TRANSLATION INSIDE THE CLASSROOM: IS IT A TOOL OR NOT FOR

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING?

BRUEN, J.; KELLY, N. Translation as a pedagogical tool in the foreign language classroom:
A qualitative study of attitudes and behaviours. Dublin, Language Teaching Research, Vol.
19, 150 - 168, 2015.
Lara Cristina Batista Souza1

Published in 2015 on the journal Language Teaching Research, the article Translation
as a pedagogical tool in the foreign language classroom: A qualitative study of attitudes and
behaviours was written by two professionals from Dublin City University, Niamh Kelly, an
Assistant Professor in the School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies, and Jennifer
Bruen, who is also an Associate Professor in the School of Applied Language and
Intercultural Studies, and an Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences. This piece of writing aims to discuss the use of translation in
language teaching (TILT) and the values reflected by the attitudes and behaviours of
university lecturers and students that had contact with translation in this context. For that, the
authors headed a qualitative study in an Irish Higher Education Institution, collecting data
from students and professors of German and Japanese in the language learning process.

Hence, the article is divided into six general parts, which are Introduction, Literature
review, Methodology: The case study, Results, Discussion, and Concluding comments. These
type of division clearly shows that Bruen and Kelly were concerned in creating not only a
logical train of thought to conduct the discussion proposed by their studies but also in
constituting a theoretical base in order to high value and clarify the qualitative research done
with the lectures and the students. Thereat, the article display, even at the beginning of it, a
light order and an easy understanding of the facts for the readers.

Thus, the first part, Introduction, brings the pivotal issue of the text: the negative
academic view of translation as a pedagogical tool in language teaching. From that on, the
authors present three case-study questions that guided their research. Assuredly, it was
important for the understanding of the development of their studies to elucidate what the
guidelines that lead the authors to get involved with all this problematic were, because the
three of them paved the way for all the theoretical discussion of language teaching in the
second part, the Literature review.

In this sense, it is relevant to point out that the second division is detached into three
subsections: The demise of TILT, The case against TILT, and The case for TILT. All these

1 Undergraduate in English Language and Literature at the Federal University of Uberlândia.

three dimensions represent the historical background of language teaching, which, from the
nineteenth century onwards, demise the use of translation as a tool inside the classroom. It is
really clear, for the reader, the timeline and the contextual shift of the Grammar-Translation
method (GT) to the Direct Method (DM) showed by the authors in their writing, once they
used several theorists to describe this change. We can distinctly see this idea expressed by the
following excerpt:

While the GT method approached language learning through the language learners’
mother tongue (L1), the advocates of the Direct Method approached language
learning through the target language (L2) in a manner analogous to the way a first
language is learnt. Meaning was directly related to the target language, without
translation from or into the L1, and students deduced rules based on examples and
illustrations. The use of the L1 in the classroom ranged from a total ban to its use as
a ‘last refuge for the incompetent’(Koch, 1947, p. 271). (BRUEN; KELLY, 2015, p.
151-152)

From that on, it is easy to affirm one aspect that attracts the reader’s attention: the
enrichment brought by the quotes of these theorists of language teaching, that not only clarify
the reason why translation was devalued but also shows the attempt to rebuild the concept of
translation inside the classroom in the latest language teaching approaches. As the text goes
on, the authors say, “Despite reasons cited above for the rejection of TILT, there is a new
wave of advocacy of TILT in the foreign language classroom (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009;
Cook, 2010, 2013; Malmkjær, 1998).” (BRUEN; KELLY, 2015, p. 153). Their assumptions
and the way they created their narrative set the basis for the studies carried on the next
section of the article and made the reading much more intelligible for the reader.

