Title
Author(s)
The acquisition of English subject-verb agreement by
Cantonese speakers
Law, Mei-han, Crystal.; 羅美嫻
Citation
Issue Date
URL
Rights
2005
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/40224
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent
rights) and the right to use in future works.
The Acquisition of English Subject-Verb Agreement
By Cantonese Speakers
Submitted By
Law Mei Han, Crystal
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Arts
at The University of Hong Kong
June 2005
1
Contents
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Declaration
ii
iii-vi
v
Chapter1: Introduction
1
1.1 Background of English teaching in Hong Kong
1
1.2 What are the major problems that Hong Kong English-as-second language
students haveencountered?
1
1.3 Why is the study of second language important?
2
1.4 Rationale of the present study
4
1.5 Objectives
5
1.6 Research issues
6
Chapter 2: Second LanguageAcquisition
2.1 Universal Grammar
2.2 Functional-typological Approach
2.3 Information-ProcessingApproach
2.4 Interlanguage
8
8
11
12
12
Chapter 3: Sentence structure of Cantonese and English
3.1 Grammar of Cantonese
3.2 Grammar of English
15
15
19
Chapter 4:Methodology
4.1Subjects
4.2Material for Data Collection
4.3 Data analysis
23
23
24
24
Chapter 5: Results
5.1 The percentage of grammar errors made by F2&F5 students
5.2 The percentage of grammar errors made by F5 students among all
errors
5.3 The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students
27
27
5.4 The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 students
28
29
30
2
5.5 The comparisons of the frequency of grammar errors made by
F2 & F5 students
Chapter 6: Discussion
30
32
Chapter 7:Conclusion
44
Reference
46
Appendices
i)Grammar Mistakes
ii) The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students
iii) The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 student
vi) Samples of Students’ compositions
50
50
66
68
69
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have been longing to write the acknowledgements. I would like to express my
sincere gratitude for those who helped me to survive all the hardship to complete the
thesis.
I sincerely thank Dr. Siok Wai Ting, my supervisor, for her patience in reading,
commenting on all the drafts of this thesis and giving me advice on the collection of
data. Her comments and serious attitude towards research have helped me to
complete the thesis and fostered my intellectual thinking. Her optimism,
encouragement and concern for me have strengthened me to continue my study.
I would also like to thank Dr. Tan, my thesis committee member, for reading and
giving valuable comments.
I wish to thank my sisters, my colleagues and my friends, especially Ann, Tong and
Lillian for their care and encouragement.
I am most grateful to my parents, who have been giving me unspoken care, great
tolerance for my absence from the family and accepting me for whatever I am.
Finally my deepest gratitude goes to my husband, who has been warming me with
his understanding, support and love, giving me respect for my choices and accepting
me in all circumstances.
ii
4
Abstract
Second language acquisition (SLA) is the study of how second languages are learned.
It investigates how people acquire another language which is not their native
language. Many have argued that SLA research has important contributions to make
to an understanding of the mature of language and human cognition.
It is generally accepted that in progressing to the grammar of the second language,
learners have their own version of the second language called ‘interlanguage’.
Interlanguage resembles part of the grammar of the second language as well as the
first language. Based on the notion of interlanguage, it is expected that learners will
make mistakes since the interlanguage of learners have not yet fully attained the
grammar of the second language.
Cantonese does not have functional equivalents of the English Subject-verb
agreement. Correspondingly, there is plenty of observational evidence that Cantonese
speakers have difficulty with Subject-verb agreement system in English. For instance,
Chinese secondary learners have great difficulties in learning tenses. Levinson(1983)
points in Chinese without true tenses the concept of time is expressed by adverbs as
well as other implicit and contextual assumptions.
In this thesis, the written production as well as grammaticality judgment data
obtained from native Cantonese speakers acquiring English as a second language was
examined. The grammar errors which were related to Subject-verb agreement mainly
about singular & plural, tense, negation and interrogation were selected as the target
iii
5
grammar items. The finding of F2 and F5 subjects were compared in order to explore
the language development among adolescents. This thesis aimed at studying the
acquisition of English Subject-Verb agreement by native Cantonese speakers. One of
the objectives was to examine and describe the production of English Subject-Verb
agreement and to provide an explanation of the phenomena found. Moreover, the
learning experience and its effect on second language acquisition were also
investigated in this thesis.
vi
6
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
v
7
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background of English teaching in Hong Kong
English is one of the official languages in Hong Kong. Teaching English as a Foreign
/ Second Language (TEFL / TESL) has been taking place in Hong Kong since the
1840s (Evans, 1998). Nowadays pupils in Hong Kong formally start learning English
when they enter primary schools, and many more children even receive English
training as early as in Kindergartens and nursery schools. Pupils should have already
acquired the basic grammar by their early primary school-age years. In other
language domains, the children develop progressively all through their primary
school years. Despite extensive exposure to English and established traditions of
English language education in his bilingual city, a good learning outcome has not
been guaranteed.
1.2 What
are
the
major
problems
that
Hong
Kong
English-as-second-language (ESL) students have encountered?
“Fading interest’ and ‘increasing fear’ in learning and using English are often heard
in describing students’ de-motivation and under-developed language ability in an
ordinary classroom. Why do Hong Kong ESL students have low motivation in
learning English?
The first problem is that students witness a lack of real meaningful use of English. As
the school-based English language curriculum is increasingly examination-oriented,
8
the chances of meaningful use of language often give way to an overdose of exam
strategies. Students often feel discouraged or even fed up. Students can not be
convinced of their ability to inquire about and reflect on language use.
The second problem arises from learners’ lack of chance to extend their English
language experience across curricular subjects and fuse it with their everyday life.
Learners see the relation between their mother tongue (MT) and knowledge and
experience, that is, their L2 knowledge is not personalized and is detached from L1
knowledge: they learn English mainly for academic attainment, career advancement
or other utilitarian purposes.
The separation of L1from L2 knowledge and experience partly stems from the
inadequacy of our language curricula. Neither the Chinese language syllabus nor the
English language syllabus explicitly mentions or hints at the link between the two
languages. In the bilingual educational context in Hong Kong, it is desirable to
explore ways to foster students’ cross-linguistic awareness, utilizing their intuitive
MT knowledge as a springboard for enhancing foreign language knowledge, and
sensitizing them to the cultural elements embedded in language. Unfortunately many
language teachers have failed to appreciate this.
1.3 Why is the study of second language important?
There are many reasons to study SLA as there are lots of places where second
languages are required to study and used. First of all, the study of SLA is fascinating
in its own right.
9
Understanding it requires drawing upon knowledge of psychology, linguistics,
sociology, anthropology, psycholinguistics, among others. As David Cook (1965) has
said:
We sometimes overlook the fact that there is much that we can know and need to know about our
universe and ourselves that is not necessarily useful at the moment of discovery. By the same token,
we are too prone to reject knowledge for which we cannot find an immediate practical application.
Yet much of what those who apply knowledge have discovered in their practical pursuits was made
possible by those who were only pursuing knowledge for its own sake. In an ultimate sense all
knowledge is practical. (P9)
But there is more to be gained from grappling with the complexity of SLA than the
sating of intellectual curiosity. The most obvious beneficiary of an increased
understanding of SLA is the second language teaching profession, and through the
teachers, the learners themselves. Indeed, many researchers have been or remain
language teachers who find themselves attracted to SLA research as a source of
insight into the teaching /learning process. As Corder (1981, P7) puts it, ‘Efficient
language teaching must work with, rather than against, natural processes, facilitate
and expedite rather than impede learning.’ This can happen best when we know what
those natural processes are. Greater teacher awareness of the acquisition process can
increase the sensitivity towards learners in the field of SLA. Clear understanding of
second language acquisition could also have impact on the other educational
programmes involving language acquisition, such as bilingual education and
immersion programmes.
10
SLA provides a good test case for linguists’ claims about language universals.
Psycholinguists should be able to use SLA research findings in order to address a
perennial problem for them: how to sort out the effects of cognitive development
from normal child language development. Sociolinguists should find second
language acquisition research helpful in expanding their understanding of when
speakers prefer one speech style over another. Neurolinguists will find that SLA
evidence can be brought to bear on issues in human biological development. For
example, is there such a thing as a critical period in an individual’s development,
beyond which it is very difficult or impossible for anyone to truly master something
as complex as a second language? SLA helps us understand the process of teaching
and learning a second language.
1.4 Rationale of the present study
From my experience as an English teacher in Hong Kong, I realize that Chinese
secondary learners have great difficulties learning tenses, subject-verb agreements,
certain aspects of morphology, syntax, pronunciation and intonation. A number of
studies have found that there were frequent omissions of relative pronouns in relative
clauses among tertiary students in Hong Kong (Berry, 1992). Chinese L2 learners of
English also have difficulties in the experience of time order, names, subject-verb
agreement, direct and indirect expression, phonology, affixation, suffixes, etc. (Li
and Thompson, 1990; Wong, 1988)
This study of first-language (L1) Chinese children acquiring English as a second
language (L2) investigates the reasons behind omission of verb changes in L2
acquisition. There is much evidence that second (L2) learners frequently omit the
11
changes of verbs in their written sentences. A question that has been debated by
many researchers is whether this optimality in the use of tense and agreement
morphology means that the functional categories of Tense and Agreement are
somehow impaired in L2 grammar, or whether the functional categories are indeed
present, with the lack of overt inflection attributable to some other cause. Specifically,
when L2 learners of English produce sentences such as She go or he play,
does the
lack of overt verb changes features in the learner’s grammar (see, eg, Meisel, 1997)
or does it indicate problems with mapping from existing features to their surface
morphological representations (see, eg. Lardiere, 200; Prevost and White, 2000)
In this research I examined written production as well as grammaticality judgment
data obtained from native Cantonese speakers acquiring English as second language.
The first hypothesis was that F2 students transferred more Cantonese syntactic
structures on their writing of the Subject-verb agreement system than F5 students.
The second hypothesis was that F5 students had better language awareness than F2
students when acquiring English. In other words, F5 students made less grammatical
mistakes than F2 students. In order to exam the above hypothesis, I would like to
focus on the grammar errors which were related to subject-verb agreement mainly
about singular& plural, tenses, negation and interrogative.
1.5 Objectives
This thesis aimed at studying the acquisition of English Subject-Verb agreement by
native Cantonese speakers. One of the objectives was to examine and describe the
production of English Subject-Verb agreement and to provide an explanation of the
12
Phenomenon found. Moreover, the learning experience and its effect on second
language acquisition were also investigated in this thesis.
In order to examine and describe the production of English Subject-Verb agreement
of the ELS learners, English written compositions of 10 ELS learners (5 Form 2
students and 5 Form 5 students) were analyzed in this research. The influence of ESL
learners’ first language (Cantonese) on the acquisition of their second language
(English), in terms of the effect of learners’ learning experience on the Subject-Verb
agreement, were examined. The procedures of data collection and selection of
structures for analysis will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
1.6 Research issues
Linguists have recognized that languages interact and affect each other when they
co-exist in the same speaker. Linguists have also recognized that language has a
hierarchical internal structure. It is these two cardinal principles that are reflected in
varying degrees in much of the terminology for studies in bilingualism.
