PORTUGUESE FOR SPANISH SPEAKERS:

Introduction

Contrastive analysis (CA) can roughly be defined as a subdiscipline of linguistics which is concerned with the comparison of two or more languages in order to determine both the differences and the similarities that they share (Fisiak 1980). The principle aim of CA was directed as establishing possible areas of learning difficulty that speakers of English may encounter upon learning other languages. After having been very popular in the fifties and sixties, today CA has generally fallen into disrepute. Nevertheless, the potential role of CA in language teaching should not be overlooked. A case can be made for utilizing contrastive methods when teaching the pronunciation of Portuguese to Spanish speakers. These two languages are very closely related historically and syntactically, and their differences are mainly phonological and morphological. Therefore, a Portuguese course designed explicitly for Spanish speakers would be an efficient and economical way to acquire the target language. Although Jensen has pointed out that the capability of aurally understanding the target language by natives of either language to be about 50–60%, it is doubtful that a Spanish speaker will be proficient in reading and writing or speaking as native-like as possible without some formal instruction in Portuguese or a great deal of exposure to native speakers.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that contrastive analysis can indeed be of pedagogical benefit when teaching Portuguese to speakers of Spanish. First, I will provide a brief overview of the forms of contrastive analysis. Then, I will describe and contrast eight of the major areas where Portuguese and Spanish diverge. Next, I will order these linguistic differences on a hierarchy of difficulty as established by Stockwell and Bowen (1965). Finally, I will outline the limitations and criticisms that have been rendered against the hierarchy of difficulty and contrastive analysis in general.

Forms of Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive Analysis has both psychological and linguistic aspects. The psychological component is rooted in behaviorist theory, and the linguistic aspect in structural linguistics. In general, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) claimed that linguistic difference between a learner’s first language (L1) and the target language (L2) led to error as a result of learning difficulty. Therefore, it was assumed that the role of the L1 in the second language acquisition (SLA) process was a negative one. The role of the L1 was linked to transfer theory which was proposed by the behaviorists who saw second language acquisition as a process of habit formation (Fisiak 1980). Transfer theory states that transfer will be positive if there is a high degree of similarity between the L1 and the L2. On the other hand, transfer will be negative when the structures are dissimilar. At first, one of the major attractions of CA was that it provided a theoretical account of how learners’ L1 intruded into the second language acquisition process. With regard to the psychological aspect of CA, three versions of the CAH have been proposed and will be discussed individually.

The Psychological Aspect of CA

Three versions of the contrastive analysis hypothesis were proposed: the ‘strong’ version, the ‘weak’ version, and a ‘moderate’ version. The ‘strong’ version of contrastive analysis had three basic goals: (1) to identify areas of difficulty between the learners’ L1 and L2; (2) to predict the transfer errors that learners would make; and (3) to develop teaching methods and materials that could help eliminate the errors induced by the learners’ L1. The strong version is succinctly summarized by Lee (186) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The Strong Version of CA

1. The prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is in-terference coming from the learners’ native language;

2. The difficulties are chiefly, or wholly, due to the differences between two languages;

3. The greater these differences are, the more acute the learning difficulties will be;

4. The results of a comparison between the two languages are needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur in learning the foreign language;

5. What there is to teach can best be found by comparing the two languages and then subtracting what is common to them, so that “what the student has to learn equals the sum of differences established by the contrastive analysis.”

The strong form of the CAH was popular until research began to “show that many of the errors produced by L2 learners could not be traced to the L1” (Ellis 23; see also Dulay and Burt). Consequently, not all theoreticians and practitioners of CA agreed with the strong version of CA. As a result, a ‘weak’ version was also adopted. Ellis explains that “The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic. A CA 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 an Error Analysis” (24). Finally, Oller and Ziahosseiny suggested a compromise between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ versions of CA and proposed a ‘moderate’ form based on their research into spelling errors. They claimed that the ‘strong’ version was too strong and the ‘weak’ form was too weak. The moderate form took the nature of human learning into account rather than just focusing on contrasting two languages. Ellis argued that the moderate version put CA into perspective since it included aspects of learning theory.

The Linguistic Aspect of CA

The combination of efforts between the behaviorists and the structural linguists such as Lado, outlined the procedure for contrasting two languages. Briefly, there are four steps: (1) description—a formal description of the two languages is made; (2) selection—certain items are selected for comparison; (3) comparison—identification of areas of differences and similarities; and (4) prediction—identification of areas that are likely to cause errors. In the next section, the first three steps of a contrastive analysis, i. e., description, selection and comparison, will be undertaken with eight areas where Spanish and Portuguese contrast.

