16.2834, Review: Translation/L ang Education: Malmkj ær (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2834. Sun Oct 02 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2834, Review: Translation/Lang Education: Malmkjær (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 02-Oct-2005
From: Dorothy Kelly < dkelly at ugr.es >
Subject: Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:06:42
From: Dorothy Kelly < dkelly at ugr.es >
Subject: Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes 
 

EDITOR: Malmkjær, Kirsten 
TITLE: Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes
SERIES: Benjamins Translation Library 59
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-151.html 

Dorothy Kelly, AVANTI Research Group, Departamento de Traducción e 
Interpretación, Universidad de Granada, Spain 

This edited collective volume brings together twelve papers and an 
introduction under the general umbrella theme of translation in 
undergraduate degree programmes. To a certain extent, it can be seen as a 
continuation of a previous collection of papers collated by the same 
editor in 1998 (Malmkjær 1998) which brought together papers on 
translation in language teaching and language teaching for translation. As 
such it reflects an academic tradition in some European countries whereby 
strict compartmentalization of academic disciplines, objectives and 
approaches is avoided. In this respect, the book is a welcome product of 
cross-fertilization between the disciplines of Translation Studies and 
Modern Languages, all too often at loggerheads. However, this eclectic 
tradition also means that the content of the volume is on first reading 
extremely heterogeneous in subject matter and approach, making it 
difficult initially to trace one clear underlying theme. For that very 
reason, I have chosen not to comment separately on each individual paper 
in this review, but have rather attempted to establish connections which 
arise among the different papers, and from there tendencies relating to 
Translation on undergraduate degree programmes. 

Seven of the papers are by authors working clearly within the field of 
Translation Studies and concentrate squarely on the training and/or 
education of professional translators, including in two cases language 
learning for future professional translators. Four papers reflect on 
translation elements in more general language courses of different kinds, 
covering both translation as a means to the end of language learning, and 
basic preparation in translation as an optional element and potential 
secondary professional activity for general language graduates. The final 
paper deals with the complex issue of the role and evolution of English as 
an international language, its implications for undergraduate language 
degree programmes in English-speaking countries, particularly the UK, and 
its implications for monolingual speakers of English and their 
communication with the rest of the world. 

The first general reflection the book provokes is the enormous range of 
teaching situations in which translation is involved as an activity, and 
the tremendous wealth of experience which can be drawn from that. 
Schjoldager and Källvist present the results of two empirical studies into 
the efficiency of translation in language learning; although their 
different studies are ongoing and results so far are essentially 
inconclusive, there appears to be little confirmation of the usefulness of 
translation in this context. Sewell, in an original contribution, argues 
from a student-centred perspective the virtues of translation as a 
language learning activity which allows students to move in situations 
they feel they control better and hence not to lose face, in contrast with 
typical role-play components of communicative methods. From a different 
perspective, Beeby and Bernardini each put forward the case for 
translation-specific teaching of language skills for future translators, 
the former using a genre-based approach, the latter a corpus-based 
approach. Both Schäffner and Prelozniková & Toft present case studies of 
undergraduate courses which combine translation with other language 
skills, whereas Bernardini (who has two separate contributions in the 
volume), Wilss, González Davies and MacKenzie clearly situate themselves 
in the realm of training/educating future professional translators in 
translation. Translation, then, is still used as a (compulsory) language-
teaching activity in some contexts; future translators must acquire sound 
language skills prior to and parallel with learning to translate, 
interestingly enough rarely through translation itself; general language 
graduates acquire what Barbour refers to in his paper as  "translation 
awareness" either as a potential professional option or simply to round 
off their linguistic skills and their ability to act professionally as 
language experts; and finally, of course, an increasing number of 
professionalized courses are training (educating?) translators for the now 
highly technological language industries. This all makes for a fascinating 
mix of approaches, offering at the very least food for thought for those 
working within different paradigms: an important virtue of this volume. 

In a paper which serves as an introductory overview of some of the issues 
involved in translation pedagogy, Wilss reminds us (p. 11) of the dangers 
of dogmatism, insisting that there is (or should be) no "fixed canon" in 
translation teaching method. This very welcome warning is borne out by the 
papers which follow it, as different authors illustrate how their academic 
traditions, systems and environments impinge on what is done on their 
courses, and how it is done. Represented here are the UK, Slovakia, Spain, 
Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany, although the contributions 
from the latter two do not make specific reference to their context. 
Surprisingly enough, despite some quite detailed descriptions of course 
structure and content, no specific mention is made of the pan-European 
move toward the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), 
except very much in passing to only one element thereof (the credit 
system) by González Davies. The reformed system currently being introduced 
in some 40 European countries is based on three distinct levels of 
teaching/learning on the Bachelor-Master-Doctor model, most typically 
lasting 3 + 2 + 3 years. The extent of this ongoing reform process, 
together with the length of time it often takes for papers to appear in 
print form, means that at least some of the information given here on 
course structures is either out-of-date or about to change extensively, 
which is unfortunate.

