Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

Does Mother Tongue Interfere in Second Language Learning?

Elif Nur Denizer ([email protected])

Abstract: Mother tongue largely refers to not only the language one learns from one’s
mother but also the speaker’s dominant and home language. It’s also called native
language. This study was conducted to find whether mother tongue interferences in
second-language learning, and if so; whether it affects the learners’ performance in
four language skills, and also in which skill(s) it has the biggest effect. Data collection
tool included a questionnaire by which participants were asked to rate the questions
and tick-circle or write in the correct blank. The questionnaire was based on both
quantitative and qualitative approaches with the help of 4-point Likert-scale
questions and one open-ended question at the last part. The participants of the study
were 20 volunteer students (15 females and 5 males) in Uludag University on whom
the questionnaire was randomly applied. They ranged in age from 18 to 40 and the
mean age was 23. Their mother tongue was Turkish, and they knew English as a
foreign language. The questionnaire shows that mother tongue interferes with
second language learning in some way. In English language, the most challenging
part was Grammar, while the most difficult and influenced skills was Speaking. In
addition, participants had difficulty with speaking without any preparation. When it
comes to having difficulty, participants had difficulty with determiners, English
tenses and articles. The results indicated the interference of mother tongue in almost
all aspects.
Key words: Interference, native language, second language learning, mother tongue.

Introduction
Mother tongue largely refers to not only the language one learns from one’s mother
but also the speaker’s dominant and home language. It’s also called native language.
Learning of a mother tongue takes place in a quite natural way. Regarding the
mother tongue, language is learned through input and reciprocal interaction but it’s
also believed that kids are born with an innate and special ability to discover the

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 39
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

underlying rules of a language system. This was named Universal Grammar by

Noam Chomsky. When second language learning is taught, it can be said that input,
feedback, aptitude, motivation, instruction and social interaction have a big effect;
but what about the mother tongue? Does it interferes or helps the learners to make
the language clear?

To investigate this subject, a lot of research was done (Watcharapunyawong and

Usaha, 2013) to find the most affected skill. Some researches (He, 2012) claim that
viewing L1 as potentially valuable learning resource instead of a mere source of
interference opens up greater pedagogical space and hence may bear constructive
implications for L2 instruction, especially in homogenous contexts where both
teachers and learners share the same mother tongue and target language. This paper
reports the results of a study which attempted to find whether mother tongue
interferes in second language learning or not.

Literature Review
Mother tongue interference can be seen as a transfer that affects learning both
negatively and positively. According to Mede, Tutal, Ayaz, Çalışır and Akın (2014)
there is high probability of cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition
and this influence may cause some errors, which are caused by negative transfer.
Manrique (2013) stated that mispronunciation and grammatical errors are the most
common types of interference between the mother tongue and the target language.
Also, it was affirmed that writing has been considered as the most difficult of the
four language skills (Watcharapunyawong and Usaha, 2013). They demonstrated
that L1 interference categories of each writing genre varied in terms of L1 syntactic
and semantic properties. That is, in narration, the L1 interference categories with
frequency counts of more than 100 errors were verb tense, word choice, sentence
structure, article preposition, while the L1 interference types in descriptive writing
were article, sentence structure, word choice, singular/plural form, and subject-verb
agreement, respectively. In comparison and contrast to writing, the L1 interference

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 40
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

categories with frequency counts of more than 100 errors were singular/plural form,
word choice, article, subject-verb agreement, sentence structure, and preposition.
Furthermore, according to Maros, Kim and Salehuddin (2007), omission and the use
of wrong forms are the two most common types of errors in all categories; although
not all the errors are due to mother tongue interference, a large number of errors
identified in the use of determiners, subject verb agreement and copula ‘’be’’
reflected the interference of mother tongue. Additionally, Cartes (20050) explained
the subject with an enhanced disclosure and listed some other errors like semantic,
syntactic, morphological, spelling, vocabulary mistakes and also phonological errors
which are very difficult to identify in written texts.

Additionally, Ashari and Munir (2015) advocated that the interference occurred in
sixteen terms of grammatical errors. The grammatical interference involved word
order, number, countability, personal pronouns, genitive and possessive pronouns, it
and there, past time, to be, non–finite forms, modal auxiliary verbs, active and
passive, negatives, complex sentences, range and choice of vocabulary, transfer, and
confusions. However, they claimed that the interference occurred because students
did not receive input that facilitated them to write. It also occurred because of the
lack of students’ knowledge in second language acquisition.

