Cross-linguistic influence in foreign language proficiency: The role of Javanese language on English

oral production
Khoirul Hasyim, STKIP PGRI Jombang, East Java Indonesia, khoirulhasyim@gmail.com
Abstract
Studies of cross-linguistic influence is now become interest in the study of both second language
and third language. Hence,

this research was intended to investigate the influence of the L1 (Javanese

Language) into the oral production of English as foreign language (L3) by raising questions as follows:
(1) how the foreign language lexical production is influenced by the first language, (2) how the oral
production of foreign languages syntactical is influenced by the first language.
This study was qualitative in which describing the influence of the Javanese language as first
language into oral production of English as foreign language. As a case study, this study was done to the
English Education Department of STKIP PGRI Jombang. The participant of the study were purposively
chosen by considering the similar language proficiency on both the Javanese Language and English.
There were 20 students as the participant of the study. The data was the students oral production of
Javanese language and English.
The finding of the research suggested that the lexicon of the English oral production was
influenced by the Javanese language in the case of borrowing. Moreover, the transferring of English oral
production was influenced by Javanese language in the case of unnaturalness of English lexicon. While
the syntactic structure was exclusively L1 based.
Key words: cross-linguistic influence, third language oral production, lexical transfer, syntactical transfer
INTRODUCTION
The growing of social life and education today brings many effects to the people as the part of the
society. Movement of people from one place to another requires a language as a tool to communicate with
other. In fact, multilingualism, that arise due to the need of communication create a problem especially in
the first language, second language, and also third language proficiency as well. The problem become
more complexs as it come to the learner of foreign language as the third language. Some studies of
foreign language (L3) reported that learner of foreign language use the language, probably the second
language which is closer to the L3 in the field of typological will influence the production of their foreign
language rather than the first language in which typologically different, or distant typologically. (Singh &
Carroll, 1979; Cenoz, 2001, Ecke, 2001; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001). In line with similar studies, some
studies have also reported that learners tend to transfer from the second language rather than from the first

language in spontaneous oral production in the third (or additional) language (cenoz, 2003). The transfer
of first language to third language (English as foreign language) in this study is discussed since there are a
few discussion to the case.
Multilingualism is closely related to the third language acquisition which will determine its
proficiency, mainly the oral production for learners of foreign language on the higher level. The
perspective of psycholinguistic as the foundations of language acquisition, and sociolinguistics
perspective in which clarify that the educational situations, learning more than two languages cannot be
avoided (Cenoz, 2001). Lamiman (2009), reports that in the psycholinguistic perspective the third
language learners are experienced with a more complex competence than a monolingual.
The interaction of multilingualism in the language proficiency, such as some effects of the
previous discussion above is being the part of the study of cross linguistic influence. Cross-linguistic
influence is a term used to define the effect that one language has on the usage or knowledge of another
language. It also known as linguistic transfer, the study of cross-linguistic in cognitive linguistics has
provided a vital gateway to the understanding of how languages interact and function in the multilingual
mind (S. Jarvis et al., 2008). The foreign language learner, as the problem of their multilingual mind,
mainly in the function, will also affecting the creation of syntactical creation in the usage of their oral
production. Moreover, Nicole Hauser-Grdl et al. (2010) introduce that cross-linguistic influence also
observed the developmental of two grammatical systems the two languages can influence each other. This
influence has been labeled cross-linguistic influence.
The phenomenon of cross-linguistics influence as it found in this study, mainly focuses to the
learner of English as foreign language examines the influence of first language toward foreign language
oral production in the term of lexical such as transfer, interference, borrowing and also L3 related
aspects of language loss. It follows the notion of cross-linguistic influence proposed by Smith et al.
(1986). Tremblay (2006) has also identified the transfer of the influence of L2 into L3 creation. Cenoz
(2001) also identifies the influence of L1 into L2 production. Lexical inventions and language shifts as
part of focus of cross-linguistics influence defined by Dewaele (1998) as words which are morphophonologically adapted to the target language but which are never used by native speakers, is used to
refer to the first type of cross-linguistics influence. The lexical transferring is caused by many aspects,
such as De Angelis and Selinker (2001), Wei (2006) who proposed that the transfer of lexemes from a
previously learned language to a new developing system is a compensatory strategy for an incomplete
third-language knowledge base. Regarding to the problem in the transferring of lexical, this research
tends to examine broader into the syntactical structure in order to investigate the influence of L1
syntactical structure into L3 syntactical structure especially on oral production.

