Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A Comparative Investigation

Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A
Comparative Investigation
[PP: 99-107]
Saber Atash Nazarloo
Hossein Navidinia
Department of English Language, University of Birjand
Birjand, Iran
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the frequency and types of the phonological
and syntactic errors made by Persian and Azeri Turkish learners while speaking in EFL classes. To this end,
two conversation classes, consisting of EFL students having different native languages (Persian and Azeri
Turkish), were selected. During the term, students’ authentic conversations and presentations in English
language were recorded. The corpus collected from the two classes was then transcribed and analyzed to
determine the frequency of phonological and syntactic errors made by the two groups. The results indicated
that Azeri Turkish EFL learners made less phonological errors compared with the Persian learners. However,
not a noticeable difference in the frequency of errors in the grammatical structures was observed between the
two groups. The results were discussed and the implications were made.
Keywords: English language, Persian language, Azeri Turkish language, Error analysis, Speaking errors
ARTICLE The paper received on: 26/09/2016 Reviewed on: 02/11/2016 Accepted after revisions on: 27/12/2016
INFO
Suggested citation:
Nazarloo, S. & Navidinia, H. (2016). Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A
Comparative Investigation. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 4(4), 99-107. Retrieved
from www.eltsjournal.org
1. Introduction communicating” (p. 62). People all around

