Translation: towards critical-functional approach.
Sadeghi, Sima ; Ketabi, Saeed
Abstract
The controversy over the place of translation in the teaching of
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is a thriving field of inquiry. Many
older language teaching methodologies such as the Direct Method, the
Audio-lingual Method, and Natural and Communicative Approaches, tended
to either neglect the role of translation, or prohibit it entirely as a
hindrance to second/foreign language learning. Over the flux of the last
decennia, English Language Teaching (ELT) seems to have matured enough
to have moved from the 'either or' debate to an acceptance of
a 'both and' approach which includes translation. This has led
to a reassessment of the role of translation as an invaluable and
legitimate pedagogical tool if used judiciously and at appropriate
times. However, the use of translation should not be associated with the
old-fashioned Grammar-Translation Method. Taking into account the
undeniable role of English as a global lingua franca and the issue of
linguistic imperialism, we propose a Critical-Functional Approach to
translation which harnesses students' general literacy: learners
and teacher become aware of inherent language complexity as welt as
hidden aspects of text. This model draws on postmodernist,
poststructuralist, feminist, and critical approaches to literacy and
advocates replacing traditional translation, based on mere copy and
imitation of an original text, with a more provocative model that
engages learners not only in examining the structure, style, and
vocabulary, but in interrogating text language, discourse, and
subjectivity. By questioning the separation between author, reader, and
translator, Critical-Functional Translation places an emphasis on
recognising and resisting ideological contradiction, cultural
difference, and social conflict. This approach has obvious applications
to other second/foreign language teaching and learning contexts.
Keywords
critical-functional translation, first language, critical language
awareness, language and culture
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
The language I speak becomes mine, its distortions, its queerness.
All mine, mine alone. (Das, 1965, p. 7)
Anathematised from every classroom activity by the followers of the
Audio-lingual and Direct Methods, translation has been derided both as a
medium of instruction and as an appropriate skill in its own right. This
ostensibly cursed activity has been accused of almost every pedagogical
evil: from interfering with the second/ foreign language, to creating a
focus on formal properties and accuracy instead of communicative
practices, to instigating the fallacy of direct meaning correspondence
between first and second/foreign language, to producing compound instead
of coordinate bilingualism, to constituting a mechanical and
product-oriented activity, to lacking procedural guidance and objective
criteria of assessment, and so on. Such harsh criticisms endorse
'sending translation to Siberia' (Duff, 1989, p. 7).
The contrary view holds that translation is a boon which
contributes significantly to language learning and teaching.
Psycholinguistic and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers
(Bialystok, 1998; Deignan, Gabry, & Solska, 1997; Duff, 1989; Eadie,
1999; Ellis, 1992; Kovecses & Szabo 1996; Lazar, 1996; Ponterotto,
1994) sanction translation as an activity that can trigger conscious
awareness or controlled learning. Other scholars suggest that
translation is an inherent learning strategy used either indirectly and
unconsciously, or overtly (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 127).
For example, Atkinson calls it a 'learner-preferred strategy and an
inevitable part of second language acquisition' (1993, p. 17). It
is clear, then, that no matter how much teachers encourage learners to
avoid translation at all costs, they resort to it frequently and in many
everyday contexts, e.g. translating instructions for friends,
translating letters and news for family, translating an unknown concept
for their peers, etc. The cognitive approach also admits that
'learners can't be immunized against the influence of their
own language, thus transfer, use of L1, contrastive analysis, and
translation should all be positively welcomed, instead of abhorred'
(Widdowson, 2003, p. 151). Duff calls translation 'a real life
communicative activity which improves the four skills and develops
clarity, accuracy, and flexibility' (1989, p. 7). He also argues
that, used appropriately, 'translation's great originality
lies in having successfully shifted the emphasis from learning
translation as a set of discrete skills to using translation as a
resource for the promotion of language learning' (Duff, 1989, p.
6). In stark contrast to the allegation that translation may be the
'cause of compound bilingualism', Harris and Sherwood (1978)
assert that two languages are compounded from the outset and translation
is coextensive with bilingualism, therefore, avoiding native language
interferences while learning a foreign language is almost impossible.
