Question 1: What is Contrastive Linguistics?

Is it the same as Comparative

Linguistics? How are they different?

Contrastive linguistics was first developed in the 1950s. It was based on the

ideas of linguistic structuralism and was initially aimed not at linguistic studies, but

at helping foreign language teachers. This aim was intended to make it easier to

understand learning a second language and how to teach it most effectively.

Contrastive linguistics led to large-scale linguistic projects across Europe in the

1970s before moving into academia.

The study of contrastive linguistics follows four basic procedures. The first is

to identify the two languages being studied. The second requires a full description

of the characteristics of each language. Third, the scholar looks for juxtaposition;

bonds between the two languages. In the fourth, the scholar compares the two

languages to see how they correspond with one another.

Both comparative and contrastive linguistics look at similar areas of a

language. This includes the vocabulary or words used by the language and how

those words are affected when they are pluralized or inflected. They also examine

how a language uses syntax to form sentences, grammar to organize words and

sentences, phonology and also how culture creates idioms.

However, they have some differences as following. Contrastive linguistics is

a practice-oriented linguistic approach that seeks to describe the differences and

similarities between a pair of languages (hence it is occasionally called

"differential linguistics"). Contrastive linguistics is part of applied linguistics and

seeks to establish the similarities and differences between a language learner's first

language and the target language (= the one being learned) in order to attempt to

predict where learners will have difficult and make mistakes. For example,

languages like Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin do not have articles ('the' and 'a').

We can predict, then, that speakers of these languages will have difficulty learning

articles when they learn English. Such is the case. Note, however, that contrastive

linguistics is not as straightforward in its ability to predict mistakes as the example

I've given. It is most powerful when predicting difficulties in pronunciation, but

many types of grammar errors in second language learning occur in areas that

contrastive linguistics cannot explain. For example, Spanish speakers have personal

endings on verbs (e.g. duerm-o 'I sleep' and duerm-a 'she sleeps'), but they

frequently omit the -s in English present tense forms like 'eats' or 'sleeps.'

Contrastive analysis would not predict this problem since the -s in English parallels

Spanish inflection.

Meanwhile, comparative linguistics is part of historical linguistics and

refers to the process of establishing family relationships and reconstructing proto-

languages (= ancestral languages). For example, if we compare English, Dutch, and

German, we can find a number of cognates, that is, words that are similar in

phonetic form and in meaning such as English 'book' Dutch 'boek' and German

'Buch.' If we compare the equivalent words in French 'livre' Spanish 'libro' and
Italian 'libro,' it's clear that English, Dutch, and German are similar to each other

and that French, Spanish, and Italian are similar to each other. This suggests that

English, Dutch and German belong to a language family distinct from that which

French, Spanish, and Italian belong to. The former is called proto-Germanic; the

latter is known to have been Latin. In another word, comparative linguistics

(originally comparative philology) is a branch of linguistics that is concerned with

comparing languages to establish their historical relatedness. To maintain a clear

distinction between attested and reconstructed forms, comparative linguists prefix

an asterisk to any form that is not found in surviving texts. A number of methods

for carrying out language classification have been developed, ranging from simple

inspection to computerised hypothesis testing. Such methods have gone through a

long process of development. Therefore, comparative linguistics is that branch of

one, which deals with the study of languages in terms of their history, relatedness,

families and construct new forms.

It can be seen that contrastive linguistics seeks to study and explain any

two languages. This includes listing the differences and similarities between them.

Contrastive linguistics has also been called differential linguistics and is a sub-

section of comparative linguistics that is separated by its studying of only two

languages at any one time. This area studies languages in order to discern how they

developed as they did and what other languages they are historically related to. For

example, comparative linguistic studies of Hungarian show its earliest links to

Chinese and Korean, then how it was influenced by Mongolian, Turkish and other

languages as the Magyars moved west across Siberia and eventually into Europe.

Such studies have also shown how and when Hungarian split from its closest

language partner, Finno-Estonian.

