Contrastive Analysis& Errors Analysis

1. Contrastive Analysis
&
Errors Analysis
By :
Zahra Aamir Kamil

2. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the
most effective materials for teaching foreign
languages would be those based on contrastive
studies
this discipline was recognized as an important and
integrated part of foreign language teaching for
quite a long time.
In fact, Contrastive Analysis was considered the
ultimate solution to all language teaching
problems.

3. Consequently, a series of contrastive studies
were conducted both in America and Europe.
These studies were essentially pedagogical
and aimed at predicting and solving learners'
errors and difficulties.
In view of the controversies surrounding the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.

4. Historical Perspective
The history of Comparative Linguistics (originally
known as Comparative Philology) goes back to
the 18th century when scholars began to
compare different languages in a systematic and
detailed manner in order to find out whether
there were correspondences between them.

5. The objective of such comparative studies was
to find evidence for the existence of a common
origin for a group of languages. This common
origin was called the proto-language' or
common ancestor of cognate2 or related
languages.

6. For instance, some linguists have compared
features of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Old
Persian in order to reconstruct the Proto-
Indo-European language.
These activities within the domain of
Comparative Historical Linguistic.5 have
aimed at determining what a proto-language
must have been like before any written
records.

7. Linguists have also been comparing languages as they are
used today in order.
For example:
to classify them into certain groups on the basis of
similarities that exist between them.
In other words, some linguists study the structural
similarities between languages.

8. regardless of their history, as part of an
attempt to establish a satisfactory
classification or typology of languages.
This type of activity has been referred to as
Comparative Typological Linguistics.

9. Contrastive analysis (CA)
is the systematic study of a pair of languages in
order to identify their structural differences
and similarities, usually for translation and
teaching purposes. Modern contrastive
linguistics intends to show in what ways the
two respective languages differ, in order to
come up with some solutions to tackle practical
problems.

10. CA has also been used as a tool in translation
theory to investigate problems of equivalence
(having the same meaning in two languages).
Unlike the aforementioned types of
comparative studies, CA deals solely with
present-day languages.

11. Contrastive linguistic studies can also be
applied to the description of one or more
varieties within a language, such as dialects,
registers, and styles.

12. Dialect: A variety of a language spoken in one
part of a country, or by people belonging to a
particular social group.
Register Words, style, and grammar used by a
particular group of people, usually sharing the
same occupation or interest.

13. Style: Variation in a person's speech or
writing according to the formality of the
situation.
Rhetoric: Style or language that is used to
influence people.

14. There are two main types of contrastive studies:
theoretical and applied.
Theoretical contrastive studies, as Fisiak ( 1985, p.
2) puts it, "give an exhaustive account of the
differences and similarities between two or more
languages, provide an adequate model for their
comparison, and determine how and which
elements are comparable

15. Theoretical contrastive
studies are language-independent.
They do not investigate how a given category present in
language A is presented in language B. Instead, they look for
the realization of a universal category X in both A and B. Thus,
theoretical contrastive linguistics does not have a direction
from A to B or vice-versa, but rather as illustrated in Figure I
below, the direction is from X to A and B.

16. A major task of applied contrastive studies is
explaining why some features of the target
language are more difficult to acquire than
others.
It is this kind of contrastive study, i.e.
pedagogical contrastive analysis,

17. Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological
Basis
Throughout the fifties and until the late sixties,
pedagogical contrastive analysis was used extensively
in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a
method of explaining why some features of the
target language are more difficult to acquire than
others

18. CA involved describing comparable features across the
two languages, identifying the differences, and, then,
predicting what errors learners would make.
It served two major purposes:
first it provided an explanation for why learners make
errors, and second it served as a source of information for
identifying which structural areas of the TL teachers
needed to teach
(i.e., those where the negative transfer was likely)

19. The proponents of Contrastive Analysis
maintained that once the areas of
potential difficulty had been mapped out
through CA, it would be possible to
design language courses more efficiently.

