INTRODUCTION This study focuses on the interference of L1 grammatical rules in the writing of L2 with specific reference to the interference

of Terengganunian (L1) in English (L2). This study seeks to find out the components of the L1 grammar that the students of Primary schools use interchangeably in their daily writing of L2, namely English. It further seeks to find out which grammatical components dominate the inter-language grammar. The research hopes to seek further understanding regarding the theoretical debate on inter-language grammar influence. I decided to embark on this study when I was teaching English to some Malay school students, a few years ago. I found that these students always had the tendency to answer English questions in Malay. When they really tried to answer in English, they usually resorted to using the direct translation method. I observed that whenever they did this, their answers were heavily influenced by their mother tongue, both phonologically and grammatically. This observation is based on my intuition as a multilingual speaker who has had experience, in terms of mother tongue interference, while studying English in college. A lot of research has been conducted regarding the phonological interference of inter-languages, for example, (Keys, 2002). A much relevant research that was done pertaining to writing was in 1999 which was published in the International Educational Journal. Native Language Interference in Learning a Second Language: Exploratory Case Studies of Native Language interference with Target Language Usage. I would like to explore the grammatical interference of L2 learners further, particularly among children. How does a child create the mental construct that is language? Children do not wake up one morning with a fully formed grammar in their heads or with all the rules of social and communicative intercourse. Linguistic knowledge develops in stages. Chomsky (1950) first resorted to this concept of Universal Grammar because he believes that children cannot learn their first language so quickly and effortlessly without the help of some inborn talents. In terms of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), learners are faced with the same logical problems faced in the process of acquiring the first language. Furthermore, this learning is also influenced, either positively or negatively, by the first language. However, to what extent does the interference (if any) really affect the learners? These are the questions that always concern me whenever I teach children in vernacular schools. Since the 1960s researchers like Nabakov (1960) have pointed unequivocally to the advantages of bilingualism. Children who know a second language are better at separating semantic from

phonetic aspects of words, at tasks involving classification, and at tests of creativity. They are said to have sharper awareness of language. Knowledge of a second language is a normal part of human existence; therefore it may well be unusual to know only one language. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is not a uniform and predictable phenomenon. There is no single way in which learners acquire knowledge of a second language (L2). There are many factors that contribute to SLA. Different learners in different situations learn L2 in different ways. Second language acquisition refers to all the aspects of language that the language learner needs to master. However, the focus, for example has been on how L2 learners acquire grammatical subsystems, such as the syntactical rules, subject-verb agreement and tenses. It is a strong belief among scholars in language studies that SLA is influenced by the learnersfirst language (L1) to varying degrees. The clear support for this belief comes from foreignaccents in the L2 speech of learners. When a Malay of Terengganu background in the subcontinent speaks English, his/her English sounds Terengganunian (popular languages among the Terengganu people). Although human languages have a great deal in common, which enables us to translate from one language to another without much difficulty, they are also very different from one another in many aspects. These differences are explicitly depicted in our disability and struggle to learn a new language. Second language acquisition has both similarities and dissimilarities with those of the first language. It is the study of how learners learn an additional language after they have acquired their native tongue. The key issue in this matter would be to what extent SLA and L1 acquisition are similar or different processes. It is a popular belief that SLA is strongly influenced by the learners first language. It is also a popular belief that the role of the first language is a negative one. That is, the L1 gets in the way or interferes with the learning of the L2, such that the features of the L1are transferred onto L2. (Bolton and Kachru, 2006) L1 interference occurs in certain contexts, but not in others. The task facing SLA research is to specify precisely what the similarities are in order to predict, or explain precisely, when and where interference takes place.