Widdowson also argues that 'setting bilingualism as an objective,
without any attention to the process of bilingualization, is quite
unwise' (2003, pp. 149-156). It would appear, paradoxically enough,
that if bilingualism is to be defined as two languages in contact in the
individual, conventional language teaching procedures, which disallow
translation, are actually designed to stifle rather than promote
language acquisition (Widdowson, 2003, p. 150). This situation clearly
indicates that any notion that translation leads to unwanted
interference between the two (or more) languages in contact should be
abandoned. What is needed, however, is a reassessment of the role of the
first language and translation in the teaching of the second/foreign
language. Reineman (see TESL-EJ Forum, 2002) argues that the first
language must be used conditionally, for instance, to introduce abstract
vocabulary, or to make second/foreign language input comprehensible.
Connick-Hirtz (2001) advises the teacher to ponder certain issues before
using the first language, these include the first language itself,
learners' ages, learners' level of proficiency, time per
session, learning purpose, context, pedagogical policy, and so on.
Translation, then, becomes a useful activity in language teaching
situations, provided we consider the what, when, how, with whom, and how
often to use it.
Richard Stibbard's study (1996), conducted in Hong Kong,
attempts to properly justify the use of translation in EFL situation and
supports strategies such as code-switching, oral translation,
comparative error analysis, and cultural contrastive exercises. The
relationship between the spread of English and wider political and
economic issues is well documented (see, for example, Canagarajah,
1999). Ignoring this relationship, by detaching language from causative
historical factors, amounts to a conspiracy of silence. In this way,
various scholars advocate exploiting translation for all it can offer
beyond the acquisition of certain structures or lexical items (e.g.
sensitiveness to register, cultural knowledge, intercultural and
stylistic awareness, etc.). Canagarajah (1999) encourages the use of
translation as a powerful strategy to resist and combat linguistic
imperialism.
Translation is also to be found in popular resources such as Soars
and Soars (1991) Headway series that focuses on translation exercises to
contrast grammatical structures of first and second languages.
Weschler's (1997) Functional-Translation Method is a hybrid of
Grammar-Translation and Communicative Approaches which utilises
learners' first language for a contrastive analysis of the second
language, and highlights the sociocultural aspects of everyday
talk-exchange. Task-based approaches to language learning (e.g. Ellis,
2002) also advocate the use of the first language during different
stages of task performance (pre, while and post-task stages).
Reassessing translation: common criticisms
Historically, we can trace many negative reactions to translation
from different quarters in ELT. While there are several harsh criticisms
that may sound quite rational at superficial levels, if we interrogate
these further we can often find reasonable solutions. In table 1 we
explore a selection of major criticisms.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Towards a critical-functional translation (CFT)
It seems to be a fashion that many practitioners are prone to
uncritically rejecting previous ideas and welcoming new pedagogical
methodologies. But, such global top-down solutions may lead to ignorance
of local bottom-up needs. As Weschler (1997) proposes, the English-only
norm in the ELT classroom is not substantiated by either a cohesive
theory or well-grounded research; it is simply a dogma that serves the
interests of native speaker teachers. Considering the undeniable
advantages of translation outlined above, it is high time to abandon the
long held rejection of translation and the pervasive English-only norm.
We also need to modify traditional views of translation as mere copy and
imitation of original text that do not challenge the pre-established
cultural concepts of the source language. Learners in EFL situations are
in dire need of these modifications, since they can be easily
manipulated due to their lack of familiarity with cultural meaning,
idiomatic expression, and complex word plays. A similar situation holds
for learners of second/foreign languages. The tendency to ignore
critical approaches to translation, and deliberately overlook the
influence of postcolonialism, feminism and postmodern deconstruction
theory all aim at eliminating the role of ethics (deontology) and
politics in translation in its broader sociopolitical and historical
context. The question is how to achieve this change.
Venuti (1998, p. 93) proposes an approach to translation based on
'abusive fidelity' and 'foreignizing translation' to
contradict colonial modes of discourse. By 'abusive fidelity'
he suggests that the translator must reproduce those features of the
foreign text that 'abuse' or resist the prevailing forms and
values in the receiving culture, thereby allowing the translator to be
faithful to aspects of the source text, but still participate in
effecting cultural change in the target language. By
'foreignizing' he refers to any translation strategy that
resists transparency, fluency, and domestication in the translated
text--all aimed at hiding problematic aspects of the source text. Based
on these arguments, we propose a Critical-Functional Translation
approach in EFL situations which draws on postmodernism, feminism,
poststructuralism, critical translation theories, on the one hand, and
employs a functional framework based on critical discourse analysis,
critical language awareness, and critical literacy which turn
theoretical abstract concepts into practical activities, on the other
hand.
