Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Vs.

Error Analysis
Erëza Mehmeti
University for Business and Technology
ereza.mehmeti@ubt-uni.net

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays the knowledge of more than one language is relevant to the modern society as it is one of the
most useful ways through which people can interact worldwide for a variety of purposes and get involved
in international labor market. Due to this importance, the present generation is interested in learning new
languages and as a result many schools involve language teaching programs or courses in their curriculum.
Yet, the nature of teaching languages differs.

According to Moeller and Catalano (2015), teaching a language is highly impacted by the context i.e., the
teaching environment, where the teaching of a language occurs. Accordingly, a contrast is made between
Foreign Language (FL) and Second Language (SL) teaching. In an FL teaching environment, students learn
a non-native language in a classroom setting and the language they are learning – also known as target
language (TL) – is not spoken in the society where the teaching takes place. On the other hand, a Second
Language infers that the learner is in contact with the target language even outside the classroom because
the language is spoken in the environment where he/she lives. Despite this, the process of teaching and
learning languages also differs. In view of the process of learning a language, Krashen’s theory of language
learning and acquisition is the most significant one. Tricomi (1986) supports this theory by stating that
language learning is the study of form and rules of a language whereas language acquisition is the
development of language knowledge due to the meaningful interaction and the exposure to the language
thus focusing on the messages being conveyed rather than on grammatical rules. Considering the above-
mentioned standings, the present paper will focus on Second Language Acquisition thus, presenting two
of the most prevalent hypotheses i.e., Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Error Analysis, which offered
strong claims in the area of second language acquisition.

During the course of acquiring a language, many students might make errors i.e., mistakes that occur
repeatedly without the learner being aware of it (Botley, 2015), when using different aspects of the target
language such as the phonology, syntax and morphology. According to Odlin (1989), these errors appear
as a result of cross-linguistic impact, also known as linguistic interference, which is seen as the automatic

1
transfer of first language (L1) structures onto second language (L2) structures (Dulay et al., 1982, Carroll
1964). Therefore, it is common for learners to learn a second language by means of the forms that he/she
already knows in the first language. Due to the idea that L1 can impact the acquisition of L2, the hypothesis
that the comparison of a native language with a target language would determine the interfering effects
of L1 on L2 thus, providing the basis for the origin of learners’ errors has emerged. In literature this is
known as Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. However, others (Hughes, 1980; Wardhaugh, 1970) have
claimed that difficulties in acquiring a language are a result of factors other than L1 interference and the
explanation for learner’s errors was based on the errors occurring in the TG in comparison with TG itself.
This approach was referred to as Error Analysis and it was acknowledged as an alternative to Contrastive
Analysis Hypothesis.

Despite being two different approaches, both of them are significant as they enable linguists and language
teachers to predict and describe the patterns that might cause language learning difficulties but at the
same time the observation of errors might reflect important linguistic rules. Thus, to describe the role of
Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis, this paper will focus on exploring each theory individually by
examining their origin, providing examples, and discussing their characteristics and role in SLA.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS

Initially, Contrastive Analysis (CA) is one of the theories which has been established centuries ago and
many studies have been undertaken to prove its importance which consequently, have shaped
researchers’ ideas towards this theory. CA has flourished in the 1960s with its main foundation being
structuralism and behaviorism. Structuralists have claimed that language is a static ‘system of signs’ i.e.,
units and rules, which are shared by particular societies and these signs can be compared amongst
languages (Culler, 1986). On the other hand, Oller and Ziahosseiyn (1970) have disused how behaviorists
have viewed learning as a process of ‘habit formation’ i.e. people imitate the sounds and structures that
they are exposed to thus, reinforcing their learning. Based on these theories, Lado (1957) expounded the
idea of language learning and CA by claiming that people tend to transfer the language habits and rules
of their L1 to their L2 and this process was referred to as ‘transfer’. This notion of ‘transfer,’ which can be
either positive or negative transfer, has enabled the development of CA which has in focus the
examination of L1 and L2, the depiction of forms used in both languages, the contrast of the chosen forms
and the prediction of the patterns that might cause difficulties, or not, when learning a language (Dost
and Bohloulzadeh, 2017).

2
To illustrate, various studies using CA hypothesis show how L1 can hinder or facilitate the acquisition of a
second language. In terms of phonology, Markey (1998) has contrasted French and English sounds and
has noticed that once a target language contains new sounds ([ɵ] and [ð] in English) that the L1 lacks,
difficulties in learning pronunciation arouse. The difficulties at SLA due to the lack of linguistic elements
in L1 have also been examined by Hamdallah and Tushyeh (1993) who stated that because of the non-
existence of Arabic prepositions similar to English ones, such as at, by, of, Arabic learners face difficulties
in using L2 prepositions and they rather use the L1 ones instead or omit them completely. These instances
would be considered as ‘negative transfers’ because they exemplify how prior knowledge interferes with
subsequent L2 learning.

