## Anne Schjoldager*

## Translation for language purposes: Preliminary results of an experimental study of translation and picture verbalization

## Abstract

The relative merits and drawbacks of translation for lan  guage purposes, i.e. translation as a teaching and testing tool in the foreign-language (L2) classroom, are largely un  ex  plored empirically, and opinions differ widely. Within the research fi  eld, scholars often ignore this use of translation or tend to condemn it out of hand. Other authors may be more positive towards translation in the L2 classroom but tend to base their views on personal beliefs and individual teaching experiences. With this paper I hope to con  trib  ute to the ongoing debate with some useful empirical fuel. The point of departure is a claim implicit in much criticism, namely that translation leads learners to commit errors that they might not otherwise commit. The paper describes the background, subjects, assumptions, pro  ce  dure, and preliminary results of a small-scale experimental study of L2 translation (Danish into English) and picture verbalization in L2 (English). Ac  cord  ing to some preliminary results, learners who translated made more and other errors than learners who wrote a comparable picture verbalization. This is probably due to enhanced interference from Danish, their fi  rst language (L1).

## 1. Introduction

In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies , Guy Cook gives an interesting overview of the relation between translation and language teaching. According to this, there is an obvious dis  crep  an  cy between the practice and theory of language teaching:

'Despite the widespread popular assumption that translation should play a major and necessary part in the study of a foreign language, twentieth-century theories of language teaching and learning have at best ignored the role of translation, and at worst vil  i  fi  ed it. From the

* Anne Schjoldager English Department The Aarhus School of Business Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Aarhus V

199

turn of the century onwards almost all infl  uential theoretical works on language teach  ing have assumed without argument that a new lan  guage (L2) should be taught without reference to the student's fi  rst language (L1)'. (Cook 1998: 117)

Thus, whereas many teachers and policy makers apparently be  lieve in translation as a useful component of the L2 curriculum, most theorists are inclined either to ignore it or to regard it as an inadequate, even harm  ful, teaching tool and an unreliable testing tool (see also Pedersen 1974, Snell-Hornby 1985, Titford & Hieke 1985, Keith & Mason 1987, Sewell & Higgins 1996, and Malmkjær 1998). When the issue is dis  cussed in the literature, arguments are often theoretical, based on sub  jec  tive views, or derived from individual teaching experiences, with only a few empirical studies to either support or condemn translation for lan  guage purposes.

My own investigation is an attempt to contribute with some useful empirical fuel to the ongoing debate, which I fi  nd an important one. In the following pages I shall fi  rst give a brief overview of the fi  eld and then describe the background, subjects, assumptions, procedure, and preliminary results of a small-scale experimental study of L2 translation (Danish into English) and picture ver  bal  i  za  tion in L2 (English).

## 2.     Translation for language purposes: Opinions and stud  ies

As already suggested, most scholars who discuss the merits and drawbacks of translation for language purposes do this from the perspective of practical language teaching, and it is hardly surprising therefore that many arguments put forward in the literature in favour of or against translation may be categorized as opinions rather than well-documented facts. I shall now give a brief overview of some of these opinions.

The basic argument in favour of translation in the L2 classroom tends to be that translation, being a controlled task, is a time-saving way of teaching and testing L2 profi  ciency (e.g. Duff 1989/1992: 7, Sewell 1996: 142; see also Campbell 1998: 58, who sees L2 translation as a controlled variety of L2 writing). A related argument is that translation promotes students' linguistic agility and accuracy, perhaps mainly at the advanced level (Snell-Hornby 1985: 21). It is also suggested that translation is useful as a tool in contrastive studies, making students aware of struc  tur  al İnfarcur Trans lation increases L2

proficiency.

Trans lation increases linguistic

amateness.

Trans lation couteracts LI

interference.

Against

Iranlabon metely ucreaes

korledge of the language systerı.

Translation gives learners wrong

ideas ab out language.

