ASSESSMENT IN TRANSLATOR TRAINING: FROM LINGUISTIC TO PROFESSIONAL CRITERIA

Headnote

Abstract. Starting from the assumption that the process of translation evaluation should be performed in a manner that helps the future translators rationalize their decision-making processes in an objective way, this paper discusses the process of evaluation in the field of professional translator training from the perspective of the translation error, on the one hand, and of the translation competence, on the other. The main purpose of the paper is to suggest an assessment scheme that is closely related to the competences that the various translator training programmes are meant to develop or to create.

Keywords: professional translator training, translation competence, translation error, translation evaluation

1. Introduction

The use of translation as a language learning activity represents a common practice during English classes, and the work generated in this context is normally evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria of linguistic and stylistic nature. However, with the development of a wide range of translator training programmes in institutions all over the world, students are supposed to produce more elaborate forms of translation and, consequently, teachers must use criteria of assessment which differ from those specific to foreign language teaching. Even if most translator trainers agree on the existence of this necessity, several aspects regarding the process of evaluating the trainees' work remain unclear: What evaluation criteria must teachers use in professional translator training? How should the process of evaluation be performed so that it would teach future translators something relevant about the standards that their work must meet in the real world?

A clearly defined set of objective criteria according to which the quality of translations should be evaluated would not simply have the role of making the teacher's job as an evaluator easier and, at the same time, more reliable. The existence of such criteria of assessment would also be beneficial to the trainee translators, because, if they know exactly the criteria according to which their translations are assessed and their mistakes are corrected, then they learn how to rationalize their decision-making processes in an objective way, and, in close relation to that, they acquire the ability to discuss translations in an objective manner. Moreover, knowledge and awareness of the level of expectations to which their work must rise on the real translation market would certainly get future translators closer to the status of professionals in that field.

Trying to meet the needs that both translation students and translator trainers have in this respect, this paper will approach the process of evaluation in the field of professional translator training from two main perspectives. The first perspective is that of the translation error, which, in the translation courses, is no longer perceived as a deviation from a system of norms or rules that, in most cases, must be penalized, but is defined in terms of the purpose of the translation process or product. The second perspective offered by this paper is that of the focus of evaluation in professional translator training, which is actually represented by the trainees' translation competence. The most important conclusions revealed by the discussion of the concepts of translation error and translation competence are meant to point to criteria that the teacher could use in the process of assessment as part of the translator training courses.

2. Translation error: from foreign language pedagogy to functionalist perspectives

Even if translator trainers function in a professional translator training programme, in the vast majority of cases they are basically foreign language teachers. Consequently, it may be said that their traditional attitude towards the process of error evaluation is primarily influenced by the way in which this is approached by the foreign language teaching pedagogy. In order to reveal some differences between the traditional manner of evaluating translation and that required by the professional context, I will refer, first of all, to the terms in which errors and evaluation are discussed by foreign language methodologists.

Both foreign language teachers and researchers in the field of education seem to be deeply concerned with the problem of errors, because, in their view, the mistakes a person makes in the process of constructing a new system of language represent a possible key to understanding foreign language acquisition. A good illustration in this respect is provided by Corder (1967: 167), who was one of the first supporters of this view:

A learner's errors...are significant in that they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.

In the light of such assumptions, foreign language teaching pedagogy has traditionally considered that the analysis of errors with a view to identifying their sources represents a matter of major interest. Selinker (1972), Corder (1981) and Ellis (1994) are some of the language methodologists who resorted to error analysis in order to understand the language learning process and, implicitly, to improve the students' achievement. Corder (1967), for example, suggested a model of error analysis that includes three stages: data collection (recognition of idiosyncrasy), description (accounting for idiosyncratic dialect), and explanation (the ultimate object of error analysis). Ellis (1994) elaborated on Corder's model, offering practical suggestions with regard to the manner in which the learners' errors should be approached. In his view, the initial step requires the selection of a corpus of language, followed by the identification of errors. Next, the errors are classified, and, after each error is given a grammatical analysis, an explanation for the different types of errors is offered.