Nevertheless, there are dissenters who thought that mother tongue not always
interferes but also help learners in second language learning. For instance Bhela
(1999) indicated that adopting L1 structures in L2 texts provide convenience to
second language learners while understanding the whole text. Moreover, according
to Cole (1998), monolingual English language classes can benefit from appropriate
use of L1 so L1 may be used from introductory to upper-intermediate levels on a
decreasing scale but in lower levels, translating individuals words, explaining
grammar use and facilitating complex instructions, since it can save time and
anguish especially for mature learners.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 41
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

In the grand sheme of the thing; Sinha, Banerjee and Shastri (2009) alleged that
monolingual students were better in English receptive vocabulary, reading
comprehension and writing fluency. Nevertheless, in English grammar awareness,
phonological awareness, expressive vocabulary, vocabulary density and writing
quality both groups were equivalent. This showed that bilinguals despite being
proficient in two languages (L1 and L2) do not completely excel the monolinguals in
reading and writing related skills.

Finally, Kavaliauskiene (2009) expressed different results. First, all the learners
customarily rely on their mother tongue in learning English and also the students’
autonomously generated reading comprehension exercises, summary writing and
back-translation activities help raise learners’ awareness of differences between
English and the mother tongue, and facilitate linguistic development. As is seen,
there are lots of articles about mother tongue interference and each of them reveals
different aspects of the subject. Therefore, this study was done to clarify the issue.

The present study aimed at finding the answers of the following questions:
1. Does mother tongue interfere in second language learning?
2. In which skill(s) does mother tongue interference have the biggest effect?
3. How can language background affect the learner’s performance in the target
language?

Methodology
The methodology of the present study was based on both quantitative and
qualitative approaches by the help of 4-point Likert-scale questions and one open-
ended question at the last part. Nevertheless, the qualitative part failed due to
insufficient data.

Participants
The present study was conducted at Uludag University involving 20 students (15
females and 5 males) who were volunteers, on whom the questionnaire was

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 42
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

randomly applied. They ranged in age from 18 to 40 and the mean age was 23. Their
mother tongue was same: Turkish; and they knew English as a foreign language.
Thirteen of twenty participants (10 female and 3 male) were students of Uludag
University at English Language Teaching Department. They were all at grade 2 and
their ages ranged between 19 and 33. They ranged in proficiency levels from Upper-
intermediate to Advanced. Five of them also knew German.

Other seven participants (5 female and 2 male) were from a local German course
(BUSMEK) in Bursa and they were trying to learn German apart from English. One
of them was the teacher of the course, and was graduated as a German teacher from
university. They were at A2 level except the teacher, who claimed to hold a B1
certificate in English. Four of those participants from the course were still students of
Uludag University, studying in different departments of the university. The other
three of them completed their academic career years ago.

Instruments
The data collection tool as a questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was designed to identify
the probable interference of the mother tongue in second language learning, and to
evaluate the participants’ views.

It was a Likert-scale questionnaire and it was pilot-tested with four students of the
Uludag University at English Language Teaching Department whom were at grade
2. After the testing phase, required editing (such as the year item in the demographic
background part was changed into Grade; Some 3rd person singular ‘’s’’ mistakes)
were done.

The questionnaire was one paper in total (both-sided), and it consisted of 5 different
parts: four parts aiming at collecting quantitative, and one part aiming at qualitative
data. Part 1 was 4-point Likert-scale (Most of the time-Sometimes-Seldom-Never)
and it aimed at revealing in which language areas and how much mother tongue
interference occurred in language learning. Part 2 was again 4- point Likert-scale

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 43
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

(from Always to Never) and it aimed at determining in which language skills and
how much mother tongue interference occurred in language learning. Part 3 aimed at
identifying the reasons of making errors in target language. It was 5-point Likert-
scale (Strongly agree–Agree-Undecided-Disagree-Strongly disagree). Part 4 was
again 5-point Likert-scale (from A great deal to Never). And finally, Part 5 was an
open-ended question that aimed at eliciting the participants’ views and comments in
addition to the mentioned fixed questionnaire items.

Procedure
The questionnaire was implemented throughout a week (9-13 May) with 20
participants in their free time. It was applied individually according to voluntary
basis. The questionnaire was given to the 13 participants who were students in the
ELT Department during their free time at the faculty. The remaining 7 participants of
the German course were given the questionnaire during the recess time in the
building of BUSMEK.

First, they were asked to fill the blanks about their demographic background
information (department-grade-age-gender-any other language that they know).
Second, they were asked to complete the four Liker-scale parts and to write any
comments or views that they think haven’t been covered in questionnaire in the last
part in the space provided. The last question aimed at collecting more detailed data
related to the participants’ views and comments apart from those which were given
in the questionnaire. Although the first four parts were completed fully,
unfortunately, no answer was given for the last open-ended part. The seven
participants from the German course were helped with the Turkish explanations
when needed. The words that they didn’t know were clarified in Turkish. It lasted no
longer than 5-7 minutes for the ELT students but for the course students it lasted 10
minutes or longer to complete the questionnaire.

