Contrastive AnalysisError Analysis and Interlanguage

1、Unit 4 Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and InterlanguageThis unit focuses on:* Contrastive Analysis* Error Analysis* InterlanguageA starting point in the research on second language acquisition is the study of learner language because learner language can reveal insights into the process of acq

2、uisition. The description of learner language constitutes the most important source of information about how learners learn a second or a foreign language when he/she gets things wrong, because learner errors can hold vital clues abut the processes of FL learning. The errors can be analyzed to work

3、out why they are made in order to study the developmental patterns of learner language.Contrastive Analysis sought to predict the errors that learners make by identifying the linguistic differences between their L1 and the target language. Its underlying assumption was that errors were mainly the re

4、sult of interference was believed to take place whenever the habits of the native language differed from those of the target language. Contrastive Analysis gave way to Error Analysis because of the belief that the errors learners make can be influenced by a variety of factors. Error Analysis can be

5、used to investigate the various processes that contribute to interlanguage development. Interlanguage is viewed as a unique linguistic system that L2 learners construct by drawing on their L1 and the target language.Contrastive Analysis studies the comparison between mother language and target langu

6、age; Error Analysis studied the comparison between interlnaguage and target language; and transfer studies the comparison between mother language and interlanguage. This unit will discuss these concepts and provide some explanations about the relationship between them.Contrastive analysisAs a scient

7、ific comparison method, Contrastive Analysis ( CA ) has experienced a rise and fall in the last 60 years of its development. CA was a traditional method used in the field of translation and it was adopted in the 1940s as a special method to study foreign language learning and teaching. The term Cont

8、rastive Analysis was first used by Benjiamin L. Whorf in 1941, but Charles Fries was regarded as the founder of modern contrastive linguistics and as the first man to apply contrastive analysis to foreign language learning and teaching.Contrastive Analysis had grown to be a major concern of applied

9、linguistics in 1950s. Robert Lados book Linguistics Across Cultures, published in 1957, says that “ The teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are and can provide for teaching them”. He made a systema

10、tic study of contrastive analysis in his book and showed how to use the CA method to compare linguistic systematic. However, in 1960s, CA was challenged by Chomskys TG grammar and it received a lot of criticism. CA became unfashionable for a time, but it was never truly killed off. CA underwent a ra

11、pid development in 1970s. The Pacific Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Language Universals was held in the University of Hawaii in 1971. Different schools of CA were formed in 1980s to study its principles, procedures and its applications in foreign language learning and teaching.The Contra

12、stive Analysis HypothesisContrastive Analysis can be defined as systematic comparison of specific linguistic characteristics of two or more languages. The CA Hypothesis claimed that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second

13、language system and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two language would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would enable the linguist and teacher to predict the difficulties a learner will encounter. In this sense, CA is an applied contrastive study, whic

14、h is concerned not only with the comparison and contrast of two or more languages to determine the differences as well as similarities between them, but also with the identification of probable areas of difficulty in learning another language.CA was deeply rooted in the behavioristic and structurali

15、st approaches. Behaviorists believed that human behavior is the sum of its smallest parts and components, and therefore that language learning could be described as the acquisition of all of these discrete units. Behaviorists also believed that learning is a kind of habit formation. Old habits get i

16、n the way of learning new habits and the effects of one habit on learning another is known in psychology as the study of Transfer. Language learners attempt to transfer the features of their mother tongue to the second language they are learning. Transfer will be positive when their first and second

17、 language habits are the same. When the two languages are different in structures, negative transfer, also called interference, occurs. Thus differences between the first and second languages create learning difficulty which results in errors, while the similarities between the first and second lang

18、uages facilitate rapid and easy learning.Some strong claims were made for the CA hypothesis among language teaching experts and linguists. The strong version of the CA hypothesis claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learners fi

19、rst language. It was believed that comparing native and target languages would tell you almost everything you needed to know to devise a language-teaching program. As Lee notes, it stipulates that “ the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is inte

20、rference coming from the learners native language”. One of the strongest claims was made by Robert Lado ( 1957 ) in the preface to Linguistics Across Cultures: “The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in leaning, and those

21、 that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student.” Then, in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning. Those elements th

