Studies on Transfer in Second Language Acquisition

Shaozhong Liu
Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, 541004, China

Abstract: Transfer is a pervasive term and this has led to diverse interpretations and research practices of it. This
paper reviewed the related literature on transfer studies in second language acquisition, linguistic studies and non-
linguistic. t also made a surve! about approaches in transfer studies, native spea"ers attitudes toward transfer,
and transfers made b! #hinese learners of $nglish. t was argued that transfer research evolved from a linguistic-
to- non-linguistic path, and there is a necessit! in the current trend to shift from the former to the latter.
%e!words: transfer, linguistic transfer, pragmatic transfer, second language acquisition
&. 'efining transfer
Transfer, derived from the Latin word transferre, means to carr!, to bear or to
print, impress or otherwise cop! (as a drawing or engraved design) from one surface to
another(Websters Third New World nternational !i"tionary, &*+,). So to spea", when we
sa! technolog! transfer, we mean the transfer or carr!-over of technolog! from one owner to
another.
Transfer can also mean -the carr!-over or generalization of learned responses from one t!pe of
situation to another., especiall! -the application in one field of stud! or effort of "nowledge, s"ill,
power, or abilit! acquired in another. (Webster#s Third New World nternational !i"tionary,
&*+,). The use of -transfer. in -linguistic transfer. is such an e/ample. 0! linguistic transfer, we
mean what the learners carr! over to or generalize in their "nowledge about their native language
(1L) to help them learn to use a target language (TL). 2ere transfer does not indicate whether
what is carried over is bad or good. This meaning from the dictionar! shows that transfer is a
neutral word in origin and nature.
Linguistics concerns, in overall, with the static structures within a language s!stem. 3iewed
from the TL grammatical rules, certain 1L-based linguistic transfers are found to coincide with
linguistic errors. n this wa!, 1L-based linguistic transfers are divided into two broad t!pes,
positive and negative. Those 1L-based uses that do not lead to linguistic errors are labeled as
positive transfer, whereas those that lead to errors, negative transfer. n second language classroom
teaching, a positive linguistic transfer is generall! not attac"ed, but a negative linguistic transfer,
almost to all instructors, is definitel! not recommended for the learners, since it is erroneous.
4ragmatics, a branch of linguistics which studies how people interpret and produce meaning in a
specific conte/t (Leech, &*+56 Liu, 7888), also claims an interest in transfer. 9or pragmaticians,
the! are interested in finding out in what wa! 1L-based transfers influence the learners in
comprehending and performing a speech act in a TL and whether such transfers are appropriate in
the conte/t.
Apparentl!, pragmatics diverges from linguistics in interpreting transfer in that it has maintained
the neutral sense or natural attribute of transfer. Since pragmatics aims at e/ploring the
appropriateness of speech that is free from right-wrong linguistic grammar, ever!thing under
pragmatic investigation is correct, grammaticall! spea"ing. n literature to date, in pragmatics-
oriented studies of transfers, interests and endeavors have been attached to the finding out of the
differences or deviations between these divergent forms from the TL and whether these deviant
forms are appropriate, from the angle of TL spea"ers. An e/ample to illustrate this point is the
:apanese learners; overuse of the e/pression - am sorr!. in conversations. t was reported that
there are man! cases in which :apanese students used this e/pression which is actuall! not needed
in $nglish, since to $nglish spea"ers, the e/pression is used onl! for an apolog!. This indicates the
learners fall bac" on the :apanese routine e/pression -suminmasen. which means, literall!, -;m
sorr!.. 2ence, this is not an e/ample of error, but of appropriateness (0eebe < Ta"ahashi, &**7).
n practice, transfer has attracted people of different academic bac"grounds and led researchers
to different interpretations and definitions of the term. Scarcella (&*+5), for instance, was
interested in the transfer of discourse accent and believed hat it is a reflection of =conversational
features; such as forms and functions of conversational management. %ellerman < Sharwood-
Smith (&*+,) studied the e/actitude of the term and tried to draw a distinction between transfer
and influence. To them, transfer is not the same thing as cross-linguistic influence. >hereas
&
transfer refers to those linguistic behaviors incorporated from L& into L without capturing other
interlingual effects, cross-linguistic influence, on the other hand, refers to those L& effects such as
avoidance, L& constraints on L7 learning and performance, and different directionalit! of
interlingual effects. This view is further elaborated in Sharwood-Smith (&**?). To @dlin (&*+*),
transfer Aust means the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target
language and an! other language that has been obviousl!, and perhaps imperfectl!, acquired. This
definition thus suggests that transfer can occur at an! levels, strategic, linguistic, discoursal, and
pragmatic. >olfson (&*+*) anal!zed how the transfer of spea"ing rules from one;s own native
speech communit! influences interactings with members of the host communit!. She insisted that
transfer mainl! stands for the use of rules of spea"ing from one;s own native speech communit!
when interacting with members of the host communit! or simpl! when spea"ing or writing in a
second language. 9or >olfson, the two terms, sociolinguistic and pragmatic, are interchangeable,
and so are her sociolinguistic rules and rules of spea"ing. Then to 0eebe et al (&**8), transfer
specificall! refers to the learners; L& socio-cultural competence in performing L7 speech acts or
an! other aspects of L7 conversation. 2ence for #l!ne et al (&**&), -apologies. and -complaints.
are pragmatic, while turn-ta"ing discoursal. n terms of the scope of transfer, Ta"ahashi < 0eebe
(&**7) held that transfer consists of both cross-linguistic influence and cross-cultural transfer
elements. %asper (&**B) focused on pragmatic transfer and defined it as -the influence e/erted b!
learners; pragmatic "nowledge of languages and cultures other than L7 on their comprehension,
production, and acquisition of L7 pragmatic information. (%asper, &**76 &**B).
The identification of transfer was first discussed b! #order (&*+&) who remar"ed that it is the
dut! of both teachers of languages and native spea"ers of the language to point out the transfer
according to the rules of language. At the same time, #order (&*+&) implied the source of data for
transfer research lie in the learners; production or utterances, that is the observed output which
results from the second language learner;s attempted production of a TL norm (&*+&). %asper
(&**7) also reiterated that it is imperative to find certain constraints on a pragmatic transfer, so that
our wor" will be operationable.
The usual wa! to identif! a transfer in SLA research is something li"e an informal estimation
method (%asper, &**7). n informal estimations, we decide whether a transfer can be established
b! loo"ing at the similarities and differences of the percentage b! which a particular categor! of
interlanguage features (such as a semantic formulae, strateg!, or linguistic form) occurs in the 1L,
TL, and L data. Similar response frequencies in all the three data sets are classified as positive
transfer (0lum-%ul"a, &*+76 2ouse < %asper, &*+C6 9aerch < %asper, &*+*), while different
response frequencies between L-TL and 1L-TL combined with similar frequencies between L-
1L register as negative transfer (0eebe et al., &**86 Ta"ahashi and 0eebe, &**76 @lshtain, &*+5).
Another wa! to determine a transfer is to use a statisticall! significant method. %asper (&**7)
strongl! recommended Selin"er;s (&*,*) operational definition of transfer. To her, it can be
adapted to a suitable method for identif!ing pragmatic transfer in interlanguage production. This
was echoed b! 0le!-3roman (&*+5) who observed that multiple rather than binar! choices are
usuall! available for spea"ers to e/press communicative intent. 4arallel trends towards one option
in a binar! choice schema as was pointed out b! Selin"er (&*+5), however, can rarel! be
established. A statisticall! significant method determines whether the differences between the
interlanguage and the learner;s native language on a particular pragmatic feature are statisticall!
significant, and how these differences relate to the TL. A general guiding principle is, if a
pragmatic feature is lac" of statisticall! significant differences in the frequencies of a pragmatic
feature in 1L, TL, and L, then it can be operationall! defined as positive transfer. @n the contrar!,
statisticall! significant differences in the frequencies of a pragmatic feature between L-TL and
1L-TL and lac" of statisticall! significant differences between L and L& can be operationall!
defined as negative transfer (%asper, &**7). Ta"ahashi (&**B) further elaborated on positive
transfer as -similarit! in terms of response frequencies in 1L, L, and TL., while negative transfer
as -similar response frequencies in 1L, L with different response frequencies between 1L and TL
and between L and TL..
