Intercultural Competence for Translators

Daniel Tomozeiu, Kaisa Koskinen, Adele D'Arcangelo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138563391
• eBook ISBN: 9781351349345
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

By definition, translators are intercultural mediators. This book explores some of the most important current approaches in defining intercultural competence for translators. At the same time, it provides real-life examples of different approaches in operationalizing intercultural competence and teaching it in a translator-training context. Written for a global audience, the book provides an informative overview of the field as well as practical examples from different academic and cultural contexts. This book was originally published as a special issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer.

Operationalising intercultural competence for translation pedagogy

Daniel Tomozeiu and Minna Kumpulainen

ABSTRACT

This article discusses intercultural competence in the context of translator training. It looks at the way this competence is incorporated and defined in the overall translation competence models, moving on to introduce two models that focus on intercultural competence in particular and serve to operationalise the concept for pedagogical purposes. Making this competence more explicit in translator training is considered vital: in the light of results gained from a survey into the current pedagogical practice, translator trainers’ and translation students’ understanding of the nature and extent of (inter)cultural training do not match. This calls for re-evaluation of teaching practice, which, in turn, presupposes a detailed, comprehensive account of the various dimensions of intercultural competence a translator is to possess. This article discusses these dimensions and provides exemplary scenarios on how to address them in translator training.

Introduction

Since the emergence of functionalist translation theories (e.g. Reiss and Vermeer 1991; Nord 1997) and the so-called cultural turn in translation studies (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990, 12), translation has been considered both a cultural and a linguistic procedure (Schäffner 2003, 83─85). Consequently, translation has been acknowledged to be one form of intercultural communication (IC) by various authors in the field of translation studies (TS) (e.g. Vermeer 1989; Mary, Jettmarová, and Kaindl 1995; Katan 2004; House 2009). The view is also reflected in the subtitles of some leading journals in the field of TS, such as The Translator, Studies in Intercultural Communication, and Perspectives: Studies in Translatology; Language and Intercultural Communication; Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development (Schäffner 2003). Within IC, in turn, translation was considered as ‘a specialised discipline within the field of intercultural communication’ even earlier (Arjona 1978, 35). Schäffner (2003, 91), pondering on the different and similar interests of the two research fields, concludes that the difference between translation and intercultural communication lies in the different concept of communication: while in the field of intercultural communication communicators act in their own role, using intercultural communicative competence to achieve their own goals (in business negotiations for example), translators produce texts which are used by others for communication.

The pedagogical agenda followed suit. (Inter)cultural competence was acknowledged as an element of translation competence (TC) and incorporated in translation competence models. A number of these models have been developed over the last two decades as it will be discussed further in this article. These models are, however, designed as learning outcomes; they depict the competence a translator is supposed to possess at the end of his or her training, but pay little attention to any specification of intercultural competence. For this reason, the authors feel that the operationalisation process has so far fallen short of the required pedagogical needs. The current article will discuss several widely cited translation competence models from an IC perspective, identifying how IC appears in these models (if at all). The authors will then propose a specific ‘translator’s intercultural competence model’ (PICT 2012a), and discuss it in parallel with yet another recent IC model, that of Yarosh (2015), thus contributing to the unfolding pedagogical debate in this research area. What sets PICT model apart from the others is its focus. While the existing TC models seem to recognise IC skills needed to translate a text, they do not pay attention to the translator’s overall IC competence, which goes beyond text production. As Yarosh (2015) states, ‘student translators should develop as future professionals whose task is to enable intercultural communication’. In other words, the translator, as a professional, has to develop a complex set of IC skills in order to perform in today’s complex work environment. They need not only be able to deal with culture-related problems in text production, but also manage communication with various agents in the commissioning process. Hence, even if translation can be set apart from intercultural communication in terms of different concepts of communication as proposed by Schäffner (2003, 91), a translator is not only a skilled text producer but is also capable of intercultural communication in his or her own role to achieve his or her own goals – just as any other intercultural communicator. Translator’s intercultural competence encompasses a larger repertoire of skills than intercultural competence in translation (=text production).

The article will also make the case for a very explicit engagement with IC competences in translation classes by giving examples of how the suggested model can be operationalised for pedagogical practice. This is to further emphasise the need to clearly and explicitly identify IC competences in order to enable junior translators to acknowledge their own strengths in this area and support their development. Given today’s complex and constantly evolving understanding of what culture is in today’s world (see, for example, Gupta and Ferguson 1997) as well as the professional pressures that surround the modern translator, only an explicit and reflection-informed approach will enable junior translators to develop the type of IC competence that will enable them to engage successfully with these new cultural challenges.

