Contrastive Linguistics Assignment Feedback

1. Overall Strengths

• Clear thesis statement: You identified a focused research question that guided the whole paper.
• Rich data set: The selection of EnglishSpanish and MandarinGerman corpora provided ample material for comparison.
• Methodological transparency: The stepbystep description of the contrastive framework made the analysis easy to follow.
• Use of authentic examples: Quotations from real texts illustrated points convincingly.

2. Areas for Improvement

2.1. Theoretical Grounding

The assignment mentions contrastive analysis but does not situate the work within key scholarly debates. Incorporate references to:

• Lehmann (1971) the classic contrastive linguistics model.
• Odlin (1989) the role of typological similarity in secondlanguage acquisition.
• More recent corpusbased studies (e.g., McCarthy & OKeeffe, 2020).

2.2. Depth of Contrast

Some sections merely list differences without explaining why they matter. Strengthen each contrast by addressing:

• Functional consequences (e.g., how word order affects information structure).
• Cognitive load for learners.
• Historical or typological explanations.

2.3. Data Presentation

Tables are an effective way to summarise patterns, but the current tables are sparse. Consider the following improvements:

• Include column headings that specify the language and the linguistic feature.
• Use colour shading sparingly to separate rows.
• Provide a brief footnote for each table that interprets the most salient trend.

2.4. Academic Writing Conventions

• Watch for runon sentences break longer statements into two or three sentences.
• Maintain subjectverb agreement, especially when describing the corpora (The corpora show).
• Use consistent citation style (APA 7th edition is recommended).

3. Specific Feedback on Each Section

3.1. Introduction (150words)

The introduction sets a solid context but could benefit from a brief outline of the structure. Add a sentence such as: The paper proceeds by first examining phonological contrasts, followed by syntax, and concludes with pedagogical implications.

3.2. Literature Review (300words)

Expand the review beyond older sources. Incorporate at least two peerreviewed articles published after 2015 that address contrastive analysis in multilingual settings. This will demonstrate awareness of current research trends.

3.3. Methodology (200words)

Your description of the corpus selection is clear. However, the justification for the chosen sample size is missing. Explain why 500 sentences per language pair provide a statistically reliable snapshot.

3.4. Results Phonology (250words)

The contrast between English vowel reduction and Mandarin tonal stability is well illustrated. Add a brief discussion of how this contrast affects pronunciation training for English speakers learning Mandarin.

3.5. Results Syntax (300words)

The SVO vs. SOV comparison is accurate, yet the analysis stops at surface order. Delve into how these orders interact with informationfocus strategies (topiccomment vs. subjectcomment).

3.6. Discussion & Pedagogical Implications (250words)

The link to classroom practice is promising. Strengthen it by proposing concrete activities, such as a reordering task that lets learners manipulate sentence fragments to experience the syntactic shift.

4. Action Plan for Revision

1. Read the three recommended sources and integrate their arguments into the literature review.
2. Rewrite each contrastive section to answer the why does it matter? question.
3. Redesign the tables following the suggestions in 2.3.
4. Proofread for sentence length and citation consistency.
5. Incorporate at least two learnerfocused activities in the discussion.

Allocate roughly one hour per bullet point; the entire revision can be completed within a week.

5. Additional Resources

• Lehmann, F. (1971). Contrastive Analysis.
• McCarthy, M., & OKeeffe, A. (2020). CorpusBased Contrastive Studies.
• APA 7th Edition Publication Manual.
• Linguistic Society of America Contrastive Analysis Overview.