Transferring: A Source of Error or LanguageLearning Strategy

Abstract

Transfer is a concept that had been borrowed from psychology tobe used by Contrastive Analysis as the only source of learners’errors, and as not the only source but still the major sourceof these errors by Error Analysis. This paper aims atdemonstrating the concept of ‘Transfer’ as a language learningstrategy used by learners to help them overcome difficultiesthey face while communicating using the target language. Inthis sense, the Transfer of the mother language concepts isconsidered as a positive technique that facilitates languageacquisition. Moreover, this paper aims at giving teachersguidelines to help them distinguish between Transfer as asource of errors that should be corrected, and transfer aslanguage learning strategy based on a communicative ErrorAnalysis. In other words, between errors that hindercommunication and cause misunderstanding and those that don’t.

Introduction

Transfer is a notion that is conceptualized differently byresearchers in the field of second languageacquisition/learning and language teaching and learning. Thepresent study starts with manifesting this concept and how itis approached by contrastive analysis and error analysis. Then,the shift to see it as a cognitive process and later on alanguage learning strategy and / or a communication strategy isdiscussed. Finally, some guidelines are suggested for teachersto deal with transfer as a language learning strategy and/ orcommunication strategy, and how they would react to errors thatmay occur while applying it.

1

1-The Notion of Transfer

Language transfer is the effect of one language on the

learning of another. It is a psychological component borrowed

by contrastive analysts as an attempt to understand and explain

second language learning. Lado claims that second language

learners transfer their native language and culture to the

foreign language and culture, both productively when they speak

or write and receptively when they try to understand the target

language and culture. Hence, similarity between structures in

the mother tongue and in target language leads to generating

correct utterances, then, ‘positive transfer’ would take place.

However, if structures in the target language are different or

do not exist in the mother tongue, ‘negative transfer’ or

‘interference’ would occur. Throughout time, the notion of

transfer has gained proponents ranging from the absolute to

partial acceptance, and opponents that seem to completely

ignore the existence of L1 transfer in second language

learning.

Contrastive analysis, being deeply rooted in behavioristic

and structuralist approaches and pedagogically oriented, claims

that a scientific description of the target language and the

mother tongue is necessary to find out similarities and

differences between them, the basis on which course designers

and teachers can select more effective teaching materials from

one hand, and decide about learners’ difficulties from the

other. Practices in language classroom in the 1950s were also

2

greatly influenced by the notion of transfer; teachers focused

on mimicry and memorization tasks, errors – being rooted in the

mother tongue- were undesirable and teachers corrected them

immediately to avoid wrong behavioural patterns formation.

Since similarity leads to correctness, Contrastive Analysis

gave more importance to differences because they lead to error

and ‘negative transfer’. However, one of the major drawbacks of

C.A is the predictable power it assumed; errors do not always

occur when predicted, it was also criticized for this

assumption when researches in the field revealed that not

always similarity leads to easiness and difference to

difficulty giving the use of false friends and diphthongs in

English as evidence. Hence, C.A did not provide all the

necessary information for course planners (Gass & Selinker ;

Mitchell & Miles ). While the strong version of C.A assumes a

priori power to predict difficulty, the weak version does not

imply a priori prediction, but a posteriori explanation, i.e.

it recognizes the existence of interference and its

significance in explaining errors. Then, many researchers

agreed to use the term “cross- linguistic influence (CLI)”

instead of interference. CLI doesn’t refer only to the

influence of L1 on the target language, but also the effect of

the target language on L1 and the effect of a number of

languages on each other in a multilingual context (Brown ).

