• Author / Uploaded
• Barbara May

Citation preview

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools

Bc. Martin Svěrák

Translation in English Language Teaching Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: James Edward Thomas, M.A.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. ……………………………………………..

Author’s signature

2

Acknowledgement First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor, James Edward Thomas, M.A., for his friendly support and timely advice. My very special thanks are due to my girlfriend for her immense patience.

3

ABSTRACT The present thesis aims to provide an overview of the history of the use of translation in language teaching in order to account for the vilification of translation and its current reappraisal. The thesis further intends to become a part of the recent discussion striving for a rehabilitation of translation and aspires to defend it as both a means and an end of language teaching and learning. It presents the most frequent arguments against the use of translation in language teaching and relevant counterarguments in its favour. The thesis also discusses the actual practice of translation as done by secondary school students and the resources used during this process. The theoretical discussion is supported by qualitative and quantitative research carried out at seven Czech secondary schools. The quantitative data were gathered using student questionnaires, and the data from the qualitative research were collected using interviews with students following two translation tasks. The findings suggest that the monolingual principle prevalent in the academic discussion of language teaching has not greatly affected the teaching situation at the secondary schools in the Czech Republic, since the mode of instruction is largely crosslingual with a fairly frequent use of translation. Further findings show that the students believe that translation is an activity beneficial both to the improvement of their language and translation skills. However, they do not avail themselves of all the resources available to them when translating and do not distinguish between L1 and L2 translations, which may suggest that the students at Czech secondary schools do not receive proper instruction in regard to the translation process and this fact, consequently, somewhat hinders the development of their translation skills.

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number of Respondents according to School Type ...................................................................... 17 Table 2 Translation of Sentences by Czech Secondary School Students................................................... 24 Table 3 Framework for Study of SLA ....................................................................................................... 31 Table 4 Textbooks Used at Secondary Schools in the Czech Republic and their Content of the Czech Language .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 5 The Amount of Czech Spoken by English Teachers at Czech Secondary Schools ...................... 38 Table 6 The Need of Translation Skills by Czech Secondary School Students ......................................... 50 Table 7 Pair and Group Work in Translation Activities at Czech Secondary Schools .............................. 59 Table 8 In-Mind Translation of Czech Secondary School Students .......................................................... 64 Table 9 In-Mind Translation according to the Year of Study .................................................................... 65 Table 10 Use of Bilingual Dictionaries when Translating ......................................................................... 73 Table 11 Use of Monolingual Dictionaries when Translating ................................................................... 74 Table 12 Use of Monolingual Dictionaries when Translating according to the Year of Study ................. 74 Table 13 Use of Collocations Dictionaries among Czech Secondary School Students ............................. 75 Table 14 Use of the Thesaurus among Czech Secondary School Students ............................................... 76 Table 15 Use of Google Translate among Czech Secondary School Students .......................................... 78 Table 16 Use of Google Translate as a Dictionary among Czech Secondary School Students ................. 79 Table 17 Use of Corpora during Translation among Czech Secondary School Students .......................... 80 Table 18 Use of Google Search Engine to Look Up Words in Context .................................................... 81

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. Major directions in English language teaching theory. .................................................................. 32 Fig. 2. De Swaan‘s hierarchy of languages (adopted from V. Cook, ―Language User‖ 58). ..................... 48

6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CA

Contrastive Analysis

CAH

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

CLL

Community Language Learning

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ELT

English Language Teaching

FL

Foreign Language

FLA

First Language Acquisition

GT

Grammar Translation

IRF

Initiation Response Feedback

MT

Machine Translation

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

ST

Source Text

TILT

Translation in Language Teaching

TT

Target Text

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 8 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 11

2

AIMS OF THE THESIS ................................................................................................................ 12

3

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS .......................................................................................................... 14

4

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 15

5

4.1

DESIGN OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ............................................................................. 16

4.2

DESIGN OF THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ............................................................................... 18

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 19 5.1

EARLY HISTORY OF LANGUAGE TEACHING ............................................................................. 19

5.2

GRAMMAR TRANSLATION ....................................................................................................... 20

5.3

THE REFORM MOVEMENT ....................................................................................................... 22

5.4

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES ................................................................................................... 32

5.5

THE SITUATION IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS .......................................................................... 34

5.5.1 5.6 6

PROPONENTS OF TRANSLATION IN ACADEMIC LITERATURE.................................................... 39

DEFINING TRANSLATION ........................................................................................................ 41 6.1

7

Field Research 1 ................................................................................................................ 34

TRANSLATION AS A MEANS AND AN END ................................................................................ 44

THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRANSLATION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING 51

8

7.1

COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST TRANSLATION...................................................................... 53

7.1.1

Translation is Independent of the Four Skills .................................................................... 55

7.1.2

Translation is Radically Different from the Four Skills ..................................................... 60

7.1.3

Translation is a Time-Consuming Activity ......................................................................... 61

7.1.4

Translation is Unnatural .................................................................................................... 62

7.1.4.1

7.1.5

Field Research 2...................................................................................................................... 63

Translation is Natural ........................................................................................................ 65

7.1.5.1

7.1.6

Scaffolding .............................................................................................................................. 66

Translation Misleads Students into Thinking that Expressions in Two Languages

Correspond One-to-One ................................................................................................................... 68 7.1.6.1

Field Research 3—The Use of Dictionaries by Czech Secondary School Learners ................ 71

7.1.6.2

Field Research 4—The Use of Additional Resources by Czech Secondary School Learners . 77

7.1.7

Translation Prevents Students from Thinking in the Foreign Language ........................... 82

7.1.8

Translation Produces Interference .................................................................................... 83

7.1.8.1

The Views of Practitioners ...................................................................................................... 83

7.1.8.2

Empirical Findings .................................................................................................................. 86

7.1.9 7.1.10

Translation is Only Appropriate for Training of Translators ....................................... 88

7.1.11

Translation is Unethical—L1 versus L2 Translation .................................................... 90

7.2

8

Translation is a Bad Test of Language Skills ..................................................................... 87

OTHER ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF TRANSLATION ................................................................. 94

7.2.1

Focus on Form ................................................................................................................... 94

7.2.2

Vocabulary Building and Retention ................................................................................... 96

7.2.3

Communicative Use of Language and Active Students ...................................................... 97

7.2.4

Introverted Learners ........................................................................................................ 101

7.2.5

Raising of Cultural Awareness ........................................................................................ 102

REMAINING PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................. 102 8.1

MIXED-LANGUAGE CLASSES ................................................................................................. 102

8.2

TEACHERS REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 103

8.3

LEARNERS REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 106

8.4

THE DANGER OF OVERUSE .................................................................................................... 109

9

9

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 110

APPENDIX 1: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................. 113 APPENDIX 2: A LIST OF THE PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS ..................................................... 115 APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE A ......................................................................... 116 APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE B ......................................................................... 118 WORKS CITED .................................................................................................................................... 120 RESUMÉ ................................................................................................................................................ 127 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 128

10

1

INTRODUCTION

Translation in the language classroom is by no means a new phenomenon; it has been used in various forms and to varying extents for many centuries and, needless to say, classroom language teaching started with translation. Translation as a teaching method was first put into practice in the teaching of classical languages. The students were required to carry out word-for-word translations and memorise extensive vocabulary lists and rules of grammar. The expected result was the improvement in the ability to read and write with a particular aim at being able to read and translate literary works. This method was later adapted to teach modern languages and in some parts of the world still survives and remains popular. It does not, however, comply with modern views on language instruction as represented by communicative language teaching which is fed by continuous education and linguistic research. The needs of language learners are nowadays distinctly different from the needs of learners instructed by means of Grammar Translation several centuries ago. The grammar translation method is undoubtedly out of fashion now, yet a time has come for translation to be revived and employed within the communicative framework, since a large part of the research community dealing with language pedagogy has started to recognise the role of the mother tongue in the classroom, translation notwithstanding. New research has led to question purely monolingual approaches to language teaching. A great deal of research has been done on the effects of the use of the mother tongue in the classroom, however, a specific case for translation has been heard only from a few lone voices. In 2007, Guy Cook called for research to be carried out in the field of translation in language teaching claiming that ―translation in English language teaching should be a major topic for future applied linguistic research and discussion‖ 11

(―A Thing‖ 396). Cook further mentions that ―almost all SLA research is on monolingual teaching situations . . .‖ (397). It is nonetheless argued that a large part of English teaching around the world takes part in bi- or multilingual classrooms, where the cross-lingual mode of instruction is the norm. Six years later, the situation seems to be rapidly changing, though it is far from complete. A major turn around in ELT thinking on the way towards a rehabilitation of translation came with the publication of the book Translation in Language Teaching by Guy Cook in 2010. This book has sparked a heated debate even among the most active proponents of monolingual instruction. Cook explains at length how the climate in ELT has been changing in favour of bilingual instruction with many notable researchers presenting arguments for the use of cross-lingual classrooms. However, the support for the use of the mother tongue in the classroom does not always mean that translation is supported as well. Arguments in which translation is the main focus of attention, rather than bilingual teaching, remain few and far between (G. Cook, Translation 51).

2

AIMS OF THE THESIS

This thesis strives to respond to Guy Cook‘s call and help fill the gap from within the Czech secondary school perspective. It deals with translation, which covers not only the process of translating a text from one language to another, but also the use of the mother tongue for classroom instruction. The reasons for this are discussed in greater detail in the section Defining Translation. The present thesis aims to achieve several main objectives. First of all, it aims to explore the development of the belief that sees the use of the mother tongue and therefore translation ―as ‗the skeleton in the cupboard‘1 of

1

Prodromou qtd. in Hall and Cook.

12

English language teaching with negative perceptions of the issue maintaining a ‗stranglehold‘2 on teachers‘ attitudes and beliefs‖ (Hall and Cook 294). The history of the vilification of translation in English language teaching (TILT) and the reasons behind it will be explored and presented. Secondly, the main arguments against the use of translation in language teaching, both derived from ELT theories and common perceptions of how languages ought to be taught, are surveyed, and the thesis presents counterarguments drawing on current research literature dealing with the subject. Translation is defended both as a means and an end of English language teaching and regarded as the ―fifth skill‖ (Baker; Leonardi 25; Ross 61). The present study also hopes to reveal the extent to which secondary school teachers in the Czech Republic have been convinced by the monolingual movement not to use translation in English language teaching. Furthermore, Hall and Cook pose the question of whether learners actually prefer monolingual instruction and learning as is often taken for granted by teachers and ELT theorists (296). The thesis aims to provide valuable insights into attitudes of learners towards the use of translation in the classroom. It is the learners, after all, who should co-operate on shaping the courses, if any calls for humanistic education and learner-centred teaching are to be in accord with current thinking. As G. Cook says: ―Students themselves are the ultimate arbiters of success‖ (Translation 120). Finally, the thesis concentrates on the level of Czech secondary school students‘ sub-skills, i.e. how they approach the process of translation, which aspects of the text they focus on, which tools the students use and what differences and similarities they notice and take into account when translating.

2

Prodromou qtd. in Hall and Cook.

13

3

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The traditional terms used to describe the language known by the students and the language they are endeavouring to learn are a part of the long-term discourse in the fields of language teaching and second language acquisition. These established terms usually reflect established views of the disciplines and are often not satisfactory for a discussion of translation, since translation was for the several past decades not a part of the discourse. The traditional terms used to describe the language the students know are ―first language or L1‖, ―native language‖ and ―mother tongue‖. The terms for the language which is learnt are ―second language or L2‖, ―foreign language‖ and ―target language‖. The terminology used in this thesis is adopted from Guy Cook, who suggested these terms be replaced by own language and new language (Translation xxii). The reasons for this replacement are understandable. L1 and L2 are unsatisfactory, as the language used as a medium through which the language-to-belearnt is approached may not be the first language the students encountered first in their lives. Similarly, L2 would imply that the language being learnt is the second language in order for the students, while many of them may already know several other languages. The term ―native language‖ is also problematic. Pokorn offers at least four criteria on which a person can be regarded as a native speaker, and these do not necessarily go together (6-9). Finally, mother tongue can again be defined according to several criteria—origin, competence, function, identification (both internal and external)—and is, therefore, rather inaccurate (Pokorn 3). As it is with terminology, the whole situation is much more complicated and certain limitations and inadequacies can be attributed to any term. Multilingual people, for instance, may approach the language being learnt through several of the languages they already know. Which one is their own language then? Or does this mean that one 14

of their languages is more own then others? We may conclude that no terminology is perfect. Own language and new language will be used throughout this thesis, as these two terms are politically neutral and seem to carry the least controversy, at least so far. However, the remaining terms are occasionally used as well for the sake of convenience. Particularly when citing other authors or when speaking about specific concepts, e.g. L2 translation. When one of these terms is used, they should always be interpreted as own or new language, unless stated otherwise. The word translation itself needs to be defined. For a discussion of this term, the reader may refer to the section called Defining Translation.

4

METHODOLOGY

This thesis draws on theoretical works in the field of language pedagogy and SLA. Furthermore, it contains field research that has been carried out at several secondary schools in the Czech Republic. The research is twofold. The first part is quantitative in nature and involves a questionnaire which was distributed among secondary school learners. The questions were designed to examine whether translation in language teaching is used at Czech secondary schools, and to gauge students‘ sub-skills and attitudes in relation to translation-based tasks. The second part of the research involves a qualitative survey conducted among eight secondary school students. Two questionnaires are devised for this purpose. Each of them is preceded by an authentic translation task (L1-L2 and vice versa)—an interview with the student follows. The questions were designed so as to comply with the thesis aims i.e. to find out more about the attitudes of secondary school learners towards translation, and to learn more about how they perceive and approach the

15

translation process itself. Special attention is also paid to what kind of resources the students use when translating.

4.1

Design of the Quantitative Research

The research consists of a questionnaire, which was chosen as the most convenient way of addressing a large number of students across several secondary schools in the Czech Republic. The Student Questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was distributed to seven schools. Several teachers who are acquaintances of the author of the present thesis were asked to administer the Student Questionnaires in the schools at which they are active. This procedure ensured a one-hundred-percent return rate of the Student Questionnaires. Secondly, it accounts for the geographical distribution of the schools included. Five schools are located in Moravia, two schools are in Bohemia. Both technical schools and schools of the gymnázium type were addressed so as to provide a representative sample (for the list of schools, see Appendix 2). All of the teachers participating in this research are native speakers of the Czech language. The research method of a questionnaire was also chosen for its easy administration and because it is not excessively time-consuming for the respondents. All questionnaires were printed out and the teachers who administered them were given clear instructions to pass onto the responding students. The Student Questionnaire was anonymous and all the question items were in students‘ first language, i.e. in Czech. The total number of respondents is 188 of which 114 are represented by technical school students, and the remaining 74 come from students attending schools of

16

the gymnázium type (see table 1).3 The study covers thirteen teachers, and therefore thirteen different classes with varied teaching styles.

Table 1 Number of Respondents according to School Type Type of School

Number of Respondents

Gymnázium Schools

74

Other Secondary Schools

114

Total

188

The Student Questionnaire is written in Czech to ensure a complete understanding of the question items by the respondents. Looking at the individual items, the Student Questionnaire contains sixteen question items in the form of statements. The first two question items are exceptions, as they are questions per se. The first question item has the form of an open question; the second item is a multiple-choice question. The rest of the Student Questionnaire, i.e. questions three to sixteen, are constructed using a three-point Likert scale with possible answers ―never‖, ―sometimes‖ and ―often‖. The design of this scale ought to guarantee a reasonable level of validity and reliability, as it is one of the most common scales used in quantitative research. Questions 1-6 generally seek to find out the extent to which the monolingual approaches described in the first part of this thesis influenced the teaching of English at Czech secondary schools. Question 7 is intended to reveal students‘ attitude towards translation in terms of its usefulness in their future lives and careers. The remainder of

3

Gymnázium schools are slightly overrepresented when compared to the distribution of schools in

general. According to the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, there were 372 gymnázium type schools as compared to 911 schools of other types in 2010 (6).

17

the questions, i.e. questions 8-16, ought to shed light on the actual practice of translation among Czech secondary school learners.

4.2

Design of the Qualitative Research

The research uses interviews with students. Six students from different schools were selected for this survey. All of the students studied in the last year of secondary school and were not informed in advance of the subject of the interview to ensure an equal and unbiased starting position. A pilot study preceded the survey itself. Two first-year university students, not studying English as their major subject, were interviewed to pilot the Interview Questionnaire. Based on this pilot study, several questions were discarded as redundant. As the results of the pilot interviews did not differ from the data gathered from the six interviewed students, their responses are evaluated together. This means that the quantitative research comprises interviews with eight students. The interviews took place in a quiet environment so that they could be recorded. All of the students were interviewed individually. The students were set two translation tasks. The first one was to translate a synopsis of a film (L1 translation), the other one was to translate a short article providing tourists with information about a castle (L2 translation). The students were provided with a laptop and dictionaries and were instructed to use any resources on the Internet they needed. They were given sufficient time to produce the translations. After finishing the first translation, the students were interviewed based on the Interview Questionnaire A. After the interview, the same process followed with the second translation. The translation tasks and the Interview Questionnaires are provided in the Appendix (see Appendix 3 and 4). The individual

18

question items are discussed in greater detail in the relevant sections of the present thesis.

5

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

This section maps the development of translation in language teaching and pedagogy from its early history until today. It is essential to understand the position of translation in current academic discourse.

5.1

Early History of Language Teaching

The long history of teaching languages is complicated by the passage of time and the relatively few records kept. Compared with the abundantly documented research into the issue of language teaching in the last two centuries, there is very little that we know about language teaching in the two or three millennia prior to the nineteenth century. Translation, however, was not unknown in early foreign language instruction. ―In the Western world, ‗foreign‘ language learning in schools was synonymous with the learning of Latin or Greek‖ (Brown, Principles 26). Brown further notes that Latin was taught by means of the so-called Classical Method which consisted of techniques focusing on grammatical rules, memorization of large amounts of vocabulary and a plethora of grammatical rules, and finally on the translation of texts (Principles 26). According to Howatt, ―Latin had dominated the school curriculum since the Middle Ages and had shared this pre-eminence with Greek since the Renaissance‖ (129). Translation was still the popular method in the teaching of both the languages in question in the sixteenth century (Machida 2011).

