139ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 
Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English 
Vocabulary Acquisition
ABSTRACT
The aim of the paper is to explore the appearance of positive and negative lexical transfer of 
plurilingual learners in English vocabulary acquisition. Cross-linguistic influences in the study 
are examined by word translation tasks from Croatian into English, including true, partial, and 
deceptive cognates or false friends in English, German, and Italian. The results have revealed 
different language dominances and positive or negative transfer manifestation. Lexical transfer 
from L4 German is manifested positively, but the Italian language seems to play a dominant 
role in the acquisition of English vocabulary. The effect of Croatian is manifested both positively 
and negatively. The study has confirmed previous psycholinguistic studies on the complexity 
of lexical connections in plurilingual learners and the dynamic interaction of various learning-
based factors, such as language recency, proficiency, exposure to languages, the order in which 
languages are learned, and the formal context in language learning.
Keywords: English vocabulary acquisition, language dominance, plurilingual learners, 
positive and negative lexical transfer
Pozitivni in negativni leksikalni transfer  
pri usvajanju angleškega besedišča
IZVLEČEK 
Namen prispevka je raziskati pojav pozitivnega in negativnega leksikalnega transferja 
večjezičnih učencev pri usvajanju angleškega besedišča. V študiji preučujemo medjezikovne 
vplive z nalogami prevajanja besed iz hrvaščine v angleščino, ki vključujejo tudi resnične, 
delne in zavajajoče sorodnike ali lažne prijatelje v angleščini, nemščini in italijanščini. 
Rezultati so razkrili različne jezikovne prevlade ter pozitivne ali negativne pojave transferja. 
Leksikalni transfer iz nemščine kot četrtega jezika se kaže kot pozitiven, vendar se zdi, da 
ima italijanski jezik prevladujočo vlogo pri usvajanju angleškega besedišča. Učinek hrvaščine 
je tako pozitiven kot negativen. Študija je potrdila prejšnje psiholingvistične študije o 
kompleksnosti leksikalnih povezav pri večjezičnih učencih, kakor tudi dinamično interakcijo 
različnih dejavnikov, ki temeljijo na učenju: jezikovna nedavnost, znanje, izpostavljenost 
jezikom, vrstni red, v katerem se jeziki naučijo, in formalni kontekst učenja jezika.
Ključne besede: usvajanje angleškega besedišča, jezikovna prevlada, večjezični učenci, 
pozitivni in negativni leksikalni transfer
Marina Jajić Novogradec
University of Zagreb, Croatia
2021, Vol. 18 (2), 139-165(230)
revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope
https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.2.139-165
UDC: [811.111’243:37.091.3]:81’373
140 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
1 Introduction
Language transfer is a phenomenon in second language acquisition research which refers 
to the transfer of language units from one language system into another. As a phenomenon 
it started to gain attention with the occurrence of contrastive analysis, a methodological 
approach in language theory in the 1960s, whose main aim was to compare compound 
structures in the first and second languages in order to reveal similarities or differences 
between the two language systems. It was assumed that on the basis of analysed similarities or 
differences between the two languages and through the production of well-created pedagogical 
materials, learners might overcome transfer in the second language production, which was 
usually reflected from their first language. Thus, the importance of language transfer is seen 
in explaining the nature of foreign language learners’ errors, as well as in finding the main 
source of transfer. 
Likewise, language transfer is one of the indicators of successful foreign language learning. 
There are two well-known classifications of language transfer – positive and negative transfer. 
Negative language transfer is defined as the influence of differences from the first language (or 
even any other language, regardless of the order of learning it) on the target language, which 
then cause learner errors in the target language production. Bardovi-Harlig and Sprouse 
(2017, 1) explain that positive language transfer occurs “when the influence of the native 
language leads to immediate or rapid acquisition or use of the target language”. Both positive 
and negative transfer present crucial issues in the foreign language teaching. 
Until recently, the most common issue in language transfer that has been discussed in the 
literature is that of transfer between two language systems. Moreover, investigations of 
language transfer within the domain of multilingualism have been growing rapidly in the last 
two decades (Bouvy 2000; Ilomaki 2005; Tymczyńska 2012; Peukert 2015; Pfenninger and 
Singleton 2016). The main goal of this paper is thus to examine the appearance of positive 
and negative lexical transfer in Croatian learners of English, German and Italian and show 
the manifestations of transfer in English vocabulary acquisition.
The structure of the paper is as follows: section 2 provides the theoretical background of 
the study, focusing on lexical transfer in multiple language acquisition and lexical transfer 
studies from various perspectives. Section 3 presents the aim and hypotheses of the study, 
while section 4 deals with its methodology, including the participants, assessments and 
measures, procedure and data analysis. Section 5 shows the results of the study and discusses 
the appearance of positive and negative lexical transfer from German, Italian and Croatian 
into English. The paper is concluded in section 6, in which glottodidactic implications for 
the English language classroom are presented.
2 Literature Review
2.1  Lexical Transfer in Multiple Language Acquisition
Lexical transfer in multiple language acquisition has been the focus of an increasing number 
of studies (Lindqvist 2009; Burton 2012; Woll 2016; Ortega and Luz Celaya 2019; Efeoglu, 
141ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Yüksel, and Baran 2020), but it still represents an underexplored phenomenon in foreign 
language teaching. 
De Angelis (2007, 41) explains that “non-native linguistic influence is particularly visible in 
the area of lexis, where traces of non-target information are mostly overt and therefore easily 
recognizable”. Lexical transfer is defined as “the influence of word knowledge in one language 
on a person’s knowledge or use of words in another language” (Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008, 72). 
According to De Angelis (2007, 44), “from a multilingual perspective, the transfer can occur 
from the L1 as well as the non-native languages, which means that the native language does 
not always have a privileged status and must be looked at together with other possible sources 
of transfer.” Additionally, the distinction of lexical transfer between two language systems (L1 
and L2) and lexical transfer between more than two language systems (L1, L2, L3, L4, etc.) 
has to be made. The lexical transfer between L1 and L2 is usually bidirectional, which means 
that an L1 word can influence L2 word and vice versa, while lexical transfer between multiple 
language systems is multidirectional, and it can take place between L1 and L3, L2 and L3, 
L3, L4, and so on, in all possible directions. 
Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008, 74–75) divide lexical transfer into three broad categories: transfer 
related to morphophonological (e.g., “the use of false cognates” – Eng. fabric – Ger. Fabrik; 
“unintentional lexical borrowing involving the use of a word from the wrong language”; 
“the coinage of a new word by blending two or more words from different languages”) and 
semantic errors (e.g., “the use of an authentic target-language word with a meaning that 
reflects influence from the semantic range of a corresponding word in another language” 
– like in transfer from Finnish to English: He bit himself in the language, instead of 
tongue; “the use of a calque in the target language that reflects the way a multi-word unit 
is mapped to meaning in another language”); cross-linguistic influence effects related to 
lexical representation, accessibility, and activation (e.g., “when a word is acquired in  new 
language it might become mentally associated with  a word in an already-known language in 
multiple ways” – phonologically, grammatically, conceptually); and word choice transfer – a 
phenomenon that involves several dimensions of word knowledge simultaneously (e.g., L2 
users may choose in English “an adjective happy instead of an intransitive verb to rejoice to 
refer to someone’s emotions”). The lexical transfer that is analysed in our study is the transfer 
related to morphophonological and semantic errors including different types of cognates, 
which will be further explained in the paper (section 2.3).
