论文部分内容阅读
1.Introduction
Through the process of Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， grammar， syntax and semantics are relatively fixed and regular in each language system and can be easily accessible for L2 learners to acquire. However， the social application of language varies with diversified factors. According to Hymes （1972）， communicative competence refers to people’s ability to use language appropriately in social context. As the subsection of contemporary SLA research， interlanguage pragmatics concentrates on the contextualized use of target language by L2 learners （Kasper， 1992）. Hence， for the purpose of attaining communicative competence， L2 learners should attach great importance to the study of pragmatics. Being exposed into communication environment with native speakers， L2 learners’ production can be under the influence of several cross-linguistic variables and pragmatic transfer from L1 might be the dominant influence on L2 learners’ communicative competence （Kasper， 1992； Takahashi， 1996）.
This article majorly addresses the definition of pragmatic transfer and the variables related to it with three parts. The first part illustrates various definitions associated with pragmatics and the core meaning of pragmatic transfer. Furthermore， the second part analyzes diverse categories of pragmatic transfer at the linguistic level. In general， the pragmatic transfer can be divided into two disparate types-sociopragmatic transfer and pragmalinguistic transfer （Thomas， 1983）. Additionally， the final part concentrates on the influence of variables related to pragmatic transfer on learners’ communicative competence. In the light of previous studies， L2 learner’s language proficiency， the instruction they received and their gender will be discussed as the influential variables in this part （Schmidt， 1980； Takahashi， 1996； & Itakara， 2002）.
2.Definition of Pragmatic Transfer
The definition of pragmatic transfer is intricate because of various connotations of its components. Although there is not a precise and integral definition of pragmatic transfer， a core meaning of it can be inferred through comparisons among different linguists’ standpoints.
2.1Transfer and Pragmatics
Odlin （1989） argues that ‘transfer is that ESL learners prefer to integrate language habits and rules of learners’ previously acquired language into target language when both convergence and divergence emerge among those languages’ （p.27）. In terms of the concept of pragmatics， Yule （2010） puts that “pragmatics is the study of what the speaker mean or ‘speaker meaning’” （p.127）. This definition seems to be generic and abstract which would exclude other latent facets of pragmatics or overlap with other fields such as semantics and sociolinguistics. There is another neutral definition given by Levinson （1983）， ‘Pragmatics investigates language from a functional viewpoint and aims to clarify the construction of language through taking non-linguistic elements into consideration’ （p.7）. Though the perception of pragmatics differs among various researchers and linguists， the essence of it is that the language in use.
2.2Pragmatic Transfer
According to Blum-Kulka （1982）， the ESL learners would resort to speech acts and contextual conventions from their first language， which is supposed to be the appropriate equivalence of L2 speech acts， when they are in lack of pragmatic knowledge in performing communication with native speakers. With regards to cultural specific expressions in their first language， ESL learners may avoid such transfer in the interaction. For instance， Japanese L2 learners of English are usually reluctant to straightforwardly make comments on other people’s speech and behavior in that it is impolite in Japanese culture.
Thus， a rough definition of pragmatic transfer can be reached as Odlin （1989） concludes that pragmatic transfer involves the influence of pragmatic knowledge and conventions from L2 learners’ language systems apart from L2 on the perception， production and process of their L2 learning （p.27）.
3.Types of Pragmatic Transfer Based on Linguistic Level
Thomas （1983） argues pragmatic errors committed by L2 learners can be attributed to two dimensions. One of which is pragmalinguistic failure and the other one is sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure underlines that learner’s errors are made because of their incomplete grammar of target language. Contrarily， sociopragmatic failure interprets that the variation of language use in reality could give rise to errors and it is mostly associated with cultural-related conventions （Thomas， 1983）.
3.1Pragmalinguistic Transfer
The negative pragmalinguistic transfer indicates that a distinction is likely to be discovered between native speakers and L2 learners about the pragmatic force on their expressions （Thomas， 1983）. In light of Leech’s conclusion （1983）， pragmatic force includes rhetorical force （speaker uses the language in order to achieve a special effect to hearer， e.g. compliment， apology） with illocutionary force （speaker states the sentence including both semantic meaning and connotation） together.
