Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines [1 ed.] 9789027265203, 9789027242785

Citation preview

n d i ( e d s. ) a a lin gelell o C a Soni dia V. An Clau

B E N J A M I N S C U R R E N T TO P I C S

g re t i n te r p nd In on a ialogue s l at i Tran y in D iplines g o c g r D is Peda O the with



Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines

Benjamins Current Topics issn 1874-0081 Special issues of established journals tend to circulate within the orbit of the subscribers of those journals. For the Benjamins Current Topics series a number of special issues of various journals have been selected containing salient topics of research with the aim of finding new audiences for topically interesting material, bringing such material to a wider readership in book format. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/bct

Volume 90 Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines Edited by Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli These materials were previously published in Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:1 (2015), edited by Brian James Baer and Christopher D. Mellinger.

Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines Edited by

Sonia Colina The University of Arizona

Claudia V. Angelelli Heriot-Watt University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/bct.90 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2017012869 (print) / 2017027537 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 4278 5 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6520 3 (e-book)

© 2017 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

Table of contents

Articles Translation and interpreting pedagogy in dialogue with other disciplines Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli Occasioning translator competence: Moving beyond social constructivism toward a postmodern alternative to instructionism Don Kiraly The Internet in translation education: Two decades later Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education: Assisting the development of novice translators’ problem-solving expertise Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin I know languages, therefore, I can translate? A comparison between the translation competence of foreign language and Interlingual Mediation students Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

1

7 31

55

83

L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting: An empirical study María Jesús Blasco Mayor

103

Reacting to Translations Past: A game-based approach to teaching translation studies Julie McDonough Dolmaya

129

Notes on contributors

149

Index

153

Translation and interpreting pedagogy in dialogue with other disciplines Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli

The last two decades have seen an increased interest in translation and interpreting pedagogy, evidenced by the number of conferences, journals, and publications devoted to this area of translation studies. In consonance with that trend, the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association selected pedagogy as the theme of its tenth anniversary conference, held on March 29–31, 2012, at the University of Texas, Brownsville and Texas Southmost College. The idea for this volume emerged as a natural consequence of this gathering of scholars. The editors are grateful to the presenters and the participants who at the time responded to a call for conference presentations. In addition to seeding efforts at the conference, the editors posted calls for papers on national and international scholarly websites and networks, and at universities and colleges involved in interpreting and translation education and research. The editors also approached other scholars who had previously worked in the areas of teaching and learning translation and interpreting in both spoken and signed languages. As mentioned above, ATISA VI and this volume are a response to increased interest in the teaching of translation and interpreting not only within translation studies but also in related fields. This interest is in great part due to the emergence and affirmation of translation and interpreting studies as an academic field throughout the world and to the growth in the number and impact of programs devoted to the teaching of translation and interpreting. As a result, teachers of translation and interpreting ponder the most effective pedagogical methods while researchers investigate how students actually learn to translate and interpret and what methods are more conducive to that learning. The nature of the issues and questions raised is extremely varied, cutting across a broad range of disciplines and research paradigms. Some are as general as those emerging from current discussions on educational philosophies and the nature of knowledge and learning (see for instance Kiraly’s work and his article in the current volume), while others

doi 10.1075/bct.90.01ang 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

2

Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli

are more specific, such as those that examine program and curriculum design, research translation and interpreting competence and acquisition, and propose new teaching methodologies and approaches. As in other academic fields, the role of new technologies (and how they impact teaching and learning) is more important than ever before and must therefore be considered in any translation and interpreting pedagogy (cf. Jiménez-Crespo’s article and references therein). This volume aims to contribute to this body of knowledge by addressing some of the above-mentioned issues in connection with teaching and learning in translation and interpreting classrooms and programs. This collection of papers explores these issues across languages and settings (from university classrooms to online learning environments), with a focus on both processes and products. All of the contributors are researchers and educators of either translation or interpreting — or both. Opening this collection of articles, Donald Kiraly builds on his keynote address at ATISA VI in a broad-ranging paper dealing with the very nature of knowledge and learning, (“Occasioning Translator Competence: Moving Beyond Social Constructivism Towards a Postmodern Alternative to Instructionism”). In charting the transition from conventional ways of teaching translation to more modern approaches, Kiraly describes early teaching methods as the chalk-and-talk approach, based on the instructor providing material and the students translating that material. The main criticism of the chalk-and-talk approach is that it does not provide any authentic “real-world” experience. Kiraly goes on to explain the various methods of teaching translation and how each method uses and focuses on different parts of a person’s knowledge. For instance, the chalk-and-talk instructional method is based on the idea that knowledge is found in one’s mind, while postpositivist instruction focuses on the knowledge that can be discovered. The author suggests an Initial Postmodern Model that links learning with experience. The main tenet of this model is that learning is not the direct result of teaching; namely, knowledge is a dynamic emergent construct created by the learner in interaction with the social environment. This postpositivist worldview (Initial Postmodern Model) is what Kiraly believes should underlie translation pedagogy. Miguel Jiménez-Crespo in his article “The Internet in Translation Education: Two Decades Later” examines the different methods of approaching the teaching of translation using technology as a main resource. The author analyzes various methods of training, such as the Aula Int project and the TWIITT model, and the adoption of both synchronous and asynchronous types of e-learning. With the ever-growing use of the Internet, the PACTE group suggests that both internal and external support may be utilized to solve any problem that a translator might encounter. (Internal support consists of the translator’s own resources, while external support refers to any outside resource consulted during a translation task.)



Translation and interpreting pedagogy in dialogue with other disciplines

The students who undergo online training participate in an empirical study that suggests that there is neither a positive nor a negative effect on the students’ learning. The study also mentions that the Internet is used principally as an external resource and that only instructors adamantly preferred printed resources. The Internet, as a tool, will remain instrumental in providing new forms of learning and teaching within the field of translation. An area of translation pedagogy that has experienced renewed popularity in the last decade is the interface between translation and language learning and teaching. Topics frequently discussed from the translation studies perspective are the relationship between language competence and translator competence (Cao 1996; PACTE 2008), language directionality (Marmaramidou 1996; Campbell 1998; Pokorn 2005, 2009), and language proficiency for translator training (Angelelli and Degueldre 2002; Beeby 2004; Bowen 2008). From another disciplinary angle, some scholars in language teaching and second language acquisition have proposed a new and necessary role for translation in the language classroom (Colina 2002; Cook 2001, 2010); others have shown that translation can be used in conjunction with modern language learning methodologies to facilitate language learning through awareness of language differences (Laufer 2008), and that translation constitutes an effective communicative task for use in the second/foreign language classroom (Colina 2001, 2002, 2003; Carreres and Noriega-Sánchez 2011). This volume is a good reflection of the situation described in the preceding paragraph, with three (out of six) papers devoted to the relationship between language teaching/learning and translation. More specifically, these contributions address the differences between language students and translation students (Zlatnar et al.), the language proficiency of interpreter trainees, in particular L2 listening comprehension (Blasco Mayor), and the effectiveness of task-based learning in translator education (Inoue and Candlin). All three papers use quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate their topics. In “Applying task-based learning to translator education: Assisting the development of novice translators’ problem-solving expertise,” Inoue and Candlin apply Task-Based Learning (TBL), an approach to instruction adapted from language teaching and learning, to translator education. Through qualitative methods, they investigate the extent to which the use of TBL helped novice participants develop their expertise in identifying and addressing translation challenges; they also examine learner perceptions of the usefulness of TBL in developing such expertise. The training program described in this paper incorporates key characteristics of TBL, such as task authenticity, interconnectedness, and the pedagogically-sound sequencing of tasks. For each task, its product and process were described and evaluated by learners through group presentations and by two professional translators using a set of rubrics to reflect the authenticity of the translation tasks. A

3

4

Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli

series of focus-group interviews was conducted in order to identify learner perceptions of the usefulness of TBL in relation to the scope of this study. Despite some variation, overall learner awareness improved: learners showed progress in their ability to recognize differences between novice and professional products, and in identifying and addressing translation challenges. Improvements were evident in relation to source text (ST) comprehension, research skills, target text readability, and the justification skills and strategies required for building sound relationships with clients. The learners perceived TBL to be a useful learning methodology to facilitate awareness of differences between novices and professionals, appreciation of the critical risks and problems in translating, development of the interpersonal skills necessary for interaction with clients, application of theoretical knowledge to challenges posed by practice, and, finally, discovery of new approaches to translation challenges through peer interaction. Although it is a commonly held belief that language learners and translation students approach and perform translation differently, research on their specific competences is scarce. Marija Zlatnar and her coauthors contribute to this area of knowledge with the article “I Know Languages, Therefore I Can Translate? A Comparison between the Translation Competence of Foreign Language and Interlingual Mediation Students.” They study the translation processes and products (into Slovene, the L1) of language and translation students in three language departments and in the department of translation at the University of Ljubljana. Students of translation were expected to do better on the stylistic and discourse level, while language students were expected to have an advantage in ST comprehension. Differences were not expected with regard to basic skill levels (e.g., orthographic, morphological, and syntactic) since the majority of the participating students went through the same pre-university education system in the L1. The quality of the translations of the language students, however, was found to be lower than expected, particularly in relation to basic grammatical knowledge, suggesting the need for additional L1 instruction. Translation students did much better than language students with regard to deadlines and respect for the ‘working contract’ between the commissioner (the researchers and teachers) and the translators (the students). Neither group was superior with regard to their understanding of the source text. Focusing on interpreting pedagogy, Blasco Mayor’s paper, “L2 Proficiency as Predictor of Aptitude for Interpreting: an Empirical Study,” investigates the role of language proficiency, in particular L2 listening comprehension, in interpreter training. She hypothesizes that an intensive teaching module on L2 phonology and listening comprehension will improve the students’ academic performance in interpreting. Questionnaires and a battery of TOEFL tests were administered to ensure similar background and language proficiency levels. The experimental group received 15 weeks of listening comprehension instruction. The results showed that



Translation and interpreting pedagogy in dialogue with other disciplines

the experimental group scored higher in consecutive interpreting than the control group. In addition, neither L2 listening comprehension nor L2 reading comprehension correlated with L1 proficiency, but final scores for both languages did correlate with interpreting scores; L2 listening comprehension scored much lower than L2 reading comprehension, and grammar scores were lower than listening and reading comprehension. A minimal level of L2 to start interpreting training was determined. Finally, the last paper in the collection, “Reacting to Translations Past: A Gamebased Approach to Teaching Translation Studies,” by Julie McDonough Dolmaya, is a case study that presents a game-based approach to the teaching of translation and argues that the integration of history into translation studies allows students to become aware of the role of future translators. Her paper explores the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) model, which encourages students to critically and analytically read the course materials, learn to work in teams, develop presentation skills, and acquire a better understanding of other cultures. The author conducted a study in which she created two games for a semester course in translation theory utilizing aspects of the RTTP model. Game one of the study included a historical context requiring students to role-play various characters and submit two written assignments regarding the “events” that occurred during the re-enacted historical period (1528–1536). In game two, students were divided into three separate groups. The setting of the game was contemporary Canada and shared a similar context to that of CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008 (the Canadian standard for translation services). By the end of the game, each group was required to work together in order to reach an agreement on the proposals to be presented to the other groups. A survey was conducted after completion of the course in order to gauge whether the RTTP model helped students to develop their argumentation, presentation, and collaboration skills. The outcomes of the survey regarding the use of the RTTP model were generally positive. Results also suggested that self-confidence is gained as a result of the RTTP model. This is important, as the PACTE group (2008) lists self-confidence as one of the competencies relevant to translators. There were some limitations to the study, although McDonough notes that the RTTP model is not at fault; the limitations were primarily due to time constraints, class size, and attendance. The collection of papers in this volume illustrates the fact that translation and interpreting pedagogies are now more than ever benefiting from dialog with other disciplines. As evident from this collection, interdisciplinarity allows us to discuss translation and interpreting competence and performance, learner strategies, motivation, authentic tasks and materials, as well as teacher/student roles and classroom management, from a wider and more diverse perspective. This can only be beneficial for all parties. Our hope is that teachers in traditional or virtual learning environments, researchers interested in the acquisition, teaching and learning of

5

6

Sonia Colina and Claudia V. Angelelli

translation and interpreting, and those engaged in teacher supervision or program direction will see this special issue as a step in the right direction.

References Angelelli, Claudia V., and Christian Degueldre. 2002. “Bridging the Gap between Language for General Purposes and Language for Work: An Intensive Superior-Level Language/ Skill Course for Teachers, Translators, and Interpreters.” In Developing Professional-level Language Proficiency, ed. by Betty Lou Leaver, and Boris Shekhtman, 77–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ​doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606465.005 Beeby, Allison. 2004. “Language Learning for Translators: Designing as Syllabus.” In Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 39–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.59.05bee Bowen, Margareta. 2008. “Language Learning before Translator/Interpreter Training.” In Translator and Interpreter Training and Foreign Language Pedagogy Strategy, ed. by Peter Krawutschke, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ata.iii.06bow Campbell, Stuart. 1998. Translation into the Second Language. London and New York: Longman. Cao, Deborah. 1996. “A Model of Translation Proficiency.” Target 8(2): 341–364.  d ​ oi: 10.1075/target.8.2.07cao Carreres, Angeles, and María Noriega-Sánchez. 2011. “Translation in Language Teaching: Insights from Professional Translator Training.” The Language Learning Journal 39(3): 281– 297. ​doi: 10.1080/09571736.2011.567356 Colina, Sonia. 2003. Translation Teaching: From Research to the Classroom. New York: McGrawHill. Colina, Sonia. 2002. “Second Language Acquisition, Language Teaching and Translation Studies.” The Translator 8(1): 1–24. ​doi: 10.1080/13556509.2002.10799114 Colina, Sonia. 2002. “Towards an Empirically-based Translation Pedagogy.” In Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, American Translators Association Monograph Series, Vol. XII, ed. by Brian Baer, and Geoff Koby, 29–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​ doi: 10.1075/ata.xii.04col

Cook, Vivien. 2001. “Using the First Language in the Classroom.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3): 402–423. ​doi: 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402 Cook, Guy. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laufer, Batia, and Nany Girsai. 2008. “Form-Focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation.” Applied Linguistics 29(4): 694–716. ​doi: 10.1093/applin/amn018 Marmaramidou, Sophia. 1996. “Directionality in Translation Processes and Practices.” Target 8(1): 49–73. ​doi: 10.1075/target.8.1.04mar PACTE Group. 2008. “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge of Translation and ‘Efficacy of the Translation.” In Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 104–126. London: Continuum. Pokorn, Nike K. 2009. “Natives or Non-natives? That Is the Question …Teachers of Translation into Language B.” ITT 3(2): 189–208. Pokorn, Nike K. 2005. Challenging the Traditional Axioms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  d ​ oi: 10.1075/btl.62

Occasioning translator competence Moving beyond social constructivism toward a postmodern alternative to instructionism Don Kiraly

For the past thirty years, as the translator’s profession has undergone a radical metamorphosis from a sort of bilingual craft to a highly technologized profession, translator education has been undergoing a comparatively slow evolution. From pervasive chalk-and-talk transmissionist practice just a few decades ago, the contemporary literature on translator education reveals a plethora of theoretical and practical approaches to the study and teaching of translation-related skills. In this article, the author reviews some key trends in this development within the translator education domain on the basis of his own evolution as a translator educator over the past three decades. A key focus will be placed on the role of epistemology, a mainstay of educational philosophy and learning theory, but a topic that he feels can help elucidate pedagogical practices of the past and guide the way toward ones better suited to educating translators today … and in the future. Keywords: post-positivism, social constructivism, emergence, complexity theory



I believe the 21st century will be the century of complexity. Stephen Hawkings

Prologue It was in the very first issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies that the author first broached the idea of applying complexity thinking to translator education. Now, some eight years later, he revisits the topic with an updated look at one of the more promising directions for translator education as we move inexorably into the postmodern era. Many paradigm-shifting implications of the postpositivist worldview have already been drawn for both research and praxis in a number of pedagogical domains. An attempt will be made here to do the same (in broad strokes) doi 10.1075/bct.90.02kir 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

8

Don Kiraly

for translator education. This essay represents a step beyond the author’s keynote speech at the 10th Anniversary ATISA conference, in which he outlined his own trials and tribulations as a translator educator and as a researcher in translation pedagogy over the past 30 years.

Introduction In this paper, I will focus on the fundamental role that positivist epistemology has played in constraining translator education largely to transmissionist-instructionist praxis in the past, and on how the emerging postpositivist worldview may well be pointing the way to a pedagogical paradigm far better suited to educating translators in the twenty-first century. At the outset, I would like to point out that to date, research on professional translator education, at least in Europe, has been largely divorced from educational research in general and from research on second language acquisition and foreign language teaching in particular. It is noteworthy that a number of researchers in educational linguistics, including Ellis (1998), van Lier (2004), and Larsen-Freeman (2007), have drawn upon the same family of postpositivist concepts that I will be discussing here as they contribute to an emerging paradigm shift away from instructionism and beyond social constructivism toward a more democratic, holistic, and co-emergent view of language learning and teaching in theory and practice. My proposals for translator education have developed parallel to theirs but do not derive from them directly. In order to contribute to the emergence of translator education as a subfield of translation studies, rather than of second language acquisition and teacher education studies, I have chosen to rely largely on resources in the general field of education rather than on work done in narrower fields of study. This is not to claim that there is little to be learned from applications of educational theory in related domains; it simply reflects a personal preference for ‘reinventing the wheel,’ because we will then have our own wheel and not merely a borrowed one. I am hopeful, however, that other scholars working in the domain of translator and interpreter education will indeed seek out links and inspiration from parallel fields and strands of research as this has proven to be a fruitful enterprise in the past. To give but one example, social constructivist learning theory, which was a main source of inspiration behind A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education (Kiraly 2000), has become virtually self-evident as a fountain of epistemological thought in educational linguistics. H. Douglas Brown’s Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (Brown 1994) is now in its third edition. This foreign language teaching textbook, based



Occasioning translator competence

explicitly on pedagogical principles that are clearly (but not explicitly) in line with social constructivist theory and practice, has influenced the pedagogical thinking and praxis of new language teachers for the past twenty years. For the translation and interpreting teaching community, it is interesting to note that Brown’s work contributed significantly to the framework for Claudia Angelelli’s (2006) contribution to curriculum development for healthcare interpreter education. The elucidation and application of social constructivist principles were clearly an important step beyond the reductionist, positivist, content- and teacher-centered instructionism that still pervades teaching practice in translator education, foreign language teaching, and numerous other areas of institutionalized learning (Davis 2004). The next step beyond social constructivism, in my view, is into the realm of ‘complexity thinking,’ from the ecological cosmology of Fritjof Capra (1997) to the fractal world of Benoît Mandelbrot (1983) and from enaction (Maturana and Varela 1980) to emergence (Clay et al. 2009). It is the underlying postpositivist worldview and its implications for translator education that will be the focus of attention in this paper. 1. The emergence of a community of practice in translator education When I was first introduced to translator education, at the School of Applied Linguistics and Cultural Studies (FTSK) of the University of Mainz in Germersheim in 1983, translation was taught universally in a conventional ‘chalk-and-talk’ manner, with a teacher sitting in front of each translation practice class, requesting verbal contributions by individual students who would read off their respective translations of parts of a larger text (chosen by the teacher, most often from a newspaper). The teacher would ask if other students had comments to make and would then provide his or her own commentary on the proposed solutions. This would go on for the duration of class after class, from the first through the final semester of the eight-semester Diplom (M.A. level degree) program of study. It was ubiquitous for all of the languages taught at the School, and for translation both into and out of the students’ native tongues. To my knowledge, observing ongoing classes was the only education or training in translator education available to me or any other new instructor at the time. There were no university-level programs for the training of translation instructors then, and no intensive workshops for translator trainers were provided anywhere.1 A survey of the literature 1.  Intensive workshops have since been run, (for example those organized and co-taught by the author) between 1999 and 2006 at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in the U.S. and at the Universities of Tarragona and Vic in Spain.

9

10

Don Kiraly

on translator education in 1985–86 revealed that very little had been done up until then to develop teaching approaches that would go beyond attempts to transmit knowledge from teachers to students.2 There was clearly a community of translation teaching practice back then, but to my knowledge, there was no underlying theory of translator competence acquisition, and also virtually no research on translator education; at least I have found none in the translation studies literature of the day. So the question arises: On what basis did transmissionist instruction seem to have a monopoly on pedagogical practice, not only in Germersheim but throughout the world of translator education? Today, some 30 years later, one still finds numerous translation practice classes — and not only at the FTSK — in which a teacher sits in front of perhaps 20 to 60 students seated in rows facing him or her. These students still receive a text that is chosen by the teacher and that the students are expected to translate as homework, on their own. The main pedagogical activity in these classes is still to read aloud a sentence or short passage from the students’ rough drafts and have them critiqued by the teacher. The activity is all but devoid of the features of task authenticity that make professional translation a process of resolving real translation problems embedded in a multi-dimensional context. This involves competing expectations, demands and norms, interdependencies among myriad actors in authentic situations of interlingual, intercultural communication, and, last but not least — the creation of a high-quality product meeting the standards imposed by a client. Nevertheless, in other classes, in fact in an increasing number of classes across the wide range of languages now offered at the FTSK, as well as at numerous other translator education institutions, one finds activities occurring that are strikingly similar to real-world translation work and strikingly dissimilar to conventional translation instruction. One example of the emergence of a radical alternative to chalk-and-talk pedagogical praxis that is underway at my own institution is reflected in the edited volume Projekte und Projektionen in der translatorischen Kompetenzentwicklung (Projects and Projections in the Development of Translator Competence) (Hansen-Schirra and Kiraly 2013) which includes no fewer than twelve contributions from FTSK faculty members introducing project-based, learner-centered collaborative translation classes in various language departments. In all of these classes, the least common denominator is that the undertaking of, as well as reflection on, real or at least simulated translation projects by the students is the focus of attention rather than decontextualized instruction revolving around the translation of desituated textual material. Instead of 2.  This thorough study of teaching approaches in translator education was the graduate thesis by Röhl (1985) completed at the FTSK. It turned out to be a key impetus behind my dissertation work, which was completed at the University of Illinois (Kiraly 1995).



Occasioning translator competence

explaining to students how to translate and having them practice taught principles on texts that have no real translation function, the teachers in all of these classes serve much more as guides, assistants, helpers, and facilitators within the context of an experiential learning environment imbued with authenticity. What is perhaps most surprising is that these forays into the realm of collaborative project work seem to have emerged without any overt attempts on the part of the institution’s administration to impose innovation on teaching praxis. The numerous passing references to recent contributions to project-based translator education that can be found in the edited volume mentioned above suggest that some of the concepts for collaborative, project-based learning that have been proposed over the past decade may well be influencing the pedagogical work of some of my colleagues. (The complete absence in those contributions of work done in the fields of second language acquisition or language teacher education confirm my earlier claim that translator education seems to be developing in isolation from language teaching research per se). In any event, the absence in the articles of any discussion on the pedagogical principles underlying the project work introduced in the edited volume is an indication that reflection on the epistemological underpinnings of these pedagogical experiments is still underdeveloped. It is noteworthy, for example, that the terms Erkenntnistheorie (epistemology), Lerntheorie (learning theory), and Konstruktivismus (constructivism) do not appear in any of the contributions to the book except my own. Similarly, these contributions are virtually devoid of references to the thinking of any of the leading innovative minds in contemporary Western educational thought, such as Alfred North Whitehead, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, Jerome Bruner, William Doll, Dennis Sumara, or Brent Davis. An informal survey of contributions to the translation studies literature on innovation in translator education over the past decade reveals that the edited volume referred to here is no exception. While numerous attempts have been and are being made to try out new approaches and techniques in translation classrooms, the quintessential characteristic of a pedagogical ‘community of (theory and) practice’ is still lacking: domain-wide reflection on and discussion of basic understandings about the nature of learning and effective teaching. The seeds for establishing just such a community of theory and practice, however, have begun to germinate. The plethora of experience-based, learner- and learning-centered, project-focused teaching projects being presented at translation studies conferences and discussed in translation studies publications today suggests there is a strong desire within the translator educating community to adapt our classrooms to an emerging postpositivist educational Zeitgeist. In the following discussion, I will attempt to illustrate how these two trends might be

11

12

Don Kiraly

brought together to establish a foundation for discussion of principles of learning and teaching, as well as research on learning and teaching in translator education. 2. Situated translation It is interesting to note that, while collaborative, project-based classes have been widely proclaimed to be an ‘innovation’ in translator education, the question arises as to what extent this type of pedagogical praxis can be considered innovative. After all, professional translation work itself has always been contextualized. A real-world client, teamwork, the use of necessary and available tools to complement the work of the translator’s mind, the incessant tackling and resolution of new problems on the basis of experience with old ones — these are and always have been fundamental characteristics of the translator’s habitus. Shifting translator education from largely desituated instruction and practice to increasingly creative, collaborative work on authentic translation projects is more like a step backward than forward — back to the learning-on-the-job that formed the core of ‘training’ that surely preceded the advent of university-level translator training programs in the middle of the twentieth century. It has been well established in various sub-fields of education that conventional ‘chalk-and-talk’ teacher-centered instruction is based on an objectivist epistemology (which we might also call positivist or modernist), which views the sources and locus of knowledge in a ‘realist’ manner (seeing knowledge as a reflection of the objectively real and objectively perceivable world) (Doll 1993; Davis and Sumara 1997). From this perspective, knowledge is to be found in the individual mind; it represents truth about the world that is discoverable through reason and/ or through careful observation of reality. An implication of this viewpoint is that knowledge can be accumulated in a linear fashion over time (Varbelow 2012: 90). A fundamental epistemological feature underlying transmissionist instruction is reductionism — the modernist scientistic belief that our world of experience can be reduced to relatively simple facts and rules. From an educational perspective then, learners do not need to experience the messy, complicated real world for themselves; it is far more expedient for teachers to distill, simplify, and transmit knowledge and skills: the mainstay if not the very raison d’être of institutionalized education. Positivist instructionism is a pedagogical approach that is sharply at odds with an increasingly widespread postpositivist worldview — not only in education but also in philosophy and the natural sciences.3 From a postpositivist perspective, 3.  The term instructionism is attributed to Seymour Papert (1993).



Occasioning translator competence

knowledge is not something that can be (dis)-covered empirically or rationally; instead ‘knowing’ is a nonlinear process of context-dependent embodied and enactive meaning-creation involving myriad interrelated knowing systems, from neurons to brains to individual minds through communities of practice and on to cultures and societies (and in fact the environment as a whole). 3. Modernism and positivist pedagogical epistemology Modernism is a worldview that dates back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is based in the philosophical works of empiricists like Bacon, Locke, and Newton and in the rationalist philosophy of thinkers like Descartes and Comte, although its roots go back at least to Socrates, Euclid, Plato, and the Sophists of ancient Greece.4 The empiricists believed that careful observation of the world would reveal its secrets to the human mind, whereas the rationalists believed that it is through careful, logical reasoning that we can come to know the world objectively. While the methods of seeking truth for the empiricists and the rationalists may have been different, both believed that knowledge is pre-given and could be discovered if sought with the proper tools. From a modernist perspective, education can essentially be understood precisely as a process of the transmission of objective knowledge. Teachers are seen as holders of knowledge that they can pass on to the students seated facing them. This kind of pedagogical activity can be seen in classrooms in many fields throughout the world at every level of institutional education. The French philosopher and Renaissance arts master Petrus Ramus has been acknowledged as the founder of ‘method’ in educational practice (Doll 2008: 182; Triche 2004). Living in France in the sixteenth century, Ramus wrote a treatise demonstrating what he believed was the ideal structure for teaching the classics and passing knowledge on from one generation to the next. Ramus’ ideas were picked up and passed on from country to country and down from generation to generation. They have made their way to the modern day through such major pedagogical figures as Frederick Taylor, who was responsible for improving manufacturing processes in the U.S. at the beginning of the twentieth century to make sure that the greatest possible productivity could be achieved by each individual worker. Taylor’s ideas were understood to be the greatest product of modernist educational thought and were quickly picked up in educational circles and applied

4.  The history of modernism from an educational perspective has been discussed at length and in depth in the works of William Doll. (Trueit 2012)

13

14

Don Kiraly

to one curriculum after another across the United States and in other countries (Doll 2008: 182). An important feature of modernism is that it is based on a mechanical understanding of the world and a representational view of knowledge in the mind. From this perspective, as presented by empiricists like Bacon and Newton, the world functions much like a clock: in a complicated, mechanistic fashion (Morçöl 2001: 107, italics added). Both the physical world and the mental world can be seen from this perspective to function essentially in the same way. From this perspective, knowledge is tangible, is stored in the mind, and can be passed on to other individuals — for example, from the teacher to pupil. And hence the foundation of the practice we know as transmissionist education today: Most current pedagogical procedures… require classroom learning to be broken down into simple tasks and arranged methodologically into the right sequence of steps to train students in bureaucratically predetermined knowledge, skills and dispositions. (Triche and McKnight 2004: 39)

This transmissionist view of learning underlies the role of the ‘instructor’ in the classroom — the understanding that the teacher must have the knowledge that is to be acquired by the students. From this perspective, discussion, if it functions as anything other than a disturbance in the efficient transmission of knowledge from mind to mind, provides an opportunity to practice pre-defined skills and consolidate knowledge acquired directly from the teacher or from other expert sources of input. Discussion among the students themselves within this approach is unnecessary and perhaps even harmful. Knowledge is there to be transmitted, ingested, accumulated, and tested. Translation tests have conventionally involved the distribution of a text to students to be translated under supervision in class by each student individually and within a limited period of time, with or without resource materials, at the discretion of the instructor or the institution. Essentially, the knowledge to be tested is expected to be contained in the mind of the learner. Allowing extraneous material makes it difficult to compare the abilities of the students and their memorization skills, given the belief that learning essentially entails the in-take of input provided by teachers and readings. 4. An initial step into postpositivism: From instruction to construction My initial research work in translator education, which led to my dissertation project, was informed by the dominant positivist epistemology in academia at the time. It would be years before my understanding of learning and teaching would



Occasioning translator competence

evolve beyond the scientistic worldview imposed by the academic community.5 Following a survey of translator education practices in Europe, my dissertation project involved the collection and analysis of think-aloud data produced by novice and semi-professional translators during a translation task. This was one of the first published studies of its kind. What I attempted to discover was indicators of strategy use and the occurrence of intuitions during the translation process. At the time, it seemed clear that if we could identify the differences between the performance of translators-in-training and professional translators, we could better help the former to become the latter by developing new teaching approaches (in the absence at the time of any but instructionism). Figure 1 shows the graphic representation of the initial segment of data produced and analyzed in the think-aloud process. Each symbol represents either an incidence of intuitive translation (the symbol beneath the letters in the top row of the transcription) or an indicator of strategic behavior (for example: back translate, rephrase source-text segment, make an intuitive acceptability judgment, L1→L2 dictionary search, and monitor for target language accuracy). Each vertical string of indicators corresponds to the sequential appearance of indicators in the data corresponding to a single translation unit (defined as a chunk of text dealt with as a unit by the respective translator). The plus and minus symbols between parentheses at the bottom of each string of indicators corresponds to my personal assessment of the acceptability of the solution (which generally came at the end of a vertical string): acceptable (+) or unacceptable (−). One of the most important findings was that for the subjects in the study, both novices and semi-professionals, intuition played a major and largely unpredictable role in the translation process. It became imminently clear that the data collection approach would not be able to crack open the translator’s black box; it would not allow us to retrace the origin or course of intuitions. Another finding was that there was no apparent difference in quality (measured in terms of the acceptability of the individual units on average) between the novices (in their second semester of study) and the semi-professionals (who had completed a five-year Diplom and had been working as staff or freelance translators for at least one year).

5.  The term scientific differs from scientistic in that the latter presumes that the scientific method is the sole means of collecting reliable data about the world.

15

16

Don Kiraly

Andrea (Novice) A

1

2

3

B

4

5

6

7

8

9

C 10 11

12

D

(-) (-)

(-)

(+)

(-) (-)

(-) (-)

(-)

(-)

(+) (-)

(-)

(-)

(-) (-)

Arnold (Professional) A

B

1

(-)

C

D

(-)

(+)

2

E

F

(+)

(+)

3

G

H

I

(-)

(+)

(+)

J

K

L

(+)

(-)

(-)

(+)

(+)

(-)

(+)

Figure 1.  Strategic and intuitive processing indicators transcribed (Kiraly 1995: 149)

Hence, while I did have the impression that I had been able to detect some of the complexity of strategy use and to develop an understanding of the extraordinary



Occasioning translator competence

extent to which intuitions were drawn upon in the completion of these translation tasks, I became concerned not long after completing my dissertation that future work in this (scientistic) direction might well be futile if not counterproductive. I was bothered, for example, by the fact that I could identify no data produced during the think-aloud experience that reflected what was going on during the production of intuitional indicators. I found that it was not possible to get into the translator’s black box using this technique. I was also concerned (having read all of the other first-generation TAP studies) that continued work in the same direction would likely lead to attempts to specify particular teaching tasks, particular exercises, devised and implemented by teachers in an effort to effectuate linear change as expected in accordance with a positivist, reductionist worldview. Intuitions do not fit neatly into a ‘scientific’ cognitivist perspective precisely because, buried as they seem to be in the dark recesses of the mind’s black box, they leave nothing but the most ephemeral traces of their links to more conscious, strategic processes. We cannot readily identify their origins, we cannot predict under what circumstances they will emerge, and we cannot ‘teach’ them (Kiraly 2000: 3). Figure 2 is the model of cognitive translation processes that I created on the basis of the data analysis. From the postpositivist stance I hold today, this model is the epitome of a modernist, positivist, and reductionist flow-chart style model. In creating it, I tried to reduce types of knowledge to convenient labels that could fit into boxes in long-term memory and simplified the mental processes I detected into two types: relatively controlled and relatively uncontrolled. I then assigned them to imaginary ‘centers’ in the mind as if they were components on a motherboard. The processes identified are described as primarily linear, largely sequential, and either simple or complicated but not complex (a distinction I will return to in the section below). The computational view of mind that predominated at that time is readily apparent throughout the model. Currently, cognitivism is the predominant theoretical framework for understanding human intelligence and its development. It is so pervasive, in fact, that its defining “mind as computer” metaphor tends to be used and taken literally. It is now part of common sense to speak of “inputting” and “storing” information, of “processing” and “retrieving” data, of “compiling” and “structuring” knowledge, etc. (Davis and Sumara 1997: 407)

17

18

Don Kiraly

Figure 2.  A cognitivist model of translation processes (Kiraly 1995: 101)

5. Social constructivism: Another step on the path toward emergence and occasioning Thus, at the time, I tacitly accepted the view that the human mind functions much like a computer enclosed within the skull of the individual translator: the essence of a first-generation cognitive science view of mental processing (Lakoff and Johnson 1999). It was precisely these two features that I finally found to be untenable: the presumed intracranial and computational nature of knowledge and cognitive processing. My disillusionment led me to search further afield for a theoretical framework that would take me to a more ecologically-valid approach to translator education. The next step on that path came in the form of social constructivism (SC).



Occasioning translator competence

In short, the social constructivist theory proposed by Lev Vygotsky is based on the view that social interaction precedes and is the basis for thought: knowledge is constructed by individuals in social interaction.6 Vygotskian understandings of learning, the meditational role of culture, scaffolding (support for learning provided by more knowledgeable others), and the zone of proximal development (ZPD) have been adopted, developed, and adapted for educational applications in a wide number of pedagogical domains, including mathematics and science education. The SC approach I developed for translator education was focused on the mainstays of learner autonomy, cognitive apprenticeship, and authentic collaborative project work in the classroom. The realization of the explanatory power of social constructivism for understanding learning meant finally freeing myself of the mind-as-computer metaphor and embracing a postpositivist epistemology.7 Dennis Sumara and Brent Davis, who have written extensively and eloquently about pedagogical epistemologies, refer to the crux of the matter when they say that, “For the constructivist […] cognition is not a process of ‘representing’ a real world that is out there waiting to be apprehended but, rather, is a process of organizing and re-organizing one’s own subjective world of experience.” (Sumara and Davis 1997: 409). While in this quote they were in fact referring to the Piagetian variety of constructivism (also called ‘radical constructivism’), Sumara and Davis here succinctly identify the quintessence of the postpositivist paradigm shift entailed in constructivist thought in general: the abandonment of the belief held by the rationalist and empiricist philosophical traditions that objective truth can be found ‘out there’ in the world and either transmitted or ingested: […] constructivism suggests that ideas and beliefs […]emerge because they are personally viable in a given context, not because they are ideal. In terms of social interaction, such subjective constructions need only be compatible with the constructions of others, for the measure of viability is not a match with some externally determined standard, but the maintenance of one’s integrity in a given context. (ibid.)

From such a perspective, learning is far less a process of acquisition or in-take and far more a process of construction of the self (a more experienced, competent, 6.  Space limitations prohibit me from reviewing the social constructivist perspective in detail. The reader is referred to A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education (Kiraly 2000) for a thorough discussion of social constructivist theory and its application to translator education. 7.  As I am still grappling with the muddied distinctions between the terms postpositivism and postmodernism, I have chosen to use the former throughout, although some of the authors cited use the latter. While the connotations of the terms may well be different, I believe at this point that their denotations are essentially the same.

