Elements of a Written Interlanguage

Elements of a written interlanguage:

A computational and corpus-based study of

institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese students

John Milton

RESEARCH REPORTS

General Editor: Gregory James

VOLUME TWO

Elements of a written interlanguage: A computational and corpus-based study of institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese students

John Milton

LANGUAGE CENTRE The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

This report is a shortened, edited version of the author’s thesis, ‘The description of a written interlanguage: Institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese students (a computational and corpus-based methodology)’, for which he was awarded the degree of PhD at Lancaster University, 2000.

Postal Address: Language Centre, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, CHINA

Telephone: (852) 2358 7880

Facsimile: (852) 2335 0249

Dedication

To Warqa and Kay

Contents

Editorial Foreword ix

Acknowledgements xi

Summary xiii

Preliminary notes xv

Corpora used in this study xv Interlanguage corpora xv ‘Control’, ‘Target language’ and Standard English corpora xvi Qualifications xviii

Chapter One: Distributional features of HK interlanguage 1

Introduction 1 Rationale for the data used 2 Word-class distribution in HKIL 3 Variation among ILs, registers and acquisitional sequences 10 Similarities between HKIL and SE conversation 12 Rhetorical questions 13 Repetitiveness 14 Co-ordination and subordination 15 Dissimilarities between HKIL and SE conversation 17 Plural nouns and determiners 18 Orders of acquisition and difficulty 24 Predicted and observed orders of acquisition and difficulty 26 -ing participles 28 The marking of possession 31 Verb morphology 32 Negation 32 Summary: A natural order of acquisition or an institutionalised IL? 36 Variations between English NS students’ texts and professional texts 37 Linguistic features of input 40

Chapter Two: The grammar of HK interlanguage 43

Overt ‘local’ errors in HKIL 43 Lexical bundles and templates 45 Details of word-class error frequency and distribution 46 Noun number, articles and S-V concord 49 Noun number 49 The articles 53 Ø for the 54 the for Ø 55 Ø for a 55 the for a 56

vii S-V discord 56 Variant patterns of subordination 58 That-complement clauses 58 -ing participles and infinitives 60 Ungrammatical use of pronouns and subordination 61 Information structure and subordination 62 Prepositions 64 Distributional factors 64 Overuse 65 Underuse 67 Verb arguments 68 Verb choice 73 Omitted copulas 73 Auxiliary BE 74 The existential in HKIL 75 Summary 77

Chapter Three: Doubt and certainty in HK interlanguage 79

The concept of ‘hedging’ 79 EFL students’ difficulties in hedging 80 Adverbial hedges 82 Intensifiers 83 Syntactic roles of adverbs 85 Adverbs of time and place 86 The imposition of coherence and certainty through adverbial connectors 87 The expression of epistemic modality by that-complementation 92 Degrees of depersonalisation and impersonalisation 98 The expression of epistemic modality by modal verbs 99 Variations in the expression of doubt and certainty among L2 students 104 Epistemic clusters 107

Chapter Four: Conclusion 109

Summary 109 Future directions 110

Bibliography 111

Appendix 1: 1994 UE, A grade sample examination script 119

Appendix 2: 1994 UE, D grade sample examination script 121

Appendix 3: 1994 GS, A grade sample examination script 123

Appendix 4: Sample Taiwanese learner’s text 125

viii Editorial Foreword

Hong Kong’s local education system is not producing students with adequate English language proficiency, charges one of the city’s top business leaders, David Eldon. Standards of English in Hong Kong are falling behind those of neighbouring cities, such as Beijing and Shanghai, according to Eldon, who is chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, one of Hong Kong’s largest employers. Expatriate executives from Hong Kong often make similar charges. The down- ward slide reportedly began before Britain returned control of the territory to China in 1997. Eldon has asked the government to move faster to provide more visas to English-language teachers from countries such as Australia and the UK. (The Financial Times, 14th December, 2000)

Since I was appointed as [Education] commission chairwoman last month, the declining proficiency in English and Chinese has been the primary area of concern shared by the people I have met … The writing and oral skills in both languages of the new generation has [sic] generally declined. We have to find the reasons. (Rosanna Wong Yick-ming, as reported by Gary Cheung in the South China Morning Post, 3rd May, 2001)

Ever since Professor Roy Harris’ (1989) controversial inaugural lecture at the University of Hong Kong, in which he characterised Hong Kong English as “the worst English in the world”, the theme of ‘declining standards’ has been a mantra in local society (cf. Moody 1997). For long, there was only disputed anecdotal evidence on which to base judgements, and demographic and sociolinguistic arguments were used to shore up defences. In recent years, however, public examination results have tended to lend support to the popular contention that English language ‘standards’ have indeed ‘dropped’.

What ‘standards’ are being referred to is not always altogether clear, however, but there is certainly a widespread dissatisfaction with many students’ inability to manipulate adequately the mechanics of the language. Hong Kong students’ English has long engaged the attention of language professionals (cf. Yung 1958; Board 1969; Shak 1971; Budge 1986; Chan 1987; Ho 1988; Bunton 1992; Field & Oi Yip 1992; Field 1994; Tang & Ng 1995; Chui 1996), but many investigations have tended to be intuitive, or based on restricted sources.

John Milton’s timely report suggests some of the reasons for the continued existence of certain idiosyncratic features of Hong Kong students’ written English, often characterised as ‘ungrammatical’. He bases his extensive analysis on fresh evidence, gleaned from a substantial corpus of scripts of Hong Kong matriculation examinations (the Hong Kong Examinations Authority’s Use of English Examination), compared with public examination scripts of students of a similar age to the Hong Kong examinees (the University of Cambridge ‘A’ level General Paper). He not only shows that the English interlanguage of Hong Kong students is homogeneous, but also, for the first time, offers analyses, based on frequency counts, to reveal the degree to which this interlanguage diverges from a native standard. By comparing the data from the two populations, he demonstrates the extent to which Hong Kong students overuse, underuse or misuse certain English words and expressions, in comparison to their native-speaking peers. He is thus able to offer a much more precise characterisation of Hong Kong students’ English than has hitherto ever been made.

Milton does not confine himself to a description of the use of isolated words and expressions, but expands his enquiry to include aspects of some of the typical discoursal features evinced in the data, such as patterns of subordination and the expression of epistemic modality. He claims that these and other aspects of Hong Kong students’ interlanguage are systematic, but shows that

ix second-language acquisition theories “have not proven very dependable in predicting or accounting for these observed features in HK learners’ written production”. The general characteristics he high-lights are of a local, often stigmatised, variety of English that is perpetuating itself through insti-tutional reinforcement, but he notes that this variety, distinguished by “conservative production strategies”, is “accommodated remarkably well to the demands and constraints of [the students’] educational environment”. He suggests, however, that there is a clear need for teachers and students to become aware of the differences between the types of disparities between Hong Kong inter-language and Standard English. More adequate descriptions of these differences than have yet been available are needed, to inform curricula, textbook design and classroom pedagogy.

References

Board, M.-W. 1969. An analysis of Chinese learners’ difficulties in writing English. PhD, University of Hong Kong. Budge, C. 1986. Variation in Hong Kong English. PhD, Monash University. Bunton, D. 1992. Thematisation and given–new information: Their effect on coherence in Hong Kong secondary student writing. MEd, University of Hong Kong. Chan, B. K-H. 1987. Some problems in the written English of lower-sixth form students in Hong Kong. MA, University of Hong Kong. Cheung, G. 2001. Rosanna Wong says English is key issue. South China Morning Post, 3.5.2001, p. 4. Chui, H. M. 1996. The criteria employed in writing and judging the quality of written texts: A case study of Hong Kong tertiary students. MA, University of Surrey. English fluency lags in Hong Kong. The Financial Times, 14.12.2000. [Online.] Available at www.ft.com. Field, Y. 1994. Cohesive conjunctions in the English writing of Cantonese speaking students from Hong Kong. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 1, 125–39. Field, Y. & Oi Yip, L. M. 1992. A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23, 1, 15–28. Harris, R. 1989. The worst English in the world? Inaugural lecture from the Chair of English Language, 24th April. Supplement to The Gazette 36, 1, 37–46. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Ho, Y. Y. 1988. A study of the quality of writing of Hong Kong secondary students. BEd, University of Nottingham. Moody, A. J. 1997. The status of language change in Hong Kong English. PhD, University of Kansas. Shak, W.-H. 1971. A study of errors in the written English of learners in Anglo-Chinese secondary schools in Hong Kong. MA, University of Hong Kong. Tang, E. & Ng, C. 1995. A study on the use of connectives in ESL students’ writing. Perspectives 7, 2, 105–22. Yung, T. T.-Y. 1958. An analysis of the written English of Chinese pupils in Hong Kong. MA, University of London.

x Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the students whose production is the subject of this study. The data collection for this analysis would also not have been possible without a series of grants from the Hong Kong University Grants Committee (DAG92/93.LC01; HKUST 514/94H; DAG94/95.LC01). These grants, in turn, enabled me to work with a number of individuals who aided in the preparation of materials for analysis: Warqa Milton, who did most of the transcription of the examination scripts into electronic format; Nandini Chowdhury, who assisted with the manual error tagging; and Robert Freeman, who assisted with the early management of the corpora and helped design UNIX scripts for their analysis.

Several colleagues at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (UST), especially Professor Gregory James, have taken an interest in various aspects of this work. Cantonese- speaking colleagues, notably Ms. Candice Poon, have also helped me in my study of Cantonese syntax. I am very grateful to my PhD supervisor, Professor Geoffrey Leech, for his patience and advice. Any shortcomings are of course my own.

John Milton

xi xii Summary

This study sets out to identify the main variant features of the written interlanguage (IL) of Hong Kong students of English (HKIL) and to determine sociological and linguistic factors that might help account for the persistence of these features. It describes computational and manual analyses of an electronic corpus of HK students’ texts mainly in comparison to a ‘control’ corpus of UK stu- ents’ Standard English (SE) texts.

Three aspects of HKIL are investigated, based on data revealed by part-of-speech (POS) tagging:

1. an identification of the distributional profile of the IL (based on POS categories) – i.e. many of the lexicogrammatical features which can be shown to be characteristic of this interlanguage; 1. those features of SE (determined by POS tagging) that appear to present the greatest ‘learnability’ and production problems for HK learners; and 2. characteristic discoursal features of HKIL (particularly epistemic modality) identified by word class.

The findings of these empirical analyses question second language acquisition (SLA) theories that make strong generalised claims for linguistic constraints on L2 acquisition; for example, that there is a ‘universal and natural order of acquisition’ independent of L1 and instruction.

The IL data suggest instead that these learners are, to a substantial degree, encouraged in the application of compensatory production strategies, often at the expense of acquiring grammatical and communicative competence. These compensatory strategies appear to be one factor hampering the learners’ effective communication of representative and propositional information in English. Moreover, several characteristic interlanguage features appear to be institutionally induced, partly because HK students are misinformed about the properties of, and distinctions between, spoken and written English. The linguistic contexts of ungrammaticality and reduced expression in the L2, including the constrained manner in which these learners are taught to structure information, make clear the need for pedagogy to go beyond error correction in helping learners articulate and reformulate their L2 texts.

xiii xiv

Preliminary notes

Corpora used in this study

Interlanguage corpora

Between 1992 and 2000, I collected the writing of Hong Kong (HK) students submitted in electronic form for courses in English as a foreign language (EFL) at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (UST). The resulting ‘monitor archive’ 1 is composed of assignments written by students during their three-year undergraduate programme. Since 1997 students have been required to submit electronic copies in text format via e-mail directly to a server, where the files are stored by student ID number. As of January 2001, this archive consisted of about 25 million running words of texts from about 6,000 students (about 40,000 scripts).

The size of such a learner corpus is significant in that, as the collection grows, the number of topics increases, and the influence of the initially relatively limited number of rubrics, topics and tasks on the grammatical patterns and lexis of the texts lessens. As Selinker (1992: 213) observes “… topic, a semantic/discourse variable, can affect surface syntactic order in both the NL [native language] and IL [interlanguage], and thus in the language transfer process”. My main use of this archive was to check the observations found in the approximately 1.5-million-word HK examination corpus described here.

In addition to the archive described above, I have collected, and have had transcribed into electronic format, a number of other texts written by HK and other Chinese-speaking students.

The Hong Kong Examinations Authority (HKEA) gave me access to the 1992 scripts of the written section of the A-level Use of English Examination (hereafter UE92)2, which is administered to all HK Form 7 school-leavers. I compiled 550 scripts awarded a ‘D’ grade, and another 550 scripts assigned an ‘E’ grade: altogether 1,100 papers that received minimally passing grades – a total of about 600,000 tokens. This examination corpus was transcribed and tagged with the CLAWS part- of-speech tagger (the CL-7 tagset), see Garside et al. (1987).3 About 50,000 words from each grade range (‘E’ and ‘D’) were manually post-edited for POS tagging accuracy, and then manually coded for error.

A second trawl of examination scripts in 1994 (UE94) resulted in the compilation of 1,400 transcribed scripts representing all seven grade levels of the A-level Use of English Examination scripts. This collection contains 200 scripts randomly and evenly selected from each grade level (i.e. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘U’, or ‘unclassifiable’): a total of 750,000 tokens. This collection was tagged using the CL-7 tagset. This examination corpus makes possible the investigation of lexis and grammar at various proficiency levels of HK students’ production.4 My immediate reason for undertaking this collection was that by 1994, many local universities were requiring all incoming students to take a first-year EFL course. This 1994 collection allows the

1 I will refer to the overall collection of the student assignments as an ‘archive’ in the more general sense of the word, and to any specific collection of texts used for analysis as a ‘corpus’. I realise that this stretches the definition of the words, but I believe it is justified since, although much of the archive of HK students’ texts is an opportunistic collection, it and the other collections I hold were not arrived at indiscriminately. 2 These examinations have been rigorously standardised: an ‘E’ grade is roughly equivalent to a TOEFL score of 450, and an ‘A’ to 600 (Hogan & Chan 1993: 6). 3 The tagset is listed at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/ucrel/claws/. 4 That is, proficiency as measured by grades assigned on standardised and norm-referenced examinations.

investigation of ‘orders of difficulty/acquisition’ discussed in this study, as it represents the full range of written language performance among all HK secondary-school leavers. However, manual analyses in this study are conducted on the less proficient HK student scripts (graded ‘D’ and ‘E’) from the 1992 and 1994 collections, which represent the production of over 50% of HK school- leavers.

In co-operation with colleagues teaching in Taipei,5 I also acquired assignments written in undergraduate EFL courses at several Taiwan universities, collected and transcribed over a thirteen-year period between 1985 and 1998. This collection consists of about 500,000 words of texts written by some 1,000 students. Although there are a number of differences between this and the HK learner corpora described above, the two IL corpora provide an opportunity to compare the written English of two cohorts of Chinese speakers who have essentially the same first-language (L1) written system, and very similar L1 grammars. All the HK students are native speakers of Cantonese and have had at least 15 years of formal schooling in mixed code (English and Cantonese) beginning from a very early age. Taiwanese students, on the other hand, are educated in Putonghua (although at home they may speak one or more dialects – see Ramsey 1987: 107–15) and have had much less, and much later, instruction in English. While the HK students’ texts are graded by proficiency, the Taiwanese students’ texts are not, although they clearly represent a range of proficiency levels. The comparison of these two student cohorts is not central to this study, but any differences we discover will be interesting, especially for the light they might shed on L1 transfer theories. No studies that I know of have compared English texts written by Cantonese and Putonghua speakers – or even distinguished between the interlanguage dialects.

Another collection of texts written in English by second-language (L2) writers, and to which I will occasionally compare the HK students’ texts, is the Longman Learners’ Corpus (generously made available by Pearson Education, UK). The version I have consists of about 3,500,000 words, including some 32,000 words from ‘Chinese speakers’.

These collections of IL data allow the written English texts of HK students at various proficiency levels to be compared with each other, as well as to the academic writing of other L2 student writers of English (especially undergraduate students in Taiwan), and with the native-speaker (NS) text corpora described below.

‘Control’, ‘Target language’ and Standard English corpora

I distinguish in this study between Standard English (SE) and the target language (TL) that HK learners are generally encouraged to emulate at school. HK learners are seldom exposed, or have access, to authentic registers of SE in primary and secondary school. The ostensible TL that they are most often exposed to in EFL classrooms varies in its approximation to SE, from a grammatically accurate but greatly simplified register of ‘teacher talk’, to a variety that is often closer to the grammar of the interlanguage dialect than to SE.

The standard corpora of professionally edited and expertly written native speakers’ texts – e.g. the Brown and London-Oslo-Bergen (LOB) corpora, and even the more recent British National Corpus (BNC) – do not provide appropriate controls for a corpus of the writing of undergraduate language learners. Toward this end, I obtained (thanks to the University of Cambridge Local Examinations

5 Colman Bernath (Soochow University) and Ting-Kun Eric Liu (University of Newcastle, UK). See Appendix 4 for a sample text.

xvi

Syndicate), and had transcribed into electronic format, 770 school-leaving examination essay scripts produced by 110 students in the UK who had received grades of ‘A’ and ‘B’ on the 1994 A- level General Studies Examination. This ‘GS’ corpus (of about 510,000 tokens) represents relatively proficient academic writing by English NS (or near NS) students, whose ages and academic background are similar to those of the HK students. These UK students’ texts constitute an SE corpus comparable in genre to the HK students’ texts, as both corpora contain argumentative/ discursive essays written under examination conditions. I treat the UK students’ texts as a control group, without suggesting that these texts are, or should be, a target for EFL learners, since even the most proficient NS students are still novice writers.6 The topic, sex of author and assigned grade of each script in all three examination corpora are identifiable by file name.

In addition to this ‘control corpus’, written by NS counterparts of the HK learners, at least two types of TL corpora are useful for this type of study. One is the written English to which the learners are most likely to have been exposed. I have acquired four such collections of types of texts that HK students are likely to have had presented to them as models:

One million tokens in electronic format from the most widely read local English language daily newspaper (The South China Morning Post).7 Most students claim to have read this newspaper at least sporadically while at secondary school.

One million tokens in electronic format from coursebooks published in Hong Kong and widely used in local secondary schools (i.e. texts of the type that students have been exposed to for several years before their school-leaving examination). These texts were all written for the HK secondary-school market.8

A number of texts, handouts and other materials from some HK publishers, and from ‘tutorial schools’, whose goal it is (along with most of the rest of the HK educational system) to coach students for local examinations. These texts represent the less reputable, but often more persuasive, educational ‘models’ to which students are exposed. I collected these texts over a number of years with the help of students who had attended these hothouse academies.

A fourth type of text, to which students are exposed relatively late in their academic career – the unsimplified English of academic textbooks that they suddenly encounter in their undergraduate content courses. This material is both lexically and grammatically very difficult for most HK students, as it is usually grounded in foreign (often American) culture and written for English NSs. It is represented mainly by three collections of excerpts from undergraduate textbooks (Computer Science; Biology/Biochemistry/Chemistry; and Business Studies/

6 The comparison of HK and UK student writing is also appropriate because of British influence in the former colony (e.g. the HK educational system and curricula are largely based on the UK Education Act of 1946, and most teachers have been educated according to British curricula). Orthographic conventions still mainly follow the British standard. 7 Collected by Phil Benson at The University of Hong Kong in 1994. 8 Although this schoolbook text corpus is reasonably large, it contains only the production of one publisher and a few authors, and therefore cannot be said to represent all the instructional materials to which HK students are exposed. It was compiled by my colleague, Ian Smallwood, at UST, mostly from texts published by Macmillan Publishers, Hong Kong, between 1980 and 1998.

xvii

Economics).9 I will also refer to standard SE corpora such as the BNC,10 the Brown and LOB, which do not require description here. These ‘expert’ corpora were collected to act as representative samples of broad registers and genres of professionally written and edited English. They do not necessarily represent the types of texts that students might be expected to produce. Because of this, and because I could not obtain full access to the complete BNC, I have, since 1997, collected digital texts from public domain websites and roughly categorised these by genre. This archive, currently consisting of about sixty million words, includes a range of text types, some of which it is reasonable to assume students of various disciplines might have to produce, or at least recognise, in their academic or professional careers.11 Table 1 summarises the text collections that I currently hold, or have access to, and to which I will refer in this study.

Table 1: Electronic text collections referred to in this study.

Abbreviation Description Number of tokens

HKUST-LC Written assignments from EFL courses at HKUST* 25,000,000+

UE92-LC HK ‘UE’ examination scripts (‘D’ and ‘E’ grades)* 600,000 L2 UE94-LC HK ‘UE’ examination scripts (‘A’ – ‘U’ grades)* 750,000 corpora TLC Written assignments from EFL courses at Taiwan universities 510,000

LLC Longman Learners’ Corpus 3,500,000

GS UK ‘GS’ examination scripts (‘A’ and ‘B’ grades)* 510,000

HKSB HK secondary school textbooks 1,000,000

HKUST-TC 3 corpora representative of undergraduate textbooks 3,000,000

SCMP HK newspaper text 1,000,000 L1 Corpora WEB Public domain texts from the web 60,000,000+

Brown American collection (Brown University)* 1,000,000

LOB British equivalent of Brown (London-Oslo-Bergen)* 1,000,000

BNC ‘Sampler’ Post-edited portions (written and spoken) of the BNC* 2,000,000 * Partially or completely POS-tagged. + These ‘monitor archives’ continue to grow.

Qualifications

We must bear in mind that differences between the texts of UK and HK school-leavers may be due to a number of factors, including some combination of variations between the L1s of each student cohort; distinctions between the methods and expectations of the two educational systems; the immediate types and variety of writing tasks in the examinations; and other differences between the

9 These are part of a series of corpora (HKUST-TC) complied at UST by Gregory James, using collection techniques similar to those applied to the selection of the Brown corpus. (see James cum al. 1993; James & Purchase 1996; James et al. 1997). 10 The internationally available ‘sampler’ portion and the complete 100,000,000 words, as accessible from http://thetis.bl.uk/lookup.html. 11 Many of the texts are from US government web sites. The materials include instructional texts (e.g. manuals); engineering, science, arts and business texts; technical and non-technical reports of several types, (including law, accounting, commerce etc.); as well as speeches, fiction, biographies, and newspaper text.

xviii

examinations and social/educational systems.

The HK examination topics are conceptually less sophisticated, contain a more controlled vocabulary, and are probably more easily anticipated than those presented to the UK students. However, while the L2 students do parrot the lexis and grammar of the examination prompts more readily than the L1 students, this does not entirely account for the differences that we observe in their production. We must look to the wider educational background of the students. For example, we will see evidence of similarities between the L2 learners’ written production and the materials they have available as models throughout their educational experience.

The representativeness of any corpus collection and the comparability of any sets of texts are inherently limited in some manner – if for no other reason than that the products of separate minds are infinitely variable. In a more prosaic sense, it is possible that not all UK student examination scripts are the products of English NSs, as information on the L1 of the ‘UK’ writers was not available. 12 Nevertheless, this corpus consists of ‘expository’ essays written on non-technical, general themes, and awarded grades of ‘A’ or ‘B’ on a British national examination that claims to measure written proficiency. It therefore seems reasonable to regard these texts as representative of the written English of proficient NS school leavers, and to have these texts serve as a comparable register and genre, and (with some reservations) a theoretically attainable standard for HK EFL learners. However, as I have noted, these texts are not meant to function as models for L2 production, as they are prone to the infelicities of novice NS writers.

Care is also required in comparing these two non-elicited data collections (i.e. HK students’ texts to UK students’ texts), because the UK examination corpus contains fewer scripts written by fewer authors (since each UK student wrote twice as much as each HK student), covering a wider range of (and different) topics than a comparable number of tokens from the HKIL examination corpora. Each UK school-leaver was required to write one essay on at least seven different topics. However, each HK school-leaver wrote on only one topic from a choice of eight topics (distributed in roughly the same proportions across grade sets). I am also able to refer to the larger ‘monitor archive’ of HK student untimed out-of-class assignments, written in response to a much larger number of topics, in order to confirm distribution of features in the NNS text corpora. All comparisons among corpora were made by dividing each corpus into at least ten sections and comparing frequencies across sections, using a correlational coefficient to ensure that any reported feature is widely dispersed. The means of those features that significantly correlate across sections are reported.

Another theoretical limitation in the comparison is that circumstances did not permit me to control the topics assigned to the HK and UK students. In any event, to have done so would not have been appropriate for this study. It does not seem likely that, unless the topics are very narrow, lexis or structure in any production task shared by writers across distant cultures can be very tightly controlled. I am specifically interested in looking at text produced under authentic institutional conditions, and at the strategies that students use to meet these requirements. Corder (1971), in recommending elicitation procedures, cautions that the analysis of regular student production may not result in an accurate profile of learner competence. However, it is actual, rather than potential, L2 production that I seek to measure in this study.

12 However, in hundreds of searches in this corpus, I have found very few of the grammatical or stylistic errors typical of non-native speakers (NNS) of English.

xix

Chapter One: Distributional features of HK interlanguage

Introduction

This chapter sketches a distributional profile of HK learners’ written interlanguage (HKIL) by contrasting examination scripts of HK students at all proficiency levels with the examination scripts of proficient native English speaking UK school leavers.13 The description of HKIL in this chapter focuses mainly on variations in the occurrences of selected word classes, morphemes and certain syntactic structures in the two corpora.

One of the early criticisms made of error analysis (EA) studies is that they have generally failed to account for features of SE that are avoided in the IL (cf. Schachter 1974).14 By concentrating mainly on overt errors in the syntax of constructions, EA has often overlooked the covert discoursal infelicities of learner language. For example, an error analysis that concludes that certain learners do not make many errors in the passive voice, but overlooks the fact that they actually make little use of the passive voice, is not particularly useful. The measurement of typological error in ILs has lost interest for many linguists partly for this reason, since an analysis that does not go beyond an account of ungrammaticality defines the learning target only negatively, as a goal to be achieved by the mere avoidance of error. Unfortunately, this appears to be precisely the goal of much EFL pedagogy in Hong Kong. The following analysis attempts to measure some of the characteristics of the learners’ L2 at the culmination of fifteen years of instruction.

13 I refer mainly to the distributional frequency of morphemes, lexemes and word classes in the text corpora, and only incidentally to their location within sentences. The written English proficiency of HK students is measured by their grades (‘A’–‘F’) on the essay section of the A-level Use of English Examination grades. This standardised English examination is widely accepted in Hong Kong as the de facto measure of English proficiency of school leavers. The UK student corpus is not meant to represent exemplary written models for EFL learners, although only UK school leavers’ General Studies examination scripts that had received graded ‘A’–‘B’ were used in this study. This ‘control corpus’ does, however, allow us to identify significant patterns of divergence between similar text types written by English NNS and NS (or near-NS) student cohorts, both of whom are compelled to write under similar examination conditions. The L2 texts I will focus on consist of English written by HK school-leavers under examination conditions, where the grammaticality of their English plays a large part in determining their entry to, and choice of, university, and major academic programme. I regularly consult the much larger ‘monitor archive’ of untimed HK student written assignments to confirm observations where necessary (e.g. where the relatively limited number of topics in the examination scripts may skew language patterns). Together, these examination and assignment scripts represent most of the formal written English produced by upper secondary and university undergraduate HK students. Other corpora of school textbooks and newspaper texts I hold, or have access to, represent most of the putative target language to which they are exposed. One gap in my data is the lack of an appropriate L1 Chinese corpus against which to contrast L1 patterns, although this is partly addressed by the availability of recently published grammars of Cantonese based on corpus analysis (e.g. Matthews & Yip 1994), which at least make it possible for me (as a non-native speaker of Cantonese) to refer with some confidence to basic syntactic properties of the L1. 14 I use the verbs avoid and underuse synonymously, although it is not always clear when the underuse of particular features is the result of a deliberate production strategy, instructionally induced patterns, or simply of unfamiliarity with the L2. However, evidence from this study will show that instructors and students conspire in a short-term assessment strategy, which sets aside the characteristics of academic discourse for institutional purposes.

Rationale for the data used

Selinker & Han (1998) have two requirements of a “serious” SLA study:

First, there must be a longitudinal study to discern the nature of stabilization as a plateau leading potentially to fossilization, and second there must be a clear understanding of causal factors, primarily language transfer and multiple effects. (ibid.: 4)

Clearly, there are theoretical limits to a correlational analysis, such as the one I pursue here, but cause and effect relationships are not easy to establish in longitudinal studies either. Such studies are only reliable if incremental and systematic, and if all the variables possibly affecting acquisition can be accounted for. Given the difficulty of controlling these variables in non-elicited output, longitudinal studies have generally been limited to tracking variation in the performance of very few individuals over a relatively short time period.

Rather than measuring variation among the same learners at different times, as is done in longitudinal studies, I will contrast learners from a range of proficiency levels to each other and to English NS students. My chief interest is in analysing the written production of HK university students in order to identify general patterns in their IL dialect, rather than in assessing the development of individual learners over time. I believe this is justified since most observers (including the students themselves) doubt that there is much modification in their use of English after adolescence. This ‘steady state’ is certainly discernible over the three-year course of their university experience. I do not take this as evidence of the inability of these students to profit from instruction or as proof of their necessary limitation in acquiring SE, but rather largely as the failure of the educational system to understand and address their long-term communication needs.

Given the environmental constraints of the EFL classroom, it is not surprising that the writing of HK students stabilises at a relatively early period – certainly well before they enter university. Once accepted in the HK tertiary system, students are implicitly encouraged in the belief that they have reached a ‘plateau’ of ‘ultimate attainment’ by having passed their school-leaving English examinations. They are not normally held accountable for systematic improvement in written or spoken production in their major subjects while at university, or even necessarily from one EFL course to the next. In fact, educational pressures may further reinforce many of the linguistic features of their school-acquired IL. When tertiary students are required to produce English, they often bring the same strategies to play that enabled them to converse or write formally for their school-leaving examinations. However, they are under much more pressure to perform well in their credited major subjects than to demonstrate increased competence in their ‘second languages’ (English or Putonghua). Meeting the immediate goals of their content courses often entails the practice of memorisation and other ‘instrumental’ acquisition and production strategies, in which they have had many years of training.

Under these circumstances, fossilised or institutionalised IL features can be satisfactorily demonstrated by ‘single moment’ (cross-sectional) data that represent the production of a particular discourse community. The data in the current study are sampled from the full range of proficiency in English language acquisition observed in the production of these students, including supervised and unsupervised institutional production. Observations of their ‘stabilised’ linguistic features should therefore be valid.

The corpora I have collected allow a more detailed description of this particular dialect of Chinese- speakers’ IL than has previously been possible. In order to generate a comparative profile of the distributional characteristics of HKIL, I initially compare word-class frequencies in the HK student

corpora to those of students at or near an NS level (i.e. proficient UK school-leavers). The comparison of HK students’ L2 production to analogous L1 students’ texts allows us to control for variables that affect the production of student writers in general, such as maturation, and aspects of register. The alternative method of comparing NNS students’ texts directly with professionally edited texts risks confusing the particular characteristics of L2 production with general features of student production or the textual requirements of examination ‘argumentative’ essays.15 Both NS and NNS students’ texts are likely, for example, to contain relatively smaller vocabularies in comparison to professionally edited written materials, and to share some of the stylistic and register characteristics of novice writers. This is, in fact, what we find when we compare the two corpora of student scripts to a corpus of professionally written and edited SE.

Several authors (e.g. Brown & Yule 1983; Tarone & Yule 1989) have warned of the bias resulting from the study of learner speech (in this study, written text) when it is compared only to the hypothesised production of idealised native speakers, rather than to actual production. Ringbom (1987: 73) explains the advantages of investigating errors in L2 students’ texts by comparing them with the texts of other students:

… native speakers must be at a lower academic and/or maturational level if error frequencies (identified in their and in EFL learners’ use of English) are to yield even roughly similar [sic] figures.

One needs to be even more wary of comparing students’ texts directly or solely to expert models when investigating relative distributional profiles. HK students are not adequately initiated into the conventions of an academic, professional or social international discourse community. It is unwarranted to measure them directly in terms of the requirements of a community of which they are hardly aware, and to which they certainly do not belong (although we assume that they must ultimately face the prospect of such academic and professional assessment – see Hamp-Lyons 1996). The analysis that follows explores developmental and register affinities and variations between the texts of HK EFL learners at various proficiency levels and those of English NS (or near NS) students. The reader can get a general impression of the differences between the HK, Taiwanese and UK students’ texts from the scripts in Appendices 1–4 (Appendix 1: an ‘A’-graded HK student’s script; Appendix 2: an ‘D’-graded HK student’s script; Appendix 3: an ‘A’-graded UK student’s script; and Appendix 4: an ungraded Taiwanese student’s script).

Word-class distribution in HKIL

The distribution of linguistic features, as descriptive grammars (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 33–4) stress, is not only important for the identification of function and meaning, but is also essential in determining the grammatical and textual acceptability of discourse. Leech (1992: 110) takes it as self-evident that mapping the distributional characteristics of the target language is necessary for

15 Similarities in the HK and UK students’ ages, length of education and experience of supposedly comparable British curricula are part of the basis for this comparison, although of course there are many educational and social differences between these two student cohorts. Both corpora consist of the timed examination scripts of school leavers on expository/argumentative topics concerned with contemporary issues in each society. Both English NS and NNS students’ texts have been produced under similar time constraints. I compare examination scripts because they tend to contain less holophrastically copied source material than unsupervised student writing, although, many HK students manage to regurgitate surprisingly large memorised chunks for examinations. Differences in the expectations made of the two student cohorts also profoundly affect their writing, as I will discuss.

foreign language teaching purposes. Equally important is the need to understand the students’ IL texts themselves, including the forces that shape the IL, such as L1 influences, the inherent intralingual difficulties of the L2, and institutional pressures that bear directly on the students’ production. Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers have generally agreed that a knowledge of the influences on learners’ choice of language is crucial in deciding the type and timing of instruction, correction and feedback. Some of the best-known studies, however, have leapt from observations of inadequate data to generalisations concerning the process of second language acquisition. Many researchers, in a search for motivational factors, innate biological operations, or universal syntactic principles, often minimise the influence of environmental variables.

We have plenty of evidence that the HK instructional environment encourages HK learners to memorise chunks of language in preparation for anticipated topics in examinations.16 This is a conspiracy in which English teachers (reluctantly or not) take part, in order to give their students an advantage in the examinations by coaching them in generalities suitable for a range of likely topics. Much of the practice of EFL instruction in Hong Kong encourages learning strategies that circumvent the need to deal directly with the teaching or acquisition of lexical, grammatical and pragmatic competence. In the extreme, students learn, especially for examinations, to avoid any specific reference to the topic.17 The following opening paragraph, regurgitated in response to an examination topic requiring students to write about ‘expensive brand-name clothes and fashion accessories’, illustrates a strategy that makes considerable use of generic formulæ to avoid having to generate language in response to a specific topic:18

Hong Kong is a bustle and rustle metropolis. Materialism is a category of social misfits. I do believe that some action must do in order to allevi- ate this deplorable problem without any delay. Materialism will contaminate the minds of youths. According to some reliable findings, the spate of shoplifting has been snowballing in an alarming rate. Some sociologists claim that the minds of the youngsters are just like a blank sheets and are highly susceptible by outside attraction. I absolutely agree that most of the people, especially adults, like to purchase some expensive brand- name clothes and fashion accessories. These tragic phenomenon will contaminate the minds of the youths.19

This student’s categorical definitions are typical of the formulaic production of many HK students. Also typical are the unconditional and repeated abstract judgements (e.g. the minds of the youths/

16 Students are often taught the IL dialect in HK classrooms. 17 See Tarone et al. (1976) and Varadi (1980) for discussion of ‘topic avoidance’ as a communication strategy. 18 By ‘generic’ language, I refer in the widest sense to ‘the expression of general or universal truths’ through what Chesterman (1991: 32–9) calls the ‘slippery’ concept of genericness. Reliance on the ‘gnomic aspect’ has clear advantages for instructors and students in EFL situations, where the learning of English has short- term assessment goals. Because it is associated with morphologically simple forms, it provides an ideal textual strategy for avoiding grammatical error. 19 The Hong Kong Examinations Authority, in its annual report for 1994, referred to this particular essay to demonstrate the memorisation common on the school-leaving Use of English Examination. The student ignores the topic in favour of disgorging as many ‘lexical chunks’ as possible, without regard to relevance. Although the HKEA condemns the practice of memorising formulaic phrases considered suitable for generalised topics, classroom preparation for the examinations promotes it, and students are often led to believe that this strategy will succeed in convincing the examiners that they can generate coherent English discourse. The students are coached to strengthen their generic language with terms such as the emphatic do operator, the modal will (in its predictive meaning), amplifying and intensifying adverbs such as highly and absolutely, and phrases such as without any delay. Such ‘linguistic condiments’ may be intended to obfuscate memorised formulæ by pretence to conviction.

youngsters), expressed in language that carries the greatest possible conviction (e.g. I do believe; I absolutely agree). The weak qualification by some and most does little to soften this pragmatic force. The student’s unreserved propositions are decorated with highly metaphorical (and often inaccurate) ‘plug and play’ language (e.g. bustle and rustle; the spate of shoplifting; snowballing; like a blank sheets). This use of language, induced by instruction, is common in the texts of HK students, and contrary to the conventions of any authentic communicative act. A quantitative contrast of HK and UK students’ texts allows us to measure these and other, more covert, characteristics of HKIL.

Table 2 lists 55 word classes identified by the CLAWS (CL-7) part-of-speech tagger (and the most frequent orthographic words in each class)20 most significantly underused by ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK students in comparison to proficient UK students.21 Table 3 lists all the 43 CLAWS word classes (and the most frequent words in each class) that are significantly overused by the HK students.22 I determined the probability for variance in the distribution of word classes between the two cohorts of student writers by calculating log likelihood (Scott 1997, calls this ‘keyness’; see also Read & Cressie 1988; Dunning 1993), and selecting significantly overused and underused items.23 The word classes in each table are listed according to log likelihood ratios.24

20 “CLAWS (Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System) is a suite of computer programs for automatically assigning an appropriate grammatical tag to each word in a body of continuous text.” (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/eiamjw/claws/claws7.html – a full key to the CL-7 tagset is given on this website; see also Garside et al. 1997). Elliptical marks indicate a substantial number of other words in the class whose distribution is skewed in the same direction. ‘Topic-dependent’ words and phrases, related to the prompts of the UK and HK examination scripts, are very common and not listed here (e.g. in the case of HK scripts: comic, books, students; and in the case of the UK scripts: energy, music, press, science, religion). These words are, however, included in the counts of the word classes themselves. I deleted these words from lexical word counts by first disregarding most open-class words (and their synonyms) that occur in the examination prompts. Identifying the open-class words representative of the writing of NS students was more difficult, since NSs use words in a wider range of senses than do NNSs. We should also note that differences in the normal use or meaning of words (especially proper nouns, and common nouns such as dollar and estate in the HK texts vs pound and council in the UK texts) specific to each society also result in certain words occurring more or less often in each corpus. I do not exclude such words from this analysis, although I do exclude proper nouns such as Hong Kong, which skew the proportional ratio of the word class. 21 The texts of less proficient HK students are used for this analysis because these students constitute over 50% of all HK school leavers, and the majority of students at UST. I will highlight the distributions of those morphemes that vary significantly between the texts of the most and least proficient HK students in the discussions that follow. 22 The terms ‘overuse’ and ‘underuse’ indicate that a feature occurs significantly more or less often than statistical measures predict it should. Percentages in these tables take into account error in the automatic assignment of CLAWS tags, but not ungrammaticality in HKIL, which I will discuss separately. 23 I selected for significance where p < 0.005, i.e. only very highly significant items. 24 Dunning (1993) argues that log likelihood ratios are a more statistically valid method of comparing the frequency of ‘events’ (in this case, word classes) across ‘populations’ (in this case, texts) than simply comparing differences in ratios or ratios of proportions, which distorts the significance of the most and least common events. He also makes the case that likelihood ratio tests are also more reliable for the measurement of ‘rare events’ than other contingency table methods (such as χ2 and z-score tests), although he admits that other distribution-free methods “may prove even more satisfactory”. I have tested several of these methods and found they yield similar results where items are relatively frequent and texts samples are large. Dunning’s method has the advantage of being currently in wide use (e.g. in Mike Scott’s WordSmith suite of tools) and is satisfactory for the range of situations I describe here.

Table 2: Significantly UNDERUSED word classes in less proficient HK students’ examination scripts vs UK students’ examination scripts.25 Rank CL-7 Description26 LL ratio27 UK% HK% HK/UK% 1 NN1 Singular common nouns: man, case, example, country, 1814 14.6 10.9 75 argument, action, choice, distinction, source … 2 VVN Past participles: seen, made, taken, given, set, applied, lost, 1278 2.1 1.0 46 caused, based … 3 VVZ -s lexical verbs: means, refers, remains, takes, suggests, gets, 885 1.0 0.4 38 allows, lies, sees … 4 VBDZ Verb: was 808 0.4 0.0 11 5 VHZ Verb: has 745 0.6 0.1 25 6 AT1 Indefinite article: an, a 637 2.6 1.7 66 7 VBN Verb: been 520 0.3 0.1 19 8 VBI Infinitive: be 442 1.2 0.7 56 9 II Prepositions: against, into, at, upon, over, as, in, by, within, 291 6.0 5.0 83 between, to, through, around, throughout … 10 IO Preposition: of 290 3.4 2.7 78 11 CC Co-ordinating conjunctions: and, or, & 285 3.3 2.6 78 12 VVD Past tense of verbs: came, began, caused, saw, seemed, 256 0.7 0.4 55 produced, took… 13 DDQ Wh-determiners: what, which 237 0.7 0.4 58 14 VBG BE-ing: being 235 0.2 0.1 28 15 GE28 Genitive (‘s/s’) 221 0.4 0.2 47 16 VBDR Verb: were 212 0.2 0.0 25 17 VDZ Verb: does 209 0.1 0.0 18 18 DD1 Singular determiners/pronouns: this, another, either, neither, 198 1.3 0.9 71 somewhat, each

25 UK = 1994 General Studies Examination corpus consisting of about 500,000 CL-7-tagged tokens; HK = 1992 and 1994 Use of English Examination corpus of ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded scripts, from which I sampled 500,000 CL-7-tagged tokens (CL-7 = the CLAWS 7 tagset used for this analysis). The columns headed UK% and HK% refer to the percentage of these tags among all words in each corpus. The last column, headed HK/UK%, refers to the words identified with the CL-7 tag in the HK corpus as a percentage of the words identified with the CL-7 tag in the UK corpus. This contrastive profile is of course based on the premise that the figures in Tables 2 and 3 represent systematic variation in these language features from the control (the writing of English NS students) rather than simply random differences between the two populations. The sampling techniques I have used validate that this ranking is characteristic of the use of these features by a large subset of the population of HK school-leavers. In order to avoid skewed results because of items that are irregularly dispersed, the reported figures are averaged percentages for each corpus of scripts. I calculated this by dividing the total number of scripts in each grade range into five sets, with each topic equally represented in each set. I then counted the words and word classes and averaged these counts. Thus, these lists should be reasonably representative of the examination essays written by these two cohorts of NS and NNS student writers. The automatically assigned CLAWS tags were manually checked and ‘post-edited’, and frequencies were confirmed by comparing counts from various counting programs. 26 Where a word class identified by CL-7 constitutes many individual word types, the words that are listed in this column are the most frequent words, listed by frequency, occurring in the writing of the UK students. In Table 3 the exemplified words are those that occur most frequently in the writing of HK students. Ellipsis marks indicate that there are other frequently occurring words. 27 Tables 2 and 3 are both ranked by log likelihood ratios. The distributional rank of word classes between the two tables can also be compared using these figures. For example, HK students underuse/avoid plural common nouns to a greater degree than they overuse plural common nouns. 28 The CL-7 tagger has notable difficulty distinguishing between single ‘smart quotes’ and the genitive marker, so I had to confirm this count by counting concordanced lines.

