See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272742276

The Analysis of Transfer

Chapter · January 1986

CITATIONS READS
7 732

1 author:

Kurt Kohn
University of Tuebingen
61 PUBLICATIONS   487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pedagogic corpora for content and language integrated leaning View project

TILA (Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kurt Kohn on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kohn, Kurt (1986a). "The analysis of transfer". In E. Kellerman & M.
Sharwood Smith (eds.). Crosslinguistic influence in second language
acquisition and performance. Oxford: Pergamon, 21 - 34. The Analysis of Transfer
KURT KOHN
University of Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany

The turning point in the development of the analysis of transfer was marked by the
promotion of a concept of second language acquisition emphasizing the learner's
own active and creative contribution (Dulay and Burt, 1974, 1975). The behaviour-
istic equation of transfer with learning and of contrasts with learning difficulties,
which up to that time had shaped the predominant concept of transfer analysis, was
effectively challenged. But what atfirstappeared to have been a fatal blow to transfer
analysis in general eventually led the way toward a necessary and fruitful reinterpre-
tation of the still obvious fact that a learner's LI does indeed leave its traces in his
interlanguage. The conceptualization of transfer within the framework of creative
learning and acquisition (Corder, 1967; Kellerman, 1977, 1979; Wode, 1981, 1982)
has promoted a number of stimulating investigations and discussions on different
types of transfer (Faerch, 1984; Kellerman, 1977; Sharwood Smith, forthcoming;
Wode. 1982), on the linguistic regularities governing transfer (Felix, 1977; Wode,
1977; Zobl, 1979, 1980), on the status of learners' LI intuitions (Kellerman, 1978),
on the influence of learners' perception of structural similarities, typological distance
and markedness (Jordens, 1977, 1980; Jordens and Kellerman, 1981; Kellerman,
1977, 1979; Sharwood Smith, 1979; Zobl, 1980), on the role of LI as a general filter
in the learner's processing of input utterances (Kohn, 1981b), and on the importance
of learner-specific attitudes and motivations (Meisel, 1982; Meisel etal.,1981). As it
stands, the analysis of transfer—like the mythological hydra—has multiplied its
strength with a crop of freshly sprouted heads and is probing new and promising
directions. Today there is no doubt that, despite its sometimes irritatingly elusive
character, transfer is one of the major factors shaping the learner's interlanguage
competence and performance. The question, however, is not whether transfer is
basic in the sense of its being necessary for learning to take place. Rather, its
occurrence depends on specific combinations of linguistic, developmental and
sociopsychological factors: transfer can occur, and when it does we should be
prepared to account for it adequately.
In this paper my concern is not with those conditions which are conducive to
transfer; nor is it with the role of transfer in the overall task of learning a second
language. My interest is more on detecting transfer as such, i.e. on the problem of
closing the gap between the interlanguage products we see and the processes we seek
to understand.
Transfer, like any other process characterizing interlanguage behaviour, appears
at three levels of the linguistic analysis. The first level is that of the structural transfer
potential. This refers to the preconditions for the occurrence of transfer inherent in
the structural differences and correspondences that exist between LI and L2. Lado's
(1957) original approach to Contrastive Analysis, as well as more recent theoretical
approaches as exemplified by Krzeszowski (1979), both adopt this perspective. At
the second level the analysis deals with the linguistic shape of the product of transfer,
i.e. with the structural transfer pattern as it emerges from a comparison between the
learner's LI and his interlanguage. This is the level of Contrastive Error Analysis,