Although the authors make no explicit reference to the EHEA as the overall 
framework for their curricular design decisions, many of its elements and 
the debate surrounding them are however present in the papers, and form an 
interesting, if implicit, connection among them. Bernadini's impassioned 
plea for a first degree centred on education rather than training and for 
an overall "reasoned, timely and thought-out balance of education and 
training" (p. 27) is especially opportune in this respect, as it reflects 
the potential dangers identified by many academics in current higher 
education trends of allowing an often transitory market situation to 
determine how and in what students should be educated within the proposed 
3+2+3 structure. Differing approaches to this issue can be observed in 
this volume, for example in Bernardini's rejection of replication of 
potential professional situations (typical of training) as reductive and 
as purely cumulative, in contrast with the generative nature of more 
educational approaches which promote further learning ability and the 
growth of the individual; this in stark contrast with MacKenzie, who bases 
her proposal fully on the replication (simulated or otherwise) of 
professional situation within a marked training paradigm. 

Bernadini's appeal for more attention to general educational and social 
concerns at undergraduate level links indirectly to Wilss's caveat 
regarding "premature over-specialization" (p. 10), and no less so to the 
many references to the role of new technologies throughout the volume. 
Wilss sees no "rational grounds for opposing the setting up of a strongly 
modern(ised), computer-oriented course in translation [...], focusing not 
only on machine translation, and machine-assisted translation, but also on 
artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology" (p. 12). MacKenzie 
includes IT skills in her list of essential translator competencies (p. 
32). On the other side of the debate, Bernardini (p. 22) and Beeby (p. 
42), for their part, both quote Mossop (2000) with whom they are in 
varying degrees of agreement: "If you cannot translate with pencil and 
paper, then you can't translate with the latest information technology" 
(p. 22). The debate boils down to deciding whether new technologies 
constitute an object of study in themselves (Wilss), or rather an 
instrument at the service of the student, teacher and translator (Mossop, 
Bernardini). Both approaches are, of course, legitimate, but they 
correspond to different aims and ends. Does a course aim at educating 
graduates who will be able to translate as responsible reflective citizens 
and professionals in the XXIst century, or at training specialists in 
translation technology who will be able to help in the development of 
better tools for the future? There is no single answer, and context is 
determinant in setting objectives for individual courses.  
 
In setting objectives for undergraduate courses and modules, several of 
the authors use or refer to the concept of competence, central to the EHEA 
in an attempt to move away from purely declarative knowledge and to 
incorporate more procedural knowledge into university education. The 
problematic nature of the very concept of competence in the context of 
higher education is made abundantly clear by the range of terminology used 
by the different authors, who speak of competence, competency, skill, 
knowledge and/or capacity to refer at least partly to the same thing. The 
debate surrounding the concept of translation/translator competence is, of 
course, not new in Translation Studies, although the EHEA definition is 
not exactly coincidental with many of those used in our field. In the 
context of higher education, competence can be understood to mean: "a 
transferable, multifunctional package of knowledge, skills and attitudes 
that individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, inclusion 
and employment" (Working Group "Basic skills, entrepreneurship and foreign 
languages", 2003:11). This is much broader in scope than more narrowly 
professional training view of competence often put forward in Translation 
Studies. 

In this volume, Beeby in particular argues heavily in favour of a 
competence-based model as a "useful checklist for designing any 
translation-related syllabus" (p. 44). This does not of course mean that 
all courses will end up doing the same in the same way, as underlined by 
González Davies and Wilss in this volume: "The most salient misconception 
is [...] the belief that there is a royal way in translation teaching 
methodology" (p. 14). Adaptation to the local cultural, social, 
educational, professional context is essential if any course is to be 
successful. 

Malmkjær in her introduction and Barbour in his concluding paper make 
explicit reference to a phenomenon promoted without a doubt by the EHEA 
and the internationalization of higher education worldwide, already 
strongly present in some countries and emergent in others: the 
increasingly multicultural and multilingual nature of our classrooms. This 
phenomenon calls into question much of the received wisdom regarding 
translation learning and practice, not least in relation to the concept of 
directionality. Multiple language combinations in the classroom, together 
with external considerations such as the limited supply of translators for 
certain combinations, or the complex situation of English as an 
international language (with its many, not always entirely mutually 
comprehensible varieties, as pointed out by Barbour) all point to the need 
for a more flexible approach to the concepts of mother tongue, the 
direction of translation, and the idea of the translator as a team player, 
all present in this volume. Here again, curiously, we come up against 
terminological differences which do not help intra- or interdisciplinary 
communication. Translation into non-mother tongue (Grosman et al., 2000) 
is referred to in the volume by different authors as inverse translation, 
reverse translation and translation into L2, reflecting both disciplinary 
and national influence! (For detailed recent discussions of 
directionality, see Kelly et al., 2003 and Pokorn, 2005.) 

