The Impact of L1 Interference on Second Language Learning A Case Study of Fante Second Language Learners of English

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 8 Issue 1, January-February 2024 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD62385 | Volume – 8 | Issue – 1 | Jan-Feb 2024 Page 284
The Impact of L1 Interference on Second Language Learning:
A Case Study of Fante Second Language Learners of English
Zhang Beizhen, Dowuona Petrina Naa Narkie
School of Foreign Languages, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
ABSTRACT
This study explores the complex dynamics of first-language
interference in second-language learning, with an emphasis on how it
affects Ghanaian Fante students learning English. To address this, the
study adopted a thematic analysis through semi-structured questions
that involved 20 junior high school students in the central region of
Ghana. Utilising a word association task, the study's results revealed
significant contributing factors such as confidence, lexical
knowledge, and translation (L1 interference), which substantially
strengthened our understanding of its influence on second language
learning among Fante speakers. This study significantly advances the
subject by offering complex insights into the challenges and
implications associated with L1 interference in language learning
among Fante students in Ghana. These findings provide educators,
stakeholders, management, governments, policymakers, and
researchers with fresh insights into second-language acquisition in
Ghana and the struggles of Fante students in learning the second
language, English.
KEYWORDS: Word Association, L1 interference, Lexical
development, L2 acquisition
How to cite this paper: Zhang Beizhen |
Dowuona Petrina Naa Narkie "The
Impact of L1 Interference on Second
Language Learning: A Case Study of
Fante Second Language Learners of
English" Published
in International
Journal of Trend in
Scientific Research
and Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN:
2456-6470,
Volume-8 | Issue-1,
February 2024, pp.284-292, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd62385.pdf
Copyright © 2024 by author (s) and
International Journal of Trend in
Scientific Research and Development
Journal. This is an
Open Access article
distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
1. INTRODUCTION
An individual’s first language is the language he or
she learns to communicate with before the age of
three. It is also referred to as the mother tongue, as it
is mostly passed on by the mother to her child, and as
the native language since it is passed on to the child
during primary socialisation. This language (the first
language) serves as the foundation and a vital tool in
the second language learning process, and for this
study, the Fante language is spoken mainly in the
Central region of Ghana. Although it’s necessary for
communicative purposes and second language
acquisition, the first language tends to interfere with
second language acquisition (Karim & Nassaji, 2013),
because, in the production of the second language, be
it writing or speaking, the language learner tends to
rely on their first language structures to be able to
communicate efficiently, regardless of how right or
wrong they come out (Albuquerque & Duarte, 2020;
Bhela, 1999). Therefore, learning a second language
is influenced by the similarities between the first and
second languages. This means that learners of a
language are less likely to make structural errors
when the first and second languages have similar
language structures but more likely to make errors
when the structures differ (e.g., Aronin & Toubkin,
2002; Johnson & Swain, 1997; Kakar & Sarwari,
2022)
The part of the brain responsible for the retention of
words is the mental lexicon. It is the space where the
meaning of the word, its structure, and its use are
stored in memory (Elman, 2004). Most scholars have
acknowledged that how the mental lexicon is
arranged is unknown; therefore, there is a need for its
investigation (e.g., (Aitchison, 2003; Channell, 1990;
Meara, 1990). It is believed that the mental lexicon
should have an organisational system that aids the
language learner in language learning.
Thus, scholars in recent years have fallen onto the
word association task, which involves producing the
first thing that comes to mind at the sight of a word or
image, to investigate the arrangement of the mental
lexicon of the second language learner (e.g., Appel,
1989; Galton, 1879; Kohlmann, 2014; Spätgens &
Schoonen, 2020). These investigations have led to the
development of various organisational models, such
IJTSRD62385

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
as the hierarchal network model (BÁTYI, 2012;
Collins & Ross Quillian, 1969; Kroll J & Stewart,
1994), the spreading activation model (Collins &
Loftus, 1975; Monaikul, 2015), and the distributed
feature model, which gives a graphical view of the
arrangement of the mental lexicon.
The mode of instruction in the Ghanaian educational
system in early childhood education has been
unsettled since 1957, with the language of instruction
being either the native language of the child or the
English language. For example, in 1967, the medium
of instruction was solely English from kindergarten,
and then in 2002, the medium of instruction changed
to the native language from kindergarten to primary
three (with the English language as just a subject),
and then English from primary four (with the native
language as a subject). This policy meant the
translation of all textbooks into the native language
by the teacher before teaching. This policy, which
doubles as the current policy, is barely adhered to due
to the language problems faced by teachers in the
upper primary classes (Owu-Ewie & Eshun, 2015).
