동남아시아연구 26권 4호(2016) : 365～404 Southeast Asian Review 26(4)

Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean

Learners of Filipino Language

RONEL O. Laranjo*․SHIN Seong-Chul**

1)

Ⅰ. Introduction

Children learning their native language make countless errors until

they master the system. The same phenomenon can be observed with
adults learning a second language or foreign language. As such, errors
are inevitable during the process of language acquisition and learning.
Researchers assert that errors are significant in the process of second
language acquisition. For instance, Corder (1981) noted that learner’s
errors are significant in that they provide to the researcher evidence
on how language is learned or acquired and what strategies or
procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.
This study deals with errors produced by Korean learners of the
Filipino language. The Philippines is a multi-lingual country with
more than 150 languages but there is a lingua franca which is spoken
by the majority of the Filipinos, the Filipino language. Filipino, also
the national language, is used in schools as one of the medium of

* University of the Philippines, Diliman. [email protected]

** University of New South Wales. [email protected]
366 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

instruction along with the English language. According to the Bureau

of Immigration, in 2014 Korean students were the largest number of
foreign students to apply for visa to pursue higher education in the
Philippines. Most of the foreigners study in the Philippines partly
because of the high proficiency of teachers in English and it being
used as the medium of instruction. However, the curriculum of the
schools in the Philippines includes Filipino-related subjects which all
students should take. There is a minimum requirement of nine units
of Filipino-taught subject in the tertiary education (the General
Education Curriculum of Philippine Commission on Higher
Education). Korean students are also required to get subjects taught
in the Filipino language, or as a substitute, they should attend basic
classes on the Filipino language. This is the main motivation of
Korean students in studying the language. However, since most of
them are staying in the country for a few years, they also realize the
necessity of learning the Filipino language especially in
communicating outside the university and in interacting with the
locals.
Many researches (Mabanglo 1997; Oue 1997; Ramos & Mabanglo
2012) have been conducted on the pedagogy of the Filipino language
for foreign learners but few or none of them have focused on the
learner errors in the acquisition process. To address the gap, this study
investigates the errors made by Korean learners studying Filipino in
three different universities in the Philippines and examines some
important aspects of how the Filipino language is acquired.
Specifically this study poses the following three research questions
to address:
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 367

1. What are the types of errors in written texts of Korean learners

of Filipino across different levels (Beginner, Intermediate and
Advanced)?
2. What is the proportion of intralingual errors and interlingual
errors at each level?
3. What are the implications of these errors in teaching the Filipino
language to Korean learners?

Ⅱ. Review of Literature

1. Learner Language and Error Analysis

There have been two opposing views in respect to learner errors.

First is the behaviorist perspective which maintains that if the
objective is to achieve the most adequate language teaching, the
occurrence of learner's errors should be avoided, otherwise they
would become a habit for the learner and show signs of inadequacy
of teaching methods. This view is the basis of the Contrastive
Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) which claimed that the principal barrier
to the second language is the interference of the first language system
with the second language system (Brown 2006). The core idea of this
hypothesis is that scientific structural analysis of the two languages
would yield taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which
would enable linguists and language teachers to predict the difficulties
the learner would encounter in learning the language. But other
researchers such as Odlin (2003) and Kellerman (1995) pointed out
368 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

that CAH does not really identify what errors occur and that it says
nothing about common errors the learners make. This hypothesis also
ignores the learner, the learning context and the different strategies
the learner uses in language acquisition.
The other school of thought is the cognitivist (e.g. James 1998;
Lightbown & Spada 1993; Selinker 1972; Corder 1971; Nemser 1971)
who believes that in spite of the teacher’s efforts, errors will occur,
and this does not necessarily mean the learner’s failure, but rather
a progress in the learner who is making his own language learning
system. This perspective implies that second language learning is a
process of creative construction of an incomplete system in which
learners are consciously testing hypothesis about the target language
from a number of possible resources of knowledge (Brown, ibid).
This learner language is called interlanguage by Selinker (1972),
approximative system by Nemser (1971), and idiosyncratic dialect by
Corder (1975). In this study a neutral and less-dogmatic term is
preferred, thus the term ‘learner language’ is adopted. Learner
language is what learners say or write when they are trying to
communicate in a language they are learning, and by nature it is a
language which is unstable and has an approximate status to the target
language.
Learner language is characterized by errors which are results of the
learner’s conscious hypothesizing about the target language. These
errors are studied in the field of Error Analysis (EA), by identifying
the error items, describing the types and patterns, and explaining the
cause of errors. Corder (1981: 28-47) suggests five steps in error
analysis research: (1) collect a sample of learner language; (2) identify
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 369

the error (not a mistake but a systematic error); (3) describe the error
(e.g. type and pattern); (4) explain the error (the cause of error), and
(5) evaluate the error (e.g. acceptability and significance).
Errors can be categorized by the alteration types of surface
structures. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) suggest a Surface
Strategy Taxonomy which highlights the ways the surface structures
are altered by the language learners. They gave five types: omission,
addition, misformation, misordering and blend. Omission errors are
characterized by the absence of an item that must appear in a
well-formed utterance. Addition errors are defined by the presence of
an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance.
Misformation errors are errors with the wrong form of the morpheme
or structure. The last one is misordering which are errors
characterized by incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of
morphemes in an utterance. James (1998) suggested that the
taxonomy by Dulay and et al (1982) should be renamed as Target
Modification Taxonomy since it is based on the ways in which the
learner’s erroneous version is different from the presumed target
version. He also suggested that misformation should be called
misselection because, according to him, leaner errors are not
‘misformed’ but ‘misselected’. This study will use the term
misselection as most of the errors are substitutions with existent words
and markers. James (1998) also suggested a fifth category called
blend, in which the learner is undecided about which features from
the two language source he has ‘in mind’. As a result of this, a blend
error is produced which can also be called as cross-association,
contamination or hybridization error. This study will utilize these
370 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

