The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Abstract
The claim that the best language-teaching materials are based on a contrast of the two competing linguistic systems has long been a popular one in language teaching. It exists in strong and weak versions, the strong one arising from evidence from the availability of some kind of metatheory of contrastive analysis and the weak from evidence from language interference. The strong version of the hypothesis is untenable and even the weak version creates difficulties for the linguist. Recent advances in linguistic theory have led some people to claim that the hypothesis is no longer useful in either the strong or the weak version. Such a claim is perhaps unwarranted, but a period of quiescence is probable for contrastive analysis itself.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.42 · Cited by 656
Schachter, J. (1974) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00502.x · Cited by 526
Metadata
- Authors
- Wardhaugh, R.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1970-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088771471
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 46.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3586182
- The paper
- Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
