Linguistic Barriers in Chinese to Learning English

  1. Problem: 他, 她, 它 all carry the same pronunciation (ta1).
    Implication: Students are likely to say “she” when they mean “he” or vice-versa.
    My Suggested Solution: This seems to be nearly incurable for some students, but others get better with practice and learn to catch their own mistakes.

  2. Problem: Chinese sentences can be short, limited to one word answers.
    Implication: Gives the impression that learners are lazy when they try to translate their thoughts into English. How do you feel? “So happy.” What do you like? “Dog.”
    My Suggested Solution: Drilling long-form sentences is the only way, but in a classroom environment you can always expect short answers to be shouted out first.

  3. Problem: Chinese lacks articles “a” and “the”.
    Implication: Students often confuse when to use the different articles.
    My Suggested Solution: This can be avoided by the teacher having a very conscious awareness of exactly how to use the articles, and can give impromptu mini-lessons when students confuse them.

  4. Problem: Chinese tenses are non-existent and depend on single particles attached to verbs.
    Implication: The tenses in English will always be confused and misused.
    My Suggested Solution: Actually, it’s worth noting that this is rarely a problem when trying to understand a student, and they seem able to understand the tenses fine (with practice). The best way to improve this is by writing drills, in my experience, and then eventually when writing correctly becomes second nature, speaking will follow. Speaking drills are less physical and produce invisible results, so they are ineffectual by themselves with something so complicated as this.

  5. Problem: Plural forms are ambiguous in Chinese, unless 們 is attached.
    Implication: The major implication, in my opinion, comes in students’ tendencies to treat the “s” at the end of a word, such as “giraffes” or “pigs” as silent.
    My Suggested Solution: This seems to get better with practice, but it needs to be corrected consistently. If you worry about interrupting and embarrassing students in front of their peers, then remind them before they start reading.

  6. Problem: 看 is a very versatile word in Chinese, which can mean read, see, look, watch, or any number of other meanings.
    Implication: You will often get sentences like “I am seeing a book” or “I am looking TV”. These verbs get screwed up quite frequently among young learners.
    My Suggested Solution: Actually, I’m still working on a good solution for this one. Of course, I correct and do my best to explain the difference whenever this comes up, but I think I need to make a poster or something…

  7. Problem: 有 = have, but also “there is/are”
    Implication: The concept here is that 有 is frequently translated as “have” in beginners’ textbooks, so kids will say “Have a boat in the water.” or “There have a boat…”
    My Suggested Solution: It’s best to fix this as early as possible. If you’re teaching young learners, and you’re teaching them “have”, you’d better teacher there is/there are right away. I’ve managed to dodge this bullet with a couple of classes but, not knowing to anticipate this, I failed my first two YL classes and it’s been really hard for them to shake the habit.

  8. Problem: Consonant clusters in Chinese have no final vowels.
    Implication: Teachers often hear words like this: “book-uh” instead of “book”, “ye-si” (pronounced like pinyin) instead of “yes”, and so on.
    My Suggested Solution: Teaching by example is effective over time. In my experience, many children glorify this behavior as funny or cute among their peers. Maturity and experience with the English language gets rid of this for the most part, though you may notice it even among your friends from time to time. Once I heard my girlfriend say “si-da-di” instead of “study”. If you want to correct it in class, the class should be small, and you should be consistent (my opinion). Being inconsistent will just make it worse. If the class is too large then you have too many kids making the mistake too many times to possibly manage on a case by case basis. Making phonics posters may help, and dedicating time to practicing problem words is always a good idea.

