-----------------------
Back to Mother...Tongue. L1 and Translation as aids to FLA in a CLIL context
Maria González-Davies (Universitat Ramon
Llull, Barcelona, Spain)
Christopher
Scott-Tennent (Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain)
1. Introduction: general framework
Action research was carried out
with a group of 24 teacher students (i.e.,
future EFL professionals), whose mother tongue is either Spanish or Catalan, and
whose level of English varies between the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFRL) B1 and C1. The pilot study set out to observe
and describe their spontaneous use of L1 and translation in what is effectively
their third language acquisition (TLA)
process. The group studies at an institution where future English teachers are
immersed in a CLIL context (Content and Language Integrated Learning). The
subject matter in this case was “Linguistics”, as a habitual part of their
degree program in the second semester of the first year. All these students had
had previous CLIL experience in the first semester with the subject-matter
“Phonetics”. The students were all informed about the broad aims of the study
and freely consented to provide the required data.
Our general theoretical framework
is based on the following:
-
Research in Translation Studies
-
The Optimal Position (Ernesto Macaro)
-
Multicompetence Theory (Vivien Cook)
-
Effects of Humanistic and Collaborative Learning
environments in the learning of additional languages (ALL)
The main research questions
determining the study design were the following four:
- How, what for and how successfully do the students
use L1 and translation as an aid to improve their learning process?
- How does this use seem to relate to cognitive,
metacognitive and socioaffective strategies?
- On the basis of our previous knowledge and the
findings for a) and b) above, can
learning materials be designed that include an informed use of the
L1 and translation for FLA?
- How can a humanistic, collaborative setting favour
or enhance such learning materials?
The underlying principles that
guided the study were the following three:
- L1 and Translation are spontaneous learning
strategies in Additional Language Learning Contexts
- L1 and Translation are not interchangeable terms,
as each contributes different skills and strategies to the learning of
additional languages
- An informed use of L1 and Translation may be
beneficial for the learning of additional languages
Although these questions and guidelines
are prospective in nature, i.e., we are not yet setting out to prove/disprove
hypotheses, our expectations are that this initial pilot study will allow us to
identify some key points to subsequently study more closely and/or fully. We
view this study as the starting point of what we hope will be an ongoing,
relatively long-term research process.
In this paper we will concentrate
on points 1 and 2 of the general theoretical framework and on research
questions 1 and 2. Finally, we aim to
give an overall view of the main tendencies we have observed from the results
gathered and processed so far in the study.
1.1.
Translation
Studies: L1 or Translation?
Most – if not all – research in
Applied Linguistics tends to equate L1 and Translation. This and the extended
rejection of their use in language learning may well have carried over from the
Grammar-Translation days, with long lists of words to be memorized together
with their supposed correspondences in the L2 and L1.
Having worked for many years both
in the world of TEFL and as professional translators and translator trainers, we would argue that the use of the L1 cannot
be equated to the use of translation in the learning of additional languages,
that each of these provide the language student with different strategies that
can help them in their progress, and that they very probably have different
roles within the process of language learning.
Taking as starting points these
beliefs that stem from both professional practice and research in both fields,
we also set out to explore, whether, in a similar line to Cook’s
Multicompetence Theory, they encourage the acquisition of other skills that can
be useful for the language student, such as the development of intercultural
competence or mediating skills, as described in the CEFRL (2001).
The use of L1 seems to be
increasingly present in a substantial amount of research over the last 10 years
or so. Also, surveys that ask teachers’ opinions often reach the conclusion
that teachers from different backgrounds think it should be present in the
learning of Additional Languages (e.g. Celaya
2001, Cook 2001, González Davies 2002, Macaro 2005, Prodromou 2001).
Furthermore, research on the cognitive/connectionist model of learning seems to
confirm that the use of any previously acquired language “can have at least as
substantial a facilitating acquisitional role as it can have an inhibitory
role” (Macaro 2005: 41). The associations, shortcuts and mnemonic aids are
certainly there. However, in Macaro’s words: “The way that L1 is regarded and
how much of it should be present in the input and interaction, however, is
still highly contested” (2005: 42).
As to Translation, allow us to go
into a little more detail about what we mean by it as it is still not included
in research on language acquisition, at least not as frequently or thoroughly
as the use of L1: it usually comes under the broad category of “use of L1” or
“codeswitching”, if at all.
