九州大学学術情報リポジトリKyushu University Institutional Repository

Reassessing L1 Transfer in Second LanguageAcquisition Research : New Perspectives

高橋, 里美九州大学言語文化部

https://doi.org/10.15017/5467

出版情報：言語文化論究. 10, pp.51-75, 1999-03-01. 九州大学言語文化部バージョン：published権利関係：

Studies iR Languages and Cultures, No.10

keassessfiasg Mg Tffrkmesffew im Sec*eedi Mawageeage

Acagutsgaivme Reseasck: New Pewsgeecggvesi

Satsewgi 'Åéakrkkaski

gNTRepwcTgeN

The role of the native language (Ll) in second language acquisitioft (SLA) has

long been a controversial issue. From the 1940s altd 1960s, structuralists enjoyed their

heyday under the influence of behaviorism in psychology, proposing the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). The major tenet of the CAH was that differencesbetween Ll and L2 cause difficulty in learniug the L2. Any difficulties or problems

observed'in L2 learning were theft considered to be attributable to the transfer (or

interference) ef Ll structures in the L2 learning context. With the err}ergence of

Chemsky's rationaiist pesition en language acquisition in the i970s, however, the

process of SLA itself was reassessed as a cognilive phenomenon, which cannet be

elucidated by exclusively linguistic means as attempted ifi the framework of the CAff

(Long & Sato, X984).

This newiy-emerged cognitivist paradigrn in the early 1970s forRf}ed the two major

hypetheses in SLA. One was the Creative Construction (CC) ffypothesis, and the other

was the InterlaRguage (IL) }Iypothesis (see Faerch & Kasper, l987). The proponents

o'f those hypetheses argued for the gniversal autonomous system of L2 as a guiding

force of SLA. This view was strengly held by the CC propenents, contending thatthe

learners' Li plays a relatively miner role ifl developing their target ianguage (e.g.,

Dulay & Burt, l972, l973, l974).

The IL proponents, on the other hand, stressed the learfters' selective use of their

Ll knowledge (and other ILs known to there) as well as their formiftg universal

hypotheses about the target language input (e.g., Corder, l967, 1971; Nemser, 1961;

Selinker, 1966, 1969, 1972, 1989, 1992). in ether words, they duly recognized the role of

the native laRguage. Thus the IL Kypothesis was more widely accepted as a model

accounting for the process of SLA, especially in the tutored foreign or second language

acquisition contexts, where teachers often witRessed their students relying on their

native language. In particular, Selinker's (l966, 1969) study was one of the first

experimental studies in which a statistical analysis was made as te Ll transfer. ffe

systeinatically compared the following three experimentally-elicited data sources: the

iThis paper is based on Chapter Two of my doctoral dissertation (Takahashi, 1995).

51

2 :-:;esN(ttSk-Y\ilOlearners' native language, their interlanguage, and their target language. The way of

his data analysis is now a basis for studies of Ll traftsfer in SLA. More importantly,

Selinker treated "language transfer" as the process by which Ll knowledge contributes

to the shape of the IL system. }l{e then successfully incorporated the psychological

presuppositions of the cegnitivist paradigm into transfer studies while severing the

notion of transfer in SLA from the behaviorism coRcept of transfer or interference

(Faerch & Kasper, 1987). It sheuld be noted here, however, that despite his emphasis

on language transfer as a psycholinguistic "process," the distinctlons of "positive,"

"negative," and "neutral" transfers attempted by Selinker (1966, 1969) confuses the

issue of "process" versus "product." There is in fact no need to rnake the above

distinctions as they are clearly product-related assessments (Faerch & Kasper, 1987,

Gass & Selinker, 1983; cf. Schachter, 1983). With his approach, then, Selinker did not

fully address the issue of language transfer as a "process," the central claim of the SLA

cogmtlvlsts.

In the cognitivist paradigm in SLA, however, the role of the learners' Ll shifted

in the late 1970s from a minor role (as argued by the CC proponents) to a relatively

influentiai role. To put it another way, the recent SLA researchers reassessed the

significance of Ll transfer in learners' IL developmeRt (e.g., Andersen, 1983; Corder,

1983; Dechert & Raupach, 1989; Eckraait, 1977; Felix, 1980; Gass, 1979, 1988; Jordens,

1977; Kellerman, 1977, 1978, 1983; Odlin, 1989, l992; Ringbom, l989, 1992; Schachter &

Rutherford, 1979; Wode, 1986; Zobl, 198ea; and others). Specifically, their major

interest has been away from the questions concerned with the existence or non-existence of transfer, as attempted by Selinker. This is because "thatthere is transfer

is net disputed" (Kean, 1986, p. 80) and "there is no doubt that ... transfer is one of

the major factors shaping the learner's interlanguage competence and performance"

(Kehil, 1986, p. 21). The current majer concem of SLA researchers is then to atterr}pt

to specify the coRditions ultder which iangwage transfer typically occurs er does mot

occur, i.e., to investigate "transferability," rather than "transfer."

In this paper, I will provide a compreheftsive review ef this czarrent SLAcognitivist paradigm on language transfer (i.e., the one from the late X970s on) aftd

attemptto make some suggestions for future studies on transferability of Ll features.2

My attempt here will centribute to SLA research as a whole in view of the recenet

tendency that fewer researches are getting interested in examining Ll transfer (but

probably except interlanguae pragmatics researchers). Lack oftheir interest in this

area n iight be attributable to their still strong support for the early cognitivist position

2In order to limit my scope to the transferability studies, an attempt will not be made to review the

studies of transfer of "processing cues" carried out within the framework of Bates and MacWhiney's

(l981) Corripetition Model (eg., Harrington, 1987; Kilborn, 1989; McDonald, l987; Sasaki, 1991).Furthermore, I will exclusively dea} with the studies in the mainstreain SLA (i.e., IL phonology,

syntax, lexis, and semaRtics) in this paper.

52

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLangwageAcquisitionResearch:NewPerspectives 3

in the early 1970s or to their failure to grasp the nature of "transferability" studies

from the late 197Cs on. In either case or whatever else, the reassessment of the notion

of "transfer" is a timely attempt to deepen our understandiRg of the process of SLA.

TRANSFER gN waE C{JRRENT COGNgTWgST PARADXGM

Following Faerch and Kasper (1987),the literature will be reviewed according to

the following three dimensions: transferability research on the (1) "iinguistic direen-

sioit"; (2) "psychelinguistic dimeitsion"; and (3) "nonstructural dimensien."3

Lixgwtstic twgaeraegesgoit gf Wraxsfeerabggity

The studies on the linguistic dimension includes those intended to identify the

conditions for traRsfer to occur and the factors which mediate its operatioR on

lingutslic grounds. Accordingly, this section will further be divided into the foilowing

three $ub'-sections which may not be mutual}y exclusive: Developmental sequence,

Linguistic markedness, and Non-surface form transfer.

Studges eit eweveAggemee*tag Seqasegece

There is considerable agreement among researchers that SLA essentially foilows

a universal route which is not affected by the factors of age of the learners, learning

contexts, or the learners' Ll backgrounds (see Ellis, 1985; Larsen-Freeman & Long,

1991, for overview). With regard te the degree of effects of the Rative language on the

developmental sequence, however, some SLA researchers argued for its facilitative

role; btkt other researchers contended that the learflers' Ll mostiy gives rise to in-

hibitive effects in developing their IL system. This confiicting view seems to be rr}ost

prominently reflected in Corder's (1983) and Krashen's (1981, 1983) views on the role

of the mative language in IL development (see Singleton, 1987).

Both Corder and Krashen developed their own arguments in reference to Newmar-

k's (1966) ignorance hypothesis. According to the ignorance hypothesis, the true cause

of interference is "ignorance" of L2 kflowledge on the part of the learners. Whenever

their target language knowledge is lacking, the learners use certain aspects of their

native language to fulfill the L2 communication. To describe this phenomenofi, Corder

(1983) preferred to use the term "borrowing," instead of "interference," because

"nething whatsoever is being interfered with" (p. 92). According to Corder, borrowing

3Faerch and Kasper (l987) presented "socio-psychological criteria" as the third factor of traRsfer-ability. In this review, however, Odlin's (l989) concept of "ikonstructural" factors of transfer was

adopÅíed to describe the third dlmension. This is because it wasjudged that a wider variety of non-linguistic factors, iRcludlng "socio-psychological" ones, could be covered with the term "nonstructur-

al."

