contrastive analysis hypothesis strong and weak version

Literary Articles

• A Farewell to Arms (1)
• Absurd Drama (5)
• African Literature (11)
• Agamemnon (2)
• Agha Shahid Ali (1)
• American Literature (32)
• Amitav Ghosh (6)
• Anita Desai (1)
• Aristotle (6)
• Bengali Literature (4)
• British Fiction (20)
• Charles Dickens (8)
• Chaucer (1)
• Chomsky (11)
• Classics (12)
• Clear Light of the Day (1)
• Cotton Mather (1)
• Death of a Salesman (5)
• Derek Walcott (3)
• Derrida (1)
• Descartes (1)
• Dr. Samuel Johnson (7)
• Edward Said (1)
• Elaine Showalter (2)
• ELT Terms Difined (20)
• Emily Bronte (6)
• Emily Dickinson (3)
• English History (9)
• English Language (2)
• English Literature (2)
• Great Expectations (7)
• Greek Literature (7)
• Heart of Darkness (2)
• History of English Language (15)
• History of English literature (9)
• Indian Literature (18)
• Indian Literature in English (2)
• Indian Poetry in English (23)
• Irish Literature (4)
• John Donne (2)
• John Keats (5)
• John Locke (2)
• Kamala Das (17)
• Kim by Kipling (2)
• Latin American Literature (2)
• Life and time of Michael K (3)
• Linguistics (13)
• Literary Criticism (28)
• Literary Terms (7)
• Literary Theories (19)
• Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1)
• Machiavelli (2)
• Magic Realism (2)
• Marvell (2)
• Maupassant (1)
• Measure for Measure (3)
• Metaphysical poetry (3)
• Native Son (1)
• Nissim Ezekiel (4)
• Oedipus Rex (2)
• Othello (5)
• Phaedra by Seneca (3)
• Philosophy short notes (1)
• Postcolonial Reading (1)
• Postmodernist reading (2)
• Pride and Prejudice (4)
• Psychoanalytic Reading (1)
• Quartet (1)
• R K Narayan's The Guide (10)
• Red Badge of Courage (1)
• Riders to the Sea (1)
• Robert Frost (4)
• Roland Barthes (3)
• Romantic Literature (13)
• Romantic Poetry (4)
• Ronald Barthes (3)
• S .T . Coleridge (4)
• Samuel Beckett (1)
• Saul Bellow’s Seize the Day (1)
• Seamus Heaney (1)
• Seize the Day by Saul Bellow (4)
• Shakespeare (22)
• Shakespeare's Sonnets (6)
• Shelley (2)
• Song of Myself by Whitman (3)
• Sonnets (3)
• Sons and Lovers (5)
• Sophocles (2)
• South Asian Literature (2)
• Strange Pilgrims by Gabriel Garcia Marquez (3)
• T. S . Eliot (10)
• Teaching Language Through Literature (5)
• Tempest (4)
• Tennyson (1)
• The Ancient Mariner (5)
• The Great Gatsby (3)
• The Iliad (1)
• The Old Man And The Sea (1)
• The Playboy of the Western World (3)
• The Return of the Native (4)
• The Scarlet Letter (2)
• The Spanish Tragedy (1)
• The Turn of the Screw (3)
• The Waste Land (2)
• The Zoo Story by Adward Albee (4)
• Things Fall Apart (4)
• Thomas Hardy (4)
• Victorian Literature (5)
• W. J. Mitchell (1)
• W.B. Yeats (11)
• Waiting for Godot (3)
• Western Philosophy (13)
• William Blake (3)
• Wole Soyinka (5)
• Wordsworth (11)
• Workhouse Ward (1)

Saturday, November 16, 2013

What is contrastive analysis hypothesis in sla what are its major limitations, writer's profile.

Adam Becker

Author and astrophysicist, weak forms and strong forms.

For Cameron Neylon, because he kept asking me for this…

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 1 states that language affects thought — how we speak influences how we think. Or, at least, that’s one form of the hypothesis, the weak form. The strong form of Sapir-Whorf says that language determines thought, that how we speak forms a hard boundary on how and what we think. The weak form of Sapir-Whorf says that we drive an ATV across the terrain of thought; language can smooth the path in some areas and create rocks and roadblocks in others, but it doesn’t fundamentally limit where we can go. The strong form, in contrast, says we drive a steam train of thought, and language lays down the rails. There’s an intricate maze of forks and switchbacks spanning the continent, but at the end of the day we can only go where the rails will take us — we can’t lay down new track, no matter how we might try.