Rank CL-7 Description LL ratio UK% HK% HK/UK% 19 IW Preposition: with 191 0.6 0.3 58 20 REX Adverbs: e.g., i.e. 172 0.1 0.0 13 21 RP Prepositional adverbs: down, up, back, on, over, out, in, away … 162 0.3 0.2 50 22 NP1 Singular proper nouns: God 123 1.2 0.9 76 23 NNJ2 Plural organisational nouns: governments, firms, communities … 119 0.0 0.0 0 24 VHD Verb (past tense): had 114 0.1 0.0 22 25 VBZ Verb: is 112 2.2 1.8 82 26 JK Catenative adjective: able (in be able to…) 98 0.1 0.0 17 27 CCB Adversative co-ordinating conjunction: but 92 0.4 0.3 64 28 CSA Subordinating conjunction: as 87 0.4 0.3 66 29 NNT2 Plural temporal nouns: centuries, days, decades, hours 79 0.2 0.1 50 30 VDN Verb: done 79 0.1 0.0 20 31 RL Locative adverbs: abroad, ahead, anywhere, aside, away, there 77 0.2 0.1 53 32 PPX1 Singular reflexive pronoun: itself 71 0.1 0.0 33 33 VDD Verb: did 70 0.0 0.0 25 34 RRQV Wh-ever adverb: however 62 0.1 0.0 20 35 NNL1 Singular locative nouns: House (of Commons/of Lords), 57 0.0 0.0 33 (Windsor) Castle… 36 JJT Superlative adjectives: best, closest, fittest 56 0.1 0.1 50 37 CSW Subordinating conjunction: whether 55 0.1 0.1 45 38 VHN Past participle: had 54 0.0 0.0 0 39 II21-22 Prepositions: such as, due to, because of, rather than, away 52 0.5 0.4 74 from … 40 JJR Comparative adjectives: greater, smaller 52 0.3 0.2 67 41 NNB29 Title noun: Princess, King, Mr … 50 0.0 0.0 25 42 NNO2 Plural numeral nouns: hundreds, thousands, millions 47 0.0 0.0 33 43 MC Cardinal number, neutral for number: 1993, three ... 45 0.4 0.3 75 44 DB2 Plural pre-determiner: both 43 0.1 0.0 40 45 PNQS Subject wh-pronoun: who 43 0.2 0.1 67 46 CSN Subordinating conjunction: than 40 0.2 0.1 60 47 RGQV Wh-ever degree adverb: however 34 0.0 0.0 0 48 AT Definite article: the 31 6.3 5.4 87 49 II31-33 Preposition: in terms of, in regard to... 31 0.1 0.0 50 50 PN1 Singular indefinite pronouns: someone, anything, nothing, 31 0.3 0.2 77 everybody, anyone, something 51 RT Adverbs of time: today, now 26 0.4 0.3 78 52 PPHS1 Pronouns: he, she 22 0.2 0.1 71 53 DDQGE Wh-determiner, genitive: whose 18 0.0 0.0 0 54 PPHO1 Pronouns: him, her 16 0.0 0.0 50

29 This is an example of a lexical category that appears to be more frequently associated with one culture than with the other.

Table 3: Significantly OVERUSED word classes in less proficient HK students’ examination scripts vs UK students’ examination scripts. Rank CL-7 Description LL ratio UK% HK% HK/UK% 1 NN2 Plural common nouns: advantages, disadvantages, kinds, 1,586 6.0 8.6 143 reasons, friends, things, minds, purposes, pillars … 2 VVO Base lexical verbs: want, hope, know, contain, give, make, 1,581 1.2 2.5 212 become, bring … 3 VVI Infinitives: think, like, use, know, find, give, ask, get, attract, 1,395 2.9 4.7 161 understand, show, talk … 4 PPY Pronoun: you 1,281 0.1 0.6555 5 PPHS2 Pronoun: they 1,137 0.6 1.3244 6 DD Determiners: some, enough 701 0.3 0.8248 7 APPGE Possessive pronouns: their, our, my 700 1.0 1.8177 8 VBR Verb: are 635 1.0 1.7175 9 VM Modal auxiliaries: can, will, may 576 2.1 3.0145 10 PPIS2 Pronoun: we 544 0.3 0.7237 11 DD2 Plural determiners: these, those 543 0.3 0.8224 12 JJ Adjectives: bad, good, popular, interesting, attractive, 530 7.4 9.0 122 beautiful, wrong, interested, suitable, boring, easy, common … 13 PPIS1 Pronoun: I 454 0.2 0.5261 14 PPHO2 Pronoun: them 388 0.2 0.5242 15 NN Common nouns neutral for number: people 322 1.3 1.9133 16 RG Degree adverbs: so, very, most 263 0.5 0.8167 17 DAT Superlative post-determiner: most 223 0.1 0.2300 18 VDO Finite: do 170 0.1 0.3208 19 VBM Verb: am 104 0.0 0.1 500 20 BCL21-22 Before-infinitive markers: in order, so as (to) 78 0.1 0.1220 21 TO Infinitive marker: to 76 2.0 2.3116 22 PPIO2 Pronoun: us 59 0.1 0.1175 23 DA2 Plural after-determiner: many 51 0.4 0.5130 24 VDI Infinitive: do 44 0.1 0.1183 25 XX Adverb: not, n’t 37 0.8 0.9118 26 IF Preposition: for 36 0.8 0.9119 27 VH0 Verb: have 34 0.5 0.6 123 28 NNT1 Singular temporal nouns: time, year, month, week 29 0.3 0.3127 29 DAR Comparative after-determiner: more 27 0.2 0.2135 30 DB Pre-determiners: all 25 0.2 0.3127 31 PPIO1 Pronoun: me 21 0.0 0.0300 32 CS Subordinating conjunctions: since, because, if, so ... 19 0.9 1.0112 33 NNU230 Plural unit of measurement: dollars 16 0.0 0.0300 34 RR31-33 Adverb: and so on 11 0.0 0.0200 35 PPX2 Pronoun: themselves 11 0.1 0.1140 36 CC31-33 Co-ordinating conjunction: as well as 8 0.0 0.0200 37 MD Ordinal numbers: first (‘first of all’), last, second, next 7 0.2 0.2116 38 VVG -ing participles: thinking, using, working, living, taking … 5 1.4 1.5105 39 PN Indefinite pronouns: lots, none 4 0.0 0.0200 40 RRQ Wh- general adverb: where, how, when, why 3 0.3 0.3107 41 RR Adverbs: moreover, besides, easily, highly, so, therefore, 2 3.5 3.6 102 furthermore, also, actually … 42 UH Interjections: well, yes, right 2 0.0 0.0100 43 RRR Comparative general adverb: more, better, less 1 0.1 0.2114

30 This is an interesting, if perhaps superficial, confirmation of certain cultural preoccupations. UK students’ texts appear to be partly characterised by nouns of title, whereas the HK students’ texts are more concerned with nouns of measurement.

The normal complications about what is meant by the term ‘word’ apply to these counts (e.g. whether lexis is most appropriately identified according to token, type, lemma, separate word sense, multi-word expression etc.). There is sometimes a wide variation of word type and function within the classes that the CL-7 tagger can reliably identify, and the distributions of these separate types and functions also vary between the UK and HK student scripts. 31 It is of course ultimately necessary to look at the functions that words serve in the texts, beyond their word class, and to examine larger grammatical constituents, since the distributions of syntactic structures may be independent of the distribution of their constituent lexemes.

It is also obviously important to bear in mind that this is a statistical ranking that does not necessarily represent the value that these morphemes and lexical categories hold for the language system. For example, the fact that the genitive -’s (rank 15) is only 47% as frequent in the HK student corpus than it is in the UK student corpus might be considered linguistically less significant than the 82% (rank 25) incidence of the word is, because of the large number of grammatical structures that the latter enters into. Nevertheless, the identification of all constituents is important to our analysis of what factors affect the IL, and how we might help teachers and learners recognise and operationalise the differences between the interlanguage and its putative target.

There is another sense in which the ranking of these word classes must be understood: this is a ranking of POS categories, as identified by the CLAWS tagger, rather than of the word types, senses etc. that constitute these categories. As such, this ranking calculates the comparative order of these word-class types on the basis of how often each word class can be expected to occur in each corpus (i.e. by accounting for the frequency of the individual constituent word tokens). But some word classes have many more word types than others – for example, general prepositions (II: against, into etc.) occur with a significantly lower frequency overall in the HK students’ texts than would be expected (based on word frequencies alone), compared to the preposition of (IO). However, although of is the most frequently occurring preposition in any large corpora, it is also the most comparatively underused of any other single preposition in HKIL.

Keeping such caveats in mind, the items listed in Tables 2 and 3 are nevertheless suggestive of many of the lexical, syntactic and discoursal characteristics of HKIL. Even at a glance, there appear to be clear patterns of systematic differences in the writing of HK students in contrast to the control (UK student) texts. A truly comprehensive treatment of distributional variation between NS and NNS writing would require a more detailed examination of grammatical constituents in the two corpora than is possible here. However, the data in Tables 2 and 3 are indicative of some these distributions, and of the different semantic and pragmatic discoursal habits of the Cantonese- speaking school-leavers compared to English-speaking school-leavers, as I will attempt to illustrate in the remainder of this monograph.

Both HK EFL instructors and students recognise many of the IL features identified by the comparison in Tables 2 and 3 as typical of overused and underused HKIL patterns.32 Researchers have

31 Also, although a feature can be, in general, overused, it may nevertheless sometimes be omitted in obligatory contexts. I will comment (mainly in Chapter 2) on items that are substantially misused. 32 Although the ranking in Tables 2 and 3 is statistically valid, readers may not perceive variances according to this order. I investigated this by asking twenty experienced EFL instructors (ten English NSs and ten Can- tonese NSs) to identify which of the twenty most disparate word classes in Table 2 are overused and underused in HKIL. Most instructors recognised the most varied differences, except for two patterns: all of the twenty instructors believed incorrectly that plural nouns and all modals are under-represented in HKIL. This curious blind spot may result from the ubiquitous occurrence of generic topics in EFL contexts in Hong Kong (the same instructors generally encourage their students to produce generic responses). It may also

nevertheless misreported several of the distributional patterns of HKIL, sometimes as extensions of particular theories. For example, in an otherwise largely insightful study of the written texts of Cantonese speakers, Yip (1995: 191) reports, “Chinese learners undergenerate participial constructions”. In fact, HK students overuse both participial adjectives and ‘gerunds’.33 In describing early stages of learner language, Rutherford (1987: 47–51) identifies the paucity of what he calls ‘verbal nouns’ (by which he means all nominals derived from verbs) as a characteristic of ILs, Chinese ILs in particular (he includes -ing participles as nominalisations). While HK students do underuse derivational nominalisations, there are several nominals, as we see in Table 3, which are more frequent in HKIL than SE.34 In this respect, Rutherford’s description of ILs as having a substantially lower ratio of nouns to verbs than SE requires some modification.35 His rationalisation for ILs having relatively few nouns is that the verbs in ILs are less complex and take fewer arguments (i.e. have lower valency). He particularly identifies verbs that take ‘effected or eventive objects’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 750) as being avoided in ILs. While HK learners have great difficulty grammatically realising the full set of arguments for many verbs, they do not avoid structural patterns such as DELEXI- CAL VERB + DEVERBAL NOUN (e.g. have a strong dislike), as I will show in more detail in Chapter 2.

Variation among ILs, registers and acquisitional sequences

While some of these IL patterns are quantitatively similar to those of other ILs, others appear to be unique to this cohort of learners. For example, Granger & Rayson (1998) report that distributions of word classes in the writing of French-speaking students are generally characteristic of conversation rather than of academic written discourse. Their findings are listed in Table 4. I have highlighted classes and groups of words in HKIL that differ in ‘direction of skew’ from those of the French students’ texts.36

result from the fact that two of the commonest errors in HKIL are the omission of plural noun markers and modals in grammatical and semantic contexts where they are required. Instructors may therefore expect these features to be generally avoided. I also asked 100 first-year tertiary students to identify the words and morphemes they favour. The students were able to identify correctly most of the features they rely on and avoid (including differences in the degree to which they use the various modal auxiliaries). They show great interest in acquiring the lexical and grammatical patterns they generally avoid (e.g. hedging devices and epistemological markers), but have great difficulty understanding the subtle semantics of these devices. 33 Yip’s mistake may again result from observing the frequent omission by HK students of required -ing endings on nominal participles (e.g. Undoubtedly, follow famous brand such as clothes, bags and shoes will make you more satisfactory.). She also assumes, based on a contrastive analysis of subject position NPs, that HK learners of English overuse existentials (op. cit.: 188). Han (2000) makes a similar claim. However, I find that HK learners of English underuse existentials (only about 80% of the use made by UK students). I suspect that impressions of overuse of this and other features are influenced by teachers and researchers having noticed inappropriate use. 34 This includes nominal participles ending in -ing (gerunds), which are used about 5% more frequently in the HK students’ texts compared to the UK students’ texts. Also more common in HKIL than in the UK students’ texts (by about 30%) are common nouns neutral for number (mainly represented by people in the HK texts), as are plural nouns (by about 40%), singular temporal nouns (by about 25%), plural units of measurement, and several types of pronouns. 35 HK students use about the same total number of common nouns (singular, plural and neutral for number, – NN1, NN2, NN) as UK students. They dramatically overuse lexical verbs (not including participle forms) – by about 35% (VVO, VVD, VVI, VVZ). However, if we count primary verbs, auxiliaries and modals, the number of verb forms used by both student cohorts is about the same. 36 The results of other analyses that have looked at lexical frequency in ILs also compare to the counts I find in HKIL. Ringbom (1998) notes for various European learners the overall vagueness of ILs, marked by an overuse of the quantifiers more, all, other, some and very, and the words people and things.

Table 4: Patterns of ‘skewness’ in overuse and underuse in morpheme use in French vs HK students’ texts.

OVERUSED FRENCH IL HKIL Articles: a OVERUSED UNDERUSED the UNDERUSED UNDERUSED Indefinite pronouns: all, some, a few, OVERUSED OVERUSED each, another OVERUSED UNDERUSED many UNDERUSED OVERUSED Definite pronouns: everybody, nobody, something, everything OVERUSED UNDERUSED one, oneself, a bit, a lot, lots OVERUSED OVERUSED no one, everyone, UNDERUSED OVERUSED no, anyone, someone UNDERUSED UNDERUSED First- and second-person pronouns OVERUSED OVERUSED Co-ordinating conjunctions: but, or OVERUSED UNDERUSED and UNDERUSED UNDERUSED Most subordinators: until, before, (al)though, while, whilst, whether (or not) UNDERUSED UNDERUSED after, when, UNDERUSED OVERUSED Some complex subordinators: as far as, even if OVERUSED UNDERUSED as soon as, OVERUSED OVERUSED Prepositions: over, throughout, upon, into, along, out, despite, regarding, per, by, off, to, amongst, until, up, then UNDERUSED UNDERUSED for, including, after UNDERUSED OVERUSED between, without, during, of, before, among, thanks to OVERUSED UNDERUSED towards, above, on, about, in spite of, by means of, till OVERUSED OVERUSED

Short adverbs of place and time OVERUSED UNDERUSED Most adverbial particles UNDERUSED UNDERUSED -ly adverbs UNDERUSED OVERUSED Nouns UNDERUSED OVERUSED Auxiliaries – but notable exceptions in HKIL! OVERUSED OVERUSED Infinitives OVERUSED OVERUSED -ing participles UNDERUSED OVERUSED -ed participles UNDERUSED UNDERUSED

Notable differences between the variations of word classes in the HK and French students’ texts from NS students’ texts are, in HKIL:

the underuse of the indefinite article (a/an); the indefinite article is more underused than the definite article in HKIL, relative to SE, although indefiniteness is a distinguishing characteristic of HKIL; the underuse of most co-ordinating conjunctions, which contradicts conventional notions that ILs contain excessive co-ordination; dissimilar distributional patterns of subordinators – HKIL contains a disproportionate amount of reliance on devices of result (so and since) and cause and effect (as and because);37 a greater avoidance of prepositions than in the French students’ texts (but the notable over-

37 Congruency/incongruency (and/but) has less place in HK students’ texts than does consequence (so). Cause and effect relationships are often claimed with little support, and HK learners often blur the distinction between congruence and consequence: Hong Kong people not only accept the Chinese traditional culture but also the new western culture. So, the thinking of people are changing from saving money on work hard to live more comfortable on work more hard.

use of for, which is explained by a transfer of Chinese sentence structure);38 the underuse of adverbs of time and place (while French IL may make excessive reference to time and place, HK students’ propositions appear rarely to be situated in time and place); 39 the overuse of most -ly adverbs, especially amplifiers and intensifiers; the overuse of plural determiners and indefinite pronouns (HKIL selects the most generic markers of indefiniteness); the underuse of the modal auxiliaries could, might, would, used, ought, which seems not to have been observed in other ILs; the overuse of -ing participles; HKIL appears to make more use of nominals than do other ILs.

Similarities between HKIL and SE conversation

This interlanguage, like other ILs, appears to diverge in several ways from typical patterns of standard written discourse by retaining many of the characteristics of spoken English, which according to Leech et al. (1982: 136–43), are generally marked by ‘inexplicitness’, ‘repetitiveness’ and a relatively high frequency of ‘monitoring’ and ‘interaction’ features. The inexplicitness of written HKIL is suggested, for example, by the overuse of plural nouns, (e.g. people and things) and the underuse of articles; the avoidance of genitives, which help specify the reference of the noun phrase; the overuse of such non-numeric quantifiers as some;40 and the overuse of uninflected and non-finite verb forms.41 We would also expect the diminished use of prepositions, which we observe in HK learners’ texts, to weaken the relation between referents and particular settings or circumstances. Certain overused adverbs 42 and interjections are among the monitoring devices excessively prevalent in HKIL:

They also have to deal with many brain-storming examinations (well, especially the A-level examinations!) that have already exert too much pressure on them.

The relatively high degree of interaction in HK students’ texts is suggested by the overuse of personal pronouns and the operators used to form questions and imperatives. A brief look at the use

38 A tendency to transfer the Chinese sentence pattern of topicalisation is one of the most obvious effects of L1 influence in HKIL: For both the students and adults, they may believe that … 39 While Granger & Rayson (1998) report the underuse of adverbs in the writing of advanced French learners, Lorenz (1998) reports the overuse of adjective intensification in the writing of advanced German learners of English. HK students over-rely on particular adverbs to modify both verbs and adjectives, possibly in an effort to convince examiners that what they have to say is important. This practice adds to the general air of overstatement in HKIL (e.g. I absolutely agree/disagree; it is absolutely right/wrong). The most overused ‘amplifiers’, ‘maximisers’ and ‘boosters’ in HKIL are: highly, deeply, mostly, absolutely, really, very, especially, strongly and greatly. A crucial difference between the German and HK students is that, as the proficiency of German students increases, they use progressively fewer intensifiers and amplifiers, but as the proficiency of HK students increases, they use progressively more intensifiers and amplifiers. 40 Noun classifiers are common in Cantonese, which may partly explain the overuse of grammatically simple English determiners (e.g. some and many). 41 However, as I have suggested, HKIL can be inappropriately explicit as well. 42 While adverbs are, in general, more common in SE conversation than in academic texts, sentence-linking adverbials, which constitute the most common class of single-word adverbials in HKIL, are more characteristic of academic texts than of other SE registers (Biber et al. 1999: 766).

of assertive yes–no questions and repetition in HK learners’ texts will illustrate the complex manner in which some of the features of HKIL parallel those of SE speech. Rhetorical questions

Direct questions are used about 50% more frequently in the HK students’ texts than in the UK students’ texts.43 Almost all these questions in the HK students’ texts are what Biber et al. (1999: 1113) call ‘rhetorical conducive questions’ that demand an affirmative response:

Have you ever noticed the most popular chattering topics of young people recently?44

The texts are often structured as if the writer is conducting a patronising homily, where both question and answer are supplied:

Do you know ‘Joyce’? Sure you do. ‘Joyce’ is an ordinary girl’s name. But there is something more about it. It is not ‘Mary’, not ‘Ann’, but a famous brand name! ‘Joyce’ represents a status. It represents expensive.45

HK students are specifically instructed to use conducive questions and question tags to make their writing ‘more interesting’, but with no caveat about guarding against their use in formal (or semi- formal) writing.46 The most proficient students use about 40% more of these questions than the least proficient students.47 The device may give HK students an advantage in meeting the short- term goals of EFL assessment, but its usefulness as a substitute for more subtle forms of reader engage-ment is questionable.

Direct questions in the UK students’ texts are used to indicate a change of topic and highlight the complexity of the problem under discussion; not a single question in 500,000 words of the UK students’ texts contains the second person pronoun. Why such rhetorical questions should be so rare in formal SE texts is explained by the stance they implicitly convey. Non-conducive questions do not anticipate an answer, and thereby signal doubt. 48 However, the type of questions usually employed in HKIL signal certainty. The provocative stance that many HK students are encouraged to adopt is inappropriate in the context of open enquiry that is supposed to characterise academic, scientific and most types of professional writing.

43 Virtanen (1998) notes the significantly higher number of direct questions in the English writing of Finland-Swedish students compared to those in the texts of Spanish, Dutch, German and English NS students. He reports a ratio of 3.5% in the occurrence of direct question sentences in NS students’ texts; I find only 2.5%. The percentage of direct question sentences in HKIL is only slightly higher (2.9%), but this is misleading since the HK student corpus contains 55% more sentences than the UK student corpus. When I compare UK and HK student corpora containing the same number of sentences, the ratio of direct questions in the HK students’ texts jumps to 4.9% (still less than Virtanen reports for Finland-Swedish students). 44 The word ever is not usually included as a marker of assertion in conducive questions; however, this is its role in HKIL (where it occurs mainly in rhetorical questions, but also as a synonym for always, especially in the expression ever changing). 45 Joyce is an upmarket clothing and accessory emporium in Hong Kong. 46 A popular HK textbook that demonstrates this is that by Chamberlain & O’Neil (1995; cf. ibid.: p. 59). 47 The differences I note for the use of features by more and less proficient HK students are consistent and significant. The grades of these written scripts are standardised against other ‘objective’ components of the Use of English Examination. 48 In the context of a teacher-centred classroom, where most questions originate from the teacher, they may not actually signal doubt, but rather inquisition. The language that learners hear and imitate in an institutional setting often serves quite different ends from what they will eventually be expected to generate in professional settings.

Repetitiveness

The repetitiveness of HKIL is both evident in, and the result of, the relatively narrow range of its lexis and grammatical structures. The restricted vocabulary of HK students is necessarily pressed into redundant service since the students do not have access to the lexical networks that make an NS’s lexicon productive, such as hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy etc., and must often rely on simple repetition for cohesion. The least proficient HK students rely particularly on the lexis and grammatical patterns of the examination prompts:49

I would like to ask: “What is a healthy romantic relationship?” As I have said that most of the young people are not mature. They don’t know what is love so even the healthy romantic relationship. In my opinion, a healthy romantic relationship between two young people is just like two best friends. But a healthy romantic relationship is so rare in schools.

The limited vocabulary of these learners can be measured by the difference in the type/token ratio of adjectives in the two student corpora. Although HK students, as we observed in Table 3, use many more adjective tokens than UK students, they use only 38% of the adjective word types that UK students do (1480:3900).50 About 4% of all words in a 500,000-word corpus of HK students’ examination scripts consist of just eight adjectives repeated from the examination prompts. By contrast, only about 0.5% of all words used by the UK students are adjectives from the examination prompts. There are 897 adjectives used significantly more frequently by the UK students than by the HK students, and another 3,415 adjectives used by the UK students that never occur in the HK scripts.

One way HK students are instructed to reinforce their propositions is by the simple duplication of modifiers that are rarely or never recursive in the UK students’ texts (more and more, many many, many and many, very very, always always, not not, no no).51 Of course not all student utterances are merely examples of production strategies adopted for assessment purposes. There are plenty of examples of genuine communication strategies at work. In this more positive sense, the learners’ texts are sometimes lexically, structurally or semantically redundant because the writers are pur-

49 We would expect student examination scripts in general to be significantly affected by the lexis and grammar of the examination rubrics, and indeed both the UK and HK students’ scripts do mirror the language of the examination prompts. However, the HK student scripts depend on this wording to a much greater degree. The longest repeated word string in 500,000 words of UK student scripts (parroted from an examination prompt) consists of 6 words (repeated 3 times), which is within a tolerable range of lexical collocability (see Miller 1956). However, HK students repeat a 27-word string 20 times in 500,000 words of examination scripts. Bi-gram types (repeated two-word strings) occur twice as often in the HK student scripts as in the UK student scripts. The relatively higher density of n-grams, compared to single words, between the two corpora is a measure of the L2 students’ reliance on a relatively narrow range of lexical phrases. As graded proficiency increases, the density of fixed collocations decreases only slightly (see Milton & Freeman 1996, for more details). 50 I use the conventional meaning of ‘types’ here – i.e. orthographically unique and legitimate English words. Many of the adjectives used by HK students are either misspelled or coined nonce words. The ratio of other lexical word types to tokens (i.e. verbs and nouns) between the UK and HK student corpora is about 2:1. 51 In spite of the repetitiveness of HK students’ texts, they often fail to exemplify, as evidenced by the underuse of exemplification markers (the word ‘example(s)’ occurs about 50% as often in the HK students’ texts as in the UK students’ texts). The discourse is made even less specific by the frequent abandonment of arguments: They can totally get involved in the fairyland and so on. The expression and so on is used three times more frequently (often in this abrupt way) in the HK students’ texts than in the UK students’ texts.

posefully struggling, in the context of a foreign language, and a register they have little opportunity to model, to make their meaning clear: In my opinion, I think it is a problem of heritage. I don’t mean that adults pass the genes to their children of buying expensive goods when they first born. What I mean is that, students will follow their parents as examples. If their parents wear a pair of Bally shoes, they may want it also.

It is difficult to distinguish between production and communication strategies, which are probably inextricable in most students’ texts. Interpreted as an example of production strategies, this passage might demonstrate that HK students, who generally feel compelled to communicate by memorised formulæ, adopt repetition as a useful strategy for padding their texts to achieve the required number of words.

Co-ordination and subordination

The limited and often faulty grammatical cohesion of HK learners’ texts also contributes to the impression of redundancy – for example in the lack of anaphoric reference (e.g. marked by the underuse of such determiners as this) 52 and limitations in the use of co-ordination and subordination. These limitations are related to the amount of repetition in HKIL, as many HK students appear to lack the ability (or confidence) to use syntactic reduction. The canonical sequence of IL develop-ment is generally thought to be that learners progress from a preference for co-ordinated arrange-ments of information to more utilisation of subordination (see Rutherford 1987: 51–4). Certainly some types of subordination are relatively infrequent and we find considerable evidence of the attempt to substitute co-ordination for subordination in HKIL, e.g.:

Teenagers would have a lot of problems and cannot be solved.

It is not, however, quite true, as Rutherford (1987: 91–2) implies, that co-ordination in general is simply more frequent in HKIL than in SE, or that more proficient HK students demonstrate systematic progress toward more NS-like utilisation of co-ordination and subordination. For example, the co-ordinators and and or occur about 20% less often in the writing of the less proficient HK students than in the UK students’ texts. It is understandable that such co-ordination might be perceived as more frequent in an IL than in SE, as it is often employed where a more proficient writer might use subordination:

The story is truly stunning and let the readers know more about the atroc- ities of war.53

HK students frequently use co-ordinators in attempting to paraphrase, which typically, as we have noted, results in increased redundancy:

As people in Hong Kong are often materialistic and money-minded, being able to buy expensive clothes is a way to express your social status in a flimsy but easy manner.

Like many other underused words, these co-ordinators are nevertheless overused in a small set of fixed phrases:

52 Instead, HK students often mark anaphoric reference with ‘it’ to refer to previous discourse chunks: People used to think that the higher the price, the better the quality. It is especially true amongst the Chinese. 53 The expression and let is a frequent device for supplanting subordination in HKIL.

In a nutshell, there are advantages and disadvantages in reading comic books.54

The co-ordination device or even is used twice as often in HKIL as in the UK students’ texts, often to lay stress on information that does not appear remarkable:

Every people can have a television, radio or even piles of magazines at their home.

Co-ordination is used very frequently in HKIL to intensify (e.g. more and more is used four times more frequently by HK students than by UK students), but may be less frequent overall in EFL students’ texts simply because learners’ texts contain shorter sentences than NS texts. As HK students’ graded proficiency increases,55 their use of the co-ordinators and and or increases only slightly. Sentence length more or less parallels this increase: from an average of about 15 words in ‘E’-graded scripts to about 18 words in ‘A’-graded scripts, vs an average sentence length of about 25 words in the scripts of the UK students.

The adversative co-ordinating conjunction but also occurs much less often in HKIL than we would expect, both in terms of SLA theory and in statistical comparison to SE texts, and it is not used more often as proficiency increases. This underuse of but is not directly explained by the need to avoid overt syntactic difficulty, but seems rather to result from the fact that there is simply less expression of concession in HKIL. The word but is sometimes grammatically misused in opposi- tion to concessive adverbial clauses beginning with although:

Although some of the lovers actually can maintain their acedemic work along with their romance, but in some cases, it ruin the future of the student.56

The underuse of this and many other conjunctions is most readily explained by the categorical stance that is typical of formal argument in HKIL, since co-ordinators are often supplanted in HKIL by more emotive adverbial connectors (e.g. besides, moreover).

Several common subordinating conjunctions (since, because and if) are, however, greatly overused by HK students.57 These words are mainly favoured, along with adverbial connectors, for their semantic value in signalling straightforward declarations of reason and result:

Since young people are not mature and lack experience, they may not know how to overcome these difficulties.

These ‘circumstance adverbial subordinators’, which are more common in SE speech than in academic texts (Biber et al. 1999: 842–5), are used only slightly less frequently by the more profi-

54 This type of antithesis is very frequent in HKIL, and this phrase especially common, occurring, respectively, 180:6 times in 500,000 words each of HK students’ and UK students’ texts. It appears regularly in examination prompts and is explicitly taught as a formula to be used in ‘comparison and contrast’ essays. 55 That is, as the grades assigned to the school-leaving examination scripts improve. 56 Rutherford (1987: 52) accounts for such errors as the natural result of the learner “… venturing into uncharted grammatical territory … [and] still needing the already familiar ‘compass’ provided by concessive but until his new grammatical orientation is more solidly grounded”. However, there is a more straightforward explanation in Cantonese grammar, where a concessive subordinator must be matched in the main clause with a ‘balancing expression’, which is similar in meaning to but (see Matthews & Yip 1994: 300). 57 Since is used frequently as a preposition in the texts of UK students, but rarely so by HK students. HK students make little use of the present perfect despite their fondness for the word since, which, both as a preposition and subordinator, is usually associated with the perfective aspect in the UK students’ texts.

cient (‘A’- and ‘B’-graded) HK students than by the less proficient (‘D’- and ‘E’-graded). Sub- ordination is, overall, more frequent in HK students’ sentences than co-ordination, which defies the expectations of most SLA theorists. However, there is a much narrower range of subordination types in HKIL than in SE.58 Adverbial connectors, such as moreover, appear to compensate for the lack of intra-sentential co-ordination by functioning as inter-sentential co-ordinating devices. The most common types of subordinate noun clauses are more frequent in the writing of HK students than in the UK students’ texts. HKIL, however, makes relatively little use of embedded subordinate clauses, such as relative clauses.

HK students’ formal and semi-formal texts make more use of lexical than grammatical devices for coherence, relying on lexical conjuncts (e.g. on the other hand rather than however) and lexical formulæ such as advantages and disadvantages.

Dissimilarities between HKIL and SE conversation

It would, however, be an oversimplification to conclude that HKIL is simply more conversational than SE, although it does have many of the distributional characteristics of speech. As Biber (1988) cautions, variation is complex and multi-dimensional. Chafe (1982) describes academic texts as more ‘integrated’ than conversation – containing, for example, more nominalisations, participles and attributive adjectives. The HK scripts, however, contain far fewer (about 62% fewer) nominalised verbs than the UK scripts, which may largely be explained by the learners’ inability to manipulate derivational morphemes. They nevertheless contain far more -ing participles – functioning as nominals and attributive adjectives – than the UK scripts.59 HK students’ texts make somewhat less use of the progressive aspect than the UK texts, which is also a departure from conversational style (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 471).

Verbs in general are used about 11% less often in the HK students’ texts; nominal forms (including pronouns) are used about 3.5% more often. This balance is also not what we would expect if HKIL written text simply emulated conversation, since verbs are generally more common in conversation than they are in writing. Non-finite forms, which are more common in academic writing than in conversation (Biber et al. 1999: 451–501), are also more frequent in HKIL than in the UK student scripts. This suggests that it is not simply overexposure to conversation that affects the shape of HK students’ writing. The overuse of -ing and -ed brings into question the attempt to account for their inaccurate omission in HKIL mainly in phonological terms. While phonological error is undoubtedly one reason why HK students drop these endings, NNS students need to be taught the effect that these forms have on register.

A particular combination of influences shapes HKIL, including: L1 influence, the need to compensate for limited grammatical competence and avoid error, and the practices and pressures of a

58 There is especially less subordination marked by the following words (parentheses refer to HK/UK percentage of occurrence) where (6%); unless (15%); whereas (16%); until (19%); whether (47%); nor (49%); for (52%); than (52%); rather (52%); though (56%); and although (60%). More proficient HK students use most of these words only slightly more frequently than less proficient students. 59 However, the HK texts contain more pronouns, and fewer complex nominal structures than the UK texts, and in this way are similar to SE conversation. Also, although attributive adjectives are more common overall in SE academic texts than in SE conversation, the two adjectives most overused in HKIL are typical of SE conversation (e.g. bad and good). Attributive adjectives overused by HK students that are more typical of SE written text than conversation include popular, beautiful, suitable and attractive, although the influence of a limited number of topics in the examination corpus may skew the frequencies of these words.

monolithic school system. For example, HK students have little call to make much use of more than a few abstract nouns in typical written assignments, and can thereby avoid the difficult morphology of derived nominals. The combination of an attributive adjective and a non-derived noun or nominal participle is morphologically easier, and maintains the gnomic aspect of inexplicitness, which makes other aspects of the grammar and discourse manageable for students who have limited grammatical competence and world knowledge.

Plural nouns and determiners

Although, according to the categories identified by the CL-7 tags, singular common nouns are the most frequent part of speech in both corpora, the plural morph is statistically the most characteristic variant feature of HKIL (occurring over 40% more often than in the UK students’ text).60 This preference for morphologically marked plural nouns in HKIL at first sight runs counter to contrastive analysis (CA) prediction, since the Chinese (Cantonese and Putonghua) noun is not marked for number, and because plural nouns are rejected as sentence subjects by Chinese syntax. According to Yip (1995: 188), Cantonese subject positions ‘strongly resist’ indefinite NPs, including plurals. This syntactic constraint against plural NP subjects in Cantonese is mirrored in English by a pragmatic-discoursal constraint. According to Givón (1979: 28), only “… about 10% of the subjects of main-declarative-affirmative-active sentences (nonpresentative) are indefinite, as against 90% definite”. However, on examination of almost 2,000 sentences, I found that plural indefinite NPs are as likely to occur in both subject and object clausal position in HKIL. To my knowledge, this characteristic of HKIL has not been previously observed or discussed, although it clearly deserves attention. The overuse of plural nouns by HK students is not directly accounted for by error. On the contrary, HK students more frequently drop an obligatory -s ending from nouns than they ungrammatically pluralise singular nouns. Failure to include the plural -s ending on nouns is the most frequent error of morpheme omission in HKIL.

HK students use almost as many plural common nouns (9.37%) as singular common nouns (10.28%), whereas UK students use less than half the number of plural, compared to singular, common nouns (see Figure 1). In this sense, HKIL is not similar to SE conversation, which uses a relatively small number of plural nouns (Biber et al. 1999: 291). Plural nouns are also more frequent in the UK students’ texts than in the BNC written sample (by about 12%), which may confirm a general penchant of adolescent writers for generic perception and expression.61

There appears to be an implicit recognition on the part of HK teachers, textbook authors and

60 None of the EFL instructors I asked was able to identify this as characteristic of HK students’ texts. Understandably, most EFL instructors are more concerned about the accuracy of their students’ production than the fact that the students ‘underuse’ or ‘overuse’ the morphemes identified in Tables 2 and 3. In fact, what this analysis confirms is that students acquire the discourse patterns they are taught. 61 I refer to the 1,000,000-word ‘written sampler’ of the British National Corpus (BNC). For documentation, see http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc/getting/sampler.html. I will occasionally refer to this corpus as a standard of professionally edited English text against which I compare the HK and UK students’ texts. Unfortunately, I have not had access to the entire BNC data set, except in a limited way through the interface at http://thetis.bl.uk/lookup.html. There is wide variation in the frequency of plural nouns between individual texts within the BNC ‘written sampler’. This unevenness of distribution applies to several other word classes as well. Perhaps not surprisingly, the English NS and NNS student corpora are each more homogeneous than the 1,000,000-word written BNC sample. We might expect professionally edited texts to exhibit more diversity than the writing of even relatively proficient school-leavers addressing a small number of examination prompts. Also, although the BNC sample is divided into nine ‘domains’ for convenience, each appears to represent a wide spectrum of specific text types.

examiners, of the opportunities for grammatical simplification offered by the gnomic aspect. HK examination topics are invariably highly generalised, and feature NPs (i.e. agents and objects) that tend naturally to occur in the plural, such as books, people, students, comics, clothes, youngsters, products, parents, children. It is in the interests of the examiners to assign generic topics that minimise the demands made on both the candidates’ grammatical competence and on their world knowledge.62 The obvious strategic advantage in using plural nouns for L2 production is that they make possible the avoidance of grammatical morphemes absent in Chinese (e.g. English plural NP subjects require no articles, and no verb inflection in the present tense). Since Chinese does not signal definiteness–indefiniteness by articles, their acquisition, as we would expect, is difficult for HK learners.63 Also, Chinese, as a so-called ‘isolating language’, inflects neither verbs nor nouns.64 English verb inflection, being more syntactically and semantically complex than noun inflection, is the more difficult morphology for Chinese speakers. It is possible that HK learners may be overusing plural nouns in order to avoid having to manage the syntax of articles and third person singular present tense verbs. Also, when HK learners use a singular subject, they are twice as likely to produce an S-V error than when they use a plural subject.

The predominance of non-inflected verb forms and the concurrent overuse of plural nominals and - ing nominal participles in HKIL cannot be simply accounted for as a result of what Universal Grammar (UG) linguists might explain as interference in the formation of English verbs caused by the setting of some type of L1 parameter. For one thing, neither singular nor plural nouns (whether morphologically marked or not) are overused in either the Longman Learner Corpus (LLC) or, more tellingly, in the Taiwanese learners’ corpus, compared to the UK students’ texts.65 Remark- ably, the Taiwanese students use third person singular verbs much more often than the UK students. Also, the patterns of determiner use are quite different among these various cohorts. For example, the avoidance of indefinite articles is not as pronounced in the writing of Taiwanese students as in HKIL. To the best of my knowledge, dissimilarities between Cantonese and Putonghua do not account for these differences.66

62 HKEA examiners I have spoken to admit that they are hard pressed to devise topics that do not require comprehension and production skills or world knowledge that most candidates will find too challenging. However, the differences between the UK and HK texts cannot be simply accounted for by differences in the language of the examination prompts. The rubrics of the UK examinations appear to allow for almost as much generalised discussion as do those of the HK examinations. 63 It should be noted, however, that Chinese distinguishes degrees of definiteness by an elaborate system of classifiers, although these do not have quite the same function as the English articles. Chinese also uses an equivalent of the English indefinite pronoun one. Nouns in both Cantonese and Putonghua are generally indefinite unless accompanied by a classifier or demonstrative. 64 The lack of morphology in Chinese is, however, often exaggerated, according to Matthews and Yip (1994: 31), who point to the common practice of ‘reduplication’ and compounding, as well as to the considerable amount of affixation in Cantonese. 65 Some of these differences might be related to the fact that most of the texts in the LLC appear to be relatively casual compared to the highly formal texts of HK students, who, as I argue, practise deliberate reduction strategies in their formal writing. The Taiwanese learners’ texts were produced by students majoring in English, who have been through much less intensive and much later exposure to English in the classroom than the HK students. 66 It may be that because the Taiwanese students are English majors, they are more inclined toward the idiomatic use of English. It is nevertheless telling that as proficiency increases among HK learners, the indefinite article is not used significantly more. This adds further weight to the possibility that HK students are acquiring avoidance strategies rather than grammatical competence, and that formal EFL instruction may actually work against the acquisition of grammatical competence.

Is it possible that the reliance on plural NPs in HKIL is partly determined by a strategy that attempts to avoid articles?67 Cantonese has no articles equivalent to a/an or the. Instead, definiteness–indefiniteness is indicated by classifiers, (‘one’), and by word order. Various Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) studies have noted that the definite article is acquired before the indefinite article by speakers of various L1s (e.g. Thomas 1989; Chaudron & Wolfe- Quintero 1990). Our observation that indefinite articles are particularly avoided in HKIL (rank 6 in Table 2) seems to support this, as do the patterns of article misuse (omission, mis-selection, or redundant use).

It is not, however, intuitive that plural nouns might be preferred (consciously or not) in order to permit avoidance of indefinite articles, since article choice depends on the noun, and we do not normally consider the direction of the dependency relation to be from article to noun. Nor, for that matter, from verb to noun, as would be the case if plural nouns were favoured because they simplify present tense verb morphology. We would expect infrequent use of articles with singular nouns if the avoidance of articles is a factor in the overuse of plural nouns. In fact, the pattern a/an + (ADJECTIVE) + SINGULAR COUNT NOUN (NN1) occurs about 33% less often in the HK students’ texts than in the UK texts. This is less than the approximately 50% underuse in HK scripts that we note for the use of plural nouns, but it is enough to indicate that the avoidance of the indefinite article could nevertheless be a factor in the preference for plural nouns.68

Although HK students judged as most proficient (i.e. awarded grades of ‘A’ and ‘B’ on the Use of English Examination) use English more accurately than those who receive lower grades, they do not necessarily demonstrate increased competence, or at least confidence, in the distributional frequency of SE features. While they may move slightly toward NS-like distributional frequencies in the use of some features, they progressively avoid or overuse others in comparison to their less proficient schoolmates, as well as to NS students. For example, relatively proficient HK students use fewer singular common nouns than do the less proficient. This suggests the operation of an error avoidance strategy that somehow pays off in higher grades. Relatively proficient students also move further away from NS performance by using the definite article about 12% less often than the weaker students, although they use the indefinite article about 9% more often.69

Figure 1 graphs the distributions of plural and singular nouns in the UK students’ texts and in seven grade sets of the HK students’ texts. HKIL appears to become progressively more indefinite as the standard measure of proficiency increases. Although the use of singular nouns decreases, there is a slight increase in the accuracy of use of the third person singular form of lexical verbs by ‘more proficient’ students.70 There is also a small increase in the use of the indefinite article (Figure 2),

67 It is not possible to distinguish between omitted the or a and the mis-selection of the Ø article, so I will continue here to treat an erroneous Ø article as an ‘omitted article’. 68 The variant an is underused to an even greater extent than a by HK students. Ringbom (1998) found that European learners of English also underuse an (despite overusing a). He attributes this imbalance to the possible predominance of Germanic over Latinate vocabulary in learner writing. HK learners also prefer monosyllabic words of Germanic origin (although they underuse both forms of the indefinite article). Granger & Tyson (1996) found that even learners whose L1 is a Romance language prefer English words with Germanic roots, which are ‘core’ to English, and more common in SE speech. Latinate vocabulary, which is more frequent in academic writing, selects an because it has a higher proportion of adjectives and nouns beginning with vowel-initial prefixes such as a-, ab-, im-, in-, etc. 69 The indefinite article is used 36% less often by the HK students overall than by the UK students; the definite article is used only about 5% less often by the HK students than by the UK students. 70 This may be partly explained by the increased use of subject relative pronouns (who, that and which and some other singular subject pronouns (e.g. one, something, nothing) by more proficient students.

but a decreased use of the definite article, which correlates with the increased use of plural nouns (Figure 3). 71 However, errors in the use of articles (i.e. omission of the indefinite article and redundant use of the definite article) account for much of the difference we note in the overall distributions between the least and most proficient students. The overuse of plural nouns by HK students (which progressively increases among more proficient students) may nevertheless offer a slight advantage in avoiding article use.

