This paper helped us gain insight into the relationship
between learning translation and prior linguistic knowledge. It established the
assumption that translation is a complex activity. And as learning a complex
activity calls for practice, there is a need for tools. Linguistic and cultural
knowledge being the tools, they are prerequisites to learn the activity of
translation. The paper demonstrated, as well, that meeting translation course
objectives is dependent on the quality of those prerequisites.
What remains to be known in this respect, however, is more
than what has been uncovered through this research paper. Various questions are
left to be investigated, some of which are listed here: What, precisely, is the
minimum level of linguistic competence a candidate translator should possess?
What precisely is the lowest amount of cultural knowledge a candidate
translator should possess? How can cultural knowledge be tested? As far as
translation objectives are concerned, at which stage in language learning the
culture of the language becomes a necessity? Does general culture help acquire
`anthropological' culture?
This last question leads us to one of the shortcomings of the
present paper. We are conscious that the unexpected results of the statistical
study concerning culture remained open to various interpretations. This
amplified our questions regarding this issue. Indeed, which of the possible
interpretations is the right one remains another obscure question.
Some theoretical conclusions can also be drawn from this
investigation. We hope they constitute a contribution to the reader's awareness
of some conceptual misapprehensions. First, the uncovered complex nature of
translation clears it of the received idea of being no more than competence in
tow languages. This, we believe, gives language learning on the one hand and
translation learning on the other independent theoretical constructs. Stemming
from their respective objectives, this independence would certainly promote the
goals of each.
Second, awareness of the profession's responsibility would
be, it is hoped, another contribution of this paper. The very choice of this
paper's subject along with the choice of some aspects addressed in the
literature review were expected to serve this goal. The recommendations put
forward were further motivated by the researcher's awareness of this issue.
Indeed, if the proposed recommendations seem somewhat
radical,
modern life. The translator's understanding, expression and
transfer decisions decide on the nature and the quality of interlinguistic
communication. Personal affairs, social relationships, destinies, careers,
lives, cultural identities, national values and even the course of history
might be at stake. It is, thus, high time to reconsider the importance of this
profession. It would not be just for the sake of acknowledgment for the
translator's merit. It would be, much more, for the sake of our own destinies.
We should start being over-exacting as to those who will become our
translators. And, as a final point, we should be conscious that this is not
only legitimate; it is much more than that: it is a duty.