In today’s world, learning English the world, both native and non-native
as an International Language has gain more speakers, regardless of their mother
importance. People need to learn this language, make mistakes while speaking.
language in order to satisfy their Errors are so important in learning
communicative needs. However, learning process, because they are the signs assuring
EFL is not without difficulties and errors. In us that learning takes place. These errors
fact, making mistakes/errors is an integral may result from different sources; but one
part of language learning process. Sprat, can not ignore the effect of the learners’
Pulverness, and Williams (2011) believe mother tongue on learning EFL. It can be
that “Making errors plays an important and either positive or negative. Knowing the
useful role in language learning because it source of learners’ errors by the teachers
allows learners to experiment with language can help them focus more on the differences
and measure their success in
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 October-December, 2016
of the two languages in order to have a more new techniques which are usable in English
effective teaching. language classes. Also, Kasmani and
Messiha (1985), cited in A. Binturki Jangodazi (2014) analyzed the errors made
(2008), stated that “In addition to by Persian (monolingual) and Turkish
phonological, lexical and spelling errors, (bilingual) speaking students of EFL. Both
learners also produce pronunciation, groups were majoring in Translation studies
rhythm, intonation voice quality errors” (p. field. They (2014) reported that:
1). All language learners are affected by “the learners of the target
their mother tongue while learning English, language deviate from TL rules, so we
especially in terms of pronunciation, can say that interference from their
rhythm, intonation and voice quality. mother tongue is not the core cause of
Persian and Azeri Turkish learners are not the two groups’ errors under the
exceptions to this rule. Azeri Turkish and investigation, although there are some
Persian speakers of English do make some differences between the two groups’
special errors in speaking. And some of errors, they are not statistically
these differences come from the differences significant” (p. 36).
of their mother tongues. The purpose of this Also, HjØllum and Mees (2012)
study is to make a comparison between the worked on the pronunciation of English
frequency and types of speaking errors consonants by Faroese-speaking learners.
made by Azeri Turkish and Persian learners They (2012) stated that “The most salient
in EFL classes. distributional feature was rhoticism, which
2. Review of Literature is appropriate for rhotic accents such as
Previous studies have addressed the General American but might prove
issue of error analysis in EFL classes. distracting for RP (Received Pronunciation)
Geylanioğlu and Dikilitaş (2012) analyzed though not affecting intelligibility” (p. 83).
the pronunciation of certain English words Dustmann and Soest (2004) worked on the
by Turkish English learners. They speaking and fluency of English-speaking
concluded that Turkish foreign language immigrants in the United Kingdom,
learners of English have serious difficulties focusing on Lazear’s theory. They ignored
in pronouncing schwa, /θ/ and /ŋ/ sounds. the old classification, named it
Also, Gan (2012) analyzed the oral misclassification and introduced a
problems of ESL teachers in Hong Kong. parametric model that allows for scale
He concluded that insufficient opportunities heterogeneity.
to speak English in lectures and tutorials, Furthermore, Ting and Chang (2010)
lack of a focus on language improvement in examined the grammatical errors of
the curriculum and some other factors university students in speaking English.
contributed to a range of problems that The subjects had low proficiency in
closely related to the socio-cultural, English. Results showed that while
institutional and interpersonal contexts in approaching the end of the course, students
which individual ESL students found got more accurate in grammar. Rahmani
themselves. and Kasmani (2012) analyzed the errors
Additionaly, Kayum (2015) analyzed made by Persian and Kurdish students
the errors and corrections in the world of majoring in English translation. They
teaching made by foreign language learners concluded that the main cause of errors is
in oral communication, and proposed some interference from the learners’ mother
Cite this article as: Nazarloo, S. & Navidinia, H. (2016). Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners
in EFL Classrooms: A Comparative Investigation. International Journal of English Language & Translation
Studies. 4(4), 99-107. Retrieved from www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 100
Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL … Nazarloo Saber & Navidinia Hossein
tongue, confirming the strong version Moreover, Karim and Shah (2014)
hypothesis of contrastive analysis. examined the errors made in grammar in the
Beside these studies, Muhamad, et al., speech transcripts of 15 English for
(2013) analyzed the errors made in oral Occupational Purposes (EOP) learners. An
presentations by Malaysian students of analysis of the speech errors and the results
English for Academic Purposes (EAP). of the research indicated that preposition
They (2013) concluded that “misformation was the most frequent type of grammatical
accounted for the majority of the total error made by the learners. Also, Thomas
grammatical errors identified followed by (2014) analyzed the English language
omission and addition and also verb form, proficiency of the first year engineering
word form and article were found to be the students who had their school education in
three most frequent types of errors made by regional (Tamil) medium. The findings of
the students” (p. 19). Pathan, M., Aldersi, Z. the study showed that the lack of adequate
& Alsout, E. (2014) analysed the errors exposure and practice in the case of L2
made by Libyan Arab EFL learners in learning are the main cause of errors made
speaking. They reported major errors in by the students.
pronunciation, use of adjectives and Likewise, Rashid (2015) examined the
grammar. Moreover, Rahuman (2015) nature of EFL learners who are learning or
examined the errors made by Tamil acquiring English language as a foreign
speaking students of South Eastern language, using a multiple-case embedded
University of Sri Lanka in using simple research design. He reported that “From the
present tense in English. He reported that analysis and evidence it appears that socio-
the most common type of errors made by cultural and cognitive theories have much
Tamil speaking students were phonological more relevance than behaviorism to
similarity, omission, incorrect suffixation analyzing the language and the acquisition
and substitution. and also more acceptable and applicable in
In addition to the studies done, the SLA field” (p. 453). Ma and Tan (2013)
Jayasundara and Premarathna (2011) examined the errors in Sichuan students’
conducted a study in order to examine the pronunciation and the reason of their errors;
errors made by first year undergraduates of and finally they gave some suggestions in
Uva Wellassa University, in speaking and order to get rid of Sichuan students’ dialect.
writing performance. Their study shed light Since very few studies have been done
