A Critical Survey of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis in a Multilingual(Persian & Turkish and English Context) Community

Behnam Behfrouz, Ameneh Joghataee

Payam Noor University, Joveyn Independent Researcher

Corresponding Author email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis emerged on the basis of structural linguistic and behavioral psychology. To define merits and demerits of CAH, three different versions of it had been proposed by various scholars since 1970 which chronologically arranged as strong version, weak version and moderate version. This study attempted to emphasize the dis/advantages of moderate version of CAH through critical investigation of strong and weak versions. The foundation of this study was on those bilingual people (Persian & Turkish) who were also learners of English as their third language. For this purpose some 100 Iranian EFL learners were selected. During the time of instruction which lasted for 3 months, the learners were assigned to a list of vocabularies, similar to some words of their native or second languages. After conducting the final exam, the results of the study revealed that all learners were successful in producing of those words which were similar or the same in form and meaning in both language systems. This finding also proved the moderate version of CAH which proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) to be ambiguous in nature. Keywords: Weaknesses, Moderate Version, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Bilinguals, EFL Learners

INTRODUCTION

This critical paper points out to the various theories in contrastive analysis hypothesis which is named as versions of contrastive analysis hypothesis. Since these versions have some theoretical foundations in the history of linguistic, many viewpoints and ideas have been published ever since. Strong, Weak, and Moderate versions of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis are discussed in details here. It is a fact that there are some dis/advantages of CAH, but in this article the emphasis is based on moderate version which is proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970). The present investigator of this study gets some information from participants with interview and case study which bring moderate version of CAH under critical investigation. To do this, a comparison of pronunciation system of three languages like Persian, a type of Turkish accent, and English has been examined. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was emerged when the structural linguistic and behavioral psychology paid attention in the sixties. The linguistic view side of CAH was under dominance of structuralism, developed by Bloomfield (1933) and the cooperation of Fries (1945), Lado (1957). This doctrine believed that finite structures of two languages can be compared. Esser (1980) stated that contrastive analysis is connected with applied linguistics in a way that it may abandon practical instructional materials. Simultaneously the behavioral psychology was the dominant theory in CAH, which viewed language learning as a habit formation process (cited in Byung-gon, 1992). Contrastive analysis is related to the comparison of two languages for the aim of translation and foreign language teaching (Ziahosseiny, 1999). Experiments in psycholinguistics revealed that second language learning is a process needs to be passed through the filters of first language rule system. As a result, the process of getting a second language is different from acquiring first language. During second language learning, the rules of the first language are accompanied with the rules of second language then they expanded, some additional rules are learned and some of the first language rules distinguished as invalid in the second language. In this process, a difference between the rule systems of two languages is the reason of interferences and needs to further attention in second language instruction (Ziahosseiny, 1999). Based on Whitman (1970:191), there are four steps as components of contrastive analysis: 1. Taking two languages, L1 and L2, and writing formal descriptions of them (or choosing descriptions of them), 2.

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 8 (11), 1870-1873, 2014

Picking forms from the descriptions for contrast, 3. Making a contrast of the chosen forms, and 4. Making a prediction of difficulty through the contrast. After reviewing the general idea of contrastive linguistic hypothesis, let’s talk about some professional information on the emergent of three different versions in CAH. In 1970s, Lado`s plan of CAH submits some analysis of its predictability. Wardhaugh (1970, p. 194) expressed that the hypothesis is divided to strong and weak versions. The strong version emphasized on negative transfer as a main source of L2 errors while weak version could hardly explain errors after they have been made. Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) proposed a moderate model of CAH, in which they proved that wherever the patterns of two languages are minimally distinct, then acquiring some items in two languages are hard to be learned. (cited in Byung-gon, 1992)

