Crosslinguistic Influence
Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) is the umbrella term introduced by Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986) for all ways in which a speaker's knowledge of one language affects their production, comprehension, or development in another. It replaced "transfer" as the preferred technical term because it captures a far broader range of phenomena.
Why "Crosslinguistic Influence" Rather Than "Transfer"
The traditional term "transfer" carried behaviourist baggage and implied a simple one-directional movement from L1 to L2. CLI was adopted to encompass:
| Phenomenon | Description |
|---|---|
| Positive transfer | L1 knowledge facilitates L2 acquisition (e.g., cognates) |
| Negative transfer | L1 patterns cause errors in L2 |
| Avoidance | Learner underproduces structures that differ markedly from L1 |
| Borrowing | L2 features influence L1 production (reverse transfer) |
| L2 → L3 influence | A previously learned L2 affects acquisition of an L3 |
| Restructuring | Knowledge of multiple languages causes reorganisation of any language in the system |
Directionality
CLI is not limited to L1 → L2. In multilingual speakers, influence can flow in any direction:
- Forward transfer: L1 → L2 (the traditional focus)
- Reverse transfer / L1 attrition: L2 → L1 (see Language Attrition)
- Lateral transfer: L2 → L3 or L3 → L2
- Combined influence: Multiple source languages simultaneously affect the target language
This bidirectionality connects CLI to Cook's multi-competence framework, which views the multilingual mind as an integrated system rather than separate language modules.
What Gets Transferred
CLI operates at every linguistic level:
- Phonology — L1 accent, difficulty with non-L1 phonemes
- Lexis — False friends, loan translations, cognate facilitation
- Morphosyntax — Word order, article use, tense-aspect mapping
- Pragmatics — Speech act realisation, politeness strategies, discourse organisation
- Semantics — Conceptual transfer (how meanings are categorised)
Factors Mediating CLI
Not all L1 knowledge transfers equally. Key variables include:
- Psychotypology (Kellerman, 1983) — the learner's perception of L1–L2 distance, which may differ from actual typological distance
- Markedness — unmarked (universal) features transfer more readily than marked (language-specific) ones
- Proficiency level — CLI effects may be stronger at lower proficiency and diminish (or change character) as proficiency increases
- Language analytic ability — individual capacity to notice and manage crosslinguistic differences
Teaching Implications
- Contrastive analysis remains a useful diagnostic tool for predicting areas of CLI, despite its limitations as a comprehensive theory
- Teachers should be alert to both errors and absences (avoidance) as evidence of CLI
- Positive transfer can be actively leveraged — drawing learners' attention to L1–L2 similarities accelerates acquisition
- Code-switching and translanguaging in the classroom can be understood as natural CLI phenomena rather than deficiencies
References
- Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.) (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
- Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
- Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.