THE LINGUISTIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS OF CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS AND

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INFLUENCE OF CHOMSKY ON LANGUAGE

DESCRIPTION AND THEORIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNING PRECIPITATES THE
DECLINE AND FALL OF CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS BY ABIGAIL ADUSEI

Contrastive Analysis is an approach to foreign language teaching and research concerned

with the comparison of learners’ native language and the target language to identify areas of
similarities and differences and predict difficulties learners will face in learning the target
language. So in essence, contrastive analysis focuses on one learning problem; interference.
According to contrastive analysis hypothesis, the learner’s native language can hinder or facilitate
his L2 acquisition. Thus, when some features of his native language are found in the target
language, then, it makes the L2 acquisition easier, but when the the features of his native language
are different from that of the target language, then there are difficulties. This implies that
difference and difficulty are synonymous. Also, one useful way of looking at language learning is
to regard it as a task of discovering the differences between the L1 and the L2 , the linguistic
syllables will then be on differences.A teacher with contrastive knowledge all things being equal
will be a better teacher within the shortest possible time than another teacher without such
knowledge because that teacher will be able to compare the two language and identify the
difficulties and teach them. The linguistic and psychological model are the basis of contrastive
analysis. Their claims on language acquisition are what contrastive analysis based on to develop
its hypothesis. This essay seeks to elucidate the linguistic and psychological model of contrastive
analysis and asses the extent to which the influence of Chomsky on language description and
theories of language learning precipitates the decline and fall of contrastive analysis. The essay
will first look at the linguistic model of contrastive analysis, it will also look a the psychological
model of contrastive analysis. Then it will look at Chomsky’s theory of language description and
theories of language learning and how this theory leads to the fall of contrastive analysis.
To begin with, The linguistic model of contrastive analysis hypothesis is structuralism which
was propounded by Bloomfield (1933), elaborated by Fries (1945) and Lado (1957). To the
structuralist, language is viewed as a system of structurally related elements encoding meaning
and could be described at any structural level of description such as phonetic, phonemic,
morphology and the others. Sapir - Whorf hypotheses adds up that the structure of a language
subtly influence the cognitive process of the speaker of that language. Leonard Bloomfield, who is
widely recognized as one of the most important linguists provides some fundamental assumption
of linguistics. One of the assumptions is that the basis for understanding language including the
study of language acquisition should be limited to observable phenomena. Language studying
should must be guided by the scientific methods of observation and analysis. (Bloomfield,
1933:77). With this, the scientific approach to language analysis offered foundations for scientific
approach to foreign language teaching and research.Structuralism assumes that there is a finite
structure of a given language that can be documented and compared with another language.
Contrastive analysis belongs to applied linguistic in that the analysis may yield practically
instructional materials. (Esser, 1980:181). The instructional materials that Esser talks about may
help in teaching and learning. This will facilitate the teaching and learning of the target language.
A comparison of two languages can be carried out using any of several different models of
grammar. Initially the model used was that of structuralist linguists like Bloomfield 1933 and Fries
1952 This emphasized the importance of detailed ‘scientific description’ of languages based on a
description of the different categories that make up the patterns of a language. These categories
were defined in formal terms and they were established inductively. The differences among
languages were emphased:The differences (among languages) are great enough to prevent our
setting up any system of classification that would fit all languages (Bloomfield 1933). It is clear
that Contrastive Analysis and structuralist linguistics made strange bedfellows; unusual
combination. How can an effective comparison be executed if languages do not have any
categories in common? This problem was ignored, however, in the spate of contrastive studies that
were carried out in the United States by Stockwell and Bowen 1965 and Stockwell, Bowen and
Martin 1965. These studies compared languages from within the same language family like
English and Spanish, so the problem of identifying a set of categories which were common to both
languages was not acute. However, although for practical purposes the problem of establishing the
linguistic basis for comparison could be overlooked, the theoretical problem remained. Ideally,
Contrastive Analysis needs to be based on universal categories (i.e. categories that can be found in
all natural languages), which differ in the way they are linguistically realized from one language to
another. Lado laid down the groundwork for the theory and methodology of contrastive analysis.
