European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

An Investigation of Interlingual Interference in the use of and

as a Syntactic Coordinating Structure by Jordanian EFL
Learners
Mohammad Hamad Al-Khresheh
Doctoral Candidate, Department of English Language
Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Malaysia
E-mail: al-khresheh@hotmail.com
Abstract
This study is an investigation of performance analysis. It analyses a composition written by
a group of Arabic-speaking Jordanian learners of English in order to investigate the carryover of Arabic (L1) syntactic structures into English (L2). The major focus of this study is
on the errors committed by these EFL learners in using one English syntactic category,
namely, the coordinating conjunction and, which is equivalent to wa in Arabic. This
study aims to investigate whether the errors in the use of this syntactic category by
Jordanian EFL learners can be attributed to interlingual interference as well as to identify
the frequency of these committed errors in their written production. To achieve these
objectives, a composition test was utilised in this study. The subjects of the study consisted
of 120 students studying English as a FL at Jordanian schools, located in the south of
Jordan. The findings of the study suggest, firstly, that the subjects committed a huge
number of errors with respect to the coordinating conjunction and. Secondly, interlingual
interference might be the main cause of committing this huge number of these errors. On
the basis of these findings, a group of recommendations to further research are suggested
and some pedagogical implications which might improve the EFL teaching-learning
process are discussed.

Keywords: Interlingual interference, Contrastive analysis, EFL.

1. Introduction
Since Arab EFL learners face much difficulty in learning English, there has been a growing body of
research investigating errors committed by these EFL learners. The present study focuses on EFL
learners in Jordan where English is taught in as a foreign language (FL). It is not really used in the
daily life situation because Arabic is the language of communication. Because of having such
circumstances in the Arab world, it is quite difficult for Arab EFL learners to communicate in the
target language in their daily life (Rababah, 2003).
It is also observed that despite 12 years of learning English as a foreign language from the first
to the second secondary grade, the majority of Jordanian EFL school students are very weak at reading,
writing, listening and speaking. Al-khresheh (2010:105) states that in spite of the long period where
English was taught in Jordanian schools and the importance given to its curriculum, it is generally
observed that students are unable to write a simple meaningful sentence without committing an error.
He also reveals that because of having such situation, Jordanian EFL learners commit many
grammatical and syntactic errors. Therefore, there should be a need for purposeful studies that help us
identify the weaknesses of Jordanian EFL learners in their acquisition of English.
426

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

One of the language areas in which Jordanian school students commit serious errors is the
writing skill. Al-Jarrah (2001) defines writing in a foreign or a second language as an overwhelming
experience, particularly, for students whose native language is not similar to the target language, i.e.
Arabicspeaking students writing in English. In the same vein, Rababah (2003) states that Jordanian
students face much difficulty in writing in English.
As a result of such situation, Jordanian EFL school students are expected to commit many
syntactic, grammatical, semantic and lexical errors while learning English. Based on that, this study
intends to explore the carry-over of syntactic structures from L1 to L2 by Jordanian EFL learners. This
warrants a discussion of Arabic and English syntactic structures with respect to the coordinating
conjunction and.
In English, the coordinative conjunction and is used to connect two similar grammatical
structures, i.e. two words, two clauses or two phrases. English items in a series are separated by
commas, and the co-ordinate conjunction and is used just before the last word. In contrast, Arabic
sentences usually start with and or so, and each item in a series is preceded by the conjunction
wa which is equivalent to and (Diab, 1996).
Obviously, coordination and subordination are two syntactic structures that are utilized in
writing in both Arabic and English (Othman, 2004). It has been frequently argued that the two
languages speakers differ in their preferences of each syntactic relation. English prefers subordination
over coordination, whilst Arabic prefers the use of coordination over subordination (Diab, 1996).
The over use of coordination is very common in the writings of Arab EFL learners (Johnstone,
1987). This is due to the fact that coordination is particularly frequent in written Arabic and it is
uncommon in modern written English (Ostler, 1987).

