T.R.

SELCUK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LETTERS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

THE INTERFERENCE OF MOTHER TONGUE TO THE SECOND LANGUAGE:

TRANSLATION MISTAKES RESULTING FROM GRAMMATICAL,

SEMANTICAL AND LEXICAL INTERFERENCE

Supervisor

Asst. Prof. Dr. Yağmur KÜÇÜKBEZİRCİ

Eda YAPICI

104208001010

Konya, 2010
 THE INTERFERENCE OF MOTHER TONGUE TO THE SECOND LANGUAGE:

TRANSLATION MISTAKES RESULTING FROM GRAMMATICAL,

SEMANTICAL AND LEXICAL INTERFERENCE

ABSTRACT

Learning a second language considerably differs from learning a first language. The
linguistic structures and meaning relations of the native language might or might not bear so
many resemblances to the target language. Similarities between the two languages have a
comparatively facilitative role in the learning process, whereas differences function as a
complicating factor.

Transferring the first language knowledge to the second language might deal to some
problems in the process of learning a second language by obstructing and retarding that
process. This negative transfer is regarded as language interference to the second language
learning and its effects may be observed as grammatical, semantical and lexical interference
mistakes in translation.

Key Words: negative transfer, language interference, second language learning,

grammatical, semantical, lexical, interference mistakes, translation.
 INTRODUCTION

Definition of Interference:

From the point of view of psycholinguistics, it is a negative transfer of language

habits and skills from the mother tongue or from a foreign language to another
foreign language. From a linguistic point of view, interference is an interaction or
a change in linguistic structures and structural elements. It appears to be a
deviation from linguistic norms in the spoken and written language. (Cited in
Lekova, 2010:320)

Should the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) have similar features (e.g.
marking plural on the ends of nouns), it may be easier to learn the complicated structures of
the L2. In this case, transferring L1 structures to the L2 may not cause so much obstacles or
retardation in the learning of the L2 structures. On the other hand, transferring L1 structures
that are so different from L2 might not be effective for L2 communication. Negative transfer
has an inverse relation with developing familiarity with the L2 and it becomes less common in
the later stages of L2 learning. (Cited in Yule, 1996:194-195)

Interference may result in an interaction or a change in meanings of expressions or

grammatical structures. It might lead to some mistakes in translation in terms of grammar,
meaning and some lexical items of language. The ways the L1 hinder someone who is
learning a second language may be classified as grammatical interference, semantical
interference and lexical interference.

This paper focuses on the varieties of language interference and its typical influences
on making some translation mistakes in the learning process of a second language. Some
typical sort of translation mistakes are given to exemplify such influences of mother tongue
interference to the learning of a second language and so as to analyse in which ways second
language learners are liable to make mistakes. Special attention is paid to contrastive analysis
and error analysis along with some alternative (advisable) forms to be used instead of
improper ones.
 1. GRAMMATICAL INTERFERENCE MISTAKES

Grammatical interference mistakes are generally results of imposing the mother

tongue grammatical structures on to the target language (Cited in Steinberg, Nagata & Aline,
2001:233-238). Differences and resemblances between the structures of the native and the
target language are determining factors in the rate and speed of learning. Resemblances play a
significant role in making the learning process easier and faster; whereas differences make it
more complex and elusive. Common mistakes caused by this sort of interference may be
found in the word order, the uses of tenses, subject-verb agreement, the use of question words,
unnecessary use of double negatives and wrong uses of prepositions.

1.1. Word Order

One of the most common interference mistakes is seen in ordering the items of a
sentence inappropriately. In various languages like Japanese and Turkish the sequence of
sentence items is Subject+Object+Verb while being Subject+Verb+Object in English. This is
the main reason why putting the sentence items in the right order might cause some mistakes
to occur. Consider the translation mistakes below and the subsequent advisable forms of
translation: (IT: Improper Translation – AT: Advisable Translation)

 IT: At that time I very happy became.

This sentence exemplifies the Subject+Object+Verb order with the verb placed at the end.

AT: At that time I became very happy.

 IT: Jasie Julia yesterday at the conference met.

Here the improper position of adverb of time grabs attention at the same time.

AT: Jasie met Julia at the conference yesterday.

 IT: I such a big place have never seen.

AT: I have never seen such a big place.

  IT: Yesterday theatre at John Mary met.