Recent studies of lexical transfer place their methodology in spoken and written discourse, 
formal and informal environments, having in mind both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic 
aspects of bilingualism and multilingualism. The following section gives a brief overview of 
lexical transfer studies in multiple language acquisition from various perspectives, which are 
of relevance for our study.
2.2 Studies of Lexical Transfer  
Boratyńska-Sumara (2014) claims that “transfer of form and transfer of meaning, as well 
as transfer of content (lexical open-class words) and function words (lexical closed-class 
words) have been major issue in transfer studies”. Examining transfer from the perspective of 
142 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
intentionality and unintentionality, Boratyńska-Sumara (2014, 138) points out that “identifying 
intentional transfer with cross-linguistic influence as a conscious communicative strategy and 
unintentional transfer with making interlingual mental associations and identifications, is a 
simplification of a very complex phenomenon”. Along with this, the author mentions that “the 
main area of research in a European context is linguistic, forward and lateral lexical interlingual 
transfer which is not seen from the perspective of intentionality and whether it is positive or 
negative” (Boratyńska-Sumara 2014, 147). In line with Boratyńska-Sumara’s claim (2014) on 
intentionality and unintentionality of transfer, Fuster and Neuser (2020) have also explored 
the extent to which lexical transfer in written production is intentional or unintentional. 
According to the authors, transfer is intentional if learners are conscious of their transferred 
items and can comment on the items. In contrast, transfer is unintentional if the learners 
are not aware of their transferred items. The participants in Fuster and Neuser (2020) were 
multilingual learners, three native speakers of Swedish and one native speaker of Norwegian 
with typologically related and unrelated second languages (English, Spanish, Danish, German, 
French, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Arabic, Swahili). In order to determine whether the 
instances of transfer occurred intentionally or unintentionally, the written picture description 
task was used along with the think-aloud protocol and stimulated recall. The intentionality of 
transfer was predominantly expressed in semantic types of transfer and typologically distant 
learners’ languages, while as an unintentional mechanism transfer could be found in transfer 
of form, typologically close languages and function words. The issue of the intentionality and 
unintentionality of lexical transfer studies may be considered from the perspective of positive 
and negative transfer that is examined in our study, as the methodology used in the current 
work is aimed at examining types of transfer from all learners’ languages (L1, L2/L3, L4) to 
L2/L3 English regardless of the order of learning them.
Noteworthy is the study of Perić and Novak Mijić (2017), who examined the cross-linguistic 
influences of learners with L1 Croatian and L2 English in L3 Spanish and the relationship 
between language proficiency and types of lexical errors. Perić and Novak Mijić (2017) 
assumed that L2 English would be the main source of both transfer types – transfer of form 
and transfer of meaning because of formal similarity between English and Spanish, and that 
with the higher level of proficiency the production of errors would be reduced and the type 
of lexical errors would be changed. The analysis of compositions written by second- and 
third-year students during their final exam at the faculty, showed that “with the increase of 
L3 proficiency, lexical transfer changed, and the influence of L1/L2 decreased” (Perić and 
Novak Mijić 2017, 102). Therefore, the mentioned study has confirmed the results of other 
studies (Burton 2012; Lindqvist and Bardel 2013; Pinto 2013; Bardel 2015) that indicated 
that proficiency in both the target and source language was one of the key factors in observing 
and determining lexical transfer.
Apart from language proficiency, other important learning-based factors in examining transfer 
are recency of use and order of language acquisition. A well-known case study that evoked 
recency as one of the determining factors in participant’s L3 production is that of Williams 
and Hammarberg (1998). The authors claimed that L2 German was more activated due to its 
recent use, and thus they considered L2 German as the main language supplier in L3 Swedish 
production (Williams and Hammarberg 1998). 
143ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Dewaele (1998) conducted a study on lexical inventions produced by speakers of L1 Dutch 
in L2 and L3 French production. The author stated that “the active language with the highest 
level of activation was the preferred source of lexical information and L1 was not necessarily 
always the dominant active language, therefore access to its lemmas could be limited” 
(Dewaele 1998, 488). Accordingly, the order of acquisition and language activation may 
determine the type and amount of language transfer in the target language.
Although previous studies have focused on psycholinguistic aspects of multiple language 
acquisition, it is also essential to mention one study on the sociolinguistic aspect of bilingualism 
by Makarova Tominec (2015), who examined language contacts in Russian-Slovenian bilinguals 
at the orthographic, phonological, morphophonological and lexical levels. The participants 
were second-generation Russian-speaking residents of Slovenia. The results showed several types 
of influence of the Slovenian language as a functionally dominant language in the Russian 
language production, as seen in interference at different language levels, simplification and 
underproduction. The dominance of Slovenian could be explained by the fact that it was the 
language of the environment, and as the participants were young (ages 15–30 years; N=24) and 
middle-aged adults (ages 40–55 years; N=3) they had easily integrated into Slovenia, not only 
with regard to the language, but the culture, too. Therefore, the study demonstrated the great 
complexity in examining language transfer entailing both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic 
aspects of bilingualism and multilingualism. One of the psycholinguistic aspects, which is also 
reflected in the present study, is the exploration of lexical transfer with respect to the dominance 
of background languages in English vocabulary acquisition.
2.3 Lexical Transfer Studies from a Methodological Perspective
Studies of multiple language acquisition have shown a diverse methodology in the examination 
of lexical transfer. According to Jarvis (2009, 118), the more controlled methods include 
picture naming (e.g., seeing a picture of a bear and saying bear), picture classification (e.g., 
deciding whether various pictures represent things that are human-made versus natural), word 
naming (e.g., seeing the word bear and pronouncing it aloud), word translation (e.g., seeing 
bear and translating it into another language), lexical decision (e.g., deciding whether uncle 
refers to a male or female, deciding whether problem and question are similar), and various 
types of lexical preference tasks (e.g., multiple-choice tasks, fill-in-the-blank tasks), as well as 
grammaticality judgement tasks (e.g., where an individual word or a multiword unit may be 
of the wrong form or carry the wrong meaning). The less controlled methods refer to free 
and spontaneous production tasks, such as “oral interviews, written essays, oral and written 
narrative descriptions of pictures and silent films” (Jarvis 2009, 119). For the purpose of our 
study two different word translation tasks were used as more controlled methods due to the 
assumption that these translation tasks would trigger more cognate activation in learners’ 
background languages in English language production.
Nevertheless, the words that have been mostly used by researchers are cognates. Cognates 
are defined as words of the same or similar form and meaning in two or more languages. 