A Brief Review Of Related Literature Strong Version Wardhaugh (1970) classified the strong version of CAH, as an ability to predict difficulty via contrastive analysis. This hypothesis stated that two languages can be compared a priori. Four fundamental issues were claimed in the strong version. 1. Interference from the learner`s native language is the most important factor in second language learning. 2. Whatever the differences of two languages get more and more, the greater the difficulty of learning will be. 3. A systematic and scientific analysis of the two language systems can help predict the difficulties and 4. The results of CA can be used as a reliable source in providing some teaching materials, course planning and improvement of classroom techniques. Behavioristic psychology and structural linguistics believed on transfer as a main principle in learning. Transfer is divided to negative and positive points. The positive one happens when there are some similarities between two language systems which ease the process of learning. In other words, the information that a person learns, positively will transfer to the second language situations. In contrast, negative transfer which resulting from the differences between two language systems causes interference in learning (Ziahosseiny, 1999). In another statement Banathy, Trager, and Waddle (1966) claimed that: The change that has to take place in the language behavior 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 target language and culture. (p. 37) The proponents of transfer category in foreign language learning assumed that the learning of those items which are similar like sounds, words and structures are easy, and difficult for similar items. The degree of difficulty depends on degrees of differences (Ziahosseiny, 1999). The underlying assumptions around the strong version of CAH were outlined based on Lee (1986): The most important reason of difficulty in foreign language learning originated from learner`s native language and is due to interference. Difficulties are mainly on the basis of differences between two languages. " the great these differences are, more acute the learning difficulties will be". (p. 186) In order to predict the errors and difficulties which will happen in foreign language learning, there is a need to results of comparison between two languages. "what there is to teach can be best found by comparing the two languages and then structuring what is common to them, so that what the student has to learn equals the sum of the differences established by the CAH". (p. 186) (cited in Keshavarz, 2006) One of the disadvantages of this theory was that it could only explain interlingual errors; i.e., errors which have been made during second language learning due to interference from native language. Experiments revealed that one third of errors in foreign language learning were this type (Ziahosseiny, 1999).

Weak Version Wardhaugh (1970) stated that CA has an innate application; teachers and linguists used successfully the best linguistic knowledge which is available in order to explain the difficulties of second language learning. He called such use of contrastive analysis as the weak version of CAH. In this case the emphasis switches from the predictive power of relative difficulty to a kind of explanation for observable errors (Byung-gon, 1992). On the basis of weak version behavioral psychologists disagreed with the application of transfer in foreign language learning. They found that although the concept of transfer is applicable for animal learning but it cannot be used by the cognitive human being. As an example they suggested that Persian learners of English cannot produce [θ and ð] but substitutes them with [s, t, z, t]. This is not because of proactive inhibition, but the person has not learned how to produce these kind sounds correctly. In other words the first language system does not help learners rather interference (Ziahosseiny, 1999). In this version errors are examined and explained after they have been produced by second language learners. Although the weak version has more realistic and practical strength rather than strong version, but it is restricted to the interference concept and those errors which are produced due to language transfer (Keshavarz, 2006). It is hypothesized that the main source of errors in weak version coming from lack of enough knowledge in second language.

1871

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 8 (11), 1870-1873, 2014

Moderate Version In 1970, a proposal suggested by Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970), regarding the interpretation of language learners` errors as well as predicting them, as the moderate version of CAH. In their hypothesis which was based on a study, conducted on English spelling errors, they revealed that wherever the patterns of two language systems are minimally distinct, learners face with some problems in second language learning. Similarly Brown (1987) stated that inference causes some more problems on the basis of learning when two items are similar while a little interference happens when there are two distinct items to be learned. Ziahosseiny (1999) claimed that one of the most important advantages of moderate version is that it can explain both interlingual errors which are related to the native language and intralingual errors dealing with target language. Moreover, some errors which are due to overgeneralization can be interpreted and predicted on the basis of moderate version. Regarding three kinds of versions in CAH, it’s the right time to check the details of three versions on the basis of a study with those learners who know two languages (Persian and Turkish[It is a kind of separated accent of pure Turkish speaks in Khorasan Razavi Province, Iran known as Joghataese (Khorasanese) Turkish] ) and are EFL learners.

METHOD

Participants The population from which the participants of the present study were drawn includes Iranian EFL learners of secondary school, high school, junior university students who passed some courses of EFL, and those people who use some English techniqual terms during their routines, all 100 persons without age and sex limitations.

Instruments To conduct the study, a list of words which were similar in meaning and form among Turkish, Persian, and English was provided by the researcher.

Procedures The study lasted for three months. During this time some vocabularies were assigned to the learners, and then asked them to learn their pronunciation and meaning.

