Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Allende Santamaría Izquierdo
Andrés Canga Alonso
Facultad de Letras y de la Educación
Grado en Estudios Ingleses
2015-2016
Título
Director/es
Facultad
Titulación
Departamento
TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO
Curso Académico
The role of pedagogical translation: Practical implicationsfor secondary education
Autor/es
© El autor© Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones,
publicaciones.unirioja.esE-mail: [email protected]
The role of pedagogical translation: Practical implications for secondaryeducation, trabajo fin de grado
de Allende Santamaría Izquierdo, dirigido por Andrés Canga Alonso (publicado por laUniversidad de La Rioja), se difunde bajo una Licencia
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported. Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden solicitarse a los
titulares del copyright.
1
TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO
THE ROLE OF PEDAGOGICAL TRANSLATION: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION.
Autor:
Allende Santamaría Izquierdo
Tutor:
Andrés Canga Alonso
Titulación:
Grado en Estudios Ingleses [601G]
Facultad de Letras y de la Educación
AÑO ACADÉMICO: 2015/2016.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Resumen
1. Introduction
2. Translation and didactics
2.1 Translation: a controversial term
2.2 Relationship between translation and Foreign Language Teaching (FLT): Origins and Rehabilitation.
3. Application of translation to the FL classroom: a positive approach
3.1. Attitudes towards translation in FLT.
3.2. Relationship between the teaching of a FL and Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels.
4. The importance of the mother tongue (MT) for L2 learning:
4.1 Implications for translation in the secondary classroom: Level A2 of the CEFR (4th ESO).
5. Conclusion
3
References
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
4
Abstract
For many years, the traditional methods in the teaching of foreign languages (FL)
situated translation in a central position. Nevertheless, more recent theories have shown
a refusal to the incorporation of the mother tongue (MT) in FL classes. Consequently,
translation has been labeled as an ineffective method when teaching a FL. For this
reason, the use of translation in the FLT has generated controversy in the last decades.
The purpose of this work is to reconsider the role of translation through a positive
approach in the contact of both languages, L1 and L2, and show the possibilities that
pedagogical translation (PT) can offer if we use it properly. Besides, it is necessary to
study the methods used in SLA throughout the last decades and analyze those related to
translation that are used today in the secondary classroom. In spite of the fact that PT is
a much debated topic, very little solutions are proposed to its reincorporation in the
different levels of the learning of a language. The present study analyzes the different
levels of the CEFR and focus its attention on the A2, corresponding to the last year of
secondary education, in which different translation activities could be effective for
Spanish students in the acquisition of the English language.
Key words: pedagogical translation, FLT, CEFR levels.
5
Resumen:
Durante muchos años los métodos tradicionales de enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras
situaban a la traducción en el centro del escenario. Sin embargo, teorías más recientes
han mostrado un rechazo hacia la incorporación de la lengua materna en las aulas de
enseñanza de idiomas, y han tachado a la traducción de antipedagógica. Por este
motivo, el uso de la lengua materna como herramienta útil en la adquisición de una
segunda lengua ha generado importantes controversias a lo largo de las últimas décadas.
El propósito de este trabajo consiste en reconsiderar el papel de la traducción a partir de
un enfoque positivo en el contacto de ambas lenguas, L1 y L2, y mostrar las
posibilidades que la traducción pedagógica puede ofrecer. Además, haremos un
recorrido por los diferentes métodos utilizados a lo largo de la historia de la enseñanza
de lenguas y analizaremos el uso de estrategias actuales en las clases de secundaria. Uno
de los problemas que conlleva la traducción pedagógica es que a pesar de ser un tema
muy debatido, se han propuesto pocas soluciones para su reincorporación, no
únicamente en los niveles avanzados, sino también en los niveles básicos. Para la
propuesta de dichos ejercicios, he centrado mi atención en el último curso de secundaria
(4º ESO); se han analizado las destrezas que los alumnos deben poseer en ese nivel del
MECR (A2) y a partir de ahí se presentan los ejercicios que pueden ser útiles a los
alumnos españoles en la adquisición de la lengua inglesa.
Palabras clave: traducción pedagógica, enseñanza de la lengua extranjera, niveles del MECR.
6
7
1. Introduction
As Cook (2010) points out, translation plays a very important role in different aspects of
today’s multicultural and multilingual society. Throughout the years, translators and
interpreters have allowed the relationships between monolingual speakers, and they
continue doing so in bilingual communities. Although translation is a very ancient
activity, it is more necessary now than ever before. In fact, our age has been called the
age of translation. Bilingualism is one of the consequences of globalization, and to cope
with the demand that this globalization supposes, highly qualified translators are
needed, and the learning and teaching of FL is essential in order to allow linguistic
exchanges between the members of the different cultures. As Leonardi (2010:21)
remarks, translation allows people to be in contact with the rest of the world and it is
commonly said that without translation there is a high likelihood that communities
would be “condemned to cultural isolation” (Malmkjaer 2011:1). Consequently, if
translation is so important in our daily life, we could form the students with this skill.
Throughout our lives, we need translation in different moments, so it would be a good
idea to start translating in the classroom.
Translation as a method of language teaching and learning is still an issue under
research and one debated topic between linguists. The teaching of FL has been marked
by what many authors call “baby and bathwater syndrome” (Sanchez Iglesias: 2009: 3),
which has affected in particular to our subject of study: pedagogical translation. The
objections to the use of translation in FLT are all based on “a limited view of
translation” (Vermeer: 2010:91) caused by the badly use of the Grammar-Translation
method in the past. Leaving aside this bad reputation, several authors such as Duff
(1989), Hurtado Albir (2001) or Lavault (1985) have supported the idea of
incorporating the mother tongue (MT) as a useful tool in the learning of a FL.
Shiyab and Abdullateef (2001: 7) explain that “translation can be like medicine, which
when administered in the right dose and way, has a curative effect, and otherwise, when
used injudiciously, it can also prove harmful”. In other words, translation should not be
overused and should be integrated into language teaching at the right time, and with the
right students. From the beginning of the 20th century, to learn a FL consisted in doing
so through the Grammar-Translation method. This method concentrated on learning the
grammatical rules of the target language and carrying out a literal translation. It focused
8
its attention on grammar and vocabulary, leaving aside communicative skills. With the
development of other language teaching methods, translation was receded into the
background. In section 2.2 it will be provided a brief overview of the methods that
followed the Grammar-translation method and the reasons why this was banned and
substituted in the FLT.