Most linguists today accept that some form of the weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis must be true: the language(s) we speak definitely affect how we think and act. But most linguists also accept that the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can’t be true, just as a matter of empirical fact. New words are developed, new concepts formed, new trails blazed on the terrain of thought. Some tasks may be easier or harder depending on whether your language is particularly suited for them — though even this is in dispute . But it’s simply not the case that we can’t think about things if we don’t have the words for them, nor that language actually determines our thought. In short, while the weak form of Sapir-Whorf is probably correct, the strong form is wrong. And this makes some sense: it certainly seems like language affects our thoughts, but it doesn’t seem like language wholly determines our thoughts.

But the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn’t the only theory with strong and weak forms — in fact, there’s a whole pattern of theories like this, and associated rhetorical dangers that go along with them. The pattern looks like this:

• Start with a general theoretical statement about the world, where…
• …there are two forms, a weak form and a strong form, and…
• …the weak form is obviously true — how could it not be? — and…
• …the strong form is obviously false, or at least much more controversial. Then, the rhetorical danger rears its head, and…
• …arguments for the (true) weak form are appropriated, unmodified or nearly so, as arguments for the strong form by the proponents of the latter. (You also sometimes see this in reverse: people who are eager to deny the strong form rejecting valid arguments for the weak form.)

I don’t know why (5) happens, but I suspect (with little to no proof) that this confusion stems from rejection of a naive view of the world. Say you start with a cartoonishly simple picture of some phenomenon — for example, say you believe that thought isn’t affected by language in any way at all. Then you hear (good!) arguments for the weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which shows this cartoon picture is too simple to capture reality. With your anchor line to your old idea cut, you veer to the strong form of Sapir-Whorf. Then, later, when arguing for your new view, you use the same arguments that convinced you your old naive idea was false — namely, arguments for the weak form. (This also suggests that when (5) happens in reverse, this is founded in the same basic confusion: people defend themselves from the strong form by attacking the weak form because they would feel unmoored from their (naive) views if the weak form were true.) But why this happens is all speculation on my part. All I know for sure is that it does happen.

Cultural relativism about scientific truth is another good example. The two forms look something like this:

Weak form : Human factors like culture, history, and economics influence the practice of science, and thereby the content of our scientific theories.

Strong form : Human factors like culture, history, and economics wholly determine the content of our scientific theories.

It’s hard to see how the weak form could be wrong. Science is a human activity, and like any human activity, it’s affected by culture, economics, history, and other human factors. But the strong form claims that science is totally disconnected from anything like a “real world,” is simply manufactured by a variety of cultural and social forces, and has no special claim to truth. This is just not true. In her excellent book Brain Storm — itself about how the weak form of this thesis has played out in the spurious science of innate gender differences in the development of the human brain — Rebecca Jordan-Young forcefully rejects the strong form of relativism about science, and addresses both directions of the rhetorical confusion that arises from confounding the weak form with the strong:

The fact that science is not, and can never be, a simple mirror of the world also does not imply that science is simply “made up” and is not constrained by material phenomena that actually exist—the material world “pushes back” and exerts its own effects in science, even if we accept the postmodern premise that we humans have no hope of a direct access to that world that is unmediated by our own practices and culturally determined cognitive and linguistic structures. There is no need to dogmatically insist (against all evidence) that science really is objective in order to believe in science as a good and worthwhile endeavor, and even to believe in science as a particularly useful and trustworthy way of learning about the world. 2

Successful scientific theories, in general, must bear some resemblance to the world at large. Indeed, the success of scientific theories in predicting phenomena in the world would be nothing short of a miracle if there were absolutely no resemblance between the content of those theories and the content of the world. 3 That’s not to say that our theories are perfect representations of the world, nor that they are totally unaffected by cultural and political factors: far from it. I’m writing a book right now that’s (partly) about the cultural and historical factors influencing the debate on the foundations of quantum physics. But the content of our scientific theories is certainly not solely determined by human factors. Science is our best attempt to learn about the nature of the world. It’s not perfect. That’s OK.

