A New Direction in Translation Pedagogy

8/18/2019 A New Direction in Translation Pedagogy

1/6

83

A New Direction in Translation Pedagogy: Task-based Translation Teaching

Reza Rezvani

Rouhollah Askari Bigdeli

Yasouj University

AbstractConsistent with the frustrating proliferation of theoretical treatments, for the most part unhelpful

dichotomous and polytomous categorizations, in Translation Studies, translation teaching complacently

continued with the prevailing and powerful “read and translate” directive (Rezvani, Riazi, & Sahragard,

2011). Translation teaching at Iranian universities is no exception to this lingering trend. This is partly

due to the lack of principled approach and guidelines allowing for reflective translation practice.

Responding to this formidable problem, this paper constitutes an attempt to provide a linkage between

the promising task-based teaching and translation task drawing on the wealth of studies and recourses

from the neighboring field of language teaching and learning. Principled guidelines are, as such, put

forward taking into account both translation process and product. Resting on tasks as the vehicle of

teaching/learning engagement, the guidelines concern pre-task, main task, and post-task together with

the procedures involved in each stage. This paper will carry significant implications to higher educationtranslation pedagogy.

Keywords: translation teaching, task-based teaching, read and translate directive, translation teaching

guidelines

IntroductionAccording to Menck (1991), emergence of translation is concomitant with the translation of classics

from Greek and Latin literature into other languages. At the center of this trend was so-called Grammar

Translation Method. The basic tenet of this approach was to enable students to translate some

decotexualized sentences from one language to another. In other words, finding one-to-one equivalence

for vocabularies included in the text was the main task students had to do in the course of translation.

Although the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) has been under attack universally in the realm oflanguage teaching, its continuing influence is still very much felt today and, to a great extent, has

influenced people‟s perception of what translation is and how it should be done (Menck, 1991; Jakobsen,

1994). The legacy of GTM in translation teaching is what González Davies (2004) has called “r ead and

translate” directive. He notes that using “read and translate” directive for teaching translation is probably

as outdated and unfruitful as using the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) for teaching a foreign

language. Rezvani, Riazi, and Sahragard (2011), further, raise arguments over the use of this approach in

order to teach translation in Iranian universities. In this approach, which exclusively takes into account

just the product of translation without any consideration of translation process, students‟ focus of

attention is to consolidate and test the lexis and grammar of the given text. Accordingly, Translation is

mainly composed of matching grammatical rules and vocabulary on one-to-one equivalence basis.

Having raised critical voices in translation pedagogy, Hurtado Albir (1999) argued that there has been alack of systematic pedagogical framework in translation teaching. House (1981, as cited in Calzada

Pérez, 2005:1) characterized the typical translation learning setting as follows:

The teacher of the course … passes out a text (the reason for the selection of this text is

usually not explained …). This text is full of traps, which means that the teachers do not set

out to train students in the complex and difficult art of translation, but to snare at them and

lead them into error. The text is then prepared … for the following sessions and the whole

group goes through the text sentence by sentence, with each sentence being read by a

different student. The instructor asks for alternative translation solutions, corrects the

suggested version and finally presents the sentence in its final “correct” form … This

procedure is naturally very frustrating for the students.

In González Davies (2004), it is noted that as opposed to a rich body of research on translation theoriesand process, little has been written on translation teaching and class dynamics. He argues that new

Published in the proceedings of the first national conference on issues in English literature and language teaching: New trends and criticisms,

2 May 2012. Lorestan, Iran (pp. 638-643).


2/6

83

alternatives are to be proposed and developed in the lieu of using “read and translate” directive in

translation classes. For this reason, this paper begins with a brief introduction to task based teaching and

then drawing on the principles of task-based teaching, some pedagogical guidelines will be proposed

taking into account both translation process and product.

Task-based teachingRecent developments in second and foreign language teaching and learning have proposed alternative

ways of language teaching. According to Rahimpour (2008), a better understanding of language learning

process has culminated in the emergence of task-based language teaching. Different models have been

put forward for task-based instruction (see for example Nunan, 1989; Skehan, 1998; Willis & Willis,

1987). The most frequently used framework has been proposed in Willis (1996). Willis‟s framework is

composed of three stages, namely pre task, task, and post task. Each stage prepares the ground for

activities that help students complete the task. Pre task stage includes some activities teachers and

students do before moving to the task stage. As Ellis (2006) points out, these activities can vary from

providing the necessary background knowledge and procedure to introducing and familiarizing students

with the topic and the task to be performed. Lee (2000) underlines the importance of 'framing' the task

with the aim of helping students understand what they are required to do.

