Curs analiza contrastiva

Introduction to Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage

Contrastive Analysis (CA), Error Analyis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL), all three theories have one main goal and that goal is “the attempt to facilitate the process of TL (target language) learning by studying the phenomenon of “errors” with a scientific framework that is consistent with both linguistic theory and learning theory”. Contrastive analysis started to develop as a tool in the discovery of the “universals” of language, in the study of diachronic change and of dialectical variation, in studies of language acquisition, in interlingual translation. Error Analysis came to develop as a theory that proved its usefulness in that it provides insights into the strategies employed in second language acquisition and into the process of language learning in general. Interlanguage brings a new approach in the process of TL learning in the sense that it emphasises the implications for theories of language contact, language change and language acquisition. IL proves useful in describing special language types (immigrant speech, non-standard dialects, non-native varieties of language and the language of aphasics and of poetry, among others). We could briefly sum up upon the main characteristics of CA, EA and IL by stating that their primary goal seems to be to facilitate TL learning by providing insights into the nature of the learner's performance. In terms of approach, CA, EA and IL differ in terms of theoretical assumptions, methodologies, the nature and scope of date considered relevant, the kind of insights they provide, and the implications of the study for practical classroom teaching and materials preparations.

1

Contrastive Analysis One of the main concepts that CA introduces in the TL learning process is the conept of the “pull of the mother tongue”. The concept mainly refers to the assumption that the learner will constantly have the tendency, being under the influence of the mother tongue, to apply the grammar rules of the native tongue to the TL, hence the possible errors. Among the first and main theorists that contributed to the development of CA as a theory, we can mention: Charles Fries, who establishes CA as integral component of the methodology of TL learning, and he does that by comparing languages 1; Robert Lado, whose main work, Linguistics Across Cultures, published in 1957, would continue to be a reference study for many linguists involved in the TL learning process; the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics would later bring forth the existence pf “language universals”, and one of the main reference studies dating back to that period remains The Constructive Structure Series (Stockwell and Bowen, 1965; Stockwell, Bowen and Martin, 1965). In 1970, CA is attacked by linguists on both external and internal grounds. On external grounds, it was its empirical validity that was being challenged, while, on internal grounds, it was the theoretical foundations that were raising question marks. As a result, the controversy seems to have clarified the possibilities and limitations of CA and its place, along with other components, in the task of accounting for the nature of the learner's performance. The Rationale for CA The rationale for CA comes from: 1. practical experience of foreign language teachers 2. studies of language contact in bilingual situations 3.

theory of learning

The foreign language teacher knows about the mistakes being traced to the “pull of the mother tongue”. e.g.: Mă întrebam ce făcea. → This sentence might be translated into English by a native Romanian speaker as follows: I asked myself what he was doing. (“pull of the mother tongue”) instead of I wondered what he was doing. 1 Lado claimed that “[...] we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student.” This assumption has come to be known as the 'contrastive hypothesis' in its 'strong' or 'predictive' form.

2

Mă credeam o prințesă. → I was thinking myself a princess. instead of I thought I was a princess. Language contact leads to the phenomenon of “interference” defined by Weinreich as “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language.” Learning theory is defined as a theory of transfer, in which transfer means that the learning of a task is either facilitated (“positive” transfer) or impeded (“negative” transfer) by the previous learning of another task. Pedagogical claims of CA CA theorists made reference to the importance of the structure of the textbook, in the sense that the selection of teaching items, the degree of emphasis, the kinds of practice drills, the nature of exposition should all be geared to the native language of the learner. This type of structuring has a role in didactic programming (in terms of limitation, grading, exposition) and in methodic programming. Moreover, basing teaching materials2 on the results of contrastive studies necessarily entails a more “mentalist” technique of teaching → explicit presentation of points of contrast. CA – Methodology The procedure of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis involved four stages: 1. description (i.e. the two languages were formally described) 2. selection (i.e. certain items or areas were selected for comparison) 3. comparison (i.e. finding similar and different items) 4. prediction (i.e. in which areas the errors will most probably occur) The two most important steps in the methodology of CA are selection and comparability (the problem of equivalence). The scope is that the level of linguistic structure and language use is covered by contrastive studies.

