Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Teaching as translating the case of

metalanguge in the second language classroom


Tamara Stojanovi
Dept. of Semiotics, Tartu University
Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
11.12.2011.

INTRODUCTION
Meta-talk as Borg uses the term (1998), is a very usual
phenomenon in the language classroom. Is it not the most natural thing
for teachers and students to speak about the language they are using?
Definitely yes, but for some reason, this part of language instruction has
not

received

its

due

attention

in

scientific

circles

(Borg,

1998).

Consequently, the language that is used to talk about language, its


metalanguage is also under-theorized. Hu (2010) sees as one reason for
this the connection of metalanguage with formalist approaches such as
the

Grammar-Translation

method.

In

other

words,

meta-talk

and

metalanguage have a bad reputation in the history of language teaching


methods, and one that is very much opposing the basic principles of
Communicative Language Teaching.
However, this does not mean that status quo should be maintained.
Studies concerning correlation between metalinguistic knowledge (in the
sense knowledge/awareness of language, Berry, 2005) and language
proficiency provide contradictory results, but such correlation is hardly the
only legitimate reason for using and teaching metalanguage. What is
often the problem with metalanguage is its high degree of abstractness
and technicality. That, however, is not reason enough to banish it from the
classroom. We propose to translate it instead. Therefore, one of the goals
of this paper is to argue in favor of meta-talk in the classroom and the use
of metalanguage, while its central goal is to deal with the issue of
explaining such metalanguage to learners. In fact, the language about
language that is used in the classroom must fit two sets of criteria: on the
1

one hand, it must be a faithful description of the object language, and on


the other hand, it must be clear and understandable for learners in the
concrete communicative situation. These two sets of criteria frequently
put the teacher in the position of translator. This is exactly the focus of
our paper the role of the teacher as translator of metalanguage.
As a case study, we have chosen an excerpt from the textbook
Rete!1 that concerns the tense passato prossimo. We have a lot of
experience in the use of this textbook and to our opinion, it is a very good
example of a metalanguage that fits the first set of criteria mentioned it
is a faithful description of Italian passato prossimo. On the other hand,
we were always confronted with problems when working on it in the
classroom: the metalanguage was just too difficult and abstract.
Relying on the framework of translation studies, more specifically
the skopos theory, we will see how the teacher-translator can adapt the
Rete!1 material for classroom purposes. Since, to our knowledge, a
translation-based approach to teaching and explaining has not been
researched, this paper is also an attempt to tackle the question whether
such an approach might be fruitful or not.
META-TALK AND META-LANGUAGE IN THE L2 CLASSROOM
First

of

all,

we

should

make

clear

that

we

understand

metalanguage here broadly, as language about language (Johnson and


Johnson, 1999) and we do not restrict it to terminology (Berry, 2004)
although technical and less technical terms are certainly its distinctive
feature. Metalanguage can be also analyzed in terms of its grammar, its
style etc.
There are several reasons in favor of using metalanguage in the
classroom1. Hu (2010) enlists five of them: 1) it leads to better
understanding and awareness of L22 2) in contexts where metalanguage
in L1 is stressed 3) when not using it creates difficulties (try explaining
passato prossimo without using notions such as tense, transitive etc.)
4) when precision is needed (e.g. countable noun/word ) 5) in order to
1
2

We have in mind here the classroom context with adult learners.


This argument is related with correlation with proficiency.