Translation enharces LI

differences between L1 and L2 (e.g. Snell-Hornby 1985), thereby helping them to develop strategies to avoid L1 in  ter  fer  ence in their L2 production (Sørensen 1988 and 1990; see also Sørensen 1991).

The basic arguments against translation in the L2 classroom tend to contradict the above-mentioned arguments in its favour: First of all, it  is  claimed  that  translation  has  very  little  to  do  with  real  language practice, the true aim of language teaching and learn  ing. Rather than helping stu  dents to communicate in L2, trans  la  tion merely gives them an op  por  tu  ni  ty to study the L2 language system (e.g. Coleman 1986 and Marsh 1987). Furthermore, be  cause translation in the L2 classroom tends to be a word-for-word exercise, it is often accused of giving students the  im  pres  sion  that  there  is  also  such  a  one-to-one  relation  between languages (e.g. Lado 1964: 53-54), which tends to lead to fl  awed and unidiomatic L2 production (e.g. Irons 1998: 26). (For a more detailed dis  cus  sion of these pros and cons of translation for language purposes, see Schjoldager forthcoming.)

Table 1.    Selected arguments

It would be unfair to say that the fi  eld is completely unexplored em  pir  ical  ly, and I shall now draw attention to the results of a few important studies. Scherer & Wertheimer (1964) is the most extensive empirical study that I have come across 1 . In their book, the authors report on a two-year experiment involving 300 beginning students of German at the University of Colorado, in which they investigate the relative merits of the grammar-translation method 2 , which includes translation as a teaching tool, and audiolingualism 3 . Their hypothesis is that audiolingualism is a superior teaching method. The conclusion is somewhat surprising: after two years of language instruction, there is no signifi  cant difference between those who were taught by the audiolingual approach and those who were taught by a 'traditional' approach as far as profi  ciency in reading and L2 translation (i.e. translation from English into German) is concerned; those who were taught by the traditional approach excel in L1 translation (from Ger  man into English), whereas those taught by the audiolingual method only excel as far as speaking is concerned.

In an exploratory study, Berggren (1972) 4  compares two methods of teaching 'fairly simple everyday language' (Berggren 1972: 2), namely L2 translation (Swedish into English) and what she refers to as intensive reading in L2 (English), an 'accepted form of close reading with a view to language points only' (Berggren 1972: 10). Though appreciating that it may be diffi  cult to ascertain the extent to which learners, in her case fi  rst-year university students, are infl  uenced by the two methods, Berggren (1972:19) concludes that L2 translation does not have a neg  a  tive effect.

1    It was only recently that I discovered this study myself. I am grateful to Viggo Hjørnager Pedersen for drawing my attention to it.

2     As far as I can see, Scherer & Wertheimer have no precise defi  nition of the gram  martranslation method, but I assume that the method investigated is similar to that which Richards & Rodgers (1986: 3) aptly describe as 'a way of studying a language that approaches the language fi  rst through detailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by application of this knowledge to the task of translating sentences and texts into and out of the target language'.

3     As a means of characterizing the audiolingual method, Scherer & Wertheimer (1964: 9) cite Pierre Delattre's dictum from 1947: '[..] A language is fi  rst of all 'speech' - a system of sounds transmitted directly from mouth to ear and produced by automatic reactions of the speech organs. The functioning of those automatic reactions depends on the linguistic habits of the speaker, and it is the acquisition of those habits that must come fi  rst [..]'. See also Richards & Rodgers (1986: 44-63) for an analysis of the back  ground, theory, and implementation of audiolingualism.

4     I am grateful to Marie Källkvist for sending me a copy of this work report.

Supporting translation Not supporting traulaticn

Teaching Scherer&: Wertheimer (1964) Kallkvist (forthcoming)

Testing Berggren (1972)

Buck (1992)

Klein- Braley (1987)

Kallkvist (1997)

Larsen (1990)

Buck (1992) compares the effi  ciency of L1 translation (English into Japanese) as a test of L2 comprehension with other tests, and fi  nds - much to his surprise and regret - that L1 translation works fairly well.

