Measuring Contrastive Lexical Competence as a New

International Journal of Research in Linguistics, Language Teaching and Testing Available online at http://ijrlltt.com.Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2017, pp.29- 49 ISSN: 2367-9336

Measuring Contrastive Lexical Competence as a New Construct: Test Preparation and Validation Meisam Ziafar Department of English Language Teaching, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

Abstract This study was planned to validate a test in order to measure contrastive lexical competence as a new construct. A test designed for this new competence measures the quality of using L2 spontaneously in real situation. To this end, the newly developed test (CLC) was given to 10 experienced teachers (Ph.D. degree) of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) for further consideration. After specifying the archived items in CLC test, the three determined tests (CLC test, OPT test and Pragmatic test) were given to 130 Iranian participants of both genders with the age range of 18 to 35, who were selected from Iranian EFL learners. The collected data were analyzed by Cronbach's alpha to find the internal consistency of the CLC test. Also, descriptive statistics and normality of distribution of the whole sample were investigated. Exploratory factor analysis, with test items as variables, was carried out in order to discover the subcomponents of the test. The correlation and coefficient of determination were calculated. Correlation tests were conducted in order to find possible significant relationship between Iranian EFL learners' CLC and their both pragmatic and language general competence. Findings suggest the existence of a unique construct that can be measured through providing L1 alternative equivalents for L2 LCs and the other way round. It can be claimed that EFL learners’ knowledge about LCs and their capability to properly translate formulaic language plays a significant role in their communicative competence.

Key words: contrastive lexical competence, chunks, validation, new construct

Introduction The possibility of competency in intercultural interactions keeps on interest from both scholastics and additionally experts in today's socially various society. Oneof the most valuable instruments in this atmosphere of globalization and execution assessments in light of intercultural competency would be an instrument which not only does assess one's intercultural interaction fitness but also performs well amongst members from various social foundations. The motivation behind this study isto present the development and investigate the legitimacy of such an instrument. Validation is an important initiative particularly for high stakes tests. We can claim that accepted tests for administrations or other special programs, certification exams, or also citizenship tests are highstakes assessment situations (Roever, 2001). According to Messick (1988), in a large society it is necessary that tests enjoy validity otherwise they are not desirable. A defining feature of language tests is that they consist of "specified tasks through which language abilities are elicited" (Daves, 2002, p.107). A good test must support teaching and low- quality tests may exert a harmful effect on teaching and learning. Therefore, a test must have qualities (Li, 2011). Language teaching is always attached to testing. Conducting a test has two major purposes. First, it determines the achievement of the students 29


through the learning process and secondly, it assesses the proficiency of the students in one or more skills. (Kern, 1982). Many scholars emphasize the positive role of lexical chunks, therefore use of chunks can be a good strategy to be considered in language learning and thus improving the L2 learning spontaneity (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; N.C. Ellis, Simpson – Vlach, & Maynard, 2008; Erman, 2009; Harwood, 2008; Kecskes, 2000; Miller, 2010; Nekrasova, 2009; Perera, 2001; Wood, 2002; Wray & Perkins, 2000). This strong emphasis on the role of formulaic utterances in L2 learning can be considered an important process in language learning (Ziafar&Maftoon, 2014). Danchev (1982) supports the idea that translation is a normal process and further declares that, all learners like to show their interest to use their first language and translation apart from the methods of teaching which they are involved in. Learners, especially adults, feel immune against the hardness of learning second language by using translation tasks even when they are asked to avoid such habit. Danchev (1982) mentions that learners can be guided and controlled against code-switching experiences. As research shows, there are some theories of second language acquisition that emphasize the role of formulaic utterances in facilitating learning a second language. Also, there is an emphasis on the role of lexical chunks (LC) s in creativity in language learning (Ziafar & Maftoon, 2014). In this research, besides considering the validity of a test, a new construct will be introduced called CLC. The present study investigates one potential component of communicative competence through merging two other competencies namely formulaic competence and translation competence. The major purpose of this study is to develop a test of CLC for EFL students. First, there will be a review of the recent literature which relates to the concept of CLC with a concentration on the testing aspect. A test will then be constructed and tested and subjected to reliability and validity analysis. Despite what research shows the first language of learners can play a useful role in learning second languages and teachers need to show respect for this learners' L1 and need to avoid downplaying the role of L1 as inferior to English. One of the most important roles of an English teacher is to help learners to be fluent in English (Nation, 2001) but there is a gap in learners' ability to find the equivalent chunks and expressions pragmatically which may amount to what is termed contrastive lexical competence in the classrooms. Even advanced language learners’ lack the ability to opt for matching equivalents which they need when communicating in a target language the way native speakers do. Learners' disability in translating chunks to properly contrast them with first language reduces their emotional and affective communicative capacities in learning target languages which may in turn make them much less willing to communicate using their already acquired knowledge. Research history shows that formulaic competence or chunks knowledge and L1-L2 translation have a significant importance in communicative competence. CLC has been introduced to fill a gap which may be a serious barrier for language learners who wish to use a target language spontaneously and effectively. Every day experience reveals that L1 exerts a strong influence on L2. Only recently have people come to see that L2 also affects knowledge and use of L1 (Cook, 2003). Although learners may have the knowledge and ability in translation, they are able to find equivalents just in formal situations and there is no guarantee for them to be able to generalize and extend these abilities to functional situations. One fact about high–stakes tests is that they are common practice in teaching and learning and their scores obtained through such tests are claimed to represent the candidate's proficiency in English and provide a situation for experts in decision-making and gate-keeping process for mainly three purposes: employing people for an occupation, achieving a certificate, and permitting one to enter a higher education organization. Scholars and researchers claim that construct validity is the most important aspect in test validation (Bachman &Palmer 1982; Cronbach 1984; Bachman 1990; Brown 2001). It seems CLC adds more meaning and validity to the construct of communicative competence and represents an independent component which has not received due concern in the course of validating language proficiency tests 30