The more recent foreign language methodology also acknowledges the role played by error analysis, but with certain reservations. Jordan (1997: 275), for instance, claims that a systematic noting of errors in the students' work can help to identify the areas of greatest need for an improvement in accuracy, but this does not necessarily correlate with breakdowns in communication. Similarly, Harmer (2007: 137) is aware that teachers are very much concerned about their students' errors, but expresses the opinion that other instances of incorrect language production, such as the students' "attempts" (i.e. cases when learners try to say something, but do not know the correct way of saying it) are very likely to indicate a lot about their current knowledge, and, consequently, to "provide chances for opportunistic teaching".

Discussing the role that foreign language error analysis might play in the context of professional translator training, translation theorists (e.g. Kussmaul 1995) consider that this type of analysis can be used, but it does not lead to relevant results. This happens because it accounts only for the linguistic mistakes, which are more likely to appear at an initial stage of the training process and predominantly when students translate into the foreign language. Foreign language error analysis, he says, has little to offer as far as other types of translation errors are concerned, such as stylistic errors or errors where the situation of the target readers has not been sufficiently considered.

It can be concluded that the view which is offered by the foreign language teaching methodology - a view which is sometimes applied in the case of translator training, too - is generally focused on the word or phrase as an isolated unit and mainly takes into account the student's competence as a foreign language learner. The problem is that this type of evaluation heavily penalizes the cases in which the grammatical rules are ignored or the basic vocabulary is not known, but does not take very much into account the communicative function that words and phrases are meant to fulfill in the particular passage, text, situation and culture in which they are used.

Being aware of these shortcomings, the representatives of the functionalist approaches to translation propose a professional translator's perspective on errors and evaluation, a perspective centred on the communicative function that a particular phrase and utterance is supposed to achieve in a given situation. Thus, if in the foreign language teaching pedagogy the translation error is perceived as a deviation from a system of norms or rules, in functionalism it is defined in terms of the purpose of the translation process or product. In this context, inadequacy is no longer regarded as a feature inherent in a particular expression, but as a feature ascribed to that expression from an evaluator's point of view. Consequently, it is suggested that the deviation from a grammatical rule or the distortion of meaning must be seen within the text as a whole and in close relation to other elements, such as the translation assignment and the translation recipients.

The functional perspective on errors was introduced into translation studies by Sigrid Kupsch-Losereit, who defined the translation error as an offence against the function of the translation, the coherence of the text, the text type, the linguistic conventions, the cultureand situation-specific conventions, and the language system (cf. Nord 1997: 73). This idea was further developed by other translation theorists, such as Christiane Nord and Paul Kussmaul, whose contributions will be shortly presented in what follows.

In Nord's (1997: 74) approach, translation error is defined in the following terms:

If the purpose of a translation is to achieve a particular function for the target addressee, anything that obstructs the achievement of this purpose is a translation error.

It is obvious that errors are not defined on intrinsic criteria such as correctness: instead, the quality of erroneousness is ascribed by the recipient to features of the translation that do not meet a given standard. In other words, a translation error occurs when the recipient's expectations are frustrated because the translator has failed to follow the task instructions in some way. In Nord's view, such a definition of errors is useful for the translator trainer in that s/he can formulate the translation brief in such a way that even the students with a more modest linguistic competence can fulfill the task. As she aptly illustrates, the translation brief may state that the target text will be revised stylistically by a native speaker, in which case certain grammatical and lexical mistakes can be tolerated as long as they do not block comprehension. At the same time, if the students do not know exactly the situation for which they are translating, they will completely focus on the surface structures of the source text, thus being more likely to make various translation mistakes (Nord 1997:74).

