Contrastive Teaching and Translation
Boryana T. Ruzhekova Rogozherova, Bulgaria
Boryana Ruzhekova Rogozherova is a lecturer in English at the Todor Kableshkov University of Transport, Sofia, Bulgaria. She has been teaching for over ten years (predominantly English and less French). Her main interests are in the field of contrastive (French - English) linguistics and contrastively teaching English grammar to influenced by French learners. The author treats in her publications and currently developed thesis issues related to temporal and aspectual meanings of preterit and perfect in French and English, these categories' functional equivalents, English preterit and perfect contrastive teaching, translation use in contrastive teaching. E-mail: boryana@vtu.bg
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Translation as interlingual transformation
Competence and performance
Already established French-English equivalences
Translation application at grammar - teaching stages
Conclusion
Texts sources
References
The current article is written in line with author's contrastive French - English preterit and perfect research as well as with related to it contrastive teaching insights, general theories of deep and surface structure, translation and its role in teaching. The study treats issues relevant to language transfer, translation as powerful, not only revealing grammar similarities and divergences tool, but also facilitating understanding of functional equivalents' nature and functioning mechanism and to translation implementation at different grammar-teaching stages.
This article represents a continuation of previous papers (see references) focusing on contrastively teaching and testing English preterit and perfect to simultaneously studying English and French learners or as FL1 and FL2 or vice-versa, respectively. In former papers, talking about interference (negative language transfer) not only from native to TL but also from FL1 to FL2 (Odlin 1989) and interlanguage (Selinker 1972) we characterized through selected French-English literature and technical texts translation examples French and English preterit and perfect, mentioning not only similarities but divergences as well, thus putting emphasis on special attention while contrastively teaching certain temporal and aspectual meanings of above mentioned categories. Taking into consideration essential grammar - teaching stages we made some suggestions as to presentation, explanation, consolidation and testing of English preterit and perfect. We mentioned translation as important means not only revealing equivalencies, but also justifying them, this way facilitating better understanding and practical application of categories in their typical context.
Current paper, similarly written in contrastive teaching perspective ("Contrastive teaching" involves presenting to the learner at the same time all the terms in a linguistic system of L2 which, as a system, contrasts with the corresponding L1 system." (James 1992: 154); we shall specify that while contrastively teaching, similarities and not differences only, should be pointed out as well as contrastive teaching may also be carried out in FL1 – FL2 direction.), pays predominantly attention to implementation of translation (in this study we mean by "translation" interpretation as well) as powerful teaching tool at all grammar – teaching stages of English preterit and perfect, including "free" or independent production. We shall be writing mainly on two types of translation texts use – preparatory, including gap filling in both original and translation followed by comparison with integral texts, choice justification and further explanation, if necessary; essential, relatively independent translation encompassing learners' French original excerpts translation into English (teacher- guided when necessary), comparison with professional translation English equivalents, choice justification and explanation, if relevant.
Translation from one language to another can be considered as interlingual transformation (Danchev and Alexieva 1974, Danchev 2001). Taking into account language universals theory as well as generative grammars' deep and surface structures, we can state that all human languages possess approximately one and the same (depending on social, cultural and psychology realities) semantic structure, called deep structure and varying lexical and grammar means to express it linguistically through the so-called surface structure. In accordance with overall translation principle all meaning (or approximately all) can be conferred regardless the type of language, its appurtenance to specific language family or the dominant functioning of its different structural levels. Thus, deep structure is considered to be a convenient tertium comparationis (common comparison criterion) when establishing surface structure equivalencies or divergences between two or more compared languages and, consequently, translation turns out to be a powerful tool not only in presenting but also in teaching similarities and differences to learners studying at the same time two foreign languages. Translation on the one hand strongly reveals the so-called asymmetry of linguistic signs (Molhova 1986, Danchev 2001), shown essentially by the fact that two grammar categories bearing the same names (due to structural or semantic similarities) may not always possess the same meanings and functions, this way prompting further explanatory research, and on the other, has for this very reason significant pedagogical implications in consolidation of similar and distinctive features in the consciousness of FL1 and FL2 learners.