Notwithstanding, employing L1 in L2 teaching has,
therefore, been a major problem, as L1 has been
known to have a negative impact on L2 learning
((Rahim & Ahmadi, 2021). Furthermore, it validates
the contrastive analysis hypothesis, which states that
the use of L1 in language teaching can be a hindrance
to mastering a second language, for which reason it is
highly discouraged in second language learning
(Saputra, 2020)
The problem of the current study in language learning
is what Ellis, (1997) calls a transfer, which is the
influence the learner’s first language exerts over the
acquisition of a second language. Lott, (1983) refers
to this influence as an “interference of the mother
tongue,” as it causes the language learner to make
errors in the second language. Mixing L1 and English
is a phenomenon found among all native languages in
Ghana. Not only is it common among the uneducated,
but it is also common among children or second
language learners (e.g., Dansieh, 2018; Essien et al.,
2022), and the Ghanaian language instruction policy,
in light of this, does not help in the eradication of this
problem. Therefore, Ghanaian teachers in rural areas
have had to battle this interference over the years as
pupils tend to still mix up their first and second
languages in upper primary or prefer to communicate
in the first language, which affects their academic
performance (Dansieh, 2018).
Previous studies on language learning in Ghanaian
students have focused on aspects of L2 teaching, such
as L2 as a medium of teaching and its problems (e.g.,
Dansieh, 2018; Osei-Boateng, 2022; Owu-Ewie &
Eshun, 2015). Others have also looked at factors
influencing classroom communication gaps (e.g.,
Essien et al., 2022). While these studies have done
well to add to the academic literature on the general
overview of language adherence in Ghana (e.g.,
(Owu-Ewie, 2006), studies on the factors contributing
to L1 interference (Fante) in second language
acquisition (English) in Ghana are scarce. Therefore,
as a contribution to the existing literature on language
learning among Ghanaian students, this study seeks to
uncover whether this interference only brings trouble
to the Ghanaian teacher or uncovers a hidden clue to
the language or lexical development of the language
learner by answering the following research
questions:
1. Is L1 interference a sign of lexical development?
2. Does L1 interference negatively affect L2
learning?
3. Does L1 interference positively affect L2
learning?
The main aim of this study is to identify the impacts
of L1 (Fante) interference on second language
acquisition (English) and its implications for the
language learner. It also contributes to the body of
research on L1 interference in Ghana, which is barely
represented in both this area and second language
acquisition (SLA).
The findings of this research revealed that confidence,
lexical knowledge, and translation (L1 interference)
are some factors that impact second language learning
among Fante students in Ghana. Hence, this study
offers empirical studies on L1 language interference
by providing a fresh perspective from Ghana.
The remaining part of this study digs into a thorough
literature assessment, followed by a methodology in
Section 3. The findings and discussion in Section 4
and Section 5 feature the conclusion, implications,
and future research suggestions of the study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In language learning, every word encountered
experiences translation from or into the first language
(Altarriba, 1992; B de Groot, 1992; Chen & Ng,
1989). This translation in second language acquisition
is sometimes regarded as interference. Apart from it
being believed to be an interaction between both
languages for a smooth language learning process,
another school of thought holds that it has a negative
impact on second language learning, hence the term
"interference" (Kakar & Sarwari, 2022; Köpke &
Genevska-Hanke, 2018).
Distributed Feature Model
This model, developed in 1998 by De Groot and her
colleagues, adapts the spreading activation model but

concerns translation. In this model, B de Groot,
(1992) establishes that words in the mental lexicon of
the bilingual undergo or experience translation on the
first encounter. In other words, a bilingual is always
or most of the time able to translate a word from one
language to another in a functionally acceptable
manner (e.g., (Altarriba, 1992; Chen & Ng, 1989;
Meyer et al., 1974), which helps them retain the
meaning of the word.