In the studies of psycholinguistic aspects of multilingualism, several types of cognates are 
distinguished, such as true, partial and deceptive cognates. True cognates denote words in two 
144 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
or more languages, which are usually etymologically related; they are of similar orthography 
and pronunciation, and of the same meaning. Partial cognates refer to words whose semantic 
properties partially overlap, and often share similar orthography and pronunciation in the 
languages. Deceptive cognates are mostly referred to as false friends, denoting the words with 
similar or the same orthography and pronunciation, but with different meaning, and these 
are often used in elicitation tasks. 
For the analysis of cognates in our study we decided to use the word translation method, which 
can be a good indicator of “the real nature of students’ multicompetence and interlanguage, 
as well as the mechanics of cross-linguistic interaction” (Latkowska 2006). To date, there 
have been plenty of lexical transfer studies with different first and second languages of the 
students that have used various translation methods, like written text translations (Bouvy 
2000; Gabryś 2000; Herwig 2001; Gibson and Hufeisen 2003; Ilomaki 2005; Gabryś-
Barker 2006), written translations of decontextualized words (Ecke 2001; De Angelis 2005), 
oral translations of sentences (Letica and Mardešić 2007), oral translations of individual 
words (Pál 2000; Kujalowicz and Zajdler 2009; Tkachenko 2011), often combined with 
other methods, such as tip-of-the-tongue state (Ecke 2001), think aloud verbal protocols 
(Herwig 2001; Gabryś-Barker 2006), retrospection (Gibson and Hufeisen 2003), and a 
picture description task (Letica and Mardešić 2007).
With reference to Ravem (1986), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, 80) state that “the use of 
translation as an elicited procedure, requires both the decoding of the stimulus sentence and 
the encoding of the translation, so that subjects’ performance approximates natural speech 
production”. 
Similarly, the method in the present study was developed based on the translation methods 
of Ecke (2001) and De Angelis (2005), who used written word translations. Ecke (2001) 
used both a word translation task and tip-of-the-tongue states in order to investigate lexical 
retrieval in L3. The participants were beginning learners of German as L3 with L1 Spanish 
and an intermediate-high proficiency level of L2 English. The translation task contained a 
stimulus of the Spanish translation equivalent and a brief sentence context in L3 German 
with the target word left blank (see Ecke 2001, 108). The study revealed that the degree 
of L1, L2 and L3 influence varied according to processing tasks and conditions. In other 
words, errors in the word-translation task mainly reflected unintended, automatic retrieval 
failures, which were, as explained by Ecke (2001), mostly due to the influence of connected 
L2 structures that could not be suppressed, since the words used in the study were cognate 
equivalents in L1, L2 and L3. On the other side, the tip-of-the-tongue states primarily 
involved extensive, conscious word search within the L3 (partially due to the suppression 
of L2 and L1 influence) (Ecke 2001, 106). Notably, the word translation method in Ecke’s 
study (2001) clearly indicated activation of all the languages during extensive word search.
The word translation method, slightly different from the method in the previous study by 
Ecke (2001), was used in one of the studies presented by De Angelis (2005). De Angelis 
(2005) investigated cognitive processes in the non-native languages of L1 English learners of 
L2 Spanish and L3 Italian. The learners had to translate the written decontextualized words 
from English into Italian and then from English into Spanish. The words were non-cognates 
145ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
across the three languages. The results showed that the learners often used the same Spanish 
or Italian word for both translation tasks, which suggested “the use of borrowing strategies in 
order to fill knowledge gaps in the target language” (De Angelis 2005, 7). In contrast to De 
Angelis (2005), the aim of the present study was different in the examined languages, as well 
as in the use of words (see section 4.2)
Furthermore, in the context of multiple language acquisition, the main focus has been on 
the interactions between two or more non-native languages, rather than the learner’s native 
language.
Sercu (2007) investigated the activation of multiple foreign languages acquired by secondary 
school learners while translating a text from their mother tongue into different foreign languages 
(Dutch, French, English, German). The research questions were whether learners managed 
to keep their languages apart during translation, to which language they resorted in case of 
cross-linguistic influence, whether loanwords occurred more frequently than loanblends or 
literal translations, and to what extent variables such as psychotypology and psychoproficiency 
affected target language production. The data showed that both first language and other 
foreign languages were activated in learners’ multilingual lexicon. At the same time, “the 
better-mastered foreign languages were used as sources of help when confronted with a lexical 
gap, whereas less well-mastered languages caused cross-linguistic errors in better-mastered 
languages” (Sercu 2007, 70). What is confirmed by this study is a reactive control mechanism, 
which refers to the following process: “where individuals are consistently translating from 
one direction to another, the controlling schema is in place and the extent of cross-linguistic 
influence will probably be limited” (Sercu 2007, 57). As discussed by Sercu (2007, 56), it was 
because both “the contextually appropriate and the contextually inappropriate memory nodes 
were available in translation, requiring active suppression of the latter, which leads to a rather 
complex mental process”. We decided to conclude this section with Sercu’s statement because 
our study attempts to explain various activations of the languages in examining English 
vocabulary production, regardless of learners’ proficiency in all the languages.  
3 Aim and Hypotheses
The aim of the study was to explore the appearance of positive and negative lexical transfer 
in plurilingual learners and present the dominance of the languages in English vocabulary 
acquisition.
The hypotheses were as follows:
H1: There would be more negative than positive transfer from German, that is, 
the German language would be closely connected with the appearance of negative 
transfer in English vocabulary production because learners’ were at the beginner’s 
level of learning German, thus it was assumed that proficiency in German was lower 
compared to that in other languages and would cause more negative influence.
H2: There would be less negative transfer from Italian, that is, the Italian language 
would not be closely connected with the appearance of negative transfer but it would 
146 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
be more related to the appearance of positive transfer as years of learning Italian, 
the exposure to the language, and thus supposedly better language proficiency in the 
language, would cause less negative influence from Italian.  
H3: Croatian as L1 would not show a significant relationship with the appearance of 
either positive and negative transfer in English, as it was typologically unrelated to L2/
L3 English. On the other hand, if there were any transfer, it would result in negative 
influence from Croatian due to false cognates between Croatian and other languages. 
4 Methodology
4.1 Participants
The sample consisted of plurilingual learners who were at different ages with regard to the 
onset of learning foreign languages (N=106). They were secondary school learners of the first 
and second grades of grammar and vocational schools, whose mother tongue was Croatian 
(L1), L2/L3 English and Italian L2/L3, and L4 German. The years of language learning, 
especially between L2/L3 and L4 varied (9–10 years of learning English or Italian; 1–4 years 
of learning German). 
