The Survival of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: A Look Under the Hood
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.01Keywords:
contrastive analysis hypothesis, behaviourism, language acquisition, second language learningAbstract
The contrastive analysis hypothesis is one of the theories that has considerably impacted second language acquisition research. Since the 1970s, this theory, which had piqued the interest of both linguists and teachers, has been heavily criticised. It has been described as unrealistic and impractical, and its basic assumptions have been questioned and unjustly debunked. However, re-reading Linguistics across Cultures, the book from which the contrastive analysis hypothesis was derived, in light of recent findings and re-examining the criticism levelled against it, reveals how valuable and insightful the book is and how irrationally it has been misrepresented. This paper attempts to clean this distortion up and demonstrate why this book is worth reading again. It sheds light on the criticism levelled against it and critically examines the alternatives (the moderate and the weak versions) offered to replace it. It also argues that, apart from its utility in comparing languages in terms of their sound systems, grammar, and vocabulary for pedagogical purposes, it can be an effective tool in comparing languages, particularly on bases above the sentence level, to uncover cultural traits. Hence, it can be a powerful means to further our knowledge of cross-cultural (mis)communication and (mis)understanding.
References
Abu Al-Failat, K. M. F. (2017). A comparative pragmatic study of offers by Palestinian EFL learners and American native speakers of English. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Hebron.
Aws, W. M. (1992). The predictive power of contrastive analysis: Syrians’ learning of the English DP. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Bangor.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N. J./Prentice-Hall.
Djiguimkoudre, N. (2020). A historical development of contrastive analysis: a relevant review in second and foreign language teaching. International Journal of Education. Vol.8, No.4. pp. 81-96.
Dulay, H., M. Burt and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ed. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
Hammer, J. H. and F. A. Rice. (1965). A Bibliography of Contrastive Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Transfer grammar. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 20(4). pp. 259-270.
Haugen, E. (1954). The Norwegian language in America: a study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hedgcock, J. S. and Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: students, texts, and contexts. London: Routledge.
Hockett, C. F. (1948). Biophysics, linguistics, and the unity of science. American Scientist. 36. pp. 558-572.
Hughes, A. (1980). Problems in contrastive analysis and error analysis. ED192573.
Khansir A. A. and Pakdel,F. (2019). Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Second Language Learning. Journal of EFL Research. Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 35-43.
Kramsch, C. (2007). Re-reading Robert Lado, 1957, Linguistics across Cultures. Applied Linguistics FOR Language Teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. (17), No. (2). pp. 241-247.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied Linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lee, W. R. (1972). How can contrastive linguistic studies help foreign-language teaching? The Serpo-Croatian-English contrastive project, bilingual studies. Zabgreb University, pp. 57-66.
Lehn, Walter & Slager, William. (1959). A contrastive study of Egyptian Arabic and American English: the segmental phonemes. Language Learning. 9, 25-33.
Lennon, P., From S. Gramley., V. Gramley (eds). (2008). Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, pp. 51-60.
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marckwardt, A. H. (1967). Teaching English as a foreign language: A survey of the past decade. Center for Applied Linguistics. Pp. 1-8.
Nickel, G. (1971) "Contrastive Linguistics and Foreign-language Teaching", in G. Nickel, (ed.) Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-16.
Odlin, T. (1989) Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piroch, G. (1955). The importance of bilingual description to foreign language learning. Language Learning. VI, pp. 51-61.
Qari, I. (2017). Politeness study of request and apologies as produced by Saudi Hijazi, EFL learners, and British English university students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Roehampton.
Rusiecki, J. (1976). The development of contrastive linguistics. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 12-44.
Schanchter, P. (1960). A contrastive analysis of English and Pangasinan. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Snook, R. (1971). A stratificational approach in contrastive linguistics. In G. Nickel (ed.) Papers in contrastive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Stockwell, R. P. (1957). Contrastive Analysis of English and Tagalog. Los Angeles.
Swan, M. (2007). Follow-up to Claire Kramsch’s ‘classic book’ review of Lado, 1957, Linguistics across Cultures: History is not what happened: the case of contrastive analysis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 17 w No. 3. pp. 414-419.
Trager, G. L. (1949). The field of Linguistics. (SIL Occasional Papers, 1.) Norman, Okla, Battenburg Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2) 120- 130.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.
Whiteman, R. and Jackson, K. (1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning. 22. pp. 29-41.
Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relation between habitual thought and behaviour to language. In L. Spier et al. (eds.). Language, culture and personality: Essays in memory of Edward Sapir. Wisconsin: Menasha.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Arnold.
Yang, B. (1992). A review of contrastive analysis hypothesis. Dongeui Journal. 19. pp. 133-149.
