Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
translation method
By Jonathan Marks
Introduction
Grammar translation (hereafter GT) was originally associated with the
teaching of Latin and – to a much lesser extent – ancient Greek.
Interestingly, as Howatt (1984O131) points out, 'grammar' and 'translation'
are actually not the distinctive features of GT, since they were already
well-accepted as basic principles of language teaching. What was new
was the use of invented, graded sentences rather than authentic(!)
literary texts in order to make language learning easier.
The aim of teaching Latin and Greek was (and is) obviously not so that
learners would be able to speak them. The aims were/are rather:
(This last point is certainly true for English. There's a long tradition of
setting Latin up as a model for English, and trying to squeeze English into
the framework of Latin grammar, even among those professionally
engaged in working with languages – as recently as a few years ago, one
correspondent seriously suggested in a letter to The Linguist ('the official
journal of the Institute of Linguists') that a thorough knowledge of Latin is
an essential requisite for being able to use English properly! And in the
introduction to one Latin primer I've got, the author writes that pupils who
drop Latin after one or two years 'will not have wasted their time, for they
will have spent many lessons in learning how their own language works.')
There have been various criticisms of the use of GT for the teaching of
modern languages, and particularly English. Let's have a look at some of
these objections and see if they really justify consigning GT to the
dustbin of history.
Objection one
Objection two
Objection three
Objection four
Let's not forget that the purpose of being in a language classroom isn't
primarily to communicate; it's to learn the language. Here's a sentence
for translation from one of my Russian textbooks:
Well, this probably isn't an event that happens – or has happened – very
often, and it's particularly unlikely that you'd need to report it in the
present tense. But that doesn't mean it's useless. If you try to translate it,
perhaps get it wrong, try again, and get it right, it can actually help you to
pay attention to, and understand, a couple of pretty fundamental things
about Russian grammar. Apart from that, the absurdity of it can help to
make it memorable. Here's another example:
The English engineer asks the captain to hand this important letter to the
Commander of the Fleet.
The fact that it's so decontextualized and fraught with mystery invites
you to visualize your own context, and to endow the sentence with your
own personal authenticity. What's in the letter? Did the engineer write it,
or did someone else give him it? Does he know what's in it? What will the
consequences be when the Commander reads it? Why are we told that
the engineer is English? Does it mean that the captain and the
Commander aren't English? Maybe they're Russian? So what's the
English engineer doing there? And so on. On the other hand, of course,
it's also quite possible to illustrate the same grammar in sentences which
are more obviously useful:
The architect showed a model of the new premises to the staff this
morning.
The English visitor asked me to hand you this letter – he says it's
important.
Objection five
Objection six
My favourite kind of music's ..... and I'm quite keen on ..... too, but I really
can't stand .....
Objection seven
In GT, the teacher and the learners speak mainly in the L1. But
nowadays it's widely recommended that L2 use should be
maximized.
Maximized, maybe, but that doesn't mean used all the time, at whatever
cost. Why bother giving instructions for a complicated activity in English
that an elementary class have no hope of understanding? Or if you think
the instructions won't be too far above their level, how about giving them
as a kind of oral parallel text – each step first in L1, then in English? And
when the class want to talk about English, they'll be able to do this in a
much more sophisticated way in their L1, unless their English is really
advanced.
Objection eight
Objection nine
For one thing, translation isn't only a job done by specialists. Imagine A
and B on holiday, or on business, in a country where A knows the
language but B doesn't. B is quite likely to ask for translations from A:
'Ask them if we can have breakfast a bit earlier tomorrow', 'What does
that sign on the door say?', 'How do you say 'I'm a vegetarian'?' etc.
People will understand you, answer you and probably not correct you,
and you might never notice that they say 'What time is it?' But in a
classroom, if a teacher corrects you sometimes – not by saying 'Why
can't you remember this? I've told you so many times!', but simply by
pointing out that there's something not quite right – you will notice the
difference between the target form and what you said, and you'll be more
likely to move towards the target form.
d. motivation
e. data (samples of the language, plus - maybe - information about the
language)
f. opportunities to experiment with the data
g. feedback – to confirm that you're heading in the right direction, or to
re-direct you if you aren't
I also think that people who start off being taught through any well-
defined method tend to (need to, in fact) outgrow that method, to rely
more on their own resources and, in fact, to develop their own private
methodology. If you look at ten or twenty people in a GT class, or any
other kind of class, you might get the impression that they're all doing
more or less the same thing. But if you could look inside their heads
you'd probably find all sorts of very different things going on. And in
particular, whatever the apparent methodology of the class, I bet you'd
always find a large number of learners trying to understand the grammar,
and translating to themselves.
References
Related Resources
General: using translation
Lost in translation