ISSN: 2255-3703

Skopos 1,(2012),

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis for early

language learning

Eulalio Fernández Sánchez / Enrique Leganés González

Universidad de Córdoba

ff1fesae@uco.es, eleganes@uco.es

Fecha de recepción: 10.03.2011

Fecha de aceptación: 15.06.2012

Abstract: The new scientific paradigm proposed by cognitive science (cf. Gardner,

1989) gives researchers the chance to revisit the consideration and the role of

assumptions, procedures and tools that became outdated with the incorporation of

new theories and insights in numerous disciplines. An example for this situation is the

treatment that contrastive analysis

(CA) has been given in different perspectives.

Whereas within conductist-oriented theories, CA was expected to prevent learners

from making errors and mistakes in the 60´s, it was used for giving an explanation of

the errors due to interference up to the mid 80´s, before being banned from

systematic research on second language acquisition (SLA) processes from the late

80´s onwards. Notwithstanding, the application of the epistemological underpinnings

of cognitivism onto first language and SLA processes allows for a reconsideration of

the benefit of CA as a procedural tool for equipping the second language learner with

the cognitive support that contributes to the active construction of the knowledge and

skills of the future second language.

Keywords: Contrastive analysis, cognitive psychology, phonetological specialisation

Reconsideración del beneficio del análisis contrastivo para la

enseñanza temprana de las lenguas

Resumen: El nuevo paradigma científico propuesto por la ciencia cognitiva (cf.

Gardner, 1989) proporciona a los investigadores la oportunidad de revisar la

consideración y el papel de los supuestos, procedimientos y herramientas que

quedaron anticuados con la incorporación de nuevas teorías e ideas en numerosas

disciplinas. Un ejemplo de esta situación es el tratamiento que se le ha dado al

análisis contrastivo (AC) en diferentes perspectivas. Mientras que dentro de las

teorías conductistas se esperaba que el CA previniera a los estudiantes de cometer

errores y equivocaciones en los sesenta, se utilizaba para dar un explicación de los

errores debidos a la interferencia sobre mitad de los ochenta, antes de ser prohibido

desde la investigación sistemática en el proceso de adquisición de la segunda

It will be referred to as CA in this paper.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

lengua (ASL) desde finales de los ochenta en adelante. Sin embargo, la aplicación

de los refuerzos epistemológicos del cognitivismo sobre la primera lengua y sobre

los procesos de adquisición de la segunda lengua permiten una reconsideración del

beneficio del AC como una herramienta procedimental para equipar al aprendiz de la

segunda lengua con el apoyo cognitivo que contribuye a la construcción activa del

conocimiento y habilidades de la futura segunda lengua.

Palabras clave: Análisis contrastivo / psicología cognitiva / especialización

fonetológica.

Sumario: Introduction. 1. Reasons for the weakness of CA in SLA studies. 1.1. The

“psychological” weakness of CA. 2. The cognitive paradigm: a new change for revisiting CA in

SLA models. 3. The role of CA with in the emerging constructivist SLA theories. Conclusion.

Introduction

A detailed bibliographical review of the insight and research carried

out on SLA processes throughout the recent two decades prove that CA has

been rejected from second language acquisition processes both in its strong

and weak version. Regarding the strong version, linguistic difference was

proved not to imply correspondingly psychological difficulty. As for the weak

version, interference of the L1 was recognised not to be the only source for

mistakes and errors.

However, nowadays the role of CA takes over a new perspective in

the light of cognitivism. According to this approach, language acquisition is a

complicated process involving both biological and cognitive factors

. This

process can be either naturally and instinctively motivated, like in L1

acquisition, or artificially oriented, in the case of L2 acquisition. Both

processes have a psycholinguistic nature. It means that linguistic

competence has a double support: i) the neural-physiological support, which

is responsible for the development of mental schemata and influenced by

the material configuration of the human brain; ii) the cognitive support, which

is responsible for developing the representations of the knowledge

underlying in linguistic structures. Thus, the acquisition of language will

always be influenced by this twofold nature. In the case of the L1 acquisition,

the brain is instinctively equipped with inborn structures and capabilities for

realising the instinct of language. The combination of these structures and

capabilities are known as the “critical period” (cf. Lenneberg,…).

