1.4. Research Question of thestudy…………………………………………………………….…6 1.5. Hypothesis of the study………………………………………………………………..……..7 1.6. Definitions of Key Terms………………………………………………………………….…7 1.7. Summary……………………………………………………………………………….……..7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIW 2.0. Semantics…………………………………………………………………………….…….…9 2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…..….….24 2.2. Trends in lexicology………………………………………………………………..…..……28 2.3. Vocabulary knowledge in L2………………………………………………………………..33 2.4. Experiments on vocabulary issues……………………………………………………..….…39 2.5. Experiments on English cognate words………………………………………………….….42 2.6. Experiments on Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of English vocabulary………………..…47 2.7. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………..…52 CHAPTER3: METHODOLOGY 3.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……57 3.1. The design of the study………………………………………………………….………..…57 3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………………..……..….59 3.3. Materials………………………………………………………………………………….…60 3.4. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………60 3.5. Methods of Analyzing Data…………………………………………………………………60 3.6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………..………61 CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS 4.0)Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….…62 4.1) Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………….………..62 4.3) Inferential Statistics…………………………………………………………………..….…..64 4) Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….69 CHAPTER5: DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….70 5.1. General Discussion………………………………………………………………………….70 5.2. Implications of the study………………………………………………………….………….71 5.3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………….………..71 5.4. Suggestions for further Research…………………………………………………………….72 REFRENCES …………………………………………………………..…………………..…..73 LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………….76 List of Tables Title Page Table (4.1) .Descriptive statistics for the proficiency test………………….……………………..63 Table (4.2) . Number of students participated in pre-test and post-test case………………….….63 Table (4.3) .Descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post-test………………………………..….64 Table (4.4) Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances…………………………….……………66 Table (4.5) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects …………………………………………………..66 Table (4.6) Mean and corrected Mean of lexical knowledge ……………………..……….….…67 Table (4.7) Sum of Analysis of covariance ………………………………………………………68 List of Graphs Title Page Graph (4.1) Lexical knowledge in control and experimental group from pre-test to post-test ………………………………………………………………………………………….….………65 Graph (4.2) Means of post-test of experimental and control group………………………69 Abstract This study aimed at investigatingThe Effect of bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English) on Iranian upper intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of Lexical development. For this purpose,100subjects participated in this studyout of which 40 learners were selected for this study and they were assigned into two groups, control and experimental. Cross-language cognates (words with similar form and meaning in different languages) are of special interest for designing a model in TEFL, since they help teacher make the teaching of English vocabularies a joyful and lasting effect for Persian students. True cognates are the result of kinship relations across languages, or borrowings. False and true cognates might be found in nearly all languages with any kind of relation to other languages. There are still some “real” cognates found in the lexicon of Persian and English. Then the datawas analyzed statistically through ANCOVA. The results of the study showed that the learners’ lexical knowledge was improved when they are presented with bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English). 1.4. Research Question of thestudy…………………………………………………………….…6 1.5. Hypothesis of the study………………………………………………………………..……..7 1.6. Definitions of Key Terms………………………………………………………………….…7 1.7. Summary……………………………………………………………………………….……..7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIW 2.0. Semantics…………………………………………………………………………….…….…9 2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…..….….24 2.2. Trends in lexicology………………………………………………………………..…..……28 2.3. Vocabulary knowledge in L2………………………………………………………………..33 2.4. Experiments on vocabulary issues……………………………………………………..….…39 2.5. Experiments on English cognate words………………………………………………….….42 2.6. Experiments on Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of English vocabulary………………..…47 2.7. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………..…52 CHAPTER3: METHODOLOGY 3.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……57 3.1. The design of the study………………………………………………………….………..…57 3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………………..……..….59 3.3. Materials………………………………………………………………………………….…60 3.4. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………60 3.5. Methods of Analyzing Data…………………………………………………………………60 3.6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………..………61 CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS 4.0)Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….…62 4.1) Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………….………..62 4.3) Inferential Statistics…………………………………………………………………..….…..64 4) Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….69 CHAPTER5: DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….70 5.1. General Discussion………………………………………………………………………….70 5.2. Implications of the study………………………………………………………….………….71 5.3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………….………..71 5.4. Suggestions for further Research…………………………………………………………….72 REFRENCES …………………………………………………………..…………………..…..73 LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………….76 List of Tables Title Page Table (4.1) .Descriptive statistics for the proficiency test………………….……………………..63 Table (4.2) . Number of students participated in pre-test and post-test case………………….….63 Table (4.3) .Descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post-test………………………………..….64 Table (4.4) Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances…………………………….……………66 Table (4.5) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects …………………………………………………..66 Table (4.6) Mean and corrected Mean of lexical knowledge ……………………..……….….…67 Table (4.7) Sum of Analysis of covariance ………………………………………………………68 این مطلب را هم بخوانید : این مطلب را هم بخوانید : List of Graphs Title Page Graph (4.1) Lexical knowledge in control and experimental group from pre-test to post-test ………………………………………………………………………………………….….………65 Graph (4.2) Means of post-test of experimental and control group………………………69 Abstract This study aimed at investigatingThe Effect of bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English) on Iranian upper intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of Lexical development. For this purpose,100subjects participated in this studyout of which 40 learners were selected for this study and they were assigned into two groups, control and experimental. Cross-language cognates (words with similar form and meaning in different languages) are of special interest for designing a model in TEFL, since they help teacher make the teaching of English vocabularies a joyful and lasting effect for Persian students. True cognates are the result of kinship relations across languages, or borrowings. False and true cognates might be found in nearly all languages with any kind of relation to other languages. There are still some “real” cognates found in the lexicon of Persian and English. Then the datawas analyzed statistically through ANCOVA. The results of the study showed that the learners’ lexical knowledge was improved when they are presented with bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English). The conclusions of this study will provide new insights into the linguistic and the communication problems derived from a misuse of these lexical items. The study of false friends and true Cognates has several implications for contrastive analysts, error analysts, translators, foreign language teachers and learners, curriculum designers, as well as lexicographers and lexicologists. Key words: cognate word, EFL students, Lexical development The conclusions of this study will provide new insights into the linguistic and the communication problems derived from a misuse of these lexical items. The study of false friends and true Cognates has several implications for contrastive analysts, error analysts, translators, foreign language teachers and learners, curriculum designers, as well as lexicographers and lexicologists. Key words: cognate word, EFL students, Lexical development