I – Generalities of Contrastive Linguistics
1. Definition of Contrastive Linguistics
Contrastive Linguistics, as known as Contrastive Analysis (CA) has been a topic of
interest for a multitude of researchers in the linguistic fields. In Carl James’s
‘Contrastive Analysis’ (1980, p.3), CA is provisionally defined as “a linguistic
enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e. contrastive, not comparative) two valued
typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of language), and founded on the
assumption that languages can be compared”.
A linguistic enterprise can be classified into various types and there are certain
dimensions which such classification can be based on. According to James (1980),
there is no clear distinction amongst the classificatory dimensions of CA as a linguistic
enterprise. Regarding the particularist and the generalist approaches to linguistics, CA
appears to stand somewhere between the two extremes, which means that CA not only
treats individual languages but also the general phenomenon of human language.
Accordingly, CA both studies the unique and distinctive features of the particular
languages and the comparability of languages. However, it should be noted that
classification is not the aim of CA but the differences, rather than the similarities
between languages should be the focus of study for contrastive linguists. Concerning
the third dimension of a linguistic enterprise, James concludes that CA does not give
enough commitment to the study of static linguistic phenomena to be classified as
synchrony. Instead, as part of Interlanguage Study, CA should be viewed as diachronic
in orientation, in the sense that CA concerns with change within the human individual
such as the study of second language or foreign language learning when a monolingual
becomes a bilingual. Therefore, CA bears resemblance with the study of bilingualism,
which by definition is the study on individual or societal possession of two languages,
in certain aspects.
1
Another dimension of a linguistic enterprise that is worth mentioning concerns the
distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ linguistics. James (1980) holds the view that
CA can be in the form of both ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ linguistics. To elaborate, 'pure'
linguists seek for the universals of language and confirm their findings by the deep
analysis of single languages. During such process, the researchers actually engage in
CA. However, James believes that CA is only ‘a peripheral enterprise’ of the ‘pure’
while it is the central component of ‘applied’ linguistics. Such viewpoint of CA as a
crucial part of applied linguistics seems to be well supported by the contrastive
hypothesis by Robert Lado (1957) which asserts that contrasting two languages would
assist in predicting and describing the difficulties in learning a second language. This
application of CA in second language acquisition has its theoretical assumption that
CA is founded on the transfer theory. Lado (1957) points out that L2 learners tend to
transfer the knowledge about the native language to the target one. Such claim about
this psychological basis of CA can likewise be found in Al-khresheh’s research (2016),
in which transfer is defined as the inevitable influence of the learner’s mother tongue
on the learning of the second language. Transfer should be deemed a significant part in
language learning as it is used as a learning strategy. Learners begin their second
language learning by transferring sounds, meanings, then word order and structural
rules from their mother tongue to the target language. Accordingly, should there be any
differences between the two languages, the transfer process will bring about potential
errors. By recognizing such differences between two languages, CA helps not only to
explore errors but also serve as a method for expecting them. Fisiak (1990), in attempt
to distinguish theoretical and applied contrastive analysis research, mentions the
application of CA research in analyzing language for bilingual education, translation
and any practical specific purposes.
Concerning the potentials of CA in not only language teaching, but also many other
linguistic fields, a procedure of five steps for CA has been proposed by Al-Khresheh
2
(2016), which includes selection - description - comparison - prediction – verification.
First is the selection when two languages are taken for comparison. It should be noted
that it is difficult to compare every aspect of language so the analysis should be limited
to certain categories, which means that in the very first step of analysis, the specific
unit of language must be selected. Second is the description of the selected unit of
language within the same theory. Third, after describing the language unit, it is
essential to compare the structures with each other to see the similarities and
differences and the main focus should be on the differences. Fourth, prediction of the
learners’ difficulty in second language learning is made through the contrast. Finally,
the last step of CA is ‘verification’ in which the researcher should confirm whether the
predictions given in the previous step are true or not.
So far, CA has been mentioned as a linguistic enterprise which seeks to study and
explain the similarities and differences between two languages. Based on the
assumption of the transfer theory, CA is carried out with a view to applying knowledge
about the differences of the two languages to make implications for practical specific
purposes, one of which is language learning.
2. Contrastive Linguistics versus Comparative Linguistics
Contrastive Linguistics and Comparative Linguistics are two fields in linguistic
study and there should be a clear distinction between these lest mistakes occur when
referring to such terms.
