ii

UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL RURAL DE PERNAMBUCO - UFRPE

UNIDADE ACADÊMICA DE SERRA TALHADA - UAST

Translation in EFL Classes:

Friend or Foe?

Serra Talhada

2013
 iii

Edson da Silva Lima

Translation in EFL Classes:

Friend or foe?

Monografia apresentada junto ao Curso de Licenciatura Plena

em Letras da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco,
como requisito à obtenção do título Licenciado.

Orientador: Prof. Me. Paulo Roberto de Souza Ramos

Serra Talhada

2013
 iv

Ficha catalográfica

L732t Lima, Edson da Silva.

Translation in efl: friend or foe? / Edson da Silva Lima. -
2013.
34 f.: il.

Orientador: Paulo Roberto de Souza Ramos.

Monografia (Licenciatura em Letras) – Universidade Federal
Rural de Pernambuco. Unidade Acadêmica de Serra Talhada,
Serra Talhada, 2013.
Referências.

1. Tradução. 2. Ensino. 3. Transferência Linguística. I.

Ramos, Paulo Roberto de Souza, orientador. II. Título

CDD 400
v
 vi

Agradecimentos

Agradeço primeiramente ao meu bom Deus que durante esses anos me

sustentou, fortaleceu e me deu capacidade para alcançar tão digna recompensa
pelos esforços empreendidos; agradeço também a minha esposa, que me suportou
nos momentos difíceis, e muitas vezes me incentivou a vir para a aula mesmo
desejando, e às vezes necessitando, da minha presença junto dela; agradeço a meu
orientador pela calma e compreensão durante o desenvolvimento desse trabalho e
pelas informações preciosas para que ele fosse concluído; agradeço aos meus pais
que sempre prezaram e me incentivaram a buscar uma melhor educação; agradeço
a minha família espiritual que mesmo eu estando ausente sempre me fortaleceu
através de palavras e de orações; mais recentemente agradeço a minha filhinha
que, mesmo sem entender bem, me cedeu momentos preciosos ao seu lado para
que eu pudesse me dedicar à conclusão dessa monografia.
 vii

Dedicatória

Dedico esta monografia a minha família que com fé e confiança me apoio

durante esses anos, aos meus amigos e colegas de estudo pelas trocas de
experiências e suporte mutuo, aos professores pelo simples fato de estarem
dispostos a ensinar e ao meu orientador pela paciência e conhecimento
demonstrados no decorrer do trabalho. Enfim a todos que de alguma forma tornaram
esta caminhada mais fácil de ser trilhada.
 viii

“Even if some words are missing, nothing is

missing from the senses. Leave it to others
to go chasing after words and syllables; you
must look for the sense”.

(Jacques Paul Migne)

 ix

Resumo

Este trabalho visa discutir a questão do papel da tradução no ensino de inglês

como língua estrangeira; bem como a influência dos estudos da tradução nessa
área, e também mostrar a influência da transferência linguística no processo de
ensino-aprendizagem. Os dados sobre transferência e crenças sobre o papel da
tradução foram construídos a partir de testemunho de alunos, de forma heurística a
partir da experiência do autor enquanto professor e da literatura sobre o
assunto. Há também uma preocupação de apresentar historicamente a maneira
como a tradução foi e tem sido usada no ensino de inglês como segunda
língua/língua estrangeira. Por fim, conclui-se com os prós e os contras do uso da
tradução para fins didáticos.

Palavras-chave: Tradução, ensino, transferência linguística.

 x

Abstract

This work aims to discuss the role of translation in the teaching of English as a
foreign language; as well as the influence of translation studies in this area, and also
show the influence of language transfer in the teaching-learning process. The data
about transference and beliefs on the role of translation were built from the testimony
of students, heuristically from the author's experience as teacher, and from the
literature about the subject. There is also a concern to present historically the way in
which translation was and has been used in the teaching of English as second
language/foreign language. Lastly, the work concludes with the pros and cons related
to the use of translation for didactic purposes.

Keywords: Translation, teaching, language transfer.

 xi

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 11

2. TRANSLATION IN EFL CLASSES....................................................................... 13

2.1. Translation Studies in General ........................................................................... 15

2.1.1. Translation and Language Transfer ................................................................. 18

2.2. Translation and Teaching (English Teaching Methods – The “Grammar

Translation Approach (GTA)”) .................................................................................... 20

3. TRANSLATION AS A FRIEND IN EFL CLASSES ............................................... 25

4. TRANSLATION AS A FOE IN EFL CLASSES ..................................................... 27

5. FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................ 30

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 32
 11

1. INTRODUCTION

The main motivation for this work was the incidence of requests for and
questions regarding translation that occurred during regular classes in the English
language school where I work, and also the realization that similar questions and
requests occurred at the university with English/Portuguese major who were my
colleagues there.

The biggest reason for carrying out the present study seems to be the fact
that the presence (or the forced absence!) of translation is still a constant in foreign
language teaching, or in this specific case, in English as a foreign language teaching.
If for the Communicative Approach to translate into the learners’ mother tongue was
something 'forbidden', in previous approaches, such as the Grammar-translation
Method, it was a conditio sine qua non.

