Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7 , Issue 9, 2020

CONTRASTIVE PHONOLOGY OF PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PERSIAN AND ENGLISH

FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES

Akbar Solati *

North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran

E-mail: great1351sowlati@gmail.com
*Corresponding Author E-mail: great1351sowlati@gmail.com

Received: 23.03.2020 Revised: 20.04.2020 Accepted: 24.05.2020

Abstract
The present study aims to compare and contrast the phonological systems of Persian and English for pedagogical purposes. The consonants
and vowels of the two languages are described, compared and contrasted to provide information about the facts of the phonological systems
of English, to find the similarities and differences between the two systems and henceforth the potential areas of difficulty in teaching
English to Persian learners of English. This study attempts to help teachers and textbook writers to anticipate the phonological problems
that Persian students of English are likely to face while producing utterances in English. It also attempts to help Persian learners to improve
their English pronunciation and spelling.

Keywords: Phonological system, Contrastive phonology, Persian learner, Pedagogical purpose.

© 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.166

INTRODUCTION easy and difficult items of second language learners. Therefore, a

Almost all phonologists agree that phonology is phenomenon
different from phonetics, looking at the latter as a field involved in
"…describing the speech sounds that occur in the languages of the
world" (Ladefoged, 1975, p.1; cf. Bronstein, 1960). Thus,
phonology is often said to deal with the systems and patterns of
sounds which occur in particular languages. In more recent years,
developments in the field of phonology have led it to a broader
area whereby the descriptions and explanation of the first
language are used to account for those of the second language
pronunciation behavior. The reason is our involvement in two sets
of phonological categories; L1 and L2. Intending to learn the
pronunciation and spelling of a second/foreign language poses
different problems which are not so seriously faced while
acquiring the phonology of a first language.
When we compare two languages, we are doing Contrastive
Analysis (CA). In fact, a set of procedures to compare and contrast
the linguistic systems or subsystems of languages so as to
formulate their similarities and differences is known as CA. Gass
and Selinker (2008, p. 96) defines CA as “a way of comparing
languages in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate
purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not
need to be learned in a second language learning situation”. In
other words, as Mirhassani (2003) states, CA reveals similarities
and differences between languages, describing and predicting
difficulties in foreign language learning and finally developing
materials for language teaching. According to Fallahi (1991, p. 30)
“the application of CA for English programs has to be a matter of
great importance in Iran because the L1 interference is quite
noticeable in an EFL environment”. Krzeszowski (1981, p.33)
states the term contrastive was first introduced in phonological
studies, then extended to cover pedagogical comparative studies.
It is on this level of language i.e. phonology, that CA has shown to
be more efficient. Richards (1971, p. 204) suggests that "studies of
second language acquisition have tended to imply that contrastive
analysis may be most predictive at the level of phonology, and least
predictive at the syntactic level". As a matter of fact, as Bugarski
(1991, p. 73) mentions, "CA, in modern sense of this term, started
out as the comparative study of grammatical and phonological
systems of pairs of languages for pedagogical purposes". That is
why the direction of many studies was mostly led towards
contrasting the phonological systems of any two languages to find
rather new area called "Contrastive Phonology (CP)" was
presented.
This study tries to provide a qualitative analysis of phonological
systems- i.e., consonants and vowels- of Persian and English for
pedagogical purposes. It investigates how much phonological
systems in Persian and English are similar or different and where
is the problematic area in the production of these sound systems
for learners of any of these languages. Pedagogically the results
can be processed to be used in teaching pronunciation, spelling,
material development, and testing.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Based on the CA assumption, the aim of CP is to analyze the
differences between the sound patterns of any two languages,
prepare the land for a systematic error analysis, and tries to
correct the pronunciation problems of a second/foreign language
learner. Yarmohammadi (1995, p. 19) defines CP as ''the process
of comparing and contrasting the phonological systems of
languages to formulate their similarities and differences''. It is in
the area of phonology that as Ringbom (1994:738) claims "the
predictions of CA work best". Richards (1971) also asserts that
"studies of SLA have tended to imply that contrastive analysis may
be most productive at the level of phonology (p.204)". As this study
aims for pedagogical purposes, the definition stated by Eliasson
(1984, p. 7) is succinct "as most commonly understood,
contrastive phonology compares phonological properties of two
languages in order to determine areas in phonological system of
one language which may create learning difficulties for speakers
of the other language". Kohler (1971, p. 83) also provides the same
kind of definition given by Eliasson (1984). Kohler says that "the
aim of contrastive phonology seems to be straight forward and
logical: it is to analyze the differences in sound structure between
languages and thus lay the foundation for a systematic and
illuminating error analysis and correction of pronunciation in
foreign language learning". On the word of Eliasson & Kohler, in a
pedagogical CA, differences between the two systems are
highlighted and similarities are to some degree disregard. As
stated by Yarmohammadi (2002, p. 23-24) a classical CA consists
of four steps: (1) Description; (2) Juxtaposition; (3) comparison
(4) prediction. These steps are relevant for all aspects of language