strategies to categorize the types of the errors made by Korean leaners

studying the Filipino language.
The next step is to attempt to explain the source of errors.
Explanation for the cause of errors is considered to be the most
important stage for EA research (Ellis 1994: 57) as it involves the
process of second language acquisition. Brown (2007) identified four
sources of errors: interlingual transfer; intralingual transfer;
pedagogical context; and communication strategies. The first source
is the interlingual transfer, which comes from the native language of
the learner. This happens because the native language is the only
linguistic system upon which the learner can draw from before getting
familiar with the system of the second language. The negative transfer
from the learner’s first language may result from a number of
interferences, such as grammatical, prepositional, and lexical
interference. Intralingual transfer, which is the generalization within
the target language, is the second source of errors. According to
studies (Odin 2003; Jaszczolt 1995), the early stages of language
learning are characterized by a predominance of interference but once
learners have begun to acquire parts of the new system of the target
language, more and more intralingual transfer is manifested. The
context of learning is the third source of errors. Language learners
can make errors because of a misleading explanation from the teacher
or a wrong presentation of a structure or word in the course books,
and other factors from the learning environment. The sociolinguistic
context of natural, untutored language acquisition can give rise to
certain dialect acquisition that may itself be a source of error (Brown
2007). The last source of errors is the communication strategies used
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 371

by the learners. Communication strategies are “potentially conscious

plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem
in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Faerch and Kasper
1983: 36). These communication strategies help the learner to enhance
getting their message across but sometimes these can become a source
of error.
In SLA research little attention has been given to EA studies in
Filipino1), let alone in errors produced by Korean learners of Filipino.
Studies in this area on Filipino as their second or foreign language
are briefly reviewed. An error analysis was used by Mayos (1988)
in her study analyzing the written texts of Filipino students from
Benguet whose native language is Ilocano and studying Filipino in
school as a second language. The researcher enumerated and
quantified the common errors of the students in orthography,
nominals (nouns and pronouns), verb aspects (perfective,
imperfective, contemplative), modifiers (adjectives and adverbs),
connectors and markers. This research identified the errors using the
prescriptive grammar in school and the frequency of errors was
counted. The study also investigated the background of the teachers
who handled the Filipino classes if they were qualified to teach or
not. The study concluded that the main problem of the students in
studying Filipino is the lack of resource materials such as textbooks
that adequately address and present the Filipino grammar. However,

1) There are a significant number of EA studies dealing with errors produced by learners
of other Asian languages. For instance, for studies of errors produced by English-L1
or Chinese-L1 learners of Korean as a foreign, second or heritage language, please
see, for example, Shin S-C (2002, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010 and 2016), Shin
S-C and Joo, A (2015), and Shin S-C and Kang (2015).
372 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

the researcher did not discuss much on the linguistic factors that may
have caused the errors. In her research, Catabui (1969) described the
errors in oral and written texts of students whose first language is
Ibanag, a language spoken in the northern part of the Philippines. In
oral Filipino, the students interchangeably pronounced the sounds /i/
and /e/, and /o/ and /u/ and had some difficulties in pronouncing the
stress. In written language, the students committed errors in spelling
the diphthongs, capitalization, hyphenation, and i/e and o/u
interchange which are not present in Ibanag language. At grammar
level, the students committed errors in verb formation, possessive
pronoun and particle. The errors were attributed to the interference
of Ibanag language features. Oue (1997), a native Japanese teacher
of Filipino language in Japan, identified the problems of Japanese
learners studying Filipino. Oue identified the difficulties of Japanese
students in learning Filipino pronunciations of /u/, /r/, /l/, /ʔ/, /h/, /si/,
/tu/, /yi/ and consonant clusters. In grammar, Japanese students had
difficulty in acquiring the complex Filipino verb formation and focus.
These difficulties are traceable both in Japanese language and the
complex structure of Filipino language, especially in the verbs.

2. The Filipino Language: A Brief Overview

The Philippines is home of more than 150 languages. There are

eight major languages including Tagalog, and for unification purposes
and easy communication, Pilipino, a language based on the Tagalog
language, was proclaimed as the national language in 1959. Then the
name was changed in 1987 to Filipino, a language based on the
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 373

Philippine languages and other languages spoken in the country such

as Spanish and English. Since the Philippines was a former colony
of Spain, many Spanish words were included in the Philippine
languages. Due to the American colonial rule and its strong
institutional influence, English became an official language of the
Philippines along with Filipino. As a result of Japanese invasion and
its occupational rule during the Pacific War, there are also some
Japanese words that were included in the Philippine languages. There
are also some elements of influence from Arabic and Chinese
languages that were exchanged as languages of trade partners of the
Filipinos even before the pre-colonial time. Since Philippine
languages belong to the same Austronesian language family, however,
they have common language elements called the universal nucleus
(Paz 1995), which are the common features of languages in the
Philippines. Philippine languages have common language features in
phonology, morphology and syntax which make a lingua franca
possible and is called Filipino. Filipino is used in schools along with
English language as medium of instruction.
There are 28 letters in the Filipino language: Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd, Ee,
Ff, Gg, Hh, Ii, Jj, Kk, Ll, Mm, Nn, Ññ, NG ng, Oo, Pp, Qq, Rr,
Ss, Tt, Uu, Vv, Ww, Xx, Yy, Zz. The Filipino language is consistent
in reflecting pronunciation in orthography, which means that words
are spelled as they are pronounced. Filipino and Korean languages
have similarities in terms of orthography as Hangeul is also almost
consistent in representing the pronunciation of words. Filipino is an
agglutinative language and one of the key features of its grammar
is the complexity of the verbs. Aspect in the Filipino verb system
374 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

may be defined as the characterization of an event as completed, not

completed if not completed, and as begun or not begun (Schachter
and Otanes 1972; Malicsi 2013). Verbs in Filipino are inflectable for
three aspects: perfective, imperfective and contemplative. Perfective
aspect characterizes an event as completed. Imperfective aspect
characterizes an event as begun but not completed. Contemplative
aspect pertains to action that has not begun. There is also another
aspect that occurs in some verbs: the recent perfective aspect, which
is an action that is recently completed. Filipino as an agglutinative
language has many affixes; there are two major productive affix
groups, which are agent focus: -um- and mag-. Korean language is
also agglutinative with its rich inventory of affixes. The basic
sentence structure of Filipino language is Predicate/Verb + Subject
+ Object. This structure is different to the Subject + Object +
Verb/Predicate of the Korean language.