An e/ample of the statisticall! significant method is 0ergman < %asper;s (&**5) stud! of
transfer in -apologizing.. The! showed that more than half of the differences between Thai-
$nglish and American-$nglish apologizing strategies are due to negative pragmatic transfer.
The process to identif! a transfer, according to %asper (&**7), follows basicall! three steps:
9irst, we start from an observation on the learner;s productive interlanguage data. Second, under
the guidance of our definition of a transfer, we concentrate on the different means that learners
7
emplo! in e/pressing and understanding a speech act in the TL. And third, we sort out from our
collected data the transfer features.
$videntl!, both the definition of transfer and method of identif!ing a negative transfer are
helpful to our in-depth discussion of negative pragmatic transfer.
7. Studies of transfer in second language acquisition
7.& Linguistic transfer
L&-L7 transfer was first discussed in Selin"er (&*,*) and other follow-up studies either provided
but further evidences of transfer or its role in understanding the learner;s error in particular and
interlanguage as a whole.
Transfer was considered responsible for error occurrences in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural
studies (Lado, &*BC6 Stoc"well < 0rown, &*,B6 #order, &*,*6 &*C&). 1evertheless, Dichards
(&*C&) evidenced that transfer of strategies was but partiall! responsible for the learner;s errors. n
a similar manner, :ain (&*C?) reported that transfer was but one of the sources of error. Since then,
transfer was more and more indirectl! mentioned as an apparent factor of error (#order, &*+&).
The learner language was contrasted with the basic features and hints of transfer (Swan < Smith,
&*++6 EeFurn, &**&6 4latt < >eber, &*+8) and the tradition has continued into the *8;s where
AAibo!e (&**5) made a theoretical categorization of the errors in terms of phonetics, word-
formation, s!nta/, and semantics.
The relationship between transfer and interlanguage was alwa!s at core concern. Though
Selin"er (&*,*) did not characterize how the learner;s interlanguage loo"s li"e (#order, &*+&), !et
he did repeatedl! impl! that transfer was one of the factors associated with the unique s!stem of
the learner language (Selin"er, &*,*6 &*C7). Then 1ewser (&*C&) addressed the relationship b!
discussing the concepts of an appro/imative s!stem and plateau. To resume the line, 0ic"erton
(&*CB) referred to interlanguage as a continuum, while %ellerman (&*CC) tried to characterize
transfer in the learner;s interlanguage.
n discussing the phonological features of the learner;s interlanguage, Tarone (&*C56 &*C,6 &*C+)
contended that 1L-based phonolog! transfers are partiall! responsible for the features of an
interlingual phonolog!. Similar discussions included oup < >einberger (&*+C).
n terms of linguistic transfer on the s!ntactical level, Davem (&*C&) documented that the
learner;s 1L pla!ed a certain role in the formation of his second language s!nta/. 2a"uta (&*C?)
also demonstrated that there is a firm relationship between L& transfer and the emergence of
structure in second language acquisition. n addition, Larsen-9reeman (&*CB) evidenced such a
relationship through the learner;s learning of $nglish grammatical morphemes. To Fass (&*C*),
transfer helped us to see the grammatical element universal in human languages.
s transfer the same thing as borrowingG Dingbom < 2a"an (&*+5) came up with proofs that
transfer is in fact associated with le/ical borrowing. Such a relationship was also discussed in
Eeara (&*+?). And from the teaching point of view, 4almberg (&*+B) discussed the amount of
words learners alread! had before the! too" up the learning of the TL and its impact on the
acquisition of new word formation processes in second language acquisition. This practice was b!
@lshtain (&*+C) and @dlin (&*+*). 0oth provided evidences that 1L-based transfer also occur in
the learning of word-formation in a second language.
An apparent feature in the learner;s use of their interlanguage is simplification and
overgeneralization. 1L-based transfers were considered to be associated with both simplification
and overgeneralization (Levenston, &*C&6 3aradi, &*C56 Dichards, &*C?6 Levenston < 0lum-
%ul"a, &*CC6 0lum-%ul"a < Levenston, &*+5).
2!bridization and co-mi/ing is another feature identified in the learner;s use of his
interlanguage. The wor" that helped us see the sources of h!bridization as from transfer was
>hinnom (&*C&).
$mpirical studies to sort out the mother tongue influence on the learner;s language were initiated
b! 1ewser (&*C&) who reported 1L influences in the speech of some immigrant wor"ers in the
States. To follow up, 'ula! < 0urt (&*C?) conducted a case stud! comparing children;s learning
in a first and second language. #onor et al (&*+5) e/amined how transfer wor"ed in the learner;s
compositions and 0is"up (&**7) displa!ed transfers in the learner;s use of collocations.
The relationship between transfer and speech production was observed in earlier studies (9lege
< 'avidian, &*CC6 %rashen < Scarcella, &*C+), too. 0oth 1icAel (&*+B) and 2sia (&*+,) showed
5
that transfer prohibited the second language learner in second language learning
Transfer was not onl! found present in the learner;s interlanguage but active as variable rules
('ic"erson, &*CB). Tarone (&*+5) gave an incisive account of the role variabilit! pla!ed in the
language produced b! second-language learners. Fass et al (&*+*) even showed that variation in
fact occurred also at the levels of discourse and pragmatics. 0esides, variabilit! in terms of
amount and t!pe of transfer among the learners occurred due to individual differences in second
language learning (S"ehan, &*+*).
#omprehensive studies on transfers were found in #order (&*,*6 &*C&6 &*+&), Dichards (&*C?),
Dichards < Floria (&*C?), $llis (&*+56 &*+B), @dlin (&*+*), 2ammerl! (&**&) and Larsen-
9reeman < Long (&**&). The! all helped to displa! that transfers are at all the linguistic levels,
phonological, le/ical, s!ntactical and semantic.
7.7 1on-linguistic perspectives of transfer
1on-linguistic perspectives towards transfer are multi-factorial. >olfson (&*+*) discussed the
transfer of 1L-based conversational rules. She observed that the learner had a tendenc! of using
conversational rules other than that from the TL to finish an interaction or pla!ing his part in an
interaction to impress the audience that he is tr!ing to be cooperative. Such transfer had an impact
on the development of the learner;s TL communicative competence (Dichards < Su"wiwat, &*+5).
#ulture-specific communicative st!les were evidenced b! Dichards (&*C?) who suggested that
social factors are closel! related to transfer and he loo"ed into how Singaporean learners of
$nglish manipulated their learned $nglish (Dichards, &*+7). A recent cross-cultural stud! of
transfer is b! #l!ne et al (&**?) who anal!zed the responses of the immigrants in Eelbourne to
arguments, identification and cultural st!les. The! concluded that, on the one hand, transferred
cultural values should be respected and, on the other hand, to succeed in cross-cultural
communication, immigrants had to observe the #ooperative 4rinciple (#4). Their results in cluster
anal!sis indicated that immigrants broadl! fall into two groups in terms of transferred cultural
attributes. n Froup A are the Austrians, Fermans, #zechs, #roatians, Eacedonians, Dussians,
Serbia;s, and Spanish, with Free" and 4olish as peripheral6 and Froup 0: #ambodian, #hinese,
Laotian, Thai, and 3ietnamese, with the 9ilipino, ndonesian and Eala! as the peripheral.