His book Linguistic Across Cultures, which is considered by many linguists as the founding text
of contrastive analysis gives useful tool for a comparison of the native and target language.
Moving on, the psychological basis deals with the behavioral psychology associated
with B. F Skinner. Before the 1960s the dominant language learning theory was the imitation and
habit-formation theory of the behaviorist approach (Ellis,2003). Here, language learning is viewed
as habit formation backed by reinforcement. Contrastive Analysis was constructed within the
behaviorist framework. The behaviorist learning theory is a theory of learning in general. It
stresses the importance of habit formation. A habit is a link between a particular response and a
particular stimulus. It is formed when there is a regular association of a particular stimulus with a
particular response. B.F. Skinner states that a habit developed when a response to a stimulus was
regularly followed by behavior. This consequent behavior reinforced the habit and helped to
strengthen the association between the stimulus and the response. It is observable and automatic. It
is automatic when the stimulus behavior is imitated or copied sufficiently for it to be performed
spontaneously. Thus habit formation occurred where there is imitation, reinforcement and
repetition of behavior. (Ellis, 1985:21). Ellis and Shintani (2004), add that second language
learning is the same as any other kind of learning, including first language which involves habit
information. Birjandi et al. ( 2006) states that B.F Skinner in 1957 based his idea on
experimentation indicating that learning deals with establishing connections between a stimulus
and a response.With the behaviorist theory as a reference point, learning takes place when a
learner finds the opportunity to practice bringing out the correct response to a given stimulus.
According to the behaviorists, language is a behavior, not a mental phenomenon. Their theories of
habit formation were applied to language learning, first in L1, then to L2 acquisition. To learn his
mother tongue, a child imitates the utterances made by adults. His attempts at using language
would be rewarded or reinforced by approval or suppression. To get more of these rewards, the
child repeats the utterances and these become habits that constituted the language the child is
learning.Ellis (2003) adds up that “learners imitated models of correct language (for example,
stimuli) and received positive reinforcement if they were correct and negative reinforcement if
they were incorrect" (p. 31). This habit-formation theory of the behaviorist psychology that was
used to explain how a child learned his first language was also believed to be applicable to L2
learning. According to the adherents of behaviorism, previous habits that have been entrenched in
the mind of a person as the first language can exercise an influence on the course of L2 learning. A
learner transfers some linguistic items (phonology, vocabulary and grammar) and usage of his first
language into the second language. There are two kinds of transfer. When the habits of L1 and L2
are similar, there is positive transfer. For example, in the English language, the letter “P” in “pan”
is pronounced the same way as in “papa” in the Fante language. A Fante speaker learning English
language would not encounter any difficulty. However, this same letter “P” is pronounced as /f/ in
“physics”. Transfer is not possible as the phonetic environment has changed. In Fante language,
whenever the letter “P” is seen it is pronounced as /p/. The Fante speaker learning the English
language will pronounce the /f/ as /p/ in the word “physics”. This is called negative transfer.
Negative transfer is generally known as interference. Interference is the result of proactive
inhibition. Proactive inhibition is the way in which previous learning hinders the learning of new
habits. Thus differences between L1 and L2 lead to interferences. Interferences cause learning
difficulties and consequently errors. On the other hand, similarities between the two languages
facilitate learning and thus no errors will occur and this called positive transfer. According to the
behaviorist learning theory, errors were evidences of non-learning and were considered
undesirable. They should be avoided. To eliminate the chances of errors occurring, attempts were
made to predict when they would occur and to this end, the Contrastive Analysis was developed.
