By: Li-Shih Huang
Featured Contributor from BC TEAL
Language Transfer
A recent report in University Affairs (August 2011) pointed out that an increasing number of academic institutions are devoting efforts and resources to encourage and attract top-quality international students. Another recent major announcement by the BC government in fall 2011 released its plan to increase the number of international students studying in BC by 50 percent over the next four years. As demographic trends change, fewer Canadian-born students and a growing number of international English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students will be attending post-secondary institutions in English-speaking countries. Of note, BC has become one of the world’s most popular destinations for international students. As a result of the increase in both the number of international students and the variety of places from where they originate, now, more than ever, a “one-size-fits-all” language-teaching approach that does not take learners’ previous language-learning experiences into consideration will not suffice. Instead, we need to consider taking an approach that starts from what learners already know and acknowledges their linguistic choices.
As an example to introduce this edition’s concept, a second-language (L2) learner who speaks Chinese as her first language (L1) wrote the following message when she was a fifth-year Ph.D. student.
Thank you very much for helping me improve my thesis writings. After revising my paper based on your suggestions and feedbacks, it looks much more professional.
Here is the 2nd part of my thesis chapter. Because the section finishes at the 20th page, I include five more pages. Sorry for exceed the page limit.
When I’m writing, sometimes I’m not sure whether I should use “the” or not. Sometimes I’m confused about the structure of the sentence. Should it be ‘The question is what should we do” or ‘The question is what we should do”? What’s the right position of “should”? Could you please recommend a good and easy-to-read grammar book to me?
Those who are teaching speaking or writing to English-language learners whose L1 is Chinese probably have encountered some, if not all, of the commonly seen linguistic deviations in this student’s message. One may ask: What might be the sources of those deviations?
In this edition, I’d like to touch on one of the major issues in the field of second-language (L2) acquisition – the role that a language learner’s first language (L1) plays in the acquisition of a second/target language (L2/TL), or what is commonly known as “language transfer.” What does “language transfer” encompass? What can insights from empirical research teach us about the importance of language transfer? What are the implications of these insights for English language teaching and learning?
What does it mean?
As with all key concepts in this field, researchers often use different terms and phrases interchangeably to refer to phenomena related to language transfer: language mixing, linguistic transfer, cross-linguistic influence, cross-linguistic transfer, cross-linguistic interaction, and so on (e.g., Gass & Selinker, 1992; Lado, 1957; Odlin, 1989; Torrijus, 2009). In general, transfer describes “the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to subsequent learning” (Brown, 2007, p. 102). According to Odlin (1989), language transfer is the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired” (p. 27). Cross-linguistic transfer refers to the use of linguistic structures from another language without an active switch to that language (Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007). It is considered a covert behaviour in which the speaker uses the TL in a way that is semantically or syntactically appropriate for the other language (but not for the TL), which the speaker does without an overt switch of languages (Odlin, 1989).
The varied effects of cross-linguistic similarities and differences have led to a distinction between positive and negative transfer, which, in turn, may contribute to an acceleration or a delay in the rates of acquisition, as well as to the varied routes of acquisition. As the term suggests, positive transfer occurs when the influences of the L1 can promote or facilitate TL acquisition (e.g., similarities in vocabulary, writing systems, syntactic structures). In other words, positive transfer can lead to an acceleration in the rate of acquisition. Negative transfer, in contrast, tends to be linked to interference that may be bidirectional (L1 à L2 or L2 à L1) (Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002) or to overgeneralization (L1 à L1 or L2 à L2; i.e., overgeneralizing a particular rule in the L1 or TL). Errors arising from negative transfer may include the following (Odlin, 1989):
- Underproduction: the infrequent use or avoidance of a certain TL structure, such as relative clauses in Chinese or Japanese learners’ production;
- Overproduction: the overuse of certain TL structures, which may be proficiency-related (e.g., the use of too many simple sentences) or culture-related (e.g., the overuse of apologies);
- Production errors: substitutions (using L1 forms in the TL), calques (word-order errors), or hypercorrection;
- Misinterpretation: L1 influences on the interpretation of TL that arise from, for example, misperceptions of the TL sounds or from differences in word-order patterns or cultural assumptions; the listener/speaker may then make incorrect inferences.
It is important to note that transfer can occur consciously, as a communication strategy that compensates for a gap in the learner’s knowledge, or unconsciously, because the use of the correct form has not yet acquired or reached automaticity.
What does the research say?
Since the 1940s, much research has been devoted to investigating how language learners’ L2 acquisition or production is affected by their first L1. Language transfer has been a vibrant area of research and has evolved through several phases of development over the past few decades. In the following sections, I will first provide a brief historical overview of language transfer, before moving on to discuss research on language transfer and its teaching implications.