According to Gómez-González and Doval-Suárez (2005) the term Comparative
Linguistics is used almost exclusively to refer to the diachronic study of genetically
related languages. In other words, Comparative Linguistics is to reconstruct form of the
parent language and helps classify languages into family. According to Krzeszowski
(1990), there are various approaches to linguistic comparisons. The Historical
Comparative Linguistics in the 19th century helped identify the common features of
3
large groups of languages, thereby classifying them together into families. Another
direction for Comparative Linguistics is the Typological Linguistics, which compares
and groups both genetically related and unrelated languages together based on the
shared features with a view to identifying language universals.
In contrast to Historical Comparative Linguistics, (CA) is neither concerned with
historical developments nor with the problem of describing genetic relationships. CA is
synchronic in the sense that it studies languages of the same period without paying
much attention to their histories or language families. The subjects of comparison in
CA
is not restricted to the parent language as those of Comparative Linguistics.
Additionally, CA is typically concerned with a comparison of corresponding
subsystems in only two languages, with the main focus on the differences rather than
the likeness between the pair of languages.
To recapitulate, Contrastive Linguistics does not refer to the same field of study as
Comparative Linguistics. Their differences lie in not only the diachronic and
synchronic nature, but also the aims of study. While the former seeks to identify the
differences amongst two languages, thereby anticipating potential errors in language
learning; the latter aims at classifying languages into language families based on their
shared features, as well as finding the universals of languages.
II – Illustration of Pedagogical Exploitation of Contrastive Analysis
The significance of CA in language teaching has been pointed out by various
researchers. Specifically, Lado (1957) believes that the knowledge about two
languages can be applied by teachers in various pedagogical processes such as
diagnosing difficulties and preparing materials for students. James (1980) likewise
mentions the application of CA in predicting and diagnosing second language errors
committed by leaners and in designing testing instruments. According to Lee (1968),
4
the use of CA in the context of language teaching is based on five assumptions that: (1)
the prime cause of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference from
the learners’ native language; (2) these difficulties are due chiefly to the differences
between the two languages; (3) the greater these differences, the more acute the
learning problem will be; (4) a comparison between the two languages will predict
difficulty and error; (5) this comparison should determine what is to be taught. Based
on such assumptions, the following part of this paper will attempt to provide
illustrations of the application of CA in teaching English as a foreign language to
Vietnamese learners. Apparently, the Vietnamese and English language will be
analyzed and contrasted to determine mostly the differences between them; hence
prediction of errors and explanation of error occurrence.
1. Verb form in English and Vietnamese from a contrastive perspective
It can be observed that in many English classes, Vietnamese learners often have
certain difficulties in providing the correct form of the verb (in agreement with the
subject and tense). It is so common a phenomenon that it is worth the effort to
investigate the possible cause of the occurrence of errors; thereby proposing measures
to help leaners overcome these difficulties. From my own teaching experience in actual
classrooms, students who are new to English learning often get confused when they are
introduced different forms of the verb. Even when they have been able to do the
grammar-based exercises on specific forms, i.e. exercises on Present Simple verb form,
when it comes to using knowledge of grammar to produce a piece of writing, many of
them fail to provide the correct verb form. Another case is a 9 th grader who I have been
teaching. She made a comment about learning English that the subject-verb agreement
is so troublesome, and “How come English is not the same as Vietnamese of which the
verbs have only one form for every tense?” Obviously she has had a point in
recognizing the difference between English and Vietnamese. That triggers my interest
5
in seeking plausible explanation for the difference to help not only this 9 graders, but
also other students who encounter the same problems with English.
To find the answer to the question of that 9 th grader is to examine some
morphological and grammatical features of both Vietnamese and English language.
Morphology focus on the study of morphemes and their different form, and the way
they combine in word formation. Morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a
language, which cannot be divided without altering or destroying its meaning.
Accordingly, languages can be classified into inflectional language such as English and
isolating language such as Vietnamese. According to Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, &
Svartivik (1989), English is an inflected language that uses morphological morphemes
to indicate tense in verb and number in noun. For example, the word discloses consists
of a root (free) morpheme close and two bound (inflectional) morphemes, as known as
affixes, dis- and -s. An English word can be comprised by one or multiple morphemes.
