Docstoc

_105_

Document Sample
_105_ Powered By Docstoc
					                           ‫جامعة بغداد‬



   ‫تطور تعلم بعض تراكيب النفي‬
‫واالستفهام للعراقيين متعلمي اللغة‬
      ‫اإلنكليزية- لغة اجنبية‬


‫رسالة مقدمة الى مجلس كلية التربية للبنات في جامعة بغداد وهي جزء من‬
  ‫متطلبات نيل شهادة الماجستير - اداب في اللغة االنكليزية وعلم اللغة‬




                     ‫تقدمت بها الطالبة‬
                  ‫لمى صبري دانيال بهورا‬

                             ‫بإشراف‬
                         ‫االستاذ الدكتور‬
                 ‫عبد اللطيف علوان الجميلي‬
   ‫شباط 1004 م‬                     ‫محرم 1426 هـ‬


             UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD



THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN NEGATIVE

 AND INTERROGATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS BY

    IRAQI ENGLISH FOREIGN LANGUAGE

                  LEARNERS


                    ATHESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION FOR WOMEN, UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD


         IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
       REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
     MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
                 AND LINGUISTICS
                       BY
          LUMA SABRI DANEIL BIHORA

                 SUBERVISED BY
      PROF. ABDULLATIF AL-JUMAILY
                   Ph.D.
FEBRUARY 2006A.D           MUHRAMM 1426 A.H




          To My Parents
 To my Brothers And Sisters
 ‫بسم األب واالبن والروح القدس‬
             ‫اإلله الواحد‬
                ‫آمين‬
             ‫قال يسوع المسيح (له المجد)‬
 ‫" هنيئا ً لِمنْ يَسمع كالم هللاِ ويعمل به"‬
  ‫ُ ِ‬            ‫ُ َ‬                    ‫َ‬
‫لوقا 11/28‬
Appendix C1
Appendix C2
Appendix A1
Appendix A2
Appendix B1
Appendix B2
     I certify that this thesis entitled(   The Development of Certain Negative

and Interrogative      Constructions    By Iraqi     English   Foreign   Language

Learners)   was prepared under my Supervision at the University of Baghdad
as a partial requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language
and Linguistics .




              Signature :

              Supervisor : Prof . Abduallatif AL- Jumaily



              Date :




    In view of the available recommendations, I forword this thesis for
debate by the Examining committee .




             Signature :

             Name :Asst. Prof. Shatha Al- Saadi.
         Head of the English Department

Date :
We certify that we have read this thesis and as Examining Committee examined the student in its
 content and that in our opinion it is adequate as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in the
                                                                 English Language and Linguistics.




Signature:                                                     Signature:

Name:                                                          Name:

Member                                                         Member




Signature:                                                     Signature:

Name:                                                          Name:

Member                                                         Chairman




       Approved by the Council of the College of Education for Woman .




                                           Signature:

                                           Name:
           Dean of the College
        Of Education For Woman



Date:
                                                                     I

                      ACKNOWLEDGMEMNTS

     I wish to express my thanks and gratitude to my
supervisor Prof. Abdul latif Al-jumaily for his guidance
and valuable     suggestions and providing me with
                     references all through this research.
        I’d like to thank all the jury members for their valuable
                              comments.
     Further thanks are due to the Head of the English
Department. Asst. Prof.Shatha. Al-Saadi and staff members in the
academic and M.A. Programm especially Miss Nawal Fadhil in
the English Dept. College of Education for Women and Dr.Dunya
A L.jazrawi/College of Arts/university of Baghdad.
       My thanks are also extended to the Head Mistress of
  the AL –Amael secondary school and UM AL Mumineen
        school and their students and second and third year
  college students in the English Dept. College of Education
                                                 for women.
               I am also indebted to Dr. Safa Tariq/College of Education /Ibn
 Rushed/university of Baghdad for his help in the statistical methods used in
                                                                   the work.

I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my dearest friend Zina Saatter for her
help and encouragement all through the research, and to my collegues.Zainab
Abdul-Kahder, Media Majeed,Abeer Hadi, Hind Muayad, Taiseer Fleih , Huda
Nahi, and Suha, for their warm friendships, advices, and their help in one way
                                                                    or another.

Thanks and gratitude are also extended to the librarians of the English
Departments at the college of Education , Arts, and special thanks are to Iqra’a
                                                                    Bookshop.
Finally , I wish to express my gratitude and indebtedness to my dearest
parents, my dear brothers and sisters for being tolerant and helpful during the
                                                     preparation of this work.
                                                                                                  II

                                           Abstract

      The present cross- sectional study attempts to investigate the order , if any , in which Iraqi
                              students acquire the English negative and interrogative structures.
                                                    The objectives of this study are to determine:

   1- the frequency with which the various types of auxiliary is used.
   2- what errors Iraqi learners make in forming English negative and
      interrogative constructions.
   3- in what areas these errors occur more frequently.
   4- the role the MT plays in the learning of these structures and, the
      developmental sequences, if any, of these structures in
      The sample of this study is(280) learners ,(100) second year intermediate
pupils, 100 fifth year secondary students, 40 second year college students 40
third year college students) are randomly chosen from different schools and
the College of Education for Woman. A diagnostic test in English is given to the
students who are required to form as many negative sentences and questions
as possible. Their responses are analysed by t- test in order to determine the
order of acquisition of the structure under investigation. Further more ,
Pearson’s correlation coefficient formula is used. Implicational analysis is also
carried out through the use of Guttman’s scale to find out whether the same
order is true on the individual level.

      Such an order of acquisition is supposed to reflect the learner’s natural
sequence incorporated into the interlanguage continuum which in turn reflects
the learner’s developmental stages towards the target language norm. The
continuum has been found to start at some simple basic structures , universal
in their characteristics ,with increase of complexity until the fully complex
system of target language is reached.
                                                                                                    III

       Through the test, the study also tries to discover which forms of the English negative and
       interrogative structures native speakers of Arabic find easy to acquire and which are not.

      The following are some of the conclusions of the research :

        1. An order for the acquisition of both negative and interrogative
            structures Be, Will , Do , Did , Does can be established. For instance
            , Be is acquired before Will which in turn comes before Do
            structures.
        2. The learners perform better in negation than they do in
            interrogation.
        3. The learners make less serious errors in Change and Translation
            tasks than they do in recognition and correction task.
        4. The learners start learning negation by inserting no in the beginning
            of the sentences before using the auxiliary Do- structure.
        5. Most of the students make more errors in “does” and “did” than
            they do in the copula and modal.
        6. Mother tongue interference is not the artifact of translation but is
            rather a result of the learner’s unfamiliarity with the structure
            involved.
      Consequently , these findings lead to the acceptance of the hypotheses
of the research which are as follows:

   1- Iraqi EFL learners of English fail to acquire fully the constructions
      of English negative and interrogative.
   2- The learning of these constructions is hierarchal through a
      continuum        of     increasing       complexity        approximating          the         TL
      constructions.
3- The route towards TL constructions ,i.e, the continuum, is similar
  to that of learners of English of different linguistic backgrounds,
  i.e., universal.
                                List of Tables
   Table N.                                                                            Page

 Table (2.1)                   Hypothetical production of Do, Did, Does inversion.      50

 Table (2.2)                                                    Learning strategies.    55

  Table(2.3)                 Processes and strategies in Creative language learning.    58

 Table (2.4)                     Various Taxonomies of communication strategies.        64

 Table (3.1)                  Development of Negative sentences child language.         78

  Table(3.2) Development of Negation in German as a first language and second           89
                                                         language for children.

  Table(3.3)                                     The Development of the Negative.       90

  Table(3.4)                  Some Intermediate steps in Acquisition of Negation.       92

Table(5.1)A                                     Acquirers of Negation in the study.    116

Table (5.1)B                             Acquirers of yes-no questions in the study.   116

 Table (5.2) Statistical Differences Among The four Groups in Acquiring the            119
                                       Grammatical items Be, will , Do, Does, Did.

Table(5.3) A Statistical   Differences   between Negative and Interrogative            122
                                             constructions Be, Will, Do, Does, Did.

Table( 5.3)B Statistical Differences between Negative and Interrogative in             124
                        Acquiring Be, MoD, Do, Does, Did. In All Group in All Tasks.

Table (5.4)A Statistical Differences Among the Three Tasks in Acquiring the            126
                                              Auxiliary Be, MoD, Do, Does, Did.

Table(5.4)B                     Pearson correlation coefficient between the Tasks.     131

 Table (5.5) Statistical Differences Among the Negative and Interrogative              134
                                                              structures.

Table (5.6)A Pearson correlation coefficient in Grammatical Items Be, Will, Do,        136
                                                                     Did, Does.
   Table N.                                                                           Page

Table (5.6)B         Pearson Correlation Coefficient in Negative and Interrogative.   138

Table (5.6)C Coefficient of Reducibility of Scales on Be, Modal, Do Support in        140
                                                                     negative.

Table (5.6)D Coefficient of Reducibility of scales on Be, Model, Do support in        140
                                                                 Interrogative.

Table (5.7)A Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in Tr. in     141
                                                                      negative.

Table (5.7)B Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in Tr. in     142
                                                                  interrogative.

Table (5.8)A Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in RC. in     143
                                                                      negative.

Table(5.8)B Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in RC. in      144
                                                                 interrogative.

Table (5.9)A Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in            145
                                                       negation in Ch. Task.

Table (5.9)B Implication Table for the sequence Be, Modal , Do, support in            146
                                                    interrogative in Ch. Task.

Table(5.10)            A Breakdown of the Developmental stages of Interrogation.      158




                              List of Figures
Figure N.                                                              Page

   (2.1 )         Language Acquisition Device Extended to second.       27

    (2.2)         A model of Adult Second Language Performance.         36

    (2.3)                        Operation of The “Affective Filter”    38

    (2.4)             First Language Influence in Second Language.      39

    (2.5)                       A schematization of Interlanguage.      42

    (2.6)   A Developmental Continuum of Increasing Complexity.         46

    (2.7)   First Language Acquisition and Interlanguage Continua.      46

   (5.1)A              Performance of the Students in Negative and     118
                                                 Interrogative Be.

  (5.1) B              Performance of the Students in Negative and     121
                                               Interrogative Will.

  (5.1)C1              Performance of the Students in Negative and     123
                                                Interrogative Do.

  (5.1)C2              Performance of the Students in Negative and     125
                                               Interrogative Does.

  (5.1)C3              Performance of the Students in Negative and     133
                                                Interrogative Did.

    (5.2)   The Build up of the Interlanguage Continuum for Syntax     154
                                                      of Negation

    (5.3)   The Build up of the Interlanguage Continuum for Syntax     157
                                                   of Interrogation.
                        LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMOBOLS



BSM Bilingual Syntactic Measures.

  CS Communication Strategies.

 Ch Change Task.

 EFL               English as a foreign Language .

 ESL               English as a second Language.

FLA                   First Language Acquisition .

  L1                                First language.

  L2                             Second Language.

LAD Language Acquisition Device .

 MT Mother tongue .

 NL Native Language..

SLA                Second Language Acquisition.

  TL                             Target Language.

 Tr.                             Transition Task.

R&C        Recognition Task and Correction Task.

 UG                          Universal Grammar.
    Table 9 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                 by Environment at 10 % Intervals
Turn Task (3)            G=1              n=100

                               2nd year intermediate



Performance     Modals         Copula        Do         Did      Does       P.C.

   Level        In Mod           In        In Do       In Did   In Does   Total
                                Be

   0-9%           2              0           63         60        70        5%

  10-19%          0              0           0           0        0         1%

  20-29%          13             0           14         16        10        7%

  30-39%          0              4           0           0        0         11%

  40-49%          0              7           0           0        0         41%

  50-59%          4             11           12         10        8         18%

  60-69%          0             12           0           0        0         6%

  70-79%          40            24           5           7        7         2%

  80-89%          0             20           0           0        0         2%

 90-100%          41            22           6           7        5         7%
   Table 10 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=2        n=100
                                      th
                                     5 year secondary

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         1        0       15      13        19        3%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        1        0       17      10        7         0%

  30-39%        0        1       0        0        0         1%

  40-49%        0        0       0        0        0         10%

  50-59%        8        3       21      23        9         8%

  60-69%        0        8       0        0        0         11%

  70-79%        15      13       19      23        25        10%

  80-89%        0       18       0        0        0         30%

 90-100%        75      57       28      31        40        27%
   Table 11 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=3         n=40
                                   nd
                                  2 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         2        0       11       7        8         0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        3        1       8        5        8         3%

  30-39%        0        1       0        0        0         4%

  40-49%        0        3       0        0        0         2%

  50-59%        8        4       5       10        5         5%

  60-69%        0        2       0        0        0         9%
  70-79%        5        8       10       8        8         3%

  80-89%        0        9       0        0        0         5%

 90-100%        22      12       6       10        11        9%




   Table 12 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=4         n=40
                                   nd
                                  2 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         0        0       3        4        5         0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         1%

  20-29%        0        0       4        1        2         1%
  30-39%           2             1            0            0    0    1%

  40-49%           0             2            0            0    0    0%

  50-59%           1             1            3            5    3    3%

  60-69%           0             1            0            0    0    1%

  70-79%           1             0            13           8    5    4%

  80-89%           0             2            0            0    0    3%

  90-100%         36             33           17           22   25   26%




     Table 9 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                  by Environment at 10 % Intervals
Change into negative Task (3)         G=1          n=100

                                2nd year intermediate
Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         24       6       85      98        97        11%

  10-19%        0        3       0        0        0         16%

  20-29%        11       6       10       0        2         14%

  30-39%        0       15       0        0        0         11%

  40-49%        0        6       0        0        0         28%

  50-59%        9        9       2        0        0         11%

  60-69%        0        6       0        0        0         7%

  70-79%        13      16       1        0        0         0%

  80-89%        0       13       0        0        0         0%

 90-100%        43      20       2        2        1         0%
   Table 10 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
                 Ch.Task (3)    G=2        n=100
                                      th
                                    5 year secondary

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         7        1       36      35        25        0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        4        4       16      18        11        4%

  30-39%        0        0       0        0        0         8%

  40-49%        0        6       0        0        0         20

  50-59%        5        5       13      15        16        9%

  60-69%        0        9       0        0        0         16%

  70-79%        16      12       19      12        15        7%

  80-89%        0       23       0        0        0         16%

 90-100%        68      40       16      20        33        20%
   Table 11 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
                 Ch. Task (3) G=3          n=40
                                   nd
                                  2 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         1        0       5        4        5         0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        0        0       5        5        1         1%

  30-39%        0        1       0        0        0         0%

  40-49%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  50-59%        5        0       3       10        4         5%

  60-69%        0        4       0        0        0         7%

  70-79%        2        8       18      13        14        1%

  80-89%        0        9       0        0        0         17%

 90-100%        32      18       9        8        16        9%
                         Change into Negative

   Table 12 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
                 Ch. Task (3) G=4          n=40
                                   rd
                                  3 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         0        0       0        2        1         0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        0        0       1        0        2         0%

  30-39%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  40-49%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  50-59%        1        1       8        9        1         1%

  60-69%        0        1       0        0        0         2%

  70-79%        1        1       12       8        7         4%
80-89%    0    4    0    0    0    7%

90-100%   38   33   19   21   29   26%
                                  CONTENTS

                                                               Page
                      List of Abbreviations                      XI
List of Tables                                          XII

List of Figures                                         XIII




CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION

1.1      The Problem                                     1

1.2      Aims                                            3

1.3      Hypotheses                                      3

1.4      The procedure                                   4

1.5      The limits                                      4

1.6      Significance                                    5

1.7      Background Information                          6

1.7.1    The Pedagogical sequence of the structures      7

1.7.2    Some important Definition                       7

1.8      Negation In English                             8

1.8.1    Negation in Arabic                             12

1.8.2    Comparison of Negation in English and Arabic   16
1.9       Questions in English                            17

1.9.1     Questions in Arabic                             18

1.9.2     Comparison of Questions in English and Arabic   19

1.10      The Structure of the Thesis                     21



CHAPTER TWO-THE THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
2           Introduction                                  23

2.1         Theories of Second Language Acquisition       23

2.1.1       Universal Hypothesis                          25

2.1.2       The Monitor Model                             31

2.1.2.1     Acquisition Vs. Learning Hypothesis           31

2.1.2.2     The Natural order Hypothesis                  33

2.1.2.3     Input hypothesis                              34

2.1.2.4     The Monitor Hypothesis                        36

2.1.2.5     The Affective Filler Hypothesis               37

2.1.3       The Interlanguage Hypothesis                  41

2.2         The Interlanguage continuum                   45

2.3         Implicational analysis                        48

2.4         Strategies of learning and communication      52

2.4.1       Process , style , and , strategy              52
 2.4.1.1     Learning strategies                                 53

 2.4.1.2     Communication strategies                            61

 2.4.1.2.1   Defining commutation strategies                     61

 2.4.2.2     Interlingual Transfer                               67

 2.4.2.3     Intralingual Transfer                               69

 2.4.2.4     Context of learning                                 70

 2.4.25      Avoidance                                           71

 2.5         Morpheme order Study                                72



 CHAPTER THREER-EVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
3.1              Introduction                                     75

3.2              Related Studies In Negation and Interrogation   75

3.2.1            Klima and Bellugi Study                         77

3.2.1.2          Norwegian Speakers                              81

3.2.1.3          Spanish Speakers                                83

3.2.1.4          Japanese Speakers                               87

3.2.1.5          German Speakers                                 88

3.2.1.6          Arabic Speakers                                 89

3.2.1.6.1        Hanian( 1974) and Nielsen (1974)                89

3.2.1.6.2        Al-Jumaily (1982)                               93
3.2.1.6.3         Al-Ani (1995)                          94

3.2.1.6.4         Al-Wayis (2000)                        95

3.2.7             Research in English Interrogative      97

3.2.7.1           Al-Fadil (1986)                        97

3.2.7.2           Abdul-Raheem (1995)                    99

3.3               General Discussion                     99




            CHAPTER FOUR- DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST

4.1         The sample of the study                       101


4.2         Cross – sectional us. Longitudinal studies    102


4.3         Elicitation Procedures                        103


4.3. 1      Techniques for collecting Textual Data        104


4.3.1.1     Direct Translation                            104


4.3.1.2     Recognition and correction                    106


4.4         The Pilot Test                                108


4.5         The Tasks                                     109


4.5.1       The Recognition and Correction (RC)Task       109


4.5.2       The Translation (Tr.) Task                    110
4.5.3   The Change Task                               111


4.6     The Adminstration of the Test                 111


4.7     Statistical Procedures                        112


4.8     The Criteria For Assessment                   113


        Notes related to Ch. Four                     114




CHAPTER FIVE -DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
5.1            Overall Performance                   115
5.2            Determination of Variation            117
5.2.1          Performance by Task                   117
5.3            Implicational Analysis                139
5.4            Variable rules                        147
5.5            Hypothesis No.2                       148
5.6            Hypothesis No.3                       158
5.7            Error Analysis                        161
5.8            Error in negative                     162
5.8.1          Error –Type one: interlingual Error   162
5.8.2          Error type two : Intralingual Error   163
5.8.3          Context of Learning                   164
5.9            Errors in Interrogative               165
5.9.1          Interlingual Errors                   165
5.92           Intralingual Errors                   166
5.9.3          Context of learning                   167
5.10           Strategies Employed                   168
  5.10.1           Risk- avoidance strategies                            168
  5.10.1.1         Topic Avoidance                                       168
  5.10.2           Risk –taking Strategies                               168
  5.10.2.1         Conscious Transfer (borrowing)                        168
  5.11             The role of the Mother Tongue                         170




                                                                    CHAPTER SIX


6.1                                 Conclusion                         173



6.2
                                      Pedagogical Implications        175

6.3          Recommendation                                            176



6.4          Suggestions For Further Research                          176



                                                                       178
                                                     Bibliography
                                      Appendices
Appendix A1:    Translation task in negative.                                           194

                Recognition and correction task.                                        196

                Change task in negative.                                               197




Appendix A2:    Translation Task in interrogative.                                      199

Appendix :      Recognition and correction task in interrogative.                        201

                Turn Task in interrogative.                                            203




Append
 ix :B1
  (Table 1) :   The overall performance in Negation . 2 nd year intermediate pupils.          206

  (Table 2 ):    The overall performance in Negative 5 the year secondary.                    210

  (Table3):      The overall performance in negation 2nd year college students.               214

  (Table 4):     The overall performance of third year college student in negation.           216




Appendix B2:

  (Table 1):    The overall performance of second year intermediate                    218

                pupils in interrogative .

  (Table2):     The overall performance of fifth year secondary students in interrogative.
                222
 (Table 3) :    The overall performance of 2nd year college students in interrogative.
                226

 (Table 4 ):    The overall performance of 3rd year college students in interrogative.
                228




AppendixC1:

 (Table 1):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      230

                 at 10 % intervals in Tr. Task.2nd year intermediate.

 (Table 2):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      231

                at 10 % intervals 5th year secondary.

 (Table 3):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      232

                 at 10 % intervals in 2nd year college.

 (Table 4):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      233

                 at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college.

 (Table 5):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      234

                 at 10 % intervals . 2nd year pupils intermediate. In RC Task.

 (Table 6):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      235

                 at 10 % intervals 5th year secondary students.

 (Table 7):     Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment      236

                at 10 % intervals . 2nd year college. students. in RC Task

 (Table 8):    Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment       237
              at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college students. in RC Task

(Table 9):    Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment        238

              at 10 % intervals 2nd year intermediate pupils in Ch. Task

(Table 10):   Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment        239

              at 10 % in intervals 5th year student. Ch. Task.

(Table 11):   Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment        240

              at 10 % intervals 2nd year college students. in Ch. Task

(Table 12):   Frequency Distribution of scores in Negation by Environment        241

              at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college students. in Ch. Task




Append
 ix C2
(Table (1):   Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   242

              at 10 % intervals 2nd year intermediate in Tr. Task

(Table (2):   Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   243

              at 10 % intervals 5th year secondary in Tr. Task

(Table 3):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   244

              at 10 % intervals in 2nd year college.

(Table 4):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   245

              at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college.

(Table 5):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   246
              at 10 % intervals . 2nd year pupils intermediate. In RC Task.

(Table 6):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment    247

              at 10 % intervals 5th year secondary students.

(Table 7):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment    248

              at 10 % intervals . 2nd year college. students. in RC Task

(Table 8):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment    249

              at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college students. in RC Task




(Table 9):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment    250

              at 10 % intervals 2nd year intermediate pupils in Ch. Task

(Table 10):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   251

                at 10 % in intervals 5th year student. Ch. Task.

(Table 11):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   252

                at 10 % intervals 2nd year college students. in Ch. Task

(Table 12):    Frequency Distribution of scores in interrogation by Environment   253

               at 10 % intervals in 3rd year college students. in Ch. Task




                              Abstract in Arabic
                                                                     254
Chapter One
                                  Introduction

1.1 The Problem

         Success in English has been the most elusive goal for Iraqi
students to attain. It is not meant by success here that of passing
examination and moving up the school ladder, though failure in English
examinations has brought about disappointment to lots of students
and resulted in great waste in the form of school drop outs who have
despaired of crossing the seemingly uncrossable barrier of English
examinations. What is meant by success is the final attainment ,how far
the objectives of teaching English in Iraq have been fulfilled. It is well-
known that even the most successful students, if examination results
are to be considered as reliable indicators of overall competence in the
target language (TL, henceforth), fail to pass the easiest of proficiency
tests.

   We have always been led to believe, whether teachers or students,
that this is so because of the great differences between the TL and the
mother tongue (MT , henceforth ) of the students, i.e., Arabic. "In the
area of grammar, an Arab student tends to construct English sentences
by literally translating Arabic words into English and using the same
number of words in the same order" (Nasr,1965:2). As teachers and
syllabus writers we have been taught that" for more effective, more
satisfactory, and more successful English teaching, both English and
Arabic    linguistic   features   must   [emphasis   mine]   be   analysed   and
compared. The analysis and comparison serve two major purposes:
   1- as a guide to teachers, and
   2- as a basis for preparing textbook materials"(Ibid)
  Although such a contrastive approach to language teaching came
under attack as far as the late sixties, the belief in it remained        deeply
rooted   in   Iraq.      Thus,   Al-Hamash   (1978)   writes,   "such   books[the
textbooks] need to be based on contrastive studies of the foreign
language (FL, henceforth) and the native language. Thus, the text-book
for Arabic- speaking pupils should not [emphasis mine] be the same as
those for speakers of other languages". This belief, coupled with other
factors such as war and sanctions resulted in a situation where the
same syllabus was applied for over thirty years with only superficial
changes. Change only started in 2003 and has stopped at Book 2 of the
series of eight books.

  So, is it a fact that when Arabic-speaking students produce English
they actually produce MT structures using English lexical items?. Are
the non-target like structures produced by Arab students all mother-
tongue-like structures?          And consequently, do Arab students develop
target-like-structures in a way different from other language speakers?
And finally how far do Arab students succeed in developing target-like-
structures at the end of their TL learning programme?

  Another phenomenon that has frustrated teachers of second and
foreign languages everywhere is that of regression or backsliding . Why
is it that a student seems to produce a target-like structure and seems
to forget it later? Is this actually backsliding or part of a learning
progress the learner employs for testing hypotheses about the TL? We
feel that finding answers to these questions will contribute towards a
better understanding of how English is learned in Iraq. Pervious
research in this area, as will be evident below, has been fragmented
and   incomprehensive.     Thus,     this   research   will   contribute   to   the
completion of the full picture of       the learning progress in the structures
under investigation.




1.2 Aims

  The present research aims at studying the acquisition of English
negative and interrogative to determine:

   5- the frequency with which the various types of auxiliary is used.
   6- what errors Iraqi learners make in forming English negative and
      interrogative constructions.
   7- in what areas these errors occur more frequently.
   8- the role the MT plays in the learning of these structures and ,
   9- the developmental sequences, if any, of these structures in an EFL
      context.



1.3 Hypotheses

  For the realization of the aims stated above the following hypotheses
are postulated:

   4- Iraqi EFL learners of English fail to acquire fully the constructions
      of English negative and interrogative.
  5- The learning of these constructions is hierarchal through a
        continuum          of    increasing    complexity    approximating     the   TL
        constructions.
  6- The route towards TL constructions ,i.e, the continuum, is similar
        to that of learners of English of different linguistic backgrounds,
        i.e., universal.
1.4. The Procedures

         The study falls in to two sections : a theoretical background and an
   experimental section. The theoretical background includes the following:
  1. Theories of second language acquisition which appear lobe relevant to
        the factors that influence the process of learning L2.
  2. A survey of related studies in negation and interrogation .
  3. The empirical section includes a description and explanation of :
           1. A sample of the Iraqi English students who are chosen from
               intermediate , secondary school and college of Education for
               woman, university of Baghdad.
           2. A diagnostic test which is setup to verify the hypothesis above.
           3. Analysis of results and finding of the test using the relevant
               statistical techniques.
           4. Putting forward recommendations based on the results of the
               research.



1.5 The limits

  The     research     is       limited   to   the   study   of   negation   using   the
construction auxiliary + not. The auxiliaries involved are will, be and do
in its all three variables. , "will" is the only modal auxiliaries selected
because the other modals are not syntactically relevant but are used to
express shades of meaning beyond the level of most of the subjects of
the research. In the area of interrogative only yes-no questions are
selected using the same auxiliaries above. This is done in order to
concentrate on auxiliary inversion only without adding any more
problems for the subjects of the research.

  The rationale for the selection of these two structural aspects of
English is that, according to experienced teachers of English, these are
major problematic areas for Arabic-speaking learners of English. Very
few Iraqi students master the use of this structure at the end of their
English study . What also makes it an attractive area to investigate is
the great amount of research carried out in it. (see        below). This offers
an excellent opportunity to compare our findings with those of
researchers who have studied speakers of other languages.

  A third, but decisive factor in determining the choice of       structures is
that they are introduced very early in the school syllabus which enables
us to get the pupils at a very early stage of learning English. (See 1.7
below)

  As far as the subjects of the research are conserned , the sample is
going to cover a wide cross-section of the English language learner
population. The study will be restricted to second year intermediate
pupils and fifth year secondary school students. As for university
students, students of second year and third year at the Dept of English
at the College of Education for Women, the university of Baghdad are
selected, Needless to say, all the sample consists of female students.
This is felt to be of no significance since sex is not a factor to be
considered in the research.




1.6 Significance

  The results of the research are hoped to be of significance to all
those involved in English teaching learning process in Iraq starting with
the pupils through to the syllabus designers. Thus, pupils, students,
teachers, text-book writers and syllabus designers will benefit from the
research. The study is also hoped to be advantageous to prospective
researchers in applied linguistics since it will pave the way to further
research in other areas of English on the same tenets followed in this
research.




1.7 Background Information

  Explanation of the following areas and terms are to be essential for
providing necessary information and avoiding misunderstanding.




1.7.1 The Pedagogical Sequence of the Structures

  The following information will be of importance later in the analysis
in order to find out whether the learning of structures correlates with
their order in the input or not, since the text-book is the only access for
the learning of English. It is also worth noting that the English main
course for general education in Iraq consists of eight books The New
English Course In Iraqi(NECI) , the first two for the primary school, three
for the intermediate school, and three for the preparatory school. Both
intermediate and preparatory make up the secondary school.

  The    negative    and    interrogative     structures   of    the   copula   are
introduced and drilled in Book One. Actually, the copula is fully
introduced and intensively drilled before the end of the first half of the
pupils' first year of English. The order of introduction of the structures
in the pupils' text-book is as follows:

copula + neg +NP             Book One Unit Two

copula + neg + Adj           Book One       Unit Three

copula + neg +Locative        Book One Unit Nine

do + neg + MV                Book Two from unit fifteen and on

does + neg + MV

did + neg + MV

Form the question by using the Copula        Book Four unit three

Form the question by using the Aux do       Book Four unit eight , eighteen.

Form the question by using the Aux does      Book Four unit eight

Form the question by using the Aux did       Book Four unit sixteen

Form the question by using the Aux will     Book Four unit seventeen




        This means that all the forms of do are introduced during the
pupils' second year of English. The modals will , shall, can and must are
all introduced in Book Three in their order here. It might be useful to
point out that following the introduction of do and as soon as does is
introduced the whole emphasis shifts onto does                                                                which is then
intensively drilled with barely a mention of do.




1.7.2 Some Important Definitions

  1- Student / pupil.                       The term pupils in this research is restricted to
the second year intermediate subjects of the research when reference
is made to them specifically.

Students is used to refer to the subjects of the other three groups,
namely, fifth year secondary school / and second and third years
university subjects. The term is also used when the whole subjects of
the research are involved. This selection was based upon consultations
with experts at the departments of Education and Psychology at the
Colleges of Education, University of Baghdad.




1.8 Negation in English
 Most linguists have agreed that negation is a process or construction in grammatical and semantic analysis which typically expresses
    the contradiction of some or all of a sentence’s meaning so as to deny or exclude its normal meaning , i.e. its proposition. Briefly
                                         speaking Quirk et al. (1999 : 775) distinguished three types of syntactic negation, these are :




   1. Clause negation :deals with main verb negation and auxiliary verb
         negation , e.g. they did not go to school.
   2. Local negation : negates a word or phrase without negating the whole
         clause , e.g :
                                 in some ways 
   They are not unhappy boys 
                                                
                                                 
                                 in any respect 



   3. Predication negation : is a minor type of negation applying only after
      certain auxiliary in which the predication is negated e.g. They may go
      swimming.
           ( = they are allowed not go swimming ) (Quirk , et al. , 1999 : 797 )
      Negation in English is realized by placing the negative morpheme “no” or
“not” after the first auxiliary verb. In the absence of an auxiliary , an auxiliary
verb is supplied before the negator in the form of “do” according to tense and
subject NP when the verb is in the present. The negative imperative is formed
by using the negative morpheme “not” with “do” followed by a verb-phrase.
The negative morpheme is connected with the auxiliary “be” , with “be” as a
copular verb , and with have as an auxiliary and sometimes as a main verb. (
Aziz : 1989 : 233)

      The negative sentences have not inserted after a sentence (he is a
doctor ) , after a modal (John will leave now)or after the have that is
immediately dominated by Aux (John has gone home).

      If none of these elements occurs , the not is preceded by the proper
form of do. Sentence (e.g. John has a car) indicates that for negatives , as for
questions , the full verb have ( the one dominated by VP) functions like other
full verb rather than like the prefect marker have (the one dominated Aux). The
do inserted in sentences (e.g John does not like apple) and (Jone did not read
the book) will be taken care of by Do inserted so all we have to do is put the
not in the correct place : (Thomas & Kintgen 1974 : 189)

Neg (oblig)
Neg – Np – Tn (Aux1) – X  NP-Tn (Aux1) + not X Aux1 =

M ; be ; have dominated by Aux.

        The Ng is a sentence modifier that serves a function similar to the
sentence modifier wh.: (1) it tells the semantic component that the deep
structure is one for a negative ,and (2) it ensures that the string goes through
the negative transformation and thus has a not inserted in the correct place.
For example.

   1.   not they present will leave to morrow
                              S

                   SM                Nuc

                             NP                     VP



                           N P1              Aux    MV   Time



                                     Tense      M

                   Not
                      Figure (1.1)
                                A-not she present to be happy




       S

SM           Nuc

      NP                   VP



      N            Aux              MV



Not               Tense        Be           Ap



              Present




          Figure (1.2)A



              S



             Nuc

      NP                  VP
N          Aux              MV



         Tense         Be        not   Ap

She

       Present                         Adj



                       Is        Not happy




      Figure (1.2 )B
 So the rule forming negative sent. with the negative particle. Not is this :
   The negative particle not is placed immediately after the
    auxiliary that carries the tense (i.e. the first auxiliary).
                                           Robert (1997:141)
Ex: John will not leave to London tomorrow .



                                                  S



                                                Nuc



                                NP                                     VP



                       N                  P1          Aux               Mv time



                                         tens M                 not
                                           e


                                      present will                          V adv


                     They                           will       not       leave        tomorrow


                                                   Figure (1.3)
          In negative sentences with , auxiliary do is required carry the tense in the absence of any other auxiliary for example

Ex: John did not read the book .
                           S

                                  predp
             SM                                Vp

                          NP     Aux

                                        Vred             Np



                Neg.     John    Past                 Book        (Neg.)


