Language Transfer: Types of Linguistic Errors Committed by

Francophones Learning English as a Second Foreign Language

Kornelia Choroleeva, Bulgaria

Kornelia Choroleeva is a senior lecturer at the University of Food Technologies, Bulgaria. She
is interested in ELT methods, English for Specific Purposes, translation theory and practice,
and sociolinguistics. E-mail: k_choroleeva@yahoo.com

Menu

Abstract
Introduction
Acquisition of multiple languages
Categorization of learner errors
Phonological interference
Orthographic interference
Lexical interference
Grammatical interference
Conclusions
References

Abstract

The present paper draws the attention of English language teachers to a list of some recurrent
learner errors without insisting on its being exhaustive. The analysis is based on the linguistic
errors committed by francophones studying English as an L3 at an institution of higher
education. The focus is on L2 transfer manifested in phonological, orthographic, lexical and
grammatical interference. Discourse errors as well as grammatical errors such as choice of
tense and mood are disregarded because they need a more thorough analysis. The paper was
motivated by the learners communicative performance in class, the oral presentations
delivered by them as well as by their written assignments and written examinations.

Introduction

In the period 1940s 1960s language acquisition was studied on the basis of the systematic
comparison of languages that was to delineate points of similarity and difference between
native languages and target ones in order to improve pedagogy. The contrastive analysis
hypothesis postulated the existence of positive transfer, resulting from similarity between
languages, and negative transfer (or language interference), stemming from difference
between languages. The serious limitations of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, which
failed to predict some learner errors and predicted errors that did not materialize, were
nevertheless useful in that they focused researchers attention on the explanation of learner
errors rather than on their prediction. Precisely at that time Chomsky brought to the fore the
notion of universal grammar claiming that human learning in general and language
acquisition in particular are explainable in terms of an innate human capacity aiding the
generation of an infinite number of sentence patterns. Hence, it turned out that language
acquisition is a product of rule formation because learners form hypotheses about target
language rules and test them in practice.
Chomskys nativist theory paved the way for Error Analysis and it then became possible for
Corder to point out that some at least of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second
language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is acquired (S. P.
Corder, in J. C. Richards, 1992: 22). Corder also made a distinction between learner mistakes,
the selection of the wrong style, dialect or variety, and learner errors, which result in
unacceptable utterances and appear as breaches of the code (S. P. Corder, 1973: 259).
Learner mistakes and errors came to be viewed from a more positive perspective, as being an
indispensable device for learning with the help of which learners test hypotheses and correct
them in order to acquire a language.

The psychology of second language acquisition (SLA) was also studied from the vantage
point of learner interlanguage, a notion referred to by Corder and Nemser as idiosyncratic
dialect and approximative system, respectively. Interlanguage, more easily visualized as a
continuum between the native (L1) and the target (L2) language, was defined by Selinker as a
psychological structure which is latent in the brain, activated when one attempts to learn a
second language (L. Selinker, in J. C. Richards, 1992: 33). Selinker also maintained the
existence of five central processes belonging to this latent psychological structure which bear
upon second language learning: language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second
language learning, strategies of second language communication, and overgeneralization of
target language linguistic material. He claimed that the mastery of a second language largely
depends on the degree of fossilization of linguistic items, rules, and subsystems in learner
interlanguage.

Acquisition of multiple languages

For the purpose of the present paper, it is necessary to make a distinction between native
language (L1) transfer and first foreign language (L2) transfer because the learners analyzed
are francophones studying English as a second foreign language (L3) at a Bulgarian
institution of higher education, i.e. the learners have some competence in more than one
foreign language. This is best described as multilingual acquisition, i.e. the acquisition of
languages other than the first or second (Cenoz, 1997). Cenoz (1997) points out that,
although multilingual acquisition is often considered as a variation of bilingualism and SLA,
it is in fact more complex than the latter because it depends not only on the factors and
processes involved in SLA but also on the interactions between the multiple languages being
learned. Moreover, [t]here is also more diversity and complexity in multilingual acquisition
[] if we consider other factors such as the age when the different languages are acquired,
the environment in which each of the languages is acquired, or the typological distance among
the languages involved (Cenoz, 1997: 278).

