ISSN 1392–1517. KALBOTYRA. 2007. 57(3) TRANSLATION AS A LEARNING TOOL
感动作文500字IN ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
Galina Kavaliauskienë, Ligija Kaminskienë
Department of Foreign Languages,
Mykolas Romeris University
Ateities 20, LT-08303, Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel. +370 2 5 2714613
E-mail gkaval@mruni.lt
Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies
Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University,
Universiteto 3, LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel. +3702 5 2687245
E-mail ligija@bmi.lt
Introduction
The state-of-the-art teaching of languages is bad on the communicative method which empha-sizes teaching English through English (Willis 1981). However, the idea of abandoning the native tongue is too stressful to many learners, who need a n of curity in the experience of learning a foreign language.
In the past, the prevalence of grammar-translation method led to an extraordinary phenom-enon: students were unable to speak fluently after having studied the language for a long time. For this reason, translation has been defined as “uncommunicative, boring, pointless, difficult, and irrelevant” (Duff, 1994).
Recently there has been a revival of interest to translation due to the shift of its emphasis – to using a mother tongue as a resource for the promotion of language learning. T ranslation method develops three qualities esntial to any language learning: accuracy, clarity, and flexibility (Duff 1994). Therefore, translation can rve as a tool for improving language skills.
Goals of rearch
The goals of the paper are, firstly, to examine students’ perceptions of mother tongue application and mental translation in learning English for Specific Purpos (ESP), and condly, to describe the activities which rai learners’ awareness of language u. Comparison between the L1 and L2 through translation can help learners to activate language usage and rve as a tool to polish up learners’ English.
132
Methods of rearch
如何快速缓解痛经Rearch methods employ the data of the survey of students’ perceptions of the amount of mother tongue they need in acquisition of professional language at tertiary level and mental translation in various class activities.
Background information: translation and u
of mother tongue in English language teaching
孓
It is necessary to discriminate between the teaching of translation as a vocational skill and the u of translation in the teaching situation as an aid to language learning. The need for some translation in language learning is usually supported by non-native teachers. Native teachers of English argue that foreign language learning needs as much exposure to L2 as possible during the precious classroom time, and any usage of L1 or translation is a waste of time.
In the past, most methods in L2 language pedagogy dictated that L1 should be prohibited in the classroom. Communicative approaches to language learning in the 1970s and 1980s considered the u of L1 as undesirable. However, recently the attitude to mother tongue and translation in language class has undergone a positive change.
T ranslation is sometimes referred to as the fifth language skill alongside with the other four basic skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing): “T ranslation holds a special importance at an intermediate and advanced level: in the advanced or final stage of language teaching, translation from L1 to L2 and L2 to L1 is recognized as the fifth skill and the most important social skill since it promotes communication and understanding between strangers” (Ross 2000).
No matter how good the students are at comprehending authentic reading or listening materi-als, the
majority keeps mentally translating from L2 into L1 and vice versa. This fact makes teach-ers of foreign languages aware of the importance of translation in language classrooms.
Why do students u their mother tongue in class? According to J. Harmer (2001), a principal cau of this L1 u is provoked by the activity, i.e. if students are linguistically incapable of activating vocabulary for a chon task. Another reason is that translation is a natural thing to do in learning a language, and code-switching between L1 and L2 is regarded as naturally developmen-tal. The amount of L1 u by particular students may well have to do with differing learner styles and abilities. “No one is in any doubt that students will u their L1 in class, whatever teachers say or do” (Harmer 2001).
Evidence from rearch into the crucial issue of the L1 u in classrooms around the world is analyzed by G. Mattioli (2004). For instance, L1 u in the Chine classrooms offers evidence that L1 is a valuable tool for socio-cognitive process in language learning. Another reason for L1 u in the classroom relates to the fostering of a positive affective environment. C. W. Schweers (1999) encourages teachers to inrt the native language into lessons to influence the classroom dynamic, provide a n of curity and validate the learners’ experiences.
The real ufulness of translation in English class lies in exploiting it in order to compare grammar, vocabulary, word order and other language points in English and the student’s mother tongue. According to N. J. Ross (2000), if students are aware of the differences, language interfer-ence (transfer) and intervention from their own language are likely to be reduced.
133
Numerous studies indicated that both negative and positive transfer between L1 and L2 was important for development of the interlanguage, the complex system of the learners’ L2. Many teachers recognize that L1 in the classroom is a positive reprentation of interlanguage. The data on interlanguage and language transfer show that it is highly probable that L2 learners will always think most often in their L1, even at the advanced level (Mahmoud, 2006). Moreover, translation in L2 classroom offers a way to highlight similarities and differences between L1 and L2 forms. The translation is uful for L2 acquisition becau, firstly, it us authentic materials, condly, it is interactive, thirdly, it is learner-centered, and finally it promotes learner autonomy (Mahmoud 2006).
