Language Transfer in The Use or Pilipino Guillermo Q. Roman, Jr
Pusal Bahasa Uni\ersili Malaya
Inlroduclion
While it is true (hat language can be acquired, how an individual acquires a ::.ccond or addirionallanguage(s) is slill largely unknown. What he selects, wha( he absorbs and how he absorbs the limited data available to him is still the subjc<.:t of intensive im'csrigarion b) applied linguists and teachers.
Let me share wilh you a story to explain my point. In a language class,
the teacher !.howed an apple to the pupils and asked them to say '}t's an ap
ple' as part of their pronunciation drill After rhe driB, the reao..:her put the apple on top of her rable but it roiled down and fell. A pupil upon noticing it shouled, ';vta'm your it's all apple W(JS pall down.'
If we analyse the pupil's statement, it would raise some questions. such as: why did he say 'it's an apple'? Why did he pronounce fall as pain Why did he u.se the verb was? Going deeper into this will lead us to more serious questions like: How much does the pupil know aboul the [argel language?
What is his understanding about the nature of the language he was trying to learn? Wilat strategy of learning was he using?
Studies on Language Acquisition
At present we see the mushrooming of studies on the phenomenon of language acquisition �uch as those dealing with first language (L I) and se
cond language (L2) and the factors affecting it.
Age fuctor ill learning
The nOlion that the optimal age of learning occurred in the range of 11-13 years of age had been discounted by Krashcn (1975, 1981) who said that the latcralitation of the brain oc.:curs by the age of 5. Another study showed that while children rely on their memory, adult Jearnen, c.:apitalisc on their ability to rationalise in order to internalise the rules of the target language (Ervin Tripp, 1969). The study conducted by D' Anglejan and Tucker revealed that the beginners rend to rely more on semantic information than on the syntac�
tic data available while the advanced subje(,:ts tend to usc a combination of syntactic and semantic information. Fathman's study (1975) involving 200 ,hildrcn showed that older c.:hildrcn !)corcd higher in morphology and syntax while the younger one!) got higher ratings in phonology
Socio-('ullUral and personal /aclUTs in language learning
Invesligations on [he influence of cultural, social, personal and economic fal.:wrs on the mmivation and attitude of L2 learners have shown some in
ler�ting results. Take the case of some Japanese women married to Americans.
These women because of their imerest in the American culture learned English faster than the other Japanese wives who confim:d themselves to their own l:uilure (Bernstein J971). The cultural factor in language acquisition was also maintained by Christian and Christian (J97J) in their study on the language
I�� rmtufo. I" 11l� u .. 01 PI!/p/Iw> "
l,I,ed m prcdommamly Spanish-speaking southwest United StaICS_ In lome
e35<'S, Ihe learners may be more irllt'TC'!tIW 10 lI:am aboul olher ptople'� way ur li(o: Itw.ltho: ,"UItUI'" inpo..-':I uf IhO:Ir ""'3uaje (rueter and l...IImbert. 197)).
As 10 thl: pl:rsonal 11)'11: of lellming, Wolf!: (1967) �Id lhal once the 5tU
dent grasps Iho: idt:'d Ihat the new languase differs rrom hb own, he makes up a form \\ hith "different from etlher hi� nntive language (NL) or his largel language (TL) in his attempt to create a no\'('J UUCranct on the bil!>lli of previous contact Wilh the new language. Persistent grammatical errors in TL produc
tion were also obscf\'ed.
Intrrhmlu.gr ill U AcqubltitUI
The sludi� dlC<i in Ihis paper re\eal Ihat rhe 1.2 learner has his 0"''''"
understanding about the 1U1IUfe of lhe language he tS leamins; thai he has hi� own reasons fOr learning. and thai he is uSlns a !),5tem althoogh it is nOI yet the right s),Slem (Corder. 1974). Selinker �fm to this �ystem as in
fer/angl/ug" (ILJ which he belie\'es Is based on the OLlput resulting from the karner's attempted production of the Tl. Simply Stalc:t1, interlangunge is the language of Ihe learner lC'olrning Ihe language (Corder. 1981). I n lnterhwguage Ihe learner is using a definite s)'.;tem of IangUllge as he understands il and hiS errors in his IItlempled usc of the target language are the evidcn�'e of this
�)'stcm.