Ⅲ. Research Methodology

1. Data and Subjects

The data for this study are 35 written compositions collected from
three private universities in the Philippines which conduct Filipino
classes for speakers of languages other than Filipino in the span of
two semesters in 2013-2014. The students were of different levels:
Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. The Beginner level students
received at least 30 hours of class instruction, Intermediate level
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 375

students had 60 hours of class hours while Advanced level students

attended at least 90 hours of classes in their respective universities.
Korean learners’ primary language is Korean and they are also
learning English as a second language. The instructional language in
the Filipino class was mixed of English and Filipino language: at the
Beginner level, the dominant medium of instruction was English
while at the Intermediate to Advanced levels, Filipino was more
utilized in the classroom. The instructors for the courses were native
Filipino whose English was also at native or near-native level. The
Korean learners were composed of 15 respondents for the Beginner
level, 15 respondents for the Intermediate level and only 5
respondents for the Advanced level2). Their ages range from 16 to
18 years old.

2. Data Collection Procedure and Analysis

To collect data samples of the learner language of Filipino,

questionnaires were distributed to the students in the middle of the
semester. Filipino classes in each of the source universities were
usually composed of 10-15 students per class at different levels. The
questionnaire elicited students’ nationality, gender, age, language
proficiency in Filipino in terms of speaking and writing skills, as well
as other languages that they speak or have studied which can

2) The enrolments in the Advanced course were much lower than those in Beginners
and Intermediate courses, and thus the number of respondents was only five. For this
reason, this paper intends not to compare the groups, and the presentations of analysis
and discussion will be more focused on the results from Beginner and Intermediate
learners.
376 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

influence their production of the Filipino language. For the

proficiency level, students were asked to self-assess themselves and
the student’s self-assessment was counter-checked by their respective
teachers. The students were then asked to write an essay with at least
10 sentences introducing themselves in Filipino for 15 to 20 minutes.
To maintain the integrity of the data, the students were not allowed
to look at their notes or books or to communicate to their classmates
or teacher while writing the essay.
The process of identifying errors was conducted by one of the
researchers who is a native speaker of Filipino and an expert in the
language with several years of teaching experience in the education
system. To minimize the subjectivity on the judgement of error and
mistake, the researchers decided to consider an element as an error
if it was made by at least two learners rather than trying to make
the distinction between them. In the process of classification and
categorization of errors, the established taxonomy proposed by Dulay,
Burt and Krashen (1982) and James (1998) widely used in error
analysis research was utilized. The errors were also classified
according to different linguistics levels: orthographic, morphological
and syntactical (Corder 1981). Then attempts have been made to
identify the sources of errors to explain the errors. Among the four
sources of errors identified by Brown (2007: 263-266), only the first
two (interlingual and intralingual transfers) were considered because
the researchers were not able to observe the learners inside the
classroom and the teachers’ pedagogical methods. Aside from the
qualitative method described above, the errors were also quantified
and presented as percentage.
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 377

Ⅳ. Analysis and Results

A total of 213 errors were identified for analysis from 349

sentences produced by the three different groups, and they consist of
108 errors from 151 sentences produced by the Beginner group; 94
errors from 152 sentences produced by the Intermediate group; and
11 errors from 46 sentences produced by the Advanced group.3) Most
of the errors (80.8%) were morphological errors.
Across all levels, the highest proportion of errors was found in
misselection at the morphological level (59.3% to 77.8%), as shown
in Table 1 below. Under omission errors, the learners from Beginner
committed most errors at the morphological level (14.8%), followed
by Intermediate level students (10.6%). Orthographic misselction
errors were also notably produced at the Beginner (7.4%) and
Intermediate (5.3%) levels. Errors at all other types and levels were
minimal.

<Table 1> Percentage of Errors Per Type and Linguistic Level

Linguistic Levels Morphological Orthographic Syntactic

Total
Types N (%) N (%) N (%)

Misselection
Beginner 64 (59.3) 8 (7.4) 3 (2.8) 75 (69.4)
Intermediate 69 (73.4) 5 (5.3) 0 74
Advanced 7 (77.8) 0 0 7

3) Since the number of errors produced by the Advanced group was only 11, this paper
does not intend to focus on the statistical comparison or importance. Instead much
of the presentations and discussion is focused on errors produced by the Beginner
and Intermediate groups.
378 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

Omission
Beginner 16 (14.8) 2 (1.9) 4 (3.7) 22 (20.4)
Intermediate 10 (10.6) 2 (2.1) 2 (2.1) 14 (14.9)
Advanced 0 2 (18.2) 0 2
Blend
Beginner 2 (1.9) 3 (2.8) 0 5 (4.6)
Intermediate 0 2 (2.1) 0 2
Advanced 0 0 0 0
Addition
Beginner 2 (1.9) 2 (1.9) 0 4 (3.7)
Intermediate 0 2 (2.1) 0 2 (2.1)
Advanced 2 (18.2) 0 0 2
Misorder
Beginner 0 0 2 (1.9) 2 (1.9)
Intermediate 0 0 2 (2.1) 2
Advanced 0 0 0

Total 172 (80.8) 28 (13.1) 13 (6.1) 213

The subsections below present and describe some examples of

errors produced by the three groups of students under the following
error taxonomies and categories: (1) morphological misselection; (2)
morphological omission; (3) orthographic omission; 4) orthographic
misselection; (5) orthographic blend; (6) syntactic omission; (7)
syntactic misorder; and (8) miscellaneous types. Note: The asterisk
(*) is used to indicate an incorrect grammatical feature and the arrow
symbol (>) indicates the intended correct orthography with bold. The
intended meaning is given with the single quotation mark (‘ ’). In
the presentation of examples, the individual lexical and grammatical
items corresponding to each of the Filipino lexical and grammatical
items are not given. Instead the primary meaning of an intended
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 379

sentence or clause is given only in the form of translation because

of three reasons: first because the focus is not on the analysis of
linguistic structures but on the identification and analysis of a
particular erroneous item; second because it is assumed that many
readers of this article would be Filipino speakers; and third because
the space for a journal article is limited.

1. Morphological Misselection

(a) Misselection of particles: There were three types of misselection

of particles, and the first type was misselection of linkers, as shown
in (1) and (2). In Filipino, a linker (-ng/na/-g) is necessary between
an adjective and a noun and a noun; a noun and an adjective, and
between nouns. When the adjective ends with a vowel, the linker -ng
is attached to the adjective; when the adjective ends with a consonant
(except the nasal -n), the linker -na is used; but when it ends with
a consonant n, the linker -g is attached. From this and other similar
samples, it appears that the learners know the rule but have not
mastered them yet.

