Language Interference On English Transfe

ELTA Journal • December 2014 • Volume 2, No.
Language Interference on English:

Transfer on the Vocabulary, Tense and
Preposition Use of Freshmen Turkish
EFL Learners
by Ali Erarslan, Pamukkale University, Turkey

and
Devrim Hol, Pamukkale University, Turkey
Abstract
In this study, the degree to which Turkish EFL learners make use of L1 transfer was examined in terms of
vocabulary use, use of prepositions and the use of Simple Present Tense. The study was conducted by having
participants perform a translation task and take a translation test. Results showed that most L1 interference took
place in the use of prepositions and vocabulary following it. Participants showed more signs of transfer while they
were making guesses on the meaning of given vocabulary items, phrases or sentences. The least rate of L1
transfer was observed in the use of Simple Present Tense.
Key words: L1 transfer, language interference, cross-linguistic influence, errors
Apstrakt
U ovom radu ispitaćemo u kojoj meri turski učenici stranog jezika koriste transfer maternjeg jezika po pitanju
upotrebe vokabulara, predloga i sadašnjeg vremena (The Simple Present Tense). Studija je izvedena tako što su
učesnici imali prevod kao zadatak i tako što su radili test na kome su imali prevod. Rezultati pokazuju da se
većina transfera iz maternjeg jezika dešava pri upotrebi predloga, a zatim pri upotrebi vokabulara. Znaci transfera
kod učenika su uočljiviji kada su učesnici pogađali značenja datog vokabulara, fraza i rečenica. Najmanji transfer
maternjeg jezika je primećen pri upotrebi sadašnjeg vremena (The Present Simple Tense).
Ključne reči: L1 transfer, transfer jezika, među-lingvistički uticaj, greške
1. Introduction Language Acquisition (SLA) over the past

The nature and extent of the influence of four decades. Though there have been
native language (L1) on L2 learning various discussions related to what
process have been debated in ESL and "transfer" is or not, one of the most
EFL contexts in the field of Second accepted definitions of the term "transfer"
E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

Copyright ELTA Journal 2014
www.eltajournal.org.rs Page 4
ELTA Journal • December 2014 • Volume 2, No. 2
is made by Odlin (Odlin, 1989) since this transfer is governed by learners’

definition is regarded as broad enough to perceptions about what is transferable and
include different viewpoints related to by their stage of development in L2
“transfer". According to Odlin (Odlin, 1989, learning. In learning a target language,
pg 27): "transfer is the influence resulting learners construct their own interim rules
from similarities and differences between (Selinker, 1971, Seligar, 1988 and Ellis,
the target language and any other 1994) with the use of their L1 knowledge,
language that has been previously (and but only when they believe it will help them
perhaps imperfectly) acquired”. Transfer is in the learning task or when they have
also known as L1 interference, linguistic become sufficiently proficient in the L2 for
interference or cross-linguistic influence. transfer to be possible. In fact, the
difference between the terms “interference”
First language “interference” and “transfer” and “transfer” comes from the similarity or
are sometimes used interchangeably and the difference in the structures of the two
sometimes as two different terms. languages. According to Ellis (Ellis, 1994)
Interference is the automatic transfer, due two languages having distinct linguistic
to habit, of the surface structure of the first structures may result in a high frequency of
language onto the surface of the target errors in the target language which in turn
language(Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982). indicates an interference of L1 on L2.As
Lott (Lott, 1983, p. 256) defines suggested by Gao (Gao, 2013), the learner
interference as ‘errors in the learner’s use who comes in contact with a foreign
of the foreign language that can be traced language may resort to his/her native
back to the mother tongue’. As Lott (Lott, language features to replace those
1983) suggests, by analyzing the students' difficulties in the target language.
errors, teachers can begin to attribute a
cause to an error with some degree of One of the most important changes in
precision and find out whether, for second language researches has been the
example, mother tongue interference, or issue of “errors”. Traditionally, learners’
teaching techniques, or problems inherent producing an ill-formed structure in target
in the target language are the major cause language was seen negatively and thus the
of their students’ errors. Additionally, Ellis teachers needed to correct such ill-formed
(Ellis, 1994) refers to interference as structures as soon as possible. Among
‘transfer’, which he says is 'the influence different methods in second language
that the learner’s L1 exerts over the teaching, behaviorist theory views errors
acquisition of an L2'. He argues that as a part of habit formation and they

