Title The Transfer of Linguistic Phenomena in Learning EnglishNegation

Author(s) Ohyama, Nakakatsu

Citation 沖縄短大論叢 = OKINAWA TANDAI RONSO, 7(1): 179-200

Issue Date 1992-12-20

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12001/10638

Rights 沖縄大学短期大学部

The Transfer of Linguistic Phenomena

In Learning English Negation*

I . Introduction

II. Theoretical Background

Contrastive Analysis

III. Data Collection

N. Discussion

A. Description and Comparison in General

1. Negative Imperatives

2. Negative Interrogatives

3. The Scope of Negative Morphemes

4. The Rightmost Principle

B. Specific Case-study Comparison

1. Double Negation

2. Answers for Negative Questions

Nakakatsu Ohyama

3. Answers for Complex Yes-no Questions (Tag-questions)

V. Summary

VI. Appendix

Bibliography

ABSTRACT

Transfer phenomena were examined and described. The data were

collected in the form of observations of naturally occurring conversations

-179-

and interviews. In addition, literature on English as a second language was

researched, which revealed information relevant to a Japanese woman's

case.

The purpose of this study is to describe the difficulties experienced by

the Japanese speaker due to language transfer. Specifically, this study will

focus on transfer in the acquisition of negation to make clear the difficulties

imposed on the target language by the native language. The difficulties

associated with different negating systems may be clarified by applying

linguistic theories, comparing data, and analyzing a Japanese woman's

language learning task.

I . Introduction

This paper examines the transfer of linguistic phenomena and presents

a model of adult second language acquisition that attempts to account for

several perplexing problems in learning English negation. It is also aimed

at specifying changes in cognitive functioning over the adult years that

might have effected learning potential in second language acquisition. With

this in mind, the question that this paper intends to address is whether or not

the transfer of linguistic phenomena appears as a positive transfer which

the correct application of Japanese language forms in English learning

tasks. The answer to this question helps us solve the problem of whether

or not a second language learner is perplexed strictly because they have

prior experience of interference from their native language.

II. Theoretical Background

Contrastive analysis is an actual hypothesis associated with language

learning theory (Wardaugh, 1970; Whitman, 1970; Takayanagi, 1975;

Bouton, 1976; Gas, 1979; Makino, 1992). By itself, it is not intended to solve

all the problems of language teaching. Within its area, this hypothesis has

- 180-

its own strengths. However, it should be applied with other hypothesis if

they are to provide a basis for the teaching of foreign language. It is

necessary to discuss the historical development of the system and its

strengths.

Contrastive Analysis

In the 1940's, contrastive analysis was hypothesized as a result of

structural linguistics. The structural linguists formulated the contrastive

analysis hypothesis, which attempted to predict a learner's difficulties in his

or her second language learning. This hypothesis exists in three versions:

1) a strong version advocated by Charles C. Fries (1945), Lado (1957), and Di

Pietro (1971), 2) a weak version supported by Newmark (1966) and

Stockwell (1968), and 3) a moderate version suggested by Oller and

Ziahosseiny (1970).

To employ the strong version, a careful comparison of the first Ian·

guage with the target language was made. Fries (1945:9) emphasized that

" ... the most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific

description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel

description of the native language of the learner. " This viewpoint influ·

enced Lado. Lado wrote his viewpoint in the preface of Linguistics Across

Cultures (1957:vii):

The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict

and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and

those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically

the language and culture to be learned with the native language and

culture of the student.

The prediction of the strong version was that elements in the target

- 181-

language that differed from those in the learner's native language would be

more difficult to grasp. It goes without saying that similar elements would

be much simpler to remember.

The weak version demanded a more thorough knowledge of linguistics

by the researcher. Since this version started by describing the learner's

difficulty in learning a target language, it required a less detailed contras­

tive analysis than the strong version. Systems in this version were impor­

tant, for they allowed for specific points presented in a level of difficulty

(Stockwell and Bowen 1983:20). The weak version predicted that it would

be difficult for the learner to remember points in the target language that

had no corresponding points in the native language.

