Error Analysis

The significance of error analysis for the learner، the teacher and the researcher is now widely recognized. Earlier studies of error analysis concentrated on intersystematic comparison of the “native language” and the “target language” and drew the required data largely from intuitions and impressionistic observations. This study was conducted on the basis of the following observations: (1) to restrict to the study of one area viz articles. (2) to avoid comparison in terms of the systems of native and target language. In this study the major areas of difficulties that students face in the target language، i.e. the occurrence of articles in different syntactic features was examined and an attempt was made to establish a hierarchy of difficulties 40 undergraduates faced in the use of articles. For testing the correct retrieval، a slightly modified version of Leacok’s essay ‘My Financial Career’ was prepared. It included sufficient examples of almost all the important uses of articles. The test was given to the subjects in the form of a running text. The responses of the subjects were analysed in terms of noun or noun phrases preceded by articles، noun or noun-phrases preceded by no article، and grammatical categories other than noun or noun-phrases proceeded by no article. The findings revealed that most of the errors the students committed were due to the nature as well as the grammatical complexity of the articles in English، i.e. L1 independent which cannot be explained in terms of transfer from the native language. It was also found that students’ competence using anaphoric reference is far greater than using cataphoric reference. The findings are interpreted to have pedagogical implications for syllabus designers and EFL teachers.

In light of the fact that L2 pronunciation errors are often caused by the transfer of well-established L1 sound systems, this paper examines some of the outstanding phonological differences between Persian and English. Comparing segmental and supra-segmental aspects of both languages, this study also discusses several problematic areas of pronunciation facing Iranian learners of English. To reach such a goal, thirty EFL learners were randomly selected from three levels of beginning, intermediate, and advanced students enrolled for the Fall term in 2008 in one of the private institutes in Shiraz. Their pronunciations of a list of 40 words and 8 sentences were analyzed through read-aloud task followed by an interview. The words have been recorded though a computer-based files adjusted for voice. The result of the data analysis indicated that our EFL learners at three levels confront considerable problems in areas that are absent in their mother tongue or converged into one item which is technically termed as coalescence. In order to compensate for the difficulties encountered by our EFL learners, we as teachers should integrate pronunciation teaching in our classroom syllabi so that they will become conscious of the differences in the sound system of the two languages. In this way, the Persian learners of English will be helped to become proficient speakers of English with rare or no residue of foreign accent in the pronunciation of target words, phrases, or sentences, thereby leading to more intelligibility of their utterances.

The main priority for university translation educators is to improve the quality and outcomes of translation courses. To achieve such a goal, the instructors are required to integrate learners' needs, identified with the help of a needs survey, into syllabus content. Accordingly, the present study was conducted to identify the Iranian English majors' difficulties in translating English texts since once a problem is identified, exploring the best pedagogical solutions would follow. The aim was accomplished through qualitative descriptive research conducted at Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch tracing the errors committed by the English majors in their exam papers in academic years 2016-2019. Following the model proposed by Miremadi (2008), the syntactic and lexical problems were identified in the exam papers collected during six semesters. Moreover, three more categories were added to the list as the data analysis moved forward: culture problems, stylistic problems, and miscellaneous errors with detailed subdivisions. What appeared to be worthy of attention in the results was the students' weakness in text and sentence segmentation to find the function of the components to approach textual meaning, resulting from the students' poor English language proficiency. The results also revealed the students' poor topical knowledge as well as the lack of knowledge of translation techniques and strategies.

This study was motivated by the researchers’ goal to unfold the quality of the English translations of Persian tourism industry texts and discover the most frequent error patterns the Iranian non-native translators have committed in such texts. Thus, the following research questions were addressed: 1) Are the English versions of Persian tourist guidebooks and multimedia compact discs provided by Iranian translators appropriate in terms of syntax, semantics and pragmatics?, and 2) What are the possible patterns of the errors found in English translations of Persian tourist guidebooks? To answer these questions, three English tourist guidebooks translated from their Persian source texts into English by Iranian translators as well as two multimedia compact discs whose primary purpose was to introduce Isfahan tourist attractions in English were selected and carefully studied. Three hundred sentences were randomly extracted and subjected to error analysis. The results of the analysis indicated that over one-third of the total number of the sentences under study were syntactically, semantically or pragmatically erroneous. Thus, based on the proposed model of the study which was a combination of American Translation Association's (ATA, 2010) error identification categories and Keshavarz’s (1993) linguistic taxonomy of errors, the most frequent errors were identified and statistically tabulated. Most of the syntactic errors came to belong to ‘grammar’ pattern, most semantic errors to ‘terminology, word choice’ pattern , most  pragmatic errors to ‘mistranslation into target language’ error pattern, and most translation-specific errors were found to have an ‘Incomplete Passage’ pattern