53

4 x-;g-eeJszltgk-siglois the learners' gap-filling from Ll knowledge and is strictly a Performance phenonae-

non or a cominunication strategy. However, borrowing is also the mechanism which

triggers strzactzaral transfer as a leaming process. It follows that learning occurs when

successfully borrowed items are eveRtwally incorporated ir}to the learners' IL system.

In this view, then, the learners' native language acts as a "heuristic tool" (p. 95) in the

process of learners' discovering the formal properties of the target langwage. Corder

contended that the learners' native language especially facilitates the leaming of L2

features which resemble the borrowed Ll features.

Krashen's (1981, 1983) view, however, seems not to go aleng with Corder's view

on the role of the native language in SLA. By particuiarly focusing en the Input

Hypothesis ift his Monitor Theory, Krashen (l983) postulated the Retion of "transi-

tional form." Whelt the comparisoft of i and i+l in the inpnt shews a gap, the i+1

ferm tentatively becomes a candidate for acquisition. If that form eventually appears

in the input, it will be acquired. If it does not turn up in ehe input, it becomes a

"transitional ferm" and will eveRtually be abandoned.

According to Krashen, Li interference (in the syntactic dorflain) eccurs when an

Ll ruie is used in Place of seme transltional form or mature forrc of the L2. This

shows a similar line of Newmark's ignorance hypothesis, as claimed by Krashen.Unlike Cerder (1983), however, Krashen regarded Ll infltgence as just "padding" (p.

148) where there are deficiencies in the acquired systei". Furthermere, Krashen

argued that the adopted Ll knewledge has a de}aying or inhibiting effectfor acquiring

a target form (e.g., fossilizatien of the preverbal negatioft ruie in the English speech of

Spanish speakers). Taken tegethey, theg Krashe"'s view is that Ll knowledge isnever incerporated into the acquired L2 system; aRd thus strzactural transfer in Corder's

sense never actually emerges.

While supporting Newnaark's ignoraRce hypothesis, Krashen also suggested that

igoorance ls not a sufficient conditlon for triggering Ll influence. According to

KrasheR, the nature of Ll influence is "cofistraints" oft the developrr}ental sequence;

and this aspect was net addressed in the ignorance hypothesis. Krashen then proposed

the following three conditions on transfer based oit the current SLA research: (1)

Motivator: there must exist some force that eRcourages the learners to rely on their

Ll; (2) The state ef the Ll rule: the Ll rule must be prodvgctive, frequently used, and

potefltially languag'e-universal aftd the I.1 donates the "slots" of its surface structure;

and (3) The "crucial similarity measure": there should be a sufficient degree ef

siinilarity between the Ll and the L2 structure.

Zobl's (1980a, 1980b, 1980c) studies were amoflg those which iiriade a great contri-

bution to Krashen's formulation of transfer conditions above. Zobl overail echoed

Krashen's claim that Ll knowledge provides an inhibiting, rather facilitatiflg, effect on

learner's IL development.` By maintaining this positien, Zobl developed his own

argumeRt of Ll influeRce ifl SLA.

54

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLanguageAcquisitiofiResearch:NewPerspectives 5

Zebl (l980a) argued for the "seiectivity of transfer," claiming the existence ef

various developmental and formal criteria for the seiective nature ef Ll influence.

According te Zobl, transfer is selective along the developmental axis. According to

this view, learners must attain a certain levei of develepment ef L2 strzacimre before

tramsfer is activated. Furthermore, transfer is selective ofl the formal axis as weil in

terms of stability (verb types),consistency (werd order),and innovativeness (question

types) iR the learners' IL. The most important point here is as fellows: it is L2

structural properties that govern both the developmental sequence (and thus possible

developmental errors) and the selective workiitgs ef transfer (and thus pessibie

transfer errors).

Based on the above argument, Zobl formulated three theses olt the naechanism

underlying develepmental and transfer errors. Zobl's first thesis states that seemingly

Ll-influence errers "presumably begiR as L2-dependent develepmental errors which

are subsequently reinforced by an Ll structure compatible with the developmentalerror" (Zobl, 1980b, p. 470).5

As the second thesis, Zobl (198eb, cited in Zobl (1980c>) argued that transfer is

promoted when the Ll structure confornf}s more to the general language acquisition

principles (i.e., Slobin's operating princlples) than the L2 structure does. According to

this thesis, the suppliance of resuinptive pronouns by Persian/Arabic learners of

English, for example, was triggered by a universal principle of clause processing

operating on their Lls when the target language clause was perceptually opaque to

them.

Zobl's third thesis claims that, despite a substafltial overlap between deveiop-

mental and transfer errers, the latter may prelong restructuring of the rule underlying

the error (Zobl, 1980c). Such prolongatlon is induced by the use ef a comicr]on rule in

the Ll system and the L2 system, i.e., the developmental stage the learners haveachieved (e.g., the Spanish-speakers' protracted use of pre-verbai negation).

The majority of the CC proponents examining the relationship between develop-

mental sequence and Ll influence basically inade the same line of argument as Zobl's,

in particular, his third thesis. For lnstance, Wode (1978, 1981, 1984, 1986) claimed that,

when a natural developmentai order reaches a stage where the L2 developmental

`Zobl, however, reported the cases in which the eÅífect of coRgruence is positlve. For example, when

both the Ll (Swedish or Spanisk) and the L2 (German or English) have articles to mark definitenessand indefiniteness, those L2 learners achieved the target-ianguage article system maore quickly than

the L2 leamers whose Lls lack the article system (e.g., Ll-JapaRese or Finnish).5With this first thesis, Zobl asserted that Cancino, Rosansky, and SchuiTiaRn's (l975) suggestionregarding Spanish-speaking English learners' first hypothesis in acquiring English negatioR is not

plawsible. Specifically, Cancino et al. understood that Spanish learners of English first hypothesizethat negation in Engli$h is like negation in Spanish. According to Zobl, however, this first hypothesis

is "based on a universal processing strategy operating on L2 input" (Zobl, 1980c, p. 473). Ll influence

occurs only after tke deveiopmeBtal types are established.

55

6 X.whJsiCdL rkl.i, IOstructure is substantially similar to the cerresponding Ll structure, the structure in

question persists much longer than it would otherwise have done. ffyltenstam (l977)

also confirmed the tendency that the learners' initial ESL learning was impeded when

their Ll has pre-verbal negation. Findings simllar to Hyltenstam were reported iR

Fathman and LoCoco (1989). Hence, those SLA researchers leitt strong support for a

delaying effect of the native language on certain aspects of IL development (see also

Gass, 1988; Sharwood Smith, 1983).

Zobl's third thesis is also coitsistent with Andersen's (l983) "transfer to some-

where principle (TTS)." The TTS principle states as follows: a gramimatical form

consistently occurs in the interlaflguage as a result of transfer "ij and only zf (1)

natural acquisitional principles are censisteRt with the Ll structure or (2) there

already exists within the L2 input the potential for (mis-)geReralization from the input

to produce the same form or structure" (p. 182). As a corollary, Andersen claimed

that, if an Ll form conforms well to the developmental processes, it will be transferred

to the learners' IL and will be acquired early; but the transferred ferm will resist

restructuring ionger than the form promoted by the natural acquisitienal processes.

The transfer studies on the developmental sequence reviewed above showed the

direct influence from the learners' Ll. Giacobbe (1992), however, illustrated the case

of secondary/mediated transfer in which the native ianguage indirectly constrains the

developmental sequence through the process of manipulation and traflsformation of

"transferable" Ll items.

