Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contrastive Analysis (CA), Error Analyis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL), all three theories
have one main goal and that goal is the attempt to facilitate the process of TL (target language)
learning by studying the phenomenon of errors with a scientific framework that is consistent with
both linguistic theory and learning theory.
Contrastive analysis started to develop as a tool in the discovery of the universals of
language, in the study of diachronic change and of dialectical variation, in studies of language
acquisition, in interlingual translation.
Error Analysis came to develop as a theory that proved its usefulness in that it provides
insights into the strategies employed in second language acquisition and into the process of
language learning in general.
Interlanguage brings a new approach in the process of TL learning in the sense that it
emphasises the implications for theories of language contact, language change and language
acquisition. IL proves useful in describing special language types (immigrant speech, non-standard
dialects, non-native varieties of language and the language of aphasics and of poetry, among
others).
We could briefly sum up upon the main characteristics of CA, EA and IL by stating that their
primary goal seems to be to facilitate TL learning by providing insights into the nature of the
learner's performance.
In terms of approach, CA, EA and IL differ in terms of theoretical assumptions,
methodologies, the nature and scope of date considered relevant, the kind of insights they provide,
and the implications of the study for practical classroom teaching and materials preparations.
Contrastive Analysis
One of the main concepts that CA introduces in the TL learning process is the conept of the
pull of the mother tongue. The concept mainly refers to the assumption that the learner will
constantly have the tendency, being under the influence of the mother tongue, to apply the grammar
rules of the native tongue to the TL, hence the possible errors.
Among the first and main theorists that contributed to the development of CA as a theory,
we can mention: Charles Fries, who establishes CA as integral component of the methodology of
TL learning, and he does that by comparing languages 1; Robert Lado, whose main work,
Linguistics Across Cultures, published in 1957, would continue to be a reference study for many
linguists involved in the TL learning process; the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics would later
bring forth the existence pf language universals, and one of the main reference studies dating
back to that period remains The Constructive Structure Series (Stockwell and Bowen, 1965;
Stockwell, Bowen and Martin, 1965). In 1970, CA is attacked by linguists on both external and
internal grounds. On external grounds, it was its empirical validity that was being challenged,
while, on internal grounds, it was the theoretical foundations that were raising question marks. As a
result, the controversy seems to have clarified the possibilities and limitations of CA and its place,
along with other components, in the task of accounting for the nature of the learner's performance.
The Rationale for CA
The rationale for CA comes from:
1. practical experience of foreign language teachers
2. studies of language contact in bilingual situations
3.
theory of learning
The foreign language teacher knows about the mistakes being traced to the pull of the
mother tongue.
e.g.: M ntrebam ce fcea. This sentence might be translated into English by a
native Romanian speaker as follows: I asked myself what he was doing. (pull of the
mother tongue) instead of I wondered what he was doing.
1 Lado claimed that [...] we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that
will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native
language and culture of the student. This assumption has come to be known as the 'contrastive hypothesis' in its
'strong' or 'predictive' form.
2 According to Fries, the most effective [teaching] materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of
the language to be learned, carefully compared with parallel description of the native language of the learner (Fries,
1945: 9)
Error Analysis
Traditional EA
The goals of traditional EA were purely pragmatic: EA was conceived for its feedback
value in designing pedagogical materials and strategies.
EA could help in:
1. determining the sequence of presentation of target items in textbook and classroom, with the
difficult items following the easier ones;
2. deciding the relative degree of emphasis, explanation and practice required in putting across
various items in the TL;
3. devising remedial lessons and exercises;
4. selecting items for testing the learner's proficiency.
EA Methodology
EA was also conceived as primary pedagogical tool, and there are 3 arguments that have
been brought to support this claim:
1. EA does not suffer from the inherent limitation of CA (EA brings to light many other errors
frequently made by learners: e.g. interlanguage errors arising from the particular
teaching and learning strategy employed).
2. EA (unlike CA) provides data on actual, attested problems and not hypothetical problems
as a result, EA is more efficient.
3. EA is not confronted with the complex theoretical problems encountered by CA (e.g. the
problem of equivalence).
fatigue
emotional strain, etc.
Mistakes are typically random and readily corrected by the learner when his attention is
drawn to them.
Errors = systematic, consistent deviances charcteristic of the learner's linguistic system at a
given stage of learning.
Pit Corder talks of a 'key point' in the formation and appearance of errors. This 'key point'
refers to the fact that the learner is using a definite system of language at every point in his
development, although it is not that of the second language. The learner's errors are evidence of this
system and are themselves systematic.
It is also Pit Corder that proposes the term transitional competence when he refers to the
intermediate systems constructed by the learner in the process of his language learning, which
intermediate systems might lead to the appearance of errors.
Goals of EA When we think of the goals of EA, we speak of an applied goal of
correcting and eradicating the learner's errors at the expense of the more important and logically
prior task of evolving an explanatory theory of the learner's performance.
Error Analysis needs data to work with and to use in proving the initial assumptions.
Data of EA i.e. utterances that are superficially well formed and acceptable, but
produced by a set of rules different from those of the TL.
I want to know the English.
I want to learn English.
Therefore, the learner's errors are not properly to be regarded as right or wrong in
themselves but only as evidence of a right or wrong system. (Corder)
If we were to sum up, we would say that the object of EA is to describe the whole of the
learner's linguistic system and to compare it with that of the TL. EA = a brand of comparative
linguistic study
The crucial element in this process is the correct interpretation of the learner's utterance, as
this leads to a reconstruction of the correct utterance of the TL (by matching the erroneous
utterance with its equivalent in the learner's native language). This adds to a psychological
explanation in terms of the learner's strategies and the process of learning.
Interlanguage
The term 'interlanguage' was coined by Selinker in 1972, and it was considered an
appropriate term to designate the development of this linguistic approach in the study of the process
of TL learning because:
1. it captures the indeterminate status of the learner's system between his native
language and the TL;
2. it represents the atypical rapidity with which the learner's language changes, or its
instability;
3. focusing on the term 'language', it recognizes the rule-governed, systematic nature of
the learner's performance and its adequacy as a functional communicative system.
Assumptions
La ('language acquired') (approximative system) = the deviant linguistic system actually
employed by the learner attempting to utilize the TL.
La
1.
2.
Conclusion
CA
criticized for not all problems predicted by CA always appear to be difficult for
the students/learners; while other errors that do turn up are not predicted.
EA
an alternative to CA;
criticized for misdiagnosing student learning problems due to their avoidance of
a continuum between first language and TL along which all learners traverse;
dynamic (constantly adapting to new information) and influenced by the learners.
Bibliography
1. Corder, Pit (1967) 'The significance of learner's errors', in International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5: 161-170
2. Corder, Pit (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford: Oxford University Press
3. Ellis, Rod (1989) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
4. Fries, Charles Carpenter (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language,
University of Michigan Press
5. Lado, Robert (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language
Teachers, University of Michigan Press
6. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209231
7. Stockwell, Robert P., Bowen, Donal J., Martin, John W The Grammatical Structures of
English and Spanish, in the Contrastive Structure Series, University of Chicago Press
8. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact, The Hague: Mouton
10