  9. Problem: “be-verbs” are not as commonly used in Chinese. “我很快樂” = “I am very happy” in meaning, but there is no be-verb present in the Chinese.
    Implication: Lots of confusion about be-verbs, such as: how and when to use them, which ones to use, etc. “I going to the park” is a common mistake, as well as “You is bad.”
    My Suggested Solution: I’ve seen this improve gradually, though not without some errors, over the course of a year of teaching the same kids. Drilling them helps a lot in the short term, but if you don’t keep the drills up at least from time to time, it’s ineffective in the long-term. This is one area where writing drills will not help much at all. When writing, kids know when to use the proper forms of be-verbs more often than not, but when speaking, there’s no time for them to think. It has to become second-nature, and the best way for my classes has been drilling.

  10. Problem: In Chinese, the words “sore” and “sour” happen to be the exact same word in Chinese.
    Implication: This leads to a lot of confusion between the two, similar to other cases like “ticklish” and “itchy”, which both are “yang”.

  11. Problem: Many words in Chinese are more flexible and versatile than their English counterparts, able to act as noun, adj, adv, etc.
    Implication: “My foot is so hurt!” This confusion comes from a common translation error in “hurt” rather than with the word “so”, however, because “teng” in Chinese is a lot more flexible than “hurt”, its English equivalent. This also means Taiwanese are likely to forget when to use “ly” at the end of the word, or alter it in other ways.

Please note that my suggested solutions are not necessarily the only or the best way for any given teacher to approach the problem. As others have pointed out, there are many approaches, and it is wrong to suggest one is better than the other in any and every situation or classroom. Please share your own experiences, problems, and solutions below.

[quote=“dashgalaxy86”]2. Problem: Chinese sentences can be short, limited to one word answers.
Implication: Gives the impression that learners are lazy when they try to translate their thoughts into English. How do you feel? “So happy.” What do you like? “Dog.”
Solution: Drilling long-form sentences is the only way, but in a classroom environment you can always expect short answers to be shouted out first.[/quote]

Yeah…gotta hate that natural speech in the classroom.
I do not agree with the premise that Chinese sentences are intrinsically shorter or simpler than English ones. In fact, the opposite is probably true. The topic-comment nature of Chinese may give this impression, but most likely only when there are significant omissions happening due to a lack of formality in the setting.
(It will hardly be necessary to mention that I definitely do not agree that drilling long sentences is the only way – or even “A” good way – to develop longer utterances in learners.)

[quote]3. Problem: Chinese lacks articles “a” and “the”.
Implication: Students often confuse when to use the different articles.
Solution: This can be avoided by the teacher having a very conscious awareness of exactly how to use the articles, and can give impromptu mini-lessons when students confuse them.[/quote]
Or, of course, the teacher could give huge amounts of correct English featuring definite and indefinite articles as input, and wait for acquisition to occur. There ARE corresponding structures for the definite and indefinite articles in Chinese (meaning-wise). The aspect of the articles that learners of English actually find difficult are the rules pertaining to count vs. mass nouns and the idea that every singular count noun MUST have an article – articles being grammatically required in English but only semantically required (if the precision of meaning is desired) in Chinese.

[quote]4. Problem: Chinese tenses are non-existent and depend on single particles attached to verbs.
Implication: The tenses in English will always be confused and misused.
Solution: Actually, it’s worth noting that this is rarely a problem when trying to understand a student, and they seem able to understand the tenses fine (with practice). The best way to improve this is by writing drills, in my experience, and then eventually when writing correctly becomes second nature, speaking will follow. Speaking drills are less physical and produce invisible results, so they are ineffectual by themselves with something so complicated as this.[/quote]
Or, one could continually link the meaning, emphasizing the time at which the action occurred, amid oral interactions and discussions about written texts in class, rather than doing writing drills, which are pure output and will not produce an automatic response. (They are valuable from the perspective of developing the students’ ability to edit, but editing is not a luxury there is time for in fluent speech, if that is our goal.)

