Developments of Language Transfer Studies during the Past 30 Years

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.03.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Undergoing briefly four phases, language transfer research (LTR) has experienced unprecedented development since 30 years ago. Many important empirical discoveries and theoretical advances have been springing up in recent years, which are aimed to reveal how languages interact with each other in the brain and to explore the factors that influence language transfer in the complex, dynamic and systematic way. Standing in the frontier of LTR, the generative approach focuses on L1 transfer in relation to syntax. Contrastively, conceptual transfer approach, closely connected with linguistic relativity and neo-Whorfianism, is mainly concerned with how L1 concepts are transferred to L2 discourse. Language transfer could be better explained with the Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and the potentially concept-based multicompetence model. And relative studies should encompass linguistic and non-linguistic factors, compare languages horizontally and/or longitudinally, and describe and explicate transfer by interdisciplinary and multi-perspective ways.

Key words: language transfer, generative grammar, conceptual transfer, complex dynamic systems theory, multicompetence model

CLC Number:

H319.5

GAI Feihong. Developments of Language Transfer Studies during the Past 30 Years[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(3): 113-121.

Figures/Tables 1

References 37

[1]	Alemán Bañón J.,R. Fiorentino & A. Gabriele. 2014. Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1-L2 similarity and structural distance[J]. Second Language Research (3): 275-306.
[2]	Cook V. 1997. The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence[J]. Second Language Research (7): 103-117.
[3]	de Bot K.,W. Lowie & M. Verspoor. 2005. Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book[M]. Abingdon: Routledge.
[4]	Eubank L. 1996. Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state[J]. Second Language Research (1): 73-106.
[5]	Flecken M. 2011. Event conceptualization by early Dutch-German bilinguals: Insights from linguistic and eye-tracking data[J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 61-77.
[6]	Grondin N. & L. White. 1996. Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French[J]. Language Acquisition (5): 1-34.
[7]	Han Z. & T. Odlin. 2006. Introduction[A]. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (eds.). Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[8]	Han Z.& W. Lew. 2012. Acquisitional complexity: What defies complete acquisition in second language acquisition?[A]. In B.Szmrecsanyi & B. Kortmann(eds.). Linguistic Complexity in Interlanguage Varieties, L 2 Varieties, and Contact Languages[C]. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 192-217.
[9]	Hansen L. 2001. Language attrition: The fate of the start[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 60-73.
[10]	Hilles S. 1986. Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter[J]. Second Language Research (1): 33-52.
[11]	Huang Y. 2017. Introduction: What is Pragmatics?[A]. In Y. Huang (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-20.
[12]	Jarvis S. 1998. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlingual Lexicon[M]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.
[13]	Jarvis S. 2000. Semantic and conceptual transfer[J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (3): 19-21.
[14]	Jarvis S. & A. Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition[M]. New York: Routledge.
[15]	Jarvis S. 2015. Fundamental questions for conceptual transfer research[J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (4): 32-36.
[16]	Larsen-Freeman D. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition[J]. Applied Linguistics 26: 141-165.
[17]	Lucy J. 1996. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research[A]. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 37-69.
[18]	Mechelli. A.,R.S. Frackowiak & C.J. Price. 2004. Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain[J]. Nature 431: 757.
[19]	Odlin T. 1989. Language Transfer: Crosslinguistic Influence in Language Learning[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[20]	Odlin T. 2005. Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 3-25.
[21]	Odlin T. 2015. Two points in a research agenda for the study of conceptual transfer[J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (4): 25-30,42.
[22]	Pavlenko A. 2000. L 2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism[J]. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11: 175-205.
[23]	Schwartz B. & R. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model[J]. Second Language Research (1): 40-72.
[24]	Slobin D. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”[A]. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 70-96.
[25]	Su I. 2016. Pragmatic transfer in foreign language learners: A multi-competence perspective[A]. In V. Cook & W. Li (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence[C]. 298-320.
[26]	Ullman M. T. 2001. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model[J]. Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2): 717-726.
[27]	Vainikka A. & M. Young-Scholten. 1996. Gradual development in L2 phrase structure[J]. Second Language Research (1): 7-39.
[28]	van Heuven W. & T. Dijkstra. 2010. Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models[J]. Brain Research Review 64: 104-122.
[29]	White L. 1989. The adjacency condition on case assignment: Do L 2 learners observe the Subset Principle?[A]. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134-161.
[30]	White L. 2003 On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal Grammar in the second language[A]. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 19-42.
[31]	Zobl H. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem[J]. Language Learning (3): 293-313.
[32]	蔡金亭、李佳. 2016. 语言层迁移和概念迁移的研究方法[J]. 外语界 (4): 2-10.
[33]	李绍鹏、杨连瑞. 2013. 语篇视角的汉英中介语话题突出现象研究[J]. 外国语 (6): 63-71.
[34]	杨连瑞. 2010. 二语习得多学科研究[M]. 青岛: 中国海洋大学出版社.
[35]	杨连瑞. 2015. 中介语语言学多维研究[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.
[36]	赵朝永、王文斌. 2017. 中国英语学习者语域变异多维分析: 英汉时空特质差异视角[J]. 外语电化教学 (8): 71-78.
[37]	张辉. 2014. 二语学习者句法加工的ERP研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报 (1): 88-99.

发展阶段	理论视角	代表性研究	研究重点
“管约论” 时期	标记性子集原则空主语参数	Zobl 1983 White 1989 Hilles 1986	迁移的制约条件
“最简方案”时期	完全迁移/完全可及假说最小树假说特征无值假说	Schwartz & Sprouse 1996 Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1996 Eubank 1996	中介语初始状态