Funny Errors in the Inter-language of Law Students

Funny Errors in the Interlanguageof Law StudentsLjubica Kordić and Dubravka PapaFaculty of Law, Osijek University, Croatia

Structure of the presentation:I. Introduction:Features of students’ inter-languageClassification of errors;II. Research:Goals, corpus, methodologyLinguistic analysis of the samplea) Phonetic & phonological levelb) Morpho-syntactic levelc) Semantic leveld) Grammatical levele) The level of phraseologyIII. Discussion of the Results and Conclusion

I. INTRODUCTION1. Features of students’ interlanguage:Inter-language denotes a language systemstudents design in the L2 learning period whichdiffers from L1 and L2 (Selinker)Main features of that system:a) the creation of abstract language rules,b) the subjection to external and internal impact,c) changeable grammar rules andd) errors as a result of diverse learning strategies.

2. Classification of ErrorsMany classifications refer to errors occurring in theproduction of L2, like Corder’s classification (omission ofthe required elements, addition of unnecessary orinaccurate elements, selection of inaccurate elementsand inadequate ordering)As we analyze errors in understanding FL andtranslation from FL as a (re)productive language activity,the most relevant classification for our research is theone offered by Richards:1) Intralingual errors - caused by insufficient targetlanguage knowledge (reflected in faulty generalizationsand incomplete rule application)2) Developing errors - caused by student’s creatinghypothesis on the functioning of FL system according tohis limited experience.3) Interlingual errors (Ellis, 1985) - caused by the mothertongue interference.

II. RESEARCHA. Goal, Corpus and MethodologyThe main goal of this paper: to analyze students’ errorsin the understanding and translation of original legaltexts, in order to establish the most common errors andto discover most striking problems in understanding legaltexts in English as a foreign language.Special emphasis will be put on the errors comprisingthe elements of humour. Such elements mostly arisefrom the language transfer, i.e. from the interference ofthe mother tongue, as well as from the low level ofstudents’ knowledge

Corpus of the research: One hundred examswritten by the second year students of theFaculty of Law in Osijek, Croatia.The research is focused on the first part of theexams, consisting of the original English textsfrom the field of law, which our studentstranslated into Croatian.Four different texts are included into theresearch, encompassing 120 – 200 words each.The texts are different thematically and refer topublic law, criminal law, the role of the police inthe British legal system and the division ofJudiciary in Great Britain.

The methodology used in the research:1) reading students’ translations,2) excerption and classification of errors accordingto 5 linguistic levels:- the level of phonology & phonetics,- the morpho-syntactic level,- the semantic level,- the grammatical level and- the level of phraseology.

B. Linguistic Analysis of theSampleThe concept “funny errors”: According to Erdeljac andHorga, errors can be understood as failures in targetinga mental lexicon language unit by activating wrong units.When errors include the elements of contrast andunexpectedness they are often humorous and causelaughter.Most common funny errors are known as false friends:They are usually homonyms or homophones, and thefunny effect they produce is caused by the contrastbetween the form (sound) and the content we attach tothat form in our mother tongue.

a) Phonetic & phonological level:Omission of English phonemes:renting ships was translated as iznajmljivanje ovaca(renting sheep); British policy, often mixed up with theword police.Transfer of some English phonemes and morphems,although they do not belong to the Croatian language:kriv je za delikt trespasa…, Magistrats je odlučio…;konstabl može zaplijeniti…. An especially interestingcase was the translation of the sentence: It is not a gravecrime as To nije grave kriminal.False friends (because of their identical soundrealization in the two languages):the position is - pozicija je; the provision 58 - provizija 58;British policy - britanska policija.

Some other examples of falsefriends:Literal translation of the term criminal courtas kriminalni sud led to a humorousdescription of the court as a crimecommittinginstitution; (correct: kaznenisud).Similarly, public protection is literallytranslated as javna protekcija, which turnsa semantically positive term into a termreferring to something legally wrong.

In the sentence: The policeman will be guilty of the tort ofconversion, the word conversion was mixed up with aphonetically similar word conversation:In 3 cases we got translations like “policajac će biti krivza prekršaj govora (the policeman will be guilty of the tortof speech)” or a more imaginative one: “... zazadržavanje na razgovoru” (... of the tort of detention forthe purpose of conversation).Our favourite translation of this sentence indicates thatthe student was thinking of an actual situation inCroatian society: “policajac je kriv za pretvorbu” - thepoliceman is guilty of the tort of transition to a marketeconomy.

Other interesting examples showed how farstudents’ imagination can reach: interest on loanmoney was translated as interes za zajam novca,or even as: zanimanje za novac; women public(meaning: women citizens) as ženska publika;Our favourite example: the word occupier (of theapartment) was translated (by 10 students!) asokupator (invader).

) Morpho-syntactic level:Errors occurring at this level are mostlycaused by the mixing-up of the parts ofspeech or their function in the sentence.(verbs are mixed-up with nouns or viceversa).Example: It was not allowed to forcejudge… is wrongly translated as: nedopušta se sila suca (Using force by thejudge is not allowed).

The collocation Government supporters istranslated as vlada koja podržava (governmentwhich supports).An interesting case is when two verbs are falselytranslated as an adjective and a noun: thosewho might feel…is translated as: oni koji imajusnažan osjećaj (those who have a strongfeeling).Our favourite example: the word Bill (declaration,convention) is understood as a personal name:The Government Bill is translated as Billovavlada (Bill’s Government).

