LECTURE 9: Pedagogical Implications of Contrastive Analysis (C.A) & Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R)

(By Dr. Nguyễn Huy Kỷ, Hanoi College of Education) 9.1. Pedagogical Implications of C.A.: 9.1.1. Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching

(Lee, W.R., 1968): The use of contrastive analysis in foreign language teaching is based on five assumptions: (1) that the prime cause of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference from the learners' native language; (2) that these difficulties are due chiefly to the differences between the two languages; (3) that the greater these differences, the more acute the learning problems will be; (4) that a comparison between the two languages will predict difficulty and error; and (5) that this comparison should determine what is to be taught. In planning and teaching a language course the language itself should be kept in mind rather than the differences between two languages. Contrastive analysis is valuable but it should not be overemphasized in foreign language teaching.

9.1. Pedagogical Implications of C.A. (cont., 1):

9.1.2. The main function of C.A. in language teaching should be that of explaining why errors occur rather than predicting error (which is best accomplished by careful statistical analysis of actual mistakes). For example, although Vietnamese students/ learners of English will omit the indefinite article in such sentences as ‘My father was doctor’, the underlying cause of their errors is different in each case. By use of C.A., we find that the Vietnamese already possess a conceptual system very different from English in surface structure. In teaching English to the Vietnamese, however, special attention must be given to the development of the entire conceptual system underlying the use of English articles. Contrastive analysis of grammar should begin by identifying the grammatical systems or categories in the two languages which are relatable to more or less the same semantic field, and then observing the different ways in which the two languages partition this field. Translation/ comparison in its most rigorous form can be useful for contrastive analysis (Catford, 1968).

9.2. Applied Linguistics

9.2.1.Applied Linguistics (Wikipedia):- Applied linguistics is an interdisciplinary field of study that

identifies, investigates, and offers solutions to language-related real-life problems. Some of the academic fields related to applied linguistics are education, linguistics, psychology, computer science, anthropology, and sociology.

- Domain: Major branches of applied linguistics include bilingualism and multilingualism, computer-mediated communication, conversation analysis, contrastive linguistics, sign linguistics, language assessment, discourse analysis, pedagogy, second language acquisition, lexicography, language planning and policies, stylistics, pragmatics, forensic linguistics, and translation.

9.2. Applied Linguistics (cont., 1)

- History:+ The tradition of applied linguistics established itself in part as a response

to the narrowing of focus in linguistics with the advent in the late 1950s of generative linguistics, and has always maintained a socially accountable role, demonstrated by its central interest in language problems.

+ Although the field of applied linguistics started from Europe and the United States, the field rapidly flourished in the international context.

+ Applied linguistics first concerned itself with principles and practices on the basis of linguistics. In the early days, applied linguistics was thought as “linguistics-applied” at least from the outside of the field. In the 1960s, however, applied linguistics was expanded to include language assessment, language policy, and second language acquisition. As early as the 1970s, applied linguistics became a problem-driven field rather than theoretical linguistics. Applied linguistics also included solution of language-related problems in the real world. By the 1990s, applied linguistics has broadened including critical studies and multilingualism. Research of applied linguistics was shifted to ‘the theoretical and empirical investigation of real world problems in which language is a central issue.’

9.2. Applied Linguistics (cont., 2)

- History (cont.):

+ In the U.K.:

The British Association of Applied Linguistics (BAAL) was established in 1967. Its mission is ‘the advancement of education by fostering and promoting, by any lawful charitable means, the study of language use, language acquisition and language teaching and the fostering of interdisciplinary collaboration in this study’...

9.3. Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R)

9.3.1. What do you know about C.R? - It is the study of how a person's first language and culture

influence his or her writing in a second language.- Research began in the 1960s, started by the American

applied linguist Robert Kaplan. Since that time, the area of study has had a significant impact on the teaching of writing in both English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. Kaplan’s (1966) research pioneered the attention to cultural and linguistic differences in the writing of ESL students. This attention to writing was especially welcomed in the area of ESL instruction, as an emphasis on oral language skills had previously dominated ESL contexts in the United States (Wikipedia).

9.3. Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R) (cont.,1)

9.3.2. Trends:- Since 1966, when Kaplan’s original work on contrastive

rhetoric appeared, and 1996, when Ulla Connor’s book on contrastive rhetoric was published, many new trends have appeared in research approaches and methods. The change has been affected by two major developments.

