The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol.

5, Issue 1
Spring 2012

Explicit vs. Contrastive-based Instruction of

Formulaic Expressions in Developing EFL Learners’
Reading Ability
Gholam-Reza Abbasian1
Imam Ali University & IAU
Sayyed Jalil Ehsanian
Ministry of Education

As an integrative component of textual structure, formulaic

expressions (FEs) play a key role in communicating the
message and comprehending the text. Furthermore,
interlingually contrastive features of FEs add to their both
significance and complexity of their instruction. Given these
facts, this study was an attempt to explore a sound mechanism
on how to teach FEs; whether an explicit or CA-based
approach to FEs instruction could entail various achievements
among EFL learners’ reading ability. To this end, three groups
of Iranian EFL learners, identified as homogeneous based on
Nelson Proficiency Test, were classified into one control and
two experimental (i.e. explicit and CA-based instruction) ones.
They were exposed to conventional, explicit and CA-based
instructions of a set of selected FEs developed into and
presented in the form of an instructional handout. Their
Knowledge of reading was also tested based on a researcher-
made diagnostic test prior to the experiment. Both quantitative
and qualitative paradigms were employed to measure both the
achievements and the extent of contrast between Persian and
English languages in terms of FEs. The former analysis
revealed significance difference among the groups in terms of

1
Corresponding author. E-mail: gabbasian@gmail.com
2 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

instruction type effectiveness; both explicit and CA-based

instruction groups outperformed the control group; on the
contrary, no statistically significant difference was revealed
between the experimental groups. Additionally, the latter
paradigm revealed differences and mismatches between Persian
and English FEs in terms of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic
parameters. The findings could be insightful for EFL
instructors, learners, textbook writers, and syllabus designers to
take into account issues like these in their pedagogical
programs.
Keywords: Formulaic Expressions, Explicit Instruction, CA-
based Instruction, Reading Ability

Different approaches, strategies, and skills have been

suggested as to mastering reading skill. Lying on a continuum of
instructions, they range from rendering a large portion of
vocabulary, exploiting, “previewing and reading for main idea”,
(Sharpe, 1989, p. 262), intensive and extensive reading skills
(Chastain, 1988; Richards and Renandya, 2002), provision of pre-
reading, schema-building tasks to predicting, skimming, and
scanning strategies (Nunan, 2001). Besides, readers themselves
may rely on various personal approaches such as bottom-up, text
dependence, top-down approach, or schema dependence one to
perceive and comprehend written passages (Nunan, 2001). From
all these explicit-type instructions, it is inferred that teachers can
help learners improve their reading comprehension ability and,
consequently, develop themselves in learning a second or foreign
language (SL/FL) (Richards & Platt, 1992). Researches adopt
the effectiveness of explicit instruction in TESL/ TEFL. In this
respect, Karen, et al. (2007) suggest that “the explicit instruction is
significantly better than the implicit (instruction) for the complex
rule” (p.1), and it may lead to a long term effect for learners (Tode,
2007). It helps learners to perceive new items consciously and this
conscious awareness, consequently, assists and notifies learners to
take the square and produce accurate pieces of language (Richard
and Schmidt, 2010).
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 3

Explicit type of instruction may take variety of forms.

Among them Contrastive Analysis (CA) oriented approach, though
may be charged for being traditional in essence, has proved
pedagogically significant in certain areas. CA aims at juxtaposing
two language systems to compare and contrast the extent of
similarities and differences between them , claiming that it can
predict the problematic issues the learner encounters while
learning a SL/FL, and thereby most appropriate materials for
teaching SL/FL can be developed (Keshavarz, 2008; Ziahosseiny,
2008).
Further to the mechanism of developing reading, subject of
instruction being either language skills or components is of crucial
importance. For example, formulaic language as an innovative
domain in TEFL and TESL has been subject to research in the last
decade. Wray (2002) emphasizes the importance of the formulaic
language and the lexicon in speakers’ production and mentions that
some formulaic sequences of language are present in normal
conversations. Wood (2010) asserts a large portion of
communicative acts deals with prefabricated chunks. These items
are acquired and stored in long term memories. In addition,
learners can retrieve these packages of chunks autonomously.
Some others (Bulter, 2006; Charles, et al., 2009; Mey, 2009; Wray,
2008) discuss different advantages of formulaic language in a
variety of perspectives. They assert that formulaic language helps
learners reduce the processing load.
Studies on formulaic language (Birkenstein, et al., 2008;
Hackson and Fernandez, 2008; Hall, 2009; Van Lancker & Rallon,
2004; Sadeghi,2009; Wray, 2008) confirm the importance of
teaching formulaic expressions and show that a great extent of any
language consists of fixed or semi-fixed chunks and language
packages. These chunks need to be fully taken into account since
these pre-fabricated items let learners store language economically
and develop autonomy in production.
The remaining controversial issue is the way formulaic
expressions could be effectively rendered in pedagogical
situations. Variety of solutions including form-focused, meaning
focused, explicit, implicit, contrastive analysis (CA-based) and the
4 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

like has been experienced in the literature. Among many, CA-

based and explicit instructions seem worthwhile to be investigated.

CA-based vs. Explicit Instructions

The main task of CA is to compare and contrast two

languages to explore the rate of similarities and differences in
terms of phoneme, morpheme, syntax, semantics, etc.
Consequently, after studying the corpus, the findings are employed
in pedagogical materials. The product of these processes shows
that CA, in spite of its limitations in some cases, appears to be a
significant tool for EFL learners to improve their learning career
(Keshavaz, 2008; Yang, 1986; Ziahosseiny, 2008). Proponents of
CAH state: “The main purpose of CA is to give a description of
differences between languages to establish a linguistically
motivated hierarchy of differences” (Ziahosseiny, 2008, p. 2). The
modified version of CA, that is, Error Analysis (EA), still seems
popular and dominant in pedagogy and serves as “the primary
means of conducting research into L2 acquisition” (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2009, p. 52).
Yang (1986) states that in spite of some drawbacks of the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), it can be an effective tool
for “teachers to gain useful insight to find out their students’
problems and students to better realize that their native language
habits can be transferred to the new language system” (p.3).
CA claimed that learners transferred forms and meanings of
their L1 while learning a foreign or second language. Lado (1957,
p. 2 cited in Keshavarz, 2008, p. 5) states: “Individuals tend to
transfer the forms and meanings, and distribution of the forms and
meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign
language and culture, both productively when attempting to grasp
and understand the language … as practiced by natives.” He
maintains that “based on this assumption ( as mentioned above),
Structural linguists set out to identify areas of difficulty for second
language learners and produce appropriate teaching materials to
overcome these difficulties.” (ibid). Citing from Fries (1947, p. 9),
Keshavarz (2008, p.6) suggests that “the most effective materials
(for foreign language teaching) are those that are (designed) based
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 5

upon a scientific description of the language to be learned,

carefully compared with parallel description of the native language
of the learner.” CA can help material developers to design
appropriate materials, aids the learners to understand and learn
how L1 differs from L2, assists the teacher to better understand
weaknesses and strengths the learner may have while learning a
second or foreign language (Corder, 1986; Ellis, 2009).
On the other side of the coin, we face explicit instruction.
Semantically speaking, explicit means something clear-cut and
direct which refers to visible and definite issues. But educationally
speaking, the learner is most probably able to access, focus,
understand and perceive the [target learning] points (Oxford, 2004;
Richards and Schmidt, 2002). Moreover, instruction refers to
pedagogical processes of any educational institution. It refers to a
set of activities on the part of instructors and learners for fulfilling
and approaching the pre-specified objectives (Richards and
Schmidt, 2010). Instruction can also refer to “formal teaching that
you are given in a particular skill or subject” (Longman, 2003, p.
844). Combining the two notions, Richards and Schmidt (2010)
characterise explicit instruction as an approach which:
• clearly describes the goals of learning in terms of
observable behaviour;
• describes the conditions under which the behaviour will be
expected to occur; and
• States an acceptable standard of performance (the
criterion). For example, one of the behavioural objectives
for a conversation course might be: Given an oral request,
the learner will say his or her name, address and telephone
number to a native speaker of English.” (p.51)
Obviously, instructional mechanism should be compatible
with the content or target of the instruction. So, necessity of
awareness of the nature of formulaic expressions and respective
research trend would be illuminating in the process of conducting
this study.
6 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Formulaic Expressions (FEs)