There are many subdivisions of comparative linguistics and, therefore, also

of contrastive linguistics as they use similar techniques. The discipline is

traditionally broken down into two main groups: general comparative linguistics

and specialized comparative linguistics. General comparative linguistics is broken

down into descriptive, typological and historical linguistics, while specialized

comparative linguistics is broken down into generic comparative, the theory of

linguistic contact and areal linguistics.

The theory of linguistic contact becomes more important during contrastive

linguistic studies. It looks at the relationship of two languages. Not all languages

studied in contrastive linguistics are related or have had contact with one another,

but it allows the linguist to look at possible changes one language has influenced in

another such as transfers and interference. This is known as the theory of

bilingualism and includes the creation of creoles and translation.

In contrastive analysis, there are the terms “to compare” and “to contrast”.

These two terms sometimes confused as all comparison process. However, they

quite differ and the most different point of both can be recognized as followed. “To

compare” is like a clarifying process whose objects are comparative. In this

process, we try to find out the similarities and differences of the two. In another

way, contrasting process seeks for the differences or unlikeness, the opposite

natures of the studied objects on comparison. In another words, to contrast means

to distinguish. As a matter of fact, the range of things to compare is much larger

than to contrast. We can compare lots of things, norms, people, objects, etc.

However, fewer situations are contrastable. In contrastive linguistics, we can

contrast two languages or even make a contrast in different components within a

language. Take the example of phonology with two phonemes \p\ and \b\ in

English. They are even contrastive in the two words “big” and “pig”.

Question 2: To the best of your knowledge and experiences, can you give

examples for illustration for the question mentioned above to show how you can

apply it/them in your teaching institution?

Contrastive analysis includes all fields of linguistics such as phonology,

semantics, syntax, morphology and pragmatics. It even seems that contrastive

studies should rather be regarded as an approach, not as a branch of general

linguistics. Most authors tend to distinguish between the so-called micro-

linguistic and macro-linguistic features, the former comprising mainly the

grammatical level and thus treating the sentence as the largest analysable unit, and

the latter studying language in situation and context with emphasis on the

communicative function. Throughout the history of contrastive studies great

attention was paid to grammar and lexicon, whereas, the cultural aspects were

largely neglected.

Because of its characteristics, contrastive linguistic is considered as a useful

learning tool for students or even for teachers who seek for better proficiency in

foreign language study. Knowledge and understanding of languages is increasingly

important, and this course focuses on how such knowledge can be applied. It helps

learners know more clearly and finding similarities and differences between them,

there by detecting errors, which bilingual learners often make, and how to fix. This

assignment is based on contrastive linguistics. It uses many methods, especially

contrastive method and surveys on grammatical aspect of these words. This study

uses one-way transfer. 

We find a lot of two languages’ differences which may be make errors

in structure and semantics. It is useful for bilingual learners to find mistakes which

they can meet. Contrastive linguistic gives a comparative method to translate a

learner’s thinking in an informed way and give structure to his/her intuitive

relationship to the language. This bilingual approach in cl saves the students’

infinite time and labor. It has been proven that students learn faster and more

effectively using it. Since it is our nature to compare, Contrastive Linguistics is the

technique that clarifies our understanding of the language.

For students, similarities between languages cause no difficulties, while

differences cause interference to learning. Through Contrastive Linguistics we can

target and resolve the typical difficulties and Common Mistakes of our students.

We can examine aspects that would not normally be noticed without such

comparison. Bi-lingual comparative courses overlap in fruitful collaboration with

other approaches. They clear away students’ deep-rooted mistakes and empower

teachers with the answers to many of their students' doubts.

Contrastive analysis in the classroom usually implies certain methods and strategies

that are notoriously »forbidden«, such as the use of the mother tongue and

translation. My view of this approach, and it seems appropriate to call it an

approach, is broader than this: contrastive analysis refers to all previous language

experience of the learner and is a natural process in every learning situation.