Transfer of communicative strateg! has proven another source of research interests. $arlier
attempts at transfer as strateg! was documented in 3aradi (&*C5) who showed that learners
transferred 1L-based strategies to adAust messages in the TL. Ta!lor (&*CB) evidenced that much
of the learner;s overgeneralization had to do with their transferred communicative strategies.
Tarone (&*CC) also noticed the learner;s conscious use of 1L-based communicative strategies.
0ial!sto" < 9rohlich (&*+8) showed when the learners had difficulties in oral le/ical e/pressions,
the! turned to transfer 1L communicative strategies. 3aradi (&*+8) reported that one apparent
strateg! in TL communication is message adAusting. Stanlaw (&*+7) provided e/amples of 1L-
based communicative strategies b! :apanese learners. 0esides, 9aerch < %asper (&*+5) discussed
how the 'anish students relied on their 1L for accomplishing an utterance. >hen encountering a
new word in speech, the 'anish learner of $nglish would use a 'anish word in that sentence or
use 'anish to e/press the meaning of a new word to put his meaning across. #orrales < #all
(&*+*) further evidenced that learners would rel! on the use of communicative strategies to
conve! le/ical meaning when the! were at a loss of what the! wanted to sa!. All this led to 2ouse
< 0lum-%ul"a;s (&*+,) and 0ial!sto";s (&**8a) boo"-length discussions of communicative
strateg! transfer. #ommunicative strateg! was also evidenced in 1sa"ala;s (&**?) investigation of
transfer from the angle of code mi/ing. 2e reported that code mi/ing comes from an unbalanced
requirement of foreign language competence and communicative prerequisites. 2e argued that
code mi/ing is not a norm to be recommended in $9L teaching for two reasons: it hinders
comprehension and slows the speed of TL acquisition. %asper (&**B) added that the learners both
shifted their previous "nowledge about politeness principles and communicative strategies into the
comprehension and production of the TL.
$ndeavor has also been given to account for transfer from the pragmatic perspective. $arlier
treatments were to loo" at how non-native spea"ers interpret and produce the speech act of
-request. (Scarcella, &*C*6 >alters, &*C*6 #arrell, &*C*). %asper (&*+&) made a boo"-length
treatment of the issue.
As was mentioned in Section &.&, transfer to pragmaticians means difference of use due to 1L
influence. And to understand what is different, a preliminar! step was to sort out similarities and
?
differences between languages and the use of these languages. The effort to stud! how non-native
spea"ers understand and realize a speech act in the TL has spiraled into a tradition identified as the
stud! of pragmatic universals. As man! as && speech acts have been covered to date: requests,
suggestions, invitations, refusals, e/pressions of disagreement, corrections, complaints, apologies,
e/pression of gratitude, compliments and indirect answers (%asper, &**7).
0! comparing how people in different languages and cultures realized a speech act, we are now
rested on a ground that enables us to tell in what wa! people share something in common in
ma"ing a request, and to sort out a positive transfer from a negative one. Ta"e -request. for
e/ample. n realizing such a speech act, people in most languages tend to use either a directive
statement, and in putting forth a conventional indirect speech act, linguistic hints such as ->ould
!ou mind 3-ingG. for a request from others were used (%asper, &**7). n general, people from
different cultures fall bac" on their "nowledge on how to ma"e a request (>einert, &**B).
7.5 1ative spea"ers; attitudes toward transfer
$arlier accounts of the learner language and native spea"ers; attitude include 0ansal (&*,,) and
Tiffen (&*C?). The! loo"ed into the intelligibilit! of native spea"ers. @ne of the earliest to
consider the effect of transfer, :ames (&*C?) considered the gravit! of errors due to 1L-based
transfer. n this earl! documented report, he developed a set of measures to gauge learners; error in
terms of severit! to TL linguistic rules. 4olitzer (&*C+) specificall! loo"ed into how native
spea"ers viewed the learners; transfer-related errors. 2e e/amined how the Ferman native
spea"ers perceived those errors made b! $nglish learners of Ferman. 1elson (&*+7) and 2ultfors
(&*+,) further e/plored intelligibilit! in more details. 2ultfors studied how the 0ritish loo"ed at
the 1orwegian learners; errors in $nglish and discovered that acceptabilit! rate of transfer-related
errors were often subAect to intelligibilit!. 0esides, a foreigner role showed an obvious difference
in the attitude on the learners; errors.
After the earl! +8s, communicative effect studies were e/tended to cover interlanguage features
such as conversational st!les, the use of conte/ualization cues, politeness, and indirectness in
cross-cultural settings.
nvestigations from interactional sociolinguistic perspective ($ric"son < Shultz, &*+76
Fumperz, &*+76 Scollon < Scollon, &*+56 Tannen, &*+B) revealed that intercultural
miscommunication could be a result from incompatible conversational st!les. At the same time,
these anal!ses showed that there were unsuccessful upta"e or brea"down in the light of differences
in the use of conte/ualization cues, politeness, and indirectness. 2owever, $ric"son (&*CB)
demonstrated that ethnic differences in gate-"eeping conversations could be neutralized through
building up common ground, or co-membership, based on shared interests or e/perience. Tannen
(&*+B) cited evidences of misunderstandings of conte/tualized cues which resulted in favorable
attributions to the interlocutor, and for conversational st!les which, although different, were
complementar! rather than conflicting, allowing both participants to reach their goals and feel
comfortable about their interaction. 1ihalani (&*++) loo"ed into the standard for Audging non-
native spea"ers; pronunciation and proposed that we should find a norm for non-native spea"ers.
Another main aspect tac"led in communicative effect studies is pragmatic failure. Thomas
(&*+5) noticed that in cross-cultural communication, learners e/pressed their ideas in a wa! that
was different from the native spea"ers. This interlanguage phenomenon, free of grammatical
errors, sometimes led to miscomprehension in cross-cultural communication. Approached closer, a
pragmatic failure was sometimes related to the misuse of a learned linguistic form and sometimes
it was associated with 1L-based influence. She divided pragmatic failures into two t!pes,
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic, both terms being indebted to the discussion of the scope of
general pragmatics in The $rin"i%le o& $ragmati"s (Leech, &*+5).
An e/ample of pragmalinguistic failure is #hinese learner;s use of the e/pression -1ever mind.
in repl!ing to -Than"s a lot. That;s a great help. (2e, &*++). n #hinese, we use - .('ei
guan xi) or -.((u yong xie) in repl! to -Than" !ou.. 2owever, their equivalents in $nglish,
-1ever mind., -1ot at all. and -Hou are welcome. are slightl! different in use from one another,
though the! all ma! be translated as -.('ei guan xi) in #hinese. The students often failed
to see the discrepanc! and, due to their mother-tongue influence, used these e/pressions
interchangeabl!.
A sociopragmatic failure ma! sometimes be resulted from a #hinese-based influence. 9or
B
instance, our learners sometimes fall bac" on their #hinese wa!s in interpreting an intended
meaning in an utterance or in observing the rules, factors in a social situation of the TL. f a
student helped the professor clean the chal"board, he would normall! sa! -than" !ou. to the
student. 0ut instead of sa!ing -E! pleasure., as native spea"ers normall! do in this situation,
#hinese students would often sa!, -t;s m! dut!.. This shows the students; falling bac" on the
#hinese situation where it is wholesomel! all right for people to sa! - .()ing gai de). 0ut
he failed to realize that in $nglish =t is m! dut!. also implies an obligation instead of a volunteer
help.
$nlightened b! Thomas;s concepts of pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure,
%ontra (&**5) anal!zed the brea"downs in communication of Standard 2ungarians and American
2ungarians.