Regarding the u of L1 in the L2 classroom, it is important to find out how students themlves feel about it. C. Schweers (1999) conducted a rearch into this issue and found out that a high percenta
ge (88.7%) of the student participants felt that mother tongue should be ud in their English class. Moreover, if learners of a cond language are encouraged to ignore their native language, they might well feel their identity threatened. One of the authors (Janulevièienë and Kavaliauskienë 2000, 2004) participated in a rearch into the u of mother tongue and transla-tion in ESP class. Our data were clo to tho reported by C. Schweers. As many as 86% out of 110 respondents felt that the native language should be ud in the classroom, particularly for explaining difficult concepts (90%), introducing new material (57%),, defining new vocabulary (74%), explaining the link between English and Lithuanian (55%). It is noteworthy that in teach-ing / learning ESP it had been a long-felt dissatisfaction, mainly on the students’ part, about the exclusion or minimal u of translation in mastering complex issues. Learners constantly wished to check the exact meanings of the professional terms in their native language by consulting bilingual dictionaries or asking for teacher’s explanations.
Native language u in the classroom can cau students to think that words and structures in English have an L1 correspondence, which may not exist. Therefore, raising students’ conscious-ness of the non-parallel nature of language allows learners to think comparatively (Atkinson 1993). The important question is how to reach a balance of L1 in the learning process. It is suggested that f
our factors should be considered, namely, the students’ previous experience, the students’ level, the stage of the cour, and the stage of the individual lesson (Atkinson 1993).
The recently published blog on the plenary ssion at the IATEFL Conference in Aberdeen, 18–20 April, 2007, refers to the ideas of a well known linguist Guy Cook, who was a speaker there (online): …The most important statement was the fact that EFL and ESL teachers tend to take a monolingual approach thus neglecting the importance of translation in the process of teaching English. The EFL/ESL classroom cannot follow the motto “One nation, one people, one lan-guage”, a somewhat overrated statement since it implies that a classroom is a state. Quite contrary to that, L1, i.e. the mother tongue of the students, should by all means be acknowledged. The importance is highlighted even more by the fact that the students’ culture is part of their language and by neglecting their language the teacher, in a monolingual classroom, neglects their culture, which leads to the danger of neglecting their identity as well. What is more, there is no valid databa that could confirm the standpoint that the monolingual approach in teaching is the best one. The disregard of the students’ mother tongue can in fact de-motivate the students and be counterproductive. Therefore, there is neither a scientific nor a pedagogic reason to exclude L1 134
from the teaching process. There are probably more reasons, utilitarian and political, to make the us
e of L1 quite valuable in the process of teaching English. The former reason implies that the students would be motivated to think more about appropriate equivalents in their own languages and the latter one, of cour, emphasizes the importance of cultural diversities and tolerance among nations”. T aking into account what has been written above, it is esntial to bring rearch into the u of mother tongue and utility of translation up-to-date.
Recent results of teachers’ voting on the u of mother tongue in the English classroom reveal the following (achingenglish.uk/talk/vote/vote15_mother_tongue.shtml): 21% of respondents u only English, 58% sometimes u mother tongue, 8% – frequently, 7% – most of the time, 6% – about half the time. There were 641 respondents in this rearch.
There is an opinion that “rigidly eliminating or limiting the native language does not appear to guarantee better acquisition, nor does it foster the humanistic approach that recognizes learners’identities (Mattioli 2004). T ranslation as a teaching tool needs to take into account a number of different aspects, such as grammar, syntax, collocation and connotation. Uncritical u of transla-tion may give learners insufficient, confusing, or even inaccurate information about target lan-guage.
供暖温度标准什么流砥柱
窗外景This rearch aims, first, at rating contemporary students’ perceptions of mental translation they employ in learning, and, cond, at sharing the experiences of using translation in class activi-ties. The implications of the usage of mother tongue in learning ESP are described. Respondents and methods
Respondents in this rearch were students specializing in Social Sciences at Mykolas Romeris University and studying English for Specific Purpos. There were 45 participants aged 18 to 22 in this project. They were predominantly females at the pre-intermediate and intermediate levels. The amount of time spent in L2 environment was 4 hours per week for 2 mesters, which amounts to about 130 hours of English instruction. In this study we administered a brief survey designed in accordance with the accepted standards to surveys in Social Sciences (Dornyei, 2003). All the statements were rated on the Likert scale of five possible answers: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 –disagree, 3 – not sure, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree. The obtained data were statistically procesd and interpreted.