Intercultural competence in translation competence models

Translation is a complex cognitive process, and there is still no consensus among translation scholars as to the relevant elements of translation competence; Kiraly (2013, 210─211); for example, calls for further efforts into elucidating the sub-competences that have been proposed in the various models published to date. The earliest accounts of the constituents of TC were language-bound, but along with the cultural turn in Translation Studies, the importance of cultural skills or cultural competence was noted (e.g. Nord 1991; Neubert 2000, 6). As Kelly (2005, 31─32) points out, translation competence can be modelled for different purposes and from different viewpoints. Most accounts attempt at listing skills which translator training should provide in order to meet the market’s demand. Such a listing can be based on direct or indirect observation of the profession and on information received from the employers as well as translation teachers’ own experience as practicing translators. Kelly herself gives a synthesis of such a listing (Kelly 2005, 32). Probably the most detailed and recent account is provided by the EMT Expert Group whose translator competence model is explicitly designed as a curriculum framework document, entailing the skills that a student should possess at the completion of master’s degree (Gambier 2009).

Perhaps the most widely cited TC model in TS is provided by the Spanish research group PACTE (e.g. 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011). Their model is exceptional in that it has emerged as a result of empirical experimenting with translation experts and non-experts, who in PACTE’s study were foreign language teachers with no experience or training in translation. Göpferich’s model (2009, 20─22) is a modification of PACTE’s. Despite the apparent differences between the models of PACTE or Göpferich and of EMT expert group or Kelly, their ultimate goal is the same: to depict what translation competence consists of in order to teach those skills to translation students and thus to contribute to curriculum work in translator training. In the following paragraphs, these models are discussed as to their stance on intercultural competence as a part of TC.

Given that translation is generally considered to be a form of intercultural communication, one might expect to find intercultural competence as one of the elementary sub-competences of a translator in the various models. This, however, seems not to be the case; few models explicitly mention intercultural competence, and if they do, the concept is poorly specified and as such, cannot be readily operationalised for pedagogical purposes. Kelly (2005, 32─33) is an exception since she mentions cultural and intercultural competence as one of the relevant sub-competences of a translator, defining them as intercultural communication process awareness, factual knowledge of relevant cultures and familiarity with how respective values, beliefs, stereotypes, etc. usually get represented in texts. As pointed out by Yarosh (2015, 161), however, the very inter-cultural mediating component is never mentioned by Kelly. Moreover, Kelly’s communicative and textual communicative competence in at least two languages also entails skills – such as knowledge of culturally specific textual and discourse conventions – that could be regarded as intercultural. Hence, in Kelly’s list of competences, intercultural sub-competence is not conceptualised as a skill in its own right but rather, as a skill that contributes to various phases in the translation process.

The model that pays most attention to the role of IC in translation is that of EMT expert group (Gambier 2009). In their TC model, IC is defined as having two dimensions, the sociolinguistic and the textual, and both dimensions are at play when contrasting discursive practices of working languages in a translation situation: intercultural competence is needed to analyse a text in its cultural context and to make decisions as to how to transfer its meaning to another target audience in another culture in an appropriate, understandable manner. As pointed out by Yarosh (2015, 162), in this account it is the linguistic form (as means of evoking/suggesting cultural conventions) that students need to focus on. In other words, intercultural competence is mainly needed to produce a text on the basis of another text and to recognise and to deal with various culture-specific problems in the text production process; in Pym’s (2013, 491) words, intercultural competence in the EMT model turns out to be a disguise for text linguistics and sociolinguistics and could thus have been placed under the heading of ‘language competence’. Furthermore, ability to summarise, to draft, rephrase, restructure, condense, and post-edit rapidly, well as well as to compose a document in accordance with the conventions of the genre and rhetorical standards, are considered as workings of intercultural competence in the EMT model. To us, these seem to be skills required also in monolingual text production and as such, not specific to interlingual text production. Yarosh (2015, 163) shares the authors’ view that the construct of the intercultural competence would probably be more complete if not only linguistic and textual dimensions are included in its working, and more coherent if not all textual operations are regarded as part of it either.