link grammatical structures, so learners can make sense of the systemic


aspect of language. To this we can add Berrys claim that awareness of
metalanguage is crucial to Schmidts noticing hypothesis 3. Also, if we are
to take into account Communicative Language Teaching as the dominant
paradigm, with communicative competence as learning goal, then
metalanguage and meta-talk should be a natural part of it.
Other reasons for using and teaching metalanguage is that it is
more often than not used in knowledge assessment tests, official and
unofficial, that it is necessary for learners who want to engage themselves
in writing or editing, for those who are interested in self-study and want to
consult grammars and dictionaries etc. (Berry,2005)
So, even though there are arguments in favor of using and teaching
metalanguage, there are still many issues surrounding this topic that
should be answered: which specific metalanguage should be used? When
specifically during class? How should it be taught? These are very
important questions, but as mentioned earlier, the issue of classroom
meta-talk is under-researched. There are studies, however, that deal
specifically with the factors that determine the nature of classroom metatalk. Borg (1998) enlists these ones: teachers experience and knowledge
as well as their perception of it, their personality, their beliefs about
language and learning, choice of material, context (constraints in terms of
time, official policy etc.), methodological orientation etc.
In the context of our analysis, these are also the factors that will
influence the translation of the metalanguage. Since our approach is
translation-based, we will not take into account the factors that are
related to the teacher/translator (beliefs, knowledge, experience etc.)4 and
we will consider the source text, the target text and the readers. However,
before going into the analysis proper, we need to make explicit our
method and criteria of analysis.
TRANSLATION AND TEACHING
3

Schmidts basic idea is that features of language cannot be learned if they have not
been noticed.
4
Those factors will inevitably influence the teachers definition of skopos as well as
his/her assessment of learners needs, knowledge and expectations.

Translation is another term that has a bad reputation in the history


of language learning methods and its source can be found, like with the
notions of grammar and metalanguage , in the Grammar-Translation
method. This specific method was a very formalist one, focusing on
language structure and most importantly disregarding, in the process of
translation the cultural context, the specificities of the communicative
situation and so on. It is not a surprise then, that translation as a teaching
tool was banished from the audio-lingual and later on communicative
classroom. Translation was also used in the context of Contrastive
Analysis, in order to determine commonalities and differences between L1
and L2. (Byram, 2000) Today, although translation is used in class, for
instruction as well as assessment, it is not very much supported or
encouraged.
When talking about translation in this context we have in mind
interlingual translation. Our approach in this paper is broader: it includes
intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation (Jakobson,1966)
It seems, considering our approach to metalanguage, that the
skopos theory might prove to be particularly relevant.
The skopos theory
As opposed to approaches that emphasize equivalence as main
criteria for translation, the skopos theory, as devised by Vermeer (Baker,
2001) takes the function of the target text as main translation guideline.
In other words, the translation process is orientated towards the reader,
his context and the target culture and not towards the source text. Skopos
theory is based on the premise that translation is action which as every
human action has a specific goal or purpose which, once achieved, is
called translatum.
The skopos theory, while offering a wide range of translating
techniques, is following two rules: the rule of coherence and the rule of
fidelity. The former has to do with the readers being able to make sense of
the target text in such a way that it is coherent with what they already
know and with their current situation. The latter is related with the idea
4

that there must remain a relationship between the source text and the
target text, i.e. the target text must be coherent with the source text, but
that coherence is secondary to skopos5. Together, Vermeer and Reiss,
devised a translation theory based on the notion of skopos wherein a text
is viewed as offer of information, and consequently, translation is a
secondary offer of information. Most importantly for us here, the
information chosen must be coherent with the needs, knowledge and
expectations of the target readers.
The skopos theory has been criticized, of course, on the basis of its
excessive openness to approaches, its problematic approach in dealing
with literary texts and the fact that sometimes the specificities of
vocabulary or style are lost to skopos. However, since we are not dealing
with a literary text and since we need a broad approach, we think that the
skopos theory is adequate for our purpose. In fact, in the translation of
the problematic part of Rete!1 our goal is to adapt the text in order to
make it more accessible to learners.
TRANSLATING

METALANGUAGE

IN

THE

SECOND

LANGUAGE

CLASSROOM
As we stated in the introduction, the metalanguage used in the
description of passato prossimo proved to be in many ways inadequate.
Learners had difficulties grasping the concepts and much additional
explanation was needed. Explanations that were based on the use of the
same metalanguage (linguistic metalanguage, L1 or L2) proved to be
equally inadequate and we often had to rely on a completely different
metalanguage, one that includes metaphors, drawings, a lot of additional
examples etc. In other words we had to translate, or even better, adapt
the text for classroom purpose. The specific way of explaining or
translating was based on our teaching knowledge and experience, but it
was generally rather intuitive. Therefore, we thought that translation
theory might provide a firmer framework for this process.

Fidelity of text is, however, a legitimate skopos as any.

