Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

The psychological basis of contrastive analysis

4.402 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Contrastive Analysis, TEFL

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung

The psychological basis of contrastive analysis

  1. 1. The Psychological Basis of Contrastive Analysis Presenter: Sara Tehrani M.A., TEFL, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. * 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 Theory Red light  need to decelerate Skinner’s or stop the vehicle. Behaviourist explanation of how lg. learning is consummated.
  4. 4. Some problems of Definition 1) In “conditioning”  the Rs are assumed to be available to the learner. 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.
  5. 5. 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 produce utterances, we also receive them. So Jakobovit’s definition of S will not serve perception : Solution : “analysis by synthesis”
  6. 6. 4) Corder (1973): “ Linguistic descriptions which aim at accounting for lg. as a system, deal with sentences, not utterances.” One sentence underlies many concrete utterances: Sentence: Pron. Aux. V. NP object Utterance: 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 their abstract form , as sentences, rather than the substance as utterences.
  7. 7. Transfer Theory & CA Lado (1957): “ individuals tend to transfer the forms & meanings & the distribution of their native lg. & culture to the foreign lg. & culture.”
  8. 8. Paradigm Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Value A S1 – R1 S2 - R1 S1 – R1 + T B S1 – R1 S1 – R2 S1 – R1 - T C 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)
  9. 9. ParadigmA L1 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)
  10. 10. ParadigmB L1 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.
  11. 11. ParadigmC L1 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
  12. 12. 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.
  13. 13. Particlelg.s Inversionlg. s Japanese 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.
  14. 14. 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 ).”
  15. 15. Two cognitivist alternatives to L1 transfer
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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