Language transfer (also known as L1 interference, linguistic

interference, and crosslinguistic influence) refers to speakers or writers

applying knowledge from one language to another language.[1] It is the
transfer of linguistic features between languages in the speech repertoire
of a bilingual or multilingual individual, whether from first ("L1") to
second ("L2"), second to first or many other relationships.[2] It is most
commonly discussed in the context of English language learning and
teaching, but it can occur in any situation when someone does not have a
native-level command of a language, as when translating into a second
language.

Language Transfer Language transfer has been a controversial issue

in SLA for a long time. Its importance in second language (L2) learning
has also been reassessed time and again. Along with the developments of
research on language transfer, linguists have realized that the first
language (L1) acts as “a major factor in SLA” (Ellis, 1990, p.297). There
are evidences of L1 influences at every aspect of L2 learners’
interlanguage: discourse, lexicon, semantics, syntax, morphology
(including bound morphemes), phonetics, and phonology. In order to get
a comprehensive understanding and fully recognize the significance of
language transfer, it is necessary to have a close look at its research
developments at different stages and relative definitions.

Over a hundred years ago, Whitney (1881) used the term transfer to
refer to cross-linguistic influences, which had been used by many
linguists ever since. However, the terminology is not without problems
and leads to different conceptions. Corder (1983) and Kellerman & Smith
(1986) advocated abandoning the term or using it with high restriction,
yet many linguists continued to use it without any limitation. Up until
now, linguists still do not have an exact definition of language transfer,
which varies along with the developments of research on it. In the
twentieth century, the developments of language transfer research fell
into mainly three periods and categories, namely, behaviorist, mentalist
and cognitive view (Ellis, 1994, p.297-300). Behaviorists regarded
language leaning as habit formation. In the view of mentalists, language
acquisition was a creative construction of linguistic rules. Cognitive
linguists focused on factors that influence language acquisition. Ever
since 1990s，language transfer research has experienced unprecedented
development no matter in depth or breadth．A detailed and a close look
at the historical background, the main hypotheses of different viewpoints
and their relative definitions of language transfer can provide us a
profound understanding of it.

Cognitive view of transfer

In the late 1970s, the drawbacks of the mentalist view stimulated the
development of cognitive view, which believed that language learning
involved the same cognitive systems as learning other types of
knowledge: perception, memory, problem-solving, information
processing, etc. (Kellerman, 1977, p.58-145). In cognitive view, “It is
generally acknowledged that typological similarity or difference cannot
on its own serve as a predictor for transfer, but interacts with other
(linguistic) factors” (Faerch & Kasper, 1987, p.121). During that period,
linguists tended to focus on how and when language learners would use
their native language. SLA research then emphasized factors that caused
language transfer. Ellis (2000) listed six kinds of factors that would cause
language transfer: 1. Transfer happens at different linguistic levels,
namely, phonology, syntax, discourse, pragmatics, etc.; 2. Social factors
have impact on language transfer, for example, the influence of learning
environment; 3. Markedness of certain language; 4. Prototypicality, the
core meaning and the periphery meaning of a certain word; 5. Language
distance and psychotypology, namely, learners’ perception of language
distance between L1 and L2; 6. Some developmental factors that limits
interlanguage development