Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis (CA) is the systematic comparison of two languages — typically the learner's L1 and the target L2 — to identify structural similarities and differences. The approach is most associated with Robert Lado's Linguistics across Cultures (1957), which proposed that by comparing the sound systems, grammatical structures, vocabulary, and cultural patterns of two languages, we can predict which features will be easy (where L1 and L2 are similar) and which will be difficult (where they differ). This predictive claim became known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH).
Theoretical Roots
CA grew out of two intellectual traditions:
- Structural linguistics (Bloomfield, Fries) — the idea that language is a system of habits that can be described structurally.
- Behaviorist psychology (Skinner) — the idea that learning is habit formation, and old habits (L1) interfere with new habits (L2).
In this framework, L2 learning difficulty equals L1-L2 difference. Where structures match, positive transfer occurs and learning is easy. Where structures differ, negative transfer (interference) occurs and errors result. Lado (1957, p. 2): "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 culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student."
Strong vs Weak Versions
Wardhaugh (1970) identified two versions of the CAH:
| Version | Claim | Direction | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong (predictive) | All L2 difficulties can be predicted by systematic comparison of L1 and L2 | L1/L2 comparison → predicted errors | Largely discredited |
| Weak (explanatory) | CA can explain errors after they are observed, not necessarily predict them | Observed errors → CA explanation | Still useful |
Why the strong version failed
- Not all predicted errors occur. Learners sometimes find "different" features easy (e.g., new phonemes with no L1 equivalent may be acquired quickly because they are perceptually salient).
- Not all errors come from L1 transfer. Many errors are developmental — they occur regardless of L1 background (see Overgeneralisation, Error Analysis).
- Avoidance is unpredictable. Schachter (1974) showed that learners may avoid difficult structures altogether, producing fewer errors — the opposite of what CA predicts.
- Difficulty is not binary. Prator (1967) proposed a hierarchy of difficulty (from easiest to hardest: positive transfer, coalescence, underdifferentiation, reinterpretation, overdifferentiation, split), but empirical support was mixed.
Levels of Comparison
CA can be applied at every linguistic level:
| Level | Example comparison (Vietnamese → English) |
|---|---|
| Phonology | Vietnamese has no final consonant clusters → English texts /teksts/ is difficult |
| Morphology | Vietnamese has no inflectional morphology → English tense marking (-ed) and plural (-s) are difficult |
| Syntax | Vietnamese is SVO like English → basic word order transfers positively |
| Lexis | Vietnamese has topic-comment structure → English requires explicit subjects (It is raining, not Raining) |
| Discourse | Vietnamese indirect communication style → English academic directness may feel abrupt |
CA Today
Although the strong version of the CAH is dead, CA remains valuable in a weaker form:
- Transfer research has evolved into the study of cross-linguistic influence (Odlin 1989; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2008), which treats transfer as one factor among many — not the sole predictor of difficulty.
- Contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan 1966; Connor 1996) applies CA principles to writing, comparing discourse-level patterns across cultures.
- Pedagogical CA is routine in teacher preparation. Knowing that Vietnamese learners will struggle with articles, final consonants, and relative clauses allows teachers to plan targeted support — not because CA "proves" these will be hard, but because experience confirms it.
Why It Matters for Teaching
- Anticipate predictable errors. For any L1 group, certain difficulties are systematic and well-documented. A teacher of Vietnamese learners who knows CA can prepare for article errors, consonant cluster simplification, and tense-marking omissions.
- Combine with Error Analysis. CA predicts; Error Analysis confirms. Using both gives a fuller picture than either alone.
- Avoid over-reliance. Not every L1-L2 difference causes difficulty, and not every difficulty stems from L1 influence. Developmental errors, communication strategies, and instructional effects all play a role.
Key References
- Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press.
- Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123–130.
- Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. University of Michigan Press.
- Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2), 205–214.
- Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
- Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20.