One of the most important reasons why native and nonnative speakers differ in the speech act performance is the result of pragmatic transfer. Odlin (1989: 27) defines generic transfer as "the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and another language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired". In the domain of ILP, pragmatic transfer has always been the transfer of speech act knowledge and is defined as "the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992:
206-7). Transfer may have positive and negative outcomes. Positive transfer occurs when there is a form-function correspondence between L1 and L2 (Kasper & Rose, 2001). For example, the past modal verbs “could” and “would” in English have equivalent formal, functional and distributional counterparts in German (i.e.
“koenntest” and “wuerdest”) (Kasper & Rose, 2001).
While positive transfer results in successful communication, negative transfer leads to nonnative use (or avoidance) of speech acts and frequently results in unsuccessful communication (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). Kasper (1992) admits that positive transfer has been given less attention than negative transfer in ILP research.
Basically, there are two kinds of negative transfer: pragmalinguistic and sociolinguistic transfers. Thomas (1983) states that pragmalingustic failures are caused by inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from L1 to L2. On the other hand, sociopragmatic failures are caused by the influence of equivalent L1 context on L2 learners' social perceptions in the understanding and production of L2 linguistic actions. For example, the degree of politeness to invest in a face-threatening act depends on how the interlocutor assesses context-external factors, which includes social power and social distance, as well as context-internal factors, which includes
degree of imposition. A certain situation may be regarded as severe and require more politeness in a particular culture than in others (Kasper, 1992).
The first researcher who systematized positive or negative transfer of semantic formula, strategy and linguistic form was Gabriele Kasper. She criticized the rough estimations of similarities and differences between L1 and L2 in earlier ILP studies. It is claimed in Kasper & Dahl (1991) that the canonical design of ILP research should include IL, L1 and L2 data, and statistically significant differences between the three groups on a particular feature should be calculated to determine pragmatic transfer.
Therefore, according to Kasper (1992), positive transfer occurs when there is lack of statistically significant differences between L1, L2 and IL. By contrast, negative transfer occurs when there are statistically significant differences between IL-L2 and L1-L2, as well as lack of statistically significant differences between IL and L1.
In addition, Kasper (1992) notes two nonstructural factors which may influence pragmatic transfer. The first one concerns learning context. Takahashi & Beebe’s (1987) study on refusals by Japanese EFL and ESL learners revealed that L1 influence was found more frequent in EFL learners’ performances rather than ESL learners’
performances. Yu (1999b) investigated the productions of compliment and compliment responses by Chinese learners of English in Taiwan (EFL) and in the States (ESL). It was found that the EFL group displayed speech act behaviors more like those of native Chinese speakers, while the ESL group displayed speech act behaviors more like those of native American English speakers. Lee (2000) studied the complaint-apology speech act sequences between Korean learners of English in Korea (EFL) and in the States (ESL). The investigation shows that both ESL and EFL learners displayed transfer effects from their L1. Although Lee did not specifically address the question whether EFL or ESL learners were affected by L1 to a greater extent, the analysis shows that the amount of interaction in English has the greatest
effect on learners’ speech act performance in comparison with other factors such as language proficiency and length of stay in the target culture. Matsumura (2001) also points out the importance of exposure to the target language. In the study, Japanese learners’ perceptions of offering advice to people of equal or lower status changed dramatically after they came and studied in Vancouver, while the learners living in the home culture did not show such progress.
The other factor which may influence L1 interference relates to L2 proficiency (Kasper, 1992). The research shows that L2 proficiency exerts an effect on L1 transfer, but whether the correlation is positive or negative has been under debate. Some research indicates that L1 interference is more likely to occur in cases where the learners are at higher proficiency. Takahashi & Beebe (1987) hypothesized that the more advanced learners were assumed to conduct negative L1 transfer. Although their study did not support this assumption, other studies have been found to confirm this hypothesis. For example, Koike (1995) studied first-year, second-year and advanced English-speaking learners of Spanish in comprehending the speech act of suggestion.
The results showed that it was difficult for first- and second-year students to comprehend the utterances even though they were formulated in the same way in both languages. However, advanced learners appeared to be more likely to transfer L1 knowledge if they found the lexical or syntactical items matched those of English.
Other research shows that less proficient learners tended to conduct negative transfer from L1. Olshtain & Cohen (1989) claimed that transfer of learners’ L2 apology strategies and modifying mechanism was a result of insufficient L2 proficiency.
Maeshiba et al. (1996) examined the apology strategies employed by Japanese learners of English at intermediate and advanced levels. Their study also found that Japanese learners of lower proficiency were more likely to transfer L1 apology strategies than learners of higher proficiency.
On the other hand, some research does not identify a clear relationship between L2 proficiency and L1 transfer. Trosborg (1987) compared the apology strategies produced by three groups of Danish learners of English at intermediate, lower advanced and higher advanced levels with those produced by native speakers of English and Danish. This study confirmed that negative pragmatic transfer did exist in all the learners’ role play enactments, but did not identify whether such transfer correlated positively or negatively with L2 proficiency. Takahashi (1996) examined transferability of five Japanese request strategies to English request situations.
Subjects in this study were classified into two groups: Japanese EFL learners at lower and higher proficiency levels. The study revealed that both groups transferred their L1 request strategies and conventions, but there was no definite tendency regarding positive or negative correlation between L2 proficiency and L1 transfer. Among the five request strategies in L1, only one strategy was found to be more transferable for lower proficiency group than for higher proficiency group.
In summary, section 2.2 reviews ILP studies and focuses on the differences between native and nonnative speakers in speech act productions. The research has shown that nonnative speakers generally differ from native speakers in terms of choice of speech act, semantic content, semantic formulas, sociolinguistic forms and utterance length. Such differences can be attributed to negative pragmatic transfer from L1 to L2. Research has also shown that EFL learners tend to conduct pragmatic transfer more frequently than ESL learners. However, it has been controversial as to the relationship between pragmatic transfer and proficiency. Therefore, one of the purposes of the present study is to investigate the relationship between pragmatic transfer and proficiency. Furthermore, since the studies have demonstrated that learners deviate from the natives in the performances of a given speech acts, it is reasonable to think if instruction can be facilitative. In the next section, the discussion
will shift to pragmatics in language teaching.