See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260349950

An Analysis of Grammatical Errors among Iranian Translation Students:

Insights from Interlanguage Theory

Article  in  European Journal of Social Sciences · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

10 3,784

2 authors:

Mehdi Abbasi Amin Karimnia

Islamic Azad University Islamic Azad University
2 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    89 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amin Karimnia on 25 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 1450-2267 Vol.25 No.4 (2011), pp. 525-536
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2011
http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com

An Analysis of Grammatical Errors among Iranian Translation

Students: Insights from Interlanguage Theory

Mehdi Abbasi
English Department, Fars Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran

Amin Karimnia
Department of English, Fasa Branch
Islamic Azad University, Fasa, Iran

Abstract
The present paper investigated a number of grammatical errors that were committed by
Iranian students in their translation and compared the errors of junior and senior students to
reach their possible dominant errors which had not been remedied during the years of
studying at university. To do so, errors in translation of eighty Translation Students, forty
seniors and forty juniors from Azad and Payam-e-Noor University in the academic year of
2009/2010 were examined. The errors in the corpus were identified and were then
classified into two main categories namely, lexico-Semantic and Syntactico-Morphological
according to Keshavarz’s (1994) model. Analysis of errors in students’ translation revealed
significant shortfalls in English grammar. Findings showed that 98 percent of the students
had problems grammatically, and most errors that the students produced were of
interlingual errors, indicating the influence of the mother language.

Keywords: Error analysis; interlanguage; grammatical errors; interlingual errors.

1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
In the speech or writing of a second or foreign language, error is the use of a linguistic item (e.g. a
word, grammatical item, speech act, etc.) in a way which a fluent or native speaker of the language
regards as showing faulty or incomplete. (Richards,2002)
Regarding learners’ errors, error analysis (EA) enthusiasts make a distinction between mistakes
and errors, which are “technically two very different phenomena” (Brown, 2004, p. 216). Brown(2004)
also maintains that a mistake can be self-corrected, but an error cannot. Therefore, native speakers can
identify and correct them immediately because they are fully aware of their mother tongue structures
and rules. Non-native speakers or L2 learners not only make mistakes, but also they commit errors in
their writings; since their knowledge of L2 structures and rules is not sufficient.
According to Brown (2004, p.216), “a mistake refers to a performance error in that it is a failure
to utilize a known system correctly; while an error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of
a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner.”
According to Nord (1991, p.88), “linguistic problems arise from differences of structure in the
vocabulary and syntax of second language (SL) and target language (TL)”. Some of these problems

525
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

may be caused by what Newmark (1988) calls “false friends” or by “situations of one-to many or one-
to-zero equivalence. These problems can also be caused by lack of grammar knowledge in the SL or
the TL.” (Nord, 1991, p.89)
According to Harmer (2003, p.142), “grammar is the description of the ways in which words
can change their forms and can be combined into sentences in that language.” Grammar is one of the
most important aspects in translation. In order to make a well structured translation, one should be
mastered in grammar. As suggested by Brown (2004, p.298) “before the learner becomes familiar with
the system of the second language, the native language is the only linguistic system upon which the
learner can draw. Therefore, not having enough knowledge in this sense will lead learners to use their
own system of syntax in the TL and this interference(s) makes them Erroneous.” Therefore, it seems
impossible to learn a language without learning its grammar.
Another aspect that should be considered in translation is vocabulary. Llach (2005, p.46) states
that “language learning starts up with vocabulary, words are the first linguistic items acquired by the
learner and no language acquisition at all can take place without the acquisition of lexis”.
According to Read and Chapelle (2001, p.48) “vocabulary is one of the basic components of
language.” Both researchers and teachers believe that one should enhance his knowledge of lexis in the
field of translation; since with insufficient vocabulary knowledge, it is a natural matter for students to
make such mistakes as misuse of words. Therefore, as a language learner, one must strive to enlarge
one’s vocabulary to enable him to use the correct forms in their translation.
As Erdogan (2005, p.263) emphasizes, “Error analysis deals with the learners’ performance in
terms of the cognitive processes they make use of in recognizing or coding the input they receive from
the target language. Therefore, a primary focus of error analysis is on the evidence that learners’ errors
provide with an understanding of the underlying process of second language acquisition.”
By error analysis, teachers would be able to have knowledge of what areas should be focused
on and what kind of materials needs attention in an L2 classroom. So, by error analysis, firstly, the
language teachers can be able to develop curriculum design and select materials that help students’
learning L2. Secondly, as Ferris (2002, p.56) maintains “there is fairly conclusive evidence that teacher
feedback leads to more accurate revisions by students but this improvement could be drawing only on
explicit knowledge.” So, students’ errors are valuable feedbacks and based on their errors, some
remedial teaching could be done. Thirdly, according to Lee (2004) students expect to get feedback
from their teachers and hope that it would be very helpful for them to be good writers. Finally, teachers
need to know the causes of errors and the reasons behind their occurrences. So, by doing error analysis,
light can be shed on the areas to which they should spend more attention and emphasis in their
teaching. For this reason, research is necessary. In a sense, error analysis theory together with other
theories has enriched the second language learning theory.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The researchers were curious to know the grammatical errors in the translation of junior and senior
students at Islamic Azad University and Payame-noor University, English Translation Department.
They were also curious to compare grammatical errors produced by juniors and those of seniors to see
if there was any progress in their English grammar.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

