Centro de Estudios de Postgrado Máster en Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera Alumno Dpto: Tutor Translation i Language Teaching: an /a Aid or a : /a Filología Inglesa Prof. D. : Trabajo Centro de Estudios PostgradoCentro de de Copley Noviembre U NIVERSIDAD DE Alejandro Alcaraz Fin de , Hindrance? Brendan n L2/For , J 2014 Máster AÉN eign Name and surname(s): Mr Brendan Copley Login: ESFPMLAEILE666967 (As currently registered in FUNIBER “Welcome” Page but I gain access with: ESFPCTEFA666967.) Master edition: 2013 - 2014 Date: 3rd November 2014 Final Project Title: Translation In L2/Foreign Language Teaching: An Aid Or A Hindrance? 0 CONTENTS CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. iii 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Some Potential Misconceptions Addressed ..................................................................... 3 1.2.1 - This is not a project about translation ...................................................................... 3 1.2.2 - No professional L2/FL teacher would admit to using the L1 in monolingual English Language Teaching nowadays .............................................................................. 4 2. Part 1: LOOKING BACK ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1 The Grammar-Translation Method ................................................................................... 11 2.2 The Reform Movement ...................................................................................................... 13 2.3 The Direct Method .............................................................................................................. 14 2.4 The United States ............................................................................................................... 16 2.4.1 - The Reading Method ................................................................................................ 16 2.4.2 - The Army Method ...................................................................................................... 16 2.4.3 - Audiolingualism ......................................................................................................... 17 2.5 Great Britain ......................................................................................................................... 18 2.6 A Paradigm Shift ................................................................................................................. 19 2.7 Communicative Language Teaching ............................................................................... 20 3. Part 2: LOOKING AROUND TODAY ................................................................................... 23 3.1 Contemporary L2/FL Arguments Against L1 Use In The L2/FL Classroom .............. 25 3.2 Contemporary L2/FL Arguments in Favour of L1 Use in the L2/FL Classroom ........ 29 3.3 A Judicious Use of L1 and what we mean by ‘Translation’ .......................................... 31 3.4 Learning Strategies, learning Styles and L1/Translation use within the L2/FL Classroom ................................................................................................................................... 36 3.5 Contrastive Analysis / Cross-linguistic Comparison ...................................................... 41 3.6 Scaffolding ........................................................................................................................... 42 3.7 Is the case for L1 use within the class as a positive resource tool thus proven? ..... 44 4. Part 3: LOOKING FORWARD ................................................................................................. 47 4.1 B2 – C2 L2/FL Students..................................................................................................... 51 4.2 A1 – B1 L2/FL Students ..................................................................................................... 56 5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 65 6. PROJECT EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 69 i 6.1 Lack of access to original text sources and reliance on secondary/indirect texts .... 69 6.2 Project Limitations .............................................................................................................. 69 6.3 Learning Curve .................................................................................................................... 69 7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 71 8. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 87 ii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Common Reference Levels: global scale Appendix 2: Holmes' (1988) ‘map’ of translation studies, as quoted in Toury (1995: 10) and in Dahlgren and Sitwell (n.d.: 9) Appendix 3: St Jerome´s translation of a letter from Pope Epiphenius to John, the Bishop of Jerusalem Appendix 4: Results of the questionnaires on the use of Chinese in the English classroom Appendix 5: Relationships between Learning Strategies (Oxford 1990, as cited in Madrid et al. n.d.: 35, Figure 2.4) Appendix 6: Typology of procedural knowledge according to Ellis 1985: 165, (in Madrid et al, n.d.: 21) Appendix 7: Adaptation of Holmes' (1988) ‘map’ of translation studies, as reported in Toury (1995: 10) and Dahlgren and Sitwell (n.d.: 9). Appendix 8: Needs Analysis for A1 – B1 students Appendix 9: Needs Analysis for B2 – C2 Students Appendix 10: An Example of an L1/L2 ‘Can Do’ Task Measuring Tool. Appendix 11: Detailed Direct/Indirect LS taxonomy (Oxford, 1990, in Madrid et al., n.d.: 36-37). Appendix 12: Learner´s word list. Appendix 13: 8 Smarts in ELT Materials by Beril Ayman Yücel: Checklist for MI Integrated Materials. iii 1. INTRODUCTION In this project I intend to explore, via research, the arguments in favour and against the use of translation1 at the various levels of English as a second language/foreign language2 teaching/learning3 and analyse its historical origins, so that I can investigate its recent rise in pedagogical interest as an English L2/FL teaching aid, and whether contemporary research has proven it to be a valued English L2/FL learning resource at all levels within the A1 – C2 linguistic competence range.4 1.1 Methodology As I set out on this exploration, I am conscious that translation in L2/FL teaching/learning, like most other things in life, does not exist in a vacuum, but rather is located in a historical ever-changing stream which often involves the re-emergence of thoughts and ideas of previous generations.5 Such is the situation with the role of translation in the L2/FL classroom, at least from the fourteenth century onwards, for as noted by Kelly (1969:137), “[t]he first clear indication that translation was used as a teaching method comes from fourteenth-century England”.6 Keeping the above in mind, I shall set out in the first part of this project (section 2) by looking at the historical place of translation in L2/FL teaching in order to establish the background context of contemporary arguments for/against the use of translation as a teaching aid in the English L2/FL learning classroom. This initial historical exploration will involve my looking into L2/FL educational approaches/theories in terms of “the leading 1 The Oxford English Dictionary Online (1989), s.v. translation gives the following etymology: "Old French translation [...] or < Latin translātiōn-em a transporting, translation, noun of action < translāt- , participial stem of transferre to transfer v." and gives the year 1340 for the first attested usage of the word in its usual current meaning (II.2.a: "The action or process of turning from one language into another; also, the product of this; a version in a different language."). The equivalent words in Modern Romance languages are reflexes from “Latin traducere (“to lead across”) Latin trādūcĕre to lead across, transport, transfer, derive; also, to lead along as a spectacle, to bring into disgrace; < trans across + dūcĕre to lead (OED 2014: s.v. traduce). Traduce, a 16th c. loan, competed with translate between the 16th and mid-19th cc. 2 Henceforth referred to as L2/FL. 3 As noted by Thornbury and Ball (n.d.: 46),“teachability is not the same as learnability” [since an] “item may be easy to teach, but difficult to learn.” Having noted this, we shall proceed in this essay by looking at translation in terms teaching/learning within the kaleidoscope of L2/FL teaching, unless otherwise stated. 4 See Appendix 1. 5 Indeed, Kelly (1969: ix) noted that “[n]obody really knows what is new or what is old in present- day language teaching procedures” [since] “much that is being claimed as revolutionary in this century is merely a rethinking and renaming of early