Toward a Taxonomy of Written Errors:

Investigation Into the Written Errors of

Hong Kong Cantonese ESL Learners
ALICE Y. W. CHAN
City University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong SAR, China

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 200300 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.
doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.219941

nglish is a value-added language in Hong Kong, indispensable for

both upward and outward mobility, rather than a typical second or
foreign language (Li, 1999, p. 97). It is compulsorily taught at all
secondary and primary schools and is the medium of instruction of
about one third of the total number of secondary schools and the
majority of tertiary institutions. Despite its official status and added
value, it is used in Hong Kong only in the formal domains of
government, business, education, and law, typically in the presence of

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 44, No. 2, June 2010

295

native English speakers or non-Chinese speakers (Li, 1999). For

intraethnic communications, Cantonese or Cantonese-English mixed
code is preferred, and many Hong Kong Cantonese are under great
social pressure not to switch entirely to English when communicating
among themselves orally (Li, 2000). Many informal written exchanges
are conducted in Chinese-Cantonese,1 standard written Chinese, or
English-Chinese mixed code. Cantonese English as a second language
(ESL) learners exposure to English is very limited.
Many Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners encounter problems
in learning the morphology, lexis, syntax, and semantics of English
(e.g., Budge, 1989; Chan, 2003, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d; Chan, 1991;
Chan, Kwan, & Li, 2002, 2003; Chan, Li, & Kwan, 2003; Gisborne, 2002;
Green, 1991; Li, 2000; Webster & Lam, 1991; Webster, Ward, & Craig,
1987; Yip & Matthews, 1991; Yu, 1988a, 1988b). Despite claims that
Hong Kong English should be viewed as a legitimate new variety
because of the existence of unique, systematic features (Bolton, 2002;
Bolton & Lim, 2002; Hung, 2002), it has been argued that Hong Kong
English is not appropriately characterized as a new variety of English,
because of its limited social role and the predominance of Standard
English as the norms of reference (Li, 2000). Li contends that features in
Hong Kong English can be more appropriately viewed as interlanguage
features.
ESL teachers need to have a good understanding of the cognitive and
psycholinguistic mechanisms at work in learners learning process in
order to help them overcome their second language (L2) problems.
Because errors are indicative of a learners interlanguage2 and the errors
made along a learners interlanguage continuum are often due to a
complex interplay between both first language (L1)- and L2-related
factors (Li & Chan, 1999), there is a need to investigate the written
output of Cantonese ESL learners in order to uncover the extent of
negative transfer and the interaction between transfer and other non
L1-related factors. Results of such research should have considerable
potential for alleviating English language teachers workload and for
quickening students learning process. Despite various attempts to
diagnose Hong Kong ESL learners writing problems, there is a lack of
systematic, large-scale studies which scrutinize a full range of written
lexicogrammatical errors, analyze the possible causes, and establish a
1

The word Cantonese used in this article refers to the variety per se, which may be spoken or
written. The word Chinese refers to standard written Chinese. The written Chinese used in
Hong Kong is a mixture of spoken Cantonese and standard written Chinese (Snow, 2004),
and the term Chinese-Cantonese is used to refer to this special medium.
2
There have been some criticisms of the term interlanguage. Cook (1993) points out that
the term is often used to refer both to the learners knowledge of the second language
and to the actual speech of L2 learners (p. 19). No such distinction is made in this article.

296

TESOL QUARTERLY

taxonomical classification. The present study aimed at bridging such a

research gap.

ERROR ANALYSIS AND TRANSFER ANALYSIS

The approach used in the study could be seen as arising from the
paradigms of error analysis (EA) and transfer analysis (TA) in L2
acquisition (SLA) research. EA (Corder, 1967) compares learners
interlanguage with the target language to locate mismatches. Errors are
seen as evidence of learning and could be described without the need to
refer to a learners native language. Earlier interest in error analysis
waned, because it was thought that, even if learner errors could be
predicted and understood, such errors could not be ameliorated. EA was
also attacked as a pseudoprocedure in applied linguistics (Bell, 1974,
p. 35) and was insufficient because of its biased practice of analyzing
out the errors and neglecting the careful description of the non-errors
(Hammarberg, 1974, p. 185). Despite these criticisms during the 1970s
and early 1980s, this paradigm has been revitalized following
significant research in the past decades, such as James (1998),
Kellerman (1995), Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986), and Odlin
(1989), leading to the redefinition of the concept of TA. Though EA is
not a theory of acquisition, it is argued as a methodology for dealing with
data (Cook, 1993), and teachers are attracted to this paradigm by its
promise of relevance to their everyday professional concerns (James,
1998, p. x).
TA (James, 1990) compares learners interlanguage strings with their
mother tongues. It is a subprocedure in the diagnostic phase of EA and
deals with interlanguage and target language mismatches assumed to be
the results of mother-tongue interference. Crosslinguistic influence is
acknowledged, and learner errors are seen as a register of learners
current perspective on the target language (James, 1998). Although
structural comparisons of two languages are often uncertain correlates
of learner behavior (Kellerman, 1995), with the data-handling methodology in EA and the acknowledgement of crosslinguistic influence in the
identification of target languageinterlanguage mismatches in TA, these
two paradigms still remain useful means to understanding the cognitive
and linguistic complexities involved in SLA.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH INTO WRITTEN ERRORS MADE BY

CHINESE SPEAKERS
Numerous small-scale studies have been carried out to investigate the
written errors made by Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners. Among the
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

297

problems documented include those with relative clauses, plural

marking, and topicalization. Mother-tongue interference has often been
argued as the major cause. Webster et al. (1987) present various local
ESL errors and conclude that all the errors may be attributed to mothertongue influence. Green (1991) examined the overuse of topiccomment structure in Hong Kong English and argues that the structure
is evidence of typological transfer. Budge (1989) attributes Hong Kong
students failure to mark plural nouns with -s in writing to the influence
of Cantonese phonology. Outside of Hong Kong, Deterding (2000), Tan
(2005), and Zhu (2007) examined the influence of Chinese on written
Singaporean English. Poedjosodarmo (2000) investigated the influences
of Malay on the written English of university students in Singapore.
Although Tan (2005) argues that Singlish arose due to the influences of
the students mother tongues on all the lexical, syntactic, and discourse
aspects of English, Zhu (2007) claims that not all errors can be
attributed to Chinese influences. To the authors knowledge, none of
these studies has attempted to establish a systematic taxonomy of
lexicogrammatical learner errors to arrive at a generalizable conclusion
about the cognitive and psycholinguistic mechanisms underlying the
learning process.

OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to identify a range of lexicogrammatical
errors commonly found in Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners written
output and to establish an error taxonomy. The underlying belief was
that the nature and the causes of the errors could be more systematically
and reliably generalized, if similar errors are classified into the same
type.

PROCEDURE
Data Collection: Phase I
A study was conducted with 387 Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners,
including 65 students from three local universities and 322 students
from five local secondary schools (124 students from Form 6 and 198
students from Form 33). The Form 3 students (about 50% of the total
number of participants) and Form 6 students (about 30%) could be
categorized as lower intermediate (L-I) and upper intermediate (U-I)
learners, respectively, whereas the university students (about 20%) could
3

298

Form 3 and Form 6 students in Hong Kong are comparable to Grade 9 and Grade 12
students in the United States, respectively.

TESOL QUARTERLY

be categorized as advanced (A) learners. Elementary learners were not

included, because they are not accustomed to doing free writing in
English.
The participants did two free-writing tasks administered at two
different time slots of 40 minutes at an interval of about 2 weeks. A
word limit was set at 200, 250, and 300 words for students at the three
proficiency levels, respectively. The participants produced 696 pieces of
free writing (totaling about 158,000 words). Of these, 187 pieces, 116
pieces, and 47 pieces of narrative writing (a total of 350 pieces) were
from the Form 3, Form 6, and university students, respectively; and 157
pieces, 124 pieces, and 65 pieces of descriptive writing (a total of 346
pieces) were from the students at the respective levels.

Data Analysis
A research assistant, very proficient in English and holding a masters
degree in English, was engaged in identifying anomalous structures from
the corpus. The errors were then assigned to a working error taxonomy
under the supervision of the researchers (the author and her
collaborator). To ensure that the research assistant could extend the
patterned anomalies to the entire corpus, the researchers coached the
assistant in a series of error identification and categorization sessions.
Accuracy and consistency were maximized by having a second research
assistant with similar linguistic background and training double-check
the error taxonomy. Where the two assistants judgments diverged,
either one or both of the researchers reviewed the categorization to
make a third judgment (see appendix).
A comparison between the interlanguage strings and equivalent
strings in the learners mother tongue was then carried out to determine
whether crosslinguistic influences (Kellerman, 1995; Kellerman &
Sharwood Smith, 1986) may have been at work. Attempts were also
made to ascribe the errors to possible sources where mother-tongue
interference could not be observed.

Data Collection: Phase II

The error taxonomy established (see Results: Phase I) gave prima
facie evidence of syntactic transfer from Chinese to English. In the
second phase of the study, five error types thought to be the results of L1
interference, namely, omission of copulas, incorrect order of adverbials or
adverbs, existential structures, misuse of relative clauses, and transitivity pattern
confusion, were isolated, and the extent of syntactic transfer was further
investigated with the use of individual interviews (including translation
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

299

tasks [from L1 to L2], explanations of translations, and self-reports)

and group tests (including grammaticality judgment questionnaires
and translation tasks [from L1 to L2]). The individual interviews
were administered to a focus group of 42 students, and the group tests
to a large sample of 710 students. Differences between the performance
of different age groups were also examined (for details, see Chan,
2004c).

RESULTS
Phase I
Altogether, 4,997 tokens were identified and classified under 32 error
types (see appendix).
Morphological Level. Twenty-one error tokens were associated with
morphology.
Inappropriate selection of affixes (10 tokens: 10% from L-I, 30% from
U-I, 60% from A). Inadequate mastery of English word-formation
processes was probably the major cause, because the learners were
apparently aware of the need for an affix and the meanings of the
chosen affixes were often close to those of the target affixes. Mothertongue interference did not seem to have been at work, because affixes
are rarely used in Chinese or Chinese-Cantonese.
1. *their academic results are still dissatisfactory.

Overuse of affixes (11 tokens: 18% from L-I, 27% from U-I, 55% from A).
Overuses of affixes were exemplars of overgeneralization, where the
need for an affix in word formation had been overgeneralized.
Inadequate knowledge of the word class of a stem word was probably a
reason for such overgeneralizations, because the learners did not seem
to be aware that the original stems without the unwanted affixes suffice
for the meanings conveyed.
2. *The happiness we have now cannot enlast.

Lexical Level. Altogether, 617 error tokens belonged to the lexical level.
Inaccurate directionality (9 tokens: 22.2% from L-I, 66.7% from U-I, 11.1%
from A). Such confusion was probably the result of mother-tongue
interference, as the substitution words and the target words often have
substitutable L1 Chinese-Cantonese equivalents with no directionality
differences.
300

TESOL QUARTERLY

3. *I borrowed money from my friends and borrowed the money to him [cf. lend;
Chinese-Cantonese employs the same word ze3 for both borrow and lend.4]

Synonym confusion (73 tokens: 58.9% from L-I, 35.6% from U-I, 5.5% from
A). These errors showed learners difficulties in differentiating the
appropriate uses of near synonyms and the contexts in which they should
be used. L1 influence may have been at work, as the confusable English
synonyms often share the same or similar Chinese-Cantonese equivalents.
4. *My mother is nice, she didnt fight me [cf. beat; the Chinese-Cantonese
equivalents of fight and beat are daa2 gaau1, and daa2, respectively, which are
similar.]

Vocabulary compensation (199 tokens: 37.7% from L-I, 47.2% from U-I,
15.1% from A). For this error type, the synonymy relation between the
substitution words and the target words holds only in the learners
mother tongue. The substitution words (groups) and the target words
(groups) have very different meanings and usage in English. Mothertongue influence was one probable cause.
5. *Open TV and open the playstation [cf. turn on; the Chinese-Cantonese
equivalent of turn on is hoi1, the same as the Chinese-Cantonese equivalent of
open.]

Synforms (336 tokens: 54.5% from L-I, 33% from U-I, 12.5% from A).
Synforms are lexical mis-hits selected because of formal resemblance to
other L2 forms (Hall, 2002, p. 71; Laufer, 1997). The learners insecure
knowledge of both the target forms and their corresponding mis-hits was
probably the major cause of the problem. No mother-tongue interference was observed.
6. *I sleep on the bed, my mother also sleep nearly [cf. nearby].

Syntactic Level. Altogether, 4,295 error tokens were found at the

syntactic level.
Pseudotough movement (11 tokens: 9.1% from L-I, 81.8% from U-I, 9.1%
from A). Characterized by the use of a tough adjective (e.g., easy) in an
erroneous structure (Yip, 1995), pseudotough movement has been regarded
a high-frequency erroneous structure for Cantonese ESL learners (Li &
Chan, 1999).
4

All Chinese characters in this article are transliterated using the Jyutping system (Tang et al.,
2002). The number at the end of each romanized Cantonese syllable is a tone mark,
indicating one of the six distinctive tones in Hong Kong Cantonese.

TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

301

7. *Up to now, we are not easy to work together [cf. ngo5 mun4 bat1 jung4 ji6 jat1
hei2 gung1 zok35 (we not easy together work)].

The Chinese-Cantonese equivalents of the English erroneous structures

are both acceptable and common. Mother-tongue interference was
probably a major cause. Acceptable sentences in the target language,
such as John is not easy to convince, may also have led the learners into
believing that these sentences with tough movement were positive
evidence in support of their interlanguage hypothesis for the pseudotough movement structure (Chan & Li, 2002).
misuse of until (33 tokens: 6.1% from L-I, 75.8% from U-I, 18.2% from
A). Rather than using the preposition to show that something happens
during a period before a particular time and stops at that time (Quirk,
Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985), the learners used it with time
adverbials like forever or now to emphasize the truth of the preceding
statements at the time of speaking, including the time periods specified
by the time adverbials, traceable to Chinese-Cantonese expressions zik6
zi3 or zik6 dou3 (Chan, 2003).
8. *Until now, I enjoy the school life.

Misuse of conjunctions (42 tokens: 31% from L-I, 59.5% from U-I, 9.5% from
A). Many of these errors had correlative pairs attached to both clauses of a
complex sentence. The influence of Chinese was evident: Chinese
complex sentences are symmetrical and allow double conjunctions
(correlative pairs). The Chinese equivalents of because and so, although
and but are good examples of such correlative pairs (Chan, 2004a).
9. *Although we cant have our own life there, but now we are happy.

Duplicated comparatives or superlatives (47 tokens: 44.7% from L-I, 51.1%

from U-I, 4.3% from A). Comparable constructions in ChineseCantonese may have affected the learners use of a redundant more or
most, because the corresponding comparisons in Chinese-Cantonese are
formed by the addition of the words bei2 (than) or gang3 (more) and zeoi3
(most) preceding the comparative adjectives and superlative adjectives,
respectively (Li & Thompson, 1981; Matthews & Yip, 1994).
Overgeneralization of the use of English more or most may also have
been a probable cause, because the two words are used for making
comparatives and superlatives for all polysyllabic English words and
many bisyllabic English words.
5

302

All the Chinese-Cantonese sentences used for comparison are grammatical ChineseCantonese sentences acceptable to native speakers of Cantonese.

TESOL QUARTERLY

10. *That is the most happiest time in [cf. naa5 si6 ngo5 zoi6 haai4 tung4 si4
zeoi3 faai3 lok6 dik1 si4 hau6 (that is I in childhood most happy NOMINALIZER
time)].

Misordering of constituents in indirect questions (47 tokens: 23.4% from L-I,

70.2% from U-I, 6.4% from A). The incorrect placement of subject
following operator mirrored the order of the two constituents in a direct
wh- question:
11. *I dont know where is it.

L1 interference was not evident, because in Chinese, wh- words occur in

the same position in a sentence as do non-question words having the
same grammatical function (Li & Thompson, 1981). No reordering of
subject and operator is required in an indirect wh- question. Inadequate
mastery of the correct ordering of constituents in English indirect
questions was probably the main cause.
In-prepositional phrases (49 tokens: 73.5% from L-I, 24.5% from U-I, 2%
from A). These consisted of the preposition in, either used redundantly
or chosen inappropriately, in an in-prepositional phrase. Such structures
could be traceable to equivalent Chinese prepositional phrases, which
often require the presence of the word zoi6 (in).
12. *In many years ago, my father [cf. zoi6 han2 do1 nin4 cin4 (in many years ago)].

Independent clauses as objects or subjects (54 tokens: 53.7% from L-I, 31.5%
from U-I, 14.8% from A). L1 effects should have been at work, because it
is acceptable to have two or more verb phrases or clauses in the same
sentence (i.e., serial verb constructions) and for the first verb phrase or
clause to be the subject of the whole sentence in Chinese (Li &
Thompson, 1981; Matthews & Yip, 1994). A lack of awareness that an
independent clause cannot be the object or subject of an English
sentence may also have been a reason (Chan, Kwan, & Li, 2003).
13. *You dont need to worry about the problem will struck at you [cf. nei5 bat1
seoi1 jiu3 daam1 sam1 man6 tai4 wui5 jing2 hoeng2 nei5 (you not need
worry problem will affect you)].

Be + -ed (99 tokens: 29.3% from L-I, 50.5% from U-I, 20.2% from A). In
these sentences, the verb to be coexists with the past participle (or past
form) of the main verb. This error can be traceable to ChineseCantonese structures with si6 (is) serving as a marker of special
affirmation (Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 151), linking the two major
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

303

constituents of the sentences to mean It is true that. However, it is

unclear whether the forms of the verbs were past forms or past
participles, because most of the words ended with -ed. It is also unclear
why the -ed form instead of the base form was used (see be + base form).
14. *She is always cried [cf. taa1 si6 si4 seong4 huk1 dik1 (he IS always cry
PARTICLE)].

Pseudopassives and undergeneration of passives (110 tokens: 29.1% from LI, 53.6% from U-I, 17.3% from A). Many of these could be regarded as
pseudopassives (cf. Yip, 1995), which are one reflection in the
interlanguage of the Chinese typological characteristic of topicprominence (p. 97). Because the learners failed to generate the full
range of English passive constructions, these errors could also be seen as
cases of undergeneration of the target passive (Yip, 1995). Mothertongue interference was apparent.
15. *The floor can automatic clean [cf. ze5 dei6 baan2 ho2 ji5 zi6 dung6 cing1
git3 (the floor can automatic clean)].

Omission of subjects (114 tokens: 64% from L-I, 22.8% from U-I, 13.2%
from A). This was often associated with compound or complex sentences
where both clauses shared the same subject, the subject was present in
one of the clauses, the missing subject could be identified with the
subject present in the other clause, or the missing subject was
understood in the immediate context.
16. *First, talk about the traffic [cf. sau2 sin1 taam4 taam4 gaau1 tung1
man6 tai4 (first talk talk traffic problems)].

