Noun Class in Anang and English a Contrastive Study
CHAPTER ONE
Objectives of the Study
The objective of the present studyis to describe nouns and verbs inflectional processes in
English and C`Lela languages with implications for teaching. This study exhibits the extent to
which the two languages are similar or different from each other in their inflectional production and
have provided the pedagogical benefits of the study. The specific objectives are:
- To describe the types of nouns and verbs inflectional processes of English and C‟Lela languages using a descriptive model from (Whitman 1970).
- To conduct the contrastive analysis using Banathy‟s (1969) taxonomic contrastive models and in the process bring out areas of similarities and differences between English and C‟lela inflectional process.
- To predict areas of difficulties for the learners of both English and Clela.
- To outline the pedagogical implications for the teaching and learning inflections in the two languages.
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Introduction
In the history of foreign language teaching and learning, applied linguists have made several attempts to ease the difficulties of the learners. Several methods of teaching based on different psychological theories of language learning have been proposed and tried out. Such innovations have been more rigorous since the 1950‟s. The emergence of contrastive analysis (CA) in the 1950‟s and the error analysis (EA) in the 1960‟s laid a theoretical foundation for the major research works carried out in the second and foreign language teaching from the 1970‟s till date. This chapter asserts the place of (Contrastive Analysis henceforth) CA in applied linguistics.
It explores the theories of CA, controversies surrounding it, its emergence and its strength and weaknesses. The chapter also reviews some previous studies in CA, its relevance today and the suitability for conducting linguistic studies within well established conceptual frame work.It also discussed morphological and inflection concepts; their variations, processes and types. At the end of the chapter, the study discusses both contrastive and analytical models that were used and why they were selected for the study in preference to others.
Contrastive Analysis, Theories and Practice
Contrastive Analysis is always concerned with a pair of languages and founded on the belief that it is possible to compare two languages. According to James(1980:3), CA belongs to Applied Linguistics and it is defined as, “The comparison and or contrast of selected linguistic structure across two or more languages, dialects styles or idiolects, regardless of the original purpose of the study” (Selinker and Selinker 1972:2). CA could simply be defined as,“a process by which two languages are compared in order to identify similarities and differences between their linguistic systems” (Banathy, 1969, SIL, 2013, Volker,2013).CA aids us infinding linguistic universals (Greenberg, 1960 and James 1972). The present study is a CA because the inflectional processes of English and C‟Lela languages would be contrasted to bring out the similarities and differences that exist in the two languages. According to Fisiak, (1978:10) and James, (1980:8), there are two types of CA: the theoretical and the applied. While the former looks for realization of a universal category in both languages A and B, the latter addresses itself to the problem of how a universal categoryX realized in language A as Y is rendered in language B. However, as James (1980: 142-3) cautioned that the two should not to be treated as independent of each other because applied CAsare interpretations of theoretical CAs rather than independent executions. CA is a tool for assessing linguistic relationships existing between two or more languages.Its concern is basically between the cross linguistic influence existing between the source and the target languages. Many contrastive studies on learners from different L1 backgrounds have indicated learning differences to be due to cross linguistic influence (Ardand Homburg, 1983;Andrews, 1984;White 1985;Schumann, 1986; Apple and Muyaken, 1987 and Singler, 1988).
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter outlined the procedures followed in the study. It also stateshow the data for the study was collected and what instruments were used for collecting the data as well as format for the analysis of the data collected.
Research Design
Advertisements
Research design adopted for this study is descriptive design. In descriptive design the researcher observes the behavior of one or more variables at once that is/are independent and non-manipulated variables. They will be observed at one time (Nnamdi, 2010:30). It is considered appropriate because the study involves two sets of data, the noun and verb inflectional processes of English and C‟Lela was studied and described at the same time.The noun and verb inflectional processes of the two languages were matched and similarities and differences were identified Belowis diagrammatic representation of descriptive design that was used in this study:
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter intends to answer questions such as, what are the nouns and verbs inflectional processes of English and C‟lela languages, what are the similarities and differences in the nouns and verbs inflectional processes of English and C‟lela languages and what areas pose difficulties to C‟Lela students learning English as a second language? These questions would be answered in order as arranged. Inflection processes varies from language to language. The affixes position is determine by the way a language conventionally agrees to place the affix to mark tense and number. There are several processes involved in inflecting the nouns and verbs of languages, such as; suffixation, pre-fixation, in-fixation, circum-fixation suppletion and so on.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
Introduction
This chapter presents the summary and the main findings of the current study and shall as well set out the direction for further studies. This study has been devoted to nouns and verbs inflectional processes in English and C‟Lela languages.
Summary
The CA of nouns and verbs inflectional processes of English and C‟Lela languages carried out in this study revealed the following facts. Both languages share some common features in theirinflectional processes as well as several differences. English and C‟Lela are synthetic languagesbecause inflection is a common attribute of the two languages. In the light of such findings, thelinguistics problem of the C‟Lela speakers learning English as second language may be minimized.
In other words, through this comparison and contrast, the teacher will be aware of the structure ofthe two languages and areas of difficulties of the learners in transforming the nouns and verbs of English and vice versa. It is also hoped that the analysis and result of this study would be useful both to teachers and textbook writers of English and C‟Lela as a foreign language.
References
- Abdullahi, R.A.& Lawal, S.U. (eds.) (1990).Study in the history of people of Zuru Emirate. Enugu Nigeria: Fourth dimension publishing company.
- Adeyanju, T.K. (1971).Contrastive analysis of Hausa and English as a second language. West African journal of modern language, No 4.
- Aleiro, M. A. (2013). Aspects of the Mophology of C‟lela Language: A doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Ghana, Legon.
- Andrews, G. (1984). English stress rules in adult second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Boston University.
- Ango, S. P., Senchi, P.N. & Detterweiler (1996).Matakan karatun C‟Lela. CL‟ela Translation and Literacy Association Zuru Kebbi State.
- Aronoff, M. & Fudeman, K. (2011).What is morphology? (2nd ed). Oxford. United Kingdom: Wiley – Blackwell.
- Apple, R. & Muyaken, P. (1987).Language contact and bilingual. London:Edward Arnold.
- Ard, J. & Homburg, T.( 1993). Verification on language transfer In: Gass S. and selinker L. (eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning.News Bury House, Rowler mass.
- Baba, W. I. (1991). Notes on C‟lela: in Ayo Bomghashe, Language and Contact in Africa (LICCA, Nigeria) Ibadan: University of Ibadan.
- Baba, W.I. (1992).Aspect of Zuru Emirate languages. Sokoto: Usman Dan Fodio University press.
- Banathy, B.H. (1969). The potential and limitation of contrastive linguistic analysis. Pacific Northwest Conference on Foreign Language 036 227, Portland.
- Bat-el, O. (1996). Selecting the best of the Worse: the Grammar of the Brew Blend Phonology 13, 283-328.
