Contrastive analysis ( CA ) is a method to separate between what are needed and non needed to larn by the mark linguistic communication ( TL ) scholar by measuring linguistic communications ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) . In add-on, CA is a technique to place whether two linguistic communications have something in common, which assess both similarities and differences in linguistic communications, conforming to the belief in linguistic communication universals. ( Johnson, 1999 ) . Both statements indicate that CA holds a rule which is of import in order to place what are required by the TL scholar to larn in TL and what are non. If there is no familiar feature in the linguistic communications, it indicates that the scholar might hold trouble in larning the TL. While much could be said about comparing linguistic communications, a more of import facet is about the influence from TL in first linguistic communication ( L1 ) .
“Contrastive analysis stresses the influence of the female parent lingua in larning a 2nd linguistic communication in phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic degrees. It holds that 2nd linguistic communication would be affected by first language” ( Jie, 2008, p. 36 ) .
On the same mark, Wardhaugh asserts that first linguistic communication of TA scholars can clear up all “errors” that are invariably made them. These statements prove that the mistakes make by the TL scholar are interpretable in the L1. Indeed, this thought is conformed to the regulation of CA, which believes in linguistic communication universal.
However, this analysis has disadvantages. In Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker words, they believe that this analysis is questioned because of the construct of trouble as the basic theory of the CA is refering the difficulty. If an mistake is made by a individual, this shows that the individual has a job in some country, non because of the native linguistic communication. Therefore, we can non assume that eloquence of a mark linguistic communication scholar is depending on the nature of L1. There are more facets that related to this affair.
“There are other factors that may act upon the procedure of acquisition such as unconditioned rule of linguistic communication, attitude, motive, aptitude, age, other linguistic communications known…” ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) .
Following, CA can non observe some troubles experienced by the TL scholars. For illustration,
“Je vois les/elle/la/le” . “I see them/her/her/him” ( this phrase is impossible in Gallic ) ( Choi, 2009 ) .
Mistake analysis ( EA ) is “a type of lingual analysis that focuses on the mistakes scholars make” ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) . This analysis is about the same with the weak version of CA which is comparing the mistakes which made by TL scholars. However, EA is non measuring the mistakes with TL native linguistic communication ( NL ) , but it compares with the TL. “ Error analysis provides a broader scope of possible accounts than incompatible analysis for researchers/teachers to utilize history for mistakes, as the latter merely attributed mistakes to the native language” ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) . I do agree with Gass and Selinker because as Corder ( 1967 ) says that by bring forthing mistakes, it shows that the scholars are come oning and take parting. This statement is supported by the lingua franca theory, as harmonizing to Christina Gitsaki ;
“…interlanguage is seen as a sort of interim grammar bit by bit come oning towards the mark linguistic communication grammar”
There are two classs of beginnings of mistakes which are interlingual and intralingual. Interlingual mistakes are sort of mistakes produced because of influence of the NL. Intralingual mistake happens when scholars try to do a new regulation for the mark linguistic communication. Example of interlingual mistake is, the word “rumah-rumah” in Malay Language can be said in English as “houses” . However, the scholars would state as “house-house” . The TL scholars mixed the lexical from the NL with the TL. Example of intralingual mistake is the word “telah” in Malay Language represents “was/were/had” in English. That is no uncertainty that a Malay scholar would build a sentence like this,
- “She were playing badminton” ( incorrect )
- “Dia telah bermain badminton”
- “She was playing badminton” ( correct )
The first sentence happens because there is no past tense marker in Malay linguistic communication. So it becomes a job for Malay scholars since the TL and NL portion different tenses.
EA gives an of import function because it makes the mistakes non as unwanted but as counsel to measure how the scholars progress in TL. It besides detects tonss of mistakes, more than CA does. EA besides recognizes the scholars ‘ recognition of linguistic communication system. Besides, it besides can categorise mistakes made by scholars harmonizing to a system. However, EA is wholly depends on mistakes made by scholars. It is besides can non explicate about what are classified as mistakes and non mistakes. In add-on, EA as a manner of enquiry was limited in its range and concentrated on what scholars did incorrectly instead than on what made them successful ( Larsen-Freeman, 1991 ) . This shows that EA can non cover tonss of facets since it is bounded by its scope and mistakes are enticement for mistake analyser.
a ) There may be covert mistakes, A authoritative illustration from Corder ( 1981 ) is the German talker who says “You must non take off your hat” when the purpose is “You do n’t hold to take off your hat” . In what sense is this mistake? In what sense it is non?