FINDINGS English as a Second Language in Malaysia The English language in Malaysia, a country in South-East Asia, a member of the Commonwealth and Asean has undergone dynamic changes in the last few decades. It has, for more than a century, played an important role in the lives of Malaysians. This is clearly evident in the Razak Report 1956 that made English a compulsory second language in Malaysian schools. Before the 70s English was the medium of instruction in a number of public schools. The transformation in 1971, due to the implementation of the Education Enactment Bill in 1971 by the Malaysian government replaced English with Bahasa Melayu (BM) the National Language throughout the public sector and the education system. The name Anglo-Malay has been used to describe the language that emerged during colonial times among expatriates and a local lite, serving as the vehicle through which such words as compound/kampong, durian, orang utan, and sarong have entered general English. Some English-medium schools were established in the 19th century (in Penang in 1816, Singapore 1823, Malacca 1826, and Kuala Lumpur 1894), at the same time as BM or Malay, Chinese, and Tamil schools were encouraged. Those members of the various ethnic groups who were educated in the English-medium schools came to use English increasingly in their occupations and their daily life; the 1957 census reported 400,000 people (some 6% of the population then) as claiming to be literate in the language. When the British began to withdraw in the late 1950s, English had become the dominant language of the non-European lite, and with independence became with Malay the alternate official language. However, the National Language Act of 1967 established Malay (renamed Bahasa Malaysia in 1963) as the sole official language, with some exceptions in such areas as medicine, law, banking, and business. English-medium education expanded after independence; there were close to 400,000 students in such schools when, in 1969, the Ministry of Education decided that all English-medium schools would become Malay-medium. By the early 80s, the process through which Bahasa Malaysia became the national language of education was virtually complete, but the shift prompted widespread concern that general proficiency in English would decline. The language conversion programme was completed in 1980 at the form 5 level. However the conversion of the medium of language from English to Malay brought about a change in the status of English. The change resulted in unfavourable side effects.

Deterioration in the standard of English was observed in the 70 s and early 80 s. The fact that English has been taught only as a subject also indirectly undermined its role. This system produced students who learned English for 11 years and yet were unable to communicate effectively in English. Taking these factors into consideration, five years ago, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, after a thorough study, ordered the Ministry of Education, to revamp the teaching and learning of science and mathematics. Mathematics and science are being taught in English now. Paradoxically, there are still nationalists who are not in favour of the change and demanding the government to go back to the old system. To prevent this, English has been retained as the compulsory second language in primary and secondary schools. Some 20% of the present population understand English and some 25% of city dwellers use it for specific purposes in their every day life. It is widely used in the media and as a reference language in higher education. There are seven English-language daily newspapers (with a combined circulation of over 500,000) and three newspapers in Sabah published partly in English (circulation over 60,000). English is essentially an urban middle-class language, virtually all its users are bilingual, and code-switching is commonplace. Comparatively, Malaysian English and Singapore English have much in common, with the main exception that English in Malaysia is more subject to influence from Malay. Pronunciation is marked by a strong tendency to syllable-timed rhythm, and a simplification of word-final consonant clusters, as in /lv/ for lived. Syntactic characteristics include: the countable use of some usually uncountable nouns (Pick up your chalks; A consideration for others is important); innovations in phrasal verbs (such as cope up with rather than cope with); the use of reflexive pronouns to form emphatic pronouns (Myself sick. I am sick; Himself funny He is funny); and the multi-purpose particle lah, a token especially of informal intimacy (Sorry, can't come lah). Local vocabulary includes such borrowings from Malay as bumiputera (originally Sanskrit, son of the soil) a Malay or other indigenous person, dadah illegal drugs, rakyat the people, citizens, Majlis (from Arabic) Parliament, makan food; such special usages as banana leaf restaurant a South Indian restaurant where food is served on banana leaves, chop a rubber stamp or seal, crocodile a womanizer, girlie barber shop a hairdressing salon that doubles as a massage parlour or brothel, sensitive issues (as defined in the Constitution) issues that must not be raised in public, such as the status of the various languages used in Malaysia and the rights and