19

20 Don Kiraly

autonomous self). While both radical and social constructivism emphasize the need for (embodied) action as the basis for learning, social constructivism adds the primordial interpersonal component in knowledge construction, justifying if not demanding collaborative interaction as an essential feature of the learning environment. As they prepare to introduce their readers to post-constructivist educational theory, Sumara and Davis state that a remaining problem with (radical) constructivism is that it still holds an intrapersonal (if not intracranial) view of cognition: “But while constructivism represents an important departure from cognitivism and other representational models of cognition, it shares one fundamental tenet […] that the locus of cognition is the individual” (ibid.). Although social constructivism holds that meaning and knowledge are created in interaction with one’s social environment and hence emerge from the interstices of interpersonal interaction, in the end the individual mind is still the place where knowledge is ‘constructed’ and stored. In addition, the construction metaphor still emphasizes the reification of knowledge and the understanding that the processes at work are still largely mechanical: simple or complicated at best. As I hope to show in the next section of this paper, the step beyond constructivism toward ‘emergent’ knowing represents a significant move beyond the mechanistic, positivist, reductionist worldview that has dominated education for centuries — toward an approach that acknowledges the complexity of learning systems. 6. Beyond instruction: Teaching from a postmodern perspective In this all-too-brief section, which, because of space limitations, can at best whet the appetite of readers interested in delving deeper into the postpositivist option in translator education, I have taken the liberty of quoting others more extensively in order to introduce readers to a few of the many eloquent voices in the domains of educational philosophy and pedagogical research that are contributing to dialogue within postpositivist communities of educational theory and practice across a number of domains. I believe that these voices can contribute to a viable epistemological foundation for the increasing number of translation teachers who find themselves leaning away from chalk-and-talk practice in the classroom and toward collaborative, situated, praxis-oriented pedagogy. The first voice is that of Hanna Risku, who, to my knowledge, is one of the very few other translation studies scholars to date who has come out unequivocally in favor of adopting a new, postpositivist epistemology for furthering translator education.



Occasioning translator competence

Due to the major role played by the environment, any attempts to explain translation by describing processes in the mind of an individual alone are bound to fail. The mind is only one part of the story. We need to find out not only what happens in a translator’s mind, but also what happens elsewhere, e.g. in their hands, and their computers, on their desk, in their languages or in their dialogues. Translation is not done solely by the mind, but by complex systems. These systems include people, the specific social and physical environments and all their cultural artifacts. (Risku 2010: 103; italics added)

A closer look at what other members of the community of postpositivist educational theory and practice have to say about the points Risku raises here reveals several issues. First of all, the distinction between complicated and complex systems has been attributed to the early computer scientist Warren Weaver (see Weaver 1948). Complicated systems, according to Weaver, are mechanical, much like a clock or any type of machinery (or a computer for that matter), and reducible to their component parts. A competent technician can break them down into their individual pieces, repair them if necessary, and put them back together, and they will still function as they did before. Complexity, however, refers to systems that have a very large number of component parts and that are not reducible to those parts; they exhibit emergent (unpredictable, self-organizing, self-generating) behavior, resulting in their being more than the sum of their parts. Prime examples of complex systems are an anthill, any living organism, and the brain. Complex systems are dynamic and tend to be nested inside other systems. As an example, Brent Davis (a professor of mathematics education and a leading expert on complexity in education) has noted: “The brain […] is not a static form, but a vibrantly changing system that is fractally organized: neurons are clustered into mini columns, mini columns into macro columns, macro columns into cortical areas, cortical areas into hemispheres — and at every level agents interact with and affect other agents” (Davis 2004: 101). It is in contexts involving such complex systems that tidy positivist reductionism and Euclidean flowchart-type models may prove to be of very limited value. The fractal (recurrent and self-similar at all scales) nature of complex systems complements the essential complex-system characteristic of self-organization or ‘autopoiesis’ (Maturana and Varela 1980). The very structure of the system changes as it interacts with other systems — that is, as it learns. In applying these features of complex systems to learning processes, Davis states: This is one of the reasons that the cognitivist brain-as-computer metaphor is problematic. Each event of learning entails a physical transformation of the brain; hence subsequent events of learning are met by a different brain. On the biological level, personal learning is not about acquisition, processing or storing, but about emergent structuring. (ibid. emphasis mine)

21

22

Don Kiraly

In the context of educational philosophy, the postmodern mindset encourages us to view cognition itself as just such an emergent adaptive system. It does not involve static knowledge as much as it does dynamic knowing — constantly changing, imminently situated and embodied thinking-in-action: Knowing is fractal-like: a continuous, re-iterative event through which one knits together one’s history, one’s immediate situation, and one’s projects. Such knowing is never fixed, never stable. (Davis and Sumara 2000: 831)

From this perspective, learning in classrooms becomes a radically different affair from the often passive ingestion of predetermined knowledge that a modernist epistemology expects. The fractal, self-similar nature of learning suggests that an embodied approach to classroom practice will be mirrored in a less artificially structured curriculum as well (for a more detailed discussion of this point, see Kiraly 2012): The postmodern perspective of curriculum respects the messiness of the whole and does not try to justify and segment parts of the whole into closed boxes. In this open framework, there is room for play, chance, and the turmoil inherent in learning. Learning does not always have to proceed in sequential steps, but is complex and moves in fits and starts. The postmodern paradigm embraces exceptions and does not feel a need to find the ultimate truth (Lewis 2004: 121–122).

William Doll has summed up the essence of the postmodern classroom in terms of a departure from conventional chalk-and-talk pedagogy as follows, “Learning now occurs, not through direct transmission from expert to novice, or from teacher to student, but in a non-linear manner in a class exploring a situation/problem/issue together, and indeed from multiple perspectives” (Doll 2008: 193). This brings us back to the kind of collaborative, authentic-project-based pedagogy I proposed in A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education (Kiraly 2000), which has begun to flourish in twenty-first century translator education. Within translation studies per se, contributions to the literature on post-instructionist approaches to translator education were limited to the work of Mackenzie and Nieminen (1997) and Jean Vienne (1994), which were not overtly grounded in epistemology, cosmology, or pedagogical theory, but which nevertheless served as an important source of inspiration for my own approach, based on social constructivist principles. The theoretical perspective provided by the postpositivist dialogue on pedagogical epistemology provides an even more powerful justification for authentic project work in the classroom than even social constructivism did. The near-authentic working conditions that emerge from work on a real project in the classroom reflect the understanding of cognition and learning as embodied action rather than the accretion of bits of knowledge and skills. As Risku has stated:



Occasioning translator competence

If learning is situated and context-dependent instead of abstract and decontextualized, the management of different professional situations becomes the primary educational objective…. Therefore it is of paramount importance that teachers of translation and interpreting integrate authentic or near-authentic translation tasks into their teaching. (2010: 101)

An emergentist view not only allows but also requires teachers to climb down from their pedestals of authority, and it implies an obligatory change in their roles from distillers and transmitters of knowledge to guides and companions on the students’ road to experience. Syllabus design is no longer a task to be accomplished by a teacher alone prior to the start of a course; it becomes a tentative plan that emerges with new challenges and unexpected turns, and one leading to unpredictable goals as a course progresses. Learning objectives become far more difficult to specify because they will differ from student to student and will in the best of cases evolve in a unique manner for each student throughout each course and throughout the entire program of studies. So a change in our basic pedagogical epistemology, in our basic understanding of what it means to learn how to function as a language mediation professional, will bring with it a plethora of new challenges for teachers, learners. and our educational institutions themselves. This, however, would be a small price to pay for a pedagogy that is far better suited than chalkand-talk to the still-emerging postmodern Zeitgeist. 7. A heretical view of translation competence research Modernist research on translator competence purports to be scientific and so is, not surprisingly, reductionist in nature: “The governing principle of science is reductionism: the belief that parts of the whole can be isolated and examined in order to understand behavior, and that the whole can be understood by summing the parts” (Richardson and Cilliers 2001: 10). Today, considerable effort is being made by a number of researchers and teams of researchers to better understand the nature of translation competence, which has been previously depicted in terms of sets of interlinked sub-competences. In each case, the positivist, scientistic worldview upon which all of these models are based yields a static, Euclidean, compartmentalized, and reductionist picture of idealized sub-competences. Models B and C have been created within the scope of research projects designed to investigate translation competence with the key objective of improving translator education. Both of these research programs have undertaken the operationalization of the respective sub-competences (which in all three cases were derived from personal intuitions of translators, translation

23

24

Don Kiraly

A.

B.

Bilingual Sub-Competence

Language

Thematic

Translation Service Provision

Strategic Sub-Competence

Intercultural

Instrumental Sub-Competence Technological

Extra-Linguistic Sub-Competence

Knowledge about Translation Sub-Competence

Info mining Psycho-physiological Components

C. Communicative Competence in at least 2 languages

Tools and research competence

Domain competence

Strategic competence Motivation

Psychomotor competence

Translation routine activation competence

Translation norms Translation assignment

Translator’s self concept/ professional ethos Topics covered and methods employed in theoreticals and practical translation training

Psycho-physical disposition

Figure 3.  Three models of translation competence: EMT Expert Group 2009: 4 [A], PACTE 2005: 610 [B], Göpferich 2008: 155 [C]

researchers, and translator trainers). They are all static box-like representations of a vague set of relationships between dispositions, abilities, skills, and expertise that professional translators can be expected to possess and to be able to use when translating. These models, of course, say nothing at all about how these features



Occasioning translator competence

should or might be acquired or developed in an educational setting — and they do not purport to do so. And yet, in incorporating their model into the research program for improving translator education, the PACTE group has clearly stated its scientific research design: operationalization of the sub-competences followed by a longitudinal experiment in which a group of students would be taught using a teaching method developed by the research group and subjected to pre- and post-treatment testing for proficiency in terms of the various sub-competences (PACTE 2005). While this is very much in line with the kind of research I argued for in Pathways to Translation (Kiraly 1995) on the basis of my — at the time — positivist, scientistic epistemology, I now suspect that this sort of research program will lead to very little generalizable knowledge about how to improve translator education, particularly as such programs are based on the hard and fast assumption that translation can be taught in the first place. From that perspective, it is merely a question of finding the right, the most effective. and the most efficient teaching approach. The emergentist worldview suggests a priori that knowledge ‘emerges’ autopoietically and that instruction needs to be recast in terms of ‘occasioning’ in our postmodern world. The term occasioning has been used by Davis and Stimmt (2003: 157) to refer to the orienting, scaffolding, and facilitating role of the teacher in emergent learning processes. The teacher no longer pre-determines what students are to learn but participates in a multifaceted, multiperspective learning adventure along with them. An epistemologically tenable approach for translator education research from a postpositivist research approach would entail moving away from a quantitative experimental research paradigm toward qualitative case study research, which of course has a long history in education and throughout the social sciences. This might, for example, involve the observation of learning that occurs in naturalistic settings — as authentic as possible — to find out how competence emerges. This is exactly what I have been doing in a series of projects over the past year (see, for example, Kiraly 2012): allowing, encouraging, and assisting emergent learning processes to occur in a collaborative environment and against the backdrop of authentic translation projects carried out for real clients in the real world. Tentative results suggest that learning can indeed be understood as a nonlinear, emergent process. Given a suitable real or realistic environment in which students are motivated to learn through experience in the company of similarly situated students and with the help of facilitating teachers, significant learning can indeed be seen to take place. Questions proper to conventional concerns of educational institutions have yet to be broached, for example: How can competence be operationalized for the purpose of measuring academic success and preparedness for professional employment? How can progression be built into a curriculum that is not based

25

26 Don Kiraly

on a predetermined set of sequentially ordered skills? How can authentic project work be incorporated in a systematic manner within an institutional setting, where standardized instruction and academic objectives have always been the order of the day? 8. A fractal model of emerging translator competence Translation teaching and research on the basis of a postpositivist epistemology is clearly still in its infancy. However, by merging the theory presented here with the considerable ongoing efforts of numerous teacher-researchers to develop and implement project-based pedagogical approaches, one can see the emergence of a viable and durable alternative to the still dominant modernist paradigm of chalkand-talk translator training and process research. A postpositivist epistemology must, by its very nature, look askance at teaching seen as the transmission of knowledge from one person to another — at least when what is to be learned are complex competences rather than simple facts or complicated skills. As a point of departure for investigating the emergence of translator competence and possibilities for occasioning the development of such competence, I propose an initial, tentative model of translator competence and its emergence. This model was inspired by each of the postpositivist theories referred to in this article, the various two-dimensional models of translational sub-competences (see Figure 3), and the tentative results of my ongoing qualitative classroom case studies, published reports on which are forthcoming. This model purports to depict both the tremendously complex interplay of translational sub-competences and their non-parallel emergence over time. Because of the unique and multifarious nature of each person’s life experience, the model purports to depict the unique network of sub-competences for each individual and at any moment in time. Each sub-competence appears near the lower (novice) level of the emergent competence system as a separate dynamic vortex that suggests constant evolution, ever-increasing complexity, and the recursive nature of learning (Risku 1998: 37). Unlike the computer-related input-output metaphors of first-generation cognitive science models, the swirling, interactive vortices in this model represent an emergent system progressively incorporating experience and learning into the various emerging sub-systems. The bands winding around the vortices suggest that the translator’s competence is co-determined by the translation tasks and projects they engage in and learn from, their personal and interpersonal dispositions for translating, their disposition for learning, the human and material resources available and drawn upon, as well as the affordances of their learning environments.



Occasioning translator competence

An Emergent Model of Translator Expertise Expert

Novice Personal & Interpersonal Dispositions

Tasks & Projects Material & Human Resources

Affordances of Learning Environment

Curricular subcompetencies

Figure 4.  An initial postpositivist model of the emergence of translator competence

Instructional intervention can indeed play a role in this process, but from this viewpoint, learning is clearly the result of a complex interplay of processes and only incidentally and occasionally the direct result of teaching. I do not yet feel confident about specifying the particular sub-competences in the model as there is no consensus on which ones actually exist (see, for example the three translation competence models in Figure 3, each of which identifies different sub-competences). Toward the upper (expert) end of the model, the complexity of the linkages throughout the system can be expected to have increased dramatically as a result

27

28

Don Kiraly

of experience and learning, as suggested by the seminal model of expertise development proposed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980). In addition, the separate sub-competences will have merged into a highly integrated and largely intuitive super-competence. The interlinked network of dots represents the potential network of intuitions and memories of experiences, and perhaps even learned rules and strategies that occur to the translator during any given ‘translational moment’ and that co-emerge to help the translator act upon the translation problem at hand. From such a perspective, the sub-competences operationalized by translation process scholars may be no more than pedagogically convenient constructs that (may) gradually and eventually merge into a super-competence: professional translator competence. In the complex three-dimensional model of a translatory moment, as it might be experienced by a highly experienced translator, the potential links between nodes in the network are innumerable and unpredictable, and the decisionmaking processes are largely intuitive and unique for each new translation problem. One key feature that is missing from the model as presented in Figure 4 is the interpersonal aspect. Translators interact, of course, with other translators, clients, and outside experts. Translation students interact with each other and with their teachers. Each complex multi-vortex interfaces with the community of other individual vortices with which the translator interacts while translating and while learning to translate. Each translator is inextricably and perpetually embedded in innumerable, ever-changing social and physical contexts — reflected in Figure 5.

Figure 5.  A tentative depiction of co-emergent translator competence

Such a model clearly lacks the neat simplistic boxes and arrows of two-dimensional reductionist models that have long made instructional design and curriculum development seem straightforward, highly controllable, and linear. Are we



Occasioning translator competence

prepared for a major shift in our understanding of learning and teaching? Are we ready to accept a considerable amount of apparent chaos in our classrooms? Are we disposed to relinquish a large measure of control over what, when, and how our students learn? Some translation scholars and even more translation teachers have shown that we are prepared to respond affirmatively. It is now time to bring theory and praxis together. Perhaps Steven Hawking’s prediction that the twenty-first century will be the century of complexity will also apply to translator education.

References Angelelli, Claudia V. 2006. “Designing Curriculum for Healthcare Interpreting Education: A Principles Approach.” In New Approaches to Interpreter Education, ed. by Cynthia Roy, 23–46. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten Christiansen, William Croft, Nick Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, and Ton Schoenemann. 2009. “Language as a Complex Adaptive System.” Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1): 1–26.  d ​ oi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00534.x Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Boston: Addison Wesley. Capra, Fritjof. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. London: Flamingo Press. Davis, Brent. 2004. Inventions of Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, Brent, and Elaine Stimmt. 2003. “Understanding Learning Systems: Mathematics Teaching and Complexity Science.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 34 (2): 137–167. ​doi: 10.2307/30034903 Davis, Brent, and Dennis Sumara. 1997. “Cognition, Complexity, and Teacher Education.” Harvard Educational Review 67 (1): 105–125. Davis, Brent and, Dennis Sumara. 2000. “Curriculum Forms: On the Assumed Shapes of Knowing and Knowledge.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 (6): 821–845. Doll, William E. 1993. A Postmodern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Doll, William E. 2008. “Complexity and the Culture of Curriculum.” In Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, ed. by Mark Mason, 181–203. Malden, GA: Wiley-Blackwell. ​ doi: 10.1002/9781444307351.ch13

Dreyfus, Stuart, and Hubert Dreyfus. 1980. “A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition.” http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA084551. Copyright: Approved for public release. Accessed 14 September 2013. Ellis, Nick. 1998. “Emergentism, Connectionism and Language Learning.” Language Learning 48 (4): 631–664. ​doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00063 EMT Expert Group. 2009. “Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multilingual and Multimedia Communication.” http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/emt/ key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2015. Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung [Translation Process Research]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

29

30

Don Kiraly Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, and Don Kiraly (eds). 2013. Projekte und Projektionen in der translatorischen Kompetenzentwicklung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kiraly, Donald. 2012. “Skopos Theory Goes to Paris: Purposeful Translation and Emergent Translation Projects.” MTM 4: 119–144. Kiraly, Donald. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Donald. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2007. “On the Complementarity of Chaos/Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory in Understanding the Second Language Acquisition Process.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1): 35–37. ​doi: 10.1017/S136672890600277X Lewis, Nancy S. 2004. “The Intersection of Postmodernity and Classroom Practice.” Teacher Education Quarterly. Summer: 119–134. Mackenzie, Rosemary, and Elina Nieminen. 1997. “Motivating Students to Achieve Quality in Translation.” In Transferre Necesse Est, ed. by Kinga Klaudy, and Janós Kohn, 339–344. Budapest: Scholastica. Maturana, Umberto, and Francisco Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co. ​doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4 Mandelbrot, Benoît B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Henry Holt & Company. Morçöl, Göktu. 2001. “What is Complexity Science? Postmodernist or Postpositivist?” Emergence 3 (1): 104–119 ​doi: 10.1207/S15327000EM0301_07 PACTE. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and methodological issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. ​doi: 10.7202/011004ar Papert, Seymour. 1993. The Children’s Machine. New York: Basic Books. Richardson, Kurt, and Paul Cilliers. 2001. “What is Complexity Science? A View from Different Directions.” Emergence 3 (1): 5–23. Risku, Hanna. 2010. “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation. Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?” Target 22 (1): 94–111.  d ​ oi: 10.1075/target.22.1.06ris Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz [Translation Competence]. Tübingen: Stauffenberg. Sumara, Dennis, and Brent Davis. 1997. “Enactivist Theory and Community Learning: Toward a Complexified Understanding of Action Research.” Educational Action Research 5 (3): 403–422. ​doi: 10.1080/09650799700200037 Triche, Stephen, and Douglas McKnight. 2004. “The Quest for Method: The Legacy of Peter Ramus.” History of Education 33 (1): 39–54. ​doi: 10.1080/00467600410001648751 Trueit, Donna. 2012. Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and Complexity Theory. New York and London: Routledge. van Lier, Leo. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: a Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Varbelow, Sonja. 2012. “Instruction, Curriculum and Society: Iterations Based on the Ideas of William Doll.” International Journal of Instruction 5 (1): 87–94. Vienne, Jean. 1994. “Toward a Pedagogy of ‘Translation in Situation.’” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2 (1): 51–59. ​doi: 10.1080/0907676X.1994.9961222 Weaver, Warren. 1948. “Science and Complexity.” American Scientist 36 (4): 536–544.

The Internet in translation education Two decades later Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

Within the context of the global digital revolution, translation in professional settings cannot be understood without the Internet, as a communicative, documentary, and productivity tool (Cronin 2013; Jimenez-Crespo 2013). Similarly, translation training has been revolutionized by the wide range of possibilities afforded by the Internet. This paper reviews the impact of the Internet on translation research within the framework of translation competence models (PACTE 2005; Göpferich 2009), as well as socio-constructivist approaches to translation education (Kiraly 2012; 2000). Its impact has been felt in two areas: (1) how translation is taught and (2) how the world of translation has been changed by the Internet. Related to the first area is the rapid increase in the number of online and hybrid programs offered and in the use of online teaching platforms in classroom-based contexts. Related to the second area, a wide range of new opportunities has arisen, such as: (1) those related to the Internet as a communicative platform, (2) those related to the use of the Internet during translation tasks, both in terms of cloud-based translation memory and humanaided machine translation, as well as the use of the Internet for ‘external support’ (Alves and Liparini 2009) to solve translation problems, and (3) the emergence of new translation modalities such as web localization, new textual genres, such as social networking sites or tweets, as well as new translation practices, such as online crowdsourcing and volunteer translation communities. Keywords: online translation education, translation pedagogy research, translation and the WWW, translation education

1. Introduction Technology has been a driving force for development since the early days of humankind (Cronin 2013). Nowadays, technological advances and the ascent of the digital age have brought sweeping changes to our everyday lives. The ever-growing

doi 10.1075/bct.90.03jim 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

32

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

encroachment of technology, from computers to smartphones, gaming stations and tablets, has been empowered by the communication capabilities afforded by the Internet. The Internet now represents a regular part of the social, professional, educational, and cultural life of billions worldwide, with penetration rates of over 78% in countries such as the United Sates (Internet World Stats 2013). Not surprisingly, the professional world of translation and interpreting has not been shielded from this revolution. The Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) represent invaluable communicative, documentary, and productivity tools (Jiménez-Crespo 2013; O’Hagan 2012). Today, the practice of translation and interpreting cannot be understood independent of the technologies that support it (O’Brien 2012). This revolution has also influenced the discipline of Translation Studies, with a growing number of scholars reflecting on the undeniable effect of digital technologies. Munday (2012:268), for example, indicated that: “The emergence and proliferation of new technologies have transformed translation practice and are now exerting an impact on research and, as a consequence, on the theorization of translation.” The significance of this impact has been highlighted by scholars such as O’Hagan, one of the first to propose the existence of a ‘technological turn’ in the discipline (O’Hagan 2012).1 This article focuses on the impact of the Internet in translation education after two decades of empirical and applied research in Translation Studies. It can be divided into two distinct areas, which will comprise the two main sections of this paper. On the one hand, online teaching models have been slowly introduced into the field in line with developments in e-learning. The second section reviews the ways in which the Internet has changed the professional world of translation, and to a lesser degree, interpreting, as well as the influence these changes have exerted on what exactly is taught in institutions of higher learning, namely, ‘translation competence’ (Kiraly 2012; PACTE 2009, 2005; Göpferich 2009). These changes can be initially summarized in terms of (1) the Internet as a communicative platform, (2) the use of the Internet during translation tasks, not only by using cloud-based software such as translation memory and human-aided machine translation, but principally by using the resources available on the WWW as ‘external support’ (Alves and Liparini 2009) to solve translation problems, and (3) the emergence of new translation modalities, such as web localization, new textual genres, such as social networking sites or tweets, as well as new translation practices, including online crowdsourcing and volunteer non-professional translation communities. All these developments were unimaginable before the emergence of the Internet. 1.  This impact, however, is still marginal in terms of scientific production, if compared to the broader influence exerted by the ‘cultural’ (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990) or the ‘sociological’ turns (Wolf 2007; Angelelli 2012).



The Internet in translation education

2. Online translation and interpreting education Since the emergence of the Internet in the 1980s and the WWW in the 1990s (Berners-Lee 1992), online learning technologies, or Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), have revolutionized the world of teaching and learning. In the world of Translation Studies, the turn of the century has already seen the emergence of the first attempts at delivering courses and degrees online as educators struggled to adapt face-to-face learning models and materials to the idiosyncrasies of online learning. Currently an ever-increasing number of universities offer fully online graduate degrees, such the Universitat Jaume I and the Universitat Autónoma of Barcelona in Spain, the University of Bristol in the UK, the University of Rennes 2 in France, and New York University in the USA. Many other programs have opted for a ‘blended’ online approach, in which part of the content is taught in regular classrooms while a variable part of the coursework is delivered online. However, regardless of the teaching mode, the Internet and the WWW are at the core of education in terms of communication, documentation, and online delivery of class resources. The reasons for introducing online models are varied. For example, in the European context scholars have indicated as reasons the increasing number of students (Sandrelli and de Manuel Jerez 2007) and the fact that online collaborative learning helps students to catch up with the contemporary professional world (Secara, Merten, and Ramírez 2009; Olvera et al. 2009). The introduction of online learning in translation and interpreting attracted the attention of scholars early on. Already in the mid-1990s scholars began to publish works of applied research on best practices for adapting regular teaching to online learning. The first symposium on the differences between online and face-to-face learning took place in 2002 at the Universitat Autónoma of Barcelona organized by the Tradumática research group (Rodríguez Inés and Rodríguez Grácia 2002). Today online learning represents a widely accepted and researched phenomenon and is included in overviews and encyclopedias of research on translation education (i.e., Gambier 2012: 167–168). 2.1 Defining ‘e-learning’ and its different types The three existing models — ‘e-learning,’ ‘online learning,’ and ‘blended learning’ — are distinguished by the degree to which online technologies are involved. Clark and Mayer (2011: 8) consider ‘e-learning’ as a hypernym or umbrella term, which they define as ‘instruction delivered on a digital device such as a computer or mobile device that is intended to support learning.’ This, therefore, includes learning and teaching that occurs through any type of technology delivered through a digital device (i.e., computer, tablet, smartphone, etc.). In the field of Translation

33

34

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

Studies, Secara, Merten, and Ramirez (2009) distinguish between e-learning, online learning, and blended learning. They define ‘e-learning’ in broad terms as the use of technology for learning purposes and include both highly sophisticated platforms and more modest tools such as digitized videos, MS Word and PowerPoint. ‘Online learning’ is defined as the exploration of learning opportunities exclusively in computer-mediated environments. Finally, they identify ‘blended learning’ models following Wagner (2006: 44) as a methodological framework that provides the platform necessary to effectively combine face-to-face instruction, online instruction, and arrays of content objects and assets of all form factors. In blended learning, face-to-face instruction is complemented with online platforms that deliver self-paced materials such as those in the E-Colomedia and E-Colotrain platforms (Secara, Merten, and Ramirez 2009).2 It is also necessary to distinguish between two types of e-learning, defined according to the type of interaction between the instructor and the students. These are known as ‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’ models (Hrastinki 2008). Asynchronous models, in which the instructor prepares the self-paced materials online and students access the content whenever it is convenient for them, represent the most common type of e-learning. Feedback and interactive participation in forums and group projects also occur with a time lapse. Nowadays, virtually all new e-learning platforms also include the possibility of synchronous online learning via video communication with blackboards and forums that resemble a real face-to-face classroom. These synchronous models are normally combined with asynchronous materials in the courses, making this combination similar to the blended learning models explored by translation scholars (Secara, Merten, and Ramirez 2009). 2.2 Research into the teaching of translation and interpreting competences, skills, or fields of specialization Applied research into best practices for the online teaching of different components of translation competence or translation types (medical, legal, scientific, technical, audiovisual, etc.) has developed into a very prolific line of research since the emergence of the Internet. Within this field of research, most studies can be characterized as applied in nature, often with an interdisciplinary approach that introduces e-learning models adopted from the field of education and pedagogy. One of the most popular lines of research involves the teaching of audiovisual translation online (i.e., Batrina 2009; Bartoll and Orero 2008). This field can be 2.  ‘Blended learning’ has also been referred to as ‘self-access’ e-learning in the literature (Palumbo 2008).



The Internet in translation education

considered one of the pioneers in online teaching due to the multimedia nature of this translation modality. Researchers have even developed platforms for online audiovisual translation education that serve as a repository of materials for both students and instructors. This is the case of the AVT Lp platform developed at the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (Igareda and Matamala 2011) or the E-AVT also developed at the same university (Amador, Dorado, and Orero 2004). These platforms include activities and learning units related to the main modes of audiovisual translation, such as subtitling, subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing, voice over, dubbing, or audiodescription. At the same time, the materials can be selected according to the challenges they present, such as dealing with dialects, visuals, such as gestures, or humor in film. The teaching of CAT tools and other translation technologies has also been the focus of a number of research projects (Martín Mor 2012; Zerfass 2004; Piqué i Huerta 2002). These papers, also from an applied perspective, typically describe the researchers’ experiences with this type of teaching, offering a compendium of anecdotal best practices in this area. The eCoLoRe, Ecollotrain, and Ecollomedia projects, developed by a consortium of European Translation Schools, stand out as examples of online platforms designed for ‘blended teaching’ of translation technologies. They represent a platform that can be used independently by students or as a blended resource for instructors of translation technologies. They include units on computer-assisted translation as well as software and web localization, and multimedia translation (Reinke 2005). Finally, scholars have explored some other areas, such as the teaching of computer skills online for future translators (Canovas et al. 2012), blended online learning for teaching terminology skills (Alcina 2002), and how to adapt medical translation instruction to an online environment (Gómez and Weinreb 2002). The case of interpreting is a more complex one. In the early stages of online innovation, the complexity of sending video and audio materials, as well as the slow speed of Internet connections, initially made providing online instruction difficult. However, the development of fast video conferencing has allowed programs to develop interpreting coursework that combines both synchronous and asynchronous e-learning. The interest in teaching interpreting online gave rise to a new model initially called Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training or CAIT (Sandrelli and de Manuel Jerez 2007). This was a type of blended e-learning in which databases of digitized speeches enhanced with learning resources were used both as the main component for interpreter education and as supplementary tools (Chan 2012). In this same category, international bodies have developed online speech databases, such as the SCIC speech repository by the European Union.3 3.  http://www.multilingualspeeches.tv/scic/portal/index.html

35

36

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

The field of medical interpreting has also been attracted to online learning, with Tymzcynska (2009) describing the blended approach taken at the University of Poznam, and Gracia García (2005) describing fully online courses, such as those at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The quantitative data provided by the student evaluations from these courses confirm, according to the author, that student satisfaction and appreciation of learning is on par with traditional courses. Experiential accounts of the implementation of legal interpreting courses online can also be found in the literature (Valero Garcés 2009). Though mostly applied, a few papers are empirical in nature, primarily using ethnographic approaches. For example, an empirical study by Robinson, Lopez, and Tercedor (2008) explores the potential impact of blended online models on translator instruction compared to traditional classroom-based learning. The study incorporated a qualitative component drawn from a variety of interactive formats, such as whole group online discussions, group-based online discussions, e-mail, and specific ‘reflective’ activities. The quantitative component of the study compared the final grades in fourth-year translation courses over the span of three years, initially in a traditional setting, then moving to a blended model. The researchers concluded that the teaching model had no influence on the students’ final grades. The trivial differences observed were attributed to “different student cohorts rather than the influence of the change in course delivery” (2008: 118). The authors concluded that “grades have not been harmed” (2008: 123) by the introduction of an online blended component based on a socio-constructivist approach (Kiraly 2000), thus assuaging the initial fears within the educational community incited by these new online technologies.4 Nevertheless, it was also observed that the patterns of achievement changed somewhat with the introduction of online learning. 2.3 Didactic models on the Internet based on socio-constructivist approaches Perhaps one of the most exciting developments is the proposal of new instructional models that take into account the interconnected and collaborative nature of the changing world of professional translation. These models, such as the Aula Int (Olvera et al. 2005; 2009) or the TWITT model (Vargas Sierra and Ferrer Mora 2012), acknowledge the revolutionary impact of globalization and the move to a digital paradigm in professional translation practice. The use of the Internet as a synchronous and asynchronous communicative platform is exploited in order 4.  Desjardins (2011) indicates that often translation trainers are afraid to use technology due to the fact that their students are ‘digital natives,’ born and raised within this technological revolution, and they might be seen as digitally incompetent by trainees.



The Internet in translation education

to introduce students to collaborative approaches in which they engage in simulated projects while performing a variety of roles, such as that of documentalist, translator, terminologist, reviser, or project manager. This socio-constructivist approach (Kiraly 2000) has effectively moved translation education from transmissionist teacher-centered models, in which lecturers and teachers had the ultimate say in students’ translation proposals, to a model in which translation learning is fundamentally an interactive, collaborative, ‘socio-personal process.’ In this process, learners socially construct their own knowledge and are at the center of the learning process, taking control over and self-directing their own learning. They discover knowledge by themselves and collaborate in real-life professional translation assignments. Instructors are seen here as counselors or facilitators helping students to find information and build their own learning structures, known as ‘scaffolding’ (Kiraly 2000: 49). Collaboration and networking are at the core of professional translation. The advent of the Internet means that professional translation is a de facto networked collaborative endeavor in which the social networks are normally wider than often imagined (i.e., Risku and Windhager 2013). The capabilities offered by the Internet in terms of collaborative learning platforms implies that online learning, both in fully online and blended models, represents a perfect setting for these socio-constructivist approaches (Koby and Baer 2003; Massey 2005; Robinson, López, and Tercedor 2008). The Aula Int project at the University of Granada implemented a model, known as the Professional Approach to Translation Training (PATT), based on these premises. The main goal of this project is to “introduce translation students to the professional market and help them get acquainted with working conditions in the real labor market by means of a simulated translation agency” (Olvera et al. 2005: 138). The project, which was created using the online platform Basic Support for Cooperative Work, consisted of having a research team develop a network consisting of various interconnected roles within a translational transaction: teacher as client, project manager (and also reviser), documentalist, terminologist, reviser, and typesetter. Students in several courses are initially assigned to groups of five participants, and then periodically receive translation assignments with clear translation briefs. Students then ‘telework’ collaboratively to complete the assignments under the supervision of the instructor. Throughout the semester, students rotate to different roles in order to become acquainted with all positions in the translation cycle and the reality of the professional world. After the introduction of this novel model, the group carried out an empirical study of several aspects of this project (Olvera et al. 2009). The methodology involved surveys administered before and after completing one of the courses. The surveys intended to elicit information regarding the relationship between computer

37

38

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

knowledge, teleworking, and teamwork. The data compiled was both qualitative and quantitative in nature, although the study focused mostly on a statistical analysis of the quantitative data. The participants were 128 fourth-year students and 26 second-year students at the School of Translation and Interpreting, University of Granada. The results indicate that 93.5% of students had never worked on a collaborative platform prior to the study. The satisfaction results are somewhat modest, as 64.9% of the subjects stated that working in Aula Int had almost or totally fulfilled their expectations while 61.7% reported receiving instruction that completely differed from traditional face-to-face didactic models. Among other results, 97.6% of students reported that they would recommend participation in this type of learning experience to other students, thus highlighting their appreciation of such online skills for future participants. Also of interest were the correlation between the number of projects completed and the students’ perception of improvement in computer skills, which are a required component for professionals. Another recently proposed instructional model still under development is the Training Web Interaction and Translation Technologies (TWITT), which is also derived from the premise that the web has introduced new tools, processes, and workflows that are now at the core of professional translation (Vargas Sierra and Ramirez Polo 2012; Ramírez Polo and Ferrer Mora 2010). Therefore, it is necessary for future professionals to possess full proficiency in translation technologies and be able to efficiently use the web for multiple purposes, including information mining, communication, social networking, and working in collaborative environments. The model includes the integration of different types of translation technologies. Although the authors emphasize the changes introduced by the web and the collaborative nature of the new paradigm, these technology tools are not limited to web-based tools. One could say that this new model represents a blended learning approach. Nevertheless, it places the possibilities afforded by the Internet at the core of the learning process. 2.4 Issues in online learning The transition from face-to-face to online translator and interpreter learning has not been an effortless process, but rather has involved a number of challenges that deserve some attention. Some of these challenges are in line with those related to general e-learning research, while others apply specifically to the didactics of translation and interpreting. In general, it is the applied experiential publications and those defining best practices that have addressed such issues; some of this research has focused exclusively on overcoming or evaluating the most common problems. Initially, discussion focused on the fact that materials had to be adapted to this new type of learning environment (Neunzig 2002; Reinke 2005; Palumbo



.

