UNIT 2 CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS & LANGUAGE TRANSFER

CA is founded on the assumption that L2 learners will tend to transfer to their L2

utterances the formal features of their L1, that, 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).
Two of the general hypotheses concerning second language acquisition are identity
hypothesis and contrastive hypothesis (Klein, 1986:23). The identity hypothesis asserts that
the acquisition of one language has little or no influence on the acquisition of another
language. Many scholars accept an 'essential identity' of first and second language acquisition
(e. g., Jakobovits, 1969; Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Burt and Dulay, 1975). On the other hand, the
contrastive hypothesis states that the structure of the first language affects the acquisition of
the second language (Lado, 1957; Fries 1945). The term "contrastive hypothesis" refers to the
theory itself while "contrastive analysis" focuses on the method of implementation of the
hypothesis. On the other hand, "contrastive analysis hypothesis" emphasizes both the theory
and method simultaneously. This section will review the historical, linguistic, and
psychological backgrounds of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (hereafter simply CAH)
including its procedures. Then, it will examine arguments for and against. Lastly, the section
will review some suggestions on the modification or improvement of CAH.
I. Backgrounds of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
CAH was made when the structural linguistics and behavioral psychology were
dominant in the sixties. It originated from Lado's Linguistics across Cultures (1957). He made
one of the strongest claims of CAH in the preface: "The plan of the book rests on the
assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning,
and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and the
culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student."(1957: vii) Then, in
the first chapter of the book, Lado (1957: 1-2) continues:
In the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or
difficulty in foreign language learning- … Those elements that are similar to (the learner's)
native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.
The linguistic model of CAH is structuralism which was expounded by Bloomfield
(1933), elaborated by Fries (1945) and Lado (1957). Structuralism assumes that there is a
finite structure of a given language that can be documented and compared with another
language. Esser (1980: 181) suggests that contrastive analysis belongs to applied linguistics
in that the analysis may yield practical instructional materials.
Behavioral psychology associated with Skinner was the basis of CAH. Any kind of
learning is viewed as habit formation. At the cross road, one associates the red stop sign with
the need to slow and stop the car. Learning takes place by reinforcement. These are concerned
with Skinner's Stimulus-Response Theory. Associationism and S-R theory are the two
psychological bases of CAH (James, 1985). CAH is also founded on the assumption that L2
(the second language) learners will tend to transfer the formal features of their LI (the first
language) to their L2 utterances. As Lado (1957: 2) claims, "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." This notion of "transfer" means "carrying over
the habits of his mother-tongue into the second language" (Corder, 1971: 158). Ellis (1965)
also suggests that the psychological foundation of CAH is transfer theory, substituting the
first language for the prior learning and the second language for the subsequent learning.
II. Definition and Classification of Language Transfer
1. Defining language transfer
Transfer is originally a basic concept in psychology. In psychology, it refers to the
phenomenon of previous knowledge being extended to the area of new knowledge, i.e. the
influence which the learning or remembering of one thing has on the learning and
remembering of another thing (Sajavaara.1987: 69). And it is this concept that forms the
psychological basis for language transfer.
The notion of language transfer, at its birth, was closely related to the behaviorist
theories. Fires (1945) and Lado (1945) introduced the term into the field of second language
learning. They assumed that learners tended to transfer the characteristics of their native
languages and cultures into the foreign languages and cultures that they were learning.
Accordingly, errors in L2 learning are explained as the interference of learners’ mother
tongue (or the first language) in learning the target language because of differences between
the two. Interference as such is called Negative Transfer (See Negative Transfer below).
Similarities between L1and L2, on the other hand, are believed to facilitate the learning of L2.
Facilitation as such is called Positive Transfer (See Negative Transfer below).
By Odlin’s (1989: 27): “transfer is the influence resulting from similarities and
differences between the target language any other language that has been previously (and
perhaps imperfectly) acquired.”