The PACTE model, in turn, splits TC into five sub-competences: bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence, knowledge about translation sub-competence, instrumental sub-competence and strategic sub-competence (PACTE 2003). Intercultural competence is implicit, and the element of a translator being in-between two cultures is not focused on in the model. Bilingual sub-competence is defined as predominantly procedural knowledge needed to communicate in two languages (not between two languages), including pragmatic, sociolinguistic, textual, grammatical and lexical knowledge in the two languages. In addition, bilingual competence as a translator’s sub-competence includes the specific feature of interference control, the ability to keep languages apart when alternating between them; this is where the intercultural – or at least interlingual – competence is implied. Cultural knowledge, in turn, is explicitly mentioned as one category of a translator’s extra-linguistic sub-competence, which is defined as predominantly declarative knowledge, both implicit and explicit, about the world in general and about special areas. PACTE divides this sub-competence into three knowledge categories, one of which is cultural knowledge of both the source and target cultures. Again, the element of being ‘in-between’ is missing: it is not merely the knowledge of two cultures that is relevant in translation but also knowledge on how cultural differences affect translation and on how to take them into account in successful communication that matters. In Göpferich’s TC model (2009), IC as a translator’s sub-competence is similarly implicit.

Hence, intercultural competence is either implicit in multicomponent translation competence models, or alternatively, it is specified in a vague, and sometimes incoherent, manner. Perhaps due to this, as Yarosh (2013, 53) states, the issue of translator intercultural training remains largely unexplored; there seems to be a ‘blank spot’ in TS pedagogical literature in this regard. Yarosh (2013, 2015) herself has recently zoomed into translators’ intercultural competence in particular, proposing a model depicting various elements of that specific competence as well as suggesting ways to operationalise the model for pedagogical purposes. Yarosh is drawing on Witte’s definition of translator’s intercultural competence, which the scholar herself calls expert cultural competence. The definition is as follows: …the ability to become critically aware of what is ‘known’ unconsciously and to ‘learn’ consciously what is not ‘known’ about one’s own culture and other culture(s), as well as the ability to relate and contrast the cultures so as to be able to produce behaviours in accordance with the aim of the communication and tailored to the particular communicative situation, behaviours that account for the communicative needs of at least two actors from two different cultures, so as to enable the communication between these actors (Witte 2005, 50). This definition does not limit intercultural competence of translators to sociolinguistics or text linguistics but rather, acknowledges intercultural competence as a translator sub-competence – a skill that a translator needs not only to solve translation problems but to manage communication with various agents in the translation commissioning process. In this respect, we follow the lead of Yarosh in our conceptualisation of intercultural competence.

Towards a model of translator’s intercultural competence

Selected findings of the PICT survey

Some of the shortcomings of the proposed competence models can be identified also in the day-to-day translation teaching practice in the classroom. As part of the Promoting intercultural Competence in Translators (PICT) Erasmus project, in which both authors were involved, a survey was undertaken in 2012 across six EU countries (Bulgaria, Finland, France, Italy, Poland and United Kingdom). The six were chosen to represent a good geographical spread from across Europe, countries with a long tradition in translation training. The survey contained open, closed and ranking questions, asking translation lecturers and students about the current IC training provisions and the desired ones (PICT 2012b). In total 462 respondents participated in the survey (399 postgraduate translation students and 63 academics training on the respective programmes).

The findings of the survey make for fascinating reading. Based on the current provisions three aspects became clear: first, the different understanding of what IC meant (the boundaries of IC in translator training); second, the disadvantages of an implicit approach (lecturers thought they were covering the topic while students were not aware of it); and third, the emphasis on the textual dimensions of IC, to the disadvantage of all the other ones. The survey also demonstrated a very high level of interest, across the board, in developing IC competences. This interest is also reflected in the desired IC training provisions.

In the view of the authors a certain level of flexibility in understanding what is meant by IC in a translation context is to be welcomed. Authors such as House (2009, 8) have acknowledge...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Teaching intercultural competence in translator training
• 1 Operationalising intercultural competence for translation pedagogy
• 2 The first step to incorporate intercultural competence into a given translation curriculum: a micro-level survey of students’ learning needs
• 3 A process-oriented approach for documenting and gauging intercultural competence in translation
• 4 Procedures for assessing the acquisition of cultural competence in translator training
• 5 Investigating trainee translators’ contrastive pragmalinguistic competence: a corpus-based analysis of interclausal linkage in learner translations
• Index