To be more specific, a variant of multilingual acquisition is third language acquisition which

might be envisaged as a triad in which the interactions between L2 and L3 are reciprocal,
whereas those between L1 and L2, L1 and L3 are probably best visualized as unidirectional if
L1 is the learners native language because whatever influence L2 and L3 might exert on the
mother tongue it might be less significant when compared to the influence of L1 on L2 and
L3.
 L1 L2

L3

Diagram. Multilingual acquisition of languages

Third language acquisition is influenced not only by the factors mentioned above but also by
the order in which the three languages are studied. With SLA, there are only two possibilities:
L1 and L2 are studied either in succession or simultaneously. With L3 acquisition, there are at
least four possible acquisition orders: i) the three languages are acquired one after the other
(L1L2L3); ii) L2 and L3 are acquired simultaneously after L1 (L1L x/Ly); iii) L1 and
L2 are acquired simultaneously before L3 (L x/LyL3), and iv) the learner is in simultaneous
contact with the three languages (Lx/Ly/Lz) (Cenoz, 2000). It is worth establishing in
subsequent research how the four acquisition orders affect the francophones learning process
of English as an L3 as well as what relevance they have on L2 transfer.

Categorization of learner errors

Learner errors can be categorized in terms of various criteria. Interlingual errors are said to
occur due to L1 interference, whereas intralingual errors are committed regardless of L1 (D.
Larsen-Freeman and M. Long, 1991). Corder makes a distinction between expressive and
receptive errors which are manifestations of expressive and receptive behaviour and depend
upon knowledge of the formation rules of a language: Inadequate knowledge of these rules
will therefore show itself in both sorts of behaviour. But it is much easier to detect imperfect
knowledge in the case of expressive behaviour. Expression leaves traces transient, but
recordable, in the case of speech, permanent in the case of writing. (Corder, 1973: 261).
Moreover, Corder spells out the widespread belief among teachers that learners receptive
abilities usually exceed their productive ones, which is probably due to the fact that failures in
comprehension are easier to detect in expression rather than reception. As a result of this, it is
difficult to establish the relations between expressive and receptive errors, so it might be that
learners receptive abilities are actually overestimated.

It is also possible to categorize learner errors on the basis of the linguistic levels testifying to
their manifestation. Lee (1990), for instance, elaborates on the following classification of
learner errors:

Grammatical (morphosyntactic) errors, which stress the need for grammatical accuracy in
both speech and writing, may hinder communication but errors at the sentence level often
reflect performance mistakes for which immediate teacher correction is not necessarily
appropriate (Lee, 1990: 59).

Discourse errors are dependable upon the observance of the rules of speaking and writing
and reflect learners cultural and pragmatic knowledge of language use.
 Phonologically-induced errors are manifested in wrong pronunciation and/or intonation; in
the case of English studied as a foreign language such errors necessitate timely correction on
the part of the teacher because vowel length, voiced and voiceless last consonants, word
stress, etc. may have a meaning-differentiating function, as in live/leave, leave/leaf, exit
(n.)/exit (v.), and so on.

Lexical errors, in combination with errors belonging to the other linguistic levels, may also
hamper communication and intelligibility.

Phonological interference

It is manifested in speaking and reading and is usually indicated by recourse to word stress,
intonation and speech sounds typical of French which influence the acquisition of English.
(Pyun (in Mehlhorn, 2007) claims that language learners interlanguage owes phonological
knowledge to L1 rules, L2 (first foreign language) rules, L3 (foreign language being studied)
rules, and interrules, the latter described as bridges between the already acquired
languages and L3.)

1. The initial h is not pronounced, e.g.: hemisphere [`emisfi] instead of [`hemisfi], hotel
[o`tel] instead of [hu`tel], etc. Occasionally, the non-initial [h] sound is also omitted, as in
alcohol [`alkool]. In French, the letter h is always silent. In English, initial h is almost
always pronounced although omitting the initial h sound the learner may occasionally hit
the target unintentionally, as will be the case with the word hour [`au], for instance, as well
as with loanwords from French, e.g.: hors doeuvre. It must also be pointed out, however, that
at times learners employ an overcompensation strategy pronouncing the initial h sound in
English words featuring a silent [h], e.g.: hour [`hau] instead of [`au].

2. The prefixes (or syllables) in-, en- and im- are sometimes pronounced as [a:n]/[a:m]
or with a vowel intermediate between [a:] and [o:] which is usually nasalized. The markedly
French pronunciation may be accompanied by a last syllable stress which is in accordance
with the French fixed word stress pattern. As far as French is concerned, the major positions
of nasalized vowels are two: at the end of words, preceding the consonants n and m, and
before the consonants n and m when they are followed by another consonant (Mikhov,
1992).

