Baim SF (2001) 1) Contrastive and Error Analysis By Dr. Glenn G. Koch Abstract In discussing the relative merits of contrastive analysis and error analysis in teaching English as 1 second language, it is important to note that in many recent investigations within the field, the ‘two techniques have been treated as if they were almost entirely antithetical. This is to say that the context of the discussion has frequently induced those postulating one or the other theory to advance arguments which would merely establish the validity of their own defense, but would in effect seriously undermine the position of those taking the other view. There has been most dis cernible tendency among certain commentators to take the dogmatic approach that the teaching of English as a second language must be done one way or else the students involved will suffer pro- foundly. In discussing the relative merits of contrastive analysis and error analysis in teaching Eng- lish as a second language, it is important to note that in many recent investigations within the field, the two techniques have been treated as if they were almost entirely antithetical. This is to say that the context of the discussion has frequently induced those postulating one or the other theory to advance arguments which would merely establish the validity of their own defense, but would in effect seriously undermine the position of those taking the other view. There has been a most discernible tendency among certain commentators to take the dog- matic approach that the teaching of English as a second language must be done one way or else the students involved will suffer profoundly. A more realistic approach seems to be adopt- ing the tentative stance that both types of language teaching have their indisputable advan- tages, but that neither has proven itself to be substantially devoid of limitations, and even seri- ous limitations, and that with this caveat in mind. one should investigate the particular assets of each approach with a very cautious eye toward oversimplification of the matter. srature on the subject illustrates the tenacity with which opposing A review of the recent viewpoints have been held with regard to the merits of each sort of analysis. In his article, “Contrastive Analysis and the Language Classroom,” J. Donald Bowen notes that unless the subject is considered carefully, contrastive analysis may be misinterpreted as simply one more expenditure of pedagogical energy in the belaboring of the obvious. He feels that this attitude may be partially generated by the fact that many ostensible studies of contrastive analysis are(52) quite superficial indeed, and also by the fact that even when the subject is actually discussed among professionals, the tenor of the discussion is tinged by a similar and very pervasive feel- ing of superficiality, and by a very definite failure to carry the discussion to a point at which specific uses of contrastive analysis may be dwelled upon. In noting these facts, the author also points out that contrastive analysis itself is a technique whose utility is largely determined by the degree of familiarity with the two languages, which is manifested by the teacher. It is not a body of knowledge to be imparted, but simply a method of showing how teaching may be done. He does believe that a teacher familiar with the techniques of contrastive analysis can become a better teacher in a shorter period of time than a teacher lacking such knowledge. ‘The supposed advantages of contrastive analysis are of several varieties, though the funda- mental objective of this technique is to teach a language through analogy. and to specify those pieces of information in the target language which may be placed in a meaningful relationship examples from the native language. This approach may be utilized in the teaching of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation or idiomatic expressions. The most cogent example set forth by Bowen is the case of the “fumble word” in English and Spanish, where an effort is made to show the fundamental similarity between the two languages. Another case is that of the determination of the gender in language such as Spanish, where the ascribing of a specific gender to a noun is an altogether arbitrary phenomenon, and particularly where the word does not end in an “o” or an “a” and so cannot be identified by this clue. In a curious argument following upon this, Bowen notes that in many cases, languages are taught by teachers who do not have sufficient practical experience in speaking the language to realize some of the more subtle nuances of the two languages in question, and as a result overlooks some of the areas in which constructions of a similar sort are not at all identical, The example offered is that of the comparative and superlative in Spanish, which only appears to be identical to the English set of constructions. Here it is difficult to see what use contrastive analysis would be to students being taught by a teacher not sufficiently versed in the lan- guage to construct his or her own contrastive analysis program. Indeed, it would seem that in cases such as this where students are particularly susceptible to making a certain type of error, error analysis would be quite a bit more practical, and altogether more germane to the specific talents of the language teacher. ‘Assuming that the teacher is sufficiently trained to undertake a sophisticated form of con. trastive analysis, Bowen suggests a careful delineation of the ways in which such verbs as “hacer” differ from the English verbs “do” and “make.” A careful contrastive analysis of these areas may provide the student with sufficient information to make his own decisions regard- ing the use of each word, rather than being forced to commit to memory whole extended(63) series of idiomatic expressions. The same sort of analysis would be valuable with regard to the distinctions between “estar” and ser” in Spanish, which often present particular difficulty for English-speaking students. Lamentably, at no point does the researcher take into any sort of account the practical limits on how much contrastive analysis of this sort would be required before any student would be able to speak a foreign language with any facility. Worse, Bowen acts as if languages act according to a coherent internal logic, though he must be aware that there are whole areas of irregularities and exceptions in every language which cannot very effectively be studied by utilizing contrastive analysis because the situation in the native lan- guage might be completely dissimilar to that of the target language. Indeed, Bowen's approach is immensely vitiated by his persistent failure to come to terms with practical realities of the application of contrastive analysis to the real teaching situation, since it is after all facility in the speaking of the language which is most desired. Bowen closes his study by stating that teachers should carefully examine those areas in which a child’ s language is most likely to in- terfere with his acquisition of a second language: herein is the principal tenet of contrastive analysis, stating that children are bound to encounter difficulties because of the attempt to apply principles of their own language to the tongue they are seeking to learn. But not all those involved in the field are agreed that this approach is relevant to the learning situation because of generalizations regarding the way in which a language is learned. In approaching this same subject, Marianne Celce-Murcia indicates that disagreement between proponents of error analysis and contrastive analysis arises from a fundamental dis- agreement over the efficacy of empirical techniques used in getting those involved to feel that they can use a foreign language. Those adhering to the contrastive analysis approach reason that the most viable approach is to lay especial emphasis upon the most salient differences between the languages in question, and those predict areas in which difficulties may arise. ‘Those who propose error analysis contend that the most pragmatic fashion of teaching a lan: guage is to carefully study common errors made by those learning the language because in this case the approach is rooted in the empirical world and does not involve the student in needless abstraction. Thus, teachers have made a point of studying their students’ mistakes, have classified them according to category, and have utilized them as the basis for future les- sons and drills in class. The principal thesis of error analysis is that this technique will prevent students from speaking a new language by constructing it piece by piece according to theo- retical concepts. Concomitant with this is the belief that no amount of contrastive analysis could make students aware of all or even most of the irregularities in a language, and so it is best to lay emphasis upon those areas of the language which are most important and which students most frequently tend to be confused by.