There are many people, working largely in Continental philosophy and critical theory of various stripes, who advocate the strong form of relativism about science. 4 Yet most of their arguments which are ostensibly in favor of this strong form are actually arguments for the weak form: that culture plays some role in determining the content of our best scientific theories. 5 And that’s simply not the same thing.

Another, much more popular example of a strong and weak form problem is the set of claims around the “power of positive thinking.” The weak form suggests that being more confident and positive can make you happier, healthier, and more successful. This is usually true, and it’s hard to see how it couldn’t be usually true — though there are many specific counterexamples. For example, positive thinking can’t keep your house from being destroyed by a hurricane. Yet the strong form of positive-thinking claims — known as “the law of attraction,” and popularized by The Secret — suggests exactly that. This states that positive thinking, and positive thinking alone, can literally change the world around you for the better, preventing and reversing all bad luck and hardship. 6 Not only is this manifestly untrue, but the logical implications are morally repugnant: if bad things do happen to you, it must be a result of not thinking positively enough . For example, if you have cancer, and it’s resistant to treatment, that must be your fault . While this kind of neo-Calvinist victim-blaming is bad enough, it becomes truly monstrous — and the flaw in the reasoning particularly apparent — when extended from unfortunate individual circumstances to systematically disadvantaged groups. The ultimate responsibility for slavery, colonialism, genocide, and institutionalized bigotry quite obviously does not lie with the victims’ purported inability to wish hard enough for a better world.

In short, easily-confused strong and weak forms of a theory abound. I’m not claiming that this is anything like an original idea. All I’m saying is that some theories come in strong and weak forms, that sometimes the weak forms are obviously true and the strong obviously false, and that in those cases, it’s easy to take rhetorical advantage (deliberately or not) of this confusion. You could argue that the weak form directly implies the strong form in some cases, and maybe it does. But that’s not generally true, and you have to do a lot of work to make that argument — work that often isn’t done.

Again, I strongly suspect other people have come up with this idea. When I’ve talked with people about this, they’ve generally picked it up very quickly and come up with examples I didn’t think of. This seems to be floating around. If someone has a good citation for it, I’d be immensely grateful.

Image credit: Zink Dawg at English Wikipedia , CC-BY 3.0. I was strongly tempted to use this image instead.

• This is apparently a historical misnomer, but we’ll ignore that for now. [ ↩ ]
• Rebecca M. Jordan-Young, in Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, Harvard University Press, 2011, pp. 299-300. Emphasis in the original. [ ↩ ]
• See J.J.C. Smart,  Philosophy and Scientific Realism , and Hilary Putnam,  Mathematics, Matter, and Method . [ ↩ ]
• Bruno Latour is the first name that comes to mind. [ ↩ ]
• See, for example, Kuhn, who even seems to have confused himself about whether he was advocating the strong or the weak version. [ ↩ ]
• The “arguments” in favor of this kind of nonsense take advantage of more than just the confusion between the strong and weak forms of the thesis about positive thinking. They also rely on profound misunderstandings about quantum physics and other perversions of science. But let’s put that aside for now. [ ↩ ]

Share this:

One thought on “ weak forms and strong forms ”.

There’s Occam’s Rusty Razor at work. Weak versions of theories necessitate lots of conditionals. Simpler just to eschew all conditionals. But simplicity itself is a virtue only with lots of subtlety and conditionality. Rusty razors butcher. Eschew Occam’s Rusty Razor.

Comments are closed.

The lingwist

The Lingwist is the home for everyone who is passionate about language and linguistics. Feel free to share, discuss, and comment. The Lingwist's motto is " Learn & have fun"

The moderate Version of Contrastive analysis Hypotheses

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is a major field in comparative linguistics and it is based on the behaviorist theory and was initially proposed by Lado (1957). CAH aims at identifying and analyzing the differences and similarities between two or more languages or dialects in a systematic way. Generally speaking, there are three versions of CAH: the strong and weak versions of Wardhaugh (1970) and the moderate version of Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970). The strong version predicts areas of difficulty through a systematic and scientific analysis of the learners’ L1 and L2 errors. the weak version of CAH, on the other hand, started with observing and identifying the errors, then seeks to contrast the structural language items between the two languages for the sake of finally getting an explanation of the occurred errors

To compensate for the limitations of both the weak and the strong version, Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) Suggested an alternative version which is ‘the moderate version.’ For them, the strong version was too strong and the weak version too weak. So, they proposed a moderate version of the hypothesis. This article will deeply deal with it since there is little research done in this area of study.

