You are on page 1of 12

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)

Common Errors in Written English Essays of Form One Chinese Students: A Case Study
Saadiyah Darus School of Language Studies and Linguistics Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia E-mail: adi@ukm.my Tel: +603-89216570; Fax: +603-89254577 Khor Hei Ching School of Language Studies and Linguistics Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Abstract Chinese students from vernacular schools in Malaysia need to master three languages, which are English, Malay, and Chinese. Since English is the second language (L2) that they learn, it causes problems for them in learning the four skills in English including writing. This study aims to investigate the most common errors in essays written in English by 70 Form One Chinese students in a selected public school in Perak. For all of these students, Chinese is their first language (L1). Using an error classification scheme and Markin 3.1 software, 70 essays were analyzed and categorized into 18 types of errors. The results of the analysis show that four most common errors were mechanics, tenses, preposition, and subject-verb agreement. In composing these essays, the students were very much influenced by their L1. Intra lingual transfer of Malay and developmental errors were also observed in their writing. This study suggests that teachers need to emphasize on how certain concepts are handled in English, Malay and Chinese. It is also important to make the students aware of the differences in the structure of English, Malay and their L1. Certain rules in Chinese and Malay that do not work when they write in English need to be highlighted. Students need to understand the differences of these languages and make use of the unique features to produce good and acceptable sentences.

Keywords: ESL learners, grammatical errors, English essays, vernacular school.

1. Background of the Study


The Malaysian system of education is based on the Razak Report of 1956 (Gaudart, 1987). The educational structure in Malaysia is featured by six years of primary education, five years of secondary education and two years of sixth form education. Prior to the Razak Report, the medium of instruction in national schools in Malaysia was Malay. However, national-type Chinese and Tamil schools use their native language as the medium of instruction. English and Malay are compulsory subjects that students of vernacular schools must learn. Secondary level of education is divided into lower and upper secondary level. Lower secondary level covers a period of three years, which are from Form One to Form Three. Whereas, upper secondary level covers a period of two years which include Form Four and Form Five. Secondary level 242

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) is the national stream where the medium of instruction is Malay. As for national-type schools, there is one year of transition class which is specifically called Remove Class before going to Form One. Vernacular students who are going to Form One from primary Year Six or Remove Class will have to endure effects from the changes of medium of instruction. These students not only have to cope with one language but two languages. The Malaysian education policy obligated Malay as a compulsory subject for students to pass. Additionally, recent changes in the education policy in 2002, which convert Science and Mathematics into English as a medium of instruction, give more pressure to vernacular students to acquire proficiency in English. As stated by Ain Nadzimah Abdullah (2004:1): The implementation of teaching Mathematics and Science in English had been introduced in 2003. The Malaysian Cabinets decision to use English as the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science in all Government schools from 2003, commencing in Standard One and Form One respectively and later throughout all classes. Therefore, vernacular school students need to master Malay, English and their own native language as well. For Chinese students from vernacular schools, English and Malay are taught in primary level as one subject respectively. When they enter Form One, all subjects are taught in Malay with one subject in Mandarin and one subject of English. Prior to the education policy in 2002, Mathematics and Science were also taught in English in Form One starting from 2003. The subjects taught in the lower secondary level and the time allocated for each subject is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Subjects and allocation of time in Form 1 Form 3
Total Time per Week (minutes) 240 200 200 160 120 200 160 120 120 40 40 80 120 240

Subjects Malay Language English Language Mathematics Islamic Education* Moral Education+ Science Integrated Living Skills Geography History Health Education Physical Education Art Education/Music Chinese/Tamil Language++ Arabic Language++ * For Muslim students + For non-Muslim students ++ Optional

Subjects in English only cover 600 minutes per week, while other subjects (except English, Mathematics and Science) are taught in Malay which takes up 920 minutes a week. Chinese is learned for 120 minutes a week. The time allocated to study English as a subject is less than Malay. Thus, we can safely say that English is the third language that Chinese students have to learn and it does affect their proficiency level, as they do not have sufficient time to practice English. English is an international language (IL) that holds a prestigious place in Malaysian education and has become a L2 in Malaysia. From being the medium of instruction in schools since preindependence, it has now become a compulsory subject that students need to take (Asmah, 1997). Chitravelu et al. (2004:12) talk about the position of English as an L2 and its importance to enable Malaysians to engage meaningfully in local and international trade and commerce. Thus, students need to be proficient in English and being able to write well in English is definitely an advantage for their future. 243