A CA of Eight Major Areas of Spanish and Portuguese

The Vowel System

The Portuguese vowel system consists of seven phone-mic vowels:^[1] seven oral vowels which are common to all other Romance languages with the exception of Spanish (which has five phonemes) (see Figure 1). Portuguese also has a reduced vowel [Q]. An /a/ will be realized as a schwa [Q] if it is found word internally before a nasal and word finally if it is unstressed (see Appendix 1). An important phonological process in Portuguese is that of vowel raising. An /o/ will be raised to a [u] and an /e/ is raised to an [i] when the /o/ or the /e/ is unstressed in word final position (see Appendix 2). Spanish does not have a schwa nor is word final vowel raising a (common) phonological process.

Portuguese

/i/ [i•] [u•] /u/

[Q•]

/e/ [e•] [o•] /o/

/´/ /O/

/a/

Spanish

/i/ /u/

[´] /e/ /o/

/a/

Figure 1. Diagram of Portuguese vowels

as contrasted to Spanish vowels

Written Accents

The accentual system of Portuguese is more complicated than that of Spanish. The Spanish system consists only of the acute accent whose main function is stress. Portuguese, on the other hand, has the grave, circumflex and the acute accents. The grave accent serves only as a spelling device in the contraction of the ‘a’s in, for example; vou à casa [I’m going home]. The circumflex serves the functions of stress and vowel quality (closes them) for the mid vowels and only has the function of stress for the low vowel /a/. Finally the acute accent over the mid vowels /e/ /o/ opens them to /´/ and /O/ and is needed for stress for the mid vowels as well as the higher and lower vowels.

Consonantal System

A consonantal inventory of both Spanish and Portuguese (see Figure 2) illustrates that both languages have six phonemic stops; the voiceless series of /p t k/ and their voiced counterparts /b d g/. Note that although spirantization of the voiced stops is a common phonological process in Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese stops are always realized as occlusives. But the dental stops of Portuguese are palatalized when they come before a high front vowel (see Appendix 3). Spanish has one affricate /cº/ unlike Portuguese which does not have any affricates. Standard American Spanish has three voiceless spirants: /f s x/ or /f s h/.^[2] Note that there are no voiced spirants in Spanish. On the other hand, Portuguese has both voiceless and voiced spirants: /f s sº/ and /v z zº/. Therefore, the spirants in Portuguese are symmetrical in comparison to those of Spanish.

Both Spanish and Portuguese have three nasal phonemes: /m n ñ/. It is interesting to mention that in Portuguese the nasals are asymmetrical in that the /m/ and /n/ are not pronounced except in syllable initial position and they only serve to nasalize a preceding vowel; whereas the Portuguese palatal nasal nasalizes a preceding vowel and is also pronounced because it never occurs in syllable final position within a word.

Spanish

/p/ // /k/

/b/ // /g/

/cº/

/f/ /s/ /x/ or /h/

/m/ /n/ /ñ/

/l/

/r/

/R/

Portuguese

/p/ /t/ /k/

/b/ /d/ /g/

/f/ /s/ /sº/

/v/ /z/ /zº/

/m/ /n/ /ñ/

/l/ /¬/

/r/ /R/

Figure 2. Consonantal Inventory of Spanish

and Portuguese

Both languages have two non-lateral liquids^[3] /r R/, but the place of articulation for the Spanish trill is alveolar and the Portuguese trill is glotal. Portuguese also has two lateral liquids: /l ¬/. The number of phonemic lateral liquids in Spanish depends on the dialectal distinction between yeísmo and lleísmo. In the yeísta dialect, /l/ is the only phoneme ([¬] can be found only as an allophone). And, on the contrary, in lleísta speech both /l/ and /¬/^[4] occur as phonemes. Finally, in Spanish and Portuguese, the glides are derivable from the vowels by way of phonological rules.

Pluralization of Nouns and Adjectives

The formation of the plural of nouns and adjectives in Spanish is rather clear and simple. In general, there are two rules for the formation of the plural in Spanish:

1. After atonic vowels add -/s/.

2. After tonic vowels or consonants add -/es/.

The formation of the plural in nouns and adjectives in Portuguese is more opaque than in Spanish but there is a definite pattern.