Figure 1: Frequencies of singular (NN1) and plural nouns (NN2) in UK and HK examination scripts.72

Figure 2: Frequencies of the indefinite article (a/an – AT1) in UK and HK examination scripts.

Figure 3: Frequencies of the definite article (the – AT) in UK and HK examination scripts.

71 We can discern a U-shape (or inverted U-shape) in many of these distributional graphs. The explanation of this phenomenon may be Kellerman’s (1985) proposal that at intermediate stages students often temporarily move further away from target-like behaviour as they experiment with IL forms. 72 The HK Use of English Examination scripts are graded from ‘A’ to ‘U’ (for ‘unclassified’).

While an/a and the are underused, the relatively rare article every is overused by HK students by a ratio of 304:184 (84%). Students are explicitly taught to pummel the reader with emphatic certainty in their argumentative essays, which they do with every lexical and grammatical device at their disposal:

Moreover, It is a universial truth that every comic story will have an idol who have strong power, intellegent or an attractive appearance.

Chesterman (1991: 182) argues that definiteness, as marked by articles, is scalar rather than polar. He orders definiteness on a cline from ‘most indefinite’ to ‘most definite’, involving what he classes as the five articles of English:

ZERO ARTICLE – UNSTRESSED SOME – A – THE – NULL ARTICLE73

According to this scale, although indefinite articles are rare, the writing of HK students is skewed towards indefiniteness in its reliance on plural count nouns, which prefer the zero article and unstressed some. Paradoxically, as we have already noted, it inappropriately and inaccurately overuses some markers of definiteness. These features are characteristic of texts whose propositions are overgeneralised:

The young people always spend all they earn.

The effects of the various vectors shaping HKIL at both the discoursal and grammatical levels are reflected in the distributions of determiners and possessives in the HK learners’ texts. Table 5 lists determiners and possessives sorted by degree of underuse and overuse in the HK students’ scripts, compared to the UK students’ scripts (ranked by log likelihood ratio).

Table 5: Determiners74 and possessives significantly under/overused by HK students. Underused by HK students Overused by HK students Rank Word CL7 UK% HK% Word CL7 UK% HK% 1 an AT1 0.41% 0.12% some DD 0.21% 0.66% 2 a AT1 2.10% 1.45% their APPGE 0.43% 0.92% 3 which DDQ 0.56% 0.30% these DD2 0.24% 0.61% 4 this DD1 0.87% 0.59% your APPGE 0.02% 0.19% 5 its APPGE 0.16% 0.06% our APPGE 0.16% 0.42% 6 his APPGE 0.14% 0.06% most DAT 0.06% 0.18% 7 both DB2 0.05% 0.02% enough DD 0.01% 0.08% 8 little DA1 0.02% 0.00% my APPGE 0.05% 0.12% 9 her APPGE 0.04% 0.01% more DAR 0.14% 0.22% 10 another DD1 0.10% 0.05% many DA2 0.32% 0.42% 11 same DA 0.07% 0.04% such DA 0.14% 0.21% 12 less DAR 0.03% 0.01% those DD2 0.10% 0.15% 13 the AT 6.31% 5.99% all DB 0.21% 0.27% 14 what DDQ 0.18% 0.13% every AT1 0.03% 0.05% 15 either DD1 0.01% 0.00% several DA2 0.02% 0.03% 16 whose DDQGE 0.01% 0.00% few DA2 0.02% 0.03% 17 own DA 0.07% 0.04% 18 no AT 0.14% 0.11% 19 any DD 0.11% 0.08% 20 each DD1 0.04% 0.03%

73 Chesterman distinguishes the zero article (occurring before plural count nouns) from the definite null article (occurring before certain singular count and proper nouns). I will not make this distinction when discussing the role of articles in HKIL. 74 The ‘determiner’ CL7 tags actually incorporate both determiner and pronoun functions.

The HK students’ choices of determiners contribute toward the anomalous cohesion (both anaphoric and cataphoric reference) of the learners’ texts. For example, the HK students tend to use demonstratives as determiners rather than as pronouns, e.g. it is often used erroneously in place of anaphoric this, which is generally avoided. Only 10% of the occurrences of this and these in the HK Comment: corpus are pronouns, whereas 77% of the occurrences in the UK corpus are pronouns. The words tagged as ‘determiner’ by CL-7, capable of both determiner and pronoun use, function as determiners by HK students about 30% more often than as pronouns, compared to their use by UK students. Chinese makes use of both demonstratives and pronouns, so there is no straightforward interference explanation for this disparity. HKIL overuses most possessive pronouns, plural determiners (including the assertive some), demonstratives, quantifiers, and, every (often used erroneously instead of a). These variant distributions accentuate the vague and overgeneralised claims in HKIL texts (e.g. some people always think). They also highlight the difficulties HK students have in syntactic reduction and pronoun substitution.75

HK students at all grade levels make about three times more use of plural determiners (especially these) and about 50% less use of singular determiners (especially this) than do the UK students, and rarely use either for intersentential anaphoric reference connection. Relatively proficient students rely a little less on the determiners some and most than do the less proficient students (although both words are greatly overused by all HK students), but use the categorical pre-determiner all more often than less proficient students. The most proficient HK students are only slightly more adventurous in the use of WH-determiners (and WH-relative pronouns) than less proficient students. However, the more proficient HK students, generally, are no more restrained in the use of personal pronouns than the less proficient students. In fact, we observe a striking increase in the disproportionate use of some of these categories by more proficient HK students. The variable use of possessives by HK students at different grade levels, and compared to UK students, is graphed in Figure 4. That HK students do not necessarily move toward NS norms as they move toward proficiency is also demonstrated by the distributional tendencies of the possessives our and his. The first person plural possessive our has a tendency to increase in the writing of more proficient students. The third person singular his tends to decrease. This reflects the increase in the number of plural over singular nouns in the writing of more proficient students.

75 The pronouns they, we, you, I, them, us and reflexives are overused by HK students, but do not generally substitute for previously mentioned NPs and rarely carry anaphoric reference in HKIL.

Figure 4: Frequencies of possessives (APPGE) in UK and graded HK examination scripts.

Possessives (especially their, our and your) compete more strongly for determiner position than do articles in the writing of HK students, compared to the writing of English NSs. It is unlikely that this is simply because HK students are assigned topics that are in some sense more personal than those assigned to UK students. The plural possessives their and our, along with the plural demonstratives these and those are excessively used in all assignments written by HK students, regardless of the topic, and constitute the most frequent anaphoric ties in HK students’ texts: the plural these is used in HK students’ texts about 250% times more often than in UK students’ texts; the singular this is used only about 75% as frequently in HK students’ texts.

HK students’ texts are generally limited in the distance over which referential cohesion can be maintained because of the reduced use of possessives, demonstratives, definite articles and referential nouns (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 239). Biber et al. (ibid.: 237–40) also note that, whereas pronouns are the main anaphoric devices in conversation, in academic writing this role is filled mostly by definite noun phrases and repeated nouns or synonyms. HKIL is, of course, restricted in its use of synonyms because of the students’ limited vocabulary. Its uses of possessives and personal pronouns result in a discourse that has a sense of forced intimacy quite different from the academic writing of NS students.

The avoidance of articles and the disproportionate use of other grammatical words (determiners, pronouns, demonstratives, possessives, adverbials, grammatical participles etc.) also affect the degree and type of deixis, explicitness and cohesion that HK students achieve in their writing. As HK students move toward proficiency, their writing relies increasingly on generic expression (e.g. the increased use of plural nouns) and personal involvement (e.g. an increased use of first person pronouns).76 They also employ progressively more conservative strategies (e.g. the avoidance of non-present tense and aspect) and avoidance of hedging and specifying devices (e.g. through less exemplification, concession and comparison). This movement away from NS norms can also be observed in higher-order grammatical constituents, such as an increased use of complement noun clauses, which are overused by all HK learners. These variations and strategies have negative consequences for the ‘constitutive principles of textuality’ (see Searle 1969; de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981), such as cohesion, coherence, intention, acceptability etc.

Orders of acquisition and difficulty

One strand of SLA research has attempted to overcome the problems with transfer explanations and to understand the learners’ ‘order of acquisition’ by tracing the sequence of acquired grammatical morphemes by learners at progressive stages, independent of the L1. Dulay & Burt (1973), building on research in first language acquisition, looked for a common sequence in the acquisition of specific morphological structures in English. Their research, and many of the replication studies that followed, used elicited speech to determine whether respondents (children in their study) used a set of bound and unbound grammatical morphemes in obligatory contexts. Based on the sequence that they claimed to have found, Krashen (1977) grouped nine morphemes into four ‘universal’ hierarchical stages of second language acquisition (Table 6).

76 The overall count of first and second person pronouns in HKIL is similar (in total, about 4% of all words) to what Petch-Tyson (1998) reports for the writing of Swedish learners of English, whom she identifies as having the highest rate of writer ‘visibility’ of any of the European learners she investigated.

Table 6: Krashen’s hierarchical sequence of second language acquisition. Stage 1 The progressive morpheme attached to lexical verbs (-ing) The plural morphemes attached to attached to regular nouns (-s) The copula form of be Stage 2 The auxiliary form of be The articles (the, a, an) Stage 3 Irregular past tenses attached to lexical verbs Stage 4 The regular past tense attached to lexical verbs (-ed) The possessive morpheme (-’s) The present tense singular morpheme attached to third person lexical verbs (-’s)

The question of whether this reputed order of acquisition corresponds to an order of difficulty for all L2 learners continues to be argued, but many researchers believe that there is a fixed order of L2 acquisition that may be associated with patterns of fossilisation and the characteristics of L2s. Rutherford (1982) used Eckman’s (1985) markedness theory to account for this hypothesised order of morpheme acquisition in English by suggesting that the more ‘marked’ the morpheme in the TL, the later it is acquired. These observations were based on research that came from longitudinal studies examining the progress of relatively few subjects, and there has been some debate about whether formal instruction influences this order of ‘natural’ acquisition (Pienemann 1984). Studies associated with Pienemann’s ‘teachability hypothesis’ take a multi-dimensional approach to language acquisition in that both implicational stages (whereby learners attain correct performance from the cumulative acquisition of increasingly complex rules) and variation (e.g. the growing ability to produce a variety of sentence types) are recognised. In contradiction to Krashen’s (1985) input hypothesis, they provide evidence for the effectiveness of instruction and offer suggestions for increasing its efficacy.

Some of these studies attempted to show that there are processes other than L1 transfer at work in the development of the learners’ language, since these stages were claimed to be universal and independent of the learners’ L1. Dulay et al. (1982: 211), in a study of the orders of acquisition by learners of various L1s, for example, concluded that acquisition sequences are proof of ‘creative construction’ in IL. Some researchers have attributed as much as 90% of errors made by language learners to processes in the acquisition of English other than interference from learners’ L1s. The results of certain studies of negation (e.g. Wode 1981; Eubank 1987) also claimed that interlingual interference has minimal effect, especially on later stages of L2 acquisition. Other studies have suggested that intralingual interference (‘developmental errors’ – e.g. overgeneralisation and simplification) might be more typical of later stages of language learning, where the learner’s greater, but still flawed, knowledge of the L2 is more likely the source of error. Taylor (1975: 95) identified nine different types of generalisation error when learners attempted [auxiliary + verb] structures in English. Richards (1971) categorised seventeen types of generalisation errors in the use of the articles in English.

While the discovery of sequences of some type or other has been widely accepted in both L1 and L2 acquisition research, nevertheless morpheme-based research has been criticised for the arbitrary way in which it ignores both grammatical relationships and particular lexis. The general conclusions of these studies have been questioned and there is now considerable scepticism about the ‘minimalist’ role of transfer. Ellis (1994: 309–15), for example, points to the often subjective inter- pretation of data from many SLA studies, suggesting that evidence has often been made to fit whatever theory the researcher favours. The heavily debated influence of L1 interference on the IL of advanced learners begs the question of why advanced learners should have to rely on NL knowledge in approximating SE structure. Few of these studies have been conducted in EFL contexts, and in Hong Kong it is difficult to distinguish between L1 transfer, developmental errors

and ‘induced errors’ (Stenson 1974), which may originate from inaccurate, inadequate or incom- prehensible input. As we have seen, educational discourse often misrepresents other authentic registers and encourages short-term compensatory strategies.

Predicted and observed orders of acquisition and difficulty

Although HK learners, when asked, can identify many of the features of English they typically either depend on or avoid, they have little access to the characteristic distributions of SE usage. Most are not equipped to communicate in real-world contexts, especially not in language appropriate to the registers they will encounter in social, academic or professional situations. Because they are provided with atypical models of the target language, it should come as no surprise to find that their patterns of production are not easily predicted or determined by the type of strict acquisitional sequences hypothesised by the SLA theories discussed above.

HK students are generally not required to adopt a strictly ‘academic’ style in their school-leaving examinations. However, those who must continue to write in English are eventually at a disadvantage through not having acquired the patterns of academic or professional discourse. Nor are these patterns systematically taught, even in most university courses, and the features that are persistent in the school examination scripts continue to be prevalent in the writing of university students throughout their three-year programmes.

The continued interest that the study of grammatical morpheme acquisition holds for many researchers is evident in most reviews of SLA research (e.g. Cook 1993; Ellis 1994), which give considerable space to these studies. If the acquisition of linguistic features can be shown to follow a ‘natural route’ independent of instruction, then this obviously has important consequences for any pedagogical method in sequencing instruction and providing feedback. For example, claims of such a natural route have often been used to promote sequenced instruction. However, most SLA sequence studies have been mainly based on Brown’s (1973) L1 acquisition research, which counted omitted morphemes in obligatory contexts in children’s elicited responses, rather than their overall frequency in the foreign language (FL) production of post-adolescents. In general, these studies predicted that grammatical free morphemes (function words) would be acquired later than lexical morphemes (content words). Function words do indeed appear to occur overall about 1% less frequently in the HK student scripts than in the UK student scripts. There is ample evidence in HKIL of what Rutherford (1987) terms the relatively late development of ‘grammaticisation’ in ILs, although, as we have noted, several specific classes and types of function words are overused in this IL.

Table 7 ranks those morphemes in the written English of HK students that were reviewed in Table 6. The morphemes are ranked according to the same statistical criteria of relative frequency as in Tables 2 and 3. The figures in brackets in the first column indicate the log likelihood ratio. I assigned a number from 1 to 4 to each morpheme so as to have a basis for comparison to the four predicted stages of Krashen’s (1977) original study.77 The morphemes are listed in decreasing order of observed vs expected frequency (e.g. plural nouns occur statistically most frequently and third person present tense verbs occur least frequently in terms of statistical expectations). The second column lists the relative percentage of overuse or underuse of each morpheme. Column 3 indicates the ‘acquisition stage’ of each morpheme according to Krashen’s (1977) original study. The fourth

77 This is rather arbitrary, but so were the ‘stages’ assigned in the original studies. If a morpheme is overused, I assigned it to stage 1. I then divided the following eight items into three groups and assigned numbers accordingly.

column reports the grammatical accuracy of each morpheme as a percentage of its word class, and numbers each morpheme according to the degree of grammatical accuracy with which it is used (again, divided roughly into four groups).78 The most accurately used morphemes, as a percentage of their word-class frequency, are the past tenses of lexical verbs. The least accurately used morphemes are the definite article and genitive (-’s). The fifth column gives a percentage of accuracy adjusted for the rate of overuse or underuse by HK students. 79 I also divided these adjusted rates of accuracy into four groups.

Table 7: Observed occurrence and grammaticality of morphemes in HKIL cited in ‘order of acquisition’ studies.80

1 2 3 4 5 Statistical Observed Predicted Observed order Adjusted rate Morpheme order of relative acquisitional of accuracy as of accuracy occurrence occurrence ‘stage’ a % of word class 1 (+1586) 143% 1 3 (90%) 2 (95%) Plural regular lexical nouns (-s)

1 (+5) 105% 1 2 (93%) 2 (94%) Progressive of lexical verbs (-ing)81 2 (-31) 87% 2 4 (85%) 4 (83%) Definite article: the

3 (-221) 47% 4 4 (84%) 4 (76%) Possessive (-’s)

3 (-260) 55% 3 1 (99%) 1 (98%) Irregular past tenses attached to lexical verbs 3 (-256) 55% 4 1 (98%) 1 (97%) Regular past tense attached to lexical verbs 4 (-400) 95% 1 2 (93%) 3 (90%) Copular functions of be82

4 (-600) 76% 2 2 (90%) 3 (88%) Auxiliary functions of be83

4 (-640) 66% 2 3 (70%) 4 (50%) Indefinite article: a/an84

4 (-885) 38% 4 3 (90%) 4 (81%) Present tense singular attached to third person lexical verbs (-s)

78 These percentages are as accurate as a manual analysis of 100,000 words of HK students’ texts permits. They are, nevertheless, necessarily approximate because of the indeterminacy of L2 reformulation. 79 This assumes that, if the morpheme occurred less or more often, the rate of inaccuracy would decrease or increase proportionately These are, admittedly, oversimplified mathematical and linguistic procedures, but they make possible a rough comparison of data from two different experimental designs. 80 My data and methods differ from those of some of the earlier studies, which were based on elicitation procedures to determine if (mostly young) learners could accurately produce the morphemes in required contexts. Learners were generally judged to have acquired the morpheme if they achieved 90% accuracy. While both techniques have faults in determining the competence of L2 learners, the approach I use may have more to say about the performance we can normally expect of these EFL learners. This frequency ranking is based on observed frequency as a ratio of expected frequency, using the same statistical criteria as in Tables 2 and 3. 81 I do not distinguish between different functions of -ing participles (i.e. as adjective, nominal or verb), as it is not clear that the original studies did. In any event, it is the morphological feature that is at issue, and this is a constant of the different functions. 82 CL-7 tags do not distinguish between copula and auxiliary functions of BE. I concordanced all CLAWS- tagged forms of be and conflated contexts to determine functions. This proved to be relatively easy, as the structures used by both student cohorts contain little embedding between auxiliary and main verb. 83 This ranking necessarily includes all tenses and aspects, as well as passive constructions, since the original studies make no distinctions. 84 The an form of the indefinite article is more significantly underused in HKIL than the a form. However, the original studies made no distinction, so neither do I here.

We observe that eight of the ten morphemes that these studies predicted would be difficult to acquire are in fact underused in HKIL (i.e. all ten except plural nouns and -ing forms). However, there appears to be little correlation between the statistical order of relative occurrence and the predicted acquisitional stage of the ten morphemes (only three fall roughly into the same ‘groups’: the definite article, irregular past tense of lexical verbs, and third person present tense of lexical verbs). There is also little, if any, correlation between the predicted order and the observed order of grammatical accuracy (column 3), and even less when these figures are adjusted to take into account avoidance (column 5). Past tenses, although they are avoided, do not present the difficulties predicted by the earlier morpheme acquisition studies, although most of the other morphemes present more difficulties than predicted. Several morphemes appear more difficult to acquire (or at least to produce) than predicted, especially copular and auxiliary forms of be, as well as both definite and indefinite articles.85 The only obvious correlation between the expected and adjusted rate of accuracy is in the use of the third person present tense of lexical verbs. Assuming that this sequence nevertheless has some basis in fact, as many linguists argue it does, the only obvious reason why HKIL should depart from it is that formal instruction affects HK students’ production. If this is so, then the way these students perceive and meet institutional expectations is a more powerful factor than acquisitional theories usually acknowledge.

The morphemes whose distribution and accurate use seem closest to the predictions deserve to be examined in more detail:

• -ing participles; • the genitive and other possessive markers; • -ed past verb tense morphology, which is used more accurately than predicted; and • one other feature that has been the subject of a number of sequence studies: negation.

-ing participles

We should first note the different levels of difficulty that HK learners experience with -ing as a marker of the progressive aspect and as a nominal. The former appears considerably more difficult to master. In both corpora of students’ texts, -ing participles function mainly as prepositional complements. In the UK students’ texts they are mostly adverbials, often in passive constructions:

Unemployment can only be eliminated by using supply side policies.

In the HK students’ texts, -ing clauses are mainly controlled by adjectival predicates (e.g. interested in …) and verbs (e.g. spend time …):

I suggest young people not to spend too much time in/on reading comic books.

HK students usually pair participles with plural nouns in this structure, and often generate S-V concord errors when the phrase is embedded between the subject and predicator:

The negative effect of reading comic books are very large.

85 Copular and auxiliary forms of be are supposed to be acquired quite early (stages 1 or 2), but are among the most avoided morphemes in HKIL (compare columns 3 and 5). Definite and indefinite articles are also supposed to be acquired relatively early (stage 2), but if we look at actual HKIL production, they are avoided in the extreme.

HK students use -ing participle clauses as sentence subjects much more often than do UK students: Wearing a pair of ‘Bally’ shoes reflects how much you can spend.

The fact that these nonfinite ‘verbal nouns’ are the ‘least countable’ of any type of nominal and thus reject plural morphology and articles may provide an incentive for their utilisation by HK students, especially as sentential subjects to satisfy L1 syntactic constraints against indefinite subjects, without the need for the problematic definite article to mark the thematic information:

Forging in a materialistic manner is no compensate for their hidden uncertainty.86

These nominal participles are about 14% more frequent in the HK scripts than in the UK students’ texts, and HK students appear to rely on them for topic reference, and, along with a few types of explicit conjuncts, for textual cohesion. The five most frequent -ing participles in HKIL are reading, buying, wearing, using and studying. Some form of all four of these words appears in the HK examination rubrics. By comparison, the order of -ing participles in the UK examination corpus is making, using, trying, becoming and increasing, none of which appears in the UK examination rubrics. Setting aside the frequent use that HK students make of lexis from the essay prompts, they may rely on lexical participles particularly for topic reference because they are consistent with generic statements, and because their formation is morphologically regular.87 The HK students use about the same number of fully deverbal noun tokens (NN1-ing forms) as the UK students, but while both forms (VVG-ing and NN1-ing) are common in HKIL, the HK students’ vocabulary in this area is no larger than their overall lexicon of nouns: the UK students use 50% more participle word types than the HK students. The regularity of derivational morphology does not promote the generation of verbal nouns and associated non-finite phrase patterns, although it may encourage the HK students to use this particular form more frequently than is appropriate.

HK students often use -ing participle phrases as fronting devices to stress given (i.e. contextual) information. More experienced writers would use subordination – if, indeed, they chose to front such information:

Being a sugar trader for almost two years, I found that my knowledge is built up and my skills are polished.88

Also, the -ing participle is often chosen where an infinitive, common noun, or lexical verb is required:89

They are in a dilemma whether studying at a very new institution or at one of the older institutions.90

86 What reads like Jabberwocky out of context is actually part of a thoughtful social comment: ‘forging’ seems to be a partially retrieved fixed phrase (forging an identity) that the student has learned, possibly not realising the co-occurrence restrictions on such a phrase. The student’s reward for the relatively cliché-free, but ungrammatical essay in which this sentence occurs was an ‘E’ grade. 87 While the EFL students may be taking advantage of the regularity of derivational morphology, especially for negative affixes, they use far fewer derived forms overall than do the UK students, and their attempts to use derivational morphemes often result in nonce words: The standard of living in Hong Kong is increasing non-stoppedly. 88 Being occurs four times in sentence-initial position in 500,000 words of UK students’ texts vs 71 times in sentence-initial position in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts. 89 Less proficient HK students frequently omit the -ing morpheme in required contexts: Study is so important for teenager because…

First of all, children can fulfil their thinking.

I am sure that many have ‘day-dreaming’.

Also, the promoting of romantic relationship in the TV series will make the young people only thinking of the advantages of romantic relationships.91

Another reason why HK learners should favour these participles is that they provide a way to avoid lexical verb morphology by taking advantage of what is believed by the learners to be the equivalent DELEXICAL VERB + NOMINALISED VERB construction:

Students who have dating [= who date] benefit ...

HK students generally avoid verb inflection, but the progressive aspect of lexical verbs is ‘less underused’ by HK students than other verb inflections. However, its grammatically correct use presents considerable difficulty. Confusion between the requirement for present progressive vs present simple or the base forms of the verb is the most frequent overt error in the tense/aspect system of verbs in HKIL (constituting about 2% of all occurrences of verbs):

Later, she found that the doctor who had an operation to her was not having any experience about abortion.

If we discount ungrammatical instances of apparent attempts to use the progressive aspect, then this verb form is in fact seriously under-represented in HKIL.

The use and misuse of -ing participles may be exacerbated by HK students wanting to show off their ability to use an inflected form, without risking the use of more difficult grammatical words. It seems likely that their errors in the use of participles often go misdiagnosed or uncorrected. Although the ratio of occurrence of the progressive aspect of lexical verbs is almost the same in both student corpora (a little less than 0.2% of all tokens), it forms a relatively small percentage of all -ing participles in the HK student corpus (about 12%), when compared to the UK student corpus (about 16%).

This disproportionate occurrence of verbal and nominal uses becomes even more pronounced in the texts of more proficient HK learners. The most common left-hand proximity collocates of -ing participles in both UK and HK students’ texts are NOUN + of (e.g. advantage of reading). This lexical ‘bundle’ or ‘chunk’ (NOUN + of + -ING PARTICIPLE) is about 50% more frequent in the HK students’ texts than in the UK texts, and increases in frequency in the most proficient students’ texts. This preference for ‘nominal participle bundles’ is more evidence that HK learners rely on lexical strategies rather than acquire grammatical competence. Instead of following a process of acquisition as they become more proficient in meeting the requirements of their school-leaving EFL examination, to a significant extent, they avoid problematic features. Clearly the ‘acquisition’ of these features, at least as it manifests itself in formal production, does not follow a ‘natural route’. There is ample evidence that the most proficient HK students have not fully acquired the progressive aspect; e.g. from an ‘A’-graded script in the Use of English Examinations:

90 Of course this would be appropriate if the student were referring to a present condition, but he/she is referring to a future condition, and may confuse the functions of a whether-clause to express ‘real’ time with an infinitive clause to refer to ‘unreal’ time. 91 The highlighted error in the choice of an -ing participle rather than the verb form illustrates one of several problems that HK learners have with verbs such as make, and probably results from the learner attempting to force thinking into the role of eventive object rather than verb complement.

The comic books are often not having much educational purpose and this might waste the students’ time in reading them.

The marking of possession

SLA sequence studies successfully predict the apparent late acquisition of the Germanic possessive morpheme (-’s) by HK learners, which, as we have noted, is avoided and has a high error rate. This may genuinely be a morpheme that is difficult for language learners regardless of their L1. HK learners have particular difficulty accurately choosing between the genitive, noun adjuncts and the possessive of phrase. They generally prefer the postmodifying of construction instead of premo- dification92 by genitives (e.g. Cloning will extend the life of people.),93 although of phrases are generally also underused in HKIL. In fact, the word-class sequence that is statistically least used by HK students in comparison to UK students is NOUN + of + NOUN (vs the greatly overused NOUN + of + -ING PARTICIPLE bundle).94 When the genitive is attempted, it is often made to substitute for a noun adjunct (e.g. primary school’s students)95 or for a subordinate clause structure (e.g. the way of people’s thinking).96 There is a small tendency toward the increased (accurate) use of the genitive -s by more proficient students, but its frequency remains dwarfed by NS usage.

We have also previously noted, however, that possessive pronouns (APPGE), as a class, are overused in the HK student scripts, although the frequencies of individual possessives vary greatly. The possessives that account for the class being overused (your, our, my) are generally employed in a deictic rather than in an intersentential anaphoric sense. The pronouns her, his and its are each used only about a third as often as they are by the UK students, which of course has negative consequences for anaphoric cohesion in HKIL. Variations in this pattern are, if anything, more anomalous among the most proficient HK students. The greater use in HKIL of the third person plural (their) follows from the HK students’ tendency to favour plural subjects. The abundance of these possessives does not compensate for the avoidance of genitives, and does little to make HK students’ texts coherent or specific. Rather, their most common function in HKIL is to further the personal appeal and hortative tone that HK students are encouraged to adopt:97

Young people should learn to enrich their minds and befriend with others according to personal qualities, instead of solely appearance.

92 The preference for postmodification often results in syntactic error in several types of phrase and clause constructions, and might be related to HK learners’ partiality for sentence patterns with delayed subjects. This may, in turn, be associated with the much-discussed ‘topic-prominent’ nature of Chinese sentences. 93 This error in word order also sometimes occurs with possessive pronouns: That’s the main disadvantage of the psychological view of mine. Transfer does not explain this confusion, since Chinese possessive constructions must premodify the noun head. It is more likely that the student has not learned the indefinite sense of the of + POSSESSIVE PRONOUN phrase. 94 This is the most underused of all combined bi-gram and tri-gram tag sequences. 95 Noun adjuncts, which I identified by examining adjacent CLAWS noun tags, are very rare in the HKIL corpora, but almost as common in the corpus of UK students as Johansson & Hofland (1989, vol. 2: 3) report for the LOB Corpus. 96 Both English NS and NNS students mainly use agentive possession (usually plural in HKIL: people’s, students, youngsters, books, readers). 97 One gets this impression on reading almost any HK student script. I concordanced all second and third person personal and possessive pronouns in a 100,000-word sample from the HKIL corpora and observed that a predominant number of occurrences are associated with hortative pronouncements. The students may be imitating the authoritative style frequently encountered in school texts. Students explain that their teachers also enjoin them to adopt this style, explaining that it will make their writing “personal and interesting”.

If you spend too much time on reading comic books, it will has negative effect to your academic studies.

Verb morphology

HK learners often omit required past tense morphs,98 but failure to signal past tense is mainly a covert feature of HKIL, since HK learners make relatively little reference to past time (or to the perfective aspect).99 This lack of reference to non-present time is consistent with the ubiquity of the gnomic aspect in HKIL. Tellingly, the most proficient HK students do not use inflected verb forms more often than the least proficient students (although, of course, they use verb forms more accurately).

Since tense and aspect are not morphologically signalled on the Chinese verb, it is not surprising that verb inflections are difficult for these students, and may provoke avoidance strategies. However, the avoidance of inflected verb forms is not simply triggered by difficulty with the morphological inflection itself, but also by syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and strategic consi- derations. If there is any implicational scale in the acquisition of the features of English, at least by HK learners, these factors must somehow be taken into account. We have seen how such factors may account for the use and misuse of -ing nominal, adjectival and verbal participles by HK students. The overuse of non-finite and present tense verb forms exaggerates the generic, vague stance that is typical of the writing of HK students. These students have little occasion to indicate tense and aspect in most academic writing assignments. Although the ‘natural’ order of acquisition proposed by Krashen (1977) is generally considered to be independent of instruction, instruction does seem to play a significant part in the use made of these features by HK learners.

Negation

Negation is not listed among the sequenced morphemes in Table 7, but it has been extensively examined in research on L1 and L2 acquisition, as well as in the analysis of register variation. Cook (1993) summarises a number of studies of the acquisition of negation and concludes (ibid.: 43), “There is evidence for a common grammar at different stages of language development, more or less regardless of L1 or L2.” However, a pattern which he specifically identifies as occurring at a late stage in all the studies he reviews – the accurate use of don’t + VERB – occurs over three times more frequently in the texts of the HK students than in the UK students’ texts (see Table 8). It is also more frequent in the texts of the most proficient than in those of the least proficient HK learners.100 The more proficient HK students move only slightly toward NS frequencies in the use of the other negative markers underused in HKIL. However, I do not find clear patterns in either the

98 However, they more frequently incorrectly insert -ed endings than omit them: … that costed large sums of money. 99 The statistically least frequent two-word string in the HK students’ texts, compared to the UK students’ texts is has been, marking present perfect passive. 100 Among even low proficiency students, occurrences are mainly accurate. However, the word is excessively used in HK students’ texts with redundant expressions of personal stance: I don’t think this is a good trend for students to follow as it will bring quite a number of disadvantages to the students. The most common verb collocate of don’t in the HK students’ texts is the mental verb know; in the UK students’ texts, it is have.

accurate or inaccurate use of negation in the texts of HK students at various proficiency levels that would indicate a sequence of acquisition.101

On the other hand, some of the observations that have been made about variations in the expression of negation between written and spoken texts do appear reflected in the variant distributions between the HK and UK student corpora. Tottie (1991) observed that negation is twice as common in spoken as in written English, that negative sentences have a tendency to contain verbs denoting mental processes, and that they more often contain modal verbs.102 She also found ‘not-negation’ to be more common than ‘no-negation’ in spoken, as contrasted with written SE (op. cit.: 87–102). Biber et al. (1999: 159) support these findings. Verbs denoting mental processes103 as well as modals, as a class, are over-represented in the HK students’ texts in comparison with the UK students’ texts (and we find more occurrences of the same negative modals: don’t, won’t, can’t). ‘Not/n’t-negation’, however, is only slightly more common in the HK students’ texts than in the UK texts, although there is significantly less ‘no-negation’ in the HK scripts (83%). Overall, negation is about 10% less common in HKIL than in SE. This seems mostly to be accounted for by the fact that HK students make little use of derivational morphology. If we discount affixal marking of negation, the HK students resort to negation about 3% more often than the UK students, mainly by the frequent negation of do,104 can, will and have. Table 8 lists frequencies for most negative morphemes in 500,000 words of each student corpus.

101 The studies Cook reviews (Hyltenstam 1977; Cancino et al. 1978; Wode 1981; Eubank 1987) are of younger and less advanced learners than are represented in the current analysis. Nevertheless, it is possible that some covert implicational scale masks a clear sequence in my data, or, more likely, that grammatical and lexical acquisition of negation by these students has been influenced by 13+ years of instruction. 102 Chafe (1982) also found more references to mental processes in speech than writing. 103 For example, forms of the verb think occur 2,353 times and 306 times respectively in 500,000 words of the HK and UK student corpora – a ratio of 7.7 times more often in the NNS than in the NS corpus. Other studies have also found this verb overused in the writing of English NNSs. 104 Reid (1991: 14–8) argues that do-negatives carry much more weight as markers of thematic contrast than other types of negation. If we accept this view, this is further evidence to support the impression one gets on reading almost any HK student’s script that propositions are conveyed with a much greater sense of conviction in HKIL than in typical academic texts.

Table 8: The frequency of negative morphemes in HK and UK students’ texts. Overused by HK learners Underused by HK learners Negative UK HK HK/UK L-L Negative UK HK HK/UK L-L morpheme freq freq ratio ratio morpheme freq freq ratio ratio don’t 71 224 3.2 83.38 un- 2024 790 0.4 561.50 cannot 364 640 1.8 76.93 never 164 65 0.4 44.25 not 3350 3786 1.1 26.85 without 365 209 0.6 42.96 won’t 18 35 1.9 5.55 isn’t 44 6 0.1 32.62 can’t 44 65 1.5 4.07 non- 85105 28 0.3 30.12 haven’t 11 19 1.7 2.16 didn’t 32 4 0.1 24.79 no-one/no 57 69 1.2 1.14 neither 35 8 0.2 18.29 one couldn’t 17 1 0.1 17.23 nothing 143 83 0.6 16.13 no 987 823 0.8 14.91 Similar distribution wouldn’t 20 3 0.2 14.07 nobody 20 21 1.1 0.02 nowhere 12 1 0.1 10.97 none 32 12 0.4 9.43 nor 38 19 0.5 6.46 hasn’t 8 1 0.1 6.20 doesn’t 32 20 0.6 2.79 shouldn’t 9 4 0.4 1.97 hadn’t 5 2 0.4 1.33

Unused by HK learners aren’t 13 0 N/A N/A wasn’t 11 0 N/A N/A weren’t 9 0 N/A N/A ain’t 2 0 N/A N/A mustn’t 1 0 N/A N/A needn’t 1 0 N/A N/A

Tottie also found variations in the distribution of affixal negation between speech and writing. In her count, 33% of negation tokens in written texts were affixal, compared to only 8% in speech (op. cit.: 46). The ratio of affixal negation between the HK and UK students’ texts varies by a similar proportion: 26% in the UK texts vs 12% in the HK texts.106 HK students do not use 63 of the 77 negation word types with the prefix non- that are used by the UK students, nor 199 of the 269 negative word types with the prefix un- that appear in the UK student scripts. The words with negative prefixes that are unique to the HK students’ texts betray the confusion HK students have with derivational morphology: many are nonce words (e.g. unability; unsimilar).107

105 This does not include frequency counts of words that UK students repeated from the examination prompt. 106 While the variation in frequency is similar, the reason for affixal negation being less common in speech may not be the same as why it is less common in an IL. 107 There is nothing alien in the concept of affixal negation for HK learners. Cantonese employs a prefix (m-) to negate both adjectives and verbs (e.g. tùhng = ‘same’; mtùhng = ‘different’). HK students overuse a few adjectives formed by negative affixation: indecent, needless, uncommon, misleading, unclear, incorrect, unsuitable, unusual, unrealistic, illegal, unhappy. It is difficult to find straightforward transfer explanations for the frequency variations in lexical and sentential negation in HKIL. For example, although we find that HK students avoid the word nothing, for which there is no precise equivalent in Cantonese, they make even less use of the word never, for which there is a clear equivalent in Cantonese. Also, while can’t/cannot, which are overused in HKIL, have Cantonese equivalents, the past tense form didn’t, which is realised by a negative existential in Cantonese, is greatly underused.

Two modifiers beginning with negative prefixes that are used more often by the HK students and that deserve note are the disjunct undoubtedly (as well as various grammatical and ungrammatical variants: undoubted; undoubt; undoubtly), used about 2.5 times more often in HKIL than in the UK students’ scripts. The synonymous undeniable (undeniably; it is undeniable that), are also used about 7.5 times more often in HKIL. These are mainly used in misguided attempts to strengthen conviction:

Undoubtedly, follow famous brand such as clothes, bags and shoes will make you more satisfactory.108

It is undeniable that some young people join in reading comic books just because they think that it is fashionable.

The reliance on these words can be largely accounted for by the instructional practice of presenting HK learners with lists of barely differentiated discourse markers, in this case disjuncts expressing conviction, that they are told contribute toward effective argument by increasing ‘emphasis’.109 They are not made aware that such expressions are usually used as part of a concessive or contrasting argument, and are typically followed or preceded somewhere in the argument by contrasting, concessive, or negative markers (e.g. but, however, nevertheless, not, unfortunately etc.). An example, from the written BNC sample illustrates this:

Students are undoubtedly enriched by extra-curricular activities. We however believe that students are best served by giving them a quality education. We will therefore reserve most of the new grant for better teaching equipment rather than a new sports hall.

HK students experience a number of problems in the grammatical formation of sentential negation. Some of the errors in the negation of the verbs be and have suggest L1 influence:

In other words, there are no any leisure time for student to cultivate their sentimantal lives. 110

Ignoring the superfluous (and, in context, inaccurate sentence-initial conjunct), the obvious reformulation of the student’s error here is either … there is no leisure time… or (a) student(s) has/have no leisure time… This error appears related to a frequent and complex problem in HKIL in the grammatical and textual use of the English existential. Because of the syntactic constraint that subjects should be definite in Cantonese, the existential, yáuh (which translates into English as both ‘there is/there are’ and ‘has/have’) is usually required to introduce indefinite subject NPs in Cantonese. Although the student’s choice of the English existential in there are no any leisure time is grammatically correct (except for the concord problem with the notional subject student), at some level, he/she may be blending the grammar of have and there is (… students do not have any…).

108 The error in the choice of the base form of the verb rather than the –ing participle is probably due to confusion in the placement of the adjunct. It is usually used in sentence initial position in HKIL, followed by simple declarative finite clauses (e.g. Undoubtedly, they have …). Simply correcting the most apparent grammatical error might be of little help in improving the student’s grammatical or textual competence. 109 Students also use emphasis, like redundancy, as a communication strategy, and adjuncts such as always are very frequent. A transfer error results in the word being frequently used as a synonym for usually: Under all these Gordian knots, they always do not know how to solve these as they are immature enough. I confirmed that HK students ‘promote’ the word usually, by interviewing several classes of undergraduates.We also see in this sentence a typical error associated with the use of a negative prefix (they are immature enough). 110 In this sentence the student may also be overgeneralising the need for any as an obligatory element of the English negative construction (e.g. There isn’t any …).

Another example of the erroneous negation of have is:

Therefore, they will think that our teenagers have not mature enough.111

This error may also be related to confusion between be and have, and, assuming reliable instruction, is apparently not clarified by schooling. HK students seem to learn not (ADJECTIVE) enough as a prefabricated phrase: it occurs 338 times in 500,000 words of HK vs 56 times in the UK student text corpus of the same size;112 45% of the occurrences of enough are negative in the HK corpus vs 31% in the UK corpus. The HK students embed an adjective in the phrase (especially not mature enough) 270 times; the UK students use the string not ADJECTIVE enough only 11 times. The ungrammatical have not enough occurs 40 times in the 500,000 words of the HK students’ texts.113

Even if we could determine reliable rules to reformulate these types of errors, we might not be helping the students acquire grammatical or discoursal competence by simply correcting such errors. This distributional analysis of HKIL demonstrates the degree to which correction alone is often not sufficient. While error correction is necessary, it should be accompanied by timely, consistent and informed explanation, as well as opportunities for discovery that will allow the learner to understand the range of functions of the problematic feature. Without access to sufficient positive evidence, learners cannot acquire the competence that will enable them to generate grammatically and textually acceptable utterances.

Summary: A natural order of acquisition or an institutionalised IL?

Krashen & Terrell (1992) based their ‘natural order’ of L2 acquisition on observations originally made of first language acquisition, arguing that both first and second language acquisition are free from conscious intervention. As we have seen, differences between the order predicted by these studies and the order we observe in HKIL production bring such contentions into doubt. Even the apparent correlation in order of some morpheme production in HKIL with Krashen’s order is doubtful when we compare these with other SLA sequence studies. For example, Makino (1980) looked at morpheme acquisition sequences of L2 learners studying in Japan, where, as in Hong Kong, the L2 is rarely spoken. The sequence he found is given in Table 9. This order is different from both Krashen’s order and from the orders of frequency and error we find in HKIL.

111 It is unlikely that the student has just neglected to form a verb (matured) correctly. The corpus has many other examples of similar problems in the blending of be, have and do (e.g. … they have not enough time …). 112 That is, both with and without an intervening adjective. 113 There are other possible contrastive explanations that might account for this error in terms of L1 influence. Chinese morphology is mainly invariant among noun, verb and adjective forms. English adjective forms are learned before verb forms in HK primary schools, and are preferred to verb forms in the HK student corpus. The author of sentence have not mature enough may be following Chinese syntax by not distinguishing between the noun (maturity) and its adjective form, and slotting the word indiscriminately into the noun position, thereby requiring the verb have. Note also the use of an adjective form in the previous example sentence (their sentimantal [sic] lives) where the single noun sentiment might be more appropriate. A number of other variations in distribution and ungrammaticality arise from the preference by HK students of adjective to verb forms. This is, admittedly, speculative.