Harmonizing to Joachim Wagner ( 2007 ) , James ( 1998 ) uses the term covert mistake to depict a echt linguistic communication mistake which consequences in a sentence which is syntactically grammatical under some reading different from the intended 1. This means that there is no incorrect about a doubtful sentence but the apprehension by both talker and receiving system are of import.
The statement “You must non take off your hat” is non incorrect in the sense of German talker but in English, the pick of the word or modal verb is incorrect. The average verb “must not” is non appropriate in this context. That modal verb agencies to forbid or forbid the action of taking off the chapeau. The German talker, literally, wants to state that the individual does non hold to take off his chapeau. However, alternatively of seeking to convey a positive transportation sentence, the German talker makes a negative transportation sentence. Harmonizing to Jie ( 2008 ) :
“In the class of linguistic communication acquisition, L1 larning wonts will be transferred into L2 larning wonts. Therefore, in the instance of L1 transportation into L2, if constructions in the MT have their corresponding constructions in the TL and L1 wonts can be successfully used in the L2, scholars would reassign similar belongingss successfully and that would ensue in positive transportation. Contrastingly, in the instance of negative transportation or intervention, certain elements of the MT have no corresponding opposite numbers in the TL, L1 wonts would do mistakes in the L2, and scholars would reassign inappropriate belongingss of L1”
In other words, the German talker forms a sentence in English, which has the same belongingss with the German linguistic communication but unluckily, the sentence is incorrect in the sense of CA. Mistake in this statement can be referred to the L1 talker. In Robert Lado ‘s words ( 1957: p.2 ) :
“The ‘fundamental premise ‘ is transportation ; ‘individuals tend to reassign the signifiers and significances, and the distribution of signifiers and significances of their native linguistic communication and civilization to the foreign linguistic communication and culture” .
I agree with Robert Lado since the German talker tends to utilize direct interlingual rendition if both linguistic communications belongingss are same to do a complete sentence. In this context, both German Language and English have the same grammatical order. For illustration, in German Language and English, the word order is capable + verb + other elements sentences.
1. er schlagt mir.
( Capable ) ( Verb ) ( Other component )
2. He beats me.
( Capable ) ( Verb ) ( Other component )
Because of the construction similarity between German linguistic communication and English, there is no sentence structure job. Though, in the context of vocabulary, the German talker seems to confound because in German linguistic communication, there is no subsidiary verb “do” . German linguistic communication merely has “must” and the German talker uses “must” as the word is rather similar to “do” , in his or her judgement. This mistake besides happens to a Malay leaner. In Malay linguistic communication, “tidak” is represented by “is not” and “do not” . For illustration, in Malay, the sentence,
1.“Dia tidak sempurna”
( Capable ) ( Negation ) ( Predicate )
Is written in English as
2.“He is non perfect”
( Capable ) ( Negation ) ( Predicate )
However, because of there are two negations that represent the word “tidak” , there is no uncertainty the sentence below, will be produced by Malay scholars.
3. “He does non perfect”
( Capable ) ( Negation ) ( Predicate )
The first statement is logical but the 2nd statement shows that mistakes and transferred inappropriate belongingss those made by TL scholars because of the differences between the L1 and the TL.
Clearly, the German talker is fighting in taking the right vocabulary although the mistake does non give an obvious image of the trouble. This is because, in his or her point of position, the use of “must not” is right even though the sentence has covert mistake. However, this justification can non mensurate the grade of trouble that the German talker has. We can non state that the German talker is weak in English and non come oning. This mistake shows that the German talker is in the procedure of bettering his or her mark linguistic communication.
From EA point of position, the German talker made an intralingual mistake. The German talker made an mistake in his or her sentence because of native linguistic communication influence. He or she over generalizes the map of average verb to do this sentence.
“The debut of a nonstandard or antecedently non-existent spelling or verb signifier when a talker or author makes an analogy to a regular spelling or a regular verb” ( Wheeler, 2009 )
“You do non hold to take off your hat” ( right sentence )
“You must non take off your hat” ( Over generalise the modal verb map )
The German talker believes that the statement is grammatically right. The German talker attempts to simplify his or her undertaking by using this regulation. He or she makes his or her ain analogy by taking words that do non transport contrast for him or her. However, due to traverse lingual action, the modal verb being used is incorrect, in footings of its map.
In add-on, this talker seems that he or she does non get the hang the map of the modal verb although the sentence is right, literally. Besides, the German talker does non cognize the right modal verb in English to transport his or her knowing significance. As a consequence, an equivocal sentence has come out although the German talker purpose is to give suggestion.
This besides happens to Spanish scholars. They would state
1. “He went to the market and purchase a chicken”
2. “He went to the market and bought a chicken” .