The present work aims at dealing with the role of translation (henceforward,
TRL) in English as Foreign Language (henceforth, EFL) classes. Translation and
teaching seem to have been together for a long time. Many teaching methods made
or make plenty of use of it; for instance, the aforementioned Grammar-translation
Method. As Leffa (1988) explains:

Traditionally known as “method” the GTA [grammar-translation approach]

has been the methodology with more time in use in the history of language
teaching, and the one which has received more critics. It arose due to the
interest for Greek and Latin cultures during the renascence and is still being
used until nowadays. (p. 214).

As for EFL teaching, what role does it play in Brazil? Is English taught only as
a foreign language? Is it used for business, for academic purposes (as in English for
Specific Purposes for approaching academic literature, etc.)?

In order to shed some light regarding the main point of this monograph, I am
going to present how translation has been used in EFL classes, the pros and cons of
its use and the role of transfer (hereinafter TRF) in this process. I am also going to
write about translation studies in general to show the importance of translation from
 12

humankind origins up to now, and I am also going to describe two theories about
language diversity, eight TRL methods defined by Newmark (1988), and highlight two
kinds of TRL. Another topic which will be discussed is the relation between TRL and
language transfer, based on theorists like Carl James, Antony Pym, and also some
differences between Portuguese and English. Additionally, I am going to illustrate the
connection between TRL and teaching, specially with the Grammar Translation
Approach, its characteristics, its decline, resurgence, and updated use. The
resourcefulness and not to say recurrence of this method will be illustrated with
feedback taken from an event on teaching and education that took place in São José
do Belmonte – PE in July 2013. Additionally, I am going to deal with some beliefs in
relation to TRL discussed in the 3º Encontro Nacional de Tradutores in a conference
called O ensino da tradução.

The main issue of this work – namely, is TRL friend or foe? – will be treated
separately. First, I am going to deal with the positive aspects of using TRL in EFL,
that is, TRL as a friend. In this part, I am going to focus on the teachers’ and the
students’ beliefs regarding the positive aspects of using TRL in EFL classes; in order
to achieve this goal, I am going to present concepts used by Paul Kaye in Translation
activities in the language classroom and those found in a book called Teaching
English as a Foreign Language for Dummies by Michelle Maxon. Second, I am going
to call attention to the negative aspects of TRL in EFL classes – TRL as a foe.
Similarly to what I did while dealing with positive aspects, I am going to focus on the
teachers’ and the students’ beliefs about it. I am also going to present Paul Kaye’s
and Michelle Maxom’s hypotheses from the abovementioned works; and there will be
suggestions on how to avoid TRL in EFL as presented in Peachey (2005); and some
remarks about the ‘trap’ of language interference.
 13

2. TRANSLATION IN EFL CLASSES

Arguments against and for the use of TRL in EFL can be found in many works.
In Kaye (2009, p.1), for example, it is stated that TRL “was a significant part of ELT
for a long time” and that it was “a significant missing part for a long time also”. For
many years The Grammar-Translation Approach (GTA), which “derives from the
classical method of teaching Greek and Latin”, was used in EFL classes, then that
“with the arrival and then the total dominance of communicative methodologies,
translation was quickly consigned to the past” returning later on as a “tool” to
teaching.

Prodromou (2002. p.166), apud Karjka (2011. p.1-2) gives us some pieces of
advice about the use of the L1 (TRL) in EFL:

a) A drug (though with therapeutic potential, it can damage your health

and may become addictive);

b) A reservoir (from which we draw);

c) A wall (an obstacle to teaching);

d) A window (which opens out into the world outside the classroom; if we
look through it we see the students’ previous learning experience, their
interests, their knowledge of the world, their culture);

e) A crutch (it can help us get by the lesson, but it is recognition of

weakness);

f) A lubricant (it keeps the wheels of a lesson moving smoothly; it thus

saves time).

For those who have even a little experience in EFL teaching, it is possible to
see that the author’s concerns are justified. When he says TRL may be like a drug, I
can easily remember students who during a class would never answer a question
without having it translated into Portuguese; therefore, for them, it was just like an
addicting drug, which besides causing problems to self-steam and learning would
make them feel it is indispensable to understand what was being taught and have a
feeling of satisfaction after having it. It is also possible to contemplate it as a
reservoir, in which we have students ‘thirsty’ for a piece of translation; just like a
person in a desert finding an oasis, they feel that they need it and once they have it
 14

in their hands (or mouths…), the translation into their L1, the thirst will be quenched;
however, whenever this reservoir is not available, be it because they do not know
how to translate something into their L1, be it because the teacher is not eager to use
translation in class, they get angry because their need was not fulfilled. TRL is
regarded as a wall by certain teachers and theorists for reasons that I will explain
now. It is regarded as a wall because it interferes with the so-called normal process
of learning a language for communication. In an entry at the Wikipedia apud
Shannon we find some basic elements which form the communication theory, they
are:

[The] source […] which ‘produces a message or sequence of messages to

be communicated to the receiving terminal’; [the] sender […] which ‘operates
on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission
over the channel’, [the] channel […] ‘merely the medium used to transmit the
signal from transmitter to receiver’, [the] receiver […] [that] ‘performs the
inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing the message
from the signal’, [the] destination […] ‘the person [or thing] for whom the
message is intended’; [and the] message […] a concept, information,
communication or statement that is sent in a verbal, written, recorded or
visual form […]. (WIKIPEDIA, 2013).