2 According to Fries, “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: 9)

3

The premises for the methodology are: – “competing” terms differ from each other in the two languages; – interferences are likely on the non-denotative meaning level of the 2 nd language, the source of which lies in the influence of the mother tongue. Lado advocated the need to include comparison of cultures as an integral part of contrastive linguistics. (this, however, was not pursued seriously) Critics of CA 1. criticism of the predictions made by CA → Many of the difficulties predicted do not show up in the learner's performance (while other non-predicted errors do turn up). 2. criticism of the theoretical basis of CA → The only valid version of CA is the a posteriori version: the role of CA should be explanatory, restricted to the recurrent problem areas as revealed by 'error analysis', rather than an a priori or predictive version. Conclusion: 1. CA does not account for all errors. 2. The non-occurrence of errors does not necessarily invalidate the prediction.

Error Analysis Traditional EA The goals of traditional EA were purely pragmatic: EA was conceived for its “feedback” value in designing pedagogical materials and strategies. EA could help in: 1. determining the sequence of presentation of target items in textbook and classroom, with the difficult items following the easier ones; 2. deciding the relative degree of emphasis, explanation and practice required in putting across various items in the TL; 3. devising remedial lessons and exercises; 4. selecting items for testing the learner's proficiency.

4

EA – Methodology

There are 5 main steps in the methodology of EA: 1. collection of data (“free” composition of examination) 2. identification of errors 3. classification into error types (of agreement, articles, verb forms) 4. statement of relative frequency of error types 5. identification of the areas of difficulty in TL 6. therapy remedial drills, lessons

EA was also conceived as primary pedagogical tool, and there are 3 arguments that have been brought to support this claim: 1. EA does not suffer from the inherent limitation of CA (EA brings to light many other errors frequently made by learners: e.g. interlanguage errors → arising from the particular teaching and learning strategy employed). 2. EA (unlike CA) provides data on actual, attested problems and not hypothetical problems → as a result, EA is more efficient. 3. EA is not confronted with the complex theoretical problems encountered by CA (e.g. the problem of equivalence).

The notion of “error” The notion of “error” refers to a function of the traditional practice to take a teacher-centered viewpoint of the learner's performance and to judge the latter in terms of the norms of the TL. (Like the child struggling to acquire his language, the second-language learner is also trying out successive hypotheses about the nature of the TL, and from this viewpoint, the learner's “errors” (or hypotheses) are “not only inevitable but are a necessary part” of the language learning process. Errors vs. Mistakes (Pit Corder, 1967) Mistakes = deviations due to performance factors such as: – memory limitations (e.g.: mistakes in the sequence of tenses and agreement in long sentences) – spelling pronunciations 5

– fatigue – emotional strain, etc. Mistakes are typically random and readily corrected by the learner when his attention is drawn to them. Errors = systematic, consistent deviances charcteristic of the learner's linguistic system at a given stage of learning. Pit Corder talks of a 'key point' in the formation and appearance of errors. This 'key point' refers to the fact that the learner is using a definite system of language at every point in his development, although it is not that of the second language. The learner's errors are evidence of this system and are themselves systematic. It is also Pit Corder that proposes the term “transitional competence” when he refers to the intermediate systems constructed by the learner in the process of his language learning, which intermediate systems might lead to the appearance of errors. Goals of EA → When we think of the goals of EA, we speak of an “applied” goal of correcting and eradicating the learner's errors at the expense of the more important and logically prior task of evolving an explanatory theory of the learner's performance. Error Analysis needs data to work with and to use in proving the initial assumptions. Data of EA → i.e. utterances that are superficially well formed and acceptable, but produced by a set of rules different from those of the TL. I want to know the English. I want to learn English. Therefore, “the learner's errors are not properly to be regarded as right or wrong in themselves but only as evidence of a right or wrong system.” (Corder) If we were to sum up, we would say that the object of EA is to describe the whole of the learner's linguistic system and to compare it with that of the TL. → EA = “ a brand of comparative linguistic study” The crucial element in this process is the correct interpretation of the learner's utterance, as this leads to a reconstruction of the correct utterance of the TL (by matching the “erroneous” utterance with its equivalent in the learner's native language). This adds to a psychological explanation in terms of the learner's strategies and the process of learning.

