Djiguimkoudre, N. (2020).

A historical development of contrastive analysis: A relevant

review in second and foreign language teaching. International Journal of

Education (IJE), 8(4), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.5121/ije.2020.8408

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (CA)

CA has been used in the field of SLA in the 1950’s, as stated above. It derived from the
work of Bloomfield (1933), started in the structuralism era. It was later reinforced by
Fries (1945) during which the main goal was to apply the ideas of structural linguistics
to language (Lennon 2008). Language as analyzed by structuralist linguists was viewed
as a rule- governed system believed to be separable hierarchically into sub-systems
whereby each has its own internal structure and pattern (Lennon 2008). Following
World War II, language learning and teaching becameInternational Journal of Education
(IJE) Vol.8, No.4, December 2020
83
prominent in the United States. With the advent of immigrations to the USA, children of
immigrants needed to be taught the foreign language, English. Hence, comparing
learners’ native and their foreign languages was believed to facilitate acquisition. For
instance, Fries, (1945, p.9) stressed that “the most efficient materials are those that are
based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared
with a parallel description of the native language of the learner.” Thus, teaching
language based on the contrastive analysis approach whereby learners’ first language
(L1) features is compared with their foreign language (FL) became indispensable for a
successful learning. Being said to have started in the works of Bloomfield
(1933) and later on Fries’s (1945), Contrastive analysis has been, for the first time,
thoroughly developed by Lado (1957). In Linguistics across Cultures, Lado (1957, p.2)
supports that a systematic comparison of learners’ languages and cultures is crucial for
effective language teaching as follows:
We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find
some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are
similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are
different will be difficult. The author adds that what is important in textbooks and
teaching materials remains “the comparison of native and foreign language and culture
in order to find the hurdles that really have to be surmounted in the teaching”, and
therefore, textbooks and teaching materials that do not respect the comparative approach
will be considered irrelevant (p. 3). In the same vein, prior to 1960s, contrastive analysis
became associated with behaviorist psychology which was another influence on
language teaching. Behaviorists argue that language learning is a habit formation. This
is supported by Lee and VanPatten, 2003 as they contend that learning a second
language is learning new habits to replace the habits of the first language in
these terms, “under this framework for learning and teaching, the first language (L1)
was seen to interfere with the acquisition of the second language,” that is the habits of
the L1 impinge upon those of the L2 (p. 9). This is also supported by behaviorist and
structuralist as stated in Brown (1980, p.148) : “The principal barrier to second
language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second
language system …” and “… that second language learning
basically involved the overcoming of the differences between the two linguistic systems
– the
native and target languages”. Therefore, ccontrastive analysis became prominent in the
USA in the 1950s and 1960s and its primary purpose was pedagogical. Hence, some
methods are developed to explain why some features of a target language were more
difficult to acquire than others.Contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) consists of three
versions including, the strong version, the weak version, and the moderate version. The
strong and weak versions of contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) have been depicted
in the works of Wardhaugh (1970), Brown (1987), and Gass and Selinker (2008).
For Wardhaugh the strong version of CAH is the version that claims to predict the
difficulties of second language (L2) learning based on contrastive analysis. He
continues that the weak version of CAH consists in using “the best linguistic knowledge
available [in both learners L1 and L2] … in order to account for observed difficulties in
second language learning” Wardhaugh, (1992, p.136). Here, the emphasis is no longer
on the predictive approach of difficulties faced by L2 learners. Rather, the focus is
shifted to the explanation of observable errors.
Gass and Selinker (2008, p.8), in the same logic support that the strong version is an a
priori version as compared to the weak version which is an a posteriori version as they
state: “the aInternational Journal of Education (IJE) Vol.8, No.4, December 2020
84
priori versus the a posteriori view, the strong versus the weak view, and the predictive
versus the explanatory view.” The claim of the strong view of CAH is that by
comparing two or more languages a “prediction about learning and hence about the
success of language- teaching material” can be by made. The weak view, on the other
hand, “starts with an analysis of learners’ recurrent errors” as it begins “with what
learners do and then attempts to account for those errors on the basis of NL- (native
language) TL (target language differences)” (Gass and Selinker, 2008,p. 97). The
moderate version proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970, p.186) stipulates that
“wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems,
confusion may result”. This obviously means that learners may have difficulties to
move from one linguistic system to another if the two systems diverge in some ways.

file:///Users/felixdelacruz/Desktop/Gass_Second_Language_Acquisition.pdf

4.3 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

What are the tenets of contrastive analysis? Contrastive analysis is a way of comparing
languages in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating
what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second-language-
learning situation. As Lado detailed, one does a structure-by-structure comparison of the
sound system, morphological system, syntactic system, and even the cul- tural system of
two languages for the purpose of discovering similarities and differences. The ultimate
goal is to predict areas that will be either easy or difficult for learners.