                                  Figure (1.4)
John + past + not + read + book [4Def]  ( do insert + [Def] )

     John + past + do + not + read + book +(Def)  (Affix)
John did not read the book .



1.8.1 Negation In Arabic.

      In discussing negation in Arabic , we are going to deal only with surface
syntax of the sentences , as the learner sees them , i.e. the actual realization of
the Arabic sentences in their final form as the learner would have written them
or as they would be introduced to him , rather than getting involved with
complex explanations of the relationships between the constituents in the
underlying structure .

      The Arabic negator in an exclusive way occurs before the verb , that is
whenever there is a verb in the surface syntax and since the verb is usually at
the beginning of the sentence the negative operator is usually in sentence-
initial position . In addition to functioning as a negator the morpheme also
serves as tense carrier . This is so since the verb form that follows the negator
is usually the form used to denote the imperfect                 ( present ) which makes it
in a way similar to English in this respect .

        The negative morphemes can be displayed in this way :

                           Tense




                 Perfect ( past )          Iam

Neg +

                 Imperfect ( present )            Ia

                            ( future )           Ian *




        * There is an alternative form for negation of the future which is similar
        to the English form .

                                    Sawfa la = will not ( shall not )

        e.g. :

        1. la Yaktubu L- waladu

                     neg      imperf
                                                  Write-(he) the-boy

                              present




                        The boy does not write .
2. lam Yaktubi L-waladu

          neg        perfect
                                     Write-(he) the-boy

                     past




            The boy did not write .

3. lan Yaktuba L-waladu

          neg        imperf
                                     Write-(he) the-boy

                     future




            The boy will not write

4. sawfa la Yaktubu L-waladu




            will neg write –(he) the –boy

            the boy will not write.

5. la naktubu




          neg        imperf
                                     We - write

                     present




                we do not write .
         6. lam aktub




                    neg        perfect
                                               I – write

                               past




                        I did not write .

           Arabic has no auxiliary , therefore the negation of the past form of
         the copula is treated in the same way as those of the other verbs .
e.g. lam yakun tilmidhan

                    neg        perfect
                                               He-cop pupil

                               past            Imperf form




                        He was not a pupil .

         ( Notice how the form “kana = was –he “ has taken the form “ yakun =he
         –cop “ which is the imperfect form of the verb used only in negation and
         in the future after “sawfa” ) .

         As in English the imperative form of the negation is done by placing the
negator before the verb . The morpheme used is the same one used for
negating the present so is the form of the following verb .

e.g. :
         1. la taktub
         neg ( imperative ) you – write
                            ( singular )

      Don’t write . ( singular addressee )

This sentence in the written form is the same as the sentence meaning “ she
does’t write “ . The ambiguity can be avoided if the vowel that has to be at the
end of the verb for inflection “u” is realized .

      La taktubu = she doesn’t write .

      2. la taktubu
      neg ( imperative ) you – write

                            ( plural )

      Don’t write . ( plural addressee )

      3. la taktubi
      neg ( imperative ) you write

                            singular – feminine

      don’t write . ( singular feminine addressee )

      4. la takun kasulan
      neg ( imperative ) you – cop lazy

                            sing . imperf.

      Don’t be lazy .

      In equational sentences special negative copulas are used

      ( lays – and –las-) . This negative construction is used only in equational
  clauses and nowhere else in the language . The negative copula is placed at
       the beginning of the statement with the appropriate inflection for the
          nominal that follows it or the implied NP when the it is a pronoun .
      e.g. :

               1. laysa l-waladu thakiyyan
                  cop L neg the – boy clever

                  The boy is not clever .

               2. lastu thakiyyan
                  cop L neg –I clever

                  I am not clever .

               3. lasta thakiyyan
                  cop L neg – you clever

                                sing. Male

                  You are not clever .

               4. lastum ‘ athkiya’
                  cop L neg – you clever .

                               plural male

                  You are not clever .

      ( Notice the inflection of the adjective for number )

      The translation system of Arabic alphabet used here is that of the
Encyclopedia Britannica (2001) .

1.8.2 Comparison of Negation in English and Arabic :
The following points show the basic differences between the two languages in
this respect :

   1. While English has only one negative particle (i.e., only Not is used in
      English to negate the verb phrase ) , Arabic has five , namely , /“lam” ,
      “lan” , “laa” , “maa” , and “laysa”.
   2. Further more , Not introduces only the negative concept , while some
      negative particles in Arabic such as / lam / and /lan / also indicate the
      time reference of the negated verb .
   3. In English , Not is placed after the first or only Aux in the VP , while in
      Arabic counterparts the negative particle is placed before the first or the
      only verb in the verb phrase .
   4. The introduction of the auxiliary do is required in English to negate verb
      phrases with full verbs only ( other than be ) while in the Arabic
      counterparts the negative particle is placed before the verb without
      introducing any new item to the phrase .
   5. In Arabic nominal sentences , the negative particle is usually placed
      before the whole sentence , whereas in the English counterpart ( i.e. ,
      sentences with be as a full verb) not is placed after be .
      However , even those Arabic sentences that have the full verb / kaana /
      differ from the English counterparts in that in the former the negative
      particle is placed before the verb , while in the latter it is placed after the
      verb (i.e., be) . Aziz ( 1989 : 23) .

      What is important to point out here is that , in English the form of the
main verb that follows the negative morpheme is the “ infinitive “ which is
the same form used for the present tense when the subject NP is not a third
person singular . ( Roberts 1997: 141 )
1.9 Questions in English
  Questions in English are usually divided into three kinds(Aziz, 1989:250)

  1- Yes – No or polarity questions.
  2- Wh or content questions.
  3- Alternative question.
  The rule for forming the question is that the auxiliary that carries the tense
      (i.e the first auxiliary verb) moves in front of the subject which is called
                                                                   inversion .2.g.
  Susan is reading a book – Is Susan reading a book? Or placing the question
                                                 word in the initial position.
                                                       What is Susan reading ?
Polarity Questions . are usually answered by yes or no or similar expressions.
   In English these questions are realized by placing the operator before the
     subject. They normally have rising intonation Do is required to carry the
    tense in the absence of any other auxiliary because it is do that moves in
front of the subject in contrast with lexical verbs which do not move in front
                                                 of the subject.( * Spoke he?).
 The verb spoke is a lexical verb cannot be placed before the subject. In such
                                  sentences the form “Do” is used as auxiliary.
   Did he speak ? What did he speak. The lexical verb BE always functions as
                                                                  operator:
  1. Peter is an engineer Is Peter an engineer?
  2. Susan was there . Was Susan there?
                                                              1.9.1 Questions in Arabic

       Generally speaking , Arabic questions are realized by means of certain
particles and intonation. Polarity questions (Yes – No questions ) are realized
                               by means of the two particles, (Aziz,1989:253).
                            ‫ هل‬and ‫أ‬
                                is restricted in its use. It is used. ‫هل‬The particle
                              A-in the neutral Vs structure . positive sentences.
                                   (Has the plane arrived ?) ‫)1(هل وصلت الطائرة‬
                                     ( Do you speak French?)      ‫)2(هل تتكلم الفرنسية‬
 B- with the perfect to indicate past time , and with the imperfect to indicate
                                                                       future time.

   (3) ‫هل رايت صديقك باالمس‬

   Did you see your friend yesterday?

   (4) ‫هل تحضر االجتماع هذا المساء‬

   (Will you attend the metting this evening ?)




‫ هلل‬is therefore not normally used with             ‫ سلو‬or ‫ س‬to indicate the future ,
although such questions are found in Modern Arabic. They are considered by
some grammarians unacceptable or questionable at best : (Aziz,,Ibid).

(5) ‫تاتي‬   ‫(هل سو‬Will you come?)

(6) ‫( هل سيذهب علي الى المكتبة‬will Ali go to the library?)




c- In assertive statement , it cannot be used in conditional sentences.

(7) ‫هل ان قلت الحق تغضب؟‬
 ( Would you be angry if I said the truth? )




   The interrogative particle ( ‫ ) أ‬is less restricted in its use. It can be used in all

the cases where”‫ ”هللل‬is not possible. Thus (a) it may be used in negative
sentences.

    ‫معنى هذا‬    ‫( اال تعر‬Don’t you know the meaning of this? )
    ‫( الم تقل ليلى ذلك‬Did Layla not say that? )
    ( C) It may be used with the perfect to indicate the past , with bare
     imperfect to indicate the present and with ‫ س‬or             ‫ سو‬to indicate the
     future. e.g .
    Did you see the show two days ago? ‫ارايت المعرض قبل يومين‬
    Will you go to the village? ‫تذهب الى القرية‬      ‫اسو‬
    Will he finish his work tomorrow? ‫اسينهي عمله غدا‬

   Due to the level of the research sample’s competence in Arabic and because          ‫ هل‬is
far more familiar to them and it is far more frequently used in Modern Standard
Arabic than (   ‫ ) أ‬the research with be   restricted to questions begin with   ‫ . هل‬It is
worth noting that in the actual mother tongue of the learners, i.e. , the vernacular      ‫هل‬
does not exist and the only form of interrogative used here is through intonation. Thus
a declarative sentence is distinguished from its interrogative version through the
falling intonation in the former and the rising intonation in the latter. Consequently in
the analysis of the data interrogative sentences beginning with lexical verbs are going
to be considered instances of MT interference.

1.9.2 Comparison of Questions in English and Arabic

   a) English questions are realized by placing the operator before the subject
      in polarity questions. Arabic questions are realized by means of particles
   ( ‫ .)هلل .أ‬These questions have normally rising intonation in English and
   Arabic .
b) Content questions are realized by placing the question word: In the initial
   position and using falling intonation in both languages. English ,however,
   also uses inversion (op +s) , except when the question word is subject of
   the sentence. There is no inversion in Arabic. However, since the word
   order is flexible in Arabic , it is not unusual to find the question word in a
   final position ? ‫( تريد ماذا‬lit : you want What : What do you want ?)
c) In English , a question may be positively oriented if it contains an
   assertive word ; or negatively oriented if it contains a negative word. In
   Arabic , these questions are normally realized by means of the word

   order      ( by placing the item immediately after the partical ‫ ) أ‬and by
   means of intonation. Moreover , Arabic negative questions range from
   neutral to negative orientation. Note the following two negative
   questions which are transited into English by using neutral questions
   (Najib Mahfuz , Awlad 1 , aaratina , translated by Philip stewart ).
‫الم يرك احد ؟‬

 Did anyone see you ?

‫اتذكر انك دخلت الخلوة ابداً ؟‬

(Do you remember ever going in to the secret chamber?)

used with an appropriate pattern of intonation , the two Arabic question
may have negative orientation and there fore rendered into English by a
negative question.
      d) Tag questions are widely used in English , they have complicated
          structures and convey a variety of meaning. In Arabic they have a
          stereotype form and are used on a limited scale.
      The functional equvalent of an English tag. Question is often a positive or a
   negative oriented question.

      e) English declarative questions and Arabic into national questions are
          structurally similar, but they are functionally different. The English type is
          positively or negatively oriented ; the Arabic type is neutral.



      f) Both English and Arabic make use of alternative questions which are of
          two types : polarity and content questions.



   The following diagram illustrates the main point.




                 Table( 1.1) – Questions in English and Arabic.



                                   Aziz ( 1989 :261)




English                            Question                  Arabic

a-polarity Question :op + s                        Particles:1 : ‫هل‬
b-Content Question: wh –word in the intial Question word in the intial position
position

c- Tag question :Four types                  Tag question: Fixed : one type

                                             Negative or positive Question

                                              ‫اليس كذلك‬

d-declarative questions : Marked positive    Into national Questions :Neutral.

or negative orientation.

e-alternative Question :Two types:           Alternative Question : two Types:

Polarity and content                         Polarity and content.
1.10 Structure of thesis :


       The present thesis falls into six chapters . Chapter one is an outline of the
study including the problem , the hypothesis , aims of the study , limitations of
the study , etc.

       Chapter two is a framework for second language acquisition theories and
learning and communication strategies which appear to have a direct influence
on the process of learning a second language .

       Chapter three provides a comprehensive survey of the previous studies
that have been conducted to study the order of acquisition of negative and
interrogative structures produced by the learners of first language as well as
second language acquiring second language in a natural and classroom setting
.

       Chapter four gives a detailed account of the steps that are taken into
consideration when designing the main study , and the construction of the
study instrument which are the pilot study and the diagnostic test .

       Chapter five presents a discussion of the study hypotheses and the
statistical findings .

       The thesis ends by conclusion .Some pedagogical implications for
teachers and textbook writers as well and some ideas for further research .
                                  Chapter One

                                  Introduction

1.1 The Problem




  Second language acquisition is the process by which people develop
proficiency in a second or foreign language. The processes are often
investigated with the exception that information about them may be
useful in language teaching. The focus has been on how second
language learners acquire grammatical sub-systems, such as negatives
or interrogatives or grammatical morphemes, such as the plural{s}…
etc. Study of the acquisition order seek to determine the order in which
learners acquire language structure.

  The study of the various stages of development of any learner has
been referred to as interlanguage which is mainly concerned with the
description and explanation of the stages of development of certain
features produced by first language learners as well as second language
learners. In this respect, Ellis (1986:42) states:



             intrelanguage    was    the     theoretical construct
             which underlay the attempts of second language
             acquisition researchers to identify the stage of
             development through which second language
             learners pass on their way to second language(or
             near second language) proficiency
                                     Chapter two
                                     Introduction

          Before discussing and identifying the developmental stages or the
   order of acquisition the Iraqi learner undergo in acquiring the English
negative and interrogative structures , it seems appropriate to touch upon a
      number of issues which are related to the field of second language
                                         acquisition .
The issues are :

   1. Theories of second language acquisition
   2. The Interlanguage Hypothesis
   3. The Interlanguage Continuum
   4. Learning and communication strategies.


2.1 Theories of Second Language Acquisition :

       When discussing the theories of second language acquisition , a
distinction between learning and acquisition should be made .Ellis                 (
1990: 41) points out that the term acquisition refers to picking a second
language through exposure ; and the term learning refers to “to the conscious
study of a second language”. Although the two terms differ some specialists
and psychologists such as Mclaughlin (1987), Ellis (1986, 1990) , Brown (2000)
use them interchangeably . Accordingly , in this study we are going to use these
terms interchangeably too, and any reference to a specific learning situation
will be made explicit (e.g., SLA in a natural setting ). At the same time , SLA is a
term used to refer to both untutored L2 ( natural) acquisition and tutored
foreign language acquisition (classroom) .The former refers to the unconscious


                                           23
learning of a language, whereas classroom learning refers to the conscious
study of a second language .(Krashen,1987,1988) .

      The main goal of a theory of second language learning is description , the
characterization of the nature of linguistic categories which constitute the
learner’s interlanguage at any point in development However, most
researchers have aimed at more than just description. They have tried to
discover why the learner develops the particular linguistic categories that he
does .To put it differently ,theories explain and discuss what it is acquired , how
it is acquired ,why and when it is acquired .(Ellis 1985:248) .




      A theory of SLA includes an understanding ,in general, of what language
is , what learning is , and for classroom contexts ,what teaching is . Second
language learning is a part of and adheres to general principles of human
learning and intelligence So , knowledge of children’s learning of their first
language provides essential insights to an understanding of SLA .Learning a
second culture is often intricately interwined with learning a second language
.In other words , theory building is concerned with the explanation as well as
with the description the linguistic contrasts between the native and target
languages .

      The learner creates systematic errors as (those of ) the child learning the
first language , as well as others that appear to be based on the learner’s own
native language .(Brown 2000: 273-275) .

      Ellis (Ibid)discusses seven theories of second language Acquisition. As far
as this piece of work is concerned it suffices to discuss the prominent models
and theories of second language acquisition which are of immediate relevance
to the present research.
                     2.1.1The Universal Hypothesis


           This theory is derived from Chomsky’s theory of Universal
 Grammar. Many studies have attempted to investigate whether universal
 Grammar is also available in second language acquisition as it is available
                        in first language acquisition .
         Universal Grammar differentiates between two components of
language acquisition device (LAD) , the principle which should be available
  to constrain language acquisition at any age and the parameters which
constitute aset of options that may more or less irreversibly set by exposure
                     to aL1 . ( Cook 1991, Snow ,1993).
       Universal Grammar is not the grammar of any particular language,
rather it is a propensity for acquiring language which embodies within it a
  representation of certain abstract facts about human language. In this
 respect, Cohen ( 1999 : 109 ),Cook (1986 , 1991) Show the same universal
principles used by a child to overcome learning difficulties are available for
an adult L2 learner. These principles vary from language to Language and
  this indicates that there are certain restricted options, open parameters
        which are associated with a number of universal grammar.


       Similary , Cook (2003 :24) points out that universal principles apply
to all human language without exception because they are innate or “part of
    the genetic endowment of humans for the fundamental of acquiring
language”. Cook ( Ibid) identifies the main universal principles of language
acquisition .the first is that all languages are “ structure dependent “ in the
  sense that there is no language known to us which forms questions in an
                            arbitrary way as in :
                      Is the boy that nuisance is apt to stay?
       This is nonsense because the correct form of the question is : Is the
                    boy that’s the nuisance apt to stay?
      Structure dependency is language universal, since it is valid for the
    grammatical rules of any human language . The second universal is
 conjunction reduction principle which means the deletion of one of two
identical majer constituents in conjoined sentences , e.g ., the conjunction
                                     of.
             Max writes stories and Mary writes poetry. Would be:
                      Max writes stories and Mary poetry:


      The third language universal is the subjacency. This condition which
occurs where part of the NP subject of the sentence has been detached from
  its head noun and shifted to the right or extraposed. The “before” and
              “after” situations can be seen in examples like:
                          All of us but you were upset.
                          All of us were upset but you.
      It follows that universal principles are never violated by the language
 learner , Whether it is the mother tongue or some other language that is
                     being learned. (Lyons. 1981. 83 )


       Along similar lines Flynn (1987:28)points out….. the uniformity of
 acquiring any human language is due to the existence of the principles of
 Universal grammar which [should ] determine the basic grammar of the
language being acquired and comprise the essential language faculty with
  which all individuals are in general uniformally and equally endowed.


         Cook and Newsen (Ibid) state that the principles of a Universal
Grammer characterize FLA but there is no direct prediction that they also
           characterize adult and child SLA but if it is possible.
                ……. A universal grammar should also underlie L2 acquisition in
      someway , assuming that the language faculty does not change substantially
                                               overtime.



L1 input                          Principles                  L1 grammar (principles ,parameters
                                                              settings vocablulary
                            UG

                                 Parmeters
                                                                       L2 grammar ( principles ,
                                                                   parameterssettingsvocabulary)
L2 input




               Figure(2.1):LAD Extended to Second Language Acquisition.(cook and
                                     Nowson ,1996 : 125)


              Trask (1999: 175) argues that one way of testing chomsky’s innatness
           hypothesis is to see what children do when they are presented with the
            problem of learning L1 in an unusual environment or circumstance.
            Universal hypothesis states that there are linguistic universals which
                          determine the course of SLA as follows:
           1- Learners find it easier to acquire patterns that confirme
           to linguistic universals than those that do not. The linguistic
           markedness of L2 rules explain the developmental route.


                 Furthermore, chomsky distinguishes ‘formal’ and ‘substantive’
           universals. The latter refers to the fact that in any language , items of
           particular kind should be drawn from fixed class of items. Jakobson’s
       distinctive features’ are examples of substantive universals in the phonetic
                                               domain.
               This suggests that substantive universals are the linguistic elements
       that are shared in all languages; items of a particular kind in any language
 must be drawn from a fixed class of shared items. Formal universals are
 more abstract , i.e they are statements about what grammatical rules are
    possible. Formal universals are similar in the way a language is put
 together that are found in all languages, e.g., the distinction between deep
and surface structure is an example of formal universals. Another example
which shows that formal universals are statements about what grammatical
 rules are possible is that it is possible to formulate principles constraining
   the way in which word – order transformations are used to construct
       negative and questions by using the subject – verb inversion
  transformation; (Thomas , 1974 ; Hoekstra 1994, chomsky, 1975; 1999 )
      In addition to formal and substantive universals which correspond to
the universals of UG. Implicational universals show that the presence of one
property implies the presence of others , for example, at the earliest stage of
 acquiring negatives, the learner begins with only a single general rule by
              attaching “no” to the beginning of the sentence.
      In subsequent stages , learners place the negator within the nueleus ;
 later modals appear and the negator is attached to them. ( Cleary & linn
 1993:38 ). The same is true to form yes – no questions , the learner should
 know that if he introduces be in his questions, he should also know how to
 introduce the do support. (Van Els et al . 1984, Wexler, 1980 ). (Richards
                             and Rodgers 2001).


        The implicational universals examine how linguistic features form
   clusters (the properties are related in such a way that any one of them
 implies the existence of others ) or hierarchies ( the related properties are
   observed in such a way that the presence of one property implies the
 presence of all the properties higher in the hierarchy).(Ellis , 1986, 1990).
       There are two notions which are considered central to the theory of
    Universal Grammar; core and periphery. The former is made up of
 relatively unmarked rules. Core rules are internalized , i.e they are latent
  with the linguistic areas of human brain , ready to be activated when a
human being starts learning a language. (Mclaughlin 1987:107) peripheral
  rules are made of marked rules and they are externalized , i.e., they are
   learnt through an external linguistic experience. (Ibid) . Ellis (1986)
explains these peripheral rules as “those that are derived from the history
                                of language”.


     The markedness theory is also related to the Universal hypothesis and
  it predicts the structures that are acquired before the others since they
  conform to a principle of universal Grammar. It also predicts that the
acquisition of one universal rule may trigger the acquisition of other rules
                          that are implicated by it.
       In fact , there have been same studies which investigate whether or
not the markedness scale is able to predict the order of development in SLA
(cf.Al-Jumaily 1982.Al-jazrawi 1998, Al –Wayis 2000). These studies have
    proved that universals place constraints on interlanguage and that
   acquisition follows hierarical ordering of features and that unmarked
features are acquired befor marked ones , e.g . declarative us. Interrogative
 sentences. The former is unmarked since it can be used to form questions
 by rising intonation and it can be used to make statements. (Tavakolian,
    1981 , cook . 1986). (Wexler and culicover . 1980 ) . Cook , (1986);
Mclaughlin (1987: ‫ ) او‬point out that markdness emerges as a determinant
                            of acquisition order:


        …… if the amount of evidence required by a learner to acquire a
particular rule is interpreted as the relative ease of learning that rule , and
 if each of learning is interpreted as predicting order of acquisition in real
   time… , then following the theory , we expect to find that unmarked
 constructions are acquired before marked ones. Mackaughlin (1987:91)


      The study of linguistic universal has shown that not all the linguistic
 differences between the native and the target language result in learning
difficulties . It shows also what aspects of the L1 can be transferred into the
L2, the learner falls back on his L1 and may be prepared to transfer even a
marked rule to solve his learnability problems. While the primary goal of
    Universal Grammar is to account for children’s rapid and uniform
 acquisition of their mother tongue , the theory also has influenced recent
inquiries into the acquisition of a L2 by adults as well . Universal Grammar
Theory, then provides a powerful framework for the investigation of both
FLA and SLA. Given close identification of UG with an acquisition device
 (LAD) that many believe becomes inaccessible after the critical period; it
 would be possible to argue that adult L2 learners operate very differently
             from L1 learners because of lack of access to UG.


      Language Acquisition device defines as an innate mental module that
    allows young children to develop language if they are exposed to an
 adequate sampling of conversation. i.e children are born with a universal
grammar – that is , their brains are sensitive to the core features common
 to all language , such as nouns, verbs , negation. (Wade and Tavris 2003
                                     :78)


      Rodger (1996:104) sees learning as depended on the innate process by
   which our sense of discontent with now and here and the search for
         transcendence expresses itself in a quest for perfectibility.
       Second language learning is the process of the creative construction
 of a system in which learners are consciously testing hypothesis about the
     target language from a number of possible sources of knowledge :


         1. Knowledge of the native language , limited
            knowledge of the target language itself.
         2. Knowledge of the communicative functions of
            language. Knowledge about language in general,
            and knowledge about life , humain beings, and the
            universe. ( Brown, 2000; 215 )




2.1. 2 The Monitor Model
         According to krashen (1987 , 1988) , acquisition requires meaningful
       interaction in the target language – natural communication – in which
   speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the
     messages they are conveying and understanding .The best methods are
therefore those that supply , comprehensible input’ in low aniexty situations,
   containing messages that students really want to hear . these methods do
     not force early production in the second language but allow students to
  produce when they are ‘ ready’ recognizing that improvement comes from
  supplying communicative and comprehensible input , and not from foreign
                                    and correcting production . (ibid . 1988).

      The Monitor Model consists of five central hypotheses:
2.1.2.1 The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis

    Krashen (1987: 12 ) claims that adult second language learners have two
       means of internalizing the target language. The first is ‘ acquisition ‘ a
 subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language
   not unlike the process used by children to pick up a language. The second
   means as a conscious “ learning process in which learners attend to form ,
  figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. According to
  Krashen “ fluency in second language performance is due to what we have
   acquired , not what we have learned” ( 1988 : 99). Morever , for Krashen
  (1988 ), our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition
     processes are mutually exclusive: Learning cannot become acquisition.

        Krashen (1977 a , 1988 , 1985 ) belives that the rules of the TL can be
       internalized into two ways. The first is by an implicit way – subcoious
  language acquistion which accounts for the subjective feel that one has for
   something right or wrong. The second is by an explicit conscious language
 learning which accounts for the leaner’s use of rules in order to monitor his
                               speech to quote Ellis (1990 : 189 ) states that :

         Explicit knowledge is generally gained through formal teaching. It is
    sometimes referred to as ‘ knowledge of the language’ or as ‘ dectarative
                           knowledge’ that is , knowledge that can be about.



 Wilkins (1974) also shows that the most obvious contrast between language
 learning and language acquisition is in the amount of exposure to language.
 One year in the classroom provides the equivalent of three weeks contact in
       a language acquisition situation. Another difference is that whereas in
 language acquisition , language learning and language use are one and the
            same activity’ in language learning ; the two are largely distinct.

      Mclaughlin ( 1987: 21) observes three difficulties with suh a distinction
 between ‘ acquisition , and ‘learning’ first , it is impossible to know whether
    the learners are actually operating on the basis of rule or feel. Secondly,
What one has learned is not available for initiating utterance; only what has
 been acquired can be used for this purpose. Thirdly the model is applicable
   to all stages of L2 learning but Krashen restricts it to an advanced stage of
        SLA . Bialystok (1987) also distinguishes between implicit and explicit
linguistic knowledge The former is the “intuitive information upon which the
language learner operates in order to produce responses (comprehension or
    production ) in the target language’. The latter refers to all the conscious
  facts the learner has about the language and the criterion for admission to
                 this category is the ability to articulate those facts.’ (Ibid.12)

 Bialystok (Ibid) offers another means of conceptulizing the varied processes
of L2 learning .Her model can be used to establish an empirical framework in
  which to test the validity of the relationships postulated in the model. It is
  also used to determine which aspects of the model are involved in various
       research approaches. In this way evidence which may have appeared
     contradictory may be found to be addressing different questions of the
  general model. e.g the relative importance of factors such as aptitude and
  attitude in L2 learning may be found to be contradictory at all but relating
                        instead to different knowledge sources or processes.



                                                   2.1.2.2 The Natural Order Hypothesis :
It is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman , 1975 ; Makino
       , 1980 cited in Krashen 1987 ) which suggested that the acquisition of
   grammatical structures follows a ‘ natural order which is predictable for a
     given language , some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early
  while others late. This order seems to be independent of the learner’s age,
                                   L1 background , conditions of exposure.

Krashen (1987 ) points out that implication of the natural order hypothesis
is not that a language program me syllabus should be based on the order found
    in the studies. In fact , he rejects, grammatical sequencing when the goal is
                                                         language acquisition.

   The Natural Order Hypothesis also accounts for student’s mistakes and
errors students make mistakes ( developmental errors) Which occur in learners
 no matter what their native language is when the structure used has not been
      completely acquired. These errors are signs of naturalistic developmental
process and during acquisition but not during learning. ( Richards and Rodgers
    2001 :182). However students can use their learner competence to modify
 their production, that correcting mistakes will always be presented during the
       acquisition process, especially when dealing with the ”late” structures .



                                                        2.1.2.3 The Input Hypothesis:

 This hypothoesis is Krashen’s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a
second language . In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen’s explanation of
         how SLA takes place. So the input hypothesis is only concerned with
‘acquisition’ not learning. According to this hypothesis the learner improves
      and progresses along the natural order’ When he / she receive second
    language input that is one step beyond his/ her current stage of linguistic
 competence. For example , if a learner is at a stage (i) then acquisition takes
   place when he / she is exposed to “comprehensible input’ that belongs to
  level ‘i +I’ , since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguitic
competence at the same time , Krashen suggests that natural communicative
     input is the key to desigining asyllabus in this way that each learner will
      receive some i+ I input that is a pproariate for his / her current stage of
                                                          linguistic competence.

         Krashen developed the input hypothesis – the notion that language
acquisition occurs when an individual is surrounded by target language input
  at i+I , where i is the acquirer’s current level of competence and +I denotes
 the stage immediately following i in a natural order development sequence.
          The learner moves from stage i to stage i+I by understanding input
                                                                    containing i+I



               For successful language acquisition learners acquires access to
    comprchensible and meaningful input. Second language learners cannot
   learnfrom a steady diet of grammatical instruction and practice they need
 input that has two basic characteristics. First. It must be comprehensible, So
  that learners can understand the sentence they see or hear. Second input
 must encode some referential meaning to which learners can respond. Thus
       much corrective feedback most (if not all) pattern practice , and many
        explanations of grammatical concepts are processed not as input for
        acquisition but as knowledge about the language ( hence the general
        concept is that learner need to hear and see language that is used to
     communicate message , comprehensible and meaningful input –though
necessary for successful acquisition – is not sufficient to ensure it (Vanpatten
                                                         1992, Schutz , 2002 ).



Krashen believes that starting point in language learning is a comprehensible
     input. The primary goal is to ensure that students understand what they
    hear. Teachers should always speak in the L2 and they should choose the
    subjects that are of interest to students and focus their attention on the
  content rather than the language used convey that information. Teacher’s
allow the natural order for acquiring grammatical structures to occur in class
   and they expect students to use their monitors when writing, preparing a
               speech and when doing homework , but not in oral classroom
 communication activities. They stress providing students with large amount
  of comprehensible oral input. Conscious learning is only efficient when the
   task is simple. Correction of errors helps with the development of learned
        rules. So learning according to this theory cannot lead to acquisition.
             (Richards and Rodgers 2001; 181). Errors are signs of naturalistic
developmental prosesses , and during acquisition ( but not during learning ),
  similar developmental errors occur in learners no matter what their native
                                                    language is. (Schutz, 2002)



                                             2.1.2.4 The Monitor Hypothesis

  The Fundamental claim of Monitor theory as Krashen (1988) puts it is that
      conscious learning is available to the performer only as a monitor. The
Monitor is the device that use to edit their language performance. It utitizes
‘ learnt’ knowledge by acting upon and modifying utterance generated from
     acquired knowledge: (Elis 1986 : 262). This can occur either before the
                         utterance is uttered or after (see the figure below.)


                                           Learned competence

                                               the Monitor



                                                                   output

                                                        Acquired competence



       Figure(2.2):Amodel of Adult Second Language Performance

                          ( Krashen ,1987: 16 )



  The monitor acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when
 three specific conditions are met : that is , the second language learner has
        sufficient time at his / her disposal, he focuses on form thinks about
                                     correctness, as he/ she knows the rule.

   Consciously learnt rules are never turned into acquired knowledge ,
conscious learning never leads to anything more than the ability to monitor
what you want to say or write when the circumstance allow .       ( Cook 1991
:127 ).Conscious learning is only efficient when task is simple. Correction of
error helps with the development of learned rules. So learning according to
this theory cannot lead to acquisition .          ( Richards and Rodgers (Ibid)
     ). It appears that the role of conscious learning is some what limited in
second language performance. According to Krashen (1987 : 18) the role of
 the monitor is – or should be – minor being used only to correct deviations.
   From “normal” speech and to give speech a more ‘ polished appearance’ .

     Krashen (Ibid)also suggests that there is individual variation among
  language learners with regard to’ monitor’ use. He distinguishes the learns
 that use the ‘monitor’ all the time ( over – users) ; those learners who have
     not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-
users) and those learners that use the monitor appropriately. ( optimal user )
  An evalution of the person’s psychological profile can help to determine to
        what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under- users, while in
         troverts and perfectionists are over users lack of self – confidence is
                          frequently related to the over use of the ‘Monitor’ .



                                          2.1.2.5 The Affective Filler Hypothesis.

 Finally , the fifth hypothesis , the Affective Filter Hypothesis, embodies
 Krashen’s view that a number of , affective variables’ play a facilitative , but
     non causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include:
    motivation, self – confidence and anxiety. Krashen (1987: 20) claims that
  learners with high motivation , self- confidence, a good self – image , and a
      low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language
 acquisition. Low motivation , low self – esteem, and debilitating anxiety can
 combine to ‘raise’ the affective filter and form a mental block that prevents
comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words , when
the filter is ‘up’ it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand – positive
affect is necessary , but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place
                                    ( see figure (2.3 ) ( see Yule . 1996 : 192 ).
                     Filter


                                                Language

                                               Acquisition
Input                                           acquired
                                                 device
                                               Competence




        Figure (4.3): Operation of the “ affective Filter” cited in krashen 6987: 34



              The “affective filter” , maintains that input is the majer causative
    variable in second language acquisition and that affective variables facilitate
              the delivery of input to the language acquisition device. Therefore , to
         obtain a great deal of comprehensible input , the learners should learn the
                       target language in a low filter situation. (Krashen, 1987:31 ).

        As for the roled of the mother tongue , krashen (1988) suggests that its
   influence in unnatural and that it (the influence ) appears to be strongest in “
          acquisition poor’ environments and ‘ in complex word order and word for
              word translation of phrases’ While it is weaker in bound morphology.
         Krashen concludes that the first language may ‘substitute’ for the acquired
               second language as an utterance initiator when the performer has to
          produce the target language but has not “acquired’ enough of the second
                                                                 language to do this’.