In contrast, Vietnamese is an isolating language in that the grammar primarily consists
of word order and the use of function words rather than bound morphemes. Therefore,
the typical feature of Vietnamese is not inflectional as that of English; and word order
is of great importance. Vietnamese belongs to the type of language that each word
contains a single morpheme and there is absolutely no change in the word form by
adding inflectional morpheme to the root as in English. Understanding of the
contrasting language types between Vietnamese and English language allows probable
explanation of initial obstacles faced by Vietnamese learners. In particular, when
learning English words, learners may suffer less difficulties in learning new word in
isolation than in a phrase or a sentence. Due to various grammatical relation amongst
words, the words learners encounter in a text may change because of affixation.
Speaking Vietnamese as the mother tongue does not necessitate the knowledge about
inflections; therefore Vietnamese learners are not accustomed to the change in words
6
by adding either suffixes or prefixes, which causes various difficulties in English
learning.
Specifically, concerning the verb grammatical categories in the two languages, the
distinctive feature of English is the change in verb form while Vietnamese verb is
unchanging. The table below give examples of the verb in each category in both
languages:
Verb
Category
Types
Examples of English
Example of Vietnamese
Person
1st, 2nd, 3rd
I play; You play;
He plays.
Tôi chơi; Bạn chơi;
Anh ta chơi.
Number
Singular
Plural
He plays;
They play.
Anh ta chơi;
Họ chơi.
Tense
Present, Past,
Future
He plays; He played;
He will play.
Anh ta chơi; Anh ta đã chơi;
Anh ta sẽ chơi.
Simple,
Continuous,
Perfect, Perfect
Continuous
Indicative,
Imperative,
Subjunctive
He plays;
He is playing;
He has played; He has been
playing.
He always plays games.
Don’t play games!
I wish he didn’t play games.
Anh ta chơi;
Anh ta đang chơi;
Anh ta đã chơi được nửa
tiếng; Anh ta đã và đang chơi.
Anh ta luôn chơi trò chơi.
Đừng chơi trò chơi.
Tôi ước anh không chơi.
Active
Passive
They often play soccer;
Soccer is often played.
Họ thường chơi bóng đá.
Bóng đá thường được chơi.
Aspect
Mood
Voice
The verb play in its infinitive form has its equivalent chơi in Vietnamese. What is
not equivalent in the various examples containing such verbs is the multiple forms of
play to indicate each grammatical relation in terms of person, number, tense, aspect,
mood and voice. Meanwhile, the verb chơi in Vietnamese examples remains
unchanged. Instead of changing the form and adding inflections (i.e. the morpheme –
s/–es added to the infinitive to indicate 3rd person and singularity in the Present Simple;
the morpheme –ed as indicator of Past Simple), Vietnamese marks these features by
separated words, governed by the rule of word order to keep the meaning clear. For
7
example, to mark the past tense of the action, đã is used before the verb chơi, or the
present continuous tense is marked by the use of đang before the verb. Vietnamese
learners have been very familiar with this stable verb pattern; therefore providing the
correct form of verb poses quite a big challenge to them, especially when it comes to
verb forms requiring the knowledge of multiple categories. A clear evidence is the verb
form the Present Simple tense. First, leaners have to get accustomed to the person
category, then the number to decide whether the verb should stay infinitive or be added
the suffix –s/–es. The Present Simple is conventionally the first English verb tense to
be introduced to learners, and it is observable that leaners often get confused when
being exposed to various aspects of the verb. The influence of Vietnamese verb pattern
can also be observed in actual language classes of mine in which the writing skill is
taught. The elementary learners frequently forget to add suffix to the verbs and ignore
the subject-verb agreement. As a result, although they can communicate their message
through their piece of writing, the grammatical accuracy is not guaranteed.
Therefore, in teaching English verb form, it is highly recommended that the
aforementioned differences be acknowledged by learners when they are newly exposed
to English. Teachers should introduce the verb tense with extreme patience to
elementary leaners, especially those with less linguistic intelligence, so that they have
sufficient time to get accustomed to new aspects of languages. Since the grammatical
relation of subject-verb in English is rather complicated with various categories
affecting the choice of form, it is detrimental if knowledge of grammar is provided in
abundance without detailed explanation and adequate practice. Novice teachers are
likely to ignore the differences between two languages, thereby bombarding learners
with new terms that they cannot absorb immediately. To tackle the differences, it is of
paramount importance that learners have sufficient practice to familiarize themselves
with new aspects of the language, hence building a firm foundation for further upgrade
of language proficiency.