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)

2. Statement of the Problem


Among writing, reading, speaking and listening in English, writing is the most complex aspect but it is a crucial skill for students to learn. Students who have the ability and competency in writing in English will be able to express themselves effectively. Moreover, they will have more privilege when applying for any job compared to other students especially in private sectors and companies that are involved at international level. This aspiration of the English language in Malaysian education is stated in Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran for KBSM (Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah) put forward by the Ministry of Education as: English is taught both in the primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. Its position is that of a second language. It is a means of communication in certain everyday activities and certain job situations. It is an important language to enable Malaysians to engage meaningfully in local and international trade and commerce. It also provides an additional means of access to academic, professional and recreational materials (Chitravelu et al., 2004:12). The Form One Chinese students in vernacular schools need to master three languages. First, they still have to take one subject in their native language, which is Mandarin. Second, they have to master the national language that is Malay and it is compulsory for them to pass. Third, they need to learn English as IL and L2. All along Chinese students from vernacular schools were educated based on their mother tongue, Mandarin. Thus, they will not have many difficulties in the subject. As for Malay language, it is obligatory for students in Malaysia to take the subject and to pass it in order to continue to the next level. Students have more exposure to Malay because most of the subjects are in Malay. Therefore, English is neglected and not being paid attention to. They are not very much exposed to English and do not have sufficient training in the language.

3. Objective of the Study


The objective of the study is to investigate errors in essays written in English by Form One Chinese students in a public school in Perak. The teachers assign this essay as classroom task and homework. The study will seek to answer this research question: What are the four most common errors in their written English essays?

4. Second Language Writing


There can be a huge difference between English writing by native speakers (NS) and English writing by English as a second language (ESL) learners. ESL learners have more than one language at their disposal while they are composing as compared to NS. Since they have more than one language in hand, it brings more problems. ESL learners tend to switch those languages interactively, causing some confusion in the structure and meaning. Analysis and classification of the cause of confusion enable learners to have a clearer view of their problems and thus, able to produce better written texts. In the past, the focus of attention in L2 writing research has been mainly on the similarities between L1 and L2 writing processes despite the salient and important differences between them (Silva, 1993). Wang and Wen (2002: 225) state that: One important difference between L1 and L2 writing processes is that L2 writers have more than one language at their disposal. They may use both L1 and L2 for cognitive operations when they are composing in the L2. This difference has received limited attention from second language acquisition researchers, resulting in little understanding of the unique features of L2 writing and a lack of a coherent, comprehensive L2 writing theory. Differences between L1 and L2 writing processes receive insufficient attention which resulted in the misunderstanding of the L2 writing aspects and hence, downgrading the writing skills of L2 244

