<p> Studies on Transfer in Second Language Acquisition</p><p>Shaozhong Liu Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, 541004, China</p><p>Abstract: Transfer is a pervasive term and this has led to diverse interpretations and research practices of it. This paper reviewed the related literature on transfer studies in second language acquisition, linguistic studies and non- linguistic. It also made a survey about approaches in transfer studies, native speakers’ attitudes toward transfer, and transfers made by Chinese learners of English. It was argued that transfer research evolved from a linguistic-to- non-linguistic path, and there is a necessity in the current trend to shift from the former to the latter. Keywords: transfer, linguistic transfer, pragmatic transfer, second language acquisition </p><p>1. Defining transfer</p><p>Transfer, derived from the Latin word “transferre”, means “to carry”, “to bear” or “to print, impress or otherwise copy (as a drawing or engraved design) from one surface to another”(Webster’s Third New World International Dictionary, 1986). So to speak, when we say “technology transfer”, we mean the transfer or carry-over of technology from one owner to another. Transfer can also mean “the carry-over or generalization of learned responses from one type of situation to another”, especially “the application in one field of study or effort of knowledge, skill, power, or ability acquired in another” (Webster’s Third New World International Dictionary, 1986). The use of “transfer” in “linguistic transfer” is such an example. By linguistic transfer, we mean what the learners carry over to or generalize in their knowledge about their native language (NL) to help them learn to use a target language (TL). Here transfer does not indicate whether what is carried over is bad or good. This meaning from the dictionary shows that transfer is a neutral word in origin and nature. Linguistics concerns, in overall, with the static structures within a language system. Viewed from the TL grammatical rules, certain NL-based linguistic transfers are found to coincide with linguistic errors. In this way, NL-based linguistic transfers are divided into two broad types, positive and negative. Those NL-based uses that do not lead to linguistic errors are labeled as positive transfer, whereas those that lead to errors, negative transfer. In second language classroom teaching, a positive linguistic transfer is generally not attacked, but a negative linguistic transfer, almost to all instructors, is definitely not recommended for the learners, since it is erroneous. Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics which studies how people interpret and produce meaning in a specific context (Leech, 1983; Liu, 2000), also claims an interest in transfer. For pragmaticians, they are interested in finding out in what way NL-based transfers influence the learners in comprehending and performing a speech act in a TL and whether such transfers are appropriate in the context. Apparently, pragmatics diverges from linguistics in interpreting transfer in that it has maintained the neutral sense or natural attribute of transfer. Since pragmatics aims at exploring the appropriateness of speech that is free from right-wrong linguistic grammar, everything under pragmatic investigation is correct, grammatically speaking. In literature to date, in pragmatics- oriented studies of transfers, interests and endeavors have been attached to the finding out of the differences or deviations between these divergent forms from the TL and whether these deviant forms are appropriate, from the angle of TL speakers. An example to illustrate this point is the Japanese learners’ overuse of the expression “I am sorry” in conversations. It was reported that there are many cases in which Japanese students used this expression which is actually not needed in English, since to English speakers, the expression is used only for an apology. This indicates the learners fall back on the Japanese routine expression “suminmasen” which means, literally, “I’m sorry.” Hence, this is not an example of error, but of appropriateness (Beebe & Takahashi, 1992). In practice, transfer has attracted people of different academic backgrounds and led researchers to different interpretations and definitions of the term. Scarcella (1983), for instance, was interested in the transfer of discourse accent and believed hat it is a reflection of ‘conversational features’ such as forms and functions of conversational management. Kellerman & Sharwood- Smith (1986) studied the exactitude of the term and tried to draw a distinction between transfer and influence. To them, transfer is not the same thing as cross-linguistic influence. Whereas</p><p>1 transfer refers to those linguistic behaviors incorporated from L1 into IL without capturing other interlingual effects, cross-linguistic influence, on the other hand, refers to those L1 effects such as avoidance, L1 constraints on L2 learning and performance, and different directionality of interlingual effects. This view is further elaborated in Sharwood-Smith (1994). To Odlin (1989), transfer just means the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been obviously, and perhaps imperfectly, acquired. This definition thus suggests that transfer can occur at any levels, strategic, linguistic, discoursal, and pragmatic. Wolfson (1989) analyzed how the transfer of speaking rules from one’s own native speech community influences interactings with members of the host community. She insisted that transfer mainly stands for the use of rules of speaking from one’s own native speech community when interacting with members of the host community or simply when speaking or writing in a second language. For Wolfson, the two terms, sociolinguistic and pragmatic, are interchangeable, and so are her sociolinguistic rules and rules of speaking. Then to Beebe et al (1990), transfer specifically refers to the learners’ L1 socio-cultural competence in performing L2 speech acts or any other aspects of L2 conversation. Hence for Clyne et al (1991), “apologies” and “complaints” are pragmatic, while turn-taking discoursal. In terms of the scope of transfer, Takahashi & Beebe (1992) held that transfer consists of both cross-linguistic influence and cross-cultural transfer elements. Kasper (1995) focused on pragmatic transfer and defined it as “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production, and acquisition of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992; 1995). The identification of transfer was first discussed by Corder (1981) who remarked that it is the duty of both teachers of languages and native speakers of the language to point out the transfer according to the rules of language. At the same time, Corder (1981) implied the source of data for transfer research lie in the learners’ production or utterances, that is the observed output which results from the second language learner’s attempted production of a TL norm (1981). Kasper (1992) also reiterated that it is imperative to find certain constraints on a pragmatic transfer, so that our work will be operationable. The usual way to identify a transfer in SLA research is something like an informal estimation method (Kasper, 1992). In informal estimations, we decide whether a transfer can be established by looking at the similarities and differences of the percentage by which a particular category of interlanguage features (such as a semantic formulae, strategy, or linguistic form) occurs in the NL, TL, and IL data. Similar response frequencies in all the three data sets are classified as positive transfer (Blum-Kulka, 1982; House & Kasper, 1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989), while different response frequencies between IL-TL