Arguments for and against Translation Use in English Foreign Language Teaching Methods
Prepared by the researche : Dr. Slimane BOUKHENTACHE, Department of English, Jijel University, Algeria – Laboratory of Research Studies in Literature, Linguistics, Didactics, and Translation
Democratic Arabic Center
Journal of Human Resources Development for Studies and Research : Twenty-sixth Issue – October 2024
A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin
:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link
Introduction
The use of translation for the teaching of foreign languages is a controversial issue. Translation is an old language teaching technique that has assumed different positions throughout the history of foreign language teaching methods, and conflicting arguments are advanced to justify its practice or dismissal. It has vacillated between generous and meager use, depending partly on developments in language teaching methods and applied linguistics and partly on contextual arguments. Conflicting arguments are advanced to justify its use or rejection.
In each stage in the development of foreign language teaching methods, translation is used varyingly. There are periods in which it unquestionably dominated language-teaching methodology such as during the classical period and Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), and there are times in which it was completely dismissed such as during the emergence of natural teaching methods at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Between these extreme points, however, translation is either minimally tolerated or enthusiastically and systematically recommended.
This study examines the arguments given for or against the use of translation in the language teaching methods that most marked the 20th century, namely, GTM, Direct Method (DM), Situational Language Teaching (SLT), humanistic methods, and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In other words, it reviews the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching methods and approaches, which refer to a specific way of teaching English; nevertheless, reference is sometimes made to some foreign language teaching movements that underlie the foundations of methods and approaches. Reference is, for example, made to the 19th Century Reform Movement as well as the plurilingual settings, which will be explained later.
Consequently, this paper attempts to answer the following research questions:
- Why did GTM widely use translation?
- Why did natural and structural methods preclude the use of translation?
- Why did the humanistic methods reintroduce the use of translation?
- Why did CLT minimally recommend translation?
- What do bilingual education and the Council of Europe recommend the use of translation?
The objective of this study is then to inform the reader about the reasons why translation has been intermittently used so that he/she can build an informed view about the controversy surrounding this applied linguistic issue. The arguments for and against translation are displayed and the reader is invited to build a sound judgment as to whether to accept it or to reject it as an EFL teaching tool or principle. Obviously, only applied linguistic arguments are considered, ignoring the political, economic, and ideological reasons revealed by some supporters of mother tongue use such as Cook [1] .
More importantly, apart from contributing to the literature of mother tongue use in English language teaching, this paper endeavors to better inform teacher trainers, syllabus designers, teachers, and learners about current trends in translation. It seems, in reality, that many teaching professionals are still clinging to misguided views that erroneously reject any form of translation use in foreign language classes. It follows then that this study can assist addressing flawed perspectives and endorse profitable uses of translation.
- Translation in Grammar-Translation Method
GTM generously used translation, which was inherited from the teaching of the classics (i.e., Latin and Greek) and which it strived to reform. Translation was employed in the teaching of the classics for practicing grammar and facilitating vocabulary learning[2], which were considered the core building blocks for foreign language learning, notably to the mastery of reading and writing. Similarly, GTM used translation to practice the application of grammar rules; more specifically, after explaining the grammar rule, sentences are given to translate from own language to foreign language or vice versa. It could be noted here, that translation was used at this stage for learning abstract grammar rules principally at the level of sentences, and it is used equally at the level of words for teaching lexis through bilingual lists[3] .
Additionally, translation methods of teaching used first language as the starting point for learning an added language[4]. Instead of directly immersing language learners in acquiring a new language system that could be utterly different from theirs in terms of syntax, lexis, and pronunciation, they are invited translate their already acquired language system into another language, assuming that there is a one-to-one equivalence between natural languages.
Another strong reason for the use of translation in GTM is, according to Richards and Rodgers[5], the type of language proficiency sought at that time. GTM aimed principally to teach reading and writing in a foreign language in order to primarily permit people to read famous literary works and discover other cultures. Indeed, as people were tied to their places and as social mobility was infrequent before the development of means of transportations, foreign language learners rarely sought to communicate fluently in other languages. Consequently, GMT emphasized fluency through rigorous study of grammar, vocabulary memorization, and use of sentence-based translation. By translating accurately sentences from one language to another, learners paid significant attention to the grammar systems of languages. Understandably, it would be unconceivable to teach today speaking through monologues of grammar explanations, intensive grammar practice, forced memorization, and excessive word-and sentence-based translation: the learning objectives determine the language teaching techniques and principles.