adapted from communicative models in language learning and teaching. Thus, CLC test is a way to measure part of the ability of EFL learners to communicate in real life situations. The major purpose of this study is to develop and validate a test of CLC through combining formulaic and translation competencies of ESL students. Exploiting L1-L2 differentiations of conventional expressions as a formulaic educating procedure may have been utilized a lot of the time by language teachers and by language learners. In spite of such a prominence of utilization, there has never been any unequivocal push to present another showing approach in light of correlations amongst L1 and L2 formulaic utterances. This might be because of the fruitless results of utilizing L1 in learning L2 as posited by behaviorists. The contention is that in spite of such a conviction, L1 can be utilized as a part of instructing and learning L2 process and as a very valuable support. When one does not know an L2 structure, alluding back to one's L1 ought not to be banished; rather endeavors must be made to render such plan of action a positive and accommodating one. According to Ziafar and Khatib (2012) through providing learners with L2 complement for L2 formulaic expressions, which is accepted to happen through CLA, learners have an opportunity to attack their L1; however, they don't equal literal translations of L2 forms with their L1; rather, they have the right equivalent at their arranging to resort to. From CLA point of view, no matter what is the similarity or differences between languages, changing and interference of L1 can accepted without being worried about the L2 equivalents, all equivalents are taken as units of language obtaining which causes a fluent connection in second language. Classrooms can be an environment for learners in which they can find normal and native like equivalents rather than some fixed and superficial expressions which they need to change L1 to L2. Teachers candraw their learners' attentions towards the attendance of L2 equivalents for L1 formulaic expressions which show higher levels of standard thing and are closer to what native speakers would opt given the same circumstance. Teachers ought to urge learners to gather as many L1L2 pairs as they can collect and try to utilize them in their oral and textual creations, as a wise trick to extend their learners' information and to balance out such LCs inside learners' repertoire of native like mastery (Khatib&Ziafar, 2012). Also, Khatib and Ziafar (2012) indicated to authentic materials which should be taught in classes and they defined these materials as those rich collocations, fixed expression and ready-made chunks. The authentic materials must have an authentic results. These materials should be full of high loud of vocabulary which prepare the learners more creative in producing L2. As indicated by Gass and Selinker (2008), the L1 = L2 theory was initially proposed by Dulay and Burt (1974), who believed that a child's L2 acquisition is like his or her L1 learning. Gassand Selinker (2008) attempted to prove that there exist similarity designs among children with variety language backgrounds. L1 = L2 theory viewpoint is emphasized by N. C. Ellis (2003), who supports the similarity between L1 and L2 acquisition that is the same developing in fashion , that is, from formulae, through low-scope patterns, to constructions (abstract schema). On the other hand, obtaining, handling, and utilizing formulaic language is the shared trait between the L1 and L2 learning processes. Such a condition requires a direct contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 formulaic structures. Through such analysis it is accepted that L1 acquisition of formulaic expressions is like that of L2 processing of formulaic expressions and that learningL1 formulaic structures encourages L2 learners to obtain formulaic phrases (Maftoon & Ziafar, 2014). Lexical approach and contrastive analysis have been emphasized in language learning procedure. Formulaic language has already enjoyed emphasis by lexical approach in second language acquisition (SLA). According to Harmer (2001), the lexical approach was first proposed by Willis (1990) and was popularized by Lewis (1993). Harmer insists in the idea of the lexical approach and asserts that "language consists not of traditional grammar and vocabulary but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks" (Lewis, 1997, cited in Harmer, 2001). Lewis further declares that the acquisition of many

31


significant fixed and semi fixed prepared items, as gathered and created from the real life L2 context, enhances fluency. Some researchers have shown the positive role of L1 on learning L2. Ellis (1994) considers L1 knowledge an effective metalinguistic literacy that facilitates learning L2 skills. Cummins (1983, cited in Hui, 2010) proposes a theory called dual iceberg analogy to show the positive relationship between L1 and L2 and their transfer which is in line with Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP). In this model L1 and L2 proficiencies overlap having common sectors , according to this model all aspects of a language such as knowledge and concepts of L1 transfer to L2 (Ziafar & Seyyedrezaei, 2014). The present study involves designing and administrating a test for evaluating one rather unique competence in language instruction. This test may serve as a criterion to accurately measure the language learners’ abilities and may also give support to further investigations and studies with the purpose of attempting to quantifiably measure this new competence. This may open a gateway for other credible studies and researchers in the field of communicative studies. Based on this new test, teachers can also more easily monitor the students' knowledge and capabilities in employing readymade equivalents to serve real life communicative purposes. Learners, according to the findings, can pay more attention to their ability in equalizing chunks and seeking structures and pure equivalents for both L1 and L2 languages. Hopefully, authorities can consider CLC in their research on second language learning and may also provide them with a better understanding of the mechanism at play in the course of learning a second language. It can also help researchers to eliminate the errors in the introduction of pure materials for measuring communicative competence in assessing and testing language skills. This test causes learners focus on the importance of using chunks pragmatically. Not only do learners have to focus on what to say or what is being said, they also have to focus on how to say it or how it is being said. Research Questions This study aims to investigate the following questions: 1. Does EFL learners' CLC test scores predict their pragmatic test scores? 2. Does EFL learners' CLC test scores predict their general proficiency test scores? 3. Does the CLC test have internal consistency? 4. Does the CLC test represent a construct? Research Null Hypotheses The present study proposes the following null hypotheses based on the above research questions: H01: Iranian EFL learners' CLC test does not explain a significant degree of variance in their pragmatic test scores. H02: Iranian EFL learners' CLC test does not explain a significant degree of variance in their general proficiency test scores. H03: CLC test items do not reveal significant go-togetherness. H04: CLC test does not represent an independent construct. Methodology Design of the Study This study is comprised of two major stages. First, the test was piloted by 10 experienced teachers and EFL learners to come up with the best items to be included in the test. The second stage involved further validity and reliability analysis to render the final version of the CLC test. Pilot Study Prior to the main study, a pilot study was performed to determine the reliability and validity of CLC Test which was administered as a new test construct to the learners. The first step of piloting was considering the face validity of the test administered for the purpose of the study. To this end, the test was given to 10 experienced teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) with more than 5 years of teaching 32


