Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in Learning English Interrogative Sentences by Khurshid and Hassan (2014)

87
Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in

Learning English Interrogative Sentences
M. Athar Khurshid
Riaz Hassan
Abstract
This paper describes some of the learning problems of the undergraduates of a public
sector college where English is taught through GTM. the researcher gave an Urdu to
English translation test to the twenty-five students of his class, and then asked them the
reasons for their faulty usage. The researcher used two strategies to access the underlying
reasons: (1) the learners’ answers, and (2) the contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 sentence
structures. By this plan, some new reasons for the errors of Polarity, and wh-
interrogatives were collected. The understanding of these reasons may help the teachers
to take precautionary measures. For example, the learners develop inter-lingual
correlation of an item [kɪja] with the interrogative pronoun ‘what’. For this reason, they
replace the polarity interrogatives with ‘what’. Absence of auxiliary inversion in Urdu
also creates much confusion. To solve these problems, two steps are recommended: (1)
upgradation of the examination system so that it should test and assess the concepts and
skill of the learners, not their cramming; (2) all sentence structures should be taught by
the combined force of listening, speaking, reading and writing exercises.
Key words: GTM, Polarity interrogatives, wh- interrogatives, subject, object, adverb, auxiliary.
Introduction
In the public sector colleges of Pakistan, English is taught through Grammar Translation Method
(GTM). Working in such a college, the researcher noticed the following errors in the
interrogative sentences of the learners quite frequently:
(i) Avoidance of auxiliary inversion,

(ii) Replacement of auxiliary inversion with the insertion of wh- words,
(iii) Sometimes, inversion of the main verb.
Khurshid, M. A., and Hassan, R. (2014). Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in Learning
Englsih Interrogative Sentences. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, (17)2, 87-111.
88
To develop a better understanding of these and other syntactic errors, the researcher conducted
PhD research (Khurshid, 2010). The findings of that research are shared in this paper.
The research mainly consisted of two-step analysis: (1) to ask the learners themselves the
reason for their errors; (2) to do the contrastive analysis of Urdu and English sentence structures.
The work started with the following research questions:
1. What confuses the learners when they commit errors in constructing interrogative?
2. Do L1 structures obstruct the learning of L2 interrogative structures?
Review of Literature
The researcher surveyed literature in two parts. First, he collected the material to point out the
difference between English and Urdu syntax; second, he collected other researchers’ work on
Error Analysis, and L1 interference.
Contrastive Analysis of the English and Urdu Interrogative Structures

The researcher used the following model of Stockwell et al. (1965), (cited by Ellis, 1994, p. 307),
to do contrastive analysis.
Figure 1: Model of Contrastive Analysis by Stockwell et al (1965)
89
Wh- Words vs. k-Words

