1.
The Psychological Basis
of
Contrastive Analysis
Presenter: Sara Tehrani
M.A., TEFL, Tehran, Iran

2.
Transfer in Learning Psychology
 CA is a hybrid drawing on the sciences of linguistics &
psychology.
One of the concerns of learning psychologists is the effects of
one learning task on a subsequent one. The observation that
prior learning effects subsequent learning leads to the
hypothesis of transfer .
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS FOUNDATIN OF CA IS
TRANSFER THEORY.
“the hypothesis that the learning of task A
will affect the subsequent learning of task
B.”
(Ellis)
transfer

3.
* The two “entities” associated in a learning task are:
Stimulus ( S )
Response ( R )
* The psychological basis of CA resides in the two
psychological enterprises:
Associationism S-R
Theory
Red light  need to decelerate Skinner’s
or stop the vehicle. Behaviourist
explanation of how
lg. learning is
consummated.

4.
Some problems of Definition
1) In “conditioning”  the Rs are assumed to be available to the
learner.
In L2 learning  the Rs themselves have to be learnt as
well as with which S they are to be associated.
2) CA is concerned with teaching rather than learning.
- Teaching involves the predetermination of what Ss & Rs are
to be associated.
- Learning are the set of decisions that can be quite arbitrary.

5.
3) What constitute a S or a R in L2 learning?
Jakobovits sees S as a constituted of “ …… the environment
conditions that are antecedent to linguistic utterances” .
Richterich (1974) called S as a “communicative need”.
 But lg. behavior is a two-way process, not only do we produce
utterances, we also receive them. So Jakobovit’s definition of S
will not serve perception :
Solution : “analysis by synthesis”

6.
4) Corder (1973): “ Linguistic descriptions which aim at
accounting for lg. as a system, deal with sentences, not
utterances.”
One sentence underlies many concrete utterances:
Sentence: Pron. Aux. V. NP object
Utterance: 1) He can make cake.
2) we shall sing songs.
.
.
3) You should send flowers.
 Therefore, in specifying Rs in lg, we must limit ourselves to their
abstract form , as sentences, rather than the substance as
utterences.

7.
Transfer Theory & CA
Lado (1957): “ individuals tend to transfer the
forms & meanings & the distribution of their native
lg. & culture to the foreign lg. & culture.”

8.
Paradigm Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Value
A S1 – R1 S2 - R1 S1 – R1 + T
B S1 – R1 S1 – R2 S1 – R1 - T
C S1 – R1 S2 – R2 S1 – R1 - T
Proaction Retroaction
“The effect of a given specifiable “ The effect of a specifiable
prior activity upon the learning of a interpolated activity
upon the
given test activity. “ retention of a previously learned
activity.”
+T : positive transfer ( facilitation)
- T : negative transfer ( interference)

9.
ParadigmA
L1 L2
S1 – R1 S2 – R 1
Paradigm A obtains where L1 & L2 employ the same formal
device, but to serve different communication purposes in L1 & L2.
“ordinary learning” or “practice”
Example: L1 is English & L2 is Welsh:
(English) : Is she speaking German ? (Aux – Sub – V – Obj)
(Welsh) : ( is she in in speak German. ) (Aux – Sub – V – Obj)

10.
ParadigmB
L1 L2
S1 – R1 S1 – R 2
For production, this paradigm defines translation-equivalence:
that is, in L1 & L2, there is sameness of meaning accompanied
by difference of formal devices.
Example: L1 is German & L2 is Polish:
R1 (German): ( V. Subj. Obj. )
S: Question R2 (Polish) : ( Part. Sub. Obj. V.)
If you him
know.

11.
ParadigmC
L1 L2
S1 – R1 S2 – R 2
Paradigm C is of little interest to CA, because of the non-identity
of both Ss & Rs in the two lg.s.: where there is no constant, only
variables, there are no grounds for comparison.
Lee (1968) remarks on the absence of L1 interference during his
learning of Chinese, where L1 & L2 were so very different that :
false associations interference

12.
Scale of Difference
Maximum
Differences of Rs
Partial
Similarity of Rs
Greatest Similarity
of Sa & Rs
“ordinary learning”
takes place.
e.g: the use of
subject –verb
inversion in
German & French.
e.g: Polish / German
example of word
order.
e.g: Polish / Japanese. In Polish,
the particle is positioned sentence
initially to address a question,
while Japanese has particles in
sentence- final position.

13.
Particlelg.s
Inversionlg.
s
Japanese Polish Russian English German
Final Initial particle “Do” initial, No
particle particle second S second particle
* The point to be made is that:
1) We must be prepared to quantify degrees of differences
between Rs in the two lg.s under CA.
2) A further task which falls to CA, is to establish the
relationship between degree of linguistic differences &
degree of learning difficulty.

14.
CA & Behaviourist Learning Theory
The psychological basis of CA, is Transfer Theory,
elaborated & formulated within a S – R (Behaviourist)
theory of psychology.
Corder: “ one explanation of L2 errors is that the learner
is carrying over the habits of his mother tongue into L2
(a sort of habit – structure ).”

15.
Two
cognitivist
alternatives to
L1 transfer

16.
Cross – Association
George (1972) reconstructs the mental process of induction &
generalization which the L1 German learner of English seems
to be subject to.
English German
woman
wife frau
 Direct interference from the mother – tongue is not a useful
assumption.

17.
The Ignorance Hypothesis
Proposed by Newmark & Reibel (1968) to explain L2 learners’
errors: “The adult can want to say what he does not yet know
how to say (in L2) & he uses whatever means he has at this
disposal …” ignorance is not an alternative to
interference, but at best a precondition for it.
* Ignorance – without – interference
- avoidance strategy  to paraphrase or use near -
equivalent
* Interference – without - ignorance
- drilling to become error free / self correct

18.
1- “ignorant by self-evaluation”  The leaner deciding he
is ignorant of a L2 form, so incapable of producing it.
2- It is possible for different learners to be equally
ignorant of a given L2 structure, for e.g. when the two
learners have different L1s.
3- Those proposing the Ignorance hypothesis
conceive of learners to produce L2 patterns of
which they have no knowledge ! But the point is
that learners should have been “exposed” to L2
item before performing specific L2 item.
Three
major
weaknesses
of
ignorance
hypothesis