On L 1 Interference and „ Reverse Transfer ‟ : Special Reference to the Concept of “ Multicompetence ”

As well as the first language influences the second, the second language influences the first. Therefore, researchers have to focus not only on the L1→ L2, but also on the L2→ L1 effect. There has been extensive research into how L1 affects L2, commonly known as „negative influence‟, but a lot less about the opposite direction, commonly known as „Reverse or Backward‟ transfer.The present study attempts to examine and critically review pertinent research into the question of bidirectional influence between languages. First, it traces the conceptual framework of the notion L1→L2 effect. Second, it attempts to demonstrate how an emerging new language (L2) affects the existing L1. Although there are several ways of conceptualizing L2 influence on L1, the focus, in the present study, is on the concept of “Multi-Competence” proposed by Cook (1991; 1999; 2006; 2007; 2011) and how it shifts the evaluation angle of the interlanguage system. Third, it examines the pedagogical aspects of both directions, as manifested in L2 classroom. Special focus will be given to how the concept of “multicompetence” sees the goal of L2 learning and how language teaching should reflect such a goal. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of using learners‟ first language in L2 classroom will be highlighted and specific methodological recommendations will be made.


Introductory Remarks
It is commonly believed that the first language (L1) has an effect on the second language (L2). Second Language Acquisition (SLA) literature has shown extensive research on how the learning and use of an L2 is affected by the L1.What has hardly been investigated, however, is the influence that foreign language has on the learner"s first language. The reason for this neglect may have been twofold: (a) for a long time, researchers have been interested in the non-advanced learners of L2. At the beginning stages of L2 learning the influence is mostly unidirectional, from L1 to L2. (b) L2 acquisition research has been dominated by English as an L2. Advanced learners of English who supplied the data for research were immigrants to English-speaking countries, and knowledge of English was vital for their integration into the new society.Therefore, the development ofthis knowledge provoked researchers" interest and the state of their native language, on the other hand, was less important, and did not raise the same amount of interest (See Miller, 2011). The issue of whether the L2 affects the L1has provided a rich new question for L2 acquisition research to investigate. Relatedly, it has profound implications not only for our conceptualization of the mind with two languages, but also for our view of all human minds.

Statement of the Problem
Almost anywhere we turn, we can find textbooks, articles, and workshops on the art and science of teaching and learning L2. However, we are a long, long way from finding ultimate answers to the many difficult questions we have been asking. According to Brown (1988), we have grown accustomed to the absence of final solutions as we discover an overwhelming multiplicity of variables at play in the process of L2 learning. Specifically, there has been considerable progress in the study of native language influence during the last hundred or so years; however, because of the controversies that have accompanied this progress, the findings of transfer research must be interpreted cautiously. Skepticism about the role of language transfer has had a long life not only among L2 teachers and researchers, but also among linguists interested in questions of language contact and language change. Some scholars have argued for the importance of transfer; some have gone so far as to consider it the paramount fact of L2 acquisition. Yet other scholars have been very skeptical about its importance (See Kellerman, 1984;Faerch, 1984). Moreover, Schachter (1994) thinks that although it is true that much uncertainty remains about many issues related to cross-linguistic influences, and it is undeniably true that researchers are far from able to predict with full accuracy when transfer will occur, it is also true that skeptics are far from able to predict when transfer will never occur.

Rationale for the Study
In discussing native language influence on L2 acquisition, we need to keep in mind that there is no single scientific truth, In this connection, McLaughlin (1988: 6), correctly, points out that "disciplines tend to become fragmented into 'schools', whose members are loath to accept, and are even hostile to the views of other schools using different methods and reaching different conclusions. Each group becomes convinced that it has a corner on 'truth'. One philosophical position contends that truth can never be known directly and in its totality". McLaughlin (1988: 6) adds that "multiple ways of seeing result in multiple truths. Scientific progress is achieved as we come to illuminate progressively our knowledge in a particular domain by taking different perspectives, each of which must be evaluated in its own right".In this regard, Brown (1988: xii) points out that "no single discipline or theory or model or factor will ever provide a magic formula for solving the mystery of second language acquisition". Keeping the above in mind, I argue that (1) viewing transfer as the single most important reality of second language acquisition is risky, though no more so than viewing transfer as a negligible factor in L2 acquisition; and (2) the learning of a language must be viewed as a very complex process of which the development of a grammatical system is only one part. Properties of L1 and L2 certainly do have some influence on this process and may account for some aspects of the learner's interlanguage. Other factors especially psychological ones are likely to be of much greater importance for our understanding of the process of L2 acquisition, including linguistic and non-linguistic strategies involved. This view seems to be compatible with Ellis (1985: 40) view: "While the learner's native language is an important determinant of second language acquisition, it is not the only determinant; however, and may not be the most important. But it is theoretically unsound to attempt a precise specification of its contribution or even try to compare its contribution with that of other

"Transfer" as a Notion
Much of the dislike of the term "transfer" comes from its traditional association with behaviourism. Behaviourism is now so widely discredited in the field of psycholinguistics that some leading textbooks in that field give no attempt to behaviorist analysis (See Carroll, 1968;Corder, 1983;Kellerman & Smith, 1986) . Regardless of the divide in opinion as to "transfer" as a term or notion, there are a number of reasons for language teachers and linguists to consider the problem oftransfer. Odlin (1996) points out that (1) teaching may become more effective through a consideration of differences between languages and between cultures. (2) Consideration of the research showing similarities in errors made by learners of different backgrounds will help teachers to see better what may be difficult or easy for anyone learning the language they are teaching. (3) Research on transfer is also important for a better understanding of the nature of language acquisition in any context and is thus of interest to anyone curious about what is common to all languages; that is; language universals. (4) Many people believe that the study of one language (e.g. Latin) will make easier the study of a closely related langu age (e.g. French). (5) M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4 Finally, for historical linguists, knowledge about native language influence can lead to insights about the relation between language contact and language change.