Mother-tongue interference was observed, because a coreferential noun

phrase in the second clause of a sentence or in subsequent sentences of
a discourse is not normally mentioned in Chinese. A coreferential
pronoun may be used, but it is not obligatory (Li & Thompson, 1981).
Subjects (and objects) may be omitted in Chinese when the constituents
have been the topics of previous utterances, or when the reference is
clear from the context (Matthews & Yip, 1994).
Existential structures (118 tokens: 61% from L-I, 26.3% from U-I, 12.7%
from A). Mother-tongue interference may have been at work, because
the corresponding existential meaning in Chinese-Cantonese is
expressed using jau5 (have). Students inadequate mastery of the
different forms of the verb to be in English may also have been a
probable cause. Given that the perfect forms have been and has been of the
304

TESOL QUARTERLY

verb to be are orthographically similar to the verb have, probable

confusion because of such acceptable structures as There may have been
some problems may also have led to the anomaly (Chan et al., 2002).
17. *There had many people at there [cf. daan6 naa5 leoi5 jau5 han2 do1 jan4
(but there have many people)].

Misuse of prepositions (126 tokens; 45.2% from L-I, 36.5% from U-I,
18.3% from A). In these sentences, an inappropriate preposition was
chosen in place of an appropriate one, a superfluous preposition was
added, or a required preposition was omitted.
18. *We played card games on the bus although it was crowded of people.
19. *I could meet more new friends and play with them besides from my
brothers.

No L1 interference could be identified. Direct translations of sentences

such as Examples 18 and 19 do not suggest the need for such inaccurate
constituents. Because the uses of English prepositions are not easy to
generalize and choices of prepositions are often lexically determined
and idiosyncratic, inadequate mastery of the choice and use of English
prepositions was probably the major cause.
However, mother-tongue interference may have been at work for the
production of sentences with missing prepositions:
20. *Which kind of examination system is appropriate the situation now?
[cf. naa5 jat1 zung2 haau2 si5 zai3 dou6 si6 sik1 hap6 jin6 zoi6 dik1 cing4 fong3
(which one kind exam system appropriate now NOMINALIZER situation)].

Sentences such as Example 20, which had an adjectival complement

(e.g., appropriate) used with a postmodifier lacking an appropriate
preposition (e.g., the situation), were actually direct Chinese translations,
because the corresponding Chinese constituents for the adjectives are
often used as transitive verbs in Chinese (e.g., sik1 hap6 [appropriate]).
Verb form selection (144 tokens: 36.8% from L-I, 47.2% from U-I, 16% from
A). In these sentences, an -ing participle was used in place of a presenttense verb, a past form in place of a base-form verb, and the like. Verbs in
Chinese do not exhibit different verb forms, so insufficient mastery of verbformation processes in English was probably a major cause.
21. *Every day he driving his car.

Misuse of relative clauses (158 tokens: 18.4% from L-I, 53.2% from U-I,
28.5% from A). No direct L1 interference could be traceable for some
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

305

relative clause errors, because there are no relative pronouns in Chinese:

Relative clauses in Chinese are formed by the nominalizer dik1 (e.g., oi3
[love] ngo5 [me] dik1 [NOMINALIZER] jan4 [person] [the person who loves
me]). The erroneous English sentence errors (e.g., Example 22) and the
Chinese translations do not resemble each other.
22. *She will cook the food what I like to eat.

Other errors identified were erroneous reduced relative clauses with a

missing finite verb (e.g., Example 23). Inadequate mastery of the
restrictions that a finite relative clause requires the co-occurrence of a
relative pronoun and that a nonfinite relative clause precludes an
explicit relative pronoun was probably the major reason.
23. *I have a large family which including grandmother,

The omission of relative pronouns, especially subject relative pronouns

(e.g., Example 24), however, could be seen as resulting from L1. Direct
translations of the English sentences showed great resemblance to
Chinese relative clauses without the nominalizer dik1.
24. * You are the first come to Hong Kong [cf. nei5 si6 dai6 jat1 go3 loi4
heong1 gong2 (You are the first CLASSIFIER come Hong Kong)].

Incorrect order of adverbials or adverbs (172 tokens: 91.3% from L-I, 7%

from U-I, 1.7% from A). Most of these errors were associated with the
incorrect placement of the adverb very, though other adverbs, such as
never, were also sometimes misplaced.
25. *I was very work hard to read [cf. ngo5 han2 nou5 lik6 duk6 syu1 (I very
hard read book)]

In Chinese, han2 (very) is typically placed before verbs (e.g., han2 hei2
fun1 [very like]) and predicative adjectives or adjectival verbs (e.g., han2
jau5 jung6 [very useful]; Chan, Li, & Kwan, 2003; Matthews & Yip, 1994).
Such resemblance between the syntactic behavior of Chinese verbs and
adjectives, together with the acceptability of a similar very + ADJECTIVE
structure in English, such as very good, may have led the students to think
that the structure very + VERB was acceptable in English.
The acceptability of expressions such as I very much want to go may also
explain the error. Overgeneralization resulting from their inadequate
understanding of the differences in forms and functions between the
degree adverb very and adverbials such as very much and of the context
which allows fronted adverbials may also have been the cause.
306

TESOL QUARTERLY

Serial verb constructions (190 tokens: 78.4% from L-I, 18.4% from U-I,
3.2% from A). These sentences had two or more verbs or verb clauses
juxtaposed without any intervening marker. The juxtaposed clauses in
these constructions normally shared the same subject. As serial verb
constructions are widely acceptable in Chinese and the structure of the
erroneous English constructions mirrored that of the corresponding L1
translations, mother-tongue interference was probably a major cause.
Inadequate mastery of the distinction between finite and nonfinite
clauses in English was probably another cause. English nonfinite
infinitive clauses without the infinitive marker to (e.g., She helped me
do it) may also have been mistakenly taken as positive evidence,
misleading the learners into using two finite verbs in the same sentence.
26. *My mother was angry. And took a stick beat me [cf. jin4 hau6 naa4 hei2 jat1
zi1 paang5 daa2 ngo5 (then take up one CLASSIFER stick beat me)].

Inappropriate case selection (193 tokens: 73.5% from L-I, 18.1% from U-I,
8.3% from A). Mother-tongue interference may not have been at work,
because Chinese does not exhibit case distinctions: The same form is
used for pronouns used as subjects and objects, and the nominalizer dik1
is added for showing possession (e.g., ngo5 dik1 baa1 baa1 [my father]).
Inadequate mastery of the distinct forms for the different cases in
English was probably the major cause of the problem.
27. *My sister always laugh of our.

Punctuation problems (204 tokens: 56.9% from L-I, 35.2% from U-I, 7.8%
from A). Some of these errors were comma splices, and others were
sentence fragments. The comma splices consisted of independent clauses
separated by commas, whereas the sentence fragments were all stand-alone
subordinate clauses introduced by a subordinator such as because, until, or if.
28. *I saw her face, I will know that she was very angry, so I will go to my room, and.
29. *I have a very happy childhood. Because, my friend, my parents are very good.