The underlying assumption was that students' errors made in grammar were systematic and classifiable.
So, this study carried out a systematic research in the field of error analysis to investigate a number of
grammatical errors produced by junior and senior Iranian college students of English Translation
Department in their translation assignments. The researchers wanted to know which error types of
grammatical errors were mostly produced by students. So, the frequency of errors was an important
matter.

526
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

Another aim of this study was to compare the grammatical errors of juniors and seniors; by
comparing errors committed at different years, we could reach to their possible dominant errors which
have not been remedied during the years of study in the university.
When quantitative analysis of the distribution and the occurrences of errors from different
aspects were scrutinized, we could find out errors operating in translation and by comparing errors
committed by students at different years, we could reach to their possible dominant errors which have
not been corrected.

1.4. Significance of the Study

As Corder (1967) emphasizes, error analysis is significant in three aspects: it will tell the language
teacher what needs to be taught; it will tell the researcher how learning proceeds; and it is a means
whereby learners test their hypotheses about the L2. It is hoped that the present study would prove
helpful in the above-mentioned points and their practical applications in the area of translation for
Iranian translators.

1.5. The Scope and the Limitation of the Study

The scope of this research was grammatical errors and the analysis focused on the English grammatical
errors of junior and senior of English Translation Department students of Shiraz Islamic Azad
University and Jahrom Payame-noor University. This research only observed grammatical errors in
students’ translations. Other errors like spelling and punctuation were not analyzed. In this research the
writers did not differentiate between an error and a mistake because English in these faculties was
learned as the foreign language so any deviation produced by the learners was defined as an error.

1.6. Research Questions

In order to analyze the grammatical errors, the researchers formulated some questions helpful to
analyze the grammatical errors. So, the researchers tried to find the answers to the following questions:
1. What are possible permanent grammatical errors of Iranian English translation students
based on years of university study?
2. Is negative L1 transfer/interference the main cause for grammatical errors in the
translation of Iranian translation students?

2. Literature Review
According to James (1998, p.63) “the TL speaker knows everything and FL learner is more or less
ignorant. Interlanguage is, therefore, a product of ignorance. In order to compensate for their
ignorance, learners produce this substitutive language”. In other words, IL is the type of language
produced by second and foreign language learners who are in the process of learning a new language.
Therefore, interlanguage is the type of language produced by second and foreign language
learners who are in the process of learning a new language. Interlanguage is a term that was coined by
Selinker (1972). It deals with the language of a learner who has not yet learned the target language
completely. An interlanguage is not the same as the L1 or the L2. It is seen as a separate language
which has its own set of rules. These rules may however be related to the L1, which is then seen as a
sign of negative transfer.
Error analysis emphasizes “the significance of errors in learners’ interlanguages system”
(Brown 2004, P.258). So, one way to deal with intelanguage is error analysis. Therefore, error analysis
can give information about learners’ difficulties during L2 acquisition and the way he learns and
develops his language learning. According to Corder(1974, p.27), the results of error analysis“can help
teachers to adapt themselves to the learner’s needs rather than impose upon him their (the teachers’)
preconceptions of how he ought to learn and when he ought to learn”.”
527
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

