Ships from and sold by Stars and Stripes Bookstore.
Ships from and sold by indoobestsellers. Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. La traduccion del ingles al castellano Spanish Edition. A Course in Translation Method: Spanish to English Thinking Translation. Real Academia De La. Manual De Traduccion Spanish Edition. Sponsored products related to this item What's this?
Ready to finally become fluent in Spanish? This book was made for you in mind! The book goes over the most frequently used words in Spanish.
Spanish Short Stories for Beginners: Ready to skyrocket your Spanish comprehension and finally become fluent? Packed with 20 short stories for Spanish learners! A guide to improving your written skills in all areas, covering both structure and style. How to Get Really Good at Spanish: Learn Spanish to Fluency and Beyond.
If you find yourself overwhelmed trying to memorize thousands of Spanish vocabulary words or struggling to speak with native speakers, try this book! Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. It's an awesome dictionary, really helpful for translation students, because it helps you with some tips for improves english-spanish translations. Its a must have! One person found this helpful.
A workaday must for the translator and interpreter. Reference and relevant text for linguists and professionals. A must have for all translators!
Learn Spanish to Fluency and Beyond. Packed with 20 short stories for Spanish learners! Skehan and VanPatten , among other researchers in the field of L2 acquisition, have argued that when language students attention is focused on meaning, their ability to attend to the proper use of the language decreases because of a limitation in their cognitive capacity; that is, they are unable to process meaning and form simultaneously. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. This measurement was obtained based on the learners scores on an adapted version of the international, standardized Michigan English Test Hinenoya, , which was administered at the beginning of the course.
A very good, practical book. Great reference for all translators out there. Although I have to admit it, at some points it goes way too theoretical to the point of boring numbness, which makes me rate it 4 stars.
But all in all, a brilliant book. It was OK but I imagine this book more professional examples. This knowledge can relate to morphology, syntax, vocabulary, etc. Thus, for the purpose of the current study, the L2 proficiency of the learners was operationalized through a combined measurement of their English vocabulary and grammar. This measurement was obtained based on the learners scores on an adapted version of the international, standardized Michigan English Test Hinenoya, , which was administered at the beginning of the course.
The first test section evaluated grammar, whereas the second section assessed vocabulary; each section included 40 items. To establish students L2 proficiency, the percentage of all their correct answers was considered. Given the descriptive nature of the study, the L2 phonological instruction was planned and given by the teacher of the course, as part of his regular instruction based on the course syllabus, which entailed explanations of the English phonological segmental and suprasegmental systems. The manner and position of articulation, and the voicing of consonants needed to be taught; for vowels, information on the tongue height, frontness and backedness, tenseness and laxness, and lip rounding had to be covered.
The teacher was a graduate of the same B. According to Swan and Smith , the difficulty lies in the fact that the two selected vowels and the three consonant sounds are not part of the participants L1 phonological system. Furthermore, the target phone might be perceived as an L1 phone because of the potentially unnoticeable differences in articulation. The L2 consonant is pronounced with the tip of tongue between the teeth, while the L1 phone is pronounced with the tip of the tongue touching the tooth bridge. One more difference is that, in order to produce the L2 sound, the airstream is stopped with the tip of the tongue and the teeth, while to pronounce the L1 phone, the airstream is completely obstructed with the tip of the tongue touching the tooth ridge.
The L2 sound is pronounced using a vibration of the vocal cords, while the L1 is produced with no vibration. To produce the L2 sound, the airstream is stopped with the upper teeth and the lower lip, but is latter released, while to pronounce the L1 sound, the airstream is completely obstructed with both lips. To examine the instructional effects on the learners L2 pronunciation of these target sounds, two quantitative and two qualitative instruments were implemented.
This instrument consisted of a word list which students read aloud. Skehan and VanPatten , among other researchers in the field of L2 acquisition, have argued that when language students attention is focused on meaning, their ability to attend to the proper use of the language decreases because of a limitation in their cognitive capacity; that is, they are unable to process meaning and form simultaneously. Thus, in order to document the effectiveness of explicit phonological instruction when students were consciously concentrating their attention on pronunciation, the task required could entail no processing of meaning.
In light of this, it the most appropriate task was considered to be reading a word list aloud; this would give students time for conscious retrieval of pronunciation knowledge. In the word list that students read aloud, each of the words included one of the target sounds. Words of one or two syllables were used for the purpose of obtaining a clear audio recording of the participants production of the target phones; this recording was to be used for eventual phonetic identification.
Each word could include its chosen target sound only once. In this way, the number of times the students would generate the target phones was controlled. Two versions of the instrument were created, Version 1 and Version 2. The words were organized in such a way as to have the participants encounter the target phones in the same order in the two versions.
Each version included three words per each of the five target sounds, and each included 15 target words. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the words were organized in the two versions so that the participants would encounter the target phones in the same order in both.
Six mathematical operations and three words were included as distracters, in order to deflect students attention from previous phonological knowledge. These distracters would provide students with a cognitive break, allowing them to clear their minds of pronunciation concerns. The distracters, carefully selected, did not include any of the target phones, since we did not want to alter the number of the times the learners would encounter the target sounds, and thus affect later quantitative analysis.
This task would allow for a documentation of the effectiveness of explicit phonological instruction when students were engaged in meaning transaction, and thus, would have limited time and cognitive resources for the conscious retrieval of pronunciation knowledge. Brainteaser, a guessing game, was designed to be such a task. The word guessed included a target phone.
