A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND PERSIAN LINKING VERB
COMPLEMENTATION
A. Majid Hayati
Gholamali Kalanzadeh
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
Abstract
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 intermediatelevel 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 collegelevel 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
Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4
Frequency of errors
39
45
49
37
Percentage
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%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
82% 74% 78%
92%
1
look
2
appear
3
seem
4
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%
120%
100%
80%
6% 62% 72% 78%
100% 86%
60%
40%
20%
0%
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 interlingual 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.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﮔﻠﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻦ دوﺳﺖ داﺷﺘﻢ ﺧﺸﮏ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬راﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺧﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻣﻴﻨﺎ هﺮ ﭼﻴﺰي را ﮐﻪ ﻣﺰﻩ ﺷﲑﻳﻦ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ دوﺳﺖ ﻧﺪارد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻏﺬاﻳﻲ ﮐﻪ روي ﻣﻴﺰ ﮔﺬاﺷﺘﻪ اي ﺑﺪ ﺑﻮ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -5‬وﻗﱵ ﮐﻪ واﻗﻌﻴﺖ را ﺷﻨﻴﺪ ﻗﺮﻣﺰ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -6‬ﺑﺮﮔﻬﺎي اﻣﺴﺎل زودﺗﺮ زرد ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -7‬ﺻﻮرت رﺿﺎ ﺳﺮخ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -8‬ﭘﺲ از ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﺎﻋﺖ او ﮔﺮﺳﻨﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -9‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﲑﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺟﺎن ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ زﻳﺎدي ﻧﻴﺎزﻣﻨﺪ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -10‬ﴰﺎ اﻣﺮوز ﻋﺼﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ ر ﺳﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -11‬ﻗﺪ رﺿﺎ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ زود ﺑﻠﻨﺪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -12‬ﺑﺮادر هﺎدي ﮐﻪ داﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮز اﺳﺖ ﻣﺮﻳﺾ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -13‬دﻳﺮوز رﺿﺎ و هﺎدي اﺣﺴﺎس ﺷﺎدﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﮐﺮدﻧﺪ ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -14‬وﻗﱵ اﻣﲔ را دﻳﺪم او ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﻧﮕﺮان ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -15‬اﲪﺪ دﻳﺮوز ﻣﺮﻳﺾ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -16‬ﻟﻴﻼ اﻣﺮوز ﻣﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -17‬دﻳﺮوز هﻮا ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﺳﺮد ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -18‬وﻗﱵ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻦ واﻗﻌﻴﺖ را ﮔﻔﺘﻢ ﺻﻮرﺗﺶ ﻗﺮﻣﺰ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -19‬ﻣﻦ ﺁﻧﻘﺪر ﺧﺴﺘﻪ ام ﮐﻪ ﳕﻲ ﺗﻮاﱎ ﮐﺎر ﮐﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -20‬ﺳﮓ رﺿﺎ وﺣﺸﻲ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -21‬ﺑﻮي ﻏﺬا ﺑﺪ اﺳﺖ ‪ /.‬ﻏﺬا ﺑﺪ ﺑﻮ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪168‬‬
‫‪ -22‬اﻳﻦ ﮐﻴﮏ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﺧﻮش ﻣﺰﻩ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -23‬ﭘﺪر ﺣﺴﻦ ﺛﺮوﲤﻨﺪ ﺷﺪ‪..‬‬
‫‪ -24‬رود ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ي دز در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺧﺸﮏ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -25‬ﺳﺌﻮاﻻت ﴰﺎ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -26‬اﮔﺮ ﺑﭽﻪ هﺎ ﻏﺬا ﳔﻮرﻧﺪ ﻻﻏﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -27‬ﭘﺲ از ﻣﺪﺗﻲ ﺁن ﻣﺮد ﮐﻮر ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -28‬ﺟﻌﺒﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻦ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﺳﻨﮕﲔ ﺑﻮد ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﺮا ﲪﻞ ﮐﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -29‬ﻣﻌﻠﻢ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -30‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﭽﻪ هﺎ ﺑﻴﺪار ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -31‬ﺑﻮي اﺗﺎق وﺣﺸﺘﻨﺎک ﺧﻮاهﺪ ﺑﻮد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -32‬ﻗﺒﻞ از ﺧﻮردن ﺳﻮپ ﻣﻦ ﺁن را ﺑﻪ دﻗﺖ ﭼﺸﻴﺪم‪.‬‬
‫‪ -33‬ﻣﺎ دوﺳﺖ دارﱘ در ﲠﺎر ﺑﻪ روﺳﺘﺎ ﺑﺮوﱘ ﭼﻮن در ﺁﳒﺎ ﮔﻠﻬﺎ ﺧﺸﺒﻮ‬
‫هﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -34‬ﻗﺒﻞ از ﳕﺎﻳﺶ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﺼﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -35‬اﮔﺮ ﻏﺬای ﻓﺎﺳﺪ را در اﺗﺎق ﺑﮕﺬارﻳﺪ ‪ ،‬اﺗﺎق ﺑﻮي وﺣﺸﺘﻨﺎﮐﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻮاهﺪ داد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -36‬اﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ دارو ﻣﺰﻩ ﺑﺪي ﻣﻴﺪهﺪ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻮب اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -37‬ﻣﺸﱰي ) ﺧﺮﻳﺪار ( ﺑﺎ دﻗﺖ ﭘﺎرﭼﻪ را ﳌﺲ ﮐﺮد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -38‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁن ﻣﺮد ﺑﺎ ﻋﺼﺒﺎﻧﻴﺖ رﻓﺘﺎر ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -39‬ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻮازﻧﺪ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ رﺳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -40‬ﺳﮓ دوﺳﺖ داﺷﺘﲏ اﻣﲔ دﻳﻮاﻧﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪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