Linguistic complexity

Many scholars have long contributed to making the instruction of oral production more effectively. This study compared three task types (information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap tasks) and two cognitive styles (field-independence and field-dependence) regarding their effects on English as a foreign language (EFL( learners’ oral production linguistic complexity. The current study was quantitative in research methodology and followed the comparison group design. Initially, 230 Iranian learners were selected using convenience sampling. After the participants sat the proficiency test, the number of participants was reduced to 180 BA students at the university of Mohaghegh Ardabili and Islamic Azad University, Ardabil Branch. They were randomly divided into six experimental groups. Two groups were randomly assigned to field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) information-gap tasks, the next two groups to FI and FD reasoning-gap tasks, and the other two groups to FI and FD opinion-gap task types. Each group consisted of 30 advanced EFL learners and was taught oral production using one of the above-mentioned task types. Michigan test of English Language Proficiency test (Phakiti, 2003) and group embedded figures test (Witkin et al., 1971) were used to determine proficiency level and measure cognitive styles. A two-way ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) procedure was run to examine the data. The results revealed significant differences among task types and cognitive styles, with FD learners and opinion-gap task being the most effective on EFL Learners' oral production linguistic complexity. The interaction between cognitive styles and task types is more likely to account for language learners’ oral performance.

Metaphor, as a rhetorical device, is mostly culture-specific and plays a vital role in some texts. In some sacred texts such as the Holy Qur’ān, the form and meaning are inseparable, and hence, translating metaphors can be challenging. This study aimed to demonstrate the translation of metaphors in the Holy Qur’ān and to identify the strategies applied in the translation of Qur’ānic metaphors. To this end, Chapters 18 to 30 of the Holy Qur’ān, which included thirteen chapters, were selected and analyzed for metaphorical expressions along with their English translations by three celebrated native translators: Arberry (1964), Irving (1985), and Pickthall (1954). These chapters contained forty samples of metaphor, which were analyzed using six celebrated commentaries to find their literal and metaphorical meanings. The translations were then compared to the source text. The procedures suggested by Newmark (1988b) were used to find the strategies used by the translators. The results revealed that among the proposed procedures, five procedures were applied in the translation of the Qur’ānic metaphors. The most dominant procedures were the first and fifth procedures (reproducing the same image in the target language and converting the metaphor to sense, respectively); whereas, the remaining procedures were only used in two or three cases. It was also revealed that in most of the cases, the translators preferred to preserve the form of the original texts.