Semantically, English wh- words have very close equivalents in Urdu. They are equal in number;
almost always they are translated literally; but the English wh- words and the Urdu k words1 are
distributed differently. The first four ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘why’, ‘how’, are adverbs (Swan, 2005;
Eastwood, 1994; Thomson and Martinet, 1986). Their Urdu equivalent are [kǝhã], [kʌb], [kɪjũ],
and [kɛse] respectively (Schmidt, 1999). ‘Who’ and ‘What’ are pronouns. The former is used as
the subject NP, and the latter both as the subject and the object NPs (Swan, 2005; Eastwood,
1994; Thomson and Martinet, 1986). Their Urdu equivalents are [kɔːn], and [kɪja] respectively
(Schmidt, 1999). [kɔːn], like ‘who’, is a subject NP; and [kɪja], like ‘what’, may be used as both
a subject NP, and an object NP. The argument role2 of [kɔːn] and [kɪja] is quite similar to their
English equivalents. Similarly, the adverbial function of other k- words coincides with that of
wh- adverbs.
In spite of their semantic similarity, Urdu and English question words differ in their
syntactic properties. The wh- words are placed in front of a sentence, while k- words precede the
verb group3 which concludes the sentence. In Urdu, k- adverbs, generally, pre-modify the verb
group; while both the subject and the object NPs precede the k- adverbs4. For example,
1
The English wh- words are translated into Urdu as: where [kǝhã], when [kʌb], why [kɪjũ], how [kɛse], what [kɪja],
who [kɔːn], which [kɔːn sa].
2
Subject and Object NPs are called the arguments of verb (Cook and Newson, 2007; Carnie, 2006)
3
In Urdu, a sentence ends on a group of verbs which may consist of Main Verb, Light Verb, and Helping Verb.
4
All the Urdu equivalents of wh- words begin with [k] sound. Therefore, we will call them k- word to save space.
90
The above examples illustrate the syntactic comparison of wh- and k- words. Though they are
syntactically different yet semantically identical; but the polarity interrogatives differ both
semantically and syntactically.
The questions which can be answered simply in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ are called polarity questions
(Halliday, 1994). They are structured differently in both languages. In English, these questions
are structured by the subject-auxiliary inversion. In Urdu, a polarity marker (pm) [kɪja] is used in
front of the sentence. A homonym of [kɪja] functions as an Urdu interrogative NP which means
‘what’, but syntactically, they are different categories. The following examples describe the
difference between English and Urdu polarity interrogatives:
91
The following examples describe the difference of [kɪja] as ‘what’ and [kɪja] as the polarity
marker (pm).
According to Selinker (1972), L2 exists in the mind of the learners as a mixture of L1 and
L2. He called it Interlanguage. In this mixture, the proportion of L1 and L2 varies from person to
person. Further, he (Selinker, 1972) described Fossilization as the reason of consistently repeated
elements. Fossilized concepts mean ‘half concepts’ or distorted concepts. The participants of the
present research may have their L2 competence based on fossilized concepts.
Ellis (1994) has described different types of cognitive hurdles. The most prominent of
them are (Negative) Transfer and Overgeneralization. Transfer, or L1 interference, refers to the
superimposition of L1 feature, rules etc. on L2 grammar. Overgeneralization means incorrect
application of L2 rules. Avoidance means inability to apply an L2 rule where it is needed (Ellis,
1994). The cognitive problems of L2 learning are usually studied under these broad concepts.
However, the researcher wants to study these issues with a closer focus; for this reason, he has
used his own terminology to classify the reasons of errors.
92
Ellis (1994) gave justification for the avoidance of auxiliary inversion. He suggested that
it was either the developmental error, or the combined effect of L1 interference and
developmental error. This information is important because the same error was noted very
frequently during the present research.
The evidence of L1 interference has been pointed out by many researchers. Sawalmeh
(2013) analyzed the essays of 32 Arab students and listed ten types of errors which included lack
of subject verb agreement, mistaken preposition, double negatives etc. In conclusion, he predicts
L1 interference to be the chief reason of errors.
Butt and Rasool (2012) studied L2 errors of the students of degree classes. They collected
355 answer books of students from 7 different colleges to analyze their errors. They classified
the errors, described their causes (according to Corder’s framework), and explained the reasons.
Most of their reasons are of social and administrative nature. The one relevant to the present
study is that they point out L1 interference to be one of the chief reasons of errors.
Bennui (2008) studied 28 students of grade thirteen. Their L1 was Thai and L2 was
English. He pointed out the following evidences of L1 interference:
1. Features of L1 lexical interference in the students’ written English.

2. Literal translation of vocabulary use.
3. The use of Thai words.
4. Features of L1 syntactic interference in the students’ written English.
Chan (2004) studied 710 adult learners quantitatively. Her tool included Chinese to
English translation questions, and interviews with the learners. Her data suggested that the
students first called upon their L1 before writing L2.
93
Bhela (1999) selected four participant s, gave them a set of sequential picture to write a
story, once in L2 then in L1. Later, the same task was repeated and a second set of sequential
pictures was used. The errors in the writings were identified and learners were asked to tell the
reasons of their peculiar usages. In the end, he concludes that the learners drew both appropriate
and inappropriate L2 structure from L1 structures.
Chen (1998), concluded his study of Taiwanese students on the hypothesis that his
participants were weak at learning English verbs because their L1, Mandarin, lacked inflections.
That is, this L1 feature impeded the learning of L2 whose verbs had inflections.
Rehman (1990) noted the avoidance of auxiliary inversion in interrogative sentences by

