1.2.3. Nature of Translation Competence
The existence of this concept has become undeniable even
through empirical studies, such as that of Waddington (2001). Nonetheless, its
nature raises controversy. Two main approaches to the question are
presented.
The first approach is a set of different attempts to identify
what is included in translation competence. These attempts seem to be more
interested in what the translator's knowledge, abilities and skills should
comprise rather than isolating the concept of translation competence itself.
Pym (2002) mentions some of these views. He states that they all perceive
translation competence as "multicomponential", with a growing
tendency to include in the list of components all what each
theorist thinks necessary for a translator to know and do. This is, probably,
the result of the dramatic change occurring in all aspects of life due to the
development of science, communication and technology. The profession of
translation seems to get more and more complex because of the large number of
the required "market qualifications" of a translator.
Some of the definitions of translation competence belonging to
this category are briefly listed. Roger Bell (1991) perceives translation
competence as the sum of the following: target-language knowledge, texttype
knowledge, source-language knowledge, subject area knowledge, contrastive
knowledge, and communicative competence covering grammar, sociolinguistics and
discourse. Beeby (1996) lists six sub competencies within translation
competence. Each of them includes up to four or five sub-skills. Hewson (1995)
added to the traditional ones a set of other `competencies', where some of
which are "access to and use of proper dictionaries and data banks" (p.
108).
Another example of the "multicomponential" models of
translation competence is that of Jean Vienne (1998). He suggests that the
first required competence is the translator's ability to ask the client about
the target text's readership and purpose. Proper use of the appropriate
resources to reach the client's aim and meet the public's needs constitutes the
second competence. Third, the translator should be able to account
and argue for the decisions he has made in the translation
process. The client needs to agree on whatever modifications brought to form or
content. Finally, the translator should also be able to collaborate with
specialised people in the source text's subject, particularly when they do not
speak his language. He is also required to ask them to explain the subject for
him rather than just teaching him the terminology. Translation implies, above
all, understanding, affirms Vienne (1998).
All the models developed within this trend seem to be
influenced by the complexity of the tasks the modern professional translator is
required to carry out, and the multitude of disciplines he is expected to be
familiar with. This is well explained in the following Pym's (2002)
quotation:
"The evolution of the translation profession itself has
radically fragmented the range of activities involved. In the 1970s,
translators basically translated. In our own age, translators are called upon
to do much more: documentation, terminology, rewriting, and the gamut of
activities associated with the localization industry."
This approach may also be explained by the fact that
Translation Studies as a newly established discipline draws on a wide range of
other disciplines. Pym (2002) continues:
"Perhaps, also, the explosion of components has followed the
evolution of Translation Studies as an "interdiscipline", no longer constrained
by any form of hard-core linguistics. Since any number of neighbouring
disciplines can be drawn on, any number of things can be included under the
label of "translation competence."
(p.6)
The development of the profession or that of the discipline,
however, doesn't necessarily imply to stop distinguishing the required
competence itself from the use of new tools or knowledge in specific
disciplines. These are there to assist the translator in his task, rather than
to add complexity to matters.
An additional critique lies in the question posed by Pym
(2002): Is it possible to include all there skills in the objectives of
translator training programs, given that the Translation course doesn't last
more than four or five years?
The second approach distinguishes between Translation
Competence and the other competencies, but seems to fail to draw clear
boundaries between linguistic competence and translation competence. Vienne
(1998) reports Jean Delisle's (1992) attempt to define the concept, where a set
of five competencies is listed:
Linguistic competence: ability to understand the source language
and produce in the target language.
Translational competence: ability to comprehend the
organisation of meaning in the source text and to render it in the target
language without distortion, in addition to the ability to avoid interference.
Methodological competence: ability to look for and use documentation about a
given subject and learn its terminology. Disciplinary competence: ability to
translate texts in some specific disciplines, like law and economy.
Technical competence: ability to use translation technology
aids.
Jean Vienne (1998) expresses his disappointment of the fact
that Delisle (1992), just like a number of other translation theorists, reduces
translation competence to the "double operation of deverbalization and
reformulation of deverbalized ideas" (p.1). This definition, he thinks, doesn't
deal with the competencies that are actually specific to translators (Vienne,
1998).
In fact, the definition Vienne (1998) rejects has tried to
distinguish between linguistic competence, Translation Competence and other
competencies. The difference between linguistic and Translation Competences is,
nevertheless, believed to be a malter of degree, accuracy and interference. In
other words, according to this definition, a translator should understand a
source text more profoundly and write more effectively than common
linguistically competent people. Moreover, he has to avoid interference and be
faithful and accurate.
