Contrastive Analysis (CA):(ENG/FRA case study)

Presented by:

Fadi Sukkari

“Justification for contrastive analysis is to be found in its explanatory power.” (Paul Van Buren – Ch 10)

Explaining a language is only possible thanks to a classification of the available linguistic data before we start formulating any explanatory hypotheses.

This chapter aims at:1- examining some existing theories

2- providing a method for the evaluation of these theories

3- discussing in detail the problem of contrastive linguistics

4- examining how results of C.A. can be put at the service of L2 teaching.

Such a procedure is rather complex for three reasons:

a- the technical nature of the analysis

b- the difficulty of simplifying for non-linguists

c- the difficulty of converting these statements into teaching materials useable in class.

Some approaches to C. A.

In Linguistics across Cultures, Roberto Lado presents the following propositions:

1- The comparison of L1 and L2 might hinder or enhance L2 learning

2- Effective materials should rest on a scientific description of L1 and L2

3- Teachers who have made the comparison of L1 and L2 will provide better L2 teaching.

Yet, these statements conceal fundamental problems in C.A.:

1- What is scientific description?

2- What is involved in the process of comparison?

3- What is the best grammatical model for a structural description of languages?

The 3 approaches

1- The structuralist Approach

(1) I’ve been waiting for six hours.(2) J’attends depuis six heures.

Yet, (2) can be back-translated into: I’ve been waiting for six hours.(3) I’ve been waiting since six o’clock.

The comparison of the English and French sentences will be based on the following:

1- There is Tense in English…….... (axiom)

2- There is Tense in French..……....(axiom)

3- Tense in English and French can be compared………………………....( conclusion)

Yet, instead of being “axiomatic”, tense is the only “fact” at our disposal in the two French and English utterances, and it belongs to the theoretical realm, distinguishable from that of facts, between which complex correspondences exist.

No C.A. is then possible without the pre-existence of “common categories” or “universals.”

However, many advocates of C. A. don’t even acknowledge the importance of the existence of such “universals,” arguing that “languages are self-sufficient systems in which, every element has a value in opposition to other elements.”

Yet, this principle of “self-sufficiency” goes against the very basis of comparison across language borders - the very foundation of C. A.

2- Chomsky’s approach

Back to sentences (1) and (2):

(1) I’ve been waiting for six hours

(2) J’attends depuis six heures,

the mere existence of “tense” in both languages isn’t enough, as we will need a “deeper scientific description” of the phenomenon.

In English, the present perfect continuous which refers to two grammatical categories, tense and aspect, is translated by the simple present in French.

And however the concepts involved are labeled, our statement is one of extremely low generality since it involves two translation equivalents only.

Thus we will need to use a more “generative substitution frame” to represent the phenomenon:

(4) NP+ have + been + V-ing + for + Time

(5) NP+ V-pres + depuis + Time.

Yet, frames (4) and (5) are too powerful as they can lead to wrong overgeneralizations. (6) J’attends depuis Noël.

(7) I have been waiting since Christmas.(8) I have been waiting for Christmas.*

To avoid overgeneralisations, we should develop frame (4) into the following:

for(9) NP+ have+ been+ V-ing + + Time.

since

In back-translation, frame (9) generates more errors:

J’attends depuis six heures.

I have been waiting for six hours. (10) I have been waiting since six hours.*

The proposed generative substitution frame in (4) doesn’t include the necessary selectional restrictions between the prepositions “for” which calls for an object that expresses duration, and “since” which requires an object expressing a starting point in time.

The solution would then be to incorporate these restrictions into the frame itself, as in (9), based on Chomsky’s “generative grammar,” which assigns the correct constituent of a sentence to its structure.

A writing code shall be observed as follows:

a. Syntactic rules are always written between square brackets.

Bb. A where B and C are alternative choices.

C

c. A B (C) where C represents an optional choice.