1. Words ending in a vowel or diphthong other than stressed -a•o add -/s/.

2. Words ending in a consonant other than /l/ add -/es/.

3. Nouns and adjectives ending in -/l/ form the plural by keeping the preceding vowel, stressing the vowel and adding -is. Note that identical vowels must be simplified.

4. Most words ending in stressed -a•o form the plural in -o•es (Sp. plural ending -ones). But nouns that end in unstressed -a•o form the plural by adding -a•os (Sp. -anos). Finally, nouns that end in a•o that correspond to Spanish -anes form the plural by adding -a•es. Unfortunately, without access to the corresponding nouns, the plural endings for the nouns of this class are idiosyncratic and are therefore unpredictable.

Ser and Estar

There are three principal differences in the usage of ser and estar in Spanish and Portuguese. In Portuguese, location may be expressed using ser (if considered permanent; e.g., A casa é na cidade [The house is in the city]) or estar (if perceived as changeable; e.g. O menino está na cidade [The boy is in the city]). Spanish, on the other hand, only employs estar with location. Also, estar is used in weather expressions in Portuguese where Spanish would normally use hacer (e.g., Pt. Está quente hoje versus Sp. Hace calor hoy [It’s hot today]). Finally, Portuguese uses both estar and ter, while Spanish only uses tener, in what in Spanish are referred to as tener expressions (e.g. Estou com fome or Tenho fome [I’m hungry]).

Stem-Changing Verbs

The stem-changing verbs are far more prevalent in Spanish than in Portuguese. In general, Spanish has a more complex system due to the alternation of the stressed stem vowels derived from the short /eº/ and /oº/ of Classical Latin for the verbs of the first and second conjugations (e.g.: Sp. Stressed “e”—> “ie” [yé] and stressed “o” —> “ue” [wé] puedo [I am able to] versus poder [to be able to]). This alternation does not exist in Portuguese due to the open vowels /´/ and /O/. The alternation in Spanish effects verbs in the present indicative, present subjunctive and the imperatives. Spanish verbs of the third conjugation behave similarly to the first and second conjugations except that “e” —> “ie” [yé] and “o” —> “ue” [wé] when the stem vowel is stressed in the present tense and “e” —> “i” and “o” —> “u” when the syllable following the root vowel begins with a yod or a palatal glide. Note that due to the effects of metaphony, a vowel following a yod causes the vowel to raise; therefore, forms which begin with a yod in the imperfect subjunctive will also be effected.

Unlike Spanish, Portuguese stem-changing verbs occur only in verbs of the third conjugation. Some verbs whose theme vowel is “e” or “o” will change to “i” and “u” respectively. The stem change occurs in the first person singular of the present indicative and in all forms of the present subjunctive.

The Future Subjunctive

In both Spanish and Portuguese, the subjunctive has three semantic tenses but morphologically Spanish only has two tenses, the present and the past. Portuguese, on the other hand morphologically marks for the present, past and future subjunctive. The future subjunctive did exist in Spanish; however, it is now only used in certain phrases handed down from the past. Ordinarily, its place is taken by the present subjunctive or by the present indicative.

In Portuguese, there are three principal situations in which the future subjunctive is employed. The first is in obligatory adverbials or conjunctions expressing future actions. For example: Enviarei o dinero quando eu quiser [I will send the money when I want to]. This same sentence in Spanish would take the present subjunctive after the adverb: Enviaré el dinero cuando yo quiera. Similarly, in a sentence such as Portuguese Enviarei o dinero se tiver tempo [I will send the money if I have time] which utilizes the future subjunctive after the adverb ‘if’, in Spanish would simply require the present indicative, Enviaré el dinero si tengo tiempo, since the subjunctive is not employed after the adverb ‘if’ when in conjunction with the future indicative. The second situation where the future subjunctive is utilized in Portuguese is in relative clauses which refer to hypothetical or unspecified quantities or people. Spanish, in this case, would use the present subjunctive. For instance: Portuguese Receberei quanto quiser [I will receive how ever much you want] in Spanish is Recibiré cuanto quiera. Finally, there is a split in usage between Portuguese and Spanish when dealing with “whatever” structures. For example: Portuguese Ficaremos aqui digam o que disserem [We will remain here no matter what they say] in Spanish is Quedaremos aquí digan lo que digan. In these constructions, Portuguese employs the present subjunctive for the first verb and while the second verb is in the future subjunctive. Spanish, on the contrary, utilizes the present subjunctive for both verbs.