                              Learned system




 Acquired competence in L2                     utterance

 First Language competence
 Figure (2.4 ) : First language Influence in Second language Krashen
                                   (1988).

   It is unfortunate that SLA is not as simply defined as Krashen would
claim, and therefore his assumption have been disputed ( e.g , de Bot 1996 ;
 Swain & Lapkin 1995, Brumfit 1992 ; White 1987 , Gregg 1984 ; Melaughlin
1978 , to name but a few cited in Brown 2000) . Mclaughlin (1987 , 1990 a) a
  psychologist . sharply criticized Krashen’s rather Fuzzy distinction between
subconscious ( acquisition) and conscious (Learning ) processes. Mclaughlin (
                                                     1987 : 37 ) commented :



My own bias …… is to avoid use of the terms conscious and unconscious
    in second language theory. I believe that those terms are too laden with
         surplus meaning and too difficult to define empirically to be useful
 theoretically. Hence , my critique of Krashen’s distinction between learning
and acquisition –a distinction that assumes that It is possible to differentiate
                                 what is conscious from what is unconscious.

 In Mclanghlin’s view , then , a language acquistion theory that appeals
 to conscious/ subconscious distinctions is greatly weakened by our inability
                                      to identify just what that distinction is.
A second criticism of Krashen’s views arose out of the claim that there is
      no interface – no overlap – between acquisition and learning. We have
 already seen that so – called dichotomie in human behaviour almost always
define the end point of a continuum , and not mutually exclusive categories.
                                             As Gregg (1984 : 82 ) pointed out,



        Krashen plays fast and loose with his definitions …if unconscious
    knowledge is capable of being brought to consciousness and if conscious
     knowledge is capable of becoming unconscious – and this seems to be a
        reseanable assumption – than there is no reason whatever, to accept
     Krashen’s claim , in the absence of evidence. And there is an absence of
                                                                       evidence.

Second language learning clearly is a process in which varying degreesof
   learning and of acquisition can be beneficial depending upon the learners
own styles and strategies. ( Brown 2000 ; 280 ) Swain (1985) ,(Ellis 1990 : 47 )
                                                                                .



    A third difficulty in Krashen’s input hypothesis is found in his explicit
 claim ( 1986 : 62) that “ comprehensible input is the only causative variable
 in second language acquiring”. In other words success in a foreign language
        can be attributed to input alone such a theory ascribes little credit to
     learners and their own active engagement in the process. Morever , it is
 important to distinguish between input and intake ( Brown 2000 :280 ) . The
 latter is the subset of all input that actually gets assigned to our long – term
 memory store. Krashen            ( 1987) did suggest that input gets converted
        to intake through a learner’s process of linking forms to meaning and
  noticing “gaps” between the learner’s current internalized rule system and
                                                                  the new input

    Finally , it is important to note that the notion of [i] is nothing new “
Brown 200 : 280 ) But Krashen presents the i+1 formula as if we are actually
  able to define i and I and we are not as Gregy ( 1984) , white      ( 1987) and
       other have pointed out , Furthermore . The notion that speech , will “
    emerge” in a context of comprehensible input sound promising ., and for
   some learners ( bright , highly motivated , out going learners ; speech will
                                                                   indeed image.



2.1.3 The Interlanguage Hypothesis
  The term ‘Interlanguage‘ was proposed by Selinker (1972). The term refers
       to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition. In
         addition , it referes to the system that is observed at single stage of
        development (i.e , an interlanguage) , and finally , it refers to the two
languages involved in the process of language acquisition , i.e. L1 and L2 the
 Interlanguage is thought to be distinct from both the learners first language
                                                 and from the target language.



   The utterances that are produced by most L2 learners are not identical to
      those produced by L1 learning of their native language. Selinker (1972)
 argues that interlanguage , which he sees to be a separate linguistic system
   resulting from the learner’s attempted production of the target language
  norm , is the product of five central cognitive processes involved in second
                                                             language learning :
  1. language transfer: some items , rules of the TL result from transfer
      from the first language.
  2. transfer of training : some elements of the TL may result from
      specific of the training process used to teach the L2.
  3. strategies of second language learning : some elements of TL may
      result from specific approach to the material to be learned.
  4. strategies of second language communication : some elements
      may result from specific ways people learn to communicate with
      native speaker of the target language.
  5. overgeneralization of the target language linguistic material some
      element of the interlanguage may be the product of
      overgeneralization of the rules and semantic features of the target
      language.



Corder (1981) emphasizes that the leamer’s interlanguage is an idiosyncratic
 dialect which is regular , systematic meaningful , unstable and creative , i.e ,
     the learner’s language dose not belong to either his L1 or to the TL he is
                                    learning. Figure (2.5) illustrates this case :


                L1                              L2



                                             interlanguage




              Figure (2.5) A schematization of Interlanguage .
     Corder (Ibid) views language learning as data processing and hypothesis
  forming activity of a cognitive sort. The learner performance , therefore , is
 considered false hypothesis about the target language structures , but when
     the learner’s utterances are corrected by the teacher , he will be able to
   formulate new and correct hypotheses about the target language. He also
           maintains that a better description or explanation of idiosyncratic
                                                    utterances of the learner:



       (… Should ultimately enable the learner to supply him not just with
 the information that his hypothesis is wrong , but also, importantly , with
  the right sort of in formation or date for him to form a more adequate
                  concept of a rule in the TL.(Ibid:170) …)
    Further more , a study of error analysis provides clues about the kinds of
 strategies the learner employs to simplify the learning task. Richards (1974)
               identifies four strategies associated with developmental error:
          overgeneralization of the TL rules , incomplete application of rules,
             ignorance of rules restrictions and false concept hypothesized.



      According to the interlanguage hypothesis , language learning is basically
seen as a process of continuous re structuring ( the learner replaces features of
his L1 as he a quires features of the TL) and the error produced by L2. Learner is
“ Transfer errors ”. Whereas children learning a L2 resemble the children
acquiring their L1 that they produce developmental error’s than transfer
error’s. Later on , the interlanguage hypothesis has led to the modification of
the language learning process , i.e. , language learning is no longer a
restructuring process , it is a creative continuum process. This suggest that the
learner creates rule system of the TL , thus , the learner is active in the learning
process , not a passive receptacle of knowledge. (Dulay , Burt , Krashen 1982 )
(Brown 1987)




Tarone (1977) maintained that the interlanguage could be seen as analyzable
  into a set of styles that are dependent on the context of use. Tarone argues
 that interlanguage speech production varies systematically with context and
eliciation task. The context range along a continuum of styles from formal to
  vernacular , similarly , Anderson (1979) and schumahn (1978) have argued
         that the interlanguage forms that characterize early second language
  acquisition are the same as those observed in pidgin language , and that in
later stage interlanguage rules become more complex in much the same way
      as pidgin language do when required to serve a wide range of function.



       In essence , the notion of interlanguage focuses on the learner’s
systematic handling of the language data to which the have been exposed. It
has very little to offer in explaining the individual differences among L2
learners, and in accounting for the systematic variability in their performance.
Furthermore, it ignores the variable nature of both the native and TL of the
learners (Ellis , 1990 :33).




       Basically , second language learning involves the two processes of
restructuring and recreating since the learner can replace certain items of his
L1 through his learning of the L2 and he can create the rules of the TL. Transfer
errors are evidence of restructuring while developmental errors ( over
generalization ) are evidence of creating and they are similar to those errors
produce by L1 learners acquiring their native language. (Mclaughlin 1987:264)
2.2 The Interlanguag Continuum




         Along held conviction of Corder’s is that the learners’ language
     forms a continuum of developmental various points of which their
    interlanguage show similarities ( cf Corder ,1981: 10) . The learner’s
  language being a dynamic system similar to that of a child learning his
 language forms a continuum of complexity along which the learner moves
 up and down testing his hypoyheses about the language he is learning . (
                    Hyltenstam ,1978 and Corder , 1981) .


      Corder (1981:93) suggests that language consist of two types of continua
, a developmental continuum which is “characterized by increasing complexity
towards some particular target in the case of a language learner “ , and a lectal
one which is “ characterized by equal complexity but oriented towards some
reference norm in the case of any particular community “




      Interlanguage hypothesis considers the inter language continuum as
non-developmental , i.e. ,lectal primary , first and second language acquisitions
exemplify the developmental continuum ( interlanguage continuum ), but any ,
…….. “continuum where there is a difference of complexity at its polar parts can
be considered a continuum of this type , e.g. , the development from pidgins to
Creoles” .( Hyltenstam ,1978: 70 ).




Lectal continuum refers to the speech community which consist of :
       ……. a number of discrete and non over lapping systems as being
composed of a number of varieties with a continual change from one variety to
the other . ( Ibid : 68)




       The following figure (2.6) which is introduced by Hyltenstam       ( Ibid.)
the distinguishes between the two types of continua and it shows that the
developmental continuum is not fixed , i.e. , it changes overtime from lower to
higher degree of complexity , where as the lectal continuum involves a change
where the degree of complexity is fixed .




Degree of            higher Time 1                 Lectal continuum

complexity




                   lower    Time 0      Developmental continuum




             Figure (2.6) A developmental Continuum of Increasing Complexity



Clearly , different learners approximate the TL in various degree. Hyltenstam
    (Ibid) suggests that language of both L1 and L2 learners can be viewed or
                described with reference to developmental continuum and the
                     interlanguage continuum respectively.(see the figure 2.7)
                                                                            tongue
                                                                            Mothor




Degree of            higher Time 1     target language
complexity




                   lower    Time 0   Inter language continuum




         Figure (2.7) First language Acquisition and Interlanguage continua.
                                                            Hyltenstam (Ibid:72)


      Hyltenstam (Ibid) maintains that both type of continua show structural
 similarities and differences therefore , there are two similarities observed in
        the figure above. The first is that the degree of structural complexity
       observed in the initial stages of both first and second language shows
          greater similarities. The second is that in both cases , the degree of
                                             complexity increases over time.



 Al-Jumaily (1982 : 37) points out that contrary to other theories which failed
             to account for some phenomenon in linguistic behaviour , these :

…. Two types of contina account for the fact that all pidgins ,reduce registers
   in a single language and the interlanguage of language learners all tend to
                                                     show striking similarities.

Along similar lines , corder (1981) shows that inter language continuum ,pre-
 pidgin and the post pidgin continuum are considered development because
   of their increasing complexity property. Their similarities are attributed to
  the fact that they all involve learning motivated by the learner’s expanding
     communicative needs. Corder (Ibid :90) defines the interlanguage usage
     continuum as “ a dynamic , goal-oriented language system of increasing
                                                                   complexity “

  Furthermore there is an essential difference between the lectal continuum
 and the developmental continuum (interlanguage) which is that the former
        is characterized with even complexity the latter is characterized with
                                                         increasing complexity.

   Another difference is that the latter is influenced by L1 while the former is
not. This suggests that what differentiates the interlanguage continuum from
that of the L1 is the effect of the mother tongue on the former (interference
                                           from L1 to L2). (Hyltenstam , 1978).

       Al-Jumaily (1982 : 36) explains the role played by L1 on the process of
                                                       learning a L2. he states :

   The more closely related the mother tongue and the target language , the
 greater the interference phenomena are in the speech of language learners
   while interference is maximal , that is acquiring some maximally different
                                                                       language.

     Corder (1981) states that irrespective of the learners mother tongue (L1
      backgrounds) and what ever the target language they are learning , the
     sequence of their interlanguage development shows greater similarities
                 particular in the early stages of learning. This suggests that :

 There is a property of the human mind which determines the way language
  learners process the data of language to which they are exposed whatever
       the superficially different prooerties of the data may have. (Ibid : 72 )
This in turn , suggests that different L2 learners share. Common principles or
    properties which lead all of them to acquire the thin essentially the same
                                                                            way.


2.3 Implicational Analysis




      There are numerous possibilities of analyzing the data as models of
linguistic description available. But looking for developmental stages in L2
learning , one is concerned essentially with the description of linguistic
variation (Dittmar, 1979: 208). Crucial for all types of description is the principle
of accountability ( Labov, 1969) : one has to give an explicit account of the
occurrences and non- occurrences of variable linguistic features in specific and
relevant linguistic contexts for a speaker in a given corpus.




      Ordering of speakers according to syntactic abilities is useful in order to
(a) compare levels of L2 acquisition among learners, (b) determine the linguistic
distance of learners to the target variety and ( c) evaluate the learners’
conmmand of the L2 with the prartical aim of improving their competence in
second language by teaching (Dittmar, ibid : 218 f).

      Closely related to the principle of accountability is the problem of
modeling linguistic variation , in this study , the acquisition process. This can be
done by various approaches, for in stance, by implicational scales, (De camp,
1971) , and contrastive or error analysis.
      Implicational analysis which was first applied to linguistic data by De
camp (Ibid) was introduced for social sciences research by Guttman (1944). It is
also known as scaling , scalegram analysis , and Guttman’s scales. Implicational
analysis has been mostly used within sociolinguistics especially in the analysis
of data from Creole languages (of De camp , 1971 ; Bickertion . 1975 ). As cited
in Andersen ( 1978 ). Other uses have been studying the standard- non
standard continuum of usage in English (stolz and Bills , 1986), syntactic
variation (Elliot ; legum and Thompton ,1969; Ross, 1973 ). And linguistic
change (Bailey , 1973 , Bicteer ton , 1973, 1975; Fasold , 1973 , 1975 ). Guttman
(Ibid : 99 ) declares that “ scaling analysis is a formal analysis , and hence
applies to any universe of quantitative data of any science , obtained by any
manner of observation”.

      Decamp ( 1973 : 144 ) states that “ what implicational scales imploy are
sets of hierarchical priorities for control of variables , each set relevant to a
certain area of the grammar “ . Implication analysis is a technique used for
social science researches .

         Anderson (1978) used it in studying the standard / non standard
 continuum usage of English syntactic variation and linguistic change . He
also proposed that implicational analysis is applicable to L2 research data .
                              Therefore it is used as :
             A device for displaying linguistic data

             In ways which reveal underlying style-

             maticity In the data and a theoretical

             explanatory model . (Ibid . :223 )
        Implication analysis studies the acquisition of particular rules , the
correct use of a particular rule in different linguistic environment , evidence
  of L1 transfer in various grammatical constructions . This method also
involves the analysis of language use such that the presence of a particular
attribute in the speech of any individual being studied implies the presence
    of other attributes .For example. The presence or absence of certain
attributes such as the do , did , dose , and be inversion can be displayed in
an implicational table (2.1) where (100 ) means that the attribute is present
    and (0) means that this attribute is not present in the writing of the
                individual and there fore it is not acquired .


  Table ( 2.1 ) Hypothetical Production of Do, Did , Does and
                                                 Be inversion

                Be           Do          Did         Does        Modal

         1       0           0            0           0            0

        20      11           25           0           0            0

       141      66          100          25           75          100

       244      33          100           0           75          25

       275      77           75          50           75          50

       229      100         100          100          50          100



       Thus , to identify or isolate the developmental stages or the sequence
  of learning English Interrogative and interrogative structure by Iraqi
English language learners , implicational analysis was carried out in order
to find out whether the same order is true on the individual level . In case of
   this study we are moving towards the full realization of subject – verb
inversion and the component items are ordered by degree of difficulty , i.e.
            moving from the easy to most complex items acquired .
        The presence or absence of certain attributes in the writing of an
individual or group of learners is displayed by an implicational table from which
one can derive a “ co-efficient of reproducibility “ . Mathematically , it is the
result of dividing the total number of errors by the total number of responses .
Guttman (1944) provides a formula for the calculation of the co efficient of
reproducibility . (R: )

                     No. of errors

R= 1-

              (No. of rows ) ( No. of columns )

        This procedure provides information about the validity of the scale and
allows one to single out individuals or groups whose performance does not
conform to the implicational order . Thus , implicational analysis has the
advantage of allowing simultaneous examination of systematicity and
individual variation . (Al-Jumaily , 1982 ) . Implicational analysis was heavily
relied upon in the examination of the notion of the development continuum
suggested by Corder ( 1977 ) . Accordingly , language learning takes place in the
form of stages along a continuum of increasing complexity gradually
approximating the TL structure . Corder believes that these stages are similar
regardless of whether the learner is learning (acquiring ) his NL or a L2 and in
the latter case irrespective of the learner’s linguistic background , i.e. his
mother tongue of the studies utilizing such an analysis are Hyltenstam’s (1977),
Anderson’s (1978) of those involving Iraqi EFL learner’s Al-Jumaily’s (1982) ,
Abdul Raheem’s (1995) , Al- Jazrawi’s (1998) and Al- wayis’s (2000) are to the
best of our Knowledge the only studies employing such technique .
2.4.1 Strategies of Learning and Communication

2.4.1 Process, Style and Strategy

      Before looking at some processes of second languages, a few words
are in order to explain the differences among process , style, and strategy as
the terms are used in the literature on L2 acquisition. As Brown (1987) points
out, there has been a good deal of confusion in the use of these three terms.
We can find instances of transfer and interference being referred to as
strategies (Taylor ,1976 a, for example). Sometimes process and strategy are
synonymous (Tarone et al., 1976, for example). And style and strategies are
often similarly interchanged.

      Process is defined by Brown as “the most general of the three concepts.
All human beings engage in certain universal processes” (ibid.:78f) Just as we
need air. water, and food for our survival, so do all        humans of normal
intelligence engage in certain levels or types of learning. Brown believes that
we universally use principles of transfer in the process of learning and
retention. Process, then, is a characteristic of every human being.

      Style, on the other hand, is a term that refers to consistent and rather
enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual.Styles are defined as
"those general characteristics of intellectual functioning (and. personality type,
as well) that especially pertain to you as an individual, that differentiate you
from someone else . (ibid.:79) A certain person, for instance, might be more
visually oriented, more tolerant of ambiguity, or more reflective than someone
else. These would be styles that characterize a general pattern in his thinking
or feeling.




Strategies are defined as:




      Specific methods       of approaching a problem or task;       modes    of
operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs for controlling and
manipulating certain information. They are contextualized battle plans that
might vary from moment to moment or day to day or year. Strategies vary intra
individually ; each of us has a whole host of possible ways to solve a particular
problem and we choose one-or several of those of sequence-for a given
problem (ibid).

      In the field of language learning Brown (ibid.:91) recognizes two types of
strategies: learning strategies and communication strategies. Ellis (1986:165)
identifies a third strategy, namely, that of production and since this strategy
is concerned with the utilization of linguistic knowledge in communication,
it is not going to be dwelt on in this work.One of the recognized problems of
the study of strategies is that it is sometimes very difficult to pin down the
production of a certain non-target like utterance as due to the use of one
certain strategy,   especially    in   the   case    of L1    transfer and L2
overgeneralization. Some L2 learners' errors could only be explained as the
interaction of both strategies (cf Andersen, 1979:43; Al-Jumaily, 1982:52).
Another problem is that it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a certain
strategy at work is to be labelled as a learning or a communication one.
2.4.1.1 Learning Strategies




      Corder     (1977:89) defines learning/acquisition strategies as those
"referring to mental processes whereby a learner creates for himself or
discovers a language system underlying the data he is exposed to." They are,
as Brown (1987:91) decides, related to input-to processing,        storage, and
retrieval. Under learning strategies,Brown (1980) lists four learning strategies:
transfer, interference, generalization , and simplification.     He sees these
strategies as manifestations of one principle of learning-the interaction of
previously learned material with a present learning event. He (1987:83)
draws attention to the misconception many have been led to have, namely,
that there are only two processes of L2 acquisition interference and
overgeneralization. Brown decides that these are the negative counterparts of
the facilitating processes of transfer and generalization.

      The research of the mid 1970s has led to some very careful defining of
specific learning strategies. In some of the most impressive research of this
kind, Michael O'Malley and Anna Chamot and colleagues (O’Malley el al.
1985b, but see also 1983,1985a) studied the use of some 24 strategies by
learners of English as a second language        in the United States.       They
divided their strategies into three main categories metacognitive, cognitive
, and socioaffective (Table2.2).




      Metacognitive is a term used in information processing theory to
indicate an executive function, strategies that involve planning for learning,
thinking about the learning process as it is taking place, monitoring of
one's production or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an activity
is completed. Cognitive strategies are more limited to specific learning tasks
and involve more     direct   manipulation    of the learning material itself.
Socioaffective strategies have to    do with social-mediating       activity   and
transacting with others Brown , 1987 :92 ( Cook 1991 : 80 ) .




            Table (2.2) Learning Strategies (O’Malley et al. , 1985B : 582-584)



                 Learning                          Description

     Metacognitive strategies

     Advance Organizers                Making       a     general       but
                                       comprehensive or preview of the
                                       organizing concept or principle in
                                       an anticipated activity.

     Directed Attention                Deciding in advance to attend in
                                       general to learning task and to
                                       ignore irrelevant distractors

     Selective Attention               Deciding in advance to attend to
                                       specific aspects of language input
                                       or situational details that will cue
                                       the retention of language input

     Self-Management                   Understanding the conditions help
                                       one learn and arranging for the
             Learning                Description

                        presence of those conditions

Functional Planning     Planning     for    and     rehearsing
                        linguistic components necessary
                        to   carry    out      an   upcoming
                        language task.

Self-Monitoring         Correcting     one’s      speech    for
                        accuracy     in     pronunciation     ,
                        grammar , vocabulary , or for
                        appropriateness related to the
                        setting or to the people who are
                        present.

Delayed production      Consciously deciding to postpone
                        speaking in order to learn initially
                        through listening comprehension

Self-Evolution          Checking the outcomes of one’s
                        own language learning against an
                        internal measure of completeness
                        and accuracy

Cognitive Strategies

Repetition              Imitating a language model ,
                        including overt practice and silent
                        rehearsal
              Learning                 Description

Resourcing                Using target language reference
                          materials

Translation               Using the first language as a base
                          for     understanding        and/or
                          producing the second language

Grouping                  Reordering or reclassifying and
                          perhaps labeling , the material to
                          be learned based on common
                          attributes

Note Taking               Writing down the main idea ,
                          important points , outline or
                          summary         of       information
                          presented orally or in writing

Deduction                 Consciously applying rules        to
                          produce or understand the second
                          language

Recombination             Relating new information to visual
                          concepts in memory via familiar ,
                          easily retrievable visualizations
                          phrases , or locations

Auditory Representation   Retention of the sound or a
                          similar sound for a word , phrase
             Learning                 Description

                           or longer language sequence

Keyword                    Remembering a new word in the
                           second language by (1) identifying
                           a familiar word in the first
                           language that sounds like or
                           otherwise resembles the new
                           word and (2) generating easily
                           recalled    images      of     some
                           relationship between the new
                           word and the familiar word

Conceptualization          Placing a word or phrase in a
                           meaningful language sequence

Elaboration                Relating new information to other
                           concepts in memory

Transfer                   Using      previously        acquired
                           linguistic and/or language learning
                           task

Inferencing                Using available information to
                           guess meaning of new items ,
                           predict outcomes , or fill in
                           missing information

           Socioaffctive
                 Learning                              Description

                Strategies

     Cooperation                        Working with one or more peers
                                        to   obtain      feed-back     ,   pool
                                        information , or model a language
                                        activity

     Question for Clarification         Asking a teacher or other native
                                        speaker          for         repetition,
                                        paraphrasing       ,   explanation     ,
                                        and/or examples




      Ellis (1986 : 175) provides- another classification of learning strategies in
which he presents      learning processes with learning strategies involved in
acquiring each particular process. As for formulaic speech, the learning
strategies involved in acquiring it is pattern Memorization. While, the
learning strategies involved in hypothesis formation are simplification and
inferencing. The processes and strategies responsible for creative speech are
summarized in Table (2.3 ).

     Table (2.3 ) Processes and Strategies in Creative language
                 Process                                Strategy

     Hypothesis Formation               Simplification

                                        (1) overgeneralization

                                        (2) transfer
                                       Inferencing

                                       (1)intralingual (via intake analysis
                                       )

                                       (2)extralingual

     Hypothesis Testing                Receptive (via intake analysis

                                       Productive

                                       Metaligual

                                       Interactional

     Automatization                    Formal practice

                                       Functional practice




      According to Ellis, these processes and strategies are subconscious
procedures (i.e., they are spontaneously activated by a learner while he is
focused on some communicative purpose). But they can also be conscious (i.e.,
deliberately activated by the learner with the intention of increasing his L1
knowledge). Some procedures-metalinglial hypothesis testing and formal
practice-are invariably conscious, however.




      Simplification consists of attempts by the learner to control the range of
hypotheses he attempts to build at any single stage in his development by
restricting hypothesis formation to those hypotheses which are relatively
easy to form and will facilitate communication (ibid.:17). Both transfer the use
of the learner’s L1 as a basis for forming hypotheses about L2 and
overgeneralization , the use of existing L1 knowledge by extending it to
new interlanguage forms, can be seen as manifestations of the same basic
strategy of relying on prior knowledge to facilitate new learning (Tylor , 1975b)




      Inferencing , as Ellis explains is the means by which the

learner forms hypotheses by attending to input” (198672). That is, in cases
where the appropriate L2 rules cannot be successfully derived by means of
transfer or overgeneralization existing interlanguage knowledge, the learner
will need to induce the rule from the input,Intralingual inferencing involves a
process in which the learner operates on external L2 data (i.e., stored
formulas).




      Extralingual inferencing is one of the most powerful devices available to
the learner for building hypotheses from external input: It consists of paying
attention to features of the physical environment and using these to make L2
input comprehensible.        By observing the non linguistic correlates of
utterances, the learner can convert input that is beyond his competence into
intake (P.173)




      Concerning hypothesis formation, once the learner has developed a
hypothesis, he can test it out in a variety of ways: (1)receptively (i.e., the
learner attends to-L2 input and compares his hypotheses with the data
provided by means of intake analysis; (2) productively (i.e., the learner
produces L2 utterances containing rules representing          hypotheses he has
formed and         assesses      their    correctness in terms of the feedback
received); (3) metalingually (i.e., the learner consults a native speaker, teacher,
grammar book, or dictionary to establish the validity of a hypothesis); (4)
interactionally (i.e., the learner elicits a repair from his interlocution) (Faerch
and Kasper, as cited in Ellis; 1986 ).




      Within autoimmunization , Fearch and Kasper (ibid.) distinguish formal
and functional practice, depending on whether the focus is on formal features
of L2 or communicative endeavour. Automatization involves both the practising
of L2 rules which enter interlanguage at the formal of the stylistic continuum
and the practicing of rules which are already in use in the vernacular.




2.4.1.2 Communication Strategies

2.4.1.2.1 Defining Communication strategies




       Selinker (1972: .229 ) coined the term communication strategy in his
 seminal paper on interlanguage , discussing strategies of second language
communication as one of the five central processes involved in L2 learning .
  However , he did not go into detail about the nature of these strategies .
      A review of the communication strategies (CS) literature reveals that that
two defining criteria are consistently mentioned, problem orientedness and
consciousness ( Dornyei and scott, 1997 ; Ellis, 1986, 1990) .
         Originally CSs were thought to handle only one type of language problem
, resource deficits gaps in speaker’s knowledge preventing them from
verbalizing messages . This restriction to one set of problems , however , was
not reflected in the name given to these language devices (i.e. , communication
strategy ) .Hence , there developed a mismatch between the specificity of the
speech phenomenon to which CSs originally referred and the broadness of the
term communication strategy . Consequently , several researchers extended
the term to handle the following three types of communication problems as
well :

 1. Own performance problems: the realization that something one has said is
     incorrect or only partly correct ; associated with various types of self repair
     , self rephrasing and self editing mechanisms ( e.g. , Tarone, 1980 ; Tarone
     and Yule, 1987 ; Willems , 1987 ; Dornyei and Scott , 1995a , 1995b ).
 2. Other performance problems : something perceived as problematic in the
     interlocutor’s speech , either because it is thought to be incorrect ( or
     highly unexpected ) , or because of a lack (or uncertainty ) of
     understanding something fully , associated with various meaning
     negotiation strategies (e.g. , Canale , 1983 ; Willems , 1987; Dornyei and
     Scott , 1995a , 1995b ) .
 3. Processing time pressure : the L2 speaker’s frequent need for more time
     to process and plan L2 speech than would be naturally available in fluent
     communication ; associated with strategies such as the use of fillers ,
     hesitation devices , and self-repetitions ( e.g. , Canale , 1983; Tarone and
     Yule , 1987 ; Rost , 1994 ; Dornyei , 1995 ; Dornyei and scott , 1995a ,
     1995b ) .
              A strategy being a conscious technique used to achieve a goal,
 consciousness , therefore , has been the second major defining criterion for
CSs. Schmidt (1994), when discussing consciousness in language attainment,
 recommend that the term should be deconstructed into several aspects. He
      suggests four basic senses of consciousness ; intentionally , attention ,
awareness and control . Drawing on the work of other researchers , Dornyei
        and Scott ( 1997: 185) argue that three aspects of consciousness are
  particularly relevant to CSs: consciousness as awareness , consciousness as
  intentionally , and consciousness as awareness of strategic language use .

    Dornyei and Scott , however , claim that a fourth important aspect of
consciousness , consciousness as control should not necessarily be a defining
  criterion of CSs ; an automatized strategy can be considered as CS proper ,
particularly because one purpose of CS training is to enhance automatization
       (Dornyei , 1995 ). Agreement , however , on the classification of these
      strategies is far from being universal . Table (2.4) by Dornyei and Scott
                       (1997:196f ) provides a summary of nine taxonomies .
      The first thing that becomes obvious when comparing the classifications
is that they concern various ranges of language devices in different degress of
elaborateness. On one end, the narrow board continuum are the typologies of
the Nijmegen Group and Poulisee (1993), who explicitly restrict the scope of
language phenomena examined to lexical – compensatory strategies (i.e .,
devices used to compensate for missing lexical items; see kellerman ,1991 for a
rationale). On the other end of the continuum is Dörngei and scott’s (1995a
,1995b ) system, which concerns L2 problem – management in general.




      Although the terminology used and their levels of specificity vary a great
deal , the corresponding parts of six of the nine taxonomies (Tarone, 1977 ,
Bialystok, 1983; Faerch and Kasper , 1983 b ; Paribakht , 1985 ; Willems , 1987 ;
and Dornyei and Scott , 1995 a, 1995 b) show many Similarities.




      Three of the nine taxonomies (Tarone, 1977 ; Fearch and Kasper , 1983b ;
Willems , 1987 ) recognize a basic duality in strategy use : strategies are used
either (a) to tailor one’s message to one’s resources by altering , reducing , or
completely abandoning the original content ; or (b) to try and convey the
intended message in spite of the linguistic deficiencies by extending or
manipulating the available language system.


      Varadi (1973) and Faerch and Kasper (1983b) term strategies belonging
to the first option reduction strategies, and Tarone (1977) calls them avoidance
strategies. Corder (1978 : 104 f) who points out that they can also be labeled
risk – avoidance strategies , prefers massage adjustment strategies. Faerch and
Kaspor (ibid) term strategies belonging to the second option achievment
strategies ; Corder (ibid. : 105) calls them resource expansion strategies and
considers them risk-taking strategies because by using them the speaker
ventures beyond playing it safe and takes a certain risk of not being able to
convey the message . Dornyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b ) also implicity
recognize the achievement-reduction duality , whereas the rest of the
taxonomies cover only achievement strategies .

   The following sub-sections provide an account of the most prominent
     and most frequently-adopted strategies which are going to make up the
                              basis for data analysis in this piece of research .



                                                  2.4.2.2 Interlingual Transfer



Transfer is a general term describing the carry over of previous performance
or knowledge to subsequent learning . Two types of transfer are recognized ;
   positive transfer which takes place when the prior knowledge benefits the
 learning task ; and negative transfer which is referred to as interference and
which occurs when the previous performance disrupts the performance on a
 second task . For the purpose of this study the term transfer is to be used to
 refer to any type of first or target language influence as is commonly used in
                                                                 the literature .

    The beginning stages of learning a L2 are characterized by a good deal of
interlingual transfer from the NL. In these early stages , before the system of
 the L2 is familiar , the NL is the only linguistic system in previous experience
        upon which the learner can draw ( Brown, 1987 : 177 ) . For example,
  learners may say sheep for ship ,or the book of Jack instead of Jack’s book.
   According to Brown , these errors are attributable to negative interlingual
                                                                       transfer .

The role of transfer has been commonly stressed in L2 learning sometimes to
    the extent that some have viewed L2 learning as exclusively involving the
    overcoming of the affects of the NL. This means that language transfer is
    looked upon as an exclusively learning strategy . This stress on the role of
           transfer in the learning of a L2 is not surprising since, as Al-Jumaily
       (1982:219) maintains ,native-language interference is surely the most
   immediately noticeable source of error among L2 learners. But how much
 importance one is to attach to the role of the mother tongue in the learning
 task has been a matter of much controversy. While, some researchers deny
 the role mother tongue influence on the learning process, for example Ellis
    (1986: 30 ) states that L1 interference is probably not the prime cause of
learners error, Richards (1971 ; 1974) points out that the limitation of certain
        strategies of rule learning gives rise to errors which are not caused by
mother tongue interference , but by faulty application of learning strategies.
     The source of these errors is discoverd within the structure of the target
  language itself and some of them result from teaching techniques used. He
   calls these types of errors as interalingual and developmental . Others like
      (Nasar, 1965,1963; Robinett , 1978 )argue that it plays a crucial part.

A more realistic attitude towards language transfer is taken by some linguists
who recognize both the similarities between the language of L1 learners and
 that of L2 learners as well as the evidence of the mother tongue’s influence
   on the learner’s interlanguage . Although much of the evidence of mother
tongue transfer can be explained as due to a communication strategy , many
still recognize some of it as a learning strategy (cf.Tylor, 1975b; Corder , 1981
                                                                                ).
                             2.4.2.3 Intralingual Transfer ( Overgeneralization )

To generalize means to infer to derive a law , rule , or conclusion , usually
  from the observation of particular instances. Taylor     ( 1975b: 393) defines
syntactic overgeneralization as “ a process in which a language learner uses a
   syntactic rule of the target language inappropriately when he attempts to
                      generate a novel target language utterance “ . For example

 - * I don’t sure .
 - * He do not like apples .
   Such errors show that the learner has mastered the mechanics of the
       rule but has not yet learned the correct distribution of the rule or the
                               exceptional cases where the rule does not apply .

