Lexical Contrastive analysis: a cognitive perspective

In the 1960s, the notion of ‘contrastive analysis’ (CA) became mainstream. According to Lado (1957), contrastive analysis of two languages is a procedure which enables one to predict problems encountered by L2 learners or to explain errors made by them. Then, more effective language-learning materials, based precisely on these learning problems, can be developed (Hadlich, 1965). According to Lado (1957) the significance of CA for teaching for example, entails the teacher making comparisons between the learners’ native and foreign languages and predicting and diagnosing the difficulties the learners may encounter in learning linguistic patterns, in order to provide them with adequate materials. This notion of CA is based on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) proposed by Lado in his influential work Linguistics Across Cultures (1957). According to this hypothesis, transfer and distribution of forms and meanings from the learners’ first language and culture to their foreign language and culture, both receptively and productively, has a major impact on L2 acquisition. Lado argued that “those elements that are similar to the [learner’s] native language will be simple for him, and those areas that are different will be difficult” (p. 2).

Despite the fact that Lado’s CAH may seem sound and credible, his interpretation of CA has been criticised on theoretical, empirical and pedagogical bases (James, 1980). The criticism of CA focused on its predictive and explanatory claims and on its behaviouristic- structuralistic rationale (Kupferberg, 1999). James (1980) considers CA to be an “interlinguistic” enterprise which perceives language not merely as a system to be described but as a system to be acquired. James reintroduces CA in cognitive terms as a process which takes place “when two languages come into contact in the bilingual brain” (James, 1996, p. 143). This process often leads to metalinguistic generalisations (transfer) about the target language, some of which may be incorrect. Consequently, James (1996) noted the need for learners to observe and notice the relationship between their native language and the foreign language so that (1) they can attain what he calls “cross- linguistic awareness”, which in turn may hinder erroneous generalization, and (2) they can convert input into intake necessary for learning. According to Schmitt (1990), there are several determinants of noticeability of a given aspect in the foreign language, namely

70

functionality, frequency, skill level, task demands and perceptual salience. 24 To James (1996) and in relation to CA, perceptual salience is the most important determinant factor of noticeability. He provides two potential sources for salience in any target language form: (1) the target language form itself could be inherently salient, thus, universally noticeable; (2) the salience may be contrast-dependent or cross-linguistic. Several empirical studies show that explicit instruction which induces input salience in the form of contrastive meta-linguistic input, and engages the learners’ attention in various recognition and production tasks is conducive to the acquisition of difficult L2 forms (e.g. Ammar & Lightbown, 2005; Kupferberg, 1999; Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996; Sheen, 1996).

By definition, CA is not restricted to one area of linguistic knowledge. However, in empirical research CA has been mainly applied in the area of grammar. Contrastive analysis in the area of vocabulary teaching and learning, i.e. lexical contrastive analysis, was initially rejected by Hadlich (1965). While he did not question the validity of contrastive analysis at the levels of syntax and pronunciation, he believes that the application of contrastive analysis to vocabulary learning is not only “incorrect”, but could even be “harmful”. Based on results obtained during the experimental development of elementary audio-lingual materials for Spanish, Hadlich (ibid) concluded that when pairs of words which are known traditionally and proved analytically to be problematic are juxtaposed, explained, contrasted and drilled, learners tend to continue confusing them. When they are presented as if no problem existed, students have little or no difficulty with them. Hadlich (1965, p. 427) further states:

“Words, after all, must be learned within the grammatical and situational restrictions of the second language. A word cannot be said to have been learned until the student can respond with it directly to the needs of communication, without external mediation… Therefore, no matter how it is presented, contrastive information…must be unlearned or at least ignored before a word can be really learned.”

Hadlich’s claims, however, could be refuted on different empirical and theoretical levels. Empirically, Laufer (2008a, b) argues that similarly to grammar, L2 cross-linguistic form- focused instruction which entails comparison with L1 and translation is advantageous to the area of vocabulary teaching and learning (see section 3.2.3 for details on empirical research supporting this assumption).25 From a theoretical point of view about L2

24 _{Schmidt’s (1990) “Noticing Hypothesis” is discussed in more detail in section (3.5.1).}

25 _{It is worth noting that Laufer’s (2008a, b) notion of contrastive analysis did not entail contrastive input,} the cross-linguistic contrast was provided to the learners by the researcher.

71

acquisition, Selinker (1992) argues that L2 learners often conduct a cognitive inter-lingual comparison, or some kind of CA between the linguistic form they have noticed in the input, and knowledge of their native language. This suggests that some sort of L1 mediation takes place in the process of internalizing a given linguistic aspect. Therefore and in support of Ellis’s (2008, p. 375) recognition that “acquisition and representation are inseparable”, the current researcher argues that research on representations in the bilingual mental lexicon and psycholinguistic research on vocabulary acquisition could be used to refute Hadlich’s (1965) claims. The next two sections will be allocated to presenting this argument.