Sequences of words, phrases, or sentences such as ‘on time’,

‘make a mistake’, ‘look up’, ‘how do you do’, see you later’, etc.
are called FEs (Wray,2002). As an umbrella term, “FE includes
these terms: idioms, collocations, preferred ways of saying things,
routines, set phrases, rhymes and songs, prayers and proverbs”
(Gardiff University, 2011, p.1), which cover a large portion of any
language in the form of fabricated chunks.
Researchers believe that “these sequences of words are
stored and retrieved as a unit from memory” (Richards and
Schmidt, 2010, p. 229). These chunks (i.e. linguistic packages) are
significant because they assist learners to develop their fluency and
productivity (Hall, 2007, p.1). According to Istvan (2006, p.1)
“Nonnative learners find learning FEs problematic since they may
not know the conventions of the expressions.” EFL learners may
commit syntactic and semantic errors due to collocation
discrepancies between the L1 and L2. Van Lancker & Rallon
(2004) conclude that FEs make up nearly 25% of the phrases in
any language. Ellis (2005) found that native speakers used a very
large range of FEs. Then, he claimed that language learners needed
a significant portion of such expressions for developing their
fluency. Importantly, learners can achieve skill and fluency in
language learning by using chunks or fixed sequences. In fact,
formulae assist learners to produce spontaneous speech. Therefore,
the researchers assumed that the inclusion of formulaic language in
EFL educational programs could probably be beneficial and
effective in developing learners’ reading comprehension ability.
They assert that teaching and learning lexical chunks, collocations,
idioms (i.e. FEs) should be taken into account in classroom
practices for many advantageous, influences, and functions such
as:
• “ Conserving processing resources, enhancing both fluency
and idiomatically” (Richards and Schmidt, 2010, p. 229).
• “ Providing learners with connotational meaning besides
dictionary meaning” (Lee, 2008).
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 7

• “ Reminding the teacher and the learner to look up

equivalent or semi-equivalent items in his or her own
native language rather than to rely on the loan translation”
( Hackson and Fernandez, 2008, p. 57).
• “ Helping the learner to store the string of lexical and
chunk items in the mental lexicon as a single unit and
retrieve them as a whole, too (Wray, 2002; cited in
Hackson and Fernandez, 2008, p.2).
• “ Helping the learner to develop productivity” (Hall, 2007,
p.1).
• “ Being the heart and soul of native-like use” (Wray, 2002,
p.5).
• Teaching FEs develop fluent speakers, writers or learners.
The inclusion of formulaic language provides learners with
an opportunity to improve their own language skills such
as listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Birkenstein,
2008; Hackson and Fernandez, 2008; Hall, 2007;
Layboutt,2009; Sefidvand and Vahdani, 2011; Wray,
2008).
In addition to the targeted mechanisms (i.e., CA- and FE-
based instructions), reading skill as the target skill being developed
in light of these mechanisms, has been subject to extensive
research as well. Nunan (2001) found that “background knowledge
was a more important factor than grammatical complexity in the
ability of readers to comprehend cohesive relationships in the text”
(p.260). His finding is compatible with the schema theory as well.
Richards and Renandya (2002) have focussed on incorporation of
extensive reading as a developmental tool.
Favouring the role of culture in developing reading skill,
Chastain (1988) suggests that “a significant factor affecting
comprehensibility in language classes is the lack of familiarity
students may have with the foreign culture” (p. 233). Furthermore,
lots of studies have been done on how to teach reading skill; all
emanating from the significance of reading ability.
Contrary to the significance of the formulaic expressions in
language skill acquisition, what seems rather crucial is the way
they can be rendered explicitly or contrastively. Since this area has
8 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

not been thoroughly investigated in the literature and almost all

EFL learners find formulae expressions difficult to internalize, the
present paper sets out to investigate the impact of such expressions
on EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability.
In this very line and to address the problem stated
empirically, four research questions were formulated as follows:
1. Does explicit instruction of FEs have any significant effect
on EFL learners’ reading comprehension?
2. Does contrastive instruction of FEs have any significant
effect on EFL learners’ reading comprehension?
3. Are there any significant differences between explicit and
contrastive instructions of FEs in developing EFL learners’ reading
comprehension ability?
4. To what extent are English and Persian different in terms
of FEs?

Method

Participants
Seventy four Iranian senior high school male EFL learners
participated in the study. They were divided into one control group
(n=22) and two experimental groups (i.e. Explicit Instruction
Group (n=27) and CA Instruction Group (n=25).

Instrumentation
To conduct this study, the researchers employed the
following multiple instruments and mechanisms:
Researcher-made Handouts of Explicit and Contrastive
Types: Explicit and contrastive handouts had been planned before
the experiment started. Whereas the explicit type handout was a
collection of formulaic expressions extracted from the participants’
textbooks without any Persian equivalence, the CA-based type
included the Persian equivalence of the FEs.
Tests
Ø Nelson Reading Proficiency Test was administered to select
three homogenous groups of participants.
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 9

Ø Researcher-made pre-test of reading ability was developed

and administered to measure the reading achievement of
the participants prior to the treatment.
Ø Researcher-made post-test of reading ability, parallel to the
pre-test, was designed and administered to probe the extent
of effectiveness of the instructions.

Procedures
In order to conduct the experiment, the following steps were
followed: First, Sampling was carried out by administering Nelson
Proficiency Test and selecting homogeneous groups of
participants. Second, the Researcher-made pre-test was
administered in order to diagnose the participants’ current mastery
of reading comprehension ability on the related textbook. Then,
Treatment was launched targeting three groups of the participants
classified into one control group receiving conventional instruction
and two experimental groups one of which received explicit
instruction and the other received contrastive instruction of FEs.
To implement the treatment, the pre- planned handout of explicit
instruction of FEs was distributed among the explicit instruction
group. Besides their common instruction of reading, the
participants received explicit instruction of the formulaic
expressions for five weeks, twice a week. For example:
Teacher: When you get completely confused, it means you
get mixed …..
Class: Mixed up
Meanwhile, every session, the errors were used to be
recorded and collected for further analysis in an answer to
research question No. 4.
-The pre-planned handout of contrastive instruction of
formulaic expressions was distributed and taught among the
group of contrastive instruction of FEs for five weeks, twice a
week.
For example:
Teacher: If you practice some words over and over, they
will stick in your mind. In Persian, you say that they will
…………
10 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Students: ‫[ ﻣﻠﮑﮫ ذھﻦ ﻣﯿﺸﻮد‬malak-e zehn mishavad]

Finally, Researcher-made post-test was administered

following a five-week instruction carried out in 10 sessions to
probe the extent of the effectiveness of the instructions.

Results

Overview
The statistical analyses took the advantages of both
quantitative and qualitative research methods depending on the
variable and research question types. Correlation coefficients
estimation, ANOVA, Shefee test, and frequency analysis were the
main procedures of data analysis.

Preliminary Analyses
In order to run any parametric test, four assumptions of
independence, interval data, normality and homogeneity of
variances should be met (Field, 2009). The first two assumptions
of independence and interval data do not have any statistical test.
The researcher should confirm that none of the subjects
participates in more than one group and the dependent variables
are measured on an interval scale. However, the latter two
assumptions – normality and homogeneity of variances - require
statistical test.
To investigate the normality of the data, the ratio of the
skewedness over their respective standard errors should be within
the ranges of +/- 1.96. As displayed in Table 1, the ratios of the
skewedness and kurtosis over their respective standard errors are
all within the above mentioned range (i.e. the present data enjoy
normal distribution on all tests).
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 11

Table 1
Normality Test
Normality Normality
N Skewness Kurtosis
Of Of
GROUP

Std. Error

Skewness

Std. Error

Kurtosis
Statistic

Statistic

Statistic
PRETEST 22 -0.35 0.49 -0.71 -0.75 0.95 -0.79
CONTROL

POSTTEST 22 0.46 0.49 0.95 -0.48 0.95 -0.50

NELSON 22 -0.09 0.49 -0.19 -1.32 0.95 -1.39
PRETEST 25 -0.39 0.46 -0.84 -0.45 0.90 -0.50
CIFEs*

POSTTEST 25 -0.15 0.46 -0.32 -1.45 0.90 -1.60

NELSON 25 -0.03 0.46 -0.05 -0.99 0.90 -1.10
PRETEST 27 -0.55 0.45 -1.23 -1.02 0.87 -1.17
EIFEs**

POSTTEST 27 -0.59 0.45 -1.33 -0.70 0.87 -0.81

NELSON 27 -0.41 0.45 -0.91 -0.03 0.87 -0.03
Note: * means Contrastive Instruction of Formulaic Expressions;
**stands for Explicit Instruction of Formulaic Expressions
The assumption of homogeneity of variances is discussed
when reporting one-way ANOVA results, although in case this
assumption is violated, one can reduce the significance level to .01
to compensate for the violation.

NELSON Test
A one-way ANOVA was run to compare the mean scores of
the three groups (i.e. control, explicit instruction of FEs and
contrastive instruction of FEs) on the NELSON test in order to find
out whether the groups were homogeneous. As displayed in Table
2, the mean scores for the control, EIFEs and CIFEs are 37.68,
43.28 and 41.19, respectively.
12 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for NELSON
95%
Std. Std. Confidence
N Mean
Deviation Error Interval for Min. Max.
Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
NELSON CONTROL 22 37.68 6.00 1.28 35.02 40.34 28.00 46.00

CIFE 25 43.28 13.06 2.61 37.89 48.67 18.00 62.00

EIFE 27 41.19 10.14 1.95 37.17 45.20 16.00 56.00

Total 74 40.85 10.40 1.21 38.44 43.26 16.00 62.00

As displayed in Table 3, the assumption of homogeneity of

variances is not met (Levene’s F = 6.68, P = .002 < .05). To
compensate for the violation of the assumption of homogeneity of
variances, as suggested by Pallant (2005, pp. 234-259), the level of
significance was reduced to .01.