and NL-TL combined with similar frequencies between IL- NL register as negative transfer (Beebe et al., 1990; Takahashi and Beebe, 1992; Olshtain, 1983). Another way to determine a transfer is to use a statistically significant method. Kasper (1992) strongly recommended Selinker’s (1969) operational definition of transfer. To her, it can be adapted to a suitable method for identifying pragmatic transfer in interlanguage production. This was echoed by Bley-Vroman (1983) who observed that multiple rather than binary choices are usually available for speakers to express communicative intent. Parallel trends towards one option in a binary choice schema as was pointed out by Selinker (1983), however, can rarely be established. A statistically significant method determines whether the differences between the interlanguage and the learner’s native language on a particular pragmatic feature are statistically significant, and how these differences relate to the TL. A general guiding principle is, if a pragmatic feature is lack of statistically significant differences in the frequencies of a pragmatic feature in NL, TL, and IL, then it can be operationally defined as positive transfer. On the contrary, statistically significant differences in the frequencies of a pragmatic feature between IL-TL and NL-TL and lack of statistically significant differences between IL and L1 can be operationally defined as negative transfer (Kasper, 1992). Takahashi (1995) further elaborated on positive transfer as “similarity in terms of response frequencies in NL, IL, and TL”, while negative transfer as “similar response frequencies in NL, IL with different response frequencies between NL and TL and between IL and TL”. An example of the statistically significant method is Bergman & Kasper’s (1993) study of transfer in “apologizing”. They showed that more than half of the differences between Thai- English and American-English apologizing strategies are due to negative pragmatic transfer. The process to identify a transfer, according to Kasper (1992), follows basically three steps: First, we start from an observation on the learner’s productive interlanguage data. Second, under the guidance of our definition of a transfer, we concentrate on the different means that learners</p><p>2 employ in expressing and understanding a speech act in the TL. And third, we sort out from our collected data the transfer features. Evidently, both the definition of transfer and method of identifying a negative transfer are helpful to our in-depth discussion of negative pragmatic transfer. </p><p>2. Studies of transfer in second language acquisition</p><p>2.1 Linguistic transfer </p><p>L1-L2 transfer was first discussed in Selinker (1969) and other follow-up studies either provided but further evidences of transfer or its role in understanding the learner’s error in particular and interlanguage as a whole. Transfer was considered responsible for error occurrences in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies (Lado, 1957; Stockwell & Brown, 1965; Corder, 1969; 1971). Nevertheless, Richards (1971) evidenced that transfer of strategies was but partially responsible for the learner’s errors. In a similar manner, Jain (1974) reported that transfer was but one of the sources of error. Since then, transfer was more and more indirectly mentioned as an apparent factor of error (Corder, 1981). The learner language was contrasted with the basic features and hints of transfer (Swan & Smith, 1988; MeGurn, 1991; Platt & Weber, 1980) and the tradition has continued into the 90’s where Ajiboye (1993) made a theoretical categorization of the errors in terms of phonetics, word- formation, syntax, and semantics. The relationship between transfer and interlanguage was always at core concern. Though Selinker (1969) did not characterize how the learner’s interlanguage looks like (Corder, 1981), yet he did repeatedly imply that transfer was one of the factors associated with the unique system of the learner language (Selinker, 1969; 1972). Then Newser (1971) addressed the relationship by discussing the concepts of an approximative system and plateau. To resume the line, Bickerton (1975) referred to interlanguage as a continuum, while Kellerman (1977) tried to characterize transfer in the learner’s interlanguage. In discussing the phonological features of the learner’s interlanguage, Tarone (1973; 1976; 1978) contended that NL-based phonology transfers are partially responsible for the features of an interlingual phonology. Similar discussions included Ioup & Weinberger (1987). In terms of linguistic transfer on the syntactical level, Ravem (1971) documented that the learner’s NL played a certain role in the formation of his second language syntax. Hakuta (1974) also demonstrated that there is a firm relationship between L1 transfer and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. In addition, Larsen-Freeman (1975) evidenced such a relationship through the learner’s learning of English grammatical morphemes. To Gass (1979), transfer helped us to see the grammatical element universal in human languages. Is transfer the same thing as borrowing? Ringbom & Hakan (1983) came up with proofs that transfer is in fact associated with lexical borrowing. Such a relationship was also discussed in Meara (1984). And from the teaching point of view, Palmberg (1985) discussed the amount of words learners already had before they took up the learning of the TL and its impact on the acquisition of new word formation processes in second language acquisition. This practice was by Olshtain (1987) and Odlin (1989). Both provided evidences that NL-based transfer also occur in the learning of word-formation in a second language. An apparent feature in the learner’s use of their interlanguage is simplification and overgeneralization. NL-based transfers were considered to be associated with both simplification and overgeneralization (Levenston, 1971; Varadi, 1973; Richards, 1974; Levenston & Blum- Kulka, 1977; Blum-Kulka & Levenston, 1983). Hybridization and co-mixing is another feature identified in the learner’s use of his interlanguage. The work that helped us see the sources of hybridization as from transfer was Whinnom (1971). Empirical studies to sort out the mother tongue influence on the learner’s language were initiated by Newser (1971) who reported NL influences in the speech of some immigrant workers in the States. To follow up, Dulay & Burt (1974) conducted a case study comparing children’s learning in a first and second language. Conor et al (1983) examined how transfer worked in the learner’s compositions and Biskup (1992) displayed transfers in the learner’s use of collocations. The relationship between transfer and speech production was observed in earlier studies (Flege & Davidian, 1977; Krashen & Scarcella, 1978), too. Both Nicjel (1985) and Hsia (1986) showed</p><p>3 that transfer prohibited the second language learner in second language learning Transfer was not only found present in the learner’s interlanguage but active as variable rules (Dickerson, 1975). Tarone (1983) gave an incisive account of the role variability played in the language produced by second-language learners. Gass et al (1989) even showed that variation in fact occurred also at the levels of discourse and pragmatics. Besides, variability in terms of amount and type of transfer among the learners occurred due to individual differences in second language learning (Skehan, 1989). Comprehensive studies on transfers were found in Corder (1969; 1971; 1981), Richards (1974), Richards & Gloria (1974), Ellis (1983; 1985), Odlin (1989), Hammerly (1991) and Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991). They all helped to display that transfers are at all the linguistic levels, phonological, lexical, syntactical and semantic.