Language transfer has long been a controversial issue, and the debate on the influence
of L1 on L2 is still an on-going debate among applied linguists. Gass and Selinker (1994: 53)
believe that “the acceptance and/or rejection of language transfer as a viable concept has been
related to the acceptance or rejection of the specific theory with which it has been associated.”
The CAH was suggested in 1957 by Robert Lado, who suggested that L2 learners
depend entirely on their L1 in the process of their SLA. This dependence on the learner’s L1
results in transfer. However, in 1974, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction when
Dulay and Burt argued that transfer had nothing to do with the errors committed by L2
learners. Currently, it is widely accepted that language transfer is one of many factors that are
responsible for the errors committed by L2 learners. McCarthy (2001: 83) states that “when
new languages are encountered, the existing representations of L1 are activated and reshape
L2 incoming information. In language transfer, complex factors interact, including language
distance …, cognitive load, attention, sociolinguistic factors, etc.”
2. Forms of Language Transfer
 It is claimed that transfer occurs in one of two forms:
a) Positive Transfer (also known as facilitation), which occurs where there is a similarity
between L1 and L2, leading to something correct. This kind of transfer would assist the
acquisition process.
It may help or facilitate language learning in another later situation, and may occur
when both the native language and the target language have the same form.
E.g. Both French and English have the word table, which can have the same meaning in both
languages.
b) Negative Transfer (also known as interference), which occurs where there is dissimilarity
between L1 and L2, leading to something incorrect. This kind of transfer would impede the
acquisition process.
Negative transfer is one that interferes with language learning in another later
situation. Specifically, it refers to the use of native language patterns or rule that leads to an
error or inappropriate form in the target language.
Gass studied pronoun retention in the speech of two groups learning English as a
second language. The first group included native speakers of Arabic and Persian, i.e.
languages that, unlike English, allow pronoun retention. The second group included native
speakers of French & Italian, i.e. languages that, like English, do not allow for pronoun
retention. The subjects were asked to judge the grammaticality of the ungrammatical sentence
shown on the following page.
*The woman I gave the book to her is my sister.
The results showed that most of the learners in the first group (i.e. speakers of Arabic
and Persian) judged the above sentence grammatical, while most of the learners in the second
one (i.e. speakers of French and Italian) rejected the same sentence as ungrammatical.
This is evidence of the impact of L1 on L2. However, not all errors can be traced to
the learners’ L1 concerning syntax.
Negative transfer can result in 2 forms of inhibition - Proactive inhibition & Retro-
active inhibition:
Proactive inhibition is the interfering effect of earlier learning on later learning. For
example, if a learner first learns how to produce questions which requires AUXILIARY VERB
INVERSION (e.g. I can go Can I go?) this may interfere with the learning of patterns where
auxiliary inversion is not required. The learner may write * I don’t know where can I find it
instead of I don’t know where I can find it.
By contrast, retroactive inhibition/interference is the effect of later learning on earlier
learning. For example, children learning English may learn irregular past-tense forms such as
went, saw. Later, when they begin to learn the regular –ed past tense inflection, they may stop
using went and saw and produce *goed and *seed.
3. Another Manifestation of Transfer
 Language transfer is not easy to detect, and it does not show itself merely as either
positive or negative transfer. Ellis (1994: 306) suggests that it is not sufficient to focus on the
production of errors, as many manifestations of transfer will be missed. One of the important
manifestations of language transfer that is not detectable in production is avoidance. That is to
say, learners might avoid using a certain linguistic structure in their L2, because this structure
does not occur in their L1 (e.g. the causative verb patterns with have and get in English). In
other words, language transfer might not surface as the production of errors, but as avoiding
the use of the different structure altogether. In 1974, for example, Schachter found that
Chinese and Japanese learners of L2 English made fewer errors in the use of relative clauses
than Persian or Arabic learners, because they produced far fewer relative clauses overall (Ellis
1994: 304). This important phenomenon was not considered by classical CA.
4. Transfer Errors
According to Lott (1983), transfer errors can be further subdivided into three
categories: overextension of analogy; transfer structure and interlingual or intralingual errors.

