A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND PERSIAN LINKING VERB

COMPLEMENTATION

A. Majid Hayati Gholamali Kalanzadeh

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

AAbbssttrraacctt The aim of this study was to investigate if Iranian EFL learners have difficulty in using English linking verbs in collocation with certain adjectives. For this, a General English Proficiency Test was administered to a total of 115 students majoring in English out of which 50 participants whose scores ranged from 30-55 out of 90 were chosen as the intermediate level. Two other tests were also administered to these students. In one of them, the participants were required to translate 40 Persian sentences into English. All of these sentences contained linking verb-adjective collocations. In the other test, i.e., the recognition test, the subjects were asked to read 40 English sentences and recognize the erroneous linking verbs in them. To determine the level of difficulty of using English linking verbs for Iranian intermediate students, a hierarchy of difficulty was developed. In doing so, the number of errors on each verb in both translation and recognition tests was counted and then the percentage of errors on each verb was calculated. Finally, plausible reasons were given for the probable cause(s) of errors made by the subjects of the study.

Key terms: linking verbs, contrastive analysis, error analysis, interference,

overgeneralization

Abstracto

El enfoque de este estudio es investigar si los aprendices iraníes de EFL poseen dificultad al utilizar verbos de conexión en inglés con ciertos adjetivos. Se administró una prueba general de competencia en inglés a un total de 115 estudiantes cuya asignatura principal es el inglés. 50 de estos estudiantes cuyos resultados variaron de 30-55 de los 90 fueron categorizados como el nivel intermedio. Las otras dos pruebas también fueron administradas a estos estudiantes. En una de ellas los participantes debían traducir 40 oraciones en persa al inglés. Todas las oraciones contenían verbos y adjetivos de conexión. En la prueba de reconocimiento, los sujetos debían leer 40 oraciones en inglés y reconocer un error en el uso de verbos de conexión. Para determinar el nivel de dificultad al utilizar verbos de conexión en inglés se desarrolló una jerarquía de dificultad. Esto resultó en un número de errores en cada verbo en ambas pruebas de reconocimiento y traducción. Se calculó entonces el porcentaje de errores en cada verbo. Finalmente, se le dieron posibles razones para las posibles causas de errores cometidos por cada uno de los sujetos del estudio.

146

Palabras clave: verbos de conexión, análisis contrastivo, análisis de error, interferencia, sobre-generalización.

Introduction

Learning a foreign language is a life-time procedure which requires years of

constant practice. It is by no means a straightforward process which can be mastered

quickly, because there are always new areas, aspects, and registers for the learner to

master. Among these numerous areas some are prioritized. In the same vein, linking

verbs (LVs) have been concentrated on by many experts in the field of linguistics and

language teaching over the last decades (Bourke, 2007). Two reasons have been put

forward for the considerable emphasis on this issue: the importance of the copula or LV

and the difficulty of mastering this group of verbs. The idea appears even more

complicated when two languages come in contact with each other as a result of which

speakers of L1 trying to communicate in L2 may face problems especially in learning the

verb category of the second language. To diagnose such problems, in spite of many

criticisms, contrastive analysis as a branch of linguistics was and still is a relatively sound

basis. A brief description (see also Devos, 1995; Mukattash, 2001) of the field is given by

Schackne (2002):

Contrastive analysis, a comparative analysis of two languages, their similarities and their differences, was thought by many in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s to be a useful predictor of where second language students would likely encounter problems in learning a second language. It stood to reason that if certain elements of a second language differed greatly from the student's native language, that student would likely encounter difficulties. (p. 2)

However, it is not always easy to do a contrastive study between two languages.

As Oka (2004) mentions, “When the native and target languages have similar structures,

147

as is the case with two Indo-European languages, it is rather easy to compare and

pinpoint the differences” (p. 2). However, in case of English and Japanese, the idea of

comparison becomes more difficult because of the lack of a similar frame of reference.