Table 9: Sequence of English grammatical morphemes for 777 Japanese children (Makino 1980: 126). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -ing articles plural -s cop. be poss. -s aux. be reg. past 3rd person -s irreg. past

The overall correlation that Cook (1993) claims among the various sequence studies is not evident to me when I look at the production of HK students, and seems even less so when we take into account ungrammaticality. Also, although the acquisitional studies do seem to predict the quantitative underuse and production sequences of some of these morphemes, the predicted order of acquisition fails to account for the distribution of the many other morphemes, identified in Tables 2 and 3, that deviate from SLA predictions and SE distribution. There is, at best, only weak correlation between the distributions of morphemes in HKIL and the stages that Krashen (1977) and Pienemann et al. (1988) predict for language acquisition. The variations we observe in HKIL may tell us something about the degree to which these features have been acquired, but they also almost certainly indicate something about the way the students’ production is shaped by instruction, how students believe they are expected to formulate their ideas, and the learning and production strategies they adopt to do this.

SLA studies have also sometimes overlooked the fact that an interlanguage is not necessarily progressively transitional in nature. Many of the persistent IL patterns of HK writing appear to be shaped very early (as suggested by the example of primary school input in the last chapter), and to persist well beyond university graduation. There is clearly evidence in HKIL of very long term stabilisation of interlanguage forms. According to Selinker (1992: 225):

The IL hypothesis, while not denying the transitional nature of some subsystems of learner language, claims that even from day one of exposure to TL data, stabilisation and fossilisation of IL sub-systems is possible and common.

This stabilisation results in a relatively consistent IL grammar, which is marked by a greatly reduced range of lexical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic devices. It does not, however, follow that such stabilisation is unavoidable or irremediable, as some claim.

Linguists who give more importance to the study of Chomskyan notions of ‘competence’ than ‘performance’ have criticised empirical studies of ILs on the grounds that their reduced forms are simply due to a diminished cognition imposed by ‘fixed L1 parameters’. Cook (1989), for example, argues that ESL/EFL learners generally display ‘cognitively deficit’ [sic] abilities in any task involving the L2. He maintains that the lower performance of L2 learners in short-term storage of information, lexical comprehension, word associations, and syntactic comprehension, compared to L1 writers, obfuscates any specific issues of L2 performance that are being investigated. While most of us never reach L1 performance in an L2, the distribution of features in HKIL presents a stabilised profile that suggests a pattern of reduction that is neither random, nor follows the fixed sequence predicted by a universal theory of acquisition. Instead, much of the L2 lexicon and grammar of HK learners appears rather to be deliberately shaped and adopted for specific, compensatory purposes.

Variations between English NS students’ texts and professional texts

The written English of HK learners is not simply dichotomous from the texts of comparable Eng- lish NSs. Differences in the distributions of word classes between professionally written academic texts and the UK student scripts suggest that the UK school leavers also employ many of the

features that are generally considered more typical of spoken than professionally written English. This may partly be due to a greater tendency by less mature, and relatively inexperienced, writers (including relatively proficient young NSs) to use the characteristics of involved speech in written text. The HK students, who have fewer formal devices at their disposal, are even more likely to resort to what they are familiar with, especially those features prevalent in their instructional materials, which are often biased toward the grammar of spoken English.

We can test whether morphemic and lexical differences between the writing of HK school leavers and the writing of relatively proficient UK school leavers are more telling than variations between the writing of L2 students and L1 professional writers by comparing the texts of the NS students to ‘expert’ texts. Table 10 lists the word classes that vary significantly between the UK students’ scripts and the BNC written sample.

Table 10: The 25 most significantly different word-class distributions in UK students’ texts vs the BNC, ranked according to log likelihood ratio. More frequent in the BNC written sample More frequent in the UK student corpus Rank CL-7 Description BNC% GS% CL-7 Description BNC% GS% 1 NP1 singular proper nouns 4.39% 1.22% NN common nouns 0.28% 1.30% 2 VVD past tense lexical verbs 2.14% 0.67% VBZ is 1.06% 2.17% 3 MC cardinal numbers 1.06% 0.36% NP proper nouns 0.00% 0.18% 4 PPHS1 he/she 0.67% 0.17% DD1 singular determiners 0.69% 1.29% 5 NNB preceding nouns of title 0.31% 0.04% VM modal auxiliaries 1.36% 2.08% 6 PPIS1 I 0.54% 0.18% VBI be, infinitive 0.68% 1.19% 7 PPY you 0.42% 0.11% RR general adverbs 2.60% 3.52% 8 VBDZ was 0.79% 0.35% VBR are 0.52% 0.96% 9 VHD had 0.34% 0.09% DA2 plural after-determiners 0.12% 0.37% 10 NPM1 singular month nouns 0.13% 0.00% PPH1 it 0.73% 1.21% 11 NNT1 temporal nouns, singular 0.58% 0.26% VHZ has 0.27% 0.55% 12 RP prep. adverb particles 0.66% 0.32% TO infinitive markers 1.45% 1.99% 13 NNL1 singular locative nouns 0.17% 0.03% VVZ -s form of lexical verbs 0.71% 1.04% 14 PPIO1 me 0.13% 0.01% PPHS2 they 0.32% 0.55% 15 PPHO1 him/her 0.18% 0.04% VVI infinitives 2.35% 2.90% 16 NNU units of measurement 0.38% 0.17% CST that 0.61% 0.90% 17 UH interjections 0.11% 0.02% DDQ wh-determiners 0.50% 0.74% 18 APPGE poss. pronouns, pre- 1.41% 1.00% VH0 have 0.28% 0.47% nominal 19 MD ordinal numbers 0.38% 0.19% RGR comp. deg. adverbs 0.10% 0.22% 20 FW foreign words 0.07% 0.00% CSW whether (conj.) 0.03% 0.11% 21 VBDR were 0.32% 0.16% IO of 2.93% 3.44% 22 II general prepositions 6.68% 5.97% RRQV however 0.01% 0.05% 23 VBM am 0.06% 0.01% VBG being 0.08% 0.18% 24 GE Germanic markers (‘s or s’) 0.54% 0.36% NN2 plural common nouns 5.36% 6.00% 25 ND1 singular nouns of direction 0.06% 0.01% CSA as (conj.) 0.26% 0.41%

The distributions of several morphemes and word classes vary significantly between the texts of the UK student writers and the BNC sample. This suggests that Biber’s (1988: 11) injunctions about the comparison of spoken and written registers also apply to the comparison of L1 with L2 dialects: many of the parameters that appear to be dichotomies when we compare an IL to professionally written SE, turn out instead to define continuous dimensions that we see to some degree in the texts of most novice writers. That is, the comparison of categorical frequencies between such corpora describes scalar rather than absolute differences. For example, plural common nouns appear to be more common in both student corpora than in professionally written texts. This is a characteristic

that sets student writing, and especially HK student writing, apart from conversation: Biber et al. (1999: 291) describe academic writing as containing a greater proportion of plural nouns than other registers. Infinitives and verb base forms also become progressively more common when we move from the BNC sample to the UK student corpus and then to the HK student corpora. These variances may suggest progressive traits in novice writer production. They may also be characteristic of the genre of expository texts that students are expected to produce. For example, there are about twice as many occurrences of has (VHZ), and almost 50% more lexical verbs ending in -s (VVZ) in the UK student scripts, compared with the BNC written sample. Moreover, these features are very unevenly dispersed in the BNC written sample. About 11% of the occurrences of has are found in just two of the 87 texts in the BNC written sample (from the two expository categories of ‘Applied Science’ and ‘Commerce and Finance’). About the same number of all the occurrences of -s lexical verbs are found in just one BNC text (in ‘Imaginative Writing’).114 This further under- scores the anomalous nature of the HK students’ texts in their underuse of third person present tense verb references, including has, in comparison to a similar register of expository SE texts.

As we might expect, third person present tense verbs are relatively common in exposition: they constitute about 1% of the words in the UK student scripts, and over 3% of the words in one non- technical BNC text describing a current financial issue (‘CEL’: ‘Commerce and Finance’), but less than 0.4% of the HK student scripts. Although personal pronouns appear to be used very frequently in the BNC written sample (and of course even more so in the spoken sample), they are concen- trated in ‘Imaginative Writing’. For example, 85% of the occurrences of you are in a dozen files from this category (plus the Brownie Guide and a book of prayers – both dialogues of sorts). The prominence of the second person pronoun in HK students’ texts marks them as more characteristic of hortative address than of academic writing.115

The enormous variation in the occurrence of past tense forms (VVD) between the two student corpora and the BNC is striking, but it has been known at least since George’s (1963) corpus-based analyses that counts of verb tense and aspect vary widely between spoken and written registers, and even between written genres (see Kennedy [1998: 122] for a discussion of this point). Past tense forms, for example, vary between 1% (e.g. for the ‘Spoken’ and ‘Applied Science’ sections) and 4% (for the ‘Imaginative Writing’ section) in the BNC sample. The variation in the distribution of word classes between text types in the BNC sample seems overall to confirm the sensitivity of word-class frequency to genre differences. Many common word classes in the UK students’ texts are closer to the distributions in the HK students’ texts than they are to those in the BNC (e.g. both student cohorts make a greater use of certain adverbs, as well as adjectives, plural nouns, modals and infinitives). These distributions appear to be characteristics of a register that may partly identify novice writers in institutional settings, who are relatively unpractised in many of the conventions of written discourse.

114 This is surprising, but not inexplicable: the text is Tom Stoppard’s play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead (1967). Without going into a detailed analysis, the narration centers on the description of the actions of major players by comparatively objective non-participants – precisely the stance that an exposition should take – and thus contains a large number of present tense third person references (e.g. he comes/goes/walks). 115 Biber et al. (1999) confirm that personal pronouns are more common in conversation and newspaper texts than in academic writing. Some studies on pronoun acquisition have found that Chinese learners acquire object pronouns late, and have surmised that this is so because object pronouns are not obligatory in Chinese. However, object pronouns show about the same rate of occurrence as subject pronouns in HKIL (i.e. her and him are underused; them is overused).

Linguistic features of input

A glance through HK secondary-level EFL textbooks confirms that the range of syntactic and discoursal features taught in HK secondary schools is surprisingly consistent. In addition to the observations I have already noted as characteristic of HK instructional materials, I found many, and sometimes all, of the following features relevant to the foregoing discussions in ten popular HK secondary school textbooks: 116

a number of the structures that are misused in HKIL (e.g. presentative there/it sentences) are taught without any explanation of their semantic functions or what contextual factors govern the choice of the structure (e.g. the role they play in the structuring of information); the use of ‘connecting words’ is given great emphasis (especially additives such as moreover, furthermore, besides, in addition) and distinctions are not adequately made among the meanings or lexical associations of these words; students are explicitly advised to use these devices, as several textbooks make clear, as ‘text mortar’; -ing nominal participles are very frequent in the rubrics and metalanguage of the textbooks (e.g. writing, proofreading, selecting), and are explicitly taught, often appearing as the NP of generic topics (e.g. biking is fun); rhetorical questions are frequent in the metalanguage, and students are encouraged in their use; there is a remarkable lack of referential precision in the presentation of material, or in expectations made of student writing: generic statements about language are common, and most essay or discussion topics are generic; students are frequently asked to model newspaper texts (e.g. ‘newspaper articles’, editorials, features, letters to the editor); no distinction is made between the language of newspaper reportage and that of other text types; texts are typically divided into four conventional types, and students are specifically instructed in the following ‘characteristics’ of these texts: − ‘conversational writing’ is characterised by interjections and interrogatives; − ‘descriptive writing’ is characterised by adjectives and -ing participles;117 − ‘persuasive writing’ is ‘forceful’ and characterised by intensifying adjectives and adverbs, e.g. outstanding, a lot, very, extremely;118

116 I examined ten textbooks published over a twelve-year period – some after the HK student corpus was collected. While one or two of the more recent textbooks give increased attention to the students’ production difficulties, most are remarkably similar in their suggestions and choice of language topics. The substantial consistency among publishers and authors over this period is largely explained by the predominant goal of instruction in Hong Kong schools, viz. to prepare students for examinations. Educational textbook publish- ing is a multi-million-dollar business in Hong Kong, and textbook purchases by HK secondary schools are generally based on how effectively publishers can convince administrators that a textbook prepares students for the examination, and the degree to which the material is felt to be comprehensible by students and instructors. For some interesting insights on the practices of textbook marketing in Hong Kong, see www. consumer.org.hk/text9903/report_e.htm. The secondary school textbooks I examined are Leetch (1988, 1990); Getslaf et al. (1989); Smallwood & Walsh (1990/1991); D. W. Li (1993); Chamberlain & O’Neil (1995); Gran (1995/1996); Conway (1997); P. L. Li (1997); Smallwood et al. (1997/2000). 117 Some of these textbooks contain grammatical errors of the same types made by the students: e.g. When more than one adjective are used to define or limit the quality of a noun, we have to decide the order of adjectives used. (Li 1997: 45). Also, grammatical elements are taught without taking into account the typical paradigmatic and syntagmatic errors in the students’ production. 118 Students are repeatedly exhorted in their writing textbooks to emphasise (e.g. “Add emphasis to the following statements …” (Chamberlain & O’Neil 1995). Nowhere that I could find are they encouraged to downtone their assertions, or taught how to do so.

− narratives119 are characterised by past tense forms.

These generalities directed at students, who have, at the best, restricted access to SE, are what Wilkins (1982) referred to as ‘dangerous dichotomies’. Many other features that are characteristic of HKIL are also prominent in the metalanguage of HK textbooks. Features that appear propor- tionally more often in a 1,000,000-word electronic corpus of HK secondary school textbooks than in the corpora of HK students’ texts include the do operator;120 uninflected verb forms and personal pronouns (often in imperatives, especially advice and directions, e.g. You need to give…; Make sure you know…); present participles (which seem to be common in the imperative language of pedagogical materials: You need to complete sentences by understanding …; looking …); and generic plural nouns. The ratio of plural nouns (often from the metalanguage of pedagogy: e.g. words, questions, sentences, marks) in the electronic corpus of HK school texts is even higher than it is in the corpus of HK students’ texts. We noted earlier the high frequency of the words things and people in the HK students’ texts. The word things occurs more than three times as often in the HK schoolbook corpus as in the BNC written sample; people is more than twice as frequent.

Many of the properties of ‘classroom talk’ directed at NNSs that have been noted in the literature (cf. Long 1983; Wesche & Ready 1985) are similar to the features I have listed above, and we can safely assume that they form the bulk of HK students’ English intake. These include: reduced use of non-present tense and aspect; few embeddings; a marked use of discourse connectors such as so; as well as of imperatives, rhetorical questions and complement that clauses; a frequent use of interjections as comprehension checks; and frequent repetition.

These observations constitute at least prima facie evidence of how the language of pedagogy may affect learner language. The relationship need not be strictly causal to be influential, since it is the acceptability of (perhaps even preference for) the lexical and discoursal imprecision typical of generic statements that is conveyed to the student. Students are presented with, and invited to produce, imprecise discourse presumably because it makes fewer demands on grammatical and lexical competence (both in comprehension and production) than does referentially precise discourse.

Of course, many of the features of formal instruction I have reviewed are necessary for giving instructions, asking questions etc. and it may, at early stages, be justifiable to present EFL learners

119 However, this text type is rarely exemplified in HK school textbooks, and never set as an examination topic, presumably because of its inherent difficulties. 120 In one of the most popular writing texts for HK secondary schools (Chamberlain & O’Neil 1995), students are urged to be ‘more forceful’ when they write (ibid.: 24). Students are told that they will be more persuasive if they “Add the auxiliary DO to statements…” and “Add the word REALLY before adjectives and verbs”. Really is used almost four times more frequently in the HK student corpus than in the UK student corpus, as in: We are really on the horns of a dilemma in reconciliating the divergent view points. Forms of do are used almost twice as frequently (often gratuitously in the function of the ‘emphatic’ do), e.g. They do recommend that youngsters would not be lost any thing in the love affair but benefit from it. Such occurrences of do are not associated with any contextual proposition that would require contrastive affirmation. Further evidence that do takes on a special status in HKIL can be found in the fact that it appears 350 times with mental verbs such as I do believe and I do think in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts, but no more than a dozen times in such contexts in the UK students’ texts. In HKIL the ‘emphatic’ do plays an important epistemic role that it does not in a similar register of SE texts. According to Diver (Reid 1991: 13–4); “Do stands at the top of a scale of implied possibility, with the modals must, shall, may and can indicating decreasing degrees of likelihood.” There is no real sense that in HKIL it conveys what Reid refers to as its typical role of ‘implied possibility’. HK students are not aware that do tends to be normally constrained in SE to the neighbourhood of a contrasting connective (see Reid 1991: 10–35 for further discussion of the properties of emphatic do).

with lexically and grammatically simplified language.121 However, HK students are expected to take special notice of such materials, and are almost solely exposed to a staged idiom that has none of the dynamic feel of authentic language. It might be in the short-term interests of the students to limit their exposure to simplified input and to encourage simplified output if this helps them to comprehend and to communicate content. However, neither students nor many instructors fully realise the aberrancy of the putative TL presented by most pedagogy, or the differences between what HK students are currently encouraged to produce and the characteristics of the SE registers toward which we are supposed to be moving them. During the course of their formal education, and well beyond, HK students are given few opportunities to model the features of the written or spoken language which we assume they will eventually have to produce.

121 Chomsky may have been right in asserting that imitation does not adequately account for the syntax of first language acquisition; however, the need for students of EFL in an examination-oriented environment to conform in production to perceived standards obviously plays a role in institutionalised learning. It is hardly contentious to suggest that these students will notice and model the ambient language of their teachers and instructional materials. It might nevertheless be argued that contrastive data from textbooks does not establish a causal link with student writing since some of the features of English that textbooks attempt explicitly to teach do not occur frequently in HK students’ texts, and then often inaccurately (such as inflected verb forms: e.g. passives, tenses and aspect). However, there is usually duplicity in the way these features are presented. What is explicitly taught is often implicitly denied. The student might easily perceive the discoursal roles of such forms in English as peripheral, given the generic nature of the metalanguage of the textbooks themselves and the constrained requirements of most assignments. This is not to deny that learnability issues make some English structures more difficult to acquire than others. Some of the HK EFL textbook authors I have spoken to understand that their books do not fully represent authentic English. However, they feel themselves bound by market expectations, and of course they have no control over how their materials are presented and interpreted in the classroom. Authors of a recently published textbook allude to the manner in which the acquisition of examination strategies may corrupt or impede the acquisition of English language skills: “One of the major problems in designing, teaching or even following a language course which leads to a major examination is that the skills related specifically to the examination frequently become so dominant that the language skills necessary to perform well in the examination are forgotten.” (Smallwood et al. 2000: iii).

Chapter Two: The grammar of HK interlanguage

Overt ‘local’ errors in HKIL

I based initial error tagging of the texts of HK students on the four categories traditionally used to describe error at the morpheme level: omission, addition, mis-selection and misordering (see Dulay et al. 1982: 150–63). Among others, Hammarberg (1973), Abbott (1980), Danesi & Di Pietro (1991) and James (1998) have maintained that a rigorous description and categorisation of these ‘formal’ features of errors should be the first step in any error analysis. This procedure generated a list of overt word-class errors in HK students’ semi-formal writing (Table 11).

Table 11: Broad categories of ‘local’ errors in HK students’ examination scripts. Frequencies are rounded to whole numbers for the sake of simplicity. For more accurate figures, see Tables 2 and 3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Frequency of Frequency of Avg. % error Avg. % error Rank Word class category in category in in category122 in all tokens HKIL scripts UK scripts 1 Indefinite article 18% – 29% 1% 2% 3% 2 Prepositions 18% 2% 10% 12% 3 Personal and relative pronouns 16% 1% 6% 4% 4 Genitive 16% - - - 5 Definite article 15% 1% 6% 5% 6 Verbs, auxiliaries, 123 participles 15% 3% 20% 19% 7 Nouns 12% 3% 22% 22% 8 Word order124 8% 1% 6% 3% 9 Adjectives 8% 1% 10% 8% 10 Adverbs 8% 1% 7% 7% 11 Possessive pronouns 7% - 2% 1% 12 Conjunctions 6% - 5% 6% 13 Determiners 5% - 2% 4% 14 Punctuation125 4% - 6% 3%

Table 11 lists major word classes (plus ‘word order’ and punctuation), as identified by CLAWS-7 tags.

1. Column 3 indicates approximations of the average percentages of error in the lexical category – for example, between 18% and 29% of indefinite articles required by the grammatical context (interpreted from an SE perspective) are used redundantly, omitted, or substituted by a definite

122 These numbers are averages. Although the errors I discuss in this chapter are widely dispersed in the writing of less proficient HK students, obviously the rates of these errors will vary widely among particular scripts. HK student examination scripts are between 500 and 650 words long. 123 Some of these categories are not distinguished by CL-7 tags. For those items that I discuss in this chapter, I manually differentiated functions. Also, potential multiple reformulations make it equally possible to label an error in a number of ways. For example, the following can be reformulated as either an omitted copula or auxiliary, a tense error, or a morphological problem: Some people say that students should not have romantic relationships between boys and girls before they finished Form 7. 124 The percentage in column 3 for ‘word order’ refers to the number of sentences that contain word order problems as a ratio of all sentences in the error-tagged corpus. The next column refers to the number of word order problems as a percentage of all word tokens. The last two columns list the ratio of sentences to words in the HK and UK student corpora (i.e. there are about twice as many sentences in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts as in 500,000 words of UK students’ texts). 125 These figures are calculated in the same way as those for ‘word order’ (see fn. 124).

article. The wide degree of uncertainty results from the ambiguity of the IL grammar and the options that SE grammar allows, which the student may either be confused by, or not conscious of. 126

1. The fourth column lists the average percentage of errors associated with this category in all tokens of the 100,000-word error-tagged corpus. Presumably, the purpose of error avoidance is to minimise this ratio, as it is this rate that appears to be noticed by readers (at least teachers and examiners), rather than the relative rate of error indicated in column 2.

1. Columns 5 and 6 give the percentages of occurrence of the categories in each student corpus.

One surprising finding of this error-tagging procedure is that, on average, some 85%–90% of tokens in the scripts of HK students who barely passed their school-leaving Use of English examination are apparently relatively free from overt lexicogrammatical error.127 In most SLA studies based on elicitation of discrete linguistic structures, a feature is generally considered to have been acquired when it is used accurately in 85%–90% of required contexts. The production of relatively error-free texts comes, as we have seen, at the expense of a constrained discourse that is heavily dependent on memorisation, generic overstatement and the avoidance of elements that contribute to situated discourse. We established that the discourse of HK students becomes in some ways even more constrained as the rate of error decreases in the scripts that receive the highest grades.

We observe in Table 11 that ‘overused’ word classes (e.g. personal and possessive pronouns, and adjectives), as well as those that are ‘underused’ (e.g. articles, prepositions, conjunctions and determiners) are prone to error. The learner’s choice to make more or less use of specific lexical categories has to do with more than just confidence in the accurate use of single words.

The lexical labelling of errors alone does not of course provide a satisfactory description of the IL grammatical system, which cannot be delimited simply by counting missing, incorrect, redundant or misordered morphemes, lexemes and lexical categories. Even as a list of word-level errors, the inventory that results from this procedure is at best approximate, since it is based on a particular set of reformulations. Although at least two readers agreed on all reformulations discussed in this chapter, plausible alternative reformulations of most IL constructions are possible. There are several ways of labelling the grammatical constituents of any language, and IL grammar is particularly prone to multiple descriptions and SE reformulations since several linguistic systems are

126 A simple example of this is Mr. X points out that couple can do better on their studies. The context of this error does not tell us what degree of indefiniteness the student intends for couple, whether s/he distinguishes between the use of an article or plural noun, or is aware that couple is countable here. This type of error highlights a particular point at which the lack of direct correspondence between syntax and meaning in English (i.e. involving number, definiteness and pronoun agreement – a couple/couples … their studies) results in difficulty for the learner. 127 This is, on average, about two errors per sentence. However, these counts depend on the reader’s threshold of acceptability. Even among qualified, experienced EFL instructors, this varies widely – in experimental conditions by as much as 20% in a single sentence. I asked a number of English NS and NNS colleagues to tag ten HKIL sentences: one English NS instructor tagged 25% of the tokens in the sample sentences as erroneous; two instructors (one NS and one NNS) tagged only about 5% as erroneous. The degree of error tagging reported in this study lies between these extremes. This count does not take into account covert errors of the sort that cannot normally be noticed – e.g. where the learner produces grammatically accurate text that has a meaning other than that intended.

blended.128 It is often not clear which rule system or blend of systems the student is applying, and there is no surety that we are decoding using the same encoding system as the student’s. This sentence contains a frequently occurring HKIL structure that exemplifies this indeterminacy:

Nevertheless, the advocates of permitting romantic relationships between boys and girls point out that it is beneficial to both of the parties.

We can reformulate it in at least two ways, with an adjective clause (Those who advocate permitting…) or a noun phrase (The advocates of romantic relationships…).129 However, such indeterminacy is a factor in a constituent analysis of even a stable NL grammar and does not invalidate this particular ranking of error.

Although the complexity of IL syntax cannot be fully captured by the simple enumeration of such morpheme errors, the identification of ungrammaticality in HKIL often goes no further than this type of ‘surface taxonomy’, both in academic studies (e.g. Chen 1979; Chan 1984; Newbrook 1990)130 and in a number of HK publications that focus on ‘common errors’ (e.g. Bunton 1989; Boyle & Boyle 1991; Potter 1992). Pedagogical materials based on such a simple taxonomy have, nevertheless, been very popular with English language learners since at least such early primers as Fitikides (1936),131 although the haphazard ways in which the errors are often chosen or presented give learners little basis for systematic study.

Lexical bundles and templates

From the point of view of SE usage, the IL structure in the sentence cited above appears to result from a blend of two competing SE grammatical options, which the student, or someone who has influenced him/her, has confused. There is, however, another process almost certainly at work that accounts for the frequency of such ungrammatical patterns in learner texts, which helps explain the development of fossilised IL patterns among learners who have little access to SE.

The word advocate occurs more than twice as often (35:14 in 500,000 words) in HK students’ texts as in the UK student corpus. In the HK students’ texts it occurs with about equal frequency as a noun and a verb, but the UK students use it as noun in only two of the 14 occurrences. HK students do not use the singular noun form, and collocate the plural noun most often with a postmodifying of prepositional phrase. So as to limit the choices they must make, HK students rely particularly strongly on what Sinclair (1991: 110–5) calls the ‘idiom principle’, where the choice of a word

128 That is, the L1, the L2 (and its particular representation and perception within the context of an institutional TL), and an IL that is seeking stasis. 129 I labelled this error as a redundant participle rather than a missing relative clause out of a principle of parsimony, i.e. making the least changes to achieve an acceptable form. However, we need ultimately to provide options to the student, rather than a single correction that may fail to capture the writer’s intention, and that might deprive the student of the means to express the range of meanings and appropriate force that grammatical competence allows. 130 The inventory of errors that such studies finds is similar to that reported by the EFL instructors I have surveyed and to the list in Table 11. However, I know of no other studies of localised error in Hong Kong based on a large-scale analysis that attempts to rank errors by either absolute or relative frequencies. 131 This author numbered 600 errors so that teachers could code errors in a students’ texts and direct them to brief explanations in the book. This primer went through at least five editions and was still in print in 1982. It and many other similar publications list ‘common errors’ (often arrived at through no particularly systematic method) alphabetically by keyword, with well-formed and ill-formed examples, and sometimes with brief explanations.

triggers a particular collocational environment. The ‘collocational parameters’ of words in the IL lexicon are, however, often misaligned, so that the same words continuously occur in a small number of often inaccurate contexts. Several other students writing in the same year produced similar ‘lexical bundles’:132

The advocates [NN2] of [IO] cultivating [VVG] romantic [JJ] relationships between two young people point out that it will enlarge their social life.

The lexical ‘frame’ PLURAL NOUN + ‘of’ + -ING PARTICIPLE (NN2 IO VVG) occurs three times as often in the HK student corpus as in the UK student corpus (364:110 in 500,000 words each).133 Although such templates apparently provide a convenient way of generating valid L2 utterances, they also produce many errors: e.g. things of exciting, teachers of photographing, students of teenage, the butt of teasing, reasons of causing.134

The development of algorithms to flag many of these errors reliably will be difficult, as they often have a semantic rather than syntactic basis. At any rate, neither reliable machine parsing nor manual correction of such errors will necessarily provide learners with the opportunity to acquire grammatical competence. Rather than merely being provided reformulations, learners need to develop an intuitive understanding of the grammatical processes at work, which can only come with access to comprehensible L2 patterns.

Details of word-class error frequency and distribution

Our understanding of IL grammar is necessary if we are to make instruction and feedback more useful than it now is for many learners. Table 12 ranks the twenty most frequent errors in the corpus of HK students’ examination scripts as ratios of each relevant word class. Richards’ (1971) observation that CA is most predictive at the level of phonology and least predictive at lexical and syntactic levels is generally borne out by these error counts, as most of the errors are not easily accounted for by L1 transfer, although there are some important exceptions.

132 Biber et al. (1999:990) define ‘lexical bundles’ as “sequences of word forms that go together in natural discourse” regardless of idiomaticity and structural status. I will distinguish between word sequences and word class sequences, referring to the former as ‘bundles’ and to the latter as ‘templates’. 133 Even though singular nouns are systematically avoided in the HK students’ texts, the sequence SINGULAR NOUN + of + -ING PARTICIPLE (NN1 IO VVG) occurs twice as often in the HK as in the UK students’ texts (836:424). The combination of + -ING PARTICIPLE + ADJECTIVE (IO VVG JJ) occurs six times more often in the HK students’ texts (309:51). The four-word sequence PLURAL NOUN + of + -ING PARTICIPLE + ADJECTIVE (NN2 IO VVG JJ) occurs about twelve times as often (118:10). I discounted phrases that are directly parroted from the examination prompts (e.g. … disadvantages/advantages of reading comic books…). However, the lexical patterns NN2 IO NN1 and NN1 IO NN1 are the most underused tri-grams in the HK students’ texts. 134 Some of these erroneous word order arrangements (i.e. things of exciting for ‘exciting things’) are similar to the confusion students experience with pre- and post-modification, such as differences between the Germanic genitive -’s and the postmodifying of phrase, which we observed in Chapter 1.

Table 12: Twenty of the most frequent ‘local’ errors in HK students’ examination scripts, listed by percentage of word class.135 Avg. % error Relative freq. of Rank Error in category category in HKIL 1 Singular noun for plural 10% – 13% NN1: 75%; ∅ for Indefinite article 135 30% + AT1: 66% Personally, I support that romantic relationship between boys and girls should wait until after Form Seven. 2 Wrong preposition / prepositional adverb 13% II: 83%; RP: 56% It will have bad influence to the society. / There is a storm of controversy sweeping out our community. 3 Indefinite article for ∅ 9% AT1: 66% They can get a help from other doctors. 4 Word order 8% 136 They can easy to handle [people relationships]. 5 Redundant preposition/ prepositional adverb 7% II: 83%; RP: 56% How can they benefit to society? 6 Definite article for ∅ 6% AT: 87% Some students would have the difficulties in choosing the old and new institution. 7 Redundant -ing participle 6% VVG: 105% substitution of -ing participle for infinitive/finite verb They need sharing with a person who really know him/her and love him/her. 8 Definite article for indefinite article 5% AT: 87%; AT1: 66% The healthy romantic relationship can be of great benefit to these young people . 9 Wrong pronouns (esp. existentials and personal pronouns) 5% PN-, PP-: 163% However, I think that this is a bad trend for students to follow. It is because I think that …. 10 Redundant pronouns (esp. personal pronouns) 4% PN-, PP-: 163% Good teaching materials, they are new and their functions are better. 11 Pronouns omitted (esp. personal and relative pronouns) 4% PN-, PP-: 163% Students ^ get out from this old institutions may be more familiar by other oversea Colleges. 12 Wrong lexical verb 4% VV-: 135% The university emphasise much importance in the field of science and technology. 13 Preposition / prepositional adverb omitted 4% II: 83% / RP: 56% They provide many subjects to choose ^. 14 BE copula omitted 4% VB-: 83% They ^ usually unaware of the lack of interest and motivation of students towards English. 15 BE auxiliary omitted (misformed aspect and voice) 4% VB-: 83% Students will be confused because they ^ expose to neither fully Chinese nor fully English. 16 Redundant BE 3% VB-: 83% Besides, in theory, is the elder the age, the higher degree of maturity. 17 Redundant that conjunction 3% CC-, CS-: 86% This group of people also denounced that the pressure of studies is totally due to the improper use of examinations.137 18 Non-agreement (S-V and NP-pronoun) 3% 138 It have great effect to their future. / These two institutions provide a variety of subjects to choose and it provides… 19 Determiner category error (other determiner for the) 2% D-: 130%; AT: 87% Some argument against using Chinese is that… 20 Wrong or redundant adverb 2% R-: 120% Under all these Gordian knots, they always do not know how to solve these as they are immature enough.139

135 Sentences selected from the HKIL corpus have not been modified, and may contain more than one error.

136 About 8% of sentences in the HK student corpus contain a word order problem, most often involving order of modification (especially adverb + verb; noun adjuncts; NP + adj. PP; and of PP vs genitive). 137 The context suggests that the student intends the negative meaning of denounced, though the co- occurrence pattern of announced is applied. 138 That is, 3% of all verbs in the corpus are associated with S-V discord. 139 This example could indicate a word order problem (They do not always know…), but the erroneous use of such adverbs is systematic.

The errors listed in Table 12 are frequent and widely dispersed.140 The degree of dispersion is given in Table 13, which ranks, by order of dispersion, errors that occur in more than half of all the 100 ‘D’- and 100 ‘E’-graded error-tagged scripts. The writing of the most proficient students (i.e. ‘A’- and ‘B’-graded scripts) contains far fewer of these errors, although the most frequent errors (e.g. in preposition use and noun number) persist in the scripts of the most proficient students.

Table 13: word-level errors that occur in at least half ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK students’ examination scripts. % of files in which Rank Error the error occurs 1 Wrong preposition 100% 2 Redundant preposition 98% 3 Wrong word order (pre- vs post-modification) 94% 4 Singular noun for plural 90% 5 S-V agreement 88% 6 Indefinite article for ∅ 88% 7 Wrong finite verb 85% 8 Missing preposition 80% 9 Redundant personal pronoun 78% 10 Missing personal or relative pronoun 77% 11 Wrong noun 75% 12 Wrong adjective 69% 13 Singular noun for plural, or missing indefinite article 67% 14 Wrong personal/existential pronoun 67% 15 ∅ article for definite article 65% 16 Missing BE copula 64% 17 Redundant THAT conjunction 61% 18 Plural noun for singular 59% 19 ∅ article for indefinite article 59% 20 Comma splice (run-on sentence) 54% 21 Misspelled adjective 53% 22 Missing THAT conjunction 52% 23 Missing BE auxiliary 50% 24 Redundant BE 50% 25 Redundant adverb 50% 26 -ING participle for finite verb 50%

Neither the absolute or relative frequency of the errors, nor their degree of dispersion, necessarily determines their gravity for particular readers. Individual readers, at least among EFL instructors, notice different features, have widely varying notions of acceptability, and reformulate errors inconsistently. However, all of the errors identified in these tables are considered ‘serious’ by some readers, and most have received attention in error analysis studies. Together, they point to a large body of SE lexis, grammar and discoursal features that the majority of HK school-leavers have not fully acquired.

140 All these errors occur more than 100 times in 100,000 words. I do not include here ‘comma splices’ (‘run-on sentences’) and sentence fragments, which might be almost as frequent in the writing of less proficient NS writers as in the writing of HK students. Nor do I include misspelling (especially of adjectives and adverbs), but I do include missing or erroneous inflections.

Noun number, articles and S-V concord

In Chapter 1 we explored some of the generic features of HK students’ texts, many of which are partly a response to the generalised topics of school assignments, and the result of a curriculum that teaches students to rely on formulaic expression for short-term purposes. Students are encouraged to shape their formal utterances in sweeping statements that often convey little genuine representational information:

I think students should think carefully before they choose to buy certain things, but not only following the crowd.

Although fewer demands are made on learners’ grammatical competence by the pervasive adoption of the gnomic aspect, the lexical, morphological and syntactic choices which characterise it present some of the most frequent and widely dispersed difficulties in HK students’ texts.

Noun number

The only empirical studies I know of that have looked at the plural marking of nouns in the English speech of Chinese NSs are those of Young (1989, 1993), who investigated the effects of linguistic context and other factors on variation in accuracy. Young’s 1989 study was based on a small corpus (1,564 tokens) of interviews in English with Chinese NS informants. His 1993 study included Chinese, Czech and Slovak speakers. This second study corroborated the findings of the first, although it, again, was based on a small corpus. Young found that, contrary to the predictions of prominent SLA hypotheses concerning learner production strategies, the plural -s ending is less likely to be erroneously omitted from the head noun of an NP if other plural elements in the NP (numerals, partitives, quantifiers and plural demonstratives) are present.

I looked in a random 40,000-word section of the error-tagged HKIL corpus141 at the linguistic contexts of 560 nouns that HK student writers had incorrectly marked for number (455 of these nouns are missing a contextually obligated plural -s and 105 are incorrectly marked with plural -s). I counted all words and CL-7 tags within five words to both the left (after punctuation marks) and right (before punctuation marks) of all of the 560 errors. I find that quantifiers and plural demonstratives are just as likely to occur in the neighbourhood of nouns with missing plural -s as those that are inaccurately marked with plural -s.142 There is no significant difference in the number or type of plural determiners in the lexical contexts of nouns with omitted or with erroneously supplied plural marking, except that noncount nouns given plural -s endings are frequently preceded by the plural possessive their:

It is because they think that having a date with a boy or a girl will make students spend less time on their schoolworks.

The error in this sentence of course has to do with the countability of the noun, the determination of which is the greatest difficulty faced by HK students in assigning the plural -s. This confusion, rather than the lexical contexts of these errors, accounts for many cases of the ungrammatical insertion or omission of the plural morpheme in HKIL.

141 That is, one third of the total 120,000 error-tagged tokens of ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK examination scripts. 142 The indefinite singular article every is also frequently used before plural nouns (including unmarked plurals: Frankly speaking, every people want to have a good image.) In these cases it is usually not possible to determine whether the student distinguishes between singular (every person) or plural (all people) – there is, after all, no distinction in Cantonese.

Both these findings, and those of Young, challenge one of the long-standing explanations of variation in interlanguage (at least as it applies to the choice of this morpheme) – the so-called ‘functional hypothesis’. Littlewood (1981: 151) puts the case for this hypothesis in the following terms:

A linguistic feature is more likely to be omitted when it is redundant to the meaning being conveyed, more likely to be produced when it transmits necessary information.

If this were generally true, such a mechanism would tend to minimise loss of information in ILs, and would enable ILs, more or less effectively, to convey representational information. Young, in fact, found that the lexical contexts of plural noun -s errors correlate negatively with this hypothesis (1993: 92):

… there is a strong tendency for plural marking by -s to persevere in discourse resulting in redundant restatement of information, whereas there is an equally strong tendency for zero plurals to follow zeros, resulting in information loss.

In a corpus of HK student writing 26 times larger than Young’s, I also find no corroboration of the notion that learners are more likely to drop a required plural -s if other markers of plurality are used in the same phrase. Rather than finding negative correlation between corpus data and the functional hypothesis, as Young did, I find no more than chance correlation. However, the implication of both findings is the same: the IL does not take advantage of redundant plural noun markers to prevent loss of information about number in NPs. In at least this area of IL grammar, there does not appear to be any functional mechanism at work that makes the IL a particularly effective instrument for conveying representational information. We saw evidence in the last chapter that, instead of such a mechanism, many learners depend for repair of speech acts on modification of their propositions, by, for example, reducing them to generic platitudes, encoding them in memorised fixed phrases, and by resorting to online strategies such as repetition and emotive emphasis.

To establish whether the co-occurrence of a particular quantifier might affect the likelihood that the learners consider plural -s on the noun redundant, I concordanced all occurrences of the most frequent quantifier (many) in 1,000,000 tokens of HK students’ examination scripts. This word acts as a determiner in 96.3% of a total of 4,392 occurrences in this corpus.143 It ‘determines’ a ‘non- plural’ noun in 8.7% of these events. The probability of this error is not affected by intervening material (adjectives or prepositional phrases). Of these 380 errors, 108 (28%) result from students using many to determine a noncount noun or a noun used in a noncount sense (e.g. many time, many home/school-work, many money, many knowledge). This leaves 272 instances where the word many determines a singular countable noun (e.g. student, problem, thing, kind and 124 other word types), i.e. 6.5 % of the total occurrences of many as a determiner. This is too small a percentage to suggest that a plural determiner provokes the omission of a required plural -s on regular countable nouns. Nor can I discern other plural elements of the NP that are systematically used as alternatives for plural -s marking. On the other hand, singular determiners are often paired with plural nouns (e.g. the singular article every determines plural nouns in 14% of 312 occurrences in 500,000 words written by ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded students).144

143 This compares to the word functioning as a determiner in 93% of 1,427 occurrences in 500,000 words of UK students’ scripts. 144 This singular determiner is followed by plural nouns more often than plural determiners are followed by singular nouns. However, we should note that some HK learners appear to consider every a plural determiner, or at least plural in some contexts, in which case they are pairing what they consider to be a

I also looked at the sentence roles of all the erroneously marked nouns in 40,000 tokens of the error-tagged corpus. Errors in the use of the plural morpheme are much less likely to occur on nouns in subject position than in object position in either dependent or independent clauses: 63% of incorrectly supplied -s endings and 67% of incorrectly omitted -s endings are on object position nouns.145 Where an error in plural -s omission does occur on a countable noun in subject position, the verb almost always agrees with the missing plural morpheme rather than with the apparently erroneous singular form:

I hope student think deeply before starting a romantic relationship.146

This suggests that the error may be the result of inattention, since, on those relatively rare occasions when it occurs in subject position, the student observes verb concord with the (probably intended) noun form.

There is about a 5% greater tendency for subject nouns in subordinate clauses than those in main clauses to be supplied with an erroneous plural -s ending:

They usually believe love affairs is actually a very complicated event.147

However, subject nouns in these subordinate clauses are even less likely to have an incorrectly omitted -s ending than subject nouns in main clauses. These observations contest Ellis’ (1988) claim that bound morphemes are more likely to be inaccurately omitted in subordinate clauses than in independent clauses. I also find little support for Ellis’ rather strong claim that linguistic contexts are the chief determinants of such errors. Although the rate of error varies depending on sentence position, the lexical characteristics of the word itself, rather than of those of its context, appear to be the main determining factor in the assignment of plural -s marking.

Young (1989, 1993) says nothing about how learners’ perceptions of count/mass distinctions affect the accuracy of plural noun marking in his corpus, presumably because he distinguishes between this problem and the erroneous marking of countable nouns. However, many students obviously do not make the distinction, and the manner in which HK learners deal with variable noun number differences, which are not found in Chinese, explains many of the errors in the 560 examples I looked at. One noun (relationship[s]) accounts for 17% of all omitted and 13% of all incorrectly supplied -s plural endings.

