Cook (2003) argues that the rising of the new language with its establishment of the socio-cultural foundation has an effect on presented L1’s knowledge and intangible base of language learner, and how it is affected on the use of both languages. This is totally focused on a form of second language and first language-manipulate, it occurs when the second language is studied as a foreign language in instructional environments.
Language from a multilingual viewpoint can be explained as an organization of signs system which is different to each culture. Through this definition of effects of English, it can be guessed that both linguistic and conceptual level operates each other in the language dispensation and the conceptual level specifies the culture. Cognitive constructs and knowledge can be dragged through a conceptual level to reflect the language system. Grosjean (1989) claims that in fact the bilingual is not considered as two monolinguals in one organization. Cook (1991) referred that multi-competence is the multiple conditions with two grammars of a mind. Kecskes (1998) declared that the people who live in multilingual societies or they are multilingual have dissimilar knowledge of their native language as compare to monolingual people, and this dissimilarity can be defined through the impact of the consequent languages on the basis of growth and manipulate of L1 proficiency. The conceptual system of the bilingual mind is accountable for two language guide that cannot be mixed together.
The dual language concept is intended to mean “interlanguage” (Kecskes & Papp 2003; Kecskes &Cuenca 2005). The word “inter” means “in between”; although it is not necessary for the learner to be “in between” something; in fact, the learner should have in the process of including knowledge in the presented conceptual level and linguistic organization. Qualitative changes appear in the existing concept of a new linguistic organization deeply rooted in the same constructs.
1.1 The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind
Still, many people believe that Weinreich’s definition related to divergence from either language. The first language influences the second language and the second language influences the first as well. Maybe this effect is less discoverable in our everyday experience: just multifaceted influential investigation of a Spanish speaker’s accent in Spanish will conceal whether the speaker also knows English. It develops into transparent only when the first language begins to vanish, for example when a speaker starts to use more and more words of L2 in his or her first language.
This volume may be the first publication to be dedicated just to the effects of the second language on the first, occasionally called ‘backward’ or ‘inverse’ transfer. This prevocational seminar held in Wivenhoe house in 2001, in that all the documents incorporated in this volume were delivered, except two (Porte, Chapter 6; Cook et al., Chapter 10). Through manipulating a diversity of perspectives, methodologies, and languages, the investigation accounted here illustrates that the people of the first language who are familiar with other languages diverge from that of monolingual examines in diverse ways, with significance for second language acquisition investigation, linguistic and language teaching. The limit of donation shows the scope to which this question interrupts not only all the regions of language from vocabulary to pragmatics but also on an assortment of contemporary approaches recently be developed by second language acquisition (SLA) researchers.
This book helps researchers in second language acquisition investigation and bilingualism, students and teachers surrounding the world. The extent of the contributions in tenure of countries, languages, characteristics of languages, and theories means that it concerns with the courses of SLA at some level, whether undergraduate or post-graduate level.
The introduction of the changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind represents background to the unusual contributions in this document. It doesn’t try to conceal their thunder by expecting their squabbles and terminations, but gives a more special indication, with which of course not all of the writers will be in terminate accord. It depends on part on a summary conclusion of all subjects given to writers by Batia Laufer after the convention. It doesn’t intend to deal with the wide areas of language transfer from L1 to L2 or with the range of language slow destruction, plastered in some standard texts as Odlin (1989) or Weltens et al. (1986).
The issue of L2 effects on the L1 occurs out of the concept of multi-competence for everyone who contributes in it. Firstly the term was manipulated just about as expediency. When ‘inter-language’ became the standard term for the second language speaker’s knowledge, there is no word by which their knowledge is measured of both the second language and their first: on one side the L1, on the next the inter-language, but nothing to summarize both. The purpose of introducing ‘multi-competence’ is to know ‘knowledge of two or more languages in one mind’ (Cook, 1991).
Hence, the first language and the other language or languages are in one or same mind, they make a super-system of language rather than be perfectly individual systems. Then, an issue has elevated the associations between different languages in use. According to Lambert (1990), these questions can be raised: how do people code-switch fluently from one language to another? How do they get out one language while using the other? Or how do they manage more than one pragmatic and phonological system? Multi-competence hoisted question about cognition too. Does an L2 user have an isolated set of thoughts in the mind or a new group of thoughts unlike the sum of its part? And, multi-competence led us to this query about the acquisition. What kinds of roles do the first language and the other language or languages take part in the production of knowledge of the second or afterward languages?