The moderate version was hypothesized on the basis of spelling mis­

takes. Spelling mistakes were compared. In the experiment, there were

two different groups of learners studied. One group was composed of

students whose native language had an alphabet similar to that of the

language being learned. The second group did not have a comparable

alphabet in their native language. Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) discovered

that students with a similar alphabet in their native language had a harder

time learning English than the group with no such comparable alphabet in

their native language.

The language transfer researched by Richards (1974) and Jakobovits

(1969) will be discussed at further length in section III.

III. Data Collection

The case study of this report is a thirty-one-year-old Japanese woman

named Tamako. Since Tamako had the opportunity to get acquainted with

an American family for about two years, a lot of data was compiled in the

form of observations of naturally occurring conversations and interviews.

For a few hours a day, she spent time with their children. One day she

- 182-

reported the following incident: a five-year-old girl was pretending to be an

English teacher and attempting to make everybody sit down. Since

Tamako and the other children were still playing noisily, the girl ordered

them to be quiet. Tamako still did not respond, so the girl spoke loudly,

"Didn't you hear what I said?" Tamako could not answer quickly since she

had misunderstood the girl's question. In other words, the American child's

question confused Tamako because of the way the child employed the use

of negation.

In addition to the observations and interviews, literature on this topic

was researched which revealed information relevant to Tamako's case.

Language transfer from Japanese to English is found in Tamako's errors.

Looking at negative copula sentences shows her negative patterns in data

collected during two years divided into three eight month stages.

Three major uses of negation are apparent (Table 1). The first sentence

type moves the negative particle (NEG) inside the sentence before the noun

phrase: (Table 1, # 1) "I am not an old woman." The second sentence type

employs the NEG between the copula and present participle: (Table 1, # 2)

"I am not swimming in the river. " The third sentence type positions the

NEG between copula and verb: (Table 1, # 3) "*I am not go school. " This

implies that it is possible that these patterns are developmental errors

because of over-generalization. Richards (1974:174) has referred to

Jakobovits' (1969:55) definition of generalization or transfer as "···the use

of previously available strategies in new situations. "

With verbs other than copula, there is only a small percentage of error

in negative patterns (Table 1, # 4-# 9); however, some such as double nega­

tives (Table 1, # 5; 1.9%, 0%, 0%) and ungrammatical answers to negative

questions (Table 1, # 7; 1.9%, 1.8%, 1.7%) still can be claimed as examples

of negative transfer from Japanese. For example, Tamako says, "*She

has not never seen the big ocean" and "*No, I do."

- 183-

In general, three primary aspects of transfer problems are evident.

First, double negation in Japanese is perfectly grammatical (Fujita, 1975:59).

Second, an answer in Japanese disagrees if it does not match the question

with respect to negativity. Thus, Japanese answer "Iya, yarimasu," ( *

No, I do) in responding to a negative question expresses positive disagree­

ment. Since Tamako understands the Japanese usage, she often transfers

elements of her native language into the speech pattern of the target

language. These two aspects of transfer problems are supported by the

strong version of contrastive analysis. Namely, the elements of English

TABLE 1

T AMAKO'S NEGATIVE PATTERN

Negation with copula 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage

(1) NP is not (ADJ/NP) 65.2% 71.4% 93.8%

(2) NP is not o V ( -ing/ -ed) 26.1 28.6 6.2

(3) * NP is not VP 8.7 0 0

Verbs other than copula 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage

(4) * Don't/ Aux-neg V-ed 5.3% 0 0

(5) * Don't/ Aux-neg Neg 1.9 0 0 (6) *No V-ing 1.9 0 0 (7) *No, NP VP 1.9 1.8 1.7 (8) *Don't VP 1.9 5.5 0

(9) * NP VP not NP 1.9 0 0

(10) Aux-neg 9.4 18.2 13.5

UD Analyzed don't 73.9 70.9 83.1

(12) NP VP that NP Neg VP 1.9 0 1.7

(13) NP Neg VP that NP VP 0 3.6 0

- 184-

which are different from Japanese are the most difficult for Tamako.