The Internet in translation education

2008). Obviously, simply copying the teaching methods and materials from regular translation classrooms was a recipe for disaster (Neunzig 2002). As early as 1998, Neunzig proposed guidelines to efficiently adapt and develop materials for online learning, related to (1) the theoretical framework or approach taken, (2) the types of text used for the translation tasks, (3) the need for documentation and (4) the aim of the tasks. His recommendations, which appear in his Ph.D. dissertation, were nevertheless devised prior to the explosion of the WWW and the emergence of the collaborative Web 2.0. They clearly demonstrate the rapid evolution in online translation learning that has taken place in less than a decade. Another issue explored, one that is also in line with general e-learning research, is the volume and nature of the interaction and feedback required for effective online learning (Kenny 2008). Participation in activities, forums, and discussions represents a key component in e-learning (Hrastinki 2009). The instructor in an online environment is seen more as a moderator and facilitator than as the repository of static knowledge that needs to be passed on to students, and the instructor’s role as mediator is key to directing and controlling collaborative and student-centered models (Gilly 2003). Scholars recommend providing abundant and quick feedback to students in order to establish a ‘teacher — student dialogue’ and to personalize the student learning process. According to Cánovas and Samson (2012: 123), “distance students can only acquire appropriate skills within a teaching approach that allows a sufficient degree of interaction between the members of the educational community.” In Translation Studies, Neunzig and Tanqueiro (2005) published an empirical study on the appropriateness of different feedback paradigms for online and distance education. The types of feedback considered in the study included ‘simple’ or ‘elaborate.’ Also considered was the timing of the feedback: Was it delivered before the translation was initiated, during the translation process, or as a follow-up. The study concludes that the translation process and the quality of the outcome partially correlate to (1) the type of feedback employed, (2) how it is administered, and (3) when it is presented. The study indicated that elaborate feedback, in whatever form it is presented, was more effective than other forms of online teacher intervention, such as providing a translation model (this can even prove counterproductive) or traditional feedback. Elaborate feedback provided online also produced the highest acceptance rate among students. In addition, the researchers stated that it was most influential in terms of modification of translator behavior and resulted in the highest rate of acceptable translations, thus indicating a positive effect on translation quality. Feedback in online environments does not necessarily need to be provided by the instructor. In collaborative environments it can also come from fellow students. In an empirical study, Wang and Han (2013) discuss the use of online peer review

39

40 Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

of translations as a tool for translator education. Methodologically, the study was based on surveys of students that engaged in the online revision of fellow students’ translations. Students were given two 250-word translations, replicating the conditions for the NAATI certification exam in Australia. Participants were randomly assigned a marker to whom they would send their translation with an evaluation and feedback. Students would then anonymously upload the feedback provided to all translations allowing other students to download the translation and comment on it via a discussion board, thus increasing the amount of feedback and reflection on the existing evaluation. The results show that translation students appreciate online peer feedback as a valuable activity that facilitates improvement. Students reported that the entire process of marking, receiving feedback, and perusing was the most beneficial as a whole, followed by simply receiving feedback. Interestingly, none of the students indicated that simply marking a translation was beneficial to them in any way. Finally, and probably most importantly, it is necessary to indicate that no matter how advanced or technologically complex online education materials might be, “[the] benefits gained from these new technologies will depend on the extent to which they are used in ways compatible with human cognitive learning processes” (Clark and Mayers 2011: 8). That is, students’ cognition and learning should represent the primary consideration when planning this type of coursework. 3. The Internet in professional settings and its impact on translation education: models and interrelations All seminal works on translation and interpreting education agree on the goal of translation and interpreting instruction: through a process of translation instruction, trainees need to acquire the skills, knowledge, and range of behaviors possessed by professional translators and interpreters. Through their socialization, they should be accepted as members of the professional community. Regardless of the approach or competence model, it is widely agreed that the information and communication revolution has had a massive influence on the professional field of translation, and therefore, new technologies need to be introduced in the translation classroom. All models of translation competence include skills related to the digital revolution. Some of them depart from cognitive models, such as PACTE (2009, 2005) or the Transcom (Göpferich et al. 2011; Göpferich 2009), which are currently being empirically tested in student cohorts. These last two models include the so-called ‘instrumental subcompetence’ or ‘tools and research competence.’ They explicitly include the use of the Internet for research, data mining, and communicative purposes. In the European context, the EMT competence



The Internet in translation education

profile aims to harmonize graduate education in member countries of the EU and represents a framework of professional skills to be mastered by students at the end of graduate programs in the field (EMT expert group 2009). It includes ‘technological competence’ and ‘information mining competence,’ both of which place the Internet at their core.5 From a cognitive perspective, models such as PACTE and Transcom can be quite useful in describing how pervasive the Internet’s role is in the professional world.6 If the PACTE model is briefly described, it includes bilingual, extralinguistic, and instrumental knowledge about translation, as well as strategic subcompetences. It also includes physio-psychological components, such as memory, logic, and attention. Together, all these subcompetences represent a system of competences that interact, are hierarchical, and subject to variation. The bilingual subcompetence includes “pragmatic, socio-linguistic, textual and lexical-grammatical knowledge in each language” (PACTE 2005: 610). It includes knowledge about the communicative situation, such as participants and sociocultural norms, illocutionary competence (knowledge about the functions of language), and advanced textual competence. The extralinguistic subcompetence includes “encyclopedic, thematic and bicultural knowledge” (PACTE 2005: 610). It includes both the entire accumulated knowledge a subject might possess about the world, in addition to specific advanced domain knowledge related to translators’ specialized field(s). The knowledge-about-translation subcompetence is mostly declarative knowledge about what translation is and about distinct aspects of the profession. It includes knowledge about how translation functions and knowledge related to professional translation practice: knowledge of the work environment and relationships. At the core of the technological paradigm is the instrumental subcompetence. It refers to two distinctive types of knowledge, (1) related to the translation technology tools and other technology applied to the entire cycle, and (2) to research and documentation sources and strategies, including paper or online dictionaries of all kinds, encyclopedias, grammars, style books, corpora, translation memories, etc. Lastly, at the center of the model is the main and most important compo-

5.  Other proposed models place technology at the center of professional translation skills (Pym 2013; García 2012), even though they have not been the subject of empirical validation or testing. 6.  Despite having been empirically tested, these models are often criticized for compartmentalizing the different knowledge or skills to be acquired in discrete boxes, when translation competence should rather be understood as a holistic unit (Kiraly 2012; Pym 2013). To some extent, these criticisms fail to recognize the pivotal role of strategic subcompetence that interrelates and mobilizes all other components to solve problems.

41

42

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

nent, strategic subcompetence. Its purpose is to solve problems and guarantee the efficiency of the process. According to the authors: It intervenes by planning the process in relation to the translation project, evaluating the process and partial results obtained, activating the different subcompetences and compensating for deficiencies, identifying translation problems and applying procedures to solve them. (PACTE 2005: 610)

Aside from the fact that the model includes an instrumental subcompetence, it can be argued that this strategic subcompetence is the reason why the Internet and the WWW can be placed at the core of twenty-first century professional translation. The PACTE group indicates that this subcompetence interrelates and mobilizes all other subcompetences in order to solve any translation problem translators might encounter. Within a cognitive paradigm, translators can use ‘internal’ or ‘external’ support when faced with translation problems (Alves and Liparini 2009). While internal support refers to the use of the translator’s cognitive resources to solve a problem, external support refers to the use of or consultation with any external resource during the translation task. What is proposed here is that information search or data mining over the Internet interrelates all other subcompetences through the strategic subcompetence. For example, when faced with a linguistic problem, such as a comprehension or production issue related to the use of a preposition, translators first recognize the problem and stop the automatic processing of the translation. Then, through the range of learned strategies applied to production and comprehension, they may resort to a web corpus to analyze the potential prepositions that might collocate with a given noun in order to solve their problem. A similar strategy is applied to identify specific differences in genre conventions through analysis of parallel texts found online. In such cases, the strategic subcompetence mobilizes the instrumental subcompetence to solve a deficiency in the bilingual subcompetence that cannot be solved with the help of ‘internal support’ alone. Similarly, during a translation task translators might deem it appropriate to perform some background reading in order to disambiguate a sentence in a technical text, an issue related to a deficiency in extralinguistic subcompetence. Additionally, checking an online forum in a case of ethical conflict or to check for preferred rates for any assignments in the negotiations stage would represent part of the knowledge-about-translation subcompetence. These are examples of how through the mediation of strategic subcompetence translators might use the Internet to solve a wide range of problems.



The Internet in translation education

3.1 ‘Instrumental’ or ‘tools and resources’ subcompetences and the use of the Internet To date, the skills related to translation technologies and the Internet, whether they are referred to as ‘instrumental’ (PACTE 2005), ‘tools and resources’ (Göpferich 2009), or ‘technological and information mining competence’ (EMT expert group 2009), represent one of the most widely researched components within the discipline. These components differentiate between technological tools and data mining or documentation. The former includes competence in tools such as translation memories, machine translation, software and videogame localization tools, subtitling software, concordancers, and translation management software (Alcina 2008). These tools are being affected from the move to cloud computing, undergoing a gradual transition from local storage on hard drives to hosting software and content directly online, known as Software as a Service (SaaS) applications, with content available via the browser and not necessarily tied to any particular computer or device (Garcia 2013). Nowadays, there are fully online translation memory programs such as Wordfast Anywhere or MateCat, automatic corpus compilation and analysis programs such as Sketch Engine, and a range of online crowdsourcing or collaborative translation platforms that can be customized for a variety of projects (Babych et al. 2012). Translation management solutions are also moving to the web. Even websites such as TED incorporate online audiovisual translation tools for volunteers to include subtitles in the talks. This means, as argued by García (2012), that Internet connections are at the core of professional translation. As far as data or information mining and documentation are concerned, the Internet has definitely impacted the way in which the professional skills associated with these areas have evolved. The Internet has radically changed the process of researching information necessary to produce high-quality translations (Olvera et al. 2009). However, the efficiency and quality of this process requires specific instruction. As indicated by Olvera et al. (2009: 166): Although the Internet has made this process easier, today’s translators face the new challenges of developing research strategies and evaluating the quality of information, tasks previously carried out with the help of other professionals such as librarians or documentalists, or subject matter experts.

The vast amount of information and resources available online have posed new challenges to translator trainers and trainees. These challenges have been the subject of a number of publications in the field (i.e., Raido 2011; Aguado de Cea 2007; Sánchez Ramos 2004). For the purpose of this paper, it is of interest to review empirical rather than anecdotal or theoretical literature. In recent empirical

43

44 Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

studies, it has been shown that professionals strongly favor online resources over printed or multimedia static resources (Bolaños-Medina and Monteverde-Rey 2012; Massey and Ehrengsberger-Dow 2011). It goes without saying that students who have been raised and educated within the digital revolution, also known as ‘digital native’ translation students (Robinson et al. 2013), show an even more highly marked preference for using web resources. In a study by Bolaños-Medina and Monteverde-Rey (2012), student trainees reported generally using four times more Internet resources for documentation than printed ones, and no subject reported more than 50% use of printed resources. Moreover, the resources available for consultation online continue to grow. In a study conducted by Massey and Ehrengsberger-Dow (2011: 211) in the context of the ‘Translation Tools in the Workplace’ project, the surveys used in their empirical study on information mining included the following: (1) multilingual online dictionaries, (2) online encyclopedias, (3) terminology databases, (4) other databases, (5) search engines, (6) search catalogues, and (7) model or parallel texts. In their study, every online resource is used more frequently by professional and trainee translators than any print or DVD-CD resource, indicating an existing consolidation of web resources as the main gateway for documentation in the professional world. Other empirical studies have also included distinct resources in their testing instruments or surveys, such as mailing lists or online translation memories (Bolaños-Medina and Monteverde-Rey 2012), as well as online translation forums (Hirci 2012). It is of interest to note the differences of opinion observed between instructors, students, and freelance professionals regarding the use of online resources. In the study by Massey and Ehrengsberger-Dow (2011: 198), instructors appear to prefer reviewed or authoritative resources such as published, printed and digitized dictionaries or terminology databases on CDs for linguistic research, while this seems to be a less important criterion for students. The latter showed a greater inclination than instructors to use multilingual resources for both linguistic and extralinguistic research, but used monolingual dictionaries and special search engines less. In regard to freelance translators, when asked about the most frequently used resource, it is not surprising that the search engine Google was at the top. In another empirical study, Hirci (2012) explored the impact of the use of external online resources on quality and productivity. The study was conducted with 20 trainee translators that worked into their B language. In this study, 95% of participants said that if available, they would use online resources to complete the translation. Sixty-five percent said they would use web corpora, while 35% said they would e-mail other translators. The study concludes that even when the impact on quality and productivity of online resources can be observed, it can also be detrimental when used uncritically. In fact, this conclusion supports previous



The Internet in translation education

statements related to the need to critically teach not only the use of online resources (Olvera et al. 2009) but of translation technologies in general (i.e., Folaron 2006). 3.2 Web corpora and translation education The use of online corpora is also one of the areas that has attracted the attention of scholars (i.e., Rodriguez Inés and Hurtado Albir 2012; Beeby et al. 2009). Web corpora can be defined as computerized principled collections of texts that can be accessed and processed online. It is necessary to clearly distinguish three types of web corpora. ‘Web corpus’ generally refers to the following related concepts (Fletcher 2012): (1) a static corpus with a Web interface, (2) one compiled from websites or pages, and (3) the body of freely available online texts accessed directly as a corpus. In the first type, textual collections are stored in a format that can be retrieved through a web interface. This should be the case with most current large corpora, such as the BCN, the CREA corpus of Spanish, and the Corpus of Contemporary American English. For translation purposes, the use of online parallel corpora, consisting of aligned source texts and their translations, continues to grow as more and more professionals are aware of their existence and understand how to effectively utilize corpora to increase translation quality (JiménezCrespo 2009). Despite the fact that freely available large parallel corpora, such as the Europarl or the JR Acquis from the European Community, have existed for some time, the emergence of search engines specifically designed to automatically search a large number of parallel corpora has popularized them. Examples of these search engines are Webitext, Linguee, Mymemory, and the more complex Opus Corpus. The second and third types are also of interest mostly within the branch of translation pedagogy focusing on didactic applications of translational corpora (i.e., Rodríguez Ines and Hurtado Albir 2012; Beeby et al. 2009; and López Rodríguez and Tercedor 2008). We can distinguish here between (1) the use of the ‘Web for Corpus’ (WfC), as a source of machine-readable texts for corpus compilation, and (2) the ‘Web as Corpus’ (WaC), when the Web is consulted directly for localization practice or research purposes. This is the case when Google is used to check any term or phrase directly, as well as when the engines that utilize the web as a corpus for specific monolingual searches are used (i.e., Webcorp, Webconc, Corpeus). The differences between using the WfC and the WaC were explored in a small empirical study by Buendía (2013). The study aimed to explore the differences in using Google (WaC) or a specially built corpus for the assignment using Sketch Engine (WfC) to compensate for the lack of extralinguistic knowledge about a

45

46 Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

specific topic in trainee translators in an English>Spanish technical translation task. Each experimental group of 12 students translated a 350 word technical text. The hypothesis of the study was that students with access to Sketch Engine (WfC) would have a higher quality rating in relation to the holistic components: (1) content and (2) vocabulary-terminology. The holistic approach to translation evaluation for didactic purposes proposed by Robinson, López, and Tercedor (2006) was employed. The researcher concluded that the Web as Corpus approach can compensate for limited knowledge of the subject field and its terminology, and is therefore a useful tool for translators. Interestingly, it also concluded that the use of paper dictionaries alongside online resources correlated with higher translation quality regardless of the approach taken. Despite the limited nature of the study, the results imply that even when students overwhelmingly prefer online resources, the reliability and authority that paper resources provide should not be forgotten. 4. The Internet as the engine of new translation modalities and practices: From web localization to online crowdsourcing The last section of this paper focuses on the Internet as an engine of new translational phenomena and its subsequent impact on translator and interpreter education. This is the case with the growth of novel textual types and genres that are frequently translated globally, from commercial, social or institutional websites to tweets of famous people that volunteer communities choose to translate. These two main areas are represented by web localization and by the impact of community or volunteer translation in educational contexts. Jiménez-Crespo argues that web localization can also be defined by the types of new digital genres that have appeared since the emergence of the WWW, which is quite different from the notion of ‘teletranslation’ proposed by O’Hagan and Ashworth (2002). Thus, web localization focuses on types of digital genres that did not exist prior to the WWW, such as corporate websites, social networking sites, search engines, and online gambling sites.7 The rapid transition from paper to digital distribution, in which hyperlinked texts are accessed on screens of limited dimensions, means that these new textual genres represent distinct textual populations requiring not only technological skills but also intimate knowledge of the discursive, linguistic, and pragmatic features of these new text types. Currently, web localization appears in most undergraduate and graduate programs in translation worldwide (Jiménez-Crespo 2013; Alcina 2008), with some graduate M.A. programs focusing specifically on localization and translation technologies (i.e., 7.  Jiménez-Crespo (2013: 95–100) proposes a detailed taxonomy of web digital genres.



The Internet in translation education

the M.A. at the University Alfonso X in Madrid, the M.A. in Tradumática at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, or the M.A. in Localization and Project Management at the Monterey School of International Studies). Very few empirical studies have focused on the acquisition of this new modality. One example is a study by Jiménez-Crespo and Tercedor (2012) in which 76 fourth-year translation students translated part of a website. The methodology used involved a comparison of the students’ results with the 40 million-word web corpus of corporate websites compiled by Jiménez-Crespo (2008) in order to identify whether students produced texts similar to spontaneous or non-translated Spanish websites. The study concluded that the acquisition of ‘localization competence’ (Jiménez-Crespo 2013) entailed the acquisition not only of technological skills but also of bilingual, pragmatic, and discursive knowledge of web genres and web style. Taking a more theoretical approach, some book chapters have focused on web localization education (see Jiménez-Crespo 2013 and Folaron 2006). 4.1 Crowdsourced and volunteer translation on the WWW The last development that is slowly having an impact on translation education is the emergence of volunteer and crowdsourced translation and social networking sites since the emergence of the Web 2.0. These new translational phenomena are currently redefining the very notion of translation and are widening the theoretical scope of Translation Studies (e.g., Jiménez-Crespo 2013; O’Hagan 2012). The issue that has so far attracted the most attention from scholars is the use of social networking sites in the translation classroom in support of socio-constructivist approaches. Desjardins (2011) describes the use of Facebook instead of regular VLE platforms in the translation classroom at the University of Ottawa. She indicates that ‘digital native’ students gladly embrace this platform for its collaborative environment, as they are accustomed to using it on a regular basis. This fosters interaction and student participation, one of the main goals of social constructivist approaches. In other studies at the University of Granada, Spain, social networking sites were also utilized in order to provide a forum for students to interact and collaboratively work on projects (Robinson and Olvera-Lobo 2011). In OlveraLobo and Gutiérrez-Artacho (2014), researchers developed a custom social network to support a translation course. Google Analytics were used to quantitatively study the habits of their translation students in the context of the Professional Approach to Translation Training previously reviewed. The results showed that students logged in an average of twice a day to communicate with the instructor or other students, as well as to retrieve materials. The most visited section of the social network was the repository of materials for the course. It is of interest that students also frequently visited the sections with group information and student

47

48 Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

profiles, indicating that they are replicating their social networking habits. Despite certain similarities with regular VLEs, this study shows that students, by frequently visiting other students’ profiles, are also interested in the social dimension of their learning experience. The use of specific translation social networking sites, such as Proz.com or TranslatorCafe, should also be mentioned. Some networks are open, while others are more restrictive and organized, such as Medtrad (Claros Días 2005) or the Gitrad legal translation websites (2005). The range of non-professional and volunteer opportunities that have sprung up on the Web 2.0 also offers an opportunity for translation education. Non-solicited crowdsourcing communities, such as Traduwiki, Termwiki, and subtitling communities have been the object of studies focusing on their potential use as learning environments (O’Hagan 2008). Similarly, García (2013) delves into the question of whether translating for free on the web can help students improve their language skills. This is important, as advance language competence is a preliminary and parallel stage in the acquisition of translation competence. Babych et al. (2012) address the main problems with volunteer translation — motivation and the existence of an appropriate and easy to use platform — in order to adapt their crowdsourcing platform for translation education purposes. Their MHT Translation Training project departs from collaborative socio-constructivist approaches to translation education and incorporates the five possible roles that appear in the EN 15038 translation quality standard: researcher, terminologist, translator, reviser, reviewer, and proofreader. It includes a revision platform and a dashboard in order to register each interaction between all parties participating in the translation projects, thus allowing users to reconstruct the network of decisions involved in the production of a final translation. It also incorporates a machine translation module that can be used to train students in machine translation post editing, a necessary component of twenty-first century translation instruction (Pym 2013). 5. Conclusions The Internet has had a profound impact on modern societies, and the same can be said of the professional and educational world of translation and interpreting. Nowadays, the professional practice of translation cannot be understood without the communicative and documentary facilities afforded by this new medium. Consequently, scholars have explored for over two decades now the potential impact of the Internet on translation practice and teaching. This paper has critically reviewed these two decades of research, addressing two distinct issues: first, the use of online learning as a vehicle for translator and interpreter education, and



The Internet in translation education 49

second, the impact of the Internet on the way professional translators conduct both their business and their translation tasks. These changes are reflected in empirically-tested translation competence models, that can serve as frameworks in planning and executing translation and interpreting education. The research paradigms and methods vary widely according to which of these two directions is taken. The teaching of translation and interpreting online is often the subject of applied research. This type of research is generally interdisciplinary in nature, importing theoretical models and principles from the fields of education and e-learning. Frequently, the literature reviewed incorporates anecdotal accounts of experiences adapting and implementing these types of courses or programs. The very few empirical studies in this area typically employ surveys as their principal methodology (i.e., Olvera et al. 2009; Robinson, López, and Tercedor 2008), with students participating in these courses as research subjects. Despite the small scale of these studies, some of the most common conclusions are that students tend to be satisfied overall with the online courses, that they would recommend them to others, and that no positive or detrimental effect on student performance is observed regardless of whether an online or face-to-face method is used (Robinson, López, and Tercedor 2008). The second direction involves the fact that the Internet is an intrinsic part of the translation profession and so should be reflected in educational efforts. In this area, studies take a mostly empirical approach, again using surveys and, sometimes, cognitive methods. Some of these studies are quite complex and involve a larger number of subjects, such as those carried out by Massey and EhrengsbergerDow (2011) or the PACTE group (2005, 2009). These projects have approached the issue from the perspective of studies on translation competence, describing how the Internet is currently the main tool used for ‘external support’ (Alves and Liparini 2009). Some studies from a cognitive perspective have highlighted the fact that both students and professionals overwhelmingly resort to the WWW for documentary and data mining purposes (Massey and Ehrengsberger-Dow 2011; Bolaños-Medina and Monteverde-Rey 2012). Interestingly, in one large study, only instructors seemed to believe that printed resources are better than online ones (Massey and Ehrengsberger-Dow 2011). The paper finished with a reflection of the new translational phenomena that arose through the Internet and their impact on translation education. These phenomena are varied, such as new modalities, like web localization (Jiménez-Crespo 2013), new digital genres to translate, the emergence of collaborative and crowdsourced translations on the web, and the impact of web-based machine translation in education (García 2009, 2013; Pym 2013). Together with the other developments in education, it is very clear that the technological revolution in education brought on by the Internet is quite multifaceted, and cannot simply be relegated to

50

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo

a small part of instruction in technology-based coursework. In fact, it can be seen that what is called ‘translation technology’ still today occupies a small percentage of translation education. According to Alcina (2008), the use of the Internet for translation practice represents only a small percentage of the global technology modules that programs currently include. However, as this paper demonstrates, the Internet now permeates all aspects of translation education, and so is or should be present in the majority of components of any program. In general, and as indicated by García (2009, 2013), digital technologies will continue to influence the profession and its education in unpredictable ways. The Internet revolution in translation education is here to stay, and we should brace ourselves for the new and exciting developments to come.

References Aguado de Cea, Guadalupe. 2007. “A Multiperspective Approach to Specialized Phraseology: Internet as a Reference Corpus for Phraseology.” In The Texture of Internet: Netlinguistics, ed. by Santiago Posteguillo et al, 182–209. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Alcina, Amparo. 2008. “Translation Technologies: Scope, Tools and Resources.” Target 20 (1): 79–102. ​doi: 10.1075/target.20.1.05alc Alcina, Amparo. 2002. “Tutorizar trabajos terminológicos en un entorno virtual de trabajo colaborativo.” Sendebar 13: 169–181. Alves, Favio, and Tania Liparini. 2009. “Translation Technology In Time: Investigating The Impact Of Translation Memory Systems And Time Pressure On Types Of Internal And External Support.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susane Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 191–218. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Amador, Miquel, Carles Dorado, and Pilar Orero. 2004. “E-AVT: A Perfect Match: Strategies, Functions and Interactions in an On-Line Environment for Learning Audiovisual Translation.” In Topics in Audiovisual Translation, ed. by Pilar Orero, 141–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.56.15ama Angelelli, Claudia V. (ed.). 2012. The Sociological Turn in Translation Studies. Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 7(2). Babych, Bogdan et al. 2012. “MNH-TT: A Collaborative Platform for Translator Training.” Translating and the Computer 34. http://www.mt-archive.info/Aslib-2012-Babych.pdf. Last accessed 24 April 2015. Bartoll, Eduard, and Pilar Orero. 2008. “Learning to Subtitle Online: Learning Environment, Exercises, and Evaluation.” In The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation, ed. by Jorge DíazCintas, 105–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.77.11bar Bassnett, Susan, and Andre Lefevere. 1990. Translation, History and Culture. London and New York: Pinter Publishers. Beeby, Alison, Patricia Rodríguez Inés, and Pilar Sánchez-Gijón (eds). 2009. Corpus Use and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.82



The Internet in translation education

Berners-Lee, Tim et al. 1992. “World Wide Web: The Information Universe.” Electronic Networking 2 (1): 52–58. ​doi: 10.1108/eb047254 Bolaños-Medina, Alicia, and Ana María Monterde-Rey. 2012. “Caracterización de los hábitos de documentación terminológica de los estudiantes de traducción.” Cadernos de Tradução 1 (29): 93–113. Buendía, Miriam. 2013. “The Web for Corpus and the Web as Corpus in Translator Training.” New Voices in Translation Studies 10: 54–71. Cánovas, Marcos, and Richard Samson. 2012. “An Online Course in Computer Skills for Translators.” In Challenges in Language and Translation Teaching in the Web 2.0 Era, ed. by Marcos Cánovas et al., 123–131. Granada: Comares. Chan, Clara Ho-yan. 2012. “From Self-Interpreting to Real Interpreting: A New Web-Based Exercise to Launch Effective Interpreting Training.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 358–377. ​doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2012.657654 Claros Díaz, Manuel G. 2005. “MedTrad: un foro de traducción médica en internet.” TRANS: Revista de Traductología 9: 151–159. Clark, Ruth C., and Richard Mayer. 2003. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cronin, Michael. 2013. Translation in a Digital Age. New York and London: Routledge. Desjardin, Renee. 2011. “Facebook me!: Arguing in Favour of Using Social Networking as a Tool for Translator Training.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 10: 175–194. EMT Expert Group. 2009. Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multilingual and Multimedia Communication. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/ emt/key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2013. Gómez, María A., and Steven Weinreb. 2002. “An Alternative Instructional Model: Teaching Medical Translation Online.” Meta 47 (4): 643–648. ​doi: 10.7202/008044ar Fletcher, William. 2012. “Corpus Analysis of the WWW.” The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Folaron, Debbie. 2006. “A Discipline Coming of Age in the Digital Age: Perspectives on Localization.” In Perspectives on Localization, ed. by Keiran Dunne, 195–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ata.xiii.16fol Gambier, Yves. 2012. “Translation Teaching Translation-Training Translators.” In Handbook of Translation Studies 3, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc V. Doorslaer, 163–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/hts.3.tea1 García, Ignacio. 2013. “Learning a Language for Free While Translating the Web. Does Duolingo Work?” International Journal of English Linguistics 3 (1): 19–25. ​doi: 10.5539/ijel.v3n1p19 García, Ignacio. 2012. “Machines, Translations and Memories: Language Transfer in the Web Browser.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 20 (4): 451–461.  d ​ oi: 10.1080/0907676X.2012.726230 García, Ignacio. 2009. “Beyond Translation Memory: Computers and the Professional Translator.” Jostrans 12: 199–214. Gómez, María Asunción, and Steven Weinreb. 2002. “An Alternative Instructional Model: Teaching Medical Translation Online.” Meta 47 (4): 643–648. ​doi: 10.7202/008044ar Göpferich, Susanne. 2009. “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: the Longitudinal Study TransComp.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 12–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

51

52

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo Göpferich, Susanne et al. 2011. “Exploring Translation Competence Acquisition: Criteria of Analysis Put to the Test.” In Cognitive Explorations in Translation, ed. by Shannon O’ Brien, 57–85. London: Continuum. Gracia García, Roberto A. 2005. “Teaching Interpreting Online.” In AIETI. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación Madrid, 9–11 de febrero, ed. by Maria Luisa Romana García, 428–449. Madrid: AIETI. Hirci, Nataša. 2012. “Electronic Reference Resources for Translators. Implications for Productivity and Translation Quality.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6 (2): 219– 235. ​doi: 10.1080/13556509.2012.10798837 Hrastinski, Stefan. 2009. “A Theory of Online Learning as Online Participation.” Computers & Education 52 (1): 78–82. ​doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009 Hrastinski, Stefan. 2008. “Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 31 (4): 51–55. Igareda, Pilar, and Ana Matamala. 2011. “Developing a Learning Platform for AVT: Challenges and Solutions.” Jostrans 16: 145–162. Internet World Stats. 2013. Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Accessed 28 September 2013. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2013. Translation and Web Localization. New York and London: Routledge. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2009. “El uso de corpus textuales en localización.” Tradumática 7. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2008. El proceso de localización web: estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del género sitio web corporativo. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Granada. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A., and Maribel Tercedor. 2012. “Applying Corpus Data to Define Needs in Localization Training.” Meta 58 (2): 998–1021. Kiraly, Don. 2012. “Growing a Project-Based Translation Pedagogy: A Fractal Perspective.” Meta 57: 82–95. ​doi: 10.7202/1012742ar Kiraly, Don. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education — Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St Jerome. Kenny, Marry Anne. 2008. “Discussion, Cooperation, Collaboration: The Impact of Task Structure on Student Interaction in a Web-based Translation Exercise Module.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (2): 139–164. ​doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798771 Koby, Geoff S., and Brian Baer. 2003. “Task-Based Instruction and the New Technology.” In Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, ed. by Geoff S. Koby, and Brian Baer, 211– 227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ata.xii.15kob López Rodríguez, Clara Inés, and Maria Isabel Tercedor. 2008. “Corpora and Students Autonomy in Scientific and Technical Translation Training.” Jostrans 9: 2–19. Martín Mor, Adrià. 2013. “Valoració d’un curs de Tecnologies de la Traducció a distància.” Tradumàtica 10: 230–236. Massey, Gary, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. “Investigating Information Literacy: A Growing Priority in Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 193–211. ​ doi: 10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4

Massey, Gary. 2005. “Process-Oriented Translator Training and the Challenge for E-Learning.” Meta 50 (2): 626–633. ​doi: 10.7202/011006ar Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Introducing Translation Studies. New York and London: Routledge. Neunzig, Wilhelm, and Helena Tanqueiro. 2005. “Teacher Feedback in Online Education for Trainee Translators.” Meta 50 (4): n.p.



The Internet in translation education

Neunzig, Wilhelm. 2002. “How to Educate Students without Coming Face to Face with Them or Information Technologies in The Teaching of Translation on a Distance-Learning Basis.” Tradumática. Available at: http://www.fti.uab.es/tradumatica/papers/articles/60_eng.pdf. O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1: 101–122. ​doi: 10.1075/ts.1.05obr O’Hagan, Minako. 2012. “The Impact of New Technologies on Translation Studies: A Technological Turn?” In Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Carmen MillánVarela, and Francesca Bartrina, 503–518. London: Routledge. O’Hagan, Minako. 2008. “Film Translation Networks: An Accidental Training Environment?” In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 159–183. London and New York: Continuum. O’Hagan, Minako, and Donald Ashworth. 2002. Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World: Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Olvera-Lobo, María D., and Juncal Gutiérrez-Artacho. 2014. “Academic Use of Custom Social Networks in Translation Training.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 22 (2): 282–289. ​ doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2012.706310

Olvera-Lobo, María D. et al. 2009. “Teleworking and Collaborative Work Environments in Translation Training.” Babel 55 (2): 165–180. ​doi: 10.1075/babel.55.2.05olv Olvera-Lobo, María D. et al. 2005. “Translator Training and Modern Market Demands.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 13 (2): 132–142. ​doi: 10.1080/09076760508668982 PACTE. 2009. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision Making.” Across Languages and Cultures 10: 207–230.  d ​ oi: 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3 PACTE. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50: 609–619. ​doi: 10.7202/011004ar Palumbo, Giuseppe. 2008. “Puzzling It Out — Creating Web-based Teaching Materials to Support Translation Classes.” In From Didactas to Ecolingua: an Ongoing Research Project on Translation and Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Anthony Baldry et al., 229–238. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. Piqué i Huerta, Ramón. 2002. “Apuntes para un modelo pedagógico de enseñanza a distancia de la Tradumática.” Tradumática. Available at: http://www.fti.uab.es/tradumatica/papers/ articles/80_esp.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2013. Pym, Anthony. 2013. “Translation Skill-sets in a Machine-translation Age.” Meta 58 (3): 487– 503. ​doi: 10.7202/1025047ar Raido, Vanessa Enriquez. 2011. “Developing Web Searching Skills in Translator Training.” Redit: Revista electrónica de didáctica de la traducción y la interpretación 6: 60–80. Ramírez Polo, Laura, and Hang Ferrer Mora. 2010. “Aplicación de las TIC en Traducción e Interpretación en la Universidad de Valencia: experiencias y reflexiones.” Redit: Revista Electrónica de Didáctica de la Traducción y la Interpretación 4: 23–41. Reinke, Uwe. 2005. “Using eCoLoRe Materials in Translator Training. Some Experiences from a Teacher’s Viewpoint. Resources and Tools for e-Learning in Translation and Localisation.” Proceedings of the eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, 21–23 March. Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45. ​doi: 10.1075/target.25.1.04ris Robinson, Brian, and Maria D. Olvera-Lobo. 2011. “Facebook, Twitter or Tuenti? A First Look at The Academic Use of Web 2.0 Social Networks in Translator Training.” In Multiple Voices

53

54

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo in Academic and Professional Discourse: Current Issues in Specialised Language Research, Teaching And New Technologies, ed. by Sergio Maruenda-Bataller, and Begonia ClavelArroitia, 367–379. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar. Robinson, Brian, Clara I. López, and María I. Tercedor. 2008. “Neither Born nor Made, but Socially Constructed: Promoting Interactive Learning in an Online Environment.” TTR. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 21 (2): 95–129. ​doi: 10.7202/037493ar Robinson, Bryan J. et al. 2013. “The Professional Approach to Translator Training Revisited.” Paper presented at VI Congreso de la AIETI. 23–25 January 2013. Universidad de las Palmas: Gran Canaria, Spain. Rodríguez-Inés, Pilar, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2012. “Assessing Competence in Using Electronic Corpora in Translator Training.” In Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training: Mediation and Culture, ed. by Severine Hubscher-Davidson, and Michael Borodo, 96–110. London and New York: Continuum. Rodríguez Inés, Patricia, and Maribel Rodríguez Gràcia. 2002. “Conclusions from the First Symposium on the Distance and Semi-Presence-Based Learning of Tradumática.” Tradumática. Available at: http://ddd.uab.cat/record/65004. Accessed 20 September 2013. Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Jesús de Manuel Jerez. 2007. “The Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Interpreter Training: State-Of-The-Art and Future Prospects.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (2): 269–303.  d ​ oi: 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761 Sánchez Ramos, María del M. 2004. El uso de los diccionarios electrónicos y otros recursos de internet como herramienta para la formación del traductor (inglés-español). Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat Jaume I, Spain. Secara, Alina, Pascaline Merten, and Yamile Ramírez. 2009. “What’s in Your Blend? Creating Blended Resources for Translator Training.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (2): 275–294. ​doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2009.10798792 Valero Garcés, Carmen. 2009. “La enseñanza de la interpretación jurídica online. Experiencias docents en un programa oficial de posgrado.” Redit: Revista Electrónica de Didáctica de la Traducción y la Interpretación 2: 76–85. Vargas Sierra, Chelo, and Laura Ramírez Polo. 2011. “The Translator’s Workstations Revisited: A New Paradigm of Translators, Technology and Translation.” Tralogy. Session 4 — Les Outils du Traducteur. Available online at: http://lodel.irevues.inist.fr/tralogy/index.php?id=71. Accessed 28 September 2013. Wagner, Ellen D. 2006. “On Designing Interaction Experiences for the Next Generation of Blended Learning.” In The Handbook of Blended Learning, Global Perspectives, Local Designs, ed. by J. Bonk Curtis, and Charles R. Graham, 41–56. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Wang, Kenny, and Chong Han. 2013. “Accomplishment in the Multitude of Counsellors: Peer feedback in Translation Training.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (2): 62–75. Wolf, Michaela. 2007. “Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation, ed. by Michaela Wolf, and Alexandra Fukari, 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.74.01wol Zerfass, Angelika. 2004. “Teaching Translation Tools over the Web.” In OLING 2004 Second International Workshop on Language Resources for Translation Work, Research and Training, ed. by Elia Yuste, 45–51. Geneva: COLING.

Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education Assisting the development of novice translators’ problem-solving expertise Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

This paper reports and discusses the outcomes of an innovative pilot training program using Task-Based Learning (TBL) in the context of translator education. The objectives were twofold: to investigate the extent to which the use of TBL helped novice participants develop their problem-solving skills, and to examine learner perceptions of the usefulness of TBL. The training program incorporates key characteristics of TBL, including tasks consisting of pedagogically sequenced stages, guided by the overall objective of achieving learner autonomy. In this study, six postgraduate students majoring in translation and interpreting in Australian universities participated in the program. The process and product of five tasks were evaluated by two professional translators using a set of rubrics. A series of interviews was conducted to identify learner perceptions of the usefulness of TBL. Overall, learners showed progress in recognizing differences between novices and professionals and in solving key problems. In terms of the second research objective, the learners perceived TBL to be a useful learning methodology, facilitating awareness of novice-professional differences, appreciation of the critical consequences derived from risks and problems, and development of interpersonal skills, including the discovery of new approaches to resolving translation challenges through peer interaction. Keywords: translator education, problem-solving, Task-Based Learning, translator competence

doi 10.1075/bct.90.04ino 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

56

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

1. Introduction Research on expert performance in a wide range of fields has identified gaps between what novices have acquired through their training programs and professional requirements (e.g., Boshuizen and Schmidt 1992). This matter appears to be consistent with the current situation in translator education, where the transmissionist approach continues to be commonly employed. In a transmissionist approach the teacher plays a central role and learners make an attempt to acquire translation competence through the passive acceptance of the didactic distribution of teacher expertise. This paper seeks to formulate an alternative research-based pedagogical framework by drawing on a Task-Based Learning (TBL) approach to translator education and a holistic view of translation expertise.1 This approach is expected to be more effective in guiding students toward acquisition of the necessary translation expertise required for real-world practice. The study reported here builds on the findings from three previous interconnected studies (Inoue 2012). These studies focused on identifying novice-professional differences in three key areas: 1) the types of translation challenge encountered; 2) the ways in which professionals and novices differentially identified such key challenges; and 3) the ways in which both cohorts addressed such challenges.2 The current study is a pilot training program consisting of five sessions. The participants were six novice translators from two different tertiary institutions in Australia. The ways in which the participants identified and addressed key translating challenges were observed and evaluated by means of discussions, end products, group presentations, and self-reflective discussions. 2. Literature review Concerns have been raised by several authors regarding the mismatch between competences acquired by novice translators through training programs and the level and range of competences required in the translation marketplace (Bowker 2004; Chesterman and Wagner 2004; and Gouadec 2007). As Kiraly (2005) and Pym (2009) point out, not only does the focus of translation training at universities 1.  Translation expertise is defined as the set of skills, abilities and knowledge that a professional translator is expected to possess in order to adequately identify and address translation challenges. 2.  A translation challenge is defined as a difficulty that a translator encounters in a translation job. A challenge can be further characterized in terms of a ‘risk’ or a ‘problem’ (see the definitions of these terms in this section). One example of a challenge is a situation in which a translator finds it difficult to specify a target readership from a translation brief.