(1) *Ang maliit na kapatid ko na lalaki ay estudyante. > Ang

nakababatang kapatid kong lalaki ay estudyante. ‘My younger
brother is a student.’

(2) *Mayroon po ako maraming kaibigan na mabait. > Mayroon po

akong maraming kaibigang mabait. ‘I have many good friends.’
380 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

The second type of misselection of particles was observed in the

object marker ng as shown in (3) and (4). Ng is used as an object
marker while sa is a directional complement marker or locative
marker, e.g. Nag-aaral ako sa Ateneo (I study in Ateneo).

(3) *Nag-aaral ako sa Business Management.> Nag-aaral ako ng

Business Management. ‘I am taking up Business Management.’

(4) *Gusto ko ng Pilipinas dahil sa mga tao. > Gusto ko sa Pilipinas

dahil sa mga tao. ‘I like Philippines because of the people.’

The third type is the misselection of topic marker as in (5).

(5) *Negosyante siya at yung kompany niya ay nandito sa Philippines. >

Negosyante siya at ang kompanya niya ay nandito sa Pilipinas.
‘He is a businessman and his company is here in the Philippines.’

Ang (the) is used interchangeably with yung (that/the) in informal

or daily speeches but in written form, ang is preferred and used more
frequently.
(b) Misselection of pronouns and lexical items: The study has
identified two types of misselection regarding pronoun and lexical
items. The first one comes from the first person singular pronoun (ako
vs ko) as in (6). Ako and ko are first personal pronouns. Ako is used
as the nominative subject which usually comes with an intransitive
verb while ko is used after a transitive verb.
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 381

(6) *Estudyante ko sa De La Salle University. > Estudyante ako sa De La

Salle University. ‘I am a student in De La Salle University.’

The second type can be further divided into misselection of nouns

(7) and (8), adjectives (9), verbs (10) and usage of English terms (11),
(12) and (13).

(7) *Ako ay labing pintong taong gulang.> Ako ay labing pitong

taong gulang. ‘I am seventeen years old.’

(8) *Nagaaral ako ng architecture sa UST ngayon at maganda ang

buhay ko dito. > Nag-aaral ako ng arkitektura sa UST ngayon
at maganda ang buhay ko dito. ‘I am currently studying
architecture in UST and I am having a good life here.’

(9) *Ang maliit na kapatid ko na lalaki ay estudyante. > Ang

nakababatang kapatid kong lalaki ay estudyante. ‘My younger
brother is a student.’

(10) *Nakakita ako sa Makati. > Nakatira ako sa Makati. ‘I live in

Makati.’

(11) *Ang nickname ko ay Chang. > Ang palayaw ko ay Chang. ‘My

nickname is Chang.’

(12) *Ang mga Pilipino ay masasaya pero ayaw ko ng mga tao sa

labas ng school dahil sa mga ginagawa nila sa mga foreigners.
382 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

> Ang mga Pilipino ay masasaya pero ayaw ko ng mga tao sa

labas ng paaralan dahil sa mga ginagawa nila sa mga banyaga.
‘The Filipinos are happy but I don’t want the people outside the
school because of what they are doing to the foreigners.’

(13) *Gusto kong pumunta sa Korea pero may klase ako so hindi
kaya. > Gusto kong pumunta sa Korea pero may klase ako kaya
hindi kaya. ‘I want to go to Korea but I have a class so I cannot
go there.’

In (7) pinto means ‘door’ while pito means ‘seven’. The words
have almost the same morphological structure or spelling which may
have caused confusion to the learners. In (8) the English word
architecture was used instead of Filipino arkitektura. It was probably
because of a simple confusion due to the formal and phonological
similarity or because of the contextual preference of the Filipino
society where academic disciplines are often referred in English. In
(9) maliit means ‘small’ while nakababata means ‘younger’. In the
sentence above, the second word is more appropriate than the first
one. In (10) nakakita means ‘to see something’ while nakatira means
‘to live’. The words have almost the same morphological structure,
which may have caused confusion to the learner. And (11), (12) and
(13) are generally acceptable in spoken discourse, however, in written
form, Filipino equivalent words or borrowed words respelled in
Filipino orthography are more accepted. These errors can be attributed
to learners’ lack of vocabulary or the learner’s casual code-switching
that are often practiced or preferred in the English-speaking Filipino
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 383

society.
(c) Misselection of verbal aspect and gerund: The study has
identified three types of misselection of verbs. The first one is the
misselection of imperfective verbs as in (14) and (15), the second
is misselection of mag-, and ma- verbs as in (16), and there is also
misselection of gerunds as in (17), (18), (19) and (20).

(14) *Gusto kong pupunta sa iba’t ibang bansa. > Gusto kong
pumupunta sa iba’t ibang bansa. ‘I like traveling to different
countries.’

(15) *Pupunta ako sa Korea tuwing summer. > Pumupunta ako sa

Korea tuwing tag-init. ‘I go to Korea every summer.’

(16) *Ngunit, minsan gusto ko magbalik sa Korea dahil gusto kong

magkita ang mga pamilya ko at mga kaibigan ko. > Ngunit,
minsan gusto kong magbalik sa Korea dahil gusto kong makita
ang mga pamilya ko at mga kaibigan ko. ‘However, sometimes
I want to go back to Korea because I want to see my family
and friends.’

(17) *Mahilig akong bumabasa ng aklat at gamitin ng internet. >

Mahilig akong bumasa ng aklat at gumamit ng internet. ‘I like
reading books and surfing the internet.’

(18) *Ang dahilan ng pumupunta sa Pilipinas ay para nag-aaral ng

Ingles at Filipino. > Ang dahilan ng pagpunta ko sa Pilipinas ay
384 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

para mag-aral ng Ingles at Filipino. ‘My reason of coming to the

Philippines is to study English and Filipino language.

(19) *Sa siyam na taong pagtitira ko rito sa Pilipinas, marunong na

akong magsalita ng Ingles at Filipino. > Sa siyam na taong pagtira
ko rito sa Pilipinas, marunong na akong magsalita ng Ingles at
Filipino. ‘In my nine years of living here in the Philippines, I can
speak English and Filipino.

