the pedagogue as translator in the classroom

The Pedagogue as Translator inthe Classroom

STEPHEN DOBSON

Translation theory has faced criticism from professionaltranslators for adopting an ivory tower stance to the ‘realworld’ challenges of translation. This article argues that acase can be made for considering the challenges oftranslation as it takes place in the school classroom. Insupport of such an argument the pedagogue as translator isseen to occupy a pivotal position, such that the insights fromtranslation theory, understanding translation as aninter-linguistic act, can be combined and bridged with theburgeoning field of translation pedagogy, focusing on howthe practice of (inter-linguistic) translation might be taughtand learned in the school classroom. Extending the sphere ofinfluence of translation, it is argued that the pedagogue astranslator is concerned with teaching pupils in the classroomhow to engage in making meaning in their respectivesubjects. This requires acts of translation from and withsomething heard or seen with respect to the subjectconcerned, in order to make into personal knowledge. Afteran initial presentation of a particular understanding oftranslation theory inspired by Walter Benjamin’s famousessay on ‘The Task of the Translator’, examples of bridgingare presented in the teaching of translation skills in twoclassroom subjects: teaching English as a foreign languageand teaching natural science.

In a professional sense, and more narrowly defined, translation is an occu-pation with its own certification process and collegiate membership asso-ciations. As certified and registered the holder of the title is permitted totranslate texts, to translate in court and in other less public contexts, such asthe meeting between a case worker/policeman and a refugee/asylum seeker.For the academic such as the educational philosopher, it has less to do withwitnessing scenes of surveillance and those making pleas and refers tothose who translate, not necessarily for remunerative purposes, the work ofcolleagues for publication in learned journals or books. The terms of thedebate between professional and non-professional translator have beencouched in terms of the practice versus theory dichotomy where translation

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. ••, No. ••, 2012

© 2012 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

professionals have been sceptical about the focus on translation theoryfrom within the ivory tower of academia (Baer and Koby, 2003). Transla-tion theory, focused on inter-linguistic translation, has debated the need forprinciples and rules for the translation of figurative language, cohesionmarkers, and the rhetorical twists and turns of the text (Naganuma, 2008).To cite an example, Quine in his famous intervention on radical translationintroduced the behaviourist notion of sensory stimulation prompting assent(or dissent) as translators sought, and yet never reached complete access tosemantic meanings in the language of the other. A degree of indeterminacywill always remain in the course of the following:1

The recovery of a man’s current language from his currently observedresponses is the task of the linguist, who, unaided by an interpreter, isout to penetrate and translate a language hitherto unknown (Quine,1960, p. 28).

With the rise of translation studies in higher education in recent decadesthere has also been a growing call to supplement and to some extentsidestep the dominance of translation theory by exploring the parameters oftranslation pedagogy (Carrové, 1999). This has moved the primary focusfrom the conventional understanding of ‘translation’ as an inter-linguisticact to an interest in how the practice of inter-linguistic translation can betaught and learnt. The assertion of these pedagogues is simple: translatorsare made not born and the role of learning processes must be understoodand structured. This form of pedagogy has postulated among other things aparadigm shift from instruction and the transmission of an accepted bodyof knowledge and skills to the novice to one in which the teacher andstudent translator collaborate in learning. The teacher of translation isincreasingly considered to be a facilitator in a learner-centred classroom.As Kiraly has put in openly social constructivist terms:

All input from the environment, including a teacher’s utterances, willhave to be interpreted, weighed and balanced against each learner’sprior knowledge (Kiraly, 2003, p. 10).

In other words, to be a translator requires acts of making meaning. Anumber of points can be made about this presumed shift in paradigm.Firstly, while the shift in focus towards translation pedagogy counters thedominance of translation theory it still returns to translation theory indebates about the curriculum content of translation pedagogy and the roleof different materials accessible on the Internet or elsewhere. What isrequired, and I shall return to this, is an exploration of the bridge connect-ing translation pedagogy (teaching the practice of inter-linguistic transla-tion) with translation theory (translation understood in the conventionalinter-linguistic sense). Ruitenberg’s (2009) work on the translation asphilosophical method is about inter-linguistic and inter-discursive transla-tion, but I would argue it can be developed and used to provide insight intobridging. She explores how the phrase ‘ways of knowing’ translated into

2 S. Dobson

© 2012 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain

French and German gives rise to different inter-linguistic and inter-discursive meanings. Students speaking different languages might beactively involved and encouraged in similar processes of distance anddefamiliarisation when translating new phrases. This is to evoke a focuson the teaching of the practice of translation. The connection of hertranslation theory with translation pedagogy is provided by reflections onhow to determine what counts as a good translation, e.g. students mightselect and judge on the one hand, as a point drawing on translation theory,the relevance of different metaphors in their translations.2 And on the otherhand, as a point drawing on translation pedagogy, students might explorehow their translations give rise to new forms and levels of understand-ings when used in different discursive and linguistic contexts. In otherwords, translation theory is bridged with translation practice in differentuser-oriented contexts.