Other studies are more critical of translation in the L2 classroom. Klein-Braley (1987) investigates the objectivity, reliability, and va  lid  i  ty of L2 translation (German into English) as a testing tool of L2 profi  ciency, comparing it with other tests. According to Klein-Braley's (1987: 128) fi  ndings, the translation tests did measure language profi  ciency, but they were not the best possible pro  ce  dure available; and as far as validity was concerned, the trans  la  tion tests always scored lowest.

Larsen (1990) also focusses on translation as a testing tool and ex  plores the possible discrepancy between university students' per  form  anc  es in L2 translation (Danish into English) and other tasks, namely summarizing and essay writing. Her fi  ndings more or less confi  rm her initial impression that translation is no reliable test of L2 profi  ciency.

Källkvist  (1997)  supports  Klein-Braley's  (1987)  stance  that  L2 trans  la  tion, which in Källkvist's case is translation from Swedish into Eng  lish, cannot stand alone as a test of general L2 profi  ciency (see also Källkvist 1998). In Källkvist (forthcoming), she com  pares the relative effi  ciency of L2 translation (Swedish into English) and non-contrastive monolingual exercises (in English) in a course of English grammar, fi  nding that those who did translation per  formed slightly worse. Källkvist therefore concludes that translation may not be superior to monolingual teaching methods.

Table 2.    Selected studies

## 3. Background

What are we to believe? Is translation a useful component of lan  guage teaching and testing, or is it not?  As we have seen, opin  ions differ wide  ly, and we still lack necessary evidence to answer this question. For the time being, we must therefore be content to conclude that the issue is undecided: translation may have some value as a teaching tool and it is probably rather unreliable as a testing tool, except perhaps as a test of L2 comprehension (cf. Buck's 1992 study).

Personally I am inclined to agree with this conclusion. As far as transla  tion as a teaching tool is concerned, I strongly believe that this may indeed be quite valuable, especially if the grammar-translation type of approach is supplemented (if not replaced) by a functional-com  mu  ni  ca  tive one, using for instance Nord's (1997) version of the skopos theory as a conceptual and analytical framework (as suggested in Schjoldager 2002). In this way, the negative aspects of translation, for instance en  hanced L1 interference (see section 5. below), may be outbalanced by its positive aspects, especially the fact that translation is a controlled writing task forcing students to venture into new areas of L2. As far as translation as a testing tool is concerned, I am equally certain that it cannot be a reliable tool. I can see translation as a test of translation skills, but I cannot see it as an effi  cient test of general L2 profi  ciency. First of all, translation is bound to require more than is required for a monolingual L2 production task. Klein-Braley (1987) puts it like this about her own data:

'[..] the translation tests measure the construct less adequately than the other, far more economical, test procedures, and there is good ev  i  dence for sus  pect  ing that they are two-dimensional, measuring other skills, probably translation skills, in addition to gen  er  al language pro  fi    cien  cy.' (Klein-Braley 1987: 129)

(For  some interesting  papers  on  how  to  defi  ne,  develop  and  as  sess trans  la  tion competence, see for instance Schäffner & Adab (eds) 2000.) Sec  ond  ly, and this seems to be implicit in most crit  i  cism of translation for language purposes, the enhanced risk of L1 interference may possibly lead students to make more and other errors than they might otherwise commit.

In view of the general lack of evidence within the fi  eld, I decided to concentrate on one interesting factor, namely that of enhanced L1

Subjects

Secondarr

Universit

Total Translation

10

16

26

Pierre vert.

11

16

27

Total

21

32

53

in  ter  fer  ence. By means of a simple comparative analysis of errors occurring in L2 translations and picture verbalizations in L2, the aim of my in  ves  ti  ga  tion is to answer these research ques  tions: Do learners who translate commit more and other errors than learners who write comparable pic  ture verbalizations? If they do, may this be due to enhanced L1 in  ter  fer  ence?

