# Should a language teacher translate or define in language taught?



## Cracker Jack

I am going to present 2 scenarios wherein a language teacher takes up vocabulary with students and how he copes with it. First scenario: the students are learning a language (ex. English) in a country (Spain) where the official language (Spanish) is different from that being learned (English). The students are mostly natives of that country (Spaniards). In the lesson, they stumble upon a word unknown to them (ex. _perspicacious_). In this case, should the teacher explain or define in native language (Spanish) or in language being learned (English)?

Scenario number 2. The students come from all over the globe and they are learning a language in the country where it is spoken (French in France). All students speak a certain language (English). Would it be acceptable if the professor translates to English a certain word (_émeute_, for example)?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## .   1

In the case of the first scenario I would say definitely yes.  The students are not learning to think in English.

In the second case I would suspect that again the answer is yes.  The students are of various languages learning French but the common language for all is English so the instructor would save a huge amount of trouble in defining the word in many different languages.  Even if the instructor were capable of speaking every language of every student in the class some of the translations may be more complete than others and some students would gain an unfair advantage but if the explination is given in the one common language the playing field is level.

Robert


----------



## panjabigator

Yes.  I think the students should always recieve input in the new tongue, ie Spanish.  So, if that means explaining it in a round about way in Spanish, by all means.  Of course if there are some issues, English should be used for clarification's sake.


----------



## Algue

Hello! Such an interesting discussion!  

I think that in the 1st situation it's preferable to explain a new word in English than to translate it. But it is effective if the amount of new words isn't very large. In case of an absolutely new piece of vocabulary, pupils would be drowned in the flood of detailed explanations of the teacher, so here I'm sure it'll be quicker just to translate. 
Anyway, explanation seems to be very enriching even for the beginners.

As for the 2nd case, it does present a problem here! As far as I know, in such multilinguial classes the students' levels vary really a lot, so I think that an explanation in French would be not sufficient, at least not for all the students. Besides, I'm sure their different cultural backgrounds can influence greatly. 
So, in my opinion, a translation into English is very desirable in this case.


----------



## caballoschica

I think in both instances, the teacher should define it in the language taught, and if the students have trouble understanding, translate.  

My Spanish teacher said that you should be able to describe something in Spanish even if you don't know the word.  But a translation is good for clarification!


----------



## danielfranco

Yep, me too. In my own experience, it's much easier to remember definitions and terminology if you learn them in the source language. When I studied Medical Terminology I had to take two different lectures of it in the same course: one for Spanish terminology and one for English terminology. It was up to me (to us, the students), to come up with our own ways of combining the info. So I think that it makes a huge difference whether the students are younger or older. Then again, it might just be me...


----------



## maxiogee

My view would be that it depends on the level of proficiency which the students have reached in the language being learned.


----------



## JamesM

I can only say that I have been taught both ways and have gotten different benefits from each way. 

My German professor in college required that every word be spoken in German once the class started.  This was first year German.  She said that we should say what we can, even if it has no relationship to what we believe or mean to say. So, if I hate potatoes, but I don't know how to say "I hate", then I should say, "I love potatoes" or "I don't love potatoes" if I can say that, or "Potatoes - no!" in the worst case. As a result, we ended up in a heated argument in her class over philosophy, of all things, after only five months of study, and we were all arguing in German - poor German, but German, nevertheless - and not even thinking about it.  That was an eye-opener. 

On the other hand, I would hope that a teacher would be allowed to define a word in the student's language on rare occasions. Our German professor refused. The only way I was able to work through a difficult word was to keep looking up every word in a definition for its definition, then every new word in that definition for its definition, etc. I have to say, though, that I learned an awful lot of words in a short time using that method.


----------



## Benjy

Scenario 1: It depends if it's a translation class or not.

There are loads of words in French that I have great difficulties in translating back into English because I never learnt how to do it.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

For both scenarios, I'd say that if the students have reached that stage of language learning, they should all have dictionaries.  For less esoteric vocabulary, I would explain in the target language for the same reasons that James laid out.  I've taught French both ways, and would never return to using anything but the target language in the classroom.  There was simply no comparison in the students' language acquisition.


----------



## panjabigator

JamesM said:


> I can only say that I have been taught both ways and have gotten different benefits from each way.
> 
> My German professor in college required that every word be spoken in German once the class started.  This was first year German.  She said that we should say what we can, even if it has no relationship to what we believe or mean to say. So, if I hate potatoes, but I don't know how to say "I hate", then I should say, "I love potatoes" or "I don't love potatoes" if I can say that, or "Potatoes - no!" in the worst case. As a result, we ended up in a heated argument in her class over philosophy, of all things, after only five months of study, and we were all arguing in German - poor German, but German, nevertheless - and not even thinking about it.  That was an eye-opener.
> 
> On the other hand, I would hope that a teacher would be allowed to define a word in the student's language on rare occasions. Our German professor refused. The only way I was able to work through a difficult word was to keep looking up every word in a definition for its definition, then every new word in that definition for its definition, etc. I have to say, though, that I learned an awful lot of words in a short time using that method.





