Thai Interference Predictions

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 2

Thai Interference Predictions for English Syntax Acquisition

Thai, formerly known as Siamese, is the official language of Thailand and a member of

the Tai family of languages. Like English, it is an analytical language with a subject-verb-object

(S-V-O) word order. In contrast, Thai is far more isolating, having no native bound morphemes,

and adhering to a far more relaxed syntactic topology. Thai utilizes a unique alphabetic writing

system (running left to right) that lacks word spacing, punctuation, and capitalization (Smyth,

2002). While the English alphabet is required study in the Thai school system and romanized

translations occupy official signage, Thai English Language Learners (ELLs) lack knowledge of

English phonetics and are unable to transpose between the two (Smyth, 2002). The following is

an example of Thai script with accompanying transliteration, word-for-word translation, and

English idiomatic representation. Note how the casual deletion of noun phrases produces the

appearance of a string of verbs.

(1) rip pay s maa kin hurry go buy come eat

He rushed out to buy something and brought it back to eat.

As no international standard for Thai transliteration exists, herein it will be presented

using International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols as indicated in the New Thai-English,

English-Thai Compact Dictionary for English Speakers with Tones and Classifiers by Benjawan

Poomsan Becker (2009). Thai utilizes tones having phonemic distinction; therefore IPA tonal

markings are included. However to simplify reading, stress markers and glottal stops are omitted.

Using contrastive syntactic analysis, the goal of this paper is to predict a sampling of errors

likely to provide challenges to Thai native speakers learning English as a Foreign Language in

the zones of syntactic topology, noun phrases, and verb phrases.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 3

Analysis

Knowledge of the systematic patterns of language provides valuable insight into the

predictable errors of non-native ELLs and their causes (Folse, 2009, pp. 2-3). A syntactic

analysis of Thai language reveals clearly identifiable contrasts with English in the zones of

syntactic topology, noun phrase construction, and verb phrase construction. Predicting

transference errors not only aids the English language instructor in identifying and remediating

problems but also empowers the teacher to clearly explain the why of syntax discrepancies

between languages.

Syntactic Topology

While on the surface Thai and English appear to share a basic constituent word order,

closer scrutiny reveals Thai employs a much freer topology with disparate constructs for

topicalization, constituent omission, complementation, the interrogative, and negation (Potisuk,

2009). While generally adhering to an S-V-O word order, Thai accommodates the sentence

object in first position when it represents the main idea (Smyth, 2002).

(2) ahan raw ca kin khn n meal we will eat night this

We will eat a meal tonight.

In English this is only employed in the passive, whereby the direct object that receives

the action is stated first (Folse, 2009, p. 242). In sentences where such topicalization occurs, it is

common in Thai to omit the subject pronoun (Higbie & Thinsan, 2002). Thus the strict word

order of English provides a source of frustration for Thai ELLs (Bennui, 2007).

(3) ahan jen ca kin thii l meal evening will eat at after

* Dinner will eat later.

I will eat dinner later.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 4

In English, the subject is followed by predicate, which consists of a verb or verb phrase

(Folse, 2009, p. 64). However, in Thai an adjective or a noun may function as the predicate

(Higbie & Thinsan 2002).

(4) khaw hu he hungry

* He hungry.

He is hungry.

(5) khaw khruu

he teacher

* He teacher.

He is a teacher.

The verb to be pen, is used to link subjects and nouns but not adjectives, as Thai

adjectives also function as stative verbs (Smyth, 2002). This can result in confusion over the

placement of the English verb to be (Bootchuy, 2008).

(6) khaw hu pen khruu he hungry is teacher

* He is hungry is teacher.

He is a hungry teacher.

In English, complements precede the words they modify whereas in Thai the order is

reversed (Smyth, 2001) resulting in a confusion of word order.

(7) phm kin ahan pht mak i eat food spicy very

* I eat food spicy very.

I eat very spicy food.

The English interrogative is formed by inverting the subject and the verb (Folse, 2009, p.

93), whereas in Thai there is no movement and the question particle my is added to the end of

the sentence (Smith, 2002). First language interference may therefore inhibit inversion.

(8) ahan pht mak my food spicy very no

* Food spicy very is no?

Is the food very spicy?

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 5

A form of topicalization may occur in Thai sentences where the question is asked first

and then the subject (Higbie & Thisan, 2022, p. 60).

(9) ry my ahan pht tasty no food spicy

* Tasty no is food spicy?

Is spicy food tasty?