- First, there has been an increase in the types of written texts that are considered the purview of second language writing around the world. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes teach other types of writing besides the student essay required in college classes. Other important genres are the academic research article, research report, and grant proposal. Writing for professional purposes, such as business, is also now considered a legitimate type of second language writing and worthy of research and teaching.

9.3. Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R) (cont.,2)

9.3.2. Trends (cont.):- In addition to the expansion of the genre, the field has moved to

emphasize the social situation of writing. Today, writing is increasingly regarded as being socially situated; each situation may entail special consideration to audience, purposes, level of perfection, and correspondingly may require varying amounts of revision, collaboration, and attention to detail. Social construction of meaning as dynamic, socio-cognitive activities is a phrase used to describe this approach to texts. Instead of analyzing what texts "mean," we want to understand how they "construct meaning." Bazerman and Prior (2004, p. 6) pose three questions to guide the analysis of writing:

+ What does the text talk about? + How do texts influence audiences? + How do texts come into being?- Thus, two major factors – the acknowledgment of more genres with

specific textual requirements and increased awareness of the social contexts of writing – have motivated scholars of contrastive rhetoric to adjust and supplement research approaches in their work (Wikipedia).

9.3. Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R) (cont.,3)

9.3.3. Questions of relevance:- Some postmodern and critical pedagogy writers in the second

language (L2) writing field, however, have begun referring to contrastive rhetoric as if it had been frozen in space. Over the years, the term contrastive rhetoric has gained a negative connotation. Understood by many as Kaplan’s original work, contrastive rhetoric is often characterized as static, and is linked to contrastive analysis, a movement associated with structural linguistics and behaviorism. Many of the contributions made to contrastive rhetoric in the past 30 years have been ignored. In a 2002 article, Connor attempted to address these recent criticisms and to offer new directions for a viable contrastive rhetoric. In addressing the critiques, she aimed to draw attention to the broad scope of contrastive rhetoric and determined that a new term would better encompass the essence of contrastive rhetoric in its current state. To distinguish between the often-quoted ‘static’ model and the new advances that have been made, Connor suggests it may be useful to begin using the term intercultural rhetoric instead of contrastive rhetoric to refer to the current models of cross-cultural research.

9.3. Contrastive Rhetoric (C.R) (cont.,4)

9.3.3. Questions of relevance (cont):-The term intercultural rhetoric better describes the

broadening trends of writing across languages and cultures. It preserves the traditional approaches that use textual analysis, genre analysis, and corpus analysis, yet also introduces ethnographic approaches that examine language in interactions. Furthermore, it connotes the analysis of texts that allows for dynamic definitions of culture and the inclusion of smaller cultures (e.g., disciplinary, classroom) in the analysis (Wikipedia).

9.4. Code-cognitive approach

9.4.1. Code-cognitive approach, or Cognitive-code approach:It is also known as Cognitive-Code Approach. The term

cognitive-code refers to any conscious attempt made to organize material around a grammatical syllabus while allowing for meaningful practice and use of language. Sub-skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing such as sound discrimination, pronunciation of specific elements, distinguishing between letters that are similar in appearance and so on are learned before the student participates in real communication activities. Lessons are highly structured using a deductive process (general specific), and often practicing the ‘rule of the day’. Cognitive-code approach emphasizes content over form. Phonemes are learned before words, words before phrases and sentences, simple sentences before complex ones.    

9.4.1. Code-cognitive approach, or Cognitive-code approach (Cont., 1):

- The cognitive approach, also known as cognitive code-learning theory, was advocated by cognitive psychologists and applied linguists such as J.B. Carroll and K. Chastain in the 1960s. It was intended as an alternative to the audiolingual method that emphasizes habit formation as process of language learning. Because of its emphasis on studying a foreign language as a system of rules and knowledge, rather than learning it as a set of skills, the cognitive approach is sometimes considered the modern version of the grammar-translation method.

- The cognitive approach is based on psychology (learning should be holistic; learning becomes easier when one treats the target as part of a structure or system and understands how it is related to the rest of the system) and transformational grammar (language is rule-governed and creative; these are related because you can use a language creatively only when are familiar with the rules of that language).