Therefore, in Methodology: The case study, Bruen and Kelly are concerned in
explaining the contexts and the particular conditions of their research, so, for that, they split
this part into four subsections, which are The Irish context, Setting, Participants, and Data
collection. It is undeniable that the content of this part is of the utmost importance for the
comprehension of the research. That is because it is in this division that the process and the
techniques used by the authors are clearly explained and specified. To better understand their
studies, it is crucial to grasp that the analysis was held with students and lecturers of the
Applied Language and Intercultural Studies and the International Business. Moreover, the
focus was on two languages, German, which is the author Bruen’s specialty, and Japanese,
which is Kelly’s specialty, and this fact ensures that the consideration brought by the authors
are much more reliable.

Furthermore, this provided data leads the way for the next section, Results. As usual,
this section is also divided into subsections, which are Overview: Key themes emerging from
the data, Attitudes towards the use of TILT and behaviours in this regard, Students’ attitudes
towards the use of TILT, and Documentation. It is the longest part of the article and one of the
most interesting ones, because it brings to the readers the pragmatic view of translation in
language teaching from the lecturers and the students’ standpoints. What most called the
readers’ attention is the commentaries done by the ones interviewed, for sure. The excerpts
brought by the authors are extremely relevant and fascinating, once all of them fight the idea
that translation is worthless and unacceptable in language teaching. Based on those
testimonials, the authors could show from their research that, in a pragmatic and contextual
set, students and lecturers see translation as a positive instrument.

The assertive aforementioned is deeply developed in the fifth part of the article,
Discussion. Defending the assumption of the research done, Bruen and Kelly could establish
a relation between the use of translation as a pedagogic tool and its benefits. They affirm that,
contrariwise the negative view created about the use of it throughout the development of
language teaching methods, the use of translation embraces several achievements for the
students, as we can see in the following segment:

These include enhanced vocabulary acquisition, a greater understanding of the

context in which terms are used, ensuring comprehension, acquisition of
grammatical structures, enhanced enjoyment of the learning process, noticing of
gaps in knowledge by the learner, increased awareness and understanding of
cultural issues and an ability to cater for the different learning styles present within
any group as part of an eclectic approach to language teaching and learning.
(BRUEN; KELLY, 2015, p. 164)

Nonetheless, the authors spot the fact that, although the lectures used translation as a
tool for language teaching, they would not call it “translation”. The negative atmosphere
created around the term kept most of them apart from using words such as “translate” or
“translation” whereas they were actually doing it inside the classroom. This shows clearly
that the influences of the Direct Method and the Audiolingualism continues diffused until
nowadays. Then, finally, this leads us to the ultimate part of the article, Concluding
comments. In a nutshell, this discussion is extremely relevant to consider that, based on the
results brought by the article, the theories of language are somehow a little distant from
pragmatic teaching practice.

In conclusion, this article is extremely enriching for the studies of foreign language
teaching. Bruen and Kelly succeeded in produce a consistent text, that is, a well-written
article, which arguments are all based in theories that they brightly embraced during the
writing. Furthermore, the authors were capable of raising up a current issue in foreign
language teaching that is being discussed by outstanding authors in the area, just as Penny Ur
(1991). Therefore, to conclude this review, Ur’s words serve as a spot to the discussion
carried by Bruen and Kelly’s research:

[Translation is] A technique which, at the time of writing, is for various reasons
rather unpopular, but in my opinion undeservedly so. In a monolingual class
whose teacher also speaks the learners' mother tongue, the translation of a 'bit' of
language to or from the target language can give very quick and reliable
information on what the testee does or does not know, particularly when it involves
entire units of meaning (phrases, sentences) within a known context. Translation
items are also relatively easy to compose - even improvise, in an informal test - and
administer in either speech or writing. Marking may sometimes be more difficult,
but not prohibitively so. (UR, 1991, p. 40) (our bold)

REFERENCES
BRUEN, Jennifer. School of Applied Language & Intercultural: Biographical Details.
Available on: <https://www.dcu.ie/salis/people/jennifer-bruen.shtml>. Access in: May 17th,
2019.
KELLY, Niamh. School of Applied Language & Intercultural Studies: Biographical Details.
Available on: <https://www.dcu.ie/salis/people/niamh-kelly.shtml>. Access in: May 17 th,
2019.
UR, P. A course in language teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.