Infj'flerellu In Infl!rlulIguuge
In tht procCS$ of learnina a new language, the older �et of langunge habits interferes (Fries. 195!i) and Ihe learner tends to transfer rhe form, meamns.
diSltibution and tulture of his NL into the form, l1Ieamng. distribution and rulture of the: TL (Lado. 1955). According 10 Corder (19ill, lan&uage transfer is the carry-o\'er of the habits of the lTIother (ongue 1010 Ihe 1.2_
ScHnker allributoo ir.mbfer to the fos.silization of ittlllli. rulC'S and 5ubsY511�m
of the NL which the speaker keeps in his interlanguage performances.
G('II/!rtJfi�UIIQII 0 1 niles 01 the TL U� a 10flll 01 Inlerleft'nt�
In the gener.alisation of rules of the TL in titt interlanguage, thl.' learner lefers to his knowlc:rlll.e and/or undtrsulndifll of theTL when usinllhe TI '.
Though he mayor may not tnleulionally refer 10 hi) Nt, hi$ NL interferes in o�ert and co�en wa)'s.
PrllbJttnli III Ihe CaltloriLlltiun tI' Errors
Categorizing errou 5CtIns difficuh bc:t:allK' firstly. there i, no clear .... ay of ICparaling errors attributed to the NL inttrfo-ence a.,d those that art calbt'd by other factors, secondly, Ihere IS MlIllC difficulty til delennmin8 the actual malt'&) or s)'5tcm u§Cd by the learner in tryifJS to we the TL; and thirdly, it i� still unknown how mueh transrer i s involved from NL in.oTL. how much or the TL rules innuenct Ihe proouclion Qfthc It ond how ntueh intcrference from NL occurs. In some cascs. some 1 c:;::rncrs avoid ll.Sing IlniluiSllI: fornu which they are not �ure of. As such, error analysis cannol operate because there Is nothing to analyse except to say thnl thc learner is tryinl 10 aloid certain forms.
56 Jurnal Boha.fa Moden
The Nature of this Study
The objective of this slUdy is 10 identify the errors in the use of Pilipino by some Malaysian students and to find out the cause of the errors.
The three types of errors as identified by Jain (1974) are as follows.
Systematic error Asystematic error Unsystematic error
The learner The learner The learner's error follows a definite follows his own is by chance
generalization grammar circumstance
I n this paper. the compositions written by eight students in Pilipino at the University of Malaya were analysed and the asystematic errors were picked OUL These are errors commiucd by the learner based on the hypothesis for
mulated using his own internal grammar These errors were then categorized as follows: omission, confusion, literal translation and wrong choice of words as in Duskova (1969) and Wong and Lim (1982).
As regards the problem in making reliable interpretation, [he students themselves were asked 10 explain the meaning of their statements since they were the people in the best position 10 interpret what they had said. In in
stances where the learners were not available, their statements were interpreted on the basis of their particular situational use and the sociocultural context of the linguistic forms
To make the categorization.of errors more specific, the reconstruction of the correct sentence in the TL and the reconstruction in Malay (and English in some cases) were shown together with the actual error commitled by the learner 10 get a betler picture of the cause of the error
Errors in the Use of Pilipino
Here arc some of the findings on the errors in the use of Pilipino by some students of the language.
In the presentation of data. the itcms appear in this order unless stated otherwise:
(a) erroneous statement,
(b) equivalent in Bahasa Malaysia (8M) or in English (E);
(c) correct statement in the target language
(i) Omission of the ang-form marker in the subject of the sentence I (a) Pasir Mas ay maliit na bayan.