3. The g sound in the gn consonant cluster is omitted when its pronunciation is expected,
e.g.: significant [si`ifiknt] instead of [si`gifiknt]. In French, the letter g at the end of
words is usually silent, with the exception of borrowings such as boomerang. The gn group
of letters usually represents a palatalized [n] phone (Mikhov, 1992), as in montagne
(mountain), so it is possible to speculate that learners subconsciously transfer this
pronunciation pattern into English.

4. The -ure ending in polysyllabic words is pronounced as [ju], e.g.: literature [liter`tju]
instead of [`litrit], again with a change of word stress. Compare, for example, with the
pronunciation of the French voiture (automobile, car).

5. The u sound is omitted in the ui vowel cluster as well as in the [u] diphthong, as
represented by the qui/que/qua group of letters, e.g.: equipment [i`kipmnt] instead of
[i`kuipmnt], frequently [`frikntli] instead of [`frikuntli], equal [`ikl] instead of [`ikul].
This is probably due to the fact that in French orthography the letter combinations qu and
cqu stand for a phoneme variant of [k] (Mikhov, 1992).

6. The final [s] or [z], represented by the letter s, are often not pronounced in reading
exercises although students certainly see the graphic manifestation of these sounds. This
happens no matter whether at the end of the word there is an accumulation of fricatives or not
and the tendency applies to all parts of speech. In French, final s is usually not pronounced,
as in trois, despite the many exceptions to the rule. While speaking, students tend to omit it as
well but this is usually indicative of their lack of practice in communication or the lack of
knowledge about the grammatical function of the English final s morpheme.

7. The ch grouping of letters is sometimes pronounced as [] instead of [t], e.g.: achieve

[`i:v] instead of [`ti:v]. The influence of French is probably to blame in such cases taking
into account the pronunciation of French words such as Chablis [ab`li], chose [`oz]
(thing), etc. In French, [] is typically denoted by ch and less often by sh (Mikhov,
1992), the latter probably concerning loans from English or other languages. With chemistry
pronounced as [`temistri] instead of [`kemistri], however, the fault might be traced back to
the influence of Bulgarian, considering the long-established practice in transliterating the
Bulgarian letter (pronounced as [t]) in proper names as ch, as in the family name
Chernev ().

8. English words demonstrating an obvious resemblance to French counterparts tend to be

pronounced the French way, e.g.: different [dife`ro:n], where the stress falls on the last
syllable featuring a nasalized vowel. (Compare with the French diffrent.) In this particular
example the English word originates from the Latin differre (to set apart, differ) having
influenced the Old French diferer.

9. [d], when denoted by the letter j, is pronounced as [], as in the French jour, e.g.:
subject [`sbekt] instead of [`sbdekt], major [`mej:] instead of [`mejd:], etc.

10. The -us ending is pronounced as [-jus] instead of [-s], e.g.: syllabus [sil`bjus] instead
of [`silbs], with a transfer of the stress on the last syllable.

11. The incorrect pronunciation of words featuring diphthongs may give rise to problems in
intelligibility and communication, e.g.: [`brein] instead of [`brain] (compare brain/brine), etc.
However, it is hard to generalize whether these phonologically-induced errors are due to
native language interference, to first foreign language interference or simply to the lack of
knowledge about the phonological rules of English. It seems plausible to mention that the
ail combination of vowels in French tends to be pronounced as [ai], whereas ais at the end
of words represents a short variant of the vowel [e], e.g.: vrais (true), travailler (to work).
In English ai is usually pronounced as [ei], as in McCain, train, pertain, railway, etc.

12. The replacement of short vowels with long ones and vice versa may also alter the meaning
of the word or expression, as in [`bri:d] instead of [`bred] (compare breed/bread), [`ip]
instead of [`i:p] (compare ship/sheep), etc.