</p><p>2.2 Non-linguistic perspectives of transfer</p><p>Non-linguistic perspectives towards transfer are multi-factorial. Wolfson (1989) discussed the transfer of NL-based conversational rules. She observed that the learner had a tendency of using conversational rules other than that from the TL to finish an interaction or playing his part in an interaction to impress the audience that he is trying to be cooperative. Such transfer had an impact on the development of the learner’s TL communicative competence (Richards & Sukwiwat, 1983). Culture-specific communicative styles were evidenced by Richards (1974) who suggested that social factors are closely related to transfer and he looked into how Singaporean learners of English manipulated their learned English (Richards, 1982). A recent cross-cultural study of transfer is by Clyne et al (1994) who analyzed the responses of the immigrants in Melbourne to arguments, identification and cultural styles. They concluded that, on the one hand, transferred cultural values should be respected and, on the other hand, to succeed in cross-cultural communication, immigrants had to observe the Cooperative Principle (CP). Their results in cluster analysis indicated that immigrants broadly fall into two groups in terms of transferred cultural attributes. In Group A are the Austrians, Germans, Czechs, Croatians, Macedonians, Russians, Serbia’s, and Spanish, with Greek and Polish as peripheral; and Group B: Cambodian, Chinese, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese, with the Filipino, Indonesian and Malay as the peripheral. Transfer of communicative strategy has proven another source of research interests. Earlier attempts at transfer as strategy was documented in Varadi (1973) who showed that learners transferred NL-based strategies to adjust messages in the TL. Taylor (1975) evidenced that much of the learner’s overgeneralization had to do with their transferred communicative strategies. Tarone (1977) also noticed the learner’s conscious use of NL-based communicative strategies. Bialystok & Frohlich (1980) showed when the learners had difficulties in oral lexical expressions, they turned to transfer NL communicative strategies. Varadi (1980) reported that one apparent strategy in TL communication is message adjusting. Stanlaw (1982) provided examples of NL- based communicative strategies by Japanese learners. Besides, Faerch & Kasper (1983) discussed how the Danish students relied on their NL for accomplishing an utterance. When encountering a new word in speech, the Danish learner of English would use a Danish word in that sentence or use Danish to express the meaning of a new word to put his meaning across. Corrales & Call (1989) further evidenced that learners would rely on the use of communicative strategies to convey lexical meaning when they were at a loss of what they wanted to say. All this led to House & Blum-Kulka’s (1986) and Bialystok’s (1990a) book-length discussions of communicative strategy transfer. Communicative strategy was also evidenced in Nsakala’s (1994) investigation of transfer from the angle of code mixing. He reported that code mixing comes from an unbalanced requirement of foreign language competence and communicative prerequisites. He argued that code mixing is not a norm to be recommended in EFL teaching for two reasons: it hinders comprehension and slows the speed of TL acquisition. Kasper (1995) added that the learners both shifted their previous knowledge about politeness principles and communicative strategies into the comprehension and production of the TL. Endeavor has also been given to account for transfer from the pragmatic perspective. Earlier treatments were to look at how non-native speakers interpret and produce the speech act of “request” (Scarcella, 1979; Walters, 1979; Carrell, 1979). Kasper (1981) made a book-length treatment of the issue. As was mentioned in Section 1.1, transfer to pragmaticians means difference of use due to NL influence. And to understand what is different, a preliminary step was to sort out similarities and</p><p>4 differences between languages and the use of these languages. The effort to study how non-native speakers understand and realize a speech act in the TL has spiraled into a tradition identified as the study of pragmatic universals. As many as 11 speech acts have been covered to date: requests, suggestions, invitations, refusals, expressions of disagreement, corrections, complaints, apologies, expression of gratitude, compliments and indirect answers (Kasper, 1992). By comparing how people in different languages and cultures realized a speech act, we are now rested on a ground that enables us to tell in what way people share something in common in making a request, and to sort out a positive transfer from a negative one. Take “request” for example. In realizing such a speech act, people in most languages tend to use either a directive statement, and in putting forth a conventional indirect speech act, linguistic hints such as “Would you mind V-ing?” for a request from others were used (Kasper, 1992). In general, people from different cultures fall back on their knowledge on how to make a request (Weinert, 1995).</p><p>2.3 Native speakers’ attitudes toward transfer</p><p>Earlier accounts of the learner language and native speakers’ attitude include Bansal (1966) and Tiffen (1974). They looked into the intelligibility of native speakers. One of the earliest to consider the effect of transfer, James (1974) considered the gravity of errors due to NL-based transfer. In this early documented report, he developed a set of measures to gauge learners’ error in terms of severity to TL linguistic rules. Politzer (1978) specifically looked into how native speakers viewed the learners’ transfer-related errors. He examined how the German native speakers perceived those errors made by English learners of German. Nelson (1982) and Hultfors (1986) further explored intelligibility in more details. Hultfors studied how the British looked at the Norwegian learners’ errors in English and discovered that acceptability rate of transfer-related errors were often subject to intelligibility. Besides, a foreigner role showed an obvious difference in the attitude on the learners’ errors. After the early 80s, communicative effect studies were extended to cover interlanguage features such as conversational styles, the use of contexualization cues, politeness, and indirectness in cross-cultural settings. Investigations from interactional sociolinguistic perspective (Erickson & Shultz, 1982; Gumperz, 1982; Scollon & Scollon, 1983; Tannen, 1985) revealed that intercultural miscommunication could be a result from incompatible conversational styles. At the same time, these analyses showed that there were unsuccessful uptake or breakdown in the light of differences in the use of contexualization cues, politeness, and indirectness. However, Erickson (1975) demonstrated that ethnic differences in gate-keeping conversations could be neutralized through building up common ground, or co-membership, based on shared interests or experience. Tannen (1985) cited evidences of misunderstandings of contextualized cues which resulted in favorable attributions to the interlocutor, and for conversational styles which, although different, were complementary rather than conflicting, allowing both participants to reach their goals and feel comfortable about their interaction. Nihalani (1988) looked into the standard for judging non- native speakers’ pronunciation and proposed that we should find a norm for non-native speakers. Another main aspect tackled in communicative effect studies is pragmatic failure. Thomas (1983) noticed that in cross-cultural communication, learners expressed their