[quote]5. Problem: Plural forms are ambiguous in Chinese, unless 們 is attached.
Implication: The major implication, in my opinion, comes in students’ tendencies to treat the “s” at the end of a word, such as “giraffes” or “pigs” as silent.
Solution: This seems to get better with practice, but it needs to be corrected consistently. If you worry about interrupting and embarrassing students in front of their peers, then remind them before they start reading.[/quote]

Or, you can point out this error by asking comprehension questions or responding in a way that emphasizes the difference in number caused by the presence or absence of the pluralizing -s ending. This does not require interruption or embarrassment, it is not direct correction, and it works by linking meaning and form so that the brain can acquire the feature over time.

[quote=“ironlady”][quote=“dashgalaxy86”]2. Problem: Chinese sentences can be short, limited to one word answers.
Implication: Gives the impression that learners are lazy when they try to translate their thoughts into English. How do you feel? “So happy.” What do you like? “Dog.”
Solution: Drilling long-form sentences is the only way, but in a classroom environment you can always expect short answers to be shouted out first.[/quote]

Yeah…gotta hate that natural speech in the classroom.
I do not agree with the premise that Chinese sentences are intrinsically shorter or simpler than English ones. In fact, the opposite is probably true. The topic-comment nature of Chinese may give this impression, but most likely only when there are significant omissions happening due to a lack of formality in the setting.
(It will hardly be necessary to mention that I definitely do not agree that drilling long sentences is the only way – or even “A” good way – to develop longer utterances in learners.)[/quote]

I respect your experience and expertise. I do not have training in comparative Chinese-English linguistics so I’m open to being wrong. Still…
Consider this example to explain my position. When watching a movie with some friends, there was a chase scene during which my friend noted “跑得快”. This is a three syllable sentence in which it was noted that “{He is} running fast” (something not even worth mentioning to a foreigner, by the way). Of course we can’t say all examples are like this, but in casual spoken Chinese, the subject will be dropped for convenience, and there is no need to use a be-verb as a connector.
Now, in a classroom, you can expect the same thing, and I wouldn’t call it “natural”. That gives it too much credit.

[quote=“ironlady”][quote]3. Problem: Chinese lacks articles “a” and “the”.
Implication: Students often confuse when to use the different articles.
Solution: This can be avoided by the teacher having a very conscious awareness of exactly how to use the articles, and can give impromptu mini-lessons when students confuse them.[/quote]
Or, of course, the teacher could give huge amounts of correct English featuring definite and indefinite articles as input, and wait for acquisition to occur. There ARE corresponding structures for the definite and indefinite articles in Chinese (meaning-wise). The aspect of the articles that learners of English actually find difficult are the rules pertaining to count vs. mass nouns and the idea that every singular count noun MUST have an article – articles being grammatically required in English but only semantically required (if the precision of meaning is desired) in Chinese.

[quote]4. Problem: Chinese tenses are non-existent and depend on single particles attached to verbs.
Implication: The tenses in English will always be confused and misused.
Solution: Actually, it’s worth noting that this is rarely a problem when trying to understand a student, and they seem able to understand the tenses fine (with practice). The best way to improve this is by writing drills, in my experience, and then eventually when writing correctly becomes second nature, speaking will follow. Speaking drills are less physical and produce invisible results, so they are ineffectual by themselves with something so complicated as this.[/quote]
Or, one could continually link the meaning, emphasizing the time at which the action occurred, amid oral interactions and discussions about written texts in class, rather than doing writing drills, which are pure output and will not produce an automatic response. (They are valuable from the perspective of developing the students’ ability to edit, but editing is not a luxury there is time for in fluent speech, if that is our goal.)