There are a few exceptions, however, where it
is dealt with as a strategy or skill of its own (e.g. González Davies 2002,
2007; Chesterman 1998, Deller and Rinvolucri 2002, Malmkjaer 1998, Owen 2003,
Verzai and Mirzaei 2007). This rejection of translation becomes even less
understandable when we consider that contact between languages has always been of interest and has given way
to theories and studies related to Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and
Interlanguage, Cross-Linguistic Influence, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the
Markedness Differential Hypothesis, Psychotypology, Transferability rules, Full
Transfer / Full Access Theory, studies in Pragmatics, etc. (see, e.g., Celaya
2001 for a clear summary of these studies). Translation is at the core of all
this and, paradoxically, its role in ALL has not been seriously researched.
The field of Translation
Studies has devoted much energy to (re)defining “translation” and “translation
competence”. Taking into account these Studies, here “translation” implies the
ability to complete the following three steps more or less appropriately,
depending on the stage of linguistic and sociocultural proficiency of the
students:
- understand the message and effect of the Source
Text (i.e. text, word or expression, verbal or visual) (the “world of
origin” according to the CEFRL)
- relay the message and effect appropriately for
the Target Community (the “world of the target community” according to the
CEFRL)
- apply appropriate translation strategies
according to familiarity with problem-solving and spotting skills
For instance, in a Teacher Training context, the
subject Parla Infantil in Catalan is
better rendered as “Child Speech Development” in English than as “Children’s
Talk”, as most students translated it.
Practitioners and researchers in the fields of
Translation, agree that translation can be defined as “A dynamic process
of communication” (Hatim and Mason 1990: 62). That is, translation is not an exact transference from
one language to another, contrary to what Grammar-Translation advocates claim
In fact, professional translators never consider it as such. Exercises such as
"read this sentence –or word – and translate it", with little or no
context, no previous reflection, no setting of the translation assignment,
and no training in the intricacies and possibilities of translation etc. are
not meaningful to the learner, and produce mistranslations, calques and literal
renderings that are far removed from real communication. Professional
translation is a creative and dynamic activity that bridges the cultures and
languages involved using specific transference skills and strategies (e.g.
Canale and Swain, Danks 1991, Gile 1995, González Davies and Scott-Tennent
2005, Pym 2003, Tirkkonen-Condit 2000, Scott-Tennent and González Davies 2008)
– which explains why not all bilinguals are good translators or interpreters.
Surely something more than a "read and translate" directive is behind
all this activity. When translation enters the language classroom as a
meaningful communicative procedure, far from Grammar-Translation artifice,
reality enters the classroom: it involves authentic communication with a clear
aim. It is also unavoidable, for students often use "translate" and
"understand" as synonyms. Let’s see how one of our students reflects
this (sic):
(Finnish Erasmus student)
acquisition=hankkiminen
This was a crucial word for me to
know because it was one topic in the classes and also the title of an essay. I
understood what the teacher was telling when she was telling about language
acquisition, but I didn't know the actual translation. For me, this word was
very important to translate in order to understand perfectly... I believe most
of the time it's better to try to explain in English rather than translate
directly. However, I believe that there are also lots of moments when it's more
purposeful to translate the difficult words to the L1 in order to learn them
better
Could it be that we are not listening to one of the most frequent
questions our students (or we as lifelong language learners) ask? If we do not
listen, they end up not asking, but that does not mean the question isn't
hidden under the surface. We suggest, then, that Translation could be used as both a skill and a strategy in an informed
way (González Davies 2007).
1.2.
The Optimal
Position
In his groundbreaking paper (2005),
Ernesto Macaro suggests that there are three approaches or “Positions” in
relation to teachers’ attitudes concerning the use of L1 in the SLA classroom. We took his description of The Optimal
Position (2005: 535) as part of our working framework adapting it to our
project as follows (each quote from his description has given way to questions
in our project):
-
“There is some pedagogical value in L1 use” –
what value?
-
“Some aspects of learning may actually be
enhanced by L1” – which ones?
-
“There should therefore be a constant
exploration of pedagogical principles regarding whether and in what ways L1 is
justified” – we set out to observe both “whether” and “in what ways”
Macaro does not mention Translation
– it may be that he takes it as a synonym of use of the L1. Should this be the
case, as we have explained above, we argue that they are different skills that contribute
different strategies to language learning. However, his proposal has been a
central point of departure for our study.
2. The Research instruments
Observational and self-report
instruments were used, following a mainly, but not exclusively, qualitative
approach to action research. The annex
at the end of this paper specifies what each instrument was designed to observe:
- Initial
(pre-study) Questionnaire
- Final
(post-study) Questionnaire
- (Two) Individual Written Protocols, to be handed in with respective essays
on topics studied for approximately
5 weeks each
- (Two) Group
Work Reports, to be filled in by group members on completion of group tasks
- Final (Self-) Report
3. Provisional findings for research questions
1 and 2
Q1. How, what for and how successfully do
the students use L1 and translation as an aid to improve their learning
process?