experience at university and private language institutes. All these teachers had Ph.D. degrees. They were asked to specify their responses on questions which were continually developed until a set of approximately 50 items were achieved. Therefore those items which were regarded to be unclear or ambiguous were either dropped or revised. This piloting stage resulted in a refined version of the test which included 30 items. Next stage of piloting was determining the difficulty and discrimination value of the test. In order to ensure such important test traits, a group of 10 male and female EFL learners who were at intermediate and upper-intermediate language proficiency levels were selected to take part in the pilot study. The results of item analysis indicated how item facility works on each item of the test, it simply shows how easy or difficult the particular item proved to be in the final test. Based on their answers, the learners divided to two groups (upper and lower students) consequently the item discrimination was analyzed which tells us whether those students who performed well on the whole test tended to do well or badly on each item in the test. As Heaton (2000) mentions: "Discrimination indices can range from +1 (= an item which discriminates perfectly – i.e. it shows perfect correlation with the testees' results on the whole test) through 0 (=an item which discriminate in any way at all) to -1 (= an item which discriminates in entirely the wrong answer)" (P. 180). Therefore, these items were modified based on the participants' answers as well as the reviewers' ideas. After considering the results of the piloting the researcher decided to keep 28 items to be incorporated in the CLC test to undergo further scrutiny in the major stage of the study. Main Study As mentioned earlier, the researcher managed to obtain 28 items to be included in the CLC test. What follows is a rather detailed explanation of the second phase of the CLC test development process. Participants The present study was conducted on 130 participants of both genders with the age range of 18 to 35, who were selected from Iranian EFL learners. All of them had been studying English for two or three years in different institutes and were attending intermediate and advanced level classes. Before administering the tests, the participants were provided with required information about the structure of the exams and were briefed about the way they could answer the CLC test items. Instruments Several different testing instruments were utilized in the process of the development of the present research. To conduct the main study, Oxford Quick Placement test then Pragmatic test and CLC (Appendix A)test were employed to further understanding about the CLC test features. Three measurement instruments were thus provided as follows: The first was the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) which is a proficiency test to measure the general English language ability of the EFL students and was used to ascertain the proficiency level of the participants. This test was different from most other placement tests. Not only does it test grammar and vocabulary, it also tests how learners use that knowledge in order to understand meaning in communication, helping students to practice using English naturally and confidently in preparation for real-world situation. OPT gives instructors a dependable and effective method for placing students in different classes at the beginning of a language course. The test results can be adjusted against the levels framework given by the regular European structure of reference for languages. The test is partitioned into principle areas (listening test and Grammar test), each of which comprising of 100 items. The 100 items in the listening part are derived from a corpus of several hundred examples that have been recorded over a number of years in conversations involving native and nonnative speakers of English. It incorporates an interesting listening test which can be practiced by English learners of any level. The Grammar Test section is a written multiple-choice test of grammatical and 33


lexical items. The given time to answer the questions is 10 minutes for Listening Test and the candidates are supposed to tick the correct box. The Grammar Test takes about 50 minutes but advanced users (C1 and above) can complete it in around half an hour. In this test, each correctly answered item was assigned 1 point; otherwise, it was scored as 0. The second instrument was a Pragmatic Test. This second measure used in order to weigh the participants' pragmatic competence was Roever's (2006) pragmatic test. This test is optimally representative of the major components of one's pragmatic competence incorporating routines, implicatures and speech acts. Roever believes that the three components of his test are mutually related since all of them hinge on pragmatic input and learners’ ability in appreciating the manner in which pragmatic language functions. In Roever’s pragmatic test, there are twelve multiple-choice items measuring implicature knowledge: four items on formulaic implicature and eight items on idiosyncratic implicature knowledge. The second section measures learner’s formulaic competence and is comprised of twelve multiple-choice items. Finally, in the third section Roever has used the twelve MDCT questions with rejoinders which tests language learners’ ability to properly manage three speech acts of request, apology, and refusal. According to Roever, this pragmatic test represents a valid and reliable scale for determining pragmatic competence. Roever further claimed that this test is reliable since it revealed a Cronbach alpha of .82, .73, .89, and .91 for implicatures, routines, speech acts and the total pragmatic test, respectively. The third test employed was CLC test (appendix A). The test was supposed to measure the English language learning CLC competency and includes 14 items of C-test and 14 items of multiplechoice questions that was developed and analyzed for the purpose of the study. All questions were composed of English and Persian chunks. In each multiple-choice test item there is one English chunks in the test stem and four Persian chunk options with one best answer and three other distractors. All the test item contents incorporated in this test were taken from authentic materials including the English textbooks which are being taught in language schools and the ones drawn from popular movies and TV series of interest to the English learners. Procedure The present study included the planning and developing a test in order to prove the existence of a new language proficiency construct named CLC. The test was prepared within a timespan of three months. The items were made through discussing ideas on chunks with specialists in the field of second language learning and teaching. Various factors were taken into consideration and planned in preparing the test. Attempt was made to adjust the test form and content to the experiences of language teachers and learners dealing with LCs. Test items were continually developed and revised until 28 more legitimate items remained out of 50 initial items. Before the main phase of the study, a pilot study was conducted to ensure the face validity of the CLC test with 10 experienced experts.Next, after conducting the test with these 10 piloting participants and analyzing the item difficulty and item discrimination, the test was refined and the final version was administered. In order to avoid the contamination of results with practice effect that may come from the participants of the pilot study. The participants who were selected from above language schools were all female but the ones from private center of IELTS were both male and female. The tests were given to the participants through three stages as follows: Stage 1: the listening part of the OPT test was the first part which was carried out. This part lasted about 10 minutes, then next step was the Grammar part of OPT test which lasted for about half an hour. After collecting the papers, the students got ready to sit for the next test. Stage 2: in this stage, the participants took the pragmatic test. When taking this test which includes three sections, namely implicating, speech act and routine formulas, the students had to study the test very carefully and to comprehend the situations of the question. In this stage the participants’ proficiency in dealing with pragmatic meaning was tested. This part lasted for about half an hour. 34


