Fundamental Issues in CA

Session 2

Historical Linguistics
the end of the 18th century up to the middle of the19th century, which is called the beginning of comparative research; the end of the 19th century the period of neogrammarian studies, when linguists started comparing living languages; the beginning of the 20th century up to the present the period of structural and functional approaches to language.

Comparative linguistics in Persian

Daughter + + + +

Types of comparative studies

Comparative typological linguistics: Group languages according to their characteristics; synchronic studies. Contrastive linguistics/Contrastive analysis systematic, synchronic comparison of two languages aiming at establishing explicit similarities and differences expressed in terms of correspondence and equivalence between the elements of those languages. Fisiak defines contrastive linguistics as a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them (Fisiak 1981 p.1).

Types of CA
Fisiak (1981: 2-3) divides contrastive studies into theoretical and applied:
Theoretical contrastive studies give an exhaustive account of the differences and similarities between two or more languages, provide an adequate model for the comparison, and determine how and which elements are comparable

They are language independent, which means that they do not investigate how a particular category or item present in language A is presented in language B, but they look for the realization of an universal category X in both A and B (Fisiak 1981 p.2).

Types of CA
Applied contrastive studies belong to applied linguistics. Fisiak (1981: 2-3) explains that drawing on the findings of theoretical contrastive studies they provide a framework for the comparison of languages, selecting whatever information is necessary for a specific purpose The main focus of applied contrastive studies is the problem of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is rendered in language B, and what may be the possible consequence on this for a field of application (Fisiak 1981 pp.2-3). They are also concerned with the identification of probable areas of difficulty in another language where, for example, a given category is not represented in the surface and interference is likely to occur (Fisiak, 1981 p.3).

Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis

SLA
Why some features of the target language are more difficult to acquire than others.

Behaviorist psychology and structural linguistics

It viewed learning as habit formation brought about by repeated patterns of stimulus, response and reinforcement. For language teaching this fitted in nicely with the pedagogues piece of folk wisdom that practice makes perfect. Audio-lingual method

Lados Linguistics Across Cultures

'individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture' (Lado, 1957, p.2) 'a system of habits' (Lado, 1957, p.57) based on 'laws of language learning such as 'exercise', 'familiarity of response', etc (Lado, 1964, p.45).

Contrastive analysis and errors

Cross-linguistics influence: going from compound bilinguals in Weinreichs terms in contradistinction to co-ordinate bilinguals For the foreign language learner, the usual direction of the influence will be from the mother tongue to the foreign language At the phonological level, this will produce typical foreign pronunciations. Bright and McGregor (1970 p.236), for example, maintained that the grammatical apparatus programmed into the mind as the first language interferes with the smooth acquisition of the second. Lenneberg suggested that there is a critical period for language acquisition, which ends at puberty, that foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty and that automatic acquisition from mere exposure [...] seems to disappear after this age (Lenneberg 1967 p.176)

Strong version of CA
The strong version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis is associated with Charles Fries and Robert Lado. It predicts that second language learners will have difficulty with aspects (structures, or vocabulary) which differ from their first language, and conversely no problems with aspects which are similar in their first language. Another linguist supporting the strong version of the CAH was Fries. In his opinion, the most effective [teaching] materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with parallel description of the native language of the learner (Fries 1945 p.1).

Strong version of CA
A brief outline of the procedure used, as Ellis (1994 p.307) mentions it: The procedure involved four stages:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. description (i.e. the two languages were formally described) selection (i.e. certain items or areas were selected for comparison) comparison (i.e. finding similar and different items) prediction (i.e. in which areas the errors will most probably occur) Verification (i.e. find out whether the predictions made about errors and difficulties actually materialize or not

The Weak version of CA

The weak version does not imply the a priori prediction of certain fine degrees of difficulty. It recognizes the significance of interference across languages, the fact that such interference does exist and can explain difficulties, but it also recognizes that linguistic difficulties can be more profitably explained a posteriori after the fact (Brown 1980). Thus it has rather explanatory power, helping the teachers of foreign languages understand their students sources of errors.

The moderate version of CA

In the 1970s, Oller and Ziahosseiny proposed a compromise between the two versions of the CAH and called it a moderate version. Their theory was based on their research of spelling errors in learners of English as L2 which showed that spelling errors were more common among those learners who used a Roman script in their native language (e.g. Spanish or French) than among those who used a non-Roman script (e.g. Arabic or Chinese). However, the strong version of the CAH would predict the contrary, i.e. more difficulties on the part of the learners who had to acquire a new writing system (Brown 1980).