privileges of the different communities; such colloquialisms as bes (from best) great, fantastic, relac (from relax) take it easy; and such hybrids as bumiputera status indigenous status, and dadah addict drug addict. Features of Standard Malaysian English (SME) Standard Malaysian English is generally non-rhotic. Standard Malaysian English originates from British English as a result of the colonial experience. It has also components of American English, Malay, Chinese, Indian, and other languages in terms of vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. Like South-Eastern British English, Standard Malaysian English employs a broad An accent, as such words like bath and chance appear with // and not //. The /t/ phoneme in words like butter is usually not flapped (as in most forms of American English) or realised as a glottal stop (as in some other forms of British English, including Cockney). There is no h-dropping in words like head. Standard Malaysian English does not have yod-dropping after /n/, /t/ and /d/. Hence, for example, new, tune and dune are pronounced /nju/, /tjun/ and /djun/ rather than /nu/, /tun/ and /dun/. This contrasts with many East Anglian and East Midland varieties of British English and with most forms of American English. Varieties of English in Malaysia According to The Encyclopedia of Malaysia: Languages & Literature (2004), English in Malaysia has been categorized into three levels: the acrolect, mesolect and basilect. The acrolect is nearnative, and not many Malaysians fall into this category - only those acrolect is near-native, and not many Malaysians fall into this category - only those educated in core English-speaking countries from early schooling up to university may be found to speak the acrolect variety, so only a small percentage of Malaysians are proficient in it. As with other similar situations, a continuum exists between these three varieties and speakers may code-switch between them depending on context.

Standard Malaysian English and British English In the first half of the 20th century, Standard Malaysian English was nearly similar to British English (BrE) (albeit spoken with a Malaysian accent). However in the postcolonial era (after 1957), the influx of American TV programmes has influenced the usage of Standard Malaysian English. There is no official language board, council or organisation to ensure the correct and standard usage of Malaysian English, because after independence, Malay replaced English as the official language. The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate continues, however, to set and mark the GCE O-Level English Language 1119 paper which is a compulsory subject for the Malaysian Certificate of Education (the English Language paper set by the Malaysian Ministry of Education which is the same as the English Language 1119 paper for GCE O-Level). Words Only Used in British English To a large extent, Standard Malaysian English is derived from British English, largely due to the country's colonisation by Britain beginning from the 18th century. But because of influence from the American mass media, particularly in the form of television programmes and movies, Malaysians are also usually familiar with many American English words. For instance, both "lift/elevator" and "lorry/truck" are understood, although the British form is preferred. Only in some very limited cases is the American English form more widespread, e.g. "chips" instead of "crisps", "fries" instead of "chips". Words or phrases only used in Standard Malaysian English Standard Malaysian English has also created its own vocabulary just like in any other former British colonies such as Australia and New Zealand and these words come from a variety of influences. Typically, for words or phrases that are based on other English words, the rural Malaysian English speaker may be unaware that the word or phrase is not present in British or American English. Malaysian Handphone (often abbreviated to HP) Malaysian Chinese / Malaysian Indian KIV (keep in view) British / American Mobile phone or Cell phone Chinese Malaysian / Indian Malaysian Kept on file, held for further consideration

Slippers Outstation MC (medical certificate). Often used in this context, e.g. 'He is on MC today. Photostat Mee Aircon Remisier

Flip-flop Means both 'out of town' and/or 'overseas/abroad'.

Sick note

Photocopy, Xerox Noodles Air-conditioner Broker

Difference in Meanings between Standard British English and Standard Malaysian English This is a list of words and phrases that have one meaning in British English and another in Malaysian English Word / Phrase last time a parking lot Malaysian meaning previously a parking space, e.g. "That new shopping mall has five hundred parking lots." an alphabet a letter of the alphabet, e.g. "The word 'table' has five alphabets." Bungalow A mansion for the rich and/or famous; or a fully detached house, regardless of the number of floors it has. Lately, A small house or cottage usually having a single storey and sometimes an additional attic storey that is free a set of letters used in a language American / British meaning on the previous occasion a parking garage (from US English)

some housing developers have taken the abuse of this word further and we now see terms like "a semi-detached bungalow". to follow to accompany, e.g. "Can I follow you?" meaning "Can I come with you?"

standing, i.e. not conjoined with another unit.

to go after or behind, e.g. "The police car was following me" to retain as one's own, e.g. "I must decide which to throw away and which to keep." to return to a previous edit or state

to keep

to put away or store, e.g. a parent tells a child "Keep your toys!"

to revert

to get back to someone, e.g. in an email: "I will investigate this and revert to you by tomorrow."

to send

to take someone somewhere, e.g. "Can you send me to the airport?"

to cause something to go somewhere without accompanying it, e.g. "I sent this letter to my grandma."

