Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Persian Nursery Students' Strategies in Using English Present Simple
Tense
Akbar Solati (Ph.D.)
North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
[email protected]
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Persia learners of English study English for seven years before
joining the university; during these years, they are exposed to English tenses regularly and
intensively. Learning English tenses and their uses have an important role in the whole
process of communication. Nowadays, learning and using English tenses is the most difficult
problem not only for EFL students but also for Persian learners of English. To trace the
sources of the problems, this study sets out to investigate the null hypothesis that Persian
nursery students have no problem in using English present simple tense. Secondly, the study
examines and defines strategies adopted by them in the light of a psycholinguistic analysis.
Finally, on the basis of the results, the study gives pedagogical instructions and implications
for teaching.
Methods: In this study, a quantitative and qualitative approach is used. To achieve the
objectives, a multiple-choice test was administered to thirty first year Persian nursing
students of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences in Iran to judge the students'
knowledge of rules governing the use of English present simple tense.
Results: The statistical analyses of the results in this study indicate that English present
simple tense is difficult for Persian learners to learn. The results confirm that both
interlingual and intralingual interference strategies account for nursing students' errors in
the use of the English present simple tense. The results also show that intralingual
interference strategies seemed to be more obvious than those of the interlingual one.
Conclusion: In accordance with the findings, using interlingual and intralingual strategies,
with more focus on intralingual one, in teaching English tenses in general and the present
simple tense in particular might be useful for Persian nursing students. The results also offer
a lot of pedagogical recommendation that should be taken into account by lecturers, teachers
and syllabus designers to improve the teaching and learning of English present simple tense.
Keywords: Persian Nursing Students, Interlingual and Intralingual Strategies, Error
Analysis, English Present Simple Tense.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1681
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Introduction
Brown (1980, p. 264) states “In learning a language we must know the grammar rules
for forming correct sentence”. In other words, grammar is the system of rules governing the
conventional arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence (Brown, 2001, p. 362). Ur
(2006) states that, one cannot use words unless he/she knows how those words should be put.
Therefore, as called by Thornbury (2002) grammar is "sentence-making machine".
In talking grammar, one of the most important parts to be learned is tense. In English,
tense is formed either by changing the verb (e.g. know, knows, knew; work, worked), or by
adding auxiliary verbs (e.g. will know; had worked). Tense is one of the most knotty parts of
languages to master. Muneera and Shameem (2013) affirm that knowledge of grammar
particularly tenses, is the most required and awkward part for non-native speakers to master.
Studies on learners' errors have found that L2 learners employ certain strategies while
attempting to learn a language. Oxford (1990) defines such strategies as behavior or actions
which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable.
On the word of Ellis (1995), generally, a strategy is a mental or behavioral activity related to
some specific stage in process of language acquisition or language use. In language learning,
learning strategy is often considered essential in facilitating the acquisition of a foreign or
second language, and as Keshavarz (2003) states, it is a way in which a learner attempts to
work out the meaning and uses of words, grammatical rules, and other aspects of a language.
The most important strategies adopted by the L2 learners while proceedings gradually
towards the target language are interlingual and intralingual ones (Littlewood, 1984).
Interlingual interference strategy is “the use of a negative language pattern or rule which
leads to an error or inappropriate form in the target language” (Richards, Platt and Platt,
1992, p. 205). On the other hands, intralingual interference strategy involves an application of
general learning strategies similar to those manifested in first language acquisition (Richards,
1971). According to Keshavarz (2003), these strategies are two instances of second language
learning strategies as the learner makes use of his previously acquired knowledge, be it the
knowledge of the mother tongue or target language, in dealing with the present learning task.
In facts, as Solati (2014, p. 37) states, interlingual ones are the outcome of familiarity with
the mother tongue and intralingual ones result from faulty or partial learning of L2.
Interlingual and intralingual strategies are employed by second and foreign language learners
despite their different proficiency levels.
