Najl324
(3)
Second language acquisition (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis)
1. Introduction
1.1 Contrastive Analysis and Foreign Language Teaching
The concept of contrastive analysis was first introduced by Charles
Fries in (1952), and fully described by Robert Lado in his book
Linguistics across Cultures (1957).
Contrastive analysis is a systematic branch of applied linguistics,
which deals with the linguistic description of the structure of two or
more different languages. Such descriptive comparison serves to
show how languages differ in their sound system, grammatical
structure and vocabulary. This type of analysis can be used in
language teaching among others, to point out the areas where the
similarities and contrast between the two languages are present.
In contrastive analysis, we study the structures of two languages
from two different families (i.e., the source language and the target
language) in order to determine the points where they differ. These
differences are the chief source of difficulty in learning a second
language.
Lado states, "we assume that the student who comes in contact with
a foreign language... and these elements that are different will be
difficult" (1957, p. 2).
Lado was quite influenced by Charles Fries. On the first page of his
book (1957), he quotes Fries, advocating the role of contrastive
analysis. Fries believes that the most effective materials are those
based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned,
which is carefully compared with "a parallel description of the native
language of the learners" (Nickel, 1971, p. 3).
Wardhaugh (1970) proposed a distinction between a strong version
and a weak one of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. In its strongest
formulation, 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. It was
soon pointed out that many errors predicted by contrastive analysis
were inexplicably not observed in learner's language. Even more
1
Najl324
(3)
confusingly, learners irrespective of their L2 made some uniform
errors. It thus became clear that Contrastive Analysis could not
predict all learners' difficulties but was certainly useful in the
respective explanation of error.
As we are aware, when the child acquires his\her native language,
the child develops the native language behavior. Gradually, this
becomes stronger and stronger. In learning the second language, the
learner is very much influenced by his native language behavior.
Where the structure of the two languages is the same or quite similar,
no difficulty is anticipated. Where the structure of the second
language (L2) differs from (L1), we can predict some difficulty, at
least, in learning as well as error in performance. The bigger the
differences between the two languages the greater the difficulty will
be. Learning a second language behavior is essential to overcome
these difficulties. In other words, learning a second language involves
changing one's native language behavior to that of the speaker of the
target language.
In this respect, contrastive analysis will be useful. It will help
discover the differences between the two languages concerned and
predict the difficulties the learners will have to overcome. Teaching
will be directed at those points where there are structural
differences. This, in turn, determines to a great extent what the
learner has to learn and what the teacher has to teach.
Charles Carpenter Fries was the first to instigate contrastive
research in the 1940s. In 1957, the American linguist Robert Lado
developed his idea further and formulated the results in what came
to be known as the “Contrastive Hypothesis.” Its main assumption
states that “[...] individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings
as well as the distribution of forms and meanings of their native
language and culture to the foreign language and culture – both
productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the
culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand
the language and the culture as practiced by natives (Lado 1957, 2).
Hence, the contrastive hypothesis is based on a behaviorist
conception of language acquisition, insofar as it is based on the
assumption that foreign language learners constantly resort to the
“habits” they acquired in the process of first language acquisition:
“The basic problems [when learning a second language] arise not out
of any essential difficulty in the features of the new language
2
Najl324
(3)
themselves but primarily out of the special 'set' created by the first
language habits.” (Charles C. Fries in: Lado 1957, foreword)
König
and Gast (2008, 1) summarise the main assumptions of the
contrastive hypothesis as follows:
▪ “First language acquisition and foreign language learning differ
fundamentally, especially in those cases where the foreign
language is learnt later than a mother tongue and on the basis
of the full mastery of that mother tongue.”
▪ “Every language has its own specific structure. Similarities between
the two languages will cause no difficulties (positive transfer),
but differences will, due to ‘negative transfer' (or
‘interference’). The student’s learning task can therefore
roughly be defined as the sum of the differences between the
two languages.“
▪ “A systematic comparison between mother tongue and foreign
language to be learnt will reveal both similarities and
contrasts.”
▪ “On the basis of such a comparison it will be possible to predict or
even rank learning difficulties and to develop strategies
(teaching materials, teaching techniques, etc.) for making
foreign language teaching more efficient.”
On the basis of his theory, Lado suggests a completely new task for
teachers to fulfill in the preparation of their lessons:
“The most important new thing in the preparation of teaching
materials is the comparison of native and foreign language and
culture in order to find the hurdles that really have to be surmounted
in the teaching. [...] In practice a teacher may be called upon to apply
[…] is knowledge under various circumstances. He may be asked to
evaluate materials before they are adopted for use. He may be asked
to prepare new materials. He may have to supplement the textbook
assigned to his class. And he will at all times need to diagnose
accurately the difficulties his pupils have in learning each pattern.”