As an immediate offshoot of contrastive studies, a learner’s first language was

considered to be a hindrance to acquisition of a second language (Hayati, 1997;

Keshavarz, 2003). More importantly, the committed errors may block the communicative

purposes. One such problem may arise from the categorization of LVs, as content words,

carrying the meaning load, the misuse of which may cause serious misunderstanding on

the part of native listeners and readers of the second language. Moreover, it is clear that

verbs in general, and LVs in particular, are not totally similar in any two languages,

especially when they come to be affected by cultural issues. Because of this discrepancy,

there is a likelihood of committing errors on the part of learners of English-as-a-second or

any foreign language. In the same line, in order to find the probable causes of errors made

by Iranian learners of English, the present research is directed towards a contrastive study

of Persian and English LVs to identify the main areas of conflict (if any) between the two

languages. Furthermore, this study intends to draw the attention of those who are

interested in the field of contrastive analysis and error analysis of this group of verbs, i.e.,

where English and Persian differ in interesting ways. In many cases, according to

Yarmohammadi (2003), these points of difference are known to constitute obstacles in

language learning.

Statement of the Problem

Many intermediate Iranian learners of English as a foreign language have

problems as they try to master English verbs in general and English linking verbs in

148

particular. The level of difficulty in learning English linking verbs, which intermediate

Iranian students face, seems to be fully indicated by the hierarchy of difficulty proposed

by Prator (1967). In this hierarchy, the highest level of difficulty is the sixth level, split,

which means when one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target

language, this requires that the learners make a new distinction. For example, the linking

verb ‘Šodǽn’ in Persian stands for several English linking verbs such as get, become,

turn, etc. For this reason, and others which will be given in this study, intermediate

Iranian students often encounter a host of problems as they try to master highly-frequent

English linking verbs.

Review of Literature

According to many grammarians, when a verb is used to link the subject with a

modifier, it is called a linking verb (Frank, 1972; Swan, 1995). Grammarians do not

usually agree on the criteria by which we can classify LVs. As Frank (1972) proposes,

the verb ‘be’, is sometimes separated from other linking verbs and is placed in a special

category by itself. The reason for this separation is that whereas the other LVs are

followed primarily by predicative adjectives, ‘be’ may be followed by many types of

complements. In addition to differing from other LVs in the type of complements it takes,

‘be’ also differs from all other verbs with respect to the position of the adverbs used with

it, and with respect to its manner of forming questions and negatives. This may be the

reason for the separation of ‘to be’ verbs as a special group of LVs.

Ridjanovic (1971) also divides the LVs into three groups on the basis of

collocation restrictions on the choice of the complement. The first group is made up of

149

be, become, get and remain, which display minimal restrictions. The second group

includes a fairly limited number of verbs which require the complement adjective (or

noun) to be marked by a specific semantic feature but do not impose restrictions on

lexical items. Thus, for example, ‘go’ will take almost any adjective as complement as

long as it contains the semantic feature ‘undesirability’ in a given context, and ‘turn’

seems to demand the same feature of its noun complement while preferring the feature

‘color’ in its adjective complements. The third group consists of verbs which admit only

a very limited number of adjectives as their complements. These adjectives most often

tend to be bound together by semantic ties. They are usually synonyms or near-synonyms

and may include antonyms as well (e.g., prove necessary / helpful / indispensable, but

also prove unnecessary / valueless). Frank (1972) distinguishes the LVs as follows: (1)

appear, become, get (in the sense of become), look, remain, seem (2) verbs of perception:

feel, taste, smell, sound. (3) certain verb-adjective combinations that express a state,

become (worse), grow (worse), fall (ill), prove (wrong), turn (pale), and stand (quiet).

Thomas (1965) distinguishes five possible groups with copulative verbs: (1) verbs

of the senses (smell, taste, feel,); (2) verbs of appearance (appear, look, seem,); (3) verbs

of action (grow, turn,); (4) become, and (5) stay and remain. Other grammarians such as

Stageberg (1965) and Hall (1974) do not attempt to classify the LVs into subgroups, but

rather, simply list them as such: seem, appear, become, grow, remain, taste, look, feel,

sound, and get.

Swan (1995) refers to linking verbs as copular verbs and states that we use a

special kind of verb to join an adjective or noun complement to a subject. These verbs

can be called ‘copulas’ or ‘copular verbs’. To Swan, common copulas are: be, seem, look,

150

appear, sound, smell, taste, feel, get, and become. Crystal (1992) defines a copula as a

verb with little or no independent meaning, whose primary function is to link elements of

clause structure, typically the subject and the complement, to show that they are

semantically equivalent, also called a linking verb. He also proposes that the main

copular verb is ‘be’, in its various forms, as used in such sentences as ‘She is a doctor.’

and ‘They are happy.’ This somewhat usual term is rooted in Latin meaning ‘bond’ or

‘join’ as seen also in copula and copulate (Crystal, 1992).