This instrument was adapted from a study conducted by Lyster and Izquierdo Two versions of this Word List instrument were created. Six countries and three words which did not include any of the target phones were included as distracters that would provide students with a break from the pronunciation of the target sounds. This instrument consisted of two sheets: The Testers Brainteasers Card containing the word definitions, or "Brainteasers," which were read to the testees.
The second sheet, the Learners Brainteaser Card, contained the instructions and the target words arranged in columns. For the Posttest, the versions were alternated. Analyses of variance conducted on the results revealed no significant differences between the results obtained for the two versions at either of the testing times; therefore, no distinction was made between version results in the statistical analyses.
This instrument was designed to document the frequency with which the teacher taught the target phones, as well as the type of task in which the phones were taught. The instrument consisted of a grid with six columns. In the first column, the date and the activity implemented had to be stated; at the top of the each of the five remaining columns, the phonetic representation of the target sounds was presented.
Below each sound, a space was provided for the teacher to write a brief description of the activity whereby the sound was taught. The teacher filled out this form after each instructional session. This instrument was composed of two pages; the first page contained the instructions for the observer.
The following choices were provided for the observer to select: Dialogues, Class Discussion, Other. The observer used this sheet during classroom observations.
Analysis Procedures and Results. Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures. The target sounds were transcribed verbatim as pronounced by the participants. The phonetic transcriptions of the target sounds generated by the assistants were compared. When there was a lack of agreement between the transcriptions of the target sound, the first assistant transcribed the target phone for a third time. Then, a score of 1 or 0 was given for the target word, depending on the appropriate pronunciation of the target phone in the word.
Three scores were obtained per student per testing time. One score was obtained for the appropriate pronunciation of the six target vowels; this score ranged from 0 to 6. Another score was obtained for the appropriate pronunciation of the nine target consonants; this score ranged from 0 to 9. Finally, one overall score included the addition of the consonant and vowel scores; this score varied from 0 to Global Pronunciation Score Results. Vowel Pronunciation Score Results.
Consonant Pronunciation Score Results. Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures. Then, the frequency with which the teacher taught each phone, using each type of task, was identified. Teacher's Log Analysis Results. The teacher reported on 17 teaching sessions. The tasks implemented with least frequency were Ss individual repetition and Ss choral repetition.
Nine classes were observed throughout the term. It also looked into whether there would be differential effects obtained between vowels or consonants. Congruent with previous L2 research results, positive instructional effects were observed in our study. The students improved in the pronunciation of vowel and consonant sounds in two different types of tasks. One task allowed students to retrieve knowledge of the phone components of a word the Word List , whereas the other did the same, but to a lesser degree.
While these results confirm the positive effects of instruction, they differed from results of previous studies. In Derwing et als study , for instance, students who were instructed on segmentals alone showed improvement in sentence reading, but no improvement on extemporaneous narratives.
In our study, however, learners improved in both types of tasks. One explanation for our results is that in our study, both tasks allowed for focusing attention on pronunciation during production. Although the Brainteasers activity aimed at shifting student attention away from L2 phonology, in this task, students did not have to retrieve features of the L2 as morphology, syntax and lexis as they did in Derwing et al 's study' Moreover, our learners received both segmental and suprasegmental instruction. The suprasegmental instruction provided learners with further practice on segmental pronunciation; hence, they had additional opportunities to assimilate the L2 segmental features.
The results indicated that students L2 proficiency knowledge did not make a difference in phonological improvement. Then too, our participants from all proficiency levels were provided with sustained opportunities for practice by means of a wide array of instructional tasks. The variety of activities utilized for instructing students on segmentals and suprasegmentals could then explain the absence of differential results among proficiency levels and phone types. The teacher employed activities that facilitated perception e. In previous research, this type of instruction has been documented as promoting L2 phonology learning.
For instance, Derwing et al explained that the segmental instruction in their experiment consisted of the repetition and discrimination of individual sound contrasts. For suprasegmental instruction, perception activities were used, with students having to identify the word stress. These activities were in line with those employed by Pennington, Ellis, Lee, and Lock The analyses of the instructional tasks implemented by the teacher indicated, therefore, that in the classroom, perception tasks were frequently used in combination with production tasks.
The Speech Learning Model hypothesized that if phonological differences between an L1 and L2 are perceived by the L2 speakers, then the establishment of a new category as a new sound in their phonology repertory is more likely.
However if the L2 phone is perceived as an L1 phone, then the sound being similar, but slightly different would be not be categorized, and as a result, would not be produced. Strange and Shafer further outlined that learners need stimuli and task implementation to facilitate the learning of appropriate acoustic structures.
Thus, perception tasks may have helped our participants learn phonological aspects that tend to be difficult to acquire because of the L1 characteristics. However, production opportunities were provided; this, according to cognitivist perspectives, means that learning is achieved through explicit instruction and practice DeKeyser, The systematized implementation of production tasks may have allowed the students we observed to start proceduralizing the declarative knowledge they obtained from explicit instruction.
Even though, in previous studies, the authors controlled variables such as instruction type and proficiency level, they paid no attention to the students L1. Furthermore, the authors did not explain why they had selected the particular target sounds or words. The absence of this piece of information did not allow the authors to determine the extent to which instruction interacted with L1 influence in facilitating the learning of L2 phonology. The selection of the target phones was based on their degree of difficulty for the participants.
Do you speak English as a first or second language? 16 Answers . Pues mi primera lengua es español (de España) como sabe la mayoría. Spanish is my second language, so I still make some altomar.pt español es mi segunda lengua, así que todavía cometo algunos errores. b. el español es mi.
The results of our study suggest, then, that explicit instruction can assist adult L2 students in learning L2 phones which they find difficult because of L1 influence.