20. Contrastive Analysis, along with Behaviorist
Psychology and Structural Linguistics had a
profound effect on SLA curriculum design and
language teacher education and provided the
theoretical foundation of the Audio-Lingual
Method.

21. The Behaviorists, inspired by the ideas of Skinner ( 1957),
viewed first language acquisition essentially as the
formation of new habits acquired through repetition and
strengthened by the reinforcement of correct responses.
This is similar to the way certain animals can be trained,
through the use of appropriate conditioning techniques, to
perform certain tasks.
In this theory, language acquisition was not viewed as an
active mental process but as a passive mechanical one.

22. The concept of transfer which is the psychological cornerstone of the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is of two kinds. Depending on
the similarities and differences between the structure of the
learner's native language (NL) and that of the target language (TL),
when an old habit (i.e., that of the learner's NL) facilitates the
formation of a new habit (i.e., a new element in the TL) positive
transfer is said to take place, and when the old habit impedes a new
habit negative transfer is believed to occur and learning becomes
difficult. In the words ofLado (1957, p. 2):

23. Lado further claims that "the key to
ease or difficulty in foreign language
learning lies in the comparison
between native and foreign language"
(Lado, 1957, p.l ).

24. Different Versions of Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis
Contrastive Analysis has been a field of heated controversy
as its proponents have not shared the same views with
regard to the main tenets of this discipline. Three different
versions of contrastive analysis hypothesis have been
discussed in the literature, namely the strong version, the
weak version, and the moderate version. A brief account of
each version will be presented below.

25. The Strong Version
Deeply rooted the behaviorist psychology and
structural linguistics, the strong version of the
contrastive analysis hypothesis focused on the
notion of interference coming from the first
language as the principal barrier to second
language learning. The strong version made some
rather strong claims with respect to predicting the
difficulties and errors of second language learners

26. The underlying assumptions of the strong version of CAH
were outlined by Lee ( 1968, p.l86) as follows:
I. The prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error
in foreign-language learning, is interference coming from the
learners' NL.
2. the difficulties are chiefly, or wholly, due to the differences
between the two languages;
3. the greater these differences are, the more acute the learning
difficulties will be;

27. 4. the result of a comparison between the two languages are
needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur
in learning the foreign language.
5. what there is to teach can best be found by comparing the
two languages and then subtracting what is common to
them, so that what the student has to learn equals the sum
of the differences established by the CA.

28. The strong version and the idea that second
or foreign language learners' difficulties and
errors could be predicted remained highly
influential for quite a long time.

29. The Weak Version
Having realized that the strong claims of contrastive analysis
were too ambitious and beyond the reach of contrastive
grammar.
Wardhaugh ( 1970) proposed a more reasonably weak version
of contrastive analysis. "The 'weak' version", he writes,
"requires of the linguist only that he uses the best knowledge
available to him in order to account for observed difficulties in
second language learning"

30. [the weak version] starts with the evidence provided
by linguistic interference and uses such evidence to
explain the similarities and differences between the
two systems.
reference is made to the two systems (NL and TL]
only in order to explain actually observed
interference phenomena. (Wardhaugh, 1970, p.5).

31. The Moderate Version
In view of the shortcomings of the contrastive analysis
hypothesis, its proponents were gradually forced to tone
down the unrealistic claims of their discipline and make
less ambitious ones.
Along these lines, Oller & Ziahosseiny ( 1970) proposed a
third version of Contrastive analysis on the basis of their
analysis of the spelling errors made by some foreign
learners of English with different native language
backgrounds.

32. according to the weak version of the CAH students whose
native language uses the Roman alphabet would be
expected to do better that the other group because of
greater positive transfer.
However, Oller & Ziahosseiny's data proved that this was
not the case. Thus, they rejected the strong and weak
versions, as being too strong and too weak, respectively, in
favor of their proposed version, which they wished to call
the Moderate Version.