Linguistic interaction can be described as the way in which the languages affect each
other linguistically. Though we recognized such linguistic interaction, the question
still remains --- how two languages interact among bilinguals. Haugen (1956:39)
proposed three stages of linguistic diffusion:
1. Switching: the alternate use of two languages;
2. Interference: the overlapping of two languages, and
3. Integration: the regular use of material from one language in another, so that
there is no longer either switching or overlapping, except in historical sense.
13
In Stage 1, children have one lexical system which includes words from both
languages. A word in one language almost always doe not have a corresponding
word with the same meaning in the other language. In Stage 2, children distinguish
two different lexicons, but apply the same syntactic rules to both languages. For
almost any word in one language, the child has a corresponding word in the other
language. In Stage 3, children have two linguistic codes, differentiated both in
lexicon and syntax, but each language is exclusively associated with the person using
that language.
In this thesis, I shall discuss
i) why Cantonese learners of this study had problems
with the Subject-Verb agreement in the acquisition of English, including singular,
plural and tenses; ii) whether the age factor and learning experience has any
influence on the sentence structure in second language acquisition
This thesis is organized as follows: Chapter 2 reviews some of the studies relevant to
second language acquisition in sentence structure. Chapter 3 introduced some of the
feature of Cantonese and English. Methodology and the findings of the data collected
from the subjects of this thesis is presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the
discussion of the findings. Chapter 6 discusses the limitation of the research. The
conclusion will be presented at the end of Chapter 7.
14
Chapter 2: Second Language Acquisition
2.1
Universal Grammar
The Universal Grammar theory claims that the speaker’s knowledge of the language
consists of general principles and of the appropriate parameter settings for that
language. This theory captures the cross-linguistic differences as well as the
similarities. It is very useful for us to study syntax of all languages.
The aims of the UG theory are to describe language as a property of the human mind
and to explain how it is acquired. In other words, UG is about language knowledge,
not language use, or language development. Its interests are about what the speaker
knows about language competence. More directly speaking, the goals of UG are to
explore: 1) what structures do languages share; 2) what does knowledge of language
consisting of; 3) how it knowledge of language acquired: e.g. Explain how and why
children learn grammar without being taught it. Also, UG theory tries to cover
language variation; and try to explore how much do languages vary in their
grammatical structure.
Principles of UG are invariant across languages, because they are built in to the
human mind. Parameters confine the variation between languages within
circumscribed limits. Therefore, there are similarities and differences among
cross-languages. UG can explain these differences and similarities. Grammatical
structures may be different from one language to another because of the parametric
variation.
15
Principles do not vary from one language to another. There are many principles,
which can show the similarities among cross-languages. Projection Principle is an
example. It claims that syntax and the lexicon are closely tied together. Try to decide
where the complement goes in the phrase, we need to know whether a complement is
actually allowed, and this depends upon the lexical item that is used.
The assumptions underlying the principles and parameters framework are built up in
an ideal speech community. UG is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-hearer,
who how its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant
consideration. But, there is no ideal world in the traditional grammar assumptions.
UG theory considers that language is the innate knowledge in human’s mind. UG
assumes that universal principles are part of our biological endowment, which do not
need to be learned by the child. UG is interested in competence rather than
performance. Competence is the speaker’s knowledge of languages; while
performance is the use of language in different situation. Traditional grammar
considers language as behavior, rather than knowledge; child acquires language
through imitation. UG theory assumes that speakers know a set of principles that
apply to all languages, and parameters that vary within clearly defined limits form
one language to another. Traditional grammar assumes that languages are different
from one to another in all ways.
It is very important to have such theory to study the syntax of languages. As the
principles of UG are built-in to the mind, they do not have to be learnt; the learner
automatically applied them to whatever language he or she encounters. The
acquisition burden on the child is thus minimized and the learnability of natural
language grammars maximized. For instance, a child equipped with a KLUG that
16
implements only branching would have fewer decisions to make when assigning
syntactic structure to the data. It does not matter whether the learner is faced with
Japanese or English; the same principles of phrase structure apply. The crucial
aspects of a language for the learner to master are the appropriate settings for the
parameters; UG theory helps us to acquire second language. Further more, UG
theory can make contribution to the translation field. Equipped with UG, translators
can understand the cross similarities and differences easily. They can get the ideas
from the text, which need to be translated quickly and accurately. Moreover, it is
important to computer language processing which requires knowledge of syntax.
If a theory can explain why grammars have the properties they do, it is explanatorily
adequate. X-bar theory is an example of an area of UG in which explanatory
adequacy might be said to have been reached. It emphasizes on expressing the
general principles of UG rather than the peculiarities of a particular rule. There are
two constraints on phrase structure. One is Endocentricity Constraint: every phrase
must contain a proper head. Another constraint is Modifier Maximality: every
non-head term in the expansion of a rule must itself be a Maximal Projection of some
category. This constrain requires that Specifiers, Adjuncts or Complements be
maximal. Binary branching feature requires that every node should dominate only
two elements. Most language can meet this feature. Every language should have such
three constraints. X-bar theory can provide the tools to describe the grammar of any
nature language adequately and explain why grammars have the properties they do in
terms of a set universal principles.
UG plays a very important role in the study of children’s first language acquisition. It
also provides a useful model for us to study the syntax of natural language. Moreover,
17
it provides a natural language. Moreover, it provides a new approach for us to
explain the similarities and differences across-language.
2.2 Functional-typological Approach
A functional-typological approach to second language (L2) acquisition attempts to
explain facts about the acquisition of an L2 ( a language acquired either by an adult,
or by a child after one language is already resident) though the use of universal,
linguistic generalizations that have been postulated on the basis of primary languages
(L1) (languages acquired in childhood). Under this approach to universals, the
linguist attempts to formulate generalizations on the basis of observations from a
number of genetically unrelated and geographically nonadjacent languages. The goal
of this endeavor is twofold. On the one hand, the linguist attempts to state
generalizations about the occurrence, co-occurrence, or absence of the structures in
any given language; and on the other hand, the linguist tries to suggest explanations
for these universals. These generalizations are usually stated as implications asserting
that the presence of a given structure in a language implies the presence of some
other structure, but not vice versa. Several types of explanations are usually given for
these universals, ranging from innateness to various functional considerations. The
functional-typological approach to L2 acquisition is typified by two related
hypotheses: the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH), and the structural
Conformity Hypothesis (SCH).
18
2.3 Information-Processing Approach
In general, the fundamental notion of the information-processing approach to
psychological inquiry is that complex behavior builds on simple processes. These
processes are viewed as autonomous, and thus can be studied and described
independently from the overall proposed mechanism. Processes occur in steps and
therefore processing takes time. It is this reductionist view of information processing
that allows us to isolate these processes from the overall psychological mechanism.
That is, it allows us to break down processing into a series of stages.
This conventional view of the information-processing approach sees humans as
composed of separate information-processing mechanisms. These mechanisms
include perceptual systems (pattern recognition), output systems, memory systems
(e.g. short-term and long-term memory), and systems for intrinsic reasoning
(Norman, 1985). Although this conceptualization of information processing is well
accepted, there are those who argue that this view does not consider humans as active
participants or that it is too detached from the interaction of people and environment.
Others see this view a relying too heavily on the computer as a metaphor.
2.4 Interlanguage
1. General description of Interlanguage
Interlanguage has been thought of a systematic for many years, and its systematicity
has been approached from many perspectives. In the acquisition of grammatical
morphology, analyses have often assumed that the categories of the Interlanguage are
19
the same as the target languages. In addition, the grammatical categories of the native
language have been assumed to be part of the Interlanguage: studies in transfer are
exemplary.
The term Interlanguage was originally defined by Selinker (1972) as a ‘separate
linguistic system’ which was hypothesized to underlie ‘a learner’s attempted
production of a target language norm. It is suggested that Interlanguages are natural
languages, but their grammar is peculiar in being permeable. This permeability of
Interlanguage explains why learners can transfer grammatical properties from their
native language and why they can generalize or otherwise distort target language
properties in an effort communicate.
Interlanguages reflect the grammar of the learner’s native language. There will be
interference of surface structure phenomena from the first language in the second
language where features do not match between the first and second language (Lado
1957). Second language learners are sensitive to the differences in the first and
second language and use this sensitivity to formulate hypotheses about how other
complex structural properties interact. Universal principle for first language
acquisition also holds in the second languages acquisition. Also, universals of first
and second language acquisition may be related. As Yip (1995) pointed our: “… ILs
[Interlanguages] are incomplete, intermediate and in a state of flux. … ILs are
products of interaction between two linguistic systems, namely those of L1 and L2.
(P11)
20
2. Characteristics of Interlanguage
The IL hypothesis claims that learner languages are different from other language
systems. There are three characteristics of IL. The first characteristic is Systematicity.
Systematicity means that there exists an internal consistency in the rule and feature
system which makes up the IL. Like all human language ILs must contain an
organized set of rules and basic elements. The organization of these sets into a
coherent functional whole results in the emergence of a linguistic entity with internal
consistency: Systematicity.
Another characteristic of IL is Permeability. At this stage, the learner’s linguistic
systems are incomplete and in a state of flux. In an attempt to convey meaning, a
speaker may be forced to utilize a portion of the IL system which is not yet
completely specified. The target rules or forms for generating the particular structure
needed by the speaker are not adopted into the system of the IL. Unlike other adult
languages which have an essentially stable end-state and are relatively impervious to
other linguistic systems, ILs are constantly subject to a number of impinging forces.
The third characteristic of IL is Stability. There are two possible stabilities. One is the
stability over time in the production of correct forms. Another is the stability over
time in the production of incorrect forms. At this stage, the learner consistently uses
that particular linguistic element or rule to generate speech forms. One of the ways
ILs can evidence stability is by a process of fossilization. (Selinker, 1972) The
particular rule, feature, or form within the component or subcomponent of an IL
which has become stable.
21
Chapter 3: Some features of sentence structure of English
and Cantonese
3.1 Grammar of Cantonese
The term Cantonese refers now to the dialect of Canton City or again to the whole
group of similar dialects. Cantonese in the wider sense covers the western half of
Kwangtung province and the southern half of Kwangsi province. (Chao, 1974)
1. Syntactical Constructions and Word Order
The main types of syntactical constructions are coordinate constructions,
qualifier-qualified constructions, verb-object constructions, auxiliary-verb-and-verb
constructions, verb-complement constructions, and subject-predicate constructions.
The order in which the elements in these constructions are mentioned is the order in
which they occur. They represent the main features of word order in Chinese.