Cook (1999) elaborated that multi-competence led us in special to a significance concept of a native speaker. While the theory of inter-language is seemed to form the second language as a self-governing language organization, in effect of SLA research took care of the organization of L2 in L2 user as a ball parking to an L1 organization (e.g., a monolingual L1 user). L2’s syntax knowledge is contrasted the native speaker’s knowledge by SLA research methods (Cook, 1997). While the learners of the second language did have a right to use Universal Grammar (UG) was seemed as an issue of whether they learned the unchanged grammars as monolingual native speakers-to some extent over half of the non-native speakers hardly show evidence of the correct UG-based decision on any provided UG effect’ (Bley-Vroman et al., 1988: 24). The factor of ‘age’ is also affected on second language learning was seemed in a matter of how nearer people came towards monolingual native speakers –hence the best learners do have native-like competence’ (Long, 1990: 281). Whether they did have an accent was an issue of how native-like speakers were-the definitive purpose- may be unmanageable for some- is to “sound like a native-speaker” in every characteristic of language’ (Gonzalez-Nueno, 1997: 261).
The opinions in opposition to the native-speaker standard have been discussing over the past more than ten years. The native-speakers of a monolingual society still speak the language which they acquired in very childhood (Cook, 1999).
1.3 The Individual Characteristics of L2 Users
If the users of the second language are different from one another, then the concentration of SLA research lies in seeking their distinctiveness, not their insufficiency compared with the native speakers. In Cook (2002a: 4-8) the distinctiveness of the users of the second language are categorized under four states:
(1) The second language user does have different uses of language than the monolingual;
(2) The knowledge of the second language user about second is not the same as that of a native speaker;
(3) The knowledge of second language user about his or her first language is not identical in some aspects of monolingual;
(4) The second language users do have dissimilar minds from those of monolinguals.
This document is first and foremost concerned with development and rationalization of 3 states that second language users’ knowledge is quite different from monolingual native users in respect of knowledge of their first languages. Predictably at the same time, it provides more information about the individual nature of second language users’ manipulations for language, their second language’s knowledge, and their minds. Multi-competence guided to seek the second language used as a person in his or her own possession, not as fairly accurate to a monolingual speaker. This is the reason, this term ‘L2 user’ to ‘L2 learner’ in identification of the ability of a person to manipulate the language relatively than resting a learner in infinity, always being familiar with the same person perhaps ‘learner’ and ‘user’ in individual aspects of his or her language identity.
The conviction in the native-speaker standard is one cause why the effects of the second language on the first language were so slight studied. If the first language of the second language user were dissimilar from monolingual native-speakers, according to SLA research that manipulated as the target would be totally based on shifting sand. As argued in Cook (2002a), in contrast of second language user with the native speaker perhaps justifiable given any dissimilarity that is exposed is not treated as an affair of shortage determined manipulation of this evaluation avoid any specific characteristic of second language user’s language is analyzed, just those which occurred in natives will be sought for. From longstanding time this guided, for instance, to an observation that code-switching in adults or children was to be criticized rather than highly praised; Genesee (2002) talked about how young children’s code-switching was read between the lines as a symbol of mystification rather than as expert L2 manipulation.
1.4 Positive and Negative Effects on the L1
The assimilation range has been shown here optimistically as the partition or assimilation of two languages in the unchanged mind. Thus, the effects of the second language on first could be investigated in three ways: positive effects on L1, negative effects on L1, and effects that are fundamentally neutral.
1.4.1 The L1 can be developed by the use of an L2
It is considered in common sense that to know another language the can be benefited the manipulation of your first language; language teaching appealed to the concept of ‘brain-training’ to rationalize the teaching of the first language, for example, Hungarian children who are familiar with the manipulation of English with more multifaceted sentences in their first language rather than those who are not familiar with (Kesckes & Papp, 2000). A broad research in bilingual improvement shows on the whole that L2 user children do have more talented metalinguistic proficiency than their monolingual colleagues (Bialystok, 2001). English children can read better English than those who are not even if they are taught any other language (Yelland et al., 1993). Hence the collections of many writers from Chinua Achebe to John Milton, Samuel Beckett to Rabindranath Tagore investigate that the manipulation of the first language generally concerned the benefit to be familiar with the second language.
