NOTES

Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova

web | Language Awareness...

1. Notwithstanding the fact that ESP and ELT are among various applied linguistics branches, the author prefers laying stress on these fields of study. (back)

2. Some contrasts with Bulgarian will be also considered; however, most of them will be treated with respect to ELT, and not French LT, facilitating English language taught categories understanding through elucidation and highlighting. (back)

3. Consciousness, attention, noticing, alertness and understanding are relevant LA terms which will be commented on later in the study. (back)

4. Rf. Leontiev (1970) as to transfer of knowledge in language learning. (back)

5. As it will be elucidated further on, accessibly taught linguistic knowledge greatly contributes to learners’ language knowledge creation due to LA improvement stemming from better grasping of categories essence and functioning. (back)

6. Definition provided by the National Council in the UK for Language in Education (N.C.L.E.) in 1985 (Soons 2008: 10). (back)

7. Italics in the above LA definitions are ours. (back)

8. LA definitions also attest this interrelation. (back)

9. Throughout the quotation italics are ours. (back)

10. Italics are ours across both definitions. (back)

11. Rf. to this figure variation in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2014a). (back)

12. Rf. Svalberg and Robinson in Soons (2008: 11). (back)

13. See above attention definition revealing attention / awareness tight connection. (back)

14. See above as to detection / attention / awareness connectedness. (back)

15. See above as to noticing equating awareness in practice. (back)

16. Leow (1997) and Rosa & O’Neill (1999) were quoted by Al-Hejin (2004: 17). According to Schmidt (1990) input becomes intake as a result of conscious learning. (back)

17. In our view, Wes’ poor grammar knowledge as well as reported by Schmidt "mis-identification" (their with they are, for example) may not only be due to the lack of form / meaning attention, but it may also stem from his missing interest in contrastive and comparative reflection or to the absence of CT and CpT approach. (back)

18. Some strategies referred to were borrowed from or inspired by FSL Guide (2008), which, though focusing on French LLS, is really applicable in ELT. (back)

19. Rf. as to cognitive teaching procedures in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015a, 2016, 2017a,b,c, 2018). (back)

20. CpT procedures are mentioned hereby jointly with CT, frequently accompanying and facilitating CT. (back)

21. There may be certain objections to this statement, which can be considered a kind of approximation; it has, though, proved reliable, valid and really useful, thus acceptable, operating and implemented in many branches of contrastive and applied linguistics. (back)

22. James (n.d.) "contrastive salience" concept can be widened by revealing not only divergences, but similarities as well, a practiced by the author approach (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2012 a,b,c; 2015). (back)

23. Current work author treats NL ↔ FL₁ ↔ FL₂ ↔ FL_n relationship similarly to some extent to NL ↔ FL₁ connection in accordance with numerous researchers’ views. (back)

24. Term of ours defined in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012c). (back)

25. Research has proved that intralingual interference quite often accompanies interlingual one (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, 2011, 2017b,c, 2016, 2015b). (back)

26. Highlighting plays an underlying part in noticing (rf. above as to noticing essence) facilitating detection. (back)

27. CpT and CTjoint implementation is put forward in the teaching of the Passive, Perfect, Progressive, verbids and deverbal adjectives by the author (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2012a,b, 2015b, 2017a,b). (back)

28. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2014c) where the advantages of NL implementation in ELT are examined in detail. (back)

29. As well as in FLT, in general. (back)

30. Rf. as to transfer essence and role in this chapter CT section above. (back)

31. Plurilingualism refers to having knowledge in at least three languages (NL, FL₁, FL₂), these languages mutually interfering. (back)

32. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012c) as to plurilingualism and its subtypes building within higher transport education at Todor Kableshkov University of Transport; bilingualism can be considered as a kind of plurilingualism. (back)

33. Rf. as to experiments and experimental analysis testifying to better achievement in EFL teaching adopting NL use approaches in Miles (2004) and in Damra & Al Qudah (2012) as to grammar teaching higher accomplishments. (back)

34. University students the author works with are not trained to become language specialists, but specialists in the field of engineering and economics. That is why objectives set predominantly concern practical language and linguistic knowledge with respect to all skills within EFL and ESP, the importance of LA notwithstanding being crucial in the purpose of enhancing communicative competence. However, as already mentioned, some approaches and explanation suitable to students preparing to work in EFL and applied linguistics spheres will be also referred to. (back)

35. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012b) as to LLS implementation in diatheses teaching, stress being put on CT and CpT approaches as well as to Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2017c) with respect to PV teaching procedures carried out by means of PowerPoint presentations. (back)

36. Examples were adapted from Geotechnical (n.d.). (back)

37. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012b, 2017c) as to put forward schematic devices, along with presentation slides design, within diatheses teaching; the second article treats these strategies in the framework of a PhD students EFL (and ESP) course. (back)

38. CpT approach will be further exemplified below in more detail. (back)

39. One and the same participle, possessing different names, though, with respect to its functions, in compliance with Huddleston (1984). (back)

40. See above in this chapter beginning as to types of LLS and their interconnections. (back)

41. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012b) as to English passive CT with French and Bulgarian. (back)

42. Rf. to survey parameters in details in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2014a, 2012c). (back)

43. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012b) as to English, French and Bulgarian types of passive presentation. (back)

44. Rf. as to 2-5 utterances in Celce and Larsen (1983) in Molhova et al. (1991: 305-307, 311, 312). (back)

45. Rf. as to 6-7 utterances in Kurtoğlu (2006: 8-12). (back)

46. Rf. as to 8-10 utterances in Huddleston (1984: 440-446); bold underlining within English, French and Bulgarian passive types examples is ours. (back)

47. An example quoted from Miličková (1994: 50). (back)

48. Examples 2 and 3 are quoted from ГСБКЕ, Vol. 2 (1983). (back)

49. Examples 1-4 and 7-8 are author’s, though inspired by Huddleston (1984); 5-6 examples were cited with some alterations from Huddleston (1984: 320, 321) in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012b); bold characters and underlining are author’s. (back)

50. Rf. Cohen (1989) who believes that original perfect periphrasis stems from the passive. We support this view due to acquisition of result value of both categories. (back)

51. If necessary, some adjectival features may be also reminded, such as attributive, postpositive use, modifiers use and gradation, by means of learner-accessible vocabulary (The book is interesting; an interesting book; a really interesting book) in compliance with Huddleston’s (1984: 299) view on typical adjectives. (back)

52. Rf. as to CT and CpT of verbids within the ESP on geotechnics course in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015c). (back)

53. This is what exactly the author does in her teaching; -ing / -ed adjectives are taught in comparison with the perfect, passive and progressive, to put forward ideas of activity and result; gerunds are presented in comparison with the progressive, present participle and -ing-adjectives in the perspective of activity gradation. (back)

54. This comparison was borrowed from De Smet & Heyvaert (2009). (back)

55. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012a) and cited authors. (back)

56. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012a) for more details as to Huddleston’s (1984) transformations and author’s interpretation as well. (back)

57. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015c) for more detailed presentation. (back)

58. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015c) for more detailed explanation. (back)

59. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2017b) for details with respect to progressive periphrasis cognitive teaching within the ESP on automobile engineering course. (back)

60. Exemplifying instances italics, underlinings and bold characters are mine in examples all through the study. (back)

61. Rf. as to progressive periphrasis imperfectivity, progressiveness at specific time of reference Bybee, Dahl (1989); imperfectivity and dynamicity combination Comrie (1995); limited duration stemming from dynamicity Jóhannsdóttir (2011); stage events Landman (1992); change susceptibility Williams (2001); planned events - considered in development Leech et al. (2009); repetitive events Palmer (1974); Bybee, Dahl (1989), Comrie (1995), Landman (1992), Leech et al. (2009) and Palmer (1974), referred to in Jóhannsdóttir (2011). (back)

62. Examples from Thomas (1971: 306, 307) referred to in Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012a). (back)

63. Rf. Guillaume (1970), Amourette (2006), Le Goffic (1994), De Carvalho (2003) as to French present participle and -ant deverbal adjective features and similarities. (back)

64. Rf. as to details Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2012a) on English deverbal adjectives CT and CpT. (back)

65. Rf. Guillaume (1970), Imbs (1960), Manchev et al. (1986) as to French past participle (participe passé) characteristics and its closeness to adjectives. (back)

66. Rf. Accord (n.d.); bold characters are ours. (back)

67. Third and fourth examples are ours. (back)

68. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015c) as to teaching texts as well as to more details in gerunds and -ing words CT. (back)

69. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2011) as to intralanguage interference rather frequently contributing to interlanguage transfer; it has turned out on many occasions that fighting intralanguage negative transfer by means of CpT, considerably reduces calquing effect, learners increased awareness facilitating FL₁ / FL₂ (NL) features discrimination in terms of taught categories. (back)

70. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2011) as to carried out research and French → English functional equivalents characteristics. (back)

71. This type of error analysis, suggested by the author, represents an efficient cognitive LLS with metacognitive components allowing learners to become aware of their level of understanding and to set adequate objectives. (back)

72. Rf. Clanfield et al. (2007: 19): "By generative situation, we mean a situation that can generate a lot of the kind of language you wish to focus on. For example, the situation of two friends meeting each other after a long time could generate several examples of perfect tenses - e.g. How have you been? What have you been doing? I’ve changed jobs. I haven’t seen him in ages." (back)

73. Rf. Grozdanova (2003:95) as to some adverbs and perfect use connection. (back)

74. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2013a) as to cited erroneous use and remedial approach through questions. (back)

75. Due to current study essence, written in applied linguistics perspective, referred to linguists’ views as well as the author’s ideas will naturally be conveyed through characteristic metalanguage. (back)

76. Translation instances, such as "Вече приготви отчетите." characterized with aoristic resultative value (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015b) have been used more and more often in contemporary Bulgarian, though not without due objections. This type of aoristic use is determined by Bulgarian aorist aptitudes of referring not only to perfectivity, separation from the current moment and deicticity, but also to resultativity in specific context. (back)

77. "She has been speaking..." may be also mentioned providing that learners have been partially at least acquainted with the Perfect progressive. (back)

78. In accordance with CLL method (rf. above). (back)

79. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015b) as to Bulgarian aoristic equivalences to the English perfect. (back)

80. Exemplifying English → Bulgarian utterances have been quoted from Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015b); English category Bulgarian equivalences are motivated in detail in terms of form / semantics (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015b). Hereby are commented on just most relevant equivalences in Bulgarian; features of categories as well as researchers’ names are mentioned only briefly, to the extent needed within the current work. (back)

81. Rf. as to Bulgarian present values in BAS grammar (ГСБКЕ) (1983), Pashov (2013). (back)

82. Rf. as to Bulgarian perfect values in Maslov (1990); Lindstedt (1982, 1985, 1994, 2000); Stankov (1976); Andreychin (1957); Alexova (2003, 2004); (Nitsolova 2007); Kirova (2011); Kutsarov (1993), Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015b). (back)

83. Rf. as to Bulgarian aorist features BAS grammar and Lindstedt (1986). (back)

84. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2015b): "past activities which the speaker considers must have happened in an already expected way"; e.g. "Издържа ли си изпита?; Срещнахте ли се и днес?" (Stankov 1976: 62); we estimate Bg aorist finished / unfinished aspect (св. / несв. вид) interplay also preconditions resultative aoristic value (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015b) though learners are not usually informed on this interplay. (back)

85. Rf. Plag (2003) as to word-formation in detail. (back)

86. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2013c) on LM features and its relatedness to CT implementation. (back)

87. Rf. as to intrinsic and extrinsic LM types in EDAL. (back)

88. Instrumental and integrative LM types are notions introduced by Gardner and Lambert (1972) (in Ngeow 1998: 2). (back)

89. Rf. to Oxford and Shearin (1994) (ref. in Ngeow (1998: 2) and also in Hussin, Maarof, D’Cruz (2001: 2) as to six major LM influencing factors: attitudes (feelings towards studied language), beliefs about self (learners’ expectations of success), goals (relevance), involvement (awareness in learning activity), environmental support (assistance by lecturer and other learners) and personal attributes (age, knowledge parameters, etc.); rf. to Bligh (1971) and Sass (1989) (in Davis (1999: 1) as to interest, realization of usefulness, patience and persistence, among other factors as well. (back)

90. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2013b) as to details in LM / LA mutual connectedness presentation, based on referred to researchers’ and author’s insights. (back)

91. Rf. Chapter 1 with respect to MR, LA general issues some of which again commented on in the following paragraph. (back)

92. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2013c) as to CT beneficial to LM connection. (back)

93. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2016) as to details on the topic. (back)

94. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2016) as to original table. (back)

95. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2014a) as to details on CT and CpT effect on LA enhancement. (back)

96. Rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova (2013b) as to details on the topic. (back)

97. Rf. Patel (2013) and Ampa (2015) as to multimedia creating interest and, respectively, motivation in FLT. (back)

© Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova
=============================
© E-publisher LiterNet, 10.05.2018
Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova. Language Awareness, Language Learning Strategies, Contrastive and Comparative Teaching in ELT and ESP. Varna: LiterNet, 2018