Deports revealed that in terms of the communicative effect, transfers were of two categories,
positive and negative. Those transfers from the learner;s 1L that do not lead to misunderstanding
in the TL are positive. 1egative pragmatic transfer is different, as it was evidenced that some of
the transfer-based pragmatic failures are serious (Thomas, &*+5). Thus negative pragmatic transfer
is more complicated and requires further investigation (%asper, &**76 &**B).
t is impossible to discuss transfer without mentioning the target norm for contrast, either at the
identification stage or evaluation stage of a transfer. %achru (&*+7) made earlier discussions about
norm and effect relationship. To %achru, deviations occurred not onl! at the level of forms but
also at the level of meaning. The norm issue was further discussed from the teaching point of view
b! Alim $l-Sa!ed (&*+C), Svanes (&*++), Larr!-Smith (&*++), and Awonusi (&**8).
A realistic problem is that under strictl! comparable tas" conditions, native spea"ers often use
different standard varieties of $nglish, such as American $nglish (Am$), Australian $nglish
(Austr$), and 0ritish $nglish (0r$). These different standard varieties displa! preferences in their
selection of semantic formulae in, for e/ample, =apologizing;, though some of the variation ma!
be due to conte/t effects (0ergman < %asper, &**5). >hat is more, these standard varieties
possess their different regional varieties. 9or instance, in standard varieties of American $nglish,
different regional varieties have been identified to demonstrate different selection patterns of
request strategies (Eichaelis, &**7). An earl! wor" b! Tannen (&*+&), for e/ample, on different
preferences in conversational st!les b! east coat and west coast Americans, alread! displa!ed
variation in speech act performance in culturall! motivated dialogs. 0eebe (&*+B) thus argued that
learner-internal factors such as feelings and motivations, and e/ternal factors such as social and
situational factors would influence model preferences. Desearchers had to "now what such model
preferences were. 0ut it is difficult to have access to the pertinent varieties in order to select a
relevant target variet! as the L7 baseline.
Fenerall!, investigators were advised to choose an! of the above norms, or =choosing the right
stuff;, for the intended goal as an L7 norm in interlanguage pragmatics (%asper, &**7).
7.? Transfers b! #hinese learners of $nglish
Since $nglish is a foreign language in #hina, emphasis on how to teach and learn from
grammatical anal!sis led to practices of linguistic and non-linguistic contrasting which have
resulted in nearl! &888 articles since &*?* (Li, &**,). t was reported that transfers b! #hinese
learners of $nglish occurred at all linguistic levels, phonetic, le/ical, semantic and s!ntactic.
At the level of phonetics, Fui (&*C+) e/amined the differences between #hinese and $nglish in
terms of phoneme, tone, intonation, rh!thm, and Auncture. 9an (&*+7) compared the sound s!stems
of the two languages. :in (&*+,) considered the interlingual phonetic features of the #hinese
learners. #hen (&*+C) focused on the sound pitch differences of the two languages. >ang (&**8)
conducted an e/periment to detect that fluctuations pla!ed a cardinal role in distinguishing $nglish
and #hinese apart: $nglish is prominence-related while #hinese tone-determined. Fong (&**&)
loo"ed at the interlingual status of the learners in terms of #hinese influence in $nglish intonation.
All implied possible #hinese-based transfers in all these aspects into the learning $nglish as a 9L.
@n the le/ical level, >ang (&**8) focused on the differences between #hinese and $nglish in
numerals. :in (&**7) loo"ed into the discrepancies between the two languages in the use of the
refle/ive pronoun =self;. Shao (&**?) illustrated the differences b! loo"ing at the color terms in
the two languages. Then a detailed list of words in the two languages were compared and
contrasted b! Ihang < Ihang (&**?) who loo"ed into the differences in terms of the distribution
,
of parts of speech, ratio of equivalents, and culture-loaded meanings. All these could be sources of
#hinese-based transfers.
n terms of semantic differences, Li (&*++) considered motivation as the factor for semantic
differences between $nglish and #hinese. Fao (&**5) specificall! e/amined the change of
meaning in two words, -comrade. and -individualism. and pointed out that there was a lin"
between the change of meaning and social and cultural changes. 0ased on the semantic field
theor!, :ia (&**?) considered the "inship terms in $nglish and #hinese.
S!ntactic comparisons and contrasts include #hen (&*+B), Tang (&**8), Fe (&**&), Liu (&**7),
'ing (&**5), :in (&**&) and #hen (&**7). #hen (&*+B) reported that negation in #hinese and
$nglish were different in logical meaning, at the level of phrase and sentence. Tang (&**8) loo"ed
at the differences in terms of principles and parameters. Fe (&**&) pointed out that #hinese was
different $nglish also in sentence group and sequence of sentences. 'ing (&**5) illustrated the
#hinese-$nglish differences in the subAect of a sentence. 0oth :in (&**&) and #hen (&**7)
displa!ed the influences of #hinese topic-prominence structures in the learners; $nglish.
@ate! (&*++) outlined some of the differences and transfers of greeting formulas b! #hinese
students into $nglish. @u!ang (&*++) cited a list of e/amples leading to brea"downs in #hinese-
$nglish communication. Eale! (&*++) illustrated misunderstandings due to #hinese-$nglish
differences. 'eng < Liu (&*++6 &**&) treated linguistic and cultural differences between #hinese
and $nglish at boo"-length.
The deepl! rooted #hinese influence has also been noted in 2o;s (&*+5) discussion of
Singaporean $nglish. 2o (&**5) loo"ed bac" on the use of 0$ in histor!, conducted an e/periment
of recording of &88 educated Singaporeans, categorized the uses of 0$, and concluded that
influence of #hinese came from the philosoph! behind the use.
Significance in realizing cultural differences in language learning was attempted in 4aulston
(&*++). n addition, Jin (&*++) argued that in both teaching and learning, difference of cultures
should be "ept in mind. Ku (&*++) addressed the issue b! citing words with cultural
interpretations. To ma"e #hinese learners aware of cultural differences, that was what 2u;s (&*++)
effort was all about in editing a reader on intercultural communication.
Thus #hinese-based influences were evident in the learners; interlanguage of $nglish at the level
of phonetics (Dong 4ei, &**&), morpholog! (Dong 4ei, &**&6 Li, &**5), semantics (Ihang, &**?),
s!nta/ (Dong 4ei, &**&6 Li, &**5), and discourse patterns (Dong 4ei, &**&6 #heng, &**&6 Li,
&**5). That is wh! it was argued that the e/istence of #hinglish is but a fact (Kie, &**B6 >an,
&**?6 Dong 4ei, &**&6 Li, &**5). Though #heng (&*+7) had an earl! discussion on this, !et the
issue remains controversial.
Delated pragmatic anal!ses of #hinese learner;s transfers began from identif!ing evidences.
9ocusing on both the linguistic and pragmatic aspects of the learner;s language, Ihang (&**?) has
cited some of the frequentl! encountered e/amples and situations that #hinese students would
misuse their TL of $nglish. Dather inclined to the pragmatic aspect, Kia (&**B) anal!zed dozens of
situations in which the #hinese students failed to communicate effectivel!. Ihao (&**,) made an
elaborate comparison between #hinese and $nglish inde/icals of pronouns.
#hinese influence on speech act realizations in $nglish and effects of pragmatic failure in cross-
cultural communication were conducted. Iuo (&*++). #hen (&**7) and Li (&**7), have
respectivel! loo"ed into how native spea"ers tolerated #hinese-based influences. 'uan (&*+,) and
2e (&**&6 &**7) had respectivel! e/amined the pragmatic failures b! #hinese learners and how
native spea"ers assessed these failures. 2e reported that native spea"ers usuall! gave much
empath! in deviated forms b! #hinese learners. Hu (&**B) compared how requests and
suggestions were made b! #hinese and the 0ritish and concluded that #hinese-based influenced
were shown in the verbosit! and directness in their speech.
Literature strongl! shows that transfer-related studies in #hina coincided with international
concerns in the SLA research domain. This can be revealed from the topics ta"en under
consideration. 0esides, pragmatics-related studies were few compared with those linguistic
anal!ses. n addition, there have been no e/plicit studies on transfer. Thus all transfer-related
claims were but indirect findings in comparison-contrast studies.
