Understanding The Pronoun Paradigm In An L2 Context: The
Malaysian Experience
Chan Swee Heng
Wong Bee Eng
It is noted that second language (L2) learners of English in the Malaysian
classroom have problems with the pronoun paradigm in English. For example, they do
not make a gender distinction between the forms of he/she and him/her in English. This
study aims to investigate this phenomenon of pronoun use and will attempt also to link
their use to the influence of their first languages, that is Malay, Chinese and Tamil. The
data obtained will lead to information regarding their L2 knowledge that could be used to
describe the problems encountered by the learners. The information will also be relevant
to language teachers who need to be aware of cross linguistic differences between the
first and second languages of the learner. Twenty-four learners of L2 English (12
Malays, 6 Chinese and 6 Indians) were randomly selected to provide oral input for the
study. They are provided with pictures as a stimulus and are asked to relate the story
depicted in the pictures. This task is recorded and subsequently transcribed to reveal the
target structures. The analysis of the data describes the forms, meanings, and uses of the
grammatical resources pertinent to the structure under study which are available on the
part of the L2 learners.
Introduction
This study attempts to investigate a micro-pragmatic issue which involves actual
usage patterns. It gives rise to a description of language resources and in a particular
language environment (Verschueren, 1999) with particular reference to the use of
pronouns. In the Malaysian classroom, some learners of English, especially the Malay
and Chinese speakers, have problems with the acquisition of personal pronouns.
However, these patterns of use are obtained mainly from anecdotal observations. In
order to obtain some data to support the contention that they do have problems, an
exploratory study was carried out with L2 learners.
According to Jacobs (1995, p. 124), English pronominals can cause serious
communication problems for ESL/EFL learners. Because pronominals are often
ambiguous, especially in utterances considered separately from their context, non-native
speakers need to draw for their interpretation on grammatical principles and pragmatic
knowledge to derive meaning. Inaccurate use of pronouns in speech or writing poses
problems in syntax which if excessively present will also become obstacles to effective
communication.
Methodology
The procedure adopted here is similar to that used by Dulay and Burt (1973) and
Lardiere (1998a, 1998b). Dulay and Burt reported on the accuracy of production of eight
morphemes by Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as an L2. The method used
for eliciting speech was the Bilingual Syntax Measure, a structured conversation
elicitation technique based on cartoons and designed to elicit certain grammatical
constructions. Lardiere, on the other hand, conducted a case study of an adult Chinese
speaker acquiring English as an L2. In her study, the utterances were audio-taped.
However, they were not based on picture cues.
In this study, the researchers made audio-recordings of three stories narrated by
L2 learners as they responded to a series of pictures. Oral utterances provide linguistic
evidence that could be considered as a more accurate reflection of the immediacy and
naturalness of language processing, as our concern is essentially to examine possible
cross linguistic interference. The utterances of the subjects were then transcribed and
independently confirmed by the reseachers. Next, we looked at the suppliance rates for
personal pronouns in obligatory contexts. Then, the obligatory use of pronouns against
those considered as errors was identified. A typology of errors emerged from the data
and was subsequently used to classify the errors made.
Altogether 24 L2 learners (12 Malays, 6 Chinese, 6 Indians) took part in the
study. Their age ranged from 14 to 16 years. They were selected randomly. Their
proficiency level was considered as low intermediate and they have gone through at least
9 years of exposure to the learning of English.
Linguistic Assumptions
To understand the utterances produced by the L2 learners, we examined some
principles/rules that govern the use of the pronoun paradigms found in the L1 as well as
the L2 of the learners. These principles/rules provide a clear conceptual basis for
interpretation of language use. Language acquisition comes about from an “interplay of
operating principles in relation to different kinds of linguistic knowledge” (Pfaff, 1987).
Therefore, a description of English pronouns and those of the learners’ first languages
(Malay, Tamil and Mandarin Chinese) would facilitate subsequent description and
explanation.
Pronoun Paradigm in English
In this study, we are interested in the acquisition of personal pronouns which
indicate the notion of person. They make up the central class of pronouns in English.
Table 1 is an inventory of the personal pronouns of Modern English (Borjars & Burridge,
2001).