It seems, therefore, that a clear formulation of the translation brief is of central importance for the achievement of high-quality work in professional translator training. First of all, the students are supposed to compare the translation brief with the results of the source-text analysis. In this way, they will identify the various translation problems raised by the text in question, and, then, will try to find appropriate solutions. It can be concluded that, for the representatives of the functionalist approaches, the basis for the evaluation of a translation is represented by the adequacy or inadequacy of the solutions offered by the trainee translators. The process of translation evaluation is very likely to reveal a series of translation errors, which, in Nord's (1997: 75-76) view, can be categorized, in close relation to the translation problems, as: pragmatic translation errors, caused by inadequate solutions to pragmatic translation problems such as the lack of receiver orientation; cultural translation errors, due to an inadequate decision with regard to the reproduction or adaptation of culture specific conventions; linguistic translation errors, caused by an inadequate translation when the focus is on language structures; and text-specific translation errors, which are related to a text-specific problem and can usually be evaluated from a functional or pragmatic perspective.

Another representative of the functionalist approaches to translation, Kussmaul (1995), supports the same idea: in professional translator training, the evaluator should take into account the communicative function of a particular word, phrase or sentence. In this context, the distortion of meaning or the ignorance of grammatical rules must be considered within the text as a whole and with regard to the translation assignment and the receptors of the translation. Like Nord, Kussmaul refers to the interrelation between detecting errors and noticing problems, and considers that the analysis of the problematic text passages should form the basis for the teachers' evaluation of their students' translations. He discusses the following categories for evaluation: the cultural adequacy of the translated text, its situational adequacy, the various speech acts that it contains, the meaning of its words, and its grammatical accuracy (Kussmaul 1995: 130-145).

Kussmaul goes deeper into problems specific to the professionally-oriented translation teaching methodology and offers some practical suggestions on how translator trainers should evaluate their students' translations and grade their errors. Thus, a first step would be the classification of the problematic text passage and the resulting errors, according to the categories mentioned above. Having classified the problematic passage, the teacher can further analyze its function within the particular context and with regard to the overall purpose of the translation as specified in the translation assignment. In the theorist's opinion, the principles which should guide the teacher at this stage are those of cohesion within the text and coherence of the text with its function for the recipients in a given situation and a culture (cf. Kussmaul 1995: 153). As far as grading the students' various errors is concerned, things are not always very simple. This happens because, as Kussmaul suggests, evaluation is both a qualitative and a quantitative matter. In developing this idea, the theorist is influenced by the distinction made by Pym (1992) between binary and non-binary errors, a distinction explained as follows:

Binary errors are those choices which are clearly wrong. Binarism is the typical approach of foreign language teaching and is concerned with solutions that are either right or wrong.. .Non-binarism, according to Pym, should be the approach of professional translation teaching. It is concerned with selection from potential target text variants. (Kussmaul 1995: 129)

The translator trainer who embraces the non-binary concept of error is no longer interested in finding out what went on in the student's mind when making a certain mistake (as it happens in the case of foreign language teaching), but is only interested in the effect that the error has on the target reader. But, as suggested above, this is not a very easy task for the teachers who want to objectively evaluate their students' translation mistakes, because, in each individual case, they must ask themselves: What are the effects produced by that particular error? Does it affect the meaning of a sentence, of a passage, or of the whole text? Does it distort communication in any way, or does it weaken the psychological effect? In other words, teachers must be aware that, in certain situations, "what looks as a simple orthographic error does in fact change the meaning of a whole sentence, and what looks as a simple error in word meaning distorts the meaning of the entire text" (Kussmaul 1995: 130), and that they are supposed to grade these errors accordingly.