7.B Approaches of transfer stud!
Although wa!s to get data for transfer anal!sis were addressed in FrotAahn (&*+5) who argued
that quantitative method should be used, we observed three main methods recurrentl! utilized in
C
transfer stud!: cross-sectional, longitudinal and theoretical.
The cross-sectional method compares how samples of L7 learners at different levels of
proficienc! understand and produce linguistic action.
A longitudinal method reports how individuals or groups of learners from the earl! stages
onward rel! on a few prepac"aged or prefabricated routines which are later anal!zed into rules and
elements that become available for productive use. There have been but ver! few longitudinal
reports on the development of learners; pragmatic "nowledge (%asper, &**B).
'ifferent from either cross-sectional or longitudinal methods, theoretical accounts resort to
cognitive theor! and research. #ompared with the other above-illustrated methods, theoretical
accounts of pragmatic development are even fewer. To date, there have been two different but
compatible framewor"s. @ne was Schmidt;s (&**5) theor! of the role of consciousness in
pragmatic development, and the other was a proposal put forward b! 0ial!sto" (&**5) to loo" at
learners; interlanguage pragmatic "nowledge development in terms of language use and
proficienc!. t seems that the two methods, though divergent from one another, converge in that
the! address different stages of pragmatic learning: Schmidt showing more interests in the
conditions of initial inta"e, while 0ial!sto" considering how acquired pragmatic information is
represented and restructured. @f course, both proposals need to have empirical testing (%asper,
&**B).
mpacts on the elicited data were observed in the use of different instruments, and different
production tas"s would also impose different processing demands on learners and influence the
selective activation of pragmatic "nowledge (%asper, &**76 1unan, &**&6 0eebe < #ummins,
&*+B).
$dmonson < 2ouse (&**&), for e/ample, observed that the learners were more verbose or
length! than native spea"ers in response to production in questionnaires but not in role-pla!s.
0odman < $insentein (&*++6 &**7) reported that differential instruments effected on pragmatic
transfer, with learners transferring L& proverbs and ritual e/pressions in written questionnaires but
not in role-pla!s. t was not li"el! that these differences were due to tas"-specific transferabilit!
assessments on the part of the learners. Dather, it seemed that the written conditions gave the
learners time to assemble the material for literal translation in a controlled fashion, whereas under
the greater demands of conversational interaction, lac" of time and attention resources preclude
the on-line production of formal L7 equivalents. Ihang (&**7) found in her stud! of requesting in
#hinese-$nglish interlanguage that transfer might show up in the discoursal development of a
speech event but not in the one-turn response required in a discourse completion questionnaire.
>hile her learners; responses to questionnaire items were ver! similar to those of $nglish native
spea"ers, #hinese and #hinese-$nglish interlanguage spea"ers avoided direct requesting in role
pla!s-- instead, the! s"illfull! steered their interlocutors into ma"ing an offer of the desired goods
or action (%asper, &**7). The validit! of instrument was discussed in 1!hus (&**?).
2owever, it was a fact that different instruments were used in data collection (#ohen, &*+C).
ntrospection, self-reporting, verbal reports, diar! writing (Dobinson, &**&6 Schmidt, &**56
#ohen, &**,), assessment questionnaire and production questionnaire (0ergman < %asper, &**5),
observing naturall! occurring events, role-pla!s, oral and written production questionnaires,
retrospective interviews ($isenstein < 0odman, &**5), were among the various instruments.
#ross-cultural surve!s, for instance, made frequent uses of questionnaires to elicit native
spea"ers; comments on identified transfers in the learner language. nformants were invited to
scale each linguistic fact on a questionnaire. nvestigations were conducted on both the linguistic
and the pragmatic levels.
n addition, researches would rel! on a discourse-completion test ('#T) in collecting data for
anal!sis. n a '#T, a dialog situation was specified and part of the scripted dialog was omitted.
The students were as"ed to complete the dialog. Their responses were rated for appropriateness,
using the dialog script as baseline data ($isenstein < 0odman, &**5). n this stud!, we will also
use the '#T as an instrument to collect data for anal!sis.
7., Summar!
Studies of transfer in SLA suggested that transfers had been tac"led in all facets, linguistic and
pragmatic. Linguisticall!, transfer studies ranged from phonolog!, grammar, le/icon to meaning.
@n the pragmatic dimension, communicative strategies and pragmatic failure, among other things,
were e/amined. Thus the transfer issue has been anal!zed both structurall! and functionall!.
+
Literature also indicated that most studies were linguistic rather than pragmatic. Transfer studies
before mid &*+8;s were mostl! of a linguistic orientation. A growing interest in pragmatic anal!ses
emerged since mid &*+8;s and almost too" up the whole scene after the &**8;s. 2owever, most
pragmaticall! related studies were clearl! driving at cross-linguistic contrasts of speech act
realization patterns, and there were little literature clearl! aiming at pragmatic transfers.
The tradition of transfer studies has also resulted in certain approaches so that further
replications ma! be followed. 2owever, most transfer studies were process-oriented. t is
interesting to focus on the product of transfer.
5. 1ecessities to investigate negative pragmatic transfers
Literature strongl! indicated that findings pertaining to the pragmatic aspect revealed a deeper
side of the learner;s TL competence. Studies concerning pragmatic failure, for instance, unveiled
not onl! another part of learning difficulties, but also seemingl! the more difficult part, because a
pragmatic failure can be chec"ed onl! in cross-cultural interactions. As Thomas (&*+5) pointed
out, a pragmatic failure is more destructive in communication. This implies that more attention
should be laid on the stud! of transfer along this direction, and that is wh! %asper (&**7) called
for more researches in non-structural aspects, including negative pragmatic transfer.
2owever, while it is more significant to loo" into the negative pragmatic transfer, as was pointed
b! %asper (&**7), there has been few e/plicit studies addressing the transfer issue directl!. So
without clearl! stating the purpose of negative pragmatic transfer as the mission of research, the
substantial evidences displa!ing the e/istence of negative pragmatic transfer in the learners;
interlanguage of their TL, so to spea", are but b!-the-wa! claims of findings in the comparative
and contrastive studies of speech acts. This is not helpful to an overall understanding of the
negative pragmatic transfer issue.
4ractice in SLA teaching and learning posed concrete difficulties and addressed needs in
carr!ing out negative pragmatic transfer studies. 2ere is an e/ample:
(&) 1o smo"ing %lease.
This sentence is posted as a sign in man! public sites. To most students, there is nothing wrong
with sentence (&) for it is grammaticall! right. 2owever, anal!zed from the angle of pragmatics,
sentence (&) is inadequate in at least two senses. 9irst, the use of -please. often depends on the
relationship between the interlocutors and the intention of the speech act. f it is uttered b! a
superior, the word -please. is often not desired6 however, if it is spo"en b! a subordinate to his
superior, the word -please; is often needed. 0esides, it also depends on whether we want to
connote a request or a suggestion. -4lease. is often necessar! in a suggestion and not needed in a
request. 2owever, our students often overloo"ed the different uses of the word -please. in $nglish
and over-generalized the use of this word due to the fact that in #hinese the word =please; is used
without an! distinction as it does in $nglish (Liu, 7888).
2e (&**&) and #hen (&**7) found the following sentence in their students; composition:
(7) @ur $nglish teacher has %ea"hes and %lums ever!where in #hina.
n this sentence, the $nglish words -peach. and -plum. both refer to fruits. 2owever, our students
use them in this sentence to mean -students.. This meaning is a transfer of the use of these two
words in #hinese, and it is not found in $nglish. Such similar transfers should be studied to find
out if native spea"ers can understand them.
@ur e/planations are often inadequate if we ta"e sentences (&) and (7) above simpl! as errors or
pragmatic failures. Therefore, it is of both theoretical and practical significance to launch an
e/plicit stud! on negative pragmatic transfer.