In task stage, students carry out the task individually or in groups. The teacher ‟s role, in this stage, is to

monitor students‟ performance and offer support (Willis, 1996). In fact, the teacher should encouragestudents to take part doing the task and make sure that they are clear about the objective of the task. In

post task stage, according to the framework proposed in Willis (1996), students report what they have

prepared to the class or to the teacher. After completing the task individually or in groups, there would

be a curiosity among students to discover how others do the same task. When they report their

performance, in spoken or written form, to the whole class or to the teacher, they will realize how well

they have performed the task (Willis, 1996). In this sense, the post task stage can be used for the purpose

of conducting a feedback on the success of the task and considering suggestions for improving it.

Students may wish to discuss such issues as working together, performing in a group, things they

enjoyed doing, things they didn‟t enjoy and so on. Evaluation of the task will provide teachers with

helpful information when planning further tasks.

Task-based teaching in translation pedagogyHaving considered translation in foreign-language teaching as a means to an end rather than as an end in

itself, Menck (1991) argues that translation in foreign-language teaching is following radically different

objectives, and students are not aware of functions and problems of translation. They embark on

translating without properly understanding the ST and thus they tend to transfer word for word

equivalence from ST to TT. As a result, their translations abound with the occurrence of SL words and

structure.

Teaching translation at Iranian universities is no exception to this lingering trend. A glance at the

existing methodology used to teach translation courses in Iranian universities indicates that objectives of

these courses have been either misunderstood or hard to achieve. As suggested by Razmjou (2002), it is

imperative that translation classes shift from teacher centeredness to student centeredness so that

students can have more cooperation rather than competition. She also highlights the need for change in

the methodology used by instructors of translation teaching courses.

González Davies (2004) holds that language learning could be the closest relative to translation training,

so approaches and methods proposed in order to teach language could be altered, adapted and integrated

so as to teach translation. Elsewhere he mentioned that, nowadays, using “read and translate” directive

for teaching translation is probably as outdated and unfruitful as using the Grammar Translation Method

(GTM) for teaching a foreign language. To avoid such a prevailing and powerful “read and translate”

directive as described by Rezvani, Riazi, and Sahragard (2011), proposals have been put forward to

apply task-based teaching and learning to translation teaching (González Davies, 2004; Hurtado Albir,

1999).


3/6

846

After delineating problems running with the current state of translation teaching as well as considering

proposals put forward in favor of applying task-based in translation teaching, we, now, turn to five

pedagogical guidelines proposed drawing on the principles of task-based instruction. It is worth noting

that the purpose of this paper is not to propose a method for teaching translation because as it is argued

by González Davies (2005) no single and final methodology can be found to teach translation. However,

teaching can be carried out in a way that it actively engages students in the learning process.

Use task as an organizational principleLong and Crookes (1987) argued that task would be a proper unit of instruction. Teachers can thus

organize instruction around tasks, not methods or approaches. Nunan (1993) distinguishes between two

kinds of tasks: real-world task and pedagogical task. The former bearing a close resemblance with the

tasks in the real world is designed to help learners acquire skills so they can function in the real world.

However, the latter is intended to function as a bridge between the classroom and the real world, in the

sense that they are designed with the aim of preparing students for the real world. González Davies

(2004) and Nunan (1989) maintain that translation classes can encompass both pedagogical and real-

world tasks. Pedagogical tasks should be design with the aim of enhancing students‟ skills to carry out a

more complex translation performance. Using texts to raise students‟ awareness of linguistics,

encyclopedic, and transfer skills can serve as pedagogical task. However, there should still be some

other tasks as real-world tasks, such as glossary building from the texts used in the classroom to

complement published material. Real-world tasks will prepare students for their future professional life.Hence, depending on the course objective and students‟ knowledge and skill in translation, teacher can

utilize both kinds of tasks in the course on teaching translation.

Emphasize both process and product of translationTo accomplish both the process and product of translation, each translation task can be completed in

three stages, that is, pre-task, during task, and post-task. Ellis (2006) maintains that pre-task stage

encompasses the various activities that teachers and students can perform before they start the main task.