If we see translation as a window, it means that this hole in the wall opens out
into the world beyond the classroom; it can also mean students will be able to have a
clear understanding of what they are studying, just like opening a window in a dark
room on a sunny day; nonetheless, if this window is not open they see no other way
to see what is around them clearly. Regarding TRL as a crutch may be recognition of
weakness once it will be concluded that students cannot do without it, they need it to
do well in class, without it, they cannot perform well; nevertheless, it may also be an
accessory tool for some people in specific situations. If we see translation as a
lubricant, we may use it to save time and make a lesson work more easily, but it
might render the work so effortless that students may refuse to make any hard work
to use the target language.

One more thing to be taken into consideration is the dependency of TRL on

transfer. Pym (2010, p.15) claims that, by assuming that there are no closed cultures,
we assume that:

Everything we know about cultures beyond our own has come to us, has
been appropriated or assimilated, through processes of transfer and
translation. Similarly, and as a necessary consequence, everything we
believe or suspect we do not know about other cultures has been at least
prefigured by processes of transfer and translation. (PYM, 2010, p. 15)
 15

Considering all that was said before about TRL, we have to take into account
all aspects discussed, and many others, before starting using TRL in EFL.

2.1 Translation Studies in General

In this section, I intend to offer a general overview of translation studies and the
influence of translation on English language teaching, once, for many years,
humankind has been studying languages and ways of understanding and being
understood among different language groups. The concern of understanding others
and being understood and is closely connected to the way we think TRL nowadays,
but besides the importance of TRL in the communication process it is occasionally
forgotten by learners of L2.

Through translation, people can learn and understand countless things from
diverse places around the world, and even things from our L1. For example, every
time you say or hear something that you do not understand you may be asked to or
ask someone to “translate” what was said into plain language. Sometimes, just by
saying “uh?”, you are asking someone to do some “translation”. Some may say that
this kind of TRL is called paraphrase, since it is in the same language, but according
to Jakobson (1959) quoted by Alberola (2005) it is called intralingual translation,
“interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs in the same language.”
Yet before addressing the issue of TRL, it is relevant to go back to its
beginnings/origins and the first authors to write about it. Eysteinsson and Weissbort
(2006, p.6) highlight that:
The primary writers on translation, historically, have been the translators
themselves. As noted by Peter France, editor of The Oxford Guide to
Literature in English Translation: ‘until quite recently, with few exceptions, it
[i.e. theory] was the work of practitioners, some of them eminent ones.

It is difficult to talk about TRL and not talk about the diversity of natural
languages that exist in our planet. How did it happen? When did it happen? Why did
it happen? Was there a ‘protolanguage’ from which all the others have sprung?
 16

There are many theories about this, and due to its extensiveness, I am going to focus
on two out of many I could have chosen from.
The first theory is based on the Bible passage about the Tower of Babel found
in the Chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis. There we find the following:

1 2
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people
3
moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said
to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.’ They
4
used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let
us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that
we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the
5
face of the whole earth.’ But the LORD came down to see the city and the
6
tower the people were building. The LORD said, ‘If as one people speaking
the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do
7
will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their
8
language so they will not understand each other.’ So the LORD scattered
9
them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That
is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language
of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the
whole earth. (Holy Bible – NIV)

From the above, one gets the concept of the monogenesis, that is, in the
beginning of humanity there was only one language. It is also defended by some
linguists, and was named as the Proto-Indo-European, or PIE. In the Wikipedia entry,
we find that:

[The Proto-Indo-European] is the reconstructed common ancestor of the

Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. PIE was
the first proposed proto-language to be widely accepted by linguists. Far
more work has gone into reconstructing it than any other proto-language,
and it is by far the most well-understood of all proto-languages at its time
depth.

The other concept is called polygenesis. The linguist Carlos Alberto Faraco in
an interview to the website Ciência Hoje explained that according to the polygenetic
theory, there were various languages in the early days of humanity. But when asked
about which of the theories was more accepted scientifically he said that there are no
evidences for or against any of them due to the immateriality of language (verbal
information)1, although we know that many fossils were found through the years that
offer us fragments of ancient languages, a good example is The Epic of Gilgamesh2

1
Interview given by the linguist Carlos Alberto Faraco to the website Ciência Hoje. Available at:
http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/podcasts/A%20origem%20das%20linguas.mp3/view
2
The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient
Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cuneiform script. It is about the adventures of
the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE). Available at:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/
 17

dating between 2750 and 2500 B.C.

