Abstract
An investigation into liaison interpreting as a communicative technique for second language acquisition
The growing field of language acquisition has seen numerous teaching approaches, among which translation has also surfaced as a teaching technique. However, translation as a skill – one of the biggest tasks in learning additional languages – is neglected as a teaching technique (Ismatullayeva 2022). A need arose to reform translation as a communicative teaching technique to improve language learners’ communication skills (Popovic 2007; Pym 2013). This article, drawing from the author’s honours research assignment (Van der Merwe 2019), brings this need to light by theoretically examining liaison interpreting as a possible teaching technique for second language acquisition. The research questions are formulated as follows:
- How does liaison interpreting as a teaching technique compare with the grammar translation method, communicative language teaching and pedagogical translation, and what gaps (if any) does it address?
- How can liaison interpreting as a teaching technique be reconciled with second language acquisition theory?
- What are the potential shortcomings of liaison interpreting as a teaching technique (if any) and how can it be overcome?
The aim is to investigate liaison interpreting as a teaching technique and the relevant second language acquisition theory to determine whether the technique can function as a communicative second language teaching technique, and to offer an argument for an empirical investigation. The literature review shows that there is sufficient research on the use of liaison interpreting as a technique for language teaching from as early as 1985. Liaison interpreting as a teaching technique with interpreting as interaction and the second language acquisition theory – specifically the input hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis – serve as theoretical frameworks for the study that this article reports on.
Liaison interpreting is an informal, interactive form of interpreting that takes place when two or more interlocutors do not share a common language and require interpreting services to bridge the communication gap (Perez 2016). In liaison interpreting specifically, an emphasis is placed on the framework interpreting as interaction in Interpreting Studies with regard to the principle that interpreting is a communicative act that is carried out in a specific situation. Wadensjö (1998) did pioneering work on interpreting as interaction and created a typology of renditions since interpreters’ utterances are essentially reformulations of original utterances. This typology aims to categorise the ways in which the interpreter’s interpreted utterance is related to that of the other participants’ original utterances. This establishes the principle that interpreters often do not provide a perfect one-to-one translation of the other participants’ expressions, but deviate to pursue certain communicative goals, for example to make information more explicit or to simplify. This also means that interpreters can interact with the other participants by, for example, asking them questions and addressing uncertainties before they interpret the utterance in question.
Second language acquisition is an unconscious process without formal instruction that leads to language learners developing knowledge about the second language (Ellis 2018). Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis states that learners make progress when they understand language beyond their knowledge level; in other words, if they are currently at level i, their input must be at level i+1. Long (1996) formulated the interaction hypothesis, contemporarily known as the interaction approach (Gass and Mackey 2015) and indicated that negotiating for mutual understanding plays a decisive role in language acquisition. Long (1996) emphasises that comprehensible input is most effective when it can be interactively modified by means of negotiation of meaning and negative feedback using interaction strategies. The interaction hypothesis draws from both the input and output hypotheses by encouraging exposure to input, output and feedback (Gass and Mackey 2015). Krashen’s (1982) affective filter hypothesis states that affective factors influence the success of the second language acquisition process. It specifies that students with high motivation levels and low anxiety levels maintain a low affective filter and are thus more likely to acquire language.
This study is situated within a descriptive research methodology where the literature was analysed qualitatively. Qualitative descriptive research methodology ensures a comprehensive description of the phenomenon in question (Pradhan, Haider, Khudadad, Zahidie, Asim, Akbar Ladak, Iqbal, Mevawalla, Siddiqi, Saeed Ali and Karmaliani 2022), in this case liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique. For the first research question, the grammar translation method, communicative language teaching and pedagogical translation are compared with liaison interpreting as a teaching technique on the basis of specific literature and theories to identify potential gaps. For the second research question, liaison interpreting as a teaching technique is reconciled with second language acquisition theory on the basis of the input hypothesis (Krashen 1982), the interaction hypothesis (Long 1996) and approach (Gass and Mackey 2015), the output hypothesis (Swain 1985) and interpreting as interaction (Wadensjö 1998). For the last research question, the possible shortcomings (if any) of liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique are determined with specific reference to the affective filter hypothesis (Krashen 1982).
For the first research question, the grammar translation method, communicative language teaching and pedagogical translation were compared with liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique in order to determine whether the technique addresses any gaps. The argument was accepted that liaison interpreting, in theory, addresses many gaps in the grammar translation method, communicative language teaching and pedagogical translation because the technique meets Krashen’s (1985) requirements for optimal input, meets the three principles of communicative language teaching, involves the use of the first language, and meets the guidelines to successfully situate translation within a communicative paradigm.
For the second research question, it was considered how liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique can be theoretically reconciled with second language acquisition theory, where the input hypothesis (Krashen 1982), the interaction hypothesis (Long 1996) and approach (Gass and Mackey 2015), the output hypothesis (Swain 1985) and interpreting as interaction (Wadensjö 1998) were considered. Although the learner’s language knowledge can be represented as the gravitational model of language availability in Interpreting Studies (Gile 2009), the input hypothesis was deemed insufficient for the purpose of the study because Krashen (1985) does not focus on possible comprehension and output problems and the adaptability of input. Negotiation of meaning for mutual understanding in the interaction approach is reconciled with mediation in interpreting as interaction because input can be adjusted interactionally. Similarly, negative feedback in the form of interaction strategies in the interaction approach is reconciled with feedback in the form of non-renditions (when the interpreter’s rendition does not correspond with the original utterance) in interpreting as interaction because meaning is continuously shaped to accommodate the learner’s needs. Comprehensible or modified output is necessary to achieve language acquisition, where it is shown that liaison interpreting enables a unique and subtle focus on grammar.
For the third research question, the possible shortcomings of liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique were theoretically discussed on the basis of Krashen’s (1982) affective filter hypothesis. Interpreting can pose a problem for motivation, self-confidence, and ultimately self-efficacy because comprehension and output problems can arise, which can be dealt with by increasing learners’ awareness of interaction strategies and creating an environment where mistakes are tolerated and even encouraged. Interpreting is a cognitively difficult task and can present a problem for aptitude, which can be eliminated by announcing the topic and other information in advance, using natural translation and creating a relaxed, fun and informal learning environment. Anxiety can also be a shortcoming because interpreting takes place in real time but can be overcome by using pre-interpreting exercises and encouraging the use of interaction strategies.
The conclusion is drawn that liaison interpreting as a language teaching technique (coined pedagogical liaison interpreting) in an interactive framework (coined pedagogical liaison interpreting as interaction), can theoretically serve as a successful communicative teaching technique for second language acquisition. Based on the findings, the argument is accepted to investigate the workability of the technique empirically, which was undertaken in Van der Merwe (2022). This research is reported on in “Pedagogical interpreting as a teaching technique for Afrikaans second language acquisition” by Van der Merwe and Adendorff (2023a) and “Pedagogical interpreting as an interactive task for Afrikaans second language acquisition” by Van der Merwe and Adendorff (2023b).
Keywords: communicative; interaction; language teaching technique; liaison interpreting; second language acquisition
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans:
’n Ondersoek na skakeltolking as ’n kommunikatiewe tegniek vir tweedetaalverwerwing