LECTURE 5 :

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES AND
METHODS
References: Tomasz P. Krzeszowski - Contrasting Languages
The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics\Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs
 Classification of Contrastive Studies

■ Contrastive studies can be divided and subdivided according to various criterial

principles. Fisiak's division into "theoretical" and "applied" contrastive studies is
based partly on the aims of contrastive studies and partly on their methodology.
■ According to Fisiak, theoretical contrastive studies are performed for their own sake,
while applied contrastive studies are performed for the purpose of some application.
But Fisiak reinforces this division by claiming that applied contrastive studies are
directional while theoretical contrastive studies are not:
■ ……. do not investigate how a given category present in language A is represented in
language Β they look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and Β
(Fisiak et al. 1978: 10).
 Classification of Contrastive Studies

■ The objective of theoretical contrastive studies is to encourage contrastive studies within the
framework of general linguistics.
■ Applied contrastive studies, on the other hand, has pedagogical objectives; it may be used
profitably in second and foreign language learning. Applied contrastive linguistics is also a
useful tool for those interested in translation.
Three Steps in Contrastive Studies
■ A classical contrastive analysis consists of three steps:
(1) description; (2) juxtaposition; (3) comparison, i. e. contrastive analysis in the strict sense.
1. Description
■ No comparison is possible without a prior description of the elements to be
compared. Therefore, all contrastive studies must be founded on independent
descriptions of the relevant items of the languages to be compared. The
fundamental demand on such descriptions is that they should be made within the
same theoretical framework. It will not do to describe one language in terms of
transformational grammar and another language in terms of, say, relational
grammar and then to attempt to compare them. The results of such descriptions will
be incompatible and incomparable.
■ Not all linguistic models are equally well suited as foundations of cross-language
comparisons. It seems that those models which make explicit references to
universal categories are more suitable than those which are connected with
language isolationism, inherent in many variants of structuralism.
2. Juxtaposition
■ This step is crucial in deciding what is to be compared with what. In classical contrastive
studies, this step was based on intuitive judgments of competent bilingual informants,
who determined the material to be compared. This sort of "bilingual competence", i.e.,
the knowledge of two languages, enables one to make decisions about whether or not
element X in one language is equivalent with element Y in another language. If the two
given elements are equivalent, they are eo ipso comparable.
■ For example, anyone competent in English and in Polish intuitively knows, on the basis
of his "bilingual competence" that such words as ktory, ktora in Polish and which/who in
English are equivalent, given appropriate contexts.
■ In classical contrastive studies, the investigator himself often acts as the bilingual
informant and decides what to compare on the basis of his own knowledge of the two
languages.
3. Comparison proper
■ We distinguish three basic areas of comparisons:
■ 1. Comparisons of various equivalent systems across languages, such as pronouns,
articles, verbs, and in phonology consonants, vowels, as well as subsystems, such
as nasals, laterals, etc. depending on the degree of "delicacy" of the grammar.
■ 2. Comparisons of equivalent constructions, for example, interrogative, relative,
negative, nominal phrase, etc., and in phonology clusters, syllables, diphthongs, and
various distributions of sounds.
■ 3. Comparisons of equivalent rules, for example, subject raising from the embedded
sentence, adjective placement, interrogative inversion, passivization, etc., and in
phonology assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, etc.
3. Comparison proper
■ Compared items can only be identical with respect to some selected property or
properties which they share.
■ For example, the systems of number of nouns in English, French, Polish, and many
other European languages are in one respect identical, i.e. they are all based on the
dichotomy "oneness" vs. "more-than-oneness" .Other, more subtle distinctions can
also be made by means of numerals and quantifiers, but the grammatical systems
of those languages provide morphological means to express just this dichotomy.
■ In many other languages, the system of number is in the same respect different. In
Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Lithuanian, and some other languages there is also dual
number, which is employed with reference to things coming in twos, usually various
body parts coming in pairs. In such languages the system
3. Comparison proper- Equivalent Systems
■ The system of number is sometimes based on the distinction "oneness" "fewness"
"manyness", as in most Melanesian languages, the West Indonesian language Sanir
and, in the case of personal pronouns, also in Fijian.
■ In Chinese, nouns have no plural inflection at all, and any concept of plurality is
expressed, if necessary, by means of quantifiers and numerals. In contrast with any
language in which nouns are inflected for number, Chinese represents the third
possibility, i.e., situation.
3. Comparison proper- Equivalent Constructions

■ With regard to comparisons of constructions, we deal with the same three

possibilities.
■ An equivalent construction may be identical in some respects and/or different in
some respects, or there may be no equivalent construction at all.
■ To illustrate, let us consider passive constructions in English, Polish, German,
French, and a number of other languages. These constructions in all these
languages are identical in that they consist of an auxiliary verb, usually an
equivalent of 'be', followed by past participle forms of transitive verbs.
3. Comparison proper- Equivalent Constructions

■ In all these instances the passive constructions are analytic:

English: The song was first recorded by Maria Callas.
Polish: Piesn zostala nagrana po raz pierwszy przez Mari§ Callas.
French: Pour la premiere fois la chanson a ete enregistree par Maria Callas.
German: Zum ersten Mal wurde das Lied von Maria Callas auf Schallplatte gesungen.

■ In other respects, passive constructions differ in all these languages. For example,
French has a complex system of conjugation of verbs where two verbs correspond to
one auxiliary verb in English. German requires verb-final word order, etc.
3. Comparison proper- Equivalent Rules

■ Within theoretical linguistic frameworks in which the concept of rule is employed,

one can also compare rules. Again, as in the case of systems and constructions,
three possibilities can be distinguished:
■ A rule in one language may be in some respects identical with an equivalent rule in
another language, which means that both operate on identical inputs and that they
have identical outputs.
■ In some respects, however, these rules are different in the two languages since they
operate on certain, for example, verbs in Latin but not on their English lexical
equivalents. In Polish the rule does not operate at all.
■ Two rules are equivalent if they operate on identical inputs. If equivalent rules also
yield identical outputs, they may be said to be congruent.
Operational procedures for Contrastive Analysis

■ Having outlined the scope of grammatical contrastive studies covering comparisons of

systems, constructions, and rules, we are now in a position to suggest a set of
operational procedures for conducting such studies.
■ Ideally, the procedures should be algorithmic, i.e., they should be possible to follow
automatically. The present state of the art does not lend itself to working out such an
algorithm.
■ At this point, we wish to sketch a more practical procedure, in which a number of steps
have to be taken intuitively, which means that the contrastive analyst will have to
employ his knowledge of the compared languages in order to make certain decisions.
An overall contrastive theory would have to provide explanation for such choices in
terms of explicit rules.
Operational procedures for Contrastive Studies

■ Beginning with comparisons of systems, we isolate a system in L, and, having

described it, we look for an equivalent system in L2, providing there is an available
suitable description of the system.
■ Comparisons of systems are only of limited utility; they do not yield any information
about the ways in which elements of these systems function in well-formed sentences
and about their appropriateness in particular communicative situations.
■ Without information pertaining to the semantics and pragmatics of the compared
systems, contrastive studies remain drastically incomplete.