Third, the English morpheme of third person-singular-present is sometimes

omitted by Tamako since it has no equivalent in Japanese. This aspect of

difficulty is supported by the weak version of contrastive analysis. Namely,

it would be difficult for Tamako to remember points in English that had no

corresponding system in Japanese. For example, while she says, "He does

not study English well," she also says, "*He don't have any."

In order to analyze Tamako's errors, morpheme and word order in

Japanese ought to be compared with the English equivalent. In Japanese,

the negative particle (NEG) is placed at the end of verb stems as opposed to

the English "not" placed before the main verb. Thus, data collected during

two years indicate that a small percentage of Japanese structure is transfer­

red into English negative structures which Tamako produced, where she

placed "no" or "not" inappropriately (Table 1, # 3-# 9). This will be discussed

at further length in the following section.

N. Discussion

An analysis of the contrast between the surface structures of Japanese

syntax and their English equivalents may help to account for Tamako's

errors. We will be attempting to answer the following question. Specifi­

cally, what are the differences in the negative structures in Japanese and

English? This question allows us to examine and classify errors which

result from transfer of mother tongue grammar. Through study of both

languages by means of description, distinction, and comparison, it is pos­

sible to exemplify some difficulties for Japanese speakers when learning

English. The following is a review of the research on Japanese and English

use of negations.

- 185-

A. Description and Comparison in General

In changing positive statements into negation in Japanese sentences,

Tamako recognizes that the simplest way is to add the NEG after the main

verbs. Word order in Japanese negative sentences would be (S)-0-V-NEG­

Tense:

(1) (W atashi wa) eigo ga wakaranai.

= I do not understand English.

This word order follows the universal language. Dahl (1979:92) says that " ...

in language with dominant order SOV, and inflected auxiliary always

follows the main verb."

The negative sentence in English, on the other hand, is made by insert­

ing "not" or "n't" between the first auxiliary verb and the main verb: (2)

John (did not/ didn't) buy the book. This rule has exceptional cases in which

NEG appears after the main verb when the verb "be" (and "have" in

British English) is used as the main verb with no auxiliary verb:

(3) Tarou (is not/isn't) a good student.

(4) (British English) Tarou has not his book.

The previous paragraphs have demonstrated the basic rules in making

English and Japanese negative sentences. Upon further examination, a

clear distinction can be made between four predominant types of negation

for the purpose of contrastive analysis; the negative imperative sentence,

the negative interrogative sentence, the scope of the negative morpheme,

and the rightmost principle of negation.

- 186-

1. Negative Imperatives

The negation of imperative sentences in Japanese is accomplished by

adding the NEG "na" after the main verb. Thus, it is a simple pattern, just

as in English where the auxiliary verb "do" plus NEG ( "not" or "n't" )

is added at the beginning of the sentence.

(5a) Yukkuri hanase.

(5b) Yukkuri hanasuna.

2. Negative Interrogatives

= Speak slowly.

= Don't speak slowly.

In constructing the negative interrogative sentence, Japanese speakers

simply add the question marker "ka" at sentence-final position. Thus,

there is no change in the order of the elements within the verb phrase.

(6a) Kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasanai.

= She does not speak English well.

(6b) Kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasanai ka.

= Does she not speak English well?

The order of the elements within the verb phrase is clear if you compare the

declarative (6a) with the interrogative (6b).

In English, however, the NEG ("not" or"n't") appears after the auxiliary

verb except in those cases in which we have the main verb "be" or "have"

in British English. Thus, it depends whether the sentence is declarative or

interrogative. Compare the declaratives (7a) and (7b) with their respective

interrogatives (7c) and (7d):

(7a) She does not speak English well.

(7b) She doesn't speak English well.

-187-

(7c) Does she not speak English well?

(7d) Doesn't she speak English well?