Table 3
Assumption of Homogeneity of Variances for NELSON
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
6.684 2 71 .002
The results of the one-way ANOVA indicate that there are
not any significant differences between the mean scores of the
three groups on the NELSON test (F = 1.75 (2, 71), P = .181 >
.01). Based on these results, it can be concluded that three groups
enjoyed the same level of general proficiency knowledge prior to
the administration of the treatments.

Table 4
One-Way ANOVA NELSON Test by Groups
Sum of
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 371.478 2 185.739 1.753 .181
Within Groups 7523.887 71 105.970
Total 7895.365 73
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 13

Instrument Validation: Criterion Related Validity

The Pearson correlation coefficients between the NELSON
test and pretest and posttest of reading comprehension were
employed as validity indices of the latter two tests. As displayed in
Table 5, the pretest of reading comprehension (r = .47, P = .000 <
.05) and posttest of reading comprehension (r = .46, P = .000 <
.05) both show significant correlations with the NELSON test; in
other words, the pretest and posttest of reading comprehension
enjoy acceptable indices of criterion related validity.

Table 5
Pearson Correlation
PRETEST POSTTEST
Pearson
.479** .467**
Correlation
NELSON
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 74 74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Reliability Indices
As displayed in Table 6, the K-R21 reliability indices for the
pretest, posttest and NELSON test are .89, .93 and .95,
respectively.

Table 6
K-R21 Reliability Indices
Mean Variance K-R21
Pretest 51.5553 201.833 0.89
Posttest 59.9792 304.688 0.93
NELSON 40.8514 108.156 0.95

Pretest of Reading Comprehension

A one-way ANOVA was run to compare the mean scores of
the three groups (control, explicit instruction of FE’s and
14 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

contrastive instruction of FE’s) on the pretest of Reading

Comprehension test in order to ascertain whether they were
homogeneous in terms of reading comprehension ability prior to
administration of the treatments to the experimental groups. As
displayed in Table 7, the mean scores for the control, contrastive
instruction of FEs (CIFE), and explicit instruction of FEs (EIFE)
are 47.59, 55.54 and 51.10, respectively.

Table 7
Descriptive Statistics Pretest of Reading Comprehension
95%
Std. Std. Confidence
N Mean Min. Max.
Deviation Error Interval for
Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
PRETEST CONTROL 22 47.59 8.29 1.77 43.91 51.26 33.33 60.00
CIFE 25 55.54 11.71 2.34 50.71 60.38 30.00 76.66
EIFE 27 51.10 18.86 3.63 43.64 58.56 13.00 80.00
Total 74 51.56 14.21 1.65 48.26 54.85 13.00 80.00

As displayed in Table 8, the assumption of homogeneity of

variances is not met (Levene’s F = 12.47, P = .000 < .05). To
compensate for the violation of the assumption of homogeneity of
variances, as suggested by Pallant (2005, pp. 234-259), the level of
significance is reduced to .01.

Table 8
Assumption of Homogeneity of Variances for Pretest of Reading
Comprehension
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
12.474 2 71 .000

The results of the one-way ANOVA indicate that there are

not any significant differences among the mean scores of the three
groups on the pretest of Reading Comprehension test (F = 1.90 (2,
71), P = .156 > .01). Based on these results, it can be concluded
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 15

that the three groups enjoyed the same level of reading

comprehension ability, along with general language proficiency,
prior to the administration of the treatments.

Table 9
One-Way
Way ANOVA Pretest of Reading Comprehension Test by
Groups
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 750.084 2 375.042 1.904 .156
Within Groups 13983.744 71 196.954
Total 14733.828 73
Axis Title

CONTROL CIFE EIFE

Series1 47.59 55.54 51.1

Figure 1. Mean Scores on Pretest of Reading Comprehension Test

Analyses of the Post-test

test Results: Investigation of the Research
Questions
A one-way
way ANOVA was run to compare the me mean scores of
the three groups (control, EIFE and CIFE) on the posttest of
Reading Comprehension test in order to investigate the effect of
the explicit and contrastive instruction of FEs to develo
develop reading
ability. As displayed in Table 10, the mean scores for the control
control,
CIFE, and EIFE groups are, 48.33, 66.25 and 63.66
63.66, respectively.
16 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Table 10
Descriptive Statistics Posttest of Reading Comprehension
95%
Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for
N Mean Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
CONTROL 22 48.33 13.79 2.94 42.22 54.45 26.66 80.00

CIFE 25 66.25 18.38 3.68 58.66 73.84 40.00 86.66

EIFE 27 63.66 14.94 2.88 57.75 69.58 30.00 83.33
Total 74 59.98 17.46 2.03 55.94 64.02 26.66 86.66

As displayed in Table 11, the assumption of homogeneity of

variances is met (Levene’s F = 3.05, P = .053 > .05).

Table 11
Assumption of Homogeneity of Variances for Posttest of Reading
Comprehension
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
3.055 2 71 .053

The results of the one-way ANOVA indicate that there are

significant differences among the mean scores of the three groups
on the posttest of Reading Comprehension test (F = 8.59 (2, 71), P
= .000 > .05).

Table 12
One-Way ANOVA Posttest of Reading Comprehension Test by
Groups
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 4335.065 2 2167.532 8.594 .000
Within Groups 17907.193 71 252.214
Total 22242.258 73
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 17

Although the F-value of 8.59 indicates significant differences

among the mean scores of the three groups on the posttest of
reading comprehension, the post-hoc Scheffe’s tests should be run
to compare the means two by two. Based on the results displayed
in Table 12, it can be concluded that:
A: There is a significant difference between the mean scores of
the EIFE and control groups. The EIFE group with a mean score
of 63.66 outperformed the control group on the posttest of reading
comprehension (see table 10). Thus, the first null-hypothesis (i.e.
explicit instruction of FEs does not have any significant effect on
EFL learners’ reading comprehension) is rejected.

Table 13
Post-Hoc Scheffe’s Tests
95% Confidence
Mean
(J) Std. Interval
(I) GROUP Difference Sig.
GROUP Error Lower Upper
(I-J)
Bound Bound
CIFL -17.91* 4.64 .001 -29.52 -6.31
CONTROL
EIFE -15.33* 4.56 .005 -26.73 -3.92
CIFE EIFE 2.58 4.40 .842 -8.43 13.60
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B: There is a significant difference between the mean scores

of the CIFE and control groups. The CIFE group with a mean
score of 66.25 outperformed the control group on the posttest of
reading comprehension (table 10). Thus, the second null-
hypothesis (i.e. CIFE does not have any significant effect on EFL
learners’ reading comprehension) is rejected.
C: There is not any significant difference between the mean
scores of the CIFE and EIFE groups. Thus, the third null-
hypothesis (i.e. there are not any significant differences between
EIFE and CIFE instructions in developing EFL learners’ reading
comprehension ability) could not be rejected (see table 10 and
graph 2).
18 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Axis Title

CONTROL CIFE EIFE

Series1 48.33 66.25 63.66

Figure 2. Mean Scores on Posttest of Reading Comprehension

Test

Quantitative Analysis: Research Question Four

In order to answer the research question four, a list of FEs
was extracted from the participants’ textbooks including English
Book 3 and Pre-university
university English Book. Then, the FEs were
juxtaposed to explore the matches or mismatch
mismatches interlingually.
The list is given in Appendix B, which obviously reveals that these
two languages vary semantically, syntactically and pragmatically.
Out of 91(i.e. 60+31) cases of FEs, Persian and English vary in 31
cases, an indication of roughly 34 percent. The distinctive
specifications are as follows:
I Expressions may be structurally divergent. For example,
‘make plans: ‫[ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﮫ ﭼﯿﺪن‬barname chidan] ‘indicates that the
English structure (Verb + Noun) does not match the Persian
structure [ noun+verb] (‫ﻓﻌﻞ‬+ ‫ )اﺳﻢ‬or the formulaic expression ‘be
afraid of: ‫[ ’ﺗﺮﺳﯿﺪن از‬tarsidan az] is different from that of Persian
in terms of structure (be + adjective+ preposition versus ‫ ﺣﺮف‬+‫ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ [ )اﺿﺎﻓﮫ‬verb+pp].
II. Expressions may be semantically divergent, for example,
‘make a decision: ‫[ ’ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬tasmim gereftan] rather than *
‫[ ﯾﮏ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ‬tasmim saakhtan]or ‘take action: ‫اﻗﺪام‬
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 19