In the already mentioned "Chomskyan" perspective linguistic utterances can be regarded as kind of translation by means of transformation rules of deep into surface structure. These rules which remain to be determined yet, result in our opinion not only from general cognition as well as from psychology factors (this way pertaining to psycholinguistics or neurolinguistics field of research), but also from individual capacities, abilities, interests, way of thinking, linguistic competence ("what the speaker of a language knows implicitly" (Chomsky 1971:7) and performance ("what he does" (ibid.).
However appealing some of quoted author's ideas may be predominantly in translation theories building, their application and use in contrastive research and respectively, teaching, there are points we must raise objections at. As far as teaching is concerned, we agree with the fact that there is a tight connection between knowledge, competence and its application, performance as well as with Chomsky's assumption that there exists "underlying language competence" that "gives a human speaker the unique ability to create new sentences which he has never used before, and to understand new sentences which he has never heard before." (Allen and Van Buren 1971: 152). Thus, we share the idea of the so-called "creative aspect of language use" (ibid.). We express the opinion that "the native speaker of a language has internalized (…) a system of rules that can be used in new and untried combinations to form new sentences and to assign semantic interpretations to new sentences." (Chomsky 1971: 156) This, we reckon is one of basic purposes of any FL grammar teaching and especially of contrastive one; however, we reject cited author's negative position towards linguistic habit, acquired through practice patterns and analogy. We estimate these factors are quite influential in competence as well as in performance improvement, fact not only proved by psychology but also through teaching practice. Neither do we accept quoted author's statement of grammar independence from lexical meaning. Aspectual studies (Brinton 1988, Quirk 1985) as well as our research (Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007 on French preterit repetitive and English preterit durative meanings) prove tight lexical meaning – grammar use connection, a fact we put an emphasis on and apply in practice wherever needed. Accordingly, in our research on contrastive teaching, we adopt a combined approach, including on the one hand above presented translation-related ideas, motivating translation use in contrastive analysis and contrastive teaching, already mentioned "creative" use of language and on the other, teaching of different language forms and structures through appropriate drills and activities for each grammar-teaching stage in the purpose of their "internalizing" (term of Chomsky 1971).
In result of former studies as well as of research into French original texts and their Translations in English we established basic functional French – English and vice versa preterit and perfect functional equivalents (Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007: BETA Conference proceedings). Based on these, taking into account possible negative transfer (Lado 1961, Odlin 1989) on difficulties related to diverging structures learning and possible error prediction) we made some inferences as well related to the special attention which should be paid while teaching some meanings of mentioned categories.
Here we shall briefly present established equivalencies and motivate them by studied categories temporal and aspectual meanings. This will precondition and facilitate our further account on translation use at different grammar - teaching stages.
A. Preterit equivalences
- French preterit not always but quite frequently = English preterit.
- English preterit = French preterit in the case of coincidence of both forms' meanings (past, non-current, finished, single or in a series, repetitive, durative, punctual, ingressive (inceptive, inchoative) or terminative).
- French preterit = Past perfect (even though above mentioned coincidence may exist) in case French preterit expresses a past event preceding another event in the past.
- French perfect (only when partially fulfilling preterit's functions) = English preterit
- English preterit often = French imperfect in case the preterit expresses an unfinished process in the past.
Inferences
Presented correspondences stem from high degree of convergence (term of ours) between studied languages' preterits expressed in the fact that both forms convey finished and non- current relevant events, states or processes (from temporal point of view) and repetitive, durative, punctual, ingressive or terminative aspectual meanings (from aspectual point of view). However, we should not underestimate the fact that English preterit also expresses unfinished processes in the past, this way being partially equal to the Continuous past and corresponding to French imperfect (more on both aspectual meanings of English preterit – in Verkyl 1972, Danchev and Alexieva 1974, Kabakčiev 1992).
B. Perfect equivalences
- French perfect = English perfect when both forms express resultative or experiential meanings or in the current activity use (more on this considered not that typical in French perfect use; however, we prove it is not so rare and unusual due to composition and semantics of perfect – Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007: Liternet, 10 (95)).