should be corrected immediately in order 1. L1 influence decreases with

not to be fossilized (Griffiths,2008). increasing L2 proficiency.
However, some recent methods regard 2. L1 influence increases with
errors as an indicator of actual acquisition increasing L2 proficiency.
process in action (Yule, 1996, James, 3. L1 influence remains constant
1998).According to Harmer (2003), errors with increasing L2 proficiency.
are part of the students’ interlanguage, 4. L1 influence ultimately
which is a developmental area of the decreases, but nonlinearly.
learners and changes continuously until 5. L1 influence ultimately increases,
the learners become proficient in the but nonlinearly.
language. Historically, in the 1950s and 6. L1 influence ultimately never
1960s, it was considered that by decreases nor increases, but
comparing and contrasting the structures its presence continually fluctuates
of L1 and the target language, errors would as L2 proficiency increases.
be easily predicted with the error analysis
which saw a reaction in the 1970s claiming Arguments related to the term "transfer"
that the L2 was learned in the same way mainly focus on "errors"; thus, all these
as the L1, and independently of it; however views raised another important question:
currently it is accepted that transfer occurs, what is the distinction between errors and
but in a more complex way and it is not mistakes? According to Ellis (Ellis, 1994),
regarded as the source of errors only an error takes place when the deviation
(Benson, 2002). As suggested by Benson arises as a result of lack of knowledge and
(Benson, 2002), transfer can be facilitative he views mistakes as the result of
(positive transfer), or transfer can result in problems that prevent learners from
avoidance if the structure of the target accessing their knowledge of a target
language does not exist in L1 and it can language rule and cause them to fall back
lead to different rates of development on some alternative, non-standard rule that
(p.68). Additionally, another phenomenon they find easier to access. Ellis (Ellis,
regarding L1 influence is the effect of L2 1994) also refers to errors as gaps in the
proficiency. The relationship between L2 knowledge of the learners, which assumes
proficiency and its effect on transfer is that the learners ‘system of knowledge is
listed by Jarvis (Jarvis, 2000, p.246,247) the source of the errors. Thus, errors are
as: considered systematic and occur
repeatedly. On the other hand, according
to Corder (1967, cited by Ellis 2008), a

‘mistake’ is a deviation in learner language language as (1) the L2-input in a natural

that occurs when learners fail to perform L2 speaking or classroom based learning
their competence. Within this point of view, environment (2) the structures of their
mistakes as randomly occurring slips, native language (L1); and (3) innate
unlike errors, are regarded as an indicator linguistic knowledge 7.
of performance.
Learners appear to accumulate structural
It is assumed that the learner’s mother entities of English, but demonstrate
tongue (MT) will positively or negatively difficulty in organizing this knowledge into
affect his learning a foreign language in appropriate, meaningful structures and
second language acquisition (SLA). When there seems to be a significant gap
the learner’s mother tongue and target between the accumulation and the
language are similar, the native language organization of the knowledge. When
will actively aid foreign language in writing or speaking in English, the target
learning that is in case of similarities language (L2), Turkish students seem to
between the native language and target rely on their Turkish language (L1)
language, the transfer functions positively, structures to produce written or spoken
while in case of differences, it functions pieces. Thus, with this aim in mind, based
negatively. Considering that Turkish on the learners' level of English, this study
language belongs to the Altaic branch of seeks answer to the following research
the Ural-Altaic family of languages and question:
English is a West Germanic language of
Indo European family of languages, most 1- Based on language levels of students in
learners are assumed to transfer linguistic English (elementary, pre-intermediate and
structures in a negative way because of intermediate), how does L1 transfer affect
the distance between these two languages. the use of English in terms of
a. Vocabulary
Through the language learning process, b. Prepositions
learners appear to rely on their mother c. Tense (Present Continuous
tongue (L1) considering L1 facilitates L2 Tense instead of Simple
learning in that both languages have Present Tense)?
similarities with each other. However,
This study aims to investigate the effects of
these learners usually make use of at
Turkish language on students’ production
least three domains in terms of linguistic
of English; transfer on vocabulary, tense
knowledge while acquiring the target

and preposition use of students at a state

university in Turkey.
2. Method
This research study was primarily designed
as a descriptive study and therefore adopts
a quantitative approach. In line with the
approach, survey methodology was used
to obtain the opinions of participants.

