CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (CA) (1950S-1960S)

Robert Lado is the main representative. He wrote Linguistics Across Cultures (1957).

It is an approach to the study of SLA which involves predicting and explaining learner problems

based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences. It was influenced

by structuralism (linguistics) and behaviorism (psychology). The goal of CA was to increase

efficiency in L2 teaching and testing.

Following notions in STRUCTURALISM LINGUISTICS, the focus of CA is on the surface

forms of both L1 and L2 systems, and on describing and comparing the languages one

level at a time –generally contrasting the phonology of L1 and L2 first, then morphology

and then syntax. A “bottom-up” priority for analysis (generally from smaller to larger

units) is also expressed as a priority for language learning, of structures before meaning.

Charles Fries applied structural linguistics to L2 teaching.

Following notions in BEHAVIOURIST PSYCHOLOGY (Skinner, 1957), early proponents of

CA assumed that language acquisition essentially involves habit formation in a process of

Stimulus (linguistic input)-Response-Reinforcement (S-R-R). Learners imitate and repeat

the language they hear and when it is reinforced (habituated) for that response, learning

occurs. However, old habits can facilitate or make the creation of a new habit more

difficult. For that, we can say that L1 is the main cause of difficulty and the differences

between L1 and L2 lead to difficulties1. Therefore, the greater the difference the more

learning difficulties. That is the reason why comparison is necessary to predict errors and

to find out what to teach.

Principles [Weinreich (1953), Haugen (1953)]

- The bigger the difference between two language systems is, the more difficult it will

be to learn the L2.

- The differences and similarities between the languages in contact must be

distinguished at every level (phonology, grammar, lexis)

- Interlingual identifications : when learners identify linguistic items as the same in

different language systems.

Versions (R. Wardhaugh)

- Strong : Languages can be compared so that difficulties can be predicted through the

identification of the differences between the L1 and the L2: Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis (CAH).

1 Difficulty is a psychological concept, whereas difference is a linguistic concept.

1

- Weak : it does not predict difficulties; it recognizes the significance of the

interferences across languages which can lead to errors and explain difficulties

which can be better explained after they have been noticed.

Criticism

- Some errors cannot be originated due to the L1.

- The linguistic difference does not equal learning difficulty.

- Languages cannot be compared as wholes.

- An underlying static idea of language lies behind CA.

- CA is only interested in the product, not in the process.

Another assumption of this theory is that there will be TRANSFER in learning, which can be

positive (or facilitating) where features of the L1 and the L2 match, as in the transfer of a

Spanish plural morpheme –s on nouns to English (e.g. lenguajes to languages): or negative (or

interference) where features of the L1 differ from those of L2, as the transfer of the Spanish

plural –s to an adjective (e.g. ojos azules to blues eyes).

Lado said (1957): the easiest L2 structures are those which exist in L1 with the same form,

meaning and distribution. Any structure in the L2 which has a form not occurring in the L1

needs to be learned.

TYPES OF INTERFERENCE: SPANISH AND ENGLISH

1. Same form and meaning, different distribution

Spanish: la paloma blanca “the dove white”; las palomas blancas “the (pl) doves whites”.

E.g.: A native Lao speaker declares “I have two son” instead of saying “sons”. Lao does not

mark plural on nouns, but relies on number, other quantifiers or context to convey plural

meaning.

A French speaker says “He reads always novels” (il lit toujours des romans) instead of “He

always reads novels” because of a difference between adverb placement rules in English and

French.

2. Same meaning, different form

Spanish: iré “(I) will go” English: I will go

E.g.: A native Italian speaker with a sore throat says “I do not have voice” instead of “I lost

my voice”, translating literally from the Italian expression non avere voce.

3. Same meaning, different form and distribution

2

Spanish: agua “water” English: water (noun, adjective or verb)

E.g.: A native Italian speaker says “that’s a good way to hold up it” instead of “hold it up”.

(There are no separable verbs in Italian –the pronoun “it” (lo) would go at the end of the

infinitive (tener)-tenerlo).