The errors resulting from the use of these strategies have been recorded at all
linguistic levels. For example, Reishaan (2013) found out that most of Iraqi English language
learners' written errors in use of tenses were basically related to L1 interference. Soo and
Wong (2012) assert that many of the problems a foreign language learner has with the
English grammar are due to the interference from the learners’ mother tongue. On the other
hand, Corder (1967, p. 166) claims that "some at least of the strategies adopted by the learner
of second language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is acquired".
Similarly, Mahmoud (2005, p. 124) states that "errors indicate that EFL students depend on
interlingual and intralingual interference strategies to facilitate learning". Such strategies,
according to him, help in the case of perceived linguistic similarities and lead to problems in
the case of differences (ibid).
As far as Persian university students are concerned, many studies illustrate the
difficulties faced by the Persian English language learners in learning English grammar. For
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1682
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
instance, Ramezani (2013), Rabieefar & Askarzadeh (2012), Sabzalipour (2012), and Fallahi
(1991) came upon that Persian university students face problems in English grammar when
they write English compositions. They asserted that the correct use of English tenses is one of
their main problems. Sattari (2012), Keshavarz and Abdollahian (2007) and Ganaatpisheh
(2006) observed that a great number of grammatical errors made by Persian learners of
English could be traced to the influence of their mother tongue. Whereas, according to
Barzegar (2013), Keshavarz (2003), and Fallahi (1991) the majority of errors committed by
Persian learners of English were intralingual one. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the
null hypothesis that Persian nursery students have no problem in using English present simple
tense. Secondly, this study examines and defines strategies adopted by Persian nursery
students in the light of a psycholinguistic analysis. Finally, on the basis of the results, the
study gives pedagogical instructions and implications for teaching.
Methods
This study is a quantitative and qualitative one in nature which utilized cross-sectional
survey method. To achieve the objectives, a total of 15 multiple-choice items were set to
judge the students' knowledge of rules governing the use of English present simple tense. The
subjects for this study were thirty first year Persian nursing students of North Khorasan
University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Their knowledge of English was still considered preuniversity as they had received only six weeks of English instruction at university. Being
fresh out of secondary schools and new at the university, their performance can indicate the
level of achievement in the secondary schools.
The rules governing the use of the English present simple tense are shown in Table 1(Swan,
2005; Lim, 2003; Azzar, 1999; Aitken, 1992).
Table 1: Rules Governing the Use of the Present Simple Tense.
Rule No. Rule
1
To express routine or habitual actions
2
To express general statements of fact and general truths.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
For a state or event in the present
For an action which is indicated by a performative verb in the present
For non-progressive verbs
For an action which is indicated in an exclamatory sentences
For a quoting from books, notices or very recently received letters.
In a newspaper headline.
It can be used for action in dramatic narrative.
For an action which is scheduled or timetabled to happen in future.
It is used in conditional sentences, type 1.
For a future action in a time clause.
For a suggestion given at the time of speaking.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1683
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Results and discussions
According to the objectives, this study is going to scrutinize the performance and
strategies adopted by Persian nursing students in using English present simple tense. In other
words this study aims to find out whether the errors committed by Persian nursing students in
the using of the English present simple tense might be attributed to interlingual or intralingual
interference strategies. Interlingual interference strategy is the use of a negative language
pattern or rule which leads to an error or inappropriate form in the target language whilst
intralingual interference strategy involves an application of general learning strategies similar
to those manifested in first language acquisition. In discussing the subjects errors for each
item, only those errors that committed by 20% and more of the subjects considered as
significant ones (Harris, 1969 and Lim, 2003). The results of the subjects' responses to 15
items that examined their knowledge of 13 English present simple tense rules are presented in
Table 2 to 13.
Rule 1 (To express routine or habitual actions)
The subjects' understanding of rule 1 of English present simple tense for a habitual
action was assessed using 3 items, i.e. items 2, 5 and 8. The subjects' responses to these items
are presented in Tables 2.
Table 2: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 2, 5 and 8.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
2. Tehran Times
A. appear
deviant
19
1
newspaper ... daily.
B. appearing
deviant
4
C. is appearing
deviant
36
D. appears
correct
39
E. appeared
deviant
2
5. Thousands of
A. publish…..notice
deviant
37
1
books … every
B. are publish…are notice
deviant
26
year but very few
C. have been published
deviant
9
of them ….