After many years of strictly following a non-mother tongue policy, the current study
investigates the role of translation as a didactic tool when learning a FL, particularly in
teaching and learning of English as a foreign language (EFL). For the purpose of this
dissertation, the concept of translation, its different definitions, and its relationship with
the pedagogy will be studied in section 2.1. Section 2.2 will be devoted to the analysis
of PT. The concept of pedagogical translation will be first reviewed, so the object of
study is clearly placed on the field of EFL and, then, in section 3.1 a discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of the use of the MT or translation will be carried out. As
we consider translation a useful tool at all levels in the acquisition of a language, section
3.2 will focus on the skills proposed by the Common European Framework (CEFR) and
its relationship with the acquisition of the language and finally, section 4 explores the
different translation exercises that could contribute positively to the acquisition of the
different levels (A1-C2). Due to space constraints, I will be unable to go into all the
levels of the CEFR, therefore, this dissertation will focus on A2 level, equivalent to 4th
ESO, the last year of secondary education, and it will be studied the different options
teachers have to integrate the MT when teaching a SL
9
2. Translation and didactics
2.1 Translation: a controversial term
In order to understand the essential characteristics in the process of translation, Hurtado
Albir (2001:27) studies three basic questions: why, with which purpose and for whom
we translate. The answer to the first question can be augmented through the linguistic
and cultural differences, that is to say, translators are essential parts of our lives because
we live in a world with different languages and cultures. Secondly, the main purpose of
translation is said to be communication, and its main function is to transcend cultural
and linguistic boundaries, and finally, translators do not translate for themselves but for
someone who does not have knowledge of the FL or of the L2 culture.
The first step that should be covered is the definition of this concept in order to infer its
role in Foreign Language Learning (FLL). The term “translate” comes from Latin
“transfere” and Greek “metapherein” and its basic meaning is that of “carrying
something across” (Chesterman 2005:3). As Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997) remark,
translation is a very broad notion and it admits multiple interpretations. For this reason,
the definition of this concept has generated difficulties and debate since its appearance.
Catford (1965:20) describes translation as “the replacement of textual material in one
language by equivalent textual material in another language.” Similarly, the MacMillan
Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2007:1593) defines translation as “the activity of
changing spoken or written words into a different language”. As it can be observed, it is
quite common to understand translation as “mechanic activity” (Leonardi 2010:65),
whose main goal is the replacement of different grammatical elements between both
languages, L1 and L2, nevertheless, translation is a much more elaborated task.
As Nida (1964:223) remarks, it is difficult to understand languages “outside the
framework of culture in which the language is integrated”. In other words, translation is
a combination of linguistic and cultural knowledge. Besides, the “translator” has been
defined as a “bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication
participants in two different language communities; the translator decodes messages
transmitted in one language and re-encodes them in another language (House 1977:1).
Consequently, translators should not only possess linguistic knowledge but they also
10
need extra-linguistic knowledge, that is, they have to be familiarized with the context
and the culture in which the written words appear.
In the definition of “translation” the concept of “equivalence” is of paramount
importance. Catford defines equivalence as “any TL text or portion of text which is
observed on a particular occasion, to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of
text” (1965:27), in other words, it consists on the share of some kind of sameness
between the original text and the target text. Hartmann and Stork (1972:713) clearly
state that “texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or
partially equivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect
of the context, of semantics, of grammar of lexis, etc) and at different ranks (word-for
word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence for sentence)”. There is not a unique type of
equivalence. Translation can be equivalent in different ways, and at this point, it is
useful to expose the differentiation provided by Jackobson (1959). According to this
structuralist, there are three different ways in which a verbal sign can be interpreted: 1)
Intralingual translation or rewording, which takes place within the same language by
means of synonyms, rewording or paraphrase 2) Interlingual translation or translation
proper, which consist on the interpretation of verbal signs carried out from one language
into another and 3) Intersemiotic translation or transmutation, the interpretation of
verbal signs through signs of nonverbal languages
In spite of the fact that the main task of the translator is to find equivalences between
texts, “the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera” (Bell 1991:6). When translating,
something is always lost in the process, that is, the perfect translation does not exist. It
may be found good or bad translations, more or less acceptable translations;
nevertheless, more than one translation is possible for the same text. Translation is the
result of different points of view, and consequently, each individual can create a
different interpretation of the same original text and all of them can be acceptable.
Therefore, in the same way that there is not a perfect and unique definition for the word
“translation”, there is neither a perfect translation.
As aforementioned, an accepted definition of “translation” is a difficult task,
nevertheless, the explanation provided by Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997:181) can be
helpful to achieve a broader notion of this concept. According to this definition, “One
may talk of translation as a process or as a product, and identify such sub-types as
11
literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover,
while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the terms sometimes
also include interpreting”. As Bell (1991:13) explains, translation is given two
distinguishable meanings. On the one hand, the process, which is the activity rather than
the tangible object. This is the activity developed by the translator or translators in a
given socio-cultural context, in which the written text is transferred from L1 into L2
and, on the other hand, the product, defined as the result of the previous process
conducted by the translator. Finally, to these two definitions Hatim and Munday
(2004:6) add a third abstract concept, “translation as a cognitive phenomenon”, which
consists on a combination of the product and the process. As this definition shows, it is
difficult to prohibit translation in SLA, given that it is a cognitive activity, that is, a
phenomenon which occurs naturally.
At the beginning of this section, we mentioned the importance of the purpose of
translation, so at this stage it is worth mentioning the Skopos Theory proposed by
Vermeer in the late 1970s. As Nord (1997:27) explains, the Greek word “Skopos”
means “purpose”. According to this theory, the basic principle of translation is its
finality, that is, its purpose. And as Vermer explains (1989:20) we should
“translate/interpret/speak /write in a way that enables your text/ translation to function
in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely
in the way they want it to function”. The translator should take into account the
addressee and its needs and also the context in which the translation is carried out.