However, L1 interference in SLA is not always the case. In a Contrastive Analysis between Chinese and
English, Hao and Chi (2013) have concluded that the knowledge of Chinese promotes 5 the learning of
English. For example, symbols used in the Chinese phonetic system in comparison to English phonetic
system share a lot of similarities due to the existence of alike sounds such as [w], [ei], [ai], [l], [m], [n], [f].
Likewise, Markey (1998) pointed out that French and English, despite being different, can also share
similarities. For instance, French speakers can pronounce English words such as ‘sheep,’ ‘ship,’ and
‘leisure’ due to the same palate-alveolar fricative sounds [ʃ] and [ʒ] in both languages. This enables
learners to learn pronunciation easier, ‘positive transfer,’ as learners are already familiar with those
sounds, and can progress towards an English native-like pronunciation.

In general, the use of CA has been supported by many linguists (Lehn and Slager, 1959; Klein, 1986; Rivers
and Temperley, 1978) who assumed that CA can serve as a tool to detect and analyze learners’ problems
through comparing the process of transferring language from L1 to L2 which could provide suggestions
on the design of language teaching materials and teaching methodologies. Yet, other scholars (Hughes,
1980; Wardhaugh, 1970) questioned the importance of CA by reporting that there are other factors which
impact the process of a language acquisition.

ERROR ANALYSIS

Due to disagreements between scholars about the CA approach, a counter theory gradually developed
which is known as Error Analysis (hereby EA). In the past, when teachers were mainly focused on teaching
the rules and the forms of a second language, they believed that the progress of language learning was
directed by the teaching methodologies that teachers would use to teach accurate structures of L2. The
idea that errors are expected to occur due to L1 interference, and teachers should deal with them

3
immediately, in order to create habits, led towards the perception that there is no need to trace back
other sources of the error occurrence. However, the rise of EA as an approach shed light on the idea that
errors themselves are representatives of how much of the target language one has acquired. Referring to
Chomsky’s theory of the ‘innate’ capability of language acquisition, which claims that everyone has a
talent to acquire a language, Richards and Schmidt (2010) supported EA by defining it as the study of
errors, which are made by learners trying to learn/acquire a second language, in an attempt to outline
their nature, cause, and consequence.

When it comes to making errors, James (2013) has distinguished between various levels of error
occurrence namely, lexical errors, grammar errors, and discourse errors which can occur rather because
of interlingual or intralingual factors. Gurtubay (2009) for seven months has observed many lexical errors
made by Spanish students who were learning English as a Second Language. The results showed that
errors could occur as a result of L1 interference e.g. “The return path” instead of “The way back” or saying,
“On winter” instead of “In winter”, and other erroneous understandings due to L1 and L2 discrepancies.
On the other hand, Chinese students proved to make many grammatical errors when using the definite
or indefinite articles which were not related to L1 interference. For example, a Chinese student would say
“I decided to climb the tree to see where we were” instead of “I decided to climb a tree to see where we
were” (Liu, 2015). According to this study, errors have been committed as a sign of intralingual
interference, which are errors caused by the difficulty of the target language itself or its understanding.
According to Touchie (1986) students who make errors due to intralingual factors tend to: a)
overgeneralize rules e.g. the use of past tense even with irregular verbs “goed” instead of “went”, b)
simplify expressions e.g. the use of past tense instead of present perfect “I was in London” instead of “I
have been in London”, c) use hypercorrection - students try to ‘correct’ even the correct forms due to the
fear of making mistakes- e.g. Arab students often pronounce /p/ instead of /b/, d) avoid specific structures
e.g. Japanese avoid using relative clauses. All these types of errors, whether interlingual or intralingual,
are involved within the frame of EA and that is why EA has become noteworthy because, through it,
teachers may realize whether their teaching objective have been met, researchers can collect evidence
on how languages are acquired, whereas students can test their beliefs regarding the nature of a TL
(Corder, 1981).

However, even though EA has had a great development, it has been advocated (Richards, 1969; James,
2013; Croswaithe, 2013) but at the same time criticized. According to Schachter (1974) EA has proven to
be very successful yet, that does not mean that it can be used as the only source of analysis. According to

4
him, when a learner finds a structure difficult to comprehend, he/she will most likely not produce it at all.
That is why, despite analyzing language errors that occur one should also take into consideration non-
errors which would provide a better frame of language acquisition processes.