19

5.2

Grammar Translation

Classical languages were still taught at schools all across Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as they were ―held to be indispensable to an adequate higher education‖ (Brown, Principles 26). According to Howatt, ―very few schools taught foreign languages except as optional ‗extras‘ to the principal work of the school, the teaching of classical languages‖ (129). The situation in the educational institutions, however, started to change and by 1900 most secondary schools had altered their curricula in order to teach one or more of the major European languages (Howatt 129). The students as well as teachers naturally used techniques that they were familiar with, and so the principles of the Classical Method were used to teach the new languages. This proved to be a tall order for secondary school students. Traditionally, literary works and classical texts were studied with the aim of gaining reading or writing proficiency, or just for the sake of being ―scholarly‖, as Brown suggests (Principles 26). The traditional scholastic techniques of the Classical Method were therefore adjusted for the requirements of secondary schools in a teaching methodology which came to be known as the grammar-translation method (GT—Grammar Translation). The grammar-translation method was introduced in Prussian Gymnasia at the end of the eighteenth century (Howatt and Widdowson 151). The first grammartranslation course for the teaching of the English language was published by Johann Christian Fick, and was modelled on an earlier course in French written by the originator of the method Johan Valentin Meidinger (Howatt 132). Fick‘s method used both L1 and L2 translation of individual sentences, which were designed to exemplify specific grammatical points (Randaccio 78). Foreign language structures were graded and presented in units; sentences for translation aimed to practice only vocabulary and grammar encountered in the covered units (G. Cook, ―Language Teaching‖ 117). 20

Prator and Celce-Murcia (qtd. in Mehta) listed the salient features of the Grammar Translation method as follows: 1. Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language. 2. Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words. 3. Long elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given. 4. Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words. 5. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis. 6. Often the only frills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue. 7. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation. Some of the weaknesses of Grammar Translation, such as the exclusive focus on the written form, hardly any pronunciation practice or no development of communicative competence, are readily visible even from this brief digest of the method, and it did not take long for the first waves of criticism of GT to emerge. Astute readers will have noticed that the name, the grammar-translation method, itself draws attention to the two less significant aspects of the approach (Howatt 129). The emphasis on grammar in particular came to be problematic. By the second half of the nineteenth century, the characteristics of the language learner had changed, given the proceeding industrialisation. Howatt asserts that ―a new class of language learner‖ without grammar school education and therefore unable of learning languages by means of traditional methods came into being (139). He further claims that ―[a] new approach

21

was needed . . . and it eventually emerged in the form of ‗direct‘ methods which required no knowledge of grammar at all‖ (139). This section outlines how the grammar-translation method came to be criticised on the account of its relative complexity for learners whose aims were no longer to become proficient readers of literary texts in the new language and for whom the practices of the grammar-translation method were not well-suited. These learners often lacked classical education and a detailed linguistic analysis of the target text was beyond their capacities and, in fairness, beyond their needs. Grammar Translation was originally developed to simplify the techniques of the Classical Method with the aim of making life easier for the secondary school student, and as such was an important step ahead in the development of language methodology. It was, however, not suitable for the new emerging class of learners who needed the language to communicate effectively when travelling for work. This marks the commencement of the Direct Method era which will be briefly explored in the next section.

5.3

The Reform Movement

The first voices against Grammar Translation, however, came from the Reform Movement towards the end of the nineteenth century. Grammar translation was criticized for ignoring the spoken language, for encouraging false notions of equivalence, and for presenting isolated sentences rather than connected texts (Howatt 173). According to Randaccio, the Reform Movement was based on three fundamental principles—the primacy of speech, the importance of connected text in language learning, and the priority of oral classroom methodology (79). Vermes considers these criteria and maintains that the use of isolated, out-of-context sentences that are used in

22

written translation tasks hinder foreign language acquisition, as such exercises do not provide a contextualised or situationalised use of language in communication (86). Having studied English as a foreign language, however, the author of this thesis experienced the translation of isolated sentences as a common practice. Personal experience brings memories of fellow students ―abhorring‖ this activity, but appreciating its effects. It would be therefore interesting to see whether translation of isolated sentences is still in use at Czech secondary schools and to which extent, as it is a controversial practice with several advocates and many critics. Question 5 of the Student Questionnaire aims to find out more about the extent to which students translate: 5. I translate sentences at school or as homework.

The basic assumption is that students usually translate isolated sentences, hence the word sentences in the question item. The practice of translation at secondary schools may arguably not be limited to the translation of sentences, however, the experience of the author of the present thesis and of other teachers who were consulted reveals the translation of isolated sentences as the most frequent and often the only practice of translation. The results of Question 5 are summarised in the table below (see table 2). By interpreting the results, it can be said that only 6% of the students never translate at school or as homework, whereas 63% of students translate sometimes, and the remaining 30% of students translate often. In other words, almost a third of the respondents answered that they often translate sentences at school or as homework. Adding the two values together, we can see that 93% of the respondents translate at

23

least sometimes. The differences between schools of the gymnázium type and technical schools do not seem to be a determining factor.

Table 2 Translation of Sentences by Czech Secondary School Students Question 5: I Translate Sentences at School or as Homework Question No.

Answer

5 a b c

Total 187 12 118 57

Percentage

6% 63% 30%

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 3 4% 46 62% 25 34%

Technical Total Percentage 113 9 8% 72 64% 32 28%

a) never b) sometimes c) often Translation of isolated, artificial sentences had been one of the most frequent objections to the grammar-translation method (see above). However, some researchers advocate the translation of isolated sentences for teaching purposes. Perkins, for instance, argues that ―the teacher can quite legitimately get students to translate L1 sentences designed to pinpoint and clarify structures and patterns the student still has not assimilated‖ (qtd. in Ross). Once a language learner himself, the author of this thesis believes that this is a valid practice of translation, and if used moderately, it may contribute to students‘ better mastering of certain grammatical structures and vocabulary. Dagiliene also supports the translation of isolated sentences and sees it as an effective warm-up activity (127). The results of this research may imply that the teachers of English working at Czech secondary schools recognise the positive effects of translation, as most of them make use of such activities. The numbers may possibly hide other uses of translation, such as translation of texts with context or oral translation, therefore it cannot be claimed with certainty that the teachers believe in the

24

use of translation of isolated sentences as such, however, the results show a strong inclination of English teachers at Czech secondary schools represented in this sample to make use of translation in general.

To return to our historical overview, the Reform Movement consisted of linguists and phoneticians, and it is thus little wonder that they based their claims on the new science of phonetics and on the primacy of speech (G. Cook, Translation 4). Among the notable members of the Reform Movement were for example Otto Jespersen and Henry Sweet, who were influential in Denmark and England respectively. Translation, however, is a rather complex phenomenon and the attitudes of its detractors were far from unanimous. Howatt and Widdowson see the essential role of translation in language learning as twofold (191). Firstly, it is the use of the mother tongue for grammar explanation and also for the so-called glossing, i.e. as a tool enhancing comprehension of the foreign language text by provision of meanings of unknown words. Most of the members of the Reform Movement considered glossing a useful technique which secured more time for other activities and sped lessons up. Guy Cook depicts the reformers as ―not excessive or fanatical in their attitude to translation, acknowledging a role for it, and allowing for its judicial use‖ (Translation 5). Henry Sweet, one of the key figures of the Reform Movement, explicitly advocated the use of translation for glossing: ―We translate the foreign words and phrases into our language simply because this is the most convenient and at the same time the most effective guide to their meaning‖ (202). Others were more careful in their judgement of translation and admitted its use as ―a necessary last resort‖ (G. Cook, ―Language Teaching‖ 118). The second role of translation seen by Howatt and Widdowson is ―the conversion of texts in the mother tongue into foreign-language texts ‗with the same

25

meaning‘ . . .‖ (191). In this case the reformers were unanimous in their position. Such learning through translation was ―educationally indefensible‖ (Howatt and Widdowson, 191); this view attacked the practice of translating sentences found in most textbooks of that time, a practice which is still popular among teachers, learners and publishers today. An example of a textbook based on this approach is the Cvičebnice anglické gramatiky used by some teachers in the Czech Republic. Guy Cook assumes that the arguments presented by the Reform Movement were largely based on academic and pedagogic reasons and that their chief concerns were aimed at the education of secondary school learners (Translation 7). Meanwhile, the harshest attack on the use of translation in language teaching came from the commercial sector dominated by private language schools and publishers. Probably the most notable was the network of language schools established by Maximilian Berlitz in the USA and later in Europe. It was in the so-called Berlitz Method, G. Cook claims, that the first true hard-line rejection of translation could be found (Translation 6). Berlitz‘s schools allowed ―no translation under any circumstances‖ (Howatt and Widdowson 224), focused on speaking, and employed only teachers who were native speakers of the language they taught. The Berlitz Method still thrives today and is proudly presented on the company webpage as ―the most efficient form of language learning yet discovered‖. One of the advantages of the total immersion and natural approach of the method is, as the Berlitz websites boast, that ―you learn faster and your learning progress is significantly greater than in bilingual teaching sessions‖. A bold claim in the light of the evidence presented by this thesis.

26

Although far from new,4 the monolingual principle of the Berlitz Schools came to be accepted as the model to follow by later methodologies. A typical classroom consisted of learners who were speakers of different languages; teachers were exclusively native speakers, and so the typical learning situation appeared to disregard bilingual instruction completely. Such a situation reflected vested interests of the publishing companies which were mostly based in English-speaking countries and whose agenda was to produce monolingual materials which could be marketed globally without any alterations and additional information derived from speakers of other languages (Hall and Cook 275). The emphasis in language teaching was shifting from the written towards the spoken language with a complete exclusion of translation. Guy Cook ascribes the term Direct Method to describe ―any and all teaching which excludes use of the students‘ own language from the classroom, whether for translation or for explanation and commentary‖ (Translation 7). This interpretation is used throughout the present thesis. The ―no translation‖ rule is characteristic of almost all approaches and methods following the Berlitz Method well until late twentieth century (G. Cook, Translation 7; Vermes 86). The Berlitz Method thus can be seen as the beginning of the Direct Method era. Guy Cook asserts that this movement away from the use of learners‘ own languages represents the first revolution in English language teaching theory (Translation 22). Despite the fact that the language of instruction is now the new language, other characteristic traits of the grammar-translation method remain in place. Teaching of language is still conceived as a set of grammar rules to be learnt, instruction is carefully graded and presented to students gradually, and great emphasis is

4

Monolingual instruction was known even in medieval times (see Hall and Cook 274)

27

laid on form (G. Cook, Translation 22-23). The Direct Method thus can be seen as form-focused.

28

5.4

Contrastive Analysis

The monolingual paradigm played a dominant role in leading English language teaching literature from the late nineteenth century onwards. This, however, did not mean that teachers and course designers lost interest in own language completely (Hall and Cook 276). Even though the knowledge of own language was discouraged from the classroom, some fields of research admitted its usefulness. Such was the case of Contrastive Analysis (CA). Contrastive Analysis was a subdiscipline of linguistics which dealt with the comparison of two or more languages with the aim of establishing the differences and similarities between them. The languages compared must have a common measure by which they can be compared—a tertium comparationis (Hoey and Houghton 46). CA assumed that the learner transfers rules of his own language when learning the new language, i.e. that L1 transfer affects the second language learning. This is the basis of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). CA believed that a comparison of the differences could predict the errors and prevent their occurrence. In the 1960s, it became apparent that CA did not explain or predict all the errors occurring during language learning, and it, therefore, lost popularity. However, the CAH using translation remained popular among practitioners, as translation can be viewed as the perfect tertium comparationis, which may be used to compare words, sentences, texts, languages and cultures (Leonardi 42). Even if we accept that own-language interference does not account for all errors that may occur when learning a language, there are welldocumented cases in which it is so, and there is no reason why translation could not be used to draw students‘ attention to these.

29

5.5

Second Language Acquisition Theories

In the 1970s and 1980s, the field of second language acquisition became the leading theoretical basis of language teaching. SLA theories are derived from theories of children‘s first language acquisition (FLA). An influential early FLA theory is behaviourism, which sees language development as a formation of habits. This theory is consequently linked to the CAH, as second language learners form their habits based on their first language, and such habits may interfere with the new ones that they need for the second language (Lightbown and Spada 34). Subsequent SLA theories, such as Chomskian nativism based on an assumption of the existence of Universal Grammar i.e. a tool for a natural acquisition of language inherent in all children, or functionalism in which language acquisition is explained as resulting from a need to convey social meanings do not make use of the CAH, as it does not provide a viable explanation of the occurrence of all learners‘ errors (Lightbown and Spada 34; Odlin 17). SLA theories of interlanguage and natural acquisition assume that own-language interference is only a minor source of errors (G. Cook, Translation 25). There is no space for a pedagogical use of translation within the framework of these theories, just as in most SLAinfluenced teaching methods (G. Cook, ―Language Teaching‖ 119; Leonardi 60). The scope of the thesis does not allow the author to present a larger-scale probe into the study of SLA in general. However, a brief overview of SLA approaches is presented in the table below (see table 3) excerpted from Saville-Troike, according to whom the inquiry into SLA can be categorised as based on linguistic, psychological or social frameworks (24).

30

Table 3 Framework for Study of SLA Framework for study of SLA Timeline

Linguistic

Psychological

Social

1950s and before

Structuralism

Behaviourism Neurolinguistics Information Processing

1960s

TransformationalGenerative Grammar

1970s

Functionalism

Sociocultural Theory Ethnography of Communication Variation Theory Acculturation Theory Accommodation Humanistic Models Theory

1980s

Principles and Parameters Model

Connectionism

1990s

Minimalist Program

Proccessability

Social Psychology

Source: Muriel Saville-Troike, Introducing Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006) 24. Print.

The two SLA theories introduced in the 1970s, the Natural Approach and CLT, both believe that focus on the communication of meaning is more important than formal accuracy. Both led to the second major revolution in language teaching theory in which it was not only translation that was outlawed, but also other form-focused activities. The two revolutions are clearly depicted in the following overview (see fig. 1) which is adopted from G. Cook (Translation 22). Almost all the teaching methods derived from SLA theories are based upon the principle of L1 avoidance (Leonardi 60). Nonetheless, there have been a few exceptions such as Suggestopaedia and Communicative Language Learning to which we will turn our attention in the next section.

31

Fig. 1. Major directions in English language teaching theory.

5.4

Alternative Approaches

Butzkamm offers an example of a university language teacher who disregards all the principles inherent in Direct Method, and who is yet outstandingly successful. He further reports that there are highly elaborated bilingual methods which have enjoyed some popularity, such as Community Language Learning or Suggestopaedia. Guy Cook mentions these very techniques alongside two others, which also make use of translation, albeit indirectly. The American Army Method, formally known as the Army Specialized Training Program, was developed after the entry of the USA into World War II for language training of military personnel, as the American forces lacked skilled interpreters (Brown, Teaching 23). Angiolillo claims that the general principle of the Army Method was based on the mediation of the unknown language through the known, and that translation was used in practice (qtd. in G. Cook, Translation 24). 32

Total Physical Response developed by James Asher (1972) requires the students to listen to a series of instructions, which they later act out without speaking (Lightbown and Spada 146). Guy Cook likens this approach to intersemiotic translation as defined by Jacobson, during which words are translated into gestures and vice versa (Translation 24). Suggestopaedia developed by the Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov in 1979 was based on the assumption that the human brain could work more effectively if the right conditions were provided (Brown, Teaching 27). Baroque music was used to release the stress of the learners and create the ideal conditions for concentration. Students were provided translations of input so as not to become stressed by not understanding it. Community Language Learning (CLL) is an affectively based method introduced by Charles Curran who believed that learners in a classroom are not a class, but a group in need of counselling (Brown, Teaching 25). The success of the method depended largely on the translation expertise of the teacher (Brown, Teaching 27). The four methods may have had their successes, but these were not attributed to translation. Their successes were, as Butzkamm notes, either ―explained away or ignored‖. ―It is not the bilingual teaching techniques that are critical, but rather the energetic and good-humoured personality of the lecturer in York, her meticulous planning; or it is the friendly learning atmosphere created by the Suggestopaedia technique . . . not the translations‖. The success of the Army Method was ascribed to its intensity and the high level of motivation of the students (Cherrington 27). Cook concludes that these four methods have proved to be minor ones compared to mainstream teaching methodologies (Translation 24), which continued to be dominated by the Direct Method approach.

33

5.5

The Situation in Language Classrooms

In spite of the deeply entrenched position of the monolingual principle in SLA research and language teaching theories which held sway until the late twentieth century, learners‘ own language and translation have remained a common practice in language classrooms worldwide (Hall and Cook 277). Guy Cook aptly described the situation noting that ―. . . although translation has long been glibly dismissed in the inner-circle academic literature, it has rather stubbornly refused to die elsewhere, notably in locally written syllabuses around the world, and in the teaching of languages other than English‖ (―A Thing‖ 397). Philip Kerr assumes that in the last thirty years there has been ―a conspiracy of silence‖ that translation should not be used in the classroom, and that nobody agreed with this situation, which in turn was reflected in practice—nobody taught in English only. This ―radical break with tradition‖ (G. Cook, Translation xv) was evident in everyday teaching situations, but was largely ignored by academia.

5.5.1

Field Research 1

Looking at some of the results of the quantitative study carried out as a part of this thesis, we should be able to arrive at an informed opinion as to how deeply the strictly monolingual approach to language teaching has become entrenched in Czech secondary schools. It has been pointed out that one of the driving forces of the monolingual approaches were the vested interests of textbook publishers, who helped to drive students‘ own languages out of classrooms, since monolingual textbooks could be marketed worldwide without any changes. Such a practice certainly secured vast profits. 34

However, the situation is believed to have changed with the turn of the twentieth century. It is assumed that ―widely distributed mainstream course materials by major publishers . . . have since the 1990s also begun to integrate translation into activities‖ (G. Cook, Translation 148). The quantitative part of this thesis endeavours to reveal whether any use of translation is present in the textbooks used at Czech secondary schools. Let us now have a look at the first two questions of the quantitative research whose aim is to map which English textbooks are used at Czech secondary schools, and whether they contain any Czech-written parts—at least as perceived by the learners themselves, as a thorough analysis of the individual textbooks is well beyond the scope of this thesis and may be the focus of further research. Question 2 ought to put the abovementioned claim to the test within the context of Czech secondary schools. The English translation of the first two questions is provided below: 1. What English textbook do you use in your class? 2. Does this textbook contain any Czech-written parts? Choose one or more options: (a) a vocabulary list at the end of a unit or at the end of the book (b) translation exercises (c) grammar explanation (d) instructions for exercises and tasks (e) nothing (f) other (specify what is in Czech in the textbook).

The results revealed that the seven schools in which the Student Questionnaire was administered use eight different English textbooks (see table 4). Question 2, however, has proved to be very difficult to evaluate. In the vast majority of cases, students were not unanimous in their description of their textbooks. The results are therefore interpreted as the mode value, i.e. as the most frequent answer (see table 4). The reasons why the answers were so varied may lie in the fact that most textbooks are accompanied by a workbook. Some students may have answered Question 2 only in 35

regard to the students‘ book; others may have reflected the workbook as well. This fact, however, does not hinder the interpretation of the results for the purpose of this research, as the textbooks are used as a set, and it may be argued that it does not matter whether the mother tongue parts are included in the students‘ book, in the workbook, or in both.

Table 4 Textbooks Used at Secondary Schools in the Czech Republic and their Content of the Czech Language Textbook Headway Gateway Longman Exam Accelerator Maturita in Mind New English File Maturita Solutions New Opportunities Success

Mode a e e a a a a e

These results suggest that the textbooks used in the Czech secondary schools mostly contain some parts written in Czech, i.e. in students‘ own language. According to the students, five of the textbooks include a bilingual list of vocabulary. This could mean that students‘ own language is used in textbooks, however, it does not provide any direct evidence of the inclusion of translation activities. In three cases, the students believed that their textbook did not contain any instances of the Czech language. This may partly indicate that some publishers distributing textbooks for the Czech secondary school market still subscribe to the monolingual approaches to language teaching, however, we need to bear in mind that these are only students‘ reflections and that the actual situation may differ. A special study into the structure of textbooks and the amount of Czech used in them would be in order. Guy Cook asserts that ―there is 36

always a tension for publishers between the desire for worldwide distribution, . . . and the necessarily language-specific focus of TILT‖ (Translation 148). This is probably the case with textbooks used at Czech secondary schools, as they include a certain amount of translation in the form of mother tongue inclusion, but do not go as far as to give space to translation-based activities. It has been argued above that even though translation had been ousted from serious academic discussion, it continued to be practised in a number of language classrooms around the world (G. Cook, Translation xv; Kerr). Questions 3 and 4 of the quantitative research are, then, aiming to discover whether this discrepancy between theory and practice holds true at Czech secondary schools, or whether the monolingual approaches hold sway in this context. In these two questions, translation is considered in its broader sense as the use of the students‘ own language by the teacher. This will allow us to evaluate what is actually happening in English classes at secondary schools in the Czech Republic in terms of monolingual vs. cross-lingual instruction. The translation of Questions 3 and 4 is provided below: 3. Our teacher speaks Czech in the English lessons. 4. Our teacher speaks Czech in the English lessons, but only for administrative purposes (taking attendance, setting homework etc.) A summary of the results for Questions 3 and 4 is provided in table 5 below (see table 5). The most important finding when interpreting the results is that only 5% of teachers at secondary schools in the Czech Republic use English (L2) exclusively, whereas 19% of teachers speak Czech (L1) very often in English classes, and 76% of teachers at least sometimes lapse into Czech in English lessons they teach.