Being influenced by the shift from behaviourstic view of

language to rationalistic view, S.P. Corder advocated the shift

of emphasis away from teaching towards the study of learning

and learners’ developing systems. Unlike C.A, Error Analysis

3

assumes other sources of errors but still a major cause of

learners’ errors is L1 transfer. Within this perspective,

errors are no more undesirable, they are considered to be

systematic, in other words, errors function as devices that

learners use to acquire the target language because success in

the learning process comes through making mistakes and

profiting from the environment’s feedback, errors occur

repeatedly without being recognized by learners, they are

recognized by teachers and researchers. The classification of

errors helps researchers to infer strategies that second

language learners adopt to understand second language

acquisition processes. Corder summarizes the importance of

errors in three main points:

“A learner’s errors are significant in three different

ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell him if he

undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal

the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains

for him to learn. Second, they provide to the researcher

evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what

strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the

discovery of the language. Thirdly, they are indispensible

to the learner himself, because we can regard the making

of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn”

(167)

In investigating the sources of errors, error analysts

suggested “interlingual transfer” which includes the transfer

of the mother tongue forms and structures or those forms of

another learned language, and “intralingual transfer” or4

transfer within the target language itself which can be either

positive or negative (examples of negative intralingual

transfer or overgeneralization in English include: he goed,

does John can sing?...). Then, researchers argued that the

early stages of learning a target language are characterized by

interlingual transfer, but once their level of proficiency

developed, learners manifest more intralingual transfer(Brown).

Error Analysis focused on recognizing, classifying and

explaining errors, so that it was criticized for the total

reliance on errors and the exclusion of other information, in

other words, to get a full picture of a learner’s linguistic

behaviour, there should be a consideration of both errors and

nonerrors (Gass & Selinker); in this sense, Brown warned

teachers against the danger of giving much attention to

learners’ errors forgetting the reinforcement of correct

utterances that result in free communication. Although E.A has

shown that learners do more than just transferring L1 forms,

functions and culture (as contrastive analysis assumed), it

only considers a partial picture of the learning situation, it

overemphasized production (speaking and writing) than

comprehension (reading and listening) despite the fact that

both are of equal importance to understand SLA processes

(Brown; Gass & Selinker). Furthermore E.A. is proved to fail

accounting for the strategy of avoidance; it assumed the

absence of difficulty because of the absence of errors in areas

where learners avoid using particular forms and structures

either because of the lack of L2 knowledge or L1 transfer

(Brown). Besides, no attention was given to the way teachers

5

can benefit from such information in class, nothing is

mentioned about how these errors are dealt with (Burt) .

Being labeled “approximative system” by Nemser (qtd. In

Brown 215), and “idiosyncratic system” by Corder (qtd. In Brown

215), Selinker adopted the term “interlanguage” to refer to the

learners’ system which is neither the mother tongue nor the

target system to illustrate that learners are not just

producing illformed structures which are the result of L1

transfer, they are rather creative actors in meaningful

contexts (Brown ). Selinker conceptualized transfer within a

cognitive framework considering it as a process to which

learners refer while forming the interlanguage, thus, transfer

is no more considered an interference but a cognitive process

where L1 knowledge serves as an input. Ellis identifies two

cognitive constraints that govern L1 transfer: learners’

perceptions of what is transferable, and their stage of

development (53). That is, learners distinguish between forms

and structures which are basic and transferable and those which

are unique and non-transferable in their L1, besides their

stage of development. He claims that L1 transfer is not the

starting phase of learning the TL process, and that the latter

is not just a substitution of L1 rules by L2 rules, instead

learners build their L2 knowledge and use L1 knowledge when

they have a particular level of proficiency, from one side, and

perceive it to be helpful and in the learning process of L2,

from the other. Hence, With the emergence of the ‘Communicative

Approach’ and the huge prominence it has gained in the field of

language teaching and learning up to present, the notion of

6

transfer regained attention not as a source of error but as a

language learning strategy (LLS) or a communication strategy

that helps learners overcome communication problems and attain

their communicative goals.

2-Transfer as a Language Learning Strategy

Before demonstrating the concept of Transfer as a LLS, a

clarification of what is a LLS and a communication strategy is

of salient importance.