CONCLUSION

Overall, despite being supported and criticized at the same time, both CA and EA have been the most
influential theories when it comes to Second Language Acquisition. Based on previous research but also
personal experience the native language of an individual plays a significant part in the process of Second
Language Acquisition due to the interference that L1 could have on L2. Accordingly, in the view that L1
might have both, a negative role but also a positive one, in terms of transfer, it would be of high
importance if CA research would continue to be conducted in order to contrast the syntax, lexicology,
morphology, and the pragmatic aspects of languages. This would enable the examination of further
language structures which would aid the process of composing appropriate language teaching materials.
However, it is of high importance for teachers to be cautious of not creating stereotypes and judging
students and the language errors they might make based on the native language that they have because
it is not always the L1 that interferes. There are always other intralanguage or developmental influences,
but also non-language factors such as age difference, aptitude, learning strategies and one’s motivation
(Gass, 2013) which might shape the way one acquires a language and the types of errors one might make.
Only when taking into consideration L1 interference, errors that students make but even the correct forms
one utters the teacher will be able to give corrective feedback effectively thus knowing when to correct
and the amount of correction that he/she should give to the student as to help the learner acquire the
language and prevent fossilization.

5
REFERENCES

Botley, S. (2015) Errors Versus Mistakes: A False Dichotomy? Malaysian Journal of ELT Research [online],
11(1), p. 82. Available from:
https://search.proquest.com/openview/41d84b7709d300ec5a70c38b3ed5fbdb/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=
1306356 [Accessed 23 May 2020].

Carroll, J.B. (1964) Language and thought. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Corder, S.P. and Corder, S.P. (1981)
Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Crosthwaite, P. (2013) An error analysis of L2 English discourse reference through learner corpora analysis.
Linguistic Research [online], 30(2), p. 163-193. Available from: https://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/205824
[Accessed 22 May 2020].

Culler, J.D. (1986) Ferdinand de Saussure. Cornell University Press.

Dost, I. and Bohloulzadeh, G. (2017) A review of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis with a phonological and
syntactical view: a cross-linguistic study. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics[online], 10, p.
32-41. Available from: http://ubplj.org/index.php/bjll/article/view/1482 [Accessed 24 May 2020].

Dulay, H. (1982) Language two. Oxford University Press, Madison Ave, New York.

Gass, S., et al. (2013) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. 4th edition. New York,
Routledge.

Gurtubay, I. (2009) Cognitive evoked potentials. Perspectives for mismatch negativity. In Anales del sistema
sanitario de Navarra [online], 32(1), p. 61-68. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/20094086
[Accessed 25 May 2020].

Hamdallah, R. and Tushyeh, H. (1993) A contrastive analysis of selected English and Arabic prepositions with
pedagogical implications. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics[online], 28(2), p. 181-190. Available
from: http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/28/11Hamdallah&Tusyehh.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2020].

Hao, Y. and Chi, R. (2013) The positive role of L1 in the acquisition of a second language. Studies in Literature
and Language[online], 7(2), p. 45. Available from:
ttp://cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/viewFile/j.sll.1923156320130702.H862/5199 [Accessed 22 May
2020].

Hughes, A. (1980) Problems in Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Jakobovits. L. A. James, C. (2013)
Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.

Klein, W. (1991) SLA theory: Prolegomena to a theory of language acquisition and implications for theoretical
linguistics. Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories[online], p. 169-194. Available
from: https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9789027 224637
[Accessed 23 May 2020].

Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Michigan.

6
Lehn, W. and Slager, W. (1959) A contrastive study of Egyptian Arabic and American English: The segmental
phonemes. Language Learning[online], 9(1-2), p. 25-33. Available from: 9
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1959.tb01126.x [Accessed 25 May 2020].

Liu, Z. (2015) Error Analysis in article. International Symposium on Social Science.

Markey, A. (1999) A Contrastive Analysis of French and American English. MA Thesis.

Moeller, A. and Catalano, T. (2015) Foreign language teaching and learning. Faculty Publications: Department
of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education[online], p. 196. Available from:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com
/&httpsredir=1&article=1195&context=teachlearnfacpub [Accessed 22 May 2020].

Odlin, T. (1989) Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University
Press.

Oller, J. and Ziahosseiny, S. (1970) He contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language
learning[online], 20(2), p. 183-189. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1970.tb00475.x
[Accessed 25 May 2020].

Richards, J.C. (2015) Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. Routledge.

Rivers, W.M. and Temperley, M.S. (1978) A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English as a Second or Foreign
Language. Oxford University Press. New York.

Schachter, J. (1974) An error in error analysis. Language Learning[online], 24(2), p. 205- 2014. Available from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1974.tb00502.x [Accessed 24 May 2020].

Touchie, H. (1986) Second language learning errors: Their types, causes, and treatment. JALT journal[online],
8(1), p. 75-80. Available from: http://jaltpublications.org/jj/articles/1571-second-language-learning-errors-
their-types-causesand-treatment [Accessed 24 May 2020].

Tricomi, E. (1986) Krashen’s second-language acquisition theory and the teaching of edited American English.
Journal of Basic Writing[online], 5(2), p. 59-69. Available from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3ae/a4e305c434bfe57d27f9182f16bf73b2bf6b.pdf [Accessed 23 May
2020].

Wardhaugh, R. (1970) The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL quarterly. p.123-130.