Semantically, sentence ( "7c" and "7d" ) are slightly different as Cattell

(1969:107-108) points out:

When it is intended to stress the negation of the meaning of the

verb, the question inversion sometimes takes place without involv­

ing the word "not" : "Is John not going to the concert? "

In constructing the negative interrogative sentence in English, care

should be taken in dealing with syntactic and semantic aspects of the

sentence. Syntactically, an investigation should be made of the interaction

between negative sentences and negative interrogative sentences in terms of

the rules required and their ordering. For example, the first auxiliary verb

moves around the subject with the NEG. However, after we change the

declarative sentence into an interrogative sentence, it becomes impossible

to preserve the full form of the negative. Namely, there are some restric­

tions on whether a negative element may immediately follow the first

auxiliary verb in a question, as shown by the following examples:

(8a) (?Did not/Didn't) John buy the book?

(8b) Did John (not/ *n't) buy the book?

3. The Scope of Negative Morphemes

The scope of the negative morpheme in Japanese is very limited.

Consider the following examples.

- 188-

(9a) (W atashi wa) Naomi o utanakatta.

= I did not hit Naomi.

(9b) (Watashi wa) Arizona dewa Indian ni awanakatta.

=I did not meet an Indian in Arizona.

(9c) (Watashi wa) sono hon o kawanakatta.

= I did not buy the book.

(lOa)* (Watashi wa) sono hon o Arizona de kawanakatta.

=I did not buy the book in Arizona.

(lOb)* (Watashi wa) Tokyo de Indian ni awanakatta.

=I did not meet an Indian in Tokyo.

The scope of the negative morpheme in Japanese does not extend beyond

the verbal that immediately precedes it. Namely, the negative morpheme

negates only the verb. For example, only the verb stem "utu" (hit) in (9a)

falls under the scope of the negative morpheme "na" (not). Since the

sentence (9a) negates "utu" (hit), it is perfectly grammatical. In the

sentence (lOa) only the verb stem "kawu" (buy) falls under the morpheme

"na" (not). On the other hand, in this sentence the speaker does not focus

"kawu" (buy), but "Arizona de." Therefore, this is an ungrammatical

sentence. In order to avoid these ungrammatical sentences, Japanese use

"wa" for semantic constituent:

(11) Speaker A: *lya, sono hon o Arizona de kawanakatta.

=No, I did not buy the book in Arizona.

Speaker B: lya, sono hon wa Arizona de kawanakatta.

Speaker B responds that the speaker has not bought the book under

discussion, but has bought some other things.

Concerning the issue of the scope of negative morpheme, Kuno (1980:

-189-

161) forms his hypothesis:

Only the verbal that immediately precedes the negative morpheme

in Japanese falls under the scope of nagation except when there is

a quantifier in the sentence.

In English, the scope of negative morpheme is less limited than that of

Japanese. Namely, the scope of negative morpheme in English extends

beyond the verbal that immediately precedes it. For example, the sentence

"I did not buy the book in Arizona" has different meaning depending upon

the stressed constituent as follows:

(12a) She did not buy the book in Arizona.

=(NEG (She)) (NEG noun phrase)

(12b) She did not buy the book in Arizona.

=(NEG (the book)) (NEG noun phrase)

(12c) She did not buy the book in Arizona.

=(NEG (in Arizona)) (NEG ADV)

In written language, in contrast to speech, cleft sentences are employed in

order to indicate different meanings of (12a), (12b), and (12c) respectively, as

shown by the following examples:

(12a') It was not she that bought the book in Arizona.

(12b') It was not the book that she bought in Arizona.

(12c') It was not in Arizona that she bought the book.

4. The Rightmost Principle of Negation

The rightmost principle of negation is accepted as the same in both

- 190-

languages as Ross (1978:423) mentions:

It is significant that both Japanese and English must mark

nonrightmost constituents in order to indicate that they are targets

of NEG. The marking conventions differ, but the purpose is the

same. The rightmost principle of negation is the unmarked strat­

egy for the assignment of a target to NEG in both languages, and

a special convention is necessary to indicate deviation from this

strategy.

In Japanese the rightmost principle shows that the Neg-raising phenomenon

does not change meaning as it does in English.