In a nutshell, it is very difficult to create an accurate definition of the terms
“translation”, “translator” or “translate”, and although these terms have been so widely
studied and used; linguists have not achieved a common definition. The fact that this
activity covers many different functions and that can be interpreted from different
points of view is the main justification we can provide to this problem. This activity has
different purposes and uses such as machine translation, literary translation or technical
translation; nevertheless, this dissertation focusses on the pedagogical usage of
translation. Depending on the purpose, the process and the function one definition may
be more suitable than the others, as we have already seen. As defined by Henry
Widdowson, purpose refers to “what kind of language knowledge or ability constitutes
the goals that learners are to achieve at the end of the course” (Howatt 2004:353). For
this reason, in this paper translation will be explained as a tool in the teaching and
12
learning of FL. Following on from this, in the following sections it will be explained the
relationship that exists between translation and FLT, the way in which this activity can
be useful in the acquisition of proficiency in the different CEFR levels, and the different
methods that have been used along history.
2.2 Relationship between translation and the teaching and learning of a Foreign
Language (FL): Origin and Rehabilitation.
Language learning is a process that starts once we are born and continues throughout
the rest of our life. Language learning allows students to convey their thoughts and
problems and helps them to establish relationships with their family members and
friends. An essential issue that teachers have to consider is that each student learns in a
different way, that is to say, learning is a personal process. For this reason, the teaching
of a FL and its methods will vary throughout time depending on the classroom
background and on the skills of each student.
The process of acquiring the MT when we are children differs widely from the one of
learning a FL. As Krashen (1985:1) points out, ability in languages can be developed in
two different ways, through learning them or through acquiring them. Acquisition is a
“subconscious process” very similar to the one carried out by children when acquiring
the MT, while learning is a “conscious process” which consists on the knowledge of
grammar and rules of the language. Regarding the topic of learning a language, which is
central in our dissertation, there exists also bewilderment between the concepts of
“second” and “foreign” language. In the first place, a second language (SL) is a widely
used language, especially in education and the government, in a region where all or
most of its speakers are nonnative, as English in India or Nigeria. On the contrary, a
foreign language (FL) takes place in settings where the language plays no major role in
the community and is primarily learnt only in the classroom, as occurs for instance with
English in Spain (Ellis: 1994). Once these concepts have been clarified, the following
important issue is the role that both teachers and students play in the learning of a FL.
As Newmark (1991:50) remarks, “the place of translation in FLT will always be
dependent on the role that the learner and the teacher assign to the native language in
the learning process”. In this process both members are involved, teachers and learners.
The capacity of learning differs from student to student, and it can be determined by
different factors. Students may be more or less motivated to learn, their needs to learn
13
the language can develop a certain degree of interest in learning the language, and their
personal circumstances, such their surroundings or previous language, may also
influence them. Although the process of study is the learner’s responsibility, teachers
also play an important role in this field. The main responsibility of teachers of FL
consists on finding the adequate technique in order to adjust to the learner’s demands.
Each teacher uses different strategies depending on the student’s needs and their
preferences when teaching. In Leonardi’s words, translation is at the same time “a
deliberate teaching choice for teachers and a natural occurring activity for students”
(2011: 18). It is usually said that it exists a strong relationship between translation and
FLT because, “whereas translators tend to be viewed as good bilinguals and life-long
language learners, language learners are meant to be natural translators who face this
activity everyday as students and workers” (2010:17) . For this reason, in spite of the
efforts implemented by teachers and linguists to prohibit translation, the complete
disappearance of this activity is a difficult task.
When we refer to translation related to FLT, it is important to mention different
processes that can take place. On the one hand, explicative translation is a technique
used occasionally and deliberately by some teachers as “an access mechanism” to the
meaning of a given element of the FL (Leonardi 2011:155). On the other hand, “silent
or spontaneous translation” takes places especially with beginners when they try to
learn the L2. It consists on the confrontation of both languages with the goal of
achieving a better understanding and consolidating acquisition. As Titford (1895:78)
puts it, the previous language or MT is used by the learners to facilitate the process of
acquisition of L2, that is, they “translate silently”. Once the acquisition progresses, this
process gradually disappears (Hurtado Albir 1996:13).
As Richard and Rodgers (2001:11) explain, language teaching in the 20th century was
characterized by constant changes and the development of new language teaching ideas.
The concept of “method” played a key role, and the search of profitable methods was
the main concern for teachers and linguists. These methods have focused their attention
on the worldwide known four skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking, leaving
the MT of the students aside. At this point, it is important to distinguish between L1 and
translation. These two terms are usually seen as synonyms; nevertheless, they involve
different skills and strategies. The existence of common features between both terms
created confusion, and its association with the Grammar-Translation method caused its
14
prohibition in classes. Translation is defined as “one of the many ways in which L1 can
be employed in the FL class”. We refer to translation as a tool, not as a science. For this
reason, it is considered that “high levels of L1 proficiency help L2 acquisition and high
proficiency in L2 has a positive effect on L1” (Leonardi: 2011:17).
Throughout time, the role of translation in FLT has changed radically, oscillating from
being “the driving force” some decades ago, to being “virtually outcast” (Marqués
Aguado and Solis Becerra 2013:40). In order to start explaining the chain of methods,
we have to recall that nowadays English is the most studied language in the world;
nevertheless, some centuries ago Latin was the dominant language. The main intention
of the Grammar-Translation method was “to learn a language in order to read its
literature” (Stern 1983:455). The learning of a FL was considered to be based on the
memorization of its rules to understand its morphology and syntax. Reading and writing
were the main fields of study, and little attention was paid to listening and speaking.
Indeed, the MT was used as the only and most important strategy when teaching, and it
is commonly known that students taught through this method did not react positively
due to the endless lists of vocabulary they had to memorize and the decontextualized
sentences they had to translate. Despite the critiques this method has received, it is still
used in situations where the most important issue is the comprehension of literary texts
and not the necessity of communication. Translation failure took place due to the bad
use of Grammar-translation method, considered an unsuccessful tool “aimed at showing
learners what they did not know rather than stressing the importance on what they knew
about FL” (2010:119), and as Carreres remarks, “translation misconceived and
overused, could be seen as a victim of the Grammar-Translation method, rather than the
source of its evils” (1996:13). In other words, translation activity was not the main
problem; it was its disregard for oral skills or for interaction what caused the problems.
Because of an overuse of translation, the skills related with communication- speaking
and listening- were neglected and left aside. The goal of this dissertation consists on
providing a positive vision of translation as a skill integrated with the other four skills
and not as an obstacle for their development in the acquisition of the language.