In his longitudinal study o'f a Spanish speaker leaming French as an L2, Giacobbe

(1992) found that his subject, Berta, consistently produced verbless utterances with

spatial prepositions to convey directienal or stative meaning in French. In Spanish,

there are two basic spatial prepositions, a (a `mobiie' preposition) and en (a `stative'

preposition), which allow for verbless utteraRces in expresslng movement and loca-

tion. In French, there are the corresponding spatial prepositions, a, de, and en.

E[ewever, French does not permit the independent use of these prepositions without

verbs in expressing movernent and location. Berta's verbless utterances in French then

might be understood as a result of direct Ll transfer (see also Harley, 1989). Hewever,

the Spanish a can also be used in co-occurrence with ir in a verbal construction

expressing a path. According to Giacobbe, then, it might be more advisable tounderstand Berta's utterances in question as her strategy of sircplification in her L2 by

dissociating prepositional use from use of verbs in the Spanish Ll system. Giacobbe

concluded as follows: Berta perceived the correspondiRg Ll prepositicns te be transfer-

able to L2; but what she actually did was the further manipulation and transformation

of the transferable Ll system so that she could rely on her simplificatien strategy in

her IL developrr}ent.

To recapitulate, the majority of the CC proponents support the view that the

learners' native language is more likely to play an inhibiting and delaying role in the

56

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearck:NewPerspectives 7

learfiers' IL development. There is also considerable agreement araong them as to the

following points: (1) the requirement of "crucial similarity" should be met before Ll

i•nfluence takes place; and (2) transfer and IL developmental processes are not indepen-

dent forces; transfer operates in conjzanclion with these process though the prirnary

force of acquisition is attributed to the Aatural developmental processes.

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'Studges oee ]LiRgwistic twaykedness: {g]ypeggggÅëa} VRgversags

Quite a number of studies have been conducted focusing on the relationshipbetweenlinguistic rnarkedness and Ll influence (e.g., Eckman, 1977; Gass, 1979; Gundel

& Tarone, 1983; Kean, 1986; Zobl, 1982, 1983, 1984, i989). The general claim of those

studies is that linguisticaliy unmarked Ll features are likely to be transferred to the

learners' IL, while linguistically marked features of Ll tend not to be transferred (cf.

White, l987). Seme of the studies shed light en the Ll influence on the rearkedness

evalwatiofi procedure on the develepmental sequence (e.g., Zobl, l982, 1983, 1984, l989).

The issue of linguistic markedness, however, was also addressed in the framework of

typological universals, notably, implicatienal universals.6 Implicatioflal universals

assume that the presence of one structural preperty implies the presence of other

properties in the same structurai domaifi; aftd thus a hierarchical relationship is

entailed in terrus of the degree of markedness. In this section, I will review two

representative studies addressing the issue of Ll influence interacting with im-

plicational universals, namely, Eckman (l977) and Gass (1979).

In his effort to revise the CAH, EckmaA (1977) argued for typological markedness

as a transferability criterion, proposing. the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

(MDH). Unlike CAH, the MDH was intended to predict not only the areas ofdifficulty fer L2 learners, but also the directionaiity and the relative degree of diffi-

culty in acquiring certain L2 features. Eckman defined "markedness" as follows: "A

phenomenon A in some language is more marked than B lf the presence of A in alafiguage implies the presence of• B; but the presence of B does not imply the presence

of A" (p. 320). By equalizing "typologically marked" to "being difficult," then, the

]V[DH predicts the following: the areas of L2 which are different from the Ll and are

more marked than the Ll will be difficult, whereas the areas of L,?. which differ from

the Ll but are flot more marked than the Ll will not be difficult. Eckman asserted that

the application of his MDH enabled us to successfully predict that it is German

learners of Efiglish whe have more difficulty than English learners of German with

respect to the acquisition of voiced/voiceless obstruents of English and German,

respectively. Hence, Eckraan demonstrated that the learners' Ll plays a crucial role

in determining the direction and degree of difficulty in the framework of the MDH.

6Ellis (1985) noted the following three types of universals: substantive, formal, and implicationaluniversals.

57

s es-ge.]sz{itrkx. lo It should be noted here, hewever, that Eckman's application ef the MDH toSchachter's (1974) data yielded interpretations conflicting with Schachter's. Schach-

ter (1974) examined the production of English relative clauses by Persian, Arabic,

Chinese, and Japanese speakers. She found that Chinese and japaRese learnersproduced fewer errors tha" Persian and Arabic learners did. She attributed the fewer

errors observed to the less frequent suppliance ef that particular structure by Chinese

and japanese speakers as a result of their "avoidance strategy" induced by Ll/L2

structural difference (see Laufer & Eliasson, 1993, for similar findings and interpreta-

tion). Eckfxtan, however, interpreted the same data within the framework ofthG MDE[

as the following: fewer errors made by Chinese and Japanese learners of English were

the result of their Lls' being cioser to English in terms of linguistic markedness on the

relative clause accesslbility hierarchy (see below details on this hierarchy). Such

conflicting interpretatiens then led us to cast doubt olt the validity of the MDH (see

also Kellerman, 1979a, 1984; Kamimoto, Shimura, & Kellerman, 1992).

Gass (1979) examined the acquisition of relative clauses by aduit L2 learners of

English with nine Ll backgrounds. With an acceptabiiityjudgment task (for receptive

skllls) and a sentence combining task (for productioR skilis) as an ellciting technique,

she compared the accuracy order for different relative pronoun functiofls with Comrie

altd Keei}an's (1979) accessibiliby hierarchy (AH). The AH shows a universal, im-

plicatioRal hierarchy of positions from which an NP reay be relativized without

leaving a pronomiital refiex behind. TraRsfer from the Ll was identified for the

prenoun retention for the three highest positions on the AH, i.e., the proneun retention

in subject, direct object, and indirect object positions enly. According to Gass,

however, the results overall indicated that language universals seemed to play a more

leading role than Ll transfer in her study. Based on her fiRdings, Gass suggested (for

the area of syntax) that transferability is mainly determined by the foi}ewing three

conditiofts, which interact with language universals: (1) surface structures in Ll

correspond to those in L2; (2) the L2 and the transferred pattems rnanifest a high

degree of perceptual salience; and (3) the transferred pattern has a less elliptical

structure than the cerresponding L2 pattem.

As Gass herself admitted, hewever, the ff}ost crucia} weakness of traltsferability

criteria based oit iinguistic markedness is that L2 learners may not necessarily

perceive the hierarchy of markedness in the predicted way. Namely, the peint at issue

is the "psychoiogical reality" of linguistic markedness (see Faerch & Kasper, 1987;

Kellerman, 1978, l979a, 1983). Comrie and Keenan's AK is the well established relative

clause hierarchy; however, its psycholinguistic validity has not yet evidenced.

Stwdies eit Neit-Ssurface F6yxgg TraRsfer

The studies in this section were lntended to show that some Ll-influenced features

58

Reassessing Ll Transfer in SecoRd LaRguage AcqÅíiisition Research: New Perspectives 9

are not ax[ienable to traditional cross-iinguistic sarface comparison. The studies

reviewed here thelt i}}ustrate hozv the learners' Ll affects SLA.

Schachter and Rutherford (1979) examined sarnples ef written Eltglish produced

by Chlnese and Japanese-speaking learners. They noted that Chinese students over-

produced Er}glish existential constructions whelt introducing new referents which

served as subsequent topics. It was also fouftd that English extraposition construtctiofts

were used aimest exclusively by Japanese learners when they made generic statements

for future tof>ics. Neither Chinese nor Japanese has the cerrespoRding surface struc-

tures. Schachter and Rutherford extrapolated these phenomeRa as follows: since those

two languages are typoiogically topic-prominent languages, the Chinese and Japanese

learners of English coitsidered the particular English s"rface structures to serve the

"discourse fuRctien" of their Lls (i.e., being topic-preminent), even though English

uses other surface structures for that same functioR. Hence, they concluded that the

observed phenemena represeitted a traRsfer net e'f surface syntax from Ll to L2 but

ef LX fanction to L2 forna.