on the way that students internalize the rules to compare the frequency and types of
of the target language. Their findings were speaking errors made by Azeri Turkish and
also useful in designing curricula for the Persian EFL learners, the present study
better fulfillments of the objectives of aims at addressing this issue by focusing on
second language teaching. Soepriatmadji the syntactic and phonological errors made
(2008) investigated grammatical errors as by the learners while speaking.
encountered in students’ spoken English. 3. Methodology
He suggested that the most frequent 3.1 Participants
problems encountered by the students were In order to compare and identify the
verb phrase, syntax, transfer of training and differences of errors made by English
strategy of language learning and local language learners of Azeri Turkish and
semantic impact. Persian languages, two upper intermediate
classes were chosen. 12 B.A. students (7
Page | 101
boys and 5 girls) majoring in translation mistakes in this area is that Azeri Turkish
studies in University of Birjand were and Persian languages do not add ‘s’ to the
chosen as native Persian speakers and third person singular’s verb. In other words,
learners of English language, and 14 B.A there is no difference between second
students (4 boys and 10 girls) majoring in person singular’s verb and third person
the same field in Higher Education Institute singular’s in Azeri Turkish and Persian
of Rab-e-Rashid were chosen as Azeri languages. Persian learners made 11 errors
Turkish speakers and English learners. while Azeri Turkish made 13 errors in this
3.2 Data Collection and Analysis area. The difference between these two
The voice of the both groups were groups of language learners is not so
recorded during their conversation course. noticeable. We can refer to ‘it help’ as
Both groups were asked to speak about the Persian learners’ error and to ‘she try’ as
determined subjects authentically. A corpus Azeri Turkish’ ones. The complete list of
was gathered from the voices of these two the syntactic errors is presented in
groups of participants, containing four Appendix 1.
hours of speaking, two hours for each The fourth raw indicates that both
group. The recorded corpus was then Persian and Azeri Turkish learners made
transcribed and analyzed to find the errors on adding plural‘s’ to the nouns. The
syntactic and phonological errors made by reason of not adding plural ‘s’ to some
these two groups. nouns may be the interference of their
4. Results and Discussion mother tongue; because in Persian and
4.1 Syntactic Errors Azeri Turkish there are some cases that they
The syntactic differences of the use single noun instead of plural one. In
three languages (English, Persian, and order to compare two languages and their
Azeri Turkish) are presented in Table 1. difference with English language, an
Table 1: Syntactic differences of the three languages example will be helpful:
English: 2 apples Persian: 2 sib
Azeri Turkish: 2 alma
‘Sib’ and ‘alma’ are equivalents for a
single ‘apple’ in Persian and Turkish
The analysis of the corpus revealed that, languages, respectively; and they do not
notwithstanding the syntactic differences of have a plural sign while adding a number to
Persian and Turkish languages in adjective them; while in English language a plural ‘s’
phrase and word order, there was not any is added while adding a number (more than
noticeable error in these areas, as we see in one). The frequency of errors is presented in
the first and second rows of table 2. It was table 2, as follows:
expected that students would have some Table 2: The frequency of syntactic errors made by
errors in this areas because of the inference Azeri Turkish and Persian learners
of their mother tongue, surprisingly, no
errors have been observed in these two
areas.
In the third row of table 2, we see that
students made errors because of the 4.2 Phonological Errors
interference, namely negative transfer, of Based on the data gathered through
their mother tongue. The reason of making analyzing the corpus, a comprehensive
Page | 102
phonological comparison of the three is easier for Azeri Turkish learners than /t/
languages (English, Persian, and Azeri and /θ/; while Persian learners prefer
Turkish) is presented in table 3. pronouncing /t/ rather than /s/ and /θ/. For
Table 3: Phonological comparison of English, example ‘think’ is pronounced as /tınk/ by
Persian and Azeri Turkish languages Azeri Turkish learners and as /sınk/ by
Persian ones. See Appendix 2 for the
complete list of the phonological errors.
The other sound which is mostly
problematic especially for Persian learners
was /з:/. No errors were observed from
Azeri Turkish learners; while 4 errors of
Persian learners were detected in this area.
The reason of this problem in Persian
language was that they pronounced /з:/ as
There is no /ð/ sound in Persian and /e/. The system of Persian language does not
Azeri Turkish languages. And this makes include CCV format, while English and
problem for Persian and Azeri Turkish Azeri Turkish language have the mentioned
students to pronounce this sound. Both format. This feature of Azeri Turkish
groups of learners tended to pronounce it as languages help the students avoid this error.
/d/. According to the recorded files and the As an example, Persian learners tend to
data gathered, the results indicated that both pronounce ‘bird’ as /berd/, while Azeri
Azeri and Persian learners made large learners have no difficulty in pronouncing it
number of errors in this area. As indicated correctly.
in table 4, Persian learners had more errors One of the most important and
than Azeri Turkish ones. The reason of this challenging areas in speaking and
difference may be because of the overuse of pronunciation is the schwa sound, which is
‘the’ and ‘that’ by Persian learners. This always problematic for most EFL students.
overuse is also visible in Azeri Turkish Both Azeri Turkish and Persian learners
learners either, but based on the results, the tended to pronounce the words beginning
number of this overuse was less than with schwa as /æ/ and /e/, for example they
Persian learners. pronounce the first sound of the word
The /θ/ sound, like /ð/ sound, is appear as /æ/.
problematic for both learners, since they do Persian learners made 119 errors in the
not have this sound in their native language. area of schwa, 12 of which were related to
Persian learners made 28 errors, while the beginning schwas and replacing it with
Azeri Turkish learners made 23 errors in /æ/ and 9 of which pronounced as /e/. And
this area. An interesting point is that Azeri Azeri Turkish learners made 102 errors, 20
Turkish speakers pronounced /θ/ sound as of which were related to the beginning
/s/, while Persian learners tend to pronounce schwas and its replacement with /æ/ sound
it as /t/ sound. According to the data, Azeri and 6 of which pronounced as /e/. It can be
Turkish speakers pronounced /θ/ 14 times concluded that Azeri Turkish learners
as /s/ and 9 times as /t/, while Persian pronounced the beginning schwa as /æ/
learners pronounced /θ/ 7 times as /s/ and 21 more than /e/ and Persian learners as /e/
times as /t/. The reason of this phenomenon more than /æ/. As an example, ‘addition’
may be the fact that the pronunciation of /s/ was pronounced as /ædıʃn/ mostly by
Page | 103
Persian learners and /edıʃn/ by Azeri EFL learners, especially Iranian

