The Linguistic Components ofContrastive Analysis

1. By :
Zahra Aamir Kamil

2. The Linguistic Components
of
Contrastive Analysis

3.  Levels of language
 Categories of Grammar
 Language Models for CA on the
Grammatical level
.

4.  Contrastive analysis is the contrastivists goal to explain
certain aspects of l2 learning .
 The tools they are used are descriptive accounts of the
learner’s l1 and l2 to be learnt as well as techniques for the
comparison of these descriptions. In other words, the goal is
psychological while the means are linguistic .
 This demarcation disqualifies CA from becoming subsumed
under the rubric of the hybrid discipline called
'Psycholinguistics',
 CA has a linguistic framework within which the two linguistic
descriptions are coordinate

5. The 'framework' means :
 CA adopts the linguistic tactic ( approach) of
dividing up the bulky concept “ a language” into
three adaptable areas : phonology , grammar and
lexis.
 Use is made of the descriptive categories of
linguistics: unit ,structure, class and system .
 CA makes use of descriptions arrived under the
same 'model' of language .

6. Levels of language

7.  A linguist preserves some account of particular language
in the form of a set of descriptive statements . Thus , he
has to say something about the levels of language :
1. Phonology ; the sound system of a language .
2. Lexis ; lexical stock as in ( cousin ) is made of female or
male , from father’s or mother’s side family .
3. Morphology , word formation .
4. Syntax ; how words are ordered in a meaningful
sentences .

8. To produce a total description of language , the traditional
“procedural orientation” has dictated that a direction that
put phonology to be described before morphology which
precedes syntax .
This description has been achieved through the linguist's
perception of feasibility,
 Procedural Orientation

9. The idea of feasibility states that “ sound system”
( phonology) Is more finite and “closed –system” than
syntax since it has a limited number of phonemes as...
English has twenty-four, including two semivowels“
At the contrary, in syntax no linguist claimed about the
number of syntactic patterns or how many lexical items
there are in any single language.

10. B - Mixing levels
It was a regulation within structural linguistics that the
description of the level of phonology , for example,
should be carried out without reference to other linguistic
levels. So, to appeal grammatical factors to facilitate the
description of the phonology of a language or vice versa,
was viewed as illegitimate and this mixing is refused.
Nowadays mixing is allowed and necessary to account for
some fact of language .

11. Categories of grammar
Linguistic descriptions, also, based within a framework of
categories as Halliday (1961: 247) proposes that there are four
categories:
unit, structure, class, and system. "because language is like that
- because these four, and no others, are needed to account for
the data: that is, to account for al grammatical patterns that
emerge by generalisation from the data“ (Halliday).

12.  UNIT
The units of grammar that enter into the description of English and
any 'related' language are: sentence-clause-phrase-word
morpheme. They are ordered on a scale that any unit is a direct
constituent of the next higher unit: sentences consist directly of
clauses, clauses directly of phrases, and so on. This order of direct
inclusion in turn implies a scale, which is called the rank scale

13.  Structure
Structure is adopted by 'structural' approach. "A
structure is an arrangement of elements ordered in
'places'" (Halliday, op.cit.: 255). The 'elements' making up
the structure of the unit clause in English are the Subject,
Predicator, Complement and Adjunct, as in:
'The cat(s) caught (P) a mouse (e) last night' (A).

14.  CLASS
There are constraints on which units can operate at
particular places in structures. There is one class of the
unit phrase which can fill the Predicator slot in the
clause: this is the 'verb phrase'.

15.  SYSTEM
Each language allows its speakers choices from sets of
elements . 'Choice' means "the selection of one
particular term at one particular place on the chain in
preference to another term or other terms which are
also possible at that place" (Muir. 1972: 10).For
example, we must use a nominal class phrase to fill the
Subjects slot in the clause: but we are free to choose
between a singular and plural nominal phrase.

16.  Language Models for CA on the Grammatical Level
Two linguists, in total accord about the levels and
categories of language description can create different
analyses of the same language data. When this happens, it
is possibly the case that each linguist is using a different
model of language.

17. CA was explained by the structuralist Fries (1945) and lado (1957).
It is the model illustrated by Bloomfield (1933) and enlarged by
Harris (1963). In fact Harris himself, in an article entitled "language
Transfer" (I954)claimed that the model could be used for
comparative purposes: "The method outlined here enables us to
measure the difference in grammatical structure and to establish
what is the maximum difference (or the maximum similarity)
between any two language systems."
 Structural or Taxonomic' Model

18.  Structural or Taxonomic' Model
The analytic technique established by the structuralists is famous
as Immediate Constituent (IC) analysis. The claim is that any
grammatical construction which is not 'simple' (which does not
consist of only one element) can be reduced to pairs of
constituents: so a construction like disgraceful is analysed into
disgrace + ful, while the apparently same ungraceful reduces to
un + graceful.

