Table of Contents
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis is the idea that second language learners’ errors can be predicted by comparing their first language with the target language. Positive transfer occurs when structures are similar, while negative transfer—or interference—happens when they differ.
Introduction
When learning a new language, one of the biggest challenges students face is interference from their first language. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) offers a systematic way to understand why certain mistakes happen and how teachers can help prevent them.
Developed in the mid-20th century, this hypothesis suggests that by comparing a learner’s first language (L1) with the target language (L2), teachers can predict areas of difficulty and focus instruction accordingly.
In this post, we’ll define Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, explore its main ideas, provide examples from real classrooms, and discuss its strengths and criticisms. We will also explore how it continues to influence English language teaching today.
What Is the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis?
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis is a linguistic theory proposed by Robert Lado (1957) in his influential book Linguistics Across Cultures.
It argues that:
“The differences between the learner’s native language and the target language are the main source of errors in second language learning.”
In simple terms, when two languages share similar structures, learners acquire those features more easily. But when the languages differ significantly, learners tend to make predictable errors — a phenomenon known as language transfer.
For example:
- A Spanish speaker learning English may say “She no has” instead of “She doesn’t have”, transferring Spanish word order into English.
- A French speaker might omit the auxiliary do in questions: “What you want?” instead of “What do you want?”
Strong vs. Weak Versions of the Hypothesis
Researchers later distinguished between two main versions of CAH:
| Version | Description | Example / Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Strong Version | Claims that all learner errors can be predicted simply by comparing L1 and L2 before learning occurs. | Unrealistic, since not all differences cause problems and not all similarities prevent them. |
| Weak Version | Suggests that errors should be analyzed after they occur, and then explained by comparing L1 and L2. | More practical and closer to how modern teachers approach error analysis. |
The weak version remains more widely accepted in language teaching and research today.
Examples of Contrastive Analysis in Practice
Contrastive analysis can be applied across different aspects of language:
a. Phonology (Sound System)
- Japanese learners may have trouble distinguishing /r/ and /l/ in English.
- Arabic learners may add a vowel before word-initial consonant clusters (e.g., “eschool” for “school”).
b. Grammar
- French learners often omit auxiliaries in English questions.
- Chinese learners might say “He go yesterday” due to lack of tense marking in their L1.
c. Word Order
- In English, adjectives come before nouns (a red car), but in Arabic or Spanish they often follow the noun (una coche roja / sayyara hamra).
d. Vocabulary and Meaning
- False friends cause confusion, such as Spanish “embarazada” meaning pregnant, not embarrassed.
By knowing these typical patterns, teachers can design lessons that anticipate learner errors instead of merely correcting them after they happen.
Strengths of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
The CAH played a major role in the development of applied linguistics and language pedagogy. Its main contributions include:
- Highlighting the role of the learner’s first language in second language learning.
- Helping teachers anticipate difficulties before they occur.
- Encouraging systematic comparison of language structures (phonology, grammar, syntax).
- Influencing syllabus design, especially during the Audio-Lingual Method era.
Even today, teachers use elements of contrastive analysis to plan lessons, design pronunciation practice, and explain grammar differences clearly.
Criticisms and Limitations
Despite its usefulness, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis has been criticized for several reasons:
- It overpredicts errors — not every difference causes difficulty.
- It underpredicts errors — some mistakes occur for reasons unrelated to L1 interference.
- It ignores cognitive and social factors such as motivation, learning style, or exposure.
- Later theories like Error Analysis (Corder, 1967) and Interlanguage Theory (Selinker, 1972) offered a more balanced view, recognizing that errors are part of natural language development, not just transfer.
The Role of Contrastive Analysis in Modern Language Teaching
Today, CAH is not seen as a complete theory of second language acquisition but rather as a useful tool within a broader framework.
Teachers can still apply it by:
- Anticipating specific pronunciation or grammar errors based on learners’ L1.
- Designing targeted exercises (e.g., comparing tenses or sentence structures).
- Encouraging learners to notice contrasts between languages which raises awareness and improves accuracy.
- Integrating CAH with communicative and task-based approaches, where attention to form supports meaningful use of language.
Example classroom activity:
Ask students to translate short sentences from their native language into English, then discuss which parts sound unnatural and why. This reflection encourages self-awareness of cross-linguistic influence.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation / Example |
|---|---|
| Definition | Comparing L1 and L2 to predict language learning difficulties |
| Main Assumption | Differences cause errors; similarities facilitate learning |
| Key Theorist | Robert Lado (1957) |
| Versions | Strong (predictive) / Weak (explanatory) |
| Applications | Anticipating errors, designing materials, improving pronunciation |
| Limitations | Overemphasizes L1; ignores cognitive and social dimensions |
Frequently Asked Questions about the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
What are the five hypotheses of second language acquisition?
The five major hypotheses come from Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition:
1. The Acquisition–Learning Hypothesis – distinguishes subconscious acquisition from conscious learning.
2. The Monitor Hypothesis – explains how learned knowledge acts as an editor of language output.
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis – claims that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable sequence.
4. The Input Hypothesis – emphasizes the role of comprehensible input slightly above the learner’s current level (i+1).
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis – states that emotional factors like motivation and anxiety influence learning success.
Although Krashen’s theory is distinct from the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), both attempt to explain how second languages are learned.
What does the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claim is the principal barrier to second language acquisition?
The CAH claims that the main barrier to learning a second language is the interference from the learner’s first language.
When the structures of the first language differ from those of the target language, learners are more likely to make errors—a process known as negative transfer.
What is an example of contrastive analysis?
An example of contrastive analysis would be comparing English and Spanish sentence structures.
For instance, in English, adjectives usually come before nouns (“a red car”), while in Spanish they often come after (“un coche rojo”).
A Spanish learner of English might say “a car red” due to L1 interference—an error that the CAH helps predict.
What is the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis proposed by Lado?
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was first formulated by Robert Lado in his 1957 book Linguistics Across Cultures.
Lado proposed that by systematically comparing two languages, teachers could predict areas of difficulty for learners.
He believed that similarities between the languages lead to ease in learning (positive transfer), while differences lead to errors and learning challenges (negative transfer).
What is the difference between Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis?
Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis (EA) are two approaches to studying learners’ language errors, but they differ in focus:
– Contrastive Analysis predicts potential errors by comparing the learner’s first language (L1) with the target language (L2) before they occur.
– Error Analysis, developed later, examines actual learner errors to understand how second language acquisition works in practice.
In short, CA is predictive, while EA is descriptive.
Is the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis still relevant today?
Although the strong version of the CAH (which claimed all errors could be predicted) has been criticized, its ideas remain influential in modern language teaching.
Teachers still use contrastive analysis to anticipate potential learning difficulties, design targeted practice, and explain language transfer—especially in multilingual classrooms.
Today, it is often used alongside other theories such as Error Analysis and Interlanguage Theory.
Conclusion
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis remains one of the foundational ideas in second language acquisition. Although later theories expanded and refined it, its central insight—that the learner’s first language profoundly influences second language learning—continues to guide teachers today.
By understanding where learners’ languages differ from English, teachers can plan more effective lessons, provide clearer explanations, and help students overcome predictable difficulties with confidence.
💡 Reflective question:
What common mistakes in your classroom might be explained by your students’ first language?
Related Pages
- Why study linguistics?
- What Is Applied Linguistics? 9 Examples That Define, Inspire, And Unleash the Power of Applied Linguistics
- Second Language Acquisition Theories (Explained with Examples)
- Why study linguistics?
- Learning and Learning Theories
- The Kaleidoscope of Learning Theories: A Concise Exploration