A non-native US English speaker is confused when the doctor says “You’ll need to ice your

foot twice a day” because he would never think that “ice” should be a verb. In his language,

“ice” can only be a noun, and a verbal expression would be required, such as “apply ice to

foot”, or “take ice, put on foot”.

4. Different form, partial overlap in meaning

Spanish: pierna “leg of humans”; pata “leg of animals/furniture”; etapa “leg of a race/trip”

English: leg

E.g.: An English-speaker student of German wants to tell her teacher that she will study all

day for her test. She uses the expression alle Tage, which actually means “every day”,

because she has seen it before and assumes it means “the whole day” because it’s like the

English form.

A native Italian speaker says “My climbing shoes are easier to carry than these” (referring to

high-heeled shoes she is wearing). (In Italian, the verb portare means both “to carry” and “to

wear”).

5. Similar form, different meaning (false friends)

Spanish: asistir “to attend” Englih: assist

ERROR ANALYSIS (EA) (1960S-1970S)

It is the first approach to the study of SLA which includes an internal focus on learner’s creative

ability to construct language. It’s based on the description and analysis of actual learner errors

in L2. EA largely augmented or replaced CA by the early 1970s.

In the psychological area, there was a shift from Behaviorism (Skiner, 1957) to

MENTALISM with the emphasis on the innate capacity of the language learner rather than

on external influences. Now, there is a description and analysis of actual learner errors and

the learning process became an important focus of studies.

The theory of INNATISM in FLA became to arise around 60s. His main representative was

Chomsky. He claimed that language is innate, as other cognitive capacity, and that we

have a Language Acquisition Device in our brain which contains the Universal Grammar,

that is, a set of principles and rules which are common to all languages. In Chomsky’s

3

introduction of Transformational-Generative (TG) Grammar (1957, 1965), he claimed that

languages have only a relatively small number of essential rules which account for2 their

basic sentence structures, plus a limited set of transformational rules which allow these

basic sentences to be modified. The result is an infinite number of possible grammatical

utterances. In fact, speakers of a language do not learn merely by imitating what they have

heard but by applying these rules to create novel constructions they have never heard

before. Therefore, we can say that inner forces (interaction with the environment) drive

learning, and that the child is an active and creative participant in the process of learning

rather than a passive recipient of language stimuli.

At the same time, Halliday arises in the FUNCTIONALIST THEORY claiming that L1

language acquisition needs to be seen as the mastery of linguistic functions ( instrumental,

heuristic, metalinguistic, etc.).

S. Pit Corder’s (1967) The significance of learner’s errors is the most influential publication

launching Error Analysis. Corder claimed that errors provide evidence of the system of a

language which a learner is using.

EA has advantages for students, teachers and researchers. In the first case, they can realize what

kind of mistakes they make, so they can study and put attention to them in order to avoid them.

In the case of teachers, they can emphasize what is being incorrectly used; whereas regarding

researchers, they can collect a big data for their analysis so that they can study it.

DATA COLLECTION

Corpus selection: collection of a sample of learner language.

Identification of errors: Corder (1967) distinguishes between systematic errors (which

result from learners’ lack of L2 knowledge) and mistakes (the results from some kind of

processing failure such as a lapse in memory).

Classification of errors according to language level, general linguistic category, etc.

Explanation of errors.

Interlingual (interference between languages): due to negative transfer from the L1.

E.g.: I see resumes of the football match.

- Overextension of analogy: the student makes an error in a vocabulary item

because it shares features, which are either phonological, orthographic, semantic or

syntactic, with an item in the L1. E.g.: I see resumes of the football matches.

- Transfer of structure: grammar errors when the learner follows the L1 rules

instead of the L2 rules. E.g.: I want that he goes.

2 Justificar

4

- Interlingual/Intralingual: the learner makes an error of grammar or misuses a

vocabulary item because a grammatical or lexical distinction, which exists in the

L2, does not exist in the L1. E.g.: very / mucho.

Intralingual: independent from L1. They are related to faulty generalization,

incomplete application of rules or unsuccessful learning. E.g. He have seen a cat.

- Overgeneralization: the learner creates a structure based on his experience of

other structures in the L2. E.g.: I have to go / I must to go.