21
 22 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition
which has dominated research for the past 20 years or so. Today, the Contrastive
Error Analysis approach is still flourishing, despite a growing awareness that the true
object of investigation is to be sought at the third level of analysis, that dealing with
transfer as a process (Dulay and Burt, 1974; Kellerman, 1977). The problem involved
is simple to pinpoint, but difficult to solve. Transfer processes are only 'visible' in
terms of what-they produce, i.e. in the transfer patterns. Therefore, information
about the learner's linguistic, developmental and attitudinal predisposition, along
with a careful analysis of transfer patterns, constitute the empirical basis on which
insight about transfer processes are founded. Regardless of how strong the emphasis
on transfer processes might be, there is no way around the unwanted limitation that
it will always be transfer patterns which steal the limelight.
The realistic assessment of the current researchisituation should not be misunder-
stood as an argument in favour of an ill-considered return to product analysis. The
investigation of transfer and of other processes like, e.g. simplification (Meisel, 1977,
1983; Widdowson, 1979), avoidance (Schachter,, 1974; Kleinmann, 1977; Beebe,
1980) or monitoring (Krashen, 1978) faces the danger of over-interpreting product
data. For lack of more refined procedures, the learner's interlanguage behaviour is
reduced and adapted to the methodological concepts and tools provided by the
structure-oriented language models of modern linguistics (Kohn, 1983). As a
consequence, linguistic products are identified only too readily with underlying
processes. There is, however, no simple and straightforward relationship between
product and process: and an analysis of transfer patterns can never be adequate nor
provide deeper insights, unless it goes beyond the traditional analysis of errors and
interlanguage output. What is needed is a model of interlanguage behaviour relating
information about products to specific features of the underlying processes. The
question here is what a given product analysis really tells us about underlying
processes. Or, to approach it from a different angle, we might ask what kind of
product analysis is necessary if we want to bring to! light at least some aspects of the
underlying processes. ' certainty. His interlanguage behaviour in terms of processes will in part be deter-
Transfer as a process is part of the learner's interlanguage behaviour, which
includes not only the creative transformation of input data into interlanguage
knowledge but also the use to which the learner puts this knowledge in an attempt to
produce meaningful and/or correct output. These two behaviour-orientated dimen-
sions form the background which any approach aimed at uncovering the regularities
and processes of interlanguage must take into account (Kohn, 1979, 1981a, 1982;
Sharwood Smith, forthcoming). According to the proposed distinction between
knowledge and the use of knowledge in output, transfer can assume one of two
shapes: it can be a learning process or a production process. As a learning process,
transfer supports the learner's selection and remodelling of input structures as he
progresses in the development of his interlanguage knowledge. As a production
process, transfer is involved in the learner's retrieval of this knowledge and in his
efforts to bridge linguistically those gaps in his knowledge which cannot be side-
stepped by avoidance. ; individual learner. The careful reconstruction of the kind of knowledge which is
The analysis of transfer proposed here is therefore founded upon an empirically
meaningful and non-circular definition of knowledge and output. Measures will be
outlined which will enable us to pinpoint traces of transfer in the individual learner's
interlanguage knowledge, as well as in the active use he makes of his knowledge in
The Analysis of Transfer 23
his output. The emphasis is on the individual learner, because he is the one who is
engaged in transfer in the first place. The question of whether transfer occurs in the
interlanauage of learner X or not and if so. which type of transfer is involved, cannot
be answered by studying a group of ten or even a hundred learners. The answer can
only be found in the interlanguage of learner X. i.e. in what he knows and in how he
performs on the basis of his subjective knowledge. It is this fundamental problem of
dealing with transfer on the individual level that I am talking about. Group studies
on factors determining the emergence of transfer and on the effects of transfer on
language learning in general are. of course, the ultimate goal. However, such issues
can only be successfully investigated if we are prepared to deal adequately with the
individual learner's transfer behaviour in the first place, i.e. with transfer affecting
the development of the learner's interlanguage knowledge and his retrieval of this
knowledge for use in production.
The learner's interlanguage knowledge can be characterized by four rather general
features. First, it is functional, i.e. it is knowledge relating linguistic means the
learner has at his disposal—e.g. words, grammatical rules, idiomatic expressions—to
certain requirements he imposes on his own interlanguage output. For instance, he
may want to be correct, communicative, polite, brilliant, etc. and his knowledge will
tell him which linguistic forms are appropriate to meet which requirement. My