(b) Pasir Mas adalah sebuah pekan yang keci!.
(c) Ang Pasir Mas ay isang maliit na bayan
Unlike BM, the noun subject in Pilipino requircs a determiner. i.e. ang for a common noun and lhe name of a place. and si and sino for the name of person - singular and plural respectively In making his sentence in Pilipino,the student did not usc the determiner alJg which is an absent category in 8M
Language Transfer In The Use Of Pilipiflo
2 (a) Ahmad ay kaibigan ko.
(b) Ahmad adalah kawan saya.
(c) Si Ahmad ay kaibigan ko.
57
The determiner si in the subject Ahmad was not used. Normally, in BM no determiner is used for personal name as subject. Although the deter
miner si is also found in 8M, it has limited use (ii) Confusion in the use of the nominal
(a) Fatimah ang pangalan ng nanay ako.
(b) Fatimah ialah nama ibu saya/aku.
(c) Fatimah ang pangalan ng nanay ko.
In 8M, the forms soya, aku� and ku can all be used as possessive pro
noun in the same distribution. However, in Pilipino, aka is used as sub
ject or definite predicate in an equational sentence while ko is limited to the possessive form. To illustrate:
Pilipino Ako si Lina Gure ako guro ko
Bahasa Malaysia Saya Lina Aku Lina
Saya seorang guru Aku seorang guru guru ku
guru saya guru aku
In the light of this information, one could assume that the student without realizing that it is not possible to do so in Pilipino used the Pilipino pro
noun ako as possessive because the same form is used as possessive in 8M (iii) Omission of the marker oy for the inverse order sentence
I. (a) Si Ali kaibigan ko.
(b) Ali (ialah) kawan saya.
(c) Si Ali ay kaibigan ko.
2. (aJ Kami pumunta sa Kelantan.
(b) Kami pergi ke Kelantan.
(c) Kami ay pumunta sa Kelantan.
There are two things quite noticeable here. First, the tendency to use the NL normal sentence order, i.e. Subject + Predicate (S + P) and second, the tendency to omit he oy when using the S + P form.
As to why the particle oy is omitted, the most logical explanation for this was Lado's blind spot theory wherein the absent category in the NL is omitted in the TL, in this case the oy particle. A second reason that could be offered is that the learner may have thought that the two sentences were in 'normal order' because 'that's how it is done 'in his NL. While the predkate-subject order is the normal order in the TL, the inverse order which requires the use of the particle oy is also used. The failure to ap
preciate this results in the particle oy being omitted. However, it cannot be discounted that the resulting confusion over what rule to use may have influenced the learner to simplify his grammar 'to lessen his grammar
"
burd�n' (Richards, 1975).
(i�) Confusion ill Ihc: Use of n/l. and $U Nominal Forms (a) Bumalik ako sa bayan akin.
(b) Saya balik k� kampung �aya.
(c) Rumalik aka sa ba)"an namin.
The pronoun uhf! (my, mine) belongs to the sa posi>eSsive form which, a s a rule. should be placed before the thins poss.e.'>sed (bayanJ and nOI after.
The rcason� why fhe learner did this was because she knew that sa hay(m (lu hometown) ii a directionalllominal which belongs (0 the 5a nominal form. Having that in mind, she m;cd the su·form posscssi\c pronoun
willlOUI realising thal.hc rule for the pO!i�e�i\'c pronoun is differem from
the rule on the u)!: of the dm:ctional nominal.
A.. regards the mo:talinguistic aspect of Ihc: language, Ihe U!K' of tJle !>ingular pO�S�SiH: pronoun akm or ko is wrong because in the Pilipino language thing!; thai arc normally shared by many, such <IS public plaeeJ., houses, offices or ewn items such a..� ear� or telephones require tho;> plural pLl�.\.Cssi\'e forms, To u�e Iht singular pOMtssive form would mean lhat the po:.ession only belongs 10 Ihe pcrsun mentioned. Thw, a P[lipino would
!lIJi oo)·un flumin (our tOWn) insteild of huYUII 1..0 or aki"lJ boyan (my town).
