The Language Teacher
October 2000
The Role of Translation in Japanese Young Learner Classrooms
Rebecca Klevberg
Recently, more attention has been given to the use of translation in communicative English Language Teaching (ELT), which emphasizes meaningful use of the target language. However, the basis of the communicative movement as the actual "use" of the target language (L2) has been interpreted by some as a reason to shun the mother tongue (L1) completely in the ELT classroom. This is the case with most private Japanese children's language schools, which firmly maintain an official policy of "No Japanese" in their classrooms. However, this policy is currently the subject of much debate between corporate offices and teachers in the field because company policy does not acknowledge the pragmatic value of L1 use in children's classrooms.
This paper explores the debate by examining current corporate opinions on the subject, and compares them to what is actually occurring in some English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms at one major children's school, as reported by both foreign and Japanese teachers. Finally, some practical, yet theoretically sound applications of L1 use and translation in children's ELT, and an experimental approach to translation use will be offered. Here the term "translation" will refer to the transference of information from the L1 to the L2 and from the L2 to the L1.
Corporate Views
There is currently a huge market for private English lessons for young children in Japan, and many students begin preparing for higher education by studying in the private sector from the ages of three and four. Students usually participate in one or two, one-hour classes per week, with an average of 8-12 other students, often alternating between a foreign and Japanese instructor.
To research current views on the topic, interviews were held with representatives from three of the largest children's private language schools in Japan. All schools require no Japanese language ability when hiring foreign teachers, and the use of Japanese is strictly forbidden by foreign instructors at all companies. Japanese instructors at one corporation are allowed to use Japanese in limited amounts for emergency situations and with very young students (ages 2-6). Translation is also used in the Japanese teachers' junior high school (JH) textbooks at the same school for high school entrance exam preparation.
When asked the rationale behind the "No Japanese" policy, one educational director replied:
" for 6 days and 23 hours of the week, our students live in a Japanese world. For only one hour a week, they should have an English intensive lesson. It may be their only opportunity to hear a native English speaker, so why should that native English speaker use Japanese when they could be hearing perfect English?"
Another director also expressed concern that if translation were allowed it would most often snow-ball from a few words to entire conversations in the native tongue. The same individual further commented that once Japanese has been used in the classroom, a line has been crossed, and it becomes more difficult to maintain an 'English Only' environment. He also noted:
If we are preparing students for a trip abroad or a home stay, how many people that they come in contact with in the US, Canada, or wherever, will be able to 'help' them in Japanese when they don't understand? Therefore, I don't think we should 'help' them with Japanese in the classroom.
Despite the strict policy however, most executives are also aware of the difficulties involved with the "No Japanese" rule and the fact that it is not always enforced at the instructor level. One executive admitted that, although translation would be of help when explaining difficult vocabulary and grammar, most foreign teachers speak no Japanese so it is not an option. She also noted that "Japanese teachers are instructed not to use Japanese in the classroom. However, I know this doesn't always happen . . . I sometimes hear them speaking Japanese."
Despite these facts, the policy remains in effect since most companies believe parents wish to have their children exposed to an 'English Only' environment. One manager explained "Upper management feels the customer is paying a lot of money, so parents do not want to hear Japanese being spoken to their child." The reasoning behind the "No Japanese" rule appears to be primarily in relation to functional limitations (i.e. low Japanese ability of foreign teachers, or lack of L1 support in "real life" situations), and marketing or parental influences. At no point in the discussion did a theoretical or methodological basis for this rule arise.