(20) *Sa siyam na taong pagtitira ko rito sa Pilipinas, marunong na

akong magsalita ng Ingles at Filipino. > Sa siyam na taong pagtira
ko rito sa Pilipinas, marunong na akong magsalita ng Ingles at
Filipino. ‘In my nine years of living here in the Philippines, I can
speak English and Filipino.’

As stated above, Filipino verbs can be classified into four major

aspects: perfective, imperfective, contemplative and recent perfective,
and the affixes to be inflected depends on these aspects and the focus
of the verb. In (14) and (15) the contemplative aspect was used
instead of imperfective. In sentence (16), agent focus affix mag- was
used instead of ma-. Mag- is one of the most productive affixes in
Filipino while there are fewer verbs where ma- can be inflected. It
could be observed that learners also use mag- often than other affixes.
In sentences (17), (18), (19) and (20), it could be observed that the
learners use the imperfective verbal aspect in place of gerunds, which
is similar to the gerund feature of the English language. The gerund
in Filipino has the same form as the imperative form.
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 385

Still other types include the combination of a Filipino affix and

an English noun to a verb as in (21).

(21) *Masaya ang buhay ko rito sa Pilipinas at gusto kong mag

graduate dito. > Masaya ang buhay ko rito sa Pilipinas at gusto
kong magtapos dito. ‘I am happy with my life here in the
Philippines and I want to graduate here.’

As stated above, code-switching is a common practice in the

Philippines, (21) is considered an error in the written because it has
an equivalent in Filipino lexicon.

2. Morphological Omission

The study has identified five types of omission of function words.

The first one was the omission of a linker between an adjective and
a noun.

(22) *Ako ay labing walo taong gulang. > Ako ay *labing walong taong
gulang. ‘I am 18 years old.’

In Filipino, a linker is necessary between an adjective and a noun.

When the adjective ends with a vowel, the linker -ng is attached to
the adjective as in the example above labingwalong taon (eighteen
+ -ng + year); when the adjective ends with a consonant (except the
nasal n), the linker -na is used as labing-anim na taon; but when it
ends with a consonant n, the linker -g is attached as in masunurin
386 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

+ g bata = masunuring bata (obedient child).

The second type was omission of topic markers ang and si.
Observe (23) and (24) below. Ang is a subject marker which is
followed by a common noun while si is also a subject marker which
is followed by a proper noun and the marker is obligatory.

(23) *Pangalan ko ay Eutteum Chae. > Ang pangalan ko ay Eutteum

Chae. ‘My name is Eutteum Chae.’

(24) *Ako ay Song.> Ako ay si Song. ‘I am Song’

The third type was the omission of object particle ng as seen in

(25).

(25) *Gusto ko bumabasa mga libro. > Gusto ko ang pagbabasang

mga libro. ‘I like reading books.’

The fourth type was the omission of a linker between the subject
and predicate as observed in (26) and the omission of linker between
a noun and an adjective as in (27).

(26) *Mahilig ako mag-computer at marunong din ako mag-violin.

> Mahilig akong magkompyuter at marunong din akong
magbiyulin. ‘My hobby is playing in the computer and I also
know how to play violin.’

(27) *Siya ay 15 taon gulang. > Siya ay 15 taong gulang.

 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 387

‘He/She is fifteen years old.’

The fifth type of omission is observed in topic marker as in (28).

(28) *Masarap talaga pagkain dito. > Masarap talaga ang pagkain dito.
‘The food here is really delicious.’

3. Orthographic Omission

The analysis has found omission of hyphen between the affix

ending in a consonant and the root beginning in a vowel. Observe
(29) and (30) below.

(29) *nagaaral > nag-aaral ‘study (imperfective)’

(30) *magaaral > mag-aaral ‘study (contemplative)’

The basic pattern of syllable in Filipino is Consonant Vowel (CV),

therefore, if a word begins with a vowel there is a glottal stop /ʔ/
in front of it. In the case of aral ‘study’, the phonemic representation
is /ʔa.ral/ which becomes /nagʔaʔaral/ when inflected with nag-.
Glottal stop is represented by a hyphen in Filipino orthography.

4. Orthographic Misselection

Two types of misselection were identified, and the first type was
observed in usage of l instead of r as in (31) below.
388 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

(31) *pabolito > paborito ‘favorite’

In Korean, since [r] and [l] are allophones depending on the

location where it is pronounced, they are represented orthographically
by a single character ‘l’. However, in Filipino, /r/ and /l/ are two
phonemic sounds and represented by two different letters. As
Koreans find it very hard to pronounce [r] correctly in English and
thus tend to pronounce it as [l], the student might have spelled the
Filipino word as they tend to pronounce [r] as [l].
The second and third types of misselection were the misspellings
of noun as observed in (32) and (33), and the non-capitalization of
proper noun (34).

(32) *estudyente > estudyante ‘student’

(33) *hay-iskul > hayskul ‘high school’
(34) *filipino > Filipino ‘Filipino’

In (32), the misspelled ‘e’ might have been influenced by the

English spelling ‘e’ in ‘student’, and in (33) the learner might have
been influenced by the idea of splitting the words ‘high’ and ‘school’
in English. In (34) the non-capital of the initial letter could have been
influenced by the Korean practice where the Korean alphabet Hangeul
is spelled without distinction between upper and lower cases.

5. Orthographic Blend

The study has identified a blend in spelling blend as in (35) and (36).
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 389

(35) *Philipinas > Pilipinas (Filipino)/ Philippines (English)

(36) *Cristiano > Kristiyano (Filipino)/ Christian (English)

The equivalent word in the target language (Filipino) and source

language (English) are almost structurally the same resulting to
blending in the learner language. In (35) and (36), the errors were
caused by mixing spellings from English and Filipino.

6. Syntactic Omission

The analysis has identified two types of omissions: omission of ay

and omission of topic, as shown in (37) and (38) below.

(37) *Ang nanay ko si Si Jeung Mi. > Ang nanay ko ay si Si Jeung

Mi. ‘My mother is Si Jeung Mi.’
(38) *Nakatira sa Manila. >Nakatira ako sa Manila.