Table 1: Pronoun Paradigm in English
Number
Subject Case
(Nominative)
Object Case
(Objective)
Independent
Possessive
(Genetive)
First
Singular
Plural
I
we
me
us
mine
ours
myself
ourselves
Second
Singular
Plural
you
you
you
you
yours
yours
yourself
yourselves
Third
Singular
he
she
him
her
his
hers
himself
herself
it
it
-
itself
they
them
theirs
themselves
Person
masculine
feminine
nonpersonal
Plural
Reflexive
Pronoun Paradigm in Malay
The Malay pronoun system is summarized (cf. Nik Safiah Karim et al., 1995) as shown in
Table 2.
Table 2: Pronoun Paradigm in Malay
Subject Case
(Nominative)
First
Singular
Plural
saya/aku
kami/kita
saya/aku
kami/kita
saya/aku
kami/kita
Second
Singular
awak/engkau
anda
kamu
awak/engkau
anda
kamu
awak/engkau
anda
kamu
dia/beliau
ia/nya
dia/beliau
ia/nya
dia/beliau
nya
dia/beliau
nya
dia/beliau
nya
dia/beliau
nya
ia
ia/nya
nya
mereka
mereka
mereka
Plural
Third
Singular
masculine
feminine
nonpersonal
Plural
Object Case
(Objective)
Independent
Possessive
(Genetive)
Number
Person
Reflexive
sendiri
diri sendiri
In Malay, a pronoun is used to refer to all subject, object, reflexive and genetive
(possessive) forms. For example, the pronoun saya is used in the subject form as in Saya
ada buku ‘I have a book’ as well as in the object form as Abu pukul saya ‘Abu hit me’.
To show possession, the form remains and is placed after a noun as in Itu buku saya ‘That
is my book’. The reflexive in Malay is indicated by the word sendiri preceded by a
pronoun e.g . Saya sendiri pergi ke kedai. or with the inclusion of diri preceding sendiri.
Pronoun Paradigm in Tamil
Tamil, a Dravidian language, is a language in which morphemes are transparently
separable and have analyzable affixes that are attached to roots or stems. These affixes are
nearly always suffixal. Inflectional suffixes are used to mark categories such as person,
number, mood, and tense.
Pronouns are inflected for case, person, number (singular and plural), and gender.
There are two genders which are based on the referent's natural gender and correspond
roughly to the distinction of human/nonhuman. There are eight cases in Tamil, but for
comparison, we will only provide the four cases as found in English and Malay.
Table 3 shows a summary of the Tamil pronouns. (cf. Mr M. Paramasivam,
personal communication)
Table 3: Pronoun Paradigm in Tamil
Independent
Possessive
(Genetive)
ennudaiya
enakku
Person
Number
Subject Case
(Nominative)
Object Case
(Objective)
First
Singular
tnaan
ennai
Plural
tnaangkalh
engkalh
engkalhudaiya
Singular
tnii
unatu
unnudaiya
unnudaiyavai
Plural
tniingkalh
ungkalhathu
ungkalhudaiyavai
masculine
avan
avanidam
avanudaiya
feminine
avallh
avalhidam
avallhudaiya
avanaip
patrrri
avalhaip
patrrri
nonpersonal
atu
atu
-
athaip patrrri
avar
avarkalhai/
avarkalhukku
avarkalhudaiya
avarkalhaip
patrrri
Second
Third
Singular
Plural
Reflexive
ennaip
patrrri
eingkalaip
patrrri
unnaip
patrrri
unggalai
patrrri
Pronoun Paradigm in Mandarin Chinese
Mandarin Chinese is predominantly a language that is devoid of inflection.
Compared to other languages, Chinese is relatively simple with words consisting of one
or two morphemes. Number can also be expressed by suffixes but only for nouns
indicating human beings. These suffixes are obligatory for personal pronouns.
(http:www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/profm02.htm).
To pluralize a pronoun, we add the suffix men. The form of a personal pronoun
remains unchanged when it is used as an object. For example, tā li i zh ăo wo men ‘s/he
came looking for us’ and wo men zh ăo ta ‘we looked for them’. Another form of tā
refers to things. However, the characters are similar in pronunciation.