- Translation in the Direct and Structural Methods
Due to the old-fashioned methodology of GTM, which focused on memorization and translation, many 19thcentury teachers rejected the practices of the old method and, notably, rejected translation, which was the basic language teaching technique that purportedly procured the passage from native language mastery to foreign language learning. The detractors of GTM simplified the route to foreign language learning through equating foreign language acquisition with first language learning in the same way that the proponents of GMT short-circuited the route to second language attainment through direct translation.
The 19th century reformists (such as Paul Passy, François Gouin, Thomas Pendergast) who laid indirectly the foundation of direct methods were not completely against translation use; as a matter of fact that, they promoted its use for enhancing text comprehension and translating difficult words. For example, Howatt and Widdowson[6] reported that the 19th century reformists Claude Marcel used translation to explain lessons and understand texts (p. 174). In short, the reformists exploited mother tongue use to introduce new knowledge, gain time, and explain complex knowledge[7].
What the reformists rejected is the wholesale translation. They reacted strongly against the translation of texts and extensive use of the mother tongue, a process that deprives the foreign language learner from exposure to foreign language input and active use. More specifically, they rejected the translation of sentences and texts, particularly literal translation such as in the books of Ollendorff[8].
The protagonists of the DM such as Maximilian Berlitz and Nicholas Joly precluded completely translation unless unavoidable. The reason for the marginalization of translation is the creation of a native-like speaking and natural environment, which could allow learners to develop the feel for the foreign language system away from their local language. This view is based on the associationist psychological theory that recommends associating the meanings of words with target language words and dealing with language as a full picture instead of using the reductionist procedure of GTM[9]
Apart from the associationist view, the rejection of translation is strongly supported by evidence from linguistics that demonstrates the lack of one-to-one equivalences between languages[10]. Indeed, as argued above in the previous heading, GTM assumes the existence of one-to-one equivalences between languages. Additionally, the creative nature of language revealed by Chomsky in his Syntactic Structures[11] disqualifies the existence of a finite number of language structures that could be translated in order to access the mastery of added languages.
A further argument advanced by the protagonist of the direct method is the fact that translation thwarts the mental effort needed to deeply process language items and learn them more permanently. Indeed, as Craik held, the degree of mental investment spent in learning a language item determines the amount of retention[12]. Accordingly, translation then is considered as shallow learning that is quickly forgotten and hardly retrieved.
In addition to the direct methods, the structural and scientific methods that had blossomed starting from the 1920 to the 1960s equally shunned the use of the mother tongue. Harold Palmer who could be said to stand halfway between natural and structural teaching methods accepted both the associationist view and translation within the frame of his oral method[13]. The extreme structuralists such as Robert Lado and Charles Fries precluded own-language use in order to avoid interference and acquire only healthy second language habits. In other words, a foreign language should be acquired naturally like a first language and must be assimilated through mimicry and imitation.
The advocates of the Audio-lingual method used contrastive analysis to identify the major differences between the mother and the target languages in order to predict and address learning difficulties[14]. In other words, it is assumed that the structural differences between languages lead to negative transfer. A concrete, example, is given by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson[15] in one of her observed classes. She noted that the teacher predicted through a contrastive analysis of Spanish and English that the students would pronounce the sound /i/ as /iy/; thus, she trained her learners to distinguish between the two sounds in question. A further example, of contrastive analysis of French and English would indicate that French foreign language learners of English would confound between the cognates actual in English, which means real,and its French cognate actuel ,which means current.
- Translation in Affective-Humanistic Methods
In this section, we discuss why the humanistic methods used translation. When the Audio-lingual method started to wane because of its failure to fulfill the learning objectives it promised, a set of new methods appeared during the 1970s, namely, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, Community Language Learning, and Silent Way. These methods were called by Richards and Rodgers[16] as alternative methods, and they were labelled by Celce-Murcia[17] as affective and humanistic methods. All in all these innovative methods that spread during the1970s to the 1980s promoted humanistic teaching in an anxiety-free environment as opposed to the mechanistic and dominantly structural teaching of the Audio-lingual method.
As to the question of why these innovative methods permitted translation use, it could be accounted for two main reasons. Firstly, pedagogical translation is used as a tool to enhance communication, that is, ensuring more fluidity in interaction; secondly, translation is used to ensure an anxiety-free environment in which the learner’s identity and self is fully recognized. For example, in Community Language Learning, students’ native language is used to explain meanings and, consequently, ensure a relaxed atmosphere[18]. Nevertheless, Total Physical Response favored the use of demonstrations at the expense of direct translation. The use of realia, gestures, and pictures is considered as a prominent technique to replace both verbal explanation and translation alike.
