Contrastive analysis

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.

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.
Latest Trend of Contrastive Analysis
In response to the above criticisms, there has been an advocate of a moderate version of the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), which paradoxically contradicts Lado's original claim. The
new CAH hypothesizes that the more different is the L2 with one's L1, the easier it is for him/her
to learn the target language. This prediction is predicated on the premise that similarities in
languages create confusion for learners.
With the help of technological advancement, Contrastive Analysis has adopted a highly efficient
method in obtaining language data, namely a corpus-based approach, which generates vast
amount of juxtapositions of language differences in various fields of linguistics, for example lexis
and syntax. This allows error analysis to thrive in the context of Contrastive Analysis.
Applications
There are multiple fields in the realms of linguistics to which Contrastive Analysis (CA) is
applicable.

 Historical Linguistics: this is a former application of CA, which is subsumed under the name
of Comparative Linguistics, a branch in linguistics not to be confused with CA.
 Second language teaching: Despite CA's limitation in the prediction of L2 learners' errors, it
provides insights to at least some of the major mistakes that are frequently made by L2
learners irrespective of their L1. Hence, more tailor-made language design can be adopted;
examples include awareness raising teaching method and hierarchical learning teaching
curriculum.
 Second language learning: Awareness raising is the major contribution of CA in second
language learning. This includes CA's abilities to explain observed errors and to outline the
differences between two languages; upon language learners' realization of these aspects,
they can work to adopt a viable way to learn instead of rote learning, and correct fossilized
language errors.
 Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Bilingualism, Pragmatics and others cultural-related
areas: CA is, in itself, a cross-linguistic/cross-cultural study, and its applicability on both
linguistics and non-linguistics features is one of its major merits. This permits a better
understanding linguistic-cultural understanding, which is essential for learning a language in
its entirety.
 Translation: CA provides better understanding of linguistic difference between two
languages and therefore may be applied to the field of translation. Firstly, CA certainly lays a
foundation for translation as it is an integral element for interpreters to have a thorough
understanding of not only the two languages, but the differences between them. Also, it might
balance the word-for-word vs. sense-for sense debate by developing strategies to overcome
the linguistic hindrance. Moreover, it may avoid awkward translations such
as translationese and Europeanization.
 Language Therapy: Distinguishing the difference between language disorder patients from
non-standard dialect speakers. This is essential in identifying speech pathology and their
corresponding treatment.
 Criminal Investigation: CA research offers insight to subtle differences among languages.
Language patterns can be used as clues to investigate criminal activities, for example
analyzing phishing texts designed to deceive users into giving away confidential information.