2 (iI) Saan sa pupunta'?
(h) Hcndak ke mana?
(c) Saan ka pupunta'!
It il evident in this <.:ase thar. Ihe IClImer tried 10 Q�ojd using the Pilipino singular pronoun ka which looks like the HM qut�tion marker kuh and diredionai marker ke which wcre in hl� mind while u)'ing to make Iht
�tatel1lo:nt in the TL. As a resuit, he dC(.'idc<1 III ust" the dirCClhlDaI marker
.Ill which is �imil;!r t o (he Cuncilon of kc In this way Ihe IcarncrsaVOld
ed making uSt" of the pronoun kll
III comp .. rison, II Filipino ";Iti"t" speaker tends 10 avoid Woing the quC'S
lion marker kuh when using Bahasa Malaysia thinking thllt it is simibr 10 the Pilipmo pronoun Jell
II would a[,o be intel·e)ling to find out how a Japanhe ladle£ the pro
blem of mins th, Pilipino pronoun leu which is )lmllar ill fOfm to the 1apane�t qll�qion marker ka.
(v) Omission of the Ye�-;'In Question Markt"!" ba I. (a) Pupunta ka ,iI palengke'?
(b) Awak ht:ndal.: per&i J.:e pasar'?
(.;") Pupunta ka ba sa p3lcngl.c'!
It is pl1,sible (hal tbe .�tudcnt used lhe fllrm kll as Ihe equiva1erll of (he 11M qu�lion milrker kah insttad of usi"g the Pilipino question mnrkcr b<1.
Thi� problem can be analy�ed like Ihi�: In dialosue� ill Pilipino, the se
cond persou lS addres:.cJ as ka (you). I! is po�.lible that the �tudef1ts took
nOlice of Ihe Pihpino ka and tried w compare il with (he 11M leah wht"n li)tcning andlor reading questiOnS in [he dialogue addressed 10 the >e-
'olf .(1:Ut:U 0lfU Buolnwn.L tIS
(J)
'ukes lfuw3 01 !u U 0 W ;)
c.(t'S ('I)
'011 .(euuu tu 0lf8
!uolnw n .L (8) Z
JOIJIII J'll �!
0,(11£
I;),)fqns lr.l!' O il
�I »U!S r X!JJII um
'1JJ,\
;)\!IJU
�I PPll 01 pJP!J:lP JlJ
,ll.{llS lIinnlJlI
!uolouaw e.(es, J.o'(O U! !AI
.(llUU!!f10
;) U ;)
I J O)S U
alJl JO 1'l!nO'l1
lJ a :lSne»q
mq lI'UJ'I u�
qJ.J
....
sn;)OJ
I U l
I O I J J.l
!P JlJl a n 01 �
J»P!� JlJ l;,afqnt or
lJl a 011 sa
tMllumd ICU!WOU
I UO!I II
;»
JIP 341;>$" 01
!»pUJ1U! JlJ IlllJl p;rU!BldxJ �'1'�"nr
5D ....
I»UJ:mrn;'t
IU p 3 s m Jill UJtlM 'tUOJM
.(rJI!U!}JP 5!
lJ3!lJM p.lo¥. auo U!
!»S"n
au,¥. UO lJloq '!mdJ03 J\!P8 JolJl e qJJ .... J !J " u m pUU ;U!sslNl alJl ,we '11.)\
S!lJ) III
(I»fqns IIIU0!lJ:lJ!P 'a,\!SilH!)