Secondly, the shift in paradigm presented by translation pedagogy hasappropriated insights from new methodologies developed to teach foreignlanguages in school classrooms. And yet the focus of their concerns hasremained translation studies in higher education, and it will be arguedthat the role of the pedagogue as translator is equally pertinent to practicein the primary and secondary school classroom in different subjects. Thispoint is crucial to my argument. Namely, translation pedagogy (in thespecific sense of the praxis of teaching translation) offers, and morestrongly implies, the corresponding idea that any pedagogue can (meta-phorically speaking) be considered a translator interested in teaching theirpupils how to engage in making meaning in their respective subjects andhow this requires acts of translation. Thus, just as translation pedagogy hasborrowed insights from second language acquisition literature, pedagogy ingeneral can borrow in return insights from translation pedagogy, expandingit to encompass classroom practice in the teaching of different subjects andhow meaning is made.

With a basis in these introductory points this article sets as its goal thereturn of philosophical debate on translation to the everyday work of thepedagogue as translator in the school classroom. This is a sphere ofactivity where many cultures meet and interact and it can be tempting toresign oneself to the belief that in the act of translation something willalways be lost and remain untranslatable in this meeting (Bergdahl, 2009;Quine, 1960). To begin with I will locate my argument in translation theoryand in so doing draw upon Benjamin’s famous essay on the translator inorder to talk of the act of destruction and the challenge of untranslatability.With the goal of considering how the pedagogue as translator can providea bridge for the combination of translation theory with educational practice(read translation pedagogy) in the classroom, I will explore in the secondpart of the article two examples: the teaching of English as a secondlanguage and the teaching of natural sciences. A temptation I will resist inthis article is to widen the argument of bridging to include pupil experi-ences outside of the classroom. This was a topic close to Benjamin’s heart;in his urban wanderings in the passages of Paris he sought the company ofSurrealists, Marxists, authors and theologians (Dobson, 2006).

The Pedagogue as Translator in the Classroom 3


In my argument bridging invites and offers the opportunity of a form oftranslation pedagogy grounded in the active involvement of children in theclassroom learning of different subjects. They can, if offered the opportu-nity, collaborate with teachers in acts of translation and making meaning. Insuch a context acts of translation are not therefore reduced to the simpleone-directional transmission of texts, events and experience, as sourcesof knowledge and skills, between the pedagogue and pupil. Furthermore,in the course of these acts of translation the opportunity for personaland shared Bildung presents itself to both the pedagogue and the pupil(Steinsholt and Dobson, 2011). As Saito (2009, p. 265) has noted, the workof translation offers the opportunity of creating oneself, ‘auto-bio-graphy isthe historical and cultural record of the “I”, one inheriting the voices of thepast, while projecting its own voice in prophesy’. Following Saito, trans-lation becomes a project of Bildung that is at once intensely personal andsocially shared.

My point of departure in translation theory is the argument that it isdifficult, if not impossible, for pupils to attain knowledge of the original asit is has actually been brought forth in a foundational manner, especiallywhen the foundational moment lies beyond the classroom in terms of spaceand time. The original is always open to re-interpretation in the classroomacts of translation, it decays or the context of its original production andconsumption change, such that its present and future consumption alsocome to differ. The original refuses to be fixed (Cadava, 1997, p. 92). Inthe collaborative re-interpretations undertaken by the teacher and pupil(informed by translation pedagogy), in shared acts of translation (rooted intranslation theory as an inter-linguistic activity), the pedagogue as trans-lator becomes a central guide and facilitator.

THE PEDAGOGUE AS TRANSLATOR’S UNDERSTANDINGOF RESPECT3

It has become commonplace to cite Benjamin’s essay, ‘The Task of theTranslator’, in discussions of the act of translation. Derrida (2001, p. 199)to take an example, writes of:

. . . the survival of the body of the original (survival in the doublesense that Benjamin gives it in ‘The Task of the Translator,’ fortlebenand überleben: prolonged life, continuous life, living on, but also lifeafter death).

Benjamin’s essay is a rich source of perspectives on translation, perhapsbecause he had undertaken much translation himself (the Tableaux Paris-iens edition of Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du mal and the first volumes ofProust’s À la recherche du temps perdu), giving him cause to reflect on itsmany facets, and he could easily have become a professional translatortranslating many more texts.4

4 S. Dobson


In my reading of his essay, the translator’s object of concern wasn’t somuch the information contained in the original, what we might call know-ledge or semantic meanings of the foundational text, event or experience.The translator’s object of concern was instead the language of the original.But, the translator was not out to reproduce the language of the original ina new language with such mirror-like consistency and efficiency that theoriginal’s language would become obsolete.

He proposed the following:

The task of the translator consists in finding that intended effect(intentiona) upon the language into which he is translating whichproduces in it the echo of the original . . . The intention of the poet isspontaneous, primary, graphic; that of the translator is derivative,ultimate, ideational (Benjamin, 1992, pp. 76–77).