To summarize, although language transfer has been a central issue in applied linguistics, L2 acquisition, and language teaching for at least a century, its importance in L2 learning has been reassessed several times. It must be kept in mind that serious thinking about cross-linguistic influences dates back to a controversy in historical linguistics in the 19th century. Those who were involved in this controversy were not interested in L 2 acquisition or language teaching but rather language classification and language change (Odlin, 1996).

SLA Research in the 1960s: Focus on Learners" Errors
Most SLA research in the 1960s was conducted within the framework of Contrastive Analysis. In the course of the controversy over the viability of the CAH, two versions of this hypothesis have emerged: "The strong vs. the weak" or "predictive vs. explanatory" versions. The idea of the strong version is that it is possible to contrast the system of one language with the system of L2. On the basis of the result of this contrast, investigators can discover the similarities and differences between the two languages in question so that they can make predictions about what will be the points of difficulty for the learners of other languages. According to the strong version, wherever the two languages differed, interference would occur. That is, language transfer is the basis for predicting which patterns of the target language will be learned most readily and which will prove most troublesome. This version relies on the assumption that similarities will be easier to learn and differences harder. The strong version of the CAH has long since been rejected on a number of grounds. The apriori version of CA sometimes predicts difficulties that do not occur, particularly in the syntactic component of a language. It predicts positive transfer: similarities which should be easier to learn, that which does not occur. If wrong predictions are made using the apriori hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be wrong.
The weak version relies on two assumptions. First, error analysis may help investigators know, th rough errors the learners make, what the difficulties are. Second, investigators may realize the relative difficulty of specific errors through the frequency of their occurrence. The weak version may be easier and more practical than the strong version on the basis that it requires of the linguist that he/she use his/her linguistic knowledge to explain the observed difficulties in L2 learning.
Intheir discussion of the validity of CAH, Whitman and Jackson (1972) support the idea that CAH is inadequate from the theoretical and practical points of view. Their arguments are based on two justifications: first, CA is not reliable to predict the interference problems of a language learner; and second, interference of native language plays such a small role in language learning performance that no CA could correlate highly with performance data. However, most of the valid CA evidence seems to be phonological; that is, contrastive analysis may be most predictive at the level of phonology and less predictive at the syntactic level. Present research results (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982) suggest that the major impact LIhas on L2 acquisition may have to do with accent, not with grammar or syntax. In addition, the assumption that similarities between the native and the target languages will be easier to learn and differences harder is rejected by a group of scholars. Pica (1984), for example, maintains that the divergent areas between the learner"s L1 and the target language do not represent the greatest learning difficulties may be attributable to those areas which share considerable similarity.Many research studies show that some differences between languages do not always lead to significant learning difficulties.
The error analysis (EA)approach is based on the assumption that the frequency of errors is proportional to the degree of learning difficulty (Brown, 1980). As has been mentioned before, many of the errors could not be explained in terms of L1 transfer. The point which should be clear is that the EA can be characterized as an attempt to account for learner errors that could not be explained or predicted by the CAH.
EA research has come under fire. For example, Schachter and Celce-Murcia (1977) have pointed out that it is difficult to be certain precisely what type of error a second-language learner is making or why the learner makes it. The reasons for errors made by L2 learners are numerous. In this regard, Taylor (1975) found that the early stages of language learning are characterized by a predominance of interlingual transfer, but once the learner has begun to acquire parts of the new system, generalization within the target language is manifested.On the other hand, many studies have shown that developmental factors provide another explanation for some of the errors made by L2 learners. Felix (1980) presents the theoretical assumption of the developmental nature of L2 acquisition. As long as L1 learners produce ungrammatical structures before they achieve adult competence, L2 learners appear to pass through developmental stages which reflect general regularities and universal processes of language acquisition. These developmental stages are not determined by the structural properties of the learner"s L1. The same idea is presented by Pica (1984).
As a reaction to the "product" orientation of the morpheme studies and error analysis, and the feeling that a more "process" oriented approach was needed, researchers began to work according to the interlanguage framework, which was developed in the late 1970s and 1980s. So, rather than focusing on the first or the target language, researchers began to develop data analytic procedures that would yield information about the dynamic qualities of language change that made the interlanguage a unique system; both similar to and different from the first and target languages.
