Definition:
Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is the effect that a learner’s previously acquired languages — most commonly the first language (L1) but also additional languages (L3, L4) — exert on the acquisition and use of a new language. The term was introduced by Eric Kellerman and Michael Sharwood Smith (1986) as a more comprehensive and theoretically neutral replacement for the earlier term “language transfer” — acknowledging that influence operates bidirectionally and includes positive facilitation as well as negative interference. CLI is one of the most extensively researched topics in SLA because it directly predicts where learners will have difficulty and where they will have an advantage compared to speakers of different L1s.
From “Transfer” to CLI
Earlier SLA research used the term language transfer — borrowed from behavioral psychology and contrastive analysis — to describe how L1 habits were “transferred” to L2 performance. This framing implied active transference of habits, a behaviorist metaphor. Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986) proposed CLI to emphasize:
- Influence is not limited to the L1 — any previously known language can influence a new one.
- Influence is bidirectional — L2 can influence L1 (especially in language attrition).
- The process involves cognitive comparison and selective transfer based on learner perceptions of cross-linguistic similarity — not automatic, stimulus-driven habit transfer.
Types of CLI
Positive transfer (facilitation):
Cases where L1 knowledge accelerates L2 acquisition because the languages are similar. English speakers learning Spanish acquire verb conjugation faster than English speakers learning Japanese because Spanish morphological structure has many resemblances to English patterns. Cognates are a specific positive transfer mechanism for vocabulary.
Negative transfer (interference):
Cases where L1 patterns produce systematic errors in L2. English speakers learning Japanese frequently produce SOV word order errors, apply English -ing-like aspect to Japanese contexts where it doesn’t apply, or omit Japanese discourse particles (ね、よ、な) because English has no equivalent obligatory particle system.
Avoidance:
Learners may avoid structures in L2 that they perceive as different from L1 — using long relative clauses less frequently because English and Japanese relative clause structures differ substantially (post-nominal in English; pre-nominal in Japanese). Avoidance shows up as underuse of targets, not errors.
Overuse:
The opposite of avoidance — learners use L2 structures that resemble L1 patterns more often than native speakers, even when other L2 options are communicatively equivalent.
Borrowing/code-mixing:
Direct use of an L1 element within L2 production — inserting an English word when the Japanese word is not retrievable.
CLI from L1 Japanese: English Learners’ Core Challenges
| L1 English feature | CLI prediction in L2 Japanese |
|---|---|
| SVO word order | Tendency toward SVO in Japanese; omitting or misplacing verbs |
| No topic marking | Difficulty with は as topic marker vs. が as subject marker |
| No phonemic vowel length | Confusion between long and short vowels (ここ vs. こうこう) |
| No pitch accent | Overlooking pitch accent distinctions that change meaning |
| No obligatory politeness morphology | Forgetting to track keigo or 丁寧-form politeness distinctions |
| Minimal pro-drop | Over-specifying pronouns in Japanese where they are typically dropped |
From the Other Direction: L1 Japanese Learners of English
- Japanese は/が/を structure predicts over-reliance on explicit subject specification in English
- Mora-timed phonology → difficulty with English stress-timed rhythm
- Japanese verb-final structure → difficulty with English verb-second position
- Japanese null subjects → omitting subjects in English (common in early production)
- Japanese SOV → tendency to produce SOV-ordered English sentences
Psychotypology: The Role of Perceived Distance
Eric Kellerman (1983) introduced psychotypology — learners’ subjective perception of how similar/different the L2 is from the L1 — as a mediating variable. Learners are more willing to transfer L1 features they perceive as “safe” (universal, core) and resist transferring features they perceive as language-specific or marked. This explains why learners sometimes fail to use L1 knowledge that could genuinely facilitate L2 acquisition (because they overcategorize the L2 as foreign/different).
History
- 1957: Weinreich’s Languages in Contact establishes the foundational concept of linguistic interference between languages in contact.
- 1960s: The behavioral Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis proposes that all L2 errors can be predicted by comparing L1 and L2 systems — the strongest version of transfer theory.
- 1970s: Error analysis research (Corder, Selinker) reveals that many L2 errors are not predictable from L1 comparison but reflect interlanguage development. Transfer is demoted but not abandoned.
- 1983: Kellerman’s psychotypology research shows learners make selective, cognitively mediated transfer decisions, not automatic habit transfers.
- 1986: Kellerman and Sharwood Smith introduce “cross-linguistic influence” as the preferred theoretical term, replacing “transfer” in the research literature.