According to what Scovel as cited in Sárosdyand Tamás (2006) emphasizes, errors are
systematic and may give valuable insight into language acquisition because they are goofs in the
learner’s underlying competence. According to Ellis (1997, p.68) "it was not until the 1970s that EA
became a recognized part of applied linguistics, a development that owed much to the work of Corder".
In fact, the new definition of EA was introduced by Corder (1967) in an article entitled “The
significance of learner errors”. He believed that “errors are visible proofs that learning is actually
taking place” (Corder, 1967, p.56).
Regarding the purpose of the error analysis, Keshavars (1999) suggests that the field of error
analysis can be divided into two branches: (a) theoretical, and (b) applied.Theoretical analysis of errors
primarily concerns the process and strategies of language learning and its similarities with first
language acquisition. In other words, it tries to investigate what is going on in the minds of language
learners. Secondly, it tries to decode the strategies of learners such as overgeneralization and
simplification, and thirdly, to go to a conclusion that regards the universals of language learning
process whether there is an internal syllabus for learning a second language.
Applied error analysis, on the other hand, concerns organizing remedial courses, and devising
appropriate materials and teaching strategies based on the findings of theoretical error analysis. So, as
Mitchell and Myles (2004, p.24) emphasize “errors, if studied, could reveal a developing system of the
students L2 language and this system is dynamic and open to changes and resetting of parameters.”
The analysis of error sources has been regarded as a central aspect in the study of learner errors.
Researchers believe that the clearer the understanding of the sources of learners’ errors, the better
second language teachers will be able to detect the process of L2 learning.
Corder (as cited in Keshavarz, 1999,p.70) categorizes errors into two groups: overt and covert
.“An overt error is easy to identify, because it is unquestionably ungrammatical at the sentence level. A
covert error occurs in utterances that are superficially well formed but which do not mean what the
learner intended them to mean. Therefore, it is not interpretable within the context of communication.”
According to Brown (2004) errors may also be viewed as being either global or local. Global
errors hinder communication. They prevent the message from being comprehend. On the other hand,
local errors do not prevent the message from being understood because there is usually a minor
violation of one segment of a sentence that allows the hearer to guess the intended meaning.
Sárosdyand Tamás (2006, p.125) groups the written errors on the basis of their gravity:
Qualitative errors are errors that are so serious they impede communication or distort the information
transferred. Quantitative errors are errors (misspelled words, misused structures, synonyms, style) that
do not affect communication. However, if any of these quantitative errors distort the meaning they may
become qualitative errors.
Keshavarz (1994) makes two categorizations for errors; the first categorization is Syntactical-
morphological errors which include: errors in the use of prepositions, errors in the use of articles,
wrong use of plural morphemes, wrong use of qualifier and intensifier, and the use of typical Persian
construction in English. The second categorization is Lexical-semantic errors including cross
association and language switch.

2.2. Related Empirical Studies

In their study, Dulay and Burt (1974) took samples of 179 Spanish speaking children. They categorized
the errors into three groups: interference, intralingual, and unique errors. According to their study only
5% of the errors were interference while 87% were intralingual and 8% were unique. At last, they
hypothesizes that children do not use their L1 habits in the process of learning the syntax of their new
language.
In his study, Flick as cited in Ellis (1994) made an empirical study in that he collected data
from 20 adult Spanish L2 learners through oral translation study. He reported that many factors shared
a role in their subjects’ errors as follows: 24% of errors happened due to transfer, 23% due to