In the reconsideration and rehabilitation of translation in FLT, remarkable authors such
as Duff (1989) or Lavault (1985), consider this activity a useful tool which can favor FL
learners positively. Lavault (1985:48) is one of the first authors who supports the
rehabilitation of translation at all levels of FLT. He considers that in the teaching of
15
languages, translation is omnipresent. Duff (1989:6), on the other side, supports this
idea and considers that “We all have a mother tongue, or first language. This shapes our
way of thinking and to some extent our use of the foreign language.” Through these
ideas we can conclude that translation involves linguistic, cultural and cognitive factors,
and for this reason, the MT is inevitably present when a new language appears in our
lives, that is, “translation is a naturally-occurring cognitive activity which cannot be
stopped” (Leonardi 2011:21).
Once translation starts to be integrated as part of FLT, the term “pedagogical
translation” comes to light. In the same vein that translation should not be associated
with the Grammar-Translation method, it should neither be confused with the traditional
activity aimed at training translators, also known as “translation pedagogy”. The main
difference between both sciences is their skopos/purpose. On the one hand,
“pedagogical translation” is used as a means to achieve its end: the learning of foreign
languages. In this kind of translation it is not the message what matters, but the
improvement of the language itself. On the other hand, “translation pedagogy” uses
translation “as an end in itself” (Carreres: 2006) and its main goal is the instruction of
future translators. Professional translation- as Alcarazo López and Lopez Fernandez
(2014) remark- usually refers to direct translation (from L2 to L1); these professionals
manage almost perfectly the FL and translate the text into their MT. Contrarily, PT
regularly uses back-translation (from L1 to L2); learners tend to use their MT when
thinking about the FL. Furthermore, professional translation is carried out by people
formed to develop this kind of activity and, consequently, the experience developed by
these professionals cannot be compared with the one of the students in the process of
learning the new language. As have been noticed, these activities in spite of sharing the
word “translation” are completely different, and therefore, they should not be mixed up.
The role of PT has gone through three well-defined stages: the predominance stage, the
absence stage and the rehabilitation stage. Since the late 19th and 20th century,
predominant teaching methods have shared one common feature: the encouragement of
the usage of L2 in the classroom and the emphasis on the oral skill. The Reform
Movement was based on three basic principles a) the primacy of speech, b) the
importance of connected text in language learning and c) the priority of oral classroom
methodology (Malmkjaer 1998:3). Richard and Rodgers (1997:8) acknowledge that
Sweet and other reformers in the 19th century set out a series of principles for learning:
16
a) the spoken language was the first and the most important feature to consider in any
language teaching course, b) phonetics could improve teaching through its application
to teacher training courses, c) learners were encouraged to hear the language before
seeing it in the written form, d) grammar was taught inductively and e) translation was
banned whereas the use of L1 was justified to check comprehension or to provide an
explanation of new words. As it can be noticed, at this point translation is consigned to
second plane, and the appearance of other methods dominated the field of teaching.
The incorporation of L1 was listed during this second stage as harmful and as one of the
factors responsible for interference from L1 to L2 (Leonardi 2010 60-1). Nevertheless,
recent studies have shown that this interference does not explain many mistakes
committed by learners, and that the use of L1 in the classroom may be favorable in
certain circumstances. Due to the association of translation with the Grammar-
translation method, the following methodologies belonging to the Reform Movement -
Direct Method (DM), the Oral Method or the Audio-lingual method- banned translation
activities from the classroom setting. Supporters of the DM considered that the only
possibility in the teaching of a FL was learning through immersion in which students
had to establish a direct relationship between the object, the action and the meaning
(Lavault 1985:14). Their main goal was the learning of how to use a FL to
communicate. As Sanchez (2009:51) explains, this method appeared as part of the so-
called Natural approach; the learning of FL should follow the path of nature, and follow
a process similar to the one of the acquisition of the MT. With this method students had
the opportunity to learn and practice language skills in real situations and they were
encouraged to think in the TL. Despite its great popularity, in some continents such as
Europe, this method was regarded as unsuitable for secondary school education given
that, as Laviosa (2014:12) explains, it required native speaking teachers and banned the
use of student’s MT, which in Europe was considered useful as an aid to
comprehension.
The DM was then replaced by the Oral approach, which in spite of emphasizing the role
of the spoken language over the written form as occurred with the DM, they should not
be confused. With this approach, teachers should control both vocabulary and grammar
and make sure that students practice them in a meaningful context. As explained by
Leonardi (2014:13), Palmer, the forerunner of this method, divided its methodology into
three different stages. The introductory stage focused its attention on pronunciation, the
17
intermediate stage consisted on the memorization and assimilation through oral
exercises of primary speech such as question-answer interactions, and finally, the
advanced stage emphasized the skills of reading, composition and conversation
(Laviosa 2014:13). The method that followed this Oral method was the audio-lingual
method, which shared with the previous one its preference for the oral skills, and relied
both on the structuralist linguistic paradigm and on behaviorism. It was considered that
“L2 was learnt by the repetition and imitation of sounds and grammatical structures
with the aim of fixing particular structures” (Martin Sanchez 2010:145-146). In spite of
the fact that these methods differed in some features, the one which they shared was the
avoidance of translation under any circumstance.
It was not until the arrival of the Communicative approach (CA) methodology when
translation was slightly accepted again in FL classrooms. This approach emerges from
the idea that language is communication. Its main goal is to recreate real-life situations
in the classroom with the purpose of guiding students toward communication. Besides,
activities in the CA must, as Sanchez (2009:111) remarks : a) be grounded on the
transmission of relevant content for the speakers, b) subordinate form to content; and c)
be participative and interactive.
There is, in a sense, a 'strong' and a ‘weak’ version of the CA. The weak version stresses
the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for
communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into
a wider program of language teaching. The 'strong' version considers that language is
acquired through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an
existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the
language system itself. If the former could be described as 'learning to use' English, the
latter entails 'using English to learn it.” (Howatt 1984: 279)
Although this CA placed translation in a better situation within the FLT, it was still seen
as a negative tool by many specialists. Nowadays, as Enriquez Aranda (2003:121)
points out, the methods of teaching and learning FL are the inheritors of the DM born in
the beginning of the 20th century. These methods are based on banning translation and
using it only as a last resort in extreme cases.