ideas in a way that was different from the native speakers. This interlanguage phenomenon, free of grammatical errors, sometimes led to miscomprehension in cross-cultural communication. Approached closer, a pragmatic failure was sometimes related to the misuse of a learned linguistic form and sometimes it was associated with NL-based influence. She divided pragmatic failures into two types, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic, both terms being indebted to the discussion of the scope of general pragmatics in The Principle of Pragmatics (Leech, 1983). An example of pragmalinguistic failure is Chinese learner’s use of the expression “Never mind” in replying to “Thanks a lot. That’s a great help” (He, 1988). In Chinese, we use “没关系” (Mei guan xi) or “不用谢”(Bu yong xie) in reply to “Thank you”. However, their equivalents in English, “Never mind”, “Not at all” and “You are welcome” are slightly different in use from one another, though they all may be translated as “没关系”(Mei guan xi) in Chinese. The students often failed to see the discrepancy and, due to their mother-tongue influence, used these expressions interchangeably. A sociopragmatic failure may sometimes be resulted from a Chinese-based influence. For</p><p>5 instance, our learners sometimes fall back on their Chinese ways in interpreting an intended meaning in an utterance or in observing the rules, factors in a social situation of the TL. If a student helped the professor clean the chalkboard, he would normally say “thank you” to the student. But instead of saying “My pleasure”, as native speakers normally do in this situation, Chinese students would often say, “It’s my duty”. This shows the students’ falling back on the Chinese situation where it is wholesomely all right for people to say “应该的”(Ying gai de). But he failed to realize that in English ‘It is my duty” also implies an obligation instead of a volunteer help. Enlightened by Thomas’s concepts of pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure, Kontra (1993) analyzed the breakdowns in communication of Standard Hungarians and American Hungarians. Reports revealed that in terms of the communicative effect, transfers were of two categories, positive and negative. Those transfers from the learner’s NL that do not lead to misunderstanding in the TL are positive. Negative pragmatic transfer is different, as it was evidenced that some of the transfer-based pragmatic failures are serious (Thomas, 1983). Thus negative pragmatic transfer is more complicated and requires further investigation (Kasper, 1992; 1995). It is impossible to discuss transfer without mentioning the target norm for contrast, either at the identification stage or evaluation stage of a transfer. Kachru (1982) made earlier discussions about norm and effect relationship. To Kachru, deviations occurred not only at the level of forms but also at the level of meaning. The norm issue was further discussed from the teaching point of view by Alim El-Sayed (1987), Svanes (1988), Larry-Smith (1988), and Awonusi (1990). A realistic problem is that under strictly comparable task conditions, native speakers often use different standard varieties of English, such as American English (AmE), Australian English (AustrE), and British English (BrE). These different standard varieties display preferences in their selection of semantic formulae in, for example, ‘apologizing’, though some of the variation may be due to context effects (Bergman & Kasper, 1993). What is more, these standard varieties possess their different regional varieties. For instance, in standard varieties of American English, different regional varieties have been identified to demonstrate different selection patterns of request strategies (Michaelis, 1992). An early work by Tannen (1981), for example, on different preferences in conversational styles by east coat and west coast Americans, already displayed variation in speech act performance in culturally motivated dialogs. Beebe (1985) thus argued that learner-internal factors such as feelings and motivations, and external factors such as social and situational factors would influence model preferences. Researchers had to know what such model preferences were. But it is difficult to have access to the pertinent varieties in order to select a relevant target variety as the L2 baseline. Generally, investigators were advised to choose any of the above norms, or ‘choosing the right stuff’, for the intended goal as an L2 norm in interlanguage pragmatics (Kasper, 1992).</p><p>2.4 Transfers by Chinese learners of English</p><p>Since English is a foreign language in China, emphasis on how to teach and learn from grammatical analysis led to practices of linguistic and non-linguistic contrasting which have resulted in nearly 1000 articles since 1949 (Li, 1996). It was reported that transfers by Chinese learners of English occurred at all linguistic levels, phonetic, lexical, semantic and syntactic. At the level of phonetics, Gui (1978) examined the differences between Chinese and English in terms of phoneme, tone, intonation, rhythm, and juncture. Fan (1982) compared the sound systems of the two languages. Jin (1986) considered the interlingual phonetic features of the Chinese learners. Chen (1987) focused on the sound pitch differences of the two languages. Wang (1990) conducted an experiment to detect that fluctuations played a cardinal role in distinguishing English and Chinese apart: English is prominence-related while Chinese tone-determined. Gong (1991) looked at the interlingual status of the learners in terms of Chinese influence in English intonation. All implied possible Chinese-based transfers in all these aspects into the learning English as a FL. On the lexical level, Wang (1990) focused on the differences between Chinese and English in numerals. Jin (1992) looked into the discrepancies between the two languages in the use of the reflexive pronoun ‘self’. Shao (1994) illustrated the differences by looking at the color terms in the two languages. Then a detailed list of words in the two languages were compared and</p><p>6 contrasted by Zhang & Zhang (1994) who looked into the differences in terms of the distribution of parts of speech, ratio of equivalents, and culture-loaded meanings. All these could be sources of Chinese-based transfers. In terms of semantic differences, Li (1988) considered motivation as the factor for semantic differences between English and Chinese. Gao (1993) specifically examined the change of meaning in two words, “comrade” and “individualism” and pointed out that there was a link between the change of meaning and social and cultural changes. Based on the semantic field theory, Jia (1994) considered the kinship terms in English and Chinese. Syntactic comparisons and contrasts include Chen (1985), Tang (1990), Ge (1991), Liu (1992), Ding (1993), Jin (1991) and Chen (1992). Chen (1985) reported that negation in Chinese and English were different in logical meaning, at the level of phrase and sentence. Tang (1990) looked at the differences in terms of principles and parameters. Ge (1991) pointed out that Chinese was different English also in sentence group and sequence of sentences. Ding (1993) illustrated the Chinese-English differences in the subject of a sentence. Both Jin (1991) and Chen (1992) displayed the influences of Chinese topic-prominence structures in the learners’ English. Oatey (1988) outlined some of the differences and transfers of greeting formulas by Chinese students into English. Ouyang (1988) cited a list of examples leading to breakdowns in Chinese- English communication. Maley (1988) illustrated misunderstandings due to Chinese-English differences. Deng & Liu (1988; 1991) treated linguistic and cultural differences between Chinese and English at