This research paper compares contrastive analysis with the error analysis approach in respect of their treatment of avoidance behaviour. It considers several researches on avoidance behaviour and shows that contrastive analysis predicts the avoidance phenomenon in most cases and, therefore, gives a complete description of the areas of difficulty for learners of a second language.
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. 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.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter I. Theoretical implications on contrastive and error analysis
1. Contrastive Analysis
2. Error Analysis
3. Short overview of the advantages and weak points of contrastive analysis and error analysis and presentation of the thesis
Chapter II. Avoidance phenomenon
1. Definition
2. Avoidable language elements
Chapter III. Discussion of the thesis
1. “Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs – A Case for Contrastive Analysis” by Dagut and Laufer (1985)
2. “Avoidance. Grammatical or Semantic Causes?“ by Hulstijn and Marchena (1989)
3. “Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition” by Kleinmann (1977)
Conclusion
References
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of contrastive analysis compared to error analysis in explaining the avoidance phenomenon in second language acquisition. It investigates whether contrastive analysis can predict learning difficulties by analyzing specific studies, while also exploring how affective factors and linguistic complexity contribute to avoidance strategies.
- Comparison between contrastive analysis and error analysis
- Definition and manifestation of the avoidance phenomenon
- Role of native language influence and target language complexity
- Impact of affective characteristics on learner behavior
- Empirical evidence from studies on phrasal verbs, passives, and progressive tenses
Excerpt from the Book
1. Definition
According to Van Els, Bongaerts, Extra, Van Os, and Janssen-Van Dieten (1984), avoidance behavior is taken as a cognitive strategy, implying a choice on the part of the L2 learner (Faerch und Kaper, 1984). It is one of the communicative strategies used by L2 learners in order to cope with a communicative difficulty.
Instead of an expression or word in the target language which presents some difficulty in the speech production, learners use another expression that is perceived by them as simpler and that conveys more or less the same content as the expression avoided. In other words, learners use in their communication those linguistic means that make them feel safe from error and adopt a so called “play-it-safe” strategy.
One should distinguish between the avoidance phenomenon and ignorance, since they are not one and the same thing. As Laufer and Eliasson (1993) assumed, “complete ignorance and fullfledged knowledge are states of mind and are seen as the end points of a scale or continuum relating to the amount of mentally stored or memorized information in a given area”. Avoidance, on the other hand, is seen as a strategy or process for proceeding and conveying information and can apply anywhere along this scale (Laufer and Eliasson 1993). Avoidance behavior implies that a learner is aware of a given word or expression of the target language, and that a learner makes an intentional choice to replace that feature of the target language by something else.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the research goal of comparing contrastive analysis and error analysis regarding their treatment of the avoidance phenomenon in second language acquisition.
Chapter I. Theoretical implications on contrastive and error analysis: Examines the theoretical foundations of contrastive analysis as a predictive tool and error analysis as a post-hoc explanatory framework.
Chapter II. Avoidance phenomenon: Defines avoidance as a communicative strategy and categorizes various linguistic elements, such as syntactic and semantic structures, that are commonly avoided by learners.
Chapter III. Discussion of the thesis: Provides empirical analysis of three key studies to validate the hypothesis that contrastive analysis is a necessary but not sufficient predictor of avoidance behavior.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that while contrastive analysis is a strong predictor, affective factors and pedagogical contexts are required to fully explain avoidance behavior.
Keywords
Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Avoidance Phenomenon, Second Language Acquisition, Interlanguage, Fossilization, Communicative Strategy, Phrasal Verbs, Affective Characteristics, Language Interference, Pedagogical Factors, Linguistic Difficulty, Learner Proficiency, Target Language, Syntax.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work investigates the validity of contrastive analysis in predicting learner avoidance, specifically comparing its explanatory power against error analysis when learners face difficulties in a target language.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
The core themes include the definition of avoidance as a communicative strategy, the influence of the native language (L1) on the target language (L2), and the impact of affective factors like anxiety and motivation.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The primary goal is to show that while contrastive analysis accurately predicts many cases of avoidance, it must be supplemented with information regarding learner characteristics and teaching intensity to provide a complete picture.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs a comparative literature review of established studies by researchers like Schachter, Kleinmann, and Dagut and Laufer to evaluate existing linguistic hypotheses.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body systematically reviews the theoretical background of CA and EA, defines the parameters of avoidance, and conducts a detailed critique of three major research studies involving learners of English with various native language backgrounds.
Which keywords best characterize this academic work?
Key terms include Contrastive Analysis, Avoidance Phenomenon, Interlanguage, Language Interference, and Affective Factors.
How does the author define the difference between ignorance and avoidance?
The author argues that avoidance requires the learner to have a choice, meaning they must be familiar with the target structure but choose not to use it, whereas ignorance implies a lack of knowledge or repertoire.
What role does the "novelty effect" play in the research findings?
The "novelty effect" is used to explain why some learners do not avoid structures that are theoretically predicted to be difficult, suggesting that a lack of resemblance to the native language can sometimes make a structure easier to learn.
How do affective factors influence avoidance behavior?
Factors such as levels of anxiety, motivation, and confidence are identified as variables that influence whether a learner chooses to employ a "play-it-safe" strategy rather than attempting more complex target structures.
Does the author recommend abandoning contrastive analysis?
No, the author concludes that despite its drawbacks, contrastive analysis remains a reliable and necessary tool for identifying potential learning difficulties and should not be discarded.
- Quote paper
- Elena Gluth (Author), 2003, Contrastive Analysis vs. Error Analysis in Respect of their Treatment of the Avoidance Phenomenon, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/537680
