Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

From the 1980s to the end of the century

This overview of translation pedagogy from the 1980s to the end of the century covers the following geographical areas: Germany, France, Italy and the Arab world. Each geographical area will be investigated through the works of some translation scholars originating from that area.

1. In Germany

Kiraly (1995) and Klein-Braley (1996) are two German translation scholars who have tried to evaluate the translation pedagogy situation in this country. According to Kiraly, the translation teaching situation is still characterized by “a myopic and incomplete view of translation” and by “a pedagogical gap”. Kiraly maintains that in many translation classrooms, translation is seen as a mere exercise in replacing words from a SL by TL words with the aim of testing students’ knowledge of the comprehension, vocabulary and grammar of a TL. That is to say, the focus is laid on non- communicative translation activities (Kiraly 1995: 2).
As for the “pedagogical gap” in translation teaching, Kiraly argues that this is due to the absence of clear objectives, curriculum materials and teaching methods. More specifically, he states that
the courses in translation skills instruction are usually not based on a coherent set of pedagogical principles derived from knowledge of clear objectives, the nature of translation competence and an understanding of the effects of classroom instruction on students’ translation proficiency (Ibid: 6).
He also adds:
This gap persists despite a limited but growing literature in the field of translator training; this literature has introduced new models of translation processes, proposals for curriculum planning and many insightful and practical suggestions on how to teach translation skills.
As an example of a predominant translation activity in Germany, Kiraly refers to the Performance Magistrale method in which the teacher just distributes a text chosen at random to his students. These have to translate it in turn sentence by sentence, an exercise which is usually followed by the teacher correcting the attempted translation and supplying the final correct solution. This method is frustrating to students first because it does not try to explain why “an inadequate” translation by a given student fails to meet the criteria of a “master copy”, i.e. the correct

translation, and secondly because the student is not systematically trained in “the complex and difficult art of translation” (House 1980: 7-8).

Summing up his evaluation of the pedagogical situation of translation in Germany at the time, Kiraly (Ibid: 18) diagnoses the following ailments which hamper the development of a systematic pedagogy of translation:

1. 
   The lack of a systematic translation teaching method based on pedagogical and translation principles.
   
2. 
   The non-use of research results in modern translation studies on the one hand and the non-use of the contributions of adjacent disciplines on the other hand.
   
3. 
   A complete disregard for the social and cognitive aspects of translation and, in contrast, a total reliance on the interlingual aspect.
   
4. 
   A teacher-centered teaching method (performance magistrale).
   
5. 
   A failure to distinguish the constituents of translator competence from language-related competencies (bilingual competence).
   

For her part, Klein-Braley (1996) is critical of the way translation is also taught in Germany and other European countries. She quite clearly states that
translation - whether into the foreign language or out of it - as it is taught at the moment in the majority of institutions in Germany and in other places in Europe, is potentially damaging since it inculcates approaches and techniques which hinder rather than help a person who needs translation skills of any kind as professional qualification. (Ibid: 17)
Among the main reasons for this situation, in Klein-Braley’s view, are the test procedures used in the final examinations in German institutions. These test procedures consist mainly of “the prose” technique and “the translation” technique. The “prose” format is defined as an examination technique which involves translating a text from the student’s native language into a foreign language. As for “the translation” format, this is defined as an examination technique involving relaying a foreign language text into that of the student’s native language.
The arguments for adopting “the prose” as a testing procedure are cited by Klein-Braley as follows:
x The “prose” teaches students to be accurate.
x It raises their literary awareness and sensitivity.

x It teaches them about language in general and their own in particular.

x It demonstrates the examinees’ capability of writing in the foreign language.
x It enables examinees to compare different versions of the same text.
x It is short and easy to construct.
The arguments for using “the translation” as a testing procedure have to do with demonstrating students’ ability to comprehend the foreign language and write a readable text in the native language.
Despite the supposed merits of these two testing procedures, Klein- Braley takes them to task for all the problems that beset translation teaching, particularly since, as she puts it, it is “the testing that drives the teaching” (Ibid: 18).
These two testing procedures “have a serious negative backwash effect on all language translating inside the university” (Ibid). The “prose”, in particular, is singled out for criticism as it “seriously undermines any attempt to develop a truly communicative/ functional approach to language use at university level” (Ibid: 20). She therefore advocates its simple abolition:
One of the most important tasks of the near future in Germany is to get rid of the “prose” as the only permissible test procedure (Ibid).
Coleman (1986), quoted by Klein-Braley (Ibid: 19), equally vehemently criticizes this testing procedure mainly because it “suits the needs of the teacher better than the learner”. That is, the procedure does not necessitate any preparation time, nor does it require “high language competencies” by the teacher. Moreover, it does not follow a systematic approach because “only those things are discussed in the lesson which happen to occur in the teacher’s selected texts” (Ibid). To remedy this prevailing translation teaching situation, Coleman proposes a change of focus “from preparation for the test to preparation for possible vocational use” (Ibid: 23). Thus, she suggests that the translation course curriculum should be designed in such a way as to enable students to be properly prepared to deal with real translation situations.
The curriculum design proposed and currently in use in the University of Duisburg where she teaches concerns a translation course running over four semesters for two hours a week:

1. 
   The first semester is considered a basic course and covers “a variety of isolated but systematic aspects of translation” (Ibid: 24) such as:
   

1. 
   The translation of different types of lexical items
   
2. 
   The correct use of dictionaries
   
3. 
   Studying contrastive phenomena
   
4. 
   The translation of cultural items
   
5. 
   The adaptation of texts for specific addressees
   
6. 
   The evaluation of translation in both directions
   
7. 
   Examination of translations of “interesting” texts such as the Bible, advertisements, poems, songs...
   

2. 
   In the second and third semesters, students begin to practise translating texts which they are likely to meet in real life:
   

students should be confronted with authentic translation tasks. I call this the pounds / dollars/ deutschmarks criterion. Would someone be prepared to pay to have the text we are about to work on translated? If the answer is no, then the text is not a genuine translation job. (Ibid: 24)

1. 
   sample of what she describes as authentic texts includes, for instance, UHU glue package, extracts of the German railway timetable, tourist information brochures, non-fictional prose, a speech by a government member...
   

3. 
   In the final semester of the course students work on translation projects dealing with a variety of tasks, such as a booklet about beer- brewing, the brochure for a local museum, the university brochure...
   

Having proposed this curriculum design, Klein-Braley warns against any attempt by university translation instructors to compete with translation schools:
We cannot - and should not try - to compete with the schools of translation. We are not training translators and interpreters. Our aim must be to enable all-round language professionals to tackle translations themselves for in-house and informal purposes, and also to supervise the translation of texts for public and formal purposes... We can only offer the bare bones and techniques. (Ibid: 34)

2.