The word 'strategy' has a Greek origin –strategia- which

means "steps or actions generals take for the purpose of

winning a war" (Oxford Styles 362). When the term was

introduced to the field of education, it took a new meaning

that was first approached by Rubin as "techniques or devices

which a learner may use to acquire knowledge"(43). Further

definitions followed during the 1980s and 1990s up to present,

but what characterizes each is the link with the authors'

interest -either in psycholinguistics or in pedagogy-

(Macaro).

A global LLS definition is provided by Weinstein , Husman

& Dirking who posit that "learning strategies include any

thoughts, behaviors, beliefs or emotions that facilitate

the acquisition, understanding, or later transfer of new

knowledge and skills"(727), making LLS cognitive, behavioral

and emotional at the same time. This view was supported by

other researchers who manifest that they can be all of these

7

since they are pedagogy aids. The LLS concept is better

defined by listing strategy characteristics outlined by Oxford

(Strategies 9):

LLS contribute to the main goal, communicativecompetence.

LLS allow learners to become more self-directed.

LLS expand the role of the teacher.

LLS are problem-oriented.

LLS are specific actions taken by the learner to tacklelearning problems, not general approaches.

LLS involve beyond cognitive aspects; metacognitive, andsocial aspects are also included.

LLS support learning both directly and indirectly.Directly by using the new language per se, indirectlyby using other tools that contribute to learningpowerfully like planning, evaluating...

LLS are not always observable. They can be observablelike taking notes, but the majority are unobservablebecause they are mental activities or because they areused outside class in informal situations.

LLS are often conscious. Most researchers agree that theyare conscious but their use can be automatic i.e.learners are able to identify what they do or think, thismeans that they are aware, and LLS are conscious.

LLS can be taught; LLS are subject to change, learnerscan be taught why, when, how to use and how totransfer LLS to new situations to maximize learningexperience for both successful and unsuccessful learners,inside and outside class.

8

LLS are flexible, not predictable, and their usedepends on the learners' choice.

LLS are influenced by a variety of factors: degree ofawareness, proficiency level, task requirements, teacherexpectations, age, sex, nationality/ethnicity, learningstyle, personality traits, motivation, the purposeof learning, in addition to personal beliefs aboutlanguage learning and education.

Dörnyei argues that these characteristics are not enough to

distinguish between normal and strategic behaviors; because

efforts are not associated only with strategic behavior, they

can be used also to describe "hard and focused learning in

general". Thus, he supports the feature of "appropriateness"

proposed by Riding and Rayner (qtd. In Dörnyei) in the sense

that an activity is not strategic unless it is appropriate and

helpful in attaining a learning goal. LLS are proved to be what

differentiates good language learners from those who face

difficulty (Rubin), they help learners to achieve success in

different learning tasks, to be more self-directed and

autonomous, and to be active by shifting responsibility from

teachers to learners.

In this context, speaking of L1 transfer, it is necessary

to distinguish between LLS and communication strategies.

Communication strategies are those strategies used by the

learner to overcome communication difficulties caused by

inadequate linguistic knowledge (Ellis), and help him to cope

with new situations and express different concepts and ideas he

doesn't know (Leaver, Ehrman and Shekhtman ). Gass and

Selinker explain that communication strategies include three

9

components: problematicity (the learner realizes that there is

a problem), consciousness (the learner is aware of the use of

these strategies), and intentionality (strategies are used to

solve the problem) (286). Albeit the distinction between LLS

and communication strategies is difficult, it remains a useful

one for a better understanding of LLS. Macaro explains that

this difficulty lies in the fact that "there is a process of

learning going on simultaneously with the process of

communicating"(19) ; the learner learns through feedback from

others during the language use or communication. In this case

communication strategies are also learning strategies at the

same time. However, Cohen manifests that during the language

use, the learner may or may not learn; if there is no feedback,

there will be no learning. In this case it can not be claimed

that communication strategies are learning ones. Hence,

compared with those views distinguishing communication and

learning strategies on the basis of intention and motivation,

Griffiths shows that the distinction based on result, learning

strategies are those strategies that result in learning, seems

more reasonable. Based on this distinction between LLS and

communication strategies, transfer is viewed as LLS by some

researchers (Oxford Strategies) and as communication strategies

by others (Brown). In this paper, transfer is more likely to be

seen as LLS since the aim is clarifying its importance while

learning a foreign language in formal contexts where teachers’

feedback is present.