- Ignorance of rule restrictions: the learner applies the rules to contexts where they

are not applicable. E.g.: He always is angry.

- Incomplete application of rules: the L2 rules are not totally developed to produce

acceptable utterances. E.g.: I has been never to England.

- False concepts hypothesized: faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target-

language. E.g.: One day it was happened.

Developmental: independent from L1. They occur when the learner tries to construct

hypotheses about the L2 based on limited experience. E.g.: He seed a car.

Evaluation of errors: analysis of what effect the error has on whomever.

CRITICISM

They analyze the errors in isolation.

The classification of identified errors is not usually proper.

The statements of error frequency are quite misleading, because you can use a different

structure to avoid them.

The identification of points of difficulty in the target language is usually not very correct.

The ascription3 of causes to systematic errors may not be right.

COMPARATIVE FALLACY (1980S)

R. Bley-Vroman (1983) claimed that an error is just an error from an external point of view,

but not from an internal one. In the case of us, English learners, we can have some errors

without noticing it, because we do not know that they are actually errors. Thus, they are not

seen like that from our perspective. However, from the perspective of a native speaker –or a

teacher–, they would be considered errors.

INTERLANGUAGE (1970S)

3 Atribución

5

First of all, we should mention that children are not defective speakers of adult language which

gradually develop into the adult’s linguistic competence. The idea crossed over into the field of

SLA research through concepts as approximative system (Nemser, 1971) and transitional

competence (Corder, 1971), until Larry Selinker (1972) introduced the term Interlanguage

(IL). The interlanguage is viewed as a separate linguistic system, different from both L1 and L2.

They are linked by interlingual identifications (when learners identify linguistic items as the

same in different language systems). A central cognitive process of any interlanguage is that it

fossilizes –that is, it ceases to develop at some point, and that it also transfers.

Thus, children always succeed in completely acquiring their native language, but adults only

very rarely reach the ultimate attainment –which refers to the outcome or end point of

acquisition.

CHARACTERISTICS

Systematic: the IL is governed by rules which constitute the learner’s internal grammar.

Dynamic: the system of rules which learners have in their minds changes frequently.

Variable: differences in context result in different patterns of language use.

Reduced system: it has less complex grammar structures.

CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION (ANALYSIS) HYPOTHESIS (1970S)

Proposed by Dulay and Burt (1973), it asserts that L2 learners are neither merely imitating

what they hear nor necessarily transferring L1 structures to the new code, but (subconsciously)

creating a mental grammar which allows them to interpret and produce utterances they have not

heard before. This evidence supports an Identity Hypothesis (or L1=L2) which says that

processes involved in L1 and L2 acquisition are the same. According to the CCH, L1 is not

important, because language learning is a creative process.

There is a distinction to be made between acquisition and learning. Acquisition is subconscious,

and involves the innate LAD which accounts for children’s L1. Learning is conscious and is

exemplified by the L2 learning which takes place in many classroom contexts.

MORPHEME ORDER STUDIES

The major evidence for the Creative Construction consisted of the Morpheme Order Studies. H.

Dulay and M. Burt (1973) studied how children master the production of a set of grammatical

morphemes in English and they concluded that the order of morpheme acquisition is similar in

L1 and in L2, even between the two languages. Thus, there is actually a natural order (universal

sequence) in the grammatical development of L2 learners as well as L1’s. No matter what the

6

first language is, a native speaker of Spanish will acquire the sequences similarly to those native

speakers of Chinese, that is, in a predictable order. E.g.: the progressive suffix –ing and plural –

s are the first of this set of morphemes to be mastered by both L1 and L2 learners of English.

CRITICISM

The strong form of this hypothesis was rejected because what is being acquired in SLA is

limited to a list of isolated English morphemes.

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR (1950S, 1960S)

Universal Grammar (UG) continues the tradition which Chomsky (1957) introduced in his

earlier work. It has been conceptualized as a set of principles which are properties of all

languages in the world. Two concepts in particular are still of central importance:

What needs to be accounted for in language acquisition is linguistic competence, the

underlying knowledge of language. This is distinguished from linguistic performance, the

actual use of language in specific instances.

