THE TEACHING OF TRANSLATION
1. The study of translation - the teaching of translation
Can translation and interpretation be taught? What is it exactly that can be taught in them and what is that cannot? How can the results of translation studies be applied in organising translation courses and making the teaching of translation more efficient?
1.1. The relationship between the study and the teaching of translation
The interdependence of the study and the teaching of translation is evident. In describing the development of a linguistic approach to translation in the first part of this book, one of the most important driving forces we mentioned were the needs of translator training. Translation studies grew out of the needs of teaching translation and training translators. Translation and interpreter training institu
tions provide the professional context and the scientific background for the cre
ation and evolution of theories related to translation.
But does teaching really benefit from the results of translation research? James Holmes, creator of the term "translation studies" takes it for granted that it has a third branch beside its theoretical and descriptive branches, namely the branch of applied translation studies. The principal fields within this branch are transla
tor training, translation aids, translation policy, and translation criticism (Holmes 1972, 1988).
It is unquestionable that the teaching of translation should rely on some kind of theoretical foundation. Translators, as a rule, work intuitively, and in most cases are unable to draw general conclusions from their experience, which might be needed in translation training. It is symptomatic that works dedicated to the eval
uations of the oeuvre of great translators are usually confined to discussions of the circumstances in which the translator found an exceptionally good or brilliant solution. Translators working in specialised fields report even less about their expe
rience than literary translators do; they are only rarely motivated to produce gen
eralisations, and if so, these concern mainly the problem of translating technical terms.
In fact, making generalisations and advancing theories is not the duty of trans
lators. The translator uses language in the same way as anyone else does, except that he works with two languages. As explained in 1.3, this constitutes a consider
able difference, but it does not alter the fact that it is not his/her job to describe the rules and regularities of bilingual language use. This is the job of the linguist engaged in translation research.
1.2. What can be of use in teaching?
Or, in other words, what can applied translation studies really apply? Let us cite James Holmes’s classification again. He separates theoretical translation studies from descriptive translation studies, dividing the latter one into product-, process-, and function-oriented translation studies. He divides theoretical translation stud
ies into general translation theory and partial (special or concrete) translation the
ories, which investigate the various partial problems of translation, depending on who carries out the act of translation, man or machine (medium-restricted trans
lation theories), what languages the act of translation involves (area-restricted translation theories), and what text type is being translated (text-type restricted translation theories), etc (Holmes 1972, 1988).
It is self-evident that from the above categorisation the first branch of theoreti
cal translation studies, general translation theory cannot be applied directly in the teaching of translation. This would be like trying to make general linguistics an organic part of foreign language teaching. Theoretical translation studies, how
ever, have some considerably more practical branches, i.e. partial translation theories, which, instead of examining the general rules of bilingual communica
tion, look into the problems related to specific language pairs and text types.
1.3. The role of contrastive linguistics in the teaching of translation
The comparison of specific language pairs and text types belongs to the field of contrastive linguistics and contrastive text linguistics. Therefore, one may rightly ask what distinguishes partial translation theory from contrastive linguistics.
In 1.1. we listed the differences between translation theory and contrastive lin
guistics. We also made a distinction between translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Contrastive text linguistics compares texts in languages A and B which are produced independently (as a result of primary text production), whereas translation theory works with texts in language B which have been pro
duced on the basis of a text in language A (as a result of secondary text produc
tion), but which are expected to operate and function as authentic language B texts. Thus, translation theory is also concerned with comparison, but the object of study is not primary but secondary text production.
It is widely known that contrastive linguistics, which at the birth of the science of translation played an important role in the study of translation (Komissarov 1973, Shveitser 1973, Barkhudarov 1975, Kühlwein,Thome and Wilss 1981), went into decline in the 1980s, and what is more, was fiercely criticised as an approach which illegitimately simplifies the complex processes of interlingual communication.
Opponents of the linguistic approach can be divided into three groups. The first group denies the role of linguistics and linguistic consciousness-raising from the point of view of the sense, the second from the point of view of the function, and the third from the point of view of culture.
The first group’s main argument is that focusing on linguistic forms diverts attention from the sense. Seleskovitch’s theory, the “théorie de sans” claims that in order to be able to grasp sense, the translator has to distance him/herself from
1 .The study of translation - the teaching of translation
the linguistic form (cf. “deverbalisation” in Seleskovitch 1978, Seleskovitch and Lederer 1986, 1989).
The so called “functional approach” also denies the role of linguistics. In the translation methodology chapter of Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies Vermeer labels the linguistic approach “conventional” and contrasts it with the “function
al” approach. According to him, translation “is no longer the mere transformation of a text from one language to another, but rather the production of a target text that can function within a different context for recipients from a different culture”
(Vermeer 1998: 61).
The third group denying the role of linguistics attacks it from the point of view of culture. In their opinion, translation is predominantly mediation between cul
tures. Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere launched a new translation studies series at Routledge publishing company in the 1990s, and stated in its introduction that a “cultural turn” took place in translation studies, which was putting an end to the comparison of the source and target-language texts. They argue that translation studies, using the most recent advances of culture studies or cultural studies, must explore how social relations, dominant ideologies, power relations, social roles, sexual roles, etc. are reflected in the translator’s activity, in the function of transla
tions, etc. (in Baker 1996).