(13) He thinks Ken will not be able to catch the train.

Kare wa Ken ga ressha ni maniawanai to omou.

= (NEG (the train)) (NEG noun phrase)

or =· (NEG (be able to catch the train)) (NEG verb phrase)

(14) He does not think Ken will be able to catch the train.

Kare wa Ken ga ressha ni maniau towa omowanai.

= (NEG (the train)) (NEG noun phrase)

or = (NEG (be able to catch the train)) (NEG verb phrase)

or = (NEG (think ... )) (NEG verb phrase)

Ross (1978:426) has also stated the following:

What is of interest is that the rightmost principle explains why

they are understood to be equivalent in meaning ... .In (14) it has a

third meaning not shared by (13), in which NEG refers to the

-191-

highest verb.

She continues:

... both assignments of the targets of NEG in (13) will be matched by

those in (14). Therefore, (13) is understood to be equivalent in

meaning to (14), despite the fact that NEG occurs in different

places in the two sentences. Of course this is just a partial explana­

tion of the Neg-raising phenomenon.

B. Specific Case-study Comparison

Several points are made clear through these observable data. Tamako,

an adult learner, has an ability to generate English negative sentences and

to analyze new grammatical categories. She understands how to employ

auxiliary verbs, and make negative sentences in spite of the fact that a long

period has passed since she studied English. Tamako's data suggests that

for adults who are learning ESL, native language grammatical categories

tend to function as a filter through which they analyze new information.

Second language learners, in other words, learn English structures accord­

ing to orders or strategies similar to their native languages. That is why

interference is inevitable in learning English.

This section is aimed at clarifying Tamako's language transfer errors

in regard to generating double negations, answers for negative questions

and answers for complex yes-no questions (tag-questions).

1. Double Negation

For example, Tamako makes mistakes by using double negative sen­

tences. It is not correct to use a double negative sentence in English. Double

negative sentences in Japanese, on the other hand, are accepted as grammat-

- 192-

ical sentences as Fujita (1975:59) has pointed out:

(E7c) *I don't think that it won't rain.

(J23c) Arne ga fura nai to wa omowa nai.

rain fall not that think no

(E7c) will be considered to be ungrammatical by most speakers of

English, whereas (J23c), which is the direct counterpart of (E7c), is

perfectly grammatical Japanese. In English, double negation is

usually prohibited, but in Japanese it is quite possible.

2. Answers for Negative Questions

Another instance is revealed as Tamako replies to negative questions.

It is very interesting to observe how Japanese react to the question "Doesn't

she speak English well? " The answer to the question would be "Iya,

kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasu" which means "*No, she speaks

English well. "

(15a) Iya, kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasu.

= *No, she speaks English well.

If she does not, the reply would be "Ee, kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasa

nai" which means "*Yes, she doesn't speak English well."

(15b) Ee, Kanojyo wa eigo o jyouzu ni hanasanai.

= *Yes, she doesn't speak English well.

These examples have demonstrated that the Japanese NEG "iya" is not

always translated into the English NEG "no" ; the same is true in the

relationship between Japanese "hai" (or "ee" ) and English "yes."

-193-

3. Answers for Complex Yes-no Questions (Tag-questions)

It is also possible to find the same phenomenon in complex yes-no

questions. Japanese speakers often have difficulties comprehending the

meaning of complex yes-no questions. Therefore, their responses are

inconsistent. Why does this happen? Is there any way to find a rule? For

example, it is very important to analyze the process of producing complex

yes-no questions, as shown by the following examples:

(16) Arizona wa samukunai nee.

= It is not cold in Arizona, is it?

(17a) Ee, samukunai yo.

= *Yes, it is not cold.

First, we can examine attached questions, such as "nee" or "ne" after

a main clause. What is said in the main clause does not affect whether this

attached question has a positive or negative meaning. In other words, this

inflectional ending alone does not contain any affirmative or negative

meanings. The attached question "nee" (or "ne" ) marks a rhetorical

question. When a speaker questions, "Arizona wa samukunai nee" which

means "It isn't cold in Arizona, is it?", Tamako simply disregards the status

and pays her attention to "samukunai" which means "not cold." If she

takes "not cold" as an answer, she must reply by saying "Ee, samukunai

yo" which means "*Yes, it is not cold." Therefore, the question sentence

should match the answer statement in using Japanese "hai" (or "ee" ).