In spite of their importance as an indispensable part of English language, research

on the acquisition and learning of LVs has shown that learners are not accurate with these

structures, even after several years of instruction (Briscoe, 1995; Ryan & Lafford, 1992).

To show the difficulty of mastering the LVs, Geeslin (2003) also states that copula or LV

choice is one of several aspects of English language that pose difficulties for many

foreign language learners. He also proposes that in order to identify those variables that

are useful in describing the process of acquisition in pre-adjectival contexts, it is

necessary to evaluate recent research in the field of theoretical linguistics and

sociolinguistics.

Another variable that Silva-Corvalan (1994) included in her analysis is semantic

transparency. This variable distinguishes the varying degrees of meaning contrast that

exist when an adjective is paired with a copula. In fact, some investigations show that

learners exhibit only slightly better than 50% accuracy for locative and pre-adjectival

structures that require copula even after the equivalent of 4 or more years of study

(Briscoe, 1995; Gunterman, 1992). To indicate the difficulty of copula use, Leonetti

(1994) proposes that copula contrast illustrates the ways in which morphosyntactic

151

features interact with discourse-pragmatic conditions. Consequently, the ways in which

these factors interact with the success of language learners shed light on the process of

second language acquisition in general and distinguishes this process as one that is not

limited to simple syntactic forms. Another investigation on copula choice was also

carried out by Sole and Sole (1977). They came to the conclusion that the copula contrast

in pre-adjectival context is more complex and propose that this is the case because the

meaning changes depending on the copula chosen.

Research findings on the acquisition of copula choice by novice and intermediate-

level learners have also been generalized well across populations. Early interest in LV

choice coincided with the shift from studies of the acquisition of several morphemes to

investigations that focused on the stages of development through which learners

progressed in the process of acquiring a single structure (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).

As indicated, multiple studies have been conducted on copulas by many researchers. For

example, Vanpatten’s (1985) study was designed to identify the stages through which

English-speaking learners pass as they acquire copula choice in Spanish. An analysis of

data collected from 6 English-speaking beginning learners of Spanish enrolled in college-

level instruction was carried out. Each participant met with the researcher for 30 minutes,

every 2 weeks, for a period of 9 months. Students were recorded during conversation and

a picture description activity. Vanpatten coded the data for accuracy, determining the

number of instances in which ser (or estar) [the Spanish linking verbs meaning to be in

English] was used in obligatory contexts. An accuracy rate of 90% was taken to indicate

acquisition of a structure. By separating the accuracy rates for the two copulas, Vanpatten

152

showed that whereas the use of ser was generally about 90% correct, the use of estar was

at or below 50% during nearly every recording.

In another study, Fallahi (1991) compared and contrasted patterns of main verbs in

English and Persian in terms of tense. In addition, he concentrated on English two-word

verbs vs. Persian simple or compound verbs. Mirhassani (2004) also compared and

contrasted English and Persian verbs in terms of tense or phase.

From the above literature review, it could be inferred that the English verbs have

been studied and worked on by many scholars in the field of linguistics and language

teaching. Also a large number of studies and classifications are related to the

categorization of English sentence patterns. However, no comprehensive study has been

conducted on comparing and contrasting English and Persian LVs with the aim of

helping both teachers and students know more about the patterns for LV

complementation (predicative patterns) in both languages. Moreover, the present study is

somehow different from all of the above mentioned studies, in that the researchers tend to

study these verbs from another perspective, i.e., how they are used in collocation with

certain adjectives by Iranian intermediate students.

The Research Questions

This study intends to answer the following questions.

1. Does collocation fulfill any role when Iranian students at intermediate level intend

to use English LVs in appropriate patterns with certain adjectives?

2. Is there a probability of error commitment due to the use of adverbs of manner

rather than adjectives to modify English LVs?

153

Methodology

In order to provide the required empirical data for this study, a proficiency test

was administered to a group of 115 students majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language (TEFL) randomly selected from Azad University, Andimeshk Campus. They

were all from similar academic backgrounds, i.e., all of them had passed three semesters.

