The Process of
Learning Second or Foreign Language:
Contrastive
Analysis, Error Analysis, Performance Analysis, and Discourse Analysis
Introduction
In the process of learning a second or foreign language,
L1 has complex roles which can lead to errors. Many researchers have tried to
get better understanding of the errors made by the L2 learners by having
different types of data analysis. Over
the past several decades there are 4 types of data analysis which were used to
come to the conclusion of language acquisition process. They are contrastie
analysis (CA), error analysis (EA), performance analysis, and discourse
analysis. Their contribution to language learning theories is valuable. They
give knowledge on how human acquire language and how second or foreign language
learner process the language. In acquiring this second language the L1 of the
learners give contribution to the language acquisition whether it is positive
or negative. Besides, the error made by the language learners can be seen
differently for each types of data analysis. It can be negative as in
contrastive analysis or can be positif as in error analysis. In this analytical
paper, there will be an elaboration in what ways each types of data analysis
differ and in what ways they can be complementary to the others.
Contrastive
Analysis
Contrastive analysis is the study about a pair of
language which can be used to identify the similary and the differences
structurally between the two languages. The focus of this analysis is on the
surface form of the first and second language system. It tries to compare the
forms of two languages and then describe them. By comparing and describing the
surface form of first and second language system, it is expected that the area
of difficulty encountered by the learners can be identified. After it is
identified, the solution of this problem difficulty can be tackled.
The statement from Fries (1945) about the effective
material that should be based on the scientific description of the language to
be learned inspires a number of constrastive analysis. “the most efficient
materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the
language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native
language of the learners” cited in Larsen (1991, p.52). Because there is a
belief that error in second language is an evil sign of deficiancy, the
materials are designed to make sure that the learners will not perform an
error. The concept of error in this contrastive analysis is different with the
concept of error in error analysis. In error analysis, the error will be seen
as necessary part of learning second or foreign language which then allow the
learners to commit an error.
The errors which are commited by the learners related to
language systems mostly are phonological error that reflect the nature of
native language. According to Lanteigne (2006, p.1) the difficulty in learning
English occur due to the fact that some of English sound do not exist in the
mother tongue of the learners. For Indonesian language, the English sound of
[ð], [Ɵ], [Ʒ], [dƷ], and [tʃ] do not exist in Indonesian. For the example it can
be known from the example when Indonesian learners says Thursday. Instead of
saying [Ɵɜ:rzdei] they will say [tɜ:rzdei].
Others error are from the syntactic and morphological
levels. For the example the Indonesian learners who says “I not like it.” The
English utterance contains the error, whose the souce of the error is from Indonesian
language. There is no auxiliary verb ‘do’ in Indonesian language. The Indonesia
language will be “Saya tidak suka dia.” So, once it is transfered to
English the learner will say “I not like
it” instead of “I do not like it.” It is clear then that the difficulties in
learning second or foreign language can be predicted by comparing the structure
differences between two languages through constrastive analysis.
The examples of error as discussed previously bring to
the idea that the first language of the language learners interfere the second
language acquisition. The acquisition of second language habit is usually
different from the habit of the first language which makes what we called as
negative transfer. Negative transfer happens when the two languages are
different which then rises language learning difficulty. It is in line with
statement from Lado who says “individuals tend to transfer the forms and
meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language
and culture to the foreign language and culture” (1957, in Larsen 1991, p.53).
So, there is a belief in constranstive analysis second language learners will
tend to transfer their first language feature to their second language
utterances.
As there is prediction for the second language learners
difficulty, the difficult pattern can be emphasized in the classroom drillings
of Audio-lingual method. This method is based on Behaviorist theory of language
learning that views second language acquisition as the formation of new habit
acquired through association, repetition and reinforcement. The activities can
be in the form of reading aloud dialogues, repetition of model sentences, and
drilling. Based on Richard, Platt, and Weber (1985) there are three types of
drilling; mechanical drill, meaningful drill, and communicative drill. All of
them has control for the responses and they are only different in the portion
of the control. The example of drilling that can be done in the classroom is
the teacher shows the picture of dictionary while she/he is saying “This is a
dictionary” and then shows another picture for the students to say what it is
with the right structure. Another example of drilling that can be applied in
the classroom is by letting the students to response based on the correct
understanding. When the teacher says “It’s hot here” the students give response
by saying “I will turn on the aircon.” So, in this case, there is a repetition
and reinforcement of the correct response which place the language learners as
imitator of the teacher’s model.
The formation of new habit through repetition and
reinforcement can help the learners to make sentence pattern automatically but
it also can make the language learners has limitation in the creativity since
the responses are controlled. It also ignores the role of context and knowlege
in learning language. It then falls to the assumption that second language
acquisition is viewed as passive mechanical process rather than as active
mental process. If it is the case, it can be compared to the training of animal
where the animals can perform certain task by using appropriate conditioning
technique. It means that the treatment of repetition and reinforcement to
format new habit can not offer the
improvement in communicative ability that is essentially needed by the language
learners.