19.  Structural or Taxonomic' Model
This type of analysis assumes that language is
structured on two axes, a horizontal axis
delineating construction-types, and a vertical axis
defining sets of possible fillers for each position:
the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes
respectively (Lyons, 1968: 70).

20.  Transformational-Generative Grammar
(T-GG) was expanded by Chomsky in his Syntactic
Structures (l957) and his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
(1965).
The salient features of such a grammar are: that it
recognizes a level of deep structure and a level of surface
structure, the two being related by sets of transformations;
the syntactic component of the grammar is 'generative"
while the semantic component is 'interpretative

21. The term 'generative' has been explained by Lyons (1968: 155) as
combining two senses: i) 'projective'(or 'predictive') and ii)
'explicit'. Such a grammar is 'projective' in that it establishes as
grammatical not only actual sentences (of a corpus) but also
'potential' sentences: in other words, a T-GG is a grammar that
sets out to specify the notion of and the limits of grammaticality
for the language

22. A T-GG is generative in being explicit: it says which
sentences are possible in the language by specifying
them: ungrammatical sentences are by definition
omitted from the grammar.

23.  Reasons for using T-GG in CA
- Its explicitness . For each step in deriving surface from deep
structures an explicit rule must be formulated.
-Other reasons are attractive to CA:
 first, it has been claimed that deep structures are 'universal' or
common to languages. so we are provided with a common point of
departure for CA: the so-called Universal Base Hypothesis;

24. Secondly , the transformations applied to deep
structures are taken from a universal stock, which
Chomsky calls the 'formal universals', so we have a
second criterion for comparison or 'tertium
comparationis'.

25. The contrastive analyst is more interested in how rules differ in their
applicability to congruent deep structures (or intermediate structures)
of two languages. There are several types of difference in rule
application:
i) One of the languages applies the rule, whereas the other either
does not, or does so less generally.
ii) In L1, the rule is obligatory, but in L2 it is optional (or vice
versa). By 'optional' we mean that the grammar generates equally
correct sentences irrespective of whether the particular rule is applied.
iii) Transformations are 'extrinsically ordered', or apply in a certain
fixed order (Chomsky, 1965: 133). In English Reftexivisation is a rule
that can only be applied after pronominalisation .
Some contrasts between languages can be attributed to differences in
rule-ordering.

26.  Some transformations are less specialised, or have a broader
scope, than others. It may happen that two transformations which
are recognised as 'the same', although they operate in two
different languages, are different in their scope.
 A fifth advantage of the T.GG approach is that it yields
'significant generalisations': this happens when two different areas
of the grammar call for the application of one and the same
transformational rule.
 Not only do some transformational rules strictly precede or
follow others, but: some rules imply(suggest) others. This is
something which a CA must take into account.

27.  Contrastive Generative Grammar (CGG).
A procedure whereby each of the two languages involved in the CA
has been analyzed independently beforehand, after which the two
resulting analyses are juxtaposed for purposes of comparison.
The CA would seem therefore to involve two phases, the first being
that of independent description, the second that of comparison.
Obviously, this two-phase approach is not wholly satisfactory.
A more satisfactory procedure would be one whereby L I and L2
structures were generated from some common base, and were
compared and contrasted during this process of generation a single
phase CA . This is what Krzeszowski (1974, 1976) attempts with his
Contrastive Generative Grammar (CGG).

28. According to Krzeszowski, "classical' CAs of the kinds
'horizontal' in nature. Since the respective phenomena have been
analyzed in advance of the CA, the only way in which the CA can
be effected is through cross-referencing or "movement from Ll to
L2 and vice-versa" (Krzeszowski, 1976: 59). It is the analytic
procedures that are 'horizontal'.
Horizontal CAs are limited to statements of three kinds of
interlingual relationship:
Those existing between :
i) LI and L2 systems,
ii) structures, or
iii)transformational rules.

29. Krzeszowski's alternative, manifest in CGG is a vertical CA. Its two
defining characteristics are:
i) It is not based on the confluence of two monolingual grammars, as
classical CA is, but is a sole bilingual grammar. Krzeszowski says that
the function of a CA is exactly this: to reduce an account of the
intuitions of an 'ideal' Bilingual about the relatedness of his two
languages.
Certainly if by 'ideal' bilingual, Krzeszowski means balanced bilingual
which means one whose command of two languages is equal, then there
would seem to be little of relevance in such an individual's perceptions
about LI and L2 relatedness.

30. ii) CGG proceeds in its derivations from universal
semantic in puts to language-specific surface
structure outputs in five stages :
v) Post-lexical -→. OUTPUT
iv) Lexica
iii) Syntactic
ii) Categorial
input → i) semantic

31. STAGE I: The level of category-neutral INPUT, of "a universal
semantic or conceptual input consisting of configurations of
elementary primitive notions such as Agent, Patient, and all sorts
of specifications of location in time and space" .
STAGE 2: Each language categorises the configurations
introduced at Stage 1 in ways that are characteristic of, but not
necessarily all unique to it: some categories may be universal,
others shared by language types. some unique.