According to this view it is not only the native language of the learner that is a very

powerful factor in foreign language learning, but rather all languages and language

situations that the learner has ever encountered. Especially in trying to understand a

new grammatical or lexical element, the learner would scan all his previous

knowledge in order to find similarities (Skela, 1994). Try as we would, this »habit«

cannot be eliminated from the process of learning, so perhaps it is time to find ways

of using it to our and the learner’s advantage. In other words Marton (1981) pointed

that “ The question then suggests itself whether it isn’t better to use this habitual

transfer in some way rather than desperately trying to fight it and eradicate it, or

even to deny its existence. I think that using contrastive analysis in the classroom
would go a long way towards controlling this powerful tendency and making an

ally of what has long been considered our greatest enemy.”

If we now agree that contrastive analysis can and should be used in the

classroom, several questions come to mind: When do we choose to compare a

certain language item to the mother tongue or to another foreign language already

mastered by the students? Which segments of language lend themselves to

comparison or contrasting? Should we concentrate on the similarities or the

differences? Can this approach be used in all age groups and levels? What purpose

do we have in mind and what results can we expect from using contrastive

analysis?

Perhaps these questions should be dealt with one at a time. As for the general

decision about when to compare or contrast a certain language item, the only

possible answer is: whenever we feel it appropriate. Once again, the teacher should

rely on his/her own resourcefulness and follow the eclectic approach. If we take

Slovene learners of English, there are many grammatical structures and phrases that

are conspicuously different from Slovene, but does that mean that we should point

out all the differences we encounter on the way?

This brings us to the field of error analysis. In the seventies experts believed

to have found the ultimate key to predicting and explaining errors - contrastive

analysis. Still, years of experience have shown that negative transfer is by no means

the only source of errors and that the use of contrastive analysis in the classroom
failed to bring the expected results. So disappointing was this fact that experts

decided to ban contrastive studies from the classroom altogether, which accounts

for their neglected status in the past two decades. Perhaps the best strategy is to

»wait« for a certain error to occur, and then - if the reason was indeed negative

transfer - point out the difference and illustrate it with examples.

As for the question whether to concentrate on the similarities or differences

between two languages, there is no universal answer. If there is a similarity

between the mother tongue and the foreign language, we usually need not point it

out, because the students will intuitively sense it. What we do need to point out are

the cases where the apparent similarity is misleading, as is the case with false

friends: sympathetic vs. simpatièen, local vs. lokal, etc.

The question whether contrastive analysis could or should be used at all

levels and for all age groups remains under-researched. Since I wasn’t able to find

any clear guidelines regarding this decision, I can merely state some of my personal

observations from my teaching experience. It seems that both age and level of

language knowledge are very important factors for deciding whether to provide the

learners with some contrastive examples or not. With very young learners the

teacher often uses the mother tongue, provided that he or she speaks it and that it is

a monolingual classroom. Still, any contrasting of grammatical structures would be

out of place, because the learners have not yet reached the level of abstract

thinking. Some simple techniques of translation, and translation is considered to be

one of contrastive techniques, may however be used successfully also at this level,

but moderately.

As soon as the learners have reached the level of abstract thinking and are

able of conscious generalisation of grammatical rules, contrastive analysis may be

used to point out certain conspicuous differences or explain mistakes.

Generally speaking, contrasting grammatical features makes the most sense

with those learners who already have some experience with foreign language

learning and are thus already used to comparing languages and language items.

Most contrastive techniques are not appropriate for very young learners and

elementary stages. The rest is basically a matter of personal taste and experience -

if the teacher believes contrastive analysis to be useful, he or she will undoubtedly

find ways of using it. A detailed study of existing contrastive techniques

unfortunately cannot be included in this paper. Here I briefly mention some:

Contrasting grammatical or lexical items during the presentation, contrasting

idioms, proverbs, set phrases etc., translation and contrastive pragmatics.

In teaching and learning English as second language, contrastive analysis is

really helpful for both the teachers and the students, because we will know the

differences and similarities between source language (L1) and target language (L2).