Since the early 1970"s "interlanguage" has come to characterize a major approach to L2 research and theory. Generally speaking, the term "interlanguage" means two things : 1) the learner's system at a single point in time, and 2) the range of interlocking systems that characterize the development of learners over time. The interlanguage is thought to be distinct from both the learner's L1 and from the target language. It evolves over time as learners employ various internal M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4 strategies to make sense of the input and to control their own output. These strategies were central to Selinker's thinking about interlanguage. Specifically, Selinker (1972) argued that interlanguage was the product of five cognitive processes involved in L2 learning (1) language transfer from L1; (2) transfer of the training process used to teach L2; (3) strategies of L2 learning; (4) strategies of L2 communication; and (5) overgeneralization of the target language linguistic material. The development of the interlanguage was seen by Selinker as different from the process of L1 development because of the likelihood of fossilization in L2.
In contrast to Selinker's cognitive emphasis, Adjemian (1976) focused on the dynamic character of interlanguage systems, their permeability. Interlanguage systems are thought to be by their nature incomplete and in a state of flux. In this view, the individual's L1 system is seen to be relatively stable, but the interlanguage is not. The structures of the interlanguage may be "invaded" by L1 when placed in a situation that cannot be avoided, L2 learner may use rules or items from L1. Similarly, the learner may stretch, distort, or overgeneralize a rule from the target language in an effort to produce, the intended meaning. Both processes Adjemian saw to reflect the basic permeability of the interlanguage.A third approach to the interlanguage notion has been taken by Tarone (1979) who maintained that the interlanguage could be seen as analysable into a set of styles that are dependent on the context of use. Tarone proposed capability continuum, which includes a set of styles ranging from a stable subordinate style virtually free of L1 influence to a characteristically superordinate style where the speaker pays a great deal of attention to form and where the influence of L1 is, paradoxically, more likely to be felt. For Tarone, interlanguage is not a single system; but a set of styles that can be used in different social contexts. In this way, Tarone added to Adjemian"slinguistic perspective a sociolinguistic point of view. However both Selinker and Adjemian stressed the influence of L1 on the emerging interlanguage.
To conclude, the shift from a product to a process orientation has drawn attention to the more subtle and non-obvious effects of L1 on interlanguage development. It has become apparent that L1 does affect the course of interlanguage development but this influence is not always predictable. In addition, as McLaughlin (1988: 81) points out, "more recent work on transfer has made apparent the folly of denying L1 influence any role in interlanguage development". He, further, maintains that "the bulk of the evidence suggests that language acquisition proceeds by mastering the easier unmarked properties before the more difficult marked ones".
In L2 acquisition research, the term "markedness" was used by Kellerman (1979Kellerman ( , 1983 to predict when transfer is likely to occur from L1. More marked structures in the learner's L1 (those that are perceived to be more irregular, infrequent, and semantically apaque) were predicted to be less transferable than regular and frequent forms. Other authors distinguish marked or unmarked structures according to their degree of complexity. Unmarked forms are thoughtto be less complex than marked Kellerman (1979) reported that learners initially transfer both marked and unmarked features from their L1, but that in the more advanced interlanguage, they resist transferring marked features. This not to imply that beginners will necessarily transfer marked features from their L1. In this regard, Zobl (1984) noted that L2 learners at all stages of development tend to avoid transferring marked L1 rules. Eckman (1985) has argued that transfer occurs principally where Li feature is unmarked and L2 feature is marked. According to Eckman's Markedness Differential Hypothesis, those areas of the target that will be most difficult for L2 learners are those that are both different from L1 and relatively more marked.
In the following section, the perspective shifts from a purely linguistic analysis of L2 learning process to one that emphasizes sociolinguistic and social psychology factors as well. A number of researchers studying L2 acquisition without formal instructions have been struck by the relationship between social psychological acculturation and degree of success in learning the target language In this regard, Schumann (1978: 15) characterized the relationship between acculturation and L2acquisition in the following way: "Second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target-language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language".In this view, acculturation and, hence, L2 acquisition is determined by the degree of social and psychological "distance" between the learner and the target-language culture. Social distance pertains to the individual as a member of a social group that is in contact with another social group whose members speak a different language. Psychological distance is the result of various affective factors that concern the learner as an individual, such as resolution of language shock, culture shock, and culture stress, integrative versus instrumental motivation, and ego permeability. It is assumed that the more social and psychological distance there is between L2 learner and the target-language group, the lower the learner's degree of acculturation will be toward that group. It is then predicted that the degree to which L2 learners succeed in socially and psychologically adapting or acculturating to the target-language group will determine their level of success in learning the target language (See Bylund, 2009;Caspi, 2010).More specifically, social and psychological distance influence L2 acquisition by determining the amount of contact learners have with the target language and the degree to which they are open to the input that is available. In a negative social situation, the learner will receive little input in L2. In a negative psychological situation, the learner will fail to utilize available input. Schumann argued that the early stages of L2 acquisition are characterized by the same processes that are responsible for the formation of pidgin languages. When social and/or psychological distance is great, the learner will not progress beyond the early stages and the language will stay pidginized.