Vocabulary Many Malay and Malaysian words or phrases that describe Malaysian culture are used in Malaysian English. Some of these are: Cik: Ms Dadah: Drugs (As in narcotics, etc) Encik: Mr

 kampung : a village lepak: loiter Mat Salleh : a white male Puan: Madam

There are also many non-Malaysian words used in Malaysian English that are not in standard English. The following are shared with Australia, New Zealand or other countries: chips "hot chips" US "french fries" and UK "chips". having-in/having here eat-in at a restaurant takeaway take-out food. apartment a medium-cost and high-cost flat flat a low-cost flat. The following words are either unique to Malaysia or used in a peculiar Malaysian context: bungalow a villa or any semi-detached house regardless of the size or number of storeys blur confused chop to stamp (with a rubber stamp), as well as the stamp itself. condominium a high-cost flat usually with common facilities. la(h)! the prominent trademark in Manglish, the colloquial variety of Malaysian English, it is used among other things, for emphasis at the end of a sentence, la(h)! (see note above on Malaysian influence. It originates from Chinese influence although the 'lah' is of the Malay language). E.g: Are you coming over to the party tonight? Yes, of course lah. pass up to hand in as in "Pass up your assignments".

 rubber meaning eraser as in "Can I borrow your rubber?" (This is also a sense given to the word in British English.) send to take somebody somewhere - "I'll send you to the airport." slippers in the US and UK "flip-flops", Australia "thongs" spoil to be damaged "This one, spoil, lah."

Syntax Many syntactical features of Malaysian English may or may not be found in other forms of English, for example: "There is"/"there are" and "has"/"have" are both expressed using got, so that sentences can be translated in either way back into British / American English. This is equivalent to the Chinese - yu (to have): Got question? Is there a question? / Do you have a question? Yesterday ar, East Coast Park got so many people! There were so many people at East Coast Park yesterday. / East Coast Park had so many people [there] yesterday. This bus got air-con or not? Is there air-conditioning on this bus? / Does this bus have air-conditioning? Where got!? lit. Where is there [this]?, also more loosely, What are you talking about? or Where did you get that idea?; generic response to any accusation. Can is used extensively as both a question particle and an answer particle. The negative is cannot. Gimme lah, ok or not? (Give it to me, OK?) Can! (Sure!) Cannot. (No way.)

Officially, Malaysian English uses the same pronunciation system as British English. However, most Malaysians speak with a distinctive accent. The accent has recently evolved to become more American, due to the influx of American TV programmes and the large number of Malaysians pursuing higher education in the United States. For example, this increased the emphasis on "r" in words such as "referring" and "world".

Role of Standard Malaysian English in Independent Malaysia Even though Malaysian English is no longer a dominant language of Malaysia, it is still used among Malaysians and is recognised as the language of business and tertiary education for example. About 80% of urban businesses in Malaysia conduct their transactions in English (both standard Malaysian English and Manglish). American English has quite a strong foothold in international businesses in Malaysia. There are several English language newspapers in Malaysia namely The Star, The Sun, New Straits Times and Malay Mail. There are also many English radio stations such as Hitz.fm, Mix FM, Light & Easy, Fly fm, Traxx FM and Red FM. However, Malaysia does not have any television station which broadcasts purely in English. The Government National Language policy requires local TV stations to air at least 25% Malaysian-made programmes (either Malay or English). Some privately owned TV stations (such as TV3, NTV7, 8TV and Astro Hitz.TV) do air some Malaysian-made programmes in English. A few Malaysian-made TV programmes in Malay carry English subtitles and vice-versa. English is regarded as the lingua franca, understood by people around the world. This is because British English was introduced in the British Empire during the colonization era. After the many colonies gained independence, one standard English has evolved into many different localized dialects; namely Singapore English (SE), Malaysian English (ME) and Indian English among others. Such local varieties have caused fear among educators and professionals, especially the native speakers, that English has turned into a corrupt language. With relevance to Clynes(1992) discussion on pluricentric languages, this paper shall highlight the nature of local variations in the context of Standard Malaysian English as well as justify the needs for having standard non-native varieties of the English language used within the confines of the Malaysian socio-cultural context. Suggestions for realizing this matter as means of encouraging more public acceptance and bridging proficiency gaps in the target