For this reason, words in the second language
sometimes carry elements of the first language
semantically due to the primary translation (Jiang,
2000). Conversely, the model focuses on the cross-
linguistic differences between languages (Pavlenko,
2009). It also highlights the findings that bilinguals
translate concrete words faster and easier than
abstract words (e.g., B de Groot, 1992; Kroll J &
Stewart, 1994). This is because a concrete word
mostly shares a common meaning and link between
the first and second languages compared to an
abstract word. Therefore, abstract words in between
languages could be more ambiguous than concrete
words, while equivalents to concrete words are more
easily found among languages than abstract words
(W., Duyck & Brysbaert, 2004; W. Duyck, 2004;
Sunderman & Kroll, 2006). Figure 1 below is an
illustration of the distributed feature model adopted
from B de Groot (1992) with the word “father” and its
Fante equivalent, "egya.".
Fig 1: The Distributed Feature model (adapted from B. De Groot, 1992, 1993)
The Distributed Feature model above (Fig. 1) can be
seen as an improvement on the Word Association
model by Potter, So, von Eckardt, and Feldman
(1984), which presupposes that a word (an L2 word)
is connected by its conceptual characterization
(Menenti & Donders, 2006); for the sake of this
model, it is connected by its conceptual representation
in the conceptual memory. In other words, when an
L2 speaker is presented with a word, they first
activate its L1 form in the lexical memory from
where the meaning of the word is accessed. The
understanding of the word can therefore be found in
conceptual memory, where the learner attributes the
word to other concepts to help him or her remember
the meaning of the word.
The Neurolinguistic Approach to Bilingualism, as a
result, looks at ascertaining how two or more
languages are stored in the brain and how they are
processed (Meuter, 1994). Thus, evidence from this
approach and the current model (the distributed
feature model) shows that there is often a conceptual
overlap in language learning and processing (e.g., De
Groot, 2000; Francis, 2005). That is, subjects are
found to use the same conceptual representations,
which results in similar semantic cross-linguistic
priming effects (e.g., Chen & Ng, 1989). Also, from
the figure above (Fig. 1), the interconnection or
overlap in conceptual meaning can be assumed to
contribute to the meaning of the word and an
expansion in the understanding of the word as well as
the vocabulary of the second language learner.
3. METHODOLOGY
This research is based on qualitative research in
which the researcher applied a word association task
developed to examine the organisation of semantic
memory, the representation of meanings and concepts
over the years, and especially how native (L1)
speakers or second language (L2) learners at different
levels of proficiency organise their lexical knowledge
(Kohlmann, 2014). The word association task was a
single continuous test, where the participant was
allowed to give as many responses as he could give

within a stipulated time when shown a word. It was
conducted in a basic school in the Central Region of
Ghana, on first and second-year junior high school
students.
Participants
The participants of this study were 20 first- and
second-year students of a junior high school in the
Central Region of Ghana, aged between 13 and 15.
They had Fante as their L1 and English as their L2.
The average number of years of English language
study experience and studies in English (L2) was 8
years. The participants were divided into three
proficiency groups, namely, advanced (10),
intermediate (5), and native L1 speakers (5).
Materials
Twenty-five words were selected from the textbook
used for teaching and learning in the school. Fifteen
(15) of these were English (L2) words (Appendix 1)
and ten (10) Fante (L1) words (Appendix 2).
Participants provided their sheets of paper for the
spelling test, and a laptop with a PowerPoint
presentation was used for the display of the words
during the word association task, with each word set
to remain on the screen for a maximum of 10
seconds.
Data Collection
Spelling
The first task was a spelling test. Participants
underwent an oral-written spelling test, which was
used to group them into the three proficiency levels
stated above. The first was the English spelling test,
where participants were to write the words mentioned
by the researcher. This was followed promptly by the
Fante spelling test. Participants were to write on their
papers their names and classes before submitting.
Word Association Task
The main tool for this study is the word association
task. The words used in the spelling test were used for
this task. Each word was displayed on a screen for ten
seconds with the use of a Microsoft PowerPoint
presentation, and each participant was allowed to give
as many words as they could for each word displayed.
The words were supposed to be in the respective
languages; therefore, where an English word was
displayed, an English cue word was expected, and
where a Fante word was displayed, a Fante cue word
was expected.
For further meticulous analysis, the oral exercise was
recorded. In addition, the researcher wrote on the
respective test sheets the cue word responses of each
participant, comments from the participants about
language learning, and comments by the researcher
concerning their difficulties during the word
association task.
Data analysis
The recorded word association test data gained from
this research was transcribed, coded, and analysed
using thematic analysis. The recurring themes are
translation (L1 interference), confidence, and lexical
knowledge. The word association and spelling test
findings were tabulated, and each participant's
comments and the researcher's observations were
added to the table.
