Search

There has always been a debate whether or not the learners' first language (L1) can facilitate the process of learning foreign language. Since foreign language writing (FL) is a complicated process, it seems that the role of the learners' L1 and its effect on FL writing is of great importance in this regard. The present study aimed at investigating the role of Azerbaijani EFL learners' L1 and L2 (Persian) on their FL writing. To meet the purposes of the study, 30 female EFL upper-intermediate students were selected (through running an OPT), who were native speakers of Azerbaijani, with Persian as their L2 and official language of Iranian context. The data were collected through running three writing sessions (in which the participants wrote three essays in each session using Azerbaijani as L1, Persian as L2, and direct writing) using the think-aloud protocol, through which they were asked to report their thoughts loudly to record using a tape recorder. In addition, a survey was used to ask their perceptions towards each writing task. The analysis of the data obtained from the evaluation of learners' writings indicated that the mere use of their L1 or L2 in foreign language writing was by no means helpful for them and they performed better on direct writing task in comparison with the two other ones. It was also found that the majority of the learners (70%) had difficulty in generating their ideas using Azerbaijani as their L1. In addition, nearly 77% of them claimed that even in direct writing mode, they made use of their L2 (Persian) on the occasions they could not find a proper word or phrase in English. As the implications of the study, it seems that the present study can bring helpful insights for both FL teachers and learners about the roles that Azerbaijani and Persian languages play as the students' L1 and L2 in FL writing.

The significance of pragmatic knowledge and politeness strategies has recently been emphasized in language learning and teaching. Most communication failures originate in the lack of pragmatic awareness which is evident among EFL learners while communicating with English native speakers. The present study aimed at investigating compliment response strategies, as a sub-category of politeness strategies, used by a group of Persian and English native speakers, and examining the effect of gender on the use of strategies to respond to compliments. To these ends and with the use of convenient sampling, thirty Iranian native speakers (15 females and 15 males) in Iran and 26 English native speakers (13 females and 13 males) in Canada, all college students with age range of 17-30, participated in this study. In order to collect a corpus of compliment responses, a researcher-made questionnaire in the form of a Discourse Completion Task was distributed among the participants. Using two-way ANOVAs, the findings indicated that there is a significant difference between Persian native speakers and Canadian English speakers (p< 0.05) with respect to the compliment response strategies investigated in this study namely, "accept," "evade," and "reject." Moreover, it was found that the most widely used compliment response strategy among both Iranian and English participants is "accept." Regarding the effect of gender on the use of compliment response strategies by the participants, the results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p> 0.05). Considering the findings of the present study, materials developers and textbook writers can make more space in EFL textbooks for exercises about compliments (responses); and help in highlighting the significance of this aspect of pragmatic knowledge.

This research aims to account for Right Node Raising (RNR) in Persian. Three kinds of analysis have been put forward in the related literature: a) RNR as Across-The-Board (ATB) movement, b) RNR as PF-deletion, and c) RNR as Multiple Dominance. Arguments like non-constituents as RNR target, island insensitivity, violation of the Right-Roof Constraint (RRC), and immobile elements display that Persian RNR does not involve ATB movement. The findings of the research also show that Persian RNR is not a homogenous construction, and it can be divided into distinct subtypes. Therefore, accounting for it demands more than one approach. Arguments like cumulative agreement, internal reading of relational adjectives, and the quantifier each show that one subtype of Persian RNR is a result of Multiple Dominance. On the other hand, arguments such as non-constituents as RNR target, agreement in some cases, some types of control structures, and nonparallel conjuncts in terms of polarity display that the other subtype of Persian RNR involves PF-deletion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]