Stage 3: The last test to be answered by the participants was the CLC test. The participants spent half an hour to answer the test items. The participants were expected to properly choose the best equivalents for English chunks in both the C-test and multiple-choice sections. Data Analysis The data analysis started with checking the item facility and discrimination of 28 CLC test items. After deleting the less promising CLC test items based on comments given by the teachers and item analysis results, the researcher ran scale reliability analyses for the total 28-item test through calculating Cronbach's alpha to find the internal consistency of the CLC test. Descriptive statistics and normality of distribution of the whole sample were investigated through SPSS software version 21. Exploratory factor analysis, with test items as variables, was carried out in order to discover the subcomponents of the test. The correlation and coefficient of determination were calculated. Correlation tests were conducted in order to find possible significant relationship between Iranian EFL learners' CLC and their both pragmatic and language general competence. Results Results of the Pilot Study In order to valid the provided CLC test, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test took place in March 2016, using the first version of the instruments. It included 50 items which after revising by teacher (see chapter 3, pilot study) 30 items were achieved. The sample provided was made up of a group of 10 students in second part of piloting. The results showed that how item facility works on each item of the test, it examine the percentage of students who correctly answer a given item. Based on their answered the students were divided to two groups. According to Brown (2012) the resulted of this facility can range from 0.00 to 1.00. Consequently the item discrimination was analyzed to indicate the degree to which an item separates the students who performed well from those who did poorly on the test as a whole. After considering these processes the researcher decided to keep 28 items to be incorporated in the CLC test. The Construct of the Test: The Test Components In order to reveal the test construct, the twenty eight items of the CLC test were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA). Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was investigated. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .56, not exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance (Sig = .000), not supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of few coefficients of .3 and above. Since some items revealed low values in the communalities table, the researcher decided that 8 items did not fit well with the other items in their component and decided to remove them from the scale (items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, and 28). For the 20-item scale the PCA procedure was repeated. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was investigated. This time, the Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .65, surpassing the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance (Sig = .000), and this supports the factorability of the correlation matrix. PCA revealed the existence of eight components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 17.38%, 10.55%, 8.5%, 6.57%, 6.01%, 5.48% and 5.06%, and 5.03% of variance, respectively. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a clear break between the third and fourth components. Cattel's (1966) scree test is a graphical representation which reveals the number of components that should be retained. Using Cattell's scree test, it was decided to retain three components for further investigation (Figure 3.1).

35


Figure 3.1 Scree Plot for CLC Test Components The results of parallel analysis obtained through running Monte Carlo PCA software (Table 3.1) further support our decision from the Scree Plot and shows that there are only three components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (20 variables x 130 respondents). The unrelated component matrix also revealed that most items loaded strongly on components 1, 2, and 3. This fact further suggested that a three-factor solution was likely to be more appropriate. What is more, the Pattern Matrix showed ten items (items 21, 26, 25, 22, 23, 17, 20. 27, 7, 15) loading above .3 on component 1, six items (items 13, 14, 11, 9, 12, 10) loading above .4 on component 2, and four items (items 8, 18, 19, 24) loading above .4 on component 3. Other component explanations produced fewer than four items loading strongly on more than three components. Table 3.1 Comparison of Eigenvalues from PCA and Criterion Values from Parallel Analysis Component number Actual eigenvalue Criterion value from Decisions from PCA parallel analysis ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 3.48 1.77 Accept 2

2.11

1.62

Accept

3

1.70

1.51

Accept

4

1.31

1.41

Reject

5

1.20

1.32

Reject

6

1.09

1.24

Reject

7

1.01

1.17

Reject

8 1.00 1.11 Reject ____________________________________________________________________

36


The three-component solution explained a total of 36.43% of the variance, with component 1 contributing 17.38%, component 2 contributing 10.55%, and component 3 contributing 8.5% to the variance. To aid in the interpretation of these three components, oblimin rotation was performed. The rotated solution showed the presence of simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), with three components showing a number of strong loadings, and all variables loading substantially on only one component. There were weak correlations between these three factors (Table 3.2), which shows that the three components are not related, so the assumption underlying the use of Varimax rotation was met.

Table 3.2 Component Correlation ___________________________________________________________________________ Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 ___________________________________________________________________________ Component 1

1

.1

.11

Component 2

.1

1

.02

Matrix

Component 3 .11 .02 1 ___________________________________________________________________________ In order to reveal the components of each construct, the pattern structure matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of three factor solution of pragmatic competence test items was computed. Upon comparing the items included in each component it can be concluded that the items in the first component reveal that this component can be termed contrastive idiomatic competence (CIC), the second component represents a less idiomatic force and may be termed contrastive non-idiomatic competence (CNC) and the third one include chunks that are fairly similar in two languages and can thus be named contrastive equivalency competence (CEC). Separate CLC Factors: Distinction versus Overlap In order to investigate the degree of overlap between the three sections, correlations and coefficients of determination were calculated (Table 3.3). Three sections of the test were moderately correlated. Components 1 and 3 showed the strongest overlap and explained almost one-third of each other’s’ variance. Components 1 and 2 sections showed the weakest overlap and accounted for 1% of each other’s’ variance. This newly-developed test measured the same kind of knowledge to an acceptable degree, when its components evaluated specific unique constructs. Table 3.3 Factors Correlations and Coefficients ___________________________________________________________________________ Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 ___________________________________________________________________________ Component 1 .01 .14 Component 2

.11

.12

Component 3 .38** .35** ___________________________________________________________________________

37


Note: Correlations are presented on the lower left, and the coefficients of determination are indicated on the upper right. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) As can be seen in table 3.3, although the components measure separate variables, they are also moderately correlated. This is ideal for the subcategories of a scale since it further proves that the number of components has been properly selected. Now it can be more assuredly claim that the CLC scale represents three major components. Contrastive Lexical Competence Scale Reliability Based on the results presented in case processing summary table, the number of cases is 130 and this is correct. Although there are some negative values in Inter-Item Correlation Matrix since the Cronbach Alpha value is fairly high (i.e. 0.7), it seems that this scale reveals good internal consistency reliability. The scale reliability for the first component (CIC) was .70. The internal consistency of the second (CNC) and third (CEC) components were .53 and .27 respectively. The low reliability for the last two components can be contributed to the limited number of items in each component. Parametric Assumptions for CLC Scores The assumption of normality was explored for the total CLC scores. The test of normality revealed the normality of the distribution of scores. Although Kolmogorov-Smirov Sig. value was 0.00for CLC scores, Histograms (Figure 3.2), Normal Q-Q plots, and Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots all suggested fairly normal distributions.

Figure 3.2 Histogram for CLC Score The outlying cases posed no serious threat to this study since the 5% Trimmed Mean statistic revealed similar values for ten variables (M = 44.80, 5% Trimmed Mean = 43.84). Thus, all cases were retained in the present study.