TRL is also intrinsically related to the relationship and similarities between

languages for the Target language text (TLT) may be influenced by the translators’
use of the source language text (SLT). Therefore, any similarity and difference
between the L1 and the L2 might effect in the TLT, this influence may or may not
happen and the degree of its impact will depend on the translators’ linguistic
competence. From these differences a translator should decide what type of TRL he
is going to do and the quality of TRL will depend on the kind of TRL he chooses.
According to Newmark (1988, p.45-47), there are eight translation methods:
word-for-word translation (each word is translated into its most common meanings
out of context), literal translation (words are still translated isolated, but grammatical
constructions were transformed into their equivalents), faithful translation (it tries to
translate the contextual meaning from the original into the translation, even cultural
words or norm deviations were preserved) , semantic translation (it differs from the
faithful translation only because it also tries to keep the aesthetic of the original with
its beauty and sounds, the latter is also more flexible than the former), adaptive
translation (it is mainly used for plays; cultural aspects are adapted and the text is
rewritten), free translation (it paraphrases the original, but usually wordy. Newmark
does not regard this one as translation as such), idiomatic translation (it tends to
include idioms and colloquialisms in the translated text where there are not any), and
communicative translation (it deals with the contextual meaning of the original a way
to keep language and content satisfactory).

As for the different kinds of TRL, I will highlight two in particular cited by
Menoufy (2009):

In one, [the faithful translation] the predominant purpose is to express as

exactly as possible the full force and meaning of every word and turn of
phrase in the original, and in the other [the semantic translation] the
predominant purpose is to produce a result that does not read like a
translation at all, but rather moves in its new dress with the same ease as in
its native rendering. In the hands of a good translator neither of these two
approaches can ever be entirely ignored.

Taking these things into consideration we cannot avoid thinking about how
TRL influences in EFL classes, in the students’ learning and in the educators’
teaching methodologies, some examples of influences are going to be discussed,
presented and exemplified in the topics below.
 18

2.1.1 Translation and Language Transfer

Language Transfer is described by Carl James in his article Three

perspectives on transfer and translation as a process in which a learner of a task 2
will have the learning process affect by the learning of a previous task, task 1. James
(1986) Thus, bringing this definition into EFL context we have the term language
transfer which James, on the same article, cites as “the hypothesis that one’s
learning of a foreign language will be conditioned in various ways by the language-
knowledge one already possesses”. In this monograph, I will take language transfer
as the sociocultural concepts that are within each individual and can either influence
the way something is translated or the way it is received; and I am going to address
the issue of TRF, that is, the influence of the learners knowledge of their L1 (In this
case, Brazilian Portuguese) in process of the learning an L2 (English).

TRF has two aspects that need to be taken into account: the first is that
positive TRF (transfer in which the influence of the L1 does not cause problematic
sentences because there are similarities between the L1 and the L2), can give us
good reasons to admit the use of TRL. On the other hand, there is the so-called
negative TRF (the one in which the influence of the L1 causes problematic sentences
because there are few or no similarities between the L1 and the L2), which would
impel us to ban the use of TRL in EFL classes or at least think twice before using it.
Once we have decided to work with EFL classes for Portuguese speakers I could
have understood TRF as something negative due to the differences between
Portuguese and English, I will not be categorical here though, because I realize that
TRF may also be something good even when teaching languages that have
significant differences, this positive side of TRF is explicated by James (1986) as
Learner’s strategy, he states that:

[The learner] can resort to the L1 either in order to solve a problem of L2

learning or to alleviate a problem in L2 communication. Accordingly, TRF
may be either a competence-orientated learning strategy or a performance-
orientated strategy.
 19

From this quote James points out that identifying how a learner uses TRF is
not an easy task it may be a relevant problem.

Examples of differences between Portuguese and English are important to be

shown to exemplify negative TRF:

Difference Portuguese example English example

Adjective Order Um carro azul. A blue car
Interrogative structure Você é feliz? Are you happy?
Negative structure Eu não tenho dinheiro. I don’t have money.

In the first example, it is possible to observe that in Portuguese the adjective

can be placed after the noun; this syntactic rule does not apply to English though. In
the second example, we can see that to make an interrogative sentence in
Portuguese a speaker needs to use the right intonation (In this case a rising one) or
add a question mark in writing. This way, to make a sentence negative in Portuguese
it is not necessary to use an auxiliary verb, but in English it is a demand of standard
English for sentences such as the one used here. A further example could be the
translation of this sentence: "To be, or not to be?" which translated into Portuguese
could lead the translator to translate it into "Ser, ou não ser?" or "Estar, ou não
estar?". This famous question leads us to some thoughts about TRL, which will be
the base for this monograph. First: how useful or harmful can TRL be in the process
of teaching English as a Foreign Language, and second, the role of transfer in
relation to TRL processes that occur in these classes.

Some readers of this work might think that the translation of “To be, or not to
be?” into “Ser, ou não ser?” is so obvious that this question does not make any
sense, but let’s picture two very common scenarios in a TRL process: initially, a
reader who knows nothing, or little, about Shakespeare and his works may have
never heard this famous Hamlet's phrase, so that both translations could make sense
to him; then, a reader who knows Shakespeare’s works and, consequently, this
phrase might think the second translation is absurd.