Moreover, Odlin (1996) argues that when individuals feel a strong sense of belonging to a group, they are frequently concerned about preserving the linguistic forms believed to characterize the group. However, negative transfer should be a cause for concern in light of the social significance of foreign accents. Some evidence suggests that the more heavily accented a person's pronunciation is, the more likely it is that listeners will have negative reactions (Brennan and Brennan 1981). Negative transfer, however, does not always prompt negative attitudes. For example, despite his noticeable German accent, Henry Kissinger achieved distinction in public affairs. M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4

Transfer in the Cognitive Theory
Cognitive theory is based on the work of psychologistics and psycholinguistics. Individuals working within this framework apply the principles and findings of contemporary cognitive psychology to the domain of L2 learning (See Bialystok et al., 2008;Jiang, 2007).In this regard, Lightbown (1985) pointed out that L2 acquisition is not simply linear and cumulative, but is characterized by backsliding and loss of forms that seemingly were mastered. She attributed this decline in performance to a process whereby learners have mastered some forms and then encounter new ones that cause a restructuring of the whole system:[Restructuring] occurs because language is a complex hierarchical system whose components interact in non-linear ways. Seen in these terms, an increase in error rate in one area may reflect an increase in complexity or accuracy in another, followed by overgeneralization of a newly acquired structure, or simply by a sort of overload of complexity which forces a restructuring, or at least a simplification, in another part of the system. (Lightbown 1985: 177) In their discussion of transfer, SLA theorists have argued whether bilingual individuals have two separate stores of information in long-term memory, one for each language, or a single information store accompanied by selection mechanism for using L1 or L2 (McLaughlin 1984). In this regard, O'Malley, Chamot and Walker (1987) pointed out that if individuals have a separate store of information maintained in each language, they would select information for use appropriate to the language context. To transfer information that was acquired in L1 to L2 would be difficult because of the independence of the two memory systems. An individual in the early stages of proficiency in L2 would either have to translate information from L1 to L2 or relearn L1 information in L2, capitalizing on existing knowledge where possible. A contrast to this argument for separate L1 and L2 memory systems, Cummins (1984) has proposed a common underlying proficiency in cognitive and academic proficiency for bilinguals (See Montrul, 2008;Ribbert & Kuiken, 2010).Cummins argues that at least some of what is originally learned through L1 does not have to be relearned in L2, but can be transferred and expressed through the medium of L2. L2 learners may be able to transfer what they already know from L1 into L2 by (a) selecting L2 as the language for expression, (b) retrieving information originally stored through L1 but presently existing as non-language-specific declarative knowledge, and (c) connecting the information to L2 forms needed to express it. Learning strategy research (O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper andRusso 1985a, 1985b) indicates that students of English as L2 consciously and actively transfer information from their L1 for use in L2(See Kim et al., 2010).

Multi-competence: A declaration of independence for the L 2 user
It was introduced by Cook (1991) to mean "Knowledge of two or more languages in one mind".It was introduced because while "Interlanguage" had become the standard term for the speaker"s knowledge of a second language, no word existed that encompassed their knowledge of both the L2 and their L1. Before, we used to have the L1on the one hand, and on the other, "the interlanguage", but nothing that included both.The notion of multicompetence has added a new spin by shifting the evaluation angle of the interlanguage system (Selinker 1972) from one being filled with deficiencies, when compared to native speakers" competence, to one that deserves to be studied in its own right.Multicompetence thus presents a view of second language acquisition (SLA) based on the second language (L2) user as a whole person rather than on the monolingual native speaker. It, therefore, involves the whole mind of the speaker, not simply their first language (L1) or their second. It assumes that someone who knows two or more languages is a different person from a monolingual and so need to be looked at in their own right rather than as a deficient monolingual (See ).From the multicompetence perspective, the different languages a person speaks are seen as one connected system, rather than each language being a separate system. People who speak a second language are seen as unique multilingual individuals, rather than people who have merely attached another language to their repertoire.Multi competence is thus not a model nor a theory so much as an overall perspective or framework. It changes the angle from which second language acquisition is viewed.To avoid implying deficiency of the part of second language speakers, Cook prefers the term L 2 user to L 2 learner. An L 2 user is anyone who knows a second language and uses it in real life, irrespective of their language level.Particular developments from multi-competence were: (a) The re-evaluation of the use of native speakers as the norm in favour of L 2 users in their own right; (b) Seeing transfer as a two-way process in which the L 1 in the L 2 user"s mind is affected by the L 2 , as well as the reverse (See . M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4

Against the Concept of "Native Speaker"
Until the 1990s it was tacitly assumed that the only owners of a language were its native speakers. The objective of L2 learning was therefore to become as like a native speaker as possible; any difference counted as failure.A working definition of a native speaker is "a person who has spoken a certain language since early childhood" (Mc Arthur 1992).The native speaker construct has, howeve,become increasingly problematic in SLA research.SLA research has then been questioning its faith in the native speaker as the only true possessor of language.On the one hand, it is a highly idealized abstraction. Native speakers of any language vary from each other in many aspects of grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary for dialectal, social and regional reasons. So which native speaker should be used a model?On the other hand, this seemed to be one group exercising power over another. Since Boas, linguistics has refrained from value judgments about different groups of speakers. Treating the native speaker as the model for SLA is falling into the same trap of subordinating the group of L2 users to the group of native speakers, to which they could never belong by definition (See Cook, 1997;. The object of acquiring a second language should be to become an L2 user, and people should be measured by their success at being L2 users, not by their failure to speak like native speakers.The L2 user is a person in his or her own right, not an imitation of someone else. Relatedly, one group of human beings should not judge other people as failures for not belonging to their group (Grasjean, 1989; Cook, 1997.The interest of SLA research should be "discovering L2 users characteristics, not their deficiencies compared with native speakers" (Cook, 2003:5).The concept "Multi Competence" leads us to see the L2 user a person in his or her own right, not as an approximation to a monolingual native speaker.L2 users make up the majority of human beings, and they form a very substantial group. Accordingly, people who have native-like skills in both languages are the exception rather than the norm among L2 users. Accordingly, The use of native-speaker measure "will blind us in the future to the overwhelming majority of L2 users who are far from nativelike across two languages.However, a comparison of the L2 user with the native speaker may be legitimate provided any difference that is discovered is not treated as matters of deficiency. Persistent use of this comparison led, for example, to a view that code-switching in adults or children was to be deplored rather than commended.

