European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
Common Errors in Written English Essays of Form One
Chinese Students: A Case Study
Saadiyah Darus
School of Language Studies and Linguistics
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +603-89216570; Fax: +603-89254577
Khor Hei Ching
School of Language Studies and Linguistics
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Abstract
Chinese students from vernacular schools in Malaysia need to master three languages,
which are English, Malay, and Chinese. Since English is the second language (L2) that they
learn, it causes problems for them in learning the four skills in English including writing.
This study aims to investigate the most common errors in essays written in English by 70
Form One Chinese students in a selected public school in Perak. For all of these students,
Chinese is their first language (L1). Using an error classification scheme and Markin 3.1
software, 70 essays were analyzed and categorized into 18 types of errors. The results of
the analysis show that four most common errors were mechanics, tenses, preposition, and
subject-verb agreement. In composing these essays, the students were very much
influenced by their L1. Intra lingual transfer of Malay and developmental errors were also
observed in their writing. This study suggests that teachers need to emphasize on how
certain concepts are handled in English, Malay and Chinese. It is also important to make
the students aware of the differences in the structure of English, Malay and their L1.
Certain rules in Chinese and Malay that do not work when they write in English need to be
highlighted. Students need to understand the differences of these languages and make use
of the unique features to produce good and acceptable sentences.
Keywords: ESL learners, grammatical errors, English essays, vernacular school.
1. Background of the Study
The Malaysian system of education is based on the Razak Report of 1956 (Gaudart, 1987). The
educational structure in Malaysia is featured by six years of primary education, five years of secondary
education and two years of sixth form education. Prior to the Razak Report, the medium of instruction
in national schools in Malaysia was Malay. However, national-type Chinese and Tamil schools use
their native language as the medium of instruction. English and Malay are compulsory subjects that
students of vernacular schools must learn.
Secondary level of education is divided into lower and upper secondary level. Lower secondary
level covers a period of three years, which are from Form One to Form Three. Whereas, upper
secondary level covers a period of two years which include Form Four and Form Five. Secondary level
242
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
is the national stream where the medium of instruction is Malay. As for national-type schools, there is
one year of transition class which is specifically called ‘Remove Class’ before going to Form One.
Vernacular students who are going to Form One from primary Year Six or Remove Class will
have to endure effects from the changes of medium of instruction. These students not only have to cope
with one language but two languages. The Malaysian education policy obligated Malay as a
compulsory subject for students to pass. Additionally, recent changes in the education policy in 2002,
which convert Science and Mathematics into English as a medium of instruction, give more pressure to
vernacular students to acquire proficiency in English. As stated by Ain Nadzimah Abdullah (2004:1):
“The implementation of teaching Mathematics and Science in English had been
introduced in 2003. The Malaysian Cabinet’s decision to use English as the medium of
instruction for Mathematics and Science in all Government schools from 2003,
commencing in Standard One and Form One respectively and later throughout all
classes”.
Therefore, vernacular school students need to master Malay, English and their own native
language as well.
For Chinese students from vernacular schools, English and Malay are taught in primary level as
one subject respectively. When they enter Form One, all subjects are taught in Malay with one subject
in Mandarin and one subject of English. Prior to the education policy in 2002, Mathematics and
Science were also taught in English in Form One starting from 2003. The subjects taught in the lower
secondary level and the time allocated for each subject is shown in Table 1.
Table 1:
Subjects and allocation of time in Form 1 – Form 3
Subjects
Malay Language
English Language
Mathematics
Islamic Education*
Moral Education+
Science
Integrated Living Skills
Geography
History
Health Education
Physical Education
Art Education/Music
Chinese/Tamil Language++
Arabic Language++
* For Muslim students
+ For non-Muslim students
++ Optional
Total Time per Week (minutes)
240
200
200
160
120
200
160
120
120
40
40
80
120
240
Subjects in English only cover 600 minutes per week, while other subjects (except English,
Mathematics and Science) are taught in Malay which takes up 920 minutes a week. Chinese is learned
for 120 minutes a week. The time allocated to study English as a subject is less than Malay. Thus, we
can safely say that English is the third language that Chinese students have to learn and it does affect
their proficiency level, as they do not have sufficient time to practice English.