An example could explicitly show the negative pragmalinguistic transfer， the expression could you do me a favor？ is a polite way to convey request or ask someone for help in British English； In French， it represents a question concerning someone’s ability to carry out the action” （Thomas， 1983， p.101）. In this situation， the British L2 learners of French should avoid the transfer in case the illocutionary force may be caused. 3.2Sociopragmatic Transfer
The sociology-related transfer refers to learners’ competence of recognizing social values. However， pragmatics-oriented transfer implies learners’ ability to embed the social benchmark into the practical use of language （Thomas， 1983）.
Here lists a few examples to illustrate the transfer in different situations. Case 1： “‘a corporation executive is talking to his assistant who is going to greet some VIP this afternoon. The executive notices that the assistant has spinach in her teeth’. A Japanese executive would initiate a joke by directly saying： ‘how do you use spinach in your teeth in negotiating your guest’？ Whereas Americans would avoid the word ‘spinach’ and suggest like this： ‘you’ve got something in your teeth， maybe it’s better to go to restroom’. The responses of Japanese speakers are evidence of sociopragmatic failure because Japanese believe it might be less embarrassed to joke people under such kind of face-threatening situation， which is not taken as appropriate convention by Americans” （Beebe & Takahashi， 1989a， p.115-116）.
However， positive sociopragmatic transfer does exist if the native language and the target language share similar cultural norms in communication. For example， Japanese learners of British English might offer “Excuse me” frequently just as native British do in that native Japanese universally make use of “Sumimasen” （Japanese equivalence of “Excuse me” in English） under the circumstances where they think that they are making trouble or causing inconvenience to others.
4.The Effect of Variables Related to Pragmatic Transfer on L2 learners’ competence
On the basis of previous research， transfer of instruction， learners’ proficiency of L2 and even L2 learners’ gender are all constraints on learners’ acquisition of L2 （Thomas， 1983； Takahashi， 1996； & Ross-Feldman， 2007）.
4.1L2 Proficiency and Pragmatic Transfer
A large number of studies demonstrate that both a positive and a negative relationship of L2 proficiency with ESL learners’ transfer can be detected. In Taylor’s （1975） study， there is a negative correlation between L1 transfer and L2 proficiency. The advanced L2 learners’ errors made less transfer errors than learners at a relatively lower L2 proficiency level did.
On the contrary， Takahashi & Beebe （1987） have demonstrated in their study that low proficiency L2 learners tend to use pragmatic transfer more frequently than those of higher proficiency because the lack of L2 proficiency impedes the transfer. For example： “higher level of Japanese L2 learners would choose formal expressions when conveying apologies. They would say： ‘I have to apology…’ whereas Americans would say： ‘I am sorry…’ in stead. In this case， learners with advanced level mistook the literal meaning of apology and improperly assessed the context. However， learners with lower proficiency would not choose such formal words because of their limited L2 knowledge （Takahashi& Beebe， 1987， p.152）. Other research led by Takahashi （1996） shows that there is neither a positive relationship nor a negative relationship between L1 transfer and L2 proficiency through performing the five request strategies （would you please， would you， would like， want and nonconventional strategy） designed in the study.
Though conclusions generated from different studies are divergent， they all confirm that learners’ L2 proficiency will impact on the pragmatic transfer.
4.2Instruction and Pragmatic Transfer
Since Takahashi’s （1996） study did not reveal any positive or negative tendency between L2 proficiency and L1 transfer， she inferred that the instruction or knowledge from training might be an indispensible element to explain L2 learners’ pragmatic transfer. It is universally acknowledged that a formal training is necessary and fundamental in foreign language acquisition （Schmidt， 1980）. The language learning-oriented instruction makes it convenient for learners to study a totally alien language. Furthermore， it will definitely facilitate learners’ production of this language. For example， language learners could write a composition because they have received the instruction of basic writing rules in L2 from their teachers.
However， the knowledge， which learners have acquired through instruction， might cause erroneous usage in pragmatic context. An example can illustrate this： “in communication with native English speakers， Serbo-Croatian learners would adopt ‘he’ under almost every situation. The grammatical gender and the rules of distinction between ‘he’ and ‘she’ are identical both in English and Serbo-Croatian. The possible explanation for this is that the textbooks and teachers always give example with ‘he’ instead of ‘she’” （Selinker， 1972）.
Therefore， the instruction-induced transfer should not be ignored both in L2 teaching and learning as the pragmatic transfer may not be easily circumvented through mere instruction by language teachers.