- 1990s–present: Extensive research on L3 acquisition examines how multiple prior languages produce complex, layered CLI effects; Cenoz, Hufeisen, and others develop multi-competence frameworks for CLI.
Common Misconceptions
“CLI is purely negative — the L1 only causes errors.”
Positive transfer is equally real. Learners whose L1 shares features with the L2 (cognates, similar morphological structures, shared pragmatic conventions) consistently acquire those features faster. Portuguese speakers learning Spanish have massive positive CLI from shared vocabulary and grammar.
“You should suppress L1 thinking to avoid transfer.”
Deliberately supressing L1 access has no demonstrated benefit and wastes cognitive resources that could be used for communication. The goal is to build robust L2 representations, not to prevent the L1 from being active. L1 presence is normal and inevitable.
“L1 interference explains most L2 errors.”
Error analysis (Corder, 1967 onwards) consistently shows that developmental errors — errors reflecting the learner’s own interlanguage system, not L1 patterns — account for a large proportion of L2 errors. CLI is one source of error, not the primary one.
Criticisms
- Difficulty of attribution: Determining whether an error reflects CLI or developmental acquisition processes requires controlled comparisons across L1 groups — a methodologically demanding research design that many studies lack.
- Direction of influence ambiguity: In late bilinguals, it is often unclear whether an error in L2 reflects L1→L2 influence or attrition of L1 from L2→L1 influence — the directionality problem.
- CLI in pragmatics is underresearched: Most CLI research focuses on phonology, morphology, and syntax. Pragmatic CLI — transferring L1 speech act conventions, politeness strategies, and discourse patterns — is less studied but has significant implications for communication and potential misunderstanding.
Social Media Sentiment
CLI is a constant undercurrent in language learning communities, typically not under its academic label:
- r/LearnJapanese: Discussions of “English-brain thinking” — “why do I keep wanting to say subject before everything” — are direct CLI discussions. The concept that Japanese grammar requires fundamentally different cognitive organization (not just replacing English words with Japanese ones) is a community consensus.
- YouTube: “Common mistakes English speakers make in Japanese” content is essentially applied CLI — cataloguing the predictable negative transfer points from L1 English into L2 Japanese.
- Language teachers: Contrastive analysis between English and Japanese drives specific lessons on particles, word order, and pitch accent — acknowledging CLI implicitly in every comparison-based grammar explanation.
Last updated: 2026-04
Practical Application
For English-speaking Japanese learners:
- Know your predicted CLI problem areas: particles (は/が/を/に distinctions that English doesn’t require), SOV word order, pitch accent, vowel length distinctions, pro-drop, and politeness morphology are all domains where English provides misleading L1 prior structure.
- Use CLI positively: Katakana vocabulary is frequently English-origin (cognates); your English vocabulary is a real resource in Japanese. Medium-register technical vocabulary (テクノロジー, コンピューター, データ) is directly transferable.
- Focus accuracy effort on high-interference domains: particles and topic/subject distinction deserve more deliberate study precisely because CLI makes English-based intuitions actively wrong.
- Accept early CLI errors as part of acquisition. They reflect not insufficient study effort but the normal working of the language learning system processing L2 through an L1-organized prior knowledge base.
Related Terms
See Also
Research
- Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon. [Summary: The volume that introduced the term CLI, replacing “language transfer”; includes multidisciplinary perspectives on positive and negative cross-linguistic effects, psychotypology, and the role of learner perception — foundational for the modern study of L1 effects in SLA.]
- Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press. [Summary: The most comprehensive monograph on language transfer/CLI; reviews evidence across phonology, vocabulary, syntax, and discourse; provides systematic account of positive and negative transfer and their conditions.]
- Kellerman, E. (1983). “Now you see it, now you don’t.” In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley. [Summary: Introduces psychotypology — the idea that learners’ subjective perception of cross-linguistic distance mediates transfer; explains why learners sometimes resist transferring potentially facilitative L1 knowledge they perceive as too “language-specific.”]
- Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. Longman. [Summary: Synthesizes transfer within the interlanguage framework; argues that language transfer is one of five processes (alongside overgeneralization, training transfer, communication strategies, and learning strategies) that shape interlanguage development.]
- Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Routledge. [Summary: Extends CLI beyond formal linguistic structures to cognition — how L1 shapes the conceptual system (categorization, spatial encoding, time reference) that underlies L2 use; provides the most comprehensive contemporary account of CLI in linguistic and cognitive domains.]