English is an international language (IL) that holds a prestigious place in Malaysian education
and has become a L2 in Malaysia. From being the medium of instruction in schools since preindependence, it has now become a compulsory subject that students need to take (Asmah, 1997).
Chitravelu et al. (2004:12) talk about the position of English as an L2 and its importance to “…enable
Malaysians to engage meaningfully in local and international trade and commerce”. Thus, students
need to be proficient in English and being able to write well in English is definitely an advantage for
their future.
243
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
2. Statement of the Problem
Among writing, reading, speaking and listening in English, writing is the most complex aspect but it is
a crucial skill for students to learn. Students who have the ability and competency in writing in English
will be able to express themselves effectively. Moreover, they will have more privilege when applying
for any job compared to other students especially in private sectors and companies that are involved at
international level. This aspiration of the English language in Malaysian education is stated in ‘Huraian
Sukatan Pelajaran’ for KBSM (Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah) put forward by the Ministry
of Education as:
“English is taught both in the primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. Its position is
that of a second language. It is a means of communication in certain everyday activities
and certain job situations. It is an important language to enable Malaysians to engage
meaningfully in local and international trade and commerce. It also provides an
additional means of access to academic, professional and recreational materials”
(Chitravelu et al., 2004:12).
The Form One Chinese students in vernacular schools need to master three languages. First,
they still have to take one subject in their native language, which is Mandarin. Second, they have to
master the national language that is Malay and it is compulsory for them to pass. Third, they need to
learn English as IL and L2. All along Chinese students from vernacular schools were educated based
on their mother tongue, Mandarin. Thus, they will not have many difficulties in the subject. As for
Malay language, it is obligatory for students in Malaysia to take the subject and to pass it in order to
continue to the next level. Students have more exposure to Malay because most of the subjects are in
Malay. Therefore, English is neglected and not being paid attention to. They are not very much
exposed to English and do not have sufficient training in the language.
3. Objective of the Study
The objective of the study is to investigate errors in essays written in English by Form One Chinese
students in a public school in Perak. The teachers assign this essay as classroom task and homework.
The study will seek to answer this research question: What are the four most common errors in their
written English essays?
4. Second Language Writing
There can be a huge difference between English writing by native speakers (NS) and English writing
by English as a second language (ESL) learners. ESL learners have more than one language at their
disposal while they are composing as compared to NS. Since they have more than one language in
hand, it brings more problems. ESL learners tend to switch those languages interactively, causing some
confusion in the structure and meaning. Analysis and classification of the cause of confusion enable
learners to have a clearer view of their problems and thus, able to produce better written texts.
In the past, the focus of attention in L2 writing research has been mainly on the similarities
between L1 and L2 writing processes despite the “salient and important differences” between them
(Silva, 1993). Wang and Wen (2002: 225) state that:
“One important difference between L1 and L2 writing processes is that L2 writers have
more than one language at their disposal. They may use both L1 and L2 for cognitive
operations when they are composing in the L2. This difference has received limited
attention from second language acquisition researchers, resulting in little understanding
of the unique features of L2 writing and a lack of a coherent, comprehensive L2 writing
theory”.