528
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

performance, and 17% due to the simplifications of function words, 16% due to overgeneralization,
and 11% due to pronominal reference.
Another research is done by Brown (1994). He found that at the beginning levels of language
learning, a large number of errors happen due to negative transfer. He also found that as language
learners develop their English, intralingual errors overcome interlingual errors.
Based on the writings of 50 Czech learners of English, Duskova (1969) identified 1007 errors
and then categorized them into 9 categories. According to her findings, errors of article were most
frequent by 260 errors. Errors in lexis were 233, errors in syntax 54, and errors in wrong word order
were 31.
Kim (1987) conducted a research in the field of error analysis among 12th grade Korean English
learners in their composition and reported that intralingual errors happened more than interlingual. The
findings also showed that among 2445 different errors, errors in auxiliary were most common; 419
errors.
Scott and Tucker as cited in Frith (1977) describe an interesting error analysis oforal and
writtensamples of 22 Arabic-speaking EFL students at theAmerican University of Beirut.They offer
the following conclusions:
1. For these students native language interference was a persistentproblem in theuse of
prepositions and articles.
2. English word order was an early acquisition whereas object deletionwas late.This
transformation was actually learned during theterm in which the experimentwas carried
out.
3. Relative clauses in which the relative pronoun was the object of aprepositionwere
attempted infrequently and only in writing.
4. The nature of the corpus led the researchers to posit a rule-governedInterlanguage
system which was changed and reorganizedduring the term. Theystate: "We may say
that we were dealingwith two approximate systems, thesecond at Time 2 being a
closerapproximation than the first to adult nativeEnglish".
Wang and Wen’s study (2002) investigated a number of adjective errors related to Chinese
learners. According to her findings 62% of errors were due to transfer in language, 28% were due to
transfer between languages, and 10% were due to strategies in communication.
Ferris (2002) did a study in the field of syntactical errors. His findings are as follows: 22.5%
due to sentence structure, 2.9% due to lack of proper conjunction, and 1.8 due to incomplete sentences.
Chen (1998) reported that most Taiwanese students have difficulties in the use of English
tenses due to the absence of verb conjugation in Mandarin. Since Mandarin is not an inflected
language, Fang (1999) highlighted the teaching of English verb tenses to prevent Taiwanese EFL
students from misusing English tenses due to the linguistic difference.

3. Methodology
3.1. Setting and Participants
Since the aim of the study was to compare the errors of seniors and juniors, eighty students from
Islamic Azad University of Shiraz and Payam-e-Noor University of Jahrom took part in the present
study randomly; forty students from each university, twenty juniors and twenty seniors.

3.2. Materials
In order to figure out the possible linguistic errors of participants, they were given six kinds of different
letters in Persian to translate in two hours and a half. Four kinds of different letters were chosen
randomly from two books related to letter writing; namely, 147 Letters and Messages (Farhat, 2009)

529
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

and two letters were selected from Keshavar (1994). It should be noted that the letters were rather
formal.

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

Having adequate data is essential for any error analysis. The choice of appropriate procedures for
collecting data is, in fact, one of the crucial steps in the investigation of learner’s language. There are
two types of data-collecting procedures REFERENCE?:
a. Spontaneous procedures
b. Elicited procedures
For collecting spontaneous data from spoken language, unmonitored conversation and
interview are used, and for collecting data from the written language free composition and examination
papers can be used.
Some of the most common types of elicited procedures are translation and multiple-choice test.
Related to controlling the elicitation of specific grammatical constructions from foreign speakers of
English, Corder (1973) has suggested an elicitation procedure which requires direct translation from
the native language to the target language.
The translation technique has several advantages. First of all, it forces the subject to attempt to
produce the structure under investigation. Secondly, it assures the researcher that the subject
understands the semantics he is required to produce. Moreover, by forcing a subject to produce a
structure which has not been completely mastered, the researcher can gain insights into how the subject
understands the language to operate and how he organizes new syntactic structures in his
Interlanguage.
In this study, the researchers used translation procedure in order to find out the possible
grammatical errors which the translation students commit. So, they were given a test including four
letters from the mentioned books to translate. During the process of translation, they were free to use
any monolingual or bilingual dictionaries they needed. The time allocated to the test was two hours and
a half, but there was no time pressure for participants to complete the task; they could use more time if
needed.

3.5. Data Analysis Procedures

Analyzing the collected data was based on Keshavarz (1994) model of error analysis. Referring to the
steps of error analysis, the data were analyzed as follows:
The first step was to identify errors; in this step, the researchers acquired data and tried to find
out the grammatical errors by underlying the errors. Once the errors had been identified, they were
classified into 2 main categories, they are:
1. Syntactico-morphological
2. Lexico-semantic errors
Then the errors were calculated in order to know how frequent these errors had been made by
the students.
By calculating the frequency of each error, the researchers was able to identify the most
frequent error and the least frequent error made by the students. Once the errors were calculated and
arranged, the result of the analysis was tabulated. Table one was meant to ease the identification of the
percentage of each error.