Deferences
AAibo!e, T.. Learner;s error in 9rench: aspects of 1igerian evidence L:M., n T*: &8&-&-7, &**5:75-5*.
Alim $l-Sa!ed. 3ariation of toda!;s $nglish: mplicatures for teaching $9L in the Arabs world L:M. n T*: C,,
&*+C: ,5-*,.
*
0ansal, D.%.. The intelligibility o& ndian +nglish L'M. Nnpublished 4h.' dissertation, Nniversit! of London, &*,,.
0eebe, L.E., Ta"ahashi, T., < Nliss->eltz, D.. 4ragmatic transfer in $SL refusals L#M. n Scarcella, D. #.,
Andersen, $., < %rashen, S. #., (eds.). !evelo%ing Communi"ative Com%eten"e in a ,e"ond *anguage LAM. 1ew
Hor": 1ewbur! 2ouse, &**8:BB-C5.
0ergman, E., < %asper, F.. 4erception and 4erformance in 1ative and 1onnative Apolog! L#M. n F. %asper < S.
0lum-%ul"a (eds.). nterlanguage $ragmati"s LAM. @/ford: @N4, &**5:+7-&8C.
0ialistoc", $.. S!mbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence L#M. n F. %asper < S.
0lum-%ul"a (eds.): nterlanguage %ragmati"s LAM. 1ew Hor": @N4, &**5:?5-B*.
0ial!sto", $., < 9rohlich, E.. @ral communication-strategies for le/ical difficulties L#M. n nterlanguage ,tudies
(ulletin, &*+8 (B): 5-&8.
0ial!sto", $.. Communi"ation-strategies. / %sy"hologi"al analysis o& se"ond-language use LEM. @/ford: 0asil
0lac"well, &**8.
0is"up, '.. L& influence on learner;s =renderings of $nglish collocations: a 4olishOFerman empirical stud! L#M. in
4.:.L. Arnaud < 2. 0eAoint (eds.): 0o"abulary and a%%lied linguisti"s LAM. 2oundmills: Eacmillan, &**7:+B-*5.
0lum-%ul"a, S., < Levenston, $.A.. Nniversals of le/ical simplification L#M. n #. 9aerch, #., < F. %asper (eds.).
,trategies in interlanguage "ommuni"ation LAM. London: Longman, &*+5:&&*-&5*.
0lum-%ul"a, S.. Learning how to sa! what !ou mean in a second language: a stud! of speech act performance of
learners of 2ebrew as a second language L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s 5, &*+7:7*PB*.
#hen 9eng. / ,tudy o& *inguisti" !eviation by Chinese ,%ea1ers o& +nglish in nter-Cultural Communi"ation L'M.
Nnpublished EA thesis, Fuangzhou nstitute of 9oreign Languages, &**7.
#l!ne, E., Fiannicos, #., < 1eil, '.. #ross-cultural responses to cross-cultural communication L:M. n T* *: &85-
&8?, &**?:&-&C.
#ohen, A.'.. 3erbal reports as a source of insight into second-language learner strategies L:M. n /%%lied *anguage
*earner, 2, &**, (&).
#onnor, Nlla, < Ec#agg, 4.. #ross-cultural differences and perceived qualit! in written paraphrase of $nglish
e/positor! prose L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s 4, &*+5 (5).
#order, 4.. The significance of learners; errors L#M. n :. Dichards (ed.). +rror /nalysis LAM. London: Longman,
&*C&.
#order, 4.. +rror /nalysis and nterlanguag LEM. @/ford: #N4, &*+&.
#orrales, @., < #all, E.$.. At a loss of words: The use of communicative strategies to conve! le/ical meaning L:M.
n 3oreign *anguage /nnals 44, &*+*:77C-7?8.
'eng Hanchang < Liu Dunqing. *anguage and Culture LEM. 0eiAing: 9oreign Language Teaching and Desearch
4ress, &*+*.
'eng Hanchang < Liu Dunqing. *anguage and Culture LEM. 0eiAing: 9oreign Language Teaching and Desearch
4ress, &**&.
'ic"erson, #.:.. The learner;s language as a s!stem of variable rules L:M. n T+,5* 6uarterly, 3ol. *, &*CB
(?):?8&-?8C.
'uan %aicheng. 5n llo"utionary 3or"e/ Contrastive ,tudy o& +nglish and Chinese L'M. Nnpublished EA thesis
of Fuangzhou nstitute of 9oreign Languages, Fuangzhou, &*+C.
'ula!, 2eidi #. < Ear! %. 0urt. Hou can;t learn with goofing L#M. n Dichards, :. (ed.). LAM.&*C?: *B-&75.
$llis, D.. Understanding se"ond language a"7uisition LEM. @/ford: @N4, &*+,.
FrotAahn, D.. @n the use of quantitative methods in the stud! of interlanguage L:M. n /%%lied linguisti"s, 3ol.?,
&*+5 (5).
2a"uta, %.. 4refabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition L:M. n *anguage
*earning 44, &*C? (7): 7+C-7*C.
2ammerl!, 2.. 3luen"y and a""ura"y LEM. Eultilingual Eatters Ltd., &**&.
2o Eeilian. 3ariabilit! of 0$ realization in the Singaporean $nglish speech continuum L:M. n T*. 101-104, &**5,
&**5:&?&-&,B.
2ouse, :., < 0lum-%ul"a, S.. nterlingual and inter"ultural "ommuni"ation. !is"ourse on "ognition in translation
and se"ond language a"7uisition studies LEM. Funter 1arr 3erlag, &*+,.
2ouse, :., < %asper, F.. nterlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language =#M. n Loerscher, >., <
Schulze, D., (eds.): $ers%e"tives on *anguage in $er&orman"e LAM. Tuebingen: 1arr., &*+C:&B8P++
2u >enzhong (ed.).nter"ultural "ommuni"ation8what it means to Chinese learners o& +nglish9 LAM.Shanghai:
Shanghai Translation 4ress, &*++.
2ultfors, 4.. :ea"tions to non-native8native s%ea1ers# assessments o& errors in the use o& +nglish made by non-
native users o& the language 4art : Acceptabilit! and intelligibilit!6 4art : 9oreigner role and interpretation.
(Studies in $nglish LK3) LEM, &*+,.
oup, F. < >einberger, S.2. (eds.).nterlanguage %honology. The a"7uisition o& a se"ond language sound system
LAM. #ambridge, EA: 1ewbur! 2ouse 4ublishers, &*+C.
:ain, E. 4.. $rror anal!sis: source, cause and significance L#M. n Dichards, :. (ed.) LAM. &*C?:&+*.
:ames, #.. Linguist measures for error gravit! L:M. n /0*/ ;ournal, 3ol. &7, &*C? (&):5-*.
%achru, 0. 0. (ed.). The 5ther Tongue LAM, Nrbana: Nniversit! of llinois 4ress, &*+7.
%asper, F.. $ragmatis"he /s%e"te in der interins%ra"he LEM. Tubinger: 1arr., &*+&
%asper, F.. 4ragmatic transfer L:M. n ,tudies in ,e"ond *anguage /"7uisition <, 5, &**7:785P75&.
%asper, F.. nterlanguage 4ragmatics L#M. n :. 3erschueren, :an-@la stman < :an 0lommaert (eds.): =andboo1
o& $ragmati"s 1>>5 LAM. Amsterdam: :ohn 0enAamins 4ubl. #o, &**B:&-&C.
&8
%ellerman, $., < Sharwood Smith, E.. Cross-linguisti" in&luen"e in se"ond language a"7uisition LEM. @/ford:
4ergamon, &*+,.
%ellerman, $.. Towards the characterization of the strateg! of transfer in second language learning L:M. n
nterlanguage ,tudies (ulletin, &*CC (&):B+-&?,.
%ontra, E.. #ommunication interference and failure: a stud! of 2ungarian Americanisms L:M. n T*.101-104,
&**5:CC-++.