discussion of transfer will centre on the requirement of correctness and accordingly
on the learner's knowledge of correctness. Second, the learner's knowledge is
autonomous, i.e. instead of being just a corrupt and rather feeble version of L2, it
should be viewed here as a system in its own right. From this it follows that the
learner's knowledge should not be analysed and filtered through L2 as is the case in
any error-based procedure. Third, it is quantitative, i.e. for the learner to know that
a certain structure is correct or incorrect is not a simple all-or-nothing matter. Usually
the components of a learner's knowledge are associated with varying degrees of
mined by this degree of certainty and an adequate analysis will have to take this into
account. Finally, a learner's knowledge is real, i.e. it is knowledge underlying the
individual learner's behaviour and as such it is knowledge which is actually stored in
his brain.
In contrast to Chomsky's well-known competence model (Chomsky, 1965), the
proposed concept of interlanguage knowledge refers to interim states of a learner's
developing grammar. Apart from this obvious difference there is another still more
important one concerning the role of knowledge (or competence) in (inter)language
behaviour in general. In my approach I am not interested, as Chomsky is, in 'an ideal
speaker—listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its
language perfectly' (Chomsky, 1965: 3). For my analysis of interlanguage pro-
cesses—or performance if your prefer—it is of vital importance to detect and
understand just the idiosyncratic form which knowledge assumes in the mind of the
shared statistically by learners of the same group may be relevant for the investigation
of other questions (Kielhöfer and Börner, 1979). However, for the analysis of
(inter)Ianguage processes, group knowledge is of absolutely no importance. It is the
learner's own autonomous and functional knowledge and his own certainty or
uncertainty which determine his interlanguage behaviour. From this it follows that
 24 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition
i
the learner's interlanguage knowledge has to be viewed as something which he
happens to have built up in his brain. In this sense it is claimed to be real. The 'reality
principle'can hardly be over-emphasized, considering both the influence Chomsky's
idealized version of knowledge has exerted on the concept of knowledge in inter-
language studies (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972; Kielhöfer and Börner, 1979; Wid-
dowson 1979) and the latent confusion between the learner's knowledge of correct-
ness and the L2 norm (Widdowson, 1979: 1S3). Researchers should feel encouraged
to seriously probe the possibilities of approaching the learner's 'real' knowledge as a
necessary step in their attempt to understand how he builds it up and makes use of it
in his interlanguage activities.
Before moving on to the more technical details of measuring a learner's subjective
knowledge and its manifestation in his output, let me briefly illustrate what it implies
to talk about transfer as a learning process as opposed to transfer as a retrieval
process. My example will focus on two hypothetical German learners of English and
their interlanguage knowledge and output with regard to WH-questions. It is
assumed that a learner's subjective knowledge of correctness is given as a set of pairs
(2, V), where 2 is an interlanguage structure and V a numerical value of correctness
indicating how certain the learner is that 2 is correct or incorrect. For the present
discussion it is sufficient to accept that ' + 1 ' stands for 'certainly correct', '0' for
'uncertain' and ' —1' for 'certainly incorrect'. According to a traditional convention,
the asterisk is used to mark those utterances which are objectively incorrect by the
standards of L2. ! the maximum value of correctness is assigned to structure II underlying the utter-
In view of the data presented in Table 1. it is quite obvious that the analytic power
of an error-based approach does not get us very far. Error analysis, by definition,
considers only those utterances which are actually produced by the learner and
The Analysis of Transfer 25
which, in addition, are incorrect when measured according to the L2 norm, e.g.
utterance (l.a) below:
(l.a) *When came my mother?
What can be said on the basis of this approach is that utterance (l.a) points to
negative transfer or, to phrase it more carefully, utterance (l.a) is compatible with
the assumption of negative transfer. Here the story ends. The decisive advantage of
my approach is that it allows us to differentiate between transfer occurring while the
learner is organizing his knowledge of correctness and transfer occurring while he is
retrieving this knowledge in actual interlanguage performance.
In the organization of knowledge about the second language, learner A apparently
relies to a large extent on his LI. The maximum value of correctness is assigned to
structure I underlying the utterances (l.a) and (l.b):
(l.a) *When came my mother?
(l.b) Where was the train?
That is, learner A considers that structure to be correct which is also part of his LI.
This suggests transfer on the knowledge level. In the case of utterance (l.a) the LI
structure prevails over the English input. In the case of utterance (l.b) the LI
structure supports the English input, thereby facilitating acquisition. For learner B,
ances (2. a) and (2. b):
(2. a) When did my mother come?
(2.b) *Where did the train be?