No particular L1 interference could be traced, and it was hard to decide

whether such mistakes were careless mistakes or whether they reflected
the learners interlanguage features.
Transitivity pattern confusion (259 tokens: 40.5% from L-I, 40.5% from UI, 18.9% from A). Mother-tongue influence was probably the most
important factor (Chan, 2004c), because the erroneous transitivity
patterns of the verbs in question often coincided with the transitivity
patterns of the corresponding Chinese equivalents.
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

307

30. *We will not listen him [cf. ngo5 mun4 bat1 wui5 ting3 taa1 (we not will
listen him)].

Be + base form (323 tokens: 72.4% from L-I, 23.2% from U-I, 4.3%
from A).
31. *My father was always buy a toy. [cf. ngo5 baa1 baa1 si6 si4 soeng4 maai5
wun6 geoi6 kap1 ngo5 dik1 (I father is always buy toy give me PARTICLE)].

In these sentences, the verb to be coexisted with the base form of the
main verb, with an optional adverb in between the two verbs. This error
can be traceable to Chinese-Cantonese structures with si6 (is) serving as
a marker of special affirmation (Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 151), linking
the two major constituents of the sentences to mean It is true that (see
Be + -ed earlier).
Omission of copulas (426 tokens: 71.6% from L-I, 23.7% from U-I, 4.7%
from A).
32. *They will very happy [cf. taa1 mun4 wui5 han2 faai3 lok6 (they will very
happy)].

Mother-tongue interference was undoubtedly a major cause: The

Chinese copula si6 (be) is similar to the English verb to be when used
as a linking verb between the subject and its nominal complement.
However, it does not co-occur with many auxiliary verbs such as nang4
(can) and wui5 (will) (Li & Thompson, 1981), especially when the
subject complement is not nominal and there are no particular
affirmative or emphatic functions.
Concord problems (444 tokens: 44.1% from L-I, 37.6% from U-I, 18.2%
from A). No direct L1 interference was traceable, because Chinese
nouns and verbs are not marked for number, tense, or person. A lack of
comparable equivalents in the mother tongue, leading to a lack of
positive evidence in the L2, may probably have been the cause.
Inadequate mastery of target language constituent combinations was
also likely.
33. *I found a lot of shop but.

Word class confusion (450 tokens: 38% from L-I, 38.4% from U-I, 23.6%
from A). This error type revealed the effects of a lack of distinct forms or
derivations for different word classes in Chinese-Cantonese. Such
syntactic behavior may have led the learners to believing that English
words behave similarly to Chinese.
308

TESOL QUARTERLY

34. *Its so interest.

Calquing (482 tokens: 64.1% from L-I, 29.3% from U-I, 6.6% from A). A
calque is a type of borrowing in which each morpheme or word is
translated into the equivalent morpheme or word in another language
(Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992). The individual target language words
used semantically match the individual words in the native language.
35. *My mother usually cooks something nice eat to me [cf. ngo5 maa1 maa1 si4
soeng4 zyu2 jat1 se1 hou2 hek3 dik1 dung1 sai1 kap1 ngo5 (me mother
usually cook some nice eat NOMINALIZER thing to me)].

Discourse Level (64 Error Tokens). Discourse-related errors were

associated with how the learners combined sentences or clauses into a
broader text and their use of expressions within a text to refer to some
portion of the discourse containing that text.
Periphrastic-topic constructions (25 tokens: 44% from L-I, 28% from U-I,
28% from A). These sentences had a topic-comment structure with the
redundant use of a subject noun phrase or pronoun to repeat a fronted
topic (Yip, 1995). A significant cause was L1 interference, because, in
Chinese, topic-comment structures are very common.
36. *Hong Kong in the year 2047, it will have [cf. hoeng1 gong2 zoi6 2047 nin4
taa1 wui5 jau5 han2 do1 dung1 sai1 (Hong Kong in 2047 years it will have
many things)].

Use of it as discourse deixis (39 tokens: 48.7% from L-I, 30.8% from U-I,
20.5% from A). These sentences showed an inappropriate use of it
without a clear referent, as a discourse-deictic expression to refer to a
preceding or following portion of a discourse.
37. * When I was talking to her, I feel it was so good.

L1 interference may not have been at work, because the structures of the
erroneous English sentences were not comparable to those of their
Chinese translations. The Chinese third-person singular personal pronoun
taa1 (it) also behaves differently from the use of it in such sentences.
Inadequate mastery of the pronoun and confusion resulting from the
frequent use of dummy it in subject positions were probably the causes.
As can be seen from the above taxonomy, errors at all the
morphological, lexical, syntactic, and discourse levels are found from
the written output of students. Despite the different populations of
participants at the different proficiency levels, it can be seen that some
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

309

errors, such as incorrect order of adverbials or adverbs and inprepositional phrases, are more typical of lower-intermediate students
(with a much higher proportion of errors made by this level of students
than the proportions of errors made by students at other levels), whereas
these errors are rarely found in advanced students writings. Other
errors, such as pseudotough movement and misuse of until, are more
prevalent at the upper-intermediate levels but are rarely found in lowerintermediate students. Morphological errors, though few in total, are
prevalent at the advanced level of students.

Phase II
The results of the second phase presented confirmatory evidence for
syntactic transfer from Chinese to English with regard to the five
syntactic patterns selected, indicating that, for those structures, many
Chinese ESL learners tended to think in Chinese before they wrote in
English. The extent of syntactic transfer was particularly large for
complex target structures (e.g., relative clauses) and among learners of a
lower proficiency level, though advanced learners may also have relied
on the syntax and vocabulary of their previous linguistic repertoire when
encountering difficulty in producing output in the target language (for
further details, see Chan, 2004c). Alternative explanations were not
ruled out, including developmental sequences, similar but correct
structural patterns found in the L2, and learners avoidance behavior.

POSSIBLE SOURCES OF ERROR

L1 Transfer
A close scrutiny of the error taxonomy (and the results of the second
phase) shows that L1 transfer is inevitably an important source of learner
errors. The majority of the written output of the Hong Kong Cantonese
ESL learners is strongly reminiscent of the normative sentence structures
in their L1. Many learners tend to think in their native language first,
before converting their mental output into L2 written output. Some
learners may process their mental output directly in the L2 but constantly
retrieve their L1 repertoire when encountering difficulties or dealing with
unfamiliar concepts in their production of L2 written output. The units
affected range from the whole sentence to individual phrases or words at
nearly all linguistic levels save the morphological level. That L1
interference does not affect the morphological level is not difficult to
understand, because Chinese is an isolating language and a typical
Chinese word is a single morpheme (Li & Thompson, 1981). There is very
310

TESOL QUARTERLY

little morphological complexity, and most words consist of just one

morpheme not analyzable into component parts.