Examples of each kind of construction are as follows:
a) Coordinate constructions:
Leugkoh dhong leugkoh ‘two and two’
Tak-mu-tak ‘All right (or) not all right, --- is it all right?’
b) Qualifier-qualified constructions:
Chotghei keh zih ‘strange event’
Mu pee ‘not to give’
22
c) Verb-object constructions:
Tax ceuq ‘fight a war’
Muci hay timx ‘I don’t know how it is.’
d) Auxiliary-verb-and-verb constructions:
Iw lai ‘will come’
Wue koag ‘can talk’
e) Verb-complement constructions:
Sex-xoo ‘write well’
Tit-loaklai ‘fall down’
f) Subject-predicate constructions:
Ngox citow ‘I know’
Nhi koh xoo ‘This one is good.’
2. Negation and Interrogation
Simple negation is expressed by using mu ‘not’ before the word negated, as xag xog
‘willing not go’. The negative of yao ‘have’ takes the fused form moo Æ mu +yao.
Questions in Chinese can be divided into four types: a) question with interrogative
words, b) disjunctive questions, c) A-not-A questions, d) yes-or-no questions.
a)
Questions with interrogative words are the easiest to ask and answer. The rule
is: Ask as you would be answered, as Nee hay pin gkon ‘You are who, ---who are
you?’
23
b)
Disjunctive questions, or questions requesting a choice of alternatives, are
asked by using deq, deqhay, or bey between the terms. The form bey is used rather
infrequently, and then only between monosyllables. For example, jheung bey tunx ah?
---‘Long or short?’
c)
An A-not-A question is a disjunctive question in which the choice is between
something and its negative. In such a case, the word deq or deqhay is omitted. The
English equivalent of such a question is the common yes-or-no question. Nee
zek-mu-zek in ah?--- ‘You smoke (or) don’t smoke, Æ do you smoke? Since these
are disjunctive questions, they cannot be answered by words expressing agreement or
disagreement, like hay or muhay, but must have the terms in the disjunctive repeated,
as Ngox zek ‘I do (smoke)’ or Mu zek ‘I don’t’.
d)
True yeas-or-no questions are less frequent than in English, since most
yes-or-no questions are put in the disjunctive A-not-A form, as described above.
Yes-or-no questions are in the form of posed statements with the addition of one of
the final particles mah, mhe, a, and ah, or of a miniature disjunctive question
haymuhay ‘isn’t that so?’
While yes-or-no questions in English call for affirmation or negation, questions
under type d) call for agreement or disagreement, which is not the same thing unless
the question is in the positive form. If the question is in the negative, then the answer
in Chinese will seem to be the opposite to that of the English. For example, if the
question is: Nee mu cong’ih iamx tzao mhe? ‘You don’t like to drink wine?’ and if
the answer is one of dissent, it will be: Muhay, ngox cong’ih ‘Not so, I do, ---yes, I
do.’ On the other hand, if the question is: Needey moo tziu mhe? ‘Have you no
24
bananas?’ and if the answer is one of agreement (and therefore negative), it will be:
Hay, ngoxdey moo tziu ‘Yes, we have no bananas.’ (Chao, 1974)
3. Base form of the verb
The means of expressing tenses in Cantonese is through the use of the base form of
the verb. By ‘the base form of the verb’ we mean the verb being used without any
preceding auxiliaries or any aspect suffixes (e.g. zo, gan, gwo, ha.(O. T. Nancarrow,
1998)
e.g.
a) Ngo
heio
tou syu gun.
I
go to
library.
b) Ngo
I
c) Keoi
He
heio zo tou syu gun.
went to
library.
heio
tou syu gun.
goes to
library.
4. Null subjects and objects
Cantonese allows null subjects and null objects. (Yip, 2000)
e.g.
a) Gin
Saam
hou
leung
wo.
25
CL
bouse
very
pretty PRT
‘That’s a nice blouse.’
b) Ngo
I
zung ji
aa.
like
PRT
‘I like (it)’.
5. Relative clause
Cantonese has pronominal relative clauses. The modifying clause precedes the head
noun.
e.g.
Ngo
I
sik
know
go di
jan
zau
those CL
people
leave
saai.
all.
‘The people I know have all left.
3.2 Grammar of English
English is not a single uniform language, just like other languages. Instead, many
dialects of English are spoken around the world. Through there may be some
grammatical differences among dialects of English, they share a significant central
core of grammatical units and relationships that enables us to speak of the grammar
of English. But even within a particular regional dialect there is variety. What I
describe here is Standard English.
26
1. Words
Words in English can be classified depending on the type of environments in which
they appear. Words which can appear in the same context will be said to have some
distribution, they belong to the dame word class. Word classes in English include:
nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions and etc. Word order in English is
fixed to a language extent: if a given word order is disrupted the sentence may
become less acceptable or even ungrammatical.
2. Basic Properties of Subject
Grammatical units (including morpheme, word, phrase, clause and sentence) are
constituents of a sentence. There are some basic properties of subject and verb
phrases in English. Subject NPs invert with the first auxiliary to form questions, e.g.
Was the student waiting for me? Subject NPs agree in number with the first verbal
element (subject-verb agreement, e.g. 1) The students were waiting for me. 2) The
student never enjoys singing. Subject NPs are placed by pronouns in the
subjective/nominative form, e.g. The students were laughing. They /*them were
laughing. Basic sentence structure in English is: SÆNP VP (subject: the NP
immediately dominated by S; Predicate: the VP dominated by S)
3. Classification of Sentences
a) Simple sentence: contain only one main clause
E.g. Sue bought the book.
27
b) Compound and complex sentences: conjoin a clause which is coordinated with
another clause introduced by coordinators: and, but, or, for, etc.
(1) Compound sentence:
E.g. Dink at least 8 ounces of water and do exercise every day.
(2) Correlative constructions:
E.g. The more I listen to it, the more I like it.
(3) Complex sentences: contain two or more clauses at least one of which is
subordinated/embedded.
E.g. Sue thought that Peter was going to prepare the dessert
(4) Non-embedded subordination:
E.g. Paul liked it, whereas Peter found it disgusting.
(5) Compound-complex
E.g. I know that the dog chased the ball and it retrieved it.
In conclusion, for each language, all the grammatical structures associated with the
verbs which are used to talk about events. There are some crucial differences
grammatical structures between Cantonese and English. The ways to express tenses
in Cantonese are quite different from English. Moreover, English wh-interrogative
sentences involve syntactic movement, Cantonese ones do not. Wh-interrogatives in
English are formed by moving the wh-words to a sentence-initial position, while
wh-words in the Cantonese counterparts remain insitu. Besides that, Cantonese
28
allows both null subjects and null objects in finite clauses, English requires that the
subject and object of transitive verbs be phonetically realized. Cantonese is a
pro-drop language and with respect to the licensing of empty categories exhibits
similar properties to those described for Mandarin Chinese (Huang, 1984, 1992).
English relatives are generally assumed to be formed by wh-movement (in the case
of wh-relatives) or by null operator movement (for that-relatives), following
Chomsky (1986) and subsequent work. Cantonese relatives clearly do not involve the
same kind of movement as their English counterparts. According to one analysis
(proposed for Mandarin Chinese which Hawkins and Chan (1997) attribute to Huang
(1980; 1995)), the gap in relative clause is bound by a null topic.
29
Chapter 4:
Methodology and the findings of the data collected from the
subjects
The aims of this study are to examine the differences of second language awareness
between two groups of Cantonese speakers (F2 students and F5 students and to test
the age factor, or learning experience in playing a role in second language
acquisition.
4.1 Subjects
The ten subjects are from the same school which is a Band 3 CMI school in Tin Shui
Wai. The school was founded in 2000. Many students in the school come from grass
root class with very limited family support in study. At least one third of the students’
parents are immigrants from mainland China. Students seldom have English
exposure after school. Chinese is the first language of all the subjects. And English is
their second language. All the subjects had already acquired the basic grammar by
their early primary school-age years. The subjects were more proficient in Chinese
than in English.
In order to collect data for examining the age factor, two groups of subjects of
different years of exposure to English were selected. I separate the subjects into two
groups based on the forms they belong to. Five subjects (two male subjects and three
female subjects) came from Form two with ten to eleven years of English learning
experiences. They are about twelve to thirteen years old. Another group (two female
30
subjects and three male subjects) was from Form five with thirteen to fifteen years of
language acquisition experiences. They are about sixteen to seventeen years old.
The first exposure of English to all subjects was in their K1 (Grade 1 in kindergarten)
where they are about three to four years old. Junior forms (F1-F3) students have 7
lessons every week; while senior forms (F4-F5) students have 7 lessons every week.
Both groups seldom have English exposure after school. They seldom watch English
TV programmes, listen to radio in English channels and read English newspaper and
magazines. Subjects, however, differed in English proficiency. For each group, two
subjects had good, one had average, and two had poor English proficiency. The
evaluations of their language proficiency were based on their first term (2004-2005)
English examination results.
4.2 Material for data collection
Five compositions were collected from each of the 10 subjects. The data consisted of
50 compositions with different sentences structures for analysis. Students were asked
to write their compositions either during the English lessons with a given time or at
home. They were allowed to look up dictionaries or ask for others’ help.
4.3 Data analysis
The data of the selected findings of F2 subjects were consisted of an e-mail, a diary,
a letter, and two articles. The compositions of F2 subjects were narrative and
descriptive writings.
F5 subjects were asked to write narrative, descriptive,
argumentative essays, including personal letters, stories and other articles.
31
The focus of the grammatical structure in this thesis was about Subject-verb
agreement. Agreement is “a traditional term used in grammatical theory and
description to refer to a formal relationship between elements, whereby a form of one
word requires a corresponding form of another.” (Crystal, 2003; p17) For instance, it
is unacceptable to say: She like reading. We should change the verb form based on
the need of the subject and tense. The above example should be: She likes reading.
Four grammar types were examined. They were Singular & plural, Tenses, Negations
and Interrogatives. The explanations of the four grammar types were as follows.
Singular & plural are the elements of the ways expressing numbers. Number is “a
grammatical category used for the analysis of word-classes displaying such contrasts
as singular, plural, dual, trail, etc., as in English boy v. boys, he walks v. they walk.
