Some issues of contention in contrastive analysis

Midterm Project of CA
Power pointed by: Soraya Ghoddousi
Instructor :Dr Farzaneh Khodabandeh
Saturday, April 09, 2016
4/26/2016 1
7
Some Issues of Contention

7
problematic and argumentative faces of CA
 CA is both problematic and argumentative. So living
with a ‘crisis of confidence’ is an inseparable part of
its proponents. CA is either insecure or vigorous Its
vigor shows its self in the number of CA Projects have
funded in recent years, which proves its high ‘face
validity’. CA is a conceptual practice in search of a
conceptual theory.
4/26/2016
7
Some Issues of Contention 2

7.1
Criteria for Comparison
Two facets of the issue:
1. Whether different languages are comparable ?
2. What criterion is used for comparing, if they are
comparable ?
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Problem and objection of Structuralists:
 Problem : Comparability of different languages
became the major problem of Structuralists , since
they insisted on uniqueness of each language.
 Objection : The Structuralists objected to the
traditional practices of superimposing descriptive
categories of the prestigious classical languages on to
modern vernaculars .
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Insistences:
 The insistence on defining phonological and
grammatical categories in terms of individual
languages made detailed contrastive statement
laborious, if not theoretically impossible ,to phrase.
 The insistence that each language has its own
uniqueness reflects Saussure’s word that a system
defined by the sum of its constituent terms.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Difference in grammatical values
 Labels ‘tense’ or ‘articles’ which refer to a certain
grammatical category in two different languages ,
have not the same value in such languages. For
example ‘ masculine’ in French is in contrast with ‘
feminine but in German contrast with ‘neuter’ and
‘feminine’ in three-term system.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Defense
Defense of the position that languages are comparable is
done in two ways:
1-Article system
2-Principle
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Dangers of comparison:
Difference in number of article systems in English
and German show the danger of regarding entities as
comparable for they are called by the same name
,but German and English (and not Russian) have
different number of article system : German has
three-terms: definite, indefinite, and ‘zero’ , where
English has two terms :definite and indefinite
Difference in combination and consequently values.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
1-Article systems:
German articles: English articles:
 Der Lehrer the teacher
 Ein Lehrer a teacher
 Ø Lehrer (pl) teachers
 Ø Bier(sing) beer
 Russian has articles, though it has means of
definiteness and indefiniteness
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Combination and values:
 Certain article + noun combination occur in one of
the languages not the others. Foe example German
uses the definite article with a singular mass noun
with a human proper noun.
 Consequently Ø and the have different values in the
these two languages.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
Criteria of equation :
 Bilinguals as language learners equate entities across
languages , and interlingual identifications .
 The criteria of language learners for equation are
rather superficial such as articulatory , acoustic
similarity, and distribution.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
2- Principles:
o Function words which occur in prenominal
position and indicate the specificness and
genericness of the noun are sufficient for
comparison of the languages
4/26/2016
7

7.1
o Interlingual identification
o it shows what two languages categories have in
common and distinguishes them as the departure
of CA.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
How to set about the task?
 The two or more entities to be compared ,while differing
in some respect, must share certain attributes.
 Contrasting mean looking for differences , in a
background of sameness (or constant) that
differences(variables) are significant.
4/26/2016
7

7.1
What is tertium comparatation (TC)
In the theory of CA the constant has traditionally
been known as the tertium comparatation (TC).
4/26/2016
7
15

7.1
Available Tertium comparatations
Comparatations (TC)s are available for
 A: phonological CA: IPA chart and vowel diagram
 B: lexical CA : Universal set of semantic
components
 C: grammatical CA: Surface structure, deep
structure, translation equivalence.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Surface grammar
 It describes the overt signals or ‘devices of form and
arrangements which a language exploits.
 Four such devices are: 1)word order, 2)intonation,
3)function words and 4)affixation.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Two main dimensions of grammar
 CA s that use surface structure categories as the TC are
possible when two languages have a common
grammatical category by similar internal
composition (constituency) and distribution,
which are two main dimensions of grammar.
 Similarity in these dimensions will the surface
structure contrastivist refer to them by the same
labels: ‘attribute’, ‘NP’, ‘fall-rise contour’ or
‘passive’
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Criteria of constituency and distribution for
linguistic relevance
 If there is a recurrence of combination ,therefor the
criteria of constituency and distribution are
satisfied . This is a common but risky practice ,
because there is always the possibility that X and Y in
two languages share a label simply .This is for they
have the prestigious categories of Latin imposed
on them such as English and German .So we ought
not to equate two grammatical categories
interlingually merely because they go by the same
name, but the two categories may have different
values in X and Y anyway. .
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Equating of categories:
 In equating of items if two language descriptions
antecedent to the CA were conducted independently
,and constituency and distribution were the only
criteria for linguistic relevance, then equating a
category like ‘Perfect’ of two languages would be as
well as equating the categories of ‘Auxiliary’ and
‘Participle’.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
When does interlingual identification occur?
At the time of:
 Similarity in shape and distribution or both cause
speakers equate item in one language with items in
another.