…have been noticed
D. are published….are
correct
22
noticed
E. publishing ……noticing
deviant
6
8. Sina: What …
A. your son does…stays
deviant
13
1
during the school
B. does your son do…stays
correct
35
holidays?
C. your son doing
deviant
9
Hamed: He … with
…staying
his grandmother in
D. is your son doing ….is
deviant
20
Shiraz.
staying
E. is your son does….stays
deviant
23
Both languages i.e. Persian and English are similar in using English present simple
tense for habitual actions. Thus it can be predicted that Persian learners will probably use the
simple present correctly. But the data in Table 2 show that the subjects in the present study
found it difficult to use the present simple tense to indicate a habitual action in the present.
The data obtained for item 2 in Table 2 shows that only 39% of the subjects used the present
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1684
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
simple tense correctly for routine or habitual actions. In spite of the meaning conveyed by
adverb of frequency (daily) more than a third (36%) of subjects used the present continuous
tense erroneously for routine or habitual actions. Therefore, interlingual interference strategy
might be used as Persian learners employ a double-duty pattern of present form to express
both simple present and present progressive tenses (Fallahi, 1991). In addition, nearly a fifth
(19%) of subjects used the base form of the verb (appear) erroneously. This type of error, i.e.
the deletion of –s, might have occurred, according to Duskova (1969, p. 20), as a result of
"the heavy pressure of all the other endingless forms". Accordingly, the subjects seemed to be
confused about the different verb forms that resemble one another in the present simple tense.
This suggests that intralingual interference strategy might be used.
Item 5, Table 2 indicates that most of the subjects did not use the correct form of the
present simple tense. More than half of the subjects used the present simple in the active
voice and correct form of the verb to be without using the correct past participle respectively.
For these cases, intralingual interference strategy might be used because Persian learners
ignorance of the existence of the time phrase "every day" that refers to the present simple
tense and lack of knowledge of forming the passive voice in English.
As for item 8, Table 2 indicates that the subjects' confusion about the use of the
auxiliary verbs seems to be the main cause of errors. This error might be attributed to
intralingual interference strategy. Another significant error is the use of the present
continuous tense by 20% of subjects. This error might be attributed to interlingual
interference strategy as the subjects employ a double-duty pattern of present form (Fallahi,
1991).
Rule 2 (to express general truth or facts)
The data obtained from item 11, used to assess the subjects' knowledge of the present
simple tense for a general truth, is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 11.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
2
11. Water …of hydrogen
A. consisting
deviant
2
and oxygen.
B. consists
correct
70
C. consisted
deviant
3
D. consist
deviant
7
E. are consisting
deviant
18
To express general truth or facts, the simple present is used in both, English and
Persian. Accordingly, it is inevitable that Persian learners use the simple present correctly.
The data in Table 3 also confirm this and show that 70% of the subjects used the present
simple tense correctly. The results suggest that a majority of the subjects seemed to be aware
of the use of the present simple for a general truth. Yet, 18% of the subjects used present
progressive tense. This error might be attributed to interlingual interference strategy because
of employing double-duty pattern of present form that mentioned in rule one, item two.
Rule 3 (for a state or event in the present)
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1685
Volume 3
September
Rule.
No
3
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 4: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 1.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality
1. She is a stranger and
…here.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
not belongs
doesn't belong
is not belonging
is not belong
not belonging
deviant
correct
deviant
deviant
deviant
Subjects
(%)
10
38
20
28
4
38% of the subjects' used present simple tense correctly because in both languages, i.e.
Persian and English, for showing a process or a current state with the stative verbs, the simple
present tense is used. As the results show, 28% of the subjects' errors were in the use of the
auxiliaries. These kinds of errors are attributed to intralingual interference strategy as the
subjects are confused with the use of such auxiliaries. Although the verb "belong'' is a stative
verb, the subjects used it in the "- ing" form, i.e. a fifth (20%) of the subjects used the present
continuous instead of the present simple. Therefore, intralingual interference strategy is the
cause of such errors as a result of the students' ignorance of the use of the present simple for
an event indicated by a stative verb in the present. In other words, some English verbs, which
we call state, non-continuous or stative verbs, aren't used in continuous tenses.
