No abstract

This article presents evidence of syntactic transfer from Chinese to English based on data obtained from 710 Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners at different proficiency levels. Three methodologies were used: self‐reporting in individual interviews, translation (with and without prompts), and grammaticality judgment. The focus of the study was on 5 error types: (a) lack of control of the copula, (b) incorrect placement of adverbs, (c) inability to use the there be structure for expressing the existential or presentative function, (d) failure to use the relative clause, and (e) confusion in verb transitivity. The results showed that many Chinese ESL learners in Hong Kong tended to think in Chinese first before they wrote in English, and that the surface structures of many of the interlanguage strings produced by the participants were identical or very similar to the usual or normative sentence structures of the learners' first language (L1), Cantonese. The extent of syntactic transfer was particularly large for complex target structures and among learners of a lower proficiency level, though high‐proficiency learners may also have relied on the syntax and vocabulary of their previous linguistic repertoire, their L1, when finding it difficult to produce output in the target language.

This article examines common lexicogrammatical problems found in Cantonese English as a second language (ESL) learners' written English output. A study was conducted with 387 student participants, who were asked to do two untutored and unaided free‐writing tasks of about 200–300 words each. A range of lexicogrammatical error types commonly found among Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners was identified. Errors from the lexical level included vocabulary compensation and inaccurate directionality; errors from the syntactic level included calquing, existential structures, incorrect ordering of adverbials, and independent clauses as subjects; and those from the discourse level included periphrastic‐topic constructions. Mothertongue influence was inevitably an important source of the problems, but inadequate mastery of correct usage of the target language and universal processes were also important factors. The results of the study have potential for enhancing our understanding of the interlanguage grammar of learners and the nature, sources, and prevalence of learner problems. The results also have promising pedagogical implications, as they inform teachers of the levels, nature, sources, prevalence, and gravity of learner errors and equip them with the key ingredients needed for the design of appropriate remedial instructional materials. A discussion of how the taxonomical classification would be useful for language teachers is also given.

No abstract

No abstract