33. Linguistic Levels of Analysis
Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex
communication system, which must be analyzed on a number of
levels: phonology, morphology, syntax, texis, and pragmatics. In
other words, language can be divided into components
corresponding to various levels of analysis narnely phonological,
morphological, syntactic, and texico-semantic, as well as
pragmatic, and contrastive descriptions can be made at every
level of linguistic structure. It needs to be pointed out that
linguistics have differed in the degree of separateness/integration
of these levels

34. Traditional contrastive studies produced inventories
of similarities and differences between linguistic
components of the two languages being compared
and contrasted. The emphasis given to various
linguistic levels has not been the same in different
linguistic theories. For instance, while the main focus
of research in GenerativeTransformational Grammar
is syntax, the Communicative Theory is more
concerned with the pragmatic uses of language.

35. Procedures for Comparing Languages Contrastive
analysis
essentially founded on the assumption that languages can
be compared and contrasted. The means for such
comparison is provided by linguistics to render descriptive
accounts of the learner's native language and the target
language on various linguistic levels mentioned above.
Thus, contrastive analysis can be considered as a linguistic
activity aimed at producing contrastive two-valued
typologies.

36. James ( 1980) asserts that "executing [doing] a contrastive
analysis involves two steps: description, and comparison"
(p. 63 ).
However, five different steps have been mentioned in the
literature for comparing and contrasting two languages, or
two subsystems for that matter

37. Selection
It must be realized that a comprehensive comparison of
two languages for pedagogical purposes is neither feasible
nor necessary. Therefore, the analyst should select certain
features of the target language that may potentially cause
difficulty for the learners and then compare and contrast
those features with parallel features in the learners' native
language

38. Selection can be based on the analyst's teaching experience and
bilingual intuition if s/he shares the same native language with
the learners. It can also be based on a prior analysis of errors
committed by the learners. In the process of selection, the
analyst should decide what to compare with what. Also, the
elements compared and contrasted in the two languages should
be similar in some respects.

39. Description
After the selection of certain
linguistic items, structures or
rules, the linguist or language
teacher, should explicitly describe
the two languages in question.

40. By parallel description it is implied that the
two languages should be described through
the same linguistic model or framework. For
example, if the analyst uses Generative-
Transformational Grammar for describing
certain aspects of the gramn1ar of L 1 slhe
should use the same model for the
description of L2.

41. Comparison
When the description of subsystems of the two
languages is complete the job of the analyst is to
compare and contrast the two systems by juxtaposing
features of the two languages in order to find
similarities and differences between them. At this
stage, the analyst has to decide what to compare
with what. Linguistic features of the two languages
are compared on three levels: form, meaning, and
distribution of forms.

42. Prediction
Having described and compared certain features
across languages, the analyst can make predictions
about difficulties learners may face in acquiring the
second language. The analyst should judge whether
similarities and differences found through the
comparison of the two languages are problematic for
the learners or not. Predictions can be arrived at
through the formulation of a hierarchy of difficulty

43. Verification
The final step in the contrastive analysis is
verification. In this stage, the analyst needs to find
out whether the predictions made about errors and
difficulties actually materialize or not. In other
words, we need to ask whether second language
learners in reality commit the type of errors
predicted on the basis of the contrastive analysis of
the two languages or sub-systems of those
languages

44. Hierarchy of Difficulty
Since contrastive analysis involved some degree of
subjectivity and this did not meet the scientific
description criterion of behavioristic psychology,
some of the proponents of CAH made an effort to
formalize the prediction stage of contrastive
analysis in order to remove some of the subjectivity
involved.

45. Prator ( 1967, cited in Brown, 2000, pp. 209-21 0) captured the
essence of this grammatical hierarchy in six categories of
difficulty.
Prator' s hierarchy is applicable to both grammatical and
phonological features of the language.
The six categories, in ascending order of difficulty, are presented
by Brown (2000, pp. 209-21 0) as follows.
The examples in this hierarchy are given from Persian and English
(i.e., potential utterances produced by a native speaker of Persian
learning English as a foreign language).
It needs to be pointed out that these categories have direct
implications both for second language teaching and translation

46. Level 0 - Transfer
No difference or contrast exists between the two
languages. The learner can simply transfer (positively) a
sound, structure, or lexical item from the native language
to the target language. It is assumed that target language
items in this case do not cause any difficulty for the learner,
hence the label of level zero is used. Examples can be
found in many vowels and consonants of Persian and
English such as: a, ce, u:, i:, b, f, s, z, J, 3, tf, ct3, m, n. The
following diagram illustrates this kind of transfer.