The Nature of the Relationship between L 1 and L 2 .
There are five models which may symbolize language representation in the brain of a person who uses two languages, and the nature of the relationship between those languages. According to the separation model, L 1 and L 2 are stored in two separate entities with no possible connection between them. Support for this view came from the research on the Natural Order of Acquisition in L 1 (Brown, 1980) and L 2 (Dulay & Burt, 1973).Support came, also, from Coordinate Bilingualism studies, which claimed that coordinate bilinguals have two separate systems for storing and processing the two languages. Accordingly, this model sees no point to discussing the effects of the L 2 on the L 1 , as they do not exist (See Cook, 1991;1997;.According to the integration model, the language forms a single, unitary system. As Caramazza & Brones (1980) argued, rather than two separate mental lexicons, the L 2 user has a single lexicon where words from one language are stored alongside words from the other. This can be also applied to phonology (Williams, 1977). L 2 users can choose which language to use in a given context. In this model, accordingly, the discussion is not about the influence of L 2 on L 1 , but about the balance between elements of a single language system (See Cenoz, 2003;Coleman, 2006).The linked modelrepresents a significant variation on the separation Model. It involves two separate systems which interact with other and cause bidirectional influence. The extent of influence might be related to a number of variables such as age and proficiency level (Kroll & Tokowicz, 2001  The partial integration modelrepresents a significant variation on the integration Model. It claims the existence of a shared area between the L 1 and L 2 systems. This area is most likely in the form of a Common Underlying Conceptual Base (Kecskes & Papp, 2000) related to various aspects of language such as vocabulary, phonology, and syntax. Dominance ofone language system over the other is quite common in this area and most of the time the dominance is in favour of L 1 because it is the language of cognitive development in children. Finally, according to integration continuum model, L 1 and L 2 systems may go through changes in the nature of their relationship. They could start as two separate systems, and then gradually turn into one system, as it is the case in consecutive Bilingualism. Conversely, they could start as one, and then gradually turn into autonomous systems, as it is the case in Simultaneous Bilingualism. Furthermore, the integration Continuum Model allows for different relationship among the various language skill and elements. For example, the lexicon of two language systems might be unified, but the phonology is separate. In general, the model views the nature of the relationship between two language systems in the brain as very complex because it can be influenced by a number of issues such as social status of the  (Grosjean, 2001), according to which it is not about which language to use but about how much of each. As Cook (2003:10) explains:"It is like a mixer tap that merges hot and cold water, but neither tap can be completely turned off. The L 2 user is the one who decides the proportions of the two languages to employ at a given moment in the light of multiple factors on a continuum between effectively activating only one language and activating both simultaneously"(See Kecskes et al., 2003;Jarvis, 2003;Chang, 2009;Athanasopoulos, 2009).

