Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rllj20
The Language Learning Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20
Translation in language teaching, pedagogical
translation, and code-Switching: restructuring the
boundaries
Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez
To cite this article: Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez (2021) Translation in language teaching, pedagogical
translation, and code-Switching: restructuring the boundaries, The Language Learning Journal,
49:2, 219-239, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1534260
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1534260
Published online: 15 Nov 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1229
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Translation in language teaching, pedagogical translation, and
code-Switching: restructuring the boundaries
Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez
School of Applied Language and Cultural Studies, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
ABSTRACT
The gradual reintroduction of translation into the foreign language
classroom in the last few decades has generated considerable interest
among teachers and scholars. A renewed focus on translation as an
aspect of language teaching has simultaneously originated from and
resulted in the publication of theoretical and empirical studies as well as
monographs that recognise ‘pedagogical translation’ as a beneficial and
increasingly accepted practice. However, conceptual and terminological
inconsistencies persist that blur the boundaries between the general idea
of using translation in the language classroom and more specific
practices that involve translation tasks (also known as ‘pedagogical
translation’) or code-switching. The article addresses these terminological
incongruities by exploring the impact of conceptualisations of translation
in language education and, specifically, its use in pedagogical translation.
The goal is to consider the plethora of concepts related to translation in
language teaching (TILT) and to explore how they may be connected
with the reconceptualisation of translation in language pedagogy. This
will open up useful avenues for a more thorough incorporation of
translation into foreign language education, particularly at the secondary
and college level, and will propose future lines of research and
pedagogical sound praxis.
KEYWORDS
Pedagogical translation;
translation in language
teaching; translation studies;
code-switching; foreign
language teaching and
learning; pedagogy
Introduction
The role of translation in the foreign language (FL) or second language (L2)
1
classroom has seen
extensive reconsideration over the last few decades. Since the early 2000s, a significant increase in
publications in this domain suggests its revitalisation as new approaches and conceptualisations
of translation in the language classroom are being explored. Translation is emerging as a communi-
cative activity abandoning the much-debated traditional notion of translation as a FL teaching
method (Carreres 2014; Colina 2002; Pintado Gutiérrez 2012). In spite or perhaps because of this bur-
geoning interest, considerable inconsistencies exist among scholars, researchers, and teachers
regarding its precise nature and status in the field. To begin with, although translation is often over-
looked in the official FL curricula, it is used in the classrooms, as the Directorate-General for Trans-
lation (DGT) in the EU claims (2013). That situation necessitates, first, that we acknowledge the
frequently ignored reality of quite different forms and types of translation in the language classroom
thus clarifying one of the prime struggles: the meaning and the role of ‘translation’ in FL pedagogy. As
Cook (2010: xix) reminds us, while translation in the FL classroom involves own language (or L1, also
known as mother tongue and first language) use, such use of the L1 does not necessarily involve
translation. Indeed, different types of translation are likely to refer to distinct phenomena and
© 2018 Association for Language Learning
CONTACT Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez lucia.pintado@dcu.ie
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL
2021, VOL. 49, NO. 2, 219–239
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1534260
involve quite different principles and assumptions. In this article, I will use the term ‘translation in
language teaching’ (borrowing Cook’s acronym ‘TILT’) as a way of signalling a broader conceptualis-
ation of the use of translation. Inasmuch as it refers to a variety of practices that use translation and
communicative principles it is dis tinct from earlier conceptualisations of the use of translation in the
language classroom. In line with this conception, I hope to be able to co ntribute not only to a redefi -
nition of the boundaries and the terms related to translation in language teaching but more specifi-
cally to an exploration of the possible contribution in its own right of what is here referred to as
pedagogical translation.
A second consideratio n is this: Because translation is inherently an interdisciplinary endeavour, the
construct of pedagogical translation tends to borrow terminology from other fields in order to estab-
lish its theoretical and pragmatic frameworks. One negative consequence of such liberal borrowing is
that any discussion of translation in language teaching is akin to ‘traps for a writer on the topic to fall
into’ (Cook 2010: xxi). Among such traps is being seen as questioning the status quo of terms that are
well established in applied linguistics, second language acquisition or translation studies. Rather than
engaging in that precarious practice, my aim is to explore the meaning of key terms associated with
translation in the FL classroom. Following a discussion on the terms currently used in literature, I
propose a map of neigh bouring concepts that ascertain a better understanding of the vario us
terms related to translation and L1/ L2 use in language pedagogy for a beneficial use of these
practices.
This should enable a more forward-looking stance toward the use of translation in FL classrooms,
particularly the possibility of a fuller, because reshaped understanding of pedagogical translation. A
concluding comment is in order: Even as I deliberately steer clear of questioning the use of ‘trans-
lation’ in applied disciplines, applied linguistics itself has begun to reconsider how it has handled
translation in the past and what adjustments might be necessary to capture the reality of language
learning and use in a multilingual world (among other publications, see especially Wei 2011).