language will also be featured. English is officially described as a strong second language. It is the language officially considered, only second in importance to the Malay language and regarded as a vital link with the rest of the world.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to identify the interference of L1 grammatical rules in the writing of L2 with specific reference to the interference of Terengganu Malay (L1) in English (L2). The identified interference will be used by the L2 teachers to help the students to learn L2, better without the cross linguistic problems. There is a consensus of opinion among Malaysians of all walks of life on the need to improve the standard of English in Malaysia. Efforts are being made to improve the teaching and learning of the English language in schools. Furthermore L2 learning provides valuable insights into teaching that will help teachers, whatever their methodological slant. This inter-language study seeks to find out the components of L1 grammar that students of Malay schools use frequently in their daily writing of L2. It further seeks to find out which grammatical component or components dominate the inter-language grammar. This research hopes to seek further understanding regarding the theoretical debate on inter-language grammar influence. The study will be significant for English teachers of Tamil schools as they will be able to understand the influence of L1 knowledge in the writing of L2 and change their approach in correcting grammatical errors. Curriculum planners will be able to get a clearer picture of the scenario that takes place in the teaching of L2 in Tamil schools and adapt the curriculum accordingly.

METHODOLOGY The case study methodology in this study was not an experimental intervention. It was designed to uncover something of the complexity of language use in a particular sample of language learners and so it had an explicit descriptive purpose. It aimed to analyse the use of specific parts of language and to use the results of that analysis to make judgements about the status of the L1-L2 interference hypothesis. The interview was a flexible procedure that allowed for probing of the participants' linguistic knowledge. The research questions posed were mainly

what questions that were exploratory. A goal of the study was to develop a pertinent hypothesis and propositions for further inquiry. Participants There were five participants in the case study from SK Telaga, Kuala Berang, Terengganu. Writing is important for these learners to do their schoolwork from time to time. Tasks The five learners were given two sets of sequential pictures, one at a time, and asked to write a story beginning with the first picture and ending with the last, in the order presented in each set. The first set of pictures related to a boy deciding to play tennis instead of washing the car and the second set of pictures related to a driver driving in the opposite direction of the traffic. There was no time limit for the task. However they had to ensure that they had a logical sequence in the written story which related to the pictures. The learners were then asked to write the same story a second time, in the native language. They were then asked to write a second story in English and the native language for the second set of sequential pictures. The learners were asked to attempt the tasks individually without any group interaction initially. After an individual attempt, they were allowed to interact with each other if they wished. The tasks were part of the classroom activities done in the presence of the teacher. Writing two stories each in English as well as the native language provided a broader base for the analysis of the errors made. It also provided a suitable sample of written performance, thus allowing a more reliable estimate of the participants' competence. Interview After the writing tasks, the four learners were interviewed individually, which were tape-recorded where they were asked to explain why and how they used a specific L1 or L2 structure if there was an error identified. They were also asked what they knew about the structures of L1 and L2 and to make judgements of semantic acceptability of sentences in L1 and L2. They were then asked to self-correct identified errors in the L2 text.

Analysis Procedures The analysis of the learners L1 written texts was done with the help of native language experts, while I analysed the English texts. Three L2 native speaker teachers were asked to interpret the learners L2 written texts and rate these texts for semantic and syntactic acceptability. The purpose here was to answer the pertinent question raised - does the L2 text have to be syntactically correct for its meaning to be understood for L2 learners at the assessed level of L2 proficiency? Results The five subjects completed the tasks in an hour. The non-segmented and unedited versions of each learner's written texts were analysed. L1 and L2 proficiency levels. The five learners were assessed before the tasks, using the Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR) to determine their L2 writing proficiency. The ASLPR has 12 proficiency levels within a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 indicating native-like proficiency. The ASLPR was also used as a comparison gauge by the native language teachers to identify the learners' L1 writing proficiency in comparison to their L2 proficiency. These four learners were at level 1+ in their writing skills according to the ASLPR. According to Wylie and Ingram (1995) learners at this level can write simple social correspondence; their language is creative enough to use stock phrases and complex enough to convey in a simple way, their own attitudes to familiar things; they make several mistakes but generally get their ideas across. Table 1 shows the learners' L1 and L2 proficiency levels. The learners were found to have similar levels (1+) in their L1 and L2. Table 1: Proficiency levels of L1 and L2 Learners Proficiency L1 L2