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) writers. In the domain of L2 writing, one consistent and salient characteristic, which is fundamentally distinct from L1 writing processes, is that L2 writers, either skilled or unskilled, switch back and forth between their L1 and L2 in order to work through a particular problem that they are struggling with while composing in the L2. As several studies have reported, L2 writers use their L1 to plan their writing for text generation (Cumming, 1989; Jones & Tetroe, 1987), transfer their L1 knowledge to L2 writing contexts (Edelsky, 1982; Friedlander, 1990; Lay, 1982) and develop ideas and produce text content and organization (Lay, 1982). In short, L2 writers always make use of their L1 first, while composing in the L2 before translating it to L2. This shows that L1 influence the L2 writer in their process of writing in L2 and the influences can be positive or negative. A study by Lo and Hyland (2007) on a new ESL writing program that focused on the learners own socio-cultural context as essay topics to enhance Hong Kong primary students motivation and engagement in writing found that the students used more expressions in the essays which were direct and inappropriate translations from Chinese to English. The study observed that students asked for direct translation of a phrase or sentence from Chinese to English while writing. Errors in language learners performance including writing process have long become the subject of interest among teachers, linguists and syllabus planners. The linguists particularly are preoccupied in finding reasonable explanations for occurrence of errors and their implication towards the learning and teaching of a language. Brown (1980) argues that making errors in learning a L2 is unavoidable. Corder (1967) mentions that there are two schools of thought with respect to learners errors. The first school maintains that the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of present inadequacy of teaching techniques. The second school says that we live in an imperfect world and consequently errors will occur in spite of our best effort. According to Corder (1967), error can be defined as a systematic, consistent deviance characteristic of the learners linguistic system at a given stage of learning. Meanwhile, Dulay et al. (1982) define error as: the flawed side of the learners speech or writing. They are those parts of conversation or composition that deviates from selected norm of mature language performance. (Dulay et al., 1982: 138) In this present study, the researchers concur with the definition by Dulay et al. (1982) which classifies errors as the defective part in writing. They are parts of a composition that do not follow the rules of the target language (TL). Brown (1994) and Connor (1996) group errors into two categories. They are those errors that result from L1 interference which are external, and those which result from interference from the L2 system itself. The first category is caused by inter-lingual transfer. Inter-lingual transfer errors are errors caused by the interference of the learners L1. Brown (1994: 224) states that especially in the early stages of learning a L2, before the system of the L2 is familiar; the L1 is the only previous linguistic system upon which the learner can draw. The error occurs as a result of familiarity with the L1. Therefore, there is a transfer effect whether directly or indirectly of the L1 to the new language. When parallel features of the two languages correspond exactly, there is a positive transfer from L1 to L2. When they do not correspond exactly, there is a negative transfer, that is, interference (Ho, 1973). Intra-lingual and developmental errors are the second category of errors. These errors may be caused by inadequate learning, difficulties inherent in the TL itself, faulty teaching, confused thinking or lack of contrast of both languages (Ho, 1973). Brown (1994: 225) cites research suggesting that the early stages of language learning are characterized by a predominance of inter-lingual transfer, but once learners have begun to acquire parts of a new system, more and more intra-lingual transfer is manifested. Intra-lingual errors are defined by Richards (1971:198) as those which reflect the general characteristics of rule learning, such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions for rule application, the learner attempting to build up hypothesis about English from his limited experience of it in the classroom or textbook. Richards (1971) also further

245

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) defines intra-lingual errors as those errors that originate within the structure of English itself, as a result of misinterpretation of English grammatical rules. Developmental errors are errors committed during various stages of L2 learning process. Richards (1971:199) defines developmental errors as errorswhich do not derive from transfer from another languagethey reflect the learners competence at a particular stage and illustrate some of the general characteristics of language acquisition. It normally occurs when a learner employ a false hypothesis about the TL based on their limited knowledge of it. In most past researches in analyzing problems of writing in English, the researchers aims were to identify errors that occurred, analyze the errors to find out the cause and worked out possible solution to overcome the problems. Lim (1990) analyses grammatical errors made by Mandarin speaking students from a private year two community college in Kuala Lumpur. Fifty ESL compositions produced in a test were used as the main source of data. The researcher used free writing and guided writing tasks to compare the results. Similar to previous studies, the errors made were classified under eight grammatical categories namely tenses, articles, prepositions, spelling, pronouns, wrong choice of words, singular and plural forms and agreement. Two major factors that contributed to the presence of errors in students written work were inter-lingual transfer and intra-lingual transfer. Wang and Wen (2002) investigate on how ESL/EFL writers use their L1, which is Chinese when composing in their L2 that is English, and how such L1 use is affected by L2 proficiency and writing tasks. Sixteen Chinese EFL learners were asked to compose aloud on two tasks, narration and argumentation. Analyses of their think-aloud protocols revealed that these student writers had both their L1 and L2 at their disposal when composing in their L2. They relied more on their L1 when they were managing their writing processes, generating and organizing ideas, but relied more on L2 when undertaking task-examining and text-generating activities. Additionally, more L1 use was found in the narrative writing task than in the argumentative writing. Finally, the think-aloud protocols reflected that L1 use in individual activities varied. Thus, this study shows that L1 influences were very crucial in L2 writing. Wang (2003) study the switching to L1 among writers with differing L2 proficiency. It has been recognized as one of the salient characteristics of L2 writing. However, it is not clear how switching between languages is related to L2 proficiency or how switching to the L1 assists writers with differing L2 proficiency in their composing processes. The study investigated these issues with eight adult Chinese speaking ESL learners with two differing levels of proficiency in English performing two writing tasks: an informal personal letter and an argument essay. The students L1 is Chinese and their L2 in English. Data collected were the students think-aloud protocols, retrospective interviews, questionnaires, and written compositions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of these data show that the participants frequencies of language-switching varied slightly by their L2 proficiency, suggesting that L2 proficiency might determine writers approaches and qualities of thinking while composing in their L2. This study shows that Chinese students with Chinese as their L1 faced issues on the interference from their L1 while composing in L2. Darus and Subramaniam (2009) investigate the types of errors made by 72 Form Four Malay students in their written work. The results of the study show that errors that the students committed were basically grammatical. The students also had a relatively weak vocabulary and they committed errors in applying sentence structure rules in English. The study concludes that the students have problems in acquiring grammatical rules in English.

