An Investigation on the Relationship between the Grammatical Competence of Young Iranian English Translation Students and their Ability to Translate from English to Farsi

Subject Areas : Sociological Studies of Youth

Sahar Khavari ¹ , Mehrshad Ahamadian ²

1 - Department of TEFL, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2 - Department of TEFL, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran

Received: 2018-03-05 Accepted : 2018-03-05 Published : 2018-03-01

Keywords:

References:

1. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics 1(l), 1-47.


2. Crystal, D. (2004). Rediscover grammar (3^rd ed.). London: Pearson Longman.


3. Doff, A. (1988). Teach English: A training course for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


4. Fitiria, N. (2012). The relationship between students' grammatical ability and students' translating skill from English into Bahasa Indonesia (Unpublished thesis). University of Jakarata.


5. Hedge, T. (2006). Teaching and learning the language classrooms. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.


6. Krishnaswamy, N. & Sriraman, T. (1995). English teaching in India: Past present and future. In R.K. Agnihotri & A.L. Khanna (Eds.). English Language Teaching in India (pp. 31-57). New Delhi: Sage Publications.


7. Lanham, R. (1974). An anti-textbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.


8. Miller, C. A. (2004). False belief and sentence complement performance in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39 ( 2 ), 191–213.


9. Mojabi, S.S. (2014). Correlation between grammatical competence and pragmatic competence among Iranian university EFL learners. Applied Linguist, 1-19.

10. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: theories and application. London: Routledge.

11. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

12. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

13. Nassaji, H. & Fotos , S. (2011).Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.

14. Nassaji, H.,& Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.

15. Newmark, P. (1988). A text book of translation. New York : Prentice Hall.

16. Nida, E.A. (1976). A framework for the analysis and evaluation of theories of translation. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 47- 91). New York: Gardner Press.

17. PACTE (2005). Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues, Meta, 50 (2), 609-618.

18. Richards, J.& Renandya, W.(2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

19. Rose, K.R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

20. Sakurai, N. (2015).The influence of translation on reading amount, proficiency, and speed in extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language. 27(1), 96-112.

21. Timmis, I. (2012). Spoken language research and ELT: Where are we now? ELT Journal, 66(4), 514-522.

22. Venuti, L. (1995).The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.