Title
The Transfer of Linguistic Phenomena in Learning English
Negation
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
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
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
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.
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
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."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 0which 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.
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.
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.
(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 goinvolv-ing 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.
(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.
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
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
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-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."
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. "
(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
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
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.
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.
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 BilLearn-ingualism. 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 EnglishTeacher'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.
Acquisi-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."