4.3Gender and Pragmatic Transfer
The research conducted on the basis of gender effect on second language acquisition has evolved over time. The research investigated by Itakura （2002） manifests that gender does affect learners’ role-play in topic development. In the experiment， 4 Japanese ESL （2 male and 2 female） learners of English get involved in leading a conversation first in English and then in Japanese. The data reveals that female students keep the dominance in topic development. Thus， Itakura attributes the phenomena to the transfer from their L1 conversational strategies （Itakura， 2002）. Moreover， Ross-Feldman’s （2007） study also demonstrates that influence of gender appears in the task-based interaction between Spanish L2 learners of English. From the results of three groups of learners （male-male， female-female and male-female）， Ross-Feldman concludes that the task can be successfully accomplished between male-female and female-female groups （Ross-Feldman， 2007）. But Ross-Feldman’s study fails to discover the relation between pragmatic transfer and L2 speaker’s gender.
Although fewer studies could support the relationship between gender and L2 speaker’s pragmatic transfer， it is worth to do further investigation.
5.Conclusion
This article mainly focuses on the definitions of pragmatic transfer in SLA. There are diversified categorizations of pragmatic transfer at different linguistic levels and which of those are interconnected （Thomas， 1983； Kasper， 1992）. Moreover， there are three underlying catalysts of pragmatic transfer frequently debated - instruction， L2 proficiency and L2 learner’s gender. Through the elaborative study by Takahashi （1996）， L2 proficiency does not interact with learners’ transfer in discourse. However， Taylor’s study （1975） and Takahashi & Beebe’s study （1987） display that L2 proficiency is an essential factor for L2 learners to make pragmatic transfer in their utterances. In view of instruction， several researchers assert that learners’ transfer can be traceable to instruction or transfer of training （Schmidt， 1980； Takahashi 1996）. In addition to the linguistic aspect of pragmatic transfer， the sociological factor like gender has also been discussed in this article. In Itakura’s study， L2 learner’s transfer of pragmatic communication strategies from L1 might be a factor to cause divergence between male learners and female learners’ performance （Itakura， 2002）. Nevertheless， the relation between L2 learner’s transfer and their gender has not been proved in Ross-Feldman’s experiment （2007）.
From the perspective of SLA， it is beneficial for learners to attach intensive attention to these variables on pragmatic transfer in order to achieve a higher level of L2 and appropriately evaluate the convention and context in target culture. Apart from the variables mentioned in this article， there are still a large number of other noticeable factors for both L2 learners and linguists to examine.
Reference List
Beebe， L. M.， & Takahashi， T. （1989a）. Do you have a bag？ Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass， C. Madden， D. Preston and L. Selinker （Eds.）， Variation in second language acquisition： Discourse and pragmatics （pp.103-122）. Clevedon； Philadelphia： Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka， S. （1982）. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics， 3（1）， 29-59.
Hymes， D. （1972）. On communicative competence. In J. Pride and J. Holmes （Eds.）， Sociolinguistics： Selected readings （pp.269-293）. Harmondsworth： Penguin.
Itakura， H. （2002）. Gender and pragmatic transfer in topic development. Language， culture and curriculum， 15（2）， 161-183.
Kasper， G. （1992）. Pragmatic transfer. Second language research， 8（3）， 203-231.
Leech， G. （1983）. Principles of pragmatics. London： Longman.
Levinson， S. C. （1983）. Pragmatics. Cambridge； New York： Cambridge University Press.
Odlin， T. （1989）. Language transfer. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
Ross-Feldman， L. （2007）. Interaction in the L2 classroom： does gender influence learning opportunities？ In A. Mackey （Ed.）， Conversational interaction in second language acquisition： A collection of empirical studies （pp.53-77）. Oxford： Oxford University Press.
Schmidt， R. W.， & Richards， J. C. （1980）. Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics， 1（2）， 129-157.
Selinker， L. （1972）. Interlanguage. IRAL， 10（3）， 209-231.
Takahashi， T.， & Beebe， L. M. （1987）. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal， 8（2）， 131-155.
Takahashi， S. （1996）. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition， 18（2）， 189-223.
Taylor， B. （1975）. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning， 25（1）， 73-107.
Thomas， J. （1983）. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics， 4（2）， 91-112.