Important studies in CA
Brown (1980 p.159) concludes that interference is more likely to occur when there is similarity between the items to be learned and already known items than in the case of learning items which are entirely new to the learner.
He also points to the fact that most of the errors committed by L2 learners are intralingual errors, i.e. errors which result from L2 itself and not from L1.

Whitman and Jackson carried out a study in which predictions made in four separate contrastive analyses by different linguists were used to design a test of English grammar which was given to 2,500 Japanese learners of English as L2. They came to the conclusion that contrastive analysis, as represented by the four analyses tested in this project, is inadequate, theoretically and practically, to predict the interference problems of a language learner (Whitman and Jackson 1972 p.28)

Problems with the versions

Besides the problem of inappropriate predictions, Towel and Hawkins (1994: 18-19) state two other problems. One of them is that not all areas of similarity between an L1 and an L2 lead to immediate positive transfer (1994 p.19).
Towel and Hawkins support this argument by the findings of Odlins study in which L1 Spanish learners of L2 English omitted the copula be at the early stages of learning regardless the fact that Spanish also has a copula verb adequate to English be and thus the positive transfer was possible. However, it didnt happen.

The other problem, they argue, is that only a small number of errors committed by L2 learners could be unambiguously attributed to transfer from L1.

Problems with the versions

Thus, the strong version of the CAH has been proved inadequate, except for the phonological component of language, where it is quite successful in predicting the interference between the L1 and L2 in pronunciation in the early stages of L2 acquisition. Dulay, Burt and Krashen similarly conclude that present research results suggest that the major impact the first language has on second language acquisition may have to do with accent, not with grammar or syntax (1982: 96). The weak version is not satisfactory because it is only able to offer an explanation for certain errors. The only version which remains acceptable is the moderate version. However, its findings as presented by Oller and Ziahosseiny are in contradiction with Lados original idea.

Linguistic levels of analysis

Phonology": It is the study of the patterns of language. It is concerned with how sounds are organized in a language. It examines what occurs to speech sounds when they are combined to form a word and how these speech sounds interact with each other it endeavors to explain what these phonological process are in terms of formal rules. The Phonemes of particular language are those minimal distinct units of sound that can distinguish meaning in that English .e.g in English the /p/ sound is phoneme b/c it is the smallest unit of sounds of bill, till or drill making the word pill. The vowel sound of pill is also a phoneme b/c its distinctness in sound makes pill, which means one thing, sound different from pal, which means another. Morphology: It is study of word formation and structure. It studies how words are put together from their smaller parts and the rules governing this process. The elements that are combining to form words are called Morpheme. A morpheme is the smallest unit of syntax you can have in language the cats e.g contains the morphemes cat and the plurals.

Linguistic levels of analysis

Lexicology: It is study of words. We study word-formation and world classes. Lexeme is the smallest unit of Lexis. Syntax: It is the study of sentence structure. It attempts to described what are grammatical rules in particular language. These rules detail an underlying structure and a transformational process. The underlying structure of English e.g would have a subject -verb object sentence order. For example: John hit the ball
The transformational process would allow a change of word order, which could give us something like, the ball was hit by John.

Semantics: It is the study of meaning in language. It is concerned with describing how we represent the meaning of word in our mind how we use this representation in constructing sentence. It is based largely on the study logic in philosophy.

Linguistic levels of analysis

Pragmatics: It studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the affects of our choices on others. In theory, we can say any thing we like. In practice we follow a large no. of social rules (some of then unconsciously) that constrain the way we like we speak e.g there is now law that says we must not tell jokes during a funeral, but it is generally not done. Discourse: It is the study of stretches of spoken and written language above the sentence or The way sentences work in sequence to produce coherent stretches of language.

Hierarch of Difficulty for Persian speakers

Transfer - no difference [general word order, cardinal vowels ( u:, z, b, f,]. 2. Coalescence - one item covering two in L1 [ ] . 3. Underdifferentiation - absence [/X/ ] . 4. Reinterpretation - different application of existing item [/v/ vs. /w/]. 5. Overdifferentiation - new item [Stick and stones my break my bones, but words; they never hurt me] 6. Split -two items covering one in L1 [ for his/her].

Markedness theory
Greenberg (1966) assigns the designations marked and unmarked to opposing structural entities that exhibit a consistently asymmetric relationship in term of distribution and/or syntagmatic structure and or paradigmatic complexity. The one of the two entities that is consistently more widely distributed and/or simpler is called unmarked; its complement is the marked members of the opposition.

Markedness theory
Those areas of the target language which differ from the native language and are more marked than the native language will be difficult. The relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the target language which are more marked than the native language will correspond to the relative degree of markedness. Those areas of the target language which are different from the native language, but are not more marked than the native language will not be difficult.
The door was closed. The door was closed by the janitor.