Translation Competence

Translation Competence

Introduction

Translation has become a major area of study among undergraduate and graduate students alike across schools. According to Widdowson (1980 cited in Shiyab, 2006, p.p. 55-57), translation is an exercise, a combination of both theory and practice. He argues that translation is a vital pedagogical device more so during the acquisition of a foreign language.

Teaching translation is particularly important as it equips students with basic principles requisite of translation practice. It enables students to practice translation in a variety of fields later on. Teaching translation not only leads to development of Translation Competence (TC) among students but also helps students acquire other translation related competences such as linguistic competence (with regard to source language and target language), cultural competence, factual competence and technical competence (Lonsdale, 1996, p. 10).

Importance of translator skills

Translation is not limited to the transfer of meaning from a given natural language to another as is the common assumption. It can be expressed through art as in music, painting and poetry. Interpreting this art therefore requires skill. Lipman (2003) suggests that translator skills are very important because every form of translation requires significant interpretation. He also argues that preserving meaning of the original text is not always the top priority of the translator. It is the translator’s skills that allow him to manipulate languages when translating, an activity which necessitates constructing meaning within the languages involved (p. 186).

Other important translator skills are technical and methodological skills. Methodological skills are important in helping the translator to manipulate and also to manage information accordingly. The skill helps the translator understand restricted terms in various translation contexts, appropriate use of glossaries, reliability of sources and justification of translation choices among others (Vienne, 1982, cited in Depraetere, 2011, p. 18).

Technical skills, according to Depraetere, (2011) are important for a translator because every translation exercise requires the use of technical tools. As such, translators should be computer literate and should be able to use standard translation software (p. 19). These skills and combined with others, as shall be discussed in this paper, contribute to the making of a competent translator. Translator skills bring forth the question of competence in translation.

Existing Definitions of Translation Competence

This paper examines TC studies done by different scholars and how they have defined TC with a view to providing my own definition of TC. I will explore seven definitions of TC as discussed by the Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation (PACTE) group (2005), Toury (1984), Schaffner et al (2000), Neubert (2000), Wilss (1976), Cao (2007) and Pym et al (2003).

From a general perspective, scholars have come to face with difficulties in defining translation competence with some of them saying that there is no definition to it. This is even seen in the way different researchers refer to TC: translator competence, transfer competence, translational competence as well as translation ability. Some say that TC is often mistaken for linguistic competence as in Chomsky’s studies. (Linguistic competence in theoretical linguistics refers to a speaker’s knowledge of his native language (Chomsky, 1965, p. 4). Perhaps the concept ‘competence’ is preferred by many TC researchers because it has already been explored widely by Chomsky and in other studies of applied linguistics. PACTE (2005) for instance defines TC as the system of knowledge and skill, attitude and the translator’s ability to translate (P. 43). This is discussed further in subsequent sections of this paper. Just like Chomsky’s linguistic competence, TC requires performance to measure it (Beeby, Ensinger & Presas 2000, p. 185).

Toury’s Definition

A second foreign language is often a prerequisite for studying translation. But Toury propounds that mastery of the two languages does not guarantee flawless TC. He says that bilingual competence does not encompass competence in transfer of meaning form source language (SL) to target language (TL). TC, therefore, is a combination of bilingual competence and competence in transferring meaning from a given language to another (Toury, 1984, cited in Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Thelen, 2010, p. 152).

Schaffner’s Definition

Schaffner compares TC to driving a car which is a global competence that requires a tactful blend of many interrelated competences. She says that TC has not been given any unique definition but has been discussed generally by researchers (Schaffner &Adab, 2000, p. viii). She breaks down TC in to sub-competencies. She considers this the best way to define TC.

TC requires knowledge of culture, languages and knowledge particular that discourse of translation. Broken down, these include language competence, transfer competence, textual competence, subject competence and ultimately TC (Schaffner &Adab, 2000, p. ix).

Neubert

Neubert (2000) discusses these competences as follows:

Language Competence

Knowledge of source language and target language is extremely important, that is why the knowledge of mother tongue should not be underestimated. It is important for a translator to have a mastery of the lexical as well as the grammatical systems of the two languages in question. The translator should also learn the gradual changes in the language systems in terms of morphology and syntax as reflected in dictionaries and reference books.

Textual competence

Translators must understand discourse and textual features. This is why we have translators specialized in legal domains, technical or literary fields. Words follow certain patterns when they appear in texts.

Subject Competence

Related to textual competence, this refers to the good grasp of the subject or area of knowledge the translator is working in. Translators achieve subject competence by specializing in subjects of their interests.

Cultural Competence

This refers to knowledge of terms or definitions particular to the culture in context. Translators tend to think unconsciously in their own culture, but they should learn to mediate between one culture and another.