4. Data Analysis and Results

4.1. Analysis of Errors
As previously stated, this study meant to explain the grammatical errors made by the students. After
collecting and analyzing the data, the researchers found that there were a lot of grammatical errors. The
530
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

errors were classified based on Keshavarz (1994) model. There were 14 classifications of the errors, all
into two main categories.
Table 1 displays lexico-semantic errors in the students’ translation. A total of two
subcategories, 79 individual errors were identified; 45 errors in juniors’ translations and 34 errors in
seniors’ translations. As indicated in Table 1, errors related to language switch were higher than lexico-
semantic errors. As Table 1 demonstrates, there has been little progress in students’ lexico-semantic
competence; since the percentage of the number of lexico-semantic errors in the translations of juniors
and seniors were almost the same.

Table 1: Lexico-Semantic Errors

Lexico-Semantic Number of Results Number of Errors

℅ ℅
Errors Errors (Juniors) (Seniors)
Cross-Association 8 17.78 6 17.65
False Cognate 37 82.22 28 82.35
Total 45 100 34 100

Table 2 displays Syntactico-Morphological Errors in the students’ translation. A total of 12

subcategories, 1192 individual errors were identified; 702 errors in juniors and 490 errors in seniors.
As the percentage of different kinds of errors indicates the most dominant problem in the translation of
both juniors and seniors is the use of typical Persian structures, which is due to the interference of the
mother language.

Table 2: Syntactico-Morphological Errors

No. No.
The relative frequency of Error types % %
(Juniors) (Seniors)
Errors in the use of tenses 72 10.25 58 11.83
Errors in the wrong use of subject-verb inversion in indirect
55 7.83 40 8.16
questions
Wrong use of quantifiers and intensifiers 35 4.98 21 4.28
Errors in the use of Prepositions 69 8.97 53 10.81
Errors in the use of Articles 56 6.55 42 8.57
Wrong use of active and passive voice 57 9.11 36 7.34
Errors in the use of Relative Clauses and Relative Pronoun 54 7.69 26 5.30
Errors in the use of “it is” instead of “there is” 68 9.68 41 8.36
Lack of subject-Verb inversion in Wh-Questions 58 8.26 39 7.95
Wrong use of parts of speech 55 9.11 33 6.73
Errors due to lack of concord 45 6.41 32 6.53
Use of typical Persian structures 78 11.11 69 14.08
Total Number of Errors 702 100 490 100

Here are some random examples extracted from students’ translations and categorized based on
Keshavarz (1994) model:

1. Syntactico-Morphological Errors
Errors in the use of Tenses
a. Present continuous instead of simple present
*She is going shopping every day.(‫)او ھر روز خريد می کند()من انگليسی درس می دھم‬
*I am teaching English.
b. present perfect instead of simple past
*I have graduated from university 2 years ago. (‫)دو سال پيش از دانشگاه فارغ التحصيل شدم‬
*my father has been born in Shiraz. (‫)پدرم شيراز متولد شده است‬
c. simple past instead of past perfect
531
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

*he was very angry about what his friend did (‫)از آنچه دوستش انجام داده بود عصبانی بود‬
d. past perfect instead of simple past
(‫)ديشب پدر و مادرش ھمه جا را به دنبال او گشته بودند‬
*his parents had searched everywhere for him last night.
e. past continuous instead of simple past
(‫)وقتی بچه بودم پياده به مدرسه می رفتم‬
*I was going to school on foot when I was a child.

Errors in the use of Prepositions

a. Omission of preposition
*I didn’t agree him (‫)با او موافق نبودم‬
(....‫ سال در دبيرستان انگليسی خوانده ايم ولی‬6 ‫)اگرچه‬
*Although we have studied English six years in high school, we…
*I kissed it thousand times (‫)ھزاران بار آنرا بوسيدم‬
b. Redundant use of preposition
*she goes for shopping every day (‫)ھر روز خريد می کند‬
c. Wrong use of preposition
*I teach English for my students (‫)به دانشجويانم انگليسی درس می دھم‬
*there is a large library in the second floor (‫)در طبقه دوم کتابخانه بزرگی ھست‬
*she got married with her classmate (‫)با دوستش ازدواج کرد‬