Tri-functional framework
As teachers, we ought to investigate critically the implications of
ELT or second/ foreign language teaching in relation to producing and
reproducing the status quo, power hierarchy, and social injustice. We
suggest that it is important to be consciously aware of hidden
ideologies behind this seemingly neutral process of English teaching or,
indeed, the teaching of any language. CFT strongly opposes certain
traits of typical English classes that can still be found today in many
EFL situations: learning to obey, keeping quiet, memorising, being dumb
and indifferent, just safe talk. Students taught in these classrooms are
passive, rarely ask penetrating or spontaneous questions, and their
answers are restricted to a few words. In Iran, both formal and informal
analysis revealed that even after approximately seven years of English
study in junior and senior high school, students are unable to use
English functionally (Sadeghi, 2008). The experience of English class of
one of the authors can only be characterised as soporific, since the
class was never engaging and the teacher had to use the
stand-up-sit-down strategy at least twice every lesson to make sure we
were awake.
Many believe the root of this disengagement to be the use of the
Grammar-Translation Method. The supposed antidote to this parlous
situation was the English-only norm, which somehow gave a veneer of
communication. However, in an ironic vicious circle, since some teachers
feel that their language skills are not sufficient to maintain the
English-only norm, they resort to exercises based on the translation of
out-dated passages a la Grammar-Translation. Our tri-functional
framework of CFT is based on three major components: critical language
awareness (CLA), critical literacy, and critical discourse analysis. CLA
(Reah, 1998; Fowler, 1996; Wallace, 2002) seeks to raise learners'
critical consciousness about the exploitation of language structure and
words to serve authors' interests, and encourages learners to
develop critical thinking to discover the construction of values,
ideologies, and interests in text structure, and literacy skills to
explore the effects of audience/ context on shaping the reception of
texts. Critical discourse analysis (Van Dijk, 1998; Fairclough, 1995
& 2001 Kress, 1989) also investigates the relationship between
power, ideology, and society with discourse or language-in-use. It
examines how discourse may be used to represent, produce, or reproduce
the ideologies of the dominant group. Critical literacy (Luke, 1997;
Morgan, 1997) is a commitment to reshaping literacy education in the
interest of marginalised or subjugated groups of learners who on the
basis of their genders, cultures, or socioeconomic background have been
excluded from access to the text and discourse of the dominant group.
Encouraging learners to identify the hidden sociopolitical ideologies
embedded in text, to discover the world behind the words, to question
the truth-validity of messages and authors' attitudes, to gain
control over text to be translated, and to use these critical
experiences and knowledge in their future lives, are among the central
aims of CFT activities. Learners must be viewed as active analysts,
creators of text, not as mere stilted machines who precisely,
faithfully, and objectively transmit words and structures from first to
second language.
Conclusion
Banning the use of translation and first language in the classroom
due to issues such as fossilisation of an interlanguage (Selinker,
1992), interference to direct thinking in second/foreign language
(Rivers & Temperley, 1978), or a waste of class time (Modica, 1991)
is neither logical nor humane. Target language-only norms in the
teaching of languages ignore the potential benefits to language teaching
and learning that the use of translation and first language affords.
However, a purely mechanistic approach toward translation, conceived as
mere transfer of words and meanings between language and culture, denies
the rich potential of translation, neglecting the social and cognitive
aspects of translation as well as issues of power, ideology, gender, and
politics. Critical-Functional Translation bases its theoretical and
functional framework in several critical approaches to knowledge which
encourage learners to learn from text through analytical thinking,
through critical reflection on text style and structure, through
questioning the neutrality, objectivity, and validity of content, and
through informed decision-making as to the new words, meanings, and
structures appropriate in the second/foreign language.
First language and translation
The uses of first language and of appropriate translation
activities have myriad benefits in the teaching and learning of
languages.
1 Learners' knowledge of their first language is an asset and
an invaluable commodity that can be perfectly exploited through
translation. From an ethical or humanistic point of view, an approach
which appropriately employs first language in the teaching and learning
of second/foreign language allows all students to follow the development
of the lesson. Our strong position is that it is quite brutal to teach a
bilingual subject by means of a monolingual (i.e. target language)
pedagogy.
2 As described above, translation is undeniably a learning strategy
that is used throughout the whole process of SLA in all areas, such as
comprehension, interpretation, memorising, recall, production and
reviewing.
