Writing: A Syntactical

Analysis

Conference Paper · June 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 139

3 authors, including:

Dr Mah Boon Yih Foo Terng Hoe

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Penang Branch, Permatang Pauh Campus Universiti Teknologi Mara (Pulau Pinang)
40 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WeCWI Training Series 2017: Calling for Organisers and Participants View project

Mobile Curriculum Vitae (m-CV): Personalise Your e-Portfolio Autonomously View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Mah Boon Yih on 28 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE IMPACT OF CHINESE ESL LEARNER INTERLANGUAGE ON
WRITING: A SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS
1
Mah Boon Yih, 2 Hoe Foo Terng, 3Cheang Eng Kwong
1
Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Penang Campus, Malaysia
2
Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Penang Campus, Malaysia
2
Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Penang Campus, Malaysia
Email: 1mahboonyih@gmail.com, 2fthoe@yahoo.com, cheang@ppinang.uitm.edu.my
Tel: 1019-5946818, 2016-4778125, 3012-4533111

ABSTRACT

An interlanguage is a linguistic system that has been developed by a second language (L2) learner
who is partially proficient in the target language with some of the first language (L1) features in
target language communication. The learner’s L1 transfer is derived from the Interlanguage
Theory, which believes that “ the psychological structure latent in the brain" is triggered among L2
learners in second language learning. English language has always been a perceived problem for
Chinese ESL learners particularly on syntactical rules in sentence construction. However, not many
studies have been conducted with a specific focus on the interlanguage of Chinese ESL learners. In
this study, it is primarily concerned about how the learner’s existing linguistic knowledge
influences the course of English language development among Chinese ESL learners. Since there is
a limited intake of Chinese students into the programme of study, the subject of this study consists
of 12 Chinese students from six different classes at one college in the northern region of Malaysia.
This constitutes a suitable starting point to focus on the similarities and differences of learners’
sentence patterns of their target language. It may be one of the possible results of the manifestation
of learner interlanguage on their writing. The results of the study show that the use of the English
language presented in the form of written work from the target group which has manifested itself
the impact of L1 (Chinese) transfer on their second language learning. This involves negative
transfer, avoidance of target language structure and overgeneralization.

Keywords: interlanguage, L1 transfer, second language learning, negative transfer, avoidance,

overgeneralization.

INTRODUCTION

“Frankly speaking, I don’t like language especially English language.

Everytimes, I go for any English examination, I will be very scare
and lack of confident.”

The above statements, which were extracted from one Chinese student’s written work from
one of the higher learning institutions, not only manifest the existence of her native language
transfer, but also reflect her attitude toward the command of English language. However, this
account is not explicit about the source of errors; neither indicates distinctively why the learners
nowadays form such a common negative opinion in their second language acquisition. Hence,
English language has always been a perceived problem for Chinese ESL learners. One of the
underlying factors of this predicament is due to the learner’s first language (L1) transfer.

1
LITERATURE REVIEW

A lot of methods have been applied in teaching second language (L2). According to Weng
(1972), there are 3 main methods in teaching L2 :

a) Direct Method
b) Grammar Translation Method, and
c) Linguistic Approach

Weng stated that Direct Method over stress on oral exercises and ignore the writing practice
in teaching, whereas Grammar Translation Method is outdated, both are not practical for modern
language learning. Linguistic Approach is the effective way of learning L2 nowadays because it not
only apply linguistic theory in teaching, it also stressed on using modern ICT in learning L2. Lu
(1993) suggested that there are differences in learning L1 and L2 for the adults as follow:

1. Difference in environment
Individual learns L1 from somebody close to them, like baby learn language from their
parents in a informal way. Learning L2 more happens in class and in a formal way.

2. Difference in the way of learning

Baby learns L1 starts with listening and then follows by mimic, it is a long process. Adult
learns L2 in class and they start with listening, watching, reading and writing at the same
time. It won’t takes much time compare to L1 learning.

3. Difference in the way of mastering the target language

L1 takes time to learn but can last for the whole life. L2 learners will be affected by L1
(mother tongue) while learning L2, this is because L2 learners will use L1 as a “medium” to
learn L2. ‘Negative transfer’ of L1 will give bad effects to L2 learning. Time for learning L2
comparatively shorter, but you will lose the language if you are not practising it.

Chong (1998) carried out a research regarding interference L1 in L2 learning. He discovered that
almost one third of the language mistake were caused by the negative transfer from L1 to L2. In
learning L2, he suggested that learners should maintain the positive language transfer and wipe out
the negative language transfer effect.