Translation in language teaching: historical developments
It is generally assumed that formal contributions from linguistics to FL teaching and learning began in
the 1940s. Less developed is a narrative of the role and function of translation in this development.
But as Howatt (1984) points out, attempts to arrive at a methodological consensus for a more pre-
cisely defined ‘discipline’ of language teaching began to be a possibility when ‘the battles over
“grammar” and “translation” were over, the dust had settled, and the most useful thing was to
develop a modified “direct method” appr oach’ (260). But things are rather less straightforward
than that description suggests. Even when translation was ‘officially’ banned from the FL classroom,
pedagogical reality was considerably more complex despite the over riding tenor for decades to come
of considering translation to be a poisonous element in language pedagogy. That negative assess-
ment is readily captured in the yoked term of grammar–translation method (McLaughlin 1987; Mitch-
ell and Myles 2004) that identified a ‘villain ’ (Cook 2010: 9) to be expelled from the classroom, most
especially in its manifestation of interlingual translation or the use of students’ mother tongue. The
prevailing and unabashedly negative narrative against grammar–translation methods was to accuse
them of focusing on grammar rules, structures, specific vocabulary, and formal equivalence, and to
treat knowledge as ‘cumulative and staged’ (Cook 2010: 10). This imbued the rejected approach
with a certain static and staged quality that could easily be traced to the practice of translating
the classical ‘dead’ languages of Greek and Latin, a focus that presumably had little interest in con-
temporary agenda of fostering oral abilities, including interactive fluency.
While rejecting the grammar–translation method already denied any value for translation as part
of language learning, there is another aspect to this rejection that deserves attention: As the forerun-
ner of the direct method it also enshrined as highly desirable a strict monolingualism in the target
language. As a result, ‘intralingual teaching’ (Stern 1992: 279) and ‘monolingual teaching’ (Widdown-
son 2003: 149) were set in opposition to ‘crosslingual
’ and ‘bilin
gual’ teaching (Cook 2010: 7). In light
220 L. PINTADO GUTIÉRREZ
of those positions, it is not surprising that the broad re-examination of monolingual principles in the
language studies field in general and in language pedagogy in particular has ushered in a possible
reintroduction of translation into the FL classroom. Strict notions of both monolingualism and
even bilingualism are no longer relegated to the discipline’s rejected past; rather, reflecting on
them has enabled a rethinking and reassessment of the legitimacy of translation in contemporary
FL teaching. It is worth noting that this shift is currently embraced by different ‘turns’ in various dis-
ciplines that favour revisiting translation in FL teaching and learning: (a) the multilingual turn, dis-
cussed by May (2014); (b) the pluricultural turn, highlighted by González Davies (2018); or (c) the
translation turn proclaimed by Carreres et al. (2017). All these turns support exploring the pertinent
question of an updated perspective of the use of translation wher e ‘translation is certainly making a
comeback that is far from Grammar-Translation practices’ (in González Davies’ Foreword to Carreres
et al. 2017: xiii).
The 1940s saw a noteworthy surge in the opposition to using translation in FL pedagogy, particu-
larly evident in the communicative era—even though negative stances against translation had
already existed earlier in the century. This was a vivid testamen t to the fact that translation had
been a staple of modern FL classrooms and had attained a certain ‘institutionalized’ presence in
pedagogy—despite the importance to speak anothe r language that was otherwise highlighted. It
is only against this background that one can understand and appreciate the agenda of the Reform
Movement (prioritising oral communication skills, contextualising grammar points in natural texts
and allowing the use of the FL in class) and the popularity of Berlitz methods (disapproving L1 use
and translation in the FL classroom, pursuing the ‘spirit’ of a FL and escaping a flawed equivalence
between languages), which, according to Cook (2010), ultimately merged into what came to be
known as the direct method.
And yet, after a period of seemingly unbridgeable enmity between ‘acceptable’ pedagogies and
translation, the 1980s brought first hints of possible ways to reconcile the two camps. A prominent
trigger for these first cautious steps toward rapprochement was provided by the need to explain the
difference between professional translating and whatever forms translation took in the FL classroom.
This can be traced in works on language pedagogy and translation studies such as Delisle (1980,
1998), Lavault (1985), and Grellet (1991). It is fair to say however that no all scholars advocated for
a separation: Lavault’s work for instance does not support an absolute divide between both modal-
ities (1985: 107–109), and neither does Cordero (1984
: 351). The effort
in finding the identity of
different types of translation was itself triggered by demands for improving the teaching of trans-
lation, a challenge that necessitated much more careful consideration of the kinds of pedagogies
that would be required to train future profe ssional translators and, implicitly, reflection on how
they differed from what otherwi se took place in classrooms. That this is by no means past history
can be seen from the fact that, as recently as 2001, Baker stated that ‘as an academic discipline, trans-
lation studies is relatively young’ (277). Nevertheless one can witness a gradual consolidation of the
discipline and, simultaneously, deeper reflection on whether and how translation might yet play a
role—though presumably a quite different one—in FL pedagogy.