4.2 Assessments and Measures
There were two elicitation tasks used for measuring positive and negative transfer in English 
vocabulary acquisition – translation of individual (decontextualized) words from Croatian 
into English read by the researcher in Croatian (Appendix 1); and translation of individual, 
contextualized words from Croatian into English, which were incorporated into the 
sentences in English (Appendix 3). The first task was partly based on the task used by De 
Angelis (2005), and the second on that used by Ecke (2001). Both tasks were adapted to our 
research. Each translation task was followed by the retrospective method in which learners 
were asked to express which of the suggested languages (Croatian, German or Italian) helped 
them translate the word into English, and thus because of which language they managed to 
translate a certain word (Appendices 2 and 4). All the instructions for each task were written 
in Croatian. Participants also completed a language learning background questionnaire that 
included information about the order of learning foreign languages, where and when learners 
started learning them, self-evaluation of proficiency in a particular language (including 
mother tongue), questions about exposure to the languages, psychotypology, affective 
motives, language aptitude and metalinguistic awareness. Variables like exposure to languages, 
psychotypology and learners’ self-proficiency served as a helpful tool in determining the type 
of transfer. Psychotypology was measured by the question on the perception of similarity 
between English and the learners’ other languages (Croatian, Italian, German). Learners’ 
self-proficiency in each language was based on providing a rating (from 1–5) for the four 
language skills (listening, reading, speaking, writing) and general perception of their own 
knowledge in the languages, including their school grade, while exposure to languages 
consisted of questions on how often learners use each language outside the classroom for 
listening, reading, speaking, and writing, as well as for learning for school. 
147ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Since “there is no consensus on the best measure of language proficiency, and self-ratings have 
received the most scrutiny” (Zhang, Dai, and Wang 2020, 5), we decided to assess learners’ 
language proficiency using self-ratings. 
The words that were explored in two translation tasks were cognates and false friends. In 
the first task there were nine true cognates in English and German (e.g., Eng. swim – Ger. 
schwimmen; Eng. bake – Ger. backen; Eng. milk – Ger. Milch), six true cognates in English, 
German and Italian (e.g., Eng. chemistry – Ger. Chemie – Ital. chimica), one partial cognate 
in English and German (e.g., Eng. sea – Ger. See), three false friends in English and German 
(e.g., Eng. rock – Ger. Rock) and one false friend in English and Italian (e.g., Eng. library – 
Ital. libreria). In the second task there were five true cognates in English and German (e.g., 
Eng. apricot – Ger. Aprikose; Eng. uncle – Ger. Onkel), three true cognates in English, German 
and Italian (e.g., Eng. fever – Ger. Fieber – Ital. febbre), one true cognate in English and Italian 
(e.g., Eng. dictionary – Ger. dizionario), three partial cognates in English and German (e.g., 
Eng. fence – Ger. Fenster), nine false friends in English and German (e.g., Eng. bench – Ger. 
Bank; Eng. save – Ger. sparen) and three false friends in English, German and Italian (e.g., 
Eng. factory – Ger. Fabrik – Ital. fabbrica; Eng. family – Ger. familiär – Ital. familiare). It is 
important to point out that learners had been exposed to all the words that were used in the 
tasks, since they were taught in class as part of the regular curriculum throughout all learners’ 
stages of language learning. Nevertheless, the words varied in their frequency of use in the 
classroom. To ascertain whether a particular word was high-, average- or low-frequency, we 
used the estimations of two English, two Italian and two German teachers, who had to mark 
on a list of words for a particular language which of the items they considered high-, average- 
or low-frequency in the learners’ vocabulary in the classroom. 
4.3 Procedure
The data collection was conducted during learners’ regular English classes. First, learners 
were informed about the research and that their data would be strictly confidential. Since all 
the learners were older than 14, they gave their own written consent for participation in the 
research (according to the Code of Ethics for Research Involving Children that was published 
by the Croatian Council for Children in 2003). The number of learners varied, from 16 to 26 
in each class. Before doing the two tasks aimed at investigating lexical transfer and filling out 
a language learning background questionnaire, the learners were introduced to the tasks and 
questionnaire by the researcher. The researcher also pointed out that their participation in 
the study was anonymous and that the data collected would be used exclusively for scientific 
purposes. Every participant received a booklet which included the tasks and questionnaire 
with written instructions in the Croatian language. First, the participants needed to read 
carefully the instructions for Task 1 in which they had to translate decontextualized words 
read aloud by the researcher in Croatian with an interval of 8–10 seconds between each 
word. After they did Task 1, the learners were asked to retrospect their translations from 
Task 1 by answering on a separate sheet of paper why they managed to translate a particular 
word, in such a way that they circled the given language that might have helped them in the 
translation (Croatian, German or Italian). Second, after retrospection the participants did 
Task 2, which consisted of the English sentences with underlined contextualized words that 
148 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
were written in Croatian and needed to be translated from Croatian into English. Then, after 
the completion of Task 2, the learners again engaged in retrospection, as in Task 1. The two 
tasks, each accompanied by the retrospective method, were undertaken by the participants 
within a 45-minute period. Additionally, the questionnaire was given to learners after the 
tasks, and the learners spent 20 minutes completing it.  
All instances of transfer in the tasks were classified as lexical positive or negative transfer 
according to the cognates being investigated. The formal similarity in languages was analysed 
in terms of a similarity relation between the lemma in the background language (Croatian, 
German or Italian) that was the source of a particular instance of lexical transfer and a word 
in the target language (English). 
In addition, manifestations of transfer were divided into two categories – subjective 
estimation of learners according to the retrospective method, and objective estimation – the 
one estimated by two independent evaluators, learners’ answers about psychotypology and 
exposure to languages, both of which are described in the following section. 
4.4 Data Analysis
The instances of transfer from German, Italian and Croatian were identified by learners’ 
erroneous (negative transfer) or correct (positive transfer) word translation in English, and 
the frequency of each translation was entered into the statistical program IBM SPSS version 
21.0. Based on descriptive statistics, the results were presented by using univariate analysis 
showing the distribution of positive and negative lexical transfer. The distribution was used 
as a typical and simple way of listing the number and percentages of participants in terms of 
positive and negative transfer from the background language into English.
We defined positive and negative transfer of a particular language on the basis of learners’ 
self-estimation in the retrospective method, thus characterizing it as a subjective estimation in 
the analysis. Subjective estimation is defined here as learners’ personal opinion of the positive 
or negative influence of one language item onto another. In contrast to subjective estimation, 
objective estimation was used only for determining negative transfer, because it was not 
affected by learners’ explicit opinion of the transfer, but by the use of other multiple sources 
that reveal the nature of transfer (e.g., psychotypology, language self-proficiency, exposure 
to languages). As it was hard to determine negative transfer in some word translations (e.g., 
the use of the word public instead of audience in English), and what language was the source 
of such type of transfer (Croatian, German or Italian, e.g., Engl. public, Cro. publika; Ger. 
Publik; Ital. pubblico), in relation to objective estimation, we decided to use the estimation 
of the researcher, two independent evaluators, one for the German language, and one for 
Italian. The two evaluators did the estimation separately, and were used because they were 
highly proficient bilingual speakers of Croatian and German, and Croatian and Italian, and 
thus could easily note whether the transfer was from one of the languages. 
The results of positive and negative lexical transfer manifestations presented in this paper are 
a part of author’s unpublished PhD dissertation, and as such they are shown and discussed 
in the following section.
149ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
5 Results and Discussion
This section brings the results based on data analysis of lexical transfer from three learners’ 
languages – German, Italian and Croatian – indicating positive and negative transfer in 
English vocabulary production. The analysis is based on subjective and objective estimation 
for each language, presented in the tables with the numbers and percentages of participants 
in terms of negative and positive transfer from German, Italian and Croatian into English. 
