1. THE ROLE OF TRANSLATION IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(An Analysis)
Magdalena Bobek
Introduction
Scott Thornbury, 'well-known teacher educator and materials writer' (Ferrer date not given:3),
has argued that ‘[t]ranslation offers the psychological support that eases the first daunting
experiences with an unfamiliar language', and maintains that 'by recognizing the validity and
the relevance of the learners’ mother tongue in learning a second language, a GT approach
does not devalue the learners’ culture, background and experience to the extent that an
‘English only’ approach might seem to’(Gray 2009:2). In the light of the module reading
material and my experience in English Language Teaching (ELT), I would like to discuss the
relevance of this suggestion by first looking at reasons for neglecting translation as a method
in ELT, analysing the significant role of the learner's mother tongue (L1) in second language
learning (SLL), showing how translation can be incorporated in the ELT classroom, and
finally by having a look at some issues related to using and/or overusing it.
The Neglect of Translation in ELT
Cook's assertion regarding the indispensible need for translation 'in today's multicultural
societies and globalized world', is well taken, as is the fact that it is also 'the cornerstone of
any hope for international peace and cooperation' (2007:398). One would, therefore, expect it
to have a leading role in ELT. It is surprising, however, that of all the methods used, grammar
translation seems to be the least admired and least practised by both experienced and
inexperienced language practitioners. Atkinson informs us that 'in teacher training very little
attention is given to the use of the native language', because it is often assumed that 'it has no
role to play' (1987:241). In applied linguistics 'very little attention has been given to the role
of translation as either a means or an end of learning English' (Cook 2007:396). Apart from
the occasional mention made 'in its defence' by some linguists, it 'has remained only marginal
in mainstream applied linguistic and English language teaching theory' (ibid). This 'gap in
methodological literature' is one of the reasons why many teachers are uneasy about 'using or

2. permitting the use of the students' native language in the classroom' (Atkinson 1987:241).
Translation has been considered 'retrograde and useless […] inevitably connected to
authoritarian teaching, dull lessons, form rather than function, writing rather than speech,
accuracy rather than fluency, and laboured rather than automated production' (Cook,
2007:396-397). It has been associated with 19th century language learning which
concentrated mainly on the study of the classics and on translating texts that were 'unrelated
thematically' and 'made little pedagogic sense' (Gray 2009:6-7). With the appearance of
modern foreign languages in the school curriculums and the ever-growing importance of 'oral
proficiency' in the foreign language being taught, the use of L1 in SLL began to lose validity
(ibid:12).
Proponents of the English only philosophy, many of whom I have come across, are reluctant
to using any materials whatsoever in their teaching other than those published by native-
speaking authors, and deem translation as 'time-consuming, boring and irrelevant'
(Štulajterova 2008:no pagination). Atkinson points to 'a tendency in EFL to opt for methods
and techniques which are 'exotic' and 'modern' or which demonstrate specialized knowledge
possessed by the teacher' which somehow justify their 'status as professionals' to avoid the
'uncomfortable feeling' of their supremacy in foreign language knowledge being questioned
and jeopardized by their students (1987:242).
Learners are nonetheless very dependent on their L1 especially at the beginning stage of SLL.
In Widdowson's words, even though 'teachers try to keep the two languages separate, the
learners in their own minds keep the two in contact' (2003:150). It is not only a natural and
inevitable process for second language learners to be 'constantly referring to, and making
comparisons with their L1', but it is also, in Thornbury's words, 'a sound cognitive strategy'
(personal communication 2000 in Gray 2009:9). The question that comes to mind is whether
prohibiting learners from using their L1 in the ELT classroom has any sort of impact on
acquiring their second or foreign language (L2) or on their future endeavours with SLL?
The Importance of L1 in SLL
It cannot be denied that by hearing and using English, learners gradually begin to internalize
it. However, according to Phillipson, acquiring a second language in a monolingual setting
'implies the rejection of the experiences of other languages, meaning the exclusion of the

