Job Discussion Forums

[Roger]

I want to modify my statements to add that I can imagine situations in which the use of a one-word translation may be helpful.
This is particularly the case when you are dealing with ABSTRACT concepts, and your learners are not quite up to the task of understanding definitions.
For instance, today I looked up the Chinese equivalents for noun, verb, adjective, adverb, article, subject and predicate.
A little etymology does help, I found.
The Chinese word for 'noun' is 'mingci', literally the 'name-word'. If you know Latin - which I do - then you can see the Chinese have borrowed their grammar concepts from European languages, Latin or others. "Noun" is a cognate with 'name'. In French, it would be a 'substantive', but in German it is called a 'Nennwort' or "Substantiv'; the "Nennwrot" literally is the 'naming word'. In this case, sporadic use of Chinese 'mingci' could be helpful - PROVIDED THE CHINESE STUDENTS EVENTUALLY LEARN THE EXACT ENGLISH WORD.
The Chinese for 'verb' is 'dongci'. 'Dong' (with a falling tone on 'dong') translates as 'to move, to do' = the exact equivalent of German 'Taetigkeitswort'.
"Adjective" is 'xingrongci', all syllables with rising tone. The 'xing' element means 'looks' (n.), 'appearance', wjhile 'rong' translates as 'contain'. A rather convenient rendering of German 'Eigenschaftswort' (more or less 'word describing quality or property'.
However, at syntactic level, Chinese becomes highly abstract and difficult: A 'subject' is a 'host' (zhuyu, two times falling-rising tone), while the object is a 'guest' (binyu, 'bin' as in 'binguan, or hotel/guesthouse!).

So, while someone versed in the grammar of some European language can easily understand Chinese grammar terms, it remains to be wished that our Chinese English majors can cope with English grammar too. Since their grammar instruction is almost entirely done by Chinese English teachers, who do such things in Chinese, we get the results that we do not want.
Grammar instruction would be an ideal subject for the use of English as a medium of instruction, and ideal too for both teachers and students to get acquainted with English sentences rather than single words being spoken!

Unfortunately, most of us are not supposed to teach grammar since it is assumed (wrongly, in my opinion!) that Chinese English teachers can better deliver as they speak the same first tongue, which is misused as metalanguage.

What has my Chinese opposite numbers regularly perplexed is when I claim students should eventually stop thinking in Chinese while speaking or listening to English! They do believe that English always is that 'foreign tongue' that we have to translate.

It does not occur to these people that they had to learn their mother tongue too - without their mothers translating any word into their "first" tongue!

[Lynn]

Great topic! I've done a complete 180 since my teaching days in Japan.

Here in the states, I work at an ESL school where translation is strictly prohibited. No dictionaries of any kind and no L1. The director even pops in and out of classrooms daily to make sure it's being enforced.

It took my a while to get used to, but now that I have, I love it. We must use the assigned text book, so I can make lesson plans every day. The day before I go through the lesson and pick out any new words and bring in pictures or objects with me because I cannot draw.

For the advance class, it's usually not nouns that are difficult. Something like "guilty" could be hard to explain, but after about 15 minutes, they get it, AND they never forget. If they just look it up in their dictionaries, they write it down and it doesn't register the same way.

[Cleopatra]

Lynn,

You're not by any chance working in Berlitz, are you?

Sounds a tad like their so-called "method"!

[Lynn]

No, I wasn't at Berlitz. The Berlitz here doesn't hire ESL teachers or anyone with teaching experience.

[some waygug-in]

So, without translating then, how would you explain the meaning of the word "should"?

ex: You should study harder.

Teeechawww,,, whatt meenzz sshoooddd???

Well, it means that it would be better if you studied more.

Teeeechaww,, what means would?

Well, it means something that is possible, but not existing at the moment.

Huhhh??? Teeeechawww,, what means something????

It means a certain thing.

Huh??? Teeechaww,, thing.... whatt?????




So does this example give you some idea of when translation "would" be a better alternative?

I thought not.

Anyway, if you can teach with no translation at all, my hat goes off to you. I try to use as little as possible, but there are times when it seems necessary.
cheers

[Roger]

some waygug-in,
this example is the exact reason why translations won't work, ever!
You might as well ask a German why they need three genders (masculine, feminine and neutrum) - you see, in the English language you only have two, and apart from natural males and females (people), few other identities require gender identification - some animals do as do ships (always feminine) and countries (on occasion: feminine too).
Modal verbs cannot be translated reliably. You have to develop a feel for the language and its idiosyncrasies. Compared to French, English has a lot more modal verbs.