In the Classrooms
To get an idea of the amount and type of Japanese actually being used in classrooms, I conducted a survey of 20 Japanese teachers and seven foreign teachers at one corporation with over 400 schools nation-wide. Teachers were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent speaking Japanese according to age group (very young learners aged 2-6 or young learners aged 7-15), and in what area they used it most (pedagogical -- vocabulary/grammar instruction, or social -- discipline, social conversation, games). The survey results are reported in Tables 1 and 2 below:
| Group A (Ages 2-6) | Group B (Ages 7-15) |
| 46% | 45.75% |
| Group A (Ages 2-6) #1 - Discipline #2 - Social Conversation #3 - Vocabulary #4 - Game Explanation #5 - Grammar |
Group B (Ages 7-15) #1 - Social Conversation #2 - Grammar #3 - Discipline #4 - Vocabulary #5 - Game Explanation |
| Group A (Ages 2-6) | Group B (Ages 7-15) |
| 18% | 27% |
| Group A (Ages 2-6) #1 - Discipline #2 - Social Conversation #3 - Game Explanation #4 - Vocabulary #5 - Grammar |
Group B (Ages 7-15) #1 - Social Conversation #2 - Discipline #3 - Game Explanation #4 - Vocabulary #5 - Grammar |
The results above indicate that, despite the "No Japanese" policy, a significant amount of Japanese is being used in the classroom. All teachers reported using Japanese some of the time (answers ranging from 20% to 90% with Japanese teachers and 10% to 55% with foreign teachers) with an overall average of 45.9% of the time for Japanese instructors and 22.5% of the time for foreign instructors. Survey results indicate that many Japanese teachers often use the L1 as a pedagogical tool for vocabulary and grammar instruction, especially with older students, as well as for disciplinary and social purposes. Japanese teachers' general comments included:
[The amount of Japanese used] depends on how long they have been learning. In [higher levels] I hardly have to speak in Japanese, but in [lower levels] I sometimes have to yell in Japanese.
I mainly use Japanese as a 'prompter'. If I ask 'When's your birthday?' and they look confused, I'll say 'tanjobi' 'When's your birthday?'
The foreign teachers, possibly be due to linguistic limitations when explaining grammar and vocabulary points in Japanese, appeared to view it more as a way to socialise and to effectively discipline all age groups. One foreign teacher commented:
The kids learn more, they're more at ease with me. I have a much better time in class with them and we have more fun. If I knew more Japanese, I'd use it more often!
The attitudes of the teachers surveyed here reflected not only the practicality of L1 use in the classroom, but indicated its value in relaxing students and provided a more positive learning environment. Although such limited data may not be generalised, it does indicate that an "English only" classroom may be implausible in a learning situation where students are exposed to the language an average only one hour, once or twice a week. With such limited exposure, communication in the target language exclusively may be impossible, and attempts to do so a frustrating experience for both student and teacher.
Finally, when questioned about L1 use in the classroom, many teachers expressed an attitude of shame, offering excuses and rationalisations for their use of L1. One Japanese teacher replied; "I know I'm not supposed to, but sometimes I slip." Similar attitudes were reported by Auerbach (1993) in a larger scale study of English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors in America. She reports:
. . . despite the fact that 80% of the teachers allowed the use of the L1 at times, the English only axiom is so strong that they didn't trust their own practice. They assigned a negative value to 'lapses' into the L1, seeing them as failures or aberrations, a cause for guilt (p.5).
The data and opinions above may be considered as support for the development of new methods and techniques that work to incorporate translation and L1 use in ELT classrooms to create a more effective and efficient environment rather than an attitude of shame concerning its use. What I propose as a solution to this situation is a 'common sense' philosophy concerning L1 use, one in which selective, carefully controlled use of translation and the L1 is allowed to support learning in ELT.
A Common Sense Approach
With a "common sense" approach, sound practical sense and self-control on the part of the teacher are applied while using the L1 to facilitate language learning. Even as the field of ELT was largely in an anti-translation mode in the 1950s, Chapman stated: "plain common sense should indicate that the mother tongue has its place among [all] methods" (p.34) (cited in Cole, 1998, p.1).
Translation use has again become a topic of discussion in ELT classrooms with more textbooks and methods utilising translations and comparisons between languages (Auerbach 1993, Weschler 1997, Cole 1998). Some educators now realise that, due to time limitations in EFL classrooms, translation should be used as a tool or "necessary scaffolding", gradually removed over time (Weschler, 1997).
ESL research also shows that the use of translation with beginning young learners critically affected later linguistic success and the use of both the L1 and L2 eased the transition to English (Aurbach, 1993). Such opinions and research support the use of translation as a bridge between languages to provide a more efficient, comprehensible and comfortable learning environment. There are, in fact, a number of theoretically sound applications for translation in ELT classrooms including grammar and vocabulary instruction, teaching communication and learning strategies and the use of contrastive analysis.
Grammar and Vocabulary Instruction
The most common bond found in most literature supporting the use of translation in ELT classrooms is its efficiency and effectiveness with low level students. In the current methodology prescribed in most private English schools in Japan, one would teach a vocabulary point through demonstration and action; techniques similar to the Direct Method of the 1950s and 1960s strictly forbade the use of translation. The method eventually lost popularity partly due to its inefficiency, with critics noting:
. . . strict adherence to the Direct Method principles was often counterproductive since teachers were required to go to great lengths to avoid using the native tongue, when sometimes a simple brief explanation in the student's native tongue would have been a more efficient route to comprehension (Richards and Rogers, 1986, p. 11).