Personal Infinitive

Portuguese has a verbal paradigm that is not found in any other Romance language, including Spanish. It is uni-que in that there are no irregular verb forms. It is formed using the same endings as the future subjunctive but it utilizes a different stem, the infinitive. The situations in which the personal infinitive are utilized are many; however, the actual use of the personal infinitive by native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese seems to be sporadic. Perhaps the most common uses are: (1) after a preposition when the subject of the infinitive is not the same as the subject of the main verb (e.g. Todos chegaran antes de eu partir [Everyone arrived before I left]; (2) as an avoidance structure to substitute for the subjunctive; and (3) in impersonal expressions when the subject of the infinitive is stated or implied (e.g. Foi bom termos tal sorte [It was good we had such good luck]). Nevertheless, it appears that regardless of the uses of the personal infinitive, an alternate structure could be used that would convey a similar meaning. Therefore, the personal infinitive is perhaps avoided or ignored by many speakers.

Prediction and a Hierarchy of Difficulty

The fourth task of a contrastive analysis is prediction. The ‘strong’ form of CA proposed by Wardhaugh implies that all errors can be predicted based on the principle of interference between a learner’s L1 and L2. The ability to predict errors is perhaps the most controversial component of CA. Empirical evidence indicates that many of the errors produced by learners were not a result of negative transfer from the L1. In a study completed by Dulay and Burt it was shown that only three percent of all errors produced by learners were the result of interference. One important problem noted by Felix is the difficulty in distinguishing between interference errors and developmental errors. Other researchers (Grauberg; George; Tran-Chi-Chau; and Lott) also reached similar conclusions. They conclude that L1 interference is not the only cause of errors in the second language. However, Dulay and Burt did suggest that interference may be a major factor only in phonology. The accuracy of prediction will always be open to doubt if CA fails to specify conditions that determine if and when interference takes place. Stockwell and Bowen and Prator have attempted to solve this problem by proposing that linguistic differences can be arranged in a hierarchy of difficulty. Using the concept of transfer, a CA makes predictions as to the relative difficulty of acquiring each structure. Clearly, a hierarchy of difficulty, and CA in general, is more concerned with the dichotomy of ‘learning’, i.e., a conscious process of second language learning, as opposed to the subconscious ‘acquisition’ of the L2 as defined by Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory to SLA.

Characterizing the pronunciation of a language as a set of optional and obligatory operations which produce the appropriate sounds and sound sequences in that language, Stockwell and Bowen (10) establish eight possible sets of contrasts as shown in Table 2. They categorized phonemic segments as optional, while considering allophonic segments or required sequences as obligatory. If the segment or sequence is found neither phonemically or allophonically in the language, it is placed in the null category.

Table 2. Hierarchy of Difficulty—

Possible Sets of Contrasts

English Spanish

Choice Choice

1. Optional (Op) Optional

2. Obligatory (Ob) Op

3. Null Op

4. Op Ob

5. Ob Ob

6. Null Ob

7. Op Null

8. Ob Null

Once the eight types of contrasts are identified with actual examples, they can be ranked in a hierarchy of difficulty, with the most difficult, from the learner’s point of view, being the situation in which the target language has an obligatory choice and there is null in the native language. The least difficult would be the situation of obligatory choices in both languages (see Table 3).

Based on a CA and Stockwell and Bowen’s model, it is possible to provide examples of Spanish and Portuguese that fit into a hierarchy of difficulty. However, unlike their model, the present system does not stringently adhere to the phoneme versus allophonic levels of difficulty as proposed by Stockwell and Bowen. One of the limitations of Stockwell and Bowen’s hierarchy is their failure to explain why acquiring an allophonic distribution in place of two separate phonemes is more difficult than recognizing two separate phonemes in place of allphonic distribution. Also, if a phoneme exists in the target language but not in the L1, allophones of that phoneme may also be nonexistent in the L1. Thus, the relationships in order 1 and 2 are not independent. An example ordering of difficulty of Spanish and Portuguese is arranged in descending order of difficulty in Table 3. Spanish is considered the native language and Portuguese is the target language.

Table 3. Spanish-Portuguese examples

for a hierarchy of difficulty

1. Native language null; Target language Ob: a vowel reduction rule for /a/ in word final position or before a nasal (/a/ —> [Q]) with no Spanish counterpart.