In line with the theories emerging in the area of cognitive psychology. According to this

discipline, learning processes are influenced by the interaction of mental/internal aspects and

contextual/environmental variables.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

During this period, human beings carry out several tasks that enable

them to acquire eventually their mother tongue. One of these tasks is the

phonetological

specialisation (Gramley, S., 2012), by means of which the

human brain comes to discriminate the phonological system of his/her

forthcoming L1. So, the specialisation drives into a reduction of the hearing

potentiality of children, what may turn out to be an obstacle for future

language acquisition processes. In order to diminish the negative effect of

the specialisation referred above onto the future learning of a L2, the

possibility of using CA is proposed from a bio-linguistic perspective on the

hypothesis that a methodologically treated exposure containing the

differential elements between the L1 and L2 phonetological systems can

result into a less specific hearing capacity. CA, therefore, is no longer

preventive (strong version of CA), or explanatory (weak version of CA), but

proactive since it will be used for enabling young L2 learners to recognise

the schemata associated with the phonetological features falling on outside

the scope of specialisation of the L1.

1. Reasons for the weakness of CA in SLA studies.

Language provides one of the most readily accessible windows into

the nature of the human mind. How children acquire this complex system

with such apparent ease continues to fascinate the student of human

language. The last quarter of the previous century in particular has

witnessed a qualitative leap in our knowledge of the language-acquisition

process in young children. In recent years, researchers have begun to

extend their scope of inquiry into the problem of second-language

acquisition. The motivation underlying this new endeavour is twofold: first, it

provides an added perspective on human language; and second, interest in

second-language teaching and bilingual education has resulted in a greater

need to understand the mechanisms underlying second-language

acquisition. The focus of analysis has undergone distinct shifts in

perspective as a function of our changing conceptualisations of what

language is and also what the learner brings to the learning situation.

Principles such as imitation, positive and negative transfer,

reinforcement, and habit strength were borrowed from the academic

psychology of learning and incorporated into the CA view of second-

language acquisition. Presupposing that language development consisted of

the acquisition of a set of habits, errors in the second language were seen

as the result of the first-language habits interfering with the acquisition of the

The term phonetological stands for “phonological and phonetic” (Gramley, S. (2012). The

history of English: an introduction. London: Routledge).

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

habits of the second. In classroom practice, the principles of habit formation

and interference led to the use of pattern drills in the audio-lingual method of

second-language learning. On the basis of CA, difficult patterns were

predicted and consequently emphasised in the drills.

The comparison of the structures of languages continues to be a

respectable activity within contrastive linguistics and has come to be

conducted within the framework of transformational generative grammar. Its

status as a psychological approach to the investigation of the second-

language-acquisition process, however, fell into disrepute for several

reasons. One reason was the unfortunate association of CA with the

behaviourist view of language acquisition, an account whose theoretical

adequacy came to be seriously questioned, most notably by Chomsky

(1959). In our view, a more devastating reason was that CA fared quite

poorly once researchers, instead of relying on anecdotal impressions from

the classroom, began collecting data in more systematic ways (Oller &

Richards, 1973). From these data, analyses of learners’ errors soon showed

that a large proportion were not predictable on the basis of CA. In fact, many

of these errors, such as rule simplification (as in “Mommy eat maize”) and

overgeneralisation (as in “He writed me a letter”) exhibited a striking

resemblance to those made by children acquiring a first language. Moreover,

learners did not in fact make all the errors predicted by CA.

When the inadequacy of CA as a predictive model became apparent,

Wardhaugh (1970) drew the useful distinction between strong and weak

versions of the approach. The strong version claimed to predict errors, while

the weak version simply accounted for errors that occurred. CA survives only

in its weak form with an obvious shortcoming: it gives an incomplete

representation of the second-language-acquisition process since it can

account only for some, not all, of the errors.

Within a few years, the landscape changed considerably. In part this

was the result of a vast array of new materials from studies of much greater

depth than previously, in part from opening new topics to investigation.