Direct translation to clarify meaning when a pupil does not comprehend a vocabulary word or grammar point is one technique that may be utilised in ELT. By using translation to ensure student comprehension, a solid, meaningful cognitive base upon which to develop communicative use of the language is created. Stern (1992) also supports translation use, noting that translation from L2 to L1 serves an important role in creating a mental link between the new and difficult and that which is familiar. The selective translation of vocabulary and grammar points in ELT classrooms may provide the links necessary for long-term recall of material.
Teaching Communication and Learning Strategies
"Communication strategies" refer to "potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal" (Faerch and Kasper cited in Brown, 1994, p. 118) and are now considered to be crucial in language acquisition, as well as for effective communication (Riley, 1991). Such strategies include appeals for clarification and language switches. On the subject of communication strategy use in children's EFL, Brewster (1991) explains:
It is important that teachers of young learners ensure that their pupils . . . begin to learn a range of strategies required to negotiate meaning in English, for providing feedback to show that they have understood something, asking questions to clarify misunderstandings or checking details . . . it might be possible to ask the children afterwards what they needed to say in English but only knew in their mother tongue (128).
The strategy of providing teacher translations of clarification phrases and allowing comprehension checks in either language may serve an important role in helping students to understand material and to express themselves clearly.
Williams (1991, p. 204) stresses the importance of engaging students in strategy use noting; ". . . by guiding and encouraging learning strategies, learner-active processes, rather than relying on feeding in structures for children to practice, we may be providing them with a far more valuable tool for self-learning." "Learning strategies" refer to unconscious or conscious activities on the part of the learner that enhance the learning process (Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991). One of the more established areas often used in ELT is mnemonics the utilization of formal organizational techniques to enhance memory (Brown, 1994). Mnemonic devices such as the "keyword technique," a two part mnemonic device visually associating an L1 word with one in L2, are considered to result in greater recall than traditional means (Gray, 1997). Although considered by some to be obsolete, Gray (1997) notes, "The use of mnemonics may be of special advantage with North-East Asian students due to its' strong visual approach. Their sensory learning style appears to be quite visually orientated (Lee, 1976; Brown, 1994; Reid, 1995) mainly because of the pictorial nature of their written language" (p.4).
The Use of Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis (CA) refers to the concept that by contrasting the L1 and L2, one can predict or explain learner errors and difficulties (negative transfer), as well as successes (positive transfer). The extreme view of CA has often been discredited due to its initial applications in error prediction and its association with the behavioristic and structural approaches (Larson-Freeman, & Long, 1991). However, there has been a recent resurgence in ELT defending CA's moderated use in teaching linguistic awareness since a teacher's knowledge of L1 may aid in identifying and examining beginning student errors (Larson-Freeman & Long 1991, Brown, 1994). Shortall (1996) examines CA through the perspective of Universal Grammar (the belief that all languages have basic similarities in certain areas). He notes: "there does seem to be a reasonably strong case for once again trying to examine the effects of L1 on L2 (arguably through a universalist prism). Most language learners make L1 v. L2 comparisons. It may be time teachers and applied linguists started doing so again" (p. 8).
Translation and contrastive analysis may therefore be used to make students aware of proper contextual use of spoken phrases and words. Translating overly-formal grammar use into a Japanese informal conversation illustrates to students the cold "bookish" feeling and better emphasises the fact that English, like Japanese, is not a set number of formal utterances, but a changing, animated language which has different contextual and situational choices. Finally, translated explanations of structural variations between Japanese and English may serve to create student awareness of potential areas for error, such as English plural form and article/determiner use, both common difficulties for Japanese learners (Yamamoto-Wilson, 1997, Shortall, 1996).