Positive Effects of L 2 on L 1 6.1. Knowledge of the First Language
When people learn a second language, the way they speak their first language changes in subtle ways. These changes can be with any aspect of language, from pronunciation and syntax to gestures the learner makes and the things they tend to notice. Garfinkel & Tabor (1991) found that children in elementary foreign language programs outperformed their monolingual peers in the acquisition of basic skills. Thomas et al., (1993) and Hakuta (1986) found a correlation of bilingual proficiency with higher scores on standardized tests and tests of both verbal and nonverbal intelligence.Yelland et al., (1993) found that English children who are taught Italian for an hour a week read English better than those who are not. Balcom (1995) found different acceptability judgments of French passive sentences in Francophonespeakers who did or did not know English. Kecskes (1998) has found beneficial effects on the development and use of mother skills with regard to structural well-formedness in Hungarian students of modern languages. Marcos (1998) found that learning a second language in an elementary school usually enhances a child"s learning ability in English. Satterfield (1999) showed that knowledge of English as an L 2 caused increased use of overt pronouns in non-emphatic contexts in L 1 Spanish by Spanish/English bilinguals.Another study on the influence of the second language on the first language is a study conducted by Darwish (1999) in Australia on Arab migrants which showed that, negative transfer from English into Arabic seems to produce a new variety of Arabic that diverges from the norms of Arabic spoken in the Arab world. This variety of Arabic is an interim stage within the process of language shift from Arabic to English. However, the presence of a pseudo-language is alien to both the culture and the language.The notion of "pseudo-language" is interesting because the variety of Arabic is a result of the blending of Arabic and Australian English, and thus, making it unique. Because it is neither recognizable as Arabic nor Australian English,it has established itself as a culture and variety of English on its own. A Louisian study (Dumas, 1999) showed that regardless of race, gender or academic level, students taking foreign language classes did better in the English section of the Louisiana Basic Skills Test than those who did not. Kecskes & Papp (2003) found that Hungarian children who know English use measurably more complex sentences in their L 1 than those who do not. Bialystok (2001) has found that L 2 user Children have more precious metalinguistic skills than their monolingual peers.Genoz (2002) found that there was a bidirectional interaction between English and Spanish in the pragmatic Component of Spanish / Bosque L 1 Speakers (See Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2009;Laufer, 2003).
In the United States of America, educationists are aware of the second language influenceof the first language. In a progress report made by the San Juan School District in California (2003),it stated that 59% of the student has a second language influence (the first language being English). This is seen as a hindrance for the students to be fully English Proficient, and they are categorized as having English language issues. Murphy & Pine (2003), also revealed that bilingual children represented the knowledge of language more explicitly than the monolinguals of the same age. Laufer (2003) showed that an experienced Russian speaker of Hebrew uses a less rich vocabulary in Russian than comparative new comers. Pavlenko (2003) showed that Russian learners of English begin to rely on expressing emotions as states rather than as process.  showed that Japanese speaker of English are more prone to prefer plural subjects in Japanese sentences than Japanese who do not know English. Serrano & Howard (2003)conducted a study in the United States of America on The influence of English on the Spanish Writing of Native Spanish Speakers in Two-Way Immersion Programs. They discovered some influences of the second language (English) on the students" first language (Spanish). Hashemian (2011) has found a qualitative increase in the L 1 skills of the English major senior students who are intensively exposed to the L 2 instruction for, at least, four years. He concludes that L 2 learners may transfer the meaning system they already possess on their own to a new language. Intensive and successful L 2 learning can have-beneficial effect on the development of L 1 skills.Kaushankaya et al. (2011) examined the influence of second language experience on native-language vocabulary and reading skills in two groups of bilingual speakers. English-Spanish and English-Mandarin bilingual adults were tested vocabulary knowledge and reading fluency in English, their native language. Participants also provided detailed information regarding their history of second-languageacquisition, including on the age of L 2 M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4 acquisition, degree of L 2 exposure, L 2 proficiency, and preference of L 2 use. Comparisons across the two bilingual groups revealed that both groups performed similarly on native-language vocabulary and reading measures. However, in English Spanish bilinguals, higher self-reported reading skills in Spanish were associated with higher English reading-fluency scores, while in English-Mandarin bilinguals, higher self reported reading skills in Mandarin were associated with lower English reading -fluency scores. These findings suggests that second-language experiences influence native-language performance and can facilitate or reduce it depending on the properties of the second-

Thought Processes
The effects extend outside the area of language.L2 users think more flexibly than monolinguals, are more aware of language in general, and have better attitude towards other cultures. Bialystock (2001) found that children who have learned a second language have a sharper view of language if they speak an L2.Yelland et al., (1993) found that they learn to read more quickly in their L1. Diaz (1985) found that they have better conceptual development, creativity and analogical reasoning (See Williams, 1977;Kroll, Tokowicz, 2001;Genesee, 2002;Athanasopolos, 2001;Pavlenko, 2003). Current research is exploring whether certain basic concepts are modified in those who know a second language.For example, Athanasopoulos (2001) found Greek Speakers who knew English had a different perception of the two Greek words covered by the English "blue", namely (ghalazio "light blue") and (ble, "dark blue) than monolingual Greek speakers.Bassetti et al. (2002) found that Japanese people who had longer exposure to English chose shape rather than substance more often in a catogorisation experiment than those with less exposure. This means that some concepts in the L2 users" minds may be influenced by those of the second language; others may take forms that are the same neither as the L1 or the L2.This seems to suggest that people who speak different languages think, to some extent, in different ways, a revival of the idea of linguistics relatively that has been gaining ground in recent years (Levinson, 1996;Caramazza & Brones, 1980). To conclude, central to Cook"s argument is the way in which people"s language knowledge changes when they learn a second language. He makes three main points: (1) L2 users" knowledge of the second language is not the same as native speakers" knowledge of that languages; (2) L2 users" knowledge of their first language is not the same as that of

Conclusion / Pedagogical Implications