the advanced learners. He identified this phenomenon with the process of creolization. He sees
this factor as the emergence of a new of variety of English in Pakistan.
Shimada (1986) studied her 11-year-old daughter for eleven months. She observed how
she learnt English interrogative structures. In the end, she says that she found little evidence of
L1 interference.
The research discussed above helps us in setting the focus. The learners commit errors
because of any one of the following three possibilities: (1) L1 interference is the only source of
errors; (2) L1 interference is no reason of errors; (3) both L1 interference and other reasons
underlie learners’ errors.
Methodology
The domain of the present research is Government S. E. College, Bahawalpur; and the research
design is Action Research, pursued qualitatively. The researcher randomly selected 30 students
from his class of grade XIII, and tested their basic competence of English tenses. All the learners
were boys; and they had humanities as their major. The Test 1 included fill-in-the-blanks
94
questions, Urdu to English translation1 questions, English to Urdu translation questions, and
Interrogative questions. The Test 1 was given to 5 students as a pilot study. In the light of the
findings of the Test 1, the Test 2 was reduced to Urdu to English translation questions only, and
it was given to 25 learners. After the test, the researcher interviewed every learner, and asked
them the reasons for their translations. The interview consisted of unstructured questions. The
researcher did not tell the students their errors. He rather appreciated them for their efforts. The
purpose was that the students should not feel shy of telling the reasons for their mistakes. The
responses could not be tape-recorded because the respondents were shy of gadgets. The
researcher feared that the presence of gadgets might obstruct their free thinking; and they might
not come up with the immediate reasons of their errors. The researcher, therefore, had to rely on
verbal reporting.2 The errors obtained were quite expected; but the main task of the research was
to collect reasons of errors. They are given in the section ‘Data Analysis’.
Lexico-Functional Analysis
Butt (1995) describes Lexico-Functional Grammar in these words:
LFG proposed that syntactic phenomena across languages must be factored apart across
separate but interacting levels of representation. In particular, grammatical relations were
given an independent status at f(unctional)-structure, which was held to be constrained, but
not exclusively determined, by the level of c(onstituent)-structure. (p. 24)
1
Translation. In this technique the subject is presented with an oral or written stimulus and is
expected to translate it verbatim into L1. It is used to assess aspects such as comprehension, written
production, lexicon, grammar, transfer from L1 to L2, and so on. (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989, p.
178)
2
Verbal reporting refers to a number of data collection procedures in which research subjects report orally to the
researcher on the processes they are engaged in while performing a cognitive or linguistic task (Cohen and
Hosenfeld 1981, Mann 1983). The assumption underlying the procedure is that learners can provide insightful
information on how they learn and function in the second language (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989, p. 169)
95
This approach studied syntax at both formal and functional level. It also provided a framework to
compare the lexical and syntactic features of two grammars. The researcher used this framework
to do the contrastive analysis of Urdu and English sentence structures. The Test 2 in the current
study consisted of Urdu to English translation questions. The researcher used lexico-functional
technique to do the contrastive analysis of each question. The learners’ errors were analyzed in
the light of the contrastive analysis of L1 and L2.
Data Collection and Data Analysis

The data consists of learners’ two types of responses in two areas. The responses are: (1)
learners’ translation of Urdu sentences into English; (2) learners’ reasons for their errors. The
two areas are: polarity interrogatives, and wh- interrogatives.
Polarity Interrogatives
Both the learners’ answers of the Test 2 and their suggestions for their errors in the polarity
interrogatives are given below:
[kɪja] - What Correlation
Background. In Urdu, [kɪja] has three roles. It functions as:
(1) Interrogative Pronoun, the equivalent of ‘what’.

(2) Polarity marker, the alternative of auxiliary inversion in English.
(3) The past tense variant of the lexical verb ‘do’; i.e. equivalent of the lexical ‘did’.
Some learners translated [kɪja] as ‘what’ instead of doing auxiliary inversion. Some such
examples are given below. On top of the participants’ answers, the writer has provided the
lexico-functional analysis (Butt, 1995) of Urdu and English structures.
96
Ajm: (Does) What he eats two apples daily.

Bil: (Does) What he eats two apples daily?
Sha: (Does) What he eats two apples daily.
Shb: Eats he two apple daily.
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 198)
Cognitive Problem. In the first three answers, the learners avoided auxiliary inversion; and
translated the polarity marker [kɪja] into the interrogative pronoun ‘what’. The researcher called
this phenomenon learners’ inter-lingual correlation between [kɪja] and ‘what’. In the fourth
answer, the learner inverted the main verb. The reason for this error is the overgeneralization
(Ellis, 1994) of an L2 rule.
Bil: (Did) What you enjoy pervaz (flight)?