- French perfect sometimes = English perfect when both forms express a recent activity (quite often this meaning is devoted to French immediate past).
- French perfect (when partially fulfilling preterit's functions) = English preterit.
- French perfect (when partially fulfilling preterit's functions) = English past perfect (possible because of partial coincidence in values of French preterit and French perfect; equivalency expected to be misleading to learners studying both languages at the same time as it may also result from "sequence of tenses").
- French perfect sometimes = English present simple and vice-versa because of current relevance of examined category in both languages.
- English perfect of current activity quite frequently = French present simple.
- English perfect of current activity quite frequently = French perfect. Even though French perfect may almost acquire the same value of expressing current activity (persistent situation), differences between English and French forms still persist, English one possessing its strong current relevance and French one, its resultativity.
- English perfect of recent past = French past immediate, present simple or perfect.
Inferences
French perfect – English perfect examples of isomorphism arise from the fact that both forms have similar origin, form, have gone through similar development stages and convey, consequently, similar, though not identical meanings. These forms' converging points are due to both categories' meanings of current connection, resultativity (or acquisition of present result) and accumulated relevant to the present experience. French-English perfect equivalence is also justified through examples of "already, always, never, ever, yet and just" (in both languages) use (Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007: Liternet, 10 (95)).
However, we shall stress the fact that English perfect and French perfect are not identical although similar, one of the most convincing proofs being the fact that unlike French perfect, English perfect cannot replace English preterit.
C. Brief teaching-related conclusion
Having presented basic preterit and perfect equivalences inferences, we shall state that as far as interference and error prediction are concerned, special attention in CT should be paid to:
- English preterit – French preterit correlation, taking into account the fact that English preterit' aspectual meaning can also equate with French imperfect's one.
- French perfect – English preterit correlation in case French perfect temporally (not aspectually!) replaces French preterit, quite common phenomenon not only in conversational and informal speech, but also in scientific, technical and commentary texts (Weinrich 1973).
Before characterizing very first teaching stage we shall mention strong interrelation between all grammar-teaching steps and namely, lead-in, elicitation, explanatory, accurate representation and immediate creativity (Harmer 1991: 60). We wrote "interrelation" as fourth, as well as fifth steps, although being characterized with relatively high degree of linguistic awareness on the point of becoming "internalized" and this way make performance possible and much better, are not entirely safeguarded against error. Accordingly, explanatory stage elements must be again introduced to the extent which is needed, this way remedial work mingling with even superior stages of grammar category mastering.
A. Teaching the preterit and translation
Leading into English preterit
Apart from lead-in hints we mentioned (Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007 BETA Conference) like writing on the board (or using various types of visual aids) a few containing the preterit examples from a story, facts of a famous person's life, chronologically ordered historical events or separate utterances of finished and non-current past events, in this study's perspective we suggest distributing to students such a text in French accompanied by its English professional translation (we can use for this purpose if available an OHP or multimedia projector). The text should be appropriate to the purpose of presenting basic preterit's features and up to learners' linguistic level. For the purposes of a more complete category presentation we should pick up a text not only illustrating perfective (finished) value of studied form, but also its imperfective one; presented piece of material must consequently combine finished activities with description.
In this paper we decided to use excerpts from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "Le Petit Prince", and their professional translation in "The Little Prince" Our choice was motivated by the clarity of expression in both the original and translation as well as by the high accessibility of the text and interest it provokes in different age and linguistic levels groups.