## 4.     Subjects

The subjects of the investigation were third-year secondary-level students ( gymnasieelever ) from Risskov Amtsgymnasium, spe  cial  iz  ing in languages ( Sproglig linje højt niveau ), and third-year university stu  dents taking the compulsory translation course in the department of English at the University of Aarhus, my em  ploy  er at the time of data collection (the autumn of 2000).

Subjects were chosen out of larger groups for these char  ac  ter  is  tics: They had Danish L1 and English L2; they were brought up in Danish families in Denmark; and they had learned English as a foreign language in Denmark (as opposed to acquiring it abroad). Several had to be ex  clud  ed from the corpus because they lacked these necessary charac  ter  is  tics. No streaming was carried out and the division into groups, i.e. those who translated and those who did the picture verbalization, was ac  ci  den  tal.

Table 3.    Distribution of subjects

## 5. Assumptions

As already mentioned, I assume that learners who translate into L2 may commit errors that are caused by an enhanced infl  uence of L1 in  ter  fer  ence in translation. There are at least two reasons for this: (1) Learners who translate from an L1 text are led to rely on processing via L1, and (2) learners tend to be 'hypnotized' by the source text (ST) wording, which prevents them from making full use of their L2 mastery (Larsen 1990: 97). (See also Wilss (1982: 207), who makes a similar point about L1 translation.) I shall refer to errors that are deemed to be the result of an en  hanced infl  uence of L1 interference in translation as translationinduced errors.

On this basis, I chose to compare translations into English (L2) with picture verbalizations in English. I assume that picture ver  bal  i  za  tion and translation are suffi  ciently comparable because both are controlled tasks forcing subjects to express a given series of ideas. The comparability of the two tasks is further enhanced by the fact that the ST of my in  ves  ti  ga  tion is itself a verbalization of the pictures in question - or, rather, a synthesized version of four native-speaker verbalizations, as explained below. On the other hand, it is also assumed that picture verbalization is suffi  ciently different from translation because it does not enhance L1 in  ter  fer  ence: (1) Learners who do a picture verbalization are not led to rely on processing via L1, and (2) there is no verbal 'hypnosis' in picture verbalization.

## 6.     Procedure

First I had to fi  nd some suitable pictures. These should present a series of ideas that could be verbalized, and the material should be suffi  cient for me to devise a plausible and coherent ST. Var  i  ous comic strips, which have been used in other investigations, especially within psycholin  guistics, did not quite fi  t my re  quire  ments - mainly because they do not offer enough verbal material. After a rather long search, I found some large colour pictures by Pia Thavlov (1996), in a charming children's book about a family outing. Thavlov's pictures were ideal for my pur  pose, for two rea  sons: (1) the story was told exclusively by means of pictures, and (2) each picture offered many details about the family's various activities, which could be verbalized into a coherent text.

Then a Danish ST (426 words) was constructed on the basis of four native-speaker verbalizations. After some experimentation in a pilot study,  the  data  collection  could  begin  (in  the  autumn  of  2000).  For various rea  sons of research methodology and man  age  a  bil  i  ty, subjects did either a translation into English (L2) or a picture verbalization in English. Both groups were given a max  i  mum time limit, 75 minutes and 65 minutes respectively, so as to enhance the degree of comparability between the two tasks. To make the assignment as plausible as possible, subjects were in  struct  ed to pretend translating/writing a story for a children's pro  gramme on the radio, and, to rule out external factors, I made my sub  jects work without dictionaries in an exam-like situation. Ad  mit  ted  ly, most students were not used to be given a brief 5  like this for a trans  la  tion assignment and none of them had been trained to work without dic  tion  ar  ies, but I have no way of assessing the possible impact of this. (For more details about the background and procedure of this in  ves  ti  ga  tion, see Schjoldager forth  com  ing.)

