Grammar Translation Method Definition: Introduction
In the study of a foreign language, the goal is to be able to read its literature or to benefit from the intellectual development that occurs as a result of the study (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Grammar translation is a method of studying a foreign language. In this method, the language is approached first through an analysis of its grammar rules and then this knowledge is applied to the translation of texts from one language to another.
Thus, the grammar-translation method views the study of language as “the understanding and manipulation of the morphology and syntax of the foreign language” (Richards and Stephen, 2001). The Grammar-Translation method began in Germany or more accurately, Prussia at the end of the eighteenth century (Howatt et al, 2004). The term “grammar-translation is somewhat misleading as it was coined by nineteenth-century critics who wanted to emphasize two features they most disliked: teaching of grammar as a separate subject and the use of translation in teaching. Thesis: The Grammar Translation Method was a method of teaching that aimed at making language learning easier by according special status to the sentence.
Grammar Translation Method Definition: Main Body
The grammar-translation method was first used in the teaching of European and foreign languages from the 1840s to the 1940s and is still used today in some parts of the world. Students find it very frustrating to use the Grammar-Translation method as they find it very tedious to memorize endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and trying to translate literary prose with that memorized knowledge.
However, teachers find the method very easy from the teaching point of view. The method is still found useful in situations where the need is to understand literary texts and not to speak a foreign language. Modern books on the teaching of foreign languages at the college level often reflect Grammar-Translation principles and are often the products of people trained in literature rather than in applied linguistics. Hence though the Grammar Translation Methods widely practice, it has no advocates. There is no theory or solid backing of literature for this method (Richards and Stephen, 2001).
In the Grammar Translation Method, the focus is on reading and writing and not on speaking or listening. The vocabulary is based solely on the reading texts used and words are taught to the students using bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization. While discussing his use of the Grammar Translation Method for learning Latin Cordor (1988) observed that the Grammar Translation Method typically required three books – a dictionary, a grammar, and a reader (Hinkel, 2005).
In a typical Grammar Translation text, the grammar rules are presented and illustrated, a list of vocabulary items presented along with their translation equivalents and translation exercises are prescribed. The Grammar Translation Method is distinguished by the use of the sentence as the basic unit of teaching and language practice instead of the traditional use of grammar – which was abandoned because of its level of complexity. Most of the lesson is devoted to the translation of sentences in and out of the target language. The Grammar Translation Method (GTM) emphasizes accuracy and students are expected to attain high standards in translation.
Grammar is taught deductively through presentation and study of grammar rules, and practice through translation exercises. The student’s native language is the medium of instruction and it is used to explain new terminology and to make comparisons between the foreign language and the student’s native language (Richards and Stephen, 2001).
Initially, the GTM was used to teach classical languages such as Greek and Latin in European schools. During those periods, the learning of a foreign language was considered an intellectual discipline and people regarded Latin and Greek as the repositories of ancient civilization and it was a matter of prestige to know the two languages (Byram, 2001). In these cases, speaking practice was limited to students reading aloud the sentences they had translated. The basic goal was not communication but the translation of the foreign language into the native language-or vice versa (Byram, 2001).
When modern languages such as French, German, and English began to enter the curriculum of European schools in the eighteenth century, they were taught using the same method used for teaching Latin. The grammar-translation method is still today, especially in élite education, the leading method for the teaching of German as a Foreign Language in many parts of the world (Byram, 2001). Grammar Translation was first known in the United States as the Prussian Method (Richards and Stephen, 2000). Walker Jones (2003) says that “Grammar-translation works against fluency, but has its advantages in biblical studies…” (p. 4).
Alan S. Kaye, a linguist and a teacher of Biblical Hebrew explains the statement of Walker Jones that GTM is truly effective in the teaching of biblical studies. Kaye (2004) holds that the pedagogical technique employed does not make much of a difference. The target language Hebrew is dead and there is no need for spoken Hebrew. All that is needed in Biblical study are “reading comprehension, accurate translation, and appreciation of the grammatical and lexical intricacies” (Kaye, 2004), and these can be easily achieved through GTM.
Kaye furthers says that most of the instructors desire their students to become “adequate philologists of simple Biblical Hebrew prose after a year of intensive study” (Kaye, 2004). This means they should be able to use a dictionary and parse grammatical forms, which is easily achieved through GTM.
Critics of the Grammar-translation method of language teaching theorists point to the fact that this method has a mental, intellectual, and memorization orientation while ignoring the speaking and listening communication aspect of the foreign language being learned/taught. Very little importance is given in GTM to accurate pronunciation and intonation. Communication skills are ignored and the main emphasis is on learning grammatical rules and exceptions, with very little training in using the language actively to express one’s meaning even in writing. Only the literary language is learned through GTM and the vocabulary that is acquired is often detailed and sometimes esoteric.
