Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis Versions
ENGL 440
 The Weak Version
• As a reaction to the criticism of the strong version of the CAH,
Wardhaugh offered the ‘weak version’.

• The weak version does not imply the prior prediction of certain fine
degrees of difficulty.

• It recognizes the significance of interference across languages, the fact

that such interference does exist and can explain difficulties, but it also
recognizes that linguistic difficulties can be more profitably
explained after they have been noticed. (Brown 1980: 157).
• Thus it has rather explanatory power, helping the teachers of
foreign languages understand their students’ sources of errors.

The starting point in the contrast is provided by actual evidence

from ... learning difficulties ... and reference is made to the two
systems only in order to explain actually observed interference
phenomenon.
(Wardhaugh, 1983)
Problems:
• A mismatch in L1 and L2 surface structure features will not
necessarily cause interference in learning (e.g. basic word order,
morphological structure) i.e. not all differences cause problems.

•  Some errors occur in L2 learners regardless of L1 background

(e.g. causative constructions: I make him to leave) i.e. not all
difficulties result from language differences.
• Empirical studies have shown that foreign language learners
made numerous mistakes that were not at all predicted by
contrastive studies. On the other hand, mistakes that were
predicted were hardly ever made by learners.

• This applies, in particular, to grammar, but also – to a lesser extent

– to phonetics and phonology.

• Furthermore, only about 50% of all mistakes are due to

interference, which shows that there is a variety of factors which
are responsible for learning difficulties.
 The Moderate Version
• In the 1970s, Oller and Ziahosseiny proposed a compromise between the
two versions of the CAH and called it a ‘moderate version’.

• Their theory was based on their research of spelling errors in learners of

English as L2 which showed that spelling errors were more common
among those learners who used a Roman script in their native language
(e.g. Spanish or French) than among those who used a non-Roman script
(e.g. Arabic or Chinese).

• However, the strong version of the CAH would predict the contrary, i.e.
more difficulties on the part of the learners who had to acquire a new
writing system (Brown 1980).
Other Studies
• Brown (1980: 159) concludes that interference is more
likely to occur when there is similarity between the items
to be learned and already known items than in the case of
learning items which are entirely new to the learner.

• He also points to the fact that most of the errors committed

by L2 learners are ‘intralingual’ errors’, i.e. errors which
result from L2 itself and not from L1.
Whitman and Jackson carried out a study in which predictions made
in four separate contrastive analyses by different linguists were used
to design a test of English grammar which was given to 2,500
Japanese learners of English as L2.

After comparing the results of the test to the predictions based on the
four contrastive analyses, Whitman and Jackson found out that they
differed a lot.

They came to the conclusion that “contrastive analysis, as

represented by the four analyses tested in this project, is inadequate,
theoretically and practically, to predict the interference problems of a
language learner” (Whitman and Jackson 1972 cited in Brown 1980:
158).
Besides the problem of inappropriate predictions, Towel and Hawkins
(1994: 18-19) state two other problems. One of them is that “not all
areas of similarity between an L1 and an L2 lead to immediate
positive transfer” (1994: 19).

Towel and Hawkins support this argument by the findings of Odlin’s

study in which L1 Spanish learners of L2 English omitted the copula
‘be’ at the early stages of learning regardless the fact that Spanish also
has a copula verb adequate to English ‘be’ and thus the positive
transfer was possible. However, it didn’t happen. The other problem,
they argue, is that only a small number of errors committed by L2
learners could be unambiguously attributed to transfer from L1.
Thus, the strong version of the CAH has been proved inadequate,
except for the phonological component of language, where it is
quite successful in predicting the interference between the L1
and L2 in pronunciation in the early stages of L2 acquisition.

The weak version is not satisfactory because it is only able to offer an

explanation for certain errors.

The only version which remains acceptable is the moderate version.

However, its findings as presented by Oller and Ziahosseiny are in
contradiction with Lado’s original idea.
Error Analysis

This doesn’t mean that the idea of L1 interference was completely

rejected, but the CAH is applicable in practice only as a part of
Error Analysis