Turkish learners. When schwa comes in the learners, added /e/, /i/ or a /ə/ like sound to
middle of the word, they both pronounced it the beginning of /s/ sound, when it comes at
as /e/, /æ/ and /a/. For example they the beginning of the word. The reason of
pronounced moral as /moral/, especially this addition is to make the pronunciation of
Persian learners; because they added a /s/ sound easier, since they started a word
vowel between consonants because of their with a vowel rather than a consonant.
language system and in order to make the Persian learners made 16 errors in this area;
pronunciation easier, while Azeri Turkish while Turkish learners made only 5 errors.
learners had fewer errors because of the It is also important to say that 12 out of 16
system of their language which enabled errors of Persian learners were because of
them to pronounce two and even three adding /e/ to the beginning of /s/ sound, and
consonants following each other with no the rest of errors were because of adding /i/.
difficulty. While five errors of Azeri Turkish learners
The rest of the errors in schwa area, in were because of adding /i/ sound to the
which schwa occurred in the middle or at beginning of /s/ sound. For example, ‘stay’
the end of the words, indicated that Persian and ‘Spanish’ were pronounced as /esteı/
learners made more errors (98 errors) than and /ıspænıʃ/ by Persian and Azeri Turkish
Azeri Turkish learners (76 errors); while learners, respectively.
Azeri Turkish learners made more errors The other two categories, namely /dз/
(26 errors) in the words beginning with and /tʃ/, needs more focus; since Persian and
schwas than Persian ones (21 errors). Azeri Turkish learners pronounced these
Furthermore, as far the pronunciation of the sounds differently. In other words, the
/w/ sound in concerned, the findings pronunciation of /dз/ and /tʃ/ sounds in
indicated that the Persian learners made Azeri Turkish language is different with
more errors in this area than Azeri Turkish English and Persian languages. As
ones (see table 4). It is worth saying that expected, Azeri Turkish learners made 8
both languages lack /w/ sound and both and 3 errors in /dз/ and /tʃ/ sounds,
groups replaced it with /v/ sound. respectively.
The other category is the category of The last category of the table in which
‘of’, which is mostly pronounced wrongly the replacement of /æ/ for /e/ in the middle
as the same as ‘off’ in Persian and Azeri of words was analyzed, showed that Persian
Turkish languages. The reason of this may speakers replaced /æ/ for /e/ more than
be the easiness of pronunciation of /f/ sound Azeri Turkish learners of English, as shown
comparing with /v/. /f/ is voiceless and /v/ in the table 4. For example Persian learners
is voiced labiodentals fricatives; we can tend to pronounced ‘danger’ as /dændз(e)r/.
conclude that both Azeri Turkish and The reason behind this kind of error may be
Persian speakers used voiceless /f/ rather the spelling of such words which might be
than voiced /v/. The results showed that misleading. Persian learners of English
Persian learners tendency to pronounce /v/ made 6 errors, while Azeri Turkish learners
as /f/ in ‘of’ is more than Azeri Turkish of English made only one error. The
learners. Persian learners had 30 errors; frequency of all phonological errors were
while Azeri Turkish learners had 18 errors represented in table 4.
in this category as indicated in the table 4.
Page | 104
Table 4: The frequency of phonological errors made should be paid on teaching /dз/ and /tʃ/
by Azeri Turkish and Persian learners sounds to Azeri Turkish students.
Since English is a foreign language in
Iran, the lack of exposure to English
language can also affect the learners
speaking proficiency. The findings of this
paper are in line with those of Gan (2012)
and Thomas (2014), stating that the learners
should be exposed to English language in
order to have a good proficiency in English
language. The opportunities for speaking
the target (English) language by the learners
should be increased, especially in language
classes in which English is being taught as
5. Conclusion a foreign language.
After a close analysis and This paper can be helpful for Iranian
examination of the corpus, it was indicated teachers in that it can demonstrate the
that Azeri Turkish learners of English differences between Persian and Azeri
language outperformed Persian ones in Turkish languages. Knowing these
phonological errors since they made less differences and similarities can help the
errors in this area. However, not a EFL teachers focus more on different and
noticeable difference in the frequency of problematic parts in order to add to the
errors in the grammatical structures was effectiveness of their instruction. It can also
observed between these two groups of have some implications for materials
students. developers to pay more attention to the parts
The interference, negative transfer, is in which students have more difficulties. It
one of the main reasons of inaccurate is hoped that other researchers continue this
pronunciations. For example Azeri Turkish line of research in order to find the sources
learners cannot pronounce /dз/ and /tʃ/ of the students’ errors to help them improve
accurately, since the two sounds are not their command of English language
available in their mother tongue. Findings speaking skill more efficiently.
of Kasmani and Jangodazi (2014) are not in Appendices:
Appendix 1: Sample list of grammatical errors
line with the findings of this paper, in that Persian Azeri Turkish
they believe that mother tongue is not the Third It try It have
main reason of errors. The results are in line person It help He want
with those of Rahmani and Kasmani (2012), singular missing third Man do
reporting mother tongue as the main source ‘s’ person singular She try
‘s’ He want
of errors.
Missing of third It help
Also, it was concluded that Azeri person Something
Turkish students’ performance was better singular‘s’ happen
than Persian students in phonetics in some Change missing It have
areas since they had less errors than Persian of third person
singular s
students. It implies that more emphasis
Missing of Missing of plural some other
should be put on this area in both groups, plural ‘s’ s language
especially Persian students. More attention
Page | 105
and missing some Amateur