Another author who wrote about TRF is Anthony Pym, he dedicated a whole
chapter in his book Translation and Transfer – An essay on the principles of
 20

intercultural communication to state that TRL depends on transfer. He treats

translation and transfer as movement; so when one translates one is moving the
meaning from one language to another. The problem here seems to be that
“meaning in production cannot be equated with meaning in reception” Pym (2010,
p.20). Consequently, when translating we have, at least, four kinds of meaning
involved: first, the original meaning, the one that was in the author’s mind when he
wrote or said something; second, the receptor’s meaning, that is, how the receiver
understood what was said; third, how the receiver will translate it to another
language; and fourth, how the receptor of the translation will receive it.

When facing these conditions in EFL classes, teachers may have trouble in
using TRL, because the original meaning of what was translated may not be
transferred to the target language; thus, the student will not receive the original
meaning, instead he may receive the teacher’s understanding of what was translated
rather than the original meaning, moreover the student may even add his own
meaning to it and to make things worse the student will probably use what he learned
with the meaning he learned be it the teacher’s or his own understanding.

2.2 Translation and Teaching (English Teaching Methods – The

“Grammar Translation Approach (GTA)”)

TRL has been used to teach other languages even before the creation of the
grammar-translation approach in the 19th century. In 1500s, TRL was already broadly
used to teach Latin because, at that time, “Latin was the most widely-studied foreign
language due to its prominence in government, academia, and business.” Wikipedia
(2013). However, Latin lost space to other foreign languages about the same time
that the GTA reappears about 400 years later to be used in the teaching of modern
languages.
 21

This approach deals basically with: “(a) Previous memorization of word lists,
(b) knowledge of necessary rules to join these words into phases and (c) translation
and version exercises (theme)”. Leffa (1988).

GTA classes are always in the students’ native language and their attention is
turned essentially to the sentence in depreciation to the context. Accordingly, out of
the four basic communicative skills, namely, listening, speaking, reading, and writing;
only the third is contemplated and then some written exercises that are based on
translation of sentences.

The GTA was used without big problems for about 200 years, from the 17th to
the 19th century, but when other methods like: the direct method, around 1900; the
audio-lingual method, around 1900; the natural approach, late 1970s; the language
immersion, 1960s; and some others appeared its use decreased giddily.

Students and teachers beliefs about the use of TRL in EFL classes were
certainly influenced by the GTA, in a recent event in São José do Belmonte – PE we
offered a workshop in which we asked some teachers and students their opinions
about the use of translation in EFL classes, the main question was: How do you see
translation in your English classes? We offered the possible answers: Indispensable,
dispensable or handy at times. Then we followed their answers with the question:
why do you believe it? The ones who responded it was indispensable justified that
students from basic levels would not understand anything if the classes were totally
in English and the teacher didn’t help using the L1; those who said translation was
dispensable vindicated that the teacher could use many other ways to explain and
help students without the need of translation; and the last group said that translation
could help the teacher hasten some difficult explanation and help students
understand things easily, but they warned that it should not become commonplace.

In order to aid the participants realize that what they had just said about the
use of translation in EFL classes could lead students to errors we offered them some
sentences to be translated into Portuguese, the table below shows the sentences
and the translation possibilities given:

Suggested translations from Portuguese into English from the participants of

the III Jornada Acadêmica de São José do Belmonte, 2013.
 22

English Sentences Suggested Portuguese Translations

Eu estou alto/bêbado.
I am on cloud nine. Eu estou na nuvem nove.
Eu estou nas nuvens.
I’ve got your number. Eu tenho seu número.
He kicked the bucket. Ele chutou o balde.

From these translations, it is possible to see that students tend to translate

using either the word-for-word or the literal translation. And although sometimes one
may have a proper translation using these methods, one aspect that became
apparent was that neither the applicants asked for a context to help them translate
the sentences nor for the genre or kind of text, what, by any means, gave them
“translations” for the sentences, but not the “real” meaning. This experiment shows
that they probably believe TRL can be done without these pieces of information, and,
though it is possible it does not always work, as seen in the first example in which
they translated ‘I am on cloud nine’ into Eu estou na nuvem nove. After having
translated the sentence one could see they had no idea of its meaning, only after
providing them with a context that one of them got to what can be consider a “good”
translation, namely: eu estou nas nuvens. Or in the second example in which they
translated ‘I’ve got your number’ into Eu tenho seu número (word-for-word
translation), there is no problem in this rendition, but in this case they could not find a
better translation, not even after the presenters gave them the context and the same
thing happened with the last sentence in the activity.

Moreover, I asked the participants about the Google Translator, their use of
the tool and their opinion about the results given. It was surprising that none of them
defended this apparatus, on the contrary, they had already realized some problems
related to it particularly that it has no regard for context.

