<?page no="0"?> TRANSLATIONSWISSENSCHAFT BAND 11 THE ROLE OF THEORY IN TRANS- LATOR TRAINING Daniela Di Mango <?page no="1"?> The Role of Theory in Translator Training <?page no="2"?> TRANSLATIONSWISSENSCHAFT · BAND 1 herausgegeben von Klaus Kaindl und Franz Pöchhacker (Universität Wien) Gyde Hansen (Kopenhagen) Christiane Nord (Heidelberg) Hanna Risku (Wien) Christina Schäffner (Birmingham) Robin Setton (Paris) 1 <?page no="3"?> Daniela Di Mango The Role of Theory in Translator Training <?page no="4"?> © 2018 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Internet: www.narr.de E-Mail: info@narr.de ISSN 1614-5909 ISBN 978-3-8233-8161-7 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. <?page no="5"?> 1 11 1.1 11 1.2 13 1.3 14 1.4 16 2 18 2.1 19 2.2 23 2.2.1 24 2.2.2 26 2.3 28 2.3.1 28 2.3.2 30 2.3.3 32 2.4 47 2.4.1 50 2.4.2 54 2.4.3 56 2.5 59 2.6 61 3 63 3.1 64 3.2 73 Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Translators: The Academic and the Vocational . . . . Aims of the Study and Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . Translation: A Functional Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outline of Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Competence Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Nature of Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Competence as Mainly Procedural Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Competence as Mainly Declarative Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Content of Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Competence as a Summation of Linguistic Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Competence as “Just One Thing” . . . . . . . . Multicomponential Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Acquisition of Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Framework of Reference for Translation Competence” of Cnyrim et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PACTE’s Model of Acquisition of Translation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kiraly’s Model of the Emergence of Translator Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopting a Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence . . . The Translator’s Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <?page no="6"?> 3.3 82 3.4 88 3.5 93 4 96 4.1 97 4.2 102 4.2.1 102 4.2.2 105 4.2.3 106 4.3 111 4.4 116 4.4.1 116 4.4.2 119 4.5 128 4.6 130 5 132 5.1 132 5.1.1 134 5.1.2 136 5.1.3 137 5.2 151 5.2.1 151 5.2.2 153 5.2.3 154 5.3 155 5.3.1 155 5.3.2 162 5.3.3 163 5.4 165 5.5 171 6 176 6.1 177 6.2 180 6.2.1 180 Time Requirement as an Indicator of Translation Competence Quality of the Translation Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact of Translation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Translation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory . . . . . . . . . . Social Impact and Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on Translation Didactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact on the Individual’s Translation Competence . . Students’ and Practitioners’ Opinion on Theory . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Translation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementing Theory in the Translation Curriculum . Empirical Evidence on the Impact of Teaching Theory Research Questions and Working Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject Sampling for Primary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject Sampling for Secondary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curricula of Translator Education Programs . . . . . . . . . Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key-Logging and Screen-Recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Critical Evaluation of Study Design . . . . . . . . . Translator’s Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicators Related to the Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Contents <?page no="7"?> 6.2.2 181 6.2.3 186 6.3 197 6.4 201 7 203 7.1 203 7.2 206 7.3 210 7.4 211 7.4.1 212 7.4.2 221 7.4.3 240 7.5 246 7.6 252 8 254 8.1 254 8.2 257 8.2.1 257 8.2.2 269 8.2.3 273 8.2.4 275 8.2.5 303 8.2.6 309 8.3 310 8.3.1 312 8.3.2 316 8.3.3 318 8.3.4 347 8.4 350 9 352 9.1 352 The Translator’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concept of Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality of the Translation Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluating Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Error Marking Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicators Related to Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number of Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Errors and Time Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) . . . . . . . . . Individual Translation Problems: Defining Criteria . . . Categorizing Individual Translation Problems . . . . . . . Indicators Related to ITPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Reflections on Data Collection for ITP-Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) . . . . . Selecting TTPs in the Source Text “Yellow peril, red alert” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicators Related to TTPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjective Opinion on Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questions and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contents <?page no="8"?> 9.2 353 9.2.1 353 9.2.2 357 9.3 363 9.4 364 10 366 10.1 366 10.1.1 366 10.1.2 371 10.1.3 377 10.2 378 10.3 384 10.3.1 384 10.3.2 386 10.4 387 10.5 390 11 392 12 417 12.1 417 12.1.1 417 12.1.2 418 12.1.3 419 12.2 420 12.2.1 420 12.2.2 421 12.3 423 12.3.1 423 12.3.2 427 12.3.3 432 435 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects without Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects with Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Development of Translation Routine Activation Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Development of Strategic Competence . . . . . . . . . . The Development and Influence of the Self-Concept . The Impact of Teaching Theory: Answering the Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Translator Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Train the Trainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Fachakademie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum BA Übersetzen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum BA Transkulturelle Kommunikation . . . . . . Translation Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source Text and Translation Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire on Translator’s Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . Retrospective Questionnaire 1 (Groups P4 and P6) . . . Retrospective Questionnaire 2 (Group PT7) . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contents <?page no="9"?> List of Abbreviations A-language A translator’s native (-like) language ATC Acquisition of translation competence BA TK Bachelor Transkulturelle Kommunikation (University of Graz) BA Ü Bachelor Übersetzen (SDI München) B-language A translator’s stronger (active) foreign language C-language A translator’s weaker (passive) foreign language CP Comprehension problem FAK Fachakademie für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen (Bavaria) ITP Individual translation problem L1 Native language L2 Foreign language PP Production problem SD Standard deviation SL Source language ST Source text TA Think-aloud TAP Think-aloud protocol TC Translation competence TL Target language TP Transfer problem TPR Translation process research TQA Translation quality assessment TRAC Translation routine activation competence TS Translation studies TT Target text TTP Task-inherent translation problem <?page no="11"?> 1 Introduction 1.1 Training Translators: The Academic and the Vocational The field of translation studies is now acknowledged as an academic discipline in its own right, and translation training is mainly - although not exclusively - provided at the university level across Europe. Since, however, translation has a strong vocational component that is rather unusual in the humanities, pro‐ grams in translation have always been torn between the expectation that they will provide students with a comprehensive education at the academic level on the one hand and the expectation that they will prepare them for the demands of the translation market on the other: [T]he academic/ vocational dichotomy has traditionally been one of the fundamental issues with which curricular discussion of translator training in universities has al‐ ways had to grapple (evidenced, for example, in the debate about the relevance of theory to practical translation) and this is unlikely to change in the future. (Kearns 2008: 186) This has led not only to discussions in the literature about the relative space that should be accorded to the vocational and the academic aspects of translation training (e.g., Bernardini 2004, Mossop 2003), but has also had very concrete repercussions on the design of translation curricula. Thus, there are translation programs at the university level that are embedded in a professionalizing tra‐ dition and therefore place an emphasis on vocational training. This is, for ex‐ ample, the case with the majority of undergraduate programs in Spain, which include theoretical training only to a very limited extent, i.e., one or two theo‐ retical subjects over a four-year undergraduate program (Ordóñez-López & Agost 2015: 331). The opposite tendency can be seen in some Austrian univer‐ sities: Leal (2014: 32) reports that at the University of Vienna the study programs at both the BA and the MA level have been changed to include more theoretical subjects than they had before, thus replacing practical courses in translation and interpreting. The rationale behind this change was the wish to induce critical thinking and reflection in students, whereas it was believed that students could develop the practical competence outside the university, after their studies. Similarly, the curriculum of the BA Transkulturelle Kommunikation at the Uni‐ versity of Graz relies heavily on theoretical training during the first semesters <?page no="12"?> 1 The aim of translation training at an academic level will be discussed in the outlook (10.5). 2 This is, for example, the case with the curricula in both Graz and Vienna, which have a strong theoretical focus during the undergraduate program. of the undergraduate program and includes only a limited number of practical translation classes towards the end of the course of studies (Göpferich 2012: 261). These two universities thus clearly place the academic before the vocational, leading to a very different situation from that in the Spanish context. With such differences persisting at the university level alone, the question arises how these different curricula influence the development of the translation competence of the students enrolled in them. To date, most studies in the field of translation competence have, however, not taken their subjects’ academic backgrounds into account. Instead, translation process research has focused on broad levels of assumed competence that are based on the subjects’ status and experience. Thus, comparisons between “novices”, “students”/ “semi-professio‐ nals” and “professionals” are frequent and generally not set in relation to the kind of training the subjects have received. However, research on various as‐ pects of the acquisition of translation competence, especially as observed over longer periods in longitudinal studies, is gaining momentum, as evidenced in recent publications such as Kumpulainen (2016), PACTE (2014, 2015), Castillo Rincón (2015) and Bayer-Hohenwarter (2012). Most of these longitudinal studies make it possible to relate their results to the specific curricula that the subjects are following. What they cannot account for, however, is how much the devel‐ opment of translation competence is dependent on specific study conditions. This is why Göpferich (2008: 13) calls for “multi-center studies”, i.e., studies im‐ plemented in parallel at different institutes of translation. This approach, she highlights, would allow for a comparison of curricula with regard to their effi‐ cacy in training translators. It should be noted, moreover, that she is claiming with these remarks that building up translation competence as such is the main, if not the only, aim of these curricula and that their success in doing so is the default means by which they should be compared. This point of view is certainly debatable 1 , especially since differences concerning both the duration (three or four years of undergraduate studies) and the contents and structure of the cur‐ ricula make a comparison difficult. Thus, at some universities the BA curriculum alone, without the corresponding MA, is not considered sufficient to fully train a “professional translator”. 2 As this already indicates, multi-center studies like that suggested by Göp‐ ferich (2008: 13) would face challenges of their own. Another challenge is cer‐ tainly the difficulty of drawing conclusions regarding the single factors influ‐ 12 1 Introduction <?page no="13"?> encing translation competence, i.e., why one curriculum is more efficient than another in building up students’ translation competence. Usually these curricula provide various sorts of courses in parallel, which makes it difficult to account for their respective contributions to the development of translation compe‐ tence. It would thus seem sensible to start collecting data about these factors on a somewhat smaller scale. As we have seen above, much of the debate sur‐ rounding translation curricula concerns their implementation of the academic and the vocational aspects of translator training which, in the end, boils down to the question of which proportion of time should be allocated to theoretical and practical classes, respectively. If we start from the assumption that the aim of translation training is, as Göpferich (2008: 13) puts it, to achieve the highest possible translation competence in the limited time available in the course of an undergraduate program, then the resulting question is, of course, whether the‐ oretical classes contribute to developing translation competence and in which way they can do so (see chapter 4). This question has been discussed in the literature since the outset of translation studies (e.g., Levý 1965), but has trig‐ gered very little empirical investigation despite frequent calls for such research (e.g., Mossop 2004: 375; Gile 2010: 255). 1.2 Aims of the Study and Methodological Approach The present study has been devised against the backdrop of this current lack of knowledge regarding the impact that theoretical teaching can have on the ac‐ quisition of translation competence. There is a perennial debate about the gap between theory and practice in translation, and multiple, often opposite, claims have been made concerning the usefulness of (translation) theory for students as well as concerning how and when to best introduce theoretical classes into the curriculum. One of the aims of this book is to provide an overview of the different expectations and claims that have been put forward in the literature with regard to the usefulness of theory. The empirical study, then, sets out to test whether some of these claims can be corroborated empirically. Furthermore, it is, to the best of my knowledge, the first to compare the translation competence of students enrolled in different curricula. On the basis of a thorough literature review, the following research questions have been developed and will guide the investigation: 1. Is there a measurable impact of theoretical classes on students’ self-con‐ cept and translation competence? 13 1.2 Aims of the Study and Methodological Approach <?page no="14"?> 2. Does the impact on translation competence depend on whether theory is taught before or after students have received any practical training? 3. What is the students’ opinion/ expectation concerning the implementa‐ tion of translation theory in their studies a. before they have taken theoretical classes? b. after they have taken theoretical classes? In order to answer these questions, different translation curricula have been selected, in which theoretical and practical classes are completely separate. The curricula thus allow for conclusions regarding the impact of these two different forms of teaching. Since it was not possible within the timeframe set for this project to provide a longitudinal survey as called for by Göpferich (2008: 13), a cross-sectional design was chosen, which included students at selected points of time in their studies. This will provide initial evidence regarding the question as to whether the translation competence of students with very different training backgrounds differs at all. The present study is rooted in the tradition of previous research on translation competence and translation competence acquisition and thus, more generally, in translation process research (TPR). It has long been recognized that this strand of research is the one most likely to provide in-depth knowledge about the translation competence of subjects and the factors influencing it (e.g., Krings 2005: 344). It is thus the best option available to any research that ultimately has a didactic aim since - as is stated by Alvstad et al. (2011: 2) - [with m]ore knowledge about the process of translation […] and with more knowledge about what the role of training and experience is for the translation and interpreting process, it is possible to develop more refined […] training programs. 1.3 Translation: A Functional Approach Like many recent empirical studies in the field of translation process research, e.g., PACTE (2011b: 31) and TransComp (Göpferich 2010c: 49), the present study is rooted in the functional paradigm. Within the functional school, translation is seen as a purposeful act of communication depending on a specific context in which this communication is set. The communicative context is thus considered to be the bar against which a translation should be measured. As a consequence, functional theories are often opposed to static, linguistic ones that consider translation to be determined by the source text with which an “equivalence” of 14 1 Introduction <?page no="15"?> 3 It is beyond the scope of this book to provide a comprehensive account of different theoretical approaches to translation. The interested reader may consult Prunč (2012) or Pym (2010) for insightful overviews. 4 See Nord (1997: 109-122) for a list of and response to various criticisms of functionalism. some kind has to be achieved (e.g., Koller’s distinction of five different types of equivalence, originally published in 1979: 187). 3 The functional approach had a breakthrough mainly in the 1980s. Today, the publication of Vermeer’s seminal paper “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Trans‐ lationstheorie” (1978), in which he laid the foundations for his skopos theory, marks a turning point towards functionalism. While earlier, linguistic ap‐ proaches tended to focus on the source text (ST), skopos theory gave a prominent place to the target text (TT) and especially to the intended function of a trans‐ lation. Vermeer pointed out that every text is translated for a reason, i.e., that it has a communicative goal to fulfill (1978: 100). In his view, it is this skopos that determines how a text should be translated. Accordingly, he distinguishes ade‐ quacy from equivalence, considering a translation as being adequate only if it is useful for the intended audience in a given situation. Equivalence between ST and TT, consequently, becomes a special kind of adequacy that is only appro‐ priate in cases in which the ST and the TT have the same function (Reiß & Vermeer 1984: 139-140). If, however, the skopos requires a change of function, Vermeer places the need to comply with the requirements of the target text user over the need for coherence between the translation and the source text (1978: 102). While TT-receiver-oriented theories existed before, e.g., Nida’s con‐ cept of dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964: 159-160), the consideration of a possible change of function was a novelty and paved the way for different functional theories to develop. While functionalists themselves have always highlighted the adequacy of this paradigm for professional translation, and thus as one means to reduce the “gap” (e.g., Nord 1993: 8), the functional approach was frequently criticized in its early days for promoting free, unfaithful translations that should be called “adapta‐ tions” rather than “translations” (Nord 1997: 120). 4 While it is true that in a strong form, functionalism enlarged the notion of translation considerably - e.g., Holz-Mänttäri’s concept of translatorial action which includes services that are not based on a ST at all (Holz-Mänttäri 1984) - this does not apply to function‐ alism in general. Nord, for example, positions herself within a weaker form of functionalism by limiting translation to processes including a ST and by intro‐ ducing a loyalty principle towards all parties involved in the translation process, including the ST author and his or her intentions. She thereby restricts the number of thinkable skopoi, by stating that the function of a translation must 15 1.3 Translation: A Functional Approach <?page no="16"?> not run counter to the intentions of the ST author (Nord 2005: 32). As Hansen (1997: 203) rightly points out, functional translation per se does not equal free translation - it rather “means translation in accordance with the target text receiver’s presuppositions and needs in a given situation”. It is in these weaker forms, including Vermeer’s (1978) understanding of functional translation, that the functional approach is adopted in the present study. Translation is thus considered to be the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded function of the target text (translation skopos). Translation allows a communicative act to take place which because of existing linguistic and cultural barriers would not have been possible without it. (Nord 2005: 32) The term “translation” is sometimes understood as regrouping both written translation and oral translation (interpreting). The present study, however, will focus exclusively on translation in its written form. From this it follows that the term “translation” will be used here in this narrower sense. 1.4 Outline of Chapters Chapter 2 serves to define the theoretical framework for the present study. It provides an overview of different theoretical approaches to modelling both translation competence and translation competence acquisition. In chapter 3, the state of the art in translation process research is presented with a special focus on the influence of different competence levels in translation based on formal training and/ or professional experience. This review will be limited to selected variables, i.e., the translator’s self-concept, problem-solving and decision-making as well as the role of the time factor in translation. Fur‐ thermore, findings achieved in translation process research concerning the quality of the produced translations will also be presented. Chapter 4 retraces the perennial debate about the “gap” between theory and practice in translation. In this connection, the focus will be on the many claims that have been made about the impact that translation theory can have on the status of the profession, on translation didactics and especially on the individ‐ ual’s translation competence. Furthermore, opinions on integrating theoretical courses in translation curricula will be reviewed and the few existing empirical findings on the impact that teaching theory has on translation competence will 16 1 Introduction <?page no="17"?> be presented. This literature review forms the basis on which the research ques‐ tions and working hypotheses guiding this empirical study were developed. Chapter 5 serves to present the study design. It starts with a presentation of the selection of subjects, which includes a thorough comparison of the curricula in which these subjects are enrolled. After describing the experimental design, there will be a critical discussion of the methods of data collection that have been used. At the end of the chapter, the variables and indicators for the em‐ pirical study are developed and discussed. Chapters 6 through 9 are devoted to the analysis of the collected data and will also present the defining criteria for the relevant variables, the indicators that were devised to measure them as well as the results. Chapter 6 focuses on the subjects’ professional self-concept, which is determined with the help of a ques‐ tionnaire that is filled out by the subjects prior to the translation task. Chapter 7 provides an analysis of the product data by means of functional error marking. It also relates these findings to the amount of time the subjects required for the translation task. Chapter 8 presents the analysis of the process data, with a focus on translation problems, both problems experienced individually by the subjects (ITPs) and previously defined translation problems (TTPs), for which the per‐ formance of all the subjects will be compared. In chapter 9, the subjects’ opinion regarding the inclusion of theoretical courses in the curricula will be analyzed by means of a questionnaire. For subjects who have had theoretical courses the focus will be placed on the impact of theories as they subjectively experienced it. Last but not least, chapter 10 brings together the results of chapters 6 - 9 and discusses the overall development of the subjects’ translation competence. It also serves to summarize these results in light of the research questions and hypotheses and sketches paths for translator training and future research. 17 1.4 Outline of Chapters <?page no="18"?> 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence In the 1960s and 1970s, when translation studies still struggled to be accepted as an independent field of study, the focus of research was mostly on the texts involved in translation, i.e., the source text and the translation product. It was only in the 1980s that a major shift in research interest took place and the process of translation and thus the translator herself became the focus of attention. At the very heart of this new orientation of translation studies is the notion of translation competence (TC). Translation competence has since become an im‐ portant topic within the young branch of translation process research (TPR), inducing both theoretical reflection and empirical research. According to Presas (2007: 354-355), research on translation competence mainly focuses on three central aspects: the nature, the content and the source of translation competence. The first aspect, the nature of TC, is especially in‐ teresting for the present study since it raises the question as to whether trans‐ lation competence consists mostly of procedural (knowing how to do some‐ thing) or declarative knowledge (knowing about facts or events). While this question has not been subject to such extended debates as, for example, the content of translation competence, it might, nevertheless, yield important sug‐ gestions for translation didactics in general and curriculum design in particular. This debate will be retraced in detail in section 2.2. Of these three aspects, the one inducing most discussions within the field of translation studies is the ques‐ tion about its content, i.e., what does a translator need to know or be able to do in order to be considered competent? Many different models of translation competence have been suggested and an overview will be presented in section 2.3. The last aspect, which Presas calls the source of translation competence, concerns the question as to how translation competence is acquired. One of the early debates centered on the question as to whether translation competence is an automatic consequence of speaking two different languages. This would mean that anyone with a good command of at least two languages possesses translation competence - and that the “source” of this TC is language compe‐ tence. For translation didactics this would entail that language teaching is enough to form translators. While this view of TC has long been rejected (see 2.3.1), research on how translation competence is acquired is still in its infancy (see 2.4). <?page no="19"?> 2.1 Translation Competence Defined Defining translation competence is no easy task and despite many attempts to do so, no consensus has been reached within translation studies so far (Alves & Gonçalves 2007: 41-42; Lesznyák 2007: 191; Herold 2010: 215). To complicate the matter further, there is no clear dividing line between definitions and models of translation competence. Sometimes, what has originally been proposed as a definition or mere opinion about translation competence has been received by other scholars as a model of TC. In the following, we will therefore have a look at some of the definitions of translation competence before discussing in more detail the characteristics of this competence. According to Presas (2007: 355), the notion of translation competence was probably introduced by Jäger in 1975 when, at a conference, he proposed the term “translatorische Kompetenz” ( Jäger 1976: 2-3). The term has since become widely accepted within translation studies (TS) and to such an extent that it has frequently been adopted without any definition or a clarification of the under‐ lying theoretical construct (e.g., Lörscher 1991: 41; Nord 1991: 150-155; Kiraly 1995: 13-19; Toury 1995: 250-251). However, as Lesznyák (2007: 191) points out, misunderstandings and disagreements arise from the fact that scholars use the term in different ways and with different underlying conceptualizations of com‐ petence. Herold (2010: 227) and Malmkjær (2009: 121) consider the reason for this vagueness to be the interdisciplinarity of the field. Finding itself at the interface between different disciplines, TS was - and still is - confronted with different understandings of competence. On the one hand, there is a very precise concept of competence in linguistics; on the other hand, there is a much broader view of competence in didactics. In linguistics, the understanding of the term competence is grounded in Chomsky’s work. To describe competence, Chomsky (1965: 3) refers to an ideal speaker-hearer who knows his language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. From this description, it is clear at once that the term competence refers to underlying knowledge and abstracts from all types of errors that will necessarily occur in actual speech. Performance, on the contrary, refers to the actual use of language. Consequently, Chomsky postulates that natural speech cannot be a direct reflection of competence as it is bound to include false starts, deviations 19 2.1 Translation Competence Defined <?page no="20"?> from rules, etc. (1965: 4). Accordingly, he suggests that competence is beyond the speaker-hearer’s consciousness and that reports about his behavior may be erroneous (1965: 8). In line with his definitions of competence and performance, Chomsky (1965: 11) considers research on the acceptability of utterances to be‐ long to the study of performance while the study of competence is limited to the grammaticality of utterances which needs not coincide with their accepta‐ bility. This leads to questions about how competence can be studied at all, and Chomsky himself recognizes that unfortunately no adequate techniques are known. However, he suggests that at least some evidence can be obtained from studying performance and introspective reports (1965: 18). In didactics, the use of the term competence is less clear-cut. While the notion has been central to European didactics for the last ten to 15 years and despite an array of definitions, no consensus has been reached and researchers criticize that the notion remains vague (e.g., Jung 2010: 1; Kiel 2014: 134). Nevertheless, in a report by German psychologist Weinert for the OECD, huge efforts have been made to clarify the theoretical and conceptual approaches to the notion of com‐ petence (Weinert 2001a). In line with his report, Weinert (2001b: 27-28) has pro‐ posed a very broad definition of competence as: […] the cognitive abilities and skills that individuals have or that they can learn to solve specific problems as well as the associated motivational, volitional and social dispositions and abilities needed to be able to apply solutions to problems successfully and responsibly in variable situations. (translation taken from Kiraly 2013: 198) This definition has had a considerable influence on the current understanding of competence in didactics and has served as a basis for the majority of recent definitions proposed by German researchers in the field (Grabowski 2014: 21; Kiel 2014: 140). On an international level, the definition proposed by the OECD also draws on Weinert’s report (2001a) and is comparably broad: A competence is defined as the ability to successfully meet complex demands in a particular context. Competent performance or effective action implies the mobiliza‐ tion of knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, as well as social and behavior com‐ ponents such as attitudes, emotions, and values and motivations. (OECD 2003: 2) Both definitions have an all-encompassing approach to competence, including not only declarative and procedural knowledge but also psychological and social factors. Clearly, in didactics, competence is understood to be much more than underlying knowledge - in fact, it is considered “a complex action system en‐ compassing cognitive skills, attitudes and other non-cognitive components” (Rychen & Salganik 2003: 51). On the basis of the OECD’s definition (2003: 2), it 20 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="21"?> seems somewhat difficult to draw the line between competence as the “cognitive abilities and skills needed to perform successfully” and actual successful per‐ formance. This leads us back to the distinction between competence and per‐ formance that apparently also exists in the field of didactics. In fact, some scholars in didactics refer to competence as opposed to per‐ formance. They consider competence as the deep structure and performance as the surface structure (see Jung 2010: 21). This distinction is clearly reminiscent of Chomsky’s (1965) differentiation between deep and surface structure in grammar and shows the extent to which the linguistic definition of competence has had an influence on didactics. While attention is mainly drawn to the fact that there is a generative relation between competence and performance, i.e., that competence generates performance, it is also proposed that performance influences competence, e.g., by adding knowledge ( Jung 2010: 21-22). What about studying competence empirically, however? It seems that the position taken in didactics is very much in line with Chomsky’s claim that it cannot be observed directly but that the study of performance may, nevertheless, allow us to draw conclusions about the underlying competence. Thus, Grabowski (2014: 19), too, considers competence a theoretical construct that cannot be ob‐ served directly. Jung (2010: 22), for example, thinks it is possible to draw con‐ clusions regarding competence by observing performance. Furthermore, in di‐ dactics as well, competence is taken to be a latent disposition that persists even if it might not surface in every performance situation (Grabowski 2014: 19). Coming back to translation studies, the different conceptualizations of com‐ petence in linguistics and didactics can help to clarify the debate surrounding the notion of translation competence. As TS was heavily influenced by linguis‐ tics in its early years, some scholars have suggested that, in the beginning, the term translation competence was used in a way similar to Chomsky’s linguistic competence. Over time, the understanding of competence became ever closer to Chomsky’s performance (Krüger 2001: 26; Presas 2007: 357; Lesznyák 2007: 174). While there are early definitions that compare TC to a sort of lin‐ guistic competence (e.g., Diller & Kornelius 1978: 6), it is questionable whether in early publications, TC was generally understood as a system of abstract rules and considered to be detached from actual performance. As early as 1977, Wilss (1977: 284) emphasized that his understanding of competence is broader than Chomsky’s and spoke of the communicative efficiency of the translation process. Toury (1980: 183) also goes out of his way to state that of course, it is not some abstract, or latent sort of competence that translation didactics is after. Rather it is an actual ability to perform, that is, a sort of competence whose very existence can be determined only in view of actual acts of performance. 21 2.1 Translation Competence Defined <?page no="22"?> It seems that TS scholars discovered very early on that translation competence could not be strictly separated from performance. However, the discussion con‐ tinued to center around Chomsky’s definition because TS scholars felt (and per‐ haps still feel) the need to position themselves in relation to linguistics (e.g., Wilss 1992: 185; Hansen 1997: 205; Rothe-Neves 2007: 136). In this vein, some scholars oppose the adoption of the notion of competence altogether - mainly because of the considerable difference between the assumed underlying concept and Chomsky’s understanding of competence - and suggest using a term such as “translation proficiency” instead (Wilss 1992: 185; Cao 1996: 326-327). This term, however, has not become established in translation studies. Other scholars have turned to the concept of translation expertise instead (e.g., Shreve 2002; Muñoz Martín 2014b). Herold (2010: 215) assumes that, despite these ongoing discussions, a tacit agreement has already been reached in favor of viewing TC as a form of domain knowledge (Sachverstand) and abilities (Fähigkeiten). She suggests that TS scholars today could agree on a basic understanding of “competence” that is in line with Weinert’s above-cited broad definition of competence as a set of problem-solving skills (2001b: 27-28). In relation to Chomsky’s model, the sol‐ ution to the contradiction between different understandings of TC seems to lie in integrating both competence and performance within a definition of trans‐ lation competence (e.g., Alves et al. 2001: 47; Schäffner 2005: 243; Kiraly 2013: 198). This is what can also be seen in PACTE’s frequently cited definition, which highlights not only declarative knowledge but also procedural knowledge, i.e., skills and abilities, as in the didactic definitions mentioned above. PACTE (2003: 58) define translation competence as the underlying system of knowledge needed to translate. It includes declarative and procedural knowledge, but the procedural knowledge is predominant. It consists of the ability to carry out the transfer process from the comprehension of the source text to the reexpression of the target text, taking into account the purpose of the translation and the characteristics of the target text readers. (PACTE 2003: 58) With this understanding of TC, PACTE are in line with current definitions of competence in didactics, where an emphasis is placed on the ability to perform efficiently. This, however, does not mean that competence necessarily equals efficient performance as proposed by Rothe-Neves (2007: 136). Rather, it is what allows for efficient performance to take place. For the present study, PACTE’s conception of translation competence has been adopted since it explicitly en‐ compasses both declarative and procedural knowledge (see 2.2). Furthermore, in line with Grabowski (2014: 19), it has been assumed that although the under‐ 22 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="23"?> 1 This distinction is frequent in expertise studies. “An expert is generally considered to be someone who has attained a high level of performance in a given domain as a result of years of experience. A novice is usually defined as someone who [has] little or no experience in a particular domain.” (Moser-Mercer 1997: 255) lying system of knowledge and skills is not directly accessible, performance makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding a translator’s underlying knowledge and skills. 2.2 The Nature of Translation Competence As we have seen above, translation competence is understood today not only in the sense of abstract knowledge but also as the ability to perform, i.e., as a spe‐ cific skill. When concentrating on the nature of competence, the question now arises as to what kind of knowledge underlies translation competence. Presas (2007: 358) points out that translators can proceed either intuitively or in a con‐ scious and reflective manner. She believes, however, that, as a field, translation studies reach their limits when explaining why this is the case and how these two possible approaches to translation interact. In order to understand the na‐ ture of translation competence better, she draws on expertise research to explain the interaction between two different kinds of knowledge, declarative and pro‐ cedural, that are both part of a professional translator’s translation competence. This dichotomy between procedural and declarative knowledge was originally introduced by Anderson (e.g., 1982, 1993) but is now generally accepted in cog‐ nitive psychology (Sun 2015: 192). Both of these types of memory are considered central to learning (Ullman 2016: 953). Procedural knowledge is understood to be “action-oriented” (Sun 2015: 192) and concerns the knowledge of how to do things. It is thus “ the knowledge required to perform skilled actions” (Eysenck & Keane 2015: 264). Declarative knowledge, on the contrary, is “non-action-ori‐ ented” (Sun 2015: 192) and concerns knowledge about something. It is defined as a form of long-term memory that involves knowing something is the case; it involves conscious recollection and includes memory for facts and events. (Eysenck & Keane 2015: 263) Drawing on expertise research, Presas goes on to explain that experts rely much more on their procedural knowledge than novices. 1 Nevertheless, experts are at the same time able to reflect on translation problems and their solutions in a declarative way, an ability that novices lack. Thus, she concludes that translation 23 2.2 The Nature of Translation Competence <?page no="24"?> competence as it is present in experts is at the same time procedural, declarative, strategic and self-reflected (2007: 358). Today, it is undisputed in TS that trans‐ lation competence consists of both declarative and procedural knowledge (see e.g., Alves 2005: n.p.). However, scholars have slightly different opinions as to which of these two types of knowledge is more pronounced in translation com‐ petence and as to the way in which they develop and interact over time. 2.2.1 Translation Competence as Mainly Procedural Knowledge As early as 1996, Presas (1996) drew on the notions of “knowing what” and “knowing how” (Ryle 1949 / / 1988), a precursor to Anderson’s declarative and procedural knowledge, and was thus among the first to elaborate on the question as to how different kinds of knowledge might interact in translation competence. She suggests that “knowing what”, i.e., declarative knowledge, constitutes the basis of translation competence but is not specific to the translation expert. She thereby seems to postulate that it is procedural knowledge that makes the dif‐ ference between novice and professional. She goes on to propose a multicom‐ ponential model, in which she groups different sub-competences (see also 2.3) according to their type of knowledge. The declarative sub-competences are few: knowledge of the languages and cultures involved, encyclopedic knowledge and domain knowledge (1996: 229-232). By 2004, Presas understood expertise - and therefore translation competence - to be proceduralized, abstract, strategic and self-reflexive. As postulated by Anderson (1993), she believes that declarative and procedural knowledge cannot be separated in experts. Rather, experts can use procedural knowledge without explicitly drawing on declarative knowledge. She therefore suggests that experts not only know more than novices; they also use their knowledge differently, i.e., in a proceduralized way (2004: 204-205). In the end, Presas believes - in line with Andersons’ (1993: 22) suggestions - that knowledge starts declaratively and becomes proceduralized over time which results in a more efficient performance. In 2003, PACTE drew on expertise studies as well for their revised model of translation competence. Although the research group had earlier raised the question as to whether TC was mainly practical or theoretical, procedural or declarative in nature (2000: 102-103), they did not incorporate the distinction into the first version of their model. In their reviewed model (see 2.3.3.1), how‐ ever, PACTE (2003) classified each and every one of the different sub-compe‐ tences they proposed according to whether it is primarily procedural or declar‐ ative. They believe knowledge about a specialty area, or “domain”, as well as knowledge about translation to be predominantly declarative, whereas the lan‐ 24 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="25"?> guage competence and the ability to make sensible use of resources such as dictionaries are taken to be mainly procedural. Furthermore, the central sub-competence in their model, the “strategic sub-competence” - a competence that is supposed to create the inter-relations among the other sub-competences and to control the whole process of translation - is believed to be predominantly procedural. By considering this central competence to be mainly procedural, PACTE also highlight that TC, at its very core, is rather procedural (e.g., 2003: 58; 2007: 331). In fact, PACTE had already acknowledged this position in their early publications (2000: 103), in which they stated that professional translators have been found to have difficulties in verbalizing what they are doing, which is considered by some to be a typical feature of procedural knowledge (e.g., An‐ derson 1993: 18-19). Göpferich (2009c) follows PACTE in believing that procedural knowledge is central to TC and that it is a marker which might make it possible to distinguish novices from experts. She further points out that deciding about appropriate strategies both at the macroand micro-level depends on a specific context. Thus, which strategy is appropriate in which situation cannot be “learned by heart” but has to be decided on the basis of the specific situation. Göpferich (2009c: 82) believes this fact to be sufficient to indicate that such decisions cannot be based on declarative knowledge alone (Göpferich 2009c: 82). Nevertheless, she acknowledges that declarative knowledge also has an impact on how com‐ petent a translator is (2009c: 75). Göpferich hypothesizes that a translator with a fair amount of procedural knowledge can compensate for a lack of declarative knowledge, while compensation is not possible the other way round (2009c: 82). Herold (2010: 231) takes a somewhat different view in her integrative ap‐ proach. She points out that it is impossible to clearly distinguish between pro‐ cedural and declarative knowledge, since all sub-competences are bound to in‐ volve both types of knowledge. She therefore prefers to avoid labelling the sub-competences. Instead, she groups the sub-competences according to whether they can be taught declaratively (i.e., theoretical teaching through lec‐ turing, readings…) or not. Within the first group, she lists a considerable number of competences such as domain competence, knowledge about language (i.e., linguistics) and cultural competence, to name but a few. However, she considers other competences to have “strong procedural characteristics” so that they can only be taught indirectly, i.e., through practice and awareness-raising (2010: 234- 235). Although she lists the majority of competences in the declarative group, Herold points out that the decisive competences, such as transfer competence, research competence and text competence, need to be taught procedurally. She therefore concludes that translation competence is predominantly procedural 25 2.2 The Nature of Translation Competence <?page no="26"?> (2010: 235). A word of caution has to be inserted here: While it is very prudent of Herold to avoid assigning the different sub-competences to a type of knowl‐ edge, it must be pointed out that distinguishing between declarative and pro‐ cedural teaching is just the other side of the coin. In fact, instead of assuming what kind of knowledge a certain sub-competence mainly consists in, she makes assumptions about the best way to teach the different sub-competences. Her assumptions might, however, not always be correct. Let’s take cultural compe‐ tence as an example. While it is obvious that factual knowledge about cultures can be acquired declaratively, this does not entail that we can act in accordance with such knowledge in a specific situation. Rather, we might have unconscious procedural knowledge about our own culture that will be more powerful in that situation and make us act as would be appropriate in our home culture. In her favor, it must be said that Herold never claimed that these competences can be fully acquired only by declarative learning. She is well aware that this would be too simple a view. Nevertheless, she claims that these competences can be trans‐ mitted at least to some extent in lectures while others such as transfer compe‐ tence cannot. Taking this thought further, we could ask ourselves why we should not be able to teach transfer competence, i.e., problem-solving and deci‐ sion-making processes during the translation process, on a declarative basis as well. As awareness-raising is an important aspect in this competence, as Herold herself points out (2010: 234-235), this could surely be tackled in theoretical courses. Her reasoning, therefore, blurs the boundary somewhat and seems to rely to a great extent on informed assumptions - or on convention, since what she suggests seems to be reminiscent of many of today’s curricula. As Pym notes (2003: 487), however, the way in which we are teaching translation today is nei‐ ther the only way nor necessarily the best way. 2.2.2 Translation Competence as Mainly Declarative Knowledge The contrary position is not as frequent in translation studies. It has been taken mainly by Alves and Gonçalves, who explicitly consider TC to consist predom‐ inantly of declarative knowledge (Alves 2005; Alves & Gonçalves 2007). Their model features two different dimensions of TC: general translator’s competence (GTC), which includes “all knowledge, abilities, and strategies a successful translator masters and which lead to an adequate performance of translation tasks” (2007: 43), and specific translator’s competence (STC), which is the core of TC and coordinates other sub-competences through conscious or even meta‐ cognitive processes (2007: 46). It is obvious that STC, in this model, has a standing similar to that of strategic competence in the PACTE approach (see above and 26 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="27"?> in more detail in 2.3.3.1). It is therefore unsurprising that Alves and Gonçalves (2007: 47) explicitly relate STC to PACTE’s strategic competence. Contrary to PACTE, however, Alves and Gonçalves (2007: 46) suggest that this core compe‐ tence is mainly declarative in nature since decision-making and problem-solving concern the conscious layers of the cognitive system. Although Alves and Gon‐ çalves agree that procedural knowledge plays an important part in TC, especially with regard to the language competences and the competence to use tools and resources, they believe that it is declarative knowledge that makes the difference between novices and experts. Thus, they propose that TC starts procedurally and that it is rather unconscious and unreflective in novices but becomes more conscious as meta-awareness increases. With their approach, Alves and Gon‐ çalves take a counter-position to the widely held view that proceduralization increases during the development of TC. Instead, they suggest that this is true for some areas such as language skills, but not for STC, the central competence of TC. On the contrary, they believe that more declarative knowledge is added over time and used consciously in order to find the best interpretive resem‐ blance, i.e., the best translation, for every ST unit. In the same vein, Fernández & Zabalbeascoa (2012: 742) argue that strategic sub-competence is mainly related to metacognitive reflection. They understand strategic sub-competence to include planning, monitoring, self-evaluation as well as activating various other sub-competences. They believe that metacog‐ nitive awareness plays an important part in the first three of these functions and allows students to verbalize at least certain aspects of their decision-making processes. Although Fernández & Zabalbeascoa do not relate this to declarative and procedural knowledge, their reference to metacognition and the ability to verbalize content suggest that they might support a view in which strategic sub-competence, which is at the very heart of translation competence, is con‐ sidered to be mainly declarative. To recap, the majority of TS scholars who reflect on the nature of translation competence consider it to consist primarily of procedural knowledge in experts. This view has been largely influenced by Andersons’ work on the acquisition of cognitive skills (e.g., 1982, 1983; Corbett & Anderson 1995). The question of major interest in the present context, however, concerns the role of both de‐ clarative and procedural knowledge during the acquisition of translation com‐ petence. Ultimately, this is the question as to which of the two types of knowl‐ edge might be an essential stepping stone for building up translation competence and thus whether declarative or procedural learning should first be emphasized in translator training (see Alves 2005: n.p.). 27 2.2 The Nature of Translation Competence <?page no="28"?> 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence Since translation competence has become a central topic within TS, scholars have tried to describe what it consists of. What does a professional translator need to know, or be able to do, in order to be considered competent? Many answers have been proposed over the last 30 years or so. Many of them, however, have been “scarcely more than mere ideas or suggestions or hints that lack elaboration” (Lesznyák 2007: 172). Very often, they have not been intended as models of TC by their authors, but have been taken as such by the research community. This is especially true of early claims regarding the content of TC, while newer models have tended to be more sophisticated. The PACTE model (see 2.3.3) is a good example of one such more recent approach to modelling TC. Providing an overview of existing TC models is a cumbersome task due to the sheer mass of suggestions and models that have been put forward to date. Some authors, however, have made attempts to disentangle the many different claims regarding TC by categorizing them (Pym 2003, Lesznyák 2007) or by proposing an overarching framework (Herold 2010). Drawing on Pym (2003), Lesznyák (2007) proposes three main categories of TC models: - TC as a summation of linguistic components - TC as “just one thing” - multicomponential models 2.3.1 Translation Competence as a Summation of Linguistic Components Within the first group, Lesznyák (2007: 174) places linguistic approaches that consider TC as “simply consisting of L1 and L2 competence”. According to Pym (2003: 483), the idea behind these approaches is that competence in one language plus competence in a second language equals translation competence. One ex‐ ample of such a summative view of TC is Wilss (1978: 147), who considers trans‐ lation competence to be an interlingual language competence (interlinguale Sprachverwendungskompetenz) that consists of a text-analytical source language competence (ausgangssprachlich-textanalytische Dimension) and a text-syn‐ thetic target language competence (zielsprachlich-textsynthetische Dimension), which together form what Wilss calls transfer competence. Wilss thus postulates that receptive competence in one language and productive competence in an‐ other language suffices to be able to translate. Koller (1979: 40) acknowledges that translation competence is more than language competence as acquired in a philological course of studies. He considers the additional competence of the 28 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="29"?> translator to be the ability to bring together (verbinden) competences in two different languages to produce equivalent translations. This view relates to the question as to whether translation competence de‐ velops automatically when someone speaks two languages, i.e., whether TC is innate or not. Harris (1977), a pioneer in empirical research on the development of translation competence, is often said to be in favor of such an automatic development of TC. In short, Harris postulates that all bilinguals are able to translate and calls this universal skill “natural translation” (1977: 99). It must be pointed out, however, that Harris studied bilingual children and never suggested that his results could be transferred to translation in a professional context. As a consequence, TS scholars today usually distinguish between innate, natural translation on the one hand and professional translation on the other. The two concepts can, therefore, be considered complementary rather than contradic‐ tory. While an ability to reformulate linguistic content in another language may be universal, professional TC extends to including knowledge about translation norms in a given society as well as an efficient translation process (Toury 1995: 250; Kvam 1996: 121; Rothe-Neves 2007: 131). In a nutshell, as far as profes‐ sional TC is concerned, researchers generally agree that it is not innate and does not develop in the same measure as proficiency in a foreign language (e.g., Shreve 1997: 121; Hansen 1997: 208; Göpferich 2008: 144). This also means that most translation scholars today agree that TC is more than just a summation of linguistic competence in two different languages. This was not the case when the first attempts at explaining translation com‐ petence were made. These linguistic approaches were mainly taken in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have been discarded as scholars agreed that TC is more than just competence in two languages. Pym (2003: 483), however, sees the reason for this rejection in academic politics rather than in research itself. In the 1970s and 1980s, when TS struggled to be recognized as an independent discipline, such a summative linguistic approach would not have been of much help in detaching translation studies from philological and linguistics departments. In the same vein, Rothe-Neves (2007: 127) criticizes the consent in discarding these summa‐ tive models because of a lack of factual proof. Quoting different TS scholars, he points out that a difference between natural and professional translation is gen‐ erally assumed but that no detailed descriptions are provided of what really distinguishes them. While one has to admit that empirical research has proven that there are indeed differences between bilinguals and professional translators (see chapter 2.5), it is more difficult to explain why they exist. Presas (2007: 362- 363) assumes that translation studies reach their limits when trying to explain why professional TC does not come automatically with the ability to speak two 29 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="30"?> languages. In her opinion, the help of other disciplines such as expertise studies and psycholinguistics is needed to shed some light on the question. Whatever the reasons, considering TC as a mere summation of linguistic competence was an outdated view in TS, and the next step, therefore, was to include more than just linguistic competence in models of TC. 2.3.2 Translation Competence as “Just One Thing” One attempt to account for translation competence as being more than just linguistic competence was to describe translation competence as, in Pym’s words, “just one thing” (2003: 487). These models do not adhere to an all-en‐ compassing view of translation competence, but concentrate on the defining features of translation. They do not deny by any means that a translator needs more than this specific competence - they just do not subsume these other competences under the heading of TC. Here we need to briefly come back to the definition of TC - or rather to the lack of an accepted definition. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether translation competence is a superordi‐ nate term for all the competences required by a translator or a more specialized term referring only to the defining competence that distinguishes professional translators from all other bilinguals. Figure 1 and Figure 2 serve to illustrate this conflict in the use of the term “translation competence”. It must be pointed out, however, that the illustrations are oversimplified: multicomponential models do not see TC as a simple summation of different competences, nor do models that picture TC as “just one thing” necessarily see it on the same hierarchical level as the other competences. Ultimately, however, this seems to be a major point at which the use of the term “translation competence” varies Figure 1: Translation competence as a sub-ordinate term Reviewing different approaches to TC, it soon becomes clear that not many of them can be grouped within this third category. Pym (2003: 487) and Lesznyák (2007: 186) both consider Toury (1984) to be the earliest representative of this 30 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="31"?> understanding of TC. It must be pointed out, however, that Toury did not name this specific competence “translation competence” - rather he used the term “transfer competence” (1984: 190). This transfer competence is considered to be the distinguishing feature between bilinguals (who Toury calls native transla‐ tors) and professional translators. While he considers the bilingual ability to be innate, this is not the case for transfer competence, which has to be learned (1984: 191). Classifying Toury within this approach is, however, rather far‐ fetched, since Toury considers transfer competence, bilingual and interlingual competence as all being part of “translator’s competence”, as he calls it. He could thus be better classified with the multicomponential models, many of which also include a translation-specific competence such as Toury’s transfer competence. Pym (2003: 488) himself points out that the idea of a translation super-compe‐ tence is included in many a multicomponential model as well. His criticism of multicomponential models is not that they do not acknowledge the fact that there might be one specific main competence in translation, but rather that the multitude of other competences that they list overshadows this specific com‐ ponent’s importance. Furthermore, he regrets that researchers, while in fact talking about the same thing, have not yet been able to agree on a name for this competence. This leads us - once more - back to the question of defining trans‐ lation competence, and whether it refers to the totality of competences of a translator or just to its defining feature. Pym (2003) himself proposes a model that focuses only on this super-com‐ petence - and, in fact, his might be the only model that truly fits into the category of translation as “just one thing”. Pym restricts the definition of TC to those abilities that describe translation - and only translation. In his minimalist ap‐ proach, he thus suggests a two-fold functional competence, in which translators should be trained. He proposes two skills that form a “specifically translational competence” (Pym 2003: 489): - The ability to generate a series of more than one viable target text (TT 1 , TT 2 , ... TT n ) for a pertinent source text (ST); - The ability to select only one viable TT from this series, quickly and with jus‐ tified confidence. With this definition, Pym (2003: 490) “hopes to say quite a lot in very few words” and suggests that most of the things that are included in multicomponential models are actually covered in his model as well. This causes Lesznyák (2007: 188) to wonder whether Pym’s minimalist definition is not actually a mul‐ ticomponential model “in a less elaborate form”, which highlights once more how difficult it is to place TC models in a rigid classification. However, Pym’s 31 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="32"?> outline of TC must be praised for getting to the bottom of functional transla‐ tion. Nevertheless, its brevity makes it difficult to use as a basis for teaching or research because, as Lesznyák notes, “it simply does not say what exactly should be fostered, assessed or investigated” (2007: 188). 2.3.3 Multicomponential Models The group of multicomponential models is the largest one and refers to models that see TC as composed of different sub-competences. This is the case for Bell (1991), Presas (1996), Hatim & Mason (1997), Hansen (1997), Neubert (2000), Kelly (2002), PACTE (2000, 2003), Alves & Gonçalves (2007), Göpferich (2008), the EMT expert group (2009) and Kiraly (2013) to name just a few. These models often adopt a holistic approach and try to describe all the sub-competences of TC as completely as possible. This then - to put it in an oversimplified manner - leads to listing everything a translator has to know in order to be a (good) translator. The number of proposed sub-competences varies just as much as the range of knowledge that is subsumed under translation competence. To give one example, in one of the earliest multicomponential models, Bell (1991: 40) expands on the summative linguistic approaches quoted above: besides knowing two languages, she includes text type knowledge, do‐ main knowledge, contrastive knowledge, and an inference mechanism that al‐ lows the translator to decode the ST and encode the TT. Although she thereby avoids the “1+1” formula of the summative approaches, she largely stays within the field of linguistics. Recent models tend to have less of a linguistic approach and include much more varied sub-competences, as is exemplified by the model of the EMT expert group (2009: 4). This model has a much broader range of focus and lists six interdependent sub-competences: language competence, intercul‐ tural competence, thematic competence, technological competence as well as competence in information mining and translation service provision. Comparing just these two models, it is possible to see how diversified the proposed sub-competences are. It is for this reason that providing an overview of the different sub-competences that can be found in the literature is almost impossible, as Herold (2010: 214) points out. To solve this problem, she proposes an integrative classification of the different sub-competences under three “di‐ mensions”: the content dimension, the action-related dimension and the her‐ meneutic dimension. While the first dimension integrates everything a trans‐ lator has to know (e.g., domain competence, language competence, cultural competence, technical competence, service competence, etc.), The second di‐ mension includes everything that the translator must be able to do, such as pro‐ 32 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="33"?> ducing an acceptable target text (transfer competence) or finding the necessary information (research competence). Within the third, the hermeneutic dimen‐ sion, Herold groups general as well as translational meta-competences such as problem-solving abilities and strategic competence. While the model is helpful for structuring the various sub-competences, it is questionable whether it is possible to classify all sub-competences that can be found in the literature into these three categories. While Herold herself is aware of this fact, she believes that an additional category of general meta-competences that influence all other dimensions (2010: 227) might be sufficient to remedy this problem. What is more, her integrative classification seems to be unable to account for the interlinkage between different sub-competences as proposed in recent models. While these multicomponential models differ widely in the number and kind of sub-competences that they include, there are similarities. What seems to be common to multicomponential models is that they try to subsume all the com‐ petences that a translator needs under the heading of translation competence. In multicomponential models, TC is therefore understood to be a kind of su‐ perordinate term including all the interdependent competences someone must possess in order to be able to translate (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Translation competence as a super-ordinate term Multicomponential models, albeit very popular in TS, have been repeatedly criticized. One of the most obvious points of criticism is the number of compe‐ tences (Pym 2003: 487; Presas 2007: 360-361). It is, in fact, impossible to determine how many sub-competences TC could possibly have and the list of sub-compe‐ tences can be expanded at will, bringing ever more aspects into the mixture. Even then, however, it is impossible to develop a model that will incorporate every single competence that might be necessary for solving every possible translation task (Presas 2007: 360-361). Another criticism that multicomponen‐ tial models encounter concerns their picturing of TC in an idealized way. They 33 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="34"?> are, in Kiraly’s view (2013: 199-201), “static box-like representations of an ideal(ized) relationship between dispositions, abilities and skills that profes‐ sional translators can be expected to possess”. They do not reveal anything about how TC develops and are therefore incomplete without a model of TC acquisi‐ tion (Toury 1995: 238; Pym 2003: 487; Kiraly 2013: 199-201). Furthermore, ac‐ cording to Cnyrim et al. (2013: 11), multicomponential models fail to explain how exactly the sub-competences interact with one another and how they are af‐ fected by different external factors in a translation situation. Last but not least, Pym (2003: 487) states that the models are not as “innocently descriptive as they seem”. Rather, he continues, they are “heavy with assumptions not just about what translation is and how it should be taught, but more especially about the level at which specific teaching is needed, and for how many years.” He criticizes the fact that many of these models actually coincide with the curricula of the institutions in which the researchers work (Pym 2003: 487). Muñoz Martín (2010: 155) criticizes multicomponential models for reflecting a modular view of the brain that has been discarded in cognitive psychology. There are, however, models - and Lesznyák (2007: 177) seems to assign them to the multicomponen‐ tial group - that attempt to overcome this limitation with a cognitive approach. The pioneer in this respect is Risku (1998), whose cognitive model of trans‐ lation competence differs substantially from other multicomponential models. Because of this difference, and the above-mentioned contradictions between multicomponential models and the positions recently taken in the cognitive sciences, a separate group should be established for cognitive approaches such as Risku’s when classifying TC models. In fact, it seems that TS scholars draw more and more on cognitive science, especially on connectionism, when devel‐ oping new TC models. This is, for example, the case with both Alves & Gon‐ çalves’ (2007) (2.2.2) and Kiraly’s (2013) models (2.4.3). Cognitive approaches to TC differ from the classic multicomponential models in that they focus on ex‐ plaining cognitive processes. This does not mean that they oppose the idea that TC consists of different sub-competences - both Alves & Gonçalves (2007: 46) and Kiraly (2013: 210) include various sub-competences - but their main focus goes beyond listing these sub-competences. These models try rather to avoid static representations of an ideal translation competence and focus on the dif‐ ferences between novices’ and experts’ TC (Alves & Gonçalves 2007: 51-52; Kiraly 2013: 208-209). This makes it possible to draw conclusions on the devel‐ opment of TC that clearly differentiate them from typical multicomponential models. It actually situates them at the borderline between models of TC and models of TC acquisition since they combine both aspects. These models are a step toward including cognitive research in the modelling of TC. They also open 34 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="35"?> up new horizons in the debate and will certainly play an important role in the future. Cognitive models do not contradict the multicomponential propositions of TC, however. Instead, they refine them by setting a different focus. It is there‐ fore no wonder that they tend to draw on multicomponential models more or less explicitly for their own modelling of TC. With this overview of different approaches to conceptualize TC, it has been made evident that there is no consensus at all either on the way in which the term translation competence is used or on the content of TC. However, it seems that three main points can be deduced from the current discussion, to which most researchers could agree: - Professional translation is more than just speaking two languages. - Professional translation is expert knowledge which consists, at bottom, in an ability to produce an adequate translation for a specific communi‐ cative situation or a specific source text (depending on the theoretical background). - Beyond that, the translator needs an unspecified number of competences that are not specific to translation but necessary to be able to translate efficiently and professionally. Considering these different approaches that have been taken to modelling the content of translation competence, it seems that each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. A focus on TC as “just one thing”, as prescribed by Pym’s minimalist definition (2003), helps to focus on what the defining feature of a professional translator should be, but it does not allow conclusions to be drawn on what competences exactly should be taught (or measured in an empirical study). With their wider focus, multicomponential models seem to allow for a more detailed analysis of translation competence and the factors influencing it. While this is certainly an advantage, multicomponential models have been criti‐ cized for reductionism, for a certain thinking-in-the-box. Cognitive approaches try to overcome this reductionist approach by including connectionist theories regarding the way in which competence evolves over time. In the following section, the focus will be on some of the current multicomponential approaches, the specific sub-competences they include as well as the role they attribute to theoretical knowledge. In the section on acquisition of TC (2.4), some cognitive approaches will be presented, as these models’ advantages currently lie in the ability to explain the different stages in the development of translation compe‐ tence. 35 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="36"?> 2.3.3.1 PACTE’s Model of Translation Competence The multicomponential model proposed by the PACTE group (2003) stands out among the many other models advanced: it was the first model to have been empirically validated and therefore is widely accepted within the research com‐ munity (e.g., Bergen 2009: 234; Muñoz Martín 2014a: 55). The PACTE research group was formed in 1997 with the goal of studying both translation competence and translation competence acquisition. In a first stage, PACTE’s main goal was to determine the content of translation competence, while also providing em‐ pirical validation for their model of TC and for their measuring instruments (2008: 106). This first stage was completed in 2011, and empirical results have corroborated the theoretical model (PACTE 2008, 2009, 2011b, 2011a, 2014). Currently, the project is in its second stage, researching the acquisition of trans‐ lation competence (ATC). Beyond their theoretical scope, however, PACTE also acknowledge a didactic aim: they believe that knowing more about TC and its development will benefit professional translator training and, in the end, lead to better curricular designs (2003: 61, 2008: 105). The PACTE group (2000) proposed a first model of translation competence that had been developed on the basis of earlier models and of empirical research on TC. After testing this model in a pilot study, PACTE revised it and also took other disciplines, such as research on communicative competence and expert knowledge, into account in order to propose a second model (2003: 45). We will look in some detail at this second, revised model that has been used as a basis for PACTE’s ample empirical research. The PACTE model describes TC as con‐ sisting of five sub-competences: bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence, knowledge about translation sub-competence, instrumental sub-competence and strategic sub-competence. Furthermore, psycho-physio‐ logical components that do not have the same status as a sub-competence are considered to be activated and therefore to have an influence on TC. These five sub-competences are supposed to be interrelated, with the strategic competence being the most important among them (2008: 106). Before going into the details, however, it is important to point out some of the premises underlying PACTE’s understanding of translation competence (2008: 106). First of all, TC is supposed to be expert knowledge that is not pos‐ sessed by all bilinguals. It is therefore broader than natural translation compe‐ tence (Harris 1977) and is not innate. Drawing on Anderson (1982, 1993), PACTE consider TC to be mainly procedural rather than declarative knowledge. This means, they believe it to be a practical skill rather than a form of theoretical knowledge. PACTE highlight the declarative/ procedural nature of each of their 36 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="37"?> sub-competences, which gives their model special relevance for the present re‐ search question. Figure 3: TC model of the PACTE group (2003: 60) According to PACTE (2003: 58), the bilingual sub-competence includes not only the procedural knowledge needed to communicate in two languages (i.e., prag‐ matic, socio-linguistic, textual, grammatical and lexical knowledge) but also the specific feature of interference control when using two languages. 37 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="38"?> Extra-linguistic sub-competence consists mainly of declarative knowledge, both implicit (that is, consciously inaccessible) and explicit (i.e., consciously ac‐ cessible). PACTE distinguish three areas of extra-linguistic knowledge that a translator needs: - bicultural knowledge about both the source and the target culture - encyclopedic knowledge about the world in general - subject knowledge in special areas. However, PACTE (2005: 611) are well aware that any bilingual individual usually possesses these two sub-competences and therefore only consider the remaining three sub-competences, “knowledge about translation”, “instrumental” and “strategic sub-competence”, to be specific to TC. As a consequence, all of PACTE’s research is limited to the following three sub-competences. The instrumental sub-competence is related to the use of documentation and information sources and is taken to be mainly procedural. It includes the use of dictionaries, encyclopedias and grammars as well as parallel texts both in print and electronic form. PACTE also extend this competence to broader aspects such as using searchers or following style guides. PACTE (2003: 59) consider knowledge about translation sub-competence to be predominantly declarative knowledge, both implicit and explicit. It includes two different aspects of the profession: - knowledge about how translation functions (e. g. translation units, processes, strategies, techniques, translation prob‐ lems…) - knowledge related to the professional translation practice (e. g. work market, translation briefs, clients, audiences…) In line with Göpferich (2009b: 19), one may ask whether these two aspects fit well together under one heading, which is why Göpferich decided to split this sub-competence in her own model (see 2.3.3.2) into two. Furthermore, the ques‐ tion arises as to whether these two aspects are not inherently different in terms of the predominant type of knowledge. While it makes sense to categorize knowledge about the work market as declarative, one may ask whether knowl‐ edge about translation units, processes, strategies and techniques might not be procedural rather than declarative. The answer to this question can be inferred, however, from PACTE’s conceptualization of the strategic sub-competence. Strategic sub-competence is considered to be the most important sub-compe‐ tence in PACTE’s model because it controls the translation process. It consists, in PACTE’s view, of procedural knowledge and guarantees the efficiency of the 38 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="39"?> translation process. PACTE (2003: 59) ascribe four different functions to their strategic sub-competence: - planning the process (i.e., choosing the most adequate method) and car‐ rying out the translation project - evaluating the process and the partial results obtained in relation to the final purpose - activating the different sub-competences and compensating for deficien‐ cies in them - identifying translation problems and applying procedures to solve them. From this, it is clear that PACTE make a distinction between declarative knowledge about different translation problems (which belongs to their “knowledge about translation” sub-competence) and the ability to solve these problems in a given situation. The procedural skill of actually tackling prob‐ lems is part of their strategic competence, which explains the question raised above. Finally, PACTE (2003: 59) include psycho-physiological components in their model. These, however, are not considered sub-components of TC but are rather dispositions that an individual has. Within this group of psycho-phys‐ iological components, PACTE include different cognitive components, attitu‐ dinal aspects and abilities such as creativity. It is interesting to see that PACTE, while having a multicomponent view of translation competence, draw a distinction between sub-competences that all bilinguals (might) possess and those that are specific to the translator. This provides us with a useful selection of sub-competences in which a novice translator might differ from an expert, even if the bilingual and/ or domain knowledge are identical. In this way, PACTE pinpoint, within a multicompo‐ nential approach, the specificity of translation competence that Pym sought to highlight with his minimalist definition (2003). While Pym’s definition considers the ends, i.e., what a translator should be able to do that other bi‐ linguals cannot do, it does not mention the means. We cannot infer from his definition how translators are able to do this, and which sub-competences they need to be able to perform accordingly. The PACTE model, however, allows us to draw such conclusions and therefore seems better suited as a basis for empirical research. 2.3.3.2 Göpferich’s Model of Translation Competence Like PACTE, Göpferich developed her model as a starting point for empirical research within the TransComp project at the University of Graz. Also like 39 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="40"?> PACTE, she acknowledges a didactic aim - namely, to contribute to more efficient translator training (2009c: 87). Her longitudinal study, in which she follows translation students from their first semester until graduation, aims at studying the process of TC development in individuals over time. As Göpferich herself acknowledges (2009b: 20), her theoretical reflections have been heavily influenced by PACTE (2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007) and Hönig (1995). Following PACTE, she considers translation competence to be an underlying system of knowledge and abilities that are required in order to translate (2009c: 79). Furthermore, she praises PACTE’s model of translation competence for not only listing the different sub-competences, but also trying to describe their interrelatedness (2009c: 81). In this respect, her own model clearly reflects PACTE’s, while at the same time refining and complementing PACTE’s sub-competences. In addition, Göpferich also draws on Hönig’s model of an ideal translation process, from which she especially includes the distinction of macroand micro-strategies. Since this distinction is central to Göpferich’s model, we will briefly review Hönig’s concept. According to Hönig (1995), micro-strategies are strategies applied at the text-level during translation. They are often perceived as generally valid rules and are conscious. We can therefore understand micro-strategies as acquired rules or procedures that the translator can apply to solve a certain translation problem within the translation process. Hönig (1995: 50) lists some prototyp‐ ical examples that translators might have internalized as default procedures. Proper names are one such example since they usually remain unchanged in a translation. Hönig points out, however, that such “rules” cannot exist in translation since whether or not a certain strategy is adequate or not will always depend on the specific context. To stay within the example of proper names, he notes that these are not always related to one specific person. Rather, we can speak about the Joneses, meaning average citizens. In this case, the default procedure of not translating proper names would be inappro‐ priate, as it would be much more adequate to translate the name with an equally “standard” name in the target culture, e.g., the Maiers or Müllers in a German context. He thus highlights the risk of error-making, if micro-strat‐ egies are not complemented by a macro-strategy. Hönig (1995: 55) depicts the macro-strategy as a “bird’s-eye view” of the translation situation that allows us to find our way through the maze of 40 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="41"?> 2 “[Wir müssen] eine Makrostrategie formulieren, die uns immer die Möglichkeit bietet, sozusagen aus der Vogelperspektive einen Blick auf diesen Irrgarten zu werfen, damit wir immer wissen, wo wir uns gerade befinden und was wir eigen‐ tlich tun.” (1995: 55) micro-strategies. 2 Hönig’s macro-strategy can therefore be considered a kind of meta-translational awareness that allows continuous monitoring of the translation process and serves to orient the decisions taken at the micro-level (1995: 55-56). The macro-strategy depends on the specific parameters of a translation task, e.g., the function of the translation, the audience, the me‐ dium, etc. The development of the macro-strategy can be unconscious and mainly guided by experience or also conscious, e.g., by doing a text analysis. In any case, this macro-strategy should be developed before starting to trans‐ late so that it can guide all decisions taken during the translation process. Göpferich (2008: 137) relates Hönig’s macro-strategy to Pym’s minimalist ap‐ proach and considers them to be closely related since a translator who is able to confidently select one viable target text among several must have devel‐ oped a macro-strategy that allows him or her to make an informed decision in accordance with the requirements of a specific situation. Having made clear the importance of developing a macro-strategy, let us now turn to Göpferich’s model of translation competence. Her model fea‐ tures six sub-competences and three groups of factors that influence transla‐ tion competence. The sub-competences that Göpferich (e.g., 2008: 155-157, 2009b: 20-22) proposes are: - communicative competence in at least two languages - domain competence - psycho-motor competence - tools and research competence - translation routine activation competence - strategic competence. Göpferich (2008: 148) considers communicative competence to include all sorts of lexical, grammatical and pragmatic knowledge. She understands pragmatic knowledge to explicitly include cultural competence, i.e., the ability to per‐ form according to situational and textual conventions in the relevant culture. Furthermore, Göpferich points out (2008: 156) that receptive competence in the source language is sufficient, whereas both receptive and productive compe‐ tence are needed in the target language. 41 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="42"?> Figure 4: Göpferich's model of translation competence (2009b: 20) Domain competence includes all knowledge that is necessary to make sense of the ST as well as to produce an understandable TT. Furthermore, Göpferich explicitly includes the ability to recognize gaps in one’s knowledge that require external re‐ search (2008: 149). Psycho-motor competence has the status of a sub-competence in Göpferich’s model. In this respect, the model differs from that of PACTE (2003: 59), which con‐ sider such abilities to be an individual’s disposition, but not a sub-competence of TC. Göpferich’s “psycho-motor competence” includes all the basic abilities that the translator needs for reading and writing, including touch typing. Göpferich in‐ cludes them in her model because she believes that the better developed these abil‐ ities are, the less mental capacity they require. This, in turn, frees cognitive re‐ sources that are then available for performing the actual translation task (2008: 156). Like PACTE, Göpferich points out that these sub-competences may, however, be possessed by all bilinguals. The sub-competences that she considers to be spe‐ cific to translation are “tools and research competence”, “translation routine acti‐ vation competence” and “strategic competence” (2009b: 29). Göpferich’s tools and research competence seems to be more explicitly defined than PACTE’s “instrumental sub-competence”, as she also includes the use of trans‐ lation memory software, terminology management tools and machine translation 42 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="43"?> systems (2008: 149). This is an essential addition when considering “tools and re‐ search competence” as translation-specific since it can be supposed that the use of dictionaries and grammars is common also among foreign language learners, for example, whereas the use of translation-specific software certainly is not. Hönig’s (1995) influence on Göpferich’s model becomes clear when we look at her translation routine activation competence. This sub-component consists of the “knowledge and abilities to recall and apply certain - mostly language-pair-spe‐ cific - (standard) transfer operations (or shifts) which frequently lead to acceptable target-language equivalents” (Göpferich 2009b: 21). The “translation routine activa‐ tion competence” is the ability to efficiently tackle translation problems at the text-level, i.e., to efficiently and routinely activate micro-strategies. Here, a differ‐ ence between PACTE’s and Göpferich’s model becomes obvious: PACTE differen‐ tiate between declarative and procedural knowledge of strategies at the text-level and assign the first to the “knowledge about translation sub-competence” while the second is subsumed under “strategic competence”. Göpferich regroups both these aspects within her “translation routine activation competence”. Also, as was men‐ tioned earlier (see page 38), she criticizes PACTE’s “knowledge of translation com‐ petence” for consisting of two aspects that do not fit well together and which she therefore separates in her model (2009b: 19). “Translation routine activation com‐ petence” covers knowledge about translation procedures and strategies. Knowl‐ edge about the translator’s professional practice, however, is part of what she calls the “translator’s self-concept”, which we will revisit after reviewing the most cen‐ tral part of Göpferich’s model - namely, “strategic competence”. Göpferich’s (2009b: 22) conceptualization of strategic competence corresponds more or less to PACTE’s. It is considered to be a metacognitive competence that controls, coordinates and monitors the employment of all the other sub-compe‐ tences. At bottom, strategic competence is the ability to develop a macro-strategy. Göpferich (2009b: 22) believes that the extent to which a translator can subject all decisions to the macro-strategy will depend on the level of his or her strategic com‐ petence. She also believes that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation influence the extent to which a translator employs this macro-strategy throughout the text. She does not, however, explain this assumption further. In addition, Göpferich (2009b: 22) includes three factors that determine the employ‐ ment of the above-listed competences. These factors are translation norms and assign‐ ment, a translator’s self-concept and his or her psycho-physical disposition, and they determine how a translator will put his or her translation competence to use - mainly by influencing the macro-strategy. Thus, how a translator translates will depend both on the norms of translation that are valid in a certain culture at a certain time and on the specific translation task. According to Göpferich (2009b: 22), the psycho-physical 43 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="44"?> disposition (e.g., intelligence, ambition, perseverance, self-confidence, etc.) may also influence translation competence and especially how fast this competence develops. Of these three factors, the translator’s self-concept, to which Göpferich gives a spe‐ cial place, is the most important. This concept is closely linked to the professional ethos and includes all sorts of social components such as responsibility and roles. Göpferich (2008: 152) believes that the ideas that a translator has about translation determine how he or she will consider his or her role as a translator, which in turn will influence how he or she employs his or her strategic competence. It should be highlighted that Göpferich does not neglect the role that translator training plays in establishing a translator’s self-concept. She believes that this concept depends on the experience and knowledge that a translator has gained through both theoretical and practical institutional training (2009b: 22). Thus, at bottom, she postulates that the content of translator training influences a translator’s self-concept, which, in turn, influences his or her macro-strategy and from which all the decisions that the trans‐ lator takes during the process of translation depend. Although Göpferich does not elaborate on this point, it is clear from her model (see Figure 4) that she does not stop at depicting an ideal translation competence. Rather, she considers translation competence in a concrete situation. According to her model, the whole complex of competence is supposed to depend on external conditions such as time pressure and available information. This makes it clear that, while Göpferich affirms that TC is an underlying knowledge, actual transla‐ tion performance is also part of her model since only performance can be influ‐ enced by such external factors. This all-encompassing approach, in combination with the explicit inclusion of the translator’s training conditions makes her model well-suited for empirical research. 2.3.3.3 The Role of Translation Theory in Multicomponential Translation Competence Models As we have seen from the above discussion, Göpferich (e.g., 2009b: 20) mentions the importance of institutional training in her model. However, she leaves it open whether translation theory as such plays an important part in the development of translation competence, and she does not explicitly consider it as a sub-compe‐ tence, but rather as a factor guiding the actual use of translation competence (2009b: 22). There are, however, a limited number of models that give a special place to theory. We shall discuss three such models in more detail. One of these models is Kvam’s (1996). Kvam himself never considered his reflec‐ tions on translation competence to be an actual model. This is evident in its lack of refinement compared to recent models of TC. Nevertheless, his suggestions re‐ garding the different aspects of translation competence can be considered a multi‐ 44 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="45"?> 3 my translation componential approach to modeling TC. Kvam (1996: 121) distinguishes between lay translation, which for him is autodidactic translation, and professional translation, which he considers to be “a result of theoretical-methodical reflection”. 3 The goal of translator training is therefore to make students experts in translational deci‐ sion-making and enable them to develop translation strategies on a theoretical basis. In his model, Kvam (1996: 122) describes the competence profile of a profes‐ sional translator, distinguishing between prerequisites on the one hand and a spe‐ cific translatorial competence on the other. As prerequisites, he considers general competences that also a layperson might have, such as competence in two lan‐ guages, a general methodical competence and cultural competence. The general methodical competence includes general dispositions such as an ability to think analytically. Cultural competence includes knowledge about the two different cul‐ tures but also general knowledge in different domains (1996: 122). Besides these non-translation-specific abilities, Kvam believes that the profes‐ sional translator has a specific translatorial competence consisting of three sub-com‐ petences: - translatorial contrastive cultural competence - translatorial contrastive linguistic competence - theoretical translatorial competence. Kvam thus draws a distinction between linguistic and cultural knowledge on the one hand and a contrastive linguistic and cultural competence on the other. While many bilinguals possess the more general linguistic and cultural competences, the translator must also be consciously aware of differences in the cultural and lin‐ guistic system and translate accordingly. While this is nothing new among the many definitions of TC, a theoretical translatorial competence is rarely mentioned in other models. This theoretical competence is emphasized by Kvam, who takes a func‐ tional approach to translation and has been heavily influenced by Vermeer’s skopos theory (1978). He gives center stage to the commissioner and to the (possibly changing) function of a translation. In his view, it is extremely important that a professional translator be able to decide what kind of translation is required in a specific situation (Kvam 1996: 123), e.g., whether a documentary or instrumental translation is appropriate (Nord 1993: 24-26). Kvam’s theoretical translatorial competence comes very close to Pym’s mini‐ malist definition (Pym 2003). In fact, it seems to describe the core competence of translation. However, contrary to Pym, Kvam (1996: 127) considers the theoretical translatorial competence to be only one part, albeit the most important one, of trans‐ 45 2.3 The Content of Translation Competence <?page no="46"?> lation competence. In his view, theoretical translatorial competence is not sufficient for a competent translator. He or she will also need translatorial contrastive cultural competence and translatorial contrastive linguistic competence. While Pym (2003: 492-493) also emphasizes that his model suggests that the translation process actually involves constant theorization, Kvam (1996: 127-128) explicitly speaks about translatology, linguistics and cultural studies. He emphasizes the role of transla‐ tology, which guides the implementation of the other two disciplines in translator training - mainly by promoting a focus on contrastive linguistics and contrastive cultural studies rather than linguistics and cultural studies per se. This seems to con‐ firm that he considers the above-mentioned competences to be rooted in these the‐ oretical disciplines, which, in turn, reinforces the impression that he is, in fact, con‐ sidering declarative knowledge that can be transmitted in theoretical classes to be the very basis of translation competence. We can thus take Kvam’s model to charac‐ terize the translator’s core competence as declarative and as something developed through theoretical learning. It must be pointed out again, however, that Kvam never considered his ideas about translation competence to be an actual model. We can, therefore, not deduce that he believes that translation competence develops from theoretical teaching alone. We can, however, infer that he considers knowledge of translation theory to be an important part of translatorial competence. Kautz (2002) did not develop a full-fledged TC model either. Like many scholars before him, he rather proposed a list of “special abilities and skills” that translators need for their work (Kautz 2002: 19-20). Kautz’s list of special skills can, neverthe‐ less, be considered to be one of the many multicomponential models since Kautz actually tries to identify the different sub-competences that are required by trans‐ lators. He himself, however, does not use this terminology nor does he consider his statements to comprise a model of TC. Kautz (2002), like most other scholars, starts out by highlighting the importance of a broad general knowledge as well as a high competence in both the mother tongue and a foreign language. This language competence, in Kautz’s view, extends also to cultural knowledge about the corresponding societies. Beyond these frequently men‐ tioned sub-competences, however, Kautz (2002: 19-20) emphasizes the need for spe‐ cific knowledge concerning translation and the translation profession. He mentions three translation-specific types of knowledge that translators need to have: - knowledge about translation theories and translation methods (übersetzungswissenschaftliches Theorie- und Methodenwissen) - translational competence (translatorische Kompetenz), which for Kautz includes the analysis of the com‐ mission and the ST, translation strategies, the production of the TT, TT de‐ sign and layout and extends also to research and terminology management 46 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="47"?> - knowledge about the translation profession (Kenntnisse über die Berufspraxis des Translators). Unfortunately, as Kautz did not elaborate his ideas about translation competence any further, he offered no explanation as to why he considers theoretical knowl‐ edge to be important for translators. He (2002: 20) is very concerned, however, to point out that not every bilingual can translate. According to Kautz, the acquisition of the special abilities and skills needed by the professional translator are based on a specific translation theory. Theory, therefore, seems to be what makes translation a profession that requires special training. This also explains why he considers theory to be indispensable for the “systematic training of translators that focusses on professionalism” (Kautz 2002: 44). In addition, Kautz suggests that theory should never be taught independently but always in relation to a specific translation problem in an actual translation assignment (Kautz 2002: 140). In a similar vein, Muschner (2007), too, has made theoretical knowledge an im‐ portant part of translation competence. She focuses mainly on the didactic applic‐ ability and thus the development of translation competence during translator training and proposes that, in addition to specific “translatorial” competences (cul‐ tural and social competence, language competence), an important aspect of trans‐ lation competence is “translatorial expertise” (Translatorische Fachkompetenz). Ac‐ cording to her model, there is both a theoretical and a practical aspect of translatorial expertise (2007: 105). The first aspect includes a knowledge of linguis‐ tics and translation theory, which she believes are indispensable for certain ele‐ ments of the second aspect, practical translatorial expertise. Thus, she believes that translators require theoretical knowledge in order to develop effective translation strategies, defend their translation solutions inter-subjectively and, last but cer‐ tainly not least, produce high-quality translations. She is thus one of the scholars who suggest that translation theory has a direct impact on both the translation process and the translation product (see also 4.2.3). 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence While there is ample theorization regarding the content of translation compe‐ tence, there is much less regarding the acquisition of translation competence (ATC). PACTE, who are interested in both translation competence and its develop‐ ment, were the first to propose an actual model of ATC in 1998, along with their first model of translation competence (PACTE 2000). Other scholars have made claims about how they consider TC to develop without, however, proposing models of their own. Both models and claims bring very different aspects of the process of 47 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="48"?> ATC to the fore. While some focus on how knowledge-building processes might work cognitively (e.g., PACTE 2000, 2014; Kiraly 2013), others describe the learning process along different levels of competence, which they suggest follow one upon the other (e.g., Shreve 1997; Risku 1998; Cnyrim et al. 2013). One of these latter approaches is Shreve’s (1997), an approach that is clearly reminiscent of earlier publications in psychological expertise studies that empha‐ size the important role of deliberate practice on the way to expert performance (e.g., Ericsson et al. 1993; Ericsson 1996). Shreve thus considers translation compe‐ tence to be “a form of constructed translation that can be acquired by only under‐ going certain kinds of deliberately sought out communicative experiences” (1997: 124-125). He supposes that learners move from a stage of natural translation (Harris 1977) to a stage of constructed translation, but highlights that no endpoint can be defined. In fact, he believes that the cognitive set concerning professional translation differs among individuals depending on the experiences they have ac‐ quired (1997: 125). As a consequence, he postulates that there is a difference in the acquisition process, depending on a learner’s experiences. Shreve identifies the fol‐ lowing variables as influences on the learning process (1997: 127-128): - acquisition in a professional vs. a didactic environment - presence or absence of mentoring / training - the nature of the task cycle (especially the decision-making process and cri‐ tique) - the nature and amount of feedback that is received on the task cycle. The important place that Shreve assigns to individual experiences makes it clear that he considers practice to be paramount in the acquisition of translation competence. He believes, however, that practice has an effect not because it influences the typical procedural aspects of translation competence, such as strategic competence, but rather because it changes the learner’s concept of translation. According to Shreve (1997: 131), “over the course of time and under the influence of more (and more varied) translation tasks, the conception of translation changes”. Shreve thereby provides an explanation of why students taking only practical translation classes may also ex‐ hibit a development in their concept of translation without any theoretical input. Along the same lines, Göpferich (2008: 157) suggests that a change in the con‐ cept of translation is an essential part of the process of acquiring translation com‐ petence. She believes that the translation student initially has an equivalence-ori‐ ented, linguistic conception of his or her role as a translator. This self-concept, she supposes, gradually changes to a more functional view of the translator’s role and status. Göpferich therefore hypothesizes that every individual ontogenetically 48 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="49"?> shows the same development from equivalence-oriented to functional that the field of translation studies has gone through (see 1.3). Shreve and Göpferich are by no means the first, however, to propose such a devel‐ opment. A similar claim was previously made by Robinson (1991), who speaks of the instrumentalization of the translator and believes that, in the beginning, translators feel they are mere instruments - that is, subservient to their source texts. He sug‐ gests that there are different stages in their development, at the end of which they reach a level at which they feel entirely responsible for their products and are ready to interpret their texts. His approach could be described as a step-for-step liberation of the translator’s instrumentalization (1991: 109). All three approaches thus describe the development of translation competence as mainly a change in the concept of translation (see also 2.5 for empirical results regarding the question). They all agree that the view of translation is linguistic and subservient to the ST in the beginning and that it gradually moves towards a concept of translation that is more communica‐ tion-oriented and considers the translator to be an empowered, responsible actor. None of these approaches contains an explicit answer to the question how translation competence should best be taught, but Shreve (1997: 131) attaches a certain impor‐ tance to practical experience as the source of this conceptual change. Chesterman (1997: 152) proposes that TC develops just like other expert knowl‐ edge. He draws on Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986), who suggest five developmental stages - from the novice who acquires objective facts and rules (i.e., declarative knowl‐ edge) to the expert who is no longer aware of his or her declarative knowledge but can draw on it if necessary. Basically, the development suggested by Dreyfus & Dreyfus is in line with Anderson’s (e.g., 1981: 65) process of proceduralization. Chesterman also suggests that the ontogenetic development of the individual translator corresponds to the phylogenetic development of the field of translation theory (1997: 159). He be‐ lieves that the novice translator focuses more on the word-level, whereas, with growing expertise, his or her focus expands to include communication, rhetoric and culture, for example. This belief is in line with the view of the above-mentioned scholars who assert that the concept of translation changes during training. In her cognitive approach to translation, Risku (1998) explores the ways in which novices differ from experts. Her mapping out of the beginner stage and the profes‐ sional stage makes it possible to draw some conclusions as to the progress learners must make. At bottom, she defines novice translations as the “transport of signals” (Signaltransport), i.e., a mere word-for-word translation, whereas she believes that experts actively construct sense (Sinnkonstruktion) (1998: 244). The same difference between novices and professional translators has been suggested by Lörscher (1991: 272-277), who describes the novices’ approach as being “sign-oriented”, whereas professionals translate in a “sense-oriented” manner (see also 3.4). 49 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="50"?> Summing up these different statements about the development of TC, we can see that the authors assume that huge differences exist between the way in which novices and experts translate. In general, novices are believed to be more focused on the ST, especially on the word-level of the text. Novices also believe in the au‐ thority of the ST and underestimate their own power within the translation process. As a result, they translate in a rather literal way. Professionals, on the con‐ trary, are aware of their duty as translators to establish communication. They in‐ clude cultural and world knowledge and do not remain stuck at the word-level. The development of translation competence thus has to be a process in which the ap‐ proach to translation changes. This ontogenetic development is believed by some to parallel the development of translation theory as a discipline: from equivalenceand ST-oriented to functional and TT-oriented. Not all of these statements about ATC are mere hypotheses, as many of them have been backed up by empirical findings, as we will see in the next chapter. In what follows, some recent ap‐ proaches to modelling ATC will be discussed in some more depth. These selected models will allow us to draw conclusions on the role of theory on the one hand and on the nature of the acquisition process on the other. Both aspects are important for a better understanding of how students learn to translate and of the way in which teaching can serve them best. 2.4.1 “Framework of Reference for Translation Competence” of Cnyrim et al. Having been inspired by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Cnyrim et al. (2013) propose a framework of translation competence that encompasses five different levels of development. These levels range from the novice to the established professional and describe the abilities that translators (should) possess at every stage. The framework has also been inspired by Risku’s (1998) description of the differences between novices’ and experts’ translation competence, which has been integrated into the framework. Cnyrim et al. (2013: 13) explicitly include theoretical competence, which they consider to be closely related to (practical) translation competence. It is for this reason that we will now consider the framework in more detail. At this point, however, some limitations in the framework should be men‐ tioned. First, it is unfortunately not entirely clear whether the stages described are supposed to be generally valid within ATC or only reflect the desired learning outcomes within the translation curricula at the University of Mainz. Most likely, both factors come into play. On the one hand, the framework is purely theoret‐ ical. Cnyrim et al. point out that their levels are ideal-typical and may not reflect 50 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="51"?> the process of ATC in individuals (2013: 13). Nevertheless, they understand the framework as an attempt to explain how TC might develop between the lay and expert stages (2013: 29). While no empirical validation is provided, Cnyrim et al. believe that such a validation would be both possible and desirable (2013: 14). In this respect, it seems that the developmental stages should be generally valid. On the other hand, the framework is closely linked to the curriculum in use at the University of Mainz and therefore reflects one specific teaching concept. It has been used as a starting point for defining learning objectives and the content of courses. In their framework, Cnyrim et al. also indicate at which point in the curriculum a translation student reaches or should have reached one level or an‐ other. Such an assessment is heavily dependent on the particular input and there‐ fore restricts the framework to one specific curriculum. As a result, Pym’s cri‐ tique (2003: 487) that many models “coincide more or less with the things taught in the institutions where the theorists work” also applies to this framework. Cnyrim et al. do not consider their framework to be a full-fledged theoretical model. Rather they suppose that it could provide the foundation for such a model. With these limitations in mind, the framework still allows us to draw some conclusions as to why and how teaching translation theory might be important for the development of TC. Cnyrim et al.’s framework features two columns: the left column is entitled “translation competence” and refers to how translators might act at the different levels. The right column is dedicated to “competence in translation studies” and therefore focuses on the translators’ understanding of translation theory. The interlinking between theoretical knowledge and practical translation ability, however, has not been developed in detail (2013: 26-27). Nevertheless, some hints on how theoretical knowledge might influence how translators act are included. Starting from Risku’s (1998) descriptions of novices’ and experts’ translation competence (levels 1 and 4 of the framework), Cnyrim et al. have defined two intermediary stages that attempt to show how TC develops between these two stages (2013: 29). They have also added a fifth stage that refers to the competence of established professionals (2013: 14). This fifth level goes beyond Risku’s expert stage to include, for example, competence in translation teaching and the ability to develop theoretical concepts. Since this stage is far beyond anything we can expect students of translation to achieve in a maximum of five years of instruction, no further reference will be made to this fifth level. The following is a summary of the stages 1 to 4 since the framework (2013: 30-34) is too extensive to be reproduced in its entirety. 51 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="52"?> Translation competence Competence in translation studies Level 1: Lay compe‐ tence can amateurishly translate in simple everyday situations - implicit, unexamined, lan‐ guage-oriented guiding image - macro-strategy limited to re‐ producing individual elements of language and meaning - information integration at sur‐ face level of ST and by using declarative rules, believe in meanings inherent in the text - planning is based on automated micro-strategies, rules are ap‐ plied regardless of context - revision is limited to comparing ST and TT - unawareness of their own power of decision - do not assume responsibility - naïve everyday theories - familiar with some basic facts about translation - might know some technical terms but are not aware of concepts and theoretical contexts involved - awareness cannot guide their actions Level 2: Basic func‐ tional compe‐ tence mainly declarative knowledge of translation processes, compartmen‐ talized “areas” of competence, no holistic view of translation - explicit guiding image which is critically questioned - macro-strategy: - react adaptively to problems - begin to act constructively - analyze goal of translation and adapt it dynamically - integrate information purpose‐ fully - question inherent meaning of texts - are aware of the communica‐ tive function(s) and context(s) of a text - revision includes checking for functional adequacy - rudimentary knowledge of the discipline - are aware of some concepts and can use them to substan‐ tiate their decisions - lack an overall under‐ standing of theoretical con‐ texts and interrelationships Level 3: Conceptual and procedural competence procedural knowledge of work pro‐ cesses - know several guiding images, are aware of their theoretical and situational implications - macro-strategy: - are familiar with basic disci‐ plinary approaches and methods - understand concepts, con‐ ceptual schemes and princi‐ ples and their contexts and interrelationships 52 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="53"?> Translation competence Competence in translation studies - act constructively - can set priorities in not too complex decision-making processes - integrate information ac‐ cording to TT situation - are aware of their knowledge and of relevant gaps in it - ST analysis is holistic, not lin‐ guistic - research concerns specific communication situations, not isolated lexical units - revision on basis of macro-strategy, not ST - problem-solving combines global and local levels: no de‐ contextualized macro-strat‐ egies but solution with regard to whole text - aware of their action principles → strengthened sense of re‐ sponsibility - are aware of the interplay and tensions of theoretical models and actual work pro‐ cesses - use elaborate concepts and conceptual schemes to sub‐ stantiate their decisions Level 4: Multidimen‐ sional compe‐ tence holistic view of translation - switch between various guiding images according to situation - macro-strategy: - formed actively, critically and dynamically - suitable for complex goals - information integration tail‐ ored to meet situational and time constraints - revision constantly draws on macro-strategy but includes comparison with ST - abstract decision-making process, may be partly auto‐ mated - assume responsibility for sense construction - can categorize, contextu‐ alize and critically assess conceptual schemes but also entire approaches and theo‐ ries - draw on full-blown theories to discuss translational phe‐ nomena and decisions - appraise the suitability of different theoretical ap‐ proaches for specific trans‐ lation problems - can develop and apply con‐ ceptual models of their own Table 1: Summary of framework of Cnyrim et al. (adapted from 2013: 30-34) 53 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="54"?