‫[’ﮐﺮدن‬eghdam kardan] rather than *‫[ اﻗﺪام ﺑﺮداﺷﺘﻦ‬eghdam

bardashtan].
III. Expressions may be pragmatically divergent. For
example, ‘How do you do? : ‫[ ’از دﯾﺪارﺷﻤﺎ ﺧﻮﺷﻮﻗﺘﻢ‬az didar-e shoma
khosvagtam] may have different interpretations for English and
Persian speakers.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings indicate that explicit instruction of FEs plays a

significant role in developing learners’ reading comprehension
ability. They are in line with the studies supporting the
effectiveness of explicit instruction (Andrew, 2007). In addition,
the results revealed that formulaic instruction made the EFL
participants outscore the control group, suggesting that teaching
Formulaic expressions could be an effective pedagogical technique
in enhancing reading comprehension competence.
Along the same line, some researchers (Butter, et al., 2006;
Ellis, 2005; Mey, 2006; Wood, 2010; Wray, 2005) found that
teaching and learning lexical chunks, collocations, idioms (i.e.
FEs), had significant effects and functions on learners. But they
did not investigate the effect of FEs instructions on EFL learners’
reading ability. In fact, most of them have been concerned with the
effect of FEs on EFL learners’ fluency and productivity.
Additionally, CA-based instruction of FEs helps learners
develop their reading comprehension ability significantly. CA-
based instruction of FEs assists learners in perceiving L1 and L2
similarities and differences by comparing and contrasting the
systems. Then, the achievements may be insightful for learners in
enhancing and learning EFL reading materials. Therefore, the
study confirms Ellis (2009) and Corder (1986) suggesting that
teachers, learners, and researchers can take advantage of CA.
However, the scope of this study (i.e. CA-based mechanism of FEs
instruction) appears to be an innovative approach in teaching
reading in the field of TEFL. Even though some researchers such
as Ziahosseiny (2008) and Keshavarz (2008) have concerned
themselves with contrastive analysis of English and Persian, they
don’t fully support the argument of the current research.
20 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Meanwhile, the findings are consistent with that of Manucheri

(2005). She concludes that, for example, the Persian learner of
English has problems while learning the verb forms such as ‘teach:
‫ﯾﺎد دادن‬/ yaad dadan/ rather than * give learning’ or ‘learn: ‫ﯾﺎد ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬
yaad gereftan/ rather than *get learning’. She suggests that the
teacher should provide ample opportunities for learners to realize
the collocational nature of verb forms on CA-based study.
Meanwhile, this study reveals that the two mechanisms of
explicit and CA-based instructions bring about roughly equal
achievements. Even though the dual mechanism equality probably
seems to be the unique achievement of this experiment, it supports
the significance of explicit instruction of Richards and Schmidt
(2002), confirming Ziahosseiny’s (2008) claim that “Contrastive
analysis is largely associated with language teaching” (p.6).
Both the explicit and CA-based experiments reported in the
literature (Ghadessy, 1977; Jafarpur, 1979; Keyvani, 1977;
Yarmohammadi, 1967) aimed at providing learners, teachers,
researchers with new insights to develop in their pedagogical
programs. Along the same line, this study was an attempt to teach
the most frequent formulaic expressions extracted from the
participants’ textbook through two mechanisms of explicit and
contrastive approaches. CA-based study on the extracted sample of
FEs reveals that 34 percent of English and Persian formulae are
different in terms of structures, semantics and pragmatics.
FEs are almost fixed or semi-fixed prefabricated chunks
which play a significant role to develop learners’ fluency. In
addition, formulae assist language users to acquire language
(Lucker, 2004). In fact, learners store and retrieve these chunks
wholly within a set of ready-made packages (Gardiff University,
2011). However, almost all EFL learners in different levels find
idioms and collocations problematic. They often find such
formulae difficult to internalize since syllabus designers do not
include enough proportion of formulaic expressions- collocations
and idioms- in EFL course books. EFL teachers might sometimes
overlook teaching formulaic expressions at the expense of teaching
isolated items. In addition, the study of formulaic language is in its
infancy.
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 21

Conclusively, the findings assert roughly equal effectiveness

of both EIFE and CIFE instructions on the participants’ reading
comprehension ability and greater incompatibility between Persian
and English in terms of FEs, which warrants the inclusion of CIFE
instruction at the top of the priority list of candidate instructional
mechanisms.

The Authors

Gholam-Reza Abbasian, born in Ahar, East Azerbaijan,

Iran, is an assistant professor of TEFL at Imam Ali University &
IAU. He has presented at (inter) national conferences and is the
author & translator of about 15 books, publisher of scholarly
articles and offers psycholinguistics, language testing, & syllabus
design courses. He has received awards as top scholar and has
been nominated as the most successful teacher for seven years. He
is the internal manager of JOMM, reviewer of Sage, FLA and
GJER journals and a member of editorial board of JSSIR.
Sayeed Jalil Ehsanian, holds an MA in TEFL and is an
English teacher at the Iranian Ministry of Education and has been
teaching English for fifteen years. His research interests are
syllabus design and materials preparation.

References

Birkenstein, C. (2008). Point of view in teaching composition:

‘Formulaic’ is not a four letter word. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web: http;//WWW.thefreelibrary.com.
Broukal, M., & Nolan, E. (1999). NTC’s preparation for the
TOEFL. USA: NTC Publication.
Butter, C. (2006). The Dynamics of language use: Functional and
contrastive perspectives. Combridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Charles, M., Picorari, D., Hunston, S. (Eds) (2009). Academic
writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cardif University, (2011). What is Formulaic Language? Retieved
from the World Wide Web: http:
22 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

www.cf.ac.uk/encap/research/networks/flarn/what
is/index.html.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second- language skills, USA:
Harcourt Brace
Corder, S. (1981). Error analysis & interlanguage. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Analyzing learner language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ghadessy, M. (1977) Error analysis: A criterion for the
development of materials in foreign language education. ELT
JXXXI: 244-248.
Hackson, P., Fernandez, P. M. (2008). Terminology and formulaic
language in computer assisted translation. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web: http://www.skase.sk/volumes/JT103/1.pdf.
Hedge, T. (2008). Teaching & learning in the language classroom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, T., (2007) L2 Learner-made formulaic expressions and
constructions. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Hayati, M., Kazemzadeh, Gh. ( 2009 ). A contrastive study of
English & Persian linking verbs complementation. Ahvaz:
Shahid Chamran University.
Istvan, K., (2006). Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca.
Second Language Research 22(2): 219-237
Karen, L. et al. (2007).The Effect of Implicit and Explicit
Instruction on Simple and Complex Grammatical Structures
for Adult English Language Learners. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web: mhtml:TESEL-EJ 11 2.
Keshavarz, M. (2008). Contrastive Analysis & Error Analysis,
Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Culture. Ann Arbort:
Michigan University Press.
Laybutt, B. E. (2009). Collection and textual cohesion. England:
University of Birmingham.
Longman. (2003). Dictonary of Contemprary English. UK:
Longman Publication.
Mey, J. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmaics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 23

Nunan, D. (2001). Second Language Teaching and Learning.

USA: Heinle & Heinle
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodologies. Great
Bitain: Prentice Hall Publication.
Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (2004). Britain: Mobile
Systems Inc.
Richards, J. and Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language
teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J. and Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. Great Britain: Longman.
Richards, j. and Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics, England: Longman
Sadeghi, K. (2009). Collocational differences between L1& L2:
Implications for efl learners & teachers. TESL Canada
Journal. 26(2).
Sefidvand, A. and Vahdani, R. (2011). The impact of FEs on the
Iranian EFL students’ writing. Iran: IAU.
Sharpe, J. (1989). Barron’s how to prepare for the TOEFL, New
York: Barron’s Publication.
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an
EFL context: The learning of English copula be before and
after the instruction of the auxiliary be. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/11/1/11.
Van Lancker, D., Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of
formulaic expressions in every day speech: Methods for
classification & verification. WWW.elsvier.Com. 24. (2004).
207-240.
Wray, A., (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A., (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, D. (2010). Perspectives on formulaic language:
Acquisition and communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wood, D. ( 2010). Formulaic language and second language
speech flency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Yarmohammadi, L. (1965). A Contrastive Study of Modern

English and Modern Persian. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts:
Section A. Humanities and Social Science, 28, 219A-220A.
Yang, B. A. (1986). A Review of Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis. UK: Oxford University Press.
Ziahosseiny, M.(2008). A Contrastive Analysis of Persian &
English Error Analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.