book-length. The deeply rooted Chinese influence has also been noted in Ho’s (1983) discussion of Singaporean English. Ho (1993) looked back on the use of BE in history, conducted an experiment of recording of 100 educated Singaporeans, categorized the uses of BE, and concluded that influence of Chinese came from the philosophy behind the use. Significance in realizing cultural differences in language learning was attempted in Paulston (1988). In addition, Qin (1988) argued that in both teaching and learning, difference of cultures should be kept in mind. Xu (1988) addressed the issue by citing words with cultural interpretations. To make Chinese learners aware of cultural differences, that was what Hu’s (1988) effort was all about in editing a reader on intercultural communication. Thus Chinese-based influences were evident in the learners’ interlanguage of English at the level of phonetics (Rong Pei, 1991), morphology (Rong Pei, 1991; Li, 1993), semantics (Zhang, 1994), syntax (Rong Pei, 1991; Li, 1993), and discourse patterns (Rong Pei, 1991; Cheng, 1991; Li, 1993). That is why it was argued that the existence of Chinglish is but a fact (Xie, 1995; Wan, 1994; Rong Pei, 1991; Li, 1993). Though Cheng (1982) had an early discussion on this, yet the issue remains controversial. Related pragmatic analyses of Chinese learner’s transfers began from identifying evidences. Focusing on both the linguistic and pragmatic aspects of the learner’s language, Zhang (1994) has cited some of the frequently encountered examples and situations that Chinese students would misuse their TL of English. Rather inclined to the pragmatic aspect, Xia (1995) analyzed dozens of situations in which the Chinese students failed to communicate effectively. Zhao (1996) made an elaborate comparison between Chinese and English indexicals of pronouns. Chinese influence on speech act realizations in English and effects of pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication were conducted. Zuo (1988). Chen (1992) and Li (1992), have respectively looked into how native speakers tolerated Chinese-based influences. Duan (1986) and He (1991; 1992) had respectively examined the pragmatic failures by Chinese learners and how native speakers assessed these failures. He reported that native speakers usually gave much empathy in deviated forms by Chinese learners. Yu (1995) compared how requests and suggestions were made by Chinese and the British and concluded that Chinese-based influenced were shown in the verbosity and directness in their speech. Literature strongly shows that transfer-related studies in China coincided with international concerns in the SLA research domain. This can be revealed from the topics taken under consideration. Besides, pragmatics-related studies were few compared with those linguistic analyses. In addition, there have been no explicit studies on transfer. Thus all transfer-related claims were but indirect findings in comparison-contrast studies.</p><p>2.5 Approaches of transfer study</p><p>Although ways to get data for transfer analysis were addressed in Grotjahn (1983) who argued</p><p>7 that quantitative method should be used, we observed three main methods recurrently utilized in transfer study: cross-sectional, longitudinal and theoretical. The cross-sectional method compares how samples of L2 learners at different levels of proficiency understand and produce linguistic action. A longitudinal method reports how individuals or groups of learners from the early stages onward rely on a few prepackaged or prefabricated routines which are later analyzed into rules and elements that become available for productive use. There have been but very few longitudinal reports on the development of learners’ pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1995). Different from either cross-sectional or longitudinal methods, theoretical accounts resort to cognitive theory and research. Compared with the other above-illustrated methods, theoretical accounts of pragmatic development are even fewer. To date, there have been two different but compatible frameworks. One was Schmidt’s (1993) theory of the role of consciousness in pragmatic development, and the other was a proposal put forward by Bialystok (1993) to look at learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge development in terms of language use and proficiency. It seems that the two methods, though divergent from one another, converge in that they address different stages of pragmatic learning: Schmidt showing more interests in the conditions of initial intake, while Bialystok considering how acquired pragmatic information is represented and restructured. Of course, both proposals need to have empirical testing (Kasper, 1995). Impacts on the elicited data were observed in the use of different instruments, and different production tasks would also impose different processing demands on learners and influence the selective activation of pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992; Nunan, 1991; Beebe & Cummins, 1985). Edmonson & House (1991), for example, observed that the learners were more verbose or lengthy than native speakers in response to production in questionnaires but not in role-plays. Bodman & Einsentein (1988; 1992) reported that differential instruments effected on pragmatic transfer, with learners transferring L1 proverbs and ritual expressions in written questionnaires but not in role-plays. It was not likely that these differences were due to task-specific transferability assessments on the part of the learners. Rather, it seemed that the written conditions gave the learners time to assemble the material for literal translation in a controlled fashion, whereas under the greater demands of conversational interaction, lack of time and attention resources preclude the on-line production of formal L2 equivalents. Zhang (1992) found in her study of requesting in Chinese-English interlanguage that transfer might show up in the discoursal development of a speech event but not in the one-turn response required in a discourse completion questionnaire. While her learners’ responses to questionnaire items were very similar to those of English native speakers, Chinese and Chinese-English interlanguage speakers avoided direct requesting in role plays-- instead, they skillfully steered their interlocutors into making an offer of the desired goods or action (Kasper, 1992). The validity of instrument was discussed in Nyhus (1994). However, it was a fact that different instruments were used in data collection (Cohen, 1987). Introspection, self-reporting, verbal reports, diary writing (Robinson, 1991; Schmidt, 1993; Cohen, 1996), assessment questionnaire and production questionnaire (Bergman & Kasper, 1993), observing naturally occurring events, role-plays, oral and written production questionnaires, retrospective interviews (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993), were among the various instruments. Cross-cultural surveys, for instance, made frequent uses of questionnaires to elicit native speakers’ comments on identified transfers in the learner language. Informants were invited to scale each linguistic fact on a questionnaire. Investigations were conducted on both the linguistic and the pragmatic levels. In addition, researches would rely on a discourse-completion test (DCT) in collecting data for analysis. In a DCT, a dialog situation was specified and part of the scripted dialog was omitted. The students were asked to complete the dialog. Their responses were rated for appropriateness, using the dialog script as baseline data (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993). In this study, we will also use the DCT as an instrument to collect data for analysis. </p><p>2.6 Summary</p><p>Studies of transfer