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

not meet market demands, but such training programs are also not flexible enough to adapt to ever-changing shifts in the market. These concerns appear to stem largely from the processes and outcomes of learning opportunities provided by tertiary institutions. In this context, Kiraly (2000) sought to define the concepts of translation competence and translator competence. The former narrowly focuses on the development of novice translators’ linguistic skills to produce adequate translations. The latter, by contrast, encompasses a holistic view of translating in which learners develop their competences to work autonomously and to successfully collaborate with other stakeholders. Traditional pedagogical approaches, represented as a means of developing a narrow view of translation competence, have been criticized by a number of authors. Kiraly (2000, 2005) argues that such an approach ‘decontextualizes and disembodies the learning process’ (2005: 1101). As Pym (2009) points out, in these teacher-centered approaches, which are still quite prevalent throughout the world, knowledge transfer takes place primarily from a teacher to students, with knowledge here predominantly referring to the two languages and cultures in question. Moreover, learning in such a model typically focuses on products, with teacher’s judgments based on the assumed correctness of students’ end products (González Davies 2003). By contrast, recent trends in translator education (including the approach proposed here) display a shift toward the development and acquisition of translator competences (e.g., González Davies 2004; Kelly 2005; and PACTE 2008 and 2011) with a shift toward a more learnercentered, professionally situated and socially interactive pedagogic stance. The approach espoused in this study reflects educational principles of authenticity, social constructivism, and problem solving. We review relevant literature in these areas in connection with translator education. Authenticity of Learning. The fundamental motivation for bringing authenticity into translator education and training, as Pym (2009) emphasizes, stems from the need to introduce situated learning experiences that are closely linked to market demands. One seemingly beneficial aspect of creating an authentic learning environment in such a context is to have students experience interpersonal aspects of translating practice. Kiraly (2000 and 2005), for example, argues for the importance of involving all stakeholders in professional translation practice, allowing novices to experience actual communication with clients by means of reallife jobs. Aula Int (2009) and Mackenzie (2004) go further in arguing for the value of novice translators taking on different roles (e.g., client, proofreader) in the life cycle of a translating job (i.e., from the time a job is offered until the confirmation of a payment). Further underscoring the importance of incorporating interpersonal aspects of authentic learning, Kelly (2000) argues that a novice translator needs to acquire expertise in appropriately seeking and confirming necessary information, such as the translation brief.

57

58

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

Social Constructivist Approach. Presenting the learning environment as a collaborative experience primarily with their peers is considered essential to support learning in a professional environment. As Galán-Mañas (2011) and Kiraly (2000 and 2005) claim, such opportunities allow novices to construct new knowledge through mutual interactions. It is, however, worth making the point that empirical findings concerning learner achievements and perceptions in such a context need to be further evaluated in order to confidently assert such a benefit. Pym (2003 and 2009) underscores the need for incorporating into the translator educating process key professional competencies. He believes that such learning experience would contribute to increasing learner awareness of novice-professional differences. Thus, we propose to incorporate a collaborative dimension to learning that may help novice translators join the professional community and become aware of key requirements and responsibilities through peer interactions, as proposed by Bruffee (1993). Problem-solving and translator education. Folaron (2006) argues that problem-solving is an integral part of the competence expected of a translator by the translation industry. Translators need to deal with translation jobs involving a wide range of text types, genres, and target readerships. Furthermore, Gile (2004) places primary importance on the identification of problems and the selection and justification of solutions. From a pedagogical viewpoint, Chesterman (2000) and González Davies and Scott-Tennent (2003) stress the importance of explicit learning and the teaching of problem-solving skills in translator education in order for novice translators to shift from conscious to automatized processing. In sum, translator education is shifting toward a learning environment in which learners autonomously and collaboratively participate in simulated reallife situations with greater focus on addressing holistic problems. Consonant with those trends in translator education, Task-Based Learning (TBL) is adopted as the primary pedagogical approach in this study. This term derives from the field of second language acquisition and pedagogy. In this paper, TBL refers to a particular pedagogical approach in which tasks that replicate professional requirements (e.g., translation briefs from a hypothetical client) play a role. The approach offers a collaborative learning environment in which tasks are pedagogically sequenced to scaffold acquisition. Key characteristics of TBL as they relate to the present study are: 1. Tasks are of a holistic nature. TBL consists of tasks that are holistic in nature (Samuda and Bygate 2008). This means evaluating translation performance with regard to a task that incorporates as many professional requirement settings in learning as possible. This is consistent with the goal of developing translation expertise beyond ST comprehension and TT reformulation.



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

2. Tasks are interconnected. Willis (1996) stresses the pedagogical value of a task cycle model (i.e., pre-task, task, planning, and reporting stages as one cycle), showing how all the stages are interconnected. This feature is also closely related to the goal-oriented nature of TBL. Willis’ task cycle model is applied to the present study because this approach is likely to provide novice participants with a ‘bird’s eye view’ of translation expertise in which key challenges (i.e., the accurate understanding of a ST, searching for necessary information, building a sound relationship with a client, and creating an adequately readable TT in accordance with a set target readership) are interconnected. In translation studies, Hurtado (1999) and González Davies (2004) applied TBL to translator education, highlighting the importance of designing curriculum guided by learning outcomes. This short review of the literature suggests that translator education can assist learners in acquiring translator competence through logically and pedagogically-interconnected tasks. 3. Learning takes place in a professional environment. This aspect of TBL is closely connected with experiential learning. Nunan (2004) argues that experiential learning is an important aspect of TBL, involving learners at every stage of their learning. As Candlin (2009) and Ellis (2003) both argue, experiencing simulated real-life tasks allows learners to understand professional requirements. Furthermore, such tasks allow learners to develop their criticalthinking ability with regard to the challenges faced by professional translators. In the area of translator education, Koby and Baer (2003) propose an example of curriculum design grounded in TBL in which they focus on the learners’ acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge of localization. Although they do not discuss how this approach helped the learners achieve such a learning goal, it is worth noting that TBL might possibly assist learners to acquire the cognitive skills necessary in localization practice. 4. Shift in teacher and student roles. In teacher-centered approaches, the teacher plays a central role. S/he controls learning, and learners are considered passive agents. In TBL, by contrast, learners play proactive and central roles. As Nunan (2004) argues, increasing learner autonomy and responsibility for learning are essential to constructing learners’ own knowledge in professional practice. A teacher in a TBL context plays the role of a facilitator (Willis 1996). S/he is someone who facilitates learners’ autonomous learning by scaffolding the learners’ development of real-world skills and providing adequate input and feedback (Van den Branden et al. 2009).

59

60 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

3. Methodology Two research questions were formulated based on previous research by the first author (Inoue 2012). They were also informed by the primary author’s experience as a professional translator and translator educator.

Research questions 1. How and to what degree did the use of TBL help novice translators develop their translation expertise in identifying and addressing key challenges? 2. How and to what degree did novice translators perceive the usefulness of TBL in the context of translator education? 3.1 Profile of participants Two groups of participants were recruited — novice translators and professional translators. Novice translators are defined here as postgraduate students undertaking their studies in translating and interpreting, particularly in the language pair of English and Japanese, at two universities in Australia. A total number of six novices agreed to participate in this study. They were asked to form two groups of three, Group A and Group B. Professional translators were defined as those who hold a NAATI accreditation from English into Japanese at Professional Level and with at least five years of experience in professional translation practice.3 Two professional translators who had participated in the previous stage of the research were recruited for the present study. The reason for including professionals who had participated in the earlier study is that they were familiar with the rubric. 3.2 Research design A set of instructional tasks was designed bearing in mind the following conditions: 1. tasks must be realistic and situated in professional practice 2. tasks must be logically and pedagogically interconnected in order to enhance and scaffold 3. learners’ acquisition of translation expertise

3.  NAATI stands for National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. NAATI accreditation is the mere accreditation officially recognized by employers for professional translators and interpreters in Australia (NAATI 2012).



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

4. the components of each task must be designed to improve students’ understanding of risk4 prediction and problem-solving5 as key challenges (i.e., gaining an adequate understanding of a ST,6 searching for necessary information,7 building a sound relationship with a client,8 and achieving appropriate readability in accordance with a set target readership9) 5. task components are designed to raise learner awareness of market demands and requirements 6. learner autonomy is achieved through learners’ and teachers’ roles as active and collaborative agents and facilitators, respectively Taking these conditions into consideration, we designed five interconnected tasks with sub-tasks. These were administered in five sessions (a ‘session’ here refers to a separate whole-day learning event with different learning objectives). Except for Session 1, each session consisted of four learning stages (the term ‘learning stage’ 4.  Risk is defined as what is involved in a situation that could be problematic, if not properly understood, and if the translator does not consider and implement a solution. If a risk is not properly identified and addressed, a situation is likely to become a ‘problem.’ An example of a risk would be a situation where an initially-offered deadline is excessively tight; as a consequence, the translator may fail to complete the job, with a consequent damage to his/her professional reputation as a professional. 5.  Problem-solving is defined as a situation where a translator needs to resolve a difficulty or challenge that has already explicitly emerged. Unless the translator resolves such a difficulty, the problem remains, and this may lead to failure to accomplish a translation job in an adequate manner. One example would be when a translator faces a situation where a ST consists of a significant number of linguistic defects. If unresolved, the TT becomes linguistically awkward and this may pose comprehension difficulties for target readers. 6.  Understanding of the ST is defined as the extent to which a translator accurately understands the content and stylistic features of a ST when she/he engages in a translation job. If a translator fails to understand, a TT is highly likely to display inaccuracies in relation to the ST. 7.  Searching for the necessary information is defined as an activity in which a translator collects necessary information to achieve both the accurate comprehension of a ST and a readable TT appropriate for target readers. A translator employs a wide range of tools (depending on the characteristics of a job) including inter alia a Google search, dictionary access and in general domain-specific expertise. 8.  Building a relationship with a client normally refers to the process by which a translator engages in confirmation, negotiation and consultation with a client in an appropriate way (e.g., emailing, making calls). 9.  The appropriate readability for the target text readership refers to the extent to which a translator can make a TT appropriate for target readers. This appropriate readability is usually determined by the kind of target readership that both a translator and a client agree upon at the beginning of the translating process.

61

62

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

here refers to a pedagogically-informed series of learning activities within one session: i.e., introduction, task, report, and reflection stages) and were whole-day events, with some breaks to accommodate the limited availability of both novice participants and professional evaluators and also due to restrictions on available space. Appendix 3 presents the source texts and translation briefs (unless such a brief was deliberately deleted) used as simulated real-life tasks for the Task Stage in Sessions 2–5. The materials were identical to those used in the earlier study. In that study, an informal discussion session was held with the professional evaluators to determine whether the settings of the tasks were realistic. All the professional evaluators reached agreement that the settings of all the tasks were realistic. An essential element was the need to discuss and reach agreement on how the instructional sessions should be constructed. As Breen (1987), Candlin (1984), Candlin and Edelhoff (1982), and Candlin (2012) claim, the enhancement of learner autonomy through facilitator-learner negotiations not only occurs during a learners’ engagement with the content of learning but also in the design of the learning processes. Accordingly, the sequence of the tasks and sub-tasks, and the ways in which learner performance was to be evaluated were all negotiated among the facilitator and novice participants for all the sessions. As set out in Session 1 Stage 3) to Session 5 Stage 7) in Appendix 1, a coherent task structure was introduced. Drawing on Wills’ (1996) model, as seen in Appendix 1 and mentioned above, each task consisted of the following cycle: Introduction (introducing the focus of the session), Task (collaboratively engaging in the task in a group including the finalization of a translation product and preparation for an oral presentation), Report (an oral presentation on problems, solutions, and justifications), and Reflection (individual reflections and brief in-class discussions at the beginning of the next session). For authenticity, the actual sequence of tasks followed the usual sequence of processes in actual translation practice (i.e., from job offer to translation delivery to the client). Feedback was sought from the professional translators’ perspective at the end of each session (excluding Session 1). The ST, TTs (i.e., a translation product produced by each group) and the recorded data of oral presentations provided by the novice groups were electronically delivered to two professional translators. In their feedback, these professionals were asked to choose one of the ratings for each criterion in the rubric (see Appendix 2) and to clarify the reasons why they chose a particular rating. In terms of data collection and analysis in connection with research question  1, the kind of data collected for identifying learner development from the learner perspective was largely learner narratives together with ‘products’ made by the learner groups (see Table 1 below). These two major kinds of data were



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

Table 1.  Research Question 1: Summary of data collection and analysis Kind of collected data Whole class discussions

Data description

Data analysis

Recorded and transcribed narratives on the scope of the session (Introduction Stage)

Explained novice-professional differences in knowledge acquired through peer interaction and introductory activities.

Recorded and transcribed narratives of novices following oral presentations (Report Stage)

Transcribed data were coded based on the identification of different approaches to addressing challenges.

Recorded and transcribed narratives of novices’ self-reflections in response to professional evaluations (Reflection Stage)

Oral presentations by novice groups

TTs produced by novice groups

Professional evaluations on novice groups’ processes and products

Explained how learners used the evaluations and applied what they learned to future situations. The data were also analyzed to determine the extent to which the learners realize their area(s) of weakness. Oral presentations on how novice In conjunction with the TTs, groups identified key challenges, ad- data were analyzed in terms of dressed such challenges, and justified 1) type of translation challenges their solutions identified, 2) solutions selected for the identified challenges, and 3) justifications for solutions selected. These points were also cross-referenced to evaluations by professionals. The data were compared with novices’ earlier presentations to determine the extent of their learning. End product produced by each novice These data were used in reference group (Sessions 2 to 5) to the oral presentations, as well as the comments by professionals regarding particular segments of the TTs that were legitimate end products. Rating for each criteria in the rubric These data were analyzed in selected by each professional evaluterms of 1) identifying room for ator improvement and 2) identifying Additional comments given by prowhat was learned with respect to fessional evaluators indicating why previous sessions and comments. a particular rating on an item was selected

63

64 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

analyzed to explicate existing and new knowledge possessed by the learners, and also to identify the reasoning behind their decisions. To ascertain the perspectives of the professional participants, their responses to the holistic rubric (i.e., their ratings and additional comments) used in each session were collected. These data were then analyzed in order to examine how the professionals perceived learner performance in terms of translation processes and products. All of the above elements of data collection and analysis were then compared between sessions in order to judge the extent to which the learners developed ways to identify and address translation challenges. In order to answer the second research question above, two focus-group interviews were carried out at the end of the second and fourth sessions. In these semi-structured interviews, the participants were encouraged to freely share their perceptions of this learning experience, and to express as explicitly as possible their perceptions about the usefulness of this learning approach. Recorded data were transcribed. The data were coded primarily for key aspects concerning the usefulness of this learning approach and further suggestions offered by the novice participants. 4. Findings and discussion This section presents findings for each of the research questions. Section 4.1 below summarizes key learner improvements in each key area of translation expertise based upon discourse regarding: a) need for improvement indicated by representative novice narrative(s); b) feedback by professional evaluators concerning the novice narrative(s) in a); c) novice narrative(s) that show learner improvement(s) with respect to a); and d) feedback by professional evaluators on c). Section 4.2, which responds to the second research question, is a summary of novice narratives that highlight the benefits of this learning approach. 4.1 Learner developments in identifying and addressing key challenges Given space limitations, we discuss only the highlights of the key areas of learner improvement. The particular segments of a ST that are referenced are underlined in the STs in Appendix 5. 4.1.1 Overall between-group differences Overall results indicate evidence of between-group differences in the extent to which the learners were able to identify and address translating challenges, particularly in terms of the learning outcomes of Novice Group A (Group A) and Novice



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

Group B (Group B). Throughout, learners in Group A demonstrated an ability to identify where they needed to make improvements in their translating processes and products. Furthermore, they were subsequently able promptly to rectify such weak points. Learners in Group B, by contrast, required a longer period of time to rectify their weaknesses. This difference seems to stem from two factors. First, the between-group differences seem to derive from each group’s previous exposure to a learning environment that incorporated real-life requirements and collaborative learning experiences. The actual training program in which learners in Group A were enrolled introduced the constructs of key risks and problems in professional practice. In contrast, according to descriptions provided by learners in Group B, the training program for Group B appeared to be focused on the preparation for NAATI examinations. Differences in learning environments with which they were familiar, therefore, appear to have influenced overall learner development in different ways. The second possible factor concerns the variable degree of translator competence. Given that the participants were given freedom to form groups on their own initiative, the facilitator perceived throughout the sessions that the participants in Group A had a reasonably higher level of translator competence than those of Group B. Despite the between-group differences illustrated above, novice participants’ competence (regardless of the different groups) in identifying challenges improved in both groups as the learners proceeded through the learning sessions. We attribute this to raising learner awareness of the risks encountered in the professional world through the exploration of and reflection on novice-professional differences observed in previous studies. Another factor that we believe contributed to overall improvement is the quality and nature of the feedback, in which requirements in professional practice, provided by the professionals, were holistically incorporated. Overall improvement in translation expertise was facilitated through the scaffolding of learning designed and implemented in this program. As seen from the design presented in Appendix 1, each session focused on different areas. As the learners progressed through subsequent sessions, skills in different key aspects of translating were gradually developed. Key aspects of learners’ translation expertise were gradually integrated by the end of the training program thanks to the interconnected nature of TBL, which was reflected in the construct of this learning opportunity and in the links between the sessions. Such scaffolding may have been responsible for the overall positive achievements in the final session. 4.1.2 Improvements in ST comprehension The first specific area of learner progress concerned ST comprehension. In Session 2, both professionals commented that both groups A and B failed to explain how necessary information was collected so as to improve ST comprehension. In

65

66 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

response to this professional feedback, provided through individual self-reflection outside this session and peer interaction during the discussion session (intergroup and intra-group), learners in Group A showed improvement in that this group was able to explain how they collected the necessary information and to demonstrate an ability to employ a wider range of strategies (for example, referring to other segments of the ST). In response to this, both professionals provided positive feedback. This suggests that the learners had acquired greater awareness that adequate ST comprehension is a translator’s responsibility. The second area of progress observed concerned decisions regarding what matters translators needed to discuss with their clients. This group initially overrelied on the expertise possessed by other people rather than on their own judgment, perhaps because the ST in this task (a legal contract) contained a lengthy sentence that posed comprehension difficulties. In response to professional feedback and through self-reflection, the novices learned the importance of formulating their own judgments, and so learning was identified in this area in Session 4. The main theme of the ST in this task concerned the sport of cricket; the explanations provided by this group demonstrated the subjects’ autonomous attitude toward ST comprehension. Evidence for this lies in the positive comments by the professionals concerning the learners’ efforts to locate reliable online sources. 4.1.3 Information search skills Room for improvement was initially identified in terms of the extent to which learners were able to search for necessary information in order to understand the content of the ST and to find acceptable TT equivalents. Professional 1 pointed to the learners’ inability to identify a solution in accordance with the job requirements and target readership norms in Session 3. Apart from the fact that the learners failed to identify linguistic errors in the ST in Session 3 (e.g., we had deliberately replaced ‘off the wall’ with ‘on the wall’ in the ST given to the learners in order to observe their ability to identify and address such an error. See Text 2 in Appendix 3), the learners depended solely on a single online dictionary in identifying the best equivalents. Given that this online dictionary was general in nature and did not include IT terminology, it is not surprising that the quality of the TT produced by this group was judged unsatisfactory by the professionals. However, as sessions proceeded, learners were able to develop their skills in identifying equivalents more satisfactorily. In Session 5, for instance, they were able to refer to multiple sources, including authoritative online information, and to appropriately use Google Search. A further aspect of learner improvement in this area of translation expertise had to do with how learners justified their terminological and content searches. Learners initially failed to provide explanations about how information was



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

collected in Session 2 despite the fact that they were expected to provide such explanations at the Report Stage in each session. In the subsequent session, however, this group did offer extensive, in-depth information about how they collected the necessary information. We believe this can be attributed to increased learner awareness of contextual factors in translation choices and of the importance of justifying a translator’s decisions to a client. For instance, the task of Session 4 was an extract from a novel on the sport of cricket, and learners did not have access to the full text. Learner group A decided to borrow the full text from a local library. This suggests that they were aware of the role of the full text in their understanding of the excerpt. 4.1.4 Building a relationship with a client The third area of translation expertise in which learning was identified concerned translator-client interaction. In Session 3, Group B indicated uncertainty about the meaning of ‘technical dog’ in the context of IT. While their chosen solution was to consult a client on its meaning, Professional 2 pointed out the importance of making a decision prior to discussing such a matter with the client. By contrast, professional feedback and self-reflection enabled this group to make their own decision and to present detailed information about it in Session 4. Professional 1 commented that the learners were also able to distinguish between issues on which they needed to consult with a client and those requiring the translator’s judgment. Another area in need of improvement had to do with the types of issues that would require consultation with the client. As commented by Professional 2, the explanation given by Group A was unclear about when and how translators should request a translation brief. Translation briefs were purposefully excluded from the task in Session 3, and learners were able to identify such a problem in this task. Nevertheless, learners failed to present in concrete terms how they should communicate with a client on such a matter, supposedly because they did not possess sufficient knowledge of how translator-client communication typically takes place in professional environments. Through professional feedback, awarenessraising activities, and self-reflection on interpersonal aspects of professional practice in the introduction stage, improvements in this area of translation expertise were evident in subsequent sessions. For instance, the ST in Session 5 (see Text 4 in Appendix 3) was extracted from a local newspaper article in which the writer extols the virtues of Australian wines. It contained a large number of direct and indirect quotations. The learners were able to recognize the importance of consulting with a client regarding the degree of modality of such quotations, and they were also able to explain how they would communicate with a client in a much more concrete manner. Professional 2 pointed out that the learners’ sense of timing, that is, when to consult with a client, was also appropriate.

67

68 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

4.1.5 Appropriate readability in a TT The last area of learning concerned the achievement of appropriate readability in a TT for the target readership identified in the brief. As discussed earlier, learner Group B required a longer period of time to develop their translation expertise in all the areas, and this last area seemed to be the one where they struggled most. Up to Session 4, the learners experienced difficulty in adequately selecting equivalents. They were uncertain about how to consult with a client for such a purpose, and they presented multiple solutions to a client. In response to this, Professional  2 pointed to the fact that the learners did not possess adequate knowledge of a translator’s roles and responsibilities (i.e., to determine the best solution and present it to the client). With the help of introductory activities (e.g., role-play), and feedback provided by professionals and inter-group comparisons, this group now was able to come up with their own ideas regarding appropriate correspondence by engaging in in-depth information collection activities in Session 5. Another area in need of improvement identified in the Sessions 1–4 was how to provide additional information for the reader on cultural or domain-specific terms. In considering the equivalents of the cricket term oval, the learners decided to choose the more generic term 競技場, ‘a sport stadium,’ instead of adapting another possible equivalent, オーバル, ‘an oval,’ a more domain-specific term used in an authoritative source. As Professional 1 pointed out, the learners were not aware of the risk behind the excessive use of additional information, particularly in the form of footnotes (i.e., underestimating target readers’ existing knowledge of a topic). This comment by professionals also appeared to suggest that the learners failed to consider consulting the client. In response to the comments, the learner group was able to gain a better understanding of the importance of consulting with a client in Session 5. 4.2 Learner perceptions of the usefulness of Task-Based Learning To answer the second research question, this section reports and discusses learner views regarding the usefulness of TBL. These views emerged from learner discussions during the focus-group interviews carried out during the second (FG1) and fourth (FG2) sessions. Due to space limitations, only excerpts representing each key point will be presented below. The first benefit of TBL is a better understanding of key market requirements (see excerpt 1). Unlike training programs that focus on ST analysis and finding TT equivalents, the present learning program helped learners familiarize themselves with industry requirements beyond the mere translation of a text. This was accomplished by making students aware of novice-professional differences in the identification and solving of key challenges and by designing authentic and



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education 69

contextualized tasks reflecting a wide range of real-life challenges. The novice excerpt below represents the acquisition of such new knowledge.

(1) Before, my attention went only to translating a source text in English itself […]. By gaining the understanding of various competencies, I feel that I can be more conscientious about my weaknesses and the need for improvements. Also, the presentation about novice-professional differences was great so that I can compare it with my current competencies. (FG1: sic)

The next benefit, one frequently mentioned by the learners, concerned the importance of understanding the concept of risk. The following comments suggest that engaging in experiential learning in authentic settings raised learner awareness of the essential aspects of risk in translating. By engaging in real-life situations, as well as in awareness-raising activities on risk (e.g., role-plays), the learners came to realize the negative outcomes that derived from failure to identify and address risks in an appropriate way. Providing authentic learning environments and integrating key challenges in tasks helped learners acquire this new knowledge.

(2) I feel a growing sense of crisis if I cannot deal appropriately with risks and problems through these sessions. And this makes me feel that I need to be much better prepared for these risks and problems from now on. (FG2: sic)

Some of the learners found TBL to be valuable for building a good relationship with a client. Excerpts 3) and 4) suggest that the learners were able to improve in this area through TBL. Learning outcomes depended on the employment of experiential learning–that is, when the content of learning incorporates a holistic view of translating, including real-life job requirements, rather than simply focusing on the linguistic process of transferring a message from a ST to a TT. Another interesting point observed from excerpt 4) was that learning needs to be authentically situated. All novice participants in one of the universities were required to take on practicum opportunities as part of the NAATI requirements. Due to limited human resources and financial constraints, however, students were only given a feedback sheet filled out by the client at the end of this learning opportunity.

(3) This learning opportunity provided me with great inspiration in terms of the need of appropriate interpersonal skills. In particular, it was a great reference for me to learn that we should never display our lack of competence to the client. I didn’t know all about these before. (FG2: sic)



(4) I learnt how to utilize the client in a positive sense. Before participating in these sessions, I had no idea to what extent I can communicate with the client. For example, when I was engaging in practicum at my university, I

70 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

was not given an opportunity to confirm anything with the client at all. But I strongly feel that I need to utilize a client appropriately […]. (FG2: sic)

Another issue mentioned by the students had to do with translation theory in translator training. As excerpt 5) shows, the use of situated translation tasks and professional feedback enabled learners to understand the relevance of key translation theories to the professional environment. What learner A says (i.e., automatized knowledge and skills at various levels) in excerpt 5) appeared to be consistent with the model of Deliberate Practice proposed by Ericsson (2000, 2005). Ericsson underscores the importance of Deliberate Practice on the grounds that practitioner’s expertise tends to stagnate at the level between novice and professional unless he/she engages in further intensive training to correct weaknesses.

(5) A: I wonder what is happening in a novice’s brain at first. I feel that translation competences are gradually automatized in my brain. In other words, I do not need to do so and so because I know it. This learning opportunity reminded me of the automatized knowledge and skills that we learnt in the theory unit. B: Also in the theory unit, we learnt where the message ‘M’ is located in between the ST and TT paradigm. I found that I make fewer mistakes if I keep this model in mind as I engage in the tasks. […]. So, I am now able to do this thanks to what we learnt from the theory. A: Yes, I think that model by Wilss is very important. (FG1: sic)

On the matter of learner perceptions of the learning style in TBL, excerpt 6) demonstrates difficulty in entirely moving away from a more transmissionist approach with which learners are familiar from their past learning experience. Given that there were only five sessions in the present pilot training program and that these sessions were delivered intensively, designing a training program with a more task-oriented pedagogy in the longer term may hold the key to helping learners shift their beliefs and change their translation practices as professionals.

(6) I think that it would be important for the teacher to present the initial orientation of learning. This is because the scope and focus of discussions may shift to inappropriate directions if learners are merely involved in the discussions. I think it would be even better if the teacher involves (sic) in the discussions more actively. (FG2)

Another issue mentioned in the focus groups concerned the value of comments (in addition to scales in the rubrics provided by the professionals). As excerpt 7) shows, comments by professionals allowed learners to clarify the factor(s) responsible for their weaknesses and helped them overcome such weaknesses in the future. Some learners acknowledged the benefits of learner-centered, collaborative



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

learning/teaching. As seen in excerpt 8), TBL appeared to facilitate learning and to raise awareness of learner weaknesses. From a different dimension, excerpt 9) suggests the value of TBL in terms of the development of learner skills through collaborative group work.

(7) A: If comments in addition to the ratings can be given, they will be really good reference for me. B: I think we will be able to learn what we should do on our weaknesses in the future. (FG1)

(8) What I found positive about this style of learning is that I can share different approaches to, for example, address risks. (FG1: sic)



(9) As for engaging in a translation task in a group, I found how important it is to determine a role allotment at the very beginning stage of translation processes in order to improve the efficiency of a group translation. (FG2: sic)

5. Concluding remarks Building on the findings of four earlier studies (Inoue 2012), the research in this paper explored the usefulness of an innovative pilot learning program in the context of translator education. The design and implementation of this pilot program were guided by the need to identify and address key risks and problems in the context of professional translating, using authentic tasks. Each task was evaluated for its authenticity by professional translators. This approach draws on collaborative learning implemented by means of collaborative activities and authentic translation tasks. Thus, this program was able to incorporate a holistic view of translation expertise required in the professional community. Learner success and perceptions offer support for the adoption of the teaching approach proposed here. It should be acknowledged, however, that this research is constrained by its language-specific focus (from English into Japanese). Other limitations of the study are the number of participants and the lack of longitudinal data. Notwithstanding these limitations, there are reasonable grounds on which to argue that many university-based translator education programs could benefit from this approach. This assertion is based on the evidence presented here that the approach adopted is pedagogically sound, authentic, and one that maximizes learner knowledge and skills in identifying and addressing key challenges by means of enhanced learner autonomy and peer collaboration. We would like to conclude by suggesting directions for future research. Longitudinal observations of learner development (for instance, over a semester)

71

72

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

focusing on learner (and educator) engagement in this type of training program would provide useful data regarding the efficacy of this methodology. The development of ‘learner beliefs’ (and educator beliefs) is another area in need of study insofar as shifts in beliefs are likely to be an indicator of shifts in performance and, hence, of the success of the methodology. Clearly educators play a crucial role in developing learners’ translation expertise in translator education, and different educators may, initially at least, implement the same pedagogies differently. Therefore, the integration of findings on the beliefs held by both learners and educators may be a determining factor in the success of TBL in translator education.

References Aula Int. 2005. “Translator Training and Modern Market Demands.” Perspectives 13 (2): 132– 142. ​doi: 10.1080/09076760508668982 Boshuizen, Henry P. A., and Henk Schmidt. 1992. “On the Role of Biomedical Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning by Experts, Intermediates, and Novices.” Cognitive Science 16 (2): 153– 184. ​doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1602_1 Bowker, Lynne. 2004. “What Does It Take to Working the Translation Profession in Canada in the 21st Century? Exploring a Database of Job Advertisements.” Meta 49 (1): 960–972. ​ doi: 10.7202/009804ar

Breen, Michael P. 1987. “Learner Contributions to Task Design.” In Language Learning Tasks, ed. by Christopher N. Candlin, and Dermot Murphy, 23–46. London: Prentice Hall. Bruffee, Kenneth A. 1993. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Candlin, Christopher. 1984. “Syllabus Design as a Critical Process.” ELT Documents No. 118, 29–46. London: Pergamon and The British Council. Candlin, Christopher. 2009. “Task Based Language Learning.” In Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader, ed. by Kris Van den Branden, Martin Bygate, and John M. Norris, 21–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/tblt.1.03tow Candlin, Christopher. 2012. “Some Questions about Advising.” In Autonomy in Language Learning: Advising in Action, ed. by Christian Ludwig, and Jo Mynard. Canterbury: University of Kent, IATEFL. Candlin, Christopher, and Christoph Edelhoff. 1982. Challenges: Teachers’ Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  ​doi: 10.7202/008737ar Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner. 2004. Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome. Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Folaron, Deborah. 2006. “A Discipline Coming of Age in the Digital Age.” In Perspectives on Localization, ed. by Keiran Dunne, 195–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  d ​ oi: 10.1075/ata.xiii.16fol



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

Galán-Mañas, Anabel. 2011. “Translating Authentic Technical Documents in Specialised Translation Classes.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 16: 109–125. Gile, Daniel. 2004. “Integrated Problem and Decision Reporting as a Translator Training Tool.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 2: 2–20. González Davies, Maria. 2003. “Translating Children’s Literature on the Web: An Authentic Project.” In Traducción y Literatura Infantil, ed. by Isabel Pascua, 23–26. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Anaga. González Davies, Maria. 2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  ​doi: 10.1075/btl.73 Inoue, Izumi. 2012. Novice-professional Differences in Addressing Translating Challenges: The Development of an Effective Pedagogical Approach to Translator Education. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Kelly, Dorothy. 2000. “Text Selection for Developing Translator Competence: Why Texts from the Tourist Sector Constitute Suitable Material.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schäffner, and Beverly Adab, 157–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  ​doi: 10.1075/btl.38.15kel Kelly, Dorothy. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Don. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Manchester: St Jerome. Kiraly, Don. 2005. “Project-Based Learning: A Case for Situated Translation.” Meta 50 (4): 1098– 1111. ​doi: 10.7202/012063ar Koby, Geoffrey, and Brian James Baer. 2003. “Task-Based Instruction and the New Technology: Training Translators for the Modern Language Industry.” In Beyond the Ivory Tower, ATA Scholarly Monograph Series XII, ed. by Brian James Baer, and Geoffrey Koby, 211–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ata.xii.15kob Mackenzie, Rosemary. 2004. “The Competencies Required by the Translator’s Roles as a Professional.” In Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 31–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.59.04mac NAATI. 2012. “Why is NAATI Accreditation Important in Australia.” http://www.naati.com.au/ accreditation.html. Last accessed 5 January 2015. Nunan, David. 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ​ doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667336

PACTE. 2008. “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge of Translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the Translation Process.’ ” In Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 104–126. London: Continuum. PACTE. 2011. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Problems and Translation Competence.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 317–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.94 Pym, Anthony. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age: In Defense of a Minimalist Approach.” Meta 48 (4): 481–497. ​doi: 10.7202/008533ar Pym, Anthony. 2009. “Translator Training.” http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/training/2009_translator_training.pdf. Last accessed 5 January 2015. Samuda, Virginia, and Martin Bygate. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

73

74

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin Van den Branden, Kris, Martin Bygate, and John M. Norris. 2009. “Task-Based Language Teaching: Introducing the Reader.” In Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader, ed. by Kris Van den Branden, Martin Bygate, and John M. Norris, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​ doi: 10.1075/tblt.1.02van

Willis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Appendix 1.  Outline of the pilot program carried out after the earlier studies Session Theme of the task Learner needs analysis

1

2

Stages and Topics Mode of learning Learner needs analysis Whole-class discussion Objectives and contents of these Presentation by the learning sessions facilitator Students’ current level of translating Whole-class discussion Introduction to this expertise Presentation by the learning opportunity Explore novice-expert differences facilitator, whole-class in addressing key challenges and discussion, group work constructing a mind map Introduction stage: Concept of ‘risk’ Whole-class discussion in daily life and in translating Task stage: Risks when a job is of- Group work Identifying and addressfered Role-play with real-life ing risks when a translaReport stage: Presenting solutions scenarios tion job is offered for risks Whole-class discussion Reflection stage: Reflection about and individual reflecwhat has been learned in this session tion Introduction stage: Challenges and Whole-class discussion strategies in achieving accurate comprehension of a ST Group work on the task Task stage: Identification of risks and problems in achieving accurate Group presentation and Achieving accurate com- comprehension whole-class discussion prehension of a ST Report stage: Identification of risks Individual reflection and problems in achieving accurate comprehension Reflection stage: Risks and problems in accurately comprehending a ST and solutions



3

4

5

Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education Introductory stage: Identification Whole-class discussion of risks and problems in building a using scenarios sound relationship with a client Task stage: Engage in a real-life translation task Group work Building a sound relaReport stage: Reporting identified Group presentations tionship with a client risks & problems, solutions and their and whole-class discusjustifications sion Reflection stage: risks and problems Individual reflection in building a sound relationship with a client and their solutions Introductory stage: Challenges in Whole-class discussion achieving appropriate readability Task stage: Engage in a real-life Group work Achieving appropriate translation task Group presentations readability in accorReport stage: Reporting identified and whole-class discusdance with agreed target risks and problems, solutions and sion readership their justifications Individual reflection Reflection stage: Risks/problems and their solutions Task stage: Engage in a real-life Group work translation task Group presentations Report stage: risks and problems in and whole-class discusWrap-up task building a sound relationship with a sion client and their solutions

Appendix 2.  A holistic rubric used for feedback by professionals Information about a descriptor of each scale 4 3 2 1

The learners demonstrated a masterful ability, equivalent to that of a professional translator. The learners demonstrated a proficient ability, slightly lower than that of a professional translator The learners demonstrated a weak ability, performing poorly in many areas, in comparison a professional translator. The learners demonstrated a poor ability (or inability), performing very poorly in most areas, in comparison a professional translator.