TABLE 1 Hypothetical dam on WH-questions for two

German learners of English :
Interlanguage knowledge of correctness
Structure I: WH + V + NP
e.g. (l.a) "When came my mother?
(l.b) Where was the train?
Structure II: WH + DO + NP + V
e.g. (2.a) When did my mother come?
(2.b) 'Where did the train be?
Structure III: WH + NP + V
e.g. (3.a) * When my mother came?
(3.b) "Where the train was?
Interlanguage output for both learners:
Structure I: WH + V + NP
e.g. (l.a) *When came my mother?
(l.b) Where was the train?
LI structure for both learners:
Structure I: WH i- V + NP
e.g. Wann kam meine Mutter?
Wo war der Zug?
As far as utterance (2.a) is concerned the English input is obviously more salient than
the corresponding LI structure. In the case of utterance (2.b) the correct input does
not play a significant role; what can be assumed, though, is an over-generalization of
the DO-structure underlying (2.a). In this example, therefore, LI does not interfere.
Learner A very slight transfer effect, however, can be assumed on the basis of B's uncertainty
A B
+1 0 with respect to structure I. Obviously the influence of LI is weakened by the
conflicting influence of the English structure with DO, which has taken on a
dominant role in the learner's interlanguage knowledge.
-I +1 Language transfer may not only affect the learner's organization of his knowledge;
it may also affect his knowledge retrieval. Under favourable performance conditions
the learner may be successful in his attempt to control his output by means of what he
-1 -1
knows. He will then use forms which he knows to be correct, especially when his
knowledge is supported by his LI. For example, learner A uses the following
utterances in his output:
(l.a) "When came my mother?
(l.b) Where was the train?
These utterances represent structure I, which is supported both by his LI and by his
knowledge of correctness. A's output, therefore, indicates that transfer facilitates
the retrieval of his interlanguage knowledge. There are performance conditions,
however, in which the learner's ability to control may be drastically reduced; for
instance, if he is tired, distracted, socially or psychologically insecure, or simply out
 The Analysis of Transfer 27
26 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition
i
Past, and Present Perfect Progressive), the learner is asked to indicate how certain he
of practice. In such cases it is possible for transfer on the retrieval level to operate
counter to the learner's knowledge. The utterances produced by learner B—the is that this variant is correct. He can choose from among three options: 'certainly
same as those produced by A—represent a structure which for B is supported by his correct' (C), •certainly incorrect' (I) and 'uncertain' (U). The letter after the test
LI, but not by his knowledge of correctness. His LI obviously interferes with his sentences below are the judgements given by an individual German learner who took
attempt to retrieve what he knows. The influence of LI, which created no more than part in the pilot study:
uncertainty at the knowledge level, now manifests itself in the form of transfer at the
retrieval level. have written I
These two types of transfer, i.e. the influence'LI exerts on the learner's knowledge were writing C
and the influence it exerts on his knowledge retrieval, are clearly not within the scope While you f^ ' V r i t t e n . . I, [ your letter, I left the house
vvl
of any approach which proceeds from errors. On the contrary, knowing which type ' had been writing U '
of transfer we are dealing with sheds some light on the errors involved, especially on wrote U
the intuitive distinction between stable and unstable errors. Thus, errors which occur have been writing I
as the result of a transfer on the retrieval level not backed up by the learner's
knowledge are usually not very stable. As soon as the output conditions are more has read C
favourable the learner will be able to use his knowledge to control for these errors was reading C
with the result that they disappear. By the same token, correct forms which occur as While he Ja<! ' e a d .. \ , I talked to him
the result of this type of transfer are not very stable. A particular instance of transfer, had been reading I
however, which has affected the learner's subjective knowledge of correctness leaves read U
its traces in the learner's output precisely where the learner uses his knowledge has been reading U
successfully. Thus, errors resulting from the learner's retrieval of incorrect knowl- has looked C
edge are stable to the same extent as this (incorrect) knowledge is stable. That is, was looking C
these errors only disappear as the learner's knowledge is altered in the course of
further acquisition. While he ^ ' u 0 0 ^ t- H the other way, I took his pen
had been looking U
I will now turn to the problem of measuring a learner's subjective knowledge of looked U
correctness and also his knowledge retrieval (Kohn, 1979,1982). The procedures will has been looking I
be illustrated for an English grammatical structure requiring the Past Progressive; it
is represented by utterances of the following kind: has waited U
was waiting U
While you were writing your letter, I left the house
While he was reading, I talked to him j While he ' J^H tT"' 6 waiting C forhis
Sirl-friend'heforSotabout the time

