Dear Bahram Kazemian

It is a good question. I would like to draw you attention to the fact that there are numerous studies that show the effectiveness of the contrastive analysis hypothesis . According to these studies, the knowledge about the kinds and degree of differences and similarities between languages on a number of linguistic levels helps in the process of predicting possible difficulties faced by L2 learners. From the pedagogical perspective, CA helps students to see clearly some of the problems they might face. They may avoid making interlingual errors if they are completely aware of the possible difficult areas. CA provides an access for EFL/ESL teachers to diagnose their students' errors. Teachers may not expect students' errors in advance, but at least they can have the ability to explain or diagnose students' errors through CA. Identification of differences and similarities between languages might have a great contribution to the linguistic theory.

I would have been more comfortable providing a balanced view on ‘‘when I will use and when I will not use Contrastive Studies in language teaching and preparation of teaching materials’’. But as the topic stands, I am forced to take sides in the discussion.

What is Contrastive Studies?

What is successful language teaching?

Contrastive Study involves comparison of two language systems to find out the differences and similarities that exist between them (see Contrastive Analysis propounded by James in 1960). Why the need to compare languages? Perhaps, it is to predict the errors that the learner of a target language may make as a result of transfer from the mother tongue or the first language. The question then is, ‘‘Can this type of study predict all errors of the learner?’’. It is definitely ‘no’’. It is unable to detect errors such as a slip of tongue during teaching/ learning. If this type of error is permitted in the class, why then should we want to predict other errors and for what reason? Wardhaugh (1970) pointed out an aspect of Contrastive Analysis which he labeled ‘‘weak claim’’. That aspect, the ‘‘weak claim’’ is able to predict some errors after the differences and similarities between the two languages have been compared. However, the prediction does not prevent the occurrence of the errors.

This would then mean that errors are necessary part of the teaching/ learning process. I believe that errors that occur in the learner’s exercises serve as a principle of verification of the extent to which the learner has mastered the skills the teacher has taught him or her. I also think that with passage of time, the learner will be able to master the skill through drills and practice.

We should also add, for example, that when one person pronounces a word ten times, he or she would realize ten different pronunciations. This is so because of some attitudinal factors such as voice modulation, length of time that he or she takes in pronouncing the word and not to mention rhythm. In this we do not say that the nine other pronunciations apart from the first one are errors and therefore should be corrected.

As pointed out by Chomsky (1959), a learner’s performance is not dependent on this kind of analysis. The learner’s performance depended on the kind of activity in which he or she engages in at any particular time. This implies that during a teaching/ learning situation, errors can be minimized when the teacher chooses activities that are suitable to the level and interest of the learner. If this is so, the teacher should aim at minimizing the occurrence of errors rather that aiming at preventing their occurrence.

The explanation given on ‘‘Contrastive Studies’’ if accepted, then it becomes obvious that such an approach will be more teacher-centered than learner-centered. It will help the teacher to foretell some of the difficulties that the learner may have in the target language as a result of the mother tongue or his or her first language. The results are likely going to direct what should go into his course outline and what he or she should evaluate at the end of the semester and throughout the year. I am afraid, this kind of exercise will misdirect the teacher’s focus and he will end up not helping the learner to acquire the skills needed. Again, the findings will make the teacher to prescribe rules to the learners. In so doing, the teacher will be playing the role of a ‘‘preserve of knowledge’’ rather than a guide or a facilitator to the 21st century learner.

A teacher who diagnoses learner’s errors through this means may want to correct the learner right away; because once he presumes to know the source of the error he may be tempted to have solution to them. In correcting the errors he or she may end up humiliating and discouraging the learner from acquiring the skills he or she needed at that particular moment. I hesitate to add that, even if some errors are made as predicted by the teacher, he or she should categorize the errors and use them as pedagogical materials which he or she should use as ‘‘introductory materials’’ for subsequent lessons?

A successful language teaching, for me is that kind of teaching where the teacher guides the learner to ‘‘discover’’ things for himself or herself and where those things discovered remain registered in the mind of the learner for recall. This cannot happen when the teacher uses the Contrastive Study approach in his class. I will, therefore, not see this technique as a prerequisite for language teaching and preparation of teaching materials.