Others claim that the fault is attributed to the romantic relationship between boy and girl.148 plural determiner with plural nouns. Other singular determiners do not have such a high rate of co- occurrence with plural nouns: another is paired with a plural noun in only 3% of occurrences. 145 The number of nouns erroneously marked for plural that occur in subject position declines even further if we discount nouns which students apparently believe to be noncount. This is a second point in which my findings conflict with Young (1989), who found, in his smaller corpus of interviews, that errors occurred more often in subject position. I take my findings as proof of the lack of attention paid by learners to the morphology of nouns in non-subject positions. 146 The context makes it unlikely that the generic article is an option here (i.e. the student). 147 The treatment of the subject of the complement clause (love affairs) as singular (i.e. requiring a third person singular verb form and a singular complement NP (a very complicated event) highlights the difficulty that some HK students have with noun number. But this ambiguity may be a characteristic of the English grammatical system, as Reid (1991) argues. English NS professional writers seem regularly and deliberately to violate S-V concord by having the verb agree with the notional number of the subject regardless of its syntactic number: Eggs with ham or bacon was the staple for breakfast (cited in Reid 1991: 6).

This word is apparently perceived as a noncount noun by many HK students.149 It occurs more often in subject position than other nouns with omitted plural -s morphemes and, unlike most other S-V concord errors, the verb agrees with the singular form in about 90% of cases:

Romantic relationship is not acceptable.

Noncount nouns account for about 32% of the rest of the errors in the incorrect insertion of plural -s (e.g. works, schoolworks, homeworks, helps, knowledges). Only about 1% of count nouns are incorrectly marked with plural -s. These appear to be lapses in attention (‘mistakes’) rather than genuine systematic errors that are features of the IL system.

Nouns that in certain senses are normally marked by plural -s (i.e. nouns that in particular contexts are pluralia tantum, such as school studies and examination results) typically lack the plural -s in 25% or more occurrences, and account for about 10% of errors in missing plural -s. By comparison, only about 11% of singular count nouns have omitted plural -s, and about half of these errors can be reformulated as a missing article (especially an indefinite article):

Moreover, the campus of institutions mentioned above are located in [an?] area [s?] which is far away from densely-populated and busy districts.

Assuming these are not simply lapses in attention, confusion between generic and countable noun reference may explain many of the problems, such as those here, where the student is able to furnish the correct plural morpheme on some words (institutions and districts), but not others (campus and area).150 Both of these ungrammatical examples (campus and area) are nouns used in a countable sense that usually occur in the singular.151 The word area has the added complication for learners of often occurring as a noncount noun (e.g. in the phrase large in area).

The automatic identification of some of the systematic errors in noun number (most of which are not currently flagged by commercial grammar checkers) is certainly feasible since many of these nouns form identifiable classes. Automatically identifying nouns that only in particular senses are

148 The NP could be reformulated as either a generic relationship between an indefinite couple (the relationship between a boy and a girl) or plural relationships between plural couples (relationships between boys and girls). It is probably fruitless to speak of what the writer intended since s/he may not distinguish between these forms. The tendency that we have found for HK learners to rely on generalised statements (which this student makes some attempt to distance him/herself from) gives us some reason to recommend to the student to be as specific as possible. However, such advice would not do much in itself to make the proposition more specific. There are also, of course, at least three equally valid ways of reformulating the erroneous verb phrase (viz. could be attributed, is attributable, or possibly is to be attributed). 149 I attempted to check whether other nouns listed by WordNet as ‘relation nouns’ and ‘state nouns’ provoke the same confusion (e.g. dealings, comparison, affair), but was not able to establish that HK learners typically consider these nouns as mass, since the learners either use them mainly in fixed phrases, or rarely use them. However, the word couple (to mean romantic partners) does present similar problems to the word relationship: it is treated often as either a mass noun or as a pluralia tantum, or some blend of the two: Should the love of a pair of little couple be opposed by their parents, they will be thrown to despair and dilemma. 150 Many HK students also treat institution as a mass noun, so this student’s grasp of countability is better than that of many other students. 151 In 1,000,000 tokens of HK students’ scripts, campus occurs 112 times, but not once in the plural; 67% of 143 occurrences of area are singular. A ‘simple search’ of the online BNC yields campus:campuses = 150%; area:areas = 480%. Phonological factors may also account for the reluctance of the learners to add the -es ending to nouns ending in -s. This is difficult to confirm in the HKIL corpus since the learners use few of these words in their writing.

restricted in plural -s assignment is more problematic. However, we can again remark that helping learners produce more effective and situated discourse involves more than accurately flagging and reformulating these errors. If HK students were aided always to produce grammatically ‘accurate’ plural nouns when required by the sentence context, they would use plural nouns at least 80% more often than their English NS counterparts, rather than the 43% overuse they make of plural nouns now. Simply to ‘correct’ nouns that lack a required plural morpheme by encouraging the use of plurals might further discourage learners from constructing and conveying their propositions with the precision normally required of formal discourse.

The articles

In Chapter 1 we observed something of the way in which articles are underused by HK students. The indefinite article is one of the most underused morphemes in HKIL, where it occurs only about 66% as often as in texts written by UK students. The definite article is used about 87% as often as in the UK students’ texts. The underuse of articles may be partly a consequence of the fact that Cantonese, like other varieties of Chinese, has no equivalent of the English article (especially the indefinite article), although it does have a system of determinatives that include demonstratives, numerals, classifiers, and linking particles that act as possessives. Studies of article use in languages that lack articles generally report avoidance in learners’ English texts (e.g. Mizuno 1985, of Japanese speakers).152 The difficulties that Chinese learners have with noun number and countability (evidenced in their misuse of plural -s endings on nouns and errors in the use of the indefinite article) are compounded by the profuse idiomaticity associated with article usage. However, errors in the use of articles are more systematic and less complex than the idiomatic nature of much article use might lead us to believe. As we see in Table 12, HK students tend mostly to err by replacing the ∅ article with a or the, and by replacing a with the.153 This tendency does not seem to have been reported in other studies of the acquisition of articles, where, on the contrary, ∅-for-the errors are generally reported to be the most frequent article errors in the IL of learners whose L1 does not have articles (Master 1997: 228).154 While overt errors of this type do occur in the HK students’ corpus, they are much less frequent than ∅ for a, the for ∅ and the for a. How- ever, the effect that the avoidance of articles and singular nouns has on HK learners’ discourse is reason enough briefly to examine this error.

152 However, the degree to which the L1 system affects article occurrence in English is arguable since some studies have reported that students whose L1 lacks articles overuse them in their English texts (e.g. Botley & Uzar 1998, in a study of the English writing of Polish speakers). Master (1997: 218) also reports overuse (although he says that the indefinite article “… is overused much less than the other articles, especially by [learners of L1s that lack it], suggesting it is not experimented with to the same extent”. Kharma & Hajjaj (1997) account for the underuse of indefinite articles in the written English of Arabic speakers by the fact that Arabic has no indefinite article (or rather that the indefinite article in Arabic is ∅). They go on to explain, by contrastive means, common errors in the use of the English indefinite article among Arabic speakers. However, Chinese speakers make similar errors despite lacking both definite and indefinite articles (although a case might be made that in some respects Chinese is similar to Arabic in signaling indefiniteness by ∅ , as English also sometimes does, and having a system of classifiers to signal definiteness). 153 The indefinite article is made to replace the ∅ article more frequently than the definite article replaces the ∅ article, which in turn is more frequent than the replacement of the definite article by the indefinite article – see Chesterman’s (1991: 182) scale of definiteness in Chapter 1. 154 It is not possible to distinguish between errors in the use of ∅ for the or a, and simply a missing article. I make no distinction between these descriptions.

∅ for the

The word class string AT NN1 (DEFINITE ARTICLE + SINGULAR NOUN) is the most underused bi- gram in HKIL, compared to the UK students’ texts. This may account for the rarity of ∅-for-the errors.155 As we speculated, HK students may be making use of plural nouns to minimise the need for articles. In fact, most overt ∅-for-the errors are in the unmet need for singular noun determination.156 Two contexts account for most substitution errors of ∅-for-the. The first is before nationality adjectives and proper noun adjuncts:

So we need to keep a close link with China for future trade by using ^ Chinese language.

To meet the society’s need, ^ Hong Kong government has expanded ter-tiary education.

Adjectives of nationality are rarely used generically in HKIL, but when they are, the required definite article is often omitted:

So ^ Japanese need to work more so as to earn more money to maintain their basic living.

It is perfectly reasonable that HK learners should make such generalisations, since they also often treat generic nouns, or their adjective forms, as countable, and either omit a definite determiner, the countable noun, or mis-select an indefinite article:

And many elderly always say that we are too young when you are still a student, to take up this relationship.157

The second most frequent context of ∅-for-the substitution errors is in prepositional of constructions, including partitives and possessive of phrases:158

They will tend to believe that they are one of ^ heroes in the books.159

This includes a particular problem with the superlative construction most of + the (or another determiner or pronoun) in combination with plural nouns, which is usually impossible to distinguish from most + ∅ :

I think most of people who like to play basketball will know about this sentence. 160

155 The combination AT JJ NN1 (ARTICLE-ADJECTIVE-SINGULAR NOUN) is also one of the most underused tri-grams. 156 This is largely due to the fact that, although plural nouns tend to select the ∅ article, differences between [∅ + NN2] and [THE + NN2] are often difficult to distinguish, and both are acceptable in many contexts: This trend has evoked a great concern among the parents and teachers. 157 In the lexicogrammar of HKIL, the noun elderly is analogous to youngsters in not requiring a definite article. 158 Errors in the use of articles after other prepositions are also common: I find anxiety if this attitude continue developing in ^ long run and Some teachers or people in ^ area of education say that… HK students tend to avoid combinations of preposition and articles. 159 This is also a frequent context for errors in the omission of plural -s from the succeeding noun: As all we know, Japan is one of the most famous country in the World for her economy.

Both of these error patterns occur much less frequently in the English texts of Taiwanese students than in HK students’ texts, suggesting that they are not the result of simple transfer processes.

the for ∅

Although the definite article is underused in HKIL, the combination of definite article and plural noun (AT NN2) is among the ten most overused bi-grams.161 HK students have a strong tendency to associate definiteness with plural nouns. While failure to exploit the zero article, unnecessarily employing the with plural nouns when no specific reference is intended, is often not clearly ungrammatical, it results in awkward combinations of definite and indefinite reference:

Some people point out that the youngsters are the cornerstone of society.

Many of these uses appear to be generic – for example, the context here makes it clear that the writer is referring to youngsters in general rather than to a previously mentioned specific group.

The definite article is used to determine a singular noun only 66% as often in the HK students’ texts as in the UK students’ texts. Occurrences of the definite article to determine singular countable nouns are of course more frequently overtly erroneous than co-occurrences of the definite article with plural nouns, e.g.

You must work hard in the school.

HK students use far fewer prepositional phrases than do UK students, and these supply many of the contexts for the-for-∅ substitution (PPs occur only about 71% as often in the HK students’ texts as in the UK students’ texts): 162

As everyone knows, most of the comic books mainly concern about the sex or the violence.

∅ for a

It is difficult to identify systematic contextual patterns for the omission of the indefinite article (or ∅-for-a/an) partly because noun number often cannot be recovered from the context:

He struggled to get [?] good result[?].

Most unambiguous cases of a missing indefinite article are those where the learner has failed to signal number or countability. Partitives also present a problem for HK learners in the accurate use of the indefinite article (even more so than in the accurate use of the definite article). For example, the bi-gram large amount occurs 80 times in 1,000,000 words of HK students’ texts. Of these 80 occurrences, 30 lack a morpheme to indicate number (all the HKIL contexts demand either an

160 About 11% of occurrences of most of in the HK students’ corpus require reformulation as either most + ∅ or most of + DETERMINER/PRONOUN. HK students use the construction most of 7.3 times more often than UK students (641:88 in 500,000 words of each respective corpus). 161 The co-occurrence of DEFINITE ARTICLE + ADJECTIVE + PLURAL NOUN (AT JJ NN2) is 306% more frequent than in the UK students’ texts. 162 Only one combination of word classes in a prepositional phrase does not contain an adjective. As we might expect, this combination contains a plural noun object: IO AT NN2 (e.g. of the students).

obligatory indefinite article or plural -s noun ending):

There are large amount of inexperienced doctors.

The indefinite article is also frequently omitted in fixed phrases. Some of the ‘lexical teddy bears’ (Hasselgren 1994) that students are so fond of using may provide a mechanism for the avoidance of errors. For example, the phrase a lot of occurs 1,037 times in 1,000,000 words; lot of occurs without a contextually obligatory indefinite article or plural -s noun ending only 15 times. As a result occurs 708 times, but without the article only twice. In a nutshell occurs 106 times; in nutshell once. As a matter of fact occurs 78 times; as matter of fact once. However, not all lexical chunks appear immune to this error. The phrase to a certain extent occurs 63 times in 1,000,000 words, and to certain extent ten times. Other fixed phrases that occur at about this frequency level are also more prone to error in article omission than more frequently occurring expressions. Either these phrases are not recalled properly, or deviant forms have been taught or learned.

the for a

It may be possible that, for set phrases that they know less well, HK learners erroneously use the ∅ article because they are generalising from common phrases that have ‘lost determination’ (e.g. in fact). However, this seems unlikely, since these phrases are more often corrupted in HKIL by the substitution of the definite article. For example, It is the fact that occurs 28 times in 1,000,000 words of HKIL:

It is the fact that a coin has two sides.163

The other fixed phrases I mentioned above are given definite determination more often than ∅ determination:

As the result, the learning of students are affected.

In the nutshell, I do believe that this is a bad trend, and it will affect students deeply.

Such errors seem to result from the students’ need to appear certain and committed to rather weak propositions (and to be more definite than is appropriate), as much as from lack of idiomatic fluency.

S-V discord

Overt errors in subject-verb concord are very frequent in HKIL, even when no material intervenes between the subject and verb. Commercial grammar checkers flag most of these errors:

It have [ has] great effect to their future.

However, many of these errors may be covert grammatical blends of TL structures or literal transla- tions from Chinese, and may only mimic concord errors. This might explain why many learners appear resistant to acquiring accuracy with the structure. The ‘correction’ of the sentence above to It has great effect on their future leaves it minimally acceptable, but stilted and unnatural. If the

163 This may be a blend of it is a fact and the fact that.

student had had a better grasp of the English tense system, and more confidence in the use of lexical verbs, s/he might have written It will greatly affect their future.164 Most Cantonese NSs recognise the original formulation as a translation from Cantonese, where future time is indicated solely by the adverb phrase. The student also may be preserving the Chinese existential (Chinese makes no distinction between there/it + is/are/has/have) in order to avoid placing an indefinite noun in subject position.165 The simple reformulation of the original verb to agree with the singular subject, while minimally helpful, does little to improve the grammatical competence of the writer.

Pinker (1996: 142–5) maintains (from a UG perspective) that grammatical relations such as S-V agreement are ‘hardwired’ into the developmental pattern of L1 acquisition. It is certainly possible to interpret many of the apparent examples of S-V discord in the writing of these learners (whose L1 is morphologically unmarked) as evidence of this, since they regularly violate English concord in spite of appearing to ‘know’ the rules. Reid (1991), however, argues from a semiotic point of view that S-V agreement is semantically rather than syntactically driven. This argument may have a stronger claim, as many S-V errors in the HK students’ texts seem to result from the same misconceptions of number, countability and definiteness we observed in the use of the plural -s and articles:

A better relationship do help them in solving problems.166

At least one empirical study refutes Pinker’s view, by finding evidence that errors in S-V agreement can be modified by practice and timely feedback (Vigliocco et al. 1996).

About 6% of present simple verbs used by less proficient (‘D’- and ‘E’-graded) students do not agree with the subject head in number. In almost all cases, the error in morphology appears to be in the verb, rather than in the incorrect inflection of the noun head. The most common S-V error pattern is the use of a singular noun/pronoun + unmarked auxiliary/verb. When HK learners use a singular subject, they are twice as likely to produce an S-V error as when they use a plural subject. The effort to avoid this error may partly explain the overuse of plural NPs in HKIL.167 If this is an avoidance strategy, it does not entirely eliminate S-V agreement errors. One complication for these

164 Of course, this proposition is still not ideal in terms of its information content or its anaphoric and cataphoric discoursal roles. More accomplished writers are much less inclined to use it to refer to given or presented information than most HK students, nor would they probably employ the vague and overstated great/greatly, or at least they might hedge the claim, and they would probably include information in the form of exemplification or subordinated cataphoric reference to move the argument along. 165 The topic-prominent nature of Cantonese, and other Chinese languages, requires the sentence subject to be definite: Why subjects should be required to be definite in Cantonese invites comment. The definiteness constraint is one which naturally applies to topics (since a topic for discussion must be an identifiable entity and hence definite), rather than to subjects. A useful way to think of the phenomenon is that in a Chinese sentence there should normally be a topic; if there is no other topicalised element present (such as an object), then the grammatical subject (if overtly present) is made the topic by default. Hence, the constraint that topics should be definite extends also to subjects. (Matthews & Yip 1994: 77) 166 The subject may be perceived as a group noun requiring (or at least allowing) a plural verb form. 167 We noted in the previous chapter that plural nouns are overgenerated more than any other part-of-speech feature of the IL. The third person plural subject pronoun they is also overgenerated in the IL (by almost 3:1, compared to SE). This may also partly explain the tendency of HK learners to use a singular noun where a plural noun is required. In many of these cases, it is not clear whether an [article + singular/plural noun] or only a plural form is indicated. Also, as suggested earlier, words such as relationship, may be regarded as group nouns allowing a choice between singular and plural verb forms. L2 learners may be avoiding, as was suggested earlier, the problematic third person singular verb form (-s) by using what they believe to be a less problematic plural subject.

learners is that English often does not provide a plural pronoun in subordinate clauses to agree with the plural NP in the main clause:

It is difficult for students who does not have any friends.

The discourse structure of L2 arguments is affected, or at least reinforced, by what may be a local avoidance strategy. The overuse of plural subject NPs is one expression of a tendency for overly generalised claims in HKIL. These writers would be better served in acquiring both grammatical and discoursal competence by being guided to use definite, non-generic NPs and verb forms that indicate specific time reference. The avoidance of third person singular verb forms may be just one reason for the overuse of plural NPs, since other grammatical and institutional pressures also compel the L2 writers to favour plural NPs. For example, students report that they are encouraged by teachers to use plural NPs in order to demonstrate facility with indefinite determiners and quantifiers.

Variant patterns of subordination

Many HK learners’ difficulties in the use of conjunctions, -ing participles and pronouns can be explained by systematic variations in IL patterns of subordination. This is far too large an area of syntax to attempt a comprehensive analysis here, but we can at least look at one of the most frequent methods HK students use to embed information in their sentences. We observed in Chapter 1 (Table 2) that subordinate conjunctions are, in general, underused by HK learners. We also noted that non-finite verb forms are overused, which reinforces the general lack of explicitness in HKIL.168 However, not all types of subordinate finite clauses are avoided.

That-complement clauses

That, as a conjunction, is governed by a verb about 20% more often, and by an adjective about 40% more often, in the HK students’ texts than in the UK students’ texts.169 That these clauses should occur frequently in the writing of HK students is explained by the fact that they prototypically express personal comment, which is encouraged in HKIL by instruction.170 Probably not coin-

168 This generic inexplicitness is ironically often accompanied, as we have seen, by definite determiners and adverbials that signal certainty, such as undoubtedly. 169 HK students use almost 70% more that-complement clauses overall than UK students: VV*/JJ + CST is the one of the most overused templates in the HK students’ corpus. CL-7 tags do not reliably distinguish between the roles of that as a conjunction, relative pronoun or determiner. I post-edited all occurrences of that in 500,000 words of each student corpus (to distinguish conjunctions from determiners and pronouns) in order to arrive at the frequencies I report here. I also looked at how often the verb think is followed by the ∅-that complementiser (e.g. I think adults are mature enough) in 500,000 words of each student corpus. Despite studies that have shown the lack of ellipsis in learner writing, patterns of ellipsis after this verb are similar for both student corpora. For example, both HK and UK students ellipt that in about 50% of the total occurrences of that-complement clauses controlled by the verb think. 170 The order of the most common lexical verbs controlling that-clauses in the HK students’ texts is similar to that reported in SE by Biber et al. (1999: 63). Tense forms included, those that occur more than 100 times in 1,000,000 words of HK students’ texts are think, say, know, believe, said, hope, find, see, show and found. However, these verbs are much more common in HKIL than in SE. Biber et al. report that the most common matrix verb, think occurs about 600 times as the controlling verb of that-clauses in 1,000,000 words, but in 1,000,000 words of HKIL texts, it occurs almost 3,000 times as the matrix verb of that- and ∅-that-clauses. Only four matrix verbs in the UK students’ texts control that- and ellipted that-clauses more than 100 times

cidentally, the most frequently occurring overt grammatical error in subordination is with the that complementiser. These clauses not only present problems of grammatical accuracy, but also pragmatic accuracy (i.e. the expression of truth).

Even the most proficient HK students sometimes make the same error as the example in Table 12

This group of people also denounced that the pressure of studies is totally due to the improper use of examinations.

This demonstrates a possible subcategorisation error in the matrix verb, where HK students appear to associate the argument structure of denounce with that of the semantically and phonologically related verb announce. This error is common; as in e.g. this sentence from an ‘A’-graded script:

However, other people, like the teachers and parents, denounce that the comic books can do nothing but contaminate young people’s mind.

Wherever a that-complement appears to be in competition with another argument structure, even one that makes use of a participle (e.g. denounce comic books for contaminating…), students will generally chose the that-option.

The various functions of that and the complexity of complementisation make the reformulation of many of these errors uncertain:

We should think carefully that which things we need to concentrate more and that they are important.

Here, the first that appears to function as the default complementiser of the verb think, even before a wh-complement clause; in the second dependent clause, it usurps the wh- element (whether?) completely. HK students frequently seem to blend various argument structures by combining both a nonfinite and finite clause marker with a verb that can take either:

I do agree to that the effort offered by the people will not only rise undoubtedly the national income of the country, but also they will be proud of themselves to be the best people in the world.171

As we saw above, HK students frequently generalise the grammatical properties of verbs from synonymous words:

People who wear these high-brand name clothes think that other people would deem that they have good taste on clothes.

The writer of this sentence has presumably applied the co-selectional restrictions of believe to deem.172 Much of the redundancy of the conjunction results from its association with verbs that do not control these clauses:

Moreover, educationalist like teachers also support that schoolwork is important.

in 1,000,000 words: say, means, feel and think. The most frequent, say, occurs only about 250 times with that- and ∅-that-clauses. 171 Alternatively, the student may simply be using agree to that as a lexical chunk, where to is a preposition and that is a determiner. 172 Deem occurs ten times in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts, always as the matrix verb of a that- clause, and three times in 500,000 words of UK students’ texts, never in this role.

The forcing of a that clause to complement support is possibly a more attractive option for the student than the nominalisation of the adjective important and its post-modification by an of phrase (i.e. the importance of schoolwork). Verbs that in the UK students’ texts are typically passive (e.g. advocate discussed earlier), when used by HK students are typically given more force by taking a that clause:

I advocate that the government should give more chances for the doctors to upgrade to high position in hospitals, in order to provide them a sense of honour to work there.

Even the fairly straightforward lexical errors in the use of that complements continue to be frequent in the writing of HK students graduating from university:

I can commit that the problem of contamination will have been solved before the Open Day.173

Students indicate that many of these errors are brought on by their having been taught that academic writing is typically ‘argumentative’, and that propositions in such texts should be expressed in the strongest possible manner.

-ing participles and infinitives

We observed the substantial overuse of -ing participles and infinitives (including the to-infinitive) in HKIL in Chapter 1, Table 3. These two forms are often in competition with each other for the formation of complement clauses in the writing of HK learners:

They need sharing with a person who really know him/her and love him/her.

However, it does not mean that these people oppose students to have romantic relationships totally.

That-complements are the most frequent types of subordinate clause in HKIL, to-complements the next most frequent, -ing-complements the third, and wh-complements comparatively rare. 174 Participles are inaccurately substituted for infinitives in these structures proportionately much more often than vice versa. Although to-clauses are more common in HKIL than -ing-clauses (as they are in the texts of UK students), the -ing participle competes aggressively for the complementiser slot in HKIL. This accounts for many of the errors in the use of nominal -ing participles in HKIL. That- clauses also appear to compete with to-clauses. These problems are very often related to the forms of matrix verbs that are preferred by HK students. The controlling properties of these verbs are often transferred to their corresponding noun forms:

Most Hong Kong workers have the above thought that just work for money.175

173 From a report written by a HK graduate with top honours in his university English courses. It is possible that the writer may be blending an eventive structure with the lexical verb form (I can give a commitment that…). 174 Biber et al. (1999: 754) report that academic texts contain relatively few finite complement clauses of both types (that-clauses and wh-clauses). UK students’ texts, however, also contain many that-clauses. 175 The context of this sentence makes it unlikely that the that here is intended as a relativiser: But the work ethic also cannot be ignored. Most Hong Kong workers have the above thought that just work for money. It is unfair toward the employers.

The error here is compounded by the student’s choice of a dubious ‘deverbal’ structure (have a thought rather than think).

Ungrammatical use of pronouns and subordination

The ungrammatical use of pronouns (redundant, omitted and wrong pronouns) can often be associated with failure in the grammatical structure of relative clauses. Relative clauses are greatly underused in HKIL (whether headed by that, wh-pronouns or ∅), and when are attempted, the subject relative pronoun is often omitted:

Students ^ get out from this old institutions may be more familiar by other oversea Colleges.

Much has been written about the problems faced by Chinese learners in the construction of relative clauses. Some authors (e.g. Yip 1995: 183) suggest that constructions such as the one above only mimic the English relative clause, and are actually derived from Cantonese constructions.176 How- ever, we need not rely only on transfer explanations to account for this error. Such structures may result from learners overgeneralising the deletability of the object relative, or confusing deletability in passive constructions (Students equipped with this will…). These constructions may also be misformed participular structures (Students getting out…) rather than attempted relative clauses, or some blend of both. Although widespread among less proficient students, this error rarely occurs in the writing of more proficient students, and thus does not present the learnability problems that some authors have argued it does.

Most of the redundancy in the use of personal pronouns appears to result from the tendency, discussed previously, for HK students to ‘topicalise’ their sentences by syntactically separating topic and subject.177 Typically, the topic is fronted in a For… phrase and a personal pronoun acts as the syntactic subject:

For the youth, they are immature to deal with it.

According to the many students with whom I have discussed this error, this usage is accepted, and even promoted, in many English classrooms.178 The organisation of the sentence above mimics the so-called topic–comment structure of Chinese sentences rather than the English subject–object structure (see Li & Thompson 1976). The obvious grammatical reformulation is Young people are too immature to deal with [this problem]. HK students are rarely able to grammaticalise such topicalisation accurately, but occasionally manage to do so by incorporating a relative clause:179

176 A chief contention of her thesis is that subject relatives are consistently omitted after overused there- existentials. However, there-existentials are significantly underused in HKIL, and relative pronouns are just as regularly erroneously deleted in a number of other contexts. 177 On the other hand, the most frequent error in the omission of personal pronouns occurs when learners confuse the valency of verbs (e.g. discuss and talk): Moreover, if they have any problem in homework, they can discuss ^ with each other. Difficulty with verb argument accounts for many other errors as well. 178 This structure occurs about 250 times in 500,000 words of HK students’ scripts. 179 These structures account for most uses of relatives in the HK students’ texts. Less often HK students successfully topicalise their sentences by using an -ing clause, beginning sentences with the participles Concerning or Regarding, or the fronting preposition As for. The only grammatical variants that occur in the UK students’ scripts are As for (rare) and the fronting of an extraposed phrase: For a lot of people it is the only option (very rare). HK students in all the classes I have taught over a ten-year period claim that the distinction between these forms has never been pointed out to them.

For the adults who earn and spend their own money, there is not much to be argued.

Although the ungrammatical structure is probably influenced by Cantonese, its use may also be encouraged by the fact that it is similar to acceptable, though unusual, English structures that are used to promote given information.

Another common error is in the substitution of a personal pronoun for a relative pronoun:

I suggest that students, many of them will have the chance of studying in this new institution, to take a closer look before they make their choice.

The structure of this sentence is also another example of the tendency in HKIL towards topicalisation through the fronting of the topic by separating it from the syntactic subject.

We do not, however, observe the much-attested redundancy of ‘shadow’ personal pronouns in relative clauses in HK students’ texts, such as … a subject that I am interested in it… or … the boy who I bought his bicycle.180 Rutherford (1987: 52–3) predicts that such structures (where learners use the relative subordinator as if it were a co-ordinator) precede the emergence of accurately formed relative clauses. I found no instances of such pronominal traces in a concordance of one million words of HKIL.

The variant aspects of IL grammar we have looked at so far do not seem to support notions of ‘intermediate stages’ in the acquisition of SE grammatical patterns. Rather, we see evidence of fossilised patterns that are reinforced, and possibly even induced, by instruction. HK students’ mis- perceptions, influenced by a combination of L1 transfer and overgeneralisations about L2 patterns, appear to have at least largely gone uncorrected.

Information structure and subordination

This discussion brings us to the issue of how information is typically structured in the texts of HK learners. The focus on given rather than new information in HK students’ sentences (e.g. through the topicalised structures discussed above) results in unnecessary verbosity, which itself is a virtue for students whose first consideration is producing the requisite number of words in an examination. This is not to say that HK students deliberately obfuscate their messages more so than other stu-dents. On the contrary, one of the reasons they choose to mark the topic is so as deliberately to stress the context. They appear to use a device provided them by their L1 (topicalisation) to clarify and compensate for their lack of more subtle forms of emphasis in the L2. As we have seen, HK students have less access to such relatively unstressed devices as the definite article and the genitive in order to signal theme.181

Another reason why these students appear often to put the information focus on the topic rather than on the comment is the prosaic nature of the predicate information they feel they are expected to provide. Students are coached in preparation for examinations to expect broadly predictable

180 From Rutherford (1987: 52). 181 Theme is also less frequently marked by the use of intransitive verbs in HK students’ texts than in UK students’ texts. Most of the verbs overused by HK students are transitive. They also force transitive usage on certain normally intransitive verbs that they particularly rely on. This accounts for the overuse of reflexive pronouns in HKIL: They can relax themselves by …

topics. We would therefore expect them to stress the given information. Students with minimal lexis also must rely heavily on propositional themes. There is little that can be essentially unknown in the predicates of the topics assigned in HK classrooms and in examinations, and even if students are taught not to insist on absolute choices, usually only simple outcomes of the arguments are expected (e.g. obvious ‘advantages and disadvantages’). The lack of inherent communicative dynamism in the predicate information that students perceive is expected from them partly accounts for the inappropriate stress that HK students put on given information. This also helps explain the manner in which they convey inappropriate certainty (e.g. in the adoption of the gnomic aspect; in the abundance of simple adjuncts such as undeniably; in the avoidance of epistemic modality, etc.).

This discoursal pressure, reinforced by L1 syntax, to place the focus on the sentence theme, together with only a limited ability to manipulate the full range of available English grammatical devices, in turn requires more personal comment and a greater utilisation of that-complementisation. A student who may feel required, by cultural expectations and institutional fiat, to express the proposition that Love affairs between students are bad needs to dress up such a banal statement with structurally marked syntactic and lexical devices. In fact, there may be very little difference between the ‘given’ and ‘new’ information in such propositions. HKIL texts compensate for banality by giving emphasis to contexts and propositions through those features whose prominence in HK students’ writing we have noted, such as various reinforcement devices, including reiteration of adverbs and adjectives, and exhortation:

Love affairs can seriously affect your future. It is undoubtedly damaging to the fate of your life. I urge the Hong Kong Government to launch a long- lasting massive campaign to explain the future you have when falling in love at an immature age.

There are a number of other ways HK students attempt to put weight on predictable themes and rhemes, such as by rhetorical questions, or by substituting emotive emphasis for propositional content, for example with the persuasive do, sentence-initial interjections (e.g. Well, Oh!), intensifiers (e.g. deeply, badly, really, hardly182, especially etc.), and the noncorrelative so (often in place of very):

It is a so strange habit from the point of view of people in many other countries.

Like fronting, extraposition also lays stress on given information (by giving it end focus), and is more common than in UK students’ texts. 183 Extraposition and complement that-clauses often combine to place end-focus weight on the given information:

It is undeniable that several advantages can be found from reading comics.184

Relativisation is generally considered more difficult than complementisation, and it is probably not

182 I refer to the normal sense of this word, which is overused in HKIL, as well as to its variant meaning: Moreover, they are hardly to maintain the balance between study and friendship …. 183 Extraposition by the presentational It is about three times more common in HK students’ texts than in UK students’ texts. In arriving at this ratio, I discounted one of the most frequent causes of pronoun mis- selection, the confusion between presentational It and referential This: Comic books can be easily read in a short period of time. It is supported by some experts examinating how the people learn. 184 This structure (It is JJ that…) occurs about 20% more frequently in HK students’ texts than in UK students’ texts, and HK students use polar adjectives (e.g. true, undeniable, obvious, indisputable, certain etc.) in this pattern much more often than do UK students. The epistemic modifiers (e.g. possible, likely etc.) used by UK students in this pattern never occur in the HK students’ texts.

a coincidence that the topics given to students favour the choice of complementisation.

Prepositions

Distributional factors

Learners’ relative proficiency in the use of prepositions has often been reported to correlate highly with overall proficiency in English (see Oller & Inal 1971; Stubbs & Tucker 1974). Prepositional misuse is the most frequent error in unbound morphemes in the writing of HK learners, and prepositions are one of the most frequently avoided morphemes. Before looking at specific errors in the use of prepositions in HKIL, we should briefly examine the variation in occurrence of these items between the writing of HK learners and the writing of proficient English NS students.

The fact that prepositions are used much less often by HK learners in comparison to UK students is all the more striking since UK students themselves use prepositions less often than they are used in published texts (see Chapter 1, Table 10).185 Table 14 ranks preposition frequencies in the HK and UK student corpora (500,000 words each) by the same statistical criteria (log likelihood) used in earlier comparisons here. I will discuss the variant functions and meanings of just a few of these words.

185 Some researchers mistakenly assume that prepositions are so integral a part of English that learners cannot avoid them: “Their great number as well as the relating functions they hold in the sentence makes avoiding them nearly impossible.” (Jiménez 1996: 5).

Table 14: Frequency of prepositions in UK and HK students’ texts. This list is restricted to those prepositions identified as such by the CLAWS (CL-7) tagger. Preposition UK% HK% LL ratio HK/UK% Preposition UK% HK% LL ratio HK/UK% UNDERUSED NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE of 3.4 2.7 373.5 77.9 during - - - - against 0.1 0.0 364.5 8.5 together with - - - - into 0.2 0.1 225.9 38.3 other than - - - - at 0.2 0.1 195.3 50.8 along - - - - upon 0.1 0.0 188.5 16.3 above - - - - over 0.1 0.0 186.6 25.1 outside - - - - within 0.0 0.0 165.9 13.5 instead of - - - - between 0.1 0.0 152.7 35.7 as for - - - - with 0.5 0.4 138.5 70.1 with - - - - by 0.6 0.4 135.5 71.4 OVERUSED to 0.9 0.8 100.6 80.5 about 0.1 0.3 413.0 255.9 such as 0.2 0.1 90.8 60.1 among 0.0 0.1 336.3 939.5 in 2.1 1.8 90.7 87.4 according to 0.0 0.0 108.9 417.3 throughout 0.0 0.0 62.9 17.5 apart from 0.0 0.0 79.6 537.5 due to 0.1 0.0 61.4 48.0 like 0.1 0.1 45.2 158.5 around 0.0 0.0 60.6 35.3 owing to 0.0 0.0 36.8 4,650.0 as to 0.0 0.0 53.9 12.7 for 0.8 0.9 36.1 118.7 out of 0.0 0.0 51.2 34.0 inside 0.0 0.0 28.4 407.1 off 0.0 0.0 43.7 19.4 after 0.0 0.1 11.8 136.0 without 0.1 0.0 43.7 56.6 together with 0.0 0.0 6.7 316.7 amongst 0.0 0.0 37.5 21.2 on 0.5 0.6 6.1 106.8 subject to 0.0 0.0 35.7 5.6 under 0.0 0.0 5.1 127.5 through 0.1 0.1 29.9 67.9 towards 0.0 0.0 4.6 128.0 as 0.3 0.2 25.7 80.6 from 0.4 0.4 3.4 106.3 despite 0.0 0.0 21.8 46.8 concerning 0.0 0.0 0.9 123.1 away from 0.0 0.0 21.5 29.6 including 0.0 0.0 0.6 115.3 across 0.0 0.0 19.8 34.5 UNUSED186 along with 0.0 0.0 11.7 36.8 on to 14 0 - - depending on 0.0 0.0 9.4 26.3 prior to 8 0 - - as regards 0.0 0.0 9.3 14.3 up until 7 0 - - instead of 0.0 0.0 8.9 43.6 contrary to 4 0 - - before 0.0 0.0 7.3 70.1 near to 4 0 - - relative to 0.0 0.0 6.2 18.2 as of 2 0 - - behind 0.0 0.0 4.9 66.2 except for 2 0 - - because of 0.1 0.1 4.8 82.8 nearer to 2 0 - - up to 0.0 0.0 3.7 63.6 next to 2 0 - - regarding 0.0 0.0 3.6 47.4 in between 1 0 - - but 0.0 0.0 3.5 52.4 off of 1 0 - - rather than 0.0 0.0 3.3 82.0 pertaining to 1 0 - - beyond 0.0 0.0 2.8 66.7 since 0.0 0.0 2.7 64.9 ahead of 0.0 0.0 2.5 28.6 aside from 0.0 0.0 1.7 33.3 but for 0.0 0.0 0.7 75.0 per 0.0 0.0 0.5 80.8 let alone 0.0 0.0 0.5 71.4 outside of 0.0 0.0 0.5 50.0

Overuse

We observe in Table 14 that comparatively few prepositions are overused by HK students. How- ever, an overview of some of those that are is revealing of HKIL discoursal patterns. The typical collocations of the most significantly overgenerated preposition (about) highlight some of the register and stance variations between UK and HK students’ texts. While UK students use about

186 Frequencies (out of 500,000 words), rather than percentages, are given for these items because they are infrequent.

most often after the verbs learn, bring, know and care, HK students use it most often with speech and mental verbs (talk about, worry about, think about),187 and after concern.188 Variances in the frequency of prepositions between the two corpora also highlight the common production strategy of relying on a restricted set of more or less idiomatic fixed phrases, rarely or never found in the corpus of UK students’ scripts (e.g. in the case of mental verbs: talk of the town, think this way, think twice about).

Collocates of the word among/amongst are revealing of another discoursal characteristic of HK learners’ texts.189 In the UK student corpus the variants collocate most often in the expressions among(st) other things and among(st) the best/most. The HK students, however, use it to complement sweeping generalisations:

It is popular among the youngsters.

According to is used by the HK students almost exclusively in sentence initial position to refer to unspecified sources of knowledge:

According to a recent statistic, many young people read comic books to spend their spare time.

UK students use it to refer to specific sources of knowledge190 and as a classifying device after verbs such as vary or judge:

People applying for the same job may be judged according to different criteria.

Apart from also takes on a very different syntactic function and meaning in HK students’ texts from its function and meaning in the UK students’ texts (where it is synonymous with except for, as in apart from the fact). In the HK students’ texts, it is used almost exclusively as an additive conjunct, synonymous with in addition to:

Apart from this, the students also…191

The overuse in HK students’ texts of like as a preposition, is largely explained by the learners’ preference for this expression rather than such as. Owing to is used only three times in the 500,000- word UK students’ corpus (twice with embedded adverbs: mainly and primarily); it is used 140

187 As we have noted, mental and speech verbs are much more common in the HK students’ texts than in the UK students’ texts, which largely reflects the straightforward manner in which HK students express personal stance. The verb think occurs about 6.6 times more often in the HK texts (1622:245); the phrase In my opinion begins 174 sentences in the HK student corpus of 500,000 words; the same phrase occurs only twice in the entire 500,000-word UK student corpus. Mental verbs are, as previously noted, more common in SE speech than in writing. 188 The treatment of the word concern in HKIL is worthy of a treatise in its own right. The errors associated with its use demonstrate the difficulties that HK students have with certain past participles that normally function as predicate and complement adjectives in English (e.g. We should not just concern about profit). HK learners often blend verb and adjective properties, and omit the copula. The functions of verbs and ‘stative adjectives’ are indistinguishable in Chinese. 189 The underuse of the British variant (amongst) does not account for the large overuse of the word among by HK students. 190 See Biber et al. (1999: 871), who describe the expression as a stance adverbial typical of news articles. 191 A number of other expressions are also recruited as additive conjuncts in HKIL, such as other than. See the discussion on the overuse of additive conjuncts in Chapter 1 of this Report.

times in the same number of words written by HK students, mostly in sentence initial position, and never with embedded adverbs. Its overuse as a discourse marker of result is consistent with the overuse of the consequence subordinator so, and synonymous adverbial connectors of result. For is more characteristic of written than spoken English (it occurs 48% more often in the BNC written sample than in the BNC spoken sample). However, as we have seen, L1 canonical order and instructional circumstances influence students to topicalise their sentences with this preposition:

For the senior form student, they need …

Underuse

Although of is the most frequently occurring preposition in HKIL (as it is in any large English corpus), it is also the most underused preposition in HKIL, compared to its occurrence in the UK students’ texts.192 This is somewhat surprising, given that the genitive is in markedly short supply in HKIL. We might expect of phrases of possession to compensate for this shortage, although transfer should constrain against this order, since possession is invariably premodifying in Cantonese. In fact, possession is not very often marked by this structure in either the texts of HK or UK students (in the UK students’ texts, it only occurs in partitive constructions, e.g. members of Parliament).193 The ten words which most often govern the choice of of in the UK students’ texts are: use, number, one, example, form, part, amount, many, lack and members. The ten most frequently governing words in HKIL are: kinds, disadvantages, advantages, importance, understanding, pillars, influence, minds, forms and amount.194 The differences again highlight the use that HK learners make of fixed phrases (e.g. the advantages and disadvantages of, pillars of society etc.), as well as the use of fewer partitives in HKIL and the preference for plural nouns.

The functions of the preposition of are not easily systemised. Sinclair (1991: 81–98) distinguishes of from other prepositions, and argues that it constitutes a separate word class, as it collocates most often with nominal groups. In fact, the most underused three-word ‘lexical bundle’ in HKIL (compared to the UK student control) is the sequence PLURAL NOUN (NN2) + OF + SINGULAR NOUN (NN1).195 The second most underused string is SINGULAR NOUN (NN1) + OF + SINGULAR NOUN (NN1). These patterns (preceded by either a definite article or adjective) also constitute the two most underused four-word sequences.196

192 The overuse of about and the underuse of of are the two most characteristic patterns of preposition distributional in HKIL. 193 I am aware of arguments by some linguists (e.g. Taylor 1996) that the postnominal phrase [of NP] is not truly ‘possessive’ and is neither equivalent to the genitive nor to the postnominal phrase [of NP POSS]. I will not go into this argument here. 194 The HK student examination scripts contain many more repeated words and phrases than do the UK scripts. Actually, most of the frequent left-hand collocates of of in the HK scripts are ‘topic dependent’ words (e.g. content, stories). Whenever my searches retrieved words or expressions that were clearly influenced by the particular topics about which students wrote, as in this case, I looked instead in the much larger UST archive of students’ assignments. 195 The use of plural nouns as elements in an underused construction is striking, since the overall overuse of plural nouns is a characteristic of HKIL. 196 Aarts & Granger (1998) also note that tag sequences containing prepositions are the most underused n- grams by European learners. They account for this underuse by referring to Biber et al.’s (1994) finding that prepositional postnominal modifiers receive less attention in EFL grammar textbooks than other postnominal modifiers, despite being more common than relative or participial clauses in SE. Though Aarts & Granger do not identify what prepositions are involved in their analysis, by far the most common

Some prepositions appear to be more prone to lexical binding, or at least to lexical governing, than others, and the variant distributions of the prepositions in Table 14 may reflect these properties. For example, against collocates with a smaller set of words than of, and in HKIL typically forms expressions that, while within the purview of English grammar, are not found in the UK students’ texts, such as for and against, fight against and people are (strongly) against.197

Less proficient HK students make an error in the use of a preposition, on average, in something over 20% of the cases where a preposition is required by the immediate grammatical context, and, as we observed in Chapter 1 (Table 2), they avoid structures that require a preposition at about the same rate (prepositions are used about 20% less often in HKIL than in SE).198 The high frequency of prepositional errors in SLA studies of various L1 learners has been widely reported (e.g. Politzer & Ramirez 1973; Khampan 1974). Studies of the acquisition of English prepositions have investigated both L1 interference, mostly in the writing of European and American learners (e.g. Mougeon et al. 1977; Schmeil 1995; Jiménez 1996199), as well as the inherent complexities of prepositional use in English (e.g. Færch et al. 1984). Most of these studies generally agree that the large number of English prepositions, combined with their high degree of idiomaticity (in both polysemy and collocability) make systematic teaching and learning difficult. But if particular linguistic contexts trigger prepositional error, and we can find the means to deliver this information to learners, we need not resign ourselves to such a glum scenario.