Similar fiAdiRgs were obtained in Rutherford (1983). Rutherferd examined the

written ERglish samples produced by L2 leamers (all prefic2ency levels) with varieus

Ll backgrewnds (e.g., Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, Korean, and Japanese). He aRal-

yzed the data on the following three parameters of laftguage typoiogy: (1) canenical

arrangercents (SVO); (2) topic-prominence vs. subject-prominence; and (3) prag-

matic-werd-order (PWO) vs. grammatical-word-erder (GWO). Rutherfordidentified a universal syntacticization precess; nainely, IL progresses frem tepic-

comment te subject-predicate iR the acquisitioR of sentential subjects by Mandarin

learners and in the acquisition of existentials by Mafldarin, Japanese, aRd Korean

learners ef Eftglish. Rutherford, however, also found cases of "typological transfer"

for the second and the third parameters of the three mentioned above. As for the

parameter of "topic-preminence vs. subject-preminence," Mandarin speakers' sam-

ples ruanifested the "extra-heavy" (p. 367) topic-comment influence from their Ll.

With respect to the parareeter of "PWO vs. GWO," en the developmental centinuum

from PWe to GWe, the japanese and Korean speakers overpreduced durnmy subjects,

showing their sensitivity to GWO. Since japanese and Kerean are more heavily GWO,

Rutherford conciuded that the observed pheftomenon was the result of Ll influence.

Referring to this Ll transfer by Japanese and Korean speakers, Rutherford argued that

this is "an instance of transfer not ef nr}other tofigue surface form but of an aspect ef

mother tongue typological organizatioR" (pp. 366-367). Lastly, Rutherford noted that

the two parameters which were subject to transfer were discourse-based, thereby

contending that it is "discourse" and Rot "syntax" that overall contributes to shaping

interlanguage.

The non-surface ferm transfer was also reported by Bartelt (1983, 1989). His data

were English written compesitiens obtained from native Apachean speakers. Bartelt

59

10 ew-gn.JS{ILfikX--10found a large ameunt of redundancy in the form of lexemes, phrases, and sentences,

which were appropriate to the Apachean norms but not to the English norms. Closer

examination further revealed that lexemes with a highly emotional connotation are

inost likely to induce the Apachean-type rhetorical redundancy. Based on his findings,

Bartelt extrapolated that the Apachean learners of English transferred their rhetorical

strategy of redundancy because it was perceived to have the same function in their

English IL as in their Ll.

To summarize, those three studies ciearly suggested that, as Schachter and

Rutherford (1979) stressed, SLA researchers should be eficouraged to investigate the

discourse level in order to grasp the dynamic process of SLA. In this sense, the studies

reviewed here provide a base for gainiRg greater insight into "pragmatic transfer."

?syckeag*gwistgc Bgtweitsigk gf Tvadesfeyahggity

As pointed out earlier, the problem inherent in the HRguistic criteria is that they

may not be "psychologically real" for L2 learners in their process of transfer. A large

number of studies on the linguistic dimension indicated that the "similarity" betweeit

Ll and L2 is one ofthe crucial conditions for transfer to occur. However, "similarity

(or typological distance)" as established by SLA researchers does not iiecessarily

reanifestthe mental represeRtation of "similarity" on the part ef L2 learners.7 While

the objective assessment of language dlstance plays a significant role in determining

how transferable a given stryicture may be, this is net adequate for us to arrive at a

deeper understanding on the conditions of transfer (Odlin, 1992). The learners'

subjective estimatien, i.e., their expectation or belief as to whether a given Ll item is

transferable to the L2 context, may give us more insigktful infermation abouttransfer

conditions (James, 1977; Odlin, 1992; see also Meisel, 1983). It ought to be understood,

then, that the transfer studies on the psycholinguistic dimension emphasize the

leamers' owR Percoplion of the interrelatedness of Ll and L2.

Several SLA researchers have been exploring the factors which encourage ordiscourage Ll transfer based on psycholinguistic criteria (e.g., Kellerman, 1977, 1978,

1986; James, 1977; Jordens, 1977; Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1989; Sj6holm, i983,

cited in Odlln, 1992; van Helmond & vaR Vugt, 1984; and others). Among them,

7A good example of the argumeRt here is presented iik Ard and Homburg (1983). Ard and Homburgexamined the responses of Spanisk and Arabic learners ef English to vocabulary questions on theMichigan Test. The results indicated that there were differences in respoRse pattems between thetwo learner groups; namely, the test items for English words which did not resemble Spanish words

were more accurately identified by Spanish speakers thaR Arabic speakers. Ard and Homburgextrapolated that the obtained differences were the result of more general similarity beÅíween English

and Spanish than between English and Arabic in terms of vocabulary constructions. They, however,established the "simi}arity" based on their own judgment (for "foma") and on the Spanish moRolin-gual dlctionary (for "meaning"), although preliiniRary data on rough similarity between English and

Spanish words were elicited from Spanish speakers in advafice.

60

Reassessing M Transfer iR Second Language Acquisition Research: New Perspectives li

Kellerman's and Jorden's studies will be scrutinized below as the representative work

in this area.

Olte of the central constructs of Kellerman's transferability framework is the

notion of "prejection." Projection is the "process ef extrapolating from the NL (native

language) to produce a suppesed TL (target language) sentence oit the assumption

that the two languages are the same" (Kellerman, 1977, p. 85, parentheses mine).

According te Kellerman, the projection from the NL to the TL 2s based oft a"reasoned" prediction, i.e., the learners' belief as to the relatioitship between their

native language and target ianguage. The basic assumption here is that, even though

researchers can ideRtify some errors in the leamers' IL, it wouid often be hard to

recognize them as the errors induced by Li transfer. If the learners believe that a TL

equivalent of a Åíertain NL forffi can be used in the TL coltstruction, lt could be said

that the observed error was induced by Ll transfer; if they do not believe like this, the

produced error might be a developmental error or a performance error. Kellerman

thereby claimed that, althoagh the observation of produced errors provides much

informatioR abeutthe learners' IL, it also presents a potentially false picture of what

the leamers really do know abeut the TL.

Kellerman also referred to the notion of "conversion" as the other major construct

iR his theoretical framework of transferability. Kellermalt defined it as follows:

conversion is the precess ef application of "what is already believed to be known about

the reiationship between NL aRd TL to the process ef projectien" (Kellerman, 1977, p.

90). Taken together, the notions of "projection" and "cenversion" previded Kellerman

with a base for exploring the Ll constraints on IL development.

In his framewerk, Kellerman defined the lranofermbilily of a given structure as "the

probability with which it will be transferred to an L2 compared to seme other structure

or structures" (Kellerman, l986, p. 36; see also Kellerman, 1983). Note here the

probabilistic nature of traRsferability: a given item A is more Iikely to be transferable

than item B, witheut having L2 learRers make a categoricaljudgment of whether items

A and B are transferable or not tranoferable te L2 contexts. Furthermore, the goal of

Kellerman's studies was to characterize how the learners' knontedge zanderlying

Peoformance is developed aRd how the develepment of that knowledge is constrained

by the Ll (Kellerman, 1986). This position led hirn to argue for predicting lendencies

in language in use, not predicting actual performance of L2 learners.8

Three criteria (conditions) of transferabillty were propesed by Keilerman: (l) the

Iearners' psychotypology; (2) psycholinguistic markedness; and (3) the reasonable

entity principle (REP) (KellerirRan, l983). Learflers' psychotypelogy is their metalin-

8As Sharwood Smith (l979) described, the approach taken by Kellerrnan and Jordens stresses"intemal reorganization prior to transfer" (Sharwood Smitk, 1979, p. 351). Namely, they regard thetransfer process as the decision-maklng process; and thus traRsfer is one of the "strategies" attempt-

ed by L2 learners iR their IL perfomance (see also Faerch & Kasper, 1986).

