I started out in Modern Languages/Linguistics, and then decided that I could speak two languages really well or three with a level of mediocrity that didn't appeal to me. Besides, i was finding Spanish rather boring. So I dropped it, shifted my focus to the French department, and discovered that there were two strands - Language and Literature, and Language, Linguistics and translation. I took the latter. It means I have the equivalent of a minor in linguistics, though the French linguistics courses mirrored the English ones, so I actually have a solid background in basic linguistics but little at the upper levels. I took a really tough pragmatics course in fourth year - la pragmatique de la langue littéraire. Fun, but a lot of work.
The translation courses focused heavily on English-to-French, probably because that was harder for the class full of anglophones they had. Thus I learned the most important single thing to know while studying the Bible: fifteen different qualified translators can translate the same passage in twenty different ways, and all the translations will be accurate as far as the original text is concerned. Without getting into the head of the author, it's impossible to tell which one most closely matches the original intent of the author. Therefore, all Biblical translation and all Bible literalists are suspect in my eyes.
My French lit classes, which I still had to take, were incredibly boring both in their choice of literature - I don't need to know that Annie Ernaux had her first orgasm at the age of thirteen! - and in the teaching methods used - prof talks, students write, and your opinion as a student is pretty much worthless. The give-and-take of translation and linguistics suited me much better.
Hey yours sound really interesting! Hmmm I never knew that there was a specific term for pragmatics. I had to look up that one, but thanks! That was an area I was hoping to get to. But yours was in french, right? Then what exactly was your major? The pragmatics course?
I've not quite decided which particular language I want to go into - English seems my best bet now because I'm not really passionate about French (at least, not yet) and going into Chinese involves in-depth study of chinese history which I've always been bad at.
I feel the same way as you about the Bible (why did you have to study it though? for translation?) For me, it's more like the disciples and the translators may have interpreted the words to their beliefs which would make it not 100% fool-proof.
I've not heard of Anne Ernaux but that sounded really funny the way you put it!
My major was French, with a focus on linguistics and translation. Everything else was a small part of that. Pragmatics was a French linguistics class that I took towards my major.
I didn't study the Bible at University; my parents used to be Protestant ministers (the Salvation Army, actually) so I grew up knowing a lot about the Bible. I'm still a Christian, just a very liberal one.
Annie Ernaux was angsty, melodramatic, and quite boring to read. She wrote in the second half of the twentieth century, up until quite recently, I think. I absolutely hated that class, but it was required for my degree so I wouldn't let myself get less than a B on it.
hmmm you majored in french, but you would up teaching english? or have i misunderstood the whole time and you were actually teaching french? *sheepish*
i have certain ideas about religion and with that, i'm very glad that you're a liberal and that i know you! i have a good friend whom i respect and admire a lot, but he's very conservative when it comes to religions, which leaves me quite puzzled.
given that it's a class you hated, it must have taken a lot of determination to get A's and B's for it! i guess that's something i ought to really apply to myself. *gulps*
I teach both. I'm a classroom teacher, which means I do most of my stuff in English, but I also teach my kids French for forty minutes a day - it's beginner French in grades four and five, they've never taken it before. My ideal job would be teaching grades 4, 5, and 6 core French - that is, what I'm doing now with two classes, extended to six classes. But there aren't enough classes at that grade level at my school for me to do that, and I also don't want to move, so I'm stuck as a classroom teacher for the moment.
ah, i get it now. hmmm i sure hope that you get enough core classes soon then!
i used to be annoyed in primary school (grade 1 - 7?) when a few subject teachers knew enough to teach at our levels, but (seemed to) lacked knowledge and interest beyond that. i'm glad you're not like that!
The translation courses focused heavily on English-to-French, probably because that was harder for the class full of anglophones they had. Thus I learned the most important single thing to know while studying the Bible: fifteen different qualified translators can translate the same passage in twenty different ways, and all the translations will be accurate as far as the original text is concerned. Without getting into the head of the author, it's impossible to tell which one most closely matches the original intent of the author. Therefore, all Biblical translation and all Bible literalists are suspect in my eyes.
My French lit classes, which I still had to take, were incredibly boring both in their choice of literature - I don't need to know that Annie Ernaux had her first orgasm at the age of thirteen! - and in the teaching methods used - prof talks, students write, and your opinion as a student is pretty much worthless. The give-and-take of translation and linguistics suited me much better.
Reply
I've not quite decided which particular language I want to go into - English seems my best bet now because I'm not really passionate about French (at least, not yet) and going into Chinese involves in-depth study of chinese history which I've always been bad at.
I feel the same way as you about the Bible (why did you have to study it though? for translation?) For me, it's more like the disciples and the translators may have interpreted the words to their beliefs which would make it not 100% fool-proof.
I've not heard of Anne Ernaux but that sounded really funny the way you put it!
Reply
I didn't study the Bible at University; my parents used to be Protestant ministers (the Salvation Army, actually) so I grew up knowing a lot about the Bible. I'm still a Christian, just a very liberal one.
Annie Ernaux was angsty, melodramatic, and quite boring to read. She wrote in the second half of the twentieth century, up until quite recently, I think. I absolutely hated that class, but it was required for my degree so I wouldn't let myself get less than a B on it.
Reply
i have certain ideas about religion and with that, i'm very glad that you're a liberal and that i know you! i have a good friend whom i respect and admire a lot, but he's very conservative when it comes to religions, which leaves me quite puzzled.
given that it's a class you hated, it must have taken a lot of determination to get A's and B's for it! i guess that's something i ought to really apply to myself. *gulps*
Reply
Reply
i used to be annoyed in primary school (grade 1 - 7?) when a few subject teachers knew enough to teach at our levels, but (seemed to) lacked knowledge and interest beyond that. i'm glad you're not like that!
Reply
Leave a comment