the psychological basis of contrastive analysis

19
The Psychological Basis of Contrastive Analysis Presenter: Sara Tehrani M.A ., TEFL, Tehran , Iran

Upload: saragalastarxy

Post on 20-Jul-2015

750 views

Category:

Education


25 download

TRANSCRIPT

The Psychological Basis

of

Contrastive Analysis

Presenter: Sara Tehrani

M.A., TEFL, Tehran, Iran

Transfer in Learning Psychology

CA is a hybrid drawing on the sciences of linguistics &

psychology.

One of the concerns of learning psychologists is the effects of

one learning task on a subsequent one. The observation that

prior learning effects subsequent learning leads to the

hypothesis of transfer .

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS FOUNDATIN OF CA IS

TRANSFER THEORY.

“the hypothesis that the learning of task A

will affect the subsequent learning of task

B.”

(Ellis)

transfer

* The two “entities” associated in a learning task are:

Stimulus ( S )

Response ( R )

* The psychological basis of CA resides in the two

psychological enterprises:

Associationism S-R

TheoryRed light need to decelerate Skinner’s

or stop the vehicle. Behaviourist

explanation of how

lg. learning is

consummated.

Some problems of Definition

1) In “conditioning” the Rs are assumed to be available to thelearner.

In L2 learning the Rs themselves have to be learnt as well as with which S they are to be associated.

2) CA is concerned with teaching rather than learning. - Teaching involves the predetermination of what Ss & Rs are to be associated.- Learning are the set of decisions that can be quite arbitrary.

3) What constitute a S or a R in L2 learning?Jakobovits sees S as a constituted of “ …… the environment

conditions that are antecedent to linguistic utterances” .

Richterich (1974) called S as a “communicative need”.

But lg. behavior is a two-way process, not only do we produceutterances, we also receive them. So Jakobovit’s definition of Swill not serve perception :

Solution : “analysis by synthesis”

4) Corder (1973): “ Linguistic descriptions which aim ataccounting for lg. as a system, deal with sentences, notutterances.”

One sentence underlies many concrete utterances:Sentence: Pron. Aux. V. NP objectUtterance: 1) He can make cake.

2) we shall sing songs...

3) You should send flowers.

Therefore, in specifying Rs in lg, we must limit ourselves to theirabstract form , as sentences, rather than the substance asutterences.

Transfer Theory & CA

Lado (1957): “ individuals tend to transfer the forms & meanings & the distribution of their native

lg. & culture to the foreign lg. & culture.”

Paradigm Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Value

A S1 – R1 S2 - R1 S1 – R1 + TB S1 – R1 S1 – R2 S1 – R1 - TC S1 – R1 S2 – R2 S1 – R1 - T

Proaction Retroaction “The effect of a given specifiable “ The effect of a specifiable

prior activity upon the learning of a interpolated activity

upon the

given test activity. “ retention of a previously learned

activity.”

+T : positive transfer ( facilitation)

- T : negative transfer ( interference)

Paradigm AL1 L2

S1 – R1 S2 – R 1

Paradigm A obtains where L1 & L2 employ the same formal

device, but to serve different communication purposes in L1 & L2.

“ordinary learning” or “practice”

Example: L1 is English & L2 is Welsh:

(English) : Is she speaking German ? (Aux – Sub – V – Obj)

(Welsh) : ( is she in in speak German. ) (Aux – Sub – V – Obj)

Paradigm BL1 L2

S1 – R1 S1 – R 2

For production, this paradigm defines translation-equivalence:

that is, in L1 & L2, there is sameness of meaning accompanied

by difference of formal devices.

Example: L1 is German & L2 is Polish:

R1 (German): ( V. Subj. Obj. )

S: Question R2 (Polish) : ( Part. Sub. Obj. V.)

If you him

know.

Paradigm CL1 L2

S1 – R1 S2 – R 2

Paradigm C is of little interest to CA, because of the non-identity

of both Ss & Rs in the two lg.s.: where there is no constant, only

variables, there are no grounds for comparison.

Lee (1968) remarks on the absence of L1 interference during his

learning of Chinese, where L1 & L2 were so very different that :

false associations interference

Scale of Difference

Maximum

Differences of Rs

Partial

Similarity of Rs

Greatest Similarity

of Sa & Rs

“ordinary learning”

takes place.

e.g: the use of

subject –verb

inversion in

German & French.

e.g: Polish / German

example of word

order.

e.g: Polish / Japanese. In Polish,

the particle is positioned sentence

initially to address a question,

while Japanese has particles in

sentence- final position.

Part

icle

lg

. s

Invers

ion

lg.

sJapanese Polish Russian English German

Final Initial particle “Do” initial, No

particle particle second S second particle

* The point to be made is that:

1) We must be prepared to quantify degrees of differences

between Rs in the two lg.s under CA.

2) A further task which falls to CA, is to establish the

relationship between degree of linguistic differences &

degree of learning difficulty.

CA & Behaviourist Learning Theory

The psychological basis of CA, is Transfer Theory,elaborated & formulated within a S – R (Behaviourist)theory of psychology.

Corder: “ one explanation of L2 errors is that the learner is carrying over the habits of his mother tongue into L2

(a sort of habit – structure ).”

Two cognitivist

alternatives to L1 transfer

Cross – Association

George (1972) reconstructs the mental process of induction &

generalization which the L1 German learner of English seems

to be subject to.

English German

woman

wife frau

Direct interference from the mother – tongue is not a useful

assumption.

The Ignorance Hypothesis

Proposed by Newmark & Reibel (1968) to explain L2 learners’

errors: “The adult can want to say what he does not yet know

how to say (in L2) & he uses whatever means he has at this

disposal …” ignorance is not an alternative to

interference, but at best a precondition for it.

* Ignorance – without – interference

- avoidance strategy to paraphrase or use near -

equivalent

* Interference – without - ignorance

- drilling to become error free / self correct

1- “ignorant by self-evaluation” The leaner deciding he

is ignorant of a L2 form, so incapable of producing it.

2- It is possible for different learners to be equally

ignorant of a given L2 structure, for e.g. when the two

learners have different L1s.

3- Those proposing the Ignorance hypothesis

conceive of learners to produce L2 patterns of

which they have no knowledge ! But the point is

that learners should have been “exposed” to L2

item before performing specific L2 item.

Three

major

weaknesses

of

ignorance

hypothesis