75

76

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin Dimensions/ Scale levels How well did the learners identify risks posed by the task? How acceptably did the learners deal with identified key risks derived from the task? In referring to the learners’ translation, how precisely did the student reflect instructions by the client? How well did the learners identify problems* posed by the task? How acceptably did the learners deal with identified key problems derived from the task? How accurately did the learners comprehend the content of the ST?

4

3

The learners identified all the key risks posed by the task

The learners identified many of the key risks posed by the task

2

The learners did not identify the majority of the key risks posed by the task The learners dealt The learners dealt The learners dealt with all the key with many of the with a few key risks in an accept- key risks in an risks derived from able way acceptable way the task in an acceptable way The learners reflected all the requirements given in the translation brief

The learners mostly reflected the requirements given in the translation brief

The learners identified all the key problems posed by the task

The learners identified many of the key problems posed by the task

1 The learners identified very few or no key risks associated with the task The learners did not deal with any key risks derived from the task in an acceptable way

The learners did The learners did not reflect some of not reflect the rethe requirements quirements at all given in the translation brief

The learners did not identify the majority of the key problems posed by the task The learners dealt The learners dealt The learners dealt with all the key with many of the with a few key problems in an key problems in problems derived acceptable way an acceptable way from the task in an acceptable way

The learners identified a very few or no key problems associated with the task The learners did not deal with any key problems derived from the task in an acceptable way

The learners ac- The learners accurately compre- curately comprehended all the ST. hended most of the ST

The learners did not accurately comprehend most or all of the ST

The learners did not accurately comprehend much of the ST

Dimensions/ Scale levels How accurate was the students’ translation in terms of the comprehension of the logical argument that the ST presented in the text as a whole? How familiar was the learners with the domain-specific knowledge* required by the accurate comprehension of the ST*? How familiar were the learners with the domain-specific knowledge required in achieving a readable translation for target readers*? How satisfactory was the learners’ command of LOTE/ English? Overall, how appropriately did the learners communicate with the client*?

Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education 4

3

2

1

The learners fully comprehended the logical argument of the ST as a whole in an accurate manner

The learners mostly comprehended the logical argument of the ST as a whole in an accurate manner.

The learners did not comprehend much of the logical argument of the ST as a whole in an accurate manner.

The learners did not comprehend in the majority or all the parts of the logical argument of the ST as a whole in an accurate manner

The learners demonstrated weak domain-specific knowledge of the ST which resulted in several interpretations of the ST

The learners demonstrated poor domain-specific knowledge of the ST which resulted in many misinterpretations of the ST

The learners demonstrated weak domain-specific knowledge of the TT with the result of many parts of the TT being inappropriate in relation to readability The translation The translation The translation displayed excep- displayed accept- displayed fretional command able command of quently inapproof LOTE/English LOTE/English priate command of LOTE/English The learners The learners The learners fully achieved very frequently rarely achieved appropriate com- achieved approappropriate communication with priate communimunication with the client cation with the the client client

The learners demonstrated poor domain-specific knowledge of the TT with the result of most parts of the TT being inappropriate in relation to readability

The learners demonstrated masterful domain-specific knowledge of the ST which resulted in no misinterpretation of the ST

The learners demonstrated proficient domain-specific knowledge of the ST which resulted in a slight misinterpretation of the ST The learners The learners demonstrated demonstrated masterful proficient domain-specific domain-specific knowledge of the knowledge of the TT which resulted TT which resulted in an exception- in an acceptably ally readable readable translatranslation tion

The translation displayed poor command of LOTE/ English The learners did not achieve appropriate communication with the client at all

77

78

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin Dimensions/ Scale levels How effectively did the student attempt to justify translation decisions in a form of, for instance, translator’s notes? Overall, how acceptably did the learners achieve readability* in the TT?

4

3

2

1

The learners demonstrated a masterful ability in attempting to justify translation decisions to the client

The learners demonstrated a proficient ability in attempting to justify translation decisions to the client

The learners demonstrated a weak ability in attempting to justify translation decisions to the client.

The learners did not justify any of translation decisions for the client

The learners fully achieved the readability of the translation in the TL

The learners mostly achieved the readability of the translation in the TL

The learners did not achieve the readability of the translation in the TL and many sections of the translation posed difficulty in achieving appropriate readability How adequately Most or all of the Many sections of Many sections of did the learners translation did not the translation did the translation achieve read- pose difficulty in not pose difficulty posed difficulty in achieving a coherability for target achieving a coher- in achieving a coherent TT ent TT readers in ent TT. relation to the translation as a coherent text? All of the learners’ Most of the learn- The learnHow approers’ solutions ers frequently priate did the solutions in adfailed to address learners address dressing cultur- in addressing ally-challenging culturally-chalculturally-chalculturallyproblems were lenging problems lenging problems challenging appropriate were appropriate in an appropriate problems* in manner the translation task? The learners The learners did How well did The learners maintained all the maintained most not maintain the learners stylistic features of of the stylistic many of the maintain the stylistic features of stylistic features the ST in the TT features of the in an appropriate ST in the TT in the ST in the TT of ST in TT? manner an appropriate in an appropriate manner. manner

The learners did not achieve readability of the translation in the TL and most of the translation posed difficulty in achieving appropriate readability Most or all sections of the translation posed difficulty in achieving a coherent TT

The learners did not address culturally-challenging problems at all

The learners did not maintain the majority or all of the stylistic features of the ST in the TT in an appropriate manner

Dimensions/ Scale levels Overall, how appropriately did the learners use available resources* to collect necessary information to assist with the translation?

Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education 4

3

2

1

The learners demonstrated a masterful ability in using available resources appropriately

The learners demonstrated a proficient ability in using available resources appropriately

The learners did not use available resources appropriately, and they frequently relied on his/her own decisions without reference to resources

The learners did not use available resources appropriately, and they very frequently relied on their own decisions without reference to resources

Appendix 3.  Source texts and translation briefs for tasks and report stages10 Session 2 Translation brief: The following text is an extract from a legal contract concerning the granting of computer-software license. Your translation will be used by a Japanese company which is involved in creating this contract. This job is from a translation agent and the point of contact is a translation coordinator of the agent. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, XZY hereby grants and ABC hereby accepts, an exclusive license use, sublicense and market (i) in Japan (“the Territory”) to end users other than Heisei & Co.Limited, and (ii) for installation outside Japan to end users which are Japanese multinational corporations having their principal offices in Japan, certain computer software products owed and developed by XZY more fully described in Schedule A, with all enhancements, modifications and improvements to such programs which are generally made available by XZY and owed by XZY, to its customers (“Enhancement”) and corrections thereto (collectively, the “Programs”), each sublicense to the Programs to be granted under the terms and conditions of a sublicense agreement which shall be substantially similar in form attached hereto as Schedule B. *Some segments of the text are deliberately modified in an incorrect manner to allow novice participants to experience one kind of real-life challenge. Word count: 134 words

10.  There are occasional typographical errors in the source texts, which were deliberately modified from the originals as this challenge was identified as one of the key challenges for professional translators in earlier studies.

79

80 Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin

Session 311 The story of Lotus Notes David Reed, former chief scientist for Lotus Development Corporation told us the story of how the OCI approach worked for the development of Lotus Notes recently, a software product that organizations to create collaborative work spaces over local and wide area networks. Notes was released in 1990, when Lotus’s chief product offerings, the 1-2-3 spreadsheet program and the Symphony suite of related products had largely died out. Notes became the company’s principal source of revenue until 1994, when IBM acquired Lotus for $3.3 billion, largely reflected its valuation of Notes. Ray Ozzie, a talented programmer who had designed Lotus’s Symphony product, came up with the idea for Notes in late 1984. Ozzie wanted to develop a new approach to sharing information among PC users in a group. “In those days” says Reed, “the idea sounded totally on the ball. PCs had barely penetrated the market. LANS were just starting and it was obvious what they were good for. E-mail had been heavily used by programmers in DEC and Software Arts, where Ozzie had worked earlier, but Lotus did not use E-mail at all. Windows 1.0 was a cute idea, but a technical dog, and Ray’s product idea depended on the multitasking capabilities of Windows and there was no market case for such a product, and most people could not imagine why anyone should care.” Hence, Ozzie believed that the idea would take off once a critical mass of networking applications and PCs with the power to support graphical interfaces and multiple applications running simultaneously were available at a reasonable cost. However, Lotus founder Mitch Kapor shared that belief, but neither could say when the prerequisites would be met. There was not sensible way to make a business case for investing the resources it will take to develop the Notes concept sufficiently to decide whether it will be a winner or not. Word count: 318

Session 4 Translation Brief: The following text was taken from a novel entitled “Cricket Kings” by William McInnes. The client is an Australian publishing company. You need to translate the segments marked in green only.12 (1st para) A game of cricket, in its strictest sense of classical clichéd description, should ebb and flow like a tide. There should be wings and roundabouts. You should take the good with the bad. Ron Sparrow threw the ball to Christopher Andersen. (2nd para) Well, thought the old umpire, there hadn’t been much ebbing and flowing. The swings had no roundabouts and from the Yarraville West Fourths’ viewpoint there had been a grain of food to take with the sacks full of bad. It was now very hot and that quiet, which is a characteristic of park cricket, began to fall. 11.  A translation brief was deliberately not provided to the learners as this issue was identified as one of the key challenges in earlier studies. 12.  This is the original translation brief. To signify the color change here, italics are used.



Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education

(3rd para) Standing there in the middle of the oval on that hot summer afternoon, Ron Sparrow thought of how quiet it was out there. There was the talk and the noise of the players, but that was only close in. The slips and perhaps the cover fieldsmen. Yarra West always seemed to chat amongst themselves. It was to there in the outfield that the quiet would settle. (4th para) He look as Chris Andersen threw the ball to the chunky little right-armer called Matthew Halley. (5th para) The new batsman was taking guard. He asked for middle and Ron Sparrow gave it to him. The new batsman was the scorer for the Trinity team and so a new scorer had to be found amongst the Trinity contingent. If the new scorer had any sense he wouldn’t ask the name of the bowler. But most people who have never scored before or who are relatively new to the whole idea of filling in the cryptic sheets will cling to the set routine of the scorer’s guidelines. Namely, to ask for the bowler’s name when the new over commences. (6th para) This should be a pretty straightforward system. Cricketers by and large are a relatively conservative lot and closely adhere to what the appropriate behaviour should be. But there are some teams that, in a time-honoured tradition, will always give in to the temptation to, as the great expression readily describes, take the piss. Though these same teams will remain deadly serious in their endeavours on the field. (7th para) Ron Sparrow knew that Yarraville West Fourths were just this side. He called out to the batsman, ‘Right an over, batsman.’ The batsman nodded. Matt Halley came and gave him his hat. ‘What are you bowling, Matthew?’ asked the old umpire. Matt Halley Smiled. He looked down at Livey. ‘What am I bowling, Livey?’ Lively snorted. ‘Give us a bit of the Kenny Loggins-cum-Kevin Bacon, mate.’ Word count: 315 words Source: “Cricket Kings” by William McInnes

Session 5 Translation brief: The following article was taken from an American local newspaper called ‘Memphis Flyer’. The translation of this article is required for publication in the newsletter of an association for wine makers in Japan to promote Australian wines. The job is being offered by the Japanese association. The association has told you that they will pay you $50.00 for the translation. The translation needs to be done within 1 hour. Please translate parts marked in green only.13 Head over Heels for Wines from Down Under

13.  The request for translating the particular segments of the ST (parts marked in green) was deliberately made to create problems derived from the issue of cohesion. As in the previous example, the green text is indicated here using italics.

81

82

Izumi Inoue and Christopher N. Candlin In 1997, Dan Philips, founder of Grateful Palate Imports, tasted his first Shiraz in Melbourne, Australia. “It was like stumbling onto some kind of undiscovered winemaking utopia,” Philips says. “It was like Ponce de Leon discovering the Fountain of Youth.” According to Philips, he finally found what he had been looking for “as a wine-obsessed teenager growing up in San Francisco.” It is that very first taste that drives his passion for Australian wine of all kinds. He spends much of the year in Australia visiting wineries in order to find the best wines to import to the United States. What struck him about that Shiraz was the red’s brashness, a trait that is shared by Philips and drives his staunch defense of Australia’s wine industry. For those wine drinkers who view Australia as nothing more than a giant bucket of mediocre grape juice, Philips has a response. “I hope you have lots of money so you can afford very expensive psychoanalysis and figure out your very deep problems or can afford to have a tongue implant,” he kids. The way he sees it, detractors of Australian wine probably “think Wilco is a bad band, Michael Stipe can’t sing, a monkey could paint Mark Rothko paintings, and barbecue is not haute cuisine.” Even here in Memphis, we don’t view barbecue as haute cuisine. We view it as simply good food. We know what we like, and barbecue never fails to deliver. Many Australian wines are the same. They give wine drinkers what they want: simplicity, loads of flavor, and the total lack of needing to be overanalyzed. “Australian winemakers are extremely wine-literate,” Philips says. “They’ve traveled the world and seen it all. But even with all this influence, they remain proudly Australian and want to make Australian wines. They, or at least the ones I’ve met and work with, don’t try to make Bordeaux rip-offs.” The wine critic Robert Parker, founder of The Wine Advocate, has gone so far as to call Philips’ palate “brilliant,” a statement he has backed up by lavishing several 90-plus point ratings on the wines Grateful Palate represents. It is no secret that high scores drive sales in the wine business. These high ratings from Parker’s Wine Advocate and from Wine Spectator have aided the growth of Grateful Palate Imports in Memphis and across the country. But the growth is sustained by consumers returning to the wines over and over again. They return to the 2005 Marquis Philips Cabernet Sauvignon for the “big, thick, juicy, fresh, exuberant blackberry and cassis fruit intermixed with striking vanillin and pain grille characteristics,” as described by Parker. They also return for the value that many of the wines offer. The Pillar Box Red blend (rated 91 points by Parker) sells for approximately $12. Philips, for one, isn’t bothered by wine drinkers who don’t care for what Australia has to offer. “Thanks for liking bad wine,” he says. “It leaves more for those of us who don’t dream about meeting Larry Craig in the men’s room to drink. Have you ever had a bottle of Chateau Hypocrite? You’d love it in magnum.” Word count: 332 Source: www.mephisflyer.com

I know languages, therefore, I can translate? A comparison between the translation competence of foreign language and Interlingual Mediation students Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

There is a large presence of translators without formal education in the Slovene market, partly because until the 1990s there were no independent translation programs, but also because of the popular notion that anybody who speaks a foreign language well, or has a degree in it, can translate. In this paper we present a comparison of four B.A. programs at the University of Ljubljana (in three foreign language departments and one department of translation) to shed light on what knowledge and competences are expected at the end of the B.A. studies, and to find out whether these departments actually train people to be translators. The paper also reports the results of a translation quality assessment of thirdyear students of those departments, who were given the task of translating a text into their L1. The students approached the task in different ways and produced very different results, which indicates that language competences alone are not enough for translation, and that specific additional instruction can give them a considerable advantage at the beginning of their careers. Keywords: translation, quality assessment, translation competence, Interlingual Mediation students, foreign language students

Introduction Non-translators often believe that foreign languages (FL) are all you need to know if you want to translate. This assumption seems to persist despite the numerous publications, both scholarly and popular, that see translation as a far more complex set of competences (see for instance Kiraly 1995; Orozco and Hurtado Albir 2002; Gonzalez Davies 2004; Schäffner and Adab 2000). In fact, trained translators very often find themselves in competition with language graduates and bilinguals. Though it is acknowledged that years of practice may well make excellent doi 10.1075/bct.90.05moe 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

84

Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

translators of language graduates, the predominant belief among teachers and scholars is that considerable differences exist between students of translation and those of foreign languages. Nevertheless, studies dealing with these differences are scarce (e.g., Beeby 2000), despite a significant body of work on translation competence (e.g., Neubert and Shreve 1992; Neubert 2000; Cao 1996; Schäffner and Adab 2000; PACTE 2000; Bernardini 2004), translation quality assessment (notably by Kussmaul 1995; Orozco and Hurtado Albir 2002; Williams 2004; Colina 2009; Orlando 2011), and translation and language teaching (e.g., Kiraly 1995; Malmkjær 1998; Cook 2010; Li 2001; Carreres 2006; Di Sabato 2007). This paper aims to shed some light on this area by investigating how Interlingual Mediation (IM) and FL students differ in translation competence; we are also interested in obtaining a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both groups.

Translation and language teaching Translation has progressively lost ground as an activity in language learning, especially in the last few decades. With the advent of the communicative approach, translation was virtually banned from the classroom and deemed unsuitable (see Bloomfield 1933; Lado 1964; see also Howatt 1984; Richards and Rogers 1986). Numerous attempts at re-establishing the status of translation in language teaching from the point of view of Second Language Acquisition have been proposed (e.g., Leonardi 2010; Witte, Harden and Ramos de Oliveira Harden 2009; Popovic 200; Izumi 1995). Carreres (2006: 5) lists a number of arguments against translation in language teaching summarized from the literature, e.g., translation as a language teaching device is outdated and artificial; it forces the learner to view the FL through the prism of the mother tongue; translation into a FL is artificial as it is not common in authentic situations; translation is frustrating and de-motivating for students; and it is only good for literary-oriented learners.1 Carreres goes on to reject all of these arguments as either being inaccurate, idealistic, or already resolved by recent research. The collection of papers in Malmkjær (1998) includes articles that discuss models to use translation in FL teaching (Klein-Braley and Franklin 1998; Newson 1998), the use of oral translation (Stibbard 1998), and the study of lexical errors through translation (Källkvist 1998). Malmkjær (1998: 6) argues that translation would be far more beneficial to language teaching if the 1.  Carreres (2006) mentions both translation into and from L1 (on translation into a FL see also Kocijančič Pokorn 2009). Malmkjær (1998: 5–6) and Newson (1998: 63–64) also talk about the most common arguments against the use of translation in language teaching and provide a number of counter-arguments.



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

exercises used in class resembled the activities performed during the actual practice of translation. Di Sabato (2007: 52–53) explains five points typical of current approaches to language teaching that can interact in a positive way with translation: interculturality, lexicogrammar and text chunking, the use of modern technologies, the role of the text, and the integration of language/content in the syllabus. Carreres (2006: 16–17) welcomes the task-based approach in some recent translation textbooks (e.g., Gonzalez Davies 2004) and believes that the use of translation in language teaching would benefit from the same methods. Since the focus is on pragmatically appropriate language and on translation as a communicative activity, learners must concentrate on meaning rather than form, tasks can be formulated to elicit the use of certain linguistic forms, exercises resemble authentic language use, and tasks usually involve several language skills and cognitive processes. Preložníková and Toft (2004: 86) present a setting where FL students are taught translation with the aim of becoming competent enough to function in a context where translation and interpreting programs cannot meet the growing demand for professional translators: “our graduates should know how to approach a text and how to evaluate their work once it is complete with the aim of improving future translations.” In his groundbreaking work, Cook (2010) stresses the potential role of translation in language teaching, particularly in bilingual education programs and points out that it can be used as a stimulating task that includes modern technology and helps develop the students’ fluency. This cursory overview clearly shows the increasing interest in the relationship between translation and language teaching, as well as in reassessing of the role that translation might play in foreign language programs. It also foregrounds the need for empirical research on the differences between language-learning students and those enrolled in interlingual mediation/translation programs. A closely related issue is the importance of L1 courses in translation education and in language teaching — especially in those cases in which some level of translation competence is expected of the students. This study focuses on an analysis of translations from FLs into L1, therefore the level of competence in L1 is crucial to the quality of the translations produced by the students. Several scholars (Atkinson 1987; Butzkamm 2003; He 2012) have described the potential of the L1 as a classroom resource. More importantly, however, is mastery of the L1 in translation — this includes mastery of general language as well as specific registers. Angelelli and Degueldre (2002) demonstrated the benefits of FL enhancement courses in translation and interpreting programs. Moreover, Lang (1994: 395–397) laments the low level of general L1 competence in her English students and wonders whether the focus on FL competence has led to a neglect of the L1. She also states (ibid:399) that “(p)rofessional translating standards require an impeccable

85

86 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

level of competence in the target language” and believes that it would be “both logical and practical if trainee translators can acquire a similar set of resources for processing both source and target languages.” Courses aimed at enhancing the L1 are quite common in modern translation programs, along with courses aimed at developing proficiency in FLs, and one would expect to find courses in L1 in FL programs as well. Their inclusion would particularly be expected when these programs offer courses in translation both into and from L1, yet this is rarely the case.

Translation competence and translation quality assessment (TQA) in translation education Translation competence is understood here as the ability to undertake a complex performance task consisting of various interrelated sub-competences. Neubert (2000) identifies five distinct components: language competence, textual competence, subject competence, cultural competence, and transfer competence.2 Our study focused mainly on the language, text and cultural competences (see Section 5 for a detailed list of the specific points that were analyzed and Section 6 for the results). One of the main areas of interest is language competence, which as Neubert (2000: 7) explains, is “a sine qua non of translation.” However, it is far from being the only important factor. Textual competence is often reflected in the choice of a number of not only linguistic but also textual features and stylistic shifts. Subject competence is “the familiarity with what constitutes the body of knowledge of the area a translation is about” (ibid:8). As subject knowledge cannot be exhaustive nor must it necessarily constitute active knowledge, it is important for translators to “know where to look for it and where to find it” (ibid:9). Cultural competence is linked to the degree of “cultural embeddedness” (ibid:10), which varies greatly in different text types and requires translators to be able to mediate between the two cultures involved in the process of translation. Finally, Neubert (ibid) explains transfer competence as “the tactics and strategies of converting L1 texts into L2 texts,” in which emphasis is placed on the ability to “produce an adequate replica of an original.” TQA is relevant to this line of inquiry because translation competence is to be determined based on the translations produced by the students. This article 2.  A plethora of models of translation competence have been presented in the last decades (e.g., Schäffner and Adab 2000; Orozco and Hurtado Albir 2002; Pym 2003; González Davies 2004; Göpferich 2009). Neubert’s model was chosen because it emphasizes the aspects that we were mostly interested in our research.



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

is concerned only with TQA in translator education. Since we set out to analyze how students deal with certain aspects of translation, we do not adopt a holistic approach to TQA and instead favor a more structured model, similar to those presented by Waddington (2001), Robinson, López, and Tercedor (2006), Colina (2009), and Orlando (2011). Most of these models, though, focus on deficiencies and do not provide positive feedback. A notable exception being González Davies (2004), whose system awards points for a “suitable application of translation problem spotting and solving skills,” “resourcing skills,” “appropriate completion of the translation commission,” or “general impression” (ibid:34). The general aim of an IM or translation course is to produce skilled, self-confident and independent professionals. We believe positive feedback may help students to achieve these goals. Therefore, as one of our aims was to assess both weaknesses and strengths, we decided to include a form of positive feedback in our grading system (see Section 5).

Participants The participants in this study were students of IM and FL students of English, German, and Italian. The FL programs were selected because they are rather traditional in preserving some translation courses in their curriculum over time and were included in the latest revisions. The Faculty also offers separate programs in IM at B.A. level and Translation and Interpreting at M.A. level. Seventy-nine (79) third-year B.A. students from four departments took part in the study: 43 IM students, and 36 FL students. There were 7 students of Italian, 15 students of German, and 14 students of English. The IM students study a combination of three languages (Slovene, English, and either German, Italian, or French) at the Department of Translation.3 The language students combine different courses, mostly different combinations of languages and literatures. There were three students who combined their language studies with social studies and one with the combination of the German language and pedagogy. On average, the translation group was a year older (22 years) than the language groups (21 years), as a few IM students were considerably older than the rest: two participants were 27 and two were 28. Most (90%) of the participants were female, and every participant was a native speaker of Slovene. For the majority of the IM students in the study, English was their strongest FL: that was true also for those who translated from German and Italian. The participants from the language departments, on the other hand, are usually strongest in the languages they translated from. 3.  The translation from English into Slovene was done by those IM students who have French as their third language.

87

88

Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

Table 1 shows the total number of contact hours devoted to L1 and to translation into L1 in each study program and states whether some kind of translational, intercultural, or interlingual competence is expected by the end of the courses, either as a general competence or as a subject-specific one. Table 1.  Contact hours in L1 and in translation into L1 and expected competences

IM English German Italian

L1 courses (Contact hours in total) 375    0   304    0

Translation into L1 (Contact hours in total) 150   30   30   60

Intercultural/Interlingual competences expected General Course-specific ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ – ☐ ☐ ☐

As far as intercultural/interlingual competence, the typical description provided in the list of general competences of the language programs is “ability to work in a Slovene-English interlingual and intercultural environment” or “ability to act as an interlingual mediator and to overcome communicative barriers.”5 The only program that does not mention a similar competence is the German program (see Table 1) since Translation into Slovene is offered as an elective course. The competences concerning interlingual and intercultural skills are described in greater detail in the IM program, both on the general level and in individual course descriptions. One competence that is generally absent from the curricula of the language departments is the ability to use language technologies, which results in differences between the FL students and the IM students in their approach to the text to be translated (see Section 6). With regard to L1 courses, (as seen in Table 1), Slovene language, society, culture and literature is taught in the Department of Translation. Students must take 375 contact hours of various subjects over the course of three years, and — to a much lesser degree — in the German Department, where students of the singlesubject program must take 30 contact hours of Slovene for students of German.6 The other two departments do not offer Slovene as a separate course, though some topics are taught in courses on contrastive grammar and similar.

4.  The course of Slovene for Students of German is only part of the single-subject study program. 5.  For more information, see the Faculty of Arts’ webpage (http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/). 6.  The Department of Translation includes ‘Translation’ in its name because it offers a B.A. course in IM and M.A. courses in Translation and Interpreting (http://www.prevajalstvo.net/ department-of-translation).



I know languages, therefore, I can translate? 89

As far as translation into the L1, Table 1 shows that IM students have the greatest number of courses on translation into L1 in the three-year B.A. program (150 contact hours in total). Contact hours vary in the FL departments: students of Italian have 60 hours in two semesters, students of English and students of German have 30 hours (elective for the latter). The language courses mostly have translation into L1 only in the third year, while IM students have courses from the first year on, so at the time of the experiment, some of the FL students had only had about four sessions in class.7 In contrast with the translation department, the language departments offer additional courses in L2 literature, grammar, language use, historical grammar etc., most of which should contribute to a clear understanding of the ST. This raises the question of whether this better understanding has a positive effect on the TT production and to what extent the almost complete absence of courses in L1 and translation strategies impacts the work of these students. Based on the program curricula, our hypothesis was that while FL students may be expected to have a slightly better understanding of the source text (ST), their production of the L1 target text (TT) may be lacking in a number of ways (e.g., grammar, punctuation, style, collocations, implementation of appropriate translation strategies).8 Moreover, we expected that FL students would concentrate more on the linguistic aspects of the text and pay less attention to culture-specific elements, style, register, the purpose of the text, and the target reader, while IM students would have more problems with the understanding of the ST.

Method To test our hypotheses, a twofold approach was used: we assessed the quality of the students’ translations, as well as their translation process. In order to compare the quality of the translations, we had to define our view of TQA and devise a model applicable to all the language combinations studied. Some of the data we were interested in (personal data, time used for the translation, tools used during the process, etc.) could not be obtained from the translation itself, therefore the students were asked to fill in a questionnaire (see Appendix). 7.  In the first year, there is a preparatory course in IM, where students mostly re-write STs from either L1 or L2 in the target language, although they do not translate them. In the second and third year they have courses in translation from L2 into L1. 8.  This expectation is based on the fact that FL students usually focus exclusively on the language(s) and literature(s) they study, and do not divide their time between first, second, and third language courses and other specialized courses typical for IM programs.

90 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

Students were asked to translate a text from either English, Italian, or German into the L1, Slovene. The investigators came to their classes and explained the experiment in advance, and explained that this was a comparative study of translation strategies used by FL and IM students. No further details were provided. Students were given one week to complete the assignment, and they were free to use any translation tools, methods, and strategies they considered appropriate. The instruction accompanying the ST was “Translate the following text, and imagine that it will be published in Global.”9 The three STs, chosen from The Economist, La Repubblica, and the Friedrich Naumann Fundation web page, were of approximately the same length (around 1800 characters). They dealt with the same topic, namely, increasing politicized homophobia in Africa. The texts were chosen for two reasons: First, by choosing a controversial topic from a third culture, we were able to find STs that were similar to each other, and specific to a culture that all the students know equally well (or, rather, equally poorly). The second reason was that the question of gay rights had been very controversial and sensitive in the target Slovene culture, so the students were not only familiar with the topic, but had also been exposed to different ideological influences prior to the experiment and had most probably formed an opinion on the subject. This enabled us to test whether any shifts in ideology occurred, as shifts toward the ideological stereotypes of the target culture are common among inexperienced translators (see Zlatnar Moe and Grahek Križnar 2012). The students were instructed to hand the translation in to their teachers, who were asked to treat it as a regular homework assignment.10 To minimize researcher bias in marking, the researchers interchanged the translations, and devised a code in order to hide the individual translator’s department affiliation (IM or FL). All the translations were corrected according to the criteria usually used for students’ translating work and marked accordingly.11 The researchers then received the key to sort the texts into two groups (FL/IM) for further study. In the analysis, the researchers focused on selected aspects of three of the five sub-competences identified by Neubert (2000), i.e., language competence (points 2–3 below), text competence (points 1, 4, and 5), and cultural competence (point 6). These areas have been chosen because they can be quantified and therefore compared 9.  Global is a monthly magazine, featuring translations of a wide variety of articles on international affairs, science, culture, art, and lifestyle. 10.  One of the participating teachers decided not to follow this instruction and the result was that less than a half of the translations were handed in. 11.  An assessment grid was used with a starting score of 20 points. Points are subtracted for mistakes or errors in various areas or added for good solutions.



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

cross-linguistically and because they are relevant to the research questions raised above. We included a separate category for exceptionally successful translating solutions, as a simplified version of Gonzalez Davies’s (2004) positive feedback in her assessment model. The analyzed points are: 1. additions and omissions, e.g., “the Senate’s overwhelming rejection of the bill” becomes ‘the Senate’s rejection of the bill’ (senat je zavrnil zakon) 2. orthographical mistakes: capitalization, punctuation, adaptations to the target orthographical rules, lack of coherence, e.g., leaving out quotation marks, in strašna nespodobnost (for “gross indecency,” see below) 3. grammatical mistakes: morphological and syntactical mistakes, mistakes in word-formation, e.g., njihovi zločini (‘their crimes,’ pl.) instead of ‘njuna zločina’ (‘their crimes,’ dual) 4. lexical changes: e.g., strašen (‘terrible’) for “gross” 5. stylistic changes: collocations, register (formality and field), e.g., the legal terms “gross indecency” and “unnatural acts” are translated as ‘terrible indecency’ (strašna nespodobnost) and ‘sick acts’ (bolestna dejanja), which are not Slovene legal terms 6. changes in ideology: shifts in ideology, political correctness, e.g., translating the German pejorative word Homo (‘faggot’) with a neutral Slovene gej (‘gay’) or homoseksualec (‘homosexual’) 7. exceptionally successful creative translating solutions The questionnaire was the same for all participants, and they were asked about personal information (study program and age), how much time they needed to complete the translation, and a few questions on their use of translation aids (see Appendix). They handed it in together with the translation.

Results and discussion Translation working habits The results of the questionnaire indicate that on average, IM students took more time (108 minutes) to do their translations than their FL colleagues (96 minutes). This also happened in each individual language pair. Of all participants, the students of English took the shortest time (90 minutes) and the IM students working with the Italian text, the longest (150 minutes). IM students were also more likely to do their translations over several days than FL students. There was also a difference in how the students dealt with the deadline. All but one translation student sent in their work on the appointed day, while among

91

92

Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

the FL students only the German group did the same. In the other two groups, some participants were either up to a week late and needed special encouragement to hand in the text, or did not hand it in at all. This could mean that translation graduates will have an advantage in the translation market regardless of the quality of the translations, simply because they finish and deliver their work on time.

Use of translation aids Table 2.  Number and type of translation aids used Translation aids Monolingual dictionaries Bilingual dictionaries Corpora (mono- or multilingual) Translation engines Search engines and wikis Web pages Other people Other

IM students Total Mean 55 1.28 57 1.32 41 0.95  7 0.16 44 1.02 51 1.18 15 0.34  5 0.11

FL Students Total Mean 48 1.33 47 1.30 17 0.45  9 0.24 18 0.50 24 0.63  7 0.19  4 0.11

One participant from the English-language group translated the text without using any translation aids at all. One group (Italian) did not use any web pages at all, except for Wikipedia, and even this was more the exception than the norm. In general, IM students used more translation aids and more varied translation aids than FL students. FL students also seemed to place slightly more trust in the on-line translating services, such as Google Translate, as they used them more than IM students, who, in contrast, were twice as likely to use corpora, as well as different (non-linguistic) Web sites dealing with the topic in question. IM students were more willing to ask people for help and they were more inventive in finding unusual translation aids, which they listed in the “other” category — they also used Google Maps, Google Images, and several seemingly completely unrelated Web sites, such as the website of the Slovene fire brigades. Hirci (2012) suggests that there is a strong correlation between the quality of a translation and the use of translation aids. Our results seem to confirm her findings, as will be explained in the next section. The results suggest that FL students see translating more as a solitary activity, requiring considerable language skills, especially in the source language (SL), as they use monolingual dictionaries in the target language (TL) less often than the



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

IM students.12 The use of bilingual dictionaries and the Slovene style manual was more or less the same in both groups, but IM students consulted Slovene corpora and parallel texts, as well as native speakers of Slovene and Slovene experts on the topic (e.g., lawyers), much more often than FL students did. IM students, on the other hand, seem to understand translating as a more interdisciplinary and intercultural activity, involving not only the TT, translation aids and the translator, but also other sources in both languages and several cultures, and different types of helpers, extra-textual knowledge etc. The question is whether this difference is reflected in the translations, and if so, how.

Translation quality We expected that the broader, less exclusively linguistic approach taken by IM students would result in translations that conform more closely to the rules, norms and conventions of the TL. We also expected that the quality of translation, particularly with regard to use of the target language, would be strongly influenced by the amount of time dedicated to the TL (i.e., to the L1) and culture in the study programs. As Table 3 shows, these expectations were confirmed. Table 3.  The frequency of translation shifts Type of change additions and omissions orthographical mistakes: use of capitals, punctuation, adaptations to the TL orthographical rules grammatical mistakes: morphological and syntactical mistakes, word-formation, lack of coherence lexical changes style: unusual or non-existing collocations style: Non-compliance with TL stylistic norms register: shifts of formality register: shifts of field stylistic interference of the SL shifts in political correctness, added positive or negative connotation exceptionally successful, creative translating solutions to specific problems.

IM students Total Mean   25 0.58   40 0.93

FL Students Total Mean   29 0.80 109 3.02

117

2.72

146

4.05

164   29   76   15   38   40   20

3.81 0.67 1.77 0.34 0.88 0.93 0.46

178   33   85   23   41   45   24

4.94 0.92 2.36 0.64 1.14 1.25 0.67

  34

0.79

  12

0.33

12.  The numbers for the Slovene monolingual dictionaries are 27 (mean 0.6) for IM students and 15 (mean 0.4) for FL students.

93

94 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

In some categories, structural mismatches on the TL correlate strongly with nonnormative solutions on the orthographic, morphologic, and syntactical level as well as in word formation in the TTs.13 A frequent mistake, for instance, was the use of the accusative instead of the genitive in negative constructions, such as in example 1, where instead of napade (‘attacks,’ accusative), napadov (‘attacks,’ genitive) should have been used. (1) ST: Non volevamo promuovere gli attacchi ‘we didn’t want to promote the attacks’ TT: Naš namen ni bil spodbuditi napade ‘it was not our intention to instigate the attacks’

The gap between the two groups proved the widest on the orthographic level, where mistakes were on average over three times as frequent in the FL group as in the IM group. On the grammatical level, the difference was smaller, with 4.05 mistakes on average in the FL group compared to 2.72 in the IM group, and the majority of instances in the FL group may have been due to grammatical interference from the SL which may have led to failure to use specific grammatical features of Slovene (such as the use of dual, verbal aspect, etc.).14 This, again, may be the result of a lesser focus on the TL and culture in the FL study programs. The shifts and mistakes in other categories (e.g., stylistic shifts or lack of coherence) may also be ascribable to some extent to the lack of instruction in the TL, but they may also be linked to the difference in approach. Some students, whose use of translation aids indicates that they saw translation as a primarily interlingual matter, contributed more shifts in meaning, style, formality and ideology than those who saw it as an intercultural and interdisciplinary activity. It is surprising that FL students contributed more lexical shifts than IM students. We expected that, as FL students generally concentrate on one language only, their SL comprehension skills would be better than those of IM students who have to juggle at least three languages and several cultures at all times. The results suggest that the latter compensate with their skill in using translation aids, especially those linked to the TL. Many of the lexical shifts by FL students were caused 13.  The majority of the mismatches found in the translations done by FL students are linked to L1 competence and seem to be a direct result of the lack of L1 enhancement classes in the language programs (cf. Table 1). Also, translation classes in these departments are brief introductory courses (of up to 60 hours), while in the IM program the focus is entirely on translation, and textual, stylistic, cultural and ideological issues are always taken into account. 14.  Some studies comparing translated Slovene texts with original ones are found in Vintar (2013); other interesting studies on the subject from various viewpoints include Laviosa (1997), Baroni and Bernardini (2006), and Lembersky, Ordan, and Wintner (2012).