We propose a passage similar to the following at this very first stage (translation is italicized; French preterit as well as its English equivalents are given in bold, whereas French imperfect and its correspondences are underlined.):
(1) "Au matin du départ il mit sa planète bien en ordre. Il ramona soigneusement ses volcans en activité. Il possédait deux volcans en activité. Et c'était bien commode pour faire chauffer le petit déjeuner du matin. Il possédait aussi un volcan éteint. Mais comme il disait: "On ne sait jamais!" Il ramona donc également le volcan éteint. (…)
Le petit prince arracha aussi, avec un peu de mélancolie, les dernières poussées de baobabs. Il croyait ne jamais devoir revenir. Mais tous ces travaux familiers lui parurent ce matin-là, etrêmement doux. Et, quand il arrosa une dernière fois la fleur, et se prépara à la mettre à l'abri sous son globe, il se decouvrit l'envie de pleurer." (Le Petit Prince, p.367)
(1a) "On the morning of departure; he put his planet in perfect order. He carefully swept his active volcanoes. He possessed two active volcanoes and they were very convenient for heating his breakfast in the morning. He also had a volcano which was extinct. But as he pointed out: "You never know!" So he also cleaned out the extinct volcano. (…)
The little prince tore up, not without a sense of sorrow, the last little baobab shoots. He believed that he would never have to return. But all these familiar activities seemed very precious to him on that last morning. And, when he watered the flower for the last time and prepared to place her under her glass dome, he felt like crying." (The Little Prince, p. 39)
At this stage, as recommended in above quoted article of ours, while introducing learners into meanings of studied category we may also underline, if there are any, time indications, sequencing words, prepositions of time and place and other clues revealing types of processes (finished or non-finished) expressed by English preterit. This could also facilitate further teaching stages, referring to English preterit's appropriate contextual use.
Eliciting English preterit
Lead-in grows into elicitation when learners are asked to characterize processes expressed by presented in bold or italicized verbs and phrases. At this stage they may be required, comparing and analyzing both texts, to point out completely finished (with specified or unspecified point of time) or unfinished past situations. Advanced learners could be requested to provide information as to revealed through excerpts aspectual meanings of French preterit and English perfective preterit, such as: duration (mit en ordre, put in perfect order), repetition (ramona, swept), ingressiveness (se prépara à, prepared to), etc.
Explaining English preterit
Having introduced studied category through presenting to learners appropriate French original texts accompanied by their English translation, at this stage we should explain (prompting students' reactions and commentaries where needed and possible) temporal and aspectual meanings in typical context referring to initial texts as well as to other suitable exemplifying passages or utterances. We could draw learners' attention at passages similar to the following ones (italics, bold characters and underlining follow above mentioned principle, typical preterit contextual indications are presented in italics, bold and underlining at the same time.):
(2) "Mais je me rappelai alors que j'avais surtout étudié la géographie, l'histoire, le calcul et la grammaire et je dis au petit bonhomme (avec un peu de mauvaise humeur) que je ne savais pas dessiner. Il me répondit: (…)" (Le Petit Prince, p.356)
(2a) "But I suddenly remembered that my studies had been concentrated on geography, history, arithmetic and grammar, so I told the little chap (a little crossly) that I didn't know how to draw.
He replied: (…) " (The Little Prince, p. 14)
(3) "Ainsi, quand il aperçut pour la première fois mon avion (…) il me demanda: (…)" (Le Petit Prince, p.357)
(3a) "For instance, when he saw my aeroplane for the first time (…), he asked me: (…)" (The Little Prince, p. 17)
(4) "L'astronome refit sa demonstration en 1920, dans un habit très élégant. Et cette fois-ci tout le monde fut de son avis." (Le Petit Prince, p.359)
(4a) "So the astronomer repeated his demonstration in 1920, dressed in an elegant suit. At this time, everybody was convinced." (The Little Prince, p. 21)
(5) "J'ai ainsi vécu seul, sans personne avec qui parler véritablement, jusqu'à une panne dans le desert du Sahara, il y a six ans. (…)
Le premier soir je me suis donc endormi sur le sable à mille milles de toute terre habitée. (…) Alors vous imaginez ma surprise, au lever du jour, quand une drôle de petite voix m'a réveillé." (Le Petit Prince, p. 355)
(5a) "Thus I lived alone, with no one I could really talk to, until I had an accident in the Sahara desert six years ago. (…)
On the first night, I fell asleep on the sand, a thousand miles from any human habitation. (…) So you can imagine my surprise at sunrise when an old little voice woke me up." (The Little Prince, p. 12)
While commenting on preterit use in already quoted utterances, we are bound to mention so typical to perfective preterit features:
(1) expression of single and consecutive finished past events (examples (1) – (5))
(2) use of adverbs (or adverbial phrases) pointing out in specific context perfective character of presented process (alors, suddenly in examples (2), (2a); jusqu'à une panne, until I had an accident in examples (5), (5a))
(3) Past time specifications (au matin du départ, on the morning of departure in utterances (1), (1a); quand il aperçut, when he saw in utterances (3), (3a); en 1920, cette fois-ci, in 1920, at this time in examples (4), (4a); il y a six ans, six years ago, in utterances (5), (5a)).