Not only can not offer communicative ability in language
learning with its habit formation view, constrastive analysis also can not
explain the unpredictable types of error such as overgeneralization or
simplification. The first language transfer alone is not able to explain about
the errors made by second language learners. There is also one condition where
the errors made by the language learners are also happened to the first
language learner, especially the young learner. For the example the young
language learners who their first language is English still make mistake in the
use of irregular verb. Instead of saying “I made this cake” they will say “I
maked this cake.” As there are many aspect of language errors that can not be
explained by contrastive analysis itself, error analysis has different
explanation of it.
Error Analysis
Error analysis is different from constrastive analysis
because the focus is not in predicting the error but focus in discovering and
describing the error made by second language learners. According to Hakuta
(1977) “the goals of error analysis are twofold: to describe, through the
evidence contained in errors, the nature of the interlanguage in its
developmental stages and to infer from these descriptions the process of
second-language acquisition.” For this goal, the errors that the language
learners made will be classified to different types. After the errors are
classified, the information then will be described to build up the pictures of
language which can cause language learning problems.
There was a research about the errors made the learners
by Dulay and Burt (1973) in Hakuta (1977) where the finding could against the
argument from constrastive analysis. They classify error as interference,
ibtralingual, and unique. It was found in this research that the contribution
of interference to the learners’ error was only 5 percent, and the 87 percent
of error was intralingual. It could mean that the interference of learner first
language only had little influence on second language learning. Whereas the
constrastive analysis relies on the belief that first language tends to
interfere the second language. But still, the view of constrastive analysis can
be incorporated to Error analysis approach for future studies in order to get
complete picture of the learners performance.
From the study of the learners error, there will be
information about the nature of language learners knowledge in the target
language. By having this information, the area that still needs improvement can
be tracked. The area of difficulty can be interlingual or intralingual. If
interlingual is caused by the first language interferene, intralingual is
caused by the overgeneralization or simplification of particular grammar rules.
It can not be explained in constrastive analysis but it can be explained in
error analysis. According to Richard (1971) overgeneralization can be caused by
the learners’ failure to observe the boundaries of a rule. In this case the
learners tend to extend the use of grammatical rules beyond its accepted uses.
For the example the language learners say “I don’t have any idea why did he
came to my house” instead of saying “I don’t have any idea why he came to my
house.” It is clear from the example
that the learners has generalized the rule of subject-verb inversion in
indirect question when it is not necessary. On the other hand, in
simplification the language learners simplify the second language system so
that the learning difficulties of the second langauge will be decreased. For
the example the learners will say “This country has unique culture which is not
same in other countirs” instead of saying “This country has unique culture
which is not the same as those in other countries.” So in those two sentences
there is simplification in relative clause.
Those errors made by second language learners suppose to
not viewed as bad habit. It can be viewed as strategy of the second language
learners to acquire the second language and to communicate a desired concept as
a term of communication-based error from Selinker (1972) in Freeman (1991)
where the errors resulted when the speakers invoked communicative strategy. So,
in error analysis, the errors can be seen as positive sign that the learners
engage in communication actively rather than be seen as something to be prevented.
According to Corder (1967) in Freeman (1991) the errors
made by the second language learners are different from the mistake. Errors are
considered to be systematic governed by rule. They appear because the knowledge
of the language learners about the rule of the target language is incomplete.
It then likely to occur repeatedly as they do not recognize it. That is why in
solving this errors problem the language learners need teachers or resarchers
to locae the errors made. Compared with errors, the mistakes are different.
Mistakes are not related to any system. Mistakes are cause by non-linguistic
factors such as memory limitation, fatigue, emotional strain, etc. Unlike the
error that cannot be recognized by the learner themselves, the mistakes can be
self corrected if they are brought to the language learners attention.
In the study of errors in language production error
analysis has weakness as the learners attitude which avoid error in their
language production can not be detected. There is possibility that the language
learners will avoid to produce errors in their utterances by avoiding certain
linguistic structures due to the differences between their native language and
the target language or due to complexity of the stucture. For the learners with
negative transfer who are predicted to produce more errors in their speech
production may has possibility that they only produce less error in their
production and vice versa. It can be caused by their avoidance in using complex
and variety of sentence construction. This error analysis then has an effect to
to the constrastive analysis because this avoidance, there is no evidence that
first language interfere second language production. In the same position,
error analysis also can not detect and describe this phenomenon since error
analysis attempt not only to describe error but it describe the learners
overall performance.
Performance
Analysis
There are two types of performance analysis; morpheme
studies and developmental sequence. Language learners’ performance can be
described accurately by having quantitative analysis. Morpheme studies serve
this analysis as grammatical morpheme include the article (a, the), the copula
and auxiliary be, and the noun and the verb inflections.