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

because the translator used a word or phrase that means nearly, but not exactly the same thing as that in the ST, and could simply be the result of using an inadequate bilingual dictionary. For instance, in the Italian ST, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, was mentioned with a literal translation of the original English term (segretaria di stato): two Italian language students translated this term using državna tajnica (‘state personal assistant’), which is completely inappropriate on the lexical and functional level (instead of ministrica za zunanje zadeve, ‘Minister of Foreign Affairs’). We found that the majority used on-line dictionaries that are sometimes unreliable on the Slovene part, despite all the efforts of the translation teachers to direct them to more adequate but less readily available sources. It is possible, however, that IM students have learned to use them with more caution than FL students and to check their findings against other sources. Stylistic and register changes are of two types: some are the result of a lack of knowledge of the TL, such as stylistic or field-specific features, or terminology (e.g., legal language), but also disregard for the target stylistic norms, for example in the use of the passive voice, unusual collocations, level of formality etc. Fieldspecific features, especially when it comes to legal expressions and terminology, seemed to cause a great deal of difficulty to both groups. Thus in the German text the legal term eine Verfügung (‘an injunction’) often becomes odločba (‘a decision’), and the English term ‘judgement’ is translated not by the correct term sodba (‘judgement’), but by a very similar word, obsodba (‘condemnation’), which not only means something else but is also not a legal term. But there are more mistakes in the FL group, possibly due to the fact that they did not use available databases of legal terms, which IM students had learned to do during their courses. Another category that poses nearly the same difficulty for both groups is collocations, which are notoriously difficult to learn in a FL, but can seemingly be problematic in one’s L1 as well. Another category comprises stylistic shifts that happen because of stylistic interference from the SL, such as marked word order, inappropriate emphasis caused for example by split sentences, and wordiness. An example from English is “last year” which is expressed with one word in Slovene, namely lani (‘last year’), but was very often expressed by a two-word phrase, such as lansko leto (‘last year’). There were cases of stylistic interference in both groups, but they were more common in the language group (on average 1.25 instances per translation, against 0.93 for IM students). It was expected that there would be more editing done by FL students than by IM students. Our experience indicates that trainee translators often leave out what they are unsure about, or add explanations or even personal comments about items they deem difficult for the reader. It takes quite some time to train this instinct out of IM students, and we expected it to be present in FL students’ translations, as they have not had this instruction. Yet the difference is

95

96 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

not very significant. On average, IM students made 0.58 additions or omissions, compared with 0.80 by FL students. Shifts in ideology, however, clearly show the difference in education between the FL and the translation departments. Such shifts are of two types. The first type concerns changes which adapt source-language material to the target culture expectations, as in example 2. (2) ST: A draconian bill […] could impose the death penalty for gay sex if one of the participants is HIV positive” TT: … za HIV-pozitivnega partnerja ‘for the HIV-positive partner.’

Another shift in the same sentence was the omission of could in could impose, making the bill appear to be already in force, and Africa to be as strange, cruel and frightening a place as it is often portrayed in media in Slovenia. In another example there is talk about mainly American conservative Christians who “are eager to engage African clergy in their own domestic battle against homosexuality.” Africa gets the blame in this case, too, as in several translations the battle against homosexuality ceases to be American and becomes African. The second type of shift in ideology consists of shifts either toward greater political correctness, or in the opposite direction, namely pejorative expressions where the ST is neutral or even positively biased. Some examples are Namensliste der Top-Homos (‘name list of top-homosexuals’) where the informal or pejorative Top-Homos, was typically translated into Slovene as gej (‘gay’), istospolno usmerjen (‘same-sex oriented’) or homoseksualec (‘homosexual’), and only occasionally by more informal and/or pejorative words. The last category comprises successful translating solutions in the TTs. In the translation department, it is possible to increase one’s grade and get away with a few grammatical or orthographic errors if one comes up with an original and fitting solution. Therefore it is not surprising that IM students produced far more creative solutions than their FL colleagues, where the focus is different. On average, the translations done by IM students were marked three points higher than the translations by FL students and the quality of the work was more uniform: the average score in the translation group was 14.2 (out of 20), with the highest score at 18.5 and the lowest at 8. In the language group, the average score was 8.8, the highest was 16.8 and the lowest 1.5. The English-language groups were the closest in scores, with only 3 points of difference (11.5 for the translators, and 8.5 for the linguists). As the English group was the one with most participants who only studied one language (English) in the language department, this could indicate that concentrating on one language only is an advantage, although it is still less useful for the would-be translator than actually studying translation. It could be argued that the small difference between the two English-language



I know languages, therefore, I can translate?

groups might arise from the fact that students of English hear the language more in their everyday lives and are therefore more proficient. Yet this can hardly be the prevailing factor if we compare them with the Italian-language groups, which consist mostly of students coming from a border region with an Italian minority where the Italian language is taught to all children from a very early age. There are several possible reasons for the different shifts in the translations. As the brief the students had received at the beginning of the experiment was very vague on what precisely we were looking for, its influence on the actual shifts is probably negligible. Among the possible causes, are higher-level reading skills, familiarity with the subject matter and different translation tools, knowledge of different language fields, but also extra-textual factors such as each individual’s dedication to the task. Since the differences were most remarkable in basic language categories such as orthography and grammar, the proficiency and confidence in the target language (Slovene) seems to be the most important factor. This conclusion was to a certain degree confirmed in the discussion with the FL students after the experiment. Several participants said that they were aware of the lack of L1 instruction in their study program, expressed concern for their performance in L1 and frustration over the current situation, and even asked for advice on how to improve their proficiency on their own.

Conclusions The aim of this paper was to study the differences in the translation competence between IM and FL students. The hypothesis was that since the focus of the program in the departments differs, and is more translation-oriented in the translation department, the IM students would do better on the stylistic and discourse level, while FL students would have an advantage when it comes to the understanding of the ST. We did expect that the lack of target-language teaching in the FL programs would result in slightly less acceptable translations on the orthographic, morphological, and syntactic levels, but did not expect much difference there, since the majority of the participating students went through the same preuniversity education system. We also expected that IM students would make fewer shifts in ideology, since the topic is frequently discussed in translation classes. The results were in line with our expectations in some categories and unexpected in others. The most surprising and rather alarming finding was the low quality of the translations done by FL students, particularly on the basic grammatical levels. Our study seems to imply that pre-university education does not provide sufficient mastery of the L1 to work with texts comfortably. While IM students are required to take a number of courses in their L1, FL students are not.

97

98 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon

The resulting lack of confidence in the TL affects their performance on all levels, from the lexical to the stylistic aspects. Therefore it would be highly advisable to introduce some kind of L1 instruction also in the FL departments, since FL graduates are often expected to have some competence in translation. Another unexpected result was that the differences in translation solutions on the lexical level were not as obvious as predicted and did not indicate a better understanding of the ST by either group. This might be due to the more skilled use of translation aids by IM students, even though FL students should have a greater familiarity with the SL. As far as translation aids are concerned, IM students used a greater number and variety of them, as expected. What we did not expect were the differences in the handling of deadlines and the respect for the ‘working contract’ between the commissioner (us and the individual teachers) and the translators (the students). We might infer that the attention paid to the practical sides of a translator’s working life in translation education can and in this case did prove successful. Finally, our results suggest that including translation in a syllabus and expecting the students to master it on the basis of a single course is unreasonable. The complexity of translation competence with all its associated skills is such that it cannot be addressed properly in the FL programs, where the focus is on other competences not related to translation. FL students should and may well have an advantage in the comprehension level of the FL due to the amount of time devoted to it in their programs. However, the translations they produce do not reflect this because of their limited experience with translation strategies and because their L1 proficiency does not suffice for professional uses. Therefore, it is often difficult to determine whether an inappropriate translation on the level of meaning is the result of a lack of comprehension, or rather an awkward use of the TL. Consequently, translators with a degree in language and literature will depend much more on their own talent and intuition to produce usable translations. While some aspects can be learned independently, other elements of translator competence may be harder for them to master without help. The study gives rise to some interesting questions, one of which is whether the results would be drastically different if the direction of translation were inverted (i.e., from L1 into L2 or even L3). Would FL students’ potentially better knowledge of the TL grammar, lexis etc. prevail over the translating and practical skills of IM students? This is hard to predict, since the FL programs revolve entirely around a FL and culture, and the IM courses also teach translation skills. This is the subject of a follow-up study, currently underway in the same language and IM departments as the first one. Of equal interest are the questions about what aspects of the translation competence FL students would be in most need of, and what would be the most effective way to enhance IM students’ comprehension of L2. The study of

I know languages, therefore, I can translate? 99



these and related issues would certainly prove beneficial for both translation and FL teachers as well as for aspiring translators.

References Primary Sources A Well-locked Closet. The Economist, 27 May 2010. http://www.economist.com/node/16219402. Last accessed 13 January 2013. Menschenrechtsverletzungen: Homophobie in Uganda. Friedrich Naumann Fundation web page, 19 November 2010, http://www.freiheit.org/webcom/show_article_bb.php/_c-617/_ nr-17444/i.html. Last accessed 13 January 2013. Uganda, ucciso in casa attivista gay. Il suo nome su un giornale omofobo, La Stampa, 27 January 2011. http://www.lastampa.it/2011/01/27/esteri/uganda-ucciso-in-casa-attivista-gayilsuo-nome-su-un-giornale-omofobo-tcZRXkn8kvkPi8G0GvrsyH/pagina.html. Last accessed 13 January 2013.

Secondary Sources Angelelli, Claudia V., and Christian Degueldre. 2002. “Bridging the Gap between Language for General Purposes and Language for Work: An Intensive Superior-level Language/ Skill Course for Teachers, Translators, and Interpreters.” In Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency, ed. by Betty Lou Leaver, and Boris Shekhtman, 77–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ​doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606465.005 Atkinson, David. 1987. “The Mother Tongue in the Classroom: A Neglected Resource?” ELT Journal 41 (4): 241–247. ​doi: 10.1093/elt/41.4.241 Baroni, Marco, and Silvia Bernardini. 2006. “A New Approach to the Study of Translationese: Machine Learning the Difference between Original and Translated Texts.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 21 (3): 259–274. ​doi: 10.1093/llc/fqi039 Beeby, Allison. 2000. “Evaluating the Development of Translation Competence.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schäffner, and Beverly Adab, 185–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.38.18bee Bernardini, Silvia. 2004. “The Theory behind the Practice: Translator Training or Translator Education?” In Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 17–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.59.03ber Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt and Co. Butzkamm, Wolfgang. 2003. “We only Learn Language Once. The Role of the Mother Tongue in FL Classrooms: Death of a Dogma.” Language Learning Journal 28: 29–39. ​ doi: 10.1080/09571730385200181

Cao, Deborah. 1996. “On Translation Language Competence.” Babel 42 (4): 231–238. ​ doi: 10.1075/babel.42.4.05cao

Carreres, Angeles. 2006. “Translation and Language Teaching. The Teaching of Translation into L2 in Modern Languages Degrees; Uses and Limitations.” In Sixth Symposium on Translation, Terminology and Interpretation in Cuba and Canada: December 2006, ed. by

100 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon Elisabet Ràfols-Sagués. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council. http://www.cttic.org/publications_06Symposium.asp. Colina, Sonia. 2009. “Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to Translation Quality Evaluation.” Target 21 (2): 235–264. ​doi: 10.1075/target.21.2.02col Cook, Guy. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Di Sabato, Bruna. 2007. “La traduzione e l’apprendimento/insegnamento delle lingue [Translation and Learning/Teaching Languages].” Studi di Glottodidattica 1: 47–57. González Davies, Maria. 2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.54 Göpferich, Susanne. 2009. “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: the Longitudinal Study TransComp.” In Behind the Mind. Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jacobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 11–38. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. He, An E. 2012. “Systematic Use of Mother Tongue as Learning/Teaching Resources in Target Language Instruction.” Multilingual Education 2 (1): 1–15. ​doi: 10.1186/2191-5059-2-1 Hirci, Nataša. 2012. “Electronic Reference Resources for Translators. Implications for Productivity and Translation Quality.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6 (2): 219– 235. ​doi: 10.1080/13556509.2012.10798837 Howatt, Anthony P. R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press. Izumi, Kiwamu. 1995. “Translation-aided Approach in Second Language Acquisition.” JALT Journal 17 (2): 225–237. Källkvist, Marie. 1998. “How Different are the Results of Translation Tasks? A Study of Lexical Errors.” In Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 77–87. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Donald. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Klein-Braley, Christine, and Peter Franklin. 1998. “ ‘The Foreigner in the Refrigerator.’ Remarks about Teaching Translation to University Students of Foreign Languages.” In Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 53– 61. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kocijančič Pokorn, Nike. 2009. “Natives or Non-natives? That Is the Question …: Teachers of Translation into Language B.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (2): 189–208. ​doi: 1 0.1080/1750399X.2009.10798788

Kussmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.10 Lado, Robert. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lang, Margaret F. 1994. “The Problem of Mother Tongue Competence in the Training of Translators.” In Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 395–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ btl.2.46lan

Laviosa, Sara. 1997. “How Comparable can ‘Comparable Corpora’ Be?” Target 9 (2): 289–319. ​ doi: 10.1075/target.9.2.05lav

Lembersky, Gennadi, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2012. “Language Models for Machine Translation: Original vs. Translated Texts.” Computational Linguistics 38 (4): 799–825. ​ doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00111

I know languages, therefore, I can translate? 101



Leonardi, Vanessa. 2010. The Role of Pedagogical Translation in Second Language Acquisition. From Theory to Practice. Bern: Peter Lang. Li, Defeng. 2001. “Language Teaching in Translator Training.” Babel 47 (4): 343–354. ​ doi: 10.1075/babel.47.4.05li

Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed). 1998. Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome. Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schäffner, and Beverly Adab, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.38.03neu Neubert, Albrecht, and Gregory M. Shreve. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Newson, Dennis. 1998. “Translation and Foreign Language Learning.” In Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 63–68. Manchester: St. Jerome. Orlando, Marc. 2011. “Evaluation of Translations in the Training of Professional Translators. At the Crossroads between Theoretical, Professional and Pedagogical Practices.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5 (2): 293–308. ​doi: 10.1080/13556509.2011.10798822 Orozco, Mariana, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2002. “Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition.” Meta 47 (3): 375–402. ​doi: 10.7202/008022ar PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems of a Research Project.” In Investigating Translation, ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris Ensinger, and Marisa Presas, 99–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.32 Popovic, Radmila. 2001. “The Place of Translation in Language Teaching.” Bridges, the Journal of the Thrace-Macedonia Teachers’ Association 5: 3–8. Preložníková, Soňa, and Conrad Toft. 2004. “The Role of Translation Studies within the Framework of Linguistic and Literary Studies.” In Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 83–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/ btl.59.07pre

Pym, Anthony. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach.” Meta 48 (4): 481–497. ​doi: 10.7202/008533ar Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, Bryan J., Clara I. López Rodríguez, and María I. Tercedor Sánchez. 2006. “SelfAssessment in Translator Training.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (2): 115–138. ​ doi: 10.1080/09076760608669025

Schäffner, Christina, and Beverly Adab. 2000. Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.38 Stibbard, Richard. 1998. “The Principled Use of Translation in Foreign Language Teaching.” In Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 69–76. Manchester: St. Jerome. Vintar, Špela. 2013. Slovenski prevodi skozi korpusno prizmo. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. ​doi: 10.4312/slovenski_prevodi Waddington, Christopher. 2001. “Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity.” Meta 46 (2): 331–325. ​doi: 10.7202/004583ar Williams, Malcolm. 2004. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

102 Marija Zlatnar Moe, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Tanja Žigon Witte, Arnd, Theo Harden, and Alessandra Ramos de Oliveira Harden (eds). 2009. Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Bern: Peter Lang. Zlatnar Moe, Marija, and Nina Grahek Križnar. 2012. “Influence of Students’ Ideological Orientation on Target Language Text Production: Analysis of Summaries and Translations of 3rd Year Students.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6 (1): 71–90. ​doi: 10.1080/135 56509.2012.10798830

Appendix Questionnaire Please answer the questions. As you remain anonymous throughout the research, be sure to include everything, even those things that you might consider unimportant or silly. Your answers may be very short, e.g., written as bulleted lists, just titles of volumes and similar. Please hand in your answers with the translation. 1. Study program: 2. Age: 3. How long did it take you to complete your translation? 4. What translation tools did you use (paper or electronic version)? a. Bilingual dictionaries (title and year of publication). b. Monolingual dictionaries (title and year of publication). c. Other linguistic aids (corpora, manuals of style, terminological databases, parallel texts — for printed volumes, write the title and year of publication, for electronic references, give the name and link to the page). d. Other general reference works (Google, Wikipedia, websites of organizations, individuals, newspapers, news websites, lexicons, encyclopaedias, maps … (write the names and links to the pages)). e. Other people (experts in a field, people with experience in the subject matter of the article, fellow students, relatives, more experienced translators, linguists (no names)). For each person, please write how they helped you. f. Anything else that helped you translate the text.

L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting An empirical study María Jesús Blasco Mayor

This study reports findings from an experiment that was conducted to investigate language proficiency as an indicator of future interpreting performance. The initial assumption was that Spanish undergraduate translation and interpreting students had an insufficient command of L2 skills to start interpreter training. We hypothesized that an intensive teaching module on L2 phonology and listening comprehension would improve their academic performance in interpreting. Several tests were used to evaluate participant L2 listening comprehension (TOEFL), L2 reading comprehension (TOEFL), L2 grammar (TOEFL), and L1 verbal fluency (WAIS-III). Only those related to L2 are reported here. A consecutive interpreting test was given at the end of the first interpretation module. The students’ self-perception regarding L2 issues was assessed using two questionnaires and an interview. The results suggest that L2 listening comprehension training aided in consecutive interpreting performance. Language proficiency was also found to correlate with interpreting scores. A base level of L2 proficiency for interpreting training is suggested. We conclude that L2 listening comprehension proficiency has a significant effect on undergraduate students’ interpreting ability and is therefore a suitable predictor for interpreting aptitude. Consequently, L2 listening skills should be included in the interpreting program curriculum, preferably before interpretation classes start. Keywords: interpreter education, L2 proficiency, L2 listening comprehension, action research, consecutive interpreting, aptitude

Introduction Source language mastery may seem to be a commonsense prerequisite for interpreting. However, with the exception of Angelelli’s (2007, 2008) longitudinal,

doi 10.1075/bct.90.06bla 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

104 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

ethnographic study on language proficiency and interpreting skills in the medical setting, little research has investigated what exactly is meant by mastery of the source language as it relates to conference interpreting. Valdés and Angelelli (2003: 60) describe this relative dearth of investigation: “…interpreting has seldom been studied from the perspective of social interaction … or from the perspective of the development or acquisition of interpreting competencies.” Yet, some interpreter educators have long recognized language competence as a hurdle for interpreting students that can, at times, seriously hinder their progress in interpreting classes. Shaw, Grbič, and Franklin (2004: 74) note this challenge from years of classroom observation: We have seen through classroom observations that the transition from foreign language acquisition to interpreter training is marked by difficulties. Although adequate active and passive language command is agreed upon as fundamental for starting interpreting classes, in reality, interpreter educators may not find such ideal conditions.

The reason for this observed difficulty may be that many interpreting students are not early or true bilinguals (Thiery 1975), but rather are second language learners. As Williams (1995: 48) suggests: “[a]lthough interpreters are obviously highly proficient in their languages, many have learned their second and third languages after early childhood and must consequently be regarded as late bilinguals.”1 If we accept Williams’ assertion that many of these students are in fact late bilinguals, the question arises as to what source language competence is minimally required for students to acquire interpreting competences. Unfortunately, to date no studies explicitly describe specific levels of interpreting that are attainable through interpreter education. Shaw et al. (2004: 73) also note this lacuna in the literature: “Although the literature on pedagogical issues is gaining ground, there are few empirical studies exploring the progression of student performance in class.” For the purpose of this paper, then, it will be assumed that basic non-professional interpreting competence at the undergraduate level comprises different skills, among which are bilingual language and cultural competence. These skills are assumed to be a prerequisite to the acquisition of full, near-professional interpreting competence. Full professional competence or expert knowledge can only be acquired after training and professional practice (Muñoz Martín 2007: XII). This issue is compounded if we consider that university translation and interpreting (TI) programs do not always take into consideration language competence as part of admissions criteria. Some M.A.-level interpreter training programs do 1.  The participants in the present study were all late bilinguals, and therefore the literature cited is drawn from research on late bilingualism and L2 acquisition.



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 105

select highly competent individuals with superior skills in at least two of their working languages; however, most undergraduate do not select candidates following the same admission criteria. These requirements are highly variable according to each country’s particular university entrance requirements. Typically, these tend to be completion of secondary education and passing a general university entry exam. Such is the case of most TI programs in Spain, including Universitat Jaume I, where this study was conducted. Students begin studying consecutive interpreting in their third year and subsequently simultaneous interpreting in the second term.2

Research rationale This research project arises as the result of intuition developed during daily professional practice. After years of teaching consecutive interpreting to third year students, it became apparent that many students encounter problems understanding the source language, which seems to negatively influence their interpreting performance.3 Conference interpreting literature provides little guidance in this regard, since most of the scholarship insists on the need for mastery of the working languages prior to the start of interpreter education (e.g., Gile 1995: 213; Humphrey and Alcorn 2001: 50; Kalina 1998: 269; Seleskovitch and Lederer 1989, cited in Shaw et al. 2004: 70). How, then, should teachers address the issue of lower source language proficiency in the classroom? The root of the problem seemed to be a deficient, aural foreign language comprehension skill in most students, including those students who have performed well in translation and English language courses within the TI program. An experiment was designed to determine whether students’ L2 listening comprehension skill affects consecutive interpreting performance. Other language sub-skills such as L2 grammar, L2 reading comprehension, and L1 verbal fluency were also examined in order to reveal if they were related to L2 listening comprehension and/or to the interpreting task. Moreover, results from this study might at least partially explain impaired performance in the interpreting task. We hypothesize that L2 proficiency does not affect L1 fluency or vice-versa; instead, it was expected that both L2 and L1 sub-skills influence consecutive interpreting 2.  The term consecutive interpreting occasionally is used interchangeably with terms such as liaison interpreting or bilateral interpreting. Within the context of this paper, consecutive interpreting will be understood to be interpreting of 3–4 minute monologues or speeches, often used in conference interpreting settings. 3.  The students’ language combination is English into Spanish.

106 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

performance. A L2 listening comprehension training module was designed to see if targeted instruction in an experimental group improves interpreting performance. We base this study on literature drawn from research on bilingualism, psycholinguistics, and applied linguistics — empirical research in these areas can be useful to operationalize our object of study. Several interpreting scholars, such as Williams (1994, 1995) and Takeda (2010), have advocated to explore these disciplines to investigate specific issues related to language proficiency. As Takeda (2010: 44–45) suggests: […] interpreting teachers have generally emphasized that interpreter training is not about language teaching (e.g. Seleskovitch 1999, Mackintosh 1999, Gile 2005, Donovan 2006) and perhaps have not paid much attention to research findings in the studies of bilingualism or second language acquisition (SLA). It should be reminded [sic] that collaboration with SLA experts who are interested in interpreter training (e.g. Zannirato 2008) could lead to a deeper understanding of issues specific to ‘early bilingual’ or ‘heritage language’ students, and to the discovery of effective teaching methods for those students who need special language enhancement.

L2 proficiency and interpreting Moser-Mercer, Lambert, Darò, and Williams (1997: 147) suggest that comprehension during the interpreting task should be studied within specific frameworks, such as general information processing, quality control, and as a component of interpreter training. However, comprehension as an interpreting sub-skill, or as a component of a complex task (as advocated by De Groot [2000]), did not become the focus of research until recently (see Blasco Mayor 2007a, 2007b for empirical research; Padilla, Bajo, and Macizo 2007 for a theoretical standpoint based on results in psycholinguistics). Likewise, there is a scarcity of research regarding L2 proficiency and interpreter education. Therefore, an interdisciplinary, theoretical approach is required and evidence from other scholarly fields was sought that could be applied to interpreter pedagogy. Several disciplines, such as cognitive psychology and applied linguistics, naturally lend themselves to research on interpreting and this particular sub-skill. Consequently, research in psycholinguistics and second language acquisition are used to operationalize the variables included in this study. Psycholinguistics addresses language processing and bilingualism, and research in this area suggests that language proficiency, cognitive development, and experience are related. For example, Bartolotti and Marian (2012) demonstrate



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 107

that proficiency level and cognitive development are related. Blumenfeld and Marian (2007) indicate that language proficiency influences the extent of bilingual language activation. More specifically, these authors find that a high proficiency language is always activated while processing both cognate and non-cognate words, whereas a less proficient language is not always activated. As the authors note: Results have implications for the organization and processing dynamics of the bilingual lexicon, and suggest that cognates may be linked to between-language cohorts via translation equivalents. Results support high interactivity between languages during bilingual auditory word comprehension. (Blumenfeld and Marian 2007: 657–8)

Moreover, Blumenfeld and Marian (2011) indicate that cognitive control mechanisms can be shaped by linguistic experience. Cognitive control, also known as executive function, refers to the management of cognitive processes, which include working memory, problem solving, planning, and execution among others (Chan, Shum, Toulopoulou, and Chen 2007). The executive system is thought to be heavily involved in handling novel situations outside the domain of some of our ‘automatic’ psychological processes that can be explained by the reproduction of learned schemas or set behaviors. According to Norman and Shallice (2000), there are several types of situations in which routine activation of behavior would not be sufficient for optimal performance, including those that involve planning, decision making, error correction, troubleshooting, novel sequences, and technically difficult situations, among others. All of these strategic behaviors can be assumed to be part of the interpreter’s task. In additon, when language processing demands are high, more executive control is demanded, and better cognitive control is associated with better linguistic performance (Christoffels, de Groot, and Kroll 2006; Blumenfeld and Marian 2011). In recent neuropsychological research that investigates the neural substrates of executive control in interpreters (Hervais-Adelman, Moser-Mercer, and Golestani 2011), bilinguals’ superior cognitive control, greater cognitive flexibility, and working memory were the starting assumptions. Since interpreting involves a great deal of decision making, error correction, troubleshooting, and novel situations, and can be characterized by high language processing demands, it can be hypothesized that an individual’s cognitive control should be highly developed in order to perform the interpreting task. In other words, cognitive control and interpreting performance are interrelated. From a cognitive perspective, interpreting involves more than a large working memory capacity:

108 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

[…] expert interpreters, as a way to circumvent limits of working memory resources, are selective in terms of what to interpret and what not to interpret. This is consistent with what every experienced interpreter knows, i.e. that the skill involves constant judgement and selection, not a mere transposition from one language to the other. (Liu, Schallert, and Carroll 2004: 39)

Problems in comprehension A major obstacle in L2 processing and comprehension is the different sounds and prosodic patterns between languages. This is because we learn to listen early in life. L1 prosodic patterns, which we use to decode everything we hear, are deeply rooted in our auditory system (Cutler 2000/01). Listening comprehension subprocesses are mostly language-specific: native speakers apply different procedures when segmenting language, exploiting their mother tongue’s phonological patterns. According to Cutler (2000/01:7), the prosodic structure of the L1 affects how learners perceive and segment speech in their L2, in particular when the L1 and L2 differ in terms of prosodic structure, as is the case of Spanish and English: Rhythmic effects in the segmentation of speech have indeed been demonstrated in languages differing from English and Dutch in phonological structure — that is, in languages without stress-based metrical structure. The rhythmic structure of French and Spanish is syllable-based, and evidence of syllabically based segmentation was produced … Evidence of syllabic segmentation is provided for instance by more rapid detection of targets which correspond exactly to a syllable than of targets which are larger or smaller than a syllable.

In order to enhance decoding and, by extension, comprehension, specific training should be administered to aid those L2 learners — and, as Cutler argues, especially interpreter trainees — whose L1 does not share the same prosodic patterns as those of the L2. In order to comprehend well, Cutler contends, L2 learners need the same phonological processing ability as that of a native speaker. These findings align well with the complex task approach advocated by de Groot (2000), in which interpreting is made up of subtasks. In this way, training each subtask will lead to final task improvement. Frauenfelder and Schriefers (1997) also advocate for decomposition and research on every component of the interpreting task. Research on cognitive processing in second language acquisition (SLA) can also be particularly revealing since many interpreters and interpreting students are not early bilinguals, but rather are mostly second language learners with varying degrees of language proficiency (Williams 1995; Blasco Mayor 2007a: 67). Ellis (2001) supports a constructivist view of language acquisition, whereby learners



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 109

acquire language through subconscious and implicit processes of sequential information analysis. For example, vocabulary learning would include several processes, such as recognizing sound patterns and word sequences. Ellis quotes Melton (1963), who showed that the more digits are repeated in short-term memory, the deeper the long-term memory trace for those elements. Therefore, repetition of sequences in short-term phonological memory reinforces those sequences in long-term memory. Consequently, the same cognitive system used to remember phonological sequences in long-term memory improves their perception (Ellis 2001: 42). This model can be applied to interpreting in that new acoustic input is perceived by the interpreter. However, novice or less proficient interpreters need to pay attention to more sequences in order to process language due precisely to its lack of familiarity or a lack of automaticity (Blasco Mayor 2007b). Similarly, Schmidt (1992, 2001), DeKeyser (2001), and MacWhinney (2001) support language acquisition through wide exposure to practice and repetition, as in autonomous practice in a language laboratory, when the social context does not offer opportunities for practice (MacWhinney 2001). In light of the previously discussed literature, several conclusions can be drawn. First, comprehension is a phase in interpreting according to several processing models, and as such, it is coordinated by a cognitive control mechanism that develops with practice. Second, conference interpreters are often perceived as early or true bilinguals, but this is not necessarily the case of students at undergraduate level. Instead, students are typically non-fluent bilinguals who exhibit gaps in their L2 development that affect their interpreter education. According to Cutler (2000/01:9), it is clear that L2 listening requires a degree of phonological processing similar to that of a native speaker. L2 aural comprehension is often not at a native level of development for interpreter trainees (Shaw et al. 2004; Blasco Mayor 2007a). Therefore, a greater emphasis should be made in interpreting programs so that students can begin to automatize the sub-skill. Lastly, interpreting performance could be enhanced by L2 listening comprehension intensive training (Cutler 2000/01; Pérez Basanta 2000a, 2000b).

Interpreting as process Recent research on different simultaneous interpreting process components has shed some light on how these components affect or are affected by the interpreting process. For example, interpreting expertise has been demonstrated to develop comprehension skills (de Groot 2000; Padilla 2000; Liu, Shallert, and Carroll 2004). L2 working memory and direct translation skills can be predictors of performance

110 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

in simultaneous interpreting tasks (Christoffels, de Groot, and Waldorp 2003). Likewise, these skills have been shown to differ across populations. Bilingual individuals, for example, can in fact interpret, yet their ability to do so is different from that of professionals (Angelelli 2007, 2008, 2011; Borrero 2006; Muñoz Martín 2011; Valdés et al. 2000, 2003; Christoffels, de Groot, and Waldorp 2003; Harris and Sherwood 1978). External factors, such as stress, have also been demonstrated to reduce L2 processing ability (Williams 1995). If we consider the comprehension sub-skill of interpreting, even more specifically the decoding phase of L2 listening comprehension, several problems can be identified (Pavón and Rosado 2003; Cutler 2000/1; Flowerdew 1994; Leaver and Shekhtman 2002; Angelelli and Degueldre 2002): – Good listening ability is a prerequisite for comprehension. – Coarticulation and phonetic variability can create significant challenges for the L2 learner trying to decode and comprehend aural input. – L1 phonological system interferes with L2 processing: novice L2 learners use their L1 system to decode the L2 aural input (Cutler 2000/01). – The prosodic structures of English and Spanish differ significantly. English is stress-timed, while Spanish is syllable-timed (Hualde 2005: 272; Quilis 1993; Navarro Tomás 1977). This affects how learners perceive and segment speech in their L2 (Cutler 2000/01). – Spanish native speakers need specific English L2 phonological training. – Interpreters suffer from semantic overload due to the fact that the interpreter is not part of the target audience. The conclusions outlined here clearly demonstrate the importance of the comprehension sub-skill of interpreting, and highlight the challenges inherent to developing interpreting competence in students or novice interpreters. Thus, it seems to follow that interpreters require a C2 level of language proficiency — a level that is often lacking in undergraduate interpreting programs.

The current study This study investigates whether specific, L2 listening comprehension instruction can improve outcomes in interpreting education. Moreover, we investigate the relationship among different language skills in order to define a profile specific to L2 proficiency for interpreting students. The study also considers the students’ perception of the training they received and their own notion of their L2 training needs. More specifically, the focus was on the role of an interpreting sub-skill that is considered to be a prerequisite for any interpreting modality: listening



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 111

comprehension. We hypothesize that specific L2 listening comprehension instruction improves interpreter education. Additionally, L2 sub-skills that had not been included in previous studies were also investigated, such as listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and grammar, as well as their relationship to interpreting performance. An L2 listening comprehension post-task questionnaire was also included in order to better understand the following: a formative profile of interpreting students; their perception of the training; and what they perceive as necessary to develop as an interpreter. The following assumptions are the working hypotheses addressed in this study: 1. Written L2 skills are superior to L2 oral skills in interpreting students. 2. Various L2 proficiencies correlate with interpreting performance. 3. L2 listening comprehension is one of the main causes of poor performance in interpreting courses. 4. L2 listening comprehension skills are not related to L2 reading comprehension skills, but rather to listening comprehension time-on-task. 5. Subjects generally lack self-motivation to develop L2 listening comprehension skills outside of the classroom. 6. An intensive training module specific to developing L2 listening comprehension skills will improve results in interpreting exams.

Method Action research (Dewey 1929; later developed by Lewin 1946) was used in this study. This method is most appropriate given that it was designed by and for educators in an effort to investigate and solve teaching problems they encounter on a daily basis. Action research differs from traditional research methodology; its focus is to study a specific situation rather than attempting to control every variable experimentally. A main objective of action research is to communicate results to the greater teaching community in order to build a pedagogical approach that is accessible to other educators (Stenhouse 1979, cited in Cohen and Manion 1990: 272). Authors such as Colás and Buendía (1998: 294) insist on the scientific nature of the procedure since: (1) it shares the objectives of any kind of research: description, explanation, understanding and control; and (2) it is systematic and follows the main steps of the scientific method. Consequently, we adopt these steps — a description of a problem and hypothesis to solve it; an action plan to test the hypothesis; data analysis; conclusions; and evaluation of action in relation to the

112 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

desired target — to investigate L2 language comprehension and its relationship to interpreting performance.

Participants The study was conducted at a university that typically has its translation and interpreting degree ranked among the top three in Spain.4 The researcher lectured on consecutive interpreting, which is the first interpreting course that students take in the degree. At the time of the study, applicants to the program were required to take a series of tests as part of the admissions process to the Translation and Interpreting program. These included an English test equivalent to Cambridge’s First Certificate. Prior to the consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modules in the third year, students needed to have taken two English-for-translators modules that altogether comprise 180 teaching hours. The participants were students starting their third year in the B.A. program who had enrolled in the Consecutive Interpreting I English-Spanish module in the academic year 2003–2004. The study was integrated in the curriculum and therefore participants did not self-select to take part in the study. The average age of participants was 20 and all participants were Spanish nationals. In total, fifty (50) students participated in the study and were included if: they were between the ages of 20 and 24; were not an early bilingual; did not have previous interpreting experience in either academic or professional settings; had studied English as a foreign language in their secondary education; and were enrolled for the first time in the course.

Tests All participants were administered a pre-test to ensure they met the previously mentioned criteria. Students were divided evenly into two groups, using alphabetical order of last names.

Sociolinguistic profile questionnaire All subjects were administered a sociolinguistic questionnaire in order to better understand the experimental results. This also provides information on their degree of motivation to develop L2 oral (listening and speaking) skills. 4.  This yearly ranking is made by El Mundo, a Spanish daily newspaper.

L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 113



L2 listening comprehension test (TOEFL) For the L2 listening comprehension test, the TOEFL was chosen. The decision to use this test is in light of its graduated scoring method — a feature other tests typically lack, such as the First Certificate. To begin the degree, students had usually taken an English language test equivalent to First Certificate (B2), plus 180 hours of English language instruction prior to taking the TOEFL. Consequently, a higher degree of proficiency might be expected. The TOEFL paper test was used since the Internet version was not available at the time. The TOEFL is a general language test that indicates proficiency levels ranging from intermediate to advanced, similar to that of B1, B2, and C1 described by the Council of Europe. The exam provides both an overall score as well as the individual scores for each of the exam sections. This test was also used to determine the L2 proficiency level of this particular sample and as a way to describe the L2 listening comprehension skills. TOEFL’s listening comprehension section has three parts with 50 questions in total: 30 in part A, 7–9 in part B, and 11–13 in part C. According to the examiners, no specialized knowledge is required to understand these texts, which have been drawn from everyday life in the United States, such as dialogues in schools, banks, shops, and parks. The section tests candidates in their performance of the following subtasks (Hinkel 1998): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Understanding idioms, hedging and phrasal verbs. Understanding implicit meaning. Answering questions about the specific content of a brief speech. Interpreting stress, accent and intonation. Discriminating sounds.

Interpreting test A consecutive interpreting test was administered after completion of the training module. Students were asked to interpret a 3–4 minute long speech in the consecutive mode about one of the topics they had interpreted over the semester.

Post-L2 intensive training interview The experimental group (group A) participated in an intensive and autonomous L2 listening comprehension module. Further details on this module are described later in this article. After the module, three subjects were randomly selected to be interviewed. Qualitative data about their perception of the intensive training module and its usefulness was collected to triangulate results with those obtained during the experiment.