4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Advantages an disadvantages of surface structure
Advantages:
 There are surface structures which L2 learners
confronted with to communicate.
 Failures are reflected in surface feature of erroneous
FL utterances.
 Similarities and differences of surface features may be
more relevant for the operation transfer effects in
second language than deep structure relation .
4/26/2016
7

7-1-1
Surface Structure
Disadvantages :
 Surface grammar tells us little or nothing about the
way in which the sentences are formed .
 The main objection of using surface structure as TC
is led to interlingual equation that are superficial
and insignificant
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
What do paraphrases convey?
 Superficially dissimilar sentences of a language to be
paraphrases of one another convey the same
ideational content to share the same deep
structure.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
Types of paraphrases and role of deep structure in
them
1. Interlingual paraphrases: are pairs of sentences
from two different languages having the same
ideational content, derived from a common deep
structure and implies that is language-
independent .
2. Intralingual paraphrases: implies that deep
structure is language-specific.
So the deep structure ought to serve as a viable TC.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
Constant and variable in form of universal
structures
• Deep structure is counted as constant
• Surface structure is counted as variable
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
Relation of deep and surface structures
• Relation of deep and surface structure is made explicit
in a Chomsky type – grammar by transformations
involved in converting the former in to the latter .
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
Conversion of structures’ levels
 If shared deep structure is converted in to language specific
surface structure by the sequential application of
transformations, then the points in their transformational
derivations at which equated deep structure representations of
two languages begin to diverge, can be taken as a measure (or
‘metric’) of their differences :
 “the differences between languages must come at various level of
intermediate structure”.
 The earlier they diverge , the greater the difference, the ‘later’ the
less.
 Degrees of equivalence between languages are described in
terms of correspondence between the rules of their respective
grammar : we gain the double advantage of quantification and
explicitness.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
Advantages of deep structures:
• universality to see how convenient a TC it becomes
in CA
• learning by disregarding semi-redundant and
transformationally introduced features of surface
structures as articles , inflections and the copula.
• equating interlingually superficially very different
structures.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-2
Deep Structure
 Disadvantages of deep structures:
 The relevance of deep structure in CA are limited to its
use as a criterion for comparison
 Interference errors are reflection of the surface
structure differences between L1 and L2, but it is on
the basis of deep structure identity that learners
associate certain L1 patterns with certain
communicative intentions in the first place
 Superficial structural L1:L2 contrasts explain the form
of interference errors , not the sets transfer into
motion
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Translation Equivalence
Translation Equivalence
• A standard practice in grammar CA to compare the
formal features of translationally paired sentences : “
one constant in grammatical comparison is
presumably the meaning of a pair of sentences .
• Synonymous with sameness of meaning
• To equate pairs of sentences of L1 and L2 which ‘mean
the same’.
• Equivalent construction have identical deep
structure ,even if the surface they are markedly
different
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Krzeszowsi’s thesis:
• Paraphrase is a special case of (intralingual)
translation , and translation equivalence implies deep
structure identity.
Bouton’s criticism:
• Verbal aspect is an integral part of deep structure
representation, and in surface structure a choice must
be made between two morphologically differentiated
forms of perfective and imperfective.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Negative polarity
 Negative polarity questions in two languages causes
for example“ the English yes and Korea no are
translation equivalent” .
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Inability of deep structure identity to guarantee
translation equivalence
• Meaning and equivalence of meaning are of several
types , but deep structure is predicated on one of
these, to the exclusion of the others .
• Deep structure is concerned with propositional or
ideational that single isolated sentence convey.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Kinds of meaning:
• There are three kinds of meaning contained in
sentences : ideational, interpersonal and textual , that
should be conveyed and translationally equivalent in
different languages
1. Interpersonal meaning determines what kind of
speech act it performs for its user.
2. Textual meaning determines what information it
contributes to the message , and how it helps
cohesion and coherence
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Levels of translation and their importance in CA :
Levels of translation
 Semantic
 Pragmatic
Equation of languages
 For CA we ought to equate L1 and L2 forms which , no
matter how far they diverge superficially ,are
semantically and pragmatically equivalent.
Translation equivalence
 It is the best available TC for CA
4/26/2016
7

7-2
The Psychological Reality of CA
Language structure and language scholars:
A contrastivist is a linguist concerning with structure
to draw conclusions about a mode of human behaviour
, learning.
A psychologist of language suggests two aspects of
structure from psychological reality view by two
groups of scholars:
Linguists
Psycholinguists
4/26/2016
7
37