The average student is bored by the monotonous nature of core vocabulary learning, translation, and endless written exercises, without really mastering the language or having the opportunity to express themselves through it. The Grammar-translation method suffers from four major flaws: overemphasis of grammar rules; limitations of practice techniques; the sheer size of the memorization; and lack of coherence with language facts (Byram, 2001).
George Braine in his book titled “Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum, and Practice” (2005) discusses the way English is taught in Japan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Braine says the grammar-translation method is still hugely popular in Japan, because of the large class sizes in urban areas and lack of opportunity for students to use English outside the classroom. Japanese students need to pass English as a required subject for the upper secondary school entrance exams and hence, many students study English with the sole purpose of passing exams.
In Lebanon, in elementary grade schools, a local version of the grammar-translation method is used to teach English as a foreign language. The textbooks used are those produced by commercial British publishers and they are rich with simplified literary texts. Students are taught unfamiliar words through synonyms in Arabic. A read-aloud exercise is included to correct pronunciation. It is significant to note that no attempt was made to teach language in context or to provide dialogues and conversations; moreover, there were no nursery rhymes or nursery stories. The official examination at the end of the 5th grade was a descriptive composition.
In the intermediate school, in Lebanon, memorization of the poem was introduced and students memorized them without really understanding the meaning. They also memorized model compositions to pass their exams. In secondary school, students were asked to memorize notes for literary texts. The study of English through the Grammar Translation Method in Lebanon was characterized by “teacher-centered classrooms, excessive use of the first language, and non-fluent teachers who code-switched heavily: (Braine, 2005). The Grammar Translation Method is used to teach English in Saudi Arabia to a certain extent.
Students are often engaged in monotonous grammatical rule drills and repetition of words and phrases. Teachers tend to rely heavily on explaining grammatical structures as the central focus of their teaching, as well as on memorization and vocabulary instructions, and often use Arabic in teaching English or depend on translation. As a result of the GTM, students are unable to carry on a basic conversation or comprehend a simple oral or written message even after 508 mandatory hours of English study over the intermediate and secondary school years (Braine, 2005).
The earliest voice of dissent against the use of the Grammar Translation Method to teach foreign languages came from American educator George Ticknor (1833) who emphasized the need to learn a language by speaking it, if possible in the country where it is spoken (Richard and Stephen, 2001). He argued that language lessons should be customized to the needs of the student and individuals of different ages need to be taught in different ways. Ticknor suggested that the oral approach and the inductive method were more suitable for younger learners whereas, older students generally prefer to learn by analysis of the particular from general principles (Richard and Stephen, 2001). Modern methods of foreign language teaching focus on spoken and active methods that begin in early childhood.
English language instruction in Asia generally follows the grammar-translation method and this explains why many Japanese who come to the United States lacks speaking and writing skills despite having a strong knowledge of English grammar (Clark et al, 2003). The GTM works by building language through grammar. But this building-block approach fails with writing and speaking because it does not suit the nature in which the mind processes language.
Language acquisition begins when children learn the names of the things they see, from their parents. When a child sees a ball for the first time, for example, the parent always shows the child the ball while teaching the word ‘ball’. Hence the phonemic representation of the word ‘ball’ is registered in the child’s memory along with an image of the ball. Language acquisition involves internalizing the names of things and basic sentence patterns such as subject-verb-object or subject-verb-complement. Thus, the acquisition of sentence patterns involves “internalizing entire structures separate from the lexicon” (Clark et al, 2003). It is not based on building these structures from smaller units, as happens in the case of GTM.
Though the Grammar Translation Method has been criticized widely, the fact that it is still being used in the teaching of foreign languages shows that it has some advantages. GTM facilitates reading comprehension and making comparisons of the differences between the foreign language being learned/taught and the mother tongue. It is an easy method that can be used by any foreign language teacher and does not require any special qualification or competency and is especially suited for large size classes. Chastian (1971) has observed that this method of teaching has a traditional humanistic orientation that places primary emphasis on “the belles-lettres expressed in the language” (Byram, 2001).
Grammar Translation Method Definition: Conclusion
The Grammar-translation method evolved to some extent in time, incorporating some points from other foreign language teaching methods such as the direct method. The Reform Movement laid the foundation for new approaches towards teaching a foreign language. However, traces of the Grammar-translation method can still be found in the reading method and cognitive method.
Bibliography
Braine, George (2005). Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum, and Practice Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.
Byram, Michael (2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. Routledge Publishers. London. 636.
Clark, L. Irene; Bamberg, Betty; Bowden, Darsie; Edlund, R. John; Gerrard, Lisa; Klein, Sharon; Lippman, Neff Julie; Williams, D. James. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ. 2003.
Hinkel, Eli (2005). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Routledge Publishers.
Howatt, A.P. R.; Howatt; and Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A History of Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Kaye, S. Alan (2004). Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation. The Journal of the American Oriental Society.
Larsen-Freeman (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Richards, C. Jack, and Rodgers, Stephen Theodoe (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Walker-Jones, Arthur (2003). Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, Vol. 48, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.