2. Native language null; Target language Op: epenthetic vowel insertion between a consonant cluster of two obstruents with no Spanish counterpart.

3. Native language Op; Target language Ob: palatal /l/ as a phoneme. In Spanish ‘lleísta’ dialects it is a separate phoneme; otherwise, it is an allophone. In Portuguese it is always a phoneme.

4. Native language Ob; Target language Op: Spanish /r/ realized as a single flap [r] in word final position, Portuguese with variants [r] and [h] in the same environment.

5. Native language Ob; Target language null: Spanish spirantization of the stops, with no counterpart in Brazilian Portuguese.

6. Native language Op; Target language null: Spanish word final nasal /n/, Portuguese nasals not permitted in word final position.

7. Native language Op; Target language Op: Many words in both languages may have as their first sound segments a number of similar consonants like [p t k l m n].

8. Native language Ob; Target language Ob: Word initial /s/ following by a stop must have epenthetic vowel inserted before /s/.

Limitations of a Hierarchy of Difficulty

The most obvious limitations of the above hierarchy are that it is not complete and it is oversimplified, but there are many examples that could fit into the proposed levels. Many researchers (cf. Oller and Ziahosseiny; Prator) have suggested that the overall principle of a hierarchy of difficulty for phonology is not valid because the assumption that the existence of a segment in the L1 will make the acquisition of that segment in the L2 more salient is not supported. Oller and Ziahosseiny stated that “the learning of sounds, sequences, and meanings will be most difficult where the most subtle distinctions are required either between the target language and native language, or within the target language” (186). These subtle differences are the distinctions that occur when two segments are phonetic in the L1 system but phonemic in the L2 (MacDonald). Similarly, there is no evidence to indicate that the absence of a sound or sequence in the L1 necessarily makes it more difficult to learn in the L2. Furthermore, phonological environments have been overlooked. Also, learner specific factors, such as age and experience with the L2, and their relationship to learning the L2 have been ignored. Although Stockwell and Bowen mention that additional factors, i.e., pattern congruity, functional load, and potential mishearing, must be considered in addition to a hierarchy of difficulty, it must be noted that every speech act is a complex act. If a hierarchy of difficulty is to be meaningful, it should be arranged in terms of all components of language and “account for the different domains of each realization language-specific rule” (Di Pietro 164).

Another pitfall of a hierarchy of difficulty is that it equates linguistic difference with learner difficulty without psychological validity. Empirical evidence which examines the actual performance of the learner is needed in order to validate the idea of a hierarchy. In order to identify, and perhaps predict, interference, the instructor must deal with learner competence, a formal list of contrasts and performance factors. Oller and Ziahosseiny point out that the ability to identify where two languages contrast is not very valuable, whereas the ability to predict potential errors is overstated and misleading. They contend that the moderate versionof the CAH would have more explanatory power than either the strong or the weak forms of the CA hypothesis. Moreover, Oller and Ziahosseiny argue that minimal differences between two languages are often overlooked, while larger, more obvious differences are often more easiy perceived and remembered. Therefore, greater differences between the L1 and the L2 do not always result in greater learning difficulty, thus contradicting the strong form of the CA hypothesis. Viewed in this light, it is evident that intralingual errors, in addition to interlingual errors, need to be considered as a factor in second language learning.

Summary and Conclusions

Contrastive analysis was primarily a pedagogic tool used by L2 instructors to erradicate negative transfer errors between a learner’s L1 and L2. When CA was at its peak in the 1960s, errors were viewed as unfavorable and all attempts were made to undo the ‘bad’ habits of the learners. The contrastive analysis hypothesis (especially the strong form) fell into disfavor as empirical, theoretical and practical evidence emerged that outlined the many pitfalls of explaining the second language acquisition process by way of behavioristic habit formation theory. Also, the ordering of structures on a hierarchy of difficulty has been found not to be entirely convincing with regards to its validity.