> The summary of the levels clearly shows some basic developmental lines. On the one hand, and reminiscent of the suggestions we have seen before, the model depicts a development from a very linguistic view of translation to a holistic, functional one. This development is reflected throughout the student’s translation process, for ex‐ ample, in information integration, research for solutions and revision. It is also clear that Cnyrim et al. consider translation competence to be mainly declarative in the beginning and to become procedural and even automatized with growing experi‐ ence. These, however, are no new insights - the main merit of Cnyrim et al. is to describe the intermediate levels. What is interesting is that they assume that students proceed from level 1 to 2 within the first year of training. Both stages are considered to be rather declarative, although the novice stage accounts for unreflective automated micro-strategies, which might possibly be due to previous grammar-translation in school. Interestingly, in the translation curriculum at Mainz University, there is no practical bilingual translation before the beginning of the second year (2013: 17). As a consequence, Cnyrim et al. assume that students progress from level 1 to level 2 as a result of theoretical input alone. Level 3 then extends to the rest of the undergraduate program, i.e., the second and third year of training. Only in their MA courses do students achieve multidimen‐ sional competence, i.e., level 4. This framework is very intriguing since it gives an idea of what the different steps are when progressing from novice to expert. It also gives an idea about how theoret‐ ical input can raise students’ awareness and lead to an enhanced translation compe‐ tence. This framework, to the best of my knowledge, is the only one that undertakes to integrate teaching content into the development of translation competence and also proposes a timeframe for the development of TC. It therefore allows for assumptions about how students might proceed when they have theoretical input only (maybe they will have the knowledge and reflect on it, but fail to integrate it efficiently) or when they have only practical training (in which case they might lack the awareness that students in Mainz seem to gain in the course of stage 2). Other models, such as PACTE’s (2000, 2014) and Kiraly’s (2013), focus more on the cognitive aspects of knowledge acquisition, which is why we will review both of these models briefly. 2.4.2 PACTE’s Model of Acquisition of Translation Competence PACTE were the first to propose an actual model of the acquisition of translation competence. In their cognitive-constructivist approach, PACTE (2000: 103) consider ATC “a dynamic process of building new knowledge on the basis of old”. They start from a novice stage, pre-translation competence, which they define as a stage in which the student may already have acquired some sub-competences to a certain 54 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="55"?> extent, but these sub-competences do not yet interact with one another. This knowledge has therefore to be restructured so that the sub-competences can begin to interact. PACTE emphasize that this process of restructuring might be more im‐ portant than adding new knowledge. They also draw attention to the role of learning strategies, which they consider indispensable for any learning process. According to PACTE (2000: 103), this dynamic process of restructuring eventually leads to a stage in which the individual is considered to possess translation compe‐ tence (see Figure 5). Apart from slight modifications in the illustration, the model of ATC has not been changed since its first publication in 2000. However, the integration of the concept of declarative and procedural knowledge has been extended to the ATC model. PACTE (2014: 93) postulate that both declarative and procedural knowledge are in‐ tegrated, developed and restructured during the learning process. They affirm their understanding of translation competence as mainly procedural knowledge by de‐ fining ATC as “[a] process in which the development of procedural knowledge - and, consequently, of the strategic sub-competence - is essential.” Since procedur‐ alization is thought to be triggered by experience, we can consider the PACTE model to assign an important place to practical training. Figure 5: PACTE's model of ATC (2014: 93) 55 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="56"?> PACTE hypothesize that the different sub-competences do not always develop in parallel. As they are interrelated, a better developed sub-competence can compensate for a sub-competence that has not developed to the same extent. Furthermore, al‐ though the sub-competences are organized hierarchically, the ATC process is thought to be subject to variations. This means that the development of TC may not be the same for all language combinations, for direct and inverse translation or for different domains of specialization such as literary or legal translation. What is more, the learning context and the teachers’ methodology is supposed to influence the acquisi‐ tion process (PACTE 2014: 93). 2.4.3 Kiraly’s Model of the Emergence of Translator Competence Drawing on Risku (1998), Kiraly (2013) presents another cognitive approach to mod‐ elling ATC. In line with recent cognitive approaches, Kiraly considers translator com‐ petence, as he terms it, to be an emergent phenomenon that is not transmitted via teaching, i.e., by accumulating knowledge, but instead builds up through experiences gained by the individual. Kiraly (2013: 207) calls the actual use of this embodied com‐ petence a translatory moment. He supposes that during the translation process a “constellation of cognitive artefacts and processes, including memory traces of trans‐ lational experiences, results of learning and intuitions” are all intertwined and put to use. He does therefore not picture TC as stored in the brain, but rather as the activa‐ tion of a network of cognitive artifacts. Furthermore, he considers sub-competences as expedient reductionist labels for innumerable cognitive artefacts and their complex interlinking (Kiraly 2013: 206). Nevertheless, he is not averse to speaking of sub-com‐ petences in his own model, albeit without naming which sub-competences these might be. Figure 6: Representation of a beginner's translatory moment (Kiraly 2013: 208) 56 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="57"?> Figure 7: Representation of an expert's translatory moment (Kiraly 2013: 209) Kiraly pictures TC as a cognitive network in which different pertinent cog‐ nitive artifacts (or sub-competences) expand to a greater or lesser degree and show more or less interlinkage. He understands the sub-competences to ac‐ tually be sub-networks of the overall competence network (2013: 211). He does not propose a single representation of an idealized TC, but rather com‐ pares a beginner’s state to an expert’s. With this representation, he hopes to account for the fact that different competences might develop at dif‐ ferent speeds and at different times. While the novice is believed to have relatively separate networks with little interlinkage of different sub-com‐ petences, the expert is depicted as having a complex network with inter‐ linkages throughout the system. Kiraly proposes that at this stage “the sep‐ arate sub-competences would have merged into a highly integrated and largely intuitive super-competence” that allows efficient processing (2013: 208). The beginner’s approach to translation, on the contrary, would be “less intuitive, more rule-based, less holistic and less competent” because of the fewer links between the sub-competences (2013: 208). This claim is nothing new in TS. Kiraly’s approach, however, definitely draws attention to the complexity of translation competence and its development - and it certainly warns against remaining stuck in more conventional representa‐ tions of translation competence. 57 2.4 The Acquisition of Translation Competence <?page no="58"?> Figure 8: Kiraly's model of the emergence of translator competence (2013: 211) Comparably, his model of “emergence of translator competence” (Figure 8) is an attempt to leave two-dimensional models such as PACTE’s (2003; see 2.3) behind. Again, he criticizes PACTE’s model for not communicating the com‐ plexity of the process (2013: 210). He pictures the emergence of translator competence as a complex multi-vortex in which he tries to illustrate the com‐ plex interplay of various factors, such as life experience, tackled translations tasks and personal/ interpersonal dispositions. Kiraly highlights the fact that different sub-competences do not emerge in parallel and that the emergence of translator competence is unique in every individual. Furthermore, he pos‐ tulates an interpersonal aspect in the emergence of translator competence: social interaction with other people (clients, other translators, fellow stu‐ dents, teachers…) generates new input which, in turn, influences the emer‐ gence of translator competence. Kiraly (2013: 213) calls this “co-emergence” and illustrates it by many multi-vortices that interact with one another. In Kiraly’s model, we do not find any reference to declarative knowledge or the‐ 58 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="59"?> oretical input. Rather, he stresses that the emergence of TC depends on the translation tasks tackled by the individual. Furthermore, he suggests that competence cannot be transmitted, rather it has to emerge individually in every person. This also seems to support the view that it is extensive practice that allows the connections between different sub-competences to emerge. 2.5 Summary In this chapter, we have reviewed the theoretical basis of translation compe‐ tence. We have seen that translation competence has come to be understood as an ability to perform efficiently (section 2.1). We have then dug deeper into the question as to whether TC is predominantly procedural or declarative in nature (section 2.2). To sum up, we can say that all those who draw on a cognitive-psy‐ chological basis agree that translation competence consists of both declarative and procedural knowledge. Most of them believe that the decisive competences that distinguish experts from novices are procedural in nature. Alves and Gon‐ çalves (2007), however, adhere to a counter-proposition: they consider expert knowledge to be conscious decision-making and problem-solving. It should be pointed out, however, that the discussion of the nature of TC has become closely related to expertise studies. At this point, we should not overlook the fact that expertise in this field is thought to require no less than ten years of professional experience (see e.g., Ericsson et al. 1993: 366). In our translation curricula, how‐ ever, we seek ways to teach novices to become professional translators within a maximum period of five years, if both BA and MA curricula are taken together. It is therefore important to consider the intermediate stages of TC development and the role that declarative and procedural knowledge play in each of them. We have also reviewed the content of translation competence, i.e. the different kinds of skills and knowledge that translators need to possess in order to be considered competent. A huge number of models have been proposed over the years, many of which, however, are summaries of ideas rather than full-fledged theoretical models. One of the central questions concerning the content of TC goes back to the very definition of translation competence. Do we take TC to include all the different skills and all the knowledge that professional translators need to possess? In this case, we would understand the notion of translation competence to be a superordinate term for an undiscernible number of skills, abilities and knowledge. Or should translation competence only refer to the determining features that distinguish professional translators from all the bi‐ linguals who also possess some translating capabilities? In that case, translation 59 2.5 Summary <?page no="60"?> competence could be seen at a different level, as a subordinate term that refers only to a part, but the defining part, of all the skills, abilities and knowledge of a professional translator. While only few approaches understand translation competence in the latter sense (especially Pym 2003), the majority of models today rather adhere to a multicomponential view of translation competence (see 2.3.3). We have reviewed different approaches to translation competence: lin‐ guistic approaches, multicomponential models, cognitive models and models that focus on translation competence as “just one thing”. While these different approaches do not necessarily contradict one another, they place a very different focus on translation competence. The all-encompassing approach of multicom‐ ponential models seems to serve the present research interest best, which is why the focus has been on this group of TC models. Accordingly, we have discussed some of the latest and/ or most influential multicomponential models of translation competence, starting with PACTE’s (2003). This model stands out from the mass of multicomponential models due to its having been empirically validated. Furthermore, the model has the benefit of hinting at the interrelations that exist between different sub-competences, thus highlighting the complexity of the concept of translation competence. The model has been generally well received in the research community and has fre‐ quently been an inspiration for later models. This is the case with Göpferich’s TC model (2008), for example, which draws heavily on PACTE. In her model, however, Göpferich refines PACTE’s sub-competences and extends the factors influencing translation competence. She also explicitly mentions the importance of the translator’s self-concept and the role that the content of translation training plays in establishing this self-concept. In her model, we have been able to trace how the content of translation training might determine the final product, via influencing the self-concept, which then influences the macro-strategy, which, in turn, influences the micro-strategies adopted at the text-level. Finally, in section 2.4, we have reviewed some views as to how translation competence might develop. Some of these views are not full-fledged theoretical models and rely rather on the differences in translation competence between novices and experts. Others propose a development in different stages, illus‐ trating how this competence develops through time (e.g., Chesterman 1997). The first stage in this development is one in which novices, who take a more text-oriented approach, trust that there is a meaning inherent in the ST and also consider the author of the original text to be responsible for that meaning. As a consequence, they tend to translate word-for-word and obey rules that they believe to apply to translation in general. In the final state, experts, who are 60 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="61"?> aware of their role as communicators, take responsibility for the TT they pro‐ duce and have a more functional approach to translation: they take the com‐ municative situation and cultural aspects into account. Some have described this development as being parallel to the development that translation theory has gone through - from equivalence-oriented to functional (e.g., Göpferich 2008: 157). One central conclusion from the review of TC and ATC models is that most of them mention practice as being essential for the acquisition of translation competence, while very few mention theory explicitly. Thus, while there are many claims about the importance of theory in the literature on translation didactics (see 4.2), this belief is made explicit only in very few multicomponential models of TC (Kvam 1996; Kautz 2002; Muschner 2007) or in the suggestions concerning the development of translation competence that we have discussed (Cnyrim et al. 2013). 2.6 Adopting a Theoretical Framework This section briefly summarizes the theoretical approaches to translation and translation competence that have been adopted in the present research project. First of all, this project is rooted in the functional paradigm, in which translation is considered to be the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded function of the target text (translation skopos). Translation allows a communicative act to take place which because of existing linguistic and cultural barriers would not have been possible without it. (Nord 2005: 32) It is accepted in translation studies that professional translation competence does not develop automatically with an increase in foreign language compe‐ tence. Rather, competence in translation requires additional, translation-specific knowledge. Following PACTE, translation competence is understood in this project to be the underlying system of knowledge needed to translate. It includes declarative and procedural knowledge, but the procedural knowledge is predominant. It consists of the ability to carry out the transfer process from the comprehension of the source text to the reexpression of the target text, taking into account the purpose of the translation and the characteristics of the target text readers. (PACTE 2003: 58) 61 2.6 Adopting a Theoretical Framework <?page no="62"?> Many models of translation competence postulate that such competence con‐ sists of various, closely interrelated sub-competences. These so-called multi‐ componential models have emerged from the overview as the ones that are most relevant for empirical research. The most widely recognized of these models is PACTE’s (2003: 60), which stands out due to its careful empirical validation. For the present research question, however, its refinement by Göpferich (2009b: 20) has certain advantages, mainly because her model suggests a potential reaction chain in which different teaching methods may ultimately impact the translation process and product. Thus, Göpferich postulates, at bottom, that the content of translator training influences the translator’s self-concept, which, in turn, in‐ fluences his or her strategic competence and thus the development of a macro-strategy. All the decisions that the translator takes during the process of translation depend on this strategic competence. On the basis of Göpferich’s model, it is thus possible to identify the translator’s self-concept, his or her strategic competence and his or her translation routine activation competence as the factors and sub-competences that are most likely to be influenced by different forms of training. Using Göpferich’s model as a starting point, a number of variables will be defined that can assess the overall translation com‐ petence of the participants of this study, with a special focus on the translator’s self-concept, his or her translation routine activation competence and his or her strategic competence (see 5.4). 62 2 Theoretical Foundations of Translation Competence <?page no="63"?> 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence Some of the above-mentioned models and theories have - at least to some extent - been inspired by empirical research conducted in the field. Since the mid-eighties, and following the cognitive turn in translation studies, research on the translation processes of individuals has been at the center of attention. Early studies in the field of translation process research (TPR), such as Krings (1986), Lörscher (1991) and Königs (1987), have tended to focus on the translation process as a whole, defining typical phases, problems and strategies. As Opitz (2004: 660-661) points out, these early studies served primarily typological pur‐ poses and as such played an important role in paving the way for more thorough research, both concerning the research questions and the methodology adopted. Research questions have mainly become much more specific, focusing on dif‐ ferent aspects of the translation process, such as problem-solving (Hansen 1999; Livbjerg & Mees 2002; Kubiak 2009; Shih 2015), creativity (Kussmaul 2000; Bayer-Hohenwarter 2012; Rydning 2014) and emotional factors (Laukkanen 1996; Jääskeläinen 1999; Hubscher-Davidson 2013). Others have focused on fac‐ tors that might influence the process, such as time pressure ( Jensen 1999; Jensen & Jakobsen 2000; Hansen 2006; Kourouni 2012), for example. Today, TPR has become an important sub-discipline of the field of translation studies and has contributed largely to the debate concerning translation com‐ petence and its development. A recent study illustrates the importance of TPR: analyzing the most frequent research areas in the field of TS in both Asian and European journals, Rafiee & Nemati (2014: 186) found that, in European journals, TPR shares second place with the topics “Text Analysis in Translation” and “Translation History”, while in Asian Journals it holds third place. In his “blurred snapshot of advances in translation process research”, Muñoz Martín (2014a: 52- 54) also notes an “upsurge of efforts and publications” in the field. Analyzing only publications in indexed journals from 2006 to 2013, he found that 200 ar‐ ticles were dedicated to TPR. Additionally, more than 100 chapters on TPR were published in collected editions. These figures alone make it obvious that, unlike 15 years ago (Rodrigues 2001: chapter 3; Jääskeläinen 2002), it is impossible today <?page no="64"?> 1 For overviews of TPR with different foci, see for example Muñoz Martín (2014a), Jääs‐ keläinen (2011b), Göpferich (2008), Englund Dimitrova (2005), Opitz (2004), Jääske‐ läinen (2002). to give an exhaustive overview of the research done in the field so far. 1 In the following, some of the main findings in TPR will be presented. The review will be limited to findings which are concerned with (1) the self-concept, (2) trans‐ lation problems, (3) the time requirement and (4) the quality of the produced translation. This selection is based on the choice of variables for the present study (see 5.4) and thus presents the backdrop against which it will be possible to evaluate the findings. 3.1 The Translator’s Self-Concept Different factors are regrouped under the heading of the translator’s self-con‐ cept, but most definitions that can be found in the literature agree that this self-concept is, most of all, the individual translator’s understanding about what translation is and how a professional translator should act. According to Kiraly (1995: 100), [t]he self-concept includes a sense of the purpose of the translation, an awareness of the information requirements of the translation task, a self-evaluation of capability to fulfill the task, and a related capacity to monitor and evaluate translation products for adequacy and appropriateness. Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey (2013: 106) define this self-concept as an awareness of responsibilities and loyalties that are imposed by a specific translational event. This means that the translator has responsibilities and loyalties towards the different parties involved in translated communication, such as the original au‐ thor, the commissioner and, last but not least, the intended audience. How the translator defines these responsibilities and loyalties depends on the concept of translation that he or she has and his or her view of a translator’s tasks and duties. As such, (theoretical) beliefs might be able to influence how the translator puts his or her translation competence to use. In fact, it is often assumed that the translator’s self-concept influences the ideas that an individual translator has about translation quality and thus ultimately has an impact on the transla‐ tion process and product (e.g., Martín de León & Presas 2011: 273). Consequently, it has been hypothesized that the development of this self-concept is closely related to the development of translation competence (Shreve 1997: 131; Göp‐ ferich 2008: 157; Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013: 106-107; see also 2.4). 64 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="65"?> 2 My translations: Maximen (Krings 1986), Regeln (Hönig 1995), Überzeugungen (Rodri‐ gues 2001) There are empirical findings from various studies that shed light on different aspects of the translator’s self-concept and how these might influence both the process and product of translation. Due to the multitude of aspects involved in the self-concept and also different underlying theories, researchers approach the self-concept from very different angles. As we will see below, empirical studies range from the analysis of micro-strategies, e.g., Hönig’s (1995) rules and Krings’ (1986) maxims, to the global attitude towards translation in general as studied by the PACTE group. The researchers also rely on different technical terms ranging from “self-image” (Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen 1996), “knowledge about translation” (PACTE 2008), “self-concept” (Göpferich 2008, 2009b) and “subjective theories” (Martín de León & Presas 2011, 2014) to “maxims” (Krings 1986: 429-434), “rules” (Hönig 1995: 50) and “beliefs” (Rodri‐ gues 2001). 2 Up to now, only a few research projects have made the self-concept their main focus of study. Nevertheless, in some studies, findings on underlying theoretical beliefs have emerged as “byproducts”, as Martín de León & Presas (2011: 276) point out. This is, for example, the case with one of the very first TPR studies: Krings (1986) observes that his subjects have certain beliefs about translation that influence their decision-making. He terms these beliefs “maxims” of trans‐ lation and defines them as idiosyncratic strategies of evaluation (1986: 429). These strategies for evaluating tentative solutions, he suggests, are not de‐ pendent on specific source text segments but rather reflect a more general un‐ derstanding of how a translation should be. According to Krings, the most fre‐ quently observed maxim is the “maxim of literalness” indicating the subjects’ conviction that if two adequate solutions are available, they should choose the more literal one. Other maxims concern, for example, the use of dictionaries (e.g., “never choose an equivalent that is not listed in the dictionary”), how to treat loanwords or how to behave when flaws in the source text are detected. In this last case, Krings observed two opposed beliefs, where one subject’s maxim was to stick to the formulation chosen in the source text no matter what, while another subject decided that the unidiomatic text segment should rather be corrected in the target text (1986: 433). These examples already show that maxims are mainly employed as problem-solving strategies and as such have an impact on the translation process and also the resulting product. In general, Krings (1986: 434) believes that they play only a subordinate role. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that they can have a decisive influence on the solution of 65 3.1 The Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="66"?> translation problems. Krings’ view of maxims largely corresponds to what Hönig terms “rules”, which we have already discussed in section 2.3.3.2. Hönig (1995: 52-53), too, reports on his subjects’ beliefs, but just as in Krings’ case, his report remains somewhat anecdotal. The first study to actually focus on the beliefs about translation is Tirk‐ konen-Condit & Laukkanen’s (1996). In a reanalysis of two different think-aloud studies, these authors analyze both translators’ self-image and their subjective theories. To this end, the authors focus on all evaluating expressions since they believe that evaluations of the task and of their own behavior would reflect the participants’ subjective theories. Concerning the subjective theories, they con‐ clude that these are transferred from a routine to a non-routine task (the trans‐ lation of an advertisement, a text type not usually translated by the subject). They observe that this transfer can help translators in their process, but may also restrict them. In the case observed, the subject transferred an orientation towards the TT reader and her aim for a fluent, natural style from a tourist brochure translation to the translation of an advertisement. On the other hand, the subject also transferred her beliefs about the level of literalness and stayed close to the target text instead of recreating an appealing advertisement in the target language (1996: 53). Furthermore, Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen found that their subject seemed to have different attitudes towards the routine and the non-routine task. While she had a more critical attitude towards the ST in the routine task, she apparently did not feel entitled to criticize the non-routine ST. This led to a much more equivalence-oriented, literal approach in the non-rou‐ tine task. The different attitude was also reflected in the final product, with the TT for the routine task being of higher quality (1996: 48). Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen conclude that confidence and a feeling of security are positively related to the quality of the product since translators are “more likely to assume the role of a communicator rather than that of a mere text processor” when they feel at ease (1996: 56). However, in a second set of subjects, one subject who made negative evaluations about himself and showed insecurity nevertheless had a clear picture of his task. His insecurity, therefore, was not reflected in the TT quality, which was in fact acceptable (1996: 51-52). As a consequence Tirk‐ konen-Condit and Laukkanen conclude that a lack of confidence can be offset by the motivation to succeed in the task. As a final remark, they point out that a positive self-image is clearly related to performance, which is why students should be given more possibilities to develop such a positive self-image as well as confidence (1996: 57). In a different study, Tirkkonen-Condit (1997: 81-82) ad‐ ditionally found that there are differences between laymen and professionals when it comes to admitting to the inability to solve a problem. While the pro‐ 66 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="67"?> 3 Page numbers refer to the pdf page-count, because the document has not been pagi‐ nated. 4 “règles de conduite adaptées au traitement d’un grand nombre de problèmes potentiels” fessionals blamed themselves, laymen sought excuses, blaming the ST or the experimental situation instead. Professionals therefore seem to take more re‐ sponsibility for the task than non-professionals. Rodrigues (2001) focused on determining the relationship between transla‐ tors’ beliefs and their actions during the translation process. He chose as his subjects eight professional translators, half of whom had extensive professional experience (6-20 years), the other half only limited professional experience (1-2 years). He set out to verify two distinct hypotheses: (1) that a translator’s sub‐ jective beliefs influence the translation process and especially decision-making and (2) that the amount of professional experience influences the subjective beliefs, which Rodrigues therefore believed to differ between his two groups of subjects. He was able to confirm that translators do, in fact, translate against a background of subjective theories, but the influence of these theories on the process is not as important as Rodrigues had expected. In fact, subjective theories mainly influence the lexical and sentence level but not the subjects’ macro-strategy (2001: 514-515). 3 Comparing the content of the subjects’ beliefs, no correlation was found between the length of professional experience and the informants’ subjective theories. Instead, the subjects’ beliefs converge in many aspects even if individual differences can be found. Rodrigues (2001: 556-558) deduced from this that professionals generally have a communication-oriented understanding of translation, independent of the years of professional experi‐ ence. In 2003, Künzli (2003: 20) noted a lack of data concerning the self-concepts of students of translation. Hitherto, studies concerned with subjective beliefs had concentrated rather on professionals. To remedy this omission, Künzli studied nine students of translation. He compared their data to those of eleven profes‐ sionals in order to find out whether differences existed as a result of the groups’ relative levels of translation competence. Künzli found that so-called “principles of translation”, which for him are “rules about how to tackle a broad range of translation problems” (2003: 206; my translation 4 ), are in fact dependent on the translator’s experience. The main difference lies in the quantity, with profes‐ sionals mentioning principles more often and having a broader range of prin‐ ciples at their disposal than students (2003: 209). Furthermore, Künzli found that translators frequently mention a macro-strategy, while students rather mention principles from which the researcher then has to deduce a potential macro-strategy (2003: 212). As was to be expected, students’ principles reflect 67 3.1 The Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="68"?> insecurities much more often than those of professionals. There are also differ‐ ences regarding insecurities. Thus, students have an image of the translator that does not allow for weakness: they believe that the translator has to know ev‐ erything and, consequently, do not consider it an option to ask the commissioner or other informants for help if they are uncertain. Instead, they try to solve all problems on their own. But, while translators fear that they will lose credibility if there is an error in a delivered translation, students are less worried about such an outcome. PACTE took a different approach when studying the concept of translation of subjects who are professional translators on the one hand and language teachers on the other. Using a questionnaire, PACTE analyzed their subjects’ “knowledge of translation”, which they understood to be the “ implicit knowl‐ edge of the principles of translation and aspects of the translation profession” (2008: 111). As such, this variable refers to the translator’s understanding of translation and his or her role as a translator, i.e., his or her self-concept. PACTE’s questionnaire consisted of closed questions that made it possible to determine whether the informants have a “dynamic” or a “static” concept of translation. By “dynamic”, PACTE understood an approach that is communica‐ tive and functional as opposed to an equivalence-oriented, literal and linguistic approach, which they called “static” (2011b: 31). Comparing professional trans‐ lators with foreign-language teachers, they found that the translators’ concept of translation - as a group - is more dynamic, whereas teachers tend to have a more linguistic and literal concept (2008: 115). From these findings, PACTE con‐ cluded that a communicative-oriented concept of translation is, in fact, related to a certain level of translation competence and thus is a distinguishing feature of professional translators. Another, more recent study was conducted by Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey (2013), who analyzed the self-concepts of three groups of subjects with different levels of translation competence: BA students, MA students and professionals. To this end, they developed a “continuum of self-concept categories” (see Figure 9) that consists of five different levels: words and phrases, sentence structures, text quality, loyalty to the source text and readership (2013: 110). They believe that a well-developed self-concept would allow the translator to move up and down this continuum in accordance with the requirements of the specific task at hand (2013: 107). By analyzing their subjects’ retrospective commentaries, they found that the groups do in fact show different foci of attention, which, they believed, shows different underlying self-concepts. The idea behind this is that subjects focus on the level(s) that they consider to be in their responsibility. Consequently, Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey concluded that professionals are 68 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="69"?> Figure 9: Continuum of self-concept categories (Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013: 110) more aware of the broad range of responsibilities that the translator has because they consider all five categories postulated by the researchers. Professionals focus least on the word-level, while focusing intensively on text quality and readership, for example (2013: 110-111). In the group of MA students, Ehrens‐ berger-Dow & Massey (2013: 112) found more diversity in the focus of atten‐ tion, whereas the BA group focuses rather on the wordand sentence-level. Furthermore, this group indicates a strong orientation towards the ST reader‐ ship, but little awareness of the TT reader or any of the other categories. From this, Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey concluded that BA students are probably less aware of the complexity of the translation task. They point out, however, that the possibility exists that the differences found in the distribution of atten‐ tion might not be due to different underlying self-concepts, but rather to the professionals’ automatization of lower-level tasks which, in turn, frees cognitive capacities for higher-level tasks such as text quality or ST readership (2013: 119). Indeed, it has repeatedly been acknowledged that novices tend to focus on the word-level, whereas more experienced translators tend to have a broader focus (e.g., Lörscher 1991: 276; Risku 1998: 244). Regarding Ehrensberger-Dow & Mas‐ 69 3.1 The Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="70"?> 5 By this, Katan means that it is the translator’s own choice whether his loyalty in a specific situation belongs to the ST, the reader or the commissioner/ client (2009: 138). sey’s study, the question arises, however, whether the focus of attention is really reflective of the subjects’ declarative beliefs about translation or whether they might have comparable beliefs, but do not have the same competence to imple‐ ment them in an actual translation task, e.g., due to a lack of practical experience. It would, therefore, have been interesting to compare the findings of Ehrens‐ berger-Dow and Massey’s study with the results of a declarative survey of the same subjects since this comparison could eliminate the risk of actually meas‐ uring translation competence instead of the self-concept. One large study concerning the empowerment of translators is Katan’s (2009). Although he does not explicitly speak of the translator’s self-concept, he pro‐ vides findings on subjects’ opinions on the translator’s autonomy, focus, loyalty and invisibility. These opinions make it possible to trace the self-concepts of his informants, who were mainly professional translators and interpreters (730), but also included translation students (close to 400) as well as lecturers in translation and/ or interpreting (about 100) from over 25 countries. According to Katan (2009: 135), 50 % of professionals believe that they have a high degree of au‐ tonomy and are the only ones responsible for their output. Another 40 % believe that they have a medium level of autonomy, and only 10 % believe that they have a low level of autonomy and control. This finding indicates a view of the trans‐ lator as a specialist and expert, as has been promoted by translation scholars since the 1980s (see 1.3). Answers to other questions in Katan’s survey contradict this impression, however. Thus, only just over half of the professional transla‐ tors stated that the translator should “always” be concerned with the reader‐ ship’s reaction, while another 30 % stated that he or she should be “very much” concerned with it. Katan interprets this result as an indicator that functionalism “has yet to permeate the profession” and can by no means be taken for granted (2009: 137). Findings for the translator’s loyalty point in the same direction: the loyalty of professional translators belongs first of all to the source text, followed by the self 5 , and then the target text. Loyalty to the commissioner comes last in the ranking. This result could also be interpreted to mean that the translation skopos commissioned by the client comes last. In line with this rather traditional view of translation and against all efforts of the scientific community to enhance the translators’ status as an expert, the majority of translators agree that trans‐ lators and interpreters should be invisible. Close to 20 % definitely agree with this statement and another 40 % mainly agree with it. Less than 10 % oppose this statement radically and also less than 10 % mainly oppose it (2009: 140). These 70 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="71"?> replies strongly indicate the persistence of a traditional concept of the transla‐ tor’s role, which clearly favors the translator’s invisibility and fidelity to the source text. In their study of students’ self-concepts, Martín de León & Presas (2011: 274) also start from the assumption that declarative knowledge, i.e., the self-concept of the translator, has a considerable impact on the translation process since it is the basis for evaluating and solving translation problems. They investigate how students’ self-concepts evolve during their first semester. To gain an insight into the content, structure and function of subjective theories, Martín de León & Presas analyzed their subjects’ understanding of translation via metaphors. They found that the most frequently used metaphor to describe translation is T RAN S F E R , followed by the CHANG E metaphor (2011: 287). However, the frequency with which these metaphors were used changed in the course of the semester. The T RAN S F E R analogy, for example, was used much more frequently at the be‐ ginning of the term than at the end. The CHANG E metaphor, on the contrary, initially increased until mid-term before dropping to a level lower than at the beginning of the term. Martín de León & Presas attribute this particular devel‐ opment to the influence of the translatorial experiences that their students had until mid-term: in practical translation classes, they translated advertisements which had to be adapted to the target culture. They suppose that students might have perceived this as changing the text (2011: 289). Furthermore, subjects ex‐ panded on the transfer-analogy over the course of the semester to include new translatorial experiences, and a few even developed idiosyncratic metaphors (2011: 294). From this first pilot study, Martín de León & Presas (2011: 302-304) concluded that analogies have first of all an explanatory function. The T RAN S F E R and the CHANG E metaphor had been acquired by the subjects before starting translator training and are thus supposed to correspond to the concept of trans‐ lation held by society. This existing concept was then expanded to include new translational experiences but was seldom replaced within the course of one se‐ mester. Presas & Martín de León (2014) relate the above-mentioned findings to their subjects’ translation processes. Contrary to the development of conceptual metaphors, Presas & Martín de León could not detect any changes in their sub‐ jects’ translation processes over the span of one semester: all their subjects worked at the micro-level and translated “one word after the other” (2014: 293), which is a common finding when analyzing novices’ translation processes. From this, the researchers concluded that the transition from the T RAN S F E R to the CHANG E metaphor is too minimal an evolution of subjective theories to be re‐ flected in the process and/ or that behavior in translation, being essentially un‐ 71 3.1 The Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="72"?> conscious, is much more difficult to change than conceptual metaphors, which is why no changes could be detected in such a short period (2014: 293). In 2014, PACTE’s experiment on the acquisition of translation competence yielded initial results concerning the development of the “knowledge of trans‐ lation” variable in students. The study was a simulated longitudinal one and was thus the first that made it possible to trace the development of the translator’s self-concept over an entire undergraduate program of four years. PACTE found a progression from a static (i.e., rather linguistic) to a dynamic (i.e. communi‐ cative) approach to translation to be a characteristic of translation competence acquisition (2014: 109). It is especially interesting that an important leap occurred in the development from static to dynamic during the very first year of studies in which students did not have any training in translation theory but had one semester of practical translation classes. From this, PACTE (2014: 109) concluded that students develop implicit theories that are reinforced throughout their training. In fact, PACTE found that, from the second year of training onwards, students showed even more dynamic self-concepts than the professional trans‐ lators that they had studied in their previous experiment. This raises the ques‐ tion of what role training plays in the development of the students’ self-concept. To sum up, the reviewed empirical findings paint an interesting picture. Thus, differences in the translator’s self-concept can be detected between individuals with different levels of translation competence, such as foreign language teachers and professional translators, whereby translators have a much more functional approach to translation. The same difference can be found between students of translation and professionals, corroborating the hypothesis that the translator’s self-concept evolves from a linguistic, literal concept to a functional one as translation competence increases, a development that has been shown to happen very early in translator training. Furthermore, it seems that declarative knowledge about translation develops faster than the ability to translate in ac‐ cordance with this knowledge, i.e., faster than procedural knowledge. Last but not least, studies of the translator’s self-concept have confirmed the importance of a positive self-image as well as a possible impact on both the process and the product of translation. From this finding, it follows that an important part of translator training should be dedicated to broaden translators’ self-concepts (Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013: 119). While it is impossible to form experts within the timeframe set of even a graduate degree program, it is possible to transmit to translation students a positive self-image and a sense of responsi‐ bility. It seems that this is where teaching theory could have a huge benefit, especially since it has been postulated that the history of translation theory follows the developmental path of translation competence (e.g., Chesterman 72 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="73"?> 6 Krings opposes problems to “non-problems”. Non-problems, according to him, are all passages that can be translated automatically, while translation problems are those passages in which the flow is interrupted. 7 “Translation problems emerge […] when automatic processing does not produce ten‐ tative translation elements.” 8 “The term [translation problem] denotes all those (linguistic) problems which a subject is faced with when performing a translation.” 1997: 159; Göpferich 2008: 157). Therefore, teaching students about the theories that have been developed in TS could support this development, leading to awareness-raising and a more “professional” self-concept that would, ultimately, also be reflected in translation products. 3.2 Translation Problems Decision-making and problem-solving are defining features of the translation process. It is for this reason that translation problems have been in the focus from the very beginning of TPR (e.g., Krings 1986) and continue to be used as a variable in research on translation competence (e.g., PACTE 2011a; Göpferich 2013). Although translation problems are a very frequently used concept in TPR, no definition of them has been adopted unanimously by the discipline (Wilss 1996: 47). From the everyday usage of the term “problem”, one could as‐ sume that it refers to an instance where a difficulty of any kind arises. And it is exactly in this way that the notion of translation problem is frequently used by practitioners and scholars alike. Leppihalme (2011), for example, reports on translators who analyze their own translation processes. In their analyses, they describe translation problems as “bumps in the ride” or “interruptions of the flow” (Leppihalme 2011 quoted from Albl-Mikasa 2014: 61), indicating that they experience a disruption in the translation process as a translation problem. In the same vein, Scott-Tennent & González Davies (2008: 785) define a translation problem as any text segment that requires conscious attention from the translator, because he/ she is not able to transfer it automatically (i.e., without having to stop and think about it). Comparable definitions that depict a translation problem as a disruption in the translation process have previously been forwarded by Krings (1986: 118) 6 , Kiraly (1995: 105) 7 and Lörscher (1991: 94) 8 , for example. This understanding of the term “translation problem” as those parts of the translation process in which 73 3.2 Translation Problems <?page no="74"?> a translator’s routine and experience fail to provide a solution on the spot is widely accepted within the research community. If understood in this sense, translation problems are processual, subject-specific difficulties that are difficult to predict since they depend on an individual’s translation competence ( Ji‐ ménez-Crespo 2013: 53). They are, however, observable in the translation process (Orozco & Hurtado Albir 2002: 380) because they need either external research in dictionaries, parallel texts, etc. or internal decision-making, which can be detected, for example, by pauses or other observable traces of increased cogni‐ tive effort (e.g., Alves 2005: n.p.; Angelone 2010: 18). However, this is not the only way in which the term “translation problem” has been used in translation studies, as Toury, for example, points out. He ex‐ plores the terminological confusion surrounding this term and criticizes the almost “naturalized” way in which it has come to be used (2010: 234). He iden‐ tifies three basically different ways in which the term “translation problem” is used in the scholarly discourse on translation: 1. The first usage, to which Toury refers as P R O BL EM 1, is prospective in nature (2010: 240). It refers to the hypothetical translatability of a given source text passage, independent of any actual act of translation. In fact, a P R O BL EM 1 appears at a pre-translational stage, as an instance of a recog‐ nition that then triggers a problem-solving process. Thus, according to Toury, the most important aspect of a P R O BL EM 1 is the recognition of a problem. Only then can the translator proceed through an (idealized) re‐ flection of options. Toury points out that this usage of the term “problem” is purely theoretical since it does not involve a real translator, translation process or solution. Instead, it is merely hypothesized on the basis of a source text (2010: 238). And, most importantly, a P R O BL EM 1 does not have any “necessary validity” for actual translation processes (2010: 240) since it is not possible to predict whether or not theoretically anticipated prob‐ lems will turn out to be actual translation problems (in the sense of the definitions given above) for any given translator. 2. The second usage of the term “problem” that Toury identifies (his P R O BL EM 2 ), is retrospective in nature (2010: 240). In this case, a real trans‐ lation act has already been performed in the past and as a consequence an actual translation exists. The existence of a translation problem is sup‐ posedly detected by comparing the source text to the translation. In this usage of the word, translation problems are “reconstructed entities” (2010: 242) inferred from the solutions which have been found for them. Toury advises against basing any kind of research on a P R O BL EM 2 because this way of reconstructing (potential) translation problems presumes a 74 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="75"?> linear translation process and ignores any kind of self-monitoring and revision on the part of the subject. 3. Toury identifies a third way in which the notion of a “translation problem” ( P R O BL EM 3 ) is used. This type of problem, which he calls “processual” (2010: 243), involves an actual translational act that has been documented so that the process can be accessed to at least some extent. In this case, not only are final solutions observable as in the above case, but also in‐ terim solutions and possibly also changes in the problem itself (2010: 244). As Toury (2010: 240) himself points out, his P R O BL EM 2 and P R O BL EM 3 are much closer to one another than either of them is to a P R O BL EM 1 , which he explains by the fact that a P R O BL EM 1 is “abstract and idealized” while the other two are “con‐ crete”. Toury has set out to determine the meaning of the term and of what he calls the “existence conditions” of translation problems in either type of under‐ standing (2010: 236-237). It could, however, be argued that his distinction be‐ tween P R O BL EM 2 and P R O BL EM 3 is not only, or even most of all, one in meaning but rather one in the methodology adopted to identify a problem. While the meaning of P R O BL EM 1 is theoretical in that a certain “problem” is supposed to exist on the basis of the ST alone and before any actual translation process, both P R O BL EM 2 and P R O BL EM 3 see the problem as a feature of the translation process. One might even ask whether P R O B L EM 2 is not rather an analysis of errors in‐ cluding hypothetical explanations for their occurrence since adequately solved P R O BL EM S 2 do not leave any traces in the translation product. Thus, besides the processual approach to defining and discriminating trans‐ lation problems that we have already introduced at the very beginning of this chapter, Toury introduces the translation problem as a theoretical category, i.e., his P R O BL EM 1 . It is in this way that Nord (2005: 166-167) uses the term “translation problem” when she defines the translation problem as “an objective (or inter-subjective) transfer task which every translator (irrespective of their level of competence and the technical working conditions) has to solve during a par‐ ticular translation process”. Nord (e.g., 1997: 64) suggests that every translator, independent of his or her translation competence, has to decide how he or she is going to solve these translation problems, although experts might be able to provide solutions to these problems in a rapid and efficient manner. Thus, trans‐ lation problems are caused by the task itself, which includes the ST, cultural and linguistic differences between the SL and TL communities as well as the different communicative situations in which ST and TT are embedded, respectively. Nord opposes the task-dependent translation “problem” to translation “difficulties” (e.g., 1987, 1997: 64). Translation difficulties, in her understanding, are either due to individual traits of the translator, such as a lack of language skills, translation 75 3.2 Translation Problems <?page no="76"?> competence or domain knowledge, or to situational factors such as a tight dead‐ line or missing resources (e.g., Internet access, dictionaries and parallel texts). In this respect, translation difficulties are subjective because they would not present themselves to a more competent translator or even to the same trans‐ lator under better working conditions (Nord 1998: 353). Nord’s distinction differs slightly from Toury’s different definitions of “problem” in that she does not differentiate between the two terms on the basis of their “existence conditions” as Toury does (2010: 236-237) but on the basis of where they originate. Nevertheless, parallels between these classifications are clear: since Nord’s (2005: 166-167) objective “problems” are task-inherent, they can be identified on a theoretical basis and without any real translation process having been performed. They are therefore a P R O BL EM 1 in Toury’s terms. Nord’s “difficulties”, on the other hand, depend on an individual’s competence or working conditions and thus can only exist if that individual has performed an actual translation process. They can thus only constitute a P R O BL EM 2 / 3 . Nord’s terminological distinction between difficulties and problems has not been widely accepted in empirical research (Wilss 1996: 47) so that the terminological confusion remains. The notion of “translation problem” is thus used both for predefined ST segments that are supposed to constitute a problem in translation (e.g., PACTE 2011a) as well as for observed difficulties during individual trans‐ lation processes (e.g., Angelone 2010; Göpferich 2012). Both approaches to the empirical study of translation problems have led to valid results. Thus, PACTE (2011a: 333) found that their preselected text seg‐ ments were, in fact, problematic for a considerable number of subjects in dif‐ ferent comparison groups. In the final analysis, it seems that a source text offers a certain range of potential problems. Whether or not these are experienced as translation problems by a certain individual depends on his or her knowledge and experience. Thus, Angelone & Shreve (2011: 109) understand translation problems to arise in cases in which there is “some sort of deficit in cognitive resources” on the part of the translator, i.e., a lack of declarative or procedural knowledge. Jääskeläinen (2011b), however, points out that translation problems are not necessarily bad, nor do they decrease in number with growing experi‐ ence in translation (see the debate on the “translation-does-not-get-easier phe‐ nomenon” in section 3.3). Instead, Jääskeläinen concludes, problems are “not necessarily obstacles or hindrances, but something requiring appropriate ac‐ tion” (2011b: 129-130). There is, however, some evidence that translation problems do decrease at a certain level of translation competence. Thus, comparing young professionals with only a few years of working experience to experts with more than ten years 76 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="77"?> 9 But see Angelone (2010: 30), who provides evidence against the belief that automatiza‐ tion impedes the verbalization of metacognitive processes. of experience, Jarvella et al. (2002: 180) found that their young professionals ex‐ hibit much more problem-solving behavior and goal setting than experts. With these findings, Jarvella et al. (2002) corroborate earlier results by Jensen (1999), who also found that professional translators exhibit quite different behavior depending on their amount of experience. She then separated young professio‐ nals (one to three years) from experts (eight to ten years) in order to form what appear to be more consistent groups (1999: 110-111). Analyzing her subjects’ problem-solving activities such as pauses, dictionary use, postponed decisions and editing, she found that all these activities were related to the amount of experience. Thus, experts’ processes included considerably less problem-solving activities than young professionals’ processes. Non-translators, however, ex‐ hibited about the same number of problem-solving activities as young profes‐ sionals. Both these studies seem to indicate that a decrease in the number of transla‐ tion problems only occurs when a real expert status is achieved, i.e., after several years of professional experience. They do not allow us, however, to speculate about the development of the number of translation problems during the process of translation competence acquisition, and the number of studies allowing for such conclusions is still very limited. One such study was conducted as part of the TransComp project: comparing novices and experts, Göpferich (2010a: 175) found a considerable difference in the number of problems observed in the two groups, with novices having between two and three times as many problems when compared to experts with at least ten years of working experience. Göp‐ ferich attributes this huge difference in part to the data elicitation method (she uses think-aloud), which, she believes, cannot detect automatized problem-solving. 9 Since she believes that experts might have automatized at least part of their problem-solving behavior, she concludes that the difference between the two groups of subjects might be smaller in reality. Nevertheless, the data corroborate the earlier findings by Jensen (1999) and Jarvella et al. (2002) cited above. Adding the data of fourth-semester students to the aforementioned comparison of novices and experts, Göpferich (2012) found that the differences between the two groups of students were negligible (2012: 248). Göpferich’s finding might, however, be due to the fact that her students exhibit almost no signs of progress from the first to the fourth semester, also with regard to other aspects of translation competence. In their case, no progress was visible con‐ cerning error rates, problem rates or strategic behavior (2012: 260-261). Thus, 77 3.2 Translation Problems <?page no="78"?> the group of advanced students included in this study might not be representa‐ tive of advanced translation students overall. Having considered some of the findings regarding the number of problems experienced by different groups of subjects, it must be acknowledged that the number of problems alone is not a good indicator of translation competence - especially since it is not exactly clear whether many problems are a sign of a very high reflectiveness or of a lack of skills. Rather it seems that neither can be generally assumed without a more detailed analysis of the subjects’ aware‐ ness of potential pitfalls in the translation task and their ability to resolve them. Thus, on the basis of theoretical reflection as well as empirical findings in the field of expertise research, Shreve (2002) considers what could distinguish ex‐ perts from non-experts in translation since only the number of years active as a professional translator by no means guarantees expert status. He hypothesizes that the main difference might lie in the ability to recognize translation problems and apply adequate measures to solve them (2002: 161-162). And, according to González Davies & Scott-Tennent (2005: 162), there is, in fact, a great deal of support for the assumption that the awareness of translation problems and the ability to solve them depends on experience, i.e., the level of translation com‐ petence. In accordance with the model of translation competence that has been adopted for the present study (Göpferich 2009b: 20), these abilities can be viewed as part of the translator’s strategic competence, which has a very central position in the model. Developing an awareness of translation problems and acquiring adequate strategies to solve them might thus be at the heart of the acquisition of translation competence together with other necessary sub-competences such as language competence, domain competence and research competence. There is some empirical evidence that corroborates Shreve’s assumption. Thus, Göpferich (2012: 259) analyzes awareness among both professionals and students of the illogicality of a ST sentence in a given context. She found that while four out of five professionals were demonstrably aware of the illogicality, only one out of eleven students was. However, the greater awareness among professionals did not lead to successful translations in all cases - in fact, only two out of the five translators produced an adequate translation. The students also had difficulty providing adequate solutions, as would be expected from their low level of awareness: only one of them, the same subject who showed aware‐ ness, provided an adequate translation (2012: 258). These are, of course, very limited findings since only one single problem was analyzed. Göpferich (2012: 254) also evaluates her subjects’ strategic behavior for a different trans‐ lation problem, analyzing every step in their decision-making processes to de‐ termine whether or not it was a “useful and goal-oriented measure[…] or deci‐ 78 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="79"?> sion[…]”. By comparing the number of goal-oriented/ correct decisions with those that did not bring the subjects closer to an adequate translation, she con‐ cludes that the professionals’ behavior is guided by strategic decisions, whereas the students’ behavior is not (2012: 256-257). These findings should, however, not be overestimated, not only because they are based on the analysis of only one translation problem and 16 individuals, but also because a closer look at the data reveals that the strategic behavior of novices and professionals is not as distinct as one might expect. Thus, out of six novices, two provided evidence of strategic behavior, whereas three could not be classified at all and only one novice clearly exhibited unstrategic behavior. Among the professionals, two out of five exhibited strategic decision-making, three could not be classified at all and none proceeded in an unstrategic manner. Thus, although there are small differences between the two groups, these do not appear to be significant enough to draw conclusions regarding any general tendency. The large difference in strategic behavior between students and professionals reported by Göpferich is due to the group of fourth-semester students, in which none out of five exhibited strategic behavior and three clearly proceeded in an unstrategic manner. For Göpferich’s overall comparison concerning the strategic behavior of students and professionals, there is thus a difference. However, the fact that novices and professionals performed almost equally, raises the question as to whether this might be a feature of expertise or is related to the individual subjects of this specific study. Other evidence that the decisive difference between novices and professionals is the latter’s ability to recognize and solve translation problems is provided by Angelone’s exploratory study (2010). Angelone compares one professional and three students in terms of their metacognitive problem-solving. According to Angelone (2010: 22), when a translator experiences indecision during the trans‐ lation process, this should ideally trigger what he calls a “problem-solving bundle”. A problem-solving bundle is supposed to be a sequence comprising problem recognition, solution proposal and solution evaluation. Comparing the amount of metacognitive activity exhibited by each of his subjects, Angelone (2010: 32) found that his professional subject allocated more metacognitive ac‐ tivity to problem recognition than the students did. Furthermore, he had a greater tendency to proceed subsequently through the whole problem-solving bundle, i.e., to continue directly with solution proposal and solution evaluation after having recognized a problem. Students, on the contrary, showed a high level of solution evaluation. This solution evaluation tended to start long after the respective solution had been produced, leading to much “jumping around” in the TT production (2010: 33). From this finding Angelone (2010: 32) concludes 79 3.2 Translation Problems <?page no="80"?> that professionals are in fact better able to recognize translation problems. Cor‐ relating these results to the subjects’ errors, Angelone & Shreve (2011: 122) found that the students’ errors occurred considerably more often (71 %) when no problem recognition was evident. This also seems to confirm the importance of problem-awareness for the quality of produced translations. It must be noted again, however, that this study was exploratory in nature, involving only one professional subject and three students of translation. In their comparison of professional translators and language teachers, PACTE (2011a: 326) analyzed their subjects’ ability to identify prototypical translation problems. PACTE did not find any consistent differences between teachers and translators but rather a great variation within these groups. They concluded that the identification of translation problems depends largely on the individual. They believe this to be empirical proof of the difference between subjective translation difficulties and objective translation problems, as proposed by Nord (1987, 1993: 208). This finding might also be related to the approach that PACTE took: their data come from retrospection and questionnaires in which PACTE asked their subjects to name the main problems they experienced during trans‐ lation. They were thus asking for individual, subjective difficulties, when what they were (apparently) interested in was the subjects’ awareness of the potential pitfalls in a number of selected text passages as well as the criteria that a trans‐ lation of these passages would have to fulfil. Thus, for some subjects, the criteria might have been so obvious that they did not subjectively consider them to be problematic, and they might thus not have “identified” them. This assumption might be corroborated by the fact that PACTE (2011a: 333) observed that the predefined problems that teachers identified more often than translators in di‐ rect translation were precisely those that translators solved better. Another finding in translation process research concerns the level (linguistic or communicative) on which subjects with different levels of translation com‐ petence tackle their problems. Thus, on the basis of earlier findings, Jääskeläinen (2011b: 130) concludes that the decision-making processes of non-experts are based on linguistic criteria such as fidelity to the source text and are heavily guided by unreflective dictionary look-ups. Professionals, on the contrary, base their decisions on textual knowledge and world knowledge. Furthermore, she points out, professionals and also translation students take their translation brief into account, which also means that they base their decisions on the needs of the TT readers. In the same vein, Dancette (1997) explores the processes of three MA students with regard to their “mental models” concerning the conceptualization of the text to be translated. Dancette is chiefly interested in the comprehension of 80 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="81"?> 10 This relates to the intention behind an utterance; more particularly Künzli (2009: 335) investigates the phatic function of the introduction to a user manual. 11 Angelone distinguishes the following textual levels: lexis, term, collocation, phrasal, syntax, sentential and macrolevel. meaning and how comprehension processes touch the textual, linguistic and notional level. The textual level refers to reading the ST and writing the TT, the linguistic level concerns the languages involved, and the notional level involves the inclusion of personal, experiential and world knowledge (1997: 94). Dancette states that it is difficult to relate her findings from the mental models to the subjects’ performance. Nevertheless, she points out that one of her subjects failed to include the notional level in comprehension processes, i.e., referring to extralinguistic and extratextual knowledge, which explained some of the short‐ comings of her translation. The inclusion of the non-linguistic level, on the other hand, seems to increase desirable features in the translation product, such as reinforcing logical connectors (1997: 94). Although Dancette does not bring her subjects’ experience into the equation explicitly, it is clear that the subject who failed to utilize world knowledge did not have any professional experience. Both of the other two students, however, had two years of experience, one as a pro‐ fessional translator, the other as an interpreter (1997: 86). The findings of the PACTE group (2011a) regarding the way in which teachers and translators describe the problems they have encountered also point in the same direction. Although there were no major differences between the two groups of subjects with regard to their respective abilities to recognize prede‐ fined segments as problematic, there were differences in how they described those difficulties. For example, teachers exhibited a greater tendency to describe them as linguistically induced, whereas translators attributed them to a wider range of categories and also as related to the communicative function of the text (2011a: 335). It thus seems that the level of translation competence is related to the ability to think about translation problems in broader, more functional ways. This, however, should not be taken as a sign that linguistic problems arise only at the novice stage or among non-translators. Focusing on linguistic prob‐ lems, Künzli (2009) analyzed 40 think-aloud protocols from earlier studies with regard to grammatical, textual, pragmatic 10 and sociolinguistic problems. He concludes that linguistic translation problems play a considerable role in the translation process of very experienced professionals as well (2009: 338). Ange‐ lone’s exploratory study (2010: 31) corroborates this finding. By analyzing the textual level 11 at which his three student subjects and one professional translator experience the greatest amount of uncertainty, he found that, in all cases, these are lexisthrough collocation-levels. Students, however, have a greater tendency 81 3.2 Translation Problems <?page no="82"?> to address words in isolation and thus take collocations apart during problem-solving, whereas the professional worked at the termand colloca‐ tion-level. Angelone (2010: 31) interprets this finding as support for the assump‐ tion that, although even professional translators do not necessarily consider the sentence as their unit of translation, they nevertheless tend to work at a higher textual level than students do. To sum up the above review, it seems that being able to better recognize and solve translation problems is one major difference between novices and experts and thus one of the main aspects that students of translation have to acquire. Experts with an extensive translation experience exhibit a tendency to en‐ counter fewer translation problems and to be better able to recognize translation problems when they exist and thus achieve better results when solving them. Experts also appear to work at a higher textual level (i.e., rather on collocations than single words) than students or novices and to generally focus more on the communicative sense of the target text than on its linguistic form. This overview of problem-solving and decision-making processes has focused only on a selected number of aspects and, due to the vast amount of research in this area, is necessarily incomplete. The main intention has been to summarize the most important findings regarding the parameters that will also be relevant for the research presented in the second part of this work. 3.3 Time Requirement as an Indicator of Translation Competence Many studies conducted since the beginning of translation process research have compared groups of participants in terms of the time they need to perform a translation task. Very frequently, this approach has resulted in a comparison of the time that professionals, semi-professionals and/ or bilinguals and novices require for the translation of a certain source text. The main questions asked were whether the overall time taken by the subjects depends on their level of experience and which conclusions could be drawn from differences in the time requirement. A growing number of studies have even made the time require‐ ment the central aspect of their research interest and have studied how subjects cope with time pressure (e.g., Jensen 1999; Jensen & Jakobsen 2000; De Rooze 2003; Alves & Liparini Campos 2009; Hvelplund 2011; Kourouni 2012). To this end, these studies have set different time limits to compare the effect they would have on the processes and products of participants with different levels of training and professional experience. By including time pressure, however, the 82 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="83"?> ability to cope with stress becomes one major factor influencing the results. Studies including time pressure will therefore be excluded in the following overview for the sake of conciseness, but also because the empirical study pre‐ sented in the second part does not set a time limit and findings can therefore not be related to those from studies with a time constraint (see 5.2). In the 1980s, when research investigating the translation process began, the overall time needed was usually the only indicator of cognitive processing since more sophisticated measurements such as eye-tracking and key-logging, for example, were not yet available. And even today, with new methods available, measuring translators’ processing efforts remains a challenge, so that time in‐ vestment is still used as an indicator of cognitive effort (Alves & Gonçalves 2013: 107-108; Alves et al. 2014: 25). But can the time requirement actually be related to the subjects’ level of translation competence? Some of the early find‐ ings seem to indicate that professionals translate faster than students, which was believed to be due to professionals having automatized many aspects of the translation process. This is referred to as the “automaticity hypothesis”, which is based on data showing that students tend to produce lengthy problem-solving reports whereas professionals (e.g., Séguinot 1989) seem to solve their problems with speed and efficiency ( Jääskeläinen 2002: 110). Other findings, however, contradict this conclusion. Gerloff (1988: 58; quoted in Jääskeläinen 1996: 65), for example, reports that her student subjects require ten minutes less than a group of professionals. According to these data, it seems that professionals actually put more effort into the completion of the task than novices. This is now known in TPR as the “translation-does-not-get-easier phenomenon” (Gerloff 1988: 45; quoted in Jääskeläinen 1996: 63). Gerloff (1988: 54; quoted in Breedveld 2002: 223; Sun 2011: 933) concludes from her findings that professionals invest the pro‐ cessing capacity that “frees up” thanks to the automatization of some aspects of the translation process into tackling higher-order problems. As a consequence, the overall process becomes neither easier nor less time consuming. TPR re‐ searchers (e.g., Göpferich 2010c: 16-17; Jääskeläinen 2011b: 133; Alves & Gon‐ çalves 2013: 107-108) relate this phenomenon to findings in expertise research which indicate that expert writers require more time to write a text than non-ex‐ perts. According to Ericsson & Smith (1991: 172), this can be explained by the fact that experts are better at identifying a task’s constraints and goals. To shed some light on the question as to whether and how translation com‐ petence and the time requirement are related, Jääskeläinen (1996) focused on the correlations between proficiency levels, translation quality and different aspects of the translation process, including time. Professionals, she found, are not always the fastest translators. Instead, she concluded, “[t]ranslation quality 83 3.3 Time Requirement as an Indicator of Translation Competence <?page no="84"?> appears to be closely linked with how much time and effort translators are willing to invest in the process”, which caused her to refine the “automaticity hypothesis” (1996: 66-67) by proposing a “developmental hypothesis”, which postulates a development from novice to expert that begins at a stage at which novices are unaware of the problems and requirements of a translation task. As a consequence, they can translate “quickly and effortlessly”, whereas the process becomes “arduous and time-consuming” in semi-professionals, i.e., students of translation, once they have realized the complexity of their task. For professio‐ nals, she hypothesized, it depends on the nature of the task whether they can benefit from a high level of automaticity and, therefore, translate effortlessly. This appears to be the case in routine tasks. In non-routine tasks, however, professionals appear to resort to less-automatized ( Jääskeläinen 1996: 67 even speaks of non-automatized) processing, which would explain why they require more time. Although these hypotheses were deduced from empirical findings early on, the question still remains intriguing: can we relate the required time to the level of translation competence? That is, are professionals regularly faster than novices or, on the contrary, might the “blissful ignorance” of novices ( Jääske‐ läinen 1996: 67) generally speed up the process? Is time related to the quality of the produced translation? And if this is so, might it even be a better indicator of translation competence than the “formal” proficiency categories such as pro‐ fessional, student and novice (see also 3.4)? An attempt to answer this question will be made by looking at some more recent findings concerning the time re‐ quirements of different groups of subjects. A number of studies compare professionals with students. However, profes‐ sionals can range from translators with two years of working experience to those with at least ten years of experience, depending on how the respective studies are designed. In addition, students can range from undergraduate students to final-year MA students, so that the studies cannot be compared to one another in terms of actual translation experience. Leaving this issue aside, the majority of studies conclude that professionals require less time than less experienced subjects. For example, Jakobsen’s (2003) professionals worked nearly 20 % faster than his translation students. Jakobsen had expected the difference to be even greater and attributes the fact that it is not to the professionals being more sensitive to avoiding any loss of face and therefore being extra-careful in the research situation (2003: 77). In another study, Dragsted (2005) found consider‐ able differences in the production time (excluding revision) of students and professionals. Again, professionals were considerably faster, translating an easier text almost twice as fast and a more difficult text 1.7 times faster than the 84 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="85"?> students. Including revision time, the difference dropped only slightly with pro‐ fessionals being 1.6 times faster in the easy text and 1.5 times in the more difficult text (2005: 59-60). This seems to indicate that there are only minimal differences between advanced students and professionals with regard to the length of the revision phase. It has to be pointed out, however, that Dragsted’s subjects trans‐ lated from their L1 into a foreign language, so that differences in language com‐ petence might influence the data (see below). In Englund Dimitrova’s (2005) study, student subjects required about twice as long as professional translators. Within the group of professionals, the senior translators were considerably faster than their junior colleagues, needing only half the overall time (approx‐ imately 1.5 hours compared to three hours). There were considerable inter-in‐ dividual differences among the student subjects with an approximate overall translation time of between 3.5 and six hours. There was no difference between students of translation and philology, however (2005: 87). Englund Dimitrova interprets this finding as a clear indication of a correlation between translation experience and task duration and attributes the long overall time taken by the students to their sensitization to translation problems and the resulting wish to solve them perfectly (2005: 135). More recent studies by Carl & Kay (2011) and Jensen (2011) also confirm these results, supporting the view that professionals do indeed translate faster than novices and/ or advanced students, indicating that a higher translation competence might go hand-in-hand with a lower time re‐ quirement. Since, however, students and professionals differ not only with re‐ spect to their (supposed) translation competence but possibly also with regard to their world knowledge, language competence and domain expertise, it is therefore interesting, when singling out the influence of translation competence on the time requirement, to look at two other studies including different groups of professionals with and without professional experience in translation. The PACTE group (2008), for example, compared two groups that are both considered to be language professionals: professional translators and language teachers. These two groups can be assumed to be much closer in terms of foreign language skills than the subjects in studies comparing novices and translation experts. Comparing the 15 “best” subjects of each group, PACTE found that the “best” translators require somewhat more time than the “best” language teachers: 57 minutes compared to 53 minutes on average (2008: 119). PACTE also correlated the total time taken by their subjects to the acceptability of their translations and found a positive correlation, indicating that the more time their subjects took for the translation, the more acceptable the resulting product was. In a different study, Alves et al. (2014) also used two groups of professionals. In their case these were professional translators and physicists, i.e., domain spe‐ 85 3.3 Time Requirement as an Indicator of Translation Competence <?page no="86"?> cialists with a good knowledge of English. Alves et al. analyzed the translations of two versions of one and the same sentence into their subjects’ native lan‐ guages, one of which was more metaphorical than the other. They found that professional translators completed the task faster than physicists independently of the level of metaphoricity and, since other indicators pointed in the same direction, concluded that translating was more effortful for physicists than for professional translators (2014: 48). These results seem to confirm that profes‐ sional translators do indeed translate faster than subjects with no experience in translation. The question remains, however, as to how the time requirement of students of translation changes while their translation competence develops. One study presenting some inconclusive evidence on this question is Göpferich’s (2012), which includes novices, fourth-semester students and professionals. Her fourth-semester students proved to be faster than the novices but slower than the professionals in one task that was considered rather difficult. In another translation task that was perceived to be less difficult, however, the fourth-se‐ mester students translated more slowly than both novices and professionals (2012: 246-247). However, just as in the studies cited above, the professionals were the fastest in both translation tasks. Comparing only the data of profes‐ sionals and novices (Göpferich 2010c), professionals translated one text 1.3 times faster and the other text 1.6 times faster on average than the novices. In addition, Göpferich compared her subjects’ time requirement to the translation quality they delivered, but did not find any correlation between the time the subjects invested and the number of errors they made (2010c: 17). In another large-scale project (CTP), Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow (2014: 86) found that their profes‐ sionals translated faster than both first-semester MA students and novices. Comparing the two groups of students, the more advanced MA students also proved to be faster than undergraduate students in their first semester. A word of caution is called for, however, with respect to their study’s design. Since in the CTP project retrospection was used, the student subjects’ processes were recorded for only 20 minutes. Subjects were advised to work at their usual pace, however (2014: 85). As a result, Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow were not able to measure the total amount of time required by their subjects. Rather, they ana‐ lyzed the number of words per minute for the first 15 minutes of their subjects’ translation processes. Apart from studies comparing different proficiency groups, there is also a small number of studies that focus on the development of translation compe‐ tence in students. Pezza Cintr-o (2011), for example, is interested in testing the impact of one translation course on her subjects’ translation competence. To 86 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="87"?> that end, she compared two groups of students of philology, one of which was trained in translation, while the other followed regular philological courses. Before the intervention, both groups were tested together with a control group of bilinguals that worked with languages (language teachers for foreign stu‐ dents). The student groups performed comparably and were somewhat faster than the bilinguals. This difference was not statistically significant, however. In terms of quality, they did considerably worse than the bilinguals. The allocation of time to different phases of the process was different, indicating that bilinguals accorded more time to revision than students. Furthermore, Pezza Cintr-o (2011: 100) detected a tendency for shorter drafting phases and longer revisions to be correlated to a better quality of the translation product. The two groups of students (translation group and philological control group) made a total of four translations over a period of four months, and both groups showed an increase in the total amount of time, which, according to Pezza Cintr-o (2011: 101), might indicate that they started to translate in a more reflective way. This increase was more important for the group of students who followed a translation-specific training than for the control group without such training. Within the PACTE research on translation competence acquisition, Castillo Rincón (2015) studied the development of the acceptability of the TT throughout an undergraduate course of studies. He found that, concerning the overall time taken, the fastest participants were his first-year students, second-year students required approximately ten minutes more, whereas the time requirement de‐ creased for students in higher semesters - but only marginally (2015: 81). He also observed changes in how the total time taken was allocated to the different phases of the translation process, the main finding being that the percentage accorded to revision increased throughout the course of studies. The quality of the target text increased considerably from year one to year two, but then stayed at approximately the same level throughout the rest of the course of studies, with a slight decrease in the third year (2015: 79-80). As a review of all the above-cited studies makes clear, there appears to be a strong tendency for professional translators to be faster than both students and novices. How much faster they are, however, varies considerably. Findings reach from 16 % (Carl & Kay 2011) to 50 % (Englund Dimitrova 2005). Furthermore, some studies have shown similar results for the comparison of professional translators and other professionals with either considerable competence in the language (foreign language teachers, PACTE 2008) or the domain area (physi‐ cists, Alves et al. 2014). In any case, however, the findings seem to support the automaticity hypothesis (see above). There is also some support for Jääskeläi‐ nen’s developmental hypothesis (1996; see above). Thus, according to some 87 3.3 Time Requirement as an Indicator of Translation Competence <?page no="88"?> studies (Pezza Cintr-o 2011; Castillo Rincón 2015), the total time taken by stu‐ dents seems to increase during the first semesters of their translation training. There is, however, some contradictory evidence as well (Göpferich 2012; Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow 2014). 3.4 Quality of the Translation Product Strictly speaking, in analyzing the translation product, we leave the realm of translation process research. However, processes and products are so closely intertwined that ignoring the product would deny us many findings, e.g., those that correlate the duration of the process to the quality of the product (see 3.3). Therefore, it is generally acknowledged that all process-oriented research should include a consideration of the product (e.g., Bernardini 2001: 241; Göp‐ ferich 2010c: 50; Muñoz Martín 2014a: 71). In what follows, we will look at some findings on the ability of different proficiency groups (e.g., novices, students, professionals) to produce adequate translations. We will concentrate on two main aspects that have been frequently researched. We will first review some findings regarding the literalness of translations and then focus on their overall quality. One aspect of the translation product that has been frequently studied con‐ cerns the continuum between literal and free translation, although today the focus seems to have shifted from “freeness” to “creativity” in translation (e.g., Bayer-Hohenwarter 2012). It is important to point out that “literal” or “creative” and “free” do not only relate to the final product, but can also be taken as a feature of the process, i.e., as a translation strategy. For this reason, it has been frequently proposed both within linguistic (e.g., Vinay & Darbelnet 1981: 267- 268) and process-oriented approaches to translation (e.g., Tirkkonen-Condit 2005: 407-408) that literal translation is the default procedure in translation. The assumption that literal translation requires less cognitive effort has recently become subject to enquiry, and the initial results of studies conducted by Schaeffer & Carl (2014) might actually confirm this. When comparing the literalness of translations produced by professionals, students and novices, it has frequently been pointed out that novices and stu‐ dents tend to have a more literal approach than experienced translators. This difference is referred to by Lörscher (1991: 272-277) as a formor sign-oriented as opposed to a sense-oriented approach. He defines form-oriented translation as a transfer of linguistic forms without recourse to meaning through automatic association processes which he suspects could be induced by vocabulary 88 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="89"?> 12 This refers to her findings regarding the group that translated without think-aloud. For Jääskeläinen’s findings concerning the comparison of TA vs. non-TA subjects, see 5.3.1. learning without any context (1991: 272). In sense-oriented translation, on the other hand, the meaning of an utterance is considered separately from the lin‐ guistic form in the source language. Consequently, a target language item is looked for on the basis of meaning (1991: 275). Lörscher (1991: 275-276) points out that these are two extremes of a continuum, none of which could be found in his data. However, studying firstand second-year students of English with “little experience and hardly any training in translating” (1991: 35), Lörscher found that their approach was mainly form-oriented, although some segments were translated in a sense-oriented manner. On the basis of these findings, he hypothesized that form-orientation might be a feature of non-professionals, whereas he expected professionals to translate in a more sense-oriented way (1991: 276). The same assumption surfaces in Risku’s cognitive model of trans‐ lation competence, when she describes the translation process of novices as a “transport of signals” (Signaltransport), whereas an expert’s translation process is supposedly oriented towards communication and is thus described as a “con‐ struction of sense” (Sinnkonstruktion) (1998: 244). These assumptions are obvi‐ ously connected to the development of the translator’s self-concept, which is thought to become more and more communicative-oriented with time, as dis‐ cussed in section 3.1. This assumption regarding literalness has been confirmed, for example, by Jääskeläinen (2000), who compared the translations of advanced students to those of translation teachers with regard to formal correspondence, both lexical and syntactic. She found that translation teachers were more prepared to deviate from syntactic correspondence than students by changing sentence boundaries, for example. Concerning lexical correspondence, however, both groups adapted the text. Thus, both her professionals and four out of six students omitted in‐ formation that would be considered too detailed according to Finnish text type conventions (2000: 80). 12 More recent findings also indicate that professionals might produce less literal translations. Rydning & Lachaud (2010), for instance, compare the ways in which polysemous words are translated by professionals and non-translator bilinguals. Two findings of their study are of particular in‐ terest in the present context. They found first that professional translators pro‐ duced higher-quality translations and second that professionals were better able to free themselves from the source text’s linguistic forms during TT production. According to Rydning & Lachaud (2010: 107), “professional translators who have 89 3.4 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="90"?> grasped the meaning of the utterance reformulate it by means of ideas, rather than of words.” Focusing on the translation of titles, and more specifically on the coherence between text and title, Johnsen (2014) set out to test the hypothesis that the title would be translated with a grammatical equivalent by language students but with textual equivalents by translation students and professional translators. He found his hypothesis partly confirmed. Thus, two out of three professionals did indeed choose a textual equivalent, whereas only one translation student and one language student (out of seven and five students, respectively) did. Fur‐ thermore, the group of translation students showed more variation in their choice of titles than the language students. From this finding, Johnsen concluded that the degree of professionalization, as he calls it, does have an impact on the ability to produce a larger amount of translational choices and on the literalness of the translation ( Johnsen 2014: 85). Künzli (2003) focused on the attitude that translators and students have to‐ wards the source text. He found that translators are more accurate when it comes to reproducing the content of the ST. Students, on the contrary, are more pre‐ pared to deviate from the source text to make the content correspond to their own expectations, thus producing a rather random relation between ST and TT (2003: 207). It must be pointed out, however, that this finding concerns the con‐ tent and thus is far beyond the notion of formal correspondence. Nevertheless, it seems to indicate that novices can reformulate content in their own words - although, in this particular study, this ability has apparently led them astray. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the text to be translated was taken from an instruction manual. Thus, the professionals might have been much more aware of potential liability issues than the students and therefore might have “played it safe”. Relating this finding to those mentioned above, we might conclude that professionals do have a better understanding when they need to stay close to the ST and when a literal translation is not the best option. Concerning the overall quality of their translation products, professionals have been repeatedly found to deliver better quality than students or other bi‐ linguals, as one would expect (see the studies cited above). Accordingly, in their comparison of language teachers and translators, PACTE (2009) found that translators produced translations of a higher quality than foreign language teachers. From their overall findings, PACTE (2009: 219) thus conclude that ex‐ perience in translation does have an impact on the translation product. The difference between the two groups of subjects, however, varied depending on directionality. For direct translation, i.e., translation into the mother tongue, translators performed considerably better than language teachers. The differ‐ 90 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="91"?> ence was less pronounced, but still existent, for inverse translation, i.e., trans‐ lation into the foreign language. This means that, while teachers had delivered approximately the same quality for both direct and inverse translation, trans‐ lators clearly performed better in direct translation. PACTE (2009: 219) take this to indicate that “a high degree of acceptability […] in direct translation does not automatically presuppose an equally high degree of acceptability in inverse translation”. When interpreting these results, it must be taken into account that translators frequently only work into their native language exclusively and thus might not have much experience in formulating texts in the foreign language. Foreign language teachers, on the contrary, are more likely to use their foreign language actively (2009: 221). PACTE thus assume that the fact that the transla‐ tors still produced the better inverse translations could be taken as proof that translation competence can, in fact, compensate for lacking (productive) lan‐ guage skills. From these findings, we could conclude that the more experience a subject has in translation, the better the quality he or she will deliver. It might almost seem “natural” that subjects with more training and especially subjects who earn their living by providing translation services would produce the best or at least consistently high-quality translations. One of the most astonishing findings in translation research, however, reveals that this is not always the case. There are well-documented cases in which individual professionals produce the same or even worse quality translation products than formally less proficient subjects. As we have already mentioned in the previous section (3.3), studies have shown that the level of experience is not necessarily related to the duration of the process or to the quality delivered (e.g., Gerloff 1988; Jääskeläinen 1996). In fact, the finding that quality and experience do not go hand-in-hand has been re‐ peatedly confirmed. Accordingly, Kiraly (1995), who compared a group of professionals (graduates with some professional experience) and novices at the beginning of their studies, found that there were no major differences between these two groups of subjects concerning the quality of the translations they produced. In fact, neither of the two groups produced high-quality translations (1995: 90). Another finding comes from Rodrigues (2001), who compared two groups of professionals with different amounts of working experience. Concerning quality, Rodrigues found that one translator with 20 years of working experience and another with six years of working experience both delivered low-quality translations, including transla‐ tion errors. He concluded from these findings that extensive professional expe‐ rience is no guarantee for high-quality products (Rodrigues 2001: 515-516). Sim‐ ilarly, Johnsen (2005) compared translation experts with non-translator 91 3.4 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="92"?> 13 Professionals with only a few years of experience; Norberg (2003) calls these semi-pro‐ fessionals, a term that is avoided here because it is often used for students of translation. bilinguals. He found that two out of the three “best” translations had been made by non-translators. In addition, none of the “best” translations had been pro‐ duced by the highly experienced professionals with more than 15 years of working experience ( Johnsen 2005: 204). Norberg (2003), in addition to his own evaluations, asked journalists to evaluate the translations made by his young 13 and experienced professionals to find out whether they were publishable. Ac‐ cording to their rating, only a few translations could be used as they were. Most required at least minor revision. The young professionals, however, did some‐ what better than their more experienced colleagues, at least in a translation with a function-keeping translation brief. In a second task with a function-changing skopos, however, no differences could be detected in the quality delivered by the two groups of subjects (2003: 204). Concerning this more tricky translation brief, in particular, Norberg (2003: 187) had expected the more experienced translators to produce more adequate translations. He attributes the fact that the young professionals performed at a comparable level to their enthusiasm for the task. He thus believes that emotional factors compensated for a lack of experience. Göpferich (2010c) also found that her group of professionals, albeit delivering translations of a better quality than the undergraduate students to which they were compared, did not meet the expectations one would have of a translation expert. She believes that her professionals, having at least ten years of experience, might still have had more equivalence-oriented translation cri‐ teria, and therefore were rated poorly within the functional evaluation she had adopted (Göpferich 2010c: 49). From these findings it becomes clear that the selection of formal proficiency groups, which is often the basis of study designs in TPR, runs the risk of mingling subjects with very different actual performance levels. There seem to be quite important individual differences, so that experience or level of studies cannot account for competence. One question arises from these findings: why are pro‐ fessionals not necessarily better translators than students or even novices? Jääs‐ keläinen (2011b: 132) attributes these findings to the fact that the experimental tasks in the research settings might not have been related to what the profes‐ sionals usually translate and therefore be outside their field of expertise (e.g., 1996: 66-67, 2011b: 132). Bayer-Hohenwarter (2012: 310-311) supposes that the underachievement of the professionals participating in the TransComp study might reflect an efficiency measure adopted by the professionals - namely, to provide no more than adequate quality. This optimal efficiency is what they 92 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="93"?> would be required to deliver in their everyday business because of deadlines and pay rates. Besides this aspect, Bayer-Hohenwarter furthermore believes that the professional subjects in TransComp, who were required to have at least ten years of professional experience, might not have been trained in functional theories during their studies more than ten years ago (see also Göpferich 2010c: 49). Bayer-Hohenwarter believes that this lack of theoretical knowledge was what led to the professionals’ underachievement in a functionally oriented quality assessment (2012: 310-311). This is an interesting hypothesis since it would en‐ tail that translation training under the equivalence-oriented, linguistic paradigm did not lead to the same increase in translation competence as the more recent functional approaches. In the 1990s, Kiraly (1995: 107) drew a similar conclusion: he believed that his TPR findings indicated “that many current training methods have no impact on translation quality”. More specifically, he criticized the failure to provide translation trainees with the “knowledge necessary to produce sit‐ uationally adequate translations” as well as to explain to them the role of un‐ conscious and therefore uncontrolled processes in the translation process. So, almost ten years after Hönig (1988), he basically asks the same question: do translators actually know what they are doing and, one could add, why they are doing it? If they do not, then this clearly is a failure of translator training. So in the end, the question arises as to whether this has changed under the influence of the functional paradigm, as Bayer-Hohenwarter assumes, and due to the considerable advances in translation didactics over the past decade. 3.5 Summary We began our review of selected topics that have been investigated in translation process research by looking into findings regarding the translator’s self-concept (section 3.1). We saw that differences in this self-concept can be detected be‐ tween individuals with different levels of translation competence, such as for‐ eign language teachers and professional translators, with translators having a much more functional approach to translation. The same difference can be found between students of translation and professionals, corroborating the hypothesis that the translator’s self-concept evolves from a linguistic, literal concept to a functional concept as translation competence increases. Concerning the devel‐ opment of the translator’s self-concept, evidence has been found that this con‐ cept develops faster than the ability to translate in accordance with it, i.e., faster than procedural knowledge. Studies of the translator’s self-concept have con‐ firmed the importance of a positive self-image as well as a possible impact on 93 3.5 Summary <?page no="94"?> both the process and the product of translation. From this finding, it follows that an important part of translator training should be devoted to broadening the translator’s self-concept (Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013: 119). Therefore, teaching students about the theories that have been developed in TS could sup‐ port this development, leading to awareness-raising and a “more professional” self-concept that would, ultimately, also be reflected in the translation products. In section 3.2, we first defined the somewhat blurry term “translation problem” and then reviewed some findings concerning the translator’s deci‐ sion-making and problem-solving. Findings in TPR have shown that being able to recognize and solve translation problems is one large difference between novices and experts. It is, therefore, one of the main aspects that students of translation must acquire. Experts with long-term working experience show a tendency to encounter fewer translation problems and to be better able to rec‐ ognize them and thus also to achieve better results when solving them. Fur‐ thermore, they seem to work at a higher textual level (i.e., rather on collocations than single words) than students or novices and to generally focus more on the communicative sense of the target text than on its linguistic form. We also reviewed the time requirement in translation and whether it allows for conclusions on cognitive effort and/ or the level of translation competence (section 3.3). The automaticity hypothesis was presented, which indicates that professionals exhibit a high degree of automatization in the translation process. It was initially supposed that this automatization would make the translation process faster and more efficient ( Jääskeläinen 2002: 110). However, it has been discovered that there is no gradual development towards greater speed, leading researchers to speak of the “translation-does-not-get-easier phenomenon” (Gerloff 1988: 45; quoted in Jääskeläinen 1996: 63) and suggesting that problems do not decrease in number as experience increases. Instead, more experienced translators appear to be able to recognize and tackle higher-level problems. Consequently, it has been proposed by Jääskeläinen (1996: 67) that there is a non-gradual development from novice to expert that starts at a stage at which novices are unaware of the problems and requirements of the translation task. As a consequence, novices can translate “quickly and effortlessly”, whereas the process becomes “arduous and time-consuming” for semi-professionals, i.e., students of translation, once they realize the complexity of their task. Profes‐ sionals, then, appear to effortlessly process routine-tasks but not non-routine tasks. In the literature review, there was not much evidence of translators gen‐ erally requiring more time than novices and/ or students. This should not, how‐ ever, be taken as evidence against the “translation-does-not-get-easier phenom‐ enon”, but might, in fact, be related to the type of tasks used in the studies. 94 3 Reviewing Translation Process Research on Translation Competence <?page no="95"?> Last but not least, we reviewed findings on the quality of the translation product (section 3.4). There have been two major findings concerning quality in translation process research. First, there is evidence that an increase in ex‐ pertise contributes considerably to less literal translation products. Second, while professionals frequently provide better translations than students or novices, this is by no means always the case. We reviewed a number of studies in which professionals did not produce better quality translations than other groups with which they were compared. Consequently, it is not possible to rely on formal levels of (supposed) translation competence since it has been found that experience and actual translation competence do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. There have been suggestions that the poor performance observed in the case of some professionals and advanced students might be due to inef‐ fective translation teaching methods or even a lack of training in functionalist approaches. Therefore, a comparison of the translation processes and products of subjects with different training backgrounds seems advisable. This compar‐ ison could lead to conclusions on the impact of translation teaching in general and of the efficacy of different forms of teaching. 95 3.5 Summary <?page no="96"?> 1 See 4.3 for an overview of empirical findings on students’ and practitioners’ opinions on theory (teaching). 2 Wagner (2002: 1) uses the term “wordface” to refer to the place where translators work. 4 The Impact of Translation Theory […] to translate without a theory is to translate blind Andrew Chesterman, scholar (1997: 3) ‘Translation theory? Spare us…’ […] There can be few professions with such a yawning gap between theory and practice. Emma Wagner, translator (Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 1) The debate on the relation between theory and practice, both in professional life as well as in translator training, truly seems to be a never-ending story, filling the literature in translation studies on a regular basis (see, for example, Levý 1965; Schumm 1975; Juhel 1985; Berglund 1990; Wilss 1995; Shuttleworth 2001; Kearns 2008 and Leal 2014). Very different beliefs seem to be held by practi‐ tioners on the one hand and scholars on the other, as can be seen from the almost prototypical quotes cited above. Chesterman, one of the leading figures in TS, suggests that theory is essential for practical translation, whereas Wagner, a professional translator at the EU, considers theory to be quite different from and not very useful for her everyday work. In fact, she describes theory as something that most translators “proceeded to forget” after their studies as they “got to grips with the realities of learning how to do the job” (2002: 1). Anecdotal evi‐ dence has it that practitioners either disregard theory as useless or even loathe it, and occasional statements from professionals such as Wagner or Berglund (1990) seem to confirm this impression. 1 The gap between theory and practice is also lamented, however, from within translation studies. Thus, Vinay (1991: 160) has the somewhat pessimistic impression that “we are dealing with two worlds, which […] will never meet”. The now classic exchange of views (Chesterman & Wagner 2002) between the “ivory tower” (the scholar Chesterman) and the “wordface” 2 (the translator Wagner) on the usefulness of theory for the practitioner is a good starting point <?page no="97"?> 3 Wagner holds this belief at the beginning of the correspondence with Chesterman, but it changes gradually towards the end of the discussion. when trying to retrace why such a “gap” is perceived to exist. From Wagner’s contributions, it becomes clear that she expects theory to “help us to become better translators and give us a feeling of professional self-esteem” (2002: 1). Chesterman (2002: 1), in turn, raises the question as to whether translation theory should even aim to help translators in the first place. This dispute points towards very different opinions regarding the role of theory and thus very dif‐ ferent expectations about what theories should offer. Wagner, the practitioner, believes that theory would be more useful to the professional translator if it were to offer concrete guidelines, much as there are guidelines for doctors on how to treat a certain kind of illness (2002: 4) . 3 Chesterman, however, is quick to warn against such prescriptive approaches since, having generally not been empiri‐ cally tested, they seem “to be no more than the projections of a particular schol‐ ar’s beliefs” (2002: 6). He suggests, however, that theory can, nevertheless, be of use for the practitioner and the student of translation by providing conceptual tools which could, for example, enhance the translator’s self-image, possibly even his or her job satisfaction and help with mental problem-solving (2002: 7). This shows that the question as to whether and how translation theory can have an impact on the individual translator and also more generally on the translation profession is very much a concern for translation scholars as well. In sections 4.1 and 4.2 we will review the opinions that have been advanced within TS regarding the questions raised by Chesterman & Wagner (2002). The theoretical view will then be complemented with the students’ and practitioners’ view in 4.3. We will then turn to suggestions about how theory should be integrated into translation curricula (4.4.1) as well as to the scarce empirical evidence that exists regarding the impact of theory on the development of translation competence (4.4.2). 4.1 The Role of Translation Theory Theory is about the 1000 'problems'/ topics which translators come across ('capitalise or not? ' 'reduce this metaphor to sense or not? ' etc.). Its main job is to recommend the most suitable procedure after laying out the choices. (Newmark 2002: 95, quoted from Schäffner 2005: 239) This description of the role of translation theory comes from Newmark, one of the pioneers in the field of translation studies and famous for his rather con‐ 97 4.1 The Role of Translation Theory <?page no="98"?> servative views and “occasionally polemical” publications (Pym 2011a). We can thus assume that his view is about the most extreme to be found among TS scholars. He is, however, by no means the only scholar to suggest that theory needs to be useful to the practitioner. Similarly, Vinay (1991: 157) opens an article with the words: “To begin with, I think that the chief, if not exclusive, aim of translation theory, should be to help translators in their work.” These statements are pretty much in line with the views of many practitioners that a theory of translation is only valid if it is directly applicable to practice (e.g., Berglund 1990). However, the very opposite view can also be found among translation scholars who claim that helping the translator is certainly not the only or even the main aim of translation theory (e.g., Larose 1985: 406; Komissarov 1985: 208). Lefevere (1983: 18 quoted in Delisle 2005: 107) introduces an interesting comparison when he states that [i]t is the task of theoretical linguistics to describe how languages work, not to for‐ mulate rules for good usage. In the same way, translation theory should describe how translation works, not try to formulate the rules leading to the production of good translations. Linking translation studies to linguistics puts translation in relation to other fields in the humanities, where theory is not usually considered to influence practice, but rather aims at analyzing practice. Translation studies would thus correspond to literary studies, to take just one example, which does not consider its task to be the production of competent writers but rather the analysis and description of literature. If we understand translation studies as part of this humanistic tradition, then all claims that theory must serve practice and guide translation are ill-founded. It would simply not be the aim of TS to produce theories and findings that are applicable to practice. However, there are some differences between literary studies and translation studies, notably that students of the former come with very different aims and expectations. While many students of translation plan to become translators and expect to be prepared for a professional future, students of literary studies do not generally aspire to become novelists nor do they expect to be trained as such at university. It is in this regard that translation has much more in common with other courses of study that include vocational training and prepare students for a specific profession. It is thus not surprising that some translators and TS scholars prefer different comparisons than those with the humanities, linking translation to fields such as law, engineering, architecture and medicine (see e.g., Berglund 1990: 149; Hönig 1995: 19-20; Wagner in Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 4-5; Baker 2011: 1-3). On this analogy, academic training - and therefore 98 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="99"?