Errors in the use of Articles

a. omission of the definite article “the”
*Tabriz is coldest city in Iran (‫)تبريز سردترين شھر ايران است‬
*I have a class in morning (‫)صبح کالس دارم‬
b. redundant use of the definite article “the”
*I live in the Tehran (‫)تھران زندگی می کنم‬
*My mother is from the here (‫)مادرم اھل اينجاست‬
c. Omission of the indefinite article ‘a/an’
*I kissed it for thousand times (‫)ھزاران بار آنرا بوسيدم‬
d. Redundant use of the indefinite article ‘a/an’
*I wanted to get an information about this (‫)ميخواستم اطالعاتی در اين زمينه کسب کنم‬

Wrong use of Active and Passive Voice

(‫)بعد از اينکه مادرش مرد پدرش زن ديگری گرفت‬
*after her mother was died his father got married
*I employed in a university near Tabriz (‫)در دانشگاھی نزديک تبريز استخدام شدم‬

Errors in the use of Relative Clauses and Relative Pronoun

(‫)اصطالحات جديدی ياد گرفته ام که قبال بلد نبوده ام‬
*I have learned new expressions which I didn’t know them before
*I have two brothers which are older than me (‫)دو برادر دارم که از خودم بزرگتر اند‬
*the thing I always think about it is love (‫)مسئله ای که ھميشه به آن فکر می کنم عشق است‬

Errors in the use of “it is” instead of “there is”

*It is a difference between love and affection (‫)بين عشق و عالقه تفاوت است‬
*It is 35 student in my class (‫ دانشجو دارد‬35 ‫)در کالس ما‬

Lack of Subject-Verb Inversion in Wh-questions

*How many children you have? (‫)چند تا بچه داری؟‬

532
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

Errors in the Wrong use of Subject-verb Inversion in Indirect Questions

*I can’t remember when did he get married (‫)به خاطر نمی آورم کی ازدواج کرده است‬

Wrong use of Parts of Speech

(‫)مردم شھر من عالقه زيادی به شکار دارند‬
*the people in my town are very interesting in hunting
*all people need love to surviving (‫)ھمه مردم برای زنده ماندن به عشق نياز دارند‬

Errors due to Lack of Concord

(‫)ھميشه به تغييراتی که رخ داده است فکر می کنم‬
*I often think of changes that has happened
*there are three clever student in my class (‫ دانشجوی باھوش دارد‬3 ‫)کالس ما‬

Use of Typical Persian Structures

*It was near that I started to cry like a baby (‫)نزديک بود که شروع کنم مثل بچه ھا گريه کنم‬
*you aren’t agree with me (‫)تو با من موافق نيستی‬
*I teach English to children (‫)به بچه ھا انگليسی درس می دھم‬

2. Lexico-Semantic Errors
Cross-association
It refers to cases where there are two words in the TL for which there is only one word in the learner’s
SL.
*I come back to Tabriz after 13 o’clock (‫ ساعت به تبريز برگشتم‬13 ‫)بعد از‬
*He had a quarrel with his woman (‫)پدرش با زن ديگری ازدواج کرد‬

False Cognate
This type of error refers to the incorrect use of a target language word because of its phonological
similarity with a word in the learner’s mother tongue; similarity in form and not in meaning.
*do you still smoke very cigar? (‫)ھنوز خيلی سيگار می کشی؟‬
*it was due to my chance (‫)به خاطر شانس من بود‬
*I teach English to children (‫)به بچه ھا انگليسی درس می دھم‬

4.2. Results
A brief look at the curriculum applied in Iran Education System shows that a great deal of effort has
been done to master the students in the area of linguistics and to make them produce grammatically
correct sentences. But this study showed that this object is mostly unreached. As the tables 1, and 2
indicate almost everyone has to some extent grammatical problems in their translations (98 percent of
them).
By quantitative analysis of errors from the dimension of grammatical rules and error source, the
researchers have mainly scrutinized the frequency and distribution of errors, and found different kinds
of errors which influenced translation, and accordingly give some suggestions on the knowledge of
second language acquisition.
The analysis of the participants’ translations gave the following conclusions:
1. The comparison between the number of different kinds of errors committed by seniors
and juniors indicates that almost all juniors have more than 12 kinds of different errors in
their translations. And, this average reaches 9 in seniors which is an indication of little
grammatical progress during the years of study at university.
2. Table 1 also reveals that the number of lexico-semantic errors is somehow high and it
proves that the participants have inadequate knowledge of TL.