## 7.     Preliminary results

Before I mention some preliminary results, I should perhaps point out that some (but not all) picture verbalizations differ somewhat in length and contents from the translations, as a few students who did picture verbalizations seem to have written more per  son  al  ized texts, adding for instance some imaginative details. How  ev  er, as the initial analysis involves no direct comparison be  tween the target texts (TTs), the relative comparability between the two kinds of texts will not be discussed fur  ther at this stage. Also, it is important to note that the analysis below is based on the oc  cur  rence of errors of language , as opposed to trans  la  tion  al errors, which would involve a comparison with the ST or pictures. Finally, though at some later stage I intend to employ a panel of col  leagues to help me assess the TTs, the analysis below comprises my own tentative marking of errors.

1)  Are there more errors in the translations? Yes. I found more errors in the translations than in the picture verbalizations, as shown in tables Subjects Subjects Secondary Secondary University Üniversig Total Total Iraslaticn Iranslaticn

5    See  Nord  (1997:  30)  for  a  discussion  of  the  concept  of  brief  with  in  the  skopos

418

41.8

291

182

709

273

Picture verb.

Fiatre verb.

241

21.9

184

11.5

425

Total

Total

659

31.4

475

14.8

1134

15.7

21.4

4 and 5. Both groups share this tendency, though the university students make fewer mistakes in both tasks, which is hardly surprising.

Table 4.    Total number of errors

Table 5.    Average number of errors

- 2)   Is  this  overrepresentation  of  errors  translation-induced? Maybe. A  part  from  the  above-mentioned  difference  in  absolute  numbers,  so far I have found no evidence that the two tasks produce sig  nifi    cant  ly dif  fer  ent pat  terns. However, though these are very pre  lim  i  nary results,

TT

ST(LI)

ST (LI)

L2

L2

Explanation

Explanation childragon fishing stan firkestare barnevozz fishine rod baby carriage (US)

pran (UE)

Ll processing

negative transfer

"liect ban-lation

I would like to mention that two categories of errors seem to be more prevalent in the translations, especially in those by the secondary-level students, namely - what I refer to as - non-translation and unEnglish, as ex  em  pli  fi  ed in tables 6 and 7.

Table 6.    Example of non-translation

Table 7.    Example of unEnglish

Non-translation occurs when a ST item (L1) has been transferred unchanged into the TT, i.e. a translation or a picture verbalization, and this is deemed to be unwarranted. UnEnglish occurs when a TT item is deemed to be non-standard in the target language (L2). Admittedly, these cat  e  go  ries are somewhat fuzzy, just as the ex  pla  na  tions in tables 6 and 7 must be regarded as intuitive. How  ev  er, the fact that errors categorized as non-translation and unEnglish seem to be more prevalent in the transla  tions indicates that (some of) these errors may be due to enhanced L1 in  ter  fer  ence, i.e. translation-induced.

## 8.     Conclusion and discussion

In this paper, I have summarized some general opinions in favour of and against translation for language purposes and I have pre  sent  ed the re  sults of a few important empirical studies. Both opin  ions and studies form the background of my own study of trans  la  tion and picture ver  bal  i  za  tion, which is the focus of this paper. My preliminary results indicate that the task of translation may invite more errors than picture ver  bal  i  za  tion, that certain errors seem to be more prevalent in translation, and that these errors may be translation-induced, i.e. due to enhanced L1 in  ter  fer  ence in trans  la  tion. This tendency is more marked in the secondary-level group than in the university group.

The bearing on translation as a testing tool of general L2 pro  fi    cien  cy is quite clear: my preliminary results support that trans  la  tion is rather unreliable. However, since my subjects were asked to do either a transla  tion  or  a  picture  verbalization,  my  in  ves  ti  ga  tion  cannot  show  how in  di  vid  u  al students would have performed in both tasks. It would therefore be interesting to devise a study in which subjects had to perform in both translation and picture ver  bal  i  za  tion in comparable ways, so as to as  cer  tain whether the same students show a similar tendency of making more and other errors in the translations. It would also be interesting to study some inherent differences between the two tasks. My data show that picture verbalizations vary in degree of comparability with the transla  tions in terms of length and contents, but my study cannot show why this is. Above I have suggested that the overrepresentation of errors in the translations may be translation induced, but there may well be other important factors, for instance the fact that pic  ture verbalization invites more freedom.