> 4 Leal’s (2014) work includes practitioners’ opinions as well and is restricted to the Bra‐ zilian context, but the positions she illustrates can certainly be found elsewhere as well. theory - provides the framework for a practical task both by giving it the status of a “respected profession” and by providing the knowledge and even the guide‐ lines required for its future hands-on practice. On a final note, it should be noted that the quotations cited above represent the extremes of a continuum, with most scholars’ views ranging somewhere in between. These extremes, however, serve the present purpose well by illustrating the debate and the views that are possible. For those interested in the opinions of a far wider range of scholars, Delisle (2005) and Leal 4 (2014), for example, offer an ample selection of quota‐ tions. There are thus very different opinions regarding the role that translation theory plays not only when comparing practitioners and scholars but also within academia. Arrojo (1998), who analyzes the “traditional gap between theory & practice” from a postmodern view, claims that these different assumptions about the role of theory can be attributed to two fundamentally different underlying conceptions of meaning. Arrojo herself (1998: 25) takes an anti-essentialist view of meaning and affirms a radical distrust of the possibility of any intrinsically stable meaning that could be fully present in texts or in any form of oral or written discourse and, thus, supposedly recoverable and repeated elsewhere without the interference of the subjects, as well as the cultural, historical, ideological or political circumstances involved. This view makes it clear that there is not “the one meaning” of the ST and that the translator can thus never render the meaning objectively and without in‐ terfering. From this, it follows that there cannot be a general theory of transla‐ tion that could serve as a guideline or framework for all possible translation tasks. Arrojo opposes this view to the essentialist view that assumes that it is possible to define objective ethics for translations which are independent of the subjects, languages, cultures and circumstances involved. According to Arrojo (1998: 26), the decision to adopt an anti-essentialist or essentialist standpoint is closely connected to one’s expectations concerning the role of theory in trans‐ lation. Only those with an essentialist view of meaning and translation can con‐ sider it “the exclusive business of theory to establish definitions and models and to set translation rules and standards while it is the translator’s role to accept and blindly follow them”. Arrojo’s (1998: 26) main objective is to draw attention to the fact that there is an “irreconcilable gap” between the expectations placed on theory from an essentialist point of view and what theory can actually offer. 99 4.1 The Role of Translation Theory <?page no="100"?> Similarly, and drawing on Arrojo in some places, Leal (2014) analyzes the views of Brazilian translators and TS scholars regarding the relation between theory and practice. She works out two main standpoints regarding the expect‐ ations placed in theory. The first is practice-oriented, i.e., it suggests an applic‐ ability of theory to practice with “the former attempt[ing] to describe, regulate and govern over the latter” (2014: 59). Leal describes this standpoint as a “mar‐ riage” that ends up in “divorce”, however, if theory does not fulfill the expecta‐ tions that have been placed in it (2014: 18). The second standpoint that is fre‐ quently adopted sees theory as a means of awareness-raising and is associated with the view that higher education should establish the ability to think criti‐ cally, not provide vocational training (2014: 59). These two notions, of course, draw on Arrojo’s work but additionally introduce the factor of “deception” that arises once theory has failed to meet expectations. These two authors thus draw our attention to the fact that the deception of (unjustified? ) expectations is probably the reason why so many claim that a “gap” exists between the theory and the practice of translation in the first place. Mossop (2005) adopts a different viewpoint to explain the “gap” that does not distinguish between the views of people, but rather between different “theories”. He points out that the term “theory” is used in very different ways and therefore distinguishes between what he calls Theory1 and Theory2. He describes Theory1 as being concerned with describing and explaining all phenomena re‐ lated to translation: “The purpose of Theory1 is to understand translation. In order to achieve such understanding, theorists describe what is happening now or has happened in the past in the world of translation” (2005: 23). He points out that “the understanding sought by theory sense 1 is an end in itself ” (2005: 28) and thus does not aim at being useful for either the practice or the teaching of translation. This kind of “translation theory” would thus correspond to the analogy with literary studies drawn above and would represent an anti-essen‐ tialist view in Arrojo’s terms. Unsurprisingly, it is exactly this kind of theory that has been criticized - by those with an essentialist view - as being detached from the real world of professional translators. Mossop (2005: 25) points out that the aversion to Theory1 hinders progress in understanding the phenomenon of translation - an understanding which could ultimately “turn out to be useful, even if utility is not its purpose” (2005: 27). Contrary to some (e.g., Katan 2009: 150; Sun 2014: 183), he thus does not plead for narrowing the gap, but rather 100 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="101"?> 5 This view is today shared by many scholars, such as Wadensjö (2011: 18-19), for ex‐ ample. for acknowledging that this kind of theory has a claim to existence in its own right. 5 Mossop (2005: 23) distinguishes this Theory1 from Theory2, which in his view is “a summary of the practice of experienced translators”. In his view, it is this second kind of theory that has a direct practical application because teachers can pass it on to their students and thus accelerate the learning process. Theory2 would thus correspond to all the mental schemas that a translator builds up by translating as well as to the regularities he or she deduces from practice. These schemas and regularities might be acquired more quickly through conscious awareness-raising than through practice alone. Theory2 would thus fall rather under the head of reflective practice and probably not be concerned with full-blown theoretical models. This form of theorizing might contribute to awareness-raising, which Mossop (2005: 24) believes can, in turn, “lead to self-criticism, and self-criti‐ cism opens the door to improvement”. We can thus see Mossop’s distinction be‐ tween different kinds of theory as another explanation of why a gap is perceived to exist and as something that does not contradict but rather complements Arro‐ jo’s view. There seems to be a certain denial among some practitioners, students and even scholars that, just as in other disciplines, there is not only an “applied” branch of TS, but also a “pure” branch - a distinction that was already made in Holmes’ (1972 / 1988a) seminal outline of the field of translation studies. The “pure” branch is interested in furthering the knowledge and understanding of translation in general, i.e., in doing basic research, both theoretically and descrip‐ tively and regardless of its usefulness for translation practice. The “pure” branch, which includes both theoretical and descriptive translation studies, is interested in furthering the knowledge and understanding of translation in general by doing basic research, regardless of its usefulness for translation practice. Thus, in his seminal work Descriptive translation studies and beyond, Toury (1995) takes a dif‐ ferent view, suggesting that translation theory has been subservient to practice for too long. He (1995: 2) points out that with practical applicability having been taken as the “very raison d’être” of a theory of translation, theory formation had been constrained for a long time and the “overriding orientation towards practical ap‐ plications” since the sixties necessarily resulted in a prescriptive approach in translation studies, instead of a descriptive and explanatory one. It should be noted that in the case of descriptive studies, there is per se a strong relation between theory and practice, since it is practice that informs research through the transla‐ tion products or processes that are studied. And, as Toury (1995: 15) suggests, the 101 4.1 The Role of Translation Theory <?page no="102"?> results of such “descriptive-explanatory studies” should, in turn, contribute to theory formation in that they can either verify or falsify existing hypotheses and/ or theories and lead to new ones. In the end, even if both descriptive and theoret‐ ical research might not aim at practical applicability, the understanding gained through such research might turn out to be useful in practice. This seems to be generally accepted in the case of descriptive studies but much less so in the case of theoretical research, as van Doorslaer (2013: 79) points out: “research can be theory-driven or data-driven, and it is not strange that practitioners are mainly, if not exclusively interested in the latter”. Although van Doorslaer does not provide any evidence for his claim, Wagner’s suggestions for useful research clearly point in this very direction (Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 20/ 36/ 76/ 112/ 117). The role of translation theory is, then, far from clear, with opinions diverging as to whether or not it should aim at practical utility. A different, although related matter, is whether theory in the form in which it exists today is useful for the student and/ or practitioner. 4.2 Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory Scholars with both anti-essentialist and essentialist standpoints have made var‐ ious claims about the way in which theory can have an impact. These claims can be subsumed under three different headings, ranging from a macroto a micro-level, i.e., from (1) the impact on society and the status of the translation profession within that society to (2) the impact on translation didactics as a discipline to (3) the effect of explicit theoretical knowledge on the translation competence of the individual student (Gile 2010; van Doorslaer 2013). In the following, we will discuss these three possible impacts in turn. 4.2.1 Social Impact and Status It is generally acknowledged (e.g., Pym 2005: 4-5; Gile 2010: 257-259; van Door‐ slaer 2013: 80) that translation theory has had a considerable impact on how the profession is seen in society at large, i.e., on the status of the profession. This impact is certainly not a direct one since, as Gile (2010: 251) rightly points out, society at large is generally not aware that such a thing as translation theory exists. However, the emergence of a theory of translation has made possible the recognition of translation studies as an academic field in its own right, which, in turn, has contributed considerably to the standing of translation within aca‐ demia. It is this academic standing that has helped raise the status of the pro‐ 102 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="103"?> 6 As quoted in Pym (2006: 8): “Professor Scarpa says, ‘Unlike Pym (2005: 6), I believe that all theories can indeed be expected to be of direct use to trainees and better theories are not necessarily those developed via professional knowledge.’” fessional translator, mainly because “[i]n modern knowledge-based societies, academic degrees, theoretical reflection and scholarly production raise the status of and the respect for practical activity” (van Doorslaer 2013: 80). Conse‐ quently, as van Doorslaer (2013: 80) goes on to point out, reducing translation theory to the part that is “useful” for practitioners - i.e., to guidelines, strategies and the like - would be detrimental to the status of the translation profession. This belief that translation theory influences first of all the translation pro‐ fession’s social prestige is in line with the anti-essentialist view of theory pre‐ sented above and is supported by a number of scholars, but possibly by none more vehemently (and polemically) than by Anthony Pym. Thus, in his sum‐ mary of recurrent naiveties about training translators (2005), he positions him‐ self very clearly regarding the frequently held belief that theory should help trainees: […] there is something wrong with the idea that theories should be there to help people learn how to be translators. […] A lot of theorizing is just there to protect academic fiefdoms. It helps gain institutional power. […] Without it, we would be back to me‐ dieval apprenticeships. (Pym 2005: 4-5) From this statement, it appears that Pym believes that social recognition and status are the main, or even the only, impact of translation theory. Since his essay has provoked a critical response from Scarpa (2006), who clearly holds an essentialist view of translation 6 , Pym points out in a subsequent response to this critique that his statement was merely intended as an argument against con‐ sidering all theories to be useless (presumably, if no direct impact is discernible) and that “there are several devious ways of being useful” (2006: 8). Pym has repeatedly reaffirmed his conviction that training in translation theory probably does not lead to any enhancement of practical translation skills, which is why he would prefer to leave it for the PhD level (e.g., 2006: 8, 2011b: 480). It should be pointed out, however, that Pym’s position is not crystal clear. When discus‐ sing the role of theory in translator training in Pym (2003), he points out that theories could indeed help translators to come up with and select among po‐ tential translations, which, in his view (2003: 492-493), provides a rationale for “teaching translation theories as such”. In the same vein, in the introduction to his course book on translation theories, he claims that the knowledge of theories probably does not make translators “work better” before going on to suggest various ways in which theories might help nevertheless. This example shows 103 4.2 Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory <?page no="104"?> that, as always, it is difficult to place researchers’ opinions into categories since not only the categories’ boundaries might be fuzzy but also the researchers’ standpoints may change. It is for this reason that, while pointing out certain researchers’ positions in what follows, the following discussion will be mainly oriented along the lines of single propositions. This means that it is very possible that one and the same researcher will appear in more than one area of translation theory “impact”. This is why, for example, Pym will be referred to again when we discuss the impact of theories on an individual’s translation competence (4.2.3). While it is undisputed that the emergence of a theory of translation has had an effect on the status of the profession by according it an academic status, we might ask whether there has also been a change of view concerning the pro‐ fession itself. To this end, let us briefly consider Kußmaul’s account of a con‐ ference held in 1984 at the University of Mainz (Germersheim), which was at‐ tended by academics, heads of language departments as well as members of the German professional association of translators (BDÜ). As Kußmaul points out, translation competence was not an issue at that time. The commonly held belief was that everyone with a perfect command of at least two languages plus knowledge in a certain domain could translate (see also 2.3.1). Has this view changed over the last decades - at least for those involved in the translation market - thanks to the influence of theoretical reflection on translation com‐ petence? This would certainly be an important step in cementing the status of the profession, especially since the title of “translator” is generally not protected (see e.g., Pym et al. 2012: 20 for the European Comission). However, this does not seem to be the case as can be seen from the criteria for applying as a trans‐ lator in the EU, one of the largest employers of translators worldwide. The formal requirements still comprise first of all language skills and a completed three-year university-level course, which need not have a linguistic orientation but can be in any field (EU-DG Translation 2016). It has to be pointed out, how‐ ever, that these are only the prerequisites for participation in a test which in‐ cludes actual translation tasks. A similar trend was observed in a study of the status of translators in the EU made by Pym et al. (2012) for the European Com‐ mission. From both a review of the literature and their own research, they con‐ clude that similar practices to those of the EU govern the employment of trans‐ lators in intergovernmental institutions as well as national governments (2012: 21-23). In translation agencies, on the contrary, a degree in translation seems to be valued, albeit experience and/ or recruitment tests still count more than a university degree (2012: 92). This situation makes it somewhat difficult to conclude that the value of translation competence due to theoretical consider‐ 104 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="105"?> ations in translation studies has increased. It is, however, certainly not open to debate that theory is a prerequisite for the academic status that translation has today. From this, it follows that theory needs to be included in any univer‐ sity-based training program. Certainly, going “back to medieval apprentice‐ ships”, to quote Pym (2005: 4-5), would not be in anyone’s interest. The social impact of translation theory is thus something on which both those with an essentialist and those with an anti-essentialist view of translation are most likely to agree. 4.2.2 Impact on Translation Didactics Scholars reviewing the impact of translation theory also mention that it has considerably influenced the teaching of translation (Gile 2010: 255-257; van Doorslaer 2013: 81-82). Translation didactics has, in fact, played a major role in theoretical considerations from the very beginning of the discipline. Since many of the scholars involved with translation theory are teaching translation them‐ selves, it is not surprising that translation didactics is often central to their re‐ search. Thus, as early as 1978, Holmes claimed that “many of the theories of translation that we have had up to now, while pretending to be theories of the translation process, are in fact theories for translation didactics. They are giving us material to train translators” (1978 / 1988b: 95). He then went on to claim that any viable “theory of translation didactics”, which would necessarily be pre‐ scriptive or normative to some extent, needed to be preceded by descriptive studies of the phenomenon of translation as a whole, i.e., the process, product and function of translation. “It seems to me”, he wrote, “that before we can know how to train translators, we have to know what takes place in the translation process and we have to know what translated texts are”. Today, almost forty years since that statement was made, we can certainly affirm that TS has come a long way in studying these aspects of translation, albeit in many occasions with an ultimate didactic purpose in mind (e.g., PACTE 2003: 61; Göpferich 2009c: 87). If translation theory has an impact on translation didactics, this is certainly not only due to the explicit teaching of theory, but also because it influences training methods in general. Thus, the “interpretive theory” of translation (Se‐ leskovitch & Lederer 1984), which portrays the translation process as including a stage of deverbalization in which meaning is separated from the ST wording, 105 4.2 Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory <?page no="106"?> 7 École Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs at the Université Sorbonne Nouvelle / Paris 3. has influenced the ESIT’s 7 curriculum for conference interpreting in favor of consecutive versus simultaneous interpreting during the first year of training (reported in Gile 2010: 255). Similarly, the influence of functionalism (see 1.3) is visible in the practical translation classes in which a translation brief is used. Thus, the influence of translation theory exceeds its explicit inclusion in cur‐ ricula and has also had subtler effects on translator training. There is some agreement that, at university level at least, all teaching should have a theoretical basis (Bastin & Betancourt 2005: 213; Delisle 2005: 108). As a result, theoretical knowledge is essential for those who teach translation. By giving the lecturer a broader view of the phenomenon of translation and a deeper understanding of the underlying cognitive processes, Moser-Mercer (1996: 201 quoted in Lederer 2007: 32), for example, believes that theory guarantees a more reflective and less prescriptive approach in the translation classroom. Bastin & Betancourt (2005: 213) suggest that theoretical knowledge avoids the often criticized random selection of translation tasks and helps train more open-minded and flexible translators. While these and other effects of translation theory on translation didactics have been claimed to exist, their impact has so far not been proven empirically. As Gile (2010: 255) rightly points out, “TS lacks a solid empirical research basis to show that training methods based on certain Translation theories are more efficient than methods based on other theories, or even that certain training methods are more efficient than others regardless of the existence of underlying theories.” (Gile 2010: 255) 4.2.3 Impact on the Individual’s Translation Competence This lack of empirical research extends to the impact that the explicit teaching of theory can have on the acquisition of translation competence by individual students. This, however, has not prevented TS scholars from claiming that teaching translation theory and/ or linguistics benefits students in multiple ways. These claims have been largely made on the basis of the authors’ personal beliefs and/ or experiences and in some cases on the anecdotal reports of learners. Despite the substantial number of publications on this subject, however, the lack of empirical research on the contribution of theory to the development of trans‐ lation competence has only rarely been pointed out (e.g., Gile 2010: 257; Pym 2010: 4). 106 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="107"?> It is sometimes suggested that theoretical reflection raises the students’ awareness about different aspects of translation and about the translation process, that it induces critical thinking and provides a general education (e.g., Chesterman 1998: 6; Shuttleworth 2001: 505; Mossop 2004: 375). This kind of “ed‐ ucation” is opposed to “training”, which is understood to be practice-oriented and to resemble most closely the working conditions of professional translators in their workplaces (e.g., Bernardini 2004). This has led to a debate as to whether, at university, students should be prepared for market demands in the first place or whether they should benefit from a broad general education instead. In order to illustrate the “education” side of this argument, let us briefly examine Mos‐ sop’s position, which he has affirmed and reaffirmed several times (Mossop 1994, 2003, 2004, 2005). In his view, university-based translation schools are respon‐ sible, first of all, for providing education as well as for transmitting general abilities such as text interpretation, revision and research skills, and the ability to produce “a coherent, readable and audience-tailored draft translation” (2003: 20). He believes that the role of theoretical courses in this kind of education is more than mere translation methodology: “I believe (but cannot prove) that methods are not enough. If we want the average translator of tomorrow to be as good as the better translator of today […] then students need to stand back and think about the implications of using a particular method, and about conflicting prescriptions for how to translate.” (Mossop 1994: 403) The main aim of theoretical courses is thus to make students better translators - not by applying theoretical guidelines directly but rather by “disturb[ing] their ideas about translation and mak[ing] them think about what translators do” (1994: 401). Theoretical courses should thus not merely confirm practice but rather question it, induce some doubt and reflection about the nature of trans‐ lation and about what it can actually achieve. Mossop (1994: 408), for example, believes that theoretically trained translators are aware that translation can never be a neutral, objective “technique for ‘getting messages across’” and will therefore not contribute to promoting this received idea about translation. He also places a certain importance on theoretical courses, especially courses on translation history, for making students understand the role of the translator through time and helping them to position themselves within today’s society. He believes this kind of knowledge will help to “make the difference between a thinking translator and a mere word engineer” (2003: 21). All in all, Mossop ar‐ gues quite openly against the kind of translator training that resembles the real world of professional translators (i.e., training in software localization, gaining skills in using current translation software, translating for imagined clients, etc.) 107 4.2 Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory <?page no="108"?> and in favor of producing educated, “thinking” translators who have the general abilities that allow them to learn all the skills they may require in their actual job by themselves. Awareness-raising and the resulting self-criticism are thus the means by which Mossop believes that improvement in translation skills can ultimately be achieved (e.g., in Durban et al. 2003, 2005: 24). A similar position is held by Bernardini (2004), who also insists that the most important part of a translation curriculum is “education” and that learning to translate is in no way similar to learning to drive a car, i.e., it cannot be acquired through practice alone and thus “training” translators is not sufficient. Ac‐ cording to Bernardini, the main aims of translation education must be for stu‐ dents to develop awareness, reflectiveness and resourcefulness, i.e., a profes‐ sional self-image, critical thinking, flexibility as well as an ability to acquire new capabilities autonomously (2004: 19-22). Although Bernardini does not explic‐ itly mention theoretical courses, it is clear that she has something other than practical classes in mind when she opposes the view that “training” alone is enough to produce professional translators and that this reduced form of training would not affect the quality of the translator’s work (2004: 22). She claims that a reductionist view of translation underlies this assumption and suggests, on the contrary, that “translators can do without training but not without education” (2004: 27). Both Mossop and Bernardini illustrate the claim that the focus of a translation curriculum should not be on practice and therefore implicitly reaffirm the well-known quotation by Hönig (2011): “Übersetzen lernt man nicht durch Über‐ setzen” (You do not learn how to translate by translating). Instead, they believe that the main aim of a translation curriculum is to raise awareness, induce crit‐ ical thinking, provide students with the opportunity to develop a professional image of the translators’ role and foster general abilities that will allow students to learn the required skills autonomously. They also express, more or less openly, their belief that this goal can best be achieved by confronting students with theoretical concepts. Many other scholars make similar claims. Some believe, for instance, that it is important for students to be aware of how the translation process works and what translators actually do (Larose 1985: 406; Chesterman 1998: 6; Adab 2000: 220), while others highlight the idea that theories can benefit students in developing a more flexible conception of translation. Drawing on Toury (1995: 15), Boase-Beier (2010: 27), for example, draws attention to the fact that “theories are partial, descriptive, and represent different ways of seeing”, which “should enable us to free ourselves from naïve conceptions of what trans‐ lation is”. She further argues that, while theories are not there to prescribe practice, a more flexible conception of translation will influence practice nev‐ 108 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="109"?> ertheless. One aspect of this flexibility is certainly the awareness that there are different types of translation, as has been pointed out by Kvam (1996: 123), for example. To highlight the role of translation theory as a conceptual tool, Delisle (2005: 116-117) uses the metaphor of a road map that “does not tell you where to go but shows you the different possibilities you have”. Similarly, it has been frequently pointed out that rather than merely imparting knowledge, theoretical reflection enhances analytical skills and allows students to reflect on their own practice (e.g., Shuttleworth 2001: 505; Schäffner 2005: 244-245; Kearns 2008: 208- 209). Besides this awareness-raising impact of theory, it is also claimed that theoretical training enables students to develop more self-confidence (e.g., Snel Trampus 2002: 38; Calzada Pérez 2005: 6; Leppihalme 2008: 62). Last but not least, theories are believed to have an impact by giving students an idea of the trans‐ lator’s role and of translation ethics (Chesterman 1998: 6; Aubin 2003: 444; Mossop 2003: 21). A second benefit of theoretical knowledge - and one that is repeatedly high‐ lighted in the literature - is that it provides translators with a basis for discussing their solutions with critics and clients and more importantly still, for justifying those solutions if need be. Accordingly, it has been labeled a “necessary part of the translator’s defensive armor against attacks from the uncomprehending” (Robinson 2003: 170), and scholars such as Adab (2000: 220), van Vaerenbergh (2005: 24), Scarpa (quoted in Pym 2006: 8) and Pym (2010: 4) all mention the ability to defend one’s choices as being an advantage that theory brings to the indi‐ vidual. Closely related to this advantage is the coining of a meta-language that allows those with theoretical knowledge to talk about translation. This has been mentioned, for example, by Wagner, who has a rather critical view of translation theory in general (see above), as one of the few positive impacts she could find in the theories presented to her by Chesterman (Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 11). Bartrina (2005: 187) and Mossop (2004: 375) likewise point out that a common set of technical terms is the basis for any discussion or justification of translation choices. While the above-mentioned effects of theoretical instruction on the devel‐ opment of translation competence are rather indirect and influence a transla‐ tor’s ability to theorize, his or her concept of translation and his or her self-con‐ fidence, a more direct influence on the translation process and the quality of the resulting translation has also been suggested. One aspect that is frequently mentioned in this connection concerns the students’ ability to make informed decisions and solve translation problems. Thus, both Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 168) and Chesterman (1998: 6; Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 7) believe that knowledge about theories provides translators with “mental schemas” or “conceptual tools” 109 4.2 Theoretical Reflections on the Impact of Theory <?page no="110"?> that help them to solve different kinds of translation problems and, according to Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 168), to “find more appropriate solutions to the functional requirements of a translation task”. This view is shared, among others, by Reiß (1986: 3), Bartrina (2005: 178) and van Vaerenbergh (2005: 24). In a similar vein, some have suggested that theoretical knowledge contributes to translation com‐ petence by replacing intuition in translation with consciousness and thus al‐ tering the translation process in a way that leads to a more consistent translation quality (e.g., Viaggio 1994: 104; Delisle 2005: 112; Kussmaul 2009: 66). Kumpu‐ lainen (2016: 196) thus assumes that theoretical training contributes to improve students’ “interlingual text production skills”, especially their ability to monitor the emerging translation for any negative transfer from the ST. She attributes this effect to the awareness that “TT structure does not have to be identical to the ST structure”, which she believes makes students more courageous when it comes to deviate from the ST structure. Speaking of the influence of theories on the actual product of translation, Bayer-Hohenwarter (2012: 310-311) seems convinced that it is a knowledge of functionalist theories that makes translators translate less literally. Similarly, Latyšev (2004: 641) suggests that theoretical knowledge is necessary in order to find acceptable solutions. Those who have not been theoretically trained, he claims, translate either too literally or too freely, adapt too much or not enough and provide formal equivalents instead of functional ones. There is thus a widespread belief among translation scholars that theoretical knowledge does, in fact, contribute to translation competence and that it has a very positive influence on problem solving processes and, in the end, on the quality of the translation produced. Last but not least, it is claimed that theoretical reflection speeds up the learning process and thus the acquisition of translation competence (e.g., Aubin 2003: 444; Neunzig 2009: 183). Cruces Colado (2005: 194), for example, points out that practice alone is not sufficient for deducing the rules underlying the trans‐ lation process - if students had to deduce these rules on their own, their learning process would be slowed down considerably. Referring to his Theory2, i.e., to a “summary of the practice of experienced translators”, Mossop (2005: 23), too, assumes that the knowledge gained through experience can be passed on to learners and thus save them the time they would otherwise require to have that experience first-hand. In conclusion, we can say that multiple claims about the benefits of translation theory have been made over the past decades and positive results have been reported, not only by researchers/ lecturers themselves but also by students. Thus, Whitfield (2003: 436) reports that graduates have contacted her and af‐ firmed that theoretical concepts are useful for their everyday work. Similarly, 110 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="111"?> Gile’s students (2010: 256) have the impression that theories have changed their concept of translation or even the way they translate, that they have felt reas‐ sured and turned to theories to make rational decisions. However, this feedback on the impact of translation theories is purely anecdotal and could certainly be opposed by reports of students who do not feel that theory has helped them in acquiring translation competence. Over the last few years, this question has sparked a certain amount of empirical research regarding the opinions of those affected by translation curricula, i.e., students, professionals and translation agencies. In the following section, we will present some of the largest and most comprehensive empirical studies in this area. 4.3 Students’ and Practitioners’ Opinion on Theory One of the few large studies is Katan’s (2009) international survey of about 1000 translators. He set out to explore the gap that is frequently perceived to exist between translation theory and professional translation practice. One of the questions he investigated was whether TS scholars’ conviction that theories can support the translator in his or her practical work is shared by professional translators. To this end, he let his informants decide which subjects they believed to be the most important in a translation curriculum. He devised a list of 12 subjects which his informants rated according to their importance. These sub‐ jects included practical and theoretical courses on translation and related fields (i.e., corpus linguistics), domain-specific classes as well as courses enhancing general and cultural knowledge. When analyzing which courses are considered to be most important, Katan (2009: 143-144) found that practical translation classes are among the “most important” subjects to a much larger extent than any other kind of course. They are followed by courses on domain knowledge and contrastive grammar. Katan (2009: 144) observed that the decisive criterion in selecting the most important subjects seems to be their “immediate spenda‐ bility”, i.e., their usefulness to generate translation solutions at the wordor sentence-level during translation. Consequently, subjects that correspond more to scholarly interest, such as the translation profession itself, ethics, translation theory and corpus linguistics, all come further down the list. Of the 12 subjects, translation theory proper ranks eighth since it is considered to be “most impor‐ tant” by only a minority of respondents. Even more telling are Katan’s (2009: 145-146) separate analyses of respondents with university training - and therefore presumably with some training in (translation) theories - and those without a translation degree. Here, there is a considerable difference regarding 111 4.3 Students’ and Practitioners’ Opinion on Theory <?page no="112"?> the importance attached to translation theory. While a majority of univer‐ sity-trained informants consider translation theory to be the least “useful” sub‐ ject of all, non-university-trained respondents consider it “important”, ranking it seventh. His study thus shows that the negative attitude towards theory is not general. Instead, theory is considered to be important by those who have no experience with theories. It seems that the frequently discussed negative attitude towards theories is acquired only when the translators are introduced to theo‐ retical concepts. Katan (2009: 146) concludes from his study that “potentially, there is interest [in theories], but that the universities have yet to deliver”. Sim‐ ilar evidence comes from surveys which have found that students are in favor of theoretical training before actually having attended theoretical courses (Ki‐ zeweter 2010: 84-85; Kamenická 2011: 128). Reporting students’ opinions of translation theories at the beginning and the end of a theoretical translation course, Shih (2011), observes, in the same vein, that her students perceive translation theories to be first of all a tool that can be employed and thus help to produce “better” translations. This view of theory as a set of guidelines, rules and methods did not change as a result of the course. Thus, Shih (2011: 318) concludes that students consider a theory’s applicability to be the prerequisite for its usefulness - a conclusion that is reminiscent not only of Wagner’s point of view cited above (Chesterman & Wagner 2002: 4) but also of Katan’s (2009: 144) conclusion that what counts for the practitioner is a course’s immediate spendability. Similar findings have been reported by Kame‐ nická (2011: 131), whose students expressed a desire that theories be applicable to practice and thus especially for prescriptive guidelines. Shih (2011: 319) sug‐ gests that this (mis-)understanding of the aim of translation theories might be due to the frequently applied method of having students comment on their practical translations. This form of translation commentary has been designed to raise students’ awareness of the translation process and allow for an evalu‐ ation that is not exclusively based on the final translation product. However, as Shih (2011: 319) remarks, at university level it is expected that students not only describe their processes and justify their translations but that they also do so in the light of translation theories. Thus, she concludes, it is likely that only the‐ ories that are applicable in such a context are considered to be useful. While this might be a contributing factor for university students, I do not believe that it is a reason for viewing theory as a “tool”. Rather, this view might be more generally held among practitioners and especially among those who have not studied theories themselves and thus could explain why those not trained in theory believe it to be important for practical translation, as both Katan (2011) and Kizeweter (2010) have reported. 112 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="113"?> 8 Thus, Mossop argues in a round table that the classroom should not reflect the work‐ place but rather “be used for reflection on the problems and methods of translation” (Durban et al. 2003). Other evidence comes from a series of surveys by Li (2000, 2002, 2007) in which he collected the opinions of professional translators, translation students and administrators of translation services respectively. His surveys are region‐ ally limited to Hong Kong; nevertheless they paint an interesting picture that might be similar in other contexts. The professional translators in his first survey, when asked whether translator training reflected the professional re‐ ality, expressed skepticism, with a majority indicating that their studies had “somewhat” reflected their professional reality (2000: 136-137). The main dif‐ ferences they perceived were “context versus teamwork, time constraint versus translation procedures, and complete translation versus selective translation”. In other words, they were trained to translate entire texts on their own. This allowed them to understand the complete context of the passages they trans‐ lated. In their professional reality, however, they frequently translate only con‐ textless bits and pieces of texts because these texts are divided among a number of translators in order to meet tight deadlines. In their professional life, they are also required to perform tasks such as summarizing translations and revision (2000: 137-138) that are not usually trained in universities. This list of differences clearly shows that even if translation “practice” is provided in the curriculum, it might not always reflect what is really required of professional translators. As a consequence, Li (2000: 144) urges that more authentic practical training be included in translation curricula, a proposal that has been frequently made be‐ fore but is not uncontested. 8 When translators were asked what their most useful courses at university had been, the five most frequently mentioned courses were all clearly related to language (English and Chinese language and literature) and practical translation (specialized translation, interpreting, translation projects). Only then came linguistics, which 19 % of the respondents said had been helpful, and translation theory (14 %). For comparison: English and Chinese were men‐ tioned by 90 % and 85 % respectively (2000: 132). Although not presenting the actual numbers, Li (2000: 139) mentions that there were also professionals who considered theory to be one of the least helpful courses and concludes that this might be caused by differences in how theory is taught at different universities. In his second study, Li (2002) focused on students in translator training pro‐ grams. When he asked them for their opinions regarding theory and practice and especially about the optimal relationship between the two, he found that a majority of 63 % wanted practice to be the only focus of their studies. Only 37 % of the students wanted their studies to include both practice and theory 113 4.3 Students’ and Practitioners’ Opinion on Theory <?page no="114"?> (2002: 520). When students were asked what they believed to be the most and the least helpful courses for their future profession, it was obvious that, once more, the most helpful subjects relate to interpreting and specialized translation, while the least helpful course list was headed by rather theoretical subjects such as “history of translation”, “principles of translation” and “culture and transla‐ tion”. Translation theory proper was mentioned by some as most helpful (6 %) and by some as least helpful (7 %) (2002: 520-521). Furthermore, only a third of the students believed that their curriculum reflected professional reality ade‐ quately or well. A large majority believed, however, that it did not reflect trans‐ lation reality well or even at all. Li concluded from his survey that students take a rather pragmatic approach to translation, considering it a craft rather than a science, and therefore requiring practice rather than in-depth study. Students also mentioned difficulties in applying theory to practice, even when they un‐ derstood theoretical concepts (2002: 526). In light of the present study, it is par‐ ticularly interesting that some students also explicitly mentioned when and how they believe that teaching theory would be helpful. They argued that theory should be taught rather late in the curriculum, after a certain amount of practical experience had been gained. Furthermore, according to the students, not too much time should be devoted to theory (not more than 20 % - 30 %), and it should not be taught in separate courses but in courses that combine theory and practice (2002: 526-527). In his third enquiry, Li (2007) interviewed administrators at translation agen‐ cies to determine whether university graduates fulfilled market demands. The aspects that administrators felt should be strengthened in training were mainly English language skills, specialized translation and research competence (2007: 115). When asked for their opinion about translation theory, a large ma‐ jority agreed that it should be included in curricula (2007: 116). When not ex‐ plicitly asked about theoretical subjects, however, none mentioned theory as a field to be strengthened. The reasons they gave for the importance of translation theory were, for example, that theory provides arguments for discussions with clients but also helps translators to improve their skills over the long-term (2007: 123-124). However, only one-fifth of administrators believed that a degree in translation was a prerequisite for employment as a translator (2007: 120). Summarizing the findings of his three studies, Li (2007: 125-126) concludes that translation skills, language competence and domain knowledge need to be strengthened in translator training. These suggestions strongly resemble meas‐ ures that have been implemented in vocational training programs for a long time (see 5.1.3.1 for an example). Concerning theory, he concludes that it “should still stay in translation curricula, though better methods need to be devised for ef‐ 114 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="115"?> fective learning and application”. This need has since been recognized in trans‐ lation didactics and has led to myriad proposals on ways to teach translation in general and translation theory in particular (see 4.4.1). A recent study comes to quite different conclusions, however. In a survey of 928 students from the undergraduate to the PhD level at four different Spanish universities, Ordóñez-López & Agost (2015) set out to investigate student opin‐ ions regarding theoretical courses, which in the Spanish context are “relegated to a secondary, even marginal, position within the study programmes” (2015: 324). From this survey, they conclude that students consider theoretical classes to be a useful part of their curriculum, that they would prefer to have rather more than the six ECTS of theoretical classes that they generally have at the participating universities and that they would prefer the theoretical classes to be given in the early semesters of their studies and as compulsory subjects rather than optional subjects (2015: 340). This response largely contradicts the hypotheses that Ordóñez-López & Agost (2015: 328) had drawn up prior to their survey, which is probably why they present their results as “surprising insights into students’ conception of translation and translation theory” (2015: 340). However, before concluding that the survey’s results constitute groundbreaking evidence against the firmly held view that students do not appreciate theoretical classes, a closer look at Ordóñez-López & Agost data is called for. First of all, and most importantly, their study is designed in such a way as to combine stu‐ dents who have already attended theoretical classes and students who have not (2015: 330-331). Furthermore, at the four participating universities, theoretical classes are started at different points in the curriculum. It is therefore impos‐ sible - at least from the data presented in the article - to separate the potential expectations of those that have not yet studied translation theory from the actual views of those who have attended theoretical classes. From the data, it emerges, however, that among students in their first semester, i.e., students who had not yet received instruction in translation theory at any of the participating insti‐ tutions, a majority considered theoretical subjects to be essential in translator training. From the second year onwards, more students considered it “advisable” rather than “essential” to study translation theory. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that only a few of the students surveyed were “indifferent” to the matter, and even fewer believed translation theory to be “unnecessary”, which is indeed a more positive result concerning the teaching of theory than in some of the other surveys discussed above. However, the conclusion drawn by Or‐ dóñez-López & Agost that students would like “more theory” is overoptimistic. From the data published in the article (2015: 332), it appears that a clear majority prefers “up to six” ECTS rather than more than six ECTS. This seems to indicate 115 4.3 Students’ and Practitioners’ Opinion on Theory <?page no="116"?> that the majority would not like more courses than are already included in the curricula. Furthermore, the students were not given the opportunity to opt for “less than six ECTS”, which makes the conclusion drawn by Ordóñez-López & Agost even more questionable. When asked what skills the students think they should acquire in theoretical courses, the study confirms earlier findings since what counts, in the students’ opinion, is applicability to practical translation. Thus, most students thought that theoretical classes should deal with translation problems and solutions, followed by knowledge of the profession and develop‐ ment of the discipline (2015: 335). All in all, the study may indicate, then, that the opinion of Spanish students regarding theory is not very different from that found in other studies. However, one would have to analyze the data provided by subjects who had already attended theoretical classes at the time of data collection separately from the data provided by those who had not to come to a definite conclusion. The above-cited studies have shown that practitioners and students are divided in their opinions as to the usefulness of translation theory. Students, in particular, tend to see few benefits in theoretical classes. However, those who have not (yet) studied translation theory tend to assess its relevance for practical translation higher. This seems to corroborate the hypothesis that there are cer‐ tain expectations among those who do not know much about theory. These expectations might turn into a feeling of deception, however, if the practical relevance of the theories studied does not become clear. This perceived decep‐ tion is such that many students in Li’s (2002: 520) survey would gladly ban translation theory from the curriculum altogether and mention more vocation‐ ally-oriented curricula as “good examples”. It is frequently concluded from these studies that the gap between theory and practice should be reduced, i.e., that translation theory (teaching) should become more practice-relevant (e.g., Li 2002: 526-527; Katan 2009: 150; Sun 2014: 183). 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory 4.4.1 Implementing Theory in the Translation Curriculum As we have seen above, translation theory is believed to have a wide array of effects on the development of translation competence. It goes without saying, however, that the notion of “teaching theory” is fairly unspecific and can vary greatly in terms of actual course content and the form of teaching. A few sug‐ gestions outlining courses in “translation theory” are available in the literature 116 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="117"?> (e.g., Fawcett 1981; Gile 1992; Ingo 1992; Chesterman 1998; Shuttleworth 2001; Bartrina 2005). Many of these suggestions fail, however, to take into account more recent developments in translation studies. Therefore, the focus here will be not so much on actual course content, but on general questions regarding the teaching of theory - questions such as when and how a course on the theoretical aspects of translation should be included in the curriculum. These suggestions have not been empirically tested but reflect the beliefs of individual scholars as well as their individual teaching experience. And, again, the beliefs about how best to teach translation theory vary greatly. Lederer (2007), for example, argues from a rather essentialist standpoint when she suggests that beginning students of professional translation (as compared to research-oriented translation studies) should be confronted with one theory only. In her view, teaching more than one theory “ignores the fact that the aim of training courses is to avoid would-be translators having to learn slowly by trial and error […] and to offer them shortcuts to competence” (2007: 18). Quite the opposite, although not less essentialist, view is held by Calzada Pérez (2005: 8), among others: she considers it crucial to teach students how to “pro‐ duce a variety of translations based on different theories of translations”. For her, this means that one should basically “translate according to different the‐ oretical angles” since she does not claim that translation theory has to be taught overtly. She believes that students would then be able to select the appropriate theoretical angle for a certain translation segment on the basis of these different viewpoints. She vehemently opposes the strategy of teaching only one selected theory or paradigm, as suggested by Lederer. This, she believes, would not only narrow the students’ view of translation and deprive them of viable options for translation. It might also contribute to misunderstandings with other translators who see translation from a different theoretical standpoint than their own (e.g., an equivalence-oriented versus a functional view of translation). Other scholars have expressed views similar to those of Calzada Pérez, highlighting the need for students to learn about different concepts of translation (e.g., Shuttleworth 2001: 499; Pym 2010: 4; Cnyrim et al. 2013: 10). Leppihalme (2008: 59) situates herself in between these two aforementioned beliefs, arguing that teachers of translation should develop an individual “ho‐ listic approach to translation” that they feel is useful for their students. Most likely, this will be an amalgamation of many different theories suggested in the literature. She thus does not believe in “presenting as many theories as possible”, but seems to suggest that basically one theory - the lecturer’s - should be taught, although the teacher should also point out where the different components of his or her approach to translation come from. It should be emphasized, however, 117 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="118"?> that Leppihalme is referring to a practical course, not one focusing specifically on theory. Another aspect that has been raised regarding the inclusion of theory in translator training concerns the best moment for introducing theoretical and practical courses, respectively. Here, the main question is which of the two should come first (Alves 2005: n.p.; Pezza Cintr-o 2010: 169). Thus, some authors, such as Hönig (1988 / 2011: 64), for example, argue that it is preferable to start translator education with theoretical training. Hönig justifies this approach by the fact that students come to translator training institutes with an inadequate concept of translation - a concept that has been fostered by language-oriented translation exercises in school. In order to replace this view of translation with a more communicative one, he believes that students should not have practical training at the beginning of their studies. Rather they should be confronted by concepts and methodology. In the same vein, Nord (2009: 174) proposes starting translator training with a theoretical course in order to lay the foundations of a “passive translation competence” before beginning work on actual translation tasks. Others suggest a less strict temporal division between theoretical and practical training, emphasizing rather the integration of both theory and prac‐ tice, while still arguing for theoretical input right from the beginning of the curriculum (e.g., Chesterman 2000: 80-81; Schäffner 2000: 148-149; Latyšev 2004: 645). The idea behind these suggestions is that theoretical input is the basis for translation competence and therefore an important part from the very be‐ ginning of translator training. The opposite view, which suggests that students should be given the opportunity to acquire practical translation skills before being confronted by theoretical considerations, can also be found among TS scholars, however. Hurtado Albir, for example, has repeatedly pointed out that translating is first of all a very practical procedure that is clearly separated from translation theory. She is thus convinced that the translator needs to be neither a “translation scholar” (traductólogo) nor a linguist (1996b: 151). Consequently, she advocates a competence-based translator training curriculum that consists of “unit[s] of work in the classroom, representative of translation practice, for‐ mally directed towards learning how to translate and designed with a specific objective, structure and sequence” (2007: 175). In her task-based, practice-ori‐ ented approach to translation training, the explicit teaching of theory does not play any role at all (e.g., 1996a, 1999, 2007, 2008). This clearly shows that she does not consider theory to be a prerequisite for learning to translate. While she takes into account the institutional reality that requires courses on translation theory, she considers theoretical readings to belong to a separate course later in the curriculum (1996a: 37). Referring to the distinction between declarative and 118 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="119"?> 9 Such courses may aim, for example, at training students to cope with cultural references (González Davies & Scott-Tennent 2005; Scott-Tennent & González Davies 2008) or transmit a range of translation strategies for problem-solving (Scott-Tennent et al. 2000; González Davies et al. 2001; Pym & Torres-Simón 2015). Studies in which information on course content is missing are also exempted from this overview, e.g., Malkiel (2006). procedural knowledge, Alves (2005) also believes that “translator’s training should be procedural in an initial phase”. However, he argues for the close in‐ tegration of more practicallyand more theoretically-oriented content in trans‐ lator training and places considerable emphasis on meta-reflection. This is why he believes that theoretical courses should quickly be added in order to achieve synergy effects, which raises the question, in turn, as to when theory should best be integrated into translation curricula. On the one hand, if theory is taught at a later stage in the curriculum, students benefit from already having some practical experience on which they can critically reflect. On the other hand, an early introduction to theory might help foster a communicative approach early on, which could help to make students consciously aware of the requirements that a specific translation has to fulfill - an aim of translator training that has been emphasized by Göpferich (2010a: 193), among others. 4.4.2 Empirical Evidence on the Impact of Teaching Theory Research on the actual impact of theory on translation competence and on when to best introduce it into the curriculum is, however, extremely scarce. As Pym (2011b: 485) points out, there are a number of studies that confirm that a specific course, which might be more or less theoretical and has been specifically devised to enhance a skill X, does in fact enhance skill X. These studies, however, usually do not compare one teaching method to another, nor do they necessarily include explicit theory teaching. 9 In the following, we will thus review the studies that have focused on teaching translation theory and/ or have explicitly included functional or communicative approaches. These studies will provide initial in‐ sights into whether or not and in which way theory can contribute to the de‐ velopment of translation competence. The findings that permit such conclusions usually come from two different kinds of studies. The first kind consists of studies that test the impact of one specific theoretical course. These studies are usually limited to a short-term intervention, often comprising one semester only, and the participants’ translation competence is tested both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. The data then permit conclusions on how the course has affected translation competence or specific aspects thereof (e.g., Bastin & Betancourt 2005; Pezza Cintr-o 2010). The second kind consists of 119 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="120"?> 10 I will, however, exclude from this overview studies that have not focused on theory but devised specific (practical) courses focusing on a specific skill X, such as Scott-Tennent & González Davies (2008) and Aguado-Giménez & Pérez-Paredes (2005), for example. studies that were not designed to measure the impact of one course but to in‐ vestigate translation competence (acquisition) in general. Due to their design, however, some of these studies allow for conclusions to be drawn about the effect that theoretical input might have (e.g., Orozco & Hurtado Albir 2002, Göpferich 2011, 2013). In the following, these findings will be discussed in some detail. To the best of my knowledge they constitute the only evidence that exists on the impact of teaching theory within translation studies. 10 Bastin & Betancourt (2005) focus explicitly on the impact of teaching theory on the development of translation competence. They study the gain of translation competence through a course called Méthodologie de la traduction that they present as a theoretical course focusing on functional principles. The main aim of their course is to make students aware of their options in the translation process and to reduce literal, automatic translation. Their methodology largely consists in having course participants translate a text at the beginning of their first term, before they have had any training in translation, and then again at the end of the semester. The approach is entirely product-based. In the first wave, which comprised 25 subjects, Bastin & Betancourt analyzed the translations for errors and found that, as was to be expected, the overall number of errors was lower at the end of the course than in the first week of the semester. It should be kept in mind, however, that the same text was translated twice. It can thus not be excluded that a learning effect contrib‐ uted to this decrease in errors. Distinguishing between linguistic errors (lexicon, grammar, …) and technical errors (omissions, inadequate explicitations or implici‐ tations), Bastin & Betancourt found that the number of linguistic errors declined. The number of technical errors, however, increased dramatically. They also found that new language errors appeared that had not been made in the first translation of the text. However, in this case as well, differences could be seen: while many linguistic errors in the first translation concerned grammar or orthography, the new errors in the second translation concerned style and logical connections. From this first wave, Bastin & Betancourt (2005: 216) concluded that the new language errors were due to a less literal, more “risky” approach to translation that did not yet meet, however, the criteria the text should fulfill. In the second wave (29 subjects), the focus was not on errors but on successful solutions, which were differentiated in terms of their level of (non-)literalness. In this case, Bastin & Betancourt (2005: 220-221) found that the number of successful translations increased from the beginning to the end of the semester. However, the number of literal translations decreased only marginally (6 %), making literal translation the most frequently 120 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="121"?> 11 These courses, according to Bastin & Betancourt (2005: 216), seem to be mainly concerned with (good) writing in the mother tongue, making it questionable whether the decline of grammatical and orthographical errors observed in the study is due to the theoretical trans‐ lation course. 12 A clear separation of theory and practice is, however, not ensured in the Pezza Cintr-o (2010) study. adopted strategy despite the fact that the theoretical course focused on creative translation. From this, Bastin & Betancourt concluded that one semester of theo‐ retical input is not sufficient to make subjects translate in accordance with the re‐ quirements that the TT has to fulfill in a functional paradigm or that their course in particular was not able to transmit the theoretical concepts adequately. Despite some serious methodological problems with the study (e.g., ignorance of courses taken in parallel 11 during the semester, no clear separation between theory and practice, the possible learning effect of translating one and the same text within only 15 weeks), it does permit some interesting conclusions. First of all, theoretical teaching alone does not seem to bring about the desired effect, at least not in the short-term. Second, there might be an increase in certain kinds of errors (technical errors in Bastin & Betancourt’s terminology) that actually reflects progress in the acquisition of translation competence. This might be a kind of “hypercorrection effect”, when students are told to avoid literal translation or to take the TT reader into account but have not yet developed an understanding of the criteria that the TT must fulfil, i.e., they cannot yet assess correctly what has to be explicitated or implicitated for the TT reader, for example (2005: 217). Pezza Cintr-o’s (2010) study on the impact of translation theory at the novice stage is, to the best of my knowledge, the only process-oriented study that claims to focus on the impact of the explicit teaching of theory. 12 Pezza Cintr-o takes up the debate as to when theory should best be included in the curriculum - namely, right at the beginning or after some practical experience has been gathered. She sets out to test the hypothesis that translation theory in introductory courses has no im‐ pact or only a marginal impact (2010: 171). To this end, Pezza Cintr-o devised a specific course based on theoretical approaches, such as skopos theory and discur‐ sive concepts. The course aimed to achieve a general increase in translation com‐ petence in line with functional principles and had a specific focus on recognizing and solving translation problems. Her course was not exclusively theoretical, how‐ ever, but included practical activities that she calls “prototypical tasks and cases” to exemplify and supplement the theoretical input (2010: 171). The course was thus a mixture of theory and practice, i.e., exactly the model frequently called for by both students and lecturers. Pezza Cintr-o’s subjects were Portuguese native speakers studying Spanish as a foreign language and thus not students of translation. She 121 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="122"?> compared eight subjects who took the above-mentioned course in translation during one semester with a control group of students with comparable profiles who did not take the translation course, but otherwise studied the same (philological) subjects as the first, experimental group. This was to control for any impact on translation competence from courses taken in parallel, especially courses in the Spanish lan‐ guage, literature and linguistics. A second reference group was established which consisted of “bilinguals” (Spanish teachers without formal training in translation) and served to control the variable of language competence. The data reported by Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 176) include a translation done by all three groups before the intervention, i.e., at the beginning of the semester. The two student groups (exper‐ imental and control) also delivered two translations at the end of the semester, i.e., after the intervention in the experimental group. One of these source texts was new to the students, the other was the same as the one that had been translated at the beginning of the term. All data were collected using key-logging and cued retro‐ spection and thus permitted a combined analysis of translation product and process. Her analysis of process data concerned problem detection, i.e., whether the subjects attempted to fulfill functional requirements in their translation independ‐ ently of the final result. In the analysis of product data, the adopted translation was rated on a scale of 0 to 3, ranging from “no attempt to create functional appropri‐ ateness” to “fully adequate translation”. Analyzing the data collected before the in‐ tervention, she found that the bilinguals performed considerably better regarding both the detection and the solution of problems than the two groups of students. The student groups performed comparably to one another, as was to be expected. After the intervention, when translating the same text again, both student groups performed better than in the first wave - the increase, however, was more pro‐ nounced among the students with theoretical (and practical) training than in the group without any translation-specific training. When a previously unknown ST was translated at the end of the term, the difference between the two groups of student subjects became even more obvious: while the control group did not show any improvement in problem detection and only a slight increase in problem solu‐ tion when compared to the beginning of the term, the experimental group showed a considerable improvement in both respects, although not to the same extent as for the ST that they already knew from the beginning of the term. From these find‐ ings, Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 173) concludes that explicit theory teaching at the novice stage contributes to a change in the students’ mental schemes about translation [which be‐ comes] manifested in a significant improvement in the functional aspects of the strategic sub-competence, specifically in its nuclear tasks of detecting and resolving translation problems. 122 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="123"?> Nevertheless, she believes that explicit teaching is not a conditio sine qua non to achieve this. She comes to this conclusion because her non-translation trained bi‐ linguals performed slightly better than the students even after the latter had taken the course. Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 179) thus sees the main benefit of the explicit teaching of theory to be in improving translation competence more rapidly than would have been the case without it. It should be noted, however, that - although providing some interesting results - her study does not permit conclusions as to whether teaching theory generally contributes to better or faster acquisition of translation competence, as Pezza Cintr-o suggests. Rather, it allows us to conclude that her course consisting of both theory and practice was better than no training at all. It does not answer the question as to whether a purely practical course without explicit teaching of theory would not have produced the same results. Zou (2014) is also interested in the role of translation theories in the curriculum, but approaches the question from an entirely different angle. She compares two postgraduate translation programs in China to one in the UK, with a heavy focus on their inclusion of translation theories. The main difference between the theoret‐ ical inputs in the two cases seems to be that in the Chinese context more emphasis is placed on linguistic theories, whereas the UK students are familiarized with a broader range of theories. Zou had her 24 student subjects produce a translation from English into Chinese in order to evaluate the differences between their translation products. Her main finding in this regard was that the students in the UK produced better translations overall and took many more criteria (e.g., functional, communi‐ cative aspects) into account, whereas those studying in China mainly remained at the wordand phrase-level. Furthermore, the UK-based students exhibited a greater ability to “cite and use theoretical concepts more readily and effectively” (2014: 185- 186). Evaluating these data in the light of the respective curriculum designs, Zou (2014: 274) believes that the differences are due to the inclusion of theory teaching and concludes that, in the Chinese universities, awareness of theories and an ap‐ propriate pedagogy for teaching them needs to be expanded. All in all, Zou’s study is very explorative in nature and does not permit any final conclusions as to how theory might impact the acquisition of translation competence since it is impos‐ sible to attribute the results of the study to the teaching of theory alone. We could just as well ask how much and what kind of practice was provided in the respec‐ tive programs and very likely find that the practical courses also differed consider‐ ably, which could just as easily account for the differences in translation compe‐ tence acquisition. Apart from the above-cited studies, there are also intriguing findings from studies that did not set out to investigate the impact of the teaching of theory at all. The first of these studies is Orozco’s (2000b), in which the main interest is in estab‐ 123 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="124"?> 13 Göpferich’s complete results are referred to throughout chapter 2.5, however. lishing reliable criteria for measuring translation competence acquisition in stu‐ dents (Orozco 2000b; Orozco & Hurtado Albir 2002). Orozco devises a “measuring instrument” in which three different variables are used: “notions of translation”, “translation problems” and “translation errors”. Her measuring instrument thus takes into account the declarative knowledge of students (notions of translation), aspects of their translation behavior (retrospective data on translation problems) and their success in task performance (product data). To validate her measuring instru‐ ment, Orozco evaluated the translation competence of students at three different Spanish universities at the beginning and at the end of their first year in order to see whether the instrument could measure the gradual change in translation compe‐ tence over only one year of study (2002: 386). What makes her study relevant for the present research is the fact that, of the three universities included in the study, only one includes a course on “translation theory” in the first-year curriculum. Orozco’s measurement of “notions of translation” shows that the theoretically trained sub‐ jects scored better in the questionnaire on declarative knowledge than those who were not taught theories explicitly. When correlating this measurement of declar‐ ative knowledge with both the subjects’ product and process data, no correlation could be found, however. This was equally true for the measurement at the begin‐ ning of the term and after eight months of training. Although Orozco herself does not draw any wider conclusions, Pezza Cintr-o (2010: 171) takes these findings to indicate that theoretical teaching - at least at the novice stage - does not lead to better performance in practical translation tasks, a conclusion that can very well be drawn from Orozco’s findings. Other “unintentional” evidence regarding the lack of any observable impact of the explicit teaching of theory on practical translation competence comes from the TransComp project (Göpferich 2012, 2013). This longitudinal project, which was devised to study the development of translation competence in students throughout their undergraduate program, allows for conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the teaching of theory due to a peculiar feature of the study program involved: at the University of Graz, where the study was conducted, students of translation do not attend practical translation classes before their final year. During the first four semesters, they attend theory-oriented lectures and seminars as well as lan‐ guage courses (see 5.1.3.3 for a detailed description of the study program). Göp‐ ferich (2012) compares novices, fourth-semester students and professionals using a number of process and product variables. In the present context, her findings re‐ garding novices and fourth-semester students are the relevant ones 13 since the fourth-semester students have not attended any practical translation classes, but 124 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="125"?> only theoretical lectures as well as language courses up to the time of data-collec‐ tion. Her findings thus provide insights into the development of translation com‐ petence when subjects are taught theory without additional practice. Göpferich uses two different texts in the otherwise homogenous group of novices and fourth-se‐ mester students, respectively. With regard to the quality of the translation product (2012: 248), an inconsistent finding emerged: in the case of one text, Göpferich ob‐ served a lower error rate among the fourth-semester students when compared to novices, but this was not the case for the second task, which was perceived by all groups to be the more difficult one. Instead, in this more difficult translation task, the advanced students made considerably more errors than the novices. Analyzing the process data, Göpferich found that the fourth-semester students encountered about the same total number of translation problems during their processes as the novices. A small difference was observed regarding comprehension problems, which were slightly less frequent among fourth-semester students, probably due to an increase in their English language skills (2012: 251-252). There were no consistent findings concerning the advanced students’ ability to solve translation problems, which was slightly higher for one task, but lower for the other when compared to the group of novices. Göpferich takes this as a sign that the strategic behavior of the subjects had not improved. From these results, she concludes that her data do not show any progress during the first four semesters of training regarding either the quality of translation, the number of problems encountered or the strategic be‐ havior, i.e., awareness and solution of translation problems (2012: 260-261). Göp‐ ferich attributes this outcome to the curriculum in which no practical classes are included in the period under investigation and suggests that synergy effects should be created by interconnecting theoretical and practical courses. Expanding on her conclusion in a later publication (Göpferich 2013), she proposes that the stagnation in translation competence acquisition may be only apparent and hypothesizes that the students’ problem-awareness might have grown due to exposure to theory, whereas they might not have developed the competence to solve these problems due to a lack of practical experience (2013: 73). Her own analysis of problem-awareness would suggest otherwise, however. Thus, Göpferich (2012: 259) investigated whether her subjects were aware of one specific translation problem, an illogical sentence in the source text that needed to be reformulated. She found that in the group of fourth-semester students, not one single subject mentioned awareness of the problem (zero out of five subjects). In the novice group, however, one out of six subjects noticed the problem. These results, although they might be only explora‐ tory, do not indicate an increase in problem-awareness due to theoretical training. Another major translation process research group, the PACTE group, is cur‐ rently analyzing students’ acquisition of translation competence through a simu‐ 125 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="126"?> lated longitudinal study covering the four-year undergraduate study program at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Many of their findings have yet to be published (Massana Roselló 2016: 97), so that we do not yet have any general con‐ clusions regarding the acquisition of translation competence in the UAB setting. PACTE have, however, published findings regarding two of their variables, the knowledge of translation and the translation project variable (2014, 2015). These findings are of interest in the present section on translation theory, as they allow us to draw conclusions about the subjects’ development during their first year, in which they had one semester of practical translation courses but no (translation) theory at all (2014: 109). The “knowledge of translation” variable, which has been designed to determine whether subjects have a dynamic, communicative concept of translation or a static, linguistic concept, found a considerable difference be‐ tween the declarative knowledge of novices and students at the beginning of their second year. While the novices’ concept was not very dynamic, PACTE observed a “leap” within the first year of training to a level almost as high as that observed with professional translators (evaluated in PACTE 2008). From this observation, PACTE conclude that the students “develop implicit theories about the dynamic nature of translation from their own experience in translation” (2014: 109) - and it seems that they do so fairly early on in their training, without being actively directed towards such a view of translation through learning about functional or communication-ori‐ ented theories. PACTE (2015) investigated whether the students’ procedural knowl‐ edge develops in a similar way. To this end, they devised a retrospective question‐ naire in which the subjects were asked about their overall approach to the task as well as a number of selected translation problems. Their answers indicated whether the subjects had a more dynamic or a more static approach to the actual task. This variable was understood to relate to the subjects’ procedural knowledge, i.e., their behavior in the performance of an actual translation task. The data on procedural knowledge confirmed the leap from the first to the second year: both for the overall approach and for the translation problems taken together, the second-year stu‐ dents showed a significantly more dynamic approach than the novices (2015: 44- 46). Thus, there was a considerable development from less dynamic to more dy‐ namic with regard to both the concept of translation and the subjects’ practical approach to translation after only one year of practical translation training. All these variables, in general, showed a further development towards dynamism throughout the course of studies, leading PACTE to conclude that “developing a dynamic concept of and approach to translation (declarative and procedural knowl‐ edge) is a characteristic of ATC” (2015: 51). Interestingly, the recent graduates showed even more dynamism than the control group of professional translators, a finding for which PACTE advance two possible explanations: they believe profes‐ 126 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="127"?> 14 „Besonders interessant ist es natürlich, Longitudinalstudien parallel an verschiedenen Aus‐ bildungsinstituten durchzuführen (sog. multi-center studies), um verschiedene Curricula kontrastierend hinsichtlich ihrer Effektivität bewerten zu können. [...] Aufschluss darüber zu erhalten, welche Inhalte und Methoden sich als besonders günstig für die Entwicklung translatorischer Kompetenz erweisen, ist insbesondere im Zuge des Bologna-Prozesses von größter Relevanz, kommt es hier doch darauf an, in einer kürzeren Studienzeit (meist sechs Semester statt bisher acht bis zehn Semester) einen möglichst hohen Kompetenzgrad bei den Absolventen zu erzielen, wozu es unweigerlich einer Steigerung der Effizienz und Effekti‐ vität der Übersetzungsausbildung bedarf.” sionals either might have adapted to the market, where a static, literal concept of translation is still frequently encountered, or they might belong to a generation in which linguistic approaches still prevailed in translator training and thus might not have been trained to translate within a communicative framework (2015: 51). Summarizing the above, we can conclude that there are only very few studies regarding the effect of different training methods in translation teaching. Whether theory can have an impact on the actual translation process and on success in the development of translation competence remains largely unknown. Thus, there is no comprehensive study with subjects enrolled in clearly distinct forms of trans‐ lator training that permits conclusions regarding the respective contributions of theory and practice to their translation competence. Research of this kind has been called for repeatedly, however. In this connection, Thelen (2005: 41), for example, states: In order to be able to say more about the relation between theory and practice and their influence on one another in the translation process, a closer look at both ends of the spectrum is called for […] because only then it will be possible to see in which specific areas of the translation process this mutual influence is most prominent and, conse‐ quently, to analyse the nature of this mutual influence. Another scholar who considers research on the impact of different forms of teaching to be a major research desideratum is Göpferich (e.g., 2008: 12-13, 2013: 65): It is particularly interesting, of course, to carry out longitudinal studies at various training institutions in parallel (so-called multi-center studies), in order to allow for a contrastive evaluation of the curricula’s efficiency. […] It is of the utmost importance to learn more about which contents and methods prove to be helpful in developing translation compe‐ tence, even more so since the Bologna process has reduced the period of study to usually six semesters instead of eight to ten semesters previously. Therefore, the goal of ach‐ ieving the highest possible degree of competence in graduates implies that the efficiency and effectiveness of translator training has to be increased. (Göpferich 2008: 13; my trans‐ lation 14 ) 127 4.4 Teaching Translation Theory <?page no="128"?> The present study is a first attempt to fill this research gap by providing evi‐ dence of “both ends of the spectrum”, i.e., by analyzing the translation com‐ petence of students who, as called for by Thelen (2005: 41), have been trained either purely theoretically or purely practically. Furthermore, the analysis of a group with both practical and theoretical training has been included in order to be able to account for possible synergy effects (see 5.1). In line with Göp‐ ferich (2008: 13), the present research was based on actual translation cur‐ ricula rather than on experimental teaching situations in order to be able to account for the efficiency of the curricula involved. 4.5 Research Questions and Working Hypotheses From this literature review, it is evident that the role and impact of theory on the development of translation competence is far from clear. Different opin‐ ions, beliefs and expectations persist on the part of both students and trans‐ lation scholars. The present research project aims to determine whether some of these claims can be supported on empirical grounds. To this end, the fol‐ lowing research questions have been devised: 1. Is there a measurable impact of theoretical classes on students’ self-concept and translation competence? 2. Does the impact on translation competence depend on whether theory is taught before or after students have received any practical training? 3. What is the students’ opinion/ expectation concerning the implementa‐ tion of translation theory in their studies a. before they have taken theoretical classes? b. after they have taken theoretical classes? To answer these research questions, a number of working hypotheses have been developed. These hypotheses are based (1) on the theoretical models and empirical findings reviewed in chapters 2 through 4 and (2) on the claims made in the literature concerning the impact of translation theory on the in‐ dividual and when theoretical classes are best implemented in the curriculum (4.2.3 and 4.4.1). 128 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="129"?> Is there a measurable impact of theoretical classes on students’ self-concept and translation competence? H 1 The development of TC depends on the input during translator training. H 1.1 TC develops differently in groups with theoretical training than in those without a knowledge of theories. H 1.2 Which sub-competences are developed first / better depends on the input that stu‐ dents receive. H 2 Teaching theory raises awareness about the role of the translator and enhances a communication-oriented concept of translation. H 3 Students with a theoretical background are better able to recognize and solve translation problems. H 4 Theoretical training has a direct influence on the translation product. H 4.1 Students with a theoretical background produce translations of a better quality. H 4.2 Students with a theoretical background are more likely to produce functional equiv‐ alents (sense-oriented translations) instead of formal equivalents (form-oriented/ lit‐ eral translations). Does the impact on translation competence depend on whether theory is taught before or after students have received any practical training? H 5 Subjects with practical experience are better able to implement translation theory because they have already automatized easier aspects of the translation process and therefore have more cognitive capacity available to reflect on theoretical as‐ pects. What is the students’ opinion/ expectation concerning the implementation of translation theory in their studies a) before they have taken theoretical classes? H 6 Students without theoretical background consider theories to be important for the professional translator and would therefore be in favor of integrating theories into the curriculum. H 7 Students without theoretical background expect theory to offer rules and guide‐ lines for practical translation tasks. b) after they have taken theoretical classes? H 8 Students feel they have been deceived when they realize that theories generally do not offer rules and guidelines for practical translation - this is visible in claims that theory is useless for the practitioner. Table 2: Working hypotheses 129 4.5 Research Questions and Working Hypotheses <?page no="130"?> 4.6 Summary This chapter focuses on the debate about the role of theory in translation training. Two different views have been advanced. The first is the anti-essenti‐ alist view, which considers translation theory to be something that exists in its own right - namely, as a contribution to knowledge about translation as a process and product as well as about all the phenomena related to translation. In this view, theory does not have to be useful for practice, but should contribute to an increase in the knowledge of translation in general. It seems, however, that an essentialist view of theory is widespread in at least a weak form. This essen‐ tialist view expects theory to be useful for the practitioner in one way or another. Following Katan (2009) and Leal (2014), I have suggested that these essentialist expectations might be the reason why a “gap” is often perceived to exist: if students (or practitioners for that matter) with an essentialist view are intro‐ duced to theory and then do not find the theories useful for and applicable to practical translation, they might come to feel that they have been deceived. This feeling of deception would then be reflected in a rejection of theory as well as in claims that there is a gap between theory and practice. In section 4.2 we have reviewed claims about the different effects that theory is believed to have - claims that are generally not founded on empirical evidence but rather reflect their authors’ personal beliefs or experience. The concrete impact of theory on translation competence is subject to contrastive opinions. Some, such as Pym (2011b: 480), do not believe that knowing about translation theories will enhance translation competence. Others (e.g., Chesterman 1998; Bernardini 2004; Bartrina 2005; van Vaerenbergh 2005; Boase-Beier 2010), how‐ ever, suggest a number of benefits, ranging from rather vague claims about raising awareness and inducing critical thinking to very concrete claims sug‐ gesting that theories have a practical application. These essentialist expectations and convictions are not only found among professional translators, who natu‐ rally focus on practice, but also among scholars and translation teachers. Sum‐ ming up the claims we have reviewed, we can conclude that theories are believed by some to - help students acquire translation competence faster than they would through practice alone - help raise awareness of the needs of the target audience and thus favor a communicative / functional approach to translation rather than a lin‐ guistic and literal one - help students recognize and solve translation problems. 130 4 The Impact of Translation Theory <?page no="131"?> Apparently, however, the teaching of theory does not always fulfill these ex‐ pectations. A question, therefore, arises as to which of the different claims that have been made about theories can be empirically supported. Empirical evidence on this matter is scarce and in the end cannot really answer the question whether (additional) theory can contribute to the development of translation competence better than practical classes alone. We have discussed another point of dispute that concerns the question as to when translation theory should best be imple‐ mented in the curriculum - at the beginning or only after some practical expe‐ rience has been gained. In this case as well, there is no empirical evidence for either of these standpoints. Various researchers have identified the need for research in this area (e.g., Künzli 2003: 225-226; Mossop 2004: 375; Calzada Pérez 2005: 2; Thelen 2005: 41; Göpferich 2008: 13, 2013: 65), claiming that the impact of input during translator training on the acquisition of translation competence is still far too little understood. The present research is the first attempt to fill this frequently claimed research gap. 131 4.6 Summary <?page no="132"?> 5 Study Design The present study has been designed to investigate the role that translation theory and practice play in the development of translation competence. More precisely, it sets out to explore the way in which theoretically and practically trained students differ with regard to their translation processes and products. This chapter presents and discusses the general design of the study, including the subjects, the experimental tasks and the methods used for data collection. 5.1 Selection of Subjects A total of 30 students of translation took part in the present study. These students differ considerably with respect to whether or not they have had theoretical input during their studies. They are enrolled in three different undergraduate programs, which were carefully selected to ensure that they permit conclusions as to how the teaching of theory might impact translation competence: - Bavarian Fachakademie für Fremdsprachenberufe (FAK) Translator training in Bavaria is not an academic type of education but rather vocational in nature. The curriculum of the FAK therefore includes no theoretical classes but reserves the majority of its contact hours for translation practice (see 5.1.3.1). Students at the FAK are included in the sample at two different levels of study. One group of subjects was studied at the beginning of their fifth semester, i.e., after four semesters of prac‐ tical training (group P4, N = 6), the other group was studied at the very end of the program, i.e., at the end of the students’ sixth semester (group P6, N = 10). - BA in Übersetzen at the Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen (BA Ü) This BA in translation is offered by the Hochschule für Angewandte Spra‐ chen at the SDI in Munich, a private university of applied sciences. Since this program is a supplement to the vocational FAK training, it includes only theoretical courses (see 5.1.3.2). I have included students at the very end of their theoretical courses in the sample (group PT7, N = 9). <?page no="133"?> - BA in Transkulturelle Kommunikation at the University of Graz (BA TK) The curriculum of this BA program in “transcultural communication” re‐ lies heavily on the explicit teaching of theory. From semesters one through four, all translation-specific classes are purely theoretical, which means that students up to the fifth semester do not take any practical translation courses (see 5.1.3.3). The data sample includes data from stu‐ dents at the very beginning of their fifth semester, i.e., after four semesters of theoretical training (group T4, N = 5). These data have not been col‐ lected by the author herself but stem from Göpferich’s longitudinal TransComp project (e.g., 2009b, 2009c, 2010c, 2013) and have been made available for further research on the project’s homepage (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011). Groups with only practical training Groups with theoretical training Four semesters of practical training (P4) Four semesters of theoretical training (T4) Six semesters of practical training (P6) Six semesters of practical training A N D one semester of theoretical training (PT7) Table 3: Comparison Groups Thus, the selected study programs permit a diametrical comparison of students with and without theoretical input. For purposes of comparison, four different groups were formed. Each group consisted of five to ten subjects enrolled in the same course of studies and at the same level of study progress. Two different comparisons were made. First, fifth-semester students from the Fachakademie (P4) with purely practical translation experience were compared to fifth-se‐ mester students of the BA program in Transkulturelle Kommunikation (T4) with theoretical input but no practical experience. Second, students at the end of their FAK program (P6) were compared to students from the BA program in Über‐ setzen (PT7). In this case, both groups had the same amount of practical trans‐ lation experience but differed with regard to whether they had had additional theoretical input or not. The curricula will be presented in some detail in section 5.1.3 to explain the background in the translation training of all the subjects. Before going into the details of the curricula, however, I will first present the criteria for the selection of participants. 133 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="134"?> 1 “B-language” refers to the foreign language that is studied more intensively during translation training, aiming at both receptive and productive competence. “C-language” refers to the foreign language studied less intensively, aiming mainly at receptive com‐ petence. 5.1.1 Subject Sampling for Primary Data Primary data were collected at the Fremdspracheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt München (FIM) and the Sprachen- und Dolmetscherinstitut (SDI). The P4 group was studied at the beginning of their fifth semester in October / November 2014, the P6 group was studied at the end of their sixth semester, in the weeks shortly before or after their final exams (April - June 2014). The subjects enrolled in the BA program Übersetzen were studied after they had completed their theoretical preparatory courses, between February and April 2014. Since the number of participants envisaged could not be obtained among this group of students, stu‐ dents of the next cycle, who had passed their exams half a year later, were also approached. One of them agreed to participate and her data were collected in October 2014. All the students who were enrolled at one of the two above-mentioned in‐ stitutes and had reached the required level of studies, were invited to participate. It was especially important to communicate that participation was on an entirely voluntary basis and had no influence whatsoever on the participants’ studies. This was facilitated by the fact that the researcher was not teaching at any of the institutes involved at the time of data collection, so that there was no student/ lecturer hierarchy that could have raised ethical questions due to implied power relations (Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 45). This permitted informal communication between the participants and the researcher and contributed to a relaxed at‐ mosphere not only when recruiting participants but also during the experi‐ ments. Students who were to participate had to fulfill some preliminary conditions, however. First of all, German had to be the mother tongue or the language of habitual use and education (A-language). The languages studied during the FAK program had to include English, either as a first foreign language (B-language 1 ) or a second foreign language (C-language). It was originally planned to limit data collection to students with English as a B-language, but this proved im‐ possible due to a lack of voluntary participants. While all subjects in the P4 group had English as their B-language to match the secondary data (T4 group), in both the P6 and PT7 group, five participants had English as their B-language whereas the rest had either French or Spanish as their B-language and English as a C-language. This increased heterogeneity in the group proved to be an ad‐ 134 5 Study Design <?page no="135"?> vantage, however, as it made it possible to test the effect of translation experi‐ ence in a specific language pair. Nord (2010: 116-117), for example, is convinced that translation competence is independent of languages and can easily be transferred to another language pair. While it could be questioned whether this is also true of translation into a foreign language, where language skills seem to be paramount, it might be true for translation into the native language. If this assumption is true, students with English as a Bor C-language should perform comparably, at least as far as the quality of the produced target text is concerned. In addition to the above-mentioned requirements, students were not to have had any professional experience in translation. Students who had semi-professional experience (FIM in-house translation agency “Team KIS”, internships, Werks‐ studenten) were not excluded from the sample, however. Every student who fulfilled the above requirements and was willing to par‐ ticipate was accepted. It was planned to build groups of ten to fifteen informants, but recruiting volunteers for a time-consuming think-aloud study proved to be rather difficult. This difficulty has also been reported by other translation process researchers (e.g., Lörscher 1991: 39; Lesznyák 2008: 157) and seems to be a general problem in TPR (see also Hansen 2010: 202). As a consequence, the number of subjects in the present study was somewhat smaller than had been hoped for, with five to ten subjects per group. While the number of subjects per group may appear rather small, it is generally acknowledged in translation process research that lone researchers have to restrict the number of participants in order to be able to analyze the collected data thoroughly (e.g., Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 22; Göpferich 2008: 96). This is due to the large amount of data collected in TPR, where oral, written and screen-recorded data is produced by every participant. As Krings (2005: 353) points out, a one-page source text can produce between ten and twenty pages of think-aloud protocol per subject. These data are complemented by the translation product and possibly also by additional data sources such as questionnaires. Bernardini (2001: 255) even rec‐ ommends a minimum as small as four participants for every TA study, so that every comparison group might include at least two subjects who can be com‐ pared on the basis of as many variables as possible. This, however, would seem to be a very small size, perhaps leading to more questions than answers since, no matter how hard a researcher tries to control all the variables, there will always be differences among the subjects (e.g., personal traits) that cannot be controlled. It is obvious that the data sample included in this study is too small to permit conclusions regarding a wider population of translation students. This is especially true of the data for the fifth-semester students, where the compar‐ ison groups included only five to six participants. Nevertheless, the data sample 135 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="136"?> 2 This is only the case if the consecutive MA program is taken as well (Universität Graz 2008: 3). is certainly large enough to reveal some tendencies that can indicate the effects of theory teaching, even if the findings might not be representative. 5.1.2 Subject Sampling for Secondary Data Secondary data have been taken from the longitudinal study TransComp, which follows a group of students through their entire six-semester curriculum in the BA program Transkulturelle Kommunikation. Despite the fact that this course of studies is not specifically designed to provide participants with an official “translator” 2 qualification, there are reasons to consider these subjects students of translation. Not only have they been treated as students of translation in previous research at the University of Graz itself, i.e. in the TransComp project that investigates the development of translation competence; it is also the case that the declared aims of the curriculum are to transmit the practice-oriented knowledge necessary for the typical working fields of a “transcultural commu‐ nicator” as well as “basic translation competence” and the “informed manage‐ ment of translation jobs” (Universität Graz 2008: 2; my translation). Since stu‐ dents of this undergraduate program have been studied as translation students within the TransComp project before, the same will be done here. Not all the data collected within the TransComp project are relevant to the present research question, however. Thus, a selection had to be made. The first and most important aspect was that data had to be taken from a semester in which no practical courses had yet been included in the curriculum. This applies to the semesters one through four and, since the TransComp data were collected at the beginning of every semester (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Prassl et al. 2011: 62), also to the fifth semester. It could be argued that the students in the fifth semester had already attended a few practical classes. However, at the be‐ ginning of the fifth term, they certainly had not had enough classes to have acquired considerable experience in practical translation. The next consideration was that students in the comparison groups should have had as much experience in either theory or practice as possible, because it seems likely that differences between the comparison groups might become more apparent with increasing study progress. Therefore, a choice had to be made between using the TransComp data from the fourth or fifth semesters, the fourth-term data having the advantage that not one single practical translation hour was included in the BA TK curriculum, while fifth-semester students had 136 5 Study Design <?page no="137"?> 3 At the Fachakademie, students are required to repeat a year if they do not have the corresponding grades, i.e., if they have 2x5 or 1x6 at the end of the year (§ 22 FakOÜDol). been exposed to considerably more theory - in particular, one course on the sociological aspects of the translation profession (Universität Graz 2009: 14). In the end, the data of the fifth semester were chosen due to the longer period of training and, most of all, because the source text used in TransComp in the fourth semester could not be used with the subjects of the present study, for reasons that will be explained in section 5.2.1. One further aspect of subject selection in TransComp should be noted: since the participants were approached and selected at the very beginning of their studies, a selection was made on the basis of the students’ grades in English and German in order to ensure that their communicative competence in those two languages was comparable (Göpferich 2009b: 29). According to Göpferich (2010a: 170), all subjects had “very good” or “good” grades in English and German with the exception of only one subject, who had a “satisfactory” grade in English. No such grade-based sampling was conducted for the primary data collection, since students who had successfully passed at least two years of professional translator training, in which they were required to translate into both languages, necessarily had the corresponding communicative competences. 3 5.1.3 Curricula of Translator Education Programs Three undergraduate programs, all of which feature a strict separation of the‐ oretical and practical classes, were selected for this study. This made it possible to compare two very different educational styles for professional translators - practical and theoretical training. However, using real-life curricula has some drawbacks when compared to an experimental setting, mainly the inability to meticulously control all aspects of the amount and content of the input students receive. Nevertheless, the advantages of such a study design seem to far out‐ weigh these drawbacks. First of all, the study design ensures that the researcher could not exert any unconscious influence on the course contents, be they the‐ oretical or practical. Such an influence could have biased the data considerably. Furthermore, an experimental intervention never could have covered a two-year period of intensive training, which is the shortest period of training that subjects in this study have had. Yet - assuming that different teaching styles lead to differences in translation competence at all - it seems plausible that such an impact might become more pronounced the longer the students are subjected to the respective forms of training. Last but not least, any experimental inter‐ 137 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="138"?> 4 See annexes (12.1) for the detailed coding of all courses in the curricula. vention could not have been set within an actual translation program since the students enrolled in a translation program would have had their obligatory courses in parallel. This would have rendered a control of course contents dif‐ ficult and the strict separation of theoretical and practical input almost impos‐ sible. These considerations clearly support the study design chosen. Neverthe‐ less, it is important to keep in mind that in such a study design it is impossible to eliminate all potentially distorting factors. It is therefore necessary to present the curricula of the translator training programs in detail and to point out those aspects of the curricula in which differences exist. To render the different curricula comparable, the single courses were re‐ grouped within a number of meaningful categories. 4 The categories that were defined comprise language courses, courses that transmit cultural knowledge, courses focusing on domain knowledge and, last but not least, translation-spe‐ cific courses in which a distinction is drawn between theoretical and practical courses. In the present study, “theoretical courses” are understood to be all the courses that approach translation-relevant subjects from a theoretical, scientific and/ or reflective point of view. These courses may involve the explicit teaching of translation theory or related subjects such as linguistics, intercultural com‐ munication and the role of the translator from a sociological perspective. Also included under the heading of “theory” are the students’ BA theses. “Practical translation courses” are understood to be those that are “hands-on”, i.e., courses in which students are required to translate texts and/ or tackle (simulated) trans‐ lation projects. These courses usually include guidance and feedback by the lecturer, but no explicit teaching of theoretical models, for example. These “practical” classes also include practical exercises in interpreting. Courses fo‐ cusing on “cultural knowledge” have been considered separately. These classes aim to introduce students to the history, culture and societies of the regions in which their chosen foreign languages are spoken. They are thus culture-specific and/ or contrastive. Domain specialization courses are those that aim to transmit declarative knowledge in areas other than translation, such as economics and law. These courses can either give students basic knowledge in various fields of specialization or provide them with in-depth knowledge in a certain area. Fi‐ nally, courses that are not considered in any of these categories, such as intro‐ ductions to specific translation tools, are grouped in one category labeled “other”. Before presenting all three curricula, I should point out that, although this study has a didactic focus, its intention is neither to investigate the involved 138 5 Study Design <?page no="139"?> curricula per se nor to make definite proposals regarding the design of transla‐ tion curricula. This would be far beyond the possibility and aim of this study since it would require a consideration of many more aspects. This study focuses exclusively on the role of theory in the acquisition of translation competence and aims to investigate whether different teaching styles are reflected in stu‐ dents’ translation processes and products under the conditions set by the se‐ lected curricula. 5.1.3.1 Fachakademie für Fremdsprachenberufe In Bavaria, the training of professional translators is not conducted at univer‐ sities but at Fachakademien für Fremdsprachenberufe (FAK). The FAKs’ curric‐ ulum is determined by the Fachakademieordnung Übersetzen und Dolmetschen (FakOÜDol), which is binding for all FAKs in Bavaria, whether they are public or private. In order to attend an FAK, applicants must have passed a higher education entrance qualification, i.e., the allgemeine/ fachgebundene Hochschulreife or the Fachhochschulreife (§ 4 FakOÜDol). The entrance criteria are therefore the same as at German universities of applied sciences. This makes programs at the Fa‐ chakademie comparable to university undergraduate programs, especially since these provide the only possible opportunities to study translation in Bavaria. In the rest of Germany, however, degrees in translation are usually offered at uni‐ versities or universities of applied sciences. There is, however, an exception concerning the admission of students without a higher education entrance qual‐ ification: students with a secondary education qualification (Mittlere Reife) who have undergone training as bilingual assistants (Fremdsprachen‐ korrespondent/ in) at a Berufsfachschule (BFS) may also be admitted to a Facha‐ kademie (§ 4 FakOÜDol). Participants in this study were asked to state whether they came directly to the FAK after their Abitur or a comparable qualification or if they came via the BFS. However, participation was not limited to one group or the other since it was assumed that, if students had been accepted into the second year of an FAK, they had an adequate level in both language and trans‐ lation skills. As is the case with the FAK, the BFS curriculum does not include any theoretical classes, so that the inclusion of BFS graduates did not distort the data relating to the participants’ theoretical knowledge. The FAK study program covers three years and thus corresponds to university undergraduate programs in this regard, too. During their studies at an FAK, students are trained in a B-language, a C-language and a domain of specializa‐ tion. It is possible, however, to choose a B-language with two different domains of specialization instead of a C-language. If students do not have German as a 139 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="140"?> mother tongue, additional courses of German have to be taken - these are not considered here because all subjects in the study have German as a mother tongue or language of education, i.e., as their A-language. In the following, an overview of the curriculum of the FAK will be presented. For the entire curriculum and the single courses contained in it, please refer to the annexes (12.1.1). Two things should be noted, however. First, if the curric‐ ulum is a controlled variable, it is impossible to know exactly what teachers include in their practical lessons. As can be seen from Weber’s (2011) study of the implementation of translation theory at the FAKs, many FAK teachers con‐ sider theory to be important and are in favor of integrating theory into the FAK curriculum (2011: 76-77). A few of them acknowledge designing their courses according to a certain theory. Nord’s didactic models (e.g., Nord 2009, 2010), in particular, are mentioned frequently in Weber’s study (2011: 78). However, it is not clear from Weber’s study if teachers actually teach the theory to their stu‐ dents or implement some didactic suggestions within their translation classes. Therefore, although no theory is foreseen in the curriculum, it cannot be totally excluded that some theory is taught in one way or another at the FAK. From the informal conversation with the participants of the study, however, it appears that this is, if anything, a rare exception rather than the rule. In fact, none of the participants from the FAK confirmed that they had heard about theoretical ap‐ proaches to translation at all. Second, although the grouping of the courses was as thorough as possible, numbers can never account for reality. Even if the main focus in practical translation classes is on translating, obviously students will improve their command of the language - maybe even to a larger extent than they do in language courses. They will also learn a lot about cultural factors from their source texts, so that the boundaries between the categories are fuzzy, and a strict dividing line must be considered with caution. The same applies to business communication classes, which are classified as language courses, but are in fact much more: students acquire a great deal of the cultural knowledge necessary in business settings as well as the conventions for writing business letters not only in their Band C-languages but also in their native languages. Keeping these limitations in mind, the adopted categorization of courses was a useful instrument for comparing the different study programs with one another. As can be seen from the overview of the curriculum (Table 4), the majority of teaching time is reserved for practical translation courses. They are included from the very first semester and account for a total of 38 % of the curriculum. Language courses account for 33 % of the total curriculum. It should be pointed out that German, as the A-language, is included in the curriculum, but with only one hour per week through all three years of study. An important feature of the 140 5 Study Design <?page no="141"?> FAK curriculum is that all students follow interpreting courses in their B-lan‐ guage, which make up at least 11 % of their total classroom hours. Students can choose to augment this number on a voluntary basis. Since there is evidence that training and experience in interpreting can have a positive effect on trans‐ lation speed and the level of freeness in written translations (Dragsted & Gorm Hansen 2007: 270-271), these lessons have also been considered as practical translation training. When they are included, practical translation training ac‐ counts for 49 % of the curriculum (if students did not choose to take additional interpreting classes). Alanguage (German) Blanguage Clanguage Total contact hours Percentage Language courses 117 429 546 1092 33% Theoretical classes (translation theory, linguis‐ tics…) 0 0 0 0 0% Practical transla‐ tion classes 0 1053 195 1248 38% Interpreting 0 351 0 351 11% Cultural knowledge 39 195 0 234 7% Domain-specific knowledge 117 156 0 273 8% Other skills (word processing, CAT) 117 0 0 117 4% Total contact hours 390 2184 741 3315 100% Percentage 12% 66% 22% 100% Table 4: Overview of FAK curriculum, semesters 1-6 (P6 group) In addition to these languageand translation-specific classes, there are lessons that aim to transmit cultural knowledge, with a special focus on the political, economic and social systems of both the native and the foreign culture (B-lan‐ guage). These classes make up 7 % of the curriculum, with another 8 % being devoted to the domain of specialization chosen by the student. Different domains of specialization are offered to FAK students, such as economics, technology, 141 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="142"?