Yule， G. （2010）. The study of language. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
Through the process of Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， grammar， syntax and semantics are relatively fixed and regular in each language system and can be easily accessible for L2 learners to acquire. However， the social application of language varies with diversified factors. According to Hymes （1972）， communicative competence refers to people’s ability to use language appropriately in social context. As the subsection of contemporary SLA research， interlanguage pragmatics concentrates on the contextualized use of target language by L2 learners （Kasper， 1992）. Hence， for the purpose of attaining communicative competence， L2 learners should attach great importance to the study of pragmatics. Being exposed into communication environment with native speakers， L2 learners’ production can be under the influence of several cross-linguistic variables and pragmatic transfer from L1 might be the dominant influence on L2 learners’ communicative competence （Kasper， 1992； Takahashi， 1996）.
This article majorly addresses the definition of pragmatic transfer and the variables related to it with three parts. The first part illustrates various definitions associated with pragmatics and the core meaning of pragmatic transfer. Furthermore， the second part analyzes diverse categories of pragmatic transfer at the linguistic level. In general， the pragmatic transfer can be divided into two disparate types-sociopragmatic transfer and pragmalinguistic transfer （Thomas， 1983）. Additionally， the final part concentrates on the influence of variables related to pragmatic transfer on learners’ communicative competence. In the light of previous studies， L2 learner’s language proficiency， the instruction they received and their gender will be discussed as the influential variables in this part （Schmidt， 1980； Takahashi， 1996； & Itakara， 2002）.
2.Definition of Pragmatic Transfer
The definition of pragmatic transfer is intricate because of various connotations of its components. Although there is not a precise and integral definition of pragmatic transfer， a core meaning of it can be inferred through comparisons among different linguists’ standpoints.
2.1Transfer and Pragmatics
Odlin （1989） argues that ‘transfer is that ESL learners prefer to integrate language habits and rules of learners’ previously acquired language into target language when both convergence and divergence emerge among those languages’ （p.27）. In terms of the concept of pragmatics， Yule （2010） puts that “pragmatics is the study of what the speaker mean or ‘speaker meaning’” （p.127）. This definition seems to be generic and abstract which would exclude other latent facets of pragmatics or overlap with other fields such as semantics and sociolinguistics. There is another neutral definition given by Levinson （1983）， ‘Pragmatics investigates language from a functional viewpoint and aims to clarify the construction of language through taking non-linguistic elements into consideration’ （p.7）. Though the perception of pragmatics differs among various researchers and linguists， the essence of it is that the language in use.
2.2Pragmatic Transfer
According to Blum-Kulka （1982）， the ESL learners would resort to speech acts and contextual conventions from their first language， which is supposed to be the appropriate equivalence of L2 speech acts， when they are in lack of pragmatic knowledge in performing communication with native speakers. With regards to cultural specific expressions in their first language， ESL learners may avoid such transfer in the interaction. For instance， Japanese L2 learners of English are usually reluctant to straightforwardly make comments on other people’s speech and behavior in that it is impolite in Japanese culture.
Thus， a rough definition of pragmatic transfer can be reached as Odlin （1989） concludes that pragmatic transfer involves the influence of pragmatic knowledge and conventions from L2 learners’ language systems apart from L2 on the perception， production and process of their L2 learning （p.27）.
3.Types of Pragmatic Transfer Based on Linguistic Level
Thomas （1983） argues pragmatic errors committed by L2 learners can be attributed to two dimensions. One of which is pragmalinguistic failure and the other one is sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure underlines that learner’s errors are made because of their incomplete grammar of target language. Contrarily， sociopragmatic failure interprets that the variation of language use in reality could give rise to errors and it is mostly associated with cultural-related conventions （Thomas， 1983）.
3.1Pragmalinguistic Transfer
The negative pragmalinguistic transfer indicates that a distinction is likely to be discovered between native speakers and L2 learners about the pragmatic force on their expressions （Thomas， 1983）. In light of Leech’s conclusion （1983）， pragmatic force includes rhetorical force （speaker uses the language in order to achieve a special effect to hearer， e.g. compliment， apology） with illocutionary force （speaker states the sentence including both semantic meaning and connotation） together.
