ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#4: THE CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS
(extracted in part from: Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning . In
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375).
1. The emergence of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
As observed by Gass & Selinker (2008),  contrastive analysis is a way of comparing languages in
order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and
what does not need to be learned in a second-language-learning situation (p. 96). As a second-
language learning theory, the CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS (CAH) emerged in the USA in
the mid-1950s. A scientifically grounded theory, it was based on two powerful foundations:
BEHAVIOURISM and STRUCTURALISM.
As explained by one of the founders of the movement, Robert Lado (1957), Contrastive Analysis
consists in a structure-by-structure comparison of the phonology, morphology, syntax, and even the
culture of two linguistic systems in order to look for similarities and differences. The ultimate goal
is to predict areas that will be either easy or difficult for learners:
Since even languages as closely related as German and English differ significantly in the form, meaning, and
distribution of their grammatical structures, and since the learner tends to transfer the habits of his native
language structure to the foreign language, we have here the major source of difficulty or ease in learning the
structure of a foreign language. Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be
transferred and may function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those structures that are different will be
difficult because when transferred they will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will
therefore have to be changed (Lado 1957: 59).
By considering differences between L1 and L2 researchers also hoped to account for errors. These,
in turn, would be prevented more easily if they could be predicted.
2. Psychological and linguistic foundations of CAH
The psychological foundations of CAH are behaviourist psychology 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.
However, 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.
Thus, Contrastive Analysis is based on a theory that claims that language is a habit and that
language learning involves the formation of a new set of habits. CAH draws heavily on modern
behaviourism, whose most prominent representative was Burrhus F. Skinner. SKINNERIAN
PSYCHOLOGY advocated that education be based on the following procedures:
1
żð teachers should make explicitly clear what is to be taught
żð tasks should be broken down into small sequential steps
żð students should be encouraged to work at their own pace by means of individualised learning
programmes
żð learning should be programmed by incorporating these principles and immediate positive
reinforcement should be given; this should guarantee achieving success
The strengths and weaknesses of behaviourist theory of learning can be summarized thus (after
Williams & Burden 1997: 10):
Strengths Weaknesses
o reinforcement does play a
·ð the theory is only concerned with observable behaviour
role in shaping human
·ð some researchers see the modification of behaviour by rewards,
behaviour
and more especially punishments, as brainwashing rather than
o Skinner and others
education
emphasised the role of
·ð it denies that learners use various mental strategies to sort out the
parents in establishing good
language system
learning conditions
·ð it denies that learners seek to make sense of the world they find
o despite its faults,
around them
behaviourism provided a
·ð it sees the learner as starting with a tabula rasa ('a clean slate') on
coherent theory of the
which through operant conditioning different behaviour patterns
learning process
can be built
3. Transfer and second language learning/teaching
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). Accordingly, the major source of error in the production
and/or reception of a second language is the native language (Gass & Selinker 2008: 96). The
student s task in SLA is to learn the differences. Similarities, on the other hand, can be safely
ignored, since they involve no new learning. 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).
4. Audiolingualism
The theory of habit formation underlies the AUDIOLINGUAL APPROACH to foreign language
teaching, which fitted in conveniently with the structuralists view of language as a set of patterns.
Each pattern, once identified, could be practised through Stimulus-Response 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.
2
5. Interference and errors
Errors in CAH are perceived as the result of L1 interference and they are to be avoided or
corrected in language instruction 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, there appeared errors in the learner s output that were
directly traceable to the L1. To be sure, audiolingualists did recognize also other sources of error
(e.g. random responses, overgeneralization of a pattern resulting from incomplete learning, or the
effect of RETROACTIVE INHIBITION  the effect the current task has on the previously learned
activity), but considered L1 interference to be by far the most serious case.
6. The strong and the weak versions of CAH
There were two positions that developed with regard to the CAH framework. 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. For this reason, the strong version was
also known as the predictive or as the a priori position.  In the strong view, it was maintained that
one could make predictions about learning and hence about the success of language-teaching
materials based on a comparison between two languages (Gass & Selinker 2008: 96). In contrast,
the weak form of the hypothesis, also known as the a posteriori position or the explanatory view,
claims only to be diagnostic. Gass & Selinker (2008) add further that  the weak version starts with
an analysis of learners recurring errors. In other words, it begins with what learners do and then it
attempts to account for those errors on the basis of NL TL differences. [& ] The weak version,
which came to be part of error analysis, gained credence largely due to the failure of predictive
contrastive analysis (p. 97).
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: 123-130.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
3