8
2. Word order in English and Vietnamese from a contrastive perspective
In teaching the structure of English sentence, the teacher have to provide the form
of verb in positive, negative and interrogative sentence. At sentence level, there are
many more language issues that students have to take into consideration at the same
time to be grammatically correct besides the subject-verb agreement. While there are
certain similarities in Vietnamese and English positive sentence structure, many
grammatical characteristics are not shared between the two languages, causing
potential obstacles for students in acquiring their target language. Giang Tang (2007)
summarizes some grammatical features of Vietnamese and English to better illustrate
their similarities and differences, the three first comparisons are mentioned as follows.
VIETNAMESE
ENGLISH
Word
order
SVO, OSV less common
N + Adj
SVO
Adj + N
Negation
không + V
Tôi không ăn.
S + auxV + not + V…
She could not open the door.
Content
questions
Question word occupies answer-slot
Cô ăn tối ở đâu?
Tôi ăn ở nhà.
Ai muốn ăn?
Cô ấy muốn ăn.
Question word + auxV + S + V…
Where will you eat dinner?
I will eat at home.
Who wants to eat?
She wants to eat.
According to Giang Tang (2017), Vietnamese and English share the general word
order of subject-verb-object. For example, the English declarative sentence I clean the
room has it Vietnamese equivalent Tôi dọn phòng with exactly the same pattern of the
subject (I – tôi), verb (clean - dọn), object (phòng – the room). As mentioned before,
such similarity is beneficial for the transferring of knowledge of the native language to
that of the target language. Therefore, elementary English learners can distinguish
sentence components when given a simple English sentence and make similar ones by
roughly combining the single noun and verbs they have learned.
9
However, this transferring process may cause problems when learners try to use
noun phrases without acknowledging the crucial difference in the word order within
such phrases between the two languages. In particular, English noun phrases can
consist of one or several adjectives preceding the head noun while in Vietnamese
adjectives follow the nouns they describe. Due to that contrast word order, a learner
may make such mistake as I have an apple green when he tries to transfer from the
Vietnamese sentence Tôi có một quả táo xanh. Not only in producing language will
learners face problems, but when it comes to reading comprehension, learners may be
presented with difficulties because their understanding mechanisms have to switch
between two contrast word orders. To be able to speed up reading means the switching
process have to occur quickly and efficiently, which requires much effort from the
learners to familiarize themselves with a new pattern of word.
While leaners may transfer a simple declarative sentence from Vietnamese to
English with correct word order, they may make mistakes in making negative sentence.
Forming a Vietnamese negative sentence from a declarative one seems to pose no
difficulty because there is no change of the verb form. Negation may be indicated using
không (no) before the verb as in Tôi không chơi (I – no – eat). When the linking verb là
is used, the phrase không phải (no-correct) should be used as in Tôi không phải là cầu
thủ. Meanwhile, negation in English may be indicated using “not” in between the
auxiliary verb and the main verb as in She does not work. What causes the potential
errors for Vietnamese speakers learning negative sentence in English is the presence of
the new concept auxiliary verb, which is added before the main verb according to the
tense and subject of the sentence. Auxiliary verbs complicate the learning by not only
interrupting the familiar sentence structure, but also by their various forms. There is
one observation situations in which the sixth graders are confused by the verb have.
After learning the Present Perfect tense with have functioning in the sentence as an
auxiliary verb i.e. I have played the piano, the students made such sentences as I
10
haven’t to wake up early. Obviously, have in the second sentence is the main verb in
Present simple form and to make a correct negative sentence, an auxiliary should be
added. The students mistake the function of have as auxiliary verb and main verb.
Additionally, one striking difference between English and Vietnamese in terms of
word order lies in the content questions. In English, there is a movement of the
auxiliary verb compared to the declarative and negative sentence. For example, the
declarative sentence She will go out can be restated as a question When will she go
out? in which the auxiliary verb will and the subject she have changed places. This
transposition does not occur in Vietnamese, in which content questions are formed
using the same SVO structure of a declarative sentence with the placement of a
question word in the slot that would contain the answer. For example, the declarative
sentence Cô ấy sẽ ra ngoài can be restated as a question Cô ấy ra ngoài khi nào? It is
apparent that there is no change in the word order of the question compared to the
statement and the formation of question is only the addition of the question word in
either the beginning or end of the SVO structure as in (Cô ấy ra ngoài khi nào? – Khi
nào cô ấy ra ngoài). In brief comparison, The differences between Vietnamese and
English question structure lie in: (1) the presence of the auxiliary verb causing changes
in verb form, compared to the declarative sentence; (2) the order of the auxiliary verb;
(3) order of the question word. In making English questions, learners have to take into
careful consideration various factors to produce grammatically correct sentences.