METHOD
This study used qualitative approach by using a case study method, which examine the
phenomenon in the real word context as what it happened at the time of the study, Studies a phenomenon
(the case) in its real world context. (Platt, 1992; Yin, 2009). Creswell views the case study as the
exploration of processes, activities and events (Creswell, 1994). In accordance to those theories of case
study method, the exploration of the case of cross-linguistic influence is being observed mainly to the
influence of L1 toward L3 oral production. The L1 here is Javanese Language as a mother tongue and the
L3 is English as the foreign language. Considering the case study which exploring the phenomena of
activities and also events of the oral production of English by the students of STKIP PGRI Jombang, East
Java, Indonesia, the Twenty students were purposively chosen as participant of this study, Purposive
sampling signifies that you see sampling as a series of strategic, choices about with whom, where and
how to do your research (Palys, 2008), they are chosen by considering their language proficiency on
both Javanese language and also English.
The data collection technique used recitation in order to gain the oral production of English as a
foreign language. The instrument of data collection was the story pictures of The frog where are you?
by Mercer Mayer (1969). The data then analyzed qualitatively as Creswell argues that:
The process of data analysis involves making sense out of text and image data. It involves
preparing the data for analysis, moving deeper and deeper into understanding the data,
representing the data, and making an interpretation of the larger meaning of the data.
Several generic processes might be stated in the proposal that convey a sense of the overall
activities of qualitative data analysis (1994)
This study applied the procedures as follows (1) Formulating the problem of the study, (2)
formulating the data collection procedure, (3) choosing the sample, (4) recording the oral production of
English on the students, (5) transcribing the data, (6) processing the data, (7) analyzing the data, and (8)
concluding the result of the data analysis.
FINDINGS
It has been discussed previously that this current study examines the influence of L1 (Javanese
Language) into L3 (English as foreign language), thus the discussion limit the discussion only on the
language transfer, mainly on English oral production. The language transfer, is analyzed from the
students English oral production, whether the language transfer (here, English oral production) is based
on the syntactical pattern of Javanese language or not. The findings revealed that the English sentence
construction is influenced by the Javanese. As a result, the sentence will sound unfamiliar especially to
the native of English. The case is not only happen to the sentence but also to the lexical. The borrowing,

perhaps caused by the lack of vocabulary, shows clearly that the language transfer is based on the first
language.
1a. . the frog try to jump out from the glass of toples. (ENG)
1b. ....kodoke metu soko toples. (JAV)
The borrowing occur in the toples which is chosen by the participant of this study in saying the
place of the frog. Hence, it is too weird as being said that the lexical is come from English. Conversely,
toples is Javanese language property in which it is used to state such kind of jar. Moreover, as the
term of jar in English, or toples in Javanese language, the present of unnatural vocabulary (in the
context of English by its users) also indicate that the lexical transfer is basically come from the Javanese
language as L1. bottle as in There was a boy and the dog with a pet of frog in the bottle. which is
realized by Javanese language as Iki critane arek cilik karo kirike duwe ingon-ingonan kodok di delah
nang jero botol. reveals that the use of bottle in the sentence is not quite adequate in saying the things
(what is meant by jar) especially in the English system.
The native of language will get difficulty in understanding the term bottle in which it is used to
state thing/s of jar. The Javanese use the term bottle to state thing/s which is made from glass. It is
common that the big bottle, once again in the context of Javanese language, is used to keep the frog as
it also use in getting a fish. But the use of bottle as the place of getting animal (here, a frog) is not
common to native of English. Thus, the present of the lexical is L1 based.
The uncommon lexicon of English is the using of really-really big as in After that he has a bee
house that is really-really big.. Maringunu deweke ketiban omahe tawon sing gede-gede banget. The
choosing of really-really big is clearly first language based. The expression of showing intention by
applying the repetition of really-really is not common in English. This lexical appearance is influenced by
the L1 as the source of language transfer. See below:
2a. Gede-gede banget (JAV)
2b. Really-really big (ENG)
The lexical items are based on the first language as it can be divided on each items in the table below.
Table 1. Basic source of the language transfer
Javanese (L1)
Gede-gede
banget
English (L3)
Really-really
big
The lexical production, in which they are gained orally form the students of English as foreign
language in some cases is influenced by the first language. Beside the problem such as lack of vocabulary,
low level of language proficiency which may causing the occurrence of lexicon of L3 which is L1 based,
the realization of the English is also occur in the choosing of lexical which the function of its semantic
meaning is quite different between the L1 and L3. Thus, it creates fuzziness toward the meaning of the
language.