18
In the last few decades translation has become part of some language-teaching
methodologies, and has been sometimes considered as the fifth skill in SLA along with
reading, listening, writing and speaking. Nevertheless, many teachers and linguists are
still locked in those traditional methods where the only possibility was monolingual
teaching methodology. Fortunately, something is changing and in this globalized world,
as explained at the beginning, there is a growing need for translation. In the next
section of the dissertation, it will be showed that PT, when used in a proper way, is not
uncommunicative and as Leonardi (2010:81) remarks, “it does not merely focus on
accuracy”. Translation exercises can have a great variety of uses, “ranging from
linguistic problems to more cultural, semantic and pragmatic concerns” (2010:81). This
criticized activity can help the students to solve problems and enhance their analytical
skills, which is an important part in everyday life and in most working fields. In this
way, different opinions in favor and against translation will be studied, and a positive
approach of this activity will be created in order to establish a move towards its
rehabilitation.
19
3. Application of translation to the FL classes: a positive approach
3.1 Attitudes towards translation in FLT.
The use of translation in FLT has given way to two different positions: on the one hand,
the one that bans any use of the MT or translation in the classroom, and on the other
hand, the position that deals with maximizing TL use. As Leonardi (2011:18) asserts
“many language teachers and researchers are in favor of the so-called ‘monolingual
approach’ or ‘communicative approach’ where the ‘English-only’ policy is the key
factor to successful learning, whereas other researchers suggest employing a bilingual
method or the use of the mother tongue”.
Due to the association of PT with Grammar-Translation method, many arguments
against translation in FLT arose, and Malmkjaer (1998) in his book Translation and
Language Teaching provides a list of these arguments held by the opponents of the use
of the MT in the classroom.
The first argument Malmkjaer provides against the use of translation is that “translation
is independent of the four skills which define language competence” (1998:6).
Traditional language lessons focused their attention on the mastery of the different skills
–reading, listening, speaking and writing- and it was then believed that the translation
could not help students to develop a good competence in the FL. Garcia Medall
(2001:1) considers that translation is an activity that only involves two skills, reading
and writing, leaving aside the oral interaction. Nevertheless, translation is a
communicative activity between students and teachers to discuss problems and
misunderstandings. If this communication exchange takes place in L2 before and after
the translation, this can help students enhance their oral skills -both listening and
speaking (Leonardi, 2010:102). For this reason, when thinking about this activity we
should forget its reclusiveness to only two skills, and consider that translation involves
the four skills.
Regarding the second argument against translation, “translation is radically different
from the four skills”. Translation was considered an old-fashioned activity which cannot
be used to enhance the language proficiency; nevertheless, translation requires a great
20
degree of listening, writing, reading and speaking, so it remains clear that this activity is
not such different from the other four. As the translation activity includes the other four
skills, it is psychologically more complex (Lado 1964:54). In other words, translation is
impossible without the four skills, and it is “in fact dependent on and inclusive of them”
(Vermes 2010:88).
The third postulation that has been made against translation was that “translation takes
up valuable time which could be used to teach these four skills” (Malmkjaer, 1998:6).
Teaching a language through translation may not always be the most time-efficient
means; nevertheless, it should neither be considered a total wasteful activity. As
Leonardi (2010:58) points out, “an activity which allows the students to develop all the
language skills at once cannot be considered a waste of time”.
The fourth excuse against translation is its “unnatural” condition. In the sense that
translation has been part of human life for millennia, and that the large part of the world
population is bilingual or multilingual, Malmkjaer (1998:8) claims that “there is no
reason why we should not regard translation as a natural skill in its own right and why it
could not be used as a natural classroom activity”. As studied in section 2.2, different
authors such as Duff (1989), Hurtado Albir (2001), Lavault (1985) or Leonardi (2010)
considered translation as a natural-occurring activity which arises instinctively within
learner’s mind. The bond that exists between the FL and the MT is unavoidable,
especially at the beginner levels. For this reason, translation is a naturally-occurring
phenomenon.
Furthermore, it has been acknowledged that “translation misleads students into thinking
that expressions in two languages correspond to one-to-one” (Malmkjaer 1998:6), As
Bloomfield (1933:505) remarks, “translation into the native language is bound to
mislead the learner, because the semantic units of different languages do not match, and
because the student, under the practiced stimulus of the native form, is almost certain to
forget the foreign one”. Students tend to refer to their MT when writing or speaking in a
FL as if a one-to-one correspondence exists for any situation. Nevertheless, translation
can help students realize the differences between both languages by contrasting them
and making mistakes, which should not be viewed as a negative aspect.
The sixth objection considers that “Translation prevents students from thinking in the
L2” (Malmkjaer 1998:6). It is even considered that translation is a counterproductive
exercise as it forces students to learn the language through the filter of the MT. Many
21
scholars consider that learners use the L1 as a learning strategy (Atkinson 1987:242),
and therefore, it would be easier to allow it rather than ban it. New researchers consider
that the complete breakdown with the MT does not exist, and when the person discovers
the SL, the learning is influenced by the MT (Lavault 1986). A good alternative could
be to allow the students think in both languages. This method will permit them to
control the production of L2 and, at the same time, it can also be a useful comparative
exercise between both languages.
“Translation produces interference” (Malmkjaer 1998:6) is the next argument against
translation. As mentioned in the previous argument, the simultaneous use of both
languages could be a useful strategy in the FLL; nevertheless, in the process of
comparison, different problems as interference may arise. However, as Vermes
(2010:89) remarks, “interference may occur in any language learning situation, whether
or not translation is used as a technique procedure”. For this reason, interference cannot
be considered a direct consequence of translation, and what is more, as Malmkjaer
(1998) points out, translation exercises have the advantage of encouraging awareness
and controlling such phenomena. At this moment, it is convenient to differentiate
between positive and negative interference. Whereas positive transfer happens when a
relevant feature of both languages is the same and it results in the correct language
production, the interference or negative transfer is the effect of the language learners’
first language on the production of the language they are learning. As Leonardi (2010)
remarks, a contrastive analysis between languages can reduce interference, and at the
same time, it can increase positive interference.