[quote]5. Problem: Plural forms are ambiguous in Chinese, unless 們 is attached.
Implication: The major implication, in my opinion, comes in students’ tendencies to treat the “s” at the end of a word, such as “giraffes” or “pigs” as silent.
Solution: This seems to get better with practice, but it needs to be corrected consistently. If you worry about interrupting and embarrassing students in front of their peers, then remind them before they start reading.[/quote]

Or, you can point out this error by asking comprehension questions or responding in a way that emphasizes the difference in number caused by the presence or absence of the pluralizing -s ending. This does not require interruption or embarrassment, it is not direct correction, and it works by linking meaning and form so that the brain can acquire the feature over time.[/quote]

Yes, there are definitely many ways to approach these problems, some quicker than others, some more appropriate for small classes and tutoring (or large classes), and some more rooted in theory versus actual practicality. This is why I created this thread. I hope you can continue to contribute more and more comments like this, and also please contribute other linguistic problems you’ve seen! Thank you so much!!

跑得快 can not be translated without context.
If I make a comment to a friend I could say “quick hey!”, “Like lightning” and many other utterances where a verb and noun seem to be absent. Spoken discourse is not the same as written discourse. Writing ability does not always translate to spoken ability.
Grab a pencil and ask a native speker of English the follwoing questions.
What’s this?
What color is it?
What can you do with a pencil?
Do you have one?
What color is yours?
and then report back on how many full sentences they used.
If your goal is native like fluency, long answers are not always the way to go.

[quote=“heimuoshu”]
If your goal is native like fluency, long answers are not always the way to go.[/quote]
And that’s where I stop agreeing with you. I get the point, I really do, but foreign learners need to learn long-form sentences through drilling and rigorous study, otherwise they’ll never get the grammar right when it is the appropriate time to make long sentences. This is TESOL 101. Teaching “Yes, I do.” is great as long as you’re teaching it like this: “Yes, I do. I like blue crayons a lot.” Later on its far easier to drop the second sentence if you’ve been practicing long-form than it is to pick the long-form up when you’ve been getting away with “Yes, I do.” for years.

Anyway, Chinese grammar is a lot more forgiving than English grammar, and that’s the point I was trying to make. Go ahead, I dare you, tell a Taiwanese friend that you’re learning Chinese grammar. I guarantee that 70% of those asked will say these words, or a variation of them: “Does Chinese even have grammar?” There are a lot of reasons for this perception… Chinese is a language that is drilled and drilled and drilled and there are very few “original” expressions. I asked my friend “How do you say ‘I have no idea’?” And he said “我不知道” is the proper way… Of course that just means “I don’t know.” So what can we derive from this?
I did ask my girlfriend and she says classroom Chinese is shorter than conversational Chinese or written Chinese, which generally has sentences running quite long. This is more cultural than linguistic, though, I’d guess.

[quote=“dashgalaxy86”][quote=“heimuoshu”]
If your goal is native like fluency, long answers are not always the way to go.[/quote]
And that’s where I stop agreeing with you. I get the point, I really do, but foreign learners need to learn long-form sentences through drilling and rigorous study, otherwise they’ll never get the grammar right when it is the appropriate time to make long sentences. This is TESOL 101. [/quote]
We did not engage in the same TESOL studies then. No harm in that. I don’t agree.

Second language acquisition is full of differences in opinion after all. Maybe I should just omit the “solution” parts entirely.

It is my opinion that exposure to different perspectives and techniques is both interesting and informative. As a newish ESL teacher with no focused training beyond a TEFL, I can tell you that this type of thread is really quite valuable. Not to be all Kumbaya, or something, but please don’t stop sharing your experience!

I want to try and chip in a little bit! We all know that students learn in different ways. What is highly productive for one student, may produce mediocre results in another. For example, some of my students prefer and really seem to thrive on explicit grammar, followed by monitored written application, followed by discussion. Others prefer to speak and listen, do not want to write except to take jot notes, and do not seem to require or desire too much explicit reinforcement.

Perhaps in this case it is only their preferences I am seeing, rather than a reflection of which type of teaching is objectively better for them as learners, but I’m sure you can still see my point.

It is my opinion that exposure to different perspectives and techniques is both interesting and informative. As a newish ESL teacher with no focused training beyond a TEFL, I can tell you that this type of thread is really quite valuable. Not to be all Kumbaya, or something, but please don’t stop sharing your experience!