When the behaviorist view of L1 acquisition was replaced by Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories,
which propounded that a child has an innate creative capacity to construct his knowledge of the
language, L2 researchers also began to view L2 learning from the same perspective. The new
techniques developed for collecting and analyzing children’s speech were also used to collect data
about the processes involved in L2 learning. We thus see the tendency for researchers to adopt a
single theory of language acquisition that can account for first and second language learning, as
both these activities are manifestations of man’s capacity to learn and use language. (Lim Sep Neo,
2001:32) Chomsky’s (1965) theory of grammar proposed just such a model and as such critique the
psychological and linguistic basis of contrastive analysis. Since contrastive analysis hypothesis is
based on these two model, it also led to the decline of the contrastive analysis.
Chomsky was an American psychology who presented many ideas and facts related to
psychology out of which the commentary on his language is world famous. Chomsky’s theory of
language development was propounded in the year 1959. According to his theory, every child has
an innate ability to learn a language or an innate faculty. This is to say that we are born with a set
of rule about language in our minds, which he refers to as the Universal Grammar. It is the basis
upon which all human languages are build. According to this theory, the process is biologically
determined - the human species has evolved a brain whose neural circuits contain linguistic
information at birth. The child's natural predisposition to learn language is triggered by hearing
speech and the child's brain is able to interpret what he or she hears according to the underlying
principles or structures it already contains. This natural faculty has become known as the
Language Acquisition Device (LAD). The LAD’s job is to encode into the child’s brain the
grammatical structure. Chomsky says that all children learn the construction of sentences with the
help of some rules these rules are called “generative grammar”. With Chomsky’s attack on the
behavioral view of language acquisition in its review of the classic Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, the
behavioral view fell into disorder. Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar is a way of describing
the way people learn to communicate. The basis of this theory is the idea that all human language
originates from a common source, an innate set of grammatical rules and approaches that is
hardwired into the human mind. According to Chomsky, in order for knowledge to be retained,
there must be previous knowledge already present for the new information to be associated with.
While the association of CAH with behaviorism and structuralism gave it academic legitimacy, it
ultimately led to its downfall. From the late 1950s Chomsky mounted a serious challenge against
the behaviorist view of language acquisition and structuralist linguistics which contributed to the
decline of the CA. There was also disenchantment with the over-confidence of the structuralists
that insights from linguistics would lead automatically to improvements in language learning and
teaching. The learning of the second language was seen as a process of overcoming the habit of L1
in order to acquire new habits of L2. But irony of fate, behaviorism brought contrastive analysis to
his fall. The following paragraphs assess the extent to which the influence of Chomsky on
language description and theories of language learning precipitates the decline of contrastive
analysis.
The first point to consider here is that language is govern by rules. Chomsky and his
followers claimed that language is always governed by rules and so it can be learnt anyhow as
Skinner and his follow behaviorists claim. He believed that a child learns his language through
cognitive learning so the child does not have to imitate his environments for it to interfere his L2
acquisition. According to Chomsky, the child is born with a mental capacity for working out the
underlying system to the jumble of sounds which he hears. He believes that there are structures of
the brain that control the interpretation and production of speech so if the child is making errors in
the acquisition of the foreign language it is because the knowledge present for the new
information to be associated with is not there. He constructs his own mental grammar’ and
imposes it on the all the sounds reading his brain. This mental grammar is part of his cognitive
framework, and nothing is stored in his brain until he has matched it against what he already
knows and found a ‘correct’ place for it within this framework.
In addition, Chomsky’s view on structuralism takes a different way. Structuralist does not
have a theory of human language as a whole. Chomsky criticizes that their concept of language
was an extremely primitive one. In contrast, Chomsky views Human Language as something that
is essentially the same, differing with regard to certain parameters only. So a structure in native
language is the same as the structure in the target language so if the child has been able to acquire
the native language then he should be able to also acquire the target language. When he transfers
the L1 to the L2, it should not cause differences or difficulties because all human languages are
essentially the same. Chomsky often said that for a Martian all human languages would be the
same. ( Chomsky, 1950). This debunk the contrastive analysis claim that interference of the native
language causes L2 learning difficulties or errors so the learner should transfer his L1 to target
language
Moreover, learning involves active participation of learner instead of stimulus. Chomsky
brought to light the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and
reinforcement. Chomsky claimed that children often produce incorrect forms which they have not
heard from adults. Common examples of this are sheeps and tooths instead of sheep and teeth, and
cuted and puted instead of cut and put. Nearly all children do this kind of thing at some stage in
their language development. They could not have copied these forms from their parents or an adult.