The idea of multi competence as the compound state of a mind with two grammars has many implications.The starting point for language teaching should be the recognition that the second language user is a particular kind of person in their own right with their own knowledge of the first language (L1) and the second language (L2), rather than a monolingual with an added L2. An L2 user is a person who uses another language for any purpose at whatever level .Multi competence has two major implications for language teaching. The first is about the question of what the final goal should be for language learners. The multicompetence viewpoint sees the goal of learning as becoming a successful L2 user. Language teaching,therefore, should reflect this: the goal of language learningshould be based on what successful L2 users can do, not what monolingual native speakers can do. Also, teaching materials should show positive examples of L2 use and L2 users.The second implication is for the use of the first language in the classroom. If the first language can never truly be separated from the second language in the mind, it makes no sense to forbid the use of the first language in the language classroom. Cook argues that banning the use of the first language will not stop learners from using it to help with their language learning. It will only make its use invisible to the teacher. Instead, Cook suggests that teachers should think about how they can makeuse of both languages in suitable ways. Cook (2001) states that over the last century, the use of the first language has been largely taboo in second language teaching. In the strongest form, L1 use is banned, and in the weakest sense, it is minimized. However, he advocates a more positive view: maximum L2use. Since multi competence means that the L1 is always present in the user"s minds, it would be artificial and sometimes inefficient to avoid its use. Language is not compartmentalized within the mind, so there is little reason they should be in the classroom. Some reasons for using the L1 in the classroom are to convey and check the comprehension of lexical or grammatical forms and meanings, to give directions, and to manage the class. These things may be difficult or impossible to do without resorting to the L1 (See Kecskes, 1998;Kecskes & Papp, 2000;Marcos, 1998) The issue of the place of mother-tongue in foreign language instruction is one of the controversial topics in the field of foreign language teaching. Many arguments have been raised and the various language teaching methods (conventional and non-conventional) hold different fluctuating opinions. Some recommend while others condemn the use of mother-tongue in the FL classroom. There are two extremes which are represented by the Grammar Translation Method and the Direct Method. The former, as its name suggests, makes Iiberal use of mother-tongue. It depends on translation and considers the first language a reference system to which the foreign language learner can resort so as to understand the grammatical as well as the other features of the foreign language. The latter-(the other extreme)tries to inhibit the use of mother-tongue. It depends on using the foreign language in explanation and communication in the language classroom and excluding the first language and translation altogether (Garfinkel & Tabor, 1991). M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4 The problem does not lie in whether mother-tongue has a place in FL teaching / learning or not, but in how much of it is permitted. In this respect, it can be said that there are many factors determining the quantity to be used. The quantification will differ according to the maturity level of the learners and their linguistic level. It also depends on the competence of the teacher, the material to be taught and the availability of teaching aids. Another point is that it is the individual teacher who sensitizes when to switch codes and when not to. It is also the teacher who can decide the pragmatic quantity to be used because what is workable in a certain class may not be so in another.
Those who condemn mother-tongue use view that optimal FL learning can be achieved through the intralinguaI tackling of the various levels of linguistic analysis as this helps provide maximum exposure to the foreign language. It is true that providing maximum exposure to the foreign language helps a lot in learning that language. However this, with confining oneself to the foreign language only, may be done at the expense of understanding and intelligibility or in a routine and non-creative way. With careful and functional mother-tongue use intelligibility can be achieved and the time saved (by giving the meaning in the mother-tongue) can be used for practice. Therefore, mother-tongue use does not mean wasting time that can be better used for providing maximum exposure to the foreign language. Disregarding the mother-tongue and considering it "a bogey to be shunned at all costs" is a myth. Those who recommend nothing but English in English lesson neglect many important facts:First, they have forgotten that FL learners translate in their minds and think in their own language and this cannot be controlled:"The teacher who says: I forbid the use of the pupil's own language in my class, nothing but English in the English lessons is deceiving himself. He has forgotten the one thing he cannot control -what goes on in the pupil's mind, He cannot tell whether, or when, his pupils are thinking in their own language. When he meets a new English word, the pupil inevitably searches in his mind for the equivalent in his own language. When he finds it, he is happy and satisfied, he has a pleasurable feeling of success". (French 1972, p.94).Supporting this idea, Finocchiaro (1975: 35) says:We delude ourselves if we think the student is not translating each new English item into his native language when he first meets it.Second, they have also forgotten that "the unknown (a second language pattern) cannot be explained via something less known (the second language)" (Hammerly, 1971, p.504). This idea was supported by Seleim (1995).Third, they have forgotten that the mother-tongue is first in terms of acquisition and proficiency and so FL learners cannot escape its influence:"The mother-tongue is so strongly ingrained that no amount of direct method drill can override its influence. Therefore, according to this line of thought it is better to capitalize on the students' knowledge of (mother-tongue) than to pretend it is not there". (Grittner 1977, p.165 Mother-tongue plays a vital role in diminishing or at best eliminating the psychological factors that have an inhibiting effect on FL teaching and learning. It has been noticed that the non-conventional methods of language teaching make use of the mother-tongue and translation in FL/SL teaching and learning. They emphasize that mother-tongue employing removes the fear of incompetence, mistakes and apprehension regarding languages new and unfamiliar. One point is that, to overcome the problems of dissatisfaction and avoidance, FL teachers should permit some mothertongue use. Students, having linguistic inadequacies, can get confused and become hesitant about their oral participation. They may abandon a message they have started because a certain idea or a thought is too difficult to continue expressing in the foreign language. To overcome the feeling of dissatisfaction and psychological avoidance, FL learners should come to terms with the frustrations of being unable to communicate in the foreign language and build up, cognitively and effectively, a new reference system which helps them communicate an idea. This reference system is the mother-tongue which is indeed very important for enhancing the FL learners' feeling of success and satisfaction. Another point is that mother -tongue use helps create a climate that alleviates the learners' tension, insecurity and anxiety. It makes the class atmosphere comfortable and pro ductive and helps establish good relationships between the teacher and his students. However, it must be kept in mind that mothertongue should be used as little as possible, but as much as necessary. Mother tongue should be rule-governed and not be freely or randomly used:"The individual is able to switch from one language to another... in a rulegoverned rather than a random way" (Bell, 1978, pp. 140-141).