Appendices

Appendix A: Explicit Handout of FEs

Grade one at guidance school
And you? Just fine
Notebook What is he/she?
What are they? What about you?
Grade two at guidance school
Excuse me. Feel fine/ well
Here you are. How many……………..?
Hurry up In the afternoon/ evening
Let’s………………. Make ( tea , dinner……)
On ( Tuesday) Put on
Policeman Say prayers
See you later She is twelve
Sit down Stand up
Thanks God …… There is /there are
You’re welcome. What color…..?
What time……..? Whose car …….?
Grade three at guidance school
A little A lot of
Bookcase Be in time
Come back Com from
Can I help you? Fifteen years old
Free time Get ready
Good luck Go shopping
Handwriting Have a headache
How much …….? How many …….?
Have a good time Have a test
Have breakfast Have a difficult life
Have an accident Heavy traffic
Have a break Hard worker
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 25

How old……..? Ice- cream

In a hurry It may rain
I see Keep clean
Look like Not too bad
On the way Shopping center
Say hello to Sunrise
Take off The country
Turn on What’s the matter?
Wait for Wake up
What does he /she look like ? With sth

Grade one at high school

Ask for A. D
Anything else…? A short time
All day long All over
A long time At the age of ….
As …. As Be born
Be afraid of Be able to
Be away Be good
Change into Could I …….?
Climb up/down Daylight
Do good Drop down
Far from First name
Find one’s way back home Fly by
For certain Full of sth
Get late Get lost
Get sick Get up
Glad to meet you. Grow up
Grow shorter Go away
Good looking Get milk
Have a cold Have got
How far…….? How odd!
Hometown How about this one?
Help yourself Just a moment
In front of Learn about sth
Last name Light brown
Look for Make a noise
May I borrow…..? Never mind.
Not at all Nice to meet you.
On time Once more
Opposite of On top of
Ok, I’ll take it. Out of reach
Pay attention to Pay for
26 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Peace be upon him. Piece of sth

Plenty of Receive sb with open arms
Share of sth Steam engine
Stand in line Some day
Some more Something else
Turn down Turn into
Turn off Sitting room
Turn against Welcome sb warmly
What size do you wear? Would you …….?
Who is it on the phone? What fun it was?
Grade two at high school
Against the law A short while
All of a sudden A foot wide/ long
According to Bad luck
Cassette player Comment on /about
Depend on Different from
Disagree about Do right
Feel sorry for Find out
For a while For the fun of it
For no good reason Full of sth
Get cold Get out of sth
Get into trouble Get mixed up
Go hungry Go hic
Go on a picnic Go on a trip
Go around Give back
Have to Hand clock
Hold one’s breath How about this one?
How is everything with you? Keep on
Language lab Light bulb
Light up Look like
Make a mistake Merry –go –round
Mixed up Mind one’s own business
Most of the time Paper bag
Pay attention Put sth aside
Pick up Run out of
Run along Say goodbye
Small talk Stay with
Soft drink Take sth apart
Take a breath Take a photograph
Take place Transport system
Toy gun Turn off
You’re welcome. Walk around
Would you mind……..? rite about
 Abbasian and Ehsanian 27

Grade three at high school

At the end of At the front
After a while And so on
As soon as Be afraid of
Be careful about Be interested in
Be ashamed of Be on time
By means of Do best
Do silly things Driving test
Far apart First aid
Get away from Go straight on
Hard working Hear about
How do you do? Ice-hockey
Instead of I n addition to
In other words Insist on
Keep accounts Long ago
Look after Make up
On holidays On your left
Over & over Once a week / month
Responsible for Play a part in
Pocket-sized Right- hand side
Search for Similar to
Slow down Sorry about
Stick in one’s mind Talk with/ to
Turn up Take a test
Take part Take sth away from
Track & field Twice a week/ month
Up & down Wind power
Worry about What time is the film on?
Grade four at high school/ pre-university
A large number of As long as
As soon as possible As well
As well as Be aware of
Be concerned about Be free of sth
Be made up of Be robbed of sth
By oneself Come in
Concentrate on Do one’s part
Do research in sth Get tired
Give a speech Help out
In addition to In public
In the front of Keep up with sth
Make a decision Make a difference
Make a speech Make eye –contact
Make plans Pass on
28 The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1

Rely on Run away

Stand away So far
Take action Take notes
Take sth seriously Tell a joke
Whether ….. or Weigh sth against sth

Appendix B: CA-based Handout of FEs

Grade one at guidance school
And you? ‫و ﺷﻤﺎ ﭼﻄﻮر؟‬
Fine, thanks. ‫ ﻣﻤﻨﻮن‬، ‫ﺧﻮﺑﻢ‬
Just fine ‫ﺣﺎﻟﻢ ﺧﻮﺑﮫ‬
Notebook ‫دﻓﺘﺮ ﯾﺎدداﺷﺖ‬
What is he/she? ‫ﻣﻮﻧﺚ ( ﭼﮑﺎره اﺳﺖ؟‬/‫او) ﻣﺬﮐﺮ‬
What are they? ‫آﻧﮭﺎ ﭼﮑﺎره اﻧﺪ؟‬
What about you? ‫ﺷﻤﺎ ﭼﻄﻮر؟‬
Grade two at guidance school
At the table ‫ﮐﻨﺎر ﻣﯿﺰ‬
Excuse me. ‫ﺑﺒﺨﺸﯿﺪ‬
Feel fine/ well ‫ﺳﺮﺣﺎل ﺑﻮدن‬
Here you are. .‫ﺑﻔﺮﻣﺎﯾﯿﺪ‬
How many……………..? ‫؟‬......‫ﭼﮫ ﺗﻌﺪاد‬
Hurry up ‫ﻋﺠﻠﮫ ﮐﻦ‬
In the afternoon/ evening ‫ ﺳﺮ ﺷﺐ‬/ ‫ﻋﺼﺮ‬
Let’s………………. .........‫ﺑﯿﺎﯾﯿﻢ‬
Make ( tea , dinner……) (.....‫ ﺷﺎم‬،‫درﺳﺖ ﮐﺮدن )ﭼﺎی‬
On ( Tuesday) (‫در روز ) ﺳﮫ ﺷﻨﺒﮫ‬
Put on ‫ﭘﻮﺷﯿﺪن‬
policeman ‫ﻣﺮد ﭘﻠﯿﺲ‬
Say prayers ‫ﻧﻤﺎز ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن‬
See you later ‫ﺑﮫ اﻣﯿﺪ دﯾﺪار‬
She is twelve ‫)او( دوازده ﺳﺎﻟﮫ ھﺴﺖ‬
Sit down ‫ﺑﻨﺸﯿﻦ‬
Stand up ‫ﭘﺎ ﺷﻮ‬
Thanks God …… ......‫ﺧﺪارو ﺷﮑﺮ‬
There is /there are ‫ وﺟﻮد دارﻧﺪ‬/‫وﺟﻮد دارد‬
You’re welcome. ‫ﺧﻮاھﺶ ﻣﯿﮑﻨﻢ‬
What color…..? ‫ ﭼﮫ رﻧﮕﯽ ھﺴﺖ؟‬.......
What time……..? ‫؟‬......... ‫ﭼﮫ ﺳﺎﻋﺘﯽ‬
Whose car …….? ‫ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻦ ﭼﮫ ﮐﺴﯽ ھﺴﺖ؟‬..........
Grade three at guidance school
A little ‫ﻣﻘﺪار ﮐﻤﯽ‬
A lot of ‫ﺗﻌﺪاد زﯾﺎدی‬/‫ﻣﻘﺪار‬
 ‫‪Abbasian and Ehsanian‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬

‫‪Bookcase‬‬ ‫ﻗﻔﺴﮫ ی ﮐﺘﺎب‬

‫‪Be in time‬‬ ‫زودﺗﺮ‪/‬دﯾﺮﺗﺮ از ﻣﻌﻤﻮل ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Come back‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﮔﺸﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Com from‬‬ ‫اھﻞ ﺟﺎی ﺑﻮدن‬
‫?‪Can I help you‬‬ ‫ﻣﻤﮑﻨﮫ ﺑﮫ ﺷﻤﺎ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﻢ؟‪ /‬ﭼﯿﺰی ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮاﺳﺘﯿﺪ؟‬
‫‪Fifteen years old‬‬ ‫ﭘﺎﻧﺰده ﺳﺎﻟﮫ‬
‫‪Free time‬‬ ‫وﻗﺖ آزاد‪ /‬اوﻗﺎت ﻓﺮاﻗﺖ‬
‫‪Get ready‬‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Good luck‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻓﻖ ﺑﺎﺷﯿﺪ‬
‫‪Go shopping‬‬ ‫ﺧﺮﯾﺪ رﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Handwriting‬‬ ‫دﺳﺖ ﺧﻂ‬
‫‪Have a headache‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮ درد داﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫?‪How much …….‬‬ ‫ﭼﮫ ﻣﻘﺪار‪......‬؟‪ ......./‬ﭼﮫ ﻗﯿﻤﺘﯽ ھﺴﺖ؟‬
‫‪Have a good time‬‬ ‫وﻗﺖ ﺗﺎن ﺑﺨﯿﺮ‬
‫‪Have a test‬‬ ‫اﻣﺘﺤﺎن داﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Have breakfast‬‬ ‫ﺻﺒﺤﺎﻧﮫ ﺧﻮردن‬
‫‪Have a difficult life‬‬ ‫زﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﺳﺨﺘﯽ داﺳﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Have an accident‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺎدف ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Heavy traffic‬‬ ‫ﺗﺮاﻓﯿﮑﺴﻨﮕﯿﻦ‬
‫‪Have a break‬‬ ‫زﻧﮓ ﺗﻔﺮﯾﺢ داﺷﺘﻦ ‪/‬اﺳﺘﺮاﺣﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Hard worker‬‬ ‫ﮐﺎرﮔﺮ ﺳﺨﺖ ﮐﻮش‬
‫?‪How old……..‬‬ ‫‪ .........‬ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﺎﻟﮫ اﺳﺖ ؟‬
‫‪Ice- cream‬‬ ‫ﺑﺴﺘﻨﯽ‬
‫‪In a hurry‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﻋﺠﻠﮫ‬
‫‪It may rain‬‬ ‫ﻣﻤﮑﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑﺎران ﺑﺒﺎرد‬
‫‪I see‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺟﮫ ام‬
‫‪Keep clean‬‬ ‫ﺗﻤﯿﺰ ﻧﮕﮫ داﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Look like‬‬ ‫ﺷﺒﯿﮫ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Not too bad‬‬ ‫ﺧﯿﻠﯽ ﺑﺪ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ‬
‫‪On the way‬‬ ‫در راه‬
‫‪Shopping center‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﮐﺰ ﺧﺮﯾﺪ‬
‫‪Say hello to‬‬ ‫ﺳﻼم ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Sunrise‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺑﺶ ﺧﻮرﺷﯿﺪ‬
‫‪Take off‬‬ ‫در آوردن ﻟﺒﺎس‬
‫‪The country‬‬ ‫ﯾﯿﻼق‬
‫‪Turn on‬‬ ‫روﺷﻦ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫?‪What’s the matter‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﭼﯿﺴﺖ‬
‫‪Wait for‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﺪن‬
‫‪Wake up‬‬ ‫ﺑﯿﺪار ﺷﺪن ‪ /‬ﺑﯿﺪار ﮐﺮدن‬
‫? ‪What does he /she look like‬‬ ‫او ﺷﺒﯿﮫ ﭼﮫ ﮐﺴﯽ ھﺴﺖ؟‬
‫‪With sth‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﭼﯿﺰی‪ /‬ﺑﮫ وﺳﯿﻠﮫ ی ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Grade one at high school‬‬
‫‪A piece of sth‬‬ ‫ﯾﮫ ﺗﮑﮫ از ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1‬‬