5. Methodology
Participants The participants were 70 students from two Form One classes in a selected public school in Perak, Malaysia who were within the age of 13-14 years old. They came from Chinese vernacular schools with Mandarin as the main language of instruction. The students scored on average a grade B or C in 246

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) their Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and other monthly English tests. All of these students came from Chinese speaking family where Chinese was their mother tongue. They spoke Mandarin, Cantonese and other Chinese dialects with their parents, relatives and friends. They wrote in Mandarin for many occasions especially in informal situations. They only used English during their English classes or when needed to. Writing sample Following Halliday and Hassan (1976) who stated that writing allows writers to demonstrate their ability to construct a string of well-connected sentences that are grammatically and logically correct, the students were asked to write a short essay. Thus, the writing sample for the study was 70 essays written in English by these 70 students. The essays ranged from 80-300 words each. The topic of the essay was My Family. The students were given one week to write their essays before researchers collected them for analysis. Instrument In order to identify the errors, an error classification scheme developed by Darus et al. (2007) was adapted in this study. It consists of 18 types of errors as follows: tenses, articles, subject verb agreement, other agreement errors, infinitive, gerunds, pronouns, possessive and attributive structures, word order, incomplete structures, negative constructions, lexical categories (preposition), other lexical categories, mechanics, word choice, word form, verb to be, and Malaysian typical words. Markin 3.1 software (Holmes, 1996-2004) was used in the process of identifying the errors in the students essays. The software was chosen because it enabled researchers to obtain accurate classification and statistical analysis of errors. The annotation buttons in the software were first customized accordingly based on the error classification scheme. Research Procedure The procedure of the research started with collecting essays written by the Form One Chinese students from the teachers for text analysis. Essays collected were typed so that they were computer readable. The errors of each essay were identified using Markin 3.1 software based on the error classification scheme.

6. Results
Table 2 shows the total number of errors for each category of grammatical errors as well as its percentage and mean value. Altogether 10,147 words were analyzed that consist of approximately 145 words for each essay.

247

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009)


Table 2: Total number of errors and percentage per category
Long Annotation Tense Articles Subject verb agreement Other agreement errors Infinitive Gerunds Pronouns Possessive and Attributive structures Word order Incomplete structures Negative Construction Lexical Categories - Prepositions Other Lexical Errors Mechanics Word choice Word form Verb to be error Malaysian typical words Total no. of errors 121 55 87 43 12 7 73 48 28 7 4 90 78 191 49 35 62 12 1002 Percentage (%) 12.1 5.5 8.7 4.3 1.2 0.7 7.3 4.8 2.8 0.7 0.4 9.0 7.8 19.1 4.9 3.5 6.2 1.2 100 Mean n=70 1.73 0.79 1.24 0.61 0.17 0.10 1.04 0.69 0.40 0.10 0.06 1.29 1.11 2.73 0.70 0.50 0.89 0.17

Short Annotation Tense Articles AgSv Agot Inf Ger Pron PAS WO IS NC Lexp Lexo Mechanics MWC MWF VTB Malaysian typical words Total