After administering the proficiency test (Pameda, 1998), the students’ scores were ranked

and from among them, 50 students whose scores were ranged between 30 and 55 out of

90 were chosen as the main participants for the study.

In order to tap the students’ general proficiency in English, a proficiency test

(Pameda, 1989) consisting of two parts was administered. The first part contained 30

items on structure and written expressions and the second part consisted of 30 items on

vocabulary and 30 items on reading comprehension. Then, in order to check the students’

performance on English LVs, the researchers used two other tests. One of these tests, the

recognition part, consisted of 40 English sentences in some of which there was one error

(appendix A). The students were required to find the errors and give their correct forms.

The second test, the production part, was composed of 40 Persian sentences (appendix

B). The students were asked to translate all of the items into English. These two test types

were conducted to see whether the students’ mother tongue or any other factors

influenced their recognition / production of English LVs in different patterns and in

relation to other sentence elements.

As indicated above, the LVs that were focused on were divided into three groups.

In the first group, LVs like look, appear, seem and sound were concentrated on. All these

154

verbs mean ‘benæzar residæn’ or ‘amædæn’ in Persian. So they were studied in one

group. The second group of LVs consisted of verbs like, become, go, grow, turn, etc. All

these verbs also mean ‘Šodæn’ in Persian. In the third group, there was only one verb,

that is, ‘remain’ meaning ‘mandæn’ (stay) in Persian. In the second phase of this study,

the relationship between LVs such as taste, feel, sound, etc. and their modification were

investigated.

Procedure

The whole procedure was divided into two phases. In the first phase, the

researchers intended to check the participants’ performance as they were supposed to

translate 40 Persian sentences containing LVs into English. For the first three groups of

LVs given above, the researchers checked the students’ performance on certain linking

verbs in collocation with specific adjectives. To this end, the subjects were required to

take another test consisting of 40 sentences. In some of these sentences, a few LVs were

used erroneously in collocation with certain adjectives. The students were then required

to recognize the errors hidden in these sentences and give their correct forms. The

objective of the second phase of this research was to find if there were any error

commitments due to the use of adverbs of manner instead of adjectives to modify English

LVs. A contrastive framework was also provided for all the aforementioned patterns for

LVs in both phases of this study.

Results

In this study, the English LVs were divided into three groups. In group one,

linking verbs like; appear, seem, look, and sound all meaning ‘benǽzǽr residǽn’ in

155

Persian were focused on. The following tables show the number and the percentage of the

errors committed in using these verbs in certain patterns in collocation with adjectives.

Table 1. The number and the percentage of the errors in translation test

English LVs Number of errors Percentage

look 41 82%

appear 41 82%

seem 39 75%

sound 46 92%

Table 2. The number and the percentage of the errors in recognition test

English LVs Number of errors Percentage

look 35 70%

appear 38 76%

seem 30 60%

sound 44 88%

In group two, the collocation of the English linking verbs like; go, become, grow,

work, get, and turn with appropriate adjectives was checked. The number and the

percentage of the errors are given in tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. The number and the percentage of the errors in translation test

LVs Number of errors Percentage

become 3 6%

go 31 62%

grow 36 72%

get 39 78%

work 50 100%

turn 43 86%

156

Table 4. The number and the percentage of the errors in recognition test

LVs Number of errors Percentage

become 2 4%

go 28 56%

grow 35 70%

get 40 80%

work 39 78%

turn 40 80%

The other English linking verb was ‘remain’ meaning ‘mandǽn’ in Persian. The

number and the percentage of students’ erroneous performance in using this verb were as

follows:

Table 5. The number and the percentage of the errors in translation

and recognition tests

Remain Number of error Percentage

Translation test 4 8%

Recognition test 3 6%

The second phase of this study dealt with the way English linking verbs are

modified. Most of the students did not perform well. For instance, in the following

examples taken from the error recognition test most of the students could not find the

erroneous modification of the English linking verbs by adverbs of manner instead of

adjectives.

1. The cake they made last night* tasted well.

2. The music the man played * sounded sweetly.

3. The room will * smell terribly.

157

4. We love to go to the country in spring because the wild flowers * smell so

sweetly.