6

Interlanguage The term 'interlanguage' was coined by Selinker in 1972, and it was considered an appropriate term to designate the development of this linguistic approach in the study of the process of TL learning because: 1. it captures the indeterminate status of the learner's system between his native language and the TL; 2. it represents the “atypical rapidity” with which the learner's language changes, or its instability; 3. focusing on the term 'language', it recognizes the rule-governed, systematic nature of the learner's performance and its adequacy as a functional communicative system. Assumptions La ('language acquired') (“approximative system”) = the deviant linguistic system actually employed by the learner attempting to utilize the TL. La

1.

- distinct from LS (the 'source language') and TL (the 'target language') - internally structured

2.

- successive stages of learning (evolving series of La)

The phenomenon of fossilization in interlanguage Fossilizable linguistic phenomena = linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a particular NL (native language) will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation or instruction he receives in the TL. “a latent psychological structure” (Selinker)

→ “it is activated whenever an adult attempts to

produce meanings which he may have in a second language which he is learning”. → contains 5 central processes: 1. language transfer → some, not all items, rules and subsystems, of a learner's interlanguage may be transferred from the first language 2. transfer of training → some elements may derive from the way in which learners were taught 3. strategies of second language learning → “an identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned” 7

4. strategies of second language communication → “an identifiable approach by the learner to communication with native speakers of the TL” 5. overgeneralization of TL linguistic material → some elements are the result of “a clear overgeneralization” of TL rules and semantic features + a few minor other processes: – hypercorrection – spelling pronunciation – cognate pronunciation, etc. Mă întâlnesc cu directorul la ora 6. I meet with the manager at 6. (I'm meeting the manager at 6 o'clock.) IL fossilization = a stage during second language acquisition. – a permanent cessation of progress toward TL; – includes all items, rules and subsystems that L2 (second language) learners tend to retain; – occurs particularly in adult L2 learners. An error, in this case, is a proof of hypothesis testing. Making errors is a strategy, evidence of learner-internal processing, a strategy to attempt to master the TL.

8

Characteristics of “good learners” (Ellis 1989) A good learner must: 1. be able to respond to the group dynamics of the learning situation so as not to develop negative anxiety; 2. seek out all opportunities to use the TL; 3. make maximum use of the opportunities afforded to practice listening to and responding to speech to meaning rather than to form; 4. supplement the learning that derives from direct contact with speakers of the L2 with learning derived from the use of study technique (e.g. making vocabulary lists); 5. be an adolescent or an adult rather than a young child at least as far as the early stages of grammatical development are concerned; 6. possess sufficient analytic skills to perceive, categorize, and store the linguistic feature of the L2 and to monitor errors; 7. possess a strong reason for learning L2 (which may reflect an integrative or an instrumental motivation) + develop a strong “task motivation” (i.e. respond positively to the learning tasks); 8. be prepared to experiment by taking risks, even if this makes the learner appear foolish; 9. be capable of adapting to different learning conditions.

Conclusion

CA

→ criticized for not all problems predicted by CA always appear to be difficult for

the students/learners; while other errors that do turn up are not predicted. EA

→ an alternative to CA; → criticized for misdiagnosing student learning problems due to their “avoidance” of

certain difficult L2 elements. IL

→ a continuum between first language and TL along which all learners traverse; → dynamic (constantly adapting to new information) and influenced by the learners.

9

Bibliography 1. Corder, Pit (1967) – 'The significance of learner's errors', in International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161-170 2. Corder, Pit (1981) – Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford: Oxford University Press 3. Ellis, Rod (1989) – Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 4. Fries, Charles Carpenter (1945) – Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language, University of Michigan Press 5. Lado, Robert (1957) – Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers, University of Michigan Press 6. Selinker, L. (1972) – Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209231 7. Stockwell, Robert P., Bowen, Donal J., Martin, John W – The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish, in the Contrastive Structure Series, University of Chicago Press 8. Weinreich, U. (1953) – Languages in Contact, The Hague: Mouton

10