This paper investigates how successful B2 level English language learners (ELLs), high school students are in translating a group of most common false friends (FFs) from English to BCS and vice versa and examines whether they are more successful in translating absolute or partial FFs. In line with the classification by Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2015), false friends are considered to be a class of cognates. They are further sub-classified into absolute FFs, which have the same or similar form and dissimilar meaning in two languages (e.g. eventually, meaning finally in English and eventualno, meaning possibly in BCS) and partial false friends with the same or similar form and one same and another dissimilar meaning. (e.g. argument in English, meaning reason, the same as argument in BSC and disagreement, the meaning for which a different word is used in BCS, rasprava). Due to their deceptive nature, FFs have been researched within different theoretical frameworks - theoretical, contrastive, applied linguistics, semantics, pragmatics and translation studies. By means of a survey and descriptive and inferential statistics, this paper confirms the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference between correct translation of FFs from English to BCS and their correct translation from BCS to English. Furthermore, the second hypothesis was also confirmed, namely that the B2 ELLs are more successful in translating partial than in translating absolute FFs. The research results suggest that in teaching FFs as items of deceptive vocabulary both explicit and implicit methods need to be applied
References
1.
Ivir V. Serbo-Croatian-English false pair types. In: Studia romanica et anglicazagrabiensia. p. 149–59.
2.
Schellabear S. False Friends in Business English.
3.
Rusiecki J. Friends True and False. In: Arabski, Time for Words. p. 71–81.
4.
Roca-Varela ML. False Friends in Learner Corpora. 2015.
5.
Rizvić-Eminović E, Bujak AB, M. A Study of Trends in the Level of English Language Grammatical Competence at Zenica University. In: Third International Conference on Education, Culture and Identity, The Future of Humanities, Education and Creative Industries. p. 197–206.
6.
Ringbom H. Cross-linguistic Similarity in FOreign Language Learning.
7.
Riđanović M. Praktična engleska gramatika uz poređenja sa našim jezikom, drugo dopunjeno izdanje.
8.
Otwinowska A. Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use. 2015.
9.
Kasztelanic AO. Chapter 1: Awareness and Affordances: Multilinguals versus Bilinguals and their Perceptions of Cognates. New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research. 2011. p. 1–18.
10.
Nuttal C. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language.
11.
Why Vocabulary Instruction Needs to Be Long-Term and Comprehensive. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. 2005. p. 37–54.
12.
Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics and Language Teachers.
13.
Guerlac O, Koessler M, Derocquigny J. Les Faux Amis ou les Trahisons du Vocabulaire Anglais. Books Abroad. 1929;3(1):14.
14.
Jovanović V. General remarks on the common forms of false friends in Serbian and English. In: Škola biznisa, naučno-stručni časopis. p. 207–13.
15.
Janke V, Kolokonte M. False cognates: The effect of mismatch in morphological complexity on a backward lexical translation task. Second Language Research. 2015;31(2):137–56.
16.
Aarts BC. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar.
17.
Hauge E. Bilingualism in the Americas.
18.
Granger SS. False friends: a kaleidoscope of translation difficulties. Langage et I’Homme. 23:108–20.
19.
Filipović R. Teorija jezika u kontaktu. In: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti & Školska knjiga.
20.
Dijkstra T. Lexical Processing in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. In: Cenoz, The Multilingual Lexicon.
21.
New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research. 2011.
22.
Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.
23.
Chamizo-Dominguez PJ. Semantics and Pragmatics of False Friends.
24.
Chamizo Domı́nguez PJ, Nerlich B. False friends. Journal of Pragmatics. 2002;34(12):1833–49.
25.
Broz V. Diachronic Investigations of False Friends. SL. 66:199–222.
26.
Berthele R. On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks. Applied Linguistics Review. 2011;2(2011):191–220.
27.
Individual Learner Differences in SLA. 2011.
28.
Ahn S. INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES IN SLA. Janusz Arabski & Adam Wojtaszek (Eds.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2011. Pp. xvii + 320. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2013;35(3):567–8.
29.
Ahn S. INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES IN SLA. Janusz Arabski & Adam Wojtaszek (Eds.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2011. Pp. xvii + 320. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2013;35(3):567–8.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