Table 6. The number and the percentage of the students who found these sentences as error free

Sentences Frequency of errors Percentage Sentence 1 Sentence 2 Sentence 3 Sentence 4

39 45 49 37

78% 90% 88% 74%

Figure 1 shows the percentage of the errors the students committed as they just used one

group of linking verbs including; look, appear, seem and sound. As it is indicated, the

percentage of the errors on this group of verbs was abounding.

Figure 1: Errors in recognition part

82% 74% 78% 92%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4

82% 74% 78%92%

look appear seem sound

Figure 2 also shows the percentage of the students who committed errors in the using this

group of linking verbs in the translation test.

158

Figure 2: Errors in translation part

6% 62% 72% 78% 100% 86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

6% 62% 72% 78%100% 86%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Discussion

According to the findings of this contrastive study, it can be concluded that the

subjects participating in this study experienced great difficulty as they were just asked

to use English LVs in their proper patterns. In regard to the first group of LVs, i.e.,

look, seem, appear, and sound, the participants committed multiple errors in both

translation and recognition. This was probably because of the fact that the relationship

between these English LVs and their only equivalent in Persian which is ‘benæzær

residæn’ (amædæn) is a divergent relationship, i.e., this single verb in Persian can

replace all the English LVs mentioned above by an Iranian student at this level. In this

kind of relationship, as it is obvious, the English language has a wider range of

distribution than its corresponding Persian structure. For this reason, an Iranian learner

159

of English at this level is expected to experience considerable difficulty in selecting the

proper LVs for the right patterns, i.e., collocation of certain verbs with certain

adjectives for instance. For example, the verb ‘appear’ means ‘presenting itself to

view’ and the verb ‘seem’ is more general and refers to something that can be described

as a general perceptual effect, e.g., ‘he appears healthy’ but ‘he seems honest’, yet both

of them mean ‘benæzar residæn’ in Persian. Therefore, an Iranian learner of English

might not be aware of the subtle differences between these four LVs in different

patterns in collocation with certain adjectives. S/he may then use them interchangeably

and hence commit errors in this regard.

The second group of the LVs consisted of verbs such as run, fall, work, etc all

meaning ‘become’ in English. The relationship between this group of English LVs and

their only equivalent in Persian, that is, ‘Šodæn’ is also a divergent one. Based on the

performance of the participants, a Persian learner of English who tries to use the LVs

may not make any formal distinction between the various verbs such as, become, go,

turn, blush, fall, stand, work and get because all these verbs mean ‘Šodæn’ in Persian.

Since the appropriate equivalent for ‘Šodæn’ in Persian is ‘become’ in English, Iranian

learners of English mainly tend to substitute this verb for almost all the LVs in this

group. For example, the verb ‘turn’ suggests gradual change and tends to be used

mostly with colors, while the verb ‘go’ is used when there is a suggestion that the new

state is somehow undesirable. On the other hand, the two English LVs of ‘run’ and

‘fall’ seem to be limited to the adjectives dead, ill and dry respectively. This is the case

for all the other verbs, i.e., each one of the verbs in this group is to be used in

collocation with certain adjectives in specific patterns. As a result, most of Iranian

160

learners who tend to use this group of LVs, may commit errors, because their native

language does not make any formal distinctions between certain adjectives with which

the Persian LV ‘Šodæn’ is used. So, they may use this group of verbs erroneously with

different adjectives in English which is probably because of the interference of their

mother tongue into the second language.

Another LV which was concentrated on separately was ‘remain’ meaning

‘mandæn’ in Persian. Regarding this verb, only few errors were committed by the

participants. The reason for this is likely to be the fact that this verb is identical to its

corresponding verb ‘mandæn’ in Persian.