It is quite evident that nature and length of explanation depend on age, level of contrasted languages' mastering and specific qualifications students may possess (in case of adult learners). More advanced explanation requires in our opinion brief analysis of perfective preterit aspectual meanings in chosen examples as well, thus clearly discerning perfective from imperfective value of examined category. We should not, though, underestimate the fact of ambiguous English preterit examples, overall context of which, not always specifies perfective or imperfective meaning. However, this problem appears more often when comparing English original texts with their French translation and, consequently is supposed to arise at higher levels of study (details on perfective and imperfective preterit markers in Verkyl 1972, Danchev and Alexieva 1974, Kabakčiev 1992, 1993).
Thus, appropriate explanation can not only strongly contribute to correct understanding of English preterit meanings and use, but also to French - English and vice versa preterit functional equivalents (see above as to preterit equivalences), necessary prerequisite for successfully carrying out accurate representation and immediate creativity stages in suggested contrastive teaching perspective.
Accurate and creative use of English preterit
Final grammar – teaching steps (we can only conventionally treat accurate representation and immediate creativity as ultimate teaching and learning degrees, our own experience proving frequent need of remedial work and, consequently of further explanation) suppose really necessary for communication competence – performance transition. As it was mentioned above, we do not share some linguists’ negative opinion on drills and exercises forming linguistic habit, but reckon they are bound to create and reinforce it; thus, our research adopts combined comparative, on the one hand, teaching methodology and structural-exemplifying and consolidating one, on the other. We also express the view that interactively carried out error correction is relevant (on kinds of correction techniques see Lyster and Ranta 1997); however, contrastive teaching correction approach should necessarily be supported by contrastive examples revealing contrasted category’s functioning in a similar context.
As suggested (Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007 BETA Conference proceedings) reinforcing obviously requires fixed format exercises (multiple choice, matching items), structured format exercises (ordering items the right way, duplication, repetition, identification, completion, see Cohen 1979: 334 on types of exercises). In this study we propose implementing as well a mixed, translation involving activity. Contrastively working lecturer may select a suitable to his/her teaching objectives French original accompanied by its English translation passage, edit both texts leaving blank spaces at most evident preterit and imperfect use places (see above as to preterit equivalences), distribute them to learners to fill in the gaps. Then learners should justify their choice and compare their versions with French original as well as with professional English translation.
Creative preterit use obviously requires creative tasks, such as: oral or written accounts of stories, films, biographies, historical events surrounded by background details, etc. We also suggest applying hereby more teacher-independent translation exercise than offered above, promoting higher degree of originality and invention and, accordingly, automated and appropriate use of studied category. Contrastively working lecturer selects again a suitable to his/her teaching objectives French original text, this time integral and not accompanied by translation. Learners will be required to translate it into English and then compare it with its professional translation equivalent.
As it was mentioned above, even though learners may achieve high levels of taught grammar mastery, they are not completely protected against errors. In case errors do still occur elements of explanation (contrastive or not) and remedial work become needed until source of incorrectness disappears. In this way of thinking we shall quote Corder (1973: 293) who states that: "The technique of correction is not one of simply presenting the data again and going through the same set of drills and exercises (…) It requires, on the contrary, that the teacher understand the source of the errors so that he can provide the appropriate data (…) sometimes comparative, which will resolve the learner's problems and allow him to discover the relevant rules."