About 25 years ago, much of this work crystallised in a radically different

approach to UG, the “Principles and Parameters” (P&P) framework, which

for the first time offered the hope of overcoming the tension between

descriptive and explanatory adequacy. This approach sought to eliminate

the format framework entirely, and with it, the traditional conception of rules

and constructions that had been pretty much taken over into generative

grammar. The new P&P framework led to an explosion of inquiry into

languages of the most varied typology, leading to new problems previously

not envisioned, sometimes answers, and the reinvigoration of neighbouring

disciplines concerned with acquisition and processing, their guiding

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

questions now reframed in terms of parameter-setting within a fixed system

of principles of UG. So, the comparison between languages has served the

purpose of the possibilities for parameterization rather than its contribution to

SLA purposes, mainly due to the psychological weakness and doubts cast

by the results of CA.

1.1. The “psychological” weakness of CA.

As we have pointed out in the introduction, CA exists in a strong and a

weak form (Wardhaugh 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can

be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and

the learner’s first language. As Lee (1968: 180) notes, it stipulates that “the

prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign

language learning is interference coming from the learner’s native

language”. The strong form of the hypothesis was common before research

began to show that many of the errors produced by L2 learners could not be

traced to the L1.

The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic. A

contrastive analysis can be used to identify which errors are the result of

interference. Thus, according to the weak hypothesis, CA needs to work

hand in hand with the analysis of errors. First, actual errors must be

identified by analysing a corpus of learner language. Then, CA can be used

for establishing which errors in the corpus can be put down to differences

between the first and second language. Implicit in the weak version is the

assumption that not all errors are the result of interference. The weak form

claims a less powerful role for the L1 than the strong form of the hypothesis.

The strong form of the hypothesis has few supporters today. It is now

evident that the L1 is not the sole and probably not even the prime cause of

grammatical errors. Nevertheless, the weak form is not very satisfying. It

makes little sense to undertake a lengthy comparison of two languages

simply to confirm that errors suspected of being interference errors are

indeed so. As James (1980) points out, this is a “pseudo procedure”. In

order to hypothesise that the errors in a corpus are interference errors, a de

facto CA must have taken place. It makes little sense to conduct a

complicated CA simply to confirm what a de facto analysis suggested. If CA

is to be worthwhile, it should be predictive. Diagnosis will then remain the job

of Error Analysis.

Ideally, the psychological aspect of CA should deal with the conditions

under which interference takes place. That is, it should account for instances

when linguistic differences between the first and second languages lead to

transfer errors and instances when they do not. It is because it is not

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

possible to predict or explain the presence or absence of transfer errors

solely in terms of linguistic differences between the first and second

languages that a psychological explanation is necessary. What are the non-

linguistic variables that help to determine whether and when interference

occurs?

One possible variable is the setting in which SLA takes place. Marton

(1980) argues that whereas interference need not be a major factor in

naturalistic SLA, it will always be present in classroom or foreign language

learning. In naturalistic SLA learners have the chance of extensive and

intensive contacts with the target language, but in classroom SLA learners

will always use their L1 between classes, and this strengthens proactive

inhibition.

Another variable may be the learner’s stage of development. Taylor

(1975) argues that there are quantitative differences in errors produced by

elementary and intermediate students. Whereas the former rely on transfer,

the latter rely to a greater extent on overgeneralisation of target language

rules (e.g. they overgeneralise the use of the regular past suffixed to

irregular verbs, as in “goed”).

There have been, however, no clearly articulated theories that explain

how such variables as type of learning and stage of development affect the

mechanisms of transfer. Thus, a major failing of CA has been the lack of a

well-developed psychological theory. This has been one of major sources of

criticism of CA.