'Oll a.(!!wed
tU8 ue!ul1[nu!.L 011
JO (3,\!1;)8) Oll U
.(llwlNl Olf. !uo!mun.1 tIS
(3)
'U.(llS dJtmpli
0 !U
1 0U W 3
lI.(es ('I)
'Oll e�1!wlNI Buu
u1l'8un!nWrl.L (u)
5U ' OpLsod
WO J ,smapnu
J'l) W J OJ p;lIJIIJllQ s;);'JUJIUas
Jl{l O J
JUlOi".).I1I :UJH
'�UJ)U;)5 ,eqlJ�
aql );»[ JO
-'Ins JIl) Sll SUO!IJun} '�\!lesneJ
J\!PVJJU� 'UO!11lXI1 K)
'IIIUO!I»J!P ')J.)r
-'10 -J'
! 'IIIU!WOU J01Je-UOIJ
'8ulPuodsaJJo;) 'pa$n U 5! XUJ1l qJJ,o, a,\!ssed
JII[nJlulNllI ualJ ...
mq I»fqm alJI
g� )U;)WJldwoo JOI;)II l
U!WO I1 U
;)lJl 'PJsn I !
"!JJII qJJ,\
J\P;)I I U uJlJ
....
11I41 ....
01{S lJ '(
ll
p a
gldwUxa ;)S;)II.L
0217
!�
.(ell Inn 8Jed
'1ll1 .('1'.1 Bled
Inn .(ul!
IIJed
,un 1mun,
J,'!IJ1l}JUJg
wn!Jodw a iii
UlnlJodUlJ BUD wnpodWa'li o wn!J w d J lit
,wnuodwJ !P, J"llu XY1
Beq lIu Seq
!u lOll '1110
IfJrq !lu ,I�
, lJ.)(q O
I UP U f
!U UP!
!U UPI
"PI
!'
,UPI, JOIJV
mUlq I UUlJIIU!8 mUIO
!l!umQ
! , J 1
, q qlJA
'qJJ'\ ill{l JO S1I;)OJ JO
�fqnl J41 51 JSBJljd/pJOM p:l7P1I'111
;)lJI 11141 �ION
'�II'J
4JeJ U! IlJ!J
UJ.\,! 5, IUJIIl,,!n!»
�"tI JJU '!iJJu:nUJSOu!dmcl
JO SJldWl3l1J JWOS
�JU JJJH 'Ou!dll!
d
lJ1!M i»Jlldwo"
in WJOJ
""I�W a 41 u! sqJJo\ JJ!
I\JJ 1.l!lJ pUll
pasn l(!JJ8 qJJ,o,
0141
$' ....
-II-$!" WJoJ U!WOU JIU IU 1.11 �!Unj:l
ljJnw aJlnbJJ IOU saop
1I!s.(III11VJ
1lS1I1l1l8 ',ulllS.('Il['1!f,j JO
OISIlJ alll ul XU! .(
J J l ll
n
! :l
5! S!4.L uml '»U31U;)$
lll J 3 n ue ! U d
! U Steu!WOU JO
wJOJ "'II U! SJ'ilump JO a!ulllJJ
I c sa I V
! U �
"Wu qJa\
J41 alJuelp I u!
J'i"nllJ:lq 51.ulwOU J
l lJ pU8 qJ3"
U»III �41 IJq
! uo l l v a '1l�!IUIIWJ!i J
r pU8 eJ!
lU.( I� u xJrdwoJ li
�41 '8uIPU81IJ�pUn puc
tU!
- .... 01.1:, W JO
[ J
q oJ JI{I d 51 OU!d!l!d
!UJUJUJ[ U!
IWJIQOJd JOr.w
"41 JO auO
sn:lO"f qJ"A Hn JO
!UOJI\\
(,"I
'1111 41!""
j»SnJuoJ JO U J o l'l Jo II
J u�
a,o,1I4 .(eu!
II JO 'I{D1t J.o'(O alJl
lJl!M
�JedwO
J
511;)in PJlfUI!J sell I!
asnuaq I>3P!CMt/l»lI!WO 5eM
DQ OJ ",,1 WJ
IlIlJl
pU8 'I J J II ;)$nu� i! ,<IUOWWOJ I»in .... IIJ4 !Ul"*"1'P8 alii UOSJx1 pUO»S
JIl W
uopSilnb II p;)5n nI SIl ...