> law and science. Students select one or two of these domains as their area of specialization and receive in-depth training in it. The classes are usually held in the students’ B-language but also provide them with the relevant terminology in their mother tongue. These domain courses also include an introductory course in the German legal system, which is obligatory regardless of the domain of specialization chosen. This is because graduates of the FAK fulfill the re‐ quirements to become certified translators (and interpreters) in Bavaria and are then allowed to work as court interpreters, for example. The remaining 4 % of classroom time is dedicated to the practical skills needed in the translation pro‐ fession, namely word processing and computer-aided translation, in which stu‐ dents gain an insight into translation-specific software such as translation mem‐ ories. Total classroom time is divided among the different languages as follows. Most of the classes are devoted to the B-language and culture (66 %), while 22 % are reserved for the C-language. The remaining 12 % are devoted to courses concerning the native language and culture as well as domain-specific and IT-related classes. The huge gap in the allocation of classroom time is especially relevant for the present study since both the P6 group and the PT7 group include students with English as a B-language as well as students with English as a C-language (see 5.1.1). In the P4 group, all the subjects had English as their first foreign language. At the time of data collection, they had completed semesters one to four, which is why a separate overview of this part of the curriculum (Table 5) has been included. The overall distribution of classes for semesters one to four changes only slightly when compared to the curriculum as a whole. While language courses take up more time in the early semesters, translation courses are some‐ what fewer. However, they still account for 33 % of all classes. When interpreting classes are also taken into account, students gain practical experience in about 45 % of all classes during their first four semesters. Alanguage (German) Blanguage Clanguage Total con‐ tact hours Per‐ centage Language courses 78 390 390 858 37% Theoretical classes (transla‐ tion theory, lin‐ guistics…) 0 0 0 0 0% 142 5 Study Design <?page no="143"?> Practical transla‐ tion classes 0 663 117 780 33% Interpreting 0 273 0 273 12% Cultural knowledge 39 78 0 117 5% Domain-specific knowledge 117 117 0 234 10% Other skills (word processing, CAT) 78 0 0 78 3% Total contact hours 312 1521 507 2340 100% Percentage 13% 65% 22% 100% Table 5: Overview of FAK curriculum, semesters 1-4 (P4 group) 5.1.3.2 Bachelor in Übersetzen / SDI Sprachen- und Dolmetscherinstitut The BA in Übersetzen (BA Ü) was introduced by the Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen (SDI) in 2007 and enables FAK graduates to obtain a bachelor’s degree in translation. The BA Ü also offers an exclusive possibility for graduates of all Bavarian FAKs to obtain a bachelor’s degree within a total of seven semesters, including the three-year FAK program. The BA Ü recognizes that graduates of an FAK already have a large amount of practical training in translation and, in fact, are fully trained translators. Therefore, they can transfer 105 ECTS credits from the FAK to the BA course. Since students are not taught the theoretical underpinnings at the FAK as they would be in a university program, the BA Ü aims to provide this theoretical knowledge in all domains relevant to translation, such as linguistics and translation theory. The remaining 105 ECTS credits that students need in order to complete this program are provided by theoretical examinations and a BA thesis. The BA Ü curriculum is therefore not separate from the FAK curriculum. In order to be admitted to the BA Ü program, students must fulfill two pre‐ requisites (Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen 2007). First, they must have graduated from a Bavarian Fachakademie. Second, students must have a higher education entrance qualification (Fachhochschulreife/ Hochschulreife). Pursuant to the latest regulations for the Bavarian education system, it is possible, how‐ ever, to admit students without a formal qualification for higher education if they fulfill other criteria such as having a professional education and experience 143 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="144"?> in the field in which they wish to study. Thus, graduates of the FAK without the fachgebundene Fachhochschulreife can be admitted after having a so-called Be‐ ratungsgespräch, i.e., a consultation with the person responsible for the degree course. This is a regulation that applies equally to all universities in Bavaria (Art. 45 Bayerisches Hochschulgesetz). Students are free to continue with the BA program directly after graduating from an FAK or at any time following their graduation. This regulation also allows former students, who graduated before 2007, to obtain a bachelor’s de‐ gree. Furthermore, students can choose between two options regarding their schedule. Preparatory classes can be taken in eight blocks, mainly at weekends, or on a regular schedule, in which case students have classes every week. The theoretical input in both cases is identical, as is the examination taken at the end of the BA Ü courses. This examination is based on content fixed in the curriculum (Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen 2011). In order to obtain the degree, students must pass the theoretical examination and write and defend a BA thesis. The BA degree is awarded on the basis of these examinations alone, and attendance in the preparatory classes is not obligatory. Students may there‐ fore prepare for the final examinations privately if they feel they can do so. It seems, however that students generally prefer to attend the preparatory classes. Since all the subjects of the present study were recruited from among the par‐ ticipants in these courses, the course program of the preparatory classes was used as a basis for analysis (see annexes 12.1.2). The largest part of classroom time is devoted to translation theory (28 hours), followed by different courses in linguistics (22 hours), intercultural communication (eight hours) and inter‐ preting studies (six hours). All in all, students have 64 contact hours of transla‐ tion-related theory. In addition, courses on academic writing and presentation skills are offered in order to provide students with the required skills for writing and defending their BA theses. The BA Ü preparation courses do not include any practical translation exercises or even theoretical classes (such as classes in contrastive linguistics) that focus on a specific culture or language since the courses are attended by students with different language pairs. If we add the theoretical part of the BA Ü to the FAK program, which is the prerequisite for admittance to the BA Ü program, the theoretical part accounts for 2 % of the total contact hours (Table 6). It goes without saying that the main part of the BA Ü does not lie in the contact hours, but in study at home, which cannot be taken into account. This, however, is also true for the other curricula since all of them involve study time at home. Quantifying this time would have been mere speculation and has therefore been avoided. 144 5 Study Design <?page no="145"?> Alanguage (German) Blanguage Clanguage Total con‐ tact hours Per‐ centage Language courses 117 429 546 1092 32% Theoretical classes (transla‐ tion theory, lin‐ guistics…) 64 0 0 64 2% Practical transla‐ tion classes 0 1053 195 1248 37% Interpreting 0 351 0 351 10% Cultural knowledge 39 195 0 234 7% Domain-specific knowledge 117 156 0 273 8% Other skills (word processing, CAT) 145 0 0 145 4% Total contact hours 482 2184 741 3407 100% Percentage 14% 64% 22% 100% Table 6: Overview of FAK + BA Ü curriculum (PT7 group) The BA Ü students (group PT7) were compared to the FAK students at the end of their studies (P6). Although the two groups had the same amount of practical experience, most of the PT7 subjects had not translated for some time after their FAK examinations and frequently mentioned that they felt they were out of practice. However, during their preparatory classes, they had intensively re‐ flected on the theoretical basis of translation. It was thus interesting to see whether BA Ü students showed less automatization and more reflection of translation problems than P6 students, which could result in a longer time re‐ quirement but perhaps also a translation product of higher quality. 5.1.3.3 Bachelor in Transkulturelle Kommunikation / Graz The BA in Transkulturelle Kommunikation (BA TK), which was introduced at the University of Graz in 2008, is complemented by two different consecutive master’s degree courses, one specializing in translation, the other in inter‐ preting. It has replaced the former Diplom course Übersetzen und Dolmetschen. Students wishing to enroll in the BA TK must fulfill the following requirements. 145 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="146"?> 5 Freie Wahlfächer, i.e., elective subjects First, they must have a higher education entrance qualification such as the Matura, the Berufsreifeprüfung or the Studienberechtigungsprüfung (Universität Graz 2015). They must also demonstrate language skills at a level that depends on the languages they have chosen for their studies (Universität Graz 2008: 4). The following presentation of the curriculum is based on the study guideline made available in the annexes to the forty-first Mitteilungsblatt der Universität Graz (Universität Graz 2008: 35-36). This study guideline is not the currently valid one but the one that was in force at the time when the subjects of Trans‐ Comp were enrolled in the BA TK. This was an obvious choice to make since the objective of this presentation is to show in detail which theoretical and practical knowledge the subjects acquired in their studies. The suggested study plan given in the official study guidelines was taken as a basis for the analysis of the curriculum. As was done with the FAK curriculum, the courses were grouped into meaningful categories (see annexes 12.1.3). However, university curricula are usually more flexible regarding the exact point at which a certain course must be taken, and often the options available in a curriculum are far greater than those in a more “school-like” setting. Two things should be pointed out, however. First, the curriculum contains a large number of language courses. However, the course description states that the objective of the program is to transmit not only language skills but also cultural knowledge. Since it was impossible for the author to determine how much time is devoted to language teaching and how much to the transmission of cultural knowledge, these courses have all been grouped in the “language course” category. Second, it was also difficult to categorize the FWF 5 module that gives students a variety of options: they have the opportunity to spend more time in a foreign country, to do an additional internship or to take courses in different fields. These optional courses range from training programs in soft skills to theoretical courses in different philological fields and, even, economics and law. It is therefore impossible to determine exactly how much theory (and in which fields) the subjects of the TransComp project had already studied at the time of data collection since, to the best of my knowledge, these data were not collected within TransComp. For the general overview, it was thus assumed that students collected the maximum number of ECTS points possible from an internship and filled the rest of the module with theoretical courses. From examining the BA TK curriculum in its entirety (see annexes 12.1.3), it appears that only a relatively small part of it is devoted to practical translation classes (18 %). Furthermore, students take these classes only at the end of their 146 5 Study Design <?page no="147"?> degree program, in semesters five and six. At least 18 % of the total contact hours is devoted to theory. Theoretical classes that concern translation in a stricter sense seem to be few, and some of these are also taught only in the later semesters (e.g., Grundfragen der Translationswissenschaft is taught only in the fifth se‐ mester). The vast majority of classes are devoted to language learning (44 %). For semesters one through four (see Table 7), which comprise the part of the program the T4 subjects in the present study have already completed, language courses account for as much as 66 % of the total contact hours, with an additional 23 % being devoted to theoretical classes and 8 % to domain-specific knowl‐ edge. Here, there is another difference from the FAK curriculum: in the BA TK, students do not choose a domain of specialization. Instead, they take courses that provide an overview of various different domains but do not concentrate on any one of them in more detail. Alanguage (German) Blanguage Clanguage Total con‐ tact hours Per‐ centage Language courses 30 360 360 750 66% Theoretical classes (translation theory, linguis‐ tics…) 260 0 0 260 23% Practical transla‐ tion classes 0 0 0 0 0% Interpreting 0 0 0 0 0% Cultural knowledge 0 30 0 30 3% Domain-specific knowledge 90 0 0 90 8% Stay abroad 0 0 0 0 0% Other skills (word processing, CAT) 0 0 0 0 0% Total contact hours 380 390 360 1130 100% Percentage 34% 35% 32% 100% Table 7: Overview of BA TK curriculum, semesters 1-4 (T4 group) 147 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="148"?> 5.1.3.4 Comparison of Subjects’ Study Backgrounds The following comparison serves to illustrate the study background of the four comparison groups. As can be inferred from the above discussion, there are huge differences between the curricula in terms of the percentage of time they devote to each of the different categories established above. However, an in-depth analysis of the students’ input during their studies cannot be based on the percentages alone, as the total number of contact hours differs considerably, especially between a university and the more school-like FAK schedules. Thus, a comparison of actual contact hours seems most appropriate. Starting with a comparison of the groups P4 and T4, it becomes clear that the total number of contact hours is much higher at a Fachakademie than at a univer‐ sity. While the P4 subjects have a total of 2340 hours of classes during their first four semesters, T4 subjects have only approximately 1130 hours of contact time, i.e., less than half as much. Since there is this considerable difference in contact hours be‐ tween the P4 and T4 group, it is advisable to take a closer look at how the different categories of courses are affected by this difference. From Figure 10, we can see that the P4 group has more contact hours in all fields except theoretical classes, which are not offered at all at the FAK. The largest difference, however, concerns prac‐ tical translation classes, which comprise 1053 contact hours for the P4 group and zero hours for the T4 group. The second major difference concerns translation-re‐ lated theoretical classes, of which the T4 group had approximately 260 hours versus zero hours at the FAK. Since the focus of this study is to compare students, who have a large amount of practical training, to students who have a theoretical back‐ ground, this difference is the very basis of the study design. The fact that the P4 group attended far more practical translation classes than the T4 students attended theoretical courses is one of the previously mentioned disadvantages of choosing real-life curricula over more experimental and controlled settings. However, since one group has had no practical training at all and the other has never had any theoretical classes, this difference in contact hours is not expected to bias the present study in any way. Other differences exist in the amount of time devoted to cultural and domain-spe‐ cific knowledge, in which the P4 group had somewhat more training. While the P4 students already had 117 contact hours of cultural courses in the FAK, these courses amount to only 30 contact hours in the first four semesters of the BA TK curric‐ ulum. And especially in terms of domain knowledge, the difference between the curricula is considerable: the P4 subjects had 234 contact hours whereas T4 sub‐ jects had only 90 hours. The difference is even more pronounced than these figures indicate: while at the FAK one domain-specific subject is chosen and studied in depth, this is not the case in the BA TK curriculum. Solutions were found, how‐ 148 5 Study Design <?page no="149"?> ever, to prevent these differences in contact hours from biasing the data used in the present study. With regard to the considerable difference in domain knowledge, it was decided to use a text for which no domain-specific knowledge was required (see 5.2.1). With regard to “cultural knowledge”, a similar approach was taken. Al‐ though the selected source text was culture-specific, no in-depth knowledge be‐ yond what could be expected of students with a good educational background was needed. Figure 10: Comparison of content hours in the P4 and T4 groups Last but not least, there is a difference with regard to the total number of contact hours for language courses, which make up a substantial percentage of both degree programs. The total of language classes is 858 hours in the first four semesters of the FAK and 750 in the BA TK curriculum. However, a closer look at how this affects the different languages is needed. In their first four semesters, the T4 subjects had 720 hours of foreign language classes, divided equally between their Band C-lan‐ guages (360 hours each) plus 30 hours of German. The P4 subjects had a total of 780 hours of foreign language classes, also equally divided between their Band C-lan‐ guages (390 hours each) plus 78 hours of German. Therefore, the P4 subjects had a total of 30 hours more English (B-language) and 48 hours more German (A-lan‐ guage) over the course of the two years than their T4 counterparts. This corre‐ sponds to about 0.4 hours of English-language courses and 0.6 hours of German per week in the FAK curriculum. While I do not suggest that the language competence 149 5.1 Selection of Subjects <?page no="150"?> was the same in the two groups, I do not believe that a possible difference would be due to the rather small number of additional hours spent in language courses. Instead, it seems likely that a better language competence among P4 students would be due to their constantly working with both English and German texts during their practical translation classes. After all, the P4 students had 936 contact hours in which they translated either into or out of English, i.e., about 12 hours per week. These translation classes may not only help students to develop an abundant vo‐ cabulary, but also to improve their receptive and productive competences in both languages. The difference caused by the practical translation classes, however, did not bias the study but was inherent in the research question. The comparison of the P6 and PT7 students does not present such problems since the PT7 group only differs from the P6 group in terms of their additional theoret‐ ical classes, as can be seen from Figure 11. In all other categories, P6 and PT7 stu‐ dents had the same amount of training during their time at a Bavarian FAK. There‐ fore, the total of contact hours was identical for all categories except theoretical classes. Since both groups included subjects with English as their B-language as well as subjects with English as their C-language, we should, however, take the difference of experience in translating between German and English into account. While students with English as their B-language had 429 hours of language classes and 1053 hours of practical translation in this language pair, students with English as a C-language had 546 hours of language classes but only 195 hours of translation practice. Figure 11: Comparison of content hours in the P6 and PT7 groups 150 5 Study Design <?page no="151"?> 5.2 Experimental Design In the following, the experimental design will be described in detail so as to allow for the study’s replication. The guiding principle has been to match TransComp’s study design (see e.g., Göpferich 2009b: 25-29) as closely as pos‐ sible in order to ensure the comparability of data. In the following, I will briefly describe the translation task as well as the experimental procedure followed for all subjects during the collection of primary data. In addition, the ethical ques‐ tions of research will be briefly discussed. 5.2.1 Translation Task Different aspects must be taken into account when selecting a text for transla‐ tion within TPR. First of all, the direction of translation is of paramount impor‐ tance. For the present study, a translation into the mother tongue, i.e., from English into German, was chosen. This seemed to be the better choice because not all subjects in the P6 and PT7 groups had a comparable level of English language competence. Translation into English would have required productive skills in English, which might thus differ considerably in the subjects partici‐ pating in the present study. Another strong argument in favor of translation into the A-language was the use of the think-aloud method (see 5.3.1), which means that subjects had to verbalize their thoughts while translating. Since it seemed likely that German native speakers living in Germany would mostly think in German, having them translate into English might have rendered the task of simultaneously translating and voicing their thoughts even more diffi‐ cult. In fact, it has repeatedly been proposed that translation into the mother tongue is preferable in this kind of research setting because it may lead to fewer interferences between verbalizing and translating (e.g., Hansen 2005: 513; Göp‐ ferich 2009b: 28-29). Last but not least, the research design had to match Trans‐ Comp’s, where translations from English into German were used. Another major decision concerned the text type and subject. For the present study, a text was chosen that did not require any specific domain knowledge. This was important since the subjects in the groups P4, P6 and PT7 were not selected according to their respective domains of specialization, as this would have reduced the number of potential subjects dramatically. Thus, the text could not concern any of the areas of specialization offered at the FAKs, such as eco‐ nomics, technology or law, as this would have biased the data. No matter what specialization they choose, all FAK students are trained in “general translation”, in which there is usually an emphasis on newspaper and magazine articles. 151 5.2 Experimental Design <?page no="152"?> Therefore, it was deemed best to select a text of this precise text type for the present study, as it should be equally demanding for all FAK students. In the TransComp project, different text types were used. While many of them were magazine articles or extracts from books, the ST given to subjects in their fourth semester was an operating instruction. While making perfect sense in the TransComp context, in which all students follow the same curriculum and do not choose any specialization, it would have led to distorting effects in the case of the present study, where subjects with a technical specialization would have been likely to show better results than, say, those with a specialization in eco‐ nomics, as they are very likely much more used to the text type and the respec‐ tive vocabulary. This was the decisive factor in choosing to include the Trans‐ Comp data of the fifth-semester students in the present study instead of those of the fourth-semester students (see 5.1.2). Closely related to content and text type was the selection of the translation brief. Since, in the case of research or practical translation classes, the translation task is usually not embedded in a real-life communicative situation - i.e., the text is translated only to be evaluated by the researcher or teacher but is not destined for any “real” audience - it is necessary to specify such a (fictive) com‐ municative situation. The translation brief thus specifies the use that will be made of the translation and allows the translator to infer which audience he is translating for. The translation brief can, for example, specify whether the in‐ cluded function of the TT corresponds to that of the ST, or whether the trans‐ lation is to fulfill a different purpose (see 1.3). For research conducted within the functional paradigm, the translation brief is an important aspect of the research design since any evaluation of the translation product can only be made in ac‐ cordance with the intended function of the translation and therefore in accord‐ ance with the translation brief. In the TransComp project, two different texts were used in every wave. For purposes of better comparability, however, only one text was selected for the present study. The key factor distinguishing the two texts used with the fifth-semester students in the TransComp project was the translation brief. Although both briefs were non-function-changing, the translation brief for the chosen text presented an additional challenge to stu‐ dents because of the large time gap between the publication of the ST (1981) and that of the TT which, according to the translation brief, was to be published in the current issue of a magazine. Especially when studying students trained in functional theory versus those not trained in theory - but with extensive prac‐ tical experience in translation - the strategies used to cope with such a trans‐ lation brief might be seen to yield interesting insights, which is why this specific translation task was chosen. 152 5 Study Design <?page no="153"?> 5.2.2 Experimental Procedure In general, the subjects had their think-aloud sessions at the institute at which they were enrolled. There were only three exceptions, in which students of the Fremdspracheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt München (FIM) preferred to have their sessions during holidays, when their institute was closed. They agreed to come to the Sprachen- und Dolmetscherinstitut (SDI) instead. For the TA sessions, a quiet room at the respective institutes was reserved. As a warm-up exercise, students were first given a questionnaire to determine their views regarding the role of the translator (see 5.3.3). They were then briefed on the TA session. They were asked to verbalize everything that came to mind, without giving any further explanations and to refrain from communicating with the researcher. It was indicated to them that the researcher might remind them to verbalize in case they remained silent for an extended period of time. However, reminding subjects to talk also reminds them of the fact that they are being monitored, which might induce a change in the process (Hansen 2005: 517- 518). To avoid these distorting effects, the author tried to avoid reminders. Only in rare cases in which subjects verbalized very little in general and also remained silent for extremely long periods of time did the researcher intervene. In order to ensure that the translation process was as natural as possible, students did not have to wear a headset during translation because this might have made them even more aware of the research situation. Instead, a small desktop microphone was used that seemed to be less invasive for the subjects. As in the TransComp project, no time limit was set for the translation task. While the subjects worked on their translations, the researcher sat in the background, as recommended by Ericsson & Simon (1993: 375-376), so as to make the situa‐ tion as little artificial as possible for the participants and reduce their sense of being observed. This also helped to keep the subjects from communicating with the researcher (see Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Prassl et al. 2011: 63). The researcher’s role was to remind participants to verbalize, to help with technical problems and to protocol everything that was not recorded by the screen-re‐ cording software, such as the use of conventional dictionaries and any kind of disturbances or unusual events that occurred during the process. Students were provided with several dictionaries and an Internet connection. The dictionaries included one bilingual dictionary (Thyen 1999), two monolin‐ gual English dictionaries (Della Summers 1995; Hornby & Turnbull 2010) and one monolingual German dictionary (Wahrig & Wahrig-Burfeind 2011). These dictionaries were also used in the TransComp project alongside two others which could not be provided for the present study. Participants were told be‐ forehand which dictionaries would be available to them and that they could 153 5.2 Experimental Design <?page no="154"?> bring with them any other resources that they deemed necessary for their trans‐ lation. However, only one of the participants (subject MAK) followed that sug‐ gestion and brought an overview of the British and American press system as well as a collection of English expressions with her. As a further means of re‐ search, students could use the Internet. The Internet connection usually worked well, with only some exceptions when the Wi-Fi signal was rather weak and the Internet was very slow for that reason. After the translation, the informants were immediately given a second ques‐ tionnaire. It was only after they had filled it out that the researcher engaged in an informal conversation with them, asking them how they felt about the task, the role of theory in translator training and debriefing them on the more specific aim of the study. 5.2.3 Research Ethics Two aspects of research ethics were particularly important for the empirical investigation. First, it was important that all the subjects participated on a vol‐ untary basis and in full knowledge of the facts. Second, a debriefing of the sub‐ jects ensured that they knew how their data would be used. For the primary data collection, the most important aspect was informed consent. The project was presented to all FAK and BA Ü classes with the desired characteristics (see 5.1.1) by the researcher herself, so that the students could meet her and ask questions before consenting to participate. Furthermore, all interested students were informed by e-mail as to what they could expect when participating in the study. This e-mail detailed the approximate amount of time needed for a TA session, the kind of task given to the participants, the diction‐ aries that would be made available, the fact that audioand screen-recording would be used and that the subjects’ identities would be anonymized in any publication resulting from the study. Students decided whether or not to par‐ ticipate only after receiving the e-mail, so that they consented to participate in full knowledge of the facts. Besides briefing participants on what to expect when participating, it is also considered good practice to inform them on the goals of the research project in as much detail as possible. However, it was feared that informing the partici‐ pants of the PT7 group that the researcher was particularly interested in whether and how they would implement their recently acquired theoretical knowledge of translation in their translation process might lead to distortions. Following Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson (2009), Saldanha & O'Brien (2014: 45) point out that there is a difference between giving false information about the research 154 5 Study Design <?page no="155"?> aim and veiling some aspects of the study. While the former is considered un‐ ethical, the latter is an accepted way of preventing informants from altering their performance and telling the researcher what they think he or she wants to hear. However, if the researcher chooses to withhold some of his or her real intentions, he or she must reveal them to his subjects after the data collection. For the present study, it was decided not to tell participants that the researcher was interested in all aspects of translation theory. Instead, they were told that the aim of the study was to compare the translation competence of the BA Ü and FAK groups with that of students in a university undergraduate degree. This information was correct. The intended focus of the study became clear to most participants by the explicit questions on translation theory in the follow-up questionnaire. The researcher made sure that a debriefing was also included in the conversation after the TA session. 5.3 Methods of Data Collection Investigating translation competence is a complex task and the methods and evaluation criteria available are by no means uncontroversial. The methods adopted for data collection will therefore be presented and discussed in detail. Since secondary data were taken from the TransComp project (e.g., Göpferich 2009c, 2009b, 2010a, 2010c), their methods of data collection had to be replicated. The following section thus serves not only to present the adopted methods, reflect their pros and cons and consider alternatives, but also to ensure that the adopted methods were just as useful and adequate in the context of the present research question as they were for the TransComp project. All deviation from the TransComp study design (e.g., Göpferich 2009b: 25-29, 2010a: 169-171, 2010c: 6-9) will be highlighted. 5.3.1 Introspection In translation process research, scholars are primarily interested in what hap‐ pens during the translation process. This concerns not only different activities such as researching in dictionaries or the Internet, but also and most of all the informants’ cognitive processes. Although it is generally acknowledged that it is impossible, using the methods available today, to gain direct access to cogni‐ tive processes (Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 113), methods exist that can give us at least indirect access by informing us about how subjects experience their cog‐ nitive processes. Three different methods of introspection are available to the 155 5.3 Methods of Data Collection <?page no="156"?> translation process researcher: dialogue protocols, retrospection and concurrent introspection via think-aloud. However, none of the methods is unanimously accepted within the research community, and from his review of publications of the years 2006 - 2014, Muñoz Martín (2014a: 63) concludes that conflicting views still persist concerning the different research methods. In the following, all three methods will be briefly discussed in order to explain the reasons why think-aloud was found to be the method best-suited for the present research topic. Dialogue protocols are produced when two or more subjects translate a text together, thereby commenting on what they are doing. They discuss their trans‐ lation proposals and negotiate a solution that is acceptable for everyone in‐ volved. This method has two advantages. First, it is easier for subjects to talk to a peer than to themselves alone, as is the case in think-aloud. And second, the data are rich in information because the subjects have to justify their solutions (Krings 2005: 352). However, it is also obvious that dialogue protocols cannot produce valid data on the cognitive processes of a single translator (Krings 2005: 352; Göpferich & Jääskeläinen 2009: 172; Jääskeläinen 2011b: 127). In fact, after adopting both methods, individual think-aloud and dialogue protocols, for her study, Lesznyák (2008: 223) noticed a tendency for dialogue protocols to substantially influence both process and product, as was to be expected. She found that translating in pairs leads to better translations, decreases the time needed to accomplish the task and reduces the use of dictionaries, for example. These findings seem to rule out dialogue protocols as a method for observing the translation competence of an individual translator. Retrospection, which is also frequently employed in TPR, consists of a verbal report on cognitive processes delivered after the actual translation task. This retrospective report can either be uncued or cued, e.g., by showing the subject a screen-recording of his or her translation process. The main advantage of retrospection is its delay, which guarantees that it cannot interfere with the translation process itself (Krings 2005: 348-349). This delay, however, is also its main weakness. The temporal gap between translation and reporting can lead to omissions or even false recalls and additional reflections that have not been part of the actual translation process (Göpferich & Jääskeläinen 2009: 181). Fur‐ thermore, as Englund Dimitrova & Tiselius (2009: 112) point out, subjects that are confronted with their translation products in the case of cued retrospection are likely to comment on the translation itself instead of on the cognitive pro‐ cesses that led to this translation. Accordingly, if we are interested in what hap‐ pens in the translator’s mind during the translation process, these data might not be that useful. Besides, this method has not been developed for tasks such 156 5 Study Design <?page no="157"?> as the translation of a text but rather for very short tasks that take only a few seconds. The verbal report should follow the task immediately while many of the cognitive processes are still available in the subject’s short-term memory. It is under these circumstances, according to Ericsson & Simon (1993: xvi), that retrospection provides the best results and even more complete reports than think-aloud. These conditions, however, cannot be met in the case of a transla‐ tion task exceeding more than a couple of words. Furthermore, letting subjects report after a lengthy translation task would unduly prolong the duration time of the intervention. This would probably tire participants and decrease their motivation (Göpferich & Jääskeläinen 2009: 181). Although retrospection might, accordingly, be the best option for short tasks, it did not seem an adequate al‐ ternative in the present research setting. Think-aloud (TA) has been adopted from cognitive psychology (Ericsson & Simon 1984, 1993) and consists of subjects voicing aloud their thoughts while accomplishing a task. They thereby allow the researcher to get a second-hand glimpse of their cognitive processes. Ericsson and Simon’s theoretical basis is the conviction that human cognition is information processing and that infor‐ mation is stored in different memories with different access characteristics. Re‐ cent information, they believe, is stored in the short-term memory, whereas information that has not recently been attended to is stored in the long-term memory. All information stored in the short-term memory is immediately ac‐ cessible and therefore can be reported on (1993: 11). This is not true for processes that have become automated through practice, because they no longer use the short-term memory. Thus, automated processes cannot be verbalized and do not figure in think-aloud protocols (TAPs) (1993: 15). In translation process re‐ search, this is especially a concern when subjects with very different levels of translation competence, i.e., novices and professionals, are compared. However, it might also be relevant for the present study, as automatization is the result of practice and two of the groups of subjects (P4 and T4) differed considerably in this respect. This does not invalidate the comparison since other data sources were used as well, but it nevertheless needs to be taken into account in the analysis of TAPs. Ericsson and Simon distinguish between different levels of verbalization, de‐ pending on the kind of information that subjects are asked to report (1993: 79- 80, 1993: 16-19): - Level 1: Subjects are asked to report information that is currently attended to, i.e., that is active in the short term memory, and that is already encoded in verbal form. 157 5.3 Methods of Data Collection <?page no="158"?> - Level 2: Subjects are asked to report information currently attended to that is not in verbal code and needs to be encoded verbally before it can be voiced aloud. Ericsson & Simon (1993: 79) mention information about odors as an example of information that is attended to in a “compressed internal format”, i.e., in a non-verbal code. Before this information can be voiced aloud, subjects need to recode it in verbal form. - Level 3: In this case subjects are asked to voice information other than that currently attended to, e.g., because only selected information should be verbalized or because new information must be generated. This is the case, for example, when subjects are asked to explain their thought pro‐ cesses or give reasons for their behavior. Subjects are then required to link their current cognitive processes “to earlier thoughts and information attended to previously” (1993: 79). According to Ericsson & Simon (1993: 106-107, 1993: xvii-xxii), different levels of verbalization produce think-aloud data with different qualities because of the effect that they have on cognitive processes. Level 1 verbalization is the most direct form, as no encoding is needed. In the case of level 2 verbalization, where verbal encoding is required, this encoding takes some time, which slows but does not otherwise change the process (1993: xxii). Level 3 verbalization, on the other hand, requires that subjects alter their thought processes by focusing on a specific kind of information. This might change not only the sequence of thoughts but also the process as a whole (1993: xviii). As a result, if one is inter‐ ested in unmodified processes, it is important to brief subjects thoroughly on the task and point out to them that they are not to explain or justify their actions, so as to avoid any alteration of the process as far as possible (1993: 378). In the case of translation, Sun (2011: 932) suggests that level 1 verbalization is achieved when subjects translate non-vivid, informative texts, such as the one used in the present study. It seems, however, that even if much of the translation process is clearly related to verbally encoded information (i.e., reading the source text and producing the target text), there will always be non-verbally encoded cognitive processes in translation as well, e.g., in decision-making and during research processes, which means that translation processes generally include both level 1 and level 2 verbalizations (e.g., Krings 2001: 225; Göpferich & Jääs‐ keläinen 2009: 178). There are, however, subjects who experience difficulties when asked to think aloud. These individuals tend to reduce their verbalizing to a mere talk-aloud, i.e., to level 1 verbalizations (Krings 2005: 351), which leads to rather incomplete reports and is not what translation process researchers hope to receive. 158 5 Study Design <?page no="159"?> Despite the fact that Ericsson & Simon (1993) have provided ample empirical support for TA, its validity for translation has been questioned repeatedly, and the debate still continues (e.g., Li 2004; Hansen 2005; Jääskeläinen 2011b; Sun 2011). The main concern regarding think-aloud is whether it influences the process (and thereby perhaps even the product) of translation and the ways in which it might do so. On the basis of their empirical validation, Ericsson and Simon (1993: xxii) assert that TA slows the process down but that it does not change it in any other way, as long as subjects are not asked to filter, explain or justify their cognitive processes. Thus, they claim that neither the order of cog‐ nitive processes nor their result is changed when subjects think aloud. Jääske‐ läinen (2011b: 126), however, points out that Ericsson and Simon’s evidence is based on tasks that are rule-governed and have clearly defined solutions, such as solving multiplication problems, for example, which is not the case with translation, where multiple solutions can be correct. Accordingly, Bernardini (2001: 242) claims that the method has been uncritically adopted by early trans‐ lation process researchers, with its validity for translation being assumed rather than proven. As a consequence, methodological research to test the validity of think-aloud and to determine the effects that the think-aloud method has on different aspects of the translation process has been called for (e.g., Jääskeläinen 2011a: 26; Sun 2011: 934). One of the first to compare the differences between translations made with and without TA was Jääskeläinen (2000). In her study, she compared translations of one and the same text done with and without TA. Her aim was to find out if there are differences between the translations produced with TA and those pro‐ duced without TA in terms of how closely they follow the syntax (sentence boundaries, order of information) and lexicon (omissions, additions, changes of word class) of the source text. She found that subjects translating without TA were better able to omit passages that were not required within the target con‐ text, than those who were thinking aloud. From this she concludes that TA might, in fact, influence the deviation from formal correspondence at a lexical level. Deviation at the syntactic level of the ST, however, seemed to be unaffected by TA and rather depended on the level of translation competence (2000: 79-80). Due to the small number of participants in her study, Jääskeläinen considers her findings inconclusive and of little informative value regarding possible system‐ atic differences caused by TA. She points out, however, that more research in this area is required (2000: 80). This challenge was taken up by Krings (2001) and Jakobsen (2003), both of whom noticed influences on the translation processes of subjects that go beyond the slowing-down effect predicted by Ericsson and Simon (1993: xxii). As was to 159 5.3 Methods of Data Collection <?page no="160"?> be expected, however, both studies also found that speed was affected. Jakobsen (2003: 69) reports that translators needed overall about 25 % more time when translating with TA. In Krings’ study, the increase in time needed by the subjects translating with TA amounted to as much as 33 % (2001: 227). Besides the slowing-down effect, Krings (2001: 229) observed a considerable increase in re‐ visions and a less linear production of the translation overall when subjects were thinking aloud. This finding, however, could not be replicated by Jakobsen (2003: 88), who did not find statistically significant changes in the revision process of his subjects. Nevertheless, he did observe that his group of experts revised more when translating without TA and attributes the fact that this finding is not statistically significant to his small sample size. Thus, his findings point in the opposite direction to those of Krings mentioned above. Beyond these effects, both studies have discovered changes in segmentation. Thus, the text production of Krings’ TA subjects was segmented into smaller units and the number of translation segments increased for both semi-profes‐ sional and expert translators (Krings 2001: 229). Jakobsen (2003: 92-93) also found that subjects translating with TA had significantly more segments than those translating without TA. As a consequence, the length of individual seg‐ ments decreased considerably (2003: 93). For Jääskeläinen (2011b: 127), this finding is a cause for concern since she believes that smaller segments indicate a difference in cognitive processing and may even be reflected in the product, e.g., in a decrease of coherence. Sun (2011: 931), on the other hand, does not think that smaller segments necessarily indicate different cognitive processes but that they are a logical consequence of the attested slowing-down effect. Translating more slowly automatically leads to an increase in pauses, which are then used, she believes, as indicators of translation segments. In fact, Jakobsen’s (2003: 90) indicator is a pause of five seconds or more for translations both with and without TA. It would be interesting to see if a difference in segmentation could still be observed if a longer pause, e.g., a pause lengthened by the 25 % of the attested slowing-down effect, could be used to indicate a segment for the tasks with TA. Despite the observed changes in the translation process, neither Jakobsen (2003: 93) nor Krings (2001: 229) considers these findings to invalidate TA as a method for translation process research, which is in line with the opinion of other scholars, such as Li (2004: 302) and Sun (2011: 931). Instead, it seems that their studies helped determine the ways in which the resulting data might not be reliable. All in all, there seems to be a “general awareness” that think-aloud as a method for translation process research is “far from ideal” (Breedveld 2002: 223-224). Nevertheless, and despite its limitations, TA is considered by 160 5 Study Design <?page no="161"?> some to be the best method available today for investigating the complex problem-solving processes of translation (e.g., Göpferich 2008: 22). In line with these researchers, I am convinced that TA can lead to interesting insights that could not be achieved by any other method. In order to reduce the flaws of the think-aloud method as much as possible, various researchers have made suggestions for ways of using TA effectively (e.g., Séguinot 1996: 76; Bernardini 2001: 243; Krings 2001: 217; Li 2004; Sun 2011: 932). These usually involve briefing subjects (i.e. making them aware that no reflec‐ tions or explanations of their thoughts are to be provided), holding a TA training session, avoiding interaction with the subjects during the TA session and making an informed selection of subjects. These recommendations were adopted as much as possible: subjects were briefed on TA and explicitly asked not to reflect on their processes (Ericsson & Simon 1993: 378). They were also advised not to communicate with the researcher. It has been suggested that not all individuals are equally suitable for TA be‐ cause of a very different disposition to verbalize, which can be confirmed with the data collected in the present study. Therefore, subjects should be selected accordingly and/ or trained in TA (see e.g., Krings 2001: 217; Li 2004: 306). This was unfortunately not possible in the collection of primary data for the same reasons that stood in the way of making other pretests for subject sampling: an additional appointment with the subjects would have been required, and this would have reduced the already small number of volunteers. However, none of the participating subjects of the primary data group had ever done TA before, so that they were all on the same level in terms of TA experience. Furthermore, Lesznyák (2008: 159) has stated that a training session does not solve the problem of bad verbalizers completely. One training session might therefore remove some nervousness, but would probably not be sufficient to turn reluctant ver‐ balizers into avid talkers. This might be different within a longitudinal project such as TransComp (e.g., Göpferich 2009c, 2009b, 2010c). By their fifth semester, the TransComp subjects had participated in various TA sessions and could be considered experienced verbalizers. This was certainly a difference between the primary and secondary data, which unfortunately could not be avoided. This difference will have to be taken into account in the analysis of the resulting TAPs, especially concerning the completeness of verbalization. Today, think-aloud is usually not employed as a single method. Instead, tri‐ angulation of the data collected using a mix of methods is considered to be best practice in TPR (Shreve & Angelone 2010: 6). As Krings (2005: 352) points out, triangulating data, i.e., approaching one and the same study question from dif‐ ferent angles and using different methods, may reduce the biases that are in‐ 161 5.3 Methods of Data Collection <?page no="162"?> herent in each of the different methods. However, data triangulation is not without pitfalls of its own. Hansen (2010: 189), for example, warns that triangu‐ lation does not merely consist of gathering huge amounts of data via different methods, but that a useful integration of the data and its interpretation should be considered in advance. She terms this an “integrative approach”, i.e., an ap‐ proach that takes into account the complexity of translation due to the particular characteristics of the translator, translation processes and texts in situations (Hansen 2010: 204). This is also the aim of the present study, which therefore approaches the notion of “translation competence” from different angles and uses methods of data collection in addition to introspection, such as screen-re‐ cording and questionnaires. 5.3.2 Key-Logging and Screen-Recording While TA is now a classic in TPR, technological advances over the last decade have produced new methods that can complement conventional think-aloud. Two such methods are key-logging and screen-recording. Both enable the re‐ searcher to record his or her subjects’ translation processes. In addition, each has advantages of its own. For key-logging, a special software is required that records all keyboard ac‐ tivity. In the field of translation, one such software is Translog, which was de‐ veloped at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS) by Jakobsen and Schou (see e.g., Jakobsen & Schou 1999; Jakobsen 1999). Key-logging software provides an exact account of the production process of a translation and thus provides ob‐ jective quantitative data that permit a statistical analysis. However, key-logging can only account for the product and/ or changes in the product during trans‐ lation. It does not provide an insight into the cognitive processes of deci‐ sion-making, which is why it needs to be supplemented by other data elicitation methods such as think-aloud (e.g., Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 133). Another weak‐ ness of key-logging programs is that they are limited to recording within the program. All parts of the translation process that do not happen within the key-logging software, such as online research for example, are not recorded. Screen-recording, on the other hand, captures not only the text production but everything that the translator does at the computer. The resulting data, however, need to be transcribed or annotated in order to be made available for analysis since screen-recording only produces a video file as output. To combine their respective advantages, both methods were used to collect data for the present study. For key-logging, Translog was used in the Translog-II version (Carl 2012), with the following configurations: the source text appeared 162 5 Study Design <?page no="163"?> at the top, and the TT had to be typed in a separate window at the bottom of the program’s window. The prompting for the subject’s name was activated. The key-logger was the only plugin activated. The audio-recording implemented in Translog was not used, as audio-recording was included in the screen-recording software, which ensured synchrony between the screen video and the audio comment. In the present study, however, the key-logging data were mainly used as a backdrop against which the think-aloud data was analyzed and checked for accuracy or further explanation. For screenand audio-recording, Microsoft Expression Encoder 4 was used. Additionally, a second screen-recording soft‐ ware (the freeware CamStudio) and audio-recorder (the freeware Audacity) were run to record screen and voice separately so that there would still be both audio and video recordings if the Expression Encoder bugged. While no sys‐ tematic analysis of the keylogging data was provided in the present project, the screen-recordings were transcribed and all events of interest (such as online research) were included in the think-aloud protocols (see 8.1). An additional possibility for tapping into the process would have been to videotape the subjects. This method was used in the TransComp project, for example. For the present study, it was decided not to use video recording to collect the primary data. Video recording is quite an invasive method and is very likely to make subjects feel less at ease, increase their nervousness and therefore alter their normal behavior even more than is already the case in the experi‐ mental situation. It could, for example, cause subjects to monitor their output more carefully (Bernardini 2001: 256). Thus, negative factors seemed to far out‐ weigh the positive ones. Concerning the comparability of the primary and the secondary data, the abandonment of video recording should not have made a difference since, as explained above, the TransComp subjects had already par‐ ticipated in several TA sessions by their fifth semester - the semester from which the data used in the present study was taken - and were surely accustomed by then to being videotaped while translating. 5.3.3 Questionnaires Each TA session was supplemented by two questionnaires. The first question‐ naire concerned the translator’s self-concept. The second served to gather ad‐ ditional information about the subjects’ perception of his or her translation process and his or her opinion regarding theoretical translation classes. Before the actual translation task was performed, subjects were asked to complete the first questionnaire as a simple warm-up exercise. The question‐ naire served to gather relevant information, such as the subjects’ native lan‐ 163 5.3 Methods of Data Collection <?page no="164"?> guage, their B-language and C-language and other relevant information re‐ garding their background (see annexes 12.3.1). It also included questions about the informant’s views on the role of the translator and his or her concept of translation. The questionnaire was based on the one used in the TransComp project (Göpferich 2008: 264-276), although some modifications were made to bring it into line with the present study’s subject sample. In addition, the ques‐ tionnaire was shortened, and questions that were outside the scope of this study were deleted. When making modifications, changes in the order of the questions and the omission of questions that would probably influence answers to later questions were carefully avoided. It was considered important to gather this particular type of information before the actual translation task, otherwise the answers could have been biased since the informants might have stated what they had done in the previous translation task rather than what they usually do (or think they should do) when translating and rather than what their personal beliefs about translation are. Obviously, by asking these questions first, the op‐ posite possibility could not be excluded - namely, the possibility that the stu‐ dents might adapt their behavior during the translation process to reflect their previous replies. However, this seemed less likely in the case of the participants of the present study, who already had extensive experience translating and had probably developed routines that would not be easily changed. A retrospective questionnaire served to gather information regarding the subjects’ main translation problems and how satisfied they were with their sol‐ utions to those problems. The questionnaire was given precedence over the option of a retrospective interview in order to ensure that all participants were asked exactly the same questions in the same order. As was the case with the first questionnaire, the second questionnaire was adapted from the TransComp project (Göpferich 2008: 257-263). Again, the questionnaire was shortened by deleting questions that were not relevant to the present research focus. Instead, a new section containing explicit questions on translation theory was added. This section varied depending on whether or not the subjects had had theoretical training. Thus, students with a theoretical background (the PT7 group) were asked about their experiences with translation theory and whether they had actively used their theoretical knowledge in the translation task. The two FAK groups, which did not have a theoretical background, were asked if they would like to have theoretical classes in addition to their practical classes and if they believed theory could be beneficial for a career in translation. The decision to add the section on theory at the end of the second questionnaire was deliberate. First, the questions concerning theory had to be asked after the translation task so as not to bias the translation process. Within the questionnaire, comparability 164 5 Study Design <?page no="165"?> with the TransComp data was sought, and inserting questions on theory could have had an undesired impact on the answers to subsequent questions. In ad‐ dition, placing the questions about theory at the end also made it easier to initiate an informal conversation on theory in translator education after the participants had finished filling out the questionnaire. This brought interesting insights for the researcher while also allowing her to include the debriefing in this conver‐ sation (see 5.2.3). 5.4 Variables Since the aim of this study was to compare its subjects’ translation competence, one major challenge was to operationalize a measurement of translation com‐ petence. From the adopted theoretical framework (see 2.5), a range of factors and sub-competences have been deduced as being susceptible to influence from input during translator training. These are the translator’s self-concept and, directly or indirectly, his or her strategic competence and his or her “translation routine activation competence” (TRAC). These factors and sub-competences from Göpferich’s model of translation competence (2009b: 20) were thus espe‐ cially relevant to the present research question. However, it is not possible to measure complex sub-competences like strategic competence or TRAC directly in the data. Thus, meaningful variables that would allow the researcher to draw conclusions on the subjects’ underlying sub-competences as well as on their translation competence in general had to be defined. When defining these variables, it should be kept in mind that the triangulation of data (see 5.3.1) must be ensured since neither the product-data nor the process-data alone can account for the subjects’ translation competence. On the one hand, the product-data are considered to be an insufficient source when a measurement of translation competence is attempted since a translation cannot account for the underlying processes leading to the product: it is impossible to infer from a correct translation whether the subject just guessed or, on the con‐ trary, was aware of the requirements for a correct translation (Krings 2005: 348; Göpferich 2010c: 50). On the other hand, it is generally accepted today that re‐ search focusing on the translation process should never ignore the translation product (e.g., Alves et al. 2010: 110; Muñoz Martín 2014a: 71; Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 111). This was not the case in early studies of the translation process, which did not take the final translation into account. This “total neglect of [the] final version” was criticized early on by Toury (1991: 47). He pointed out that the translation product is, after all, “the very raison d’être of the problem-solving 165 5.4 Variables <?page no="166"?> processes which translating is” and as such could not be neglected in the analysis (1991: 60). Therefore, an integration of both processand product-data is desir‐ able for research interested in translation competence since these two types of data are inextricably linked with one another and can therefore yield comple‐ mentary information on different aspects of the subjects’ translation compe‐ tence. Regarding the variables, a selection had to be made among the many aspects of the translation process and translation product that are related to the subjects’ underlying translation competence. Many such aspects have already been used in translation process-oriented research, as we have seen in the overview in chapter 2.5. Concerning the product, an analysis of acceptability (e.g., PACTE 2009), errors (e.g., Göpferich 2010a) and creativity (e.g., Bayer-Hohenwarter 2012) has proven to yield useful results. All of these aspects provide insights into the subjects’ competence in producing a target text but do so from different angles. Concerning the translation process, too, there is a vast range of observ‐ able characteristics that can provide the researcher with information about his or her subjects’ translation competence. Some of the frequently analyzed aspects of the translation process are, for example, translation problems (e.g., PACTE 2011a; Angelone & Shreve 2011), decision-making processes (e.g., PACTE 2009; Prassl 2010a, 2010b) and, more specifically, the use of external resources (e.g., Nord 2004; Prassl 2011) as well as translation strategies (e.g., Hansen 1999; Aguado-Giménez & Pérez-Paredes 2005; Atari 2005). Of these different aspects of the translation process and the different approaches used to analyze them, a selection had to be made that would allow for conclusions to be drawn on the specific sub-competences presented above. One interesting approach to measuring translation competence in students was adopted by Orozco (2000b, 2000a), who developed a “measuring instrument for the acquisition of translation competence”. Her research goal was similar to the one of the present study: she set out to measure the progress in translation competence that students made during their first year of studies. For her meas‐ uring instrument, she thus needed to find variables that included both process and product data, concerned the entire process of translation (comprehension, transfer, production; see 8.2.2), were directly observable in the data and, last but not least, permitted conclusions as to whether students have developed trans‐ lation strategies (2000b: 119; Orozco & Hurtado Albir 2002: 379-380). She found that a trilogy of measuring instruments yielded valid results: the first measures the students’ “notions of translation”, i.e. their general, declarative knowledge about translation; the second evaluates their ability to detect and solve transla‐ tion problems; and the third concerns their translation errors. Besides having 166 5 Study Design <?page no="167"?> the above mentioned properties and having been empirically validated, the three variables also have the advantage of drawing on different data sources. The notions of translation, being mainly declarative, can be investigated by the use of a questionnaire. The analysis of translation errors draws on the translation product, and, last but not least, investigating translation problems calls for an analysis of the process data. Orozco’s selection of dependent variables is thus convincing and was adapted for the present project. Consequently, three dif‐ ferent variables were selected: the subjects’ self-concept, their translation prob‐ lems and their translation errors. As we have seen in section 3.1, the translator’s self-concept is one of many terms for the view that an individual has about translation and the role of the translator, i.e. regarding responsibilities and loyalties but also their limits. Being a very complex construct, this self-concept can certainly be approached from various angles. For the present analysis, the focus was placed, however, only on three: the prestige that subjects accord to the translation profession, their un‐ derstanding of the role of the translator as well as their concept of translation, i.e., a functional and communicative versus rather a static, literal understanding of translation (PACTE 2011b: 31). Following Göpferich (2009b: 20), I do not un‐ derstand this variable to be part of translation competence per se, but rather as a “factor” that might influence how translators put their translation competence to use. The self-concept might directly depend on the input that students have had during their practical and/ or theoretical classes. This variable thus has a slightly different standing than the other two, because it does not serve as a direct measurement of translation competence or any of its sub-competences, although the self-concept and translation competence might develop in parallel. The quality of the translation product plays a central role in measuring translation competence. It is therefore no wonder that PACTE (2009: 215) include their acceptability measurement as an indicator in the analysis of every single dependent variable except the analysis of declarative knowledge about transla‐ tion. In the present study, the subjects’ translations were evaluated with regard to translation errors since, as Hönig (2011: 64) points out, every translation error is an indicator of an insufficient translation competence. Furthermore, it is the one measurement of translation competence that remains valid in the profes‐ sional sphere, where translators are evaluated by the quality of their products (in combination with other factors such as reliability and the ability to deliver within short deadlines, for example). Toury’s (1991: 60) description of translating as “problem-solving processes” and Wilss’ (1996: 47) assertion that the “[a]ccountability of translator perform‐ ance depends, first of all, on the problem-solving capabilities of the translator” 167 5.4 Variables <?page no="168"?> indicate how central translation problems are to the measurement of trans‐ lation competence. In section 3.2, we have seen, however, that there is no agreed-upon definition of what a “translation problem” actually consists in. Thus, understandings of the notion “translation problem” differ as to whether the problems can exist independently of any actual translation process or not. From this inherent difference, it follows that different approaches need to be taken when investigating translation problems. For the present study, two dif‐ ferent approaches were combined, which permits an in-depth analysis of the subjects’ translation problems. Accordingly, the process data were analyzed for all translation problems experienced by the subjects in the sense of Toury’s P R O B L EM 3 (2010: 243), i.e., “flaws” or difficulties in the translation process, to see whether differences exist in the number and type of translation problems that the different groups of subjects experience. On the other hand, I believe that certain aspects of a translation task do present inherent translation problems that can be defined prospectively, i.e., translation problems in the sense of Nord (2005: 166-167) and Toury’s P R O BL EM 1 (2010: 240), and that the ability to recognize and solve these problems depends on the individuals’ translation competence. Analyzing these translation problems may thus permit conclusions with regard to which differences arise in the students’ ability to recognize and solve these problems because of the different input that they had during their translation training. However, the terminological confusion that surrounds the notion of “trans‐ lation problem” still remains and must be solved at least within the scope of the present study. Nord’s (e.g., 2005: 166-167) distinction between problems and difficulties has not been taken up in empirical research (Wilss 1996: 47), and both terms are frequently used interchangeably in the literature to refer to “inter‐ ruptions of the flow”. The only other terminological distinction I am aware of is Toury’s (2010) P R O BL EM 1 / 2 / 3 (see 3.2). This distinction, however, seems inade‐ quate for use in a research context since the terms themselves do not point towards the respective definitions. Thus, the reader has to recall the distinction between the terms only by their numbers. Since we will have to recur to the two meanings of “translation problem” frequently, the following terminology was chosen for the purposes of the present study: translation problems that are the‐ oretically and prospectively determined on the basis of the source text are re‐ ferred to as “task-inherent translation problems” (TTPs), whereas translation problems that arise during the process, e.g., interruptions of the flow, are re‐ ferred to as “individual translation problems” (ITPs). Following Scott-Tennent & González Davies (2008: 785), I understand the latter problems to be “any text segment that requires conscious attention from the translator, because he/ she 168 5 Study Design <?page no="169"?> Figure 12: Interlinkage of variables is not able to transfer it automatically (i.e., without having to stop and think about it)”. Analyzing these individual translation problems makes it possible to determine whether the four groups differ with regard to the number and kinds of ITPs they experience. The analysis of TTPs, on the other hand, makes it possible to determine whether the subjects can recognize translation problems and solve them adequately. As a result, it is possible to tackle the notion of translation problems from two different angles. Translation problems are, ac‐ cordingly, the most central category of analysis in the present study. Together, these three variables constitute an extremely valuable tool for an‐ swering the research questions (see 4.5) because they are intrinsically linked with one another and thus, in combination, permit conclusions regarding the various sub-competences of translation competence and especially regarding those that are of particular interest for the present study: the strategic and the translation routine activation competence. As Orozco (2000b: 120) explains, the selected variables permit indirect conclusions regarding the development of translation strategies, an aspect that is central to both of the sub-competences that I am interested in studying (i.e., the development and application of a macro-strategy is related to the strategic competence, while the effective appli‐ cation of micro-strategies depends on the TRAC; see 2.3.3.2). According to Or‐ ozco (2000b: 120), indirect conclusions regarding translation strategies may be drawn from the selected variables because translation strategies are directly linked to translation problems - they are basically ways to solve problems oc‐ 169 5.4 Variables <?page no="170"?> curring in the course of translation (Dancette 1997: 89). Thus, if a problem is successfully solved, this means that an adequate strategy has most likely been applied (cases of successful guessing exempted), whereas in the case of an error in the final product either no strategy was available or the application of the strategy was unsuccessful. The “notions of translation” are also closely linked to translation strategies, as Orozco (2000b: 120) goes on to explain, because they guide the employment of translation strategies. This is reminiscent of Göpferi‐ ch’s claim that the self-concept determines how a translator puts his or her translation competence to use (2009b: 22). The interlinkage of the three variables is shown in Figure 12. Furthermore, Table 8 provides an overview of the variables and the indicators related to them. These indicators will be explained in more detail in the chapters on the analysis of the translator’s self-concept (chapter 6), of translation errors (chapter 7) and of translation problems (chapter 8), respec‐ tively. Variables Indicators Independent variable Input during translator training Curriculum: Theoretical training Practical training Dependent variables Self-concept Prestige Role of the translator Concept of translation Errors Number of errors Type of errors Correlation time/ error Task-inherent translation problems (TTPs) Awareness of TTPs Ability to solve TTPs Individual translation problems (ITPs) Overall difficulty of text Number of ITPs Type of ITPs ITPs solved Table 8: Overview of variables and indicators 170 5 Study Design <?page no="171"?> 5.5 Summary and Critical Evaluation of Study Design •Göperich's model of translation competence (2009a: 20) Model •Independent: Theoretical and/ or practical input in translation training •Dependent: Self-concept Translation problems Translation errors Variables • 5 students with 4 semesters of theoretical training (T4) • 6 students with 4 semesters of practical training (P4) • 9 students with 6 semesters of practical training (P6) • 10 students with 6 semesters of practical and 1 semester of theoretical training (PT7) Subjects •Questionnaire concerning the role of the translator •Translation of a non-domain-specific text - From English into German (L1) - Without time limit - Dictionaries and Internet access available •Follow-up questionnaire Tasks •Think-aloud •Screen-recording •Key-logging •Participant observation •Questionnaires Methods •Microsoft Expression Encoder 4 •Audacity •CamStudio •Translog II Tools Figure 13: Study design (illustration inspired by Saldanha & O’Brien 2014: 14) 171 5.5 Summary and Critical Evaluation of Study Design <?page no="172"?> The present study seeks to investigate whether differences in translation com‐ petence can be detected between students with and without theoretical training. To this end, subjects were recruited from among students of three translation study programs, which differ considerably with respect to whether and when they include the explicit teaching of theory. The selected curricula thus per‐ mitted a diametrical comparison of students with and without theoretical input. At the Bavarian Fachakademie für Fremdsprachenberufe (FAK), translator training is still treated as vocational. Therefore, the curriculum mainly consists of practical translation classes, and no translation-relevant theoretical classes are included. The data regarding FAK students were collected at two different points in their studies: at the beginning of the fifth semester (the P4 group) and at the end of the sixth semester (the P6 group). These data were compared with the data of students that differ from them mainly in that they had explicit theory in their curriculum. One of these comparison groups consisted of students in the BA program in Übersetzen at the Sprachen- und Dolmetscherinstitut. This program, whose curriculum supplements that of the Fachakademie, includes only theoretical courses. Students enrolled in the BA Ü (the group PT7) thus have the same practical training as FAK students, but have also attended, in addition, theoretical classes on translation and related fields. The last compar‐ ison group was composed of students enrolled in the BA program in Transkul‐ turelle Kommunikation at the University of Graz. In semesters one through four, all translation-specific classes in their curriculum are theoretical in nature. The data sample included data from students at the very beginning of their fifth semester, i.e., after four semesters of purely theoretical training (T4). These data were not collected by the author herself but stem from Göpferich’s longitudinal study TransComp (e.g., 2009b, 2009c, 2010c, 2013) and had been made available for further research on the project’s homepage (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011). The data sample consisted of 30 subjects across the four different comparison groups. All subjects had German as their A-language and English as their Bor C-language. None of them had had any professional experience in translation at the time of data collection. The subjects were asked to translate a non-do‐ main-specific text (250 words; see 12.2.1) from English into their native German while thinking aloud. No time limit was set for the task, and the subjects were provided with dictionaries and Internet access for online research. Their trans‐ lation process was recorded by means of key-logging (Translog-II, Carl 2012) as well as voiceand screen-recording (Microsoft Expression Encoder 4, Audacity, CamStudio). Furthermore, the researcher observed the experimental task from the back of the room in order to be able to intervene if technical problems arose 172 5 Study Design <?page no="173"?> and in order to protocol all aspects of the translation process that were not recorded by the above-mentioned tools, such as the use of print dictionaries. Before and after the translation task, the subjects were asked to fill out a ques‐ tionnaire. The pre-translation questionnaire mainly focused on the subjects’ opinions on the role of the translator, while the post-translation, follow-up questionnaire gathered retrospective data on the translation process as well as the subjects’ opinions on the teaching of theory in translation curricula. In order to analyze the data, three dependent variables were isolated from the various options available to the translation process researcher: the translator’s self-concept, translation errors and translation problems. This selection of var‐ iables allowed the researcher to gain information on the subjects’ self-concept and their translation competence by drawing on a variety of different sources (i.e., questionnaires, productand process data). Furthermore, both translation errors and translation problems are central to the measuring of translation com‐ petence and thus permit conclusions on the basis of a manageable number of variables. Nevertheless, enlarging the analysis to include other aspects of the translation process, such as translation units, pauses and revision behavior, and also to other aspects of the product (e.g., literalness, creativity) would be desir‐ able, as each and every one of these aspects could be triangulated with the other findings and therefore lead to a much more complete picture of the subjects’ translation competence. While an attempt was made to critically reflect on all the choices made in the design of this study throughout this chapter, it seems important to highlight some potential points of criticism related to how the question of the role of theory in translator training is approached in the present study. Thus, the data sample of the present research project might be criticized along two different lines: first, for the use of real-life curricula and therefore for a certain lack of control over some potentially distorting variables and second for largely fo‐ cusing on didactic extremes such as “theory only” and “practice only”. Using real-life curricula meant that the theoretical and practical background of the subjects was taken from the curriculum content. This made it impossible to control for the exact course contents and the influence of individual teachers (see 5.1.1 and 10.3.2). This could have been prevented by an experimental setting in which one comparison group had received instruction only in theory, while the other had been trained only through practical translation exercises. In this case, however, the period of training would have been limited to one or at most two semesters of a single course on translation. Furthermore, it would not have been possible to include students of an actual translator training program in the study since they would have had their regular classes in parallel. Thus, students 173 5.5 Summary and Critical Evaluation of Study Design <?page no="174"?> 6 See, for example, the BA program in Sprache, Kultur, Translation (Mainz University), the BA program in Translation (Leipzig University) and the BA program in Überset‐ zungswissenschaft (Heidelberg University), in which, from the first or second semester onwards, both practical exercises and theoretical lectures are to be attended in parallel. of philology would have had to be used as subjects, an approach that has long been discarded by the TS research community (e.g., Séguinot 2000: 91; Jääske‐ läinen 2002: 108-109; Göpferich 2008: 3). Independently of the fact that students of philology are not adequate subjects for a study on the acquisition of profes‐ sional translation competence, it seemed that a period of instruction longer than merely one semester was required. As a consequence, the better choice seemed to be to study students of actual undergraduate courses of translation who have been intensively trained to become professional translators over a period of at least four semesters. The comparison groups included in the present study had either only theo‐ retical or only practical training, with the PT7 students being the sole exception since they had had ample practical training before their theoretical classes. This situation is certainly the exception rather than the rule in professional translator training. It seems that curricula that integrate both theory and practice from fairly early on are much more frequent in a German-speaking context. 6 While I do not wish to suggest in any way that a strict separation of theory and practice is advisable in translator training - quite the contrary - it is only by studying the extreme situations that it is possible to find out how well practical training and theoretical instruction serve the acquisition of translation competence. Finding out the respective advantages of these two educational approaches is certainly an important contribution to the ongoing discussions about the rela‐ tive value of theory and practice in translator training (see chapter 4). Furthermore, the experimental task and methodology employed in the present study design may also be controversial. For this study, in which a major focus of analysis is on translation problems, the subjects translated an entire 250 words text with concurrent verbalization. This kind of study design might be criticized since Ehrensberger-Dow & Künzli (2010: 130) found from a comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbalization that retrospection yields more data regarding strategies and problems of translators than think-aloud (but compare Angelone 2010, who is in favor of think-aloud for studying problem-solving processes). In a similar vein, Göpferich (2012: 261-262) also criticizes the use of think-aloud for research on translation problems. She reports that analyzing translation problems from TAPs is often difficult because the subjects frequently do not mention the criteria that the TT should fulfil. The researcher then has to interpret whether the subjects were not aware of the 174 5 Study Design <?page no="175"?> criteria at all or were aware of them but just did not verbalize such considera‐ tions. As a consequence, she suggests that, if the researcher is interested in translation problems, it would be better to confront subjects with a variety of translation problems in context instead of letting them translate an entire text. She also proposes explicitly asking subjects to mention the criteria that the TT should fulfill for each of these problematic passages. This will make it possible, she thinks, to collect data that are more comparable for groups with different levels of translation competence (2012: 261-262). I, however, do not believe that singling out problematic text-passages can lead to findings about problem-solving processes during a “normal” translation process, i.e., the trans‐ lation of an entire text. Instead, students would be primed towards paying special attention to these text passages, which they might not otherwise have even recognized as problematic. Besides, asking students to explain the criteria that the TT has to fulfill, already directs them towards actively thinking about these criteria. For the present study, this might have led students with theoretical knowledge to refer to theory when explaining their translation processes whereas they would not have thought of theory in a normal translation situa‐ tion. This is in line with Hansen’s more general observation that translation processes cannot be decomposed (2010: 193): Human translation processes are complex mental processes occurring in social con‐ texts. Any type of study that tries to decompose such processes into constituent iso‐ lated phenomena and then observe and analyze them separately under "controlled" conditions simply in order to guarantee more exact results would run the risk of changing the character of these "natural processes" and distort any results gained. In addition, such a procedure would not yield any data on other aspects such as the quality of a translation as a whole or the efficiency of the translation process in its entirety. Thus, having students translate an entire text seemed the better solution for the present study. From this it follows that think-aloud had to be used as a means of data collection since it is still considered to be the best method available today for gathering data on the cognitive processes during activities that exceed a few seconds (see 5.3.1). 175 5.5 Summary and Critical Evaluation of Study Design <?page no="176"?> 6 Translator’s Self-Concept As we have seen in section 2.5, various empirical findings indicate that the beliefs a translator has about translation may influence the translation process and especially decision-making. In addition, it is frequently assumed that differences in the concept of translation exist depending on the level of translation compe‐ tence. Thus, translators with a higher level of translation competence are be‐ lieved to have a more communicative concept of translation (e.g., Chesterman 1997: 159, Göpferich 2008: 157). Such differences in the self-concept have been confirmed for professional translators and language teachers (PACTE 2008) as well as for students of translation and professionals (Künzli 2003). However, in his comparison of professionals with short-term and professionals with long-term experience, Rodrigues (2001) did not find any substantial differences between the two groups. The number of studies of the development of transla‐ tors’ self-concepts is yet too small to provide any certainty as to whether indi‐ viduals with different levels of TC regularly show differences in their self-con‐ cept or whether the observed differences can be traced back to a different background of translation training. Furthermore, there is, to date, only one (si‐ mulated) longitudinal study that I know of that examines the development of students’ self-concepts over a period of four years (PACTE 2014). This study shows that subjects make a considerable leap from a more linguistically-oriented to a more functional concept of translation only through practical translation classes and without any training in translation theory (PACTE 2014: 109). All in all, however, we know little about the factors that influence the development of the students’ self-concepts. To shed some light on this question, the subjects of the present study were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the translator’s role (see 12.3.1) in order to determine their declarative knowledge of translation. The results were then compared to findings from the subjects’ translation products and processes to see whether declarative and procedural knowledge develop in parallel since Künzli (2003: 209-210), for example, found that there is a considerable gap be‐ tween what students declare should be done and what they actually do. The questionnaire was not analyzed in its entirety. Instead, only some questions were selected. These questions provide information regarding certain indicators that, in turn, permit conclusions as to the students’ overall beliefs about translation and the role of the professional translator. These indicators comprise the stu‐ <?page no="177"?> dents’ opinions concerning the prestige of the translation profession, the role of the translator and their position on a linguistic/ functional-continuum. The TransComp data from the fifth semester, which are the data included in the present study, do not include the questionnaire in question. This limits the fol‐ lowing analysis to comparing the groups P4, P6 and PT7. 6.1 Indicators Related to the Self-Concept The first indicator to be analyzed is the subjects’ opinion on the prestige of the translation profession. Although prestige is not usually considered in studies of the translator’s self-concept, it is certainly an important indicator of how the subjects view the translation profession. In his study of profes‐ sional translators and academics, Katan (2009: 125-126) asked his subjects what level of social status they thought the job of a translator has. His find‐ ings are straightforward. Close to 60 % of all participants considered transla‐ tors to have a “middling” status, approximately 30 % accorded it a low status, and only 10 % saw translators as having a high status. This distribution of answers was almost the same for the separate groups of subjects (professio‐ nals, teachers and students) and indicates that translators do not think they have the high status that translation scholars would like the profession to have. When asked to cite other professions with a similar status, a majority of Katan’s subjects mentioned teachers and secretaries (2009: 127-128). Among the translators in Katan’s study, virtually none proposed comparisons with “consultants”, “experts” or “specialists”, comparisons that translation studies have been promoting for the last twenty years (see 1.3). Thus, it seems that the status of the translation profession has not changed due to the impact of translation theory as much as is sometimes supposed (e.g., van Doorslaer 2013: 80). The second indicator concerns the subjects’ view of the role of the trans‐ lator. In order to learn about their perception of the role of the translator, the subjects’ agreement with metaphors and key-words describing the transla‐ tor’s role was analyzed. The point of departure was the assumption that the role of the translator is a complex concept that might be difficult to formu‐ late directly. In cognitive psychology, it has been proposed that “every con‐ cept we have is essentially nothing but a tightly packaged bundle of analo‐ gies” (Hofstadter 2001: 500). As such, analogical thinking is, according to Hofstadter, the very basis of human cognition. He is by no means the first to state this position. Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 4) have also proposed that our 177 6.1 Indicators Related to the Self-Concept <?page no="178"?> conceptual system works through comparisons, which they call conceptual metaphors. These metaphors, they believe, are not only a linguistic feature; they influence how we perceive the world and how we think and act. Some translation scholars have acknowledged the importance of metaphors in de‐ scribing and analyzing the conceptualizations of translation. Martín de León & Presas (2011), for example, have found that it is, in fact, possible to trace the conceptual metaphors and the logical implications and presuppositions of their subjects’ concept of translation. While Martín de León & Presas have studied their subjects’ discourses to collect the metaphors the latter employ when speaking about translation, they acknowledge that it would be possible to use questionnaires with predetermined answers to analyze commonly shared metaphors. This could show whether or not subjects converge re‐ garding the tested aspects of the role of the translator (2011: 304). It thus seems plausible that one way of gaining access to the participants’ self-concept is through testing analogies they might or might not associate with the role of the translator. In the present study, question four of the questionnaire pro‐ poses a couple of metaphors and analogies regarding the role of the trans‐ lator and asks subjects to state their (dis)agreement on a four-point scale. Seven such analogies, ranging from positively connoted ones (e.g., expert, communicator) to (possibly) negatively connoted ones (e.g., traitor, parrot) were selected. The idea behind this selection of metaphors was to oppose the view of the translator as an other-directed reproducer of text to the more functional view of the translator as an expert in languages with full respon‐ sibility for the communicative situation. The hope was that the subjects’ agreement or disagreement with these characterizations of the translator would provide a picture that permits conclusions as to the subjects’ view of the translator’s role. Last but not least, the subjects’ concept of translation, i.e., their orienta‐ tion towards formal equivalence or functionalism, was scrutinized. This con‐ cept of translation seems to be at the very heart of most debates surrounding the self-concept since it concerns questions of loyalty and responsibility. Translators adhering to a more functional concept of translation would see their main loyalty as being to the target text and its intended audience and probably also to the commissioner of a translation. They would consider it to be their responsibility to produce a functional target text including the need for possible changes in the content if these are necessary. Translators with a more linguistic view of translation might, on the other hand, think their loy‐ alty is first of all to the source text and its author. Even if they consider them‐ selves responsible for producing a “correct” translation that is useful for the 178 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="179"?> intended audience, they might be rather critical towards changes regarding the content and style of the translation. In section 3.1, we have seen that a functional view of translation is connected to higher levels of translation competence. Therefore, it is interesting to compare the subjects in this re‐ gard - even more so as the PT7 group’s theoretical classes placed an em‐ phasis on functional theories. It could therefore be expected that PT7 sub‐ jects have a more functional view of translation than the FAK groups. To gain an insight into the declarative beliefs of their subjects and there‐ fore into their self-concepts, researchers have usually analyzed translation process data to find statements about such beliefs (e.g., Krings 1986: 429-434; Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013). PACTE, however, developed a more time-economical method to gain access to their subjects’ “knowledge of trans‐ lation” (2008). In a questionnaire, they presented subjects with statements about how a translator should behave in different translatorial situations. These statements are similar to statements that subjects have expressed spon‐ taneously in other studies. By asking subjects to indicate whether they agree or disagree with these statements, it is possible to gain access to their under‐ lying beliefs about translation. Besides being more time-effective, the use of a questionnaire has a number of advantages over the analysis of concurrent or retrospective think-aloud data. First, it ensures that all subjects will report their beliefs about the same problems and that their beliefs can therefore be compared to one another. In addition, it separates the declarative from the procedural level, which allows the researcher to gain insight into whether different underlying beliefs are responsible for observed differences in trans‐ lation processes and products or whether the difference lies in the ability to implement similar beliefs in an actual translation task. For the indicator “concept of translation”, a number of statements con‐ cerning the translator’s behavior in specific translatorial situations were se‐ lected. These statements represent beliefs and convictions concerning the microand the macro-strategic behavior of the translator. Some of them point to a linguistic behavior that does not permit changes in the content and style of the text, whereas others point towards a functional view of translation. Subjects were again asked to state their agreement on a four-point scale, ranging from absolute disagreement to total agreement. The data obtained from the questionnaire are on an ordinal scale comprising four answer pos‐ sibilities: “absolutely not”, “rather not”, “rather yes” and “absolutely” and make it possible to compare the groups with regard to their understanding of what translation entails. The number of participants was six in the P4 group, ten in the P6 and nine in the PT7 group. If the number of valid answers devi‐ 179 6.1 Indicators Related to the Self-Concept <?page no="180"?> ates from this overall number of subjects per group, it will be indicated in the discussion below. Due to the small number of participants, the present study is not representative. All analyses are therefore limited to descriptions of the present data sample that can be used to create new hypotheses or corrobo‐ rate existing ones. 6.2 Findings 6.2.1 Prestige Question two of the questionnaire was analyzed in order to determine whether subjects with different levels of formal translator training have dif‐ ferent beliefs about the level of prestige accorded to the translator in society. In this question, subjects were asked to decide between four levels, ranging from low and rather low to rather high and high. Starting with the analysis of all 25 subjects, it is clear that the majority considered the translator’s pres‐ tige to be rather high (60 %), whereas 36 % of subjects considered it to be rather low, and 4 % believed it is low. Comparing the answers across the three groups of subjects, only a small difference can be detected between PT7 stu‐ dents and P6 students. Both groups reflect the overall distribution of answers mentioned above, with 67 % and 60 %, respectively, considering translators to have a rather high prestige. In both groups, the median answer was “rather high”. The P4 group seems to have a somewhat more pessimistic view of the translator’s prestige, with only 50 % considering it rather high but 17 % con‐ sidering it low. The median in this group lies between a “rather low” and a “rather high” prestige and is therefore somewhat lower than for the groups PT7 and P6. However, it should be noted that, with only six participants, the number of informants in the P4 group was especially low, and only one of them ticked the “low” box. Looking at the chart, we can see a slight tendency for students at a later stage of their studies to attribute a higher prestige to the translation profession. 180 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="181"?> 1 All questions and answer possibilities have been translated. For the original wording see the questionnaire in the annexes (12.3.1). Figure 14: Which level of prestige do you think is accorded to translators by society? 1 6.2.2 The Translator’s Role To get a glimpse of how the subjects in the present study view the role of the translator, a range of analogies was selected. Some of these point towards a view of the translator as a rather self-determined expert and communicator. This is the case with the terms “expert for foreign languages and cultures”, “self-dependent communicator” and “rewriter”. Others point towards trans‐ lation as a rather other-directed, reproducing activity, such as the view of the translator as a “mouthpiece” for the original author, a “parrot”, a “repro‐ ducer” and, even, a “traitor”. The latter term comes from the Italian saying “traduttore - traditore”, which means that, while one can translate a text, a 181 6.2 Findings <?page no="182"?> translation can never do justice to the original. Four different possible an‐ swers were offered: “absolutely disagree”, “rather disagree”, “rather agree” and “absolutely agree”. Starting with the category considered to be indicative of translation as an other-determined, reproducing activity, the results were mixed. The clearly negative metaphor describing the translator as a “traitor” was categorically rejected across all groups, with the median answer being “absolutely not” in all three groups. None of the participants in this study selected an answer indicating even the slightest agreement with this item. The metaphor of the translator as “parrot” was not very well received ei‐ ther. The group P6 distanced itself most clearly from this metaphor, with 80 % totally disagreeing, 10 % rather disagreeing, and only 10 % rather agreeing. In the PT7 group, total disagreement was at 44.4%, while 33.3% indicated that they rather disagree with the metaphor. As many as 22.2% of the subjects in this group rather agreed with the metaphor of the translator as parrot. The tendency towards agreement was even more pronounced in the group P4 (n = 5), with 40 % rather agreeing with the metaphor. Another 40 % totally disagreed and the remaining 20 % of the group rather disagreed. Therefore, as a group, only the P6 rejected this metaphor entirely, with the median answer being “absolutely not”, while both the P4 and the PT7 groups’ median answer was “rather not”. All three groups agreed with the characterization of the translator as a “mouthpiece”, i.e., as a spokesperson for someone else (median: “absolutely”). Only a few individuals deviated from total agreement. In the P6 group, one of the nine students with valid answers totally disagreed with the character‐ ization while all the others totally agreed. In the PT7 group, two individuals ticked answers other than the one indicating total agreement, one rather dis‐ agreeing and the other rather agreeing with the characterization of the trans‐ lator as a mouthpiece. In the P4 group, all subjects unanimously agreed with the characterization, so that the general tendency across all groups was agree‐ ment. 182 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="183"?> Figure 15: Distribution of answers for "reproducer" Agreement with the characterization “reproducer” was also rather high across all groups. However, the answers were somewhat more widely distributed in this case (see Figure 15). In the PT7 group, while the majority of subjects (55.6%) ticked the answer “rather yes”, up to a third absolutely agreed with the view of the translator as a reproducer. This was the highest percentage of all the groups surveyed. Although 60 % of the students in the P6 group rather agreed with the characterization of the translator as a reproducer, this was also the group that showed the greatest hesitation in its answers, with 30 % of the students (rather) disagreeing and only 10 % absolutely agreeing. The P4 group was in the middle. In this group, 66.7% of the subjects rather agreed that the translator is a repro‐ ducer, while 16.7% chose the answers “absolutely” and “rather not”. These dif‐ ferences are minor, however, since, for all groups, both the mode and the median answer was “rather yes”. From a consideration of their views regarding the three characterizations of the translator discussed above, it is clear that all the subjects of the present study, whether they were theoretically trained or not, emphasized translation’s reproductive aspect. 183 6.2 Findings <?page no="184"?> At the same time, participants in this study also considered the translator to be an expert in his or her field, i.e., in everything regarding foreign language(s) and the related culture(s). All groups absolutely agreed with this characteriza‐ tion (median: “absolutely”). Some individuals, however, chose the answer “rather yes”. This was true for 30 % of the P6 students and 33.3% of PT7 subjects while all others stated their absolute agreement. Figure 16: Distribution of answers for "self-dependent communicator" The subjects also rather agreed with the characterization of the translator as a “self-dependent communicator”, as is indicated by the fact that the median an‐ swer to this question across all groups was “rather yes”. It seems, however, that there was some hesitation in this case since only 20 % of the P6 students and only 11.1% of the PT7 subjects totally agreed with this characterization. In all groups, moderate agreement was most frequent: 66.7% of the PT7 group, 60.0% of the P4 group and 40.0% of the P6 group chose the answer “rather yes”. At 40 % in both cases, disagreement with the characterization was rather high in the P4 group and P6 group. However, while in the P4 group the answers were 184 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="185"?> equally distributed between moderate and total disagreement (20 % each), the P6 students were more moderate in their disagreement, with 30 % indicating that they rather disagreed and only 10 % absolutely disagreeing. In the PT7 group, none of the subjects totally disagreed with the characterization of the translator as a self-dependent communicator. However, 22.2% showed some hesitation and rather disagreed with this view of the translator’s role. Figure 17: Distribution of answers for "rewriter" The subjects were even more hesitant when it came to describing the translator as a rewriter. Only the PT7 group rather agreed with this characterization (median: “rather yes”), while both the P4 and P6 groups rather disagreed with it (median: “rather not”). It is interesting that, across all groups, not one single informant ab‐ solutely agreed that a translator was a rewriter of texts. In the PT7 group, how‐ ever, as many as 55.6% of the subjects rather agreed with this characterization, while only 30 % of P6 subjects and 16.7% of the P4 group rather agreed. Vice versa, only 33.3% of the PT7 students, but 60 % of the P6 students and even 66.7% of P4 students rather disagreed with the characterization. Apparently, these two groups 185 6.2 Findings <?page no="186"?> were reluctant to consider translating as the production of a new text for which the translator takes full responsibility, whereas there was more awareness among the PT7 students in this respect. Absolute disagreement with the characterization can be observed in all groups, the highest percentage being that of the P4 group (16.7%). However, agreement with the item increased with the length of profes‐ sional training. Summarizing the findings from the answers to the above seven questions, it appears that, of all the groups, the practically trained P4 group agreed most with the view that the translator is an expert in languages and cultures. However, this group agreed somewhat less than the other two groups with the characterization of the translator as a self-dependent communicator, while agreeing more with the characterizations “parrot” and “mouthpiece”. This group exhibited a clear ten‐ dency to accept analogies emphasizing the reproductive aspect of translation, even in cases where a metaphor such as “parrot” seems to have negative connotations. The P6 group, on the other hand, distanced itself most clearly from all negative comparisons: of all groups, it expressed the least agreement with the characteri‐ zations “traitor” and “parrot”. It agreed somewhat more than the P4 group with the view that the translator is a self-dependent communicator but expressed less agreement with the “expert” and “rewriter” characterizations. The PT7 group’s opinions corresponded, in large part, with those of the P6 group, agreeing, how‐ ever, somewhat more with the characterizations “parrot”, “reproducer” and “re‐ writer”. Interestingly, the PT7 group was less averse than the P6 group to the characterizations expressing the reproductive aspects of translation, but was gen‐ erally more prepared than either the P4 group or the P6 group to appreciate the profession’s complexity, including the translator’s role as a rewriter of texts and his or her self-dependent status. Therefore a slight tendency towards a more func‐ tional view of translation can be observed as formal translator training pro‐ gresses. 6.2.3 Concept of Translation To analyze the subjects’ opinion regarding functionalist behavior, two different measures were used. First, one question that was specifically designed to test the subjects’ agreement with functionalism was analyzed (question 9). To fine-grain the results of question 9, certain components of question 3 that were indicative of either a functional or a more linguistic view of translation were selected. These components were statements about how translators should behave in different situations or when confronted with certain translation problems. The subjects then had to state whether they agreed with the statements or not. Intermediate an‐ 186 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="187"?> swers (rather yes, rather no) were also possible. The subjects’ answers to each of these statements will be analyzed separately in the discussion below. 6.2.3.1 Adapting the Target Text to the Audience Question 9 was designed to determine whether the subjects had a linguistic/ static or functional approach by testing their opinion regarding the supremacy of the source text. To determine their position, students were asked whether they thought that a good translator should translate a text differently depending on whether the intended readers were children or adults. It was assumed that stu‐ dents of translation who have been trained for some time would have a rather pragmatic and service-oriented approach to translation. Therefore, it seemed in‐ appropriate to have them choose only between a very strict linguistic answer and a functional answer. Thus, an intermediate choice was also made available to them: subjects could opt for an answer stating that the translator should change the product according to the target text audience but that in doing so he or she would actually expand his or her role as a translator. Figure 18: Overview of replies to question 9 187 6.2 Findings <?page no="188"?> As Figure 18 shows, the subjects’ response to question 9 was almost unani‐ mously functional. Only one subject opted for the intermediate answer. It therefore seems that among translation students, a functional view of trans‐ lation has already been acquired after four semesters of training. Neverthe‐ less, there might be differences between the groups with regard to how functional their concept of translation really is. These differences could not be detected with the above question. Therefore, it seemed necessary to fur‐ ther investigate the subjects’ concept of translation with a battery of state‐ ments that permitted a more fine-grained analysis. In the following, five single items will be discussed in detail. Three of these items indicate a func‐ tional view of translation while the other two indicate a more static con‐ cept of translation. 6.2.3.2 Functional Item 1: Reformulation and Restructuring of Texts All the following items have been designed to identify the subjects’ opin‐ ions on the supremacy of the source text and the translator’s option to de‐ viate from its authority in different situations. In the first item, participants were asked to decide whether, in their opinion, it belongs to the tasks of a translator to reformulate and restructure texts to enhance their comprehen‐ sibility. The comprehensibility of the target text is the very basis of func‐ tionality for the intended readership and in this way basically determines the quality of a translation within the functional paradigm. Hence, the question tests both the subjects’ awareness of their responsibility to produce a useful target text as well as their submissiveness to the source text. 188 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="189"?> Figure 19: Overview of replies to functional item 1 The results clearly show differences between the three groups: it seems that the more students have progressed in their studies, the more they agree that trans‐ lators should reformulate and/ or restructure texts if this enhances their com‐ prehensibility. While the P4 subjects were equally divided between “rather not” and “rather yes”, a clear majority in the P6 group opted for “rather yes” and 20 % even agreed absolutely. A further 20 % of the group, however, rather disagreed with the item. In the PT7 group, 44.4% absolutely agreed that reformulating and restructuring texts is part of the translator’s duties. A further 33.3% rather agreed with the item and 22.2% disagreed. There was thus a clear tendency for higher agreement with this item the more advanced the group of subjects was. 6.2.3.3 Functional Item 2: Replace Examples from the Source Text This second functional item aimed to identify the students’ opinions concerning the cultural adaptation of examples, by asking them whether they considered it 189 6.2 Findings <?page no="190"?> 2 This relates to Schleichermacher’s famous distinction between domesticating and for‐ eignizing translation, a distinction which is, in a similar way, also reflected in more recent typologies, e.g., in House’s overt and covert translation (1997: 66-69) and Nord’s instrumental and documentary translation (1993: 24-26). one of the translator’s tasks to “replace examples of the source text with exam‐ ples more adapted to the target culture”. This cultural adaptation is related to the question as to whether a text should be translated in a way that brings it closer to the target culture and therefore to the intended readership or, on the contrary, in a way that lets the foreignness of the text shine through (Schleier‐ macher 1838: 218). 2 Generally, today’s translation norms favor a domesticating kind of translation for all non-literary texts, i.e., a translation that is culturally adapted and not recognizable as a translation. A strict linguistic view of trans‐ lation might, however, contradict such a replacement of examples and interfere with the production of a functional translation. Figure 20: Overview of replies to functional item 2 190 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="191"?> The cultural adaptation of examples was viewed positively by all three groups of subjects. However, differences can be detected with regard to how convinced the different groups were about the adaptation of examples. Un‐ expectedly, the most functional group was the one with the least amount of training. In the P4 group, 50 % of subjects were absolutely in favor of sub‐ stituting examples, whereas in the P6 group, this percentage was only 30 %. The PT7 group was in the middle of all three groups, with 37.5% agreeing absolutely with the replacement of examples. As can be seen from this item, all the groups agreed with the functional principles of translation such as replacing the examples of the source text with others that are more ade‐ quate for the target text audience. 6.2.3.4 Functional Item 3: Translate a Scientific Text for a Broader Audience Figure 21: Overview of replies to functional item 3 (all subjects) 191 6.2 Findings <?page no="192"?> The last functional item, too, concerned the modification of a translation vis-à-vis its source text, this time by changing the text type. Subjects were asked if the translator’s tasks included producing a popular science trans‐ lation of a scientific source text. This item tested whether subjects agreed that different translations of one and the same ST are viable, depending on the translation brief. Agreement with this item indicated a functional ori‐ entation in which the commissioner and the intended function of the target text - rather than the source text - decided how a text should be trans‐ lated. Like question 9 above, this item also checked the subjects’ agreement with translating for a different audience than in the original situation of communication. In this case, the translation was supposed to be made for a general public as opposed to the scientists and/ or professionals to whom the ST was addressed. This also involved a change of text type, which was not the case in question 9. The results could not have been more different: while in question 9 all subjects except one agreed with such a translation, the present item revealed a great diversity of opinion among the 24 subjects who gave valid answers. All four possible answers were chosen, and thus an‐ swers were spread across the full range, from a static/ linguistic to a func‐ tional view. Taking all the subjects together (see Figure 21), independently of their level of formal translator training, the answer that was most fre‐ quently chosen was “rather not” (41.7%), followed by “rather yes” (33.3%) and “absolutely” (20.8%). With a total of 54.1% of respondents indicating that they were rather or absolutely in agreement with such an adaptation of the target text, over half the subjects considered rewriting a text into a dif‐ ferent text type to be one of a translator’s tasks, as opposed to 45.9% who opted for one of the two answers indicating disagreement with this kind of translation. This distribution shows that subjects were much more divided about a translation of this kind than they were about the items discussed above. 192 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="193"?> Figure 22: Overview of replies to functional item 3 Comparing the different groups with one another, the P6 group’s graph shows a peak at the “rather yes” answer, while the other two groups have peaks at the “rather not” answer. Looking at the peaks in the above chart, it is interesting to note that the P4 group’s graph shows a second peak at the most function‐ ally-oriented answer, indicating absolute agreement. With 33.3% of the subjects totally agreeing with this item, the P4 group had the highest percentage of total agreement of all three groups. A further 16.7% rather agreed with the item, so that a total of 50 % of P4 students (rather) agreed with this type of translation, while the remaining 50 % rather disagreed with it. In the PT7 group, the overall distribution between agreement and disagreement was the same. However, fewer participants totally agreed with this item (25 %), revealing somewhat more hesitation in this group regarding a text-type-changing translation than among the P4 subjects. The P6 group’s graph shows a peak at “rather yes”, with 50 % of the students selecting this answer. However, only 10 % of the P6 students indi‐ 193 6.2 Findings <?page no="194"?> cated total agreement, which is the smallest percentage across all groups. Fur‐ thermore, the P6 group was the only group to spread its answers across the full range of possibilities, and hence the only one in which a subject absolutely dis‐ agreed that a translation could include a change of text type. To sum up, the subjects’ opinions across all groups were rather divided on this matter. The P6 group tended slightly more towards agreement than the other two groups, as is reflected in the group’s median answer (“rather yes”). However, absolute agreement with the item was weak among P6 students, and P6 was the only group where absolute disagreement was indicated at all. 6.2.3.5 Linguistic / Static Item 1: Stick to Incomprehensible Content Having analyzed three different functional statements, we will now have a look at two more items that have been asked in such a way that agreement with them hints at a static view of translation. Figure 23: Overview of replies to linguistic item 1 194 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="195"?