61

12 ecge. ]};(4k'dw' itjtintiIOguistic awareness of language distance (KellermaR, 1983).9

A good example ef psychotypolegy influencing traRsferability would be seen in the

contrasting results obtained frern Kellerman (1977) and 3ordens (1977). Kellerrnalt

(l977) set up an experiment to exafftine how Dutch leamers of English at three

differeltt proficiency levels would treat Dutch idiematic expressions translated into

ERglish. The learners were asked to judge if the transiated ERglish expressions were

correct (or acceptable) in English or not. The following results were obtained: the

lowest proficiency group teRded te assess the Dvitch-like idioms as less transferabke by

rejecting them. The highest proficiency group was, on the ether hand, rflore successful

at distinguishing correct English idioms similar to Dutch ones froxfi Dutch-based

erreneous idioms. Kellermafi extrapolated that this contrasting behavior was the

result of the advanced learners' having acquired real knozvledge of L2.

Jordens (1977) adepted the research design silliilar to Keilerman's (1977), but

wsing E)utch learners of Germalt as his subjects. In contrast to the results from

Kellerman (1977), hewever, Jerdens found the following: first-year Dutch learners

with }ow proficiency ilt GermaR perceived Dutch-like idiernatic expressions as mere

transferable to German contexts aRd failed to distinguish expressions possible in

German from those impessible in that language. Secend-year leamers, hewever,tended te perceive them as less transferable regardless ef their being possible in

German. Third-year learners, eR the gther hand, were able te begin distinguishing

between Dutch idiomatic expressioits that were possible and impossible in German.

Based on this findiRg, Jerdens assumed that the first-year Dutch learners of Gerinan

could itot distiRguish those expressioms due to a lessey degree of psychotypological

distance between Dutch and Gerrnan. Those learners considered that the two lan-

guages were more similar, as opposed to the Dutch learners of English iR Kellermar}

(i977), who perceived a greater psychotypological distance between Dutch andEnglish.

"Psycholinguistic markedness" was defined by Kellernaan as the perceptieg of a

fe3ture described as "infrequent, irregular, semaRtically or structurally opaque, or in

any other way exceptiomal" (Kellerman, 1983, p. 117). The transferability of a given

Ll feature is determined by the degree ef psychoXinguistic ixxarkedness ef ait Ll

feature. Note here that, uRlike Zobl (1980a, 1980c) and Afldersen (1983) emphasizing

L2 structural properties, Kellerrnan's notion of markedRess caR be established solely

based upon Ll-specific features independent of L2 (Kellerman, l983, 1986). If an Ll

feature is perceived as more marked, it is less likely to be transferable; if it is

9This factor is operative, for example, in the assessment of the use of English by FIRnish--speaking

Finns with Swedish as their L2, and by SvLJedisk-speaklng Finns with Flnikish as their L2 (Ringbom,

i986, l987, 1989, l992). Since both groups of FiRns perceived Ei}glish and Swedish to be more similar

than ERglish and Firmish, they judged that transfer from Swedish to English would be successful but

traiasfer frorn Finnish to English would not be.

62

Reassessing Ll Transfer in Second Language AcquisitloR Research: New Perspectlves 13

perceived as less marked, it is more likely to be transferable..

Kelierman (1977, l978, 1983) further cennected the notion of psycholinguistic

markedness with the ianguage specificity/neutrality. That is, a more raarked Ll

feature gives rise to a more language-specific perception (and thus less transferable),

whereas a less marked Ll feature results in a more language-neutral perception (and

thus more transferable). Note that the "psychoiinguistic markedness" then represents

the transferabilily in a narrow sense (Faerch & Kasper, 1987), whereas the transfer-

ability obtained from the laRguage-specificity perception is characterized as the

transferability in a broad sense. Moreover, while the degree of markedftess can be

independently established, the cencept of laRguage specificity/neutrality is relative in

nature and thus subject te L2. In other words, the degree ef laltguage specificity is

determined by the interrelateness of the specific Ll and L2 (or psychotypo}ogy) and

chailges with experience in the L2 (Keilerman, 1979b, 1983).

The relationship between transferability and psychelinguistic markedness was

empirically validated. Based on the results obtained from Kellerman (1977), Keller-

mait (1979b) further investigated whether there is a correlation between the transfer-

ability and the semantic transparency ef Ll idioms. A mederately high correlation

coefficient (rho = .502, p < .05) was obtained between these twe constructs.

Kellerman then conciuded that transparency was, in fact, ene element used by the

learners in deciding an idiom's transferability.

In Kellerman (1978, i982), the relationship between transferability and marked-

ness (or coreness) was assessed by fecusing on the various senses of the pelysemous

Dutch word breken (to break) in English for those senses. Kellerman first obtained the

transferability data from the Dutch learners of English: he asked them te mark the

Dutch sentences containing the target word if they could be translated into English

with "break." Kellerman then measured the markedness/coreness (or prototypicality)

and the coltcreteness of the meanings of the Dutch word breken. The rank-order

correlation precedure yielded a high correlation between the transferability and the

markedness/coreness ef the meanings of the Dutch word (rho = .837, p < .Oei, two-

dimensional solution), bttt not between the transferability altd concreteness of those

semses (rho = .l29, two-dimensional solution). Similar findings were obtained from

KellermaR (1986), in which he investigated the senses of the polysemous Dutch word

oog (eye) perceived by Dutch leamers of English (see also Ijaz, 1986, for similar

findings on lexical prototypicality and transferability). In consequence, Kellerrnan

contended thatthere exists a strong relationship between transferability and psycholin-

guistic markedness.

With respect to the third transferability criterlon, the "reasonable entity principle

(REP)," Kellerman (1983) claimed that "in the absence of specific knowledge abeut

the L2, learners will strive to maximalize the systematic, the explicit, and the "logical"

in their IL" (p. 122). Namely, L2 leamers tend to transfer Ll structures which

63

l4 g.imJsZ {kTkzde%10conform to the "L2 reasonableness assumption" and fail to transfer Ll structures if

they de not conforrn to this assumption. As Faerch and Kasper (l987) suggested,

however, this principle oughtto be defined relative to a given L2 learning situation: a

learner of language A with a native language B rnight have quite different reasenable-

ness assumptions as compared to a learner of language A with a native language C.

Studies on the predictability oftransfer based on this principle, however, have not been

substantially conducted (but see van Helmond & van Vugt, 1984).

It ought to be noted here, hewever, that Kellerman's transferability criteria are

Rot flawiess. Four probleniatic points will be raised belew. First, it may be hard for

the learners te determine whether a given Ll feature is psychoiinguistically marked or

not (van ffelmond & van Vugt, l984). No Ll features, including idiomatic expressions,

are inherently marked or unmarked. As Keilermaft noted, markedness is a relative

Rotion: an Ll item A is marked in relation to the other Ll item B while the same item ,A may be unmarked in relation to the other Ll item C. In order to carry out a

successfui markedness assessment, theft, the learners have to make endless compari-

sons with all possible items in their Ll.

Secend, the learners' belief or exPecimion as to whether a given Ll item is

transferable to L2 context, i.e., "projection," may be iRfluenced or governed by their

"knowledge of L2" to some extent. The learners may know the reiationship between

the Ll feature and its corresponding L2 feature; it is their knowledge that may lead

them to "believe" that the particular Ll feature can be used in the L2 context. On the

other hand, the successful performaRce in judgment tasks, for instance, the one

performed by the advanced leamers in Kellerman (1977), may not necessarily have

been induced by the learners' "real knowledge"; some advanced iearners raay have

relied on their own intuition or expectatien regarding the Ll-L2 relationship.

Third, the way of operationalizing transferability ln Kellerman's framework was

not consistent across his studies. In Kellerman (I977), he operationalized the notioR

of transferability with "correctness," i.e., the translated expressions are correct or net

in English. In Keilermak (1978, 1982, 1986), hewever, transferability was treated as

equal te "translatability." A further problern here is that "translatability" is highly

context-dependent, while Kellerman ignored any possible centextual effects in the

transferability or translatability judgnaeftts.

The abseRce of colttexts in Kellerman's experiments then constitutes the fourth

problem. In fact, Kellerm' an himself admitted the importance of contexts: "from a

pragmatic point of view, an isolated sentence like "the cup broke" is odd, since it

requires us to imagine a context in which a cup could break by itself" (Sharwood

Smith & Kellerman, 1989, p. 228). Odlin (l989, 1992) further elaberated on this

problem as follows: both structure and environraent (i.e., social context) may be

necessary for any theory of the transferability of idioms. By clting some language

64

ReassessingLlTransferiRSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch:NewPerspectives 15

contact situations (e.g., Hibemo-English and Malaysian English), Odlin clairned that

a certain idiom may be judged to be transferable from Ll when the hearers in the

community share the seciocultural values underlying the idiom with the speakers.

