We shall now examine each of the arguments against translation in order to show the limited view of translation they offer and to reveal the full potential of translation activities. As Malmkjaer (1998) points out, from the moment we look at professional translators and the way translation activities are used in real life, we begin to see that all the arguments fall away, one by one. What is missing from these arguments, and what is missing from the grammar-translation method, is a crucial element that is at the heart of translation activities: their communicative value.

Consider for a moment professional translators and interpreters. The ultimate purpose of their job is to communicate, to convey a message across linguistic and cultural barriers. It really is a paradox that such a communicative activity as translation should have become associated with 'lack of communication' in the context of second language acquisition and teaching methodology. It is time to review and rethink the role of translation in the language classroom. So, let's have a look again at the criticisms.

Criticism 1: Translation is independent of the four skills
Translators, first of all, need to listen to their customers' (or interlocutors') requests and needs. Second, they need to read (or, in the case of interpreters, listen to) the source text carefully. Third, they also need to be able to use appropriate resources (dictionaries, terminological databases, texts in the original and target languages, the Internet etc), speak to specialists in the field when in doubt, and finally, write, edit and proofread their translation. Thus, a lot of listening, reading, speaking and writing takes place during the translating process. In Malmkjaer's words (1998: 8): 'far from being independent of the four skills …, translation is in fact dependent on and inclusive of them, and language students who are translating will be forced to practise them.'

Criticism 2: Translation is radically different from the four skills
As we saw in Criticism 1, translation is not independent of the four skills but rather incorporates them all. However, as Malmkjaer (1998) points out, translating (ie translation as a process) may indeed be radically different from other language skills, as it involves:

• competence in at least the mother tongue and one foreign language;
• ability to relate the two systems to one another appropriately;
• ability to select appropriate translational equivalents.

(emphasis mine)

Thus, both linguistic and non-linguistic skills are required to produce a satisfactory translation. A thorough understanding of the source text in terms of content and form (ie register, stylistic choices, and pragmatic effect) is needed, as is a knowledge of one's own linguistic and cultural systems, as well as the ability to identify appropriate translation solutions. In this sense, translation activities contribute to developing students' analytical and contrastive skills, and with that, students' linguistic awareness and sensitivity, both in L1 (first language) and L2. The ability to move between language systems will not only be a different but also a valuable added skill.

Criticism 3: Translation takes up valuable time
Following on from what we have said above, as translation incorporates the four skills and adds others, it is not really a waste of time. On the contrary, translation activities, if used effectively and communicatively, can add variety and serve to enrich the learning process.

Criticism 4: Translation is unnatural
As we saw in Activities 1 and 2, we only need to look around us to realize that translation activities are happening all the time. Have a look at the following text:

The family is sitting at the breakfast table. Ben, the two-year-old baby, seems very excited and exclaims, pointing at his father, who is munching his toast: 'Dada, mumumun, zzzzzzzz!' Then the father asks, 'What's he saying?' Mother: 'You've just eaten a fly!' (Nord, 1997)

Reflective Task 3

In Jakobson's terms (1959), the text above would constitute a type of 'intralingual translation' or 'rewording' ¹ whereby one person (the mother) interprets somebody's message (baby) for somebody else (father) who cannot understand the content of that message. As you can see, we are using, and probably producing and consuming translations on a daily basis, sometimes perhaps without even realizing that we are doing it. In this sense, as they are part of human interaction, translations are indeed natural.

Criticism 5: Translation misleads students into thinking that expressions in two languages correspond one-to-one
Again, this view reflects the tendency to confuse translation, as practised by the grammar-translation method, with translation understood as a communicative and purposeful activity. The underlying assumption here is that translation means 'word-for-word translation', a strategy which is only used by professional translators in exceptional cases such as in sworn legal documents. Professional translators and linguists know very well that language systems do not coincide, therefore it is useless to try to find one-to-one matches. What is interesting about this criticism, in my view, is not the word 'translation' but the hidden agent in the statement. Translation is not the element that misleads students. What the statement is in fact suggesting is that the methodology employed leads students to believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence between languages. We could say that this is not a student problem but a teacher problem. It reveals a prejudiced and inadequate conception of translation, as well as an inappropriate methodological use of translation activities in the classroom. Contrary to what many think, and as was suggested in the response to Criticism 2, by using translation in an effective communicative way, imitating real-life translation, students will realize exactly the opposite, that is that languages and cultures differ, that each language/culture has its own characteristic ways of viewing the world and of saying things. For this, as Malmkjaer (1998: 8) notes, 'students will certainly be required to practise focused thinking in both languages'.

Criticism 6: Translation prevents students from thinking in the foreign language and produces interference
These criticisms refer to the use of L1 in the classroom and, more generally, to the role of L1 in language learning processes. As Weinreich's (1953), and later Selinker's (1992) work demonstrate, 'interlingual identifications' or 'interference' are basic learning strategies in second language acquisition. Language interference is therefore a complex phenomenon that is not exclusively linked to translation. As Malmkjaer (1998: 8-9) points out: '[B]ilinguals at whatever level experience interference of one kind or another, and practice in translation encourages awareness and control of interference.'

Criticism 7: Translation is a bad test of language skills
The criticism that translation is a bad test of language skills reflects, on the one hand, the well-known and widespread use of translation as an assessment procedure. On the other hand, it also reflects the lack of satisfaction felt by both students and teachers regarding this assessment procedure. Before you continue, have a look at the following exercise titles which are commonly found in exam papers at University level:

There are a number of problems with such translation tests:

• Students (even teachers) cannot see the value of these activities.
• Students cannot/do not know how to prepare.
• Teachers find it hard/boring to mark these tests.

This dissatisfaction stems from a limited view of translation and a tradition based on the grammar-translation method. So, if this is the type of assessment used, then the criticism is appropriate. However, when framed within a communicative context and linked to the aims and learning outcomes of a particular class or module, translation activities can indeed successfully test both linguistic and non-linguistic skills such as the ability to compare systems, to select appropriate choices, to solve problems, etc.

Criticism 8: Translation is only appropriate for training translators
Of course, translation exercises for translator training will differ from those aimed at language students. However, there are skills here that will also be of great benefit to language students such as research, analytical and contrastive skills, editing, proofreading and decision making. Additionally, as pointed out by Malmkjaer (1998: 9), 'it is equally possible to argue that it is useful to introduce language learners to as many applications of their linguistic skills as possible'.

As you can see, translation activities have a lot to offer language students. What I am suggesting is that translation, understood as a communicative activity, can be a valuable tool in the language classroom for a variety of reasons:

• It is a multi-skill exercise involving reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
• It gives the language learner new skills, such as the ability to move between language systems, to assess the communicative value of messages and to stimulate awareness of cultural differences.
• It is an activity that can be made to suit different proficiency levels.

The next section looks at wayd of using translation effectively in the language classroom

¹ Jakobson further distinguishes between 'interlingual translation or translation proper', whereby we interpret verbal signs by means of some other language and 'intersemiotic translation or transmutation', whereby we interpret verbal signs by means of non-verbal sign systems (eg signs, film versions etc). Return to main text