Transfer Competence

This refers to the translator’s prowess in transferring meaning from the source text to the target text. Transfer competence requires a blend of all the competences discussed above. The translator’s knowledge of language, culture, text and translation discourse reflect in how well he conveys meaning from one language to another.

(Neubert, 2000, p.p. 7-10).

Neubert (2000) also suggests that other characteristics that set apart translation from other areas of knowledge should be put into consideration. This, according to him, is important in defining TC. The characteristics include complexity, heterogeneity, ‘situationality’, historicity, creativity and approximation as discussed briefly below (p.p. 3-10):

As far as complexity is concerned, translators should be specialized in their translation fields as each field presents some degree of complexity.

The translator also has to heterogeneous. He does not only have to be a specialist in a given field, but also be a master of the different languages in question, both written and spoken. Approximation is also requisite. In the process of translation, not always will the translator find equivalent words in TT. As such, he will be forced to use words approximate in meaning to that of the ST. creativity is a necessary skill, this is because translation discourse changes constantly therefore requiring creativity in order to translate effectively.

Translators should be flexible and ready to change. This is characterized as historicity. Translation history has been characterized by changes, translators should always adapt to these changes. They should also be ready to adapt to changing situations. Experienced translators have become masters of different situations. Neubert considers these characteristics as being mandatory for TC.

Wilss’ Definition

In a study by Wilss (1976, cited in Pym, 2003, p. 483) professional qualifications do not suffice for TC. TC is ‘clearly marked off from the basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. It therefore becomes something like ‘super competence’ (120). As such, there is no such thing as TC. Pym thinks that Wills did not consider professional qualification as a prerequisite for TC because the term competence in linguistics was a key area of study attributed to Chomsky. This way, TC ought to be a system of knowledge that underlies translators’ performance, just as grammar underlies the use of speech (Pym, 2003, p.484).

Pym’s Perspective

Pym himself defines TC as comprising of two skills. One is the translator’s ability to come up with at least two viable target text (TT) for a given source text (ST), and two, the translator’s capacity to pick out one viable TT the identified series confidently (Pym, 2003, cited in Kristen, 2012, p. 302).

PACTE Group

Other scholars have defined TC in form of models. PACTE’s model defines TC as a procedural knowledge involving stages and strategies. The stages involved in acquiring TC are novice stage which is the first stage; novice knowledge is then perfected translating into the expert stage. Acquisition of TC involves teaching, it can also be achieved naturally (PACTE, 2005, p.p. 45-46). PACTE also defined TC as expert knowledge and differs from bilingual context. It involves sub-competencies, both extra-linguistic and professional (p.p. 47-48).

These sub-competencies include psycho-physiological competence, communicative, extra-linguistic, transfer, instrumental, and strategic competence. PACTE argues that strategic competence is central, and all the sub-competencies are complimented by psycho-physiological competencies (P. 60).

Cao’s Definition

TC has also been distinguished from translation proficiency. On the one hand, Cao (2007) describes TC as the expert knowledge necessary for actual translation. Translation proficiency, on the other hand, is the translator’s ability to use TC in translation tasks in varied contexts (p. 39).

Cao elucidates translation in three categories. There is general translation, legal and specialist. Legal translation, as much as it shares similar traits with other translations, has its unique characteristics. Legal TC therefore suggests general TC. For a legal translator to become competent, he first has to become a competent general translator (p.p. 39-40).

Cao also considers the need to consider grammatical and textual competence in defining TC, in which case grammatical competence refers to the mastery of the given languages’ internal structures, be it syntax, morphology or semantics. Textual competence refers to the knowledge of rules that govern joining of utterances to generate texts, all the while paying attention to rhetoric and cohesion (p.p. 42-43).

TC critics have had a number of issues to point out. Santos (2003), for instance, that attempts by scholars to define TC are limited in scope, that the definitions are centered only on certain aspects. Most definitions, according to him, have left out the strategic component of TC. The psycho-physiological component is also conspicuously absent. Many proposals only present characteristics of the translator. There is no existing empirical validation of the suggestions (p. 46).

Orozco (2000) pointed out that most TC studies only discussed TC levels, and that they are not empirical. He mentions that only a few studies like Stanfield, Scott and Kenyon’s (1992) were empirical because they came up with an instrument called SEVTE (Spanish into English Verbatim Translation Exam), which involved valid and verifiable tests (cited in Santos, 2003, p. 46).

My Definition of TC

Drawing from the many ideas discussed by different researchers, this paper attempts to derive a conclusive definition of TC. Most of the researches done by scholars established TC as hierarchical. A good number of researchers agree that TC is hierarchical, that it is made up of many components described as sub-competences. This is seen, for instance, in PACTE’s and Neubert’s researches.

TC can therefore be defined as a combination of certain elements. These include transfer competence, linguistic knowledge, competence in discourse, the ability to document information, psycho-physiological as well as strategic competence among others.

