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


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



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



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


5


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



Defense

Defense of the position that languages are comparable is done in two ways:

1-Article system

2-Principle

4/26/2016 7



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



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 Some Issues of Contention 9


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



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


11


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



o Interlingual identification

o it shows what two languages categories have in common and distinguishes them as the departure of CA.

4/26/2016


13


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



What is tertium comparatation (TC)

In the theory of CA the constant has traditionally been known as the tertium comparatation (TC).

4/26/2016


15


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


16

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


17


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


18


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



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


20


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



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


22


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



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



Constant and variable in form of universal structures

• Deep structure is counted as constant

• Surface structure is counted as variable

4/26/2016 7



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



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



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


29


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


31


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


32


Negative polarity

Negative polarity questions in two languages causes for example“ the English yes and Korea no are translation equivalent” .

4/26/2016


33


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



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



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


37


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


38


‘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


39


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


40


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


41


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


42


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


43


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


44


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


45

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


46


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


47


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


48


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


49


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


50

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 Contrastive Analysis versus Error Analysis 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


7-4 Contrastive Analysis versus Error Analysis 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


7-4 Contrastive Analysis versus Error Analysis 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


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



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


57


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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Education