3. child's most intense existential experience' (1992:189), which, as Auerbach explains, 'may
impede language acquisition precisely because it mirrors disempowering relations' (1993:16).
Like Garcés, I am convinced that 'the development of any foreign language teaching […]
program involves dealing with 'real teachers', 'real students', 'real data', and coping with 'real
circumstances' and that 'the more closely a second language teaching program is based on the
specific needs of the students, the more successful and effective the course will be'(1998-
99:31-32). We must not forget that 'the thinking, feeling, and artistic life of a person is very
much rooted in their mother tongue' (Piasecka 1986:97), and becomes the driving force in
learning to speak and use a new language. It is, therefore, wise to 'promote the fruitful co-
existence of both languages' (Garcés 1998-99:32), otherwise learners are denied 'the right to
draw on their language resources and strengths'(Auerbach 1993:22). Even if their literacy in
L1 is minimal, it plays an essential role in SLL. Project research dealing with language
education of immigrants and refugees in monoligual ESL (English as a second language)
adult classes in the US and Canada has shown that learners with little L1 literacy background
and schooling feel 'a strong sense of exclusion in their English classes', because of the
difficulty they have in making any progress in their L2, and end up dropping out of the course
(ibid:18). The low self-esteem and intimidation that they experience in these monoligual
classes can further exclude them in the outside world as they cannot enrole into more
advanced ESL courses, which in turn limit their employment possibilities (ibid). 'A
monolingual approach throws learners in at the deep end', leaving them with a sense of
'insecurity' where they are left to fend for themselves or 'give up in despair' (Thornbury
personal communication, 2000).
The bilingual approach, on the other hand, allows for 'language and culture shock to be
alleviated', 'validates the learners' lived experiences' and 'supports a gradual developmental
process in which use of the L1 drops off naturally as it becomes less necessary' (Auerbach
1993:19-20). In other words '[l]earners do not have to relinquish their mother tongue
personality when they enter the L2 classroom', but can use it to their advantage as 'a resource'
allowing for 'learner centered curriculum development' (Gray 2009:9), where L2 is presented
'as an extension or alternative realization of what the learner already knows' (Widdowson
1979:111). Once learners have become aware of the inevitable link between their mother
tongue and the target language, even the slowest among them gradually gain more confidence
in L2 and start actively participating in L2 activities.

4. However, even though translation activities enable learners to 'explore the potential of both
languages' (Štulajterova 2008:no pagination), there are criticisms against using translation or
the learners' L1 in any form for that matter, in ELT classes. According to Gray '[m]any of the
arguments against translation are ones 'against nineteenth century accretions […] which are in
no way intrinsic to a bilingual methodology' (2009:9-10). Objections to using L1 in ELT can,
however, be 'justified', as Popovic (date not given) explains, if the only and 'principle practice
technique' involved in using it in the class is merely 'the regular combination of grammar
rules with translation into the target language'. Only when properly integrated into the
learning process can translation 'provide the linguistic and pragmatic competence needed to
master the language' (Garvés 1998-99:34).
Incorporating Translation into ELT
It is important to remember that in deciding whether or not to use translation depends on the
learners' 'preferences', the teacher's 'pedagogical objectives and the moment-by-moment
exigencies of the teaching context and situation [he or] she is in' (Popovic, no date given:no
pagination). Translation does not have to be a boring activity carried out in isolation or
limited to 'the presentation of lexical items' (ibid). Contrary to what some practitioners and
linguists might think, translation does have cognitive value. Gray (2009:10) points out that:
[t]here is no reason why L2 speaking and listening activities cannot occur in a grammar
translation class, no reason why students cannot be asked to induce grammatical rules
from examples, and no reason why the texts which are chosen cannot be motivating for
students.
It can, for example, help raise 'awareness of the role of context and register' as well as
'linguistic awareness' (Popovic, no date given:no pagination). In Popovic's examples [see
Appendix 1] translation is used as a communicative strategy giving learners the opportunity to
compare and debate their translations of the same text with those of their peers as well as
choose and evaluate the best version (ibid). Group work 'can involve a high degree of
consultation on the part of learners and facilitate their ability to notice significant L1/L2
differences and similarities' (Gray 2009:11). This activity can also be appropriated for
younger learners by choosing easier texts to translate and allowing the major part of their
group discussions to be carried out in L1.