2. Literature Review
In recent years, many studies on FL acquisition have been conducted focusing on learners errors to
investigate the difficulties involved in acquiring a FL. These studies have helped FL teachers to be
aware of the difficulty areas encountered by their students and dedicate particular emphasis on them.
Corder (1967:27) says We cannot really teach language, we can only create conditions in which it will
develop spontaneously in the mind in its own way. In this quotation, he asserts on the role of the
language teacher by creating good learning conditions in acquiring a new language. Habash (1982) also
adds that the dream of all EFL teachers is to have EFL students who can speak and write correctly. In
fact, having EFL students who speak and write correctly is not a dream if we can really create good
learning conditions and follow good language teaching strategies.
Naturally, it is well-known that no one can learn or acquire any language without committing
errors. Learning or acquiring any language might be faced with some problems such as errors or
mistakes. Corder (1981) states that these committed errors or mistakes by English foreign learners
while learning process are considered as obligatory feature of learning. In other words, they are
considered as a part of the learning process as well as a device a learner uses to learn. Ranganayki
(1983:2) points out that the errors are not problems to be overcome or evils to be eradicated, they are
simply a part of the language learning process. Thus, no one can achieve competence in any language
without committing errors. Similarly, Corder (1973:257) asserts that the study of errors can help us to
infer what the nature of learners knowledge is at that point of time in their learning career and what
more has to be learnt.
In reviewing some studies conducted on the writing errors committed by Arab EFL learners,
many studies show that Arab EFL students face severe problems in writing while learning English
process. Researchers, such as Abdulmoneim (2000) and Abisamra (2003), state that most of the
syntactic errors committed by Arab EFL learners in their written production are because of the
interference of their first language. Interference or transfer from native language could be taken as a
matter of habit, and negative transfer would be obvious in cases of differences between the L1 and the
427

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

L2. (Abdulmoneim, 2000). Gass and Selinker (1989) define transfer as a learning strategy or a
communicative strategy. That means EFL learners use their L1 in order to facilitate their language
learning process. According to Oldin (1989) interference could be defined as the influence resulting
from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been
previously acquired. Researchers such as Jackson (1987), Corder (1973) and Jackobovists (1970)
have emphasized that when the EFL learners dont know how to express something in the foreign
language, they directly refer to their native language. This fact has been clearly stated and confirmed
by many researchers such as Diab (1996) who conducted her research to identify, analyze, and classify
the writing errors of Lebanese EFL students. She collected 73 English essays written by Lebanese
university EFL students. As a result, she found that Lebanese EFL students committed many
grammatical, lexical, semantic and syntactic errors. These errors were attributed to a negative
interlingual transfer from Arabic linguistic structures into English.
Abisamra (2003) studied a group of ten essays written by Arabic-speaking EFL students in the
ninth grade. After analysis, she found a total of 214 errors (29 grammatical, 35 syntactic, 26 lexical, 3
semantic, and 120 substances errors). The major cause of their committed errors was not only negative
L1 transfer interference but also intralingual interference.
In a study conducted by Abdullomoneim (2005), a total of 420 errors were found in 42 essays.
He has emphasized that some of these errors could be attributed to negative interlingual transfer and
committing such these errors indicates that EFL students depend on interlingual and intralingual
strategies to facilitate their learning process.
Al-khresheh (2006) analysed 20 essays written by Jordanian undergraduate EFL learners. He
found that students committed a huge number of grammatical, syntactic and lexical errors because of
interlingual interference from their L1.
In another study conducted by Al-khresheh (2010) on interlingual interference in the English
language word order structure, he found that Jordanian EFL learners committed a huge number of
syntactic interlingual errors with regard to word order within simple sentence structure. He revealed
that these committed errors were due to the transfer of L1 habits. He also stated that the subjects were
very much influenced by their L1 knowledge in understanding the English sentences.
As this study focuses on the students errors not mistakes, it is important to distinguish between
the two terms. Corder (1967, 1971) points out that mistakes can be self corrected, but an error
cannot. On the other hand, Ellis (1997) reveals that mistakes dont require special treatment
assuming they are recognized whereas errors here refer to structures only. Brown also adds that
mistakes refer to a failure to utilize a known system correctly, but errors concern a noticeable
deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the Interlanguage competence of the
learner (1994:205). Only the researchers or teachers would find such these errors or mistakes and the
learners would not (Gass and Selinker, 2001).
This study is unlike the other studies which have been conducted earlier dealing with many
grammatical and syntactic categories. It differs from all the above studies as it deals with one specific
syntactic category, which is the coordinating conjunction and. Unlike other studies that focused on
the effects of performance errors, overgeneralization and developmental errors in the acquisition of
English, this study focuses on one linguistic factor that may affect the foreign language acquisition
particularly the possible effects of interference from the habits of the learners L1 (interlingual
interference) on the use of the English coordinating structure and by Jordanian EFL school learners.