The Use of a 'Mixed' Interlanguage -- An Experimental Method
This final section offers an experimental use of the L1 in children's EFL classrooms in the form of a "mixed" interlanguage. Interlanguage refers to "a [language] system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target languages" (Brown, 1994, p. 203). In this method, mixed interlanguage refers to the integration of L2 into the L1 base language during "free conversation" and warm-up periods. It is not designed to replace 'English only' instruction, but to supplement it and aid in the development of a communicative use of the language with beginning students. In these periods, Japanese is the main language, however when any previously studied words are encountered, as in the example "Watashi no okaasan wa san ju ni sai desu.", the conversation is stopped with the teacher feigning ignorance and asking the students "What's 'Okaasan'?" or "I don't understand - what's 'san ju ni sai'?'" At this point, the student or classmates are forced to translate, which often leads to a mixing of the two languages, (i.e. Watashi no Mother wa..") The next time "What's 'watashi'?" or "What's 'san ju ni'?" is asked, leading the child to further translation/recall of studied material "My mother wa. . . thirty-two desu." Careful use and constant, strict modification to prevent fossilisation are of utmost importance. However, controlled incorporation of such an interlanguage in the EFL classroom may be developed into a more natural use of English than the rote phrases often taught. It teaches children how to use vocabulary and phrases to express themselves, not that "I'mfinethankyou" is the single response to the greeting phrase "Howareyou?"
Papers and research in the field of ESL education concerning language learning in a mixed-lingual environment have provided more resources supporting the use of mixed interlanguages. Auerbach (1993) gives an account of the ESL approach used at the Invergarry Learning Center:
Students start by writing about their lives in their L1 or a mixture of their L1 and English; this text is then translated into English with the help of bilingual tutors or learners and, as such, provides a natural bridge for overcoming problems of vocabulary, sentence structure and language confidence (p. 72). This process, results in a learner willing to experiment and take risks with English due to the security and validation of allowing L1 use (Shamish, 1990 cited in Aurbach, p.8)
By lowering anxiety and concentrating on meaning rather than form, one provides a more positive psychological environment for learning, considered by many to facilitate language acquisition (Richards & Rogers, 1986).
Although research concerning spontaneous informal L2 use is limited, observations have been made indicating that children's first target language use among themselves often occurs in stock phrases or expressions embedded mother tongue conversation (Bloor, 1984). In a discussion with several foreigners teaching children in Japan, all reported occurrences of students mixing the two languages in the classroom, often in an effort to facilitate comprehension on the part of the foreigner while engaging in natural conversation. Examples given included "watashi no dress wa cute desune?" or "Waa . . . sensei no eyes wa blue!" The importance of the internal, social motivation behind such conversations has often been indicated as necessary for successful language learning (Brown, 1994).
There are several areas that require further examination in regards to this approach including the long-term effectiveness of concurrent translation with children. It is offered in brief here as an innovative area of translation use with potential for exploitation in children's EFL for facilitating comprehension, reducing young learner stress, and motivating communicative use of English.
In conclusion, translation use may serve to facilitate EFL learning in a number of ways; increasing cognition and recall of vocabulary and grammar, empowering students through its use in teaching communication and learning strategies, and offering points of comparison and contrast when teaching English use in context.
Corporate policy in Japanese children's language schools is presently ignoring the potential of this tool in deference to objections often based, not on theory, but on marketing potential and functional limitations. Contrary to this policy, the findings reported here indicate that teachers in the actual classrooms often find translation necessary, both pedagogically and socially. Therefore, a common sense application of techniques such as those discussed above is highly recommended as a possible solution to this conflict.
References
Auerbach, E. R. 1993. Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), Spring 1993.
Bloor, M. 1991. The role of informal interaction in teaching English to young learners. In C. Brumfit et al. (eds) Teaching English to Children. London: Longman, 127-141.
Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall.
Brewster, J. 1991. What is good primary practice? In C. Brumfit et al. (Eds.) Teaching English to children. London: Longman, 115-126.
Cole, S. 1998. The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. The Language Teacher, 22 (12), December, 1998.
Gray, R. 1997. Mnemonics in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Language Teacher, 21 (4), April, 1997.
Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. Longman.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Riley, P. 1991. Whats your background? The culture and identity of the bilingual child. In C. Brumfit et al. (Eds.) Teaching English to children. London: Longman, 271-288.
Shortall, T. 1996. Language knowledge in language acquisition: Universal grammar and second language teaching. In Willis J. and J. D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann.
Stern, H. H. 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Weschler, R. 1997. Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. The Internet TESL Journal, [On-line] 3 (2). Available: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/
Williams, M. 1991. A framework for teaching English to young learners. In C. Brumfit et al. (Eds.) Teaching English to Children. London: Longman, 203-212.
Yamamoto-Wilson, J.R. 1997. Can a knowledge of Japanese help our EFL teaching? In The Language Teacher, 21 (1), January, 1997.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website