University Hassan II.
Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences
Mohamedia
Applied linguistics S5
Pr. Bouayad
Objectives of the course
 what is Contrastive Analysis?
 When did it first emerge?
 What is the linguistic trend underlying it?
 Who were its pioneers?
 What are the aims and objectives of this analysis?
 What are the procedures of CA?
 Limitations and weaknesses?
Outline
Introduction
Definitions
Aims and objectives of CA
Procedures of CA
Limitations and weaknesses
Introduction
 Both Contrastive Analysis and error analysis are
procedures or techniques of teaching and learning or both.
 Contrastive analysis (CA) is a component of contrastive
linguistics.
 Two types of contrastive linguistics; theoretical and
applied. The former aims to describe the similarities and
differences between two or more languages (phonology,
morphology, syntax, lexicon) . The latter is a systematic
comparison of the linguistic and the non- linguistic
(cultural) components or two or more languages.
 The ultimate aim of this comparison is to provide the
teacher with the type of information to help him prepare
efficient teaching materials.
I – Definitions
 CA is well known as contrastive analysis hypothesis. It
emerged in the 20th century.
 Contrastive analysis is , then , the systematic comparison
and contrasting of the native and the target or second
language systems.
 Contrastive linguistics is deeply rooted in behaviourism
and structuralism. The principal barrier to second language
acquisition is the interference of the first language system
and that a scientific analysis of the two languages would
yield a classification of linguistic contrast between them
which in turn would enable the linguist to predict the
difficulties that the learner would encounter.
 Fries (1945:9) pointed out 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”
 Robert Lado (1957:1-2) :
“…..We can predict and describe the patterns
that will cause difficulty, by comparing
systematically the language and the culture to be
learned with the native language and culture of the
student….Those elements that are similar to the
learner’s native language will be simple for him and
those elements that are different will be difficult.”
II- Aims and Objectives of CA
hypothesis:
 Attempts have been made to formalise the prediction stage of





contrastive analysis hypothesis. The teacher can predict the
difficulty that the learner might face through the formulation of
the hierarchy (or scales) of difficulty. The best known attempt
was made by Stockwell,et.al,1965):
There are three possible interlingual rule relationships:
L1 has a rule and L2 an equivalent one.
L1 has a rule and L2 has no equivalent one.
L2 has a rule but l1 has no equivalent one.
More differences between the two languages ……More difficulties
……..Learner related to a given aspect of the second
language(phonological, syntactic, semantic…)
 Ronald Wardhaugh (1970) distinguished between the
strong version and the weak version of contrastive
analysis. The former is the attempt to predict difficulty
by means of contrasting the two languages at a given
linguistic aspect following a certain hierarchy (levels).
He thought that this version was unrealistic and
impractical.
 The latter is the weak version of CA. it recognises the
importance of interference across languages, the fact
that such interference exist and explain difficulties.
According to Wardhaugh, CA has intuitive appeal.
Teachers and linguists have successfully used “the best
linguistic knowledge available…in order to account for
observed difficulties in second language learning”
(1970:126)
 The weak version is also referred to as cross–linguistic
influence. It takes into consideration the importance
of the earlier experience in L1 (influence of the native
language as a preliminary experience).
 The influence has become more important than the
prediction
 Wardhaugh suggested that the weak version or
diagnostic function of CA is more tenable than CA as a
predictor of error.
III- Procedures of CA hypothesis
 (Randal Whitman, 1970): contrastive analysis
involved four different procedures.
- First: Description: the linguist or language teacher
explicitly describes the two languages in question.
- Second: a selection is made of certain forms,
linguistic items, rules and structures for contrast.
- Contrast : the mapping of one linguistic system onto
the other and a specification of the relationship of one
system to the other
IV- Limitations and weaknesses
 The criteria for comparison: whether different
languages are comparable at all //if they are
comparable, by what criterion are they best compared?
 CA :not directly relevant to the classroom
situation/abstract and complicated as a technique
(teacher/student)
 CA : not totally reliable since mistakes and errors are
not attributable solely to interference from the mother
tongue.
 CA: is only explanatory, and the genuine prediction is
done by the error analyst or by the experienced
language teacher(Corder (1967, 1973) and Stevens
(1977).
 A hierarchy of difficulty based on CA may not be a
suitable foundation for the selection and gradation of
teaching materials.
Conclusion
 In spite of all these criticisms, CA has continued to
flourish at many research centres for two main
reasons:
 considerable number of regular and recurrent errors
that learners make are directly linked to the influence
of their native language.
 CA helps to identify the conditions in which the
learner transfers structures of his L1 either positively or
negatively: the structural similarity facilitates learning
(positive transfer) while the structural difference leads
to negative transfer.