The contrasts generally correspond to the number of real-world entities…” (Crystal,
2003; p321) Tense is “a category used in the grammatical description of verbs (along
with aspect and mood), referring primarily to the way the grammar marks the time at
which the action denoted by the verb took place. Traditionally, a distinction is made
between past, present and future tenses…” (Crystal, 2003; p459) For instance, They
know each other; (simple present tense) They knew each other; (simple past tense)
They will know each other. (simple future tense). Negation is “a process or
construction in grammatical and semantic analysis which typically express the
contradiction of some or all of a sentence’s meaning. In English grammar, it is
expressed by the presence of the negative particle not or n’t…” (Crystal, 2003; p310)
For example, He was not bored. This is a negative sentence. Interrogative is “a term
used in the grammatical classification of sentence types, and usually seen in contrast
to declarative. It refers to verb forms or sentence/clause types typically used in the
expression of questions, e.g. The inverted order of is he coming?, or the use of an
interrogative word; (or simply ‘interrogative’’), often subclassified as interrogative
32
adjectives (e.g. which), adverbs (e.g. why) and pronouns (e.g. who).” (Crystal, 2003;
P241)
The percentage of grammatical errors among all error types and the percentage of
each grammar type among all grammatical errors were calculated. The “mistakes” or
“errors” that learners make in the process of learning a target language have been
always been a cause of much concern to the teachers. It is very often that people mix
up the two terms --- mistakes and errors. As Corder (1973) pointed out an important
distinction between “errors” and “mistakes”. Mistakes are diviations due to
performance factors such as memory limitations, spelling, pronunciations, fatigue,
emotional strain, etc. They are typically random and are readily corrected by the
learner when his attention is drawn to them. Errors, on the other hand, are systematic,
consistent deviances characteristic of learner’s linguistic system at a given stage of
learning. The results were then compared between the two groups to examine the
effects of language experience. I used the total number of sentences as a base unit.
33
Chapter 5: Results
In the following section, I am going to start by analyzing the data collected from F2
students--- the percentage of the four grammar errors as mentioned before. Then I am
going to analyze the data of F5 students. Also, I will present the frequency of the
grammar errors made by every subject. Lastly, the data of F2 students will be
compared with the data of F2 students.
5.1 The percentage of grammar errors made by F2 & F5 students
The percentages of grammar errors of each item made by F2 students are presented
in Table 1. Those grammar errors related to subject-verb agreement, including
Singular & plural (11.31%), Tenses (31.55%), Negation (4.67%) and Interrogative
(4.17%) count for over 50%. It is much higher than other grammar errors, such as
Sentence structure (20.83%) and Wrong words (10.12%). The lowest number of
grammar errors made by F2 students is Relative clause (0%). In other words, there is
no grammar error about Relative clause can be found among F2 students.
Table 1: The percentage of grammar made by F2 students among all errors
Grammar Type
Number of Errors_______________
Count
Percentage
1. Singular & Plural
19
11%
2. Tenses
53
32%
3. Negation
7
4%
4. Interrogative
7
4%
5. Spelling
9
5%
6. Sentence structure
35
21%
7. Voices
5
3%
34
8. Verb form
9
5%
9. Relative clause
0
0%
10. Wrong words
17
10%
*Total numbers of grammar errors made by F2 student: 168
5.2
The percentage of grammar errors made by F 5 students among all errors
Table 2: The percentage of grammar errors made by F 5 students among all
errors
Grammar Type
Number of Errors_______________
Count
Percentage
1. Singular & Plural
12
6%
2. Tenses
47
25%
3. Negation
9
5%
4. Interrogative
3
2%
5. Spelling
22
12%
6. Sentence structure
42
23%
7. Voices
8
4%
8. Verb form
20
11%
9. Relative clause
4
2%
10. Wrong words
19
10%
*Total numbers of grammar errors made by F5 student: 186
The above table (Table 2) showed the percentage of grammar errors made by F5
students. The findings were similar to F2 students. The highest percentage of
grammar errors related to Subject-verb agreement, including Singular & plural,
Tenses, Negation and Interrogative), made by F5 students is about 38.17%. However,
this figure is much lower than the data found from F2 students which is more than
50%. The percentage of the errors of Sentence structure counts for 22.58% which is
the second highest percentage of grammar problem among all errors. This
35
phenomenon also can be found in F2 students. The lowest percentage of grammar
error is about Relative clause (2.15%).
In conclusion, F2 and F5 students have similar grammar problems. The most
challenging grammar items to both of them are the acquisition of Subject-verb
agreement and Sentence structure.
5.3
The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students
Table 1 to Table 5 showed the frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students.
The most frequent grammar made by F2 students are related to Subject-verb
agreements including Singular & plural, Tenses, Negation and Interrogative. Among
the five F2 subjects, the mean of the frequency of grammar errors is 3.45 to 5.50. The
frequency of the Subject-verb agreement problems is much higher than the mean. In
other words, Subject-verb agreement is the most serious grammar problem among F2
English learns. The second most frequent grammar error is related to sentence
structure. The lowest frequency is about Relative clause. The frequency of the errors
of Relative clause is zero because there were no Relative clause could be found in the
five F2subjects. Among the four Subject-verb agreement problems, the most frequent
grammar error is about Tenses.
5.4
The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 students
The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 students was shown Table 6~ Table 10
in the Appendix. It was found the frequency of grammar errors made by F5 students
was similar to F2 students. The most frequent grammar error made by F5 students
was also related to Subject-verb agreement which includes Grammar items 1, 2, 3
36
and 4.
The frequencies of Negation and Interrogative are much less than the
frequencies of Singular & Plural and Tenses. The problem of Sentence structure was
the second most frequent grammar error among all grammar items. It was also found
that F5 subject made quite a lot of grammar error about the wrong use of Verb form.
Some Relative clause grammar errors were found in the F5 group. However, the
frequency of Relative clause errors was much less than the frequency of Subject-verb
agreement mistakes. The mean of the frequency of grammar errors made by each
subject is from 2.66 to 4.00. The frequency of the Tense errors is much higher the
mean.
5.5 The comparison of the frequency of grammar errors made by F2 &F5
students
The following table (Table 3) showed the differences of the frequency of the errors of
the selected two grammar items which were made by F2 and F5 students. The
frequencies of most grammar errors made by F5 students are much lower than F2
students. These grammar items are Singular & Plural, Tenses, Negation, Interrogative,
Sentence structure and Wrong words. The frequencies of the four grammar items
related to Subject-verb agreement (Singular & Plural, Tenses, Negation and
Interrogative) in F5 group are significant higher than the frequencies in the F5 group.
However, the frequencies of grammar errors in Voices, Verb form and Relative clause
made by F5 students were higher than F2 students.
37
Table 3: Comparison of the frequency of grammar errors made by F2 &F5
students
Total
number
of
grammar errors by
Frequency in the F2
Total
students
grammar errors by
F2 students
number
of
Frequency in the F5
students
F5 students
1. Singular & Plural
19
5.15
12
2.10
2. Tenses
53
14.36
47
8.23
3. Negation
7
1.90
9
0.53
4. Interrogative
7
1.90
3
0.53
5. Spelling
9
2.44
22
3.85
6. Sentence structure
35
9.49
42
7.36
7. Voices
5
1.36
8
1.40
8. Verb form
9
2.44
20
3.50
9. Relative clause
0
0
4
0.70
10. Wrong words
17
4.60
19
3.33
*Total number of sentences written by F2 students: 369
*Total number of sentences written by F5 students: 571
38
Chapter 6
Discussion
In this research, I examine the written productions as well as grammaticality
judgment data obtained from first-language (L1) Chinese (Cantonese) F2 and F5
students acquiring English as a second language that there is less L1 influence on F5
students than F2 students. Table 13 showed the comparison of the frequency of
grammar errors made by F2 and F5 students. The frequency of Subject-verb
agreement errors made by F2 students is much higher than theF5 group. Also, the
mean of frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students is higher than F5 students.
Therefore, we can say that F2 students produced more grammar errors in their
composition than F5 students. There are significant differences between English and
Cantonese in terms of grammatical characteristics. These differences can be reflected
through the expression of tenses and the form of verbs. The acquisition of
Subject-verb agreement by L2 English learners showed very oblivious evidence of
the influences of L1 (Cantonese) .It was found that F2 students had bigger problem
in the acquisition of Subject-verb agreement. In other words, there is more L1
influence on F2 students than F5 students. The first hypothesis in this article can be
approved by the collected data.
It has been confirmed in a profusion of SLA literature that L1 determines the ease or
difficulty of learning a L2 (Schmit & McCarthy 1997). The remarkable influence of
the mother tongue on L2/FL learning has also been increasingly affirmed in the
current literature (for example, Kellerman, 1984; Kellerman & Sharwood Smith,
1986; Ringbom, 1987; Odlin, 1989; Perdue, 1993; all cited in Swan, 1997; 160).
There has long been oversimplified notion on the cause of difficulty in L2 learning:
39
that language errors are either attributable to interlingual confusions, arising from
interference of transfer from interference of transfer from mother tongue, or
intralingual confusions, arising from the intrinsic difficulty of the L2. In fact, the two
identified sources are not mutually exclusive by coexistent. While the intrinsic
difficulty of a L2 seems to be a subjective, intuitive-driven concept, the L1 does
affect the way of approaching the L2 elements, be the intrinsically easy or hard to
learn.
The conditions in which cross-linguistic influences take place are governed by an
array of factors. Among the influential factors are: 1) language distance, 2) level of
proficiency, 3) the context of communication, 4) recency of the languages used, and
6) learners’ age (Cenoz, 2001b; Hammarberg: 2001).
Learners’ level of proficiency in the target language determines the amount of
transfer in L2 acquisition. According to the data found in the thesis, F2 students’
level of proficiency is lower than F5 students. Research has shown that less
proficient learners tend to transfer more elements from their L1 than more proficient
learners (Cenoz, 2001b: 9). Recency is similar to a contextual factor in the sense that
learners are prone to activate and use the language in rigourous or current use rather
than language they know but sparsely use. F5 students are going to sit in CE public
examination. This public examination drives them to work harder in English though
some of them dislike English. It is because they need to compete with students from
other schools. Therefore, they have more motivation to learn English than F2
students.
40
Age factor, despite its controversial role in language acquisition, is shown to
condition young learners’ L2 and L3 acquisition through its representation of their
cognitive and metalinguistic development. Older learners, with more advanced
cognitive and metalinguistic abilities, tend to perceive more precisely the
psychotypology that could affect the source language they use when borrowing terms
from one of the languages they know. F5 students are older than F2 students. That’s
why they have more advanced cognitive and metalinguistic abilities to tackle
problems in the acquisition of English.
Language distance has considerable effect on the amount of transfer between
languages, and hence on the degree to which transfer can foster or hinder learning
(Swan, 1997:163). Language distance has two senses: ‘actual distance’ and
‘perceived distance’. ‘Actual distance’ is based on real similarities and differences in
phonology, typology, semantics, syntax, etc. among the languages concerned. While
the actual typological distance determinates the choice of the source language for
transfer, ‘perceived distance’ depends on how language users and learners perceive
the languages, and is subject to cultural factors linked to the languages and the
linguistic communities (Hammarberg, 2001: 23). Kellerman’s (19830 concept of
‘psychotypology’ clarifies the issue. He posits that learners tend to transfer
vocabulary and linguistic elements more form the language perceived to be
typologically closer to the target language than from their mother tongue. F5 students
have more
mature minds in learning and experience in learning English than F2
students. They have larger vocabulary bank, language and culture exposure than F2
students. According to Cenoz (2001b:16), some studies (Kellerman, 1976, 1986;
Odlin, 1989; Ringbom, 1986) further convey the idea that the perceived language
distance. It can therefore b inferred that a second FL chosen for effectively
41
sensitizing learners to language properties should be one objectively and
psychologically close to their first and second languages.