%rashen, S. < Scarcella, D.. @n routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance L:M. n *anguage
*earning >, &*C+(?):?8*-?&*.
Lado, D.. *inguisti"s a"ross "ulture LEM. Ann Arbor, E: the Nniversit! of Eichigan 4ress, &*,8.
Larsen-9reeman, '. < Long, E.2.. /n introdu"tion to se"ond language a"7uisition resear"h LEM. London:
Longman, &**&.
Larsen-9reeman, '.. The acquisition of grammatical morphemes b! adult $SL students L:M. n T+,5* 6uarterly >,
&*CB(?):?8*-?&*.
Leech, F.. $rin"i%les o& $ragmati"s LEM. London: Longman, &*+5.
Levenston, $.A. < 0lum-%ul"a, S.. Aspects of le/ical simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult
learners L#M. n S. 4. #order < $. Doulet (eds.). /"te du seme "ollo7ue de linguisti7ue a%%li7uee de Neu"htale LAM.
Feneve: Librairie 'roz, &*CC:B&-C&.
Levenston, $.A., (&*C&): -@verindulgence and under-representationQaspects of mother tongue interference., in
Li :ie. The Toleran"e o& Native ,%ea1ers &or $ragmati" 3ailures Committed by Chinese *earners o& +nglish in
nter"ultural Communi"ation L'M. Nnpublished EA thesis, Fuangzhou nstitute of 9oreign Languages, &**7.
Eale!, A.. The sad fate of good intentions L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.): nter"ultural Communi"ation and What t
'eans to Us LAM. Shanghai Translation 4ress, &*++:,5-C&.
EcFurn, :.. Com%aring languages LEM. #ambridge: #N4, &**&.
Eeara, 4.. The stud! of le/is in interlanguage L#M. n A. 'avies, #. #riper < A.4.D.2owatt (eds.). nterlanguage.
$a%ers in honor o& ,? $it Corder LAM. $dinburgh: $dinburgh Nniversit!, &*+?:77B-75B.
1elson, #.. ntelligibilit! and non-native $nglishes L#M. n 0. %achru (ed.) (&*+7): The other tongue. ntrodu"tion
LAM., &*+7.
1ewser, >.. Appro/imative s!stems of foreign language learners L:M. n :/*, 3ol.*, &*C& (7):&&B-&75.
1icAel, F.. 2ow =native; can (or) should) a non-native spea"er beG L:M. n T*.@2-@<, &*+B:&?&-&,8.
1ihalani, 4.. #ommunication: D4 and the third world L:M. n T*:2>-<0, &*++:,&-CB.
1sa"ala, L.. #ode-mi/ing as a communication strateg! in the speech of Iairean students L:M. n T*:10A-104, &**?.
1unan, '.< Eichael-Long. :esear"h 'ethods in *anguage *earningi LEM. #ambridge Language Teaching
Librar!, &**7.
1!hus, S.$.. /ttitudes o& non-native s%ea1ers o& +nglish toward the use o& verbal re%ort to eli"it their reading
"om%rehension strategies L'M. 4lan 0 4aper, E.A. in $nglish as a second language. Einneaplis, E1: Nniversit! of
Einnesota, &**?.
@ate!, 2., S.. #hinese and western interpersonal relationships L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.): nter"ultural
Communi"ation and What t 'eans to Us LEM. Shanghai Translation 4ress, &*++:?7-,7.
@dlin, T.. *anguage trans&er LEM. #ambridge: #N4, &*+*.
@lshtain, $.. Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apolog! L#M. n Fass, S., < Selin"er, L.,
(eds.)(&*+5): *anguage Trans&er in language *earning LAM. Dowle!, EA: 1ewbur! 2ouse, &*+5:757PB&.
@lshtain, $.. The acquisition of new word formation processes in second language acquisition L:M. n ,tudies in
,e"ond *anguage /"7uisition >, &*+C (7):77&-75&.
@moni!i, T.. $nglish and the other tongue in official communicative interaction in 1igeria L:M. n T*.10A-104,
&**?:BC-CB.
@u!ang, 9.. Some t!pical cultural mista"es made b! #hinese learners of $nglish L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.)
nter"ultural Communi"ation and What t 'eans to Us LAM. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation 4ress, &*++:5&-?&.
4almberg, D.. 2ow much $nglish vocabular! do Swedish-spea"ing primar!-school pupils "now before starting to
learn at schoolG L#M. n 2. Dingbom (ed.): 3oreign language learning and bilingualism LAM. A0@: A0@ A"ademi,
&*+B:+*-*C.
4latt, :., < >eber, 2.. +nglish in ,inga%ore and 'alaysia. status, &eatures and &un"tion LEM. %uala Lumpur: @N4,
&*+8.
4olitzer, D.L.. $rrors of $nglish spea"ers of Ferman as perceived and evaluated b! Ferman natives L:M. n 'odern
*anguage ;ournal @4, &*C+:7B5-7,&.
Jin Kiubai. $9L learning and culture acquisition L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.). LAM. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation
4ress, &*++.
Dichard, :. < Su"iwiwat, E.. Language transfer and conversational competence L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s, 3ol ?.
&*+5 (5).
Dichards, :. < Floria 4. Sampson. The stud! of learner language L:M. n Dichards, :.(ed.). LAM. &*C?:5-&+.
Dichards, :. < Su"iwiwat, E.. Language transfer and conversational competence L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s 3ol. ?,
&*+5 (5):&&5-&7B.
Dichards, :., < Sampson, F.. The stud! of learner language L#M. n :. Dichards (ed.). LAM. &*C?.
Dichards, :.. $rror anal!sis and second language strategies L:M. n *anguage ,"ien"e, 3ol.&C, &*C&:&7-77.
Dichards, :.. +rror /nalysis. %ers%e"tives on se"ond language a"7uisition LAM. London: Longman, &*C?.
Dichards, :.. Singapore $nglish: Dhetorical and communicative st!les L#M. n 0. %achru (ed.). The other tongue.
ntrodu"tion LAM.&*+7.
&&
Dobinson, E. S.. ntrospective methodolog! in interlanguage pragmatics research L#M. n F. %asper (ed.).
$ragmati"s o& ;a%anese as Native and Target *anguage (technical report R 5) LAM. Second Language Teaching and
#urriculum #enter, Nniversit! of 2awaii at Eanoa, &**7:7C-+7.
Schmidt, D.. #onsciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics L#M. n F. %asper < S. 0lum-%ul"a (eds.).
nterlanguage %ragmati"s LAM. #ambridge: #N4, &**5.
Selin"er, L. Language transfer L:M. n General *inguisti"s, 3ol.*, &*,* (7):,C-*7.
Selin"er, L.. nterlanguage L#M. n :. Dichards (ed.). LAM. &*C?.
Selin"er, L.. *anguage Trans&er in *anguage *earning LEM. Dowle!, EA: 1ewbur! 2ouse, &*+5:&5C-&C?.
Sharwood-Smith, E.. #ross-linguistic aspects of second language acquisition L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s, 3ol.?,
&*+5 (5).
Sharwood-Smith, E.. ,e"ond *anguage *earning. Theoreti"al 3oundations LEM. London: Longman, &**?:5-7&.
S"ehan, 4.. ndividual di&&eren"es in se"ond-language learning LEM. London: $dward Arnold, &*+*.
Smith, Larr!. Some thought on the teaching and learning of $nglish as an international language in #hina L#M. n
2u >enzhong (ed.). LAM. &*++.
Stanlaw, :.. $nglish in :apanese communicative strategies L#M. n 0. %achru (ed.). The other tongue. ntrodu"tion
LAM. Stoc"holm: Almqvist < >i"sell nternational, &*+7.
Svanes, 0.. Attitudes and =cultural distance; in second language acquisition L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s, 3ol.*, &*++
(?).