Sha: (Did) What you enjoyed in plane.
Bil: (Will)What peoples ran the thief?
97
Bil: What (Was the) driver was fast the driving?
Bil: What (Will) I will be come back on (dismounting from the) horse?
Bil: What leave always the village?
Nav: (Will) What the guest have set his place.
Bil: (When) What officer your application consider?
(Khurshid, 2010, pp. 198-199)
98
Cognitive Problem. In all the above Test 2 answers, except for the last one, the inter-lingual
correlation factor is evident. In the last answer, the VP [ɣɔːr kɪja ho ɡa] carries the item [kɪja] in
the third sense (i.e. as the lexical verb ‘did’); but, the learner translated it in the first sense (i.e. as
‘what’). He over-extended (Ellis, 1994) his pre-conceived inter-lingual correlation of [kɪja] and
‘what’ to this sentence.
Bil: What (Has the) patient (been) resting (since) afternoon?
Bil: What were (Had) your brother (been) advising - for two days?
Bil: What (Will) you (have been) talking this (since) morning?
(Khurshid, 2010, pp.199-200)
Cognitive Problem. In all the above Test 2 answers, the learners substituted auxiliary inversion
with ‘what’. The reason for this error is also the overgeneralization of inter-lingual correlation.
Aux-Aux Continuity
Some learners develop very strong link between two auxiliaries. In the present study, it was
observed between ‘will’ and ‘have’.
7.35 p F3: Moh: Will have the guests (have) sat on their seats?
7.35 p F3: Saf: Will have the guests sat (Ven) (sit) on their places.
99
7.36 w F3: Ham: When will have the officer considered your request?
7.47 p F4: Aun: Will have you been talking since morning?
Wse: Will have you been talking since morning?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 213)
Cognitive Problem. In the above answers, the learners inverted two auxiliaries because in their
mind the link between these auxiliaries was too strong. The reason of this error is the learners’
effort to maintain their mental association.
Wh- Interrogative
The researcher noted two reasons of errors in the use of wh- interrogatives: (1) Avoidance of
‘What’ because of the inter-lingual correlation of [kɪja] with the auxiliary inversion; (2) the
preference for an unmarked structure. These factors have been illustrated with examples and
comments in the next section.
Inter-lingual Correlation of Urdu [kɪja] and English Auxiliary Inversion

As described above, the Urdu morpheme [kɪja] has two grammatical functions: (1) it is used as
an interrogative pronoun to mean ‘what’; (2) it is used as a ploarity marker. Sometimes, learners
overgeneralize the first function and sometimes the other. The examples given below illustrate
the second type of overgeneralization. On top of the learners’ Test 2 answers, the researcher has
given the lexico-functional/contrastive analysis of every question.
Jam: (What) Does he eat?

Mat: (What) Does he eat?
Muh: (What) Does he eat?
Shb: (What does) Is he eats?
Zaf: (What does) Is he eat?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 200)
100
Cognitive Problem. The reason for error in the above sentences is the overgeneralization of
inter-lingual correlation. The interrogative Pronoun [kɪja] has been misconstrued as the polarity
marker.
Qam: (Why) Did he tore the paper.
Mat: When Will you get your book published?

Qam: When Will you publish (your) his book?
Ajm: Was who throwing stone on bus.
Mat: (What) Will they be thinking?

Moh: (What) Will they were thinking?
Muh: (What) Will they be thinking?
Sha: (What) Will he be thinking?
Shb: (What) Will they be thinking?
Zaf: (What) Will they (be) thinking?
101
Usm: Do (Has) he live (left) village for always.
Akm: (When) Will officer (have) thought about your leave (request)?
Ajm: (Where had) Was he (been) adding his rupees from six years.
Akm: (Where had) Was he (been) collecting money from where?
Qam: Where Had they been collecting the ruppes.
(Khurshid, 2010, pp. 200-203)
Cognitive Problem. In the above answers, the learners extended the [kɪja]-what association to
other wh- words. They inserted where/when/why etc. and avoided auxiliary inversion. In one
example, a learner placed an auxiliary in front of ‘who’. The error has occurred because of
overgeneralization and over-extension of iner-lingual correlation.
Structural Fluency
Urdu k- questions do not undergo auxiliary inversion; they themselves are question markers.
Whereas in English wh- words are not question markers; rather auxiliary inversion is the
question marker. The avoidance of this feature by the participants of this study seems to have
arisen from L1 interference. Ellis (1994) describes it as the developmental effect. He says that
this error is also observed in the
102
language of the children of native speakers. Rehaman (1990) observed this feature in the
language of Pakistani advanced learners. He terms it as the creolization effect. The researcher
adds two more reasons to account for this phenomenon:
a. To a Pakistani learner, auxiliary inversion in the polarity questions may have an

understandable function; but, in case of wh- questions, he fails to understand the
justification for double interrogativity.
b. The Urdu wh- interrogative structure displays no such inversion. The mental habit of the
Urdu structure may intervene.
Keeping in mind all the above possibilities, the researcher analyzed the following answers as:
Abd: What (does) he eats.

