Development in Defining Translation Competence

Krings (1986), Nord (1991; 2005), Gile (1995; 2009), Kussmaul (1995), Toury (1995), Chesterman (1997), Schäffner (2000), Neubert (2000) have all contributed in different forms to the development of the concept of translation competence. As mentioned, competence is a rather recent umbrella term which seeks to convey the range of abilities translators require to translate competently, and which has been used widely in modern pedagogical writing on translation.

Clearly, what this research says about translation pedagogy will be directed to developing competence, and knowing the exact definition of the term and its sub-categories is important.

The first important distinction to be made is between competence and sub-competences, also called partial competences, which is demonstrated in the extended list above (section 2.2). This may result in confusion as we consider other related terms. Orozco and Hurtado (2002, p. 375) raise the issue of denomination and offer a useful survey of terms used by previous scholars, which they argue refer broadly to the same concept, such as transfer competence, translation performance or translation skills. While one can see the semantic relations between those terms, a close look at their usage reveals that they are not conceptually identical. For example transfer competence is seen by Kelly as one of the sub-competences, while Nord (2005, p. 12) sees it, on the basis of Wills’ argument, as one of the skills or abilities of a translator which ‘comprises the skills of text reception, text production, and the use of translation tools, as well as the ability to

“synchronise” ST reception and TT production’. The latter definition is much more comprehensive than Kelly’s.

The variation in definition and classification of the concept is pervasive. In most definitions, it refers not only to the linguistic and textual ability or aptitude of a translator in the source and target languages, but also any tools which are employed in the translation tasks. Neubert (2000, p. 3) is one of the commentators who have discussed the issue extensively. He explains the

43

difficulties and the complexity around this concept and defines translation competence as follows:

Translation involves variable tasks that make specific demands on the cognitive system of the translator. What enables translators to cope with these tasks is their translational competence.

His updated categorisation of competence¹ consists of five, as he calls them, sub-competencies:

(1) language competence, (2) textual competence, (3) subject competence, (4) cultural competence, and (5) transfer competence, the latter includes ‘tactics and strategies of converting L1 text into L2 text’. Looking deeply into his definition we could conclude that this categorisation covers the extensive list of abilities in section 2.2 (EC list) as in table 2-1 below.

In this comparison, each element of competencies is equal to the numbered element given in the EC list. As can be seen in the table, competency elements in Neubert’s classification can be matched with 10 elements in the extensive list of competencies. Language competence, for instance, covers element 3 and 4 in the EC list, etc. This comparison reveals that even the important classifications do not have such exhaustiveness to cover all aspects of competencies.

Some areas which have not been regarded within most categorizations, including Neubert’s, are items 11 and 12 in EC list which are named as ‘adequate awareness of translation theories’ and

‘adequate skilfulness in dealing with translation tools and information technology’.

1 Neubert had specified three main competences as language, subject and transfer competences in his earlier article in 1994 (Translation studies: an interdiscipline, edited by Snell-Hornby et al.)

44

Table 2-1: Inclusion of Neubert and EC elements of translation competencies

Neubert’s competency element

Corresponding elements in EC list (extensive list of competencies)

Number in EC list?

(1) language competence Knowing the grammatical structure and linguistic aspects of Source Language

3 Knowing the grammatical structure and linguistic aspects of Target Language

4 (2) textual competence Adequate understanding and grasping of a specific sort

of text in Source Language

1 Adequate understanding and grasping of (two, three or) any varieties of texts in Source Languages

2 (3) subject competence Knowing the subject area of the source text either

actively or passively

5 Being practically experienced in translation in the specific subject area

15 (4) cultural competence Having the art (and/or ability) of re-expressing the

linguistic system of Target Language, with regard to cultural elements for specific audience

7

(5) transfer competence

Having the art (and/or ability) of employing acceptable selection of the vocabulary or coining new words (if necessary) related to the specific subject, style and genre

8

Having the art (and/or ability) of setting the vocabulary in any given subject areas: Terminological competence

9 Adequate awareness of textual translation strategies within the determined direction

10

Kelly’s (2005, pp. 32-33) important pedagogical description of the term also sees translator (not translation) competence as ‘the overall intended outcome of all translator training programmes’

while trying to classify the competence elements. She maintains that her main purpose in this categorisation is ‘based on the analysis of numerous previous descriptions in Translation Studies literature and standard documents from the profession’. Kelly classifies the main areas of translator competence as (1) communicative or textual, (2) subject area, (3) instrumental, (4) psycho-physical, (5) interpersonal, (6) strategic, and (7) cultural and intercultural. If we provide a similar comparison to show how her categorisation could cover the elements in our EC list, we will find another case of insufficiency in this theoretical categorisation. It seems that item 11 could not be placed in any part of the Kelly’s list, while at the same time, no direct emphasis has

45

been made on items 3 and 4 in EC list which are related to grammatical structures and linguistic rules.

Some categorisations do not consider the different aspects of competency. Translation confidence, with its psychological definition has been used to reflect the cognitive ability of trainers, but again with a mixture of the elements of translation competence (Fraser 1996).

Lörscher seems to use the Chomskean notion of competence when he refers to the old observation of Translation Studies being competence-oriented (2005, p. 597), although he himself sometimes uses the same term, linked to the above-mentioned pedagogical usage.

As can be seen, the majority of approaches consider the four main requirements, as mentioned in section 2.2. However, some aspects of the extensive abilities mentioned in section 2.2, like requirements 14 and 15 (familiarity with the ethical codes and level of confidentiality; and being practically experienced in translation in the specific subject area) are generally less well accounted for. It is logical to consider all related aspects of competence in designing a curriculum for a translation course and when planning the course syllabus for specific purpose.

To find an effective translation pedagogy, our aim in this survey is not the analysis of the requirements of curricula for a course, but to find how to focus on improving the most important facet of translation competence which is teaching translation, not teaching language or mere theory. Let us return to the list provided in section 2.1 in order to elucidate this point.

Disregarding the starred extra abilities, which are not normally educational, to arrange the pedagogical translation-related competencies into an ideal translation course, we could exclude the main language-related abilities, which are 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8, which all relate to either the source or target language.

It could be supposed that the following elements, which are translation-related, could be focused on exclusively in a translation training course:

(Element 10) Adequate awareness of linguistic translation strategies (in one direction) (Element 11) Adequate awareness of translation theories

46

(Element 12) Adequate skilfulness in dealing with translation tools and information technology (machine translation, localisation tools, online translation, corpus software, etc.)

(Element 13) Having the behavioural standard of a translator (punctuality, preciseness, neatness in organising the final product, having the skill of teamwork, meeting deadlines etc.)

(Element 14) Being familiar with the ethical codes and level of confidentiality for translation of the specific texts.

Increasing the awareness and familiarity of students with each of the above five elements is the mission of a general translation course. Furthermore, and as can be seen, the most important translation-training-related ability (how to translate) which corresponds to requirement 4 mentioned in section 2.2 (to be familiar with related linguistic rules and translational skills …) is ability 10 above. Plotting, measuring and showing the importance of this aspect is the focal point of this study. Knowing the importance of this ability, the more educationally significant translation strategies should be pinpointed. It was shown in the last chapter that the various aspects of translation strategies need to be studied linked to their related problems. Such relations will be set in the next chapter as problem-strategy sets while an attempt will be made to find the method for measuring degree of importance of each set.