Lack of Facilitation From the L1

A lack of comparable equivalents in Chinese may also bring about
learner difficulty. For many error types identified, such as concord
problems, verb form selection, and case selection, the target language
features do not have comparable equivalents in the learners native
language. No claims about L1 transfer could be arrived at, but the
possibility of influence of a learners previous linguistic repertoire is not to
be dismissed. As is argued in the SLA literature, positive transfer resulting
from the similarities between the target and native languages, which is the
facilitating influence of cognate vocabulary or any other similarities
between the native and target languages (Odlin, 1989, p. 26), may
significantly facilitate acquisition of different L2 aspects, including
reading, writing, and grammar. The subjects erroneous output suggests
that the lack of comparable lexicogrammatical requirements in the native
language may result in a lack of facilitation, which may in turn lead to
added learner difficulty. With the existing data from learners of only one
L1 and the objectives of the study, it is impossible to affirm the facilitating
effects of positive transfer on ESL acquisition by Cantonese speakers,
because the effects of positive transfer can only be determined through a
comparison between learners of different native languages (Odlin, 1989).
However, there is reason to believe that learner difficulty might be
attributed to a low level of positive transfer.

NonL1-Related Factors
A number of nonL1-related factors are also evident from the error
taxonomy.
Lack of awareness of L2 norms. Learners lack of awareness of L2
norms is inevitably the most significant nonL1-related factor. Incorrect
verb form selection, for example, and many other errors which have
been described as the results of a low level of positive transfer, may be
the results of learners lack of awareness of L2 norms and their
inadequate mastery of the target language.
Misapplication of L2 rules and/or overgeneralization. Learners
misapplication of rules governing the formation of L2 comparative
and superlative structures may be the source of their use of duplicated
comparatives or superlatives. The production of pseudotough movement structures under the influence of acceptable tough movement
structures, and the overuse of affixes with words which do not require
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

311

the corresponding affixes, may be seen as exemplars of overgeneralization, where learners overgeneralize the context for the movement of
tough adjectives and the inventory of stem words which allow affixation.
Undergeneration. Undergeneration is manifested in the learners
production of pseudopassives, where they fail to generate the full range
of passive constructions in the L2.
Selectional mis-hits. The use of synforms is a clear exemplar of
learners selectional mis-hits in accessing their mental lexicons.
Universal processes. The developmental sequence of interrogative
acquisition, where subject-verb inversion is overgeneralized to embedded
questions (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991) may be the source of the learners
misordering of constituents in indirect questions. Their difficulties with
relative clauses could be seen as resulting from developmental sequences, as
guided by the accessibility hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie, 1977), with the
subject position acquired earlier than the direct object position, which in
turn is acquired earlier than the indirect object position, and so on. Universal
developmental processes found in both L1 and L2 acquisition (Brown, 1973;
Odlin, 1989) could also explain the omission of copulas.
Interaction between L1- and nonL1-related factors. An error is seldom
solely attributed to one single source. NonL1-related factors often
interact in an intricate fashion with L1-related factors. Pseudopassives, for
example, can be argued as an exemplification of undergeneration
resulting from the reflection of the typological characteristic of topic
prominence in Chinese, the learners L1 (Yip, 1995). Pseudotough
movement structures should best be seen as the results of a complex
interplay of overgeneralization (of tough movement) and L1 transfer.
How L1- and nonL1-related factors interact is beyond the scope of the
present study, but it is evident that L2 acquisition is a complex process
with different mechanisms working in tandem with each other.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the present study provide ample contemporary data for
the interlanguage grammars of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners, inform
the SLA communities of the extent of crosslinguistic influence, and reveal
other nonL1-related causes. As many current SLA theories acknowledge the
importance of mother-tongue influence and are formulated on the
assumption that transfer works in tandem with developmental factors and
nonL1-related factors, the results provide enhanced theoretical underpinnings for these theories. A lack of systematic and comprehensive account
of Cantonese ESL learners written output in the SLA literature also renders
the descriptive data in this article an invaluable bank of learning evidence.
Error analysis, being a post-hoc analytical instrument with all its methodo312

TESOL QUARTERLY

logical limitations, is still a useful means of uncovering some of the cognitive,

linguistic, and pragmatic complexities involved in L2 acquisition (James,
1998). The approach adopted by the present study may not be theoretically
innovative, but the findings certainly possess a posteriori explanatory power.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: HOW CAN THE ERROR

TAXONOMY BE USEFUL FOR ESL TEACHING?
Explicit remedial teaching has been argued in the literature as
conducive to L2 learning (e.g., Bell, 1992; Carroll, Swain, & Roberge,
1992; Chan, 2006; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Swain, 1993). Establishing
an empirically based taxonomy of common errors is one preliminary
step toward understanding the cognitive and psycholinguistic mechanisms at work in the learners learning process. The findings of the study
inform teaching professionals of the levels, nature, sources, and
prevalence of learner errors and equip them with the key ingredients
needed for the design of appropriate remedial instructional materials.
Although not all errors can be removed through the teachers intervention, an error taxonomy like that described in this article could help
syllabus designers, curriculum writers, as well as ESL teachers to anticipate
and diagnose learning problems, so that they will be more adept at
identifying appropriate teaching strategies, designing quality error
correction materials, and planning SLA educational programmes.

Levels of Errors
Helping students overcome syntactic errors is probably one of the
most pressing needs of many ESL teachers. The error taxonomy
established here alerts teaching professionals to the importance of
dealing with errors at other levels, especially the lexical level, which
occupies 12% of the total number of errors identified. Lexical selection,
which has often been neglected, should be an important component of
an ESL writing course (Santos, 1988). Attention to morphological errors
and discourse errors is also called for. Though small in number, the
morphological errors in the taxonomy inform us of an illuminating
phenomenon about ESL vocabulary acquisition: that they are typically
associated with higher proficiency students. These errors may represent a
different stage of ESL acquisition unique to higher proficiency learners.