Since even languages as closely related as German and English differ significantly in
the form, meaning, and distribution of their grammatical structures, and since the
learner tends to transfer the habits of his native language structure to the foreign
language, we have here the major source of difficulty or ease in learning the structure of
a foreign language. Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they
will be transferred and may function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those
structures that are different will be difficult because when transferred they will not
function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to be changed.

(Lado, 1957, p. 59)

The pedagogical materials that resulted from contrastive analyses were based on a
number of assumptions, some of which have been discussed in detail earlier in this
chapter:

1. 1 Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that language

is habit and that language learning involves the establish- ment of a new set of
habits.
2. 2 The major source of error in the production and/or reception of a second
language is the native language.

96

THE ROLE OF THE NATIVE LANGUAGE

3. 3 One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and the
L2.
4. 4 A corollary to item 3 is that the greater the differences, the more errors will
occur.
5. 5 What one has to do in learning a second language is learn the dif- ferences.
Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other words,
what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.
6. 6 Difficulty and ease in learning is determined respectively by differ- ences and
similarities between the two languages in contrast.

There were two positions that developed with regard to the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) framework. These were variously known as the a priori
versus the a posteriori view, the strong versus weak view and the predictive versus
explanatory view. In the strong view, it was maintained that one could make predictions
about learning and hence about the success of language-teaching materials based on a
comparison between two languages. The weak version starts with an analysis of
learners’ recurring errors. In other words, it begins with what learners do and then
attempts to account for those errors on the basis of NL–TL differences. The weak
version, which came to be part of error analysis, gained credence largely due to the
failure of predictive contrastive analysis. The important contribution of the former
approach to learner data (i.e., error analysis) was the emphasis it placed on learners
themselves, the forms they produced, and the strategies they used to arrive at their IL
forms.

Two final points need to be made with regard to the significance of contrastive analysis
and to Lado’s pioneering work. First, it is an over- simplification to think that
comparing two languages is a straightforward comparison of structures. Lado in his
detailed treatment elaborated on ways in which languages might differ. After a
discussion of ways in which different languages expressed similar meanings, Lado
(1957, pp. 63–64) stated:
In the above cases we assumed that the meanings signaled in the two languages were in
some way equivalent even if not identical. We went so far as to call them “same.” The
difficulty in such cases depended on differences in the formal devices used in the two
languages to signal the “same” meanings. We now turn to cases in which a grammatical
meaning in one of the languages cannot be considered the same as any grammatical
meaning in the other language.

A second point concerning the significance of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis has
to do with the importance of empirical validation and the limitations that Lado himself
attributed to his work. As we discussed earlier, part of the criticism leveled against
contrastive analysis was empirical: not all actually occurring errors were predicted; not
all pre- dicted errors occurred. The lack of empirical basis was, in fact, noted by Lado
(1957, p. 72):

Necessity of Validating the Results of the Theoretical Comparative Analysis

The list of problems resulting from the comparison of the for- eign language with the
native language will be a most significant list for teaching, testing, research, and
understanding. Yet it must be considered a list of hypothetical problems until final
validation is achieved by checking it against the actual speech of students. This final
check will show in some instances that a problem was not adequately analyzed and may
be more of a problem than predicted. In this kind of validation we must keep in mind of
course that not all the speakers of a language will have exactly the same amount of
difficulty with each problem. . . . The problem will nevertheless prove quite stable and
predictable for each language background.

Historically, Lado’s hypothesis inspired a generation of second language researchers to

conduct linguistic field work, that is, to check hypothetical contrastive analysis
statements against the actual speech of language learners. This much-cited passage
presages the current acceptance of the centrality of individual variation, as will be
discussed in chapter 12. One way of fulfilling Lado’s injunction to check hypothetical
problems

101

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

against actual learner production was to refocus on learner errors from which developed
an approach called error analysis.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS AND LEARNER LANGUAGE