B. Teaching the perfect and translation
Leading into English perfect
In this paper we suggest leading learners into perfect not only through offering to their attention utterances (see Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007 BETA Conf. proceedings) revealing studied category's basic meanings (present relevance, past activity current result and experience, current activity with past initial point, omnitemporality), but also through presenting contrastive French - English exemplifying passages or utterances. This approach implemented in the perspective of contrastive translation teaching, gets learners acquainted with basic structure and meaning of examined form, on the one hand, and on the other, preconditions their awareness of French – English and vice versa perfect equivalences (see above as to perfect equivalences; French perfect due to its dual nature can in some above mentioned contexts replace French preterit temporal meaning adding result, commentary and subjectivity hues, whereas English perfect is tightly currently related; thus, English perfect quite often may result in its French counterpart although the opposite is not always applicable – French perfect may sometimes be only translated through English preterit).
At this stage we suggest implementing contrastive examples similar to the following ones (the same fiction text will be used for above mentioned reasons; we point out suitability of examples as well as relevance as far as age and linguistic knowledge of learners is accounted for; in French original all perfect examples with preterit equivalents in English are given in bold, whereas perfect instances with perfect English correspondences are underlined; similarly, in English translation preterit examples are in bold and perfect instances are underlined; in both texts contextual grammar categories determining markers are bold, italicized and underlined.) :
(6) "J'ai donc dû choisir un autre métier et j'ai appris à piloter des avions. J'ai volé un peu partout dans le monde. Et la géographie, c'est exact, m'a beaucoup servi. (…)
J'ai ainsi eu, au cours de ma vie, des tas de contacts avec des tas de gens sérieux. J'ai beaucoup vécu chez les grandes personnes. Je les ai vues de très près. Ça n'a pas trop amélioré mon opinion." (Le Petit Prince, p. 354)
(6a) "So I had to choose another job and I learnt to pilot aeroplanes. I flew more or less all over the world. And indeed geography has been extremely useful to me. (…)
As a result of which I have been in touch, throughout my life, with all kinds of serious people. I have spent a lot of time with grown-ups. I have seen them at very close quarters which I'm afraid has not greatly enhanced my opinion of them." (The Little Prince, p. 11)
(7) "Depuis cinquante-quatre ans que j'habite cette planète-ci, je n'ai été derangé que trois fois. La première fois ça a été, il y a vingt-deux ans (…) La seconde fois ça a été, il y a onze ans, par une crise de rhumatisme. (Le Petit Prince, p 374)"
(7a) "During the fifty-four years< that I have been living on this planet, I have only been disturbed three times. The first time was twenty-two years ago (…) The second time was eleven years ago by an attack of rheumatism." (The Little Prince, p. 52)
(8) "Il n'a jamais respiré une fleur. Il n'a jamais regardé une étoile. Il n'a jamais aimé personne. Il n'a jamais rien fait d'autre que des additions." (Le Petit Prince, p. 364)
(8a) "He has never smelled a flower. He has never looked at a star. He has never loved anybody. He has spent all his time adding up figures." (The Little Prince, p. 32)
(9) "- Alors, lui dit le roi, je t'ordonne de bâiller. Je n'ai vu personne bâiller depuis des années." (Le Petit Prince, p. 369)
(9a) "In which case," said the king, "I order you to yawn. I have not seen anybody yawning for years." (The Little Prince, p. 43)
We consider use of numerous contrastive passages or of a longer text needed at lead-in as well as at further perfect-teaching stages due to examined category’s (in English and French) variety of connotations and interesting French - English and vice-versa equivalences (see above as to perfect equivalences). French excerpts as well as their professional English translations as it was suggested above, can be either distributed to students or attractively presented through the use of visual aids, such as: OHP or MP, posters, etc.
Eliciting English perfect
First stage (students' introduction into basic perfect meanings and French – English equivalences) being completed, grammar material eliciting should be carried out by means of questions as to the nature of:
- bold; underlined and bold, underlined and italicized phrases in both original and translated texts;
- temporal French perfect meanings (finished event at a specified or non specified moment in past, j'ai appris; j'ai ainsi vécu seul; la première fois ça a été, il y a vingt-deux ans, etc. in examples (6) and (7));
- aspectual French perfect connotations (current activity, J'ai ainsi eu, au cours de ma vie, etc. in utterances (6), (7), (9), experience and result, omnitemporality, example (8), etc.;
- French perfect instances' English equivalents;
- both languages periphrasis' form.