Differences between L1 and L2 writing processes receive insufficient attention which resulted
in the misunderstanding of the L2 writing aspects and hence, downgrading the writing skills of L2
244
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
writers. In the domain of L2 writing, one consistent and salient characteristic, which is fundamentally
distinct from L1 writing processes, is that L2 writers, either “skilled” or “unskilled”, switch back and
forth between their L1 and L2 in order to work through a particular problem that they are struggling
with while composing in the L2. As several studies have reported, L2 writers use their L1 to plan their
writing for text generation (Cumming, 1989; Jones & Tetroe, 1987), transfer their L1 knowledge to L2
writing contexts (Edelsky, 1982; Friedlander, 1990; Lay, 1982) and develop ideas and produce text
content and organization (Lay, 1982). In short, L2 writers always make use of their L1 first, while
composing in the L2 before translating it to L2. This shows that L1 influence the L2 writer in their
process of writing in L2 and the influences can be positive or negative.
A study by Lo and Hyland (2007) on a new ESL writing program that focused on the learners’
own socio-cultural context as essay topics to enhance Hong Kong primary students’ motivation and
engagement in writing found that the students used more expressions in the essays which were direct
and inappropriate translations from Chinese to English. The study observed that students asked for
direct translation of a phrase or sentence from Chinese to English while writing.
Errors in language learners’ performance including writing process have long become the
subject of interest among teachers, linguists and syllabus planners. The linguists particularly are
preoccupied in finding reasonable explanations for occurrence of errors and their implication towards
the learning and teaching of a language. Brown (1980) argues that making errors in learning a L2 is
unavoidable.
Corder (1967) mentions that there are two schools of thought with respect to learners’ errors.
The first school maintains that the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of present inadequacy of
teaching techniques. The second school says that we live in an imperfect world and consequently errors
will occur in spite of our best effort. According to Corder (1967), error can be defined as a systematic,
consistent deviance characteristic of the learner’s linguistic system at a given stage of learning.
Meanwhile, Dulay et al. (1982) define error as:
“…the flawed side of the learner’s speech or writing. They are those parts of
conversation or composition that deviates from selected norm of mature language
performance.” (Dulay et al., 1982: 138)
In this present study, the researchers concur with the definition by Dulay et al. (1982) which
classifies errors as the defective part in writing. They are parts of a composition that do not follow the
rules of the target language (TL).
Brown (1994) and Connor (1996) group errors into two categories. They are those errors that
result from L1 interference which are external, and those which result from interference from the L2
system itself. The first category is caused by inter-lingual transfer. Inter-lingual transfer errors are
errors caused by the interference of the learners’ L1. Brown (1994: 224) states that especially in the
early stages of learning a L2, before the system of the L2 is familiar; the L1 is the only previous
linguistic system upon which the learner can draw. The error occurs as a result of familiarity with the
L1. Therefore, there is a transfer effect whether directly or indirectly of the L1 to the new language.
When parallel features of the two languages correspond exactly, there is a positive transfer from L1 to
L2. When they do not correspond exactly, there is a negative transfer, that is, interference (Ho, 1973).
Intra-lingual and developmental errors are the second category of errors. These errors may be
caused by inadequate learning, difficulties inherent in the TL itself, faulty teaching, confused thinking
or lack of contrast of both languages (Ho, 1973). Brown (1994: 225) cites research suggesting that the
early stages of language learning are characterized by a predominance of inter-lingual transfer, but
once learners have begun to acquire parts of a new system, more and more intra-lingual transfer is
manifested. Intra-lingual errors are defined by Richards (1971:198) as those “which reflect the general
characteristics of rule learning, such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and
failure to learn conditions for rule application, the learner attempting to build up hypothesis about
English from his limited experience of it in the classroom or textbook.” Richards (1971) also further
245
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
defines intra-lingual errors as those errors that originate within the structure of English itself, as a result
of misinterpretation of English grammatical rules.
Developmental errors are errors committed during various stages of L2 learning process.
Richards (1971:199) defines developmental errors as “…errors…which do not derive from transfer
from another language…they reflect the learner’s competence at a particular stage and illustrate some
of the general characteristics of language acquisition.” It normally occurs when a learner employ a
false hypothesis about the TL based on their limited knowledge of it.
