The Survival of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: A Look Under the Hood

The contrastive analysis hypothesis is one of the theories that has considerably impacted second language acquisition research. Since the 1970s, this theory, which had piqued the interest of both linguists and teachers, has been heavily criticised. It has been described as unrealistic and impractical, and its basic assumptions have been questioned and unjustly debunked. However, re-reading Linguistics across Cultures, the book from which the contrastive analysis hypothesis was derived, in light of recent findings and re-examining the criticism levelled against it, reveals how valuable and insightful the book is and how irrationally it has been misrepresented. This paper attempts to clean this distortion up and demonstrate why this book is worth reading again. It sheds light on the criticism levelled against it and critically examines the alternatives (the moderate and the weak versions) offered to replace it. It also argues that, apart from its utility in comparing languages in terms of their sound systems, grammar, and vocabulary for pedagogical purposes, it can be an effective tool in comparing languages, particularly on bases above the sentence level, to uncover cultural traits. Hence, it can be a powerful means to further our knowledge of cross-cultural (mis)communication and (mis)understanding.