Now, if we apply the skopos approach to translation to our case of


problematic metalanguage we can say that the teacher/translator has the
task of determining the skopos of the target text, which in our case is the
grammar of passato prossimo. From our point of view the skopos of the
source text is basically to provide information, by describing the
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules for passato prossimo. In this
sense, we are not objecting the skopos itself, but the fact that the
information transmitted does not comply with the rule of coherence on
several main points:
- it is not coherent with what learners know about linguistic
metalanguage. Notions such as moto, stato etc. are new. Moreover,
most learners do not have a linguistic background, so those terms are new
in the sense that are new grammatical concept and are, at the same time,
new words in Italian.
- It is not coherent with what learners know about some words, e.g.
the volere in the sentence Il passato prossimo vuole essere con i verbi
intransitivi
-It is not coherent with the learners need for clarity: what does
cambiamento di stato mean? And why is that rule then illustrated with
the verb rimanere? Also, the narrative of the explanation is not so
logical in the sense that there is jumping from syntactic rules to semantic
and pragmatic rules. For instance, first there is the table with irregular
participles, then the remark about the use of passato prossimo in
southern Italy. That is followed by the rule for constructing the tense,
which is in turn followed by the explanation for using it and then there are
more detailed grammatical explanations.
-It is not coherent with the need of many learners, most of them,
actually, to be provided with some visual material. The source text is very
abstract, and although there are examples, everything is presented in the
form of written natural language.
We have to emphasize that the findings concerning learners needs
and knowledge are based on our working experience and that they cannot
6

be taken as universal. Even so, this example shows that the concept of
rule of coherence can be used to analyze the texts metalanguage. These
are the translations that we offer for the concrete examples of
inadequacies that we mentioned and that concern metalanguage:
-translating moto and stato into L1, but also illustrate the
meaning of moto by imitating a runner, a swimmer etc.
-providing additional explanation or examples for cambiamento di
stato
-providing visual material that supports the notions of transitivity
and intransitivity, as they are the crucial in this context. Perhaps some
funny illustrations that can be remembered easily would be a good idea.
-deleting

the

notion

of

complemento

from

the

phrase

complemento oggetto- it adds confusion to the already tricky issue of


transitivity and is not really necessary.
-reorganizing the narrative: first the syntactic rules and then the
semantics (or vice versa)
By performing these translating procedures we maintain the original
skopos and all the relevant information but we adapt the form of the
information to the learners. At the same time we preserve a great part of
the

original

metalanguage.

The

question

now

is

whether

these

transformations could have been done without the translation approach.


Definitely yes, but what the translation framework offers is a very
systematic procedure for approaching the text which can be summarized
in the following steps:
1) determine the skopos
2) determine whether the text is coherent with learners needs,
knowledge, expectations (values, norms)
3) determine exactly which elements are incoherent (is it a specific word,
an element of style, the lack or surplus of modalities and so on)
3) translate the incoherent elements.
The first step allows the teacher to define the skopos in a manner
that is in accordance with the teaching plan, the specific circumstances,
his/hers specific intentions etc. For instance, in our case, an alternative
7

skopos could be provide overview of the terminology concerning passato


prosssimo. Although this focus is only slightly different from the one we
relied upon, it does focus the translation differently.
The second step is, in our opinion, the most difficult one, especially
for teachers who do not have a lot of experience and cannot therefore
predict with great precision what might be difficult for learners.
Particularly delicate is the assessment of expectations and needs, as that
is very often determined by teachers beliefs, as Borg noted (1998), not by
data gathered from learners or from scientific research. In this case, again,
experience is of crucial importance, but so is feedback from learners.
The third step in the overall translation process is actually an
elaboration of the second one and a requirement for step four.
Finally, the very process of translation is, in our opinion, the most
interesting and challenging part. As far as we know, there is no such thing
as an established science of explaining. So, when teachers have to
explain rules for passato prossimo, it turns out that it is not such an easy
task. Of course, during teacher education and throughout their career
language teachers gather various tricks of the trade metaphors, handy
translations, good visual material etc. They also rely on their intuition and
creativity, but everything has its limits. All teachers cannot be creative all
the time, and it is inevitable that they will need some help in the process.
It is in this case that translation studies can be of tremendous importance.
In the case of our step four, translation studies offer a variety of operative
terms and concepts. We mentioned already intralingual, interlingual and
intersemiotic translation, but there are others such as text operations
(deletion, addition, substitution etc), dominant, effects of text operations6
(naturalization, exoticization etc.), text types (informative, expressive,
operative) to name just a few. The idea is that by knowing these terms,
the teacher will become aware of the variety of translation options that
are

at

his/her

disposal.