Taylor (1975a,c) has found out that the early stages of language learning
            are characterized by a predominance of interlingual transfer , i.e.,
   interference ,but once learners begin to acquire parts of the new system ,
    more and more intralingual transfer- overgeneralization within the target
language –is manifested . This ,as Brown (1987:178) justifies, follows logically
      from the tenets of learning theory . As learners progress in the L2, their
previous experience and their existing subsumers begin to include structures
                                                             within the TL itself .

       Overgeneralization errors in the utterance of the language learner
 suggest active participation on his part ( a risk –taking strategy according to
    Corder . 1978:105) in the learning process by exercising his interlanguage
  creatively instead of imitating what he hears around him or transferring NL
  structures . Taylor (1975b:395) regards the use of overgeneralization by L2
  learners as a strategy for reducing the learning burden , since , in doing so ,
   he “ relies on a TL rule of great generally and which he already knows and
        avoids learning the appropriate rule “ Evidence from Taylor’s studies
      suggests that reliance on overgeneralization is directly proportional to
                                                          proficiency in the TL .



                                                   2.4.2.4 Context of Learning

  A fourth strategy of communication , though it overlaps both types of
     transfer , is Brown’s context of learning (Transfer of Training , selinker ,
   1972:35; Sociolinguistic Situation ,Richards and Sampson , 1974 : 6ff) . As
  Brown (1987:179) explains , context refers, for example , to the classroom
with its teacher and its materials in the case of school learning , or the social
  situation in the case of untutored L2 learning . In a classroom context , the
    teacher or the text-book can lead the learner to make faulty hypotheses
about the language , what Richards (1971:178) calls false concepts and what
  Stenson (1974) terms induced errors . Brown (ibid.: 179f) attributes errors
   that students make to a misleading explanation from the teacher , faulty
    presentation of a structure or word in a text-book , or even because of a
pattern that was rotely memorized in a drill but not properly contextualized.

     Richards and Sampson (1974:6) extend this strategy to cover situations
  outside the classroom . They argue that different settings for language use
   result in different degrees and types of language learning . These ,as they
explained , may be distinguished in terms of the effects of the socio-cultural
   setting on the learner’s language and in terms of the relationship holding
    between the learner and the TL community and the respective linguistic
                                    markers of these relations and identities .

      In both first and second language acquisition particular forms and
      patterns of language learning may be attributable to social universals ,
    whether the learner produces when are you coming ? when you come ?
    When you’s coming ? ; may depend on the social situation .The learner’s
    values and attitudes , or some other social factor in the learning context
                                                                     (ibid.: 7f) .



                                                             2.4.2.5 Avoidance

    The issue of avoidance is an interesting one which , it has been claimed ,
          bears on the question of transfer and the contrastive analysis (CA)
                                                                    hypothesis .

       Avoidance , according to Corder (1978:104) , falls under message
   adjustment strategies , or risk-avoidance strategies. He states that among
message adjustment strategies we have at one extreme topic avoidance , “a
     refusal to enter onto or continue a discourse within some field or topic
  because of a feeling of total linguistic inadequacy “. A less extreme form of
    topic avoidance , as Corder believes , would be message abandonment :
“trying but giving up “ . A less acute form of message adjustment is semantic
       avoidance , that is ‘ saying something slightly different from what you
   intended but still broadly relevant to the topic of discourse ‘ .Finally , the
least acute form of message adjustment would be message reduction, that is
                   “saying less, or less precisely what you intended to say “ .

      As brown (1987”183f) puts it , avoidance can be broken down into
several subcategories and thus distinguished from other types of strategies .
          The most common type of avoidance strategy is syntactic or lexical
        avoidance within a semantic category . For example, in the following
                                                                 conversation :

                                                              L : I lost my road
                                                            NS : You lost your road ?

                                     L : Uh, … I lost . I lost . I got lost .(ibid. : 184)



   The learner avoided the lexical item “road” entirely , not being able to
                                     come up with the word “way” at the point .

         Another type of avoidance is topic avoidance (cf. Corder above )
 .Learners manage to devise ingenious methods of topic avoidance: changing
  the subject , pretending not to understand , simply not responding at all or
  noticeably abandoning a message when a thought becomes too difficult to
                                                         continue expressing (ibid) .


2 .5 .Morpheme order study



      The notion of morpheme order ( or of acquisition as it was first called )
has grown out of the Harvard project (Cazden1968; Brown , 1973 ). Brown
demonstrates that children acquiring English as a L1 show a similar order of
acquisition for grammatical morphemes in obligatory occasions.

      Certain morphemes , such as ing and plural , tend to be acquired
relatively early , while others , such as the third person singular S in verbs in the
present tense or the possessive S marker tend to be acquired late. The critical
point of acquisition can be set arbitrarily , preferably around 90% of target-like
usage. Brown’s longitudinal findings were confirmed cross - sectionally by
Devillirers and Devilliers (1973).
        This approach has been widely adopted for L2 studies (for instance, ,
Dulay and Burt 1973 , 1974 , 1975 ; rosanky 1976). Jn their study , Dulay and
Burt used an instrument that is devised to elicit natural spontaneous speech
data.

        They called it the Bilingual syntax Measure (BSM) (Burt , Dulay , and
Hernandez , 1975 ). Burt and later Bailey etal have claimed that the acquisition
they arrived at is adhered to by L2 learners of English irrespective of their age
or language background but they offered no explantion for the occurrence of
such a morpheme order (Sampson , 1978)

        There is no agreement among researchers regarding the validity of the
morpheme accuracy studies. While some researchs argue for the validity of
Dulay and Burt’s findings supporting their claims with empirical evidence
(Bailey et al ., 1974 , the Krashen studies , 1976 , 1977, 1978) others criticize
the methods and/or the result putting for ward on their part empirical
evidence to support their arguments ( see for example Larsen freeman 1975 ,
1976 , Andersen , 1976 , 1977). Larson-freeman (1975), using data collection
procedure in addition to the BSM, arrived at the conclusion that the morphem
acquisition order-she preferred the term common difficulty order-is the artifact
of the BSM , or, to be more precise , the order was restricted to tasks eliciting
oral production namely , speaking and imitating.




        Krashen etal (1976 , 1977 , 1978 , 1981) and Fathman (1979) argue
against Larson-freeman and others. Having used different procedures in
addition to the BSM such as the Fathman’s slope test (an oral production test).
Krashen argues that whatever variation in the order of acquisition is in fact due
to the employment of conscious grammar by the learner. He also argues that
some kinds of tests such as “ the pencil and paper grammar-type test of Larsen
Freeman invite the use of the Monitor (see the monitor model).

      Adult performers showed a difficulty order similar to that observed for
children acquiring ESL. They also reported no difference in rank order between
formal (classroom) learner and information (natural learners. They concluded
that the students focus on communication in both tasks (time limit , no time
limit) hence a natural order was obtained.

      The arguments against the morphemes order study are             raised by
Rosanky (1976) Andersen (1977) and wade et al (1978) Rosanky (1976)
examined a one hour taped speech protocol for each of six untutored Spanish
speakers learning English as L2 in a natural setting. Her hypothesis is that the
rank order of morphemes derived from the spontaneous speech data will not
correlate with Dulay and Burt’s (1974 ) rank order.The results of the study
prove that her learner’s acquisition of these morphemes correlates with Dulay
and Burt’s as well as with Bailey etal’s (1974) Finding. She further remarks on
the lack of comparability between cross-sectional and longitudinal data. In this
respect , Lightbown . and white (1987 :498) pointed out that L2 learners follow
a similar order of acquisition regardless of the Learner’s mother tongue
because there is a natural order of acquisition , thus the finding that second
language learners like children develop language in ways not predicted by an
analysis of the input , and in ways which are similar across learners from
different language background was considered for a natural order. (Ibid).

      As an alternative, Andersen suggests the use of what he calls group
Range Method which in a later study (Andersen 1978) he enlarges into the full
use of implicational model (see 2.3 ).
      Wode et.al (opcit ) agree in essence with Anderson in pointing out the
necessity that any model should reflect the developmental sequence that led
to the target like mastery. They add another point of disagreement with Dulay
and Burt’s findings namely that they believe that there can be no universal
order of English, since reliance on the first language is an integral part of
second language acquisition (see. Wode 1978)
2.1.1The Acculturation Model


      Acculturation is the social and psychological integration of the learner
with the ( target language ) group . Schumann worked on this model in an
attempt to show the importance of both social and psychological factors in L2
learning .Schumann (1975 as cited in Ellis 1986) suggests that social and
psychological maturation are more important than neurological maturation in
accounting for adult L2 learning . He focuses on social and psychological factors
under which successful language acquisition takes place . These factors control
the level of linguistic success achieved by L2 learners ,i.e., when social and
psychological distance are great between the learners group and the target
language group , the learner fails to progress beyond the early stages of SLA
.Schumann (1978a: 69) defines a pidgin language as :

“ a simplified and reduced from of speech used for communication between
people with different languages” .

      Schumann ( Ibid ) lists six groups of factors that influence SLA: social ,
affective , ability , biological , cognitive and linguistic factors . He maintains that
social factors involves three integration strategies that are adopted by L2
learners , assimilation , acculturation and preservation . Assimilation means
that the learner adopts the target language values and style and gives up his
own values and style .Preservation refers to the fact that there are some L2
learners who reject the life style and values of the TL group and attempt to
maintain their own culture pattern as much as possible . However ,
acculturation involves both assimilation and preservation in the sense that the
learners may adopt the life style and value of the target group , but they may
also maintain their own cultural patterns for use in the intragroup relations .
        Schumann (1978) classifies good and bad L2 learning situations by
 using the social factors . He argues that social distance and bad language
learning situation will exist where the L2 learners group is either dominate
or subordinate , where both groups desire preservation and high enclosure
for the L2 learner group , where the L2 learner group is both cohesive and
  large , where the two cultures are not congruent , where the two groups
  hold negative attitudes towards each and where the L2 group intends to
  remain in the TL area only for a short time . It is also argued that social
solidarity and hence a good language learning situation will exist where the
 opposite of all the above occurs , i.e. , where the L2 learner group is non-
 dominant in relation to the TL group , where low enclosure is the goal of
                  both groups , etc. (Mclaughlin: 1987 : 110)
Schumann (1978b) originally drew people attention to this through his study of
Spanish learner of English called Alberto Whose speech had many of the
simplified characteristics of pidgin . eg. Negation was expressed as “ no + verb “
. Alberto is a Spanish speaker learning English as a L2 in a natural setting . He
fails to achieve the TL competence for social and psychological reasons , for
example , he was a Latin- American immigrant worker and this group was
socially distant from the American more than the professionals .

      The acculturation model is not an approach but rather a model for
explaining why some learners acquire a higher level of L2 skills than others . It
is the result of Schumann study of the pidginization process among immigrant
group . This model is not applicable to Iraqi learner’s situation since the present
is concerned with linguistic aspect of language acquisition and not the social or
psychological factors .Yet the model might shed light on the reasons behind
Iraqi learners’ bad learning situation.
        Andersen (1979) extended Schumann’s framework by providing a
cognitive dimention which Schumann does not consider . For Schumann SLA
can be explained simply in terms of input and the general function the learner
wants to use the L2 for . He is not concerned with the learner’s internal
processing mechanisms : Andersen is concerned with learning process (Ellis
1985. 253) .




2.1.2 The Nativization Model

       Anderson distinguished nativization and denativization processes which
are viewed as analogous to the Piagetian notions of assimilation and
accommodation .(Mclaughlin 1987:118) .

       Nativization and denativization are used in Andersen’s Model to capture
the different directions the learner takes in building the interlanguage . In the
nativization process there is growth independent of the external norm that is
thought to be consistent with natural acquisition process and with the
constraints on perception and production . The denativization process involves
growth towards the external norm as pressures to conform to the target
language cause learners to override natural acquisitional processes .
Nativization is progress towards universal understanding forms . This consists
of adapting the language that is being acquired to built in universal tendencies.

       Denativization on the other hand is movement in the opposite direction
and involves chaning the internal system to suit the language that is being
learnt . (Cook1991: 130) .Figure (2.1) summarizes Andersen’s Nativization
Model .


                         Nativization                          Denativization



Growth       independent        of    the Accommodation Growth towards
external norm assimilation                an external norm .

Restricted      access     to        input Adequate access to input De
pidginization                             pidginization

Creation of a unique first/ second First/          second       language   as
language acquisition                      increasing approximation towards
                                          external “target” norm

          Figure (2.1) : Andersen’s Nativization Model (slightly simplified from
                                                               Andersen (1983b 11) .
      The acculturation notion provides the theory with an account of how
long and in what direction a learner will refine hypothesis about the target
language .Such social-psychological factors as attitude towards the target
language , motivation to learn ,and social distance are seen to underlie the
impetus towards acculturation . (Mclaughlin 1987:125).




      The Acculturation and Nativist Models focus on the power mechanisms
of SLA . They provide explanation of why L2 learners unlike first language
learners , often fail to achieve a native-like competence- L2 learners may be cut
off from the necessary input as a result of psychological distance . These
models also indicate that SLA involves processes of a very general kind , which
are also found in the formation and elaboration of pidgin languages .(Ellis
1986.255). Neither model sheds light on how L2 knowledge is internalized and
used . In other words there is no specification of the learner’s assembly
mechanisms .




       Acculturation / Pidginization theory is addressed to naturalistic adult
second language acquisition where learners have more or less contact with the
target- language community . The model says nothing about classroom second-
language learning , where learners do not have contact with native speakers
other than the teacher . The factors responsible for social distance are not
relevant to foreign language learning in the classroom , although the factors
that generate psychological distance- individual attitude and motivation ,
presumably operate in this context . (Ellis 1990b)




       The two models show that SLA development is a result of the gradual
transition of attention from an internal to an external norm . They also observe
the reasons behind the failure of some L2 learners to achieve the TL
competence .



2.1.3 Accommodation Theory :

       Accommodation theory or as it is called socio-educational model derives
from the researches of Giles and associates into the intergroup uses of
language in multilingual communities such as Britain (see Giles and Byrne 1982)
. Giles operates within a socio-psychological framework , drawing on the work
of Gradner (1985) to explain how individual factors and general features of
society interact in L2 learning . Giles primary concern is to investigate how
intergroup uses of language reflect basic social and psychological attitudes in
interthinc communication .(Ellis , 1986:255) .




       Gardner calls this model Socio-Education Model , sees two main
ingredients in the learner’s success namely ,motivation , and optitude .
Motivation consists of two chief factors : attitude to the learning situation- i.e:
to the teacher and the course-and intergrativeness – which is a complex factor
about how the learner regards the culture reflected in the L2 as represented in
the figure (2. 2) :




Intergrativeness                   motivation

Attitudes to                                       L2 success

Learning situation          Aptitude




 Figure (2.2): Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model of L2 learning (simplified )
                                                                    (Cook 1991 ) .



       Giles aggresses with Gardner (1979) that motivation is the primary
determinant of L2 proficiency . He considers the level of motivation to be a
reflex of how individual learners define themselves in ethnic terms (Ellis ,1985.
257) .Accommodation theory also accounts for the learner’s variable linguistics
output . Variable language use is the result of conflicting Socio-Psychological
attitudes in different situation- variability of use is related to acquisition in the
sense that the same set of factors is responsible for both .

      Accommodation theory , like Acculturation Model , does not explain
assembly mechanisms .It doesn’t account for the developmental sequence




      This theory shows how the intergroup’s uses reflect basic social and
psychological distances or attitude in inter ethnic communication . to put it
differently ,it is learner’s group attitudes towards the TL community which
determine the level of linguistic development of the learner .Giles and Smith
(1979) as cited in Ellis (1986) consider motivation to be the most powerful
marker which shows how individual learners define themselves in ethnic terms
. Two changes occur in the L2 speaker’s use of ethnic speech markers .The first
is upward convergence “ which is characterized by an absence of attention and
the use of the vernacular style ( the term convergence refers to the process
whereby individuals shift their speech styles to become more like that of the
other group ) . In the first case , the learner is highly motivated to learnt the L2
while in the second case the learner is not motivated and thus the learner’s
language is fossilized . Brown (1987:186 ) states that :




“ The relatively permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms into
a person’s second language competence has been referred to as fossilization
                                         “.



      The second change is called the “ downward divergence “ an
accentuation of speech markers by member subordinate groups). This case
occurs when there is an “ an awareness of cognitive alternative… a high self
reported vitality and linguistic and non-linguistic boundaries are perceived to
be soft “ . Roger (1996: 102 ) .




      This theory explains that factors such as the learner’s attitude and
motivation towards the TL , play an important role in determining the level of
the learner’s linguistic development. It shows also that learner’s language is
variable, because he can shift from a careful to a vernacular style .




      The strength of accommodation theory is that it encompases language
acquisition and language use within single framework. It also relates the
acquisition of a new dialect or accent to the acquisition of a L2 , as both are
seen as a reflection of the learner’s perception of himself with regard to his
own social group and the target language /dialect group . ( Ellis 1986) .




      According to Ellis (1985) it is doubtful whether accommodation theory
can be applied to foreign language learning when intergroup relationships are
not an obvious issue .

      This suggests that although ethnic identity is an important aspect of
variability in SLA , it does not account for total variability . In lines with Ellis
Cook (1991) argues that the accommodation theory or the socio-education
model of Cardaner chiefly applies to language teaching for local goals , where
the students have definite views on the L2 group whose language they are
learning through everyday contact with them within the society . In teaching
for international goals they may not have such definite opinions . e.g. French
teaching in England involves little contact with French speaking group .




       These two models according to Cook (1991), Roger (1996: 102 ) can be
described as a social model in which learning takes place in society . While
James P. Lantolf (2000) argues that : Learning is a socially situated activity ,
what a learner at first accomplishes only in a social setting ( it appears between
people as an inter psychological category , she or he will eventually be able to
do independently , ( within himself as an intra psychological category . In other
words , social processes allow the language to become a cognitive tool for the
individual .(Lantolf 2000 ,54)



2.1.4 Discourse Theory




         This theory is proposed by Hatch (1976-1978). Studying the discourse
        analysis or interaction of any learner , should consider both the native
       language speaker and learner’s discourse in order to know how second
                                                      language learner’s learn.



       There are some studies which deal with discourse investigation. One of
these is Hatch’s (1978) study which investigates the interaction that takes place
between child-adult and between adult-adult. In child-adult conversation , the
adult takes the child’s first utterances as a topic nomination and then asks for
more clarification and comments on it.
      Adult also adjusts his speech in order to keep the conversation going on.
The continuity of questions and responses to the topic between two individuals
can account for the order of acquisition of any syntactic structure. In a
conversation between a child and an adult , what the child receives from adult
as an input to his language will determine his order of acquisition. In this type
of interaction , Hatch (1978:140) attempts to show role played by the
strategies used to carry on conversation in developing language which is
dominated by using frequent rhetorical questions and repetition.

      In the adult-adult conversation , the native speaker always tries to
simplify and adjust the language he used in order to make it understandable by
L2learners. The learner also used certain strategies and tactics and tactics
(requesting clarification, topic snitching to overcome learning difficult.




      Concerning classroom discourse analysis , some researchers (Ellis .1990 ,
Van Patten 1992) consider the teacher as the centre of the whole process. The
teacher initiates (I) , the pupil responds (r) , and the teacher supplies feedback.
Ellis (1986-1990) identifies three types of pedagogic goals first , core goal which
, refers to the use of language for pedagogical purposes. Second , framework
goal which relates to the organization requirements of the lesson. Third , social
goal which refers to the use of language for personal purpose. The type
discourse in which learners take part are predictable. It is possible , therefore ,
that the natural sequence is the result of a standard input derived from these
predictable exchanges.

      According to van Patten (1992) Explicit grammar instruction dose not
alter the route of acquisition , learner tend to pass through stages as they
acquire a particular syntactic rate or feature of the language. For example ,
learners acquiring negation in English as a second language begin by placing
abnegator in front of some sentence nucleus , such as No + drink milk for I
don’t drink milk.In a subsequent stage learners place the negator within the
nucleus. I no drink milk (here , don’t may occur as a variant of no). Later modals
appear and the negator is attached to then. For many learners , however the
negated modal may be an unanalyzed unit , such as I cant drink milk or I won’t
drink milk. In the final stage learners reach native like negation as the modal
and auxiliary system comes under control.

      The order of a acquisition is determined and reported according to the
frequency of certain structure in the input. Second language learners cannot
learn from a steady diet of grammatical instruction and practice. They need
input that has two basic characteristics:-

      First , it must be comprehensible so that learners can understand the
sentences they see or hear. Second , input must encode some referential
meaning to which learners can respond. Thus much corrective feedback , most
( if not all) pattern practice, and many explanation of grammatical concepts are
processed not as input for acquisition but as knowledge about the language.
(Van Patten – 1992).




      Swain (1985) has argued for the importance of comprehensible output.
Other researcher including krashen 1987 –1988) stress the importance of
negotiating meaning to ensure that the language in which the input is heard is
modified to the level he speaker can manage. In other words learns need to
hear and see language that is used to communicate the leaner must be give the
opportunity to produce new form so comprehensible and meaningful input-
though necessary for successful acquisition is not sufficient to enure it.

      In this view the only that speaker’s output plays is to provide a further
source of compressible input.




      There are certain structures that naturally occur more frequently than
other’s thus any similarities between input and output frequencies may be
coincidental and not indicative of any conscious teaching strategy “ . (Ellis ,
1986-1990).

      This theory , then maintains that when addressing learners of the
language    native   speakers    always    adjust   their   speech   to      facilitate
understanding.




      These adjustments influence the rate and route of SLA. The learner at
the beginning produces ready made chunks and later he analyses them. This
model is applicable to both children learning their L1 and adult learning a L2
but it is not applicable study since it requires a face to face interaction with the
native speaker of English ,i.e. where English is learnt as second language not a
foreign language.




                     2.1.5. The Neurofunctional theory :


       This theory is based on J. Lamendella’s (1977) work .He attempts to
characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems responsible
for the development and use of language .Like the other models .This model
  focuses on fossilization , age differences ,formulaic speech , etc SLA in
                                 classroom.


           In this theory , the neural system or anatomy is explained in
 connection with language acquisition and the main linguistic functions of
the left and right hemispheres of the brain . By distinguishing two types of
  language acquisition ( FLA and SLA) Lamendella (1977) formulates a
  neuro functional theory of SLA . The first type is the primary language
acquisition (FLA) which is found in a child acquiring his native language in
a natural setting . The second type of language acquisition is the secondary
 language acquisition which is subdivided into foreign language learning (
   Classroom Setting ) and SLA which may occur in a natural setting or
                             classroom setting .


       Lamendella (Ibid.) notes that foreign language learning is different
     from primary language acquisition (L1) where as there are more
     similarities than differences between SLA and primary language
    acquisition . Lamendella believes that ther is no critical period for
 secondary language acquisition as it is for primary language acquisition .
There is also an evidence which indicates that younger children are better
  able to achieve the communicative competence in a new language than
other adults. Krashen etal. (1976) claim that a strong version of the critical
 period predicts that natural and complete acquisition of a language takes
    place between two and puberty and that the processes of language
           acquisition in children and adults are quite different .


      Moreover , there are some who prove that the processes of child and
  adult English L2 learning are not entirely different . Bailey et al. (1974)
report a difficulty order for grammatical morphemes for adult learners of
English as a L2 . They find that the difficulty order observed in their study
 is not different from that found in children learning English as a L2 . This
   suggests that no drastic changes in at least certain language learning
strategies take place at puberty . They also report no difference in difficulty
order between adult learners who speak Spanish as their L1 and those who
  speak other . L1s for the same grammatical morphemes . This , in turn ,
suggests that the order of acquisition of any syntactic structure is the same
                     irrespective of the L1 background .


        Lamendella (1977 : 162) maintains that the critical period exists in
 accordance with certain developmental stages of neurofunctional system .


          ……. When the normal development of that system is directly
dependent on its becoming particular within some delimited span of time in
   relation to some special series of genetically determined maturational
                                   events .


      SLA is also explained with reference to neurofunctional system used ;
The communication which has the responsibility for language use ; and the
 cognitive aspects which control the cognitive processing activities that are
                          also part of language use.
The neurofunctional system is composed of different levels that range from
  higher order which involves semantic processing and verbal cognitive to
  lower order which involves basic grammatical processing . ( Ellis 1990)
                               Brown (1987) .


       This theory , then, is not applicable to the present study since it just
explains SLA in neurofunctional terms , i.e. , it cannot account for the order
   of acquisition ( developmental stages ) the Iraqi learners go through to
 acquiring the English negative and interrogative structures . In addition ,
  there is not enough information available about neurofunctional aspects
                      that may be involved in learning a L2 .


2.1.6. The Variable Competence model

   This model which is proposed by Ellis (1984) is based on two distinctions :
       language use and language product. The process of use is based on the
     distinction between linguistic knowledge (competence) and the ability to
make use of this knowledge (performance). The product of language use , on
            the other hand, consisted of discourse types ranging from entirely
   unplanned . (free speech or writing) to entirely planned discourse (careful
                                               speech or writing) .(Ellis , 1985)

          Bialystok (Ibid) offers another means of conceptual. lizing the varied
     processes of L2 learning Her model can be used to establish an empirical
          frame work in which in which to test the validity of the relationships
postulated in the model it also used to determine which aspect of the model
are involved in various research approaches. In this way evidence which may
        have appeared contradictory may be found to be addressing different
 questions of the general model , e.g. The relative importance of factors such
  as aptitude and attitude in L2 learning may be found to be contradictory at
        all but relating instead to different knowledge sources or processes.

       Bailystok (1982) claims that her model is useful for explaining both
individual variations in achievement and differences in skill development for L2
learners. Implicit linguistic knowledge contains auto mastic? information
knowledge that is used spontaneously in language task?.
                  Explicit knowledge contains all the conscious facts that a learner has
        about the target language. (see the figure blew). Bialy stoke (1979 as cited in
        Eiits 1990) postulates three factors to save as predictors for the inter venation
        of explicit knowledge in language task.


                                                                                   Explicit
                                                                                  Knowledge
Meaning focused                                                                    Implicit
                              Learners notice and                Linguistic
    input
                              attends to linguistic                               Knowledge
                                                                 processing
                                    features




                    Figure (2.3) the role of explicit knowledge in the acquisition implicit
                                                              knowledge Ellis (1990:193)



              To achieve the target language competence the learner

        pass through a series of developmental stages. These stages involve formulaic
        speech , propositionally reduced speech and syntactic utterances. This
        development occurs as a result of the learner’s engagement in real
        communication with others (unplanned discourse) and also as a result of other
        factors such as cognitive and physical factors.
      However at any stage of development and according to the type of
discourse the learner is engaged in , a series of alternative rules will be
available. In other words, some rules are available to the tearner to use in
planned discourse (when the focus is on form as in classroom situation), other
rules are available in unplanned discoures (when the foucs is on meaning in a
natural communication situation). The variability of the learners rule system is
described with reference to Bialyslok’s (1982) dual distinction between
automatic / non automatic and analytic /unanalytic. ( Brown, 2000).




      The first distinction concerns the relative access that the lcarner has to
L2 knowledge. Knowledge that can be retrieved easily and quickly is automatic.
Knowledge that takes times and effort to retrieve is non-automatic. The second
distinction concerns the extent to which, the learner processes a prepositional
mental representation which makes clear the structure of the knowledge and
its relationship to other aspects of knowledge (opcit , 183). Bialystok states that
unanalyzed knowledge is the general form in which we know most thin , in that
we are usually not aware of the way in which our knowledge is structured.
Moreover , learners are overtly aware of the structure of analyzed knowledge,
for example, at the unanalyzed extreme of this knowledge dimension , learners
have little awareness of language rules but at all analyzed and learners can
verbalize complex rules governing language (Brown, 2000 : 286) .

      Primary processes are responsible for engaging in unplanned discourse.
They draw on knowledge that is relatively unanalyzed and automatic.
Secondary processes come into play in planned           discourse and draw on
knowledge towards the analyzed end of the continuum.
To summarize , the variable competence model proposes:




   1. There is a single knowledge store containing variable inter language
       rules according to how au tomatic and how analyzed the rules are.
   2. The learner possesses a capacity for language use while consist of
       primary and secondary discourse and cognitive processes.
   3. L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes
       employing unanalyzed L2 rules are utilized in un planned discourse , or
       secondary processes employing analyzed L2 rules are utilized in planned
       discourse. Where as unplanned discourse is the one that lacks
       forethought and preparation it          is related with spontaneous
       communication.
      Development occurs as a result of acquisition of new L2 rules through
  participation in various types of discourse (i.e new rules originate in the
                   application of procedural knowledge).


2.1.9 The Social Constructivist Model

                                                Long’s Interaction Hypothesis



  The Constructivist model views knowledge as a constructed entity made by
 each and every learner through a learning process. Knowledge can thus not
        be transmitted from one person to the other , it will have to be ‘re’ –
  constructed by each person. This means that the view of knowledge differs
        from the ‘ knowledge as given and absolute views of behaviorism and
                                                                        cognitvism.

      In Constructivism Knowledge is seen as relativistic ( nothing is absolute ,
but varies according to time and space ) and fallibilist (nothing can be taken for
granted )( Asmul.1999 ).

       There is an important distinction within the constructivist school of
learning. Basically there are “ Ognilive Oriented constructivist theories” and “
Socially oriented Constructivist theories.

      Cognitive oriented constructivist theories emphasiz the exploration and
discovery on the part of each learner as explaining the learning process. In this
view knowledge is still very much asymbolic mental representation in the mind
of the individul. ( 1976; Anderson 1985; Mclaughkin , 1987).

      The Socially oriented constructivist theories stress the internal factor i.e
learning is a socially situated activity ( Lantolf , 2000: 53 ; Wilson et al . 2004 )

      Working distributed intelligence by Roy D- pea is also very important.
Pea states that intelligence is manifested in activity that connect means and
ends through achievement.        ( Olson. 1980 ; 157 ).

      Roger (1996 . 102 ) states that the social learning theory is based on the
study of the interaction of the individual and the social environment. The
interaction starts with members of the family and widens out from there and
much of the learning consists of imitation and the internalisation of value
systems acquired from other .



      In Long’s view , interaction and input are two players in the process of
acquisition. In a radical departure from an old paradigm in which L2 classrooms
might have been seen as on texts for “ practicing grammatical structures and
other language forms “ conversation and other interactive communication are ,
according to Long’s the basis for the development of linguistic rules. Brown
(2000 : 287) nevertheless a number of studies have supported the link between
interaction and acquisition. Here principle of awareness autonomy and
authenticity lead the learner into vygotsky (1978) zone of proximal
development (ZPD)…Lantolf 2000:231)        ,where learners construct the new
language through socially mediated interaction vygotsky (1978) states :” Every
function in the child’s cultural development appears twice : First , on the social
level , and later , on the individual level : First , between people (inter
psychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies
equally to voluntary attention , to logical memory , and to the formation
concept. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between
individuals”.




       A second aspect of vygotsky’s theory is the ideas that the potential for
cognitive development is limited to a certain span which he calls the “zone of
proximal development “ .(ZPD) furthermore full development during the ZPD
depends upon full social interaction.




       Vygotsky’s theory was an attempt explain consciousness as the end
product of socialization for example in the learning language our first utterance
with peers or adult are for the purpose communication but once mastered they
become internalized an allow “ inner speech” (Lantolf 2000 : 75) see the table
of level (2.8)
      Vygotsky called for analytic approaches which capture the dynamic
whole of the process being examined (Zinchenko 1995; vygotshy 1987).




       The general genetic law of development and ZPD work hand-in-hand to
provide a framework which illuminates developmental process in the data.




      The construct of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) specifies that
development .

      Cannot occur if too much assistance is provides or if a task is too easy.
Development is impeded both by helping the learner with what she or he is
already able to do and not with drawing assistance such that the learner
develops the ability to work independently.




      For Vygotshy , leaning is a socially situated activity. What a learner at
first accomplishes only in asocial setting , she or he will enventally able to do
independently. The social focus of cognitive and linguistic development is
outlined in Vygotshy’s general genetic law of cultural development. (Lantolf
200 . 53). (Roger 1996 : 104-105).




      The making of meaning in a social interation is a cognitive process or as
clear & Linn (1993 : 71) states that an act of mind that units the social with the
individual. It is interpenetrated nature of the social and cognitive that allows
the study of human cognitive processes including SLA processes through
analysis of the language of social interaction. **
          Like the input hypothesis , the interaction hypothesis emphasizes the
importance of comprehensible input. It also seeks to explain how acquisition
comes about and makes claims regarding which kinds of interaction will best
         promote it. It centers on language classroom not just as a place where
learners of varying abilities and styles and backgrounds are mingled, but as a
   place where the contexts for interaction are carefully designed. It focuses
  materials and curriculum developers on creating the optimal environments
and tasks for input and interaction such that the learner will be stimulated to
create his or her own learner language in a socially constructed process.(Ellis
                                                     1990:107; Brown 2000 . 288 ).

      The interaction hypothesis differs from the input hypothesis in the way it
attaches     importance     to   one    particular     method    of   making   input
comprehensible. There are three ways of making input comprehensible (Long ,
1983):

         1. by means of input simplifications;
         2. through the use of linguistic and extra – linguistic context;
         3. through modification of interactional structures of conversation.
      Both the input and the interaction hypotheses emphasize the
importance of meaning – focused communication as a source of
comprehensible input. Which is seen as the necessary condition for acquisition
to take place. The input hypothesis considers comprehensible input from any
source valuable. The interactional hypothesis emphasizes the importance of
conversational adjustments. Which occur in attempts to negotiate meaning
when there is a communication problem. (Ellis 1990, 116; Brown 2000) swain
(1985) puts forward the out put hypothesis which claims that learners need
opportunity to produce new forms in order to develop native speaker’s levels
of grammatical proficiency Krashen (1987 ) stresses the importance of
negotiating meaning to ensure that the language in which the input is heard is
modified to the level the speaker can mange. Swain (1985) argues that the
student’s failure to achieve native – speakers’ grammatical competence was
not because he lacked comprehensible input as there was plenty of this form
in the immersion classroom. She speculates that the real reason was because
he had limited opportunities for speaking in the classroom and was not pushed
in the output he did produced (Mclaughlin, 1987:50)

      The interaction hypothesis is part of a psychological theory of language
acquisition. However , interaction in classroom setting as elsewhere , is
essentially as a social phenomenon.