The second phase of this study dealt with the contrastive study of another group

of LVs modified by adjectives instead of adverbs of manner. In this study, the

researchers provided some sentences in the recognition and the production tests. These

sentences contained some errors due to the relationship between the LVs like feel,

smell, taste, and their modifiers. Then, the participants were required to find the errors

in the recognition test. In this test, of course, some of these LVs had been modified

erroneously with adverbs of manner instead of adjectives. In this regard, most of the

participants did not recognize the errors. As it was the case with the other three groups

of linking verbs, the number of students who modified these groups of verbs by means

of adverbs of manner instead of adjectives in the translation test was significant. The

reason for the error commitment in this case is probably because of the fact that in

English all main verbs except intransitive LVs are modified by adverbs of manner

rather than adjectives. Based on this fact, Iranian intermediate learners of English may

overgeneralize the application of the adverbs of manner to modify the intransitive LVs

161

as well. In other words, the major reason for error commitment on the part of Persian

learners at this level is likely to be the intra-lingual interference rather than inter-

lingual interference. One interesting point which is worth mentioning here is the fact

that most of the subjects in this study could recognize that this group of LVs were to be

modified by adverbs of manner instead of adjectives when they were used transitively

in the sentences provided in the recognition test.

Conclusion

According to the results of the present study, it is obvious that Iranian learners of

English experience difficulty when they tend to use English LVs in their proper patterns. As

previously mentioned, based on the findings of this study, verb adjective collocation plays an

important role in the proper use of certain LVs in English. The role of collocation is also

important in lexical-based theories of language. In other words, different types of lexical

units or collocations are thought to play a central role in learning and in communication. This

is also the case for the LVs as they are to be used in collocation with certain types of

adjectives to make lexical units. In the case of native speakers, there are, of course, hundreds

of thousands of prepackaged phrases or collocations in the competence of each member of

the community of every language. Consequently, the implications for second language

learning are uncertain because of the large number of different kinds of collocations in each

language. To solve this problem, many experts in the field of second language learning and

teaching have proposed solutions. Lewis (2000) acknowledges that to help our students in the

acquisition of certain collocations one can benefit from the following suggestions:

162

1. Encountering new learning items on several occasions is necessary but not

sufficient condition for learning to occur.

2. Noticing lexical chunks or collocations is a necessary but not sufficient

condition for ‘input’ to become ‘intake’.

3. Noticing similarities and differences, restrictions, and examples contributes

to turn input into intake, although formal description of rules probably does

not help.

4. Acquisition is based not on the application of formal rules, but on an

accumulation of examples from which learners make provisional

generalizations. Language production is the product of previously met

examples, not formal rules.

To treat this problem appropriately, Krashen (1983) also suggests that massive

amount of ‘language input’, especially through reading, is the only effective approach to

such learning. Therefore, in the case of English LVs, the teacher’s responsibility is to

give the students enough examples and texts containing LVs in collocation with certain

adjectives. As Brooks (1964, p. 63) states: “if a teacher of English as a foreign or second

language can acquire a considerable knowledge of two languages, he would be more

successful in his job” (see also: Hayati, 2005). Giving the students enough exposure

through examples and texts will also help them acquire the way certain LVs are modified

by adjectives instead of adverbs of manner. In this way, Iranian English learners at this

level seem to be able to learn how to use English LVs appropriately as they try to

communicate properly in English. In this case, Lewis (2000) supports Krashen’s Natural

Approach procedures and suggests that teacher talk is a major source of input in

163

demonstrating how lexical phrases or collocations are used for different functional

purposes. Generally speaking, giving students enough exposure through reading, teacher

talk and examples containing LVs in different patterns seems to be the most efficient way

to help the students master the use of this group of verbs for effective and appropriate

communication.

Delimitations of the Study

This study concentrated on the probable errors that the intermediate Persian

learners of English as a foreign language may commit due to patterns for linking verbs. In

this study, one group of the English linking verbs, that is, the verb ‘be’ is excluded

because it seems that the verb ‘be’ might have been mastered by the students at this level.

For this reason, in this study there is no part dealing with comparing and contrasting the

verb ‘be’ in English with its counterparts in Persian.

Furthermore, all the participants in this study were university students majoring in

English language teaching (ELT). Factors such as sex, age, etc., were not taken into

account. Given that the basic theory of CA enables the researcher to determine the

structural similarities and differences between two languages, the task of comparison can

be carried out in many different ways depending upon the kind of grammar to which the

investigator adheres (Fallahi, 1991). For example, s/he may either hold closely to the

structural-grammar approach, the transformational approach or the eclectic approach.