While he was looking the other way, I took his pen waited U
While he was waiting for his girl-friend, he forgot about the time has been waiting U
This structure was used as part of a more extensive pilot study on the transfer
behaviour of German university students of English. In the course of the investiga- A value of correctness can be calculated for each interlanguage verb form variant by
tion six interlanguage variants were found: i taking the difference between the number of 'certainly correct' and 'certainly
incorrect' answers and dividing this by the total number of judgements per verb form
Present Perfect, e.g. While you have written your letter, I left the house variant, which in our example is four, e.g. I, C, C, U for the Present Perfect variant
Past Progressive, e.g. While you were writing your letter . . . above:
Past Perfect, e.g. While you had written your letter. . .
n(corr.corr.) - n(cert.incorr.)
Past Perfect Progressive, e.g. While you had been writing your letter. . . Value of correctness = — T
Simple Past, e.g. While you wrote your letter j. . .
Present Perfect Progressive, e.g. While you have been writing your letter. . . The resulting values are located on a scale from +1 to - 1 , where +1 indicates that
In order to assess a learner's knowledge of correctness he is given a judgement test the learner is absolutely certain that the corresponding variant is correct, - 1 that he
containing four utterance groups all representing the aforementioned Past Progres- is certain that it is incorrect, and 0 that he is not certain at all. Applying this procedure
sive structure together with its six interlanguage variants. That is, each variant occurs to the judgements given above we are able to obtain a value of correctness for each
four times in the test. For every occurrence of each of the interlanguage variants of the interlaneuage variants of the Past Progressive structure under investigation
(Present Perfect, Past Progressive, Past Perfect, Past Perfect Progressive, Simple (cf. Table 2).
CtSIA-C
 28 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition The Analysis of Transfer 29

TABLE 2 An individual learner's knowledge of correctness and its manifestation
in his output
At this point it is necessary to digress and;consider one of the most serious
problems involved in the measurement of knowledge. The judgement test just
described can be classified as a recognition test. The choice of this format is motivated
by the memory-output paradox. The problem here is that on the one hand knowledge
can never be observed directly, but only inferred from its manifestation in output; on
the other hand, however, a straightforward interpretation of output data in terms of
knowledge is not possible either, due to the influence of ever-present retrieval
constraints caused by, e.g. stress, fatigue, distraction, insecurity. A way out of this
dilemma is to infer a learners knowledge from arj output produced under conditions
for which retrieval constraints are assumed to! be minimal. Such conditions are
provided by recognition tasks; hence the recognition format of the judgement test.
In addition to the judgement test the learner is !asked to perform a fill-in-the blank
test on the same Past Progressive structure and its variants, again with four utterances
for each structural variant. The learner is instructed to put the verb into the correct
tense form and he is allowed to give as many alternative forms as he thinks are
correct. For each variant, the number of occurrences divided by the number of
possible occurrences, which is four, multiplied, by 100 gives the actual value of
occurrence, indicating how often this variant was used (cf. Table 2).
These procedures of measuring interlanguage knowledge and knowledge retrieval
have been developed with a learner in mind who is able to perform the required tests.
Note, however, that the learner is asked to do only what is commonly considered to
be part of a learner/speaker's linguistic competence. He has to judge utterances (not
structures!) with regard to their correctness and also has to use forms according to his
own standard of correctness. Explicit rule knowledge is not necessarily involved.
Problems might arise with learners who have not had any previous experience with
formal tests and/or formal classroom teaching. This does not mean that the knowl-
edge/output-approach is invalid or limited in scope. However, the elicitation proce-
dures used to operationalize the distinction between knowledge and output have to
be adapted to the learners whose interlanguage behaviour is under investigation.
In the following, the procedures described in this paper are applied to the analysis
of transfer. Illustrations are based on data from individual learners, taken from the
study mentioned above. The contrast underexamination is that between the German
Simple Past and the English Past Progressive, as exemplified by:
(L2) While you were writing your letter, I left the house
(LI) Während du deinen Br/e/'schriebst, verließ ich das Haus
This contrast tends to create a transfer problem for German learners of English,
misleading them into producing utterances like:
*While you wrote your letter, I left the house
For the purpose of the present discussion. I will assume that this use of the Simple
Past is incorrect. This assumption is in keeping with most of the judgements I
obtained from native speakers of English. It also corresponds to the norm presented
in German grammar books on English, which determines the target language to
which the learners are exposed.
As regards the analysis of transfer, let us first take a look at a learner who shows
absolutely no traces of transfer, either in knowledge or in retrieval. For this learner,
whose interlanguage values are presented in Table 3, Simple Past, which is the
candidate for transfer, has a negative value of correctness and is not used by the
learner in his output. On the other hand, the L2 variant Past Progressive has the
highest possible value of correctness. That is, according to the learner's subjective
knowledge this form is correct, and it is also the only variant which occurs in the
TA B L E 3 No traces of transfer