‫‪Ask for‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺎﺿﺎ ﮐﺮدن ﺑﺮای‬

‫‪A. D‬‬ ‫ﭘﺲ از ﻣﯿﻼد ﻣﺴﯿﺢ‬
‫?…‪Anything else‬‬ ‫ﭼﯿﺰ دﯾﮕﮫ‪.........‬؟‬
‫‪A short time‬‬ ‫زﻣﺎن ﮐﻮﺗﺎھﯽ‬
‫‪All day long‬‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺎم ﻃﻮل روز‬
‫‪All over‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮاﺳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺎم‬
‫‪A long time‬‬ ‫زﻣﺎن ﻃﻮﻻﻧﯽ‬
‫‪At the age of ….‬‬ ‫در ﺳﻦ‬
‫‪As …. as‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻣﯿﺰان ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ‬
‫‪Be born‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺳﺪن‬
‫‪Be afraid of‬‬ ‫ﺗﺮﺳﯿﺪن از‬
‫‪Be able to‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎدر ﺑﻮدن ‪ /‬ﺗﻮاﻧﺎ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Be away‬‬ ‫دور ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Be good‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮب ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Change into‬‬ ‫ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ ﺷﺪن ﺑﮫ‬
‫?‪Could I …….‬‬ ‫آﯾﺎ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﻢ‪........‬؟‬
‫‪Climb up/down‬‬ ‫ﺑﻼ رﻓﺘﻦ ‪ /‬ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ آﻣﺪن‬
‫‪Daylight‬‬ ‫روﺷﻨﺎﯾﯽ روز‪ /‬روز روﺷﻦ‬
‫‪Do good‬‬ ‫ﮐﺎر ﻧﯿﮏ اﻧﺠﺎم دادن‬
‫‪Drop down‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ اﻧﺎﺧﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Far from‬‬ ‫دور از‬
‫‪First name‬‬ ‫اﺳﻢ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ‬
‫‪Find one’s way back home‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﯿﺮ ﺑﺮﮔﺸﺖ را ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Fly by‬‬ ‫اﻃﺮاف ﭘﺮواز ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪For certain‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻃﻮر ﯾﻘﯿﻦ‬
‫‪Full of sth‬‬ ‫ﭘﺮ از ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Get late‬‬ ‫دﯾﺮ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Get lost‬‬ ‫ﮔﻢ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Get sick‬‬ ‫ﺑﯿﻤﺎر ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Get up‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺧﺎﺳﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Glad to meet you.‬‬ ‫از دﯾﺪارﺗﺎن ﺧﻮﺷﺤﺎﻟﻢ‬
‫‪Grow up‬‬ ‫ﺑﺰرگ ﺷﺪن)اﻓﺮاد(‬
‫‪Grow shorter‬‬ ‫ﮐﻮﺗﺎه ﺷﺪن )روز(‬
‫‪Go away‬‬ ‫دور ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Good looking‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮش ﺗﯿﭗ‬
‫‪Get milk‬‬ ‫ﺷﯿﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ) دوﺷﯿﺪن از ﮔﺎو‪(...،‬‬
‫‪Have a cold‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻣﺎ ﺧﻮردن‬
‫‪Have got‬‬ ‫داﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫?‪How far…….‬‬ ‫‪...‬؟‬
‫ﭼﻘﺪر ﻓﺎﺻﻠﮫ‬
‫!‪How odd‬‬ ‫ﻋﺠﯿﺐ اﺳﺖ!‬
‫‪Hometown‬‬ ‫زادﮔﺎه‬
‫?‪How about this one‬‬ ‫اﯾﻦ ﯾﮑﯽ ﭼﻄﻮر اﺳﺖ‬
 ‫‪Abbasian and Ehsanian‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬

‫‪Help yourself‬‬ ‫از ﺧﻮدﺗﺎن ﭘﺬﯾﺮاﯾﯽ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪In front of‬‬ ‫در ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫‪Just a moment‬‬ ‫ﯾﮏ ﻟﺤﻈﮫ ﺻﺒﺮ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‬
‫‪Last name‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﯽ‬
‫‪Learn about sth‬‬ ‫درﺑﺎره ﭼﯿﺰی آﮔﺎه ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Light brown‬‬ ‫ﻗﮭﻮه ای روﺷﻦ‬
‫‪Look for‬‬ ‫ﮔﺸﺘﻦ ﺑﺮای‬
‫‪Make a noise‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮ و ﺻﺪا ﮐﺮدن‬
‫?‪May I borrow…..‬‬ ‫ﻣﻤﮑﻦ اﺳﺖ ‪...........‬ﻗﺮض ﮐﻨﻢ؟‬
‫‪Never mind.‬‬ ‫ﻣﮭﻢ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ‬
‫‪Not at all‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺑﻠﯽ ﻧﺪاره‪ /‬ﭼﮫ زﺣﻤﺘﯽ‬
‫‪Nice to meet you.‬‬ ‫از ﻣﻼﻗﺎت ﺑﺎ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺧﻮﺷﻮﻗﺘﻢ‬
‫‪On time‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮ وﻗﺖ‬
‫‪Once more‬‬ ‫دﻓﻌﮫ ای دﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫‪Opposite of‬‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ‪ /‬ﻣﺘﻀﺎد‬
‫‪On top of‬‬ ‫در ﺑﺎﻻی‬
‫‪Ok, I’ll take it.‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮب آن را ﺑﺮ ﻣﯽ دارم) زﻣﺎن ﺧﺮﯾﺪ ﮐﺮدن(‬
‫‪Out of reach‬‬ ‫دور از دﺳﺘﺮس‬
‫‪Pay attention to‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﮫ داﺷﺘﻦ ﺑﮫ‬
‫‪Pay for‬‬ ‫ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﮐﺮدان ﺑﺮای‬
‫‪Peace be upon him.‬‬ ‫)ص(‪ /‬ﺳﻼم ﺧﺪا ﺑﺮ او ﺑﺎد‬
‫‪Piece of sth‬‬ ‫ﺗﮑﮫ ای از ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Plenty of‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺪار‪ /‬ﺗﻌﺪاد ﻓﺮاوان‬
‫‪Receive sb with open arms‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎ آﻏﻮش ﺑﺎز از ﮐﺴﯽ اﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎل ﮐﺮدن‪ /‬ﺑﮫ ﮔﺮﻣﯽ ﮐﺴﯽ را ﭘﺬﯾﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Right now‬‬ ‫ھﻤﯿﻦ ﺣﺎﻻ‪ /‬ﻓﻮراٌ‬
‫‪Share of sth‬‬ ‫ﺳﮭﻢ ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Stand in line‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﺻﻒ اﯾﺴﺘﺎدن‪ /‬ﺻﻒ ﺑﺴﺘﻨﻦ‬
‫‪Steam engine‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺗﻮر ﺑﺨﺎر‬
‫‪Some more‬‬ ‫ﮐﻤﯽ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ‬
‫‪Some day‬‬ ‫زﻣﺎﻧﯽ ‪ /‬روزی‬
‫‪Something else‬‬ ‫ﭼﯿﺰ دﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫‪Turn down‬‬ ‫ﮐﻢ ﮐﺮدن ) ﺻﺪای رادﯾﻮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮن‪(....‬‬
‫‪Turn off‬‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻣﻮش ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Turn into‬‬ ‫ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Turn against‬‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ‪ /‬ﺿﺪ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Sitting room‬‬ ‫اﺗﺎق ﻧﺸﯿﻤﻦ‬
‫‪Welcome sb warmly‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﮔﺮﻣﯽ اﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎل ﮐﺮدن‬
‫?‪What size do you wear‬‬ ‫ﭼﮫ ﺷﻤﺎره ای را ﻣﯽ ﭘﻮﺷﯿﺪ؟‬
‫?‪Will you….‬‬ ‫آﯾﺎ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد‪....‬؟‬
‫?‪Would you …….‬‬ ‫آﯾﺎ ﻟﻄﻒ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪.......‬؟‬
‫?‪Who is it on the phone‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎ؟ ) ﭘﺸﺖ ﺧﻂ ﺗﻠﻔﻦ(‬
‫!‪What fun it was‬‬ ‫ﭼﻘﺪر ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻮد!‬
‫‪Grade two at high school‬‬
‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1‬‬