DATA ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

After working three months on the list, some paper-based exams and interviews were assigned to all 100 people, and following results were gathered. Looking through positive transfer of strong version, it is improved that two words which have similar pronunciation or meaning can be learned so fast. For instance, Sandwich in English has the equal word with the same meaning in Persian and Turkish: Sandiwich, it is also true for the word Machine in English with its equivalent Mashin in Persian. However, the role of interference or negative transfer also examined, for example the word Class /kelas/ in Persian language has the equal form and meaning in English Class / klæs/. Both of them are the similar but when an Iranian EFL learner faced with the word Class / klæs/ in English content, h/she pronounced it like its equal terms in Persian Class /kelas/ i.e., wrong pronunciation in second language learning context. Based on the above issues and examples it can be concluded that positive transfer plays an important role in learning, simultaneously negative transfer can also be removed with consuming more time and energy on producing words. If it is accepted that the concept of transfer is the truest one, then moderate version of CAH will gradually criticized. One of the most disadvantages of transfer which is stated in Ziahosseiny (1999) was that, it was applicable with animal learning not human, while this paper showed that it is mostly accepted when talking about human cognition learning, i.e., positive and negative transfer are highly usable with human. In weak version of CAH, proponents asserted that language transfer positively helps learners to learn second language. For example, in the case of an Iranian EFL learner who faced with [θ and ð], h/she replaced these items with [s and z] in his native language linguistic knowledge. This means that EFL learners used nativization process to change the pronunciation of some words according to their native language phonetic system in order to ease their production. If this happens in learning, we face with negative transfer again, and it is one of the most tapping dilemmas during second/foreign language learning. I believed that it will show our failure in teaching and training a new language system to the learners. Linguists assumed that miss pronunciation is not because of pronunciation difficulties, since all human beings are equipped with the same

1872

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 8 (11), 1870-1873, 2014 type of vocal tract and nervous system; it is possible for anyone to produce sound involving new combinations of phonetic features or new sequences of sound (Ansari, 2005). Ziahosseiny (1980, p. 194) stated: " 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 and meaning in one or more systems, confusion may result. Conversely, where patterns are functionally or perceptually equivalent in a system or systems, correct generalization may occur". (cited in Ziahosseiny, 1999) Although similar patterns in two systems may cause confusion like Eat /i:t/ in English means eating something, and Eat /i:t/ in Turkish accent means a dog, but the learners were able to pronounce it perfectly after awhile. To improve the previous result and to minimize the moderate version`s theory for minimal distinct patterns other kinds of words were checked and learners could handle the problem. They learned the pronunciation as well as meaning completely. Look at the examples below:

Table 1. Some Words and Their Meanings in English and Turkish Languages English word Meaning Turkish word Meaning Much Large amount or part Much A female character The wall Wall Difal A wall Get Receive, Obtain Get Go All Completely Æll Hand Yankee Person living in the northern Yengi New state of US Bell Metal object that makes a Bell A shovel ringing sound

Undoubtly, on the basis of the Table 1, the nature of moderate version is ambiguous to some extent, since all the learners were successful in producing of words which were similar in form and meaning in two language systems. One of the limitations of this study was that, this paper compared Turkish/Persian EFL learners but analysis of versions may clear something different on the basis of other languages.

Appendix 1. List of english words with their equivalent in persian/ turkish

English Persian Turkish The wall Divar Difal Door Dær ------Sandwich Sandivich Sandivich Symbol Symbol ------Cellophane Selfon Selefon Anti Antee ------Error Error ------Texas Tegzas Tegzas Machine Ma:shin Ma:shin Academic Akademik Akademik Accord Akord ------Acid Æcid Æcid Get ------Get Much : large amount Mach: a kiss Mach: a female character Eat: take through the mouth ------Eat: a dog Alarm Alarm Alarm Class Kelas Kælas All: completely ------Æl: hand Cabinet kabinet kabinet Video Video Video Soup Soop Soop

REFERENCES

Ansari J. 2005. Phonetics and Phonology. Mashhad: Mohaghegh Publication. Banathy BH, Trager EC, Waddle CD.1966. The Use of Contrastive Data in Foreign Language Course Development, in Valdman (ed.). Trends in Modern Language Teaching, 1966:35-66. Brown HD.1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Byung-gon Y. 1992.A Review of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Kebbe ZM, Al-Siba MD. 2004. Not to Be: The Decline of Contrastive Analysis Pedagogy. Contrastive Analysis. Oller JW, Ziahosseiny SM. 1970. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and Spelling Errors. Language Learning, vol.20. Whitman L. 1970. Contrastive Analysis: Problems and Procedures. Language Learning, 20, 191-197. Ziahosseiny SM.1999. Contrastive Analysis of Persian and English & Error Analysis. Tehran: Nashr-e Vira.

1873