0dlin then argued for a crucial role of "social context," including socio-psychological

factors, in shaping a theery of Ll constraints on IL deveiopment.

Nawastrectwrag Ditwexsiek of Wraitsferahggity

The majority of the transferability studies on both the linguistic aRd psycholinguis-

tic dimensioRs have placed much emphasis on the "structural" properties of IL.

}Iewever, SLA researchers should also investigate what Odlin (l989, 1992) called

"nonstructural" factors of transferability. Several SLA researchers echoed this view

by stressing L2 leamers' socio-psychological motives and their linguistic proficieRcy as

influential factors for transfer (e.g., Birdsong, 1992; Coppieters, 1987; Faerch &

Kasper, 1986, 1987; Kohn, 1986; Meisel, 1983; Meisel, C}ahsen, & Pienemann, l981;

Wode, 1986). In this section, a focus will be placed oR the examination of how the

learners' socio-psychelogical orientations and linguistic proficiency interact with the

traftsferability of Ll features.

Sgegg-psyckogoggÅëag Factgers

Faerch and Kasper (l987) provided three types of secio-psychological factors

inducing Ll transfer. The first facter is gromp solidariby. With this factor, ethnic

ininority groups attemptto mark their group-membership by preserving Ll features

in their L2 production. The second factor is foreigner role. Faerch and Kasper

explained this factor as follows: "by adopting linguistically divergent behavier,

speakers clearly rr}ark non-membership in the L2 speech community, thereby protect-

ing themselves from being assessed on the basis of native-speaker norms and expecta-

tions" (p. 125). The third factor is murking origin: people may attempt te mark the

origin of a commodity by preserving Ll features in naming it.

With the socio-psychological criteria of transferability, tke findings of Schumann

(1978, 1979, 1982), Meisel, Clahsen, aRd Pienemann (1981), and Meisel (l983) ceuld be

substantiated. One of Schumann's Spanish-speaking subjects, Alberto, failed to

progress through the deveiopmental stages of negation. Unlike the other Spanish-

speaking subjects, Alberto remained in the first stage threughout the study, using

rnainly the no V form. As Schumann ebserved, this might be because Alberto felt a

great degree of social and possibly psychological distance toward the community of

native English speakers. This large social and psychological distance then led Alberto

to his heavy reliance on his native language and his failure to progress toward more

native-like control of English.

Within the framework of the Multidimensional Model, Meisel, Clahsen, andPienemann (l981) and Meisel (1983) demoitstrated that there exists a universal

65

16 :-::.ndJSZtkgrd-XIOdevelopmental sequence (e.g., in the acquisition ef word-order rules of German as L2),

which is highly constrained by learners' capacity of psycholinguistic speech-precess-

ing. This sequence cannot be altered by any factors. Within each stage, however,

considerable variation is observed; and such variatioR could be accounted for by the

learners' state ef secie-psychelogical orientation, i.e., segregative or integrative

orientatiofts. Segregatively-oriented learners show a more or less negative attitude

toward L2 native speakers and are not interested in staying ionger in the target-

language community. Integratively-oriented learners, on the other hand, are eager to

have centact with L2 native speakers by staying longer in the L2 community. If the

learners have a segregative orientatien, they are more iikely to rely on their Ll.

Pvefgeieuecy Facters

Kellerman's and jordeRs' studies clearly demonstrated that L2 learners' profi-

ciency affects their transferability perception. In particular, the results of Jordens

(1977) were insightfui because they manifested a U-shaped curve based ofi the

learners' proficiency.

Specifically, according to Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (l989), there are three

stages which characterize the U-shaped behavior in laftguage performance. At Stage

1, learners tend to shew targetlike performance in some limited linguistic domain.

Stage 2 is characterlzed by perforrcance in this same area which is itow deviant (in

terms of omissioit or commission) as compared to the target medel and thus different

frem performance at Stage 1. At Stage 3, those structures presentin Stage l butto

sorne extent suppressed in Stage 2 appear agaiR. Jordens (l977) substantiated such U-

shaped behavior with each of the three stages represented by differeRt laitguage

proficiency.

Transfer/transferability studies, however, do ftot always conform to the above U-

shaped behavior with respect to the learners' linguistic proficiency. In fact, the issue

of proficiency in relatiofl to Ll transfer has been relatively controversial.

Fer instance, Taylor (1975) argued that less proficient learners rely more on Ll

transfer, whereas errors produced by more advanced leamers reflecttheir strategy of

overgenerailzation frorn already-acquired IL features. Beginning Iearners' reliance on

the native language was also evidenced by Takahashi (l984), which was intended to

examine lexico-semantic transfer attempted by Japanese leamers of English. Takaha-

shi reported that advanced learners were most likeiy to abandon the Ll== L2 strategy

in their equivalence task of Japanese/English lexical items. In the area of phonology,

Major (1986) examined the validity of the Onlogeny Model, which claims that transfer

errors decrease but developmental errors increase aRd then decrease chronologically.

IE[is IoRgitudinal study of L2 acquisition of Spanish r with four American-English

speakers in fact provided strong support for the Medel.

Unlike Tayler, Takahashi, and Major, Hammerly (l991, cited in Jarr}es, 1994)

66

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch:NewPerspectives l7

claimed that Ll transfer is strengest in beginners and near-natives. Of special concern

here is a possible occurrence of Ll transfer ilt the performance of very advanced L2

learfters.

Coppieters (l987) demonstrated that adult native-like nen-native (i.e., near-

native) speakers develeped essentially different underlying grammars from native

speakers. According te Coppieters, those near-native non-natives relied on their

itative language in the areas of basic grammatical centrasts, such as tense/aspects,

articles, and pronoiininal systems, suggestlRg the impossibility for adult L2 leamers to

attain n3tive-like competence (but see Birdsong, l992, for contradicting findingsiO).

Similar findings were reported by Flege and Killenbrand (1984) in their study of the

L2 French syliables /tu/ and /ty/ produced by native speakers of American ERglish.

According to Flege and }Iillenbrand, very advanced L2 learners stiil had a preblem

with the pronunciation of an L2 phoite which has aR acoustically different counterpart

in Ll due to their interlingual identification of Ll and L2 pheltes (see also Flege, 198e,

1981).

In light of the above cenflicting findings, more efforts should be invested in

exploring preficiency effects on transferability in future research. Additionally, more

research iRto the effects of sociopsycholegical constraints on transferability ought to

be undertaken. The findings of such future stndies on the influence of nonstructural

factors wil} surely broaden our knowledge ef the nature of transfer and transferability

of prior linguistic knewledge.

eeNCSIUSgaN ANge SVGGESTgONS F$R FWYIYRE RESecARCff

Within the cognitivist paradigm which emerged as the post-Contrastive Analysis

Kypothesis, the interest of SLA researchers in the late 1970s was shifted from the

exlstence of transfer to the conditiens under whlch transfer is likely to occur.

Structural "similarity" and "freqtiency in Ll" were raised as crucial requirements/

conditieits of Ll structural transfer oft both the linguistic and psycholinguistic dimen-

sioRs. Nonstructural aspects of transferability, however, have not been examined

substantially.

The above compreheRsive review then suggests the following four points beexpiored in future research. First, as pointed out earlier, the transferability studies on

the linguistic dimensien have beeit disregarding the learners' perception of the transfer-

ability of the target structures. It would thell be more advisable for the researchers to

iOBirdsong (1992) adopted a systematic thinking-aloud technique when the subjects (near-nativespeal<ers of FreBch (ENS) and Rative speal<ers of French (FNS)) were engaged in their acceptability

judgment task. According to Birdsong, ENS subjects "as a group" differed significantly from FNSln teriins of cumulative deviance froiifi target-laRguage norms on the acceptability judgirnent task.