DJ( WJOJ alii 'P
! U U! W S!lJllu!IIIlH 'UOSJJd PUO"
"
..
In Ihis sentence. the SlUdenl was confused as 10 what noun determiner he should use fOf nanay ko since noun determiner is an absent CQtegory in the BM equivalent (#2b)
j (.) hatalo siya ang per •.
Cb) Dia akan menyimpan wang (8M).
He will keep the moncy (El.
(e) ltatago niya ang pera.
Actually, the passive verb
ilalago requiresa non-actor subject
butthe It
sentenceused arJ
aCtorsubject
form. When asked, thestudem ex.p
lainedthat she intt'nded to use the passive: verb
italagobut
shethought of the idea in English as
'Hewill keep the money' Consequently, she
unknowingly used siyo bea\usc it
isthe subje<:( in the English equivalent and also th
e logical subjectwhile the ong pero is ht'T designated
grammaticol subje£"!
of the passive verb
ilalagogilling
riseto a sentence with double subj«L�.
Interf�rence from the NL, BM and a possible lhird language is likely to occur wh{'n the form and the concept of a IinguiSlic item is basically dif
ferent from the TL. This h especially true in Pilipino where it was m�n
tioned that there are passive form sentences where the subject can be ob
ject, the locative, the Ix:ncfactive and the causative, without an eKact counterpart in 8M and in English. For example:
E - He called his father (active) 8M -Oia memanggil ayahnya (active)
P - Tinawag niya ang tatay niya (passive only) E - Ida is looking for her pen (aclive)
BM - Ida mcneari pennya (active)
P - Hinahanap ill Ida ang pen niya (passive only) E - I am waiting for my friend (active)
8M -Saya menunggu Jr.:awan saya (active)
P -Hinihintay ko ang kaibigan ko lpass1\'e only)
b",
E - I am wailing for Q friend (active)
8M - Saya menunggu sua(u kawan .;.a.ya (active) P - Naghihintay aka sa isang kaibigan ka (aclive)
Hinihintay �o ang isang kaibigau ko (pa$�ive when kUlblgon is emphasized)
(\'ii) Wrong Choice of Word
1 limi1ed this category to errors in the use of lexical items ariSing from literal translation, nai�'e rdexification, semantic approximation, ('fOSS association and other strategies of iearl1ing whkh result ill the wrong choice of words.
Smith (1979) describes nll.ive relexification as making use of NI ilenu.!routincs to form the TL e<jujvaicnt. In semantic approximation (Rich�rds, 1978), the karner uses on� single word to cover different func
tion�, e.g. 'cooked food', 'cooked fish' and 'cool<ed bread' instead of
lAnguage Transjer In The V.fe OJ Pilipino 61
'baked bread' In cross association (Carl James, 1974), the learner chooses one from two or more words in the TL which has one equivalent expres
sion in the NL or vice versa. For example, a Filipino has a tendency to mix up 'come' and 'go' for which there is only 'punta' in Pilipino; or 'good night' and 'good evening' for which there is only 'magandang gabj' In like manner, a Filipino may mix up 'ramai' with 'banyak' because both words can be expressed in Pilipino using the word dami (or ralm).
Here are some of the data gathered.-
I (a) Bumabasa ako ng aralin. 'I read the lesson' (b) Saya membaca pelajaran. 'I read/study the lesson' (c) Nag-aaral ako ng aralin. 'I study the lesson'
In BM, the word 'membaca' means 'read' and 'study', so the student used its equivalent in Pilipino which is bumabasa without realising that the word nug-uurul (study) is the appropriate term.