37

Table 5 The Amount of Czech Spoken by English Teachers at Czech Secondary Schools Question No.

Answer

3 a b c 4 a b c

Total 188 9 143 36 187 21 116 50

Percentage Total 74 0 57 17 74 12 44 18

5% 76% 19% 11% 62% 27%

Gymnázium Percentage 0% 77% 23% 16% 59% 24%

Technical Total Percentage 114 9 8% 86 75% 19 17% 113 9 8% 72 64% 32 28%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

It is also interesting to look at how the use of Czech differs when the two types of schools are compared i.e. technical schools and schools of the gymnázium type. Overall, the numbers are rather similar, but what is striking is that at gymnázium schools not a single teacher uses English only, as reported by their students. At technical schools, nine students responded that their teachers never use Czech in the English lessons they teach. However, these data may be looked into qualitatively by examining the responses of individual classes. Such an analysis shows that all these instances but one were reported in a single class. This number may therefore be ascribed to the teaching style of a single teacher. The majority of teachers at Czech secondary schools seem to use the students‘ own language in English lessons. Question 4 revealed that only 11% of the teachers speaking Czech in English classes use it solely for administrative purposes. This may suggest that the remaining 89% of the teachers use Czech as a teaching tool of one sort or another, although this evidence is only indirect, and therefore more or less hypothesis generating than conclusive. 38

5.6

Proponents of Translation in Academic Literature

Admittedly, there were a few voices arguing for the viability of translation in language teaching. Butzkamm for example relates the harsh attack on the ban of the use of the mother tongue, which came in 1967 in the form of the book Language Teaching and the Bilingual Method published by C. J. Dodson. Dodson developed a new bilingual method which inspired several researchers around the world to carry out experiments comparing monolingual and bilingual methods. The latter were found to be superior. In the 1980s, several specialists found a use for translation in the language classroom (Randaccio 80). Duff, among others, realised that translation can be used as a communicative activity, as it ―develops three qualities essential to all language learning: accuracy, clarity, and flexibility. It trains the learner to search (flexibility) for the most appropriate words (accuracy) to convey what is meant (clarity)‖ (7). One has to agree with Duff particularly in regard to the first two. Clarity of the message conveyed is the basic requirement of communication and is well practiced by monolingual approaches, however, accuracy is often neglected. In translation, the learner has to find the most appropriate and accurate solution, whereas in monolingual instruction circumlocution skills are often employed and slight inaccuracies are overlooked. Guy Cook regards these defences of translation as ―lone voices‖ which made a case for the use of translation in particular contexts, and maintains that they did not attract mainstream attention (Translation 33).

5.9

Changing Context

The first decade of the twenty-first century was marked by a renewed interest in and support of students‘ own languages (G. Cook, Translation 37). This has been made 39

possible by changes that had taken place in the academic and political climate which surrounds language teaching and learning (Hall and Cook 278). The arguments of the proponents of own-language use are derived from many different perspectives. Early SLA theories have now been largely discredited and the learning of a second language is seen as different from first language acquisition—learners clearly rely on their own language when learning a new language (Hall and Cook 281). A new social turn is now making its way into linguistics and SLA, and these disciplines consequently more readily acknowledge complexity, difference and indeterminacy within language and language learning (G. Cook, Translation 38). Butzkamm views one‘s own language as ―the greatest asset people bring to the task of foreign language learning‖. This ―bilingual reform‖ (Hall and Cook 282) is, however, not completely identical with a support of translation in language teaching and does not appear to be congruent with happenings in the UK and the USA where the monolingual principle has a longstanding tradition, as these are, in Kachru‘s terms, inner-circle countries with largely English native-speaker populations. It is, then, little wonder that the use of own language in foreign language classrooms is supported more vigorously by non-native speakers than by native ones (Leonardi 61). Moreover, according to Guy Cook TILT has never ceased to be associated with Grammar Translation (Translation 37), and as such is still kept at a distance by many advocates of bilingual instruction who refuse to grant its comeback. Cook observes that the distrust of translation has become so deeply rooted that using own-language for advocacy of translation is for many a step too far (Translation 52). Guy Cook‘s book Translation in language teaching (2010) argues that translation cannot be separated from other uses of own-language in language teaching, and presents pedagogical and educational arguments, as well as arguments based on language learning research, to promote translation as an essential part of language

40

teaching and learning. A later section of this thesis will survey the most frequent arguments against TILT and counterarguments in its favour in an attempt to provide evidence that there is no reason why translation ought not to be incorporated into a foreign language lesson, but first we should arrive at a consensus as to what is meant by translation in language teaching in the context of this particular thesis.

6

DEFINING TRANSLATION

It would be counterproductive to speak lengthily about translation, to present arguments of those advocating its use, and to refute arguments of its objectors without first actually expressing what is meant by the word. This is necessary, since many people concerned in this discussion just take the word itself for granted or tend to generalise by identifying translation with Grammar Translation. Unfortunately, defining translation is not nearly as easy as it may seem. Guy Cook asserts that its meaning is ―by no means straightforward‖ and that it is also rather ―slippery‖ (Translation 54). Let us now explore the term in order to, at least partially, grasp its meaning and specify what is meant by translation within this thesis. In the Western world, the word ―translate‖ has Latin and Classical Greek origins in the forms transferre and metapherein respectively (Leonardi 65). In these traditions, its basic meaning denotes ―to carry across‖. Etymologically, it is also the origin of the word transfer. If we accept this metaphorical and etymological point of view, it should be remembered, however, that translation has not been associated only with the West, and that other cultures, in the histories of which translation played an essential role, often ascribe to translation words with strikingly different meanings. Interesting examples can be found in Tymoczko who describes the common words for translation in various countries. In India, for example, the words for translation are rupantar, 41

―change in form‖, and anuvad, ―speaking after, following‖. The Arabic term is tarjama, which means ―biography‖ and which is likely to be connected to the focus of early Syriac Christian translators on the Bible. The Chinese provide yet another way of looking at translation; it is expressed by the phrase fan yi, which means ―turning over‖ and is linked to the concept of embroidery—the source text is the front side, and the target text forms the back side of the same item (22). The meaning of the word varies culture from culture, and there is a plethora of definitions of translation that could be mentioned here, consequently, it is almost impossible to select a single one. Leonardi concedes that it is often the case that translation is considered from a purely linguistic point of view—as a ―merely mechanic . . . activity aimed at replacing lexical and morpho-syntactic elements from one language to another‖ (65). She mentions an example in the form of a definition from the MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, which is remarkably similar to the one in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary which defines translation as ―the process of changing sth [sic] that is written or spoken into another language‖. Such a view of translation with no attention to the extra-linguistic reality is arguably a little simplistic, nonetheless, it has been adopted by a great many translation theorists. A question remains as to what happens during this change. When something is changed, or carried across, there is the inevitable danger of losing something on the way. This is referred to in Translation Studies as the translation loss, and is one of the reasons why most linguists discarded the notion of meaning transference and adopted the weaker notion of equivalence (G. Cook, Translation 56). The idea of equivalence may be concisely explained as replacing the source text with a target text which is its equivalent. There are, of course, several levels of equivalence and the ST and TT may not be equivalent at all of them. These levels could

42

be categorised as linguistic, semantic and pragmatic,5 resulting in equivalence of meaning, pragmatic equivalence, functional and discoursal equivalence, and cultural equivalence (G. Cook, Translation 57-74). Leonardi concludes that a precise definition of equivalence is not needed for the purpose of her work, as she regards translation as a tool for enhancing learners‘ critical and analytical language skills i.e. she regards translation as a means of language teaching and learning (81). The position of this thesis is, however, congruent with Guy Cook‘s stance, in which translation is seen as both a means and an end of language teaching. The notion of equivalence is important for this position, as it is related to the question of what makes a good translation and what does not. Consequently, we will return to the issue of translation equivalence in a later section when dealing with TILT at different levels of proficiency. Another division of translation comes from Jakobson who distinguishes three types of translation. Intralingual translation, i.e. rewording of verbal signs with different verbal signs of the same language, interlingual translation, i.e. translation proper in which verbal signs are interpreted using verbal signs of another language, and finally intersemiotic translation in which verbal sings of a language are interpreted using sings of nonverbal sign systems. The third type is also referred to as transmutation (114). Translation in language teaching falls into the second category; it can be viewed as interlingual translation and it is discussed as such in this thesis. The term translation can also be applied for the use of the mother tongue in the classroom or for the inherent process of translation which occurs in a learner‘s mind.

5

The notion of equivalence is one of the central concepts in Translation Studies and for this reason there

are several typologies. For the sake of convenience, this thesis follows Guy Cook‘s division of equivalence. A useful overview of the issue of equivalence can be for instance found in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.

43

Originally, the present thesis intended to disregard this view of translation and limit its scope to a text-based translation, sometimes referred to as ―act of translation/translating‖ (Machida 740). However, these two phenomena are so closely interconnected that they ought not to be treated separately. For this purpose, Hatim and Munday‘s definition of translation can be used: 1. The process of transferring a written text from SL to TL, conducted by a translator, or translators, in a specific socio-cultural context. 2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL. 3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which are an integral part of 1 and 2. (qtd. in Leonardi 67) In the view of this definition, translation will be regarded as a cognitive activity which is inherent to the process of second language acquisition and cannot be avoided. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom does not play a central role in this research, however, it is so closely connected to the issue of translation, that it is subsumed under the heading of translation. The process and product distinction is maintained, however, translation in this thesis is not seen only as textual transfer, but also accounts for oral translation, i.e. interpreting.

6.1

Translation as a Means and an End

It has already been established that the translation employed in language teaching and learning is a kind of interlingual translation not limited to a text-based view definition of translation. A further division is needed, as it comes without doubt that a translation carried out at schools must necessarily differ from translation performed by professionals. The former can be called ―pedagogical translation‖ and the latter ―real 44

translation‖. Vermes argues that these two types of translation differ from each other on three accounts: the function, the object and the addressee (83). In regard to function, the translated text in pedagogical translation serves as a tool for improving learners‘ L2 proficiency, whereas in real translation the text is the goal of translation itself. Secondly, the object of real translation is information about reality which is contained in the source text. In pedagogical translation, on the other hand, the object is information about learners‘ level of proficiency. The addressees are also different in the respective cases. With real translation, it is the target language reader who wishes to gain information about the reality, whereas in pedagogical translation it is the teacher, who looks for information about learners‘ proficiency (83). Vermes, similarly to other proponents of a rigid distinction between translation pedagogy and language pedagogy, concludes that secondary schools and traditional foreign language departments of higher institutions can only deal with pedagogical translation, while the teaching of real translation should be left to translator training programmes (84). Contrary to this sharp distinction between using translation either as a means or as an end of language learning, there are reasons to believe that TILT ought to encompass both. Since most translation proponents acknowledge the use of translation as a means and do not pay much attention to its benefits as an end, a special case for translation as an end of language education will be made here. Most authors approving of the use of translation in language teaching and learning regard translation as a means through which learners‘ language skills are enhanced (Duff; Kerr; Leonardi; Malmkjaer). In this light, translation is often seen as the ―fifth skill‖ of language learning, accompanying the four traditional skills of reading, listening, speaking and writing (Baker; Leonardi 25; Ross 61). Translation as an end of language learning in itself is not given much attention. It may be partly caused

45

by the fact that the means and end dichotomy equals the division between process and product for some researchers, with the product being the translated text. Kerr, for instance, advocates his view of translation as a means in light of this division by asserting that ―traditional approaches to translation have usually focused on the product of the translation process: the final, ‗correct‘ translated text. In more contemporary approaches . . . the focus is now the process of translating itself‖. However, such a distinction between a process and product is not satisfactory. The aim of language pedagogy is by no means the creation of a ―correct, final product‖. Translation as an end of language learning ought to be viewed as the skills needed to produce translated texts (of a reasonable quality, depending on learners‘ proficiency and other factors), as compared to translation as a means which is a tool for enhancing the remaining four skills. Translation as the fifth skill of language learning is, therefore, both a means and an end of language education. A lot is going to be said about the former, but is the latter worth pursuing? Is it necessary to learn how to translate? The following lines should shed some light on this issue. In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies Guy Cook claims that ―it is acknowledged that the good practice of translation is an end in itself for many students‖ (―Language Teaching‖ 119). He also asserts that translation as a skill in its own right is traditionally assumed to be useful only for learners who would pursue a career in translation and interpreting (Translation 109). This assumption does not seem to apply any longer in the globalised world of today in which English serves as the lingua franca for millions of people. Bilingualism and multilingualism are the norm in many parts of the world and translation is a daily necessity in the personal and professional lives of a great many of individuals. Still, not everyone is bilingual and a lot of people have to rely on the translation skills of their friends, relatives or

46

colleagues. It would be naïve to think—to provide an example from everyday business experience—that the vast majority of companies use English exclusively as their official language. Employees from the bottom strata of the corporate hierarchy often work with their colleagues in their native languages and use an intermediate to translate for them when they deal with the more senior staff. An email may arrive in English and then be translated for the non-English speaking employees by someone else. Translation is simply used as a mediation of meaning between people of different language communities. Much of language teaching has traditionally presumed that the primary goal and need of students is to operate in a monolingual environment with native speakers only, and that the principal aim of a learner is to pass as a native speaker (G. Cook, Translation 110). The actual situation is, however, markedly different. According to Vivian Cook, ―English has a L2 user group of people across the world, . . . for whom the native speaker community is virtually irrelevant‖ (―Language User‖ 57). To demonstrate his point, he uses De Swaan‘s Hierarchy to define groups of languages and groups of language users. The hierarchy of languages is depicted in the diagram below (see fig. 2). In De Swaan‘s division, languages are of four types: peripheral, central, supercentral and hypercentral. Peripheral languages are used within a limited area for the purposes of a local community, such as Welsh in Wales, Japanese in Japan or Kurdish in Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Central languages are used in a given area between different language groups mostly for education and government purposes, for example English in India. Supercentral languages are used for cross-national communication for a limited number of specific purposes, for instance Seaspeak English for mariners. The final step in the hierarchy is occupied by hypercentral languages that are used mainly by

47

non-native speakers for wide selection of purposes. Nowadays, this group comprises English only (qtd. in V. Cook, ―Language User‖ 58).

Fig. 2. De Swaan‘s hierarchy of languages (adopted from V. Cook, ―Language User‖ 58).

What is more important is the division of speakers into groups of language users according to De Swaan‘s hierarchy. It is only the so-called Group A, which consists of people using their first language with each other in the local area and is therefore the only group containing only monolingual native speakers of the language. All the other groups are second language groups, whose members use the language to communicate both with its native speakers and with users of many other L1 languages (qtd. in V. Cook, ―Language User‖ 58-63). This hierarchy is far from perfect, as it does not account for all the possible situations that may occur in the real world, which is much more complex, and because it is bound to territorial divisions. Nonetheless, it can be 48

used to illustrate the variety of language uses in the globalised world of today in which millions of people operate bi- or multilingually and translate on a daily basis. Guy Cook presents another argument in favour of the use of TILT as an end in itself. He examines various curriculum philosophies and aims to provide educational arguments for the use of TILT. One of the educational perspectives is a technological one which has practical aims of ―developing skills needed by both individuals and society‖ (Translation 109). Translation is a skill needed to communicate in today‘s world of global communication, be it a translation in its written form, or oral translation used to mediate between speakers of different languages. Cook further develops his argument and regards translation as ―a necessary skill and a frequent activity in the personal and professional lives of many individuals, essential for the economic survival of many organizations and for engagement in international affairs (Translation 109). Under the influence of everyday experience, one has to agree with this claim. It is also born out by the results of the quantitative and qualitative survey which was carried out as a part of this thesis. The rationale for Question 7 is a simple assumption that learners will benefit more from something they deem important for their lives. The respondents of the questionnaire were therefore asked to evaluate the following statement: 7. I think I will need to translate in my life (outside school, in my job for example).

The results are unequivocal (see table 6). More than 93% of the students asked believe that they will need to translate outside school at some point in their lives. Moreover, 46% of the respondents believe that they will often need to translate. This view is slightly more prevalent among students of the gymnázium type, out of whom 51% expect that they will translate often. Furthermore, all the eight subjects interviewed 49

for the qualitative study expressed their need to translate in the future. These are significant numbers and they certainly provide further support for the case of translation as an end of language teaching itself.

Table 6 The Need of Translation Skills by Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

7 a b c

Total 188 12 89 87

Percentage

6% 47% 46%

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 6 8% 30 41% 38 51%

Technical Total Percentage 114 6 5% 59 52% 49 43%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

As mentioned above, the usefulness of translation practice is also borne out by the interviews with students (Questions 10 and 11 of the Interview Questionnaire). Question 10 enquires about a general improvement of students‘ English as a result of including translation exercises (translation as a means), Question 11 asks about an improvement of translation skills (translation as an end). All eight subjects of the study were unanimous in their answers to these two questions. Translation, according to them, would improve their English in general. Moreover, all eight interviewees believe, to quote one of them, that ―practice makes perfect‖ and that their translation skills would improve as a result of the inclusion of translation exercises into English lessons. These opinions can, therefore, also be regarded as a part of the argument for the case of translation used as both a means and an end of language teaching. These are students‘ opinions, and it would, therefore, be valuable to support them by showing how they correlate with research findings. However, there are very few empirical studies dealing

50

with the effects of translation on the improvement of students‘ language proficiency,6 and there are no studies, as far as the author of this thesis is aware, which would asses the effects of translation on the development of translation skills among secondary school learners. The positive influence of translation practice on the development of translation skills is based on the traditional assumption that practice makes perfect and on personal experience of the author of this thesis as a translator trainee. In the light of the arguments presented in this section, there is no reason to believe that translation in language learning should not be regarded as an end of language learning in its own right, as a set of skills needed to successfully function in the increasingly globalised world.

7

THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRANSLATION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING

As we saw in the previous sections, translation was criticised on many fronts, but the principal reason why it fell out of favour was its association with the grammartranslation method, a method which Richards and Rodgers view as having ―no advocates . . . a method for which there is no theory . . . no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it, or that attempts to relate it to issues in psychology, linguistics or educational theory‖ (7). Grammar Translation was not criticised only for this ―theorylessness‖, but for a number of other reasons, two of which stand out as the most notorious traits of the method. Firstly, the practice of translation of isolated sentences which played out the role of context and was miles away from using authentic texts. Secondly, the medium of instruction was students‘ own languages, which did not

6

For an overview of the existing empirical work on the topic, see Källkvist, ―The Effect‖ (164-165).