3 Translation assists learners to utilise dictionary resources,
choose an equivalent selectively and sensitively, expand their
vocabulary repertoire, boost their writing skill, and improve their
comprehension of text.
4 Translation improves learners' awareness of the grammatical
structure, word order, style, register, lexical distribution, and
intercultural contrasts of both their first and second/foreign
languages, in terms of cohesion, coherence, non-equivalent syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic features.
5 Translation can be used to make input comprehensible, to temper
learners' affective filters, and to make various formal features of
the second/foreign language meaningful and noticeable (Schmidt, 1990;
Skehan, 1998).
6 Translation is as an effective tool to develop critical language
awareness in learners toward text. Learners gain insights into how to
question the taken for granted objectivity and truth-validity of
messages conveyed through text discourse, and to assume a critical
stance toward the hidden agenda, ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes in
discourse. Translation is a powerful tool against cultural depredation
and a valuable technique in resisting linguistic dominance and
imperialism. In this way, learners learn how to be faithfully unfaithful
translators, and teachers are no longer limited to the role of
linguistic missionaries (Bloome & Talwalker, 1997; Janks &
Ivanic, 1992).
CFT: a suggested approach
In this section, we outline a suggested approach for implementing
CFT n an EFL situation, This could easily be generalised to other
second/ foreign language contexts, After exploring the relevant
sociopolitical themes in the learners' lives, we select a range of
possibly provocative materials. To guarantee maximum learner
involvement, we may ask the learners to bring their own material to
class or we may allow them to choose from the available texts chosen by
us. A typical procedure for CFT approach which allows incorporating
translation: into reading comprehension would involve the following
stages:
Stage 1
Prediction to motivate learners activate their schemata, and
maximise engagement, we ask them to predict the content and purpose of
text A brainstorming activity, in which one group of earners says
something in the first language and the other group translates it into
second/foreign language, can be a good starting point. Another good
activity is finding unknown or new words and predicting the meanings.
Learners may resort to different sources re find meaning for unknown
words and expressions, e.g. guessing, negotiating with peers,
dictionaries online encyclopaedia, etc. The most important aspect of
this activity is to show learners that there is no objective, fixed, or
pre-established meaning. Learners must be aware that meaning is quite
volatile, fleeting and fluid. It is subject to manipulation and
exploitation.
Stage 2
Decostruction to gain an overall understanding and familiarity with
the subject matter, learners must read the text and reflect on it
several times (perhaps, as a homework activity). It is essential for
learners to deconstruct the text with the following questions in mind:
* Who is the author?
* What are the author's purposes, ideologies, and beliefs?
* Who are the intended readers?
* Does the author use a particular structure, style, or discourse?
* Who is empowered, disempowered, silenced, or marginalised?
* Whose voice and values are represented?
In general, precise answers are not the objective--an overall gist
is also acceptable. Since not all texts and linguistic choices are
objective and neutral, learners should be cautioned not to take for
granted that the content of the text is objective and correct. They must
be guided to see how different linguistic devices such as use of passive
constructions, nominalisation, quotation, word choice, ambiguity, etc.
may serve to present different aspects of the same reality or event.
But, having said this, learners should not be too preoccupied with
excessive scrutinising and challenging of every text for traces of
ideological stances or manipulation. What is necessary is to have an
open and flexible mind. We may ask 'how do we say ...?'
instead of 'what does it mean ...?' to illustrate that there
is a range of possible forms for expressing the same thing.
One activity which focuses on deconstruction of text involves
collective translation of the same text: the teacher gives the target
text to one group and its translation to another group. Each group is
then asked to translate it into the other language. Later, the groups
exchange their texts and compare the translation style, structure, form,
and meaning.
Another activity which resembles oral interpretation is bilingual
consciousness-raising: one group deconstructs the text in the first
language, and another group translates it simultaneously. This activity
could be used when a complicated form or concept (present perfect or
modal verbs of deduction) is problematic for learners; they can discuss
it in their first language and later translate it into the second
language.
Stage 3
Reconstruction working from a text in the second/foreign language,
learners translate the text, either individually or in groups (group
work is preferable since it allows learners to share their impressions,
voice, attitudes, and knowledge). The aim of this stage is to arrive at
a version of the text which reconstructs in the first language the
original text, including the range of culture-bound meanings and hidden
agendas. It is quite natural that the first draft is more literal.