4. Findings and Discussion
At the end of the exercise, 261 responses were
produced in the English (L2) word association task.
146 were produced by the advanced learner group, 63
by the intermediate group, and 52 by the native
group. To fulfil the study's aim of identifying the
impact of L1 on L1 learning, only the English word
association task was analysed.
The comments were categorised into three main
themes: translation (L1 interference), confidence, and
lexical knowledge, which will be presented and
discussed in detail below.
Translation (L1 interference)
The first language interference was in the form of
translations. Wei et al., (2020) describe the first
language as a tool for language learning, which could
be helpful or detrimental to second language learning.
Furthermore, Kroll J & Stewart, (1994) explain this as
the second language being connected to the first
language translation rather than to concepts in the
early stages, and this explains the high L1
interference among native and intermediate
participants during the word association task.
Although the mode of instruction during the word
association task was English and Fante, participants
were still caught under the influence of their first
language. It was observed that 13 participants initially
responded in Fante to the English stimulus words
before switching quickly to English after prompting
or upon remembering the instructions for the WAT.
Some, due to this, required a constant reminder to
respond in English since they tended to switch to
Fante responses in the middle of the exercise, an
event that led to participants mixing languages during
the English word association task. This was seen
more among intermediate speakers.
Some of the participants, mostly native speakers,
asked for the translation of their cue words into
English after responding in their L1 to a stimulus
word. Others mouthed the L1 cue word as a trigger
for its L2 translation before finally responding.

For example;
1. Born – i. “da a wɔdze woo wo”
ii “Date of birth”
2. Restaurant – i. “wodidzi”
ii “to eat”
“Born” was the fourth stimulus word, while
“restaurant” was the seventh stimulus word in the
word list. After being prompted to use English during
the English WAT, an intermediate participant still
responded with an L1 word for an English stimulus
word. This factor led to some participants moving
from the advanced speaker category to the
intermediate category. The participants performed
well in the spelling test but mixed the first and second
languages in the WAT.
On the impacts of L1 interference on students,
translation helped participants in this study build on
their lexical knowledge. This was a result of them
learning new words to build their lexical knowledge
when they were corrected or furnished with translated
words during the word association task. Also,
previous studies reveal that learners make fewer
mistakes when the language structures between
languages are similar (e.g., Masood et al., 2020), and
this supports the argument that L1 structures are
relied on during L2 learning or acquisition (e.g., Ali
Fatemi et al., 2012; Galasso, 2002; Masood et al.,
2020). Since Fante and English have similar language
structures and borrowed words, it was relatively easy
for participants to infer from L1 some of the L2
words.
Lexical knowledge
Another prevalent observation was the lexical
knowledge of the participants. According to Touchie
(1986), L1 interference affects important aspects of
language such as phonology, syntax, morphology,
and lexicon, with errors being seen in all of these
areas (Masood et al., 2020). Thus, the most common
errors found in this study were lexical and
phonological, where participants mixed the first and
second languages during the word association task.
While some spoke about their problems with
language learning in a grammatically accurate
manner, others did so in broken English. On the other
hand, the cue words produced suggested problems
with phonological links. For example, for the
stimulus word "Chores," the participant responded
"food." This suggests that the participant had in mind
"choice," which has a different meaning from the
stimulus word.
Also, the lexical knowledge of the stimulus words
was reflected in how participants pronounced
stimulus words unaided and clearly while giving
more responses and in the type of cue word they
responded with. Although the participants were only
supposed to give cue words, most participants chose
to first mention the stimulus word before giving a cue
word. Constant reminders from the researcher about
the lack of need to mention the word before
responding proved futile.
This highlighted that mentioning the stimulus word,
loudly or silently, served as a trigger for the language
learner to access its meaning and category in his or
her mental lexicon. It also helped the participants to
be reminded that they are supposed to respond in
English (L2) and not Fante (L1) or Fante (L1) and not
English (L2). Furthermore, some of the participants,
at the end of their word association task, stated
whether they understood the words or not. For
example, during the word association task, a
participant, instead of giving a cue word, shakes his
or her head and says, “Please, I do not understand this
word” or “I do not know the word," while others,
mostly native speakers, responded in broken English
(‘Fanglish’) that they understood the stimulus word
but have trouble producing it in L2.
Notwithstanding, it is common to come across an L1
word being used during an L2 conversation when the
speaker cannot seem to find the L2 word. Since the
language learner has no idea of the word in the L2, he
may at some point seek the L2 word or have the
chance to be corrected and furnished with the right
word in the L2. This will further help the learner
build on his lexical knowledge.