114 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

Materials The contents of the intensive training module contained two sub-modules.5 The module included first phonological training (Hewings 1993), and then listening comprehension training in increasing levels of difficulty from B2 to C2. The second part of the module included skills related to lexical access, syntactic structures, discourse features, skimming, and scanning. Cambridge University Press’ preparation materials for First Certificate in English, Certificate of Advanced English, and Proficiency in English were used. These materials were assigned as autonomous work in the interpreting lab for approximately about two hours each week. Answer keys for the exercises were provided so that participants could evaluate their own work. Pronunciation exercises were recorded in individual digital folders and saved for evaluation.

Length of training The L2 listening training module lasted an entire semester (15 weeks) and was completed concurrently with the consecutive interpreting module. The suggested amount of work for students to complete was 5–6 pronunciation units and 1 comprehension test per session. The module was self-paced. At the end of the semester, participants had completed 65 pronunciation units and 12 listening comprehension tests.

Procedures and equipment All tests were administered in a Tandberg Educational digital interpreting laboratory. Participants that were not excluded based on the results of the pre-test were given the sociolinguistic questionnaire. The highest L2 proficiency was B2. Only 10 participants, evenly distributed in the two groups, confirmed having obtained a First Certificate diploma. The two groups both followed the consecutive interpreting course syllabus. The syllabus was designed to develop interpreting sub-skills such as L2 listening comprehension, L1 speaking, public speaking, skimming, scanning, summarizing, note-taking, and memory. Moreover, the instructional design aims to develop the students’ ability to perform the final task of consecutive interpreting both with and without notes. To achieve this outcome, controlled 5.  The author would like to acknowledge the advice provided by Anne Cutler (Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Netherlands) and Carmen Pérez Basanta (University of Granada, Spain) during the development of this module.



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 115

practice in the lab is regularly employed. The course syllabus included group work that consisted of a weekly group meeting to practice the skills learned in class that week. In group A (the experimental group), the intensive L2 listening comprehension training module described above substituted the typical weekly task. In all tests, participants names were anonymized. Students were informed that their participation in the study would allow them to receive confidential assessments of their linguistic skills in both working languages.

Results and discussion Qualitative data analysis Sociolinguistic questionnaire Several of the questions included in the questionnaire were used to identify specific variables that might have an impact on the results of the study, such as mature students, subjects highly proficient in their L2, and native English-speaking students. Here, several of the questionnaire items are discussed to provide a better idea of the participants’ contact with their L2. To determine whether participants had any significant experience abroad, students were asked to report if they had visited an English-speaking country and for how long if they had. Thirty percent (30%) of participants report having done so for less than three months, while slightly over 30% of subjects indicate that they had never been to an English-speaking country. Only 2–3% stayed over a year. One can assume that most students stayed for relatively short periods, and may have done so for holidays or language courses, but most students had not been in an immersive English-speaking environment. Almost eighty percent (80%) of participants reported not reading the news in English. This figure might be indicative that participants were not regularly exposed to written, journalistic prose in English, and by extension could lack some background linguistic and conceptual knowledge related to daily issues and international affairs. This type of information is arguably essential for L2 comprehension, particularly within the realm of conference interpreting. Participants were also asked if they normally watch or listen to radio or television programs in English. Over 60% attested that they did not watch TV or listen to the radio in English. Of the 40% that report this activity, most cite television channels such as MTV and Sport News. In contrast, news channels such as CNN, Sky News, or BBC World are rarely mentioned. Similar to the previously reported item, we might assume that participants were not regularly exposed to L2 input related to topics that would potentially be beneficial in the context of conference

116 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

interpreting. Instead, participant exposure to L2 aural input is possibly limited to other domains.

L2 listening comprehension post-module questionnaire Administration of this post-task questionnaire aimed at obtaining data about the subjects’ perception of the listening comprehension module they had completed. The questionnaire also investigated participants’ evaluation of their own learning abilities and how difficult they found the L2 listening comprehension module to be. Full results of the questionnaire are not reported in this article, but a few illustrative examples related to L2 comprehension will be discussed below. Almost half (27 out of 49) of the subjects felt they were prepared to perform the L2 listening comprehension task. Most respondents stated that the problems encountered were the result of a lack of attention resources or difficulty attending to the task. Participants also mentioned factors such as memory, sound quality and too much information, followed closely by articulation rate. Participants demonstrated over-confidence in comprehension of the source language, rating their level of comprehension to be between 60–80%. This appears to be an overestimation, given that native speakers are known to find listening a burdening task, with comprehension percentages ranging between 60 and 80% when they listen, if not lower (see e.g., Brown and Yule 1983; Purdy 1996; Wolvin 2010). When participants were presented with a forced-rank item to investigate the relative perception of other L2 sub-skills, reading comprehension was ranked first as their most developed L2 skill. Grammar and vocabulary then followed in the second and third position. Participants, on the whole, ranked oral sub-skills (comprehension and speaking) last. When asked how important was L2 listening comprehension for interpreting from 1–100%, most subjects chose between 90% and 95%. Figure 1 shows the

Table 1.  L2 skill development L2 Skill Development Listening Comprehension Reading Comprehension Writing Speaking Grammar Vocabulary Total

1st Option    0.0%   52.0%    6.0%    6.0%   22.0%   14.0% 100%

2nd Option    4.0%   26.0%   22.0%   12.0%   24.0%   12.0% 100%

3rd Option    6.0%   20.0%   24.0%    6.0%   22.0%   22.0% 100%

4th Option   18.0%    4.0%   24.0%   14.0%   16.0%   24.0% 100%

5th Option   30.0%    4.0%   12.0%   28.0%   12.0%   14.0% 100%

6th Option   28.0%    2.0%   14.0%   38.0%    4.0%   14.0% 100%

L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 117



Perceived importance of L2 comprehension 45 40 Number of responses

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50

60

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Percentage

Figure 1.  Perceived importance of L2 comprehension for interpreting

number of responses provided by participants when ranking the importance of L2 comprehension as a percentage. An overwhelming 96% of respondents stated that L2 listening comprehension instruction needed to be incorporated into the curriculum. In an open-ended response item, they offered suggestions for curriculum design such as specific listening comprehension modules, smaller oral skills groups, and introductionto-interpreting modules. Data show students are concerned about their L2 skills and progression within their studies. Student responses raise curriculum design issues, such as English-training modules, that are directly related to their future as professionals.

Post-intensive training interview After the experimental group had finished their L2 listening comprehension intensive training, three students that had passed their consecutive interpreting test (one of them with honors) were selected for a guided interview. Two students would have liked a longer L2 listening comprehension training module that was introduced earlier in their studies, although these students ranked the module on a 10-point scale as a 7 and 9. They did not see themselves as ever working as professional interpreters, but L2 comprehension instruction helped them pass the interpreting module. Moreover, these students reported being able to do things that they could not do prior to the module, such as multitasking while listening to a L2

118 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

text. Specifically, participant 2 said that before completing the module, she had to stop everything she was doing in order to pay full attention to L2 listening in order to understand. The third participant was an advanced L2 learner, and even though he appreciated the training module, more challenging materials (authentic recordings, different accents, fast speech, etc.) would have been more useful.

Quantitative data analysis The TOEFL exam was used to measure L2 proficiency of all participants. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. These results are whole-group results (50 participants). Mean scores for each TOEFL section indicate that results for the listening comprehension subtest (37.80) are much lower than those obtained for reading comprehension (51.90). Grammar section scores (33.78) showed the lowest results. Overall TOEFL scores (M = 412.33) obtained by participants are significantly lower than the minimum asked for entry by American universities to foreign students (550–600).6 If, as Flowerdew (1994) demonstrates, foreign students with a 600 TOEFL score have serious problems to follow lectures, it can be assumed that interpreting students would need significantly higher scores to be able to handle the challenges inherent in interpreting tasks. Table 2.  TOEFL results, by section and total

Mean Median Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

TOEFL sub-tests Listening Comprehension 37.80 38.00   3.25 29.00 43.00

Grammar 33.78 33.50   1.90 30.00 39.00

Reading Comprehension 51.90 52.00   2.43 45.00 57.00

Total 412.33 413.33 181.11 373.33 450.00

A t-test was conducted between the experimental and control groups, and no statistically significant result is found at an alpha level of .05. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that either group had an advantage or disadvantage regarding L2 listening comprehension skill.

6.  The TOEFL exam used in this study is the paper-based format; the new TOEFL test uses a different scoring system.



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 119

Consecutive interpreting test results The consecutive interpreting test was scored on a 10-point scale. The mean obtained by the experimental group (7.1) is significantly higher, t(48) = 4.673, p  408) shows the opposite result. More students in the experimental group (16) were above the established threshold than the control group (13); however, the control group students boast a slightly higher mean (424.1) than the experimental group (423.9). If we consider the consecutive interpreting results using the previously discussed division, the experimental group for participants scoring less than 408 on the TOEFL obtained a 6.66 mean, whereas the control group scores do not reach a passing score of 5 and instead show a mean of 4.62. In contrast, the upper 7.  For a more complete set of exam comparisons, see http://secure.vec.bc.ca/toefl-equivalencytable.cfm.

120 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

half ( > 408) group that did receive L2 comprehension instruction scored higher (M = 7.34, SD = 1.89) than that of the control group (M = 5.15, SD = 1.89). The differences between the lower and upper groups with regard to their improvement on their final interpreting score allow us to conclude that both groups demonstrated similar improvement. If, however, we consider these scores in light of the participants’ initial scores, we might assume that the upper half of the experimental group most benefited from the intensive listening treatment — this group started with lower scores and achieved the most improvement. It should be noted that this difference was not statistically significant; however, these results trend toward increased performance. Table 3.  Final consecutive interpreting task means Groups   Lower (below 408)   Upper (above 408)

n  9 14

Mean 6.67 7.32

SD 1.25 1.54

When comparing the upper and lower groups, it can be observed that in order for the intensive L2 comprehension instruction to be beneficial, participants need to have reached a specific level of English-language proficiency. This level was not achieved by the lower group, and consequently the instruction did not prove to be beneficial. This minimum level is demonstrated by the group that had a TOEFL score that was above 408 — below this level students were unable to attain the learning and instructional outcomes of the class. Therefore, students whose scores were below a 408 TOEFL score appear to need a different type of instruction prior to interpreting such that the presented L2 comprehension module would be beneficial. As a result, students interested in enrolling in consecutive interpreting programs — or indeed any interpreting course — should have reached an English level of proficiency above a 408 TOEFL score.

Triangulation The present study employs several methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. These data sets are complementary, and help elucidate several patterns. First, observational data in class reveals a recurring problem in interpreting students — L2 comprehension when interpreting is difficult for students. Nevertheless, questionnaire data suggest that students display low motivation to develop L2 oral skills. Moreover, the data obtained from the L2 listening-comprehension post-task questionnaire point to a clear picture of the students’ perception of their L2 development. Specifically, their self-assessment is that overall their oral skills are much lower than that of their writing skills and that they overestimate



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 121

their L2 listening-comprehension skill. In light of this confidence in L2 ability, students perceive L2 comprehension as very important for interpreting and are aware that L2 listening requires specialized training that should be included in the curriculum. The post-listening training interviews indicate an appreciation for the intensive listening comprehension instruction, and they are aware of its benefits not only for the interpreting modules, but also in their general L2 development. This is particularly evident in their comments that they would have hoped to receive this training earlier in the curriculum, from the first year in the program. If these qualitative data are interpreted along with the quantitative data obtained from all tests the subjects performed, the higher scores in consecutive interpreting in the experimental group match their perception that the listening training had a beneficial effect on the final consecutive interpreting task results. While participants demonstrate insufficient skill in L2 listening-comprehension skills, the students are aware of this shortcoming and the insufficient instruction in listening skills. Moreover, the higher scores on reading comprehension scores helps demonstrate that training in this particular skill is effective. The fact that the grammar section scores were the lowest does not coincide with the students’ perception that they have received the most training in this particular skill. This discord suggests that grammar plays a central role in the listening comprehension skill and should therefore be highlighted in any L2 listening-comprehension training. Lastly, subjects who participated in the listening training module passed the interpreting test with better scores than those who did not receive it. Most of the quantitative data collected are statistically significant, which lend support to our original hypothesis that L2 listening-comprehension training module exerted a positive influence on the interpreting skills of subjects in the experimental group. Likewise, these results align with subjective data provided expressed by the subjects that took part in the study.

Discussion and conclusions In the cognitive sciences there is considerable evidence of the componential nature of complex tasks, and that specific instruction in sub-skills is transferred to the final task itself. This study has shown that targeted instruction in an L2 listening comprehension sub-skill is of benefit to novice interpreters. In this particular context, students’ consecutive interpreting scores improved after participating in an L2 listening comprehension module. In light of the results that suggest specific sub-skill instruction is beneficial to interpreting performance, the present research study may be of use when

122 María Jesús Blasco Mayor

designing or revising interpreting curricula to achieve higher outcomes. Many interpreting programs are working with students who have not yet developed the necessary or basic skills to interpret. As a consequence, the recommendation may be to introduce interpreting later in the curriculum, or that students be tested for their L2 proficiency prior to enrollment in the interpreting module. An L2 listening comprehension module should be introduced prior to interpreting since its inclusion proved beneficial in this context. This training should consist of phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and spoken discourse recognition patterns, among other speech features and sub-skills. Interpreting training programs curricula should be based on empirical evidence and results obtained from studies and action research in order to be efficient and effective. The suggestion is, therefore, to revise interpreter education practices, identify gaps, and to set realistic learning objectives and outcomes, among which are the following (Blasco Mayor 2007a): – Include L2 listening comprehension elements such as phonological recognition, lexical, sentence, and discourse recognition, plus interpreting elements such as noise, speed, non-native accents, and multitasking. – Since the effort exerted during L2 aural comprehension is greater than that of L1 speaking, more time and resources should be devoted to the development of the comprehension sub-skill. – Schematic knowledge such as general culture, L2 culture, and specialist knowledge are essential for comprehension and interpreting, so these should be included as well. It is also worth noting that the validated L2 tests can serve as predictors of interpreting ability, and may therefore be used to screen potential candidates for interpreting modules. Consequently, the results obtained in this study suggest that students should have attained a B1+ language proficiency level prior to beginning interpreting, as results do not indicate any benefit from any L2 listening or interpreting instruction below that level. Additional emphasis should be placed on second language acquisition (SLA) research and its relationship to interpreting. One impediment to comprehension that is often raised by participants is lack of attention. It is possible that this lack of attentional resources originates from deficient skill automaticity, which might be more specifically described as L2 aural processing. Further research should focus on the causes of this lack of attention, a term that participants use to express speech processing difficulties that could be caused by insufficient proficiency in L2 perceptual phonology, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse markers, on the one hand, and L2 listening strategies such as skimming and scanning on the other. These sub-skills are all necessary micro-skills for L2 comprehension. Another issue that merits further research is the development of comprehension strategies



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 123

from co-textual clues and inferences, which require more attentional resources. Attention and memory are complex capacities that correlate with IQ, verbal fluency, and processing speed (Conway et al. 2002), and their relationship to interpreting performance must also be investigated. Results from qualitative research suggest that the expectations of students with weak English proficiency ought to be lowered, and that perhaps basic language skills should be developed before, and not in parallel, to interpreting training. This belief runs counter to the traditions of most European training programs, where the ability to translate and/or interpret is often assumed to be related to, but not dependent on, language command. Evidence of this tradition takes the form of concurrent translation and interpreting classes and workshops and language classes, particularly in their second foreign languages. Moreover, specialized L2 courses for interpreting modules should be designed that promote L2 proficiency and skill automatization, such as in the case of languages for professional purposes — these start from a B1+ language proficiency level and combine language progress with specific traits of the field of expertise in which the language is to be used. This is the case in language for the professions texts that have been developed by a well-known English as a Foreign Language publisher, Cambridge University Press. Such an approach has been discussed in the literature on interaction between L2 and interpreting skills (e.g., Angelelli and Degueldre 2002; Angelelli 2012). More effort should be devoted to initiatives that develop L2 language skills for interpreting gradually, from an intermediate to a superior level of the language. L2 proficiency development is undoubtedly the cornerstone of interpreter education, and success in any interpreting program heavily depends on its integration into the curriculum.

Acknowledgements The author wishes to acknowledge the generosity of Dr. Ricardo Muñoz Martín, from the School of Translation and Interpreting at the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, who revised parts of this article.

References Angelelli, Claudia. 2012. “De proficiencia lingüística para la comunicación a proficiencia lingüística para el trabajo profesional: El caso de estudiantes de postgrado en español, francés e inglés. Lecciones aprendidas” [From linguistic proficiency for communication to linguistic proficiency for professional work: The case of post-graduate students in Spanish, French, and English. Lessons Learned]. Workshop at Project Niveles de lengua según el

124 María Jesús Blasco Mayor MCERL y excelencia en las asignaturas de lenguas extranjeras del Grado en Traducción e Interpretación. Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. Angelelli, Claudia. 2011. “Expanding the Abilities of Bilingual Youngsters: Can Translation and Interpreting help?” In Interpreting Naturally. A Tribute to Brian Harris, ed. by María Jesús Blasco Mayor, and Amparo Jiménez Ivars, 103–123. Bern: Peter Lang. Angelelli, Claudia. 2008. “Longitudinal Studies and the Development of Assessment for Advanced Competencies.” In The Longitudinal Study of L2 Advanced Capacities, ed. by Lourdes Ortega, and Heidi Byrnes, 264–278. New York: Routledge. Angelelli, Claudia. 2007. “Accommodating the Need for Medical Interpreters: The California Endowment Interpreter Testing Project.” The Translator 13 (1): 63–82.  d ​ oi: 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799229 Angelelli, Claudia, and Christian Degueldre. 2002. “Bridging the Gap between Language for General Purposes and Language for Work: An Intensive Superior-level Language/ skill Course for Teachers, Translators, and Interpreters.” In Developing Professional-level Language Proficiency, ed. by Betty L. Leaver, and Boris Shekhtman, 77–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ​doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606465.005 Bajo, María T., Francisca Padilla, and Presentación Padilla. 2000. “Comprehension Processes in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Translation in Context, ed. by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier, 127–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​ doi: 10.1075/btl.39.15baj

Bartolotti, James, and Viorica Marian. 2012. “Language Learning and Control in Monolinguals and Bilinguals.” Cognitive Science 36 (6): 1129–1147. ​doi: 10.1111/j.1551–6709.2012.01243.x Blasco Mayor, María Jesús. 2007a. La comprensión oral en el desarrollo de la pericia de la interpretación de conferencias [Oral comprehension in the development of expertise in conference interpreting]. Granada: Comares. Blasco Mayor, María Jesús. 2007b. “Language Labs and Beyond: Enhancing L2 Automatization in Interpreter Training.” Proceedings of the 1st International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain. Blumenfeld, Henrike K., and Viorica Marian. 2011. “Bilingualism Influences Inhibitory Control in Auditory Comprehension.” Cognition 118: 245–257.  ​doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012 Blumenfeld, Henrike K., and Viorica Marian. 2007. “Constraints on Parallel Activation in Bilingual Spoken Language Processing: Examining Proficiency and Lexical Status Using Eye-tracking.” Language and Cognitive Processes 22 (5): 633–660.  d ​ oi: 10.1080/01690960601000746 Borrero, Noah. 2006. Bilingual Adolescents as Young Interpreters in Middle School: Impact on Ethnic Identity and Academic Achievement. Ph.D. Dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest® Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3235188) Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, Raymond C. K., David Shum, Timothea Toulopoulou, and Eric Y. H. Chen. 2007. “Assessment of Executive Functions: Review of Instruments and Identification of Critical Issues.” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 23 (2): 201–216.  ​doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010 Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Judith F. Kroll. 2006. “Memory and Language Skills in Simultaneous Interpreters: The Role of Expertise and Language Proficiency.” Journal of Memory and Language 54: 324–345. ​doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 125

Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Lourens J. Waldorp. 2003. “Basic Skills in a Complex Task: A Graphical Model Relating Lexical Retrieval, Working Memory and Simultaneous Interpreting.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6 (3): 201–211.  d ​ oi: 10.1017/S1366728903001135 Cohen, Louis, and Lawrence Manion. 1990. Métodos de investigación educativa. Madrid: La muralla. Colás Bravo, María P., and Leonor B. Eisman. 1998. Investigación educativa. Sevilla: Alfar. Conway, Andrew R.A., et al. 2002. “A Latent Variable Analysis of Working Memory Capacity, Short-term Memory Capacity, Processing Speed and General Fluid Intelligence.” Intelligence 30 (2): 163–183. Cutler, Anne. 2000/01. “Listening to a Second Language through the Ears of a First.” Interpreting 5: 1–18. ​doi: 10.1075/intp.5.1.02cut de Groot, Annette M. B. 2000. “A Complex-skill Approach to Translation and Interpreting.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja TirkkonenCondit, and Riitta Jäskeläinen, 53–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  d ​ oi: 10.1075/btl.37.06gro DeKeyser, Robert M. 2001. “Automaticity and Automatization.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. by Peter Robinson, 125–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, John. 1929/1984. “The Sources of a Science of Education.” In John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953, Vol. 5. 1929–1930, ed. by Jo Ann Boydston, 1–40. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Donovan, Clare. 2006. “Conference Interpreter Training — Constraints and Responses.” Forum 4 (1): 1–22. Ellis, Nick C. 2001. “Memory for Language.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. by Peter Robinson, 33–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  ​doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004 Flowerdew, John. 1994. Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frauenfelder, Ulrich, and Herbert Schriefers. 1997. “A Psycholinguistic Perspective on Simultaneous Interpretation.” Interpreting 2 (1/2): 55–90. Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gile, Daniel. 2005. “Teaching Conference Interpreting: A Contribution.” In Training for the New millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Martha Tennent, 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harris, Brian, and Bianca Sherwood. 1978. “Translating as an Innate Skill.” In Language Interpretation and Communication, ed. by David Gerver, and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 155–170. New York: Plenum Press. ​doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_15 Hervais-Adelman, Alexis G., Barbara Moser-Mercer, and Narly Golestani. 2011. “Executive Control of Language in the Bilingual Brain: Integrating the Evidence from Neuroimaging to Neuropsychology.” Frontiers in Psychology 2 (234): 1–8. ​doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00234 Hinkel, Eli. 1998. TOEFL Strategies. Hauppauge: Barron’s Educational Series. Hewings, Martin. 1993. Pronunciation Tasks: A Course for Pre–intermediate Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

126 María Jesús Blasco Mayor Humphrey, Janice, and Bob Alcorn. 2001. So You Want to be an Interpreter: An Introduction to Sign Language Interpreting (3rd ed.). Amarillo: H&H Publishers. Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Shallert, and Patrick J. Carroll. 2004. “Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. ​doi: 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu Mackintosh, Jennifer. 1999. “Interpreters are Made not Born.” Interpreting 4 (1): 67–80. McWhinney, Brian. 2001. “The Competition Model: the Input, the Context, and the Brain.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. by Peter Robinson, 69–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Melton, Arthur W. 1963. “Implications of Short-term Memory for a General Theory of Memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 1–21.  d ​ oi: 10.1016/S0022–5371(63)80063–8 Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Sylvie Lambert, Valeria Daró, and Sarah Williams. 1997. “Skill Components in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, ed. by Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile, and Christopher Taylor, 133–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.23.09mos Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2011. “Nomen mihi Legio est — a Cognitive Approach to Natural Translation.” In Interpreting Naturally. A Tribute to Brian Harris, ed. by María Jesús Blasco Mayor, and Amparo Jiménez Ivars, 35–67. Bern: Peter Lang. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2007. “Prólogo” [Foreword]. In La comprensión oral en el desarrollo de la pericia en interpretación de conferencias, ed. by María Jesús Blasco Mayor, XI–XVII. Granada: Comares. Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1977. Manual de pronunciación española [Manual of Spanish pronunciation]. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Norman, Donald. A., and Tim Shallice. 2000. “Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior.” In Cognitive Neuroscience: A Reader, ed. by Michael S. Gazzaniga, 376–390. Oxford: Blackwell. Padilla, Presentación, Pedro Macizo, and María Teresa Bajo. 2007. Tareas de traducción e interpretación desde una perspectiva cognitiva: Una propuesta integradora. Granada: Atrio. Pavón Vázquez, Víctor, and Angel J. Rosado García. 2003. Guía de fonética y fonología para estudiantes de filología inglesa: En el umbral del siglo XXI [Manual of phonetics and phonology for English philology students: In the 21st century]. Granada: Comares. Pérez Basanta, Carmen. 2000a. “Cognitive Processes in L2 Listening: Implications for Teaching and Learning.” In Panorama actual de la lingüística aplicada: Conocimiento, procesamiento y uso del lenguaje, ed. by Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza, 1811–20. Logroño: Universidad de La Rioja. Pérez Basanta, Carmen. 2000b. “Integrating Theory and Practice in the Design and Exploitation of ESL Listening Activities in the Classroom.” In Panorama actual de la lingüística aplicada: Conocimiento, procesamiento y uso del lenguaje, ed. by Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza, 1613–22. Logroño: Universidad de La Rioja. Purdy, Michael. 1996. “What is Listening.” In Listening in Everyday Life. A Personal and Professional Approach, ed. by Michael Purdy, and Deborah Borisoff, 1–20. Maryland: University Press of America. Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas [Treatise on Spanish phonetics and phonology]. Madrid: Gredos. Schmidt, Richard. 2001. “Attention.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. by Peter Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  ​doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003



L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting 127

Schmidt, Richard. 1992. “Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 357–385. ​doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011189 Seleskovitch, Danica. 1999. “The Teaching of Conference Interpretation in the Course of the Last 50 Years.” Interpreting 4 (1): 55–66. Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’inteprétation. Luxembourg: Didier Érudition. Shaw, Sherry, Nadja Grbic, and Kathy Franklin. 2004. “Applying Language Skills to Interpretation. Student Perspectives from Signed and Spoken Language Programs.” Interpreting 6 (1): 69– 100. ​doi: 10.1075/intp.6.1.06sha Takeda, Kayoko. 2010. “What Interpreting Teachers can Learn from Students: A Case Study.” The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research 2 (1): 38–47. Thiery, Christopher. 1975. Le bilinguisme chez les interpretes de conference professionnels. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III). Valdés, Guadalupe, and Claudia Angelelli. 2003. “Interpreters, Interpreting and the Study of Bilingualism.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 58–78.  ​doi: 10.1017/S0267190503000199 Valdés, Guadalupe, Cristina Chavez, and Claudia Angelelli. 2000. “Bilingualism from Another Perspective: The Case of Young Interpreters from Immigrant Communities.” In Research on Spanish in the United States. Linguistic Issues and Challenges, ed. by Ana Roca, 42–81. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Valdés, Guadalupe, Cristina Chavez, Claudia Angelelli, Kerry Enright, Daria Garcia, and Marisela Gonzalez. 2003. “The Performance of the Young Interpreters on the Scripted Task.” In Expanding Definitions of Giftedness. The Case of Young Interpreters from Immigrant Communities, ed. by Guadalupe Valdes, 119–164. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum. Williams, Sarah. 1995. “Research on Bilingualism and its Relevance for Interpreting.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 15: 143–154. Williams, Sarah. 1994. “The Application of SLA Research to Interpreting.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1: 19–28. ​doi: 10.1080/0907676X.1994.9961219 Wolvin, Andrew D. 2010. Listening and Human Communication in the 21st century. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ​doi: 10.1002/9781444314908 Zannirato, Alessandro. 2008. “Teaching Interpreting and Interpreting Teaching: A Conference Interpreter’s Overview of Second Language Acquisition.” In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 19–38. London: Continuum.

Reacting to Translations Past A game-based approach to teaching translation studies Julie McDonough Dolmaya

Reacting to the Past is a pedagogical approach that incorporates historical role-playing games into the classroom. In this paper I discuss this approach and demonstrate how it could be adapted for translation studies courses. Two games are described: one is set in England in the early 1500s and focuses on William Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible, while the other is set in Canada in 2007 and focuses on the development of the Canadian standard for translation services. Finally, to shed some light on the experiences and reactions of students who are taught using the Reacting to the Past approach, I briefly discuss the results of a survey of translation students who played the two games in an undergraduate theory of translation course during the Fall 2012 term. Keywords: Reacting to the Past, role-playing, translation history, translation pedagogy, teaching translation studies

1. Introduction: The Reacting to the Past model The need to integrate history into translation studies or translation theory courses has been stressed by many researchers, including Chesterman (1995, 2000), who argues that students need to study history if they want to be more aware of the role they will play as future translators (1995: 67; 2000: 81), Neubert (2000), who considers historicity one of the seven features of translation competence (2000: 5), and Woodsworth (1995), who argues that trainees will become more efficient translators if they are familiar with the history of the profession (12). This article explores the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) model as a means of examining translation theory through a historical lens, providing a way for undergraduate students enrolled

doi 10.1075/bct.90.07dol 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

130 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

in a practical translation degree program to learn to think more critically about translation, translators, and their roles in modern and past society. Developed in the late 1990s by Mark C. Carnes, a history professor at Barnard College in New York City, Reacting to the Past is a pedagogical approach that incorporates historical role-playing games into the classroom (Barnard College 2012). Games are simulations of historical turning points (Lightcap 2009: 176) and consist of three phases: the set-up, during which instructors lecture about the historical context and provide an overview of the game; the game phase, during which the instructor becomes a Game Master and lets students whose characters play supervisory roles lead the classroom sessions; and the post-mortem, during which winners are announced and the game’s development and outcome is analyzed (Barnard College 2010).1 Because the games are not simply re-enactments of historical events, the outcome may differ from what actually happened. The result of a game is determined by how well students have been able to debate and defend their assigned points of view. Therefore, the post-mortem phase allows students and instructors to consider the factors that led to the outcome of the game differing from actual events. As Stroessner et al. (2009) argue, the RTTP model differs from traditional methods of integrating role playing into the classroom because role-playing is “the primary basis of classroom activity and instruction” rather than brief exercises with specific, limited goals (606). As part of the games, students engage in several weeks of oral debates in which they represent the views of historical characters and attempt to convince other players to support their position. In addition, students complete written assignments designed to fit the context of the game. For instance, students might be required to write a pamphlet, letter, speech, or newspaper article that represents their character’s point of view and is based only on sources that would have reasonably been available to someone living at that time. These written assignments are typically made available to everyone in the class in order to help persuade other players. Their purpose is to encourage students to consult primary documents, to develop both oral and written argumentation skills, and to more firmly place themselves in the historical context in which the game is set. Previous studies of student and instructor experiences with the Reacting to the Past approach have generally been positive: Lightcap (2009) demonstrated that, when compared with seminars where the RTTP model was not used, students who played RTTP games more often reported being encouraged to think critically and analytically, consider different perspectives, and be more actively involved in 1.  Three of the existing games, for instance, examine the trial of Anne Hutchinson in Puritan New England, the trial of Galileo, and Athens in 403 B.C.E., when Athenians questioned their newly installed democratic political system.



Reacting to Translations Past 131

the learning process (2009: 178). Higbee’s case study of using the Reacting to the Past model in six sections of four different history courses at Eastern Michigan University in 2007–2008 suggested that “the Reacting pedagogy and its intellectual rigor can promote improved academic achievement and valuable social connections among classmates” (2009: 29). In perhaps the most extensive study of the Reacting to the Past model, Stroessner et al. (2009) surveyed students enrolled in 19 sections of first-year RTTP seminars at Barnard College between 2000 and 2005, as well as a comparable group of students enrolled in first-year seminars taught without the RTTP approach. They found that those who had completed the Reacting to the Past seminars “showed elevated self-esteem, greater empathy with the needs and feelings of others, greater agreement with the belief that human characteristics are amenable to change across time and contexts, and improved rhetorical ability” (612). The latter conclusion was based on an assessment of arguments prepared and recorded by the students in the study. When this study was replicated with 121 students enrolled in either Reacting to the Past or traditional first-year seminars in 2004 and 2005 at Barnard College, Smith College, and Trinity College-all small private colleges in the northeastern United States-the results were similar. However, Stroessner et al. did note that some respondents enjoyed the games more than others did. Students who were highly self-confident tended to like the approach, while students who did not like receiving attention due to disagreement, as well as those who had a great deal of emotional empathy, were less inclined to enjoy the approach (617). Because final grades did not seem to be affected by a student’s enjoyment of the RTTP method, Stroessner et al. suggest that the approach is beneficial for most students, but stress that instructors should be prepared to provide additional coaching, support or feedback to individuals whose personalities make them less likely to find a role-playing approach appealing (617–618). Role-playing is not a new pedagogical approach within translation and interpreting studies. Simulation activities have received significant attention in books and articles discussing the training of translators or interpreters, from Newmark (1980, cited in Kiraly 1995: 22) and Kiraly (1995: 33), to more recent work, including Corsellis (2005), Nord (2005: 218) and Kelly (2005: 75–76). However, Reacting to the Past, as noted earlier, is a specific method of applying role-playing and simulation in a classroom setting. The approach can be easily adapted for the translation studies classroom and can also help students develop most of the sub-components of translation competence identified by the PACTE group (2000: 101–102), particularly extralinguistic, instrumental-professional and psycho-physiological competencies. After all, as Lightcap (2009) argues, the RTTP model encourages students to critically and analytically read the course materials, work well in teams, hone their presentation skills, and develop greater understanding of other cultures

132 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

(2009: 176). All of these are skills required of translation graduates who plan to pursue a career in the language industry or academia. Moreover, the required post-mortem phase of the game, where students and instructors dissect whether and how the outcome of the game differed from actual events, would help students better understand how translator strategies and roles are determined by historical, cultural and situational context rather than by random chance. This understanding is another skill required of translators (Chesterman 1995: 67, Neubert 2000: 5). 2. Case study: Reacting to the Past in an undergraduate translation theory course The undergraduate translation program at York University includes a one-semester, thirteen-week theoretical course introducing students to translation studies. The course description in the department’s mini-calendar is as follows: This course asks students to reflect critically on translation and its key concepts, and to begin to engage in research. They (students) are introduced to the various schools of thought that have shaped Translation Studies since the second half of the 20th century (School of Translation 2013–2014).

By the end of the course, students are expected to have achieved the following learning objectives: improved their ability to critically read and synthesize information, enhanced their critical analysis and argumentation skills, developed their presentation, debate and teamwork skills, and learned to apply translation theories to practical, real-world examples. The course is obligatory not only for students completing a B.A. in French/ English translation, but also for those completing a certificate in Spanish/English translation, those enrolled in a one-year qualifying program to prepare them for the M.A. in Translation Studies, and those enrolled in the M.A. in Translation Studies who have not already taken a translation theory course during their undergraduate studies. Thus, the backgrounds of students enrolled in the course are varied: some have already obtained undergraduate degrees in other fields, while others are in their second, third or fourth year of their first undergraduate degree; some are preparing for a career as translators, while others are planning on a career in academia; some are only a few years out of high school, while others have been a part of the workforce for a number of years and are seeking a career change. For those enrolled in the B.A. or certificate programs, this course is often their first — and possibly only — in-depth exposure to the theoretical aspects of translation in what is otherwise a mainly practice-focused undergraduate program.



Reacting to Translations Past 133

Given the diverse backgrounds and interests of the students enrolled in the course, finding a way to make the theoretical concepts relevant to everyone is challenging. Therefore, with the intention of fostering the students’ presentation, argumentation, and collaboration skills, while also encouraging them to read “classic” translation texts and primary documents, I developed two games for the course, using existing Reacting to the Past games as a model.2 In addition to the more general goals of improving communication and presentation skills, each game had more specific pedagogical aims in line with the learning objectives for the course: The first, which focused on William Tyndale and the English translation of the Bible, aimed to have students think critically about the role of translation in the dissemination of information and consider how historical context influences whether, why and how translations are produced. The second, which focused on the development of CAN CGSB-131.10–2008, the Canadian standard for translation services, aimed to have students think critically about the standards for professional translations, the qualifications of professional translators, and the effects of these standards on language professionals and translation clients. 2.1 Game 1: William Tyndale and the English translation of the Bible The first game, which required four ninety-minute class sessions to play, was set in sixteenth-century England and covered an eight-year period, touching on key dates leading up to (and including) William Tyndale’s trial for heresy.3 It opened in 1528 at the University of Oxford, with a debate on whether reading and translating the bible in vernacular languages like English should be considered heresy, and it ended in 1535–1536, when Tyndale was arrested and tried for heresy. Students were assigned roles ranging from well-known historical figures such as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Sir Thomas More and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, to Oxford scholars and various English bishops. William Tyndale himself was not a character in the game, since he was living in exile during the period in which the game was set, but students were expected to consult Tyndale’s translations and writings — particularly his Answer unto Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, as well as the prefaces to his 2.  These games should be considered prototypes, as they contain many of the required RTTP game elements (e.g., authentic historical setting, multiple meetings, victory objectives, possibility of alternate historical outcomes, reading, writing and speaking requirements) and have been playtested by the author but not yet by other instructors. Published Reacting to the Past games are playtested at an annual conference (the Reacting to the Past Annual Institute) and peerreviewed before publication. 3.  The four weeks of game play were preceded by a lecture on the historical context in which the game was set, and a briefing on the rules, format and grading of the game.