An example could explicitly show the negative pragmalinguistic transfer， the expression could you do me a favor？ is a polite way to convey request or ask someone for help in British English； In French， it represents a question concerning someone’s ability to carry out the action” （Thomas， 1983， p.101）. In this situation， the British L2 learners of French should avoid the transfer in case the illocutionary force may be caused. 3.2Sociopragmatic Transfer
The sociology-related transfer refers to learners’ competence of recognizing social values. However， pragmatics-oriented transfer implies learners’ ability to embed the social benchmark into the practical use of language （Thomas， 1983）.
Here lists a few examples to illustrate the transfer in different situations. Case 1： “‘a corporation executive is talking to his assistant who is going to greet some VIP this afternoon. The executive notices that the assistant has spinach in her teeth’. A Japanese executive would initiate a joke by directly saying： ‘how do you use spinach in your teeth in negotiating your guest’？ Whereas Americans would avoid the word ‘spinach’ and suggest like this： ‘you’ve got something in your teeth， maybe it’s better to go to restroom’. The responses of Japanese speakers are evidence of sociopragmatic failure because Japanese believe it might be less embarrassed to joke people under such kind of face-threatening situation， which is not taken as appropriate convention by Americans” （Beebe & Takahashi， 1989a， p.115-116）.
However， positive sociopragmatic transfer does exist if the native language and the target language share similar cultural norms in communication. For example， Japanese learners of British English might offer “Excuse me” frequently just as native British do in that native Japanese universally make use of “Sumimasen” （Japanese equivalence of “Excuse me” in English） under the circumstances where they think that they are making trouble or causing inconvenience to others.
4.The Effect of Variables Related to Pragmatic Transfer on L2 learners’ competence
On the basis of previous research， transfer of instruction， learners’ proficiency of L2 and even L2 learners’ gender are all constraints on learners’ acquisition of L2 （Thomas， 1983； Takahashi， 1996； & Ross-Feldman， 2007）.
4.1L2 Proficiency and Pragmatic Transfer
A large number of studies demonstrate that both a positive and a negative relationship of L2 proficiency with ESL learners’ transfer can be detected. In Taylor’s （1975） study， there is a negative correlation between L1 transfer and L2 proficiency. The advanced L2 learners’ errors made less transfer errors than learners at a relatively lower L2 proficiency level did.
On the contrary， Takahashi & Beebe （1987） have demonstrated in their study that low proficiency L2 learners tend to use pragmatic transfer more frequently than those of higher proficiency because the lack of L2 proficiency impedes the transfer. For example： “higher level of Japanese L2 learners would choose formal expressions when conveying apologies. They would say： ‘I have to apology…’ whereas Americans would say： ‘I am sorry…’ in stead. In this case， learners with advanced level mistook the literal meaning of apology and improperly assessed the context. However， learners with lower proficiency would not choose such formal words because of their limited L2 knowledge （Takahashi& Beebe， 1987， p.152）. Other research led by Takahashi （1996） shows that there is neither a positive relationship nor a negative relationship between L1 transfer and L2 proficiency through performing the five request strategies （would you please， would you， would like， want and nonconventional strategy） designed in the study.
Though conclusions generated from different studies are divergent， they all confirm that learners’ L2 proficiency will impact on the pragmatic transfer.
4.2Instruction and Pragmatic Transfer
Since Takahashi’s （1996） study did not reveal any positive or negative tendency between L2 proficiency and L1 transfer， she inferred that the instruction or knowledge from training might be an indispensible element to explain L2 learners’ pragmatic transfer. It is universally acknowledged that a formal training is necessary and fundamental in foreign language acquisition （Schmidt， 1980）. The language learning-oriented instruction makes it convenient for learners to study a totally alien language. Furthermore， it will definitely facilitate learners’ production of this language. For example， language learners could write a composition because they have received the instruction of basic writing rules in L2 from their teachers.
However， the knowledge， which learners have acquired through instruction， might cause erroneous usage in pragmatic context. An example can illustrate this： “in communication with native English speakers， Serbo-Croatian learners would adopt ‘he’ under almost every situation. The grammatical gender and the rules of distinction between ‘he’ and ‘she’ are identical both in English and Serbo-Croatian. The possible explanation for this is that the textbooks and teachers always give example with ‘he’ instead of ‘she’” （Selinker， 1972）.
Therefore， the instruction-induced transfer should not be ignored both in L2 teaching and learning as the pragmatic transfer may not be easily circumvented through mere instruction by language teachers.