Danish 1+ 1+

Azraf 1+ 1+

Alia 1+ 1+

Haikal 1+ 1+

Zila 1+ 1+

Table 2: L1 errors for all learners L1 errors Apostrophe Punctuation Spelling Prepositions Danish 0 X X X Azraf 0 X X X Alia X X X X Haikal X X X X Zila 0 X X X

Capital letters Present & past continuous tenses Subject pronouns Vocabulary Passive & active voice

X / / X /

X / / / /

X X / / 0

X X X / X

X / / X /

L2 errors Table 3 shows the L2 errors made by the learners in the two writing tasks. For example, all five learners made errors in the use of punctuation (denoted by a 'x'). Danish and Alia did not use the repeated pronoun as this structure is absent in their L1 (denoted by a '0'). Bianca used subject pronouns appropriately in her L2 texts (denoted by a '_ '). A comparison of the analyses of L1 and L2 showed eight syntactical areas bearing signs of direct interference of L1 on L2. The results are shown in Table 4 below, which shows the errors made by the four learners in both their L1 and L2 texts, where the L1 errors were transferred to the L2 texts. Pairs of languages Table 5 shows the differences and similarities between the syntactical structures of the learners' native languages when compared to English. The 'A' denotes an absent structure, the 'P' denotes an existing structure with limited use in L1 and the 'S' denotes a similar structure to English. Table 3: L2 errors for all learners L2 errors Apostrophe Contractions Punctuation Articles Prepositions Spelling Capital letters Repeated pronouns Subject pronouns Present & past continuous tenses Past tense Adverbs Plurals Incomplete sentences Vocabulary Passive & active voice Danish X / X X X X X 0 X X / / / / X X Azraf X / X / X X X X / X / X / / X X Alia X / X X X X X X / X / / / X X X Haikal X X X / X X X 0 X X X X X X X X Zila X / X / X X X X / X / / / / X X

Table 4: A comparison of the L1 and L2 analyses indicating areas of L1 interference on L2 L2 errors Possessive Apostrophe Punctuation Passive & active voice Prepositions Spelling Capital letters Repeated pronouns Present & past continuous tenses Danish X X / X X X X X Azraf X X / X X X X X Alia X X X X X X X X Haikal X X X X X X X X Zila X X X X X X X X

The results from Table 4 indicating the learners' L2 errors are also shown alongside each structure. For example, the 'x' denotes an error/s made in L2 and a '_ ' denotes a correct use of the structure. Self-editing The learners were observed in terms of the oral group interaction during the tasks. They asked each other for help, particularly with spelling and vocabulary. In the individual interviews, they were asked to explain why they had used specific L1 and L2 structures. Table 5 shows the L2 self-editing instances by each of the learners. All four learners were able to self-edit some of the errors made in their L2 texts after these errors were pointed out to them individually. In the selfediting, the learners concentrated on the correction of spelling and there were a few instances of syntactical error correction such as punctuation. Table 5: L2 self-editing Learners L2 self-editing Danish / Azraf / Alia / Haikal / Zila /

L2 semantic acceptability Three L2 native speaker teachers (NST) were asked to interpret the learners' L2 written texts without showing them the sequential sets of pictures the learners had been given for the tasks. The teachers were asked to rate the texts on a scale of 1 (poor), 2 (average) and 3 (good) for semantic and syntactic acceptability in terms of the stories written for the sequential sets of

pictures, as indicated in Table 7 below. Text 1 and Text 2 were given similar ratings by the three native speaker teachers. This then meant that the type of writing each learner produced in both texts, Text 1 and Text 2 were of a similar level and could be understood by the L2 native speaker teachers, despite the errors found in the texts. The pertinent question previously raised in this paper was answered - the L2 text does not have to be syntactically correct (by L2 standards) for its meaning to be understood, for L2 learners at the assessed level of L2 proficiency. Table 6: Native speaker teachers' rating for L2 semantic acceptability Rating for L2 semantic acceptability Learners Danish Azraf Alia Haikal Zila 2 2 3 2 3 Text 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 Text 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3

CONCLUSSION The major concern of this paper has been with the observable features of interference of L1 on L2 and what its effects are on the syntactic structure of a written task of a second language learner. The learners have used some L1 structures to produce appropriate responses in L2, producing semantically acceptable texts. Subsequently, the learners have also used L1 structures interchangeably with L2 structures, producing inappropriate L2 responses, indicating an interference of L1 on L2. These structures are used to make them understood and reflect the way they arrive at a certain usage at a specific point (Faerch & Kasper, 1983). These structures do not reflect failure in any way but are a means to increase their resources in order to realise their communicative intentions. In using the L1 structures, the learners have taken some risks that include guessing of a more or less informed kind. They have attempted to use invented or borrowed items, all more or less approximated to the rules of L2 structure as far as their knowledge of L2 allows.