It is important to emphasise the fact that mother-tongue should not be used in the wrong way. It is desirable in cases where it is necessary, inevitable and where otherwise valuable classroom time would be wasted. We do not want the FL teacher to use the mother-tongue freely and to automatically translate everything on the learners' book. This unlimited use is so harmful that itdiscourages the learners from thinking in English (the language they are learning) and so it will not be taken seriously as a means of communication. " Translating can be a hindrance to the learning process by discouraging the student from thinking in English" (Haycraft, 1979, p.12).Students in most cases think in their mother-tongue and lean too much on it. This makes them acquire and develop the habit of mental translation. They interpose the mother-tongue between thought and expression developing a three-way process in production and expressing their intentions:Meaning toMother-tongue toEnglish Expression. They always think, while trying to express themselves (in the foreign language), in their mother-tongue and all their attempts to communicate in the foreign language are filtered through the mother-tongue:"The mother-tongue is not M a r c h 1 6 2 0 1 4 relinquished, but it continues to accompany -and of course to dominate the whole complex fabric of language behavior.... all referent-whether linguisticor semantic -are through the Mothertongue" Grittner 1977, p.81).
FL teachers should guard against mental translation. This can be achieved by permitting the learners to express themselves (in speech or writing) within their linguistic capacities and capa bilities. This means that the student, for instance, should first practice expressing given ideas instead of trying to fit language to his free mental activities and "if he is freed from the obligation to seek what to say, he will be able to concentrate on form and gradually acquire the correct habits on which he may subsequently depend" (Morris, 1959, p.133). It is important to familiarize the learners with the fact that no word in one language can have or rightly be said to have the same meaning of a word in another language. FL teachers should provide more than one native equivalent for the FL word; give the meaning on the sentential level and in various contexts (See Nakamoto et al., 2008;Michael & Gollan, 2004).
ccording to Byram et al., (1994), cultural learning positively affects students' linguistic success in foreign language learning. Culture can be used as an instrument in the processes of communication when culturallydetermined behavioral conventions are taught. Tavares and Cavalcanti (1996: 18), further claims that 'culture shouldn't be seen as a support to language teaching but that it should be placed on an equal footing with foreign language teaching'. Post and Rathet (1996) support the use of student's native cult ure as cultural content in the English language classroom. In fact, a wide range of studies has shownthat using content familiar to students rather than unfamiliar content can influence student comprehension of a second language (Anderson and Barnitz 1984;Long 1990). Inother words, unfamiliar information can impede students' learning of the linguistic information used to convey the content:Why overburden our students with both new linguistic content and new cultural information simultaneously? If we can, especially for lower-level students, use familiar cultural content while teaching English, we can reduce what Winfield and Barnes -Felfeli call the 'processing load' that students experience (Post and Rathet, 1996: 12). In this regard, Tavares and Cavalcanti (1996) argue that the development of people's cultural awareness leads us to more critical thinking as citizens with political and social understanding of our own and other communities (Serrano & Howard, 2003;Darwish, 1999;Dekeyser, 2003;.
Another model that could be provided to the L2 learners is a non-native speaker teacher.  points out those students are more likely to identify with and to be able to emulate non-native speaker teachers than native speakers. Also, these teachers would be able to share their own experiences of learning the language, and may be more Metaphorically one could compare the languages in contact in the individual"s mind to two liquid colours that blend unevenly; i.e. some areas will take on the new colour resulting from the mixing, but other areas may look like the new colour, but a closer look may reveal a slightly different hue according to the viewer"s angle. Multicompetence should be seen as a never-ending, complex, non-linear dynamic process in a speaker"s mind" (Dewaele and Pavlenko, 2003: 137). It is hoped that Cook"s recommendations, "can convince students that they are successful multicompetent speakers, not failed native speakers" (Cook, 1999, p.204