22、at are similar to the learners native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult. Another strong claim was made by Banathy, Trager, and Waddle ( 1967 ): “ The change that has to take place in the language behavior of a foreign language student can be equa

23、ted with the differences between the structure of the students native language and culture and that of the target language and culture.”In 1970s, the strong CA hypothesis came under severe criticism. Ronald Wardhaugh called the strong version of the CA hypothesis a version that was quite unrealistic

24、 and impracticable. His viewpoint which was also shared by others led to the development of the weak version of the CA hypothesis. The weak version recognizes the significance of interference across languages and the fact that such interference can explain difficulties, but it also recognizes that n

25、ot all linguistic difficulties can be predicted in advance and the later explanation of these difficulties would be more profitable. As learners are learning the language and errors appear, the teacher can utilize his knowledge of the target and native languages to understand sources of error. Clear

26、ly, gross predictions can be made up of hundreds of thousands of items, and it is impossible to predict difficulty beyond some very noticeable phonological differences between two languages. In fact, it is only in the phonological component of language that contrastive analysis is mildly successful.

27、 Syntactic, semantic, or lexical interference is far less predictable. The hypothesis is weak because it does not claim any predictive power for CA to foresee errors with any certainty in advance.A compromise between the strong and weak versions of the hypothesis was proposed by Oller and Ziahossein

28、y. They claimed that “ The categorization of abstract and concrete patterns according to their perceived similarities and differences is the basis for learning; therefore, wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems, confusion may result.” In other words, the l

29、earning of sounds, sequences and meanings will be the most difficult where the most subtle distinctions are required either between the target language and native language or within the target language itself. According to them, the greatest difficulties in L2 learning are neither apparent similarit

30、ies nor apparent differences, but subtle distinctions between two languages. Interference can be greater where such subtle distinctions exist. Oller and Ziahosseinys moderate version has more explanatory power, and it has put the CA hypothesis into some perspective, because it rightly emphasizes the

31、 generalizing nature of human learning, since minimal differences are generally overlooked. Greater differences, because of their saliency, do not always result in greater learning difficulty.In conclusion, the strong version emphasizes the prior prediction of difficulties in learning a second langu

32、age. The weak version only recognizes the significance of interference across languages and tries to explain those difficulties coming from interference. However, both versions equate differences between two languages with difficulties in L2 learning. The moderate version differs from the other two

33、in that it emphasizes the significance of minimal distinctions, which actually cause the greatest interference and difficulties.Procedures of Contrastive AnalysisThe model initially used to compare two languages was that of structuralist linguistics. Structuralists emphasized the importance of scien

34、tific description of languagea description of the different categories that make up the patterns of a language. Structural linguistics provided the tools to accurately describe the two languages and to match those two descriptions against each other to determine the differences and similarities betw

35、een them. Most of the contrastive studies have been based on surface structure characteristics. Randal Whitman (1970) noted that CA involves four different procedures. The first of these is a formal description of the relevant features of each language compared. The linguist or language teacher, usi

36、ng the tools of formal grammar, explicitly describes the two languages in question.The second is a selection of certain linguistic items, which may be entire subsystems such as the auxiliary system, since it is virtually impossible to contrast every possible facet of two languages. Whitman admits th

37、at the selection process “ reflects the conscious and unconscious assumptions of the investigator”, which in turn affect exactly what forms are selected.The third is the comparison and contrast itself, that is, the mapping of one linguistic system onto the other, a specification of the relationship

38、of one system to the other, and the identification of areas of difference and similarity.Finally, one formulates a prediction of error or difficulty on the basis of the first three procedures. That prediction can be arrived at through the formulation of a hierarchy of difficulty or through more subj

39、ective applications of psychological and linguistic theory.The Application of Contrastive AnalysisCA has traditionally been used to predict and explain the problems in L2 learning. Languages differ and linguistic differences in two languages cause learning problems. The greater the difference betwee

40、n the two languages systems, the greater the learning problem and the potential area of interference. Prediction of learning problems and diagnosis of learner errors can help teachers better their teaching and remedy their work. Knowing why a learner has committed the errors help the learner monitor

41、 and avoid the same errors in the future. CA can also be used in developing course materials for language teaching. CA can specify those features of L2 which are different from corresponding features of the L1. This knowledge is important in the selection of teaching materials, because the identical