51

provide any room for the practice of listening or speaking skills resulting in a low communicative competence of the learners. To be fair, a communicative use of language was not the aim of the grammar-translation method. Using language for communicative purposes lay at the heart of the Direct Method which superseded Grammar Translation in many parts of the world. The Direct Method, however, had flaws of its own. Leonardi mentions three features for which it was criticised; the Direct Method required native or near-native teachers, its success depended more on the skills of the teacher than on a textbook, and it did not take into account the fact that all teachers were not proficient in language teaching (22). These arguments are somewhat connected in that they are teacher-centred. In farness, the nativeness or nearnativeness mentioned above is problematic, as the Direct Method often disregarded non-native speakers as language teachers. As discussed earlier, the term ―native‖ is so problematic in itself that the whole method based on ―native-speakerism‖ seems slightly dubious. The third argument, however, cannot be taken seriously today. While the standards for teachers still differ widely around the world, at least in Europe and the USA an average teacher trainee language-wise approaches the proficiency of well-educated native speakers (if the term is viewed in terms of the criterion of proficiency), and this has little to do with the teaching method the teachers apply. Nevertheless, the fact that translation activities can be prepared in advance, and as such can be suitable for less proficient or beginning teachers, cannot be completely disregarded. Schjoldager adds that the Direct Method was criticised for ―overemphasising and distorting similarities between natural L1 learning and classroom L2 learning‖ (―Are L2‖ 129). It is now widely accepted that first language and second language acquisition differ considerably. Translation, therefore, continued to be practiced in many parts of the world either in its grammar-translation form or, more frequently, in its modified versions. The

52

term Grammar Translation has become so demonised and so distant from the practice of translation this thesis endeavours to advocate7 that it will not be used hereafter.

7.1

Common Arguments against Translation

There have been, unfortunately, many other voices inveighing against any use of translation in language teaching. Newson (2004), for instance, sees the disadvantages of translation as a teaching and testing tool in an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) setting as shown in the following list, in which translation: 1. encourages thinking in one language and transference into another, with accompanying interference 2. is independent of the four skills which define language competence 3. deprives teacher and learner of the opportunity to benefit from accruing advantages of working within one language 4. it gives false credence to the naïve view that there is such a thing as simple word-to-word equivalence between languages 5. does not allow or facilitate the achievement of such generally accepted foreign language teaching aims as: - initial fluency in spoken language, - attention on the controlled introduction of selected and graded structures (1960s style) or communicative competence strategies (1990s style) - attention to controlled introduction of and mastery of selected and graded lexical items,

7

Translation as both a means and an end of language teaching and learning within a communicative

classroom.

53

- the use of situationalized, contextualized language - communicative language use, - learner-centered language learning, - absence of observable learning effect, either of new vocabulary or structural items. The latter is not surprising since each translation task provides normally only one (random) example of new language items; there is no repetition and practice as in classic forms of language learning and teaching, no grading and no structuring. (63-64) Malmkjaer includes some of Newson‘s points in her summary of the most common objections to the use of translation in foreign language classes: 1. translation is independent of the four skills which define language competence: reading, writing, speaking and listening 2. translation is radically different from the four skills 3.translation takes up valuable time which could be used to teach these four skills 4. translation is unnatural 5. translation misleads students into thinking that expressions in two languages correspond one-to-one 6. translation prevents students from thinking in the foreign language 7. translation produces interference 8. translation is a bad test of language skills 9. translation is only appropriate for training of translators. (―Introduction: Translation and Language‖ 6)

54

The use of translation in language teaching is also often seen as unethical. Another weighty argument, which has at least a partial justification, is that translation cannot be used in mixed-language classes. Let us now survey the individual objections in greater detail, and present relevant counterarguments which will reveal the possible advantages of TILT.

7.1.1

Translation is Independent of the Four Skills

Critics of translation in language teaching sometimes see it as independent of the four skills, as ―a merely mechanic activity in which a text is translated from one language into another‖ (Leonardi 23). Translation is, however, much more complex and far from being mechanical. Here, translation is seen as a process. Translation as a product i.e. as a ―text in one language which is a translation of a text in another language‖ (Cook, Translation 54) is less significant for language teaching. Translation as a process or product roughly equals the distinction between translation seen as a means and an end. See the section dedicated to translation as a means and an end for further details. Malmkjaer‘s understanding of translation can serve as an illuminating example. In her view, translation is a text-production process during which a translator produces a target language text (TT). This text has to fulfil a specific purpose for a specific readership, and is elaborated from a different text in a different language for a different readership—the source text (ST). The translator engages in a minimum of five activities prior to concluding the process. These are anticipation, resource exploitation, cooperation, revision, and translating, i.e. activities that are commonly regarded language learning activities (―Introduction: Translation and Language‖ 7). These four activities encompass a great amount of reading, writing, listening and speaking, and as Malmkjaer

55

claims, translation cannot be done without them and is therefore ―not independent of the four skills, but inclusive of them‖ (―Introduction: Translation and Language‖ 8). Leonardi comes to the same conclusion. In terms of reading, the ST always needs to be read before starting the translation proper, and the only difference between translation and reading is in the degree of attention paid during the two processes. The former is more demanding in this respect, as a misinterpretation of the message of the source text should be avoided (23). The second claim seems to be rather dubious, as it is hard to envisage a situation in which a teacher would wish for their pupils to misinterpret a text assigned for reading. Nevertheless, this makes the point that translation is an excellent task for practicing reading skills any less true. Writing is an integral part of translation. When a person translates, they often need to do so in writing and have a good command of writing skills. Furthermore, Leonardi suggests additional ways in which writing is enhanced through translation. Written commentaries, in which students reflect on the difficulties encountered while translating and on the strategies used to deal with them, can serve as an example (24). Writing can be enhanced through translation in many more ways. In case of translation from learners‘ own language into their new language, i.e. L2 translation, translation can even be seen as ―a very special variety of second language writing‖ (Campbell 58). Consequently, by practicing translation, students improve their productive skills in English in general. In regard to listening and speaking skills, translation can be used as a trigger of communicative activities. A discussion of the topic to be translated may precede the actual translation. Alternatively, the translated texts can be discussed afterwards. Using translation communicatively is very different from the practices of the grammartranslation method. However, as a language learner of several languages at several

56

institutions, the author of this thesis has experienced a solely uncommunicative use of translation in language lessons. Even thought the individual activities differed from an on-the-spot translation when the learners translated into L2 just as the teacher was speaking to the traditional translation of sentences from a textbook to exemplify a particular grammar point, none of them promoted communication in the new language and the students worked independently of each other. Question 16 of the Student Questionnaire, therefore, endeavours to reveal if the uncommunicative use of translation activities prevails, or whether students translate in pairs or groups and an opportunity for communication to take place exists. Question 16 reads as follows: 16. When I translate at school, I work in groups or pairs with fellow students (i.e. I do not translate individually).

The rationale for question 16 is based on the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis originally defined by Swain in 1995 and her notion that the production of language makes learners process the new language more deeply. It further leans on the notion of Collaborative Dialogue as defined by Swain and Lapkin which promotes the coconstruction of linguistic knowledge by learners engaging in production tasks (Lightbown and Spada, 48). Individual learners may be novice users of the new language when working on their own, but they gain access to their partners‘ knowledge and may temporarily become more expert users of the new language when working in pairs or groups (Ryan 43). What is the situation at the schools covered in this research? Do the students work individually or in pairs or groups? Table 7 shows that only 12% of the respondents never use pair or group work when fulfilling translation tasks. The numbers are more in favour of pair and group work at technical schools as compared to schools of the 57

gymnázium type. At the former schools, 8% of the students never work in pairs or groups while engaged in translation activities, as compared to 19% of the students of the latter. This difference may be explained by the fact that the students of the gymnázium type are generally regarded as more independent learners, so their teachers perhaps rely less on pair and group work when translating. This can be viewed as a mistake on the part of the teachers, as they do not make use of the communicative strengths of translation activities and its other advantages. The percentage of students working individually is, however, relatively small. Overall, the results speak in favour of the use of pair and group work for translation activities at Czech secondary schools. Results which are contrary to the expectations of the author of the present thesis, and which are positive in the view of the notion of the Collaborative Dialogue. Moving on from the real practice at schools, let us now consider what the students actually think about a communicative use of translation activities. During the interview, the eight students were asked if comparing and discussing the translated passages with their colleagues would help them in any way to improve their English (Question 9 of the Interview Questionnaire). Seven of the students asserted that discussing translations would have positive effects on their English. One of them mentioned that this is actually done with their English teacher. One of the students did not think that a discussion of translations with other students would be helpful. Having observed the student in question in about ten lessons, the author of the present thesis ventures to suggest that her opinion may be heavily influenced by the student‘s personal learning style. She preferred to work alone in most activities, and was known as ―the quiet Tereza‖. One of the students believed that such a practice would be beneficial to her English, however, not as a result of discussing translation itself, but because the discussion would take place in English. There are two other interesting findings. Two

58

interviewees explicitly criticised the translation of separate sentences based on their school experience claiming there was no context. Lastly, one student expressed something which can be regarded as the essence of Collaborative Dialogue. She said she could co-operate with her fellow students and use their knowledge, words she did not know, to successfully complete the translation task. In Vygotsky‘s words, the students would engage in a co-construction of knowledge. Based on the interviews, it appears that secondary school students in the Czech Republic mostly see translation practised communicatively in a positive light, and this fact could be used as another argument in favour of the use of TILT. To sum up the arguments of this section, using translation to foster communication in the new language lies at the core of TILT, which strives to embed translation in a communicative framework. Whether learners discuss a text in a textbook or speak about grammar and the language itself is not that important after all, as long as the discussion is authentic.

Table 7 Pair and Group Work in Translation Activities at Czech Secondary Schools Question No.

Answer

16 a b c

Total 188 23 133 32

Percentage

12% 71% 17%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

59

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 14 19% 49 66% 11 15%

Technical Total Percentage 114 9 8% 84 74% 21 18%

7.1.2

Translation is Radically Different from the Four Skills

Several voices have been heard arguing against translation on the basis of this claim. Lado, for example, did not recommend translation, as it is ―more complex, than different from, and unnecessary for speaking, listening, reading, or writing‖ (qtd. in Randaccio 79). Translation may be slightly different in form from the traditional four skills and learners and teachers may not be quite familiar with translation techniques, since they are not usually included in textbooks and teachers who use them may have only a limited stock of such activities to choose from, but this does not mean that translation is more different from the other four skills than they are different from each other. Furthermore, in the light of the previous section, which shows how translation is inclusive of the four traditional skills, it would be wrong to think that translation is radically different from them. Malmkjaer supports this view when she states: ―It is misleading to suggest that translation is radically different from other language skills if it depends on and includes them‖ (8). Lado argued that due to its greater complexity, translation should be regarded as an independent skill that cannot be achieved without mastery of the second language, and should only be taught after the second language has been learnt (qtd. in Randaccio 80). Vermes, however, puts forward evidence which refutes this claim. This evidence is, according to him, provided by modern cognitive theories which describe the process of speaking, listening, reading and writing as based on a kind of mental translation (88). This claim seems very tempting for the proponents of translation and is partly supported by the quantitative research of this thesis (see the discussion of Question 6 of the Student Questionnaire below). Vermes concludes that translation viewed as separate and subsequent to the other four skills does not seem to have a substantial basis (88), which is perhaps slightly exaggerating, but why not give our learners the opportunity to 60

practise what feels natural to them? Other authors are now calling for a closer cooperation between language teaching and translator training in the belief that the language learner may benefit from translating by improving their language skills, just as a translator improves theirs and is thus regarded as a lifelong learner.8 In the light of the abovementioned arguments, translation ought to be regarded as an additional skill, one that would enhance the remaining four skills and would be aimed at their development in a more comprehensible manner.

7.1.3

Translation is a Time-Consuming Activity

One of the most frequent arguments of translation critics objects to the relatively large amount of time needed to conduct translation activities. It is believed that the time devoted to translation could be better used to teach the traditional four skills. These objections are, in fairness, not completely invalid. It is, however, crucial that we understand that such criticism stems mostly from people who regard translation as textbound and confined to reading and writing only. Such an approach to translation is, of course, uncommunicative and does not include any oral interaction. The time and effort spent on translation may in turn not be worth practicing these two skills only. Nevertheless, translation within a communicative framework addresses all the skills as shown in the previous sections. Its greater time demands are therefore only relative and the time and effort spent on translation activities are amply compensated for by the fact that all four skills are practiced at once with a minimal use of materials. If we accept that translation as the fifth skill is not only a means of language learning, but also an end in itself, there are five skills developed concurrently when applied in language

8

See Carreres 1-18.

61

teaching. It is, however, essential to bear in mind that only a judicious use of translation is called for, as there is always the imminent danger of overuse. Leonardi mentions several practical ideas which serve for minimising the time demands of translation in the language classroom. She proposes that only short text could be worked on at school, whereas longer texts might be set as homework assignments and later discussed in class. Alternatively, additional practice of writing skills may be achieved by writing of the already mentioned translation commentaries (25). These are valuable practical ideas, and it is without doubt that teachers would develop other strategies that would suit the particular need of their students and of their teaching situation.

7.1.4

Translation is Unnatural

One of the key arguments of the Direct Method proponents is that translation is not a natural process. Since learning a second/foreign language is likened to first language acquisition in these approaches, emphasis is laid on thinking directly in the new language in order to imitate the process of first language acquisition. E.V. Gatenby argues that: ―We as teachers are trying to bring our pupils to use English without translating in their own minds, to say without hesitation the right things on the right occasion. . . . Our aim is to get our pupils . . . to the stage where they can use English without having to think‖ (qtd. in philjkerr). Kerr then ridicules Gatenby for not wanting his learners to think, which may sound unduly harsh, for what Gatenby probably had in mind was nothing more than a call for his learners to automatise the use of some language structures. Nonetheless, the presumption of translation being unnatural perseveres among Direct Method partisans.

62

TILT supporters, on the other hand, frequently point out that learners tend to translate anyway, regardless of the teaching method within which framework they receive instruction. The relatively limited teaching experience of the author of this thesis tentatively supports this view. Lower-level students in particular tend to translate regardless of their task. It happens quite frequently that a student being asked a question first translates this question for themselves (often in a whispering voice), and only then the answer is given. Danchev comes to the conclusion that learners translate from the new language into their own language even when asked not to do so and supports the use of TILT as a natural and universal feature of foreign language learning (qtd. in Randaccio 82).

7.1.4.1

Field Research 2

Question 6 of the quantitative research accompanying this thesis aims to test whether Danchev‘s opinion holds true among Czech secondary school students, i.e. whether they apply translation skills even in activities in which they ought not to—the author of this thesis can testify that it is a common belief among many teachers that students should be thinking directly in the new language when listening or reading. Translation is viewed as an unwanted practice that slows down perception and learners are discouraged to translate in their minds during receptive activities. Question 6 reads as follows: 6. When reading a text in English or when listening to an English recording, I translate into Czech in my mind. Students‘ answers to Question 6 (see table 8) show that only 7% of the students who responded to this question never translate in their minds when reading or listening 63

to texts in English. This trend does not seem to be affected by the type of school the students attend. It would also be very interesting to know whether the amount of ―inmind‖ translation tends to decrease with students‘ growing level of proficiency. The present study cannot provide a definite answer to this question; it can only illuminate what happens in the minds of the students who participated in this research. A much broader sample would be needed to draw definite conclusions and generalisations. It is a simplification, but if we accept that fourth-year students are generally more proficient L2 users than first-year students, then in the case of Czech secondary school students responding to Question 6, the level of proficiency does not seem to play a role in the use of ―in-mind‖ translation during receptive activities, as the highest percentage of learners who never translate falls into the group of first-year students (see table 9). It has been suggested above that these results are not statistically significant, and can therefore only serve as a basis for further research. The numbers for the whole sample (see table 8), however, support Danchev‘s view that translation is practised by learners more often than not.

Table 8 In-Mind Translation of Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

6 a b c

Total 188 13 87 88

Percentage

7% 46% 47%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

64

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 7 9% 32 43% 35 47%

Technical Total Percentage 114 6 5% 55 48% 53 46%

Table 9 In-Mind Translation according to the Year of Study Question No.

Answer

6 Total a b c

1

%

2

39 5 14 20

13% 36% 51%

29 0 13 16

Year of Study % 3 % 39 0% 2 45% 21 55% 16

5% 54% 41%

4

%

81 6 39 36

7% 48% 44%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

7.1.5

Translation is Natural

There are psycholinguistic arguments to support the view that translation is a natural phenomenon. Vivian Cook criticises the tenet which lies at the core of monolingual instruction—that successful language acquisition is based on the separation of languages in the learner‘s mind. In psycholinguistic terms, such a separation is called coordinate bilingualism (V. Cook, Second Language 154).9 This contrasts with compound bilingualism which suggests that two or more languages are interwoven in the new language learner‘s mind. As a consequence, ―learning a second language cannot be the same as first language acquisition, for the learners‘ own language plays a central role in the development and use of their new language‖ (Hall and Cook 281). V. Cook asserts that ―the presence of the first language is the inescapable difference in L2 learning‖ (Second Language 14). It is also argued that efforts to ―compartmentalise‖ and separate learners own and new language(s) date back to theories of transfer in which learners‘ own language posed a major source of negative influence on the acquisition of the new language.

9

The concepts of compound and coordinated bilingualism were originally developed by Uriel Weinreich.

65

However, in the light of cognitive SLA research of today, learners‘ own language is accepted as a resource which learners actively use when learning the new language (Hall and Cook 281). Butzkamm notes that successful learners benefit from all the linguistic and world knowledge that they have gathered using their own language. According to him, learners are aware of the meaning of words and concepts, as they have encountered them in their own language, and that this holds even when the cultural concepts of the two languages in question differ. It is better, then, not to reconceptualise the world, but to extend our concepts of it. Learners‘ own language, therefore, serves as a kind of scaffolding.

7.1.5.1

Scaffolding

The term scaffolding is used by various authors to denote different concepts. Its origins have roots in the work of the psychologist Lev Vygotsky who saw it as social and instructional support. Spada and Lightbown define it as: ―The language that an interlocutor uses to support the communicative success of another speaker‖ (204). Generally speaking, scaffolding means any support for students learning new concepts and may, therefore, take several forms. For Butzkamm, scaffolding closely relates to Bruner‘s concept of Language Acquisition Support System (LASS), which is in foreign or second language learning provided by learners‘ own language with learners engaging in their own self-scaffolding. The learner can rely on the concepts in their own language, until the new language firmly establishes a new framework for itself. In this way, the scaffolding is not removed after the new concept is developed, but it remains a part of learners‘ knowledge. Learners are then aware of the differences and similarities between own language and new language concepts.

66

Cognitive psychology offers other reasons to believe in the usefulness of translation. Solid evidence is provided by research on bilingual language processing. Källkvist refers to Hummel‘s notion of elaborateness of processing which is specifically linked to translation: [A]n elaborated trace is characterized by additional information which allows the formation of an increased number of interconnections. When translating, a dual set of structures are activated: (a) the first language structure from which the meaning or message is derived, and (b) the second language structure which are constructed to match the message. Thus the translation process should entail just such an increased set of interconnections, resulting in a more elaborate set of memory traces associated with the L2 structures. And, according to the ―elaborateness of processing‖ view . . . the L2 structures should therefore be more resistant to forgetting. (qtd. in Källkvist ―L1-L2 Translation‖ 185) Källkvist further mentions empirical work aiming at retention of L2 vocabulary that supports Hummel‘s view. It is for example argued that by watching subtitled films, learners retain the most vocabulary with reversed subtitles i.e. when the sound is in L1 and the text in L2 (―L1-L2 Translation‖ 185).10 This finding is rather surprising and may have some practical implications, as the widely held assumptions among teachers favours the use of L2 sound with L2 subtitles. Guy Cook expands on this by saying that other researchers into the bilingual processing have come to similar conclusions regarding elaborateness of processing (Translation 92). This issue can be summed up by saying that certain language tasks are processed much faster by bilinguals than by monolinguals, and vice versa. This,

10

For more empirical support of the effects of subtitling on vocabulary retention see Källkvist, ―L1-L2

Translation‖ 185.