From among these three approaches, the current research has adopted a surface-structure

approach for the purpose of contrast. The reason for the application of this strategy is that

the patterns of English and Persian can be adequately described, or very nearly so, by the

164

surface-structure rules of this grammar. Another reason for the selection of this

framework is that all the linguistic models and descriptions suffer from many theoretical

problems, the model used in this study is a surface traditional one. This is to save the

study from the probable pitfalls caused by insufficiency of the linguistic descriptions. A

clear and effective presentation of this approach can be found in Chomsky (1957),

Goodman (1965), Lester (1971), Akmajian (1975), etc. Although a surface-structure runs

into difficulties and complications as soon as we consider more complex sentences, this

grammar is more powerful than a model based on a finite state process and does not fail

in the same way (Chomsky, 1957).

165

Appendix A

Direction: In some of the following sentences there is only one error. First identify it

and then give its correct form.

1-we love to go to the country in the spring because the wild flowers smell so

sweetly.

2-The music sounds soothing and sadly.

3-Although the medicine tastes badly, it seems to help my condition.

4-The teacher turned the pages quickly.

5-If you leave the spoiled meat on the counter, the room will smell terribly.

6-Shari doesn’t like any thing that tastes spicy.

7-It is impossible to view Picassos Guernica without feeling badly about the fate of

the people portrayed.

8-Cythia feels queasily whenever she listens to the Banjo music.

9-The boy appears unwillingly to convince.

10-Malik seemed nervous before the show.

11-I tasted the soup carefully before adding more salt.

12-The customer carefully feels the fabric of the coat.

13-Up to the approach of the enemy troops, gate – keeper sounded his horn loud.

14-The music they play sounds sweetly.

15-The house in the country looks very beautifully.

16-The approach proposed by doctor Smith proved well.

17-The cake you made last night tastes nice.

18-The boy looked at his father sadly.

166

19-The man seems to behave angrily.

20-Amin who seemed sadly last night, is happy now.

21-The food you bought from the restaurant smells badly.

22-He remained healthy for the rest of his life.

23-The old man grew ill for two weeks.

24-In this city the weather turns cold very soon.

25-My mother seems young, but yours does not.

26-The Banjo music you just heard looked sad.

27-Harris believes that the children become tall very fast.

28-The judge turned the pages of the file quickly.

29-Ahmad looks unwilling to leave his hometown.

30-The dog looks an animal.

31-The nation’s mood grew sour.

32-He became discouraged with his bad marks.

33-Hamid feels certainly that his sister will succeed.

34-Mr Parson looks unwilling to accept the invitation.

35-My neighbor’s singing voice appears very bad despite several hours of daily

practice.

36-The play looks absurd to my friend and me.

37-The food tasted bad, so nobody liked it.

38-The test shows that Sarah is a genius.

39-Good eye contact helps your audience feel more certainly in your speaking ability.

40- Put feeling and energy into your voice by practicing.

167

Appendix B

Direction: Give an English equivalent for each of the following sentences.