In Filipino, the basic sentence pattern is Predicate (Verb/

Adjective/Nominal) + Subject (Noun) and there is a derived
construction called Ay Inversion (Schacter and Otanes 1972) which
has such pattern as Subject + ay + Predicate, where ay is obligatory.
The error in (38) might have been caused by the learners’ first
language. In Filipino, a subject is obligatory in a sentence, while in
Korean, the subject is often deleted, especially in spoken discourse.
390 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

7. Syntactical Misorder

The analysis has observed three types of misorder at the syntactical

level. The first type is the misplacement of subject (possessive
pronoun) as in (39).

(39) *Ang paboritong Pilipinong pagkain ko ay pansit kasi walang

ganoon sa Korea. > Ang paborito kong Pilipinong pagkain ay
pansit kasi walang ganoon sa Korea. ‘My favorite Filipino food
is pancit (noodles) because there is no such kind in Korea.’

The subject in Filipino is usually placed in the initial slot of the

sentence or close to it. Though the learner’s structure is acceptable
in spoken discourse, the second form is preferred in written form.
The second type is misplacement of particle as in (40).

(40) *Hindi ako pa marunong magtagalog noon. > Hindi pa ako

marunong mag-Tagalog noon. ‘I do not know how to speak
Tagalog then.’

Particles like pa also occupies a certain slot inside the sentence

which can be before or after the subject. If there is a negation, pa
comes after it before the subject. The negation pattern is discussed
below.
The third type is the misorder in negation as observed in (41).

(41) *Hindi gusto ko ipis at langaw. > Hindi ko gusto ang ipis at
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 391

langaw. ‘I do not like cockroach and fly.’

Hindi is used to negate a sentence in Filipino and placed before

the predicate and no movement is triggered, e.g. Umalis ang bata
(‘The kid left’)
Hindi umalis ang bata. (‘The kid did not leave’).
However, if the subject has no marker or is a pronoun, the negator
precedes the subject, e.g. Magaling siya. (‘He/She is good’) 
Hindi
siya magaling. (‘He/She is not good’).

8. Miscellaneous types

There were a number of other miscellaneous types that were

sporadic across the error categories and types. They include
morphological blend as in (42), morphological addition as in (43) and
(44), syntactic misselection as in (45) and (46), and orthographic
addition as in (47) and (48).

(42) *Estudyante ako sa Pamantasan ng Ateneo de Manila University. >

Pamantasan ng Ateneo de Manila (Filipino)/ Ateneo de Manila
University (English)
(43) *Ang estudyante ako sa Ateneo.> Estudyante ako sa Ateneo
‘I am a student in Ateneo.’
(44) *Dalawang taon na akong sa Pilipinas. > Dalawang taon na ako sa
Pilipinas. ‘I have been in the Philippines for two years.’
(45) *Aking nanay si Kim Suk Hee. > Ang aking nanay ay si Kim Suk Hee.
‘My mother is Kim Suk Hee.’
(46) *Ako ay 181cm taas. > Ako ay may taas na 181 sentimetro.
392 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

‘My height is 181 centimeters.’

(47) *hanap-buhay > hanapbuhay ‘job/work’
(48) *mag-bakasyon > magbakasyon ‘to take a vacation (imperative)’

In (42) the learner was not able to delete the English word
(’university’) resulting to blending of Filipino and English terms. In
(43) the marker ang was incorrectly added, while in (44) the linker
was added. These could be an overgeneralization of the rules about
markers and linkers. In (45) and (46) the learners’ sentences follow
the pattern of English sentence or a one to one translation which
makes it ungrammatical in Filipino. In (47) a hyphen was added in
a compound noun and in (48) between the affix and the root.

Ⅴ. Discussion

The above presentation of results can be summarized as follows:

This study was not intended to compare the error types by proficiency
levels and it was impossible to do that because of the very small
number of subjects at Advanced level and the very small number of
errors produced by them. Nevertheless, it was possible to look at
some general error patterns mainly based on errors from Beginners
and Intermediate groups. The highest percentage of errors across the
student proficiency levels was found in the morphological
misselection at all linguistic levels, while other types of errors were
produced with varying degrees of much smaller percentages. Second,
Korean learners of Filipino from Beginner to Advanced level have
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 393

orthographic difficulty in using hyphen as they tend to either remove

or overuse it as observed in the examples of omission of hyphen in
(29) and (30) and addition of hyphen in (47) and (48). Hyphen is
the orthographical representation of voiceless glottal stop /ʔ/ in
Filipino. The teacher may not have taught this usage to the students
or probably not much emphasis was given. Third, Korean learners
at all levels, especially at Beginner and Intermediate levels, also have
morphological difficulty in using the linkers -ng, -g, and -na which
are called as nasal linker by Gonzales (1971: 144) where he describes
it necessary to maintain the structural unity of the phrase (the verb
phrase with its complements, the noun phrase with its structure of
modification including the equivalent of relativization in English).
This feature of Filipino language seems difficult to acquire for Korean
learners because of its complicated rules. Fourth, another type of
recurring errors from Beginner to Advanced level Korean learners is
on the formation of verbs as observed in (14) to (20). The
agglutinative nature of verb system is regarded as the most difficult
feature of the Filipino grammar. However, it is observed that errors
produced by Korean learners are similar to those of developmental
errors committed by Filipino children featured in Gonzales (1971)
which shows the acquisition process of the Filipino language by
children. Gonzales (1971: 96-97) observed that children use ‘wrong’
combinations of infixation in verbs which include mag-, and ma-
verbs which is also evident in Korean learners.
In terms of the broad source of errors, it appears that there are
more intralingual errors than interlingual errors across all levels.
Intralingual errors come from the learner’s generalization of what they
394 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

have learned within the target language (i.e. Filipino), whereas

interlingual errors are attributable to the negative transfer or
interference from the learner’s native language and other known
language (i.e. Korean and English). At the Beginner level, the
intralingual errors are mainly found in omission and addition of
hyphen; omission, addition and misselection of function words
(linker, topic markers, object markers, locative markers); misspelling
of nouns; misselection of pronoun and lexical items (nouns, adjectives
and verbs); misselection of verbs (imperfective verbs, mag- verbs,
gerunds); misorder of words; and misorder in negation. The errors
that could be attributed to the interlingual transfer errors are
manifested in the omission of subject and usage of /l/ instead of /r/.
There were also errors that resulted from the interference of English
language, including spelling, word blends and misselection at
syntactical level. At the Intermediate level, the errors that could be
attributed to the English intralingual transfer are the usage of English
terms, combination of Filipino affix + English noun and spelling
blending. The intralingual errors in the Filipino language are omission
and addition of hyphen; omission and misselection of function words
(linker, topic markers, object markers, locative markers); misspelling
of nouns; non-capitalization of nouns; misselection of verbs
(imperfective verbs, mag- verbs, gerunds); and misplacement of
subject and particle. The proportion of error sources by each learner
level is shown in Table 2 below.
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 395