Some traditional beliefs were questioned by Cristina Carneiro Rodrigues in an

article called Desafios ao ensino da tradução: she points out that
We usually hear that poetry is what is lost in translation, that reading a
translation is like kissing a woman through a veil, or looking the back of a
rug, that translation is a necessary evil, that translators are unfaithful, just
like many other clichés turning translation into something inferior.
(RODRIGUES, 2012. p. 14). (My translation).
 23

These and other beliefs were questioned in the 3º Encontro Nacional de

Tradutores in a conference called O ensino da tradução, about the belief that
translator betrays the original, it was said:
As if the ‘betray’, that is, the transformation were not, on contrary, the
very justification for translation, as if a ‘betray’, that is, an entropy and/or
reinterpretation were not inherent to the articulated human language itself,
as if the very original text were not a ‘betray’ in relation to the emitter’s
communicative interaction. (AUBERT, 1987. p. 13). (My translation)
Additionally, about translation as a gift, you have the following claim: “As if the
teaching of translation were dispensable, as if a technique were not transmissible, as
if the existence of formal courses (or informal, which are the translator’s own
everyday experience) had no reason to be” Aubert (1987. p.14) (My translation). And,
maybe the worse, that translation is casual work, about this we have:
As if the market of translation were summarized to the editorial, as if there
3
were no publishers which come to pay up to 1 OTN per page, as if it was
not possible the existence of translators who support their families and
themselves with their work, get to, in some cases, achieve remunerations
equivalents to 70 minimum wages or more. (AUBERT, 1987. p. 14). (My
translation)
The previously mentioned beliefs show that translation is seen as something
relatively easy for the translator, and that researches demonstrate it is usually done
without the necessary respect.
About the use of translation in EFL, Promodrou (2002. p.2-3) presents the
result of a survey realized with 300 students from beginners, intermediate and
advanced levels. From this survey it is possible to grasp what the students think
about the way translation is, or should be, used in class. The percentage shows the
number of students who agree that translation should be used that way.
Subtitles: (B) Beginners; (I) Intermediate; (A) Advanced.

About the use of the L1: B I A

Should the teacher use the students' mother tongue? 66% 58% 29%
Should the students use their mother-tongue? 63% 53% 35%

About the utility of using translation: B I A

Explaining grammar 31% 7% 0%
Explaining differences between L1 and L2 grammar 27% 4% 6%
Explaining differences in the use of L1 and L2 rules 33% 22% 20%
Giving instructions 3% 9% 0%

About the students’ being allowed to use the L1: B I A

3
Obligation of the National Treasury, title of the public debt that was issued in Brazil between 1986
and 1989.
 24

Translating an L2 word into L1 to show they understand it 18% 13% 6%

Translating a text from L2 to L1 to show they understand it 21% 7% 6%
Translating as a test 21% 2% 6%
Source: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/mother-tongue-other-tongue

Promodrou’s survey dealt with many other questions, but the tables above
comprise the data that is more relevant for this monograph.
 25

3. TRANSLATION AS A FRIEND IN EFL CLASSES

The use of TRL in EFL classes is not something intrinsically negative;

depending on the way it is used, who uses it, and when it is used; it can become a
real problem to educators and learners.

Paul Kaye on his article Translation activities in the language classroom

presents both the positive and the negative aspects of using TRL in the classroom he
mentions that:

Designed well, translation activities in the classroom can practise the 4 skills
and the 4 systems […] translation is by its nature a communicative activity;
the challenge is to make sure that the content being communicated is
relevant and that we exploit all possibilities for communication during the
activity […] Translation in groups can encourage learners to discuss the
meaning and use of language at the deepest […] weather we encourage it or
not, translation is a frequently used strategy for learners. If we accept this,
we need to support them in developing this skill in the right way […] Finally,
for many learners developing skills in translation is a natural and logical part
of reaching higher levels, and being able to do this well is highly motivating.

Talking about the good possibilities in the use of TRL in EFL classes, the
abovementioned items have to be filled in some specific ways, i.e.: translation is a
friend when it is used to enlighten lexical matters, the teacher has to be the one to
use it, and, its use has to be done only after all the other options have failed.

If, during an EFL class, the teacher faces problems to have (a) student(s)
understand any lexical or grammar matter, he/she can, since been aware of what
he/she had to teach, prepare visual aids to help the understanding, then, if it fails,
he/she can give more examples without the use of translation.

In the Teaching English as a Foreign Language for Dummies the author

declares that:

Translation isn’t used in most EFL classrooms, but it’s an easy way to check
that students understand certain words. Sometimes you can do a straight,
like-for-like substitution from one language to another. In this case the
students translate in their heads by simply changing the label. (MAXOM,
2009, p.75).
 26

From Maxon’s statement we have another good way to use English in EFL
classes. She points out that translation may be a worthy tool to work with advanced
students Maxon (2009. p. 271):

This [translation] isn’t very common in TEFL but it may be an appropriate

test for more advanced students. The text for translation should include
idiomatic expressions that reveal a student’s ability to understand the more
subtle nuances of the language. (MAXOM, 2009, p.271).

Taking the students’ view into consideration I, many times, see myself in
uncomfortable situations due to their justifications for the use of translation, like: “I
need to know what I have to do, please explain in Portuguese” when receiving
instructions on how to perform an activity; or “Please, explain in Portuguese how to
use this material?” I comprehend that for them the use of Portuguese is necessary
and, despite what some may say, helpful. Once the students know how to perform an
activity or know how to use some specific material their chances of a better progress
in the language learning may be bigger.