Finally, “translation is only appropriate for the training of translators”. As we have
differentiated in the previous section, there are two different types of translation:
professional and pedagogical. Whereas the former focus its attention on the training of
future translators, the latter consists on the use of translation as a skill for learning a
language. Translation should not be considered a preparation for an exam but a tool for
teaching a language. According to Duff (1989), properly designed translation activities
can be employed to enhance the four skills and to develop three qualities essential to all
language learning: accuracy, clarity and flexibility. The purpose of these activities is to
help learners to acquire proficiency, not to train professional translators.
22
In a nutshell, most of these arguments against translation are based on unfounded myths
about the translation process or are only valid when applied to the Grammar-Translation
method. The use of translation in language classes may have some limitations but its
benefits should also be taken into consideration. Schäffner (1998) claims that the
translation exercises could be beneficial to FLL: 1) to improve verbal agility, 2) to
expand student’s vocabulary, 3) to develop their style, 4) to improve their understanding
of languages, 5) to consolidate L2 structures for active use, and 6) to monitor and
improve comprehension of L2. Besides, Lavault (1985) found two different reasons that
justify the use of translation in the classroom; on the one hand, the understanding
between teachers and students, and on the other hand students’ motivation. The safe,
enjoyable learning environment created by translation exercises may accelerate the
learning progress.
In the following sections, it will be studied the competences that students should
possess in the basic levels (A2) of the main documents that regulate ELT in Secondary
schools: Common European Framework of reference for languages (CEFR), and the
different translation exercises that could be useful in the learning of the new language
according to this level.
3.2. Relationship between the teaching of a FL and Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels.
There is a widely held view between the defenders of translation that this activity is not
a suitable practice for the beginner levels. It is commonly asserted that students need to
acquire a significant level of proficiency in the L2 before they can tackle translation
productively. As Carreres (2006:14) explains, to “extract the full pedagogic potential
from translation, students need to have moved beyond basic levels, and when their
linguistic competence allows it, we should be aiming at exploiting translation for all it
can offer […]” However, if our teaching objectives justify the use of translation, this
activity should not be banned or underestimated at the lowest levels of foreign language
learning.
Leonardi (2011:22) considers that “Pedagogical translation can be successfully
employed at any level of proficiency and at any educational context, be it school or
university, as valuable and creative teaching aid to support, integrate and further
strengthen the four traditional language skills- reading, writing, speaking and listening”.
23
PT is a quite recent field of study and little research has been done on the rehabilitation
of translation activities in the beginner levels of the FLC. For this reason, our study
focuses on the analysis of the skills that students should possess in the A2 level of the
CEFR, and the proposal of different translation activities which can be useful at this
particular level.
Cook (2010) considers that depending on the age, the experience or the learning style of
the students, translation activities must change. In the initial stages it is said to be used
as a time-saver (Newmark: 1991). With intermediate learners, the use of translation for
explanation may decrease, whereas its use for developing translation skills and explicit
knowledge may increase (Cook 2010:132). And finally, in the advanced levels, as
Laviosa (2010) explains, translation is used to understand cultural meanings and for a
better understanding of the relationship between both languages. To sum up, translation
may be useful in the different levels of learning, no matter the accuracy of the learners.
In order to evaluate the different levels of learning, there exists a document which
provides a common basis for describing the skills needed to reach different levels of
language proficiency, and it is used by language instructors, educators, curriculum
designers and agencies working in the field of language development. The CEFR
describes language proficiency in reading, writing, speaking and listening on a six level
scale: proficient user (C2, C1), independent user (B2, B1) and basic user (A2, A1).
As Leonardi (2010) studies, translation plays an increasingly important role in a
multilingual Europe. From a European perspective, a great emphasis is laid upon the
importance of learning FL in order to overcome language barriers and facilitate
communication between the members of the different states. The CEFR was created as
a response to the worry about how the FL should be taught. This document was
designed by the Council of Europe and was published in 2002 as a guide for learning,
teaching and assessment of FL across Europe. This guide consists of the description of
abilities which can be applied to any language and can be used to set clear targets for
achievements within language learning. It is considered that the CEFR may be a valid
pedagogical tool as it takes into account different modalities to determine proficiency
levels, however, the tests included in this guide are only based on the four traditional
skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking, leaving translation aside.
24
Once we have clarified the purpose of the CEFR and its main functions it will be useful
to focus our attention on the analysis of the different skills. Due to space constraints, it
will be impossible to analyze all the CEFR levels, so attention will be focused on A2
level. As appendix 1 show, the skills proposed by the CEFR for this level are very basic.
Learners should use sentences and expressions of basic areas and maintain a direct
exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. In general, they should be able
to satisfy their basic needs through language.
The exclusion of the translation activity from the CEFR seems to be due to its
previously taught Grammar-translation method. In the last few decades, translation has
become part of some language-teaching methodologies and has been sometimes
considered the fifth skill in SLA along with the other four skills. Nevertheless, as
Sanchez Iglesias (2009) mentions, the rehabilitation of translation is still confusing. In
the CEFR there is evidence of this unclear rehabilitation since translation is the only
communicative activity for which it does not provide a level of language ability. This
study argues that PT has to be seen as the fifth skill, which supports and supplements
the other four language skills and its application in the FL classroom can be a good way
to foster FLL.
It is true that at the basic levels of the CEFR translation is mainly useful as a brief time-
saver; nevertheless, this method guarantees teachers that their students are not guessing
the wrong meaning and that they are not misunderstanding their explanations. Section 4
will explain how certain translation activities can help the A2 students to improve their
abilities in the FL.
25
4. The importance of the mother tongue for L2 learning
4.1 Implications for translation in the secondary classroom: Level A2 of the CEFR
(4th
ESO).
The commonly held view is that translation requires a high level of proficiency. As a
cognitively demanding process, it is more appropriate for adult learners. Nonetheless, if
properly designed, translation activities can be successfully applied at all levels and
ages. In deciding whether to use it, teachers should take into account the preferences of
their learners, and their own pedagogical objectives. Our main purpose consists on the
attempt to integrate translation in the FLC through translation activities. According to
Nolasco and Arthur (1995:59) these activities should follow the criteria of being used
for a purpose, of encouraging them to be creative, contributing their ideas and of taking
into account that they focused their attention on what they are saying rather than on how
they are saying it. Furthermore, they work independently from teachers determining
what to say or write. Teachers should prepare translation activities carefully and
integrate them in reading, listening, writing, and vocabulary and grammar practice if
they want the classroom to work.