Confidence
Language learner anxiety is a common phenomenon
in second language learning. It is known to have
adverse effects on the performance (mostly oral
performance) of second-language learners of English
(Woodrow, 2006). Confidence played a significant
role in the study. Participants, especially from the
first-year classes, were mostly tense and shy, not
wanting to show up for the study out of fear of
showing they could not speak English. This
highlighted the problem of emotion from L1 to L2,
where the language learner is moved by their
emotions instead of their knowledge, and for which
reason they choose or do not feel the need to be
involved in the language learning process (Akbari &
Pishghadam, 2022; Kakar & Sarwari, 2022;
Pishghadam et al., 2019).
As proficiency increased, less L1 interference was
recorded. This is because participants with increased
proficiency were confident enough to communicate in
the L2 to show the degree of their lexical knowledge;
this aspect was observed as participants preferred to
speak the L2 (English) during the L1 (Fante) word

association task, contrary to the expectations of the
participant during a Fante word association task.
On the other hand, some participants had to be urged
to speak up, while at other times, the researcher had
to pause the task and engage the participants to help
them ease up for the word association task.
This was a contributing factor to most of the first-year
participants being in the intermediate and native
groups (7 in total). This finding describes some
affective factors such as motivation, interest, and
anxiety that have been known to influence second
language acquisition (Gardner & Lambert, 1959;
taysi, 2015). On the other hand, the second-year
participants produced words confidently. Some of
them took advantage of the task to talk about their
struggles in learning languages, especially reading
and writing their first language, Fante.
5. Implications
In second language learning, the language learner is
sometimes expected to let go of old language habits
(mostly L1) to accommodate new language learning
habits (Mitchell et al., 2019). Therefore, in the case of
students in parts of Ghana (rural areas) who have
their lessons translated from L2 to L1 in the early
years of education, from kindergarten to primary 3, it
will take more time to be able to fully learn an L2 as
there has to be a series of translations before a topic
can be completed. This implies that L1 interference
will call for a series of translations and corrections,
which can be time-consuming and affect learning
periods.
The reactions and responses of the participants
showed that it is very important that language
teachers help their students build upon their reading
and communication skills through encouragement,
class activities, and many more. The government, on
the other hand, should ensure the existence of well-
equipped libraries in all public basic schools to help
learners easily access materials that will help improve
their English language, oral, cognitive, and writing
skills.
These findings hereby contribute to the current body
of L1 research, particularly in the Ghanaian context.
The data collection gave teachers at the school a
chance to hear their students talk about language
learning and their difficulties. This act served as a
wake-up call to teachers to adopt new teaching
strategies and methodologies that will promote a
smooth English language learning process. Since the
Ghanaian perspective is underrepresented in this
field, further research can be conducted in this area to
provide a varying view of language learning.
5.1. Limitations and Conclusion
The current study studied the impact of L1
interference on Fante second-language learners of
English. It revealed that words are arranged in the
same fashion in the mental lexicon of the learner, and
for that reason, the Fante learner relied on these first
language structures to learn the second language.
L1 interference has been argued to have negative
effects on language learning due to factors such as
limited lexical knowledge, a lack of L2 proficiency,
and other related contextual factors (Montle, 2022).
Contrarily, this study revealed that lexical knowledge,
confidence, and L1 interference impacted second-
language learning in diverse ways and aided or
impeded a smooth second-language process.
Therefore, to answer the research questions, it can be
concluded that the absence of L1 interference is a
sign of lexical development. It can also be regarded as
a strategy for the second language learner to learn
new words and new L2 language structures in the
target language. Also, it can be concluded that, while
L1 interference was a sign of lexical development, it
had a greater negative effect on second language
learners than a positive effect.
The confidence level of participants served as a
limitation of the study. Most of the participants were
shy at the beginning of the exercise. In the middle of
the exercise, the participants grew more tense as they
were shy and scared of making mistakes. Also, the
sample size was too small, and future research should
consider a larger sample size to better reflect the
impacts of first-language interference on second-
language acquisition.
References
[1] Aitchison, J. (2003). A glossary of language
and mind. . Oxford University Press.
[2] Akbari, M. H., & Pishghadam, R. (2022).
Developing new software to analyze the emo-
sensory load of language. Journal of Business,
Communication & Technology, 1(1), 1–13.
