Positive and negative transfer

Based on the utterance’s relation to the target language, interlanguage pragmatics research distinguishes two main types of transfer, positive and negative. Positive transfer presupposes the existence of similar pragmatic structures in the learner’s first and second languages, this way making the transfer successful. Kasper (1998, p. 193.) defines positive transfer as follows:

When learners’ production of a pragmatic feature is the same (structurally, functionally, distributionally) as a feature used by target language speakers in the same context and when this feature is paralleled by a feature in learners’ L1, the converging pattern is referred to as positive transfer.

Positive transfer is often difficult to distinguish from the presence of linguistic universals (see section 1.2.3.4 on universals in pragmatics). As an example, most languages can express requests with different degrees of directness (Blum-Kulka &

House, 1989; Szili, 2002). This phenomenon is universal among the languages examined in interlanguage pragmatics research. The requests range from an imperative (e.g., Take out the trash! or Vidd ki a szemetet!) to the conventionally routinized indirect forms (such as Would you mind taking out the trash? or Kivinnéd a szemetet?). Therefore, if a language learner produces a pragmatically appropriate request in the target language, it is most likely that the utterance is the result of pragmatic universals rather than positive transfer. However, if the learner’s utterance contains a pragmatic element that is present in the L1 and L2, but is not a universal feature, it is probably the result of positive transfer.

Negative transfer is observed in the case of pragmatic elements or functions that are different in learners’ first and second languages. Learners may transfer their

pragmalinguistic knowledge from their L1 to L2. Thomas (1983, p. 101.) defines pragmalinguistic transfer as:

…the inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the transferring from the mother tongue to the target language of utterances which are semantically/syntactically equivalent, but which, because of different

‘interpretive bias’, tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language.

I would like to quote some negative transfer situations in the case of Hungarian EFL learners and students of Hungarian as a Second Language. First, Hungarian learners of English often use Hello as a leave-taking in English, which is a negative transfer from their first language, reflecting parallel examples of using the same term for greeting and leave-taking as in Szia or Szervusz (Edwards, 2003a). The second example was mentioned by a Hungarian as a Second Language learner in a case study (Edwards, 2004), when he described an annoying situation that occurred between him and his Hungarian roommate. When speaking English, his roommate often formulated his offers by using the form negative auxiliary + subject + verb, as in Don’t you want some soup?

This form, which is a clear negative transfer from the Hungarian Nem kérsz levest?

annoyed the non-native speaker of Hungarian, as it communicated to him that the roommate had been asking him for several times to no avail. Only after discovering the transfer effect were the roommates able to realize the nature of the miscommunication.

There are examples of negative transfer from the field of Hungarian as a Second Language as well. Bándli and Maróti (2003) describe a transfer effect when Japanese learners of Hungarian produced requests that were interpreted as suggestions by the Hungarian listener (e.g. Elnézést, hogy zavarok, de szerintem nem jó itt dohányozni). This

utterance was the result of the negative transfer of a Japanese phrase that has a different illocutionary force in Hungarian.

In addition to the negative transfer of pragmalinguistic knowledge, socio-pragmatic features of the first language may also be transferred to the target language.

Kasper (1998) supplies examples for this observation. She mentions that Chinese learners of English may be reluctant to accept compliments on the basis of Chinese cultural norms. She also points out that negative transfer of pragmatic norms can be present in a classroom setting, such as the low participation by Japanese learners of English compared to speakers of other languages. Although there is no scientific evidence to attest to this justification, it is likely that the Japanese learners follow their L1 participation patterns.

Tyler (1995) describes a cross-cultural miscommunication between a native speaker of Korean and American English. In this situation, the Korean speaker transferred Korean conversational routines into English, which resulted in the misconception on both sides that the conversational partner was uncooperative. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that negative pragmatic transfer does not necessarily equal pragmatic failure. Many times negative transfer can and does cause miscommunication and in some cases, failure;

yet not all divergences in non-native speaker speech production lead to communication breakdowns. As in the example above, Japanese learners may be perceived as less active compared to their peers of other nationalities. This, however, does not necessarily imply miscommunication or communicative failure.

Despite the fact that pragmatic transfer can be both positive and negative, it is negative transfer that is analyzed in the majority of interlanguage pragmatics studies.

Kasper (1992) argues that positive transfer has been short shifted by interlanguage

pragmaticist. There are two main reasons that explain this phenomenon. The first one is that interlanguage pragmatics research is mainly focused on learners’ miscommunication or failure in the second language. The goal of most research projects on transfer is to identify miscommunications, investigate the negative transfer that caused them; and most importantly, provide learners with resources in and outside the classroom that enable them to avoid future miscommunication or failure. The second reason is the methodological complications with identifying and investigating positive transfer; mainly the difficulty of distinguishing positive transfer from linguistic universals, the learner’s successful acquisition of the rule, or the effect of other languages the learners know. One research tool that can aid the investigation of positive pragmatic transfer is the think-aloud protocol. Using this tool, the researcher can receive input from the learner right after the utterance (after recording a role-play, for instance) as to the thought processes he or she used when producing a particular utterance successfully. It is also essential that the researchers know the learners’ first language and culture, which enables them to identify positive pragmatic transfer in learners’ interlanguage.