It is the proper form in Japanese word order: Adverbials+Subject+Object+Verb

AT: John met Mary at theatre yesterday. (Cited in Steinberg, Nagata & Aline,
2001:233-238)

1.2. The Use of Tenses

Mistakes in the use of tenses are generally caused by the absence of equivalent tenses
in two languages, restrictions in using –ing forms of some verbs or different usages of time
adverbials:

 IT: I am not seeing him for two months.

There are some restrictions in using the –ing form of the “see” verb in English and the time
adverbial does not agree with the tense of this sentence. This is a common result of word by
word translation and lack of second language knowledge.

AT: I haven’t seen him for two months.

 IT: My arm has been breaking for three days.

The continuation of actions in the Present Perfect Continuous Tense is overgeneralised.

AT: My arm has been broken for three days.

 IT: I am hating you!

AT: I hate you!

 1.3. Subject-Verb Agreement

Using singular nouns with plural verbs or plural nouns with singular verbs seems to be
one of the most common language interference mistakes. Perceiving the distinctions between
different forms of the verb “to be” (am, is, are) or “have” and “has” might be a bit challenging
for the second language learners whose mother tongues do not apply to such variations
changing depending on the subjects of sentences.

 IT: They is working all the time to build one of the tallest buildings in the world.

AT: They are working all the time to build one of the tallest buildings in the world.

 IT: Has you got a girlfriend?

AT: Have you got a girlfriend?

1.4. The Use of Question Words

While using question words, both usages and functions of them in two languages have
to be taken into consideration. Even though there may be equivalences of question words in
terms of meaning in both languages, there is still a possibility of not being able to give the
exact meaning due to the dissimilarities in their functions. Typical examples of this type of
interference are:

 IT: Where do you know?

The first language knowledge seems to be applied to the second language because of
not knowing the exact function of the “where” question word in English.

AT: How do you know?

 IT: How many old are you?

AT: How old are you?

 IT: What do you call ‘table’ in Arabic?

 AT: How do you call ‘table’ in Arabic?

1.5. Unnecessary Use of Double Negatives

Using the negative form of a verb in a sentence (e.g. They aren’t talking…; She isn’t
waiting…) makes it unnecessary to use a negative quantifier like nobody, nothing, nowhere,
etc. Mistakes in inessential uses of double negatives usually take place when the mother
tongue of the learner includes possible uses of double negatives:

 IT: Nobody doesn’t know where he is.

AT: Nobody knows where he is.

 IT: I haven’t heard nothing about him.

AT: I haven’t heard anything about him.

 IT: We didn’t go nowhere special.

AT: We didn’t go anywhere special.

1.6. The Use of Prepositions

Although prepositions may not have meanings themselves all the time; when
combined with other words, they might have a very determining function in adding meaning
to sentences. Owing to their unique functions, it is not possible to give the same meaning as a
preposition by using other prepositions. As an example; saying “to be afraid from something”
under the effect of L1 knowledge may cause a meaning loss in the expression or even may not
have a sense:

 IT: She is not afraid from darkness.

AT: She is not afraid of darkness.

  IT: This place is famous with its tulips.

AT: This place is famous for its tulips.

 IT: I didn’t laugh to him.

AT: I didn’t laugh at him.

2. SEMANTICAL INTERFERENCE MISTAKES

Semantical interference mistakes often arise from meaning transfer of expressions

from the L1 to the L2. Such mistakes might bring about changes in the meanings of
expressions.(Cited in Fromkin,&Rodman,1988:389,390) Therefore, inaccurate interpretations
of meaning sometimes become inevitable or the expressions may not have meanings at all.
For the learners of a foreign language, giving the exact meaning of what they are trying to say
in the target language could be so demanding. It requires, accordingly, having a good
command of the L2 to be able to convey the messages properly. Some examples of such
improper translations and the following advisable translations seem to prove this requirement:

 IT: This sentence smells Turkish.

AT: This sentence seems to be a Turkish sentence.

 IT: The sea was like a sheet.

AT: The sea was calm./ The sea was as calm as a millpond.

 IT: Gather your mind to your head!

AT: Get a hold of yourself!

 IT: Kino has pulled his rope and finished himself.

AT: Kino has cut off his own head and destroyed himself.

(Cited in Küçükbezirci, 2007:97)

 IT: She made her hair broom for her little boy.

AT: She exerted herself for her little boy.

 IT: He added his night to his day to win enough money.

AT: He worked day and night to earn enough money.

 IT: Hasan was hit to Aysel at first sight.

AT: Hasan fell in love with Aysel at first sight.

 IT: I hope we meet in an accident very soon.

AT: I hope we meet accidentally very soon.

 IT: Please don’t separate your eyes from the child.

AT: Please keep an eye on the child.