I want to try and chip in a little bit! We all know that students learn in different ways. What is highly productive for one student, may produce mediocre results in another. For example, some of my students prefer and really seem to thrive on explicit grammar, followed by monitored written application, followed by discussion. Others prefer to speak and listen, do not want to write except to take jot notes, and do not seem to require or desire too much explicit reinforcement.

Perhaps in this case it is only their preferences I am seeing, rather than a reflection of which type of teaching is objectively better for them as learners, but I’m sure you can still see my point.[/quote]

Yeah, why not just let fly? I mean, it might not be wise to cuss each other out or anything like that. :laughing: But why not just write your opinions? There are some other posters who might have missed this thread because they’re out doing weekend stuff. Maybe they’ll add something later today or on Monday. Maybe ironlady will add some more, or Joesox, or tomthorne, or some of the others. And of course, that doesn’t mean you guys should stop.

It’s a good thread. :thumbsup:

I’ll add my own little blast from the past:

[quote]. . . the negative transference (interference) from Chinese is strong. This includes phonological transference. Standard Mandarin has only three final consonants that I know of, but among some speakers here, Mandarin seems to have as few as one final consonant, n. There is a strong tendency here to reject final consonants.[/quote] What Am I Doing Wrong? - #8 by Charlie_Jack

And I might add to the above, the tendency to insert vowel sounds between consonant clusters/consonant blends (or whatever your favored term is), because I guess Mandarin speakers have few or none (except perhaps when they’re speaking rapidly). And English is loaded with consonant blends/clusters, so it’s a pretty big challenge in that regard for some learners here.

The above are probably obvious to you guys, but I just thought I’d mention them.

I split a number of posts here: Acquisition or learning, comprehensible input or correction?

Great thread. Fun read. As a Teacher of the English and learner of the Chinese, one thing I have noticed about being the foreigner here in the Taiwan is the Taiwanese tenancy to add an unnecessary “the” before words where there shouldn’t be one. Any advice on how to explain that to them? I gave them a rule of thumb, “put the before a thing, but not before someone’s name, ex: ‘the book’ not ‘the Benny’.” But this is just a rule of thumb, I wouldn’t say set in stone.

I also try to throw in loads of examples with the correct usage, but it still doesn’t seem to work. I think it was already drilled in their head incorrectly years ago, and now their foreign teacher is telling them they have been speaking English “wrong” all these years. (These are my older students, btw).

I was pleasantly surprised to see that others have pondered some of the same difficulties I’ve experienced.

As for me, some of the issues I think I’ve resolved, others are still pending - perhaps insurmountable. However, I don’t think an explanation (by me) of (my) hits and misses is of much use at the moment. The essence is not in the detail.

One of the things I’ve thought is that is that the goal of real communication (and the teaching thereof) is an art. Isn’t art part of a (any) language? If we can’t, don’t, or are afraid to teach the art of language (i.e., concepts) to ALL students at EVERY level, we will be replaced by an AI that knows some sophisticated rules.

Teach concepts.

As an example of a concept, I just found out (I guess my education was lacking …) that there was an old language that, grammatically, made the distinction between singular, duality/two-of, then plurals. I spent more than a few hours trying to appreciate how English is slightly impoverished by only having singular and plural. And then I spent a few hours thinking other things about person, number and grammar. And then about how Chinese doesn’t even bother getting into this question!

I’m glad someone informed me of a concept I’d never heard before!

OK - maybe that’s not very interesting, or of any concern, but thinking about things like that makes me appreciate that concepts (both familiar and alien) have taught me way more than rote or rules.

[quote=“IYouThem”]And then I spent a few hours thinking other things about person, number and grammar. And then about how Chinese doesn’t even bother getting into this question!