Brown (1973) is the one who carried out the first study
on grammatical morpheme with three children whose first language was english
became the subject. He analyzed fourteen morphemes in data collected. They
are present progressive –ing, plural –s,
irregular past tense, possessive –s, copula be,
articles a/an and the, third person singular present tense
–s, and auxiliary be. From the study
there was conclusion that eventhough the children learned the morphemes at
different rates and ages, the order in which they learned them was relatively
the same.
Then, there was another study about morpheme acquisition.
This time, it was conducted by Dulay and Burt (1974) with 300 Spanish speaker
in the first study and 250 Spanish and Chinese speaker in the second study as
subject of study. From the finding, there was indication that the order of morpheme acquisition for second
language learner was different from the order for the native speaker. Besides,
the order was relatively the same between the group of Spanish speakers and the
group of Spanish and Chinese speakers.
For the morpheme acquisition in a certain order there is
tendency that it is determined by the frequency of occurence. So if for example
the morpheme progressive –ing has high frequency in use, it will acquired early
and vice versa. In addition the morpheme acquisition is also determine by the
learners’ native language (Brown, 1973). So if Spanish learners are able to
contrast in the use of artcle “a” and “the” due to their native language, the
condition will be different with Chinese learners that have to learn about them
before being able to discriminate the english article. In conclusion, the
transfer from the native language and the frequency used have important factors
in determining the acquisition of morpheme.
Discourse
Analysis
If constrastive analysis focus on language system, error
analysis focus on language construction, performance analysis focus on morpheme
acquisition, discourse analysis will focus on language in social context. The
theory of language will be different because in discourse analysis the sentence
will be related to the socio-cultural context. Discourse analysis itself is
based on the understanding that there is much more going on when people
communicate than only about information transfer.
According to Stubbs (1983) discourse analysis refers to
the study about the language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence/utterance.
Besides, it concerns with the interrelationship between language and society,
and concern with interactive properties of everyday communication. Another
definition comes from Brown & Yule (1983) with the statement that discourse
analysis is analysis of “language in use.” So it can be concluded that
discourse anaysis is the study of the use of spoken or written language in a
social context.
Discourse analysis is a qualitative method of analysis. In
discourse analysis there might be questions about turn-taking in conversation,
misunderstanding between speakers beacuse discourse analysis concern with the
meaning produced by language use and communication. The aim of this discourse
analysis is perceiving and categorizing various meaning-making processes,
networks and practice from the data.
Conversational analysis is one sub-area of discourse
analysis. Conversational analysis has an interest in talk-in-interaction.
Specifically, conversational analysis focus on the spoken language.
Conclusion
There are several types of data analysis in second
language acquisition; constrastive analysis, error analysis, performance
analysis, and discourse analysis. Each of analysis has its strength and
weaknesses. The weaknesses does not make the data analysis type can not be used
for the future study. The weaknesses can be covered by other types analysis to form
ccomplete description of future study. Constrastive analysis as the first types
of data analysis which has behaviorist view proved to has weaknesses as it can
not explain some errors made by the second language learners. Besides, many of
the difficulties which is predicted by constrastive analysis do not show up in
the performance of the learners. But until these days, this constrastive
analysis still get attention as one of the component in language study. At the
same point, another types of data analysis, error analysis can not just rely on
its belief that by finding the error made by learners, the information about
the area of language that need improvement can be discovered. It is because
focusing only to the errors made can not give clear picture of language
learners performance if there is no further studies about the sources of
errors. In order to know how languge is process, performance analysis can be
used. The use of this kind analysis data is also not enough to explain certain
utterance related to the strategy of communication. Then, there is what is
called as discourse analysis to study not only the language but also the
context to get the meaning behind it. For the summary, the purpose of our study
will determine types of data analysis used. The errors phenomenon in language
can not be explain by only using one type of data analysis. One type of data
analysis can also be complementary to the others.
REFERENCES
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and Strategies
in Child Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 37-53.
Fries, Charles. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as
a Foreign Language. In Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Michael H. Long. (1991). An
Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
Hakuta, Kenji and Herlinda Cancino. (1997). Trends in
Second-Language Acquisition Research. Harvard Educational Review Vol.47 No.3
August, 294-315.
Lanteigne, B. (2006).
Common, persistent errors in English by Brazilian Portugese speakers. TEFL Web
Journal, 4(1). Retrieved May
20,
2016,
from http://www.teflweb-j.org/v4n1/Brazilians.pd.
Larsen-Freeman,
Diane and Michael H. Long. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
Richards, J.
C. (1971). A Non-Constrastive Approach to Error Analysis. English Language
Teaching Journal, 25, 204-219.
Stubbs, M.
(1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.