In most past researches in analyzing problems of writing in English, the researchers’ aims were
to identify errors that occurred, analyze the errors to find out the cause and worked out possible
solution to overcome the problems. Lim (1990) analyses grammatical errors made by Mandarin
speaking students from a private year two community college in Kuala Lumpur. Fifty ESL
compositions produced in a test were used as the main source of data. The researcher used free writing
and guided writing tasks to compare the results. Similar to previous studies, the errors made were
classified under eight grammatical categories namely tenses, articles, prepositions, spelling, pronouns,
wrong choice of words, singular and plural forms and agreement. Two major factors that contributed to
the presence of errors in students’ written work were inter-lingual transfer and intra-lingual transfer.
Wang and Wen (2002) investigate on how ESL/EFL writers use their L1, which is Chinese
when composing in their L2 that is English, and how such L1 use is affected by L2 proficiency and
writing tasks. Sixteen Chinese EFL learners were asked to compose aloud on two tasks, narration and
argumentation. Analyses of their think-aloud protocols revealed that these student writers had both
their L1 and L2 at their disposal when composing in their L2. They relied more on their L1 when they
were managing their writing processes, generating and organizing ideas, but relied more on L2 when
undertaking task-examining and text-generating activities. Additionally, more L1 use was found in the
narrative writing task than in the argumentative writing. Finally, the think-aloud protocols reflected
that L1 use in individual activities varied. Thus, this study shows that L1 influences were very crucial
in L2 writing.
Wang (2003) study the switching to L1 among writers with differing L2 proficiency. It has
been recognized as one of the salient characteristics of L2 writing. However, it is not clear how
switching between languages is related to L2 proficiency or how switching to the L1 assists writers
with differing L2 proficiency in their composing processes. The study investigated these issues with
eight adult Chinese speaking ESL learners with two differing levels of proficiency in English
performing two writing tasks: an informal personal letter and an argument essay. The students’ L1 is
Chinese and their L2 in English. Data collected were the students’ think-aloud protocols, retrospective
interviews, questionnaires, and written compositions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of these
data show that the participants’ frequencies of language-switching varied slightly by their L2
proficiency, suggesting that L2 proficiency might determine writers’ approaches and qualities of
thinking while composing in their L2. This study shows that Chinese students with Chinese as their L1
faced issues on the interference from their L1 while composing in L2.
Darus and Subramaniam (2009) investigate the types of errors made by 72 Form Four Malay
students in their written work. The results of the study show that errors that the students committed
were basically grammatical. The students also had a relatively weak vocabulary and they committed
errors in applying sentence structure rules in English. The study concludes that the students have
problems in acquiring grammatical rules in English.
5. Methodology
Participants
The participants were 70 students from two Form One classes in a selected public school in Perak,
Malaysia who were within the age of 13-14 years old. They came from Chinese vernacular schools
with Mandarin as the main language of instruction. The students scored on average a grade B or C in
246
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
their ‘Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah’ (UPSR) and other monthly English tests. All of these students
came from Chinese speaking family where Chinese was their mother tongue. They spoke Mandarin,
Cantonese and other Chinese dialects with their parents, relatives and friends. They wrote in Mandarin
for many occasions especially in informal situations. They only used English during their English
classes or when needed to.
Writing sample
Following Halliday and Hassan (1976) who stated that writing allows writers to demonstrate their
ability to construct a string of well-connected sentences that are grammatically and logically correct,
the students were asked to write a short essay. Thus, the writing sample for the study was 70 essays
written in English by these 70 students. The essays ranged from 80-300 words each. The topic of the
essay was My Family. The students were given one week to write their essays before researchers
collected them for analysis.
Instrument
In order to identify the errors, an error classification scheme developed by Darus et al. (2007) was
adapted in this study. It consists of 18 types of errors as follows: tenses, articles, subject verb
agreement, other agreement errors, infinitive, gerunds, pronouns, possessive and attributive structures,
word order, incomplete structures, negative constructions, lexical categories (preposition), other lexical
categories, mechanics, word choice, word form, verb to be, and Malaysian typical words.