My fi  ndings  are  less  clear  regarding  the  bearing  on  translation  as a  teaching tool. On the one hand, inviting students to commit er  rors that they might not otherwise commit may be construed as 'dangerous' be  cause such errors may spill over into other L2 tasks. On the other, as many teachers will tell you, students, at least advanced ones, need to be made aware of systematic dif  fer  enc  es between their L1 and L2, and the marking of language errors in L2 translations is one method of doing this, perhaps an effi  cient one.

My own investigation draws specifi  c attention to one important drawback of translation for language purposes, namely that of trans  la  tion-induced errors, while other studies document other fragments of the is  sue. Some studies show that translation may be quite valuable, and some conclude that it is not (on its own), with rather strong evidence against translation as a testing tool. However, whatever we decide we still lack conclusive evidence: if we decide to abandon this kind of translation without some defi  nite proof that it is really as harmful as many scholars claim, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water; if  we decide not to abandon it and condone a long-standing tradition without refl  ection, we risk wasting our time and effort and we risk the exclusion of more effi  cient teaching and testing methods (cf. Källkvist forth  com  ing); and, similarly, if we decide to recommend translation for language purposes, say for advanced students and especially within a functional-communicative framework, as I myself am inclined to do, this is risky too because we still do not know if this is appropriate or not. In other words, more extensive, long-term studies are certainly required for us to know the true merits and drawbacks of translation as a teaching and testing tool of L2 profi  ciency.

## References

- Berggren, Inger 1972: Does the use of translation exercises have negative effects on the teaching of a second language? A pilot study based on an experiment with two meth  ods of teaching carried out on the beginners in the autumn term 1971 . [Projektet språkfärdighet i engelska (SPRENG). Rapport 14]. Göteborgs Universitet: Engelska Institutionen/Pedagogiska Institutionen.
- Buck, Gary 1992: Translation as a language testing procedure: does it work? In Lan  guage Testing 9:2. 123-148.
- Campbell, Stuart 1998: Translation into  the  second  language .  London/New York: Longman.

- Cook, Guy 1998: Use of translation in language teaching. In Baker, M. (ed.) (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies .  New York/London: Routledge. 117-120.
- Coleman, J. A. 1986: Requiem for the Prose? In Modern Languages in Scotland 29. 98-105.
- Duff, Alan 1989/1992: Translation [Resource  books  for  teachers].  Oxford:  Oxford Uni  ver  si  ty Press.
- Irons, John 1998: Der var saa deiligt ude paa Landet. In Sprogforum 11. 26-32.
- Keith, Hugh & Mason, Ian 1987: Introduction. In Keith, H. & I. Mason (ed.) (1987). Translation in the Modern Languages Degree: Proceedings of a conference held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 5-7 Jan. 1986 . Edinburgh: CILT (Centre for In  for  ma  tion on Language Teaching and Research). v-viii.
- Klein-Braley, Christine 1987: Fossil at Large: Translation as a Language Testing Proce  dure. In Grotjahn, R., C. Klein-Braley & D. K. Stevenson (eds) (1987). Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests [Quantitative Lin  guis  tics 34]. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. 111-132.
- Källkvist, Marie 1997: Lexical Form-Class Effects in Foreign Language Learning: A Study of the English Produced by Advanced Swedish Learners . University of Cambridge: Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
- Källkvist, Marie 1998: How Different are the Results of Translation Tasks? A Study of Lexical Errors. In Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (1998). Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation . Manchester: St. Jerome. 77-87.
- Källkvist, Marie (forthcoming). It is time we collected data: initial results of research on the effect of translation on L2 learning. In Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (forthcoming). Trans  la  tion as an undergraduate degree . 1-11.
- Lado, Robert 1964: Language Teaching. A Scientifi  c Approach . New York/San Fran  cis  co/ Toronto/London: McGraw-Hill Inc.
- Larsen, Shirley 1990: Testing the Test: a preliminary investigation of translation as a test of writing skills. In Larsen, S. (ed.) (1990). Translation. A means to an end [The Dolphin 18]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 95-108.
- Malmkjær, Kirsten 1998: Introduction: Translation and Language Teaching. In Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (1998). Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teach  ing and Trans  la  tion . Manchester: St. Jerome. 1-11.
- Marsh, Malcolm 1987: The value of L1 > L2 translation on undergraduate courses in modern languages. In Keith, H. & I. Mason (eds) (1987). Translation in the Modern Languages Degree: Proceedings of a conference held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 5-7 Jan. 1986 . Edinburgh: CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research). 22-30.
- Nord, Christiane 1997: Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Ap  proach  es Explained [Translation Theories Explained 1].  Manchester: St. Jerome.