Rule 4 (for an action indicated by performative verbs in the present)
Item 14 of questionnaire tested the subjects' knowledge of an action indicated by
performative verbs in the present. The subjects' answers to this item are presented in Table 5
below.
Table 5: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 14.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
14.
Mahdi:
Remember
to
A.
promise
correct
37
4
come back before six
B. am promising
deviant
40
o'clock.
C. will promise
deviant
14
Ali: Yes, I …I will be back
D. am promise
deviant
3
before six o'clock.
E. promising
deviant
6
In both, Persian and English, the simple present tense is used in performative verbs.
However, 40% of the subjects utilized the present continuous tense erroneously instead of the
present simple tense. Such an error might be a result of the subjects' ignorance of Rule 4 of
the present simple tense for an action which is indicated by a performative verb and which is
going on at the time of speaking. Therefore, intralingual interference strategy might be the
cause of this error.
Rule 5 (for non-progressive verbs)
It is evident from the subjects' responses to item 6 as shown in Table 6 that subjects have
ignored the rule 5 of the present simple tense for non-progressive verbs.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1686
Volume 3
September
Rule.
No
5
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 6: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 6.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality
6. I want you to leave
right now. …you …?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
are …hearing
did…hear
do…hear
are…hear
have…heard
deviant
deviant
correct
deviant
deviant
Subjects
(%)
27
35
21
9
8
The data in Table 6 show that the subjects in the present study found it difficult to use
the present simple tense for non-progressive verbs. In English, non-progressive verbs such as
feel, look, sound, appear, smell, taste, see, hear are used in the simple present. In Persian, all
these verbs are used in the present simple except the verb "hear". In this case, both, the
present simple and the present progressive are used. Therefore, 27% of subjects used the
present continuous tense and 35% of subjects used the past simple tense incorrectly. It seems
that, interlingual interference strategy might be the possible source of the errors as a result of
the subjects' L1 interference.
Rule 6 (for an action indicated in an exclamatory sentences)
Only 40% of the subjects used the correct form of the present simple tense for an
action which is indicated in an exclamatory sentence as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 15.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
15. Ali: I have waited for half
A. come
deviant
11
6
an hour. I wonder when the next
B. is coming
deviant
14
bus will come.
C. comes
correct
40
Ahmad: Look! Here…the bus!
D. came
deviant
28
E. is come
deviant
7
Because of differences in exclamatory sentence between Persian and English, in
English, the simple present is used in such sentences, while in Persian; the simple past tense
is used. Accordingly, more than a quarter of subjects' choice is simple past instead of the
simple present for an action indicated in exclamatory sentence with initial adverbials. It
seems that interlingual interference strategy might have used. On the other hand, the term
"here" is ignored as an expression in simple present that express an event that is going on at
the time of speaking. Thus, intralingual interference strategy might have used.
Rule 7 (for a quotation)
The use of the present simple for a quotation from a book or a recently received letter,
notice or report being read at the time of speaking was tested by item 12 of the questionnaire.
The subjects' responses to this item are presented in Table 8.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1687
Volume 3
September
Rule.
No
7
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 8: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 12.
Item. No
Subjects’
Grammaticality
Choice
12. Shakespeare …: Neither a
A. say
deviant
lender nor a borrower be.
B. says
correct
C. said
deviant
D. is saying
deviant
E. has said
deviant
Subjects
(%)
14
36
29
16
5
36% of subjects used present simple correctly because English and Persian are almost
the same in using the simple present for this rule. Again the subjects' ignorance of another
rule of the present simple tense is clear. Here, 29% of the subjects used the past simple tense
incorrectly by ignoring Rule 7 of the present simple tense. Therefore, intralingual interference
strategy might have used.
Rule 8 (in a newspaper headline)
Table 9 presents the subjects ' results of item 3 regarding the use of the abovementioned rule of present simple tense.