The moderate version hypothesis was a result of a study conducted on English spelling errors using the UCLA placement test. The findings of the study showed that wherever the patterns of two language systems are minimally distinct, learners face some problems in second language learning. Similar to their study, Brown (1987) stated that inference causes some more problems on the basis of learning when two items are similar while a little interference happens when there are two distinct items to be learned. The more fascinating fact about the moderate version that the others lack was when Ziahosseiny (1999) claimed that it can explain both interlingual errors which are related to the native language and intralingual errors dealing with target language. Moreover, some errors which are due to overgeneralization can be interpreted and predicted on the basis of moderate version.

After discussing the three versions of the CAH, it is noteworthy to list some of the remarkable attributions of the hypothesis in the field of language teaching and learning. First, Lado (1957) believed syllabus producers and textbook designers benefited from steps procedures of contrastive analysis hypothesis to prepare effective teaching materials taking into consideration students’ difficulties. Second, contrastive analysis helps teachers locate the main difficulties in learning a foreign language. It can be more applicable in action research to look for a remedy. Third, Mackey (1965) claimed that thanks to CAH, teachers, and learners become aware that errors are necessary and a compulsory stage. Thus, many contrastive analysts tried to predict errors and strategies to overcome them. Finally, since CAH was based on the behaviorist theory, all students’ behavior in the target language learning and teaching is based on habit formation and is shaped by the stimulus-response pattern ( Lado, 1957).

It is worth mentioning that CA covers also the lexical area. Contrastive lexicology is carried out between the vocabulary system(s) of two languages. It is concerned with the way lexical items in one language are expressed in another language. This can be done by identifying both the semantic fields and the semantic properties in order to specify the divisions and sub-divisions of the lexicon. Lexical CA may result from the incomplete, partial, or null equivalence between languages.

All in all, Lado (1957) admitted that the analysis has important limitations when he said that “contrastive analysis must be considered a list of hypothetical problems until final validation is achieved by checking it against the actual speech of students” (p. 72). As he stated, the contrastive analysis focuses merely on languages themselves and tends to ignore the actual language that learners use. Therefore, the results from the contrastive analysis are often too general and theoretical to apply to authentic L2 learning and teaching. To add, the notion of ‘language transfer’ is correlated to the contrastive analysis and generally to the behaviorist theory. Asa result of the emergence of new paradigms and theories like cognitivism and social constructivism, language transfer has gone also through many changes since then and has been challenged by a number of researchers, such as Chomsky (1959).

Additionally, predictions based on the comparison between L1 and L2 linguistics structures were not able to account for learners’ difficulties and errors. As a result, Error Analysis appeared as an alternative to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. James (1988) believed that Error Analysis’ aim was mainly to describe the learners’ interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) and the target language and then to compare them, but without any reference to the L1.

If you think these tips are useful, please “SHARE AND CARE”

Related Posts

• Arts & Humanities

Second language acquisition (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis) 1

Related documents.

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

ERIC ED038640: The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options.

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by chris85 on November 29, 2015

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Contrastive Analysis, Transfer Analysis, Error Analysis, And Interlanguage: Four Concepts One Goal-Endang Fauziati Ahmad Dahlan

Contrastive Analysis, Transfer Analysis, Error Analysis, and Interlanguage are methods used for second language learning investigation. They constitute evolutionary phases in the attempt to understand and explain the nature of the target language learners' performance. Each theory has its own view, especially in the attitude toward learners' errors and the explanatory hypotheses regarding the sources of errors. They also appear to have one goal, that is, an attempt to facilitate the process of target language learning or teaching by studying learners' errors. They are complement to one another; they constitute four phases with one goal. Contrastive analisis aims to provide teachers and/or textbook writers with information that can be utilized in the preparation of instructional materials, the planning of courses, and the development of classroom techniques. Contranstive studies are carried out in order to describe the differences between learners' native language amd...

