Didactics of Translation: Text in Context

The curricula

1. 
   The content of the curricula
   

Chau focuses on the content and the sequencing of the curricula in this period. Not all these curricula were uniform as to what to incorporate as content; there were always differences as to whether or not to include language training and linguistic training and whether to exclude translation theory. Moreover, the degree of specialization was also a hotly debated issue: should translation teaching aim for general or specialized training? (See section 4. 5. 1. 4 below, where Chau provides a systematic analysis of the contents of translation curricula in this period; in this analysis, he classifies the contents into three major areas or approaches to curriculum planning, namely, a grammatical, a cultural and an interpretive. Each one of these approaches is subdivided into two further sub-approaches (5)).
With regard to the inclusion of language training, while some translation educators have supported its incorporation on the grounds that it is an essential part of translation teaching as it enables students to be on

their guard as far as mother tongue interferences are concerned, others have rejected it, arguing that a translation course should not be converted into a language one.

As for the use of linguistics in translation teaching, some have argued against it (for instance, Marianne Lederer (1994) and Aleksander Shveitser (1987)) because, in their minds, students should spend their time learning how to use the languages and not just receive information about them. Those who have advocated its use (such as Mona Baker (1992: 4), Peter Fawcett (1997 in his foreword)), on the other hand, have maintained that linguistic training would be most beneficial to translation trainees as it would raise their awareness and sharpen their perception of the structural similarities and differences between the languages with which they are working. The training would furthermore introduce them to the field of linguistic variation, which is a vital area of knowledge for any prospective translator. In addition to this, it is said that linguistic insights would provide translator trainees with the necessary theoretical background with which they can decide on the most suitable rendering as well as justify their translation work.
With respect to the inclusion of translation theory within the curriculum, there were once again conflicting views. There were those who thought that translation theory would bring very little to the solution of practical problems. On the other hand, there were those, such as Mason (1982 a), Keiser (1969) and Wilss (1977) who vigorously defended the introduction of translation theory in the curriculum. Thus, for Keiser, “the theory of translation is an important part of the syllabus” (Chau 1984: 62). Similarly, Wilss argues that “the translation theory course serves to help the students to think about translating analytically” (Ibid). More importantly, Mason states that translation theory is not so much important for students when dealing with words and phrases as when they are confronted with “actual texts”:
When theory stops short at the word-group level (as is the case of contrastive linguistics, for example), the student may fail to link it with practice. Only by applying it to actual texts can insights at abstract level be seen as relevant. (Mason 1982a cited by Chau 1984: 61)
Before proceeding to the sequencing of elements within the curriculum as reported by Chau, it seems necessary at this point to try to clarify the notion “translation theory” by placing it within its context and examining its ingredients. For this purpose, one has to recall the disciplinary map of translation studies put forward by Holmes (1972); (see Ch. 2, section 2. 2 above). Holmes divides translation studies into pure translation studies and

applied translation studies. Pure translation studies are in their turn sub- divided into theoretical translation studies and descriptive translation studies. This subdivision of pure translation studies is, according to Holmes, dictated by the fact that translation is an empirical discipline which, like any other empirical discipline, has two aims:

1. 
   describing particular translation phenomena
   
2. 
   establishing general principles which can explain and predict the occurrence of these phenomena.
   

Now since translation phenomena are so numerous and varied (product-oriented, function-oriented and process-oriented), it follows that translation theory as a general and all-inclusive concept is somewhat misleading. It would perhaps be better, following Holmes, to use the concept of partial translation theories and to make it clear to students from the beginning what this means. Holmes, as reported in Chapter 1, classifies the partial translation theories into six main groups. However, one has to take into account the cautionary statement that he makes concerning the substitution of a “truly general theory” by a set of partial theories:
“It would be wise, though, not to lose sight of such a truly general theory, and wiser still not to succumb to the delusion that a body of restricted theories... can be an adequate substitute for it.” (Holmes 1972 in Venuti 2000: 181)
In a similar attempt to make more explicit the concept of translation theory, W. Koller (1978: 69-72), cited in Chau (1984: 67), divides translation theory into three domains which have to be taught separately. These are:

1. 
   General translation theory: models of translation, translatability, strategies and techniques, textlinguistics, etc.
   
2. 
   Specific translation theory: the application of the results of general theory to specific language pairs and texts.
   
3. 
   Applied translation theory: preparation of textbooks and hand- books, etc.
   

For his part, Rune Ingo (1991: 49) maintains that there are four fundamental aspects to translation theory and that different theories of translation have been suggested, each one stressing a particular aspect. These four fundamental aspects of translation theory are:

1. 
   Grammatical structure
   
2. 
   Linguistic variety (esp. style)
   
3. 
   Semantics
   
4. 
   Pragmatics
   

These aspects, according to Ingo, are derived from a division of the linguistic sign into form and content, with form referring to aspects 1 and 2 above and content to 3 and 4. When translating, one thus relates the form and content of the SL to the form and content in the TL. In this regard, Ingo argues:
I am convinced that there are few texts that allow anyone of these four aspects to be completely disregarded: they are more or less relevant to all texts although their relative importance may vary from one text to another. (Ibid: 50)
He further adds,
When teaching the theoretical aspects of translation to students, I find it necessary to prepare them to search for good solutions to all these aspects in their own translations. The translated text must function pragmatically in its new cultural context, and it must generally also semantically convey the right information. Most texts should furthermore fulfill certain formal criteria. The style is not just an embellishment: it is the appropriate way of using the language in a given situation. And the linguistic varieties should, of course, be realized in a way that is in accordance with the general grammatical structure of the language in question. (Ibid: 55-56)

2.