Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
X. Fang and J. Xue-mei (2007) pointed out that contrastive analysis hypothesis claimed that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second language system and that a scientific, structural comparison of the two languages in question would enable people to predict and ...
It thus became clear that contrastive analysis could not predict all learning difficulties, but was certainly useful in the retrospective explanation of errors. In response to the above criticisms, a moderate version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) has developed which paradoxically contradicts Lado's original claim.
While traditional linguistic studies had developed comparative methods (comparative linguistics), chiefly to demonstrate family relations between cognate languages, or to illustrate the historical developments of one or more languages, modern contrastive linguistics intends to show in what ways the two respective languages differ, in order to help in the solution of practical problems.
In linguistics, it is considered important to distinguish errors from mistakes. A distinction is always made between errors and mistakes where the former is defined as resulting from a learner's lack of proper grammatical knowledge, whilst the latter as a failure to use a known system correctly. [9] Brown terms these mistakes as performance errors.
The principal theory of second-language (L2) development had been contrastive analysis, which assumed that learner errors were caused by the difference between L1 (their first language) and L2. It was deficit-focused; speech errors were thought to arise randomly, and should be corrected. [1]
For example, in English, the speech sounds [pʰ] and [b̥] can both occur at the beginning of a word, as in the words pat and bat. Since [pʰ] and [b̥] both occur in the same phonological environment (i.e. at the beginning of a word) but change the meaning of the word they form, they are in contrastive distribution and therefore provide ...
Understood by many as Kaplan's original work, contrastive rhetoric was increasingly characterized as static, and linked to contrastive analysis, a movement associated with structural linguistics and behavioralism. Many of the contributions made to contrastive rhetoric from the late 1960s to the early 1990s have been ignored.
Blackboard in Harvard classroom shows students' efforts at placing the ü and acute accent diacritics used in Spanish orthography.. When the relevant unit or structure of both languages is the same, linguistic interference can result in correct language production called positive transfer: here, the "correct" meaning is in line with most native speakers' notions of acceptability. [3]