in SLA suggested that transfers had been tackled in all facets, linguistic and pragmatic. Linguistically, transfer studies ranged from phonology, grammar, lexicon to meaning. On the pragmatic dimension, communicative strategies and pragmatic failure, among other things,</p><p>8 were examined. Thus the transfer issue has been analyzed both structurally and functionally. Literature also indicated that most studies were linguistic rather than pragmatic. Transfer studies before mid 1980’s were mostly of a linguistic orientation. A growing interest in pragmatic analyses emerged since mid 1980’s and almost took up the whole scene after the 1990’s. However, most pragmatically related studies were clearly driving at cross-linguistic contrasts of speech act realization patterns, and there were little literature clearly aiming at pragmatic transfers. The tradition of transfer studies has also resulted in certain approaches so that further replications may be followed. However, most transfer studies were process-oriented. It is interesting to focus on the product of transfer. </p><p>3. Necessities to investigate negative pragmatic transfers </p><p>Literature strongly indicated that findings pertaining to the pragmatic aspect revealed a deeper side of the learner’s TL competence. Studies concerning pragmatic failure, for instance, unveiled not only another part of learning difficulties, but also seemingly the more difficult part, because a pragmatic failure can be checked only in cross-cultural interactions. As Thomas (1983) pointed out, a pragmatic failure is more destructive in communication. This implies that more attention should be laid on the study of transfer along this direction, and that is why Kasper (1992) called for more researches in non-structural aspects, including negative pragmatic transfer. However, while it is more significant to look into the negative pragmatic transfer, as was pointed by Kasper (1992), there has been few explicit studies addressing the transfer issue directly. So without clearly stating the purpose of negative pragmatic transfer as the mission of research, the substantial evidences displaying the existence of negative pragmatic transfer in the learners’ interlanguage of their TL, so to speak, are but by-the-way claims of findings in the comparative and contrastive studies of speech acts. This is not helpful to an overall understanding of the negative pragmatic transfer issue. Practice in SLA teaching and learning posed concrete difficulties and addressed needs in carrying out negative pragmatic transfer studies. Here is an example: </p><p>(1) No smoking please.</p><p>This sentence is posted as a sign in many public sites. To most students, there is nothing wrong with sentence (1) for it is grammatically right. However, analyzed from the angle of pragmatics, sentence (1) is inadequate in at least two senses. First, the use of “please” often depends on the relationship between the interlocutors and the intention of the speech act. If it is uttered by a superior, the word “please” is often not desired; however, if it is spoken by a subordinate to his superior, the word “please’ is often needed. Besides, it also depends on whether we want to connote a request or a suggestion. “Please” is often necessary in a suggestion and not needed in a request. However, our students often overlooked the different uses of the word “please” in English and over-generalized the use of this word due to the fact that in Chinese the word ‘please’ is used without any distinction as it does in English (Liu, 2000). He (1991) and Chen (1992) found the following sentence in their students’ composition:</p><p>(2) Our English teacher has peaches and plums everywhere in China. </p><p>In this sentence, the English words “peach” and “plum” both refer to fruits. However, our students use them in this sentence to mean “students”. This meaning is a transfer of the use of these two words in Chinese, and it is not found in English. Such similar transfers should be studied to find out if native speakers can understand them. Our explanations are often inadequate if we take sentences (1) and (2) above simply as errors or pragmatic failures. Therefore, it is of both theoretical and practical significance to launch an explicit study on negative pragmatic transfer. </p><p>References</p><p>Ajiboye, T.. Learner’s error in French: aspects of Nigerian evidence [J]., In ITL: 101-1-2, 1993:23-39. Alim El-Sayed. Variation of today’s English: Implicatures for teaching EFL in the Arabs world [J]. In ITL: 76,</p><p>9 1987: 63-96. Bansal, R.K.. The intelligibility of Indian English [D]. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London, 1966. Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R.. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals [C]. In Scarcella, R. C., Andersen, E., & Krashen, S. C., (eds.). Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language [A]. New York: Newbury House, 1990:55-73. Bergman, M., & Kasper, G.. Perception and Performance in Native and Nonnative Apology [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. Oxford: OUP, 1993:82-107. Bialistock, E.. Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.): Interlanguage pragmatics [A]. New York: OUP, 1993:43-59. Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M.. Oral communication-strategies for lexical difficulties [C]. In Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1980 (5): 3-10. Bialystok, E.. Communication-strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Biskup, D.. L1 influence on learner’s ‘renderings of English collocations: a Polish/German empirical study [C]. Iin P.J.L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.): Vocabulary and applied linguistics [A]. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1992:85-93. Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E.A.. Universals of lexical simplification [C]. In C. Faerch, C., & G. Kasper (eds.). Strategies in interlanguage communication [A]. London: Longman, 1983:119-139. Blum-Kulka, S.. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language [J]. In Applied Linguistics 3, 1982:29~59. Chen Feng. A Study of Linguistic Deviation by Chinese Speakers of English in Inter-Cultural Communication [D]. Unpublished MA thesis, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, 1992. Clyne, M., Giannicos, C., & Neil, D.. Cross-cultural responses to cross-cultural communication [J]. In ITL 9: 103- 104, 1994:1-17. Cohen, A.D.. Verbal reports as a source of insight into second-language learner strategies [J]. In Applied Language Learner, 7, 1996 (1). Connor, Ulla, & McCagg, P.. Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrase of English expository prose [J]. In Applied Linguistics 4, 1983 (3). Corder, P.. The significance of learners’ errors [C]. In J. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis [A]. London: Longman, 1971. Corder, P.. Error Analysis and Interlanguag [M]. Oxford: CUP, 1981. Corrales, O., & Call, M.E.. At a loss of words: The use of communicative strategies to convey lexical meaning [J]. In Foreign Language Annals 22, 1989:227-240. Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing. Language and Culture [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1989. Deng Yanchang & Liu Runqing. Language and Culture [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1991. Dickerson, C.J.. The learner’s language as a system of variable rules [J]. In TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1975 (4):401- 407. Duan Kaicheng. On Illocutionary Force—A Contrastive Study of English and Chinese [D]. Unpublished MA thesis of Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou, 1987. Dulay, Heidi C. & Mary K. Burt. You can’t learn with goofing [C]. In Richards, J. (ed.). [A].1974: 95-123. Ellis, R.. Understanding second language acquisition [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1986. Grotjahn, R.. On the use of quantitative methods in the study of interlanguage [J]. In Applied linguistics, Vol.4, 1983 (3). Hakuta, K.. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition [J]. In Language Learning 24, 1974 (2): 287-297. Hammerly, H.. Fluency and accuracy [M]. Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1991. Ho Meilian. Variability of BE realization in the Singaporean English speech continuum [J]. In ITL: 101-102, 1993, 1993:141-165. House, J., & Blum-Kulka, S.. Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse on cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies [M]. Gunter Narr Verlag, 1986. House, J., & Kasper, G.. Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language ‘C]. In Loerscher, W., & Schulze, R., (eds.): Perspectives on Language in Performance [A]. Tuebingen: Narr., 1987:150~88 Hu Wenzhong (ed.).Intercultural communication—what it means to Chinese learners of English? [A].Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press, 1988. Hultfors, P.. Reactions to non-native—native speakers’ assessments of errors in the use of English made by non- native users of the language Part I: Acceptability and intelligibility; Part II: Foreigner role and interpretation. (Studies in English LXVII) [M], 1986. Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S.H. (eds.).Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system [A]. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1987. Jain, M. P.. Error analysis: source, cause and significance [C]. In Richards, J. (ed.) [A]. 1974:189. James, C.. Linguist measures for error gravity [J]. In AVLA Journal, Vol. 12, 1974 (1):3-9. Kachru, B. B. (ed.). The Other Tongue [A], Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982. Kasper, G.. Pragmatische Aspecte in der interinsprache [M]. Tubinger: Narr., 1981 Kasper, G.. Pragmatic transfer [J]. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8, 3, 1992:203~231. Kasper, G.. Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. In J. Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman & Jan Blommaert (eds.): Handbook</p><p>10 of Pragmatics 1995 [A]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co, 1995:1-17. Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M.. Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon, 1986. Kellerman, E.. Towards the characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning [J]. In Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1977 (1):58-146. Kontra, M.. Communication interference and failure: a study of Hungarian Americanisms [J]. In ITL:101-102, 1993:77-88. Krashen, S. & Scarcella, R.. On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance [J]. In Language Learning 9, 1978(4):409-419. Lado, R.. Linguistics across culture [M]. Ann Arbor, MI: the University of Michigan Press, 1960. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H.. An introduction to second language acquisition research [M]. London: Longman, 1991. Larsen-Freeman, D.. The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students [J]. In TESOL Quarterly 9, 1975(4):409-419. Leech, G.. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1983. Levenston, E.A. & Blum-Kulka, S.. Aspects of lexical simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult learners [C]. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (eds.). Acte du seme colloque de linguistique appliquee de Neuchtale [A]. Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1977:51-71. Levenston, E.A., (1971): “Overindulgence and under-representation—aspects of mother tongue interference”, in Li Jie. The Tolerance of Native Speakers for Pragmatic Failures Committed by Chinese Learners of English in Intercultural Communication [D]. Unpublished MA thesis, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, 1992. Maley, A.. The sad fate of good intentions [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.): Intercultural Communication and What It Means to Us [A]. Shanghai Translation Press, 1988:63-71. McGurn, J.. Comparing languages [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1991. Meara, P.. The study of lexis in interlanguage [C]. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A.P.R.Howatt (eds.). Interlanguage: Papers in honor of S. Pit Corder [A]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 1984:225-235. Nelson, C.. Intelligibility and non-native Englishes [C]. In B. Kachru (ed.) (1982): The other tongue: Introduction [A]., 1982. Newser, W.. Approximative systems of foreign language learners [J]. In IRAL, Vol.9, 1971 (2):115-123. Nicjel, G.. How ‘native’ can (or) should) a non-native speaker be? [J]. In ITL:67-68, 1985:141-160. Nihalani, P.. Communication: RP and the third world [J]. In ITL:79-80, 1988:61-75. Nsakala, L.. Code-mixing as a communication strategy in the speech of Zairean students [J]. In ITL:103-104, 1994. Nunan, D.& Michael-Long. Research Methods in Language Learningi [M]. Cambridge Language Teaching Library, 1992. Nyhus, S.E.. Attitudes of non-native speakers of English toward the use of verbal report to elicit their reading comprehension strategies [D]. Plan B Paper, M.A. in English as a second language. Minneaplis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1994. Oatey, H., S.. Chinese and western interpersonal relationships [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.): Intercultural Communication and What It Means to Us [M]. Shanghai Translation Press, 1988:42-62. Odlin, T.. Language transfer [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1989. Olshtain, E.. Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology [C]. In Gass, S., & Selinker, L., (eds.)(1983): Language Transfer in language Learning [A]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983:232~51. Olshtain, E.. The acquisition of new word formation processes in second language acquisition [J]. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 1987 (2):221-231. Omoniyi, T.. English and the other tongue in official communicative interaction in Nigeria [J]. In ITL:103-104, 1994:57-75. Ouyang, F.. Some typical cultural mistakes made by Chinese learners of English [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.) Intercultural Communication and What It Means to Us [A]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press, 1988:31-41. Palmberg, R.. How much English vocabulary do Swedish-speaking primary-school pupils know before starting to learn at school? [C]. In H. Ringbom (ed.): Foreign language learning and bilingualism [A]. ABO: ABO Akademi, 1985:89-97. Platt, J., & Weber, H.. English in Singapore and Malaysia: status, features and function [M]. Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1980. Politzer, R.L.. Errors of English speakers of German as perceived and evaluated by German natives [J]. In Modern Language Journal 62, 1978:253-261. Qin Xiubai. EFL learning and culture acquisition [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press, 1988. Richard, J. & Sukiwiwat, M.. Language transfer and conversational competence [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol 4. 1983 (3). Richards, J. & Gloria P. Sampson. The study of learner language [J]. In Richards, J.(ed.). [A]. 1974:3-18. Richards, J. & Sukiwiwat, M.. Language transfer and conversational competence [J]. In Applied Linguistics Vol. 4, 1983 (3):113-125. Richards, J., & Sampson, G.. The study of learner language [C]. In J. Richards (ed.). [A]. 1974. Richards, J.. Error analysis and second language strategies [J]. In Language Science, Vol.17, 1971:12-22. Richards, J.. Error Analysis: perspectives on second language acquisition [A]. London: Longman, 1974. Richards, J.. Singapore English: Rhetorical and communicative styles [C]. In B. Kachru (ed.). The other tongue:</p><p>11 Introduction [A].1982. Robinson, M. S.. Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research [C]. In G. Kasper (ed.). Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language (technical report # 3) [A]. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1992:27-82. Schmidt, R.. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics [C]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics [A]. Cambridge: CUP, 1993. Selinker, L. Language transfer [J]. In General Linguistics, Vol.9, 1969 (2):67-92. Selinker, L.. Interlanguage [C]. In J. Richards (ed.). [A]. 1974. Selinker, L.. Language Transfer in Language Learning [M]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983:137-174. Sharwood-Smith, M.. Cross-linguistic aspects of second language acquisition [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.4, 1983 (3). Sharwood-Smith, M.. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations [M]. London: Longman, 1994:3-21. Skehan, P.. Individual differences in second-language learning [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1989. Smith, Larry. Some thought on the teaching and learning of English as an international language in China [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. 1988. Stanlaw, J.. English in Japanese communicative strategies [C]. In B. Kachru (ed.). The other tongue: Introduction [A]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982. Svanes, B.. Attitudes and ‘cultural distance’ in second language acquisition [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.9, 1988 (4). Swan, M., & Smith, B. (ed.). Learner English: a teacher’s guide to interference and other problems [A]. Cambridge: CUP, 1987. Takahashi, S.. Transferability of indirect request strategies [C]. In University Working of Hawaii Working Paper in ESL 11 [A], 1992 (1):69-124. Takahashi, S.. Pragmatic transferability of L1 indirect request strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1995. Takahashi, S.. Pragmatic Transferability [J]. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1996 (2):189-223. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M.. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English [J]. In JALT Journals 8, 1987:131-55. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M.. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction [C]. In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S., (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, M. L.. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction [C]. In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. Oxford: OUP, 1993:138-158. Tarone, E.. Some influences on interlanguage phonology [J]. In Working Papers in Bilingualism, 8, 1976:87-111. Tarone, E.. Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage [C]. In H.D Brown, C.A.Yorio, & R.C. Crymco (eds.). On TESOL ’77 [A]. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, 1977:194-203. Tarone, E.. The phonology of interlanguage [C]. In J. C. Richards (ed.). Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approach [A]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc, 1978:15-33. Tarone, E.. On the variability of interlanguage system [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.4, 1983 (3). Taylor, B.. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL [J]. In Language Learning, Vol.25, 1975 (1):73-107. Thomas, J.. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. In Applied Linguistics 4, 1983:91-122. Tiffen, B.. The intelligibility of Nigerian English [D]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1974. Varadi, T.. Strategies of target language communications: message adjustment [C]. In Paper given at the sixth Conference on Romania-English Project [A]. Timisoara, 1973. Varadi, T.. Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment [J]. In International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 1980 (17):59-72. Webster’s Third New World International Dictionary (WNW) [Z]. New Haven: The Merriam Webster, Inc, 1986. Weinert, R.. The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review [J]. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.16, 1995 (2). Whinnom, K.. Linguistic hybridization [C]. In Hymes, D. (ed.). [A]. 1971. Wolfson, N.. Compliments in cross-cultural perspective [J]. In TESOL Quarterly 15, 1981:117-24. Xu Guozhang. Culturally loaded words and English teaching [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. 1988. Yu Feixia. Request and Suggestion: A Pragmatic Study of Native Speakers of English’ and Chinese Speakers of English’ Politeness Strategies and Speech Patterns [D]. Unpublished MA thesis, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages, 1995. Zuo Huanqi. Verbal interactions of compliment in American English and Chinese [C]. In Hu Wenzhong (ed.). [A]. 1988. Chen Jianping (陈建平). 中国学生学习英语时句子的主题突出现象与母语转移 [C]. 桂诗春（主编）.中国学 生英语学习心理 [A]. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 1992. Chen Ping (陈平). 英汉否定结构对比研究 [C]. 中国社会科学院研究生硕士论文文选 [A]. 中国社会科学出 版社, 1985. Chen Ying (陈莹). 汉英音高体系比较 [J]. 现代外语, 1987 (1). Cheng Zhenqiu (程镇球). My views of C-E translation of political writings [J]. 外语教学与研究, 1991 (3):39-43. Ding Ren (丁任). 谈谈英汉主语的差别 [J]. 四川外语学院学报, 1993 (3). Fan Cunzhong (范存忠). 英语的音和汉语的音 [J]. 中小学英语教学与研究, 1982(3-4). Ge Xiaoqin (葛校琴). 我对英汉句群的一些见解 [J]. 外语研究, 1991 (4).</p><p>12 Gong Kajia (龚卡佳). 英汉语调对比教学 [J]. 现代外语, 1991 (3). Gui Cankun (桂灿昆). 汉英两个语音系统的主要特点比较 [J]. 现代外语, 1978 (1). He Ziran (何自然). 语用学概论 [M]. 湖南教育出版社, 1988. He Ziran (何自然). 言语交际中的语用移情 [J]. 外语教学与研究, 1991 (4):11-15. He Ziran (何自然). 跨文化交际中的语言‘离格’现象刍议 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 1993 (2):1-7. Jia Yande (贾彦德). 中西常用亲属词的语义对比研究 [J]. 世界汉语教学, 1994 (1). Jin Dingyuan (金定元). 洋腔洋调探源 [J]. 语言教学与研究, 1986 (4). Jin Jiling (金积令). 英汉语主题结构的对比研究 [J]. 外国语, 1991 (2). Jin Jiling (金积令). 英语‘self’和汉语‘自己’用法异同 [J]. 现代外语, 1996 (3). Li Dong (李冬). 汉英词语理据比较 [J]. 外国语, 1988 (6). Li Ruihua (李瑞华（主编）). 英汉语言文化对比研究 [A]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 1996. Li Wenzhong (李文中). 中国英语与中国式英语 [J]. 外语教学与研究, 1993 (4):18-24. Liu Miqing (刘宓庆). 汉英句子扩展机制对比研究 [J]. 现代外语, 1992 (1). Liu Shaozhong (刘绍忠). “请”字用法英汉比较与语用负迁移 [J]. 外国语, 2000 (5). Rong Pei, Wang (榕 培). 中国英语是客观存在 [J]. 解放军外语学院学报, 1991 (1):1-8. Shao Zhihong (邵志洪). 英汉颜色词使用的比较 [J]. 四川外语学院学报, 1994 (1). Tang Tingchi (汤廷池). 原则及参数语法语英华对比研究 [J]. 世界汉语教学, 1990 (2). Wan Changsheng (万昌盛). 关于英语的正确性 [J]. 现代外语, 1994 (1):34-38. Wang Guizhen (王桂珍). 汉英音幅与基频模式的特点及其对英语语音教学的启示 [J]. 现代外语, 1990 (1). Xia Jimei (夏纪梅（主编）). 英语交际常识: 中国人与外国人之间的误会实例分析 [M]. 广州:中山大学出版 社, 1995. Xie Zhijun (谢之君). 中国英语: 跨文化交际中的干扰性变体 [J]. 外语教学与研究, 1995 (3). Zhang Weizu (张卫族). 中国学生英语典型错误 [M]. 北京: 广播电视大学出版社, 1994. Zhang Xianglin (张祥麟). 从汉语看英语 [M]. 广西教育出版社, 1994. Zhang Yanchang & Zhang Erli (张彦昌、张而立). 一份英汉词汇对比调查报告 [C]. 刘重德（主编）.英汉语比 较研究 [A]. 湖南科技出版社, 1994. Zhao Shikai (赵世开). 英汉人称代词对比研究（Contrastive study of E & C personal pronouns） [C]. 李瑞华 （主编）. 英汉语言文化对比研究 [A]. 上海外语教育出版社, 1996:185-200.</p><p>About the author: Shaozhong Liu (1963-), earned his Ph.D in 1997 in linguistics and applied linguistics, with a focus on pragmatics, at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. He has lectured widely, including being a 2-year visiting professor at Wake Forest University. He is now Professor of Linguistics and Dean of Foreign Languages Department, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China. His research interests include linguistics and applied linguistics in general, and pragmatics in particular. He has been looking at issues in cognitive pragmatics (the Relevance Theory) and interlanguage pragmatics, especially cross-cultural production and comprehension of speech acts, and pragmatic transfers.</p><p>(Guangxi Normal University Journal, 2001/3:1-29)</p><p>13</p>