What is contrastive linguistics (CL)

Classifying types of linguistics is necessary in this respect:

The first division
Sampson (1975) points out that there are two broad approaches to
linguistics.

1. Generalist
2. Particularist
The particularist linguists treat individual languages: English, Arabic, Spanish
etc.
The generalist linguists consider the general phenomenon of human
language which includes particular languages as examples.
For Sampson no one of the approaches is superior to the other. Generalists
tend to have more philosophical interests while the particularist are
interested in anthropology and philology.
The second division Linguists
are divisible into:

1. Isolationists:
2. Comparativists: Those who like to compare language using
comparative methods.
Isolationists are those who like to study one language in isolation. They are
concerned to discover what make this language unlike other languages and
how it gives its speakers a psychic and cognitive uniqueness.
Comparativists, on the other hand, proceed from the assumption that all
languages have something in common which allows us to compare and
classify them (typology).
The third division
De Saussure distinguishes two sciences of language: diachronic and
synchronic

1
Synchronic: Any view of language at a static moment in time.
Diachronic: Has to do with evolution and change over time.
Part of the synchronic study of language is typology which means grouping
languages according to their present-day characteristics: no reference to
history or evolution.
Part of diachrony is philology which is concerned with linguistic genealogy
i.e. to discover which languages belong to the same genetic family.
These three divisions are overlapping.
Now we ask three questions:

1. Is CL generalist or particularist?
2. Is CL concerned with immanence (innateness) or comparison?
3. Is CL diachronic or synchronic?
First, CL is neither generalist nor particularist. But somewhere intermediate.
Second, CL is as interested in the inherent characteristics of the language as
it is in the comparability of languages.
Third, CL is not interested in classification (typology or philology depend on
similarities). It is more interested in differences between languages than in
similarities.
Therefore, CL is a hybrid linguistic enterprise.
Definition of CL
CL is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (contrastive not
comparative) two-valued typologies. It is always concerned with a pair of
languages. CL is founded on the assumption that languages can be
compared.
CL as Interlanguage Study
All branches of linguistics have human language as their object of study
whether dead or vital. There are branches of linguistics that are concerned
with parts of languages such as Phonetics which is concerned with the

2
human noise by which the message is actualized: the nature of those noises,
their combination and their function in relation to the message without any
regard to other aspects of language. A linguist need not specialize in all
aspects of language; he may qualify in one aspect.
Interlanguage study is not primarily concerned with language in the
conventional sense. It is interested in the emergence of languages not in
their finished product i.e. in the stage of developing into a static state. CL
belongs to interlanguage study. Since emergence is an evolutionary concept,
CL is viewed as diachronic rather than synchronic in orientation. Diachronic
here is different from Saussure’s sense who stated that the term means a
historical; a change that takes generations while here the change is within
the human individual such as the language acquisition in infants. The study
of second language or foreign language learning is concerned with a
monolingual becoming bilingual: two languages are involved L1 and L2 which
is a good example of interlanguage diachronic study. Translation is another
example where texts are transformed into comparable texts in another
language. So far we talked about cases where two languages are involved
SL/TL or NL/FL where the focus is on the intermediate space between the
two: the language that comes into being is the interlingua. It involves the
analysis characteristics of SL and the synthesis characteristics of TL text as in
the case of translation. It is suggested that the learner in progressing towards
mastery of FL develops a series of approximate systems which are successive
and intersecting. Each stage has its unique features as well as features it
shares with the immediately preceding and immediately succeeding
approximate system.

CA as Pure or Applied linguistics

3
It is doubted in the work of some scholars, even including Corder (1973), as
whether there is a discipline called applied linguistics. Corder suggests that it
is just a technology based on pure linguistics refuting the idea of a science.

Other scholars went even deeper in suggesting that there is no relevance

between applied linguistics and language teaching or the solution of
pedagogical problems. Such a view of applied linguistics is basically
stemming from Chomsky’s disavowal of any pertinence of linguistic theory
to problems of language teaching. The other view, which is more prevailing,
is the view suggested by Malmberg (1971) in which it is suggested that the
application of linguistics can and should be looked upon as science in their
own rights. Malmberg says that although the claim of Corder that applied
linguistics is a consumer not a producer of theories is true, yet even the
consumer must have standards against which to evaluate the various theories
offered to him. The process of selection must be guided by a theory of
relevance and applicability.

Another reason for regarding applied linguistics as a science is that it is in the

nature of a hybrid discipline. Applied linguistics is constituted not only within
the limits of pure linguistics but also in psychology and sociology. Within
Applied linguistics, any branch relies not only on the linguistic validity but on
the insights from both psychological and sociological validity.

Pure linguistics itself has been practicing something very similar to CA. The
interest over here is not comparative, nor contrastive, nor typological, but it is
situated in language universals. When the applied linguist is called upon to
gather confirmatory evidence of any tentative universal suggested to him from
languages he know, he is engaging in CA in his approach. Ross (1969)

4
suggested that universally adjectives are derived from noun phrases in deep
structure. Checking this claim he compared English with German and French

- Jack is clever, but he doesn’t look it.

The pronoun ‘it’ is referring to an adjective and not to a noun which is the
ordinary reference. Comparing the same structure for these two languages the
claim is viable since we have ‘es’ in German, ‘le’ in French. However, the
claim didn’t hold for Polish since the counterpart ‘taki’ is not pronominal but
adjectival in its reference. The case here although done in pure linguistics but
it is very similar to CA. The question to be asked is whether CA is a form of
‘pure’ or ‘applied’ linguistics. It is suggested that it is both but it’s on the
margins in pure linguistics but a central concern in applied linguistics.

CA and Bilingualism

Bilingualism, by definition, is the possession of two languages. If it is the

possession of two languages by a single community we speak societal
bilingualism while if it is concerned with a person who has competence in two
languages we are dealing with individual bilingualism. CA’s concern is with
the second category. Bilingualism refers to the possession of two languages
by an individual or society, whereas CA is concerned with how a monolingual
becomes bilingual.

CA starts with Lado’s Linguistics across cultures (1957). It was, however,

two earlier books on the linguistic integration of immigrants to the USA which
gave Lado his impetus. The reference here is to Weinreich (1953) and Haugen
(1956) who studied immigrant’s bilingualism. The amalgamation of Lado’s
work to these two figures who studied bilingualism is the link between CA
and bilingualism study. There is a claim of illegitimacy over such a link due

5
to a problem in the direction of influence between the two languages in each
case of the two, i.e. CA and bilingualism since the influence studied in
bilingualism was on the native language while it is the influence on the foreign
language to be studied in CA. Weinreich makes no point in directionality
while concentrating on deviation from the norms of either language although
observing that the strength of interference is in the direction of the native
language to the foreign language which is the major concern of CA. The
second difference between the CA and bilingualism is that CA is concerned
with the way in which native language affects foreign language learning in the
individual while bilingualism studies the long term effects which lasts for a
generation. Third, CA is concerned with ‘Parole’ while bilingualism is
concerned with ‘Langue’. Fourthly, CA is concerned with interface while
bilingualism is concerned with integration.