An interlanguage is a linguistic system that has been developed by a second language (L2)
learner who is partially proficient in the target language and maintaining some of the first language
(L1) features in target language communication. It is typically based on the learners' experiences in
the process of L2 learning. According to Larry Selinker’s theory of interlanguage in 1972, a L2
learner utters differently in a given situation compared to those native speakers’ utterances although
they are attempting to express the same meaning. This comparison shows a distinctive linguistic
system that can be detected when looking at the patterns and forms of L2 learners’ target language
utterances.

The learner’s L1 transfer is derived from the Interlanguage Theory, which believes the
"psychological structure latent in the brain" is triggered among L2 learners in second language
learning. The L1 transfer involves the errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer),
avoidance of target language forms, and their overuse (overgeneralization). English as a second
language (ESL) learning is a gradual transferring process from L1 to L2. At each developmental
stage learners formulate their own set of L2 grammar rules that are imperfect yet though they are
not L1 rules alike. In other words, the L2 learners generate their own structured rules of language at
any stage in L2 development and the rules become increasingly complex.

2
METHODOLOGY

Since the limited intake of Chinese students into the system, the subjects of this study consist
of 12 Chinese students from 6 different classes at one of the colleges in Kedah Darul Aman,
Malaysia. They are all Malaysian nationals, which are consisted of 2 boys and 10 girls aged
between 18 and 19 years old. Prior to the present college, they had at least 6 years of English
learning experience in different states of local secondary schools for 5 or 6 hours per week in
Malaysia classrooms setting. Although they are selected students based on SPM results, they still
possess diverse levels of proficiency in English language command. They are classified into
different English tutorial classes based on their results in English Language Proficiency Test
conducted on the first registration day. Generally, 9 of them can be categorised as competent
English language users and 3 of them are modest English language users. These students’ abilities
in reading, writing, listening and speaking in English are revealed evidently through their scores in
the recent MUET Final Year 2004. Their 2004 MUET results generally are in the range from Band
3 to Band 5, which can be categorised as upper-basic and they are relatively motivated.

For the selection of a language corpus in this study, samples of written works were collected
from 12 Chinese students. The students were given with the topic “My English Language Learning
History” and asked to write a short paragraph not more than 20 sentences. They were also given
sufficient time in one lesson (50 minutes) to complete this writing task. In order to determine the
actual proficiency and competence in their target language, they were forbidden to consult any
dictionary or other resources. At the preliminary stage, in order to make sure that the samples
contained primarily errors, each student was asked to review and correct error(s) before submitting
their works. Then, the sentences from each sample were examined to see whether they were overtly
or covertly characteristics by comparing the students’ sentences with those reconstructed target
language ones.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Identification of L1 Transfer

Generally, two types of errors were acknowledged according to their relative seriousness and
frequency of occurrence: the verb be and the conjunction because. These types of errors in this
analysis were principally focused on the errors caused by students’ L1 transfer (Chinese) in the use
of English language as their target language. The errors were then explained in grammatical terms
and thoroughly examined to identify the sources of errors due to the manifestations of L1 transfer,
paying particular attention to the similarities and differences between the grammatical structure of
two different kinds of linguistic knowledge (Chinese as L1 and English as L2).

Negative Transfer

Based on the study of the written works produced by 12 ESL learners, the first effect of
negative transfer or error were seen in the inappropriate usage of English verb be. Be is the most
common verb in English and used in a variety of ways. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English (2003) lists seven uses of the verb be. In common, be has two main forms: a copula form
and an auxiliary form. According to Halliday (1994), in terms of function, the process of being as a
copula is a relational process between the subject and its complement. A complement could be an
adjective phrase, a noun phrase, or a prepositional phrase.

3
 As an auxiliary, be is used to form passive voice, tenses and aspects, such as the continuous
aspect, perfect aspect, and a planned event in front of an infinitive. The correspondence form of be
in Chinese is shi (是). The Chinese shi (是) differs from English be in two important ways. Firstly,
shi (是) can only be used as a copula and a focus marker in a definite sentence but not involved at
all with the voice or the tense-aspect system. Secondly, as a copula, shi (是) can only link a noun
phrase as an attribute to indicate someone’s profession or as an identity. Except for emphatic
structure, shi (是) cannot be used to link any predicative adjectives or prepositional phrases. This
dissimilar usage of be system of Chinese from a contrastive viewpoint has led to omission. By
omission, it means that be is not used in obligatory context where be should take place. Some of the
inappropriate usage of be as a result of negative transfer from Chinese are listed as below:

1. (Zai) (xuexiao) , (wo) (bu) (xihuan) (xue) (Yingwen). [Chinese Hanyu pinyin]
When I in school, I not happy to study English.
When I was in school, I was not happy to study English. (Correct form)

2. (Wei shenme) (Yingwen) (zheme) (nan) (xue). [Chinese Hanyu pinyin]

Why English so difficult to learn?
Why English is so difficult to learn? (Correct form)