Verb arguments

In addition to being the most frequent ‘local’ error in HKIL, prepositional substitution is also the most widely distributed grammatical error, occurring (as we saw in Table 13) in all 200 ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK student scripts. About three-quarters of the errors are in the structure DITRANSITIVE VERB + DIRECT OBJECT + PREPOSITION + PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT.200 The following sentences demonstrate the close association between the mis-selection of a preposition and the eventive construction with which it is often erroneously associated (See Quirk et al. 1985: 750–2 for a brief discussion of this structure):

I think mass media play a main role at this trend. prepositional phrase in SE is the postnominal of phrase, the very type we find most avoided in HK students’ texts. 197 The Cantonese equivalent to the English preposition against operates as a verb and an adjective, and these L1 functions are frequently directly translated into English in sentences such as We should stop to against their romantic relationship and I am very against this behaviour (which may be marginally acceptable in spoken English). 198 Wrong, missing or redundant prepositions account for about 2% of all tokens in the HK corpus of ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK student scripts. More than 11% of prepositional problems are in the choice of the preposition. The incorrect insertion of an unnecessary preposition is somewhat less common (about 7% of all prepositions in the ‘D’- and ‘E’-graded HK student scripts are redundant); required prepositions are omitted less often (in about 3% of the occasions where required). 199 Interestingly, the rate of error in Cantonese learners of English in Hong Kong (11% of prepositions that occur in less proficient students’ scripts are inaccurate substitutions – see Table 11) is almost exactly the same as that reported by Jiménez in her analysis of English compositions by secondary school students in Spain. 200 Also, about half of the errors in the insertion of unnecessary prepositions and omission of required prepositions occur in the prepositional phrase after ditransitive verbs. Multi-word phrasal/prepositional verb structures account for about 20% of incorrectly substituted prepositions in HKIL, and about half of all redundant and omitted prepositions.

A few months before a doctor in Tai Wan had an operation of abortion to a woman.

From my point of view, I agree that a healthy romantic relationship between two young people can have benefit to both of them.

We can share or change advice and experience for the others.

Having lost confidence to the Chinese government, many people are now planning to emigrate to other foreign countries.201

As long as Hong Kong people place great emphasis to fashion, students will be reluctant to be looked down upon.

Most of parents think that schoolwork is so important to secondary school students and romantic relationships between boys and girls of secondary level will give bad effect to both of them.

The errors in these sentences seem to result from blends where a preposition is retained from another construction involving the same verb or noun elements (e.g. play at, operation of, benefit to, change for, lose to, give to). This association seems to be preserved even through a shift of lexical categories (as in from noun in place to to verb in place on).202

This construction is also problematic for learners since the same noun can take a number of controlling verbs, often with little or no change in meaning (e.g. put emphasis as opposed to place emphasis). This sometimes loose association results in HK learners having to combine the elements intuitively – e.g. give bad effect in the last sentence above.203 The fact that the delexical verb controls nouns or adjectives that can themselves function like transitive verbs further complicates the issue (see Carter & McCarthy 1988: 153). It is also not easy for the student to distinguish what argument structures are stylistic options in free variation from those contexts which select for a particular choice (e.g. place emphasis on as opposed to emphasise).

A central theme in Rutherford’s (1987) analysis of ILs is that the eventive structure is avoided. In order to investigate this, I concordanced right-hand proximity collocates of all forms of five verbs of ‘general meaning’: make, take, put, give and pay. These verbs are variously called ‘support’, ‘prop’ or ‘delexical’ verbs in structures where the propositional content of the idiomatic phrase lies in the eventive (or ‘patient’) object NP rather than in the verb. Table 15 lists eventive nouns con-

201 Obviously, not all errors are attempts at constructing an internally systematic IL grammar. The student here makes an accurate choice in the verb emigrate (at least according to British usage). Many NS English writers confuse the words emigrate and immigrate (the grammar checker in MS Word flags the student’s choice as wrong). However, possibly as a consequence of his lack of confidence, the HK student adds what would ordinarily be an unnecessary adverbial phrase to clarify his meaning. 202 The preposition most frequently ungrammatically substituted for others in HKIL (i.e. what appears to be used as the ‘default’ preposition in cases where the student is uncertain) is to, followed, in decreasing order of frequency, by in, of, on, for and from. Nevertheless, we should recall that most of these prepositions occur less often in the texts of HK students than in the texts of UK students (to appears 20% less often in the texts of HK students). The texts of more proficient students show a slight increase in the frequency of underused prepositions, but much more accurate use. 203 Chi et al. (1994) suggest that the frequent erroneous associations between delexical verbs and deverbal nouns are largely influenced by Chinese. An example they give is the Cantonese equivalent of do effort. However, this combination does not occur in 1.5 million words of HK students’ English texts. The students instead err by blending English phrases (e.g. pave effort, pay effort).

trolled by these verbs in 500,000 words each of UK and HK students’ texts.204 Although these verbs are variously productive in combining with NPs in the two corpora, the HK learners make more use of them than do the UK students (i.e. 344:307 in 500,000 words each). Rutherford maintains that these combinations are rare in Chinese IL, and that they help explain why Chinese learners avoid abstract nominalisations. We have seen that HKIL does indeed make less use of nominalisations (except for -ing nominals), but this cannot be explained by avoidance of this structure. As we see in Table 15, even the UK students make little use of abstract nominals in these constructions.205

204 This list is not exhaustive. Combinations that do not occur in the UK students’ texts are not included here (put emphasis occurs 50 times in the HK students’ scripts, but is absent from the UK students’ scripts). Nor have I investigated the many other verbs that can control nominalised verbs (e.g. arguably, be, as well as have, do, place, put, get, play, cause etc.). A more comprehensive comparison of these combinations across the student corpora would probably show that HK students overuse and misuse these structures even more greatly than is suggested in Table 2.5. My choice as to what combinations belong in this category is mainly based on whether they can be replaced by a single lexical verb; although some idiomatic combinations which do not satisfy this condition, such as take responsibility intuitively feel as if they belong here. 205 According to Halliday (1985), these structures normally contribute to low ‘lexical density’ (a measure of readability) because the verbs carry little propositional information. Studies in variability in IL grammar (e.g. Rutherford 1987), on the other hand, have often been based on the premise that ILs contain a low ratio of nouns to verbs, and that it is chiefly this that accounts for their low propositional content. Rutherford (ibid.: 51) estimates that non-proficient learners exhibit a 1:1 ratio of nouns to verbs, compared to an SE ratio of 3:1. However, the ratio of common nouns (singular, plural and neutral for number) to lexical verbs (not including participles) in the HK students’ texts is 2.3:1. This is not far from the ratio in the UK students’ texts (2.6:1). English NSs do not simply attach more nominal arguments to verbs than do NNSs, as Rutherford claims, especially not in the type of predicate argument structure identified above.

Table 15: Occurrence of delexical verbs + deverbal noun combinations in UK and HK students’ texts. Occurrences are reported in corpora of 500,000 words each, and sorted by frequency in HKIL. make UK HK take UK HK put UK HK use 26 83 part 341 pressure 1 5 effort 312responsibility 510 blame 3 3 life 89 11 9 effort 1 3 decision 23 8 17ideas 1 3 profit 17 14strain 3 1 appearance 13 43idea 1 1 improvements 13 23practice 6 1 decisions 28 2 12end 3 1 sense 32 41work 2 1 mistake 12 21burden 1 1 difference 51 21effect 1 1 contribution 41 11context 6 0 loss 31 11place 5 0 points 21 11arguments 2 0 complaint 11 30operation 2 0 judgement 11 20orbit 2 0 changes 21 20TOTAL 40 20 impact 21 20 adjustments 11TOTAL 48 82 appeal 11 pay UK HK break 11 attention 2 90 change 11give UK HK compensation 1 1 comments 11 217 TOTAL 3 91 deal 11 38 discoveries 50 24 distinction 40 14 sound 40 33 advances 30 52 impression 30 12 mistakes 30 12 mockery 30 11 move 30 31 combination 20 21 comment 20 21 distinctions 20 11 judgements 20 11 leaps 20 11 matters 20 2 0 reparations 20 20 restoration 20 20 assessment 10TOTAL 35 47 attempt 10 breakthroughs 10 claims 10 discovery 10 documentary 10 explanations 10 provision 10 statement 10 statements 10 TOTAL 181 144

Instead of avoiding this structure, HK students make excessive use of a very limited number of types. In many contexts the more appropriate stylistic choice would be the reduced form:

I think both of them are able to obtain [can?] benefit from this discussion.

Generalisations of this type seem to have been accepted into pedagogical practice. HK students say they are taught to favour this argument structure, along with similar idiomatic expressions (e.g. have a chance/right/sense). 206 They are also encouraged to use amplifying adjectives in these constructions, which they do copiously (e.g. have a good confidence, have a great influence). Without access to sufficient SE models, however, learners have little guidance in the appropriate combination of verb, noun, and preposition, and the structure becomes simply a mechanism for achieving greater verbosity.

There are a number of other constructions involving problematic choices for HK students between nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverb particles, prepositions or the ∅ particle. After the eventive and other delexical constructions discussed above, HK students err about equally in the choice of prepositions in the formation of multi-word verbs, in satisfying verb valency, and in distinctions between idiomatic combinations such as convenient for and convenient to, dangerous to and dangerous for, expenditure in and expenditure on etc.207 Words that function as members of more than one class (e.g. verb and noun) are particularly problematic. These problems are exacerbated by the learners’ lack of access to the distributional characteristics of the forms and roles of these words. They use a small subset of these words, forms or roles too frequently, forcing them into ungrammatical relationships:

In conclusion, two more new institutions are benefit to the whole society.208

HK students use only about 30% of the phrasal/prepositional verb types that the UK students use, although both cohorts generally prefer Germanic multi-word forms to their Latinate counterparts (e.g. find out rather than discover). HK students explain that they find multi-word verbs easier to remember than Latinate verbs, possibly because of their simpler orthography, although they are aware of the difficulties in choosing the right particles. However, they use about the same number of multi-word verb tokens as do UK students (about 0.45% of all word tokens in each student

206 Such expressions (i.e., have a NOUN) are frequent in the HK student scripts, but rare or absent in the UK student scripts. 207 This characteristic of HKIL grammar would limit the reliability of any automatic ‘preposition checker’ that depended simply on identifying the selectional restriction of a particular orthographic word, even if the word could be differentiated by word class. Such a program would also have to disambiguate word senses to be effective with about 50% of the errors in the use of prepositions in HKIL. Highly idiomatic uses could be more easily flagged, but we are still left with the question of appropriate style. For example, the most common NOUN + PREPOSITION combination in the HK students’ scripts is time on (e.g. spend time on), which does not occur in the 500,000-word UK student corpus. HK students do not make errors in the use of this combination, but they rely too heavily on a narrow range of expressions, which they use frequently regardless of the assigned topic. 208 HK students use, or attempt, the verb form benefit almost twice as often as do the UK students, possibly because they make more errors when they attempt the noun form. In this case it is not immediately clear what form the student is attempting. However, the HK students also use or attempt the adjective form more often than do the UK students. While this student probably intended to use the adjective form, this reformulation is not the most appropriate one for the context and would not encourage the student to use the avoided verb form. In addition to having the surface grammatical form corrected, the student would benefit from advice on distributional information and the pragmatic consequences of verb and modal choice.

corpus when the verb is not inflected). Although HK students are particularly keen to learn these verbs, and they appear earlier in the elementary syllabus than derived verbs, typically only one meaning is attached to each and students acquire little sense of their semantic and grammatical scope. Nor are students made aware of the characteristic discoursal functions of the words. For example, one of the most common prepositional verbs in both student corpora is lead to, but it occurs less than half as frequently in the HK texts.209 The HK students are instead taught to effect cohesion through more explicit sentence adverbs – in this case, resultative connection with a term such as As a result, which is almost three times as frequent in the HK texts.

Verb choice

Although incorrect lexical choice spans all word classes in HKIL, students more frequently err in their choice of correct verb than any other word class. 210 Lexical errors often result from the collocational scope of words being unacceptably extended – especially in the type of expressions we have just seen:

However, studying in the new institution still get the disadvantages.211

– or simply because the semantic scope of the English word is overgeneralised:212

They are fond of novelties and easily bombarded by mass media.

Omitted copulas

Both copula and auxiliary functions of be are underused in HKIL – more so than the SLA studies we reviewed predicted they would be, as we saw in Table 7.213

209 The synonymous result in is also about twice as frequent in the UK students’ texts. 210 In contrast, noun confusion in HKIL is mostly the result of coinage (e.g. self-murder for suicide) or because learners miss the idiomatic niceties (leaving house for leaving home). Confusion about what nouns can act as transitive verbs also results in category errors involving SE eventive constructions (e.g. suicide themselves for commit suicide). Incorrect substitution within other classes, such as adjectives, occurs for a number of fairly transparent reasons, the most frequent being that certain adjectives are perceived as synonymous, such as daily for common (possibly because synonyms are often taught together). Other problems include derivational confusion (e.g. technical as opposed to technological); phonological confusion (imperceptible for impossible; royalty for loyalty etc.); and translation error (little for young). 211 Get is used more than twice as often by HK as UK students (about 1350:650 per million words) – often ungrammatically, and in grammatically possible but ‘stylistically weak’ ways (e.g. get benefits). Many of the errors in collocational units involve the blending of different idioms, where one or both components breach selectional restrictions: First of all, children can fulfill their thinking [realise their dreams? / fulfil their needs?]. As we saw in the investigation of prepositional error, the eventive construction is a source of frequent error, as in sentence (12) in Table 12: The university emphasise much importance in the field of science and technology. Although only a few delexical verbs are involved in this construction, they couple with deverbal nouns in a large number of ungrammatical combinations. Problems with this structure are also implicated in major categorical errors: Also, the education system in Hong Kong is emphasis on English. 212 In practice, it is often difficult to determine which factor is at work, and many errors are probably blends of both influences. 213 The functions of BE forms as copula vs auxiliary are not identified by the CLAWS tagger, and consequently not distinguished in Table 2. In order to differentiate functions, I concordanced and sorted all forms and then manually identified different uses. I distinguished copular from non-copular uses by, for example, counting BE + ED-participle constructions that have statal readings (especially adjectival ‘pseudo-

The most frequent context for the omission of copulas in HKIL is a small class of predicate adjectives, often used excessively by HK students:

They are just like a blank sheet and easily believe that when they have a boyfriend, there are someone who stand behind them and always concern them.214

There is often no clear distinction between adjective and verb function in Chinese, and this seems to be reflected in the manner in which less proficient HK students handle certain adjectives. The fact that the most proficient students make few errors of this sort may not necessarily mean that they have fully acquired the grammar of the adjective function, since they mainly use concern as a noun:

This trend has evoked a great concern among the parents and teachers on the distasteful effect to the youngsters.

The most proficient HK students use this word as a noun about twice as often as they do as an adjective, thereby apparently avoiding the complexities of adjectival use, and achieving added verbosity. UK students, by comparison, use the word as a predicate adjective about twice as often as a noun. It is not surprising that participles such as concerned (also, notably, worried, involved and interested) are problematic for HK learners. Not only is the correspondence between Chinese and English word classes not simple, but also word-class and semantic distinctions within English are confusing. There are potentially six syntactic functions of concern (predicate adjective, postpositive adjective, attributive adjective, preposition, verb and noun) and at least three distinct senses.

HK students sometimes also employ certain prepositions as transitive verbs:

I suppose that nearly all parents will against their children to start romantic relationships between boys and girls too early.

Like adjectives, prepositions also do not form a clearly distinct class of words in Cantonese, and many senses that are expressed as prepositions in English are main verbs in Cantonese (see Matthews & Yip 1994: 115–27).

Auxiliary BE

Since non-present tense, passive voice and aspectual verb forms are generally avoided by HK students, auxiliary functions of be are relatively rare in HKIL (0.6% of HK words compared to 1.2% of UK words). A comprehensive analysis of the problems HK students have with the BE auxiliary would require a chapter in its own right, but the most frequent context for its erroneous

passives’) as non-passive (see Quirk et al. 1985: 168–71). I also counted ungrammatical uses of BE in HKIL (e.g. Comic is not only for entertainment, it can be act as a tool for education purposes), and used my best judgement to determine intended function, but did not attempt to identify cases of missing BE in required contexts. Because of the degree of personal comment and the preference for plural subjects (I and they), present simple tense copular forms (except for third person singular) are much more common in the HK students texts than in those written by UK students: am is used as a copula in the HK students’ texts over 800% more often than in the UK texts; are occurs as a copula 217% more often in the HK students’ texts. 214 Forms of the word concern are used about 25% more often by HK students than by UK students, but about 50% of all occurrences in the texts of less proficient students are erroneous, mostly confused verb and adjective functions of the type in this sentence. Another favourite predicate adjective that triggers the omission of be is aware, which may be regarded as a verb in HKIL.

omission is in apparently misformed passive constructions, especially after modals:215

I believe that comic books can ^ used for educational purposes.

The most frequent overt error involving tense or aspect in HKIL is confusion between simple and progressive aspect:

Later, she found that the doctor was not having any experience about abortion.

The aspect most often overgeneralised is the progressive, although less proficient students often produce constructions which may be failed attempts to form the perfective, where be is confused with the perfect auxiliary have:

By statistics, the abortion rate is increased in the last year.216

The two-word string most underused by HK students, in comparison to the UK student corpus, is has been.217 When the less proficient students have occasion to attempt a perfective passive, they often resort to the use of be to form what appears to be a present simple passive:

Moreover, in recent months, several news are expressed which about youngsters committing suicides, thus arising the public concern.218

The existential in HKIL

The last group of grammatical and discoursal variations in HKIL we will discuss here are those involving the use of be and have in existential and presentational functions.

In fact, there have both advantages and disadvantages for students to study at these very new institutions mentioned above.

This error is often taken to be a direct result of L1 transfer. We have previously noted that the Cantonese existential verb, yáuh, is in other contexts, equivalent to English have. However, there may be intralingual factors as well, since the erroneous choice of have to replace be only occurs in sentences where a change in word order would legitimise its use as the existential device, though leave the sentence focus weak (e.g. Studying in one of the new institutions has many advantages ...). There are a number of other overt errors associated with HK learners’ use of the existential, especially their tendency to drop complementisers and subordinators after this structure.

215 I hedge here because some researchers (e.g. Yip 1995) argue that the Chinese speaker does not have a passive structure in mind, but rather a Chinese ‘pivotal’ structure that is not related to the passive, even if properly expressed by a passive construction in English. HK students also regularly produce structures that resemble failed passives by erroneously supplying a BE auxiliary where none is required: They feel it is easy to understand and they are appreciated by the beauty of all the pictures. Yip discusses such constructions from the point of view of L1 transfer, and I will not dwell further on them here. The aspect of these errors that most strikes me is the misunderstanding by HK learners of the semantic role of the passive in discourse. 216 This error has no obvious transfer explanation, and may result from the blending of verb or predicate adjective properties for the word increased. 217 This bi-gram is almost exclusively used by the UK students to form the present perfect passive. The plural form (have been) is only slightly more common in the HK texts than the singular form. 218 Here the student seems also to treat the preposition about as a verb.

The distributional and grammatical variations of the existential structure have attracted considerable attention in Chinese interlanguage studies. The structure has been associated with learnability problems claimed to persist in the writing of proficient Chinese learners of English, especially the tendency for relativisers to be erroneously deleted in there-existential sentences.219 Schachter & Rutherford (1979), Yip (1995) and Han (2000) report that Chinese learners (including Cantonese speakers) greatly overgenerate there-existential structures in order to avoid indefinite NP subjects. In fact, as we note in Table 16, there-existentials are, on average, undergenerated (by about 23%) in HK students’ texts, compared to UK students’ texts, except, as we would expect, in association with plural NPs and in ‘argumentative’ formulæ (e.g. … there are (many/both/some) advantages and disadvantages…):

However, there are many advantages of studying at a new institution.

Table 16: Occurrence of there-existential structures in 500,000 words each of HK and UK students’ texts. 220

HK UK HK/UK there * are(n’t) 723 482 1.5 there * is(n’t) 586 752 0.8 there * be 221 141 384 0.4 there * been 21 98 0.2 there * were(n’t) 11 53 0.2 there * was(n’t) 8 112 0.1 is/was/were there 5 11 0.5 there seem(s/ed) 4 17 0.2 there * exist(s/ed) 0 11 - there appear(s/ed) 0 5 - TOTALS 1,499 1,925 0.8

The existential structure may appear to be overused simply because the high frequency of the plural form (there are) is noticed. As with other misreports of distributional frequencies, the noticing of errors in the existential structure may also explain presumptions of its overuse.222 The structure occurs often in complement that-clauses in HK students’ texts, especially in ways that contribute to verbosity; for example, in combination with deverbal nouns:

Many people think there is a great benefit for students to have [= students benefit by having] health romantic relationships.

219 This claim may be true, although it is difficult to establish from production data alone. ‘A’- and ‘B’- graded students make relatively few errors of the type discussed here (i.e. the use of have as the verb of there-existentials and the erroneous deletion of subordinators introduced by this construction). However, the proficient students do not grammaticalise these and other constructions in the same ways that English NSs do. The reductionist strategies of more proficient students can be adequately explained by the learning environment. The IL grammar does not appear to be as much under L1 control as UG theories assert. The features of IL production that we have discussed seem quite clearly subject to conscious monitoring. 220 The counts for HK students are from the least proficient students’ texts (scripts graded ‘D’ and ‘E’). The more proficient HK students (‘A’- and ‘B’-graded) use only about 10% more existential structures than the less proficient students. However, there is a high standard deviation in the use of the structure between scripts, with about 20% of the students never using it, and some students using it more often than the UK students do. 221 This includes should/will/might/can (etc.) there be…. 222 However, the legitimate have-existential device (see Quirk et al. 1985: 1411–4) occurs more often in the HK students’ texts than in the UK students’ texts: I have plenty of time when I go to study in university to date someone.

Although there-existentials occur significantly less often in HK students’ texts than in the texts of UK students, they tend to be used in a marked construction – what Lambrecht (1988) calls the ‘presentational relative construction’. He defines this construction as an ‘archetypical fairy-tale starter’ of the type Once upon a time there was a prince who …, which performs the presentational role of mainly stressing the existence of an indefinite referent. A disproportionate number of existentials in the HK students’ texts simply affirm the existence of the examination topic. This method of presenting information fits a situation where there is little new information to convey, or where the information needs a dramatic introduction to make it interesting:223

Today, there is a storm of controversy sweeping out our community and affect all of us especially the students.

In contrast, this structure is mainly used in UK students’ texts to embed new information about the referent in the subordinate clause:

Even if there is a hardcore of racism within humanity that is difficult to eradicate, I think that we should be able to achieve racial equality.

Summary

In this chapter we have examined linguistic factors that might account for some of the most common errors in the writing of HK students. Such discoursal processes as the structuring of information in sentences could explain the use these learners make of the grammatical constructions associated with error. These investigations may provide us with possible ways to identify and understand some of the most frequent errors in HK students’ writing. However, they also make clear the need to go beyond mere error correction in helping learners reformulate their texts. They at least demonstrate that much of the IL grammar is systematic and predictable, and can be adequately described without invoking mentalist explanations. The IL data also appear to cast doubt on the notion that L2 acquisition proceeds in immutable universal stages. Pedagogical/social influences and the students’ coping strategies adequately explain much of the acquisition and production process. Effective instruction and appropriate reformulation of learners’ texts (whether by manual, purely computational, or computer-mediated means) require that we understand lexicogrammatical problems in the context of the distributional characteristics of the IL, and that we enable learners to formulate their propositions in language that has some communicative purpose outside the classroom and examination hall.

223 We have noted that the lexical bundle there is is underused in HKIL, and that the indefinite article is also greatly underused, but the string there is a is used about 90% as often by HK students as by UK students.

Chapter Three: Doubt and certainty in HK interlanguage

The concept of ‘hedging’

There is great interest in the literature of text linguistics in the manner in which authors balance circumspection and certainty in their texts. A number of overlapping terms have been used, sometimes synonymously, to refer to this broad epistemological area of communicative behaviour, including ‘hedging’, ‘modality’, ‘vagueness’ and ‘evidentiality’. 224 Researchers have claimed a number of motivating factors to account for the writer’s stance toward information and the reader, particularly the need for a careful balance in expressing the writer’s assessment of possibilities, in indicating the writer’s degree of confidence, and in adopting positions (See, e.g. Lyons 1977; Stubbs 1986; Coates 1987). Several authors (e.g. Darian 1995; Hyland 1998) group pragmatic strategies such as politeness, indirectness, mitigation, vagueness and understatement together under the umbrella term of ‘hedging’, relating this concept to modesty, face-saving and the Gricean maxims. Various studies have found that a careful style, marked by a rather broad range of discourse features, can act as a ‘code of recognition’ between fellow members of discourse communities. Markkanen and Schroeder (1989), for example, detail how propositions in various types of professional discourse must be thoroughly hedged to be convincing, and Myers (1989) demonstrates that hedges are important devices for distinguishing new information from given, which seems rather to be the opposite of what HK students are taught.225 Many of these studies argue that epistemic modality is central to the reader’s perception of the writer’s honesty and to the acceptability of his or her propositions and evidence.

Some studies adopt a purely functional definition of the devices which signal these pragmatic aspects of texts, so that almost any lexical item or grammatical structure can operate epistemically (cf. Markkanen & Schroeder 1997: 3–15).226 Most researchers seem at least to accept that the pragmatic devices used to express points of view and signal allegiances are a loose set and not easily delineated. In this chapter we will concentrate on how the disproportionate use of three features in HK students’ texts, which can be more or less identified by part-of-speech tagging – adverbials, the epistemic matrix verbs of complement clauses, and modal auxiliaries – help account for the inappropriate weight that these EFL students systematically assign to their propositions.

224 Channell (1994) uses the term ‘vagueness’ to denote deliberate imprecision in the expression of quantity, quality or identity. Chafe & Nichols (1986: 271) define evidentiality as any linguistic expression of attitudes toward the reliability of knowledge. Palmer (1990: 69–70) sees little difference between evidentiality and epistemic modality: “It would be a futile exercise to try to decide whether a particular system (or even a term in a system in some cases) is evidential rather than a judgment. There is often no very clear distinction because speakers’ judgments are naturally often related to the evidence they have.” 225 Misrepresentation is not, of course, the exclusive province of novice writers. Several researchers (e.g. Simpson 1990) have detailed the manner in which well-respected and influential authors have manipulated ‘modalisation’ to persuade readers of the writer’s arguments by deliberately diverting their attention to information that is not controversial. By leaving controversial information unhedged, they can make it appear uncontroversial. 226 Some of the frequently mentioned ‘hedging devices’ are modal verbs, hedged performatives, epistemic qualifiers, adjectives and adverbs, ‘modal particles’, certain personal pronouns, the passive, parenthetic constructions, the subjunctive and conditional, concessive conjunctions and negation. However, as Markkanen & Schroeder (1997: 243) put it, “The pragmatic function of hedging is implicit at the level of utterance and not explicit in any lexical unit”.

EFL students’ difficulties in hedging

It seems to be widely agreed that the degree and type of hedging in a text have a considerable effect on the reader’s acceptance of both its referential and affective aspects. However, it is also generally acknowledged to be a difficult skill even for NSs to acquire, and many studies have shown that learners of English depend on an inadequate set of expressions to qualify statements, and generally express far too much certainty in both speech and writing.227 Hu et al. (1982) and Allison (1995) suggest that Chinese writers of English tend to be more direct and authoritative in tone than English NSs and to make unjustifiably strong and disconcerting assertions. Arabic NSs have also been shown to have similar difficulties (Scarcella & Brunak 1981). Robberecht & van Petegem (1982) refer to the problems of Dutch and French students in mastering epistemic modality. These difficulties often persist at postgraduate level, when supervisors are frequently compelled to counsel students in the need for qualification in expressing claims (Dudley-Evans 1991: 47).

One study that compared the speech of Finnish speakers to English NSs (Nikula 1997) found that the Finnish speakers used far fewer hedges than the English NSs in English conversation, despite hedges being common in their L1 speech patterns.228 This resulted in the NNSs being judged as remote and inadequately involved in their English conversations. It may be an ironic characteristic of ILs that, whereas formal written forms generally often appear too involved (e.g. in the use of personal pronouns), IL conversation frequently gives the impression of not being involved enough. In both cases, an appropriate use of hedging devices is necessary to mitigate involvement.

It is not surprising that novice L2 writers have difficulties moderating their claims, since writer commitment can be expressed in an enormous variety of ways. The same expressions can convey a wide range of meanings, and their comprehension and effective use often depend on cultural subtleties that put EFL students at a distinct disadvantage. Sense and force are determined by a complex combination of linguistic and cultural contexts that are not easily taught in the classroom. Nor do pedagogical circumstances favour what might be taken as hesitation in the students’ recita- tion of school catechisms. Students in traditional, didactic learning environments are rarely encouraged, and cannot be expected, to have the confidence to make balanced assessments of either the referential or propositional information which is presented to them at school. To do so would might questioning the reliability of the material they have been asked to commit to memory by their teachers. We can understand how student writers appear to disregard, in their relationship to the reader, what Leech (1983) suggests are culturally variable ‘Maxims of politeness and agreement’, since the students’ primary allegiance is to the information received from teachers and school textbooks. In any event, their ‘reader’ is usually their teacher, or a surrogate. Students show solidarity with the teacher’s view by expressing conviction toward conventional propositions and received knowledge.229 However, this is not the type of writer–reader relationship that will serve the students

227 For example, Connor & Lauer (1988); Skelton (1988); Blum-Kulka et al. (1989); Færch & Kasper (1989); McCann (1989); Johns (1990); Karkkainen (1990); Bloor & Bloor (1991); Silva (1993). However, at least two studies have concluded that some NNS learners overuse hedging expressions. Clyne (1991) and McEnery & Kifle (in press), found that English learners they studied hedge more than is appropriate. The first study was of German scholars writing in English who already were familiar with the academic requirement to hedge in their L1 (Clyne observes that German academic texts contain more hedges than do English ones). These mature German learners may hypercorrect, thereby appearing too circumspect in English. The second study is of Eritrean students, who appear to have been influenced by their instructional materials to overuse specific hedging devices. 228 Nikula (op. cit.) defined hedges in terms of Prince et al.’s (1982) study of ‘approximators’ and ‘shields’. 229 Hosman & Wright (1987), in a study of court transcripts, found that jurors where more inclined to consider witnesses unreliable the more they hedged. However, at the same time, they had greater respect for

in discourse communities that demand subtle persuasion and at least lip service to objectivity, i.e. where writers are expected to “… mitigate the definiteness of their claims in order to secure their ratification” (Holmes 1984:350). Categorical assertions leave little room for the dialogue that readers outside the classroom expect (Myers 1989; Thompson 1993).

Paradoxically, therefore, we find that students whose culture particularly values maxims of politeness often make statements in English with inappropriate force. This tendency is likely to be reinforced if they perceive that their teachers discourage independent judgement. Nor does linguistic context – the grammatically simple gnomic aspect of noun and verb marking, which, as we have seen, HK students are implicitly encouraged to maintain – support conditional, ‘modalised’, ‘relativised’ or ‘hedged’ language. It is thus not surprising that HK students, who are educated in conservative, examination-oriented and teacher-focused environments, express strong conviction in their propositions. They do this through the zealous use of amplifying modifiers, and reliance on often highly formulaic categorical and predictive structures for reporting evidence (e. g. that- complement clauses).

Students are provided a narrow set of undifferentiated formulæ for producing heavily opinionated discourse, of the type listed in Figure 5. This list is from anonymously authored materials handed out at a HK ‘tutorial school’ (where students cram for examinations), duplicated as it appeared (i.e. with no accompanying explanations), and is similar to lists in many textbooks directed at EFL students. Such materials generally fail to caution students about the need to hedge.

Ways to express your own and other people’s ideas: Attitudes / Standpoints: I think/believe (that)… X are in favour of/for In my opinion… X approve of… As far as I am concerned… X are against/critical of… From my point of view… X disapprove of… It seems/appears (to me) that… I am/are of the opinion that… I am/are convinced that… Personally, I would tend to think/believe/argue that…. Objective ideas: It is (generally) believed that… It is true that… It has been argued/said/suggested that… It cannot be denied that… I (would argue/claim/consider that… It is understood that… A generally/widely accepted belief is that… There is no doubt that… (One of) the (main) arguments in favour of/against X is that…

Figure 5: Phrases recommended to students, in teaching materials from a Hong Kong ‘tutorial school’.

This approach does not provide learners with adequate information about the precise meaning, pragmatic force, structural qualities, or appropriateness in various genres and registers of these lexical and grammatical formulæ. Pedagogic materials often present such lists out of context, or in artificial and misleading contexts, and encourage the rote learning of such unexamined formulæ. The purpose of this approach is short-term – often merely to provide ‘lexical fillers’ to students who need to satisfy immediate examination purposes. It does not help novice writers to con- textualise and manipulate linguistic formulæ for other communicative ends, or to achieve rhetorical balance.

judges who used more hedging devices. HK students are in a particularly acute position of feeling as if they are constantly victimised by arbitrary academic judgement.

Adverbial hedges

In Chapter 1 we noted that ‘general adverbs’, as a class, are overused in the texts of both HK and UK students (in comparison to the BNC). However, we find systematic differences in the occurrences of particular types of adverbs, and we also observe that the same words tend to perform different syntactic and semantic functions in each student corpus. Table 17 lists the comparative occurrence of adverbs (identified by CL-7 tags) in the UK and HK students’ texts, where p < 0.01 (i.e. where differences are statistically ‘highly significant’). It does not list adverbials used primarily as conjuncts and conjunctions. The overall type/token ratios of adverbs in the two student corpora are similar (about 4% of all tokens in both corpora are tagged as adverbs by CL-7). However, as with other word classes, HK students make excessive use of a small subset of words.230

Table 17: The most over/underused adverbs in HK students’ texts (in 500,000 words), sorted by log likelihood (LL) ratio).231 Overused Underused Rank UK HK HK/UK LL UK HK HK/UK LL adverb adverb 1 why 151 646 427.8% 397.3 perhaps 474 38 8.0% 612.2 2 easily 70 456 651.5% 375.6 where 467 44 9.4% 568.6 3 highly 70 424 606.2% 335.1 often 611 159 26.1% 380.1 4 nowadays 46 317 690.2% 269.8 today 301 57 19.0% 247.7 5 very 836 1388 166.1% 172.3 far 213 38 17.6% 185.1 6 most 291 504 173.2% 71.6 now 548 231 42.2% 174.5 7 hard 36 122 340.0% 60.1 increasingly 118 8 6.4% 164.3 8 especially 212 360 169.9% 48.2 particularly 152 23 15.2% 145.5 9 really 138 258 187.0% 45.7 equally 85 3 4.1% 132.1 10 usually 148 263 177.9% 40.5 possibly 84 6 7.6% 110.8 11 everywhere 7 47 668.0% 39.0 previously 73 3 4.7% 109.8 12 always 358 499 139.3% 29.1 simply 209 63 30.4% 109.4 13 properly 15 54 357.9% 27.9 ever 132 27 20.1% 103.9 14 mostly 17 55 326.0% 26.0 morally 61 2 2.8% 101.1 15 deeply 12 46 384.9% 25.8 merely 105 18 17.0% 93.3 16 wisely 1 20 2020.5% 24.8 ultimately 61 5 7.6% 80.4 17 adversely 3 26 865.9% 24.6 similarly 59 5 7.8% 76.9 18 blindly 3 26 865.9% 24.6 largely 72 9 12.8% 75.9 19 enough 101 165 163.5% 19.4 never 162 55 34.2% 72.6 20 quite 109 171 157.3% 17.4 primarily 50 3 5.8% 71.6 21 outside 3 20 654.3% 16.2 clearly 130 39 29.8% 69.8 22 too 638 768 120.4% 15.2 indeed 207 85 41.3% 68.7 23 absolutely 16 38 238.1% 11.4 once 81 15 18.5% 67.9 24 sometimes 78 120 153.9% 11.2 currently 50 3 6.9% 67.8 25 carefully 23 48 208.3% 11.0 either 109 29 26.5% 66.7 26 more 385 471 122.4% 10.9 entirely 65 10 15.1% 62.5 27 about 66 104 157.4% 10.6 again 168 66 39.5% 60.2 28 above (all) 26 51 195.4% 10.1 at all 112 33 29.9% 59.8 29 undoubtedly 81 50 161.6% 9.1 relatively 91 23 24.7% 59.7 30 anymore 4 15.579 389.7% 8.8 recently 201 89 44.2% 58.5 31 no doubt 33 58 176.7% 8.8 purely 40 2 5.8% 57.2 32 just 367 441 120.3% 8.7 almost 152 60 39.5% 54.5 33 anymore 4 16 389.7% 8.8 hopefully 35 2 4.9% 52.1

230 Coinages are often highly imaginative, but usually follow morphological rules: Street fightings and these forms of violences are increasing mushroomingly. I corrected HK students’ misspellings for Table 17 where possible, so that it represents the frequencies of adverbs that the students attempted to use. Misspellings and coinages make up most of the hapax legomena (words that occur only once) in the HK student corpus. 231 I do not include here the disparate occurrences of adverbial particles (e.g. down, on, up, in, away), which demonstrate differences in the distribution of phrasal verbs between the two corpora. UK students use a much larger number, and wider variety, of phrasal and prepositional verbs than do HK students (e.g. broken down, let down, put on, carry on, keep up, set up, take in, give in).

34 commonly 7 21 296.9% 8.7 necessarily 60 11 18.3% 50.8 35 badly 16 35 216.5% 8.6 fairly 47 6 12.3% 50.7 36 actually 144 192 133.1% 8.5 extremely 110 37 33.6% 50.6 37 mainly 70 101 144.3% 7.1 else 79 20 25.6% 50.1 38 frankly 4 14 346.4% 6.9 slightly 36 2 6.4% 50.0 39 thoroughly 1 8 750.5% 6.7 completely 73 17 23.7% 49.8 40 further 96 29 30.7% 49.7 41 differently 31 1 3.7% 49.1 42 rarely 60 12 19.2% 48.9 43 partly 47 7 14.7% 45.8 44 continually 29 1 4.0% 45.3 45 initially 33 2 7.0% 44.6 46 generally 107 39 36.1% 44.2 47 effectively 59 14 23.5% 40.6

Many of the adverbs reported in Table 17 are frequently misused, and adverbs not listed here are also often problematic. For example, a word used about as frequently by both HK and UK students (and thus not listed in Table 17) is maybe (49:46 in 500,000 words). HK students normally use the word suggestively to introduce further arguments in support of their proposition. It occurs almost invariably in sentence initial position:

Most importantly, the students will hardly to study. Maybe they will loss their future. Also, they may be harmful to their family, schoolmates, and society.

Proficient UK students, however, usually use the word as an informal synonym of perhaps to express some degree of reservation or modesty in their proposals or to question an opposing position:

Could it be that maybe producers are not developing a ‘cult of violence’ and instead that they are only showing things the way they are?

Intensifiers

Quirk et al. (1985: 445–51) divide ‘intensifying’ adverbs into ‘amplifiers’, which scale upwards, and ‘downtoners’, which scale downwards. Downtoners are the modifiers most prototypically associated with hedging. We see in Table 17 that HK students use amplifiers (e.g. easily and highly) a great deal more often than do UK students, and generally use far fewer downtoners than UK students (e.g. ‘minimisers’ such as ‘never’ and ‘at all’).232 HK students mainly use adverbs to express conviction (e.g. absolutely, undoubtedly). UK students, on the other hand, more often use adverbs to express some degree of doubt (e.g. perhaps).233

However, UK students’ ability to hedge propositions apparently allows them to use some amplifying adverbs more frequently than the HK students. For example, increasingly is much more common in the UK students’ texts, presumably because, as in the following case, the authors have the skill to hedge (in this case by the epistemic verb seem) propositions thus amplified, e.g.:

It seems that films are constantly trying to become increasingly more violent.

232 To be more precise, HK students use adverbs in amplifying roles much more often than in downtoning roles. 233 One of the most underused words in HK students’ written texts, compared to the UK students’ texts, is perhaps, and the reinforcing additive conjunct, moreover, is one of the most overused words in the HK students’ texts.

We also note that UK students make much more use than HK students of the ‘booster’ far (see Quirk et al. 1985: 591). However, when the word is used in the UK students’ texts to modify propositional information, the notion is again usually hedged in some way (in the following example by In my opinion):

In my opinion we are far less dependent upon non-renewable sources than we were 20 or 30 years ago, so we have made progress.234

HK students prefer the ‘particulariser’ especially, while UK students favour its synonym, particularly (see Quirk et al. 1985: 604). Together, these words are used about as often by both groups, but again, HK students make their points more forcefully:

So, it is crystal clear that young people especially those of lower form students is not suitable to involve themselves in love affairs.

In contrast, the UK students’ more adept use of modality gives the word a specifying and exemplifying function:

The international wave for Republicanism, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, may well prompt a change that even the monarchy cannot avoid.

HK students also use a number of fixed adverbial phrases to convince the examiner of their conviction and sincerity. We noted previously that HK students are inclined to emphasise their propositions with a small set of ‘conviction disjuncts’, such as undeniably. This word occurs 23 times in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts and 6 times in the UK student corpus – not quite disparately enough to be among the statistically highly significant overused adverbs (and therefore not listed in Table 17). However, HK students rely on several forms of the word deny to express the same sentiment. In the 500,000 words of each corpus, we find the following HK:UK ratios for various forms of the same word sense: undeniably = 23:6; no one can deny = 50:0; it cannot be denied = 24:0; it is undeniable = 27:3. In the UK students’ texts, the verbs deny and denied never take a dummy subject, as they invariably do in the formulæ preferred by HK students, where they are almost invariably used to indicate a universal truth. Most occurrences in the UK texts are not embedded in idiomatic formulæ, and are in some sense hedged:

In this country there is still considerable discrimination, whether obvious or not, with plenty of cases of disadvantaged people being denied jobs or housing.

Many of the devices and expressions that HK students are taught to use in order to convey strong conviction are, in fact, not used in this way at all by expert writers, who instead generally use the expressions as props to set up straw man arguments. The word undoubtedly, for example, is normally used by expert writers politely to concede some aspect of an idea or event, but this is then often juxtaposed with a statement that denies the generality of that very principle or notion, marked by while, but, however or nevertheless, or negated by a disjunct such as unfortunately. For example:

While there is undoubtedly a demand for more golf courses, it needs to be underlined that many applications are purely speculative. (BNC AR9)

234 The location of these amplifying adverbs in the students’ texts also differs between the two corpora. They generally tend to occur in concluding statements and toward the end of HK students’ texts. However, they occur liberally sprinkled throughout the HK students’ texts, and often quite early in their arguments, before the writer has presented any evidence.