What is most relevant for the analysis of transfer is the distinction between the Actual Theoretical
actual value of occurrence and a theoretical value of occurrence. The theoretical Value value of value of
oj correctness occurrence occurrence
value is derived directly from the learner's knowledge. It equals the value of
correctness, if this is positive: otherwise it equals 0 (cf. Table 2). The theoretical Present Perfect -0.75 0 0
value of occurrence indicates what the learner's output would be like if it were a true Past Progressive +1 100 100
Past Perfect -1 0 0
copy of his knowledge. Differences between the actual and the theoretical value of Past Perfect Progressive -1 0 0
occurrence indicate the influence of factors interfering with the learner's successful Simple Past -0.75 0 0
retrieval of his knowledge in production, among others the influence of LI. Present Perfect Progressive -1 0 0
30 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition
The Analysis of Transfer 31
TABLE 4 Transfer type I
TA B L E 6 Transfer type III
Actual Theoretical
Value value of value of Actual Theoretical
of correctness occurrence occurrence Value value of value of
of correctness occurrence occurrence
Present Perfect -1 0 ( ) •

Past Progressive +1 100 100

Past Perfect -1 0 0
Past Perfect Progressive 0 0 0
Simple Past +1 0 100
Present Perfect Progressive 0 0 0

learner's output. In this case, therefore, the input structure Past Progressive leaves
its stamp on the learner's interlanguage; his LI does not interfere.
There are other learners, however, whose interlanguage is quite obviously deter-
mined to some degree by their LI. Three basic types of transfer can be distinguished
depending on which of the two levels, knowledge and/or retrieval, are involved
(Table 4). | observed. For example, the values given in Table 7 present evidence for a slight trace
Transfer type I is produced if the transfer variant Simple Past is part of the learner's
knowledge of correctness but is not used in retrieval. This type is illustrated by the
values in Table 4. Simple Past has a value of correctness of +1, indicating that the
learner is absolutely sure that this variant is correct. In retrieval. Simple Past is passed
over in favour of Past Progressive, for which the learner also has a value of
correctness of +1. While this learner's LI clearly influences his knowledge, his
output is obviously shaped by only that part of his knowledge which complies with the
L2 model.
Transfer type II is the result of a transfer which takes place on the knowledge level
and which is also reflected in retrieval. An example of this type of transfer is provided
by the values in Table 5. Here, the L2 variant Past Progressive is only very weakly
represented, both in the learner's knowledge and in his knowledge retrieval. The
transfer variant Simple Past, however, takes on the highest possible value of
correctness, indicating the influence of LI on the learner's knowledge. Simple Past
also has an equally high actual value of occurrence. That is, the assumed transfer is
not confined to knowledge but also leaves its traces in knowledge retrieval.
Finally, in the case of transfer type III, retrieval is affected while knowledge is not.
Table 6 provides an example: Simple Past, which has a negative value of correctness
for the learner, co-occurs equally in his output with Past Progressive. Past Progres-
sive, however, should, according to the learner's knowledge, clearly have dominated
in retrieval.
In addition to these three basic types, various combinations of them were
of transfer in knowledge which becomes amplified at the retrieval level.
Quite clearly these methodological considerations concerning different types of
transfer concentrate on the analysis of transfer patterns. They acknowledge the fact
that transfer, like other interlanguage processes as well, takes place in the learner's
brain and can only be observed in what is produced. With the distinction between
knowledge and retrieval, however, and the differentiation of transfer types according
to these two behaviourally relevant dimensions, production data become interpret-
able in relation to what is going on inside the learner. The analysis closes in on the
place where transfer occurs.
What are the implications for present and future research? The following aspects
seem to me to be of importance. Transfer analysis is to be seen in relation to a theory,
however vague, which tries to relate processes to those conditions which trigger
them, like specific learning orientations, cognitive constraints, communicative
demands, proficiency levels, etc. The core of such an approach is the identification of
the transfer processes themselves. The crucial problem involved is that the relation-
ship between 'observable' structural patterns and the underlying processes is usually
quite ambiguous in that the same pattern can be compatible with different processes.
To give an example, when a German learner of English produces the Simple Past
variant