38


Figure 3.3 Normal Q - Q Plot of CLC.TOTAL.PERCENT Proficiency Groups and CLC Scores With regard to the relationship between language general proficiency level and CLC, the researcher categorized the participants according to OPT language levels from 0 to 9 (Beginner, False beginner minimal user, Basic extremely limited user, Elementary limited user, Lower intermediate modest user, Upper intermediate competent user, Proficient advanced user, Highly proficient very advanced user, Professional command expert user, and Functionally bilingual). No participants achieved the two highest levels (8 and 9) and only one participant scored as a beginner and was thus categorized as level 1 to allow further statistical analysis. In order to investigate the presence of possible significant statistical difference among general proficiency groups (seven groups), the participants’ total scores for three different test sections and the total CLC were subjected to one-way ANOVA tests. Since the significance value for Levene’s test is higher than .05, the homogeneity of variance assumption has not been violated. As the Sig. value is less than .05 in ANOVA table, there is a significant difference somewhere among the mean scores on the dependent variable (CLC total) for the seven groups.

Figure 3.4 CLC trend according to the participants’ proficiency level 39


A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the difference among seven proficiency groups, as measured by OPT test, with regard to their CLC, as measured by a CLC test developed by the researcher. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in CLC scores for the seven groups: F (6, 123) = 11.16, p = 0.00. The actual difference in mean scores between the groups was quite high. The effect size, calculated using eta squared was .35. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the highly proficient very advanced users (Mean = 92.50, SD = 3.53, N = 2) was significantly higher than the other general proficiency groups (Table3.4). Figure 3.4 also corroborates the ascending trend of the participants’ CLC as their general proficiency increases. Table 3.4 Tukey HSD Groups N Mean SD Mean Difference Significance ________________________________________________________________ 7 1 9 20 8.29 72.50 0.000 2 10 40 13.12 52.50 0.000 3 22 33.40 13.12 59 0.000 4 33 47.12 17.41 45.37 0.002 5 37 50.54 16.94 41.94 0.005 6 17 52.94 13.81 39.56 0.013 ________________________________________________________________ As can be seen in table 3.4, the group with the highest proficiency significantly outperforms the other proficiency groups with regard to CLC scores. The effect size is quite high and this further proves the presence of a significant difference among the seven groups. Mean difference between the highly proficient very advanced users group and the other groups proves to be remarkably high. It can be concluded that those who have higher general English proficiency score higher on CLC test. Pragmatic Groups and CLC Scores The presence of possible significant statistical difference between participants’ CLC total scores between two pragmatic groups (high scorers and low scorers) was also investigated through subjecting their total CLC to independent samples t-test. After sorting the pragmatic scores in a descending manner, the first 62 participants were selected as high scorers and the last 62 participants were considered as low scorers. The rest 6 participants had gained similar scores in the pragmatic test and were thus excluded from t-test statistical analysis. Since the Sig. value for Levene's test was larger than .05 and equaled .53, the first line in the independent samples t-test table i.e. Equal variances assumed were used. There was a significant difference in scores for two pragmatic groups, i.e. low-scorers (M = 36.12, SD = 15.85) and high-scorers (M = 54.43, SD = 16.99); t (122) = 6.20, p = .000, two-tailed. The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference = 18.30, 95% CI: 12.46 to 24.15) was quite high (eta squared = .24). Correlation among CLC, Pragmatic and OPT The relationship among the three variables (CLC, pragmatic competence, and general proficiency) were investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. The results are shown in the following table (Table 3.5).

40


Table 3.5 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient ___________________________________________________________________________ CLC Pragmatic General Competence Proficiency ___________________________________________________________________________ CLC .34 .28 Pragmatic Competence

.59**

.51

General Proficiency .53** .72** ___________________________________________________________________________ Note: Correlations are presented on the lower left, and the coefficients of determination are indicated on the upper right. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) As represented in table 3.5 the three variables are quite related and can explain a remarkable level of each other’s variance. As expected general proficiency scores and pragmatic competence reveal the highest correlation. Since the correlation between CLC and the other two variables is less certain, the researcher decided to perform partial correlations to further investigate the degree of the independence of CLC from the other two variables. Partial Correlations In order to further investigate the strength of the relationship between CLC and the other two variables i.e. English general proficiency and pragmatic competence partial correlations were performed to remove the influence of these two confounding variables. First, a partial correlation was used to explore the relationship between CLC and pragmatic competence while controlling for scores on general proficiency (OPT scores). There was a moderate positive partial correlation between CLC and pragmatic competence, controlling for OPT scores, r = .35, n = 130, p< .001, with high levels of CLC being associated with higher levels of pragmatic competence. An inspection of zero correlation (r = .59) suggested that controlling for general proficiency has fairly lowered the strength of the relationship of these two variables. Next, a partial correlation was used to explore the relationship between CLC and general language proficiency while controlling for scores on general pragmatic scores. There was a fairly weak positive partial correlation between CLC and general proficiency scores, controlling for pragmatic scores, r = .2, n = 130, p< .05. An inspection of zero correlation (r = .54) suggested that controlling for pragmatic competence has remarkably lowered the strength of the relationship these two variables. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion As was stated earlier, this study intended to present answers to the questions raised in this study based on doing statistical analysis of scores obtained from three language related tests. Here, the research questions are presented and answered separately as follows: RQ1: Does EFL learners' CLC test scores predict their pragmatic test scores? Based on the results, there is a moderate correlation between CLC and pragmatic competence. These two constructs explain 34% of each other’s’ variables. In addition, pragmatic high-scorers did significantly better in CLC test. These results can be takes as the proof that the first null hypothesis, i.e., Iranian EFL learners' CLC test does not explain a significant degree of variance in their pragmatic test scores is rejected.In other words, the two constructs are significantly correlated and show construct commonalities. 41