HK students are seldom made aware of these ultimately more persuasive ways of using the language, and rarely use common hedging expressions in even objective senses. For example, sort of is used rarely in the HK texts, and then only as a classifying expression:

Comic books are not bad, it is only a sort of reading material.

In contrast, although the expression is generally considered informal, it often occurs in the UK texts as a both classifier and to indicate prototypicality:

Crusoe makes himself a sort of civilisation.235

We should note, however, that although the relatively proficient UK students, whose texts we are using here as a control, appear generally more credible by using such expressions less often, more specifically, and less formulaically, even they sometimes importune where an expert writer would not, and some of the UK students have trouble with the syntax of hedges:

I doubt anyone could honestly deny that without the love of at least one other, be it family love or romantic love, they could happily survive.

Syntactic roles of adverbs

The modifying roles of adverbs also vary systematically between the two student corpora. The UK students tend to use adverbs most often in their normal SE function to modify adjectives and other adverbs. However, in HK students’ texts, adverbs most often precede the base form of verbs.236 HK students overuse simple modifiers, including both amplifying adjectives and adverbs, but clearly have difficulty qualifying propositions in the way the UK students do (e.g. probably never, perhaps most significant, relatively quickly). Instead, HK students tend to use adverbs directly to intensify the sentence predicate.237 This may be influenced by ELT directives that describe the primary purpose of adverbs as the modification of verbs.238 The following adverb-verb pairs occur over ten times in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts (the figures indicate frequencies of occurrence):

also think 37 also bring 17 directly affect 13 always think 27 also need 17 also find 12 easily find 24 also give 16 also help 12 also help 23 always use 16 also hope 11 also learn 23 just follow 16 also use 11

235 Prince et al. (1982) consider sort of, in the latter sense, an ‘approximator’ of propositional content. In this sense, it is normally considered informal, which may be a further inducement against its use in the formal written texts of EFL students. The distinction between the two meanings is not always easy to make, but the expression clearly indicates simple classification all 16 times it occurs in 500,000 words of HK students’ texts. It is used 75 times in 500,000 words of UK student’s texts, and in about a third of these occurrences, prototypicality is denied, as in = ‘Robinson Crusoe does not create a ‘real’ civilisation’. 236 The CL-7 tag sequence RR VVO (ADVERB + VERB BASE) is 269% more frequent in the HK texts than in the UK texts, whereas the sequence RR JJ (ADVERB + ADJECTIVE) is only 58% as frequent, and RR RR (ADVERB + ADVERB) only 33% as frequent. These patterns are consistent with HK students’ preference for amplifying adverbs and adjectives, which tend not to take modification (see Quirk et al. 1985: 610). 237 The adverb probably appears in one of the popular examination prompts (viz. Comic books are probably the most popular form of reading material for young people in Hong Kong), but it is only slightly overused (124%) by HK students compared to UK students – not enough to be statistically significant. Other epistemic words in HK examination prompts (e.g. the verb seems) tend to be underused by HK students. 238 As a popular HK EFL textbook puts it: “An adverb tells you more about a verb.” (Leetch 1990: 28).

also make 22 also affect 16 always give 11 also use 22 always want 15 always talk 11 just want 21 really need 15 only want 11 also make 19 also affect 14 strongly believe 11 also provide 18 always wear 13 also join 11 also want 18 mainly come 13 easily buy 11 only know 18 only concentrate 13 easily see 11 usually contain 18 adversely affect 13

In contrast, no adverb-verb pair occurs more than five times in the UK student corpus. Only seven words (all adjectives) collocate with an adverb ten times or more in the UK student corpus: primarily responsible (18 occurrences); readily available (16); virtually impossible (13); almost impossible (11); increasingly inhospitable (11); terminally ill (11); extremely difficult (10). These expressions are rarely used by HK students, and then usually ungrammatically:

It is almost impossible that one cannot find a comic book at the newstands.

The following collocates are typical of amplifying adverbs overused by HK students:

easily influenced deeply think select carefully think very highly spend money wisely more easily most popular adversely affected about twenty dollars very hard-working blindly follow undoubtedly true especially the students quite expensive just want really feel spend too much commonly seen usually talk absolutely wrong badly affected always think sometimes youngsters will mainly come are mostly concerned

Adverbs of time and place

We should not be surprised to observe in Table 17 that temporal and locative adverbs are greatly underused in HK students’ texts, since they are inconsistent with the gnomic aspect (i.e. in its reduced use of tense and aspect). These adverbs act in somewhat the opposite way to approximators, since they add specificity, which is greatly lacking in HKIL. The adverb where is used only about 9% as often by HK students as by UK students.239 The adverbs here, there and away (listed by Biber et al. 1999: 561, as the most common place adverbs in SE) are each used only about 50% as often by HK students as by UK students. However, the more vague, nowadays occurs almost 800% more often in the HK than in UK students’ texts.240

We see a similar distinction in the degree of specificity between the HK and UK students’ texts in the use of time adverbs. The time adverbs listed by Biber et al. (1999: 561) as common in SE are also mainly underused by HK students: then and still are each used about 80% as often by HK

239 Quirk et al. (1985: 1087) make the point that clauses of contingency and place marked by when, ‘merge’. Although the roles of when as a subordinator and adverb are difficult to distinguish, the word is used much less often in both roles by HK students (only about 15% as often as a subordinator), compared to its use by UK students. 240 Paradoxically, HKIL, like other ILs (see Ringbom 1998: 49–50), makes considerable use of inappropriately vague language while also employing forceful conviction.

students; now and again occur about 50% as often; never is used about 40% as often; and today only about 20% as often as in the UK students’ texts. However, the more indefinite and emphatic always occurs over 160% as often in the HK students’ texts. The expression and modulation of inclusiveness in reference to time, location or quantity are difficult for many HK students:

Nowadays, nearly all Hong Kong people, youngsters and adults alike, are all addicted to the idea the expensive brand-name clothes and accessories are always better.

The imposition of coherence and certainty through adverbial connectors

The tendency for HK student writing to rely on (but grammatically and pragmatically misuse) a narrow range of adverbials in order explicitly to signal cohesion has been much discussed.241 How- ever, the prominent role that these devices play in the system of verification in this particular interlanguage has not, as far as I am aware, been specifically addressed.242 As markers of information, adverbial connectors are important carriers of what several authors (e.g. Chafe & Nichols 1986) refer to as ‘evidential knowledge’. Their contributory role in expressing the typical stance of HK students toward their propositions is bound up with their function as explicit markers of cohesion.

Biber (1988:108) proposes that the most characteristic dimension of variation between spoken and written English is that of ‘involved’ vs ‘informational’ production. While, as we have seen, HK students’ texts are characterised by writer involvement, they are also, paradoxically, marked by an excessive reliance on the conjuncts and conjunctions identified in Table 18. Biber et al. (1999: 562) explain the function of these words as follows:

[The] higher number of common adverbs serving a linking [adverbial] function in academic prose [compared to conversation] … reflects the importance in academic prose of marking the connections between the development of logical arguments.

The distribution of the a particular set of connectors is strikingly consistent across the entire range of HK student proficiency, and is one of the most persistent traits of HKIL, regardless of proficiency. The list in Table 18 is neither exhaustive nor rigorously selective, but demonstrates some of the most variant distributions in the occurrence of clause connectors between the two student corpora.

241 For example, by Crewe (1990); Wilcoxon & Hayward (1991); Field & Yip (1992); Milton & Tsang (1993). Several studies (e.g. Tomiyama 1980) have found that adverbial connectors are generally overused by EFL learners regardless of L1, although Granger & Tyson (1996) found otherwise for the European learners they studied. 242 In general, of course, the central role that sentence connectors play in determining the ‘truth value’ of propositions is fundamental to the study of logic in natural languages (e.g. see Allwood et al. 1977: 26–41).

Table 18: Twenty of the most over/underused conjuncts and conjunctions in HK students’ texts (sorted by LL ratio). Overused UK HK HK/UK LL Underused UK HK HK/UK LL 1 in a nutshell 0 52 - - and 14111 10385 73.6% 746.8 2 last but not least 0 29 - - yet 339 58 17.0% 301.6 3 moreover 10 670 6708.1% 965.5 but 2083 1254 60.3% 270.1 4 besides 6 484 8072.4% 705.7 such as 916 428 46.8% 237.8 5 so 676 1609 238.2% 481.8 or 2691 1792 66.6% 235.2 6 also 1353 2174 160.7% 240.8 than 1060 591 55.8% 175.5 7 furthermore 36 261 724.8% 227.4 however 1285 792 61.7% 153 8 in addition 39 205 525.5% 147.6 e.g. 193 41 21.2% 145.3 9 since 191 258 135.1% 147.2 as 354 136 38.3% 133.5 10 on the other hand 60 231 384.9% 129.0 whether 310 118 38.2% 117.7 11 firstly 71 193 271.6% 71.2 due to 350 148 42.2% 111.5 12 lastly 1 47 4676.0% 65 although 504 264 52.5% 99.2 13 in order 257 443 172.3% 61.9 similarly 59 5 7.8% 76.9 14 thirdly 4 54 1356.6% 60.3 whereas 73 11 15.0% 70.4 15 secondly 51 147 287.5% 58.7 indeed 207 85 41.3% 68.7 16 as a result 101 223 221.2% 58.1 for example 477 299 62.7% 53.4 17 apart from 36 113 314.3% 50.8 though 195 96 49.1% 45.2 18 and so on 24 78 324.7% 36.3 despite 109 42 38.1% 41.4 19 on the contrary 2 31 1558.7% 36.0 certainly 191 100 52.6% 37.3 20 so as 28 83 296.9% 34.7 overall 25 1 4.6% 37.8

The use of particular connectors in HKIL along the conversation–writing dimension varies. We observe that the resultative so is overused by HK students, as we might expect, since it is more typical of speech than writing. However, then, which is also common in speech (see Conrad 1999: 9), is slightly underused by the HK students in comparison to the UK students’ texts. HK writers tend not to have a very firm grasp of the inferential role of this word:

In Hong Kong, the examination system is examination-oriented. Then the result of examination can determine the student’s future prospect.

Two other connectors that Conrad finds typical of speech, the contrast/concession adverbials though and anyway, are also underused by HK students. These connectors do not play the inter- personal roles in HKIL that they do in SE conversation.

Nevertheless, a fairly clear pattern of semantic and pragmatic differences emerges from the data in Tables 17 and 18. Connectors in HK students’ texts mainly add weight through the roles of

• additive reinforcement (e.g. moreover, besides, also), • summation (e.g. in a nutshell,243 in conclusion), • result (e.g. this is the reason why,244 so), • reformulation (e.g. in fact, on the other hand 245),

243 The web-based BNC search engine at http://thetis.bl.uk/lookup.html reports about 70 occurrences of in a nutshell as a summative marker in 100,000,000 words; only a small proportion of these occur in sentence- initial position, and most are from the spoken component. Such metaphorical imagery, as we have seen, is common in the lexical formulæ used by HK students. 244 The noun reason occurs about 300 times more often in the HK students’ scripts than in the UK students’ scripts, often in this expression and variants such as the reason is that.

• vague temporal transition (e.g. nowadays), and • enumeration (e.g. last but not least, firstly, secondly, lastly, and incongruously, at last246).

The HK texts lack many of the semantic relations which are common in the UK texts, and that are important to academic argument structure, such as exemplification (e.g. e.g., i.e., for example), apposition, and concession (e.g. as, yet and however).247 The particular fondness of HK students for a small set of additive conjuncts is also illustrated by the fact that the most frequently occurring ‘general adverb’ in both student corpora is the reinforcing conjunct also, which is about 160% more frequent in the HK students texts than in the UK students’ texts (Table 18, rank 6).

Webster et al. (1987) attempt to account for overused additive conjuncts in the English of HK students by pointing to interference from the closest Cantonese semantic equivalents. However, explicit markers of clause relations are, if anything, less frequent in both Standard Written Chinese and in Cantonese than in English. Cantonese more often employs juxtaposition to signal co-ordination, subordination and conditionality implicitly (see Matthews & Yip 1994: 288–309). Transfer does not provide a clear explanation for why these words should form so prominent a part of the scaffolding of this IL.248 The misuse of such grammatical words and structures may, however, be partly accounted for by the fact that the sense and collocational scope of such words, which are often listed as equivalent in bilingual dictionaries, rarely precisely match.

The discourse markers significantly overused by L2 students appear almost exclusively in sentence- initial position – what Conrad (1999:13) calls the ‘unmarked position’ – unlike in the English L1 students’ texts, where they often occur in medial positions. The tendency to overuse these devices, especially in sentence-initial position, may be partly a result of what Rutherford (1987: 8) describes as the need in ILs for meaning to find “direct grammatical realisation.” The placement of adverbials in thematic position before the clause may be an attempt by HK learners to disambiguate and separate their propositions, and this has the unfortunate effect of heightening the force of their claims.

Primary and secondary EFL instructional materials contain frequent inducements to use ‘logical connectors’ as templates around which students should construct their texts.249 This injunction may

245 On the other hand and apart from usually function as reinforcing additives or ‘reformulatory contrastives’ in HKIL (see Quirk et al. 1985: 634–40 for a discussion of these terms). They rarely have replacive meanings. 246 HK students use this term not to express relief, but rather as a listing conjunct, synonymous with lastly. 247 Surprisingly, the UK and HK students use almost the same total number of tokens acting as connecting expressions, at least those listed in Table 18 (if anything, the UK students may use slightly more). The high frequency of the word and in both corpora (especially in the UK texts) largely accounts for this. 248 Nevertheless, a possible L1 influence on the excessive production of English discourse markers is the sentence-final ‘sentence/utterance particle’ of Chinese. Cantonese has about 30 of these particles (many more than Putonghua), which function as epistemic markers as well as discourse connectors, and are used to convey assertion, contradiction, acceptance, reservation, emphasis etc. (see Matthews & Yip 1994: 338–58). HK learners possibly transfer some of the semantic, pragmatic and textual characteristics of these particles to what they may perceive as equivalent, but sentence-initial, English ‘particles’. However, the HK students do not place English connectors in sentence final position, as is common in SE conversation (see Conrad 1999: 13). For a discussion of how Cantonese speakers rely on these particles in informal English electronic messaging, see James (2000). 249 Materials written by English NSs (e.g. James et al. 1988: 58–9; Burns & Smallwood 1990: 110–1) may be more at fault in this regard than those written by Cantonese NSs (see Milton & Tsang 1993 for specific examples). Even internationally popular EFL materials such as Jordan (1990) present students with lists of barely differentiated lexical connectors, which are likely to encourage their indiscriminate use. Well

be partly based on assumptions about inherent differences between the ways that clausal relationships are signaled in Chinese and English. Clausal relationships are often not explicitly marked in written Chinese (see Matthews & Yip 1994: 288), and ELT practice appears to assume that they are usually explicitly marked in English, and that English is more ‘emphatic and straightforward’ than Chinese.

Theoretical support for the prominence of these devices in English instructional materials is found in Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) influential contention that cohesion is the primary measure of textual coherence. Such authoritative validation, together with the fact that students are more easily instructed in the use of explicit markers than in the use of other types of cohesion devices, 250 provide justification for the prominence which is given to adverbial connectors in instructional materials. What is often overlooked is that these discourse markers carry implicit attitudes toward information that other cohesion devices do not. The Halliday-Hasan model appears to have been simplified in much ELT practice. HK EFL materials consistently stress the liberal use of adverbial connectors, and the presence of these connectors is explicitly identified as a criterion for grading in HK summative assessment.251 Carrell (1982) criticises the Halliday-Hasan ‘theory of cohesion’ for promoting an overly simplistic approach to the teaching of coherence. This assessment appears justified in light of HK students’ belief that an abundance of cohesive ties will ensure a coherent text.

There are other compelling institutional influences that might cause HK students to give prominence to sentence-initial discourse markers. Great importance is attached to the communication of memorised information in HK schools and universities. The demonstration of such knowledge is often endangered by infelicitous L2 sentence grammar and restricted or inappropriate vocabulary, which can make EFL novice writers’ texts difficult to understand. Readers who must grade such papers for content often consider themselves and their students best served by encouraging the use of ‘strong’ discourse markers that explicitly signal the representational information that students are responsible for demonstrating.

Proficient and experienced writers use discourse markers as part of a range of textual functions that distinguish between the marking of information and the marking of cohesion (Biber 1988: 34). However, EFL student discourse in formal assignments and examinations is affected by the need to compensate for syntactic irregularities by increasing the informational weight that connectors are made to bear. Strong additive conjuncts such as moreover and besides (in the non-concessive sense in which they are used by HK students) also reinforce the emotive emphasis that HK students normally attach to propositional information in order to distract the reader from syntactic infelicities and lack of supporting evidence: respected researchers of EFL discourse give only cursory treatment to the issue (e.g. Swales & Feak 1994: 22–3). 250 As we have seen, HK students avoid other cohesive devices (other than certain demonstratives), such as anaphoric reference, the definite article and demonstratives, pronominal substitution and ellipsis, and repetition of varied lexical relations. 251 According to Tong et al. (1991), who are writing as experienced markers for the Hong Kong Examinations Authority, the use of ‘appropriate’ (which many markers take to mean plentiful) connectors on the written section of the A-level Use of English Examination is an important determinant in grading. The word besides is used more than 8000% as often by HK students as by UK students (Table 18), and its frequency is even greater in the scripts of ‘A’- and ‘B’-graded students than in the scripts of ‘D’- and ‘E’- graded students. However, for most other connectors there is no significant difference in frequencies between the most and least proficient students. Overall, additive adverbial connectors are used about twice as often by HK students as by UK students.

Moreover, teenagers are the pillars of community to the future, they should try their best to learn in order to contribute and serve their society.

Often these reinforced statements are not contentious and need no attention drawn to them; the discourse markers seem often merely intended as fillers. However, the effect is that additive conjuncts elevate possibility to certainty, and often substitute for evidence or modalised hedges, as in the following case where the student appears to combine devices to bolster an unsupported claim:

Besides, it is undeniable that the teachers or lecturers hired by the new institution have high qualifications.

Students report that they are specifically told to use ‘logical connectors’ in this way as conspicuous information markers in order to emphasise significant content in their texts. Given (and often apparently mundane) information is forcibly ‘promoted’ to the status of new (and presumably interesting) information by being marked with strong signaling conjuncts. As with other lexis that is explicitly taught, students often also feel compelled to show off their mastery of these devices by using them as often as possible. These strategies, while they may help to make (not always relevant) aspects of content prominent for some readers, manage to achieve this end by forcing the text to be untrue to any form other than the factual responses expected by inquisitional school assignments.

The abundance of some types of adverbial connectors and the scarcity of others clearly affect the expression of epistemic modality, at least as it is defined by Hoye (1997: 42): “Epistemic modality is concerned with matters of belief on which basis speakers express their judgement about states of affairs, events or actions.” HK students, and possibly other L2 learners, are less often expected to argue propositions effectively in the L2 than they might be in their L1. This may be one reason why EFL learners often appear to sacrifice subtle propositional argument in favour of marking significant information. HK students use the same strategy in the construction of the ‘argumentative’ essays they are asked to produce for EFL classes, where it is rarely appropriate. The grammatical and semantic roles that these words fill in the two student corpora are quite different:

Moreover, teenagers will face many public examinations in their school lifes.

Moreover, as Newton and countless other scientists before and after have affirmed, it seems impossible that there was not some guiding hand behind the wonderful complexity of creation.

The first sentence (by a HK student) appears in the first quarter of a script, in which there are a total of 18 clausal connectors – all in sentence-initial position.252 The second sentence (by a UK student) is from the last half of a script, in which there is no other explicit clause-linking adverbial. The overuse of strong reinforcing devices, such as moreover, coincides with a paucity of adverbs and other words used to qualify and downtone. As a result, HK students’ texts come across as excessively assertive. The UK student writers, on the other hand, employ more complex language patterns (e.g. passives, auxiliaries and deixis) more often, and make use of a much wider variety of lexical and grammatical structures. The NS writer both specifies his proposition through exemplification (as Newton and … other[s] before and after have affirmed), and, with an epistemic verb, softens the assertion associated with the word moreover (it seems impossible that…). The HK L2 writers are not taught the need for balanced, evidential discourse, nor do they have the directed and supported access to SE texts that would allow them to model such patterns.

252 That is, so (2), moreover (2), therefore (2), as a result (2), secondly (1), and (2), on the other hand (1), consequently (1), generally (1), the fact is that (1), in order to (1), furthermore (1), and to sum up (1).

Differences in the way that cohesion and evidentiality are expressed in the learners’ texts may partly explain why some studies of ‘contrastive rhetoric’ (beginning with Kaplan 1966) have found that the ‘thought patterns’ of Chinese speakers differ from those of native English speakers. A more comprehensive analysis than is possible here is necessary in order to explore these possibilities. However, it appears that forces within the institutional environment may at least partly account for the variant use of these features, although there may also be L1 transfer and other cultural factors at work as well.

The expression of epistemic modality by that-complementation

Table 19 opposite lists verb forms that occur as matrix verbs of that-complement clauses in 500,000 words of UK and HK students’ scripts.

Table 19: The most frequent verb forms controlling that-complement clauses in the UK and HK students’ corpora. Overused UK HK HK/UK LL Underused UK HK HK/UK LL think 84 829 987.2% 741.8 means 120 33 27.2% 58.0 say 129 671 520.2% 425.1 argued 87 22 25.7% 44.6 know 19 132 697.3% 100.7 feel 114 50 43.8% 28.0 find 12 92 767.1% 73.5 seem 25 2 6.9% 26.8 agree 24 118 491.1% 71.5 states 24 2 7.2% 25.4 believe 151 314 207.9% 62.2 mean 74 27 36.0% 25.2 argue 102 225 220.1% 50.2 seen 37 8 20.9% 22.8 claim 47 131 278.2% 43.6 suggests 25 3 13.8% 20.3 deny 7 52 737.4% 40.4 realised 19 2 9.1% 18.6 point out 20 71 357.0% 32.5 realise 25 5 20.6% 15.5 hope 17 51 298.6% 18.7 ensure 33 12 36.5% 11.0 believed 23 58 254.3% 17.0 accept 18 4 23.9% 9.9 suggest 20 52 262.4% 16.0 claimed 42 20 47.1% 8.9 denied 4 20 494.6% 12.1 concluded 8 1 10.8% 7.3 show 15 39 258.1% 11.5 explains 10 2 17.2% 7.1 said 54 93 172.1% 11.1 knows 4 15 387.1% 7.7 insist 2 11 559.2% 7.4 Unused in the UK student corpus Unused in the HK student corpus support 37 meant 35 hold 34 evident 15 understand 22 appear 14 realise 20 appears 14 disagree 19 aware 14 regard 17 apparent 12 reveal 15 ensures 11 proclaim 13 feels 10 deem 12 sense 10 worry 9 suggesting 10 forget 8 estimated 9 imagine 8 remembered 8 learn 8 considers 7 maintain 8 proving 6 notice 8 implying 5 realised 8 held 6 mention 6 recommend 6 advocate 5 criticise 5 guarantee 5 indicated 5 Provide 5 Reflects 5 reminded 5

There are some 2,300 complement clauses controlled by verbs in the UK students’ corpus, but about twice that number in the HK corpus. There are about twice again this number of noun clauses in each corpus if we include Ø-that complements, assuming that other verbs follow the same pattern as the verb think.253 Biber et al. (1999) point out that that-complements are most common in SE conversation, where the complementiser is usually omitted. In the frequency of that-

253 I counted all Ø-that complement clauses after think, the most frequent matrix verb in both the HK and UK student corpora, and found that Ø-that complement clauses occur with about the same regularity as that- complement clauses in both corpora.

complements, HKIL is similar to conversation, although it does not have as high a tendency for reduction (i.e. omission of the complementiser). Even the UK students’ texts make much more use of this structure than the academic SE texts analysed by Biber et al. (op. cit. 1999: 680).

The matrix verbs that HK students rely on tend mostly to be ‘private’ (see Quirk et al. 1985: 1181) and uninflected, especially think, know and believe. Some of these verbs (e.g. understand that) never occur in this function in the UK students’ corpus. The most frequent subject of the verbs think and believe in both student corpora is I, but the HK students are much more inclined than the UK students to claim direct knowledge of general opinion by also making people the subject of many of these mental verbs. As we noted previously, they also frequently preface these verbs with the emphatic operator do. In the HK students’ sentences, the subordinate clauses controlled by these verbs also much more often contain the modal should in its deontic sense to dispense advice:254

Besides, I think the teachers and social workers in the school should give and help the young people to develop a right attitude towards loving affairs.

The verb say is not primarily used as a literal communication verb in either student corpus. Both groups use it almost exclusively as a synonym for contend, a sort of private verb made public. The HK students use it, again, to report general opinion, in phrases such as some people say, others say, some say, they say, and as an emphasiser – needless to say. UK students, however, mainly use it in modal expressions that hedge or concede: it is fair to say, I would say, this is not to say.

HK students also demonstrate their reliance on the that-complement structure by ungrammatically extending the range of verbs that can control complement clauses, as we see in Table 19 (e.g. support that; regard that):

There are some people who support that teenagers having romantic relationships can be of great benefits to both of them.

HK students also often make incongruous use of unusual verbs of rather intense personal conviction (e.g. hold that):

But the advocates hold that their argument cannot reflect the reality.

The matrix verb of that-complement clauses most underused by HK students, relative to their NS counterparts, is mean, in both base and inflected forms. HK students use only about 50% of all noun and verb forms of the word mean compared to the UK students. When HK students do use the verb form, it is mainly to paraphrase (e.g. what I mean is …). Explanations signalled by the verb are usually more superficial than in the UK students’ sentences:255

Wearing these clothes and accessories give people an impression that he or she has a very high pursuing power. In turn, it means that they have a better salary. (HK)

254 Should occurs in about 20% of that-complement clauses controlled by think in both HK and UK students’ texts, but in the UK texts, it is often used in a deontic sense (e.g. I think that we should be able to achieve it…). 255 HK students are much less inclined than the UK students to provide explanations. Noun and verb forms of explain are used about only 60% as often by HK students as by UK students.

The individuality of the West often means that those who are considered of little worth suffer, a distinction which seems much less common in the Third world. (UK)

The inflected form meant, which does not occur in the 500,000 words of HK students’ texts, occurs in the UK texts in mainly present perfect and passive constructions (has meant, are meant to …).

The UK students use more ‘public’ verbs (e.g. argued, states), often in inflected forms, again mainly not in their literal communication sense. These verbs are heavily modalised and often passive (e.g. it can be argued that; I would argue that). The subjects tend to be hypostatised (e.g. the law states that). The UK students also tend to use more ‘suasive’ verbs, such as suggest (e.g. it is reasonable to suggest that). (See Quirk et al. 1985: 1180.) In the UK students’ texts, this verb usually implies a modest or tentative attitude toward the writers’ own propositions, or polite doubt toward others:

It has been suggested that a scientist cannot believe in God, and that a person who believes in God cannot be a scientist.

HK students, however, use it less modestly:

Therefore, I suggest that the school and the parents should educate the students completely on the value of the life.

The private verb feel is used more by the UK students than by HK students as a matrix verb of that- complement clauses (UK:HK = 114:50), but more frequently overall by HK students (UK:HK = 316: 354). UK students tend to use it to describe their own opinions:

I personally feel that there should be a vetting committee set up, and all articles should be vetted by this group before they are published.

HK students use the verb much more frequently to project their opinions on others:

Being able to afford such items up-grades your status and makes you feel more superior.

As Biber & Reppen (1998) observe, the number of verb types governing complement clauses is limited in L2 texts, which is consistent with the HK students’ greatly restricted vocabulary.256 The UK students display a much broader range of matrix verbs and of course make more use than the HK students of inflected forms. Biber & Reppen point out the high frequency of the verb hope before that-clauses in English NNS texts of the LLC. There is also a disproportionate use of this

256 The acquisition of that-complement controlling verbs has been widely studied in first language acquisition. Pinker (1996: 209–42) reviews several studies that find a specific group of verbs, among which are included consider, promise and believe, occurring in English L1 acquisition more often with simple transitive objects (e.g. They consider this…) than with complement clauses. SLA studies often claim to find correlations between the acquisitional patterns of first and second language learners, but I can find none in the uses HK learners make of these verbs. The verb consider occurs about half as frequently in the HK as in the UK students’ texts, but is used as the matrix verb of complement clauses proportionately as frequently as in the UK texts. Promise occurs about half as often in UK students’ texts as in the HK texts. It is never the matrix verb of a that-complement clause in the UK texts, but occurs in this role 14 out of the 22 times it occurs in the HK texts. Also, while the verb believe occurs about 40% more frequently in the UK students texts than in the HK texts, the HK students complete it with a that-complement clause about 30% more often than do the UK students. I can find no evidence in the matrix verbs underused or not used by HK students of other observations made of first language acquisition; for example, that matrix verbs which can omit the complementiser are acquired before those that cannot (cf. Pinker 1996: 226).

combination in the HK texts compared to the UK texts, and this choice is consistent with the HK students’ preference for highly personal (and repetitive) discourse (e.g. I hope that…; I think that …257). The HK students appear much less aware than the UK students of the need to distance themselves from their declarations, and in any event lack the necessary lexicogrammatical and discoursal devices to do so. The UK students, by comparison, produce a wide variety of passive and modal patterns: It is to be hoped that …; It would appear that … etc.258

Very often the same matrix clauses that are used by the NS student authors to ‘shield’ their opinions are instead normally used by the NNS student writers to assert their propositions. This difference is further signalled by sentence position. For example, the matrix clause I think in the HK students’ texts occurs invariably in sentence-initial position or directly after an adverbial (often redundantly):

In my opinion, I think this is a bad trend for students to follow.

However, in the UK students’ texts, it often occupies a medial (and parenthetical) position:

Western society, I think, has lost site of its basic values.

The position of private matrix verbs in the texts themselves is perhaps even more significant. In the UK students’ texts, private matrix verbs of that-complements such as I think, I believe and I feel tend to occur later in the essay, commenting on supporting evidence that has already been presented:

To conclude, I think that in this century the scientist has certainly not done more harm than good.

In the HK students’ scripts these structures are liberally sprinkled throughout the texts, claiming facts not in evidence and offering unsupported opinions:

I think the answer is obvious.

Even when a HK student does use the verb think to express hesitation (as in the following example, where it is part of a lexical formula), it is often in the form of an exhortation:

Everyone should think twice before purchasing them.

The force and effect of the same idiom is quite different in the UK students’ texts, partly because of the difference in modality:

It would probably make those erstwhile skinheads think twice before committing acts of racism.

257 HK students are often explicitly reminded in the examination or assignment rubric to discuss the topic, and encouraged to do so using a that-complement clause governed by a cognition verb (e.g. Say whether you feel that…). Of course, that-clause complements normally express factual information which is reported, known, believed or perceived, but HK students are less likely to make use of epistemic devices in this structure. 258 Biber & Reppen are appropriately careful when they assign causes to observations, but they demonstrate how hard it is to attribute apparent IL characteristics to L1 transfer. They indicate in passing that the word say rarely occurs in their corpus of English texts written by Chinese speakers (op. cit.: 158), which they hypothesise as possibly due to L1 transfer. However, the forms say/saying are used almost three times as often in the HK student corpus as in the UK student corpus. Although HK students in general avoid past tense forms, said is used as frequently by the HK students as by the UK students. The overuse of this lemma by HK students is most probably the result of a limited vocabulary (say is one of the most frequently occurring lexical verbs in most general NS corpora) and the inclination by HK student to use simple reporting structures.

HK EFL learners can normally make use of only a relatively small number of clause types and sentence structures because these are all that have been made available to them; often presented in lists of decontextualised phrases; or because they are discouraged from using a variety of forms for fear of making mistakes in examinations. For example, the avoidance of relative clauses in the writing of Chinese learners of English was first documented by Schachter (1974), and has been discussed many times since. Although relatives and that-complements are not in grammatical competition in the learners’ texts, the general absence of relative clauses gives more weight to the claims associated with complement clauses. Relative clauses are largely unavailable in HKIL to perform their normal qualifying and specifying functions. The much higher proportion of that-complement clauses to relative clauses in the texts of HK students, compared to the UK students’ texts, is yet another structural feature contributing to the impression of a naïve confidence, which is typical of the stance often taken by novice students toward their propositions.

Common expressions in HK students’ texts used to convey this certainty constitute a densely packed repertoire of complement structures: I am of the opinion that …; One should bear in mind that …; The most important thing is that …; Another reason is that …; It is beyond doubt that …; It is an undisputed fact that …; It is a sad/universal truth that ….259 The adjectives (not listed in Table 19) which most often control that-complements in the HK students’ corpus are important, true, clear, obvious, undeniable and possible. As we might expect, they are all used more often by HK students than by UK students, except for possible. The less than restrained manner in which the HK students tend to use these words suggests that they constitute one more mechanism for trying to force communicative dynamism on otherwise banal topics:

It is extremely important that every student try all their best to acquire maximum knowledge.

In Hong Kong, it is very true that people think very highly of expensive brand-name goods.

In the matter of students spending a lot of money on buying high class clothes, it is crystal clear that they are wrong.

It is very obvious that the HKUST has a better accommodation hall and library than the HKU!

Possibility is often turned into certainty:

No one can deny that it is possible that they will force to do some illegal things.

The constraints under which these students learn to write result in language that might easily convey the impression of inept and careless logic, or the writers’ collective sense of self- importance. However, it is not any lack of innate sense, any more than it is a lack of motivation, on the part of HK students that explains these patterns of production. Rather, this is a style of writing that HK students have for many years been schooled in.

259 A number of points might be made about that-complements of nouns. One is that the grammatical requirement for them to be paired with a definite noun head is often not clear to the learners (e.g. This trend will lead to a grave problem that students are materialistic.) That-clauses after nouns appear often to act as alternatives to the largely avoided genitive in HKIL, as in this example: This … leads to … the students’ materialistic tendencies. They also contribute to the forceful stance of HK learners’ texts. For example, the expression the fact that occurs more than twice as frequently in the HK student corpus as in the UK student corpus (155:77 in 500,000 words).

Degrees of depersonalisation and impersonalisation

People is the most frequently occurring noun in the HK students’ texts.260 This word appears in several of the HK examination prompts, but HK students overuse it in comparison to the UK students even when it does not appear in the particular rubric to which they are responding. More proficient HK students use the word only slightly less often than the least proficient learners. In contrast, the UK students use the word person(s) twice as frequently as HK students. The word person(s) is usually associated with specificity in the UK students’ texts, where in most cases it correlates with a relative clause, is used in the genitive case, and is modified by such adjectives as particular, individual, or the definite article.261

The overuse of plural nouns in HKIL is, as we have seen, noteworthy because of the discoursal overgeneralisation that plurals bring to the HK students’ texts. People is used over three times more often by HK students than UK students, who in turn use it more than twice as often as do the authors of the BNC written sample corpus. The most frequent use of the word in the HK scripts is in the simple reporting statement: INDEFINITE DETERMINER (many/some) + people + REPORTING VERB (believe/think/say) + THAT. This particular ‘lexical bundle’ occurs 650 times in the HK student corpus, 130 times in a corpus of the same size of Taiwan students’ texts, but no more than a dozen times in the UK student corpus, and never in the BNC written sample – although similar constructions are common in the BNC spoken sample.

One possibility that might account for the frequency of this structure is the manner in which HK students attempt to disguise epistemic source, i.e. by attributing a view to either all mankind, or some vague group. The use of the word people provides an alternative for L2 students to the passive, which they admit to avoiding because they are not confident of its syntax (nor are they aware of its discoursal effects as a distancing device). Passive constructions, which are common in the texts of the UK students, are of course used to good effect when the writer wants to distance him/herself from the proposition:

It can therefore be argued that the press is acting as a kind of moral police force.

HK students have few alternatives other than straightforward reporting structures:

Therefore, some people say that students should not have romantic relationships.262

The main clause structure here, preferred by HK students, – INDEFINITE NP SUBJECT + ACTIVE- VOICE-VERB – is less guarded than the NS students’ preference for passive structures. The HK students have little reason to use the passive in most school assignments and examinations, at least

260 HK:UK = 6297:2042 in 500,000 words. HK students also overuse singular nouns that are very general in meaning (e.g. ‘thing’ is twice as frequent in the HK student corpus as in the UK student corpus). 261 For a detailed discussion of the generic nature of people in contrast to the more specific meaning of person(s), see Reid (1991: 56–66). 262 As I noted earlier, Chinese sentences (both Cantonese and Putonghua) appear to resist indefinite subjects, so this common HKIL pattern does not reflect Chinese sentence structure. A direct translation would require an existential (i.e. Therefore, there are…).

in secondary school EFL courses, where the topics tend to be highly personal, and to encourage a subjective and forceful stance.263

The high frequency of the word people has also been observed in the written English of European learners (cf. Kaszubski 1996; Ringbom 1998: 49). Its value as a generalised referent may be the main reason for its characteristic overuse in student writing. Wales (1996: 5) refers to such words as people and things as ‘pseudo-pronouns’. The predominance of such semantically empty pro- forms, and the fact that they are mainly used deictically rather than anaphorically, also helps to account for the ‘ego projection’ that is characteristic of much HKIL discourse.264

A transfer factor that may further encourage the avoidance of the passive and the use of the word people is the requirement in Cantonese that unknown or generic agents be represented (by yàhn – ‘people’ or yéh – ‘thing’),265 unlike in English – and Putonghua – where they can be omitted.266 Passives are reportedly less common in Cantonese than in English, and agentless passives very rare (cf. Matthews & Yip 1994: 149–53). When passives are used in Cantonese they are typically adversative and used to indicate an unpleasant action directed at the agent. We should note, however, that studies of epistemic statement in Chinese (e.g. Bloch & Chi 1995) suggest that formal written Chinese favours an even more cautious and indirect style than is normal in written English.

The expression of epistemic modality by modal verbs

Epistemic modal verbs are the most disparately distributed epistemic devices between the two student corpora, possibly because their wide semantic scope makes them difficult for EFL novice writers, but even more so because of the stance that HK students are encouraged to adopt in their semi-formal writing. Table 20 overleaf compares the use of the primary modal auxiliaries in the UK and HK students’ corpora. The ‘Rank’ column refers to the rank among all words, tagged as separate word classes by CL-7 tags.

263 HK students tend to stress propositional validity by making their assertions highly personal. The UK students tend to use more impersonalised forms, avoiding reference to themselves when commenting on the truth of a claim. They frequently conceal the source of epistemic judgments by the use of impersonal pronouns and the passive voice (although novice NS writers sometimes overuse the passive). The presence of personalised forms in the texts of HK students does not in itself indicate inappropriate tone, but their frequency, incongruity and relatively informality in the L2 essays suggest a comparative lack of control of this genre. The NNSs also have greater problems in manipulating impersonal forms appropriately in academic writing. In particular, the injunction to suppress human agency creates a range of errors such as misuse of empty subjects and faulty tense choices: It is no doubt that the students as well as the adults have this characteristic. / It is clearly showing that these buyers usually lack confidence. 264 There are also more prosaic reasons why a word such as people might be favoured. It is one of the most frequently occurring nouns in English (the second most frequent noun in the BNC, after time). Since the vocabulary of the HK students is much smaller than that of the UK students, we would anticipate high- frequency words would occur with disproportional frequency in the HK student corpus. The HK students make little use of the synonyms found in the UK scripts (e.g. human, man, individual, someone, person). 265 Matthews & Yip (1994: 149) illustrate this in examples of Cantonese passive constructions. HK students could be generalising the need to specify the agent with people in a particular Cantonese structure by trans- posing it to other English constructions. 266 Putonghua-speaking Taiwanese students also overuse the word compared to the UK school-leavers, but by a much smaller margin than the Cantonese speakers.

Table 20: Modal verbs in 500,000 words of UK and HK students’ texts.

Rank Overused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio Rank Underused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio 14 can 2603 6049 232.4% 1589.8 17 could 952 229 24.0% 559.2 26 will 1528 3671 240.3% 1021.5 19 would 2300 1071 46.6% 532.7 46 may 1243 2573 207.0% 532.1 225 might 250 80 32.1% 106.8 411 let’s 1 30 2953.9% 36.3 288 must 658 383 58.2% 84.6 413 should 1069 1347 126.0% 36.3 1941 shall 20 7 34.1% 7.9 496 need (to) 9 17 185.1% 2.6 2711 used to 30 17 58.1% 3.9

Differences not statistically significant 817 dare (to) 1 3 - - 4723 ought to 14 11 - -

The greater use of could and would by the NS speakers, relative to the HK learners, is not explained by the higher incidence of past tense in their texts. No more than 15% of the occurrences of could, and even fewer occurrences of would in the UK student corpus, are associated with past time. Rather, the HK and UK student writers use the five most frequently occurring ‘central modals’ quite differently. The greater distribution of could and would in the UK student corpus suggests that the propositions and observations made by the NS student writers tend to be relatively tentative, and the much greater use of can, will (and, to a lesser degree, should) by HK students suggests that the NNS students make statements with considerably greater force.

Again, the greater use of must by UK students may be the exception that proves the rule. That is, the overall substantial use of hedging by UK students seems to permit them to indicate strong obligation or necessity when they consider it necessary. A rather crude measure of the difference between the way that UK and HK students use conviction devices is to count their relative positions in a number of texts. I computed the line numbers in which the word must occurs in all UK and HK scripts: the word occurs mostly in the conclusions of the UK texts (i.e. in the last 30% of the words in more than 80% of UK texts) but is as likely to occur in the first half of any HK text as in the second half. The semi-modal have (got) to occurs with almost equal frequency in both student corpora (UK:HK = 288:291), but again, more often toward the end of UK students’ texts. The latter distributions are largely explained by the fact that while must (and have [got] to) are mainly used in inferential/epistemic senses in both corpora, they are used more often by the UK students to assert confidence on the basis of evidence (and thus occur later in their texts, when conclusions are reached). To confirm these impressions, we need to determine how deontic and epistemic senses are distributed in the corpora. One way to disambiguate these word senses is by examining their lexical contexts (see Table 21).

First, however, we should clarify how modals are distributed in other registers. Figure 6 graphs the frequencies of the eight most frequently occurring central modals in each student corpus, compared to their frequencies in academic writing and conversation (as reported by Biber et al. 1999: 89).

100

Figure 6: Frequencies of central modals in the two student corpora (sorted by frequency in UK students’ corpus), compared to conversation and academic writing.

The insert in Figure 6 illustrates the remarkably greater overall use of modals in both corpora of students’ texts compared to the academic texts of ‘expert writers’. This may indicate excessive use of verb modality by novice writers in general, possibly influenced by the characteristics of conversation, or it may be simply a feature of the particular ‘argumentative’ essay text type that secondary school students are normally assigned. The distributions of five of the modals in the UK students’ texts, nevertheless, seem reasonably close to those of the academic texts of ‘expert writers’. The exceptions are can, would and could. It seems reasonable to postulate that these distributional patterns in UK students’ texts are characteristic of a text type in which students are expected to debate possibilities using can and could, and where the relatively proficient UK students have acquired the ability to situate information, as well as to make claims conditionally and cautiously (e.g. by using would):

Promises would have to be maintained and carried out by each party, particularly those made prior to the general election.

In the HK students’ texts, on the other hand, the set of modals closest to conversational usage includes can (greatly overused), will and must. Would, which is also very common in conversation, is, however, much less common in the HK students’ texts.

The separate senses of these modals can be partially disambiguated by looking at the common ‘lexical bundles’ in which they occur. The combination of MODAL + LEXICAL INFINITIVE (VM VVI) occurs 260% more frequently in HK students’ texts than in the UK counterparts. Table 21 suggests some of the differences in the senses of can (the modal most overused by HK students) in the two corpora.