<Table 2> Percentage of Intralingual and Interlingual Errors

Sources of Errors Beginner (%) Intermediate (%) Advanced (%)
Interlingual 40.2% 47.7% 31.6%
Intralingual 59.8% 52.3% 68.4%

The number of interlingual error increased from the Beginner to

Intermediate level before it was decreased at the Advanced level, and
there was a significant difference between the percentages in
interlingual and intralingual errors at the Advanced level, where the
intralingual errors were two times higher than the interlingual errors
but the statistical validity for the Advanced level is doubtful and is
susceptible to distort the general trends shown in the Beginners and
Intermediate groups because of the very small number of subjects and
error data.
Researchers (e.g. Brown 2007) of English as second language have
found that the early stages of language learning are characterized by
a predominance of interlingual transfer errors but once learners have
begun to acquire parts of the new system, more and more intralingual
transfer errors are manifested. However, the results of this study does
not support such findings as shown in the table above and present
a different case because the proportion of intralingual errors were
considerably higher than that of interlingual errors even at the
Beginners level. This indicates that the findings of this study support
the previous claims that many of the errors might be related to the
complexity of the Filipino language (Ramos & Mabanglo 2012; Oue
1997; Mayos 1988; Catabui 1969). The complexity refers to language
specific features of the Filipino language such as verbal system,
relativization (use of linker), and syntax structure.
396 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

In addition to the two broad sources of errors, there could be some

induced errors that might have been caused by the context of learning.
For example, explanations of a particular learning item in learning
materials or in the classroom or both were misleading or insufficient
or the presentation of a learning item was not clear or well-sequenced
so bringing confusion to the learners or the learning environment was
unfavorable or inappropriate for learners. Though it is not intended
to examine this aspect in this paper so it is impossible to present
practical evidence to support the third source, it is possible to assume
such induced factors in any foreign or second language classroom,
and the context of learning in this study will be no exception.

Ⅵ. Conclusion

As a preliminary investigation, this study has limitations, which

mainly come from the lack of control of variables (e.g. relatively
small number of subjects, unfocused subjects and the imbalanced
number of participants) in the data collection process and some ad
hoc error categorizations. Nevertheless, it was able to observe the
general trends of error production by Korean learners of Filipino. It
is tentatively concluded that there are specific types of errors that are
made by the Korean learners and some indicate areas that will present
particular difficulties to the Korean learners of Filipino. This
information has implications in teaching and in designing curriculum
for Korean learners. By knowing the types and sources of errors, the
teacher can formulate ways on how to teach those problematic items
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 397

more effectively, which could help the students to prevent from

committing the same errors. The teachers could also explicitly point
out the students’ errors, especially the interlingual errors, and explain
the correct usage during the class so that the students themselves can
be aware of their own errors and prevent fossilization. As for
intralingual errors, a curriculum focusing on the usage of hyphen and
linkers, as well as the verb formation of the Filipino language should
be given more attention and, where possible, highlighted. For the
Beginner level learners, it should be emphasized to the students that
in Filipino sentences, the topic is obligatory especially in written
form. Further research needs to be undertaken in this area of Filipino
as a foreign, second or heritage language based on a particular level
of learners with more control of subjects and refined error
categorizations.

<References>

Almario, Virgilio (ed.). 2014. Ortograpiyang Pambansa (2014

edition). Manila: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
_________________. 2014. KWF Manwal sa Masinop na Pagsulat.
Manila: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
Brown. H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and
Teaching (5th edition). London: Prentice Hall Inc.
Carlos, Victoria P. 2008. I’d Like to Speak Filipino 2 (Revised
edition). Manila: Ample Printing Press.
Catabui, Sacrificia. 1969. “Problems in Learning Pilipino among the
398 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

First Year High School Students of the Cagayan Valley

Institute of Technology.” MA Thesis. Philippines: University
of the Philippines-Diliman.
Corder Stephen. 1975. “Error Analysis, Interlanguage and Second
Language Acquisition.” Language Teaching 8(4): 201-218.
Corder, Stephen. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. New York:
Oxford University Press.
De Leon, Myra P. 2013. Modyul sa Special Filipino 1. Manila:
University of Santo Tomas Publishing House.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication. London: Longman.
Gonzalez, Andrew. 1984. Acquiring Pilipino as a First Language:
Two Case Studies. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Gonzales-Garcia, Lydia. 1999. Makabagong Gramar ng Filipino.
(Revised edition). Manila: Rex Bookstore.
James, Carl. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring
Error Analysis. New York: Longman.
Jaszczolt, K. 1995. “Typology of Contrastive Studies: Specialization,
Progress and Applications.” Language Teaching 28: 1-25.
Kagan, Olga. 2012. “Intercultural Competence of Heritage Language
Learners: Motivation, Identity, Language Attitudes, and the
Curriculum.” Proceedings of Intercultural Competence
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 399

Conference 2: 72-84. http://cercll.arizona.edu/_media/

development/conferences/2012_icc/kagan_ic_heritage_ic
2012.pdf
Kellerman S. 1995. “Cross-Linguistic Influence: Transfer to
Nowhere?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 125-
150.
Laranjo, Ronel O. 2015. “An Error Analysis of Interlanguage of
Heritage Learners and Korean Learners of Filipino
Language.” MA Thesis. Korea: Korea University.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. 1993. How Languages Are Learned.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mabanglo, Ruth Elynia S. 1997. “Pagpapahusay ng Filipino sa mga
Filipino/ Di-Filipino sa Labas ng Filipinas.” Daluyan:
Journal ng SWF sa Talakayang Pangwika 8(1-2): 35-48.
Macarian, Evelun. 2014. “Koreans Top Foreign Students in PH
Universities.” Inquirer.net
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/105358/koreans-top-foreign-st
udents-in-ph-universities
Malicsi, Jonathan C. 2013. Gramar ng Filipino. Quezon City: Sentro
ng Wikang Filipino.
Mayos, Norma. 1988. “Difficulties in Filipino Grammar of Fourth
Year High School Students from State University of Benguet
(School year 1988-1989).” MA Thesis, University of the
Philippines-Diliman.
Odlin, T. 2003. “Cross-Linguistic Influence.” C. Doughty & M. Long
(eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 436-386.
400 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