These activities can vary from providing the necessary background knowledge and procedure to

introducing and familiarizing students with the topic and the task to be performed. Willis (1996) holds

that in during task stage, students carry out the task individually or in groups. The teacher role, in this

stage, is to monitor learners‟ performance and offer support. After task completion, in post-task stage,students report what they have prepared to the class or to the teacher. In this sense, the post task stage

can be used for the purpose of conducting a feedback on the success of the task and considering

suggestions for improving it. These stages can be incorporated into the steps Hatim and Mason

(1990:21) put forward in the translation process. They argue that each translation can be carried out in

three steps:

1. Comprehension of the source text

2. Transfer of meaning

3. Assessment of the target text

In the pre-task stage, issues with regard to comprehension of the source text are addressed. González

Davies (2004) points out that before students start their work on translation, some basic issues such as

topic, text type, the target reader, and questions regarding comprehension of the text should beaddressed. When the objective of task and instruction on how students go through the task explained,

and the problems associated with understanding the text worked out, students can move to the second

stage and engage in translating the task individually or in groups. The teacher role, in this stage, is to

monitor students‟ performance and offer support where needed. After task completion, in post-task stage

students can report their performance to the teacher or to the class and, thus, can understand and evaluate

their peers‟ choices. Moreover, students can reflect on translation problems and solutions, and discuss

their justification of choices with regard to target language.

Promote cooperative learningIn general education, cooperative or collaborative learning has long proved to be a strong facilitator of

learning (Kagan, 1989). On the integration of cooperative learning and task-based language education,Tinker Sachs (2007) holds that cooperative learning can be promoted when students of different


4/6

84

proficiency levels can help one another. Lightbrown and Spada (1999) argue that since task-based

instructional environments are goal-directed, the focus will be directed, accordingly, to communication

and cooperation. In task-based instruction as students are working in groups, writing, rewriting and

editing their texts, they are creating opportunities for collaborative learning (Pullin Stark, 2005).

Cooperative learning can result in an increase in communication, group cohesion, and social skills. It can

bridge linguistic and cultural diversity that, consequently, contribute to more effective learning. In

translation teaching, this is not about giving students different parts of a text to translate or about making

groups that do not cohere. It is about providing the ground for a working atmosphere where each student

feels actively engaged in doing task, and responsible for, the process and the end product (Bassano &

Christison, 1994; Bennet, Rohlheiser-Bennet & Stevhan, 1991; González Davies & Català, 1994; Holt,

1993; Kessler 1992; Slavin, 1990). Thus, translation teachers can prepare the ground for cooperative

learning by means of designing tasks which require that students work in groups and have interaction in

the process of translation.

Use materials that reflect real-life situations and demands.Task-based learning involves those instructions in which classroom activities are tasks similar to those

which learners may engage in outside the classroom ( Lightbrown and Spada, 1999). Guariento and

Morley (2001) holds that in coexistence with the realization of the need to develop effective skills and

strategies for the real world, the use of authentic texts continues to be considered as one way ofmaintaining and increasing students‟ motivation for learning.

There have been many well-reasoned arguments with regard to how authenticity should be reflected in

learning situations (Willis, 1996; Long and Crookes, 1992; Breen, 1985; Widdowson, 1978).

Widdowson (1978) puts the most crucial type of authenticity forward. He argues that authenticity of task

depends on whether or not a student is „engaged‟ by the task. That is, learners are engaged in doing the

task provided that they are interested in its topic and its purpose, and understand its relevance. As

Guariento and Morley (2001) point out, this type of authenticity has important implications for the

presentation and selection of task. As has been mentioned above in the first guideline, translation

teachers can make use of both real-world task and pedagogical task. One important thing to add is the

fact that merely being a real world or pedagogical task does not vouch for students‟ engagement. As

Widdowson (1978) argues, students should be interested in the purpose of doing the task, and understandits relevance. Thus, apart from using real world and pedagogical task, translation teachers should take

into account the relevance of task and students‟ interest.

