30 Language Teaching Methods - The Comparative Method PDF

13 The Comparative Method Natural approaches attempt to recreate the conditions of first language acquisition, as if the mind were a blank slate on to which the new language can be inscribed. But the mind of the second language learner is not a blank slate. As one linguist puts it, ‘Secon...

13 The Comparative Method Natural approaches attempt to recreate the conditions of first language acquisition, as if the mind were a blank slate on to which the new language can be inscribed. But the mind of the second language learner is not a blank slate. As one linguist puts it, ‘Second language is looking into the windows cut out by the first language’ (Ushakova 1994). The Comparative Method embraces this understanding. The background Why do many Spanish-speaking learners of English say ‘I no eat fish’? Presumably, because in Spanish they would say ‘No como pescado’. That, at least, was the assumption underlying the proliferation of contrastive analysis studies in the mid-20th century. It was an assumption, though, that fell into disrepute, after it was discovered that all learners, regardless of their L1, go through a phase of saying ‘I no eat fish’. More recently, however, there has been a revival of interest in contrastive analysis, not least because the L1 has been shown to be as much a positive influence as a negative one. Indeed, researchers now talk less about ‘interference’ than they do about ‘transfer’. In the early days of contrastive analysis, those linguists working within the behaviourist tradition were interested in the structural differences between one language and another, predicting that these differences would cause problems for learners. As Robert Lado (1971) memorably expressed it: We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely  difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult. Contrastive analysis aimed to identify which elements were similar and which different, in order to plan teaching syllabuses that would accommodate the similarities, while focusing mainly on the differences. But the methodology associated with these syllabuses (i.e. the Audiolingual Method: see chapter 6) did not invite the learners themselves to participate in this analysis. It was felt that to do so would simply increase the risk of their being negatively influenced by their L1: better, therefore, to keep the L1 well away. Elsewhere, however, the pedagogical applications of contrastive analysis had been quietly morphing into what would be called ‘the Comparative Method’ (or ‘the dual-language method’). The impetus for this approach originated in what was known as ‘the Prague School’ – a group of linguists (not all of them Czech) working in the 1920s and 1930s, who shifted the prevailing focus on linguistic structures to a focus on the communicative functions of language, thereby paving the way for the kind of functional linguistics associated with Michael Halliday, and, by extension, Communicative Language Teaching (see chapter 15). Being linguists, they were interested in the similarities and differences between languages. But, unlike the American ‘descriptivist’ tradition, the more functionally-inclined Prague scholars were less concerned with the formal characteristics of the languages being compared than in the ways in which the forms actually function. That is to say, ‘the elements of one language are compared in the light of the corresponding situation or function in the other language’ (Fried 1968). Initially a tool for linguistic analysis, it was a short step to turn this technique into a method for teaching second languages. How does it work? Unlike Grammar-Translation (see chapter 10), the Comparative Method does not place translation at the centre of its methodology. Rather, it uses texts that are already translated as a stimulus for raising awareness as to the similarities and differences between the learner’s L1 and the target language. As Vilém Fried (1968), a leading Prague School associate, describes it: ‘The student is systematically guided and made to realize the functional differences that exist between the foreign language … and his native tongue’, and he adds: ‘Two-way translation [i.e. translation from both the L1 into the L2, and vice versa] may not be excluded here’. In more recent years, the use of the learners’ home language as a cognitive scaffold for the development of the target language is known as a ‘translanguaging pedagogy’ (Garcia & Kleifgen 2010), and has been encouraged in multilingual classrooms. Activities include identifying cognates in the two languages (i.e. words like taxi that are the same or similar), writing bilingual ‘identity texts’ (i.e. autobiographical texts that mix the writer’s different languages), and pairing learners from the same language background so that those who are more fluent can help those who are less so. While such practices are not necessarily typical of the Comparative Method as first conceived, they are certainly compatible with an approach that not only tolerates, but actively encourages, classroom bilingualism. Does it work? Despite a growing literature on the use of code-switching (i.e. switching from one language to another) in classrooms, the use of actual translation as a pedagogic tool in the teaching of English is under-researched. The few studies that have been done suggest that there are real learning benefits from what has been called ‘contrastive metalinguistic input’ (Scheffler 2012). Certainly, the evidence suggests that most students prefer learning situations where some kind of cross-linguistic comparison is an option. New knowledge, after all, is constructed on, and regulated by, prior knowledge: whether teachers approve of it or not, learners will always be translating ‘in their heads’. It makes sense, then, to bring this internal process out into the open, so that it can be more effectively managed and shared. Moreover, the co-existence of more than one language in the classroom better reflects the reality of real language use in an increasingly multilingual world. What’s in it for us? One obvious implication of adopting a comparative approach is that the teacher needs to be proficient in the learners’ L1 (which, of course, will not always be feasible in situations where learners come from different first language backgrounds). It also assumes that there are materials available that support cross-linguistic comparison. As Fried pointed out all of 50 years ago, there is a real need ‘to prepare foreign language teaching materials in consideration of the fact that the learner’s mother tongue will always be present as a factor of interference or support in the teaching process’ (1968). Of course, ‘doing’ comparative translation does not require published materials: there is no shortage of texts online in both their original and their translated versions that could usefully serve as material for cross-linguistic comparison. Equally exploitable are the kind of ‘bad translations’ that are delivered up by online translation software. Perhaps the biggest challenge, however, is to convince several generations of teachers and teacher educators raised according to Direct Method principles that the L1 is not an obstacle to learning the L2, but an asset. Fried, V. (1968) Comparative linguistic analysis in language teaching. In Jalling, H. (ed.) Modern Language Teaching, London: Oxford University Press. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010) Educating Emergent Bilinguals. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Lado, R. (1971) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: a case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics 29: 694–716. Scheffler, P. (2012) Theories pass. Learners and teachers remain. Applied Linguistics, 33, 5: 603–607. Ushakova, T. N. (1994) Inner speech and second language acquisition: an experimental-theoretical approach. In Lantolf, J.P., & Appel, G. (eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.