The translator should reveal and echo how the poet has achieved his graphicexperiences, hence the derivative project (Jacobs, 1993, p. 137). Or, to putit differently and to extend the argument to the practice of the pedagogueas translator, at once incorporating and transcending the practice of theprofessional translator and the task of the pedagogue traditionally con-ceived as a transmitter of the work of others, one should desire to echo andshow the methods used by the original to communicate its content. Andsuch an endeavour will of necessity lead to a focus on language itself.Hence Benjamin’s point:

A real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, doesnot block its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforcedby its own medium, to shine upon the original all the more fully. Thismay be achieved, above all, by a literal rendering of the syntax whichproves words rather than sentences to be the primary element of thetranslator. For if the sentence is the wall before the language of theoriginal, literalness is the arcade (Benjamin, 1992, p. 79).

In other words, the translator works with the words of the original, sourcelanguage, such that ‘a literal rendering of the syntax’ in a new, targetlanguage will permit an insight into precisely the language effects of theoriginal and its content. Hence his view that the sentences of the originalare in fact a wall or barrier preventing a deeper contact with the originallanguage. It is necessary to break down these sentences and reconstructthem through a literal syntax (ordering) in the new language. Such a literalsyntax will reveal language, that of the original and of the new, not to be awalled, restrictive barrier, but an arcade permitting numerous encountersand effects. Benjamin’s point reverberates with Brecht’s concept of ver-fremdungseffekt, translated as the estrangement effect or defamiliarisation(Brooker, 1994). Brecht was a valued friend of Benjamin.

George Steiner remains sceptical to Benjamin’s literal translationbecause he understands his goal as the pursuit of the spirit of the original.Nevertheless, he seems to agree on the importance of emphasising the



necessity of a dislocation between the original (source) and the translation(target), despite suggesting some essence or spirit of the original. Hisdefinition of the ‘supreme translation’ therefore emphasises the importanceof the translation being similar to, rather than the same as the original:

Supreme translation . . . it can illuminate the original, compelling it,as it were, into greater clarity and impact . . . by deploying visibly,elements of connotation, of overtone and undertone, latencies ofsignificance, affinities with other texts and cultures or defining con-trasts with these—all of which are present, are ‘there’ in the originalfrom the outset but may not have been fully declared (Steiner, 1996,p. 206).

To summarise, the translator, and by extending the argument, the peda-gogue as translator in the classroom interested in translating not only texts,but also events or experiences as forms of knowledge with ever new groupsof pupils, should according to Benjamin concern himself/herself withechoing and showing the methods of the original. Through literalness forexample, the intention to reproduce in mirror-like fashion and make theindividual, source language obsolete would be thwarted. The source lan-guage and the target language remain separate, and the semantic content ofthe original language has its own place, connected more directly with theoriginal language and more indirectly with the new language. Respect forthe original is maintained, and in the words of Derrida (2001, p. 199),it becomes possible to bring about ‘prolonged life . . . life after death’.

To repeat, should the pedagogue as translator therefore attempt to makehimself/herself invisible in the classroom and let the light of the originalshine ever more brightly? Drawing on Benjamin’s line of argument theanswer would be that this could only be desirable if the pedagogue intendedto reproduce totally the language and semantic content of the original in thetarget language of the classroom. And this is impossible, to begin with, theclassroom context of the now will never reproduce in mirror-like fashionexactly that of the original. One argument in support of this position is thatthere can be no eternal return (Nietzsche) or return of the ever same(Benjamin), which is other than a mythical illusion designed to deny theflow of time and history. Hence the view that the pedagogue as translatorshould respect the original and the translation as two recognizably differententities, separated by context and time.

And yet, the pedagogue as translator might regard the task differently: asanalogous to the professional translator working to translate a contract oflaw for a foreign company, or, a person desiring that their school diplomasshould be translated to assist their application to a foreign university, suchthat the semantic content of the text assumes prominence over and above itslinguistic form. The pedagogue with such acts of translation in mind willseek to strive to make himself/herself and the difference between theirtarget text and the foundation, source text invisible. It may be the case thatthe translation Benjamin had in mind dealt not with meeting the pragmaticdemands of the global capitalist in an enterprise or the university registrar,

6 S. Dobson


but with the less overtly utilitarian demands of the aesthetic work of art.The subtitle of his essay on the translator was an Introduction to theTranslation of Baudelaire’s Tableaux Parisiens.

If this argument holds force, the pedagogue as translator is faced with achoice between to translate in an act of translation and strive not to overlayand make obsolete the language and content of the original source.5 That is,a goal whereby the pedagogue in the classroom, together with pupils, isconcerned to leave his or her mark upon the original and mark theirdifference. Alternatively, the pedagogue must strive to leave no trace of hisor her presence: to communicate in the act of translation both the languageand content of the original with such a strength and intensity that the flameof an independent identity uttering them becomes extinguished.