5. Texts and other materials used for translation need not be limited only to the ones in the
coursebook. Using texts with which learners can identify, help to activate their schemata, such
as in the example cited by Auerbach (1993:19) [see Appendix 2], where beginner learners
write about their life experiences in their L1 or in a mixture of L1 and English. The texts,
which are then translated into L2, not only help the learners overcome problems of
'vocabulary, sentence structure and language confidence', but also serve as meaningful
material to work with during the learning process, giving it a learner-centered dimension
(Shamash 1990:72).
By using a wide range of materials such as magazine and newspaper articles, instruction
manuals, in short, material from their everyday life (Gracés 1998-99:33-34), with a 'full
range of styles and registers', learners gradually realize that 'it is not always possible to attain
exact equivalence' in language translation (Štulajterova 2008:no pagination), and that
meaning can often be elicited from context instead of translating word for word, a common
problem with young learners. Because they are not aware that the basic vocabulary of English
is highly polysemous, they often 'lose the general meaning of the message being conveyed'
(Bobek in Hudelja 1998:425-426). When a polysemous word is encountered within a given
text, further insight regarding its additional meanings should be discussed, so that students
understand it in its different contexts and learn to use it properly. The word light, for example,
which according to Longman (1995:818), is 'the energy from the sun […] that allows you to
see things', has other meanings as well, such as 'a light beer (not strong); a light bag (not
heavy) […] or give me a light (a match)' (Bobek in Hudelja 1998:425). The same is true of
the ''false friends' phenomenon', mentioned by Gray (2009:11), which can make translation a
bitter experience for learners of certain L1 languages. Thornbury (2001 in Ferrer, no date
given:4) assures us that it is not wise to wait for mistakes to occur, because they 'inevitably'
will, but to 'take things head-on', that is train students to avoid them with the help of
translation instead of considering it to be only an 'interference' from L1.
Learners are sometimes frustrated when expected to carry out a discussion or a role play in
the classroom because of 'the limited corpus of language they possess' and teachers
automatically expect them to 'think in English' (Atkinson 1987:245). By supplying them with
a translation of what they cannot yet say in L2, or in Thornbury's words by 'scaffold[ing]
learners' production of language' (Ferrer, no date given:3), they are given 'the opportunity to
notice how their intended meaning is realised in the target language', which helps restructure

6. their interlanguage and develops their communicative competence (ibid:5). The activity
instructions in the books I use [see Appendix 3] are based primarily on this concept. L2
instructions are accompanied by L1 translations making it easier for beginner learners to
understand what is expected of them. The constant oral and written comparison between L1
and L2 gradually leads to a better understanding of more complicated instructions later on in
their SLL when the L1 equivalent is no longer available.
The same holds true when comparing and contrasting parallel L1 and L2 texts. Learners
gradually begin to notice particular differences in the grammatical structures between the two
languages, such as the structure of the passive voice and conditional sentences or differences
in the pragmatic aspects of L2 (Garcés 1998-99:34). They can identify similar collocates and
idiomatic phrases more easily, and become aware of the difference in literal and/or figurative
meaning (Titford 1983:54-55), thus increasing 'their feeling for communicative
appropriateness' in L2 (Garcés 1998-99:34). Since 'meaning in English is conveyed not only
through choice of words, but also by intonation, shifting stress, and the use or not of
contracted forms', all of which might be expressed differently in the learner's L1 (Gray
2009:11), the teacher can use intonation to indicate to the students that there is something still
not acceptable about a particular sentence, which will trigger further reactions from the
learners (Titford 1983:54).
Translation can simplify many a task in ELT. The most complicated grammatical structures in
a foreign language can often be quickly overcome by 'a simple explanation or demonstration
of the rule, followed by a translation exercise' (Atkinson 1987:244). Using L1 to check for the
comprehension of a listening or reading text (ibid:243) may be more effective and faster
because it involves the whole class thereby helping less capable students understand and
follow more easily. However, implementing the learners' L1 in ELT is not always an easy
task.
Concerns and Possible Solutions Involving the Use of L1
One of the major risks involved in using L1 in ELT is overusing it, which can lead learners
and teachers to forget about the semantic and pragmatic distinctions between the languages
and begin using 'inaccurate translations' (ibid:246). Learners may resort to using L1 even
when they are quite capable of expressing their thoughts in L2 (ibid) or may rely too much on