Many other ways of using translation as a helpful tool could be given here;
nevertheless I am only going to hold back to the ones presented.
 27

4. TRANSLATION AS A FOE IN EFL CLASSES

In the previous section, we showed ways of using TRL in EFL classes that
could help teachers and/or students, in his section we are going to present the cons
of using translation in them though.

One of the first defenses, so to speak, against the use of translation in

teaching is quoted by Beltran (2006, p.9) apud Lado (1964, p.53) she says that: “A
good translation cannot be achieved without mastery of the second language. We,
therefore, teach the language first, and then we may teach translation as a separate
skill, if that is considered desirable”.

Also quoting Gantenby (1967) she points that: “In relation to the way in which
a child learns its first language, he claims that ‘in the natural course of events, there
is, of course, no translation’”

It is possible to perceive that either Lado’s and Gatenby have plausible

reasons for not to use translation when teaching an L2.

On the other hand we have the students’ view about the use of TRL in EFL
teaching, I remember a student saying: “How can I answer if the teacher does not
translate?” or “I do not understand, translate please?” for him there was no other
option but translation to help him understand what to do.

There are many other reasons for not to use TRL in EFL classes Paul Kaye on
his article Translation activities in the language classroom also demonstrates some
negative sides of using TRL in EFL, on the students point of view, the main ones are:

Translation encourages learners to use L1, often for long periods of class
time, when the aim of modern teaching is to remove it from the classroom.
The skills involved in translation may not be suitable for all kinds of learners
[…] Learners may not see the value of translation as an activity to help them
learn English. KAYE (2009, p.1)

He similarly shows more negative sides on the teachers’ point of view:

Translation activities are tricky to set up and take a lot of preparation […]
The teacher needs to have a sophisticated knowledge of the L1 and the L2
culture […] if a teacher uses L1 I a translation activity then this can
undermine their work to maintain an English-speaking environment in class
 28

[…] Translation is time consuming and difficult. KAYE (2009, p.1)

Some suggestions on how to sidestep using TRL in EFL classes are given by
Peachey (2005, p.1-2), where the author proposes the use of mimes, pictures, clines,
realia, dictionary, explanation, synonyms/antonyms, word formation and context,
among other alternatives. Based on my EFL teacher experience I agree that these
are very useful tools to avoid using TRL, but I also recognize that, sometimes, some
of them are not so useful or not so possible to be put in practice. For example,
although mimes are always at hand they will depend on the teachers’ ability to act
out; pictures may give students a clear definition, but demand material and
preparation; clines may be useful to explain degrees, but students have to be able to
read them; realia give students the opportunity to see and feel the real thing and they
are very positive on teaching, however, depending on what the teacher is teaching
he may have difficulties to find and bring them to class; dictionaries give students
“clear” definitions, but this clearness depend on the students’ knowledge of syntax,
grammar, and even appropriation to decide the best meaning to translate to;
explanation is essential to EFL, but it depends, among many other things, on the
teacher’s knowledge and ability to teach; synonyms and antonyms may be
convenient only if the students know them, otherwise they may become another thing
to be explained, consequently, instead of hasten the class it will hinder it; word
formation might work with some students, but due to its complexity it would take a lot
of time, probably more than the other tools; the last but not the least important is the
context, using it to help students apprehend what is been thought may be vital to
some teachers, especially if he considers that meaning depends on the context, this
is also something I defend here, because, as shown before, the lack of context when
translating may produce inadequate use of the language by students, once they may
use without taking the context into consideration. In addition to all of the above we
have the interference. It is also relevant due to its frequency and influence in
learning, so, when teaching for example the name Michael to a Portuguese learner,
the teacher, if translating, would fall in a phonetics trap, because the sound of the
English name Michael \’maɪkl\ is different from the Portuguese name Michael
\’miʃɑɛu\, consequently, the students would have contact with two different
pronunciations for the written form, but the real problem is that they would tend to
internalize and use the one they are familiarized to.
 29

One more reason to avoid TRL in the abovementioned classes is the

interference, Maxon warns that:

If you do translate in the classroom, you have to be absolutely certain that

what you’re saying corresponds exactly to the students’ language. Students
sometimes expect one language to translate word for word into another, but it
just doesn’t work like that. For example, you can’t translate ‘bon voyage’ into
‘good journey’ if you want to get the sense of the expression. (MAXOM, 2009,
p.20).

From the presented views we could conclude that translation is really a foe in
EFL classes, however in the previous section advocated for its use, therefore, which
aspect of translation is more relevant in EFL? In the next section I will present my
remarks about the two sides of this double-edged sword.
 30

5. FINAL REMARKS

To try to settle my considerations, I am going to pose some questions: is a

knife something intrinsically bad and harmful? Is it inherently good and harmless?
Neither the first nor the second question should have a categorical answer of the
‘yes/no’ kind. The reason for this relativeness is that the tool is not responsible for the
way it is used; thus, it cannot simply be considered bad or good -- it is just a tool with
its in-built characteristics, that is to say, following the metaphor, it will cut whatever
one tries to cut with it.