Within the last decade, there has been a subtle rebirth of CA which has recognized that not all of CA was negative. Moderate forms of CA have shed a new dimension onto the CA hypothesis, namely that of a human learning factor which was absent in the earlier weak and strong forms of CA. In the case of closely related languages, such as Spanish and Portuguese, a CA can be useful. By pointing out the main differences between the two languages, a learner can make use of them creatively by process of analogy and generalization. Of course, there is the danger of overgeneralization which will result in error, but viewing errors in a new light shows that errors can be evidence of hypothesis testing on the part of the learner rather than evidence of non-learning. Furthermore, Marton explains that for closely related languages “the process of comparison is going to take place anyway so it is better to make it conscious and channel it to profitable uses, at the same time preventing distortion resulting from uncontrolled assimilation” (156). Also, if the main role of the data obtained from a CA is explanatory rather than predictive, then it can be useful, especially since a Spanish speaker learning Portuguese is “psychologically ready for theoretical explanations since he already has the necessary conceptual framework in his mind into which the new information can be fitted” (Marton 190). Finally, there are valid reasons for incorporating a contrastive analysis for speakers of Spanish learning Portuguese (or vice-versa) simply because the similarities far out number the differences and the comparisons can be an economical and effective way to acquire the language.

References

Alatis, J. E., ed. Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedagogical Implications: Report on the 19th Annual Round Table on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP, 1968.

Brown, D. H. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.

Bjarkman, P., and Hammond, R. M., eds. American Spanish Pronunciation: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP, 1989.

Canale, M., and Swain, M. “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1980): 1–47.

DiPietro, R. Language Structures in Contrast. Rowley: Newbury House, 1971.

Dulay, H., and Burt, M. “Should we teach children syntax?” Language Learning 23 (1973): 245–58.

Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985.

Felix, S. (1980). “Interference, interlanguage and related issues.” Cited in Ellis 50–57.

Fisiak, J. Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguisics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1980.

___, ed. Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.

Fries, C. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1945.

Gass, S., and Selinker, L. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983.

George, H. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley: Newbury House, 1972.

Grauberg, W. “An error in the German of first-year uni-versity students.” G. Perren and J. Trim, eds. 156–63.

James, C. Contrastive analysis. London: Longman, 1980.

___. “The transfer of communicative competence.” J. Fisiak, ed. 57–70.

___. “The exculpation of contrastive linguistics.” B. Robinett and J. Schachter, eds. 87–102.

Jensen, J. B. “On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese.” Hispania 72 (1989): 848–92.

Jordan, I. “Portuguese for Spanish speakers: A case for contrastive analysis.” Hispania 74 (1991): 788–92.

Krashen, S. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon, 1982.

Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Lin-guistics for Language Teachers. Ann Harbor: U of Michigan P, 1957.

Lee, W. “Thoughts on contrastive analysis in the context of language teaching.” J. Alatis, ed. 202–17.

Lott, D. “Analysing and counteracting interference errors.” English Language Teaching Journal 37 (1983): 256–61.

MacDonald, M. G. “The influence of Spanish phonology on the English spoken by United States hispanics.” P. Bjarkman and R. M. Hammond, eds. 216–36.

Marton, W. “Contrastive analysis in the classroom.” J. Fisiak, ed. 122–50.

Oller, J., and Ziahosseiny, S. “The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors.” Language Learning 9 (1970): 115–23.

Perren, G., and Trim, J., eds. Applications of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971.

Prator, C. 1967. “Hierarchy of difficulty.” Cited in Ellis, R. 22–24.

Robinett, B., and Schachter, J., eds. Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1983.

Ruiz, J. “Contrastive analysis and the teaching of second language.” Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics, April. Thessaloniki, Greece. 1990.

Sridhar, S. N. “Contrastive analysis, error analysis and interlanguage.” J. Fisiak, ed. 207-41.

Stockwell, R. and Bowen, J. The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1965.

Stockwell, R., Bowen, J., and Martin, J. The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1965.

Tran-Chi, C. “Error analysis and students’ perception: A study of difficulty in second language learning.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 13 (1975): 119–43.

Wardhaugh, R. “The contrastive analysis hypothesis.” B. Robinett and J. Schachter, eds. 6-14.

Wode, H. “Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition.” Working Papers on Bilingualism 11 (1976): 1–13.

^[1]The debate as to whether the nasal vowels are phonemic or allophonic is beyond the scope of this paper. It is assumed that there are seven phonemic vowels and the nasals are derived from them.

^[2]All of the possible allophonic manifestations of the phonemes as realized in some dialects are beyond the scope of this paper.

^[3]The debate continues as to whether the Spanish trill /R/ is indeed a phoneme or if it is derived from the flap /r/ and then strengthened by a phonological strengthening rule.

^[4]The occurrence of the Spanish palatal liquid in distinction to the alveolar liquid in minimal pairs (e.g. halla vs. haya) is rare in American Spanish.