9.4.1. Code-cognitive approach, or Cognitive-code approach (Cont., 2):

- The cognitive approach considers the conscious study of language rules as central to the learning of a foreign language. One of its most important concepts is meaningful practice. Practice is considered meaningful when the learner understands the rules involved in practice. Thus, conscious study of grammatical rules is not only allowed, but also considered central to language learning. The teaching of grammar is deductive in this approach. The learner is encouraged and helped to first have a clear understanding of a grammatical rule before they practice and use the rule in meaningful contexts. It represents a sharp contrast to the audiolingual method which relies on pattern drills as a means of teaching syntax, without explicit explanation of grammatical rules.

- The cognitive approach is essentially a theoretical proposal. It did not lead to the development of any teaching method as far as classroom procedures and activities are concerned.

9.4.1. Code-cognitive approach, or Cognitive-code approach (Cont., 3):

- Here are two quotes from Carroll, its first proponent:- ‘The theory attaches more importance to the learner's

understanding of the structure of the foreign language than to the facility in using that structure, since it is believed that provided the student has a proper degree of cognitive control over the structures of the language, facility will develop automatically with use of the language in meaningful situations.’

- ‘..learning a language is a process of acquiring conscious control of the phonological, grammatical, and lexical patterns of the second language, largely through study and analysis of these patterns as a body of knowledge.’ (Carroll, 1966, p. 102)

9.5. Communicative approach

9.5.1. Communicative approach: - A set of principles about teaching including recommendations

about method and syllabus  where the focus is on meaningful communication not structure, use (a given purpose or application, or how people speak) not usage (common use, the way the language is actually used, or what the grammar book says). In this approach, students are given tasks to accomplish using language, instead of studying the language. The syllabus is based primarily on functional development (asking permission, asking directions,...), not structural development (past tense, conditionals,...). In essence, a functional syllabus replaces a structural syllabus. There is also less emphasis on error correction as fluency and communication becomes more important than accuracy. As well, authentic and meaningful language input becomes more important. The class becomes more student-centered as students accomplish their tasks with other students, while the teacher plays more of an observer role.

9.5.1. Communicative approach (cont.1):

- Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. It is also referred to as ‘communicative approach to the teaching of foreign languages’ or simply the ‘communicative approach’ (Wikipedia).

9.5.2. Relationship with other methods and approaches

9.5.2.1. The audio-lingual method: The audio-lingual method (ALM) arose as a direct result of the need for foreign language proficiency in listening and speaking skills. It is closely tied to behaviorism, and thus made drilling, repetition, and habit-formation central elements of instruction.

9.5.2.2. The notional-functional syllabus: A notional-functional syllabus is more a way of organizing a language learning curriculum than a method or an approach to teaching. In a notional-functional syllabus, instruction is organized not in terms of grammatical structure as had often been done with the ALM, but in terms of ‘notions’ and ‘functions’. In this model, a ‘notion’ is a particular context in which people communicate, and a ‘function’ is a specific purpose for a speaker in a given context.

9.5.2.3. Learning by teaching: Learning by teaching is one of a widespread methods in Germany. The students take the teacher's role and teach their peers.

9.5.3. Classroom activities used in CLT

- Example Activities- Role Play- Interviews- Information Gap- Games- Language Exchanges- Surveys- Pair Work and Group Work- Learning by teaching- However, not all courses that utilize the Communicative

Language approach will restrict their activities solely to these. Some courses will have the students take occasional grammar quizzes, or prepare at home using non-communicative drills, for instance.

9.5.4. Critiques of CLT (?)

Often, the communicative approach is deemed a success if the teacher understands the student. But, if the teacher is from the same region as the student, the teacher will understand errors resulting from an influence from their first language. Native speakers of the target language may still have difficulty understanding them. This observation may call for new thinking on and adaptation of the communicative approach. The adapted communicative approach should be a simulation where the teacher pretends to understand only what any regular speaker of the target language would and reacts accordingly (Hattum, 2006).

Questions for Home Assignment

1. What is Contrastive Linguistics? Is it the same as Comparative Linguistics? How are they different? What is the biggest difference between ‘to contrast’ and ‘to compare’ in Contrastive Analysis (C.A.)?

2. To the best of your knowledge and experiences, can you give examples for illustration for the question mentioned above to show how you can apply it/ them in your teaching institution?

That’s the end of the course. Thank you very much.

Hanoi, 27 August – 27 November, 2011

Dr. Nguyễn Huy Kỷ, Hanoi College of Education