Back to Mother Tongue. L1 and Translation as aids to fla in a clil context

1. 
   Introduction: general framework
   

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)
  

1. 
   How, what for and how successfully do the students use L1 and translation as an aid to improve their learning process?
   
2. 
   How does this use seem to relate to cognitive, metacognitive and socioaffective strategies?
   
3. 
   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?
   
4. 
   How can a humanistic, collaborative setting favour or enhance such learning materials?
   

1. 
   L1 and Translation are spontaneous learning strategies in Additional Language Learning Contexts
   
2. 
   L1 and Translation are not interchangeable terms, as each contributes different skills and strategies to the learning of additional languages
   
3. 
   An informed use of L1 and Translation may be beneficial for the learning of additional languages
   

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. 
   Translation Studies: L1 or Translation?
   

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:

1. 
   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)
   
2. 
   relay the message and effect appropriately for the Target Community (the “world of the target community” according to the CEFRL)
   
3. 
   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 assignment⁴, 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)

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

2. 
   The Optimal Position
   

• 
  “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”
  

2. 
   The Research instruments
   

1. 
   Initial (pre-study) Questionnaire
   
2. 
   Final (post-study) Questionnaire
   
3. 
   (Two) Individual Written Protocols, to be handed in with respective essays on topics studied for approximately 5 weeks each
   
4. 
   (Two) Group Work Reports, to be filled in by group members on completion of group tasks
   
5. 
   Final (Self-) Report
   

3. 
   Provisional findings for research questions 1 and 2
   

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):

4. 
   Some conclusions
   

1. 
   L1 and Translation are spontaneous learning strategies: all the students used both with no prompting.
   
2. 
   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)).
  

3. 
   An informed use of L1 and Translation may be beneficial for the learning of additional languages.
   

4. 
   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.
   

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.

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.

Owen, David. 2003. “Where’s the Treason in Translation?” Humanising Language Teaching, University of Kent: Pilgrims, January, http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/mart1.htm

Prodromou, L. 2001. “From mother tongue to other tongue”. http://www.thrace-net.gr/bridges/bridges5

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.

• 
  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 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
  

• 
  reporting on relative frequency, during the task, of certain specific types⁵ of L1 and Translation use and also reporting on, and assessing, details (what, when, why, who with, and how felicitously) of one actual case⁶ of each of these specific types of L1 of Translation use
  

• 
  (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
  

• 
  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