|
 |
Is translation bad? | ||
Tags: Translation | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Andrew C Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom naturalarabic.com Joined 5181 days ago 205 posts - 350 votes  Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written) | Message 1 of 28 03 November 2010 at 10:59pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Is anyone aware of any scientific study which shows that translation is bad when it comes to language learning? To me it seems the most efficient way to understand meaning.
To try and deduce words from context is making life much more difficult for yourself than happens in real life for a child say, who probably learns words through having objects pointed out to him and actions demonstrated. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5372 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 2 of 28 04 November 2010 at 5:34pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I personally never understood why people translate so much -- or say they do -- when learning a language. I seek a translation when I need to find out the exact meaning of an expression or word, but when I encounter a sentence, I never do. Not to mention that not every word or expression has a direct equivalent. It's like playing tennis or piano and saying out loud every move you're going to make before doing it, it's very counter-productive.
If you can't help needing the translation, fine, but once you've got it, concentrate on the meaning (not the English words) and the phrase in the other language. Say it again and again with the meaning and intention in mind, acting it out if needed. But by all means, you need to leave English aside at some point of the game. 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| CaucusWolf Senior Member United States Joined 5263 days ago 191 posts - 234 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Arabic (Written), Japanese | Message 3 of 28 05 November 2010 at 1:32am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I do this and find it very effective. For certain phrases it is difficult to know without knowing the translation though.(at least for MSA.) 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Splog Diglot Senior Member Czech Republic anthonylauder.c Joined 5660 days ago 1062 posts - 3263 votes Speaks: English*, Czech Studies: Mandarin | Message 4 of 28 05 November 2010 at 8:08am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I know that lots of people say that you shouldn't translate, and that you should use monolingual dictionaries only. The idea is that reliance on your own language is somehow a handicap, whereas I see it as a fantastic resource. One argument I never understood is when people say translating "pokolompo" to "banana" is incorrect, because a "pokolompo" is a reference to a thing that is a banana rather than a synonym for the word "banana". To me, that is just nonsense. The word "banana" becomes my trigger to a whole load of images, senses, smells and so on. So, the English translation acts as a bridge. I don't see a problem with that. The second argument that some words don't have exact translations ia also nonsense. If something cannot be translated to your target language then professional translators would be out of a job. What is the point of hearing that "obyrombe" is what you would call a "sausage" but don't translate it to "sausage" because it isn't exactly the same thing? Where is the harm in translating it to "something like a sausage" as would a dictionary and then refining your understanding as you learn more? To be honest, I can't help translating. I do it all the time. When I come across some new word or puzzling phrase, my first instinct is to translate it into English. Of course, once I am very familiar with something, it sinks inside my brain and my brain isn't crying out for a translation anymore - but this is a natural process rather than one I force. Edited by Splog on 05 November 2010 at 8:09am 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6002 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 5 of 28 05 November 2010 at 12:02pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Completely agree. The other way they sometimes say is "banana is not a concept, it's a word/label". Yes -- it's a label that hangs on the concept. It is an abstract way to refer to the whole concept. The problem with non-translation is that every physical item embodies multiple concepts, each at different levels of abstraction. If I point at a green Ford Focus and say "grappon", what does "grappon" mean? If we are doing a lesson on colours, it's probably green, but then you're going to have to point to several "grappon" things to confirm that, and you can still be sure that the concept that the student will tag "grappon" too is going to be 100% the same as "green", even though you haven't pointed to every different shade of "grappon". But if we're not talking about colours, then "grappon" probably means "car". But it could mean "hatchback", or it could be "motor vehicle". Ironically, most of the demonstrations without translation actually use language -- in primary school, when we were learning to read our first language, we were given pictures along with the words, and in doing so, we learned that in language situations <picture of car> = "car". When we look at a car or a picture or a car in this sort of circumstance, what we are looking at is often actually a pictographic word, just as a Chinese, Korean or Japanese person would. We <i>are</i> translating, whether we want to or not. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Doitsujin Diglot Senior Member Germany Joined 5311 days ago 1256 posts - 2363 votes Speaks: German*, English | Message 6 of 28 05 November 2010 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I find the question somewhat strange. If it works for you, why do you second-guess it??? And even if they were any studies claiming that translation is bad, I wouldn't pay any attention to them, because when it comes to language learning there is no "one size fits all" solution. This is nicely demonstrated in the book Success with Foreign Languages: Seven who achieved it and what worked for them, which you can download for free. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5372 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 7 of 28 05 November 2010 at 12:40pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
The claim is not that many words or concepts cannot possibly be translated, but rather that one-to-one correspondences are often a pitfall; 1 word from language X may cover 3 words from language Y, or 3 words from X might be needed to cover for 1 word of X. This is not a problem for translators, but for language learners, many think that associating words directly to their meaning rather than through the filter of another language is the most efficient method. I think so too. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Andrew C Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom naturalarabic.com Joined 5181 days ago 205 posts - 350 votes Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written) | Message 8 of 28 05 November 2010 at 12:58pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I only asked because I'm interested in finding out why other people say translation is bad. In TEFL teaching (a field I've worked in) one of the mantras is that students should wean themselves off bilingual dictionaries and start using monolingual dictionaries as soon as they can. I assumed there was some science behind this, but now think that it is just making lives for students unnecesarily difficult.
I'm fine with dropping the translation once you know the meaning, but how do you get to know the meaning? Do you make do with fuzzy concepts? e.g. "he sat on the X" - so X = "something you sit on"(perhaps a chair or a sofa or a stool or some other object you don't know yet). Edited by Andrew C on 05 November 2010 at 1:02pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