Therefore, it is easy for us to learn and adjust to the target language. Therefore, we

do not incorporate the system of our source language to the target language,

because each language has distinct system. In applying contrastive analysis in the
classroom, the teacher can use linguistics aspects, they are: Phonology, Syntax

(phrase, sentence, tense, etc)

Take phonology as an example. Phonology is the study of sounds distribution in a

language and the interaction between those different sounds. The aim of contrastive

phonology is to contrast the phonetic sets of both languages and establish the

differences. These may lie in the pronunciation of a phoneme that occurs in both

languages.

Examples:

Vietnamese vowels English vowels

i Long                                      Short

i: – cream, seen            ɪ – bit, silly

e ʒ: – burn, firm             ɛ – bet,

o head

  ɑ: – hard, far               æ . cat, dad

  ɔ: – corn, faun            ɒ – dog,

rotten

U: – boob, glue          ʌ – cut, nut

ʊ – put, soot ə – about, clever

 In linguistics, syntax means the study of the rules that govern the ways in

which words combine to form phrases, clauses, and sentences. Syntax is one of the

major components of grammar. In contrasting the syntactic structures of two

languages as different as Vietnamese and English, the former being case-based and

the latter word-order-based, we inevitably encounter so many differences that an

analysis without our having a particular purpose in mind hardly seems reasonable.

The position of complements in an English sentence is fixed, but not so in

Vietnamese, since grammatical relations can be expressed through the use of

inflections, which accounts for many structural differences between the two

languages.

The comparison in phrases between the two languages as follow:

Vietnamese English
Ngôi nhà lớn Big house

Mẹ tôi My mother
 

In English phrases, adjectives precede nouns. Therefore, the law applied is

MD (modifier-determiner). In the phrase ‘big house’ house is determiner and big is

modifier, while Vietnamese is vice versa, the law applied is DM (determiner-

modifier). In the phrase “ngôi nhà lớn” the word ‘lớn’ modifies ‘ngôi nhà’. 

In general, contrastive analysis is a very broad field, which does not necessarily

include any specific language item, but rather focuses on the basic social and

cultural conventions that rule communication in a certain context or situation.

Some very important skills should be taught in the school also, which often have

nothing to do with language but with non-verbal means of communication. What is

the typical head movement indicating agreement or disagreement? Do we shake

hands when introduced to somebody? Which interjection do we use to express

disgust and what facial expression goes with it?

Of course a foreign language can be taught and learned without referring to

the mother tongue (or L2). But if some of these techniques can facilitate learning or

even make it more interesting, why not use them.

These are but a few aspects of contrastive analysis and its possible uses in

the classroom. The reason why I am in favour of occasional contrasting of

languages is not just the fact that it may help to predict, explain or prevent

mistakes, but rather that it provides a different and long-neglected insight into how

languages work and how we can understand and consequently remember their

features better. As Nation (1978) points out “It is worth mentioning two other

possible effects. Exclusion of the mother tongue is often seen by the learners as a

criticism of the mother tongue as a language, thus making it seem like ‘a second-

grade language’. The effects of this degrading of the mother tongue are not

beneficial to the mother tongue and to the people who use it. Secondly, learning a

foreign or second language provides an opportunity for learning about the nature of

language, how a language works, how different languages organise the world and
experience in different ways. Comparison between the mother tongue and the

foreign language is a good way of doing this.”

REFERENCES
1. Abdi, Nasril. Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Article. Language

Department.

2. Lado, Robert. (1968) Linguistic Across Culture: Applied Lingustic for

Language Teacher. An Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

3. Marton, W. (1981) Contrastive Analysis in the Classroom. J. Fisiak (ed.):

Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

4. Nation, I.S.P. (1978) Translation and the Teaching of Meaning: Some

Techniques. ELT Journal 32/1: 171-175.

5. Skela, J. (1994) Materin[èina v uèenju in pouèevanju tujega jezika: zmota,

potreba ali pravica? Uporabno jezikoslovje (Applied Linguistics), 3/1994,

Ljubljana.