> The first linguistic item tests whether explicitations and additions are consid‐ ered appropriate, at least in cases in which they are required to ensure that the target reader fully understands the text. Subjects were asked to state their opinion as to whether a translator should stick to the content of the original text, even if that content was not comprehensible for the target audience without further explanations. Agreement with this item would indicate a rather strong orientation towards formal equivalence. In both the P4 and PT7 groups, the majority of subjects rather disagreed with the statement (66.7% and 75 %, re‐ spectively). A difference between the two groups is visible, however, when the distribution of the remaining answers is compared. In the case of the P4 group, the remaining 33.3% of the subjects all indicated absolute disagreement and not one single subject agreed with the statement. This was not true for the PT7 group, however, in which as many as 25 % of the students rather agreed with sticking to the content of the source text, even if the resulting translation might not be understandable for the target audience. While a large majority of the group (75 %) rather disagreed, not a single subject in the PT7 group absolutely disagreed. Agreement was even more pronounced in the P6 group, where 60 % rather agreed that the translator should stick to the content no matter what. The remaining 40 % of the P6 students were equally divided between rather disa‐ greeing and totally disagreeing. Thus, the P6 group showed a tendency towards sticking to the content of the source text, while the PT7 group tended more towards a rejection of the statement when compared with the P6 group. The P4 group was the group that most clearly rejected this static item and thus exhibited the most functional orientation of all the groups for this particular item. 6.2.3.6 Linguistic / Static Item 2: Retain Mistakes in a Manual The second linguistic item was the one that most challenged a “true-to-the-text” view of translation. Would subjects agree that a manual should be translated “true” to the original, even if the source text contained obvious mistakes? Men‐ tioning the text type “manual” further pointed students towards the idea that their translation would be used by consumers in everyday situations. Manuals are typical informative texts, in which first of all the content is important (Reiß & Vermeer 1984: 206). Every consumer rightly expects manuals to be under‐ standable and free of errors with regard to content. In any case, it seems unlikely that anybody would agree that a manual, whether translated or not, should not be corrected if an error is detected. 195 6.2 Findings <?page no="196"?> Figure 24: Overview of replies to linguistic item 2 However, as much as 20 % of the P6 group rather agreed that the mistakes in the ST should be retained. It was the only group in which any subjects at all agreed with the statement. Nonetheless, a clear majority (60 %) of the P6 group totally disagreed, with the remaining 20 % rather disagreeing to retain mistakes. This group thus exhibited a strong tendency towards functionalism with respect to this item. The PT7 group exhibited an even stronger tendency towards func‐ tionalism, with as many as 88.9% of the students absolutely disagreeing. For this item, the P4 group showed somewhat more hesitation, with 83.3% indicating that the translator should rather not retain mistakes in the source text. In this group, only 16.7% absolutely rejected the statement. This is also apparent from the P4 group’s median answer of “rather not”, as compared to the other two groups’ median answer of “absolutely not”. 196 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="197"?> 6.2.3.7 Overview of Results On the basis of all the answers that the three comparison groups gave to the battery of questions (question 3), it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion as to which group has the most functional orientation. All the groups provide evidence of an overall functional concept of translation, but their agreement with the items varies depending on the type of modification that each item requires. Table 9 provides an overview of all items that were analyzed from question three and ranks the groups according to which group’s results were the most functional for each particular item. The most functional group is marked “1”, the least functional “3”. P4 P6 PT7 Reformulation and restructuring of texts 3 2 1 Replace examples from the source text 1 3 2 Translate a scientific text for a broader audience 2 1 3 Stick to incomprehensible content 1 3 2 Retain mistakes in a manual 3 2 1 Table 9: Overview of replies to question 3 This overview shows that no group had a concept of translation that was con‐ siderably more functional than the others had since each group was most func‐ tional with regard to at least one item and least functional with regard to at least one item. The one very slight tendency indicated by this overview is that the PT7 group had the most functional orientation, being the least functional group with regard to only one item, followed by the P4 group and the P6 group, in that order. 6.3 Discussion of Findings The findings regarding the subjects’ views of the prestige accorded to the translation profession indicated an overall tendency to believe that translators enjoy a rather high social status. There was a slight indication that a higher level of formal translator training produces a slightly higher expectation of occupa‐ tional prestige. The data do not allow us to conclude, however, that theoretical training has a decisive role in the attribution of status, since the two groups that 197 6.3 Discussion of Findings <?page no="198"?> differ only in terms of theoretical input (P6 and PT7) show fairly comparable results in this connection. There is a much greater difference between the prac‐ tically trained groups after four semesters and six semesters respectively. Why would less advanced students attribute to the translator a lower professional status? The answer might be that the more training students of translation have, the better they understand the complexity of the profession. They might also become more aware of the translator’s responsibility for the success of the com‐ munication and therefore of his or her crucial role in every mediated commu‐ nication. Accordingly, they might expect society to recognize this complexity by attributing to the profession a rather high status. When the present findings are compared with Katan’s (2009; see 6.1), it is interesting to note that the tendency was comparable, despite the fact that a different scale was used to classify the answers. While in the present study the subjects were asked to differentiate between a high, rather high, rather low and low status, participants in Katan’s study could only choose between a high, middling and low status. In both studies, “high” status was the least frequently chosen, followed by “low” status. A clear majority chose the “middling” status - in the present study a total of 96 %, when the “rather low” and “rather high” categories are combined. When the “rather high” and “rather low” answers to Katan’s “middling” and “low status” are compared, the distribution of percen‐ tages (about 60 % and 30 %, respectively) is even more similar. This confirms that the students in the present study did not have a substantially different view from Katan’s subjects, who were not only students but also professionals and lec‐ turers. Both studies, however, focus on the opinions of individuals who are al‐ ready involved with translation and whose views might not correspond to the status actually attributed to translators by society. Nonetheless, international measurements of occupational prestige confirm the translator’s “rather high” status. For example, on Treiman’s standard international occupational prestige scale (SIOPS), which lists the occupational status of professions on a scale of 13 to 78, translators have a score of 54 points (Treiman 1977: 241), which reflects a middling to rather high status, just as was indicated by the subjects of both studies mentioned above. In the ISEI-08, the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status, the translator’s occupational prestige is considered to be even higher. With a rating of 68 points on a scale of 19 to 90, translators are at about the same level as financial managers (Ganzeboom 2010: 4) and can thus definitely be assigned a “rather high” status. This proves that most of the subjects have a fairly realistic view of the translator’s occupational prestige. While stu‐ dents at a lower level of formal translator training seem to have a more pessi‐ mistic view of the translator’s occupational prestige, their view apparently levels 198 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="199"?> out with further training and reaches a “middling” or “rather high” position, as is also attested to by the above-cited international scales. The students’ opinions regarding the role of the translator were evaluated by means of analogies: metaphors and key-words were used to test the subjects’ agreement with different statements regarding the translator’s role. There was a general tendency among the participants in the present study to view the translator as an expert in languages and cultures. Contrary to the view that is propagated by current translation studies (see 1.3), he or she was seen to be a “mouthpiece”, i.e., a person speaking for someone else, rather than a rewriter. Furthermore, the translator’s role as a reproducer was ranked higher than his or her role as a rewriter of texts, highlighting the general view that translators do not produce “new” texts. The “reproducer” metaphor does not, however, seem to have a negative connotation for the participants since other negative meta‐ phors such as “traitor” and “parrot” were rejected. This tendency held across all the groups, although slight differences were found among them. The data show an increase in agreement with the statement that the translator is self-dependent as well as with the characterization of the translator as a writer of new texts. Thus, the PT7 group, while still primarily considering translation to be the “re‐ production” of a text, was more likely than the other groups to agree with the characterization of the translator as a “self-dependent communicator” and “re‐ writer”. The P4 group was the group that least accepted these two items, both of which are indicators of a functional view of translation. The findings also show that, as practical and theoretical translation training increases, the ten‐ dency towards agreement with negative metaphors concerning infidelity and reproduction decreases. Thus, the role of the translator, while not changing substantially during the observed period, was still subject to modification even at higher levels of translator training. Especially the acceptance of the view of the translator as a rewriter among the PT7 subjects might have been influenced by theoretical training in translation and the exposure to functional theories. All groups agreed that the translator is an expert, so that no influence of theo‐ retical teaching on this aspect can be seen. Last but not least, the participants’ concept of translation was studied by analyzing their agreement with different statements indicating either a func‐ tional or a linguistic/ static self-concept. As was to be expected, almost all the students in the present data sample provided evidence of an overall functional orientation. This is not surprising since all the informants had been subjected to at least two years of formal translator training by the time of data collection. However, it seemed especially interesting to determine whether there were any differences in the strength of the functional orientation. Recapping the results 199 6.3 Discussion of Findings <?page no="200"?> of this analysis, it can be stated that, although there was a general tendency to oppose making major changes to the target text - such as changes in the text type - the subjects largely agreed that a translator should make changes that affect only small parts of the text, e.g., use different examples or correct errors that were made in the ST. The P4 group clearly had a functional orientation. For two of the items, in fact, “replace examples from the source text” and “stick to incomprehensible content”, its results exhibited the most functional orientation of all the groups. At the same time, however, the P4 group showed somewhat more hesitation than the other two groups when it came to reformulating and restructuring texts for better comprehensibility and to correcting obvious mistakes in a manual. The P6 group, although generally tending towards functionalism, was the least convinced of all the groups when it came to deviating from equivalence, except in cases in which the translation brief explicitly gave permission to do so (“translate a scientific text for a broader audience”). Due to the small number of subjects considered in the present study, the possibility cannot be excluded that these results were the result of the students’ individual preferences. However, it may also have been the case that the P6 students, who were close to their final exams, had narrowed their concept of translation, focusing more on formal equivalence than the P4 students. The final exams in the Fachakademie are composed mainly of practical translation tasks and the students might have felt that they would be “on the safe side” if they provided more equivalent transla‐ tions. At the time of data collection, these students might have been thinking more about translations for a final exam than for professional practice, whereas the P4 students - with almost a year remaining until their final exams - might have seen the wider picture of the profession. The PT7 group was the one that exhibited the highest level of functionalism with regard to their concept of translation, as was to be expected. This group had the highest score in two of five items and the lowest score in only one. In all the items - except the one that tested agreement with a change in text type - the PT7 group clearly opted for functional behavior and therefore appears to have had a fairly stable functional concept of translation. This concept might have been induced by theoretical classes highlighting the functional aspects of translation, although it cannot be excluded that the difference between the P6 and PT7 groups could have been due to the fact that the P6 group had narrowed its concept to a more functional view. From the P4 group to the PT7 group, mainly a stabilization and strength‐ ening of the functional concept of translation can be observed. It should be noted again, however, that the differences were marginal and thus no conclusion can be stated with certainty. 200 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="201"?> Concerning the main question, i.e., whether theory has an influence on the development of the translator’s self-concept, final conclusions are difficult to draw. It is true, at least on the basis of the present data sample, that the students with theoretical training were the ones that, as a group, had the most functional concept of translation. The development of such a stable, functional concept might well have been promoted by theoretical training. Nevertheless, the data in the present sample are too few and the differences detected between the groups too small to permit such a conclusion. 6.4 Summary In line with Göpferich’s model of translation competence (2009b: 20), the trans‐ lator’s self-concept was identified as one of the variables that might be influ‐ enced by training. To gain an insight into the self-concepts of the participants in the present study, three indicators were identified and analyzed: prestige, the role of the translator and the concept of translation (see 6.1). The results for the indicator “prestige” showed that the expected occupational status of translators tended to increase slightly as students acquired more formal translation training. While the fifth-semester students had somewhat lower ex‐ pectations, the more advanced students considered translators to have a “rather high” prestige, which is in fact confirmed by international scales on occupational prestige. The students’ assessments were therefore quite realistic. Concerning the metaphors describing the role of the translator, all groups considered the translator to be an expert and a “mouthpiece”, i.e., a person mainly “reproducing” texts. Only the group with both practical and theoretical training (PT7) agreed that the translator is also a rewriter of texts, thereby in‐ dicating a slightly broader and more functional view of the translator than the other two groups. Concerning the indicator “concept of translation”, all groups of subjects ex‐ hibited a functional orientation. The PT7 group seemed to have the most func‐ tional concept in the data sample, especially when compared to the P6 group. Since both groups had the same amount of practical translation experience and differed only with regard to their theoretical training, the observed differences might be related to the additional theoretical courses taken by the PT7 group. Teaching (functional) translation theory therefore could, in fact, lead to a more stable functional concept of translation even within a relatively short period of time. However, the fifth-semester students without theoretical training basically adhered to functional principles as well, so that the P6 group’s return to a slightly 201 6.4 Summary <?page no="202"?> more equivalence-oriented concept of translation might reflect that group’s at‐ tempt to find a “safe haven” due to its imminent final exams. Therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn, and more research in this regard will be necessary to prove the effect of theoretical training on students’ self-concepts. 202 6 Translator’s Self-Concept <?page no="203"?> 7 Quality of the Translation Product 7.1 Evaluating Translations Translation quality assessment (TQA) is a topic frequently discussed in trans‐ lation studies since it plays an important role in many sub-disciplines such as the training of translators, the evaluation of professional translators’ work and empirical research (e.g., Hansen 2007, 2009b; Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 111). The PACTE researchers, for example, consider the acceptability of the product to be the most relevant indicator in their study and include it in the measurement of every dependent variable (2011a: 321). However, despite the central place that the evaluation of translation products holds in many research projects and de‐ spite its relevance in both professional and educational settings, no generally accepted objective criteria exist to assess the quality of translation products (Krüger 2001: 21; Williams 2009: 3). Furthermore, as Hansen (2007: 115) points out, evaluation criteria are often a weakness in the design of empirical studies, leading to biased data. Therefore, special attention has to be paid to the method of quality assessment. For assessing translation quality, two different approaches are common in translation studies: error marking and holistic evaluation. According to Sal‐ danha & O'Brien (2014: 101), error marking is the most frequently applied method in both pedagogical and professional TQA. Garant (2009: 13), on the other hand, observes a “general trend toward holistic grading” in the pedagog‐ ical context. His survey, however, was limited to the English section of the de‐ partment of translation studies at the University of Helsinki and might not in‐ dicate a more general tendency. In research, both methods have been applied, with some opting for a holistic, criteria-based approach (e.g., PACTE 2009: 217), while other large scale projects have employed error marking (e.g., Hansen 2009a: 320-322; Göpferich 2010a: 171-172). The difference between the two methods lies in how they approach the trans‐ lated text. In error analysis, detailed categories of errors are established at dif‐ ferent linguistic levels. The translations are scrutinized for errors, which are then classified and weighted. The focus is thus on everything that is not ac‐ ceptable in the produced translation. Holistic approaches, on the other hand, avoid detailed error marking and assess either the whole text or different parts of it according to their overall effect. To this end, they apply a scale of accept‐ <?page no="204"?> ability for the whole text or, in more fine-tuned versions, for a range of different aspects. Thus, PACTE (2009: 217), for example, analyze their subjects’ products in terms of meaning, function and language and combine these evaluations to provide an overall rating of translation quality. Both methods have drawbacks of their own, so that when deciding for one method or the other, different con‐ siderations must be taken into account. These considerations concern aspects such as subjectivity, reliability and validity, but also the adequacy of the method of evaluation within a functional paradigm (see 1.3). Within the functional paradigm, evaluation should first of all be concerned with whether the target text (TT) fulfills its intended function. This is why a translation brief is of paramount importance in non-professional settings, be they pedagogical or scientific, in order to evaluate the quality of a translated text. When the main objective of evaluation is the overall function of the pro‐ duced TT rather than the “equivalence” - of whatever kind - between ST and TT, it seems that a holistic evaluation is more appropriate. An error analysis, on the other hand, risks reintroducing linguistic criteria “through the backdoor” (Hönig 1998: 15) since it is based on a contrastive analysis of ST and TT. However, methods have been developed that include aspects of functionality in error analysis as well. In current error typologies, the weighting of errors is no longer determined linguistically by the nature of the error, but rather in relation to its impact on the functionality of the target text (e.g., Martínez Melis & Hurtado Albir 2001: 282; Waddington 2006: 67). Thanks to this approach, a detailed lin‐ guistic description of errors is possible, without losing sight of functionalist principles. A holistic evaluation that depends on the overall impression of the evaluator is more likely to be subjective than is error assessment, which seems to be fairly objective due to its use of predetermined error categories. Nevertheless, the latter method has also been repeatedly criticized for being only apparently ob‐ jective (e.g., Waddington 2004: 31; Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 101-102). As Wad‐ dington (2006: 67) points out, evaluating a translation is rarely a matter of judging between right and wrong, when translation is considered in its com‐ municative context, but rather a matter of deciding whether or not a translation is appropriate. Thus, the risk of subjectivity mainly lies in the assessment of borderline cases. Differences may also exist concerning the category to which errors are assigned and concerning the severity with which they are graded (Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 101-102). In addition, error analysis is prone to in‐ consistencies even within one and the same evaluator due to cognitive aspects such as fatigue or simply an increased tolerance of errors, e.g., when similar errors occur frequently (Hansen 2009b: 395). It seems that as long as there are 204 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="205"?> no generally agreed-upon objective criteria - and it does not seem very likely that there will be any such criteria anytime soon - the evaluation of translations will always entail some risk of subjectivity, independently of whether a holistic approach or an error-based approach is chosen. However, measures to reduce the risk of subjectivity and inconsistency seem to be more easily applied within an error-based assessment through the adoption of “a rigorous systematic anal‐ ysis of errors” (Hansen 2007: 123, 2009b: 398). Hansen claims that this procedure is the only possible way to avoid subjectivity and the biasing of data and, as a consequence, rejects holistic assessment within a research context because, as he argues, there “is still a lack of reliable procedures for holistic assessment” (2009b: 397). Last but not least, the reliability and validity of evaluation methods are im‐ portant aspects within a scientific context. When he compared error-marking and holistic methods of evaluation in terms of these aspects, Waddington (2001, 2004) found no significant differences in validity but concluded that all the methods might have been valid because of their careful elaboration within his study design (2001: 324). Concerning reliability, however, he found that error analysis was superior to a holistic evaluation of the TTs, while a combined ap‐ proach in which error analysis accounted for 70 % of the assessment and holistic appreciation accounted for 30 % led to the most reliable results (2004: 34). From these findings, it appears that both methods can yield valid and reliable data, as long as they are elaborated carefully. It might, however, be more difficult to make a consistent evaluation if only holistic criteria are applied. All of the above arguments seem to support the use of error-analysis in a research setting since it can reduce subjectivity and increase reliability. How‐ ever, a word of caution is needed at this point: while a holistic analysis also acknowledges the positive aspects of a translation, error-analysis ignores them and focuses solely on the negative aspects. As a consequence, we cannot rely on an error analysis to give us a detailed picture of the overall quality of a translation. This, however, is not necessarily a disadvantage when one is inter‐ ested in translation competence since, as we have argued in section 5.4, every error is an indicator of a lack of translation competence. So, while error-analysis might, in the end, not tell us directly about the quality of a translation since it does not explicitly acknowledge good solutions, it can, nevertheless, indicate the points at which translation competence is still missing. 205 7.1 Evaluating Translations <?page no="206"?> 7.2 Error Marking Criteria Several major studies in TPR have used error marking. As a consequence, a variety of models are available in the literature. The error marking in the present project was based on a slightly modified version of the TransComp error ty‐ pology (Göpferich 2010a: 196-197). This error typology was selected mainly in order to reduce subjectivity and produce a reliable evaluation. Within the Trans‐ Comp project, it had already been applied to translations of the very same ST (see 12.2.1) using the interrater-method (Göpferich 2012: 245). Therefore, a solid stock of intersubjective decisions was already available. This preexisting error marking (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011) thus provided the starting point for the analysis of the present project’s data, for which it was unfortunately not possible to have more than one evaluator. In this way, it was hoped to avoid as much as possible the risk of subjectivity inherent in having only a single evaluator. A sample solution of the translation task was elaborated before the evaluation of the subjects’ translations (see 12.2.2). In line with Hansen (2007: 124-125), it was considered extremely important that the evaluator personally translate the text beforehand so that she could fully understand the problematic passages and appreciate the solutions provided by the subjects. As was pointed out above, some modifications were made to the TransComp classification scheme (Göp‐ ferich 2010a: 196-197). As a consequence, error marking differed slightly from that in the TransComp project and called for a re-analysis of the secondary data. The classification scheme used in the present study (see Table 10) comprised several categories at different linguistic levels. For each of these levels, different sub-categories were defined in order to further classify errors. Only a few changes were made to the TransComp scheme. The most significant change was the addition of an error category “pragmatics” and sub-categories of this cate‐ gory concerning time, place and person. This addition made it possible to dif‐ ferentiate between errors in which the reader might be misinformed due to a literal translation of deictica without any adaptation to the communicative sit‐ uation of the target text. In the TransComp scheme, these errors were all sub‐ sumed under the heading of culture-specificity, which no longer exists in the adapted evaluation scheme used in the present study. It should be noted, how‐ ever, that not all culture-specific problems that may possibly arise can be gen‐ erally classified as problems of temporal, spatial or personal pragmatics. Espe‐ cially in the case of topics for which differences in background knowledge regarding the source and the target culture can be expected, a more extensive 206 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="207"?> adaption of content, which exceeds the mere adaption of deictica, might be nec‐ essary. However, this does not apply to the translation task used in the present study and, consequently, there was no need to retain this category. The gram‐ matical error category “infinitive” was also omitted because there was not a single error of this kind in the data set. This would probably be different in another evaluation situation in which a different source text is used. As has already been stated by Lesznyák (2008: 109), the occurrence of errors may vary considerably across different translation tasks, which is why error typologies must be adapted to the specific evaluation situation in order to ensure efficiency. Another change made to the TransComp scheme was to split the category “idi‐ omaticity / text type conventions” into two categories since unidiomatic ex‐ pressions occur at the wordor phrase-level, whereas text type conventions relate rather to the text as a whole. It goes without saying that text type con‐ ventions also influence choices at the level of the translation unit, and therefore the separation of levels cannot always be clear-cut. The separation of these two categories led to another change in the typology of errors: a separate category for unidiomatic expressions made a category for unusual collocations unneces‐ sary. Instead, unusual collocations were categorized as unidiomatic expressions. Every detected error was attributed to at least one error category. Where appropriate, it was also attributed to more than one. This was, for example, the case if grammatical and semantic errors were found within the same translation unit or expression. Obvious typing errors that would have been detected by a spellchecker were corrected since they were outside the focus of this study. However, orthographical errors that led to unmeant but existing words (e.g., Geld instead of Gelb) and would therefore not have been detected by a spell‐ checker or errors that would have occurred also in a handwritten translation (e.g., use of outdated orthographical rules) were included and weighted accord‐ ingly. All the errors found in the translations were weighted according to their impact on the functionality of the TT. Therefore, a grading scale ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 errors was adopted. Errors that did not considerably impede the func‐ tionality of the text but might have irritated the reader, such as errors in punc‐ tuation, were assigned 0.5 points. Errors that lead to semi-acceptable products were assigned 1 point. Semi-acceptable products were understood to be products that did not function flawlessly or did not correspond exactly to the meaning of the ST but did not seriously misinform the TT reader. 1.5 points were assigned to errors that led to a serious misinformation of the TT reader or to unintelligible text passages, i.e., for those segments that did not function and were not ac‐ ceptable. 207 7.2 Error Marking Criteria <?page no="208"?> It was necessary to decide whether to analyze the translations in their entirety or to limit the assessment to selected segments of the target text. While the second option certainly permits a more economic research design (PACTE 2009: 213), it has certain drawbacks: drawing conclusions regarding overall translation quality from only a partial analysis of a text is problematic since both errors and compensatory efforts in other parts of the text may go unnoticed (Williams 2009: 6). As a consequence, the TTs were analyzed in their entirety in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the participants’ products. Formal errors Punctuation Errors in punctuation, e.g., placement of commas and quo‐ tation marks Orthography Errors in orthography (obvious typing errors have been ex‐ cluded) Paragraphing Additions / omissions of paragraphs that are not in accord‐ ance with the content Word-level Semantics - Errors in lexical choice ranging from changes in con‐ notation to meaning errors - Lack of information due to omissions Interference Interferences, where the SL has influenced the lexical choices in the TL Preposition Missing preposition or use of wrong preposition Unidiomatic expres‐ sion Expressions that do not change the meaning but are not usually employed, e.g., unusual collocations Grammar Tense Wrong choice of tense Case Wrong case, e.g., dative instead of genitive Concord Missing / wrong concord between words (e.g., noun/ verb, article/ noun, adjective/ noun…) Number Use of plural instead of singular and vice versa Mood Wrong mood, e.g., use of indicative instead of conjunctive Syntax - Ungrammatical sentences - Unintelligible sentences due to syntactic structure 208 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="209"?> 1 In line with Matthews (2014: 63), coherence is understood here as “the way in which the content of connected speech or text hangs together, or is interpreted as hanging to‐ gether, as distinct from that of random assemblages of sentences”. 2 Deictic expressions always depend on the context of the communicative situation and might thus need to be modified in translation. Examples for deictica are, e.g., “yesterday” (time), “here” (place) or “his” (person). 3 According to Becher (2011: 19) “[e]xplicitation is observed where a given target text is more explicit than the corresponding source text” whereas “[i]mplicitation is observed where a given target text is less explicit (more implicit) than the corresponding source text”. Article Erroneous use of articles (e.g., definite instead of indefinite article) Text-level Coherence 1 - Missing logical-semantic relations, including extra-textual information - Erroneous logical-semantic relations within or in be‐ tween sentences Rhetorical device A rhetorical device such as a metaphor, a double entendre, a pun or irony has not been transferred to the TT and has not been compensated for elsewhere FSP - Functional sentence perspective - Errors in communicative dynamism, e.g., in thematic progression Text type conventions Solutions that do not adhere to the conventions of a specific text type in the target culture Pragmatics Temporal pragmatics Missing temporal adaptation to communicative situation of TT (e.g., time deixis 2 / explicitation 3 / implicitation) Spatial pragmatics Missing spatial adaptation to communicative situation of TT (e.g., place deixis / explicitation / implicitation) Person deixis Missing adaptation / explicitation of person deictica Illocutionary force - Changes to the general intent of the writer / speaker - Changes to the writer’s degree of commitment (believ‐ ability, reality) - Often expressed by changes in the modality/ mood Table 10: Categorization of errors (adapted from Göpferich 2010a: 196-197) 209 7.2 Error Marking Criteria <?page no="210"?> 7.3 Indicators Related to Errors A detailed classification system like the one adopted for the present study pro‐ vides rich data regarding the translation products of its subjects. In order to make this information processable, however, indicators had to be developed that made it possible to compare the different groups of subjects and draw conclu‐ sions regarding their underlying translation competence. The following indi‐ cators were developed in order to permit a detailed analysis of the subjects’ translation products. The first indicator is the total number of errors, which is defined as the sum of all the errors made by one subject when performing the prescribed translation task. Since, however, the mere counting of erroneous text segments without considering the different gravity of their functional impact would yield a rather useless number, the total number of errors refers to the sum of weighted errors. In this way, the total number of errors permits an initial assessment of the subjects’ capability to produce a functional translation. Nevertheless, this number does not necessarily reflect the overall quality of the TT since one and the same total number of errors may be due to a few very serious errors or, alternatively, to many minor errors (see also Göpferich 2010c: 19-20). Therefore, while the total number of errors is a useful first indicator, it is not sufficient to provide a detailed insight into a subject’s productive competence. It is for this reason that, in addition to calculating the total, the distribution of errors ac‐ cording to their functional impact for each and every group of subjects must also be taken into account. Thus, the errors that have a strong, medium or small impact on the functionality of the translation are counted separately. For this calculation, the unweighted errors are used since it is of interest to see how many erroneous translation solutions fall into each of these three categories. This comparison makes it possible to test whether the overall distribution be‐ tween serious errors, less serious errors and minor errors is the same in all groups and to increase the validity of the total number of errors as an indicator of the subjects’ productive competence. Apart from the total number and functional impact of errors, the type of errors is also of special interest for the present research question. Such a com‐ parison makes it possible to determine whether practical training or theoretical awareness-raising can prevent and reduce some types of errors more than others. The errors made by the respective comparison groups are analyzed ac‐ cording to the five categories defined in the classification scheme: pragmatic errors, text-level errors, grammatical errors, word-level errors and formal errors. In this analysis, the functional impact of the errors is taken into account. There‐ 210 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="211"?> fore, the weighted errors are used as a basis for the analysis since they are the ones that indicate how the total number of errors is distributed onto different categories of error types. When considering the data of this analysis, it should be kept in mind, however, that they are valid only for the translation of one specific source text and cannot be understood as representing general facts about error making at a certain level of translator training. Any translation task has specificities and difficulties of its own and the source text used in the present study was selected because it presented certain types of difficulties (see 5.2.1). Thus, the findings resulting from the analysis of error types cannot be applied to other translation tasks. They do provide an insight, however, into how well different groups of subjects can cope with the difficulties posed by one specific source text. Determining the total number of errors, the distribution of error types and the functional impact of errors makes it possible to analyze the product as thor‐ oughly as possible within an error analysis approach. In the last step, the number of errors and the duration of the task - i.e., the time that the subjects need to complete the translation - are correlated. Therefore, the time of the entire translation process is also an indicator in the present study. This process is not divided into different phases - such as an orientation phase, a translation phase and a revision phase - since these prove to be less clearly discernable in the TAPs. The total time is measured from the moment when the subjects begin working on their translations (usually by reading the text) until they provide a verbal marker of closure, i.e. when they state that they are ready to submit their translations. The correlation of time and the number of errors is determined on the basis of the amount of time needed by each subject as well as his or her total number of errors. This correlation is first analyzed for all subjects together to see if any general tendencies can be detected. Then, in order to see whether the advancement in translator training or the different types of training might have an influence on this correlation, each group is analyzed separately. The aim is to answer questions as to how the time, the product quality and the level/ kind of translator training are related to one other. 7.4 Findings In this section, the results of all the indicators described above will be presented. For all four groups, the number of subjects was constant: there were five subjects in the group T4 (N = 5), six in the group P4 (N = 6), ten in the group P6 (N = 10) 211 7.4 Findings <?page no="212"?> and nine in the group PT7 (N = 9). Since there are no missing data for any of the following analyses, the number of subjects will not be repeated for every ques‐ tion in the remainder of this chapter. Some measurements relate to the group as a whole, i.e., a total of 30 subjects. 7.4.1 Total Number of Errors 7.4.1.1 T4 and P4 Figure 25: Total number of errors by subject (P4 and T4) Among the fifth-semester students, the total number of errors, which is the sum of the weighted errors as described in section 7.3, covered a rather wide range, as can be seen from Figure 25. The six P4 students, who had had only practical translator training, had a total number of errors of between 20 and 36.5, which corresponds to a range of 16.5 errors. In the group without any translation practice, the T4 group, the lowest number of errors was 19.5 while the highest 212 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="213"?> was the same as that of the P4 group (36.5), leading to a range of 17 errors. Thus, the range as well as the respective lowest and highest total number of errors were almost identical in both groups. Nevertheless, this does not indicate an overall similarity between the two groups. Within the given range, the P4 stu‐ dents tended rather to have a higher number of errors - subject SEP was an exception with a total of only 20 errors. In the T4 group, however, the trend was reversed with several subjects scoring closer to the lower end of the range. Thus, subject JZE stands out with 36.5 errors. The tendency of the P4 group to have more errors in the translation than the T4 group is reflected in both the mean and the median. The P4 group’s average number of errors was 29.8 (SD: 5.8), the T4 group’s was 25.4 (SD: 7.3). The median figures for the two groups were even further apart, with a median of 30 errors for the P4 group and 22.5 for the T4 group. Despite the small number of subjects in both groups, a Mann-Whitney test was run in order to see if this difference was significant. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.23), however, and does not permit any conclusions beyond the observed values. In addition to calculating the total number of errors, it was also important to determine the different functional impact of the individual error instances. The composition of the total number of errors - which was composed of serious errors (weighted 1.5), less serious errors (weighted 1.0) and minor errors (weighted 0.5) - could, after all, vary greatly from case to case. As a result, one and the same total number of errors could have been due to only a few very serious errors or to a large number of errors that did not, however, seriously hinder communication. The overall quality of the translations in question might, accordingly, not be the same even if the total number of errors was the same in every case. Figure 26 illustrates the average distribution of errors for both the P4 group and the T4 group. In the P4 students’ translations, minor errors were the most frequent kind (66 %), while less serious errors accounted for an average of 28 % and serious errors for an average of 5 % of all error instances in the P4 subjects’ translations. Related to the total number of errors calculated above (29.8), this means that 14.2 errors of the total were due to minor errors, another 12.2 to less serious errors and the remaining 3.4 to serious errors. In the T4 group, the average distribution of errors was comparable to that of the P4 group: 6 % of all error instances were serious errors, 29 % were less serious errors and 65 % were minor errors. This means that the above calculated total number of 25.4 errors consisted of 11.8 minor errors, 10.6 less serious errors and 3.0 serious errors. 213 7.4 Findings <?page no="214"?> Figure 26: Average distribution of errors according to functional impact (P4 and T4) 7.4.1.2 P6 and PT7 The P6 students committed between 15.5 and 27 errors, which corresponds to a range of 11.5 errors. The PT7 group’s range was slightly wider (13 errors), ex‐ tending from a minimum of 21 to a maximum of 34 errors. While the groups may have been rather homogenous in themselves, there were differences be‐ tween the two groups. Thus, the extreme values were considerably higher in the case of the PT7 group, indicating that the PT7 students tended to make more errors than the P6 students. 214 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="215"?> Figure 27: Total number of errors by subject (P6 and PT7) Accordingly, the groups’ mean and median number of errors were both somewhat lower for the P6 group. With a mean of 21.9 errors (SD: 3.4), P6 students made about three errors less on average than their PT7 counter‐ parts, who made an average of 25.3 errors (SD: 4.2) when translating the same source text. The tendency for P6 students to make fewer errors than the students in the PT7 group is also reflected in the median, which was 22.5 for the P6 group and 25.0 for the PT7 group. Using the Mann-Whitney U test again, the result (p = 0.10) was not statistically significant. Since both of the more advanced groups, P6 and PT7, were composed of students with English as a first foreign language as well as students with English as a second foreign language, they will now be separated into two different groups on the basis of their (formal) level of English language skills. As is evident from the discussion of the curricula in section 5.1.3, the FAK students’ training in their first and second foreign languages differed considerably as far as their experience of practical translation in the respec‐ tive language pairs is concerned: while students with English as a B-lan‐ 215 7.4 Findings <?page no="216"?> guage had 1053 classroom hours of practical translation into and out of English, students with English as a C-language had only 195 hours. We can therefore assume that their language competence in English differed con‐ siderably depending on whether they chose English as their Bor C-lan‐ guage, while their general experience of translation - independent of the language pair - was the same. In order to make sure that the indicator does not measure language competence but is in fact related to translation com‐ petence, it seems advisable to compare the students depending on whether they had English as a first or as a second language. Across the two comparison groups P6 and PT7, students with English as their B-language (N = 10) and therefore with a significant amount of prac‐ tical experience in translating into and out of English made an average of 23.2 errors in the translation of the given source text (SD: 3.7). Students with English as their C-language (N = 9) and therefore with less translation prac‐ tice (and presumably less highly developed language skills) in English made 23.9 errors on average. There was, however, somewhat more variation in this second group (SD: 4.7) and a somewhat larger range (16 as compared to 13 in the group of students with English as their B-language). The median, on the other hand, was somewhat lower for the students with a B-language other than English (22.5 errors as compared to 23.5 errors for those with English as their B-language). The impact of linguistic knowledge on the total number of errors thus seems to have been much less than that of the level of studies. As we have seen above, the difference in the total number of errors was much greater in the two comparison groups P6 (21.9 errors) and PT7 (25.3 errors) than in the B-language groups. 216 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="217"?> Figure 28: Average distribution of errors according to functional impact (P6 and PT7) To confirm this first impression, it seems necessary to construct four different comparison groups based on the students’ level of studies and their B-lan‐ guage. Therefore, the P6 students with English as their B-language need to be analyzed separately from those with English as their C-language and the same goes for the PT7 students. Since the average number of errors committed by the PT7 students with English as a B-language (N = 5) was 25.3 and the average number committed by the PT7 students with English as a C-language (N = 4) was 25.4, there was evidently no difference within this group due to differences in linguistic skills or language-specific translator training. In the P6 group, however, a small difference was visible: while P6 students with English as their first foreign language (N = 5) made 21 errors on average, this figure was some‐ what higher for students with English as their C-language (22.8 errors; N = 5). This difference is no longer visible, however, when the median figures for the two groups, which are more resistant to outliers, are compared. For both the P6 students with English as a B-language and as a C-language, the median number was 22.5. Among the PT7 students, the median number was even somewhat 217 7.4 Findings <?page no="218"?> smaller for the group with English as a C-language (23.3) than it was for the group with English as a B-language (25.0). It seems therefore safe to assume that the data are not biased by differences in language skills and that the number of errors does not depend on the language skills or on whether practical translation training was in a specific language pair. Figure 29: Total number of errors according to B-language (P6 and PT7) In addition to the total number of errors, the distribution of errors according to their gravity was also analyzed. With regard to the functional impact of the errors made by the P6 students and the PT7 students, respectively, minor errors tended to be the most frequent kind overall, followed by less serious errors and serious errors. On average, 66 % of the errors made by the P6 group and 68 % of the errors made by the PT7 group had only a minor impact on functionality. The errors weighted with a value of 1.0 were the second most frequent with an average of 31 % in the P6 group and 27 % in the PT7 group. The errors with a serious impact on communication were the fewest in number, averaging 3 % in the P6 group and 5 % in the PT7 group. From this 218 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="219"?> it is also possible to see how the total number of errors for each of the groups was composed: in the P6 group, the mean number of errors (21.9) com‐ prised, on average, 10.5 minor errors, 9.9 less serious errors and 1.5 serious errors, while, in the PT7 group, the mean number of errors (25.3) comprised 12.5 minor errors, 10.1 less serious errors and 2.7 serious errors. When the students across both groups are compared in terms of their B-language, the distribution of errors is almost identical for the students with English as a B-language (N = 10) and the students who studied English as a C-language (N = 9). Again, this data confirms that the students’ language skills and experience in translating out of English was not connected to the number or seriousness of the errors they made. 7.4.1.3 Comparison of All Groups Of all four groups, the group that had had the most intensive practical training at the time of data collection (P6) was the one with the lowest average number of errors (21.9). It was followed by the groups PT7 (with theoretical courses after six semesters of practical training) and T4 (with ex‐ clusively theoretical training). These two groups performed similarly, making an average of 25.3 and 25.4 errors, respectively. The less advanced practically trained students (P4) made the highest number of errors per sub‐ ject (an average of 29.8). T4 P4 P6 PT7 Total number of errors (⌀) 25.4 29.8 21.9 25.3 Table 11: Overview of total number of errors (all groups) 219 7.4 Findings <?page no="220"?> Figure 30: Functional impact of errors for all groups This tendency is also evident when every functional category of errors is taken separately, although the differences are only marginal for some cate‐ gories, as can be seen from Figure 30. On average, the P6 students made the fewest errors of all three kinds - serious, less serious and minor errors - while the P4 students made the most. The PT7 and T4 students were in be‐ tween and were fairly similar to one another with regard to both the total number of errors and their distribution according to functional impact. The overall distribution of serious, less serious and minor errors was very similar across all four groups, with minor errors accounting for about 65 %, less se‐ rious errors for 30 % and serious errors for about 5 % of the total. Since the overall tendencies were so similar, it seems possible that even slight varia‐ tions could be relevant, especially with regard to serious errors since these only accounted for a very small percentage of the total number of errors. In this regard, the P6 group clearly made the fewest errors with a serious im‐ pact on communication: an average of one such error per subject. When looking at the distribution of errors, this difference is also visible: an average 220 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="221"?> of only 3 % of the errors made by the P6 subjects were serious in nature. This figure was lower than the figure for the P4 group and the PT7 group, in both of which serious errors accounted for 5 %. In the T4 group, serious errors ac‐ counted for slightly more of the total number (6 %). 7.4.2 Types of Errors In the following we will look at the number of errors made by the subjects in the five different error categories defined above: pragmatics, text-level, grammar, word-level and formalities of the writing system. We will first take a look at the overall distribution of errors into the five categories, before an‐ alyzing each and every sub-category in detail. 7.4.2.1 Overview of All Error Types Starting with the fifth-semester students, we can see from the overview in Figure 31 that the overall distribution of errors was similar for students with purely practical training (P4) and students with theoretical training (T4). In both groups, most of the errors made were at the lexical level (59 % and 58 %, respectively). In both groups, formal errors were the second-most-frequent type, while text-level errors were the fewest in number. Nevertheless, there were small differences between the two groups. Thus, the P4 students made somewhat fewer errors in both percentage and absolute numbers in the sub-category of formal errors despite an overall tendency to make more er‐ rors in the translation of the text “Yellow peril, red alert” (see 12.2.1), as we saw in the analysis of the total number of errors above (7.4.1). All in all, formal errors accounted for 13 % of the P4 students’ errors and 17 % of the T4 students’ errors. Another small difference between the two groups is evident in the category of pragmatics, in which the T4 group made somewhat more errors than the P4 group despite its overall tendency to make fewer errors. In the T4 group, pragmatic errors accounted for 13 % of all errors, while in the P4 group they accounted for 10 %. In the case of grammatical errors, on the other hand, it was the P4 group that made more errors (11 %) as compared to the T4 group (6 %). 221 7.4 Findings <?page no="222"?> Figure 31: Overview of error distribution (P4 and T4) So, while there were no major differences between the practically trained and theoretically trained students, the practically trained students achieved slightly better results in the categories “pragmatics” and “formality”, whereas the theoretically trained students did better in the category “grammar”. How‐ ever, due to the small sample size of only five subjects in the T4 group and six in the P4 group, these variations could have been the result of only one or two errors more or less in a certain category. Therefore, these results should not be over-interpreted. 222 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="223"?> Figure 32: Overview of error distribution (P6 and PT7) There were no major differences between the practically trained P6 group and the more advanced PT7 students who had attended additional theoretical classes. Figure 32 provides an overview of all the error categories for both the P6 and PT7 groups. Both groups made the largest number of errors at the lexical level. When comparing the percentages, 59 % of the errors made by the P6 group and 54 % of the errors made by the PT7 group were in this category. In absolute numbers, however, this difference was rather small in the P6 group (12.8) as compared to the PT7 group (13.3). The observed difference in percentages is due rather to the fact that the PT7 group made more errors in other categories, especially in the categories “grammar” and “formality”. These errors accounted for 11 % and 13 %, respectively, of all the errors made by the PT7 students, whereas they accounted for only 8 % and 9 %, respectively, of the errors made by the P6 group. In the category of pragmatic errors, both groups perform com‐ parably, whereas the P6 students made somewhat more errors in the text-level category (12 % as compared to 10 % in the PT7 group). In absolute numbers, this difference is practically inexistent, however, with the P6 group making 2.6 errors 223 7.4 Findings <?page no="224"?> and the PT7 group 2.5 errors. From this data, it is not possible to identify any category in which the additional semester of theoretical training that PT7 stu‐ dents had had could have reduced the number of errors. Nevertheless, it is im‐ portant to investigate in more detail all the different error categories and their respective sub-categories across all four groups. 7.4.2.2 Pragmatic Errors All errors where the information concerning time, place or person has not been translated correctly or has not been rendered as explicit as required by the translation task at hand have been categorized as pragmatic errors. Pragmatic errors also include errors in illocution, i.e., text segments in which the intent of the sender of the text has not been expressed correctly in the target text (see overview of errors in Table 10). Figure 33: Pragmatic errors (P4 and T4) According to the data, fifth-semester students with purely practical training (P4) made an average of 2.8 pragmatic errors in their translations (SD: 0.98, 224 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="225"?> median: 2.5), most of which were in the area of temporal pragmatics. The rather high proportion of errors concerning temporal pragmatics was cer‐ tainly due to the specific translation task, which required that the subjects explicitly render the point at which the interviewee originally made his state‐ ment. Since ignoring this need for explicitation leads to a serious misunder‐ standing on the part of the TT reader, it was considered a serious error (with a weight of 1.5). This error was made frequently, as can be inferred from the average of 1.5 errors in temporal pragmatics. However, as many as 1.3 errors on average were due to other pragmatic aspects of the text, with spatial prag‐ matics accounting for an average of 0.8 errors. There seems to have been greater awareness concerning the person deixis, which also requires devi‐ ating from a word-for-word translation, since this kind of error accounted, on average, for only 0.2 of the errors made by the P4 students despite the fact that the source text presented a difficulty of this kind. Among the theoretically trained subjects (T4), pragmatic errors in general were somewhat more frequent than among their P4 counterparts. In the T4 group, subjects made an average of 3.4 pragmatic errors (SD: 0.42, median: 3.5) as compared to 2.8 in the P4 group. Just as in the P4 group, most of these errors were in the field of temporal pragmatics. However, errors in the field of spatial pragmatics were almost as frequent, with an average of 1.4 errors per subject. This figure is almost double the average number of errors made by the P4 students in the field of spatial pragmatics, indicating that the T4 students might have had more trouble expliciting information that would help the reader situate the text. Furthermore, no subject in the T4 group made fewer than three pragmatic errors (as compared to 1.5 in the P4 group), which also indicates that T4 students did have somewhat more trouble with the pragmatic challenges posed by the translation task than the P4 students. There was very little difference in the total number of pragmatic errors made by the more advanced groups P6 and PT7: while the P6 students made an average of 2.7 pragmatic errors (SD: 0.98, median: 2.8) in the translation of the given text, the PT7 students made 2.9 pragmatic errors on average (SD: 0.46, median: 3.0). 225 7.4 Findings <?page no="226"?> Figure 34: Pragmatic errors (P6 and PT7) In terms of the distribution of these pragmatic errors among the different sub-categories, both groups made the most errors in the field of temporal prag‐ matics. However, while the PT7 group made an average of 1.5 errors in the temporal situating of the text, this figure was somewhat lower among P6 stu‐ dents (an average of 1.1), indicating a slightly better ability to cope with the specific challenges of the present source text. In both groups, errors concerning the pragmatics of place were the second-most-frequent type of pragmatic error, with an average of 1.0 errors in the P6 group and 1.2 errors in the PT7 group. The adaptation of personal deictica did not seem to produce many errors in either group (0.1 errors in each group on average). There was a small difference between the groups with regard to illocution: while the P6 students made an average of 0.6 illocutionary errors (median: 0.8), the PT7 students made as few as 0.1 such errors on average (median: 0.0). The group with additional theoretical training therefore was better able to communicate the slight nuances of the author’s intention than the other groups. 226 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="227"?> 7.4.2.3 Text-level Errors Figure 35: Text-level errors (P4 and T4) The second category of errors to be considered relate to the text-level. Text-level errors are those that concern the big picture of the text, even if they arise only in limited text segments. This is the case, for example, with text-type conven‐ tions that concern the whole text but may have been breached only partially, e.g., in the headlines. Other examples of text-level errors are the coherence of the text, the functional sentence perspective, i.e., the logical presentation of a sentence’s information, as well as the use of rhetorical devices. Again, while rhetorical styles may have been used only locally or sporadically in a text, they nevertheless influence and are part of the specific style of the whole text. It is for this reason that rhetorical devices, which cannot be included in the same segment in which they figure in the source text, can be compensated for in other parts of the text. In this way, the overall style of the text can be preserved, even when the rhetorical devices no longer appear in the same text segment as in the source text. 227 7.4 Findings <?page no="228"?> Students in the P4 group made an average of 2.2 text-level errors in their translation of the given source text (SD: 1.21; median: 2.0). Of these 2.2 text-level errors, an average of 0.9 concerned the rhetorical devices used in the text, such as double entendre. The second-most-frequent type of error concerned text-type conventions, which accounted, on average, for 0.8 of the errors made by the P4 students. Functional sentence perspective accounted, on average, for another 0.3 errors, followed by errors of coherence, which was the least important of all the sub-categories for the P4 group. An average of only 0.2 of the errors made by the P4 students concerned coherence. The T4 students made fewer text-level errors than their P4 counterparts, the mean figure for the T4 group being 1.4 errors (SD: 1.29; median: 1.0). All text-level errors made by this group occurred in only two sub-categories: rhetoric and coherence. While the number of rhet‐ orical errors was almost identical in the two groups, the T4 group seems to have had slightly more difficulty with coherence. Text-type conventions and func‐ tional sentence perspective, however, seem to have posed no problems for this group of subjects. Figure 36: Text-level errors (P6 and PT7) 228 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="229"?> Concerning text-level errors, the students with additional theoretical training (PT7) made roughly the same number of errors as their P6 counterparts, who had had only practical training. Thus, the P6 group made a mean number of 2.6 text-level errors (SD: 1.36; median: 2.3), while in the PT7 group the mean number of errors was 2.5 per subject (SD: 1.00; median: 2.5). Most of the errors made by both groups were in the sub-category of rhet‐ oric. In this sub-category, P6 students made an average of 0.9 errors, whereas the PT7 students made slightly more (1.2 rhetorical errors on average). In the PT7 group, errors that affected the coherence of the TT were the second-most-frequent type (1.1 errors on average). In the P6 group, errors concerning coherence accounted for 0.7 errors on average, as did errors con‐ cerning text-type conventions. In the PT7 group, text-level errors were con‐ siderably fewer in number (only 0.2 errors on average). The P6 group also made errors concerning the functional sentence structure (0.4 on average), which seemed to have posed no problems for the PT7 group. When all four groups are compared, it appears that those with theoretical training made fewer errors than the practically trained groups concerning both functional sentence perspective and text-type conventions. 7.4.2.4 Word-level Errors The next category concerns the lexical choices made by the subjects. It usu‐ ally involves the semantic difficulties encountered in translation, i.e., the ex‐ pressions used in a translation do not adequately transfer the meaning in‐ tended by the source text or are not used in the same context in the linguistic system of the target language. To be able to differentiate among such strictly meaning-related semantic errors and certain other errors that also arise at word-level, additional categories - namely, the categories “preposition” and “unidiomatic expression” - have been included in order to identify the use of non-existing expressions. A separate category, “interference”, has also been added in order to determine how likely the students were to make er‐ rors at the lexical level due to a negative transfer from the SL. 229 7.4 Findings <?page no="230"?> Figure 37: Word-level errors (P4 and T4) Practically trained students in the P4 group made an average of 17.2 word-level errors in the translation of the 250-word source text (SD: 3.5; median: 16.5). The subject with the fewest lexical errors made 14, while the subject with the most lexical errors made 24. In the theoretically trained T4 group, the mean number of word-level errors was 14.5 (SD: 4.3; median: 13.5), i.e., approximately three errors less on average than in the P4 group. The subject with the smallest number of lexical errors in this group made 10 errors, the subject with the highest made 21 errors. In both groups, al‐ most all the errors in this category were due to semantically inadequate translations. Semantic errors accounted for an average of 87 % of the P4 stu‐ dents’ word-level errors. Among T4 students, the mean percentage of sem‐ atic errors was 89 %. The other categories played a comparatively minor role: only a few errors concerned unidiomatic expressions (on average 1.5 errors in the P4 and 1.1 in the T4), and even fewer were due to incorrect prepositional choices (0.3 in the P4 group / 0.5 in the T4 group) or interfer‐ ence (0.0 and 0.4, respectively). There was evidence of somewhat more in‐ 230 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="231"?> terference in the translations of the P4 group. A closer look at the data re‐ veals, however, that these errors were all made by only one of the six members of the P4 group, so that this figure might not be valid for the group as a whole. In the P6 group, word-level errors amounted to 12.8 on average (SD: 3.16; median: 13.3), with the fewest number of lexical errors in this group being 6.0 and the highest number 18.0. On average, each of the PT7 students made about half an error more than their P6 counterparts, i.e., 13.3 lexical errors (SD: 3.74; median: 14.0). The subject with the fewest lexical errors in this group made 7.0, while the subject with the most made 19.0. Figure 38: Word-level errors (P6 and PT7) As was the case in the two groups of fifth-semester students, the vast ma‐ jority of lexical errors made by the P6 and PT7 students were in the cate‐ gory “semantic errors”. In fact, in the P6 group, 86 % of the word-level er‐ rors were due to lexical choices that did not transfer the semantic content expressed in the source text. In the PT7 group, this percentage was even 231 7.4 Findings <?page no="232"?> higher, with 89 % of the lexical errors being semantic errors. Unidiomatic expressions, errors in the use of prepositions and interference played only a small part compared to the overall number of lexical errors. On average, each of the P6 students made 1.4 errors in the area of unidiomatic expres‐ sions. This number was somewhat smaller among the PT7 students, with a mean of 1.1 unidiomatic expressions per translation. The remaining two categories played only a marginal role, with errors in preposition usage being somewhat more frequent in both groups (0.4/ P6 and 0.3/ PT7) than interference from the source language (0.1 in both groups). In sum, while the sub-categories “unidiomatic expressions”, “preposi‐ tion” and “interferences” showed only marginal variation across the four groups, the number of semantic errors was similar to the findings for the total number of errors independent of error type, which was analyzed in section 7.4.1. The fifth-semester students with only practical training (P4) made the most errors, followed by the fifth-semester students without any translation practice (T4). Both groups of more advanced students made fewer semantic errors than the fifth-semester students, with the purely practically trained P6 students making slightly fewer errors than the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training. 232 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="233"?> 7.4.2.5 Grammatical Errors Figure 39: Grammatical errors (P4 and T4) All grammatical errors, whether they concerned the word-level or the sen‐ tence-level, are included in this category. The different sub-categories concern the use of the article, the syntax and the use of mood, number, concord, case and, last but not least, tense (see Table 10). In the P4 group, the overall number of grammatical errors averaged 3.2 per subject (SD: 1.4; median: 3). The P4 stu‐ dents in the present study made a total of between two and five grammatical errors. The subjects in the T4 group made an average of only 1.6 grammatical errors (SD: 1.08; median: 1.5), with the number of actual errors ranging from zero to three. Not only the overall number of grammatical errors differed considerably be‐ tween the two groups of fifth-semester students; the distribution of these errors into the different sub-categories was also different. While the P4 students made the same number of errors concerning number (0.8 errors) and mood (0.1 errors), they made considerably more errors concerning the use of articles and tense 233 7.4 Findings <?page no="234"?> than the T4 students. The P4 students also made slightly more errors concerning syntax and concord. With regard to grammatical errors, it is also helpful to consider the median for each sub-category, as this allows us to separate the sub-categories that concern at least half of the students from those in which only one or two individuals tended to make errors. For example, tense-related errors concerned less than half the subjects in the P4 group since, for this group, the median figure in the subcategory “tense” was zero. Only the categories “number”, “article” and “syntax” concerned at least half of the P4 group. In the case of the T4 group, however, this was true only for the category “number”. Figure 40: Grammatical errors (P6 and PT7) The differences in the total number of errors made by the more advanced groups were as follows. Grammatical errors seemed to play a minor role among the P6 students, with an average of only 1.9 of these errors being made by each subject (SD: 1.5; median: 1.3). For the PT7 students, in contrast, the mean number of grammatical errors was 2.8 (SD: 1.60; median: 3.0). When the distribution of grammatical errors (see Figure 40) is compared, the number of 234 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="235"?> errors in almost all categories is seen to be slightly higher in the PT7 group than in the P6 group, and the overall distribution is fairly similar. On average, each student in the P6 group made 0.6 errors related to the inappropriate use of articles, using the definite instead of the indefinite article, for example. In the PT7 group, this number is only marginally higher, with 0.7 errors per subject on average. The next-most-frequent grammatical error in the PT7 group concerned concord (0.5 errors on average) followed by syntax, number and tense (0.4 errors in each category). In the P6 group, the second-most-fre‐ quent grammatical error concerned number (0.4 errors) followed by tense, concord and syntax (0.3 errors in each category). As in the case of the two groups of fifth-semester students, a comparison of the median figures will allow us to identify the categories that are relevant for at least half of the subjects in each group. In the P6 group, the article is the only grammatical error category to concern at least half of the students, while in the PT7 group this is true for quite a number of categories, i.e., the use of articles, syntax, number, concord and tense. 7.4.2.6 Formal Errors The last category to be considered concerns formal errors such as orthog‐ raphy and punctuation. Errors in paragraphing have also been included in this category although they are not purely formal but depend on the infor‐ mation structure of the text as well. The mean number of formal errors made by the P4 group was 3.8 (SD: 1.91), with the median figure being even higher (4.5). Most of these formal errors were made in orthography (an average of 2.1), closely followed by punctuation errors (an average of 1.8). Students in the T4 group made an average of 4.3 formal errors (SD: 1.98, median: 4.0). While the T4 students clearly performed better in or‐ thography than their P4 counterparts, with only 0.9 orthographical errors on average, punctuation accounted for the bulk of the errors they made in this category. With an average of 3.4 punctuation errors, the T4 group made by far the highest number of punctuation errors of all groups in the study. Although the data include an outlier with a total of 6 errors, the median still confirms this tendency, with 3.5 errors compared to 1.5 errors in the P4 group. 235 7.4 Findings <?page no="236"?> Figure 41: Formal errors (P4 and T4) Turning now to the more advanced groups, the P6 students made, on average, 1.9 formal errors overall (SD: 1.08), while the PT7 students made, on average, one error more, with a mean number of formal errors of 3.2 (SD: 1.68). The median figures for both groups also point in this direction, with a median figure of 2.3 for the P6 group and of 3.0 for the PT7 group. Among the P6 students, errors in punctuation (1.0 error per subject on average) and orthography (0.9 errors on average) were comparably frequent. In the PT7 group, the majority of formal errors concerned punctuation (1.6 errors on average), closely followed by spelling errors, which averaged 1.4 per subject. In the PT7 group, two subjects also made an error in paragraphing, which accounts for the 0.1 errors made per subject in this area. 236 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="237"?> Figure 42: Formal errors (P6 and PT7) 7.4.2.7 Comparison of All Groups We began this section with an overall comparison of the fifth-semester students and the more advanced students at the end of their studies (7.4.2.1). We will now conclude it by comparing all four comparison groups. When all four groups are compared according to the distribution of errors within the five selected categories, it becomes clear that, independently of group affiliation, a large majority of the errors made concerned word-level and, espe‐ cially, semantically inadequate lexical choices. With a mean number of 12.8 er‐ rors per subject, the P6 group is the group that made the smallest number of errors in this category, followed by the PT7 and the T4 groups. The P4 group made considerably more errors in this category (17.2 per subject on average), i.e., 4.4 errors more than the P6 subjects and 2.7 more than the students in the second-to-last group, the T4 group. Concerning pragmatic errors, the P6, P4 and PT7 groups performed similarly, making an average of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 errors, respectively. The T4 group made somewhat more errors in this category (3.4 237 7.4 Findings <?page no="238"?> errors per subject on average). Concerning errors on the text-level, the T4 group was the best-performing group, with an average of 1.4 errors per subject, fol‐ lowed by the P4 group with 2.2, the PT7 group with 2.5 and the P6 group with 2.6 errors on average. The T4 group was also the group that made the fewest grammatical errors (1.6 errors per subject), followed by the P6 group (1.9 errors on average). The PT7 subjects made 2.8 grammatical errors while the P4 subjects made as many as 3.2. Last but not least, formal errors seem to have been most frequent among the T4 students, who averaged 4.3 formal errors in the trans‐ lation of the 250-word source text. The P4 students made only slightly fewer formal errors, with a mean number of 3.8 errors per subject. The PT7 students made half an error less on average than the P4 students, i.e., an average of 3.2 errors. The P6 group was the group that made the lowest number of formal errors, with each member making 1.9 errors of this kind on average. These numbers present a relatively clear picture of the three groups that had had or were having practical training during their studies, i.e., the P4, P6 and PT7 groups. The P6 students, who were studied around the time of their final examinations, made fewer errors than the other two FAK-related groups, P4 and PT7, in all categories except that of text-level errors. In this category, the P4 group did slightly better than both the P6 and PT7 groups. The T4 subjects made the fewest errors in some categories (text-level and grammatical errors), but the most in other categories (pragmatics and formal errors). Only concerning lexical errors were they in the middle of the field: while they made more lexical errors than the more advanced students in the P6 and PT7 groups, they made fewer errors than the practically trained students in the same semester (P4). 238 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="239"?> Figure 43: Overview of error categories (all groups) All in all, the distribution of error types does not paint a clear picture as to which error types can be best prevented through theoretical training. In fact, the cat‐ egory in which we might think that theoretically trained students would have an advantage, i.e., pragmatics, showed them at rather a disadvantage. Students without practical training also seemed to be somewhat less aware of formal writing criteria, especially punctuation rules. There were two categories, how‐ ever, in which theoretically trained students made fewer errors than the prac‐ tically trained groups, the categories of text-level errors and grammar, but only when their percentage and not the actual number of errors are considered. The data show, however, that intense practical training as provided in the last part of the FAK curriculum resulted in a reduction of errors in almost all categories. Thus, there was a clear difference between P4 and P6 students, concerning lex‐ ical errors, in particular, but also concerning grammatical and formal errors. Only the errors made at the text-level seemed to increase with progress in translator training. 239 7.4 Findings <?page no="240"?> 7.4.3 Correlation of Errors and Time Needed Before being able to correlate the total number of errors with the duration of the translation process, it is necessary to determine how much time every sub‐ ject needed for the completion of the translation task. The histogram in Figure 44 shows that the majority of subjects needed between 40 and 80 minutes, with a peak at around 60 minutes. Fifteen of the 30 participants needed between 50 and 70 minutes. There were two outliers, subject DAS, who needed only 17 minutes to translate the text, and subject DIK who gave herself 114 minutes for the same task. The mean duration across all groups was 60 minutes (SD: 18.24). The two fastest subjects were both P4 students, while the two slowest were both advanced students, one in the P6 group and the other in the PT7 group. Figure 44: Total amount of time needed (all subjects) When looking at all four groups, a comparison of the mean times shows that the more advanced groups P6 and PT7 required, on average, 63 minutes to translate the text. In both of these groups, however, there was considerable var‐ iation (SD: 15.92 and 19.90, respectively). The fifth-semester students who were 240 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="241"?> without any translation practice were somewhat faster, requiring 57 minutes (T4; SD: 17.18), while the group that had been trained with translation exercises required 53 minutes (P4; SD: 22.39). Due to this huge variation and the presence of some extreme outliers in the data sample, it seems more useful to compare the median figures, which are resistant to these extreme values. The median figure is identical for the groups that had had a great deal of practical experience at the time of data collection, i.e., the two groups enrolled in the Fachaka‐ demie. Thus, both the P4 group and the P6 group had a median time of 63 mi‐ nutes. The group that had a significant amount of translation practice in the past, but had not translated at all in the previous few months (the PT7 group) had a median time of 58 minutes. The median time was somewhat shorter for the T4 group, i.e., the group with no practical experience, with half of the sub‐ jects in this group completing their translation within no more than 52 minutes. These median figures thus reflect a tendency for the students who were in in‐ tensive practice at the time of data collection to give themselves somewhat more time for completing the translation than those who had been “out of practice” for the past few months. The comparison of median times shows that students who had never had any practical experience, on the other hand, were even faster in completing the translation. We should, however, be careful with such con‐ clusions due to the variation within all four groups. It seems rather that the time needed to accomplish the translation task was not so much a feature of the groups, and hence was apparently not dependent on the level of training or the input received, but rather on the individual. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run, which confirmed the suspicion that there was no statistically relevant difference in the total time taken by the different groups (p = 0.86). To test whether the level of (formal) language competence had an impact on speed, the more advanced students in the groups P6 and PT7 were compared, depending on whether they had English as a Bor C-language. This comparison revealed that the ten students with English as a B-language, i.e., with (at least formally) a higher language competence in English, gave themselves more time for the translation (69 minutes) (SD: 21.41; median: 65 min.) compared to the nine students in the group with English as a C-language (56 minutes) (SD: 8.56; median: 58 minutes). However, there was a considerable variation within the group with English as a B-language, whereas the English-C-language group was much more homogenous in this regard. According to the Mann-Whitney U test (p = 0.19), however, the difference in the total time taken by the students with English as a Bor C-language was not statistically significant. 241 7.4 Findings <?page no="242"?> Figure 45: Impact of language skills on speed The same tendency can also be observed when the two proficiency groups P6 and PT7 are taken separately, as can be seen in Figure 45. The practically trained P6 students with English as a B-language thus needed 70 minutes (N = 5; SD: 17.27; median: 70 minutes) for the translation, while the P6 students with English as a C-language needed only 56 minutes (N = 5; SD: 11.78; median: 53 minutes). The difference in total time taken was less pronounced among the practically and theoretically trained PT7 students. In this group, students with English as a B-language needed 67 minutes (N = 5; SD: 26.98; median: 60 minutes), whereas students with English as a C-language needed 57 minutes (N = 4; SD: 2.99; me‐ dian: 58 minutes). It should also be noted, however, that the English-B-language group included subject DIK, who needed 114 minutes to translate the text and thus raised the mean figure for this group considerably. A look at the median figures leads to the conclusion that there was no difference in the time invest‐ ment by subjects in this group with English as a B-language and subjects with English as a C-language. The Mann-Whitney U test, which was used to deter‐ mine whether the differences between the subjects are statistically significant 242 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="243"?> in either the P6 group or the PT7 group, revealed that neither difference is stat‐ istically significant (p = 0.18 and p = 0.71, respectively). Figure 46: Scatterplot for measurements of time and errors (all subjects) Time measurements alone do not permit many conclusions, however, since a shorter translation time is only desirable if the product’s quality does not suffer as a result. To shed some light on this question, the time measurements were related to the average number of errors. Due to the variation within the groups as indicated above, it seemed advisable to attempt to determine whether or not all the individuals who took more time tended to make fewer errors - inde‐ pendently of the type of translator training that they had had. In the overall data sample that includes all the subjects of all four groups, a moderate negative correlation was found (Spearman’s rho = -0.45). This finding is statistically significant (p = 0.01) and indicates that the students who took more time for the translation tended to make fewer errors. However, the scat‐ terplot seems to indicate that a negative correlation might only hold true up to a certain error level. Students who made a very high number of errors, i.e., 243 7.4 Findings <?page no="244"?> around 35 errors in the present data sample, seem to have taken a little more time than students who made somewhat fewer errors, i.e., about 30 errors. However, it is especially among students with close to 30 errors that we find the largest variation in the total time taken. Both the extreme values concerning time, i.e., the value of subject DIK with 114 minutes and that of subject DAS with only 17 minutes, can be included in this group. The scatterplot above cannot provide any insights into whether the negative correlation holds true for all the groups of subjects equally. To gain some idea about the different groups, combined scatterplots for P4/ T4 and P6/ PT7 were established to determine whether differences existed between these comparison groups. The data of the two groups P4 and T4 taken separately do not allow us to conclude that there was a correlation between time and error. This might be due, on the one hand, to the small number of subjects in each group and, on the other hand, to the fact that the students who made a rather high number of errors were mostly fifth-semester students. As can be seen from Figure 47, a rather V-shaped scatterplot is the result, especially for the P4 group (Spearman’s rho = -0.03; p = 0.96). However, while the best two subjects in the T4 group required considerably more time, there was not much variation in the time re‐ quirement among the other three subjects, whereas the number of errors varied considerably (Spearman’s rho = -0.56; p = 0.32). To determine whether such a slightly V-shaped scatterplot would, in fact, result, a larger data sample would be required for the fifth-semester students. Figure 47: Correlation time and errors (T4 and P4) 244 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="245"?> Figure 48: Correlation time and errors (P6 and PT7) Figure 48 shows the scatterplot for the more advanced students. The correlation is statistically significant only for the practically trained P6 students (Spear‐ man’s rho = -0.66; p = 0.04). It is not significant, however, for the PT7 group (Spearman’s rho = -0.17; p = 0.67). The correlation observable in the overall data sample can, accordingly, only be reproduced for the P6 group when the groups are considered separately. The P6 group also appears to have been the most homogenous group, with no clearly discernible extreme values regarding either the time taken or the number of errors made. The two clearly visible outliers in the scatterplot, one of whom made a high number of errors and the other of whom took an extremely long time, were both subjects in the PT7 group, i.e., subjects who lacked deliberate translation practice during the last few months. In a nutshell, the data show a moderate negative correlation between the time taken and the number of errors made for all the subjects taken together. For the groups taken separately, this correlation is only significant for the P6 group. Scatterplots indicate a similar trend for the PT7 group. Among the fifth-semester students, and especially among the practically trained P4 subjects, the tendency was less clear, perhaps because this group included most of the subjects who made a rather high number of errors. It can be hypothesized that students who make a higher number of errors also have to put more effort into completing the task, leading to a duration time slightly above average. The same might be true for subjects with a particularly low number of errors, however. In the present data, the subjects who were in the middle with regard to the number of errors made seem to have required rather less than the mean time in order to complete the task. If this is a general tendency among translation students, it might lead to a rather V-shaped scatterplot in a larger data sample. 245 7.4 Findings <?page no="246"?> 7.5 Discussion of Findings When comparing the average total number of errors that the four comparison groups made when translating the text “Yellow peril, red alert” (see annexes 12.2.1), an inconsistent picture has emerged. Among the fifth-semester students, those who had been trained only with theoretical classes (P4) tended to make fewer errors overall than those who had had extensive practical translator training. However, there was a substantial amount of variation within both groups. Nevertheless, it appears that, at this already advanced level of study, students with theoretical training (T4) produced better translations than practically trained students. There might be a different explanation for this finding, however. As explained in section 5.1.2, the subjects in the TransComp project had to fulfill certain requirements regarding their school grades in both English and German (Göpferich 2009b: 29). This was nec‐ essary in order to ensure a certain language competence since the students were selected for participation at the very beginning of their studies. For the primary data - i.e., the data for the groups P4, P6 and PT7 - no such selection was made since the students had already successfully completed at least four semesters of study and this would not have been possible unless they also had a certain level of language competence. In light of these rather surprising findings, we may ask, however, whether the TransComp’s grade-based subject sampling did not only ensure overall linguistic knowledge, but also singled out students with good writing skills in general. Especially since a grade in German was also included, this might be plausible. In higher classes, students are usually required to write essays, so that writing skills certainly play a huge role in their grades. It is thus likely that the observed differences were not so much the result of different forms of translation instruction at the undergraduate level but rather the result of the writing skills that the individual students already had prior to starting their translation training. If this is true, it would mean, however, that even the practically oriented classes, which include a great deal of writing, were not suf‐ ficient to offset these individual differences. In the second comparison, which was made between sixth-semester students with purely practical training (P6) and seventh-semester students with six se‐ mesters of practical training plus one semester of theoretical training (PT7), the opposite was found. Here, the group with intensive practical training made fewer errors than the students with additional theoretical knowledge. Therefore, there was no indication that one semester of theoretical reflection led to any measurable positive effect on the translation product. It is possible, however, that this apparently negative effect was not due to the theoretical training in 246 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="247"?> itself but rather to the fact that the subjects in question were “out of practice”, as many also remarked in an informal conversation with the researcher. In fact, these students had had intensive translation practice before their final practical exams about ten months prior to data collection, but most of them stopped translating abruptly after they passed those exams. Instead, they took the the‐ oretical courses in which no more translation practice was provided. Most sub‐ jects in this group had passed their final examinations ten or twelve months before the time of data collection. The data might therefore be an indication that translation competence that had been acquired through practical training had declined noticeably once deliberate practice stopped. This could possibly be due to the fact that metacognitive awareness is not built up through exclusively practical training, so that many of the processes remain unconscious. Whether this (supposed) decline in translation competence is less important for subjects who have had theoretical training early in their studies, e.g., because of their heightened metacognitive awareness, would in itself be an interesting question to research. Another possible explanation for the higher number of errors in the PT7 group could be that hearing about translation theory for the first time might have induced a certain feeling of insecurity. Students could have started to think about translation differently due to their theoretical classes, but might not yet have developed the competence to apply this new knowledge in practice. For this reason, a higher number of errors might actually be a sign of development, but one that is not immediately reflected in greater translation accuracy. An analysis of the subjects’ processes (chapter 8) will provide more insight into whether this is a viable explanation. This view is closely related to the suggestion made by Bastin & Betancourt (2005: 221), who hypothesize that one semester might not be enough to incorporate theoretical knowledge into practical trans‐ lation. Furthermore, it might also be the case that the content of a theoretical course, although formally studied for an examination, needs more time to ac‐ tually “sink in” and then show differences in the behavior and/ or the product. The effect of theoretical knowledge would then become visible in the product only in the long term but not in the short term, as was studied in the present data sample. The results concerning the total number of errors permit a further conclusion, however. It is definitely possible to considerably increase translation compe‐ tence, as measured by a reduction in the number of errors in the translation product, through practical translation classes alone. This is visible in the clear difference between the fifthand the sixth-semester students in the FAK groups, who had been trained only practically. Within the year from the beginning of 247 7.5 Discussion of Findings <?page no="248"?> the fifth to the end of the sixth semester, a substantial decrease in errors could be observed in the students’ translation products. When comparing this result to Castillo Rincón’s study (2015: 79-80) of the development of translation product quality among students in an undergraduate program, a considerable difference can be seen. Castillo Rincón observed an important increase in quality from the first to the second year, but not much variation afterwards. During this first year, students had one semester of practical translation and no translation theory, as we know from PACTE (2014: 109). The data show a considerable in‐ crease in quality in the third year of studies, suggesting a different development of translation competence within the two curricula. From Göpferich (2013: 73), we know that her theoretically trained subjects did not exhibit any progress in translation competence over the first three semesters of their studies. Göpferich attributes this “seeming stagnation” to the fact that her subjects did not have any practical training during this period. These findings can thus be taken as an indicator that practical training alone can contribute to an increase in the quality of translations, whereas this seems not to be the case when purely theoretical training is provided. Finally, the total number of errors was used to compare students with dif‐ ferent levels of English and especially with very different amounts of practice in translating into and out of English. In the groups P6 and PT7, students with English as a B-language did not perform better than students with English as a C-language. This corroborates the assumption that translation competence, once acquired in any language pair, can be transferred to other language pairs (e.g., Nord 2010: 116-117). This could also be evidence for the central position of strategic competence as featured in both Göpferich’s (2008: 155, 2009b: 20) and PACTE’s (2003: 60) models of translation competence. Thus, strategic compe‐ tence might play a decisive role in compensating for missing language skills and language-pair-specific practice. In addition to the total number of errors, the distribution of errors ac‐ cording to their functional impact was also analyzed and was found to be similar in all four comparison groups. Minor errors accounted for about 65 % of all errors, less serious errors for about 30 % and serious errors for the remaining 5 %. These percentages varied only slightly from group to group, with the total variation not exceeding three percentage points. This distribution of errors seems to have been unaffected by the influence of both theoretical and practical training and was also independent of the level of language skills in English. When presenting the indicators (see 7.3), it was pointed out that the total number of errors alone is not sufficient to indicate translation quality since it can be composed of either a very high number of minor errors or, on the other hand, 248 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="249"?> of only a few serious errors, and thus translations containing the same total number of errors may be of very different quality overall. Since, however, these differences seem not to exist - at least not within the average numbers for the four comparison groups - I am convinced that the total number of errors may justifiably serve as an indicator of overall translation quality. The distribution of different types of errors clearly reflected some of the difficulties presented by the source text. Other source texts might therefore present very different challenges and thus lead to a different distribution of error types - independently of the knowledge, experience and training that the sub‐ jects have. However, since the focus here is on comparing groups of subjects at different levels of translation training and with very different input, comparing the groups with one another is useful and even small differences in the number of certain error types can indicate differences between the groups. Slight differences exist in the ability of the subjects to cope with the pragmatic challenges of the text, such as explicitating information regarding the time and place of the events discussed in the source text. It could be expected that students with theoretical training have an advantage in this regard since in functionalism - which is the paradigm that the respective institutes adhere to (see 5.1.3) - the necessity of adapting the text to the intended audience is emphasized. Thus, it was reasonable to suppose that these students would be better able to develop a macro-strategic approach that includes this “bird’s-eye view” of the commu‐ nicative situation of the target text, as Hönig calls it (1995: 55). It also seemed reasonable to believe that they would have fewer concerns about explicitating information and “deviating” from the source text than the practically trained students due to their theoretical input and the resulting conscious reflection on the role of the translator. This, however, does not seem to have been the case since it was precisely the group with the most theoretical input and no practical training that made the greatest number of pragmatic errors. Text-level errors were more frequent among the more advanced students in the groups P6 and PT7 than among the fifth-semester students. Again, it might be expected that the more advanced students would be more aware of the criteria that refer to the entire text, such as text-type conventions and the use of rhet‐ orical devices. It should be noted, however, that in some of the segments that frequently caused errors on the text-level a literal translation led to an acceptable solution. Therefore, students with a literal approach to translation, an approach that is known to be typical of novices (see 2.4, 3.4), might have avoided errors at the text-level simply because they did not make any changes that would have affected the text-level. The advanced students, on the contrary, might have made changes without, however, taking into account how those changes could affect, 249 7.5 Discussion of Findings <?page no="250"?> for example, the coherence or the stylistics of the text. Thus, the increase in text-level errors among the more advanced students may, at least in part, have been due to a less literal approach, which was combined, however, with a con‐ tinuing lack of awareness of the more specific requirements of the translation task. This might also explain the finding that theoretically trained students made fewer errors in the sub-categories “text type conventions” and “functional sen‐ tence perspective”, because no changes were absolutely necessary in this regard. The data therefore supports the new hypothesis that progress in the acquisition of translation competence might, in fact, lead to an increase in errors in some categories, such as “text-level”, because students dare to deviate from the lexical and syntactic choices in the ST but are not yet fully aware of the requirements that the translated segment has to fulfill. Word-level errors were the most frequent kinds of errors across all groups. This result parallels the findings of the TransComp project (e.g., Göpferich 2010a: 193). The fifth-semester students with only practical training (P4) made the most word-level errors, followed by the fifth-semester students without any translation practice (T4). Both groups of more advanced students made fewer errors in this category than the fifth-semester students, with the purely practi‐ cally trained P6 students making slightly fewer errors than the PT7 students, who had had both practical and theoretical training. The number of grammatical errors was seen to vary from group to group, with the P6 and T4 students making rather fewer errors in this category than their comparison groups PT7 and P4. Therefore, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the influence that either the kind of training or the level of study in general may have had in this regard. Instead, the number of gram‐ matical errors may have been independent of the level of overall translation competence and a result of writing skills in general. As previously noted, the criteria for the selection of subjects of the TransComp project might have re‐ sulted in a kind of elite sampling with regard to the subjects’ writing skills in their L1 and thus might explain the good performance of T4 students with re‐ spect to grammar. Formal errors were most frequent in the group without any translation prac‐ tice (T4). The high number of punctuation errors made by this group was par‐ ticularly noteworthy. The fifth-semester students who had had purely practical training (P4) and the seventh-semester students, who had had both practical and theoretical training (T4), performed somewhat better, while the sixth-semester students who had had only practical training (P6) clearly outperformed all three of the other groups. Consequently, it seems that intensive practice might in fact help to interiorize some of the formal conventions, especially punctuation. 250 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="251"?> All in all, the distribution of error types does not paint a clear picture as to which error types can be best prevented through theoretical training. In fact, the category where we might expect that theoretically trained students would have an advantage, i.e., pragmatics, showed them rather at a disadvantage. The students without practical training also seem to have been somewhat less aware of formal writing criteria, especially punctuation rules. In the two categories in which theoretically trained students had a lower percentage of errors than the practically trained groups (“text-level” and “grammar”), I suspect that this lower number of errors was not due to the explicit teaching of theory but rather to a more literal approach to translation (“text-level”) and an elite sampling among participants (“grammar”). The data indicate, however, that intense practical training of the kind provided in the last part of the FAK curriculum resulted in a reduction of errors in almost all categories. Thus, there is a clear difference between P4 and P6 six students, especially concerning lexical errors but also concerning grammatical and formal errors. Only the errors made at the text-level seemed to increase with progress in translator training. However, this might be due to a less literal approach that was not yet accompanied by a full awareness of the criteria that the target text had to fulfil. The time that students needed to complete the translation task was also measured and indicated that the time requirement for the completion of the task depended on the individual rather than on the level or kind of translator training. Contrary to what could be expected, the differences in training apparently did not have a significant impact on the subjects’ translation speed. The impact of language competence in English was also analyzed. In the data sample, students with better language competence (English as a B-language) tended to give themselves more time, on average, for the translation task than those with Eng‐ lish as their C-language. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the present data that ample practice in translation within one language pair contributes to a speeding up effect. Relating this finding to the use of time measurement as an indicator of cognitive effort (see 3.3), it seems that the subjects with English as a B-language put more effort into the task than the subjects who had English as their C-language and, therefore, fewer language skills and much less practical experience in translation from English into German. Whether this was related to more problem-awareness will have to be analyzed in the next chapter. Finally, the duration of the translation process was correlated with the total number of errors in order to detect any differences in this regard between the different groups of subjects. Across all the groups, there was a tendency for those subjects with a longer duration time to make fewer errors than those who took a shorter amount of time. The data also suggest that this correlation might 251 7.5 Discussion of Findings <?page no="252"?> apply to a wider sample of translation students than only the participants of the present study since the finding is statistically significant. This corroborates ear‐ lier findings in TPR that have shown a positive correlation between translation quality and the total time taken by professionals and students alike (e.g., Jääs‐ keläinen 1996: 65; PACTE 2008: 119; but see Göpferich 2010c: 17). However, the scatterplot seems to indicate that this linear correlation might only hold true up to a certain error level (about 30 errors in the present data set), with students beginning to make more errors at a certain point as the time they require to complete the translation task increases. 7.6 Summary The data do not permit to conclude that teaching theory has an impact on the translation product under all circumstances. While students with four semesters of theory actually delivered translation products with fewer errors than their practically trained counterparts, one semester of translation theory did not seem to have a positive effect. The subjects who had had additional instruction in theory made more errors than students with the same amount of practical training but without theoretical classes. However, this difference can be attrib‐ uted to the fact that students who had had instruction in theory had not been actively translating in the months prior to the time of data collection, whereas the comparison group had been actively translating during this period. No dif‐ ferences were found between the theoretically and practically trained groups of subjects in terms of their tendency to make more serious, less serious or minor errors. The distribution of the three error values was comparable across all four groups of subjects. Concerning the acquisition of translation competence, how‐ ever, the data showed that intensive practical training of the kind provided in the last year of the FAK curriculum resulted in a reduction in the number of errors. The analysis of the distribution of error types did not provide a clear picture as to which error types can be best prevented through theoretical training. In fact, the category where theoretically trained students could be expected to have an advantage, i.e., pragmatics, shows them rather at a disadvantage. The stu‐ dents without practical training also seemed to be somewhat less aware of formal writing criteria, especially punctuation rules. In the two categories in which exclusively theoretically trained students made a lower percentage of errors than the practically trained groups (“grammar” and “text-level”), this re‐ duction was probably not due to the explicit teaching of theory but rather to an 252 7 Quality of the Translation Product <?page no="253"?> elite sampling of participants (“grammar”) and possibly a more literal approach to translation (“text-level”). Concerning the time requirement of subjects there was an overall positive correlation between task duration and quality. However, no significant influence of the type of training on the time taken or on the correlation of time and errors was found. It seemed instead that these were individual features and that there was considerable variation within the groups of subjects in this regard. Within the less advanced groups of fifth-semester students, a very slight tendency was found for the subjects who made a rather high number of errors to require somewhat more time than subjects who made a more moderate number of er‐ rors. In these groups, too, however, the subjects who made a small number of errors also needed more time than the average. 253 7.6 Summary <?page no="254"?> 8 Translation Problems 8.1 Transcription For the analysis of translation problems - both individual translation problems (ITPs) and task-inherent translation problems (TTPs; see definitions in section 3.2) - the subjects’ process data will be used. These process data were collected through a combination of concurrent think-aloud, screen-recording and partic‐ ipant observation (see 5.3). In addition to all the verbalizations that the subjects made during the translation process, the transcripts also include the subjects’ use of all external resources both online and in print. For this kind of think-aloud protocol (TAP), which includes data from various sources, Göpferich (2010b: 98) coined the term “translation process protocol”, which to the best of my knowl‐ edge has not been taken up by the research community, however. This might be due to the fact that think-aloud protocols in TPR included information regarding research behavior also before the time of screen-recording, as for example in the case of Krings (1986: 58), who included entire dictionary entries in his tran‐ scripts. Since think-aloud data constitute the main data source and the term is the most common one in TPR, I will refer to the transcripts of the translation process as think-aloud protocols. For the purposes of transcription, the German conventions of the “GAT 2” (Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2; Selting et al. 2009) have been used as a basis. I have, however, adapted these conventions according to the needs of the present data analysis in several respects. In the GAT 2, three dif‐ ferent levels of transcription are proposed: a “minimal transcript” (Minimal‐ transkript) without prosodic features, a “basic transcript” that includes selected prosodic features (Basistranskript) and a “detailed transcript” that can include even more detailed prosodic features and gesturing, depending on the research question (Feintranskript). For the present project, the conventions for a “minimal transcript” (see 2009: 359-369) have been expanded or simplified, depending on the requirements of the present research project. In line with the GAT 2 conventions (2009: 359), the examples quoted here are in a space-saving format, in which not every segment is placed on a new line. Instead, segments have been separated by using a vertical line (|). The example below shows a “typical” passage of a TAP, including pauses and incidents. It also <?page no="255"?> 1 According to the example given in Selting et al. (2009: 363), a foreign pronunciation can be indicated as follows: <<engl. Aussprache> variation> (-) (--) (---) illustrates most of the adaptations that have been made for the transcription of the present data and that will be described below. Example 1 ((ANK_TAP; lines 156-160)) ANK ((tippt: )) komma dass | °hh | die zehn (-)millionen? millionen (--)verschiedenen farben | variations | varia | farbvariationen | variationen von farben (--)unterschiedliche farben (---)schatten? nein (-)das hat nichts mit shadows (-)zu tun ((lacht)) ähm (--)schattierungen (-)mh ((googelt {farbschattierungen})) ((klickt auf synonyme.woxikon.de/ synonyme/ farbschattierungen.php)) The most important difference when compared to the GAT 2 conventions is the indication of pauses. While GAT 2 indicates the exact length of each pause, this kind of pause marking is too detailed for the needs of the present project, in which only pauses of at least three seconds have been used as a secondary in‐ dicator for ITPs (see 8.2.1). To enhance the electronic searchability of the tran‐ scripts according to this pause indicator, it thus seemed advisable to use specific markings that made it possible to filter all relevant pauses. Thus, three different markings for pauses have been used: indicates an estimated pause of about a second indicates an estimated pause of about two seconds indicates an estimated pause of three seconds and more. I have also modified the GAT 2 conventions concerning the marking of “foreign pronunciation”. As can be seen in the short passage above, the subjects’ tran‐ scripts include utterances in both German and English with a frequent change between the two languages. The GAT 2 conventions use an additional marker 1 for such cases, which seems, however, impractical for the subjects’ frequent changes of language and would have been detrimental to my transcripts’ read‐ ability. Therefore, code-switching was rendered visible in the transcripts by using italics for all utterances in English. Another typical feature of the collected audio data is the frequently audible typing when subjects produced the target text. While it is impossible to tran‐ scribe all the instances of typing that occur in the background, all the instances in which only typing occurs have been transcribed. Like all other non-verbal 255 8.1 Transcription <?page no="256"?> elements, these instances have been indicated in double brackets, i.e., ((tippt)). Very frequently, however, the subjects self-dictated their translations, i.e., they typed exactly the same words that they were voicing. These instances have been marked by adding a colon to the type of activity, as can be seen in the above example where the subject dictates to herself at the beginning. All the types of research that the subjects undertook during their translation processes are included in the transcripts. This concerns online research (google; …) as well as the use of both print and online-dictionaries. Such research has been marked as a non-verbal incident using double brackets in line with the GAT 2 conventions. A number of abbreviations have been established for fre‐ quently used resources such as the dictionaries that were made available to the subjects and some of the most popular online resources (see Table 12). To make all look-ups easily discernible in the transcripts, curly brackets were used to mark all search terms. Curly brackets have been used for both actively looked-for words, i.e., words that the subjects typed into an online-dictionary, and for the links they followed within the dictionaries. Abbreviation Title Source Print dictionaries OD Duden Oxford Grosswörter‐ buch Englisch Thyen 1999 OAL Oxford advanced learner’s dic‐ tionary of current English Hornby & Turnbull 2010 LDOCE Longman dictionary of con‐ temporary English Della Summers 1995 BW Brockhaus Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch Wahrig & Wahrig-Burfeind 2011 Frequently used online resources LEO https: / / dict.l eo.org PONS http: / / de.pons.com/ LINGUEE http: / / www.linguee.de/ DICT.CC www.dict.cc DUDEN.DE www.duden.de Table 12: Abbreviations for dictionaries in transcription 256 8 Translation Problems <?page no="257"?> In a “minimal transcript”, no prosodic features are normally included. Since, however, one indicator for ITPs comprises questions that the subjects ask them‐ selves, I had to expand on the minimal transcript in this regard. As a result, all questions were transcribed by adding a question mark at the end of the utter‐ ance, as can be seen in Example 2 below. Example 2 ((ALU_TAP; lines 113-116)) ALU und was ist mit der sprache der farbe? ((googelt {sprache der farbe})) (--)die sprache der farbEN | die sprache der farbEN ((googelt {die sprache der farben})) (-)die sprache der farben dAS klingt doch eigentlich gut ((tippt)) die sprache der farbEN (---) Furthermore, two prosodic features were transcribed that are not normally in‐ cluded in a minimal transcript: the unusual stressing of words or syllables and the lengthening of sounds. These prosodic markers can contribute significantly to the meaning of an utterance, which is why this information is relevant in the case of the present study. Capital letters are used to mark unusually stressed syllables, as can be seen in Example 2. A colon is used to indicate lengthened sounds (Selting et al. 2009: 376). The number of colons (: ; : : ; : : : ) indicates the estimated duration of the lengthening, with more colons indicating a more ex‐ tended lengthening as in Example 3. Example 3 ((AYA_TAP; lines 68-69)) AYA hmh (-)krieg anzetteln (-)sammlung verkürzen ((tippt: )) und einen krieg auslö: : : s: en (---) 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) 8.2.1 Individual Translation Problems: Defining Criteria In the first step of problem analysis, all ITPs had to be coded in the transcripts. One of the early operationalizations of individual problems in the translation process was established by Krings (1986), who developed a list of indicators that, as he points out (1986: 120), permit an intersubjective identification of problems. These criteria not only proved their applicability in Krings’ own study; they 257 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="258"?> have also been used in more recent research such as the CTP project (Hunziker Heeb 2012: 182) and - in an adapted form - in the TransComp project (e.g., Göpferich 2010b: 117). Krings (1986: 120-143) differentiates between primary and secondary problem indicators. His primary indicators include all utterances in which the subjects themselves indicate that they have a problem, every use they make of translation aids as well as any untranslated parts of the text. He considers these to be sufficiently strong indicators, so that each occurrence already classifies the text passage in question as a translation problem. This is not the case with Krings’ (1986: 121) secondary indicators, which mark a text passage as a trans‐ lation problem only if at least two of these indicators co-occur. His secondary indicators include negative evaluations of the produced translation, revisions, the occurrence of two translation solutions between which the translator has to decide, no immediate production of a translation solution, considerations of problems at a meta-level, paraand non-verbal markers such as taking notes on the distributed ST, extended pauses of at least three seconds as well as indicators of distress such as sighing. The criteria established by Krings (1986) have been used as a basis since they provide an already established framework for the identification of individual translation problems. I have, however, slightly adapted the indicators, as will be explained in detail below. Primary indicators One major change when compared to Krings’ indicators is the reduced number of primary indicators. There are thus only two indicators that are believed to be sufficiently strong so that one of them alone suffices to categorize a segment as a translation problem. I consider as primary indicators (1) the use of external resources and (2) gaps in the translation: 1. Use of external resources The use of external resources certainly is the most objective indicator of a trans‐ lation problem, at least when translation problems are understood to be inter‐ ruptions in the flow of the translation process, since every look-up forces the translator to interrupt ST reception and TT production in order to do research. The use of external resources can thus safely be considered a primary factor needing no further indicator to accompany it. Thanks to the use of screen-re‐ cording and participant observation, the use of both online and offline research has been meticulously documented. All segments in the transcripts that include 258 8 Translation Problems <?page no="259"?> 2 There was one exception to this: subject PAB looked up the spelling of the English word otherwise, which apparently she had spelled incorrectly in a recent exam (AND_TAP, lines 69-70). The problem was thus related to the exam and not to the current translation task, which is why it has not been considered in the analysis. at least one dictionary look-up have thus been classified as a problem. 2 I have also included in the use of resources utterances that indicate a need to do re‐ search - even if this was not then put into practice as in Example 1 below. It seems that mentioning the need to do research already shows that there is a problem either in comprehension or in production. This is only a small change when compared to Krings’ (1986) classification since he included these cases in his other primary indicator, the “explicit or implicit identification of a problem by the subject”, an indicator that has been converted into a secondary indicator for reasons that will be explained below. Example 1 ((PAB_TAP; lines 315-319)) PAB die chemische zusammensetzung eines körpers hängt von den chemischen stoffen ab die die nervenenden in den körper (---)die VON den nervenenden in den körper gelangen (-)die aus den nervenenden in den körper gelangen? ich machs passiv (-)AUS den nervenenden in den körper (-)genau | ich kenn mich halt einfach nicht genug mit biologie aus (--)um zu wissen ob das so korrEkt ist | müsste man mal nachschauen | aber ich glaub dafür hab ich keine zeit 2. Gaps in the translation I have followed Krings (1986) in considering untranslated passages as primary indicators of a translation problem. However, I have done this only in passages in which the translator felt that he or she should provide a translation and post‐ poned the decision until later. It does not include instances in which the trans‐ lator considered an omission in order to lead to an acceptable TT, and therefore did not plan to come back to the segment. Gaps in the translation can, for ex‐ ample, be marked in the emerging TT by the use of placeholders, as in the fol‐ lowing example for subject DAF, who used a placeholder in the middle of a sentence because she could not think of an appropriate translation: 259 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="260"?> Example 2 ((DAF_TAP; lines 102-105)) DAF obwohl er einen abschluss in heilpädagogik (-)hAtte oder hat (-)having (-)hAT (-)ähm ((tippt)) und eben eine gute (-)wie sagt man dann ähm: : : (---)so wenn man mental stabil ((lacht)) ist ((tippt: )) und eine gute punkt punkt punkt (-)äh: m komma (-)äh: m wurde er (-)nicht (-)blass (-)hm he did not go white Example 3 ((BEF_TAP; lines 65-66)) BEF ja und den zweiten teil von der überschrift lass ich nochmal weg vielleicht fällt mir da noch was ein zu colour code Gaps can also be marked by the subjects’ verbalizations, indicating that they have “left out” part of the text because they could not think of a translation at that moment. One such example is provided by subject BEF (Example 3), who started to translate the headline but then stopped after the first part. It should be noted, however, that it was not generally considered to be a gap if a subject did not translate the headline at the beginning since for some this appears to be a normal approach (e.g., subjects MER, ANZ). Only if a subject started to trans‐ late the title and interrupted his or her translation did I consider this to be a gap. All in all, however, there was not much evidence for the application of the “gap strategy” among the participants. Much more often, a tentative solution was generated, to which the subject wanted to return later. These instances have been categorized as “negative evaluations of the produced translation unit”, a secondary indicator discussed below. Secondary indicators Secondary indicators are considered to be less indicative of a translation problem than the primary indicators described above. Therefore, at least two of them must co-occur in a segment to mark it as a translation problem. There is one exception to this rule, however. It concerns returns to segments that constituted problems earlier in the translation process. Following Göpferich (2009a: 169- 170), one problem indicator in an ST segment that constituted a problem before is considered to be sufficient to mark that segment as a return to a translation problem. I distinguish five secondary indicators, which will be presented in more 260 8 Translation Problems <?page no="261"?> detail below: (1) difficulty identification by the subject, (2) negative evaluation of the produced translation unit, (3) difficulty deciding between alternative translation possibilities, (4) unfilled pauses of at least three seconds within a translation unit and (5) non-verbal and para-verbal indicators. 1. Difficulty identification by the subject As mentioned above, Krings’ (1986: 122-126) primary indicator “problem iden‐ tification by the subject” was turned into a secondary indicator. While this might seem counter-intuitive at first, it is easily explained by the kind of utterances that Krings (1986: 122-126) considers to be indicative of translation problems. These utterances are not only explicit identifications, i.e., utterances in which the subject mentions a difficulty directly (e.g., this is difficult; I don’t understand this; I have a problem translating this; …) but also implicit identifications. Thus, Krings subsumes all utterances indicating uncertainty within the category of primary indicators. These include hedges (i.e., words like probably, possibly, maybe…) and questions that the subject poses to himor herself (e.g., how do you spell this? ). When analyzing the data, however, the category seemed some‐ what undifferentiated, and regrouping such a large variety of markers that al‐ most every utterance could be included in this category. For example, questions that the subjects asked themselves were not necessarily embedded in segments showing any other signs of interruption in the translation process. They rather seemed to be inherent features of an otherwise unproblematic decision-making process, but this would have been enough to consider whole segments as trans‐ lation problems. As can be seen in the example below, subject PAB asked herself whether her tentative translation actually was a German lexeme or not but gave herself an immediate answer. She did not show any other signs of hesitation but went on to reflect on the ability of different species to see color. Since the ques‐ tion is now considered to be a secondary indicator and since there was no other problem indicator present, the segment is not classified as a translation problem. Example 4 ((PAB_TAP; lines 238-242)) PAB so da ist das reduce wo ich mir vorher schon was überlegt hab | also ((tippt: )) er sagt komma dass die zehn ((Störgeräusch)) farbvariationen gibts doch auf deutsch auch? ja (-)((tippt: )) farb(-)variationen die das menschliche auge | ja ich glaub ne kuh kann nicht so viele farben bestimmmt sehen obwohl sie so große augen hat | aber insekten die sehen doch so komisch | die das menschliche auge (-)((tippt: )) erkennen kann 261 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="262"?> Another example of a segment that would have been classified as a problem if “difficulty identification by the subject” had been considered a primary indicator is PAB’s reaction to the typo retarted in the ST (Example 5). She fairly immedi‐ ately concluded that the word should have been retarded, but showed uncer‐ tainty by including two hedges (ich glaub / wahrscheinlich) in her utterance. However, she did not consider any other alternatives or make any extended pauses to indicate that she might reflect on her assumption. It was because of segments like this that the “difficulty identification” indicator was converted into a secondary indicator that must be accompanied by at least one other sec‐ ondary indicator in order to classify a segment as an ITP. I found that this change did not interfere with my ability to classify segments presenting major difficul‐ ties since in this case there was almost always another secondary indicator present, as can be seen in Example 6 below, in which subject DAF explicitly mentioned a problem. Her problem-solving process additionally included pauses of at least three seconds, para-verbal markers such as ähm and hm and concluded with a postponement of a definitive solution, which is categorized as a “negative evaluation of the produced translation unit”, a secondary indicator that will be presented below. Example 5 ((PAB_TAP; lines 321-325)) PAB ((tippt: )) diese (-)äh (--)changes (-)veränderungen | diese feinen veränderungen ((tippt)) klEInsten veränderungen | derungen (-)änderungen (-)können von farben (--)ich glaub da ist einfach | heißt wahrscheinlich retard | ja das heißt einfach (-)beschleunigt oder (-)gebremst werden | ((unverständlich)) können ((tippt: )) von farben beschleunigt oder ge ((tippt: ))bremst werden (--)von (--)bestimmten | find ich auf deutsch fehlt da was (-)vor beschleunigt (-)oder gebremst werden Example 6 ((DAF_TAP; lines 96-100)) DAF ach so da ist schon das nächste problem (-)da: ss ich die satzstruktur nicht beibehalten kann (-)wie im englischen (-)hm: : deswegen mach ich jetzt einen rela(-)tiv(-)satz draus (-)ne (---)hm (---)also (-)((unverständlich)) (--)ähm ja doch ich mach nen nebensatz draus und fang mal an mit obWOHL er einen abschluss et cetera hatte (-)auch wenn obwohl nicht wirklich im (-)englischen dasteht aber d | da komm ich auch noch mal drauf zurück 262 8 Translation Problems <?page no="263"?> 2. Negative evaluation of the produced translation unit A further secondary indicator is negative evaluation by the subject. This indi‐ cator differs from Krings’ (1986: 135-136) in that it does not include only negative evaluations at the end of a problem-solving process. Instead, I believe that neg‐ ative evaluations of interim solutions or spontaneous associations, such as Chemikalien in the example given below, are indicators of translation problems as well since they point to a problem-solving process that is underway and must be continued until a satisfactory solution is found. Example 7 ((ANB_TAP; lines 145-148)) ANB the chemical makeup of a person depends on the release of chemicals from the nerve endings into the body ((flüstert)) | die chemische zusammensetzung eines menschen (---)chemikalien kann ich da auf deutsch nicht machen | das sind dann irgendwelche stoffe | naja das sind so irgendwelche botenstoffe | ja chemische stoffe | (---)hm hmm | hängt davon ((tippt)) | Negative evaluations can also occur at the end of a problem-solving process when the subject feels that the provided solution is the best he or she can come up with at the moment, although he or she believes that the solution is not adequate. Closely related to this are remarks on the postponement of a definitive solution (see Example 6). These are utterances in which subjects express the need to come back to a certain translation unit and thus implicitly indicate that they are not yet satisfied with a solution or are uncertain whether it is adequate. All postponement statements have thus been subsumed within the “negative evaluation” indicator. 3. Difficulty deciding between alternative translation possibilities The generation of alternative translation possibilities is a further secondary in‐ dicator for a translation problem in Krings’ scheme (1986: 130-131). When ap‐ plying this indicator, however, it should be kept in mind that the generation of more than one viable TT has come to be regarded as a feature of translation competence, not a lack thereof, according to Pym’s minimalist definition of translation competence. However, Pym (2003: 489) also considers the ability to “select only one viable TT from this series, quickly and with justified confidence” to be part of translation competence. Therefore, the generation of two alterna‐ tive TT segments alone cannot be considered a viable indicator for a translation problem if there are no traceable difficulties in selecting one of the produced 263 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="264"?> variants. It thus seems better to assess the “difficulty deciding between alterna‐ tive translation possibilities” rather than their generation. As a consequence, utterances in which two alternative translations are generated but not consid‐ ered in more detail (e.g., by discussing, or repeating them) are not considered to be indicative of a translation problem. This approach is, in fact, similar to the way in which Krings applied this indicator (1986: 130-131). This can be seen in the following example in which subject JSC produced two possible translations for general but then immediately decided to translate the word with allge‐ meinen: … Example 8 ((JSC_TAP; lines 121-123)) JSC und es kann zu einem (-)generellen oder allgemeinen? allgemeinen ((tippt: )) allgemeinen unsicherheitsgefühl kommen It is, however, considered to be indicative of a translation problem if a subject evaluates the generated alternatives as in the following example, in which sub‐ ject JSC seemed to consider britische and unsere Telefonzellen as possible trans‐ lations. Although she mentioned that unsere is unlikely to be an adequate sol‐ ution, she was uncertain enough to go back to the translation brief in order to check who the intended target audience was. Example 9 ((JSC_TAP; lines 88-90)) JSC dass ((tippt: )) dass der vo: rschlag (-)dass der vorschlag (--)britische (-)unsere kann ja nicht sein | also für den leser | wart mal für wen ist das noch gleich? (-)deutschsprachig | also nicht unsere sondern britische telefonzellen Repetition of solutions is also considered to indicate a translation problem, as in the case of ANZ’s translation of language of color, where she hesitated be‐ tween two possible translations at the beginning of the segment and then came back to the same two alternatives at the end of the segment. 264 8 Translation Problems <?page no="265"?> Example 10 ((ANZ_TAP; lines 103-108)) ANZ dass die s: prache der farbe (---)eine ausschusssitzung verkürzen kann | nein nicht die sprache der f | hm: : | the language of color (--)er ist der meinung dass man mit sprachen (---)((tippt: )) dass man mit | äh farben nicht sprachen | mit farben eine ausschusssitzung verkürzen kann (---)((tippt: )) einen krieg auslösen | verkürzen | einen krieg auslösen (---)((tippt: )) den geist heilen | nein | den geist und mit ihm den körper heilen (-)kann und unter anderem (--)aber mit farben der sprache der farben (---)((nimmt AT zur Hand)) ich mach jetzt mal durch farben Subjects sometimes had difficulties in understanding the ST and produced two alternative possibilities of meaning for a ST segment. These alternative recep‐ tion possibilities were subsumed under the present secondary indicator as well. An example is provided by subject GLD, who was not sure if the psychological environment refers to something inside or outside the human body: Example 11 ((GLD_TAP; lines 107-110)) GLD psychologische umwelt find ich immer noch komisch aber ich verstehs noch nicht so ganz was genau gemeint ist das ist die welt draußen dass die unsere psycholoGIE beeinflusst | unsere psyche beeinflusst (--)oder (-)quasi in uns drin | nein aber in uns drin gibts glaub ich gar nicht (-)aber das außen (--)hm: ((tippt)) 4. Unfilled pauses of at least three seconds within a translation unit Pauses are a frequently used indicator within translation process research since it is believed that extended pauses can be an indicator of intense cognitive pro‐ cessing. Reviewing the operationalization of the pause indicator in various translation process studies, Kumpulainen (2015) found that there are consider‐ able differences regarding the pause length which is considered to be significant. The pauses taken into account thus range from 0.01 to 6 seconds (2015: 52). What might appear rather arbitrary is, however, according to Kumpulainen (2015: 52), dependent on two factors: the data used as a basis for pause measurements, which can be more or less exact but also measure different kinds of pauses (pauses in verbalizing, pauses in writing ….), and, more importantly, the aim of the study. In the present study, I have followed Krings (1986: 137) and Göpferich 265 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="266"?> (e.g., Göpferich 2010b: 117) in using a pause of at least three seconds as a sec‐ ondary indicator of translation problems. As Krings (1986: 137) points out him‐ self, the inclusion of pauses presents certain methodological difficulties because a) it is not clear which pause length may indicate a problem and b) because it is not possible by means of the adopted methodology to determine without a doubt if a pause is filled, e.g., by reading the ST, or unfilled. This, however, does not mean that any pause of that length is necessarily embedded within a translation problem, nor does it mean that shorter pauses could not be indicative of a trans‐ lation problem. Since a decision concerning pause length had to be made in order to permit pauses to be included as an indicator, the length of three seconds was used for two reasons. First, I found that, within a translation unit that apparently did not present any problem and did not exhibit any other indicators, most pauses ranged from around one to two seconds, while longer pauses tended to occur between translation units. In the analysis, it had to be ensured therefore that a relevant pause was included within a translation unit and not in between two units. For pauses between units, it would not have been possible to deter‐ mine whether the pause was retrospective, i.e., related to the translation unit already tackled, or prospective. This caution is also related to the data collection methods, which made it impossible to determine without doubt whether sub‐ jects were reading the source text during what was perceived as a pause in the screenand audio-recordings. While Krings (1986: 137) pointed out that his study would have benefitted from video-recording to determine the instances in which subjects read the ST, this would not have been a sufficient measure within the present study design. My subjects were presented with the target text both on paper and on the screen within the Translog surface. This meant that, whenever the subjects were not doing online research, the ST was visible on the screen. To determine without doubt whether the subjects were reading the ST on screen, it would thus have been necessary to use eye-tracking which was not a viable option for the present study. 5. Non-verbal and para-verbal indicators Certain para-verbal markers such as sighing and audible exhalations were in‐ cluded in the list of problem indicators since they can significantly contribute to indicating how much effort a subject put into the comprehension of an ST segment or the production of a certain TT segment. In addition, some non-verbal actions such as drumming one’s fingers on the keyboard were also included within this indicator. Furthermore, a “caution rule” was inserted: extended pauses and non-verbal or para-verbal markers together were not sufficient to classify a segment as a translation problem. This decision was made since, al‐ 266 8 Translation Problems <?page no="267"?> 3 Krings (1986: 304) describes these as psycholinguistically “connected” words from two different language systems, where one elicits the other on a regular basis and even without knowledge of the context (e.g., klein/ small; Wort/ word). 4 This was especially true for one subject (MAK), whose case will be considered in section 8.2.6. though both indicators are valuable, they are also the least reliable. Thus, it cannot be excluded entirely that sighs might happen because the subject is tired or drumming his or her fingers because he or she is nervous. The limitations of the pause indicator have already been discussed above. Due to their inherent limitations, these two markers can only categorize segments as problematic when they co-occur with a verbal indicator, i.e., when subjects mention they have a problem, cannot decide between two alternative solutions or evaluate their translation negatively. Some of Krings’ secondary indicators are not included in the present ap‐ proach - namely, revisions in the TT, notes on the distributed ST, meta-prob‐ lematization and the lack of a “primary equivalent association” 3 (see Krings 1986: 303-317). Exclusion of the latter indicator is explained by the fact that a lack of a primary equivalent association is only detectable in the data through the use of other problem indicators such as pauses, para-verbal markers and/ or the explicit mentioning of a problem. Since the main focus here is not on the subjects’ ability to generate such primary equivalence associations, these pas‐ sages have been coded directly using the indicators discussed above. Notes on the ST must also be excluded as an indicator because of the selected data col‐ lection method. Although the subjects were presented with a printed ST, they could also work exclusively within the Translog surface, where the ST was pre‐ sented to them on the screen. Since, for this reason, some subjects did not take any notes at all and worked exclusively with the text on screen (see also Göp‐ ferich 2010b: 117), occasional notes taken on the ST were not analyzed. The same was true for revisions in the produced TT since these were not necessarily dis‐ cernible in the transcripts. To discern them, a further data source in the analysis, the Translog data, would have had to be included. It seemed, however, that the criteria were already sufficiently dense to provide a useful basis for classifying translation problems without taking revisions into consideration. This was es‐ pecially true for “good verbalizers”. For subjects who had difficulty thinking aloud, however, the screen-recordings proved to be crucial in order to obtain information regarding their translation problems. Additional data from key-log‐ ging might thus have helped identify even more of their translation problems. 4 I also excluded Krings’ category “meta-problematization”, which includes ut‐ terances concerning the criteria for translation such as functional adequacy 267 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="268"?> (Krings 1986: 136). In the present data sample, if reflection at a meta-level oc‐ curred - which is obviously a desirable translator skill - it was frequently em‐ bedded in rather fluent reasoning. Otherwise, the translation unit included other indicators which already classified the segment as a translation problem. Having presented all of the secondary indicators, one more decision con‐ cerning the operationalization must be pointed out. Mentioning a translation problem in advance was not counted as a first instance of the problem if no measures were taken to solve it. This decision was made because, during the orientation phase, several subjects (e.g., GLD, NAK, and PAB) mentioned a number of ST segments that they supposed would be problematic during trans‐ lation, either because they had comprehension difficulties in their first read-through or because they came up with spontaneous possible translations that they were not satisfied with. These instances were not coded as problems as long as no measures to solve them (dictionary consultations, decision-making between different possible translations, etc.) were taken. Coding these instances as problems would have seriously impacted the “returns to ITPs” indicator (see 8.2.3) by considerably increasing the number of returns to problems for those applying such a strategy, although they had not really worked on the problems yet. Other subjects used a different strategy: they looked up items in the dic‐ tionary and took notes on possible translation equivalents during the orientation phase (e.g., ESC, AND, DIK). In this case, all look-ups were counted as translation problems in accordance with the primary indicator “use of external resources”. All primary indicators were thoroughly coded in the data, whereas secondary indicators were not coded exhaustively. If primary indicators were present, the segments were not checked for additional secondary indicators. Only the re‐ maining segments were analyzed for secondary indicators. If at least two dif‐ ferent secondary indicators occurred, two of them were coded since the presence of two co-occurring indicators was sufficient to categorize a segment as prob‐ lematic. If more than two indicators occurred, these were not systematically coded for reasons of efficiency. On the basis of these established criteria, trans‐ lation problems were coded in all the transcripts. Since the methodology was slightly adapted from both Krings’ original framework (1986: 120-143) and the adaptation of the framework by Göpferich (2010b: 117), a re-analysis of the sec‐ ondary data taken from the TransComp project (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011; see 5.1.2) was necessary. 268 8 Translation Problems <?page no="269"?> 8.2.2 Categorizing Individual Translation Problems After identifying individual translation problems in general, a logical next step was to categorize them according to meaningful types of ITPs. A classification was selected that is inspired by the cognitive constituents of the translation process. Angelone (2010: 21-22) describes the translation process as a succession of “cognitive translation units”, each of which consists of a comprehension of the source text, a transfer of the message to the target language and the pro‐ duction of the corresponding target language unit (see Figure 49). These “trans‐ lation-oriented cognitive processes” can follow each other without any inter‐ ruption in the flow of translation, which is the case if the translator does not experience any individual translation problem with the translation unit. A problem might, however, arise at any of these three stages if the translator’s declarative or procedural knowledge is insufficient to instantly comprehend the ST segment, transfer it to the TL or produce an adequate TL segment (2010: 18). Consequently, Angelone adopts a threefold distinction of translation problems, depending on the cognitive process to which they are related: comprehension problems (CPs), transfer problems (TPs) and production problems (PPs). Figure 49: Translation progression (adapted from Angelone 2010: 22) This distinction is rooted in an understanding of the translation process as a sequence of stages occurring one after the other, a view which is not undisputed. Thus, Carl & Dragsted (2012: 128) assume that comprehension and production can occur in parallel. Their empirical data, collected both by key-logging and eye-tracking, corroborate this assumption, but mainly for unproblematic trans‐ lation. When a translation problem arises, the processing seems to be less par‐ allel and more sequential. Furthermore, Carl & Dragsted (2012: 144) “suspect that the degree of parallel activity depends on experience and typing skills of the translator”. For the present study, Angelone’s above-quoted classification of translation problems has nevertheless been adopted since, in my view, it is not generally contradicted by findings regarding parallel processing in unproble‐ matic translation production. Thus, criteria have been defined that permit an 269 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="270"?> intersubjective categorization of ITPs into these three types of problems. A basic guideline emerges from the categories themselves. Thus, comprehension prob‐ lems concern the source text, transfer problems concern both ST and TT ele‐ ments, and production problems focus on the TT alone (see Examples 1 - 3). Example 1: comprehension problem (CP) ((MEB_TAP; lines 101-103)) MEB incite | was ist denn das? was heißt denn das? (--)incite (---)((klopft auf tastatur)) hm: : vorbeugen vielleicht | ich schau mal nach (-)verhIndern? ((OD {incite})) Example 2: transfer problem (TP) ((JSC_TAP; lines 192-196)) JSC can shorten a committee (-)meeting | ((tippt: )) kann ein ausschuss | wie sagt man? (-)ein treffen | ausschuss? ausschusstreffen? (--)((lacht)) son blödsinn (-)ausschu (--)kann (-)meeting (-)was sagt man denn da auf deutsch? (-)äh: : versammlung? (-)versammlung? (--)hm (---)ah: : oh ne: ((LINGUEE {committee meeting})) was sagt linguee? sitzung (--)ich schreibe einfach sitzung | ja (--)das reicht ((tippt: )) kann eine (-)sitzung (-)vorzeitig beenden (---)((tippt)) vorzeitig beenden Example 3: production problem (PP) ((BEF_TAP; lines 172-173)) BEF ich möchte nicht immer er sagt sagen aber das klingt irgendwie so ein bisschen lahm (--)farbentherapeut (--)und laut ihm klingt auch ein bisschen blÖd (-)vielleicht nach ihm (---)oder seiner meinung nach While the problems quoted above represent prototypical examples in which the subjects provided clear markers (i.e., was heißt denn das? ; wie sagt man? ), most problems were not as easily attributable because they either lacked clear indi‐ cators as to why they arose or because they combined different aspects within one translation problem. Thus, the boundaries between comprehension, transfer and production problems were necessarily fuzzy, and every attempt to catego‐ rize each problem into only one such category was reductionist to a certain extent. Despite these obvious limitations of the adopted classification, it was 270 8 Translation Problems <?page no="271"?> necessary to define markers on the basis of which translation problems could be categorized. An overview of these markers is given below. Comprehension Transfer Production Verbal markers e.g., - I don’t understand … - I don’t know the SL term - I need to look-up the SL term e.g. - How do you say that in the TL? - I know what it means but... - This SL word has so many different pos‐ sible translations - Is that xxxx in the TL? - Can I translate it like this? e.g. - This sounds weird in the TL - Is that a TL col‐ location? - Discussing two TL variants without having recourse to the SL Use of external resources - Immediate use of bilingual resources without prior ten‐ tative translations - Use of monolin‐ gual SL diction‐ aries - Search for SL syn‐ onyms - Use of bilingual re‐ sources after having produced tentative transla‐ tion equivalents - Use of monolin‐ gual TL diction‐ aries - Use of bilingual dictionaries if the overall focus of the utterance is on TL produc‐ tion Subcate‐ gory Awareness of lack of extralinguistic knowl‐ edge - Expression of a need to do re‐ search on ST con‐ tent - Research done to gather extralin‐ guistic/ back‐ ground knowledge Table 13: Markers for types of problems Regarding the lack of clear indicators, a decision had to be made as to how segments were to be classified when subjects immediately looked up a term without adding any verbal markers. In such cases, it was impossible to know whether the subject did not understand the SL term at all (comprehension problem) or whether he or she was merely unsure about how to translate it (transfer problem). My impression is that in many cases these were, in fact, 271 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="272"?> comprehension problems. Angelone (2010: 21), however, classifies such in‐ stances as transfer problems on the grounds that the subjects, when using bi‐ lingual dictionaries automatically also generate possible translations that can thus be regarded as transfer activity. In the present data sample, however, stu‐ dents preferred to use bilingual dictionaries also in cases in which they clearly expressed that they had a CP. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the mere fact of using a bilingual dictionary is a safe indicator of transfer problems - although there certainly is an element of transfer included in every use of a bilingual dictionary. Accordingly, all look-ups that did not involve the generation of ten‐ tative solutions were classified as CPs, and all look-ups that were preceded by tentative translation equivalents were classified as TPs. Exceptions were made only if the context provided a verbal indicator that suggested a different classi‐ fication, as in the example given below, in which subject JSC admitted the CP (was heißt denn das eigentlich? ) only after having produced tentative translation solutions. Example 4 ((JSC_TAP; lines 78-81)) JSC with the authorative warning that the proposal to paint our telephone boxes yellow was potentially distras | disastrous (-)mit de: m (-)professionellen? mit der professionellen warnung? ne: (--)((tippt: )) mit der | autoritär passt ja nicht | weil es geht ja darum (-)was heißt denn das eigentlich? autori | authorative | Subjects sometimes felt the need to do research on background information regarding, for example, the events or people mentioned in the source text. This research was usually conducted in order to deepen the understanding of the source text and was thus added as a subcategory to comprehension problems. As can be seen from Table 13, all instances in which subjects expressed the need to research background information or actually conducted such research were placed in this subcategory. Example 5 ((AND_TAP; lines 133-140)) AND (googelt {Great Phone Box debate})) ((liest ergebnisse)) hm ((liest ergebnisse)) great phone box debate | was war das denn? ((googelt {Great Phone Box Debate})) ((liest ergebnisse)) ((googelt {Great Phone Box Debate UK})) ((liest ergebnisse)) ((klickt auf en.wikipedia.org/ 272 8 Translation Problems <?page no="273"?> wiki/ Red_telephone_box)) ((sucht im Artikel {great phone box})) hm (-)((sucht im Artikel {debate})) ((liest: )) house of lords debate (--)hm (-)((schreibt auf papier)) gibt es das in neu ((klickt auf {House of Lords Debate 11.February 1981 - Telephone Service West Country-London})) ((unverständlich)) ne ((sucht auf Seite {great})) ((geht zurück zur Wikipediaseite)) ((klickt auf {House of Lords Debate 11.February 1981 - Telephone Service West Country-London})) ((flüstert)) (--)| °hh | ((flüstert)) A considerable number of problems started out as comprehension or transfer problems and then evolved into production problems. Since in the context of the present study it was especially interesting why problems arise, the focus was placed on the beginning of the problems. Thus, if a problem started out as a CP or TP, it was classified as such. 8.2.3 Indicators Related to ITPs The process data, in which all ITPs were coded according to the criteria discussed above, were first analyzed globally according to the subjects’ total number of ITPs. This analysis revealed differences between individual subjects as well as between comparison groups. Following Göpferich (e.g., 2010a: 176), it was also analyzed how many of these ITPs constituted returns to earlier ITPs, i.e., all the instances in which a subject came back to a source text segment that had already triggered a translation problem earlier on. According to Göpferich (2012: 250), the inability to solve a translation problem when it first arises may be related to a lack of awareness of the criteria that the TT has to fulfil, although she accounts for cases in which postponing the problem can also be considered a strategic decision. In the present data, there were two main reasons why sub‐ jects came back to earlier ITPs - either because they produced what they be‐ lieved to be an interim version and postponed a final decision or because - at a later stage of the process, e.g., during the revision phase - they were unhappy with the translation they had previously provided. Both strategic returns and the postponement of an ITP without providing an interim solution were rather infrequent in the data sample. I therefore believe the concept of returns to translation problems is a useful indicator as to whether subjects manage to - at least subjectively - solve their translation problems in one go. In order to learn more about what a high or low number of ITPs meant in the present data set, the findings from the ITP analyses were related to the results from the previous chapter. Thus, the relation between the number of ITPs and the time re‐ quirement was analyzed in order to determine whether the time requirement, 273 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="274"?> which is considered to be an indicator of cognitive effort, was related to the number of ITPs. In addition, the types of ITPs were analyzed according to the criteria devised in section 8.2.2. This analysis made it possible to compare the groups with regard to the onset of their individual translation problems, i.e., with regard to whether an ITP started out with comprehension difficulties (and may thus have indicated less developed English skills) or whether it occurred at a later stage of the process, such as the transfer or the production of the TT. These problems may have been caused, for example, by a lack of routine in translation and/ or target language text production in the respective text genre. When analyzing translation problems, it was of course of major interest whether the subjects had developed an ability to solve their ITPs. To this end, every ITP was analyzed to determine whether or not an error occurred in the relevant segment of the TT. This approach corresponds by and large to the way in which Göpferich (2010a: 172-173) analyzed her subjects’ “problem-solving competence”. For reasons that will be explained below, I preferred, however, to label this indicator co-occurrence of ITPs and errors. To this end, each seg‐ ment that triggered an ITP was analyzed to determine whether the subject was able to provide an adequate translation for the relevant text segment or not. The measurement of whether the ITP was successfully solved or not came, accord‐ ingly, at the end of what Angelone (2010: 22) calls a “cognitive unit of transla‐ tion”, i.e., the whole bundle of comprehension, transfer and production, inde‐ pendently of whether the specific ITP arose at the comprehension, transfer or production stage. While this method made it possible to clearly identify as solved ITPs that did not co-occur with an error, I prefer to speak of a co-occurrence of ITPs and errors for all other cases. This is because subjects might have solved their subjective, individual problem, but made an error nevertheless, because they were, for example, unaware of the wider context and the criteria that the TT had to fulfill. To give just one example, a subject might have had a compre‐ hension problem with the ST segment “to see red” and subjectively solved it by looking up the idiom in the dictionary and translating it as “wütend werden”. In this segment, however, the explicit reference to color had an important rhetor‐ ical function (see 8.3.1), and the segment therefore contained an error since the rhetorical function of the word play was lost. In this case, the comprehension problem was solved, whereas the subject might not even have been aware of the rhetorical function of “to see red” in the context of this specific source text - and thus the reason for the error was not reflected on. This is precisely why the indicator is called “co-occurrence of ITPs and errors”. 274 8 Translation Problems <?page no="275"?> When codifying the ITPs as to whether they were solved or co-occurred with an error, the following criteria were used: - Each text segment was analyzed only once, since it was related to the final translation. Thus, if subjects returned to a certain problem, these returns were not considered separately. - An ITP was considered to be adequately solved if the TT produced did not contain any errors in the text segment that caused the translation problem. Accordingly, if an error was present in the corresponding trans‐ lated text segment, the ITP was categorized as co-occurring with an error. Last but not least, this chapter also includes data from the retrospective ques‐ tionnaires. This data made it possible to compare the participants’ subjective perception of the overall difficulty of the translation task to their trans‐ lation process data. To this end, the subjects stated their opinions on text diffi‐ culty in the retrospective questionnaires (see 8.2.4.5). This subjective evaluation was an important indicator since it was able to indicate whether subjects with a higher number of individual translation problems also perceived the task to be more difficult than subjects with a smaller number of ITPs. 8.2.4 Findings 8.2.4.1 Total Number of Individual Translation Problems 8.2.4.1.1 P4 and T4 The overall number of ITPs was analyzed for each subject according to the cri‐ teria detailed in section 8.2.1. Starting with a comparison of the fifth-semester students, the differences between the two groups are shown in the overview in Figure 50. Thus, while about half the subjects in both groups experienced close to 30 ITPs, the remaining subjects in the theoretically trained T4 group tended to score above this mark, whereas the practically trained P4 subjects tended to score below it. This tendency is also evident when the highest and lowest number of ITPs in both groups are compared. While in the T4 group, the number of individual translation problems ranged from 27 to 55, both figures were con‐ siderably lower in the P4 group, with a minimum of only seven and a maximum of 32 ITPs. The range is thus comparable in both groups, with 28 ITPs in the T4 group and 25 in the P4 group. The considerable difference between the groups of fifth-semester students with regard to the number of ITPs is reflected in the groups’ mean figures, with 275 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="276"?> the P4 group having an average of 21.7 individual translation problems (SD: 10.8), whereas the T4 group’s mean figure for ITPs was 38.2 (SD: 10.9). A comparison of the groups’ median figures, which were less susceptible to in‐ fluence from the extreme values observed in both groups, also confirms the finding that the T4 subjects experienced more ITPs during their translation process. Thus, the T4 group’s median was 36 ITPs, whereas the P4 group’s was 24. It was also analyzed how often the subjects returned to their individual translation problems. For the T4 group, this was the case for an average of 4.4 ITPs (SD: 4.16) of 38.2, i.e., 12 % of all their ITPs were returns to segments which had already caused difficulties earlier in the translation process. In the P4 group, this percentage was very similar (11 %) and, in absolute numbers, an average of 2.3 (SD: 2.25) of the P4 students’ 21.7 ITPs were returns. Figure 50: Number of ITPs per subject (P4 and T4) All in all, there were considerable differences between the two groups of fifth-semester students with regard to the total number of ITPs, with the theo‐ retically trained T4 students having 1.8 times more ITPs than the practically 276 8 Translation Problems <?page no="277"?> trained P4 subjects. There was, however, no difference between the groups con‐ cerning the percentage of ITPs that constituted returns. 8.2.4.1.2 P6 and PT7 Comparing the more advanced groups, P6 and PT7, no such difference was ob‐ servable. Both groups showed considerable within-group variation, with a range of 38 in the P6 group (from 20 to 58 ITPs) and 30 in the PT7 group (8 to 38 ITPs). Although these values seem to indicate a tendency for the P6 group to encounter more ITPs, this tendency was not consistent across the data sample, however (see Figure 51). While it was confirmed for the extreme values for the P6 group, in which three subjects had a rather high number of ITPs, and for the PT7 group, which had three subjects with a rather low number of ITPs, it does not seem to hold true for the subjects with midrange scores. Thus, the majority of P6 subjects tended to have between 20 and 30 ITPs, whereas the PT7 subjects had close to 30 ITPs or even more. Figure 51: Number of ITPs per subject (P6 and PT7) 277 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="278"?> 5 Another such possible reason being the subjects’ ability to verbalize which will be dis‐ cussed in 8.2.5. The mean figures indicate that the practically trained P6 subjects experienced more problems than the PT7 participants, who had had both practical and the‐ oretical training. Thus, the P6 group had an average of 31.0 ITPs (SD: 12.1), whereas the PT7 subjects had an average of 25.4 ITPs (SD: 10.7). This result has to be treated with caution, however, since it is very likely due to the extreme values in both groups. Accordingly, the medians of both groups, which were less susceptible to the influence of extreme values, paint a different picture, with 25.5 ITPs in the P6 group and 28.0 ITPs in the PT7 group. The data thus do not show any consistent difference between the total number of individual trans‐ lation problems experienced by the advanced students with or without theo‐ retical training. When the number of returns was compared, only a small difference between the two groups was evident, with the P6 group returning to previously experi‐ enced problems 3.7 times on average, i.e., 12 % of all their ITPs were returns (SD: 3.86). In the PT7 group, this number was slightly lower, with 8 % of all ITPs being returns, i.e., an average of 1.9 returns per subject (SD: 1.9). The PT7 group thus showed a slightly lower tendency to postpone problem-solving and/ or to ques‐ tion decisions made earlier on in the process. It has been previously pointed out, however, that there was considerable variation within both groups with regard to returns to problems. Nevertheless, the finding that there were more subjects in the PT7 group (four out of nine) than in the P6 group (one out of ten) who did not return to problems at all might indicate that there was a small difference. One possible reason for the considerable within-group variation in both the P6 group and the PT7 group could be a difference in English skills (see 5.1.3). 5 It might, in fact, be hypothesized that subjects who had English as their C-lan‐ guage - and thus less training in English-German translation and probably also fewer English language skills - encountered more difficulties, e.g., because of comprehension or transfer problems. However, the data do not confirm this hypothesis. When the total number of ITPs of subjects with English as a B-lan‐ guage was compared to the total number of ITPs of subjects with English as a C-language for both the P6 and PT7 groups taken together, the mean figure was 32.5 ITPs (N = 10; SD: 11.98) for English-B-language subjects. In the group with English as a C-language, the mean figure was considerably lower, with an average of 23.8 ITPs per subject (N = 9; SD: 9.54). However, it should be noted that the two subjects who had an extremely low number and an extremely high number of ITPs, respectively, and who, accordingly, influenced the mean figures 278 8 Translation Problems <?page no="279"?> for the groups compared above were in two separate groups. Thus, the high number of problems in the English-B-language group was influenced by subject DAF, who had a total of 58 ITPs, whereas subject MAK, who had only eight ITPs, certainly decreased the mean figure for the group with English as a C-lan‐ guage. However, a comparison of the median figures confirms the observed tendency, although the difference was less pronounced than indicated by the mean figures. Thus, half the students with English as a B-language had more than 31.5 ITPs, whereas the median figure for the English-C-language students was 25.0 ITPs. Figure 52: ITPs depending on B-language The same tendency is observable when the two comparison groups are com‐ pared separately. Thus, the P6 subjects with English as their B-language had an average of 35.6 ITPs (SD: 14.88; median: 30.0), whereas the P6 subjects with a B-language other than English had 26.4 ITPs (SD: 7.44; median: 25.0). In the PT7 group, the tendency was the same: with 29.4 ITPs on average (SD: 8.79; median: 33.0), the students with English as a B-language experienced more problems 279 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="280"?> than their fellow students with English as a C-language, who had an average of 20.5 ITPs (SD: 11.96; median: 19.5). The data thus do not confirm that less training in the source language and, therefore, probably a less developed lan‐ guage competence caused the number of translation problems to increase. Rather, the subjects with less training in English-German translation experi‐ enced fewer ITPs during their translation of the text “Yellow peril, red alert”. 8.2.4.1.3 Comparison of All Groups When all four groups are compared with one another, the university students without any translation practice (T4) had the highest number of ITPs, whereas the practically trained fifth-semester students (P4) encountered the fewest in‐ dividual translation problems. The more advanced groups P6 and PT7 were sit‐ uated between the other two groups. The difference observed between the average numbers of ITPs in these two groups was not confirmed by a compar‐ ison of the median figures, however, and is thus to be treated with caution. Figure 53: Average number of ITPs (all groups) 280 8 Translation Problems <?page no="281"?> With regard to the number of returns in each of the groups, there is no observ‐ able difference between the theoretically trained T4 group and the two practi‐ cally trained FAK groups. For all three groups, returns accounted for 11 % or 12 % of the total number of ITPs. This number was slightly lower in the PT7 group, in which 8 % of all ITPs were returns to previous problems. It was also analyzed how often the subjects returned to one segment and found that, for all the groups, there was generally only one return. Thus, of the total of 860 ITPs in the data sample, 767 were first occurrences, 86 were first returns and only 7 were second returns. There is no instance in the data in which one ST segment caused an ITP more than three times. These second returns tended, furthermore, to occur among individuals who had a high number of ITPs in general: the T4 subject THI, who had a total number of 55 ITPs, had two second returns and the P6 subject DAF, who had 58 ITPs, had three second returns. 8.2.4.2 Correlating ITPs and Task Duration Figure 54: Scatterplot ITPs / time 281 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="282"?> It seems likely that a longer task duration could be a direct consequence of a subject’s experiencing difficulties with the translation task and thus having more ITPs. Therefore, it was not surprising that task duration and the number of ITPs showed a positive correlation in the overall data sample, as is evident in the scatterplot in Figure 54. Calculating Spearman’s rho confirms a moderate positive correlation (r s = 0.53; p = 0.003). Nevertheless, the scatterplot shows considerable variation especially in the center, indicating that some subjects also experienced fewer ITPs in even more time than others. It was thus calculated how many ITPs each subject had within a set timeframe (ten minutes) in order to make the numbers comparable across the groups. Figure 55: ITPs / ten minutes For individual subjects, the average number of ITPs within ten minutes varied from 1.3 (subject MAK) to 9.0 (subject EVE). This considerable variation con‐ firms that a longer task duration did not necessarily go hand-in-hand with a high number of ITPs. The measurement also provides evidence for the flow of the translation process: it seems obvious that a subject who had about nine ITPs 282 8 Translation Problems <?page no="283"?> per ten minutes had a fairly disrupted translation process and could not take much time to consider and solve either of these problems. On the contrary, a subject with only one or two ITPs per ten minutes may either have had a much smoother translation process and/ or have worked considerably longer on each ITP. It should be noted, however, that a low number of ITPs per ten minutes might not always be a reliable indicator. Thus, subject MAK had difficulties with verbalizing in general and might actually have experienced more translation problems than were traceable in her think-aloud data (see the discussion of findings in section 8.2.5). However, the subjects SIV and SEP also showed a rather low ratio of ITPs per ten minutes (2.6 and 2.7, respectively). While SIV also had some difficulty in verbalizing - although not to the same extent as subject MAK - this was not the case with SEP. When calculating the mean number of ITPs/ ten minutes for the four com‐ parison groups, only small differences were found to exist between the three practically trained groups. There was, however, a difference between the prac‐ tically trained groups and the theoretically trained T4 group. Thus, with an average of 6.8 ITPs within ten minutes (SD: 1.26), the T4 group had close to two problems more than the P6 group, which had an average of 4.9 ITPs/ ten minutes (SD: 1.24) and almost three problems more than both the P4 group and the PT7 group, both of which had 4.1 ITPs on average (SD: 0.88 / P4; SD: 1.59 / PT7). From these findings, it appears that T4 subjects spent less time on their prob‐ lems. The alternative explanation, i.e., that these subjects were considerably quicker in translating unproblematic passages, seems rather unlikely due to their lack of practice in translation. However, whether this faster problem-solving was due to the fact that they were more aware when ap‐ proaching the ITPs and were thus able to make decisions in less time and with more self-confidence is something that would have to be analyzed separately. Another possible explanation for the shorter time that subjects needed for their translations is, in fact, exactly the opposite of the first one: the subjects might also have had a large number of problems that were easy to solve, e.g., compre‐ hension problems that could be quickly solved by using online-dictionaries, for example. This raises the question of whether these very differently trained sub‐ jects experienced their ITPs at different stages of the process - i.e., comprehen‐ sion, transfer or production - which could allow us to infer that they had dif‐ ferently developed competences. 8.2.4.3 Types of ITPs The subjects’ ITPs were categorized depending on whether they occurred be‐ cause of comprehension problems (CP), problems in transferring the informa‐ 283 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="284"?> tion to the target language (TP) or problems in producing the target text (PP), according to the criteria described in section 8.2.2. 8.2.4.3.1 T4 and P4 Figure 56: Types of problems (T4 and P4) A comparison of the fifth-semester students showed that the theoretically trained T4 students not only had considerably more ITPs than the practically trained P4 subjects overall (see 8.2.4.1), but that their ITPs were also distributed differently among the three stages of comprehension, transfer and production. While the number of comprehension problems was similar in both groups - since the T4 subjects had an average of 13.0 CPs (SD: 3.67) and the P4 subjects only slightly fewer comprehension problems (mean: 11.8; SD: 5.12) - the T4 students had considerably more ITPs regarding both transfer and production when compared to the P4 subjects. Thus, the largest number of ITPs experienced by the T4 subjects concerned the transfer from the source to the target language, with T4 students having 15.4 TPs on average (SD: 5.03). In the P4 group, the 284 8 Translation Problems <?page no="285"?> average number of TPs was less than half that in the T4 group, with 6.7 TPs per subject (SD: 5.35). The difference between the two groups of fifth-semester stu‐ dents was even more pronounced regarding the ITPs that arose only at the stage of target text production: whereas the mean number of PPs was 9.8 per subject in the T4 group (SD: 8.96), the P4 subjects experienced about one-third of the problems at the production stage, with an average of 3.2 PPs per subject (SD: 2.79). As can be inferred from the measures of variability, there was considerable within-group variation with regard to production problems in both the T4 and P4 groups. The number of PPs experienced by the five subjects in the T4 group ranged from zero to 21, whereas in the P4 group this range was considerably smaller, with the total number of PPs ranging from zero to eight. There was thus a considerable difference in the distribution of ITPs among the different stages of the translation process: in the theoretically trained T4 group, 34 % of all individual translation problems concerned comprehension, but transfer problems, which accounted for 40 % of the total, were even more fre‐ quent. The remaining 28 % of ITPs concerned the production of the target text. In the P4 group, the majority of ITPs concerned comprehension (55 %). This should, however, not be taken as an indicator of a less developed SL competence since, in absolute numbers, both groups showed a comparable number of prob‐ lems regarding ST comprehension. Instead, this practically trained group had considerably fewer problems regarding transfer (31 %) and production (15 %) when compared to the T4 group. In a nutshell, while both groups had approxi‐ mately the same number of comprehension problems, the theoretically trained T4 students experienced more than twice as many transfer problems and even three times as many production problems as the practically trained P4 subjects. 285 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="286"?> 8.2.4.3.2 P6 and PT7 Figure 57: Types of problems (P6 and PT7) Differences are also evident when the more advanced students in the P6 and PT7 groups are compared. The practically trained P6 students - who experi‐ enced more ITPs overall than the PT7 students - had an average of 14.2 com‐ prehension problems. There was, however, considerable within-group variation, with the total number of CPs ranging from five to 37 CPs (SD: 9.38). In the PT7 group, subjects had an average of 11.0 CPs and were more homogenous with regard to the comprehension problems they encountered (SD: 3.46). The P6 stu‐ dents also had more transfer problems than the PT7 subjects, with 11.0 TPs (SD: 7.36) compared to 7.1 TPs (SD: 4.31). However, this was not the case with the ITPs that arose at the stage of TT production, in which the PT7 subjects (⌀ = 7.3 PPs; SD: 4.27) experienced slightly more problems than their P6 counterparts, who had an average of 5.8 PPs (SD: 5.51). In relation to the overall number of ITPs, the PT7 group thus experienced considerably more production problems (29 %) than the practically trained P6 group (19 %), but fewer transfer problems 286 8 Translation Problems <?page no="287"?> (28 % as opposed to 35 %). Regarding the percentage of CPs, however, both groups performed similarly, with 43 % of all problems concerning comprehen‐ sion in the PT7 group and 46 % in the P6 group. Since the number of comprehension problems experienced by the more ad‐ vanced groups of students was not found to be smaller than in the case of the fifth-semester students discussed above, the question arises whether this might have been due to the fact that half of the subjects in the more advanced groups had English as their B-language, whereas English was the C-language for the other half. As already noted, the total number of ITPs was not found to be in‐ fluenced by the subjects’ B-language (see 8.2.4.1), but subjects with a lower formal competence in English could, nevertheless, have shown a different dis‐ tribution of problem types, e.g., because they might have had more difficulties comprehending the ST. For a comparison of both groups, P6 and PT7 taken together, this was not confirmed, however. Subjects with English as a B-lan‐ guage and subjects with English as a C-language showed an almost identical distribution of types of problems, with the largest number of problems con‐ cerning comprehension (44 % and 46 %, respectively), followed by transfer prob‐ lems (32 % in both cases) and production problems (24 % and 22 %, respectively). When the groups P6 and PT7 are considered separately, both lan‐ guage-sub-groups of the P6 group show a distribution that is very similar to that of the P6 group as a whole. Although, in absolute numbers, the translation problems were higher in the P6 English group (again due to the extreme value of subject DAF, who, as mentioned above, had a total of 58 ITPs), the distribution of comprehension, transfer and production problems was similar in both sub-groups (see Figure 58). The same applies to the PT7 subjects who did not have practical training at the time of data collection, but had had ample training when graduating from the FAK about ten months earlier. Both subjects with English as a B-language and subjects with English as a C-language reflected the overall distribution of the group. There was a slight tendency for subjects with less practice in English-German translation to have a slightly higher percentage of comprehension problems. The difference is marginal, however, with students with English as a C-language experiencing seven percentage points more CPs. In absolute numbers, however, the group experienced even fewer CPs. Thus, there is no evidence in the data for a different distribution of problem types due to differences in language competence in the SL or in practice translating out of this SL. Instead, the sub-groups reflected the distribution of ITPs for the groups (P6 and PT7) as a whole and thus confirmed the differences observed above. 287 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="288"?> Figure 58: Problem types depending on B-language To sum up, the practically trained P6 group had more individual translation problems overall than the PT7 group. While the two groups were similar in the percentage of comprehension problems, they differed slightly with respect to transfer problems, which were somewhat more frequent among the P6 students. The main difference, however, was with regard to production problems, of which, in both absolute numbers and percentages, the PT7 group encountered more than the P6 group, which had not had theoretical training. This difference in distribution was independent of the subjects’ language competence in English and thus seems to be confirmed as a feature of the group, showing that theo‐ retical reflection might increase the focus on TT production when compared to purely practical training. 8.2.4.3.3 Comparison of All Groups When all four groups of subjects are compared with one another (see Figure 59), a difference in the distribution of problem types is apparent. For the two groups of subjects with only practical training, P4 and P6, the distribution was fairly 288 8 Translation Problems <?page no="289"?> Figure 59: Distribution of problem types (all groups) 289 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="290"?> similar despite the huge difference in the overall number of ITPs they experi‐ enced. For both groups, comprehension problems accounted for the largest number of problems, although they were more frequent in the P4 group (55 %) than in the P6 group (46 %). The second-most frequently occurring problems in both groups were transfer problems, followed by production problems. Thus, while transfer and production problems were slightly more frequent in the P6 group, the overall distribution was similar. In the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, comprehension problems also accounted for the largest number of problems (43 %), but production problems were much more frequent in this group than in the purely practically trained groups (29 %) and thus as frequent as transfer problems (28 %). The problems were differently distributed in the T4 group, which had had exclusively theoretical training and thus no practical experience in translation. In this group, problems occurred most often at the stage of transfer from SL to TL (40 %), while comprehension problems (34 %) were in second place, followed by problems that concerned the production of the target text (26 %). From this comparison, two important findings can be deduced. First, the data show a tendency for practically trained students to have a lower percentage of transfer problems than the T4 students, who had had theoretical but not practical translation training. This might indicate that transferring meaning from SL to TL is best acquired through practical training, a conclusion that seems likely insofar as the transfer stage is the most translation-specific part of the process, whereas both SL comprehension and TL production can be trained outside of translation. Since it is often assumed that translating requires a great deal of procedural knowledge (see 2.2), it seems plausible that this procedural knowl‐ edge can be better acquired through practical training. Nevertheless, it is appa‐ rent that the differences between the groups were not very important and fur‐ thermore that the P6 group, which had had the most intensive level of practical training at the time of data collection, also had a rather high percentage of transfer problems. It can thus be hypothesized that the high number of transfer problems in their case could be an indicator of a routinized “double-checking” procedure in which the students check possible translation solutions with a dictionary or a parallel text. Furthermore, transfer problems could also be an indicator of a useful strategy of generating translation options, which were then evaluated on the basis of the subjects’ strategic translation competence. The second finding concerns production problems. The percentage of pro‐ duction problems was higher for groups with (additional) theoretical training than for those that had had only practical training, both in absolute numbers and in percentages. For the practically trained groups, a slight increase in the 290 8 Translation Problems <?page no="291"?> number of PPs was observed from the beginning of the students’ fifth to the end of their sixth semester. But a more important increase was observed in the group with additional theoretical training. This stronger focus could have been due to a heightened awareness of the communicative function of the translation and the needs of TT readers. This might, in fact, indicate that theoretical training was able to direct the subjects’ focus more towards the TT than towards the ST, an aspect that is very much a feature of functional translation theories. However, it must be kept in mind that production problems can occur for a multitude of reasons, ranging from uncertainty about TL orthography, doubts about whether words exist in the TL and problems in formulating an adequate TL sentence to questions of adequacy concerning both the intended function and the TT audi‐ ence. I believe that only the latter indicates heightened awareness, whereas the others might be due to deficient skills in the mother tongue in general or, more specifically, in L1 text production. From this, it follows that a high number of production problems might also indicate that the students with less practice in translation just had a harder time producing a translation - and not that they were more aware of the functional aspects. In order to explore this matter fur‐ ther, I will not only evaluate whether the subjects were able to solve their PPs adequately but will also analyze some ST segments that require awareness of the communicative function and the intended audience in more detail in section 8.2.6. Since there were some differences concerning the distribution of ITPs, the question remains regarding the extent to which the different groups were able to solve their ITPs. This is a decisive measurement for assessing their overall translation competence since the ability to solve translation problems is con‐ sidered to be a main feature of competent translators (see 3.2). 291 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="292"?> 6 Only first occurring ITPs were considered. Returns were excluded since they referred to the same text segment and thus would yield the same result. 8.2.4.4 Co-occurrence of ITPs and Errors 8.2.4.4.1 Relating ITPs and Errors Figure 60: Co-occurrence of ITPs and errors The present indicator showed whether or not ITPs correlated with errors in the product, indicating in which cases the ITPs were solved. Starting with a com‐ parison of the two groups of fifth-semester students, only a small difference between them can be seen (see Figure 60). Thus, in the theoretically trained T4 group, no error co-occurred with 23.0 ITPs 6 (SD: 6.08) on average, whereas an average of 10.4 ITPs co-occurred with translation errors (SD: 2.79). The T4 sub‐ jects were thus able to demonstrably solve about 69 % of their ITPs, whereas in 31 % of the cases, an error co-occurred in the relevant TT segment. In the prac‐ 292 8 Translation Problems <?page no="293"?> tically trained P4 group, the distribution of solved ITPs and those where an error occurs in the segment was only slightly different. With an average of 11.7 solved ITPs (SD: 5.57), the P4 group solved about 60 % of their average 19.3 ITPs. In the case of 7.7 ITPs (40 %; SD: 4.80), however, an error co-occurred with the ITP. The T4 subjects were thus slightly more successful in solving their ITPs than the P4 subjects. The more advanced groups were even closer to one another regarding the percentage of adequately solved translation problems. With an average of 17.4 solved ITPs (SD: 8.17) out of 27.2 ITPs, the P6 subjects solved 64 % of their ITPs successfully. In the case of 9.8 ITPs on average (36 %; SD: 2.35), an error co-oc‐ curred in the segment that triggered the translation problem. Similarly, in the PT7 group, 60 % of all ITPs were adequately solved (⌀ = 14.2; SD: 5.72), whereas in the case of 40 % (⌀ = 9.3; SD: 5.27) of the ITPs an error was present in the relevant TT segment. To sum up, in the four comparison groups, 60 % to 69 % of ITPs were demon‐ strably solved since adequate translations were provided. This suggests a com‐ parable success rate in problem solving. The range indicates, however, that there was considerable within-group variation. Thus, almost all groups included sub‐ jects who had solved less than half their ITPs and others who had adequately solved 75 % or more. Here, the only exception was the T4 group, in which no subject solved less than 55 % of his or her ITPs adequately, again suggesting a slightly greater ability among T4 subjects to solve the occurring individual translation problems adequately. Again, the question may be asked whether this was due to more awareness of the potential challenges presented by the trans‐ lation task and the criteria that the TT needed to fulfill - which awareness could be one major benefit of theoretical classes - or whether the higher percentage of demonstrably solved problems indicates that the subjects experienced more easy-to-solve ITPs, which did not even arise to the same extent among practi‐ cally trained subjects or for which the latter might already have developed rou‐ tines for their solution. 293 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="294"?> 7 First occurrences only 8.2.4.4.2 Relating Comprehension Problems and Errors Figure 61: Co-occurrence of CPs and errors The groups were also compared with regard to their ability to provide acceptable solutions for the three different types of translation problems, which were cate‐ gorized and analyzed above. Starting with the subjects’ comprehension prob‐ lems, the groups performed rather similarly. Thus, the T4 subjects were able to adequately solve 66 % of their overall number of CPs. 7 This corresponds to an average of 7.8 (SD: 1.64) of 11.8 CPs. The P4 group was similarly successful, having adequately solved an average of 7.0 (SD: 4.00) of 11.2 CPs or 63 % of the total. It must be acknowledged, however, that there was considerable variation between individual subjects in both groups. Thus, in the theoretically trained T4 group, individual subjects demonstrably solved between 47 % and 100 % of their comprehension problems. In the practically trained P4 group, there was 294 8 Translation Problems <?page no="295"?> somewhat less variation, with individual subjects having demonstrably solved between 50 % and 82 % of their comprehension problems. The more advanced groups were within a comparable range of adequately solved comprehension problems: the practically trained P6 group provided error-free translations of 64 % of their CPs while in the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, the rate was 62 %. In the P6 group, this corresponded to an average of 8.3 (SD: 5.29) of 12.9 CPs for each individual. However, there was also considerable variation within this group, with indi‐ vidual subjects providing adequate translation for 44 % to 82 % of their CPs. In the PT7 group, subjects provided adequate translations for an average of 6.4 CPs (SD: 1.88) of 10.4 CPs. The PT7 subjects’ individual percentages of solved CPs were between 45 % and 100 %. Thus, both for the total number of comprehension problems and for the success with which they were solved, no differences be‐ tween the groups could be observed. 8.2.4.4.3 Relating Transfer Problems and Errors Figure 62: Co-occurrence of TPs and errors 295 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="296"?> 8 First occurrences only With regard to the subjects’ ability to solve transfer problems, there were only small differences between the groups in this respect, too. Thus, the T4 group provided adequate translations for 65 % of their TPs 8 as compared to 58 % in the P4 group. This corresponds to an average of 9.4 TPs (SD: 1.95) that did not co-occur with an error as compared to 5.0 TPs on average (SD: 2.55) in which an error co-occurred in the segment that triggered the TP. In the P4 group, these average numbers were considerably lower due to the smaller number of TPs in this group. While 3.5 TPs (SD: 2.59) were adequately solved on average, 2.5 TPs (SD: 3.02) co-occurred with an error. Again, there was considerable individual variation within this group, with the P4 subjects providing error-free transla‐ tions for 37 % to 100 % of their TPs. The T4 group was more homogenous in this regard, with the range of adequately solved TPs extending from 57 % to 80 %. With regard to the two more advanced groups, a similar difference is observ‐ able between the practically trained P6 group and the PT7 group that had had additional theoretical courses. The P6 subjects provided error-free translations for 67 % of their TPs, whereas the PT7 subjects solved a slightly smaller per‐ centage adequately (59 %). On average, there were 6.7 TPs in the P6 group (SD: 5.42) and 4.0 TPs in the PT7 group (SD: 2.69). Since an average of 2.7 TPs co-oc‐ curred with an error in the PT7 group (SD: 2.06), however, this group still had slightly fewer errors in segments that caused a transfer problem than was the case for the P6 group, which had an average of 3.3 co-occurrences of TPs and errors (SD: 1.77). The range of individual success was again fairly broad, ex‐ tending from 40 % to 80 % in the P6 group and from 40 % to 100 % in the PT7 group. Thus, the groups with a higher total number of transfer problems were somewhat better able to solve these TPs adequately. It should be noted, however, that these data, especially those of the T4, showed more overall co-occurrences of errors and TPs than those of the other groups. 296 8 Translation Problems <?page no="297"?> 8.2.4.4.4 Relating Production Problems and Errors Figure 63: Co-occurrence of PPs and errors Considerable differences were found between the groups with regard to their ability to solve production problems. Thus, the T4 group, which had the largest total number of PPs, managed to solve 81 % of these problems. Errors co-oc‐ curred in an average of only 1.4 PPs (SD: 0.89), whereas 5.8 PPs were solved adequately on average (SD: 5.26). The case was quite different among P4 sub‐ jects, who solved an average of 1.2 of only 2.2 PPs adequately (SD: 1.47), but had an error co-occurring with one production problem on average (SD: 1.27). Overall, the P4 group thus solved 54 % of their PPs. The individual variation remains important in this case as well: the P4 subjects solved between 0 % and 100 % of their PPs. This result must, of course, be seen in light of the low overall number of production problems, with individual subjects having only one or two PPs. In the T4 group, subjects solved between 50 % and 85 % of their PPs, provided they experienced PPs at all. 297 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="298"?> The more advanced groups were much closer to one another with regard to the percentage of PPs that were adequately solved. Thus, in the P6 group, 56 % of PPs were solved adequately. This number was only marginally higher in the PT7 group, with 59 % of PPs not containing translation errors. The P6 group thus provided error-free translations for an average of 2.4 out of 4.3 segments that had caused production problems (SD: 2.76), while the PT7 group provided ade‐ quate solutions for 3.8 out of 6.5 PPs (SD: 2.44). Again, variation within this group was rather high, with individual subjects solving between 33 % and 100 % of their production problems. Thus, when it came to production problems, the theoretically trained T4 was the group experiencing the most PPs but also the group that was best at solving them. As stated earlier, the total number of PPs increased as the level of formal translator training increased in the three groups with practical training, and it was especially high in the PT7 group, which had had additional training in theory. This increase, however, was not accompanied by a better ability to solve the PPs that occurred. With regard to the percentage of solved PPs, the three groups P4, P6 and PT7 performed similarly, indicating that there was also an increase in the absolute number of PPs that co-occurred with translation errors. 8.2.4.4.5 Comparison of All Groups To sum up, the comparison groups all performed very similarly when it came to the ITPs that were demonstrably solved. Of the ITPs occurring in all groups, 60 % to 69 % did not co-occur with errors and thus were adequately solved. The two groups with rather high numbers of ITPs - the theoretically trained T4 group and the practically trained P6 group - both had slightly higher percen‐ tages of adequately solved ITPs (69 % and 64 %, respectively). It thus appears that the subjects in these two groups, which were diametrically opposed in terms of the training they had received, were slightly more successful in solving the ITPs they encountered. When considering the different types of ITPs - i.e., comprehension, transfer and production problems - the findings were similar to those for the overall number of ITPs. Only regarding the production problems was there a clear dif‐ ference between the three groups with practical experience (54 % to 59 %) and the T4 group, which demonstrably solved 81 % of all its production problems. This high percentage of adequately solved TPs in the T4 group could have been due to the theoretically trained students’ greater awareness of the requirements of TT readers and the function of the text. This possibility will be investigated in more detail in section 8.2.6. 298 8 Translation Problems <?page no="299"?> 9 This percentage is only an approximate since it does not take into account that more than one error can be made within one and the same segment (e.g., semantic and gram‐ matical). T4 P4 P6 PT7 ⌀ ITPs (w/ o returns) 33.4 19.3 27.2 23.6 ⌀ ITPs solved 22.4 10.8 17.2 13.9 ⌀ ITPs not solved 11.0 8.5 10.0 9.7 ⌀ errors (unweighted) 36.2 42.8 31.9 37.0 % errors without ITPs (approxi‐ mate) 9 ~70% ~80% ~69% ~74% Table 14: Overview of ITPs and errors In addition to permitting conclusions on the subjects’ abilities to solve the ITPs they experienced, these results also suggest differences between the groups with regard to their error-making in segments that did not cause an ITP and that were thus translated without extended reflection, hesitation or recourse to external research. These differences are set out in Table 14. Thus, the practically trained fifth-semester students in the P4 group made considerably more errors than they had ITPs. Since they were also able to adequately solve 60 % of their ITPs, it is clear that a large percentage of the errors that persisted in the final translation were not subject to extended problem-solving processes (~80%). It seems that the subjects might have translated these passages rather self-confidently and without being aware of potential task-inherent translation problems or of short‐ comings in their own declarative and/ or procedural knowledge. This tendency was somewhat less pronounced in the other groups, especially among the prac‐ tically trained P6 students (~69%). All groups, however, clearly made more errors in segments that did not trigger an ITP than in segments that were subject to conscious problem-solving. This result corroborates the assumption that the reason for many errors is a failure to recognize that there is a problem in the first place (Nord 1998: 353). The data thus confirm that recognizing gaps in one’s own knowledge is one crucial aspect of translation competence. 299 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="300"?> 8.2.4.5 Subjective Perception of Text Difficulty Figure 64: Perception of text difficulty Last but not least, the participants’ subjective perception of overall text difficulty was analyzed for the primary subjects using the retrospective questionnaire (question 11; see annexes 12.3.2). The secondary subjects, who had taken part in the TransComp project, answered the very same question. Their data are reported in Bayer-Hohenwarter (2011: 1568-1569). Across all groups, slightly more subjects considered the difficulty of the translation assignment to be rather high (48 %) than rather low (41 %). Only a small percentage of the subjects con‐ sidered the text’s difficulty to be high (10 %), whereas no subject considered the text’s difficulty to be very high or low. When the groups are compared with one another, only small differences are apparent. In almost all the comparison groups, the median assessment of per‐ ceived text difficulty was “rather high”. Thus, among the fifth-semester students in the T4 group - that is, the group without any translation practice - 20 % of the subjects considered the text to be difficult (i.e., “high”), 40 % considered it to be rather difficult and the remaining 40 % considered its difficulty to be rather 300 8 Translation Problems <?page no="301"?> low. Among the practically trained fifth-semester students, a large majority (80 %) considered the text to be rather difficult, with 20 % considering it not very difficult. In this group, no subject considered the text to be of high or very high difficulty. For both groups of fifth-semester students, the median assessment was “rather high”. Figure 65: Mean ITPs depending on perception of text difficulty Of the more advanced practically trained students in the P6 group, 60 % con‐ sidered the text to be rather difficult, whereas 30 % considered its difficulty to be rather low. One subject (10 %) considered the text difficulty to be high. The group’s median assessment was “rather high”, just as it was for the two groups of fifth-semester students. The result for the PT7 students was different. In this group, a majority (67 %) considered the text’s difficulty to be rather low. Only 22 % of the subjects in the PT7 group considered the text to be rather difficult, while 11 % of the subjects considered the text’s difficulty to be high. These find‐ ings seem to indicate that the groups of subjects did not differ greatly in terms of their assessment of how difficult the translation assignment was. However, 301 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="302"?> the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, considered the text to be somewhat less difficult than the other three groups, which all considered the text’s difficulty to be rather high. The data were correlated regarding the subjective perception of text difficulty with the subjects’ total number of ITPs. Using Spearman’s rho, the correlation was found, however, to be insignificant (r s = -0.17; p = 0.39). This was also true if the groups were taken separately. As can be seen from Figure 65, there was no clear tendency for subjects with different subjective difficulty perceptions to perform differently in terms of ITPs. There might have been a slight tendency for subjects with fewer ITPs to consider the text to be more difficult, although a clear difference was only evident in the case of two groups (T4 and PT7). All in all, subjects who experienced more ITPs did not necessarily consider the task to be more difficult than subjects with fewer ITPs. These findings might be explained by the fact that subjects could perceive a text to be difficult for two different reasons. One reason could be that they had a very well developed translation competence and thus were able to spot potential difficulties inherent in the task (see also section 8.2.6). These subjects, who would, accordingly, have considered the task difficult because they were aware of its complexity, did not, however, necessarily experience many ITPs. The second reason could be that the subjects had considerable individual difficulties due to a lack of skills and were thus actually assessing their own abilities to translate the text. Since both the P6 group and the PT7 group consisted of subjects with English as a B-language and others with English as a C-language, the subjective per‐ ception of text difficulty was also compared depending on whether or not it was a student’s B-language. In doing so, no considerable difference was found be‐ tween the P6 sub-groups, for both of which the median assessment was within the “rather high” category. In the PT7 group, there appeared to be only a small difference, with the majority of the English-B-language subjects considering the text’s difficulty to be “rather low”, whereas the English-C-language subjects’ median assessment was between the categories “rather low” and “rather high”. This slight tendency was not reflected, however, in either the product or the process data analyzed before. Thus, subjects in the PT7 group with English as a Band C-language made an almost identical number of errors (25.3 and 25.4, respectively), while the English C-language subjects had considerably fewer ITPs (20.5 as compared to 29.4). 302 8 Translation Problems <?page no="303"?> 8.2.5 Discussion of Findings In order to briefly summarize all the findings of this section, Table 15 provides an overview of the results concerning the total number of ITPs, and Table 16 summarizes the findings in terms of the different types of problems. T4 P4 P6 PT7 ⌀ ITPs 38.2 21.7 31.0 25.4 % returns to ITPs 12% 11% 12% 8% ⌀ ITPs/ 10 min. 6.8 4.1 4.9 4.1 % ITPs solved 69% 60% 64% 60% % errors without ITPs (approxi‐ mate) ~70% ~80% ~69% ~74% Table 15: Results concerning the total number of ITPs There were considerable differences between the two groups of fifth-semester students, one of which had had an exclusively practical training and the other had had an exclusively theoretical training. Starting with the T4 group, the group of fifth-semester university students who had had only theoretical training, it was found that their translation processes, although not exception‐ ally long, included a high number of ITPs. In fact, this group had the highest number of ITPs in the data sample. From their high number of ITPs per ten mi‐ nutes, it was concluded that the T4 subjects devoted, on average, less time than the other groups to solving translation problems. The alternative explanation - that they were considerably quicker in translating unproblematic passages - seems rather unlikely since this group had never had any practical training and thus had not had an opportunity to develop translation routines. Assuming that the theoretically trained students required less time for problem-solving, I pro‐ pose two possible explanations: (1) these subjects were more aware of the task’s requirements and thus decided on a viable translation rather confidently or (2) they tended to solve problems rather quickly on a purely linguistic level - e.g., by looking up words in the dictionary and having a less reflective approach to adopting a solution. An in-depth analysis of some text segments in the next part of this chapter will show whether this group had a reflective, communicative or rather a linguistic approach to the text in general. The group showed a certain ability to solve the problems that arose during translation (high number of solved 303 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="304"?> 10 ⌀ for all groups taken together: 41 look-ups; ⌀ for P4: 38 look-ups ITPs). They were, in fact, the most successful group in the data sample with regard to problem-solving, although the differences between the groups were rather small. A word of caution is necessary, however: the possibility cannot be excluded that the T4 subjects experienced problems that no longer arose for the practically trained subjects, but were rather easy to solve even if they had not been automatized, e.g., by using external resources, which would correspond well with the fact that the group made extensive use of external research (⌀ 49 look-ups 10 ). This group made, all in all, fewer errors than the P4 group in unre‐ flective segments (percentage of errors without ITPs), i.e., segments that did not trigger an ITP. This result was obviously related to their high overall number of ITPs, indicating that many more segments triggered some sort of problem-solving process. It can thus be assumed that the P4 subjects’ tendency to extensively use dictionaries might have saved them from making some errors in the final product, whereas the P4 group trusted their internal knowledge and their acquired translation competence much more - which, however, did not always lead to adequate solutions. Taken together, these findings indicate that the group without any practical training was the one that experienced the most ITPs and was also the group that was most effective in solving them. With regard to the types of ITPs, the T4 group had a rather high number of transfer and production problems in both absolute numbers and percentages. For the high number of transfer problems, there are two plausible explanations, both of which are very much in line with the two explanations for the high number of ITPs in general. First, it seems plausible that the ability to transfer information from one language to another might be closely tied to practical experience, which could explain why the T4 group had considerably more transfer problems than the practically trained groups. Thus, the P4 subjects seem either to have had difficulties generating potential translations themselves and/ or to have not been self-confident about the translations they came up with (many transfer problems, high average use of external resources). As I will argue below when discussing the P6 group, the high number of transfer problems could, however, also reflect a rather successful strategy to generate potential translation solutions, which were then evaluated and selected on the basis of the subjects’ awareness of the criteria that the translation had to fulfill. Unlike the practically trained subjects, the subjects in this group had more problems producing the target text (high number of PPs). On the one hand, this could have been due to a heightened awareness of the communicative function of the trans‐ lation and of the needs of the TT readers - and hence to a stronger focus on TT 304 8 Translation Problems <?page no="305"?> production. Such awareness could be related to theoretical training, especially training in functional theories. On the other hand, a high number of production problems might simply indicate that students with less practice in translation had a harder time producing a translation, e.g., because they struggled more with finding appropriate collocations or were uncertain about punctuation rules. The practically trained fifth-semester students (P4 group) tended to translate quickly and in a rather routinized manner (few ITPs, few ITPs/ ten minutes), but seemed to lack awareness as to when their internal competences - be they lin‐ guistic or otherwise - were not sufficient to provide an adequate translation. Thus, the P4 subjects tended rather to adopt translations that were inadequate without even being aware that (and thus why) their translations might not be successful (percentage of errors without ITPs, high number of errors). This could indicate that there was a lack of awareness on the part of the practically trained fifth-semester students regarding task-inherent translation problems and/ or re‐ garding their own competence. It might also have been linked to a general lack of awareness regarding the communicative function that the translation had to fulfil. This aspect will be investigated in more detail in the next part of this chapter, when task-inherent translation problems are discussed. All in all, how‐ ever, it appears that the students who had had four semesters of practical training had not yet developed an awareness as to when they could rely on their internal competence and when their translations would benefit from the use of external resources. Regarding the types of ITPs, the practically trained fifth-semester students in the P4 group had rather more comprehension problems than transfer and pro‐ duction problems. This was due, however, to the fact that they had few transfer and production problems rather than that they had a high number of compre‐ hension problems since in absolute terms they had roughly the same number of comprehension problems as the other groups. This might confirm the impres‐ sion that the group tended to “type down” their translations, stopping mainly when comprehension problems arose, but without too much awareness of when their transfer processes or production processes were inadequate and would have benefited from considerations of the TT function and external research. To summarize all of the above, the comparison of the T4 and P4 groups shows that only the practically trained subjects seem to have developed a certain rou‐ tine that helped them generate potential translations without major hesitation and with less reliance on external resources (⌀ 38 look-ups). However, it seems that they were lacking the awareness they would need in order to recognize when they were running the risk of producing inadequate translations. The 305 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="306"?> 11 Percentages refer to first-occurring ITPs only, returns to previous problems were ex‐ cluded. theoretically trained group showed the opposite tendency: they do not seem to have developed routines and probably had difficulty producing translation sol‐ utions without the help of external research. In their case, however, many of the results of the ITP analysis indicate either a well-developed awareness of the translation’s communicative intention and thus a very reflective behavior with regard to this intention (high number of solved ITPs, percentage of errors without ITPs, high number of PPs) or quite basic problems that were solved quickly with recourse to a dictionary and thus a rather linguistic approach that lacked such awareness. Which of these interpretations is more likely will become clearer when task-inherent translation problems are analyzed in section 8.2.6. T4 P4 P6 PT7 Types CP TP PP CP TP PP CP TP PP CP TP PP % 34% 40% 26% 55% 31% 15% 46% 35% 19% 43% 28% 29% ⌀ 13.0 15.4 9.8 11.8 6.7 3.2 14.2 11.0 5.8 11.0 7.1 7.3 %solved 11 66% 65% 81% 63% 58% 54% 64% 67% 56% 62% 59% 59% Table 16: Results concerning the types of ITPs The P6 subjects were at the end of their program and thus at a high point in their intensive practical training. Interestingly, their process data were some‐ what similar to those of the fifth-semester students who had had no practical training (T4), but completely different from those of the practically trained fifth-semester students in the same program (P4). The P6 group had a rather high number of ITPs, although not as high as that of the T4 group without prac‐ tical experience. The P6 group had a slightly higher ITP/ ten minutes ratio than the other practically trained groups, possibly indicating that they were able to deal with their problems faster and in a more self-confident manner - or, as I will also suggest below, because of a different strategy for generating tentative translations. Regarding the types of ITPs, the P6 students experienced more transfer prob‐ lems than the other practically trained groups. Since this group had a great deal of practical experience, a lack of routine does not seem to be a satisfactory ex‐ planation for this relatively high number of transfer problems, however. Instead, 306 8 Translation Problems <?page no="307"?> 12 ⌀ for all groups: 41 look-ups the group tended to use external resources rather frequently (⌀ = 49 look-ups 12 ), which leads to the assumption that the students in this group either were not very self-confident with regard to the translation solutions they came up with and thus preferred to double-check them or that they used external research to generate a number of tentative translations. This strategy could have had the advantage of reducing the cognitive effort needed in order to generate more than one translation equivalent, while at the same time providing the students with a larger pool of tentative solutions to choose from. This strategy might also have been used when the subjects had already come up with an idea about how to transfer the segment into the TL. All in all, the P6 subjects’ data - from the high number of transfer problems to the high number of look-ups in external resources - were rather similar to those of the T4 subjects. On the basis of the ITP analysis, it is possible to assume - although it cannot be proven - that the two groups had similar results for different reasons. While it seems likely that the less experienced T4 students had difficulties with the transfer into another language in general, the P6 students might have been well able to cope with the text without much external research. They might rather have used it “because they could” in this research setting and because it allowed them to double-check their translations and thus be “on the safe side”. Whether this assumption is true, however, can only become clear in a research setting in which subjects do not have access to external resources - or at least not to online resources. As was to be expected, the use of online resources was much more popular among the subjects than print dictionaries. This was probably because the use of these resources was very easy since the students were already working at a computer - possibly easier than coming up with tentative translation solutions on their own. Using a print dictionary, on the other hand, might have been much more time-consuming and, therefore, something to be avoided if not absolutely nec‐ essary for either ST comprehension or transfer to the TL. In this case, the strategy of using external resources for generating tentative translations - if such a strategy existed - might have been dropped. Of all the comparison groups, the PT7 subjects had had the highest level of formal translator training, being in their seventh semester and having had both intensive practical as well as theoretical training. This group’s performance was in the midrange for many of the analyzed indicators. Thus, the PT7 group en‐ countered rather few ITPs and seems to have taken rather more time to solve them (few ITPs/ ten minutes). The PT7 students showed a slightly lesser tendency to return to previous ITPs (returns to ITPs) than the other groups, which might 307 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="308"?> indicate more self-confidence in their adopted solutions. However, this group was slightly less successful in solving its ITPs than the P6 group, which had had only practical training. Like all the others, the PT7 group made the majority of its errors in segments that were not subject to extended decision-making (per‐ centage of errors without ITPs). Although this was not the case to the same extent as in the P4 group, it might nevertheless suggest that this group, too, was un‐ aware of gaps in its knowledge. This suggestion might be corroborated by the fact that the PT7 subjects were the students who least recurred to external re‐ search (low average use of external resources - ⌀ 30 look-ups). All in all, this group exhibited tendencies similar to those in the less advanced P4 group, which had had only practical training. Despite their intensive practical and additional the‐ oretical training, the PT7 subjects may, accordingly, have lacked awareness of the communicative situation of the TT and/ or of the fact that their internal knowledge was insufficient in some cases and that external research was re‐ quired. Regarding the types of ITPs, the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, had a considerably higher percentage of production prob‐ lems than the two groups that had had only practical training. It also had a higher percentage of such problems than the T4 group, which had not had any trans‐ lation practice. I hypothesized above that the high percentage of production problems might have been related to theoretical training since a focus on the TT is an important feature of functional translation theories. I also suggested, however, that it could have been related instead to a lack of practice in text production, which cannot be excluded for the PT7 group since this group had not had any practical translation classes for the ten months prior to data col‐ lection. This group solved its translation problems fairly consistently at a rate of close to 60 % for all types of ITPs, being slightly more successful in solving comprehension problems than transfer problems and production problems. This not particularly high percentage of adequately solved problems might indicate that the group was not aware of the criteria the TT had to fulfill - a feature that one would expect to have been aided by training in functionalist theories. Regarding the advanced groups P6 and PT7, general conclusions as to how theory or practice could have influenced the subjects’ behavior are difficult to draw. This difficulty might be explained by the fact that these groups were much closer to one another in terms of previous training since both had had six se‐ mesters of intensive practical training and differed only in that the PT7 group had had one additional semester of theoretical input. The two groups tended to be midrange in their results, situated usually between the two extremes set by the fifth-semester students. There was, however, one aspect in which the two 308 8 Translation Problems <?page no="309"?> groups performed quite differently: the number of production problems was considerably higher for the group with theoretical training than for the practi‐ cally trained group. The same difference was also found to exist between the two groups of fifth-semester students, whose stronger focus on target text pro‐ duction might reflect a heightened awareness of the functional aspects of trans‐ lation as a result of theoretical training. The analysis of a selection of task-in‐ herent translation problems will help determine whether the theoretically trained subjects actually showed more awareness of functional aspects such as pragmatic adaptation. 8.2.6 Methodological Reflections on Data Collection for ITP-Analysis Since the subjects with the smallest number of ITPs (DAS, MER, MAK, SIR and SIV) were all found to have some difficulty in thinking aloud, it is possible that the number of ITPs registered in the data depended on the subjects’ ability to verbalize rather than on their translation competence. The actual number of translation problems might have been higher than it appears from the TAPs, but have gone unnoticed since the subjects tended to remain silent during deci‐ sion-making processes. Triangulating the think-aloud data with screen-re‐ cording and participant observations ensured, however, that problem identifi‐ cation was not only dependent on verbal data; it was also based on instances of external research. A comparison of the number of look-ups conducted by all the subjects reveals that the five above-mentioned subjects were in fact the ones who used external resources least often. They conducted between 11 and 22 look-ups, whereas the mean figure for all participants was 41. The use of external resources is an objective measure that is independent of the subjects’ ability to think aloud and was included precisely in order to reduce the dependency on the subjects’ verbalization. This triangulation payed off, as can be seen in the case of other subjects who also had difficulty in thinking aloud - for example AYA, who, despite a rather short task duration (42 minutes) and rather incom‐ plete verbalizing, was not among the subjects with the lowest number of prob‐ lems. The fact that the “use of external resources” was found to be the most productive indicator of all and was present in 683 of the 860 identified ITPs (79 %) indicates that the small number of problems identified with the above-mentioned five subjects was not due to their bad verbalizing, although it cannot be excluded that, in the case of bad verbalizers, ITPs went unnoticed if only internal resources were used. 309 8.2 Analyzing Individual Translation Problems (ITPs) <?page no="310"?> In order to get an idea as to whether the five subjects relied mainly on internal resources, the overall time that they took was compared since the time required for a translation task is generally considered to be an indicator of cognitive effort (see 3.3). This comparison showed that the five subjects who made relatively few errors required less than the average of 60 minutes for the translation. The subjects DAS and MER were the fastest in the whole data sample, taking 17 and 34 minutes, respectively. SIR (48 minutes) and SIV (53 minutes) also completed their translations faster than average. Subject MAK took 60 minutes for the translation task, which corresponds to the average time requirement for all sub‐ jects. Therefore, it is likely that subject MAK, and possibly also subjects SIV and SIR, had a tendency to solve problems internally, which did not become visible in the TAPs because of their difficulty in thinking aloud. One reason for the shorter task duration observed among the “bad verbalizers” might be that they were not slowed down by the think-aloud requirement as much as the “good verbalizers” were (see 5.3.1). For most of the “bad verbalizers”, however, it can be assumed that the short task duration in combination with a small number of look-ups indicates that the subjects did, in fact, experience fewer ITPs than most of their fellow students. Nevertheless, it could be beneficial for further research to triangulate the TA/ screen-recording data with measurements of other data sources that are independent of verbalizing but, at the same time, can indicate internal problem-solving processes such as data from key-logging and eye-tracking. 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) Task-inherent translation problems can be categorized in different ways. For their data analysis, PACTE (2011a: 326), for example, developed a classification of “prototypical translation problems” that they consider to be the ones “most frequently encountered by professional translators”. This definition does not distinguish between task-inherent and individual translation problems, but fo‐ cuses rather on inter-individual translation problems. Thus, many of PACTE’s categories explicitly refer to comprehension difficulties that are not considered “task-inherent translation problems” in the present study. Nevertheless, it is helpful to consider PACTE’s different categories of prototypical translation problems since they were developed with a view to determining which ST seg‐ ments constitute such prototypical translation problems prior to any actual translation process (2011a: 327). PACTE distinguish five categories of translation problems: linguistic, textual, extra-linguistic, intentionality and the translation 310 8 Translation Problems <?page no="311"?> 13 “What should go on in translators’ minds” (my translation) 14 da „die Sensibilisierung für funktionsrelevante Übersetzungsprobleme bereits viele Übersetzungsfehler vermeiden hilft, die nicht deshalb begangen werden, weil man das betreffende Übersetzungsproblem nicht lösen konnte, sondern weil man überhaupt nicht erkannt hat, daß hier ein Übersetzungsproblem vorlag”. brief/ TT reader. Their linguistic translation problems refer to non-specialized lexis and morphosyntax, whereas the category of textual problems includes higher-level linguistic aspects such as coherence and cohesion but also text-type conventions. Furthermore, PACTE’s problems of intentionality regroup all “dif‐ ficult[ies] in understanding information in the source text” e.g., because of im‐ plicature, presuppositions or speech acts. PACTE’s last two categories are extra-linguistic problems, which refer to all cultural, domain-specific and en‐ cyclopedic knowledge as well as translation problems related to the translation brief and/ or the intended audience. As PACTE (2011a: 327) point out, these prob‐ lems are understood within the functional paradigm to affect all other transla‐ tion problems in a given task. Nord (1987), on the other hand, has proposed a didactic classification as is clear from her article’s subtitle “Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgehen sollte”. 13 Thus, Nord is convinced that raising students’ awareness of different types of translation problems during translator training is of paramount im‐ portance since it helps students avoid translation errors that “are not made be‐ cause the translator was not able to solve the problem, but because he did not realize that there was a problem in the first place” 14 (1998: 353; my translation). Nord (e.g., 1987, 2001) distinguishes four different types of objective translation problems: pragmatic translation problems, convention-related translation prob‐ lems, linguistic translation problems and text-specific translation problems. Pragmatic translation problems, in her classification, arise from differences between the communicative situation of the source text and the communicative situation for which the target text is intended. They are thus related to extra-tex‐ tual factors, such as the function of the text, the time and place of reception, the audience and the knowledge that the audience can (not) be expected to have (1997: 65). Nord (2001: 167) points out that ignoring this type of translation problem can seriously hinder communication or lead to the misinformation of the TT receiver. This becomes immediately clear with a typical example of a pragmatic translation problem: whenever personal, geographical or temporal deictica are used within a source text, they have the communicative situation in which the ST is embedded as their deictic center. Since the deictic center of the translation is likely to differ from that of the ST, all deictica need to be adapted accordingly. Convention-related translation problems, which Nord also 311 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="312"?> terms culture-specific translation problems in earlier publications (e.g., 1987, 1993: 209, 1997: 66), are due to different “norms and conventions guiding verbal and non-verbal behavior in the two cultures involved” (1997: 66). She under‐ stands this to refer to all sorts of norms, ranging from text-type conventions to norms of style (noun constructions vs. verb constructions) and norms of trans‐ lation (2001: 169-190). Linguistic translation problems (2001: 191-214) relate to lexis and syntax as well as to supra-segmental features of language. They are language-pair-specific and thus belong to the field of contrastive linguistics. Regarding lexis, linguistic translation problems can be caused by differences in the structure of semantic fields (synonyms, antonyms, hyperonyms, etc.) but also by differences in the semantic content of related words (false friends). The different use of certain parts of speech such as the article, for example, also counts as a lexical translation problem. Syntactic problems arise from differ‐ ences in the use of syntactic structures. Last but not least, text-specific transla‐ tion problems are all intended or unintended deviances from norms and con‐ ventions, i.e., they are the peculiarities of the source text (2001: 215-219). These text-specific translation problems can arise in a variety of fields: particular lan‐ guage use (e.g., creative language use like neologisms, metaphors or puns), de‐ viances from stylistic norms, involuntary incoherence of the text, wrong content and breaches of layout conventions are just a few examples of text-specific translation problems. Contrary to convention-related and linguistic translation problems, text-specific translation problems have no generalizable solutions. What is a very good solution for a given ST might be utterly inadequate in any other translation task. Nord (2001) thus provides a classification with a restricted number of categories that also respects the distinction between ITPs and TTPs adopted for the present study, which is why it was used as a basis for defining TTPs in the selected translation task. 8.3.1 Selecting TTPs in the Source Text “Yellow peril, red alert” From the ST “Yellow peril, red alert”, a number of pragmatic, linguistic and text-specific translation problems were selected. Many of these could have been assigned, however, to more than one category since, for example, a text-specific TTP such as “psychological environment” does not only depend on the text alone but also on the intended readership, which could also classify it as a prag‐ matic translation problem. Thus the boundaries between these categories are fuzzy, and TTPs often combine aspects of different categories (Nord 1993: 209; PACTE 2011a: 317). A thorough analysis of the chosen source text revealed that the text presents a number of pragmatic, linguistic and text-specific TTPs but 312 8 Translation Problems <?page no="313"?> not any major convention-related translation problems. TTP analysis was thus limited to these first three categories of Nord’s classification. A word of caution is needed before discussing the selected TTPs: it is impos‐ sible and certainly not desirable within a functional framework to prescribe any solutions, nor is it generally necessary in every translation task to provide the best possible translation but merely one that functions for the intended audience in the given communicative situation that is set by the translation brief. Nev‐ ertheless, it is important to consider the selected TTPs when the translation brief requires that the translator deliver a translation that is ready for the press. However, not all the selected TTPs are equally detrimental when ignored. Whereas ignoring some of them would, in fact, result in a misinformation of the reader, others have a less serious impact on the text function, e.g., by changing the style of the text in some regard. In the following, the TTPs will be presented without the context of the sentence. The entire source text is available in the annexes (12.2.1). Pragmatic TTPs The text “Yellow peril, red alert” presents a number of pragmatic translation problems with supposedly different degrees of difficulty for students of trans‐ lation: - “1981” The first and supposedly most difficult pragmatic translation problem was not directly related to a text segment. Rather it had to be inferred by the subjects from the translation brief, which specified the ST’s date of pub‐ lication. The text “Yellow peril, red alert” was originally published in 1981 in the British magazine “Now”. Recognition of the problem was rather difficult since there was no mention of the year in the text itself, nor was there any use of temporal deictica or any other hint that might have trig‐ gered awareness of the problem. The subjects thus had to infer from the date of the original publication that temporal pragmatic problems could arise in the text. And, in fact, ignoring the temporal aspect in this text led to a serious misinformation of the reader: if published in a current issue of a German magazine without any indication that the debate about painting phone boxes in Britain yellow had taken place in 1981, the reader would have inferred that the information was recent and would thus have been misinformed. - “our telephone boxes” In the original text, reference to British telephone boxes was established by the use of the possessive pronoun “our”. Since the TT communication 313 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="314"?> was situated within a German context, using a literal translation of the possessive pronoun would have led to an incorrect reference to German telephone boxes. Although this type of adaptation of deictic expressions can be considered a rather basic pragmatic TTP, subjects still had to decide whether to make the reference explicit (e.g., mention that the phone boxes in question were in Britain) or adopt a more general formulation like “the telephone boxes”. In the present context, however, the original text made no reference to Britain before the segment in question, except for men‐ tioning British Telecom. In this particular case, it would thus have been preferable for the subjects to explicitate the reference since the name of a company does not necessarily permit conclusions as to the countries in which it operates. - “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press” In the same vein, “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press” referred to the British public, MPs and Press. Although not explicitating Britain in this segment of the text would most likely not lead to a serious misun‐ derstanding since Britain had already been introduced before (if the sub‐ ject decided to explicitate the reference of the possessive pronoun “our” in his or her translation), it would, nevertheless, improve the cohesion of the text to state again where the events took place and possibly also re‐ mind the reader that it had happened some time ago. Linguistic TTPs Concerning linguistic TTPs, two lexical problems were selected: - “chemicals” The first linguistic TTP concerned the noun “chemicals“ which, in this context, referred to semiochemicals, which are produced in the human body. The related German term “Chemikalie”, which is an adequate trans‐ lation when industrially produced chemicals are referred to, could not have been used in this context. Thus, the subjects had to recognize the one-to-many relation between the English noun “chemicals” and the dif‐ ferent German lexemes. The most general expression that avoids the pit‐ fall of referring to industrially produced chemicals is “chemische Stoffe”. This term can be used to refer to all sorts of chemicals, industrially pro‐ duced or not. It would thus have been a good choice since it would have minimized the risk of producing a factual error in that it is rather vague, which, however, would have sufficed in the present context. A technically correct and still rather general term would have been “Botenstoffe”, which is adequate also for a wide public. More specific terms, like “Transmitter” 314 8 Translation Problems <?page no="315"?> 15 A google search provided approximately 86,000 results for “psychological environ‐ ment”, but only a few hundred for “psychologische Umgebung” and “psychologisches Umfeld” (accessed 04/ 10/ 2016). and “Neurotransmitter” would not have been adequate choices in the present text since they could not have been used without an explanation. Adding an explanation, however, would not have conformed to the style and scope of the text in which no details of the chemical processes were provided and the focus was rather on the result, i.e., the fact that color could have an impact. - “psychological environment” The TTP “psychological environment” posed a different problem since it is a technical term from the field of psychology. Although calques of the term are sometimes used in German (e.g., “psychologisches Umfeld” and “psychologische Umgebung”), their use seems to be much less frequent than in English. 