[3] Albuquerque, A., & Duarte, J. (2020). Can ICT
Help Overcome L1 Interference in L2 Writing?-
Implications and Challenges for the EFL
Classroom.
[4] Ali Fatemi, M., Sobhani, A., & Abolhassani, H.
(2012). Difficulties of Persian Learners of
English in Pronouncing Some English
Consonant Clusters. World Journal of English
Language, 2(4).
https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v2n4p69
[5] Altarriba, J. (1992). The Representation of
Translation Equivalents in Bilingual Memory.
Advances in Psychology, 83, 157–174.

[6] Appel, R. (1989). Bilingualism and cognitive-
linguistic development: Evidence from a word
association task and a sorting task. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
10(3), 183–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1989.999437
3
[7] Aronin, L., & Toubkin, L. (2002). Language
Interference and Language Learning
Techniques Transfer in L2 and L3 Immersion
Programmes. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 267–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667761
[8] B de Groot, A. M. (1992). Bilingual Lexical
Representation: A Closer Look at Conceptual
Representations.
[9] BÁTYI, S. (2012). SEMANTIC
REPRESENTATION IN THE BILINGUAL
MENTAL LEXICON.
[10] Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference
in learning a second language: Exploratory case
studies of native language interference with
target language usage. International Education
Journal, 1(1), 22–31.
[11] Channell, J. (1990). Vocabulary acquisition
and the mental lexicon. Meaning &
Lexicography.
[12] Chen, H., & Ng, M. (1989). Semantic
facilitation and translation priming effects in
Chinese-English bilinguals. Memory and
Cognition.
[13] Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A
Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic
Processing. In Psychological Review (Vol. 82,
Issue 6).
[14] Collins, A. M., & Ross Quillian, M. (1969).
Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory 1. In
JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND
VERBAL BEHAVIOR (Vol. 8).
[15] Dansieh, S. A. (2018). Teaching Oral English
in an ESL Setting: Some Challenges Observed
by Teachers in Upper-West Ghana.
International Journal of English Linguistics,
8(6), 172. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n6p172
[16] De Groot, A. (2000). A Complex-skill Approach
to Translation and Interpreting .
[17] Duyck, W. (2004). Lexical and Semantic
Organization in Bilinguals.
[18] Duyck, W. , & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Forward
and backward number translation requires
conceptual mediation in both balanced and
unbalanced bilinguals. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Human Perception and
Performance, 30(5), 889–906.
[19] Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford University Press.
[20] Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the
mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
8(7), 301–306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003
[21] Essien, L. E., Tekyiwa Amua-Sekyi, E., &
Mensah, E. (2022). The Use of Communication
Strategies to Compensate for Gaps in
Classroom Communication: The Case of the
University of Cape Coast, Ghana. African
Journal of Empirical Research Https, 3, 229–
235. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2362-8493
[22] Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual Semantic and
Conceptual Representation. In J. F. Kroll & A.
M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of
bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.
251–267). Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual
Semantic and Conceptual Representation. In J.
F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook
of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches
(pp. 251–267). Oxford University Press.
[23] Galasso, Joseph. (2002). Interference in Second
Language Acquisition: A Review of the
Fundamental Difference Hypothesis
Transferring the “Pro-drop” Parameter from
Spanish to English. .
[24] Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric Experiments.
Brain, 2(2), 149–162.
[25] Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959).
Motivational variables in second-language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology /
Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 13(4), 266–
272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0083787
[26] Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical Representation and
Development in a Second Language. Applied
Linguistics, 21, 47–77.
[27] Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (1997).
Immersion education: A category within
bilingual education. Immersion Education.
[28] Kakar, A. F., & Sarwari, K. (2022). Second
Language Communication and Interference
from L1. Journal of Business, Communication
& Technology, 1(2), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.56632/bct.2022.1202

[29] Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2013). First language
transfer in second language writing: An
examination of current research. In Iranian
Journal of Language Teaching Research (Vol.
1, Issue 1). www.urmia.ac.ir/ijltr
[30] Kohlmann, Á. (2014). W. association pattern as
an indicator of divergent lexical organisation in
foreign language learners with dyslexia1. D. L.
in B. W. P. in L. 3, 35. (2014). Word
association pattern as an indicator of divergent
lexical organisation in foreign language
learners with dyslexia. http://epub.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/view/subjects/1407.html
[31] Köpke, B. , & Genevska-Hanke, D. (2018).