When the learners experience gaps in their L2 syntactical structures, they adjust the form of their L2 written responses by using syntactical items which are part of their L1. The analysis of the learners' writing revealed the extent to which their L2 responses are affected by their L1, the procedures used to express concepts for which L2 syntax is unknown and the extent to which and the manner in which L1 syntax interferes with L2 (Bialystok, 1990). The L2 errors made are traceable to the learners' L1 and we can conclude that there is definite interference of L1 on L2 as indicated in the analysis of the eight syntactical areas discussed. The five learners relate L2 syntax to what they already know about language. The most salient facts they possess about language are those of L1. In the process of attempting to relate L2 to L1, they speculate about the similarity or difference between L2 and L1. The result is a subsumption of L2 under known categories in L1 competence and hence a translation process has taken place (Seligar, 1988). Where the structures of L1 and L2 are similar, the learner' lack of understanding its use in L1 is also reflected as an error in L2. The use of L1 structures as a principle of fundamental language organisation and processing has immediate serviceability for these learners. The learners bring the form and meaning of both L1 and L2 into closer alignment and thus render usable a complex portion of L2 syntax that would otherwise be for the time being, inaccessible to them. The prior disposition of L1 has affected the L2 responses. Blum-Kulka and Levenston (1983) contend that all second language learners begin by assuming that for every word in L1 there is a single translation equivalent in L2. The assumption of wordfor-word translation equivalence or 'thinking in the mother tongue (L1)' is the only way a learner can begin to communicate in a second language. This has been clearly indicated in this study where the second language learners have adopted their L1 structures to help them in their L2 texts. These learners will not attain mastery of the target language as long as the process of translation equivalence is in place. Blum-Kulka and Levenston assert that mastery of the second language involves the gradual abandonment of the translation equivalence, the internalisation of the syntactical structures in L2 independently of the L1 equivalent, and the ability to 'think in the second language'. These learners have accumulated structural entities of L2 but demonstrate difficulty in organizing this knowledge into appropriate, coherent structures. There is a significant gap between the accumulation and organisation of this knowledge. When writing in the target language, these learners rely on their native language structures to produce a response, as

shown in this study. As the structures of L1 and L2 have differences, there has been a relatively high frequency of errors occurring in the target language, thus indicating an interference of the native language on the target language, as expected.

RECOMMENDATION This study provided a view and an indication of the kinds of language second language learners produced in writing tasks in the classroom. It also supplied evidence of L1 interference with L2, its extent and effects, as shown in the analysis of the learners' written L1 and L2 texts. This was clearly shown in the way that the learners used their L1 structures to help them from their L2 texts, indicating a direct interference of L1 on L2. The four learners have received native language linguistic input from their individual environments and positive reinforcements for their correct repetitions and imitations. As a result, habits have been formed which have influenced the L2 learning process as these learners have started learning L2 with the habits associated with L1. These habits interfere with those needed for L2 learning, and new habits are formed. The errors made in L2 are thus seen as L1 habits interfering with the acquisition of L2 habits (Beebe, 1988 and Seliger, 1988). This theory also propounds the idea that where there are similarities between L1 and L2, the learners use L2 structures with ease; where there are differences, the learners have difficulty. The four learners have constructed their own L2 interim rules with the use of their L1 knowledge to help them in the writing tasks, resulting in L2 errors (Ellis, 1997). Some L2 errors identified in Table 3 such as articles, adverbs, past tense, plurals, contractions and incomplete sentences, were not included in the discussion of the L1 - L2 interference. This was because these errors did not appear in the L1 texts, thus indicating that, although the learners made these errors in their L2 texts, the structures were used appropriately in the L1 texts or the learners did not use these structures at all as these were absent structures in the L1. The five learners appear to find it difficult to use appropriate L2 responses that are as well formed as their L1 structures. They use the L2 structures partly in terms of the structures already learned in their L1. Hence their L1 responses are grafted on the L2 responses and the kinds of L2 expressions used bear tell-tale traces of the L1 structures (Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991 and Ellis, 1997). This was clearly shown in the way that the learners used L2 structures