67

according to Cook, proves the popular belief that translation slows down communication much more complicated (Translation 93). All the arguments mentioned earlier in this section were predominantly theoretical and well-founded in empirical research. There is, however, a practical dimension to the naturalness of translation. Since such a large part of the population worldwide is bi- or multilingual, Malmkjaer asserts that there is no reason why translation should not be regarded as a natural skill in its own right and why it should not be used as a natural classroom activity (―Introduction: Translation and Language‖ 8). This claim also indirectly supports the use of translation as an end of language learning. Having read the present evidence, this section can be concluded by saying that translation is a natural phenomenon which occurs in all language learners‘ minds. It is, therefore, unnatural to ask foreign/second language learners to think directly in the new language and deprive them of their possibly greatest asset, of their own language.

7.1.6

Translation Misleads Students into Thinking that Expressions in Two Languages Correspond One-to-One

In this connection, Guy Cook speaks about the concept of word-for-wordism which he sees as related to transfer and interference that are to be produced by learners when speaking or writing as a result of translation. However, he distinguishes between these concepts claiming that transfer and interference are cognitive phenomena, whereas word-for-wordism is a textual phenomenon (Translation 97). The correlation between translation practiced by language learners and their subsequent production of word-forword translation pairs seems to be unsubstantiated. Several authors express their support in favour of translation. Michael Lewis, in his book Implementing the Lexical Approach 68

(2002), asserts that ―every teacher knows that learners have a tendency to translate word-for-word‖ (qtd. in Koppe 5). Leonardi maintains that any speaking or writing activities may lead to word-for-wordisms, as learners always tend to refer to their own languages ―as if one-to-one correspondence exists for any situation‖ (26). Guy Cook ventures to suggest that word-for-word translations are not likely to be produced by learners who have studied in educational contexts in which TILT was used, but by those who did not encounter translation when studying (Translation 9899). This argument appears to be perfectly logical. Such learners are more prone to err and produce word-for-wordisms, since they are probably confronted with translation for the first time in real-life situations, having no experience translating. Students who have studied a language with the support of translation activities have been systematically advised to avoid word-for-word translations. Many a thinker in the history of translation theory warned of the dangers of word-for-word translation. Cicero (106-43 BC), for instance, opposed to word-for-word translation and advocated a freer approach,11 for which he coined a new term ―sense-for-sense‖ translation (Robinson 87). Cook‘s argument is thus well-grounded in Translation Studies theory. The students interviewed for this thesis were asked about the differences in the structure of Czech and English sentences in order to evaluate how aware they are of structural differences between the two languages (Question 6 of the Interview Questionnaire). They were also enquired whether they exactly kept the structure of the source text when producing the target text (Question 7) in order to assess the degree of

11

The issue of free and literal translation fed endless debates in Translation Studies. Some theorist had

opposing views and literal translation was the only option for them. The issue was particularly sensitive in regard to Bible translation, with several translators coming to bitter ends on the stake for not being faithful to the ST.

69

word-for-wordisms in their translations. All of the eight students believed that the two languages seemed to be different in terms of their word order. All of them tried not to copy the original word order and adjust the target text to the norms of the target language. It is, therefore, probable that the translations of these students would include fewer word-for-wordisms than the translations of students who had received monolingual instruction only, because translation heightens language awareness and awareness of interlingual differences (Dagiliene 125). The real usefulness of translation lies in comparing and contrasting the grammar, vocabulary and word order between students‘ own and new languages. Another important feature of TILT which helps avoid word-for-wordisms is the fact that translation activities make use of dictionaries. There is far more to using dictionaries than resorting to the first word found in a bilingual lexicon. Leonardi believes that translation raises learners‘ awareness in regard to the use and importance of bilingual as well as monolingual dictionaries (26). She expands on her idea by saying that the actual practice in language classrooms is frequently different and that ―there seems to be a widespread belief in FL classes that all you need to do when faced with unknown words is to look them up in a dictionary‖ (27). Her claim is supported by empirical evidence, as the results of the quantitative as well as qualitative research which was done as a part of this thesis shows that learners at the Czech Republic secondary schools are not familiar with the advantages and limitations of monolingual dictionaries and do not use them when translating. For a more detailed discussion of the findings, see the research results in the subsection below. Translation, then, may be one of the possible tools to enhance learners‘ competence in using dictionaries and, by extension, their overall language proficiency.

70

Lastly, to return to Michael Lewis, we shall conclude this section by referring to him once more. He wrote that: ―We often complain that learners translate word-forword but rarely suggest a better way. The secret, of course, is to translate chunk-forchunk‖ (qtd. in Koppe 6). As the present thesis does not call for a creation of a new teaching method based on translation, but rather for translation to be used in combination with other approaches, the ideas of the importance of the grammar of vocabulary and chunks of language which are central in Lewis‘s Lexical Approach, may be applied when using translation in the classroom and further help with tackling wordfor-wordism.

7.1.6.1

Field Research 3—The Use of Dictionaries by Czech Secondary School Learners

In the teaching of foreign languages, the emphasis is often laid upon the exploitation of grammar books and textbooks, while dictionaries receive less attention. Dictionaries are, however, very useful tools for language learners. It is also certain that the consultation of a dictionary ―constitutes an important stage in the process of translation‖ and that dictionaries present ―one of the most important tools for the translator‖ (Sánchez Ramos). In congruence with Carreres‘s view of the translator as a long-life language learner and the language learner as a natural translator (18), and taking into consideration Leonardi‘s belief that by translation learners raise their awareness of the importance of dictionaries and improve their dictionary using skills (26), it is selfevident that translation and the use of dictionaries come hand in hand and that we need to know ―how to consult and use dictionaries effectively in order to complete the translation process with success‖ (Sánchez Ramos). Having been a long-life language learner and a trainee translator, the author of this thesis recognises this importance of 71

using dictionaries both for learning and translating. Questions 8, 9, 14 and 15 of the Student Questionnaire were therefore designed specifically to reveal what dictionaries learners of English at Czech secondary schools use when translating, with the aim to understand their approach to translation and their awareness of the various dictionaries that are at their disposal. The use of dictionaries was also examined qualitatively during the interviews with students. The results show a tendency of Czech secondary school students to use bilingual dictionaries. The use of other types of dictionaries is limited. Let us now turn our attention to the individual results in greater detail. Questions 8 and 9 of the Student Questionnaire enquired about the use of the two most common lexicons, i.e. the bilingual and the monolingual dictionary. Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. A good bilingual dictionary, according to Fox and Potter, is suitable for non-advanced learners, since it offers a quick answer to their enquiry which they can understand immediately without having to worry about the complexities of a language they have not yet fully mastered. Monolingual dictionaries are suitable for more proficient students. Rizo-Rodríguez notes that they can be made use of as an aid for both productive and receptive purposes. The productive mode is predominantly useful for writing and translation into English, and the receptive one is at its strongest when reading and comprehending English texts (32). Questions 8 and 9 read as follows: 8. I use bilingual dictionaries when I translate (e.g. a Czech-English dictionary). 9. I use monolingual dictionaries when I translate (e.g. an explanatory dictionary).

The research shows that Czech secondary school learners make a fairly frequent use of bilingual dictionaries (see table 10). 54% of the respondents use them sometimes and 38% use them often. Only 9% of the students replied that they never used bilingual 72

dictionaries when translating. It should be borne in mind that these 9% include the students who never translate, so it is likely that the actual percentage of students using bilingual dictionaries during translation is slightly higher. It is also rather interesting that a smaller percentage of learners of English at technical schools often use bilingual dictionaries than the learners at schools of the gymnázium type (33% versus 45%). The reasons for this cannot be drawn from the data gathered for this research, and may be the subject for further studies.

Table 10 Use of Bilingual Dictionaries when Translating Question No.

Answer

8 a b c

Total 188 16 101 71

Percentage Total 74 6 35 33

9% 54% 38%

Gymnázium Percentage 8% 47% 45%

Technical Total Percentage 114 10 9% 66 58% 38 33%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

In regard to monolingual dictionaries, the situation is markedly different (see table 11). 70% of all the respondents never use them when translating and only 2%, i.e. three students out of 188 in total, use monolingual dictionaries often. These numbers are similar for both types of schools examined. This is an alarming finding, as the author of this thesis can testify how invaluable the help of monolingual dictionaries is when translating. There is little doubt that monolingual dictionaries are more suitable for advanced learners. This is reflected in the results of the research. The percentage of learners not using monolingual dictionaries at all when translating is lowest (63%) in the fourth year of study (see table 12). However, the number is still too high and suggests that not enough students recognise the benefits of using monolingual 73

dictionaries as an aid to achieve a better translation. This may be a consequence of not enough emphasis being laid upon dictionary using skills by teachers, rather than a fault on learners‘ part.

Table 11 Use of Monolingual Dictionaries when Translating Question No.

Answer

Total

9

Percentage

188 132 53 3

a b c

70% 28% 2%

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 49 66% 22 30% 3 4%

Technical Total Percentage 114 83 73% 31 27% 0 0%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

Table 12 Use of Monolingual Dictionaries when Translating according to the Year of Study Question No.

Answer 1

9 Total a b c

39 29 10 0

%

2

Year of Study % 3 %

4

%

74% 26% 0%

29 22 7 0

39 30 8 1

81 51 28 2

63% 35% 2%

76% 24% 0%

77% 21% 3%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

Questions 14 and 15 focused on the use of less frequent types of dictionaries, namely the collocations dictionary and the thesaurus. Collocations are a key area of English lexicology. Collocations are basically fixed-two-word combinations which must be learnt as building blocks or prefabs, and the importance of collocations dictionaries lies in the fact that general monolingual learner‘s dictionaries have a number of shortcomings in covering this language area (Rizo-Rodríguez 38). The author of this 74

thesis makes a frequent use of collocations dictionaries when translating into English and beliefs that they are particularly important when producing a text in the students‘ new language in general. The thesaurus is also a valuable tool for text production in general and by extension for translation. A good command of synonyms adds to the stylistic elegance of a text. Are secondary school learners in the Czech Republic aware of the existence of these tools and make use of them? The results of this research suggest that this is not the case (see table 13 and 14). 72% of the learners never use collocations dictionaries and almost 80% never use thesauri. In both cases, only two students answered they used the respective tools often. The data are consistent for both types of schools examined. These findings do not appear to be entirely surprising. Collocations dictionaries as well as thesauri are fairly sophisticated tools, and if most of the learners do not use monolingual dictionaries very often, they cannot be expected to use these resources. A question remains whether secondary school students should be made aware of these ―advanced‖ tools and be encouraged to use them. They undoubtedly offer many features from which the learners might benefit even at the secondary school level.

Table 13 Use of Collocations Dictionaries among Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

14 a b c

Total 188 136 50 2

Percentage Total 73 52 21 1

72% 27% 1%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

75

Gymnázium Percentage 71% 29% 1%

Technical Total Percentage 114 84 74% 29 25% 1 1%

Table 14 Use of the Thesaurus among Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

15 a b c

Total 188 149 37 2

Percentage Total 73 59 13 2

79% 20% 1%

Gymnázium Percentage 81% 18% 3%

Technical Total Percentage 114 90 79% 24 21% 0 0%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

The results as to the use of dictionaries calculated from the data gathered in the Student Questionnaire were confirmed by the interviews conducted as the qualitative part of this research. All the eight subjects were asked about the use of dictionaries and monitored during their translation process. All of them were provided with two electronic dictionaries. The first dictionary was a monolingual one, The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Students, the other one was a bilingual Czech-English and English-Czech dictionary—Velký anglicko-český a česko-anglický slovník Josef Fronek. All of the students were provided with a laptop with a connection to the Internet and were instructed that they could use any other dictionary they wished. Six of the eight subjects marked in their Interview Questionnaires that they sometimes used monolingual dictionaries when translating. None of them did so during the interview, with each of them preferring the bilingual dictionary. The subjects did not use any online dictionaries, any collocations dictionaries or a thesaurus. It might thus be concluded that the use of dictionaries among Czech secondary school students is strictly limited to bilingual dictionaries.

76

7.1.6.2

Field Research 4—The Use of Additional Resources by Czech Secondary School Learners

Apart from dictionaries, there are other tools which can be used in the language classroom and when translating and which can be highly beneficial both to language learning and to the quality of translation. The first category encompasses high-tech tools such as mobile phones that can be filled with a plethora of useful applications, ranging from regular electronic dictionaries to state-of-the-art applications where students record their voice and receive an assessment of their pronunciation. This category includes programmes used for machine translation (MT). The history of MT dates back to the 1930s, but technology has come a long way since the first bizarre inventions of Petr Smirnov-Troyanskii who patented the first translation machines. Fully automated machine translation is now available for the general public, even though the resulting target texts widely differ in quality, depending on many variables, such as the language pair, the text type etc. One of the most commonly used programmes is the service provided by Google—Google Translate. This programme is a fascinating tool, however, there are pitfalls and limitations that each user needs to be aware of. Questions 10 and 11 of the Student Questionnaire aim to reveal if and how Czech secondary school students avail themselves of this electronic tool. The results indicate a massive popularity of Google Translate among the secondary school students in the Czech Republic (see table 15). Only 6% of the respondents confided that they never use the programme. In other words, 94% of the students asked at least sometimes make use of the Google machine translation software. The results also show that the students of technical schools are more likely users of the programme, as only 3% of them never use it, compared to 11% of students studying at schools of the gymnázium type. This is hardly surprising. Who else should be adept at 77

using new technologies than the students of technical schools? Let us now address the issue of how the learners use the programme in question.

Table 15 Use of Google Translate among Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

10 a b c

Total 188 11 107 70

Percentage

6% 57% 37%

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 8 11% 42 57% 24 32%

Technical Total Percentage 114 3 3% 65 57% 46 40%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

The rationale for Question 11 is derived from personal experience with young language learners and the data appear to confirm it. Table 15 above indicates that 37% of learners use Google Translate when translating often. This rises to 46% when it comes to using Google Translate to look up unknown words (see table 16). The results are not conclusive, but they may suggest that many learners use Google Translate as a dictionary. It is without question that this programme was not designed as a dictionary, and certainly not as one for language learners at that. Even though its functions have been considerably improved and it is now for instance possible to view alternative translations of a word, Google Translate should not be used as a dictionary and our learners should be made aware of this. This does not mean, on the other hand, that Google Translate should be disqualified from the classroom. It can actually be used as a source of illuminating examples serving to tackle word-for-wordism. Students may be presented with sentences incorrectly translated by Google and encouraged to discuss what could have gone wrong. By doing this, students‘ awareness of the differences

78

between the two languages is increased, as well as their ability to properly use the software itself.

Table 16 Use of Google Translate as a Dictionary among Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

11 a b c

Total 188 10 92 86

Percentage

5% 49% 46%

Gymnázium Total Percentage 74 8 11% 42 57% 24 32%

Technical Total Percentage 114 2 2% 50 44% 62 54%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

The second category of resources is subsumed under the term corpora. A corpus is ―a collection of naturally occurring examples of language, which have been collected for linguistic study. . . . A corpus is planned . . . and it is designed for some linguistic purpose‖ (Hunston 2). There are many types of corpora, but the one which is of interest to us in this thesis is a general corpus such as the British National Corpus (BNC). Pedagogically, such a corpus may be used for a variety of purposes, such as studying the collocations, connotations or prosodic features of words and phrases. Leaving aside specific parallel or comparable corpora which are used by professional translators, a general corpus may be used to improve one‘s translations, as it is a source of information about the natural behaviour of language. As such, a general corpus is an ideal tool to accompany L2 translation. Question 12 of the Student Questionnaire seeks to find out whether secondary school learners in the Czech Republic avail themselves of this useful tool when translating. Question 13 enquires about an alternative practice, looking up words in context in the Google search engine, which is not recommended by language teachers 79

and researches, as it displays results of unattested language. The results are summarised in the two tables below (see table 17 and 18). It appears that secondary school learners of English in the Czech Republic do not make frequent use of corpora, as 72% of all the subjects of the survey responded they did not use corpora whatsoever. This does not come as a great surprise, since corpora are fairly sophisticated tools and not many students know how to use them even at the university level. What is more interesting are the answers to Question 13. More than 50% of the respondents at least sometimes use the Google search engine to look for examples of the use of words in context. This may indicate continuing students‘ need to find out how words are used. A question remains whether this need arises as a result of students‘ poor dictionary using skills, or because the dictionary contains only a limited amount of information and the students are forced to seek additional resources. The answers to Question 9, which revealed a low use of monolingual dictionaries among Czech secondary school students, may suggest that the former is true. Even if we confine the use of corpora for more advanced learners and for the university level, our students should be made aware of the shortcomings and limitations of ―googling‖ words up, and offer alternative solutions to their need.

Table 17 Use of Corpora during Translation among Czech Secondary School Students Question No.

Answer

12 a b c

Total 188 136 44 8

Percentage Total 74 53 17 4

72% 23% 4%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

80

Gymnázium Percentage 72% 23% 5%

Technical Total Percentage 114 83 73% 27 24% 4 4%

Table 18 Use of Google Search Engine to Look Up Words in Context Question No.

Answer

13 a b c

Total 187 85 83 19

Percentage Total 73 34 33 6

45% 44% 10%

Gymnázium Percentage 47% 45% 8%

Technical Total Percentage 114 51 45% 50 44% 13 11%

a) never b) sometimes c) often

Using dictionaries and other resources mentioned in this section is a prerequisite for achieving a good-quality translation. If we wish to improve translation skills of our students, they should be made aware of these tools. There are, however, other techniques and practices that lead to a final translation of good quality. Mastering these techniques can also be regarded as the aim of TILT. Any good translator, for example, knows what they are going to translate and for whom. This information is derived from the ―translation brief‖. The students interviewed for the qualitative part of this thesis were given a translation brief—they were instructed what they were going to translate, why and for whom. Based on this information, they should have approached the translations. Not many of them did so. Questions 2 and 3 of the Interview Questionnaire asked the students about two procedures which are done by professional translators after reading the translation brief and before commencing the translation process itself. The translator should predict the content of the translated text and how it relates to the target text reader. The translator should also read the whole text before translating, at least with such short texts. The interviews revealed that the students do not follow these procedures, as none of them thought about the content of what they were going to translate. This may be perhaps explained by the fact that they are used to translating isolated sentences without the context, as they had revealed in their answers. None of 81

the eight students interviewed had read the text to be translated before they commenced translating. This implies that they approached the text sentence by sentence, without paying attention to the text as a whole. Moreover, none of the students read their translations after they had finished them. It seems that secondary school students in the Czech Republic are not aware of the basic techniques and procedures of the translation process, perhaps because their translation experience is often limited to the translation of isolated sentences. Should we wish to improve the translation skills of our students, and to teach them more through translation, more emphasis should be laid on enlightening them in these techniques.

7.1.7

Translation Prevents Students from Thinking in the Foreign Language

A very common argument against the use of translation in language learning and teaching is that it prevents learners from using the new language automatically. Guy Cook notes: The process of translation is seen as a slow and laborious one, focused more upon accuracy than fluency. . . . The person who has learnt through translation will forever be locked into this laborious process, always condemned to start production and finish comprehension in their own language, and unable . . . to think in the language they have learnt. (Translation 88) It is not possible, however, to make learners think in their new language, as this is not a cognitive function which may be controlled (Leonardi 27). The naturalness of translation has been discussed in an earlier section, and it is a feature of human mind that simply cannot be switched off during language learning. Any attempts to do so will run counter to the natural process of second language acquisition.