Table 1 Classification of Transfer Errors

Overextension or Occurs when the learner misuse an item

analogy because it shares features with an item in the L1

Transfer structure Arise when the learner utilizes some L1 feature

Transfer (phonological, lexical, grammatical, or
errors pragmatic) rather than that of the target
language.

interlingual or Arise when a particular distinction does not

intralingual errors exist in the L1

5. The beginnings of the CAH

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis began with the following insight stated by C.C.
Fries (1945: 9) in his book Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language:
The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of
the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native
language of the learner.
In 1957, Robert Lado made CA explicit by stating that L1 plays a very important role
in SLA. In his influential book Linguistics Across Cultures, Lado mentions that […]
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—both
productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively
when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives.
(In Gass & Selinker 1993: 53) He adds that […] the student who comes into contact with a
foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those
elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that
are different will be difficult. (In Ellis 1994: 306)
The above quotes outline the CAH in its classical form, a form that did hold true in the
face of empirical evidence. However, as argued in a lot of literature (Selinker 1992), the CAH
is worth considering when examining language transfer.
6. Assumptions of the CAH
The CAH states that a feature in the L2 is difficult to learn if it is different from or
does not exist in the learner’s L1. In this case, the learner, the CAH claims, will use a feature
that exists in his/her L1. This is known as negative transfer. In cases where a feature in the L2
is similar to a feature in the L1, the CAH claims that mastering that feature is going to be
easy. Followers of this hypothesis describe language as habit formation and second language
acquisition as developing a new set of habits. Errors in SLA were interpreted as the result of
transferring the L1 “habits” to the L2. This is the view that behaviorists, such as Skinner,
argued for in the 1950s and led to the development of the Audiolingual method of teaching.
Below are the six assumptions that the CAH was based on, summarized by Gass and
Selinker (1994: 60):
1. Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that language is
habit and that language learning involves the establishment of a new set of habits.
2. The major source of error in the production and/or reception of a second language is
the native language.
3. One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and the L2.
4. A corollary to 3: the greater the differences, the more errors that will occur.
5. What one has to do in learning a second language is to learn the differences.
Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other words,
what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.
6. Difficulty and ease in learning are determined respectively by differences and
similarities between the two languages in contrast.
7. Three Different Versions of CAH
In view of predictability, CAH is classified into strong, moderate, and weak versions.
Wardhaugh (1970) classified the strong version of CAH as that version that claims the ability
to predict difficulty through contrastive analysis. The assumption is that the two languages
can be compared a priori. The strong version claims the following:
(1) The main obstacle to second language learning is from the interference of the
learner's native language system.
(2) The greater the difference between native language and target language, the greater
the difficulty will be.
 (3) A systematic and scientific analysis of the two language systems can help predict
the difficulties.
(4) The result of contrastive analysis can be used as a reliable source in the preparation
of teaching materials, the planning of course and the improvement of classroom
techniques.
Wardhaugh (1970: 126) notes that contrastive analysis has intuitive appeal and that
teachers and linguists have successfully used "the best linguistic knowledge available … in
order to account for observed difficulties in second language learning." He called such
observational use of contrastive analysis the weak version of CAH. Here, the emphasis shifts
from the predictive power of the relative difficulty to the explanatory power of observable
errors. This version has been developed into Error Analysis (EA). CAH is a theory or
hypothesis while the EA is an assessment tool.
'Error' can be systematic and consistent while 'mistake' is a momentary slip of tongue.
Brown (1987) also suggests that the weak version focuses not on the a priori prediction of
linguistic difficulties, but on the a posteriori explanation of sources of errors in language
learning.
Oiler and Ziahosseiny (1970) proposed a moderate version of CAH based on their
study of spelling errors on the dictation section of the UCLA placement test in English as a
second language. They found that the strong version was too strong while the weak version
was too weak. Here they focused on the nature of human learning and proposed the moderate
version which is summarized as: "The categorization of abstract and concrete patterns
according to their perceived similarities and differences is the basis for learning "therefore,
wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems,
confusion may result'' (186). In the same way, Brown (1987: 162) explains the "technical"
idea applying it to human learning: "interference can actually be greater when items to be
learned are more similar to existing items than when items are entirely new and unrelated to
existing items."
From the strong version to the moderate version, the popularity of contrastive
hypothesis has been reduced drastically by criticism and new evidence against CAH.
However, some scholars continue to make an effort to consider and assess the merits and
demerits of CAH. The following section will deal with the arguments for and against CAH.