13. It also seems that francophone learners of English tend to have problems with the
pronunciation of [] and [], graphically represented by th in words such as think, thought,
there, then, etc. Since in French the tip of the tongue is not used, learners opt for the
consonants [t] and [d] pronouncing then as [`den], think as [`tik], etc.
Doubtlessly, there are much more repetitive pronunciation patterns but it seems that the
above-mentioned ones are most frequently manifested. Apart from them, however, one must
also note the students tendency to be occasionally over-careful while reading English texts.
This tendency is twofold. Students mechanical reproduction of the text at times ironically
results in what might be termed an English pronunciation of French words. It is illustrated,
firstly, in the pronunciation of French proper names mentioned in English texts, e.g.: Jules is
pronounced as [`du:ls] instead of [`jul], Charles (as in Charles Perot) as [`ta:ls] instead of
[`a:l], etc. Secondly, students might be misled by the obvious resemblance between English
and French words, which happens when an English word is a borrowing from French. In such
cases English may or may not have preserved the French pronunciation but students
occasionally opt for an English or a French pronunciation depending on whether they have
enough experience with the word in question. If they tend to pronounce different the French
way, then they sometimes prefer the English pronunciation when this is the wrong choice.
Such an example is chef which should be pronounced as [`ef], not as [`tef]. This
pronunciation error is probably due to the fact that students do not distinguish chef from chief,
the latter being pronounced as [`ti:f]. Both words originate from French, the former being
short for chef de cuisine (head of the kitchen) to be traced back to the Old French chief
(leader, ruler), whereas the latter has preserved the spelling of Old French chief albeit with a
meaning different from that of chef in Modern English.

Orthographic interference

It is manifested in writing and involves alteration of the spelling of words under the influence
of French:

The addition of an extra -e at the end of words, e.g.: closenesse instead of closeness,
groupe instead of group, seniore instead of senior, Greeke instead of Greek, etc. in which case
the English word acquires a silent e, as in make, wake, cake, and so on. It is worth pointing
out that the silent e might also occur in a post-morphemic position, as in postegraduate.

The adoption of a French suffix such as ique, -eur, and oire, e.g.: refrigeratoire and
refrigerateur instead of refrigeration.

Lexical interference

It is manifested in speaking and writing and is represented by the borrowing of French words
which may or may not be converted to sound more natural in English. Francophone learners
of English tend to use French words in order to fill in the existing gaps in their knowledge of
English vocabulary, e.g.: Belgique instead of Belgium, chimie instead of chemistry,
Refrigerateur Engineering instead of Refrigeration Engineering, physique instead of physics
(the branch of science concerned with the study of properties and interactions of space, time,
matter and energy), etc.

As regards the latter example, there exists the possibility that what is adopted is not the
French word but the morpheme ique although this seems a less plausible explanation. The
English physics stems from the French word which, in turn, originates from the Latin
physicus (physical, physicist). The problem with this example is twofold because the
English language also keeps the word physique which means the natural constitution, or
physical structure, of a person and in face-to-face interaction the replacement of one word
with the other may lead to misunderstanding. (Firth and Wagner (in Seidlhofer, 2003) provide
an example of lexically-induced misunderstanding between a Danish learner of English and a
native speaker of English, illustrating the influence of the native language which is resorted to
by the Danish learner as a communication strategy: he or she uses the Danish word historie
instead of the English story and the native speaker wrongly assumes that what is meant is the
subject history, whereas the Danish speaker simply wants to say that he or she likes reading
stories.) Therefore, the English physique and the French physique are actually false friends
(faux amis) because they differ in meaning although they look and sound the same. Language
transfer in lexis is negative usually when a word form in one language is very similar or
identical to a word form in another language but the similarity of form is actually superficial:
such pairs of words are known as false friends/faux amis or false cognates (words in two
different languages which are wrongly assumed to originate from a common root).

Another instance of lexical interference is the transfer of function words such as prepositions,
conjunctions, determiners, and pronouns, which most often happens unintentionally. The
francophones under study tend to produce et instead of and and par instead of per or for.

Another tendency demonstrated by francophone learners of English as a second foreign

language, which has to do with the mastery of English lexis, deserves to be mentioned in
passing simply as a point of curiosity. At the University of Food Technologies in Bulgaria the
education in foreign languages aims at exposing students to specialized vocabulary depending
on whether they are majoring in Food Technology, Food Engineering, or Tourism and
Catering. Therefore, francophone students are expected to master basic food and cooking
terms in both French and English classes. Meat-related terms are part of this specialized
vocabulary and francophone learners of English most often than not fail to remember at least
two English meat-words, namely mutton and beef. This is a striking fact considering the
obvious resemblance between the English mutton and the French mouton, the English beef
and the French boeuf, especially because francophone learners of English usually associate
unfamiliar English words with similar French ones in order to find out what the former
mean. The English language borrowed both terms from the Old French moton and boef,
respectively. The English teacher is left to wonder if the students failure to learn both terms is
to be attributed to the fact that students are not acquainted with their French counterparts,
which is probably not the case, because students usually manage to produce the term veal,
also of French origin (cf. Old French veel, Modern French veau). Another explanation is
probably the fact that the French meat-words in general, and mouton and boeuf in particular,
also denote the animals providing the respective type of meat, whereas this is not the case
with their English counterparts.