In an interview in Newsweek (4 April, 1977, p. 59) Ingmar Bergman, the famous

Swedish
film director, was reported as saying: ‘I still have a tremendous amount of lust to make
movies.’ As Scandinavians, we know that what he wanted to say was ‘har lust att göra
film’ /
‘har lyst til å lage film’.
When we use a foreign language, we may make mistakes because of influence from
our mother tongue – mistakes in pronunciation, grammar, and other levels of language –
often
referred to as interference. This is why books in grammar and phonetics for foreign
students
with a particular mother tongue usually focus a lot on differences between the mother
tongue
– or L1 – and the target language – or L2.
Being aware of these differences is essential in order to learn the correct and idiomatic
use of the foreign language. Without such awareness, we tend to see and hear things in
familiar ways, according to the categories which we are familiar with from our native
language. And that is not surprising. This is the way we tend to see, hear, and interpret
things
in general.
Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic comparison of two or more languages,
with the aim of describing their similarities and differences. CA has often been done for
practical/pedagogical purposes. The aim has been to provide better descriptions and
better
teaching materials for language learners. There is more to CA than this, however. When
we
compare, we often see things more clearly. Some years ago Per Egil Hegge wrote in
Aftenposten (17 March, 1999):
Men antagelig er det slik at man ved å se på språkforskjeller, får et skarpere blikk for
nyanser. Og et skarpere blikk for nyanser gir en bedre språkfølelse og bedre
herredømme over språkets virkemidler […].
Per Egil Hegge was referring to the debate on the value of nynorsk as sidemål in the
Norwegian school. To transfer this to our context: when we compare across languages,
we
can see the characteristics of each language more clearly, and the comparison can
contribute
to a better description of each individual language. This type of CA has sometimes been
called analytic comparison or linguistic characterology (Mathesius 1975). Another
linguist
in the same tradition has put it in this way:
The contrastive method proves to be a useful heuristic tool capable of throwing
valuable light on the characteristic features of the languages contrasted; […]. (Firbas
1992: 13)
To take an example: what does the Norwegian adverb sikkert mean? I.e. how certain do
you
have to be to say sikkert? This becomes clearer if we look at it from the point of view of
another language. As we shall see later (see 2.7), sikkert is often rendered by probably
in
English (as well as certainly, surely, etc.).
The importance of CA extends beyond individual languages. When we compare across
a number of languages, we can also see more clearly what is characteristic of languages
more
generally. There is a lot of interest in universals of language – that is, what is
characteristic of
language in general. To study this, there is a need for language comparison. To continue
with
the example above, we find similar tendencies in the use of expressions of certainty in
different languages (2.7).
Lennon, P. (2010). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage.

https://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/CA-ErrorAnalysis-Interlang-

Lennon.pdf

1. Contrastive analysis, structuralist linguistics and behaviorist psychology

The main idea of contrastive analysis, as propounded by Robert Lado in his book
Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), was that it is possible to identify the areas of
difficulty a particular foreign language will present for native speakers of another
language by systematically comparing the two languages and cultures. Where the two
languages and cultures are similar, learning difficulties will not be expected, where they
are different, then learning difficulties are to be expected, and the greater the difference,
the greater the degree of expected difficulty. On the basis of such analysis, it was
believed, teaching materials could be tailored to the needs of learners of a specific first
language. Lado himself was an English and Spanish bilingual, who was born in
America of Spanish parents, grew up in Spain and then went to college in the USA. He
was all too aware of the importance of cultural difference in mastering a foreign
language. However, his appeal to compare cultures was not taken up, and in practice
contrastive analysis focussed on a surface comparison of languages, starting with the
sounds, then the grammar and finally - and only selectively - the vocabulary.

This emphasis reflected the focus of American linguistics at the time, which was still
very much under the influence of structuralism as espoused by the great American
structuralist Bloomfield in Language (1933). Structural linguistics viewed language as a
rule-governed system which could be separated into hierarchically arranged sub-
systems, each of which had its own internal patterns and structure. The lowest level in
the hierarchy was phonology, then morphology, then syntax. The lexicon received scant
attention from structuralists and the discourse level of language was quite ignored. In
fact, structural linguistics coped best with closed or finite linguistic systems, and, for
this reason, deliberately excluded semantics from its description. Bloomfield’s (1933:
140) conclusion that “the statement of meanings is therefore the weak point in language
study, and will remain so until human knowledge advances very far beyond its present
state” is often quoted.