Related Papers

Endang Fauziati

Contrastive Analysis, Transfer Analysis, Error Analysis, and Interlanguage are methods used for second language learning investigation. They constitute evolutionary phases in the attempt to understand and explain the nature of the target language learners’ performance. Each theory has its own view, especially in the attitude toward learners’ errors and the explanatory hypotheses regarding the sources of errors. They also appear to have one goal, that is, an attempt to facilitate the process of target language learning or teaching by studying learners’ errors. They are complement to one another; they constitute four phases with one goal. Contrastive analisis aims to provide teachers and/or textbook writers with information that can be utilized in the preparation of instructional materials, the planning of courses, and the development of classroom techniques. Contranstive studies are carried out in order to describe the differences between learners’ native language amd the target lang...

Dennis Kojo Appiah

Contrastive linguistics and language teacher. Oxford: …

S. N. Sridhar

Readings on English as a Second language for Teachers and Teacher Trainers

IJELS AIAC , Dr. Bandar Al-Sobhi

The major aim of the current paper is to review and discuss three prevailing approaches to the study of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) since the middle of the twentieth century: Contrastive Analysis (CA, henceforth), Error Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL). It begins with a general overview of how the CA approach was formulated and developed and discusses the three versions of CA which were displaced later by other approaches, such as EA and IL. The paper also provides an in-depth theoretical discussion of the notion of EA in terms of its definitions, goals, significance, development, causes and procedures. The discussion about the SLA approaches concludes with a review of IL which claims that language learners produce a separate linguistic system with its own salient features, which differs from their L1 and target language. Additionally, a bulk of previous studies conducted on EA in different contexts are reviewed throughout the paper.

Sinan Bayraktaroglu

Acer Aspire

Philip Joshua Aristoteles

1. Contrastive analysis, structuralist linguistics and behaviorist psychology The main idea of contrastive analysis, as propounded by Robert Lado in his book Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), was that it is possible to identify the areas of difficulty a particular foreign language will present for native speakers of another language by systematically comparing the two languages and cultures. Where the two languages and cultures are similar, learning difficulties will not be expected, where they are different, then learning difficulties are to be expected, and the greater the difference, the greater the degree of expected difficulty. On the basis of such analysis, it was believed, teaching materials could be tailored to the needs of learners of a specific first language. Lado himself was an English and Spanish bilingual, who was born in America of Spanish parents, grew up in Spain and then went to college in the USA. He was all too aware of the importance of cultural difference in mastering a foreign language. However, his appeal to compare cultures was not taken up, and in practice contrastive analysis focussed on a surface comparison of languages, starting with the sounds, then the grammar and finally-and only selectively-the vocabulary. This emphasis reflected the focus of American linguistics at the time, which was still very much under the influence of structuralism as espoused by the great American structuralist Bloomfield in Language (1933). Structural linguistics viewed language as a rule-governed system which could be separated into hierarchically arranged subsystems , each of which had its own internal patterns and structure. The lowest level in the hierarchy was phonology, then morphology, then syntax. The lexicon received scant attention from structuralists and the discourse level of language was quite ignored. In fact, structural linguistics coped best with closed or finite linguistic systems, and, for this reason, deliberately excluded semantics from its description. Bloomfield's (1933: 140) conclusion that " the statement of meanings is therefore the weak point in language study, and will remain so until human knowledge advances very far beyond its present state " is often quoted. In the period immediately after World War II there was renewed interest in language learning and language teaching in the United States, and efforts were made at the University of Michigan to apply the ideas of structural linguistics to language teaching, perhaps most influentially by Charles Fries (1945). The approach to language teaching advocated by the Michigan School laid great emphasis on the principled selection and grading of linguistic items for instruction. It was essentially an analytic, atomistic approach, which took a language apart in order to then put the parts back together again in their logical order during the teaching process, and in this sense it claimed to be scientific. Lado himself actually studied at the University of Michigan with Fries, and contrastive analysis became the basis for the strict selection and grading of material for teaching which was characteristic of language courses at the time. Fries advocated a bottom-up approach to language learning from phonology to morphology to syntax with vocabulary being held to a minimum: [...] the chief problem is not at first that of learning vocabulary items. It is, first, the mastery of the sound system[...]second, the mastery of the features of arrangement that constitute the structure of the language. (Fries 1945: 3) This structuralist emphasis of the Michigan School found its expression in audio-lingual language teaching, which sought to drill structural patterns, proceeding from the simple to the complex, while filling the slots in the patterns with a limited number of lexical items and insisting on correct pronunciation (e.g. I brush my teeth with a toothbrush , I brush my shoes with a shoebrush , I brush my hair with a hairbrush). Contrastive analysis became associated with behaviorist psychology, which was another separate influence on language teaching, particularly on audiolingual language teaching, and especially in the United States. Behaviorism was a general theory of learning. It viewed learning as habit formation brought about by repeated patterns of stimulus, response and reinforcement. For language teaching this fitted in nicely with the pedagogue's piece of folk wisdom that " practice makes perfect ". In other words, learners should be provided with a linguistic stimulus (for example a question to answer, a sentence to put into the negative form, a word to put into the plural form) and be told whether their answer was right (positive

