Contrastive linguistics: Approaches and methods theoretical foundations
tải về 25.4 Kb.
|
- Điều hướng trang này:
- Macrolinguistics
| Lexicology Level in CA
In Determinism language sets the structure of reality leading to different view of reality by different language communities. One CA model depends on word fields where the lexicon is grouped according to “semantic, cognitive, attitudinal, or notional areas of concern.” For example, verbs are grouped in a notional class of verbs that refer to speech acts such as „say, speak, tell, and talk‟ in a study by (Lehmann, 1977) then they are to be compared to their equivalence in German. One argument against the notional class is that it can never be objective and does not have well set criteria for adding a word to a specific word field. Another model of contrasting lexis is the semantic components. This approach assumes universality of some components that exist in all languages and hence creating a lexical inventory of features is considered possible, an assumption which is criticized by the fact that each language may have its subset under the universal features. In CA two approaches can be followed. L2 lexemes are specified via an inventory then each lexeme is analyzed according to the Symantec components. The second approach is the translation equivalence whereby words are translated tentatively; then checked by components to confirm if they really are similar. Macrolinguistics Viewing microlinguistic analysis as idealistic causing regularization and decontextualization of data, focus has turned to analyzing bigger chunks of language and how they are organized in texts on the one hand, and how language functions in discourse as well as in its socio-cultural setting (Coulthard, 1977) on the other. In summary, CA studies text either through textual characterization, text type or translation of texts. In the first approach, textual characterization, data collected according to the preference of specific features of textual cohesion in each language. Thus, texts are observed in the two languages for the type, frequency and context of cohesive devices. Wonderly (1968) found, for instance, that the use of ellipses enhances style in English while repetition may be a preference in other languages as the Mayan languages of Central America. Text typology is another approach in macrolinguistic contrastive analysis. It compares types of text that have the same function in the two languages, such as comparing rituals or reports. The third approach is translated texts which are criticized for their potential to being distorted by formulations of the source language. Contrastive analysis of discourse and pragmatics is beneficial for providing the second language learner with how to interact in the community and context of the second language. It includes comparative analysis of conversation. REFERENCES Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. 2 nd ed. New Jersy: Prentice Hall. Byung-gon Y. (1992). A review of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Dongeui 19, 133-149. Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton: The Hague Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL (5). Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. Longman Fisiak, J. (1990). On the present status of metatheoritical and theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), 3-22. Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press Halliday, M. (1961). Categories of the theories of grammar. Cited in James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman. Harris, Z. S. (1954). Transfer grammar. IJAL, 20 (4), 259-270. Hetzron, R. (1972). Phonology in syntax cited in James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman. James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman. Janicki, K. (1985). On the tenability of the notion pragmatic equivalence in contrastive analysis. PSiCL 20, 19-26. Krzeszowski, P. T. (1981). The problem of equivalence revisited. IRAL 19, 113-128. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of MichiganPress. Lance, D. M. (1969). A brief study of Spanish English bilingualism. College Station: Texas: A&M University. Lee, W. R. (1968). Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language teaching. Georgetown monograph 21, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Lehmann, D. (1977). A confrontation of say, speak, talk, tell with possible German counterparts. PSICL 6, 99-109. Mel‟chuk, I. A. (1963). Machine translation and linguistics cited in James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman. Politzer, R. L. (1972). Linguistics and applied linguistics: Aims and methods. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Sajavaara, K. (1985). Language processes in contrast: contrastive analysis revisited. In Stockwell, R. P., Bowen J. D. and Martin (1965). The grammatical structure of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4 (2), 123-130. Whitman, R. L. (1970). Contrastive analysis: Problems and procedures. Language Learning 20 (2). Wonderly, W. L. (1968). Bible Translations for popular use. London: United bible societies Al-Jarf, Reima. 2000. Grammatical agreement errors in L1/L2 translations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 38, no. 1: 1-15. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.1 Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2010. Interlingual interference in the English language word order structure of Jordanian EFL learners. European Journal of Social Sciences 16, no. 1: 106-113. Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2011. An investigation of interlingual interference in the use of ‘and’ as a syntactic coordinating structure by Jordanian EFL learners. European Journal of Social Sciences 18, no. 3, 426-433. Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2013. The misuse of word order in the writing of Jordanian EFL Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2006. The interlingual transfer of Arabic in the English writings of Arab EFL students. Paper presented at the Second International Language Learning Conference, USM-Penang, Malaysia. Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2015. A review study of interlanguage theory. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 4, no. 3, 124-131. Al-khresheh, Mohammad H. 2016. A review study of error analysis theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research 2: 49-59. Al-Ta'ani, Muhammad HA. 1986. An investigation of secondary school students' errors in formulating wh-questions. Unpublished MA thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, JO. Ammar, Ahlem, and Nina Spada. 2006. One size ϐits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, no. 4: 543-574. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263106060268 Bell, Roger T. 1981. An introduction to applied linguistics: Approaches and methods in language teaching. London, UK: Batsford Academic and Educational. Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, no. 2: 183-224. DOI: 10.1162/002438902317406696 Brown, H. Douglas. 2006. Principles of language learning and teaching, 5th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education Limited. Chao, Yu-Chuan J. 2003. Contrastive rhetoric, lexico-grammatical knowledge, writing expertise, and metacognitive knowledge: An integrated account of the development of English writing by Taiwanese students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland , NZ. Elewa, Abdel-Hamid. 2004. Collocation and synonymy in classical Arabic: A corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Faghih, Esmail. 1997. A contrastive analysis of the Persian and English deϐinite articles. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 35, no. 2: 126-237. Gass, Susan M., and Larry Selinker. 2001. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 2nd ed. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gilquin, Gaë tanelle, and Magali Paquot. 2008. Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1, no. 1: 41-61. DOI: 10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil James, Carl. 1998. Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London, UK: New York: Longman. James, Carl. 2005. Contrastive analysis and the language learner. In Linguistics, language teaching and language learning, David J. Allerton, Cornelia Tschichold and Judith Wieser, eds., 1-20, Basel, CH: Schwabe. Johansson, Stig. 1973. Papers in contrastive linguistics and language Testing. Lund, SE: Gleerup. Kharma, Nayef N. 1983. Studies in descriptive linguistics: A contrastive analysis of the use of verb forms in English and Arabic. Heidelberg, DE: Juliuss Groos Verlag. Kharma, Nayef N., and Ali H. Hajjaj. 1989. Use of the mother tongue in the ESL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 27, no. 3: 223-235. Lado Robert. 1957. Language teaching: A scientiϔic approach. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Lightbown, Pasty M., and Nina Spada. 2006. How languages are learned, 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mair, C. 2005. Recent Advances in contrastive linguistics and language typology: The spin-off for language teachers. In Linguistics, language teaching and language learning, David J. Allerton, Cornelia Tschichold, and Judith Wieser, ed., 21–39. Basel, CH: Schwabe AG. Mattar, Hameed. 1999. Translation elicitation techniques and mother-tongue interference: Any signiϐicant connection? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 37, no. 4: 307-321. Mihalache, Roxana. 2005. Contrastive analysis and error analysis–Implications for the teaching of English. Language Teaching Forum 44, no. 4: 28. Odlin, T. 2003. Language Transfer. Shanghai, CN: Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Sheen, Ronald. 1996. The advantage of exploiting contrastive analysis in teaching and Learning a foreign language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 34, no. 3: 183-198. DOI: 10.1515/iral.1996.34.3.183 Spada, Nina, and Yasuyo Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A metaAnalysis. Language Learning 60, no. 2: 263-308. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x Spada, Nina, Pasty M. Lightbown, and Jaonna L. White. 2005. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit formfocused instruction. In Investigations in instructed second language acquisition, eds., Housen, Alex, and Michel Pierrard, 199-234. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter. Stockwell, Robert P., Donald Bowen J., and John W. Martin. 1965. The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. tải về 25.4 Kb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
|