2. “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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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?
9. (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:
10. 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.
11. 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.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
B
b. A where B and C are alternative choices.
C
c. A B (C) where C represents an optional choice.
18. English Grammar (Branching rules):
E1 S NP + PP
E2 PP Aux + VP (place) (time)
E3 VP V (NP)
E4 Aux Tense (mod.) (perf.) (cont.)
E5 Time Point / Duration
E6 Point Prep + NP
E7 Duration Prep + NP
E8 Place Prep + NP
E9 Tense Past / Present
E10 NP Det + N
E11 V CS
E12 N CS
E13 Prep CS
19. Subcategorization in English
E14 [+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 Grammar
The same branching and subcategorization rules
as for English, except for
F4 Aux Tense (perfect) (modal)
F18 depuis [ + Prep, + Tense + Time]
20. English Branching Rules
A further rule should be taken into account in
branching representation:
“The terminal string of the base
grammar is derived from a
preterminal string by the insertion
of one additional syntactic feature”.
(Chomsky)
21. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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 present
4- The time point (implicit or explicit).
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. As grammar focuses on semantics and
syntax, it reaches an important
explanatory power for L2 teaching.
30. Conclusion
In this part we have compared three
approaches to contrastive analysis:
1- the structuralist approach,
2- Chomsky’s transformational-generative
approach, and
3- the notional approach.
However, what we need a theory that
distinguishes deep and surface
phenomena.
31. 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.