Nature and Sources of Errors

Many ESL teachers acknowledge the adverse effects of L1 interference
but may not be aware of the extent of the effects. They may also overlook
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

313

the nonL1-related factors and the complex interplay between L1- and
nonL1-related factors. Teachers who are ill-informed of the nature and
sources of learner errors will find their design of remedial instructional
materials daunting. With an error taxonomy like the one established
here, ESL teachers can adopt remedial instructional strategies applicable to the sources and nature of each error type accordingly. A set of
ready-made materials for each error type can be designed for use in the
classroom and for sharing among teachers to facilitate team teaching
and lesson preparation. In the materials, examples of errors extracted
from the taxonomy can be included to illustrate the core of the problem.
If the error type is mainly L1-induced, native examples can be used for
contrast. If other factors are at work, such as misapplication of rules, the
subtle differences between the correct forms and the anomalies can be
presented. Self-access materials targeting higher proficiency students
can also be developed along these lines to enable learners themselves to
self-monitor and overcome their errors more efficiently and effectively.
In another study carried out by the author and her collaborators,
remedial instructional materials based on the insights of the taxonomical classification were designed and implemented with over 450
secondary and university ESL students in Hong Kong. It is found that
the remedial instructional materials, which include different examples
of the same error type, highlight the nature of the problems, and give
reference to the sources of the errors where appropriate, are beneficial
to ESL teaching and learning (Chan, 2006; Chan et al., 2002; Chan,
Kwan, & Li, 2003; Chan, Li, & Kwan, 2003).

Error Prevalence and Error Gravity

Error gravity and error prevalence are other important concerns of ESL
teachers. Errors such as incorrect preposition choice, comma splices, and
lack of pronoun agreement have been reported in the literature as less
serious, whereas those which interfere with comprehension, such as
relative clauses, word order, and word choice, have been regarded as more
grievous and require more attention (Vann, Meyer, & Lorenz, 1984).
Although previous error-gravity research in ESL establishes the gravity of
learner errors, our taxonomy adds a further dimension to the classification: error prevalence. From the taxonomy, it can be seen that some errors
are more ubiquitous in general and others are more prevailing at a
particular proficiency level. Remedial efforts should of course be put on
grievous errors, but prevalent errors, such as word class confusion, should
also receive attention. Based on the taxonomy established, an error-gravity
scale and an error-prevalence scale can be devised from the most grievous
or prevalent to the least grievous or prevalent. ESL teachers can then map
314

TESOL QUARTERLY

out their teaching sequence and prioritize their teaching focuses

according to the prevalence and gravity scales.

A Concrete Example of the Use of the Taxonomical Classification

Below is a short extract from the free writing of an intermediate
learner (Form 3).
In my childhood, I know everything is right or worm [synform]. I feel me is
very nice[case][concord]. I very love my friend [adverbial order]. I very like
[adverbial order] my school because I have very good friend [concord]. I
know me is a very bad girl [case] [concord]. I always sleeping [verb form] in
my classroom. I very happy [copula].

With the error taxonomy in mind, teachers can codify each error (see
coding in quote above) when marking students essays and classify the
errors into lexical (e.g., synform), syntactic (e.g., copula), or errors of
other levels. They can then check the errors against the gravity and
prevalence scales to sequence their teaching focuses. Errors which are
more typical of a higher proficiency level may be addressed at a later
stage, but grievous and prevalent errors typical of the students
proficiency level should be handled with immediacy. On careful
planning and prioritization of teaching focuses, teachers can then
access the remedial instructional material bank for appropriate teaching
materials.
The above coding can also be used for self-access purposes for
students who have received explicit teaching on the corresponding error
types. Teachers can give students the corrected essays with the marked
codes and refer students to the material bank for self-correction. When
students see the same code for their errors (such as I very love my friend
and I very like my school), they will learn to generalize the nature of their
errors and also the correction techniques.

CONCLUSION
In this article, I have reported on the results of a study which identified
common lexicogrammatical errors in Hong Kong Cantonese ESL students
written English output. It is argued that mother-tongue influence is
inevitably an important source of learner problems, but lack of facilitation
from the L1, inadequate mastery of correct usage, and universal processes
may also be important contributing factors. The error taxonomy presented
in this article was established based on written data from Hong Kong
secondary and university students, yet it can be expanded to include written
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

315

and spoken corpus produced by students at other proficiency levels and

from other linguistic, social, or ethnic backgrounds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the students who participated in the study. Thanks are also due
to my research collaborator, David Li, for his invaluable suggestions and input. This
study was supported by Strategic Research Grant number 7000975 from the City
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

THE AUTHOR
Alice Y. W. Chan is an associate professor at the Department of English, City
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. Her research interests include
error correction, grammar, second language acquisition, phonetics and phonology,
and lexicography.

REFERENCES
Bell, N. (1992). The role of spoken error correction in second language acquisition:
Issues in corrective technique. ORTESOL Journal, 13, 2132.
Bell, R. T. (1974). Error analysis: A recent pseudoprocedure in applied linguistics.
ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 25/26, 3549.
Bolton, K. (2002). The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong
English. In K. Bolton (Ed.), Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 29
56). Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Bolton, K., & Lim, S. (2002). Futures for Hong Kong English. In K. Bolton (Ed.),
Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 295313). Hong Kong SAR, China:
Hong Kong University Press.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Budge, C. (1989). Plural marking in Hong Kong English. Hong Kong Papers in
Linguistics and Language Teaching, 12, 3947.
Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second
language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173198. doi:10.1017/S0142716400005555.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2003). Alerting students to the correct use of until using an
algorithmic approach. The ORTESOL Journal, 22, 6978.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004a). Although . . . but; because . . . so: Why cant they be used
together? Modern English Teacher, 13, 2425.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004b). Noun phrases in Chinese and English: A Study of English
structural problems encountered by Chinese ESL students in Hong Kong.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17, 3347. doi:10.1080/07908310408666680.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004c). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of Hong
Kong Chinese ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 5674. doi:10.1111/
j.0026-7902.2004.00218.x.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004d). The boy who Mary loves him is called John: A study of the
resumptive pronoun problem and its correction strategies. Hong Kong Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 9, 5369.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2006). An algorithmic approach to error correction: An empirical study.
Foreign Language Annals, 39, 131147. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02254.x.
316