The latter type of pedagogue offers an avenue into Benjamin’s reflectionson the destructive character, which ‘the destructive character obliterateseven the traces of destruction’ (1979, p. 158). Take for example the fol-lowing experience: some may have experienced teachers who communi-cated texts, experience and events as forms of knowledge we have hadcause to return to at a later date, but can’t remember their names or faces.All that remained was the aura of the original and not a mark of thetranslation or the translator.

To strive after not leaving a mark of presence upon the translated andcommunicated knowledge in such a manner will require a destructive act inthe sense that the pedagogue as translator must actively destroy her or hispresence. But, it can also be argued that the destructive character is alsopresent when the pedagogue as translator desires to leave her or his markof difference on the original. In this latter case, the distancing and defa-miliarisation (Ruitenberg, 2009) from the original source and its inclusionin a new target language and translation will destroy not only the real orimagined context of the original, but also older or previous semantic mean-ings in the course of making a space and context for new ones.

As Nietzsche put it, it is a case of creative destruction, and this becomesa trait identifiable in the pedagogue as translator:

. . . the destruction of phenomena, now appear necessary to us, inview of the excess of countless forms of existence which force andpush one another into life . . . (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 104).

However, it is important to note that this destruction in order to createdoesn’t lead to the final imposition or choice of a once and for all newversion to the exclusion of all alternatives. The new version is alwaysre-negotiable at a later point in time. Or, to put it differently the closure isnever permanent.6 In Benjamin’s phrase (1979, p. 158), perhaps inspired byNietzsche, ‘the destructive character sees nothing as permanent . . . novision . . . few needs, and the least of them is to know what will replacewhat has been destroyed.’

Understood in spatial terms each act of translation therefore expressesand realises the desire to create a space for the new translation. In thecontext of our argument the space is the learning space of the classroom



shared and potentially co-authored by the pedagogue as a translator withhis or her pupils. This space, thus offers the opportunity for a translationpedagogy where the teacher (read pedagogue as translator), can teach thepraxis of translation. Heidegger formulated this spatial component existen-tially, much as Benjamin sought to with the conception of the destructivecharacter. Heidegger emphasized a presencing and a clearing of the spaceof Being (Ge-Stell—letting-come-forth-here), and he also connected it atthe same time with the desire for closure and concealment, the ‘conflict ofclearing and concealing’ (Heidegger, 1971, pp. 55, 84). It is precisely thisconcealment as closure, which Benjamin (1979) would deny, ‘the destruc-tive character sees nothing as permanent’. Inter-twined with these spatialconcerns there are, as argued above, deliberations about respect for theoriginal source text, event or experience to be translated in the act oftranslation and the role played by destruction and the pedagogue as trans-lator’s intention to erase or alternatively mark his or her presence.

QUESTIONING THE UNTRANSLATABLE

My conception of translation theory, which connects the actions of thepedagogue as translator with violence, destruction and the obliteration oftraces might be anathema to teachers who believe that they must upholdtheir professional standing as practitioners of creative processes, eventhough we might moderate it to creative destruction. Another strand inmy conception of translation theory involves untranslatability, of whichJakobson (2000, p. 116) was famously scathing, calling it the ‘the dogma ofuntranslatable’:

All cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in anyexisting language. Whenever there is deficiency, terminology may bequalified and amplified by loan-words or loan-translations, neolo-gisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions.

But it might still be argued that even if the desire is to adopt Jakobson’sposition, the untranslatable still haunts as an excess or residue of meaninglost in the process of commuting between source and target language.Octavio Paz, the well-known poet, phrased it in the following terms:

. . . translation of the denotative meanings of a text is possible; on theone hand, opinion is near unanimous that translation of the connota-tive meanings is impossible . . . I confess that this idea repels me (Paz,1991, pp. 190–191).

For Bergdahl (2009, p. 37) untranslatability is contextualised and presentin the meeting between secular and religious citizens. It is not simplya linguistic operation transporting semantic meaning, but about ‘meapproaching you’, as an ethical encounter with the sacredness of the Other,and in the process seeking to develop respect for their secular and religious

8 S. Dobson


positions.7 Her argument is particularly pertinent in a classroom with pupilsfrom different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In their regular interactionthere will be limits to the translatable and an encounter with the untrans-latable demonstrated on a daily basis.

An arguably more complex example of the untranslatable, at once inte-grating and transcending the linguistic (Paz) and socio-cultural (Bergdahl)understanding of the untranslatable is found in the work of Joyce inFinnegans Wake; a book with over sixty different languages. He was notinterested in marking the mutual presence of the source and target, andletting one become subservient to the other as a (Anglo-Saxon) masterlanguage might assume a position of dominance. One strategy he adoptedto communicate and explore the untranslatable was the crafting of port-manteau words comprising many mother tongues. Mother tongue of coursein this context is a misnomer.8 Joyce becomes a playful, gaming post-modern exponent of the manner in which language and meaning developthrough borrowing and transformation (Steinsholt and Dobson, 2009).Here is an example from the scene in the book, where the children in the actof doing their homework reflect upon history as the movement of conflictand war, sexual intrigues and motivated by money or profit:

da, da, of Sire Jeallyous Seizer, that gamely torskmester, with his duoof druidesses in ready money rompers . . . (Joyce, 1975, p. 271).