The second hypothesis is that F5 students have better language awareness when
acquiring English as second language. According to Crystal(2003), Language
awareness is ‘A term used especially in EDUCATIONAL LINGUISTICS, to refer to
an informed, sensitive and critical response to the use of language by oneself and
others, including the awareness of relevant terminology ( metalinguistic awareness).
A particular inputs was given to the task of promoting linguistic awareness in the
early 1990s, when new perspectives on language teaching in schools came to adopted
in several countries.’ (Crystal, 2003; p256) Language awareness is a very abstract
concept. ‘Language awareness is a person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of
the nature of language and its role in human life’ (cited in Donmall, 1985; p7). It is
hard to explain learners’ sensitive and critical response to the use of language. It is
generally agreed in the educational context that LA is a “developmental quality” (i.e.
a qualitative process related to language learning and development), which involves
learners’ acquisition of knowledge about language as well as their exploration of and
reflection on language, and which develops along the linguistic (“competence” and
“performance”), the cognitive, the affective, the power and the social domains
(James and Garrett, 1991). From Table 1 to Table 5 (Refer to the appendix) showed
that the mean proportion of Subject-verb agreement errors from the F2 group was
much higher than the F5 group. Cantonese does not have the syntactic property of
Subject-verb agreement, while English has the syntactic property of tenses, negation,
singular & plural and interrogative. This syntactic property is the basic elements of
producing grammatical English sentences. F5 students produced less errors of the
four grammar items (Singular & plural, tenses, negation and interrogative) showing
42
that the have better sensitive and metalinguistics capability to activate their more
mature school language acquisition parameters. Someone may argue that from Table
6 to Table 10 (Refer to the appendix), the five F5 subjects produced more grammar
errors on the Spelling, Voices, Verb form and Relative clause. So, the findings can’t
prove that F5 students had better language awareness than F2 students. However, this
can’t be treated as the evidence that F2 students had mastered better skills in
adopting the appropriate Voices and Relative clause which are the higher level of
grammar items to L2 learners. F2 subjects made less grammar errors among these
items was because that they made less sentences with these grammatical features. F2
students in our school are usually encouraged to use single word and simple sentence
structure while they are asked to write a composition. They have more vocabulary
support for each writing practice than F5 students. Therefore, the data of the four
grammar items as mentioned above couldn’t be used as the evidence that F2 subjects
had better performance on Spelling, Voices, Verb form and Relative clause.
On the surface, L2 learners resemble the first and second language each other in the
apparent variability of their use of the two languages. L2 learners experience
different processes/stages in the acquisition of the target language. In the acquisition
processes, the production of nonfinite forms can be quite high, especially for those
L2
learners with less learning experiences and low proficiency of the target
language. This phenomenon is known as the Optional Infinitive (OI) or Root
Infinitive stage (Wexler, 1994; Rizzi, 1993/94). According to the Agreement and
Tense Omission Model (ATOM) of Schutze and Wexler (1996), infinitive forms are
allowed in immature learners’ language because Tense and or Agreement can be
optionally left underspecified. In mature learners’ grammar, on the other hand, Tense
and Agreement must be specified. Wexler (1998) argues that OI stage is due to the
43
immature state of learners’ grammar. According to this hypothesis, immature
learners’ grammar is at all times consistent with the Universal Grammar, but may be
constrained by principles somewhat different from those constraining mature
learners’ grammar. As the learner matures, his or her grammar does as well,
eventually coming to resemble the target mature learner grammar (for a specific
proposal concerning the DI stage and maturation. Under this hypothesis, we would
expect that F2 students could pass through an OI stage with adequate language
training and become more mature language learners --- for instance, like F5 students.
In responding to the frequent omission of agreement morphology in L2 data, Prevost
and White suggested that L2 Learners sometimes use ‘default’ nonfinite forms in
place of finite forms. (Prevost and White, 2000). There is a ‘mapping problem’
between abstract features and surface morphological forms to L2 learners. Prevost
and White (2000) also suggested a possible formulation of this mapping problem in
terms of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz, 1993). In DM, an
inflected form is associated with grammatical features such as tense, number, person,
etc. The form can be inserted into a terminal node in syntax as long as its features are
consistent with the features of the terminal node. The L2 learners have acquired the
relevant features of the terminal nodes in syntax (from the L1, from UG or motivated
by l2 input) but the have not fully acquired feature specifications of the associated
items. L2 learners in earlier stages of acquisition, for instant, F2 students may
consider those default forms grammatical. L2 learners in later stages of acquisition
with more learning experience, like F5 students, are expected to have higher
sensitivity to items with incorrect agreement and items with missing agreement.
That’s why F5 subjects produced less grammar errors than F2 subjects.
44
In this thesis, I would also examine the age factor and learning experience factor
operating in the acquisition processes of second language. There is a great deal of
research investigating the effect of age on the issue of second language acquisition.
Some writers claim that SLA is the same process and just as successful whether the
learner begins as a child or an adult and/or that adults are really better learners
because they start off faster (e.g. Genesee 1976, 1988; Neufeld 1979; Snow 1983,
1987; Ellis 1985; Flege 1987). Others think the data ambiguous and/or that adults are
at a disadvantage only in a few areas, especially phonology (e.g. Hatch 1983;
McLaughline 1984) still others are convinced that younger learners are at an
advantage, particularly where ultimate levels of attainment, (e.g. Oyama 1976;
Seliger 1978; Krashen, Long and Scarcella 1979; Scovel 1981; Patkowski, 1980;
harley 1986). Some studies appear to show child superiority; some favour adults. As
noted by Krashen, Long and Scarcella 1979), however, some fairly clear patterns
emerge once short-term and long-term studies are distinguished. The conclusion they
drew from the research literature is that older is faster, but younger is better. As
revealed by long-term studies, younger is better in the most crucial area, ultimate
attainment, with only quite young starters being able to achieve accent-free,
native-like performance in a SL. As revealed by short-term studies, older learners are
at an advantage in rate of acquisition (adults faster than children, and older children
faster than younger children). The rate advantage is limited in several ways, however:
it refers mainly to early morphology and syntax; it is temporary, disappearing after a
few months for most language skills, and it only holds if ‘younger’ learners in a
comparison involve children or adolescents.
However, we need to interpret the age factor in this study in a slightly different way
from the above researches. The above research I just mentioned almost investigate
45
the starting age that l2 learners acquire second language. In my thesis, the subjects
came from two different age groups: one was from F2; another was from F5. But, the
age that they started to learn English (their second language) has more or less the
same. In other words, their starting point of acquiring second language (English) was
very similar in terms of learning English. Based on this, in this thesis, I tried to
explore the differences of learning outcome between the two groups in the learning
English processes. It was found that older students (F5 students) had better
performances, especially on the Subject-verb agreement grammar items, than the
younger students (F2 students). We can draw a conclusion that if the starting age of
learning second language is the same, older (mature) learners have an advantages in
the second language acquisition. It is because that they have more learning
experiences, better metalinguistic skills and social-psychology and etc. Several
researchers, including Rosansky (1975), Felix (1981b) and Krashen (1982b), have
implicated cognitive development, particularly attainment of Piager’s formal
operations stage, as negatively affecting SLA. Piaget’s formal operations stage
involves the ability to think abstractly. The argument is that younger learner SLA and
older learner SLA might actually involve different processes; the former utilizing a
LAD (language acquisition device) as in L1 acquisition, the latter employing general
problem-solving abilities. While the ability to think abstractly might give older
learner, just like F5 students tremendous advantage in solving problems, the claim is
that the trade-off is an inability to make use of the LAD for SLA (Johnson and
Newport 1989)
Some educational articles suggested that it is difficult to identify how school students
continue to develop their second language. For instance, some English teachers in
Hong Kong might ask: 1) How do my students acquire their second language? 2)
46
Can my teaching strategy help my students acquire better English? 3) How can
junior form Students (F1-F3) continue to develop their English? 4) Can senior form
students’ (F4-F7) learning experiences help themselves improve their acquisition of
the English syntactic structure. The findings in this thesis indicate that significant
growth occurs in some aspects of language learning during the F2 and F5 age range.
We can find the language development by secondary school students through the
observation of the acquisition processes of Subject-verb agreement by F2 and F5
students. According to Paradis & Genesee’s (1996) interdependence hypothesis, two
grammars (for instance Cantonese and English) are constructed by L2 learners
interact with each other during the processes of acquisition. Paradis & Genesee(1996)
suggested that the systemic influence of the grammar of the other influence of the
grammar of one language on the grammar of the other language during acquisition,
causing difference in a bilingual’s patterns and rates of development in comparison
with a monolingual’s (1996:3). ‘Systemic influence’ reflects the prolonged influence
of one grammar on the other. It is found that there are more systemic influences in
the F2 group than the F5 group.
The findings in this article demonstrated that a wide range of transfer from
Cantonese to English. One of the pervasiveness of transfer effects is evident in the
area of grammar which involves the core contrast between Cantonese and English:
Tenses. Cantonese keeps the base form of the verb no matter showing present, past or
future situation; while English does not. Therefore, there is great deal of difficulties
for Cantonese speakers to acquire the tenses in English grammar. The findings of this
thesis showed that Cantonese speakers liked to use the simple past forms of
verb-to-be (was & were + wrong form of verbs) to indicate simple past tense. The
grammar errors of simple past tense are shown as follows:
47
1.
F2 subjects:
1) We were to feel happy. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 1 (F2)
2) We were walking down to the beach. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by
Subject 1 (F2)
3) We were feeling frightened. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 1
(F2)
4) When he was eighteen, he was join TVB the mini singing contest. (Simple
past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 2 (F2)
5) When Ivy saw the news, she was go very quickly to help the little boy.
(Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 2 (F2)
6) I was telled her the meaning. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 2
(F2)
7) I was listen many time. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 2 (F2)
8) We were go to the information desk to ask something. (Simple past
tense)Æ Produced by Subject 2 (F2)
9) Few hours later, we were go t the party. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by
Subject 2 (F2)
10) We were play wind-surfing. (Simple past tense)Æ Produced by Subject 3
(F2)
11) We were asked the man: “Are this have party at night?” (Simple past
tense)Æ Produced by Subject 3 (F2)
12) The party was started. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 3 (F2)
13) The she was gone. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 3 (F2)
14) So we were feel very sad. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 4 (F2)
15) We were saw Kelly. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 4 (F2)
48
16) This were feel very happy. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 4
(F2)
2.
F5 subjects
1) Last month, my cousin was get marriage. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced
by Subject 1 (F5)
2) Finally, we were go to the final game. (Simple past tense)ÆProduced by
Subject 4 (F5)
3) A pair newlywed were hold both hands tight and enter the meeting place
(Simple past tense)ÆProduced by Subject 5 (F5)
Both F2 and F5 subjects produced grammar errors of simple past tense by misusing
the two simple past tense form of verb-to-be: was & were + wrong form of verbs.