82

Moreover, banning translation from the foreign language classroom, and consequently relying on techniques that focus on an indirect conveyance of meaning, such as miming, drawing or describing the meaning of words by definitions, may even prove harmful. As Butzkamm suggests, learners may be led to make wrong associations with own language equivalents as a result of these ―ersatz-techniques‖. Every teacher has probably experienced a situation when after a laborious five-minute explanation of the meaning of a word the class sighed in relief only when somebody shouted the ownlanguage equivalent of it. A frustrating situation for both the teacher and the students indeed, but the result could have been even worse, had it not been for translation. The students could have associated the meaning with a different word, which could in turn have led to fossilising the error, which could one day perhaps even materialise in an embarrassing situation. A sensitive use of translation can prevent all of this. Butzkamm concludes that what is important is not rough comprehension, but precision of meaning.

7.1.8

Translation Produces Interference

Why do learners err? Why do certain errors tend to be more frequent than others? The search for answers to these questions may be approached from many different perspectives and many possible explanations exist. Nevertheless, a very common belief is that the cause of such errors is L1 interference and, by extension, translation.

7.1.8.1

The Views of Practitioners

There are of course good reasons to support these claims which are based on everyday classroom observations and teachers‘ experience. Perhaps the most immediately evident evidence of interference at work is the powerful influence that own-language phonetics 83

and phonology have on learners‘ pronunciation. The basic division of pronunciation errors pertaining to a foreign accent may be twofold with errors resulting from phonetic or phonemic differences (Odlin 113). The former mean that sounds in any two languages often display different physical characteristics even though they seem to be identical. A Czech learner of English for example often tends to pronounce English /r/ in the same way as the Czech /r/, when the two sounds, in fact, acoustically differ. The latter, i.e. phonemic differences, result from different phonemic systems between two languages. A Czech learner of English is thus likely to produce errors when pronouncing /æ/, as this sound is not a part of the Czech phonemic system. Another area in which interference frequently occurs and is particularly evident is lexical semantics. Learners often err when mislead by cognate vocabulary in cases when there is only a partial semantic overlap or even when these are faux amis. A Czech learner of English may thus be lured by the Czech expression sympatický into producing a sentence like His friend is very sympathetic, when they actually mean likeable. There is little doubt that such errors occur as a result of the influence of learners‘ own language, however, to ascribe interference of the own language solely to translation would be unjust, since interference is a feature of language acquisition in general (Leonardi 27). Vermes argues that interference may be engendered by any teaching procedure, with or without the use of translation, in any language learning situation (89). We must not forget that there is another side to interference, a positive one. Own-language interference (i.e. positive transfer) may play a major role in the acquisition of vocabulary. Odlin suggests that ―similarities and dissimilarities in word forms . . . and . . . in word meanings, play a major role in how quickly a particular foreign language may be learned by speakers of another language‖ (77). Butzkamm

84

expands on this and asserts that using lexical and syntactic parallels between learners‘ own and new language fosters retention and raises awareness of the historical relationship of languages and cultures.12 It has been shown that if a word is explained in terms of family resemblances, students are more likely to remember it for a longer period of time, partly due to the fact that the semantic links may more easily intertwine in their mind. Positive transfer is not, however, limited only to lexical semantics. The argument can be extended to cover other features of language. The more two languages are related, the more positive transfer can take place during second language learning. But even in cases of negative interference, translation can become a useful tool for tackling own-language influence. Errors caused by negative interference, such as the Czech to English faux amis example mentioned above, may as well go unnoticed in a monolingual lesson. Here we return to the principles of Contrastive Analysis which may help learners overcome the adverse effects of interference. Ross adds to this point that ―the real usefulness of translation in the EFL classroom lies in exploiting it in order to compare grammar, vocabulary, word order and other language points‖. The author of this thesis views this, i.e. contrasting the aspects of the two languages, as the essence of using TILT. It emerges, then, that translation actually may suppress negative interference, as it draws students‘ attention to problems arising as a result of their own-language influence, and it therefore raises their awareness of such issues, which is not the case of purely monolingual language learning situations.

12

Butzkamm‘s maxim is limited to the teaching of European languages.

85

7.1.8.2

Empirical Findings

These are all valuable opinions based on teachers‘ experience or classroom observations, but do they have any empirical support? Schjoldager (―Are L2‖ 127-149) carried out a comparative analysis of errors occurring in L2 translations and picture verbalisations in L2 in order to find out whether learners who translate err more than learners who write comparable picture verbalisations, and whether any such errors may be caused by L1 interference. She selected two groups of students, the first one consisting of final-year secondary-level students specialising in languages, the other one of third-year university students of English. The results showed that there were considerably more errors committed in translation than in picture verbalisation. This is hardly surprising, as it is impossible to use various avoidance strategies during translation. As a result, there are more mistakes occurring during translation as compared to freer production activities in which students are not forced to translate the ST, but rather reformulate the ideas of the original. What is more interesting, though, are the inconclusive findings as regard to L1 interference. An overrepresentation of interference errors was detected only in the secondary-level students group. The university students of English committed fewer L1 interference errors in translation than in picture verbalisation. There is thus some support for translation-induced errors occurring among secondary-level students, but the evidence is inconclusive for more advanced students, and actually showing tendency in the opposite direction. More empirical work needs to be done to validate these findings, however, the results of Schjoldager‘s study suggest that L2 translation used with learners at a higher-level of proficiency may tackle own language interference, as suggested earlier in this section.

86

7.1.9

Translation is a Bad Test of Language Skills

In 1989, Duff wrote that: ―. . . translation is largely ignored as a valid activity for language practice and improvement. And even where it is still retained, it tends to be used not for language teaching, but for testing‖ (5). While the context in academic literature has nowadays considerably changed and translation is more frequently seen as a beneficial language practice on the way to language improvement, the use of translation as a testing tool has been criticised in various sources. This, however, does not mean that translation for testing purposes does not have any proponents. Newson mentions two key areas of criticism of the use of translation as a means of testing language competence. Firstly, the examinee tends to be presented with random translation problems. Secondly, translation seems to be an unreliable measure of language command (64). Newson introduces a model for teaching translation, where translation is used for testing L2 competence. He suggests that the limitations can be solved by fixing as many parameters as possible by using filters to select texts to be used in examinations. These filters would include genre, subject matter, originality and length of the text. Based on these filters a text to be translated can be limited according to these criteria, and in this way control what the learners are expected to know (65). Leonardi argues that translation demands a simultaneous application of all four language skills, and as such it presents ―a very comprehensive test for an assessment of language skills‖ (28). An objection can be raised to this opinion. Translation may be a comprehensive test indeed, however, perhaps a little too comprehensive to be used with lower proficiency learners. The time needed to design and correct a reliable translation test is another issue that can be easily disposed of by the use of some other testing devices. Nonetheless, Newson‘s above mentioned filter may prove to be a viable solution to these reservations. 87

There is also an empirical study by Gary Buck, who examined L2-L1 translation as a test of reading comprehension. The subjects were English learners whose own language was Japanese. The study included a comparison with other testing methods. The results of the study showed that the reliability and acceptability of translation as a testing tool of L1 comprehension was satisfactory, and its author proposed that its results were generalisable for other translation tests (123). Having mentioned researchers favouring the use of translation as a testing tool, it is only fair to give space to those criticising it. In an empirical study, Klein-Braley surveyed the objectivity, reliability, and validity of L2 translation as a testing tool of L2 proficiency when compared with other means of assessment. The findings suggested that even though translation tests measured language proficiency, their reliability and validity was worse than the remaining tests (qtd. in Schjoldager, ―Translation‖ 203). L2 translation tests were seen as the least satisfactory and least economical of the tests examined (qtd. in Schjoldager, ―Are L2‖ 138). Evaluating the evidence presented so far, it can be argued that the claim that translation is a bad test of language skills is difficult to rebut. There is empirical evidence both in favour of translation and against it in this respect, and to use translation as a testing tool is, therefore, rather unreliable. If used for testing purposes, translation ought to be accompanied by other testing means.

7.1.10 Translation is Only Appropriate for Training of Translators Most translation and language teaching scholars concur that there is a difference between the training of professional translators (i.e. translation pedagogy) and language teaching (language pedagogy). However, there is also little doubt that the two disciplines are closely related. In order to become a professional translator, according to 88

Malmkjaer, one has to be able to operate literately in more than one language, and most people need at least some kind of language education to become literate in any language (―Introduction: Translation as an Academic‖ 4). It can be, therefore, inferred that translation pedagogy and language pedagogy are interconnected. Carreres criticises the traditional division of these two disciplines and notes that ―the divide between the teaching of translation as a language learning tool and as a professional activity has been overemphasized to the point of preventing useful dialogue and exchange‖ (12). This brings us back to the issue of translation as a means and translation as an end. As a means, translation focuses on the development of language skills; as an end in itself, it develops translation skills. It has already been argued that in the world of today most language learners need to be equipped with at least basic translation skills. This is believed by learners themselves13 and the fact is also beginning to be recognised by various academics. Carreres, for example, sees professional translators as life-long language learners who continually improve their L2 competence as a result of their work, and language learners as natural translators who translate regardless of the classroom rules. She concludes that the two disciplines, translation pedagogy and language pedagogy, ought to co-operate more vigorously, as they may positively influence one another (18). Similarly, Malmkjaer claims that ―language and translation learning are maximally beneficial, . . . when they are mutually reinforcing‖ (―Introduction: Translation as an Academic‖ 4). The argument can be summed up by saying that translation as a means of language learning does not, and should not, be kept neatly separated from translation as an end in itself, i.e. as a tool for the development of translation skills. Students will benefit greatly if TILT is used as both a means and an end. 13

See the results of the qualitative research Question 7 discussed above.

89

7.1.11 Translation is Unethical—L1 versus L2 Translation This strand of criticism is aimed at the practice of translation from learners‘ own language to their new language i.e. L2 translation. Whether a translator translates from their mother tongue into a foreign language or vice versa is in Translation Studies referred to as translation directionality (Lonsdale 63). According to Schjoldager, the objection of many critics of TILT is based on a widely held assumption that translating into L2 runs counter to a professional norm of only translating into L1. It is assumed that only L1 translators reach professional standards, and by using L2 translation for teaching purposes, students could be led to think that they are able to carry out such translations professionally (―Are L2‖ 133). It is also argued that while translation into learners‘ own language is a natural activity which may be encountered in later life, L2 translation is totally unrealistic, and as such useless and pointless (Leonardi 18). There is one more argument against the use of L2 translation in the classroom, which can be found in Carreres‘s summary of arguments against L2 translation. Here translation is viewed as a ―frustrating and de-motivating‖ exercise in which the student, in terms of accuracy and stylistic value, can never attain the qualities of the original presented by the teacher (5). The issue of L2 translation breaking professional norms is highly debatable and there is a whole discourse dealing with it in Translation Studies. Most translation scholars, according to Pokorn, share a conviction that only translation into one‘s mother tongue guarantees good results (30). Baker, for instance, addresses the issue of directionality as follows: ―[T]he professional translator would normally be working

90

from a foreign language into his/her native language or language of habitual use‖ (55).14 Newmark asserts that translators should ―translate into [one‘s] language of habitual use, since that is the only way [one] can translate naturally, accurately and with maximum effectiveness‖ (3). The general assumption consequently favours L1 translation. However, practice is often strikingly different. Many translation agencies boast that they employ only native speakers, but some even dare go as far as to vilify L2 translations, as can be documented by the following extract from the web pages of a Czech translation agency Překlady Purič: Jen na rozsáhlé projekty nasazujeme stálé spolupracovníky – výhradně rodilé mluvčí: Nevyužíváme služeb takzvaných ―naučených‖ překladatelů. . . . Výsledná práce „naučeného― překladatele nakonec dopadne buď komicky nebo křečovitě a dle naších zkušeností je často i nepoužitelná. Only for extensive projects do we use regular external contractors—exclusively native speakers: We do not use the services of so-called ―learned‖ translators. . . . The final product of a ―learned‖ translator ends up either in a comical or a clumsy translation which is, in our experience, often useless. While most translation providers and agencies blatantly claim that they employ only native speakers, the actual situation proves the contrary. How many English native speakers with a good command of a minor language, let us say Czech, are there to work as translators? From early history, translation in the Western tradition was carried out into a non-mother tongue (Pokorn 34). The smaller a language community is, the more it needs to translate into its own language in order to be recognised. Pokorn concludes that

14

Terminology differs from author to author, but the basic distinction is L1 translation vs. L2 translation.

91

communities using one of the less translated languages15 must ―translate into a foreign language if they want their works translated at all‖ (35). Considering the global situation in which English dominates as the global lingua franca, it could be said that a great many languages can be categorised as less translated languages, including widely used languages such as Arabic or Chinese. In the light of this evidence, L2 translation is often necessary and does not deviate from the norm, at least as far as English represents the L2. Practice thus favours L2 translation, moreover, there are now theoretical works supporting it. Pokorn‘s theoretical assumptions and empirical findings have waived the ―stigma of inappropriateness given to inverse translation [L2 translation] by the majority of Western translation theorists‖ and contributed it to a ―post-Romantic, aprioristic, scientifically-unproven and sometimes ethnocentric conviction of theorists coming from major and central linguistic communities‖ in which L2 translation is not practice to such an extent as in peripheral and minor linguistic cultures (122). The question of directionality was also addressed in the quantitative research of the present thesis. During the interviews with students, eight students were given two translation tasks. The first one was a translation into their own language, the other one was an L2 translation. The most important finding is that the students did not distinguish between these two types of translation activities. The L2 translation was administered after the L1 translation, and the answers gathered after the L2 translation did not offer any new data when compared to the answers gathered after the L1 translation task. Translation directionality, therefore, does not seem to play any role for students. This finding is in accord with Lonsdale‘s claim that laymen and general public

15

Less translated languages are those which are ―less often the source of translation in the international

exchange of linguistic goods, regardless of the number of people using these languages‖ (Branchadell 1).

92

make no distinction between translating from L1 into L2 and vice versa. Professional translators as well as translation researchers are, on the other hand, aware that linguistic and translation competence is rarely symmetrical (64). There is an implication for teaching practice in this finding. Knowing that the two types of translation are markedly different, teachers subscribing to TILT should bear in mind that the two activities will lead to different results, and they should also address the issue of directionality so as to raise students‘ awareness of the possible dangers and advantages of the individual types. With regard to the objection that translation poses a de-motivating and frustrating activity for learners, this may be partly true and there are differing views of this issue. What is certain is that L1 translation differs from L2 translation, and the expected output would have to be different in both cases (Carreres 7). The problems that learners need to overcome when translating into their new language are consequently different. In the former, students, and translator in general, do not struggle with the comprehension of the ST, the main difficulty lies in the production of the TT. In the latter, the situation is reversed. If teachers draw students‘ attention to the respective areas of difficulty and help the students in overcoming these, the students will benefit in all respects. Their production skills will be enhanced as a result of the treatment of L2 translation difficulties, and their general receptive skills will be improved by focusing on L1 translation related issues.

93

7.2

7.2.1

Other Arguments in Favour of Translation

Focus on Form

A substantial part of monolingual language teaching was influenced by Krashen‘s Monitor Model which was described in terms of five hypotheses. Krashen‘s model of second language acquisition was inspired by Chomsky‘s model of first language acquisition, and crystallized in notions which stated that learners acquire the new language following the same sequence (natural order hypothesis) and that conscious learning is not necessary to acquire the new language when the learners are exposed to comprehensible input (input hypothesis) (Lightbown and Spada 37). Guy Cook mentions that subsequent SLA research acknowledged that a fully subconscious acquisition of a language may not be as beneficial to students‘ learning, and that students may gain more when noticing and when exposed to focus-on-form instructions (Translation 89). Form-focused instruction can be of two basic kinds. Firstly, focus-onform, i.e. occasional explicit attention to form when a need arises in otherwise meaningcentred activities (G. Cook, Translation 89), and focus-on-formS, which according to Ellis requires a pre-selection of target structures for focus-on-form treatment (qtd. in Källkvist, ―L1-L2‖ 183). If texts to be translated are selected in advance, it may be assumed that translation is a focus-on-formS activity par excellence. It has already been established that explicit attention to form has its advantages, but it is interesting to see what effects such an instruction may have on students when compared with other kinds of form-focused instruction. Källkvist has undertaken to explore this issue in an empirical study of the effects of two kinds of focus-on-formS exercises in otherwise 94

meaning-centred curriculum on learners‘ L2 morphosyntactic accuracy (―L1-L2― 182202). The subjects of the study were Swedish (L1) university students of English (L2) and the focus-on-formS activities were translation activities, and fill-in-the-blank and transformation exercises. The students were divided into two groups. The first one followed translation exercises only, the other one fill-in-the-blank and transformational exercises. The instruction the groups received was identical. There was also a third group of students who did not receive any form-focused instruction. All these groups were tested before, during and after a thirteen-week-long semester. The results have shown that students involved in focus-on-formS exercises, i.e. the first two groups, outperformed the third group of students in all three tests. These results confirm the research on focus-on-formS exercises on grammatical accuracy, which suggests that grammatical accuracy is enhanced when such exercises are used, at least when the gains are measured in terms of test-like elicitation tasks (Källkvist, ―L1-L2― 197). The study has also shown that the type of focus-on-formS exercise makes a minor difference, as most of the subject record a greater gain when the test was of the same type as the type of exercise they had worked with throughout the semester. It is suggested that learners would benefit most from a combination of both types of focus-on-formS activities (Källkvist, ―L1-L2― 198). The study carried out by Källkvist presents further evidence in favour of the use of translation in language teaching. Admittedly, similar knowledge gains as those provided by translation exercises in a meaning-centred framework may be achieved through other types of form-focus activities, but if we accept that students will need to communicate in situations which require translation, there is no reason why they should be deprived of the chance to improve this skill.

95

7.2.2

Vocabulary Building and Retention

In the previous section the effects of L2 translation exercises within a communicative framework on the gain of L2 morphosyntactic structures were examined. In a similar fashion, this part will endeavour to provide evidence for translation being beneficial to vocabulary building and retention. It is very common that even advanced learners commit errors in the choice and use of vocabulary. By this stage, the learners have usually acquired a substantial number of vocabulary items. Two kinds of problems may arise. Firstly, the process of vocabulary development grinds to a halt and the students are reluctant to learn new vocabulary. Heltai suggests that this is caused by the fact that advanced learners have already mastered sufficient vocabulary for a successful communication and also circumlocutions strategies that allow them to avoid lexical problems (288). The second type of problem arises when students indeed possess a vast knowledge of vocabulary, but when the knowledge is only superfluous. Machida suggests that in such cases learners either overgeneralise one meaning of a word and use it in other contexts in which this meaning does not apply, or simplify the meaning of an L2 word by identifying it with an L1 word (744). It is believed that both problems can be remedied by the use of translation. In the first case, translation exercises force students to search for particular words that they otherwise may not encounter or that they would tend to avoid. In the second case, translation acts as scaffolding which helps to integrate the new words into an existing framework of knowledge, i.e. when the students translate into their own language, they base the foreign language words on the knowledge they already posses in their own language. Later, when they translate from their own language into their new language, translation helps learners realise that the originally established relation between words may have certain constraints and needs to be 96

reconceptualised. A judicious use of translation may therefore foster gradual vocabulary building even at advanced stages when students frequently tend to rely on circumlocutions skills which may hinder their further vocabulary development. In regard to vocabulary retention, there are also reasons to believe that translation may be a useful tool. Laufer and Girsai, for example, conducted a study in which they taught identical vocabulary to three groups of high school students using three types of approaches—meaning-focused instruction, non-contrastive form-focused instruction and contrastive analysis and translation. The groups were then tested on the retention of the vocabulary items by two batteries of tests aimed at passive and active recall respectively. The results were that the contrastive analysis group, which used translation, significantly outperformed the other two groups in all tests (694). The results of this study are fairly convincing and suggest that translation activities accompanied by contrastive analyses may indeed aid vocabulary retention. In view of these results, which provide far more convincing evidence compared to Källkvist‘s study aimed at morphosyntax, it may be presumed that translation is particularly valuable for the teaching of vocabulary, as vocabulary learnt with the use of translation is more likely to be remembered by students. However, Laufer and Girsai‘s research is one of the very few studies dealing with the effects of translation as a contrastive formfocused instruction of vocabulary, and the validity of its results should not be generalised before they are replicated in future research. Nonetheless, there is no evidence contradicting their research to date.