In the period immediately after World War II there was renewed interest in language
learning and language teaching in the United States, and efforts were made at the
University of Michigan to apply the ideas of structural linguistics to language teaching,
perhaps most influentially by Charles Fries (1945). The approach to language teaching
advocated by the Michigan School laid great emphasis on the principled selection and
grading of linguistic items for instruction. It was essentially an analytic, atomistic
approach, which took a language apart in order to then put the parts back together again
in their logical order during the teaching process, and in this sense it claimed to be
scientific. Lado himself actually studied at the University of Michigan with Fries, and
contrastive analysis became the basis for the strict selection and grading of material for
teaching which was characteristic of language courses at the time. Fries advocated a
bottom-up approach to language learning from phonology to morphology to syntax with
vocabulary being held to a minimum:

[...] the chief problem is not at first that of learning vocabulary items. It is, first, the
mastery of the sound system[...]second, the mastery of the features of arrangement that
constitute the structure of the language. (Fries 1945: 3)

This structuralist emphasis of the Michigan School found its expression in audio-lingual
language teaching, which sought to drill structural patterns, proceeding from the simple
to the complex, while filling the slots in the patterns with a limited number of lexical
items and insisting on correct pronunciation (e.g. I brush my teeth with a tooth-brush, I
brush my shoes with a shoe-brush, I brush my hair with a hair-brush).

Contrastive analysis became associated with behaviorist psychology, which was another
separate influence on language teaching, particularly on audiolingual language teaching,
and especially in the United States. Behaviorism was a general theory of learning. It
viewed learning as habit formation brought about by repeated patterns of stimulus,
response and reinforcement. For language teaching this fitted in nicely with the
pedagogue’s piece of folk wisdom that “practice makes perfect”. In other words,
learners should be provided with a linguistic stimulus (for example a question to
answer, a sentence to put into the negative form, a word to put into the plural form) and
be told whether their answer was right (positive

1 From S. Gramley and V. Gramley (eds) (2008) Bielefeld Introduction to Applied

Linguistics. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, pp. 51-60.

reinforcement) or wrong (negative reinforcement). They should be encouraged to repeat

correct forms, and, by careful selection and grading of material, possible mistakes
should be minimised by the course designer. If mistakes did occur, they were to be
immediately corrected by the teacher so that bad habits were not formed. Particular
emphasis was placed on the idea that error was to be avoided at all costs, and the idea
that one can learn from one’s mistakes found no place in language teaching theory and
practice at this time.
Contrastive Linguistics. (n.d.). Uoc.edu. Retrieved February 12, 2024, from

https://cv.uoc.edu/annotation/f7cc99c3579514100285795cb537fbe8/67

5434/PID_00249318/PID_00249318.html

Contrastive Linguistics (CL) is a discipline of Applied Linguistics that first

emerged in the United States in the mid-50s, under the influence of
structuralism, and as a result of a renovated interest in the teaching of foreign
languages. Initially, it sought to contrast pairs of languages in order to
determine similarities and differences between them. The hypothesis
postulated within this framework was that the systematic analysis of two
languages should help predict the difficulties that learners of a foreign
language (FL) will encounter when acquiring it.
The base of CL is grounded on the idea, suggested by Robert Lado (1957),
that it is possible to identify areas of difficulty for the learners of a foreign
language by contrasting their mother tongue (L1) with the language they are
learning (L2). The analysis proposed by this author in his influential work
(Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers)
always involved the analysis of at least two languages, that is, a target
language (TL) and a source language (SL), even though more languages could
be contrasted if required. Difficulties are expected to appear in those areas in
which the two languages differ. For that reason, special attention must be paid
to difficulties; similarities, on the other hand, are expected to facilitate the
learning process.

Lado’s work is important because in it he suggested the techniques for

contrasting languages. For example, he proposed to search for features of the
L1 that do not exist in the L2 at the phonological or morphological levels, in
order to create teaching materials that would make students aware of them. At
the lexical level, he proposed to study the problems between pairs of words in
both languages, taking into account the similarities and the differences in both
form and meaning.

The concept known as Tertium Comparitionis is core to Contrastive

Linguistics. Making a comparison between two linguistic properties or
features, regardless of the language level you are contrasting, presupposes the
existence of a common feature that becomes the basis for the comparison.
This common feature is called Tertium Comparitionis.

CL faced a decline for several reasons (for a more profound account see
Antenberg & Granger 2002). Nevertheless, in the last decades there has been a
resurgence of CL as an area of interest in linguistic research. According to
Artenberg and Granger (2002: 3), there are several interrelated factors that can
explain this revival. On the one hand, the integration of European countries in
a ‘multilingual and cross-cultural’ space has created a real need for comparing
and contrasting languages and cultures. Intercultural communication has
become the focus of intensive research.
On the other hand, from a methodological point of view, there has been a shift
in the way languages are currently studied. The most important one is the
emergence, in the 1980s, of the empiricist approach to linguistic analysis (i.e.
Corpus Linguistics), which implied a revolution in the way data is approached
and collected.
concept of extended units of meaning, beyond the word level. You will learn