CRITISISM TO CA

In its strongest form, the Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis claimed that all the errors made in learning
the L2 could be attributed to 'interference' by the L1.
However, this claim could not be sustained by empirical
evidence that was accumulated in the mid- and late
1970s.
 CRITISISM TO CA

Hughes (1980) attributes CA’s loss of popularity

to:
• the lack of success in predicting
difficulties

• the fact that CA has undervalued the

contribution of the learners & context of
learning.
 CRITISISM TO CA

• Wardhaugh (1970: 125) believes that the

strong version of CA was quite unrealistic and
impracticable.

• Lances (1969) reports that one-third to two-

third of his adult foreign students’ English’
errors were not traceable to the first
language.
 CRITISISM TO CA
• James (1985) also made some conclusions:

Interference from the L1 is not the sole source of error

in L2 learning.
The predictions of students’ error in L2 made by CA
are not reliable.
 CA is based on, and perpetuates, a naïve view of
language structure.
There are no clear criteria for comparability.
CA only analyses interference in one direction, from L1
to L2.
• Contrastive analysis fails to distinguish
between the written rules of formal language
and the unwritten rules of informal language.
It also fails to take into account differences
between dialects.

• It does not factor in the possibility of

individual differences.

• It also does not help students avoid

systematic mistakes. The only help for such
students is lists of common mistakes.
• It was soon pointed out that many errors predicted
by Contrastive Analysis were inexplicably not
observed in learners' language. Even more
confusingly, some uniform errors were made by
learners irrespective of their L1. It thus became clear
that Contrastive Analysis could not predict all
learning difficulties, but was certainly useful in the
retrospective explanation of errors.