533
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

3. According to table 2, the most frequent error happening both in seniors and juniors is the
use of typical Persian structures in English; and this is due to negative transfer.
4. The students were still confused in differentiating whether to use the definite or indefinite
articles. It could be because in Persian language grammar there is no definite article used.
5. According to the findings, it can be concluded that the students have not mastered the use
of tenses. We can see it from the number of the errors made. Although they had been
taught about it before, they were still confused which one to use when making a
grammatical sentence.
6. From the explanations above, it can be concluded that the students are still confused,
dealing with English grammar systems.

5. Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

5.1. Conclusion
Target language learners commit errors largely because their language proficiency is not good enough
for them to use this language at will. In order to fill the gap between inadequate proficiency and tough
requirements of a task, language learners draw on different strategies, such as ignorance and avoidance,
mother tongue transference, incomplete rule application, overgeneralization in their IL forms, which
cause different types of errors.
The present study supports Brown (1980) whose idea is that interlingual errors are
predominant. This is due to the fact that while the students try to know a second language, they are not
fully familiar with TL rules. The only language they are familiar with is their own language, so they
transfer their own grammatical rules into TL and make errors. Also, this study fully
supportsYarmohammadi (2002, p. 27) who adds that, “under the influence of the mother tongue the
differences between L1 and L2 are transferred into the learner’s language – i.e. interlanguage – hence,
interference is created and certain deviant structures are generated.”Apart from native language
interference, target language interference affects students’ interlanguage development seriously.
Having a brief look at the high frequency categories indicates that four categories are more
common in the juniors, use of typical Persian structures, errors in the use of tenses, errors in the use of
preposition and errors in the use of articles respectively. The same results happened in the analysis of
seniors’ high frequency errors.

5.2. Pedagogical Implications

As James (1998, p.204) emphasizes “Humans are prone not only to commit language errors themselves
but also to err in their judgments of those errors committed by others”. Identification of errors is
straightforward and un-ambiguous; categorization of the errors is not. So, the results must be
considered with care. Another thing to remember is the timely warning of Tarone, Swain and Fatbman
(1976) that hasty pedagogical applications should not be made on the basis of these kinds of findings.
The researchers are aware that the present study does not cover all aspects pertaining to errors
occurring in the students’ translation and there still exist numerous facets that deserve a researcher’s
and practitioner’s attention. What this study has nevertheless shown is that use of typical Persian
structures and language switch were the most numerous errors, which all these have led to literal
translations of some words and phrases from Persian to English on the part of the learner. That’s
mother tongue interference.
Based on the findings, the researchers would like to offer some pedagogical implications to be
considered in teaching.
1) The educator should devote substantial time and space to these problematic areas. In
teaching English related to its grammar, the teacher should give more easily understood
explanation in order to make the students more interested in learning English, especially
the grammar.
534
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

2) Language interference is apparently a common problem for beginning EFL learners.

English teachers can help beginning EFL students reduce language interference by
specifying the differences between Persian (L1) and English, in order to make English
grammar and lexis instruction more effective.
3) Errors in the use of verbs in this study were ranked as the number two error category
where the greatest number of errors occurred. Such errors should be given attention by
EFL educators. In addition to explaining grammatical rules of English verbs, EFL
teachers may also compare the verb differences including tense concepts between Persian
and English.
4) One ought to discuss with his/her students how to identify their errors and what the
possible causes are. This would bring about a greater understanding of the pedagogical
and psychological factors that contribute to grammatical errors.
5) Not only do students need more exposure to the language, but also teachers too need to be
well exposed, since the majority of teachers of English are non-native speakers. They
need to keep themselves abreast of current issues by reading books and journals related to
their profession.
6) Some teachers believe that using mother tongue language is like a poison for EFL learners
but professionals in second language acquisition believe that the mother tongue language
plays an important role in the EFL classroom. As Frith (2001, p.15) emphasizes
“Moderate and judicious use of the mother tongue can aid and facilitate the learning and
teaching of the target language.” Auerbuch (1993) identifies some uses of L1 as follow:
classroom management, language analysis, presenting rules that govern grammar,
discussing cross-cultural issues, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors, and
checking for comprehension.
7) Celce-Murcia (1996, p.14) proposes that “we must analyze virtually all of English
grammar at the discourse level in order to be able to teach our students rules of grammar
that will serve them when they read and write English for academic or communication
purposes.”