Markin 3.1 software (Holmes, 1996-2004) was used in the process of identifying the errors in
the students’ essays. The software was chosen because it enabled researchers to obtain accurate
classification and statistical analysis of errors. The annotation buttons in the software were first
customized accordingly based on the error classification scheme.
Research Procedure
The procedure of the research started with collecting essays written by the Form One Chinese students
from the teachers for text analysis. Essays collected were typed so that they were computer readable.
The errors of each essay were identified using Markin 3.1 software based on the error classification
scheme.
6. Results
Table 2 shows the total number of errors for each category of grammatical errors as well as its
percentage and mean value. Altogether 10,147 words were analyzed that consist of approximately 145
words for each essay.
247
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
Table 2:
Total number of errors and percentage per category
Short Annotation
Tense
Articles
AgSv
Agot
Inf
Ger
Pron
PAS
WO
IS
NC
Lexp
Lexo
Mechanics
MWC
MWF
VTB
Malaysian typical words
Total
Long Annotation
Tense
Articles
Subject verb agreement
Other agreement errors
Infinitive
Gerunds
Pronouns
Possessive and Attributive structures
Word order
Incomplete structures
Negative Construction
Lexical Categories - Prepositions
Other Lexical Errors
Mechanics
Word choice
Word form
Verb to be error
Malaysian typical words
Total no. of
errors
121
55
87
43
12
7
73
48
28
7
4
90
78
191
49
35
62
12
1002
Percentage
(%)
12.1
5.5
8.7
4.3
1.2
0.7
7.3
4.8
2.8
0.7
0.4
9.0
7.8
19.1
4.9
3.5
6.2
1.2
100
Mean
n=70
1.73
0.79
1.24
0.61
0.17
0.10
1.04
0.69
0.40
0.10
0.06
1.29
1.11
2.73
0.70
0.50
0.89
0.17
Short annotation is the short form of the long annotation used in Markin 3.1 software during the
analysis process. Long annotation is the 18 categories of the grammatical errors. The results of the
mean values show that four most common errors are mechanics (2.73), tense (1.73), preposition (1.29)
and subject verb agreement (1.24).
It is necessary to point out that the total number of errors for each category of grammatical
errors may not necessarily indicate the difficulty level of the categories for the students. It is not quite
appropriate to assume that lower number of errors signify a less difficult point for the students studying
English. Rather, the fewer number of errors may simply mean that, within this corpus, the errors in a
particular category occur in a lesser number of times compared to other categories.
6.1. Samples of Most Common Errors and Explanation
In this section, sample of students’ sentences error are displayed and the errors identified in each
sentence is shown accordingly. The examples of sentences only show the errors in the area specified.
Other errors in the sentences are not taken into consideration.
6.1.1. Errors in Mechanics
I am studing in SMK Yuk Choy. (studying)
My father is a buiness man. (business)
I live in a nuclear family. (nucleus)
My mom occupation is a House Wife. (capitalization)
He works early in the morning, (incorrect use of comma)
This major category makes up 19.1 % of the total number of errors, which is the largest
category of errors in the classification scheme. There were a lot of spelling, punctuation and
capitalization errors in this study. The spelling errors were mainly due to phonetics perception and
carelessness. The students spell out the words by referring to the sound of the words. A lot of words in
English have the same sound but with different meanings and different spelling such as ‘know’ with
‘no’, ‘pen’ with ‘pan’ and ‘read’ with ‘rid’. Students’ carelessness also causes them to make spelling
mistakes such as ‘I am studing in SMK Yuk Choy’.
248
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
Besides that, the errors in punctuation also add up to the total number of errors in mechanics. It
comprised mainly of incorrect use of comma, omission of comma, wrong substitution for periods and
the absence of the period at the end of a sentence. Commas were unnecessarily inserted in between
words in a sentence and at the end of a sentence producing the following errors:
a. I feel happy to have a lovely family, and I hope my family will always happy.
b. My sister is so clever, because she study at universiti.
