The Shield of Abraham (Siman Taled, Seif V) writes: "In some versions it is written, 'And if they said it in the holy language, one has fulfilled his obligation.' It seems to me that this specifically applies when one knows at least the concept of nullification, that one knows that he is relinquishing his leaven. But those who do not understand at all, and think that saying some kind of request suffices, it is obvious they have not fulfilled their obligation, because nullification is a legal matter of relinquishing ownership, and we require that his mouth and heart be aligned. So wrote the Mahari"l and Mahari"v, that one who checks for a woman, she should nullify it in a language she understands, and in the order of the day it is written why we customarily say it in a translation language." He explains his words in Mishnah Berurah (Seif Tet): "For nullification is part of the concept of relinquishing ownership, and if one does not know, what does nullification matter to him. Therefore, it is good to teach the common folk who do not understand the holy language, or a woman nullifying, to say it in a language she understands, that is: 'All leaven or yeast that is in my possession should be null and void and should not be considered mine, just as earth in the street.' And if he says it in the holy language but knows at least the concept of nullification, that he knows he is relinquishing his leaven, he fulfills his obligation in retrospect. But if he does not understand at all and thinks that saying some kind of request suffices, he does not even fulfill his obligation in retrospect." And in Sha'ar HaTziyun (Seif Tet Vav), he mentions the source of the words from the Shield of Abraham and other later authorities and Hach Yacov. Their words are subject to inquiry, as if it is necessary to state the nullification formula with the intention of relinquishing ownership, then it is evident to us that there is no need for his mouth and heart to be aligned, as Rek"ah wrote in the opinion of the Ran.