TABLE 5 Transfer type II

TABLE 7 Combination of transfer types
Actual Theoretical
Value value of value of
of correctness occurrence occurrence

Present Perfect -1 0 0
Past Progressive 0 25 0
Past Perfect -0.75 0 0
Past Perfect Progressive -0.75 0 0
Simple Past +0.75 75 75
Present Perfect Progressive -1 0 0

m
 32 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition
* While he wailed for his girl-friend, he forgot about the time
instead of the correct Past Progressive, '.
While he was waiting for his girl-friend, he forgot about the time
this can be attributed to a process of transfer!, but also to other processes, such as
over-generalization or simplification (or to a different input form, of course, which
would allow the Simple Past). A choice among these processes is only possible on the
basis of supplementary information. A theory of triggering conditions might be
considered to provide the missing information link. A slight touch of circular
reasoning, however, cannot escape notice: in! order to find out whether a certain
condition determines, say. transfer, the occurrence of transfer has to be proved in
advance, independently of this condition. What then is the test which decides on the
occurrence of transfer? The common procedure is not to attempt to clear up
ambiguities; instead, ambiguity is what is expressly looked for. That is. transfer is
assumed to be the process underlying a particular pattern only as long as no other
process can be found which has the same outcome. In the case where transfer is the
only process that can reasonably be assumed, this narrow criterion does not do any
harm. In the case where transfer is in competition with other processes, however, the
criterion is too rigid; and it is highly probable that transfer will be rejected as an
explanation when in fact it is responsible for the learner's output, either alone or in
combination with the alternative process(es).
There is no easy way of solving this problem. Perhaps instead of being too worried
about ambiguity and instead of trying (probably in vain) to reduce a learner's
interlanguage behaviour to isolated processes, we should accept that interlanguage
processes have a tendency to join forces in their operation. Once we have adopted
this view, stimulating questions arise concerning, e.g.. the range of interactions, the
possibilities of mutual reinforcement or attenuation, and developmental interdepen-
dencies. The methodological consequence of this perspective can only be a refined
analysis of transfer patterns, as proposed above,1 which relates the structural clues to
what is going on inside the learner, i.e. to what he expects, perceives, believes or
knows and to how he handles his knowledge: in retrieval. What is needed is a
'lateralization' (Kellerman, 1974) of the information on each individual learner.
Carefully conducted longitudinal case studies as a prerequisite to group studies will
be invaluable. '•
To conclude, transfer is in no way the monolithic process that error analysis has
treated it as. Transfer assumes various functions in the developmental organization
of interlanguage knowledge as well as in the retrieval of this knowledge in the
production of interlanguage output. The status and the significance of transfer in
language acquisition and learning can only be validly assessed when it is analysed
differentially according to these two dimensions. The concern of this article has been
to elaborate this concept and provide it with an empirical foundation.
Notes I Meisel. J. M. (1983) "Strategies of second language acquisition: more than one kind of simplification', in
1. A preliminary version of this article was presented at the International Conference on Contrastive
Analysis Projects. Jyvä'skylä. 1-5 June, 1982. For extensive discussion and comments, thanks are due
to Anita Arnone and Petra Hoffstaedter. : second language acquisition.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 3(2), 109-135.
The Analysis of Transfer 33
References
Beebe. L. (1980) 'Measuring the use of communicative strategies', in R. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen
(eds). Research in Second Language Acquisition. Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Language
Acquisition Research Forum. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury Mouse.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Corder. S. P. (1967) 'The significance of iearners' errors.' Iniernutional Review of Applied Linguistics, 5,