The reflexives, zìji and bèn ren, express the singular and plural respectively. The
interpretation of number depends on context. In the utterance wo zìji qù kàn xi, ‘I am
going to the movies on my own/myself’, zìji is singular, and in the utterance wo men yào
zunjìn zìji ‘we have to respect ourselves’, zìji is plural.
The following table summarizes the pronouns found in Mandarin Chinese (cf.
Wong Ling Yann, personal communication):
Table 4: Pronoun Paradigm in Mandarin Chinese
Person
First
Second
Third
Independent
Possessive
(Genetive)
Number
Subject Case
(Nominative)
Object Case
(Objective)
Singular
W
w
Plural
w
Singular
nĭ/nín
nĭ/nín
nĭ de
Plural
nĭ men
nĭ men
nĭ men de
masculine
tā
tā
tā de
feminine
tā
tā
tā de
nonpersonal
tā
tā
-
-
tā men
tā men
tā men de
tā men
běn shēn/
zìjĭ
Singular
Plural
men
w
men
w
de
w
men de
Reflexive
w běn
shēn/ zìjĭ
w men
běn shēn/
zìjĭ
nĭ běn
shēn/ zìjĭ
nĭ men
běn shēn/
zìjĭ
tā běn
shēn/ zìjĭ
tā běn
shēn/ zìjĭ
Findings and discussion
Upon transcription of the narratives, the suppliance rates for personal pronouns in
obligatory contexts in L2 were first identified. Then the number of errors were counted.
Table 5 is a summary of the results:
Table 5: Supplicance Rates and Total Number of Errors of Errors in L2 Narratives
Ethnic
Grouping
Total no. of
obligatory
pronouns
Correct use of
pronouns
Wrong use
Missing
Malay
267 (100 %)
210 (78.7 %)
51 (19.1 %)
6 (2.25%)
Chinese
397 (100 %)
324 (81.6 %)
69 (17.4 %)
4 (1.0 %)
Indian
184 (100 %)
159 (86.4 %)
21 (11.4%)
4 (2.2%)
Errors
The data above shows that, generally, the use of pronouns in English for this age
group of students with low intermediate level of proficiency is not that problematic.
The Tamil speakers seem to be the most proficient among the three groups. This is
followed by the Chinese and the Malay speakers respectively. In the category of wrong
use of pronouns, the errors constitute between 10% and 20 % of the total use of
obligatory pronouns.
The raw data of error types was subsequently grouped into thirteen distinct
categories as follows:
The categories are as follows:
Type 1:
Use of nominative case instead of the genetive
Type 2:
Use of genetive case instead of the nominative
Type 3:
Use of objective case instead of the nominative
Type 4:
Use of nominative case instead of the objective
Type 5:
Use of objective case instead of reflexive pronoun
Type 6:
Inaccurate formulation of reflexive pronoun
Type 7:
Gender disagreement
Type 8:
Pronoun disagreement in number
Type 9:
Use of non-human referent for human referent
Type 10:
Over use of proper noun or common noun
Type 11:
Morphological confusion
Type 12:
Missing pronoun
Type 13:
Use of pronoun without antecedent
Frequency counts were made according to each of the error types as shown in
Table 6:
Table 6: Frequency Counts of Error Types
Error Type
Frequencies
7
4
10
9
12
8
3
11
1
6
2
5
13
45
32
22
19
13
6
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
Error Type 7: gender disagreement
From the data above, Error Type 7 (gender disagreement) stands out as a
prominent problem. In making this type of error, L2 learners use her instead of his and
vice versa; she instead of he; and him instead of her. Examples of this error type are:
• His parents also rewarded him.
• So Puan Fatimah took a flask for drink. Suddenly he feel a snake at the back
and he ran to the husband and wake up her husband and she’s husband take a
stick and come into the kitchen and Puan Fatimah (pause) pour the water into
the snake and his husband (pause) beat a snake …
• He (referring to Puan Aminah) run to the bathroom and woke up his husband
because his husband is braver than he.
• They push the girl into the car because they want to catch him.
• … hot water on his… her husband.
Error Type 4: Use of nominative case instead of the objective
This type of error ranks next on the list in terms of frequency. No distinction is
made between the nominative and the objective case.