15 We can thus not expect a German audience (except for an audience of psychologists) to understand this technical term. Further‐ more, inferring what is meant by “psychologisches Umfeld” might be dif‐ ficult for non-experts since it is not clear whether the term refers to people (as in “social environment”), to the environment in general or simply to our mental state. Independently of this, however, is the question of whether such a technical term is adequate for this specific text at all. Thus, considering the text genre that was to be produced and the intended au‐ dience, it would have been advisable for the translator to reduce the com‐ plexity of the text by paraphrasing the semantic content, i.e., by explic‐ itating that colors can improve our psychological well-being. Text-specific TTPs - “go white or see red” The TTP “go white or see red” posed a text-specific problem in that the use of the metaphors allowed the writer to include color names and thus to take up the main subject of the text once more. The function of “go white or see red” was first of all a rhetorical one. To preserve the rhetorical style, the translation would also have had to take up the text’s main sub‐ ject - within this segment if possible or by compensating for it in another text segment. The segment, however, was well suited for the inclusion of color terms in German as well since similar metaphors including the same colors exist in German. Thus, in both languages the metaphors “to see red” and “rotsehen” indicate extreme anger. White, on the other hand, 315 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="316"?> 16 e.g., “weiß wie die Wand”, “kreideweiß”, “käseweiß” 17 e.g., “kreidebleich”, “leichenblass” equally relates to fear in both English and German. However, in addition to metaphorical expressions that include the color white 16 there are also several other expressions in German that are equally emotional and col‐ loquial but have “bleich” or “blass” 17 (i.e., “pale”) as a root and, therefore, do not include the color name literally. Besides, “blass werden” is more frequently used than “weiß werden”, making it a more likely translation in other contexts. Thus, awareness of the rhetorical function of the ST segment “go white or see red” was required on the part of the translator to produce a translation that fulfilled the same rhetorical function. - “committee meeting” For the term “committee meeting”, too, the function within the specific context in which it figured in the ST was more important than the exact semantic meaning. Thus, within the scope of the enumeration of exam‐ ples, the focus was not so much on one specific kind of meeting but rather on the fact that colors can shorten meetings in general. Thus, a translation with “Ausschusssitzung” would have been too specific. In the present con‐ text, it would have been more adequate to start the enumeration with a rather general term such as “Meeting” or “Besprechung”, in order to permit a gradual progression towards the climax at the end of the sentence. 8.3.2 Indicators Related to TTPs With regard to the task-inherent translation problems (TTPs), it was decided to combine an analysis of the process and product data in order to analyze the subjects’ awareness of the respective translation problems presented by the translation task and their ability to find adequate solutions to them. Thus, for each of the selected TTPs, the subjects’ think-aloud protocols (TAPs) were analyzed in order to determine their awareness of task-inherent translation problems. Awareness can be considered the prerequisite for gen‐ erating informed solutions that are adequate in the specific context of commu‐ nication. Thus, in her didactic approach, Nord (1987: 5) considers aware‐ ness-raising with regard to task-inherent translation problems to be one of the most important aspects of translator training. To analyze the subjects’ aware‐ ness, their TAPs were scrutinized for explicit verbalizations of the problem in question. It was not counted as an indicator of awareness, however, if subjects came up with an adequate translation without any justification or reflection. 316 8 Translation Problems <?page no="317"?> This decision has been made since adequate results may also be produced when subjects are unaware of the criteria, e.g., as a result of successful guessing. Thus, Göpferich (2010a: 176) attributes the comparable ability of her professional and student subjects to find adequate solutions to their (individual) translation prob‐ lems to mere guessing on the part of the latter. Whether adequate results can be achieved without awareness of the underlying TTP depends on whether a literal translation yields adequate results or not. It has been suggested that literal translation is the default procedure in translation, not only for novices but also for experienced translators (Tirkkonen-Condit 2005: 407-408). This assumption, which goes back to Ivir (1981: 58), is known in translation studies as the “literal translation hypothesis” (e.g., Chesterman 2011a) or the “monitor model (hy‐ pothesis)” (e.g., Toury 1995: 191; Tirkkonen-Condit 2005). According to the mon‐ itor model, a cognitive monitor constantly evaluates the emerging translation. Literal translation processes are interrupted only if the monitor detects an in‐ adequacy. Conscious problem-solving is then triggered in order to produce an adequate translation (Tirkkonen-Condit 2005: 407-408). This literal translation hypothesis has been corroborated by some empirical evidence (e.g., Tirk‐ konen-Condit 2005; Carl & Dragsted 2012: 143; see also Chesterman 2011a, who discusses findings by Englund Dimitrova 2005 and Nordman 2009 in light of the literal translation hypothesis). On the basis of the literal translation hypothesis, it can be assumed that segments for which a literal translation provides adequate results can be successfully solved without any awareness of the TTP (e.g., the text-specific TTP “go white or see red”; see 8.3.1). Adequate solutions to TTPs that require deviating from the original wording, on the other hand, are more likely to be solved because the subjects are aware of the implications of the TTP. From this it follows that the indicator “awareness of task-inherent trans‐ lation problems” is based on explicit statements showing awareness and/ or conscious problem-solving. It was considered to be an indicator of awareness if the subjects - mentioned the TTP explicitly - mentioned the criteria that the TT needs to fulfill (see 8.3.1) - justified their solutions in terms of these criteria - showed a problem-solving process (i.e. the TTP was also an ITP for the student; except for ITPs exclusively concerning comprehension) that was concluded by demonstrably (on the basis of the TAPs) drawing an ade‐ quate conclusion. The next step was to analyze the subjects’ ability to solve task-inherent translation problems. For this analysis, the product data were used. Task-in‐ 317 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="318"?> herent translation problems are considered to have been solved if an adequate translation of the problem in question has been provided. Therefore, the error analysis presented in chapter 7 was used as a basis. However, only errors directly related to the problem in question were considered. Grammatical errors made in the segment, such as a wrong case or tense, as well as errors in orthography were not considered in this analysis. I believe that these errors are not directly related to the task-inherent translation problem since they are not dependent on the awareness of the TTP and could have occurred in other text segments as well. For the analysis of translation problems, the focus was therefore placed exclusively on the errors related to an inability to spot and/ or solve the selected TTPs. To this end, adequate translations, i.e., those that are acceptable in every respect, were distinguished from semi-adequate translations. For my purposes, I understand semi-adequate translations to be those in which the specific problem of the TTP was apparently recognized and translated accordingly (e.g., the subject used a color name in the translation of the TTP “go white or see red”), but the translation did not fulfill the requirements of the TT, i.e., was not acceptable for reasons other than ignoring the rhetorical function. One example is the translation provided by subject DIK (DIK_TT, line 9) for the above-men‐ tioned TTP: “malte Gimbel zwar die Zukunft nicht schwarz”. Here, the subject’s translation fulfilled the rhetorical function of the ST segment to perfection - the semantic content, however, contradicted the rest of sentence: since Gimbel warns that painting phone boxes yellow might result in their being vandalized, he is “painting a bleak picture”. I thus differentiate between adequate solutions and semi-adequate solutions that indicate that a subject was aware of the TTP and took account of this awareness in the translation provided, although this translation was not (fully) adequate in other respects. 8.3.3 Findings In the following section, the task-inherent translation problems - i.e., the text segments that have been selected for in-depth analysis - will be considered one at a time. For each of these segments, the subjects’ awareness of the TTP as well as their ability to solve it adequately will be analyzed in turn. This section thus makes it possible to relate findings from process analysis to findings from product evaluation for a selected number of ST segments that can be objectively considered to require a certain kind of reflection and awareness on the trans‐ lator’s part if they are to be translated adequately for the intended function of the target text. As in the previous chapter, the data are complete for all subjects with no missing values. The number of subjects will thus not be explicitly men‐ 318 8 Translation Problems <?page no="319"?> tioned for every single analysis as this will invariably be five subjects in T4, six subjects in P4, ten subjects in P6 and nine subjects in PT7. 8.3.3.1 Pragmatic Translation Problems 8.3.3.1.1 “1981” Figure 66: Awareness of translation brief The large time gap between the publication of the original and that of the trans‐ lation is a considerable translation problem, for which the subjects might or might not have developed routines through their training. First of all, in order to be able to tackle this TTP, the subjects needed to be aware of the translation brief, awareness of which can be considered a prerequisite for all functional translation in general. Therefore, the TAPs were analyzed for all signs about whether or not subjects had taken notice of the translation brief they had been given. These signs included reading the translation brief out aloud or referring to it during the translation, e.g., by mentioning that the intended audience 319 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="320"?> consisted of readers of the German magazine “Brigitte” or that the text was very old. Considerable differences were found in the subjects’ awareness of the translation brief in general, at least insofar as this awareness was accessible via their verbalizations. Thus, at least 60 % of the subjects in the groups with prac‐ tical experience (P4, P6 and PT7) mentioned the translation brief at least once, whereas only 20 % of the subjects without practical experience seemed to take notice of the translation brief. It should be noted, however, that subjects might have read the translation brief and the ST silently, so that there was no trace of their referring to it in the think-aloud protocols. Even if this was the case, these subjects did not make any traceable reference to the translation brief during their translation process, i.e., obviously refer to it as a decisive factor in their decision-making. An explicit mentioning by the subjects of the year of publication of the ST was somewhat less frequent, with no such occurrences in the theoretically trained T4 group and between 50 % and 67 % in the three groups with practical training. Among these three groups, the fifth-semester students were the ones who most often mentioned the year of publication, whereas the P6 subjects showed the least awareness in this regard. The difference between the more advanced groups with and without theoretical training (PT7 and P6) was mar‐ ginal. Taking notice of the translation brief and the year of publication did not en‐ sure by any means that the subjects were also aware of the pragmatic implica‐ tions that came with it. Thus, although a large majority of the practically trained fifth-semester students (P4) demonstrably read the translation brief, and 67 % of this group noticed that the text was originally published in 1981, none showed any awareness that this could have been of importance for their translations of the text. The same is true for the theoretically trained students in the T4 group. As was noted above, however, a majority of the subjects in this group failed to acknowledge the translation brief at all. Awareness of the pragmatic consequences of the TTP “1981” was better de‐ veloped among the more advanced students, especially in the P6 group. Thus, 40 % of the P6 subjects were aware of the need to situate the text with regard to time. In the PT7 group, awareness of the text’s temporal pragmatics was much less developed, with only one subject (11 %) considering the implications of the fact that the ST had been written long before. 320 8 Translation Problems <?page no="321"?> Figure 67: Awareness and solution of TTP “1981” Awareness of the need for pragmatic explicitation did not guarantee an adequate solution, however, since only three of the four P6 subjects who showed an awareness of this TTP also produced a viable translation. The PT7 subject who was aware of the time gap did not provide a corresponding translation. From these findings, the question arises why the subjects did not produce adequate translations if they recognized the TTP “1981”. In the case of the P6 student (subject ANB), this was an informed decision: she reflected on whether she should write the whole text in the past tense and thus change the tense of many of the segments. She also considered inserting the date but was unsure whether the debate had taken place in 1981 or even earlier. She thus googled “yellow phone boxes”, but did not get any satisfactory results from her search, probably because she performed her search in German. Since she became aware of the TTP’s implication only after having translated the whole text, she then decided to leave it as it was and stated that she would ask the commissioner of the translation how she should deal with the problem, if it were a real-life situation (ANB_TAP, lines 200-202). The second subject who showed awareness of the 321 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="322"?> problem but did not provide an adequate solution was the PT7 subject GLD. GLD (GLD_TAP, lines 85-88) also considered using the past tense throughout the text. She then dismissed the idea, stating that she did not know whether the text was situated externally or not. However, she did not consider situating the text ex‐ ternally herself. Both subjects thus failed to take responsibility for the target text and, explicitly or implicitly, hoped that an external entity, i.e., the commis‐ sioner, would solve the problem. The other three P6 subjects who provided ad‐ equate translations produced them without any major hesitation, i.e., none of these subjects experienced an individual translation problem (ITP) with explic‐ itating the year of the event. The think-aloud data of P6 subject COS (COS_TAP, lines 33-34) showed an interesting parallel to the decision-making process of subject ANB (see above). COS, too, was aware that she did not know exactly when the Great Phone Box Debate had taken place, but unlike ANB she quickly and without hesitation opted for a more general formulation, indicating that the debate had taken place in the early eighties. She thus exhibited a well-developed ability to opt for a viable translation that fulfilled the communicative needs of the TT with regard to this specific TTP. Regarding the awareness of the pragmatic TTP “1981”, there were thus con‐ siderable differences between the comparison groups. Since the fifth-semester students did not show any sign of awareness, whether they had been trained practically or trained theoretically, it can be assumed that awareness of such a complex TTP comes only at a later stage in translation competence acquisi‐ tion. A rather large number of subjects who showed awareness of the TTP came from the P6 group and thus had been trained only practically. It should be noted, however, that all three P6 subjects who provided adequate solutions had had French as their first language and had studied at the same institute. They thus came from the same class and had had the exact same content taught by the same teachers. Since all three showed no hesitation in explicitating the infor‐ mation, it is possible that they might have had some training in situating trans‐ lations in accordance with the translation brief. Although this would be expected of all FAK subjects since translation briefs are an integral part of their final exams, apparently this competence was not equally trained throughout the FAK. Furthermore, while some subjects from other classes of P6 and PT7 subjects showed awareness of the TTP as well, they did not produce adequate transla‐ tions and hoped to transfer responsibility to the commissioner. 8.3.3.1.2 “our telephone boxes” In contrast to the TTP “1981”, which required a pragmatic adaptation that was not linked to one particular segment of the ST but referred to the entire com‐ 322 8 Translation Problems <?page no="323"?> municative situation, this TTP was linked to the pronoun “our”. Both the aware‐ ness of this kind of TTP and the ability to solve it were much better developed across all groups. Figure 68: Awareness and solution of TTP “our telephone boxes” Regarding the awareness of the TTP as measured by the criteria established in 8.3.2, 50 % of the P4 and 40 % of the T4 students were demonstrably aware of the TTP “our telephone boxes”. These students mentioned the need to make explicit the deictic reference and/ or the risk of producing a wrong reference when using the German pronoun “unsere”. In the P6 group, this was the case for 50 % of the subjects, whereas in the PT7 group the number was somewhat smaller, with 33 % of the subjects showing awareness of this TTP. Only a small number of subjects, however, produced translations that referred incorrectly to German telephone boxes. Thus, among the fifth-semester stu‐ dents, one subject in each of the groups, the practically trained P4 group (17 %) and the theoretically trained T4 group (20 %), chose the incorrect literal trans‐ lation with the German pronoun “unsere”. The remaining 83 % and 80 %, respec‐ 323 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="324"?> tively, either explicitated the reference to British telephone boxes or avoided such an explicitation by choosing more general expressions such as “die Tele‐ fonzellen”. Thus, 50 % of the subjects in the P4 group and 60 % in the T4 group chose a solution that avoided an explicit reference to British phone boxes. This solution left it to the reader to make the connection between the company name “British Telecom” and phone boxes in Britain. This was certainly a viable solu‐ tion if the text had been situated beforehand, e.g., by mentioning that the text was about Great Britain in the sub-headline as was done by the subject PAB (PAB_TT, line 6). In all the other cases, an explicitation seemed to be the better option here since, aside from the company name, no reference to Britain had been made earlier in the text. It is for this reason that solutions that avoid an explicitation will be referred to as “semi-adequate”. From the solutions provided by the two groups of fifth-semester students, it appears that the practically trained P4 subjects were somewhat more prepared to make the information explicit than the theoretically trained T4 subjects. Thus, in the P4 group, two of six subjects (33 %) explicitly referred to telephone boxes in Britain, whereas in the T4 group, only one of five subjects (20 %) did. In both groups, a majority of subjects opted for an avoidance strategy, whereas it seems that only a minority was unaware of the TTP altogether and made an incorrect reference. This was true regardless of whether the subjects had had theoretical classes or practical classes. There was, however, a slight tendency for the subjects with practical training to rely more on explicitation than the theoretically trained students did. In the more advanced groups, there was a considerable difference in the translations provided for this TTP. In the practically trained P6 group, only a minority of subjects (20 %) opted for an avoidance strategy, whereas 80 % decided to render the reference explicit. In this group, no subject referred incorrectly to German telephone boxes. In the PT7 group the distribution of translation solu‐ tions was more similar to that of the P4 group, however, with a majority of subjects (56 %) trying to avoid the problem and only 33 % explicitating the ref‐ erence. Although this was the group with the highest formal level of translator training, having had intensive practical training as well as theoretical training, there was still one subject who was unaware of the TTP and produced an un‐ acceptable translation by using the possessive pronoun “unsere”. Thus, re‐ garding this TTP as well, the practically trained P6 showed more awareness and a better ability to solve the TTP than the practically and theoretically trained group PT7. When comparing the subjects’ awareness of this TTP and their ability to solve it, it was found that all the subjects who mentioned awareness of the deictic reference in the ST avoided making an incorrect reference in the TT. This held 324 8 Translation Problems <?page no="325"?> true across all the comparison groups. Furthermore, a number of subjects who did not verbalize their awareness of the TTP also produced adequate or semi-ad‐ equate translations. Since this required deviating from a literal translation, we may assume that they, too, were aware of the need to adapt the deictic reference in some way. They might have automatized a strategy for solving this kind of TTP or considered it obvious and unproblematic and, therefore, did not verbalize any of their decision-making concerning this TTP. However, being aware of the pragmatic pitfalls of the deictic reference did not necessarily ensure awareness of more global criteria, i.e., of which strategy would best be adopted in the present case. This seems to be why many subjects avoided explicitly mentioning that the described events happened in Great Britain, although they had not in‐ troduced Great Britain earlier in the text. They thus appear to have followed a local error-avoiding strategy, rather than focusing on the communicative func‐ tion of the TT as a whole. 8.3.3.1.3 “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press” Figure 69: Awareness and solution of TTP “the public, MPs and the Press” 325 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="326"?> 18 See the sample translation (12.2.2) for one way of including this information. The third pragmatic TTP is similar to the one discussed above in that the trans‐ lation would benefit from explicitating information regarding the fact that the outrage concerned “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press” in Britain and possibly also from reminding the reader that this had happened a long time before. 18 While none of the subjects included the temporal aspect in the trans‐ lation of this segment, some showed awareness of the need for an explicitation regarding the place of the event. There was a large discrepancy between the groups of fifth-semester students in the handling of this TTP. Thus, none of the theoretically trained T4 students showed any signs of awareness regarding the implications for translation of the ST segment’s reference to Great Britain. This was clearly not due to automatized problem-solving for this kind of problem since none of the T4 subjects explici‐ tated the reference to the British public, MPs and Press. This was a huge contrast when compared to the P4 group, in which a majority of subjects provided at least a partial explicitation in the enumeration “the public, Members of Parlia‐ ment and the Press”. However, only one subject (17 %) verbalized his awareness in the think-aloud data. This same subject (SEP) is the only one in the whole data sample who explicitated both the public as well as the Members of Parlia‐ ment. Although SEP’s solution did not explicitly situate the Press as the Press in Great Britain, this seemed unnecessary after establishing the reference to Britain twice in this sentence. It was thus the only solution that was considered adequate (SEP_TT, lines 19-21). However, another 50 % of the P4 subjects expli‐ citated the “Members of Parliament”. There was thus a considerable difference between the practically trained and the theoretically trained groups of fifth-se‐ mester students: not only had a majority of the practically trained P4 students developed strategies for translating the proper names of political institutions, they also applied these strategies without any major conscious reflection - at least insofar as was traceable in their TAPs. However, this finding does not ensure an awareness of the wider TTP in this specific ST since only one subject appeared to be aware that the explicitation concerned more than just the Mem‐ bers of Parliament. Again, it seems that decision-making in the P4 was rather local than global. This is also apparent from the data of the more advanced students in the P6 and PT7 groups, in which not a single subject produced a translation in which the explicitation referred to the entire enumeration. Regarding the need for a partial explicitation, however, 40 % of the P6 subjects - but only 11 % of PT7 subjects - verbalized their awareness during the think-aloud session. The same 326 8 Translation Problems <?page no="327"?> difference between P6 and PT7 subjects was visible in their translation products. Thus, 60 % of the FAK subjects rendered the reference to Great Britain explicit for at least part of the enumeration, whereas only 22 % of the PT7 subjects did so. In the PT7 group, the explicitation concerned the “Members of Parliament” only, whereas in the P6 group, there was somewhat more variation in the trans‐ lations produced. Thus, one subject explicitated “the public” (ANZ_TT, line 14; “die Briten”), whereas in another case the explicitation referred to both “the Members of Parliament” and “the Press” (AND_TT, line 19). 8.3.3.1.4 Summary and Discussion of Pragmatic TTPs Figure 70: Awareness and solution of pragmatic TTPs A detailed analysis was provided of three segments that required an explicitation of the temporal or spatial references established in the ST or in which such an explicitation would at least have benefited the coherence of the produced TT. From the analysis of the subjects’ awareness of these pragmatic TTPs and from their ability to solve these problems, it appears that the three selected text seg‐ 327 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="328"?> ments differed considerably in their difficulty. Thus, the TTP “1981” seems to have been the most difficult, and awareness of this TTP was rather low, whereas the pragmatic TTP posed by the pronoun “our” seems to have been rather easy for most participants to spot. In terms of difficulty, the TTP “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press” seems to have been between these other two prag‐ matic TTPs. Figure 71: Adequate and semi-adequate solutions (pragmatic TTPs) Starting with a comparison of the fifth-semester students, there was a tendency for the P4 subjects to be slightly more aware of pragmatic TTPs than their T4 counterparts. Thus, P4 subjects mentioned, on average, an awareness of 0.7 of the three TTPs. There was, however, considerable variation within this group, with individual subjects verbalizing awareness of between zero and two TTPs (SD: 0.82). Awareness seems to have been somewhat lower in the T4 group, with subjects in this group mentioning, on average, 0.4 of the three TTPs. Variation was somewhat less pronounced in this group (SD: 0.55), with no subject showing awareness of more than one TTP. Regarding the ability to solve the pragmatic 328 8 Translation Problems <?page no="329"?> TTPs, the difference between the practically trained and the theoretically trained groups of fifth-semester students was even more pronounced. Thus, with an average of 1.5 adequate or semi-adequate solutions, the practically trained P4 students avoided the pitfalls posed by half the pragmatic TTPs ana‐ lyzed (SD: 0.45). The theoretically trained T4 students coped with these prag‐ matic TTPs less successfully and provided (semi-)adequate solutions for 0.8 of the three pragmatic TTPs (SD: 0.45). Furthermore, since 33 % of these solutions were adequate in the P4 group, as compared to 25 % in the T4 group, the prac‐ tically trained students also had the higher percentage of adequate as compared to semi-adequate translations (see Figure 71). Overall, the practically trained P4 students appeared to have a better ability to recognize and solve the pragmatic TTPs adequately. As we have seen in the discussion above, the difference between the two groups also depended on how difficult the pragmatic TTPs were. Thus, the dif‐ ference was only minor in the case of the least difficult pragmatic TTP “our”, but was clearly visible in the case of the pragmatic TTP “the public, Members of Parliament and the Press”. Concerning the most difficult TTP “1981”, however, none of the fifth-semester students showed any awareness of the problem or produced an adequate translation, so that we can assume that they had not yet developed the ability to tackle pragmatic TTPs of this level of difficulty. All in all, it seems that the fifth-semester students with practical training had devel‐ oped an ability to cope with pragmatic TTPs at a low and medium level of dif‐ ficulty, whereas, among the theoretically trained subjects, this ability seems to have been limited to pragmatic TTPs at a lower level of difficulty. While aware‐ ness-raising is often said to be one major advantage of theoretical training (see 4.2.3), the findings of the present study clearly show that it was the groups with only practical training that had a more highly developed awareness of the prob‐ lems. The P4 subjects were also more prepared than the T4 subjects to explicitate references in their translations. This indicates that a tendency for explicitation, which is considered to be a frequent feature of translation and possibly even a translation universal (Chesterman 2011b: 176-177), is developed through prac‐ tical training, repetition and feedback rather than through theoretical reflection on translation. A comparison of the more advanced students shows that there was a clear difference between the P6 and the PT7 groups. Thus, in all three pragmatic TTPs, the P6 subjects showed more awareness and produced a higher number of adequate translations than the PT7 subjects. Overall, the P6 subjects verbal‐ ized awareness of almost half the analyzed pragmatic TTPs (1.3 TTPs). There was, however, considerable within-group variation, with individual subjects 329 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="330"?> mentioning between zero and three pragmatic TTPs (SD: 0.95). Awareness in the PT7 group was much less developed, with only 0.6 pragmatic TTPs being mentioned on average (SD: 0.53). In this group, no subject verbalized awareness of more than one of the three pragmatic TTPs. Regarding the ability to produce (semi-)adequate translations, the difference was even more pronounced. Thus, the P6 subjects provided on average (semi-)adequate translations for 1.9 of the three TTPs (SD: 0.57), whereas this number was considerably smaller in the PT7 group, with 1.1 TTPs solved at least semi-adequately (SD: 0.60). In addition, the fact that more than half of the viable translations were adequate (58 %) and only 42 % were semi-adequate testifies to the P6 subjects’ ability to solve the prag‐ matic TTPs adequately. This tendency was reversed for the PT7 group, in which only 27 % of the viable translations provided were adequate, whereas 73 % were semi-adequate. Thus, when all four groups are compared, the PT7 subjects, i.e. the subjects with the highest formal level of translation training (including both practice and theory), performed only slightly better than the theoretically trained T4 subjects in terms of both the awareness and the ability to solve prag‐ matic TTPs. A comparison of the more advanced groups P6 and PT7 also indicates that practical training in tackling a specific type of TTP might be necessary if stu‐ dents are to develop strategies for their solution. Thus, the most difficult TTP “1981” could not be solved by all the subjects who were aware of it. Instead, only the subjects coming from one common background (same institute, same class) showed that they had routines at their disposal for solving this particular problem. The other subjects who were aware of the pragmatic implication of the TTP did not take any responsibility for the translation and hoped to “offload” the final decision onto their commissioner. This could be an indicator that awareness of a pragmatic TTP alone is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for guaranteeing that a viable translation is produced. Instead, translators seem to need to have strategies at hand that allow them to cope with such problems. These strategies apparently are developed neither through repeated translation practice - otherwise all subjects aware of the problem should have been able to solve it - nor through theory. It seems that guided practice and feedback on specific TTPs are required, which might be what the three subjects who solved the problem had been provided with. 330 8 Translation Problems <?page no="331"?> 8.3.3.2 Linguistic Translation Problems 8.3.3.2.1 “chemicals” When the TAPs of the subjects were analyzed, huge differences were found between the two groups of fifth-semester students regarding an awareness of the linguistic TTP “chemicals”. In the practically trained P4 group, 50 % of the subjects verbalized a certain hesitation with regard to using the German term “Chemikalien”. While one of these subjects then proceeded nonetheless to trans‐ late “chemicals” by “Chemikalien” (subject ESC), along with two other subjects who never questioned the adequacy of this solution, 50 % of the P4 subjects provided a less literal translation, which indicates that they tried to avoid using the inadequate translation “Chemikalien”, even though the chosen solutions were not adequate in all cases. Figure 72: Awareness and solution of TTP “chemicals” In the theoretically trained T4 group, no consideration of the TTP “chemicals” was found in the think-aloud data. Accordingly, a large majority (80 %) of the T4 subjects produced an unacceptable translation of this segment, probably due 331 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="332"?> to a lack of awareness of the inadequacy of the term “Chemikalien” in this con‐ text. One subject in this group, however, provided an adequate translation and thus probably was aware of the TTP in question. Thus, for this linguistic TTP, the practically trained P4 subjects showed greater awareness of the TTP as well as a better ability to avoid a literal translation, although this awareness did not necessarily ensure that an adequate translation would be provided. Among the more advanced students, both the P6 subjects and the PT7 subjects showed a certain awareness of the TTP “chemicals”. In the practically trained P6 group, this was true for 60 % of the subjects, who as a consequence all resorted to translations avoiding the term “Chemikalien”. Another subject also provided an adequate translation, despite not having verbalized any signs of awareness. However, three of the ten subjects in the practically trained P6 group (30 %) did not show any signs of awareness and thus translated “chemicals” with “Chem‐ ikalien”. Compared to the students in the P6 group, somewhat fewer PT7 subjects were aware of the TTP (44 %). Only in one case did this awareness not lead to an adequate translation. Thus, the PT7 subject DIK performed an internet search, but then stuck to “Chemikalien” for lack of a better solution - although she was aware that the translation was not ideal (DIK_TAP, lines 246-247). All in all, 66 % of the PT7 subjects avoided a translation with “Chemikalien”, with 44 % providing an adequate translation and 22 % providing a translation that avoided the term “Chemikalien”, i.e., they used other terms which were, however, not technically correct. Only two subjects (22 %) in this group translated “chemicals” with “Chemikalien” without any in-depth reflection. All in all, both groups of advanced subjects showed a certain awareness of the TTP in question, although this did not always ensure an adequate translation. Achieving adequate trans‐ lations in 60 % of the cases, the P6 group, which had had only practical training, was better able to solve the TTP “chemicals” than the PT7 group, which had a success rate of only 44 %. 8.3.3.2.2 “psychological environment” Although awareness of the inadequacy of a literal translation of the ST segment “psychological environment” was rather low across all groups, differences be‐ tween the groups were nevertheless observable. Thus, subjects in the theoreti‐ cally trained T4 group did not verbalize any deliberations regarding the fact that it might have been better to reformulate the meaning in a less technical way. Accordingly, none of the T4 subjects provided a paraphrastic translation. Two subjects in the practically trained P4 group, on the other hand, were aware that it would be better to paraphrase “psychological environment” (33 %). However, 332 8 Translation Problems <?page no="333"?> only one of them actually provided a less technical reformulation in his trans‐ lation, which was, however, semantically not quite accurate. Figure 73: Awareness and solution of TTP “psychological environment” Awareness of this TTP was not better developed in the more advanced groups than in the P4 group, with 30 % of the P6 subjects and 22 % of the PT7 subjects verbalizing awareness of a need for reformulation. This awareness was, how‐ ever, mostly induced by their impression that the German collocation “psycho‐ logisches Umfeld” was nonsensical. All three subjects in the P6 group who ver‐ balized their awareness also produced adequate translations of the term. In the PT7 group, however, only one of the two subjects who showed awareness as well as one subject who did not verbalize the decision-making process with regard to this TTP produced adequate translations. Subject BEF (BEF_TAP, lines 183-190), who reflected on whether “psychological environment” just meant “psyche” and was thus one of the subjects showing some awareness, produced a literal preliminary translation, which, however, he never modified. 333 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="334"?> 8.3.3.2.3 Summary and Discussion of Linguistic TTPs Regarding the two different linguistic TTPs, the tendencies are similar for both. It seems, however, that the linguistic TTP “psychological environment” was somewhat more difficult for the subjects than the TTP “chemicals”. Figure 74: Awareness and solution of linguistic TTPs The findings regarding the linguistic TTPs reflect the tendencies that were found regarding the pragmatic TTPs. Thus, in the groups of fifth-semester stu‐ dents, the theoretically trained T4 subjects did not verbalize awareness of either of the two linguistic TTPs and, with one exception, also produced inadequate translations. On average, the T4 subjects thus solved only 0.2 of the two lin‐ guistic TTPs adequately (SD: 0.45). The practically trained P4 subjects, on the other hand, mentioned, on average, 0.8 of the two linguistic TTPs, although there was considerable variation within the group, with some subjects not men‐ tioning either of the problems and others both of them (SD: 0.75). The P4 subjects were also better able to solve the linguistic TTPs in question, producing an average of 0.7 translations that avoided the linguistic pitfalls posed by the ST 334 8 Translation Problems <?page no="335"?> (SD: 0.82). Of these solutions, 50 % can be classified as adequate, while the other 50 %, despite avoiding a literal translation, were otherwise inadequate. Figure 75: Adequate and semi-adequate solutions avoiding a literal translation (linguistic TTPs) Both of the more advanced groups showed a certain awareness of the linguistic TTPs and an ability to find adequate solutions. However, the practically trained P6 slightly outperformed the PT7 group, which had had both practical and the‐ oretical training. The difference between the two groups was considerably less pronounced, however, than was the case for the pragmatic TTPs discussed above. Thus, the P6 subjects mentioned awareness of 0.9 of the two linguistic TTPs on average (SD: 0.74), whereas awareness was verbalized, on average, regarding 0.7 TTPs in the PT7 group (SD: 0.71). In both groups, awareness might actually have been higher since the numbers of solutions that avoided the pitfalls of the linguistic TTPs were higher than the explicit mention of the TTPs. Thus, on average, the P6 students avoided a literal translation for 1.0 of the two lin‐ guistic TTPs (SD: 0.67), and the PT7 subjects for 0.9 of the two TTPs (SD: 0.78). 335 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="336"?> In the case of the P6 students, however, more of the translations provided were able to successfully solve the problem, with 90 % being adequate. In the PT7 group, this number was slightly smaller, with 78 % of the translations provided being adequate. Thus, when all four groups are compared with one another, there was a clear tendency for the subjects with practical experience to outper‐ form the only theoretically trained students in terms of both the recognition and the solution of linguistic TTPs. 8.3.3.3 Text-specific Translation Problems 8.3.3.3.1 “committee meeting” Figure 76: Awareness and solution of TTP “committee meeting” As can be seen from Figure 76, there was some awareness in both of the fifth-se‐ mester groups of the rather general meaning of “committee meeting” in this spe‐ cific context. Thus, 40 % of the T4 and 50 % of the P4 subjects verbalized their aware‐ ness of this TTP. This awareness was, however, not always reflected in the translations provided since only one T4 subject (20 %) and two P4 subjects (34 %) 336 8 Translation Problems <?page no="337"?> used a less specific translation. However, the translation provided by one P4 sub‐ ject (17 %) was not adequate for other reasons. In both groups, there was one sub‐ ject who was aware of the rather general meaning of “committee meeting” but did not translate the segment accordingly. Both the awareness and the attempt to pro‐ duce a corresponding translation were thus somewhat greater among the practi‐ cally trained subjects. Among the more advanced students in the PT7 group, there seems to have been more awareness of the TTP “committee meeting”. With 56 % of the subjects verbal‐ izing their awareness and 44 % of the subjects providing general translations of the term “committee meeting”, the PT7 group was the group which dealt best with this text-specific TTP. Of the five subjects who explicitly mentioned their awareness of the TTP, only one did not produce a corresponding translation. Thus, the subject STF mentioned her conviction that the meaning of “committee” was rather general in this context. Nevertheless, she stuck to a literal translation, reasoning that this was what the ST said (STF_TAP, lines 95-97). Among the P6 subjects, only 20 % mentioned that they were aware of the TTP and produced a corresponding and adequate translation. There was thus rather little awareness of the general meaning of “committee meeting” among the students in the P6 group, so that, for this TTP, the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, outper‐ formed the practically trained P6 subjects. Across all four groups, it is therefore clear that awareness of the text-specific TTP “committee meeting” and the attempt to produce a corresponding translation were very much linked. Thus, none of the (semi-)adequate solutions was produced without a prior mention of the TTP in question. 8.3.3.3.2 “go white or see red” For the TTP “go white or see red”, a literal translation had the benefit of keeping the rhetorical function, whereas a translation on the semantic level might not. The data analysis showed that none of the theoretically trained T4 subjects verbalized any awareness of the rhetorical function of the TTP “go white or see red”. Instead, they seem to have focused on the semantic content exclusively. Nevertheless, 60 % of these subjects provided adequate translations that included a color. The remaining 40 % opted for a semantically correct translation but without reference to a color. As a result, the T4 group was the group with the highest number of adequate trans‐ lations across all four comparison groups. The rather weak performance of the T4 group with regard to almost all the TTPs discussed so far as well as the absence of any verbalizations regarding the rhetorical function make it likely that the high percentage of adequate translations in this group was due not to a conscious choice to preserve the rhetorical function, but to a general tendency toward literal trans‐ 337 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="338"?> 19 “blieb ruhig” (JSC_TT, line 9 ) lation, which was also evident in the case of the other TTPs. In the practically trained P4 group, one subject (JSC_TAP, lines 75-76) was clearly aware of the TTP since she mentioned the need for a rhetorical figure in the translation (17 %). How‐ ever, she was apparently unable to solve the TTP despite her awareness since she chose a translation that focused exclusively on the semantic content. 19 Thus, the only subject who was demonstrably aware of the TTP in the group of fifth-se‐ mester students was not able to solve it. All in all, two subjects in the P4 group provided translations on the semantic level (33 %), whereas 67 % of the subjects in the practically trained P4 group explicitly mentioned the colors “white” and “red” in their translations. Since they did not justify these choices, it is not possible to confirm without doubt whether this was the result of a rather unreflective literal translation - which I suspect it was - or, on the contrary, the product of conscious decision-making with full awareness of the rhetorical component of the segment. Figure 77: Awareness and solution of TTP “go white or see red” 338 8 Translation Problems <?page no="339"?> Among the advanced students, awareness of the role of the rhetorical func‐ tion of this wordplay was somewhat higher, with 40 % of the subjects in the P6 group and 22 % of the subjects in the PT7 group verbalizing their aware‐ ness. Nonetheless, the number of adequate translations in the P6 group was similar to that provided by the fifth-semester students, with 70 % of the translations retaining the reference to color. In the PT7 group, this number was lower, with only 44 % of the translations including an explicit reference to color. In the PT7 group, the production of adequate translations without an explicit mention of the TTP was rather infrequent (22 %), and the figure was only slightly higher in the P6 group (30 %). The remaining 66 % and 30 %, respectively, provided translations that were in general semantically adequate but omitted an explicit reference to color. There was thus a clear relation between the level of awareness and the number of translations in‐ cluding color, which was not the case in the less advanced groups T4 and P4, where 67 % and 60 %, respectively, provided translations including color although the subjects were apparently unaware of the TTP. All in all, there was more awareness of the rhetorical function in the practically trained groups, especially the more advanced ones. Among these latter, the subjects who produced adequate answers tended to do so in full awareness of the TTP. When they were not aware of the TTP, the advanced subjects were more easily prepared to resort to less literal translations and were more susceptible to uncommon expressions such as “weiß werden”, whereas the fifth-semester students in both groups stuck rather to very lit‐ eral translations, despite not necessarily being aware of the translations’ rhetorical function. Thus, the adequate translations in the more advanced groups tended to be produced in combination with awareness, whereas the adequate translations produced by the fifth-semester students were rather produced without any awareness of the TTP. When the P6 and the PT7 groups were compared with one another, it was again the P6 group, which had had only practical training, that outperformed the PT7 group in both awareness of the TTP “go white or see red” and the ability to solve it. 339 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="340"?> 8.3.3.3.3 Summary and Discussion of Text-specific TTPs Figure 78: Awareness and solution of text-specific TTPs When the findings for both text-specific TTPs are summarized, the differences between the groups are found to be much less pronounced than for the prag‐ matic and linguistic TTPs discussed above. Thus, in the case of the fifth-semester students, there was only a small difference between the practically trained P4 subjects and the theoretically trained T4 subjects with regard to the awareness of text-specific TTPs, with the former group mentioning awareness of an average of 0.7 of the two text-specific TTPs (SD: 0.82), whereas the latter group were demonstrably aware of 0.4 text-specific TTPs on average (SD: 0.55). For the P4, within-group variation was somewhat higher, with individual subjects being aware of zero to two text-specific TTPs, whereas in the T4 group no sub‐ ject mentioned awareness of more than one text-specific TTP. Regarding the production of translations that fulfilled the requirements of the TTP, i.e., trans‐ lations that used a more general term or included a reference to colors, the P4 group also performed slightly better, producing on average 1.0 (semi-)adequate 340 8 Translation Problems <?page no="341"?> translation (SD: 0.0). From Figure 79, it is evident, however, that an average of 30 % of these translations were only semi-acceptable. In the T4 group, on the other hand, there were no semi-adequate translations. Thus, if T4 subjects de‐ cided to use a general term or include a reference to colors, they did so success‐ fully. Figure 79: Adequate solutions and solutions approaching the TTP adequately (text-spe‐ cific TTPs) When the more advanced groups P6 and PT7 are compared, the text-specific TTPs prove to be the only type of task-inherent translation problem for which the PT7 group, which had had both practical and theoretical training, showed more awareness than the P6 group, which had had only practical training. The difference was rather small, however, with the PT7 mentioning awareness of an average of 0.8 of the two text-specific TTPs (SD: 0.67), whereas the P6 group demonstrably recognized 0.6 text-specific TTPs on average (SD: 0.52). While both groups approached the text-specific TTPs adequately for 0.9 of the two TTPs on average (SD: 0.32/ P6; SD: 0.60/ PT7), the translations produced by the 341 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="342"?> P6 subjects were more often adequate (78 %) than those produced by the PT7 group (67 %). To sum up, all the groups performed rather similarly with regard to the pro‐ duction of (semi-)adequate translations. When interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind, however, that one of the text-specific TTPs (“go white or see red”) could have been solved by means of a literal translation and thus without the translator’s being aware of its rhetorical implications. Such a literal translation that was unaccompanied by any signs of awareness was more often provided by the fifth-semester students, whereas the more advanced subjects tended to produce less literal translations when they were not aware of the TTP. A selection of text-specific TTPs that could only be solved by deviating from a translation close to the text might thus yield very different results. 8.3.3.4 Overview of all TTPs Figure 80: Awareness and solution of all TTPs 342 8 Translation Problems <?page no="343"?> Taking together all seven task-inherent translation problems that were analyzed in detail above, a clear picture emerges. In particular, all the groups solved more TTPs (semi-)adequately than they actually mentioned in their TAPs. On the one hand, this might have been due to the method of data collection (think-aloud), which did not prompt students to mention their awareness (see also 5.5). There‐ fore, in the case of the TTPs that they considered easy, they did not reflect on the text segment and, consequently, their awareness was not traceable in the TAPs. I believe this was frequently the case with the pragmatic TTP “our”, es‐ pecially in cases in which an adequate translation was provided. In the case of “bad verbalizers”, this might furthermore have extended to TTPs for which they made conscious decisions, but did not verbalize them (see also 8.2.6). On the other hand, at least one problem could have been solved adequately even without the subjects’ being aware of it since a literal translation produced an adequate result (the text-specific TTP “go white or see red”). Last but not least, it is possible that the discrepancy arose because of successful guessing even for TTPs that could not be solved by providing a literal translation; i.e., in cases in which the subjects were not aware of the problem but nevertheless provided adequate translations. Thus, all four comparison groups solved, on average, close to one TTP more than they mentioned explicitly in the TAPs. Of all the groups, the theoretically trained T4 subjects were the ones who were least aware of the translation problems posed by the translation task itself. On average, they mentioned awareness of only 0.8 TTPs of seven (SD: 1.10). In this group, no subject mentioned awareness of more than two different trans‐ lation problems, which also indicates that the within-group variation was not considerable and awareness was generally low among all T4 subjects. The translations provided by the T4 subjects were (semi-)adequate for an average of only 1.8 of the seven task-inherent translation problems (SD: 1.48). The range of TTPs that were (semi-)adequately solved extended from zero to a maximum of four. The T4 students translated 17 % of the seven TTPs successfully by ful‐ filling all the requirements of the TT and avoided the direct pitfalls in another 9 % of the TTPs analyzed, although their translations were not adequate or were only partially adequate on other grounds. 343 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="344"?> Figure 81: Adequate and semi-adequate solutions (all TTPs) There was thus a considerable difference between the theoretically trained T4 subjects and the practically trained P4 subjects, who seem to have had a clear advantage when it came to being able to recognize and solve task-inherent translation problems. Thus, at the beginning of their fifth semester of practical training, the subjects mentioned awareness of an average of 2.2 TTPs of the seven (SD: 1.72), with individual subjects being aware of between zero and four TTPs. When it came to solving the TTPs, the P4 subjects were (semi-)successful in 3.2 of the seven TTPs (SD: 1.17). In this group, the minimum of adequately approached TTPs was two, and the maximum was five. This, too, was in sharp contrast to the T4 group, in which one subject did not approach a single TTP adequately. In the P4 group, 21 % of all TTPs were solved successfully, while the translation for another 24 % was semi-adequate. 344 8 Translation Problems <?page no="345"?> Figure 82: Awareness and solution depending on B-language The P6 group, which was at the end of its sixth semester of purely practical training, was the group that exhibited the highest awareness and the greatest ability to adequately solve the task-inherent translation problems. On average, the P6 subjects verbalized awareness of 2.8 of the seven TTPs (SD: 1.62), with individual awareness ranging from zero to five TTPs. Regarding the solution of the TTPs, the P6 group had an adequate approach for an average of 3.8 TTPs, i.e., just over half of the TTPs analyzed (SD: 1.14). The range of adequately approached TTPs extended from two to six for the individual P6 subjects. Fur‐ thermore, the P6 group was the group with the highest number of successfully solved TTPs, providing an adequate solution for 38 % of all TTPs. Another 16 %, were solved semi-adequately. The PT7 group, despite being the group with the highest level of formal translator training, could not keep up with the performance of the P6 group, and - in a comparison of all four groups - also showed slightly less awareness and produced slightly fewer (semi-)adequate solutions than the practically trained P4 group. Thus, the PT7 subjects mentioned their awareness of an 345 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="346"?> average of 2.0 of the seven TTPs (SD: 1.22), with the actual number of mentioned TTPs for individuals in this group ranging from zero to four. Regarding the translations provided by the PT7 subjects for the seven TTPs, 2.9 of these trans‐ lations were at least semi-adequate (SD: 1.05). In this group, individual subjects had adequate approaches to at least two but not more than five TTPs. The PT7 subjects solved 23 % of the TTPs adequately and provided semi-adequate trans‐ lations for another 19 % of the TTPs. Since the two advanced groups consisted of subjects with very different levels of experience in English-German translation and presumably also different levels of English language skills, the influence of the B-language on the subjects’ ability to deal with the task-inherent translation problems was also analyzed. Thus, when the subjects of the P6 and PT7 groups are taken together, the results do not show any disadvantage for subjects with less experience in translating from English. These subjects showed only slightly less awareness and a some‐ what better approach to the solution of the TTPs. Thus, the subjects with English as a B-language (N = 10) were aware, on average, of 2.6 TTPs (SD: 1.35) and provided a (semi-)acceptable translation for 3.2 of the seven TTPs (SD: 1.13). In the group that was studying English as a C-language (N = 9), awareness was slightly lower, with 2.2 TTPs being mentioned on average (SD: 1.64). But the students in this group solved somewhat more TTPs, i.e., 3.6 on average (SD: 1.24). There were thus no indications that the level of English language competence or the level of experience in English-German translation had an effect on the awareness of and the ability to solve task-inherent translation problems, as would also be expected since most of these problems did not depend on the languages involved (linguistic TTPs exempted), but on the general awareness of the text’s style and its communicative intention. T4 P4 P6 PT7 Semi-adequate solution 9% 24% 16% 19% Adequate solution 17% 21% 38% 23% Total (semi-)adequate solutions 26% 45% 54% 42% Table 17: Summary of adequate and semi-adequate solutions (percentages) In a nutshell, the results of the analysis of TTPs were very clear: students with intense practical training at the time of data collection exhibited more awareness 346 8 Translation Problems <?page no="347"?> of task-inherent translation problems as well as a better ability to provide (semi-)adequate translations for these TTPs. Furthermore, it made a consider‐ able difference whether subjects had had practical training at some point during their studies: the subjects without any practical training at all (T4) performed considerably worse than the groups with practical training. The group that had had only theoretical classes over the last semester but had had intense practical training before that (PT7) performed considerably better than the group without any practical training (T4) but slightly worse than the considerably less ad‐ vanced students with practical training (P4). The most successful group was the P6 group, which had had the most intense practical training at the time of data collection since final examinations were immanent in its case. 8.3.4 Discussion of Findings By analyzing a number of pragmatic, linguistic and text-specific translation problems, it was found that the awareness of task-inherent translation problems as well as the ability to produce adequate solutions for those problems differed considerably among the comparison groups. This difference was most notable for the two groups of fifth-semester students, one of which had had exclusively theoretical training (the T4 group), while the other had been trained in practical translation courses (the P4 group). Although we cannot generalize any ten‐ dencies due to the limited number of participants in the groups of fifth-semester students, the difference observed between the two groups was quite distinct and showed clearly that theoretical courses alone, without any additional practice, were not sufficient to raise the subjects’ awareness in the same way as practical classes without theory. In fact, the theoretically trained students showed very poor awareness of the potential pitfalls posed by the translation task. This was true for all three kinds of TTPs, but was especially pronounced in the case of the linguistic TTPs, for which awareness seems to have been almost non-exis‐ tent among the theoretically trained subjects. For all three types of TTPs, the practically trained P4 subjects proved to be much better at recognizing transla‐ tion problems within the context of the given task, although, as could be ex‐ pected, the awareness of rather complex problems seems not to have developed yet. Regarding the ability to solve the selected TTPs, the practically trained subjects were able to provide more solutions that were either adequate or semi-adequate, i.e., solutions that avoided the specific pitfalls posed by the re‐ spective TTPs, although these solutions were not acceptable in other ways. Again, this applied to all three types of TTPs and was especially pronounced for the linguistic TTPs. 347 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="348"?> From these findings, it appears that teaching theory exclusively does not help raise awareness or develop strategies for translation to the same extent as prac‐ tical translation courses do. This is especially interesting since it is often claimed that the main advantage of theory is, in fact, that it raises students’ awareness of the communicative aspect of translation and the (functional) criteria that translations have to fulfill (see 4.2.3). The findings also contradict Göpferich’s assumption that her theoretically trained subjects might have developed some declarative awareness, which, however, was not yet reflected in a better ability to solve translation problems due to a lack of proceduralization (2012: 260-261, 2013: 72-73). Thus, she suspects that practical classes would be necessary in order to enable a proceduralization of the acquired declarative knowledge (2013: 73). However, the findings of the present study did not confirm the as‐ sumption that the T4 group had developed awareness. In fact, when taking Göpferich’s findings into account, the question might even be asked whether theoretical classes alone can raise students’ awareness of and increase their ability to solve translation problems at all. The theoretically trained subjects might have developed a general awareness of the role of the translator and of translation in general - but even if they had, they seem to have been unable to relate this declarative knowledge to an actual translation task. It is possible, however, that the declarative knowledge that students acquire during their studies will help them make much faster progress in the acquisition of transla‐ tion competence once they start practical training. This would, however, have to be tested in a different study. From a comparison of the two groups of fifth-semester students, it can also be concluded that the theoretically trained subjects stuck more closely than the practically trained fifth-semester students to the lexis of the source text. This was evident both in the poor performance of the T4 subjects when confronted with linguistic TTPs and their very good performance for the TTP “go white or see red”, where a literal translation was adequate. Although there was a ten‐ dency for literal translation among the practically trained students as well, es‐ pecially compared to the more advanced groups, the difference between the two groups of fifth-semester students suggests that practical training has a possible advantage in this regard. As we saw in the literature review in section 3.2, the awareness of translation problems and the ability to solve them, as well as a less literal and more sense-oriented approach have been shown to be indicators of translation competence. In light of these earlier findings, it is thus possible to conclude from the results of the TTP analysis that practical translation classes contribute to these aspects of translation competence to a larger extent than theoretical classes alone. What the data does not reveal is whether or not a 348 8 Translation Problems <?page no="349"?> 20 That is, none of them mentions theory in the widest sense in their TAPs. 21 Thus, subjects have been confronted with Nord’s (2005) didactic approaches such as text analysis in translation and her classification of translation problems. combination of both practical and theoretical classes during the early semesters might result in even better achievements. The data can reveal, however, whether or not the addition of theoretical, declarative knowledge after intensive practical training can result in a visible difference in subjects’ ability to recognize and solve TTPs. The data analysis shows, however, that the P6 group, which had had only practical training, out‐ performed the subjects in the PT7 group, who had had both practical and the‐ oretical training, when it came to being aware of task-inherent translation prob‐ lems and having the ability to solve those problems. Furthermore, this difference existed for almost all types of TTPs. Only regarding the text-specific TTPs did the PT7 group show more awareness than the P6 group and perform similarly regarding the average number of (semi-)adequate solutions. There were no in‐ dications that the PT7 subjects consciously made use of their newly acquired theoretical knowledge 20 during their decision-making. These findings thus do not confirm the assumption that the theoretical classes might have helped raise the awareness of translation problems and helped increase the ability of previ‐ ously practically trained students to solve translation problems despite the fact that reflecting on translation problems from a theoretical point of view was an integral part of the PT7 students’ curriculum. 21 However, since the data were collected shortly after the theoretical course was completed, these findings are limited to a short-term effect. Thus, it might be possible that positive effects become visible after a longer time span in which subjects can integrate theo‐ retically acquired knowledge into their translation routines, i.e., proceduralize it. This might be corroborated by the gap between the participants’ subjective impression that theories help them recognize translation problems (see 9.2.2) and the process and product data that do not point in that direction. Different explanations for this finding are possible. One reason for the observed difference could be that the PT7 group included subjects who had already performed worse at the FAK level than the P6 subjects. On the basis of the present data sample, the possibility cannot be excluded that the subjects had been at different per‐ formance levels before their additional theoretical training. However, I also suggested that the subjects’ translation competence could have declined due to a lack of practice. Translation competence might be intimately linked to on-going practice, and the period of around ten months in which the subjects had not translated but only attended theoretical classes might have had a neg‐ ative influence on their performance. Last but not least, the possibility that - by 349 8.3 Analyzing Task-inherent Translation Problems (TTPs) <?page no="350"?> increasing insecurity - theoretical training itself was the reason for these find‐ ings cannot be excluded. At this late point in their studies, theoretical input might have called into question the routines and concepts that students had developed through practical training and thus led to uncertainty at the begin‐ ning. Whether the subjects themselves reported feeling more uncertain due to the theoretical input was analyzed by means of the retrospective questionnaire (see 9.2.2). 8.4 Summary This chapter focused on the subjects’ translation problems mainly by analyzing their translation processes. To this end, a distinction was made between trans‐ lation problems as difficulties or flaws that the individual subjects experience in the translation process (individual translation problems / ITPs) and transla‐ tion problems relating to passages in the source text that present challenges for translation (task-inherent translation problems / TTPs). The analysis of the ITPs showed that subjects without any translation practice (the T4 group) tended to have a large number of such difficulties during their translation processes, but also that they were relatively well able to solve those problems. They experienced this large number of ITPs in a rather short time, which indicates that they did not need much time for problem-solving. It seems that these students had not yet developed a fixed routine and thus might still have needed to do a great deal of research on comparably “easy” problems that had already become automatized in students who had had practical training. Students who had had four semesters of purely practical training (the P4 group) performed in an opposite way in many respects. They had a rather lower number of ITPs and translated quickly. They appeared to “type down” their translations, but were not necessarily aware of when their knowledge (linguistic or do‐ main-specific) was not sufficient. Thus, they failed to engage in problem-solving because they did not subjectively experience difficulties when, in fact, they pro‐ duced inadequate translations. Thus, while theory alone apparently failed to provide students with a certain routine in translation and especially with some transfer competence, practical training favored those aspects - although appa‐ rently without necessarily providing awareness of when the internal knowledge was insufficient and external research would be necessary. The results for the advanced groups were less straightforward. Although the subjects with both practical and theoretical training (the PT7 group) experienced fewer ITPs than the practically trained students in their sixth semester (the P6 350 8 Translation Problems <?page no="351"?> group), they were less successful in solving those problems. In addition, they made more errors that were not based on ITPs and thus more errors that they did not reflect upon. All in all, the results for the advanced groups were less extreme and showed fewer differences between the two groups than was the case for the groups of fifth-semester students. Regarding the task-inherent translation problems, very clear results were obtained. The group with six semesters of intense practical training (the P6 group) was the group that was most aware of the problems presented by the translation task and was also the most successful in providing (semi-)adequate translations of the problematic passages. The group that had by far the least awareness of the TTPs and was also the least successful in solving them was the group with four semesters of purely theoretical training (T4). The groups P4 and PT7 performed similarly and were between these two extremes. All in all, the data regarding TTPs does not allow us to conclude that teaching theory has a positive impact on raising the awareness of translation problems or on the ability to solve them. In both sets of subjects - that is, the less advanced and more advanced students of translation - those subjects who had had only practical training (students in the P4 and P6 groups) performed better in these respects. 351 8.4 Summary <?page no="352"?> 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory 9.1 Questions and Methodology In chapter 4, the question arose as to whether students who have not yet been in contact with theoretical concepts might not have exaggerated expectations regarding the effect of learning translation theory. It was also suggested that these expectations could result in a feeling of deception once theoretical con‐ cepts were acquired. To test these hypotheses, questions concerning the sub‐ jects’ opinions on theory were included in the retrospective questionnaires. These questions necessarily had to be different for FAK subjects without a the‐ oretical background (P4 and P6; see annexes retrospective questionnaire 1) and those who had studied theoretical concepts in fields as diverse as translation studies, linguistics and intercultural communication (PT7; retrospective ques‐ tionnaire 2). The subjects in the practically trained FAK groups (P4 and P6) were asked whether they would like to have theoretical courses in their curriculum and what benefits they would expect from such courses. The PT7 subjects were asked whether they thought that theoretical classes could bring any benefits to the professional translator, and if so, in what respect. They were also asked if and how they implemented their newly-acquired theoretical knowledge in the translation process and whether they believed that their way of translating had changed after their introduction to theory. In the TransComp project (e.g., Göp‐ ferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011), no comparable data were collected so that the opinions that the purely theoretically trained subjects might have regarding the content of their course of studies are unknown. Most of the questions in the questionnaire were closed questions. However, it also seemed important to give the subjects the opportunity to voice their own opinions regarding theory and thus introduce aspects that the researcher might not have considered in advance. This concerned especially the subjects’ subjec‐ tive beliefs about the benefits of theory, e.g., in what respects they thought that theoretical knowledge could be beneficial for a professional translator. To this end, some open questions were included as well. To analyze these open-ended questions, thematic analysis was used (Saldanha & O'Brien 2014: 189-190). An inductive approach to coding the data was chosen. In a first step, the subjects’ answers were categorized according to their quintessential meanings. In a next <?page no="353"?> 1 All questions have been translated. For the original wording see the questionnaires in the annexes. step, a number of meaningful codes were established on the basis of those an‐ swers. 9.2 Findings 9.2.1 Subjects without Theoretical Background The purely practically trained subjects in the FAK were asked if they thought that theoretical classes should be included in the curriculum they were fol‐ lowing. These subjects had never been confronted with actual translation theory or with other related fields such as linguistics and intercultural communication in the course of this curriculum. Therefore, they might have had very diverse beliefs about what they would actually study in such theoretical classes. In question 12 1 , the subjects were asked whether they were in favor of including theoretical classes in the FAK curriculum. In both the P4 and P6 groups, a majority of students were in favor of adding theoretical classes to their curriculum. Among the P4 students, 50 % of the par‐ ticipants were in favor of theoretical input and another 17 % were somewhat in favor of including theory. The remaining 33 %, however, appeared to be strictly against including theory in the curriculum. Many of the P4 students seemed to have a strong opinion, either in favor of including theory or against it. This was not the case among the sixth-semester students, where the nuances were some‐ what more differentiated. Only 11 % were clearly in favor of including theory and another 11 % were clearly opposed to the idea, whereas 44 % were somewhat in favor and another 33 % were somewhat opposed. All in all, however, a majority of students in both groups was (rather) in favor of studying theory in addition to practice. This tendency was slightly more pronounced within the P4 group (67 %) than among the more advanced students in the P6 group (55 %). 353 9.2 Findings <?page no="354"?> Figure 83: Would you like to have theoretical classes at the FAK? When asked whether they believed that professional translators could benefit from theoretical knowledge (question 13), students in both groups tended to respond similarly: in both groups, a clear majority believed that translation theory could be of advantage for professional translators (see Figure 84). This view was even more pronounced among the P4 students than among the P6 students, which confirmed the trend referred to above. Thus, 88 % of the P4 students (rather) agreed that theoretical knowledge could be an advantage for professional translators, whereas 17 % were rather skeptical about the benefit of theories. In the P6 group, 72 % of the subjects (rather) believed that professional translators could profit from theoretical knowledge, i.e., somewhat fewer than among the P4 subjects. The remaining 28 % (rather) disagreed with this assump‐ tion. 354 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="355"?> Figure 84: Do you think that as a professional translator you could benefit from theo‐ retical knowledge? However, since the subjects had had no prior contact with theory, it seemed essential to ask them to justify their answers to this question. This was done with an open question, to which subjects could give more than one answer as to why they believed / did not believe that theoretical knowledge could be of advantage to a professional translator. Of the 13 subjects (P4 and P6 taken to‐ gether) who answered the question, four subjects had a negative opinion re‐ garding theory. They claimed that practical training and/ or language skills were more important for professional translators. Three of these subjects also indi‐ cated in reply to the question above that they (rather) did not believe that theory could be of any advantage to a professional translator. The fourth subject an‐ swered “rather yes” concerning the question whether there could be any benefit from theoretical knowledge. The apparent contradiction in this subject’s an‐ swers is explained by the second belief expressed in the open answer: this subject also believed that knowledge of theories might enhance the translator’s em‐ 355 9.2 Findings <?page no="356"?> ployability. She therefore saw external advantages to theoretical knowledge rather than an immediate benefit for practical translation tasks. Figure 85: Beliefs about the benefit of theoretical knowledge (N = 13) Of those who, in reply to the question above, (rather) agreed that professional translators could benefit from theoretical knowledge, most expected theory to be a “tool” helping with practical translation, e.g., by providing translators with rules for certain kinds of translation problems. This belief was closely followed by the assumption that theoretical knowledge broadens the translator’s horizon and thus leads to greater awareness of the problems and possibilities of trans‐ lation and fosters critical thinking. One subject furthermore believed that the‐ oretical knowledge provides translators with more self-confidence in their choices. Another subject did not really state how she thought theory could help translators nor did she express an averseness to theory, which is why her answer was not included in the above graph. She pointed, however, to a decisive aspect of any form of education - namely, that the advantages of theory would depend on what exactly was taught in theoretical classes and how theory was taught. 356 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="357"?> This answer was certainly dead-on and opened an even wider field for research (see also section 4.4). 9.2.2 Subjects with Theoretical Background The subjects in the PT7 group had had approximately one semester of theoretical training in relevant disciplines such as translation theory, interpreting theory, linguistics and intercultural communication. After this first experience, they were asked whether they believed that, as professional translators, theoretical knowledge could be of any benefit to them (question 15). Figure 86: Do you think that as a professional translator you can benefit from theory? In the PT7 group, 44 % of the subjects rather believed that theoretical knowledge could be an advantage for them as professional translators. Another 11 % totally agreed that theory was beneficial for the professional. Thus, after their first experiences with theoretical classes, a small majority (55 %) had a positive view of theory. Of the remaining 44 %, most believed that professional translators 357 9.2 Findings <?page no="358"?> might not benefit from theoretical classes, while one subject (11 %) did not see any benefit from theory at all. When compared to the beliefs of the practically trained FAK students discussed above, the PT7 subjects thus showed somewhat greater reservations regarding the benefit of theory for a professional career as a translator. Figure 87: Beliefs about the benefit of theoretical knowledge (N = 9) When asked to describe their opinions in their own words, three students men‐ tioned that practice and other skills such as logical thinking were more impor‐ tant than theories. Two students gave rather neutral answers, indicating that they had not learned anything that they were not already trained to do through their practical courses (MAK) or that it “could do no harm” to learn about the‐ ories (GLD). Two students believed that a knowledge of theory could increase their reflectiveness and awareness - regarding, for example, the different pos‐ sible ways to translate a text - and thus make them more flexible and open-minded. In this group, two subjects indicated that theory should be a translation tool that provides solutions. Two things strike the eye when this 358 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="359"?> group is compared to the above subjects, who did not have any theoretical background. On the one hand, the number of subjects who explicitly opposed practice to theory and argued in favor of practice was somewhat higher (33 %) than among the FAK students (25 %). On the other hand, the expectation that theory is a tool providing guidelines and helps with decisions was lower (22 % compared to 38 %). Figure 88: Subjectively perceived effects of theory (N = 7) In the question about their opinions regarding the benefit of theory for trans‐ lators in general, the subjects were also asked whether they felt that their own way of translating had changed since studying theory (question 14). This ques‐ tion referred to their behavior in general, independently of the translation that they had produced in the TA session. Of the eight participants who answered the question, three felt that there had not been much change in the way they translated. One subject stated that she did not yet know enough about theories to answer this question. Her answer was thus not included in the overview in Figure 88. The remaining four subjects felt that there had been at least a small 359 9.2 Findings <?page no="360"?> change in the way they translated. Of these eight subjects, two said that they now considered external factors to a larger extent. One subject stated that the‐ ories had increased her awareness of the different possible ways to translate a text and thus her reflectiveness concerning the translation method. Another subject reported that she felt that she translated more “freely” and that she now took into account the skopos of the translation. When considering these an‐ swers, it should be kept in mind that the subjects had only recently acquired theoretical knowledge and had not had a great deal of translation practice since then. For many of them, the translation made in the TA session was, in fact, the very first translation they had made since hearing about theories. Thus, the answers they gave referred to rather short-term (perceived) effects of having heard about translation theories. To double-check the answers to the open question, the subjects were pre‐ sented with a list of possible effects of learning translation theory (question 16). The PT7 subjects claimed that the strongest effect of theory was an increased awareness of external factors. Thus, six of eight respondents stated that they considered external factors (much) more often than before. Figure 89: Overview of results “Has theory changed how you translate? ” (1) Another effect that subjects perceived was an improved ability to detect trans‐ lation problems (which in this case referred to problems presented by the task, i.e., TTPs, although this distinction was not made explicit in the questionnaires). Four subjects claimed that they recognized translation problems more often, one even stated that he had detected translation problems much more often since he had heard about translation theory. 360 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="361"?> Overall, the subjects did not feel that studying theory helped them to detach themselves more from the original wording of the source text. Almost all of them believed that this was only rarely the case. The same was true for the ability to solve translation problems. Only two of eight subjects believed that theory had often helped them to solve problems better, while a majority believed this was only rarely the case. The subjects’ answers were somewhat more differentiated with regard to uncertainty and creativity. The subjects were asked whether they felt more un‐ certain about their translation solutions since it was supposed that hearing about theory after three years of intense practical training might have made them reflect more on their routine behavior and may have caused some insecurity concerning their routines. Three subjects stated that they had often felt more insecure since hearing about theories, whereas five subjects indicated that they rarely or never felt more uncertain. I suggested above that such initial uncertainty might also have resulted in a perceived decrease in creativity. In this respect, the subjects had very different opinions, with most of them believing that creativity was never or rarely hin‐ dered. Three of eight subjects, however, felt that their creativity was often or even very often impacted negatively by their newly acquired theoretical knowl‐ edge. However, this finding may have been due solely to a temporary rise in uncertainty since theories should basically increase subjects’ flexibility and therefore rather enhance their creativity. When asked whether they had actively made use of their theoretical knowl‐ edge during the experimental translation task (question 12), only two subjects stated that they often had. Three subjects had never actively thought about theories, and four claimed they had indeed thought about theories but had done so only rarely. Only three subjects, however, believed that their theoretical knowledge had also influenced them during the translation process, albeit only rarely, whereas six subjects believed that theory had not influenced them in any way. 361 9.2 Findings <?page no="362"?> Figure 90: Overview of results “Has theory changed how you translate? ” (2) 362 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="363"?> 9.3 Discussion of Findings All in all, the hypothesis that subjects without theoretical training have huge expectations of theory and consider it important was confirmed. In addition, a tendency was found among these subjects to consider theories to be “guide‐ lines” for practical translation tasks, as hypothesized on the basis of the literature review in chapter 4. After one semester of theoretical training, it seems that the subjects either came to appreciate theory as a mind-opener or, on the con‐ trary, were disillusioned and believed that theory was not of much help for the professional translator, which confirms earlier findings among professional translators (Li 2000; Katan 2009). This result partly confirms the hypothesis (see section 4.5) that the subjects could come to feel that they had been deceived about the benefits of theoretical training. The belief that theory is a kind of guideline or a set of rules for translators was clearly less common in the group of subjects with additional theoretical input than in the group that had been trained only practically. This indicates that the subjects had adjusted their ex‐ pectations concerning translation theory after a fairly short time. In line with the hypothesis mentioned above, not all the subjects seemed to appreciate this change of view, however. It appears instead that, while some acknowledged the role of theory as fostering awareness and critical thinking with regard to the task, others believed that studying theories had not brought any benefits since all these aspects could be (and perhaps even had been) addressed in practical classes as well. These different opinions concerning theoretical classes could be related to the subjects’ learning styles. As Kelly (2005: 114) points out, there are students who have an inductive learning style - that is, prefer to work out prin‐ ciples or strategies for themselves - while others have a deductive learning style and use theoretical knowledge to deal with practical tasks. She relates this to the question as to which should be taught first, translation theory or practical translation. It could also be asked if learning styles might not also relate to the question whether subjects appreciate theoretical input at all. Thus, learning styles could be a decisive factor in the benefit that students acquire from classes in theory. Regarding the effects of theoretical instruction that the subjects themselves perceived, the main benefits reported were an increase in the awareness of ex‐ ternal factors and the greater choice of translation methods provided by the functional paradigm. The subjects also stated that theory helped them to rec‐ ognize translation problems, but not necessarily to solve those problems better. This statement is not necessarily in line with the findings from the analysis of task-inherent translation problems (8.3.3.4), where the group that had had both 363 9.3 Discussion of Findings <?page no="364"?> practical and theoretical training (the PT7 group) was less able to spot the TTPs analyzed than the two groups without theoretical training (the P4 and P6 groups). Regarding the subjects’ ability to detach themselves from the structure and lexis of the source text, i.e., to translate more “freely”, the subjects (with one exception) did not feel that theory had brought a benefit in this regard. This might, however, have been because the subjects had already had a sense-ori‐ ented approach due to their intensive practical training before having been ex‐ posed to functional translation theories. When confronted with an actual trans‐ lation task in the think-aloud session, most subjects stated that they had only rarely or never thought about their recently acquired theoretical knowledge, let alone allowed it to influence their way of translating. Thus, the short-term ef‐ fects perceived by the students themselves seem to have consisted in raising awareness about various aspects of translation. But this awareness, they felt, was not (yet) transferred to the practical translation process. This raises the question of whether changes in awareness might, nevertheless, appear in the process and products in the long-term. A majority of the PT7 subjects reported that they did not think about theories during the translation process, nor did they generally feel more uncertain about their translations due to the theoretical input they had received. Coupled with their subjective belief that theories did not influence their translation (often), this finding confirms the impression that resulted from the analysis of the process data, in which none of the subjects referred to theory even in the widest sense. Thus, contrary to the assumption made earlier, the reason for the PT7 students’ weaker performance seems not to have been a questioning of their routines. It appears instead that their routines had already become fixed and were not subject to modification by theoretical input. 9.4 Summary Using retrospective questionnaires, data were elicited from the subjects re‐ garding their opinions about translation theory. This was done in order to test the hypothesis that there might be huge (and possibly inadequate) expectations concerning theory among purely theoretically trained subjects which might then lead to a feeling of having been deceived when they were confronted with theory. Some evidence for this hypothesis was found since a majority of the practically trained subjects was in favor of including theoretical classes in their curriculum and even more of them believed that theoretical knowledge could benefit the professional translator. However, the view that theory would provide 364 9 Subjective Opinion on Theory <?page no="365"?> guidelines and thus be a “tool” for the translator was widespread among those who believed in its positive effects. Subjects who had been confronted with theory, on the other hand, viewed it rather as a means of raising awareness regarding the complexity of the task and broadening the translator’s horizon. At the same time, however, the percentage of subjects who stated that theory was not of much use increased. 365 9.4 Summary <?page no="366"?> 10 Conclusion 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results On the basis of Göpferich’s (2008: 155, 2009b: 20) model of translation competence (see 2.3.3.2), I suggested that two of the sub-competences of TC that she proposes are most likely to differ depending on whether students had had only practical translation training, only theoretical translation training or a combination of both. These two sub-competences are strategic competence and routine activa‐ tion competence (TRAC). I also identified one important aspect in Göpferich’s model that is not part of translation competence per se, but is rather a factor influencing how translation competence is put to use: the translator’s self-con‐ cept. Göpferich (2009b: 22) believes that this self-concept is directly influenced by both practical and theoretical input during translation training and that it influences, in turn, the translation process. In the preceding chapters, a number of dependent variables were analyzed (see Table 8) in order to gain some insight into the subjects’ opinions on trans‐ lation, their translation products and processes. In the following, these findings will be brought together for each of the groups of subjects in order to compare them with regard to their translation routine activation competence, their stra‐ tegic competence and the influence that their respective self-concepts might have on the translation process and product. 10.1.1 The Development of Translation Routine Activation Competence As we have already seen in section 2.3.3.2, Göpferich (2009b: 21) defines trans‐ lation routine activation competence as the “knowledge and abilities to recall and apply certain - mostly language-pair-specific - (standard) transfer opera‐ tions (or shifts) which frequently lead to acceptable target-language equiva‐ lents”. Translation routine activation competence thus concerns the ability to quickly and efficiently produce a translation solution for a given translation unit. It goes without saying that there might not be standard translations or routine strategies for all possible translation segments, which is why Göpferich <?page no="367"?> 1 This is explained by the fact that in this analysis I am not interested in the overall quality of the translation product but rather in the number of segments that do not co-occur with an error of any kind. (2009b: 33) distinguishes between three types of “translation items” in terms of their translatability by means of TRAC: 1. translation items that have a standard equivalent in the target language and can thus be translated in a routine process 2. translation items that can be translated in a routine process by experts, but probably not by novices (e.g., because different standard strategies exist and it depends on the task which one is adequate) 3. translation items for which no standard equivalents or strategies exist and which thus require a unique translation - these translation units are be‐ yond the scope of TRAC even in the case of experts. From these considerations, it follows that no translation process could ever be based on translation routine activation competence alone since some segments will always require conscious reflection and problem-solving. These consider‐ ations also imply, however, that the less frequently problem-solving is required in order to produce a viable translation, the higher the achieved level of trans‐ lation routine activation competence must be. In order to compare the four groups of students examined in the present study with regard to their TRAC, two indicators from the previous analyses were combined. The resulting new indicator makes it possible to determine the number of segments in which sub‐ jects did not apply routinized strategies but rather had to resort to conscious problem-solving (number of ITPs w/ o returns) as well as to determine how often they translated fluently but nonetheless produced an unacceptable translation (errors without ITPs). While Göpferich does not mention the actual acceptability of the produced translation in her definition of TRAC, I believe it is important that acceptability be considered as well. After all, novices might employ rather quicker, but unreflective translation processes that are not necessarily based on routine but rather on inexperience and unawareness. The risk of misclassifying inexperience and unawareness as TRAC is much lower if the quality of the pro‐ duced translation is taken into account as well. I have thus calculated the mean number of segments that were not translated in a routinized way and/ or for which no adequate solution was provided by the subjects by adding up the indicators “total number of ITPs w/ o returns” and “errors without ITPs”. The latter refers to unweighted errors, i.e., each error that does not co-occur with an ITP is counted equally, independently of its functional impact. 1 The resulting number of segments is thus an indication of how often 367 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="368"?> 2 This percentage is only an approximate figure since it does not take into account the fact that more than one error can be made within one and the same segment (e.g., semantic and grammatical). the subjects were not able to translate a segment in a routinized way or, if they did translate it in a routinized way, how often the routine processes were un‐ successful. From these results, it is thus possible to infer how well developed one group’s translation routine activation competence was compared to that of the other groups: the higher the number of segments with errors or ITPs, the lower the TRAC. T4 P4 P6 PT7 ⌀ ITPs (w/ o re‐ turns) 33.4 19.3 27.2 23.6 ⌀ errors (un‐ weighted) without ITPs 2 ~25.2 ~34.3 ~21.9 ~27.3 ⌀ segments with ITP or error ~58.6 ~53.7 ~49.1 ~50.9 Table 18: Overview of non-routinized and/ or non-adequate segments The results show that the students in the T4 group, who had had four semesters of theoretical training, had the highest number of segments that were not trans‐ lated in a routine process or were not solved adequately. This group was rather homogenous with regard to the difficulty in producing routinized translations (SD: 6.30), with no subject having less than 54 such non-routine segments. This confirms what was inferred earlier from a consideration of the high number of individual translation problems alone (see 8.2.5): due to a lack of practice, the group without any practical training had not had as much opportunity to de‐ velop translation routine activation competence as the other groups of subjects. All three practically trained groups had less difficulty in producing adequate translations in routine processes, which indicates that their translation routine activation competence was indeed better developed. There were differences be‐ tween these groups as well, however. As would be expected from the fact that they had been studying translation for a shorter period of time and thus had less experience in translation, the fifth-semester students (the P4 group) seem to have had somewhat more trouble producing adequate translations in routine processes than the two advanced groups. There was, however, somewhat more 368 10 Conclusion <?page no="369"?> 3 The high number of transfer problems and look-ups might either be related to gener‐ ating multiple translation solutions or to double-checking potential translation solu‐ tions (see 8.2.5). variation within this group (SD: 11.20), indicating that, while some subjects were already rather successful with routine processes, others were not. Figure 91: Segments with ITP or error As was the case for almost all the analyzed indicators, the P6 group had the best results also in terms of translation routine activation competence. It was thus the group that was most successful in producing adequate translations through routine processes. There was some variation within this group (SD: 8.13), but this variation was less important than in the P4 group. The P6 subjects’ good result is easily explained by the fact that they belonged to the group that had had the most intensive practical training at the time of data collection due to their imminent practical final examinations. This finding also helps to set some of the earlier tentative conclusions in perspective. The performance of the P6 group, especially the high number of individual translation problems that it had, was found to be more similar to the performance of the theoretically trained T4 group than to that of the other groups with practical experience. With these findings regarding TRAC, however, a clear difference between the two groups becomes evident: the P6 group’s rather high number of ITPs appears more likely to reflect a useful strategy 3 , whereas the very similar findings in the case of the 369 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="370"?> T4 group may be explained by a lack of translation routine activation compe‐ tence. Finally, the students with both practical and theoretical training in the PT7 group were situated between the students in the P6 and P4 groups. There was some variation within this group as well (SD: 7.15), with the subjects having between 38 and 60 non-routine segments. The group’s result implies that the students in it had somewhat less TRAC at the time of data collection than their peers in the P6 group, who had had only practical training. This result can easily be explained by the fact that these students had not translated during the pre‐ vious ten months in which they had attended theoretical classes. Thus, the TRAC that they had developed during their previous practical training could have de‐ clined. However, considering that this group showed a lower level of strategic competence as well (see 10.1.2) - something that accords less well with the “out-of-practice” explanation - it is also possible that the subjects in this group had already left the Fachakademie with a lower level of translation competence overall than the P6 subjects. All in all, these findings permit to conclude that the students participating in the present study had reached different levels of translation routine activation competence. The most obvious difference was between the group of students without any translation practice (the T4 group) and the practically trained groups, all three of which had developed more translation routine activation competence. There were also differences among the three groups with practical (and additional theoretical) training. As would be expected, there was a percep‐ tible increase in translation routine activation competence from the beginning of the fifth semester (the P4 group) to the end of the sixth semester (the P6 group). However, this competence was found to have decreased slightly in the PT7 group, a finding that may have been due - although this cannot be proven on the basis of the present data alone - to the group’s lack of practical training over the previous months. While these results can already tell us quite a lot about how the subjects’ study backgrounds might be related to their levels of translation routine acti‐ vation competence, they do not permit wider conclusions regarding the subjects’ overall translation competence. In fact, it is the strategic competence that will be much more indicative in this respect since a well-developed strategic com‐ petence could most likely compensate for deficiencies in translation routine ac‐ tivation competence. This decisive sub-competence will thus be discussed in the next section. 370 10 Conclusion <?page no="371"?> 10.1.2 The Development of Strategic Competence Strategic competence is considered to be the most central sub-competence of TC in both Göpferich’s (2009b: 20) and PACTE’s (2003: 60) models. Strategic com‐ petence is, accordingly, a metacognitive competence that controls, coordinates and monitors the employment of all the other sub-competences (Göpferich 2009b: 22). It is strategic competence that is responsible for noticing deficiencies in the other sub-competences and applying adequate strategies to compensate for them (PACTE 2003: 59). Furthermore, how well a translator identifies and solves translation problems will depend on his or her level of strategic compe‐ tence. This means that one of the many “tasks” of a well-developed strategic competence is to constantly monitor the translation process and detect when potentially unacceptable translation solutions have been adopted (2003: 59). To this end, the translator needs to be aware of the communicative intention of the translation to be produced and must develop a suitable macro-strategy, to which local decision-making is then subjected (Göpferich 2009b: 22). Taking all of the above into account, it is clear that all of the dependent var‐ iables, except for the translator’s self-concept, are related to strategic compe‐ tence and that quite a few of the indicators analyzed permit conclusions re‐ garding the subjects’ strategic competence. The most relevant of these indicators will be considered in the discussion of the groups’ strategic competence (see also Table 19): - ITPs, especially the percentage of solved ITPs, since this indicator makes it possible to infer how well the subjects were able to compensate for deficiencies in other sub-competences (e.g., language, domain knowl‐ edge, or TRAC) - TTPs, both the awareness of and the ability to solve TTPs, since these indicators show how well the subjects were able to identify and solve problems adequately while taking into account the requirements of the translation task (which requires that they adopt and stick to an adequate macro-strategy) - Errors, especially the total number of errors and the errors that do not co-occur with ITPs, since they both indicate unsuccessful monitoring. The first indicate instances in which monitoring has failed to prevent errors in general; the second indicate segments in which the subject failed to even recognize that there might be deficiencies that require compensa‐ tion. 371 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="372"?> Variables / indi‐ cators T4 P4 P6 PT7 ITPs ⌀ total number of ITPs 38.2 21.7 31.0 25.4 % solved ITPs 69% 60% 64% 60% TTPs % awareness 11% 31% 40% 29% % (semi-)ade‐ quate solutions 26% 45% 54% 42% Errors ⌀ total number of errors 25.4 29.8 21.9 25.3 % errors without ITPs (approxi‐ mate) ~70% ~80% ~69% ~74% Table 19 Overview of relevant indicators The findings concerning the strategic competence of the T4 group, the group of students that had had four semesters of theoretical input, cannot be inter‐ preted straightforwardly. As far as their ability to compensate for missing skills went, the T4 subjects were rather successful. In fact, it was this group of students that was most successful in solving the ITPs they encountered, with a success rate of 69 %. However, the T4 group also experienced considerably more ITPs than the other groups and, despite its success in solving many of them, the group had more unsolved problems in absolute numbers than the other comparison groups (see Figure 60). The T4 group’s strategy, which seems to have consisted in relying heavily on external research, was rather successful when it came to solving individual translation problems and presumably also to reducing errors in general since the group did better in this regard than did the group of students, who had had four semesters of practical training. Therefore, the T4 subjects might have been aware of at least some gaps in their knowledge and have acted rather successfully to prevent errors resulting from this lack. The T4 group also performed relatively well with regard to the number of errors that were made in text segments that did not trigger an ITP during the translation process. These errors were thus not subject to extensive decision-making, and the subjects 372 10 Conclusion <?page no="373"?> probably were not even aware that the translations they produced could be erroneous. Although this percentage of unreflective errors was actually quite high (~70%), it was among the lower percentages of all four groups. However, the T4 group was by far the least aware of the task-inherent trans‐ lation problems (TTPs) and, consequently, also the least successful in providing adequate or semi-adequate translations for these TTPs. The poor performance of the T4 students with regard to the TTPs indicates either that these students had trouble choosing an adequate macro-strategy for the translation task or that they were not yet able to subject local decision-making to that macro-strategy, probably because they did not realize in most cases that the segments were, in fact, affected by the envisaged communicative situation of the target text. The TTP analysis also showed that the T4 subjects translated rather literally. While they performed quite well in segments that required rather literal translations - but apparently without being aware of why a literal translation was acceptable - their performance was rather poor in all the segments in which a literal trans‐ lation did not produce an acceptable solution (see 8.3.4). The T4 group’s literal approach could, however, ultimately also explain the paradoxical finding that this group - which encountered many difficulties during the translation process (ITPs) and apparently was largely unaware of the translational challenges of the translation task (TTPs) - delivered a quality that was higher than that delivered by the practically trained P4 students, who experienced fewer ITPs and did better with regard to TTPs. This result might be due to the T4 group’s literal approach, which was capable of producing acceptable solutions in large parts of the text (see also the discussion of literal translation as a default procedure on page 317). It was probably maintained throughout the entire translation process and avoided the risk that less literal translations might not respect the “bigger pic‐ ture”, i.e., the specific task’s requirements. The performance of the students who had been trained through practical translation exercises during the four semesters of their studies (the P4 group) was opposite to that of the theoretically trained T4 students in many respects. Thus, the P4 group had the lowest number of individual translation problems, but was also among the least successful in solving them. This indicates that, while the students had already developed a certain amount of translation routine activation competence, as we saw above, they were somewhat less successful in solving the segments that still proved to be problematic during translation. This finding could also indicate, however, that the P4 students had already developed routines for the easy-to-solve problems that appeared in the T4 group’s trans‐ lation process and were now aware of more complex problems, which, however, they did not yet have the strategic competence to solve. The assumption that 373 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="374"?> the P4 students’ strategic competence lagged behind their translation routine activation competence is corroborated by two more indicators: the group had the highest number of errors in the data sample and the highest percentage of unreflective errors. It seems that these students did not recognize when their own competence was insufficient and, therefore, did not know when external research was required. However, the practically trained subjects were more aware of the task-in‐ herent translation problems than the T4 group and were also much better at finding adequate or semi-adequate solutions to them. This suggests that their strategic competence had developed at least in this regard over the four semes‐ ters of their training. In this group, too, there was an apparent contradiction between a rather successful performance when it came to recognizing and solving task-inherent translation problems and a high overall number of errors. There are two possible explanations for this apparent contradiction. The first, tentative explanation assumes that the practically trained students (the P4 group) produced less literal translations. This can be inferred, for example, from the students’ greater ability to cope with linguistic TTPs. However, it seems plausible that their less literal approach was not yet supported by a sufficient level of strategic competence, i.e., the students were not always aware of the “big picture” of the translation task and thus were unaware also of the require‐ ments that different text segments had to fulfill. This could explain why their translations went wrong in many cases. On the other hand, it is also possible that students at this level had become aware of the complexity of the translation task, but still required large amounts of cognitive capacity for detecting and solving the TTPs. This, in turn, might have led to an increase in focus errors, whereby the subjects did not even realize that they were producing unacceptable translations. This explanation would also be in line with the rather high number of unreflective errors and the low number of ITPs that were observed in this group. Regardless of which explanation is accepted, however, it seems that the higher number of errors made by this group might, in fact, be related to some development of translation competence. Whether the explanations are true would, however, have to be investigated in a longitudinal study. Only such a study could show whether the number of errors usually increases at a certain point during the acquisition of translation competence before it decreases again to a level lower than that of novices. Corroborating evidence for this assumption comes from Kumpulainen (2016: 194), who identifies a stage of “overdoing” in students of translation once they have learned to detach themselves from the source text, leading to omissions and generally less respect for the equivalence of content between source and target text. 374 10 Conclusion <?page no="375"?> These results support the conclusion that both groups of fifth-semester stu‐ dents still had considerable deficiencies with regard to their strategic compe‐ tence, as was to be expected at their level of study. However, these deficiencies manifested themselves in very different ways. The theoretically trained T4 stu‐ dents primarily lacked an awareness of task-inherent translation problems and of the strategies needed to solve them, implying either that they had problems in developing an adequate macro-strategy or that they were not yet able to refer to it in decision-making. The P4 subjects’ main deficiency, on the other hand, seems to have been an inability to recognize gaps in their knowledge. They tended to overestimate the translation competence they had developed and thus failed to recognize situations in which it was necessary to compensate for such gaps. The strategic competence of the sixth-semester students with only practical training, the P6 group, seems to have been slightly better developed than that of the other groups. This finding is supported by most of the indicators. The P6 group’s higher strategic competence was evident, in particular, in its perform‐ ance in terms of both the awareness of task-inherent translation problems and the ability to solve those problems. In both areas, the P6 group achieved con‐ siderably better results than the other groups, indicating that the group had developed at least some ability to make local decisions in accordance with the communicative situation of the target text and was thus probably better at sub‐ jecting local decisions to a macro-strategy. The group also produced the best translations, making somewhat fewer errors than the PT7 group and the T4 group and considerably fewer than the P4 group. In terms of percentages rather than absolute numbers of unsolved TTPs, the P6 subjects made slightly fewer errors than the other practically trained groups and than the P4 group, in par‐ ticular, without reflecting extensively on the text segments. This indicates that, while the P4 students used rather an unreflective “type down” approach, the P6 group had developed a higher level of strategic competence, which allowed them to better determine when their routines were adequate and when they were not and thus to determine when more extensive research was required. I assume that this was one of the factors that led to the rather high number of ITPs in this group. The P6 group was also slightly better able to solve individual translation problems than the other practically trained groups, but not to the same extent as the T4 group. These findings support the conclusion that the P6 group had developed a certain level of strategic competence - which could, however, still be enhanced. Finally, the students who had had both practical and theoretical training, the PT7 group, performed in the midrange in almost all analyses. Their strategic 375 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="376"?> competence seems to have been better developed overall than that of the P4 group since they made fewer errors, and the percentage of errors they made without a prior, extended period of decision-making was lower. Regarding task-inherent translation problems, this group showed a certain awareness of and ability to solve the TTPs. However, although the group had the highest level of formal translation training, its performance was rather similar to that of the P4 students in this regard and was thus worse than that of the P6 group, which had had no theoretical training. It is also worth noting that, on average, the PT7 subjects solved less than half of the analyzed translation problems, a rather poor result for their level of study. With regard to the overall quality of its translations, the group’s performance was also in the midrange and at a level comparable to that of the theoretically trained fifth-semester students (T4). All in all, the PT7 group exhibited a certain amount of strategic competence, but it performed below expectations in view of the fact that the PT7 students had not only had extensive practical training but also explicit theoretical training, which included presenting didactic functional models of translation and translation problems. To sum up, the P6 group clearly exhibited the highest level of strategic com‐ petence in the data sample. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that, even in this group, there was considerable room for improvement. It is more difficult to draw straightforward conclusions regarding the strategic competence of the other groups since the indicators sometimes point in different directions. The PT7 group appears to have had a lower level of strategic competence when compared to the other group of advanced students (the P6 group). However, the results for this group were for the most part consistently in the midrange, in‐ dicating that the strategic competence of the PT7 students was more highly developed than that of the two groups of fifth-semester students, who showed rather extreme deficiencies when it came to strategic behavior: the theoretically trained students when it came to assessing the requirements of the target text and acting accordingly and the practically trained students when it came to recognizing and compensating for potential gaps in their knowledge. Therefore, the groups of less advanced students showed the lowest level of strategic com‐ petence in the present data sample, as was to be expected. Regarding the overall translation competence of all the groups, it appears that the practically trained group of fifth-semester students (the P4 group) had ach‐ ieved a higher level of TC than their theoretically trained peers, despite the slightly lower quality of the translations they produced. This is implied by the group’s higher translation routine activation competence and its greater aware‐ ness overall of the task’s requirements and its resulting ability to better recog‐ nize and solve task-inherent translation problems. The performance of the PT7 376 10 Conclusion <?page no="377"?