‫‪Agree about/ on‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ ﺑﻮدن در ﻣﻮرد ‪ /‬ﺳﺮ‬

‫‪Against the law‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼف ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬
‫‪A short while‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪت زﻣﺎن ﮐﻮﺗﺎه‬
‫‪All of a sudden‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﮔﮭﺎن‬
‫‪A foot wide/ long‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻋﺮض‪ /‬ﻃﻮل ﯾﮏ ﭘﺎ‬
‫‪According to‬‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻖ‬
‫‪Bad luck‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪ ﺷﺎﻧﺴﯽ‬
‫‪Cassette player‬‬ ‫ﺿﺒﻂ ﺻﻮت‬
‫‪Comment on /about‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮ دادن درﺑﺎره ی‪ /‬ﺳﺮ ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Depend on‬‬ ‫واﺑﺴﺘﮫ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Different from‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﺑﻮدن از‬
‫‪Disagree about/on‬‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻼف داﺷﺘﻦ ﺳﺮ ﭼﯿﺰی‪ /‬درﺑﺎره ی ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Do right‬‬ ‫درﺳﺖ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Feel sorry for‬‬ ‫اﺣﺴﺎس ﺗﺎﺳﻒ ﮐﺮدن ﺑﺮای‬
‫‪Find out‬‬ ‫ﭘﯽ ﺑﺮدن ‪ /‬ﻓﮭﻤﯿﺪن‬
‫‪For a while‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮای ﻣﺪﺗﯽ‬
‫‪For the fun of it‬‬ ‫ﺑﺨﺎﻃﺮ ﺳﺮﮔﺮﻣﯽ‬
‫‪For no good reason‬‬ ‫ﺑﺨﺎﻃﺮ دﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﺎﺧﻮﺷﺎﯾﻨﺪی‪/‬ﻧﺎﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﯽ‬
‫‪Get cold‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻣﺎ ﺧﻮردن‬
‫‪Get out of sth‬‬ ‫از ﭼﯿﺰی رھﺎ‪/‬ﺧﻼص ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Get into trouble‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ درد ﺳﺮ اﻓﺘﺎدن ‪ /‬ﺑﮫ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻮردن‬
‫‪Get mixed up‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮ در ﮔﻢ ﺷﺪن‪ /‬ﮔﯿﺞ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Go hungry‬‬ ‫ﮔﺮﺳﻨﮫ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Go hic‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﺳﮑﺴﮑﮫ اﻓﺘﺎدن‬
‫‪Go on a picnic‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﺗﻔﺮﯾﺢ رﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Go on a trip‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﺳﻔﺮ ﮐﻮﺗﺎه رﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Go around‬‬ ‫ﭼﺮﺧﯿﺪن ﺑﮫ دور‬
‫‪Give back‬‬ ‫ﭘﺲ دادن‬
‫‪Have to‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﭼﺎر ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Hold one’s breath‬‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺧﻮد را ﺣﺒﺲ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫؟ ?‪How about this one‬‬ ‫اﯾﻦ ﯾﮑﯽ ﭼﻄﻮر اﺳﺖ‬
‫?‪How is everything with you‬‬ ‫ﮐﺎرو ﺑﺎرت ﭼﻄﻮره؟‬
‫‪Keep on‬‬ ‫اداﻣﮫ دادن‬
‫‪Language lab‬‬ ‫آزﻣﺎﯾﺸﮕﺎه زﺑﺎن‬
‫‪Light bulb‬‬ ‫ﻻﻣﭗ ﺣﺒﺎﺑﯽ‬
‫‪Light up‬‬ ‫روﺷﻦ ﮐﺮدن‪ /‬روﺷﻦ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Look like‬‬ ‫ﺷﺒﯿﮫ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Make a mistake‬‬ ‫اﺷﺘﺒﺎه ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Merry –go –round‬‬ ‫ﮔﺮدوﻧﮫ‪ /‬ﭼﺮخ و ﻓﻠﮏ‬
‫‪Mixed up‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻃﯽ‪ /‬ﺳﺮدرﮔﻢ‬
‫‪Mind one’s own business‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮ ﻻک ﺧﻮد ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Most of the time‬‬ ‫ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻮاﻗﻊ‬
‫‪Paper bag‬‬ ‫ﭘﺎﮐﺖ ﮐﺎﻏﺬی‬
 ‫‪Abbasian and Ehsanian‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬

‫‪Pay attention‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﮫ داﺷﺘﻦ‬

‫‪Put sth aside‬‬ ‫ﮐﻨﺎر ﮔﺬاﺷﺘﻦ ﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Pick up‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮداﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Run out of‬‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺎم ﮐﺮدن‪ /‬ﺗﻤﺎم ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Run along‬‬ ‫در اﻣﺘﺪاد ﺣﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Say goodbye‬‬ ‫ﺧﺪاﺣﺎﻓﻈﯽ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Small talk‬‬ ‫ﮔﭗ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ و دوﺳﺘﺎﻧﮫ‬
‫‪Stay with‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎﻧﺪن ﭘﯿﺶ‪ /‬ﻧﺰد‬
‫‪Soft drink‬‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺷﺎﺑﮫ ﺑﺪون اﻟﮑﻞ‬
‫‪Take sth apart‬‬ ‫اﺟﺰای ﭼﯿﺰی را از ھﻢ ﺑﺎز ﮐﺮدن‪ /‬ﺟﺪا ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Take a breath‬‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺴﯽ ﮐﺸﯿﺪن‬
‫‪Take a photograph‬‬ ‫ﻋﮑﺴﺒﺮداری ﮐﺮدن‪ /‬ﻋﮑﺲ اﻧﺪاﺧﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Take place‬‬ ‫اﺗﻔﺎق اﻓﺘﺎدن ‪/‬در ﻣﮑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺮﮔﺰار ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Transport system‬‬ ‫ﺳﯿﺴﺘﻢ ﺣﻤﻞ و ﻧﻘﻞ‬
‫‪Toy gun‬‬ ‫ﺗﻔﻨﮓ اﺳﺒﺎب ﺑﺎزی‬
‫‪You’re welcome.‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮاھﺶ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻢ‬
‫‪Walk around‬‬ ‫در اﻃﺮاف ﻗﺪﻣﯽ زدن‬
‫?‪Would you mind……..‬‬ ‫اﮔﮫ ﺑﺮات زﺣﻤﺘﯽ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ‪.......‬؟‬
‫‪Write about‬‬ ‫درﺑﺎره )ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﯽ( ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Grade three at high school‬‬
‫‪At the same time‬‬ ‫ھﻢ زﻣﺎن‬
‫‪At the end of‬‬ ‫در اﻧﺘﮭﺎ‪ /‬در ﭘﺎﯾﺎن‬
‫‪At the front‬‬ ‫در ﺧﻂ ﻣﻘﺪم ) ﺟﺒﮭﮫ ی ﺟﻨﮓ(‬
‫‪After a while‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮای ﻟﺤﻈﮫ ای‬
‫‪And so on‬‬ ‫و ﻏﯿﺮه‬
‫‪As soon as‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻣﺤﺾ اﯾﻨﮑﮫ‬
‫‪Be afraid of‬‬ ‫ﺗﺮﺳﯿﺪن از‬
‫‪Be careful about‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮاﻇﺐ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Be interested in‬‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻗﻤﻨﺪ ﺑﻮدن ﺑﮫ‬
‫‪Be ashamed of‬‬ ‫ﺧﺠﺎﻟﺖ ﮐﺸﯿﺪن از‪/‬ﺷﺮﻣﻨﺪه ﺷﺪن از‬
‫‪Be on time‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮ وﻗﺖ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺷﺪن ‪ /‬ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪By means of‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از‪ /‬ﺑﮫ وﺳﯿﻠﮫ ی‬
‫‪Do best‬‬ ‫ﻧﮭﺎﯾﺖ ﺳﻌﯽ را اﻧﺠﺎم دادن‬
‫‪Do silly things‬‬ ‫ﮐﺎرھﺎی اﺣﻤﻘﺎﻧﮫ اﻧﺠﺎم دادن‪ /‬ﺧﻨﮓ ﺑﺎزی در آوردن‬
‫‪Driving test‬‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن راھﻨﻤﺎﯾﯽ و راﻧﻨﺪﮔﯽ‬
‫‪Far apart‬‬ ‫دور از ھﻢ‬
‫‪First aid‬‬ ‫ﮐﻤﮏ ھﺎی اوﻟﯿﮫ‬
‫‪Get away from‬‬ ‫دور ﮐﺮدن)ﮐﺴﯽ از ﭼﯿﺰی( ‪ /‬دور ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Go straight on‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﯿﻢ اداﻣﮫ ﻣﺴﯿﺮ دادن‬
‫‪Hard working‬‬ ‫ﺳﺨﺖ ﮐﻮش‬
‫‪Hear about‬‬ ‫درﺑﺎره ی ) ﭼﯿﺰی ( ﺷﻨﯿﺪن‬
‫?‪How do you do‬‬ ‫از آﺷﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺧﻮﺷﻮﻗﺘﻢ‬
‫‪Ice-hockey‬‬ ‫ھﺎﮐﯽ روی ﯾﺦ‬
‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 5, Issue 1‬‬