Journal of critical reviews 893

 CONTRASTIVE PHONOLOGY OF PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PERSIAN AND ENGLISH FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES

structure: namely syntax, lexicon, phonology, pragmatics and
discourse.
As the phonological level is aimed in this study, Gui (1978) has
compared Chinese sound system with English, based on
phonemes, tone, intonation, etc. He (2002) and Wei (2003) did a
comparison on Chinese and English word stress patterns. As
Persian learners of English concerned, Wilson and Wilson (2001)
highlighted the most common pronunciation errors produced by
Persian speakers and asserts that the vowels, consonants and
diphthongs which are not shared in both languages can become
problematic for Persian speakers. Hall (2007) in her study to
investigate "phonological characteristics of Farsi speakers of
English and L1 Australian English speakers’ perceptions of
proficiency" showed that the phonemes and consonant clusters
absent in the Persian sound system and syllable structure make
problem for Persian speakers of English to a varying degree.
Seddighi (2012) examined Iranian EFL pronunciation errors
through L1 transfer. The result revealed that Persian English
language learners confront considerable problems in areas that
are absent in their mother tongue. Navehebrahim (2012)
researched the pronunciation of language learners of English in
Persian background and highlights that “some Iranian learners do
not have a fixed idea of English sound system and unfamiliarity
with the English phonological rules is one of the factors that affects
learners’ errors in pronunciation (p. 524)”. Solati (2013) examined
the nature of Persian learners' spelling errors in learning EFL and
states that “some specific differences between the sound systems
of English and Persian have affected the spelling ability of Persian
learners of English (p. 203)”. Solati (2017) also undertook a
comprehensive analysis of spelling errors of Persian English
language learners and indicated that the number of consonant
errors is much bigger than the number of the vowel errors in
learning English spelling. Moradi & Chen (2018) analyzed the
vowels and consonants in English and Persian, and states that
"dissimilarities are especially important since they may result in
production of deviant sounds by foreign language learners (p.
125)".
In English and Persian with deep orthography, there is an indirect
relationship between spelling and pronunciation and there are so
many irregular and unusual pronunciation patterns. So, spelling
and pronouncing the words is one of the main challenging for the
learners of these languages. Due to the lack of research in this field
on Persian learners of English for pedagogical purpose, this study
is conducted to describe, compare and contrast the sound system
of English and Persian and it also draws the differences and
similarities of the Persian sound system and that of English.
Pedagogically the results can be processed to be used in teaching
pronunciation, material development, and testing.
COMPARISON BETWEEN PERSIAN AND ENGLISH SOUND
SYSTEM
The first step in executing a CA is to provide description of the
aspects of the languages to be compared. Krzeszowski (1990, p.35)
states "no comparison is possible without a prior description of
elements to be compared therefore; all contrastive study must be
founded on independent descriptions of the relevant items of the
languages to be compared. The fundamental demand is that they
should be made within the same theoretical framework". In this
study a descriptive taxonomic framework is used to describe the
sound systems of Persian and English.
Persian and English, though belonging to the same language family
(Indo-European), are very different in alphabet, sound system and
syllable structure. As mentioned before, the Modern Persian
Alphabet is based on Arabic, which is a consonantal system and
contains thirty two letters: twenty three consonants and six
vowels as well as two diphthongs and a total of 29 phonemes
(Samareh 2000; Windfuhr, 1979); whereas, the English alphabet
is based on Latin, which contains twenty-six letters: twenty four
consonants; twelve vowels; eight diphthongs and a total of 44
phonemes (Sousa, 2005). According to Yarmohammadi (2005),
there are three types of relationship between Persian and English
sound system. First, there are sounds common to both languages.
Second, there are sounds existent in English, but not in Persian.
Third, there are sounds existent in Persian, but not in English.
Table 1 illustrates these types of relationship.

