SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2019 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

Using Contrastive Terminology Analysis in Teaching a Foreign Language

Chunxiang Wu
Jennifer Baccanello
Pages
461–471
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We hope that the theoretical frameworkpresented in this paper will be of use to teachers of Chinese for Special Purposes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study focuses on teaching Chinese for Special Purposes (CSP) and explores how terminology used inChinese commercial contracts can be taught using a contrastive terminology analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Secondly, we describe the method of contrastive semantic analysis and show how it can bepaired with corpus linguistics in order to help L2 Chinese learners acquire vocabulary used in BusinessChinese, focusing specifically on Chinese commercial contracts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We hope that the theoretical frameworkpresented in this paper will be of use to teachers of Chinese for Special Purposes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study focuses on teaching Chinese for Special Purposes (CSP) and explores how terminology used inChinese commercial contracts can be taught using a contrastive terminology analysis. Firstly, we outlinethe contextual differences that exist between commercial contracts drafted in Chinese and those draftedin English. Secondly, we describe the method of contrastive semantic analysis and show how it can bepaired with corpus linguistics in order to help L2 Chinese learners acquire vocabulary used in BusinessChinese, focusing specifically on Chinese commercial contracts. Thirdly, we shall explore the semanticequivalence between lexical items of different languages. Lastly, we present a semantic analysis ofterminology found in Chinese and English commercial contracts. We hope that the theoretical frameworkpresented in this paper will be of use to teachers of Chinese for Special Purposes.

🔖

Cite This Article

Wu, C., Baccanello, J. (2022). Using Contrastive Terminology Analysis in Teaching a Foreign Language. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 461–471. https://ajindex.com/articles/507014

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Adams, J. P. (2009). The Roman Concept of Fides. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/fides.html
  2. Aston, G. (Ed.). (2001). Learning with corpora. Houston: Athelstan. Bennet, G. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  3. Breeze, R. (2017). Corpora and computation in teaching law and language. International Journal of Language & Law, 6, 1-17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14762/jll.2017.001
  4. Cao, D. (2016). Chinese law: a language perspective. New York: Routledge. Cheng, L. & Sin, K. (2008). Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica, 172, 33-45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2008.088
  5. Dubroff, H. (2006). The implied covenant of good faith in contract interpretation and gapfilling: Reviling a revered relic. St. John’s Law Review, 80(2), 559-620. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=120 0&context=lawreview Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. (2009). Contract Law (7th ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited. Garside, K. J., Pigott, A. R., & Bates, J. (2018). UK: The Basics: The Current Position On Good Faith. Retrieved from http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/709832/Contract+Law/The+Basics+The+current+position+on +good+faith Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303-318.
  6. Johns, T., & King, P. (Eds.). (1991). Classroom concordancing. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Juodinytė-Kuznetsova, K. (2015). Contrastive semantic analysis of contract law terms in studies of foreign language for specific purposes. Sustainable Multilingualism, 7, 58-72. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2335-2027.7.3
  7. Kocbek, A. (2006). Language and culture in international legal communication. Managing Global Transitions, 4(3), 231-247. Retrieved from http://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISSN/1581- 6311/4_231- 247.pdf. Makino, S. (1974). Contrastive semantic analysis and teaching Japanese. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 9(1), 21-34.
  8. Mattila, H.E.S. (2006). Comparative legal linguistics. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Matulewska, A. (2016). Semantic relations between legal terms: A case study of the intralingual relation of synonymy. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 45(1), 161-174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2016-0022
  9. McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2010). What corpo