This is a further evidence for the existence of CLC as an independent construct which meaningfully go with another major construct of communicative competence, i.e. pragmatic competence. This is quite in line with the contentions of Ghaemi and Ziafar (2011) who propose contrastive lexical pragmatics as a further emphasis on the pragmatic nature of L1-L2 lexical equivalents as the major components of CLC. The findings are also in keeping with the idea that translation and contrastive practices enhance language learners’ pragmatic competence. For example, House (2008) corroborates a pragmatic discourse perspective on translation and supports the positive role of translation in language learners' pragmatic competence. Lewis's (1993) contention that collocations and institutionalized expression, as forms of LC, ease the conveyance of pragmatic meaning can be taken as an additional evidence for the legitimacy of the findings of the current study. It is no wonder why Kecskes (2000) puts so much emphasis on the pragmatic role of LCs through introducing situation bound utterances. Earlier Coulmas (1981) has also posited that LCs are the most crucial aspect of native speakers’ pragmatic competence. What is more, all the results are in line with the studies which approve of teachability of pragmatic competence (cf. Bagheri&Hamrang, 2013; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Olshtain& Cohen, 1990; Rose, 2005; House, 1996). In other words, is teachable because learners have the chance to grasp pragmatic meaning through lexical comparisons between two languages. RQ2: Does EFL learners' CLC test scores predict their general proficiency test scores? In order to answer the second research question, the researcher resorts to the correlation and one-way ANOVA tests. Results show that there is a fair correlation between CLC and language general proficiency. Further, the two constructs account for 28 percent of each other’s variance. In addition, according to the results, the highest proficiency group outperformed the other groups in CLC. Putting these together, it can be concluded that the second null hypothesis that: Iranian EFL learners' CLC test does not explain a significant degree of variance in their general proficiency test scores, is rejected. In other words, while learners’ CLC is remarkable related to language learners’ general proficiency it represents an independent construct that has linguistic affiliations. This is quite in line with studies that endorse the role of translation and first language in target language proficiency. Considering the role of formulaicity, it is reasonable to expect a moderate overlap between CLC and language proficiency. Erman and Warren (2000) for example put remarkable emphasis on the role of LCs in native-like language use. These results seem to justify Kim's (2011) findings that the reasonable use of L1 by language learners can be considerably advantageous, especially for low proficiency learners. This is also compatible with Stern's (1992) belief that “the use of L1 and target language should be seen as complementary, depending on the characteristics and stages of the language learning process” (p. 285). As another corroborating evidence Perkins (1985) posited that advanced language learners always deal with contrastive L1-L2 equivalences at syntactic, semantic, and stylistic levels and that this is the reason why they can advance their proficiency in L2. There are also findings that reveal the effective role of LCs in promoting general language proficiency. For example, Zhao and Dong’s (2009) study indicates that there is a positive correlation between the accuracy of language production and the number of LCs used. As a more detailed contention Laufer and Girsai (2008) claim that: "The pervasive influence that L1 has on the learner lexis and the persistence of L1-based errors at advanced levels of learning suggest that contrastive form-focused instruction, which raises the learners’ awareness of the L1–L2 differences and provides practice in the areas of these differences, may prove more effective than teaching methods that ignore the cross linguistic influence on lexical learning." (p. 700) All in all, it can be claimed that CLC represents a language-related construct that shares a lot with both language proficiency and pragmatic competence. What remains to be answered is whether CLC test 42


designed in this study enjoys internal consistency and reveals components to add to its validity and credibility. These issues are discussed in the following sections. RQ3. Does the CLC Test have internal consistency? Reliability is a must to ensure test validity. Based on the results obtained the CLC scale shows to have internal consistency. As shown in item-total statistics, the deletion of no item would significantly increase the reliability of the scale, so all the items were preserved in the CLC scale. Inter items correlations also shows to be moderately high which further proves the go-togetherness of CLC items. Generally, it can be claimed that the test shows to be a reliably scale for measuring CLC. RQ4. Does the CLC Test represent a construct? The results of the principal components analysis revealed the existence of three CLC components which were termed CIC, CNC, and CEC with each component revealing high reliability. Since this is the first attempt to reveal the existence of CLC and validate the pertained test no similar other studies can be cited that add more credibility to the findings regarding CLC test construction and validation. Bearing on the PCA, correlation, reliability, t-test and one-way ANOVA results it can be fairly persuasively argued that there is one construct termed CLC that showed fairly high correlation with both pragmatic and general language proficiency constructs and is one independent construct per se. The interesting point is that controlling for either pragmatic or general proficiency variables lowered the correlation between them and CLC. This further supports the idea that CLC produce variance that cannot be fully explained by other constructs. All this amounts to the credibility of the assumption that CLC exists and accounts for one construct that has been neglected and ignored in all models that incorporate components of communicative competence.

Conclusion This study was an exploration of the construct validity of CLC test. Findings suggest the existence of a unique construct that can be measured through providing L1 alternative equivalents for L2 LCs and the other way round. It can be claimed that EFL learners’ knowledge about LCs and their capability to properly translate formulaic language occupies a significant position in their communicative competence. Major language proficiency tests have ignored the presence of such remarkable trend altogether to the advantage of other components of communicative competence and have failed to properly address this indispensable trait of all foreign language learners. Validity represents the most important concern in test evaluation. The concept is about the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the inferences we make based on the test scores. On the other hand, test validation is the process of accumulating evidence to support such inferences . As the interpretations we make about test results and the consequences of the decisions we make based on the test scores are also part of test validity; thus the idea of consequential validity as proposed by Messick (1989), it seems that a CLC test better reveals one’s ability to properly function and consequentially promotes the validity of language tests. CLC test may be considered as an alternative to other rather comprehensive language tests which can give language learners with any level of target language proficiency validly measure their ability to function properly in a target language according to their knowledge about the realization of functional language in a target language in comparison with that of their own. From this point of view, in order to show your ability in a target language, you will need to be persuasive enough in opting for proper structures which will enable you adeptly convey messages and get things done the way you expect. The point is in validating a test, “the inferences regarding specific uses of a test are validated, not the test itself”. From this perspective CLC is valid in that it provides a more vivid picture of EFL learners’ communicative competence owing to its direct drawing on the learners’ already instilled L1 competency which can be taken as a yardstick to fathom learners’ ability in putting proper language into effective use the way they do in their own language. 43


Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman,L. & Palmer, A. (1982). The Construct Validation of Some Components of Communicative Proficiency TESOL Quarterly .Vol. 16, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp. 449-465 Bagheri, M., &Hamrang, A. (2013). The effect of metapragmatic instruction on the interpretation and use of apology speech acts of English as a foreign language learner (EFL) at intermediate level. International Journal of Society, Science & Education, 3(4), 964-975. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296-298. Brown, J. D. (2001). Six types of pragmatics tests in two different contexts. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 301-325). New York: Cambridge University Press. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89. doi:10.1093/applin/amm022 Cook, V.J. (2003). Effect of the Second Language on the First, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Coulmas, F. (1981). Introduction: Conversational routine. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Exploration in standardized communication situations and pre-patterned Speech (pp. 1-17). The Hague: Mouton. Cronbach, L. J. (1984) Essentials of Psychological Testing. Fourth Edition. New York: Harper and Row. Danchev, A. (1982). The controversy over translation in foreign language teaching. In R. T. Bell (Ed.), The role of translation in foreign language teaching (35-56).Paris: Diffusion Didier Erudition. Daves, A. &Spolsky, B. (2002). Dictionary of language Testing. Beijing: foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press. Dulay, H. S., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). MA, US: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Ellis, N. C. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and secondLanguage speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 375-396. Ellis,R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: oxford University Press. Erman, B. (2009). Formulaic language from a learner perspective. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 324-344). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1). 29-62. Gass, S. M., &Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ghaemi, F., &Ziafar, M. (2011). Contrastive lexical pragmatics as an effective strategy in teaching pragmatics: A review article. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 598-604. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. 3rd edn. Essex, England: Longman. Harwood, N. (2008). Taking a lexical approach to teaching: Principles and problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 139-155. doi:10.1111/1473-4192.00028. Heaton, J.B. (2000). Writing English Language Tests New Edition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press. 44


House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (2), 225–252. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014893 House, J. (2008). Using translation to improve pragmatic competence. In E. A. Soler& A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 135-153). New York: Multilingua Matters. Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for Language Teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press. Hui, Y. (2010). The role of L1 transfer on L2 and pedagogical implications. Canadian Social Science. 6(3): 97-103. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415. Kecskes, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(5), 605-625. Doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6 Kern, K. (1982). Developing a test of communicative competence for English as a second language students at the college level. Dissertations and Theses.Paper 694. Kim, E. (2011). Using translation exercises in the communicative EFL writing classroom. ELT Journal, 65(2), 154-160. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq039 Laufer, B., &Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics 29(4), 694-716. doi:10.1093/applin/amn018 Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publication. Li, W. (2011). Validity Considerations in Designing an Oral Test. Jornal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 267-269. Liddicoat, A., Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maftoon, P. &Ziafar, M. (2014). A contrastive Lexical Approach to Second Language Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Related Techniques. TESOL Journal 5(1). Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H.Wainer, & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp.33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan. Miller, N. (2010). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistic, 1-21. Nation, P. (2001). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language learning. Asian EFL Journal. Nekrasova, T. M. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59(3), 647-686. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00520. Olshtain, E., Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45-65. Perera, NS. (2001). the role of prefabricated language in young children's second language acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal. 25(3): 327-356. Perkins, C. (1985). Sensitizing advanced learners to problems of L1-L2 translation. In C. Titford& A.E. Hiehe (Eds.), Translation in foreign language teaching and testing (pp. 51-72). Tubingen, Germany: Narr Roever, C. (2001). Web –based language testing. Language learning and technology, 5(2), 84-94. Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229-255. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt329oa Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399. Doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003 Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 45


Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD. Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1–15. Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20(1), 1-28. Doi: 10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4 Zhao, C. & Dong, Y. (2009). The resolution of English lexical ambiguity by Chinese learners in sentential contexts. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 41, 170-178. Ziafar, M., &Khatib, M. (2012). Contrastive lexical approach and teaching second language literature: Translexemes facilitate translation and language teaching. International Journal of English and Education, 1(2), 17-30. Ziafar, M. &Seyyedrezaei, H. (2014). The Influence of Contrastive Lexical Approach on EFL/ESL Learners' Willingness to Communicate. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics. 2(1), 12-20.

46

‫‪International Journal of Research in Linguistics, Language Teaching and Testing‬‬ ‫‪Available online at http://ijrlltt.com.Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2017, pp.29- 49‬‬ ‫‪ISSN: 2367-9336‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX A: Contrastive Lexical Competence Test‬‬ ‫‪Part 1‬‬ ‫‪Questions 1-14‬‬ ‫‪Choose the best equivalent (1, 2, 3 or 4) for the followings .‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫!"‪"Let's call it a day‬‬ ‫ی‬ ‫‪ . 1‬اهشّص سا سّص تٌام م‬ ‫ی‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬یک سّص تا ُن تواط تگیس م‬ ‫ی‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬سّص خْبی داؽتَ تاػد‬ ‫‪ . 4‬کاس دیگَ تغَ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫!"‪" . 2I hate your gust‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬هي اص تْ هتٌفشم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬اص غزاخْسدى تْ هتٌفشم‪.‬‬ ‫‪. 3‬اص ایى اخاللت خْؽن ًنیاد‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬اص علیلَ تْ خْؽن ًنیاد‪.‬‬ ‫……………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 3My word is highway".‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬حشف هي تضسگاًَ اعت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ُ . 2‬وَ سّی فحثت ُای هي توشکض م ی کٌٌذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬عخي هي خیلی هعيی داس اعت ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬حشف حشف هٌَ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫"‪". 4He speaks very highly of you‬‬ ‫‪. 1‬اّ خیلی عش تْ فشیاد م ی صًذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬اّ خیلی اص تْ تعشیف م ی کٌذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬اّ خیلی دستاسٍ تْ حشف می صًذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬اّ تا ؽوا تلٌذ فحثت می کٌذ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 5She was on board with it".‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬اّ تا آى هؾکلی ًذاؽت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬اّ تا آى خیلی تاتلْ تْد‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬اّ تا آى ُوشاٍ ی م ی کشد‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬اّ جضء ٍ یئت هذیسٍ تْد‪.‬‬ ‫…‪…………………………………………………………………………………………..‬‬ ‫"‪". 6You're really coming along‬‬ ‫یی‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬ؽوا ّالعا می آ د‬ ‫‪ . 2‬ؽوا خیلی پیؽشفت کشدٍ ای‪.‬‬ ‫ی‪.‬‬ ‫ی خْد هقون ُغتد‬ ‫‪ . 3‬ؽوا دس تقن م‬ ‫ی‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬ؽوا ها سا ُوشاٍ ی م ی کيد‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫"‪". 7He bursts your bubble‬‬ ‫ی ًن ی دُذ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬اّ تَ ؽوا ام د‬ ‫‪ . 2‬اّ ؽوا سا می تشعاًذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬اّ تْ رّق ؽوا می صًذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬اّ چشاغِای ؽوا سا می تشکاًذ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 8I'm swing by your office".‬‬ ‫ی‪..‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬هي تا عجلَ تَ دفتش ؽوا می آ م‬ ‫‪47‬‬