3. (Zai) (zhong) (san) (shi) , (wo) (ji xu) (xue) (Yingwen) [Chinese Hanyu pinyin]
When I in standard three, I continue learning english.
When I was in Standard Three, I continue learning English. (Correct form)

Chinese has been classified as a language that follows iconic word order in contrast to English
that is said to follow salient word order (Tai, 1985). In other words, Chinese follows a logical word
order where word order corresponds to thought flow “in a genuinely natural way” (1985:64). This
word order also pays due to attention to chronological ordering, which Tai (1985) has called as The
Principle of Temporal Sequence (PTS). This is defined as: “the relative word order between two
syntactic units is determined by the temporal order of the states which they represent in the
conceptual world.” (1985:50)

In contrast, English language gives more emphasis to the relative importance of information.
For example, the two sentences "Mr. Mah was pleased.” and “Mr. Mah rang his wife.” would
necessarily be interpreted in Chinese “Because Mr. Mah was pleased, Mr. Mah rang his wife.” The
English complex sentence, if it follows the normal unmarked clause order, would read “Mr. Mah
rang his wife because Mr. Mah was pleased.” It is simply because the unmarked clause order
generally requires the main clause to precede the subordinate clause. This would be the correct
English translation of the Chinese sentence “Because Mr. Mah was pleased, Mr. Mah rang his
wife.” Chinese follows iconic order and the cause clause precedes the effect clause. In English, on
the other hand, the so-called main clause usually precedes the so-called subordinate clause. When
because is used as a discourse marker in Chinese, it normally signals forward as demonstrated by
the examples below from students’ works:

Example 1
“Because my language is very weak so when I’m went to secondary school, I was sit in remove to
improve my English.”
“Because My language was very weak so when I went to secondary school, I studied in Remove to
improve my English.” (Correct form)
or

4
“I studied in Remove to improve my English because my language was very weak when I went to
secondary school.” (Correct form)

Example 2
“Because I dislike reading in English, I got a very bad results in Form 2.
“I got very bad result in Form 2 because I disliked reading in English.” (Correct form)

Example 3
“Because my friend encourages me, I am interested in English slowly.”
“I am interested in English slowly because my friend encourages me.” (Correct form)

Avoidance

The interaction of L1 transfer with other factors in the interlanguage be system of students is
also reflected in the case of substantial omission of be in the data. Omission or avoidance is a very
common pattern in the acquisition of be in both first and second language acquisition research. Ellis
(1988) found that the copula be is omitted more frequently when the preceding subject is a noun
rather than pronoun. The students can handle the copula be pretty well in the form of be + adjective
but once some linguistic elements like adverbs (e.g. very, so) or the negation word not occurred
before the adjectival predicate, the students tend to omit be. This context-induced variability could
be accounted by L1 transfer. Below are the examples from the samples collected:

1. Usually I not fond of reading English newspaper.

Usually I am not fond of reading English newspaper. (Correct form)

2. Everybody thinks English very difficult to learn.

Everybody thinks English is very difficult to learn. (Correct form)

3. He must very hardworking to achieve good result.

He must be very hardworking to achieve good result. (Correct form)

In Chinese, the structure with an adjectival predicate is constrained and some differences exist
if we compare with English adjectival predicate. Initially, this structure is different from the English
adjectival predicate which does not require copula shi (是). Secondly, it cannot be used as a
statement in isolation. This structure in Chinese is normally used in listing and in comparison.
However, this restriction is relaxed when the adjective is modified by an adverb very or negated by
a negation word not as in the form of “subject-very/not-adjective”. To put it briefly, the explanation
of language transfer is the restricted use of the Chinese copular shi (是) with adjectival predicates
that may affect the omission of be in the form of (be)-very/not-adjective. Below are the examples
from the subjects’ written works:

1. (Wo) (hai) (bu shi hen shuxi) (wen fa) [Chinese Hanyu pinyin]
The grammar rules still very unfamiliar with me.
The grammar rules are still very unfamiliar with me. (Correct form)
I am still unfamiliar with the grammar rules.

2. (Wulun ruhe), (wo) (xiang) (Yingwen) (dui) (wo) (eryan) (bu) (shi) (jian) (jiandan) (de shi)
[Chinese Hanyu pinyin]
Anyway, I think English not very easy for me.
Anyway, I think English is not very easy for me. (Correct form)

5
3. (Wo) (bu) (mingbai) (zai) (youzhiyuan) (shi) (suo jiao de) (Yingwen) [Chinese Hanyu pinyin]
I not understand when learning English in kindergarden.
I was not understood when learning English in kindergarten. (Correct form)
I did not understand English when studying in kinder garden.