(Lado 1957, 2/3)
According to the linguist Ronald Wardhaugh, the contrastive
hypothesis exists in a strong and a weak form, “the strong one arising
from evidence from the availability of some kind of metatheory of
contrastive analysis and the weak from evidence from language
interference.” (Wardhaugh 1970, 123) In other words, the strong
version reflects the idea that it is possible to contrast the system of
3
Najl324
(3)
one language with the system of a second language in order to
predict learning difficulties and construct teaching materials that
help learn that language. In contrast, the weak version “[...] requires
of the linguist only that he use the best linguistic knowledge available
to him in order to account for observed difficulties in second
language learning. It does not require what the strong version
requires, the prediction of those difficulties and, conversely, of those
learning points which do not create any difficulties at all. The weak
version leads to an approach which makes fewer demands of
contrastive theory than does the strong version.” (Wardhaugh 1970,
126) However, both the strong and the weak version have been
severely criticized.
4
Najl324
(3)
Response and criticism:
The contrastive hypothesis has soon faced strong criticism among
linguists because it was viewed as being too simple and
undifferentiated in many respects. First of all, there was no
distinction between various types of foreign language learning (e.g.
natural vs. mediated, sequential vs. simultaneous, second vs. third
language, etc.). Furthermore, it neglected the age of the learner and
the fact that we may approach the linguistic competence of a native
speaker if one starts to learn a language early enough or is exposed
to it very frequently. Wienold (1973) added to this that the relations
between mother tongue and language to be learnt are only one of
many factors entering into the learning process. Another hypothesis
argues that the major learning problem might simply be ignorance
rather than interference.
Given that contrastive linguistics turned out to be less useful for
specific purposes than was expected, it is no longer considered a
branch of applied linguistics, but as one type of comparative
linguistics. Today, most contemporary studies pursue a basically
linguistic interest and compare only two languages – mainly
languages that are “socio-culturally linked” (Gast forthcoming), like
Germanic and Romance ones – with respect to a wide variety of
properties. Notwithstanding the criticism, contrastive linguistics may
nevertheless have useful implications for a wide range of areas in
linguistics, e.g. for translation theory, the study of bilingualism or, to
a certain extent, even for its original field foreign language teaching.
5
Najl324
(3)
Contrastive analysis had a profound effect on second language
acquisition curriculum design. It also provided the formulation of the
audio-lingual method.
Audio Lingual Method:
The audio-lingual method was based on the following slogans:
1. Language is speech not writing.
2. Language is a set of habits
3. To teach the language not about the language ( to teach it
directly)
4. Language is what native speakers say not what someone says
they ought to say.
5. All languages are different.
6. It focuses on grammar not vocabulary.
7. It is based on repletion.
Teacher: There's a cup on the table
Students: There's a cup on the table
Teacher: Spoon
Students: There's a spoon on the table
Teacher: Book
Students: There's a book on the table
Teacher: On the chair
Students: There's a book on the chair
The audio-lingual method is an effective method of teaching the second
language to the learners. However, it would be more effective when it is
used together with other teaching methods.
6
Najl324
(3)
The differences between English and
Arabic
Introduction: Arabic is the official language in
many countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Saudi
Arabia and Morocco. Arabic is also the language of
the Koran, so Muslims of all nationalities, such as
Indonesians, are familiar with it. There are many
Arabic dialects, but there is one version that is
taught in schools and used by the media across
the Arab world.
Arabic is from the Semitic language family, hence
its grammar is very different from English. There is
a large potential for errors of interference when
Arab learners produce written or spoken English.
Alphabet: Arabic has 28 consonants (English 24)
and 8 vowels/diphthongs (English 22). Short
vowels are unimportant in Arabic, and indeed do
not appear in writing. Texts are read from right to
left and written in a cursive script. No distinction is
made between upper and lower case, and the rules
for punctuation are much looser than in English.
Unsurprisingly, these fundamental differences
between the Arabic and English writing systems
cause Arab learners significant problems. They
7
Najl324
(3)
usually need much more time to read or write than
their English-learning peers from the IndoEuropean language families.
Phonology: English has about three times as
many vowel sounds as Arabic, so it is inevitable
that beginning learners will fail to distinguish
between some of the words they hear, such as
ship / sheep or bad / bed, and will have difficulties
saying such words correctly.
Problems in pronouncing consonants include the
swapping of /b/ and /p/ at the beginning of words.
The elision (or swallowing) of sounds that is so
common in spoken English is problematic for Arab
speakers, and they will often resist it. (Consider,
for example, how the questions What did you do?
or Do you know her? are said in conversational
English: Whatcha do? / Jew know her?) This
aversion to elision and the use of glottal stops
before initial vowels are the primary reasons for
the typical staccato quality of the spoken English
of Arab learners.
Grammar - Verb/Tense: Arabic has no verb to
be in the present tense, and no auxiliary do.
Furthermore, there is a single present tense in
Arabic, as compared to English, which has the
simple and continuous forms. These differences
result in errors such as She good teacher, When
you come to Germany?, I flying to Egypt tomorrow
or Where he going?
8
Najl324
(3)
Arabic does not make the distinction between
actions completed in the past with and without a
connection to the present. This leads to failure to
use the present perfect tense, as in I finished my
work. Can you check it?
Grammar - Other: Adjectives in Arabic follow the
noun they qualify. This leads Arab beginners to
making word order mistakes in written or spoken
English.
Vocabulary: There are very few English/Arabic
cognates. This significantly increases a.) the
difficulties they have in comprehending what they
hear and read, and b.) the effort they must make
to acquire a strong English word store.
9