      Vygotsky’s theory stress relations between the individual and society. He
asserted that it is not possible to understand a child’s development without
some understanding of the culture in which the child is raised. Vygotsky
believed that individuals thinking patterns are not due to innate factors but are
products of cultural institutions and social activities. Through social activities ,
children learn to incorporate cultural tools such as language, counting systems,
writing , art and other social inventions into their thinking. Cognitive
development occurs as children internalize the products of their social
interactions, Sternberg, 1998 ; 305). According to Vygotsky’s theory both the
history of child’s culture and the history of the child’s own experiences are
important for understanding cognitive development. Cognitive development is
limited to a certain range at any given age. Full cognitive development requires
social interaction.
      In other words , Vygotsky believed that individual mental processes ,
such as remembering , problem solving , or planning , have a social origin.

      According to Vygotsky , children are born with elementary mental
abilities such as perception , attention , and memory. By interaction with more
knowledgeable peers and adults , those “innate “ abilities are transformed into
higher mental function. More specifically , Vygotsky believed that cognitive.
development involves the internalization of functions that first occur on what
he called asocial plane .




      Internalization refers to the process of external physical actions or
mental operation. (Chomsky :1999 : )
            Table (4 . 8 )Becky’s internalization of L4 Grammar

            Transition from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning.
                                 (Aljaafreh and lantolf 1994 ). (Lantolf , 2000; 75 ).



Levels of internalization from interpsychological to interpsychological functioning

  Level 1     The learner is unable to notice , or correct the error , even with
              intervention .

  Level 2     The learner is able to notice the error, but cannot correct it , even with
              intervention , requiring explicit help.

  Level 3     The learner is able to notice and correct the error , but only with
              assistance . The learner understands assistance, and is able to
              incorporate feedback offered.

  Level 4     The learner notices and corrects an error with minimal, or no obvious
              feedback and begins to assume full responsibility for error correction.
              However , the structure is not yet fully internalized; since the learner
              often produces the target from ; incorrectly. The learner may even
              reject feedback when it is unsolicited .

  Level 5     The learner becomes more consistent in using the target structure
              correctly in all contexts. The learner is fully able to notice and correct
              his / her own errors without intervention .

            Vygotaky’s Zone of Potential Development(ZPD) has of late been
     unconvincingly equated with Krasben’s metaphor of comprehensible input
     (i+1). Krashen developed the input hypothesis – the notion that language
     acquisition occure when an individual is surro unded by target language input
at i+1 , where i is she acquirer’s current level of competence and +1 denotes
the stage i+1 immediately following i in a natural order development sequence.
The learner moves from stage i to stage by understanding input containing i+1.
(Lantolf.2000:226)

  Vygotsky’s ZPD concept , by sharp contrast involves what an individual can
      accomplish or perform in collaboration with a more competent other’s
     assistance (or the structural properties of the physical environment , or
     constructed mediational means and tools , which can carry some of the
              weight of what is traditionally understood as mental activity).

      The zone of potential development defines those functions that have
not yet matured but are in the process of maturation , functions that will
mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state.
          To conclude , theories of SLA differ in what each theory seeks to
   interpret and characterize. One of the theories explains why SLA takes place ,
   the other explains how it takes place, the third may answer both questions.
   However all of these theories are of direct influence on SLA process since they
   describe different aspects of the human language , the way it is acquired , the
   parts of the brain involved in language acquisition. etc. We can not separate
   one theory from the others because each one of them completes and implies
   the presence of the others. It is believed here that , what is needed is a general
   theory that includes all the aspects , factors, variables. etc, that are related to
   the process of SLA and which helps the learners of a second language to
   progress beyond the early stage s of learning the target language see the
   (Figure. 2.1).



                               Table (2.1): Theories and models of SLA

                                         (Brown 2000: 288)



         Innatist                                                        Constructivist
                                                 Congnitive
        [Krashen]                [Mclaughlin/Bialystok]                     [Long]

    Subconscious               Controlled / automatic               Interaction
      acquisition                processing(Mcl)                       hypothesis
Supeior to “learning” and
“monitoring”

    Comprehensible             Focal/peripheral                     Intake through
     input(I+1)                  attention (Mcl)                       cocial interaction
    Low affective filter       Restructuring (Mcl)                  Out put
                                                                       hypothesis
                                                                       (swain)
    Natural order of a         Implicit v.s explicit (B)            HIGs(seliger)
     cquisition
 “Zero option” for    unanalyzed vs.    authenticity
  grammar               Analyzed
  instruction           Knowledge(B)
                      form – focused    task – based
                        instruction        instruction
A’’

          Aziz (1989 : 233) introduces negation in English as follows:

       “The negation of English sentences in realized by using “not” :n’t” immediately after the
operator (the rule may be written as: (op I not) … The lexical Verb BE functions as operator…



        In sentence where there in no operator, Do is used as operator with the appropriate tense (
do , does, present) . (did /past)”.

       The negative imperative is formed by using the negative morpheme “n’t” with “do” in
sentence initial position followed by a verb phrase. The rules above will yield the following
sentences:



      1. The boys cannot drive.
      2. They are not working hard enough.
      3. She has not been very helpful.
      4. Mr. Hill is not a doctor.
      5. We don’t have classes on Thursdays.
      6. She does not believe in ghosts.
      7. We did not have much rain last winter.
      8. Don’t jump to conclusions.
        Thus , to identify or isolate the developmental stages or the
       sequence of learning English negative and interrogative
     structure by Iraqi English language learners , implicational
   analysis was carried out in order to find out whether the same
 order is true on the individual level . In case of this study we are
moving towards the full realization of subject – verb inversion and
    the component items are ordered by degree of difficulty , i.e.
  moving from the easy to most complex items acquired . If there
 are implicational patterns in the data , i.e. if the norm variant of
  the variable feature under study ( here the auxiliary verbs ( be ,
   did , modals ) is always used in the context yes – no before wh-
questions, in the context wh-before yes – no question , then this is
   mirrored in the scale . This procedure is useful in treating the
 individual variation in the use of these auxiliaries and which can
   be remedied by displaying the actual individual’s use of these
           auxiliaries in both yes – no and wh- questions .
        The presence or absence of certain attributes in the writing of an individual or group of
learners is displayed by an implicational table from which one can derive a “ co-efficient of
reproducibility “ . Mathematically , it is the resault of dividing the total number of errors by the total
number of responses . Guttman (1944) provides a formula for the calculation of the co efficient of
reproducibility . (R: )

                No. of errors

R= 1-

                (No. of rows ) ( No. of columns )

This procedure provides information about the validity of the scale and allows one to single out
individuals or groups whose performance does not conform to the implicational order . Thus ,
implicational analysis has the advantage of allowing simultaneous examination of systematicity and
individual variation . (Al-Jumaily , 1982 ) . Implicational analysis was heavily relied upon in the
examination of the notion of the development continuum suggested by Corder ( 1977 ) . Accordingly
, language learning takes place in the form of stages along a continuum of increasing complexity
gradually approximating the TL structure . Corder believes that these stages are similar regardless of
whether the learner is learning (acquiring ) his NL or a L2 and in the latter case irrespective of the
learner’s linguistic background , i.e. his mother tongue of the studies utilizing such an analysis are
Hyltenstam’s (1977), Anderson’s (1978) of those involving Iraqi EFL learner’s Al-Jumaily’s (1982) ,
Abdul Raheem’s (1995) , Al- Jazrawi’s (1998) and Al- wayis’s (2000) are to the best of our Knowledge
the only studies employing such technique .
                           Chapter Three



3.1 Introduction

3.2 Related Research in English Negation and Interrogation

  To study the order of acquisition of any structure produced by
any learner or a group of learners means to describe and identify
the developmental stages the learners go through on their way to
L2 proficiency.

  To conduct a complete and an accurate study of the acquisition
order of any syntactic structure of any learner, the investigator
should take into consideration three important factors about the
actual process of acquisition. The first of these factors is to know
how learners go about learning syntactic structures i.e. to know
whether they learn by imitation or their speech is reinforced by the
teacher. The second factor is to know the type of complexity
(syntactic or semantic) the pupils face when learning L2 if we are
able to discover which type of complexity the learners face, we will
be able to analyse and discover which structures are harder and
which are easier to learn more quickly than the other. The last
factor to consider is to specify the processing strategies the
learners use to internalize the learning task in the early stages of
language acquisition (Clark and Clark, 1977).

       Towards the end of the last centary massive research had
been done on the acquisition of English negation by speakers of
different languages. These researches represent what is perhaps
the most comprehensive account of any aspect of second language
acquisition.

  For example Schumann (1978) gives a comprehensive review on
this subject with more concentration on the acquisition of English
negative by native speakers of Spanish. The following review some
of the findings in this field. To start with Klima and Bellugi's is the
model example because it is the study that has always been used
as a base of comparing the acquisition of negation in English by
second language learners with that of learners of English as a first
language.




3.2.1 The Klima and Bellugi Study

  Klima and Bellugi (1966) claim that children may face some
difficulties in understanding the concept of negation. The first
negatives the children add to a sentence are 'no', 'not' or 'do not'.
Later on, the children insert the negative marker within a sentence.
During later stages of language development the children are able
to apply the more complex rules and transformations to the
utterance they produce. Klima and Bellugi arrive at three stages
which they decided a learner follows in acquiring English as a first
language:

stage 1

[{no} – nucleus ] s or [nucleus-no]s
    not

e.g.      no singing

          not a teddy bear

          more …….no

    In this, the earliest period negation marker (neg), no or not, is
placed at the front of an affirmative utterance(s) i.e. neg + s.

Stage 2

S              Nominal-Aux. neg.-[predicative main verb]

Aux.neg             {neg / V. neg}

Neg                 {no/not}

V. neg             {can not/ do not}

e.g. I cannot see you.

I do not want it.

No pinch me.

Do not leave me.

That no mommy.

TRANSFORMATION

     1. Optional be deletion. Np - be    -Np
     2. Do Deletion.
     Do-V      V
   e.g I did not did it.

   Danna will not let go

   This not ice cream.

   It is not cold

   I am not a doctor .

  They argue that the copula be and the modal will appear with
negation and imperative     negatives are formed with do rather than
the simple negative (do not touch the fish) as opposed to (no touch
the fish in earlier period). The children's mastery of negation at this
stage is     nearly complete only a number of             relatively minor
problems such as assignment of tense only to auxiliary (you did not
caught me) remain to be resolved (Cleary and Linn,1993:47 ). Table
(3.1) (3.4) summarizes the development of negative sentences .

    Klima and Bellugi's first stage actual existence has been
    the centre of discussion within first language literature.
  Lord (1974), for instance, found no evidence of this stage,
       while Bloom (1970) and Cook (1991) attributed what
   evidence he had found of first position negation to either
        anaphora, where the negative element referred to a
 previous utterance, and not to the one which followed it or
    deletion of sentence subjects. Both Lord and Bloom are
                                  quoted in Schumann (1978
Table (3.1) Development of Negative Sentences in Child Language
            Stage                           negative sentences

one-word stage                   negation     expressed      by    single
                                 negative word.
                         no

                         all gone

                         negative word occurs at beginning
                         of expressions
early multi-word stage
                         Does     not   occur    between        other
                         words

                         no eat

                         no sit down

                         no hot

                         no mommy

                         negative       word      occurs        inside
                         expression     between       subject     and

Later multi-word stage   predicate, negative auxiliaries can
                         not and do not appear: There is no
                         milk

                         He not big

                         Mommy no play

                         I can not do that

                         I do not know how

                         wider range of negative auxiliaries
                         appear; auxiliaries begin to appear
                         in positive as        well   as   negative
                                       sentences: I did not do it

                                       He does not like it

                                       I am not read the book Mommy
                                       can not find dolly.




*(adapted from Foss and Hakes 1978 ,Clark and Clark 1977 and
Akmajian (1995:462-463).




         The children pass through similar stages when they acquire
the interrogative structures too. Klima and Bellugi (Ibid) also point
out that during the early stages of language development, the
children seem not to understand the interrogative structures. The
first questions the child asks are intonational questions in the form
of     declarative   sentences.   To     acquire   the       English   interrogative
structures , the children pass through three stages:

Stage 1

     The children used intonational questions and some wh-routines.
The most frequent wh-questions found in this stage were what and
where e.g.

What(s) this?

Where horse go?
Stage 2

  Intonational questions continued with a fuller sentence structure
and wh-questions become productive and also there was no do
support e.g.

Where me sleep?

Why you smiling?

Stage 3

  Inversion appeared in yes- no questions, but not in wh-questions
e.g.

He asked what my name was?

The structural description for each stage is as follows:

Stage 1

S(Q)      Q wh                    NP {(doing)

S(Q)      Q yes-no                      (go)

Stage 2

S(Q)      Q yes-no

          Q wh                          Nuclus

Stage 3

Nucleus       VP-V- (NP)

       S  (Q (wh) )- NP –Aux-VP
These stages also include the following transformations:

   1- Do deletion.
      Where horse go?

   2- Interrogative proposing.
      What I did yesterday?

   3- Interrogative inversion
      What did you do?
3.2.2 Norwegian Speakers

        Ravem (1974) reports the development of                    negation and
interrogation in his children Reiden at the age of six                months and
Rune over a ten-month period. Ravem argues that utterances such
as "not like it" found at the earlier stages should be interpreted as
cases    of   subject     noun    phrases    deletion     rather    than    "neg.+
nucleus".     He   dismisses     the four    instances    of     negative-external
utterances as mere curiouities. In utterances that take "do+ neg",
in English, both learners place "not" before the main verb with the
son showing more variation in the verbs used "not" began to be
replaced by "do not" at the beginning of the seven=month of
exposure, but Ravem argues that "do not" here is an unanalyzed
unit(mono-morphemic negative form" as Schumann calls it).

        In Norwegian the negative element is placed after the main
verb, but such a form does not occur. In an earlier report Ravem
(1968) concludes that since the first language of the learner is
closely related to the second , the first is a source that learners can
draw on. He expresses the same attitude in a third report
(Ravem,1978). Ravem stresses that the occurrences of transfer
does    not    imply    acceptance    that     language    learning    is      habit–
formation but the adoption of an "active mental organization
theory" In all his reports, Ravem highlights the striking similarities
between natural acquisition of second and first languages.

        Concerning      the    developmental     stages     of     acquiring     the
interrogative structures, Ravem' children did not use intonation as
the only question signal in their early stages of development and
they did so only when the auxiliary verbs (or copula) were missing,
e.g.

 Is mommy here?

(can) daddy go?

       Both children inverted yes-no questions in the early stages.
Rune has used the strategy of transfer from her L1, which also
required inversion, to the L2. Thus, we can find examples of
inversion that are derived from Norwegian but they are not typical.
They invert less in wh-questions(similar to the American child), e.g.

What you reading to yesterday?

What you did in Rothburry?

       In yes-no question and before do appears, inversion of the
main verb and the subject occurs e.g.

Drive tour car to yesterday?

Like you me not Reidun?

       What     questions    were       used   most   frequently   but   not
exclusively in copular sentence .e.g.

What that is?

       Why not questions were acquired late by Reidun and early
questions were not responded to appropriately.

       Another study that dealt with children learning L2 is that of
Alberto (1978) who did not write formal rules to describe the
developmental       stages     of    negative    and     interrogatives     by   ten
Spanish children learning English in a natural setting. She looked
for the regular changes that occurred in the speech of her subjects'
utterances in each stage of their acquisition. She identified three
stages of development for interrogative structures:

1-   At   first   stage,     the    wh-word     was    attended     to    declarative
sentences e.g.

What you want?

2- Inversion occurred at the stage two, inversion of be was ten
overgeneralized to embedded questions e.g.

I do not know where is mine?

There were also few examples of main verb inversion.

3- At the third stage, the children used be correctly in wh-question
and do support appeared in yes-no questions first and later is
emerged in wh-questions. tense was often marked twice e.g.

Where did he found it?

      Results     of   the     study    revealed       that   the   developmental
patterns of these grammatical subsystems are similar to those
produced by the American children (Eve, Adam, Sarah). Other
findings of the study showed that there were also some variations
between learners of the two groups (L1 and L2 learners).




3.2.3. Spanish Speakers
      Cancino,     Rosanky    and     Schumann,     (1978)      described   the
development patterns,        in   negatives,   interrogatives    and   auxiliary
system by six native Spanish speakers- two children aged five
years, two adolescents aged eleven and thirteen, and two adult
subjects. The Spanish speakers were learning English as a L2 in
natural setting. Cancino ,et al, (Ibid) identified four stages of
negative development:

1- No + V .

      Spanish speakers first hypothesis is said to be that NEG in
English is like NEG in Spanish, hence no is proposed to V as in :

You no walk on this.

I no understand.

2- Do not + V.

      The speakers next hypothesis appears to be that NEG in
English is do not, again to be placed in pre-verbal position: Do not
is simply used as an allomorph of no and still seems to be
essentially a Spanish like negation, but slightly more anglicized, as
in:

I do not hear.

I do not can explain.

3- Aux + NEG (where aux is primarily be / can)

Now it has been learned that English NEG is formed by putting the
NEG element (nt / not ) after the first aux element, as in :
He can not see.

It was not so big.

4- Appearance of " analysed" form of do not.

In this final stage no + v utterance disappears and are replaced by
"analysed" forms of do not, don't, does not , doesn't, did not,
didn't as in:

I don't even know.

It doesn't make any difference.

She didn't believe me.

   Schumann (1978) summarizes the acquisition of negation as
follows (see table (3.1) (3.4). Initially the negation is preverbal with
the    subject    noun    phrase      sometimes   present     and     sometimes
absent. Gradually unanalyzed "do not" begins to replace "no" later
post-auxiliary negation appears beginning with "is not" and "can
not" and gradually to extends to other auxiliaries. What Schumann
finds striking about the English negation of Spanish speakers is its
strong tendency to be preverbal. Although .

       Although Cancino, et al, (1978) refer to interference from L1
Spanish     structures     in     their   explanation    of    the     observed
phenomenon in stage (1) and stage (2), one has to bear in mind
that   both      v-   proposing    and    "unanalyzed"   don't       have   been
demonstrated to occur also with other subjects than Spanish
speaking learners of English as in:

1- L1 learning of English (Klima and Bellugi 1966).
2- L2 learning of English with l1 backgrounds other than Spanish, in
L2 English of German children, two stages can be distinguished in
the development of yes-no questions:

1- No inversion, i.e. utterances are just given a rising intonation.

2- Gradually increasing inversion, but with variability. See Cancino
,et al,1987:222).

Stage 1

     Undifferentiation: the learner did not distinguish between simple
and embedded wh-question.

a- uninverted: both simple and wh-questions were uninverted.

Simple: What you study?

Embedded: That’s what I do with my pillow?

b-     Variable   inversion:   simple   wh-    question     were       sometimes
inverted, sometimes not. whereas embedding remain uninverted
as in:

How can you say it?

Where you get that?

c-     Generalizeation:   increasing    inversion    in   wh-question       with
inversion extended to embedded question as in:

I know where are you going?




Stage 2
  Differentiation:   the    learner   distinguishes    between         simple    and
embedded wh-questions as in:

Simple: Where do you live?

embedded: I do not know what he had?

      The findings of this study are very much like those of a child
acquiring his L1 naturally. At the same time, they are similar to
Schumann's (1978) case study of Spanish-speaking learner. Both
studies show similarities of L1 acquisition order .

      Other     studies    are   concerned      with   the       acquisition    order
interrogatives produced by adult learners of English as a L2; Turner
(1979) examined the interlanguage of three adult native Spanish
speakers (Federico , Alberto , Harry-all are 18 years old) learning
English in natural setting. The aim of the study was to show the
effect of instruction      on L2 learning. He found that the order of
certain structures did not reflect the instruction that they have
received, i.e., instruction appeared to have no effect on SLA. Three
stages for the acquisition of yes- no question were identified:

Stage 1
      The     question     was   marked    by     adding     a     terminal     rising
intonation to a declarative sentence such as : “I writing on this
book?”

Stage 2
      The subject and verb were inverted in questions with the
copula such as : “Is Federico there?”

      Stage 3
        This stage was marked by the addition of the appropriate
auxiliary and subject- verb inversion , e.g. Are you writing for this?

        Turner(1979) as cited in Anderson (1979)              states that the
order      of acquisition of the above structures is totally different
from the order in which they are exposed to. To put it differently,
instruction does not affect their order of acquisition , thus . they
follow a natural order of acquisition.




3.2.4 Japanese Speakers

        Milon (1974) examined the speech of a seven-year old
Japanese boy who had recently arrived in Hawaii. The study is a
longitudinal one extending to a period of a more than six months,
using     video-   tape   recordings.     Milon   finds    striking   similarities
between      the    developmental        sub-stages   of    English      negation
described by Klima and Bellugi (1966) and the development of
negation in the speech of his subjects. Milon concludes that if
there is more evidence that other young non-native speakers
develop negative English systems in the same way as his subject
has, this" would indicate that not only native speakers but also
second language learners at least up to a certain age have access
to universals of language acquisition". Milon adds that some
preliminary work which they have done with two Korean children
indicates that his subjects' developmental progress is by no means
unique.
      Schumann      (1978)    receives    Milon's   claim   with   great
skepticism. He raises questions about how Milon defines his stages
and counts the utterances in each stage . He also raises the
question of the possibility that Milon's subjects' sequence might to
some extent reflect that of Hawaiian Creole.
3.2.5 German Speakers

       Wode (1976) reports on a study of four German children
learning English in a natural setting. In the data he presents, there
is no evidence of Klima and Bellugi's first stage. The data also
shows a tendency for post-verbal negation which is more like
negation in German. There is some evidence of pre-verbal negation
in the form of unanalyzed "did not" preceding both auxiliary and
main     verbs.   Wode      takes   the     unique      attitude     among   the
researchers that L2 children indeed, may, or always do, make use
of prior L1 knowledge and that this is done in a systematic way.

       As table (3.2) makes clear, the development of negation n
German is orderly and strikingly similar for first language learners
and child second language learners. The negator nein (no) is used
alone first and is placed before the utterance produced(1-2b).
Next, nicht (not) appears, both before, within, and after the
utterances produced. Finally, the placement of the negative nicht
begins    to   stabilize,   appearing     after   the   verb   (in    declarative
utterances.

       Rounding up the evidence he has reviewed Schumann (1978)
hypothesizes that "no V negation will be most extensive and
persistent with speakers whose native languages have pre-verbal
negation… and that it will be much less extensive and persistent in
the speech of learners whose native language have either late or
post-verbal negation". Schumann also introduces what he calls
"the two force hypotheses" which states that the "no V" form is
promoted by two forces' natural development and interference.
Table (3.2) Development of Negation in German as a First
     Language and Second Language for Children.
     First Language Acquisition           Second Language Acquisition

Wode (1976)                             L1= English Lange (1979)

     1- nein (no)                       nein (no)
     2- Nein, milch (no, milk)
                                        nein, da (no , there)
2-b nein hauen (no bang=do
not bang)                               nein helfen (no help= do not
                                        help)
3- Heiko nicht essen (Heiko is
not to eat anything).                   Milch     nicht   da    (milk     not
                                        there).
nicht rasen (not step on the
lawn.                                   nicht fahren there (not drive
                                        there).
Britta nicht (Britta not= Britta
is not to do it).                       nein, das nicht (no, that not).

4-    Holger    Kriegt   nicht    ein   das nicht ein schaf (that not a

luscher (Holger is not to get a         sheep).

lollipop).




3.2.6 Arabic Speakers

3.2.6.1 Hanania (1974) and Nielsen (1974)
       First of all, it would be useful to point out that in Arabic the
negative is never placed after the verb.

      Hanania (1974) reporting on a case study of an adult native
speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment learning
English both formally and informally defines the following stages of
the development of negation in her subjects after 18 months of
exposure to English.

no + N no English/ no rain

V + ing not raining

not + adj or adv not here

(I)+do not +V Do not eat/ I do not know

I + can not + V+ (object) I can not speak English / I can not get it

  Nielson (1974) studies early stages in the non-native acquisition
of English Syntax by three children of different native languages,
Arabic, French and Spanish.

      The children were attending school in the U.S.A when the
data were collected. Data were obtained during a period of just
over six months. Nielson defines four stages in the acquisition of
negation of her three children (see table 3.3 ).

      Comparing       the    development    of     Nielson's   Arabic   speaker
(Adnan) with that of Hanaina's subject, one can easily place
Hanaia's subject at stage 2 of Nielson's. In spite of her 18 months
of English both formally and informally, the subjects' acquisition of
second language was very slow and her creative use of language
was still very limited at the end of the period.




Table (3.3) The Development of the Negative Nielson(1974)

        Pascal(French)              Ernesto(Spanish)                 Adnan(Arabic)

Stage 0                            Stage 0                      Stage 0

no boy(Are you a boy?)             No.                          I no know(I do not
                                                                know.)

Stage 1                            Stage 1                      Stage 1

Me. I like no this.                me no speak Saudi.           Me no like it.

This is no good. (Bellugi,         Me no funny.                 Me no speak Spanish
stage 3)
                                                                Me no funny.
Me can not push (Bellugi,
stage 3

Stage 2                            Stage 2                      Stage 2

Is not bicycle.                    No. is not.                  Is      not      book    is
                                                                dictionary.
They      can   not   ride   the   Not    do     it   cow)the
bike.                              cow can not do it).          I can not see (Bellugi
                                                                ,stage.3)
I like no the sun.                 Me not a sleep.
                                                                Me not see.
I want no do that.                 Him not do it.
                                                                Me not like this boy.
I go no hit you.                   She not understand
                                                                Mom       not    understand
Do not do (it).                    Ostrich not animal
                                                                English
                                   Do not move it.
                                                                I no.
Stage 3                             Stage 3                      Stage 3

I    do       not    want     un    I do not like Fred.          I am not like a snake(I
umbrella.                                                        do not like?).
                                    He do not have a
I do not like.                      story.                       I am not want it.

I say do not put the glass.         I do not went no a           I am not very good.
                                    cowboy      (to    be    a
You do not like the girl.                                        I am not finish.
                                    cowboy).
My mother do not like.                                           I am not have fun.
                                    I do not have any
I can not see you.                  coat.                        I am not closed.

she can not ride the bike.          He do not can me.            Mommy is not have
                                                                 ice cream.
Is not down?(Is not the             I do not remember.
escalator going down).                                           I can not tell it.
                                    He can not do that.
                                                                 I do not believe it.

                                                                 I tell him do not do it
                                                                 that.

Stage 4                             Stage 4                      Stage 4

I do not know what I do.            I do not have where.         I am not gone need
                                                                 the gloves.
I do not know who did it.           I going.
                                                                 I am not go no talk
My sister do not know to            I do not know how to
                                                                 about that picture.
ride a car.                         spell it.
                                                                 He is do not dies.
He    did     not    know     his   I    do      not      know
name.(her).                         anything about it.           You do not have a car.

My dad do not have like             He do not know my            He      do     not     catch
that ( mother bike).                brother's name.              somebody.

Mt sister do not want.              I do not want to do it       It do not open.
                                    backwards.
I go to school.                                                  It do not broke.
                                 My dad do not want I                                                             No             body       told               me                               I do not saw it.
                                 play.                                                                            anything.
                                                                                                                                                                                                He do not saw it.
                                 it does not have lights.                                                         Never            talk            to          me
                                                                                                                                                                                                It can not broke. I can
                                                                                                                  (He)
                                 My is not break (broken).                                                                                                                                      not ride it.

                                 Is   not    George                            home(It's                                                                                                        I do not know how to
                                 not George's home).                                                                                                                                            ride a truck.

                                 I    do      not                         remember                                                                                                              Why do you not get
                                 where.                                                                                                                                                         him?

                                                                                                                                                                                                A girl never talk to me.




                                               Table (3.4) Some Intermediate Steps in the Acquisition of Negation
                                                First                                                                                                                             Second Language
                                         Language Acquisition
                                                                                                                                                                                      Acquisition




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Arabic(Hanania and Grad
                                                Norwegian(Ravem,1974)




                                                                                                                                                                                                    German(Wode,1976,1980)
Klima and Bellugi (1966)




                                                                                           Japanese(Milon,1974,




                                                                                                                                                                                       Gazden et al (1975)
                                                                                                                                                                      Chavess,1972;
                                                                                                                   Weber,1976)




                                                                                                                                                        (Hernandes-




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             man.1977)
                                                                                                                                        Spannish




                            step1                 not like it                                 not me.                                         no milk                                                    no, you                                        no
                                                                        now.                                                                                                                                                        English
                           S  (no/                                                         not dog.                                    no sleeping                                                       no play
                                                not ready.                                                                                                                                         baseball.                                        not
   not)-nucleus-                                                                           not cold.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   raining.
                           no/not.              no, no like                                                                                                                                         No catch
                                                                         it.                                                                                                                                                 it.                    not
                           No wipe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            here.
                            finger.

no teddy bear.
 wear mitton
        no.




     Step2             I not this     I no        I not like     Me no
                         way.        queen.       this one.     close the
S  nom-aux-
                                                                window.
neg (predicate         I not like   I not give    I no know
 / main verb).           that.        you            it.        You not
                                     goddy.                     shut up.
                       dolly "er"                I not dumb.
                       not here.      I no                       You no
                                                 I do not can
                                      more                       swim.
                                                   explain
                                     Do not
                                       tell
                                    teacher,o
                                       .k.?

      Step3            No, I did    You are       I am not      Lunch is
                         not.          not       scare ghost.   no ready.
S(Nom.Aux)
                                     playing
                       I have not                 They did      I did not
{predicate Main                        it.
Verb. }                seen this                  not have      can close
                        before.     No, they        time.          it.
AuxT-V Aux –
                                     are not
(Neg)                   You can                                 I can not
                                     white.
                       not have                                  hit the
e.g No it isn’t.
                         this.                                    ball.
That was not
me




              3.2.6.2 Al-Jumaily (1982)
          In     Al-Jumaily's       study    of       interlanguage    development.         He
investigated,            two        linguistic        features     namely,     the      copula
construction and negation. The objectives of the study are to
determine whether

     1-        the linguistic behavior of Arabic-speaking secondary school
               students is systematic or rule-governed.
     2-        The strategies used by the subjects learning English as a
               foreign language are different from those used by learners
               of English in a natural environment.
     3-        The   interlanguage          development          towards     the   target     is
               affected by mother-tongue interference.
          A combination of a cross-sectional and longitudinal approach
is    used       covering       a   period       of    15   months.        Three     elicitation
instruments are used: Translation from the mother-tongue to the
target, recognition and correction, and elicited imitation. The first
two tasks are applied 4 times while the last one is applied 3 times
only. The data are capable of quantification and statistical analysis.
60 subjects drawn from cross-section of Baghdad urban secondary
schools grades 2-6 are involved. Preliminary data analysis revealed
considerable variation and variability due to task and time. The
items in the copula realization and do support in negation were
found to constitute orders of difficulty syllabus gradings.

          The main analysis of these data revealed that the orders
arrived at are consistent irrespective of task and time whether
cross-sectionally or longitudinally.
         Sets of these items were found to constitute significant
arrays     such     that   Guttman     and/or   implicational   scales   can    be
constructed to account for subject distribution. These scales are
incorporated into full scale developmental continua.

         It is found that neither learning situation nor mother tongue
affects the sequence of development. Evidence points to universal
rather than language specific development.

3.2.6.3 Al-Ani (1995)

         In this study, Al-Ani investigates the performance of EFL
learner in translation and recognition-correction tasks with special
reference to negation. His aim is to findout whether translation as
a technique favours mother-tongue interference. He also wants to
find out whether translation has an effect on the type of error EFL
learners make and if so what this effect is.

The      subjects    of    this   study   are   students   of   the   first    year
departments of English and Translation at the college of Arts /Al-
Mustansiyria University. The major conclusions of the research are:




   1-      Students perform better in a translation task than in a
           recognition and correction tasks. Thus a translation task is
           a better indicator of students proficiency or achievement
           than a recognition-correction task.
   2-      Students make less serious errors in translation than they
           do in recognition and correction.
   3-     Mother-tongue       interference       is     not     the      artifact     of
          translation   but      is    rather   a     result    of    the     learners'
          unfamiliarity with the structure involved.
   4-     The more proficient the learner is the less his reliance on
          interlangugae transfer will be and the more reliant on
          overgeneralization of the structure he will become.



        What is interesting in both studies is that both researchers
agree that second language development is similar to that of the
first language, and that the differences are mainly in rate rather
than in kind. Nielson (1974) also states that the acquisition of
second      language    syntax        follows   strikingly     similar      stages    of
development regardless of mother- tongue.




3.2.6.4 Al-Wayis (2000)

  In this study Al-Wayis (2000) examines the acquisition of                          the
copula verb “Be” by Iraqi learners of English. His objectives are:

1- Investigating the route of development of the copula “Be” if any
and compare it with those identified in speakers of other languages
as well as Arabic-speaking learners learning English as a second
language.

        One of the areas of difficulty to Arabic-speaking learners is
that of the verb "Be" where learners tend to produce structures
such as: The cat under the table.
      Another      area of difficulty for Iraqi learners is that of
negating sentences such as: I do not sure. she is not cook the meal.

   2-Trying to find out whether the stages of development of these
   structures correlate with the order in which they are introduced
   in the pupils’ textbooks. This study investigates a hierarchy of
   difficulty in the area of negation.

   3- Trying to findout what role the mother-tongue, in this case,
      Arabic, plays at the earlier stages of development and the
      main strategies employed by the learners at these stages.
  The sample of this study is 120 pupils, 60 in their first year
intermediate and 60 in their second year of intermediate school in
Baghdad. All of the subjects are male with roughly similar socio-
economical backgrounds.

      Two elicitation instruments are used: translation from the
mother-tongue to the target language, recognition and correction.
Al-Wayis (2000) concludes that the learning of negation the use of
the do support only will follow a route that is universal to English
language learners irrespective of their linguistic background and
the order of introduction in the syllabus.