1.4.2 The L1 can be harmed by the use of an L2
The common framework for talking about probable damaging effects of the L2 on L1 is language slaughter or destruction. Aphasia caused by brain damage is the other factor of L2 effects on L1 (Paardis, 2000). When a person starts to acquire a second language, so he or she may at some level lose the capability of using the first language. In situations where one language is used less, people may lose their proficiency in it, whether it is in a group or individuals. Maybe everybody knows whose school-learned language has misplaced from their lives. Research is conducted in the aspect of the loss of L1 by people who live in a situation where it is not spoken or used for their main everyday social and occupational purposes, whether refugees or deportees.
1.4.3 The L1 is different from the L2, without being better or worse
Findings of dissimilarities, whether they are positive or negative, are at some amount challenging in it, they depend on the importance of judgment about good and bad. Findings of dissimilarities, whether they are positive or negative, are at some amount challenging in it, they depend on the importance of judgment about good and bad.
Zampini & Green (2001), French/English, Flege (1987), Hebrew / English, and Obler (1982) demonstrate that many of the effects of the second language on the first language are basically quantity of differences. The mind of second language user is hurdle having dissimilarities in the component of the first language for the reason that it is a more intricate linguistic association, either by connecting or assimilation. In phonology, the second language users’ widespread literature on the voiced onset times as reviewed in Waston (1991), exposes the time and once more the dissimilarities in the first language of the users of second language for plosive consonants such that /p/ and /b/ or /k/ and /g/ are transversely couple of languages such as English/Spanish, which are fundamentally untraceable in the use of common language.
Cook et al. elaborate the first language’s difference in the sentence-processing by Japanese the second language users which are difficult to observe as whichever positive or negative; Jarvis evaluates the modification in the first language once more it gives impression neither good nor bad. In common sense, the second language users do have merely dissimilar domination on the first language, which is not highly praised able or criticized, as Cenoz demonstrates it in his work with Spanish learners of English.
1.5 Demonstrating the L2-L1 effect
It is necessary to know about a thing which makes the language exclusive for seeking the proof to express the L2-L1 effect. Native speakers of a particular language have chosen the customs/styles of saying something (cf. Wray 2002) and expresses, conservative style of managing thoughts (cf. Kecskes 2007). The chosen styles of utterance anything is often replicated in the form of word selection and manipulate of standard language and symbolic language.
The manipulation of direction between languages shows an expansion incident. The effect of L2-L1 extensively varies from the L1-L2 effect the manipulation of L2 is all about cognitive and pragmatic rather than syntactic or lexical (cf. above). Foreign language learning’s benefit on the growth of L1 proficiency is only a potentiality – not a necessity. If the process of language learning is exhaustive, full of content and depends upon learner’s inspiration, then the foreign languages learning can bring some changes in the monolingual organization.
According to the L1’s point of view, the manipulation of dual languages approach emphasizes the beneficial effect of L2 on L1 is a probable revelation if L1 is managed at the sufficient level, or else slow destruction may take place in the use of L1.
1.6 Effects of English
According to the past studies of this research, the followings effects of the second language on the first language are mentioned:
1.6.1 English is the world’s common language:
This is the first one effect of English. By using English it became a global language of the current era. Nowadays, it is spoken by the quarter of the world’s population to share knowledge and ideas. It now belongs to the whole world and increasing to the non-native speakers.
1.6.2 English gives the UK a complete edge:
In the UK, nowadays, the English became the language of culture, diplomacy, commerce, media, academia and IT, and it is being used and practiced of soft power. And everyone is going to follow the UK.
1.6.3 English drives growth and international development:
For devising of economies, English is demanded and needed in public educational organizations to increase stability, employability, and prosperity.
1.6.4 English changes live:
The English is made the language of opportunity to get jobs and become good for well-paid employment by the development of economics and impact of globalization.