It is also common to find omission (denoted by *) of commas around appositional phrases and
in lists of items or names. For example,
a. Although my father is a carpenter * but he likes to read.
b. There are my father, mother, eldest sister * youngest sister and me.
Other errors in punctuations were wrong substitution of periods and the absence of period at the
end of a sentence. The following sentences are some examples:
a. Last, is my younger sister - Thang Hui Lin.
b. I like to play badminton, basketball…except volleyball.
c. I also have a cute sister * she always play with my brother.
Errors in punctuation could be the result of carelessness on the part of the students. This is
because the same punctuation marks with similar functions are also used in Chinese and Malay
writings. In this case, students’ L1 does not affect their ability to use correct punctuations.
Capitalization also constitutes a significant problem in the students’ writings. Many of the
errors in capitalization involved proper nouns that are not capitalized and common nouns being
capitalized. For example:
a. My mom occupation is a House Wife. (common noun capitalized)
b. I from a Nuclear family. (common noun capitalized)
c. My brother is a Form two student. (proper noun not capitalized)
This could be due to L1 interference as there is no capitalization in Chinese writings. Hence,
Chinese students encounter new rules of capitalization in writing in English which generate another
problem for the students. However, errors in capitalization may also be a result of students’
carelessness since in Malay all proper nouns are capitalized.
6.1.2. Errors in Tenses
They study in SJK (C) Bercham. (are studying)
I study in SMJK Yuk Choy. (am studying)
First, I introduce my father. (will introduce)
Every night, we watching TV. (watch)
Compilation and categorization of errors in this study show that errors in tenses account for
12.1 % of the total number of errors in the corpus, which is 121 errors. Tense is the second highest
total number of errors in the study after mechanics of writing. Since the topic of the essay was My
Family, it obliged the students to compose mostly in simple present tense and simple continuous tense
to refer to something which is still happening now. Therefore, the students made more errors in some
usage of the tenses.
The result is also not surprising since English notion of tense is somewhat confusing to the L2
learners who regard time as a separate entity by itself. In English, there is indication of time with
present, past, future and continuous tense but Chinese and Malaysian verb itself do not indicate time.
The moods and tenses are indicated by the addition of auxiliary verbs and particles. English verbs
change according to aspect of time. However, in Chinese and Malay, the same form of verb can be
used for present, past, future and continuous tense. It has no inflection with regard to time. For
example in these sentences:
a. I go to the market.
• Saya pergi ke pasar.
• 我去巴刹
249
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
b. I will go to the market.
• Saya akan pergi ke pasar.
• 我 会 去 巴 刹.
c. I went to the market.
• Saya telah pergi ke pasar.
• 我 已 经 去 巴 刹 了.
d. I am going to the market.
• Saya sedang pergi ke pasar.
• 我 在 去 着 巴 刹.
The verb ‘pergi /去’ in the sentences did not indicate time. The same verb was used in every
sentence for present, past, future or continuous setting. The time was shown separately by auxiliary
verbs and particles such as ‘akan /会’ for future tense, ‘telah /已 经’ for past tense and ‘sedang /在’ for
continuous tense. Thus, this makes it difficult for the students to understand the idea of tense usage in
English and they created errors such as:
a. Every night, we watching TV. (watch)
b. I study in SMJK Yuk Choy. (am studying)
c. My brother just study in kindergarten. (is studying)
For sentence a, the student used present continuous tense for simple present tense. As in
sentences b and c, the students used simple present tense when composing the sentences instead of the
more appropriate present continuous tense.
There are also effects of translation from the students’ L1. The students tend to make sentences
from Chinese and translate it into English. This is because Chinese is their L1 and the medium of
instruction in school since their primary school. There is also translation from Malay to English
because Malay is used in many subjects in class. Hence, these cause students to not only refer to their
L1 but also Malay during sentence formation as Malay covers many subjects taught in class.