Dear Dennis Soku, you are totally right, but primarily, ignoring results from contrastive studies will be unfair; secondly,findings based on CA will sharpen the teachers' eye and equip them for diagnosis; nevertheless instructors’ fundamental role in thorough acquaintance and conveya nce of CA results must not be underestimated. It should be born in mind that CA does not suggest a method or technique of teaching, rather it provides raw materials for methodologists, text book writers and syllabus designers as well as for instructors with what of teaching. They will, then, find the how of teaching (Fisiak, 1985). It is also asserted that the findings of CA furnish perfect yardstick for selecting testing items (Lado, 1957;).

@ Bahram

We are saying the same thing. That is why I started by saying that if I were to write on when I will use CA and when I will not I would have been more comfortable.

Thank you very much for you informative and thorough response.

Comparison & contrast does not always work between every 2 different languages. Before learning the Turkish language, I phoned a students hostel in a Turkish university to ask about a student. His roommate's reply in English was : The student so & so does not exist !! He meant, of course, that the student was not there at that moment. I think that successful learning of a language comes when one mixes well with those who master the language sought for learning.  

Dear Bahram Kazemian

It is a good question. I would like to draw you attention to the fact that there are numerous studies that show the effectiveness of the contrastive analysis hypothesis . According to these studies, the knowledge about the kinds and degree of differences and similarities between languages on a number of linguistic levels helps in the process of predicting possible difficulties faced by L2 learners. From the pedagogical perspective, CA helps students to see clearly some of the problems they might face. They may avoid making interlingual errors if they are completely aware of the possible difficult areas. CA provides an access for EFL/ESL teachers to diagnose their students' errors. Teachers may not expect students' errors in advance, but at least they can have the ability to explain or diagnose students' errors through CA. Identification of differences and similarities between languages might have a great contribution to the linguistic theory.

As Dennis points out, the question might be better phrased as to cover when and how one can best use CA, whether in the classroom or in the creation of the syllabus and diagnosis of written assignments.  I have personally found CA tremendously helpful especially when two languages are radically different and have no major similarities, such as Arabic and English.  Because I have only one semester or at the most one and a half semesters to teach Arabic college graduates (from the Middle East) to write a persuasive essay and create a logical analysis of a given subject, I need to understand how Arabic persuades and contrast that to how English persuades. If not, I may make the mistake that too many of my colleagues make in teaching undergraduates--we focus on the grammatical errors, thinking that if we just re-teach end punctuation or articles one more time, these students will magically understand it.  The instructors pay little attention to the probability of language interference, not to mention an entirely different written discourse pattern than exists in English .  CA taught me how to understand the method of Arabic persuasion in its syntax, vocabulary, and paragraph organization, all dramatically different from English.  That allows me to choose appropriate texts to discuss and write about in class. It is hard to explain how important this point is since there remains a large gap between Intermediate, Level 5 at my university and graduate exam persuasive writing.  American students with a lifetime of English do not perform well on these essays that are mandatory and considered, at least in part, by every major graduate program.  The only possible exception is graduate-level engineering that focuses its attention on the quantitative scores.  But all the sciences look at the essay scores, even though they expect a somewhat lower score from an international student.

We can choose a journal text, for instance, translated into English from its original Arabic.  The style of persuasion is quite different from a similarly written journal in the United States.  We look at the differences in syntactic structures, coordination vs. subordination, even the style of the "Discussion" section where American graduate students except to find the elaboration of the major results and their possible implications.  When writers begin to elaborate, the structures become more sophisticated and those structures help these students see what they need to do on a much lower level,of course, for the graduate exam.

But thanks to CA, I can predict where the chief problems will arise (verb tenses from Arabic to English and coordination vs. subordination); that allows me to review my work in advance and do previews with the students so they can recognize those more difficult types of structures.  Mistakes in essay writing are quite often the result of differences in rhetorical patterns; they are rarely simple grammatical errors. And since Arabic is a written language composed chiefly of oral discourse styles, it is difficult to shift to the English formal writing that totally excludes any form of oral discourse or oral patterns. Almost every item that constitutes good persuasive writing in Arabic will be read by an American professor as "poor" style or misinterpreted as grammatical and syntactic errors that need more book review. Thanks to Dennis, Bahram, Mohammad, and Kamal for their views.

Aysha