However, this psychological weakness is no longer a problem within a

different paradigm, the cognitive one. Now, the focus is not on the prediction

or explanation of mistakes, but on providing learners with the abilities and

strategies to construct new knowledge. In this sense, the so-called

psychological failure of CA to predict and control the learning variables can

be restored by providing CA a new role in the process of equipping the L2

learner with the abilities and strategies that will enable them to improve their

language learning. The focus is not on error prediction or explanation, by on

constructive and cognitive abilities. Within the cognitive paradigm CA no

longer serves the purpose of errors rather than the benefit of cognitive

structures and abilities, as a significant component of cognitive psychology.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

3. The cognitive paradigm: a new chance for revisiting CA in SLA

models

The multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of the cognitivist

paradigm does not only affect the origin of the contributions, but also

impacts upon the light that new perspectives can shed upon the same object

of study. In this context a bio-linguistic approach to the nature of language

emerges, and by extension to the very nature of the linguistic sign, from

positions close to the precepts of biology and to psycholinguistics. According

to Nubiola (2009: 8),

The viewpoint of those who think that language appeared by natural

selection as an adaptation for communication and that from this grew

our mental life as a derivative product is persuasive.

Equally, Pinker and Bloom (1997) point out that “according to this

hypothesis, to be intelligent is not – as many have assumed – to have a

language, but rather to have a language is what makes one intelligent”.

However, Nubiola (2009: 9) clarifies:

It is worth adding straight away that not all aspects of intelligence are

reducible to language, since there is clear proof of this both in the

intelligent conduct of pre-linguistic children and in the remarkable

intellectual life of individuals lacking language.

One of the best examples of this type of study is given by the work of

Antonio Damasio and in particular his last contribution entitled Y cómo el

cerebro creó al hombre (Damasio, 2010), in which he explains the manner in

which neuronal connections lead to our mind and the awareness of it.

Therefore, in the line of cognitivist studies of a psycho-biological

nature, the search for the essence of human nature must pause to explore

the analysis of the nature of language. Thus, Nubiola (2009: 8) affirms that

“this strange capacity to unite and to relate disparate elements is exclusive

to homo sapiens, and it is perhaps this exclusivity which is the most

incomprehensible aspect for many scientists”. For this reason, it is the

capacity to establish a relation between disparate elements through an

element considered to be common and capable of leading to this relation or

union which points to the distinction. It is something which animals could

never attain, which explains why “the tireless attempts to teach sign

language to chimpanzees and other higher primates clearly demonstrate

that in their greatest communicative activity they do not manage to reach this

triadic structure (object / flower, sign / the flower, and the agent conscious of

its articulation), rather they do not pass beyond the stage of the pre-linguistic

The term model is used according to Ricards (1997).

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

babbling of an infant of only a few months calling for its mother’s milk”

(Nubiola, 2009: 11).

In this way the psycho-bio-linguistic approach attempts to fill the gap

in our scientific culture in which we pass from biology to linguistics without

explaining this leap, which even in evolutionary terms appears so

extraordinary (Percy, 1996). And thus, it is that towards the end of the 20th

century human beings appear as creatures divided between biology and

linguistics without a sufficiently comprehensible global explanation being

proffered. The human being cannot be understood without intentional

communicative strategies, that is, one cannot talk to someone without

pondering what the other is thinking. Even silence is communicative. From

its birth the human baby is programmed for communication (Aguado, 1995).

For this reason, the appearance of language can only be explained if it is

considered a shared instrument of communication.

This approach is coherent with Chomsky’s proposal of a “principles-

and-parameters” model of language acquisition, which represents the steps

towards an account of the genetic basis of grammar (Chomsky, 1981, 1986,

1988a, 1993). The principles refer to conditions specified by the linguist’s

theory of universal grammar and are assumed to be part of man’s biological

endowment, a Bauplan

for human language. The parameters are variables

left open in the statement of the principles which account for the diversity

found in human languages. The goal of the bio-linguist interested in question

How is knowledge of language acquired?, is to come up with the formulation

of genetic principles of UG narrowly enough constrained to account for the

child’s ability to learn structural properties of grammar of great subtlety from

impoverished linguistic data, and at the same time, find parameters which

can account for the manifest variation among, say, Germanic or Romance

languages, or between these and non-Indo-European languages. As

Chomsky remarks, these subsystems are not genetically pre-programmed

down to the last detail. If they were, there would be only one human

language. But heredity does set rather narrow limits on the possible ways

that the rules governing each subsystem’s function can vary. Languages like

English and Italian, for example, differ in their choice of genetically permitted

variations that exist as options in the universal grammar. You can think of

these options as a kind of linguistic menu containing mutually exclusive

grammatical possibilities.

