Contrastive Analysis And Error Analysis English Language Essay

Contrastive analysis is a method to separate between what are needed and non needed to larn by the 2nd linguistic communication scholar by measuring linguistic communications ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) . In add-on, incompatible analysis 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 incompatible analysis holds a rule which is of import in order to place what are required by the 2nd scholar and what are non. If there is no familiar feature in the linguistic communications, so it is non necessary to compare the linguistic communications. While much could be said about comparing linguistic communications, a more of import facet is about influence from L2 in 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 linguistic communication ” ( Jie, 2008, p. 36 ) . On the same mark, Wardhaugh asserts that first linguistic communication of 2nd linguistic communication scholars can clear up all “ mistakes ” that are invariably made them. These statements prove that the common errors make by the 2nd linguistic communication scholar are interpretable in the first linguistic communication if there is a relation in both linguistic communications. Indeed, this thought is conform to the regulation of contrastive analysis which believes in linguistic communication universal. On the other manus, incompatible analysis is used to place one linguistic communication beginning and connexion between the linguistic communications with other linguistic communications if it does. 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 civilization ” . I agree with Robert Lado since the 2nd linguistic communication scholar tends to utilize direct interlingual rendition to do a complete sentence. However, this might go a job when the arrangement of the portion of address is non the same. For illustration, Malaysian who use Malay linguistic communication as their first linguistic communication and English as their 2nd linguistic communication might hold a job in puting the adjective. This is because in Malay linguistic communication, adjectival is put after the noun, such as ;

“ Rumah yang cantik ”

but in English, adjectival is placed before noun, for case

“ A beautiful house ”

( adj ) ( Noun )

This may do confusion for the 2nd scholar but if they make a sentence, it is still apprehensible. The grade of lucidity of the sentence can be a positive transportation of negative transportation. This illustration is supported by 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 ”

It is of import to cognize that L2 scholars be probably to use their L1 grammatical system in L2 grammar ( Smith, 1994 ) . They would choose for L2 words those they familiar, intermixing them utilizing L2 grammar to explicate a sentence. For illustration ; a Malay talker would state ;

“ Saya makan epal semalam ”

( Pronoun ) ( Verb ) ( Noun ) ( Adverb )

Or in English ;

“ Yesterday, I ate the apple ”

( Adverb ) ( Pronoun ) ( Verb ) ( Determiner ) ( Noun )

If the L2 scholars apply Smith statement, they would state ;

“ I ate apple yesterday ”

As mentioned earlier, this statement is logical at one point but in other point, it shows that mistakes and transferred inappropriate belongingss those made by L2 scholars are noticeable and this should use the regulation of incompatible analysis. 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 incompatible analysis is refering the difficulty. If an mistake is made by a individual, this shows that the individual has job in some country, non because of the native linguistic communication. Therefore, we can non assume that eloquence of a L2 scholar in L2 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 communication knownaˆ¦ ” ( M.Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008 ) . Following, incompatible analysis can non observe some troubles experienced by the L2 scholars. For illustration, “ Je vois les/elle/la/le ” . “ I see them/her/her/him ” ( this phrase is non possible in Gallic ) ( Choi, 2009 ) .

Mistake analysis 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 incompatible analysis which is comparing the mistakes which made by L2 scholars. However, mistake analysis is non measuring the mistakes with L2 native linguistic communication, but it compares with the mark language. “ 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 linguistic communication ” ( 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.