[shmooj]

Could I carefully suggest that residents from both camps are perhaps missing the wood for the trees

THe goal is acquisition. Can any one of you cite me a research paper from SLA that backs up your pro or anti stance?

Sure, your experience counts for something but it is just that: YOUR experience. Which is fine if you want us to teach your students your way. But watch you don't insist on others... blah blah blah...

In lexical acquisition memory and reinforcement are key factors. Your goal as educator should be to facilitate these two factors so that the students are able to use or comprehend the lexis in question (depending on whether it is active or passive vocabulary). We risk being unprofessional to dismiss any particular technique out of hand.

So, to illustrate:

An example FOR translation. Take the Japanese words kariru (borrow) and kasu (lend) which are incessantly mixed up by students of both Japanese and ENglish. I use translation to help the correct acquisition of these by writing the words up in roman form on the board. I point out that borrow and kariru both have two "r"s in them AND that each pair has exactly the same number of letters. "AAAAaaaaahhhh" say all students. From that point on they self correct IF they ever mistake it again. They are on the road to acquisition via translation.

An example AGAINST translation. The Japanese verb yoyaku does not have a direct equivalent in English because English uses either book or reserve depending on context. In fact we can also say "make an appointment" If I use translation here, I am likely to confuse students by not giving them enough of a separate concept to distinguish these words in English. Therefore their ability to store these words in memory and to recall them in the correct situation are dangerously impaired if I use translation. So, I shout "NO!" as they reach for their dictionaries. THen I focus on one word and in English build a word-web (spidergram) of situations and collocations associated with it. I have students then make sentences that are true for them and memorable e.g. "I want to reserve a table for a meal with David Beckham!" so that the concept and the lexical map associated with the word is clearly constructed before moving on.

Pro translation team 1, Anti translation team 1.

Final whistle [/img]

[some waygug-in]

[Cleopatra]

MY original point was that we teachers have to work in the real world of the classroom. We are not theorists debating the pedagogical rights and wrongs of translating - at least, I'm not. There are times, in the real pragmatic world of teaching, when translations can be very helpful, despite what teacher-trainers might say.

[denise]

Nicely put, Cleopatra. I think your comments would fit in well in the "theory vs. practice" thread. I agree with you--we can debate ad nauseum about the pros and cons, but when we're in the classroom and we're running out of time, are we really going to spend 15 minutes trying to explain a single word?

There's a big difference between translating as needed and teaching via translation (grammar translation).

d

[guest of Japan]

I'm not going to get into the debate of whether translation is right or wrong. I'd just like to share to techniques I've used for above mentioned situations without translation.

"would" I would like a table for two please. = I want a table for two. (but more polite).

"borrow vs. lend" Act out the situation several times giving clear emphasis to the roles.

For me the biggest advantage of not translating is the sense of satisfaction that students get when they can understand new concepts taught exclusively through English. Translation is a last resort.

[Lynn]

[jud]

The problem that most of my upper-intermediate students have is in fact translation.

A student who translates will most likely not past the First Certificate, and certainly not the Advanced or Proficiency tests. Prepositions cannot be translated, as they are often used differently depending on the language. Nor can phrasal verbs. And translation is a disaster for word order.

I'm fluent in Italian. Obviously, if my student can't get cauliflower, I won't waste 2 hours trying to explain it. But that same student will do a lot better in England asking for a white vegetable similar to a cabbage than repeating "cavolfiore".

I rise to the challenge of clarifying any word with my students without translating. I can draw, describe, point, etc. A translation is forgotten 10 minutes after it's given. And frankly, it's lazy teaching. If you don't want to waste time, have students look it up for homework and explain it the next lesson in English. Vinegar is a liquid. Old wine becomes vinegar. You use vinegar with oil on a salad. etc.

Finally, with all due respect, teaching "should" through translation rather than as a modal verb for obligation or advice is a pretty good indicator of future disaster. Let's not even touch the subject of would.

[Roger]

Well said, jud.

Besides, what's the point of hiring mother tongue English teachers if you get bilingual local ones who can interpret simultaneously?

[dduck]