Summary
Unit 2 CA HYPOTHESIS & LANGUAGE TRANSFER
I. CAH:
The structure of L1 affects the acquisition of L2 (Lado, 1957; Fries 1945)
Theoretical bases:
- Structural linguistics:
Detailed descriptions of particular languages from a collection of utterances produced by
native speakers (i.e. corpus)
- Behaviourist psychology:
Habit formation by means of ‘stimulus-response-reinforcement’
New learning situations helped by means of the transfer of the old habits
II. Language Transfer
1. Defining language transfer
“the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language any
other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.” Odlin’s (1989:
27)
2. Forms of Language Transfer
a) Positive Transfer (facilitation)
- similarity between L1 and L2, result in something correct.
- assist the acquisition process.
b) Negative Transfer (interference)
- dissimilarity between L1 and L2, result in something incorrect
- impede the acquisition process.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
Process:
(1) Structure by structure comparison of language systems
(2) yields similarities and differences that make it possible to
(3) predict easy and difficult areas for L2 learners.
Assumptions:
(1) Language is a habit
(2) L1 is the major source of errors in SLA
(3) Errors can be explained by the differences between L1 &L2
(4) The more L1 and L2 differ, the greater the chance for errors
(5) Learners must concentrate on differences between L1 & L2
(6) Ease or difficulty in learning correlate to the amount of differences or similarities between
L1 and L2
Three Different Versions of CAH

Strong version: Weak version: Moderate version:

ability to predict difficulty ability to explain observable categorization of abstract &
through CA error concrete patterns according
to similarities. & difficulties:
basis of learning

1. Obstacle to TL learning: 1. use "the best linguistic 1. Minimal distinction of

interference of the learner's knowledge available” to patterns in form & meaning
MT explain observable in systems may results in
difficulties confusion

2. Differences of L1&L2 2. Error: systematic & 2. Difficulty may not be due

trigger chance of error consistent & countable to difference
Error analysis

3. Systematic CA helps 3. Items similar to existing

predict the difficulties items may cause difficulty

4. Result of CA: reliable

source in preparation of
teaching materials, planning
of course, improvement of
classroom techniques

Questions:
1. Which hypothesis states that the structure of the first language affects the acquisition of the
second language?
2. State the major assumption on which CAH is founded?
3. State the definition of language transfer?
(Clue: Odlin (1989)
4. What are the two main forms of language transfer? Provide examples.
5. State six assumptions that the CAH was based on, summarized by Gass and Selinker (1994:
60):
6. What are the three versions of CAH?
7. What are the claims of the Strong Version of CAH?
8. In what way is Error Analysis related to CAH?
(Clue: a priori prediction vs. posteriori explanation)
Words and Expressions