Since “cognates used for psycholinguistic experiments are traditionally rated by the 
experimenters themselves or are obtained in similarity rating studies using bilingual 
participants” (Letica Krevelj 2014, 106), using cognates in our study required a thorough 
exploration of lexical transfer from the source languages to the target language. Therefore, 
both subjective and objective estimation were needed to complement the results of positive 
and negative transfer. As learners’ positive transfer in the study was measured by their self-
reporting using the retrospective method on the facilitative effect of the source language on 
the target language and learners’ correct answers in word translations, and negative transfer 
was measured by learners’ self-reporting in the retrospective method on the hindering effect 
of the source language on the target language and the learners’ erroneous answers, we referred 
to this type of judgment as subjective estimation, which in psycholinguistic studies has been 
assumed to reflect more accurate data.
In the cases where learners did not explicitly state the hindering effect of some words from the 
source language, and according to the learners’ erroneous answer it was evident that it was a 
negative effect of one of the source languages, objective estimation was used (as described in 
section 4.4). 
5.1 Lexical Transfer from German as L4
According to the results of subjective estimation, the German language had neither a negative 
nor positive influence for most of the learners, and less than 4% expressed negative transfer 
(Table 1). The exception was positive transfer of German in Task 1, where 8.4% participants 
estimated that German had a positive influence on English word translation in the same task 
(Table 2). 
In relation to the objective estimation, there was a significant level of negative influence 
of German. This is seen in Table 2, where 25.5% of learners were influenced negatively by 
German in Task 1, and 45.3% of them in Task 2.
Table 1. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of positive and negative transfer from 
German into English with respect to subjective estimation (N = 106).
Subjective Estimation
Positive Transfer Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2 Task 1 Task 2
N % N % N % N %
9 8.4 % 2 1.9 % 3 2.8 % 4 3.8 %
150 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
Tables 1 and 2 show the numbers and percentages of participants in terms of positive 
and negative transfer from German into English with respect to subjective and objective 
estimations.
Overall, the first hypothesis (H1) was not confirmed. The German language did not 
demonstrate much negative influence on word translations, but instead positively influenced 
English word production. This may be attributed to the fact that the learners’ proficiency 
of German was estimated as high, and they were more engaged in learning German for 
school, rather than using it outside the classroom. The recency of some topics learned in both 
German and English classes might be the result of such a distribution of transfer. 
Although the influence of German was more positive than negative, we identified more 
negatively than positively distributed words from German, which is shown in Table 3. 
Table 3. Distribution of instances of negative lexical transfer from German based on word 
translations from Croatian into English in both tasks.
Croatian word Target English word Answers
more sea See 
zanimljiv interesting interesant
talijanski Italian Italien, Italienish
slobodno vrijeme free time Frei zeit
kemija chemistry Chemie, Chemik
blagajna cash register Case
tvornica factory Fabric 
štedjeti save spare
vrućica fever Fieber, Fiber
mirovina retirement Rent
ujak uncle Uncel, Unckle, Oncle, Unkle
klupa bench Bank, Banke
Words that showed a positive effect from German into English were medicine, swim, free time, 
chemistry, year and milk. 
5.2 Lexical Transfer from Italian as L2/L3
The results for the Italian language are different to those for German. The numbers and 
percentages of participants in terms of positive and negative transfer from Italian into English 
in subjective and objective estimations, respectively, are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 2. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of negative transfer from German into 
English with respect to objective estimation (N = 106).
Objective Estimation
Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2
N % N %
27 25.5 % 48 45.3 %
151ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Table 4. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of positive and negative transfer from 
Italian into English with respect to subjective estimation (N = 106).
Subjective Estimation
Positive Transfer Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2 Task 1 Task 2
N % N % N % N %
44 41.5 % 10 9.4 % 14 13.1 % 14 13.1 %
Table 5. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of negative transfer from Italian into 
English with respect to objective estimation (N = 106)
Objective Estimation
Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2
N % N %
15 14.2 % 23 21.7 %
Most of the learners (86.8%) were not affected by the negative influence of Italian on the 
English word production in either task entailing both subjective and objective estimation. 
However, the percentage of subjective estimation in terms of positive and negative transfer 
was considerably higher for Italian than for German. 
The case is similar with the objective estimation of negative influence, but there was a lower 
percentage of Italian negative transfer than German. The positive transfer of Italian was 
more evident than that of German, especially for Task 1. Likewise, the results of the Italian 
language influence confirmed the second hypothesis (H2), as Italian had both positive and 
negative influences. 
It seems that better knowledge of Italian and its frequent use have positive and negative 
influences at the same time. Therefore, the knowledge of Italian can sometimes facilitate, and 
sometimes hinder, English vocabulary acquisition, which might also be due to the years of 
learning the language as well as the exposure to it.
The positive influence of Italian was found for the following words: medicine, interesting, 
Italian, chemistry, audience, delicious, blankets, competition, serve, and family.
The negative influence of Italian was expressed in learners’ erroneous answers for the words 
shown in the following table.
Table 6. Distribution of instances of negative lexical transfer from Italian based on word 
translations from Croatian into English in both tasks.
Croatian word Target English word Answers
knjižnica library bibliotace
kemija chemistry kimic, chimic
152 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
5.3 Lexical Transfer from Croatian as L1
As far as negative influence of Croatian is concerned, the results did not show any significant 
level of negative influence of Croatian in subjective estimation in Task 1, as well as in objective 
estimation in Task 1. On the contrary, objective estimation of Croatian in Task 2 was slightly 
higher with regard to negative influence. Nonetheless, positive transfer was more obvious in 
subjective estimation in Task 1 than in Task 2. 
Tables 7 and 8 show the numbers and percentages of participants in terms of positive 
and negative transfer from Croatian into English in subjective and objective estimations, 
respectively.
Table 7. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of positive and negative transfer from 
Croatian into English with respect to subjective estimation (N = 106).
Subjective Estimation
Positive Transfer Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2 Task 1 Task 2
N % N % N % N %
23 21.7 % 6 5.6 % 11 10.4 % 10 9.4 %
Table 8. Numbers and percentages of participants in terms of negative transfer from Croatian 
into English with respect to objective estimation (N = 106).
Objective Estimation
Negative Transfer
Task 1 Task 2
N % N %
9 8.4 % 35 32.9 %
The results revealed that the third hypothesis (H3) was partly confirmed. The influence of 
Croatian in some cases indicated both positive and negative transfer. However, its manifestation 
was different across the two tasks, that is, Task 1 yielded more positive influences, while Task 
2 more negative influences from Croatian. Less dominance of the Croatian language in our 
study might be to some extent due to learners’ perception of Croatian and English as being 
typologically unrelated languages. 
blagajna cash register casa, case
tvornica factory fabric
vrućica fever flue, fibre
mirovina retirement pension
gledateljstvo audience public
klupa bench banco, bank
153ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Kopečková et al. (2016, 428) claim that due to the greater cognitive similarity between the 
L3/Ln and the L2, rather than between the L3/Ln and the L1, L3/Ln, learners are expected 
to classify their native vs. foreign languages differently, and thus co-activate their non-native 
languages in subsequent language acquisition.