Short annotation is the short form of the long annotation used in Markin 3.1 software during the analysis process. Long annotation is the 18 categories of the grammatical errors. The results of the mean values show that four most common errors are mechanics (2.73), tense (1.73), preposition (1.29) and subject verb agreement (1.24). It is necessary to point out that the total number of errors for each category of grammatical errors may not necessarily indicate the difficulty level of the categories for the students. It is not quite appropriate to assume that lower number of errors signify a less difficult point for the students studying English. Rather, the fewer number of errors may simply mean that, within this corpus, the errors in a particular category occur in a lesser number of times compared to other categories. 6.1. Samples of Most Common Errors and Explanation In this section, sample of students sentences error are displayed and the errors identified in each sentence is shown accordingly. The examples of sentences only show the errors in the area specified. Other errors in the sentences are not taken into consideration. 6.1.1. Errors in Mechanics I am studing in SMK Yuk Choy. (studying) My father is a buiness man. (business) I live in a nuclear family. (nucleus) My mom occupation is a House Wife. (capitalization) He works early in the morning, (incorrect use of comma) This major category makes up 19.1 % of the total number of errors, which is the largest category of errors in the classification scheme. There were a lot of spelling, punctuation and capitalization errors in this study. The spelling errors were mainly due to phonetics perception and carelessness. The students spell out the words by referring to the sound of the words. A lot of words in English have the same sound but with different meanings and different spelling such as know with no, pen with pan and read with rid. Students carelessness also causes them to make spelling mistakes such as I am studing in SMK Yuk Choy. 248

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) Besides that, the errors in punctuation also add up to the total number of errors in mechanics. It comprised mainly of incorrect use of comma, omission of comma, wrong substitution for periods and the absence of the period at the end of a sentence. Commas were unnecessarily inserted in between words in a sentence and at the end of a sentence producing the following errors: a. I feel happy to have a lovely family, and I hope my family will always happy. b. My sister is so clever, because she study at universiti. It is also common to find omission (denoted by *) of commas around appositional phrases and in lists of items or names. For example, a. Although my father is a carpenter * but he likes to read. b. There are my father, mother, eldest sister * youngest sister and me. Other errors in punctuations were wrong substitution of periods and the absence of period at the end of a sentence. The following sentences are some examples: a. Last, is my younger sister - Thang Hui Lin. b. I like to play badminton, basketballexcept volleyball. c. I also have a cute sister * she always play with my brother. Errors in punctuation could be the result of carelessness on the part of the students. This is because the same punctuation marks with similar functions are also used in Chinese and Malay writings. In this case, students L1 does not affect their ability to use correct punctuations. Capitalization also constitutes a significant problem in the students writings. Many of the errors in capitalization involved proper nouns that are not capitalized and common nouns being capitalized. For example: a. My mom occupation is a House Wife. (common noun capitalized) b. I from a Nuclear family. (common noun capitalized) c. My brother is a Form two student. (proper noun not capitalized) This could be due to L1 interference as there is no capitalization in Chinese writings. Hence, Chinese students encounter new rules of capitalization in writing in English which generate another problem for the students. However, errors in capitalization may also be a result of students carelessness since in Malay all proper nouns are capitalized. 6.1.2. Errors in Tenses They study in SJK (C) Bercham. (are studying) I study in SMJK Yuk Choy. (am studying) First, I introduce my father. (will introduce) Every night, we watching TV. (watch) Compilation and categorization of errors in this study show that errors in tenses account for 12.1 % of the total number of errors in the corpus, which is 121 errors. Tense is the second highest total number of errors in the study after mechanics of writing. Since the topic of the essay was My Family, it obliged the students to compose mostly in simple present tense and simple continuous tense to refer to something which is still happening now. Therefore, the students made more errors in some usage of the tenses. The result is also not surprising since English notion of tense is somewhat confusing to the L2 learners who regard time as a separate entity by itself. In English, there is indication of time with present, past, future and continuous tense but Chinese and Malaysian verb itself do not indicate time. The moods and tenses are indicated by the addition of auxiliary verbs and particles. English verbs change according to aspect of time. However, in Chinese and Malay, the same form of verb can be used for present, past, future and continuous tense. It has no inflection with regard to time. For example in these sentences: a. I go to the market. Saya pergi ke pasar. 249