such as punctuation, capital letters, prepositions and the present and past continuous tenses in their L2 texts. They found these structures difficult to use as these structures are used in a different form in their L1. In some instances, an absent L1 structure such as the apostrophe and the active and passive voice, caused a difficulty for the learners as they were unfamiliar with its use in L2, resulting in errors which reflect a gap in the learners' knowledge (Ellis, 1997). As Dechert (1988) has already suggested, the further apart L1 and L2 are structurally, the higher the instances of errors made in L2 which bear traces of L1 structures. An important outcome of this study is the significance of the effect of the differences between the structures of L1 and L2 on the L2 written text. Given the proficiency level of the learners in the study, the learners' L2 texts remain semantically acceptable by L2 teachers as shown in the analysis. This then means that the L2 texts do not have to be syntactically correct for its meaning to be understood. The identified L2 errors do not reduce the semantic acceptability of the L2 texts. Does the learner have to think in the target language to be able to produce a meaningful response which may not be syntactically correct but which may still be understood and semantically acceptable? The answer to this question poses a major implication in the second language classroom. If the learner is able to write a semantically acceptable text in L2 (according to L2 standards), then correct syntax need not be the focus of classroom instruction, given the existing knowledge base of the learner whose main purpose of learning L2 is to communicate information a meaningful way. This has implications for the teaching and learning process. An understanding of the L1 syntactical structure and the type of errors made in L2 as well as the extent of the learners knowledge of L1 and L2 syntactical structures, will assist the teaching and learning process by allowing an individualized learning program for each learner. The teacher will be able to predict possible future errors in the target language and may begin to attribute a cause to an error with some degrees of precision. The teacher can also build up a picture of the frequency of types of errors; thus it would be possible to find out whether, for example, L1 interference, or teaching techniques, or problems inherent in L2, are the major cause of the learners errors. In this way it is possible to plan classes giving very specific help to the learners. This case study then paves the way for future research in other areas of second language teaching and learning. Last but not least, this study contributes significantly to the base of knowledge in the second language learning and teaching literature on the effects of interference of L1 on L2.

REFERENCES Albert, M.L. & Obler, L.K. 1978, The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism, Academic press, New York. Beardsmore, H.B. 1982, Bilingualism: Basic Principles, Tieto, Avon. Beebe, L.M. (ed.) 1988, Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives, Newbury, London. Bialystok, E. 1990, Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E.A. 1983, Universals of lexical simplification in Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman, London. Carroll, J.B. 1964, Language and Thought, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs. Dechert, H.W. 1983, How a story is done in a second language in Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman, London. Dordick, M. 1996, Testing for a hierarchy of the communicative interference value of ESL errors, System, vol. 24, pp 299-308. Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. 1982, Language Two, Oxford University Press, New York. Ellis, R. 1984, Classroom Second Language Development: a study of classroom interaction andlanguage acquisition, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Ellis, R. 1997, Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. 1983, Plans and strategies in foreign language communication, in Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, ed. C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman, London. Hoffman, C. 1991, An Introduction to Bilingualism, Longman, London. Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. 1991, An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research, Longman, New York. Lott, D.1983, Analysing and counteracting interference errors, ELT Journal, vol.37/3, pp 256261.

Rutherford, W.E. 1987, Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching, Longman, London. Seligar, H. 1988, Psycholinguistic Issues in Second Language Acquisition in Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives, ed. L.M. Beebe, Newbury, London. Selinker, L. 1971, The psychologically relevant data of second language learning in The Psychology of Second Language Learning, ed. P. Pimsleur and T. Quinn, Cambridge University Press, London. Wylie, E. & Ingram, D.E. 1995, Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings: General proficiency version for English, Griffith University, Queensland.

READING TEST WITH THE PUPILS

DANISH

AZRAF

ALIA

ZILA

HAIKAL