7. translation instead of working out meaning from context (Ferrer, no date given:3). Garcés
makes the point that there is risk involved in extensively using any method, and advocates the
'sporadic use' of L1 adapting it to 'the educational goals' of the learners (1998-99:33).
In the case of native-speaker English teachers who do not share their learners' culture or L1,
despite their 'requisite qualifications', cannot use L1 as a resource in the classroom (Auerbach
1993:25), and must resort to other teaching methods at their disposal, such as the
communicative approach. They can overcome the feeling of isolation, however, by jointly
teaching with non-native speaker colleagues, a very successful technique which has been
introduced in many schools worldwide through projects like Comenius and Erasmus, leading
to a better understanding and interpretation of both languages and cultures.
When teaching L2 in a multilingual class, which is often the case of ESL, the language
teacher is compelled to use the 'English only' approach, as it is virtually impossible to
incorporate the learners' L1 due to the numerous language backgrounds the learners all come
from (ibid:23). One way of addressing this problem is by having students explore 'the
particular functions and consequences of using L1 when several language groups are present',
and giving them the option of deciding the extent to which L1 should be used in the classroom
(ibid:24). It has been found that when called upon 'to regulate language use themselves',
students 'consciously use the target language more […] and […] gain a greater sense of
control over their own learning', which helps them think critically in addressing similar
language problems outside the classroom (ibid).
Conclusion
Even though still undervalued, translation undoubtedly plays a significant role in SLL. If we
accept 'the universal tendency', asserted by Thornbury (personal communication, 2000) that
learning a new language 'proceeds by building from the known to the unknown', then the
constant interactions that learners experience between their L1 and L2 during the SLL process
are not only justified, but also inevitable. As a cognitive strategy L1 is a resource 'which the
learner actively draws [on] in interlanguage development' (Ellis 1994:343), thus providing
them with the psychological support needed in releaving the tension that an unfamiliar
language may bring.

8. APPENDIX:
1.
Translation activity
Aim: Raising awareness of the role of context and register.
Step 1: Divide the text into three parts, A, B and C; form groups of three and give each a
different section to translate.
Step 2: The students who were given the same portion of the text form new groups of three in
which they compare and discuss their translations. They also try to agree on a best version.
Step 3: The students go back to their original groups, put the translated text together, discuss
it and make necessary changes.
Post-translation activity
Aim: Raising linguistic awareness through translation
Step 1: The students compare and discuss their versions and fill in a comparison chart.
Good Not too bad Not good
(After Atkinson 1993, and Eadie 1999)
2.
Here is one of many examples cited by Auerbach of how the use of L1 can bridge difficulties
in acquiring L2:
'Shamash (1990), for example, describes an approach to teaching ESL used at the Invergarry
Learning Center near Vancouver which might be considered heretical by some: Students start
by writing about their lives in their L1 or a mixture of their L1 and English; this text is then
translated into English with the help of bilingual tutors or learners and, as such, provides ''a
natural bridge for overcoming problems of vocabulary, sentence structure and language
confidence (p.72). At a certain point in the learning process, according to Shamash, the
learner is willing to experiment and take risks with English. Thus, starting with the L1
provides a sense of security and validates the learners' lived experiences, allowing them to
express themselves ''while at the same time providing meaningful written material to work
with'' (p.75).'
(Shamash 1990 in Auerbach 1993:19)