Reference
[1] Auerbach, E. 1993.Reexaming English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–
32.
[2] Brown, H.D. (2004). Principles of language learning and teaching. (4thed.). New York:
Longman.
[3] Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles in language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[4] Candling, R. B. (2001). Vocabulary and language teaching. New York: Longman.
[5] Celce-Murcia, M. (1996). Describing and Teaching English Grammar with Reference to
Written Discourse .Functional Approaches to Written Text, Section V.
http://exchanges.state.gov.education.engteaching/pubs
[6] Chen, C. Y., & Huang, H. Y. (2003). L2 acquisition of subject-prominence by EFL students in
Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 27(4), 99-122.
[7] Chen, H. C. (1998). A contrastive analysis of the language errors made by the Chinese students
of English as a second/foreign language. Journal of Wu-Feng Applied Linguistics, 6, 224-237.
[8] Corder, S.P. (1967).Error analysis and interlanguage. London: Oxford University Press.
[9] Corder, S. P. (1973).Introducing applied linguistics. Middlesex: Penguin.
[10] Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language Acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 129-136.
[11] Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foriegn language learning .IRAL, 7(1).11-36
[12] Ellis, R. (1994). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[13] Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
535
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 4 (2011)

[14] Erdogan, (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin University
Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(2), 261-270.
[15] Farhat, E. (2008). 147 letters and messages. Tehran: Peykezaban.
[16] Fang, Y. C. (1999). Teaching English verb tenses to Chinese EFL students. Journal of Kuen-
Shan Institute of Technology, 2, 119-123.
[17] Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
[18] Frith, May, B. (1975). Second Language Learning: An Examination of Two Hypotheses. IRAL,
12, 327-342.
[19] Harmer, J. (2003). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
[20] James, C. (2001). Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analysis. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[21] James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring error Analysis. London
and New York: Longman.
[22] Keshavarz, M. H. (1994). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnama
Publication.
[23] Kim, T. W. (1987). Contrastive analysis,error analysis and interlabguage in relation to adult
Chineses speakers learning second language.Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc.
[24] Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.
[25] Llach, A. (2005). The relationship of lexical error and their types to the quality of ESL
compositions: an emprical study. PortaLingurum, 3. 45-57.
[26] Mitchell, R. and Myles, M. (2004). Second language learning theories New York: Hodder
Arnold.
[27] Newmark, P.(1988). A textbook of translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
[28] Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[29] Read, J. &Chappel, C. A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment.
Language Testing,18(1), 1-32.
[30] Richards, J. C. (2002). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.London: Oxford University
Press.
[31] Sárosdy, F. &Tamás, B. (ed). (2006). Applied linguistics for BA students in English.Bolcsesz
Konzorcium: Minden Jog Fenntartva.
[32] Scott, M. and Tucker, G. Richard. (1974). Error Analysis and English Language Strategies of
Arab Students. Language Learning. 24(1). 69-97.
[33] Selinker, L. (1972a). Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.
[34] Selinker, L. (1972). Rediscovering interlanguage. New York: Longman.
[35] Shin, S. (2002). Error analysis: Lexical errors produced by Australian KFL learners. KAREC
Discussion Papers, 3(3), 1-25.
[36] Sercombe, P. G. (2000), Learner language and the consideration of idiosyncracies by students
of English as a second or foreign language in the context of Brunei Darulsalam. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 58-64.
[37] Tarone, E., Swain, M., and Fathman. (1976). Some limitations to the classroom applications of
current second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 10, 19-32.
[38] Wang, W. & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16
Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
[39] Yarmohammadi, L. (2002). Fifteen articles in contrastive linguistics and the structure of
Persian: grammar, text, and discourse. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
[40] Yarmohammadi, L. (1997). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English: grammar,
vocabulary and phonology. Tehran: Payame-Noor University Press.

536
View publication stats