The same non-inverted word pattern applies to wh-questions, with the applicable question

word at sentence-final (Higbie & Thinsan, 2002, p. 66).

(10) ch ray name what

* You name what?

What is your name?

Negatives in Thai are formed by placing the negative particle my in front of the main

verb or adjective functioning as a verb (Smyth, 2002). Since Thai does not employ auxiliary

verbs, typical errors involve the omission of English to be and to do (Folse, 2009, p. 107;

Bootchuy, 2008).

(11) ahan my pht food not spicy

* Food not spicy.

The food is not spicy.

(12) phm my chp i no like

* I no like.

I do not like it.

Noun Phrases

In addition to the casual omission of noun phrases, incompatible sets of Thai and English

pronouns offer another source of interference. The lack of articles in Thai, combined with the

differing treatment of plurals and the elaborate use of Thai classifiers, make the construction of

noun phrases in English a challenge for ELLs.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 6

Pronouns.

Thai has an abundance of personal pronouns, ranked by age, social status, gender, and

formality (Smyth, 2002). Pronouns constitute an open set, allowing the substitution of personal

names, nicknames, occupational titles, and kinship in their place. While referring to oneself in

the third person in English sounds strange, it is quite acceptable in Thai (Harvey, 2006).

(13) Chris kin daw n Chris eat moment this

* Chris eat now.

I will eat now.

Duplication of noun and pronoun is also common in Thai (Smyth, 2002).

(14) ph khaw kin lw father he eat already

* Father he eat already.

Father ate already.

In deference to the wealth of Thai pronominal forms, the language curiously lacks

gender-specific pronouns indicating third person singular, resulting in a predictable error.

(15) m khaw mii chut mother he/she has dress

* Mother he has dress.

She has a dress.

Thai adopts the identical pronoun khaw to indicate third person plural.

(16) phm chp khon thai khaw suay I like people thai they beautiful

* I like Thai people. He is beautiful.

They are beautiful.

Thai lacks possessive and objective pronouns (Ar-lae & Valdez, 2011), resulting in the

overuse of subject pronouns in English.

(17) miia kh khaw suay wife of he pretty

* Wife of he is pretty.

His wife is pretty.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 7

Determiners.

Confusion between definite and indefinite articles and when to omit them in English is a

substantial problem as there is no Thai equivalent (Smyth, 2001, p. 350).

(18) khruu mii ns teacher have book

* Teacher has book.

The teacher has a book.

Thai includes demonstratives ni this/these and nn that/those but without plural

distinction (Chakorn, 2005). Their substitution for English articles is a predictable error (Folse,

2009, p. 183). Quantified nouns in Thai require the use of classifiers, constricting the word order

of the noun phrase to noun-classifier-demonstrative (Smyth, 2002). In the following example,

khon is the classifier for people.

(19) khruu khon nan mii ns teacher [CLASS] that have book

* Teacher he that have book.

That teacher has the book.

Plurals.

Common nouns in Thai have a single fixed form and are not gender specific. In some

cases, collectives may be formed by simply reduplicating the noun, as in dk dk for children

(Becker, 2009). Where context fails to indicate plurality, a number or quantifier is imposed on

the noun along with its appropriate classifier. Further complicating the issue in Thai is the lack of

a phonetic /s/ in final position where the English plural suffix is applied (Smyth, 2001).

(20) khaw mii ns sam lm he have book three [CLASS]

* He have book three.

He has three books.

Indefinite determiners in Thai do not distinguish count and mass nouns, resulting in the

overuse of the English forms many and little (Bennui, 2008).

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 8

(21) phm mii en mak i have money many

* I have many money.

I have a lot of money.

Verb Phrases

The fact that noun phrases are often omitted supports the notion that Thai is a verb-

oriented language, interjecting verbs where English typically places nouns and prepositions

(Smyth, 2002). Thai verbs do not inflect for person, number, or tense. Thus pay means go,

goes, went, and will go (Becker, 2009). In addition to inflection, problematic areas concern

the blurring of distinction between Thai verbs, adjectives, and adverbs; and the assembly of

multiple verbs without the use of linking particles.

Tense.

When tense cannot be construed from context, time markers can be applied. Thus

subject-verb agreement and tense are particular problems for Thai ELLs. Notice also that many

Thai verbs contain an inferred preposition (Higbie & Thinsan, 2002, p. 261).

(22) khaw pay rooriian he go school

* He go school.

He goes to school.