1. Extralinguistic (adj) Ngoài ngôn ng

Mô t các c u trúc trong giao ti p không ph i là b ph n tr c tiêp c a ngôn ng l i nói
mà là y u t óng góp vào vi c truy n t m t thông i p, ví d : các c ng tay, v
m t, … ho c có nh h ng n vi c s d ng ngôn ng , ví d : ch báo tu i ng i nói,
gi i tính, ho c giai t ng xã h i
2. Generative theory (n) Lí thuy t T o sinh
thu t ng ch s ki n nhi u lý thuy t ngôn ng có chung các m c tiêu (a) cung c p
m t gi i thích các c i m hình th c c a ngôn ng , t ra các qui t c gi i thích cách
thành l p t t c các câu úng ng pháp c a m t ngôn ng và không t o ra các câu phi
ng pháp (nguyên t c h p chu n mô t (descriptive adequacy)), và (b) gi i thích lí do
các ng pháp có các c i m v n có và ách tr con h c chúng trong m t th i gian
nh t nh (nguyên t c h p chu n gi i thích (explanatory adequacy)).
3. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Gi thuy t Phân tích t ng ph n cho r ng c u trúc c a ngôn ng th nh t có nh
h ng n vi c th c ngôn ng th hai
4. Language Transfer (n) Chuy n di ngôn ng
Tác ng, nh h ng c a m t ngôn ng i v i vi c h!c m t ngôn ng khác.
Chuy n di tích c c (Positive Transfer): chuy n di khi n vi c h!c d" àng, thu n l i
h n (có th x y ra khi c ngôn ng b n ng l#n ngôn ng ích u có cùng m t d ng
th c). Ví d : ti ng Anh và ti ng Pháp u có t$ table v i cùng m t ngh%a trong c 2
ngôn ng . Chuy n di tiêu c c/giao thoa ngôn ng : là vi c s d ng m t mô th c hay
qui t c c a ngôn ng m& d#n n l'i hay d ng th c không thích h p ngôn ng
ích. Ví d : m t ng i Vi t h!c ti ng Anh có th t o ra m t câu không chu n
My family has 4 people thay vì ph i nói
There are 4 members/people in my family,
do chuy n di c u trúc X có Y trong ti ng Vi t Gia ình tôi có 4 ng i (My family has
4 people).
5. Proactive inhibition (n) Giao thoa ti n ch
Giao thoa do tác ng c n tr c a vi c h!c tr c ó i v i vi c h!c sau ó. Ví d :
n u m t ng i tr c ó ã h!c cách t o câu h(i s d ng o tr ng t$
(AUXILIARY VERB INVERSION, vd: I can go Can I go?) thì ki n th c này có
th can thi p vào vi c ti p thu các c u trúc không òi h(i o tr ng t$. Ng i h!c
có th vi t * I don’t know where can I find it thay vì ph i nói I don’t know where I
can find it.
6. Retroactive inhibition (n) Giao thoa h u ch
 Giao thoa do tác ng c n tr c a vi c h!c sau ó i v i vi c h!c tr c ó. Ví d : tr
con h!c ti ng Anh có th h!c các d ng quá kh b t qui t c c a ng t$ nh went, saw.
Sau ó, khi chúng b t u h!c hình thái h u t quá kh qui t c – ed, chúng có th
ch m d t vi c s d ng went và saw t o ra các d ng ng t$ nh *goed and *seed.
7. Overgeneralization (n) (Overextension/Overregularization/analogy) Khái quát
hóa
Khái quát hóa là quá trình chung trong c vi c h!c ngôn ng th nh t và ngôn ng th
hai, theo ó m t ng i h!c m r ng cách dùng m t qui t c ng pháp c a m t n v
ngôn ng v t quá các cách dùng c ch p nh n. Ví d : m t a tr có th s d ng
t$ ball ch r t các v t th tròn, hay s d ng t$ mans thay vì men d ng s nhi u c a
man.
8. Eror analysis (n) Phân tích l'i
Vi c nghiên c u và phân tích l'i do ng i h!c ngôn ng th hai t o ra. Phân tích l'i
c th hi n nh m:
a. xác nh các chi n l c ng i nói s d ng trong vi c h!c ngôn ng