Prepare the ground for learner-centerednessAccording to Swan (2005), in task-based teaching, learner-centeredness rather than teacher control is at

the heart of instruction. González Davies (2005) underlines the fact that student-centered classes will

benefit from interaction and, thus, prepare the ground for leaner autonomy. Elsewhere he maintains that

in classes that teachers ask students to render particular sentences where the ultimate aim is to produce

an ideal model translation imposed by teachers, motivation and self-confidence -crucial for translating

well- are demolished. In contrast, by creating a positive and interactive working atmosphere, teacher can

help the silent translation student become an active participant in classes and take part in pair and groupwork (González Davies, 2004).

Conclusion

In response to the traditional and lingering text-oriented directive in translation teaching, that is “read

and translate”, the purpose of this paper was to propose some pedagogical guidelines drawing on the

principles of task-based teaching. Employing theses guidelines in the process of translation teaching,

teachers using real world or pedagogical tasks can enhance students‟ motivation which is deemed to be

the starting point in learning. Dividing each translation task into three stages- pre task, task, and post

task- teacher can prepare the ground for students to have active participation in the process of translation

and thus be engaged in doing translation tasks. Furthermore, due to the advantages these guidelines can

have in the process of teaching translation, they can be employed as underlying principles duringtranslation course design.


5/6

84

References

Bassano, S., & Christison, M. A. (1994). Community Spirit: A Practical Guide to Collaborative

Language Learning . Burlingame, CA: Alta.

Bennet, B., Rohlheiser-Bennet, C., & Stevhan, L. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Where Heart Meets

Mind . Toronto: Educational Issues.

Breen, M. P. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied linguistics, 6(1), 60-8.

Calzada Pérez, M. (2005). Applying Translation Theory in Teaching. New Voices in Translation Studies,

1, 1-11.

Ellis, R. (2006). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. Asian EFL Journal 8 (3) on-line documents

at URL http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_re.php.

González Davies, M. (2004). Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing.

González Davies, M. (2005). Minding the process, improving the product: Alternatives to traditional

translator training. In M. Terrent (Ed.), Training for the New Millennium (pp. 62-82.).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

González Davies, M., & Català, M. (1994). Negotiating topics in cooperative learning. Cooperative

Learning , 14(3), 20 – 23.

Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in EFL classroom. ELT , 55(4), 347-353.Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator . London: Longman.

Holt, D. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative Learning: A Response to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity.

McHenry, IL: Delta.

House, J. (1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment . Tübingen: Narr.

Hurtado Albir, A. (Ed.). (1999). Enseñar a traducir . Madrid: Edelsa.

Jakobsen, A. L. (1994). Starting from the Other End: Integrating Translation and Text Production. In

Dollerup, C. & Lindegard, A. (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Insights, Aims,

Visions (pp. 143-150.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, Clif: Recources for

Teachers.

Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book . New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lightbrown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1987). Intervention points in second language classroom processes. In Das,

B. K. (Ed.), Patterns in classroom interaction in Southeast Asia (pp. 177-203.). Singapore:

Singapore University Press/RELC.

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26,

27-56.

Menck, P. (1991). Looking into Classrooms: Papers on Didactics. Albex Publishing Corporation:

Printed in The United States of America.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In Crookes, G.

& Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Tasks in a Pedagogical Context (pp. 55-66.). Cleveland, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Pullin Stark, P. (2005). Integrating Task-based Learning into a Business English Programme. In

Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (Eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp.

40-68.). New York: Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne.

Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task-based approaches to language teaching. Foreign

Language Research, 41, 45 – 61.

Razmjou, L. (2002). Developing Guidelines for a New Curriculum for the English Translation BA

Program in Iranian Universities. Online Translation Journal , 6(2),http://accurapid.comejournal/20edu1.htm.

http://accurapid.comejournal/20edu1.htmhttp://accurapid.comejournal/20edu1.htm


6/6

843

Rezvani, R., Riazi, A., & Sahragard, R. (2011). Translation quality assessment: assessing concept or

construct. Translation studies, 9, 61-77.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall.

Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics,

26(3), 376 – 401.

Tinker sachs, G. (2007). The challenges of adopting and adapting task-based cooperative teaching and

learning in an eFL context. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K. & Verhelst, M. (Eds.), Tasks

in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 253 – 264.).

Newcastle: Cambridge scholars Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1987). Varied activities for variable language. ELT Journal, 41(1), 12-18.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning . London: Longman.

A New Direction in Translation Pedagogy

Documents

Transcript of A New Direction in Translation Pedagogy