3. Setting and Participants
This study was conducted at a state university aiming to explore the degree to which L1
transfer was evident in producing vocabulary, tense and prepositional items in English. In the
research, the degree of L1 transfer on vocabulary, preposition and tense was evaluated
separately depending on the students’ level of English. In the study, in order to investigate
how L1 transfer was evident in English, 323 participants participated in the study at a state
university in Turkey. The participants were randomly selected based on their language levels
in English as Elementary, Pre-Intermediate and Intermediate level. The students receive
English education in these levels under a program run by School of Foreign Languages and
all the students use the same course book within the same framework. It has been an
advantage for this study that using the same book in all English levels eliminates the risk of
language transfer due to material use provided to students.
Table 1. Distribution of participants and their language levels (N=323)
f %
Age 17-20 255 78.9
21-25 68 21.1
Total 323 100.0
Gender Female 216 66.9
Male 107 33.1
Total 323 100.0
Lang. Level Elementary 150 46.4
Pre-intermediate 89 27.6
Intermediate 84 26
Total 323 100.0
General characteristics of the participant English preparatory class students were

investigated in terms of their age, gender, and their level of English. Of the 323 students 255
(29 %) were between the age of 17-20 and 68 (21,1% ) were between the age of 21-25.
Additionally, 216 (66,9%) were female and 107 (33,1 %) were male. As for the participants’
level of English, nearly half of the participants (46,4 %) were Elementary level students, 27,6
% were pre-intermediate and 26 % were in intermediate level.

4. Data Collection preposition parts, the items were chosen

from the students' writings. Moreover,
Initially, before constructing the items in those which were added for the actual
the data collection tool in the form of a study were chosen based on "The
knowledge and translation test, a total of General Service List (GSL)"(West,
90 students' assignments in their writing 1953), which contains the most widely
course were randomly English and useful 2,000 word families in English.
analyzed for each level. The written West (1953, cited in Fox, 1979) used a
assignments were collected and analyzed variety of criteria to select these words,
in the second semester to ensure that they including frequency, ease of learning,
all had acceptable knowledge and skills in coverage of useful concepts, and stylistic
L2 writing. When the academic year starts, level. In addition, Academic Word List
students in preparatory classes are (AWL), containing 570 words which
exposed to writing exercises embedded in appear with high frequency in academic
the core language course in the first three textbooks across a range of disciplines
months until the end of first semester. In was used as the vocabulary criteria. The
the second term, writing course starts and AWL was created so that this word list
they learn writing based on “process could be used by students to learn the
approach”. During the academic year, the words most needed to study at universities
students are taught paragraph writing and (Coxhead, 2000).
paragraph types first, and then essay After constructing the test items, to collect
writing and essay types (Erarslan, 2011). data, a form was developed having two
Students' writing assignments both in the parts: a translation part and a test part
paragraph and in essay format were where the participants were provided 20
analyzed based on their transfer errors. vocabulary items, 10 tense items and 10
After the analysis, their transfer errors preposition items in each part. In both
were categorized and it was seen that parts, students were provided the same
three major errors were found to be in the vocabulary, tense and preposition items.
vocabulary, tense and preposition use.
Thus, for the actual study, based on their All our participants were asked to
writing assignments, three parts were complete a translation task having 20
chosen as vocabulary, tense and vocabulary items, which mainly consisted
preposition use. For the vocabulary and of phrasal verbs, collocations and

compound words our students find difficult items in the “I know” column would be
to understand, 10 phrases with interpreted as mistakes; whereas, the
prepositions and 10 sentences that require ones in the “I guess” column would be
the use of Simple Present Tense. The interpreted as transfer errors.
participants were asked to translate these
items into English. In this task another Immediately after the transfer task,
important point was that the participants participants were asked to take a
were provided with two columns. They translation test. In this test, the same items
were asked to write their translations to in the first part were asked, however, this
the column with the heading “I know” if time participants were provided with a
they were definitely certain about their correct translation and a literal translation
response and they were asked to write of the items in the form of multiple choice
their translation to the column with the items. Participants were asked to identify
heading “I guess” if they were not certain the choice they thought was the correct
about their response but guessed that it alternative. The aim of this test was to find
should be such. The aim was to find out out whether input would make any change
the rate of transfer occurred in guesses in the rate of transfer items, if yes, in what
and in definitely known items. Transfer way.
5. Procedure in elementary, pre-intermediate and