They choose incorrect tense and change the word significance.
B. It might be more appropriate to speak about TL-behaviour. The fact that a
scholar has produced a right form/sentence in a linguistic communication does non needfully intend that it is right.
Target linguistic communication like behaviour from the grammatical point of position is happen when mark linguistic communication scholars construct a sentence or a phrase because they have learnt the mark linguistic communication grammatical regulations. However, the building of sentence might or might non rectify. As illustration, Malay scholars would make a sentence like this
“I eated the fruit”
“I ate the fruit” .
From CA point of position, this mistake occurs because past tense is a new class for Malay scholars. Although, the scholars seem alert with the past tense regulation which is -ed and capable verb understanding but they forget about past irregular signifier. They think that they have mastered the regulations but they forgot about irregular verb regulation. However, CA does non explicate about the trouble from the mark linguistic communication point of position. CA can non give the right grade of trouble. Furthermore, from the talkers ‘ position, they might believe that the sentence is no incorrect even with the covert mistake. So, we can non state that the talkers are holding trouble to understand the regulation since they can bring forth a right signifier of sentence but with covert mistake.
On the other manus, from mistake analysis point of position, a sentence like “You must non take off your hat” evens the purpose of the talker is “You do non hold to take off your hat” is right. The construction of the sentence is right and there is no error produces. However, the significance of the sentence is distorted. This is because, mistake analysis is wholly depends on mistakes but non the use of the sentence. Though, to the talker position, this is a right sentence since there is no grammatical error. On the other manus, the solid state of the first sentence makes the EA is useless to explicate this sentence. So, even the sentence is incorrect harmonizing to CAH, but it is consider as correct to EA.
C.It is non ever possible to supply a individual account for lingua franca informations.
Lingua franca is the manner the scholar develops the mark linguistic communication cognition. This term was produced by Selinker ( 1972 )
“ Interlanguage refers to the structured system which learner concepts at any given phase in the development” .
There are schemes apply by the scholars to come on in mark linguistic communication such as transportation. Transportation is
“Influence ensuing from the similarities and differences between the mark linguistic communication and any other linguistic communication that has been antecedently ( and possibly amiss ) acquired ( Ellis, 1997 ) .
Lingua franca is systematic and dynamic. Lingua franca is systematic because the regulations are expeditiously selected by the scholars and the manner the TL scholars acquired TL is the same with native talker acquires NL. Lingua franca is dynamic because the scholars ‘ lingua franca is continuously switching. The scholars tend to do new regulations in one context and so on. In add-on, this procedure organize the attack to analyze the manner the mark linguistic communication acquires by the scholar. Though, this scheme does non use to the mark linguistic communication scholar entirely, they besides depict the manner the kids learn their native linguistic communication. For illustration, an English kid might come out with non-English similar sentence.
She came yesterday.
She comed yesterday
This happens because the kids generalize the regulations. It is possible to state that the kids already acquired the regulation of tenses but they failed to use them in certain fortunes. This besides happens to the mark linguistic communication scholars. For illustration, job in pluralising word.
The word “mice” is ever forgotten as plural signifier of a mouse. Alternatively of stating “mice” , the mark linguistic communication scholars who apply interlanguage generalisation scheme would state “mouses” . This might happen because of L1 intervention. For case, in Malay Language, the word “mouse” is “tikus” . However, there is no such word as “mice” in Malay linguistic communication. So, Malay scholars would travel for “mouses” alternatively of “mice” . From CA position, these illustrations show that the scholars have troubles in pluralising because of differences between the L1 and the TL. However, the first illustration proves that the NL talker can do the same error as the TL scholars. CA can be used to analyse the 2nd illustration but it is non valid for the first illustration.
In add-on, from EA point of position, the scholars would happen that they make mistakes. On the other manus, EA still does non give the right position of scholars ‘ lingual behaviour. The first illustration explains that mistakes made by NL talker. This is because the kid overused the regulation of past tense. EA can assist the kid to come on in tilting the NL by sorting the mistakes. However, there is no clear way to understand about the kid lingual behaviour because the kid already knew the regulation of regular verb tense but non irregular verb tense. The 2nd illustration happens because of cross lingual mistake. The scholars have knowledge in plural regulation but due to difference between linguistic communications and NL intervention, the regulation is generalized and mistake occurs.
As decision, both CAH and EA have their ain strength and failings. The analysis of the sentence is of import in order to observe mistake or to advise the advancement of the 2nd linguistic communication scholars. However, CAH and EA can non work entirely. For the interest of the linguistic communication scholars, these analyses should be worked manus in manus in order to better the quality of the mark linguistic communication scholars.