2 (a) Nag-aaral ako tuwing araw (b) Saya belajar tiap-tiap hari (c) Nag-aaral ako araw-araw
The 8M time expression 'tiap-tiap' can be expressed in Pilipino in two ways like these:
Bahusu Mulaysia Pilipino tiap·Liap malam
tiap·tiap hari
tuwing gabi gabi-gabi
The student may have generalized that if 'tiap·tiap malam' means (U
wing gabi then 'tiap-tiap hari' should mean luwing araw 3 (a) Kumakain ako ng gamot. (I eat medicine)
(b) Saya makan ubat. (I eat/take medicine)
(c) Umiinom ako ng gamot (I drink/take medicine)
This is a clear example of direct translation of the concept in NL into the TL where it is inappropriate.
4 (a) Hindi mayroong pera ako.
(b) Saya tidak ada wang.
(c) Wala akong pera.
Taken separately, the negative hindi is equivalent to 'tidak' or 'bukan' in 8M while the existential mayroon means 'ada' In 8M, the concept 'Ilone', 'nothing' or 'non-existence' is expressed using the combination of 'lidak' and 'ada' Thinking lhat the same process applies in Pilipino, the student combined hindi with mayroon when the appropriate word is wala.
S. (a) Nakita ko ang lola ko sa hospital. (I accidentally saw my grand
mother in the hospital)
(b) I saw/visited my grandmother in the hospital.
(e) Dinalaw ko ang lola ko sa hospital.
In this sentence, the English word saw was equated with the word nakita
J�mal Baha.<a Moden
(accidentally saw) \vhm what wa� actually meant by saw was visited. Just becallse of the usc of nakila, the meaning of the sentence became entire
I) different from what was originally intt:mled. The correct word should be dil/olaw
6 (a) Humangon ako oras 5:30.
(il) Sara hangun rukul 5:30.
(e) Hlimangon ako ng alas 5'30.
The won.! 'PUKlIl" in BM has two equivalents in Pilipino-oras for asking time, and alas for telling time. rhu�,
Hahasa Malaysia Pilipino English Puk III baapa -
Puku15.30
Anong oras na - Alas 5.30
What timc is it?
]t', 5"30
What happened was that the swdcnt used oras instcad of alas when tell
ing time.
No wOllder that a Filipino learning English finds it difficult t o learn the auxiliary verh.1 al,d main verb.1 in differmt tenses, voice� and moods hecause these arc c\pre�scd in Pili pi no using diffcrcm verb forms, Example,.
KakanLa ,iya -She will sing.
Kumanta siya -She _lang/She did sing/She had sung.
K umakanta siya -She is singing/She was singing/She has been sing
ing/She sings. 7 (a) Naglulo ",ko ng pagkainall.
(b) Saya mcmasak makanan.
(e) Nagluto ako ng pagkain.
Ihe student dcdded to u,c the work pagkainall because 'food' is 'makanall' in B\1 Another source of cross association was the word 'kainall' in I'ilipino which means 'jamuan makan' in B\1
Bahasa lvlalaysia Pilipino makanall .,--_)) pagkainan ( .,. pagkain
jamuan makan
�
kainanImplicuions I' Of l.llngnllge Teaching
Many applied linguists and teachers believe that the L2learner has hi> own hypothesis about the nature of the language bc is learning, that his errors in the u,e of the TL are dlle to interference from his:-<L and wrong generaliza tion of the r[ rules, that he decide, what to karn, when to learn and how Lo learn, and thaL h� a�quires the language in overt and covert ways.
fhi, being the ca5e, learning a ,e�ond lanJ!;uage or a foreign language could be more effedive if lhe language teaeher would.
(i) Find out the needs, abilities, and interest5 of the learners and 1l10dclthe Ics,onsilanguagc activitie, according to th�se.
Lang;mge Transfer b The Use OJ Pilipino 63
(ii) Provide the learners with more opponuniUes to use the [argellanguage by using communication situations that are reievani to everyday life! hus making language learning more meaningful and mOre pracUcal. In ihis re5pcct1 grammar which is an imponam aspect of the language, should be taught as an integral pari of a COIlHTIUnjcaIioJ1 situation and nOt in isolation.