Oxford (Strategies 18- 21) posits the most comprehensible

classification of LLS, she divided them into two main groups:

10

direct and indirect strategies. The first group is further

divided into memory strategies, cognitive strategies and

compensation strategies, while the second is divided into

metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social

strategies. According to this taxonomy, transfer is one of the

cognitive strategies. These are strategies used by learners for

an appropriate manipulation and transformation of the target

language, they include practicing, receiving and sending

messages, creating structure for input and output as subclasses

together with analyzing and reasoning the subclass to which

transfer belongs.

Transferring is a cognitive strategy that implies the direct

application of knowledge (words, concepts, or structures) from

one language to another in order to understand or produce an

expression in the target language. Its benefit lies in the fact

that the use of previous knowledge facilitates the acquisition

of new knowledge in the target language.

In the Algerian context, learners transfer their knowledge

rooted in Arabic like it is the case in the following examples:

I study in the university (the use of the preposition

‘in’ instead of ‘at’)

A : would you like to see a film ?

B : excuse me, I have some work to do. (The use of the

expression ‘excuse me’ in an attempt to be polite is not

appropriate, it is a routine transferred from the mother

tongue)

11

But, in other cases learners’ transferred knowledge is rooted

in French

Can I assist the course?(the use of ‘assist ‘ instead of

‘attend’)

I am late because of the circulation ( the use of

‘circulation’ instead of ‘traffic jam’)

Transfer can be applied in speaking and writing (see the

previous examples), and also in comprehension. An English

learning French would know that the expression ‘bon weekend’

means ‘have a good weekend’ thanks to his mother tongue. Words

like: table, blue, computer… are easily understood by Algerian

learners thanks to the mother tongue, French transfer or

dialect transfer since some French words became part of this

dialect.

The transfer of the mother tongue can stretch to the use of

expressions as they are without translating them, or adding

word endings from the new language onto words from the mother

tongue. Oxford (Strategies) referred to this kind of transfer

as ‘Switching to the mother tongue’ and classified as a

compensation strategy. Compensation strategies are those

strategies that enable learners overcome communication problems

either in comprehension or production using the new language,

these difficulties result from limitations in knowledge mainly

in grammar and vocabulary. They are divided into two main

subclasses: guessing intelligently and overcoming limitations

in speaking and writing the subclass to which ‘switching to the

mother tongue’ strategy belongs. This type of strategies is

12

used by good language learners to keep progress towards

proficiency. This strategy, according to Oxford, can be applied

in speaking.

L1 transfer also leads to the avoidance strategy i.e.

learners avoid using a target form or structure that doesn’t

exist in their mother tongue, this results in committing fewer

errors, Japanese learners of English are a good example of this

state; they do less errors than Arabic learners while using

relative clauses, not because they are more competent but

because they avoid the use of relative clauses that do not

exist in their mother tongue. It is a communication strategy

that is applied in speaking and writing through which learners

feel affectively secure (Ellis). Avoidance may include

phonological avoidance (difficult sounds), lexical avoidance

(words the learner is not sure about), syntactic avoidance (not

well mastered structures), and topic avoidance (Brown).

Although transfer is a LLS and/or communication strategy, it

doesn’t always lead to correctness; it may lead to structures

and forms that do not exist in the target language, or to the

overuse of some forms like the expressions of regret when

Chinese apology in English. This feature is not limited to the

use of transfer but it is noticed with other communication

strategies like coining words, circumlocution. However, these

mistakes are normal because they represent a part of the

learners’ developing interlanguage. Brown suggests four stages

of language development based on learners’ errors (227- 228):

13

1- The stage of random errors (or presystematic), it is a stage

of experimentation and inaccurate guessing where learners

do several errors in a short period of time.