The study was conducted in a state intermediate level classes at the same
university in Turkey among students who time.
have one year intensive English
preparatory education. It was conducted in 6. Data Analysis
the first thirty minute of the course and In analyzing the collected data, any kind of
participants were given brief information literal translation, either partial or
about what the aim of the study was and complete, was accepted as language
what they had to do while doing the tasks. transfer in the vocabulary section. In the
They were specifically asked to write preposition section, any kind of literal
whatever they think as the English translation, absence of preposition where
equivalents of the provided phrases in needed, use of unnecessary preposition in
Turkish. In order to make the participants order to replace a suffix in Turkish, and
feel free in their responses, they were finally, any kind of word transformation to
asked not to write their names on any of replace a suffix in Turkish was accepted
the tasks given. The study was conducted as language transfer. In the tense section,

any use of Present Continuous Tense or and “I guess section”. So, after each
attempt to use Present Continuous Tense; analysis, it was possible to see how many
that is, using auxiliary verb in front of the questions were answered by the
main verb without adding the –ing or participant in each section and how many
adding –ing without using ‘auxiliary' in front of them were transfer items. The
of the main verb was accepted as translation test was also checked in the
language transfer. same way. The number of answers given
The translation tasks and translation tests by the participant to each section and the
were evaluated separately. In the transfer items in each section were
translation task, each transfer item the carefully marked.
total number of questions answered in
The results obtained from the research
each section was identified. The same
have been analyzed separately and
procedure was followed in the preposition
calculated according to their percentage of
section, tense section, “I know” section
transfer.
7. Results
1) Vocabulary Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

a) Vocabulary Transfer of Elementary Level Students
Table 2. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items in Elementary Level of English
Average Transfer Rate Average Test Items Total Percentage of

Answered Transfer
5,69 11,83 35%
At first, the data obtained were analyzed in terms of vocabulary, tense and preposition based
on the participants' level of English. Elementary level students' responses in the tests related
to vocabulary items analyzed and students answered an average of 11,83 vocabulary items
out of 20 questions in translation part. Among vocabulary items answered, the transfer
evident in vocabulary was 5,69 in average which was 35 % in total. Table 2 shows that
students at university apply their knowledge from Turkish language to English in vocabulary
choice which are mostly irrelevant to their English equivalents. Among vocabulary items
where Turkish transfer was intensively applied are “Mutfak Robotu” which means “Food

Processor” in English. However, this word was mostly translated as “Kitchen Robot” as a
direct translation and “Spor Ayakkabı” meaning “trainers” transferred as “Sports Shoes” by
the students. Additionally, it is possible to say that the same case is true for “Köpek Balığı”
meaning “Shark” in English. A majority amount of students translated it as “Dog Fish” just
focusing on its Turkish equivalent word by word. One possible reason for such negative
transfer is that words such as “köpek balığı” and “spor ayakkabı” are compound words in
Turkish and students prefer using a compound translation in English. Their limited exposure
to English may also be another reason for their incorrect transfer of vocabulary choice as
they may still fail in mastery of target language.
b) Vocabulary Transfer of Pre-Intermediate Level Students
Table 3. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Answered Transfer
3,19 14,56 21,90%
When compared to transfer evident in vocabulary items according to Elementary Level of

English(see Table 2.), transfer in vocabulary items according to Pre-intermediate level of
English, students answered an average of 3,19 vocabulary items out of 20 questions in
translation part. Among vocabulary items answered, the transfer evident in vocabulary was
14,56 in average which was 21,90 % totally. Table 3 shows that Pre-intermediate level
students show less tendency to use Turkish vocabulary knowledge compared to Elementary
students. The total amount of vocabulary transfer is 35% according to Elementary Level of
English while it is 21,90 % totally according to Pre-intermediate level of English. However,
the results here show that vocabulary transfer is still evident in both groups.
c) Vocabulary Transfer of Intermediate Level Students
Table 4. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items among Intermediate Level Students