For example, languages like Spanish have chosen the “null subject”

option from the universal-grammar menu: In Spanish you can say left when

Bauplan is a German term for the body plan of an organism. It is used here for the

fundamental design of human languages, as specified by the theory of UG.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

you mean “He left” or “She left.” English and French have passed up this

option and chosen instead the rule that requires explicit mention of the

subject. (Chomsky, 1983: 411)

Part of the study of language acquisition is to determine what the set

of parameters are that are found on the “universal-grammar menu.” Another

candidate is word-order.

The study of principles and parameters in language is much like that

undertaken by the developmental biologist, who seeks to find the

mechanisms of gene control or other cellular mechanisms in an effort to

explain the differentiation of the zygote (fertilised egg) into its final state. As

Chomsky has noted, “the gene-control problem is conceptually similar to the

problem of accounting for language growth. In fact, language development

really ought to be called language growth, because the language organ

grows like any other body organ” (Chomsky, 1983: 407). By “gene-control

problem,” Chomsky is referring to “the ways that genes regulate

embryological development”. Although the study of the language growth

problem is in its early stages and is in part based on the study of abstract

formal properties, as was Mendelian genetics initially, the ultimate aim is an

explication of the mechanisms underlying language.

The basic idea, then, is that there is a universal Bauplan for language,

described by the theory of UG, which specifies the set of principles that

largely determine the growth of language. These principles may vary

according to the parameters discussed above, depending on the particular

language being learned. Another way to think about it is that there is actually

only one language in a biological sense, sometimes called “Human,” and

that English, Spanish, Japanese, etc., are instantiations of Human,

depending on which parameters have been fixed by environmental input. As

Chomsky has put it:

The major task is to determine what are the principles and parameters

that constitute the initial state of the language faculty and thus determine

the set of possible human languages. Apart from lexicon, this is a finite

set, surprisingly; in fact, a one-membered set if parameters are in fact

reducible to lexical properties. Notice that this conclusion, if true, would

help explain the surprising fact that there is more than one possible

human language; namely, it would follow that in an interesting sense,

there is only one such language. (Chomsky, 1991b: 26).

The view that there is only one language, Human, apart from minor

variation, is diametrically opposed to the view advanced in structural

This is from a reprinted version of Omni interview by John Gliedman (Gliedman, 1983).

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

linguistics, that “languages could differ from each other without limit and in

unpredictable ways,” as Martin Joos put it (Chomsky, 1986; Joos, 1957).

The fact that the language organ permits a limited range of variation is

thus no more surprising than the fact that the heart, the circulatory system,

the visual system, or any other system of the body (or mind/brain), exhibits

similar variation, corresponding to different courses of experience, within the

limits imposed by the genetic endowment. It is a task for the bio-linguist to

determine the mechanisms that fix the parametric options in the developing

microcircuits of the nervous system.

One of these parametric processes is known as the phonetological

specialisation. On the basis of the articulatory possibilities of the vocal track,

the Human language will be implemented by means of a set of phonemes

with different distinctive features specific to the mother tongue.

3. The role of CA within the emerging constructivist SLA theories.

As has just been pointed out, the bio-linguistic perspective regards the

language faculty as an “organ of the body”,’ along with other cognitive

systems. The implementation of this faculty is the result of a prewired

potentiality resulting into the development of a communicative skill. That

process is known as language acquisition. Thus, it is consequently a

cognitive process by means of which the individual develops new skills,

contents, and attitudes as of her/his previous knowledge, skills, and

attitudes. In this process, the individual plays a key role, a leading role

. In

essence, the individual builds up the new knowledge from the tools she/he

has.