2- The emergent stage, learners at this stage start

internalizing some rules, even these rules are not

correct, without being able to correct their errors when

pointed out by others. The avoidance strategy is frequent

at this stage.

e.g. L: (coming late) can I assist the course?

T: do you want to assist?!

L: yes, please.

T: you mean to come in and attend the course.

L: yes

T: ok, come in.

L: (at the end of the session) thanks for allowing me

assist the course.

3- The systematic stage; it is a stage where learners develop

rules that approximate the target system, even some of

them are not wellformed, with the ability to correct

errors when pointed out.

e.g. A : that old building is full of mouses.

B: mouses?

A: oh, no, I mean full of mice.

14

4- The stabilization stage (postsystematic stage); few errors

occur at this stage, and learners can correct them without

others’ feedback.

Although these stages can not describe the overall competence

of learners because they are based on error production while

positive reinforcement of correct utterances is also important,

they provide an understanding of learners’ error use and

extinction; so that it can be said that learners use incorrect

forms together with correct ones, but with time they

approximate the target system and stop using the incorrect

ones.

3-Transfer: A Source of Error or LLS

So far, it has been advocated that transfer is no longer

seen as interference or the initial phase of learning a target

language, but a cognitive process and a learning strategy used

by learners in their way to native like proficiency. However,

since such kind of LLS and /or communication strategy may lead

to error and fossilization, teachers need some guidelines to be

able to help their learners avoid misuses, overuses and

fossilization. For such clarification, two main points are

adopted: (1) the affective and cognitive feedback, and (2)

Burt’s distinction between global and local errors.

3.1. The Affective and Cognitive Feedback

Vigil & Oller (qtd. in Brown) explained that information

transmitted between learners and their interlocutors can be15

either affective (facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice…)

or cognitive (sounds, phrases, structures, discourse), thus,

two types of feedback can be realized: affective and cognitive

feedback; and within each type of feedback we can distinguish

positive, neutral and negative feedback, as combination between

the two can be found.

According to this model, affective affirmation is

important for meaningful communication to take place and to

continue; if negative affective feedback is provided, the

learner would abandon the message and no cognitive feedback is

possible. However, positive affective feedback would result in

continuing communication, the fact that allow for cognitive

feedback to take place. If neutral or negative cognitive

feedback is provided, the learner would restate and reformulate

his message in order to communicate appropriately. But if

positive affective and cognitive feedback, this would reinforce

the generated form or structure; in case the reinforced form or

structure is not correct in the target system, fossilization

would occur.

abort recycle

message red (-) x

yellow (0) continue

continue

green (+)

16

affective cognitive

feedback feedback

Affective and cognitive feedback (Brown 236)

Teachers’ feedback concerning learners’ use oftransfer can be explained via this model. If teachers or otherclassmates exert negative affective feedback (e.g. stop! Thisis not English) this would cause the abortion of message andcommunication. However, if positive affective feedback ispresented and followed by a neutral or negative cognitivefeedback (e.g. I value what you are saying but I can notunderstand anything), the learner keep speaking with attemptsto adjust his message to be more comprehensible. The third casethat can be distinguished is providing positive affective andcognitive feedback (e.g. ok, I understand) which occur whentransfer leads to correct use of the target language, suchbehavior with incorrect forms allows for transfer misuse,overuse and fossilization.

Using this information allows for distinguishingsituations where teachers should interfere to control learners’use of the transfer strategy, however, teachers may decide tofollow negative cognitive feedback to avoid fossilizationwithout realizing that too much correction may hindercommunication and causes learners’ frustration, loss ofconfidence and eventually perceiving language learning asdifficult and not possible. Hence, the use of Burt’sdistinction between global and local errors is necessary.