       There are many researches which have been tended to
concentrate on the syntactic structure of negation. For instance (a
study on the syntax of English copulative, and auxiliary "Be" by
Tabur (1985), A syntactic study of verb to "do" by Baghdady (1988)
or on the similarities and differences in this structure between
English and Arabic (cf. for instance, Jawad (1970)and Majeed
(1979). Al-Hamedi (1984) studied verbs with negative meaning in
English, and Al-Timimi (2000) studied the logic of negation. Others
made analytic studies           concentrating   on errors   made by   Iraqi
students in the area of the use of verb phrase negation. For
instance, Mustapha (1984), Omar (1985) and Al-Dulaimi (2000).

        Shageed (1994) studied the development of            the continuum
of negation, she dealt with negation from an ontogeny and
recapitulated phylogeny. By "ontogeny" she meant the "process of
acquiring human language" and by "recapitulation of phylogeny"
she referred to diachronic development of human language. In this
context, also negation by using auxiliary verbs (be, have and do)
has not been investigated to discover whether there is a hierarchy
of difficulty involved in the acquisition of this structure or from the
point of view of NL transfer. Thus, the present study is expected to
fill a gap in the literature in this field.




3.2.7 Research in interrogative

3.2.7.1 El-Fadhil (1986)

   El-Fadhil investigates the order of acquisition of five sentential
structures (questions) by native speakers of Arabic learning English
in a classroom setting. The subjects of the study are 1177 male and
female preparatory and secondary Sudanese students. The test
attempts to find out the order of acquisition of the following
questions:

   1- Who is your best friend?
   2- Where did you meet?
   3- For how long have you known her/him?
   4- Where does she/he live?
   5- Isn’t your friend English?
      The analysis of the data reveales that question(5) is the
easiest to acquire because the students do not have great difficulty
in the acquisition of negative markers. This is due to the fact that
English negative transformations are not very different from Arabic
negative transformations. Question (3) is the second in order of
acquisition because it has or contains less difference i.e. the
difference in the acquisition order of sentences (3) and (2) is not
due to the difference in the tenses used in each sentence, but the
fact that sentence (2) used a personal pronoun "him/her" while
sentence (2) does not. The researcher finds that Arab learners face
great difficulty with English personal pronoun. Question (1) was
the third in order of acquisition because there are no more
alternatives for answering this question, and it requires the learner
to use complex NP. Question (3,4) are the most difficult for
learners to acquire because they consist of more linguistic forms
and the require a large number of transformations which are not
used in Arabic such as the present perfect tense.
3.2.7.2 Abdul-Raheem(1995)

      In this study, Abdul-Raheem attempts to investigate the
order, if any, in which the Iraqi intermediate school pupils acquire
the English interrogative structure.

      The study tries to discover which forms of the English
interrogative structures native speakers of Arabic find difficult easy
to acquire and which are not. An order for the acquisition of both
types of questions( yes–no and wh- questions is               established. For
instance, did is acquired before be which in turn comes before the
modal. what questions are acquired before yes-no questions which
in turn are acquired before why and so on.

       The   learners   start   learning   non-    inverted     why-questions
before non-inverted yes-no questions which in turn, come before
inverted wh and yes-no questions. There is no one to one
relationship between the sequence of the grammatical items in the
pupils' prescribed textbooks and their order of acquisition.



3.3 General Discussion


      The above studies are of two values to the present study. Firstly , the
identified developmental stages to acquiring English negative and interrogative
structures by L1 and L2 learners are used as a basis for the identification of the
developmental stages Iraqi learners go through to acquire English negative and
interrogative structures. Secondly, a comparison between Iraqi learners’
developmental stages and those of L1 (children acquiring their native language)
and L2 (acquiring English in natural and classroom settings and with linguistic
backgrounds other than Arabic ) is also necessary to find out whether Iraqi
learners follow a universal route through their way to acquiring the structures
under investigation. What this study is going to contribute in this respect is the
comparison of the developmental stages of the negative and interrogative in
order to find out whether they are similar or different. In other words this
study is going to show whether the structure itself or the auxiliaries only
behind the difficulties faced Iraq EFL learners of English grammar.
3.9 Integration of the literature into our study

     The objectives of this study are to make a formal structural
description of the language learners' language. It is essentially
acquisition a question of determining the type of English that it
acquired       in    the     Iraqi    students       at    different        stages    of   its
development. One of the main objectives of this study is to
discover      the    spectrum        of   development        of      the    Iraqi    students
interlanguage and hw movement from one end to the other takes
place. Another objective is to find put whether this movement
towards the upper end of the spectrum involves processes that are
similar to or different from those employed by learners of English
in    at     oral    "informal"      environments         and       those    employed      by
speakers of language background other than Arabic. This will lead
to the realization of another objectives namely to try to define the
role of the mother tongue plays in the learning processes, and try
to find an explanation of the evidence of mother tongue influence
on the second language learners' performance. In view of this, we
can now indicate the ways in which the review of literature
presented in this chapter can be integrated in this study. First,
these objectives will be recognized in the forms of testable sub-
hypotheses a number of which will form a group of hypotheses
each covering a certain aspect of this study. These objectives are
grouped       into    three      hypotheses.        The    first,     pertaining     to    the
dimension of order of acquisition/accuracy in terms of intra-
linguistic     syntactic       parameters          irrespective       of    the      language
background or conditions under which learning takes place. The
second, addresses the incorporation of the sequences arrived at by
the testing of the first group into full scale continuum of the
structural area under investigation. The third and last group of
hypotheses. is dedicated to explain the way these continua seem
to develop.

  In the empirical part of the study each of the individual
hypotheses that can be subjected to statistical analysis will be
tested, then, we will adopt analytical techniques that have been
tried elsewhere in SLA research. In testing the first group of
hypothesis     pertaining     to   the        dimension      of    acquisition/accuracy
orders attempts will be made to answer question such a:

   1- Is      the     sequence     the        same        both    cross-sectional       and
      longitudinally or are there two different sequences?
   2- Does          this   sequence       correlate         significance       with     the
      pedagogical          sequence      of        the    items    in    the     learners'
      textbooks?
   3- Is this sequence specific to Arabic speaking learners or is it
      universal?
  In this connection, the review of literature has provided us with
well-documented models and empirical applications to emulate to
note that with. As for the area of negation though there is no study
of a sequence prope, such sequences can be work out from the
immense       evidence       available        in    the     studies     of     stage,    of
development of this structural area.

  Hence, we can expect to find attributes for each given structure
to have ordered sets of natural group or linguistic acquisition of a
more difficult item or notion implies the acquisition of a less
difficult one.

The sequence arrive at in the test at the testing of the hypothesis
of     group     one        will    be     incorporated            into   full      scale     continua
representing         the      development              of    the      structural       area     under
investigation from the starting point to the time the learners
acquire the target like use of the structure. This is the area on
which the hypotheses of group two are centered. We have
reviewed the different points of view concerning the development
of     language-learners'           language.      Out of            the different types            of
continua reviewed. we have opted for the one recommended by
Corder     (1977,1978)             which    has        given       rise   to     the   concept      of
developmental interlanguage continua in which it is believed that
the starting point for all language learning is not the fully complex
code of either the mother tongue, or the target language, but
some basic possibility universal code and that the acquisition of a
target language develop out of this by a process of increasing
elaboration.

     We believe that this type of continua accounts successfully for
evidence of the mother-tongue in the learners' performance as
well as similarities between the early performance of language
learners       and     pidgin        speakers.         The     studies         of    negation     and
interrogative        will     enable       us     to        form     an   opinion       about      the
universality of language development. In discussing the learners'
movement up and down the continuum according to the formality
of their style, studies such as those made by krashen and Bialystok
will be of relevance. Krashen's monitor model will be used as basis
for explaining variability according to the formality in the learner's
style. The role of the mother tongue can not be defined without
involving strategies of learning as well as those of communication.
This is so because there is a lot of disagreement as to whether to
consider   evidence    of   the   mother    tongue   in   the   learners'
performance as that of a learning strategy or communication one
or even both.

  The third group of hypothesis is concerned with explaining the
process of complexification the learner's language undergoes and
the possibility of explaining it through a theory of markedness. The
works of Hyltensam will feature in this discussion even though the
second language studies there is Swedish.
                                Chapter Four

Design and Adminstration of the Test

4.1 The Sample of The Study




  The investigation was carried out in three schools and College of Education
  for Women. Two of these schools were secondary schools for girls and one
    intermediate school. The total number of the student who participated in
the test was (280), one hundred of whom are from second year intermediate
     students, one hundred fifth year secondary students, forty second year
  college student and the others forty third year college student .As a result
     the 2nd intermediate year pupils was the possible starting point and the
       third year college would be the end point to assess the developmental
    stages Iraqi students of English pass through on their way to acquiring the
                                English negative and interrogative structures.

          The students were selected randomly to show their variable order of
 acquisition of the structure under investigation. In addition, all the students
    speak Arabic as their mother tongue and no one of them had been in any
 English speaking country for any length of time. They were within the age of
  thirteen (second year intermediate) seventeen (fifth year secondary ) and ,
    twenty (second year college ) and twenty – one ( third year college). They
    had been learning English only in formal setting , This means that the only
source of learning English for the student was the text books and teachers in
                                                                the classroom.
      .The following factors were then taken into consideration in choosing the
subjects:


                                 101
1- The student’s text-books ; since the situation is an exclusively foreign
language situation , the subjects are what Corder (1973) calls captive learners .
The only possible input available for the subjects to draw onto is the classroom
.And since the teachers stick to the text-books to the letter , it was assumed
that to be possible for a structure to be part of the subject’s interlanguage , it
has to have been introduced in the classroom . therefore, the textbooks were
examined to decide what year of the school system to set as the starting point
for the cross- sectional study . This , will , of course , be after all the structures
to be investigated had been introduced and drilled .

Sex : In order to neutralize this factor it was decided that all of the subjects
would be female .



4.2 Cross –sectional Vs . Longitudinal studies .




 In the investigation into linguistic development , the researcher has to settle
            a question in the choice of data. namely . that having to do with the
      relationship between results obtained from longitudinal (observational ,
     Halch 1978 b: 35 ) studies and those obtained from cross –sectional          (
         Pseudo –longitudinal , bid. ) studies. Although longitudinal studies are
           preferable in investigation s of language development , a number of
    practical difficulties such as the length of the data collection period , often
lead to the use of supposedly viable alternatives such as the cross-sectional .
    in across-sectional study , several subjects from the same L1 background ,
but at various stages of exposure to the TL are observed . The data collected
       at this time is claimed to give the researcher a picture of what he might
        expect to occur in the period between the shortest and longest time of
           exposure in his experiment (Ibid.) . There has been a lot of argument
      regarding the validity of such a claim ( see for example Larsen-Freeman.
                                                                          1975)

        Ellis ( 1986 : 58 ) singles out a major advantage of longitudinal studies
over both error analysis and the cross-sectional studies , namely . that “ They
provide data from different points of time and there for enable a reliable
profile of the second language acquisition of individual learners to be
constructed “. The disadvantage lies in the difficulty of making generalizations
based on the profiles of one or two learners . However . evidence provided by
the studies is accumulative and the case for natural sequence in the question of
negatives interrogatives is based on the high degree of similarity in the profiles
of many individual learners .



4.3 Elicitation Procedures

         An elicitation procedure is any procedure which causes a learner to
      make a judgment about the grammatical acceptability of a form or
     provokes him to into generating a linguistic response based upon the
 grammar of his interlanguage .In deciding what techniques to employ for
elicitation it is first necessary to decide what kind of data one wants to elicit
   , i.e. , whether “textual” or “intuitional” data ( Corder , 1973:61). If the
researcher wants an overall picture of the different aspects of the learner’s
interlanguage he has to use techniques that elicit both kinds of data because
   none of them alone can be judged to represent the learner’s language .
        An important characteristics of such techniques is that they should not
make it possible for the subject to avoid the structure being investigated
because he is not sure of it or he does not feel like using it .
        Moreover , they have to force the learner to produce enough instances
of the structure to provide evidence for the research . In other words, they
should provide information about the subject’ comprehension as well as allow
the researcher to control the subject’s linguistic output (Naiman, 1974:37) .

        One of the important problems connected with the concept of second
language learner competence and its interpretation is its relation to conscious
and non conscious knowledge of a language ( See Corder’s two types of data
above ) . If Krashen’s dichotomy of language acquisition and language learning
is correct it has some important implications for the choice of data on which to
base hypotheses of second language learner competence . Data where the
learner is allowed time to reflect on-and perhaps reconsider initially untarget
like behaviour will not be representative of his speech against rule knowledge .
Therefore, the data should represent whatever kind of knowledge the subject
may possess implicit , explicit or other .



4.3.1 Techniques for Collecting Textual Data

4.3.1.1 Direct Translation

        An elicitation procedure suggested by Corder ( 1981:59) is one that
requires direct translation from the native language to the target language .
This method has several advantages .




    a. It forces the subject to attempt to produce the desired target
        language structure . And so by forcing the subject to form a
        structure which he has not completely mastered , the researcher
        can gain insights into how the subject understands the language to
      operate and how he organizes new syntactic construction in his
      interlanguage ( cf. Taylor , 1975: 75 ) .
   b. The researcher is sure that the learner understands the semantics of the
      structure he is required to produce .
   c. It has been proved as “ a useful approach for diverting the informants’
      focus of interest from the object of the test and indeed in distinguishing
      this object” ( Quirk and Svartvik , 1966 ) .
     The investigator controls the number of obligatory occasions for error.

      Taylor ( 1975a:106 ) reports that the argument against the use of direct
translation is that it loads a study in favour of transfer and interference. Yet,
       many researchers have successfully used this technique for elicitating
            interlanguage data acknowledging that its advantage is more than
 overweighs its shortcoming. Taylor himself (Ibid.) found evidence of enough
   strength of the power of overgeneralization over the transfer strategy in a
                                                  translation task to merit its use.

      Another shortcoming of translation task is the problem of

eliciting those structures that fall under Catford’s (1965) [cited in Bassnett-
McGuire,     1980] category of linguistically untranslatable.These include
structures in the source language that have no substitute in the target
language and vice versa. Though a competent translator can adequately
translate   them once the rules of the target language are applied, such
structures may prove to be too difficult for language learners at certain levels
of proficiency to translate. Such structures will certainly be so for learners at
the proficiency level of our subjects. For example, in Arabic, there is no special
verb form for the progressive as there is in English. The concept of the
progressive is expressed peripherally through the use of adverbs equivalent to
those used in English with the imperfect form of the verb.             From our
experience this concept has always proved too difficult for Arabic-speaking
learners at the level of our subjects to grasp.

For the purpose of this research, we believe that though translation is going
  to somewhat limit the scope of the research through the non-existence of
     certain aspects of negation and yes- no questions in the mother tongue ,
  these limitations are not enough to influence the usefulness of this task for
 tapping the learners production grammar or explicit and other knowledge.



4.3.1.2 Recognition and Correction

      The need now arises for a technique that elicits data to support that
Elicited by the use of the translation task, a task that has been very widely used
is an optional choice task (cf. amongest others Al-Jumaily , 1982 ; AL-Ani, 1995;
AL-Jazrawi , 1998 ; Al-Wayis, 2000). Such a selection task may be useful if the
researcher wants to know whether the subject can or cannot perform some
target language options, while for descriptive purposes the researchers wish to
know what actual rules he uses. Corder (1973) does not rule out the possibility
that a subject would wish to reject all the offered alternatives in a test item,
correct or incorrect, because none of them were generable by the grammar of
his interlanguage. In other words, production-wise this task is restrictive
since it limits to what the      researcher believes the subject would possibly
produce rather than giving him the freedom to use his own rules which the
researcher may not be aware of.

        A mid of the way alternative is one that will- keep the recognition
part of the task, while at the same time, gives the subject the freedom to use
his own rules in producing the correct structure. In such a task, the subject
  is not asked to make judgments of grammatical acceptability in terms of
    target language rules, but in terms of his own interlanguage. In other
 words, the subject is given a sentence where there is a violation of a target
     language rule and asked to judge whether he finds it grammatically
  acceptable (right) or not (wrong); if it is the latter, he is asked lo give the
                                  correct sentence.
          The non-target-like structure used is assumed to be either one of the
subject’s interlanguage somewhere in the process of it’s development or one
   of the mother tongue, where it is different from of the target language.
With such a technique the researcher not only gives the subject a chance to
recognize his own language but also leaves the door open for him to expose
          any aspect of his interlanguage the researcher is not aware of .
          Another reason for the necessity of the production part of the task is
that the subject may mark a sentence as ungrammatical for reasons other than
those in the mind of the examiner        (Al-Jazrawi, 1998:75). Thus, by making
the subject “correct” the sentence in his own way, the researcher would know
why the testee has done so.

          When constructing the test , the level of difficulty of the questions is
considered due to the fact that the individual’s ability to understand and
comprehend any questions depend upon the nature and difficulty of the text
itself.

          To determine the level of the questions difficulty, the questions are
exposed to a        jury of experts who are among the teaching staff in the
Department of English in the colleges of Education in Baghdad provided with all
the necessary background information see appendix A the jurors are asked to.
             1. Check the clarity and appropriateness of each item on the two
                 tasks.
             2. Check whether the items cover the structure under investigation
                 in the way it is meant to and ,
             3. Suggest any modification and additions.
        Many members of the jury suggest that there is a need to another task
beside the two tasks especially to the lower level (2nd year intermediate )
which will be called Ch. task .i.e ask the student to transform the declarative
sentence into negative and interrogative.



4.4 The Pilot Test

       The Pilot Test (PT) was carried out during late December 2004 and early
                            January 2005. The aims of carrying out this test are:

    a. To examine the appropriateness of the discrimination of the start-and
        end-points of the experiment
    b. To isolate the possible equivalent structures and to find out what
        contexts might be favorable for the use of the different variants.
        This is necessary since this    investigation is a study of variation. Notice
        that     equivalent is used here in the sense used by Bickerton (1971)
        and borrowed by Hyltienstam (1978b) which means that two structures
        are equivalent “ if there are both learners who vary between the two
        and learners who categorically use either the one or the other”.
    c. To examine the reliability of the elicitation techniques and the kinds
        of data they yield.
    d. To attempt to discover the workability of the test in the school and
        college chosen. The pilot study can bring out the weaknesses and
      strength of the testing procedure and then help finding solution remedial
      to those weaknesses when conducting the main study.


       Having the above consideration in mind , it was decided that second-
 year intermediate school was the possible starting point ,the end point was
      third year college students, fifty pupils ( twenty five second year
  intermediate pupils, twenty-five fifth year secondary students ) and ten
college students: five students second year college students ,and five third
                                  year college students.
      At the time of administration of the pilot study ,the student’s age range
for each group was as follows :

      Second year intermediate pupils : 13-14 years

      Fifth year secondary students : 16-17 years

      Second year college students : 19-20 years

      Third year college students :20-21 years

Two subjects of the first group ( second year intermediate ) had had 5 years of
English ,while the rest had had the usual four years .Five subjects of the fifth
year subjects had had eight years ,where as the rest had had the usual seven
years . Four of the subjects of the second year college had had twelve years
,while the rest had had the usual ten years. All the subjects of the third year
college had had eleven years, except one who had had twelve years.

                                    4.5 The Tasks :
In order to elicit all possible types of knowledge of our subjects, it has been
   decided to design a test of two parts : a recognition and correction part – R&C
     task one and a production task which consists of translation task and change/
       turn task . A separate page is provided for the subjects to state their names
                                        ,school and year of study (see Appendix A-1) .
4.5.1 Recognition and Correction ( RC ) Task :-



   The subjects were asked to read each of the sentences and if they judged
that it was right they had to put (√ )in the brackets at the end of the sentence
and leave it as it is , while if they decided that it was wrong the had to put (X) in
the brackets and re write the sentence into what they think the correct form
should be (Appendix A1 , A2 ) .

        The subjects were provided with 30 sentences 25 of which are incorrect
and five , which have nothing to do with the structures investigated , are
correct .This has been done to avoid giving any indication to the subjects as to
the grammaticality of the structures investigated . The 25 sentences on this
task were mostly non target like. The structures of those non target like
sentences are of three types :

    1. Those assumed to be the structures that the subjects are expected to
        produce in their development towards the target language at various
        stages of development .
    2. Mother tongue like structures
    3. Structures that had been produced by learners of English with different
        backgrounds .
          The point including such equivalent structures was to see whether
the subjects would recognize any of those as part of their own interlanguage
.Each of these “ borrowed “ structures was given more than once to reduce
                            the possibility of chance guessing .


                         4.5.2 The Translation ( Tr. ) Task :-
             The subjects were given the following instructions in Arabic :
                                        (Appendix A ) :
                       : ‫ترجمي الجمل االتية الى االنكليزية :يمكنك االستعانة بمعاني الكلمات المرافقة‬
           On this task the subjects were given 25 sentences in their native
  language ,i.e. , Standard Arabic ( SA ) , and asked to translate them into
    English . The translation was to be written opposite each sentence .A
    balance between nouns and pronouns as subjects is struck so that the
  subjects will face no translation problem . The researcher provided them
    with a glossary of all the words in the items except those that involve
                              negation and interrogative .
           In negative and interrogative structures ,the items included do-
                     support , the copula and the modal will .

                          4.5.3 The Change / Turn Task :-
         The subjects were presented with 25 sentences divided on the same
    bases as in translation task . This task is a production task in which a
 declarative sentence will be changed into negative or interrogative .So the
   learner had to apply the rule of transformation concerning the area of
   negation and the rule of inversion in the area of interrogative .i.e. , the
     positive sentence will be changed into negative ,and the declarative
    sentences will be inverted into an interrogative sentence by using the
        appropriate auxiliaries do-support , the copula ,or the modal .


4.6 Administration Of The Test.

  First of all, a letter from the Director General of Education was sent to each
   school asking school administrations to extend every possible help for the
                                             research to be successful and complete.

       The researcher then , had to visit the schools chosen for several times in
order to fix the date of administering the test and to ask the pupils not to be
absent on that day , on the one hand , and to make convenient arrangements
for pupils to carryout the test with them , on the other . However, the pupils
were tested in group testing, i.e , whole section took part in the test to show
their variable acquisition order .

         For the administration of the negation test took place during the
   month of December 2004 , and the test of interrogative structure was
 administrated in March 2005 . The first task to be administrated was the
   translation task . In this task , the subjects were given all the time they
wanted .As for the R&C task which was the next to be administrated after a
 couple of days,there were no problems in the administration .The same is
also true for the last task change / turn task .Again the subjects were given
 all the time they needed .All the tasks were administrated in the presence
 of the researcher .The subjects were encouraged to ask the researcher for
   any help regarding any aspect of task or if they faced any problem .No
 problem, was faced .The test was given to two hundred school pupils and
 eighty college students .The sample for the pilot study was excluded from
                                     the main test .


                         4.7. Statistical Procedures :-

         In order to test each of the hypothesis set above various statistical
  devices have been employed . These include the mean (M) ,the standard
deviation ( s ) , ( t ) values which were calculated for acquiring negative and
                            interrogative structures .
         The (t) test technique which was used to test the differences in the
pupils’ type of acquisition , and to determine the order of acquisition Iraqi
  learners had in acquiring English negative and interrogative structures ,
      the ( t ) test has used for independent sample using the formula :-
                                                     
                                            X 1 X 2
                                     T
                                                   2
                                             S12 S 2
                                                
                                             n1 n2


in addition , Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient formula had
         been used to calculate a correlation coefficient of negative and
interrogative grammatical items be ,modal, do , dose , did. The formula is :-
                                      n   xy   x  x 
                    rrh 0 
                                n x   x n y    y 
                                       2         2        2        2




4.8 The criteria for Assessment :-



          In the area of negation, a structure is considered correct as long as
 the correct auxiliary is used with the negative morpheme .The form of the
 verb after the negative morpheme was not taken into consideration ,i.e. , it
was not considered necessary that the infinitive form of the verb was used .
        In the area of yes – no question , the research tries to compare Iraqi
learner’s performance in the acquisition of interrogative with the acquisition of
negation ,to show the order of acquisition, if any of certain attributes such as
be , do , modal for each task .For the purpose of general assessment of the
subject’s performance , each subject is awarded (1) for every correct response
and (0) otherwise .The correct sentences in the R&C task are given no credit
whatever way they are marked .This means that on each of the three tasks the
maximum score is 25 .
Notes :



The schools are :

   1. UM – Al Mumineen Intermediate school for girls .
   2. Ruqeya secondary school for girls .
   3. Al-Amael secondary school for girls .


The Jury members :

   1. Abdul Al- Razzak Al-Shammary Asst. Prof. College of Education for
          Women. University of Baghdad.
    2. Dr. Ahmed Mustafa. College of Education Ibn Rushed .University of
          Baghdad .
    3. Dr. Istiqlal Al-Marsumi . College of Education , Al-Mustansiryaa University
          .
   4. Lamia AL -Ani .College of Education Ibn Rushed .University of Baghdad .
   5. Dr. Lubna Abdul Jabbar Al-Shekhli .College of Education for Women,
          University of Baghdad.
   6. Dr. Muayyad M. Saied . College of Education Ibn Rushed
   7. Najat Al- Juboury , Asst. Prof. College of Education for women .
          University of Baghdad .
   8. Shatha Al-Saadi , Asst. Prof. College of Education for women . University
          of Baghdad .
                                 Chapter Six
                                 Conclusion

6.1 Conclusion



       In order to determine the route the learners followed in the second
language process,their order is incorporated in to the interlanguage continuum
which, in turn, reflects the learners developmental stages towards the target
language norm. The continuum has been found to start at some simple basic
structures, universal in their characteristics , with increase of complexity until
the fully complex system of the target language is reached. This also suggests
that the process of acquisition of the structures under investigation is a regular
and dynamic one , that there is a successive and continuous transition from
one state to another. The data, however , were organized into three basic
stages of development based on consistent changes occurring in the data of
the learners, i.e. this can be explained through the theory of markedness in
which the learners move from the unmarked to the marked .

       The results of the present study may also be of relevance to the field of
error analysis. They confirm that deviations are an inevitable part of the
learning process , and that they reflect the learners’ natural order of acquisition
of the structures under investigation: the types of error which are common
among all language learners. It was found also that Iraqi learners relied on
three strategies in internalizing the negative and interrogative structures.
Evidence in the data suggests that Iraqi learners used the strategy of
communication especially the first group of borrowing from L1 rather than
transfer. The learner borrows from his L1 when he has not learned the new
form of the TL.
      This also proves what Krashen believes that the learner’s L1 substitutes
                               173
for the acquired L2 as an utterance initiator when he has to produce forms in
the TL but he does not know them yet.

      The reduction of      the yes –no question of Iraqi people is not an
evidence of the mother tongue interference but can be explained in terms of
learner’s regression to a basic universal grammar..

  As a result of analyzing the data understanding and analyzing their outcome,
the researcher has arrived at the following conclusions:

   1. learners tend to perform better in change task than in other tasks. This is
      due , to the extensive use of the Monitor, which is a device used by the
      language learner, more so by adult learners in a formal learning
      environment.
   2. Iraqi learners rank higher on the developmental continuum of
      interlanguage in a Ch and Tr task than they do in RC task. This means that
      they make less errors in the Ch task than they do in the others. The total
      numbers of error sin the RC (task2) is higher than in the CH ( task 3) and
      Translation ( task1 ) see the table (5.4 ) .
   3. Five year students are more developed than their colleagues in both Tr.
      (task 1) and (Task 3 ) CH.
   4. Learners tend to perform better in negative structures than in
      interrogative structures (see Figure 5.1) (Table 5.5)
   5. Learners prove to have higher frequency in performance of copula than
      in do structure and the modal i.e. they acquired be before will and do.
      The most difficult items to be acquired are does and did.
      6. Iraqi learner’s order of acquisition of English interrogative structures in
         similar to that observed for children acquiring their L1 and adults
         Learning a L2 in a classroom and natural settings regardless of their
         linguistic backgrounds “i.e. universal”



      The similarity in the order of language acquisition between Iraqi learners of
English as a L2 and a child acquiring his L1 and L2 learners suggests that the
same mental processes may underlie both orders , and confirms the hypothesis
of universal grammar. The slight difference between them are the result of the
fluctuation in in the individual’s performance and are due to certain factors
such as the degree of exposure, the age of the learner, and the high
responsiveness of a child. So far , there has been no evidence that L2 learning
takes place in a way which is radically different from that of a child acquiring his
L1.




6.2 Pedagogical Implications

         The teachers should not be discouraged when their pupils fail to produce
a structure intensively practised, because this structure may be , as it were ,
waiting for its turn to be acquired. Foreign language teachers, then , should
plan to provide large quantities of input materials (listening and reading
activities ) for their students before they ask them to produce language
associated with the structures being studied.
       The results of the research highlight the importance of analyising the
performance of pupils. This analysis may provide a valid guide for the
preparation and sequencing of language teaching materials. It will also provide
valuable diagnostic information concerning the progress of students along the
development trajectory leading to target language competence and help the
teachers, themselves, to better understanding the process of SLA.




       Language teachers can develop a class atmosphere in which the pupils
expose the language they know to the teacher and class mates in a way that
tends to lower the pupils’ affective filter. Since ‘error’ is a necessary factor in
pupils development towards the target language norm , a class where pupils
are encouraged to expose their knowledge of the TL will certainly lead to a
better and faster acquisition of the TL.



6.3 Recommendations :

 For the purpose of better performance by the teachers in assessing and diagnosing difficulties , it
   is recommended that a course in error analysis be included in teacher preparation and training
        courses. This should also involve familiarization with the basic statistics necessary for such
  assessment. It is also essential to educate teachers to tolerate pupils’ errors and appreciate the
                    significance of such errors as true indicators of pupils’ development in the TL.




       Translation is a separate skill that is not included with the four basic skills
of language learning , namely, listening , speaking , reading , and writing . It is
found advisable that language teaching textbooks include a translation element
that will train the learners to translate. This is so, because translation plays a
significant part in the subject’s development and assessment.
       Translation should be adopted as a testing device for measuring both
proficiency and achievement in the learning of a foreign language.



6.4 Suggestions for Further Research:

       On the basis of the findings of the present study, the need is established
for further research in the following areas :




      1. A cross- sectional study to investigate the development of various
          structures of English such as modal auxiliaries , complex structures and
          grammatical morphemes. The study of the acquisition of tense/
          agreement morphology by children of foreign language learners of
          English.
      2. A cross sectional study in which data are taken from learners at
          different stages of development to assess the proportional
          relationship between the learners’ development and the number of
          interlingual transfer errors in their production.
      3. A study can be conducted to investigate the factors that influence the
          order of acquisition of any syntactic structure.
      4. A longitudinal study can be        conducted to examine the order of
          acquisition of Iraqi children acquiring Arabic interrogative structures as
          well as Iraqi English language learners acquiring English structures in
          the classroom setting.
                                 Chapter Six

6.1 Conclusion



       In order to determine the route the learners followed in the second
language process. Their order is incorporated in to the interlanguage
continuum which, in turn, reflects the learners developmental stages towards
the target language norm. The continuum has been found to start at some
simple basic structures, universal in their characteristics , with increase of
complexity until the fully complex system of the target language is reached.
This also suggests that the process of acquisition of the structures under
investigation is a regular and dynamic one , that there is a successive and
continuous transition from one state to another. The data, however , were
organized into three basic stages of development based on consistent changes
occurring in the data of the learners, i.e. this can be explained through the
theory of markedness in which the learners move from the unmarked to the
marked .

       The results of the present study may also be of relevance to the field of
error analysis. They confirm that deviations are an inevitable part of the
learning process , and that they reflect the learners’ natural order of acquisition
of the structures under investigation: the types of error which are common
among all language learners. It was found also that Iraqi learners relied on
three strategies in internalizing the negative and interrogative structures.
Evidence in the data suggests that Iraqi learners used the strategy of
communication especially the first group of borrowing from L1 rather than
transfer. The learner borrows from his L1 when he has not learned the new
form of the TL.
      This also proves what Krashen believes that the learner’s L1 substitutes
                               173
for the acquired L2 as an utterance initiator when he has to produce forms in
the TL but he does not know them yet.

      The reduction of      the yes –no question of Iraqi people is not an
evidence of the mother tongue interference but can be explained in terms of
learner’s regression to a basic universal grammar..




   7. learners tend to perform better in change task than in other tasks. This is
      due , to the extensive use of the Monitor, which is a device used by the
      language learner, more so by adult learners in a formal learning
      environment.
   8. Iraqi learners rank higher on the developmental continuum of
      interlanguage in a Ch and Tr task than they do in RC task. This means that
      they make less errors in the Ch task than they do in the others. The total
      numbers of error sin the RC (task2) is higher than in the CH ( task 3) and
      Translation ( task1 ) see the table (5.4 ) .
   9. five year students are more developed than their colleagues in both Tr.
      (task 1) and (Task 3 ) CH.
   10.Learners tend to perform better in negative structures than in
      interrogative structures (see Figure 5.1) (Table 5.5)
   11.Learners prove to have higher frequency in performance of copula than
      in the do structure and the modal i.e. they acquired be before will and
      do. The most difficult one to be acquired are does and did.
      12.Iraqi learner’s order of acquisition of English interrogative structures in
         similar to that observed for children acquiring their L1 and adults
         Learning a L2 in a classroom and natural settings regardless of their
         linguistic backgrounds “i.e. universal”



      The similarity in the order of language acquisition between Iraqi learners of
English as a L2 and a child acquiring his L1 and L2 learners suggests that the
same mental processes may underlie both orders , and confirms the hypothesis
of universal grammar. The slight difference between them are the result of the
fluctuation in in the individual’s performance and are due to certain factors
such as the degree of exposure, the age of the learner, and the high
responsiveness of a child. So far , there has been no evidence that L2 learning
takes place in a way which is radically different from that of a child acquiring his
L1.




6.2 Pedagogical Implications

         The teachers should not be discouraged when their pupils fail to produce
a structure intensively practised, because this structure may be , as it were ,
waiting for its turn to be acquired. Second language teachers, then , should
plan to provide large quantities of input materials (listening and reading
activities ) for their students before they ask them to produce language
associated with the structures being studied.
       The results of the research highlight the importance of analyising the
performance of pupils. This analysis may provide a valid guide for the
preparation and sequencing of language teaching materials. It will also provide
valuable diagnostic information concerning the progress of students along the
development trajectory leading to target language competence and help the
teachers, themselves to better understand the process of SLA.




