Contrastive analysis and error analysis in respect of their treatment of the avoidance phenomenon

Hauptseminararbeit im Fach Englische Linguistik
Institut für Anglistik
Freie Universität Berlin
SoSe 2003

“Contrastive Analysis vs. Error Analysis in Respect of their
Treatment of the Avoidance Phenomenon”

A critical essay based on the studies by
Schachter (1974), Kleinmann (1977), Dagut and Laufer (1985),
Hulstijn and Marchena (1989)

by

Elena Gluth

Table of Contents

Introduction ...  3

Chapter I. Theoretical implications on contrastive and error analysis  ...  5

1. Contrastive Analysis  ...  5
2. Error Analysis  ...  6
3. Short overview of the advantages and weak points of contrastive analysis and error analysis and presentation of the thesis  ...  8

Chapter II. Avoidance phenomenon  ...  9

1. Definition  ...  9
2. Avoidable language elements  ...  10

Chapter III. Discussion of the thesis  ...  11

1. “Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs – A Case for Contrastive Analysis” by Dagut and Laufer (1985)  ...  11
2. “Avoidance. Grammatical or Semantic Causes? “ by Hulstijn and Marchena (1989)  ...  13
3. “Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition” by Kleinmann (1977)  ...  17

Conclusion  ...  22

References  ...  25

Introduction

There exist two different approaches for the identification of possible learning problems in the second language acquisition: contrastive analysis and error analysis. A number of proponents of an error analysis approach claim that contrastive analysis cannot serve as an adequate tool for identifying the areas of difficulty for learners of a second language. But on the other hand, it has been noticed that error analysis is not able to explain the avoidance phenomenon, since error analysis registers only the errors done by learners of a second language (Schachter 1974). Avoidance behaviour represents a communicative strategy of a learner of a second language by which the learner prefers using a simpler form instead of the target linguistic element for the reason of difficulty on the part of the target feature. Consequently, avoidance behaviour serves as a manifestation of learning problems, and its results should be definitely considered when compiling language syllabi and tests (Laufer and Eliasson 1993). And since error analysis does not consider and is not able to explain the avoidance phenomenon, it cannot be observed as an adequate approach for assisting teachers of a second language with learning materials.

In this paper, we set a goal to compare contrastive analysis with the error analysis approach in respect of their treatment of avoidance behaviour. We will consider several researches on avoidance behaviour and will show that contrastive analysis does predict the avoidance phenomenon in most cases and, therefore, gives a complete description of the areas of difficulty for learners of a second language.

We suppose that we can come across the cases in which the avoidance phenomenon would not manifest itself although it has been predicted by contrastive analysis. In addition, we do not exclude the possibility to find the cases in which avoidance behaviour would come into being despite the negative predictions made on the basis of contrastive analysis. In these both cases we will show that the predictions of contrastive analysis are necessary, but not sufficient for the explanation of the avoidance behaviour. In order to submit sufficient information for the explanation of the avoidance phenomenon, supplemental information concerning various affective characteristics such as confidence, levels of anxiety, motivation, and risk-taking has to be added to the predictions of contrastive analysis.

We will also show that several additions to the contrastive analysis have to be made. Thus, along with the contrastive analysis hypothesis that different features of two languages are difficult to learn, it is necessary to point out a special case: features of a second language which do not exist in the native language can sometimes be easier to learn due to the effect of novelty.

We will also suggest a proof for the fact that avoidance, as an evidence for learning problems, can also occur despite structural similarities of two languages, i.e. in contradiction to the statement of contrastive analysis that similar linguistic features are easy to learn. For this case of avoidance we will show that learning problems and, consequently, avoidance behaviour can be caused by a comparison of forms not only between two languages, but also within the system of a second language. In addition, we will show that linguistic features of two languages similar in form can also cause learning difficulty through their functional differences.

In order to prove our suppositions, we will consider more closely the following studies: "Avoidance of Phrasal verbs - A Case for Contrastive Analysis" by Dagut and Laufer (1985), "Avoidance. Grammatical or Semantic Causes?" by Hulstijn and Marchena (1989), "Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition" by Kleinmann (1977). The reason for our choice of the articles is the fact that these studies exemplify 3 possible situations which can occur when contrastive analysis is applied to in order to explain the phenomenon of avoidance: 1) predictions of learning difficulty made on the basis of contrastive analysis are confirmed through the manifestation of avoidance behaviour; 2) contrastive analysis predicts no learning difficulty; however, learners resort to an avoidance strategy; 3) contrastive analysis predicts a learning difficulty and the manifestation of avoidance behaviour, but the later cannot be observed. With the help of the articles mentioned above, we will provide evidence for and explanation of these possible cases.

Chapter I. Theoretical implications on contrastive and error analysis

1. Contrastive Analysis

Banathy, Trager, and Waddle (1966) define the idea of the contrastive analysis (the strong version) as follows: "… 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 the target language and culture. The task of the linguist, the cultural anthropologist, and the sociologist is to identify these differences. The task of the writer of a foreign language teaching program is to develop materials which will be based on a statement of these differences; the task of the foreign language teacher is to be aware of these differences and to be prepared to teach them; the task of the student is to learn them."

[....]