In short, the differences between the verb system of L1 and English tense make it difficult for
students to grasp the English notion of tense. Due to the rule of Chinese and Malay that do not need
any changes of verbs according to time aspect, students tend to omit the inflection of the English verb.
This is correct in Chinese and Malay, but it is not acceptable in English.
6.1.3. Errors in Preposition
I am interested about science. (in)
He works at Kuala Lumpur. (in)
She is waiting * her SPM results so she works in the kinderland. (omission for)
My father works at 8.30 a.m. until 5 p.m. (from)
I am in 13 years old. (unnecessary in)
Most of the prepositional errors included omissions, additions and wrong selections. The 90
prepositional errors account for 9.0 % of the total number of errors in the corpus. The cause of
prepositional errors is interference from students’ L1 and Malay. Some of the Chinese and Malay
prepositions are similar in meanings and functions with the English prepositions. Sometimes, a single
Chinese or Malay preposition maybe translated into various English prepositions. For instance,
Chinese and Malay preposition ‘di’ and ‘在’ can refer to English prepositions ‘in’, ‘at’ and ‘on’ as in
the following examples:
a. He works in Kuala Lumpur.
Dia bekerja di Kuala Lumpur.
他 在 Kuala Lumpur 工 作.
b. Salmah works at the post office.
250
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
Salmah bekerja di pejabat pos.
Salmah在 書 信 館 工 作.
c. He puts the book on the table.
Dia letakkan buku itu di atas meja.
他放那本書在
子 上.
Therefore, students were incapable of choosing the correct prepositions when more than one
English preposition corresponds to a single Chinese or Malay preposition and created errors like:
a. He works at Kuala Lumpur. (in)
b. He always donate money for the temple and the poor people. (to)
c. He goes to work by his new car every day. (with)
Omission of prepositions could be caused either by uncertainty in the selection of prepositions
or by L1 interference. When students were not sure of which prepositions to use or could not find
relevant substitution of English preposition to the preposition in L1 or Malay, they tend to omit the
preposition. Sometimes unnecessary addition of prepositions could be due to overgeneralizations. For
example, ‘I am in 13 years old’ (over-generalized use of ‘in’).
6.1.4. Subject-Verb Agreement Errors
I goes to school by bus. (go)
My family have five members. (has)
There is five family members in my house. (are)
She don’t like us to study in a dirty room. (doesn’t)
If I has problem in homework, he will teach me. (have)
Errors in subject-verb agreement make up 8.7 % of the total number of errors in the present
study. Subject-verb agreement errors pose problems for the Chinese students for a number of reasons.
The students were having difficulties in distinguishing the verb ‘is’ or ‘was’ with ‘are’ or ‘were’. They
were also confused with some nouns such as ‘people’ and ‘homework’, whether it is a singular or
plural noun. Certainly, the absence of agreement between subjects and verbs in L1 and Malay also
causes the students to commit errors in this category. In Chinese and Malay, the verb ‘pergi’ do not
change according to the subjects as shown in the following sentences:
a. I go to school.
• Saya pergi ke sekolah.
• 我 去 学 校.
b. She goes to school.
• Dia pergi ke sekolah.
• 他 去 学 校.
c. They go to school.
• Mereka pergi ke sekolah.
• 他 们 去 学 校.