Answered Transfer
4,21 14,86 28,33%

In terms of transfer in vocabulary items according to intermediate level of English, students

answered an average of 4,21 vocabulary items out of 20 questions in translation part. Among
vocabulary items answered, the transfer evident in vocabulary was 14,86 in average which
was 28,33 % totally. Table 4 shows that intermediate students make more use of Turkish
vocabulary knowledge than Pre-intermediate level students and less transfer compared to
elementary students.
One of Studies related to L1 (Turkish) transfer to L2 was conducted by Erkaya (Erkaya,
2012) and in her study in which written texts of the participants in terms of errors were
analyzed, it was the word choice appeared with the highest percentage as transfer error the
students applied using their L1 knowledge. Additionally, according to another study focusing
on written essays of the adult beginner Turkish students conducted by Kırkgöz (Kırkgöz,
2010), learners had mainly two types of errors as interlingual and intralingual errors and she
suggests that one of major sources of student errors was result of L1 transfer. In her study,
the words transferred from Turkish did not prevent the comprehension as Erkaya (Erkaya,
2012) mentions. Similarly, according to Karakas (n.d), Turkish students had serious
problems in generating words and combining them into phrases and finally into sentences,
which might range from a very simple to highly complex ones.
2) Preposition Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

a) Preposition Transfer of Elementary Level Students
Table 5. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Elementary Level Students

Answered Transfer
3,19 7,61 41%
The most striking result of the study was in the use of preposition in English. Transfer evident
in preposition items according to Elementary Level of English was analyzed and students
answered an average of 3,19 preposition items out of 10 questions in translation part. Among
preposition items answered, the transfer evident was 7,61 in average which was 41 % totally.
Table 5 shows that students in university level apply their knowledge from Turkish language
to English in preposition choices which are mostly irrelevant to their English equivalents. This
result indicates that preposition use is the most problematic part of students’ English learning
process. The reason for this may be that the Turkish equivalents of “in, on, at” in English are
all “-de, and –da” in Turkish. For example, almost all students answered the question “Ayşe

ile evlenmek” as “marry with Ayşe” in English instead of “marry to Ayşe”. The preposition “ile”
is “with” in English. As a result, when students come across or have to produce a phrase
including “ile” in Turkish translation of an English phrase, they prefer to use it with its Turkish
equivalent. On the other hand, the other most commonly transferred preposition item was
“eve gelmek” for “come home”. In this question, most students again gave its English
equivalent referring to its Turkish translation “come to home”, as it includes -e, -a suffixes
showing direction.
b) Preposition Transfer of Pre-Intermediate Level Students
Table 6. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Answered Transfer
1,52 7,07 21,49%
Transfer evident in preposition items according to Pre-intermediate level of English was

analyzed and students answered an average of 1,52 preposition items out of 10 questions in
translation part. Among preposition items answered, the transfer evident was 7,07 in average
which was 21,49 % totally. Table 6 indicates that Pre-intermediate students tend to make
less transfer in preposition items compared to elementary students. It is quite surprising that
while elementary students have the highest amount of transfer in preposition use, the figures
related to pre-intermediate students do not make so much difference compared to
vocabulary and tense items.
c) Preposition Transfer of Intermediate Level Students
Table 7. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Intermediate Level Students

Answered Transfer
1,57 7,36 21,33%
Transfer evident in preposition items among intermediate students was analyzed and
students answered an average of 1,57 preposition items out of 10 questions in translation
part. Among preposition items answered, the transfer evident was 7,36 in average which was
21,33 % totally. Table 7 shows that intermediate students tend to make transfer in

preposition items equally. However the highest amount of transfer in preposition was seen
among elementary students.
Studies on prepositions show that Turkish students also have overgeneralization from L1
when applying prepositional rules to TL 16. Karakas (n.d) mentions that most prepositional
errors can be explained as an L1 impact as the translation of the preposition encompasses
the meaning of "through" in L1. According to Koban (Koban, 2011), the largest number of
errors consisted in the misuse of prepositions and it may be caused by the fact that the
learners probably learned a particular preposition with one type of verb and later used the
same preposition with similar verbs (p.170).
3) Tense Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

a) Tense Transfer of Elementary Level Students
Table 8. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Elementary Level Students