This answer is used for an affirmative relationship, that is, agreeable.

Another possible answer to the question appears in Japanese. If an answer

does not match the question with respect to negativity, it should disagree by

replying "Iya, samui yo" which means "*No, it is cold. "

- 194-

(17b) Iya, samui yo.

= *No, it is cold.

In Japanese, "hai" (or "ee" ) and "iie" (or "iya" ) are used on the basis

of the relationship between the fact and the form of the preceeding stimulus

sentence, while, in English, "yes" and "no" are used on the basis of the

status of fact. Kuno (1973:273) has commented on a negative question:

To recapitulate, the Japanese "hai" is used for introducing a

negative-statement answer, and "iie" for introducing a positive­

statement answer, to a negative question when it is a neutral

question.

This is why Japanese answers to complex yes-no questions are different

from English. It is impossible to answer "(17b) *No, it is " in English;

only "Yes, it is" is acceptable. Kuno (1973:274) has stated, " ... what is at

issue here is not the presence or absence of the syntactic negative ... but the

presence of the semantic negative in questions." The use of "hai" (yes)

for introducing a negative statement answer, or the other way around,

depends upon the questioner's expectations. Kuno (1973:275) has said:

The issue then, is whether given a negative question, there are any

syntactic clues to distinguish a semantically neutral question from

one that contains the questioner's expectation of a positive answer.

Now for English, in contrast, we should investigate attached questions,

such as "do you?", "wasn't it?", "doesn't he? " or "has she?" after a

main clause. There are a number of characteristics that relate the attached

question to the main clause, and an adequate description of the attached

-195-

question requires a revealing characterization of what these are. It is

necessary to ask, therefore, what restrictions there are on the form of the

attached question, what the relationship between the attached question and

the main clause might be, and how to reply to complex yes-no questions.

Unlike Japanese, in English the attached question depends on what is said

in the main clause, whether this attached question has a positive or negative

meaning: "(18a) John is going to Tokyo tomorrow, isn't he?" or "(18b)

John isn't going to Tokyo tomorrow, is he?" It is interesting to observe that

while it is possible for there to be negation in either the attached question

or the main clause, it does not appear to be possible for there to be negation

in the attached question and the main clause simultaneously, as shown by

the following examples:

(19a) John bought the book, didn't he?

(19b) *Mary didn't sell the car, didn't she?

(19c) Mary didn't sell the car, did she?

Since "yes" and "no" are used on the basis of the status of fact, English

employs a different set of answers for negative complex yes-no questions

than Japanese does. When a question like " (19c) Mary didn't sell the car,

did she? " is given, an American would reply "Yes, she did" or "No, she

didn't."

Tamako replies naturally in her native language to any yes/no question

expressed negatively. However, due to crossing a linguistic boundary, she

has difficulties with the equivalent construction in English. It would appear

that in communicating, Tamako sets up certain expectations based on the

surface structure configurations which she is accustomed to. This may

cause her to miss certain important signals in the second language. This is

why Tamako could not answer quickly when the five-year-old girl who

-196-

pretended to be an English teacher asked the negative question. The

interference due to this might lead to a comprehension error, and affect her

communication ability. Therefore, this negation-pattern interference may

be a parameter for predicting communication difficulties in these two

languages.

V. Summary

Tamako had difficulties communicating well in English because she

came from a different linguistic background. These difficulties have been

revealed by collecting data and analyzing negation for the learner. The

following points were identified easy for a Japanese speaker to learn: the

basic English sentence, the imperative sentence, and the rightmost principle

in negation. On the other hand, the interrogative sentence in negation is

difficult for Japanese, since these negative strategies in Japanese are

different from those in English. Since Tamako crosses a linguistic bound·

ary, she makes mistakes by translating into English the answers she has

formed in her own linguistic form. By applying linguistic theory, this paper

has explored the possible explanations why a Japanese speaker has diffi­

culty learning the use of English negation.