TESOL QUARTERLY

Chan, A. Y. W., Kwan, B. S. C., & Li, D. C. S. (2002). An algorithmic approach to

error correction: Correcting three common errors at different levels. JALT
Journal, 24, 201216.
Chan, A. Y. W., Kwan, B. S. C., & Li, D. C. S. (2003). Tackling the independent clause
as subject problem. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13, 107117.
Chan, A. Y. W., & Li, D. C. S. (2002). Form-focused remedial instruction: An
empirical study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 2453. doi:10.1111/
1473-4192.00023.
Chan, A. Y. W., Li, D. C. S., & Kwan, B. S. C. (2003). Misplacement and misuse of very:
Helping students overcome the very + VERB problem. The English Teacher: An
International Journal, 6, 125132.
Chan, B. (1991). A study of errors made by F6 students in their written English with
special reference to structures involving the transitive verb and the passive
construction. ILE Journal, 2, 4351.
Cook, V. J. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. London, England:
Macmillan Press.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161170. doi:10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161.
Deterding, D. (2000). Potential influences of Chinese on the written English of
Singapore. In A. Brown (Ed.), English in Southeast Asia 99 (pp. 201209).
Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Gisborne, N. (2002). Relative clauses in Hong Kong English. In K. Bolton (Ed.),
Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 141160). Hong Kong SAR, China:
Hong Kong University Press.
Green, C. (1991). Typological transfer, discourse accent and the Chinese writer of
English. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 14, 5163.
Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the
parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 6987.
Hammarberg, B. (1974). On the insufficiency of error analysis. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 12, 185192. doi:10.1515/iral.1974.12.1-4.185.
Hung, T. T. N. (2002). Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. In K. Bolton
(Ed.), Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 119140). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
James, C. (1990). Learner language. Language Teaching, 23, 205213. doi:10.1017/
S0261444800005905.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London,
England: Longman.
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63100.
Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125150. doi:10.1017/S0267190500002658.
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second
language acquisition. New York, NY: Pergamon Institute of English.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London, England: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you dont
know, words you think you know, and words you cant guess. In J. Coady & T.
Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 2034). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

317

Li, D. C. S. (1999). The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997
update. English World-Wide, 20, 67110.
Li, D. C. S. (2000). Hong Kong English: New variety of English or interlanguage?
English Australia Journal, 18, 5059.
Li, D. C. S., & Chan, A. Y. W. (1999). Helping teachers correct structural and lexical
English errors. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 79102.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429448. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517.
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London, England:
Routledge.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Poedjosodarmo, G. (2000). Influence of Malay on the written English of university
students in Singapore. In A. Brown (Ed.), English in Southeast Asia 99 (pp. 210
219). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of
the English language. London, England: Longman.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics (2nd ed.). Essex, England: Longman.
Santos, T. (1988). Processors reactions to the academic writing of nonnativespeaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 6990. doi:10.2307/3587062.
Snow, D. (2004). Cantonese as written language: The growth of a written Chinese
vernacular. Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing arent enough.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158164.
Tan, C. (2005). English or Singlish? The syntactic influences of Chinese and Malay on
the learning of English in Singapore. Journal of Language and Learning, 3, 156179.
Tang, S. W., Fan, G., Lee, H. T., Lun, S., Tung, C. S., & Cheung, K. H. (2002). jyut6
jyu5 ping3 jam1 zi6 biu2 (Guide to LSHK Cantonese romanization of Chinese characters)
(2nd ed.). Hong Kong SAR, China: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Vann, R., Meyer, D., & Lorenz, F. (1984). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of
ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 427440. doi:10.2307/3586713.
Webster, M., & Lam, W. C. P. (1991). Further notes on the influence of Cantonese
on the English of Hong Kong students. ILE Journal, 2, 3542.
Webster, M., Ward, A., & Craig, K. (1987). Language errors due to first language
interference (Cantonese) produced by Hong Kong students of English. ILE
Journal, 3, 6381.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (1991). Relative complexity: Beyond avoidance. CUHK Papers
in Linguistics, 3, 112124.
Yu, V. W. S. (1988a). An investigation of the language difficulties experienced by
Hong Kong secondary school students in English-medium schools. I. The
problems. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 267284.
Yu, V. W. S. (1988b). An investigation of the language difficulties experienced by
Hong Kong secondary school students in English-medium schools. II. Some
causal factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 307322.
Zhu, S. (2007, MayJune). Syntactic influences of Chinese on written Singapore English.
Paper presented at The Second CELC Symposium for English Language
Teachers, Singapore.

318

TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX
A Taxonomy of Written Errors Made by Hong Kong Cantonese ESL Learners

Error Type

%Total Errors in Each Type

%Total
Errors in
Lower
Upper
Corpus Intermediate Intermediate Advanced

Possible L1
Interference

Morphological Level (0.42)

Inappropriate selection
of affixes
Overuse of affixes

0.20

10

30

60

0.22

18

27

55

Lexical Level (12.35)

Inaccurate directionality
Synonym confusion
Vocabulary compensation
Synforms

0.18
1.46
3.98
6.72

22.2
58.9
37.7
54.5

66.7
35.6
47.2
33

11.1
5.5
15.1
12.5

!
!
!
X

0.22
0.66
0.84
0.94

9.1
6.1
31
44.7

81.8
75.8
59.5
51.1

9.1
18.2
9.5
4.3

!
!
!
!

0.94

23.4

70.2

6.4

0.98
1.08

73.5
53.7

24.5
31.5

2
14.8

!
!

1.98
2.2

29.3
29.1

50.5
53.6

20.2
17.3

!
!

2.28
2.36
2.52
2.88
3.16
3.44

64
61
45.2
36.8
18.4
91.3

22.8
26.3
36.5
47.2
53.2
7

13.2
12.7
18.3
16
28.5
1.7

!
!
!
X
!
!

3.80
3.86

78.4
73.5

18.4
18.1

3.2
8.3

!
X

4.08
5.18

56.9
40.5

35.2
40.5

7.8
18.9

X
!

6.46
8.52
8.89
9.00
9.65

72.4
71.6
44.1
38
64.1

23.2
23.7
37.6
38.4
29.3

4.3
4.7
18.2
23.6
6.6

!
!
X
X
!

0.50

44

28

28

0.78

48.7

30.8

20.5

Syntactic Level (85.95)

Pseudotough movement
Misuse of until
Misuse of conjunctions
Duplicated comparatives
or superlatives
Misordering of
constituents in indirect
questions
In-prepositional phrases
Independent clauses as
objects or subjects
Be + -ed
Pseudopassives and
undergeneration of
passives
Omission of subjects
Existential structures
Misuse of prepositions
Verb form selection
Misuse of relative clauses
Incorrect order of
adverbials or adverbs
Serial verb constructions
Inappropriate case
selection
Punctuation problems
Transitivity pattern
confusion
Be + base form
Omission of copulas
Concord problems
Word class confusion
Calquing
Discourse Level (1.28)
Periphrastic-topic
constructions
Use of it as discourse
deixis

TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF WRITTEN ERRORS

319