Over the past few decades, the importance of language transfer in language learning and teaching has been re-evaluated. First, there was the structural-behaviourist view of contrastive analysis. During this period, the L1 effect was called “interference” or “negative transfer,” and researchers believed that the effect could be predicted by contrasting learners’ L1 and L2. This was reflected in pedagogy that focused mainly on identifying similarities and differences between learners’ L1 and L2.
Then came the creative construction phase. This notion of creative construction operated under the key assumption that L2 and L1 acquisition proceeded similarly as a result of the innate mental mechanisms learners universally employed. During this period, the role of L1 was minimized, and pedagogy included an overemphasis on grammar (i.e., focus on forms) without considering the relationship between linguistic competence and communicative competence (i.e., function). In addition to the overemphasis on forms, external factors (i.e., learners’ internal mechanisms and the external input of their linguistic environment) were ignored, and the focus was mainly on observable errors.
During the phase of the pragmatic-cognitivist view of contrastive analysis, the emphasis was expanded from a linguistic focus to the level of discourse and pragmatics. Researchers also recognized that L1 could facilitate L2 learning/use. This development, which was followed by contrastive rhetoric, led to a focus on textual analyses in paragraph organization. This involved examining how writing conventions in one language might influence how a writer organizes written discourse in another. In 1966, Kaplan proposed that culture shapes rhetoric, in the sense of how ideas are arranged in writing, and that each culture has some preferred rhetorical patterns (see Kaplan, 2005). Pedagogically, this approach emphasized the explicit teaching of rhetorical structure, styles, and strategies.
At the discourse level, over the past four decades, numerous studies undertaken within the area of contrastive rhetoric have served to both support and refute the idea that there are culturally specific, preferred organization patterns within texts (see Ramsay 2000). Recent research findings have also suggested that language interaction is bidirectional; i.e., the L2 can also influence the L1 (e.g., Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007; Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002).
Schachter (1988) stated that there is so much evidence that anyone who looks at the empirical findings cannot be skeptical about the significance of transfer. Decades later, her statement still holds true. A look at the literature on language transfer in the field of L2 acquisition shows that transfer has been found to occur on the phonological, lexical, morphological, syntactic, discourse, and pragmatic levels (Montrul, 2010; Pika, Nicoladis, & Marentette, 2006; Odlin, 2005). To provide a few examples, English prepositions present one of the most challenging aspects of grammar for learners whose L1 expresses similar concepts in different ways conceptually, temporally, or spatially (e.g., Chinese, German, and Arabic). L1 speakers of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, for example, have particular difficulty with English articles, as reference is realized differently. Lexical errors, such as false cognates, may occur when similar sounding words convey different meanings in a learner’s L1 and the TL. Chinese is characterized by non-inflection. The gender-neutralness and the lack of third-person singular and equivalence to the counterpart English syntax in indicating tenses presents challenges even for highly advanced learners. Finally, when a native Chinese or Japanese speaker makes a request, the indirectness (e.g., the use of “because-initial” information sequencing by delaying the request/main statement until after the provision of reasons or background information) may result in the speaker taking too long to get to a point or cause a communication breakdown (Huang, 2010).
A large number of studies that compare, for example, the phonology, morphology, grammar, and discourse of learners within different languages indicate that some acquisition differences are attributable to cross-linguistic influence (Torrijos, 2009). In terms of levels of proficiency, transfer might be more easily observable in the early stages of learning, but transfers are not always tied to proficiency (Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007). Advanced learners’ language production also can manifest the effects of transfer (Navarro & Nicoladis, 2004).
In recent years, researchers have broadened their investigation to look into how transfer interacts with linguistic, cultural, social, and individual variables in language learning and language use (e.g., Murphy, 2003; Wei, 2003). The dimensions of investigation have also expanded to consider bidirectional transfer and transfer in trilingual and multilingual situations (refer to Odlin, 2005). Studies of transfer in how individuals use gestures that go beyond speech have also entered the field (e.g., Pika, Nicoladis, & Marentette, 2006; Sherman & Nicoladis, 2004). Finally, recent studies using neuroimaging have supported that the cross-linguistic differences between the L1 and the L2 are important in explaining the patterns of brain activation during L2 processing (e.g., Jeong, Sugiura, & Sassa, 2007). These findings have revealed that (a) the L1 and the L2 are likely processed in the same brain network, but the level of activity may be higher during the L2 processing than during the L1 processing; (b) semantic processing of L1 and L2 show similar brain-activation patterns, but the syntactic process of L1 and L2 may activate the various neural networks to different degrees. Researchers utilizing neuroimaging technology (e.g., fMRI) (e.g., Jeong et al., 2007) and measuring event-related potential (ERP) (e.g., Sabourin, 2003) have postulated that the acquisition and processing of an L2 may be related to the linguistic similarities and differences between the L1 and the L2.