Students do use the L1 and translation in the
two individual essays. There was a very stable side to the use of translation,
which was usually self-addressed, in order to ensure maximum semantic accuracy,
by using a bilingual dictionary, and retrospectively rated as quite/very
useful. However, significant (inter-task) variation was observed in the use of
translation regarding: (a) what the specific reported use was for, and (b)
regarding the existence (in students’ belief) of potentially useful alternative
strategies to having used translation. It seems most logical to assume that this was
at least partly related to the specific nature of the task.
Clearly, in both Group Written
Protocols, and to a very similar degree, students think the L1 was used
very little overall. Finally, the students’ “Position” regarding the use
of L1 and Translation in Additional Language Learning contexts can be
summarized as follows:
*
The
Optimal Position: there is pedagogical value in the use of L1: 11/22
*
The
Maximal Position: there is no pedagogical value in the use of L1, but teachers
sometimes have to resort to L1: 8/22
*
The
Virtual Position: Total exclusion of L1: 3/22
The following is a typical comment
from one of the students (sic):
Although the classes should be
mostly in English, sometimes translation can be very effective... to make
concepts clear to the students... to transmit the cultural value of the
meaning... or, if you are seeing in (our students') faces that they don't
understand a word, we shouldn't be afraid of using translation... In
conclusion, I think that we shouldn't pretend to be what we are not and we
should use our intelligence and take profit of what we have around us.
Q2. How does this use seem to affect cognitive, metacognitive and
socioaffective strategies?
The results regarding
metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies yielded the following: Overall
-i.e., counting both Essay 1 and Essay 2-, the presence of metacognitive and
cognitive strategies is quantitatively very similar, while the presence of
socioaffective strategies is lower than the former two, and more variable in an
intertask sense -in this case, it was much lower in Essay 2 than in Essay 1. L1
use is almost always linked to or associated with metacognitive and
socioaffective strategies, whereas the use of Translation is mostly linked to
or associated with cognitive strategies.
|
|
METACOGNITIVE
|
COGNITIVE
|
SOCIOAFFECTIVE
|
|
ESSAY 1
|
37
(1 TR + 36 L1)
|
38
(2 L1 + 36 TR)
|
33
L1
|
|
ESSAY 2
|
45
(L1)
|
34
(11 L1 + 23 TR)
|
10
L1
|
|
TOTAL
|
83 (1 TR + 82 L1)
|
72 (13 L1 + 59 TR)
|
43 L1
|
We reproduce here what one of the
students had to say about this (sic):
Sometimes I had to communicate with
my classmates and speak in Catalan or Spanish instead of English. Why?
depending on the situation. Sometimes it is to transmit my opinion clearly,
sometimes to facilitate communication, and sometime for purely embarrassment...
These are the reasons why I said that the use of the L1 is related to the need,
the level and personality of the learner.
4. Some conclusions
Related to the
initial underlying guiding principles:
- L1 and Translation are spontaneous learning
strategies: all the students used both with no prompting.
- L1 and Translation are not interchangeable terms,
as each contributes different skills and strategies to the learning of
additional languages
*
There appears to be more inter-task variation in the
use of translation than in the use of L1.
*
Different uses and frequency of use for translation,
on the one hand, and for L1, on the other, are reflected in the results.
*
Specific translation strategies are needed in order
to carry out tasks appropriately (e.g. explicitation, domestication,
foreignisation, addition, omission, intersemiotic modifications, etc. (e.g. Henvey
et al 1995, González Davies 2004)).
- An informed use of L1 and Translation may be
beneficial for the learning of additional languages.
Although the following is not
conclusive as yet, an informed use of L1 and translation does not seem to
favour an increased use of L1 and
translation by the students. In fact, according to our findings, and in
agreement with Macaro’s (2005), the use of L1 and of Translation have either remained similar or even decreased
according to the results yielded by the study instruments, thus confirming
that, contrary to underlying beliefs implicit in the Communicative / L2 Only
Approach, an informed use of L1 and of translation may not necessarily increase
students’ use in an additional language learning context.
- Finally, as a result of our readings and research,
we would like to suggest that operative definitions of Translation, Use of L1 and Codeswitching
be included in research papers dealing with these concepts to help readers
grasp the outlook of the authors regarding these concepts.
Some final thoughts: In an increasingly multicultural world where bilingualism is already the
norm, it seems to be unavoidable to use L1 and translation as one more useful
strategy or procedure to learn a foreign language. In the process, it can also
become a skill that our students may need in their future for personal or
professional reasons and may favour the development of intercultural competence
and mediation skills to bridge those areas not shared by the “world of origin
and the world of the target community”.
