Translation as meaning constructor for new words in the multimodal communication of foreign language classrooms
Abstract
In the past twenty years, there has been growing interest in the role of translation in foreign language teaching. At the same time, throughout the world, language teaching is dominated by the communicative approach, which prefers to avoid translation during language classes. This means that when an unknown word appears, the teacher and students attempt to construct its meaning with the assistance of the foreign language only.
Interaction in language classes is more than merely verbal expression. There are many ways of constructing meaning – in addition to words, meaning can be constructed with the help of gestures, as well as by using space and objects. There are still few studies on the meaning construction for new words in the multimodal communication of foreign language classrooms.
The aim of this paper is to study the use of translation in the process of constructing word meaning in multimodal classroom interaction. The research is based on Estonian and French classes at a university in Estonia. The results draw on audiovisual material and the questionnaire responses of class participants. 110 communicative episodes have been chosen from video recordings and studied with the help of micro-level multimodal discourse analysis.
The research results show that translation was used during the French classes on thirty occasions, but only once during the Estonian classes. Besides translation, target language and gestures are used to construct meaning for the new words. Translation is applied in communicative episodes in two ways: it is either the only resource that constructs meaning for a word or it presents itself in combination with other resources.
***
Tõlkimine kui tähenduse konstrueerija uuele sõnale võõrkeeletunni multimodaalses suhtluses
Viimasel kahekümnel aastal on Läänes uuesti hakanud kasvama huvi tõlkimise rolli vastu võõrkeele õpetamisel. Samal ajal on üle maailma valdav kommunikatiivne lähenemine, mis eelistab tõlkimise vältimist keeletunnis. See tähendab, et kui esile kerkib õpilastele tundmatu sõna, siis püüavad õpetaja ja õpilased konstrueerida sõnale tähendust üksnes õpitava keele abiga. Keeletunnis suhtlemine on aga enam kui verbaalne väljendus. Inimestel on tähenduse loomiseks mitmeid vahendeid –lisaks sõnadele näiteks žestid, kujutised, ruumi ja objektide kasutamine. Uutelesõnadele tähenduse konstrueerimist võõrkeeletunni multimodaalses suhtluses on senini veel vähe uuritud.
Käesoleva artikli eesmärk on uurida tõlkimise kasutamist sõnadele tähenduse konstrueerimisel klassiruumi multimodaalses suhtluses. Uurimistöö aluseks on kaks eesti ja kaks prantsuse keele võõrkeelena tundi Eesti ülikoolis. Materjali kogumiseks on kasutatud audiovisuaalset salvestamist ning osalejate täidetud ankeete. Videomaterjalist valitud 110 suhtlusepisoodile on rakendatud multimodaalse diskursuse analüüsi mikrotasandil.
Uurimistulemused näitavad, et prantsuse keele tundides esines tõlkimist kolmekümnel ja eesti keele tundides ühel korral. Lisaks tõlkimisele kasutataksesõnavarale tähenduse konstrueerimiseks ka õpitavat keelt ja žeste. Tõlkimine esineb suhtlusepisoodides kahel viisil: ainsa tähendust konstrueeriva vahendina või kombinatsioonis teiste vahenditega.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bezemer, Jeff 2008. Displaying orientation in the classroom: Students’ multimodal responses to teacher instructions. – Linguistic and Education, 19, 166–178. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238381652_Displaying_Orientation_in_the_Classroom_Students%27_Multimodal_Responses_to_Teacher_Instructions (1.9.2017).
Bialystok, Ellen 1990. Communication Strategies. A Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use. Oxford: Blackwell.
Canale, Michael 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. – J. C. Richards, R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 2–29.
Canale, Michael; Swain, Merrill 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. – Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
Cook, Guy 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, Alan 1989. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörney, Zoltán; Scott, Mery Lee 1997. Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. – Language Learning, 47 (1), 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.51997005
Faerch, Claus; Kasper, Gabriele 1983. On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. – C. Faerch, G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman, 210–238.
Fernández Guerra, Ana 2014. The usefulness of translation in foreign language learning: Students attitudes. – International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 2 (1), 153–170.
Hall, Graham; Cook, Guy 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning: State of the art. – Language Teaching, 45 (3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067
Hymes, Dell 1972. On communicative competence. – J. B. Pride, J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293.
Ingerpuu-Rümmel, Eva 2015. Teachers and learners constructing meaning for vocabulary items in a foreign language classroom. – K. Jokinen, M. Vels (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd European and the 5th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication August 6–8, Tartu, Estonia. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 33−41.
Jefferson, Gail 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. – G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–23.
Krauss, Robert M.; Chen, Yihsiu; Gottesman, Rebecca F. 2001. Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. – David McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 261–283.
Kress, Gunther; Jewitt, Carey; Bourne, Jill; Franks, Anton; Hardcastle, John; Jones, Ken; Reid, Euan 2005. English in Urban Classrooms: A Multimodal Perspective on Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203397305
Kress, Gunther; Jewitt, Carey; Ogborn, Jon; Tsatsarelis, Charalampos 2001. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: Rethorics of the Science Classroom. London: Bloomsbury.
Kress, Gunther; Leeuwen Theo van 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Laviosa, Sara 2014. Translation and Language Education. Pedagogical Approaches Explained. New York, London: Routledge.
Lazaraton, Anne 2004. Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. – Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 54 (1), 79–117.
Levine, Glenn Scott 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lim Fei, Victor 2011. A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis approach to pedagogic discourse. A thesis submitted for the degree of doctor of philosophy Department of English Language and Literature. National University of Singapore.
Norris, Sigrid 2013. Learning tacit classroom participation. – Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences Elsevier Ltd, 141 (2014), 166–170.
Roberts, John T. 1986. The use of dialogues for teaching transactional competence in foreign languages. –English Language Teaching (ELT) Documents, 124, 51–85.
Savignon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Texts and Contexts in Second Language Learning. The Addison-Wesley Second Language Professional Library Series.
Savignon, Sandra J. (Ed.) 2002. Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. Yale University Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa14.04
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Eva Ingerpuu-Rümmel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563