It is important to mention that the concept of language transfer was first discussed in the contrastive analysis hypothesis as it was a major component of this theory. One of the general hypotheses concerning second language acquisition and language transfer in particular is contrastive analysis. According to Gass (1994), the major assumption of this theory is that second language learning difficulties can be predicted and compared with the patterns of the native language and teaching materials can be chosen according to the similarities and differences. This theory was formulated by Lado (1957) and, in his view, in regard to linguistics across cultures, “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 the culture of the student” (p.1–2). Thus, it might be suitable to refer to Fries‟ famous statement regarding the remarkable nature of contrastive analysis in regard to language learning: “The most effective teaching materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learnt, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner” (1945, p. 9). In fact, earlier studies of contrastive analysis had been tremendously successful for a long period of time until their rejection by many theoreticians in the field of linguistics and language learning. Such theoreticians claimed that the difficulty or ease of learning can
20
sometimes be determined by other factors rather than the differences between the systems of two languages. Additionally, it is not possible for learners to learn only about the differences between languages while ignoring the similarities, which it is already assumed will facilitate learning since every language has its unique system and language patterns (Gass & Selinker, 2008).
In spite of the rejection of perspectives of contrastive analysis in language learning and teaching, there remain a number of beliefs about the validity and reliability of that theory. According to Wardhaugh (1970) in his reviews of the contrastive analysis hypothesis in relation to teachers of English and to speakers of other languages, it might be interesting for teachers and researchers of linguistics to accept, to some extent, contrastive analysis in the teaching and writing language curriculum, though it is difficult to practise the theory with respect to choosing teaching materials. In light of this view, contrastive analysis may be divided into two versions, the strong and the weak version.
2.2.1.1 The strong version
It is also called the predictive contrastive analysis hypothesis. In regards to this version, many researchers claim that it is impossible to predict difficulties in language learning and that it is unrealistic to choose teaching materials based on this version.
Nevertheless, more precisely, in a book entitled Trends in Language Teaching, Banathy, Trager, and Waddle (1966) state of the strong version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis that “the change that has to take place in the language behaviour of a foreign language student can be equated with the differences between the structure of the student‟s native language and culture and that of the target language and culture. The task of the linguist, the cultural anthropologist, and the sociologist is to identify these differences. The task of the writer of a foreign language teaching program is to develop materials which will be based on a statement of these differences; the task of the foreign language teacher is to be aware of these differences and to be prepared to teach them;
the task of the student is to learn them” (p. 37). In other words, it can still be argued that, in some cases, it is possible to compare the system of the native language, such as its grammar, phonology, or semantics, with the system of the foreign language in order to predict the difficulties that a speaker of the second language may encounter and to construct or choose teaching materials to help with the learning of that language. The
21
matter, which I believe teachers of second language can improve is by paying serious attention to their learners‟ errors and choose the teaching materials and give appropriate feedback according to the source of errors. In this regard, many recent bodies of research still focus on the contrastive analysis in foreign language teaching in terms of the prediction of learners‟ errors. Such as the studies about transfer of sentence processing strategies which provide a comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English (2001), and the studies promoting learner awareness of language transfer errors in China with a comparative study between Chinese and English for learners who learn English as second language (2005), with a focus on grammatical aspects as a “syntactic based study”. This version of contrastive analysis also leads to the explanation of the weak version which follows.
2.2.1.2 The weak version
The proponents of this version on the other hand, explained by Wardhaugh, link this weak version to first language interference, stating that “the weak version requires of the linguist only that he uses the best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for observed difficulties in second language learning. It does not require what the strong version requires, the prediction of those difficulties and, conversely, of those learning points which do not create any difficulties at all. In this version systems are important, because there is no regression to any presystemic view of language, nor does the approach result in merely classifying errors in any way that occurs to the investigator” (1970, p. 126). In other words, it claims that some of the L2 learners‟
problems can be observed and explained according to the linguistic difference between the native and the target language. Despite the criticisms levelled against the weak version, it is still important for linguists and language researchers to consider errors as a result of one significant learning process transferred from the native language, as this weak version leads to another approach to understanding how languages are learned and grasping the concept of language interference. Thus, the contrastive analysis hypothesis is not proven to be workable as originally expressed in its strong version. Upon undertaking a deeper examination of the weak version, it is evident that it has proven to be helpful and undoubtedly useful in regard to language interference or transfer.
However, the contrastive hypothesis hoped to have an influence on second language teaching, curriculum construction, and recent research. Nevertheless, Klein (1986) assumes that researchers cannot predict whether the influence of the hypotheses will