‫‪International Journal of Research in Linguistics, Language Teaching and Testing‬‬ ‫‪Available online at http://ijrlltt.com.Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2017, pp.29- 49‬‬ ‫‪ISSN: 2367-9336‬‬

‫‪ . 2‬هي اص دفتش ؽوا خاسج ؽذم‪.‬‬ ‫ی عش م یام دفتش ؽوا‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬هي ٍ‬ ‫‪ . 4‬هي دس دفتش ؽوا هشدد ُغتن ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫"‪". 9Money's off the table‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬پْل سا اص سّی م یص تشداؽت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬پْلی دس کاس ىیعت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬ایى م یص سایگاى اعت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬پْل سّی م یص ىیعت‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 10 She can't get enough of them".‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬اص آًِا طیس ًن یؽَ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬تَ حذ کفایت اص آًِا ًذاسد‪.‬‬ ‫ی اص آًِا ّجْد ًذاسد‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬اًذاصٍ کاف‬ ‫‪ . 4‬اص آًِا خغتَ می ؽْد‪.‬‬ ‫‪................................................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪". 11 She likes to spend money just for the sake of it".‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬اّ دّعت داسٍ ُنیًجْس الکی پْل خشج کٌَ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬اّ دّعت داسٍ پْلؼ سّ فمط دس اى هغاصٍ خشج کٌذ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬تَ دلیل ؽخـی دّعت داسٍ پْل خشج کٌَ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬فمط تشای اّى دّعت داسٍ پْل خشج کٌَ‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 12 I don’t have any chemistry with you anymore".‬‬ ‫یی ًذاسم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬هي دیگَ تا تْ کالط ػم‬ ‫ی‪.‬‬ ‫یی ها توام ؽذ‪.‬دیگَ کالط ًذاس م‬ ‫‪ . 2‬دسط ػم‬ ‫‪ . 3‬هي دیگَ ٍ یچ حظی تَ تْ ًذاسم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬هي دیگَ تا تْ ساصی ًذاسم‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫‪". 13 Deep down, I like swimming".‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬هي دّعت داسم دس عوك صیاد ؽٌا کٌن‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬تشعکظ هي ؽٌا کشدى سا دّعت داسم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬اص اعواق ّجْدم ؽٌا کشدى سّ دّعت داسم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬غْاؿی سا دّعت داسم‪.‬‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬ ‫"‪". 14 the baby can't even sit up yet, let alone walk‬‬ ‫‪ . 1‬تچَ ٌُْص ًن یتًَْ تؼیًَ چَ تشعَ ساٍ تشٍ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 2‬ایى تچَ تَ تٌِایی ًن یتًَْ ساٍ تشٍ ای تؼیًَ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬تچَ ًن یتًَْ حتی تؼیًَ اجاصٍ تذٍ تٌِا ساٍ تشم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 4‬تچَ ٌُْص ًن یتًَْ ساٍ تشٍ ای تؼیًَ ‪ ،‬تاُاػ توشیى کي‪.‬‬ ‫‪Part 2‬‬ ‫‪Questions 1-14‬‬ ‫‪According to the meaning complete each item with correct letters.‬‬ ‫_ _!"‪" . 1Gi_ _ me a sh‬‬ ‫ی فشفت تِن تذٍ !‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫………………………………………………………………………………………………‬

‫‪48‬‬


" . 2My phone is go_ _ _ de"! _ _ !َ‫ی داسٍ توْم میؽ‬ ‫ؽاسژ گْػم‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… " . 3I had a math exam and I b _ _ _ it". . ‫اهتحاى سیاكی داؽتن ّ خشاتؼ کشدم‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… " . 4I have a connection in this company. He can pu _ _ str _ _ _ _ for you". . ‫ی تاصی کٌذ‬ ‫ اّ می تْاًذ تشای ؽوا پاست‬.‫هي دس ایى ؽشکت ساتطَ داسم‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 5I have a sweet t" _ _ _ _ .‫هي عؾك ػیسیىی ام‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 6He didn’t sl _ _ _ a w _ _ _ last night. He has fallen in love". .‫ اّ عاؽك ؽذٍ اعت‬.َ‫اّ ؽة گزؽتَ چؾن سّی ُن ًزاؽت‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 7I have a grudge against you because you hu _ _ myfe ". _ _ _ _ _ _ .‫هي تَ ؽوا ٍ یچ عاللَ ای ًذاسم صیسا للة هشا ؽکغتَ ای‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 8I fired her because she had sti _ _ _ fi". _ _ _ _ _ .‫هي اّ سا اخشاج کشدم صیسا اّ دعتؼ کج تْد‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… " . 9It costs an a _ _ and a l". _ _ .‫ایى گشّى توْم میؽَ تشات‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… " . 10 What is the oc _ _ _ _ _ _ of this celebration"? ‫هٌاعثت ایى هِواىی چیعت ؟‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 11 To the be _ _ of my kno _ _ _ _ _ _ he is an old timer". .‫تا جایی کَ هي میداًن اّ یک کٌَِ کاس اعت‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… . 12 A:" I feel like going for a walk . B: ok, but take an umbrella, just in c". _ _ _ .‫یاد‬ ‫ هثادا تاسّى ب‬. ‫یاس‬ ‫ تاؽَ ّلی چتشی ُوشاٍ خْد ب‬.‫دّعت داسم لذم تضًن‬ ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 13 A: Isn’t your car too small ? B: We are only 3 people. It ser _ _ _ ourpur _ _ _ _ perfectly". ‫هاػیى ؽوا خیلی کْچک ىیعت؟‬.ٌَ‫ تشای ها کفایت م ی ک‬.‫ی‬ ‫ها فمط عَ ًفش ُغتم‬……………………………………………………………………………………………… ". 14 Wow! Hey dude! Look at Kate. She's dre _ _ _ _ toki_ _ tonight". .ٍ‫یپی صد‬ ‫ اهؾة چَ ت‬. ‫یق! کیت سّ ىیگا‬ ‫ ٍ ی سف‬.ّ‫ّا‬ ………………………………………………………………………………………………

49