Learners' attention may be, similarly to preterit teaching, drawn at frequent contrasted languages asymmetry of linguistic sign expressed by form similarity and meanings discrepancies (see above as to perfect equivalences).
Explaining English perfect
Explanatory stage should start by discussion through necessary visual aids of form and its contrastive examination followed by ideas as to how constituents may be related to meaning (present simple auxiliary have, somehow currently appropriating or acquiring activity result).
Having pointed out form similarity but not equivalence (some French perfect instances are formed through auxiliary être and not avoir and sometimes both are applicable) we consider crucially important to put emphasis on converging as well as diverging French – English perfect meanings through already proposed or similar translation passages examination.
Explanatory steps:
- Underlined phrases examination
At this step we suggest stating French - English and vice versa form and meanings equivalence. It should be of course pointed out that so typical to English perfect current activity meaning (examples (7) and (9)) not always equates to its French counterpart, the latter quite often being translated by the simple present as in: depuis cinquante-quatre ans que j'habite cette planète-ci, example (7) (more details on French current activity perfect, in Ruzhekova Rogozherova 2007, Liternet, 10 (95)).
- Bold phrases examination
Now we are supposed to draw learners' attention at French perfect – English preterit equivalence of meaning, although transferred through different grammar categories (as it is the case in exemplifying utterances (6) and (7). As it was mentioned in current article's introduction similar discrepancies are not at all unusual, stemming from linguistic sign asymmetry (the latter results from different languages common semantic structure expressed by means of different surface ones) and should be thoroughly explained and exemplified in contrastive teaching methodology.
- Bold, italicized and underlined phrases examination
Having justified French – English perfect basic functional equivalents, means to have provided as detailed as needed relevant contextual information. This is due to the fact that adverbial expression markers like au cours de ma vie, throughout my life (examples (6) and (6a) or il y a vingt-deux ans, twenty-two years ago (examples (7) and (7a) as well as numerous other factors (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) may differently influence typically cumulative English and French aspect. The more completely learners realize grammar and lexical context (and pragmatic) factors' influence, the more fully they will convey desired meaning and understand expressed connotations; accordingly, the better equivalents they will provide in translation.
Accurate and creative use of English perfect
As it was mentioned in corresponding preterit teaching stage paragraph accurate and creative use teaching steps can only be conventionally treated as ultimate teaching and learning degrees. The same statement entirely applies to perfect teaching stages; furthermore, English perfect being considered the hardest grammar category to master due to its uniqueness of meaning in comparison with other languages (Soars 2004), we must accept the idea of longer training period need for the competence – performance transition.
As suggested in preterit ultimate teaching stages paragraph, reinforcing in line with contrastive teaching will be carried out not only through structured and fixed format exercises, but also by means of translation involving activities. Contrastively working lecturer will select a suitable to his/her teaching objectives French original accompanied by its English translation passage, edit both texts leaving blank spaces at perfect instances in French excerpts, and at perfect and preterit occurrences in English translation (see above as to perfect equivalences ), distribute them to learners to fill in the gaps. Then, as suggested above, learners should justify their choice and compare their versions with French original as well as with professional English translation.
Creative perfect use again in accordance with contrastive teaching through translation most naturally can be encouraged not just through needed creative tasks like texts summaries, commentaries, accounts of famous people’s or personal accomplishments, but through more teacher-independent translation exercises, as already proposed (see above in accurate and creative use of English preterit). Contrastively working lecturer should pick up a suitable to his/her teaching objectives French original text; the excerpt should be integral and not accompanied by translation any more. Learners will be required (similarly to the stage of English preterit accurate and creative use) to translate it into English, compare it with its professional translation and again justify French perfect English correspondences as well as any other perfect-related contextual markers.
Errors or mistakes at both "ultimate" stages, as already pointed out, will naturally be corrected by means of relevant remedial tasks and further explanation.