However, the frequency of such kind of grammar errors in the F2 group was much
greater than the F2 group. There were total 16 sentences with such types of grammar
errors in the F2 group; while there were only 3 sentences with such types of grammar
error in the F5 group. Thirty years ago, Lenneberg (1976) set forth his influential
theory concerning the critical period of language acquisition.’ The theory stated that
children are maximally ready to acquire language between the ages of 2 and 12 years
because of biological maturational processes that regulate the onset and timing of
language learning. With the onset of puberty, according to the theory, the capacity for
language acquisition is diminished.
Most young children can easily learn a second language, particularly if they are
immersed in a foreign culture where their native language is not spoken. After
puberty, it becomes more difficult to become bilingual (Fromkin & Rodman, 1988;
49
Obler, 1993). As Pinker (1994) explained, adolescents and adults can learn a foreign
language with adequate motivation, instruction, and practice, but most will not attain
mastery of that language. Hence, there are limits in the human capacity to become
fully bilingual. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that growth in
language cannot occur beyond puberty. In fact, Lenneberg(1967) himself pointed out
that certain aspects of language, such as vocabulary, continue to expand throughout
the life span. The important point is that the existence of a critical period of language
acquisition, a time when children are maximally ready to learn language, does not
negate the fact that further growth in language can and does occur beyond that period
in typically developing youth. Lenneberg（1976）described the years before puberty
as the period of primary language acquisition, and, given what is known about the
nature of language development beyond puberty, just like F5 students, that
perspective is well taken.
50
Chapter 7
Conclusion
The present study suggests that the L2 learner were actively involved in the process
of determining structure in their first language (Cantonese) The stages they
underwent in arriving at the correct target structures bear the signs of interlanguage
cue competitions. It was suggested that this was due to a high proportion of Chinese
structures influences to the target language (English). The data showed that F2
subjects tended to directly transfer more L1 (Cantonese) sentence structure to L2
(English) than F5 subjects. It was also found that L2 learners were aware of the fact
that they were dealing with two languages, not one, and then striving to differentiate
between the languages structurally. For instance, both F2 and F5 subjects had
acquired the concept of simple past tense in English. They did have the sensitivity of
the rules of simple past tense. However, their metalinguistic skills of the second
language were still not good enough to differentiate the two languages (Cantonese
and English) successfully. It is believed that L2 learners still can undergo language
development in the processes of second language acquisition even beyond puberty
wit proper language input and training. That’s why F5 subjects could differentiate
Cantonese with English better than F2 subjects.
Language development in adolescents is a gradual and protracted process, and
change can be difficult to observe. To document language growth in adolescents, it is
often necessary to compare widely separated age groups and to examine the use of
low-frequency syntactic structures and intersentential linguistic phenomena in
spoken and written contexts (Nelson, 1988; Nippold, Schwarz, & Undlin, 1992;
Scott, 1988). The use of language in diverse social situations should also be
examined (Cooper & Anderson-Inman, 1988). This thesis is a small-scale research on
51
the language development in adolescents. In order to investigate the comprehensive
language development among secondary school students, a larger scale of study is
needed. Also, we need to do more research or data collection on the gradual case
study of some targets from F1-F5 so that we can do the quantative and qualitative
analysis on the comparison of the individual subjects. The findings would be more
reliable.
SLA research has important contributions of helping language teachers have more
understanding of the nature of language and human cognition. It enables language
teachers to know more about second languages are learned; what is learned of a
second language and what is not learned; how learners can create a new language
system with only limited exposure to a second language; and understand more about
the reasons why most second language learners do not achieve the same degree of
proficiency as they do in their native language and why some learners appear to
achieve the same degree of proficiency in someone than one language. One of the
considerations of implications for the teaching and learning second language is as
follows: Where possible, customizing instruction by grouping learners according to
individual characteristics and then matching the groups with an appropriate
methodology may be desirable.
52
Reference:
1. Barbara Landan and Lila R. Gleitman, 1985: Language and Experience Harvard
University Press Cambridge, Messachusetts London, England.
2. Berry, R (1992), Teaching and learning relative clauses in English, Institute of
Language In Education Journal, 9: 117-130
3. Chao Yuen Ren, (1974) Cantonese Primer, Greenwood Press, New York.
4. Cenoz, J. (2001b) The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on
cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisitions. Multilingual Matters.
5. Cook, D (1965) A guide to educational research. Allyn and Baco, Boston.
6. Corder, S (1981) Error analysis and interlanguae. Oxford University Press.
7. Corder, SP. (1973) The elicitation of interlanguage, Errata: Paper in error analysis,
ed J. Svartik, Stockholm, p36-67.
8. Cooper, D.C. & Anderson. Inman, (1988) Language and socialization. In M.A.
Nippold (Ed.) Later language development: Ages nine through nineteen (pp
225-245) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9. David Crystal (2003) A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics (fifth Edition),
Blackwell Publishing.
10. Donmall, B.G. (1985). Language Awareness; NCLE Reports and Papers, 6.
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
11. Felix, S (1981b) On the (in) applicability of Pingetian thought to language
learning. Studies in Second Acquisition 3 (2): 201-20.
12. Fries. C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a foreign language. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1998); An introduction to language (4th ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
14. Grant R. Evans, 1998 “Political Cults in Southeast Asia and East Asia”, in I.B.
Trankell and L. Summers (eds), Culture and Politics in Asian Societies. Sweden
Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology.
15. Halle, M. an dMarantz, A. (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of
inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J., editors. The view from Building 20:
essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT press,
111-76.
16. Hammarbeg, B. (2001) Roles of L1 and L2 in Ls production and acquisition. In J.
Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner. (Eds)Cross-linguistic Influence in Third
Language Acquisition (pp21-41). Multilingual Matters.
17. Haugen, E. 1956, Bilingualism in Americas American Dialect Society. Alabama;
University of Alabama Press. November.
18. Hawkins, R. & Chan, Y-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar
53
in second language acquisition: the failed functional features hypothesis. Second
language Research, 13, 187-226.
19. Huang, C-T. J. (1980). Topicalization and relativisation in Chinese.
Mimeographed. MIT.
20. Huang, C-T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574.
21. Huang, C-T. J. (1992). Remarks on the status of the null object. In R. Friedin
(ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, p.p. 56-76. Cambridge.
MA: MIT Press.
22. Huang, C-T. J. (1995). Logical form. In G. Webelhuth (ed.) Government and
binding theory and the minimalist program, pp. 125-75. Oxford: Blackwell.
23. James, C., & Garrett, P. (1991). The scope of language awareness. In C. James, &
P. Garrett (Eds.) Language Awareness in the Classroom (pp.3-20). London:
Longman.
24. Johnson, J and Newport E (1989) Critical period effects in second language
learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive
Psychology 21: 60-99.
25. Kellerman, E. (1983) Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Cars, & L. Selinker
(Eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112-114). Rowley, Mass:
Newbury House Publishers.
26. Kellermen, E. (1986) Crosslinguistic influence in second language
acquisition/edited by Eric Kellerman and Michael Sharwood Smith. New York:
Pergamon Institute of English.
27. Krashen, S (1981b) The fundamental pedagogical principle in second language
teaching. Studia Linguistic 35 (1-2): 50-70.
28. Lado. R (1957) Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
29. Lardiere, D. 1998a: Case and tense in the ‘fossiblized’ steady state. Second
language Research, 4, 1-26
30. Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967) Biological foundations of language; New York: Wiley.
31. Levinson, S.C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Li, C.N. and Thompson, S.A.(1990), Chinese, in Comrie.
33. Nelson, N. W. (1988) Reading and writing, In M.A. Nippold (Ed.) Later
Language development: Ages nine through nineteen (pp. 97-125) Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
34. Norman, D.A. (1985) Twelve issues for cognitive science, In A.N. hitkenhead &
J.M.Slack (Eds). Issue in cognitive modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbausm
35. Obler, L. K. (1993). Language beyond childhood. In J. Berko Gleason (Ed.) The
development of language (3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan.
54
36. Odlin, Terence (1989)Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language
learning; Cambridge University Press.
37. O.T. Nancarrow and K.K. Luke (1998) Auxiliary Verbs in Cantonese. Linguistic
Society of Hong Kong.
38. Paradis, J. & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic Acquisition in Bilingual Children:
Autonous or independence? SSLA, 18, 1-25.
39. Pinker, S. (1984) The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New
York: William Morzow.
40. Rosawsky, E (1975) The critical period for the acquisition of language: some
cognitive development considerations. Working papers on bilingualism 6: 10-23.
41. Ringborn, Hakan (1986) The role of the first language in foreign language
learning; Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
42. Perdue, C. (1993) Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives;
written by members of the European Science Foundation project on adult
language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
43. Prevost, P. and White, L. 2000: Missing surface inflection or impairment in
second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second
Language Research 16, 103-33.
44. Rizzi, L. (1993): Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the
case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition3371-93.
45. Rivers, W. (1964). The psychologist and the foreign language teacher. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
46. Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (1997) Introduction. In N. Schmitt & M. MCCarthy
(Eds.) Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp.1-5). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
47. Schutze, C. and Wexler, K. (1996) Subject case licensing and English root
infinitives. In stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D. Hughes, E. and Zukowski, A.,
editors, Proceeding of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 670-81.
48. Scott. (1988) Spoken and Written syntax. In M.A. Nippold (Ed.) Later language
development: Ages nine through nineteen (pp.49-95). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
49. Selinker, L. Interlanguage IRAL 10: 209-231. 1972.
50. Swan，M. (1997) The influence of the mother tongue on second language
vocabulary description. Acquisitio and Pedagogy (pp.156-180) Cambridge
University Press.
51. Virginia Yip, (2000). Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese-English bilingual child.
Cambridge University Press.
52. Wexler, K. (1994) Optional Infinitives: head movement and the economy of
derivations. In Lightfoot, D. and Hornstein, N. editors, Verb moment. Cambridge
55
University Press.
53. Werlex, K. (1998) Very early parameter setting and the Unique Checking
Constraints: a new explanation for the Optional Infinitives stage. Lingua 106,
23-79.
54. Wong, S>C. (1998), What we do and don’t know about Chinese learners of
English: A critical rwview fo selected research. RELC Journal, 19(1): 1-19.
55. Yip, Virgina, (1995) Interlanguage and learnability: from Chinese to English .
Ansterdan: John Benjamins.
56
Appendices:
i) Grammar Mistakes
Subject 1 (F2)
A) Singular & Plural
1. Tonight have a party.
2. The mouse immediately were to above eating.
B)
1.
2.
3.
Spelling
What shell we do tonight?
You are very good acto.
I am very expe your new film.
