Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive Analysis and Second Language Acquisition
Contrastive Analysis was used extensively in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in the 1960s and early 1970s, as a method of explaining why some features of a target language were more difficult to acquire than others. According to the behaviourist theories prevailing at the time, language learning was a question of habit formation, and this could be reinforced or impeded by existing habits. Therefore, the difficulty in mastering certain structures in a second language (L2) depended on the difference between the learners ' mother language (L1) and the language they were trying to learn.
History
The theoretical foundations for what became known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis were formulated in Robert Lado 's Linguistics Across Cultures (1957). In this book, Lado claimed that "those elements which are similar to [the learner 's] native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult". While this was not a novel suggestion, Lado was the first to provide a comprehensive theoretical treatment and to suggest a systematic set of technical procedures for the contrastive study of languages. This involved describing the languages (using structuralist linguistics), comparing them and predicting learning difficulties.
During the 1960s, there was a widespread enthusiasm with this technique, manifested in the contrastive descriptions of several European languages, many of which were sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC. It was expected that once the areas of potential difficulty had been mapped out through Contrastive Analysis, it would be possible to design language courses more efficiently. Contrastive Analysis, along with Behaviourism and Structuralism exerted a profound effect on SLA curriculum design and language teacher education, and provided the theoretical pillars of Audio-Lingual Method.
Criticism
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 learners ' language. Even more confusingly, some uniform errors were made by learners irrespective of their L1. It thus became clear that Contrastive Analysis could not predict all learning difficulties, but was certainly useful in the retrospective explanation of errors.
References
Connor, Ulla M. (1996), Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437189-1
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437065-8
*************************************************************************
Contrastive analysis
Contrastive analysis(CA) is a method to distinguish between what are needed and not needed to learn by the target language(TL) learner by evaluating languages (M.Gass & Selinker, 2008). In addition, CA is a technique to identify whether two languages have something in common, which assess both similarities and differences in languages, conforming to the belief in language universals. (Johnson, 1999). Both statements indicate that CA holds a principle which is important in order to identify what are required by the TL learner to learn in TL and what are not. If there is no familiar characteristic in the languages, it indicates that the learner might have difficulty in learning the TL. While much could be said about comparing languages, a more important aspect is about the influence from TL in first language (L1).
“Contrastive analysis stresses the influence of the mother tongue in learning a second language in phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. It holds that second language would be affected by first language” (Jie, 2008, p. 36).
On the same score, Wardhaugh asserts that first language of TA learners can clarify all “errors” that are constantly made them. These arguments prove that the errors make by the TL learner are explainable in the L1. Indeed, this idea is conformed to the rule of CA, which believes in language universal.
However, this analysis has disadvantages. In Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker words, they believe that this analysis is questioned because of the concept of difficulty as the basic theory of the CA is concerning the difficultness. If an error is made by a person, this shows that the person has a problem in some area, not because of the native language. Thus, we cannot presume that fluency of a target language learner is depending on the nature of L1. There are more aspects that related to this matter.
“There are other factors that may influence the process of acquisition such as innate principle of language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known…” (M.Gass & Selinker, 2008).
Next, CA cannot detect some difficulties experienced by the TL learners. For example,
“Je vois les/elle/la/le” . “I see them/her/her/him” (this phrase is impossible in French) (Choi, 2009).
Error analysis (EA) is “a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make” (M.Gass & Selinker, 2008). This analysis is almost the same with the weak version of CA which is comparing the errors which made by TL learners. However, EA is not evaluating the errors with TL native language (NL), but it compares with the TL. “ Error analysis provides a broader range of possible explanations than contrastive analysis for researchers/teachers to use account for errors, as the latter only attributed errors to the native language” (M.Gass & Selinker, 2008). I do agree with Gass and Selinker because as Corder (1967) says that by producing errors, it shows that the learners are progressing and participating. This statement is supported by the interlanguage theory, as according to Christina Gitsaki; “…interlanguage is seen as a kind of interim grammar gradually progressing towards the target language grammar”
There are two categories of sources of errors which are interlingual and intralingual. Interlingual errors are kind of errors produced because of influence of the NL. Intralingual error happens when learners try to make a new rule for the target language. Example of interlingual error is, the word “rumah-rumah” in Malay Language can be said in English as “houses”. However, the learners would say as “house-house”. The TL learners mixed the lexical from the NL with the TL. Example of intralingual error is the word “telah” in Malay Language represents “was/were/had” in English. That is no doubt that a Malay learner would construct a sentence like this,
1. “She were playing badminton” (wrong)
2. “Dia telah bermain badminton”
3. “She was playing badminton” (correct)
The first sentence happens because there is no past tense marker in Malay language. So it becomes a problem for Malay learners since the TL and NL share different tenses.
EA gives an important role because it makes the errors not as unwanted but as guidance to assess how the learners progress in TL. It also detects lots of errors, more than CA does. EA also recognizes the learners ' acknowledgement of language system. Besides, it also can categorized errors made by learners according to a system. However, EA is totally depends on errors made by learners. It is also cannot explain about what are classified as errors and non errors. In addition, EA as a mode of inquiry was limited in its scope and concentrated on what learners did wrong rather than on what made them successful (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). This shows that EA cannot cover lots of aspects since it is bounded by its range and errors are temptation for error analyzer.
Statements

References: Connor, Ulla M. (1996), Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437189-1 Lado, R Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437065-8 ************************************************************************* Contrastive analysis Contrastive analysis(CA) is a method to distinguish between what are needed and not needed to learn by the target language(TL) learner by evaluating languages (M.Gass & Selinker, 2008)