Journal of ELT Research

Farhad Pakdel

This article aims to provide an overview of some of the issues related to contrastive analysis hypothesis in second language learning. Contrastive hypothesis is one of the branches of applied linguistics which concerns with the study of two systems of languages between first language and target language. Contrastive hypothesis has fairly played an important role in language studies. Thus, in recent years, contrastive analysis has been used in language teaching contexts, syllabus design, and language classrooms by language teachers over the world. Many research works have been done by many language researchers in different aspects of contrastive hypothesis and also error analysis in the world. Language teachers always see contrastive analysis as a pedagogical imperative in target language and they use it as a functional approach in language classroom. However, contrastive hypothesis follows the errors of language learners in second language education.

univagro-iasi.ro

Roxana Mihalache

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Frank Nuessel

Lazarus Gawazah

Fatma Seçkin

Ahmed ALDUAIS

Italica. Vol. 70, No. 2. Pp. 228-229.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies

Văn Quyến Lê

Nouf AL-Badri

Dr. Abdullah M . M . A . Shaghi

Bahram Kazemian , د. شهباز

International Journal of Education (IJE)

Nathalie DJIGUIMKOUDRE

MARIA-ISABEL GONZALEZ-CRUZ

Rajesh Prakhya

Naimi AMARA

Desayli Salmy Raz

naila hamidah

Georgiana Melinte

Migration Letters and Transnational Press London

eprahim sagala

Andrew D Cohen

Zeichen Journal

G.M. A B U Taher , Zawad Rami , Jamil Hussain

Ebru Yener Gökşenli

Ruth A . Berman

moses kambou

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Conferences

Journal of Education and Practice

• Current Issue
• Back Issues
• Announcements
• Full List of Journals
• Migrate a Journal
• Special Issue Service
• Conference Publishing
• Editorial Board
• OPEN ACCESS Policy

• Other Journals

Role of L1 in L2 Acquisition According to Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Error Analysis

In the changed context of a globalized world where English language continues to grow as a second or third language in many parts of the world, acquiring two primary languages simultaneously gains an increasing popularity. In this case, reviewing the influence of L1 on second language acquisition, i.e. language transfer, is of great importance. Though the theory of language transfer has experienced a long time of ups and downs since 1940s, up to now, it is still a central issue in applied linguistic, second language acquisition and language learning. Much of the history of this central concept has been tied in with the varying theoretical perspectives on SLA. The acceptance and/or rejection of language transfer as a viable concept has been related to the acceptance or rejection of the specific theory with which it has been associated. The article aims to compare and contrast views of the role of L1 in L2 acquisition according to Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Error Analysis approaches to reinvestigate how the views of L1's contributions to SLA changed in the early approaches.

Keywords: Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Error Analysis, L1, L2, language transfer

DOI : 10.7176/JEP/11-2-11

Publication date: January 31 st 2020

Paper submission email: [email protected]

ISSN (Paper)2222-1735 ISSN (Online)2222-288X

Please add our address "[email protected]" into your email contact list.

This journal follows ISO 9001 management standard and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Copyright © www.iiste.org

idswater.com

Find anything you need

What are the strength and weakness of contrastive analysis hypothesis?

