Annotated Bibliography Entry for Pavlenko and Jarvis’ Bidirectional Transfer

While “transfer” in SLA is a popular topic, discussions had been largely limited to L1(s)’ influence on L2(s) despite of Selinker’s definition for transfer (1969). Pavlenko and Jarvis (2002) are among the pioneers to do empirical research on L2(s)’ influences on L1, introducing the conception of “bidirectional transfer”(mutual interaction between L1 and L2) and undermining the assumption that “once the speaker’s L1 system has matured, his or her L1 competence is no longer subject to change” (Ortega, 2013).
The methodology in this paper is inspiring, such as the way it elicits language data in describing narrative animation in two languages. The grouping strategies (four groups and four films) facilitate comparison and contrast between L1 and L2 production based on the same implied meaning. While this study examined verbal output (speaking), the language data elicitation method can be applied in writing: Present information in pictures/animation (without any text explanation) and require participants to write in L1(s) and L2(s). One caveat is that in order to prevent translation from L1 to L2 (vice versa), Pavlenko and Jarvis use grouping strategies and compare the participants’ L2 production with monolingual native speaker’s L1 production based on the same content. This comparison is, however, not linear within one participant (i.e. comparing a language learner’s current L1/L2 performance with previous performance when his/her L2 is less developed or does not exist).
With regard to data analysis, these two authors have conceptualized “paradigmatic” and “syntagmatic” dimensions of the collected language data. The given categories are tailored to compare and contrast L1/L2 bidirectional transfer, and their values lie in constructing a framework to be further tested and evaluated for bidirectional transfer data analysis.
The results show that bidirectional transfer happens only in some aspects, including semantic extension, lexical borrowing and loan translation while in the other six aspects, L2 transfer is very limited or unseen. The paper further explores factors in bidirectional transfer, disapproving assumed factors in previous studies, including length of exposure, age of arrival, language mode and context effects. These claims are to be tested in further studies.
A limitation of the paper lies in participants’ identity (native Russian speakers arriving in USA after puberty), or more specifically their L1 background, which prevents the results from being universally applicable. Researchers may employ the same analysis categories on participants with different language backgrounds to find further evidence for or against the conclusion. For writing instructors teaching non-native background students, on the other hand, the aforementioned methodology might be employed to evaluate students’ writing proficiency: present pictures/animation without text explanation and require them to write in their L1(s) and L2(s); compare and contrast the two versions of writing samples to find L1’s negative/positive transfer to L2; diagnose the problem and solve it. One caveat is that in order to prevent direct translation from L1to L2 or vice versa, it might be prudent to place a short period (3-5 days) between the L1 writing and L2 writing for students to “forget” their L1/L2 writing.