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.