7.2.3

Communicative Use of Language and Active Students

One of the arguments against the use of translation listed by Newson (see above) targeted translation as not allowing the achievement of communicative language use 97

(64). This is one of the most common objections, and is valid in teaching situations in which translation is used slavishly, with little or no context, and with overwhelming emphasis on grammar and vocabulary, just as it was practised in Grammar Translation. Such a view of translation may also be perceived as a shortcoming of traditional SLA research, which when dealing with the effects of translation—in the few cases it bothered to survey them at all—concentrated entirely on grammar and vocabulary, as may be documented by Källkvist‘s and Laufer and Girsai‘s studies above. Guy Cook suggests that SLA research did not research all the possibilities of using translation in language teaching and took monolingual instruction for granted (Translation 91). There is, however, much more that translation can offer to language learners than an explicit attention to grammar and accuracy. It is fortunate that recent research has started to address these issues and translation has come to be reappraised as a multidimensional activity. It is actually the communicative use of translation, when translation is discussed before, during or after the act of translation itself, which is eminently valuable for language learning. According to Källkvist, translation is a task which involves a comparison of two languages, and as such is likely to engender languaging (―Languaging‖ 218). The term languaging has been used by various authors in several disciplines, but here it is used as defined by Swain who sees it as ―the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language‖ (98). Swain viewss this concept as occurring during any learning ―when language is used to mediate problem solutions‖ but she is particularly concerned with ―languaging about language‖ which she views as one of the important strategies leading to learning (96). The effects of languaging have been examined in various studies, but it is beyond the scope of this

98

thesis to review the results of all of them.16 Nevertheless, one study dealing with languaging ought to be mentioned here, as it examines the effects of the use of translation. Marie Källkvist explored languaging in the teacher-led discourse when L2 translation was used and compared it to languaging resulting from four other tasks focusing on grammar. The results showed that translation tasks had the effect of students asking a larger proportion of student-initiated questions when compared to the remaining four tasks. This pattern seemed to break the traditional initiation-responsefeedback pattern (IRF), and translation activities thus commonly led to the creation of discussions about the English language. The other finding of Källkvist‘s study is that the translation tasks led to a weaker focus on the target grammar, as students‘ attention was mainly drawn to vocabulary (―Languaging‖ 217-238). The attention to vocabulary itself does not have to be seen as a serious disadvantage of translation tasks in general. The grammar of vocabulary is now seen as an important part of language teaching and may help the students immensely. Translation provides an opportunity to focus on this in greater detail. The results of Källkvist‘s study seem to be in accord with the beliefs of the students interviewed for the qualitative part of this thesis. The students were enquired about the most difficult aspects of translation, based on the text they had translated (Question 8 of the Interview Questionnaire). Five of the eight interviewees maintained that unknown vocabulary was the most difficult aspect of translation for them. This was mostly in relation to the source text comprehension. One of the students regarded the comprehension of the source text as the most difficult aspect of translation. When translating into L2, vocabulary was again the most difficult aspect for most of the

16

For an overview of the different effects of languaging on language learning, see Källkvist,

―Languaging‖ 218.

99

respondents (five). This time the difficulty lay in the finding of a proper equivalent in the target language. These difficulties with vocabulary could be tackled by improving students‘ dictionary using skills, as none of the interviewees used any other resource than the bilingual dictionary. Alternatively, collaborative learning and dialogue could also provide the students with a richer vocabulary stock than they would have if translating alone. As a result, the translation process would not be as difficult. It is interesting that vocabulary was also mentioned by all of the interviewees as the area of language which could be improved by translating (Question 10 of the Interview Questionnaire). Only one of the eight students reported that translating could lead to enhancing her knowledge of grammar. The results of Källkvist‘s study may have strong implications for language pedagogy. It is suggested that other types of form-focused activities are preferable when the aim of the instruction is the teaching of complex morphosyntax, and that the focus on grammar when using translation can only be successful when the texts to be translated do not contain difficult vocabulary (―Languaging‖ 230). The other implication is, and here it becomes interesting, that translation may be particularly useful when engendering learners‘ activity, as the students are less likely to follow the traditional IRF sequence during translation tasks. The implication of the study therefore is that translation may lead to more active students, and as such it is a very useful activity especially when the focus of the lesson is on communication. Newson‘s argument thus does not seem to be valid when translation is used communicatively.

100

7.2.4

Introverted Learners

Drawing on his own teaching experience, Heltai wrote that: Many adult learners are reluctant to engage in role-play and other communicative exercises, while some students fail in such exercises simply because they do not have the sort of imagination or personality that such exercises, properly conducted, require. (292) This is a valid observation and many a teacher would agree with it, offering examples from their experience with learners. Penelope Sewell discusses this issue and offers reasons why translation is better suited for certain learners than communicative activities. She mentions four possible principles inherent in learning in which translation dominates over communicative approaches: the need for confidence and self-esteem, the need not to loose face, the need to be rewarded, and the need for certainty, for closure, for autonomy (153). (a) Sewell maintains that: role-play can seriously damage our self-image and confidence when we assume roles in which we may become ashamed; (b) communicative approach to learning exposes students to face-threatening acts; (c) the results of role-play are not fully dependent on the learner, are unpredictable, and when successful, they need to be shared; (d) role-play does not put the learner in charge of their own learning (154-158). Sewell‘s argument is further extended by considering learning styles and personality traits. She concludes that all the four aspects are in negative correlation with introversion and that ―communicative methods . . . seem to favour risk-taking, extroverted personalities and high levels of interaction, whereas, translation seems to favour reflection, introverted personality traits and low levels of interaction‖ (159). Sewell‘s opinions are supported by research on the effects of personality on speech production which bears out the favouring of 101

translation by introverted learners only indirectly. Quantitative data as to what activities learners of different personality traits actually prefer would shed more light on this issue. However, with the evidence we have at our disposal, it is safe to say that translation may be beneficial to introverted learners whose acquisition of a new language is hindered by their personality.

7.2.5

Raising of Cultural Awareness

Translation activities can be designed to raise learners‘ awareness of cultural differences. The text used in the qualitative part of the thesis can be used as an example. The students were asked about the differences between Czech and American culture. Six of the eight interviewees were able to locate the difference in using metrical as opposed to imperial units in the translation (miles and feet mentioned in the text). None of them thought about converting them in their translations. Noticing these differences is great in itself, but teachers could do even more by providing the students with additional information about cultural differences. Learners may, for instance, be instructed to convert imperial units into metrical ones based on the translation brief. In monolingual teaching, on the other hand, such differences may remain unnoticed.

8 8.1

REMAINING PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS Mixed-Language Classes

The use of translation in language teaching in mixed-language classes can be regarded as one of the most serious drawbacks of the approach. Another limitation to the use of TILT is when the teacher does not speak the language(s) of their students, be it a singlelanguage or mixed-language class. These problems may not be as serious as they seem 102

to be at first glance. A substantial part of language teaching all around the world takes place in a bilingual setting with single-language classes and bilingual teachers. The limitations of TILT, therefore, apply only in some contexts, and even in these teaching situations (for example language schools in the UK or USA) TILT may still be integrated into the lessons. Its use will certainly be limited compared to single-language classes, however, it does not have to be disqualified completely. Guy Cook lists several activities suitable for mixed-language classes (Translation 151). For example, pair and group work may still be practiced in classes in which there are more speakers of a certain language. Students sharing common own language may be divided into groups and translate for each other. The problems encountered during translation may then be discussed with the whole class in order to share knowledge and compare how they are similar or different from the translation experience of speakers of other languages.

8.2

Teachers Requirements

Let us now consider the more frequent teaching setting—classes with students sharing a single language, i.e. students whose own language is the same. What characteristics should an ideal teacher using TILT have? According to Newmark, a teacher using translation in language teaching is expected to have the following skills: 1.

Be organized and inform the students about the syllabus;

2.

Be confident, admit mistakes, teach students more gifted than the teacher thanks

to experience; 3. Have translator‘s skills; 4. Have a good command of pedagogical techniques; 5. Be prepared to experiment with new methods; 103

6. Listen to students‗ suggestions; 7. Consider translation as a form of linguistic exploration; 8. Have a good command of the two languages. (qtd. in Mehta) This appears to be a very reasonable list. Some of the points listed by Newmark are valid for any language teacher in general, not only for those applying a translation approach to teaching. Particularly points one, two, four and six describe skills any good teacher should posses. Points three, seven and eight, on the other hand, are more relevant for the TILT perspective. A closer inspection of them is needed. Starting from the end, the eighth point prescribes that a teacher has a good command of the two languages. This is a presupposition for the application of translation in language teaching. Bilingual teachers coming from universities are expected to have proficient knowledge of both their native language and the language they are going to teach. A problem arises with monolingual teachers, the teachers who are the native speakers of the students‘ new language. The knowledge of students‘ own language among these ―native speakers‖ differs widely. Some have no knowledge of it whatsoever, while others may have a working knowledge which would allow them a limited use of it in the classroom, yet, an extensive use of the language for contrastive analysis purposes is beyond their capabilities. Translation is, arguably, not particularly suitable for these teachers. Even though there are translation activities which may be done in the classroom taught by a monolingual teacher, their strengths lie elsewhere. Guy Cook suggests that what is needed is ―an accommodation between intra-lingual and cross-lingual teaching . . . supplemented by and inventory of ways in which translation can be used in mixed language classes and by monolingual teachers‖ (Translation 128). While such an integration of both approaches seems fruitful, the use of translation activities per se by monolingual teachers should not be supported. Let them do what

104

they are good at. The latest statistical data gathered by Česká školní inspekce (the Czech School Inspectorate) reveal that the number of native speaker teachers of foreign languages is rather small—3.1% of elementary schools employing a native speaker of English (80). Arguably, when a native speaker is available, they should not be wasting time on activities which can be carried out by bilingual teachers, and the little time students have for contact with native speakers ought to be used more wisely. The arguments of the abovementioned paragraph seem to imply that a bilingual teacher is a better candidate for using TILT than monolingual teachers. The situation is, however, more complicated. Looking at Newmark‘s list, points three and seven state that an ideal teacher should have translator‘s skills and consider translation as a form of linguistic exploration. There are two main types of teachers—those with university education from teacher training institutions, and teachers with qualification based on teacher trainee courses like Cambridge CELTA and DELTA. The former are likely to come across translation during their teacher training only in translation seminars which they take in order to improve their translation proficiency. Such courses do not in any way instruct these teacher trainees in how translation could be used in teaching. The latter group largely consists of native speakers, but there are notable exceptions. Nonetheless, these courses very often ignore or frown upon the use of translation for teaching purposes. It is, therefore, unlikely that most bilingual teachers, regardless of their education background, will possess translator‘s skills and the knowledge of methodology for applying TILT. Given the raising interest in TILT in current EFL literature and the support it has received from teachers in practise, these two requirements present a serious drawback of the current teacher training syllabus. Teachers are indeed perfectly capable of experimenting with new approaches and testing for themselves how they work in their classes. However, they need to learn

105

about these approaches and trends first. Discussion of translation at teacher conferences, sharing experience in discussion forums for teachers, and further education of teachers may help to enlighten language teachers in this respect.

8.3

Learners Requirements

The previous section discussed the skills needed by teachers who subscribe to the use of TILT. In order to offer a complete picture of the issue, it is necessary to survey the other side of the barricade, i.e. the learners. Parallel to the teachers requirements above, Newmark lists the following skills for learners in ELT settings using translation: 1. Sensitivity to language; 2. Ability to write neatly, plainly and nicely; 3. Good knowledge of cultural background; 4. Master the text being translated; 5. Good reading knowledge; 6. Common sense; 7. Discrimination; 8. Speed in working; 9. Think of several things at the same time; 10. Meticulousness. (qtd. in Mehta) Again, these skills are rather a general account of what is required of any learner, such as sensitivity to language or common sense. Moreover, some of the skills can be taught by translation. A certain understanding of culture is needed to successfully translate a text, however, (re)search skills can be trained for the students to be able to obtain information about an unknown cultural concept. Mastering the text being translated is closely connected to good reading knowledge. Both skills are developed through 106

translation. The same can be said about the speed of translating—it is improved with practice. The practice of translation thus increases the level of competence and skills required of the students. Translation may again be viewed as a means and an end of language teaching. This, however, does not mean that translation is a uniform activity suitable for all learners. Just as Guy Cook asserts, ―. . . the type, quantity, and function of translation activity must vary with the stage which learners have reached, with their ages, and with their own preferences, learning styles, and experience‖ (Translation 129). A long-held, traditional assumption is that translation is not suitable for students with lower levels of proficiency (Carreres 14). Presently, however, many researchers accept the usefulness of translation for all levels of proficiency (Carreres 14; Cunningham; G. Cook; Dagiliene 125; Machida 744). Such translation, however, must naturally take different forms. Here we shall return to the question of equivalence adumbrated in the section Defining Translation. For a better orientation of the reader, let us now reiterate the types of equivalence. They are: equivalence of meaning, pragmatic equivalence, functional and discoursal equivalence, and cultural equivalence. Beginners do not know much of the new language by definition, and it is, therefore, quite impossible for them to concentrate on the more sophisticated levels of equivalence when translating, when they use up most of their attention for decoding and encoding of the meaning of the text. Guy Cook argues that beginners‘ attention should largely be focused on the semantic equivalence in translation activities (Translation 73). This seems perfectly logical. Once the literal meaning is understood by the students, i.e. on the way from intermediate to advanced levels, focus can be shifted onto the discoursal and pragmatic equivalence. This, according to Guy Cook, reflects the division between translation as a means and an end of learning (Translation 74). When

107

the focus of translation is to enhance students‘ knowledge of their new language, i.e. in translation as a means, it is usually best to ensure that the students understand the meaning before dealing with issues beyond the semantic equivalence. When the aim is a good translation as a product, i.e. translation as an end in itself, it is usually necessary to analyse the text much more rigidly than just on the level of semantic equivalence. Bearing in mind the broad definition of translation in this thesis, which encompasses own-language use in the classroom, it needs to be said that there should be a natural twofold tendency in the use of TILT. At the beginning levels, translation will be more frequently used as a means of ensuring students‘ understanding, as a reference tool which may be approached as needed by the teacher and the learners. Its particular advantage will lie in its psycholinguistic value (see Section 7.1.5). As the level of proficiency of the students develops, this use of translation gradually makes way to the development of translation skills per se. The discussion presented in this section implies that the requirements for translations done by students must clearly be different from requirements for translation done by professional translators. Not only are these demanding on all levels of equivalence, but they also include other factors and skills needed to succeed as a professional translator in the translation industry. MacKenzie mentions, for example, word processing skills, competence in using the Internet and various translation tools, touch typing, interpersonal skills, as a great number of translations is nowadays worked on jointly by several translators, and, not surprisingly, marketing ability (32). Some of these specialised skills may be developed from an early age (touch typing, word processing etc.), but in general, they should be reserved for the education of professional translators or for other classes (marketing abilities can be dealt with in

108

economics, word processing in IT classes etc.), as they are beyond the capacities of foreign language teaching.

8.4

The Danger of Overuse

The aim of this thesis is not to advocate a replacement of Direct Method teaching with a teaching based on translation. That would be a step in the wrong direction which would in due time probably result in the same rejection, as the grammar-translation method once did. The real aim is to show the potential benefits of translation integrated into a largely communicative language teaching setting. The question remains of what constitutes the optimal amount of translation and own-language use in the classroom. There is the elusive notion of judicious use which is frequently mentioned by authors dealing with TILT (Hall and Cook 293; Källkvist, ―Languaging‖ 217; Schweers 13), unfortunately none offers a precise definition or amount which could define this vague term. Hall and Cook suggest that there is an absence of clear research findings which would provide clear guidelines for teachers, and that there are consequently two views on this issue. The first one is concerned that teachers, having no guidelines, would make arbitrary decisions in their use of code-switching and translation. The other one justifies teachers and learners in making such decisions, as they are the ultimate arbiters of what suits their particular classroom best (293). While the consequences of an arbitrary approach of teachers towards TILT may understandably be adverse, teachers should arguably be the ones to make decisions for the teaching of their students. However, the decisions should be based on a system the teacher creates for their own teaching situation. The teacher ought to be at all times aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it. We should not go as far as is suggested by Kerr, who believes that a 109

policy on the use of translation should be discussed in schools (as well as on the level of the individual teacher). This would be a step too far considering that there is not enough empirical evidence. The decision should rest with teachers for the time being, until sufficient data is available for a larger-scale discussion.

9

CONCLUSIONS

The present thesis aimed at answering multiple questions concerned with the use of translation in language teaching. Several methods were employed to provide reliable answers. The thesis offers a theoretical discussion of the issue of translation in language teaching based on a wide selection of academic literature dealing with the topic. Furthermore, the methods employed include qualitative and quantitative research in the forms of the Student Questionnaire, which was administered at seven secondary schools in the Czech Republic, and interviews with eight students based on the Interview Questionnaire. The theoretical discussion focused on the history of the use of translation in language teaching and the development of the vilification of own-language use and TILT which resulted in a global preference for monolingual language instruction. The data gathered from the Student Questionnaire revealed that the monolingual principle does not seem to hold sway at secondary schools in the Czech Republic. Even though the research maps the situation in thirteen different classrooms and as such its results cannot represent the secondary schools in the Czech Republic as a whole, the geographical and typological variety of the schools represented ensures at least a partial generalisability of the results. The thesis also discussed the most frequent arguments against the use of translation in language teaching and presented relevant counterarguments in favour of 110

TILT. Translation was viewed as a holistic activity through which all four skills of language learning could be developed. It was also regarded as the fifth skill, and justified as an end of language learning in itself. This justification was based on theoretical evidence as well as on the beliefs of the respondents of both the quantitative and qualitative research. The vast majority of the students believed that they would need to translate at least from time to time in their lives. Translation was thus confirmed as a purposeful and useful activity which can positively stimulate students‘ motivation to learn a foreign language. The research also revealed how students proceeded when translating and what resources they used. In most cases, the students showed a preference to consult bilingual dictionaries as opposed to monolingual ones. The results further suggested that Czech secondary school students did not make extensive use of other resources available to them, including collocation dictionaries, corpora and thesauri. On the other hand, most of the students tended to use Google Translate, either for the translation of whole sentences, or as a dictionary. Other notable research findings revealed that the students interviewed for the qualitative part of the research did not distinguish between L1 and L2 translation. Translation directionality, therefore, did not seem to play a role. A striking revelation was that none of the eight students interviewed read their translations after finishing them to check for mistakes, typos etc. In regard to resources, the findings of the quantitative and qualitative research can be summarised by concluding that the students at the secondary schools in the Czech Republic do not avail themselves of all the resources they have at their disposal when translating. They are not aware of the merits and limitations of the individual resources and of the specific traits of the translation process. This lack of awareness

111

may deprive them of valuable opportunities for an improvement of their skills—both linguistic and translational. One recommendation emerging from this research is that teachers ought to devote some time not only to including translation activities into their classes, as they can be highly beneficial to their learners, but also to the raising of students‘ attention in relation to the resources available and the translation process itself. It should be also borne in mind that translation is not a suitable activity for all learners and learning contexts. It is only one of the tools in the teacher‘s toolbox which can be used depending on the needs of a particular class. Nevertheless, in the light of the evidence presented in this thesis, it would be highly desirable to re-introduce translation activities into the language classroom, since translation is, to lend Guy Cook‘s words, not only the fifth skill of language learning, but also a ―dimension of every skill‖, as it can be used to enhance and practice the learning of any of the four traditional skills (An Interview).