The Croatian language showed a positive effect for the words medicine, interesting, chemistry, 
unfriendly, milk, audience, serve, and family. 
The negative effect of Croatian is noted in incorrectly written and translated words, as shown 
in Table 9. 
Table 9. Distribution of instances of negative lexical transfer from Croatian based on word 
translations from Croatian into English in both tasks.
Croatian Word Target English Word Answers
stipendija grant stipendia, stipend
klupa bench clupe
blagajna cash register casse, case
gledateljstvo audience public
štedjeti save spare
obiteljski family familary
In addition, the negative influence of Croatian was largely noted in words that are characterized 
as Croatian dialectal words, such as familijarni and fabrika, as well as Croatian loan words 
from German, such as kasa, šparati, and stipendija.
Generally, both positive and negative influences reflect the activation of all languages being 
used by the learners regardless of the level of proficiency in each language. As such, the 
results of this study are in line with the argument of Pfenninger and Singleton (2016, 
169), who claim that “only a relatively low level of proficiency is required to have words 
from a language being activated and playing a role in the selection process”. These earlier 
authors’ study indicated that “after 2.5 years of French instruction, the participants’ 
level of proficiency was high enough to have content words and inflections from French 
transferred” (Pfenninger and Singleton 2016, 169). The results also confirmed previous 
studies that showed a high activation of languages with low level of proficiency (Angelovska 
and Hahn 2012; Lindqvist and Bardel 2013).
The manifestations of transfer from the German language in the present study were most 
obvious in the production of true cognates, while both positive and negative transfer from the 
Italian language could be noted in the production of true cognates and false friends.
The interaction of the two languages in L3 production is also not excluded, especially when 
there is a formal similarity among all the three languages. 
Evidently, a dynamic process of positive and negative transfer in English production depended 
on the language proficiency in both the source and target languages. 
154 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
In other words, the results showed that negative transfer was more obvious in learners with an 
average level of English proficiency and a high proficiency in the source language. Moreover, 
high proficiency in all the languages was the result of positive transfer, while low proficiency 
was the result of negative transfer. However, this study confirmed the results of Sercu (2007), 
indicating that positive transfer is more evident from better-mastered foreign languages, 
whereas negative transfer from less well-mastered languages.
Nevertheless, according to Ecke (2015, 154), “multilinguals’ access to vocabularies will 
fluctuate over time and inevitably include periods of stagnation, re-learning, and attrition of 
L2/L3 as well as L1 lexis”. 
Furthermore, many learners avoided translating the words. In addition to this, an avoidance 
strategy in studying the transfer is another crucial issue to be considered, and it is often 
referred to as a “covert transfer” (De Angelis 2005). The avoidance strategy was used by 
learners when they replaced the word translation with a  word of a similar category: instead 
of landscape learners wrote fieldscape, area, background, country(side), environment, field, 
hometown, horis(z)on, nature, outdoors, panorama, place, scenery, sightview, valley, view; for 
apricot they used peach, pear, pineapple, raspberry, orange, cranberry, mandarin; instead of cake 
the words pastry, pie, sweets were used; instead of skirt learners wrote dress, shirt, shoes. We 
consider these words to be the result of avoidance because learners are sometimes afraid of 
making errors in the foreign language classroom, and in order to fill the gaps in language 
production they often use words of a similar category. 
With regard to cognates, the results showed a facilitative effect of true cognates, but hindering 
effect of partial cognates and false friends. At the same time, we noticed that positive lexical 
transfer from German and Italian was more evident in high-frequency words, while negative 
lexical transfer was more characteristic for average- and low-frequency words in English. 
Moreover, the interaction of all the languages in the plurilingual learners’ language production 
has fully confirmed Dynamic Model of Multilingualism, as from the model’s view “the 
behaviour of each individual language system in a multilingual system largely depends on the 
behaviour of previous and subsequent systems and it would therefore not make sense to look 
at the systems in terms of isolated development” (Herdina and Jessner 2002, 92).
6 Conclusion
To sum up, the study aimed at analysing positive and negative transfer in English vocabulary 
acquisition, based on the interactions of previously acquired (Croatian and Italian) and later 
acquired (German) languages. Some hypotheses were partly confirmed (H2 and H3), and 
one hypothesis (H1) was not confirmed. As the results demonstrate, the Italian language 
showed significant levels of both positive and negative transfer. However, there was not a 
significant level of positive or negative transfer from the Croatian language, but in some cases 
the Croatian language showed an influence that was both positive and negative. Moreover, 
the German language showed more positive than negative transfer. 
It should be noted that the data gathered in present study cannot be generalized due to certain 
limitations. First, the sample was convenient, and heterogeneous regarding participants’ 
155ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
language proficiency and exposure to languages. Moreover, the translation tasks that were 
used did not show a complete manifestation of positive and negative transfer, which might 
be due to decontextualized words and in some way due to Croatian loanwords from German, 
which could not be completely avoided in either task. In order to obtain more objective 
measures, future studies should apply different combinations of methods in observing 
the types and direction of lexical transfer, such as for example, using short text translation 
tasks from different language directions in combination with introspective or retrospective 
methods, as well as guided compositions in several learners’ languages on the same topic 
accompanied by think-aloud protocols.
What should be further investigated are the cognitive aspects of experienced foreign language 
learners, as well as lexical processes in word retrieval in all the languages with reference to various 
stages of language learning. Likewise, a careful selection of cognates should be considered, 
especially in cases of possible first language dialects and borrowings from other languages, 
as in our example. We tried to avoid the influence of Croatian in the way that we did not 
use cognates in Croatian as a first language and other learners’ languages, but the influence 
was manifested in the target language production because of the close connection of the first 
language selected vocabulary in the form of dialects, internationalisms and borrowings.
We may thus conclude that positive and negative transfer in the present study is more or less 
affected by learning-based factors, such as language proficiency, L2 status, recency of exposure 
and use of the languages; learner-based factors, such as psychotypology and metalinguistic 
awareness, motivation, and age; and language-based factors, like typological distance, degree 
of contact (borrowing), and type of writing systems.
Finally, there is still a need for further examinations of the nature of lexical transfer, especially 
in the context of lexicon-internal and lexicon-external factors. This means that except for 
lexicon-external factors, that are usually learner-, learning-, language- and event-based, 
investigations on lexical transfer should additionally take into account lexicon-internal 
factors, that are word-based, and which are of great significance for the English classroom.
In the future, the following glottodidactic implications for the English language classroom 
should be considered: 
•	 transfer is a kind of strategy, and it can have more positive than negative effects on 
language learning (Ringbom 2007), so in the classroom it is essential to point to other 
languages known by the learners, especially those that belong to the same sub-group 
as the English language;
•	 teachers should also scaffold the use of other languages known by the learners, even if 
they do not belong to the same sub-group as the English language, in order to enhance 
learners’ metalinguistic and cross-linguistic awareness;
•	 the errors that English learners are making in the production tasks are often due to 
either their wrong perception of the word they are using in the language or the lack of 
the overall proficiency in the language, so the teachers should use both receptive and 
productive tasks in developing communicative competence of the learners.