In the specific case of second language acquisition, the student will

construct her/his learning from her/his previous linguistic knowledge. One

component of this previous linguistic knowledge is the phonetological one,

established in a natural and instinctive way in the process of linguistic

specialisation that takes place in the initial stages of the critical period of

language acquisition. The parameterization that takes place throughout this

period will turn out to be the basis upon which the individual will interpret the

phonological and phonetic elements of the linguistic input they are going to

get in the future. Therefore, the development of the phonetological

component of the L2 will be influenced by the corresponding phonetological

Cognitive science stands at the crossroads where the natural sciences and human sciences

meet. It looks down both roads at once: one of its faces is turned toward nature and sees

cognitive processes as behaviour; the other is turned toward the human world, the life-world,

and sees cognition as experience.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

component of the L1. The L1 specialization will be used as the model for

constructing new knowledge and oral skills. In this way, it could be

concluded that the less narrow and specific the phonetological specialization

is, the higher the potentiality for constructing new phonetological knowledge.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that CA of the L1 and L2 phonetological systems

can provide researchers and methodologists with the scope of parameters

covered and implemented by these two languages. As a result of it, the

phonetological range of both languages should be taken into account when

designing materials to introduce early learners into SLA processes.

Consequently, the main contribution of this paper will be the justification of

the contrastive analysis as a procedural tool for the educational intervention

in the second language learning process during the critical period of

language acquisition. So, paraphrasing James’ statement, CA keeps on

being worthwhile within the cognitive paradigm, since it proves to be

proactive and constructive.

Bibliographical references

GUADO

, G. (1995). El desarrollo del lenguaje de 0 a 3 años. Bases para un

desarrollo curricular en la educación infantil. Madrid, Editorial CEPE

(Ciencias de la Educación Preescolar y Especial).

OGDAN

, R. & T

AYLOR

, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research

methods. New York: John Wiley.

HOMSKY

, N. (1959). “A review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner”. In:

Language, 35, 26-59.

_____ (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures.

Holland: Foris Publications. Reprint. 7

Edition. Berlin and New York:

Mouton de Gruyter, 1993.

_____ (1983). “Things No Amount of Learning Can Teach”. In C. P. Otero

(ed.), Noam Chomsky: Language and Politics, pp. 407–19. Montreal:

Black Rose. Interviewed by J. Gliedman. Omni, 6 (11).

_____ (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

_____ (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

_____ (1991b). “Linguistics and Cognitive Science: Problems and

Mysteries”. In A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn. Cambridge, MA:

Basil Blackwell, 26-53.

_____ (1993). Language and Thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell.

Fernández Sánchez/ Leganés González

Revisiting the benefit of contrastive analysis…

Skopos 1,(2012),

_____ (2005). “Three Factors in Language Design”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, 36,

1-22.

AMASIO

, A. (2010). Y el cerebro creó al hombre. Barcelona: Ed. Paidós.

ARDNER

, H. & H

ATCH

, T. (1989). “Multiple intelligences go to school:

Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences”. In:

Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.

UBEL

, D. (1988). Eye, Brain, and Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.

AMES

, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.

ENKINS

, L. (2009). Biolinguistics. Exploring the Biology of Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OOS

, M. (1957). Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive

Linguistics in America since 1925 (editor). Washington: ACLS.

, W. (1968). “Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of

language teaching”. In: J. Alatis (ed). Contrastive Linguistics and its

Pedagogical Implications. Washington, D. C. Georgetown University.

ENNEBERG

, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York:

Wiley.

ARTON

, W. (1981). “Contrastive analysis in the classroom”. In: Fisiak, J.

(ed.) Constrastive Linguistics and the language teachers: 147-155.

Oxford: Pregamon Press Ltd.

UBIOLA

, J. (2009). “La investigación filosófica sobre el origen del lenguaje.”

Pensamiento y Cultura, vol. 3 (2000): 87-96.

LLER

, J. W. & R

ICHARDS

, J. C. (Eds.). (1973). Focus on the learner:

Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

ERCY

, W. (1996). “La criatura dividida”. In: Anuario Filosófico, 29, 1146-7 y

1148.

INKER

, S. & B

LOOM

, P. (1997): “Natural Language and Natural Selection”.

In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 585-642.

ARDHAUGH

, R. (1970). “The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis”. In: TESOL

Quarterly, 4, 123-30.