112

APPENDIX 1: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Překlad v hodinách angličtiny na středních školách v České republice Vyplňte prosím následující dotazník, který obsahuje celkem 16 otázek. Typ školy (např. gymnázium): Ročník: 1. Jakou učebnici angličtiny ve škole používáte? 2. Je v této učebnici něco psáno česky? Vyberte jednu nebo více možností: a) b) c) d) e) f)

Seznam slovíček na konci lekce nebo na konci knihy Cvičení na překlad Vysvětlení gramatiky Zadání cvičení, úkolů Nic Jiné (uveďte, co přesně je v učebnici česky)

3. Náš učitel/učitelka v hodinách angličtiny používá češtinu. nikdy

občas

často

4. Náš učitel/učitelka v hodinách angličtiny používá češtinu, ale jen pro administrativní záležitosti (například docházka, zadání úkolu atp.) nikdy

občas

často

5. Ve škole překládám věty nebo je překládám za domácí úkol. nikdy

občas

často

6. Když čtu nějaký text v angličtině nebo když poslouchám anglickou nahrávku, překládám si v duchu do češtiny. nikdy

občas

často

7. Myslím, že ve svém budoucím životě (mimo školu, např. v zaměstnání) budu muset překládat. nikdy

občas

často

8. Když něco překládám, používám dvojjazyčné slovníky (např. česko-anglický). nikdy

občas

často

9. Když něco překládám, používám jednojazyčné slovníky (výkladové).

113

nikdy

občas

často

10. Když něco překládám, používám Google Translate. nikdy

občas

často

11. Když neznám nějaké slovíčko, vyhledám ho tak, že jej zadám do Google Translate. nikdy

občas

často

12. Když něco překládám, používám jazykový korpus. nikdy

občas

často

13. Když chci zjistit, jak se nějaké anglické slovo používá, vyhledám je v Googlu a podívám se, jak se používá ve větách. nikdy

občas

často

občas

často

14. Používám slovníky kolokací. nikdy

15. Když potřebuji najít synonymum nějakého slova, abych jej znovu neopakoval(a) kvůli zachování dobrého stylu, použiji tezaurus. nikdy

občas

často

16. Když ve škole něco překládám, pracuji ve skupinkách nebo ve dvojicích se svými spolužáky (tj. nepřekládám samostatně). nikdy občas často

114

APPENDIX 2: A LIST OF THE PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS

Střední škola podnikání a obchodu Prostějov SOŠ a SOU André Citroëna Boskovice VOŠ a SPŠ Šumperk SOŠ a SOU Kolárova Lanškroun Gymnázium Boskovice Gymnázium Šternberk Gymnázium Praha Voděradská

115

APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE A

Přečtěte si tuto synopsi filmu 127 hodin a poté ji přeložte do češtiny. Představte si například, že daný film ještě není v českých kinech a chtěli byste obsah filmu přeložit pro kamaráda, který neumí anglicky. Po dokončení překladu prosím zodpovězte několik otázek.

Official synopsis of the film 127 Hours:

127 Hours is the true story of mountain climber Aron Ralston‘s remarkable adventure to save himself after a fallen boulder crashes on his arm and traps him in an isolated canyon in Utah. Over the next five days Ralston examines his life and survives the elements to finally discover he has the courage and the wherewithal to extricate himself by any means necessary, scale a 65 foot wall and hike over eight miles before he is finally rescued. Throughout his journey, Ralston recalls friends, lovers, family, and the two hikers he met before his accident. Will they be the last two people he ever had the chance to meet?

Váš překlad:

116

1. Slyšeli jste někdy o filmu 127 hodin? 2. Po přečtení názvu článku, zamysleli jste se nad tím, jaké informace může obsahovat? 3. Přečetli jste si celý text před tím, než jste začali překládat? 4. Které z následujících zdrojů jste při překladu synopse filmu použili? a) slovník aj-čj b) výkladový slovník (jednojazyčný) c) vyhledávání v Googlu nebo jiném vyhledavači d) překlad pomocí služby Google Translate e) jiné (uveďte konkrétně): 5. Jaké jsou v tomto textu rozdíly mezi českým a americkým prostředím? 6. Když se podíváte na oba texty, jak se liší struktura anglických a českých vět? 7. Dodržel(a) jste přesně strukturu anglických vět ve větách českých? 8. Co vám při překladu textu dělalo největší potíže. Jaká část textu byla nejobtížnější a proč? 9. Kdybyste měli možnost danou pasáž srovnat s překlady vašich spolužáků a diskutovat o nich, pomohlo by vám to ke zlepšení angličtiny? 10. Myslíte si, že by vám zařazení různých překladových cvičení (jako je toto nebo například překlad e-mailu od známého atd.) do hodin angličtiny pomohlo zlepšit vaše jazykové schopnosti? Pokud ano, jak? 11. Kdyby podobná cvičení byla součástí hodin angličtiny, byli byste schopni lépe překládat, kdybyste to ve svém budoucím životě či povolání potřebovali?

117

APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE B

Přečtěte si tento krátký odstavec informující návštěvníky zámku Bučovice o jeho historii. Článek je převzat z oficiálních internetových stránek zámku. Článek po přečtení přeložte do angličtiny. Představte si například, že Vás přijeli navštívit přátelé ze zahraničí, kteří neumí česky, a na zámek by se rádi vypravili, ale nic o něm nevědí.

Zámek Bučovice Státní zámek Bučovice byl postaven v letech 1567–1585 Janem Šemberou Černohorským z Boskovic a je unikátní stavbou italské renesance na sever od Alp. Na rozdíl od většiny našich renesančních zámků se nejedná o renesanční přestavbu staršího sídla, ale o realizaci originálního projektu italské pozdně renesanční stavby typu „palazzo in fortezza―. Rovněž umístění v údolí je pro tehdejší dobu neobvyklé. Projektoval jej Jacopo Strada, vzdělaný znalec umění, historik a architekt, který byl správcem uměleckých sbírek tří Habsburských císařů - Ferdinanda I., Maxmiliána II. a Rudolfa II.

Váš překlad:

118

1

Po přečtení názvu článku, zamysleli jste se nad tím, jaké informace může obsahovat?

2

Přečetli jste si celý text před tím, než jste začali překládat?

3

Které z následujících zdrojů jste při překladu článku použili? a) b) c) d) e)

slovník aj-čj výkladový slovník (jednojazyčný) vyhledávání v Googlu nebo jiném vyhledavači překlad pomocí služby Google Translate jiné (uveďte konkrétně):

4

Když se podíváte na oba texty, jak se liší struktura anglických a českých vět?

5

Dodržel(a) jste přesně strukturu anglických vět ve větách českých?

6

Co vám při překladu textu dělalo největší potíže. Jaká část textu byla nejobtížnější a proč?

7

Kdybyste měli možnost danou pasáž srovnat s překlady vašich spolužáků a diskutovat o nich, pomohlo by vám to ke zlepšení angličtiny?

8

Myslíte si, že by vám zařazení různých překladových cvičení (jako je toto nebo například překlad e-mailu od známého atd.) do hodin angličtiny pomohlo zlepšit vaše jazykové schopnosti?

9

Kdyby podobná cvičení byla součástí hodin angličtiny, byli byste schopni lépe překládat, kdybyste to ve svém budoucím životě či povolání potřebovali?

119

Works Cited Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 1992. Print. Baker, Philippa. ―Jumping the Language Barrier: The ‗Fifth Skill‘‖. English Teaching Matters 7.1 (2006): n.pag. Web. 2 Nov. 2012. Berlitz: A Global Educational Company. Berlitz®, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. Branchadell, Albert. ―Introduction: Less Translated Languages as a Field of Inquiry.‖ Less Translated Languages. Ed. Albert Branchadell and Lovell Margaret West. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005. 1-23. Print. Brown, Douglas H. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th ed. White Plains: Pearson Education, 2007. Print. ---. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 3rd ed. White Plains: Pearson Education, 2007. Print. Buck, Gary. ―Translation as a Language Testing Procedure: Does it Work?‖ Language Testing 9.2 (1992): 123-148. Print. Butzkamm, Wolfgang. ―We Only Learn Language Once. The Role of the Mother Tongue in FL Classrooms: Death of a Dogma.‖ Language Learning Journal 28 (2003): 29-39. Print. Campbell, Stuart. Translation into the Second Language. London: Longman, 1998. Print. Carreres, Angeles. ―Strange Bedfellows: Translation and Language Teaching.‖ Sixth Symposium on Translation, Terminology and Interpretation in Cuba and Canada. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council, Dec. 2006. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

120

Cherrington, Ruth. ―American Army Method.‖ Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. Michael Byram. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Cook, Guy. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print. ---. An Interview with Prof. Guy Cook. By Bao Tianren. Sina Corporation, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. ---. ―A Thing of the Future: Translation in Language Learning.‖ International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17.3 (2007): 396-401. Print. ---. ―Language Teaching, Use of Translation In.‖ Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. Cook, Vivian. ―Language User Groups and Language Teaching.‖ Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Volume 1 Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. Li Wei, and Vivian Cook. London: Continuum, 2009. 54-74. Print. ---. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 3rd ed. London: Arnold, 2001. Print. Cunningham, Cindy. ―Translation in the Classroom: A Useful Tool for Second Language Acquisition.‖ N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2013. Czech Republic. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Statistická ročenka školství 2010. ÚIV MŠMT ČR, 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. Dagiliene, Inga. ―Translation as a Learning Method in English Language Teaching.‖ Studies about Languages 21 (2012): 124-129. Print. Duff, Alan. Translation. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. Print. Fox, Gwyneth, and Elizabeth Potter. ―Using Bilingual Dictionaries in the Classroom.‖ MED Magazine 41 (2006): n.pag. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. Hall, Graham, and Guy Cook. ―Own-Language Use in Language Teaching and Learning.‖ Language Teaching 45.3 (2012): 271-308. Print.

121

Heltai, Pál. ―Teaching Vocabulary by Oral Translation.‖ ELT Journal 43.4 (1989): 288293. Print. Hoey, Michael, and Diane Houghton. ―Contrastive Analysis and Translation.‖ Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. Howatt, A. P. R. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984. Print. Howatt, A. P. R., and H. G. Widdowson. A History of English Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print. Hunston, Susan. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print. Jakobson, Roman. ―On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.‖ The Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London: Routledge, 2000. 113-118. Print. Källkvist, Marie. ―L1-L2 Translation versus no Translation: A Longitudinal Study of Focus-On-FormS within a Meaning-Focused Curriculum.‖ The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. Ed. Lourdes Ortega and Heidi Byrnes. New York: Routledge, 2008. 182-202. Print. ---. ―Languaging in Translation Tasks Used in a University Setting: Particular Potential for Student Agency?‖ The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013): 217-238. Print. ---. ―The Effect of Translation Exercises versus Gap-Exercises on the Learning of Difficult L2 Structures: Preliminary Results of an Empirical Study.‖ Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Ed. Kirsten Malmkjaer. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004. 163-184. Print.

122

Kerr Philip. ―The Return of Translation.‖ Online video lecture. YouTube. You Tube, 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 21 Nov. 2012. Koppe, Carmen Terezinha. ―Translation in the EFL Classroom: How and What to Work.‖ N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. Laufer, Batia, and Nani Girsai. ―Form-Focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation.‖ Applied Linguistics 29.4 (2008): 694-716. Print. Leonardi, Vanessa. The Role of Pedagogical Translation in Second Language Acquisition: From Theory to Practice. Berne: Lang, 2010. Print. Lightbown, Patsy M., and Nina Spada. How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print. Lonsdale, Allison Beeby. ―Direction of Translation (Directionality).‖ Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. Machida, Sayuki. ―Translation in Teaching a Foreign (Second) Language: A Methodological Perspective.‖ Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.4 (2011): 740-746. Print. Mackenzie, Rosemary. ―The Competencies Required by the Translator‘s Roles as a Professional.‖ Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Ed. Kirsten Malmkjaer. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004. 31-38. Print. Malmkjaer, Kirsten. ―Introduction: Translation and Language Teaching.‖ Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. Ed. Malmkjaer. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1998. 1-11. Print.

123

---. ―Introduction: Translation as an Academic Discipline.‖ Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Ed. Malmkjaer. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004. 1-7. Print. Mehta, Naveen K. ―English Language Teaching through the Translation Method: A Practical Approach to Teaching Mongolian CPA‘s.‖ Translation Journal 14.1 (2010): n.pag. Web. 6 Feb. 2013. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice-Hall, 1988. Print. Newson, Dennis. ―Translation and Foreign Language Learning.‖ Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Ed. Kirsten Malmkjaer. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004. 63-68. Print. Odlin, Terence. Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Print. Philipkjerr [Philip Kerr]. ―Untitled Discussion Entry.‖ Translationhandout. Philip Kerr, 25 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. Pokorn, Nike K. Challenging the Traditional Axioms: Translation into a Non-Mother Tongue. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005. Print. Překlady Purič: Specialista na jihoslovanské jazyky. Jan Purič, 2013 Web. 5 Mar. 2013. Randaccio, Monica. ―Translation and Language Teaching: Translation as a Useful Teaching Resource.‖ Aspetti della didattica e dell'apprendimento delle lingue straniere: contributi dei collaboratori del Centro Linguistico dell'Università di Trieste. Ed. Federica Gori and Christopher Taylor. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2012. 78-91. Print. Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print.

124

Rizo-Rodríguez, Alfonso. ―Current Lexicographical Tools in EFL: Monolingual Resources for the Advanced Learner.‖ Language Teaching 37.1 (2004): 29-46. Print. Robinson, Douglas. ―Free Translation.‖ Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge, 1998. Print. Ross, Nigel J. ―Interference and Intervention: Using Translation in the EFL Classroom.‖ Nigel J. Ross – Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Ryan, Jack. A Review of the Role of Output in Second Language Acquisition with Anecdotal Examples from a Japanese Learner's Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. Sánchez Ramos, María del Mar. ―Research on Dictionary Use by Trainee Translators.‖ Translation Journal 9.2 (2005): n.pag. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. Schjoldager, Anne. ―Are L2 Learners More Prone to Err when They Translate?‖ Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Ed. Kirsten Malmkjaer. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004. 128-149. Print. ---. ―Translation for Language Purposes: Preliminary Results of an Experimental Study of Translation and Picture Verbalization.‖ Hermes 30 (2003): 199-213. Print. Swain, Merrill. ―Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency.‖ Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. Ed. Heidi Byrnes. London: Continuum, 2006. 95-108. Print. Sweet, Henry. The Practical Study of Languages: A Guide for Teachers and Learners. New York: Holt, 1900. Print. ―Translation.‖ Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th ed. 2005. Print.

125

Tymoczko, Maria. ―Reconceptualizing Translation Theory: Integrating Non-Western Thought about Translation.‖ Translating Others (Volume 1). Ed. Theo Hermans. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2006. 13-32. Print. Vermer, Albert. ―Translation in Foreign Language Teaching: A Brief Overview of Pros and Cons.‖ Eger Journal of English Studies X (2010): 83-93. Print. ―Výroční zpráva ČŠI za školní rok 2011/2012.‖ Česká školní inspekce. Česká školní inspekce, 4 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2010.

126

RESUMÉ Tato diplomová práce se zabývá užitím překladu ve výuce anglického jazyka a jeho statusem. Práce čerpá z poznatků teoretického i empirického výzkumu v oblastech osvojování druhého jazyka, jazykové pedagogiky a translatologie. Součástí této diplomové práce je kvantitativní i kvalitativní výzkum, jenž byl proveden na sedmi středních školách v České republice. Výsledky tohoto výzkumu obohacují teoretickou analýzu problematiky překladu o perspektivu českých středních škol. Tato diplomová práce si klade několik hlavních cílů. V prvé řadě obhajuje překlad jako prostředek i cíl jazykového vzdělávání. Dále si klade za cíl zmapovat historický vývoj pozice překladu ve výuce jazyka. Práce předkládá historické souvislosti provázející užití překladu ve výuce jazyka. Historický přehled je zahájen prvopočátky jazykového vzdělávání, kdy byl překlad užíván pro výuku klasických jazyků. Nástupcem klasických přístupů k výuce jazyka a také hlavním terčem kritiky překladu se stala gramaticko-překladová metoda, jež začala být stigmatizována s příchodem přímé metody Direct Method okolo roku 1900 a metod zaměřených na význam, které vznikly v sedmdesátých letech dvacátého století. Část práce zabývající se touto problematikou je zakončena popisem současného stavu, který je charakterizován obnovením zájmu o užití překladu ve výuce jazyka. Práce se dále pokouší zjistit, do jaké míry monolingvní doktríny ovlivnily učitele působící na středních školách v České republice. Práce rovněž přináší cenné poznatky o přístupu žáků k užití překladu ve výuce. Dále práce předkládá nejčastější argumenty pro i proti užití překladu ve výuce jazyka. V neposlední řadě tato diplomová práce poodkrývá samotný proces překladu a soustředí se na to, jak k němu ve skutečnosti přistupují studenti středních škol v České republice. Zvláštní důraz je kladen na problematiku zdrojů a nástrojů, které studenti při překladu využívají.

127

SUMMARY The present thesis deals with the use and status of translation in English language teaching. The discussion draws on theoretical and empirical research in the fields of Second Language Acquisition, language pedagogy and Translation Studies. The thesis includes quantitative and qualitative research conducted at seven secondary schools in the Czech Republic; the results of this research accompany the theoretical discussion of the issue in question from the Czech secondary school perspective. The thesis has several main aims. Firstly, it aspires to defend translation as both a means and an end of language teaching. Secondly, it strives to map the historical development of the position of translation in language teaching. A survey of the historical background of the use of translation in language teaching is provided, with the early periods in which translation was used for the teaching of classical languages taken as the starting point of the discussion. Later, the grammar-translation method is described as the successor to these classical approaches and as the main reason for the vilification of translation, which came to be stigmatised with the emergence of the Direct Method around 1900 and of the meaning-focused approaches in the 1970s. The section is concluded by a description of the current situation, which is marked by a renewed interest in the use of translation for teaching purposes. Furthermore, the extent to which the monolingual doctrines have influenced Czech secondary school teachers is examined. The thesis also aims to provide valuable insights into attitudes of learners towards the use of translation in the classroom. Secondly, the thesis presents the most frequent arguments against the use of translation in language teaching as well as relevant counterarguments in its favour. Finally, the present thesis sheds light on the actual practice of translation as done by secondary school students. It particularly surveys which resources the students avail themselves of when translating. 128