3. The Significance of this Study

This study derives its significance from the significance of the errors and the objectives that addresses.
Therefore, investigating such syntactic errors might provide EFL teachers valuable insight into the
language learning process. Once the causes of committing such errors are discovered, then it is
probable to conclude and decide the remedy. Furthermore, as this study focuses mainly on the
428

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

phenomenon of Interlanguage interference between Arabic and English, conducting such a study may
help the EFL teachers to become more familiar with the concept of interlingual interference.
The findings of this study might provide more insights into the acquisition of English syntax by
Jordanian EFL learners as its main focus on the students syntactic errors with respect to the English
coordinating conjunction and. It adds to the few studies so far conducted in the area of syntactic
errors of EFL learners in general and Jordanian EFL learners, in particular.
Moreover, the rationale of the current study could be stemmed from three different
perspectives. First, the significance of syntactic structures such as the coordinating English structure
and in the process of second language acquisition. Second, how the current study differs from earlier
studies conducted in this area. Third, the recommendations and suggestions which could be derived
from findings of this study.
Finally and more importantly, this study seeks to identify the frequency of the errors in the use
of the English coordinating conjunction and of Jordanian EFL learners in their written production. It
also investigates whether the errors in the use of the English coordinating conjunction and of
Jordanian EFL learners can be attributed to interlingual interference in their written production. To
achieve these objectives, the current study tries to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the frequency of occurrence the errors in the use of the English coordinating
conjunction and of Jordanian EFL learners in their written production?
2. To what extent does interlingual interference account for the errors in the use of the
English coordinating conjunction and of Jordanian EFL learners?

4. Method and Procedure

4.1. The Subjects
To select the subjects of the present study, a simple random sampling method was used because it is
one of the most excellent methods to obtain a representative sample. This type of methods usually
involves less time and expense (Gay and Airasian, 2003 cited in Al-khresheh, 2010). This method was
also used because it requires minimum knowledge of the population to be sampled and it is easy to
conduct (ibid). They subjects were selected randomly from different schools in the region.
The population of the study is the whole male and female school students in second secondary
grade in Al-Karak district of education in the academic year 2009/2010.The data of the present study
consisted of 120 essays written by 55 (45%) males and 65 (56%) females Arabic-speaking school
students studying English as a foreign language. The subjects, selected for the purpose of this study,
are between 17 and 18 years of age. They started learning English as a foreign language in the first
grade. They live in an Arabic-speaking community. Therefore, the common language spoken at school
and home is Arabic. They are homogeneous in terms of their educational system and socioeconomic
background. They have been taught English by Arabic-speaking teachers. They learn and practice
English through formal instruction. In other words, they speak English only inside the classroom.
4.2. Testing Instrument and Procedures
As this study tries to measure to what extent interlingual interference accounts for the errors in the use
of the English coordinating conjunction and of Jordanian EFL learners in their written production as
well as to find out the frequency of committing such errors , a composition test was used. This
instrument was used in this study because it saves time and there is less change of performance
errors (Abduel-latif, 1986:308). Halliday and Hassan (1976 cited in Darus and Ching, 2009:247) point
out that writing allows writers to demonstrate their ability to construct a string of well-connected
sentences that are grammatically and logically correct. Oyedepo (1987) also points out that asking
student to write essays in a foreign language will reflect their normal performance.
429

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

Based on that, the subjects of the present study were given the freedom to choose any topic of
their choice. Then, they were asked to write an essay from 150 200 words within one hour during one
of their English periods. Each student was asked to review his/her essay and each essay was reread
three times in an attempt to ferret out all the errors in the use of the English coordinating conjunction
and. As each essay was reread three times, an analysis of all the errors was done and accounting for
the frequency was dependent upon the number of their occurrence.

5. Results
As stated earlier, 120 subjects were asked to write an essay from 150-200 words. In general, Table 5.1
below presents the descriptive analysis of the errors committed by the subjects. It shows the number of
the errors and the percentage of the students who committed the errors in the use of and. It shows
that the total number of errors committed by the subjects in coordination structure is 426 in 103 essays.
It means that the percentage of the students who committed the errors is 85.8%. It also shows that the
average of the total number of errors committed in coordination is 4.13 per essay.
Table 5.1: Descriptive analysis of the results of the errors committed in the use of English coordinating
structure and.
Total of Errors
Average
Percentage of the students who committed errors in using and

426
4.13
85.8%

On the basis of the data presented in table 5.1 above, it could be generally concluded that the
subjects committed a huge number of errors in the use of English coordinating conjunction and. This
means that there is a serious problem in using the English coordinating structure and by the subjects
of the present study. The analysis reveals that these errors could be attributed to negative interlingual
transfer from Arabic. More explanation is given below.