The annoying thing about dictionary work is that it destroys the flow of things.  I do not know a bunch of Hindi words and so when I talk in Hindi with my teachers, I have to substitute English words all the time.


----------



## Etcetera

Cracker Jack said:


> IFirst scenario: the students are learning a language (ex. English) in a country (Spain) where the official language (Spanish) is different from that being learned (English). The students are mostly natives of that country (Spaniards). In the lesson, they stumble upon a word unknown to them (ex. _perspicacious_). In this case, should the teacher explain or define in native language (Spanish) or in language being learned (English)?


In the school I'm working for, we're encouraged to use English all the time and speak to the students in Russian only when it's absolutely inevitable. 
I have a group of adult beginners, and in the very beginning I had to repeat in Russian everything I said in English. But now I am speaking Russian in the classroom more and more rarely. 
It actually depends on the word. If it's possible to explain the meaning of the word in English, I'll certainly do it. But if the word is too complex, I would almost certainly prefer to translate it into Russian. I'll also prefer translation when we don't have much time. 



> Scenario number 2. The students come from all over the globe and they are learning a language in the country where it is spoken (French in France). All students speak a certain language (English). Would it be acceptable if the professor translates to English a certain word (_émeute_, for example)?


Only if it's absolutely impossible to explain the meaning of the word in French!


----------



## Outsider

My language teachers made it a point of honour to explain everything in the target language, instead of translating into Portuguese. This is probably the best method, because it forces the student to think in the language he's learning, not the language he already knows.
Having said this, every now and then a quick translation can clear a doubt so well...


----------



## Etcetera

Outsider said:


> Having said this, every now and then a quick translation can clear a doubt so well...


Well, I, personally, don't like translation. Of course, with beginners, you can afford translating, not explaining, because the texbooks usually use quite simple words in their most popular meanings. But what if your students's level is Upper-Intermediate or Advanced? On these levels, it's much better to explain the worss, not just translate them. 
When I come over a new word in a text, I look it in my Oxford dictionary of English, and only if I can't understand the definition given there (it happens, though very rarely), do I look into an English-Russian dictionary.


----------



## french4beth

For the first scenario, I think you should always try & explain in the language being taught, and only as a last result resort to the native language (depending on the students' proficiency, too).

When I was at university, one semester every student in my Russian language class also spoke French (as did the professor), so he would frequently give the Russian class and give explanations in French - talk about a challenge! But I learned a lot!


----------



## Cracker Jack

Thank you very much for all your replies.  I share some of your sentiments.  For example if the level of the students is that absolute beginners, the teacher may speak in the native language of the students.  Although it may not be entirely done that way.  I have experience as an absolute beginner in wherein the teacher talked for only 5 minutes in Spanish but she was very effective.  We understood.  I guess, it depends on the skill of the teacher making himself understood by the students.

When I studied French, although I had background, the teacher talked in French and explained only some terms in Spanish whenever the vocabulary involved names of plants and animals.  She was pretty cool.  In fact at beginner's level, she made us do some basic conversation and all went well, with the exception of phonetics.

On the other hand, I had a teacher for Spanish who from the very start was obviously anti-English and she made it clear that she only speaks Spanish.  She herself though speaks English.  The rest of the class were foreigners who spoke English as well.  I remembered when she tried to explain the meaning of the word ''sacacorchos,''  it took her almost 5 minutes explaining it and the rest of the group just reacted with blank stares.  Then somebody who got it said ''corkscrew.''  Problem solved.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

For complicated situations I think one must explain in the native language, there's little point otherwise. You may end up getting a completely skewed handle on what is being taught, whereas a simple sentence of explanation may bring you up to speed.

For instance if my French teacher had to have taught me the subjunctive in French, well, I'd still be staring out the window. For a proper understanding it is sometimes imperative to explain in the language the speaker is most comfortable in.

Take this forum for instance, if a foreign speaker has a question on French grammar and you explain it to him in French what are the chances of him really grasping the mechanics of what you're saying? Very little I would think.


----------



## Outsider

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Take this forum for instance, if a foreign speaker has a question on French grammar and you explain it to him in French what are the chances of him really grasping the mechanics of what you're saying? Very little I would think.


It depends on his level of proficiency, IMHO. I think you should switch to French as soon as possible, just as English grammar was always explained to me in English, in my latter years of schooling. However, if the student has a low level of profiency, or if you don't know what his level of proficiency is, I think it's O.K. to use English.

Mostly, though, I think using the native language of the students is appropriate for situations like the one Crackerjack has just described: saying that ''sacacorchos'' means "corkscrew", instead of wasting five minutes explaining it in the target language (unless you can think of an effective explanation in the target language; that would be the ideal).


----------



## Etcetera

Cracker Jack said:


> Thank you very much for all your replies.  I share some of your sentiments.  For example if the level of the students is that absolute beginners, the teacher may speak in the native language of the students.  Although it may not be entirely done that way.


