Language transfer

Blackboard in Harvard classroom shows students' efforts at placing the ü and acute accent diacritics used in Spanish orthography.

When the relevant unit or structure of both languages is the same, linguistic interference can result in correct language production called positive transfer: here, the "correct" meaning is in line with most native speakers' notions of acceptability.[3] An example is the use of cognates. However, language interference is most often discussed as a source of errors known as negative transfer, which can occur when speakers and writers transfer items and structures that are not the same in both languages.

Language transfer may be conscious or unconscious. Consciously, learners or unskilled translators may sometimes guess when producing speech or text in a second language because they have not learned or have forgotten its proper usage. Unconsciously, they may not realize that the structures and internal rules of the languages in question are different. Such users could also be aware of both the structures and internal rules, yet be insufficiently skilled to put them into practice, and consequently often fall back on their first language. The unconscious aspect to language transfer can be demonstrated in the case of the so-called "transfer-to-nowhere" principle put forward by Eric Kellerman, which addressed language based on its conceptual organization instead of its syntactic features. Here, language determines how the speaker conceptualizes experience, with the principle describing the process as an unconscious assumption that is subject to between-language variation.[10] Kellerman explained that it is difficult for learners to acquire the construal patterns of a new language because "learners may not look for the perspectives peculiar to the [target/L2] language; instead they may seek the linguistic tools which will permit them to maintain their L1 perspective."[11]

The conscious transfer of language, on the other hand, can be illustrated in the principle developed by Roger Andersen called "transfer-to-somewhere," which holds that "a language structure will be susceptible to transfer only if it is compatible with natural acquisitional principles or is perceived to have similar counterpart (a somewhere to transfer to) in the recipient language."[12] This is interpreted as a heuristic designed to make sense of the target language input by assuming a form of awareness on the part of the learner to map L1 onto the L2.[13] An analogy that can describe the differences between the Kellerman's and Anderson's principles is that the former is concerned with the conceptualization that fuels the drive towards discovering the means of linguistic expression whereas Andersen's focused on the acquisition of those means.[13]

The theories of acceleration and deceleration are bilingual child language acquisition theories based on the known norms of monolingual acquisition. These theories come from comparisons of bilingual children's acquisition to that of their monolingual peers of similar backgrounds.

Acceleration is a process similar to that of bootstrapping, where a child acquiring language uses knowledge and skills from one language to aid in, and speed up their acquisition of the other language.[14]

Deceleration is a process in which a child experiences negative effects (more mistakes and slower language learning) on their language acquisition due to interference from their other language.

Language transfer is often referred to as cross-language transfer, the ability to use skills acquired in one language and to use those skills to facilitate learning of a new language.[15] Cross-language transfer has been researched and analyzed by many scholars over the years, but the focus on cross-language transfer in literacy research expanded in the 1990s.[16] It is a topic that has been gaining lots of interest from scholars due to the increasing amount of bilingual and multilingual people, especially students, around the world. In the USA alone, English Language Learners (ELL) account for over 10% of the students enrolled in public schools.[17]

The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis claims that language transfer can occur from L1 (First language) to L2 (Second language), but there first must be a level of proficiency in L1 literacy skills for the skills to transfer over into L2.[18] In other words, there must be some prior knowledge of literacy skills in L1 to assist with acquiring literacy skills in  L2. The acquisition of L2 literacy skills can be facilitated and gained with greater ease by having more time, access, and experience  with L1 literary skills.[19] Over time, through formal exposure and practice with literacy skills, L2 learners have been able to catch up with their monolingual peers.[20] However, literacy skills acquired in L2 can also be used to assist with literacy skills in L1 because cross-language transfer is bidirectional.[21]

Most studies have indicated that literacy cross-language transfer can occur regardless of the L1 and the L2 languages, but Chung et al. (2012[22]) state that cross-language transfer is less likely to occur when the languages do not share similar orthography systems. For example, using literacy skills acquired in English may be accessed and used with more ease in Spanish because English and Spanish follow similar orthography (they use letters). Whereas, using literacy skills acquired in English to facilitate ease of learning Korean would be more difficult because those languages do not follow a similar orthography system (English uses letters, and Korean uses symbols).

Cross-language transfer can also occur with deaf bilinguals who use sign language and read written words.[23] People may think that both American Sign Language (ASL) and English are the same language, but they are not. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders  “ASL is a language completely separate and distinct from English. It contains all the fundamental features of language, with its own rules for pronunciation, word formation, and word order".[24] Because sign languages are considered to be their own language, most deaf people are considered to be bilingual because they speak in one language (sign language) and read in other (English, Spanish, Arabic, etc.). It should also be noted that not all sign languages are the same. The sign languages are American Sign Language (ASL), Mexican Sign Language (LSM), British Sign Language (BSL), Spanish Sign Language (LSE), and many more.  

Transfer can also occur in polyglot individuals when comprehending verbal utterances or written language. For instance, German and English both have relative clauses with a noun-noun-verb (=NNV) order but which are interpreted differently in both languages:

German example: Das Mädchen, das die Frau küsst, ist blond

If translated word for word with word order maintained, this German relative clause is equivalent to

English example: The girl that (or whom) the woman is kissing is blonde.

The German and the English examples differ in that in German the subject role can be taken by das Mädchen (the girl) or die Frau (the woman) while in the English example only the second noun phrase (the woman) can be the subject. In short, because German singular feminine and neuter articles exhibit the same inflected form for the accusative as for the nominative case, the German example is syntactically ambiguous in that either the girl or the woman may be doing the kissing. In the English example, both word-order rules and the test of substituting a relative pronoun with different nominative and accusative case markings (e.g., whom/who*) reveal that only the woman can be doing the kissing.

The ambiguity of the German NNV relative clause structure becomes obvious in cases where the assignment of subject and object role is disambiguated. This can be because of case marking if one of the nouns is grammatically male as in Der Mann, den die Frau küsst... (The man that the woman is kissing...) vs. Der Mann, der die Frau küsst (The man that is kissing the woman...) because in German the male definite article marks the accusative case. The syntactic ambiguity of the German example also becomes obvious in the case of semantic disambiguation. For instance in Das Eis, das die Frau isst... (The ice cream that the woman is eating...) and Die Frau, die das Eis isst... (The woman that is eating the ice cream...) only die Frau (the woman) is a plausible subject.

Because in English relative clauses with a noun-noun-verb structure (as in the example above) the first noun can only be the object, native speakers of English who speak German as a second language are likelier to interpret ambiguous German NNV relative clauses as object relative clauses (= object-subject-verb order) than German native speakers who prefer an interpretation in which the first noun phrase is the subject (subject-object-verb order).[25] This is because they have transferred their parsing preference from their first language English to their second language German.

With sustained or intense contact between native and non-native speakers, the results of language transfer in the non-native speakers can extend to and affect the speech production of the native-speaking community. For example, in North America, speakers of English whose first language is Spanish or French may have a certain influence on native English speakers' use of language when the native speakers are in the minority. Locations where this phenomenon occurs frequently include Québec, Canada, and predominantly Spanish-speaking regions in the US. For details on the latter, see the map of the Hispanophone world and the list of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations. The process of translation can also lead to the so-called hybrid text, which is the mixing of language either at the level of linguistic codes or at the level of cultural or historical references.[26]