- Translation in Communicative Language Teaching
Paradigm shift from structural teaching to functional-communicative language teaching that has started to gain prominence since the 1970s onwards has not given translation its deserved merit. Actually, according to Skopečková[19], it pushed mother tongue use into a “grey zone”, neither respectfully recognized nor completely rejected. The avoidance of translation in CLT approach is justified on the ground that students should be given opportunities to communicate in the target language. Likewise, Cook[20] pointed out critically that communicative approaches talk of translation only to say that it should be avoided whenever possible. All in all, despite widespread acceptance of translation as a useful instructional tool at the level of theory[21] [22] [23], it has not yet regained its legitimacy.
The arguments given today for the use of translation in English language teaching include bridging the gap of understanding, gaining time, showing empathy and building rapport, conducting assessment, and maintaining discipline[24]. More importantly, the principle of monolingualism, which assumes that each new language is set aside from its counterpart in the mental framework, is nowadays completely undermined. It is currently categorically admitted that languages are not placed in separate compartments; rather, they form an interwoven and unified system[25] [26] [27]. Consequently, learning a foreign language should be linked to or enhanced by the already acquired native language capacities, and similarities between languages are worthwhile assets for acquiring an added one.
- Translation in Plurilingual Education
Plurilingual education refers to the dynamic use and encouragement of multiple languages in education. The practice of the learner mother tongue is imperative in plurilingual settings. Apart from being a supportive cognitive asset for boosting up the process of foreign language learning, it assists learners in affirming their identity and gaining self-esteem. Additionally, bilingual learners need to be actively trained in switching between different languages in the globalized world in order to enhance effective communication and show respect for others[28].
The Council of Europe, a European cultural and education commission, promoted actively bilingualism and the use of all language systems available in an educational or real life setting. It adopted the concept of pluringualism, which refers to the use of a variety of intertwined languages at the same time both during the process of language learning and real life communication[29]. Hence, in response to globalization and the constant contacts between languages, the aim of language learning should no longer tap at native speakerism (emulation of the language performance of native speakers); rather, it should endeavor to equip learners/speakers with a complex multi-faceted competence involving and sheltering many language systems functioning as a unified body. For example, a speaker can use different language varieties to better explain messages, instead of relying on a single language code.
In the same vein, Garcia[30] adopted the new concept of translanguaging, which refers to the act of moving from elements of one language system to another, all of which constitute a unified system in the mind of the learner or speaker. As pointed out earlier, this multilingual and multicultural competence is based on the premise that languages exist as intertwined and interwoven frameworks in the mind of individuals, not as separate entities. Pedagogically speaking, translanguaging implies the use of existing language codes available in the classroom to learn more languages. It could involve activities such as writing bilingual texts, studying cognates, and tutoring peers in mother tongue[31].
The Council of Europe equally developed and promoted the new concept of mediation in its attempt to cater for the communicative skills of multilingual and multicultural communities[32]. Mediation is a new competency introduced in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) book to refer to the process of facilitating communication between speakers who do not necessarily share the same language and culture; this simplification process could involve many strategies such rephrasing, explaining complex messages, and summarizing. What is of relevance to us here is the fact this concept of mediation involves the activities of translation and interpretation.
In CEFR, translation-mediation competency refers the translation of written documents to the readers who cannot understand the language of the documents in question, and mediation in this case occurs at distance; that is, the producer of the text and its recipient are not present during the translation process. Interpretation, however, occurs in face-to-face interaction when a speaker renders messages from one language to another for speakers who do not speak the same language[33]. In short, translation deals with written texts while interpretation deals with oral text, but the aim is still the simplification of communication among culturally and linguistically diversified individuals.
Conclusion
This paper investigated arguments for and against translation use in EFL. It has shown that translation had been generously used from the 17th to the 19th centuries and waned considerably afterwards in the subsequent language teaching methods and approaches. Despite its intermittent applications-whether overtly or covertly- and despite developments in applied linguistics and societal changes, it has not thus far regained its full legitimacy in the whole framework of language teaching enterprise-ranging from theoretical perspectives, to classroom practice, and to curriculum authorities.
Firstly, this study has shown that translation was copiously used in old foreign language teaching methods such as GTM; it was at that point employed as a reference yardstick for building an added linguistic competence. Since languages were considered similar and sharing the same grammatical structures and semantic concepts, the native language competency is translated literally into another foreign language, regardless of linguistic and cultural differences.
Translation operated at the level of words and sentences
(that is, theoretical linguistic knowledge rather than communicative skills are tapped). Bilingual vocabulary lists are presented and sentences are given for translation with the aim of practicing grammar, which is considered the key lever of language learning.
Secondly, the 19th century reform movement downplayed translation use in EFL, for it likened foreign language learning to native language acquisition. This standpoint gave rise to natural methods (e.g., Direct Method), which completely erased translation from the landscape of EFL. The major arguments given at this stage for denigrating translation are ensuring a direct association between the words and their referents, immersing students in native-like contexts, and avoiding interference.
