YEAR TWO
Second Language Acquisition
#5: The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
1. The emergence of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
As a second-language learning hypothesis, the Contrastive Analysis emerged in the USA in the mid-
1950s. A scientifically grounded theory, it was based on two powerful foundations: behaviourism and
structuralism.
2. Psychological foundations of CAH: Behaviourism and the theory of transfer
One of the concerns of learning psychologists is the effect of one learning task on a subsequent one.
The observation that prior learning affects subsequent learning leads to the hypothesis of transfer. Most
of the experimental investigation of transfer undertaken by behaviourists concerned very primitive
learning tasks performed - frequently by animals - under laboratory conditions. Where the intention was
to study language learning by humans, the tasks were similarly very much simplified in comparison with
the real-world processes of language learning: the favoured technique was the learning of nonsense
syllables. The question must arise of whether observations from such simplified settings and types of
learning can validly be extrapolated to serve a theory of real language learning.
CAH is founded on the assumption that L2 learners will tend to transfer to their L2 utterances the formal
features of their L1. As Lado puts it, "individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the
distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and
culture" (Lado 1957: 2).
Skinnerian psychology advocated that education should follow the following procedures:
teachers should make explicitly clear what is to be taught
tasks should be broken down into small sequential steps
students should be encouraged to work at their own pace by means of individualised learning
programmes
learning should be programmed by incorporating these principles and immediate positive
reinforcement should be given; this should guarantee achieving success
3. Strengths and weaknesses of behaviouristic theory of learning (after Williams & Burden 1997: 10)
Strengths
Weaknesses
o
reinforcement does play a role in
shaping human behaviour
o
Skinner and others emphasised
the role of parents in
establishing good learning
conditions
o
despite its faults, behaviourism
provided a coherent theory of
the learning process
the theory is only concerned with observable behaviour
some researchers see the modification of behaviour by rewards, and more
especially punishments, as brainwashing rather than education
it denies that learners use various mental strategies to sort out the
language system
it denies that learners seek to make sense of the world they find around
them
it sees the learner as starting with a
tabula rasa
('a clean slate') on which
through operant conditioning different behaviour patterns can be built
What constitutes a S (stimulus) or a R (response) in L2 learning? S is the least elusive of definitions. It is
best to assign it a prelinguistic definition, as did Leonard Bloomfield (1933: 24), in his parable of Jack
and Jill taking a walk. Jill, feeling hungry (the S), 'responds' (the R) by asking Jack to pick her an apple.
However, what if Jill was not hungry but greedy? A Stimulus, then, is what Richterich (1974) has called a
"communication need".
4. Linguistic foundations of CAH: Structuralism
A comparison of two languages (contrastive studies) can be carried out using any of several different
models of grammar. Initially, the model used was that of structuralist linguists (e.g. Bloomfield 1933;
1942; Fries 1952).
5. Audiolingualism
The theory of habit formation is evident in the audiolingual approach to foreign language teaching,
fitted in nicely with the structuralists' view of language as a set of patterns. Each pattern, once
identified, could be practised through S-R drills until it became a habit. The audiolingual emphasis on
repetition, imitation and simple substitution on the part of the learner and systematic reinforcement on
the part of the teacher was intended to reflect this law of learning.
For learning to be effective, habits had to become automatic. This is what Bloomfield (1942) had in mind
when he claimed that "language learning is overlearning. Anything else is of no use". Only if patterns of
the L2 had been "over-learned", was it possible for the learner to produce them correctly in real
communication.
6. Interference and Errors
Errors are the result of L1 interference and are to be avoided or corrected if they do occur. The patterns
of the learner's L1 and the L2 would be the same in some cases and different in others. Where they were
the same, it was assumed that the learning of the FL would be facilitated because all the learner had to
do was to transfer L1 habits. However, where they were different, learning difficulties arose as a result of
proactive inhibition - the inhibition of new habits by previous learning. The learner's L1 interfered with
the acquisition of new, L2 habits. As a result, errors appeared in the learner's responses which were
directly traceable to the L1. Audiolingualists recognised other sources of error (e.g. random responses
or overgeneralisation of a pattern resulting from incomplete learning) but considered L1 interference by
far the most serious.
7 The strong and the weak versions of CAH
Errors would be prevented more easily if they could be predicted. In its strong form (cf. Wardhaugh
1970), CAH stated that all L2 errors could be
predicted by identifying the difference between the target
language and the learner's L1. The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be
diagnostic. A
contrastive analysis can be used to
identify which errors are the result of interference.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY:
Bloomfield, L. 1933.
Language. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bloomfield, L. 1942.
Outline Guide for the Study of Foreign Languages. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
Brown, H. D. 2007.
Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. 1990.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fries, C. C. 1952.
The Structure of English: New York: Harcourt Brace
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008.
Second Language Acquisition - An Introductory Course. Third Edition. London: Routledge.
James, C. 1980.
Contrastive Analysis. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Lado, R. 1957.
Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Richterich, R. 1974. 'The analysis of language needs'.
Modern Languages in Adult Education. Strasbourg: CECOSE.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006.
Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wardhaugh, R. 1970. 'The contrastive analysis hypothesis'.
TESOL Quarterly, 4/2: 123-30.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. 1997.
Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.