156 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
References
Angelovska, Tanja, and Angela Hahn. 2012. “Written L3 (English): Transfer Phenomena of L2 (German) 
Lexical and Syntactic Properties.” In Cross-Linguistic Influences in Multilingual Language Acquisition, 
edited by Danuta Gabryś-Barker, 23–40. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
29557-7_2.
Bardel, Camilla. 2015. “Lexical Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Development.” In Transfer 
Effects in Multilingual Language Development, edited by Hagen Peukert, 11–128. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.4.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Rex A. Sprouse. 2017. “Negative versus Positive Transfer.” In The 
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, edited by John I. Liontas, 1–6. https://doi: 
10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0084. 
Boratyńska-Sumara, Joanna. 2014. “Lexical Transfer Research in Third Language Acquisition (TLA) – An 
Overview.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 131: 137–48. https://doi:10.4467 
/20834624SL.14.007.2015.
Bouvy, Christine. 2000. “Towards the Construction of a Theory of Cross-Linguistic Transfer.” In English 
in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language, edited by Jasone Cenoz, and Ulrike Jessner, 143–56. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Burton, Graham. 2012. “Cross-Linguistic Influence in Non-Native Languages: Explaining Lexical Transfer 
Using Language Production Models.” International Journal of Multilingualism 10 (1): 46–59. https://
doi .org/10.1080/14790718.2012.679274.
De Angelis, Gessica. 2005. “Multilingualism and Non-native Lexical Transfer: An Identification Problem.” 
International Journal of Multilingualism 2 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220508668374. 
—. 2007. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 1998. “Lexical Inventions: French Interlanguage as L2 versus L3.” Applied Linguistics 
19: 471–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.471.
Ecke, Peter. 2001. “Lexical Retrieval in a Third Language: Evidence from Errors and Tip-of-the-Tongue 
States.” In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited 
by Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner, 90–114. Bristo: Multilingual Matters.
—. 2015. “Parasitic Vocabulary Acquisition, Cross-Linguistic Influence, and Lexical Retrieval 
in Multilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18 (2): 145–62. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000722.
Efeoglu, Gulumser, H. Gülru Yüksel, and Suat Baran. 2020. “Lexical Crosslinguistic Influence: A Study of 
Three Multilingual Learners of L3 English.” International Journal of Multilingualism 17 (4): 535–51. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1620239.
Fuster, Carles, and Hannah Neuser. 2020. “Exploring Intentionality in Lexical Transfer.” International 
Journal of Multilingualism 17 (4): 516–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1559845. 
Gabryś, Danuta. 2000. “The Phenomenon of Transfer in L3 Learning from a Psycholinguistic 
Perspective: A Case Study.” Psycholinguistics on the Threshold of the Year 2000, 409–13. http://
ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/8460.pdf. 
Gabryś-Barker, Danuta. 2006. “The Interaction of Languages in the Lexical Search of Multilingual 
Language Users.” In Cross-Linguistic Influences in the Second Language Lexicon, edited by Janusz 
Arabski, 144–66. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 
Gibson, Martha, and Britta Hufeisen. 2003. “Investigating the Role of Prior Foreign Language 
Knowledge.” In The Multilingual Lexicon, edited by Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner, 
87–102. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/b101932.
Herdina, Philip, and Ulrike Jessner. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual 
Matters. 
Herwig, Anna. 2001. “Plurilingual Lexical Organisation: Evidence from Lexical Processing in L1-L2-
L3-L4 Translation.” In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic 
Perspectives, edited by Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner, 115–37. Bristol: Multilingual 
Matters. 
157ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Ilomaki, Anu. 2005. “Cross-Linguistic Influence: A Cross-Sectional Study with Particular 
Reference to Finnish-Speaking and English-Speaking Learners of German.” http://
www.scss.tcd.ie/undergraduate/bacsll/bacsll _web/anu_ilomaki0405.pdf.
Jarvis, Scott, and Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: 
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 
Jarvis, Scott. 2009. “Lexical Transfer.” In The Bilingual Mental Lexicon. Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited 
by Aneta Pavlenko, 99–124. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kopečková, Romana, Marta Marecka, Magdalena Wrembel, and Ulrike Gut. 2016. “Interactions 
between Three Phonological Subsystems of Young Multilinguals: The Influence of Language Status.” 
International Journal of Multilingualism 13 (4): 426–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.12
17603.
Kujalowicz, Agnieszka, and Ewa Zajdler. 2009. “Language Activation and Lexical Processing by Polish 
Learners of English and Chinese – The Role of Learning Experience in TLA.” International Journal of 
Multilingualism 6 (1): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710802207570.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition 
Research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Latkowska, Jolanta. 2006. “On the Use of Translation in Studies of Language Contact.” In Cross-Linguistic 
Influences in the Second Language Lexicon, edited by Janusz Arabski, 210–25. Clevedon: Multilingual 
Matters.
Letica, Stela, and Sandra Mardešić. 2007. “Cross-Linguistic Transfer in L2 and L3 Production.” In UPRT 
2007: Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics, edited by Joseph Horváth, and Marianne 
Nikolov, 307–18. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csopor.
Letica Krevelj, Stela. 2014. “Cross-Linguistic Interaction in Acquiring English as L3: Role of 
Psychotypology and L2 Status.” PhD diss, University of Zagreb.
Lindqvist, Christina. 2009. “The Use of the L1 and the L2 in French L3: Examining Cross-Linguistic 
Lexemes in Multilingual Learners’ Oral Production.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (3): 
281–97. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14790710902812022. 
Lindqvist, Christina, and Camilla Bardel. 2013. “Exploring the Impact of the Proficiency and Typology 
Factors: Two Cases of Multilingual Learners’ L3 Learning.” In Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics 
and Multilingualism: Studies in Honour of David Singleton, edited by Miroslaw Pawlak and Larissa 
Aronin, 253–66. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_15. 
Makarova Tominec, Irina. 2015. “Ruščina in slovenščina: jezikovna odstopanja v ruščini 
pod vplivom slovenščine kot jezika okolja.” Jezikoslovni zapiski 21 (2): 159–89. https://
doi.org/10.3986/JZ.21.2.6898. 
Ortega, Mireia, and M. Luz Celaya. 2019. “Lexical Crosslinguistic Influence and Study 
Abroad: Do Learners Use L1-Based Resources Less?” Languages 4 (55): 1–9. https://
doi.org/10.3390/languages4030055. 
Pál, Andrea. 2000. “The Role of Cross-Linguistic Formal Similarity in Hungarian-German Bilingual 
Learners of English as a Foreign Language.” PhD diss., University of Potsdam. https://d-
nb.info/963210610/34. 
Perić, Barbara, and Sonja Novak Mijić. 2017. “Cross-Linguistic Influences in Third Language Acquisition 
(Spanish) and the Relationship between Language Proficiency and Types of Lexical Errors.” Croatian 
Journal of Education 19 (2): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v19i0.2619. 