Such distinctive features of English causes difficulties for learners when it comes to
both composing questions and answering questions. The former issue refers to the fact
that it may be challenging for some learners to decide the correct auxiliary verb to be
used, or which should be repositioned. In Vietnamese, the slot that contain the answer
is replaced by an appropriate question word with the other parts of the sentence
remaining in place. However, in English, the place of the slot containing the answer
11
decides the form of structure of the sentence. The presence of auxiliary verb is often
taught and emphasized by teachers when teaching questions, i.e. Who does this bag
belong to?, but there is a type of English question that requires no auxiliary verb,
which is when the slot containing the answer is in the subject position of the sentence,
as in Whose bag is this? Another problem is in answering questions. For example, the
question Who does this bag belong to? can be likely answered This bag belong to him.
with the verb given in the correct form. This error occurs also due to the difference in
the verb form between Vietnamese and English, as mentioned earlier.
Therefore, teaching the question form is rather a complicated matter. It is difficult
for learners to remember the structure of the sentence especially when they tries to
transfer it from Vietnamese structure. As the key difference between the two languages
lies in the auxiliary verb, it is recommended that its presence be highlighted to
familiarize learners with the new concept. Supposed that they bear in mind the
necessity for an auxiliary verb and the distinction between it and the main verb, they
will be less likely to tolerate the absence of the auxiliary in English negative and
interrogative sentences.
3. Conclusion
Given the aforementioned comparison between certain linguistic features of
Vietnamese and English, some conclusion can be made about the potential interaction
between Vietnamese and English. It is predicted that Vietnamese native speaker when
making English sentences will likely to: first, omit words ending for tense and
agreement with the subject; second, omit auxiliary verbs, third, have difficulty with
word order in questions. The first problem results from the nature of the two languages
as inflectional (English) and isolating (Vietnamese). The unchanged form of
Vietnamese verbs regardless of tense and subject is contradict with that of English
words which require many changes, both regular and irregular forms in accordance
12
with time, person, voice, and other grammatical categories. The combination of various
factors in deciding the correct verb tense would beset learners with many difficulties.
Additionally, the presence of auxiliary verb in English negative and interrogative
sentences also pose problems for Vietnamese native speakers. The auxiliary verb, as
English verb, changes its form according to the tense and subject and also change the
sentence structure in the question form. If those problem is not addressed properly
from the very beginning of the learning process, it would cause detrimental
consequences and demotivate learners from acquiring the target knowledge. It is highly
recommended that an enormous amount of time be allotted to the introduction of new
language elements to students in comparison with their native language.
It is believed by Lee (1968) that the pedagogical value of contrastive analysis is
undeniable; however, it should not be overemphasized in language teaching. It is
suggested that errors be predicted through classroom observation by experienced
teachers because CA may not disclose all errors that students have. CA should be
utilized as a source of reference from which the teacher designs teaching materials and
classroom activities, as well as testing instruments to facilitate the language acquisition
process. Henceforth, the teacher bases on students’ actual performance in class to
continue modifying the teaching procedure.
13
REFERENCES
Al-khresheh, M. H. (2016). A review study of contrastive analysis theory. Journal of
Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6), 330–338.
Fisiak, J. (1990). On the present status of meta-theoretical and theoretical issues in
contrastive linguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), 3-22.
Gómez-González, M. de los A. & Doval-Suárez, S.M. (2005). On contrastive
linguistics: Trends, challenges and problems. In C.S. Butler, M. de los A. GómezGonzález & S.M. Doval-Suárez (Eds.), The Dynamics of Language Use.
Functional and Contrastive Perspectives (pp. 19-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Longman.
Krzeszowski, T.P. (1990). Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive
Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of
MichiganPress.
Lee, W. R. (1968). Thoughts on Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Language
Teaching. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 185-194.
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S, Svartvik, J. (1989). A comprehensive grammar of the English
language. London: Longman Inc.
Tang, G. (2007). Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Vietnamese and English with
Implications for Vietnamese Language Acquisition and Maintenance in the United
States. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 2(1).
14