Contrastive analysis suffers from under prediction and over prediction. It cannot find out the errors which are committed by the learners due to overgeneralization. CA is inadequate to predict the interference problems of a language learner. No uniformity is evident in Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.

What are the advantages of contrastive analysis?

– they consider as an advantage lexical similarity between related languages. – they encourage foreign language learning. – they exploit the learner’s previous linguistic knowledge.

What are the main points of contrastive analysis hypothesis?

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis states that the structure of the learners’ L1 affects the acquisition (the two terms acquisition/learning interchangeably) of their L2, in the sense that whenever there are similarities the L2 learning is facilitated, and whenever there are differences the learning process is difficult.

What is 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. The prediction is based on the premise that similarities in languages create confusion for learners.

Who proposed contrastive analysis hypothesis?

Contrastive analysis underwent a period of rapid development and expansion in the 1960s, particularly in the United States where the first systematic and extensive formulation of the CAH was proposed by Lado (1957) in linguistics across cultures.

What are the aims principles of contrastive analysis?

Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic comparison of two or more languages, with the aim of describing their similarities and differences. CA has often been done for practical/pedagogical purposes. The aim has been to provide better descriptions and better teaching materials for language learners.

What is the importance of error analysis?

Error analysis is a very important area of applied linguistics as well as of second and foreign language learning. It is also a systematic method to analyze learners’ errors. Errors are not always bad, rather they are crucial parts and aspects in the process of learning a language.

What are the objectives of contrastive analysis?

The goal of contrastive analysis is to predict linguis- tic difficulties experienced during the acquisition of a second language; as formulated by Lado (1957), it suggests that difficulties in acquiring a new (second) language are derived from the differences between the new language and the native (first) language of …

What are the three types of error analysis?

Researchers have identified three broad types of error analysis according to the size of the sample. These types are: massive, specific and incidental samples. All of them are relevant in the corpus collection but the relative utility and proficiency of each varies in relation to the main goal.

Which is the best description of contrastive analysis hypothesis?

What is contrastive analysis hypothesis in SLA?

Which is the weak version of contrastive analysis?

Why does contrastive analysis suffer from under prediction and over prediction?

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Informative Website For Everyone

What are the advantages of contrastive analysis?

Table of Contents

• 1 What are the advantages of contrastive analysis?
• 2 What is criticism of contrastive analysis?
• 3 What is contrastive analysis theory?
• 4 What is the difference between contrastive analysis and error analysis?
• 5 What is the purpose of a contrastive analysis?
• 6 Why are contrastive linguistic studies not so effective?

– they consider as an advantage lexical similarity between related languages. – they encourage foreign language learning. – they exploit the learner’s previous linguistic knowledge.

What is criticism of contrastive analysis?

The criticism is that Contrastive Analysis hypothesis could not be sustained by empirical evidence. 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.

What are the weak and strong versions of contrastive analysis?

The strong version predicts greatest difficulty where the difficulty is apparently least, and the weak form predicts no difference in level of difficulty where there is a highly significant difference. These results point to an “interference” factor rather than just “not- knowing” (i.e., “padding”).

What is the role of contrastive analysis in language teaching?

The goal of contrastive analysis is to predict linguis- tic difficulties experienced during the acquisition of a second language; as formulated by Lado (1957), it suggests that difficulties in acquiring a new (second) language are derived from the differences between the new language and the native (first) language of …

What is contrastive analysis theory?

The contrastive analysis hypothesis (CA), states that where the first language and the target language are similar, learners will generally acquire structures with ease, and where they are different, learners will have difficulty.

What is the difference between contrastive analysis and error analysis?

Error analysis is “a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make” (M. This analysis is almost the same with the weak version of contrastive analysis which is comparing the errors which made by L2 learners.

What is contrastive analysis example?

Contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities. Historically it has been used to establish language genealogies.

What are the levels of contrastive analysis?

Levels of Analysis Contrastive analysis can be conducted at different levels of language, for example it can be carried out at the phonological level, grammatical level, as well as the lexical level.

What is the purpose of a contrastive analysis?

Why are contrastive linguistic studies not so effective.

What are the disadvantages of longitudinal research?

Privacy Overview