Peukert, Hagen. 2015. “Transfer Effects in Multilingual Language Development.” In Transfer Effects in 
Multilingual Language Development, edited by Hagen Peukert, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 
https:// doi.org/10.1075/hsld.4.
Pfenninger, Simone E., and David Singleton. 2016. “Age of Onset, Socio-Affect and Cross-Linguistic 
Influence: A Longterm Classroom Study.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13: 147–79.
Pinto, Jorge. 2013. “Cross-Linguistic Influence at Lexical Level. A Study with Moroccan Learners of 
Portuguese as an L3/LN.” Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada 12: 3–50.
Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual 
Matters.
158 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
Sercu, Lies. 2007. “Acquiring Multilingualism at School. What Translation Tasks Tell Us about 
Adolescents’ Use of the Multilingual Lexicon.” International Journal of Multilingualism 4 (1): 523–75. 
https://doi.org/10 .2167/ijm056.0. 
Tkachenko, Nadezda. 2011. “The Relative Influence of English (L2) vs. Russian (L1) on the Translation 
from Swedish (L3) into Russian Depending on Proficiency in L3.” Master’s Thesis, Lund University. 
http://lup .lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2545119&fileOId=2545139. 
Tymczyńska, Maria. 2012. “Trilingual Lexical Processing in Online Translation Recognition. The Influence 
of Conference Interpreting Experience.” In Cross-Linguistic Influences in Multilingual Language 
Acquisition, edited by Danuta Gabryś-Barker, 151–67. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-29557-7. 
Williams, Sarah, and Bjorn Hammarberg. 1998. “Language Switches in L3 Production: 
Implications for a Polyglot Speaking Model.” Applied Linguistics 19 (3): 295–33. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.295.
Woll, Nina. 2016. “The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness and of L2 Proficiency in Positive Lexical Transfer 
from English (L2) to German (L3) by French Speaking Quebeckers.” PhD diss., Univeresité Laval. 
https:// corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/26923.
Zhang, Huiyu, Ying Dai, and Yingchong Wang. 2020. “Motivation and Second Foreign Language 
Proficiency: The Mediating Role of Foreign Language Enjoyment.” Sustainability 12 (1302): 1–13. 
https://doi.org/10.3390 /su12041302.
Appendix 1: Task 1 (English Version)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TASK 1
In this task you will carefully listen to the words in Croatian read by the researcher, and you 
will automatically translate them into English, by writing each word (or word phrase) next 
to the number in order.
The researcher will read the words within an interval of 8–10 seconds or even less, depending 
on the completion of the task by most of the learners in the classroom.
During your writing, you must not return to the previously written or unwritten word 
(or word phrase), but focus on the next word being read by the researcher. Use your 
knowledge and do not ask for help your friends, and do not think aloud! 
Provide a word translation even if you are not sure in its correctness!
While doing the task, DO NOT DIRECT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS to the researcher, 
your friend or teacher in the classroom. 
By doing this task you will help the researcher in the implementation of the study. Thank you 
for understanding.
1.
2.
3. ….
159ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Appendix 2: Retrospective Method After Task 1 (English Version)
Read the following words which you were translating in the previous task from Croatian into 
English, and for each word mark the statement that refers to you.
I MANAGED TO TRANSLATE THE WORD …
1. kolač
a) …because I knew the word from learning English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian    
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
2. lijek
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
3. krajolik
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
4. more
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
5. zanimljiv
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
6. knjižnica 
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
7. mišljenje
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
8. cijena
a)  …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
9. suknja
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
160 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
10. plivati
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
11. talijanski
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
12. ljetni praznici
a)  …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
13. glasan 
a) …because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
14.  slobodno vrijeme 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
15.  kemija
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
16. vremenski točan
a) …… because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of 
Italian    d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
17. peći (kolač)
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
18. neprijateljski
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
19. godina
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
20. mlijeko
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian 
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
161ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Appendix 3: Task 2 (English Version)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TASK 2
Read each sentence in English and then translate the underlined word above the sentence 
from Croatian into English by filling it out in the sentence. 
Try to translate the words even if you are not completely sure how the word is written. Write 
the first translation that comes to your mind and DO NOT RETURN TO THE ALREADY 
WRITTEN OR NON-WRITTEN WORD!  
1. blagajna 
When I came to the shop, there was a queue of people waiting at the ________________.
2. pekara 
My friend has bought some cakes in the  ______________ at the corner of the street. 
3. tvornica 
My father works in a _______________ that employs hundreds of people.
4. štedjeti 
You should ______________ a lot for a new car.
5. marelica 
Do you like _________ juice?
6. vrućica 
She caught a  ________________ on her travels in Africa, and hardly survived. 
7. neuspjeh 
The whole thing was a complete _________________.
8. mirovina 
Susan is going to take early___________________. 
9. gledateljstvo 
The _______________ was clapping for 10 minutes.
10. ukusan 
This new restaurant is well known for its ______________ cuisine.  
11. ograda 
In agriculture, ______________ is used to keep animals in or out of an area.
12. ujak 
Last year I visited my _______________ in Germany.
162 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
13. mjesec 
Every ________________ she visits her grandparents.
14. pokrivači 
The shop sells beautiful  bed _______________ .
15. natjecanje 
There is now intense __________________ between schools to attract students.
16. novčana potpora 
She won a _________________ to study at Stanford.
17. posluživati 
Pour the sauce over the pasta and ____________________ immediately.
18. klupa 
When it is nice weather my grandmother often walks in the park and sits on a _____________. 
19. obiteljski 
The Smiths have opened a _____________ business.
20. mahati 
Why did you _______________ to him? 
21. primiti
He is going to ________________ an award for bravery.
22. mladež
The fight was started by a gang of the _________________.
23. srednja škola
My brother and I went to the same  ______________________ .
24. rječnik
A ___________________ explains the meaning of words in alphabetical order.
25. džeparac
My parents often give me some ___________________ when I go out.
163ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
Appendix 4: Retrospective Method After Task 2 (English Version)
Read the following words which you were translating in the previous task from Croatian into 
English, and for each word mark the statement that refers to you.
I MANAGED TO TRANSLATE THE WORD …
1. blagajna
a)… because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian    
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
2. pekara
a)… because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian    
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
3. tvornica 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
4. štedjeti 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
5. marelica 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
6. vrućica 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
7. neuspjeh 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
8. mirovina 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
9. gledateljstvo
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
10. ukusan 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
164 Marina Jajić Novogradec Positive and Negative Lexical Transfer in English Vocabulary Acquisition
11. ograda
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
12. ujak 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
13. mjesec
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
14. pokrivači
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
15. natjecanje
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
16. novčana potpora 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
17. posluživati 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
18. klupa 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
19. obiteljski 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
20. mahati 
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
21. primiti
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
165ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
22. mladež
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
23. srednja škola
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
24. rječnik
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________
25. džeparac
a) … because I knew the word from learning   English b)…because of German  c)… because of Italian  
d)… because of Croatian  e) something else (state) _____________________