Through revision, redrafting and rewriting each group aims to adequately
reconstruct the original text. All groups then compare their polished
translations and defend their diverse positions. Finally, learners
reconstruct the text in their own language--not as a translation.
It can be seen that this CFT approach is learner-centered,
collaborative, authentic, and challenging. The role of the teacher is
predominantly as an organiser, prompter, participant, or supporter who
provides the learners with necessary materials and clues.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
References
Atkinson, D. 1993. Teaching monolingual classes. London: Longman.
Barhoudarov, L. S. 1983.The role of translation as a means in
developing oral and written speech habits in the senior years of
instruction at a language-teaching college. In Translation in foreign
language teaching, 13-17 Paris: Round Table FIT-UNESCO.
Bialystok, E. 1998. Beyond binary options: Effects of two languages
on the bilingual mind. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 47-60.
Bloome, D. & Talwalker, S. 1997 Critical Discourse analysis and
the study of reading and writing. Reading research quarterly, 32, 1,
104-112.
Canagarajah, S. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connick-Hirtz, S. 2001. Using the first language in second language
instruction. TESL-EJ Forum. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from
http://www.aitech.ac/iteslj
Das, Kamala. 1965. Summer in Calcutta. India: DC Books.
Deignan, A, Gabry, D, & Solska, A. 1997. Teaching English
metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT
Journal, 51, 4, 352-360.
Duff, A. 1989. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eadie, J. 1999. A translation technique. ELT Forum, 37, 1, 2-9.
Ellis, R. 1992. Second Language Acquisition & language
pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. 2002. Grammar teaching: practice or
consciousness-raising? In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds),
Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice,
167-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in
social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis, 91-120. London: Sage.
Fowler, R. 1996. On critical linguistics. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard
& M. Coulthard (Eds), Texts and practices: Readings in critical
discourse analysis, 3-14. London: Routledge.
Harris, B. & Sherwood, B. 1978. Translation as an innate skill.
In D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (Eds), Language interpretation and
communication, 155-170. New York: Plenum Press.
Janks, H. & Ivanic, R. 1992. Critical language awareness and
emancipatory discourse. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language
awareness, 305-331. London: Longman.
Kovecses, Z. & Szabo, P. 1996. Idioms: a view from cognitive
semantics. Applied linguistics, 17, 3, 326-355.
Kress, G. 1989. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practices.
London: Oxford University Press.
Lazar, G. 1996. Using figurative language to expand students'
vocabulary. ELT journal, 50, 1, 43-51.
Luke, A. 1997. Critical approaches to literacy. In V. Edwards &
D. Corson (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 2
literacy, 143-151. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Modica, G. 1994. Native language in the second language classroom.
The Bulletin of Faculty of Commerce, Nagoya University of Commerce and
Business Administration, 38, 2, 283-311.
Morgan, W. 1997 Critical literacy in the classroom: The art of the
possible. London: Routledge.
O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning strategies in
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ponterotto, D. 1994. Metaphors we can learn by. ELT forum, 32, 3,
2-7.
Reah, D. 1998. The language of newspapers. London: Routledge.
Rivers, W.M. & Temperley, M.S. 1978. A practical guide to the
teaching of English as a second language. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sadeghi, S. 2008. Critical pedagogy in an EFL Teaching Context: an
Ignis Fatuus or an Alternative Approach. Journal for critical education
policy studies, 6, 1. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://
www.jceps.com/?pagelD=article&articl elD=121
Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering interlanguage. New York. Longman
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Soars, J. & Soars, L. 1991. Headway, Pre-Intermediate. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stibbard, R. 1996. Teaching English intonation with a visual
display of fundamental frequency. The Internet TESL journal, 2, 8.
Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://iteslj.org/indexPrev96.html
TESL-EJ Forum. 2002. Using the First Language in Second Language
Instruction: If, When, Why and How Much?TESL-EJ Forum 5, 4. Retrieved 11
February 2010 from http://www.tesl-ej.
org/wordpress/issues/volume5/ej20/ ej20f1/
Van Dijk, T.A. 1998. What is political discourse analysis? In J.
Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds), Political linguistics, 11-52.
Venuti, L. 1998. The scandals of translation: towards an ethics of
difference. London: Routledge.
Wallace, C. 2002. Local literacies and global literacy. In D. Block
& D. Cameron (Eds), Globalisation and language teaching, 101-114.
London: Routledge.
Weschler, R. 1997. Uses of Japanese in the english classroom:
introducing the functional-translation approach. Kyoritsu International
Journal, 12, 87-110.