پژوهش حاضر به بررسی خطاهای فارسی زبانانی که انگلیسی زبان خارجی آنها است در تولید عبارات موصولی زبان انگلیسی پرداخته است. باوجود آنکه در زبان انگلیسی، استفاده از ساخت پرسشی در اغلب عبارات موصولی بدون هسته مجاز نیست، فارسی زبانان به وفور از این ساختار در جملات انگلیسی خود استفاده میکنند. طی این پژوهش، ریشه های احتمالی این خطا شناسایی و تحلیل شدند و نهایتا فرضیه نشانداری تمایزبخش که قدرت بیشتری در توضیح این خطا داشت به عنوان چارچوب نظری این پژوهش انتخاب شد. پیکره شفاهی و کتبی این پژوهش طی دو سال از منابع متعدد و از 137 مشارک خانم و آقا به دست آمد. داده ها از گویه هایی که به طور طبیعی، نه با هدف این پژوهش، بیان شده بودند جمع آوری شد و شامل 126 عبارت موصولی خطادار بود که 85 عبارت (67.46%) بدون هسته معمولی، 25 عبارت (19.84%) هسته دار و 16 عبارت (12.69%) بدون هسته آزاد بودند. بررسی دقیق تر داده ها منجر به شناسایی تمایز نظام مند بین خطاها در دو نوع عبارت موصولی اصلی (بدون هسته در جایگاه فاعل یا مفعول) و دو نوع عبارت موصولی فرعی (بدون هسته در جایگاه فاعل و دارای فعل بودن ) گردید. این وسعت کارکرد عبارات موصولی در زبان انگلیسی نسبت به فارسی، می تواند موجب نشانداری این ساختار برای فارسی زبانان شود. به نظر می رسد این نوع نشانداری که ناظر بر گستره کاربرد جملات پرسشی و خبری در جایگاه عبارات موصولی بدون هسته است بیش از نشانداری از حیث تفاوت در تعداد واژگانی که در فارسی و انگلیسی برای یک کارکرد واحد وجود دارد، می تواند علت بروز این نوع خطا را توضیح دهد. پژوهش حاضر، بر ضرورت بررسی زبانشناسانه سایر ابعاد خطاهای نظام مند مشابه، همکاری متخصصان زبانشناسی و آموزش زبان دوم/خارجی در شناسایی و رفع مشکلات یادگیری، و پژوهش های بیشتر برای ارایه راه حل های آموزشی برای چنین مشکلاتی تاکید می نماید.

This study deals with spotting the grammatical errors committed by the Iranian students majoring in English translation while translating the Persian sentences into English and investigating the effect of two teaching methods, including Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and Communicative Language Teaching Method (CLT), on minimizing these errors. For this purpose, the grammatical errors in the translation of thirty students were identified. These errors were analyzed and classified according to Keshavarz’s model of error analysis.  The students were divided into two groups; the first group received the learning materials based on GTM, and in the second group CLT was applied. Afterward, a test which included English sentences extracted from Modern English 1 and 2 was designed based on the errors taken from the corpus compiled by the students’ translations. Then the frequency of the errors in both groups were analyzed by SPSS software to determine the significance of using these methods on minimizing the grammatical errors made by the students in their translations into English. To determine the level of significance, the probability value was calculated for raw errors, GTM and CLT errors. The analysis of Pearson correlation showed that both methods had their significance; however, the communicative method proved to be slightly more effective than the other. Undoubtedly, this does not mean to underestimate the efficacy of grammar translation method since it seems that it plays a complementary role in teaching environment, and achieving better pedagogical results cannot be prescribed on a single method.

Error analysis is considered as an invaluable pedagogical tool in teaching English as a foreign/second language (EFL/ESL). Despite abundant research, there are still lacunae in studies investigating the written grammatical errors among monolingual and bilingual male and female Persian and Turkmen EFL learners. To fill the gap, 158 Persian and Turkmen EFL learners from Golestan Province wrote two descriptive scripts that were examined for their most recurrent written grammatical errors. The errors were then analyzed and compared based on the framework of the study. Statistical analyses indicated significant relationships between Persian and Turkmens’ written grammatical errors and their gender. The frequency of monolingual Persians’ errors was significantly lower than that of bilingual Turkmens. These findings might interest EFL teachers, syllabus designers, and materials developers. Moreover, they could be a prerequisite to corrective feedback research while opening doors to further pertinent studies.