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
- 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)
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to compare contrastive analysis and error analysis in their treatment of avoidance behavior in second language acquisition. The study examines how well contrastive analysis predicts avoidance, considering cases where predictions are confirmed, contradicted, or where avoidance occurs despite structural similarities between languages. The research explores the limitations of error analysis in explaining avoidance and argues for the necessity of incorporating affective factors into contrastive analysis for a more comprehensive understanding.
- Contrastive Analysis vs. Error Analysis in explaining second language learning difficulties.
- The avoidance phenomenon as a manifestation of learning problems.
- The predictive power of contrastive analysis in identifying areas of difficulty.
- The influence of affective factors on avoidance behavior.
- Limitations of contrastive analysis and the need for supplemental information.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter I. Theoretical implications on contrastive and error analysis: This chapter lays the groundwork by defining contrastive analysis (CA) and error analysis (EA). It explores the strong version of CA, which posits that learning difficulties stem directly from differences between the native and target languages. The chapter also discusses Schachter's more nuanced definition of CA as a point-by-point comparison of language subsystems. It highlights the limitations of EA in addressing the avoidance phenomenon, setting the stage for the paper's central argument: that CA, while not perfect, offers a more complete picture of learning challenges than EA alone. The chapter establishes the core theoretical frameworks that underpin the subsequent analysis of avoidance behavior.
Chapter II. Avoidance phenomenon: This chapter defines the avoidance phenomenon in second language acquisition, characterizing it as a learner strategy where difficult linguistic elements are replaced with simpler alternatives. The chapter explores what constitutes an "avoidable language element," setting the context for the subsequent analysis of specific studies. It underlines the importance of considering avoidance as a significant indicator of learning problems, which has implications for curriculum design and testing. The definition provided here serves as a crucial foundation for the critical evaluation of research findings presented in Chapter III.
Chapter III. Discussion of the thesis: This chapter delves into three key studies on avoidance behavior to illustrate different scenarios arising from the application of contrastive analysis. The studies demonstrate instances where contrastive analysis accurately predicts avoidance, cases where avoidance occurs despite predicted ease, and situations where predicted avoidance doesn't materialize. This analysis allows for a critical evaluation of the predictive power of contrastive analysis and emphasizes the need to integrate affective factors—such as learner confidence and anxiety—into the analytical framework to provide a more complete explanation of avoidance behaviors. The chapter reinforces the central argument that contrastive analysis is a necessary, but not sufficient, tool for understanding learner difficulties.
Keywords
Contrastive analysis, error analysis, avoidance phenomenon, second language acquisition, learning difficulties, interference, transfer, affective factors, phrasal verbs, linguistic features, learner strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main focus of this paper?
This paper compares contrastive analysis (CA) and error analysis (EA) in understanding avoidance behavior in second language acquisition (SLA). It investigates how well CA predicts avoidance, analyzing cases where predictions are confirmed or contradicted. The research also explores the limitations of EA and advocates for including affective factors in CA for a more comprehensive understanding.
What are contrastive analysis and error analysis?
Contrastive analysis (CA) compares the learner's native language with the target language to predict learning difficulties based on linguistic differences. Error analysis (EA) examines learner errors to identify areas of difficulty. The paper discusses both the strong version of CA (directly linking linguistic differences to learning problems) and a more nuanced approach focusing on point-by-point comparisons.
What is the avoidance phenomenon in second language acquisition?
Avoidance refers to learners' strategy of replacing difficult linguistic elements with simpler alternatives. The paper explores what constitutes an "avoidable language element" and its significance as an indicator of learning problems, impacting curriculum design and testing.
What are the key findings regarding the predictive power of contrastive analysis?
The paper analyzes studies demonstrating instances where CA accurately predicts avoidance, cases where avoidance occurs despite predicted ease, and situations where predicted avoidance doesn't happen. This highlights CA's predictive limitations and the necessity of incorporating affective factors (learner confidence, anxiety) for a more complete explanation.
What is the role of affective factors in second language acquisition?
Affective factors, such as learner confidence and anxiety, significantly influence avoidance behavior. The paper argues that integrating these factors into CA provides a more comprehensive understanding of learner difficulties, going beyond purely linguistic comparisons.
What are the limitations of error analysis in explaining avoidance?
The paper argues that error analysis alone is insufficient for explaining avoidance. It highlights that EA primarily focuses on errors made, overlooking the potential avoidance of difficult structures altogether. This makes CA a more suitable tool for understanding avoidance behaviors since it looks at what is not used.
What is the overall conclusion of the paper?
Contrastive analysis is a necessary, but not sufficient, tool for understanding learning challenges in SLA, particularly regarding avoidance. Integrating affective factors into CA provides a more complete and accurate picture of learner difficulties than relying solely on CA or EA.
Which specific studies are discussed in the paper?
The paper analyzes three key studies on avoidance: "Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs – A Case for Contrastive Analysis" by Dagut and Laufer (1985), "Avoidance. Grammatical or Semantic Causes?" by Hulstijn and Marchena (1989), and "Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition" by Kleinmann (1977).
What are the key chapters and their contents?
Chapter I establishes the theoretical foundations of CA and EA. Chapter II defines avoidance and what constitutes avoidable language elements. Chapter III critically evaluates existing research on avoidance, illustrating the strengths and limitations of CA, and emphasizing the role of affective factors.
What are the keywords associated with this paper?
Contrastive analysis, error analysis, avoidance phenomenon, second language acquisition, learning difficulties, interference, transfer, affective factors, phrasal verbs, linguistic features, learner strategies.
- 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