‫‪Instead of‬‬ ‫ﺑﺠﺎی‪ ،‬ﺑﮫ ﻋﻮض‬

‫‪In addition to‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ اﻧﻀﻤﺎم‬
‫‪In other words‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫‪Insist on‬‬ ‫اﺻﺮار ورزﯾﺪن ﺑﺮای‪ /‬ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ‬
‫‪Keep accounts‬‬ ‫ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺪاری اﻧﺠﺎم دادن‬
‫‪Long ago‬‬ ‫زﻣﺎن دور‬
‫‪Look after‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮاﻇﺒﺖ ﮐﺮدن از )ﮐﺴﯽ ‪ ،‬ﭼﯿﺰی(‬
‫‪Make up‬‬ ‫درﺳﺖ ﮐﺮدن ‪ ،‬درﺳﺖ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪On holidays‬‬ ‫روزھﺎی ﺗﻌﻄﯿﻞ‬
‫‪On your left‬‬ ‫ﺳﻤﺖ ﭼﭗ ﺗﺎن‬
‫‪Over & over‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﻃﻮر ﻣﮑﺮر‬
‫‪Once a week / month‬‬ ‫ﯾﮑﺒﺎر در ھﻔﺘﮫ‪ ،‬ﯾﮑﺒﺎر در ﻣﺎه‬
‫‪Responsible for‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺌﻮل )ﭼﯿﺰی( ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Play a part in‬‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺸﯽ در )اﻧﺠﺎم ﮐﺎری( داﺷﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Pocket-sized‬‬ ‫ﺟﯿﺒﯽ‬
‫‪Right- hand side‬‬ ‫دﺳﺖ راﺳﺖ‬
‫‪Search for‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﮐﺮدن ﺑﺮای‬
‫‪Similar to‬‬ ‫ﺷﺒﯿﮫ ﺑﮫ‬
‫‪Slow down‬‬ ‫ﮐﻨﺪ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Sorry about‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺎﺳﻒ در ﻣﻮرد‬
‫‪Stick in one’s mind‬‬ ‫ﻣﻠﮑﮫ ی ذھﻦ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Talk with/ to‬‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮدن ﺑﺎ‬
‫‪Turn up‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﺮدن ﺻﺪا) رادﯾﻮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮن(‬
‫‪Take a test‬‬ ‫اﻣﺘﺤﺎن دادن‬
‫‪Take part in‬‬ ‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ داﺷﺘﻦ در‬
‫‪Take sb /sth away from‬‬ ‫دور ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Track & field‬‬ ‫دو و ﻣﯿﺪاﻧﯽ‬
‫‪Twice a week/ month‬‬ ‫دو ﺑﺎر در ھﻔﺘﮫ ‪ ،‬دو ﺑﺎر در ﻣﺎه‬
‫‪Up & down‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻻ و ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ‬
‫‪Wind power‬‬ ‫ﻧﯿﺮوی ﺑﺎد‬
‫‪Worry about‬‬ ‫ﻧﮕﺮان ﺑﻮدن درﺑﺎره ی‬
‫?‪What time is the film on‬‬ ‫ﭼﮫ ﺳﺎﻋﺘﯽ ﻓﯿﻠﻢ ﺷﺮوع ﻣﯿﺸﻮد؟‬
‫‪Grade four at high school/ pre-university‬‬
‫‪A large number of‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎر زﯾﺎدی‬
‫‪As long as‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎداﻣﯽ ﮐﮫ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ زﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﮫ‬
‫‪As soon as possible‬‬ ‫در اﺳﺮع وﻗﺖ‬
‫‪As well‬‬ ‫ھﻢ ﭼﻨﯿﻦ‬
‫‪As well as‬‬ ‫و‪ ،‬ﺑﮫ اﻧﻀﻤﺎم‬
‫‪Be aware of‬‬ ‫آﮔﺎه ﺑﻮدن از‬
‫‪Be concerned about‬‬ ‫درﺑﺎره ی ) ﭼﯿﺰی ( ﻧﮕﺮان ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Be free of sth‬‬ ‫ﻣﺼﻮن ﺑﻮدن از‪ ،‬در اﻣﺎن ﺑﻮدن از‬
‫‪Be made up of‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺸﮑﻞ ﺷﺪن ازﭼﯿﺰی‬
‫‪Be robbed of sth‬‬ ‫از ﭼﯿﺰی)ﺣﻖ ﮐﺴﯽ( دزدﯾﺪن‬
 ‫‪Abbasian and Ehsanian‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬

‫‪By oneself‬‬ ‫ﺑﮫ ﺗﻨﮭﺎی‬

‫‪Come in‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺪاول ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Concentrate on‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻤﮑﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺪن ﺑﺮ‬
‫‪Do one’s part‬‬ ‫وﻇﯿﻔﮫ ی ﺧﻮد ‪ /‬ﺳﮭﻢ ﺧﻮد را اﻧﺠﺎم دادن‬
‫‪Do research in sth‬‬ ‫در ﮐﺎری ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Get tired‬‬ ‫ﺧﺴﺘﮫ ﺷﺪن‬
‫‪Give a speech‬‬ ‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮاﻧﯽ ﮐﺮدن ) اﺳﺘﺎد ‪ ،‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻖ‪(....،‬‬
‫‪In public‬‬ ‫در ﺟﻤﻊ) اﻓﺮاد(‬
‫‪In front of‬‬ ‫در روﺑﺮوی‪ ،‬در ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫‪Keep up with sth/sb‬‬ ‫ازﻋﮭﺪه ﮐﺎری ﺑﺮ آﻣﺪن‪ ،‬از ﮐﺴﯽ ﻋﻘﺐ ﻧﻤﺎﻧﺪن‬
‫‪Make a decision‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻤﯽ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Make a difference‬‬ ‫ﺗﻤﯿﺰ دادن ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺨﯿﺺ دادن‬
‫‪Make a speech‬‬ ‫ﺳﺨﻨﺮاﻧﯽ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Make eye –contact‬‬ ‫ارﺗﺒﺎط ﭼﺸﻤﯽ اﯾﺠﺎد ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Make plans‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﮫ ﭼﯿﺪن‬
‫‪Pass on‬‬ ‫اﻧﺘﻘﺎل دادن‬
‫‪Rely on‬‬ ‫واﺑﺴﺘﮫ ﺑﻮدن‬
‫‪Run away‬‬ ‫در رﻓﺘﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮار ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Stand away‬‬ ‫دور اﯾﺴﺘﺎدن‬
‫‪So far‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎ ﮐﻨﻮن‬
‫‪Take action‬‬ ‫اﻓﺪام ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Take notes‬‬ ‫ﻧﮑﺘﮫ ﺑﺮداری ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Take sth seriously‬‬ ‫ﮐﺎری را ﺟﺪی ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫‪Tell a joke‬‬ ‫ﻟﻄﯿﻔﮫ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫‪Whether ….. or‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮاه ‪ ...............‬ﺧﻮاه‪ /‬ﯾﺎ ‪ ،‬ﭼﮫ‪...........‬ﭼﮫ‬
‫‪Weigh sth against sth‬‬ ‫ﭼﯿﺰی را ﺑﺎ ﭼﯿﺰی ﺳﻨﺠﯿﺪن‪ ،‬ﺳﺒﮏ ﺳﻨﮕﯿﻦ ﮐﺮدن‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﮫ زﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﮐﺎرﺑﺮدی‪ ،‬ﺑﮭﺎر ‪٩١‬‬