4.3Gender and Pragmatic Transfer
The research conducted on the basis of gender effect on second language acquisition has evolved over time. The research investigated by Itakura （2002） manifests that gender does affect learners’ role-play in topic development. In the experiment， 4 Japanese ESL （2 male and 2 female） learners of English get involved in leading a conversation first in English and then in Japanese. The data reveals that female students keep the dominance in topic development. Thus， Itakura attributes the phenomena to the transfer from their L1 conversational strategies （Itakura， 2002）. Moreover， Ross-Feldman’s （2007） study also demonstrates that influence of gender appears in the task-based interaction between Spanish L2 learners of English. From the results of three groups of learners （male-male， female-female and male-female）， Ross-Feldman concludes that the task can be successfully accomplished between male-female and female-female groups （Ross-Feldman， 2007）. But Ross-Feldman’s study fails to discover the relation between pragmatic transfer and L2 speaker’s gender.
Although fewer studies could support the relationship between gender and L2 speaker’s pragmatic transfer， it is worth to do further investigation.
5.Conclusion
This article mainly focuses on the definitions of pragmatic transfer in SLA. There are diversified categorizations of pragmatic transfer at different linguistic levels and which of those are interconnected （Thomas， 1983； Kasper， 1992）. Moreover， there are three underlying catalysts of pragmatic transfer frequently debated - instruction， L2 proficiency and L2 learner’s gender. Through the elaborative study by Takahashi （1996）， L2 proficiency does not interact with learners’ transfer in discourse. However， Taylor’s study （1975） and Takahashi & Beebe’s study （1987） display that L2 proficiency is an essential factor for L2 learners to make pragmatic transfer in their utterances. In view of instruction， several researchers assert that learners’ transfer can be traceable to instruction or transfer of training （Schmidt， 1980； Takahashi 1996）. In addition to the linguistic aspect of pragmatic transfer， the sociological factor like gender has also been discussed in this article. In Itakura’s study， L2 learner’s transfer of pragmatic communication strategies from L1 might be a factor to cause divergence between male learners and female learners’ performance （Itakura， 2002）. Nevertheless， the relation between L2 learner’s transfer and their gender has not been proved in Ross-Feldman’s experiment （2007）.
From the perspective of SLA， it is beneficial for learners to attach intensive attention to these variables on pragmatic transfer in order to achieve a higher level of L2 and appropriately evaluate the convention and context in target culture. Apart from the variables mentioned in this article， there are still a large number of other noticeable factors for both L2 learners and linguists to examine.
Reference List
Beebe， L. M.， & Takahashi， T. （1989a）. Do you have a bag？ Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass， C. Madden， D. Preston and L. Selinker （Eds.）， Variation in second language acquisition： Discourse and pragmatics （pp.103-122）. Clevedon； Philadelphia： Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka， S. （1982）. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics， 3（1）， 29-59.
Hymes， D. （1972）. On communicative competence. In J. Pride and J. Holmes （Eds.）， Sociolinguistics： Selected readings （pp.269-293）. Harmondsworth： Penguin.
Itakura， H. （2002）. Gender and pragmatic transfer in topic development. Language， culture and curriculum， 15（2）， 161-183.
Kasper， G. （1992）. Pragmatic transfer. Second language research， 8（3）， 203-231.
Leech， G. （1983）. Principles of pragmatics. London： Longman.
Levinson， S. C. （1983）. Pragmatics. Cambridge； New York： Cambridge University Press.
Odlin， T. （1989）. Language transfer. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
Ross-Feldman， L. （2007）. Interaction in the L2 classroom： does gender influence learning opportunities？ In A. Mackey （Ed.）， Conversational interaction in second language acquisition： A collection of empirical studies （pp.53-77）. Oxford： Oxford University Press.
Schmidt， R. W.， & Richards， J. C. （1980）. Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics， 1（2）， 129-157.
Selinker， L. （1972）. Interlanguage. IRAL， 10（3）， 209-231.
Takahashi， T.， & Beebe， L. M. （1987）. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal， 8（2）， 131-155.
Takahashi， S. （1996）. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition， 18（2）， 189-223.
Taylor， B. （1975）. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning， 25（1）， 73-107.
Thomas， J. （1983）. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics， 4（2）， 91-112.
Yule， G. （2010）. The study of language. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.