Table 9: Percentages of the Subjects' Responses to Item 3.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
3. "PM…NEW PLAN ".
A. is announce
deviant
11
8
(PM=The Prime
B. announces
correct
35
Minister )
C. announced
deviant
30
D. has announced
deviant
19
E. announcing
deviant
5
According to rule 8, the present simple is often used in news headlines in English to
talk about events that have recently happened. The data in Table 9 show that the subjects
seemed to be confused whether to use the present perfect tense, the past simple tense or the
present simple tense for a recent past action indicated in a newspaper headline. As in Persian
the simple past is usually used in the newspaper headlines, the use of the present perfect tense
and the past simple tense are the appropriate tenses in Persian and more than half of the
subjects used the present perfect tense and the past simple tense incorrectly for this item.
Therefore, the possible source might account for the subjects' errors is interlingual
interference strategy.
Rule 9 (for an action in dramatic narrative)
This rule was tested by using item 10 of questionnaire. The results obtained are presented in
Table 10.
Table 10: Percentages of Subjects' Responses to Item 13.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
9
13. When the
A. rises…opens….enters
correct
40
curtain …,
B. rose…opened…entered
deviant
22
Juliet is
C. rising…opening…entering
deviant
14
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1688
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
writing at her
desk.
Suddenly the
window
…and a
masked man
….
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
D. is rising…is opening…is
entering..
E. rose…opens…enters
deviant
19
deviant
11
The results show that 40% of the subjects use the simple present because English and
Persian are almost the same in using the present simple in dramatic presentation. From the
data in the above Table, the main distractor was the past simple because it sidetracked more
than a fifth of subjects. This suggests that intralingual interference strategy might have used
as a result of the subjects' ignorance of the rule 9 of present simple tense that the main events
are usually described in sequence using the present simple and longer background events are
described using the present continuous.
Rule 10 (for an action or event which is scheduled or timetabled to happen in future)
Table 11: Percentages of Subjects' Responses to Item 4.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice Grammaticality Subjects
No
(%)
4.
The
next
semester…on
A.
ends
correct
40
9
18th January 2016.
B. will ends
deviant
34
C. ending
deviant
8
D. is ending
deviant
10
E. end
deviant
8
40% of subjects' response is simple present since in Persian and English the concept
of future can be expressed by the present time. According to percentages of the subjects'
responses to item 4, the subjects seemed to be unaware that in English, an event which is
scheduled or timetabled to happen in future should be expressed with the simple present
form. Accordingly, simple future distracted 34% of the subjects. It seems that in this item
intralingual interference strategy might be the source of the error.
Rule 11 (for a future-probable action indicated in conditional clause)
Table 12: Percentages of Subjects' Responses to Item 4.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality
No
4. If he…tomorrow, I will
A. is not coming
deviant
11
tell you how to solve the
B. will not come
deviant
problem.
C. doesn't come
correct
D. not comes
deviant
E. would not come
deviant
Subjects
(%)
8
31
47
8
6
Nearly half of the subjects used the present simple tense correctly in this item because
in a conditional sentence in Persian and English, the simple present appears in the If-clause.
Quite the opposite, percentages of subjects' responses to this item show that more than half of
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1689
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
the subjects have a problem in their understanding of Rule 11 of the present simple tense.
Intralingual interference strategy may have occurred because they were influenced by the
adjunct "tomorrow" which indicates future. That is, they appeared to be unaware that "a
common use is to put adjuncts which normally refer to future time with the present tense
when it is used to refer to future actions" (Shaw, 1992, p. 258).
Rule 12 (for a future action in a time clause)
The results obtained from Rule 12 are presented in Table 13.
Table 13: Percentages of Subjects' Responses to Item 7.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice Grammaticality
No
12
7. When she…here, she
A. will arrives
deviant
will give you a call.
B. arrived
deviant
C. will arrive
deviant
D. arrives
correct
E. is arriving
deviant
Subjects
(%)
3
31
11
46
9
Nearly a half (46%) of the subjects used the simple present correctly because in
English, the simple present is used when the verb in the adverbial clause refers to the future
time. On the other hand, nearly a third (31%) of the subjects used the past simple incorrectly.