101

Table 21: The 20 most frequent right-hand collocates of the modal can in 500,000 words of students’ texts. Rank Overused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio Underused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio 1 can help 17 215 1264.5% 200.04 can often 20 2 9.3% 17.6 2 can learn 17 131 770.5% 99.62 can cause 28 6 21.1% 15.6 3 can make 19 133 701.1% 96.42 can only 75 35 46.4% 15.1 4 can have 33 161 488.8% 92.33 can now 17 2 13.1% 12.9 5 can get 18 114 631.1% 77.40 can no 12 1 12.3% 9.4 6 can use 16 104 652.1% 72.50 can result 8 1 9.3% 7.0 7 can encourage 4 55 1369.0% 52.24 can it 13 3 22.8% 6.8 8 can give 18 89 495.4% 51.56 can never 17 6 32.6% 6.1 9 can find 11 73 666.0% 51.52 can conduct 6 1 12.3% 4.7 10 can also 79 192 243.1% 48.62 can survive 8 2 23.1% 4.1 11 can afford 12 73 607.4% 48.51 can all 6 1 18.5% 3.7 12 can easily 8 61 767.8% 46.63 can involve 6 1 24.7% 2.9 13 can know 2 43 2127.5% 45.44 can and 5 1 22.2% 2.7 14 can relax 1 37 3737.0% 43.93 can appreciate 5 1 22.2% 2.7 15 can read 2 41 2035.0% 43.05 can clearly 5 1 22.2% 2.7 16 can provide 12 62 514.9% 36.77 can prevent 7 2 31.7% 2.6 17 can teach 1 29 2923.0% 33.12 can then 11 6 50.5% 1.8 18 can enjoy 10 50 499.5% 29.06 can lead 23 15 66.0% 1.6 19 can they 5 34 688.2% 24.65 can at 3 1 24.7% 1.5 20 can buy 15 55 367.5% 24.42 can convert 3 1 24.7% 1.5

UK students are much more inclined to modify modalised verbs with adverbs such as only, often, now and never. HK students, by comparison, rarely modify verbs modalised with can (except with the additive reinforcing conjunct also), which is consistent with the ‘all or nothing’ tenor of their writing. However, again, the differences between the HK and UK students’ texts are not simply that the former are invariably more forceful than the latter. For example, the modification of the predicate by only, a pattern preferred by UK students, often intensifies the writer’s proposition, though usually within a specified context or condition:

This unemployment can only be eliminated by using supply side policies.

Correspondingly, we see that HK students use the modal can much more often with the verb help, which itself has modal-like ameliorating properties:

When students follow this trend, it can help to develop the economy in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, the use of such formulæ in the HK students’ texts does not compensate for the overall lack of appropriately hedged (and situated) referential and propositional information.

When we broaden the collocational horizons, the patterns formed with the modal can are even more distinctive. The bundle can be, which is the most frequently occurring bi-gram involving the modal can in both student corpora, occurs about as frequently in both corpora. UK:HK = 846:887 in 500,000 words each. However, this bi-gram forms very different lexical and structural constituents in each corpus. The most frequent combinations in the UK student corpus are used in extrinsic (epistemic) senses to mean first possibility, and second, ability: can be seen (94 occurrences) and can be used (72), which produce such lexical bundles as it can be seen that (17) and can be used to determine (5). Also, a relatively common matrix clause in the UK student corpus is it can be argued (20). These modalised expressions are, as we see, often passivised and relativised by the UK students, e.g. which/that can be (60). In the HK student corpus, however, the bi-gram can be

102

forms a much smaller set of frequently occurring phrases. These tend either to be fixed amplifying expressions used almost indiscriminately, or parroted from the examination prompt. An example of the former is one of the most overused phrases in the HK students’ corpus, of great benefit (145):

Comic books can be of great benefit for educational purposes.

After can, the next most frequent modal in the HK student corpus, and the second most disparately used, is will. Table 22 lists the most frequent right-hand collocates of will.

Table 22: The 20 most frequent right-hand collocates of the modal will in 500,000 words of UK and HK students’ texts.

Rank Overused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio Underused UK HK HK/UK LL ratio 1 will affect 4 113 2821.3% 127.1 will run 6 0 0 - 2 will be 305 630 206.7% 115.8 will either 6 0 0 - 3 will find 12 91 755.4% 68.3 will hopefully 4 0 0 - 4 will give 2 53 2664.0% 59.4 will ever 3 0 0 - 5 will make 9 71 789.3% 54.7 will boost 3 0 0 - 6 will spend 1 45 4514.0% 54.3 will examine 3 0 0 - 7 will think 1 43 4255.0% 50.9 will ensure 3 0 0 - 8 will try 7 61 877.4% 49.7 will always 53 14 27.2% 23.5 9 will have 80 192 239.6% 47.3 will remain 9 1 8.2% 8.3 10 will not 112 239 213.1% 46.8 will eventually 17 5 28.3% 7.2 11 will become 27 98 363.1% 42.9 will still 15 4 27.1% 6.7 12 will also 21 70 334.8% 28.1 will never 22 9 38.7% 6.2 13 will learn 1 22 2220.0% 23.9 14 will feel 7 38 544.4% 23.6 15 will buy 3 28 925.0% 23.0 16 will do 8 39 490.3% 22.5 17 will follow 1 21 2072.0% 22.0 18 will surely 1 18 1776.0% 18.2 19 will work 1 17 1665.0% 16.8 20 will choose 1 17 1665.0% 16.8

Again, we observe that the HK students tend not to use pre-modifying adverbs in this modal structure, with the exception of two reinforcing conjuncts: also and then (HK:UK = 18:5); and two ‘conviction disjuncts’: surely and certainly (HK:UK = 17:2). The adverbs they either do not use, or use sparingly in comparison to the UK students, are either, hopefully, ever, always, eventually, still and never. The most frequently occurring of these modifiers, the time adverb always, is another exception to the overall trend of the NSs to be more tentative than the NNSs:

Thus violence will always be present in human behaviour. (UK)

In the UK students’ texts, such strong conclusive statements, especially when the reference is to propositional information, are usually found near the end of the essay, very often in the last sentence. When such statements are not conclusive, they are usually hedged or specifically situated:

At a road side car crash, people will always crowd around and try to see the victims.

103

By comparison, amplified claims (e.g. will surely) in the HK students’ texts are as likely to occur anywhere in the text, without hedging and without adverbial situation.267

Similar quantitative differences apply to the way the modal may is used in the two student corpora. The UK students use this word more often with epistemic verbs such as seem, and cause and effect verbs (e.g. lead, cause, result). The HK students use it more often with verbs referring to internal states and emotive verbs (e.g. think), which, as we have seen, in HKIL, are usually used to express conviction rather than to signal reservation.

Variations in the expression of doubt and certainty among L2 students

To what degree do more proficient HK students acquire the ability to express tentativeness and to reserve certainty in their writing? Hyland & Milton (1997) identified 19 common words in three lexical classes (adverbs, full verbs and modals) and four ‘epistemic categories’ (certainty, probability, possibility and ‘usuality’), and counted these across the seven gradesets of the HK student examination corpus, and in the UK student corpus.268 They found that the overall distribution of epistemic categories in the texts of HK students at higher-grade levels moves towards NS usage. Weaker HK students employ a significantly higher proportion of the identified certainty markers, while almost half of all the probability and possibility devices in the HK student corpus were found in the ‘A’- and ‘B’-graded essays. Figures 7 and 8 graph the distribution of modal verbs in 100,000 words of the UK students’ scripts and across the seven grade ranges of HK students’ scripts. These distributions tell a similar, though more complex, story than reported in the Milton & Hyland study. While the use of modal verbs by more proficient NNS students indeed suggests a more tentative style than that of the less proficient students, even the most proficient HK students greatly overuse certain modals and avoid the more problematic verbs.

267 Another reason always may occur less often than we expect in the HK student’s texts is the difficulty the students have distinguishing between the meanings of usually, always etc. 268 They manually examined occurrences in 50,000 words of each section of the HK corpus and 50,000 words of the UK corpus to confirm the sense of each word, and then classified them by sense into four categories, viz. certainty: actually, certainly, indeed,in fact, know, think, will; probability: believe, probably, quite, seem, would; possibility: may, might, perhaps, possible, possibly; and usuality: always, often, usually.

104

Figure 7: Overused modal verbs as distributed in 100,000 words of the ‘GS’ (GCSE) scripts of proficient UK students and in 100,000 words of each of seven grade sets of HK students’ scripts.

We see in Figure 7 that the most overused modal, can, is used less often by more proficient HK students, though still much more often than by NSs. The range of expressions in which can is used is quantitatively similar between both high and low proficiency students (e.g. both groups make extensive use of the parroted expression can be used for educational purposes, and tend not to use adverbs in modal constructions). Restraint in the use of the modal will appears to be somewhat more readily acquired than that of can: there is a greater proportional decrease in the use of will by more proficient students, who nevertheless do not use it with the type of downtoning adverbs used by NSs.269 However, the modal may, which is also generally overused by HK students, moves even further away from NS quantitative use as general proficiency increases, although it falls off slightly in the texts of ‘A’-graded students. This is another sign that the more proficient HK students make some effort to temper their statements. They tend to use may more often in impersonal contexts (e.g. this may be due to), compared to less proficient students, who appear to use it mainly to indicate high probability (people may think it is; people may be affected by). However, the texts of even the most proficient HK students can be excessively personal, as we see in the case of the ‘marginal modal’ let’s, which undergoes a remarkable relative increase in use by more proficient students (although there are still few absolute occurrences). Also, more proficient HK students do not make any less use of should, and continue to use it almost invariably in its advisory meaning:

Young people should learn to enrich their minds and befriend with others according to personal qualities, instead of solely appearance. (HK, ‘A’ grade)

The UK students very often hedge this modal, and use it much less directly:

The question of how free the press should be to spotlight the life of an individual is a hard one to answer.

269 The slight ‘hump’ that is discernable in this and some of the other graphs may reflect the same ‘U-shape’ phenomenon that Kellerman (1985) noted, which we discussed briefly in Chapter 1. Kellerman theorised that at intermediate stages students often temporarily move further away from target-like behaviour as they experiment with IL forms.

105

The graphs in Figure 8 plot the distributions of modals generally underused by HK students. More proficient students do not appear any more confident in the use of could and would than the less proficient students. The NSs use these words almost exclusively in impersonal constructions (e.g. it could be argued / said / seen). However, even the most proficient HK students use them mainly with human subjects to indicate strong commitment (e.g. youngsters could definitely learn; I would like; others would easily follow the trend).

Figure 8: Underused modal verbs as distributed in 100,000 words of the ‘GS’ (GCSE) scripts of proficient UK students and in 100,000 words of each of seven grade sets of HK students’ scripts.

Again, the tendency for some movement toward greater tentativeness in the writing of more proficient HK students is demonstrated in their increased use of might, although the verb continues to be used with personal subjects in even the most proficient HK students’ texts:

The probability that they might treat materialistic enjoyment as a thing which takes precedence over everything else is certainly great (HK, ‘A’-grade)

Unlike the UK students, HK students rarely use this or other modals in either the main or subordinate clauses of conditional sentences:

The developed world might be able to conserve what resources they have if more money is put into researching and improving the dependence on renewable resources.

106

The reason for the preference by more proficient students for have to rather than must is not clear, though both are generally underused by HK students.

Epistemic clusters

One final dimension of epistemic usage we should note is the reported tendency by more proficient writers to ‘cluster’ hedging devices together (see Banks 1994). Lyons (1977: 807) describes contexts where two or more forms express the same degree of modality as ‘modally harmonic’, such that “there is a kind of concord running through the clause, which results in the double realisation of a single modality”. About 25% of all modalised sentences in the UK students’ texts contain at least two epistemic markers, which principally function to hedge claims:

By making such laws it might be possible to remove other prejudice and discrimination.

Not only do the HK students’ texts contain far fewer epistemic clusters, but where they do occur, their principal role seems mainly to emphasise the writer’s confidence in the accompanying proposition, rather than hedge the writer’s commitment:

In my view, I think that it is a good trend for students to follow.

Moreover, the L2 students often have difficulty in accurately combining epistemic forms. HK students frequently seem to misjudge the combined value of devices, consequently investing their claims with possibly unintended conviction. The very act of being too insistent can give the impression of being guarded and insecure, and is frequently a sign of naïveté:

It is far beyond doubt that Hong Kong is an information-filled metropolis.

There are also many examples of modally non-harmonic clusters in the L2 essays, where forms are collocated in ways which fail to achieve a congruent degree of the apparently intended certainty:

Evidently, they should bear a part of the responsibility in fact.

The combination of excessively definite forms and the inability to achieve an appropriate balance of assurance and probability, combined with frequent inaccuracy, demonstrates once again the difficulties that epistemic usage in English presents for these NNSs.

107

108

Chapter Four: Conclusion

Summary

Allwright (1984) wondered why the production of ESL students is so little affected by language instruction. The foregoing study suggests that interlanguage can sometimes, and in large part, be accounted for by the means and ends of L2 instruction. Hong Kong students develop an L2 that is accommodated remarkably well to the demands and constraints of their educational environment. Institutional incentives that focus on short-term receptive and productive strategies are indistinguishable in EFL contexts from psycholinguistic influences such as L1 transfer and learnability constraints. However, our finding that the ‘order of difficulty’ in HKIL does not parallel an hypothesised universal order of acquisition suggests that institutional pressures are as responsible for fossilisation as are internal constraints.

The methodology of this study admittedly has limitations. The study of large IL corpora is still in its infancy; more text collection needs to be undertaken and other analytical techniques need to be explored. More also remains to be done to explore the variables that may account for the differences we observe between texts written by L1 and L2 writers (especially the differences between such corpora as the English texts of HK and Taiwanese students). Also extensive analysis is needed on the L1 and L2 texts of the same writers (e.g. the written Chinese and English of Cantonese speakers). This study has nevertheless described certain features that appear to be characteristic of HK students’ English texts, and which do not vary significantly with differences in topic and rubric. The students’ lexicogrammar and discourse are based on a small set of formulæ that are little affected by the particular topic they are addressing.

This study does not challenge the role of cognition in L2 acquisition, nor debate the influence of learner motivation on language learning. Rather, the fact that HK learners’ texts appear to be shaped by the pressures of their institutional environment confirms the receptivity of these learners to instruction. Chinese speakers who have not been subject to the same pressures from such an early age (e.g. Taiwanese students) appear to produce less constrained language.

I have measured L2 acquisition in terms of prominent quantitative and qualitative differences between the written language of NNS and NS students. The characteristics of HKIL appear to be largely shaped by the students’ needs to fudge grammatical competence and to impose communicative dynamism on texts often deliberately made banal. HK students are encouraged in the excessive use of generic modes of expression, metaphorical fixed phrases, certain types of clausal negation, a marked set of adverbial connectors, and devices of emotive emphasis (e.g. rhetorical interrogation, exclamation, imperative declaration, exhortation etc.). Rather than structure arguments through exemplification, concession, hedges and other evidential conventions, they often tend simply to express personal conviction and certainty in stock propositions.

SLA theories have not proven very dependable in predicting or accounting for these observed features in HK learners’ written production, nor have they provided a reliable basis for planning EFL curricula. The general characteristics of the interlanguage are less convincingly shaped by the students’ widely assumed affective or linguistic limitations in learning the L2 than by inadequate and sometimes misleading instruction, and circumstances that compel them to adopt narrow production strategies useful only for summative, normed examinations. If we are looking for guidance in the development of EFL curricula, we need to start with a better understanding of the lexicogrammatical and discoursal features of the registers of SE, and the manner in which ILs vary from these norms.

109

The claims I make as a result of this study are mainly that students are more able and motivated, and respond far more to social circumstances, than we normally credit them with. Also, it seems clear that teachers and students require more timely and reliable information about the current state of the learners’ IL and the authentic nature or SE registers than we currently provide. The language that these learners acquire in school does not prepare them for wider professional and academic demands. Instead, HK students are taught a lexicogrammar that relies on the gnomic aspect, and that cannot express degrees of definiteness, and a discourse that is based on an inappropriate structuring of information. Providing timely access to the characteristics of SE requires the creation of techniques and a methodology adapted to the particular needs of this society.

The dominant production strategies of HK students are, to a large degree, the result of conflicting pedagogical aims and limited resources. However, the apparent desire on the part of the SAR government to remedy the limitations of language instruction and learning, and to diminish the number of summative examinations, does not in itself guarantee that more informed educational methods will be developed. Nor is there any assurance that if such methods can be found that they will be successfully implemented. Central to the success of any educational method are the attitudes of teachers toward the learning process and their views of the nature and needs of the learners. It seems unlikely that new instructional and learning systems can gain acceptance in, and ameliorate, a teacher-centred, examination-dominated curriculum if they directly challenge fixed institutional and personal interests, habits and procedures.

We cannot assume, as many do, that the generally poor acquisition of English by HK learners is mainly attributable to affective factors (i.e. the students’ instrumental motivation), and to other ‘internal’ constraints, such as hypothesised universal routes of L2 acquisition. We have found instead that many of the disparities between HKIL and SE can be accounted for by pointing to conservative production strategies that reflect institutional influences. Psycholinguistic factors, such as variations in learners’ attitudes and intrinsic aspects of the L2 may affect learnability, but it also seems clear that sociolinguistic factors are major determining factors in the features we find in students’ written production.

The description of this IL suggests that form-focused instruction and feedback are effective, but can only be communicatively useful if based on an empirical analysis of the TL and the learners’ current IL. What remains is to describe more adequately these differences, find ways effectively to distribute the knowledge of these differences to students and teachers, as well as make it an integral part of pedagogical procedures.

Future directions

Any attempt to reform EFL pedagogy must assume that students whose IL production has fossilised (largely under the influence of institutional pressures) are nevertheless willing and able, if given timely and reliable support, to develop greater grammatical, discoursal and communicative competence in the L2. While this study focuses on one L2 language group, the growing literature of IL corpus-based studies suggests that HK students are not alone in the difficulties they experience expressing themselves persuasively in English, and the misdirection they often receive concerning fundamental features of SE. For example, ELT materials and methodologies often exaggerate the importance of formulaic language, overlook the importance of epistemic language, and actively misrepresent the manner in which representative and propositional information is normally conveyed in spoken and written English.

110

Bibliography

Aarts, J. & Granger, S. 1998. Tag sequences in learner corpora. In Granger, pp. 132–41. Abbott, G. 1980. Toward a more rigorous analysis of foreign language errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 121–34. Adams, P., Heaton, B. & Howarth, P. (Eds). 1991. Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes. London: Modern English Publications / The British Council. Allison, D. 1995. Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 1–15. Allwood, J., Andersson, L. & Dahl, O. 1977. Logic in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allwright, D. 1984. Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? – The interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton & D. Little (Eds), Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Proceedings of a joint seminar in applied linguistics (pp. 3–18). Dublin: IRAAL. Banks, D. 1994. Hedges and how to trim them. Paper presented at the 9th European Symposium of LSP, University of Bergen. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. & Reppen, R. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In Granger, pp. 145–58. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. 1994. Corpus-based approaches to issues in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 15, 2, 169–89. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Bloch, J. & Chi, L. 1995. A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 231–71). Norwood NJ: Ablex. Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. 1991. Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In Adams et al., pp. 1–12. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Botley, S. & Uzar, R. 1998. Higher quality data-driven learning through the testing of definite and indefinite articles. TALC98. Proceedings. [Online] Available at: users.ox.ac.uk/~talc98/botley.htm. Boyle, J. & Boyle, L. 1991. Common spoken English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early stages. London: Allen & Unwin. Bunton, D. 1989. Common English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Burns, G. J. & Smallwood, I. 1990. Impact. Vol. 4. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. & Schumann, J. 1978. The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 270–87). Rowley MA: Newbury House. Carrell, P. L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16, 4, 479–88. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. J. 1988. Vocabulary and language teaching. London: Longman. Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–54). Norwood NJ: Ablex. Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Chamberlain, J. & O’Neil, E. F. 1995. New effective English 5. (Writing, Paper 1.) Hong Kong: Witman. Chan, J. 1984. An analysis of the errors of English compositions written by students of the Anglo-Chinese secondary schools of Hong Kong. MA, Lancaster University. Channell, J. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chaudron, C. & Wolfe-Quintero, K. 1990. Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 43–64. Chen, C. 1979. An error analysis of English compositions written by Chinese college students in Taiwan. PhD, University of Texas at Austin. Chesterman, A. 1991. On definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chi, A., Wong, K. & Wong, M. 1994. Collocational problems among ESL learners. In L. Flowerdew & A.

111

K. K. Tong (Eds), Entering text (pp. 157–65). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Clyne, M. 1991. The socio-cultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts (pp. 49–67). Berlin & New York NY: de Gruyter. Coates, J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the philological society 35, 101– 31. Connor, U. & Lauer, J. 1988. Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 138–60). London: Sage. Conrad, S. M. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27, 1–18. Conway, A. 1997. Skills and practice. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Cook, V. 1989. Universal grammar theory and the classroom. System 17, 169–82. 1993. Linguistics and second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Corder, S. P. 1971. The elicitation of interlanguage. IRAL: special issue for Bertol Malmberg’s sixtieth birthday. Julius Groos, Heidelberg. Crewe, W. 1990. The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal 44, 4, 316–25. Danesi, M. & Di Pietro, R. J. 1991. Contrastive analysis for the contemporary second language classroom. Toronto: OISE Press. Darian, S. 1995. Hypotheses in introductory science texts. International Review of Applied Linguistics 33, 2, 83–108. de Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Dudley-Evans, T. 1991. Socialisation into the academic community: Linguistic and stylistic expectations of a PhD thesis as revealed by supervisor comments. In Adams et al., pp. 42–52. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245–58. Dulay, H., Burt , M. & Krashen, S. 1982. Language two. New York NY: Oxford University Press. Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Lin- guistics 19, 1, 61–74. Eckman, F. 1985. Some theoretical and practical implications of the markedness differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 289–307. Ellis, R. 1988. The effects of linguistic environment on the second language acquisition of grammatical rules. Applied Linguistics 9, 257–74. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eubank, L. 1987. The acquisition of German negation by formal language learners. In VanPatten et al., pp. 33–51 Færch, C. & Kasper, G. 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realisation. In Blum-Kulka et al., pp. 221–47. Færch, C., Haastrup, K. & Phillipson, R. 1984. Learner language and language learning. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel. Field, Y. & Yip, L. 1992. Connecting the prose: How students do it in Hong Kong. Occasional Papers in Language Studies (Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist College.) 1, 1–20. Fitikides, T. J. 1936. Common mistakes in English. Harlow: Longman. Garside, R., Leech, G. & McEnery, A. (Eds). 1997. Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora. Longman: London. Garside, R., Leech, G. & Sampson, G. (Eds). 1987. The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach. London: Longman. Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds). 1985. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House. George, H. V. 1963. A verb-form frequency count. English Language Teaching 18, 1, 31–7. Getslaf, J., Chan, B. F. & Leung, F. K. 1989. Use of English writing. Hong Kong: Witman. Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York NY: Academic Press. Gran, B. J. 1995–1996. All-in-one practice (Forms 6 & 7). Hong Kong: Macmillan. Granger, S. (Ed.). 1998. Learner English on computer. London: Longman. Granger, S. & Meunier, F. 1993. Towards a grammar checker for learners of English. Creating and using English language corpora. Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zurich, pp. 79–91. Granger, S. & Rayson, P. 1998. Automatic profiling of learner texts. In Granger, pp. 119–31.

112

Granger, S. & Tyson, S. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15, 1, 17–27. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hammarberg, B. 1973. The insufficiency of error analysis. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Errata: Papers in error analysis (pp. 23–30). Lund: CWK Gleerup. Hamp-Lyons, L. 1996. The challenges of second language writing assessment. In E. White, W. Lutz & S. Kamusikiri (Eds), Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, practices (pp. 226–40). New York NY: Modern Language Association. Han, Z. 2000. Persistence of the implicit influence of NL: The case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics 21, 1, 78–105. Hasselgren, A. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 2, 237–60. Hogan, L. & Chan, C. 1993. Public examinations in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations Authority. Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 345–65. Hosman, L. & Wright, J. II. 1987. The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication 51, 173–88. Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman. Hu, Z., Brown, D. & Brown, L. 1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication 1, 39–49. Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. & Milton, J. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6, 2, 183–205. Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27, 383– 411. James, C. 1998. Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow: Longman. James, G. 2000 The use and effect of Cantonese sentence particles in students’ e-mails: The emergence of a ‘cyber-creole’? In L. Mak & M. Keung (Eds.) Changing languages: Language education in the era of transition (pp. 55–73). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. James, G. & Purchase, J. 1996. English in Business Studies and Economics. Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. James, G., Ho, P. W. L. & Chu, A. C. Y. 1997. English in Biology, Biochemistry and Chemistry: A corpus- based lexical analysis. Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. James, G., James, L. & Howe, D. H. 1988. Access today. Workbook 5. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. James, G. with Davison, R., Cheung, A. H. Y. & Deerwester, S. 1993. English in Computer Science: A corpus-based lexical analysis. Hong Kong: Longman Asia, for the Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Jiménez, R. 1996. Frequency and variability in errors in the use of English prepositions. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 17, 12–22. Johansson, S. & Hofland, K. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Johns, A. 1990. Coherence as a cultural phenomenon: Employing ethnographic principles in the academic milieu. In U. O’Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 45–53). Alexandria VA: TESOL. Jordan, R. 1990. Academic writing course. London: Collins. Kaplan, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16, 1–20. Karkkainen, E. 1990. Face saving and epistemic modality. In H. Nyyssonen, L. Kuure, E. Karkkainen & P. Raudaskoski (Eds), Proceedings from the Second Finnish Seminar on Discourse Analysis (pp. 64–76). Oulu: University of Oulu. Kaszubski, P. 1996. Using authentic learner data to improve EFL writing textbooks – a heuristic approach. Paper delivered at the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä. Kellerman, E. 1985. If at first you do succeed … In Gass & Madden, pp. 345–53.

113

Kennedy, G. 1998. An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Khampan, P. 1974. Thai difficulties in using English prepositions. Language Learning 24, 2, 215–22. Kharma, N. & Hajjaj, A. 1997. Errors in English among Arabic speakers: Analysis and remedy. Beirut: York Press & Librairie du Liban. Krashen, S. 1977. Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds), On TESOL ‘77 (pp. 144–58). Washington DC: TESOL. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. 1992. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco CA: Alemany Press. Lachowicz, D. 1981. On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science 2, 105–15. Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Lambrecht, K. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, (pp. 319–39). Berkeley CA: University of California. Landow, G. P. & Delany, P. (Eds). 1993. The digital word: Text-based computing in the humanities. Cam- bridge MA: MIT Press. Last, R. 1989. Artificial intelligence techniques in language learning. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. Lee, C., Kennedy, G. & Fullilove, J. 1997. Declining standards of written English among Hong Kong secondary school students: Myth or reality? Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations Authority. Lee, W. 1968. Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language teaching. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and its pedagogical implications (pp. 185–94). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics (pp. 105–22). Berlin & New York NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Leech, G., Deuchar, M. & Hoogenraaad, R. 1982. English grammar for today. London: Macmillan. Leetch, P. 1988. Guide to writing: New Use of English. Hong Kong: Macmillan. 1990. Guide to further writing: New Use of English. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Li, C. & Thompson, S. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 486–9). New York NY: Academic Press. Li, D. W. 1993. Practical skills for work and study (Books 1 and 2). Hong Kong: Witman. Li, P. L. 1997. Basic grammar in context. Hong Kong: Time Enterprises. Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. 1983. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition 5, 2, 177–93. Lorenz, G. 1998. Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: Stylistic aspects of adjective intensification. In Granger, pp. 53–66. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makino, T. 1980. Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese secondary school students. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education 30, 101–48. Markkanen, R. & Schroeder, H. 1989. Hedging as a translation problem in scientific tests. In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds), Special languages: From human thinking to thinking machines (pp. 171–5). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. (Eds). 1997. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin & New York NY: de Gruyter. Master, P. 1997. The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System 25, 2, 215–32. Matthews, S. & Yip, V. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. McCann, T. 1989. Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 23, 62–76. McEnery, T. & Kifle, N. In press. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. London: Longman. Miller, G. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63, 81–97.

114

Milton, J. & Freeman, R. 1996. Lexical variation in the writing of Chinese learners of English. In C. E. Percy, C. F. Meyer & I. Lancashire (Eds), Synchronic corpus linguistics. Papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp. 121–31). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Milton, J. & Tsang, E. 1993. A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Direc- tions for future research. In R. Pemberton & E. Tsang (Eds), Studies in lexis: Working papers from a seminar (pp. 215–46). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science & Tech- nology,. Mizuno, H. 1985. A psycholinguistic approach to the article system in English. Japanese Association of College English Teachers (JACET) Bulletin 16, 1–29. Mougeon, R., Canale, M. & Carroll, S. 1977. Acquisition of English prepositions by monolingual and bilingual (French/English) Ontarian Students. In F. Eckman & A. Hastings (Eds), Studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 194–205). Rowley MA: Newbury House. Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10, 1–35. Newbrook, M. 1990. Errors in focus? Native and non-native perceptions of error salience in Hong Kong student English – a case study. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 71–81. Nikula, T. 1997. Interlanguage view on hedging. In Markkanen & Schroeder, pp. 123–38. Oller, J. & Inal, N. 1971. A cloze test of English prepositions. TESOL Quarterly 5, 315–26. Palmer, F. 1990. Modality and the English modals (2nd ed). London: Longman. Petch-Tyson, S. 1998. Writer/Reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In Granger, pp. 107–18. Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints and the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition 6, 186–214. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M. & Brindley, G. 1988. Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 217–24. Pinker, S. 1996. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Politzer, R. & Ramirez, A. 1973. An error analysis of the spoken English of Mexican-American pupils in a bilingual school and a monolingual school. Language Learning 23, 1, 38–61. Potter, J. 1992. Common Business English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Prince, E., Frader, J. & Bosk, C. 1982. On hedging in physician–physician discourse. In R. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83–97). Norwood NJ: Ablex. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Ramsey, S. 1987. The languages of China. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Read, T. & Cressie, N. 1988. Goodness of fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York NY: Springer-Verlag. Reid, W. 1991. Verb and noun number in English. London: Longman. Richards, J. C. 1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching 25, 204–19. Ringbom, H. 1987. The role of first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1998. Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: A cross-linguistic approach. In Granger, pp. 41–52. Robberecht, P., & Petegem, M. van. 1982. A functional model for the description of modality. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Contrastive Projects, Jyväskylä. Rutherford, W. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32, 85–108. 1987. Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman. Rutherford, W. & Sharwood-Smith, M. (Eds). 1988. Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Scarcella, R. & Brunak, R. 1981. On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, 59–75. Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24, 205–14. Schachter, J. & Rutherford, W. 1979. Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilin- gualism 19, 1–12. Schmeil, A. 1995. Language transfer of prepositions in the acquisition of prepositional verbs and prepositional adjective phrases by ESL learners. MA, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City UT. Scott, M. 1997. PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System 25, 2, 233–45.

115

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman. Selinker, L. & Han, Z. 1998. Fossilization: What we think we know. [On-line] Available at: www.bbk.ac.uk/ llc/al/Larry.html. Selinker, L. & Lakshmanan, U. 1992. Language transfer and fossilisation: The multiple effects principle. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 197–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Silva, T. 1993. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27, 657–75. Simpson, P. 1990. Modality in literary-critical discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 63–94). Newbury Park CA: Sage. Sinclair, J. M. 1991. Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skelton, J. 1988. Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society (pp. 98–108). London: British Association of Applied Linguistics. Smallwood, I. & Walsh, S. 1990–1991. Impact (4 & 5). Hong Kong: Macmillan. Smallwood, I., Tong, K., Green, C. & Li, P. L. 1997–2000. Mastering English practice papers. 7th and 8th editions. Hong Kong: Macmillan. Stenson, B. 1974. Induced errors. In J. Schumann & N. Stenson (Eds), New frontiers in second language learning (pp. 13–25). Rowley MA: Newbury House. Stubbs, J. & Tucker, G. 1974. The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency. Modern Language Journal 58, 239–41. Stubbs, M. 1986. A matter of prolonged fieldwork: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics 7, 1–25. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential skills and tasks. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Tarone, E. 1988. Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold. Tarone, E. & Yule, G. 1989. Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E., Frauenfelder, U. & Selinker, L. 1976. Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. In H. Brown (Ed.), Papers in second language acquisition (pp. 93–134). Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Taylor, B. 1975. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning 25, 73–107. Taylor, J. R. 1996. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thomas, M. 1989. The acquisition of English articles by first – and second – language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 10, 335–55. Thompson, D. 1993. Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: A study of research article results sections in Biochemistry. Written Communication 8, 106–28. Tomiyama, M. 1980. Grammatical errors and communication breakdown. TESOL Quarterly 14 , 2, 71–9. Tong, K., Chan, R. & Lewkowicz, J. 1991. To test or not to test, that is the question. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Testing 14, 15–22. Tottie, G. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. London: Academic Press. VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. & Lee, J. (Eds). 1987. Foreign language learning: A research perspective. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Varadi, T. 1980. Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. International Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 59–71. Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R., Jarema, G. & Kolk, H. 1996. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes 11, 4, 407–42. Virtanen, T. 1998. Direct questions in argumentative student writing. In Granger, pp. 94–106. Wales, K. 1996. Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webster, M. A., Ward, A. & Craig, K. 1987. Language errors due to first language interference (Cantonese) produced by Hong Kong students of English. Institute of Language in Education Journal 2, 63–81. Wesche, M. & Ready, D. 1985. Foreigner talk in the university classroom. In Gass & Madden, pp. 89–114. Wilcoxon, H. & Hayward, K. 1991. Resolving problems with cohesion. New Horizons 32, 100–4. Wilkins, D. 1982. Dangerous dichotomies in applied linguistics and language teaching. In D. Crystal (Ed.),

116

Linguistic controversies (pp. 53–62). London: Edward Arnold. Wode, H. 1981. Learning a second language. Tübingen: Narr. Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and learnability. Amsterdam & Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins. Young, R. 1989. Variation in interlanguage morphology: Plural-marking in the speech of Chinese learners of English. PhD, University of Pennsylvania. 1993. Functional constraints on variation in interlanguage morphology. Applied Linguistics 14, 76– 97.

117

118

Appendix 1: 1994 UE, A grade sample examination script

Over the past few years, comic books have been becoming more and more popular among young people. It cannot be denied that comic books nowadays are likely the most common form of reading material and entertainment for the young in Hong Kong. As comics are popular, their influences on the young, our social pillars, have captured widespread attention. But before looking in to the influence made by comics, let’s have a close look in the reason why they are so popular. In a highly competitive society, if one product wants to be widely known, promotion is the key to success. Manufacturers usually invest a great deal of money on promotion. This theory applies to the comic books markets as well. Readers are attracted by the colourful comics and their promotions. As young people account for the majority of comic book readers, they can easily be moved by the promotion in which they told they’re guaranteed to have fantastic feelings from the book. In addition, as I have mentioned, most comic books are published for the young. In their teens, young people like dreaming. Comic books are the exact means through which their dreams can be fulfilled. Boys usually dream of one day to be a ‘superman’ and shoulder the responsibility to save the Earth. Girls always dream of becoming a lovely girl and date with their dream lovers. The topics on comic books fit them well. Violence and sex are the most popular topic. Some readers may find this a proper way to relieve their strains in this society. Now, let’s come across the advantages and disadvantages of reading comic books. I admit that reading comic books can really make us relax. Especially under the immeasurable pressure incurred at schools and commercial sectors, although we can find many ways to get rid of strains, reading comic books is the cheapest one. Also, it can be done in any places and at any time. The other advantage is that reading comic books can really inspire the young’s imagination. Imagination is vital whether in science and in art field. Concerning the disadvantage. Oh! There are lots to tell. Violence and sex are what comic books usually like to exaggerate. Glamorisation of violence, sex, immoral standards and values results in degradation of social standards. As I have said, the young are pillars of future society. Their social behaviours cultivated at present will reflect what we will see in the future. This is a potential hazard! Although there are lots of disadvantage of reading comic books, on the other hand, they can be used in a positive way. Some educators and experts advocate comics reading. They believe children and the young can build up their standards of value and lead a normal life through comic books. Why? Comic books can be utilised as counter-examples of proper way of life. They emphasised that the young should be accompanied by their parents while reading. Parents are obliged to guide their children what on the comic book is right and what is wrong and give brief explanation. Therefore, comic books can serve as educational materials In conclusion, nothing is absolutely right or wrong. Comic books are just the same. It depends on how you use it and view it. With reference to this point, I would like to urge parents help their children and always stand by their sides to build up normal standards of value through reading comics. The high popularity of comic books among the young is a fact, a fact beyond controversy. Nothing can resist this movement. What we can do now is to lend the wind of this trend to accomplish its educational achievement and let the readers benefit from it in a more positive way.

119

120

Appendix 2: 1994 UE, D grade sample examination script

Most of parents think that schoolwork is so important to secondary school students and romantic relationships between boys and girls of secondary level will give bad effect to both of them. However, this is not really true. A healthy romantic relationship between two young people cannot be of bad effect to both of them. I would like to ask, ‘Why the boys and girls want to have girlfriends and boyfriends?’ Their parents may not really know the reasons. There are inside force and outside force to make the boys and girls have such idea. Firstly, inside force is formed by emotion. As parents work so hard to earn a living, children are left alone when they are little. When parents go home, they are so exhausted and want to rest. They do not give any time to talk to their children. This exploit of communication between parents and their children will make the gap widen over time. After prolonged loneliness, the young people think that there is nobody to take care of them in the world. Also, today students face a tremendous pressure such as completing school work, getting acceptable grade, getting social acceptance and so on. When they have problem, they will think of their parents first. Unfortunately, their parents have no time to talk to them and the young people find helpless. Since the inside force press the young people so much, they need someone to give hands. They need true friends to talk to. Secondly, outside force is formed by the mass media, their friends and their schoolmates. The young people often see many pairs among their friends and schoolmates. They think boyfriends or girlfriends can take care them, talk to them and they will not be lonly any more. Also, the promoting of romatic relationship in the TV series will make the young people only thinking of the advantages of romantic relationships. In fact, parents and teachers can help the growth of that romatic relationship be more and more healthy. Parents can give more time to talk to their children rather than buying material goods. They can talk to them once a week or fortnight. It is better than no communication between parents and their children. When their children have boysfriends or girlfriends, parents should tell them more about the knowledge of romantic relationships such as how to balance between schoolwork and relationship. Teachers should organize more discussion and activities on this topic. Through participation, young people should be told the right idea of romantic relationships and how to take great benefit to both of the boys and girls. In my opinion, parents and teachers should not break the romantic relationships by force. This only increase the pressure on young people. They are reluctant to obey unreasonable order. So, patient explanation should be given. Under the help of parents and teachers, young people should have great benefit from healthy romantic relationship.

121

122

Appendix 3: 1994 GS, A grade sample examination script

The fourth estate carries the responsibility of informing the general public about events and occurrences which are in the public interest. In addition, the press should act as a critic of the government, highlighting injustice that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. If the government is faultless, however unlikely a situation that may be, the press has the freedom to compliment it. However a free press should be controlled as little as possible by the government or organisation linked to it. Freedom of speech is a fundamental necessity for a free, democratic state. However, do the press take this freedom for granted, intruding into the private lives of public figures when it is unnecessary? There have been many recent instances where it would appear that the tabloid press have been intrusive in their reporting. It is possible that were it not for the hounding of the member of parliament, David Mellor, by the popular press after his affair with an actress, Antonia de Sanchez. Mr. Mellor would not have felt obliged to resign his post as Heritage minister. The coverage given to the accidental death of Stephen Milligan was possibly gratuitous, especially considering the bizarre and possibly titillating circumstances of his death. The report by the Times on David Ashley, an MP who was exposed as having shared a hotel bed with a male friend was also perhaps unnecessary. However, in my opinion, the press does have some justification. The private lives of government and parliament members would usually be their own concern, although one could argue that as representatives of the country, they should set an example of acceptable moral, personal standards. The Prime Minister, John Major, unfortunately reinforced this point with his call for a policy of “back-to-basics”. It was unfortunate that some members of his party seized upon this policy as advocating moral standards to rectify a society that had become too permissive. In effect, open season was declared on members of parliament. The press could expose members of dubious moral standards, with the justification that if these politicians could not even follow the party line, they were hypocrites and were therefore unfit to govern. Occasionally, the conduct in private of government members can present a serious threat to government security. A famous example is the Profumo scandal of the 1960’s. John Profumo’s affairs with a prostitute, Christine Keeler, would have been in theory irrelevant to public life, were it not for the fact that Keeler had been simultaneously having an affair with a Soviet military attaché, especially considering Profumo’s position in the defence ministry. In this instance, the press was fully justified in exposing private details which constituted a threat to national security. Extra-marital affairs in any case leave government officials open to blackmail, and should be exposed for these reasons. This does not, however give the press justification for intruding into the lives of public figures with no connections with matters of national importance. The private problems of famous actors, musicians, or personalities in general are generally not in the public interest. The moral stance of members of the royal family may be a valid subject for criticism, but photographs of the Princess of Wales sunbathing topless, are not of national importance. In my opinion, the motive behind these “exposé’s” is purely commercial. The editors of tabloid newspapers would not use these stories if they did not think that people would be interested enough to buy their newspaper. The question then becomes one of the British public’s bad taste. The Press Complaints Commission exists to deal with cases of misrepresentation, inaccurate reporting and invasion of privacy. Newspapers are usually quite willing to print corrections of mistakes, and in general will abide by decisions by the commission, especially as it is a body set up by the newspaper owners themselves. The government has no right to tamper with press freedoms, and must reconcile itself to the fact that the newspaper editors are only giving the public what they want.

123

124

Appendix 4: Sample Taiwanese learner’s text

Why President Carter Asserted Supporting Human Rights

In these days President Carter of the United States proposes supporting human rights as the corner-stone of U.S. foreign policy. President Carter’s commitment to this issue is clear and firm. He has stated this time and time again, for instance, he made it perfectly clear that the repression of human rights by any member is the concern of all members. Of course, Carter focuses on the USSR, so this assertion quickly aroused sharp reaction by Brezhnev and Gromyko, who stressed the principle of non-interference in international affairs. Why President Carter did this? First of all we must know the meaning of human right. Human right is very important. Since it is important, Carter wants to present it on moral ground. The USSR is a totalitarian nation. The classes in the USSR are oppressed and the dignity and the freedom of mankind are exploited. And there are the same oppression in other nations like Red China, Cuba even Chile. These governments imprison dissidents, torture political offenders, gag press. Also, there the USSR itself, founded subversion, war and conquest, is a colonial empire. The real imperialism and colonialism is managed by Moscow in Eastern Europe and Asia. These government phenomena severely violate personal rights, civil rights and national rights. It is needed that the power countries in the free world care about the oppressed in the captive nations. It was miserable that the comprehension of Russian imperial politics and oppression on human right was near zero at the administration of foreign policy largely dominated by Dr. Kissinger. When Ford insisted that there is “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” in the second debate of the presidential campaign, he disclosed how he and his Secretary of State viewed the condition of Eastern Europe, and this was not a slip-of-the-tongue. Although in the Helsinki conference last year, the United States prescribed the protection of human right to one of the treaties in order to urge Russia to support the human right. But the close intention was not paid and is still a confusion till now. To sum up, that a political man of powerful influence defends human right in the whole world from encroachment cannot be delayed. President Carter dares to offend the USSR and present this thorny matter. Thomas Paine said “He who dares not to offend cannot be honest.” Carter professed the fresh atmosphere of political morality, honesty and justice in his presidential campaign. Therefore, supporting human rights is Carter’s first step to carry out his promise.

125