9. 3.
Here are a few examples of textbook and workbook instructions showing how L1 can be used
to scaffold L2 in written form. In examples 1 and 2 the instructions are gradually internalized
with the help of L1. Then in example 3 the instructions are no longer accompanied by the
Slovenian translation, as the learners at this stage are expected to understand and use similar
instructions on their own in L2.
* beginner coursebook (Happy Street) – grade 4 – easily understood instructions
Example 1: Say the rhyme. (accompanying Slovenain equivalent): Povej pesmico.
(Maidment and Roberts 2002:21)
* workbook – grade 7 – more demanding instructions based on grammar knowledge.
Example 2: Underline the correct possessive pronouns or possessive adjectives
(accompanying Slovenian equivalent): *Podchrtaj ustrezno obliko zaimkov.
(Goodey, Bolton and Goodey 2005:67)
* coursebook (Messages 3) – grade 8 – instructions without accompanying Slovenian
equivalents.
Example 3: Make sentences in the present perfect affirmative or negative, using these
past participles.
(Goodey, Goodey and Craven 2006:73)
Note: *Podchrtaj – because of the difficulty in typing the special letters of the Slovenian
alphabet, I have used ordinary letters to create the sound [tʃ].

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?. ELT
Journal, 41/4:241-247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. London: Longman.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 27/1:9-32.
Bobek, M. (1998). TRANSLATING WITHIN LANGUAGE TEACHING. In N. Hudelja (1998).
Vestnik. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
Cook, G. (2007). A thing of the future: translation in language learning.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17/3: 396- 401.
Eadie, J. (1999). A Translation Technique. ELT Forum, 37/1: 2-9.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ferrer, V. Using the mother tongue to promote noticing: translation as a way of
scaffolding learner languag.
Available at:
http://www.teachenglishworldwide.com/Articles/Ferrer_mother%20tongue%20to
%20promote%20noticing.pdf
[Accessed on: 30th April, 2009]
Garcés, C. V. (1998-99). SOME PEDAGOGICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF
THE CONTRASTIVE STUDIES IN ELT.
Available at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo
=227001&orden=61059 -
[Accessed on: 10th May, 2009]
Gray, J. (2009). Methodology and Materials in ELT. London: University of East London.
Goodey, D., Goodey, N. and Craven, M. (2006). Messages 3. (Slovenian version)
Cambridge and Ljubljana: Cambridge University Press and Rokus Publishing.
Goodey, N., Bolton, D. and Goodey, D. (2005). Messages 2. (Slovenian version) Cambridge
and Ljubljana: Cambridge University Press and Rokus Publishing.
Hudelja, N. (1998). Vestnik. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta
Longman Corpus Network. (1995). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow:
Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom In S. Nicholls & E.

11. Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Current issues in teaching English as a second language to
adults (pp. 97-103). London: Edward Arnold.
Popovic, R. The place of translation in Language Teaching.
Available at: www.sueleatherassociates.com/pdfs/Article_translationinlanguage
teaching.pdf-
Accessed on: [25th April, 2009]
Maidment, S. and L. Roberts. (2002). Happy Street 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shamash, Y. (1990). Learning in translation: Beyond language experience in ESL. Voices
2(2): 71-75.
Štulajterova, A. (2008). The Place of Translation in English Language Teaching.
Available at: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/dec08/sart01.htm
[Accessed on: 12th May, 2009]
Thornbury, S. (2001). Uncovering Grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers.
Titford, C. (1983). Translation for advanced learners. ELT Journal. Vol.37/1: 52-57.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). The deep structure of discourse and the use of translation.
In H.G. Widdowson (ed.),Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.