7-1-3
Scholarships related to linguists and
psycholinguists
 What the structure is like that it is the task of linguistic
science .It involves in linguistic competence.
 How the structure functions and how it is acquired that it
is the task of psycholinguistics. It involves in linguistic
performance.
 What the grammars are is they are accounts of linguistic
knowledge , that is of competence not of performance ,not
the processes which deploy that knowledge.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
 ‘Psychological reality’ and ‘mental reality’:
 Since :
 Mental reality refers to the grammar and linguistic knowledge , and
consequently the Competence . Grammars are structural statements
they describe the principles on which languages must be organised and
stored in the mind. A grammar describes the dynamic processes.
 Psychological reality refers to behavioural processes manipulated
linguistically defined structures , but do not simulate grammatical
processes and consequently the performance. The utterances are
coded ( synthesised ) ,and decoded and (analysed )
 Distinction between ‘mental’ reality and ‘psychological’ reality is the
same the two modes of : knowing that and how ,formal and efficient
causes.
 So
 psycholinguistic fallacy , that says the formal processes used by the
grammar represent the productive and perceptive of language
behaviour has no right base.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
 Reasons of interferences:
 Interference from L1 can be viewed as resulting from
conflict set up between the mental organisational
disposition imposed by L1 and the mental
organisational demands of L2.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
3 important sequences of basing CAs on
competence accounts of language
Competence is
1. a property of the individual
2. neutral between speaker and hearer
3. idealised to the point of disregarding the
constraints of time and memory that competence
is bounded by
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
1. Competence as a property of the individual
• CA is for practical purposes ,necessarily concerned
with groups:
A. one produces CAs with representative population of
L2 learners in mind
B. one cannot do a separate CA for each individual
learners.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
2-Competence as a neutral fact between speaker
and hearer
A. Grammars of the form are neutral between speaker
and hearer, between synthesis and analysis of
utterances
B. This neutrality carries the implication that the
predictions emanating from CAs should be equally
valid for productive and receptive control of the
L2.
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
3-Competence as an idealised fact
A. Competence is an idealised to the point of
disregarding the constraints of time and memory
that competence is bounded by
B. Part of this idealisation is detachment of competence
from time
C. the arbitrariness of this assumption is the concept of
CA objected in abstracto
4/26/2016
7

7-1-3
Contact analysis
• Performance based alternative CA is called
‘contact analysis’ –the analysis of the phenomena
that arise ,in the learner himself ,from the contact of
the two linguistic systems involved in the process of
foreign language learning .
• Performance based and process oriented
approach to learning problems is more properly part
of Error analysis than CA .
4/26/2016
7

7-3
The Predictive Power of CAs
Predict definition:
1. Is to transcend observation and predict the
unobserved in general.
2. The assumption that we can guess and describe the
patterns that will cause and will not cause the
difficulties in language learning .
3. ‘Predict’ is here as the simplest sense of ‘identify’
not in the sense of ‘prognosticate’
4/26/2016
7

7-3
Techniques and scopes of descriptive linguistics:
Possible bases for prediction of CAs are:
1. Generalisation from observed instances , which is selected
by the error analysts.
2. Prediction of one phenomenon on the basis of observation
some other phenomenon , which the contrastivists prefer this
path on the basis of an analysis of two related linguistic system
to predict learner’s behaviour .
4/26/2016
7

7-3
 How is CAs supposed to identify or predict?
1. By closest to Lado’s view that is psychological reality , the CAs
identify the conditions conductive to two kinds of transfer ,positive
and negative.
2. Since negative transfer is the manifest in errors ,so CAs predict
errors
3. Since errors signal inadequate learning , CAs predict difficulty.
4. Reliability of the predictions which can fail in two possible ways:
A. Being indeterminate: that means unability to specify which of
two or more structurally likely substitutions the learner will select.
B. Being wrong : that the cases of false CA predictions are again 2
kinds :
B-1)errors failing to materialise
B-2)Fail to predict those which do
4/26/2016
7

7-3
Degree of adequacy of CA
This degree in predicting and explaining learners’
difficulties are:
1. SPD – Students’ Perception of Difficulty
2. Counting learners’ errors
3. Looking for correlation between CA prediction ,
difficulty and error incidence
4. Testing the gross capacity of a CA to predict
difficulty , a variable E was derived from the mean
percentage of grammatical response , P, to represent
gross occurrence of error ,which indicates CAs have
hardly any predictive power at all.
4/26/2016
7

7-3
 Difficulty and error should be correlated to one
another and to CA predictions.
 A highly erroneous sentence may cause the learner no
difficulty at all. And conversely, we may find a low
incidence of error in conditions where the learner is
experiencing great difficulty, as an ‘avoidance strategy’.
4/26/2016
7