42、 features in two languages should take less time than the different features in teaching materials. Fries (1945) stated that “The most effective materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the nativ

43、e language of the learner”.Criticisms of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Although CA has been used by many teachers to organize their lessons and select teaching materials, it has suffered severe criticisms since the early 1970s. The criticisms of the CA hypothesis were of three major types.First of

44、 all, there were doubts concerning the ability of CA to predict errors in language learning. It was shown in research that not all errors were caused by the interference of the mother tongue. For instance, English beginners often produce sentences like He speaked English and I cuted myself. The inte

45、rference of the mother tongue cant satisfactorily explain these errors. It is more reasonable to say that the learner knows some rules of English but applies them in the wrong place. Thus the leaner overgeneralizes the rules for the change of verb forms. So the error is a result of overgeneralizatio

46、n of the target language system. It is obvious that the psychological and linguistic basis of CA is clearly defective, because it is based on behaviorism and structuralism. Secondly, there were a number of theoretical criticisms regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of

47、 contrastive attacked by Chomsky and others, and the terms stimulus, response and reinforcement were rejected as an inadequate explanation of language learning. In addition to this, there were objections to the validity of equating difference with difficulty on the one hand and difficulty with error

48、 on the other. Briefly, difference is a linguistic concept, while difficulty is a psychological concept. Therefore, the level of learning difficulty cant be inferred directly from the degree of linguistic difference between two language systems. The research also showed that items predicted to be di

49、fficult on the basis of a contrastive analysis did not in fact produce errors. So there was no necessary relationship between difficulty and error.Thirdly, there were doubts about whether CA had any practical worth to language teaching. CA studies concentrated largely on grammatical aspectsthe phono

50、logical level, the morphemic level and the syntactical level. There is practically little contrastive analysis above the sentence level, let alone the textual or discourse level. In addition, if a majority of learner errors are not caused by interference, then CA is of limited value. However, the ma

51、in doubt about CA from a pedagogic point of view has arisen from the changing attitudes to the role of errors in language learning. CA was based on the need to avoid error, but if error is seen as a positive aspecta necessary developmental process of language learning, then why should we devise a te

52、aching program to prevent it?Recent researchWithin the last few decades, the importance of language transfer in foreign language learning has been reassessed several times. Recently, a more balanced perspective has emerged in which the role of transfer is acknowledged and in which transfer is seen t

53、o interact with a host of other factors in ways not fully understood argues that “native language contributes to L2 acquisition”, and that “the popular belied that the role of L1 is negative needs to be reconsidered in the cognitive framework”. When the L2 learners experience difficulty in communica

54、ting an idea because they lack the necessary target language knowledge, they will resort to their L1 to make up the insufficiency. Therefore, the concept of “interference” should be reframed as a “cognitive process”, a “strategy” or an “intercession”( Lu Xiaoyong 2002). L1 should be viewed as a reso

55、urce which learners can use for ad hoc translation to overcome their limitations. Lus empirical studies indicate that L1 plays a positive role in L2 learning and literacy of Chinese students native language correlates significantly with the acquisition of literacy in the English language.In recent y

56、ears, CA has been widely applied to more extensive aspects including textual, pragmatic, discourse and cross-cultural levels. CA begins to consider not only linguistic contrasts but also pragmatic contrasts such as the similarities and differences in the stylistic uses of items in the first and seco

57、nd language and in the form-function relationships. Contrastive pragmatics is a fairly recent development of this kind. Recent researches also prove that error is a multi-factor phenomenon and that interference, as one of the factors, interacts in complex ways with other factors.Error Analysis The a

58、nalysis of learner errors has a long tradition. Before the early 1970s, the goal of error studies was mainly pedagogic and the information provided by errors was used to sequence linguistic items for teaching. As we saw in the previous section, CA had been the prevailing technique to study errors of

59、 L2 learners for nearly two decades. CA overstressed the interfering effects o mother language on target language learning and ignored the other factors, which interacted with interference, to result in errors. Another approach, Error Analysis, developed as a branch of applied linguistics in the late 1960s and claimed that many learner errors were not due to the learners mother tongue but reflected universal learning strategies. Error Analysis was theref