Oue, Masanao. 1997. “Ang Pagpapahusay sa Pagtuturo ng Filipino

sa mga Estudyanteng Hapones: Mga Suliranin at Solusyon.”
Daluyan: Journal ng SWF sa Talakayang Pangwika 8(1-2):
21-34.
Paz, Consuelo et. al. 2003. Ang Pag-aaral ng Wika. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press.
Quetua, Fe Laura et.al. Miclat, Mario and Baquiran, Romulo Jr.
(eds.). 1999. Sangguniang Gramatika ng Wikang Filipino.
Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
Ramos, Teresita and Mabanglo, Ruth. 2012. Southeast Asian
Language Teaching: The Language Learning Framework for
Teachers of Filipino. Special Issue. http://cotseal.net/cotseal/
pages/documents/Journal_of_SEA_Filipino_2012.pdf
Richards, Jack C. (ed.). 1974. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition. London: Longman.
Selinker, Larry. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London:
Longman.
Shin, Seong-Chul. 2002. “Australian Students’ Lexical Errors in
Korean: Type, Frequency and Cause.” Journal of Korean
Language Education 13(1): 307-338.
______________. 2006. “Substitution Errors by English L1-KFL
Learners: Nominative by Accusative.” International Review
of Korean Studies 3(1): 59-90.
______________. 2007. “Lexical Errors Caused by Semantic
Similarity in Korean.” Teaching Korean as a Foreign
Language 32: 141-170.
______________. 2007. “Types and Patterns of English L1 Students'
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 401

Misspellings in Korean.” Journal of Korean Language

Education 18(3): 99-122.
______________. 2008. “Locative Substitution Errors by English
L1-KFL Learners.” The Language and Culture 4(1): 23-43.
______________. 2010. “Grammatical Errors in Chinese KFL
Learners' Compositions and Teaching Implications.”
Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language 35: 75-100.
______________. 2016. “English L1-Korean L2 Learners’ Cognitive
Knowledge and Difficulty of Grammatical Error Items.”
Language Facts and Perspectives 37: 173-201.
Shin, Seong-Chul and Joo, Alice. 2015. “Lexical Errors in
Korean-Australian Learners’ Compositions.” Journal of
Korean Language Education 26(Special Edition): 129-162.
Shin, Seong-Chul and Kang, Seung Hae. 2015. “English L1-Korean
L2 Learners’ Grammatical Knowledge on High Frequency
Grammatical Error Items.” Journal of Korean Language
Education 26(4): 59-99.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yap, Fe Aldave. 2010. “Global Filipino in Multilingual Education.”
Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference Filipino
as a Global Language. http://larc.sdsu.edu/images/larc/Yap-
GLOBAL-FILIPINO-IN-MULTILINGUAL-EDUCATION.pdf
Zafra, Galileo et.al. 2005. Gabay sa Editing sa Wikang Filipino (tuon
sa pagbabaybay). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.

(2016.10.24. 투고, 2016.11.13. 심사, 2016.11.17. 게재확정)

402 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

<Abstract>

Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean

Learners of Filipino Language

RONEL O. Laranjo
(University of the Philippines, Diliman)
SHIN Seong-Chul
(University of New South Wales)

The study analyzes errors produced by Korean learners of the

Filipino language in their written compositions, presents types and
categories of the errors and provides some possible explanations for
the cause of errors. The study has conducted a survey and collected
35 written compositions from three different groups (Beginner,
Intermediate and Advanced) learning Filipino at three universities in
Manila. A total of 213 errors from 349 sentences were analyzed.
Errors were classified at three linguistic levels (orthographic,
morphological and syntactic) and categorized into five types such as
omission, addition, misselection, misorder and blend. It has been
revealed that the largest proportion of errors was from morphological
misselection at all proficiency levels: Beginner (59.3%), Intermediate
(73.4%) and Advanced (77.8%), followed by morphological omission.
Types of errors are presented along with examples and possible
 Patterns of Errors in Compositions of Korean Learners of Filipino Language 403

sources of errors are explained. It has turned out that there were more
intralingual errors interlingual than errors at all levels and
implications of these errors in teaching are discussed.

Key Words: Error Analysis, Filipino, Korean Learner, Error Type, Error
Pattern, Composition, Second Language
404 동남아시아연구 26권 4호 Southeast Asian Review

<국문초록>

한국계 필리핀어 학습자의 작문 오류 유형

연구

로넬 라란호·신 성 철

본 연구는 한국계 필리핀어 학습자의 작문에 나타난 오류를 분석

하여 이들 오류의 유형과 항목을 제시하고 오류의 추정 원인을 제시
한다. 이를 위해 마닐라 시내 3개 대학에서 필리핀어를 학습하는 초
급, 중급 및 고급 학생들을 대상으로 작문 과제를 완성하는 설문 조
사를 실시하여 35개의 작문을 수집하였다. 총 349개 문장에서 추출
된 213개의 유효 오류를 분석하여 철자, 형태 및 통사 오류로 분류
하고 누락, 첨가, 오선(misselection), 오순 (misorder) 및 혼합 등 다
섯 유형으로 항목화하였다. 가장 많은 비율의 오류는 모든 등급 (초
급 59.3%; 중급 73.4%; 고급 77.8%)에서 형태적 오선 오류였으며
형태적 누락 오류가 뒤를 이었다. 실례와 함께 오류 유형을 제시하고
오류의 추정 원인을 설명한다. 모든 등급에서 언어내 오류가 언어간
오류보다 많음을 보여주었고 이에 대한 교육적 시사점을 논의한다.

주제어: 오류 분석, 필리핀어, 한국계 학습자, 오류 유형, 오류 형태, 작

문, 제2언어