Ajm: What (does) he eats.
Akm: What (does) he eat?
Aun: What (does) he eat eats?
Bil: What (does) he eats?
Kas: What’s [kɔːn si ͡tʃiːz] he eats?
Nav: What (does) he eat?
Qmr: What (does) he eat?
Usm: What (does) he eat?
Wse: What (does) he eats?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 233)
Cognitive Problem. The learners did not give any reason. In their answers, all of them have
skipped ‘does’. None used ‘is’ instead of ‘does’. Khurshid (2010) observed that the replacement
of ‘does’ with ‘is’ is a very frequent error of the present simple tense. In the above
103
examples, no such substitution is observed. It seems that the reason for this error is not L1
interference. The learners have tried to follow the unmarked structure.
Akm: Why (did) he toar (Ved) (tear) paper.

Ami: Why (did) he torn paper.
Aun: Why (did) he tore (tear) the paper?
Muh: Why (did) he tore (tear) paper?
Nav: Why (did) he tear the paper?
Qmr: Why (did) he torn (Ved) (tear) the paper?
Sha: Why (did) he tore the paper.
(Why did) (tear )
Usm: For what he tore the paper?
Was: Why (did) he torn (Ved) (tear) the paper?
Wse: Why (did) he torred (Ved) (tear) the paper?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 234)
Cognitive Problem. The structure of Urdu and English past simple tense is very similar. No
auxiliary is used in the affirmative sentences in either language. In negative and interrogative
sentences, Urdu lacks auxiliary, whereas English gets ‘did’. Apparently, the learners’ avoidance
of ‘did’ in this tense hints at the possibility of L1 interference. But the learners’ attempts in the
present simple tense above suggest their preference for the unmarked structures.
Nav: Whene (will) you print his book?

Qam: When (will) you will print.
Shb: When (will) you will prenting his book?
104
Usm : When (will) you print your own book?

Wse: When (will) you will publish your book?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 234)
Cognitive Problems. The students did not tell any reason for avoidance of auxiliary inversion in
this tense. In the light of the students’ attempts in the present and past simple tenses, it can be
surmised that they preferred for an unmarked structure. This reason is supported by the answers
of the two learners who skipped ‘will’ completely. They wrote their answers in the present
simple tense without any auxiliary insertion and inversion. They said that they thought the future
tense was contained within ‘when’.
Akm: Why (are) students are comeing early from school?

Irf: Why (are) students are coming fastly from school?
Irfan said that the presence of wh-word was sufficient to make it a question.
Mat: Why (are) the students are coming back so early from the school?
Qam: Why (are) the students are coming back from school.
Qmr: Why (are)students are coming back soon?
Sha: Why (are) students are coming soon to school.
Usm: Why (are) the student comeing early from the school?
Was: Why (are) students are coming earlier from school?
Wse: Why (are) the students are coming back the house quickly?
(Khurshid, 2010, pp. 234-235)
Cognitive Problem. As in the above answers, here again the reason seems to be the learners’
preference for the unmarked structure.
105
Ami: What (will) they will be thinking.

Dil: What (will) they will be thinking?
Nav: What (will) he is thought?
Qam: What (will) they will be thinking?
Qmr: What (will) they will be thinking?
Usm: What (will) he (they be) thinking now.
Wse: What (will) they (be) will thought (thinking)?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 235)
Ami: Where (have) you are looked this man?