Some notes are necessary in an attempt, always failing, to understand andpin down the semantic meaning of the text in a once and for all manner:from the Russian da means yes; Jeallyous Seizer is a pun on Julius Caesarimmersed in jealous intrigues; gamely meaning in the game of, but alsoclose to the Danish word for an old man in Danish; torskmester meaningtask, master and leader, but also meaning cod master and fisherman; andmoney rompers referring to the role of money as a motive in history, as wellas sexual desire in rompers, revealed in one of Joyce’s notebooks asconnected with a woman’s skirt.

Joyce lets the many languages run riot, like disobedient and rebelliouspupils in a classroom where the teacher is unable (or unwilling) to exertcontrol. In the context of my argument Joyce potentially disrupts the workof the pedagogue as translator in the classroom and in the course of doingthis demonstrates a lack of respect for the source text and its language.9 Myargument, without going as far as examples to be found in Finnegans Wake,is that the untranslatable will always be present as the potential excess orresidue of meaning lost in the process of commuting between source andtarget language in acts of translation.

In the remainder of the article I will explore the manner in which myunderstanding of translation theory (heightening the presence of the origi-nal, source text, event or experience or the opposite, and additionallycoming to terms with the untranslatable) can impact upon the pedagogue astranslator’s praxis of teaching translation in the classroom. Two examplesare chosen, one with an overtly linguistic focus, the other less so: theteaching of English as a second language and the teaching of natural



sciences. This returns me to my primary concern, namely the connection oftranslation pedagogy (the praxis of teaching translation) with translationtheory (inter-linguistic translation); it must be added that this is not in thecontext of translation studies in higher education, as has been the concernin much of the literature to date, but in the context of teaching and learningin primary and secondary schools. From translation pedagogy I take thepoint that pedagogues interested in translating knowledge, events and expe-riences are to be increasingly understood as facilitators rather than instruc-tors, and together with pupils they collaborate in learning and the makingof meaning in acts of translation.

TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE AND TEACHINGTHE NATURAL SCIENCES

In order to further conceptualise translation pedagogy as the active involve-ment of the pupil the argument is made in the following terms: The moveto actively involve the pupil in the learning process is by no means new,but it has gained a new twist in the Assessment Reform Group (www.assessment-reform-group.org/) in the UK over the last two decades. Thisloosely connected group of intellectuals have gained a global influenceas they have developed and communicated the principles of assessmentfor learning (Bennett, 2011; Black et al., 2003; Stobart, 2008). Assessmentfor learning highlights the involvement of pupils in their own learningthrough self-assessment, utilising feedback strategies from teachers andpeers, the sharing of assessment criteria with pupils and classroom assess-ment based upon the posing of questions to generate close listening andreflection.

In teaching English as a second language in the 1960–70s discrete-pointtesting occupied a dominant position in classroom practice (Chvala andGraedler, 2010).10 The pedagogue as translator’s goal was to teach andassess different skills, such as the use of grammar or vocabulary in separatetests. There was in such cases an objective assessment with only one correctanswer and the pupils accumulated points independently of the teacher’sinput and judgment, e.g. in vocabulary tests or national tests. In this formof classroom practice the pedagogue’s role was not to leave her or his markon the text and accuracy with respect to the source text, event or experiencewas paramount. There was little space created for the admission of theuntranslatable.

From the 1980s and to the present a different form of classroom practicehas assumed a more dominant position (Simensen, 2007). Commonlyknown as Communicative Language Teaching the central focus is uponclassroom teaching and assessment that focuses on meaning-oriented lan-guage and its use in authentic contexts. It directs attention towards a morecontinuous form of assessment and the desire to guide the development ofthe pupils’ communicative competence. Assessment for learning plays akey role and in particular the manner in which the pedagogue utilisesfeedback strategies to assist pupils in the co-construction of meaning and

10 S. Dobson


understanding. Assessment scores are judged on the basis of appropriacyrather than correctness; marking a clear breach with the discrete-point formof teaching and assessment. The pedagogue as translator’s role becomesmore that of a facilitator, leaving a mark together with the pupil upon thetranslated text, event or experience. Admissions of pupil (and also it mustbe added, teacher) difficulties in translating, as evidence of the untranslat-able, are permitted and encouraged as valuable learning experiences.

There is a move away from accuracy and the demand to meet Jakobson’s(2000, p. 114) definition of an ‘interlingual translation or translation properis an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language’.Chvala and Graedler (2010, p. 80) support this move with the followingargument:

. . . feedback on language needs to focus not just on overall accuracybut on errors versus mistakes. An error is a category of inaccuracieswhich repeat themselves and reflect a systematic problem in thelearner’s language. A mistake, on the other hand, is an inaccuracywhich occurs randomly and could be the result of a slip-of-the-handor could occur as the result of the learner being focused on somethingelse at the time. Errors can be subdivided into two types: Language 1(L1) interference errors and developmental errors. L1 interferenceerrors are those errors which occur as a result of differences betweenthe L1 and English. Developmental errors, on the other hand, areerrors which occur mostly consistently as a result of a learner’s movefrom one stage of mastery to another.

The pedagogue as translator’s goal is to determine which types ofinaccuracies are present in the translated work of the pupil and to offerformative assessment as feedback to assist the pupil in the developmentof their proficiency in English as a second language.

In this example it is possible to see how the classroom practice of thepedagogue as translator in the case of second language acquisition entailsspecific forms of inter-linguistic translation (e.g. leaving or not leavingmarks on the text) and these are bridged with a form of translation peda-gogy where the pupil is taught to collaborate with the teacher in thecreating and learning of meaning. Put differently, there is a move from apedagogue who is more reserved and seeking accuracy to one whoembraces a more collaborative, relation oriented engagement with thelearning processes of the pupil. The translation theory I have introducedearlier is therefore expressed in the classroom context of this example interms of the move from accuracy to appropriacy. In broad terms the peda-gogue as translator creates a scaffolding, a term favoured by Vygotsky-inspired social constructivists, to support the learning processes of thepupil.

In the second example on the teaching of natural sciences11 there is asimilar weighting towards the pedagogue as translator who facilitates andactively engages with pupils as they explore their own experiences oflearning and translation. Assessment for learning guides, as in the example



above, a collaborative form of translation pedagogy. The choice of thisparticular form of translation pedagogy marks a deliberate choice tocounter a form of translation pedagogy still found, and arguably stillsomewhat dominant, in the practice of the natural science pedagogue astranslator. Namely, one in which instruction and transmission is dominantas the pedagogue utilizes intralinguistic12 acts of translation to rephrasedifficult ideas in a language and terminology that become accessible to thepupil. In this case the pedagogue as translator actively leaves a mark uponthe source ideas; but tones down the pupil’s collaborative participation inthe learning and creation of meaning.

In the European Commission report from 2004 Europe Needs MoreScientists it was noted that when pupils encounter natural science as awell-established set of facts without a connection to experiments andobservations, pupils have fewer opportunities to form their own inter-pretations and are less motivated to learn the subject.13 This is the back-ground for the 2007 European Commission Report (Science EducationNOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe) that called for are-orientation of science pedagogy, placing a greater emphasis on the roleof scientific inquiry.14 This is in line with findings of the [US] NationalResearch Council (2007) report, which found that children master naturalscience when they learn to understand what are scientific explanations/concepts, how evidence is produced, that natural science knowledge can berevised and modified and lastly, that just as science is a social activitydiscussed among scientists in the scientific community, so can pupils sharetheir ideas and conceptions about science in groups in classroom activity.These children undertake translation in the sense of re-casting existingknowledge, theories and assumptions in the face of evidence and experi-ences from discoveries mediated by experiment, fieldwork and other class-room activity. They put their own personal marks on their newly acquiredknowledge.

When embedded in curricula, such as the Norwegian Knowledge Pro-motion Reform curriculum,15 these insights lead to activities where thepupil is encouraged to more actively research and make discoveries. Theterm used in the Norwegian curriculum is forskerspiren, which can betranslated as ‘researcher germination’ or ‘researcher sprouting’.16 The pupilis encouraged, with the support and guidance of the teacher, to formhypotheses, undertake experiments, make systematic observations andevaluate critically. A learning progression is sought: in the lower grades thepupil’s curiosity in natural science is stimulated through discussions aboutexperiences of science, while for higher grades the pupil as researcher is infocus as pupils explore their own ideas and observations. To support sucha goal Holt and Kvammen (2010) advocate a form of assessment pedagogythat emphasises open tests, rather than forms of multiple choice with closedquestions. The latter, representing lower order forms of taxonomical think-ing, lean towards the understanding of concepts and testing factual know-ledge. The former demonstrate higher order thinking and make it possibleto explore how pupils make their arguments, develop knowledge and applyit in new situations. Such applications within the framework of researcher

12 S. Dobson


germination (forskerspiren) enable translation acts, as knowledge disco-vered is translated and re-translated to modify a pupil’s existing know-ledge, theories and assumptions. And this all takes place under the guidanceand feedback of the pedagogue during peer group activities in the class-room. The National Research Council report agrees on this point, whereguidance and feedback is termed instructional support:

Students need instructional support and practice in order to becomebetter at coordinating their prior theories and the evidence generatedin investigations (2007, p. 157).

What both these examples share is the desire to break with the view thataccuracy and correctness should dominate over and exclude the making ofmistakes and trial and error in acts of translation (translation as inter-linguistic and supporting a theory of translation). They also highlight howthe pedagogue as translator is faced with a number of choices about howto manage the classroom learning of pupils e.g. the degree to which they areto actively engage with pupils in co-translating. In both examples weencounter a pedagogue as translator whose translation pedagogy implies apraxis of teaching translation that moves from predominantly instructionand the transmission of knowledge to one in which facilitating, throughfeedback and guidance, comes to occupy a more dominant position. But thechoice will remain with the pedagogue, who can still choose to occupycentre stage and discount or underscore the role of active pupils who arewilling or encouraged to co-translate.

CLOSING POINTS

The argument I made in the course of this article has sought to highlight aparticular understanding of the translation act and its connection with theclassroom practice of the teacher. With respect to translation theory I haveidentified the manner in which the pedagogue can choose to leave her or hismark upon the translated text, event or experience, or the opposite, wheresuch traces are minimized in the move from source to target language.Moreover, a recurring theme in translation theory has been that of theuntranslatable, and I have argued that it can be understood as an excess orresidue of meaning lost in the process of commuting between source andtarget language. When it comes to translation pedagogy I have argued fora version that highlights the teacher’s need to teach the pupil to be activeand collaborate with the pedagogue in order to co-author meaning throughacts of translation in the classroom. From a conceptual point of view mydeeper goal in this article has been to bridge translation theory with trans-lation pedagogy in the classroom activity of the pedagogue; as seen in theexamples of teaching English as a foreign language and teaching thenatural sciences.

My examples of bridging are not exhaustive, and others might be pro-posed and justified by bridging different versions of translation theory and



translation pedagogy. For example, a bridging in which Saito’s (2009) lineof argument on translation as a form of self-cultivation (bildüng) might beexplored in subjects such as music or the teaching of literature. What alsorequires further debate is the manner in which acts of translation in theclassroom might vary not only according to the subject but with respect tothe pupil’s age and how this colours the co-translating with the pedagogue.To make such a move is to invite a debate about learning progressions17 andthe manner in which they might impact upon acts of translation.

Correspondence: Stephen Dobson, Institute of Education, Hedmark Uni-versity College, Post box 400, N-2418 Elverum, Norway.Email: [email protected]

NOTES

1. Dolan (1967) has questioned the premises of Quine’s translational indeterminacy and found themdeficient on a number of counts. This point of debate must be returned to in a later essay.

2. Ruitenberg ends the section in her essay on the good translation and metaphors by citing Derrida(2001), who deconstructs the ‘good’ translation through an exploration of the word ‘relevant’.

3. I have presented an earlier version of the argument on translation as respect and translation asquestioning the untranslatable in Dobson, 2003. The earlier version was in the context of asociological selection of papers on Benjamin and the urban. The present argumentation shows agreater engagement with philosophical issues, education and mainstream translation theory.

4. Benjamin didn’t translate manuals or academic treatises. Nor did he translate in court or in otherpublic places for officials or those in need, as a professional translator might well do.

5. Venuti (2000, p. 5): uses the term ‘relative autonomy of the translation for ‘the textual features andoperations or strategies that distinguish it from the foreign text and from texts initially written inthe translating language.’

6. This has not stopped those who have regarded the creative destruction involved in translation asa type of nation-building project, where the new translation assumes the form of an enclosed setof meanings and delimited experiences. That is, the imposition of a unity founded upon a closurefor socio-political purposes. For example, to Germanise the foreign and thereby create a cultureand tradition more in keeping with the everyday needs of Germans lay behind Luther’s translationof the Bible, ‘to translate was for Luther to Germanise’ (Ulriksen, 1991, p. 208). But, suchambitions were rarely realised. With Luther’s Bible, different interpretations of the text arose andwith them the desire for new translations.

7. Bergdhal’s (2009) argument draws on the inspiration of Derrida and the psychoanalytic desire tobe understood and respected by the other.

8. Not so much mother tongue as mothers’ tongues.9. Joyce potentially disrupts in the sense that the source becomes ever more distant and diffuse;

something not necessarily desirable in the classroom management debates where advocates forclarity in teaching are to be found.

10. In the presentation of this example I make no claim to being an expert on teaching English as asecond language and remain indebted to the work of Chvala and Graedler (2010).

11. In this example I am indebted to the work of Holt and Kvammen (2010).12. Jakobson (2000, p. 114): ‘Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs

by means of other signs of the same language.’13. The Report (2004, p. 135) states the following on sampled science curricula in European coun-

tries: The image of science conveyed implicitly by these curricula is that it is mainly a massivebody of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge.

14. Scientific inquiry as a pedagogy also faces challenges: this approach faces more reluctance fromteachers as they often consider it as time-consuming leading to conflict with the requirement todeliver curricula content (2007, p. 17).

14 S. Dobson


15. In 2006 in Norway a new national curriculum was introduced in all subjects: KnowledgePromotion Reform (Kunnskapsløftet)

16. While ‘spiren’ might also be also be translated with the word ‘cultivation’, which in English alsohas both an agricultural and more general meaning, the terms germination and sprouting areretained because they reflect more closely the Norwegian word’s narrower and more limitedmeaning.

17. See Heritage, 2008 for a social constructivist approach to learning progressions.

REFERENCES

Baer, J. and Koby, G. (eds) (2003) Beyond the Ivory Tower. Rethinking Translation Pedagogy(Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing).

Benjamin, W. (1979) One-Way Street and Other Writings (London, New Left Books).Benjamin, W. (1992) The Task of the Translator, in: Illuminations Essays and Reflections,

H. Arendt, ed. (London, Fontana).Bennett, R. (2011) Formative Assessment: A Critical Review, Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy and Practice, 18.1, pp. 5–25Bergdahl, L. (2009) Lost in Translation: On the Untranslatable and its Ethical Implications for

Religious Pluralism, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43.1, pp. 31–44.Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for Learning.

Putting it into Practice (Maidenhead, Open University Press).Brooker, P. (1994) Key Words in Brecht’s Theory and Practice of Theatre, in: P. Thomson and

G. Sacks (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Brecht (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress).

Cadava, E. (1997) Words of Light. Theses on the Photography of History (Princeton, NJ, PrincetonUniversity Press).

Carrové, M. (1999) Towards a Theory of Translation Pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral thesis.University of Lleida.

Chvala, L. and Graedler, A. (2010) Assessment in English, in: S. Dobson and R. Engh(eds) Vurdering for Læring i Fag [Assessment for Learning in Subjects] (Kristiansand,Høyskoleforlaget).

Derrida, J. (2001) What is Relevant Translation? Critical Inquiry, 27, pp. 174–200.Dobson, S. (2003) The Urban Pedagogy of Walter Benjamin: Lessons for the 21st Century, Part I.

(London, Goldsmiths’ Press).Dobson, S. (2006): Urban Pedagogy—a Proposal for the 21st Century, London Review of Education,

4.2, pp. 99–114.Dolan, J. (1967) A Note on Quine’s Theory of Radical Translation, Mechanical Translation and

Computational Linguistics, 10.1/2, pp. 26–37.European Commission (2004) Europe Needs More Scientists (Brussels, The Commission).European Commission (2007) Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of

Europe (Brussels, The Commission).Heidegger, M. (1971) The Origin of the Work of Art, in his: Poetry, Language, Thought (New York,

Harper and Row).Heritage, M. (2008) Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment

(Washington DC, Chief Council of State School Officers).Holt, A. and Kvammen, P. (2010) Vurdering av naturfagkompetanse [Assessment of Competence

in the Natural Sciences], in: S. Dobson and R. Engh (eds) Vurdering for Læring i Fag [Assess-ment for Learning in Subjects] (Kristiansand, Høyskoleforlaget).

Jakobson, R. (2000) On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, reproduced in: L. Venuti (ed.) TheTranslation Studies Reader (London, Routledge), pp. 113–118.

Jacobs, C. (1993) Telling Time (Baltimore, MD, John Hopkins University).Joyce, J. (1975) Finnegans Wake (London, Faber and Faber).Kiraly, D. (2003) From Instruction to Collaborative Construction: A Passing Fad or the Promise of

a Paradigm Shift in Translator Education? in: J. Baer and G. Koby (eds) Beyond the Ivory Tower.Rethinking Translation Pedagogy (Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing).



Naganuma, M. (2008) A Systematic Functional Approach to Translation Pedagogy in Japan, in:N. Nørgaard (ed.) Systematic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense Working Papers in Languageand Communication, 29, pp. 589–600.

National Research Council (US) (2007) Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Sciencein Grades K-8, R. Duschl, H. Schweingruber and A. Shouse, eds. Board of Science Education,Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (Washington,DC, The National Academies Press).

Nietzsche, F. (1969) On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo (New York, Vintage Books).Paz, O. (1991) Literature and Literalness, in his: Convergences. Essays on Art and Literature

(San Diego, CA, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).Quine, W. (1960) Word and Object (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).Ruitenberg, C. (2009) Distance and Defamiliarisation: Translation as Philosophical Method,

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43.3, pp. 421–435.Saito, N. (2009) Ourselves in Translation: Stanley Cavell and Philosophy as Autobiography,

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43.2, pp. 253–267.Simensen, A. (2007) Teaching a Foreign Language. Principles and Procedures, 2nd edn. (Bergen,

Fagbokforlaget).Steiner. G. (1996) No Passion Spent. Essays 1978–1996 (London, Faber and Faber).Steinsholt, K. and Dobson, S. (eds) (2009) Verden Satt ut av Spill [The World as Dislocated]

(Trondheim, Tapir Publishers).Steinsholt, K. and Dobson, S. (eds) (2011) Bildüng. Introduction to an Diffuse Educational

Landscape [published in Norwegian as: Dannelse. Utsikt over en ullendt pedagogisk landskap](Trondheim, Tapir Publishers).

Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times. The Uses and Abuses of Testing (London, Routledge).Ulriksen, S. (1991) Oversettelse som Språk—og Kulturskapenede—Glimt fra en Historie

[Translation as Language—and Creating Culture—Glimpses from a History]. In: P. Qvale (ed.)Det Umuliges Kunst. Om å Oversette [The Impossible Art: Translating] (Oslo, Aschehoug).

Venuti, L. (2000) Introduction, in: L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader (London,Routledge).

16 S. Dobson


the pedagogue as translator in the classroom

Documents