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) b. I will go to the market. Saya akan pergi ke pasar. . c. I went to the market. Saya telah pergi ke pasar. . d. I am going to the market. Saya sedang pergi ke pasar. . The verb pergi / in the sentences did not indicate time. The same verb was used in every sentence for present, past, future or continuous setting. The time was shown separately by auxiliary verbs and particles such as akan / for future tense, telah / for past tense and sedang / for continuous tense. Thus, this makes it difficult for the students to understand the idea of tense usage in English and they created errors such as: a. Every night, we watching TV. (watch) b. I study in SMJK Yuk Choy. (am studying) c. My brother just study in kindergarten. (is studying) For sentence a, the student used present continuous tense for simple present tense. As in sentences b and c, the students used simple present tense when composing the sentences instead of the more appropriate present continuous tense. There are also effects of translation from the students L1. The students tend to make sentences from Chinese and translate it into English. This is because Chinese is their L1 and the medium of instruction in school since their primary school. There is also translation from Malay to English because Malay is used in many subjects in class. Hence, these cause students to not only refer to their L1 but also Malay during sentence formation as Malay covers many subjects taught in class. In short, the differences between the verb system of L1 and English tense make it difficult for students to grasp the English notion of tense. Due to the rule of Chinese and Malay that do not need any changes of verbs according to time aspect, students tend to omit the inflection of the English verb. This is correct in Chinese and Malay, but it is not acceptable in English. 6.1.3. Errors in Preposition I am interested about science. (in) He works at Kuala Lumpur. (in) She is waiting * her SPM results so she works in the kinderland. (omission for) My father works at 8.30 a.m. until 5 p.m. (from) I am in 13 years old. (unnecessary in) Most of the prepositional errors included omissions, additions and wrong selections. The 90 prepositional errors account for 9.0 % of the total number of errors in the corpus. The cause of prepositional errors is interference from students L1 and Malay. Some of the Chinese and Malay prepositions are similar in meanings and functions with the English prepositions. Sometimes, a single Chinese or Malay preposition maybe translated into various English prepositions. For instance, Chinese and Malay preposition di and can refer to English prepositions in, at and on as in the following examples: a. He works in Kuala Lumpur. Dia bekerja di Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur . b. Salmah works at the post office. 250

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) Salmah bekerja di pejabat pos. Salmah . c. He puts the book on the table. Dia letakkan buku itu di atas meja. . Therefore, students were incapable of choosing the correct prepositions when more than one English preposition corresponds to a single Chinese or Malay preposition and created errors like: a. He works at Kuala Lumpur. (in) b. He always donate money for the temple and the poor people. (to) c. He goes to work by his new car every day. (with) Omission of prepositions could be caused either by uncertainty in the selection of prepositions or by L1 interference. When students were not sure of which prepositions to use or could not find relevant substitution of English preposition to the preposition in L1 or Malay, they tend to omit the preposition. Sometimes unnecessary addition of prepositions could be due to overgeneralizations. For example, I am in 13 years old (over-generalized use of in).

6.1.4. Subject-Verb Agreement Errors I goes to school by bus. (go) My family have five members. (has) There is five family members in my house. (are) She dont like us to study in a dirty room. (doesnt) If I has problem in homework, he will teach me. (have) Errors in subject-verb agreement make up 8.7 % of the total number of errors in the present study. Subject-verb agreement errors pose problems for the Chinese students for a number of reasons. The students were having difficulties in distinguishing the verb is or was with are or were. They were also confused with some nouns such as people and homework, whether it is a singular or plural noun. Certainly, the absence of agreement between subjects and verbs in L1 and Malay also causes the students to commit errors in this category. In Chinese and Malay, the verb pergi do not change according to the subjects as shown in the following sentences: a. I go to school. Saya pergi ke sekolah. . b. She goes to school. Dia pergi ke sekolah. . c. They go to school. Mereka pergi ke sekolah. . The following sentences are some examples of this confusion in subject-verb agreement: a. I goes to school by bus. (go) b. My family have five members. (has) c. There is five family members in my house. (are)