It is obvious that the functionalists' perspective on errors and evaluation is in line with an idea which was very much emphasized by the functionalist approaches to translation, namely that the professional translator training should produce a new understanding of the translator's task. In order to produce this new type of understanding, the translator trainer has the duty of creating a psychological environment in which the training process should not be perceived as the context in which the students are faced with an ideal situation and are offered the linguistic tools meant to help them in any kind of circumstances. Instead, the translator training process must be thought of as a reproduction of various real life situations whose role is to turn the students into professionals. As I have already mentioned, the evaluation stage of the training process plays an essential part in this respect. If the students are made aware of the criteria that their translations must meet in order to be considered functionally appropriate by the evaluator, they will gradually leam to take responsibility for their own work. Moreover, if the translator trainer always explains why a particular error has been assessed in a certain way, his/her students will know what kind of arguments to use when discussing the quality and appropriateness of the translated texts with their clients or employers, and, in this way, they will leam to behave as experts in their domain of activity.

3. Translation competence as the focus of assessment in professional translator training

One of the most important conclusions revealed by the previous section, which was focused on the concept of translation error, is that, in professional translator training, the process of evaluation should not be restricted to mies of grammar or to various semantic and stylistic features of the texts to be translated. But, if it is not the students' language skills that represent the focus of assessment, then what is it that translator trainers are supposed to evaluate? Even if, in the vast majority of cases, the assessment is based on one or several texts translated from a source language into a target language, researchers (e.g. Martinez Melis and Hurtado Albir 2001) agree that, in broad terms, the focus of evaluation in the context of professional translator training is represented by the translation competence. In very general terms, translation competence can be defined as a complex of knowledge and skills that a person needs in order to be able to translate. Starting from the models offered by Bell (1991), Neubert (2000), and Martinez Melis and Hurtado Albir (2001), I will describe the concept of translation competence in terms of the following parameters:

* Language competence

It is obvious that a good linguistic competence represents an essential condition for the achievement of good quality translation. This competence is supported by an almost perfect knowledge of the subtleties of the grammatical and the lexical systems of the two languages involved in the translation process. In addition to that, the linguistic competence is closely related to the translator's awareness of the fact that any language undergoes a continual change, and the effects of this change are only partially reflected in dictionaries and other types of reference books.

* Discourse competence

Even if words and structures exist and can be described as systemic elements, they do not function by themselves, but follow significant patterns when they feature in texts or, rather, in text types or genres. Therefore, translators should have the ability to combine form and meaning in such a way as to produce functionally appropriate spoken or written texts, illustrative of various genres.

* Thematic competence

Familiarity with what constitutes the body of knowledge of the domain to which a translation belongs represents another important element of the translator's competence. Even if translators cannot be expected to have solid knowledge of any potential field with which they might have contact in their career, they should have the capacity to access the encyclopaedic and the highly specialized information whenever they need it.

* Cultural competence

This parameter involves a variety of strategies for identifying and solving problems specific to a cultural context which is different, to a certain extent, from that of the translator and his/her target audience. This competence, which is not at all restricted to the literary type of translation, is based on the role of the translator as mediator between the culture of the source text producer and that of the target audience.

* Professional competence

Professional competence covers knowledge and skills specific to the professional translation practice: professional conduct, responsibility for their own work, research skills, information of documentation sources, new technologies, etc.

* Transfer competence

Transfer competence refers to the mental equipment that constitutes the translator's unique ability of matching language, textual, subject and cultural subcompetences. Even if the translators have very good language skills, great specialist expertise or deep understanding of the two cultures, there is still the danger that they may fail if all these qualities are not matched by the transfer competence, which determines the production of an adequate variant of the source text. Transfer competence covers various elements that determine the final variant of the target text, from the comprehension of the text to be translated, to the choice of the most appropriate translation method and the decision to use a particular translation solution.

This overview of the knowledge and skills needed by a good translator clearly indicates that translation competence is a very complex phenomenon. It should come as no surprise, then, that the process of translation evaluation, which, as mentioned earlier, tries to capture the multi-faceted nature of this competence, can by no means be a simplistic one either. But how should the process of evaluation be performed so that it may ensure objectivity on the part of the trainer and meaningful learning on the part of the translation students? In the following section, I will try to suggest a possible answer to this question.