- Pedersen, Viggo Hjørnager 1974: Oversættelse og sprogundervisning. In Meddelelser fra Gymnasieskolernes Engelsklærerforening 70. 21-36.
- Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S 1986: Approaches and Methods in Language Teach  ing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Scherer, George A. C. & Wertheimer, Michael 1964: A Psycholinguistic Experiment in Foreign-Language Teaching . McGraw-Hill.
- Schjoldager, Anne 2002: Oversættelse i fremmedsprogsundervisningen. In Anglofi  les. Journal of English Teaching/Medlemsblad for Engelsklærerforeningen for Gymnasiet og HF . 65-74.
- Schjoldager, Anne (forthcoming). Are L2 learners more prone to err when they translate? In Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (forthcoming). Translation as an undergraduate degree . 1-21.
- Schäffner, Christina & Adab, Beverly (eds) 2000: Developing Translation Com  pe  tence [Benjamins Translation Library 38]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Sewell, Penelope 1996: Translation in the Curriculum. In Sewell, P. & I. Higgins (eds) (1996). Teaching Translation in Universities. Present and Future Perspectives . London: CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research). 135-159.
- Sewell, Penelope & Higgins, Ian 1996: Introduction. In Sewell, P. & I. Higgins. Teach  ing Translation in Universities. Present and Future Perspectives . London: CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research). 9-14.
- Snell-Hornby, Mary 1985: Translation as a means of integrating language teaching and linguistics. In Titford, C. & A. E. Hieke (eds) (1985). Translation in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing . 21-28.
- Sørensen, Knud 1988: Cognate, but sui generis: Diffi  culties confronting advanced Danish Students of English. In Powell, M. & B. Preisler (eds) (1988). English Past and Present. A selection of Essays by Knud Sørensen presented to him on his sixtieth birthday [Acta Jutlandica LXIV:1].  Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 201-230.
- Sørensen, Knud 1990: Translation as a Unifying Discipline. In Larsen, S. (ed.). Trans  la  tion. A means to an end [The Dolphin 18]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 57-68.
- Sørensen, Knud 1991: English and Danish Contrasted. A Guide for Translators [Munksgaards Sprogserie]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
- Thavlov, Pia 1996: Familien Bartoldy. Frokost i det grønne . Published for Libero by Gyldendal, Denmark.
- Titford, Christopher & Hieke, A. E. 1985: Introduction. In Titford, C. & A. E. Hieke (eds) (1985). Translation in foreign language teaching and testing . Tübingen: Narr. 7-18.
- Wilss, Wolfram 1982: The Science of Translation: Problems and methods [Translation of Wilss, Wolfram (1977). Übersetzungswissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden . Tübin  gen: Narr]. Tübingen: Narr.

214