Swan, E., < Smith, 0. (ed.). *earner +nglish. a tea"her#s guide to inter&eren"e and other %roblems LAM.
#ambridge: #N4, &*+C.
Ta"ahashi, S.. Transferabilit! of indirect request strategies L#M. n Nniversit! >or"ing of 2awaii >or"ing 4aper in
$SL && LAM, &**7 (&):,*-&7?.
Ta"ahashi, S.. $ragmati" trans&erability o& *1 indire"t re7uest strategies %er"eived by ;a%anese learners o&
+nglish L'M. Nnpublished doctoral dissertation, Nniversit! of 2awaii at Eanoa, &**B.
Ta"ahashi, S.. 4ragmatic Transferabilit! L:M. n ,tudies in ,e"ond *anguage /"7uisition 1<, &**, (7):&+*-775.
Ta"ahashi, T., < 0eebe, L. E.. The development of pragmatic competence b! :apanese learners of $nglish L:M. n
;/*T ;ournals +, &*+C:&5&-BB.
Ta"ahashi, T., < 0eebe, L. E.. #ross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction L#M. n %asper, F., <
0lum-%ul"a, S., (eds.). nterlanguage $ragmati"s LAM. 1ew Hor": @/ford Nniversit! 4ress, &**5.
Ta"ahashi, T., < 0eebe, E. L.. #ross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction L#M. n %asper, F., <
0lum-%ul"a, S. (eds.). nterlanguage $ragmati"s LAM. @/ford: @N4, &**5:&5+-&B+.
Tarone, $.. Some influences on interlanguage phonolog! L:M. n Wor1ing $a%ers in (ilingualism, +, &*C,:+C-&&&.
Tarone, $.. #onscious communication strategies in interlanguage L#M. n 2.' 0rown, #.A.Horio, < D.#. #r!mco
(eds.). 5n T+,5* #22 LAM. >ashington, '.#.: T$S@L, &*CC:&*?-785.
Tarone, $.. The phonolog! of interlanguage L#M. n :. #. Dichards (ed.). Understanding se"ond and &oreign
language learning. ssues and a%%roa"h LAM. Dowle!, EA: 1ewbur! 2ouse 4ublishers, nc, &*C+:&B-55.
Tarone, $.. @n the variabilit! of interlanguage s!stem L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s, 0ol.?, &*+5 (5).
Ta!lor, 0.. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies b! elementar! and intermediate students
in $SL L:M. n *anguage *earning, 3ol.7B, &*CB (&):C5-&8C.
Thomas, :.. #ross-cultural pragmatic failure L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s ?, &*+5:*&-&77.
Tiffen, 0.. The intelligibility o& Nigerian +nglish L'M. Nnpublished 4h.'. dissertation, Nniversit! of London, &*C?.
3aradi, T.. Strategies of target language communications: message adAustment L#M. n $a%er given at the sixth
Con&eren"e on :omania-+nglish $roBe"t LAM. Timisoara, &*C5.
3aradi, T.. Strategies of target language learner communication: Eessage adAustment L:M. n nternational :eview
o& /%%lied *inguisti"s, 1<, &*+8 (&C):B*-C7.
Webster#s Third New World nternational !i"tionary (>1>) LIM. 1ew 2aven: The Eerriam >ebster, nc, &*+,.
>einert, D.. The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review L:M. n /%%lied *inguisti"s,
3ol.&,, &**B (7).
>hinnom, %.. Linguistic h!bridization L#M. n 2!mes, '. (ed.). LAM. &*C&.
>olfson, 1.. #ompliments in cross-cultural perspective L:M. n T+,5* 6uarterly &B, &*+&:&&C-7?.
Ku Fuozhang. Culturally loaded words and +nglish tea"hing L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.). LAM. &*++.
Hu 9ei/ia. :e7uest and ,uggestion. / $ragmati" ,tudy o& Native ,%ea1ers o& +nglish# and Chinese ,%ea1ers o&
+nglish# $oliteness ,trategies and ,%ee"h $atterns L'M. Nnpublished EA thesis, Fuangzhou nstitute of 9oreign
Languages, &**B.
Iuo 2uanqi. 3erbal interactions of compliment in American $nglish and #hinese L#M. n 2u >enzhong (ed.). LAM.
&*++.
#hen :ianping (). !"#$ L#M. %&'()*.
+, LAM. -.: /01234, &**7.
#hen 4ing (). 56789:;<= L#M. 4>?@<=ABCDDE LAM. 4>?3
4, &*+B.
#hen Hing (F). 5GHI;J L:M. KL, &*+C (&).
#heng Ihenqiu (MNO). E! views of #-$ translation of political writings L:M. L1!<=, &**& (5):5*-?5.
'ing Den (PQ). RR5ST L:M. UVL@W, &**5 (5).
9an #unzhong (XYZ). G[5G L:M. \1!<=, &*+7(5-?).
Fe Kiaoqin (]^_). `:5abcde L:M. L<=, &**& (?).
Fong %aAia (fgh). 5i:;1 L:M. KL, &**& (5).
&7
Fui #an"un (%jk). 5lmGnopq;J L:M. KL, &*C+ (&).
2e Iiran (rst). uC LEM. /01234, &*++.
2e Iiran (rst). vwx$y L:M. L1!<=, &**& (?):&&-&B.
2e Iiran (rst). zD{wxv |} ~ L:M. L!L1, &**5 (7):&-C.
:ia Hande (). :;<= L:M. 51, &**? (&).
:in 'ing!uan (7). i L:M. v1!<=, &*+, (?).
:in :iling (). 589:;<= L:M. L, &**& (7).
:in :iling (). self [5 s L:M. KL, &**, (5).
Li 'ong (). 5,;J L:M. L, &*++ (,).
Li Duihua (()*). 5vD{:;<= LAM. : L1234, &**,.
Li >enzhong (D). ! L:M. L1!<=, &**5 (?):&+-7?.
Liu Eiqing (). 5:;<= L:M. KL, &**7 (&).
Liu Shaozhong (Z). -.5;J!$ L:M. L, 7888 (B).
Dong 4ei, >ang ( ). -Y L:M. eL@W, &**& (&):&-+.
Shao Ihihong (). 5;J L:M. UVL@W, &**? (&).
Tang Tingchi (). :;<= L:M. 51, &**8 (7).
>an #hangsheng (). L:M. KL, &**? (&):5?-5+.
>ang Fuizhen (%). 5G!pq:G1 L:M. KL, &**8 (&).
Kia :imei (()*). wx: !L> LEM. :3
4, &**B.
Kie IhiAun (). : zD{wxI L:M. L1!<=, &**B (5).
Ihang >eizu (). LEM. : 34, &**?.
Ihang Kianglin (). 5 LEM. 1234, &**?.
Ihang Hanchang < Ihang $rli (). b5:;iW L#M. ()*.5;
J<= LAM. /0?34, &**?.
Ihao Shi"ai (). 5K:;<=(#ontrastive stud! of $ < # personal pronouns* L#M.
()*. 5vD{:;<= LAM. L1234, &**,:&+B-788.
About the author: Shaozhong Liu (&*,5-), earned his 4h.' in &**C in linguistics and applied linguistics, with a
focus on pragmatics, at Fuangdong Nniversit! of 9oreign Studies. 2e has lectured widel!, including being a 7-!ear
visiting professor at >a"e 9orest Nniversit!. 2e is now 4rofessor of Linguistics and 'ean of 9oreign Languages
'epartment, Fuang/i 1ormal Nniversit!, Fuilin, #hina. 2is research interests include linguistics and applied
linguistics in general, and pragmatics in particular. 2e has been loo"ing at issues in cognitive pragmatics (the
Delevance Theor!) and interlanguage pragmatics, especiall! cross-cultural production and comprehension of
speech acts, and pragmatic transfers.
(Fuang/i 1ormal Nniversit! :ournal, 788&O5:&-7*)
&5