The structural methods (such the Audio-lingual Method) that succeeded the natural and direct methods equally eschewed the use of translation. Although these methods operated like GTM in terms of the dissection of the language proficiency into fragmented structures, which are practiced discretely, they overruled translation for they sought to isolate the local language system from negatively influencing the acquisition of a new language. This argument is foregrounded on insights from comparative linguistics which found out that languages are quite dissimilar.
Thirdly, the 1970s humanistic methods (such as Suggestopedia) that attempted to supplant the mechanistic structural methods, reintroduced translation in some measure for two main reasons which are as follows: the building of a constructive language learning environment and the promotion of optimal communication and interaction atmospheres. With the appearance of the first seeds of communication trends and the development of the psychology of education, it was thought vital to warrant convivial environments for the learner to attain his/her full learning potential and to use native language potential as a springboard to trigger and uphold rich communication exchanges.
Fourthly, the communicative language teaching approach with its variants (e.g., task-based learning and content-based instruction) that spread during the 1980s accepted to use translation to keep up communication, but it considerably opted for creating an immersive milieu for practicing conversational skills and achieving fluency. Accordingly, translation takes time away from the learner for practicing interaction in the limited time offered in foreign language classes.
Finally, due to globalization and the need for international communication among individuals in different settings, it has become essential to equip learners with plurilingual and pluricultural competencies to operate in diversified cultural and linguistic environs and ultimately achieve translanguaging skills. This stance is seriously espoused in bilingual education and by the Council of Europe, which look for encouraging successful communication and understanding among the diversified European communities. Nevertheless, despite the palpable and official recognition of translation, the latter is still a long way from being respectfully and legitimately accepted by students, teachers, parents, curriculum and textbook designers, and educational authorities.
Further studies could highlight concrete uses of translation through explanations of communicative and functional translation activities. It seems that education professionals are more familiar with the old archaic sentence-based translation tasks while ignoring recent functional and translanguaging activities such as information-gap activities. Such studies would be more effective for convincing obstinate practitioners who are tenaciously adherent to the monolingual teaching pedagogy.
References
[1] Cook, V. J. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford University Press, p. 20.
[2] Richards, J, C & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p 5.
[3] Skopečková, E. (2024). Translation and own-language use in language teaching: The quest for optimal practice. Springer International Publishing, Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan, p.17.
[4] Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 455.
[5] Richards, J, C & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). History of English language teaching (2nd Ed.). Oxford; Oxford University Press, 174.
[7] Thornbury, s. (2017). 30 language-teaching methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 41.
[8] Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). History of English language teaching (2nd Ed.). Oxford; Oxford University Press, 192.
[9] Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). History of English language teaching (2nd Ed.). Oxford; Oxford University Press, p. 307.
[10] Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). History of English language teaching (2nd Ed.). Oxford; Oxford University Press, pp. 307-308.
[11] Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. England: Moulton.
[12] Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future?. Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318
[13] Thornbury, s. (2017). 30 language-teaching methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 27.
[14] Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). History of English language teaching (2nd Ed.). Oxford; Oxford University Press, p. 87.
[15] Larsen-Freeman, D & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP,p. 41.
[16] Richards, J, C & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.259.
[17] Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language teaching approaches: An overview, in M., Celce-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle 8c Heinle,p. 91.
[18] Larsen-Freeman, D & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP,p. 96.
[19] . Skopečková, E. (2024). Translation and own-language use in language teaching: The quest for optimal practice. Springer International Publishing, Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan,p. 21.
[20] Cook, V. J. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
[21] Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Cook, V. J. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
[23] Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.
[24] Cook, V. J. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Education (1, pp. 237–248). Springer.
[25] Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402–423.
[26] García, O., & Li, A. M. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 117-130.
[27] Blanchet, P., Rahal, S. A., & Moore, D. (2009). Perspectives pour une didactique des langues contextualisée. Paris : Edition des Archives contemporaine.
[28] Council of Europe. (2001). Common Europeannframework of reference for laguages: learning,teaching, assessment . Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit .
[29] Council of Europe. (2001). Common Europeannframework of reference for laguages: learning,teaching, assessment . Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit,pp. 4-5.
[30] Garcia, O. (2009) Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21Century century. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. SkutnabbKangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi, IN: Orient Black Swan.
[31] Thornbury, s. (2017). 30 language-teaching methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,p. 68.
[32] Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching,assessment-companion document . Strasbourg: Language policy unit, p.13.
[33] Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching,assessment-companion document . Strasbourg: Language policy unit, p .99.