47. Level 1- Coalescence
Two or more items in the native language
become coalesced into essentially one item in
the target language. This requires that the
learners overlook a distinction they have grown
accustomed to. For example, the Persian
learner of English must overlook the distinction
between danefamudanceddanefd:JU, and use
just one English word namely student.

48. Level 2- Underdifferentiation
As shown in the following diagram, an item that
exists in the native language is absent in the target
language. For example, the phonemes /x/ and /q/
which are present in Persian are absent in English.
Thus, the Persian learners of English must avoid these
phonemes when practicing English. Similarly, the
learner must avoid using certain Persian words and
expressions such as /tJakeretcem/ 'your devoted
servant' or /naukceretcem/ 'I'm your servant'.

49. Level 3- Reinterpretation
An item that exists in the native language is given a
new shape or distribution in the TL. The Persian
learner of English, for example, must learn a new
allophone for the phoneme /1/. That is, the
Persianis mainly a clear; whereas, this phoneme may
be clear or dark in English depending on the
phonological environment.

50. Level 4- Overdifferentiation
An entirely new item in the target language, bearing
little or no similarity to the native language item,
must be learned. For example, the native speaker of
Persian must learn English phonemes and /v/ since
they do not exist in Persian. This also applies to many
English idiomatic expressions that have no equivalent
in Persian, such as eat like a horse.

51. LevelS- Split
As illustrated in the following diagram, one item in the
native language becomes two or more in the target
language, requiring the learner to make a new
distinction. Split is the opposite of coalescence. For
example, the Persian learner of English has to make a
distinction between desk and table since the
equivalent of these two words in his native language is
one single word, namely /miz/. This also applies to he
and she as the equivalent of /u:/ in Persian.

52. Markedness theory
Due to the shortcomings mentioned above,
markedness theory (also referred to as Markedness
Differential Theory) was proposed by some scholars
to account for relative degrees of difficulty by means
of principles of Universal Grammar

53. It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or
structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair
contains at least one more feature than the unmarked
one. In addition, the unmarked (or natural) member of
the pair is the one with a wider range of distribution than
the marked one. For example, in the case of the English
indefinite articles (a and an), an is the more complex or
marked form (it has an additional sound) is the unmarked
form with the wider distribution
(CelceMurcia & Hawkins, 1985, p.66).

54. Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis
As it was mentioned earlier, CA was widely influential in
the 1950s and 1960s in the field of foreign language
teaching; however, from the 1970s its influence began to
decline.
This was due in part to the shortcomings of structural
linguistics, with which it was closely associated. The CAH
was also at odds with the views of second language
acquisition and inter language theory, according to which
only a small proportion of errors derived from first
language interference.

55. As discussed earlier, contrastive analysis is based on two main
assumptions:
(i) the native language of the learner interferes with the
learning of the target language and consequently interference
from the mother tongue constitutes the main cause, if not the
sole cause, of errors, and
(ii) the greater the difference between the structure of the
source and the target language the more difficult it is to learn
a foreign language.

56. As to the second assumption of the contrastive
analysis hypothesis, no simple one-to-one
correlation can always be found between learning
difficulty and the differences between the source
and the target language. That is, as mentioned
above, what contrastive analysis predicted as
difficulty did not always tum out to be so
(Whitman, 1970; Nickel, 1971; Whitman and
Jackson, 1972).

57. In the 1980s and 1990s, some scholars
have found new dimensions for
contrastive analysis, such as Contrastive
Analysis and Communicative
Competence, Contrastive Rhetoric,
Contrastive Analysis and Translation,
Pedagogical Contrastive Sociolinguistics,
and Pragmatic Transfer.