       Language teachers can develop a class atmosphere in which the pupils
expose the language they know to the teacher and class mates in a way that
tends to lower the pupils’ affective filter. Since ‘error’ is a necessary factor in
pupils , development towards the target language norm , a class where pupils
are encouraged to expose their knowledge of the TL will certainly lead to a
better and faster acquisition of the TL.



6.3 Recommendations :

 For the purpose of better performance by the teachers in assessing and diagnosing difficulties , it
   is recommended that a course in error analysis be included in teacher preparation and training
        courses. This should also involve familiarization with the basic statistics necessary for such
  assessment. It is also essential to educate teachers to tolerate pupils’ errors and appreciate the
                    significance of such errors as true indicators of pupils’ development in the TL.




       Translation is a separate skill that is not included with the four basic skills
of language learning , namely, listening , speaking , reading , and writing . We
find it advisable that language teaching text books include a translation
element that will train the learners to translate. This is so, because translation
plays a significant part in the subject’s development and assessment.
       Translation should be adopted as a testing device for measuring both
proficiency and achievement in the learning of a second language.



6.4 Suggestions for Further Research:

       On the basis of the findings of the present study, the need is established
for further research in the following areas :




      5. A cross- sectional study to investigate the development of various
          structures of English such as modal auxiliaries , complex structures and
          grammatical morphemes. The study of the acquisition of tense/
          agreement morphology by children of second language learners of
          English.
      6. A cross sectional study in which data are taken from learners at
          different stages of development to assess the proportional
          relationship between the learners’ development and the number of
          interlingual transfer errors in their production.
      7. A study can be conducted to investigate the factors that influence the
          order of acquisition of any syntactic structure.
      8. A longitudinal study can be        conducted to examine the order of
          acquisition of Iraqi children acquiring Arabic interrogative structures as
          well as Iraqi English language learners acquiring English structures in
          the classroom setting.
      It is generally known that second language acquisition refers
to all aspects of language that the language needs to master.
However, the focus has been on how second language (L2) learners
acquire     grammatical        sun-systems,   such   as      negatives   or
interrogatives, or grammatical morphemes such as the plural (s) or
the definite and indefinite articles. In this field, negation have
primarily been studied not to discover the sequence in which it is
acquired but rather to speak to more general hypotheses of
interest to the field. Iraqi teachers of English often complain that
their students face difficulty in the use of the negative construction
due to hesitation regarding the use of the negative particles in the
right position as shown in the ill-formed sentences below:

   1- They have been not playing.
   2- He will have not to pass the examination.
They may also omit the auxiliary or misuse the verb associated
with it as in the following:

   3- She not go to school.
   4- She did not went to school.
Some quantifiers and adverbials often entail certain changes when
used in negative sentences such as some and already which should
be changed into any and yet respectively. These changes often
cause difficulty for Iraqi students. Thus, they may produce the
following erroneous sentences:

   5- There is not some milk.
   6- He did not find it somewhere.
Certain modals, like need and dare, behave differently from other
modals when negated. As a result Iraqi students may keep the to
infinitive when negating the sentence. This can be shown in the
following examples :

   7- They dare not to tell the truth.
   8- I need not to leave early.
    The skeleton survey in 3.1, 2 ,3 ,4 ,5, and 6 above shows clearly that none of
    these studies involved foreign language learners whose access to the target
   language (TL) is restricted to what is formally introduced in the classroom. In
                          this case of learning English as a foreign language I Iraq
      Such an order of acquisition is supposed to reflect the
learner's   natural   sequence    incorporated     into   the    interlanguage
continuum    which    in   turn   reflects   the   learner's    developmental
stages towards the target language norm. The continuum has been
found to start at some simple basic structures universal in their
characteristics, with increase of complexity until the fully complex
system of target language ( in this case- inverted questions) is
reached.
  In   the     areas   of   grammar,    the      studies    of   negative    and
interrogative structure are used to identify the order of acquisition
of adult L2 learners and it is from these studies the strongest
evidence for a natural order of development has bee observed. The
learners are of different L1 background learning English as a L2 and
their ages vary. Both instruction and natural exposure to the LT are
involved in these studies. Schumann (1979), for instance, reviewed
some of the studies that have been conducted to study the
development      of    English   negative     structures    of   different    L1
background learners acquiring English as a L2 in a natural setting
and compared the result of his study which was concerned with
identifying    the     developmental    stages      to     acquiring   negative
structure by Spanish speakers with the results of other studies that
were reviewed by him. He found that his learner's performance of
negative forms were similar to those observed for a child acquiring
his L1 (Klima and Bellugi, 1966). Schumann (Ibid) chose learners
other than Spanish, such as Japanese, French, Italian, Greek and
Norwegian L learners in order to check the systematically of
interlanguage continuum and to review case studies of negative
development. He found the stages of acquisition of negative
structures remind constant but learner showed great variability in
their passing through these stages because of the influence of L1
on the process of learning the L2. This suggests that L1 interference
may be another factor among others that influence the order of
acquisition.
                                        Bibliography
 Abdul-Majeed, M.A.(1979). “A Study of Negation in English and Arabic.”M.A. Thesis : University
                                                                                  of Baghdad.

Abdul-Raheem, N.S. (1995). “The Acquisition Order of Interrogative
              Structures by Iraqi English Language Learners”.M.A. Thesis.
              : University of Baghdad.

Akmajian, A ;Richard, A.; Ann ,F.; and Robert, M.(1995). Linguistics: An
              Introduction         to     Language          and      Communication.4thed.
              London: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology.

Allen,J. P. B. and Corder, S. eds (1975). Reading for Applied Linguistics.
              Vo1.11.      The      Edinburgh       course      in    Applied       Linguistics.
              London: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R. (1978). “An implicational model for second language
              research”. Language Learing.Vol.28.No.2:221-282.

…………….(1979a). "The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first
              and second languages”. Washington: TESOL.

…………….(1979b). "The relationship between first language transfer and
              second language overgeneralization: Data from the English
              of Spanish Speaking Learners" . In Anderson, ed. (1979a).
              The acquisition and Use of Spanish and English as First and
              second Languages. pp.43-58 Washington: TESOL.

         Al-Ani, F.L.(1995). “The Performance of Foreign Language Learners in Translation and
    Recognition, Correction Tasks with Reference to Translation”. M.A. Thesis. Al-Mustansiriya
                                                                                   University.
Aziz, Y.Y. (1989). A Contrastive Grammar Of English and Arabic
             Baghdad. Higher Education Press A-Mustansiriya University.

Bassnett- McGuire , S.(1980).Translation Studies.Metheun.

Baghdaady, S. (1988). “A Syntactic Study of Verb to "Do””. M.A. Thesis.
             : University of Baghdad.

Baily,C.J. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. V.2 Arlington.: Center
             for Applied linguistics.

Baily,C.J.; Maden,C.and Krashen, S.(1974)." Is there a natural sequence
             in adult second language learning?". Language Learning.
             Vol.24, no.2:235-243.

     Bialystok, E.(1978). "A theoretical model for second language learning". Vol.88,No.1:61-83.

…………….(1983). "Some factors in the selection and implementation of
             communication strategies". In C. Faerch and G. Kasper.
             Strategies        of      Interlanguage           Communication             .United
             Kingdom: London.

Bickerton.D.(1973). "The nature of a creole continua". Language .
             Vol.49.No.3:640-669.

Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 2nd
             ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

……………..(2000). Principle of Language learning and Teaching. 4th
             Edition. London: Longman.

Brown ,R.(1973). A First language. Cambridge: Washington Harvard
             University Press.
Canale, M. (1983)."From communicative competence to communicative
            language pedagogy" In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt.
            (eds). Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Cancio, H.; Rosanky, J. and Schumann, J.(1978). "The acquisition of
            English   negatives     and     interrogatives     by   native     Spanish
            speakers" In E. Hatch. ed. Second Language Acquisition.
            Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.

Cazden, C.B.(1972). Child Language and Education. New York: Holt.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheom.

……………(1999).     Ideas      and   Ideals.   Cambridge        :Cambridge      University
            Press.

Cleary, L. and Linn, M. (1993). Linguistics for Teachers. New York:
            McCrow-Hill, Inc.

Close, R.A. (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English.
            London: Longman.

"Constructivism" Psychological Theories : A Brief Survey of Changing
            Views      of       Learning.     January6,1999.        http       ;      //
            www.//file://A:/constructivism.       htm.       Retrieved.      July21    ,
            2004.

Cook, G. (2003). Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook,V.(1986). Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning.
            London: Longman.
…………..(1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
            Vivian Cook. New York.

………….and Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An
            Introduction .2nd (ed). Vivian Cook New York.

Corder, S. Pit. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin.

………………(1981).        Error       Analysis      and   Interlanguage.     Oxford:   Oxford
            University Press.

Crystal ,D. (1994). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English .
            Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Darcais, G.B. and Levlet, W. J. (1970). Advance in Psycholinguistics .
            London: North- Holland Company.

Decamp, D. (1971)."Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole
            speech        continum".     In     D.   Hymes.   ed.     Pidginzation   and
            Creolization of Language. pp349-370 London: Cambridge
            University Press.

Devillers, J. (1979). Language Acquisition.Washington. Harvard Press.

………….. and Devillers, P. (1973)." A cross-sectional study of the
            acquisition of grammatical, morphemes in child speech”.
            Journal of Psycholinguistics Research. Vol. 2. No.3:267-278.

Dittmar. N. (1979). "Ordering adult learners according to language
            abilities".     In    S.   Felix    Second   Language         Development.
            pp205-231. Muinch: Narr.
Dornei, Z. (1995)." On the teachability of communication strategies".
            TESOL Quarterly. Vol.29.No. 1:55-85.

………... and Scott, M. (1995a) "Communication strategies: What are they
            and what they not?" Paper Presented at the annual
            Conference      of     the      American    Association     for     Applied
            Linguistics (AAAL). Long Beach, C.A.

………(1995b). "Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with
            retrospections". In J.S. Turley and K. Lusby .Selected Papers
            from the Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the
            Desert Language and Linguistics Society. Brigham Young
            University.

………(1997)."     Communication            strategies    in      a   second      language:
            definitions and taxonomies". Language Learning. Vol..47.
            No.1:137-210.

…………and Thurrel, S. (1992). Conversation and Dialogues in Action.
            England: Prentice Hall.

………….(1994)."Teaching conversational skill. intensively course content
            and rationale". ELT Journal. Vol.48. No.1:40-49.

Dualy, H. and Burt, M. K. (1973)."Should we teach children syntax?".
            Language Learning. Vol.23.No.2:245-258.

…………….(1974)."Natural            sequence       in     child       second      language
            acquisition". Language Learning. Vol.24.No.1 :37-53.

…………..and     Krashen,    S.      (1982).     Language      Two.     Oxford:     Oxford
            University Press.
Al-Dulaimi, N.M. (2003) “An Investigation of Language Error Made by
             Iraqi College Student in Using the Primary Auxiliary Verbs
             in English”. M.A. Thesis. :University of Baghdad.

El-Fadil, Hamed E.Nil.(1986)”The acquisition of five English sentential
             structures by native speakers of Arabic”. Apaper presented
             at the 20th conference of IATFFL Brighton.

Ellis,R. (1986). Understanding second Language Acquisition. Oxford :
             Oxford University Press.

 ……..(19900.     Instructed        Second   Language    Acquisition.     Cambridge:
             Blackwell.

Encyclopedia Britanica (2001). CD Rom.

Faerch, C.     and Kasper,         G.(1983b)."Plans   and   strategies   in   foreign
             language communication". In C. Faerch and G. Kasper.
             Strategies       in     Interlanguage     Communication.         pp20-60
             London : Longman.

Fathman, A. (1976)." Similarities and simplification in the interlangugae
             of second language learners". In S. Pit Corder and E. Roulet.
             Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and
             Their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy.                      Geneva:
             Dros.

Fitikides, J.J.(2000). Common Mistakes in English. London : Longman.

Fletcher, P and Michael Graman(1979). Language Acquisition: Studies in
             First   Language          Development.      Cambridge:      Cambridge
             University Press.
Flynn, S.(1987) “Contrast and construction in a parameter- setting model
             of     second      language       acquisition”        Language       Learning        .
             Vol.37,No.1,pp.19-53.

Gerow, J(2004). Psychology: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: Harper
             Collins' College.

Guttman, L.(1944). “A basis for scaling qualitative data”. Reprinted in M.
             Fishbein(ed.)        (1967).Readings          in     Attitude      Theory       and
             Measurement. New York Wiley and sons-

Hajjaj, A. and Nayef, Kh.(1997). Errors in English Among Arabic Speakers
             . Analysis and Remedy. York Press.

  Al-Hamash, K. (1978). A survey of English Text books in primary and Secondary school in Iraq.
   The institute for the Development of English Language the Development of English Language
                                                                    teaching in Iraq. Baghdad.

Hanania, E. (1974). “Acquisition of English Structures: A Case Study of
             an Adult Native Speakers of Arabic in an English Speaking
             Environment”.Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University.

Hatch, E. (1978)."Discourse analysis, speech acts, and second language
             acquisition".        In      W.       Ritchie.(ed)        Second        Language
             Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications . New York:
             Academic Press.

 Hoekstra, T. and Bonnie, D.(1994)."On the initial states of language
             acquisition". Language Acquisition in Generative Grammar.
             Vol.8.pp.123-140            in      teun           Hoekstra      and        Bonnie
             D.Sch.wartz(ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Hyltenstam,        K.(1977)."Implicational      patterns     in      syntax    variation".
              Language Learning. Vol.27. No.2:383-411.

……………(1987a)."A Framework for the study of Interlanguage continua".
              Working Papers, Phonetics Laboratory. Vol. 16:70-94.

Al-Jazrawi, D.(1998). “The Acquisition of English relative Clauses by
              Iraqi Arabic Speaking Learners”. M.A. Thesis.              : University of
              Baghdad.

Al-Jumaily, A. (1982). “A Developmental Study of the Acquisition of
              Certain Syntactic Features of English by Arabic Speaking
              Learners”. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.

Kellerman,     E.(1991)."Compensatory           strategies    in     second       language
              research. A critique, a revision, and some(non) Implication
              for the classroom". In R. Phillipson; E. Kellerman; L.Selinker;
              M.     Sharwood          Smith   ,and    M.    Swain.      Foreign/Second
              Language Pedagogy Research: A Communicative Volume
              for Clause. Pp.142-161 . London: Multilingual Matters.

Keshavarz, M. (1999). Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Teheran:
              Rahman Publisher.

……………(2000).          Issues      in     Applied      Linguistics.     Iran:      Rahnama
              Publications.

Krashen, S.D.(1976). "Formal and informal linguistic environments in
              language         acquisition     and     language       learning.     TESOL
              Quarterly. Vol.10. nO.2: 157-168.
    ……………..(1977)."Some issues relatively to the Monitor Model". In TESOL Vol.77.pp.144-158.
                                                                                Washington.

…………(1978). "Is the natural order an artifact of the bilingual Syntax
             Measure?". Language Learning. Vol.28. No.1: 175-183.

…………..(1987). Principles and Practice in Second language Acquisition.
             London: Prentice-Hall.

…………..(1988).       Second     Language       Acquisition      and     Second      language
             learning. London: Prentice-Hall.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Socio-Cultural Theory and Second language Learning.
             Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, L.(1975). "The acquisition of grammatical morphemes
             by adult ESL students". TESOL Quarterly. Vol.9. No.4: 409-
             420.

…………..(1976) “An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of
             second      language       learners".     Language        Learning.      Vol.62.
             No.1:125-135.

Lyons,   J.(1981)    Language        and     Linguistics.    Cambridge       :   Cambridge
             University Press.

Mckeough, A.(1995) Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generazation in
             Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence: Erlbaum.

Mclaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London:
             Barry Mclaughlin.
Naiman, N.(1974)”The use of elicited Imitation in second language
           research “ working papers on Bilingualism, 2. Ontario, The
           Ontario Institute for studies in Education.

Nasar, R.(1965), The Teaching of English to Arab students. London,
           Longman.

Nielsen, Th. (1974). “Early Stages in the Non-Native Acquisition of
           English Syntax: A Study of Three Children from Zaire,
           Venzeuela      and     Saudi   Arabia”.Ph.      Dissertation.      Indiana:
           Indiana University Press.

O'Mally, J.; R. Russo; Anna Chambot; G. Stewner-Manzanars; L. Kupper
           ;and   Rocco     Rosso      (1985a).´Learning       strategies   used   by
           beginning      abd     Intermediate     ESL      student"        .Language
           Learning. Vol.35. No. 1:21-46.
…………..(1985b)."        Learning    strategies    application     with   students   of
           English as a second language ". TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 19.
           No.3:557-584.
Paribatkht, T. (1985) "Strategies competence and language proficiency".
           Applied Linguistics. Vo.6.No.2:123-146.
PettiJohn, T. (1997). Source: Notable Selection in Psychology. 2nd (ed).
           U.S.A.: McGraw- Hill.
Poulisse, N. (1993). "A theoretical account of lexical communication
           strategies". In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens. The Bilingual
           Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prideaux, G. (1984). Psycholinguistics. The Experimental Study of
           Language. London : University of Alberta Press.
Putz, M. (1992). Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam: John
           Benjamins Publishing Co.
Quirk,R,   Greenbaum,S.     and   Leech,     G    (1999).       A    comprehensive
           Grammar of the English language London. Longman.
Quirk, R.and. Savartuik. J (1966). Investigating           linguistic Acceptiability.
           The Haga , Mouton.
Ravem, R. (1974) “Second language acquisition: A study of two
           Norwegian children’s Acquisition of English syntax in
           naturalistic   setting”.       Ph.D.   Dissertation.      University   of
           Essex.
Richard, J. (1971). "A Non- contrastive approach to error analysis". In
           Error    Analysis      Perspectives        on      Second      Language
           Acquisition. London: Longman.
Richard, J. and Sampson, G. (1974). “The study of learner English". In
           Error     Analysis     Perspectives        on       Second      language
           Acquisition. London: Longman.
Richard , J.   Platt ,J. and Heidi, Weber(1985). Dictionary of Applied
           Linguistics. London: Longman.
Richard ,J. and Rodgers, Th. (2001). Approaches and Methods in
           Language       Teaching.   2nd     (ed).    Cambridge:        Cambridge
           University Press.
Ritchie, W. (1978). Second Language Acquisition Research. Issues and
           Implications. London: Academic Press.
Rivers, W.(1981).Teaching Foreign Language Skills. 2nd Edition. The
           University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, N. (1997). Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English
           Syntax. 2nd Edition. New York: Assidon Wesely.
Roninett, B (1978). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
           Canada University of Minnesota Press.
Rogers,A. (1996). Teaching Adults. Allan Rogers: Buckigham.
Rosanky,   E.(1976).      "Methods      and    morphemes       un      second    language
            acquisition          research".     Language            Learning.     Vol.26.
            No.2:409-425.
Rost, M.(1994)."Communication strategies: Are they teachable?". Papers
            Presented at TESOL.94.
Sampson, G. (1978). A Model for second language learning". The
            Canadian        Modern        Language        Review.       Vol.34.No.3:155-
            1710
Schmidt, R. (1994). "Deconstructing conciousness in search of useful
            definition     for     applied    linguistics".    In     Consciousness    in
            Second Language Learning. AILA Review. No.11:11-26.
Schumman , JH. (1978a) The Pidginization Processes A model for
            second language Acquisition Rowley , M.A: New burry
            House publishers.


………….(1978b) “The acquisition of English negation by speakers of
            Spanish : Areview of the literature”.In P.W. Andersen(ed.)
            (1979) The Acquisition and Use of Spanish and English as
            First and Second Language. Washington: TESOL.
Schutz, R. "Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition".
            English        Mode         in      Brazil.       January      30,      2003.
            http//www.sk.com bt/sk-krash.htm/. Retrieved in March 17th
            2003.
Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguge". IRAL. Vol.10.NO.3:219-231.
Shageed, R (1994). “The Developmental Continuum of Negation”.
            M.A. Thesis. University of Baghdad.
Smith, R. (2001). Psychology Themes and Variations.: Instructor's
            Resource Manual for Wayne Weitens'. 5th (ed).New York
            .Wadsworth, a division of Themson learning.
Snow, E. (1993). Bilingualism and second langauge acquisition". In
               Gleason J. B. and Ratner B. eds. Psycholinguistics. New
               York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Stenson, N. (1974). "Induced errors" In J.H. Schumann and N. Stensen.
               New      Frontiers      in    Second       Language     Learning.       London
               .Newbury House Publishers.
Sternberg, R. (1998). In Search of Human Mind. 2nd Edition. U.S.A.:
               Harcourt brace College and Company.
Swain,    M.      (1985).       "Communicative           competence:      some       roles   of
               comprehensible       input          and   comprehensible    output       in   its
               development". In S.Gass and S. Madden. Input in Second
               Language Acquisition. Pp 235- 253. Rowley ,M.A.Newbury
               House.
Tarone,   E.     (1977)."Conscious           communication       srtategies:     A    progress
               report".In       H.D.Brown; C. Yario and R. Crymes. eds.
               Teaching and Leaning English as a Second Language
               Trends in Research and Practice. Washington. TESOL.
……………(1980). Communication strategies, foreigner, talk and repair
               in interlanguage" . Language Learning. Vol.30.No.2 : 417-
               427.
……………and Yule, G, (1987)."Communication strategies in East West
               interactions".     In        L.E.     Smith    and    Hemel       Hempstead.
               Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World English.
               UK:Prentice-Hall.
Tavakolian, S. (1981). Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.
               Cambridge The Massachustt Institute of Technology.
Taylor, B.P,(1975a). "The use of overgeneralisation and transfer learning
               strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL" .
               Language Learning. Vol. 25. No.1 :73-107.
…………..(1975b).        "Adult      language      learning        strategies    and     their
           pedagogical        implications".        TESOL       Quarterly.     Vol.9      .
           No.4:391-399.
……………(1975c). "The use of Overgeneralisation and transfer learning
           strategies by elementary and intermediate University Student
           Learning English as a Second language" In TESOL 95.
Al-Timimi, M. (2000). “The Logic of Negation in English”. M.A.
           Thesis. Al_Mustansiria University.
Trask, R. (1999). Language :The basics. 2nd Edition. Britain: T .J .
           International Ltd.
VanEls, Th.; Bongaerts Theo, Extra Guus; Vanos Charles , Anne-
           Meikjanssen-Van         Dien(1984).         Applied       Linguistics      and
           Learning        and   Teaching      of     Foreign     Languages.        U.S.A.:
           Edward Arnold.

Van Patten, B. "Second-language-acquisition research foreign language
           teaching. Part 2". ADFL Bulletin. Spring 23.1992. No.3:23-
           27.
                http//www.bbs/.espen. Retrieved November12.2004.
Varadi, T. (1973). Strategies of target language learner communication:
           message         adjustment"     .Papers      Presented       at    the     VIth
           Conference of the Rymaninan-English Linguistics Project,
           Timsoura, Rumanian in IRAL. 1980.Vol.18. No. 1:59-71.
Wade, C. and Tavris, C. (2003). Psychology. 7th Edition. New Jersey:
           Pearson Education.
Al-Wayis,B.M.(2000). “The Acquisition of Copula Verb by Iraqi Learners
           of English”. M.A. Thesis. University of Baghdad.

Welexer,   K.    (1980).     Formal      Principles     of   language        Acquisition.
           Cambridge: The Mit Press.
White, L.(2000). "Second language acquisition: from initial to final
           state". In J. Archibald. Second language Acquisition and
           Linguistic Theory. pp. 130-155 Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilkinson, A, (1971). The Foundations of language. Talking and
           Reading in Young Children.         Oxford: Oxford University
           Press.
Wilkins, D. (1974). Second language Learning and Teaching. London:
           Edward Arnold Ltd.
Wilson, T.; Akert, R.;Elliot, A. (2004). Social Psychology. 4th Edition.
           New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Yule,Georg(1996).   The   study   of   language.   2nd   edition   Cambridge:
           Cambridge University press.
                                                Table (2.4) – continued


Faerch & Kasper   Bialystok     Paribakht             Willems          Bialystok   Nijmegem   Poulisse   Domyei & S
    (1983 b)       (1983)         (1985)               (1987)           (1990)       Group    (1993)            19

Il based                        -Functional          Strategies                                          *Appeals fo

trategies                       description         Approximation                                        Own –perfo

Generalization                Metalinguistic         Wordcoinage
                                                                                                         Problem
Paraphrase                         Clues             Paraphrase                                             stra
                                                                                                         Comprehen
Word coinage                                         Description
                                                                                                         Own-accura
Restructuring                   Contextual             Circum
                                                                                                         Other perfo
Cooperative                     Approach              Locution
                                                                                                         Problem –re
                                                   Exemplification.
Strategies                       Linguistic                                                              strategies
                                                      Smurfing
Non-linguistic                   Context                                                                 Asking for re
                                                     Self-repair
Strategies                       Use of L2                                                               Asking for c
                                                     Appeals for
Retrieval                       Idioms and                                                               Asking for c
                                                     Assistance
trategies                        Proverbs                                                                Guessing
                                                       Explicit
                              Transliteration                                                            Expressing
                                                      Lmplicit
                              Of L idioms and                                                            Non unders
                                 proverbs             Checking
                                                                                                         Interpretive
                                Idiomatic            Questions
                                                                                                         Responses
                                 Transfer          Initiating repair
                                                                                                         Indirect

                                                                                                         Strategies
                                Conceptual
                                                                                                         Processing t
                                Approach                                                                 related stra

                              Demonstration                                                              Use of fillers

                              Exemplification                                                            Repetitions
 Metonymy       Own perfor

                Problem –re
                strategies
   Mime
                Verbal strat
  Replacing
                Other-perfo
Verbal output
                Problem-rel
Accompanying
                strategies
Verbol output
                Feigning un
                Table (2.4) – Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies

  Faerch &
                  Bialystok         Paribakht         Willems         Bialystok    Nijmegem         Poulisse           Dom
   Kasper
                     (1983)            (1985)          (1987)           (1990)       Group           (1993)           (199
  (1983 b)
Formal           L1-based          Linguistic       Reduction        Analysis-    Conceptual      Substitution      Direct s

Reduction        Strategies        Approach         Strategies       Based        Strategies      Strategies        Resourc

Phonological     Language          Semantic         Formal           Strategies   Analytic                          Strategi

Morphological    Switch            Contiguity       Reduction                     Holistic        Substitution      Messag

Syntactic        Foreignizing      -superordinate   Phonological     Control-                     Plus              Messag

Lexical          Transliteration   comparison       Morphological    Based        Linguistic      Strategies        Messag

                                   positive         Syntactic        Stra-        Code                              Circuml

Functional       L2-Based          comparison       Lexical          Tegies       Strategies      Reconceptualiza   Approxi
                                                                                                  tion
Reduction        Strategies        analogy          Functional.                   Morphological                     Use of a
                                                                                                  strategies
Actional red     Semantic          synonymynegati   Reduction                     Creativity                        Word –
                                   ve
Modal red        Contiguity                         Message                       transfer                          Restruc
                                   comparision
Reduction of     Description                        Abandonment                                                     Literal t
                                   contrast&
Propsitional     Word coinage                       Meaning                                                         Foreign
                                   opposite
Content          Non-                               Replacement                                                     Code sw
                                   Antonymy
Topic            Linguistic                         Topic                                                           Use of s
                                   Circumlocution
Avoidance        strategies                         Avoidance                                                       Soundin
                                   Physical
Message                                                                                                             Mumbli
                                   Description
Abandonment                                         Achieve                                                         Omissio
                                   Size
Meaning                                             Ment                                                            Retrieva
                                   Shape
Relacement                                          Strategies                                                      Mime
                                   Color
                                                    Paralinguistic                                                  Own- p
                                   Material
Achieve                                             Strategies                                                      Problem
                                   Constituent
Ment                                                Interlingual                                                    Self-rep
                                   Festures
Strategies       Features     Strategies       Self-rep

Compensatory     Elaborated   Borrowing/code   Other –

Strategies       Features     Switching        Problem
                                               strategi
Code switching   Locational   Literal
                                               Other –
Interlingual     Property     Translation

Transfer         Historical   Eoreignizing
                                               Interact
Inter            property     Intralingtal
                                               Strategi
Intralingual
                                               Resourc
transfer
                                               Related
     Table (3.2) Stuuble's Analysis of the Sequence of Acquisition of
English Negation by Native Speakers of Spanish

1- Stage 1 pre-verbal negation rule.

a- No+ verb constructions- no saw him.

b- No+ phrase constructions- no in Columbia.

c- some do not+ verb construction- do not like.

2- Early stage 2 – pre-verbal and auxiliary negation rules.

a- Dominant use of un analyzed do not+ verb constructions.

I do not saw him(did not).

b- some cop/aux + negator constructions.

The dog can not bark.

c- No/Not+ phrase constructions in variation.

No this week. Not today.

3- Mid-stage 2 – pre-verbal and post-auxiliary negation rules.

a- Decline of No+ verb constructions.

b- Expansion of cop/aux+ negator constructions I am not old
enough. I will see you tomorrow (= will not)

c-    Increase   of   Not    +   phrase   constructions   over   No+   phrase
constructions.

4- Late stage 2 –loss of pre-verbal negation and establishment of
English post-auxiliary rule.
a- Innovation of past/present distinction among negative forms
(i.e. the use of past tense cop and aux and do)- He was not talking
to the teacher.

I did not went to Costa Rica.

b- Elimination of non- standard negative forms(i.e. no+ phrases and
pre-verbal negation)

c- Restructuring of unanalyzed do not(i.e. the appearance did not ,
does not, do not ,etc.) such that do is used as carrier of both
negation and tense.

    5- Stage 3 – Final elimination of all non-standard interlingual forms and the
              establishment of standard English negation (Al-Jumaily,1982:64).
Table (5.2 ) Statistical Differences Among the four Group in
 Acquiring to Grammatical Items Be, Will, Do, Does, Did.
Table (5.3 ) Statistical Difference between negative and
Interrogative Constructions Be, Modal ,Do ,Does, Did.
    Table (5.3 ) (B) Statistical Differences between negative and
Interrogative Constructions Be, Modal, Do, Does, Did in All Group in
                                 all Tasks.
Table (5.4) Statistical Differences Among the Three Tasks in
     Acquiring the Auxiliary Be, MoD , Do , Does , Did.
Table (5.4 ) (B) Person Correlations Coefficient between the Tasks.
Table (5.5) Statistical Differences Among the Negative and
   Interrogative Constructions Be, Mob, Do, Does, Did.
Table (5.6) A. Person Correlation of Grammatical items. Be, MoD ,
                          Do , Does ,Did.
Table (5.6 ) B. Person Correlations of Grammatical items Be, Mod,
                          Do, Does, Did.
Figure (5.1 )C3 Performance of the Students in negative and
                      interrogative. Did
                                    Translation task

Table 1 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals 2 nd Year
                                         Intermediate.

                       Tr.          Task (1)               n = 100 group (1)



Performance     Modal        Copula        Don’t      Didn’t         Doesn’t        P.C.
   level                      NBE
                                               NDO      NDID         NDOES         Total
              NMod
   0-9 %          86           59              53         89           96           75%

  10-19 %          0           22               0         0             0          17 %

  20-29 %          7           13              22         8             1           3%

  30-39 %          0            2               0         0             0           0%

  40-49 %          0            0               0         0             0           2%

  50-59 %          4            1              14         2             0           0%

  60-69 %          0            0               0         0             0           0%

  70-79 %          1            0               9         1             2           I%

  80-89 %          0            1               0         0             0           2%

 90-100 %          2            2               2         0             1           0%
Table 2 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals 5 th Year
                                            Secondary.

                 Tr.            Task (1)               group (2)         n = 100



Performance     Modal        Copula        Don’t      Didn’t        Doesn’t         P.C.
   level                       NBE
                                           NDO          NDID         NDOES         Total
              NMod
   0-9 %          35           19            27           48           39          18 %

  10-19 %          0           18            0            0             0          11 %

  20-29 %         17           16            17           22           30          25 %

  30-39 %          0           12            0            0             0          12 %

  40-49 %          0            9            0            0             0          14 %

  50-59 %         38            9            22           17           15           7%

  60-69 %          0            5            0            0             0           5%

  70-79 %          8            7            23           11           12           4%

  80-89 %          0            3            0            0             0           4%

 90-100 %          2            2            11           2             4           0%
Table 3 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals 2 nd Year
                                              college.

                  Tr.            Task (1)               group (3)           n = 40



Performance     Modal        Copula         Don’t     Didn’t        Doesn’t          P.C.
   level                       NBE
                                            NDO         NDID         NDOES           Total
              NMod
   0-9 %          10            0            0            0             9            0%

  10-19 %          0            0            0            0             0            0%

  20-29 %          4            2            0            8             8            1%

  30-39 %          0            1            0            0             0            3%

  40-49 %          0            7            0            0             0            9%

  50-59 %         15            7            17           9             9            4%

  60-69 %          0            7            0            0             0            15 %

  70-79 %          5            9            15           13           11            1%

  80-89 %          0            4            0            0             0            5%

 90-100 %          6            3            8            10            2            2%
Table 4 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals 3rd Year
                                              college.

                 Tr.            Task (1)               group (4)           n = 40



Performance     Modal        Copula        Don’t     Didn’t         Doesn’t         P.C.
   level                      NBE
                                           NDO          NDID        NDOES           Total
              NMod
   0-9 %           8            0            0            0            3            0%

  10-19 %          0            0            0            0            0            0%

  20-29 %          4            2            0            3            7            0%

  30-39 %          0            5            0            0            0            1%

  40-49 %          0            5            0            0            0            8%

  50-59 %         10            5           10           15           11            8%

  60-69 %          0            6            0            0            0            7%

  70-79 %          8            3           15           14           12            4%

  80-89 %          0            2            0            0            0            8%

 90-100 %         10           12           15            8            7            4%
                 Recognition and Correction.


    Table 5 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals.