As the CEFR explains, the user belonging to the A2 level can understand sentences and
expressions related to areas of immediate relevance. If we analyze Appendix 2, we can
notice that A2 learners can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a direct
exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Besides, they can describe in
simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in
areas of immediate basic need. They can catch the main point in short, clear, and simple
messages. They can read very short simple texts and find specific information in simple
everyday material and communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a direct
exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. And finally, students can
write short and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate need.
Once we know the main skills of this level of the CEFR, it is important for the teachers
to prepare activities according to this level. If the activities are too difficult or too easy
students will be bored and they will probably lose motivation. PT activities can be used
at low levels to practice the lexical and morphological aspects of English. For instance,
26
in a lesson devoted to the functional content of greetings, farewells and personal
information, the teacher can group the students in pairs and ask them to write or practice
orally a dialogue according to the guidelines provided. There have been used general
sentences instead of specific words that learners should write/pronounce in the L2. In
this way teachers avoid literal translation.
ESTUDIANTE A ESTUDIANTE B
1. Saludas a una persona por la mañana 2. Devuelves el saludo
3. Pregunta cómo está 4. Contestas que estás bien
5. Preguntale su nombre y apellido 6. Contesta y pregunta lo mismo
7. Contesta a la pregunta 8. No entiendes lo que ha dicho. Pregunta de nuevo y pide que te lo deletree.
With this exercise students can practice both, grammar and fluency. The instructions
may be given in the MT in order to avoid misunderstandings, and make it easier for the
students to understand the purpose of the task.
If we want to continue practicing the oral skill, teachers may group the students in pairs
and ask them to describe their companion in their own language, both personally and
physically. Once they know what to say about their classmates in Spanish, we can ask
them to translate it into English. With this exercise we are practicing vocabulary
corresponding to the different parts of the body, the different clothes, colors and also the
different moods and attitudes. We are also creating a bond between students and
probably, as they are speaking both in their MT and in their SL, they can contrast
differences and similarities as far as vocabulary and grammar between both languages.
As in this level “silent translation” is unavoidable, if teachers allow them to use both
languages, they would feel more comfortable and the exercise would work better.
If we focus our attention on the learning of grammar, an important aspect remarked by
Alcarazo-López and Fernandez (2014) may be agreement and cohesion between genres
and numbers (feminine/masculine/singular/plural). The following activity intends foster
student’s work on agreement and cohesion the foreign language as well as reminding
learners how to use their own language:
27
Translate the following sentences and contrast the similarities and the source and the
translated text:
a) My brother is tall b) My mum is a beautiful woman c) His brothers are very tall d) Is your sister the blonde girl? e) My parents are very clever f) My nieces are a bit naïve g) Your cousin is very thin h) Her husband is strong
Verbal times are another issue that generates controversy between beginners. As shown
in the article by Rodriguez Juarez and Oxbrow (2008), different translation exercises
can facilitate the learning for beginners. Some of them are the verbs ‘used to’ and ‘get
used to’, the future forms or the modals. In the A2 level, students start taking contact
with verbs and one of the first ones is the verb “to be”. In some of the activities
proposed, the students have to explain the use of the verbs. In this way, translation does
not only enhance grammatical correction but also makes them meditate about the
language use. Furthermore, other exercises like correcting the mistakes may also be
useful as a method of comparison between both languages.
Underline and correct the mistake and translate the sentences into their own language in
order to notice the similarities and differences that exist between the verbal times or
auxiliaries:
a) Marta have decided to join the football team
b) Michael did not knew what to do
c) Daniel was worry about his son
d) Marcos decide not to play football yesterday.
Dealing with reading and writing, teachers can ask them to write a letter to their best
friends telling them what they are studying, where they live, and some new things they
have done in the last months. Once the letters are written they can swap them with their
classmates and summarize in their MT what their classmates have written. As in this
level of English students cannot express themselves properly, at least the teachers make
sure that they have understood what they are reading in the FL.
28
Furthermore, if the teachers want them to practice the listening skill, they can play a
record dealing with basic topics such as greetings or directions, and afterwards ask them
to summarize the listening in their own language or ask them easy questions such as the
name of the speakers or the directions they provide. In this way they are practicing the
writing and the listening skills at the same time, and translation allows them to express
better what they have heard. Other activities focus their attention on avoiding
interferences derived from phonetics. They can listen to English sentences and observe
if they have the same sound in Spanish.
Finally, a good way to increase vocabulary is the creation of a dictionary, with the aid
of translation, pictures, associated words or any other useful technique that facilitate the
learning those new terms. Students may indicate the words they do not understand and
try to figure out their meaning. They should apply the strategies they consider
appropriate to memorize them and copy in their notebooks the words they did not know.
Then, they should close their notebooks and write down the translation in their own
language.
To sum up, whatever the exercises the teacher decides to choose for FLT, their main
responsibility is to look for the student’s active participation. A general mistake among
FL teachers is that they have not fixed objectives. The main goal of teachers when
teaching a FL is not to teach how to translate but how to achieve an improvement in the
L2. If teachers have the goals fixed in their minds, they could communicate them to
their learners without any problem. Nevertheless, if the teacher is not able to transmit
what he is trying to achieve, their learners would not understand why the activity is
being carried out and they would lack motivation. As aforementioned, translation can
contribute with different opportunities to explore contextual, and sociocultural aspects,
and for this reason, exercises of PT as the ones proposed in this dissertation can build an
excellent opportunity to introduce or practice some strategies of acquisition,
comparison, and lexical analysis.
29
5. Conclusions
In this dissertation we have attempted to support the use of translation in SLA, where it
has long been exiled from the classroom for the successful learning of a language in
favor of a monolingual methodology. For this purpose we propose a list of possible
exercises that show that PT can be another resource within students’ learning process.