plural s advantage of Turkish
More friend for there are some /s/ Estrange for Istronger for
more friends disadvantage strange stronger
Some advantage their profession Ispend for Iscatter for
and disadvantage are spend Scatter
missing plural s other TV /æ/ for /e/ Danger æ Competitive æ
some program
disadvantage Main
lacking plural s difference lack
References:
for different level of plural s Binturki, A. & King, B. A. (2008). Analysis of
some advantage two part Pronunciation Errors of Saudi ESL
and Learners. Unpublished MA Thesis.
disadvantage Southern Illinois: Carbondale University.
Appendix 2: Sample list of phonological errors Dustmann, C., & Van Soest, A. (2004). An
Persian Azeri Turkish analysis of speaking fluency of immigrants
/ð/ The. Another. Although. The using ordered response models with
With. . the. They. classification errors. Journal of Business
Another. The. They. and Economic Statistics, 22 (3): 312-321.
With. Them. The. The, the. Gan, Zh. (2012). Understanding L2 Speaking
Another. There. The.
Problems: Implications for ESL
Them. That. The. The. That.
Another.. The. This. The. The. Curriculum Development in a Teacher
That. These. The. The. Training Institution in Hong Kong.
The. Other. The. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
Another. The. Rather. 37 (1): 42-59.
Another. The. The. Geylanioğlu, S., & Dikilitaş, K. (2012).
Another. Pronunciation Errors of Turkish Learners of
/θ/ Tings for Autor for English: Conceptualization Theory as a
things author Teaching Method. The Journal of
Everyting Ting for thing Language Teaching and Learning, 2012–
Sing for thing ting for thing
2(1), 38-50.
/з:/ Earth e
HjØllum, E. Í., & Mees, I. M. (2012). Error
worship o
nurse e analysis of the pronunciation of English
/w/ Everyver for Veak for weak consonants by Faroese-speaking learners.
everywhere Vorry for Moderna språk, 2: 74-84.
vatching for worry Jayasundara, J. M. P. V. K., & Premarathna, C.
watching Hov for how D. H. M. (2011). A linguistics analysis on
Vatching for errors committed in English by
watching undergraduate. International Journal of
Inappropriate Another æ Allows eloz scientific and research publications, 1(1):
addition and Economical o physically ə 1-6
deletion of /ə/ peroblem for Appreciated æ. Karim, N. A., Shah, M. I. A. (2014). An
problem Mathmatical
Analysis of Speech Errors of English for
Forward a for
Politically mathematical. Occupational Purposes (EOP) Learners at
adding schwa Singel for the International Islamic University
Censership for single Malaysia (IIUM). Middle-East Journal of
censorship Analyze ə Scientific Research 20 (Language for
Off for of Off for of Off for of Communication and Learning), 58-66.
/dз/, /tʃ/ ---- Language turki Kasmani, M. B., & Jangodazi, Kh. (2014). An
Mutual turkish Analysis of Errors Made by Turkish and
Page | 106
Persian Speaking EFL Students Majoring in