A tense marker such as lw, loosely translated as already may be inserted at the end of

the verb phrase to indicate past tense. A common mistake for second language learners is

overgeneralization of the English past tense marker in negative statements (Folse, 2009, p. 130).

(23) khaw my pay rooriian lw he not go school already

* He didnt went to school. He didnt go to school.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 9

Future tense in Thai is indicated by the addition of the marker ca, roughly translated as

will, positioned before the main verb. Particularly confusing to ELLs is the use of the English

phrase be going to to refer to a future action (Folse, 2009, p. 140).

(24) khaw ca pay rooriian he will go school

* He go to go school.

He is going to go to school.

The multitude of tense distinctions in English poses a considerable problem for Thai

speakers. For example, although Thai supports a continuous tense, its construction is entirely

dissimilar, involving the application of free morphemes kamla, meaning energy, placed before

the main verb to emphasize continuity; and yu, to be at placed at the end of the phrase to

establish prevalence (Higbie & Thisan, 2002, p. 87). As an error avoidance tactic, Thai ELLs

will simply defer to the base form of the English verb (Chakorn, 2005).

(25) phm kamla pay rooriian yu, i [CONT] go school [PRES]

* I go to school.

I am going to school.

Adjectives and adverbs.

Dynamic adjectives are indistinguishable from verbs in Thai, and rarely occur with the

verb pen to be (Smyth, 2002; Bootchuy, 2008), resulting in errors of omission.

(26) phm hn khruu krot i see teacher mad

* I see teacher mad.

I see the teacher is mad.

Adverbs of manner lack distinction, therefore dii means both good and well (Smyth,

2002). Adverbs of degree and frequency follow the words they modify, resulting in placement

errors in English (Folse, 2009, p. 55). Note that mak also serves as a quantifier.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 10

(27) khaw phut dii mak

he speak good very

* He speak good very.

He speaks very well.

Verb serialization.

In Thai, verbs sharing the same subject may follow one another without an intervening

conjunction (Higbie & Thinsan, 2002, p. 99).

(28) rip pay s maa kin hurry go buy come eat

The effect does not appear as onerous if the omitted pronouns are restored:

(29) khaw rip pay s s khaw maa kin man he hurry go buy something he come eat it

Yet Thai ELLs may struggle with an English syntax that discourages repeating pronouns

but requires links between verbs.

(28) * He hurry and go and buy something he and come and eat it.

He rushed out to buy something and brought it back to eat.

Conclusion

Learning English as a Foreign Language is notoriously difficult for native Asians. While

Thai ELLs may enjoy an advantage over their Chinese and Japanese counterparts in that Thai

shares an alphabetic rather than logographic orthography and a base S-V-O word order,

disparities between Thai and English syntax are no less formidable. Lack of exposure to English

phonology and speech serves only to strengthen cultural resistance to English acceptance, and

retreating to Thai syntactic forms is the usual pattern. Through targeting some of the habitual

zones of interference impacting word order, noun phrases, and verb phrases, English teachers can

be better prepared to intercept, remediate, and ideally strengthen Thai ELLs appreciation of

English grammar.

THAI INTERFERNCE Chris Khonngam 11

References

Ar-lae, S., & Valdez, C. M. (2011). Challenges that Thai teachers and learners face when moving

from L1 to L2 and how to handle them. In 2nd International Conference on Foreign

Language Learning and Teaching (p. 32).

Becker, B.P. (2009). New Thai-English, English-Thai compact dictionary for English speakers

with tones and classifiers. Berkeley: Paiboon Publishing.

Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian

Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102.

Bootchuy, T. (2008). An analysis of errors in academic English writing by a group of first-year

Thai graduates majoring in English (Doctoral dissertation, MA thesis, Kasetsart

University, Thailand).

Chakorn, O. (2005). Analysis of lexico-grammatical errors of Thai businesspeople in their

English business correspondence. NIDA Language and Communication Journal, 10,

70-94.

Folse, K. (2009). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners. Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press.

Harvey, E. (2006). Pronouns in Thai. Verbatim: The Language Quarterly, 31(4), 1-5.

Higbie, J., & Thinsan, S. (2002). Thai reference grammar: The structure of spoken Thai. Orchid

Press.

Potisuk, S. (2009). A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for Thai.

Smyth, D. (2001). Thai speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teachers

guide to interference and other problems (pp. 343-356). Cambridge University Press.

Smyth, D. (2002). Thai: An essential grammar. Routledge.