Errors caused by students’ insufficientknowledge of phrasal verbs:“the law ran out of time” was translated aszakon bježi od vremena (the law is runningaway from time);“to strike down the New Deal” wastranslated as: spustiti dolje program NewDeal, or as: srušiti dolje New Deal (to pulldown the New Deal), or even as a noun:štrajk New Deal programa (the strike ofthe New Deal).

Examples of Students’ creativityIn the sentence: The number of rulingshas continued to drop, the last word istranslated as a noun kapljice (drops) byone student, and another produced aromantic translation by using the wordsuze (tears): broj je padao poput suze (thenumber was falling like a tear).

c) Semantic levelEllis’s statement that the production of errors is affectedby the situational and linguistic context is fullymanifested on the semantic level of analysis, becausepolysemic terms and phrases often occur in thelanguage of law: party, remedy or bar.Examples:A) legal term articles, which has different meanings indifferent contexts; In the sentence: “whether the policecan seize articles…,” it was translated by our students inmany creative ways: as članak (article of the law),proizvod (product), or even odredba (provision), whichresulted in funny information that the policemen canseize a product, an article of law or a provision.

B) “He can use weapon to harm himself” was translated byone student as “on može uzeti oružje da primijeni zlo”(he can take weapon to apply evil), by another as “možekoristiti oružje da nanese štetu” (he can use weapon toinflict damage).C) The term ruling (judgement, judicial decision) wastranslated out of the given context as: vladanje,vladavina, (reign), upravljanje (administration), or zakon(law). Small number of students translated the termcorrectly, as presuda, odluka.D) Similarly, the term offence was in most cases translatedas vrijeđanje (insult) instead of prekršaj (breach of law).

E) The sentence “If people are attached to the limitedpowers of the Constitution…” was translated as “ako suljudi pričvršćeni za ograničenu snagu ustava” (if peopleare fastened to the limited powers of the Constitution);F) Even typical legal terms to try and the court weretranslated as common language terms pokušati and dvor(2 students). So the statement “... the court is entitled totry the defendant summarily” was translated as “sudmože pokušati sažeti branjenika” (the court may try tosum up the defendant)Our favorite example:Enjoyment of one’s land was translated as naslade nečijezemlje (voluptuousness of / in one’s land).

d) Grammatical level:Errors of grammar nature are less intenselyrepresented than errors on other levels ofanalysis;Most of them relate to wrong translation oftenses and usually don’t have humorous effect;The lack of knowledge of passive voice (thepassive subject was translated as active) cansometimes cause laughter, like in the sentence:“The occupier should be told by the policemanwhy he requires entry”, which was translated as“Vlasnik stana mora reći policajcu zašto želi ući”(= The occupier should tell the policemen whyhe requires entry).

e) The level of phraseologyThe lack of knowledge of legal phraseology was causeof most errors;Even some phrases from everyday speech weretranslated literally: broadly speaking as široko govoreći,for example as za primjer and to make difference aspraviti razliku.Wrongly translated legal phrases:- public good as dobro publike (good of the public) insteadof opće dobro;- legal system as legalni sistem (instead of pravni sustav),- lay people (non-professionals) as podložni ljudi(subordinated people) and- the challenged by-law (an opposed/ denied by-law) asizazvani zakon.

In the second case the translation gives quite anopposite impression: “Upotreba sile od strane policijetreba biti u granicama normale i primjenjivana dokle jepotrebno” (The use of force by the police should beapplied within the limits of normality and as long as it isnecessary).Examples of students’ creativity intranslation:“The use of force by the police must be reasonable anddelayed until it is necessary” was translated as:“Upotreba sile od strane policije trebala bi biti umjerena tj.odgovorna i moraju biti blagi osim ako je to u slučajunužde” (The use of force by the police should bemoderate i.e. responsible and they have to be gentleexcept in the case of necessity).

Our favourite example:Legal phrase the weaker party (meaningthe party who is supposed to loose thecase) was translated as vikend tulum(weekend party).- The explanation for this translation couldbe the transfer of the mother tongue, butalso the fact that the exam was written onMonday morning, probably after one of theweekend parties.

III. CONCLUSIONThree types of errors were analyzed:a) intralingual errors, caused by students’ insufficientknowledge of English as a FL,b) developing errors, caused by students’ creatinghypothesis on functioning of FL system, which arecorrected as the knowledge of the language systemimproves, andc) interlingual errors, caused by the interference of themother tongue and the transfer of its structures into theL2.As our research showed, students of the tertiaryeducation level mostly make errors of interlingual andintralingual character while translating legal texts fromEnglish into Croatian. Developing errors occur on themorho-syntactic and the grammatical level.

Quantitative analysis of errors:Errors occur most frequently on semantic level(22) and the level of phonetics and phonology(20 errors).Errors on the level of phraseology arerepresented with 15 examples;Errors found on the level of morphology andsyntax are represented with 14 examples;Grammatical errors were not thoroughlyanalyzed in this paper, as its main goal was topresent and to analyze errors comprising theelements of humour.

These results should be considered asindicative for students’ inter-language only inthe limited sense, because1) the research was focused only on the errorscomprising the elements of humour,2) it was carried out on students’ translationsfrom English into Croatian as a reproductivelanguage activity.To get a more precise insight into thecharacter of students’ inter-language, a widerresearch of errors including all types oflanguage activity should be carried out.