b. n' l c xác nh các nguyên nhân gây l'i c a ng i h!c
c. thu th p các thông tin v các khó kh)n ph bi n trong vi c h!c ngôn ng ,
v i t cách là m t s tr giúp cho gi ng d y hay chu n b cho các ng li u
gi ng d y.
Phân tích l'i c phát tri n nh m t phân ngành c a Ngôn ng h!c ng d ng vào
nh ng n)m 60 và minh ch ng cho s ki n r ng nhi u l'i c a ng i h!c không ph i do
ti ng m& c a ng i h!c mà do các chi n l c h!c nói chung. Do v y, phân tích l'i
c a ra nh m t gi i pháp kh n)ng thay th cho Phân tích t ng ph n. Ng i ta
c g ng phát tri n m t s qui lo i các ki u l'i khác nhau trên c s các quá trình khác
nhau c gi nh cho vi c lí gi i các l'i. Có s phân bi t c b n gi a l'i n i t i
(intralingual error) ngôn ng và l'i liên ngôn ng (interlingual error).
9. L i n i b ngôn ng (Intralingual errors)
Là l'i c phân thành
a) L'i khái quát hóa (overgeneralization) l'i gây ra do s m r ng các qui t c ngôn
ng ích vào các ng c nh không thích h p);
b) L'i n gi n hóa (simplification) l'i gây ra do ng i h!c t o ra các qui t c n gi n
h n qui t c có trong ngôn ng ích.
c) L'i phát tri n (developmental errors) l'i do các giai o n phát tri n t nhiên
d) L'i giao ti p (communication-based errors) l'i do các chi n l c giao ti p
e) l'i qui n p (induced errors) l'i do chuy n di ào t o/
f) L'i l ng tránh (avoidance) l'i do không s d ng c các c u trúc nh t nh ngôn
ng ích do chúng b cho là quá khó), hay
 g) L'i s d ng thái quá (errors of overproduction) L'i s d ng m t s c u trúc quá
th ng xuyên
M t l'i n i ngôn ng là l'i do ch h!c m t ph n hay h!c sai ngôn ng ích, h n là do
chuy n di ngôn ng . L'i n i ngôn ng c*ng có th do nh h ng c a m t n v thu c
ngôn ng ích lên m t n v khác. Ví d : m t ng i h!c có th t o ra câu He is
comes, d a trên s tr n l#n các c u trúc ti ng Anh He is coming, He comes
10. Interlingual error (n) l i liên ngôn ng
Lo i l'i do chuy n di ngôn ng , gây ra do ti ng m& c a ng i h!c. Ví d : m t
ng i Anh h!c ti ng Pháp s+ t o ra m t l'i tr t t t$ khi nói câu:
Elle regarde les (ti ng Pháp)
She sees them (ti ng Anh)
L'i này x y ra do tr t t t$ ti ng Anh trong m t câu là S-V-O trong khi tr t t ng
pháp câu c a ti ng Pháp là S- O – V. Nh v y, câu úng ng pháp trong ti ng Pháp
ph i là: Elle les regarde thay vì Elle regarde les
11. a priori (tiên nghi m) vs. a posteriori (h u nghi m/th c ch ng)
Thu t ng a priori và a posteriori c s d ng trong tri t h!c phân bi t 2 lo i
ki n th c, minh ch ng, hay lu n c : ki n th c tiên nghi m c l%nh h i c l p v i
kinh nghi m, còn ki n th c h u nghi m c ch ng minh qua kinh nghi m.
Trong Error Analysis, a priori c dùng nh tính t$ và thu t ng “a priori
prediction” ch các tiên oán hay gi thuy t mang tính tiên nghi m (ch a c ch ng
minh), vd: các tiên oán v nh ng khó kh)n hay l'i c a sinh viên Vi t Nam khi phát
âm / / trong ti ng Anh vì trong h th ng âm ti ng Vi t không có âm này (và gi
thuy t này c n c ki m ch ng qua các nghiên c u h u nghi m). Thu t ng “a
posteriori explanation” ch s gi i thích các nguyên nhân gây ra l'i c a ng i h!c
ngo i ng d a trên vi c phân tích k t qu thu th p các d li u t$ m t nghiên c u h u
nghi m v i các b ng ch ng h u nghi m hay th c nghi m`