When I began working with my group - they all knew no English then, although one or two knew several English words and phrases - I had to repeat everything twice, in English and in Russian, and I also used a lot of gestures. 
Now, after 4 months of studying, they can understand most of what I say to them in English.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Outsider said:


> It depends on his level of proficiency, IMHO. I think you should switch to French as soon as possible, just as English grammar was always explained to me in English, in my latter years of schooling. However, if the student has a low level of profiency, or if you don't know what his level of proficiency is, I think it's O.K. to use English.



Of course if you are of a high standard, you can cope with being explained to in the target language. However even now (I'm doing French at university) I find when discussing topics and meeting something I don't understand, a quick explanation in English followed by examples in French from the tutor helps me far more than her just rabbiting on in French with me none the wiser. 

Maybe that's just me though.


----------



## .   1

Cracker Jack said:


> I remembered when she tried to explain the meaning of the word ''sacacorchos,'' it took her almost 5 minutes explaining it and the rest of the group just reacted with blank stares. Then somebody who got it said ''corkscrew.'' Problem solved.


This is what I imagine happens in many language classes.

Robert


----------



## kurumin

Students should be given the explanation in their language so they can TRANSLATE.

One of the most important thing in language teaching/learning is TRANSLATION!

I know many Brazilians who lived in the USA and speak perfect English but are unable to translate because
they need like 2/3 minutes to tell the word in Portuguese, so they are lousy translators and no company
would ever hire them


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

. said:


> This is what I imagine happens in many language classes.
> 
> Robert


 
That used to happen in mine, LOL! 

I used to work at this "English only" school, not too long ago. It went just fine for a couple of months, I loved it, I would defend their Nº1 rule to death... until I had to teach these 12 kids, 5 hours a day with just one 15-minutes break, speaking English from the very first class. Any idea what their ages were? From 4 to 7 years old! Some of them could not yet speak fluent Spanish (what the heck! Half the class still had trouble with using the toilet!), and I had to speak English at all times?!?  Are you freakin' kidding me?!?! 

It was just a summer course anyway ("5 weeks and that's it", my boss said), but by the graduation day, I was totally exhausted, those kids had learned barely more than isolated words, their parents felt like the institution had robbed their money, and I was ready to quit!

Ok, that was a rather extreme experience, but what I mean is that I believe a teacher must have some flexibility. If one cannot adapt to the students, how could we demand them to adapt to a new language? That doesn't make any sense to me...


----------



## Etcetera

kurumin said:


> Students should be given the explanation in their language so they can TRANSLATE.
> 
> One of the most important thing in language teaching/learning is TRANSLATION!


But in order to translate correctly, you need to learn the language first. 
Most words have more than one meaning. If the students learn only one of them (the one they had in a given context), they might be confused when they meet the same word in another context, where it has another meaning. 
You know, the first thing I was taught at the University was to look into the dictionary any time I have doubts about the meaning of a word, even if I am perfectly sure that I know the word.


----------



## Lugubert

Been there, done that.

Teaching in the target language only is often a waste of time. Witness the sacacorchos example.

In a mixed group, however, there's the risk that some pupils will feel ignored or even demeaned if you explain a word or a feature in a language they don't know. I've had groups where the native languages were English, Finnish, Polish, Vietnamese and a few more. As interesting as challenging.

Fortunately for all parties concerned, my colleagues saw to that I always had the more advanced groups. I would have made a mess out of beginners. But that's a subject of another thread.


----------



## Prinsesse

scenario 1: Translate... There's nothing worse than not having the right definition - it will be difficult for the students to use the word later (my experience). An example, the student doesn't understand the word apple and the teacher explains it as a fruit that can be red or green and is picked from trees!? This could be many fruits!?

Scenario 2: if everyone speaks a common language other than French (as english in your example) i guess it is ok to translate. If the students are not at the same english level, the teacher might want to translate and explain in french as well...


----------



## Etcetera

That's what I do (and most of my language teachers do).
We explain the meaning of a new word to the class. Students may suggest (in their native language, of course) what does the word mean. 
If the students have no idea what does the word mean, what's to be done then?.. We have to give them a translation.


----------



## palomnik

I'm a bit bemused that nobody seems to have grappled with what seems to me to be obvious:  the abilities of the teacher.  Some language teachers can figure out a way to explain something that is clear, succinct and simple enough to be understood by the students.  Others have a hard time with this.

The skills needed to be a good language teacher are not completely the same as for most other teaching, and each teacher has to make use of their own personal talents to get the material across.  Personally I think that there are times when all teachers have to resort to translation, but the ideal is to avoid it if possible.


----------



## Etcetera

palomnik said:


> I'm a bit bemused that nobody seems to have grappled with what seems to me to be obvious: the abilities of the teacher. Some language teachers can figure out a way to explain something that is clear, succinct and simple enough to be understood by the students. Others have a hard time with this.


Why not cite the definition from a good learner's dictionary, if you can't think of your own?
You can also use gestures. They can help a lot!


----------