Current article written in accordance with author's contrastive theoretical and teaching-related French – English research, general translation theory, deep and surface structure ideas, language transfer and interference, set the objective to propose some clues and ideas as far as French – English translation implementation is concerned, at different English preterit and perfect teaching stages. Contrastive teaching studies are in author's opinion quite needed, having in mind on the one hand, ever increasing need for two or more foreign languages learning in a constantly changing social and cultural environment and, on the other, translation reintroduction in modern FL teaching. The author considers this trend quite lucky as no FL can be learnt or acquired with no reference at all at least to mother tongue or other previously studied languages. Relevant and carefully prepared translation exercise is bound not only to reinforce and deepen FL2 structures understanding, but also to provide learners with better FL1 or mother tongue awareness as well as with higher general linguistic knowledge. The latter will no doubt beneficially influence process of any FL mastering.
Saint-Exupéry, A. Le Petit Prince. Moscou: Editions du progrès.
Saint-Exupéry, A. The Little Prince. Wordsworth Editions Limited 1995. Translated by Irene Testot-Ferry.
Allen, J. P. B., Van Buren, P. 1971: Chomsky: Selected Readings. OUP.
Brinton, L. 1988: The Development of English Aspectual Systems. CUP.
Chomsky, N. 1965: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. (In French: Aspects de la théorie syntaxique. Editions du Seuil, 1971)
Chomsky, N.: The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions. In: Chomsky: Selected Readings (1971). OUP.
Chomsky, N.: Syntactic Structures. In: Chomsky: Selected Readings (1971). OUP.
Chomsky, N. 1966: Linguistic theory. In: Chomsky: Selected Readings (1971). OUP.
Cohen, A. 1979: In: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Celce-Murcia, M., Mc Intosh, L., Editors. Cambridge: NEWBURY HOUSE PUBLISHERS.
Comrie, B. 1998: Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. CUP.
Corder, S. 1973: Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin Books Ltd.
Danchev, A. 2001: Съпоставително езикознание. Теория и методология. София: Университетско издателство "Св. Климент Охридски".
Danchev, A., Alexieva, B. 1974: The Choice between Aorist and Imperfect in the Translation of the Past Simple Tense from English into Bulgarian (published in Bulgarian). София: Годишник на Софийския Университет, том LXVII, 1.
Harmer, J. 1991: The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman Group UK Limited.
James, C. 1992: Contrastive Analysis. Longman.
Kabakčiev, K. 1992: Видът в английския език. За българите, разбиращи (и обичащи) този език. София: Албо.
Kabakčiev, K. 1993: On the semantic basis of aspect (with special reference to nominal aspect). Съпоставително езикознание, XVIII, №1, 38-46.
Lado, R. 1961: Linguistics across Cultures. University of Michigan Press.
Lyster, R., Ranta, L. 1997: Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-61.
Molhova, J. 1986: The Noun. A Contrastive English-Bulgarian Study. Sofia, NI.
Odlin, T. 1989: Language Transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. CUP.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman Group Limited.
Ruzhekova Rogozherova, B. 2007: Repetitive Aspectual Value of French Simple Past (in Bulgarian). Sofia: Foreign Language Teaching, no5.
Ruzhekova Rogozherova, B. 2007: Teaching English Preterit and Perfect to Influenced by French Learners. Proceedings of BETA-IATEFL Conference.
Ruzhekova Rogozherova, B. 2007: Contrastive Analysis (French-English) in Teaching English Preterit and Perfect through Technical Texts. Liternet 10 (95).
Ruzhekova Rogozherova, B. 2007: Durative Value of English Preterit. Liternet 11 (96).
Ruzhekova Rogozherova, B. 2007: Testing Strategies in English. Sofia: Transport 2007 Conference proceedings.
Selinker, L. 1972: Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209-31.
Soars, J. and L. 2004: New Headway Pre-Intermediate, TB. OUP.
Verkuyl, H. 1972: On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht & Reidel.
Weinrich, H. 1973: Le récit et le commentaire. traduction de l'allemand. Paris: Seuil.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.
|