The data were analyzed by calculating and estimating the answers with regard to the
frequency adverbs used in the Likert-scale questionnaire. The charts were prepared

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 44
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

so that they reflected the percentages of the responses given to each item. All
numbers were indicated in percentages.

Results and Discussion

The results that were derived from the present study and discussion of the findings
are presented in the following:

Table 1 shows the interference of mother tongue in language areas; Table 2 presents
interference of mother tongue in language skills; Table 3 shows the reasons of
making errors related to mother tongue, and finally Table 4 shows the points with
which language learners have difficulty.

Table 1. The interference of mother tongue in the language areas.

GRAMMAR

VOCABULARY never
seldom
some of the time
PRONUNCIATION
most of the time

SPELLING

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

According to the findings; the participants think that they experience the interference
of mother tongue in grammar most of the time. The percentage of this group was
20%. Moreover, first language interference which occurs sometimes was pretty high
especially in pronunciation and vocabulary. The percentage was 60%. At the same
time those two items were seen as the items in which mother tongue interferes never
more than 5%. In spelling participants who said some of the time decreased to 50%.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 45
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

Regarding the research question 2, it can be said that, the effect of mother tongue was
observed most of the time in grammar and very rarely in vocabulary or
pronunciation.

Table 2. The interference of mother tongue in the languages skills.

READING

SPEAKING
RARELY
SELDOM
SOMETIMES
LISTENING
ALWAYS

WRITING

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

In contrast to Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2013) who affirmed that writing has
been considered as the most difficult of the four language skills, the findings show
that the interference was seen rarely in writing. The percentage of this group was
50%.

In contrast with Watcharapunyawong and Usaha, 30% of the participants experience

interference of mother tongue always in speaking, and 60% of them increased that
rate by saying sometimes. Apart from those, there were 10% participants who said
rarely.

Another interesting observation was that in reading, 30% of the participants

experience the interference sometimes, whereas again 30% of them experience rarely.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 46
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

Regarding the research question 2 again, it can be stated that the answer of the
research question 2 is speaking.

Table 3. The reasons of making errors related to mother tongue interference.

When teacher just speaks English in the

class

While I think with MT in making

sentence

While estimating the meaning of a new

word from a monolingual dictionary
STRONGLY DISAGREE
When I just listen a passage rather than
translating it in MT DISAGREE
UNDECIDED
When I have to speak without any AGREE
preparation
STRONGLY AGREE

While translating a passage into MT

While translating a passage into TL

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

The analysis of statistics showed that 60% of the participants disagree the idea of
making errors due to speaking only English of the teacher in the class. Apart from
that rate, 5% of them strongly disagree while again 5% of them strongly agree that
idea. When dealt with the making sentences, 45% of the participants strongly
disagree that thinking in the mother tongue during making sentence cause making
errors. In contrast to that group, 25% of the participants agree that view and also 15%
of the participants strongly agree that view. Using monolingual dictionary and
looking up the meaning of a word from it, were different controversial subjects.
While 45% of the participants disagree that idea, 30% of the participants agree that

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 47
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

looking up the meaning of a word from a monolingual dictionary was the reason of
making errors. Also 15% of the participants remained undecided to that idea.

Another finding shows that, just listening to a passage rather than translating it to
first language wasn’t the reason of making errors according to 45% of the
participants. At the same time 40% of the participants were undecided. Also people
who strongly agree that aspect were no more than 5%. As seen in the Table 1,
speaking was the most challenging part and they agree that speaking without any
preparation was the main reason of making errors. The percentage of the group was
40%. People who circled strongly agree were at the rate of 25%. In that part, there
was no one who circled strongly disagree. When it comes to translation, 70% of the
participants disagree the idea of making errors while translating the passage into
mother tongue. The rate of agree and strongly agree were really low. The percentage
of both group were the same 5%. Contrast to translating a passage into mother
tongue, translating a passage into the target language was another controversial
subject. Both disagree and agree rate were 35%. People who were undecided were
20%. Considering research question1 and 3, participants have difficulty with some
parts of the language due to their mother tongue and they make errors because of
them. Therefore, we can understand that mother tongue interferes with the
participants’ way of language learning, and it causes making errors, that’s why their
performance may be affected by the mother tongue.

To sum up participants think that mother tongue cause making error when making
sentence mostly and they disagree the idea of speaking only English in the class and
translating a passage into mother tongue were the reasons of making errors.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 48
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

Table 4. The items with which participants have difficulty.

