Throughout the short life of interlanguage pragmatics as a subdiscipline of second language research, it has been a virtually uncontested assumption that non-native speakers' comprehension and production of linguistic action is considerably influenced by their L1 pragmatic knowledge. The literature strongly supports this hypothesis. However, whereas there has been a lively controversy about the role of transfer in the traditional core areas of second language research (syntax, morphology, semantics), there has been little theoretical and methodological debate about transfer in interlanguage pragmatics. As a contribution to such a debate, this article seeks to clarify the concept of pragmatic transfer, proposing as a basic distinction Leech/Thomas' dichotomy of sociopragmatics versus pragmalinguistics and presenting evidence for transfer at both levels. Evidence for purported pragmatic universals in speech act realization and for positive and negative pragmatic transfer is discussed. Further issues to be addressed include the conditions for pragmatic transfer (transferability), the interaction of transfer with non-structural factors (proficiency, length of residence, context of acquisition), and the effect of transfer on communicative outcomes. The article concludes by briefly considering some problems of research method in studies of pragmatic transfer.
Second Language Research Findings: A Wrong Generalization to EFL Studies