Such knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from the input people

receive. This is the logical problem of language learning, or the poverty-of-the stimulus

argument. Chomsky claimed that children already have a rich and innate system of

linguistic knowledge, what he calls the language faculty. What all

languages have in common is Universal Grammar.

Until the late 1970s, followers of this approach assumed that the

language acquisition task involves children’s induction of a system of

rules for particular languages from the input they receive, guided by UG.

Linguistic input goes into a “black box” in the mind (LAD), something happens, and the

grammatical system of a particular language comes out.

A major change in thinking about the acquisition process occurred with Chomsky’s (1981)

reconceptualization of UG in a Principles and Parameters framework (often called the

Government and Binding [GB] model), and with his subsequent introduction of the Minimalist

Program (1995). Thus, in the Government and Binding model (or Principles and Parameters

framework) we distinguish:

Principle: properties of languages in the world. E.g.: all phrases have the same elements,

including a Head. There are only two possible choices: head-initial or head-final. In the

case of English, it has a head-initial parameter setting.

7

LAD

UG

PRIN

PARM

Parameter: options which are selected among limited choices depending on which specific

language is involved. E.g.: adjectives + noun (EN) is different from noun + adjectives (SP).

The knowledge both the principles and the parameters is innate. Child acquisition of a specific

language involves a process of selecting from among the limited parametric options in UG those

that march the setting which are encountered in linguistic input. In a radical change from his

earlier Transformational-Generative (TG) theory, Chomsky argues that there are just extremely

general principles of UG and options to be selected.

The starting point (or initial state) for child L1 acquisition is thus UG, along with innate

learning principles. The eventual product is the final state, or adult grammar. From this

perspective, how acquisition occurs for children is “natural, instinctive and internal to the

cognitive system”. Unlike SLA, attitudes, motivation, and social context play no role, because

all of them attain the same “final state”.

UG AND SLA (1990S-2000S)

What is the initial state in SLA? We have to ask first how the language acquisition begins.

Learners already have knowledge of L1 at the point where L2 acquisition begins; they

already have made all of the parametric choices that are appropriate for that L1, guided by

UG. L2 learners may still have access to UG in the initial state of SLA as well as

knowledge of L1, but there is no agreement:

Learners have full access to UG.

Learners retain partial access to UG.

Learners have indirect access to UG through knowledge that is already realized in their L1.

Learners have no access to UG and must learn the L2 via different means than they did L1.

What is the nature of interlanguage and how does it change over time?

It is defined in the Principles and Parameters perspective as intermediate states of L2

development. Learners change the parameter setting (usually unconsciously) because the

L2 input they receive does not march the L1 settings they have. E.g.: the L1 speaker of

Japanese who is learning English L2 needs to reset the Head Direction parameter from

head-final to head-initial and vice versa.

Constructionism, an approach to SLA which has been formulated within Chomsky’s

Minimalist Program, considers IL development as the progressive mastery of L2

vocabulary along with the morphological features that are part of lexical knowledge. Many

L2 learners fossilize at an intermediate level of development without attaining near-native

competence.

8

What is the final state in SLA?

Why some learners are more successful than others is a question of greater importance.

There are several possibilities within the UG framework:

All learners may not have the same degree of access to UG.

The interference and transfer may be different among learners.

Learners can achieve different degrees of specification for lexical features.

Some learners may receive qualitatively different L2 input from others.

Some learners may be more perceptive than others.

FUNCTIONALISM (1990S-2000S)

Functional models of analysis date back to the early 20 th century, and have their roots in the

Prague School of linguistics. They differ from structuralists and generativists in emphasizing the

information content of utterances, and in considering language primarily as a system of

communication (in fact, they say that we develop language because we need to communicate)

rather than as a set of rules.

In the psychological area, the INTERACTIONISM began to arise. They maintain that genetic

factors, if they exist, are insufficient to ensure that language develops. What is important is

the interaction, both linguistic and non-linguistic, which derives from the child’s need to

communicate.