6. Discussion
This section attempts to answer the two research questions of the study. It also discusses the
pedagogical implications as well as the recommendations for further research. Based on the statistical
analysis, this study reveals that the subjects made about 426 errors in the use of and in their written
production. They committed this huge number of errors because of the impact of their L1 on their L2.
Generally, it could be stated that the results of the current study suggest that as Arabic prefers
coordination over subornation, all the errors committed by the subjects of the study in the use of and
are attributed to interlingual interference from their own MT. These errors could be considered as a
result of differences between the subjects L1 and the TL. For example, the subjects of the study wrote
the following:
1. I will visit Syria and UK and egypet when I old.
2. my hobis football and drwing and climbing muntains.
From these examples, it could be concluded that in spite of the differences between Arabic and
English syntactic structures which been mentioned earlier in the previous sections, Jordanian EFL
learners depend heavily on their native language (i.e. Arabic) while learning the target language
structures. In other words, their errors are due to L1 habits.
In the process of errors explanation, Richards (1978) and Dulay and Burt (1974) propose a few
plausible sources and causes of errors committed by FL learners. They are: interlingual errors,
intralingual errors, ignorance of grammatical rules and performance errors. As this study focuses
mainly on the interlingual errors, Zobl (1980) points out the distinguishing features of interlingual or
transfer errors as follows:
430

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

1. Errors that result from (L1) habits.
2. Errors that reflect inability to separate the two languages.
3. Interference produces different types of errors than those that are developmental.
4. Errors represent an interlingual generalization.
5. Errors reflect the use of (L1) as a source of hypotheses about (L2).
To sum up, these errors committed by the subjects of the present study could be considered as
interlingual ones because they have been committed because of the differences between Arabic and
English. These differences cause confusion among those who try to express their thoughts in the target
language. Thus, such differences between L1 and L2 might make the process of acquiring the L2 more
complicated for Jordanian EFL learners in particular and Arab EFL learners in general.
6.1. Pedagogical Implications and Recommendations
There are some pedagogical implications which might be taken into consideration. It is strongly
suggested that a syntactic structure such as the English coordination structure and should be given
much attention by Arab EFL teachers. Moreover, EFL teachers should make their students aware of
areas of differences between Arabic and English syntactic structures. Finally, three recommendations
could be given in this study. First, a similar study can also be carried out on other syntactic categories.
Second, while analysis, the researcher found many grammatical and syntactic intralingual errors.
Therefore, a study investigating into intralingual errors by Jordanian EFL learners is recommended to
be carried out. Third, a study investigating spelling mistakes is strongly recommended as the researcher
found lots of spelling mistakes in the essays he analyzed.

7. Conclusion
This paper has investigated into the phenomenon of interlingual interference between Arabic and
English in the use of English coordinative conjunction and which is equivalent to wa in Arabic.
Based on the discussion of the findings and the examples provided, it could be concluded that the
errors in the acquisition of English coordinating conjunction and committed in L2 by Jordanian EFL
learners might have been attributed to differences between the subjects L1 and the L2. Apparently,
differences between L1 and L2 may make the process of acquiring the L2 more difficult and
complicated for Jordanian EFL learners. This difference between the two languages makes the students
who use their own mother tongue, which is Arabic, confused and makes them commit such interlingual
errors.
The subjects of this study use their L1 as a learning strategy in their learning of English. In
other words, they use such a strategy in order to solve their learning and communication problems
which face them while learning English. More specifically, they depend mainly on interlingual strategy
to facilitate their language learning process. Finally, this study hopes that its findings may lead to
recommendations that might improve the EFL teachinglearning process in the Jordanian context.

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I thank Almighty Allah for giving me the patience and the determination to conduct this
research. Secondly, with my deepest and warmest feelings I dedicate this work to my loving parents,
who sacrificed so much to help me continue my education. Without their guidance, wisdom, and
praying, this work would not have been successful. Last but not least, I would also like to extend my
heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to my sweetheart for her love, continuous support, and praying. She
has always been by my side.