Although we share the view that grasping sense (Seleskovitch), autonomous discourse production (Vermeer), and awareness of cultural differences (Bassnett and Lefevere) are equally important in the complex process of translation, one must not forget that translation is dominantly a bilingual speech activity. This means that no matter from what language into what language we are actually translating, the process of translation always depends on the similarities and differences between the two languages in contact in the process of translation. Linguistic similarities and differences are treated here in the broadest possible senses of the words, involv
ing not only the linguistic systems, but also language use, discourse markers, the creation of coherence, theme-rheme relations, etc.
It should be noted that contrastive linguistics has also been developing and undergoing profound changes, moving from the mere comparison of language systems to the comparison of differences in language use. Selinker in his work, Rediscovering Interlanguage (1992) looks back on the history of contrastive linguis
tics, to find the reasons for its demise. One of the reasons why contrastive linguis
tics was almost abandoned was that psycholinguists refuted the language learning theories that contrastive linguistics was linked to. Selinker predicts an upsurge in interest in contrastive linguistics at the end of the 20th century.
In a book called Communication Across Cultures with the subtitle Translation Theory and Contrastive Linguistics Basil Hátim attempts to reconnect translation studies and contrastive linguistics.
One useful way of seeing contrastive linguistics at work is through transla
tion, and an interesting way of looking into the translation process is per
haps through an examination of the kind of decisions which translators make in handling texts (Hátim 1997: 1).
The Preface to this book was written by R.R.K. Hartmann, who urged the intro
duction of the term “contrastive textology” as early as 1981 (Hartmann 1981).
Hartmann notes with satisfaction that “Both contrastive linguistics and text lin
guistics are now in their prime...the application of contrastive text linguistics to translation studies is long overdue (Preface to Hátim 1997).
In our view, as discussed in 1.1, translation studies looks at translation in a complex manner, i.e. taking into consideration all the linguistic and extra-lin
guistic factors influencing the process of translation. Contrastive linguistics and contrastive text linguistics can be helpful only in the analysis of the linguistic factors of translation, but in this they have a crucial function. It would be wrong to exclude them from the number of auxiliary sciences to translation studies only because human and cultural factors also play a role in the process of trans
lation.
Holmes’s categorisation also emphasises the same idea. It clearly shows the place of a translation-based comparison of languages within translation studies: in partial translation theories, which deal with the problems of specific language pairs, genres, and directions of translation.
1.4. The translational “behaviour” of languages and transfer operations
Thus we do not deny the relationship between translation theory and contrastive linguistics but approach it from a more dynamic perspective. We argue that depending on the similarities and differences between languages a certain type of
“translational behaviour” (Klaudy 1999a) can be observed. This means that each and every language has characteristics, which becomes manifest only in the process of a text written in that language being translated into another language, (cf. “friend
ly” and “unfriendly” language pairs in Klaudy 1999a). English, for instance, behaves completely differently when translated into French or German - indeed, in a considerably more friendly manner - than when translated into Hungarian.
Depending on the language pair and the directions of translation the typological features of particular languages determine the difficulties of translation, which cannot be regarded as irrelevant only because the translator also has to deal with numerous other, non-linguistic problems.
The behaviour of language pairs towards each other determine some of the transfer operations as well. The term “transfer operation” is used here instead of the more often used term “transformation”, to avoid reference to the generative approach to language description (for more on the use of the term “transfer oper
ation” see III.l).
Of course, “transfer operation” in translation research is exactly the same type of abstraction as “transformation” in generative grammar. Nothing happens to the source language text in translation, it remains the same as composed by its writer.
Transfer operations take place in the mind of the translator - if they exist at all - when the translator enters the target language from the direction of source language, and on the basis of the source-language text (and not from it) he/she produces a target language text. The reason why the hypothetical nature of this statement is emphasised is that in translation studies no empirical research has yet provided evidence for the psychological reality of transfer operations.
The system of transfer operations will be described in a more detailed manner 120
1. The study of translation - the teaching of translation
in the third part of this book. Here we have merely referred to their relevance in the teaching of translation, because this field of study may provide important data for the teaching of translation.
1.5. The transfer competence of translators
The fact that contrastive linguistics and contrastive text linguistics can provide important data on the translation behaviour of particular language pairs does not entail that a translation-based comparison of languages may be of use in the teach
ing of translation. Is the description of the translational behaviour of languages a necessary and/or sufficient factor in the development of translation competence?
Is there a direct connection between, to use Selinker’s terms, interlinguistic aware
ness and interlinguistic competence?
We regard translational competence as a composite of five elements: (1) lin
guistic competence, (2) subject-related competence, (3) intercultural competence, (4) transfer competence and (5) communicative competence. In this list, the word competence refers partly to a particular type of knowledge (language proficiency, subject knowledge, knowledge about culture) and partly to skills (transfer skills, communication skills). The various elements of translational competence will be dealt with in detail in the next part of this book: here we shall focus on transfer competence.