- 197-

APPENDIX

EXAMPLES OF T AMAKO'S SPEECH

Negation with copula

(1) NP is not (ADJ/NP)

(2) NP is not V (-ing/-ed)

(3) *NP is not VP

Verbs other than copula

(4) *Don't/ Aux-neg V-ed

(5) *Don't/ Aux-neg Neg

(6) *No V-ing

(7) *No, NP VP

(8) *Don't VP

(9) *NP VP not NP

00) Aux-neg

I am not an old woman.

I am not swimming in the river.

*I am not go to school.

*He didn't got up early today.

*She has not never seen the big sea.

*She not swimming in the river.

*No, I do.

*He don't have any.

*They drink not water.

He cannot see it.

OU Analyzed don't He doesn't take a bath.

02) NP VP that NP Neg VP I think that I didn't sleep today.

03) NP Neg VP that NP VP I don't think I had a lunch.

Notes

*This is a revision of a research project in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts presented on July 23, 1984 at

Arizona State University. A special thanks to Dr. James W. Ney for his

scholastic leadership. Without his advice this paper would not exist.

- 198-

Bibliography

Bouton, Lawrence F. "The problem of Equivalence in Contrastive Analy­

sis." International Review of Applied Linguistics, 14 No.2(1976), 143-163.

Dahl, Osten. "Typology of Sentence Negation." Linguistics, 17 (1979), 79-106.

Di Pietro, Robert J. Language Structures in Contrast. Rowley Mass.:

Newbury House Publishers, 1971.

Fries, Charles C. Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language.

Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1945.

Fujita, Takemasa. "The Syntax of Negation in English and Japanese."

Association of Teachers of japanese, 10, No.1 (1975), 49-64.

Gas, Susan. "Language Transfer and Universal Grammatical Relations."

Language Learning, 29 (1979), 327-344.

Jakobovits, Leon A. A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Second-Language Learn­

ing and Bilingualism. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1969.

Kuno, Susumu. The Structure of the japanese Language. Mass.: The MIT

Press, 1973.

Lado, Robert. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Univer­

sity of Michigan Press, 1957.

Makino, Takayoshi. "Gengoshuutoku no Genzai : Rinkaikikasetsu to

Keitaiso Shuutoku J yunjyo Kenkyuu no Sonogo." The English

Teacher's Magazine, 41, No.7 (1992), 10-13.

Newmark, Leonard. "How not to Interfere with Language Learning."

International journal of American Linguistics, 32, No.1 (1966), 77-83.

Oller, John W. and Seid M. Ziahosseiny. "The Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis and Spelling Errors." Language Learning, 20 (1970), 183-191.

Richards, Jack C. "A Non-contrastive Approach to Error Analysis." English

Language Teaching, 25 (1971), 204-219.

-------. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisi-

-199-

tion. Ed. Jack C. Richards. London: Longman, 1974.

Ross, Claudia. "The Rightmost Principle of Sentence Negation." Chicago

Linguistic Society, 14 (1978), 416-429.

Stockwell, Robert P. "Contrastive Analysis and Lapsed Time." Report of

the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and

Language Studies, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1968.

Stockwell, Robert P. and Donald]. Bowen. "Sound Systems in Conflict: A

Hierarchy of Difficulty." In Second Language Learning, Ed. Betty

Wallace Robinett and Jacquelyn Schachter. Ann Arbor: The University

of Michigan Press, 1983, pp. 20-31.

Takayanagi, Fumie. "Structural Differences in Japanese and English Which

Affect Learning to Read. " TESL Studies, (1975), 115-121.

W ardaugh, Ronald. "The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis." TESOL

Quarterly, 4, No.1 (1970), 123-130.

Whitman, Ronald L. "Contrastive Analysis: Problems and Procedures."

Language Learning, 20 (1970), 191-197.

-200-