7. Conclusion
This study shows that the four most common errors made by the Chinese students are mechanics of writing, tenses, prepositions, and subject-verb agreement. In teaching writing, teachers need to be 251

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) aware that students have difficulties in these areas of the English grammar. These errors are caused by interference of L1 and inadequate understanding of grammatical rules of English. These factors are elements categorized under inter-lingual, intra-lingual and developmental errors. Because of the interference of the L1, students tend to refer to their L1 whenever they face difficulties when they write. They also encounter problems due to their exposure to Malay as it is a language that is used in many subjects. Thus, the students will construct sentences with errors because of the differences of grammatical rules of all the languages: their L1, Malay and English. Intra-language errors refer to the application of incorrect strategies while acquiring English. Students have problems with English grammatical rules and also confusion with the rules in their L1. This proves that L1 plays a considerable role in causing students to make errors when they write in English. In general, the findings of the study show that the Chinese students were very much influenced by their L1 in their process of learning English, which were evidently illustrated in their writings. Therefore, the students need to understand the differences of both languages and make use of the unique features of the languages to produce good and acceptable sentences. Teachers need to emphasize on how the concepts are handled in English, Malay and Chinese. It is important to make the students aware of the differences in the structure of these languages. Teachers should also highlight certain rules in L1 and Malay that are not appropriate to be used when they write in English. This is to ensure that the students apply correct strategies while writing in English and hence, decrease the occurrence of errors. This study is limited to the written work of 70 essays of Form One Chinese students who are studying in one public school. The written essays collected are from a specific topic only. Therefore, the study will not be able to give conclusive evidence regarding other Form One Chinese students from other proficiency levels in vernacular schools in Malaysia.

References
[1] [2] Ain Nadzimah Abdullah. (2004). Language loyalty and identity in a globalized world. ELT Matters 2: Contemporary developments in English Language Teaching. Serdang: UPM Asmah Haji Omar. (1997). From imperialism to Malaysianisation: A discussion of the path taken by English towards becoming a Malaysian language. H. M. Said and N. K. Siew (Eds.) English is an Asian language - the Malaysian context. Kuala Lumpur: Association of Modern Languages, Malaysia and The Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd. Brown, D. (1980). Principle of language learning & teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Brown, D. (1981). Principles of language learning & teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Brown, D. (1994). Principles of language learning & teaching. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Chitravelu, N., Sithamparam, S., and Teh, S. C. (2004). ELT methodology principles and practice. Shah Alam, Selangor: Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd. Connor, U. (1996). Constrative rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5 (4):162-170. Darus, S., and Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495. Darus, S., Tg Mohd Maasum, T. N. R., Stapa, S. H., Omar, N., and Ab Aziz, M. J. 2007. Developing an Error Analysis Marking Tool for ESL Learners. Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science (ACS07), Venice, Italy, 21-23 November 2007. pp:355-358. ISBN: 978-960-6766-15-2. (Online): 252

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[10]

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 2 (2009) http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1348171.1348233&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE (25 July 2009). Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly 16:211-228. Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gaudart, H. (1987). English language teaching in Malaysia: A historical account. The English Teacher Vol XVI. (Online): http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1987/main2.html (4 March 2008). Halliday, M. A. K., and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Holmes, M. (1996-2004). Markin 3.1 Release 2 Build 7. Creative Technology. http://www.cict.co.uk/software/markin/ (retrieved online 17 August 2007). Ho, W. K. (1973). An investigation of errors in English composition of some pre-university students in Singapore with suggestions for the teaching of written English. RELC Journal 4 (1): 48-65. Jones, S., and Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matshuhasi (Ed.), Writing in Real Time. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Lay, N. (1982). Composing process of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly 16:406. Lim, H. P. (1974). An error analysis of English compositions written by Malaysian-speaking high school students. M.A. TESL Thesis. University of California. Lo, J. and Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students' engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (4): 219-237. Richards, J. C. (1971). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Science 17: 1222. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27:657-677. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing 12:347-375. Wang, W. and Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11: 225-246.

[11] [12] [13]

[14] [15] [16] [17]

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

253

You might also like