Transfer competence, as part of the translator’s professional competence, means that he/she is capable of developing strategies to overcome problems resulting from the differences between the two languages. It is part of a translator’s profes
sional competence that he/she can "freely move” between the two languages, and can traverse the road from thought to linguistic form and from linguistic form to thought in two ways. So, he/she does not only possess general translation strate
gies, but also particular language-pair-specific strategies. The easy and effortless application of these transfer strategies distinguishes the translator from, on the one hand, the monolingual speaker, and on the other hand, the bilingual speaker who is not a professional mediator.
In describing the linguistic models of the translation process (1.5), I claimed that every theoretical model has its own practical implications. The model that one adopts will also determine one’s views about the teachability of translation.
Donald C. Király (1995) devotes his book Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process to the road between the modelling of the process of translation and con
crete pedagogical strategies. Naturally, our view on the use of awareness raising also depends on the way we look upon the process of translation. Let us therefore make an attempt to present a theoretical model of the process of translation from the point of view of the didactics of translation.
1.6. Modelling the process of translation
A translator, a professional bilingual person, differs from a speaker of language
"A” or language "B ” in that he/she knows and consciously or instinctively oper
ates two rule-systems:
121
(1) He/she knows the rules according to which signs of language “A” are used by speakers of language "A" to refer to reality ("A" system of rules);
(2) He/she knows the rules according to which signs of language “B” are used by speakers of language “B” to refer to reality (“B” system of rules).
How does the translator work with these two systems of rules in his/her everyday work? Rozentsveig calls the translator as a coordinative bilingual, who, unlike sub
ordinate bilinguals, never refers from one language to the other. He/she conducts analysis in language “A” according to the rules of language “A”, and conducts synthesis in language “B” according to the rules of language “B”. Transfer from one language to the other occurs through a logical-semantic deep structure, in which features of the two languages are not reflected (Rozentsveig 1972: 80).
Ferenc Papp puts transfer to a similar level, i.e. to a deep structural level, “where the national traits of thinking are already visible, but no real sentences are yet cre
ated...”. What is more, he assumes that there are some translators, particularly lit
erary translators, who “make even more efforts: they take what they have perceived to an even deeper level first, to the level of ‘all human’ understanding, and from there they let the sentences of the other language emerge...” (Papp 1979: 247).
Thus, the act of translation should be imagined as a process in which the translator, with the help of the language “A” rule system, decodes the language
“A” text and reaches reality (denotative model) or a semantic deep structure (one subtype of the transformational model); then he/she re-encodes this reality with the help of the language “B” system of rules to ultimately reach the language “B”
text. Ideally, he/she always goes along the language "A" -» reality -» language
"B" path without referring directly from one language to the other.
1.7. The characteristics of the “C” system of rules
But then how come that Hungarian texts translated from a foreign language differ from original Hungarian texts? And they differ linguistically. A Hungarian surface text translated from a foreign language is different from a genuine Hungarian sur
face text.
Two explanations may be offered: (1) The translator goes down to the deep structure from the language “A” surface, but then takes the wrong path towards the language “B” surface. (2) The translator does not go down to the deep struc
ture from the language “A” surface, but directly switches to the language “B” sur
face. In other words, he/she creates for him-/herself an intuitive translational rule system, a so-called “C” system of rules, and, consciously or unconsciously, applies this system during his/her work.
How can this “C” system of rules be characterised? It is
(1) abstract - while the rules of systems “A” and “B” relate language signs to reality, rules in the system “C” relate language signs to language signs;
(2) subjective - while the rules of systems “A” and “B” are acquired within an institutional framework by speakers of language “A” and “B”, rules in the 122
1. The study of translation - the teaching of translation
system “C” are created intuitively by translators on the basis of their own experience;
(3) incidental - the “C” system of rules may be distorted if the translator has received inadequate training in one of his/her languages, or if he/she has received good training in both languages but for some reason cannot relate them appropriately.
1.8. The dilemma of translator training
How should translator training deal with this “C” system of rules? Be it under
graduate or postgraduate translator training, it must reckon with the existence of the “C” system of rules. Beginner translators use the same intuitively created sys
tem of rules when translating from language "A" to “B” as professional translators do, except that their systems of rules are not so rigid, not so unchangeable yet as those used by the latter.
In this way, translator training can choose from one of the following two alter
natives:
(1) It can try to eliminate the “C” system of rules, and discourage translators from believing in a direct relationship between languages “A” and “B”;
what is more, it can attempt to completely erase interlinguistic awareness
raising from the teaching of translation, saying that translators should not bother with linguistic form, but should try and grasp content (sense, mean
ing) instead.
(2) It can try to improve and refine the “C” system of rules, accepting the assumption that some form of relationship does exist, but in a considerably more complicated form than the one intuitively created by the translators.
In other words, language "A" effects should be avoided by proposing a more sensitive and complicated system of relations.
According to the first approach, which denies the role of linguistics, the translator
According to the first approach, which denies the role of linguistics, the translator