That being said, let us go back to another question posed at the beginning of
this work about the role of translation in EFL: is it a friend or a foe? This duality is still
very present in the beliefs and ‘studies’ of many teachers, researchers, not mention
the students. Nonetheless, when one compares TRL to a knife, that is, to a tool that
can be put to different uses, one then can see that these two tools can be either good
or bad. Just like any other tool, TRL is not intrinsically good or bad – it is just a tool.
Here I get to my point, TRL as a tool is not a priori a friend, neither is it a foe; the
point is to determine how it is used. The way one uses a knife defines whether it is
something good or bad; if it is used to kill someone, we assume that it is something
bad. If it is used to cut a filet, on the other hand, we see it as something good.

Moreover, when students keep leaning on the crutch of translation, they may
never realize how capable they are to walk by themselves; when they keep addicted
to this ‘drug’, they may not be able to perceive the beauty of the natural learning
process of any language. Finally, and to use another metaphor, when they cannot do
without TRL, they do not realize that the same oasis in the desert which can quench
their thirsty can also drown them.

Furthermore, when students realize that by looking through the window of

translation they may be looking for something outside when what they have the
answer for what they need inside. These learners need to discover that expressions
may depend on more than just the sum of words, and also that words themselves
can be tricky. When this happens, hopefully, these learners may be more prepared to
appreciate the nuances of the language being studied.
 31

Therefore, what is essential to define translation as a friend or as a foe in EFL

is exactly this: the use it is put to. Just like a knife…
 32

REFERENCES

AL MENOUFY, Fatima Ibrahim Ahmed. Problems of dynamic equivalence in

Translation. Translation Directory. Available at: <http://www.translationdirectory.
com/articles/article1495.php>. Access in: 27 jul 2013.

ALBEROLA, Mirian. Translation Studies. El Rincón del Vago. Available at:

<http://html.rincondelvago.com/translation-studies.html>. Access in: 20 ago 2013.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 6023: Informação e

documentação - Referências - Elaboração. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 6024: Informação e

documentação - Numeração progressiva das seções de um documento escrito -
Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 6027: Informação e

documentação - Sumário - Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 6028: Informação e

documentação - Resumo - Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 10520: Informação e

documentação – Citações em documentos - Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 14724: Informação e

documentação — Trabalhos acadêmicos — Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
 33

CAUTRELL, Annie. Esl vs Efl: what’s the difference? In: YAHOO!, voices. Available
at: <http://voices.yahoo.com/esl-vs-efl-whats-difference-474817.html>. Access in: 22
jul 2013.

FARACO, Carlos Alberto. A Origem das Línguas. In: INSTITUTO CIÊNCIA HOJE.
Available at: <http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/podcasts/A%20origem%20das%20
linguas.mp3/view>. Access in 15 jul 2013.

GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD. In: Wikipédia: a enciclopédia livre. Available

at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar-translation_method>. Access in: 8 jul 2013.

JAMES, Carl. Three perspectives on transfer and translation, In: 3º Encontro

Nacional de Tradutores UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 1986.

KAYE, Paul. Translation activities in the language classroom. In: Teaching

English. Available at: <http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/translation-
activities-language-classroom>. Access in: 27 jul 2013.

LANGUAGE TRANSFER. In: Wikipédia: a enciclopédia livre. Available at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_transfer>. Access in: 20 jul 2013.

LEFFA, Vilson J. Metodologia do ensino de línguas. In BOHN, H. I.;

VANDRESEN, P. Tópicos em linguística aplicada: O ensino de línguas estrangeiras.
Florianópolis: Ed. da UFSC, 1988. p. 211-236.
 34

LIBERATTI, Elisangêla. A tradução na sala de aula de LE: (des)construindo

conceitos. Fortaleza: Entrepalavras - ano 2, v.2, n.1, p. 175-187.

MAXON, Michelle. Teaching English as a Foreign Language For Dummies.

Chichester. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p. 74-75.

Ibdem, p. 269-271.

NEWMARK, Peter. A textbook of translation. Kxeter. A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd. 1988.
p. 45-47.

PRODROMOU, Luke. From mother tongue to other tongue. In: Teaching English.
2002. Available at: <http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/mother-tongue-other-
tongue>. Access in: 01 jul 2013.

PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE. In: Wikipédia: a enciclopédia livre.

Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language>. Access
in: 10 jul 2013.

PYM, Antony. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of

Intercultural Communication. Tarragona. Intercultural Studies Group, 2010. p. 15-18.

SHAKESPEARE, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Available

at: <http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.3.1.html>. Access in: 20 ago 2013.

THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH. In: ACADEMY FOR ANCIENT TEXTS. Available at:
<http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/>. Access in: 30 jul
 35

2013.

THE TOWER OF BABEL. In: BIBLE GATEWAY. Disponpivel em:

<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11&version=NIV>.
Access in: 12 jul 2013.

THEORY OF COMMUNICATION. In: Wikipédia: a enciclopédia livre. Available at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_communication>. Access in: 11 jul 2013.

TRADUÇÃO. In: WIKIPÉDIA, a enciclopédia livre. Available at:

<http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tradu%C3%A7%C3%A3o&oldid=3600153
9>. Acess in: 5 jul. 2013.