
doi: 10.2307/3586182
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.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 146 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
