Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

The pedagogical gap

Kiraly has pointed to the existence of a pedagogical gap in translation teaching and has imputed this gap to the fact that translation courses are not based on sound pedagogical principles. More specifically, these courses are criticized for not having any clear objectives, not understanding the nature of translation competence, not understanding the effects of classroom instruction on students’ translation proficiency (p. 6), not knowing what goes on in the mind of a person translating and not using communicative translation activities.
With regard to the last two points relating to the mental process and the use of communicative activities, Kiraly states, quoting Krings (1986: 6) that
the tentative nature of most of the contributions to translation teaching thus far is the result of the virtual absence of knowledge about what goes on in the mind of a person translating, whether that person be a foreign language learner, professional translator or translator. (Kiraly 1995: 12)
He further adds, always quoting Krings (1986: 501), that
the student’s inadequate translational behaviour was found to be caused mainly by the exclusive use of non-communicative translation activities in foreign language classes. In these activities, the teacher assumes the role of both the client and the readership for a translation which has no communicative function and whose primary objective is the practice and testing of linguistic knowledge. (Kiraly 1995: 13)
In view of the fact that the processes taking place in language use “have already been observed from both a cognitive perspective

(psycholinguistics), and a social perspective (sociolinguistics), Kiraly has reached the conclusion that, building on this body of available information, it is now “appropriate to consider both the cognitive and social aspects of translation processes” (p. 38). This, according to Kiraly, would shed some light on “the nature of translation processes and how they relate to translation practice, translation learning and translation teaching” (p. 38). In support of this new approach, Kiraly pursues a line of research based on the analysis of TAPs, a methodology which was introduced by Dechert and Sandrock (1984), Gerloff (1986), König (1987), Krings (1986) and Lörscher (1986). In connection with this, Krings maintains that the TAPs “are interpreted as indicators of strategy use which allow the researcher to draw inferences about underlying processes” (Krings 1986 in Kilary 1995: 46).

2.