431

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

References
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

Abisamra, N. (2003). An Analysis of Errors in Arabic Speakers English Writings. American

University
of
Beirut.
Retrieved
October
27,
2010,
from
http://abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacq-erroranalysis.html
Al-Jarrah, M. (2001). The Transfer of Arabic Rhetorical Patterns into Jordanian Students
Writing in English. Mutah Lil-Buhuth wad-Dirasat, 16(5), pp. 171-193.
Al-khresheh, M. (2006). The interlingual Transfer of Arabic in the English Writings of Arab
EFL Students. Second international language learning conference, USM-Penang, Malaysia.
Al-khresheh, M. (2010) Interlingual Interference in the English Language Word Order
Structure of Jordanian EFL Learners. European Journal of Social Sciences, 16 (1), pp. 106-113.
Brown, H. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (3RD Eds) New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Corder, S.P. (1967). The Significance of Learners Errors. Reprinted in J.C. Richards (Ed)
(1974, 1984). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London:
Longman.
Corder, S.P. (1971). Idiosyncratic Errors and Error Analysis. IRAL. 9(2), pp. 147-159.
Reprinted in Richards (1974).
Corder, S.P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Harmond and Worth, Penguin
books.
Corder, S.P. (1986). Talking Shop: Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. English
Language Teaching Journal. 40 (3).
Darus, S. and Ching, K. (2009). Common Errors in Written English Essays of Form One
Chinese Students: A Case Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10 (2), pp. 242-253.
Diab, N. (1996). The Transfer of Arabic in the English Writings of Lebanese Students. The
ESP, Sao Paulo, 18(1), pp. 71-83.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). You cannot learn without Goofing. In: Error Analysis (J.C.
Richards Eds). London: Longman.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University.
Ellis, R. (2004). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. OUP, UK
Etherton, A, R. (1977). Error Analysis: Problems and Procedures. English Language Teaching
Journal. 32(1), pp. 67-78.
Gass and Selinker. (1983). Language Transfer. In: Transfer and Translation in Language
Learning and Teaching (Eppert, F, Eds). Singapore: SEAMEO.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.
London: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Application. (6th Ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gay, L., and Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Application. (7th Ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Habash, Z. (1982). Common errors In The Use of English Prepositions In The Written Work of
UNRWA Students At The End Of The Preparatory Cycle In The Jerusalem Area. MA Thesis:
Birzeit University.
Halliday, M. A. K., and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Jackobovists, L. (1970). Foreign Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury house.
Jackson, H. (1981). Contrastive Analysis as a Predictor of Errors, J Fisiak (Ed). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Johnstone, B. (1987). Parataxis in Arabic. Modification as a Model for Persuasion. Studies in
Language. 2(1), pp. 85-98.
Mohammad, A. (2005). Collection Errors Made by Arab Learners of English. Asian EFL
journal, 6 (2).
432

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 18, Number 3 (2011)

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]
[31]

[32]
[33]

[34]
[35]

Mohammed, A. (2000). MSA vs. NSA: Where do Arab Students of EFL Transfer From?
Language, Culture and Curriculum. 13 (2), 126-136.
Nazek, M. A. Latif. (1986). A Contrastive Analysis of Interrogative Structures in English and
Arabic. PhD Thesis, University of Wales.
Oldin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ostler, S. (1987). English in Parallels: A study of Arabic style. In: Writing across Languages:
Analysis of L2 Texts. (Connor, U., and Kaplan, R.B. Eds). Addison Wesley: Reading. pp. 169185.
Othman, W. (2004). Subordination and Coordination in English Arabic Translation. Al-Basaer
Journal. 8(2), pp. 1-21.
Oyedepo, S. M (1987). Lexical Difficulties in the Written English of Second Language
Learners: A Study Conducted Among Secondary School Pupils in Nigeria. PhD Thesis,
University of Wales.
Rababah, G. (2003). Communication Problems Facing Arab Learners of English: A Personal
Perspective. TEFL web journal, 2(1), pp. 15-27.
Ranganayaki, M. A. (1983). A Study of the Syntactic Errors Committed by Gujarati Learners of
English in Standard LX to Investigate into Interlanguage and Sources with Suggested Remedial
Measures. Published MA Thesis, University Vallabh Vidyanger.
Richards, J. (1978a). A Non-contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and Transfer Errors: Their common bases and (possibly)
Differential Effects on Subsequent Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (4), pp. 269-279.

433