                  R&C               Task (1)               n = 100   group (1)

                                       2nd year intermediate



Performance     Modal        Copula            Don’t   Didn’t        Doesn’t       P.C.
   level                      NBE
                                               NDO       NDID        NDOES        Total
              NMod
   0-9 %          77           57               78         95          95         77 %

  10-19 %          0           18               0          0           0          11 %

  20-29 %         13           10               6          0           4           4%

  30-39 %          0            9               0          0           0           3%

  40-49 %          0            1               0          0           0           0%

  50-59 %          1            0               11         1           1           0%

  60-69 %          0            1               0          0           0           1%

  70-79 %          1            4               1          4           0           3%

  80-89 %          0            0               0          0           0           1%

 90-100 %          8            0               4          0           0           0%
Table 6 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals . 5 th year
                                            Secondary

                  R&C                Task (2)              n = 100    group (2)



Performance      Modal        Copula            Don’t   Didn’t        Doesn’t        P.C.
   level                       NBE
                                                NDO       NDID        NDOES          Total
              NMod
   0-9 %           35           21               60        64           72           34 %

  10-19 %          0            12               0          0            0           12 %

  20-29 %          13           10               11        12           16           9%

  30-39 %          0             9               0          0            0           8%

  40-49 %          0            10               0          0            0           8%

  50-59 %          6            11               7         11            3           8%

  60-69 %          0            13               0          0            0           8%

  70-79 %          12           12               11         2            6           5%

  80-89 %          0             2               0          0            0           5%

 90-100 %          34            0               11        11            3           3%
   Table 7 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals .

                                         2nd year College

                  R&C              Task (2)                  n = 40   group (3)



Performance    Modal        Copula            Don’t   Didn’t          Doesn’t      P.C.
   level                      NBE
                                              NDO           NDID      NDOES       Total
              NMod
   0-9 %          0            0               2             10          6         0%

  10-19 %         0            0               0             0           0         0%

  20-29 %         1            0               4             3           7         2%

  30-39 %         0            6               0             0           0         2%

  40-49 %         0            7               0             0           0         6%

  50-59 %         3            4               12            7          10         2%

  60-69 %         0           10               0             0           0         9%

  70-79 %         6            6               16            6          12         9%

  80-89 %         0            7               0             0           0         7%

 90-100 %        30            0               6             14          5         3%
   Table 8 : Frequency Distribution Of Scores In Negation By Environments At 10% Intervals .

                                        3rd year College

                  R&C              Task (2)                 n = 40   group (4)



Performance    Modal        Copula            Don’t   Didn’t         Doesn’t       P.C.
   level                      NBE
                                              NDO          NDID      NDOES        Total
              Nmod
   0-9 %          3            1               6            12         12          1%

  10-19 %         0            1               0            0           0          2%

  20-29 %         7            0               3            5          10          5%

  30-39 %         0            6               0            0           0          1%

  40-49 %         0            4               0            0           0          5%

  50-59 %         1            6               8            6          13          3%

  60-69 %         0            3               0            0           0          3%

  70-79 %         6           11               8            6           3          9%

  80-89 %         0            6               0            0           0          7%

 90-100 %        23            2               15           11          2          4%
                       Change into Negative
     Table 9 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Negation by
       Environment at 10 % Intervals Change into negative
                     Ch.Task (3)                   G=1         n=100

                                    2nd year intermediate



Performance   Modals       Copula         Do             Did    Does    P.C.

   Level      NMod          NBe           NDo         NDid      NDoes   Total




   0-9%         24            6            85            98      97     11%

  10-19%        0             3            0             0        0     16%

  20-29%        11            6            10            0        2     14%

  30-39%        0            15            0             0        0     11%

  40-49%        0             6            0             0        0     28%

  50-59%        9             9            2             0        0     11%

  60-69%        0             6            0             0        0      7%

  70-79%        13           16            1             0        0      0%

  80-89%        0            13            0             0        0      0%

 90-100%        43           20            2             2        1      2%
 Table 10 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Negation           by
                 Environment at 10 % Intervals
            Ch.      Task (3)         G=2        n=100
                        th
                       5 year secondary

Performance   Modals    Copula    Do    Did    Does        P.C.

   Level      NMod     NBe        NDo   NDid   NDoes       Total




   0-9%         7            1    36     35     25          0%

  10-19%        0            0     0     0       0          0%

  20-29%        4            4    16     18     11          4%

  30-39%        0            0     0     0       0          8%

  40-49%        0            6     0     0       0          20

  50-59%        5            5    13     15     16          9%

  60-69%        0            9     0     0       0         16%

  70-79%        16           12   19     12     15          7%

  80-89%        0            23    0     0       0         16%

 90-100%        68           40   16     20     33         20%
 Table 11 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Negation          by
                 Environment at 10 % Intervals
         Ch.       Task (3)        G=3             n=40
                      nd
                     2 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula   Do    Did      Does        P.C.

   Level      NMod      NBe     NDo   NDid    NDoes    Total




   0-9%         1        0       5     4        5          0%

  10-19%        0        0       0     0        0          0%

  20-29%        0        0       5     5        1          1%

  30-39%        0        1       0     0        0          0%

  40-49%        0        0       0     0        0          0%

  50-59%        5        0       3     10       4          5%

  60-69%        0        4       0     0        0          7%

  70-79%        2        8      18     13       14         1%

  80-89%        0        9       0     0        0          17%

 90-100%        32      18       9     8        16         9%
 Table 12 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Negation          by
                 Environment at 10 % Intervals
         Ch.       Task (3)        G=4             n=40
                      rd
                     3 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula   Do     Did     Does        P.C.

   Level      NMod      NBe     N Do   NDid   NDoes    Total




   0-9%         0        0       0      2       1          0%

  10-19%        0        0       0      0       0          0%

  20-29%        0        0       1      0       2          0%

  30-39%        0        0       0      0       0          0%

  40-49%        0        0       0      0       0          0%

  50-59%        1        1       8      9       1          1%

  60-69%        0        1       0      0       0          2%

  70-79%        1        1       12     8       7          4%

  80-89%        0        4       0      0       0          7%

 90-100%        38      33       19    21       29         26%
                        Translation Task
              Table 1 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

                         by Environments at 10 % intervals .




  Tr. Task (1)                         G=1                                       n= 100

                               2nd year intermediate .



Performance      Modal        Copula IN       Do           Did          Does        P.C Total
   Level                          BE
                IN MOD                             IN     IN Did      IN Does

                                                Do
  0 -9%            68             17           78          60               82        43%

 10 -19 %          0              21           0            0               0         20%

 20 - 29 %         10             20           9           12               6         15%

 30 –39 %          0              12           0            0               0         4%

 40 – 49 %         0               7           0            0               0         4%

 50 –59 %          7               7           4           13               4         1%

 60 – 69%          0               4           0            0               0         5%

 70 - 79 %         4               4           3            5               3         2%

 80 – 89 %         0               3           0            0               0         1%

 90–100 %          11              5           6           10               5         5%
Table 2 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

          by Environments at 10 % intervals .




Tr. Task (1)             G= 2                   n= 100



                                       5th year Secondary .



  Performance          Modals        Copula IN        Do       Did     Does      P.C Total
      Level                              BE
                       IN MOD                       IN Do     IN Did   IN Does

    0 -9%                 35             11           39       24        43        12%

    10 -19 %              0               6              0      0        0         5%

    20 - 29 %             14             10           26       15        17        22%

    30 –39 %              0               4              0      0        0         7%

   40 – 49 %              0               7              0      0        0         14%

    50 –59 %              10             14           14       27        15        10%

    60 – 69%              0              18              0      0        0         15%

   70 - 79 %              18             11           15       13        9         6%
80 – 89 %   0    14   0   0    0    5%

90–100 %    23   5    6   21   16   4%
Table 3 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

          by Environments at 10 % intervals .




Tr. Task (1)                   G=3                 n= 40



                                     2nd year College Students .



 Performance            Moldal        Copula IN       Do            Did     Does      P.C Total
      Level                              BE
                       IN MOD                             IN       IN Did   IN Does

                                                       Do
    0 -9%                 10              1           3              8        8         1%

    10 -19 %              0               0           0              0        0         2%

    20 - 29 %             5               4           11             6        12        1%

    30 –39 %              0               4           0              0        0         4%

   40 – 49 %              0               4           0              0        0         6%

    50 –59 %              9               6           10             6        10        9%

    60 – 69%              0               5           0              0        0         12%

   70 - 79 %              8               9           10            13        7         1%

   80 – 89 %              0               3           0              0        0         4%

   90–100 %               8               4           6              7        3         0%
Table 4 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

          by Environments at 10 % intervals .




Tr. Task (1)                   G= 4                n= 40



                                      3rd year College Student .



 Performance           Moldals        Copula IN       Do            Did      Does     P.C Total
      Level                               BE
                       IN MOD                              IN      IN Did   IN Does

                                                        Do
    0 -9%                 8               0            6             2        7         0%

    10 -19 %              0               0            0             0        0         1%

    20 - 29 %             8               3            7             4        4         3%

    30 –39 %              0               2            0             0        0         0%

   40 – 49 %              0               2            0             0        0         5%

    50 –59 %              4               4           12             3        10        7%

    60 – 69%              0               11           0             0        0         10%

   70 - 79 %              15              8            6            20        8         5%

   80 – 89 %              0               4            0             0        0         5%

   90–100 %               5               6            9            11        11        4%
                  Recognition Correction Task

Table 5 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation
         by Environments at 10 % intervals .




R&C Task (2)               G=I                   n= 100



                                     2nd year intermediate .



 Performance           Moldal        Copula IN       Do         Did     Does      P.C Total
     Level                              BE
                       IN MOD                             IN   IN Did   IN Does

                                                      Do
    0 -9%                84             78           82         86        85        81%

    10 -19 %              0              9            0          0        0         3%

   20 - 29 %              4              7            9          8        4         5%

   30 –39 %               0              2            0          0        0         3%

   40 – 49 %              0              1            0          0        0         4%

   50 –59 %               5              2            4          1        3         2%

   60 – 69%               0              1            0          0        0         2%

   70 - 79 %              2              0            3          4        6         0%

   80 – 89 %              0              0            0          0        0         0%

   90–100 %               5              0            2          1        2         0%
Table 6 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation
        by Environments at 10 % intervals .




R&C Task (2)             G= 2                  n= 100



                                     5th year Secondary .



Performance Level     Moldal       Copula IN      Do         Did     Does      P.C Total
                                      BE
                     IN MOD                        IN       IN Did   IN Does

                                                   Do
     0 -9%              47            42          61         82        71        44%

    10 -19 %             0            21           0          0        0         24%

    20 - 29 %           18            13          28         12        12        16%

    30 –39 %             0            10           0          0        0         4%

    40 – 49 %            0             4           0          0        0         10%

    50 –59 %            15             8           9          1        6         0%

    60 – 69%             0             2           0          0        0         1%

    70 - 79 %           12             0           1          3        9         0%

    80 – 89 %            0             0           0          0        0         1%

    90–100 %             8             0           1          2        2         0%
Table 7 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

         by Environments at 10 % intervals .




R&C Task (2)                   G=3                n= 40



                                     2nd year College Students .



 Performance           Moldal         Copula IN       Do            Did     Does      P.C Total
     Level                               BE
                       IN MOD                                 IN   IN Did   IN Does

                                                           Do
    0 -9%                 7               5               11        11        12        3%

    10 -19 %              0               6               0          0        0         4%

   20 - 29 %              10             11               17        13        12        8%

   30 –39 %               0               8               0          0        0         11%

   40 – 49 %              0               4               0          0        0         9%

   50 –59 %               4               1               8          9        9         4%

   60 – 69%               0               5               0          0        0         1%

   70 - 79 %              16              0               3          5        4         0%

   80 – 89 %              0               0               0          0        0         0%

   90–100 %               3               0               1          2        3         0%
Table 8 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in interrogation

         by Environments at 10 % intervals .



                                     3rd Year college students.



R&C Task (2)              G=4                    n= 40




 Performance           Moldal        Copula IN       Do            Did     Does      P.C Total
     Level                               BE
                       IN MOD                                IN   IN Did   IN Does

                                                          Do
    0 -9%                 15              6              15        17        21        12%

    10 -19 %              0               6              0          0        0         3%

   20 - 29 %              7              10              11         8        6         6%

   30 –39 %               0               1              0          0        0         4%

   40 – 49 %              0               4              0          0        0         3%

   50 –59 %               6               3              6          6        5         2%

   60 – 69%               0               2              0          0        0         2%

   70 - 79 %              4               4              6          1        3         3%

   80 – 89 %              0               2              0          0        0         3%

   90–100 %               8               2              2          8        5         2%
                                     Turn Task
    Table 9 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                 by Environment at 10 % Intervals
                       Turn Task (3)             G=1            n=100

                                     2nd year intermediate



Performance   Modals        Copula         Do           Did       Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod          In          In Do        In Did    In Does   Total
                              Be

   0-9%         2             0             63           60        70        5%

  10-19%        0             0             0            0          0        1%

  20-29%        13            0             14           16        10        7%

  30-39%        0             4             0            0          0        11%

  40-49%        0             7             0            0          0        41%

  50-59%        4             11            12           10         8        18%

  60-69%        0             12            0            0          0        6%

  70-79%        40            24            5            7          7        2%

  80-89%        0             20            0            0          0        2%

 90-100%        41            22            6            7          5        7%
   Table 10 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=2        n=100
                        th
                       5 year secondary

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does       P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total
                        Be

   0-9%         1        0       15      13        19        3%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0         0%

  20-29%        1        0       17      10        7         0%

  30-39%        0        1       0        0        0         1%

  40-49%        0        0       0        0        0         10%

  50-59%        8        3       21      23        9         8%

  60-69%        0        8       0        0        0         11%

  70-79%        15      13       19      23        25        10%

  80-89%        0       18       0        0        0         30%

 90-100%        75      57       28      31        40        27%
   Table 11 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=3         n=40
                      nd
                     2 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does     P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total

                        Be

   0-9%         2        0       11       7        8        0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0        0%

  20-29%        3        1       8        5        8        3%

  30-39%        0        1       0        0        0        4%

  40-49%        0        3       0        0        0        2%

  50-59%        8        4       5       10        5        5%

  60-69%        0        2       0        0        0        9%

  70-79%        5        8       10       8        8        3%

  80-89%        0        9       0        0        0        5%
 90-100%        22      12       6       10        11       9%




   Table 12 : Frequency Distribution of Scores in Interrogation
                by Environment at 10 % Intervals
      Turn into interrogative Task (3)     G=4         n=40
                      rd
                     3 year college student

Performance   Modals   Copula    Do      Did      Does     P.C.

   Level      In Mod     In     In Do   In Did   In Does   Total

                        Be

   0-9%         0        0       3        4        5        0%

  10-19%        0        0       0        0        0        1%

  20-29%        0        0       4        1        2        1%

  30-39%        2        1       0        0        0        1%

  40-49%        0        2       0        0        0        0%

  50-59%        1        1       3        5        3        3%

  60-69%        0        1       0        0        0        1%
70-79%    1    0    13   8    5    4%

80-89%    0    2    0    0    0    3%

90-100%   36   33   17   22   25   26%
          Table 1 : The Overall Performance In Negation
                         2nd year intermediate


                Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject       Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   1             0            0            4             4

   2             0            0            0             0

   3             0            0            1             1

   4             0            0            3             3

   5             0            0            3             3

   6             0            0            3             3

   7             0            0            3             3

   8             0            0            3             3

   9             0            0           13             13

   10            0            0           13             13

   11            0            0           13             13

   12            0            0           13             13

   13            0            0           13             13

   14           10            9           13             32

   15           20           19           25             64

   16            2            0            3             5

   17            0            0           10             10

   18            0            0            5             5

   19            2            0            0             2

   20            2            5            5             12

   21            0            2            2             4
   22        2             2           9             13

   23        2             3          13             18

   24        1             8          13             22

   25        1             2           9             12




                                                          Continued
                      nd
                     2 year intermediate


            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   26        2             2           2             6

   27        4             5          11             20

   28        2             4          11             17

   29        3             8          12             23

   30        0             4          13             17

   31        1             2           9             12

   32        0             0           9             9

   33        4             1           8             13

   34        2             4           7             13

   35        0             4           9             13

   36        3             5          11             19
   37        2             2           3             7

   38        1             2          11             14

   39        1             2           7             10

   40        3             5          13             21

   41        1             3          11             15

   42        1             2           8             11

   43        3             3           3             9

   44        2             3           5             10

   45        5             2          15             22

   46        0             2           1             3

   47        0             0           8             8

   48        0             1           0             1

   49        2             1           3             6

   50        4             4           4             12




                                                          Continued
                      nd
                     2 year intermediate


            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   51        1             1           2             4
52   1    1    4    6

53   2    1    4    7

54   1    0    1    2

55   3    4    5    12

56   1    1    1    3

57   2    1    4    7

58   1    1    1    3

59   1    4    4    9

60   2    2    5    9

61   5    2    5    12

62   10   20   14   44

63   18   19   15   52

64   4    1    9    14

65   3    1    7    11

66   4    19   14   37

67   3    1    10   14

68   0    0    3    3

69   3    1    10   14

70   3    1    10   14

71   3    1    10   14

72   4    1    11   16

73   3    1    10   14

74   2    0    9    11

75   2    0    9    11
                                                          Continued
                      nd
                     2 year intermediate


            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   76        7             0          14             21

   77        2             0          10             12

   78        1             0           7             8

   79        2             0           7             9

   80        2             0           7             9

   81        2             0           7             9

   82        2             0           5             7

   83        2             0          11             13

   84        2             0          11             13

   85        1             0          11             12

   86        2             0          11             13

   87        1             0          12             13

   88        1             0          12             13

   89        1             0          12             13

   90        1             0          12             13

   91        1             0          12             13

   92        1             0          12             13

   93        0             0          12             12
   94           0            0           15             15

   95           0            0           11             11

   96           0            0           10             10

   97           0            0           13             13

   98           0            0           14             14

   99           1            0           10             11

   100         21           17           25             63




          Table 2: The Overall Performance In Negation
                        5th year secondary


             Tr. Task   R&C Score 25   Ch. Task
Subject      Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   101          3            1           15             19

   102         20           19           23             62

   103          5            2           17             24

   104         20           24           18             62

   105          0           11           15             26

   106          8            8           20             36

   107          4            4           12             20
108   4          2    15      21

109   6          13   23      42

110   4          2    15      21

111   5          3    12      20

112   5          0     5      10

113   13         11   21      45

114   11         8     8      27

115   7          9    24      40

116   10         11    8      29

117   10         11   10      31

118   0          0     8      8

119   7          5    20      32

120   11         12   17      40

121   2          0    11      13

122   8          9    21      38

123   0          0     9      9

124   5          0    18      23

125   0          0     9      9




                                   Continued
            th
           5 year secondary
            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   126       0            0           10             10

   127      13           18           25             56

   128       8            5           15             28

   129       0            0           10             10

   130       6            0            5             11

   131       3            1           14             18

   132       0           10            8             18

   133       7            3           22             32

   134      13            4            7             24

   135       5            7           21             33

   136       2            1           14             17

   137       2            1           14             17

   138      21           22           24             67

   139      19           22           24             65

   140      14           12           18             44

   141      18           17           23             58

   142      14           13           11             38

   143      12           17           21             50

   144      16           19           23             58

   145       5            7           18             30

   146       2            1           13             16

   147       0            0           11             11

   148       1            0           11             12

   149       2            1           11             14
   150       5            7           12             24




                                                          Continued
                     5th year secondary


            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   151       1            0           12             13

   152      17           21           14             52

   153      14           15           13             42

   154      11           13            8             32

   155       9            9           11             29

   156       0            0            5             5

   157      13           14           16             43

   158      11           14           21             46

   159      10           13           20             43

   160       0            0            8             8

   161       4            0           10             14

   162       7            8           23             38

   163       4            3           11             18

   164       0           14           10             24
   165       9            8           17             34

   166       9            7           21             37

   167       9            0           10             19

   168       4            3           15             22

   169      19           24           25             68

   170      18           19           25             62

   171       6            3           21             30

   172      17           19           24             60

   173       8            3           15             26

   174      12           23           25             60

   175      12           16           24             52




                                                          Continued
                     5th year secondary


            Tr.      R&C Score 25     Ch.
Subject   Score 25                  Score 25   Total Score75
   176      11           15           18             44

   177      11           13           17             41

   178      11           17           25             53

   179      20           21           24             65
180   9    9    11   29

181   9    11   22   42

182   7    3    18   28

183   3    1    14   18

184   8    6    21   35

185   7    4    19   30

186   7    4    22   33

187   2    0    11   13

188   5    2    15   22

189   8    5    20   33

190   7    7    17   31

191   3    1    15   19

192   17   15   25   57

193   15   17   24   56

194   4    2    10   16

195   10   20   25   55

196   5    2    13   20

197   4    2    23   29

198   5    2    17   24

199   5    2    14   21

200   5    3    15   23
          Table 3: The Overall Performance in Negation
                          2nd year college



                 Tr.       R&C                 Ch.       Total
Subject
              Score. 25   Score.25           Score.25   Score.75

 201             16         17                 21         54

 202             13         12                 15         40

 203             16         17                 21         54

 204             17         17                 21         55

 205             17         18                 21         56

 206             12         18                 21         51

 207             15         22                 22         59

 208             17         18                 21         56

 209             15         18                 21         54

 210             23         16                 25         64

 211             10         11                 14         35

 212             9           6                 13         28

 213             11         13                 20         44

 214             11         10                 14         35

 215             12         16                 20         48

 216             11         19                 15         45

 217             15         10                 20         45

 218             13         10                 19         42

 219             15         14                 20         49

 220             15         15                 20         50
Continued
                        2nd year college



               Tr.       R&C                 Ch.       Total
  Subject
            Score. 25   Score.25           Score.25   Score.75

   221         14         23                 23         60

   222         14         22                 22         58

   223         18         22                 21         61

   224         20         22                 23         65

   225         21         19                 23         53

   226         16         21                 14         51

   227         16         19                 24         59

   228         21         20                 24         65

   229         23         23                 24         70

   230         20         22                 24         66

   231         9           8                 16         33

   232         15         16                 20         51
 233             16         17                 21         54

 234             12          9                 14         35

 235             12         19                 15         46

 236             12         15                 17         44

 237             22         23                 25         70

 238             7           6                  7         20

 239             15         18                 15         48

 240             8          11                 17         36




          Table 4: The Overall Performance in Negation
                          3rd year college



                 Tr.       R&C                 Ch.       Total
Subject
              Score. 25   Score.25           Score.25   Score.75

 241             15         19                 23         57

 242             10         13                 19         42
243   21   20   25   66

244   11   23   24   58

245   21   23   25   69

246   13   11   25   49

247   20   21   25   66

248   21   21   25   67

249   19   11   20   50

250   20   19   23   62

251   21   19   23   63

252   17   11   19   47

253   19   17   25   61

254   13   19   22   54

255   12   5    19   36

256   17   14   23   54

257   15   6    19   40

258   24   21   23   68

259   12   19   17   48

260   23   19   24   66
Continued
                        3rd year college



               Tr.       R&C                 Ch.       Total
  Subject
            Score. 25   Score.25           Score.25   Score.75

   261         12          7                 17         36

   262         21         23                 25         69

   263         13         19                 25         57

   264         15         15                 25         55

   265         25         21                 25         71

   266         14          7                 20         41

   267         13         19                 25         57

   268         19         12                 25         56

   269         11          3                 25         39

   270         14         18                 22         54

   271         23         20                 23         66

   272         21         24                 25         70

   273         15         12                 20         47

   274         14         15                 23         52

   275         17         21                 24         62

   276         14          5                 21         40

   277         12          9                 20         41

   278         19         13                 24         56

   279         9           4                 25         38
 280               10             0                  13       23




       Table 1: Over all Performance of Group ( 1 ) in interrogation
                             2nd year intermediate




                                                Turn.Task    Total
Subject      Tr.Task        R&C.Task
                Score. 25      Score.25          Score.25
                                                            Score.75
  1                1              0                  11       12

  2                0              0                  7        7

  3                23             12                 17       52

  4                18             8                  13       39

  5                2              0                  9        11

  6                2              0                  8        10

  7                3              0                  11       14
8    5              0                  15       20

9    5              0                  15       20

10   0              0                  5         5

11   1              2                  10       13

12   24             12                 23       59

13   4              0                  14       18

14   17             10                 22       49

15   24             16                 25       65

16   5              3                  10       18

17   0              0                  14       14

18   3              0                  11       14

19   19             0                  6        25

20   9              7                  15       31

21   4              4                  13       21

22   2              0                  10       12

23   3              0                  14       17

24   7              0                  7        14

25   2              0                  18       20




          Over all Performance of Group ( 1 ) in interrogation
               2nd year intermediate
                                           Turn.Task   Total
Subject   Tr.Task          R&C.Task
               Score. 25        Score.25   Score.25
                                                       Score.75
  26                                          11        37
          17               9
  27                                          24        52
          17               11
  28                                          12        14
          2                0
  29                                          11        22
          4                7
  30                                          13        22
          9                0
  31                                          13        13
          0                0
  32                                          12        13
          1                0
  33                                          13        19
          6                0
  34                                          23        41
          12               6
  35                                          13        28
          15               0
  36                                          9         12
          3                0
  37                                          15        23
          8                0
  38                                          4         8
          4                0
  39                                          10        11
          1                0
  40                                          14        16
          2                0
  41                                          10        12
          2                0
  42                                          10        12
          2                0
  43                                          10        13
          3                0
  44                                          10        15
          5                0
  45                                          14        16
          2                0
  46                                          9         9
          0                0
  47                                          11        13
          2                0
  48                                          9         11
          2                0
  49                                          9         13
          4                0
    50                                               10      14
            4                0




Continued
                             2nd year intermediate




                                                Turn.Task   Total
  Subject   Tr.Task          R&C.Task
                 Score. 25        Score.25       Score.25
                                                            Score.75
    51                                               10      15
            5                0
    52                               0               10      11
            1
    53                               0               13      15
            2
    54                               0               10      12
            2
    55                               0               11      14
            3
    56                                               23      58
            22               13
    57                                               12      14
            2                0
    58                                               9       9
            0                0
    59                                               0       1
            1                0
    60                                               0       0
            0                0
    61                                               8       11
            3                0
    62                                               18      27
            9                0
    63                                               0       23
            23               0
    64                                               13      16
            3                0
    65                                               10      13
            3                0
     66                                               12      23
             11               0
     67                                               12      14
             2                0
     68                                               10      12
             2                0
     69                                               12      15
             3                0
     70                                               6       7
             1                0
     71                                               10      14
             4                0
     72                                               12      16
             2                2
     73                                               10      12
             2                0
     74                                               9       9
             0                0
     75                                               0       5
             5                0




Continued

                              2nd year intermediate




                                                 Turn.Task   Total
   Subject   Tr.Task          R&C.Task
                  Score. 25       Score.25        Score.25
                                                             Score.75
     76              11             13                20      44

     77              2               0                10      12

     78              1               0                10      11

     79              4               1                14      19

     80              3               0                8       11

     81              14              0                10      24

     82              3               0                7       10
83    5    0    10   15

84    7    0    9    16

85    2    0    7    9

86    0    8    10   18

87    11   0    11   22

88    2    1    0    3

89    17   6    25   48

90    5    0    15   20

91    1    0    11   12

92    1    0    12   13

93    0    0    12   12

94    7    4    13   24

95    2    0    13   15

96    5    1    12   18

97    1    0    10   11

98    7    7    13   27

99    5    1    14   20

100   24   15   23   62
  Table 2: The Overall Performance In Interrogation of G2
                      5th year secondary (A)


           Tr. Task    R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                        Score 25
                                   Score 25   Total Score75
    101      16            2         22             40

    102       0            0          0             0

    103      11            4         22             37

    104      21            3         24             48

    105      22            6         24             52

    106      11            7         22             40

    107      11            2         21             34

    108       4            2         13             19

    109      18           10         25             53

    110      13            1         20             34

    111       6            4         12             22

    112       9            1          0             10

    113       5            1          8             14

    114       0            4         19             23

    115      15            3         22             40

    116       5            0         12             17

    117      13           20         23             56

    118       0            2         13             15

    119      17           11         25             53

    120       0            2         25             27
    121     15            5         22             42

    122     13            5         16             34

    123     10            1         24             35

    124      3            1         13             17

    125      8            6         23             37




                                                        Continued
                     5th year secondary (B)


          Tr. Task    R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                       Score 25
                                  Score 25   Total Score75
    126     10            0         21             31

    127      8           10         20             38

    128     14           11         23             48

    129     10            7         21             38

    130      7            3         18             28

    131      7            5         21             33

    132     19            9         20             48

    133      5            0         11             16

    134     18            5         25             48

    135     10            2         22             34
136   17      2         20      39

137   14      2         25      41

138   23     15         19      57

139   24     11         25      60

140   17      3         25      45

141   2       3         17      22

142   6       1         12      19

143   7       8         19      34

144   21      2         22      45

145   6       1         14      21

146   6       2         13      21

147   6       1         17      24

148   16      7         25      48

149   7       0         11      18

150   11      3         23      37




                                     Continued
           5th year secondary
          Tr. Task   R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                      Score 25
                                 Score 25   Total Score75
    151     10           0         20             30

    152     14           5         25             44

    153     14          10         25             49

    154      0           2         25             27

    155     21           5         21             47

    156     17           3         21             41

    157     15           8         22             45

    158      4           7         21             32

    159     21           3         24             48

    160      1           2         23             26

    161      6           4         13             23

    162     10           1         21             32

    163      3           1         24             28

    164      7           3         11             21

    165     12           3         20             35

    166     17           1         17             35

    167      5           1          0             6

    168     11           1         19             31

    169      8           0         17             25

    170      9           2         22             33

    171      5           3         20             28

    172     16           1         24             41

    173     12           2         24             38

    174     14           1         17             32
    175      9           7         16             32




                                                       Continued
                     5th year secondary


          Tr. Task   R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                      Score 25
                                 Score 25   Total Score75
    176      6          12         12             30

    177      7           0         18             25

    178     23           3         21             47

    179     19          11         24             54

    180      5           2         19             26

    181     19          10         21             50

    182     10          11         25             46

    183     16           4         15             35

    184     16           3         18             37

    185     15           2         12             29

    186     16           3         22             41

    187      2           5         20             27

    188      6           0         15             21

    189      6           6         14             26
190   6    2   24   32

191   10   3   19   32

192   23   8   17   48

193   16   3   21   40

194   1    3   12   16

195   10   7   23   40

196   5    1   10   16

197   9    6   16   31

198   18   4   21   43

199   3    1   18   22

200   13   2   14   29
 Table 3 : The Overall Performance of G(3) In interrogation
                       2nd year college


           Tr. Task   R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                       Score 25
                                  Score 25   Total Score75
    201      14           7         19             40

    202       9           5         15             29

    203      12           9         19             40

    204       8           4         15             27

    205      14           4          8             26

    206      13           6         10             29

    207      17           9         23             49

    208      15          17          8             40

    209      17           9         14             40

    210      13           7         16             36

    211       9           8         16             33

    212      21          11         24             56

    213      14           7         17             38

    214      11          13         13             37

    215      15          11         21             47

    216      11           7         14             32

    217      15          11         20             46

    218      20          10         24             54

    219      11          10         16             37

    220       8           6          7             21
                                                           Continued
                        nd
                      2        year College


          Tr. Task   R&C Task        Ch. Task
Subject   Score 25
                      Score 25
                                     Score 25   Total Score75
    201     11            5            17             33

    202     11            1            19             31

    203     16            8            22             46

    204     13            4            14             31

    205     17            12           23             52

    206     17            10           24             51

    207     17            10           23             50

    208     18            11           23             52

    209     17            13           22             52

    210     21            13           24             58

    211      2            2             7             11

    212     15            9            10             34

    213     13            3             8             24

    214     14            9            20             43

    215      7            8            15             30

    216     14            9            15             38

    217     22            13           23             58

    218      4            8             9             21

    219     15            9            14             38

    220      4            8             5             17
   Table 4:   The Overall Performance of G(4) In Interrogation
                             3rd year college


                 Tr. Task   R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject         Score 25
                             Score 25
                                        Score 25   Total Score75
    221            15           2         24             41

    222            10           1         14             25

    223            22          14         25             61

    224            15           2         24             41

    225            21          12         25             58

    226            12           1         17             30

    227            22           6         25             53

    228            20          17         25             62

    229            17          21         24             62

    230            23          12         25             60

    231            22           8         23             53

    232            14           5         21             40

    233            17           7         24             48

    234            14           5         19             38

    235            14           2         22             38

    236            17           9         24             50

    237            14           8         24             46

    238            18          15         25             58

    239            14           3         25             42

    240            18          24         25             67
Continued
                        3rd year college


            Tr. Task   R&C Task    Ch. Task
Subject     Score 25
                        Score 25
                                   Score 25   Total Score75
    241        6           5         14             25

    242       25          18         25             68

    243       12           3         19             34

    244       14          21         21             56

    245       23          18         25             66

    246       15           8         24             47

    247       13           3         19             35

    248       18           5         25             48

    249       11           1         14             26

    250       18          11         25             54

    251       23          18         25             66

    252       15          14         25             54

    253       15           2         23             40

    254        4           0          4             8

    255       17          22         24             63

    256       17          10         24             51

    257       12           0         18             30

    258       18          23         24             65

    259        5           1          9             15

    260        5           1          7             13
                                                                                       205
Dear Sir /Madam

The researcher is conducting a research for an M.A degree on entitled the “Development of
Certain Negative and Interrogative Constructions by Iraqi EFL”. Learners starting with Second
                           year Intermediate School and Ending with Third year University Level.
Enclosed is that testing paper consisting of two tasks. Task 1 is a recognition /correction task and
the second is a production task in the form of a translation technique. The translation test is
supplemented with a glossary for the benefit of lower level learners and to ensure full
                                                                        understanding in their part.
You are kindly requested to check the written test items and state if they are suitable for this
                              study or not. Any addition or modification will be highly regarded.
                                 Your comments are highly appreciated as a specialist in this field.




                                                 Your
                                                   s
                                                 sinc
                                                 erel
                                                   y
                                                 Lum
                                                  a
                                                 Sabr
                                                   i

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:2/15/2013
language:Arabic
pages:331