Bil: Where (have) you looked this man?
Dil: Where (have) you was seen (Ved) this man?
Irf: Where (have) you seen this man?
Nav: Where (have) you have seen the his man?
Qam: Where (have) you have seen this man?
Qmr: Where (have) you seen that man?
Sha: Where (have) you seen that man?
Usm: Where (have) you seen this man?
Was: Where (have) you have seen that man?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 235)
106
Ami: Why (had) the people had come back before the bus arrive.
Aun: Why (had) the people had gone before the bus arrived?
Bil: Why (had) the people come back reached the bus.
Mat: Why (had) people had gone back before the bus reached.
Muh: Why (had) the people had gone before (the) bus reached?
Qam: Why (had) people had gone before the bus arrived?
Sha: Why (had) people had gone before came bus.
Was: Why (had) the people went (gone) back before the arrival of the bus?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 236)
Mat: When (will) the officer would have observed your application?
Sha: When (will) officer will (have) thought (Vo) youre application.
Wse: When (will) the officer (have considered) will concern your application.
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 236)
Ami: (Since) When (have) the children are (been) filling air in balloon.
Bil: (Since) When (have) the children are (been) filling air…
Mat: Since when (have) the children are (been) blowing the balloon?
107
Was: For how long (have) the children are (been) filling air in the balloon?
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 236)
Bil: Where (had) they was (been) collecting papers for six year?
Mat: Where (had) they had been collecting money for six years.
Moh: Where (had) they had been depositing the money (for) last six months.
(had)
Muh: Where they had been collecting rupees for six year?
Sha: Where (had) they had (been) collecting money for six days.
Usm: Where (had) they (been) collecting money (for) since six years.
Was: Where (had) they were (been) collecting their money for six years?
Wse: Where (had) they had been collecting the money since (for) six years.
(Khurshid, 2010, pp. 236-237)
Mat: Where (will) the wanderers would have been living since January.
Moh: Where (will) the gypsy will have been living since January.
Qam: Where (will) the gypsy will have been living since Janvery.
Sha: Where (will) nomads will have (been) living since January.
Usm: Where (will) the gypsies (have been) liveing for January?
Was: Where (will) the gypsy will be (have been) living?
Wse: Where (will) the nomads will have (been) --------- since January?
108
(Khurshid, 2010, p. 237)

The learners did not give any direct reason. The indirect hints from their answers suggest
that they preferred the unmarked structures. How much is the role of the L1 interference is not
clear.
Conclusion
The study explored the reasons for learners’ errors in English interrogative sentences. One reason
was common in wh- questions and polarity interrogatives. It was the confusion of translating the
Urdu morpheme [kɪja] either as the interrogative pronoun ‘what’, or as the process of auxiliary
inversion. There were two more reasons: one each for polarity interrogatives and wh- questions.
Some learners develop so strong a link between two auxiliaries that they cannot think of splitting
them; therefore, they invert them together. The other problem is that some learners pursued the
unmarked structure and avoided auxiliary inversion in wh- questions.
In the light of the abovementioned findings, the answer to the first research question is
that inter-lingual correlations, mental associations, and preference for the unmarked structures
create hurdles in the learning of interrogative sentences. The answer to the second question is
that L1 interference hinders the learning of interrogative structures in the form of inter-lingual
correlation of [kɪja] with ‘what’, and with auxiliary inversion.
Remedy. In the light of the above findings, the researcher suggests the following remedial
measures:
1. Extensive and intensive exercises in the grammatical structures. Extensive drills are
necessary for each of the following structures exclusively: affirmative, negative, wh-
interrogative, polarity questions. Intensive drills should include mixed practice.
2. Balanced practice of reading, writing, listening, speaking skills. The combined force of
all the four skills, especially the speaking
109
skill, is necessary to make correct mental associations, and to minimize the

overgeneralization/over-extension of pre-existing mental associations.
3. Inductive-Deductive teaching of grammar. Before teaching a rule of grammar, the
learners should be made to memorize many easy examples pertaining to that rule.
Teaching becomes easier if the learner has already learnt a few examples of the relevant
rule.
4. Concept-based testing and evaluation. The paper pattern that tests the students’
cramming cannot motivate him for conceptual learning. Therefore, in order to give our
students a positive attitude and a correct approach towards L2 learning, we must make
our examination system a method of testing, and assessing concepts and skill, not rote
learning.
The researcher found that for the participants of the present study L2 learning was three
times more complicated than L1 learning. At step 1, the learners learn the features of L2; at step
2, they have to unlearn the already learned fossilized concepts; at step 3, they have to establish
L2 system parallel to L1. A teacher of English in a Pakistani public sector college must work
against all these odds for efficient teaching.
110
References
Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian
Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102. Retrieved from:
http://www.melta.org.my/modules/tinycontent/Dos/PairoteBennui2008.pdf
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case
studies of native language interference with target language usage. International
Education Journal 1(1), 22-31. Retrieved from:
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v1n1/bhela/bhela.pdf
Butt, M. (1995). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford, California, CA: CSLI
Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Butt, M. I. and Rasool, S. (2012). Error analysis of the writing of Pakistani college students:
From causes to types to rectification. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 15(1),1-
22.
Carnie, A. (2006). Syntax: A generative introduction (2nd. Ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004, Spring). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of Hong
Kong Chinese ESL learners. The modern language journal, 88(1), 56-74.
DOI: 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00218.x
Chen, H. C. (1998). A contrastive analysis of the language errors made by the Chinese students
of English as a second/foreign language. Journal of Wu-Feng Applied Linguistics, 6, 224-
237.
Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s universal grammar: An introduction (3nd. Ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Eastwood, J. (1994). Oxford guide to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
111
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar

(3rd. Ed.). London: Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group.
Khurshid, M. A. (2010, November). Cognitive problems of Urdu-medium college students in

learning English syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National University of
Modern Languages, Islamabad.
Rehman, T. (1990). Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of

English. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University.
Sawalmeh, M. H. M. (2013, November 12). Error Analysis of Written English Essays: The case
of Students of the Preparatory Year Program in Saudi Arabia. English for Specific
Purposes World, 40(14), 1-17. Retrieved from:
http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_40/Sawalmeh.pdf
Schmidt, R. L. (1999). Urdu: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.

Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. In P. Jordens and L. Robert (Eds.), International Review of

Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209-232. ProQuest-CSA LLC. Walter
de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209, November 2009.
Shimada, Y. (1986, November). The acquisition of English interrogatives by a Japanese speaker.

JALT Journal, 8(1), 1-15. Retrieved from:
http://jalt-publications.org/jj/issues/1986-11_8.1
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd. Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomson, A. J. and Martinet, A, V. (1986). A practical English grammar. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in Learning English Interrogative Sentences by Khurshid and Hassan (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in Learning English Interrogative Sentences by Khurshid and Hassan (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

87

Cognitive Problems of Urdu-Medium College Students in

(i) Avoidance of auxiliary inversion,

Contrastive Analysis of the English and Urdu Interrogative Structures

Figure 1: Model of Contrastive Analysis by Stockwell et al (1965)

Wh- Words vs. k-Words

1. Features of L1 lexical interference in the students’ written English.

Rehman (1990) noted the avoidance of auxiliary inversion in interrogative sentences by

Data Collection and Data Analysis

[kɪja] - What Correlation

Background. In Urdu, [kɪja] has three roles. It functions as:

(1) Interrogative Pronoun, the equivalent of ‘what’.

Ajm: (Does) What he eats two apples daily.

Bil: (Did) What you enjoy pervaz (flight)?

Bil: (Will)What peoples ran the thief?

Bil: What (Was the) driver was fast the driving?

Bil: What leave always the village?

Nav: (Will) What the guest have set his place.

Bil: (When) What officer your application consider?

(Khurshid, 2010, pp. 198-199)

Bil: What (Has the) patient (been) resting (since) afternoon?

Inter-lingual Correlation of Urdu [kɪja] and English Auxiliary Inversion

Jam: (What) Does he eat?

Qam: (Why) Did he tore the paper.

Mat: When Will you get your book published?

Ajm: Was who throwing stone on bus.

Mat: (What) Will they be thinking?

Usm: Do (Has) he live (left) village for always.

a. To a Pakistani learner, auxiliary inversion in the polarity questions may have an

Abd: What (does) he eats.

(Khurshid, 2010, p. 233)

Akm: Why (did) he toar (Ved) (tear) paper.

Nav: Whene (will) you print his book?

Usm : When (will) you print your own book?

Akm: Why (are) students are comeing early from school?

Ami: What (will) they will be thinking.

Ami: Where (have) you are looked this man?

(Khurshid, 2010, p. 237)

skill, is necessary to make correct mental associations, and to minimize the

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar

Khurshid, M. A. (2010, November). Cognitive problems of Urdu-medium college students in

Rehman, T. (1990). Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of

Schmidt, R. L. (1999). Urdu: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. In P. Jordens and L. Robert (Eds.), International Review of

Shimada, Y. (1986, November). The acquisition of English interrogatives by a Japanese speaker.

Thomson, A. J. and Martinet, A, V. (1986). A practical English grammar. Oxford: Oxford

You might also like