Answered Transfer
1,66 8,71 19%
Transfer evident in tense items according to Elementary Level of English was analyzed and
students answered an average of 1,66 tense items out of 10 questions in translation part.
Among tense items answered, the transfer evident in tense items was 8,71 on average which
was 19 % totally. Table 8 indicates that university students who have been learning English
in Elementary Level tend to rely on Turkish knowledge in the use of tense less when
compared to vocabulary items. One of the most challenging items in tense translation was
the ambiguity caused by meaningless responses given by the students. Some papers
included responses such as “I am work post office” as an equivalent of “I work at the post
office”.
b) Tense Transfer of Pre-intermediate Level Students
Table 9. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Answered Transfer
1,59 8,00 19,87%

Transfer evident in tense items according to Pre-intermediate level of English was analyzed
and students answered an average of 1,59 tense items out of 10 questions in translation
part. Among tense items answered, the transfer evident was 8,00 in average which was
19,87 % totally. Table 9 indicates that Pre-intermediate students tend to make transfer in
tense items equally with elementary students.
c) Tense Transfer of Intermediate Level Students
Table 10. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Intermediate Students

Answered Transfer
1,79 8,43 21,23%
Transfer evident in tense items among intermediate was analyzed and students answered an
average of 1,79 tense items out of 10 questions in translation part. Among tense items
answered, the transfer evident was 8,43 in average which was 21,23 % totally. When
compared to previous groups, Table 10shows that intermediate students tend to make
transfer in tense items mostly. Though the results are nearly same in two other groups, the
highest amount of tense transfer is seen among intermediate students. In theory, it is
expected that the more the students have input in learning a second language, the less they
make L1 interference.
According to the study of Erkaya (Erkaya, 2012), among the transfer errors, the verb tense
errors were not as many as word choice and preposition errors. Similarly, among the errors
identified in Koban’s (Koban, 2011)study, tense errors were listed as the less frequent ones
compared to prepositional and lexical errors, however, Koban (Koban, 2011, p.171) mentions
that “the actual source of most tense errors is interference from the other terms of the
English system, and only rarely from the corresponding Turkish form. The influence of
Turkish is apparent in the second category in which the verbs are marked with -ing for the
progressive aspect”. In fact, although tense choice of the participants focused only at
progressive form and at present form as in our study, as Koban stated (Koban, 2011), the

influence of Turkish on English is apparent in terms of –ing form in tense use, and for this
reason instead of focusing on other aspects of tenses, this study only focused on –ing
aspect. Similar to our study, Kirkgoz (Kirkgoz, 2010, p. 435) explains based on her study that
“the major source of errors in the tense choice is that for the given situations, simple present
tense is used to express in English language, whereas in Turkish present continuous tense is
employed”. It is true that most state verbs are expressed in Present Continuous tense in
Turkish language, thus most Turkish students have a tendency to say” I am loving you”
instead of “I love you” as the English equivalent.
Figure 1. Comparison of Vocabulary, Preposition and Tense Transfer among language

levels
Figure 2. The Transfer Evident Based on “I Know” and “I Guess” section
Figure 2 shows the amount of transfer items in vocabulary, tense and preposition sections
according to language levels. The table shows the amount of the transferred items based on
participants' choices "I know" or "I guess" indicating that whether they know the English
equivalents of the test items or they guess them. In the ‘I know’ column, Elementary
students' rate of transfer was 29%, Pre-intermediate level was 18, 87%, and the rate of
transfer among intermediate students was 20, 35%.