Data on learners’ perceptions of mother tongue u
The data were obtained for five groups of students of three specializations: psychology, social work,
and social work at penitentiary institutions. The students were asked to rate 7 statements on the five-point Likert scale. The statements are reproduced below.
1)In English class, I occasionally prefer to u my mother tongue. 1 – strongly disagree, 2 –
disagree, 3 – not sure, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree.
2)In writing activities, I often mentally translate ideas from my mother tongue into English.
1 – strongly disagree,
2 – disagree,
3 – not sure,
4 – agree,
5 – strongly agree.
3)While reading ESP texts I u a bilingual dictionary to translate unknown words. 1 – strongly
disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – not sure, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree.
135
4)In ESP vocabulary tests, it is easier for me to translate terms from English than into English.
1 – strongly disagree,
2 – disagree,
3 – not sure,
4 – agree,
5 – strongly agree.
西昌醉虾5)In listening activities, I mentally translate what I hear. 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree,
3 – not sure,
4 – agree,
5 – strongly agree.
6)Making prentations or giving individual talks, I prefer to look at my notes – I worry about
my English. 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – not sure, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree.
7)In impromptu speaking, I find it hard to recall the ESP terms. 1 – strongly disagree, 2 –
disagree, 3 – not sure, 4 – agree, 5 –strongly agree.
The survey results are summarized in T able 1. Numbers 1 to 7 in T able 1 match the above statements.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Two-Tailed Significance Levels computed for each statement and different groups. The number of respondents: Penitentiary (PN) specialization– 8 students, Psychology (PS) specialization– 20 students, Social Work (SW) specialization – 17 students.
High values of the Means (above 4) point to a strong or simple agreement with the statement. The Mean values around 3 testify learners’ doubts, while values below 3 show disagreement with the statement. Therefore, students, who study penitentiary (first column) and social work (third column), are more likely to u their mother tongue than students of psychology (cond column of T able1).
The data show that all the students are quite positive about the u of mother tongue in English class, but the amount of it depends on learners’ proficiency in English. The less proficient learners of PN specialization require more reference to mother tongue – the Mean values of this group to the statements 1, 3, and 5 are higher. Similarly, the students of SW specialization rated more positively the statements 1, 2, 4, 5, than the students of PS specialization, who are the most proficient out of three specializations. The students of PS specialization generally prefer less code switching in the same linguistic situation – statements 1, 3, 5, and 7. Moreover, in certain cas the PS students are more negative to the u of mother tongue, e.g. the Mean values to the statements 2, 5, and 6 are between 2 and 3.
This trend is quite obvious in Chart 1, where the data show the percentage of positive respons to each statement. The columns are arranged in groups of three: the 1st reprents the positive respons of the PS students, while the 2nd – of the PN students, and the 3rd – of the SW students.
It 136
Chart 1. Percentage of learners of each specialization
who responded positively to statements 1 to 7.
demonstrates that respons to the 1st and 2nd statements are spread out from the lowest for the PS students to the highest for the SW students. The evaluations of the 3rd and 4th statements are almost leveled off. The most significant difference is obrved in the evaluation of the 5th statement
春诵夏弦– the lowest by the PS students and the highest by the PN students, while the respons to the 6th and 7th statements do not differ significantly. Thus, the results demonstrate the importance of mother tongue in learning ESP. T wo main differences in students’ attitudes are 1) the amount of mother tongue that the learners of different specialization need, and 2) the different situations for the u of mother tongue.
In social sciences, experimental data are analyzed using inferential statistics. Statistical compu-tations allow drawing conclusions about the significance of rearch questions. Here it has been important to asss whether the difference between the Means and Standard Deviations for various statements between the groups is significant or not. Statistical significance is the probability that a particular statistical result occurred by chance. The findings were procesd using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The computed ratios p allow to compare how significant are the differences in the Means. The ratios are labeled PN versus PS, PN versus SW, and PS versus SW and are shown in T able 1 (columns 7, 8, and 9). It can be en that p values are different for various statements, and there is a great scattering of p values. The interpretation of p values is as follows: very small p values indicate that there is significant difference between the respons. However if the p values are clo to 1, it means that the differences between the re-spon
s are very few. The results allow drawing a conclusion that, in spite of the small sample of respondents, the data are statistically significant and can be applied beyond the studied sample.
137