Interlingual interference strategy might be the cause of this error because in Persian, in the
adverbial clause with the conjunctions such as "when", "after" and "while" the simple past is
used to refer to the future time.
Rule 13 (for a suggestion given at the time of speaking)
The results obtained on Rule 13 are presented in Table 14.
Table 14: Percentages of Subjects' Responses to Item 9.
Rule.
Item. No
Subjects’ Choice
Grammaticality
No
13
9. Ali: I am tired.
A. don't you go
correct
Mahdi: Why…to bed
B. you not go
deviant
early?
C. you didn't go
deviant
D. you don't go
deviant
E. you won't go
deviant
Subjects
(%)
42
19
19
15
5
The data in Table 14 show that more than half 58% of subjects have used statement
word order instead of question word order incorrectly. Such an error might be a result of
subjects' use of question word order in English incorrectly. Moreover, the data show that 19%
of subjects used past simple tense incorrectly. These suggest that intralingual interference
strategy might be the sources of the errors. Another error committed by 19% of the subjects is
in the use of the ungrammatical construction "you not go". Such an error might be attributed
to the interference of subjects' L1. The auxiliary "do" is deleted, as in Persian there is no
auxiliary to make simple present negative. Consequently, such an error might be a result of
the subjects' unconscious employment of L1 structure in L2 production. It seems that
interlingual interference strategy might be the sources of the errors.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1690
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
After presenting the results and discussions of the use of the English present simple
tense above, the following Table summarizes the percentages of incorrect responses for each
item. Moreover, the mean percentages of incorrect responses are represented for all these
items.
Table 15: Percentages and the Mean of the Incorrect Responses to the Items.
Rule No. Item No. Percentage of Incorrect Responses
1
2
61
1
5
78
1
8
65
2
11
30
3
1
62
4
14
63
5
6
79
6
15
60
7
12
64
8
3
65
9
10
60
10
13
60
11
4
53
12
7
54
13
9
58
Mean
60.8
Table 15 presents the percentage of the incorrect responses for all the 15 items of the
English present simple tense. The mean percentage of errors is 60.8%. The results suggest
that Persian nursery students have problem in using English present simple tense. All the
rules, except Rule 2, had not been internalized by more than half of the subjects. From the
results, it seems that the least difficult rule was rule 2 of the present simple to indicate a
general truth whilst the most difficult one was Rule 1 for the use of the present simple tense
for an action that express the routine, habitual and customary action or events.
The discussion of the results presented throughout this section suggests that both
interlingual and intralingual interference strategies appeared to cause the subjects' errors in
using present simple tense. However, the later seemed more significant than the former as
most of the errors seemed to be a result of intralingual interference strategy i.e. either as the
subjects' ignorance of the rules or their confusion over a large number of plausible verb form
used as distracters. These results are consistent with Brown (1994) and Littlewood (1995)
who believed that as learners progress in acquiring the norms of the target language, more
and more intralingual errors are manifested. The results are also consistent with Ellis (1994),
Kafipour and Khojasteh (2012), Barzegar (2013) and Rostami Abusaeedi & Boroomand
(2015) that interlingual errors of syntax and morphology occur in relatively small numbers in
the performance of L2 learners. However, the results seem to be different from that of
Reishaan (2013), Sattari (2012), and Keshavarz and Abdollahian (2007) who found that
interlingual interference is the main source of grammatical errors encountered by Persian
learners.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1691
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Based on the discussion, the teachers in Persian learners' classroom should be aware
of the linguistic differences between the students' L1 and L2. Using the L1 in the learning of
L2 should be encouraged because it allows learners to relate their L1 knowledge to ease their
comprehension process. In this regard, Chen (2006) argues that a better understanding of the
L1 influence in the acquisition of English grammar will help teachers know students'
difficulties in learning English. It will also aid in the adoption of appropriate teaching
strategies to help EFL students learn English (ibid).