32. STAGE 3: Syntactic rules apply now, arranging the categories
into allowed orders in actual sentences. Function words are
introduced here: Krzeszowski calls these 'minor lexicalisations'.
STAGE 4: In accordance with language-specific possibilities
lexical entries from the dictionary are inserted into the syntactic
frames specified at Stage 3. This is 'major lexicalisation'.
STAGE 5: Here. post-lexical or 'cosmetic' transformations are
applied. providing outputs with inflections and word boundary

33.  CGO AND LEARNER-STRATEGIES.
Selinker (1972) proposed that L2 learners' language takes on the
form it does because five" central processes" are at work. The five
processes are:
I) Ll transfer:
2) Transfer of training from the L2:
3) Overgeneralisation of L2 rules:
4) Strategies of communication;
5) Strategies of L2 learning.
Krzeszowski's contention is that while I), 2), and 3) can be attributed
to the horizontal processes, 4) and 5) cannot, "since they do not
involve any transfer either from the source or from the target
language". These two 'strategies" contributing to the form
interlanguage takes are, he suggests, best accounted for in terms of
the 'vertical' processes which CGG is designed to explain.

34. Krzeszowski's contention is that while I), 2), and 3) can be
attributed to the horizontal processes, 4) and 5) cannot,
"since they do not involve any transfer either from the
source or from the target language". These two 'strategies"
contributing to the form interlanguage takes are, he
suggests, best accounted for in terms of the 'vertical'
processes which CGG is designed to explain.

35. Case Grammar
It has been proposed (Birnbaum, 1970) that there are two sorts of deep structure:
1. What Birnbaum calls 'infrastructure' which motivates the surface structure of a
particular language and may explain instances of ambiguity and synonymy
between pairs of sentences in that language;
The other deep structure is called 'profound structure', and is expected to be universal.
The former, is more complex and diverse than the latter which is simple in its
basicness. The putative existence of the latter is the "universal base hypothesis.
Other two types of universal are: the 'formal' and the 'substantive' universals. To
talk of formal universals is to claim, among other things, that all grammars employ
transformations. which are ordered and may be cyclically applied.

36. The 'Case Grammar' approach proposes that the 'profound' deepstructure of any sentence in
any language must be of the form:
That is, a sentence (5) consists of a proposition (P) and its modality(M). P is the 'content' of
tile sentence, while M embraces such features as negation, tense, mood, aspect and speaker's
attitude: these are the featureswhich Chomsky, in the quotation above, loosely refers to as
'feelings'. P is made up of a lexical verb and one or more nouns, which are differentiated
according to case: Agentive, Objective, Instrumental, Dative, Locative.

37. These case relationships comprise, as Fillmore (1968: 24) puts it:
"a set of universal, presumably innate, concepts which identify certain
types of judgments human beings are capable of making about the
events that are going on around them, judgments about such matters as
who did it, who it happened to, and what
got changed."
Verbs can be classified according to which combinations of case.
specified nouns - or what Fillmore calls 'case-frames' - they can
occur with. Some verbs can occur in more than one case-frame, e.g.
open in i}-iv).
i) The door opened. (- O)
ii) John opened the door. (- O + A)
iii) The wind opened the door. (- O + I)
i) John opened the door with a chisel. (- O + I + A)

38. Case Grammar would appear to be a model ideally suited to
exploitation for purposes of CA.
a. Its finite universal array of categories provides a common point of
departure for any pair of sentences to compare structurally; in the
first place - this case-structure identity is the tertium comparationis.
b. Since surface structures are derived from deep case configurations
by transformations, all the advantages of the transformational
approach especially the feasibility of tracing sentential derivations
through 'intermediate structure' apply equally well.
c. The machinery of deep case configurations is so simple and
uninvolved that it lends itself to use by the applied linguist wishing
to avoid involvement in the uncertainties of what syntactic deep
structure to theorize for any given surface structure, as is the case
with the syntactic deep structures of TG grammar

39. Certain problems surround the theory of Case Grammar,
however; Boas (1977) draws our attention to three major problems.
These are:
i)How many cases is it necessary to posit?
ii) How can the cases be defined?
iii) How can one explain, in their framework, "the differences in subject selection
possibilities of equivalent lexical items in different languages permitting the same
array of cases"
Since we raised this third issue, we need dwell only on the first two.
The original theory (Fillmore, 1968: 24) proposed six cases: Agentive,
Instrumental, Dative, Objective, Locative and Factitive.
Fillmore himself positing the cases of Experiencer, Source, Goal, Time, Path and
Result, while others have suggested the need for Comitative and Reciprocal.