7-4
Contrastive Analysis versus Error
Analysis
CA Hypothesis
CA Hypothesis exists in two versions :
1. Strong version
2. Weak version
While these 2 versions are equally based on L1
interference , the strong/priori has predictive power ,
and the weak/ ex post facto version has less ,so it is to
diagnose the errors .
4/26/2016
7

7-4
Contrastive Analysis versus Error Analysis
Different opinions in predictability of CA
‘According to pseudo-procedure predictive CA can
never help a contrastivist to predict solely on the basis
of CA , but relied on teachers’ knowledge of errors.
CA is always predictive and the job of diagnosis
belong to Error Analysis (EA)
According to Wardhaugh using the weak version of CA
means that “ reference is made to the two systems only
in order to explain observed interference phenomena.
4/26/2016
7

7-4
Non-contrastive approach
 Non-contrastive approach to error analysis is the same
error identification without prior CA.
 Is recognising that some errors are the result of L1
interference which caused by 1)overgeneralisation,
2)ignorance of the rule restrictions,3) incomplete
application of rules ,4) and the building of false
systems or concepts.
 Discusses that if the errors are ‘universal’ ,they
cannot be interlingual that the 4 error types listed
exclude reference to L1.
4/26/2016
7

7-4
Problems of error identification:
• An error is committed by learners with many different L1s
is no proof that it is non-contrastive error , and that it is
not the result of idiosyncrasy of the ‘genius’ of English that
it contrast with so many other language ,but interference of
L1 can happen.
• If CAs can predict errors which fail to materialise ,so EA
can equally fail to recognise errors which have materialised.
• Evidence from linguistic typology shows that apparently
‘universal’ errors can indeed be plausible instance s of
interference errors.
4/26/2016
7

7-4
Covert errors:
These errors are the forms produced by learners
that are grammatical by the standards of the target
language, but do not mean to a native speaker what
they mean to the learner.
Agreement between different items such as possessive
pronoun and possessed headnoun caused covert
errors.
4/26/2016
7
55

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Scale of difficulty
Since difficulty and difference are being directly and
proportionally related , so the some idioms related to
difficulty are needed to be introduced :
 Learning time which is a valid measure of difficulty.
 Exotic that is a relative term since it means ‘very
different’.
 Positive disagreement that is a semantically
difficult category.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Levels of difficulty:
 Relative similarity ,rather than difference is directly
related to levels of difficulty .
 ‘Similarity paradox’ in human learning links to all
forms of learning –not only L2 learning –when one
learning task is followed by another.
 If interference increase with the similarity of the two
learning tasks ,then when the two tasks of identical
,interference ought to be at its most potent.
4/26/2016
7
57

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Ordinary learning
 ‘Ordinary learning’ is at the theoretical condition for
maximal interference , but the practical condition for
maximal facilitation.
 ‘Ordinary learning’ occurs with task identity.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
 Facilitation is greatest when the successive task are
identical (ordinary learning)
1. Interference is maximal and difficulty greatest when
there is a certain degree of similarity.
2. There is moderate ease of learning when the tasks
have what ‘neutral resemblance .
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
 Relationship between L1.and L2
1. The scale is based on 3 types of relationship existing
between comparable rules of L1 and L2:
A. L1 has a rule and L2 an equivalent one.
B. L1 has a rule but L2 has no equivalent.
C. L2 has a rule not matched by L1.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Types of choices
 Two languages are matched for the choices they offer
their respective speakers for the expression of
meaning:
1. Optional
2. Obligatory
3. Zero(Ø) which shows the absence of a category in
one of the languages which is present in the other.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Availability of choices:
These different available choices or nonchoices can be
ranged in pairs(L1:L2) to identify 8 possible types of
cross-language relationship on the level of phonology.
This 8- point scales becomes a 16-point scale of
grammar ,where there are semantic congruity or lack
of it between pairs adds another dimension .
Finally the eight possibilities can be ordered in
difficulty. The scale is for facility reduced to three
point scale of difficulty by mixing categories.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Order of difficulty MOST Comparison
L1 L2
1 Ø Ob
1- 2 Ø Op
3 Op Ob
4 Ob Op
2- 5 Ob Ø
6 Op Ø
3- 7 Op Op
8 Ob Ob
LEAST
Absent categories carry a relatively low error index.
4/26/2016
7

7-5
Scale of difficulty
Performance issue
Divergence is more important for the language
learner as speaker in encoding the utterance
Convergence is more critical for hearer as decoding
the utterance.
4/26/2016
7

Some issues of contention in contrastive analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Some issues of contention in contrastive analysis

Similar to Some issues of contention in contrastive analysis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Some issues of contention in contrastive analysis