Example:
• Ali saw a school girl in front of he.
Error Type 10: Overuse of proper nouns or common nouns
This error indicates that the learner is still at the elementary level of language
development as far as the use of pronouns is concerned. The learner tends to repeat the
noun phrase in the stringing of his/her ideas. Examples include:
• Then he got an idea to offer the durian to the lion. But after he offer the
durian to the lion, the lion ran away.
• Suddenly I had an idea. I offered durian to the lion but the strong smell of the
•
lion made the lion (pause) run away.
When they came near the snake, the snake was not moving.
Error Type 9: Confusion of non-human referent with human referent
Learning the pronoun forms for human and non-human referents also appears to
be a problem.
Example:
• Suddenly a fierce lion came across with a hungry look, with a hungry look on
his face.
Error Type 12: Missing pronoun
For this category, there are two (2) sub-types:
a. The use of an article instead of the correct genetive:
Example: And then, she go to the back to woke up the husband.
b. The total absence of a pronoun:
Example: Name is Kinah.
One night a lady go drink water. Suddenly, saw a snake was there. She wake up
husband.
Error Type 8: Pronoun disagreement in number
The choice of pronoun is governed by number in English. This rule has not been
internalised.
Examples:
• Suddenly a durian dropped on their head.
• Their husband (referring to Puan Halimah’s husband)…
• The last Sunday my parent bought some durian from the market because he …
because they know …
• They are … it was come in from the door
• She is their husband.
• Ahmad and their parent is bought … durian.
Error Type 3 : Use of objective case instead of the nominative
As a result of a lack in distinction between the objective and the nominative,
students had used the objective for the nominative, reversing the process evident in Error
type 4.
Examples:
• What them can do ….
• (Who is this?) Me
Error Type 11: Morphological confusion
This results from closeness in phonetic association. There and they are confused
as the students mixed up the /e/ and /εΙ/ sounds.
Examples:
•
•
They are four (durians).
They are so many, …
Error Type 1: Nominative case used instead of the genetive
There was a lack of distinction between the nominative and the genetive.
Example:
• Puan Aishah and he husband was very happy.
Error Type 6: Inaccurate formulation of reflexive pronouns
The subjects appear to overextend the rules for morphological combinations in the
formulation of the reflexive.
Examples:
Her father hisself talked to me.
The police theirself …
Error Type 2: Genetive pronoun used instead of nominative pronoun
Overextension often arises over the use of its and it’s for the ESL learners.
Examples:
• Its colour is black and white. Its try to attack Aunt Rosnah.
• Its also has the tooth, the teeth and have something to …poisonous.
Error Type 5: Objective pronoun used instead of reflexive pronoun
The difference between me and myself is not realised.
Example:
• …two pieces of durian for the whole family and I took a few pieces for me.
Error Type 13: Use of pronoun without antecedent
A sentence that foregrounds information should introduce the antecedent. The
following illustrates the use of a pronoun without reference to an antecedent.
Example:
• Suddenly it (he) came across … it hungry looking
The data was further grouped according to ethnicity as shown below.
Table 7: Grouping of Errors According to Ethnicity
Ethnic Group
Error
Type 1
Type 7
Type 11
Type 8
Type 4
Type 3
Type 2
Type 9
Type 10
Type 5
Type 6
Type 12
Type 13
Malay
20
5
3
1
1
8
2
5
1
Chinese
1
16
4
1
28
5
Indian
15
6
2
8
1
6
4
9
1
The Malay learners have most problems with gender disagreement. For the
Chinese, the problems are concentrated on Error Type 4, that is, nominative case used
instead of the objective. Error Type 8, which refers to pronoun disagreement in number,
is not found among the Indian learners at all.
All three groups of learners tend to leave out pronouns (Error Type 12) which
might be a case of reduction when utterances are delivered in the oral mode. Generally,
all three groups of learners also made the same number of errors for type 10, which refers
to the over-use of proper nouns or common nouns in their narration. As mentioned, this
appears to reflect the developmental stages in the learning of pronouns.
