Comparison of Contrastive Analysis with other Lang Acquisition theories ...

Question

Hi *,I am not a linguist, but I would like to know more about the core and latest research papers on Contrastive Analysis, as initially presented by Robert Lado, including divergences with other LA theories and other general practical ideas, as well as disagreement with Noam Chomky's "universal grammar".I have indeed search on line but the information is very spread out and it is virtually impossible for someone that is not vertical into one field to get to the essential papers on this field.Any good links, books or etc's?Thanksotf

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hi *, I am not a linguist, but I would like to know more about the core and latest research ... including divergences with other LA theories and other general practical ideas, as well as disagreement with Noam Chomky's "universal grammar".[/nq]
Contrastive analysis never attracted much interest; I had a class in it with Fred Agard (who coauthored one of the books in the field) ca. 1970. It was intended as an aid for second-language teaching, and it's probably still practiced by syllabus-writers.
UG hadn't been invented yet.
[nq:1]I have indeed search on line but the information is very spread out and it is virtually impossible for someone that is not vertical into one field to get to the essential papers on this field. Any good links, books or etc's?[/nq]
Why all the crossposting?

Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)

Usenet · Answer

otf: thank you for your reply Peter. I still can't get why CA has been loathed/dismissed to such an extent
[nq:1]Why all the crossposting?otf: Because:[/nq]
1. as I said I am not a linguist myself, so it is hard to me to knowwhere/how to ask a question

2. it is defintiely better than multiposting, and
3. as the English saying goes: "it -is- where you find it" :-).
otf

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I have indeed search on line but the information is ... papers on this field. Any good links, books or etc's?[/nq]
[nq:1]Why all the crossposting?[/nq]
Presumably because the poster's 'native' tribe coulden't provide him with information.

Perhaps the signal issue stems from Chomsky, and this idea of a universal grammar. Recently in this newsgroup (word usage) no one has been able to state their knoweldge of words actually used, rather than of words known, neither for themselves or for others.
A contention is that there are significant groupings of people who have discrete /needs/ in language use, and these needs are contained by a relatively small amount of words - and further, that this group of words used is a universal factor, not only across any contemporaneous group of users, but that it is a constant historically.
Examples might be that in terms of /use/, beyond common but necessarily differentiated adjectives, such as the names of colours, and essential aspects of simple numeracy (the names of quantities) much usage is to collectivise an expression, so that adjectively there is massive use of such terms as 'big and 'little', and these are applied to almost any topic, with only a few variants. eg little/small big/huge (dude!)

The interesting aspect of comparison is the amount of words electively used for (a) general self expression, compared with (b) any special words needed for work, which are required words and not elective ones voluntarily used outside of work.
The contention is that (a) is a universal across cultures, nations, time, class, wealth, and age.
It is an interesting study, especially since Eco has predicted an emerging caste basis for English, depositing almost all speakers of English language into the 'use-only' group of mannerists, and making isolani of such literats as might read this message in any of the newsgroups to which it is posted.

To wit: that although people may disagree with these ideas, or wish to have them substantiated or elaqboriated, they are able to understand the contention. Eco says this will become a rarity. The implications of such a rarity are - well, alarmist, true! - yet to take it seriously, we will express on this level, and also use a pidgin-form as is already becoming the the case on television.
A summary of these contentions may be that language acquisition has, at a certain threshold of the subject's need to acquire it, for most people only a limited and, indeed, theoretical application beyond the base number. And that number of words may be as little as 1,000.
Phil Innes

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]otf: thank you for your reply Peter. I still can't get why CA has been loathed/dismissed to such an extent[/nq]
[nq:2]Why all the crossposting?[/nq]
[nq:1]otf: Because: 1. as I said I am not a linguist myself, so it is hard to me to ... better than multiposting, and 3. as the English saying goes: "it -is- where you find it" :-) . otf[/nq]
But why a computer group?
CA isn't a theory; it's just some guidelines for locating potential problem-spots in foreign-language learning.

Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]. . . universal across cultu res, nations, time, class, wealth, and age.Hi Phil,[/nq]
.
I might not be quite following you or we know of two totally different "Noam Chomky"'s ;-)
.
I think his "universal" talk was about a built-in natural capacity to perceive and process language we all have. Not about some sort of similarity in which people speaking different languages employ certain basic concepts.
.
Out of the inner workings of this supposed "ueber" language comes our "human" ability to "talk"
.
Moreover the way ~~I understand~~ "we" is "all socially communicating beings sharing a common code (for the purpose of communicating)". We "humans" are "we", as well as "bees", "ants", ... and even the tamer of monkey and lions in a circus and as "code" should be understood not only natural languages, but also "laws", "money" and "kinship relationships", ...
.
otf

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]. . . universal across cultu res, nations, time, class, wealth, and age.[/nq]
[nq:1]Hi Phil,[/nq]
.
[nq:1]I might not be quite following you or we know of two totally different "Noam Chomky"'s ;-)[/nq]
Hi, I think one aspect is a cause another the extent.
[nq:1]I think his "universal" talk was about a built-in natural capacity to perceive and process language we all have. Not ... a circus and as "code" should be understood not only natural languages, but also "laws", "money" and "kinship relationships", ...[/nq]
Google " N'Kisi " for a parrot's point of view. Sheldrake says acquisition rate was the same as for human infants.
Phil
(I clipped the other ngs from this post)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]. . . universal across cultu res, nations, time, class, wealth, and age.[/nq]
[nq:1]Hi Phil, . I might not be quite following you or we know of two totally different "Noam Chomky"'s ;-)[/nq]
Don't bother trying to figure out what Phil "Chess One" Innes writes. It bears little resemblance to Standard English.
[nq:1]I think his "universal" talk was about a built-in natural capacity to perceive and process language we all have. Not ... a circus and as "code" should be understood not only natural languages, but also "laws", "money" and "kinship relationships", ... [/nq]
Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)

Comparison of Contrastive Analysis with other Lang Acquisition theories ...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions