Skip to main content

So what's the point of translation?

Translation is in GCSE for the first time. The last time pupils had to translate both ways was back in the days of O-level i.e. pre 1987. Its position is also reaffirmed at A-level from which it has never disappeared.

I would hypothesis that it is in at GCSE because someone at the DfE, or advising the DfE, estimated it was the only way to get teachers to apply a rigorous approach to grammar and vocabulary teaching. To many of us it seems like an old-fashioned and misguided way to achieve that end and one which will inevitably lead to poor classroom practice and an even greater neglect of target language use.

With that preamble out of the way, what is the value of translation?  It clearly has merits as a language learning activity. Let's take each form of translation in turn - L1 to L2 and L2 to L1. Please note that I am limiting myself to written translation of written passages or sentences.

L1 to L2 (translation into the target language)

We used to call this "prose translation".


1.  It probably helps fix grammatical accuracy and revise vocabulary.

2.  Some pupils enjoy it. It satisfies the puzzle-solver and accuracy fan.

3.  As a testing tool it can be made to be quite unpredictable and therefore hard to learn up for.

4.  As a testing tool it can be marked quite objectively.

5.  It reflects a reality that language learners often work from L1 to L2. Why not develop this skill?

6. It is challenging for students when set at the right level.

7. There may be an element of real life activity involved. Adults do sometimes need to translate, even if technology makes this less likely nowadays.


1.  It limits the amount of target language use in the classroom.

2.  It is an uncommunicative sort of activity - it's talking about the language rather than using it for communication.

3.  When used as a testing tool, because of the backwash effect, teachers may do too much of it in the classroom. Teachers love to teach to the test.

4.  It offers almost no new comprehensible input to further language acquisition.

5.  It may encourage interference from the first language, based as it is on a cognitive rather than natural approach to second language acquisition.

6. It may suit able learners, who are good at cognitive problem solving and pattern spotting, more than students of lower aptitude. Some may see this an unfair and argue that naturalistic methods do not have this bias.

7. Many students find it boring and would be more motivated by other tasks.

L2 to L1 (translating into English)

This was known as "unseen translation".


1.  Sentences and passages in the TL are a source of comprehensible input.

2.  Translation requires a fine attention to detail. Everything must be understood and rendered accurately.

3. Some pupils enjoy the challenge of doing it. It can be satisfying to find the solution.

4. There may be some real life use for it, despite changes in technology.

5. We often translate in our heads so why not help develop this skill?


1. Beyond a certain level it becomes a test of English usage as much as a test of comprehension.

2. Students are writing English when they could be writing in the traget language. This limits acquisition.

3. Detailed comprehension can be assessed in other ways which provide more language input e.g. TL multiple choice.

4. Teaching this skill in the classroom involves using English, not communicating in the TL.

5. It is a task which involves talking about the language not using it.

Perhaps you can come up with some other arguments.

My bottom line is this: translation can be a useful classroom activity and means of testing certain types of knowledge, but if you use it frequently you inevitably end up reducing the amount of comprehensible input students receive and the amount of communication they engage in. In addition (excuse the capitals, I'm not shouting) YOU CAN DEVELOP INTERNALISED GRAMMATICAL SKILL WITHOUT TRANSLATING.

So, if you can get the rigour you may want, you can do it by skilled questioning, meaningful controlled practice and some explicit explanation. If these means simultaneously play to the unconscious learning end of the learning-acquisition spectrum, why not use them rather than translation?

I repeat: the return to translation at GCSE is a retrograde step, will not raise any standards and will end up boring too many students if teachers end up teach to the test. It was abandoned in the 1980s because it was seen to switch off so many pupils. If I were still a Head of Department I would be urging my colleagues to severely limit its use in KS3 and to use it judiciously at KS4, mainly near the end of the course in Y11. Be rigorous and stress accuracy if you want, but remember that language learning is much more about proficiency, understanding and fluency.

For more on ways of using translation creatively see two of my other blogs;

20 ways of doing translation into the target language

20 ways of doing translation into English


  1. Interesting article. I agree with many of the points you make, although you don't explain why this might reduce target language use in the classroom. Perhaps I need to come and see you teach.

    " will end up boring too many students " why? Aren't too many students bored by mfl anyway? They might prefer this kind of task as the teacher can control the language, rather than students making up what they want to say/write and producing complete rubbish in the process.

  2. Thanks for, leaving a comment. Some students might prefer that type of task. History teaches us that many did not. The alternative to translation is not, however, "making up what they want to say/write and producing rubbish". One alternative is controlled practice (e.g. oral drills, structured question-answer) in the target language which develops grammatical skill without resorting to English. For long term proficiency I would argue pupils need to hear a good deal of target language. Pretty much the more the better. Translation lessons will not help achieve this as much as alternatives.

  3. I forgot to address your question about reduction of target language in the classroom. For prose translation the TL is used but the input is in English so pupils hear or read little or no "natural" language. For unseen clearly the input is in TL but discussion and writing is in English. In both cases the amount of TL is compromised.

  4. Really enjoyed reading your thoughts and those of Gianfranco Conti in response. Have suggested that the return of translation may not be all bad at

  5. Thank you for commenting. If it takes the reintroduction of translation to push more teachers into a more structured approach to grammar, then it may have a positive impact. It still feels retrograde to me though. I am not, as you can see, against translation at all costs, but including it in GCSE could result in some lazy teaching. that was one reason I wanted to suggest some variations on the theme.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,