Actually, what is thought to be the difference between
linguistic competence and Translation Competence, namely good understanding and
writing, appear to belong to linguistic competence. Avoiding interference,
faithfulness and accuracy, on the other hand, may well be considered to belong
to translation competence. But, are these three elements what translation
competence is all about?
Another attempt to define translation competence is made by
Stansfield et al. (1992). They claim that translation competence should be
divided into two different skills. The first is accuracy, "which is the
degree of accuracy with which the translator transfers the content from the
source to the target text" (Waddington, 2001, p. 312). And the second is
expression, "which refers to the quality of the translator' s expression of
this content in the target language" (Waddington, 2001, p. 312). This
assumption is the conclusion of an empirical study conducted on
translation tests assigned to translators working for the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, Waddington (2001) criticises
the study on the grounds that the majority of the tests consist of
"multiple-choice tests and the translation of isolated words, expressions or
sentences" rather than texts (p. 313).
A third group of scholars seem to have attained a clearer
conception of Translation Competence nature. They put forward that Translation
Competence is something distinct from both linguistic competence and other
competencies. It lies in the ability to solve translation problems and make
decisions with regards to a multitude of relevant factors, such as the source
text author's purpose and the target readership's needs. This competence is
what highlights translation specificity vis-à-vis other concepts like
bilingualism. Hurtado Albir (1996) defines it as " the ability of knowing how
to translate " (p.48). This implies a certain ability specific to the process
of translating. Gideon Toury (1986) suggests that it is a specific "transfer
competence" which is not the simple overlap between competences in two
languages (Pym, 2002). Werner Koller (1992), in a more recent restatement of
his view, asserts that Translation Competence resides in "the creativity
involved in finding and selecting between equivalents" and in text
production as well (p.20). Similarly, Pym opted for what he calls "a
minimalist" definition of Translation Competence, as opposed to the
multicomponentialist
definition. His definition is based on the generation and the
elimination of alternatives as far as the problem solving process is concerned
(Pym, 2002, p. 10).
As to the formulation of a definition, Hurtado Albir and
Orozco (2002) choose that of Process of the Acquisition of Translation
Competence and Evaluation (PACTE) research group, from the Universitat
Autônoma of Barcelona in Spain. This definition suggests that
Translation Competence is "the underlying system of knowledge and skills
needed to be able to translate" (Orozco and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p.
376).
The "linguistic" approach to Translation Competence, which
reduces it to mere competence in two languages, was subsequently rejected even
by its own followers like Koller (1992). Apart from this approach, all the
other trends argue for the existence of a competence specific to translation
and more or less distinct from language competence. The approach underlying the
present study draws on this assumption along with the conception the third
approach establishes of Translation Competence. We assume that this latter
appears to be the overlap between three types of qualities and practice. The
first quality is a wide and diversified knowledge. The second is related to
cognitive abilities such as inference and memory. And the third concerns some
affective dispositions such as risk-taking and flexibility. This overlap
should result in appropriate performance in problem solving and
decision-making
· tasks constantly involved in translation.
It can also be retained that translation competence concerns
the ability to deal with translation problems. Analysing and
understanding the problem constitute the first step. Then the translator has to
produce several alternative solutions and decide on the selection of the most
appropriate. In this process, every relevant element should
be taken into consideration. Cultural implications, style, the author's
purpose, target readership needs, are some decisive elements.
To train the student translator to deal with translation
problems, practice from the very beginning of the course appears as an
indisputable necessity. What should be realised here is that alternative
generation implies that the student's linguistic knowledge be of a certain
level of variety, particularly in terms of syntax and lexis. Otherwise, the
production of different solutions and formulations would be unattainable. A
certain amount of cultural knowledge allowing for a sound communicative
competence is also required. It is mostly needed for the task of selecting the
most suitable alternative. Undoubtedly, what has been put forward so far
reinforces the belief that previous linguistic and cultural knowledge are
necessary for the translation learning process.
To sum up, all the views agree on the complexity and the
difficulty of the process that entails translation competence. Consequently, as
we
have seen, some of the approaches led to the supposition that
a four or five years translation course is not sufficient (Pym, 2002).
Acquiring translation competence requires the devotion of as much time and
effort as possible. Spending time in basic linguistic and cultural knowledge
acquisition seems to hinder the course objectives' attainment. These are then:
translation competence acquisition and the enrichment of linguistic
and cultural knowledge.
| 
