1.2. Translation Competence
Translation Competence is a key issue in this study.
It is a concept whose nature is generally misunderstood by common people, but
also controversial to translation theorists. This is clearly felt when one
examines relevant literature.
1.2.1. The Term Translation Competence
It should be noted that the definition of the concept is not
the only fundamental issue that has not yet been established, the term
indicating the concept as well. Pym (2002), Campbell (1991), Waddington (2001),
F. Alves; J.L. Vila Real; R. Rothe-Neves (2001) and Orozco and Hurtado Albir
(2002) use Translation Competence. Others have chosen different
appellations. Orozco and Hurtado Albir (2002) mention some of them:
translation transfer (Nord, 1991, p.161), translational
competence
(Toury, 1995, pp.250-51; Hansen, 1997, p.205; Chesterman,
1997, p.147), translator competence (Kiraly, 1995, p.108),
translation performance (Wilss, 1989, p.129), translation ability
(Lowe, 1987, p.57), and translation skill (Lowe, 1987, p.57). All
these denominations are, nevertheless, rarely accompanied with the researcher's
definition of the concept (Orozco and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p.375).
In this study "Translation Competence" is being used.
On the one hand, we accept the concept "competence" as comprising all
the other terms, namely ability, skill and knowledge. The
definition the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (2000) suggests of
the word competence is "the ability to do something well" (p. 260),
which may entail a wide range of skills, abilities and types of knowledge.
McClelland (1973), on the other hand, defines it as "appropriate use of
specific abilities according to surrounding demands" (Alves; Vila Real;
and Rothe-Neves, 2001). This definition fits the point of view this study
adopts because we believe that the concept of appropriateness is
central to Translation Competence.
On the other hand, the use of the term "translator
competence" might include things that go beyond the concept. Indeed, it
may imply all what a translator should know and be able to do including what
may belong to other fields than translation, such as knowledge about specific
subject matters. However, what we refer to by the term Translation
Competence is only what is specific to translation and
distinct from the other disciplines.
1.2.2. Translation Competence Versus Linguistic
Competence
Early attempts to define translation competence do not
distinguish it from competence in more than one language. Anthony Pym (2002)
attempts to classify the different approaches to the concept since the 1970s.
The first approach he refers to perceives translation competence as a summation
of linguistic competencies. It consists in possessing a "source-language
text-analytical competence" and "a corresponding target-language
text-reproductive competence" (Wilss, 1982, p. 118). Similarly, in Werner
Koller's (1979) words, it is "the ability to put together the linguistic
competencies gained in two languages" (p.40).
This approach raises the following relevant question: "Does
translation competence mean linguistic competence in more than one language?"
Accepting that it does would, in fact, imply the assumption that any person
possessing a sound knowledge in more than one language can necessarily be a
good translator. This, again, suggests that bilingual persons are automatically
skilful translators (Harris, 1977). As a result, deduces Pym (2002), "the
linguistics of bilingualism might thus [...]
become the linguistics of translation, and no separate
academic discipline need develop" (p.3). Furthermore, Translation Studies
would be reduced to a subject within Applied Linguistics, and Translator
Training would be the task of Language departments (ibid.). More
relevant to this study's concern is that this approach implies that Translation
course is all about language learning. This would make the duration of the
course sufficient for students to learn 'translation' perceived in this way.
Prior linguistic and cultural knowledge would then appear unnecessary.
| 