The following sentences are some examples of this confusion in subject-verb agreement:
a. I goes to school by bus. (go)
b. My family have five members. (has)
c. There is five family members in my house. (are)
7. Conclusion
This study shows that the four most common errors made by the Chinese students are mechanics of
writing, tenses, prepositions, and subject-verb agreement. In teaching writing, teachers need to be
251
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
aware that students have difficulties in these areas of the English grammar. These errors are caused by
interference of L1 and inadequate understanding of grammatical rules of English. These factors are
elements categorized under inter-lingual, intra-lingual and developmental errors. Because of the
interference of the L1, students tend to refer to their L1 whenever they face difficulties when they
write. They also encounter problems due to their exposure to Malay as it is a language that is used in
many subjects. Thus, the students will construct sentences with errors because of the differences of
grammatical rules of all the languages: their L1, Malay and English. Intra-language errors refer to the
application of incorrect strategies while acquiring English. Students have problems with English
grammatical rules and also confusion with the rules in their L1. This proves that L1 plays a
considerable role in causing students to make errors when they write in English.
In general, the findings of the study show that the Chinese students were very much influenced
by their L1 in their process of learning English, which were evidently illustrated in their writings.
Therefore, the students need to understand the differences of both languages and make use of the
unique features of the languages to produce good and acceptable sentences. Teachers need to
emphasize on how the concepts are handled in English, Malay and Chinese. It is important to make the
students aware of the differences in the structure of these languages. Teachers should also highlight
certain rules in L1 and Malay that are not appropriate to be used when they write in English. This is to
ensure that the students apply correct strategies while writing in English and hence, decrease the
occurrence of errors.
This study is limited to the written work of 70 essays of Form One Chinese students who are
studying in one public school. The written essays collected are from a specific topic only. Therefore,
the study will not be able to give conclusive evidence regarding other Form One Chinese students from
other proficiency levels in vernacular schools in Malaysia.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Ain Nadzimah Abdullah. (2004). Language loyalty and identity in a globalized world. ELT
Matters 2: Contemporary developments in English Language Teaching. Serdang: UPM
Asmah Haji Omar. (1997). From imperialism to Malaysianisation: A discussion of the path
taken by English towards becoming a Malaysian language. H. M. Said and N. K. Siew (Eds.)
English is an Asian language - the Malaysian context. Kuala Lumpur: Association of Modern
Languages, Malaysia and The Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd.
Brown, D. (1980). Principle of language learning & teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Brown, D. (1981). Principles of language learning & teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Brown, D. (1994). Principles of language learning & teaching. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Chitravelu, N., Sithamparam, S., and Teh, S. C. (2004). ELT methodology principles and
practice. Shah Alam, Selangor: Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd.
Connor, U. (1996). Constrative rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5 (4):162-170.
Darus, S., and Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays of
secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences,
8(3), 483-495.
Darus, S., Tg Mohd Maasum, T. N. R., Stapa, S. H., Omar, N., and Ab Aziz, M. J. 2007.
Developing an Error Analysis Marking Tool for ESL Learners. Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS
International Conference on Applied Computer Science (ACS’07), Venice, Italy, 21-23
November
2007.
pp:355-358.
ISBN:
978-960-6766-15-2.
(Online):
252
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1348171.1348233&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE (25 July
2009).
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL
Quarterly 16:211-228.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English
as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gaudart, H. (1987). English language teaching in Malaysia: A historical account. The English
Teacher Vol XVI. (Online): http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1987/main2.html (4 March 2008).
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Holmes, M. (1996-2004). Markin 3.1 Release 2 Build 7. Creative Technology.
http://www.cict.co.uk/software/markin/ (retrieved online 17 August 2007).
Ho, W. K. (1973). An investigation of errors in English composition of some pre-university
students in Singapore with suggestions for the teaching of written English. RELC Journal 4 (1):
48-65.
Jones, S., and Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matshuhasi (Ed.),
Writing in Real Time. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Lay, N. (1982). Composing process of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly
16:406.
Lim, H. P. (1974). An error analysis of English compositions written by Malaysian-speaking
high school students. M.A. TESL Thesis. University of California.
Lo, J. and Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students' engagement and motivation in writing: The
case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (4): 219-237.
Richards, J. C. (1971). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Science 17: 1222.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27:657-677.
Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language
proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing 12:347-375.
Wang, W. and Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of
16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11: 225-246.
253