3.2. Global and Local Errors

Sometimes although errors are numerous withinlearner’s utterance, the message is conveyed to the reader orlistener, while sometimes even a single error may causemisunderstanding and no comprehension. On this basis, Burtdistinguishes between two types of error: global and local errors. The

17

former refers to those errors that hinder communication byaffecting overall sentence organization and cause listener’s orreader’s misunderstanding. Such type of error includes wrongword order (e.g. go John to the market); missing, wrong ormisplaced sentence connectors and cues (e.g. you come, he leave– ‘when’ as connector is missing-, you like coffee –‘do’ as cueis missing-) and overgeneralization. The latter refers to thoseerrors limited to single elements or constituents in asentence, thus, they rarely hinder communication or causemisunderstanding, they include errors in inflection (nouns orverbs), auxiliaries and prepositions use.

Teachers’ role involves providing feedback andcorrecting learners’ errors, however, despite the teachers’correction, some of the learners’ errors persist. For that,Burt recommended teachers to avoid often correction because itleads to confidence loss and embarrassment; their correctionshould be for global errors to enhance learners’ communicativeability. Selective correction of errors leads to moremeaningful communication, self-confidence and later on thecorrection of local errors.

Conclusion

Throughout this paper, we have seen thatlearners’ transfer is no longer viewed as interference andsource of error, but a cognitive language learning strategyand/ or communication strategy used by learners to developtheir L2 system, to overcome communication difficulty, to bemore self-confident, self-reliant and autonomous. Althoughtransfer as a strategy is used differently from one learner toanother (like the other LLS), teachers can interfere to guidetheir learners for a better use. Teachers mainly contributethrough the processes of teaching and feedback; the teaching ofLLS may include strategies like using dictionaries, flashcards, planning, organizing…, the strategy of transfer needsrather feedback. Teachers should be aware of this state of fact

18

to be able to react affectively and cognitively in anappropriate way i.e. they should provide positive affectivefeedback followed by the appropriate cognitive feedback (notalways positive, but also not too much negative) to helplearners develop their proficiency using this strategy avoidingfossilization or complete loss of meaning.

19

Works Cited

Brown, Douglas. Principles of language learning and teaching

(4th ed). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. NY. 2000.

Burt, Marina,K. “Error Analysis in the Adult EFL Classroom.

TESOL Quarterly. 9.1. (March 1975): 52-62.

Cohen, D.Andrew. “Second Language Learning and Use Strategies :

Clarifying the Issues”. Spring Quarter. 1994.

Corder, S.Pit. “A role for the mother tongue”. In Language

Transfer in Language Learning. Eds. Gass, Susan and Selinker,

Larry. 2nd ed: 18–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 1992

Dörnyei, Zultǎn. The psychology of the language learner:

Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2005.

Ellis, Rod . Second language acquisition. Oxford University

Press. 1997.

20

Gass, Susan,M. and Selinker. Larry . Second language

acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge, Tayler

& Francis Group. New York and London . 2008.

Griffiths. Carol. Language learning strategy use and

proficiency. 2003. Retrieved 16th August 2011 from:

http//hdl.handle.net/2292/9.

Lado, Robert. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press. 1957.

Leaver, Betty,L; Ehrman, Madeline; and Shekhtman, Boris.

Achieving success in second language acquisition. Cambridge

University Press. 2005.

Macaro, Ernesto. Learning strategies in foreign and second

language classrooms. Continuum London and New York. 2001.

Mitchell, Rosamond and Myles, Florence. Second Language

Learning Theories.2nd ed. Hodder Arnold. 2004.

Oxford, Rebecca. Language learning strategies: What every

teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 1990.

21

--- “Language learning styles and strategies”. In Teaching

English as a foreign language .ed. Celce Mercia, Marianne.

Heinle & Heinle. 2001.

Rubin, Joan. “What the 'Good language learner' can teach us”.

TESOL Quarterly 9.1. (March 1975) : 41-51.

Weinstein, Claire,E; Husman .Jenefer & Dierking, Douglas,R.

“Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning

strategies”. In Handbook of self-regulation. Eds. Boekaerts,

Monique.et.al. Academic Press. 2000.

.

22