By ESRA Özdemir
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS IN A NEW DIMENSION
Traditional contrastive analyses are all conducted along the horizantal dimensions necessarily involved in comparing an element or a class of elements in L1 with an equvialent element or a class of elements in L2 and/or vice versa. Traditional contrastive analysis compare specific elements of L1 and L2 belonging the same statements. These statements must be based on semantic consediration associated with the notion of equivalence (the notion of equivalence is the most important one because only equivalent systems, constructions and rules are comparable) and also on structural considerations associated with the notion of congruence. The systems (phonological, morphological, syntactic...) or subsystems (plosves, non-finite clauses...) or various types of constructions (passive con. relative con. ) can be compared.
Contrastive analysis results in statements about the obligatory or optional status of the comparedrules, their ordering and their presence or absence in the compared languages.
The horizantally organized contrastive analyses of systems constructions across languages are originated with Lado and they resulted in inventories of differences and similarities between the compared items. These differences and similarities were categorised according to their difficulty in the process of second language acqusition. And these attempts resulted in hierarchies of difficulties. the phenomenon involved in these difficulties was called interference (difficulty in learning a sound, word or construction in a second language as a result of differences with the habits of the native language) attempts were made to relate “hierarchies of difficulties” to contrastive statements concerning degrees of difference across languages.
Approximative systems: deviant linguistic systems employed by foreign learners in an attempt to utilize the target language (Nemser). This system can be seen as an intermediate stage on the horizontal axis.
Interlanguage: Selinker replaces Nemser’s approximative systems with the term interlanguage. According to Selinker has there are five factors that shape interlanguage.
Widdowson claimed that these processes are variations of simplification strategy which lies at heart of communicative competence. According to him simplification is a result of an attempt to adjust the language behaviour to the interests of communicative effectiveness. The learner’s linguistic behaviour is controlled by a set of rules.
Errors result from the learner’s attempt to use reference rules as expression rules. There is always a deficit of reference rules and learners have to simplify their expression rules to communicate effectively. That’s why Widdowson sees learner’s errors as an evidence of success not as failure.
Corder suggests that it might be possible to regard “standard” codes as “elaborated” forms of basic simple codes such as pidgins, creoles, interlanguages and all types of “reduced” registers. This proposal assumes the the existance of some universal process of elobration or complication involved in all types of language learning. Though universal, the process would of course involve language specific “complication rules”. Ex: the development of a pidgin into a creole would be a case of progressive complication, and the development of the learner’s language into the target language.
Interlanguage and approximative systems are relatively indpendent of “t”ransfer” from the mother tongue. Recent studies in error analysis has shown that there exists a common body of errors pointing to some universal learning strategies.ýt is obvious thatlarge numbers of errors can not be explained by the transfer theory. Three of Selinker’s processes are conneceted with the transfer and two are responsible for the formation of interlanguage.(strategies of second language kleearning and strategies of communication) these two are directly responsible for simplification.
A foreign language learner, in his attempt to compensate for the deficit in reference rules available to him in the target language, can always resort to the process of lexicalization of forms which are less elaborate by being closer to the basic forms. The resulting sentences are deviant.
Syntactic transformations determine the syntactical structure of sentences and their sequence. (syntactic structure account for surface structure of sentence)
Minor lexicalization insert function (prepositions, articles, conjunctions..) words and belong to syntactic transformations.
Major lexicalization insert content words (adjectives, nouns, verbs...)
Early lexicalizations result in syntactically simplest constructions characterized by the absence of function words.within contrastive generative grammar complication can be defined as the gradual shift of place at which major lexicalization occur from the deepest level of representation (the semantic level, to the level of shallow structure)
According to contrastive generative grammar each language has its specific pattern of complication . It states that equivalent sentences across languages have identical semantic inputs, equivalent sentences across languages have language specific complication routes according the fact that such sentences exhibit structural and lexical differences. A foreign learner can lexicalize prematurely (constructions that are not elaborated enough) or he may pursue a complication route characteristic of his native language.
Home / ELT Materials / Coursebook Reports / Learn Turkish / Comics / ELT Conferences / Private Lessons / Online Translation / Links /