 IT: There is no one over him to cook meals.

AT: He is the best one to cook meals.

 3. LEXICAL INTERFERENCE MISTAKES

Lexical interference mistakes are word-level interference mistakes. Classical examples

of lexical interference mistakes are usually concerned with wrong use of words, narrowing or
expansion of the word meaning and formation of non-existing lexical items using prefixes and
suffixes of the foreign language. (Cited in Lekova, 2010:321-323).

3.1. Wrong Use of Words

Translation of certain words in the first language literally to the second language may
not make the same sense as their meanings in the L2 could be totally different. Clark suggests
that second language learners seem to have built-in strategies for fitting categories to words-
for example, they often think that if nouns refer to objects, these have to be discrete whole
objects (Cited in Swan, 1997: 156-180). It is likely to be the main reason of mistakes
stemming from narrowing or expansion of the word meaning. Compare the improper and
advisable translation examples given and focus on the different applications of words:

 IT: We hope your wedding will last till you die.

AT: We hope your marriage will last till you die.

 IT: Robert is a very middle-situation man.

AT: Robert is a very moderate/ everyday man.

 IT: I would like to propose you a drink.

AT: I would like to offer you a drink.

 IT: He brushed me yesterday.

AT: He scolded me yesterday.

 3.2. Formation of Non-existing Lexical Items

Lexical functions of prefixes and suffixes of a foreign language are likely to be

overgeneralized by learners of that language. Such overgeneralization mistakes might cause
the formation of some lexical items that do not exist in the L2 (Cited in Swan, 1997: 156-
180). For instance, the suffix ‘-less’ in English (e.g. fearless, careless, etc.) adds a new
meaning like ‘without’ to the item and that meaning could be overgeneralized by saying
‘courageless’ or ‘successless’. Think about the following examples of such wrong formations
and the alternative words to be used instead of them:

 IT: Forests should not be so protectless against human destruction.

AT: Forests should not be so unprotected against human destruction.

 IT: Development of science is impeded because of some mispractices.

AT: Development of science is impeded because of some misapplications.

 IT: Disimportance of such matters makes them unnecessary to be discussed.

AT: Insignificance of such matters makes them unnecessary to be discussed.

 4. CONCLUSION

The major concern of this study has been with the variable effects of the first language
interference on the second language learning in terms of grammatical, semantical and lexical
aspects. Blum-Kulka and Levenston contend that second language learners tend to presume
that there are simple translation equivalents for each word in the first language. This
presumption is the most significant factor which makes them try to communicate in the
second language by using word-for-word translation equivalences or by ‘thinking in the
mother tongue’. (Cited in Bhela, 1997:30).

This means that the language interference is immediately relevant to the place
assigned to the mother tongue in the foreign language learning system. The language world of
learners tends to be based on their mother tongue systems and they should use their mother
tongue in other ways to establish themselves a new language world. This requires
approaching language learning via a juxtaposition of both language items. The translation
examples given for each aspect of mother tongue interference have been used to unfold the
influences of this presumption of learners on their communication in the second language.
The examples of advisable translations might have a guiding function for them to be able to
overcome the influences of negative transfer and make good use of a juxtaposition of both
language items.
REFERENCES

BHELA, Baljit, (1997). Native Language Interference in Learning a Second Language:

Exploratory Case Studies of Native Language Interference with Target Language
Usage. International Education Journal Vol 1, No 1.

FROMKIN, Victoria & Rodman, Robert, (1988). An Introduction to Language. (4th ed.) The
Dryden Press Saunders College Publishing.

KÜÇÜKBEZİRCİ, Yağmur, (2007). Theories and Practice of Translation, Eğitim Kitabevi

Yayınları.

LEKOVA, B. Hristova, (2010). Language Interference and Methods of Its Overcoming in

Foreign Language Teaching. Trakia Journal of Science, Vol.8., Suppl.3. pp 320-
324.

STEINBERG, Danny D., Nagata, Hiroshi & Aline, David P. (2001). Psycholinguistics. (2nd
ed.). Pearson Education.

STENTON, Anthony, (2009). The Inhibition of Mother Tongue Interference in Foreign

Language Speech Perception and Production- A Proposed Solution for European
University Students. Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT
in Education.

SWAN, Michael,(1997). The Influence of the Mother Tongue on Second Language

Vocabulary Acquisition and Use. (in Vocabulary: Description,Acquisition and
Pedagogy, ed. Schmitt and McCharty, pp.156-180).

YULE, George, (1996). The Study of Language. (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press.