What can we do?
Whether researchers are for or against the notion that there are culturally specific ways of communicating, few would deny that an informed L2 instructor can benefit fro understanding the variations that exist within discourse types across culturo-linguistic groups. Research evidence over the past decades has provided ample insights about the similarities and differences across languages that may potentially facilitate or present challenges in the learning process. Swan and Smith’s (2001) Learner Language: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems, for example, provides an excellent starting point and may serve as a reference that helps instructors understand the problems that learners of various L2s face. As Steven Covey (1989) once said: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood” (p. 11). One other recent ELT Journal article on the potential influence of the L1 (Chinese) on the L2 (English) also offers specific examples at the lexical, phrase, and discourse levels, as well as practical teaching points that address the deviations that appear in the message presented at the beginning of this article (Huang, 2010). The examples and points are likely to help any EAL instructors who are facing an increasing number of Chinese-speaking learners in their classrooms.
In addition to taking advantage of the similarities between learners’ L1 and the TL in our teaching, we need to raise our own and our students’ awareness of differences between learners’ L1 and English. Both instructors and learners need to engage in research-like activities by recognizing that learners’ previous language-learning experiences can affect their TL acquisition. The process of eliciting learners’ awareness of differences between the L1 and the TL may also enable them to understand and anticipate some of the linguistic variations that may arise in communicating, even for very advanced learners. As Swan (n.d.) once pointed out, the more aware language learners are of the similarities and differences between their L1 and the TL, the easier they will find it to develop effective strategies for language learning and language use. Thus instructors’ awareness of the similarities and differences between students’ L1 and the TL can better equip instructors to help students formulate hypotheses about cross-linguistic correspondences and to become more attentive to important features in the TL that have no L1 equivalents and vice versa. Understanding factors associated with language transfer or cross-linguistic influence may help instructors connect with their students. Such an understanding may also facilitate learners’ acquisition and development of effective learning and communication strategies that can be used to deal with potential negative transfers during L2 communication.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that not all difficulties in language learning are the result of differences between the TL and the learner’s L1. Nor can differences always be unequivocally identified as interferences from the learner’s L1, and thus their effects cannot always be predicted. In the process of teaching a second language, we must acknowledge the interplay of individual, instructor-related, and contextual variables that may have roles in learners’ production of the target language.
References
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition). White Plains, NY: Pearson.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Bejamins.
Huang, L.-S (2010). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal, 64(2), 155-164.
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., & Sassa, Y. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence on brain activation during second language processing: An fMRI study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 175-187.
Kaplan, R. (2005). Congrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 375-391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 369-390.
Montrul, S. (2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers, Second Language Research, 26(3), 293-327.
Murphy, S. (2003). Second language transfer during third language acquisition, TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 3/2, 1-21.
Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2004). A cognitive account of the description of motion events in adult L2 narratives. Presented at Language, Culture and Mind, Portsmouth, England.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3-25.
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190-214.
Pika, S., Nicoladis, E., & Marentette, P. F. (2006). A cross-cultural study on the use of gestures: Evidence for cross-linguistic transfer? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(3), 319-327.
Ramsay, G. (2000). Linearity in rhetorical organization: a comparative cross-cultural analysis of news text from the People’s Republic of China and Australia’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 241-258.
Sabourin, L. (2003). Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 219-235.
Sherman, J., & Nicoladis, E. (2004). Gestures by advanced Spanish–English second-language learners. Gesture, 4, 143–156.
Swan, M. (n.d.). The influence of the mother tongue on second language vocabulary acquisition and use. Retrieved 26 August, 2011 from http://goo.gl/gUqbh
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Leaner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torrijos, M. (2009). Effects of cross-linguistic influences on second language acquisition: A corpus-based study of semantic transfer in written production. Revista de Linguistica y Lenguas Aplicadas, 147-159.
Wei, L. (2003). Syntactic binding, semantic binding and explanation of crossover effects. Foreign Languages Research, 3, 73-78.
Dr. Li-Shih Huang is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching Centre Scholar-in-Residence at the University of Victoria, Canada. Since her first teaching job in 1992, Li-Shih has garnered extensive experiences in English-language instruction and curriculum design in Canada and overseas. She was also the recipient of TESOL’s Award for Excellence in the Development of Pedagogical Materials. This article, “Key Concepts and Theories in TEAL — “Language Transfer,” was first published in BC TEAL News, Winter 2012. Li-Shih can be contacted at lshuang@uvic.ca. You can also follow her on Twitter at @AppLingProf or visit www.li-shihhuang.ca.