Not surprisingly, for some scholars, as discussed below, this meant drawing lines of strict separation
between what were seen as two different disciplines, translation studies and FL teaching. By contrast,
others detected an opportunity to rejuvenate an interest in translation in language pedagogy, though
now conceived much more dynamically and responsive to the principles of communicative language
teaching that came to prevail at the time. Different and frequently contradictory arguments and
strands can be observed. For example, Cordero (1984) defended the insertion of translation in the
FL curriculum in higher education as a tool through which students can learn to communicate. In
so doing she drew another distinction —while creating a subtle and potentially troublesome argu-
ment: Translation as ‘permissible’ in the intellectually demanding environment of higher education,
though, perhaps, not appropriate in L2 pedagogies with their full-th roated interest in ‘communi-
cation’. Thus, Cordero’s claim that the lack of clarification in translation and its role in the FL classroom
had important—and largely negative—repercussions was essential in revisiting this aspect:
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 221
‘Regretfully, much of the controversy of the place of translation in second language acquisition has
been at cross-purposes, since the nature of translation is frequently misunderstood, and its function
in the learning process not specified’ (352). What followed this bold statement were first explorations
for how one might go about restoring translation into language teaching, including most specifically
questioning the praxis of using translation in pedagogies and, gradually, redefining boundaries that
had previously been claimed to be well-nigh insurmountable, both theoretically and practically.
A quite different strategy for moving away from the dichotomy between professional transl ation
studies and translation in FL pedagogy was adopted by Delisle (1980), whose work emphasizes the
theory and didactics of translation. At the same time, she advocated pedagogical translation as a way
of testing competence in a foreign language. As a result, while the rising disciplinary area of trans-
lation studies relegated translation to a secondary status in FL pedagogy, in a way it also fostered
the potential for including it in forward-looking pedagogical approaches.
Another particularly important intellectual move in this regard was taken by Lavault (1985) who
defined pedagogical translation (PT) as the didactic use of translation in language teaching (9, 18),
which is in itself tautological in nature, and defended its use within an expanded framework of
what she referred to as ‘interpretative translation’ (see especially 49–51), at times also as ‘professional’
or ‘real translation’. From a strategic standpoint it is worth noting that she deliberately uses terminol-
ogy ‘that avoids ( … ) the use of overly specific vocabulary, which varies particularly according to
different schools, both in general linguistics and in foreign language teaching’ (10–11, my trans-
lation). This linkage marked an intellectual and empirical turning point for ushering in a deliberate
and thoughtfully argued return of translation into the FL classroom.
Following various publications in the next three decades one can now observe a second wave of
insightful treatments of pedagogical translation; it is characterised by taking a decidedly interdisci-
plinary and holistic perspective.
More than a decade after Lavault’s publication Hurtado Albir (1999) introduced pedagogical trans-
lation as an applied branch within a conceptual map of translation studies as a discipline. While her
focus was on the pedagogy of professional translation, the publication also became an important
landmark in second language acquisition inasmuch as she reformulated Holmes’s 1972 well-
known proposal for classifying the different areas that integrate translation studies: She created a
space within the new philosophies for translation pedagogies that was specifically devoted to trans-
lation in the language classroom in a way that recognised the demands of communicative language
teaching, referring to it as ‘pedagogical transl ation ’ (1999: 11).
More recently, Cook (2010) explored in depth the development of translation in the language
classroom (TILT). Specifically, he sees the revival of bilingualism in English teaching as a reason for
investigating and revising the use of translation in the language classroom. Although his work is sen-
sitive to the complex and oftentimes contentious nature of translation in the FL classroom, it pays
insufficient attention to the distinction between the use of the student’s mother tongue in the FL
classroom (often not involving translation) and translation as an actual classroom activity. At first
sight,
such a treatment has the advantage of seeing translation and L1 use as part of a continuum.
At the same time, it blurs distinctions that are important not for the sake of creating boundaries
but because they enable those who wish to implement TILT to begin to appreciate it as a tool, a strat-
egy, and as a skill, and because such a practice can ward off future misinterpretation of the construct.
As Hall and Cook (2012) express, stretching notions of translation to include own-language can ‘cause
severe confusion; different terms are often used by different authors to refer to the same concept,
while the same terms are also used in different senses. Clarity is therefore needed’ (273). By compari-
son, Leonardi (2010) analyses the different possibilities of pedagogical translation in the classroom
developing her framework mostly on the basis of theories of second language acquisition, applied
linguistics, and translation as these might relate to the classroom. Despite the controversy raise d
by the ‘spectre’ of translation in the FL classroom she views it positively: ‘(if) translation is employed
for pedagogical purposes … it can prove to be a useful aid aimed at teaching and learning foreign
languages’ (81). Laviosa (2014) proposes what she terms ‘pedagogic translation’ understood as a
222 L. PINTADO GUTIÉRREZ