References
Celaya,
Mª L. 2001. "'I've got 12 years old': L1 in SLA",
APAC of News, nº 42, May.
Chesterman, A. 1998.
"Communication Strategies, Learning Strategies and Translation Strategies".
In Malmkjaer, K. Translation and Language
Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Cook, V.J. 1991. “The
poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence”, Second Language
Research, 7, 2, 103-117.
Cook, V. J. 1992. “Evidence
for multicompetence”. Language Learning, 42(4), 557
591.
Cook, V. J. 2001. “Using
the first language in the classroom”. Canadian
Modern
Gile, D.1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter
and Translator Training. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Deller,
Sheelagh and Mario Rinvolucri. 2002. Using
the Mother Tongue. Making the most of the Learner’s Language. English
Teaching Professional: Professional Perspectives.
Duff, A. 1989. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
González Davies, Maria. 2002. “Humanising Translation Activities:
Tackling a Secret Practice”, Humanising Language Teaching, University of
Kent: Pilgrims, July. http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jul02/mart2.htm
González Davies, Maria.
2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Activities, Tasks and
Projects. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
González Davies, Maria and Christopher Scott-Tennent. 2005. “A problem-solving and
student-centred approach to the translation of cultural references”. Meta (50-1) Monograph: Enseignement de la traduction
dans le mond, pp.
González Davies, Maria.
2007. “Translation: Why the Bad Press? A Natural Activity in an
Increasingly Bilingual World”, Humanising
Language Teaching, Year 9; Issue 2;
March, http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar07/mart02.htm
Hatim, Basil and Ian
Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator.
London:
Routledge.
Henvey, S., Higgins, S.
and L. Haywood. 1995. Thinking Spanish Translation: A Course in Translation
Method. London
and New York:
Routledge.
Macaro, Ernesto. 2001.
“Analysing Student Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign Language Classrooms:
Theories and Decision Making”. The Modern
Language Journal, 85, iv, 531-547.
Macaro, Ernesto.
2003/2005. Teaching and Learning a Second
Language. A Guide to Recent Reseearch and its Applications. London & New York: Continuum.
Malmkjaer, K. 1998. Translation and Language Teaching. Language
Teaching and Translation. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Montalt, Vicent and
Maria González Davies. 2007. Medical
Translation Step by Step. Learning by Drafting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Pym, A. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age”, Meta 48/4.
Scott-Tennent,
Christopher and Maria González Davies. 2008. “Effects of Specific
Training on the Ability to Deal with Cultural Referents in Translation”, Meta, 53/4, pp.782-798
Shahin Vaezi and Mehdi Mirzaei.
2007. “The Effect of Using Translation from L1 to L2 as a Teaching Technique on
the Improvement of EFL Learners’ Linguistic Accuracy - Focus on Form”, Humanising Language Teaching, September,
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/sep07/mart03.htm
Tirkkonen-Condit,
S. 2000. “Uncertainty in translation processes”. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and
Jääskeläninen, R. (eds.) Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and
interpreting. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. pp 123-132.
ANNEX 1
1. Initial
(pre-study) Questionnaire, to observe and/or measure
-
student’s views on collaborative learning
-
student’s perception of own, habitual use of
learning strategies
-
student’s perception of own, habitual use of
L1 and translation
2. Final
(post-study) Questionnaire, to observe and/or measure
-
student’s views on collaborative learning
-
student’s perception of own, habitual use of
learning strategies
-
student’s perception of own, habitual use of
L1 and translation
-
student’s assessment of collaborative learning
as experienced in the teaching unit
-
student’s assessment of L1 and translation as
experienced in the teaching unit
3. (Two) Individual Written Protocols, to be handed in with
respective essays on topics studied for
approximately 5 weeks each
-
reporting on relative frequency, during
the task, of certain specific types[5] of L1 and Translation use and
also reporting on, and assessing, details (what, when, why, who with, and
how felicitously) of one actual case[6] of each of these
specific types of L1 of Translation use
4. (Two) Group Work Reports, to
be filled in by group members on completion of group tasks, to quantify
-
(students’ perceptions of) relative frequency,
within the group, of certain specific types of use (of L1 and Translation)
-
opinions on appropriateness of (overall)
frequency of L1 and Translation use within the group
5. Final (Self-)
Report, to quantify
-
general position on L1 use in FLL
-
views on potential usefulness of L1 and
Translation in FLL
-
position on potential disadvantages thereof
-
personal reasons for using L1 and Translation in
FLL
(as listed in the Protocol)