English Grammar (Branching rules):E1 S NP + PPE2 PP Aux + VP (place) (time)E3 VP V (NP)E4 Aux Tense (mod.) (perf.) (cont.)E5 Time Point / DurationE6 Point Prep + NPE7 Duration Prep + NPE8 Place Prep + NPE9 Tense Past / PresentE10 NP Det + NE11 V CSE12 N CSE13 Prep CS

Subcategorization in EnglishE14 [+N] [ + Time]E15 [+Time] [ + Duration]E16 Hour [+ N, + Dur.]E17 Christmas [+ N, – Dur. (point in time] E18 since [+ Prep + Perf. + Cont. – Dur.]E19 for [+ Prep + Perf./Past Cont. + Dur]

French GrammarThe same branching and subcategorization rules as for English, except for F4 Aux Tense (perfect) (modal)F18 depuis [ + Prep, + Tense + Time]

English Branching Rules

“The terminal string of the base grammar is derived from a preterminal string by the insertion of one additional syntactic feature”. (Chomsky)

A further rule should be taken into account in branching representation:

Further points to be made about English and French grammars: a- Only base components are relevant to the present study,b- These “base components” are inadequate as “grammars” since only the rules relevant to the argument were included,c- These “rules” express only a restricted number of generalizations about aspect and tense in English and French.

3- The Notional approach

The difference between English and French lies in the auxiliary expansion rule, as in the difference between E4 and F4, in addition to lexical restrictions “ici = here”. (p. 4)

Actually, as a rule in the generative-transformational theory, semantic interpretations are effectuated relative to the base components that should all undergo semantic interpretation.

The difference between the auxiliary expansion rule in Eng. and Fr. could lead to different semantic interpretations of the following translation equivalents:

I have been waiting since Christmas.J’attends depuis Noël.

Thus, it seems legitimate to further raise the question whether tense and aspect belong in deep branching structure, or whether they should be derived from some other source?

To answer this question, let’s consider the following:

(23) I go yesterday.*(24) I went yesterday.

The relevant semantic interpretation in (24) does not derive from the simple past tense, but from the adverb of past time “yesterday.”

Let’s also consider the following example:(25) I leave on Monday.

In (25) we have a simple present tense but a future time, which means that “…tense alone in English seems irrelevant to the expression of semantic time.” (Chomsky)

We can stipulate then that all sentences have adverbials hidden in deep structure.

Such a proposal constitutes a natural addition to the base component of the generative-transformational grammar.

This is only possible thanks to the presence of the time adverbial in the sentence and to the features of its aspectual properties.

To better grasp the problem, we have to interpret the PERFECT sentence as follows:1- Orientation of the speaker (the present)2- Beginning of the action (in the past)3- Continuation of the action in the present4- The time point (implicit or explicit).

One can notice that these features are

(a) semantic in nature,

(b) common to both English and French,

(c) implicit/explicit in the utterance, and

(d) the permutation of the categories is coded differently between English and French.

As a result, although “since” and “depuis” are translation equivalents, the tense use they call for is different:

[since + perfect + continuous][depuis + present]

Recent tendency has been that semantic representations should form the basis of grammar. Grids (see appendix ) are useful as they require the production of data based on which the categories and their permutation are studied.

As grammar focuses on semantics and syntax, it reaches an important explanatory power for L2 teaching.

ConclusionIn this part we have compared three approaches to contrastive analysis:1- the structuralist approach, 2- Chomsky’s transformational-generative approach, and3- the notional approach.

However, what we need a theory that distinguishes deep and surface phenomena.

1- Given that the “structuralist approach” lacks this distinction, we may consider it as inadequate when generalization is required.

2- In “Chomsky’s approach”, the deep grammars of En. and Fr. are similar rather than identical: similarity relies on base-components in opposition to identity condition. Yet in this case, the notion of universals becomes incoherent.

3- The “notional approach” reflects the identity condition on deep components, requiring a thorough search for primary and secondary categories calling for more in-depth reflection on languages.