Overgeneralisation

The overgeneralisation or overuse, which is generally considered in the literature as a

developmental feature, is extensive. Overuse occurs when a learner fails to observe the boundaries
of a rule. Overuse of be in the study indicates that the students in my data were not only very aware
of the different and complicated be system in English but also tried to use be according to their
mental grammar of target language system, although it was sometimes overused. Most of the
overuse of be in my data is related to the main verb which is either transitive or intransitive, are
presented with an extra be in their sentence construction as follow:

Present tense be + Present tense V

1. When I am study Form Four, I start to read the Star Newspaper.
When I study Form Four, I start to read the Star Newspaper. (Correct form)

Present tense be + Past tense V

2. My friend is always asked me how to improve essay writing.
My friend always asks me how to improve essay writing. (Correct form)

Past tense be + Past tense V

3. When I was 6 years old, I was came back to Penang.
When I was 6 years old, I came back to Penang. (Correct form)

Furthermore, according to Corder (1981), L2 learning, similar to L1 acquisition in many

respects, is more a creative process than a matter of restructuring. In my case, overgeneralization or
overuse may have been a means by which they formulated their hypotheses for the use of auxiliary
verb be, together with the use of main verbs in English. The preference of using be among the
subjects is related to verb choice in sentences. Verbs with relative adjective form (e.g. open, sleep,
developed) were more likely to be used with an extra be that can be found in the samples.

The possibility for the extensive involvement of verbs with the overuse of be may be due to a
dual lexical category of these verbs. For instance, the word open and developed can either be
transitive verbs or adjectives requiring a copula be which are shown as below.

Example 1
They open the door. (Transitive verb)
The door is open. (Adjective)

Example 2
Butterworth developed into a big city. (Transitive verb)
Butterworth is developed drastically. (Adjective)

Students which have fairly command of English language might have difficulty to distinguish
the two forms and confuse them. Below are the examples obtained from the samples which
happened the overuse of be in the sentences.

6
Example 1
“I am seldom open dictionary to find out the meaning.”
“I seldom open dictionary to find out the meaning.” (Correct form)

Example 2
“My friend was developed well the essay writing.”
“My friend developed well the essay writing.” (Correct form)

CONCLUSION

The learners through their 6-8 years’ learning experience, no matter in what manner they have
received instruction, may bring into the classroom a vast knowledge of grammar rules apart from
knowledge of their Universal Grammar existing in their long-term memory, which likely to be
exposed and employed specially for analysing grammar. The use of English language presented in
the form of written works from the samples of 12 students had manifested itself the impact of their
L1 (Chinese) transfer in their second language acquisition.

Generally, the errors caused by the L1 can be identified as resulting from errors (negative
transfer), avoidance (non-existent linguistic items) and overuse (overgeneralization), by comparing
the students’ sentences to equivalent ones translated into the L1. From the sample of written works
produced by the Chinese students as ESL learners, the most obvious manifestations of their L1
transfer is error or negative transfer then followed by avoidance and overuse.

The variables use of the verb be and the misuse of because found in the data shows that
whether or not to use be and because are rather critical that many young Chinese ESL learners have
to face. Yet, their variable use of be and because in the SLA are systematic and most could be
accounted for in terms of L1 influence, but other factors such as developmental patterns and
individual differences in second language acquisition also should not be abandoned.

Nevertheless, the facilitative effect or positive transfer of Chinese language is hardly found
among subjects in their target language system. This is just because Chinese has a totally different
way of marking systems such as tenses, aspect marking and also negation marking. Furthermore,
Chinese language also does not have the equivalent auxiliaries like have and do. However, there is
one similarity which is not just involved Chinese and English but also other languages as well in
common: subject-predicate structure of sentence construction. It may become one of the facilitative
effects as the basic framework for learners to build sentences in target language.

REFERENCES

Chong Ah Kow. (1998). Di’er Yuyan Jiaoxue Lilun Dui Huayu Jiaoxue De Qifa. In The Second
Southeast Asian Seminar On the Teaching Of Chinese Language. Organized by Dong Jiao
Zong Higher Learning Centre.

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1988). The effects of linguistic environment on the second language acquisition of
grammatical rules. Applied Linguistics 9: 257–274.

Halliday, M. A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

7
 Longman dictionary of contemporary English. (2003). Essex: Longman.

Lu Bisong. (1993). Studies in Teaching Chinese As A Foreign Language. China: Beijing Language
& Cultural University Press.

Tai, J. H. Y. (1985). Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. Retrieved 2008, 15 December,
from http://teaching.ust.hk/~huma300k/readings/tai-1985-pts.pdf

Weng Shihua. (1972). Huawen Di’er Yuwen Jiaoxue Luncong. Singapore: Wenhua Yinwu Gongsi.

View publication stats