Table 1: Types of Relationship between Persian and English Sound System

Types of
English Persian
Relationship
1 + +
2 + −
3 − +

Now, let us have a brief discussion on what these types of relationship offer.
1. Common consonants, vowels and diphthongs in Persian and English: There are twenty-one consonants, five vowels and four diphthongs
common in both Persian and English. In Table 2 and Table 3, each of them has been exemplified.

Table 2: Common consonants in Persian and English sound system

Common English Persian Common English Persian

Consonant Example Example Consonant Example Example

/b/ bag ‫ بام‬/bam/ /v/ visit ‫ ولی‬/vali/

/p/ pen ‫ پد ر‬/pedar/ /s/ see ‫ سالم‬/salam/
/t/ ten ‫ تبر‬/tabar/ /z/ zoo ‫ زمین‬/zamin/

/d/ day ‫ در‬/dar/ /∫/ shop ‫ شب‬/shab/

/k/ car ‫ کمر‬/kamar/ /ʒ/ measure ‫ ژیان‬/zheyan/

/g/ glass ‫ گل‬/gol/ /h/ he ‫ هفت‬/haft/

/m/ man ‫ مرد‬/mard/ /t∫/ change ‫ چشم‬/cheshm/

Journal of critical reviews 894

 CONTRASTIVE PHONOLOGY OF PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PERSIAN AND ENGLISH FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES

/n/ new ‫ نرم‬/narm/ /dʒ/ join ‫ جهان‬/jahan/

/ŋ/ finger ‫ سنگ‬/sang/ /l/ long ‫ لب‬/lab/
/f/ fat ‫ فارسی‬/Farsi/ /r/ room ‫ رنگ‬/rang/
/j/ yes ‫ یاس‬/yas/ - - -

Table 3: Common vowels and diphthongs in Persian and English sound system

Common English Persian

Vowel Example Example
/æ/ apple ‫ نم‬/nam/
‫دارا‬
/ɑ:/ car
/dara/
/u:/ two ‫ روز‬/ruz/
/ɪ:/ tea ‫ میز‬/miz/
/e/ bed ‫ کتف‬/ketf/
/eɪ/ say ‫ نی‬/ney/
/əʊ/ go ‫ جو‬/jow/
‫خوی‬
/ɔɪ/ boy
/khoy/
/aɪ/ five ‫ وای‬/vay/

As there is no difference between Persian and English consonants
(Table 2) and vowel (Table 3), they are perceived and articulated
without great difficulty by Persian English language learners, such
as /b/, /p/, /d/, /t/, /g/ and /k/. In other words, where the first
language has feature in common with the target language, L1
knowledge can assist in L2 learning. This relationship in most
cases does not cause interference problems and for this reason it
will not be a main concern of this study. In short, when there is no
difference or contrast in sounds between the two languages, the
assumption can be made that due to positive transfer, the learner
will face no difficulties learning these elements of the L2.
2. Consonants, vowels and diphthongs restricted to English: There
are three consonants, seven vowels and four diphthongs that exist
in English, but absent in Persian. In Table 4, they are each
exemplified.

Table 4: Consonants, Vowels and Diphthongs Restricted to English Sound System

English English English

Consonants Vowels Diphthongs
Example Example Example
/w/ well /ɪ/ happy /aʊ/ now
/θ/ think /ɒ/ got /ɪə/ near
/ð/ they /ɔ:/ more /eə/ hair
- - /ʊ/ good /ʊə/ pure
- - /ʌ/ sun - -
- - /ɜ:/ her - -
- - /ə/ about - -