Translation. Asian Journal of Management Rashid, B. T. (2015). Error Analysis of Kurdish
Sciences & Education, 3(2): 36-41. EFL Undergraduate Learners' Accuracy in
Kayum, M. A. (2015). Error analysis and Speaking English Language. International
correction in oral communication in the Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6):
EFL context of Bangladesh. International 448-454.
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Soepriatmadji, L. (2008). Error analysis on the
Development, 2(3): 125-129. spoken English of FBIB students a
Ma, C., & Tan, L. (2013). The Negative preliminary research1. Dinamika bahasa
Transfer of Sichuan Dialect to the Study of dan budaya, 2(2): 109-119.
English Pronunciation. Open Journal of Sprat, M., Pulverness, A., & Williams, M.
Social Sciences, 1(1): 1-4. (2011). The TKT (Teaching Knowledge
Muhamad, A. J., Shah, M. A. I., Ibrahim, E. E. Test course). (2nd Ed). United Kingdom:
H., Sarudin, I., Malik, F. A. & Ghani, R. A. Cambridge University Press.
(2013). Oral Presentation Errors of Tajan, M. H., Sadeghi, B. & Rahmany, R.
Malaysian Students in an English for (2015). The effect of integrated listening
Academic Purposes (EAP) Course. World activities on EFL learners’ speaking
Applied Sciences Journal 21 (Special Issue accuracy. International Journal of
of Studies in Language Teaching and Language Learning and Applied
Learning), 2013, 19-27. Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 9 (4): 74-
Pathan, M., Aldersi, Z. & Alsout, E. (2014). 82.
Speaking in their Language: An Overview Thomas, J. (2014). Case study of error analysis
of Major Difficulties Faced by the Libyan of the usage of tense in English by 1 year
EFL Learners in Speaking Skill. engineering students from Tamil medium
International Journal of English Language schools. IMPACT: International Journal of
& Translation Studies. 2(3), 96-105. Research in Humanities, Arts and
Retrieved from http://www.eltsjournal.org Literature, 2 (3): 47-52
Rahmani, P., & Bagherzadeh Kasmani, M. Ting, S., Mahadhir, M., & Chang, S. (2010).
(2012). Contrastive analysis: An Grammatical Errors in Spoken English of
investigation of error analysis of Kurdish University Students in Oral
and Persian speaking students majoring in Communication Course. GEMA Online™
Translation (EFL). Asian Journal of Social Journal of Language Studies,
Sciences & Humanities, 1(4): 56-60. 10(1): 53-79
Rahuman, M. M. A. (2015). A study on errors Tomková, G. (2013). Error Correction in
made by Tamil speaking adult students in Spoken Practice. America: Masaryk
using present simple tense in English. University
International Symposium, SEUSL, 54-61.
Retrieved from:
http://www.seu.ac.lk/researchandpublicati
ons/symposium/4thinternational/socilascie
nceshumanities/A%20Study%20on%20Err
ors%20Made%20By.pdf

Page | 107

Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A Comparative Investigation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A Comparative Investigation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Speaking Errors of Persian and Azeri Turkish Learners in EFL Classrooms: A

1. Introduction communicating” (p. 62). People all around

Persian learners and /edıʃn/ by Azeri EFL learners, especially Iranian

and missing some Amateur

Persian Speaking EFL Students Majoring in

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies ISSN:2308-5460

Potrebbero piacerti anche