134 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

1526 New Testament and his 1530 translation of the Pentateuch — to gain insight into his views. Gameplay each week consisted mainly of debates on set topics, with each student being required to represent the views of the historical character he or she had been randomly assigned to play. Some inspiration for the format of this game was drawn from the existing Reacting to the Past game Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament (Coby 2008). Week 1 involved a debate about whether translation of the Bible should be forbidden by the Catholic Church, with most of the class representing the views of various scholars at Oxford in 1528. As part of the game, one student, who was instructed to behave as though he were a scholar like the others at Oxford, was in fact a spy who betrayed the others to Church authorities, represented by students playing Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, and Bishop John Longland. Given that the students playing Oxford scholars had all been assigned to defend bible translation, the betrayal to Catholic Church authorities allowed us to explore why these authorities would want to discourage vernacular translations at this time. The game included a mechanism for some of the players to be arrested, evade arrest, and even succumb to the “sweating sickness” that was rampant in the area around this time. Weeks 2 and 3 involved another debate — this time from the point of view of various bishops, cardinals, and other clergymen at a conclave held in 1530. They discussed whether the Catholic Church should authorize an English translation of the bible to help combat the unauthorized, and very Lutheran, translations circulating in England at the time. Students also debated whether William Tyndale’s translation in particular was heretical. To help provide more historical authenticity, students were advised not to openly engage in any behavior that could be considered heretical at this time — admitting to have read Lutheran texts, for instance — which restricted how students assigned to play Reform-minded clergy were able to argue in favor of authorizing an English bible translation. This also encouraged students to listen to one another’s debates closely, as they could accuse others of heresy, potentially eliminating players whose views did not conform to those approved by the Catholic Church, and helping to ensure that the final vote after the debates would not be unduly influenced by the views of Reform-minded clergymen. At this point, students were required to submit a written assignment designed to fit the context of the game: a 1000-1500-word pamphlet supporting their character’s views on the translation of the New Testament and/or whether William Tyndale was guilty of heresy for his translation. These pamphlets were submitted to the instructor, but they were also made available to other students in class during the debates, with the intention of swaying the final votes on these issues.



Reacting to Translations Past 135

Finally, Week 4 was set in 1535, after William Tyndale had been arrested in Antwerp. Students now took on roles ranging from English merchants to bishops, archbishops, and other clergymen. They were expected to convince one another that Tyndale should either be left to his fate in the Low Countries or extradited to England (so that he could either be put on trial for heresy in England, or set free). Students were required to submit their second written assignment: a letter to either another character in the game or a historical figure not represented in the game, such as a spouse or friend of one of the characters. These letters were intended to persuade the recipient to support the letter writer’s position on William Tyndale’s fate. Letters addressed to another character in the game were given to both the instructor and the player representing that character, while letters addressed to other historical figures were submitted to only the instructor. After the debate and the distribution of the letters, a vote was held. Although the students did vote to spare Tyndale’s life, the game was designed to show students that such decisions do not always rest in their hands. After all, since Tyndale was being held in Antwerp, which was then part of the Low Countries and under the control of King Charles V, a decision made in England by influential English bishops to save Tyndale’s life would not necessarily have had any effect on Tyndale’s fate. Thus, the various voting outcomes had been assigned a probability of success, and the roll of a die ultimately determined the game’s outcome. In our case, for instance, the chance of King Charles V agreeing to free Tyndale was considered slim, given King Henry VIII’s recent divorce of Charles’ aunt, Catherine of Aragon, and so only a roll of 1 or 2 (representing a 1 in 3, or 33%, chance) would result in Tyndale’s life being spared. (It was not). In the wrap-up portion of the game following this vote, the class discussed the outcome of the game, and various related issues, such as the effectiveness of censorship and the role of translation in disseminating ideas. Students were then briefed on the rules and format of the next game, which began two weeks later. 2.2 Game 2: CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008, The Canadian Standard for Translation Services Given that professional translators are likely to be required to work as part of a group or team (Vienne 2000: 96; Bastin and Cormier 2007: 52; Nord 2005: 218), the second Reacting-to-the-Past-inspired game involved considerable group work and negotiation. It also focused on an aspect of contemporary translation practice that has caused some contention among professional translators and which will undoubtedly influence translation curricula (Greere 2012): industry standards. The setting this time was contemporary Canada, and the game placed students in a context similar to that in which CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008, the Canadian

136 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

standard for translation services, was developed. Students represented the organizations involved in drafting CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008. In the published version of the standard, these organizations were grouped into three categories: general interest (universities, professional translator associations, and translation technology companies), producers (small, medium and large translation companies), and users (government agencies, corporations, and professional associations like the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants). The game was designed to include all 30 organizations that had voting privileges during the drafting process, but a representative sample of these roles was chosen for the 21 students enrolled in the course. When CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008 was published in 2008, it covered six areas: 1) human resources, covering the professional competencies translators, revisers, and reviewers must have, 2) technical resources, covering the tools and resources translation service providers (TSP) must have access to or be able to use, 3) quality management system, covering the mandatory process for ensuring texts meet a certain standard before being delivered to the client, 4) relationship between the TSP and the client, 5) project management procedures, covering the mandatory process for handling translation projects, from preparation to delivery of the final product, and 6) the translation process, covering the steps involved in translating a document from start to finish. So that the game could be played in five ninetyminute sessions, it focused on just four of these areas, human resources, technical resources, quality management system, and translation process. Each week, a different issue was debated and drafted, and then in the fifth and final week of the course, students were given feedback on the draft, revisions were negotiated, and a final vote was held. This game involved a lot of collaboration, as the students had to work within their groups (users, producers or general interest) to agree on a proposal for each issue and then present it to the other groups. The groups were able to ask questions of and negotiate with one another in order to arrive at a draft version of each issue that at least two groups could agree on. Groups were awarded points based on how many victory objectives they were able to achieve. It is possible to display a points-based ranking of the groups during the drafting process, allowing the class to visualize which groups are “winning,” and therefore whose interests are being best represented in the standard. This, in turn, can affect the groups other players are willing to collaborate with and, ultimately, the final version of the standard. The format of this game was inspired by a RTTP game recreating the Quebec Conference of 1864 developed by University of Alberta law professors James Muir and Peter Carver.



Reacting to Translations Past 137

The first class session focused on the Human Resources component of the standard.4 Each student had been given several goals to try to achieve, but they were not explicitly told which — if any — of these goals were clauses from the actual CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008 standard. For instance, university representatives were told to ensure graduates from any of their translation programs (e.g., B.A., M.A.) would meet the criteria for translators certified under the standard, while the representatives from professional associations were told to ensure that certification by a professional association would be required of translators working under the standard. Under the actual CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008 standard, translators must have either an undergraduate degree in translation, professional designation as a certified translator, or both. For the next three class sessions, the groups debated the remaining issues — translation process, quality management, and technical resources. Each group had been given specific objectives, and they were required to negotiate with at least one other group to achieve majority support for their proposal. In the third class session, students submitted a 1000-1500-word assignment linked to the game: a blog post supporting their organization’s views on the standard. The posts were made available to everyone in the class via the course website so students could read the arguments offered by others and get a better idea of what the other players thought about the standard, since most of the oral work was completed in groups, making the views of individual organizations sometimes difficult to ascertain. After the draft was completed, in the fourth week, students submitted their second written assignment: a 500-word e-mail reflecting on their decisions during the game, or attempting to convince another voting member to support the writer’s views. These emails were submitted to the instructor and possibly to another student in the course, if the writer decided to address one of the players instead of a fictitious colleague. The Standards Council of Canada, which published CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008, stipulates that during the development process, all draft standards must be made available to the public for a sixty-day period, to allow feedback from interested parties. Thus, the fifth and final ninety-minute class session represented this public consultation period. As Game Master, I provided this feedback based on actual comments made by various parties (professional translator associations, freelance translators, etc.) when CAN/CGSB-131.10–2008 was being drafted or shortly after it had been published. All players then had the opportunity to either propose revisions to the standard or argue why it should not be changed. After a short debate 4.  The format of the game actually involves randomly selecting an issue to address each week, so that the groups with winning proposals one week are not sure what issue will be discussed the next, adding an element of unpredictability to the drafting process.

138 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

period, the revised draft was then put to a vote. Until this point, voting had been done in groups, with the users, producers, and general interest groups each being obliged to present a proposal most group members could agree on. Now, however, students were able to vote on an individual basis, in line with the views of the organization they had been assigned. To help ensure the class was aware of the often-conflicting views of the various voting members, anyone who voted not to support the standard was asked to briefly explain why. 3. Survey results: Student reactions to the RTTP model To help gauge student response to the games and to test the games’ potential for helping students develop their argumentation, presentation, and collaboration skills, students were surveyed at the end of the term, after final grades for the course had been submitted. The survey was administered online and consisted of ten questions, preceded by an informed consent page. The first four questions were demographic in nature: respondents were asked their gender, age range, program of study, and career goals. Students were then asked questions specifically about their experiences in the course they had just completed. During the Fall 2012 term, 21 students were enrolled in the course: five men and sixteen women. Fifteen students (71% of the class) responded to the survey. Because four of the respondents identified themselves as male, the survey is representative in terms of gender. As expected, the students enrolled in the course were enrolled in a range of programs and had various career intentions post-graduation. Most respondents were under 36 years of age (seven were 25 or under, four were between 26 and 35 years of age, while two were between 36 and 45 years, and two were older than 45). Five were enrolled in the M.A. in Translation Studies, six in the B.A. in Translation, three in the accelerated B.A. for students who have an undergraduate degree in another field but would like a degree in translation, and one in the qualifying program for students who would like to apply to the M.A. in Translation Studies, but lack an undergraduate degree in translation. However, most respondents (80%) indicated they would like to pursue or continue a career in translation after completion of their schooling, with five respondents indicating they (also) sought a career in academia, three in technical writing, three in editing, two in interpreting, one in education, and another in corporate communications. One student had not yet decided on a career path. Therefore, although the course included both gradu-



Reacting to Translations Past 139

ate and undergraduate students, most intended to pursue careers as translators, either in whole or in part.5 The results of the next question (Table 1) indicated the games had generally been successful in achieving the intended pedagogical goals: If we look at just the responses for the “often” and “very often” categories, we see that 67% of respondents reported finding the coursework intellectually stimulating and 73% said they critically assessed arguments and ideas. Another 88% summarized and organized ideas, information or experiences. All of these skills are crucial for developing strategic competence, or the ability to distinguish between main and secondary ideas, establish conceptual relationships, search for information, etc. (PACTE 2000: 102). In addition, students were clearly exposed to new points of view, as twelve of the fifteen respondents (80%) indicated that they often or very often had to argue in favor of positions that were contrary to their own beliefs. The one area that appears to require some improvement is the extent to which the games encouraged students to apply theories to practical problems or new situations. Here, only about half the respondents felt they did so often or very often, and four felt they never did so. Instructors who use the RTTP model should therefore try to provide clear links between the theoretical concepts discussed in class and the historical context in which the games are set. This strategy would help encourage students to use these same concepts in the oral and written arguments they must defend as part of the game. Table 1.  Responses to Question 5 In our [Theory of Translation course] last term, please indicate how often you: Answer Options Never Sometimes Often Very Often Response Count Found the coursework intellectually 0 5 3 7 15 stimulating Collaborated with other students during 0 6 1 7 14 class Applied theories or concepts to practical 4 4 4 3 15 problems or new situations Critically assessed arguments and ideas 0 4 6 5 15 Summarized and organized ideas, infor- 0 2 8 5 15 mation or experiences Argued in favor of positions that were 0 3 5 7 15 contrary to your own beliefs

5.  Students were allowed to choose more than one career, and seven did so, which is why the number of careers chosen totals more than 15.

140 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

Next, the survey asked students to compare the two games to help determine whether one was more relevant to their career goals and interests. As Table 2 illustrates, the Canadian translation standard game was seen as most relevant to the respondents’ career goals, although a small minority of students (27%) felt both games were relevant. Given that most respondents hoped to become (or continue working as) translators, this response is not surprising. Even three of the five students who said they would like to pursue a career in academia identified the Canadian translation standard game as most relevant to their career goals, while one said both games were relevant. This may also be because four of the five students who chose “academic” as a career indicated that they would like to pursue other careers as well, namely translating, editing, technical writing, and interpreting. Given the long debate over whether and how translation theory is relevant to professional translators (cf. Chesterman and Wagner 2002, for instance), the results of this question were a little discouraging. They suggest that students continued to find a game set in the recent past and focused on professional issues more relevant than a game set several hundred years ago and focused on issues less common in contemporary Canadian translation practice (e.g., censorship by religious institutions, translation of sacred texts), even though certain issues from the William Tyndale game (e.g., the effect of institutions on translation norms, activism) are relevant to contemporary translators and were emphasized in the classroom discussions after the game. It does illustrate, though, that the students valued instrumental-professional competence, as the Canadian standard game allowed them to more directly explore the work market, professional translator behavior and professional ethics (PACTE 2000: 101). The responses to this question also indicate that a game set further in the past may be more effective at helping students better understand how historical and cultural contexts affect translation decisions, as most students chose the William Tyndale game for this criteria. However, other factors could have affected the response to this question. Nearly every week the William Tyndale game was played, some class time was spent discussing the historical context in which the game was set. In contrast, because the setting of the second game was contemporary Canada, less class time was spent discussing the historical context in which the Canadian standard for translation services was developed, which may have contributed to the survey results. Encouragingly, though, the survey responses indicate that both games were seen as being relevant to the course book, Introducing Translation Studies (Munday 2012), which students were required to read and discuss during the non-game portion of the course. This suggests that Reacting to the Past games can be successfully integrated into a translation theory class to supplement readings and lectures from introductory translation studies course books like Introducing Translation Studies.



Reacting to Translations Past 141

Table 2.  Responses to Question 6 Of the two Reacting to the Past games we played in class, which one: Answer options William Tyndale CAN/CGSBNeither and the English 131.10–2008 A translation of the Canadian Standard Bible for Translation Was most relevant to 0 8 3 your career goals? Was most relevant 2 2 1 to the translation theories discussed in Introducing Translation Studies? Helped you better un- 9 2 0 derstand how historical and cultural contexts affect translation decisions? Would you prefer to 9 3 3 play first?

Both Don’t Response know Count

4

0

15

8

2

15

4

0

15

0

0

15

Next, the survey asked a series of questions about time management and scheduling. Because the two games were played for nine of the thirteen weeks of class, a strict schedule had to be followed. Late submissions posed a problem since the written assignments were usually shared with other students as part of the game. Moreover, the debates had to run as scheduled, with each student speaking on the topic at hand on the day it was to be discussed. Given the inflexibility of some of the deadlines, and the relatively fast turn-around times for some of the assignments, the survey asked students whether they felt they had enough time to prepare for the coursework. Table 3 shows the responses to this question: Table 3.  Responses to Question 7 How often did you feel you had enough time to prepare for: Answer options Never Sometimes Often Very Often The oral debates in the William Tyndale game? 1 5 7 2 The oral debates in the Canadian Translation 0 5 5 5 Standard game? The written assignments in the William 1 5 7 2 Tyndale game (pamphlet, letter)? The written assignments in the Canadian 1 6 5 3 Translation Standard game (blog post, email)?

Response Count 15 15 15 15

142 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

As Table 3 illustrates, the students were divided over whether they had enough time to prepare for the games. Although most felt they often had enough time to prepare for both the oral and written assignments, a significant number (nearly half in all cases) felt they never or only sometimes had enough time to prepare for either game. Nevertheless, the survey results suggest that the format of the game did not affect how many students felt they had enough time to prepare for the assignments. For both the William Tyndale game, which was at a greater distance — in terms of both time and space — from contemporary Canada and therefore should have required additional research to understand the context, and the Canadian translation standard game, which involved group work and therefore less individual oral participation, almost half the class felt they required more time to prepare for the assignments. Some small changes to the way the game is integrated into a translation studies class could help solve this problem. First, if instructors chose to play just one game per term, instead of two, the game could be started later in the semester. Role descriptions would be handed out in the first week of class, allowing students to have several weeks to research the historical context and prepare their arguments. In this pilot study, the William Tyndale game began on the third week of class, giving students two weeks to prepare for their first debate, and putting students who enrolled late at a slight disadvantage.6 Likewise, the Canadian translation standard game began shortly after the first game ended, giving students approximately two weeks to prepare for their new role and the first debate. Second, instructors could modify the written work by requiring only one in-character assignment, (e.g., the pamphlet on bible translation or the blog post on the Canadian translation standard) and then, once the game is over, requiring students to submit a more traditional written assignment such as an essay comparing and contrasting the game’s outcome with actual historical events. Next, the survey asked students how often they had read assignments submitted by others, since students were encouraged — but not obliged — to read the work other players submitted as part of the game. As Table 4 shows, students reportedly read a number of other assignments, even though they were not required to, demonstrating their interest in the arguments of their peers. The responses also indicate that the format of the assignment will affect how often it is read. The blog posts were read most often, which is not surprising, since these posts were available on the course website and could be consulted by other students after class, from home, school or work. The pamphlets were distributed in class on paper, 6.  Indeed, one survey respondent noted the following about his experience: “It is worth remarking that the first and the second class of each game affect the student’s progress in the whole game. For example, due to some registration issues, I missed the first two classes in the course, so that it took me a quite long time to catch up and understand the game.”



Reacting to Translations Past 143

and since not all students chose to make copies available for the entire class, the accessibility of the assignment was somewhat limited. Although the emails were sent electronically, copies were sent only to the Game Master and the addressee, so some players received no emails, while others — who were seen as being more influential — received several. In addition, not all students chose to address their emails to another player; some addressed their emails to fictitious colleagues and sent a copy only to the Game Master, which again limited the number of assignments other students could have read. Likewise, the letters, although submitted on paper rather than electronically, were given to another player only if he or she was the addressee. In many cases, students chose to write to historical figures not represented in the game (e.g., Henry VIII), which meant that only the Game Master received copies of the letter. Therefore, if instructors would like to encourage students to read as many assignments as possible, they should ensure the texts are accessible online on the course website, as this appears to result in students consulting the highest number of assignments prepared by their peers. Table 4.  Responses to Question 8 How many written assignments PREPARED BY OTHER STUDENTS did you read? Answer options 0 1–2 3–4 5 or Response more Count Pamphlets regarding bible translation 1 6 5 3 15 Letters regarding William Tyndale’s arrest 6 9 0 0 15 Blog post regarding the Canadian Standard for 1 5 4 5 15 Translation Emails regarding the Canadian Standard for 5 9 1 0 15 Translation

Finally, the survey sought to determine how well the games had achieved some of the course’s learning objectives, and, as Table 5 demonstrates, the results are encouraging. Self-confidence is considered among the “soft-skill” competencies that Klimkowski and Klimkowska (2012: 186) suggest translation trainees are seeking, while creativity, logical reasoning, self-confidence, perseverance and a critical spirit are some of the psycho-physiological competencies the PACTE group lists as being relevant to translators (2000: 102). Students appear to have developed greater confidence in their speaking and rhetorical abilities as a result of playing the games: 9 of the 15 respondents felt their confidence as a speaker, as well as their argumentation skills had gotten much or somewhat better as a result of completing the course, while 10 felt their oral presentation skills had improved. It was also encouraging to see that even though most respondents did not intend to pursue academic careers, they still felt their interest in translation studies had increased.

144 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

Table 5.  Responses to Question 9 As a result of completing [our Theory of Translation course]: Answer options Gotten Gotten Stayed much somewhat the worse worse same My argumentation skills have 0 0 6 My oral presentation skills have 0 0 5 My confidence as a speaker has 0 1 5 My ability to cooperate as part of a 0 0 7 team has My interest in translation studies has 0 0 4

Gotten somewhat better 4 7 5 6

Gotten much better 5 3 4 2

Response Count

2

9

15

15 15 15 15

4. Conclusions The purpose of this case study was to test the feasibility and success of adapting the Reacting to the Past model for translation studies. Student response to this pedagogical approach, exhibited in the survey, was generally positive, suggesting that the model can be successfully adopted for translation studies courses. Although the two games used in this pilot project focused on William Tyndale’s bible translation and the Canadian standard for translation services, any number of translation studies games could be developed using the Reacting to the Past pedagogy. William Tyndale was chosen because all students enrolled in the course could be expected to use English as one of their working languages and would therefore be able to read, at the very least, Tyndale’s translations, his writings and the responses to his translations (e.g., Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue Concerning Heresies) without having to look for translated versions of these texts. However, similar games could be developed to focus on translation during the Reformation in Germany, France, and other countries. Likewise, the development of the Canadian translation standard was chosen as a historical turning point for the second game because the students were enrolled in a Canadian university. The development of the European or U.S. standards could serve as the historical backdrops for similar games. Many other games could be developed to focus on turning points in the history of translation and interpretation, depending on the pedagogical aims and the interests of the students enrolled in the course. Translators Through History (Delisle and Woodsworth 2012), for instance, provides numerous potential settings for games that explore the role of translation in developing national literatures, spreading religions, disseminating knowledge, etc. The survey results were generally positive and indicated that the games exposed students to new points of view while helping them to develop skills relevant



Reacting to Translations Past 145

to translation, including instrumental-professional, psycho-physiological and strategic competence (PACTE 2000: 101–102). Nevertheless, the Reacting to the Past model does possess some disadvantages. First, since each student must be assigned a specific role to play, games are designed for a specific class size. Published RTTP games are usually intended for small groups — often 15–25 students.7 Games designed for translation studies classes would likely face this same limitation. For the William Tyndale game, I created roles for 21 students. While another four or five characters could possibly be added to the game, there is little possibility for expansion beyond that point. Likewise, the game based on the CAN/CGSB131.10–2008 development process was limited to 30 players, since the original drafting committee comprised only 30 voting members. However, these games could still be integrated into larger classes: a course with at least 24 students could be broken up into two or more groups, each of which would play its own game. In this case, at least two Game Masters — an instructor and one or more teaching assistants, for instance — would need to be present. Alternatively, each role could be filled by two students working together to devise a strategy for achieving the victory objectives and to develop oral and written arguments for the gameplay. These students could take turns speaking during the debates, switching on a weekly basis or even within the same class session. Another disadvantage to the Reacting to the Past model is also related to the fact that students are assigned specific roles to play: when students who play key roles are unable to attend class, their absence can affect the outcome of the game, particularly if the Game Master does not have enough notice to make alternative arrangements, such as assigning another student to that role. In our William Tyndale game, for instance, a student who was given a key role for the first week of gameplay became sick shortly before the first day of the game and missed class. This meant several students were unable to achieve their victory objectives, since these depended on how they would have interacted with the absent student. Instructors using the RTTP model therefore need to take care when assigning characters. They should remind students who play key roles that their presence is crucial to the game, and should also ask the class whether anyone will need to be away at any point during the game so that those unable to attend class can be assigned a less important role. These disadvantages aside, the Reacting pedagogy offers an innovative alternative to lectures and discussions in classes where translation theory and history are important to the curriculum. By incorporating oral and written arguments into 7.  The Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament game, for instance, which was used as a model for the William Tyndale game, is designed for a maximum of 21 students, but can be played with as few as 13.

146 Julie McDonough Dolmaya

the coursework, the games require students to develop skills in both mediums, and by taking on the role of a character from another historical (and possibly cultural) context, students are exposed to views that may differ radically from their own. Because the instructor, as the Game Master, plays only a background role in the games — clarifying points of order, for instance, or announcing changes in events — the approach obliges students to take more responsibility for their own learning. They must listen to and critique the arguments of their classmates, while also researching the historical setting in order to better develop their arguments and anticipate potential counter-arguments. In this way, the RTTP pedagogy fosters a move away from the transmissionist model of learning and dovetails with the more humanistic or social constructivist models recently proposed by scholars such as Gonzalez Davies (2004) and Kiraly (2000, 2005) for practical translation courses.

References Barnard College. 2012. “About the Program. Reacting to the Past.” http://reacting.barnard.edu/ about Barnard College. 2010. “Reacting to the Past: Pedagogical Introduction.” http://reacting.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/reacting_pedagogical_introduction-9-20-2010.pdf Bastin, Georges L., and Monique C. Cormier. 2007. Profession: Traducteur. Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner. 2002. Can Theory help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. “Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schaffner, and Beverly Adab, 77–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.38.09che Chesterman, Andrew. 1995. “Teaching Translation Theory: The Significance of Memes.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, ed. by Cay Dollerup, and Vibeke Appel, 63–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.16 Coby, J. Patrick. 2008. Instructor’s Manual and Role Descriptions, Revised Edition to accompany Coby/Carnes, Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament. New York and Boston: Pearson. Corsellis, Ann. 2005. “Training Interpreters to Work in Public Services.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 153–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ btl.60.13cor Delisle, Jean, and Judith Woodsworth (eds). 2012. Translators through History, revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.101 González-Davies, Maria. 2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.54 Greere, Anca. 2012. “The Standard EN 15038: Is there a Washback Effect on Translator Education?” In Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training, ed. by Séverine Hubscher-Davidson, and Michal Borodo, 45–66. London and New York: Continuum. Higbee, Mark D. 2008. “How Reacting to the Past Games ‘Made Me Want to Come to Class and Learn’: An Assessment of the Reacting Pedagogy at EMU, 2007–08.” In Making Learning



Reacting to Translations Past 147

Visible: The Scholarship of Learning at EMU, ed. by Jeffrey L. Bernstein, 41–74. Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University. Kelly, Dorothy. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to Reflective Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Don. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State Press. Kiraly, Don. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Don. 2005. “Project-based Learning: A Case for Situated Translation.” Meta 50 (4): 1098– 1111. DOI: 10.7202/012063ar Klimkowski, Konrad, and Katarzyna Klimkowska. 2012. “Towards Empowerment in Translator Education: Students’ Opinions and Expectations of a Translation Training Course.” In Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training, ed. by Séverine Hubscher-Davidson, and Michal Borodo, 180–194. London and New York: Continuum. Lightcap, Tracy. 2009. “Creating Political Order: Maintaining Student Engagement through Reacting to the Past.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (1): 175–179. DOI: 10.1017/ S1049096509090167 Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. “Competence in Language, in Languages and in Translation.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schaffner, and Beverly Adab, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.38.03neu Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. Nord, Christiane. 2005. “Training Functional Translators.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 209–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.60.17nor PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems of a Research Project.” In Investigating Translation: Selected Papers from the Fourth International Congress on Translation, ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris Ensigner, and Marisa Presas, 99–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.32.13pac School of Translation. 2013–2014. Mini-calendar. Available at: http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/ pdf/20132014minicalendars/en/TRAN.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2013. Stroessner, Steven J., Laurie Susser Beckerman, and Alexis Whittaker. 2009. “All the World’s a Stage? Consequences of a Role-Playing Pedagogy on Psychological Factors and Writing and Rhetorical Skill in College Undergraduates.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3): 605–620. DOI: 10.1037/a0015055 Vienne, Jean. 2000. “Which Competencies Should We Teach to Future Translators, and How?” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schaffner, and Beverly Adab, 91– 100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.38.10vie Woodsworth, Judith. 1995. “Teaching the History of Translation.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, ed. by Cay Dollerup, and Vibeke Appel, 9–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.16

Notes on contributors

Claudia V. Angelelli is Professor and Chair of Multilingual Communication at Heriot-Watt University UK, and Professor Emerita of Spanish Linguistics at San Diego State University, US. Her research lies at the intersection of sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and translation and interpreting studies. She is the author of Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication (Cambridge University Press) and Revisiting the Role of the Interpreter (John Benjamins), and the co-editor of Researching Translation and Interpreting (Routledge) and Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies (John Benjamins). She is the Guest Editor of special issues of The International Journal of the Sociology of Language (Translators and Interpreters: Geographic Displacement and Linguistic Consequences), Translation and Interpreting Studies (The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting) and Cuadernos de ALDEEU (Minding the Gaps: Translation and Interpreting Studies in Academia). Her work appears in The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, The Critical Link, Cuadernos de ALDEEU; Interpreting, META, MONTI (Monografias de Traducción e Interpretación), The Translator, TIS (Translation and Interpreting Studies), The International Journal of the Sociology of Language and numerous edited volumes. Prof. Angelelli is the President of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association and she has served as Director of The Consortium of Distinguished Language Centers and the American Translators Association. Currently she is the World Project Leader for ISO Standards on Community Interpreting. María Jesús Blasco Mayor is a translator and interpreter who has been teaching interpreting since 1998 at Universitat Jaume I (Spain). Her Ph.D. research centered on the comprehension component of conference interpreter training from a cognitive standpoint. She has participated in several research projects on interpreting quality and legal translation and interpreting. She has published at leading journals, authored and edited volumes on her research interests, which include cognitive processes in interpreting training, interpreting quality, court and police interpreting in Spain and the use of new technologies in interpreting. Currently, she is vice-dean of Translation and Interpreting Studies at Universitat Jaume I and convener of the Commission for the Transposition of EU Directive 2010/64 on the right of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings of the Spanish Translation and Interpreting Universities Conference. Christopher N. Candlin is Senior Research Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney. He was Head of the Department of Linguistics and the Foundation Executive Director of the Australian Government’s National Centre for English Language Teaching & Research from 1987 to 1998, and established the Research Centre in Language in Social Life, also at Macquarie. His current research and Ph.D. supervisory interests lie in professional/organizational communication in the fields of language education, healthcare, and law.

doi 10.1075/bct.90.08con 2017 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

150 Notes on contributors Sonia Colina is Professor of Hispanic Linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Arizona. Dr. Colina is the author of Fundamentals of Translation (Cambridge UP, forthcoming), Translation Teaching: from Research to the Classroom (McGraw-Hill, 2003) and of numerous articles in edited volumes and prestigious journals such as Target, The Translator, Babel, Linguistics, and Lingua. Her research areas in translation studies are pedagogy of translation, translator education, translation quality evaluation, and applied linguistics and translation, in particular, the connections between translation, language teaching and second language acquisition. Izumi Inoue is Lecturer in Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney. He specializes in teaching translation practice and theory at Macquarie University. He received his Ph.D. in 2013 with a thesis titled Novice-expert differences in addressing translating challenges: The development of effective pedagogical approach to translator education. His current research and Ph.D. supervisory interests include translator education, problem-based/ task-based learning, novice-expert differences in the context of translation, and professional beliefs. Anastasia Lakhtikova teaches online polylingual seminars in translation theory and literary translation practice for the M.A. program in Translation and Interpreting at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) as well as Russian language for Notre Dame College in Cleveland, OH. She translates contemporary fiction and scholarship from Russian, Ukrainian, and English. Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at Rutgers University, where he directs the M.A. program in Spanish Translation and Interpreting. He holds a Ph.D. in Translation and Interpreting Studies from the University of Granada, Spain. His research focuses on the intersection of translation theory, localization, translation technology, digital technologies and corpus-based translation studies. He is the author of the first monograph devoted to web localization, Translation and Web Localization (Routledge, 2013). He has published extensively on web localization in peer-reviewed journals such as Target, Perspectives, META, Translation and Interpreting Studies, Linguistica Antverpiensia, Jostrans, Localization Focus, Journal of Internationalization and Localization or Tradumatica. Don Kiraly has been teaching in the English Department of the School of Translation, Linguistics and Cultural Studies of the University of Mainz since 1983. His primary research interest lies in the development of innovative approaches to enhancing translation-related skills and foreign language competence. In addition to numerous articles and book chapters, Don has published Pathways to Translation (1995) and A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education (2000). He has also co-edited Projekte und Projektionen in der translatorischen Kompetenzentwicklung (2012) and New Prospects and Perspectives for Educating Language Mediators (2013). Julie McDonough Dolmaya teaches in the School of Translation at York University’s Glendon Campus. She obtained her doctorate in Translation Studies from the University of Ottawa, and her current research interests range from political translation and oral history to crowdsourcing, blogs and web translation. She has published articles on these topics in Meta, The Translator, Translation Studies, and others. She blogs about her teaching and research at www.mcdonoughdolmaya.ca.



Notes on contributors 151

Tamara Mikolič Južnič is Assistant Professor at the Department of Translation of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). She has a Ph.D. in linguistics (2008) and teaches language and translation courses at the B.A. and M.A. programs in translation and interpreting. She is Head of the Italian Language and Literature Chair at the Department of Translation, University of Ljubljana. Her research interests include translation studies, translation training, contrastive linguistics, corpus linguistics, and Italian linguistics. Tanja Žigon is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). She works at the Department of translation. She has a Ph.D. in literary studies (2008) and a M.A. in modern German Literature (2003). Her recent positions include: Deputy Head of the Department of Translation of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, and Literature Chair in German in the Department of Translation (Oct 2011–Oct 2014); Coordinator in the Department of Translation of the Faculty of Arts for Joint degree programs between the University of Ljubljana and the University of Graz (Institute for theoretical and applied translation studies) (since 2011); Leading researcher of the program group Intercultural literary studies with the Scientific Institute of the Faculty of Arts (since 2013), and the project coordinator for Slovenia for the EU Project TransStar: raising transcultural, digital and multitranslational competences. Marija Zlatnar Moe is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). She works at the Department of Translation where she teaches general translation courses from English into Slovene at the B.A. level, and literary translation and translation for arts and humanities at the M.A. level. Her research is focused mainly on literary translation (prose and drama) and translation teaching. Her most recent research topics include the influence of the translator’s ideology on the ideological make-up of the target text, comparative studies of the translation competence of language and translation students, and particularities of translation between smaller languages.

Index

A action research  111 authentic learning, authenticity  57, 69 B bilingualism, bilinguals  104, 106–110 blended learning  34, 35 blog post  142 C career goals  138, 140 CEFR 119 challenges to translator trainers and trainees  43 cognitive control  107 cognitivism  17 collaboration and networking  37 collaborative project  11 community of practice  9 competence  57 cultural  86, 90 instrumental-professional  145 language  4, 86, 90, 104, 105, 123 (also language proficiency) psycho-physiological  145 strategic  145 subject  86 textual  86, 90 transfer  86 complexity  21 consecutive interpreting  105 constructivism  19 consult primary documents  130 contemporary translation practice  135 crowdsourcing  32, 43, 48

D Deliberate Practice  70 digital technologies  32 digital native translation students  44 disadvantages of role plays  149 E e-learning  33, 34 e-learning, asynchronous  34, 35 e-learning, synchronous  34, 35 e-mail  142 effectiveness of censorship  137 experiential learning in, TaskBased Learning  57, 69 F feedback  39 foreign language students vs. translation students  84

L L1 competence  4, 5, 85, 86, 97, 103–104 (also L1 proficiency) L2 listening comprehension  4,5,105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119 120, 121, 122 L2 proficiency  4,5, 105, 106, 123 late bilinguals  104, 108, 109 learner autonomy  61, 62 learner belief  72 M materials for on-line learning  39 models, humanistic  146 models, social constructivist  146 modernism  13, 14 N novices  15

H historical role-playing games  129, 130, 131, 135, 138 phases  130 historicity (and) translation competence  129 Human resources  27, 69, 136, 137

O online learning  33 online learning platform  37 online translation/interpreting education  33 oral debates  130

I industry standards  135 interaction  39 interconnected tasks in, TaskBased Learning  59 Interlingual Mediation students vs. translation students (competence of)  4, 84, 91–93, 97–98 Intuitions  15

P participation  39 pedagogical approach  112, 26, 57, 58, 73, 111, 129, 130, 131, 144, 150 pedagogical paradigm  8 platform collaborative  37, 38, 43 communicative  32, 36 positivist instructionism  12

154 Index post-positivist educational theory  21 post-positivist educational theory, research  21 problem-solving  58, 61 Professional translator education  8 Professional-translator competence  28 project-based classes  12 public consultation  136, 137 Q quality management  136, 137 R research on translation teaching  34 role descriptions  142 role of translation in disseminating ideas  135 RTTP (reacting to translations past)  5, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 139, 145 S semi-professional  15 situated translation  12, 70 small groups  145 social constructivism  8, 18, 19, 23, 57 social-constructivist theory and practice  9, 19 socio-constructivist approaches  31, 36, 37 source language competence, in interpreting  103–4 speech repositories  35 strategic behavior  15

student reactions to the RTTP model  138 support, external  42 support, internal  42 T Task Based Approach  85 Task-Based Learning  3, 4, 58 teacher and student roles  59 teacher-centered instruction  12 teaching of CAT tools  35 technical resources  139, 141 technological advances  31 technological turn  32 telework  37 theoretical concepts  133, 139 think-aloud data  15 time management and scheduling  141 TOEFL 113, 118, 119 120 translation and language teaching  3, 84, 85 translation competence  32, 34, 40, 57, 88 bilingual sub-competence  41 emergence  27 extra-linguistic subcompetence  41, 42 information-mining competence  41–43 instrumental subcompetence  40, 41, 42, 43 knowledge-about-translation sub-competence  41, 42 localization competence  47 research  23 strategic subcompetence  24, 41, 42

technological competence  41 tools and research competence  40 translation expertise  57 translation process  4, 64, 71, 74, 89, 100, 136, 137 translation quality assessment (in translator education)  86, 87 translation quality  39, 45, 46, 48, 83, 84, 86, 93, 100, 150 translation theory through a historical lens  129 translator abilities  24 translator competence  2, 3, 10, 55, 57, 59, 65, 73, 98 translator dispositions  24 translator education  10 translator skills  24 translator skills, complex competences  26 translator skills, expertise  24 translator’s black box  15, 17 transmissionist approach  56 V virtual-learning environments  33 volunteer non-professional translation communities  32, 46, 47, 48 W web as corpus  45, 46 web for corpus  45 web localization  46 web corpora  44, 45 written assignments  5, 130, 134, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143

This volume ofers a collection of original articles on the teaching of translation and interpreting, responding to the increased interest in this area not only within translation and interpreting studies but also in related ields. It contains empirical, theoretical and state-of-the-art original pieces that address issues relevant to translation and interpreting pedagogy, such as epistemology, technology, language proiciency, and pedagogical approaches (e.g., game-based, task-based). All of the contributors are researchers and educators of either translation or interpreting – or both. The volume should be of interest to researchers and teachers of translation and interpreting, second language acquisition and language for speciic purposes. An introduction by the editors – both distinguished scholars in translation & interpreting pedagogy – provides the necessary context for the contributions. Originally published as a special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:1 (2015), edited by Brian James Baer and Christopher D. Mellinger.

ISBN

978 90 272 4278 5

John Benjamins Publishing Company