In the ‘I guess’ column, the amount of the transfer in the Elementary group was 41%, Pre-
intermediate level was 40%, and the rate of transfer among intermediate students was 49%.
Table 11. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary in Both Translation and Test Item
Vocabulary Preposition Tense

Translation Part 31% 33% 19%
Test Part 40% 46,98% 24%
Table 11shows the percentages of items based on transfer in two parts of the data collection
instrument as “Translation task” and “test item”. The rate of all the item types asked in the
study showed an increase in Test item part. Interestingly, the aim of providing input in the
test item part of the study was to see if the students could find the true equivalents of the
items asked in Turkish. Contrary to the expectations, students used their knowledge of
Turkish in a greater extent in Test item part though they were given the right answer in the
options. Transfer on vocabulary increases by 9% in test item part, the rate of increase was
5% in tense and transfer on preposition increased by 13, 98% in test item part.
8. Conclusion appropriate use of the target language

among the provided items. In using L1
The major concern of this study has been structures, the learners have taken some
to investigate Turkish language risks that include guessing of a more or
interference, or transfer, on English in less informed kind. They have attempted
vocabulary, tense and preposition use. to use invented or borrowed items,
The learners have used some L1 producing meaningless items in English.
structures to produce appropriate
responses in L2, producing acceptable Most linguists agree that transfer is mostly
equivalents of the Turkish phrases. seen in beginner levels and in less
However, the learners have also used L1 proficient learners. Studies have shown
structures interchangeably with L2 that less proficient learners have been
structures, producing inappropriate L2 reported to transfer more elements from
responses, indicating an interference of L1 their first language than learners who
on L2. In both translation and test item present higher levels of proficiency
phases, the responses which the students (Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner, 2001).
gave reflect failure in producing Jiang and Kuehn (Jiang and Kuehn, 2001)

conducted a study on immigrant students from different language backgrounds. They found
out that beginner to intermediate level students made use of transfer strategies while
advanced students made use of cognitive strategies. Major (Major, 1986) and Wenk (Wenk,
1986) have also found out that beginner level students were more likely to make transfer
errors than more advanced ones. On the other hand, linguists such as Kellerman (Kellerman,
1983) see the errors of beginner level learners as developmental errors and claim that, in
order to be able to make transfer errors learners should have developed awareness in the
language (cited in Ellis, 1994). Our study also shows similar results in that the elementary
level students made use of L1 transfer more than the advanced ones. Additionally, Ringbom
(Ringbom, 2007) views transfer as lexical borrowing. Similarly, Odlin (Odlin, 1989) states that
lexical level transfer in the early stage is seen in the form of borrowing as is seen in our
study.
When the learners fail to recognize the appropriate items in English and interpret
them out of their actual use, they adjust the form of their L2 written responses by using items
which are part of their L1. The analysis of the learners 'translation and test item tasks
revealed the extent to which their L2 responses are affected by their L1, the procedures
aimed to express the phrases which included vocabulary, tense and preposition items and to
see the extent to which and the manner in which L1 knowledge interferes with L2. The L2
errors made are traceable to the learners' L1 and we can conclude that there is definite
interference of L1 on L2.
In the process of attempting to relate L1 to L2, they consider about the similarity or
difference between L2 and L1. The result is that the students rely heavily on their L1
knowledge and respond to items of L2 under known categories in L1, hence a translation
process has taken place. It is seen in this study that the second language learners have
adopted their L1 structures to help them in their L2 translations and option choices.

References:
Albirini Abdulkafi, & Benmamoun Elabbas. (2014). Aspects of second-language transfer in
the oral production of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers. International Journal of
Bilingualism, Vol. 18(3), 244– 273.
Benson, C. (2002) ‘Key concepts in ELT: transfer / cross-linguistic influence’. ELT Journal
56/1: 68-70.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language : Exploratory
case studies of native language interference with target language usage, 1(1), 22–31.
Jiang, B. & Kuehn, P. (2001). Transfer in the Academic Language Development of Post-
secondary ESL
Students, In R.DeVillar & J. Tinajero (Eds.) Bilingual Research Journal, 25 (4), 653-672.
Cenoz, J, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner. (2001). Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language
Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List, TESOL Quarterly34(2), 213–238.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982), Language Two, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Erarslan, A.(2011). “Perceptions and Attitudes of the Preparatory Class Students towards
the Writing Course and Attitude-Success Relationship in Writing in the School of Foreign
Languages at Pamukkale University.” Unpublished Master's Thesis
Erkaya, R. (2012). Vocabulary and L1 Interference – Error Analysis of Turkish Students ’
English Essays, 36(2), 1–11.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Gao, H. (2013). On Source Language Interference in Interpretation. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 3(7), 1194–1199. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.7.1194-1199
Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),Lessons
from good language learners (pp. 83-98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in
the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118(4), 554–576.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.012
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. London &
New York: Longman.
Jarvis Scott. (2000). Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence
in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309.
Karakas, A. (1996). No Title. Retrieved from
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/turkerrorspf_ali.htm
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),
Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kirkgöz, Y. (2010). An analysis of Written Errors of Turkish Adult Learners of English. World
Conference on Educational Sciences February, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2:
4352-4358
Koban, D. (2011). A Case Study of Turkish ESL Learners at LaGuardia Community College ,
NYC Error Analysis, 26, 168–172.
Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and Counteracting Interference Errors. ELT Journal
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign language Learning. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Seligar H. (1988). Psycholinguistic Issues in Second Language Acquisition’ in Issues in
Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives, London