The child seems to be formulating his own rules for how his language forms plurals and past
tenses, but so far he has only reached an intermediate stage in doing so. Gradually he will learn to
distinguish regular and irregular verb forms. So here the foreign language learning problem is as a
result of age not interference as claimed by contrastive analysis hypothesis. When the learner
reaches that developmental stage where he has been able to acquire the rules, he can distinguish
between regular and irregular verb forms.
Lastly, novelty and creativity of child language. Even if structuralism shares a ground with
the behaviorist by maintain it that, to learn is to change old habits and build new habits (transfer).
Chomsky stresses that every child has an unconscious rules in his mind which enable him to
produce grammatical sentences in his own language. This not to say that the child can explain
these grammatical rules. For example, a four or five year child can produce a sentence like “I have
finished bathing”; he can do that because he has ‘mental grammar’ which enables him to form
correct present perfect structures and also to use such structures in the right or appropriate
situations. But he cannot say the present tense is formed by ‘have’ or ‘has’ plus a past participle
verb, and is used in the following situations. So if the child makes an error in the foreign language
acquisition, it is because, at that time that’s what is correct for him according to his mental
grammar.So it is until he has acquired an explanation to these grammatical rules then he can avoid
making errors in target language learning but not changing habit. This also brings down the claims
of contrastive analysis that a comparison of the native language and the target to identify area of
difficulties and teach that area will help the learner to avoid making mistakes in the L2.

In conclusion, structuralism shares a ground with the behaviorist by maintaining that, to learn
is to change old habits and build new habits(transfer). If old habits get in the way of learning new
habits, errors occur (interference). It in upon this basis that contrastive analysis was made;
interference of the native language is the source of L2 learning problem. A comparison of the
native language and the target language will help to identify areas of difficulties for learning the
L2. This prediction will help the L2 teacher to prepare effective material to teach the foreign
language. However Noam Chomsky critique this analysis with his theory that every child has an
innate ability to acquire a language and that innate ability is called Language Acquisition Device
(LAD). The LAD’s job is to encode into the child’s brain the grammatical structure. Chomsky
says that all children learn the construction of sentences with the help of some rules these rules are
called “generative grammar”. He criticized the linguistic and psychological model and this led to
the decline of contrastive analysis because contrastive analysis hypothesis is based on these two
model. Some of his criticism as stated in this essay are; language is govern by rules so it can’t just
be learnt by imitation; also Chomsky views Human Language as something that is essentially the
same, so the L1 and L2 of the learner is in a way the same and so transfer should cause error; he
adds that the child will have to work to produce a language on its own and not imitate what an
adult say; lastly, Chomsky adds that age is a factor in language learning, so as the child grows he
would be able to get the correct form of the language structure. With these critics, people realized
the inadequacy of the contrastive analysis hypothesis in language learning.

REFERENCES
1. Bloomfield, L. (1983). An Introduction to the Study of Language, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
2. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford; Oxford University
 Press.
3. Ellis, R. (2003). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language
teaching.Oxford; Oxford University printing press
4. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford; Oxford
university press
5. Esser, J. (1980). Contrastive analysis at the crossroads of linguistics and foreign language teaching;
IRAL, vol. 13/3.
6. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers.
Michigan; University of Michigan press
7. Lim, S. N. (2001). An error analysis of the use of the past tense in French. Malaya; University of
Malaya printing press