Critical Examination of the Assumptions of Contrastive Analysis
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
MA (TESL) SANDWICH PROGRAMME
June 2011-06-20
CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT ONE
Name: Joseph Narh Padi
ID: 10191761
Course Code: TESL 645
Course Title: Theories of Second Language Learning
Lecturers’ Name: Prof. Kofi Agyekum and Mr. John Tetteh Agor
Question: Outline the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis and critically examine the procedures associated with this hypothesis.
Introduction
This paper will try to explain what is meant by Contrastive Analysis and give a brief background of its development. It will then give an outline of the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis, present the procedures and assess their strengths and weaknesses.
Contrastive analysis has been defined by Gass and Selinker (1994: 59) as “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”.
Fisiak also defines it as “a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of language in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them” Fisiak et al. (1978) cited in Fisiak (1981:1).
From the above definitions we can say, therefore, that the contrastive analyst is preoccupied with the comparison of two languages (the first and second language of a language learner) to be able to find areas of differences and similarities to help the learner to acquire the language easily.
Background of Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis emerged in the late 1950s and reached its peak in the 1960s. Even though works with similar orientation had been in existence, almost every contrastive analyst agreed that it was Lado’s book, Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), that gave birth to the hypothesis. He made reference to earlier works (Haugen 1956 and Weinreich 1953) to buttress his
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
MA (TESL) SANDWICH PROGRAMME
June 2011-06-20
CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT ONE
Name: Joseph Narh Padi
ID: 10191761
Course Code: TESL 645
Course Title: Theories of Second Language Learning
Lecturers’ Name: Prof. Kofi Agyekum and Mr. John Tetteh Agor
Question: Outline the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis and critically examine the procedures associated with this hypothesis.
Introduction
This paper will try to explain what is meant by Contrastive Analysis and give a brief background of its development. It will then give an outline of the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis, present the procedures and assess their strengths and weaknesses.
Contrastive analysis has been defined by Gass and Selinker (1994: 59) as “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”.
Fisiak also defines it as “a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of language in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them” Fisiak et al. (1978) cited in Fisiak (1981:1).
From the above definitions we can say, therefore, that the contrastive analyst is preoccupied with the comparison of two languages (the first and second language of a language learner) to be able to find areas of differences and similarities to help the learner to acquire the language easily.
Background of Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis emerged in the late 1950s and reached its peak in the 1960s. Even though works with similar orientation had been in existence, almost every contrastive analyst agreed that it was Lado’s book, Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), that gave birth to the hypothesis. He made reference to earlier works (Haugen 1956 and Weinreich 1953) to buttress his
References: Abbas, A. (1995, August). “Contrastive analysis: Is it a living fossil?” IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33, 195-215. Retrieved October 23, 2004, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Al-Sibai (2004) “‘Not to be’ The Decline of Contrastive Analysis Pedagogy”, KSU. Brown, H. Douglas (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prento-Hall Regents. Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. Fontana. Corder, S. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oford University Pess (2000). Ellis, R. 1985. Understaning Second Language Acquisition. Oford University Pess. Gass, S; and Selinker, 1. 1992. Language Transfer in Language Learning. John ben Publishing. Larsen-Freeman, D.; Long, M. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Young, R. 1993. "Functional constraints on variation in interlanguage morphology". Applied Linguistics, vol. 14/1, pp. 76-97. Oxford University Press. Fisiak, J. (1981). “Some introductory notes concerning contrastive linguistics.” In J. Fisiak (Ed.),Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher (pp. 1-13). Oxford: Pergamon Press. James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman. Klein, W. (1986). Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Maicusi, Trianci and Maicusi, Panayato (2000) “The Error in the Second Language Acquisition.” In Encuentro, Revista de Investigacion e Innovacion en la Clase de Idiomas 11, pp 168 – 173. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oller, J. & Ziahosseiny, S. (1970). “The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Spelling Errors.” Language Learning, 20, 183-189. Sajavaara, K. (1981). “Contrastive linguistics past and present and a communicative approach”. Sridhar, S. (1980). “Contrastive analysis, error analysis and interlanguage.” In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher (pp Upshur, s, (1962) “Language Proficiency Testing and Contrastive Analysis Dilemma”, Language Learning 12: 2 Wardhaugh, R Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. Mouton, The Hague. Whitman, L. (1970) “Contrastive Analysis: Problems and Procedures.” Language Learning, 20, 191-197.