First Language Attrition and Dominance: Same
Same or Different? . Frontiers in Psychology,
9.
[32] Kroll J, & Stewart, E. (1994). Category
Interference in Translation and Picture Naming:
Evidence for Asymmetric Connections
Between Bilingual Memory Representations.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–
174.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.199
4.1008
[33] Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and counteracting
interference errors. ELT Journal, 37(3), 256–
261.
[34] Masood, M. H., Shafi, S., Yousaf Rahim, M., &
Darwesh, M. A. (2020). Interference of L1
(Urdu) in L2 (English) in Pakistan: Teaching
English as a Second Language. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics and English
Literature, 9(5), 110.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.9n.5p.110
[35] Meara, P. (1990). Some notes on the
Eurocentres vocabulary tests.
[36] Menenti, L., & Donders, F. C. (2006). L2-L1
Word Association in bilinguals: Direct
Evidence. In Nijmegen CNS (Vol. 1).
[37] Meuter, R. F. I. (1994). Language switching in
naming tasks. University of Oxford.
[38] Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy,
M. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic and
phonemic codes in visual word-recognition.
Memory & Cognition, 2, 309–321.
[39] Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019).
Second Language Learning Theories (4th ed.).
Routledge.
[40] Monaikul, N. (2015). Towards an Integrated
Model of the Mental Lexicon.
http://opus.govst.edu/theses
[41] Montle, M. E. (2022). Examining the Influence
of the First Language on Teaching and
Learning English as a Second Language (L2):
A Linguistic Interference Perspective.
International Journal of Language and Literary
Studies, 4(4), 289–299.
https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v4i4.1092
[42] Osei-Boateng, S. (2022). Teachers’ Perceptions
About the Medium of Instruction in Learning
English as A Second or Foreign Language in
Ghanaian Lower Basic Schools.
[43] Owu-Ewie, C. (2006). The Language Policy of
Education in Ghana: A Critical Look at the
English-Only Language Policy of Education.
[44] Owu-Ewie, C., & Eshun, E. S. (2015). The Use
of English as Medium of Instruction at the
Upper Basic Level (Primary Four to Junior
High School) in Ghana: From theory to
Practice. Journal of Education and Practice,
6(3), 72–82.
[45] Pavlenko, A. (2009). The Bilingual Mental
Lexicon. http://www.multilingual-matters.com,
[46] Pishghadam, R., Makiabadi, H., & Zeynali, S.
(2019). Unveiling the passive aspect of
motivation: Insights from English language
teachers’ habitus. International Journal of
Society, Culture & Language, 7(2), 15–26.
[47] Rahim, M. N., & Ahmadi, S. A. R. (2021). The
Teachers’ Roles in Reducing the Interference of
L1 in Audio-lingual Classrooms: A Qualitative
Case Study in Malaysian Primary School.
REiLA : Journal of Research and Innovation in
Language, 3(2), 96–104.
https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v3i2.6335
[48] Saputra, N. (2020). Exploring Indonesian
English Teachers’ Perspectives toward the Use
of Translation in English Language Teaching
(ELT) Classroom. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Studies, 2(3).
https://doi.org/10.29103/ijevs.v2i3.2210
[49] Spätgens, T., & Schoonen, R. (2020). The
structure of developing semantic networks:
Evidence from single and multiple nominal
word associations in young monolingual and
bilingual readers. Applied Psycholinguistics,
41(5), 1141–1169.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000430

[50] Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). FIRST
LANGUAGE ACTIVATION DURING
SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL
PROCESSING: An Investigation of Lexical
Form, Meaning, and Grammatical Class.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3),
387–422.
[51] taysi, eda. (2015). A STUDY ON TURKISH
EFL STUDENTS’ ENGLISH SPEAKING
ANXIETY. International Journal of
Languages’ Education, 1(UDES 2015).
https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.309
[52] Wei, X., Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, W. (2020).
Associations of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer
with L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing
difficulty and L2 writing proficiency. . Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 47(100907).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.20
20.100907
[53] Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and Speaking
English as a Second Language. RELC Journal,
37(3), 308–328.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315

The Impact of L1 Interference on Second Language Learning A Case Study of Fante Second Language Learners of English

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Impact of L1 Interference on Second Language Learning A Case Study of Fante Second Language Learners of English (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Impact of L1 Interference on Second Language Learning A Case Study of Fante Second Language Learners of English