Table 4 shows that the consonants /w/, /θ/ and /ð/ are absent in b)
Persian. It should be noted that Persian learners of English have
difficulties in articulating these consonants, which are absent in c)
Persian; therefore, English contrasts such as think-sink, bath-bass,
breathe-breeze, they-day, west-vest and ten-then are troublesome d)
and probably contributes to misunderstanding in communication
with English speakers. e)
Table 4, vowels (/ɪ/, /ɒ/, /ɔ:/, /ʊ/, /ʌ/, /ɜ:/, /ə/) and diphthongs f)
(/aʊ/,/ɪə/,/eə/,/ʊə/) restricted to English also cause problems for
Persian learners of English. Therefore, English contrasts such as g)
sheep-ship, seen-sin, fool-full, cot-cut are troublesome. This means
that differences will pose learning difficulties and learning h)
difficulties will produce errors. Examples of some vowels and
diphthongs errors: i)
a) /ɪ/ instead of /ɪ:/. For example, “sheep” is articulated as [ʃɪp]
instead of [ʃɪ:p].
/e/ instead of /ɜ:/. For example, "bird" is articulated as
[berd] instead of [bɜ:rd].
/u:/ instead of /ʊ/. For example, "foot" is articulated as [fu:t]
instead of [fʊt].
/æ and ɑ:/instead of /ə/. For example, "America" is
articulated as [æmerɪkɑ:] instead of [əmerɪkə].
/o and ɑ:/ instead of /ɔ:/. For example, "walk" is articulated
as [wɑ:k or wok] instead of [wɔ:k].
/ɪ:/ instead /ɪə/. For example, "near" is articulated as [nɪ:(r)]
instead of [nɪə(r)].
/əʊ/ instead of /aʊ/. For example, "shout" is articulated as
[ʃəʊt] instead of [ʃaʊt].
/e or æ/ instead of /eə/. For example, "parent" is articulated
as [peret or pærent] instead of [peərət].
/ɑ:/ instead of /ʌ /. For example, "sun" is articulated as [sɑ:n]
instead of [sʌn].

Journal of critical reviews 895

 CONTRASTIVE PHONOLOGY OF PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PERSIAN AND ENGLISH FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES
This kind of relationship will be marked difficult but not more
difficult than a total new learning problem. Persian consonants,
vowels and diphthongs will not interference with English ones in
this relationship and; therefore, it will neither hinder nor facilitate
the acquisition of the structure by the learner. The identification of
structure, however, is highly demanded for the purpose of learning
(Fallahi, 1991). In short, in the cases that a new item in L2 is
completely absent from L1, learners are required to learn the new
item. For example, the Persian learner of English must learn
consonants, vowels and diphthongs in Table 4
3. Consonants and vowels restricted to Persian: There are three
consonants and one vowel that exist in Persian, but absent in
English. In Table 5, they are each exemplified.
Table 5: Consonants and vowels restricted to Persian sound
system
Persian Persian
Consonant Vowel
Example Example
‫قلب‬
/ɢ/ /ɒ/ ‫ مار‬/mar/
/qalb/
/ʔ/ ‫ أبر‬/abr/ - -
‫خبر‬
/x/ - -
/xabar/
The interest for contrastive analysis in this case, consonants and
vowels restricted to Persian, is major because it may provide some
implications for learning English as a foreign language.
CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Persian and English sound systems differ in their range of sounds.
Therefore, Persian learners of English will have difficulties in
learning English pronunciation and spelling, especially during the
early stages, largely because of the unfamiliar Latin script and
differences of Persian and English sound systems, the absence of
some target language phonemes (vowels or consonants) in
Persian; the learners' tendency to pronounce words exactly the
ways they are written, and the learners' tendency to pronounce
the silent letters in words. It is hoped that the results of this study
set off general ideas about the likely difficulties and the
phonological errors that Persian learners of English may come
upon in spelling and pronunciation of the segmental features.
According to the present study, the following pedagogical
implications are drawn:
1. This study shows that CA will help to reduce the errors that
Persian English language learners commit in enunciating
vowels and consonants.
2. The results of present study can be applied in preparing
teaching and complementary materials and diagnosing
learning and teaching problems.
3. Teachers should be aware of the problem in learning and
teaching caused by the linguistic contrasts between Persian
and English sound system.
4. The teachers should make their students aware of the
problems and give them adequate practice to avoid being
fossilized and become a habit.
5. The syllabus should cover the phonological items that
Persian English language learners find problematic and/or
needs to learn.
6. To improve Persian English language learner's
pronunciation, they should be continually exposed to English
language.
7. Teaching pronunciation should be integrated with grammar,
vocabulary, and conversations.
8. Students should be patient and persistent throughout the
whole process of learning pronunciation because it is a long-
standing task.
9. The teachers should be aware of and also be able to deal
positively and effectively with the linguistic differences of L1
(Persian) and L2 (English) sound systems.
Journal of critical reviews
To sum up, this study attempts to help textbook writers and
teachers of English to anticipate the pronunciation and spelling
errors that Persian learners of English are likely to commit while
producing utterances in English. It also attempts to help Persian
learners of English to improve their English pronunciation and
spelling. Consistent with this study, several tasks must be included
in Persian learners of English materials to improve learners’
awareness of spelling pronunciation rules and errors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank all my colleagues for their helpful comments.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is no conflict of interest for this study.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION:
Akbar Solati designed the study, collected the data and wrote the
article.
REFERENCES
1. Bronstein, A. J. (1960). The Pronunciation of American
English. Appleton Century Crofts, New York.
2. Bugarski, R. (1991). Contrastive analysis of terminology and
terminology of contrastive analysis. In I.
3. Vladimir and K. Damir (Ed.). Language in contact and
contrast: Essays in contact linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
4. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and strategies in child
second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 129-
136.
5. Eliasson, S. (1984). Toward a theory of contrastive phonology.
In S. Eliasson (ed). Theoretical issues in contrastive
phonology. Heidelberg: Julius Groosverlag.
6. Fallahi, M. (1991). Contrastive linguistics and analysis of
errors. Tehran: Iran University Press.
7. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition:
An introductory course. 3rd edition.
8. New York and London: Routledge.
9. Gui, C. K. (1978). A comparison of Chinese and English sound
system. Modern Foreign Languages, 1,44-50.
10. Hall, M. (2007). Phonological characteristics of Farsi speakers
of English and L1 Australian English speakers’ perceptions of
proficiency. Master of Arts, Curtin University.
11. He, S. F. (2002). Contrastive analysis of English and Chinese.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
12. Kohler, K. (1971). On the adequacy of phonological theories
for contrastive analysis. In G. Nickel (Ed.)
13. Papers in contrastive linguistics. (pp. 83-88). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
14. Krzeszowski, T. P. (1981). What do we need Lexical
Contrastive Studies for? Papers and Studies in Contrastive
Linguistics, vol. 13.
15. Krezeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages: The scope
of contrastive linguistics. Berlin: Moution.
16. Mirhassani, A. (1983). Pronunciation problems of Iranian
students learning English. IRAL, 21:4, 320- 330.
17. Mirhassani, S. A. (2003). A contrastive analysis of Persian and
English parts of speech. Tehran: Zabankadeh.
18. Moradi, Hamzeh & Chen, Jianbo. (2018). A contrastive
analysis of Persian and English vowels and consonants. Lege
Artis. 3. 105-131.
19. Navehebrahim, M. (2012). An investigation on pronunciation
of language learners of English in Persian background:
deviation forms from the target language norms. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69,518-525.
20. Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error
analysis. English Language Teaching Journal, 25(2), 204-219.
21. Ringbom, H. (1994). Contrastive analysis. In R. Asher & J.
Simpson (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics.
Oxford: Pergamon Press. 2, 737-742.
896
 CONTRASTIVE PHONOLOGY OF PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF PERSIAN AND ENGLISH FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES

22. Samareh, Y. (2000). The Arrangement of Segmental Phonemes

in Farsi. Tehran UP.
23. Seddighi, S. (2012). An account of Iranian EFL pronunciation
errors through L1 transfer. Iranian Journal of Applied
Language Studies, 2(2), 197-214.
24. Solati, A. (2013). Identify Persian Learners’ Linguistic
Deficits in Learning EFL through Spelling Error
Analysis. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 4(54), 206-
196.
25. Solati, A. (2017). A comprehensive analysis of spelling errors
of Persian English language learners. Modern Journal of
Language Teaching Methods, 7(7), 238-249.
26. Sousa, A. D. (2005). How the brain learns to read. California:
Crowin Press.
27. Wei, Z. C. (2003). An introduction to comparative studies of
Chinese and English. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
28. Wilson, L., & Wilson, M. (2001). Farsi speakers. In M. Swan
and B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to
interference and other problems (pp.179-194). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
29. Windfuhr, G. L. (1979). Persian. In B. Comrie (Ed.). (1987).
The World’s major language. Oxford UP. 523-547.
30. Yarmohammadi, L. (1996). A contrastive phonological
analysis of English and Persian. Shiraz: Shiraz University
Press.
31. Yarmohammadi, L. (1995). Fifteen articles in contrastive
linguistics and the structure of Farsi: Grammar, text and
discourse. Tehran: Rahnama.
32. Yarmohammadi, L. (2002). A contrastive analysis of Persian
and English. Payame Noor University Press.
33. Yarmohammadi, L. (2005). A contrastive phonological
analysis of English and Persian: A course book in applied
phonological studies. Shiraz, Iran: Shiraz University Press.

Journal of critical reviews 897