From this small sampling, some tentative observations could be made with regard
to the ethnic background and the use of the English pronouns. The Malays appear to
have prominent problems with gender disagreement. If we were to examine their
pronoun system, it could be seen that Malay does not make a distinction in gender, for
example: dia ‘she/he’ is used for both masculine and feminine forms. This feature could
have been overextended into the learning of the L2. On the other hand, although Chinese
does not make a distinction orally, the written form provides for the difference. In Tamil,
gender differences are more marked. This could have resulted in less errors being made
for the use of this type of pronoun in English.
Disagreement in number is totally absent among the Indian learners but can be
found among learners of the other two groups. Again, this finding could be attributed to
the influence of the learners’ first languages whereby Tamil makes a clear distinction in
number for pronouns while this is not present in all cases in Malay and Chinese.
The Chinese learners make the most errors in the use of the objective case (Error
Type 4). They substitute the nominative case for the objective. This could be explained
by the fact that in Mandarin Chinese, there is no distinction between the nominative and
the objective cases. Thus, the outcome could be a result of cross-linguistic influences
from Chinese into English. The Chinese also have marked problems with the use of the
non-human referent. In Chinese, this referent is not as distinctive compared to English or
the other languages as it shares a similarly pronounced term for both the references.
In this study, the three main errors faced by the L2 learners are Error Types 7
(gender disagreement), 4 (use of nominative case instead of the objective) and 10 (over
use of proper noun or common noun). This information could be used to help teachers
plan pronoun instruction meaningfully.
Conclusion
It is clear from the narratives that the L2 learners are lacking in the use of a range
of linguistic devices among which is the pronoun system. To help L2 learners acquire
pronouns in the target language, the typology of pronoun problems derived from the data
is a useful reference. Besides, knowledge of the contrast in the pronoun systems of the
students is also an added advantage for instructors in bilingual programmes. By
assimilating the predominant salient points of contrast, they should be able to understand
or be sensitive to difficulties encountered in the learning of the L2. As Brumfit and
Roberts (1983: 23) have noted, cross linguistic influence is a common phenomenon
among learners and it is useful to know where difficulties are likely to be.
Equipped with knowledge of such difficulties, language instructors are able to
devise lessons to overcome problems that may arise. The ability to predict task
difficulties based on available linguistic resources would enable language instructors to
map instructional objectives realistically. Successful learning often anchors on
contextual meaning and ESL instructors could resort to the use of pictorial stimuli and
student involvement to make learning a situational experience. For example, pictorial
representations are able to convey obvious gender differences. The main contention
forwarded is understanding the learners, their L1s, and providing them with “continued
exposure and meaningful practice to aid them in their acquisition and use of these forms”
(Celce-Murcia and Larsen- Freeman, 1999).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our master’s students in the course, Analysing Language,
(November 2000/2001) for their contributions to this paper. We also thank Ms Wong
Ling Yann and Mr M. Parasivam as informants for the LI pronoun paradigms. They are
lecturers at the Department of Foreign Languages, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
References
Borjars, K., & Burridge, K. (2001). Introducing English Grammar. London: Arnold.
Brumfit, C. J. & Roberts, J. T. (1983). Language and Language Teaching. London:
Batsford Academic.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen- Freeman, D.(1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course. Boston:Heinle and Heinle.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning
24, 245 – 58.
Jacobs, R. A. (1995). English Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language
Research 14(1)1-26.
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state
grammar. Second Language Research 14(4)324-340.
Nik Safiah Karim, Farid M. Onn, Hashim Hj. Musa and Abdul Hamid Mahmood.
(1995). Tatabahasa Dewan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Pfaff, C. (Ed.) (1982). First and Second Language Acquisition Process. Boston: Heinle
and Heinle.
UCLA Language Materials Mandarin Language Profile: http://www.lmp.
ucla.edu/profiles/profmo2.htm
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
About the authors
Dr. Chan Swee Heng teaches at the Universiti Putra Malaysia. She is an
Associate Professor in the Department of English Language. Among the courses she
teaches in the university are Functional Grammar, Expository Writing and Analyzing
Language. Her research interests are in writing, evaluation and discourse studies.
Dr. Wong Bee Eng’s main interest is in second language acquisition. She teaches
related courses in linguistics at the Universiti Putra Malaysia and also Functional
Grammar and Analyzing Language. Currently she is engaged in research on second
language learning strategies.