4. Suggested criteria for translation assessment

Discussing the concepts of translation error and translation competence, I have described two elements that are essential for the process of assessment in professional translator training. On the one hand, I have identified the features of the translated text, of the translation process, and of the translator's behaviour that must be taken into consideration for evaluation, and, on the other, I have presented the situations in which the solutions offered by the translator are considered as inappropriate. My suggestion is that the translation assessment criteria to be used should be established in close correlation with the categories of errors considered relevant for the professional translator training, and with the skills specific to each of the sub-competencies that a particular training programme is meant to build in the future translators.

Starting from the categories of errors and from the sub-competencies underlying the general translation competence, I have designed a checklist of assessment criteria that can be used during professional translator training. The checklist is the result of research in progress (see also Cozma 2009) and is still open to improvement. It is based on the idea that the separate assessment of the various features displayed by the translation work and the translator's behaviour does not only increase the objectivity of the evaluation process, but also represents a good means of raising the students' awareness of what exactly is required from a good translator.

In line with the functionalists' view on translation assessment, I consider that the importance of each of the criteria suggested in the scheme above does not have an absolute nature. Thus, it may depend, first of all, on the particular skill or area of expertise that the translation teacher intends to highlight at a particular stage of the training process. In this context, it is possible that the criteria of linguistic accuracy may weigh more at the beginning of the instructional process, while, towards its end, the criteria regarding professional expertise should become predominant. Additionally, as Kussmaul (1995) and Nord (1997) suggest, the trainer must evaluate every inappropriate translation solution in terms of the effect that it is likely to produce on the target audience.

5. Conclusion

The most important idea put forward by this paper is that, in professional translator training, the assessment of the students' work has a role which represents much more than just measuring linguistic competence or providing a basis for grading. Evaluation is one of the stages at which translator trainers have good opportunities of teaching their students how to behave like experts. But, in order to achieve this important aim, the trainers themselves are expected to behave like experts, and not only like experts in the field of translation, but also in the field of translation teaching. In this respect, the evaluation criteria that they use and, moreover, that they try to impose as standards for their students' work play an essential part.

But the mere existence of objective criteria of assessment does not automatically ensure a good quality of the evaluation process. A positive attitude on the part of the teacher as evaluator is also necessary, because it is very likely to exert a great influence on the students' self-awareness, self-confidence and motivation - that is on attitudes which are considered to represent basic qualities for an expert. A solution in this respect might be the positive type of assessment suggested by Hewson (1995), in whose view translator trainers should not focus only on the students' mistakes, but should also appreciate the manner in which they solved, even if only partially, some of the translation problems with which they were confronted. In this way, there are great chances that the students will be willing to get actively involved in the training process and will leam to take full responsibility for the work they have done.

References

References

Bell, R. T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice, London and New York: Longman.

Corder, S. P. 1967. "The Significance of Learners' Errors" in IRAL, 5, pp. 161-170.

Corder, S. P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cozma, M. 2009. "Assessment in Translation Teaching: A Research Perspective" in English in Translation Studies: Methodological Perspectives. V. Gaballo (ed.). Macerata: Eum Edizioni Università di Macerata (ITALY), pp. 119-125.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.), Essex: Pearson Longman.

Hewson, L. 1995. "Detecting Cultural Shifts: Some Notes on Translation Assessment" in Cross-Words. Issues and Debates in Literary and Non-Liter ary Translating. I. Mason and C. Pagnoulle (eds.). Liège: University of Liège, pp. 101-108.

Jordan, R. R. 1997. English for Academic Purposes. A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kussmaul, P. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Martinez Melis, N. and A. Hurtado Albir. 2001. "Assessment in Translation Studies: Research Needs" in Meta, 46(2), pp. 272-287.

Neubert, A. 2000. "Competence in Language, in Languages and in Translation" in Developing Translation Competence. C. Schaffner and A. Beverly (eds.). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 3-18.

Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome.

Pym, A. 1992. "Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching" in Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience. C. Dollerup and A. Loddegaard (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 279290.

Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage" in IRAL, 10(3), pp. 201-231.