Determiners

English Alphabet

Capital Letters

Affixes

Articles

Sentence Structures never Sütun

1
Fricative Sounds
little Sütun
Learning Words like
''dessert''-''desert'' 2
Homophones like
''meet''-''meat''
some Sütun
3
Pluralizingthe wors
much Sütun
Learning Irregular verbs 4
Words which have 2 a great Sütun
grammatical function deal 5
Phonetics of words like
''comb''-''knight''
English Tenses

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Table 4 shows the parts with which learners have difficulty. According to the
findings, English alphabet and capital letters were the parts in which no difficulty
was observed. The percentages of the group were 60% in both. When it comes to
English tenses and words which have 2 grammatical functions and also determiners,
learners have difficulty at the rate of 60%. Additionally, 30% of the participants think
that fricative sounds were the point which they have difficulty with by saying much.

In contrast to Kim and Salehuddin (2007) who said that omission and wrong usage of
forms are two most common types of errors in all categories, and Cartes (2005) who
listed some other errors like semantic, syntactic, morphological, spelling, vocabulary
mistakes and also phonological errors; the findings of the present study revealed that

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 49
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

the most seen errors were errors caused by fricative sounds, sentence structure (word
order) and articles.

To sum up, according to the participants, in second language learning the most
challenging was grammar while, the most difficult and influenced by the mother
tongue skill was speaking. Also, participants have difficulty with speaking without
any preparation as is seen in the Table 2. When it comes to having difficulty,
participants have difficulty with determiners, tenses, and articles.

Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest some evidence about interference of mother
tongue. In addition to other researches about mother tongue interference, in brief it is
possible to say that mother tongue interferences in second language learning in
almost all aspects. The biggest effect of mother tongue interference can be seen in the
speaking as a language skills and grammar as a language area. In addition to its
effect in second language learning, it also affects the learners’ performance. Results
show that it leads learners to making errors especially in speaking without
preparation and translating a passage into the target language. In addition, it is
possible to say that learners especially have difficulty with determiners, sounds,
sentence structures, and articles.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

The present study was carried out with the participants from a single university who
were grade 2 and some students from a German Course who were graduated from
university years ago. So, it might reveal more reliable results when applied in several
ELT Departments with different grades at various universities throughout Turkey
and including a higher number of participants. Additionally, qualitative data could
be gathered to ensure in-depth evaluation and crosscheck.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 50
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

References
Bhela B. (1999). Native Language Interference İn Learning A second Language
:Explaratory Case Studies of Native Language Interference with Target
Language Usage: International Educational Journal 1(1) 22-31
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in
FL classrooms: death of a dogma: The Language Learning Journal, Volume 28.
Cortes N. C. (2005). Negative Language Transfer When Learning Spanish As A
Foreign Language :Interlinguistica 16(1) 237-248.
He, A. E. (2012). Systematic use of mother tongue as learning/teaching resources in
target language instruction. Multilingual Education, 2(1), 1.
Kavaliauskiene G. (2009). Role Of Mother Tongue In Learning English For Specific
Purposes: ESP World, Issue 1 (22), Volume 8.
Liu S. (2001). Studies on Transfer In Second Language Acquisition: Guangxi Normal
University Journal 3, 1-29.
Luo J. (2014). A study of Mother Tongue Interference in Pronunciation of College
English Learning In China : Theory and Practice in Lnaguage Studies, 4(8) 1702-
1706.
Manrique, C.M.R. (2013). Mother Tongue Interference with Foreign Language: A
Case Study About A2 Oral Production in a Columbian Public University.
Maros M. , Kim T. , Salehuddin K. (2007). Interference in learning English:
Grammatical errors in English essay writing among rural Malay secondary
school students in Malaysia : JurnalSainsSosialdanKemanusiaan 2(2) 15.
Mede E., Tutal C., Ayaz D., Çalışır K.N., and Akın, Ş. (2014). The Effect Of Language
Transfer in Turkish EFL Learners: ELT Research Journal 3(2) 70-83.
Sinha A. , Banerjee N. , Shastri R.K. , Sinha A. (2009). Interference Of First Language
In The Acquisition Of Second Language : Journal of Psychology and Counseling
Vol. 1(7) 117-122.
Swan, M., & Smith, B.(1987). Learner English: a teacher’s guide to interference and
other problems : Cambridge: CUP.

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 51
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

Watcharapunyawong S. and Usaha, S. (2013). EFL Students’ Writing Errors in

Different Text Types: The Interference of the First Language :English Language
Teaching; Vol. 6, No. 1.

Appendix 1

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 52
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 53
 Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 2017

http://jflet.com/jflet/ 54