OK - maybe that’s not very interesting, or of any concern, but thinking about things like that makes me appreciate that concepts (both familiar and alien) have taught me way more than rote or rules.[/quote]

Chinese has all these concepts. They are simply not handled the same way English handles them, and English in turn doesn’t handle them the same way Mohawk does, or some other language.

It really irks me to see folks posting away merrily declaring that “Chinese doesn’t have grammar” and “Chinese don’t care about number” and so on. The only issue is that Chinese does not mark number in the same way as English, therefore Chinese speakers tend to forget to mark that way when using English.

p. 98, “A Concise Chinese-English Dictionary For Lovers” by Xiaolu Guo, Vintage Books, 2008:

“I don’t like plural, because they not stable. I don’t like nouns too, as they change all the time like verbs. I like only adjectives, and adverbs. They don’t change. If I can, I will only speak adjectives and adverbs.”

[quote=“ironlady”][quote=“IYouThem”]And then I spent a few hours thinking other things about person, number and grammar. And then about how Chinese doesn’t even bother getting into this question!

OK - maybe that’s not very interesting, or of any concern, but thinking about things like that makes me appreciate that concepts (both familiar and alien) have taught me way more than rote or rules.[/quote]

Chinese has all these concepts. They are simply not handled the same way English handles them, and English in turn doesn’t handle them the same way Mohawk does, or some other language.

It really irks me to see folks posting away merrily declaring that “Chinese doesn’t have grammar” and “Chinese don’t care about number” and so on. The only issue is that Chinese does not mark number in the same way as English, therefore Chinese speakers tend to forget to mark that way when using English.[/quote]
Exactly the same way people learning Chinese (Mandarin) as a second or foreign language use incorrect measure words and then say but you can use “ge” for everything.

Is it possible to teach them new concepts? I mean I know how that sounds, but I’ve explained so so so many times that they should read “they’re” as… they’re instead of constantly changing it to “they are”. I correct them when they don’t pronounce the “s”, or really any suffix (especially -ed) at the end of a word.

They either ignore me, or repeat my correction and then proceed to make the same mistake again immediately. Or I’ll stop and have a talk about this with the whole class. Then the next person that reads does it again, and ignores me when I correct them.

I’m pretty sure they just don’t want to improve. They do, but there’s some sort of mental block that prevents anything from the foreign teacher from sinking in.

LOL.
The issue of connected speech.
Many Chinese people will tell me that it is a foreign concept to them but it isn’t. They do the same things with certain words. zhe yang being pronounced a zhiang is an example of one.

[quote=“TaiwanVisitor12321”]Is it possible to teach them new concepts? I mean I know how that sounds, but I’ve explained so so so many times that they should read “they’re” as… they’re instead of constantly changing it to “they are”. I correct them when they don’t pronounce the “s”, or really any suffix (especially -ed) at the end of a word.

They either ignore me, or repeat my correction and then proceed to make the same mistake again immediately. Or I’ll stop and have a talk about this with the whole class. Then the next person that reads does it again, and ignores me when I correct them.

I’m pretty sure they just don’t want to improve. They do, but there’s some sort of mental block that prevents anything from the foreign teacher from sinking in.[/quote]

Are you talking about teaching them new concepts, or getting them to be able to unconsciously use the features of the target language that reflect those concepts? These are two different things. And the concepts already exist. I am not aware of any cultures that lack the concept of one vs. more than one, or the idea that “he” is doing something as opposed to “you” or “I”.

This shades over into correction theory (or the idea that correction doesn’t work, especially “repeat it correctly after me, okay, now you’ve got it”). But this thread has already been split once, so I suppose the mods don’t want it to go that way again. Anyway, I really do not believe that any student’s failure to speak correctly means he doesn’t want to improve! To me, it simply means his brain is not getting the input it needs to acquire. Every physiologically and psychologically normal person has the ability to acquire multiple languages given enough comprehensible input. The problem is that if we accept that fact, the fingers start pointing back at the teacher and our own practices as educational institutions.