67

18 K-ge.J51({ItTk-!i?ilOshift their interests from the purely linguistic transferability judgments to the psycho-

logical reality of transferability, as attempted in the studies on the psycholinguistic

dimension.

Second, more effort should be invested in examining non-surface form transfer.

As Rutherford (1983) noted, it is "disceurse," not "syntax," that more likely governs

the shaping of interlanguage. Future research of this kind would aliow us te get access

to sorRe cases in which transfer is much more evident in the directioit from Ll function

te L2 ferm than in the one from Ll form to L2 form.

The third point is closely related te the secend above. Namely, more systematic

stndies incorporating the notion of "social context" should be explored even at the

phonolegicai, syntactic, lexical, and semantic levels, whlch are traditionally kmowlt as

"decontextualized."

Fourth, L2 learners' secio-psychological motives and their liRguistic proficiency

ought te be investigated as potential factors for transfer. In partlcular, as Schumann

(1978, i979, 1982) and Faerch and Kasper (1987) suggested, the issue of "disidentifica-

tion" should directly be addressed in future research. By doing this, we could grasp the

nature of transfer and transferability ebserved in mere dynamic interactions between

people frem different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

REgeERENCES

Andersen, R. W. (1983). Transfer to semewhere. Ifl S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),

Language transfer in language learning (pp. 177-201). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.Ard, J., & Homburg, T. (1983). Verification of laftgikage transfer. In S. Gass & L.

Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 157-176). Rowley,

MA: Newbury House.Bartelt, }I. G. (1983). Transfer and variability of rhetoricai redundaitcy in Apachean

English interlanguage. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in

language learning (pp. 297-305). Rowley, IVIA: Newbury House.

Bartelt, H. G. (1989). A formal analysis of discourse transfer processes in Apachean

English interlanguage. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in

language Prodzaction (pp. 99-113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist

perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In ]ff. Winitz (Ed.),

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign

language acqntsilion. New York: New Yerk Academy of Sciences.

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Langzaage,

68, 706-755.

Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). The acquisition of the Efiglish

68

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLailguageAcqulsitionResearch:NewPerspectives 19

auxiliary by native Spanish speakers. TESOL Quarlerly, 9, 421-430.

Corr}rie, B., & Keenan, E. (1979). Noufl phrase accessibility revisited. Language, 55,

649-664.

Coppieters, R. (1987). Cempetence differences between native and near-native

speakers. Language, 63, 544-573.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significaltce of learners' errors. IRAL, 5, 161-169.

Corder, S. P. (l971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. fRAL, 9, l47-159.

Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),

La'nguage lransfer in language learning (pp. 85-97). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1989). Transfer in langzaage Prodzaction.

Norwoed, NJ: Ablex.Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing, an indicator of children's second language

strategies. Language Learning, 22, 234-252.

Dulay, E[., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning,

23, 245-258.Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child secend language acquisition.

Language Learning, 24, 37-53.

Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypethesis. Language

Learning, 27, 315-330.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acqitisition. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). Perspectives on language transfer. APPIied Linguis-

lics, 8, lll-136.

Faerch, G., & Kasper, G. (1986). Cogn2tive dimensions of language transfer. In E.

Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslingutstic infZuence in second language acqutsition (pp. 49-65). New York: Pergamon.

Fathraan, A. K., & LoCoce, V. (1989). Word order contrasts and production in three

target languages. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Tmnsfer in language

Prodzaction (pp. 159-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Felix, S. (1980). Interference, interlanguage and related issues. In S. Felix (Ed.),

Second langitage develoPmenl (pp. 93-I07). TUbingen: Gunter Narr.

Flege, J. E. (1980). Phenetic approximationin second language acquisition. Language

Learning, 30, 117-134.

Flege, j. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL

Quarlerly, 15, 443-455.

Flege, j. E., & Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language

speech production. fozarnal of lhe Acozastical Society of America, 76, 708-721.

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language

Learning, 29, 327-344.

69

2e ;.g ge. }k kff-fi-3\ilOGass, S. (1988). Second language acquisitien and linguistic theory: The rele of

language traRsfer. IR S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.),Lingutstic theory in second

language acqntsition (pp. 384-403). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1983). Intreduction. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),

Language transfer in language learning (pp. 1-18). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Giacobbe, J. (1992). A cognitive view of the role of Ll in the L2 acquisitlon process.

Second Language Research, 8, 232-250.

Gundel, J. K., & Tarone, E. E. (l983). Language traflsfer and the acquisition of

Proflominal anaphora. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Langzaage lransfer in

language learning (pp. 281-296). Rowley, MA: Newbury }Ieuse.

Hammerly, H. (1991). Flzaency and acczaracy. Clevedon: Multiiingual Matters.

}Iarley, B. (1989). Traflsfer in the written compositions ef French imraersion students.

In }I. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language Prodzection (pp. 3-

19). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Laitguage-specific processing strategies

as a source ef interlanguage variatioa APPIied Psycholingntstics, 8, 351-377.

Hykenstam, K. (1977). Ireplicatlonal patterns in interlaftguage syntax variation.

Language Learning, 2Z 383-411.James, C. (1994). Don't shoet my dodos: On the resilience of centrastive and error

analysis. IRAL, 32,179-2eO.James, J. (1977). Langua.cre transfer recensidered. Interlangztage Slzadies Bzalletin

Utrech4 2(3), 7-21.

Jordens, P. (1977). Rules, grammatical intuitiens, and strategies in foreign language

learRing. fnterlanguage Studies Bbllletin, 2, 5-76.

Kamimoto, T., Shimura, A, & Kellerman, E. (1992). A second laAguage classic

reconsidered--the case of Schachter's avoidance. Second Langnege Research, 8,

251-277.Kean, M. L. (1986). Core issues in traftsfer. IR E. Kellennan & M. Sharwood Smith

(Eds.), Crosslingblistic infZeeence in second langzaage acqnisition (pp. 8e-90). New

York: Pergamon Press.Kellerrnaft, E. (1977). Teward a characterisation of the strategy ef transfer in second

language learning. interlanguage Simdz'es Bzalletin, 2, 58-145.

Kellerman, E. (l978). Giving Iearners a break: native language intuitions as a source

of predictions about transferability. Working Pmpers on Bilingualism, 25, 59-92.

Kellerman, E. (1979a). The problem with difficulty. inlerlanguage Sludies Bulletin, 4/

1, 27-48.

Kellerman, E. (1979b). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Stndies in

Second Language Acqntsition, 2, 37-57.

Kellerman, E. (1982). Predicting transferability from semantic space: An investigation

of translation preferences fer a polysemeus word. Stndia Anglica Posnaiensia, 14,

70

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch:NewPerspectlves 21

197-219.

Kellerman, E. (1983). Now yeu see it, now you don't. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),

Language transfer in language learning (pp. Il2-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.Kellerman, E. (1984). The empirical evidence for the influence ef the Ll in interlan-

guage. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. }Iowatt (Eds.),lnlerlanguage (pp. 98-122).

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kellerrnan, E. (1986). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the develop-

meRt of the L2 iexicon. In E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslin-

gntstic inflzaence in second language acqntsilion (pp. 35-48). New York: Pergamen

Press.Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence precessing iA a secend language: The timiRg oftransfer.

Language and SPeech, 32, 1-23.

Kehn, K. (l986). The analysis of transfer. In E. Kellerman & ]N(l. Sharwoed Smith

(Eds.), Crosslingzaislic inL17uence in second langzaage acqeeisition (pp. 21-34). New

Yerk: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acqzaisition and second language leaming. New

York: Pergamon Press.KrasheR, S. (1983). Newmark's ignerance hypothesis aRd curreitt second language

acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language lranser in

language learning (pp. 135-153). Rewley, MA: Newbury House.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. }I. (1991). An introduction to .gecond language

acqzaisition research. New York: Longman.

Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (l993). What causes avoidance in L2 leaming. Ll-L2

dlffereflce, Ll-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Simdies in Second Language

Acquisition, 25, 35-48.

Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1984). Methodologicai issues ininterlanguage studies: An

interactionist perspective. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. ffewatt (Eds.), lnlerlanguage (pp. 253-279). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Major, R. C. (1986). The Ontogeny Model: Evidence from L2 acquisitien of Spanish

r. Langblage Leaming, 36, 453-5e4.McDowald, J. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers ef Engiish and

Dutch. APPIied Psycholingntstics, 8, 379-413.

Meisel, J. M. (1983). Transfer as a second-language strategy. Language and Commzanication, 3, 11-46.

Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, ff., & Pienercann, M. (1981). On determining developmental

stages in natural second language acquisitien. Slzadies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, I09-135.

Nemser, W. (i961). The interPretation of English stops and interdental fricatives by

native sPeakers of ffzangarian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia

7i

22 :-.haJ5iC{tas3-:"tsIO University, New York.Newinark, L. (1966). }Iow net to interfere with language learning: The individual and

the process. International foztrnal of American Lingntstics, 40, 77-83.

0dlin, T. (1989). Langzaage transfer: Cross-lingntstic inLfZuence in language learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Odlin, T. (1992). Transferability and linguistic substrates. Second Language Research,

8, 171-202.

Ringbem, H. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence and the fereign language learning

process. In E. Kellerman & M. Sharweod Smith (Eds.), Crosslingblistic infZuence

in second language acqntsition (pp. I50-162). New York: Pergamen Press.

Ringbona, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning.

Clevedofi: Multilingual Matters.

Ringbom, ff. (1989). Effects of transfer in foreign language learning. In I{. W. Dechert

(Ed.), Czarrent trends in EzaroPean second language acqutsition research (pp. 205-

218). Clevedon: Multilingwal Matters.

Ringbom, H. (1992). On Ll transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning, 42, 85-112.

Rutherford, W. (l983). Language typology and language traitsfer. In S. Gass & L.

Seliltker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358-370). Rewley,

MA: Newbury House.Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interianguage cornprehension strategies: An

aualysis based on the cerr}petition medel. APPIied Psycholingntstics, 12, 47-73.

Schachter, j. (1983). A new account of language transfer. IR S. Gass & L. Selinker

(Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98-111). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function aRd language transfer.

Working PaPers on Bilingualism, 19, 3-12.

Schachter, J. (l974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.

Schumann, J. (l978). The Pidgindeation Process: A model for second langnege acquisi-

tion. Rowley, MA: Newbury Heuse.Schumama, J. (l979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A

review of the literature. In R. Andersen (Ed.), The acqzaisition and blse of SPanish

and English as first languages. Washington, DC: TESOL.Schumann, J. (1982). Simplification, transfer, and relexification as aspects of pidgin-

ization and early second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 337-365.

Selinker, L. (l966). A Psycholinguistic study of language transfer. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Geergetown University.

Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67-92.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10,209-231.

Selinker, L. (1989). CA/EA/IL: The earliest experimental record. IRAL, 27, 267-291.

72

ReassessingLlTransferinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch:NewPerspectives '23

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1979). Strategies, language transfer and the simulation of the

second language learner's mental operations. Langzaage Learning, 29, 345-361.

Sharwoed Smith, M. (1983). Cross-linguistic aspects of'second language acquisition.

APPIiedLinguistics,4,192-199.' • ••- •Sharwood Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (l989). The interpretation of second language

output. In H. W. Dechert & ]Vl. Raupach (Eds.•), Transfer•in language Prodzaction

(pp.217-235).Norwood,NJ:Ablex. .Singleton, D. (1987). Mother and other tongue influence on leamer French. Stbldies

in Second Language Acquisilion, 9, 327-346.• 'Sj6holm, K. (1983). Problems in `measuring' L2 learning strategies. In ff. Ringborr}

(Ed.),Psycholingntstics and foreign language learning (pp. 174-l94). Abo, Finland:

Publications ef the Research IRstitute of the Abo Akadeifni FouRdation.

Takahashi, S. (1995). Pragmatic transferability of Ll•indirect reqblest slrategies

Perceived by fmpanese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Kawaii at Manea.

Takahashi, T. (1984). A sludy on lexico-semanlic transfer. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Celumbia University.

Taylor, B. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by

elementary and intermedlate students of ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73-107.

van Kelmond, K., & va" Vugt, M. (1984). On the transferability of nominal com-

pounds. inlerlanguage Studies Bzalletin-Utrech4 8, 2, 5-34.

White, L. (1987). ]V{arkedness and second language acquisition: The question of

transfer. Sleedies in Second Language Acq%isilion, 9, 261-285.

Wede, }I{. (1978). The Ll vs. L2 acquisition of English negation. Working f?aPers on

BilingMalism, 15, 37-57.

Wode, H. (l981). Language-acquisitional universals: A umified view of language

acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Nalive language and foreign language acquisition

(pp. 218-234). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379.

Wode, H. (1984). Some theoretlcal implications of L2 acquisition research and the

grarnmar of interlanguages. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), lnlerlanguage (pp. 162-184). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wode, H. (1986). Language transfer: A cognitive, functional and developmental view.

In E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslingutstic inL17zaence in second

language acquisition (pp. 173-185). New York: Pergamon Press.Zobl, H. (1980a). The formal and developmental selectivity of Ll influence on L2

acquisition. Language Learning, 30,43-57.Zobl, H. (1980b). Contact-induced language change, learner-language, and the Poten-

tials of a modzfied CA. Paper presented at the Los Angeles Second Language

Research Form, U.C.L.A., February, 1980.

73

24 as.nhi5I({l3Tkil3){iilOZobl, H. (1980c). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common bases and (possible) differentiai effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly, 14,469-

479.Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for contrastive analysis: The comparative study of

developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 169-l83.Zobl, H. (1983). Ll acquisition, age of L2 acquisition, and the learning of word order.

In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),Language transfer in language learning (pp. 205-

221). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Zobl, H. (1984). Cross-generalizations and the contrastive dimension of the Interlan-

guage }Iypothesis. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. }Iewatt (Eds.),lnlerlanguage

(pp. 79-97). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Zobl, H. (1989). Markedness constraints on acquisition and prior liRguistic experience.

In ff. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language Prodzaction (pp.

I41-158). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

74

Reassessi鷺g　LI　Transfer　in　Seco捻d　Lan暮uage　Acqulsition　Research：New　Perspectives　　　25

第二言語習得における母語転移研究　　　　　　　一新たな視点を探る一

高　橋　里　美

　1940年代から60年代にかけてのアメリカ構造主義言語学と行動主義心理学の影響下で栄

華を誇った対照分析仮説（Contrastive　A慧alys童s　H：ypothesis）は、第二言語習得における

母語の役割（母語転移・母語干渉）を最重要視する研究課題であった。しかし、1970年代

初頭の合理論的立場（rationalist　posi之ion）の台頭で次第にその勢力は失われ、代わりに人

間の認知活動に焦点を当てた研究基盤（cog捻itivist　paradigm）が打ち立てられた。この新

たな研究基盤はさらに2つのグループに分類され、主として北米を中心に創造的構成仮説

（Creative　Construction　H：ypo℃hesis）を、そして、ヨーロッパを中心に中間言語仮説

（lnterlanguage　H：ypothesis）を第二言語習得研究の新研究課題として提唱する派が結成さ

れた。この2つの仮説においても、第二言語習得における母語転移の問題が継続して扱わ

れた。特に、創造的構成仮説支持派は、当初、母語の影響はほとんどありえないとする立

場をとったが、1970年代後半になると、第二言語の習得において母語は必ず何らかの役割

を果たすとする立場をとるようになった。その多くはどの言語にも普遍に見られる発達過

程を第二言語習得の中枢過程とする一方で、どのような条件の下でどのような影響を母語

が及ぼすかを研究の対象とした。一方、ヨーロッパでは、母語の役割についての学習者自

身の知覚に焦点を当てた研究が盛んになった。本研究は、これら70年代後半以降の新しい

認知研究の枠組みで、第二言語習得における母語転移がどのように扱われてきたかを概観

する。そして、これを基に、今後の母語転移に関する研究課題を考察する。

75