Thereby, translation has not to be used as the only method for learning a language, but
as a valuable activity, along with many other complementary activities. The activities
proposed in this dissertation can be used by English teachers of 4th ESO to foster
students’ foreign language learning, as it is not natural to ask them to think in the
language they are learning without using their own MT. Once we have studied the
different language teaching methods, we can reach to the conclusion that translation is
something inevitable in the learners’ mind. Our belief is that if the use of translation is
inevitable in the classroom, the smartest option is get the most out of it. Besides, as
Canga Alonso and Rubio Goitia state learners consider that “a contrastive analysis
between the language to learn and their MT is beneficial, since it may influence in a
good way on their language acquisition and help them better understand the differences
and the similitudes between both languages in terms of grammar and sentence
construction” (2016: 136). These differences and similarities will help them to
understand the interaction between languages, and therefore, to avoid common
mistakes. Our intention when carrying out this study is to provide support to the use of
L1 and translation activities in SLA thanks to several exercises belonging to the A2
level of the CEFR that teachers can propose as a tool for the learning of the new
language. We have focused our attention on one of the lowest levels of the CEFR, that
is to say, one of the levels in which the student does not dominate the language
accurately. Although these exercises have not been put in practice yet, through their
proposal can be demonstrated that PT is not only applicable once the learner has a
certain level proficiency in the language, but it can be applied at any level of learning.
30
References:
Alcarazo Lopez, N & Lopez Fernandez, N. 2014. “Aplicaciones prácticas de la traducción pedagógica en la clase de ELE”. RedELE. Revista electrónica de didáctica del español lengua extranjera. Nº26.
Atkinson, D. 1987. “The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?” ELT Journal. 41(4): 241-247.
Bell, R 1991. Translation and Translating. Longman. London and New York.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Holt and Co: New York.
Brown, D, 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Canga-Alonso, A & Rubio-Goitia, A. 2016. “Students’ Reflections on Pedagogical Translation in Spanish as a Foreign Language”. Revista Tejuelo nº23: 132-157.
Carreres, A. 2006. “Strange bedfellows: Translation and Language teaching. The teaching of translation into L2 in modern languages degrees: uses and limitations”. University of Cambridge, UK.
Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. 2005. “Interpreting the meaning of Translation”. Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. 1-9.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuéllar Lázaro, C. 2004. “Un nuevo enfoque de la traducción en la enseñanza comunicativa de las lenguas”. Hermeneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación, 6, 1-11
Duff, A.1989. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod, 1994. The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Enríquez Aranda, MM. 2003. “La traducción en la enseñanza y en el aprendizaje de la lengua inglesa: Materiales de estudio”. Universidad de Málaga. ELIA. 117-137
Garcia-Medall, J. 2001. “La traducción en la enseñanza de lenguas”. Hermeneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación. Universidad de Valladolid. Nº3 :1-19
31
Gierden Vega, C. 2003. “La traducción pedagógica como ejercicio integrativo en la didáctica del alemán como LE”. Universidad de Valladolid. Encuentro Revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas: 90-100.
Hartmann, R & Stork, F 1972. Dictionary of language and linguistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hatim,B & Munday,J. 2004. Translation: an advanced resource book. Routledge Applied Linguistics.
House, J. 1977. A model for Translation Quality Assessment
Hurtado Albir, H. 1996. Didáctica de segundas lenguas en los estudios de traducción. La enseñanza de la traducción, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló.
Hurtado Albir, H. 2001. Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra
Jackobson, R. 1959. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Routledge. London.
Krashen, S. 1985. The input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Logman. Londres.
Lado, R 1964. Language teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-hill.
Lavault, E. 1985. Fonctions de la traduction en didactique des langues. París: Didier Érudition.
Laviosa, S. 2014. Translation and Language Education: Pedagogic approaches
explored. Routledge: New York.
Leonardi,V. 2010. The Role of Pedagogical Translation in Second Language
Acquisition from Theory to Practice. New York: Bern
Leonardi,V. 2011. “Pedagogical translation as a Naturally-Occurring cognitive and Linguistic Activity in Foreign Language Learning”. Annali Online di Lettere- Ferrara. 1-2: 17-28.
Malmkjaer, K. 1998. “Introduction: Translation and Language Teaching”, in K. Malmkjaer (ed.), Translation in language teaching. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1-11
Malmkjaer, K & Windle, K. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of translation Studies. Oxford University Press. New York.
Marqués Aguado, T and Solís-Becerra, J. 2013. “An overview of Translation in Language Teaching Methods: Implications for EFL in Secondary Education in the Region of Murcia”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8:38-48
Martínez, P.C. 1997 “La traducción en el aula de inglés. Una actividad necesaria, natural y económica”, RESLA, 12, 151-161
32
Munday,J, 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge. London.
Newmark, P. 1982. Approaches to Translation. Oxford, Pergamon Press
Newmark, P. 1992. A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall, Londres.
Newson, D. 1998. “Translation and Foreign Language Teaching”. In Malmkjær, K. (ed.), 63-68.
Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Brill.
Nord, C. 1997. Translation as a Purposeful Activity. A prospective approach.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sánchez, A. 2009. La enseñanza de idiomas en los últimos cien años. Madrid: SGEL.
Sánchez Iglesias, J.J. 2009. La traducción en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras: una
aproximación polémica. RedELE (Biblioteca Virtual), 10.
Schäffner,C 1998. Translation and Quality. Great Britain: Short Run Press.
Shiyab, S & Abdullateef, M. 2001. “Translation and Foreign Language teaching”. King Saud University. 13:1-9
Shuttleworth,M & Cowie, M, 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, St Jerome.
Stern, H 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Titford,C & Hieke,AE. 1985. Translation in Foreign language teaching and testing. University of Michigan.
Vermes,A. 2010. “Translation in Foreign Language Teaching: A Brief Overview of Pros and Cons”. Eger Journal of English Studies: 10- 83
33
Appendix 1: (Adaptation from Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment 2001)
Basic User
A2
Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate Basic need.
A1
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
34
Appendix 2: (Adaptation from Common European Framework of Reference For
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg)
A2
U N D E R S T A N D I G
Listening
I can understand phrases and the highest frequency vocabulary related to areas of most immediate personal relevance (e.g very basic personal and family information, shopping, local area, employment). I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.
Reading
I can read very short, simple texts. I can find specific predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters.
S P E A K I N G
Spoken
Interaction
I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. I can handle very short social exchanges, even though I can’t usually understand enough to keep the conversation going myself.
Spoken
Production
I can use a series of phrases and sentences to describe in simple terms my family and other people, living conditions, my educational background and my present or most recent job.
W R I T I N G
Writing
I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate need. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something.