Widdowson, H.G. 2003. Defining issues in english language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sima Sadeghi is a PhD candidate at the University of Isfahan, Iran,
where she also teaches. She has published several articles on critical
approaches to English language teaching and has presented her research
at national and international conferences. Her main research interests
are teacher education and critical applied linguistics. Email
sima_sadeghi23i@yahoo.com
Saeed Ketabi is Assistant Professor at the University of Isfahan,
Iran. He has published numerous articles in the area of English language
teaching and learning. His main areas of interest are teaching
methodology and materials development.
Table 1 Common criticisms of translation
Criticism Reassessment
Inadmissibility: translation Translation is not ineffective in
is rejected by proponents of itself and we would suggest that
communicative approaches as an the failure must be ascribed to
unfavorable and incompatible inappropriate pedagogy or an
technique over-emphasis on artificial,
decontextualised, stilted
exercises. A judicious selection of
text, beyond the structural
complexity or thematic criteria,
based on authenticity, relevance,
appropriateness, and motivating
factors, can be both engaging and
fruitful in communicative settings
Insulation: translation is Since learner differences should
often considered beneficial to not preclude the use of any one
a limited group of learners technique, the use of translation
who are analytical, deductive needs to be informed by a critical
and literary-oriented investigation of the teaching and
learning context, learners' needs,
interests, and learning styles
Isolation: translation is This sense of isolation may be the
sometimes considered a boring, direct result of approaches which
time-consuming activity which see translation in an isolated or
discourages learners and detached way: giving learners an
isolates them out-of-context text and instructing
them to translate it is the worst
way to tackle translation.
Translation is not simply opening a
dictionary and finding equivalents
for every word and converting them
to soulless sentences. A
multi-skilling, integrative
approach to translation, carefully
designed and implemented, can
transform translation into a
meaningful real-life activity.
Preparatory activities that
motivate learners, activate their
schemata, make text relevant to
their needs and interests,
integrate translation into other
activities. For example, learners
can discuss content and share their
points of view. Further, an
integrative approach avoids the
traditional linear approach of
draft-write-revise. Translation
should work on learners' general
literacy capacities and employ
strategies such as gaining the gist
of the text, analysing the text at
different levels, deconstructing
original text, strategic
decision-making in relation to
semantic, pragmatic, and
culture-bound connotations, initial
drafting, rewriting,
reconstructing, constructing in
one's own words, polishing, etc.
Inefficiency: a general We would suggest that, if properly
misconception holds that designed, translation activities
translation requires high can be successfully applied at all
levels of proficiency, and levels and with all ages. Since
due to the cognitively teaching languages and teaching
demanding process, it translation are two completely
is only appropriate for different things, our purpose in
advanced/adult learners ELT is not to train expert
translators. The translated text
should not be treated as an end in
itself (product), rather
translation should be
conceptualised as a means through
which we facilitate both learning
and teaching (process). A process
approach towards translation
acknowledges the role of learners'
worlds, experience, cultural
schemata, personal values, etc.
Insufficiency: many Insufficiency here refers to a
researchers suggest that general lack of targeted research
translation is neither popular on different pedagogical approaches
nor appropriate to using translation in ELT This
gap in research should not be taken
as an alibi for the ostensible
ineffectiveness of a technique.
More qualitative and classroom-
based research is needed to examine
the role of translation in language
teaching and learning. The use of
questionnaires and interviews to
gain an insight into attitudes and
beliefs concerning translation,
learning and teaching strategies,
the role of contextual as well as
individual factors in translation,
and critical analysis of text-
selection and text-content, would
unlock some of these issues.
Furthermore, questions which need
to be asked include:
* How could collective or group
translation motivate learners and
activate their language awareness?
* What is the communicative role of
translation in promoting
interaction between teacher and
learners, and among learners?
* What impact on learning could
more process-oriented, learner-
centered and critical approaches to
translation have?
Inversion: According to In the translation into first
Barhoudarov (1983), there is language, the point of departure is
a vivid difference between foreign text to be translated and
translation into first the major problem that the learner
language and translation into may run into is 'analysis': to
second language. perceive the implicit and explicit
meaning behind the text. While in
translation from first language,
the foreign text is the target and
the learner has to struggle with
synthesis': namely, reconstruction
or reproduction of text.
These two processes are distinct in
terms of their methodology and
objectives, and require different
pedagogical approaches.