Sub-competencies are particularly important in defining TC. For instance, linguistic competence implies that a translator has to be competent in the languages’ grammar and lexical structures. Grammar involves being able to produce meaningful sentences as per the rules of the languages involved. Lexical competence requires the translator to use words relevant to the translation context. This is important because if the translator does not have a good grasp of grammar or lexical skills, then he cannot translate effectively. We cannot, therefore, separate linguistic competence from TC.

Socio-linguistic competence is also essential in defining TC. For a translator to be said to have TC, he has to understand the social settings of the societies in which he is interpreting. He has to understand the societal social markers in terms of the language used by different social classes, registers and even dialects. This is because language and especially choice of words varies among the youth, the old, children, the working class and the lay man. While translating, language should thus be structured to suit the target group.

Translation and communication are tied together, the former being an act of communication. As such, TC can be described as sharing those elements of language competence. Language competence pre-supposes sociolinguistic, strategic and competence in discourse among others.

Translators are not necessarily experts, and even experts do have limitations. Strategic competence therefore becomes a vital in defining TC. The translator has to understand how to handle difficult situations while translating. For instance, he may use approximation in cases where he cannot find appropriate or equivalent words in the target language. He has to know how to flex language to suit the needs of the communication situation in context.

There also is professional competence which helps define TC. Wilss (1976) argued that this competence should not be considered a prerequisite for TC. According to him, professional training changes with technology and social tastes. This way, translators have to keep up to date with changing technology and changing societal norms (p. 119).

Nonetheless, professional competence cannot be ignored. A translator has to be competent in his field of expertise. He has to understand changing technological trends, changes in social preferences and professional work ethic. This contributes to his TC, the reason why professional competence cannot be entirely detached from TC.

Subject competence is also tied up to TC. Translators should know where to find field-specific knowledge as well as encyclopedic knowledge. Organizational competence is also essential in defining TC. The translator should understand structure of texts and organize language according to its function at that point in time, for instance, descriptive or narrative functions.

I will also highlight the following sub-competencies in defining TC basing on PACTE’s (2000) model. These include tools and research competence, communicative competence and domain competence. There also are competence in translation routine activation and psycho-motor competence.

Tools and research competence is similar to PACTE’s instrumental competence. Here, the translator should be able to use research material, be it electronic as in the use of search engines and word processors, encyclopedias, dictionaries or any other reference books.

Communicative competence requires the translator to be competent in at least two languages. This borrows from PACTE’s (2000) bilingual sub-competence. Translators should have an in depth understanding of the grammar, syntax and lexical structures of both languages. Adept knowledge of the source language allows the translator to translate the right information accurately and target language competence allows him to relay quality translated texts to the recipients.

Domain competence is what PACTE defined as extra-linguistic competence. Translators should have knowledge of the translation context, being able to add any necessary knowledge to the target language in order to enhance understanding.

Psycho-motor competence involves the ability to use electronic tools to read and write. Good psycho-motor skills boost the translator’s cognitive capacity. The last competence I will include in my definition of TC is translation routine activation. Honig (1985) defines this as the ability to put into action useful micro-strategies (p. 10). This competence is essential in defining TC because the translator should be able to produce words in the target language that are equivalent to those in the source language.

ReferencesTop of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Top of Top of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of FoTop of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

CAO, D. (2007). Translating law. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=293222.

CHOMSKY, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.

DEPRAETERE, I. (2011). Perspectives on Translation Quality. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton.

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=827323.

HONIG, E. (1985). The poet’s other voice conversations on literary translation. Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=13849.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON TRANSLATION, BEEBY, A., ENSINGER, D., & PRESAS, M. (2000). Investigating translation selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. Amsterdam, J. Benjamins.

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=622719.

LEWANDOWSKA-TOMASZCZYK, B., & THELEN, M. (2010). Meaning in translation. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.

http://site.ebrary.com/id/10601523.

LIPMAN, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=120645.

LONSDALE, A. B. (1996). Teaching translation from Spanish to English: worlds beyond words. Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press.

NEUBERT, A. (2000). Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation.BENJAMINS TRANSLATION LIBRARY. 38, 3-18.

PACTE GROUP. (2005). Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/011004ar.

PYM, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: in defence of a minimalist approach. Meta : Journal Des Traducteurs : Translators’ Journal (Canada).48, 481-497.

PYM, ANTHONY, SHLESINGER, MIRIAM, SIMEONI, DANIEL, & MALMKJÆR, KIRSTEN S. (2012). Translation competence and the aesthetic attitude. John Benjamins Publishing Co.

http://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/btl.75/main.

SANTOS, F. A. D. (2003). Triangulating translation perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Pub.

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=623247.

SCHÄFFNER, C., & ADAB, B. J. (2000). Developing translation competence. Amsterdam, J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=673083.

SHIYAB, S. M. (2006). A textbook of translation: theoretical and practical implications. Antwerpen, Garant.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form