161-70.
Dulay. H. and M. Burt (197-1) -You can't learn without goofing', in J. C. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis.
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.
Dulay. H. and M. Burt (1975) 'Creative construction in second language learning and teaching', in
M. Burt and H. Dulay (eds). New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual
Education. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Faerch, C. (1984) 'Giving transfer a boost: developmental aspects of learners' IL performance.'
Scandinavian Working Papers on Biiingualis/n, 2. 1-22.
Felix. S. (1977) interference, imerhmguage und related issues', in C, Molony. H. Zobl and W. Stölting
(eds), German in Contact with Other Languages. Kronberg,'Ts.: Scriptor.
Jordens, P. (1977) 'Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies.' Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2(2),
5-76.
Jordens, P. (1980) interlanguage research: interpretation or explanation?' Language Learning, 30,
195-207.
Jordens. P. and E. Kellerman (1981) investigations into the strategy of transfer in second language
acquisition, in J. J. Savard and L. Laforge (eds). Actes du5ieme Congres International de Linguistique
Appliquee. Quebec: Les Presses de I'Universite Laval.
Kellerman, E. (1974) 'Elicitation. lateralization and error analysis.' York Papers in Linguistics,!, 165-89.
Kellerman, E. (1977) 'Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning.'
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. 2(1), 58-145.
Kellerman. E. (1978) 'Giving learners a break: native language intuitions as a source of predictions about
transferability.' Working Papers on Bilingualism. 15.59-92.
Kellerman, E. (1979) 'Transfer and non-transfer: where we are now' Studies in Second Language
Aquisition, 2(1), 37-58.
Kielhofer, B. and W. Börner (1979) Lernersprache Französisch. Psycholinguistische Analyse des
Fremdsprachenerwerbs. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kleinmann, H. (1977) 'Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition.' Language Learning,
27,93-107.
Kohn, K. (1979) 'Was der Lerner nicht weiß, macht ihn nicht heiß." Linguistische Berichte, 64,82-94.
Kohn. K. (1981a) 'Englisch als Fremdsprache. Eine linguistische Perspektive', in H. Grabes (ed.),
Angl'tstentag 1980 dessen. Tagungsbeiträge. Grossen-Linden: Hoffman, pp. 293-331.
Kohn, K. (1981b) 'Muttersprachlicher Transfer im natürlichen Zweiisprachenerwerb', in W. Kühlwein
and A. Raasch (eds), Sprache: Lehren—Lernen. Band 11. Kongreßberichte der 11. Jahrestagung der
Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, Dannstadt 1980. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 95-8.
Kohn, K. (1982) 'Beyond output: the analysis of interlanguage development.' Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 4(2). 137-52.
Kohn, K. (1983) 'Lernersprache und lernersprachliches Verhalten: Die Rolle der Grammatik in der
Spracherwerbsforschung', in M. Faust, R. Harweg, W. Lehfeldt and G. Wienold (eds). Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtvpologie und Textlinguistik. Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen:
Narr.
Krashen, S. D. (197S) 'The monitor model for second-language acquisition', in R. C. Gingras (ed.),
Second-Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Washington. DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1979) Contrastive Generative Grammar: Theoretical Foundations. Tübingen: Narr.
Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Meisel, J. M. (1977) 'Linguistic simplification: a study of immigrant workers' speech and foreigner talk',
in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (eds). The Notion of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and their
Relation to Second Language Pedagogy. Geneve: Droz.
Meisel. J. M. (1982) 'The role of transfer as a strategy of natural second language acquisition/processing.'
Revised version of a paper presented at the European-North American Workshop of Cross-
Linguistic Second Language Acquisition Research. UCLA (Lake Arrowhead), 4—17 September 1981.
R. W. Andersen (ed.). Pidginization and Creolization as Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Meisel, J. M., H. Clahsen and M. Pienemann (1981) 'On determining developmental stages in natural
 34 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition

View publication stats