C) Sentence structure
1. Someone else has to pick these up and the germs could be passed on, to keep
healthy, you ought to use liquid soap, as this cleans hands thoroughly.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
We saw the shop had many people.
The birthday card is our buy to give mother.
I am very like your films.
So the boy gradually ヘ down to the floor.
Spectators ヘ very happy.
7. They saw the new discover to have one boy fell off the roller coaster.
D) Voices
1. It was stop on the tree.
E)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tenses
We go to the party. (Simple past tense)
I go home. (Simple past tense)
We buy birthday card. (Simple past tense)
I know you are born in Hong Kong. (Simple past tense)
One year later, when you are seven year(s) old, you returned to Hong Kong and
joined a Chinese opera school. (Simple past tense)
6.
7.
8.
9.
We were to feel happy. (Simple past tense)
We were walking down to the beach. (Simple past tense)
We were feeling frightened. (Simple past tense)
She ture(turn) on the new(TV). (Simple past tense)
57
F)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Verb Form
It was very bored.
We information the man.
The party is very happy and excited.
They arrival Ocean Park.
G) Relative clause
Nil.
H)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wrong Words
He was information desk men.
It had many good food.
You parents called your Chan Kong Sang
You first action comedy was Drunken Master.
I) Negation
Nil.
J) Interrogative
Nil.
Subject 2 (F2)
A) Singular & Plural
1. His habits and hobbies is
2.
3.
4.
5.
singing, play basketball, play badminton, swimming and
play football.
He like Beckham very much.
Because he want to learn.
He always go to hiking because he likes watch the night view.
He join a singing contest in the school.
7. He get the first in the school singing contest.
B) Spelling
Nil
C) Sentence structure
1. If you have flu, ヘ will make you ill and uncomfortable.
2. When people have a flu, ヘ usually get all symptoms described above.
3. He was ヘ two EP Disk.
58
4. Why ヘ I like Wilred Lau?
5. I am very like your first song too.
6. I hope your new songs will ヘ very romantic too.
D) Voices
1. We were felt very happy.
2. We were went back the room.
B) Tenses
1. If you uses the mask, you should put it in the rubbish bin. (Simple past tense)
2. Today afternoon, we go to the beach and see a boat. (Simple past tense)
3. When he was eighteen, he was join TVB the mini singing contest. (Simple past
tense)
4. So they immediately turn on the TV news. (Simple past tense)
5. The news was about one children fall off the roller coaster. (Simple past tense)
6. When Ivy saw the news, she was go very quickly to help the little boy. . (Simple
past tense)
7. I was telled her the meaning. . (Simple past tense)
8. I was listen many time. . (Simple past tense)
9. If you used the work, you should put it in the rubbish bin. (Simple present ense)
10. We were go to the information desk to ask something. . (Simple past tense)
11. Few hours later, we were go to the party. . (Simple past tense)
12. One day, Ivy is lying on the floor and muse playing puzzle at home. (Past
continuous tense)
13. Suddenly, mouse hear something.
(Simple past tense)
F) Verb Form
1. The mouse saw the boy, so flew fastly to eating shoe laces.
2. He also can’t belived.
G) Relative clause
Nil
H) Wrong words
1. I study in From 2.
I) Negation
1. But my mother don’t what meaning of your songs.
K) Interrogative
59
1. Why ヘ I like Wilred Lau?
Subject 3 (F2)
A) Singular & Plural
1. SARS is have 14 days incubation.
2. There are a party on beach tonight.
3. You in you ヘ six years old moved to Australia?
4. The tank top ヘ also cool.
5. The gree flip flop look like casual.
B) Spelling
1. You are so beauful.
2. You can earn much money, so cever.
3. Then she was goen.
C) Sentence structure
1. I not cever but I working.
2. Your in here happy?
3. The roller skates can make them ヘ more quickly.
D) Voices
Nil
E) Tenses
1. We were play wind-surfing. (Simple past tense)
2. We were asked the a man: “Are there have party at nigh?” (Simple past tense)
3. The party was started. (Simple past tense)
4.
The she was gone. (Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
Nil
G) Relative clause
Nil
H) Wrong words
1. If you have sick, …
2. My friend and me was very happy.
3. So we kicked he
60
4. I very like she
5. It is to many food and to may people.
I) Negation
1. We were not to go to party because we were be late.
2. I not never but I working.
J) Interrogative
1. Have you an exam in school?
2. Are there have party at night?
3. Why ヘ you want to have a new name?
4. Can you give ヘ?
Subject 4 (F2)
A) Singular & Plural
1. I think you is very busy.
B) Spelling
1. You must always eat veagetables.
C)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sentence structure
We on the beach shall ヘ tonight.
The weather ヘ like sunny day.
But we ヘ very bored.
There ヘ many people too.
5. They are at home play game.
6. Something ヘ so quick
7. The child ヘ falling because he shoelaces is break.
8. So I want meet you one time, is only one time.
D) Voices
Nil
E)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tenses
And it (SARS) is very easy spread. (Simple past tense)
So we were feel very sad. (Simple past tense)
On the beach, we see setting sun. (Simple past tense)
then we go to information desk asked the man: “….＂ (Simple past tense)
61
5. We decide go to the party. (Simple past tense)
6. We were feel very happy. (Simple past tense)
7. Then we join this party. We know the monkey is not real. (Simple past tense)
8. This we were feel very happy. (Simple past tense)
9. We were saw Kelly. (Simple past tense)
10. They are at home play game. (Simple past tense)
11. Kate is very scared. (Simple past tense)
12. They call them. (Simple past tense)
13. Kate fly to the child help him. (Simple past tense)
14. Kate catch him in time. (Simple past tense)
15. The child is very safely. (Simple past tense)
16. The child help them. (Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
1. What can we doing?
2. They flying go to Ocean Park.
3. She has many fans follow her.
G) Relative clause
Nil.
H) Wrong words
1. When you have ill…
2. Then we went to got her sign.
3. The me and Mary find Kelly to got her sign.
4. The child is safety.
5. Who(How) are you?
I) Negation
1. But we ヘ very bored because we don’t know what can we do? (Simple past
tense)
2. So she doesn’t go to shopping … she can’t buy because she fans follow to her.
(Simple past tense)
3. When you have ill, you must stay at, not go to the public, to avoid spread viruses.
J) Interrogative
1. Are you like play computer?
2. Are you want to be super stars?
62
Subject 5 (F2)
A) Singular & Plural
1. This road have so many palm trees.
2. That are good song.
3. Ive very expect you come to H.K.
4. he call June.
B) Spelling
1. Do more spot.
2. They can beliven there are so good.
C) Sentence structure
1. We went to the information desk asked the counter witar have suggested.
2. We know this suggesked so happy.
3. On this road have so many palm trees.
4. but it too many people is very his fans
5. They in there have a show.
6. Here and have roller costes.
7. They can play the roller costeres are very cearp.
8. We in the shopping center walk from 11:00am to 4: 30pm.
9. I very very love you.
10. Hong Kong has many food is so good.
11. One day the woman June and to mice is call Jiro, in the home.
D) Voices
1. The roller shatters are use in expediency go out
2. The hat is use on society.
E) Tenses
1. In the last Christmas holidays we go to the Thailand. (Simple past tense)
2. In this day, the weather is very warm and did not have windy. (Simple past tense)
3. We know this suggested so happy. (Simple past tense)
4. We all feel the party so excited. (Simple past tense)
5. And we feel so frightened. (Simple past tense)
6. We are bought. (Simple past tense)
7. He call June go to open the window. (Simple past tense)
8. She wait for Jiro. (Simple past tense)
9. After fifteen minutes, they fly is the Ocean Park. (Simple past tense)
10. Then Tin fly to roller coaster. (Simple past tense)
63
11. The child from the roller coaster rail fall get of…(Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
Nil
G) Relative clause
Nil.
H) Wrong words
1. He call June go to open the television.
2. When June listen end the reporter talk.
I) Negation
1. In this day the weather is very warm and did not lave windy.
J) Interrogative
Nil.
Subject 1 (F5)
A) Singular & Plural
1. H.K. have lots of great places.
2. I think that have advantages and disadvantages for students.
B) Spelling
1. Shopping in H.K. is cheaper than going elsewher.
2. But I just weared shirt on that. Day.
3. You boght many things.
C) Sentence structure
1. I will show the reasons for stay in Hong Kong is worth.
2. It worth you to stay in Hong Kong.
3. Secondly, the cause of you stay in Hong Kong is you do not have to ravel for.
4. It should be clearer than buying in Hong Kong.
5. They just use English to saying their Chinese meaning.
6. Suddenly, the zookeeper was disaster struck by something.
D) Voices
Nil.
64
E) Tenses
1. If that was true, we need to speak English at school on that day. (Simple present
tense.)
2. Last month, my cousin was get marriage. (Simple past tense)
3. I had go to her wedding ceremony. (Simple past tense)
4. My classmates and I had watching tigers, birds…(Simple past tense)
5. Some monkeys were climbing up the trees, looks very happy too. (Simple past
tense)
6. His mouth dropped open when he know that what had happened. (Simple past
tense)
7. They are on my bed. (Simple past tense)
8. I try my best to cooked some food for lunch. (Simple past tense)
9. They throw the food everywhere. (Simple past tense)
10. I just want to beat they up…(Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
1. Stay in Hong Kong during holiday is very good idea.
2. it can makes students, have more confidents.
3. Students just had learn a little English grammar skills.
4. The teacher can help as to correction our mistakes.
5. I try my best to cooked some food for lunch and told them to went to dining room
to had lunch.
6. I went to my room to getting dressed wear a wardrobe.
G) Relative clause
1. It was feeding time ヘ we were at the monkey enclosure.
2. The two small children, whose are my neighbour’s children--- naughty children
were in my bedroom.
H) Wrong words
1. Students can have a change to try to speak more English.
2. last mouth, my cousinage was get marriage.
3. this three words
4. How many time can we listen for our life.
5. This is the cause of why I like this part.
I) Negation
Nil.
65
K) Interrogative
Nil.
Subject 2 (F5)
A) singular & Plural
1. The price make my startle. (Simple past tense)
2. I changes his sit (seat) immediately. (Simple past tense)
3. I changes his sit(seat) immediately.
B) Spelling
1. I want to tell you a ヘ happe.
C) Sentence structure
1. I ヘ very discontent for this park.
2. In the counter there had many rubbish.
3. It ヘ just the first lesson.
4. Because can speak English well is not a easy thing.
5. Speak more English can make you more improve.
6. Because they are not well in English speaking.
D) Voices
1. Nobody hurt by the monkeys.
E) Tenses
1. When we line up to buy tickets, some of the people cut in line. (Simple past tense)
2. I feel very helpless and there are so many people to cut in line. (Simple past tense)
3. I can just play two of the mobile games. (Simple past tense)
4. So we leave immediately. (Simple past tense)
5. Although I feel very angry, I haven’t punish him. (Simple past tense)
6. I just wake him up. (Simple past tense)
7. He sleep very sweetly. (Simple past tense)
8. If I were they, I will speak more. (Simple past tense)
9. We take photo with my cousin and his wife. (Simple past tense)
10. The zookeeper look like very friendly. (Simple past tense)
11. The another zookeepers, they went to monkey enclosure because they hear
somebody shout. (Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
66
1. I’v not wriing to you for a long time.
2. I feel very exciting.
3. I also haven’t punish him.
4. I call her stop eating instant.
5. Many zookeeper used net to caught the escapes monkey.
G) Relative clause
1. A boy who sit beside the sweetly boy, he pull a girls’ hair.
2. The girl who was late, she ate a hamburger in front of me.
H) Wrong words
1. I am looking forward to the park’s improve.
2. I knew that she was unpleased.
3. That is my cousin married.
4. they called my cousin to put a banana in the middle of his two legs.