The findings of the present study also suggest that a more significant portion of the
errors committed by the present subjects might have been as a result of the subjects'
ignorance of the present tense rules, confusion over a large number of verb forms,
misunderstanding of the use of the auxiliary verbs and, unawareness about the time
references used to indicate the tense action. Intralingual techniques suggested by Stern (1991)
might be useful to overcome the mentioned difficulties. In fact the use of intralingual
techniques creates and stimulates an L2 environment. That is, these techniques are effective
in teaching the grammatical rules and norms of the TL that the L1 seemed to be confused
about. In utilizing these techniques, the learner must obviously be given the opportunity to
use the target language intralingually (ibid).
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1692
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
References
Aitken, R. (1995). Teaching tenses. England: Longman
Azzar, B. S. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall
Regents
Barzegar, M. (2013). Persian EFL students' error analysis. Asian Journal of Social Sciences
& Humanities, 2(4), 322-334.
Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: Interactive language teaching methodology.
New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An integrative approach to language
pedagogy. NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chen, L. L. (2006). The effect of L1 and CAI on grammar learning: An Error Analysis of
Taiwanese beginning EFL learners' English essays. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 1-19.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Ellis, R. (1995). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd Ed.) London: Sage
publications.
Fallahi, M. (1991). Contrastive linguistics and analysis of errors. Iran University Press,
Tehran
Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. MaGraw-Hill, Inc, New York,
U.S.A.
Kafipour, R., & Khojasteh, L. (2012). A comparative taxonomy of errors made by Iranian
undergraduate learners of English. Canadian Social Science, 8(1), 18-24.
Keshavarz, M. H. (2003). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Abdollahian, S. (2007). A cross-sectional study of composition errors
committed by Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 82, 38-47.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1693
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Lim, J. M. H. (2003). Interference in the second language acquisition of the present simple
tense. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13, 1-28.
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition
research and
Its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahmoud, A. (2005). Collocation errors made by Arab learners of English. Asia EFL
Journal. Retrieved 2015, from the worldwide web: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ .
Muneera, M. & Shameem, R. (2013). Error Analysis of present simple tense in the
interlanguage of adult Arab English language learners. English Language Teaching, 6, 2.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Rabieefar, M., & Askarzadeh Torghabeh, R. A. (2012). Language teaching and Iranian EFL
learners: Restrictions in verb selection and errors. Paper presented at the 1st Conference on
Language Learning & Teaching: An Interdisciplinary Approach (LLT-IA), Mashhad, Iran.
Retrieved November 1, 2013, from
http://confbank.um.ac.ir/modules/conf_display/conferences/llt/20.pdf
Ramezani, F. (2013). The differences between pre-intermediate and advanced learners'
sources of syntactic errors. Elixir Online Journal, Educational Technology, 54A, 1261112615.
Reishaan, A. K. (2013). The use of tenses in the Iraqi advanced EFL learners' writings: An
error analysis. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, Series IV, No.1: Philology
and Cultural Studies, 6 (55) 99-116.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., Platt, H., & Candlin, C. N. (1992). Longman dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow, UK. Longman.
Richards, J. C. (1971). Error Analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition.
London: Longman.
Rostami Abusaeedi, A. A., & Boroomand, F. (2015).A quantitative analysis of Iranian EFL
learners' sources of written errors. International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning, 4 (1), 31-42.
Sabzalipour, B. (2012). Error analysis on students' Persian-English translation. Asian Journal
of Social Sciences & Humanities, 1(4), 71-76.
Sattari, A. (2012). An analysis of grammatical errors in Iranian students' English writings.
Iranian EFL Journal, 8(2), 143-157.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1694
Volume 3
September
Issue 2
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Shaw, K. (1992). Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins.
Solati, A. (2014). Psycholinguistic sources of English spelling errors. International Journal
of English and Education, 3, 2.
Soo, K. Y., & Wong, B. E. (2012). Acquisition of third person personal pronouns by L1
Malay speakers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 20 (2), 519-538.
Stern, H. (1991). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. New York: Oxford University Press
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach grammar. Pearson Education Limited, Malaysia.
Ur, P. (2006). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teacher. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1695