Contrastive linguistics: Approaches and methods theoretical foundations
tải về 25.4 Kb.
|
| Theoretical Assumptions
CA is founded on the assumption that L2 learners will tend to transfer the formal features of their L1 to their L2 utterances. Simply put, this notion of 'transfer' means carrying over the habits of the MT into the L2. It can be also defined as the influence of the learner’s L1 on the acquisition of L2 (Al-khresheh, 2016). Transfer can be considered as an important part in language learning at all levels. It is considered as a language learning strategy used by FL/L2 learners in order to facilitate their language learning. Learners start learning L2/FL language by transferring some sounds and meanings (semantic transfer). They also transfer several rules and structures consisting of pragmatics and word order. The CA hypothesis has been predominant in L2 learning theory with ramiϐications in pedagogy as well. There are two assumptions or versions of the hypothesis: strong and weak. Within the strong version of the paradigm, researchers believe that errors in L2 learning could be attributed to patterns in the NL. It was considered theoretically possible to predict what errors would be made by making a careful detailed comparison of a learner's L1 and L2. Differences would constitute potential sources of errors. The weak version is a model with an explanatory power as opposed to a predictive power: That is, it is claimed that researchers can look at errors once they have been combined and offer an explanation based on a CA of that area of grammar as to why those errors occurred (Mair, 2005). Furthermore, the strong version of CA refers to areas of complexity in the TL, which are expected by comparing L1 and L2. The areas of contrast will then form the basis for teaching materials. In contrast, the weak version of CA attempts to account for observed errors by starting with classroom data and using the differences between the two linguistic systems to clarify the errors. According to Bell (1981), the strong version of this approach is not only a resource of exploring errors but also a method for expecting them. The weak version presumes that equipped with a CA of the language concerned, the teacher will have a comprehensible depiction of the trouble area even before the learner has started to learn it. (Al-khresheh, 2013). Given the above, it could be said that the strong version of CA involves the process of expecting the area of complexity in the TL by comparing the L1 and L2, and the areas of contrast, being then used as the centre of teaching materials. The expected problems or predictions, however, have been found to be inadequate. The move was then towards the weak version in which a comparison between L1 and L2 systems was made to explain errors after they had occurred, rather than to predict them. The weak version of CA hypothesis therefore seems to be closer to Error Analysis theory (EA hereinafter) in that both start with students’ errors. Critics of CA argue that neither of these assumptions is valid. However, proponents of CA have never claimed that CA can necessarily predict all errors in L2 production. The list of problems resulting from comparing the FL with the NL should be regarded as hypothetical problems until concluding validation is accomplished by checking it against the real speech of learners. The weak version of the CA hypothesis does not assert that CA has any predictive power. Rather, it claims that CA can only identify errors resulting from L1 interference. Thus, Chao (2003) explains that the weak version of CA hypothesis requires the teacher to have adequate knowledge about the language so that he can address the difϐiculties in L2 learning. The weak version of CA hypothesis does have the same requirements as the strong version. Therefore, the approach used by the weak version, in theory, makes fewer demands on CA than the strong CA version does. The weak version uses the evidence provided by the linguistic interference and then uses this evidence to explain the similarities and differences between the two languages. Types of Transfer Language transfer is generally divided into two main categories: positive or negative. According to Gass and Larry (2001), positive transfer results in correct utterances and facilitates language learning. Basically, the learner’s L1 might facilitate L2 learning. Lado (1957, 158) asserts that "The basic premise of CA hypothesis is that language learning can be more successful when the two languages – the native and the foreign – are similar". Nevertheless, negative transfer results with incorrect outcomes. It results in deviations from the TL. Al-khresheh (2013) points out that there are four types of divergences that are caused by differences between NL and TL. They can be summarised as follows: 1. Overproduction: learners produce a given L2 structure with much greater occurrence than natives of L2 do. They can often be as a result of underproduction. Instead, learners make extreme use of what they suppose to be correct and acceptable; consequently, resulting in overuse of certain words or structures. 2. Underproduction (or avoidance): learners produce hardly any or no examples of L2 structure. They can often be caused by conscious avoidance of complex L2 structures. 3. Misinterpretation: This type of errors occurs when L1 structures inϐluence the interpretation of L2 messages. 4. Production: This type of errors can be classiϐied into six categories: substitutions (i.e. think is pronounced as /tink/ in Poland and /sink/ in Egypt, people as /beoble/ in Arabic, love as /laugh/ in Saudi Arabia, fish as /fis/ in Malaysia, and thirty as /dirty/ in India),calques, under-differentiation, over-differentiation, hypercorrection and alterations of structures. According to Odlin (2003, 37), calques, substitutions and alterations of structures compose most forms of production errors. tải về 25.4 Kb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
|