Selinker, L. (1971). The Psychologically Relevant Data of Second Language Learning in The
Psychology of Second Language Learning. Cambridge University Press
Major, R. C. (1986). The Ontogeny Model: Evidence From L2 Acquisition Of Spanish R.
Language Learning, 36: 453–504.
Murphy, S. (n.d.). Second Language Transfer During Third Language Acquisition, 1–21.
Wang, X. (2009). Exploring the Negative Transfer on English Learning. Asian Social
Science, 5(7), 138–143. doi:10.5539/ass.v5n7p138
Wenk, B. J. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language phonology: speech
rhythms. In Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M. A. , editors, Crosslinguistic influence in
second language acquisition. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon , 120-133.
West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green & Co.
Yule, G.(1996). The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press


Language Interference On English Transfe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Interference On English Transfe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Interference On English Transfe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELTA Journal • December 2014 • Volume 2, No.

Language Interference on English:

by Ali Erarslan, Pamukkale University, Turkey

Key words: L1 transfer, language interference, cross-linguistic influence, errors

Ključne reči: L1 transfer, transfer jezika, među-lingvistički uticaj, greške

1. Introduction Language Acquisition (SLA) over the past

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

is made by Odlin (Odlin, 1989) since this transfer is governed by learners’

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

should be corrected immediately in order 1. L1 influence decreases with

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

‘mistake’ is a deviation in learner language language as (1) the L2-input in a natural

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

and preposition use of students at a state

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

3. Setting and Participants

Table 1. Distribution of participants and their language levels (N=323)

General characteristics of the participant English preparatory class students were

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

4. Data Collection preposition parts, the items were chosen

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

5. Procedure in elementary, pre-intermediate and

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

1) Vocabulary Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

Table 2. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items in Elementary Level of English

Average Transfer Rate Average Test Items Total Percentage of

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

b) Vocabulary Transfer of Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Table 3. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

When compared to transfer evident in vocabulary items according to Elementary Level of

c) Vocabulary Transfer of Intermediate Level Students

Table 4. Transfer Evident in Vocabulary Items among Intermediate Level Students

Average Transfer Rate Average Test Items Total Percentage of

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

In terms of transfer in vocabulary items according to intermediate level of English, students

2) Preposition Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

Table 5. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Elementary Level Students

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

b) Preposition Transfer of Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Table 6. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Average Transfer Rate Average Test Items Total Percentage of

Transfer evident in preposition items according to Pre-intermediate level of English was

c) Preposition Transfer of Intermediate Level Students

Table 7. Transfer Evident in Preposition Items among Intermediate Level Students

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

3) Tense Transfer of Elementary, Intermediate and Intermediate Level Students

Table 8. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Elementary Level Students

b) Tense Transfer of Pre-intermediate Level Students

Table 9. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Pre-Intermediate Level Students

Average Transfer Rate Average Test Items Total Percentage of

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

c) Tense Transfer of Intermediate Level Students

Table 10. Transfer Evident in Tense Items among Intermediate Students

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

Figure 1. Comparison of Vocabulary, Preposition and Tense Transfer among language

Figure 2. The Transfer Evident Based on “I Know” and “I Guess” section

E-mail correspondence: newsletter.elta@gmail.com

Vocabulary Preposition Tense

8. Conclusion appropriate use of the target language