.گلهايي که من دوست داشتم خشک شد -1

.راننده خسته به نظر مي رسد -2

.مينا هر چيزي را که مزه شريين داشته باشد دوست ندارد -3

.غذايي که روي ميز گذاشته اي بد بو است -4

.وقيت که واقعيت را شنيد قرمز شد -5

.برگهاي امسال زودتر زرد شدند -6

.صورت رضا سرخ شد -7

.پس از چند ساعت او گرسنه شد -8

.به نظر مريسد که جان به توجه زيادي نيازمند است -9

.مشا امروز عصباني به نظر مي ر سيد -10

.قد رضا خيلي زود بلند شد -11

.در هادي که دانش آموز است مريض شدبرا -12

.ديروز رضا و هادي احساس شادماني کردند -13

.وقيت امني را ديدم او خيلي نگران به نظر مي رسيد -14

.امحد ديروز مريض شد -15

.ليال امروز مريض به نظر مي رسيد -16

.ديروز هوا خيلي سرد شد -17

.وقيت که من واقعيت را گفتم صورتش قرمز شد -18

. مني توامن کار کنممن آنقدر خسته ام که -19

.سگ رضا وحشي شد -20

.غذا بد بو است./ بوي غذا بد است -21

168

.اين کيک خيلي خوش مزه است -22

..پدر حسن ثرومتند شد -23

.رود خانه ي دز در اين منطقه خشک شد -24

.سئواالت مشا خيلي جالب به نظر مي رسند -25

.اگر بچه ها غذا خنورند الغر به نظر مي رسند -26

.پس از مدتي آن مرد کور شد -27

.جعبه براي من خيلي سنگني بود که آنرا محل کنم -28

.معلم جديد شخص خوبي به نظر مي رسد -29

.به نظر مي رسد که بچه ها بيدار باشند -30

.بوي اتاق وحشتناک خواهد بود -31

.قبل از خوردن سوپ من آن را به دقت چشيدم -32

ما دوست دارمي در هبار به روستا برومي چون در آجنا گلها خشبو -33

.هستند

.از منايش علي عصباني به نظر مي رسيدقبل -34

اگر غذای فاسد را در اتاق بگذاريد ، اتاق بوي وحشتناکي -35

.خواهد داد

اگر چه دارو مزه بدي ميدهد ، به نظر مي رسد که براي من -36

.خوب است

.با دقت پارچه را ملس کرد) خريدار ( مشرتي -37

.به نظر مي رسد که آن مرد با عصبانيت رفتار مي کند -38

.يقي که آهنا مي نوازند جالب به نظر مي رسدموس -39

.سگ دوست داشتين امني ديوانه شد -40

169

References

Bourke, J. M. (2007). Verbal complementation: A pedagogical challenge. Reflections on English

Language Teaching, 6, 35-50.

Brooks, N. (1964). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. NewYork:

Harcourt, Brace and World.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. MA: Rowley.

Crystal, D. (1992). An encyclopidic dictionary of language and languages. Cambridge: C.U.P.

Devos, F. (1995). Contrastive grammar: Tenets and criteria. Papers and Studies in Contrastive

Linguistics, 30, 17-29.

Fallahi, M. (1991). Contrastive linguistics and analysis of errors: The grammatical structure of

English and Persian (vol.1). Tehran: Tehran University Press.

Frank, M. (1972). Modern English, Part One. Newjersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Geeslin, L. (2003). A comparison of copula choice: native Spanish Speakers and advanced

learners. ELT Journal, 53, 703-764.

Gunterman, G. (1992). An analysis of inter language development over time, part II. ser and

estar. ELT Journal, 75, 1294-1303.

Hall, E. J. (1974). Grammar for use. Maryland: Institute of Modern Languages.

Hayati, A. M. (1997). Contrastive linguistics: Re-evaluation and re-formulation. Poznan Studies

in Contemporary Linguistics, 32, 21-28.

Hayati, A. M. (2005). Contrastive analysis: Theory to practice. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran

University Press.

Keshavarz, M. (2003). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Publications.

170

Krashen, S. D. (1983). The Natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Leonetti, J. (1994). Ser and estar: the state of acquisition. ELT Journal, 1, 182- 205.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Research. London: Longman.

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: London: Language Teaching Publications.

Mirhassani, A. (2004). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English parts of speech. Tehran:

Tarbiat Modarres University.

Mukattash, L. (2001). Some remarks on Arabic-English contrastive studies. Poznan Studies in

Contemporary Linguistics, 37, 115-126.

Oka, H. (2004). A non-native approach to ELT: Universal or Asian ? Asian EFL journal, 6, 1-8.

Pameda, J.S. (1989). Tests of English as a foreign language. USA: The Ohio University Press.

Ridjanović, M. (1971). More on linking verb + complement in English and Serbo- Croatian ELT

Journal, 2, 65- 69.

Ryan, J., & Lafford, B. (1992). The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad

environment: ser/estar and the Granada experience. ELT Journal, 75, 714 – 722.

Schackne , S. (2002). Language teaching research: In the literature, but not always in the

classroom. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1, 1-11.

Silva-Corvala, N.C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford:

England Clarendon Press.

Sole', Y., & Sole' C. (1977). Modern Spanish syntax:Aa study in contrast. Lexington: D.C.

Health.

171

Stageberg, N.C. (1965). An introduction to English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, Inc.

Swan, M. (1995). Practical English usage. Oxford: O.U. P.

Thomas, O. (1965). Transformational grammar and the teacher of English. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Vanpatten, B. (1985). The acquisition of ser and estar in adult second language learners: A

preliminary investigation of transformational stages of competence. ELT Journal, 68,

399- 406.

Yarmohammadi, L. (2002). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English. Tehran: Payame Noor

University Press.

172