(ii) Vary the language activities because
(i)
(he learners have different styles of learning; and (ii) there is no one best method in [eachillg a language.Studjes have shown thar a major cause of errorS is that [here js too,-nuch refercnce to the NL by way of translation of formsl meanings ane! culture Learners often do not realize that each language has its unique but systematic claSSification, dis..'iection. organization, and contextualisation of reaIlties. I r ever the learner5 are given translation activities such as giving the e.quivalent of the sentence or paragraph fron NL into TL or vice versa, [hey should be made aware of the differences andlor similarities in the syntactical a.nd sem3n
tical features of both languages involved. In additioIl, the activity should be limited 10 what they have already learned about the language. To do mher
wise would compel the students to u5e the NL $ystern in their nansiatioll. Er
ror analysis with some limitations is valuable to the language teacher in assess
ing the learner's progress and in determining the problem areas in language learning.
Finally, to a teacher whose temper flarcs up when the students commit er
rors, errOr analysiS could mean lerrOr analysis. On [he com rary, when tl teacher is frightened Dr becomes di5couraged by learners' errors, error analysis turns into horror analys.is. But to a teacher who sees the CrrorS of the students as evidence of' learning or trying to learn, and tbat discovering 1heir errors is 2.n interesting, chailenging and enjoyable experience, error analysis becomes humour analysis.
We could say ther; that =10 err is language learning and [0 correct is language teaching'
References
Abdul Aziz Mohammad ShariC (1982). 'Interlanguage Processes in [he Con
text of BSL in Malaysia: SEAMEO-RGLC Seventeenth Regional Con
ference. Singapore.
BlIllerworth, G. and E. Hatch, (1973). 'A SpzHlish-spcaking Adolescent·s Ac
quisition of English Syntax' In Evelyn Ha[ch. (ed.) Second Language Ac
quisilion. Massac.:husells: Newbury House.
Corder, S. Pit, (J981). Error AnalysiS and Inrer/anguage London. Oxford UniversilY Press.
Duskova, Libuse, (1969). 'On Sources of ErrOfS in Foreign Language Learn
illg' III IRAL. 7 l. New York: McGraw l-liI!.
rathman, Ann (19i5). 'The Relationship Between Age ane! Second Language Production Ability' III Language Leaming
Fries, Charles, (1945). Teaching alld Learning English as A Foreign Language Ann Arbor; University of Michigan Press.
Gass, Susan and L. Selinker t (1982) .•Language Transfer; n Language Lear
ning' SEAMEO-RELC Sevellleent.h Regional Conference. Singapore.
64 JI/rnal Ba/'O.fO Moden
Jain, M., (1969). "Error Analysis of an Indian English Corpus" Unpublish
ed paper University of Edinburgh.
James, Carl, (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Essex. Longman House Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lado, Robert, (1961).Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor' University of Michigan Press.
Richards, David, (1982). 'The Place of Transfer in Second Language Com
munication' SEAMEO-RELC Seventeenth Regional Conference Singapore
Richards, Jack and G Sampson, (1974). 'The Study of Learner's English' In J.e. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis. Perspectives in Second Language Acquisition. London Longman.
Selinker, Larry, (1974). 'Interlanguage' In J .C. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis.
Perspectives in Second Language Acquisition. London. Longman.
Shapire, Rina,:(1973). 'The Non-learning of English. Case Study of an Adult' In Evelyn Hatch. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition. Massachusens.
Newburv House.
Tucker, G and W. Lambert, (1973). 'Sociocultural Aspects of a Language Study' In John Oller and J .C. Richards (eds.).
Massachusens. Newbury House.
W olfe, D.L., (1967). 'Some Theoretical Aspects of Language Learning and Language' In Language Learning XVII.
Wong, Irene and Lim Saw Choo, (1982). 'Language Transfer in the Use of English in Malaysia. Structure and Meaning' SEAMEO-RELC. Seven
tcemh Regional Conference. Singapore.