A further and important aspect of the multicultural classroom is that 
teachers must be prepared for much greater diversity in learning styles 
than they have hitherto experienced. An interesting hint of this aspect of 
teaching translation, on which much work is still needed, appears in the 
volume with regard to inductive versus deductive approaches. Schäffner, 
following Hönig and Kussmaul (1991) and working in the UK, adopts and 
reports on the success of a strongly inductive approach, as does 
Bernardini (she uses the term "discovery learning") in reporting on the 
use of corpora in language teaching for future translators. González 
Davies, on the other hand, although adopting a strongly inductive approach 
herself, reports on Orozco´s (2000) finding that Spanish students perform 
better when theoretical modules are introduced at an early stage of their 
courses (a deductive paradigm). 

Pleas are made by various authors for research to feed back into teaching 
both of translation and of language. Valuable steps in this direction are 
already reported on in several papers in this volume, and can of course be 
identified in other authors (see e.g. Colina, 2003 for an interesting 
overview of how Translation Studies research can feed back into the 
classroom). Such an essential move is certainly facilitated by research 
reports as detailed, transparent and cautious as those by Schjoldager and 
Källvist in this volume.  

One last common theme linking the various papers is that of evaluation. 
Wilss (p. 14) identifies it as an immediate challenge for translation 
teachers, and it is certainly the case that Translation Studies as a 
discipline has yet to reach agreement on what a good translation is. None 
of the papers in the volume actually go into this thorny matter in any 
further depth. They do, however, touch on a slightly different, but 
strongly related issue for translation teachers: that of how to assess 
learning on translation courses. On this point, Schäffner and Prelozniková 
& Toft both offer interesting information and innovative suggestions for 
assessment of learning in translation from a pedagogical point of view. 

In conclusion, a volume which initially gives the impression of being very 
heterogeneous proves on detailed reading to have many common threads which 
can be drawn together to pose questions of considerable interest to anyone 
working with translation in the university classroom or in curricular and 
syllabus design for translation teaching. Those of us involved in teaching 
within Translation Studies have much to learn from the long and rich 
experience of those working in language acquisition; this volume is proof 
that our work in Translation Studies is now also producing results and 
feedback, hopefully of use not only to ourselves but also to those using 
translation for purposes other than educating future professionals in the 
classroom. Alongside these common interests, we also increasingly share a 
common higher education framework across disciplines and national borders, 
which none of us can afford to ignore. 

REFERENCES

Colina, Sonia. 2003. Teaching Translation. From Research to the Classroom. 
McGraw Hill.

Grosman, Meta et al. (eds.). 2000. Translation into Non-mother tongues. 
Tubinga: Stauffenburg.

Hönig Hans and Paul Kussmaul 1991. Strategie der Übersetzung. Ein Lehr- 
und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.

Kelly, Dorothy; Anne Martin; Marie-Louise Nobs, Dolores Sánchez y 
Catherine Way (eds.) 2003. La direccionalidad en Traducción e 
Interpretación. Granada: Atrio. 

Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.). 1998. Translation and Language Teaching. Language 
Teaching and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome. 

Mossop, Brian. 2000. "What should be taught at translation school?" In 
Anthony Pym (ed.) Innovation in Translator and Interpreter Training - An 
Online Symposium. Online: http://www.fut-es/~apym/symp/mossop.html 

Pokorn, Nike K. 2005. Challenging the Traditional Axioms. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. 

Working Group "Basic skills, entrepreneurship and foreign languages" 
(2003) "Implementation of 'Education and Training 2010' Work Programme: 
Progress Report". Unpublished working document. European Commission, 
Directorate-General for Education and Culture 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dorothy Kelly is senior lecturer in Translation at the University of 
Granada, where she has been teaching on the undergraduate programme for 
over twenty years, and currently coordinates a programme of doctoral 
studies in Translating and Interpreting entitled "Traducción, Sociedad y 
Comunicación". She obtained her first degree in Translating and 
Interpreting at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (Scotland), and her 
doctoral degree from the University of Granada. Her main research 
interests are translator training and directionality in translation. Among 
other publications, she is author of A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A 
Guide to Reflective Practice (2005), editor of La traducción y la 
interpretación en España hoy: perspectivas profesionales (2000) and co-
editor of La direccionalidad en Traducción e Interpretación (2003). She is 
currently series editor of Translation Practices Explained at St Jerome 
Publishing, Manchester.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2834