The Perspectives of Turkish EFL Learners on the Differences and Similarities between Turkish (L1) and English (L2) Languages

Abstract

Pedagogically, the issue of similarities and/or differences between the mother tongue and the foreign language is one of the interesting areas of second/foreign language acquisition and learning. Therefore, this study aims at exploring in which way the Turkish language (L1) influences the English language (L2) learning through the perspectives of EFL undergraduate Turkish students, whereby the main focus is on the extent of the possible effects of the Turkish language (L1) on English learning (L2). A qualitative approach was employed, including 15 male and female students from Karabuk University studying in the first year of the English Department whose mother tongue is Turkish. The majority of the findings showed negative transfer from L1 (Turkish) to L2 (English), including pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and thinking in the mother tongue (Turkish), whereas the positive aspects involved only two aspects, namely similar alphabets, and vocabulary (cognates). These findings can be employed pedagogically for second language learning/acquisition through enhancing the positive aspects and overcoming the negative ones.

Keywords

• Language transfer
• L1 interference
• L1

References

1. Alonso, R. A. (2002). Current issues in language transfer. Actas del Encuentro Conmemorativo de los 25 años del Centro de Lingüística de la Universidad de Oporto, 231-236.
2. Carson, J. E. (1990). Reading-writing connections: toward a description for second language learners [A]. In Kroll, B. (ed). Second language Writing Research Insights for Classroom [C]. Cambridge University Press.
3. Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement [C]. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (ed.) Issues in language testing research [A]. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
4. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing: An indicator of children’s second language learning strategies. Language Learning, 22: 2, 235-251.
5. Erarslan, A., & Hol, D. (2014). Language interference on English: Transfer on the vocabulary, tense and preposition use of freshmen Turkish EFL learners. ELTA Journal, 2(2), 4-22.
6. Erkaya, O. R. (2012). Vocabulary and L1 interference: Error analysis of Turkish students. Literacy Issues in Higher Education, 36(2), 1-11.
7. Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). Perspectives on language transfer. Applied Linguistics 8, 111-36.
8. Francis, N. (2000). The Shared Conceptual System and Language Processing in Bilingual Children: Findings from Literacy Assessment in Spanish and Nahuatl. Applied Linguistics 21/2: 170-204.

9. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1989). Writing in a second language: contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing (pp.263-283) . New York: Longman.
10. James C. (1980) Contrastive Analysis, Singapore, LongmanKachru Y, in Cook G and Seidlhofer B (eds) (1995), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, OUP
11. Jomaa, N. J., & Bidin, S. J. (2017). Perspectives of EFL doctoral students on challenges of citations in academic writing. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 177-209.
12. Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics and Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
13. Mede, E., Tutal, C., Ayaz, D., ÇALIŞIR, K. N., & Akin, Ş. (2014). The effects of language transfer in Turkish EFL learners. ELT Research Journal, 3(2), 70-83.
14. Nedelkoska, G. (2021). The impact of Turkish as an L1 on EFL acquisition. In Mirić, N. B., Jakovljević, M., Vujnović, M. L. (Eds.), The World of Languages and Literatures: A Contemporary Outlook. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
15. Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
16. YAN, H. (2010). The role of L1 transfer on L2 and pedagogical implications. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 97-103.
17. Yildiz, M. (2016). Contrastive analysis of Turkish and English in Turkish EFL learners’ spoken discourse. International Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 57-74.