I) Negation
1. I know some students will don’t say anything in that day, because they are not
well in English speaking.
J) Interrogative
1.Why ヘ not you take a holiday in Hong Kong?
2. Did you think I am wrong? (Simple present tense)
3. Are you still like seeing fashion magazine?
Subject 3 (F5)
A) Singular & Plural
Nil.
B) Spelling
1. We always wear the same clother.
2. Therefore, we got on the bus excitly.
C)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sentence structure
I’m take part of a girls basketball championships.
2. We are will become winer.
Second, parents issumed their children take school bus to go to school is safety.
In conclusion, the children take school but to go to school.
5. As for advantages and disadvantages.
67
6. They ヘ crazy to make a mess of my clothes.
7. I takes a cold wash them.
8. They very likes to joke.
9. They not only naught, also wastes water.
10. I ヘ in toxicated by church music.
11. I also ヘ joyful and apologetic.
12. It inpossible result from it very dangerous and so young.
13. All sense very chaos.
14. One monkey very enjoy the banana.
D) Voices
1. They aren＇t died in a traffic accident.
2. One boy call Peter. One girl call Amy.
3. My right by hurts.
E)
1.
2.
3.
Tenses
I help neighbour to look after her two small children at home. (Simple past tense)
One boy call Peter.
They draw picture and write words on the wall when I come in bedroom.
(Simple past tense)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
They makes a mess of the wall. (Simple past tense)
I think that they give me to some trouble for the day. (Simple past tense)
They very likes to joke. (Simple past tense)
I takes a cold wash. (Simple past tense)
They are swap over ring. (Simple past tense)
9. When the zookeeper’s right hand bring a banana to give the monkey, one
monkey very enjoy the banana. (Simple past tense)
F)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Verb form
We again crying together.
The school bus gone through to school.
I cooking some food for their to eat.
They getting dressed near a wardrobe.
Everyone stood up to applauded the newlyweds heartily.
G) Relative clause
Nil
H) Wrong words
68
Nil
I)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Negation
I don’t punish them. (Simple past tense)
I don’t carefully broke the camera. (simple past tense)
They aren’t died. (simple past tense)
She don’t continues to play basketball with bus. (simple past tense)
J) Interrogative
Subject 4 (F5)
A) Singular & Plural
1. Hong Kong have many travel views places. (Simple present tense)
B) Spelling
1. I hope Hong Kong residinls can stay in Hong Kong during the holiday.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Hong Kong is a delicious food’s poradise.
If you travel other county.
Suddents, the monkey had ran in of the cage.
When I wentd to take wash cloth.
We must play and win many.
We must play and win many compction.
8. We trian basketball practice after every Monday and Saterday.
9. Fristly, the game will start.
10. Forturnly, my team member John.
C)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sentence structure
Hav you go to wedding ceremony?
We felt interesting ヘ the zookeeper was giving bananas.
The food ヘ like top.
They took the food to throw it some food on the wall.
ヘ took back them.
D) Voices
1. The fiancé call Ken and the fiancée call Sally.
2. They call Sue and Ken.
3. They were jumped on my bed.
69
E) Tenses
1. My cousin’s wedding ceremony is in the hotel. (Simple past tense)
2. The fiancé call Ken and the fiancée call Sally. (Simple present tense)
3. After the ceremony we were eating something with other relatives. (Simple past
tense)
4. We ask the zookeeper. (Simple past tense)
5. Finally, we were go to the final game. (Simple past tense)
6. Every member can shoot the 3 point. (Simple past tense)
7. I pass the ball for him. (Simple past tense)
8. We get the gold with the girls (Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
1. You feel tire.
2. It was very delighted.
3. Have you play basketball?
G) Relative clause
Nil.
H) Wrong words
1. There have many motor games.
2. Hong Kong is many benefits.
3. She is very beautiful and dazzling.
4. I also took the photo with their.
5. It is day was beautifully.
6. The monkeys enclosued to take banana.
7. Monkeys ate engouth.
I) Negation
Nil
J) Interrogative
Nil
Subject 5 (F5)
A) Singular & Plural
1. Has is ヘ very famous? ヘ is the peaceful summit. (Simple present tense)
2. Evening, ヘ also my see the Hong Kong enchanting night scene. ヘ is not the place
70
which is worth as arriving very much? (Simple present tense)
3. But ヘ also has very money. (Simple present tense)
4. Hong Kong＇s goods ヘ extremely cheap. (Simple present tense)
5. But I has some embarrassed. (Simple present tense)
6. They loves darty home. (Simple past tense)
B) Spelling
1. ヘ is not the place wiich worth as arriving very much.
2. The wedding ceremony ヘ full of laughs.
3. They were very implsh.
4. Tom and May had dinnar in the dining room.
5. I was so darty.
6. But the forgotter close the gate.
C) Sentence structure
1. The price also extremely is also cheap.
2. Finally, hoped Hong Kong has person many make the traveling and the expense
in the port.
3. So long as your many in the port.
4.Therefore has the shopping paradise ヘ the fine reputation.
5. ヘ has the various countries the characteristic of
6. You know I am who.
7. I wearing mini-skirt and sable skirt by went to my cousins wedding ceremony.
8. Wedding ceremony the plane was very lively.
9. My aunt call I helper greet guests.
10. They followed the monkey ran away.
11. Avid the people accepted the monkeys to disture.
D) Voices
1. The small boy call Tom and little girl call May.
E) Tenses
1. It is the first join wedding ceremony by me. (Present perfect tense)
2. The bride wearing white evening dress. (Past continuous tense)
3. A pair newlywed were hold both hands tight and enter the meeting --- place.
(Simple past tense)
4. They exchange wedding ring. (Simple past tense)
5. The bride throws silk-braided ball. (Simple past tense)
71
7. 6. I shout with they. (Simple present tense)
8. They were like play more. (Simple past tense)
9. Some monkeys jump here and jump there. (Simple past tense)
F) Verb form
1. we were very frighten.
G) Relative clause
Nil.
H) Wrong verbs
1. It was so novel and interesting originally.
2. I come on home while I saw water of surrounding was full .
3. I am very tried.
I) Negation
1. I did not to hate by they.
2. But the village doesn’t ヘ any people.
3. But the Qoo idland did not well and very explosive.
4. The good food are not I writes that few.
K) Interrogative
Nil.
72
ii) The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 students
Table 1: The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 Subject 1
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
2
2.33
2. Tenses
9
10.05
3. Negation
0
0
4. Interrogative
0
0
5. Spelling
3
3.49
6. Sentence structure
7
8.14
7. Voices
1
1.16
8. Verb form
4
4.65
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
4
4.65
* Total number of sentences: 86
* Mean = 3.45
Table 2: The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 Subject 2
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
7
10.77
2. Tenses
13
20.00
3. Negation
1
1.54
4. Interrogative
1
1.54
5. Spelling
0
0
6. Sentence structure
6
9.23
7. Voices
2
3.08
8. Verb form
2
3.08
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
1
1.54
* Total number of sentences: 65
* Mean = 5.08
73
Table 3: The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 Subject 3
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
5
6.49
2. Tenses
4
5.19
3. Negation
2
2.60
4. Interrogative
4
5.19
5. Spelling
3
3.90
6. Sentence structure
3
3.90
7. Voices
0
0
8. Verb form
0
0
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
5
6.49
* Total number of sentences: 177
* Mean = 3.38
Table 4: The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 Subject 4
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
1
1.23
2. Tenses
16
19.75
3. Negation
3
3.70
4. Interrogative
2
2.47
5. Spelling
1
1.23
6. Sentence structure
8
9.88
7. Voices
0
0
8. Verb form
3
3.70
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
5
6.17
* Total number of sentences: 81
* Mean = 4.81
Table 5 : The frequency of grammar errors made by F2 Subject 5
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
4
6.67
2. Tenses
11
18.33
3. Negation
1
1.67
4. Interrogative
0
0
5. Spelling
2
3.33
74
6. Sentence structure
11
18.33
7. Voices
2
3.33
8. Verb form
0
0
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
2
3.33
* Total number of sentences : 60
* Mean = 5.50
75
iii) The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 students
Table 6: The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 Subject 1
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
2
1.56
2. Tenses
10
7.81
3. Negation
0
0
4. Interrogative
0
0
5. Spelling
3
2.34
6. Sentence structure
6
4.69
7. Voices
0
0
8. Verb form
6
4.69
9. Relative clause
2
1.56
10. Wrong words
5
3.91
* Total number of sentences:128
* Mean = 2.66
Table 7: The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 Subject 2
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
3
3.16
2. Tenses
11
11.58
3. Negation
1
1.05
4. Interrogative
3
3.16
5. Spelling
1
1.05
6. Sentence structure
6
6.32
7. Voices
1
1.05
8. Verb form
5
6.32
9. Relative clause
2
2.11
10. Wrong words
4
4.21
* Total number of sentences: 95
* Mean = 4.00
Table 8: The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 Subject 3
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
0
1.94
2. Tenses
9
8.74
3. Negation
4
3.88
4. Interrogative
0
0
76
5. Spelling
2
1.94
6. Sentence structure
14
13.59
7. Voices
3
2.91
8. Verb form
5
4.85
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
0
0
* Total number of sentences: 103
* Mean = 3.79
Table 9: The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 Subject 4
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
1
0.87
2. Tenses
8
6.96
3. Negation
0
0
4. Interrogative
0
0
5. Spelling
10
7.69
6. Sentence structure
5
4.35
7. Voices
3
2.61
8. Verb form
3
2.61
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
7
6.09
* Total number of sentences: 115
* Mean = 3.12
Table 10: The frequency of grammar errors made by F5 Subject 5
Grammar items
Number of grammar errors
Number of grammar errors
Frequency
1. Singular & Plural
6
4.62
2. Tenses
9
6.92
3. Negation
4
3.07
4. Interrogative
0
0
5. Spelling
6
4.62
6. Sentence structure
11
8.46
7. Voices
9
6.92
8. Verb form
1
0.77
9. Relative clause
0
0
10. Wrong words
3
2.31
* Total number of sentences: 130
* Mean = 3.7
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91