In theoretical linguistics, the COGNITIVE THEORY attempts to understand how humans

create and use knowledge. It views language acquisition as the formation of a knowledge

system that L2 learners must eventually use for speaking and understanding. Therefore, the

individual learner differences, such as language aptitude, motivation and memory, among

others, would be of great importance.

APPROACHES

Systemic Linguistics

Halliday based his ideas on Malinowski and said that language is not a system of rules which

govern language structure, but rather “meaning potential”. He sees L2 learning as a process of

adding multilingual meaning potential to what has already been achieved in L1.

Saville-Troike concluded after his study that there is an emergence of new language structures

to augment existing choices for expressing them.

Functional typology Function-to-form mapping Information organization

9

MULTICOMPETENCE (2000S-)

This perspective or framework was coined by Vivian Cook and it was defined as the knowledge

of two or more languages in the same mind.

Multi-competence therefore involves the whole mind of the speaker, not simply their first

language (L1) or their second. It assumes that someone who knows two or more languages is a

different person from a monolingual. In fact, Cook said that L2 users are not deficient compared

to native speakers.

L2 USERS

Think differently from monolinguals. E.g. blue in Greek has two concepts, whereas in

English, there is one blue (with its variants: dark, light…).

Use language in different ways. E.g. they code-switch languages and they translate.

Have an increased metalinguistic awareness of the structure of language (where to place

the subject, for example) from people who know only an L1 E.g. detection of anomalous

sentences, arbitrariness of sign, etc.

Have slightly different knowledge of their L1. E.g. word association.

Advanced L2 users differ from monolinguals in knowledge of the L2. E.g. ‘ultimate’

attainment which refers to the outcome or end point of acquisition.

Have different brain structures, that is, the connection between left and right is different.

The corpus calosum (which connects left and right hemispheres) is bigger. They also have

different cognitive processes: they transfer from the IL to the L2, and they fossilize with

regard to the IL.

Are more efficient communicators in their first language.

Knowing another language delays the onset Alzheimer’s disease.

MULTI-COMPETENCE GOAL

The goal of multi-competence is to produce a successful L2 user, not an imitation native

speaker. It proposed that is the users’ own language what matters. The view was changed

because of the importance and the normality of L2 users around the world. Besides, the L2

learner concept has been now transformed into a more neutral an appropriate term: L2 user.

THE BILINGUAL TURN IN SLA

10

There was a turn in SLA which now emphasizes the L2 user. It was developed by Lourdes

Ortega. When monolingual bias4 exists, it deprives L2 learners of being recognized as bilingual

speakers regardless of their proximity to “nativeness or near-nativeness” –which would be a

language user (monolingual or not) by birth. It is opposed to non-native, –which would be a

language user bilingual by experience.

Monolingual bias in SLA is real and pervasive and it has ideological roots. Overcoming this

state is desirable and possible through a bilingual turn, because it appears as the norm, mirage of

L2 acquisition as monolingual-like.

The language faculty is not monolingual. E.g. infants and babies exposed to bilingual input

engage in bilingual learning from the start. In fact, the sucking paradigm stated that when a

baby who was exposed to a language he did not know, he sucked. However, if s/he was exposed

to a language s/he knows, he did not. This study indicates that babies can recognize more than

one language of those which they have received an input, so we can say that humans can have

two languages by birth and being natives and bilingual al the same time.

On basic word-learning tasks, monolinguals and bilinguals show identical abilities. However,

bilinguals succeed at a later age than monolinguals. At the same time, other studies using

similar tasks have shown that bilinguals can outperform monolinguals.

On the other hand, bilinguals likely experience a world with considerably more phonetic

variability than monolinguals. This might result in broader phonetic categories in the bilingual,

hence greater caution in applying summary phonological representations might prove to be a

valuable adaptation in the bilingual context. Further, bilinguals might experience a more

complex language environment, leading to greater processing demands particularly as they try

to discriminate and separate their languages.

the ‘language faculty’ is a lot more complex and dynamic than dichotomous nativeness thinking

can allow us to imagine

By definition, bilingual users have a larger total linguistic repertoire than monolingual users

4 Prejuicio

11