Grammatical interference

L2 influences L3 in terms of word order, use of pronouns and determiners, tense and mood:

There are modifications to word order attributable to the influence of French, most often
illustrated in the placement of adjectives after nouns in noun phrases. In French, most
adjectives go after the word they modify. Such word order is not typical of English where few
clichd phrases denoting diplomatic ranks feature nouns in the primary position, e.g.:
ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary (a representative of the head of state), envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary (a diplomatic representative with plenipotentiary
powers ranking below an ambassador), and minister resident (the lowest rank of full
diplomatic mission chief). Another instance is court-martial (a military court for trials of
armed forces personnel). Examples of unnatural noun-phrase word order in English are
chemistry inorganique and chemistry inorganic, produced instead of inorganic chemistry, in
the first case the final result being an odd interlanguage variant combining an English noun
with a French adjective.

Concerning word order at the sentence level, francophone students tend to place the verb
before the subject in English but this is probably due to native language interference because
word order in Bulgarian is more flexible than that in both English and French where word
order is relatively fixed and follows the subject/verb/object pattern. This leads to the
generation of sentences of the type Hostel is a place where live students.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations of the three language acquisition research viewpoints outlined above,
namely the contrastive analysis hypothesis, nativist theories, and the interlanguage hypothesis,
the focus on learner errors is nevertheless useful to language teachers as a means of enhancing
teaching methodology, provided that both teachers and linguists refrain from
overgeneralization and the search for a unitary source of an error. An awareness of the types
of errors learners tend to commit is necessary for language teachers so that they are able to
properly and timely correct inappropriate and unacceptable utterances. Unfortunately, as
regards language transfer, it is simply not possible for language teachers to be acquainted,
even partially, with all world languages in order to identify unequivocally the source of errors.
Therefore, regarding L1 and L2 transfer, teachers should probably try to at least prevent the
so-called fossilization of interlanguage linguistic material while keeping in mind that the
fossilization of one linguistic item or rule may bring about the fossilization of other linguistic
items or rules, especially if learners feel that the errors they commit are no obstacle to
communication.

Concerning francophone learners of English as a second foreign language, it must be noted

that even if orthographic interference is successfully dealt with, by means of dictations or
plenty of written assignments, phonologically-induced interference and lexical interference
posit graver problems to the teacher. On the whole, this is explainable in terms of the
historical development of French and English. The former is part of the Romance subgroup of
Indo-European languages, whereas the latter belongs to the Germanic branch. Since the two
languages have been in contact at different stages of their development and for quite long
periods of time, the origin of over 70% of the English vocabulary can be traced back to
French and Latin, the ancestor of all Italic languages. At first glance, this simple historical fact
suggests that francophones are not likely to encounter such difficulties in studying English as
Bulgarians, for example. This is, however, a superficial idea because it turns out that
similarities between languages may actually constitute differences in disguise. In other words,
similarity of form does not always presuppose similarity of function, which seems to hold true
for L2 transfer in phonology and lexis. As for grammatical interference, it has not been
analyzed in depth and it is precarious to generalize although the authors teaching experience
suggests that problems in this respect are minor.

References

Cenoz, J., (1997) The Influence of Bilingualism on Multilingual Acquisition: Some Data from
the Basque Country, I Simposio Internacional sobre o Bilingismo: Comunidades e
individuos bilinges, Universidade de Vigo, pp. 278-287, at
<http://webs.uvigo.es/ssl/actas1997/03/Cenoz.pdf>

Cenoz, J., U. Jessner (eds.), (2000) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language,
Multilingual Matters

Corder, S. P., (1973) Introducing Applied Linguistics, Pelican Books

Larsen-Freeman, D., M. Long, (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Research, Longman

Lee, N., (1990) Notions of Error and Appropriate Corrective Treatment, Hong Kong Papers
in Linguistics and Language Teaching 13

Mehlhorn, G., (2007) From Russian to Polish: Positive Transfer in Third Language
Acquisition, 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrucken, pp. 1745-1748, at
<http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1709/1709.pdf>

Mikhov, N., (1992) A Short French Grammar, Naouka i Izkustvo

Richards, J. C. (ed.), (1992) Error Analysis. Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition,

Longman

Seidlhofer, B. (ed.), (2003) Controversies in Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press

The Humanising Testing course can be viewed here.

The Teaching English for University Lecturers course can be viewed here.