Introduction
This essay explores the connection between Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Universal Grammar (UG), two significant theoretical frameworks in linguistics. CA involves the systematic comparison of two or more languages to identify similarities and differences, often for pedagogical purposes (Wardhaugh, 1970). UG, proposed by Noam Chomsky, posits that all human languages share innate principles and parameters that govern their structure, reflecting core cognitive mechanisms (Chomsky, 1981). The purpose of this essay is to examine how CA aligns with UG as a theoretical framework, focusing on shared linguistic features (core) and differences (parameters), supported by examples. It will further discuss the contributions of CA to UG, arguing that shared features represent universal principles while variations highlight parametric differences.
Contrastive Analysis and Universal Grammar: A Theoretical Connection
Contrastive Analysis and Universal Grammar intersect through their mutual interest in the nature of language structure and variation. UG suggests that all natural languages are governed by a set of innate principles—core features common to every language—while differences arise from parameters, which are language-specific settings of these principles (Chomsky, 1981). CA, by systematically comparing languages, provides empirical data to validate or challenge UG’s claims about shared features and parametric variation. For instance, CA can test whether languages truly share core syntactic principles or exhibit variations that align with UG’s parameter theory. This connection offers a practical lens to explore whether natural languages universally adhere to certain grammatical rules or diverge in predictable ways.
Shared Features and Differences Across Languages
Natural languages often share core grammatical features, such as the presence of subjects, verbs, and objects in sentence structure, which align with UG’s principles. However, differences emerge in how these elements are configured, reflecting parametric variation. For example, English and Spanish share the principle of relativization, where relative clauses modify nouns, but differ in their syntactic realisation. In English, a relativizer like ‘who’ is often used: “The man who I saw” (subject relativizer). In Spanish, the equivalent uses ‘que’: “El hombre que vi” (the man that I saw). Here, both languages employ a relativizer, reflecting a universal principle, but the specific form and usage vary, indicating a parameter. Glossed, the Spanish example is: El (the) hombre (man) que (that) vi (saw), translating directly to “The man that I saw.”
Furthermore, while English allows the omission of relativizers in some object relative clauses (e.g., “The man I saw”), Spanish typically requires ‘que,’ demonstrating a parametric difference in optionality. These examples, drawn from basic syntactic comparisons, underscore how CA uncovers both universal principles and language-specific parameters.
Contributions of Contrastive Analysis to Universal Grammar
Contrastive Analysis contributes significantly to UG by providing empirical evidence for its theoretical claims. The similarities identified through CA, such as the universal presence of relativizers across languages, support UG’s notion of innate principles that underpin all human languages. For instance, the consistent use of mechanisms to form relative clauses suggests a core cognitive capacity for hierarchical structure, as posited by Chomsky (1981). Conversely, differences unearthed by CA, such as the optionality of relativizers or word order variations (e.g., Subject-Verb-Object in English versus Subject-Object-Verb in Japanese), illuminate UG’s concept of parameters. These parameters allow for linguistic diversity while maintaining a shared grammatical foundation.
Moreover, CA’s detailed comparisons help refine UG by testing its hypotheses in real-world linguistic data. By documenting shared features as principles and differences as parameters, CA provides a practical framework to explore how universal cognitive mechanisms manifest across diverse languages. Indeed, CA’s findings can inform UG’s evolving understanding of how parameters are set during language acquisition, highlighting the interplay between innate structures and environmental input.
Conclusion
In summary, Contrastive Analysis holds significant relevance to Universal Grammar by bridging theoretical claims with empirical linguistic data. CA reveals how natural languages share core principles, such as relativization, while differing in parameters like syntactic optionality, as seen in English and Spanish examples. These insights contribute to UG by validating its distinction between universal principles and language-specific parameters, thereby deepening our understanding of human linguistic capacity. The implications of this connection are noteworthy, particularly for language acquisition studies and pedagogical approaches, as they underscore the balance between innate universality and learned variation. Ultimately, CA serves as a vital tool to explore and refine UG’s framework, ensuring its relevance in contemporary linguistic research.
References
- Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Foris Publications.
- Wardhaugh, R. (1970) The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), pp. 123-130.