3a. Maringunu, deweke mlayu menyang njerone alas ambek nyeluk-nyeluk nang njerone alas terus
ditubruk karo rusa. (JAV)
3b. And after that he ran into the forest he shouted again in the forest and he crash by a deer. (ENG)
As in 3a, the intention is on ditubruk. It is used by the Javanese people to express two or more
thing collided. 3a tells about the collision of the deer and the boy, or the boy in which he is hit by the deer.
Here, it is normal in Javanese language when ditubruk is used to state the condition. Because the
semantic meaning of the lexical is appropriate to the condition. While in 3b, it is not common for using
crash to state the condition of similar case on the L1 (the deer hit the boy). Besides, crash is quite
different with the meaning of ditubruk, it will be synonymous by adding into following crash. The
term crash into will be very easy for the native of English to understand the meaning but it will be
difficult for the learner of foreign language. So that the easiest one for stating the condition in the
consideration of semantic meaning is hit. Thus, crash is resulted by the transfer of the tubrukan which
is directed by the meaning.
The sentence construction of English oral production also reveals that the Javanese language
syntax is being the source of the language transfer. The constituent of the sentence of English for instance.
4a. : Arek cilik lan kirike ngingu kodok. (JAV)
4b. They have pet frog. (ENG)
The constituent of the sentence can be described in the table as follows:
Table 2. Sentence constituent based on first language
Subject
Predicate
Object

Arek cilik lan anjinge

ngingu
kodok

They
have
frog

Arek cilik lan kirike in 4a is the person or a thing who or which carries out the action of the verb, it is
ngingu. So the action which carried out by the subject is ngingu. While ngingu as a predicate tells
about what a person or a thing does or did or what happened to a person or to a thing. Moreover, kodok
is the object which the action of the verb is carried out by Arek cilik lan anjinge. The description of the
sentence constituents of 4a is similar to what the 4b has. Considering the similarity of the sentence
constituent in both Javanese language and English, the language transfer is bounded to the first language
(Javanese language) although there is inappropriate verb of English (ngingu become have) is not
discussed here.
The English sentence construction carried out by the participant of this study also indicates that
their first language (Javanese) is influenced their third language (English). As they are a Javanese people,
they are able to produce a compound sentence which have two or more independent clauses. This study
examined that the English oral production (here focus on the sentence production) is influenced by the

Javanese language. Almost all sentences produced by the participant of this study are based on their first
language construction. At the level of clauses it can be seen below.
5a. Deweke bingung, lan sakwise deweke nyeluk nang hutan deweke nemokake wit gede sing ono
bolongan nang tengahe.
5b. He is very confuse, and after he shouted in the forest than he found a big tree with the hole in the
middle.
6a. Terus maringunu arek cilike iku mau meneng-meneng ambek kirike ndeloki nang mburine wit, terus
nemokake keluargane kodok iku maeng, terus keluargane kodok iku maeng menehno salah sijine
anake menyang arek cilik iku, maringunu arek cilik ambek kodoke akhire mulih nang omahe maneh.
6b. And then they look for behind the tree there was a family of frog behind the tree, then the boy find the
family of frog and then the family of frog give one of their child to the boy and then the boy with little
frog come back to home.
The number of clause which construct the English sentence shows that the first language sentence is
being the source of its construction.
Table 3. Compound sentence construction.
Sentenc

Clause 1

Clause 2

Clause 3

Deweke
bingung

lan sakwise
deweke nyeluk
nang hutan

He is very
confuse

and after he
shouted in the
forest

6a

Terus
maringunu arek
cilike iku mau
menengmeneng ambek
kirike ndeloki
nang mburine
wit

Terus nok kunu

maeng ono
kealuargene
kodok ing
mburine wit iku
maeng

deweke
nemokake wit
gede sing ono
bolongan nang
tengahe.
then he found a
big tree with the
hole in the
middle.
terus nemokake
keluargane
kodok iku

6b.

And then they

look for behind
the tree

there was a
family of frog
behind the tree,

e
5a

5b

then the boy

find the family
of frog

Clause 4

Clause 5

terus
keluargane
kodok iku
maeng
menehno salah
sijine anake
menyang arek
cilik iku,

maringunu arek
cilik ambek
kodoke akhire
mulih nang
omahe maneh.

and then the

family of frog
give one of their
child to the boy

and then the

boy with little
frog come back
to home.

As it shown in the table 3, the compound sentences (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b) the number of the independent clause
is similar in both Javanese language and English. The conjunction markers, are also similar in which they
combined each clause. Further, the independent clause have a similar construction which build the
meaning of each, although in Javanese language they are some phrases that are more complex because the
respondent of this study is the native of Javanese language.
CONCLUSION
The study of cross-linguistic influence become more interesting as it seeks the role of
multilingual competence and its influence toward the production of language. This study shows that the
first language (Javanese) influence oral production of third language (English) in the case of lexical and
syntactical production. Borrowing, uncommon lexicon of English which is L1 based, and also
inappropriate of semantic meaning to the use of the lexicon are being the case in which their occurrence
in the oral production of English that creating unnatural usage and meaning of the lexicon especially to
the native of English. Moreover, the syntax construction of the English is also influenced by Javanese
language as the first language. Sentence constituent for instance, which indicate subject, predicate, and
object are transferred by the first language. Furthermore, the compound sentence, although the face to
face analysis of each independent clause is not analyzed, the number of the independent clause which
construct the English sentence is bounded on Javanese language.
REFERENCES
Cenoz, J. 2001. The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3
acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third
Language Acquisition. (pp. 8-20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research Design : Quantitative And Qualitative Approach. London: Sage
2003. The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen &
U. Jessner (Eds.), The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
De Angelis, G. & Selinker, L. 2001. Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the
multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third
Language Acquisition. (pp. 42-58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.M. 1998. Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19,
471-90.
Ecke, P. 2001. Lexical retrieval in a third language: evidence from errors and tip-of-the-tongue states. In
J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language
Acquisition. (pp. 90-114). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hauser-Grdl, Nicole, Lastenia Arencibia Guerra, Franziska Witzmann, Estelle Leray & Natascha Mller
2010. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children: can input frequency account for it?. Lingua
120 (10), 2638-2650
Jarvis. S. 2003. Probing the effects of the L2 on the L1: A case Study in Cook. V. Effects of the Second
Language on the first (Multilingual Matter Limited; Clevedon)

Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition.
Oxford:Pergamon.
Lammiman, Katharine. 2009. Cross-linguistic influence of an L3 on L1 and L2. INNERVATE: Leading
Undergraduate Work in English Studies, Volume 2 (2009-2010) 274-283. Nottingham University.
Palys, T. 2008. Purposive Sampling. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Lisa M.
Given. London, SAGE Publications, Inc. 1&2.
Platt, Jennifer. 1992. Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40, 1748.
Singh, R. & Carroll, S. 1979. L1, L2 and L3. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 51-63.
Tremblay, Marie-Claude. 2006. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:The Role of L2
Proficiency and L2 Exposure. CLO/OPL Janvier/January 2006, Vol. 34: 109-119
Wei, L. 2006. The multilingual mental lexicon and lemma transfer in third language learning.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 88- 104.
Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(First published in 1984)
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name

Khoirul Hasyim

Date of birth

Jombang, 15 Agustus 1980

Nationality

Indonesia

Address

Pondok Candi Indah B-2 Jombang, East Java, Indonesia

Email

khoirulhasyim@gmail.com

Phone

085730505556

Employment

STKIP PGRI Jombang

Office Address :

Jl. Patimura III/20 Jombang, East Java, Indonesia

Education

1. 2002 2006 English Education Study Program of STKIP PGRI Jombang

2. 2009 2012 Post Graduate Program Faculty of Language and Art UNESA

Surabaya (State University of Surabaya)

3. 2013 (ongoing)
Linguistic (Descriptive Linguistic) Study Program,
Doctoral Program of UNS Solo Indonesia