Those

translation

options

then

become

explanation options.

This could be useful, for instance, when determining the skopos of the translation.

We stated earlier that, concerning our case study, the same results
could

be

achieved

without

actually

knowing

the

aforementioned

translation concepts, and that a teacher might have arrived to the same
translation intuitively. Although intuition is crucial in the teaching job, we
think that a supportive systematic framework is more than helpful, maybe
even necessary. This is not a place to elaborate further this idea, but let us
just say that one of the greatest benefits of the skopos approach to
explanation is that the teacher inevitably becomes consciously aware of
his/her teaching process and can, thus, gain many valuable insights.
Another benefit that we would like to point out becomes very
evident within the context of an intercultural classroom. In that case, the
target culture becomes very important when determining, for instance,
what metaphors/example will be used. A similar issue arises when
teaching, not grammar, as in our example, but some parts of language
that are more meaningful in a socio-pragmatic way, like gestures or any
other topic of culture and civilization (Italian gesticulation is a particularly
interesting case).

CONCLUSION
As we stated introduction, the main goal of this paper is to research
whether it would be fruitful to model the process of explanation as
translation. More precisely, does it make sense to think of teacher as
translator of metalanguage? As our short study is only one isolated
example, a definite answer cannot be given. It seems that the teacher
could indeed benefit from the translation framework when it comes to
preparing and modifying class material. He/she might think in terms of
skopos and coherence and adapt the text in advance. However, we
shouldnt confuse the job of the teacher with the job of a textbook
designer. The reality of the classroom is such, especially in the public
sector, that the teachers deal with a lot of issues ranging from inadequate
classroom equipment to parents demands. It seems more likely that in
the case of a challenging text, the teacher will just decide to use another
9

one instead, especially thanks to the vast choices offered both in printed
and digital format. However, sometimes, due to school policy or for other
reasons, there is material that must be covered, and it is in those cases
that the translation approach might be needed. This is true also for
grammatical metalanguage that we at least, consider to be useful for
learners.
So, it seems that there is reason to think that a translation approach
to explanation might prove to be useful. It certainly was for us. We cannot
offer a stronger claim as ours is only one case study. Others are needed as
well as a deeper research into the field of second language teaching
techniques. The following questions must be asked: what are the basis for
bringing together and distinguishing teaching/explaining and translating?
What are the translation processes that take place in a second language
classroom? Can teaching provide any insights to translation studies? Is it
reasonable to expect from language teachers explicit knowledge of
translation? Answering these and other questions is certainly a challenge,
but one, we think, worth accepting.

REFERENCES
Baker, Mona ed. 2001 [1998] Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies, London, New York:Routledge
Berry, Roger 2004. Awareness of metalanguage, Language Awareness,
13(1):1-16
2005. Making the most of metalanguage, Language
Awareness, 14(1):3-20
Borg, Simon 1998. Talking about grammar in the foreign language
classroom, Language Awareness, 7(4):159-175
Byram, Michael ed. 2000. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching
and Learning, London, New York:Routledge

10

Hu, Guangwei 2010. Revisiting the role of metalanguage in L2 teching and


learning, EA
Journal, 26(1):61-70
Jakobson, Roman 1966 [1959]. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Ed.
Reuben A. Brower On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 232
239.
Johnson, Keith; Johnson, Helen. 1999 [1998] Encyclopedic Dictionary of
Applied Linguistics, Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell
Mezzadri, Marco; Balboni, Paolo E. 2002. Rete!1, Perugia:Guerra Edizioni
Semiotics of translation lecture notes from the course delivered in the
autumn semester 2011/2012 at Tartu University by Maarja Saldre

11

Potrebbero piacerti anche