> 4 No data on the self-concept are available for the group T4, since these were not collected in the corresponding wave of the TransComp project (Göpferich 2008: 264-276). group - despite its higher level of training - was similar to that of the P4 group in many respects. As a result, it is difficult to conclude that its translation com‐ petence was considerably greater. The P6 group, on the other hand, clearly ex‐ hibited the highest level of strategic competence and the highest level of trans‐ lation routine activation competence in the data sample. It is therefore a safe conclusion that this group had developed the highest level of translation com‐ petence of all the comparison groups. 10.1.3 The Development and Influence of the Self-Concept I suggested earlier that different teaching methods might have had an influence on the students’ professional self-concept and that these differences might, in turn, have led them to apply their translation competence differently (Göpferich 2009b: 22). I also hypothesized that their self-concept could have led to visible differences in their translation processes and products. In chapter 6, the self-concept of the groups P4, P6 and PT7 4 was analyzed on the basis of three different indicators: the prestige that students believe the pro‐ fession to have, their view of the translators’ role and their concept of transla‐ tion. Although some tendencies were discovered, the differences between the groups were minimal. In particular, the more progress in formal translator training the subjects had made, the higher was the occupational status they appeared to expect society to attribute to the translation profession. There was also a slight tendency towards agreeing less with negatively connoted meta‐ phors describing the translator’s role and an increase in agreement with the view that the translator is a self-dependent communicator and rewriter of texts. All three groups had developed an overall functional concept of translation, but there was a slight tendency towards a more functional concept of translation in the group that had had theoretical training. All in all, theoretical training might thus have contributed to the development of the students’ self-concepts, al‐ though more research on this topic is clearly needed. When the subjects’ self-concept is related to their performance, however, these small differences do not seem to have led to any visible differences in their performance of an actual translation task. Thus, the overall performance of the group with the most highly developed and most stable functional orientation (the PT7 group) was weaker in this regard than the performance of the P6 group, including with regard to the functional adaptation of the text as required in some 377 10.1 The Development of Translation Competence: Bringing Together the Results <?page no="378"?> of the TTPs analyzed. This apparent lack of influence might, however, be due to the fact that the differences in self-concept observed between the three groups of subjects were only minimal and all groups tended to have an overall func‐ tional concept of translation. 10.2 The Impact of Teaching Theory: Answering the Research Questions Is there a measurable impact of theoretical classes on students’ self-con‐ cept and translation competence? H 1 The development of TC depends on input during translator training. H 1.1 TC develops differently in groups with theoretical training than in those without a knowledge of theories. H 1.2 Which sub-competences are developed first / better depends on the input that students receive. The data show that there are differences in the development of translation com‐ petence depending on whether the curriculum focuses on practical or theoretical courses (see section 10.1 above). Especially among the less advanced students, who had had either only theoretical training or only practical training, an almost opposite behavior was discovered. From this, it is possible to infer that, while both groups still had considerable deficiencies in their TC, the practically trained group had made more progress in TC development. The same difference was found in the more advanced groups, whereby the group that had had exclusively practical training showed more overall translation competence, even though the two groups had basically had the same amount of practical experience - al‐ though the practical training of the group that had had theoretical training was further back in time. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that practical training is a necessary prerequisite for developing translation competence (H 1.1). Regarding the hypothesis that different input produces differences in the de‐ velopment of sub-competences, conclusions are difficult to draw. The level of translation routine activation competence was considerably higher among the less advanced students who had had only practical training than it was among those who had had only theoretical training. However, it is difficult to determine if there was a difference in strategic competence. Clearly, both groups had de‐ ficiencies in this regard, although these deficiencies manifested themselves in different areas (see section 10.1.2). There were also differences among the ad‐ 378 10 Conclusion <?page no="379"?> 5 i.e., the groups P4, P6 and PT7 vanced groups. In particular, students with only practical training exhibited a generally higher level of strategic competence as well as a higher level of trans‐ lation routine activation competence. All in all, therefore, the data do not permit the conclusion that the teaching of theory contributes more to the development of any of the analyzed sub-competences than practical training alone. The data clearly indicate, however, that practical training is crucial for the development of translation routine activation competence, as was expected. All in all, how‐ ever, it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions on the working hy‐ pothesis H 1.2. H 2 Teaching theory raises awareness about the role of the translator and enhances a communication-oriented concept of translation. All primary subjects 5 had a functional concept of translation. As a result, it is clear that practical training induces a functional concept in students of transla‐ tion. However, the group with additional theoretical training had a slightly more functional concept of translation and a broader view of the translator’s role. These findings support the limited conclusion that theoretical training induces more awareness of the translator’s role and enhances a communication-oriented concept of translation (H 2). However, this conclusion was confirmed only for subjects who had had practical experience prior to receiving theoretical input and thus - as can be assumed on the basis of the other groups’ self-concepts - had a functional concept of translation beforehand. H 3 Students with a theoretical background are better able to recognize and solve translation problems. This hypothesis was not confirmed. On the basis of a number of preselected task-inherent translation problems (TTPs), theoretical training was not found to have any advantages when it came to raising the subjects’ awareness of prag‐ matic, linguistic or text-specific translation problems. Thus, the less advanced students without any translation practice exhibited an extremely low awareness of all kinds of translation problems, whereas those who had had practical training performed considerably better. Among the more advanced students, the same tendency was found, although the difference between the two groups was less pronounced. This is rather surprising since both groups had had the same amount of practical training. While I do not suggest that the weaker perform‐ 379 10.2 The Impact of Teaching Theory: Answering the Research Questions <?page no="380"?> 6 Rather this might be caused by a lack of practical training during the months of the theoretical course or by the fact these specific subjects might have had a lower trans‐ lation competence when graduating from the FAK (see e.g., 8.3.4). ance of the theoretically trained group was due to the theoretical input that they had received 6 , this input might not have furthered their ability to recognize these translation problems either. To determine the subjects’ abilities to provide acceptable solutions to trans‐ lation problems, two different measurements were used. The first was the sub‐ jects’ performance regarding task-inherent translation problems. It was found not only that the practically trained groups were more aware of these TTPs, but also that they were better able to provide adequate solutions for those problems than the groups with exclusively or additional theoretical training. The second measurement concerned the subjects’ ability to solve their individual translation problems (ITPs). In this case, it was found that, of the less advanced students (those in groups P4 and T4), the theoretically trained students were more suc‐ cessful in solving their ITPs. It should be noted, however, that these students also experienced considerably more ITPs. This permits to conclude (see section 8.2.5) that they might have experienced a large number of translation problems that a) did not arise among the practically trained students due to their higher translation routine activation competence and b) were easy to solve with the help of a dictionary (e.g., the large number of transfer problems that the group experienced). The more advanced groups of subjects showed the reverse ten‐ dency: the subjects with only practical training were slightly better able to solve their ITPs. The difference, however, was less pronounced than for the groups of fifth-semester students. These data do not permit the conclusion that theoretical training helps subjects to solve their translation problems (H 3). This result is confirmed by the PT7 subjects’ impression that their recently acquired theoret‐ ical knowledge did not help them to solve translation problems better (see 9.2.2). H 4 Theoretical training has a direct influence on the translation product. H 4.1 Students with a theoretical background produce translations of a better quality. H 4.2 Students with a theoretical background are more likely to produce func‐ tional equivalents (sense-oriented translations) instead of formal equiva‐ lents (form-oriented/ literal translations). It has been claimed (see 4.2.3) that subjects with theoretical knowledge will produce better translations because they are better able to find the balance be‐ 380 10 Conclusion <?page no="381"?> tween too free and too literal (e.g., Latyšev 2004: 641). This was not the case in the present data sample. While it is true that the theoretically trained subjects in group T4 made fewer errors overall than the group with exclusively practical training (P4), they showed a much greater tendency to produce literal transla‐ tions. Furthermore, the T4 subjects were considerably less able to provide ade‐ quate translations for text segments that could be objectively considered to present specific challenges to the translator (the TTPs). Accordingly, the overall quality of the translations produced by the practically trained group (the P4 group) was lower, although this group was more aware of and better able to solve the task-inherent translation problems that were analyzed. The group also provided less literal translations of these segments. Although these findings appear to be inconsistent with one another, one finding might actually be able to explain the other. I believe that the very literal approach adopted by the T4 subjects enabled them to produce acceptable translations in many cases, even though they were not aware of the requirements of the task. The P4 subjects, on the other hand, might already have had a less literal approach to translation, which was, however, not yet backed up by the required awareness of the criteria that the TT had to fulfill, leading these subjects to produce more errors. Another explanation could be that the P4 subjects concentrated intensively on the TTPs that they had recognized and thus made focus errors in other parts of the trans‐ lation. The working hypothesis H 4.1 was contradicted by the findings for the more advanced groups. It was the advanced group with only practical training that produced fewer errors. However, it is more difficult to draw conclusions as to whether this result was because one or the other group adopted a generally more form-oriented or a more sense-oriented approach since the performance of these two groups was much more similar than that of the less advanced groups. This similarity was to be expected since these groups had had the same amount of practical training and only differed in that one had had additional theoretical training. All in all, the working hypothesis H 4 was not confirmed. While the findings for the hypothesis that students with theoretical training make fewer errors (H 4.1) were contradictory, how prepared students are to translate more freely seems to depend rather on the amount of practice they have had (H 4.2). To sum up and answer the first research question, differences in the transla‐ tion competence of the comparison groups were found to exist. On the basis of the present data, however, none of these differences seems to have been a direct result of the teaching of translation theory. It seems that the differences were due, instead, to the amount of practical training that the students had had up to the time of data collection and to whether or not they were regularly translating 381 10.2 The Impact of Teaching Theory: Answering the Research Questions <?page no="382"?> at that time. The only possible impact of theory that was found concerned the development of the subjects’ self-concept. Thus, subjects with theoretical training seem to have had a slightly more functional concept of translation than the groups without theoretical training, but these differences were marginal. Does the impact on translation competence depend on whether theory is taught before or after students have received any practical training? H 5 Subjects with practical experience are better able to implement trans‐ lation theory because they have already automatized easier aspects of the translation process and therefore have more cognitive capacity available to reflect on theoretical aspects. Hypothesis H 5 was not confirmed since no evidence of the explicit implemen‐ tation of theoretical knowledge in the translation process could be found in either of the groups T4 or PT7. Furthermore, on the basis of the product and process data and of the subjects’ own impressions as expressed on the retro‐ spective questionnaire, it seems that the subjects with previous practical expe‐ rience had not been able to integrate their theoretical knowledge into the trans‐ lation process at all. It seems that the subjects’ routines had already become quite fixed during the six semesters of intense practical training at the Facha‐ kademie. This might be the reason why it was not possible for them to have changed their developed routines and utilize their theoretical knowledge in an actual translation task that was conducted so soon after they had acquired that knowledge. For this reason, no definite conclusions can be drawn about the above research question since no direct impact of translation theory on the sub‐ jects’ competence was observable independently of whether the theoretical courses were taught before or after the subjects had gained some practical ex‐ perience. What is the students’ opinion/ expectation concerning the implementa‐ tion of translation theory in their studies a) before they have taken theoretical classes? H 6 Students without theoretical background consider theories to be im‐ portant for the professional translator and would therefore be in favor of integrating theories into the curriculum. H 7 Students without theoretical background expect theory to offer rules and guidelines for practical translation tasks. 382 10 Conclusion <?page no="383"?> Both of these hypotheses were corroborated by the data. A majority of the stu‐ dents who had not taken any theoretical courses (77 %) rather agreed that the‐ oretical knowledge could benefit a translator and that it was thus an asset for a professional career. Accordingly, a majority (60 %) of these subjects were some‐ what in favor of integrating theoretical classes into the vocational curriculum of the Bavarian Fachakademie where they were enrolled (H 6). From their an‐ swers, it was also clear that the main expectation of the students who were in favor of theory was that it would “help” them to perform actual translation tasks (H 7). Thus, the answers frequently hinted at the view that theories are “tools” or “guidelines” that can be directly applied. However, subjects also mentioned some broader benefits of theories, such as raising awareness and inducing re‐ flection. b) after they have taken theoretical classes? H 8 Students feel they have been deceived when they realize that theories generally do not offer rules and guidelines for practical translation - this is visible in claims that theory is useless for the practitioner. This hypothesis was confirmed only partially. It is true that the number of sub‐ jects who opposed theory and declared it to be useless was somewhat higher in this group than in the group without theoretical training. Some of these subjects might thus have felt that they had been somewhat deceived. However, they were in the minority (33 %). The view that theoretical knowledge can be rather a benefit for the professional translator was considerably lower in this group when compared to subjects without theoretical training. However, a small ma‐ jority still believed that knowing about theory is rather helpful for the profes‐ sional translator (55 %). Therefore, it was not possible to confirm that there was a general feeling of having been deceived after having been introduced to the‐ oretical aspects of translation (H 8). It seems rather that some students had also come to accept theory as a mind-opener. The belief that theory is a kind of guideline or a set of rules for translators to follow was clearly held less frequently by the subjects with additional theoretical input than by those who had been trained only practically. This indicates that the subjects had adjusted their ex‐ pectations concerning the benefits of theory after a very short time. 383 10.2 The Impact of Teaching Theory: Answering the Research Questions <?page no="384"?> 7 This might obviously also be due to the research design, as will be discussed in section 10.4. 10.3 Implications for Translator Training 10.3.1 Curriculum Design In chapter 4, the question was raised as to whether translation theory is neces‐ sary or at least helpful for developing translation competence. We saw that dif‐ ferent opinions exist in academia, with some researchers claiming that teaching translation theory is not indispensable (e.g., Newmark 2009: 20), while others believe a rather theoretical and reflective education is essential for forming competent translators (e.g., Bernardini 2004: 27). The present data does not sup‐ port the view that translation theory is necessary for the development of trans‐ lation competence. Instead, an increase in translation competence was observed during the time in which subjects were trained purely through practical exer‐ cises, i.e., from the beginning of the fifth semester (the P4 group) to the end of the sixth semester (the P6 group). No increase in translation competence was observed afterwards, when theoretical classes were added. 7 However, I would like to make it very clear that, despite this conclusion, I do not in any way intend to argue that theory should not be a part of translator training. First, the cur‐ rently available empirical data are insufficient to permit any definitive conclu‐ sions regarding the impact of translation theory on the development of trans‐ lation competence. Furthermore, even if more data suggesting that theoretical instruction has no direct impact on translation competence were available, de‐ veloping students’ translation competence is not the only aim pursued by trans‐ lation curricula, especially university-based curricula (see 10.5). However, it would perhaps be advisable to make explicit why theoretical courses are inte‐ grated into the curricula and what their particular aims are. It might also be useful to discuss these aims with students in order to counteract any unrealistic hopes they may have. Such steps could help to reduce students’ expectations and forestall feelings of having been deceived if students discover that transla‐ tion theories are not relevant or are inapplicable to practical translation tasks in the way that they may have supposed. Having said that, it seems nevertheless important to discuss when theoretical courses could best be integrated into translation curricula so that they might add to the development of translation competence as best they can. From the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn: 384 10 Conclusion <?page no="385"?> 1. Focusing on theory alone without additional practice over the first part of translator training does not seem to help students to develop transla‐ tion competence. This has already been suggested by Göpferich (2012: 261), who found that her subjects did not show any measurable improvement in translation competence after three semesters of study. From this finding, she concluded that such stagnation was due to a lack of practice and suggested that the curriculum be modified to permit more integration of theory and practice: Interconnecting the teaching of translation theory with translation practice can be expected to create synergy effects. The criteria that potential TT versions have to fulfil, for example, depend on the translation theory from which a translator starts. In translation classes students should learn how to derive criteria from a theory to be applied, as this allows teachers to demonstrate the relevance and applicability of translation theories and how they can be used when translation problems are encountered. (Göpferich 2012: 261) I have analyzed data from subjects following the same curriculum and have found that, after four semesters of training, their performance is weaker in many respects than that of students who have been practically trained for the same amount of time. I agree with Göpferich that the reason for this rather poor performance is a lack of practice and that including practice earlier in the curriculum could remedy it. Whether the synergy effects that Göpferich claims to exist would in fact occur and thus lead to a better translation competence than practical classes alone would then have to be tested empirically. 2. Adding theory after six semesters of practical training did not appear to have any positive impact on translation competence. This was true at least for the short-term period that was investigated. I believe that the subjects’ routines were already relatively fixed due to the intense practical training that they had received at the FAK level. Changing these routines was probably not possible through theoretical input alone. In this case, too, it would be important to provide practical classes concurrently. This step could prevent a potential decrease in translation competence due to dis‐ continued practice and, at the same time, allow students to acquire new routines by implementing their theoretical knowledge. This suggestion is generally in line with Göpferich’s above-quoted conclusion that prac‐ tice and theory should be provided in parallel. Again, however, it would have to be tested whether, in this combination, theoretical teaching would have a perceptible impact on translation competence. 385 10.3 Implications for Translator Training <?page no="386"?> 8 These were the only three students in the data sample who attended this class, i.e., all subjects from this class were able to solve the problem adequately, but no subjects from any other class were. To sum up, one main conclusion can be drawn: the exclusive teaching of theory without additional translation practice - especially over a longer period of time - does not seem to contribute to translation competence. However, practical translation classes can enhance students’ translation competence without any additional theoretical instruction. From this, it follows that practical translation classes should be included from fairly early on in the training of translators. It seems plausible that the best time to include theoretical teaching is either at the beginning or at least in the first half of the study program. In this way, students will still have plenty of practical translation classes that might help them in developing / changing routines on the basis of the theoretical input - if trans‐ lation theory does, in fact, have such an impact (see Pezza Cintr-o 2010: 179 for a positive conclusion). All in all, however, it seems that deliberate practice, in‐ cluding targeted tasks and feedback, is the key to developing solid translation competence (e.g., Shreve 2002). 10.3.2 Train the Trainer Another aspect that needs to be highlighted is the influence of the teacher / lecturer. When analyzing the ability of the students who took part in the present study to cope with task-inherent translation problems, it was found that there were a number of advanced students who were exceptionally well able to solve a rather difficult pragmatic translation problem that required explicitating the year in which the events described in the ST occurred (TTP “1981”; see 8.3.3.1.1). These three subjects not only recognized the translation problem; they also had no difficulty in providing an adequate solution. This indicates that they had already developed strategies for coping with this kind of pragmatic translation problem. For the other advanced students who also recognized the problem, the text segment caused uncertainty and triggered an individual translation problem. However, despite their awareness of the problem and their explicit decision-making, these students were unable to provide adequate solutions. In‐ terestingly, all the students who effortlessly provided adequate solutions had been in the same class 8 , whereas those who did not manage to provide adequate solutions had attended other classes at the same level (the P6 group) or at an even higher level (the PT7 group). I therefore believe that the students who provided successful translations had been confronted with this kind of transla‐ tion problem during their practical training and had therefore been able to de‐ 386 10 Conclusion <?page no="387"?> 9 The role of deliberate practice in developing expert competence has long been recog‐ nized. Thus, Ericsson (1996: 20-21) concludes from a review of studies that the more time spent in deliberate practice, the higher the level of performance. velop routines to solve it. In their practical translation exercises, the students might thus have acquired exactly the kind of declarative knowledge that theo‐ retical classes are often given credit for (see 4.2.3). This finding calls attention to the performance of teachers, to the way in which they teach their practical translation classes and most of all to their pro‐ fessional self-concept. It also raises questions regarding their theoretical knowl‐ edge and the kind of training they have had. Although the present study does not, of course, permit conclusions regarding these global issues, it still seems likely that a theoretical foundation and concept underlay the training that the above-mentioned class had received. Therefore, not only are curricula vital for the development of students’ translation competence; it is also necessary to train the trainers. I am certainly not the first to propose that theoretical knowledge is important for those who teach translation (see 4.2.2) or that it is important to train the trainers and ensure that they are informed about the latest developments in empirical research in their field (e.g., Englund Dimitrova 2002: 75, Kearns 2008: 202). Nevertheless, it is important to point out that one of the key factors in translation training might well be the combination of a theoretically trained trainer who provides students with deliberate practice 9 , i.e., "well-defined task[s] with an appropriate difficulty level for the particular individual, infor‐ mative feedback, and opportunities for repetition and corrections of errors" (Ericsson 1996: 20-21). Such conditions might contribute much more to devel‐ oping translation competence in students than explicitly teaching them trans‐ lation theories in separate lectures. 10.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research The present study provides some initial insights into how differently students’ translation competence develops when their study programs - or parts of their study programs - are exclusively practical or exclusively theoretical. The find‐ ings permit conclusions regarding the respective advantages and shortcomings of such forms of training as far as the development of translation competence is concerned. They also permit initial conclusions regarding the question as to when and how theory should rather (not) be included in translation curricula. 387 10.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research <?page no="388"?> The findings of the present study are not generalizable, however, due to the small sample size and some limitations inherent to the study design that might have influenced the results. Thus, the above conclusions should rather be treated as hypotheses to be verified in future research. To begin with, the results might have been influenced by the cross-sectional study design that was adopted. While this was the only viable choice for the present project due to time constraints, it would have increased the explanatory power of the conclusions if a longitudinal design had been adopted, especially with regard to the groups P4, P6 and PT7. Thus, following one group of students from the beginning of the fifth semester to the end of the theoretical BA Ü curriculum would have made it possible to trace the development of these in‐ dividuals as a function of the type of training they received. This design might also have made it possible to avoid some persisting uncertainties concerning the conclusions, especially concerning the PT7 students’ level of translation com‐ petence before they started their theoretical study program. Having said this, it seems that a longitudinal study of the development of translation competence over the whole period of the Fachakademie curriculum would also be an impor‐ tant addition to research on the acquisition of translation competence in general. To the best of my knowledge, no longitudinal study of the ATC of students in an exclusively practically oriented study program currently exists. The findings of such a study could then be compared with other (simulated) longitudinal studies such as PACTE’s (2014) and Göpferich’s (e.g., 2010c, 2012, 2013) at other training institutions in order to provide further insights into the differences in the ATC that depend on the course of studies (see also Göpferich’s call for multi-center studies, 2008: 12-13). Second, the results of the present study are limited by the time at which the PT7 subjects were studied. Since their data were collected immediately after they had completed their theoretical courses, only the short-term effects of the‐ oretical instruction could be accounted for. While this reduced the risk that stu‐ dents may have had any practical translation experience since finishing their theoretical courses and thus the risk that they might have proceduralized the acquired theoretical knowledge, it nevertheless might also be the reason why no positive impact of theory on their translation competence could be observed. To better understand the ways in which theoretical training can contribute to translation experience, studies focusing on the middleand long-term are also required. Third, the study was limited by the very specific conditions provided by the selected curricula (only translation theory / only translation practice / transla‐ tion theory after intensive practice), none of which are “typical” of translator 388 10 Conclusion <?page no="389"?> 10 Empowerment is a keyword in this context; see Kiraly (2000), Klimkowski & Klim‐ kowska (2012). training. Thus, the findings permit to conclude that practical translation classes contribute to the development of translation competence to a larger extent than theoretical classes. What the data cannot establish, however, is whether a com‐ bination of both practical and theoretical classes might result in even better achievements than practical training alone. In a next step, it would thus be im‐ portant to test whether teaching translation theory has more of an impact if it is provided in parallel with practical training, so that synergy effects can be achieved as suggested, for example, by Göpferich (2012: 261). Also, the question of whether theory should be taught before or after practical training has not yet been thoroughly researched. While the present study shows that starting trans‐ lation training with a lengthy period of only theoretical training seems rather counter-productive for translation competence development, this might be dif‐ ferent if the period of exclusive theoretical training is limited to the first one or two semesters, for example, and then complemented with intensive practical training. Once practical training is provided, students with a sound theoretical knowledge might, after all, develop translation competence more quickly than students with no such previous knowledge. Closely related to this is the question as to how individual courses - either practical or theoretical - influence translation competence development. Clearly, there are many factors in the individual course design that could have an impact in this regard. The first factor is the exact content of the course. In the case of theoretical courses, this content might include what theories are taught, how many theories are taught and in how much detail they are taught. Comparisons of different courses might indicate if some theories contribute more efficiently to the development of translation competence than others (Gile 2010: 255). For practical courses, there may be considerable differences in the rationale behind the selection of texts, the choice of translation briefs and the feedback provided - especially whether this is theoretically induced or rather builds on implicit theories alone. For both kinds of courses, the adopted (mix of) methods might impact the outcome as far as translation competence develop‐ ment is concerned. Last but not least, the individual lecturer / teacher might have an influence, e.g., because of his or her character, professional/ training background and, in particular, understanding of teaching 10 , on which depend, in turn, hierarchical relations in the classroom. The impact of the teacher (and thus of individual teaching styles) with regard to both practical and theoretical classes remains to 389 10.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research <?page no="390"?> be investigated. Further research could also place an emphasis on within-group variation, i.e., on the differences in the ways in which individual students re‐ spond to theoretical teaching. In this connection, it could be investigated, for example, whether the impact of teaching translation theory on translation com‐ petence differs depending on the subjects’ learning styles (see 9.3). All these aspects are obviously interlinked in any concrete teaching situation, which shows the complexity of translation competence acquisition and also the large number of research questions that have resulted from the present research and still have to be tackled. It would be beneficial if future research projects approached the question of the impact of theoretical training from these dif‐ ferent angles. The present research is an important first step in investigating the impact of theory on translation competence and, to the best of my knowl‐ edge, the first TPR study to compare students from different curricula with one another. It can, however, be only one part of the overall attempt to fully under‐ stand how translation competence is acquired under different conditions and the role that translation theory can play in this process of acquisition. 10.5 Outlook To conclude, I would like to come back to a topic that I briefly touched upon in the introduction: translator training as a juggling between the academic and the vocational. In the present study, I have focused exclusively on the more voca‐ tional “outcome” of translator training, i.e., on the development of translation competence as evidenced in a specific translation task. And, indeed, I believe that the development of a certain level of translation competence is, and should be, the main aim of any study program in translation (studies), regardless of whether it is vocational or academic. The aim of translator education is obviously a professional translator, but what kind of a professional is another question. As the world of translation changes, so should the goals of translator education or, rather, translator education should prepare grad‐ uates to cope with the changes on the translation market. ( Jääskeläinen et al. 2011: 152) As is clear from the above quotation, translation competence acquisition might, however, not be the only aim of translator training programs, especially when they are university-based. Just as important is the “enablement” of the future translator to adapt to a changing market for professional interlingual commu‐ nication. This does not only concern the technological advancements that have changed the profession considerably over the last decades but, most of all, the 390 10 Conclusion <?page no="391"?> ability to adapt to an ever shifting “job profile”. Students thus need to develop a certain flexibility and adaptability with regard to the professional situations that they might encounter and the various jobs that they might have during their careers. It seems obvious that the broader their knowledge base is, the better translation graduates will be able to reach into neighboring disciplines, such as intercultural communication, technical writing and lexicography, to name just a few. It is in this context that Bernardini (2004: 19-20) argues for “translator education” rather than vocational training since the first, she be‐ lieves, empowers students to “use finite resources indefinitely” by developing their cognitive abilities and thus enabling them to solve problems they have never encountered before and to acquire new knowledge whenever they need it. This certainly is an important aim not only for programs in translation, but for any study program in the humanities if their aim is to enhance their students’ employability. Last but not least, students at the undergraduate level need to acquire academic skills and general intellectual abilities such as critical thinking that not only allow them to graduate successfully, but also prepare them for continuing their studies at the master’s level and beyond, and not only in trans‐ lation but also in related disciplines such as those mentioned above. All of this shows just how complex the requirements for designing a university-level translation curriculum are, and I certainly agree with Bernardini, among others, that “translator education” is of paramount importance. I also believe, however, that students should acquire the highest level of translation competence possible during a three-year undergraduate program since it is this competence that sets them apart from graduates of other courses of study and, I believe, contributes considerably to their employability. Since this should not, however, interfere with their academic education, it is even more important that we understand the factors influencing translation competence development better than we do today. It is in this way that I hope the present study will ultimately contribute to making translator training as efficient as possible in complying with both the vocational and the academic demands placed upon it. 391 10.5 Outlook <?page no="392"?> 11 References Adab, Beverly J. 2000. “Evaluating translation competence”. Developing translation com‐ petence ed. by Christina Schäffner & Beverly J. Adab, 215-228. Amsterdam: John Ben‐ jamins. Aguado-Giménez, Pilar & Pascual-Francisco Pérez-Paredes. 2005. “Translation-Strategies Use: A Classroom-Based Examination of Baker’s Taxonomy”. Meta: Journal des tra‐ ducteurs 50: 1.294-311. Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2014. “Receptivism: An intertraditional approach to intuition in interpreter and translator competence”. Bausteine translatorischer Kompetenz oder Was macht Übersetzer und Dolmetscher zu Profis? Innsbrucker Ringvorlesungen zur Trans‐ lationswissenschaft VII ed. by Lew Zybatow & Michael Ustaszewski, 51-82. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Alves, Fábio. 2005. “Bridging the Gap Between Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in the Training of Translators: Meta-Reflection Under Scrutiny”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 4.not paginated (CD-Rom). Alves, Fábio & José L. Gonçalves. 2007. “Modelling Translator’s Competence: Relevance and Expertise under Scrutiny”. Doubts and directions in translation studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004 ed. by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shle‐ singer & Radegundis Stolze, 41-55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alves, Fábio & José L. Gonçalves. 2013. “Investigating the conceptual-procedural dis‐ tinction in the translation process: A relevance-theoretic analysis of micro and macro translation units”. Target 25: 1.107-124. Alves, Fábio, José L. Gonçalves & Rui Rothe-Neves. 2001. “In search of a definition of translation competence: the structure and development of an ongoing research project”. Quaderns. Revista de traducció 6.46-49. Alves, Fábio & Tânia Liparini Campos. 2009. “Translation technology in time: investi‐ gating the impact of translation memory systems and time pressure on types of in‐ ternal and external support”. Behind the Mind: Methods, Models & Results in Translation Process Research ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen & Inger M. Mees, 191- 218. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Alves, Fábio, Adriana Pagano & Igor da Silva. 2014. “Effortful text production in trans‐ lation: A study of grammatical (de)metaphorization drawing on product and process data”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 9: 1.25-51. <?page no="393"?> Alves, Fábio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner & Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010. “Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of productand process-based translation research”. Shreve & Angelone 2010. 109-142. Alvstad, Cecilia, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius. 2011. “Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies”. Methods and strat‐ egies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius, 1-9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, John R. 1981. Cognitive Skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, John R. 1982. “Acquisition of Cognitive Skill”. Psychological Review 89: 4.369- 406. Anderson, John R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer‐ sity Press. Anderson, John R. 1993. Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Angelone, Erik. 2010. “Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task”. Shreve & Angelone 2010. 17-40. Angelone, Erik & Gregory M. Shreve. 2011. “Uncertainty Management, Metacognitive Bundling in Problem Solving, and Translation Quality”. Cognitive explorations of translation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 108-130. London: Continuum. Arrojo, Rosemary. 1998. “The Revision of the Traditional Gap between Theory & Practice & the Empowerment of Translation in Postmodern Times”. The Translator 4: 1.25-48. Atari, Omar. 2005. “Saudi Students’ Translation Strategies in an Undergraduate Trans‐ lator Training Program”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 1.180-193. Aubin, Marie-Christine. 2003. “L’enseignement théorique dans un programme de for‐ mation universitaire en traduction”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 48: 3.438-445. Baker, Mona. 2011. In other words: A coursebook on translation. Abingdon: Routledge. Bartrina, Francesca. 2005. “Theory and translator training”. Training for the New Millen‐ nium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting ed. by M. Tennent, 177-189. Am‐ sterdam: John Benjamins. Bastin, Georges L. & Miguel Betancourt. 2005. “Les avatars de la créativité chez les tra‐ ducteurs débutants”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 213-224. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Bayer-Hohenwarter, Gerrit. 2011. Datendokumentation zum Buch "Translatorische Krea‐ tivität. Definition - Messung - Entwicklung". http: / / gams.uni-graz.at/ fedora/ get/ container: tc/ bdef: Container/ get, Accessed June 4, 2018. Bayer-Hohenwarter, Gerrit. 2012. Translatorische Kreativität: Definition - Messung - En‐ twicklung. Tübingen: Narr. 393 11 References <?page no="394"?> Becher, Viktor. 2011. Explicitation and implicitation in translation: A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. Dissertation, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg. Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London: Longman. Bergen, David. 2009. “The role of metacognition and cognitive conflict in the develop‐ ment of translation competence”. Across Languages and Cultures 10: 2.231-250. Berglund, Lars O. 1990. “The search for social significance”. Lebende Sprachen 35: 4.145- 151. Bernardini, Silvia. 2001. “Think-aloud protocols in translation research”. Target 13: 2.241- 263. Bernardini, Silvia. 2004. “The theory behind the practice: Translator training or translator education”. Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 17-30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2010. “Who Needs Theory? ”. Translation: Theory and practice in dia‐ logue ed. by Antoinette Fawcett, Karla Guadarrama & Rebecca H. Parker, 25-38. London: Continuum. Breedveld, Hella. 2002. “Translation processes in time”. Target 14: 2.221-240. Calzada Pérez, María. 2005. “Applying Translation Theory in Teaching”. New Voices in Translation Studies 1.1-11. Cao, Deborah. 1996. “Towards a Model of Translation Proficiency”. Target 8: 2.325-340. Carl, Michael. 2012. “Translog-II: a Program for Recording User Activity Data for Em‐ pirical Reading and Writing Research”. Workshop abstracts: Eighth international con‐ ference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2012 satellite workshops, May 21-22 & May 26-27, 2012, Istanbul, Turkey ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet U. Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis, 4108-4112. Istanbul: ELRA. Carl, Michael & Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production”. Translation: Corpora, Computation and Cog‐ nition 2: 1.127-145. Carl, Michael & Martin Kay. 2011. “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 56: 4.952-975. Castillo Rincón, Luis M. 2015. “Acquisition of translation competence and translation acceptability: An experimental study”. Translation and Interpreting (The International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research) 7: 1.72-85. Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. “On the Relevance of Translation Theory to Translator Training”. Germanic and Baltic Linguistic Studies and Translation: Proceedings of the 394 11 References <?page no="395"?> International Conference Held at the University of Vilnius, Lithuania 22-24 April 1998 ed. by Aurelia Usonienė, 6-15. Vilnius: Homo Liber. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. “Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation”. Devel‐ oping translation competence ed. by Christina Schäffner & Beverly J. Adab, 77-89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew. 2011a. “Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis”. Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius, 23-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew. 2011b. “Translation universals”. Handbook of translation studies ed. by Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, 175-179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew & Emma Wagner. 2002. Can theory help translators? A dialogue between the ivory tower and the wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cnyrim, Andrea, Susanne Hagemann & Julia Neu. 2013. “Towards a Framework of Ref‐ erence for Translation Competence”. New prospects and perspectives for educating lan‐ guage mediators ed. by Don Kiraly, Silvia Hansen-Schirra & Karin Maksymski, 9-34. Tübingen: Narr. Corbett, Albert T. & John R. Anderson. 1995. “Knowledge Tracing: Modeling the Acquis‐ ition of Procedural Knowledge”. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4: 4.253- 278. Cruces Colado, Susana. 2005. “Théories de la traduction et théories de l'apprentissage”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 189-197. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Dancette, Jeanne. 1997. “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation”. Cogni‐ tive processes in translation and interpreting ed. by Joseph H. Danks, 77-103. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. De Rooze, Bart. 2003. “La traducción, contra reloj”. AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Interna‐ cional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación: Universidad de Granada, 12-14 de febrero de 2003 ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 59-66. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Delisle, Jean. 2005. L'enseignement pratique de la traduction. Beyrouth, Ottawa: Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. Della Summers. 1995. Longman dictionary of contemporary English. München: Langen‐ scheidt-Longman. Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Joachim Kornelius. 1978. Linguistische Probleme der Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Dragsted, Barbara. 2005. “Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of ex‐ pertise and difficulty”. Target 17: 1.49-70. 395 11 References <?page no="396"?> Dragsted, Barbara & Inge Gorm Hansen. 2007. “Speaking your translation: Exploiting synergies between translation and interpreting”. Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Inger M. Mees, 251-274. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Dreyfus, Hubert L. & Stuart E. Dreyfus. 1986. Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press. Durban, Chris, Tim Martin, Brian Mossop, Ros Schwartz & Courtney Searls-Ridge. 2003. “Translator Training & the Real World: Concrete Suggestions for Bridging the Gap: Round Table Part A”. Translation Journal 7: 1.not paginated. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen & Alexander Künzli. 2010. “Methods of accessing metalin‐ guistic awareness: a question of quality? ”. New Approaches in Translation Process Re‐ search ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fábio Alves & Susanne Göpferich, 113-132. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen & Gary Massey. 2013. “Indicators of translation compe‐ tence: Translators' self-concepts and the translation of titles”. Journal of Writing Re‐ search 5: 1.103-131. EMT expert group. 2009. Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication. https: / / ec.europa.eu/ info/ sites/ info/ files/ emt_compe‐ tences_translators_en.pdf, Accessed June 4, 2018. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2002. “Training and Educating the Trainers - A Key Issue in Translators’ Training”. Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges ed. by Eva Hung, 73-82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta & Elisabet Tiselius. 2009. “Exploring retrospection as a re‐ search method for studying the translation process and the interpreting process”. Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fábio Alves, Susanne Göpferich & Arnt L. Jakobsen, 109-134. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Ericsson, Karl A. 1996. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to Some of the Issues”. The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games ed. by Karl A. Ericsson, 1-50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ericsson, Karl A., Ralf T. Krampe & Clemens Tesch-Römer. 1993. “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance”. Psychological Review 100: 3.363-406. Ericsson, Karl A. & Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ericsson, Karl A. & Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 396 11 References <?page no="397"?> Ericsson, Karl A. & Jacqui Smith. 1991. Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EU-DG Translation. 2016. Translating for the European Commission — permanent staff. http: / / ec.europa.eu/ dgs/ translation/ workwithus/ staff/ permanent/ index_en.htm, Ac‐ cessed June 9, 2016. Eysenck, Michael W. & Mark T. Keane. 2015. Cognitive psychology: A student's hand‐ book. Hove: Psychology Press. Fawcett, Peter. 1981. “Teaching Translation Theory”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 26: 2.141-147. Fernández, Francesc & Patrick Zabalbeascoa. 2012. “Developing Trainee Translators’ Strategic Subcompetence Through Metacognitive Questionnaires”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 57: 3.740-762. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G. 2010. International Standard Classification of Occupations: ISCO-08. www.harryganzeboom.nl/ ISCO08/ isco08_with_isei.pdf, Accessed June 4, 2018. Garant, Mikel. 2009. “A case for holistic translation assessment”. AFinLA-e: Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia 1.5-17. Gerloff, Pamela. 1988. From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Gile, Daniel. 1992. “Basic theoretical components in interpreter and translator training”. Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience : papers from the First Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May - 2 June 1991 ed. by Cay Dollerup, 185-193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gile, Daniel. 2010. “Why Translation Studies Matters: A Pragmatist's Viewpoint”. Why translation studies matters ed. by Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen & Nike K. Pokorn, 251- 262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. González Davies, María & Christopher Scott-Tennent. 2005. “A Problem-Solving and Student-Centred Approach to the Translation of Cultural References”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 1.160-179. González Davies, María, Christopher Scott-Tennent & Fernanda Rodríguez Torras. 2001. “Training in the Application of Translation Strategies for Undergraduate Scientific Translation Students”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 46: 4.737-744. Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr. Göpferich, Susanne. 2009a. “Adding value to data in translation process research: the TransComp Asset Management System”. Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen ed. by Inger M. Mees, 397 11 References <?page no="398"?> Fábio Alves, Susanne Göpferich & Arnt L. Jakobsen, 159-182. Frederiksberg: Sam‐ fundslitteratur. Göpferich, Susanne. 2009b. “Towards a model of translation competence and its acquis‐ ition: the longitudinal study 'TransComp'”. Behind the Mind: Methods, Models & Results in Translation Process Research ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen & Inger M. Mees, 11-37. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Göpferich, Susanne. 2009c. “Vom Novizen zum Experten: Die Modellierung (der En‐ twicklung) translatorischer Kompetenz”. Translatione via facienda: Festschrift für Christiane Nord zum 65. Geburtstag ed. by Gerd Wotjak, Vessela Ivanova, Christiane Nord & Encarnación Tabares Plasencia, 75-89. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Göpferich, Susanne. 2010a. “Anleitungen rezipieren, Anleitungen produzieren: Empiri‐ sche Befunde zu kognitiven Prozessen bei Übersetzungsnovizen und Übersetzung‐ sprofis”. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies 44.169-197. Göpferich, Susanne. 2010b. “Data documentation and data accessibility in translation process research”. The Translator 16: 1.93-124. Göpferich, Susanne. 2010c. “The translation of instructive texts from a cognitive per‐ spective: novices and professionals compared”. New Approaches in Translation Process Research ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fábio Alves & Susanne Göpferich, 5-55. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Göpferich, Susanne. 2011. From multidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity: The investigation of competence development as a case in point. www.sktl.fi/ @Bin/ 85366/ Gopferich_MikaEL2011.pdf, Accessed May 26, 2018. Göpferich, Susanne. 2012. “Tracing Strategic Behaviour in Translation Processes: Trans‐ lation Novices, 4th-semester Students and Professional Translators Compared”. Global trends in translator and interpreter training: Mediation and culture ed. by Séverine Hubscher-Davidson & Michal Borodo, 240-266. London: Continuum. Göpferich, Susanne. 2013. “Translation competence: Explaining development and stag‐ nation from a dynamic systems perspective”. Target 25: 1.61-76. Göpferich, Susanne, Gerrit Bayer-Hohenwarter, Friederike Prassl & Johanna Stadlober. 2011. “Exploring Translation Competence Acquisition: Criteria of Analysis Put to the Test”. Cognitive explorations of translation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 57-85. London: Con‐ tinuum. Göpferich, Susanne, Gerrit Bayer-Hohenwarter & Hubert Stigler. 2011. TransComp - The Development of Translation Competence: Corpus and Asset Management System for the Longitudinal Study TransComp. http: / / gams.uni-graz.at/ container: tc, Accessed June 4, 2018. Göpferich, Susanne & Riitta Jääskeläinen. 2009. “Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? ”. Across Lan‐ guages and Cultures 10: 2.169-191. 398 11 References <?page no="399"?> Grabowski, Joachim. 2014. “Kompetenz: ein bildungswissenschaftlicher Begriff ”. Sinn und Unsinn von Kompetenzen: Fähigkeitskonzepte im Bereich von Sprache, Medien und Kultur ed. by Joachim Grabowski, 9-26. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Hansen, Gyde. 1997. “Success in translation”. Perspectives 5: 2.201-210. Hansen, Gyde. 1999. “Das kritische Bewusstsein beim Übersetzen: Eine Analyse des Übersetzungsprozesses mit Hilfe von Translog und Retrospektion”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results ed. by Gyde Hansen, 43-67. Frederiksberg: Sam‐ fundslitteratur. Hansen, Gyde. 2005. “Experience and Emotion in Empirical Translation Research with Think-Aloud and Retrospection”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 2.511-521. Hansen, Gyde. 2006. Erfolgreich übersetzen. Tübingen: Narr. Hansen, Gyde. 2007. “Ein Fehler ist ein Fehler … oder? Der Bewertungsprozess in der Übersetzungsprozessforschung”. Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahrhundert universitäre Ausbildung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig: Rückschau, Zwi‐ schenbilanz und Perspektive aus der Außensicht ed. by Gerd Wotjak, 115-131. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Hansen, Gyde. 2009a. “A Classification of Errors in Translation and Revision”. CIUTI-Forum 2008: Enhancing translation quality: ways, means, methods ed. by Martin Forstner, Hanna Lee Jahnke & Peter A. Schmitt, 313-326. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hansen, Gyde. 2009b. “Some thoughts about the evaluation of translation products in empirical process research”. Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fábio Alves, Susanne Göpferich & Arnt L. Jakobsen, 389-402. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Hansen, Gyde. 2010. “Integrative description of translation processes”. Shreve & Ange‐ lone 2010. 189-211. Harris, Brian. 1977. “The Importance of Natural Translation”. Working Papers on Bilin‐ gualism 12.96-114. Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1997. The translator as communicator. London: Routledge. Herold, Susann. 2010. “Ausbildung von „Universalgenies“? Zum Kompetenzbegriff und translatorischen Kompetenzmodellen”. Lebende Sprachen 55: 2.211-242. Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen. 2007. Prüfungsordnung der Externenprüfung im Bachelorstudiengang Übersetzen an der Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen i.d.F.v. 1. Oktober 2007. Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen. 2011. Das Curriculum zur Externenprüfung im Bachelorstudiengang Übersetzen an der Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen i.d.F.v. 11. Mai 2011. 399 11 References <?page no="400"?> Hochschule für Angewandte Sprachen. 2013. Satzung zur Änderung der Prüfungsordnung der Externenprüfung im Bachelorstudiengang Übersetzen an der Hochschule für Ange‐ wandte Sprachen vom 1. Februar 2013. Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2001. “Epilogue: Analogy as the Core of Cognition”. The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science ed. by Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak & Boicho N. Kokinov, 499-538. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Holmes, James S. 1988a. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. Translated! : Pa‐ pers on literary translation and translation studies ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 66- 80. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Holmes, James S. 1988b. “Translation Theory, Translation Theories, Translation Studies, and the Translator”. Translated! : Papers on literary translation and translation studies ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 92-98. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suo‐ malainen Tiedeakatemia. Hönig, Hans G. 1988. “Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun? ”. Lebende Sprachen 33: 1.10-14. Hönig, Hans G. 1995. Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Hönig, Hans G. 1998. “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Translation and quality ed. by Christina Schäffner, 6-34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hönig, Hans G. 2011. “Übersetzen lernt man nicht durch Übersetzen: Ein Plädoyer für eine Propädeutik des Übersetzens”. Übersetzen lernt man nicht durch Übersetzen: Translationswissenschaftliche Aufsätze, 1976-2004, 59-72. Berlin: Saxa-Verlag. Hornby, Albert S. & Joanna Turnbull. 2010. Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. House, Juliane. 1997. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr. Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine. 2013. “Emotional Intelligence and Translation Studies: A New Bridge”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 58: 2.324-346. Hunziker Heeb, Andrea. 2012. “The problem-solving processes of experienced and non-experienced translators”. Language learning and language use applied linguistics approaches: Papers selected from the junior research meeting - Essen 2011 ed. by Saskia Kersten, Christian Ludwig, Dorothee Meer & Bernd Rüschoff, 177-186. Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr. Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 1996a. “La enseñanza de la traducción directa general”. La ense‐ ñanza de la traducción ed. by Amparo Hurtado Albir, 31-56. Castelló de la Plana: Uni‐ versitat Jaume I. Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 1996b. “La traductología: lingüística y traductología”. trans-kom 1.151-160. 400 11 References <?page no="401"?> Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 1999. Enseñar a traducir: Metodología en la formación de traduc‐ tores e intérpretes. Madrid: Edelsa. Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 2007. “Competence-based curriculum design for training trans‐ lators”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1: 2.163-195. Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 2008. “Compétence en traduction et formation par compétences”. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 21: 1.17-64. Hvelplund, Kristian T. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. Dissertation, Copenhagen Business School, Fred‐ eriksberg. Ingo, Rune. 1992. “Translation theory: four fundamental aspects”. Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience : papers from the First Language Inter‐ national Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May - 2 June 1991 ed. by Cay Dollerup, 49- 56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited”. Poetics Today 2: 4.51-59. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1996. “Hard Work Will Bear Beautiful Fruit. A Comparison of Two Think-Aloud Protocol Studies”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 41: 1.60-74. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1999. Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2000. “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on Trans‐ lating”. Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit & Riitta Jääskeläinen, 71-82. Am‐ sterdam: John Benjamins. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2002. “Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography”. Target 14: 1.107-136. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2011a. “Back to Basics: Designing a Study to Determine the Validity and Reliability of Verbal Report Data on Translation Processes”. Cognitive explorations of translation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 15-29. London: Continuum. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2011b. “Studying the translation process”. The Oxford handbook of translation studies ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær & Kevin Windle, 123-135. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jääskeläinen, Riitta, Pekka Kujamäki & Jukka Mäkisalo. 2011. “Towards professionalism — or against it? Dealing with the changing world in translation research and translator education”. Across Languages and Cultures 12: 2.143-156. Jäger, Gert. 1976. “Zu einigen Voraussetzungen für ein linguistisches Modell der trans‐ latorischen Kompetenz”. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 13.1-11. Jakobsen, Arnt L. 1999. “Logging target text production with Translog”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9-20. Frederiksberg: Sam‐ fundslitteratur. 401 11 References <?page no="402"?> Jakobsen, Arnt L. 2003. “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Seg‐ mentation”. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research ed. by Fábio Alves, 69-95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jakobsen, Arnt L. & Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog Documentation: Version 1.0”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results ed. by Gyde Hansen, 151-186. Freder‐ iksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Jarvella, Robert, Astrid Jensen, Halskov Jensen, Elisabeth & Mette Skovgaard Andersen. 2002. “Towards characterizing translator expertise, knowledge and know-how: Some findings using TAPs and experimental methods”. Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline ed. by Alessandra Riccardi, 172-197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, Astrid. 1999. “Time Pressure in Translation”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results ed. by Gyde Hansen, 103-119. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Jensen, Astrid & Arnt L. Jakobsen. 2000. “Translating under time pressure: An empirical investigation of problem-solving activity and translation strategies by non-profes‐ sional and professional translators”. Translation in context: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Granada, 1998 ed. by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador & Yves Gambier, 105-116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jensen, Kristian T.H. 2011. “Distribution of Attention Between Source Text and Target Text During Translation”. Cognitive explorations of translation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 215-237. London: Continuum. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Á. 2013. “Building from the Ground Up: On the Necessity of Using Translation Competence Models in Planning and Evaluating Translation and Interpreting Programs”. Cuadernos de ALDEEU 25.37-67. Johnsen, Åse. 2005. “Diferencias en el proces de traducción entre traductores expertos e inexpertos”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 199-206. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Johnsen, Åse. 2014. “Revision and cohesion in translation”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 9: 1.70-87. Juhel, Denis. 1985. “La place de la réflexion théorique dans l’apprentissage de la traduc‐ tion”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 30: 3.292-295. Jung, Eberhard. 2010. Kompetenzerwerb. München: Oldenbourg. Kamenická, Renata. 2011. “Teaching Translation Theory: The Challenges of Theory Framing”. Theories and Practice: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on English and American Studies, September 7-8, 2010, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic ed. by Roman Trušník, Katarína Nemčoková & Gregory J. Bell, 127-136. Zlín: Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně. 402 11 References <?page no="403"?> Katan, David. 2009. “Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey of the Great Divide”. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42.111- 153. Katan, David. 2011. “Occupation or profession: A survey of the translator's world”. Iden‐ tity and status in the translational professions ed. by Rakefet Sela-Sheffy & Miriam Shlesinger, 65-88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kautz, Ulrich. 2002. Handbuch Didaktik des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens. München: Iu‐ dicium. Kearns, John T. 2008. “The Academic and the Vocational in Translator Education”. Trans‐ lator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates ed. by John T. Kearns, 185- 214. London: Continuum. Kelly, Dorothy A. 2002. “Un modelo de competencia traductora: bases para el diseño curricular”. Puentes 1.9-20. Kelly, Dorothy A. 2005. A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiel, Ewald. 2014. “Kulturelle Kompetenz”. Sinn und Unsinn von Kompetenzen: Fähigkeit‐ skonzepte im Bereich von Sprache, Medien und Kultur ed. by Joachim Grabowski, 133- 151. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Kiraly, Don. 1995. Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Kiraly, Don. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, Don. 2013. “Towards A View of Translator Competence as an Emergent Phenom‐ enon: Thinking Outside the Box(es) in Translator Education”. New prospects and per‐ spectives for educating language mediators ed. by Don Kiraly, Silvia Hansen-Schirra & Karin Maksymski, 197-224. Tübingen: Narr. Kizeweter, Magdalena. 2010. “Students' Views and Expectations Regarding the Content and Form of Practical Translation Classes: The Results of a Questionnaire”. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Challenges and Practices ed. by Łukasz Bogucki, 77-91. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Klimkowski, Konrad & Katarzyna Klimkowska. 2012. “Towards Empowerment in Trans‐ lator Education: Students' Opinions and Expectations of a Translation Training Course”. Global trends in translator and interpreter training: Mediation and culture ed. by Séverine Hubscher-Davidson & Michal Borodo, 180-194. London: Continuum. Koller, Werner. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Komissarov, Vilen N. 1985. “The Practical Value of Translation Theory”. Babel 31: 4.208- 212. 403 11 References <?page no="404"?> Königs, Frank G. 1987. Übersetzen lehren und lernen mit Büchern: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Erstellung und des Einsatzes von Übersetzungslehrbüchern. Bochum: Sem‐ inar für Sprachlehrforschung d. Ruhr-Univ. Bochum. Kourouni, Kyriaki. 2012. Translating under time constraints in an undergraduate context: A study of students' products, processes and learning styles. Dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Unter‐ suchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischler‐ nern. Tübingen: Narr. Krings, Hans P. 2001. Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Krings, Hans P. 2005. “Wege ins Labyrinth - Fragestellungen und Methoden der Über‐ setzungsprozessforschung im Überblick”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 2.342-358. Krüger, Mechthild. 2001. Übersetzungskompetenz: modale Semantik: Eine Studie am Spra‐ chenpaar Dänisch-Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kubiak, Paweł. 2009. Übersetzer als Problemlöser: Eine qualitative Studie zum Problemlö‐ severhalten von semiprofessionellen Übersetzern. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Kumpulainen, Minna. 2015. “On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research”. Translation & Interpreting The International Journal of Translation & Inter‐ preting Research 7: 1.47-58. Kumpulainen, Minna. 2016. Learning translation: An empirical study into the acquisition of interlingual text production skills. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Künzli, Alexander. 2003. Quelques stratégies et principes en traduction technique fran‐ çais-allemand et français-suédois. Dissertation, Universität Stockholm, Stockholm. Künzli, Alexander. 2009. “Think-aloud Protocols - A Useful Tool for Investigating the Linguistic Aspect of Translation”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 54: 2.326-341. Kussmaul, Paul. 2000. Kreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Kussmaul, Paul. 2009. Übersetzen nicht leicht gemacht: Beiträge zur Translation. Berlin: Saxa-Verlag. Kvam, Sigmund. 1996. “Zur translationslinguistischen Kompetenz: Im Gefüge der Kom‐ petenz des professionellen Übersetzers”. Übersetzerische Kompetenz: Beiträge zur uni‐ versitären Übersetzerausbildung in Deutschland und Skandinavien ed. by Andreas F. Kelletat, 121-129. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langdridge, Darren & Gareth Hagger-Johnson. 2009. Introduction to research methods and data analysis in psychology. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. 404 11 References <?page no="405"?> Larose, Robert. 1985. “La théorie de la traduction: À quoi ça sert ? ”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 30: 4.405-407. Latyšev, Lev K. 2004. “Translationstechnologie als Grundlage der Translationskompetenz und als Unterrichtsfach bei der Ausbildung von Sprachmittlern”. Translationskompe‐ tenz: Tagungsberichte der LICTRA (Leipzig International Conference on Translation Studies), 4.-6.10.2001 ed. by Eberhard Fleischmann, Peter A. Schmitt & Gerd Wotjak, 641-646. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Laukkanen, Johanna. 1996. “Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Translation Processes”. Target 8: 2.257-274. Leal, Alice. 2014. Is the glass half empty or half full? Reflections on translation theory and practice in Brazil. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Lederer, Marianne. 2007. “Can theory help translator and interpreter trainers and trainees? ”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1: 1.15-35. Lefevere, André. 1983. “Report”. Translation in Foreign Language Teaching / La traduction dans l'enseignement des langues (Round Table FIT-UNESCO), Paris, 17-19 mars 1983, 18- 28. Paris: Fédération internationale des traducteurs. Leppihalme, Ritva. 2008. “Developing Translation knowledge and competences in lan‐ guage students”. redit 1.57-76. Leppihalme, Ritva. 2011. Three published literary translators analysing their own transla‐ tion processes in their M. A. theses. Stockholm. Lesznyák, Márta. 2007. “Conceptualizing translation competence”. Across Languages and Cultures 8: 2.167-194. Lesznyák, Márta. 2008. Studies in the Development of Translation Competence. Disserta‐ tion, Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Pécs. Levý, Jiři. 1965. “Will Translation Theory be of Use to Translators? ”. Übersetzen: Vorträge und Beiträge vom Internationalen Kongreß literarischer Übersetzer in Hamburg 1965 ed. by Rolf Italiaander, 77-82. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Li, Defeng. 2000. “Tailoring translation programmes to social needs: A survey of profes‐ sional translators”. Target 12: 1.127-149. Li, Defeng. 2002. “Translator training: What translation students have to say”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 47: 4.513-531. Li, Defeng. 2004. “Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation processes”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14: 3.301-313. Li, Defeng. 2007. “Translation curriculum and pedagogy: Views of administrators of translation services”. Target 19: 1.105-133. Livbjerg, Inge & Inger M. Mees. 2002. “Problem-solving at different points in the trans‐ lation process: quantitative and qualitative data”. Empirical translation studies: Process and product ed. by Gyde Hansen, 147-190. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. 405 11 References <?page no="406"?> Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies: Psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Narr. Malkiel, Brenda. 2006. “The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty”. Target 18: 2.337-366. Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2009. “What is translation competence? ”. Revue française de linguis‐ tique appliquée XIV: 1.121-134. Martín de León, Celia & Marisa Presas. 2011. “Metaphern als Ausdruck subjektiver The‐ orien zum Übersetzen: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur konzeptuell-strukturier‐ enden Funktion von Metaphernmodellen bei Studienanfängern”. Target 23: 2.272-310. Martín de León, Celia & Marisa Presas. 2014. “The Evolution of Translation Trainees' Subjective Theories: An Empirical Study of Metaphors about Translation”. Metaphor and intercultural communication ed. by Andreas Musolff, Fiona Macarthur & Giulio Pagani, 19-33. London: Bloomsbury. Martínez Melis, Nicole & Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2001. “Assessment In Translation Studies: Research Needs”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 46: 2.272-287. Massana Roselló, Gisela. 2016. La adquisición de la competencia traductora portugués-es‐ pañol: un estudio en torno a los falsos amigos. Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Massey, Gary & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2014. “Looking beyond text: The usefulness of translation process data”. Methods in writing process research ed. by Dagmar Knorr, Carmen Heine & Jan Engberg, 81-98. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Matthews, Peter. 2014. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Uni‐ versity Press. Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1996. “Teaching theory or teaching theory”. Parallèles 18.199- 202. Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1997. “The expert-novice paradigm in interpreting research”. Translationsdidaktik: Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft ed. by Eberhard Fleischmann, Wladimir Kutz & Peter A. Schmitt, 255-261. Tübingen: Narr. Mossop, Brian. 1994. “Goals and methods for a course in translation theory”. Translation studies: An interdiscipline : selected papers from the Translation Studies congress, Vienna, 9-12 September 1992 ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker & Klaus Kaindl, 401- 409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mossop, Brian. 2003. “What should be taught at translation school? ”. Innovation and e-learning in translator training ed. by Anthony Pym, Carmina Fallada, José R. Biau & Jill Orenstein, 20-22. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Vir‐ gili. Mossop, Brian. 2004. “Review of “Can theory help translators? A dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface” by Andrew Chesterman and Emma Wagner”. Target 15: 2.372-375. 406 11 References <?page no="407"?> Mossop, Brian. 2005. “What Practitioners Can Bring to Theory? - The Good and the Bad”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 23-28. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010. “Leave no stone unturned: On the development of cognitive translatology”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 5: 2.145-162. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2014a. “A blurred snapshot of advances in translation process research”. Minding Translation / Con la traducción en mente ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 49-84. San Vicente del Raspeig: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2014b. “Situating Translation Expertise: A Review with a Sketch of a Construct”. The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science ed. by John W. Schwieter & Aline Ferreira, 2-56. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Muschner, Annette. 2007. “Die Übersetzungskompetenz und ihre didaktische Umsetzung im Sprachenpaar Tschechisch-Deutsch”. Translation and meaning: Proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 4th International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Trans‐ lation and Meaning”, Held in Maastricht, The Netherlands, 18-21 May 2005 ed. by Marcel Thelen & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 103-113. Maastricht: Universitaire pers Maastricht. Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation”. Developing translation competence ed. by Christina Schäffner & Beverly J. Adab, 3-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Neunzig, Wilhelm. 2009. “Es gibt nichts Praktischeres als eine gute Theorie: Theoriebezug beim Fachübersetzen in die Fremdsprache”. Translatione via facienda: Festschrift für Christiane Nord zum 65. Geburtstag ed. by Gerd Wotjak, Vessela Ivanova, Christiane Nord & Encarnación Tabares Plasencia, 169-185. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Newmark, Peter. 2002. “Translation now”. The Linguist 41: 3.94-96. Newmark, Peter. 2009. “The Linguistic and Communicative Stages in Translation Theory”. The Routledge companion to translation studies ed. by Jeremy Munday, 20-35. London: Routledge. Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. Norberg, Ulf. 2003. Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos: Eine empirische Prozess- und Pro‐ duktstudie. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Nord, Britta. 2004. “Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm - Recherchekompetenz als Teil der Translationskompetenz”. Translationskompetenz: Tagungsberichte der LICTRA (Leipzig International Conference on Translation Studies), 4.-6.10.2001 ed. by Eberhard Fleisch‐ mann, Peter A. Schmitt & Gerd Wotjak, 173-182. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Nord, Christiane. 1987. “Übersetzungsprobleme - Übersetzungsschwierigkeiten: Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgehen sollte…”. MDÜ 33: 2.5-8. 407 11 References <?page no="408"?> Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nord, Christiane. 1993. Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen: Am Beispiel von Titeln und Überschriften. Tübingen: Francke. Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches ex‐ plained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Nord, Christiane. 1998. “Textanalyse: pragmatisch / funktional”. Handbuch Translation ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, 350-354. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Nord, Christiane. 2001. Lernziel: professionelles Übersetzen Spanisch-Deutsch: Ein Einfüh‐ rungskurs in 15 Lektionen. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert. Nord, Christiane. 2005. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nord, Christiane. 2009. Textanalyse und Übersetzen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Tübingen: Groos. Nord, Christiane. 2010. Fertigkeit Übersetzen: Ein Kurs zum Übersetzenlehren und -lernen. Berlin: Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Nordman, Lieselott. 2009. Lagöversättning som process och produkt: Revideringar och in‐ stitutioner vid lagöversättning till svenska i Finland. Helsingfors universitet: Nordica. OECD. 2003. Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foun‐ dations (DeSeCo). Summary of the final report "Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society". http: / / www.netuni.nl/ courses/ hre/ uploads/ File/ deseco_finalreport_summary.pdf, Accessed June 5, 2018. Opitz, Conny. 2004. “Zum Aufschlusswert prozesswissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen für die Übersetzungsdidaktik”. Translationskompetenz: Tagungsberichte der LICTRA (Leipzig International Conference on Translation Studies), 4.-6.10.2001 ed. by Eberhard Fleischmann, Peter A. Schmitt & Gerd Wotjak, 659-678. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Ordóñez-López, Pilar & Rosa Agost. 2015. “An Empirical Study of Students' Views on Theoretical Subjects”. Handbook of research on teaching methods in language transla‐ tion and interpretation ed. by Ying Cui & Wei Zhao, 324-345. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Orozco, Mariana. 2000a. “Building a Measuring Instrument for the Acquisition of Trans‐ lation Competence in Trainee Translators”. Developing translation competence ed. by Christina Schäffner & Beverly J. Adab, 199-214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Orozco, Mariana. 2000b. Instrumentos de medida de la adquisición de la competencia tra‐ ductora: Construcción y validación. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Orozco, Mariana & Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2002. “Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 47: 3.375-402. 408 11 References <?page no="409"?> PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring translation competence: Conceptual and methodological is‐ sues”. Investigating translation: Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998 ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris Ensinger & Marisa Presas, 99- 106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PACTE. 2002. “Exploratory tests in a study of translation competence”. Conference Inter‐ pretation and Translation 4: 4.41-69. PACTE. 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model”. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research ed. by Fábio Alves, 43-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PACTE. 2005. “Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological is‐ sues”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 2.609-619. PACTE. 2007. “Zum Wesen der Übersetzungskompetenz - Grundlagen für die experi‐ mentelle Validierung eines Ük-Modells”. Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahr‐ hundert universitäre Ausbildung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig: Rück‐ schau, Zwischenbilanz und Perspektive aus der Außensicht ed. by Gerd Wotjak, 327- 342. Berlin: Frank & Timme. PACTE. 2008. “First results of a translation competence experiment: 'Knowledge of Translation' and 'Efficacy of the Translation Process'”. Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates ed. by John T. Kearns, 104-126. London: Con‐ tinuum. PACTE. 2009. “Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision making”. Across Languages and Cultures 10: 2.207-230. PACTE. 2011a. “Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation problems and translation competence”. Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimi‐ trova, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius, 317-343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PACTE. 2011b. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Project and Dynamic Translation Index”. Cognitive explorations of trans‐ lation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 30-56. London: Continuum. PACTE. 2014. “First results of PACTE group's experimental research on translation com‐ petence acquisition: The acquisition of declarative knowledge of translation”. Minding Translation / Con la traducción en mente ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 85-115. San Vicente del Raspeig: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. PACTE. 2015. “Results of PACTE’s Experimental Research on the Acquisition of Trans‐ lation Competence: The Acquisition of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in Translation. The Dynamic Translation Index”. Translation Spaces 4: 1.29-53. 409 11 References <?page no="410"?> Pezza Cintr-o, Heloísa. 2010. “Magnifying glasses modifying maps: A role for translation theory in introductory courses”. Why translation studies matters ed. by Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen & Nike K. Pokorn, 165-182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pezza Cintr-o, Heloísa. 2011. “Development of Translation Competence in Novices: a Corpus Design and Key-Logging Analysis”. Cognitive explorations of translation ed. by Sharon O'Brien, 86-107. London: Continuum. Prassl, Friederike. 2010a. “Entscheidungsprozesse beim Übersetzen: Routine und Re‐ flexion bei Novizen und Berufsübersetzern”. Fachsprache / International Journal of Specialized Communication 32: 3-4.100-121. Prassl, Friederike. 2010b. “Translators' decision-making processes in research and knowl‐ edge integration”. New Approaches in Translation Process Research ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fábio Alves & Susanne Göpferich, 57-80. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Prassl, Friederike. 2011. “Übersetzerisches Rechercheverhalten von Profis und Novizen auf dem Prüfstand: Empirische Befunde aus der Analyse von Konsultationshand‐ lungen und ihren Auswirkungen auf die Qualität des Zieltextes”. trans-kom 4: 1.23-48. Presas, Marisa. 1996. Problemes de traducció i competència traductora: Bases per a una pedagogia de la traducció. Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Presas, Marisa. 2004. “Translatorische Kompetenz als Expertenwissen: eine Annäherung aus kognitiv-psychologischer Sicht”. Translationskompetenz: Tagungsberichte der LICTRA (Leipzig International Conference on Translation Studies), 4.-6.10.2001 ed. by Eberhard Fleischmann, Peter A. Schmitt & Gerd Wotjak, 199-208. Tübingen: Stauf‐ fenburg. Presas, Marisa. 2007. “Translatorische Kompetenz: Von der Leipziger Schule bis zur kog‐ nitiven Wende”. Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahrhundert universitäre Ausbil‐ dung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig: Rückschau, Zwischenbilanz und Perspektive aus der Außensicht ed. by Gerd Wotjak, 353-366. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Presas, Marisa & Celia Martín de León. 2014. “The role of implicit theories in the non-ex‐ pert translation process”. Minding Translation / Con la traducción en mente ed. by Ri‐ cardo Muñoz Martín, 273-302. San Vicente del Raspeig: Publicaciones de la Univer‐ sidad de Alicante. Prunč, Erich. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft: Von den Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Pym, Anthony. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In De‐ fence of a Minimalist Approach”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 48: 4.481-497. Pym, Anthony. 2005. “Training translators - ten recurrent naiveties”. Translating Today 2.3-6. Pym, Anthony. 2006. Eppure… A Reply to Federica Scarpa’s Reply. http: / / usuaris.tinet.cat/ apym/ on-line/ training/ Pym_Reply_to_Scarpa.pdf, Accessed June 5, 2018. Pym, Anthony. 2010. Exploring translation theories. London, New York: Routledge. 410 11 References <?page no="411"?> Pym, Anthony. 2011a. Obituary for Professor Newmark. http: / / www.est-translationstu‐ dies.org/ news/ 2011_newmark.html, Accessed June 5, 2018. Pym, Anthony. 2011b. “Training translators”. The Oxford handbook of translation studies ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær & Kevin Windle, 475-489. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Sfreddo & Andy L. J. Chan. 2012. “The status of the translation profession in the European Union: Final Report”, European Commis‐ sion. Luxembourg. https: / / publications.europa.eu/ en/ publication-detail/ -/ publica‐ tion/ 4e126174-ea20-4338-a349-ea4a73e0d850/ language-en/ format-PDF/ source-71200031, Accessed June 9, 2018. Pym, Anthony & Esther Torres-Simón. 2015. “The pedagogical value of translation sol‐ ution types”. Perspectives 23: 1.89-106. Rafiee, Nadieh & Azadeh Nemati. 2014. “Translation Studies Orientations: A Case Study on Asian and European Journals”. Linguistics and Literature Studies 2: 6.178-190. Reiß, Katharina. 1986. “Übersetzungstheorien und ihre Relevanz für die Praxis”. Lebende Sprachen 31: 1.1-5. Reiß, Katharina & Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations‐ theorie. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz: Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Robinson, Douglas. 1991. The translator's turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Robinson, Douglas. 2003. Becoming A Translator: An Accelerated Course. London: Taylor & Francis. Rodrigues, Cassio. 2001. Überzeugungen im Übersetzungsprozess : eine empirische Unter‐ suchung mit Berufsübersetzern. Dissertation, Ruhr-Universität, Bochum. Rothe-Neves, Rui. 2007. “Notes on the concept of "translator's competence"”. Quaderns. Revista de traducció 14.125-138. Rychen, Dominique S. & Laura H. Salganik. 2003. “A holistic model of competence”. Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society ed. by Dominique S. Rychen & Laura H. Salganik, 41-62. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber. Rydning, Antin Fougner. 2014. “La créativité traductionnelle résultante d'une aptitude à visualiser”. Forum: International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 12: 1.137- 163. Rydning, Antin Fougner & Christian M. Lachaud. 2010. “Context reduces ambiguity during comprehension, but multiplies creativity during translation”. Shreve & Ange‐ lone 2010. 85-108. Ryle, Gilbert. 1949 / / 1988. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson. Saldanha, Gabriela & Sharon O'Brien. 2014. Research methodologies in translation studies. London: Routledge. 411 11 References <?page no="412"?> Scarpa, Federica. 2006. Specialist-translator competence in higher education. Padova. Schaeffer, Moritz & Michael Carl. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Trans‐ lation Processes”. Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT) ed. by Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn, Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Cascuberta, Robin Hill & Sharon O'Brien, 29-37. Strouds‐ burg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Schäffner, Christina. 2000. “Running before Walking? Designing a Translation Pro‐ gramme at Undergraduate Level”. Developing translation competence ed. by Christina Schäffner & Beverly J. Adab, 143-156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schäffner, Christina. 2005. “Preparing students of translation for the real world: Needs, methods, constraints”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 237-248. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1838. “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens”. Friedrich Schleiermacher's sämmtliche Werke. Dritte Abtheilung: Zur Philosophie. Zweiter Band, 207-245. Berlin: G. Reimer. Schumm, E. 1975. “Die Praxisnähe der Übersetzerausbildung”. Lebende Sprachen 20: 4.97- 99. Scott-Tennent, Christopher & María González Davies. 2008. “Effects of Specific Training on the Ability to Deal with Cultural References in Translation”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 53: 4.782-797. Scott-Tennent, Christopher, María González Davies & Fernanda Rodríguez Torras. 2000. “Translation Strategies and Translation Solutions: Design of a Teaching Prototype and Empirical Study of its Results”. Investigating translation: Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998 ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris En‐ singer & Marisa Presas, 107-116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Séguinot, Candace. 1989. “The translation process: An experimental study”. The Trans‐ lation process ed. by Candace Séguinot, 21-53. Toronto: H.G. Publications. Séguinot, Candace. 1996. “Some Thoughts About Think-Aloud Protocols”. Target 8: 1.75- 95. Séguinot, Candace. 2000. “Knowledge, expertise, and theory in translation”. Translation in context: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Granada, 1998 ed. by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador & Yves Gambier, 87-104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seleskovitch, Danica & Marianne Lederer. 1984. Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günther, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock & Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptions‐ 412 11 References <?page no="413"?> system 2 (GAT 2)”. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10.353-402. Shih, Claire Y. 2011. “Learning from Writing Reflective Learning Journals in a Theory-based Translation Module”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5: 2.309-324. Shih, Claire Y. 2015. “Problem-solving and decision-making in translation revision: Two case studies”. Across Languages and Cultures 16: 1.69-92. Shreve, Gregory M. 1997. “Cognition and the evolution of translation competence”. Cog‐ nitive processes in translation and interpreting ed. by Joseph H. Danks, 120-136. Thou‐ sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shreve, Gregory M. 2002. “Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies”. Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline ed. by Alessandra Riccardi, 150-171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shreve, Gregory M. & Erik Angelone, eds. 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shuttleworth, Mark. 2001. “The Rôle of Theory in Translator Training: Some Observa‐ tions about Syllabus Design”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 46: 3.497-506. Snel Trampus, Rita D. 2002. “Aspects of a theory of norms and some issues in teaching translation”. Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline ed. by Ales‐ sandra Riccardi, 38-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sun, Ron. 2015. “Interpreting psychological notions: A dual-process computational theory”. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 4: 3.191-196. Sun, Sanjun. 2011. “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some Methodo‐ logical Considerations”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 56: 4.928-951. Sun, Sanjun. 2014. “Rethinking translation studies”. Translation Spaces 3.167-191. Thelen, Marcel. 2005. “Theory and Practice in Translation: Co-operation or Mere Co-ex‐ istence? ”. On the relationships between translation theory and translation practice ed. by Jean Peeters, 41-50. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Thyen, Olaf. 1999. Duden Oxford Grosswörterbuch Englisch: Englisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Englisch. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1997. “Who Verbalises What: A Linguistic Analysis of TAP Texts”. Target 9: 1.69-84. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50: 2.405-414. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja & Johanna Laukkanen. 1996. “Evaluations — a Key Towards Understanding the Affective Dimension of Translational Decisions”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 41: 1.45-59. Toury, Gideon. 1980. “The Translator as a nonconformist-to-be, or: how to Train Trans‐ lators so as to Violate Translational Norms”. Angewandte Übersetzungswissenschaft: 413 11 References <?page no="414"?> Internationales übersetzungswissenschaftliches Kolloquium an der Wirtschaftsuniver‐ sität Århus/ Dänemark 19.-21. Juni 1980 ed. by Wolfram Wilss & Sven-Olaf Poulsen, 180-194. Århus: Wirtschaftsuniversität. Toury, Gideon. 1984. “The Notion of "Native Translator" and Translation Teaching”. Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdi‐ daktik ed. by Wolfram Wilss & Gisela Thome, 186-195. Tübingen: Narr. Toury, Gideon. 1991. “Experimentation in Translation Studies: Achievements, Prospects and Some Pitfalls”. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected papers of the TRANSIF seminar, Savonlinna, 1988 ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, 45- 66. Tübingen: Narr. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam, John Ben‐ jamins. Toury, Gideon. 2010. “What's the problem with 'translation problem'? ”. Meaning in trans‐ lation ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Marcel Thelen, 231-252. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Treiman, Donald J. 1977. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Ullman, Michael T. 2016. “The Declarative/ Procedural Model”. Neurobiology of language ed. by Gregory Hickok & Steven L. Small, 953-968. Amsterdam: Academic Press. Universität Graz. 2008. Mitteilungsblatt der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. 41. Sonder‐ nummer, ausgegeben am 10.6.2008. Universität Graz. 2009. Mitteilungsblatt der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. 73. Sonder‐ nummer, ausgegeben am 15.7.2009 Universität Graz. 2015. Studieneinstieg. https: / / www.uni-graz.at/ de/ studieren/ studienin‐ teressierte/ studieneinstieg/ , Accessed January 7, 2015. van Doorslaer, Luc. 2013. “Impact of translation theory”. Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 4 ed. by Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, 77-83. Amsterdam: John Benja‐ mins. van Vaerenbergh, Leona. 2005. “Linguistique et théorie(s) de la traduction: Réflexion(s) scientifique(s) au profit du traducteur”. La Traduction: De la théorie à la pratique et retour ed. by Jean Peeters, 19-30. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Vermeer, Hans J. 1978. “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie”. Lebende Sprachen 23: 3.99-102. Viaggio, Sergio. 1994. “Theory and professional development: or admonishing translators to be good”. Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions: papers from the second Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 4-6 June 1993 ed. by Cay Dollerup & Annette Lindegaard, 97-105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 414 11 References <?page no="415"?> Vinay, Jean-Paul. 1991. “Translation in Theory and Practice”. Translation: Theory and Practice, Tension and Interdependence ed. by Mildred L. Larson, 157-171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. 1981. Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier. Waddington, Christopher. 2001. “Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 46: 2.311-325. Waddington, Christopher. 2004. “Should student translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? ”. Lebende Sprachen 49: 1.28-35. Waddington, Christopher. 2006. “Measuring the effect of errors on translation quality”. Lebende Sprachen 51: 2.67-71. Wadensjö, Cecilia. 2011. “Interpreting in theory and practice: Reflections about an alleged gap”. Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius, 13-21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wahrig, Gerhard & Renate Wahrig-Burfeind. 2011. Brockhaus Wahrig Deutsches Wörter‐ buch: mit einem Lexikon der Sprachlehre. Gütersloh, München: Wissenmedia in der Inmedia-ONE-GmbH. Weber, Nadine. 2011. Einsatz und Umsetzung von Übersetzungstheorien in der Übersetzer‐ ausbildung an den Fachakademien in Bayern. Bachelorarbeit, Fachhochschule des Sprachen und Dolmetscher Instituts München, München. Weinert, Franz E. 2001a. “Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification”. Defining and selecting key competencies ed. by Dominique S. Rychen & Laura H. Sagalnik, 45- 65. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Weinert, Franz E. 2001b. Leistungsmessungen in Schulen. Weinheim: Beltz. Whitfield, Agnès. 2003. “L’enseignement de la théorie de la traduction: Quelques réflex‐ ions pédagogiques”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 48: 3.429-437. Williams, Malcolm. 2009. “Translation Quality Assessment”. Mutatis Mutandis 2: 1.3-23. Wilss, Wolfram. 1977. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Probleme u. Methoden. Stuttgart: Klett. Wilss, Wolfram. 1978. “Vorüberlegungen zu einer Didaktischen Grammatik des Überset‐ zens”. Lebende Sprachen 23: 4.145-151. Wilss, Wolfram. 1992. Übersetzungsfertigkeit: Annäherungen an einen komplexen überset‐ zungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Narr. Wilss, Wolfram. 1995. “Das Verhältnis von Wissen und Wissenschaft in der Überset‐ zungspraxis”. Lebende Sprachen 40: 3.102-106. Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. Amsterdam: John Ben‐ jamins. 415 11 References <?page no="416"?> Zou, Meilan. 2014. Applying Translation Theories and Pedagogy: A multiple case study exploring postgraduate translation programmes in China and the UK. Dissertation, Uni‐ versity of Warwick, Coventry. 416 11 References <?page no="417"?> 1 Source: §6 FakOÜDol (http: / / gesetze-bayern.de/ Content/ Document/ BayFakOSpra‐ chen-ANL_1) Courses are given in hours/ week for a whole school year ( = 39 weeks) 2 In the following overviews, the letters A, B, and C are used to refer to A-language, B-language and C-language respectively. 12 Annexes 12.1 Curricula 12.1.1 Curriculum Fachakademie Table 20: Coding of subjects/ FAK curriculum 12 <?page no="418"?> 3 source: www.sdi-muenchen.de/ fileadmin/ Dokumente/ Hochschule/ BA/ Externenprue‐ fung/ Curriculum_Externenpruefung_27102009.pdf 12.1.2 Curriculum BA Übersetzen Table 21: Coding of subjects / BA Ü curriculum 3 418 12 Annexes <?page no="419"?> 4 source: Universität Graz (2008: 7-16) Courses are given in hours/ week for one semester. In the overview below, these numbers have been converted into contact hours (1 se‐ mester in Austria = 15 weeks on average). 12.1.3 Curriculum BA Transkulturelle Kommunikation Table 22: Coding of subjects / BA TK curriculum 4 419 12.1 Curricula <?page no="420"?> 12.2 Translation Task 12.2.1 Source Text and Translation Brief The source text and translation brief have been taken unmodified from the TransComp project (Göpferich, Bayer-Hohenwarter & Stigler 2011). 420 12 Annexes <?page no="421"?> 5 Die zeitliche Situierung des Textes ist in diesem Fall unabdingbar. Eine fehlende Er‐ gänzung der Jahreszahl führt aufgrund der großen Unterschiede in der Zeitpragmatik (1981 vs. 2014) zu einer gravierenden Fehlinformationen des Zieltextlesers. Da laut Übersetzungsauftrag der Artikel in einer aktuellen Ausgabe der Brigitte erscheinen soll und konventionell aktuelle Texte in einer aktuellen Zeitschrift erwartet werden, würde der Leser vermuten, dass aktuell im Jahr 2014 darüber diskutiert wird, die Telefonzellen in Großbritannien gelb zu streichen. 6 Das Gerund “having” stellt einen kausalen Zusammenhang zwischen seiner Ausbil‐ dung, seinem Charakter und seiner Reaktion her. Für die Kohärenz ist dies keine zwin‐ gende Information und kann daher auch wegfallen. 7 Durch die Formulierung mit „Dank“ erübrigt sich die Entscheidung zwischen Präsens und Präteritum im ersten Teil des Satzes (vgl.: da er Heilpädagoge ist/ war). Da Gimbel bereits gestorben ist, müsste korrekterweise das Präteritum verwendet werden. 8 Das Wortspiel mit Farben sollte beibehalten werden. 9 Es ist darauf zu achten, dass das Streichen der Telefonzellen negative Konsequenzen haben könnte, nicht das Vorhaben. 10 Die Absatzsetzung im AT ist unschön und nicht einleuchtend, da die beiden Aussagen zusammenhängen. Daher sollte hier kein Absatz die beiden Sätze trennen, selbst wenn zwei einzelne Sätze beibehalten werden. 11 Es ist darauf zu achten, dass sich die Spezifikation „britisch“ auf alle drei Substantive bezieht. 12 Gimbel ist 2004 verstorben. 12.2.2 Sample Translation Gelb: Gefahr, Rot: Alarm - Wie Farben auf unsere Psyche wirken Judith Stares berichtet über die faszinierende Farbenwelt des Therapeuten The‐ ophilus Gimbel Als Theophilus Gimbel im Jahr 1981 5 diese Nachricht hörte, war er entsetzt. Dank 6 7 seines ausgeglichenen Gemüts wurde der (ausgebildete) Heilpädagoge zwar weder weiß vor Schreck noch rot vor Zorn 8 , er schrieb jedoch unverzüglich einen Brief an die British Telecom, in dem er eindringlich davor warnte, die britischen Telefonzellen gelb zu streichen, da dies verheerende Folgen haben könne. 9 „Gelbe Telefonzellen“, so Gimbel, „würden selbst von Leuten beschädigt, die eigentlich nicht zu Vandalismus neigen, da die Farbe Gelb unser Nervensystem stimuliert und ein Gefühl von Bedrohung hervorrufen kann.“ 10 Die Entrüstung, die damals in Großbritannien allein durch den Vorschlag, die Telefonzellen gelb zu streichen, in der Öffentlichkeit, im Parlament und in der Presse 11 hervorger‐ ufen wurde, könnte diese These bestätigen. Theophilus Gimbel war 12 ein bekannter Farbtherapeut. Ihm zufolge können die zehn Millionen Farbschattierungen, die das menschliche Auge erkennen kann, alle auf eine mathematische Formel heruntergebrochen und dazu einge‐ 421 12.2 Translation Task <?page no="422"?> 13 Bei House of Lords ist keine nähere Spezifizierung nötig, da der ganze Text von Großbritannien handelt. Bei anderen Lösungen (z. B. Oberhaus, Parlament) muss jedoch explizit gemacht werden, dass es sich um das britische handelt. 14 Der Fachterminus wäre „Neurotransmitter“, angesichts des ZT-Publikums sollten je‐ doch allgemeinsprachliche Begriffe wie etwa, (bio)chemische Stoffe, Botenstoffe etc. gewählt werden. 15 „Nervenendigungen“ wäre der korrekte Fachbegriff, Nervenende ist jedoch allgemein‐ sprachlich gebräuchlich und für das Zielpublikum daher die bessere Wahl. setzt werden, unsere Umgebung so zu gestalten, dass sie die Psyche positiv beeinflusst. So können Farben seiner Meinung nach Meetings verkürzen, Kriege auslösen, die Psyche - und dadurch auch den Körper - heilen und, wie in der Debatte um die Farbe der britischen Telefonzellen deutlich wurde, sogar das House of Lords 13 in Erregung versetzen. „Die psychische Verfassung eines Menschen wird von Botenstoffen 14 beein‐ flusst, die von den Nervenenden 15 freigesetzt werden“, so Gimbel. „Diese Pro‐ zesse können durch Farben sowohl beschleunigt als auch verlangsamt werden. Bestimmte Farben können uns bei Stress helfen, wohingegen andere unsere Anspannung erhöhen.“ 422 12 Annexes <?page no="423"?> 12.3 Questionnaires 12.3.1 Questionnaire on Translator’s Self-Concept This questionnaire has been adapted from Göpferich (2008: 264-276) Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot 423 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="424"?> 424 12 Annexes <?page no="425"?> 276 276 425 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="426"?> Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot 426 12 Annexes <?page no="427"?> 12.3.2 Retrospective Questionnaire 1 (Groups P4 and P6) This questionnaire has been adapted from Göpferich (2008: 257-263) 279 427 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="428"?> 428 12 Annexes <?page no="429"?> 281 429 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="430"?> 282 430 12 Annexes <?page no="431"?> 283 431 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="432"?> 12.3.3 Retrospective Questionnaire 2 (Group PT7) This questionnaire has been adapted from Göpferich (2008: 257-263). It is iden‐ tical to the retrospective questionnaire 1 (see above) for questions 1 through 11. Therefore, only the additional part on theory is reproduced here. Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot 432 12 Annexes <?page no="433"?> Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot Musterdatei NFA_Basis_A.dot 433 12.3 Questionnaires <?page no="434"?> 287 434 12 Annexes <?page no="435"?> Index academic politics 29 academic standing 11, 102, 103, 104, 105 adequacy 15, 35, 64, 204, 267, 291, 317 A-language 134, 140, 149, 151, 172 anti-essentialist 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 130 applicability 47, 98, 100, 102, 111, 112, 116, 130, 257, 385 automaticity hypothesis 83, 84, 87, 94 automatization 54, 69, 77, 83, 84, 94, 145, 157, 304, 325, 326, 350, 382 autonomy 70, 184, 185, 186, 199, 377 awareness-raising 25, 73, 94, 100, 101, 109, 210, 316, 329 bilingual 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 54, 59, 82, 87, 89, 90, 92, 122, 123, 139, 153, 272 B-language 134, 139, 141, 142, 149, 150, 164, 216, 217, 219, 241, 242, 248, 251, 278, 279, 287, 302, 346 Chomsky 19, 21, 22 C-language 134, 139, 140, 142, 150, 164, 172, 216, 217, 219, 241, 242, 248, 251, 278, 280, 287, 302, 346 cognitive effort 74, 83, 88, 94, 251, 274, 307, 310 cognitive process 26, 34, 83, 106, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 175, 265, 269 cognitive psychology 23, 34, 157, 177 cognitive resources 42, 76, 83 cognitive skill 20, 27 commissioner 45, 64, 68, 70, 178, 192, 321, 322, 330 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 50 communicative competence 36, 41, 137 competence 20 definition competence 20 comprehension problem 125, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 294, 295, 305, 308 computer-aided translation 142 concept of translation 48, 49, 54, 64, 68, 71, 108, 109, 111, 115, 117, 118, 126, 127, 164, 167, 176, 178, 179, 186, 188, 190, 194, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 377, 378, 379, 382 conceptual metaphors 71, 72, 178 conceptual tool 97, 109, 112, 356, 358, 359, 365 connectionism 34, 35 convention-related translation problem 311, 313 course content 51, 116, 119, 137, 138, 173 creativity 39, 63, 88, 166, 173, 361 critical thinking 11, 100, 107, 108, 130, 356, 363, 391 CTP project 86, 258 cultural competence 25, 32, 38, 41, 45, 46, 111, 138, 140, 141, 146, 149 cultural studies 46 <?page no="436"?> curriculum design 11, 13, 18, 36, 108, 117, 121, 123, 128, 131, 386, 391 debriefing 154, 155, 165 deception 100, 116, 130, 352, 363, 364, 383, 384 decision-making 16, 26, 27, 45, 48, 59, 65, 67, 74, 78, 80, 82, 94, 109, 158, 162, 166, 176, 261, 268, 308, 309, 320, 322, 325, 326, 333, 338, 349, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 386 declarative knowledge 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, 43, 46, 49, 55, 58, 59, 61, 71, 72, 118, 124, 126, 138, 166, 167, 176, 299, 348, 349, 387 deep structure 21 default procedure 40, 88, 317, 373 deliberate practice 48, 247, 386, 387 developmental hypothesis 84, 87 developmental stages 49, 51 deverbalization 105 dialogue protocols 156 dictionary use 65, 77, 80, 256, 259, 268, 272, 274, 290, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 380 didactics 19, 20, 21, 22, 105 translation didactics 18, 21, 61, 93, 102, 105, 106, 115 direct translation 56, 80, 90 documentary translation 45 domain knowledge 22, 24, 25, 32, 39, 41, 76, 78, 85, 111, 114, 138, 147, 148, 149, 151, 371 domesticating 190 dynamic equivalence 15 emotional factors 63, 92 employability 356, 391 empowerment 70, 391 equivalence 14, 15, 48, 50, 61, 68, 92, 93, 117, 178, 195, 200, 202, 204, 267, 374 ESIT 106 essentialist 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 117, 130 expertise 22, 24, 30, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 57, 59, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 89, 92, 94, 95, 160 research 23, 24, 48, 59, 78, 83 explicitation 120, 121, 195, 225, 249, 314, 315, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 329, 386 external research 42, 74, 299, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 350, 372, 374 eye-tracking 83, 266, 269, 310 Fachakademie für Fremdsprachenberufe 132, 133, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 164, 172, 179, 200, 215, 238, 239, 241, 247, 251, 252, 281, 287, 322, 327, 349, 352, 353, 358, 359, 370, 382, 383, 385, 388 fidelity 71, 80, 199 focus of attention 18, 69 foreignizing 190 Fremdspracheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt München 134, 135, 153 functionalism 14, 32, 61, 70, 93, 95, 106, 110, 120, 121, 152, 178, 186, 188, 190, 196, 200, 204, 210, 249, 291, 308, 311, 319, 363, 364 functionalism functionalism 16 function-changing 15, 92, 152 function-keeping 92 GAT 2 254, 255, 256 general translator’s competence 26 graduate program 72, 145 grammar-translation 54, 118 436 Index <?page no="437"?> guidelines 97, 99, 103, 107, 112, 129, 146, 359, 363, 365, 383 humanities 11, 98, 391 hypercorrection 121 implicitation 121 innate 29, 31, 36 insecurity 66, 247, 350, 361 instrumentalization 49 instrumental sub-competence 36, 38, 42 instrumental translation 45 interference 37, 99, 151, 229, 230, 232 interpretive theory 105 introspection 20, 155, 162 inverse translation 56, 91 invisibility 70 key-logging 83, 122, 162, 172, 267, 269, 310 knowledge about translation sub-competence 24, 29, 36, 38, 39, 43, 46, 65, 130 language competence 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 45, 46, 47, 61, 75, 78, 85, 91, 104, 114, 122, 125, 135, 146, 149, 151, 215, 216, 218, 219, 241, 246, 248, 251, 278, 280, 287, 288, 346, 355 language courses 124, 138, 140, 142, 146, 147, 149, 150 language pair 43, 135, 144, 150, 215, 216, 218, 248, 251, 312, 366 learning styles 363, 390 linguistics 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 32, 46, 47, 98, 106, 111, 113, 122, 138, 143, 144, 312, 352, 353, 357 linguistic translation problem 81, 311, 312 literal translation 50, 65, 66, 88, 89, 90, 95, 110, 120, 141, 173, 206, 249, 314, 317, 323, 325, 331, 332, 335, 337, 342, 343, 348, 373 literal translation hypothesis 317 literary studies 98, 100 longitudinal study 12, 14, 40, 72, 124, 126, 127, 133, 136, 161, 172, 176, 374, 388 loyalty 15, 64, 68, 70, 167, 178 loyalty principle 15 macro-strategy 40, 41, 43, 60, 62, 67, 169, 371, 373, 375 memory 19, 23, 56, 157 long-term memory 23, 157 short-term memory 157 metacognitive awareness 27, 247 meta-language 109 metaphors 71, 177, 199, 201, 312, 315, 377 micro-strategies 40, 41, 43, 54, 60, 65, 169 minimalist approach 31, 35, 39, 41, 45, 263 monitor model 317 motivation 43, 66, 157 native language 46, 86, 90, 121, 134, 140, 142, 151, 164, 291 natural translation 29, 36, 48 non-routine task 66, 84, 94 novice translation 45, 49, 56, 57 occupational prestige 16, 99, 102, 103, 104, 167, 177, 180, 181, 197, 198, 201, 377 ISEI-08 198 SIOPS 198 occupational prestige status_profession 103 OECD 20 ontogenetic development 48, 49, 50 orientation phase 211, 268 437 Index <?page no="438"?> parallel text 38, 74, 76, 290 pause 74, 77, 160, 173, 254, 255, 258, 261, 262, 265, 266, 267 performance definition performance 23 phylogenetic development 49 pragmatic translation problem 311, 312, 313, 386 prescriptive approach 97, 105, 106, 108, 112, 313 primary data 137, 151, 154, 161, 163, 246 problem1/ 2/ 3 74, 75, 76, 168 problem-awareness 74, 78, 79, 80, 121, 122, 125, 130, 251, 293, 305, 311, 313, 318, 347, 348, 349, 351, 356, 363, 371, 375, 376, 379, 386 problem-solving 22, 26, 27, 33, 59, 63, 65, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 94, 97, 109, 121, 122, 125, 130, 161, 165, 166, 167, 174, 262, 263, 274, 278, 283, 291, 299, 303, 310, 317, 326, 348, 349, 350, 351, 361, 363, 367, 379, 380 proceduralization 24, 27, 49, 55, 348, 349, 388 procedural knowledge 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 43, 55, 59, 61, 72, 76, 93, 119, 126, 176, 269, 290, 299 production problem 269, 270, 273, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 297, 298, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309 productive competence 28, 41, 150, 151, 210 professional translation 15, 29, 38, 45, 48, 61, 111, 174 psycholinguistics 30 raise awareness 108, 130, 348 receptive competence 28, 41, 150 recruitment 104 research competence 25, 33, 41, 42, 78, 114 retrospection 80, 86, 122, 156, 174 revision phase 54, 75, 84, 87, 107, 160, 173, 211, 273 role of the translator 48, 71, 99, 107, 109, 138, 153, 164, 167, 173, 176, 177, 178, 181, 185, 186, 199, 201, 249, 348, 377, 379 routine process 303, 349, 361, 367, 368, 369 routine task 84 screen-recording 153, 154, 156, 162, 163, 172, 254, 258, 309, 310 secondary data 134, 155, 161, 163, 206, 268 self-concept 43, 48, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 89, 93, 97, 108, 163, 165, 167, 170, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 199, 201, 202, 366, 371, 377, 378, 379, 382, 387 self-confidence 44, 109, 283, 308, 356 self-criticism 101, 108 self-evaluation 27, 64 sense-oriented translation 49, 88, 89, 348, 364, 380, 381 short-term effect 349, 364 Signaltransport 49, 89 sign-oriented translation 49, 88 Sinnkonstruktion 49, 89 skopos 15, 61, 70, 92, 152, 192, 204, 291, 318, 360 skopos theory 15, 45, 121 slowing-down effect 159, 160 specific translator’s competence 26 Sprachen- und Dolmetscherinstitut 132, 134, 143, 153, 172 strategic behavior 77, 78, 125, 179, 376 438 Index <?page no="439"?> strategic competence 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 55, 62, 78, 122, 165, 169, 248, 366, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378 subjective theories 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 179, 352 surface structure 21 synergy effects 119, 125, 128, 385, 389 target text reader 15, 22, 38, 41, 61, 64, 66, 69, 80, 107, 121, 130, 152, 178, 179, 187, 191, 192, 195, 200, 207, 225, 249, 264, 291, 298, 304, 311, 313, 315, 319 teaching style 137, 139, 389 text analysis 41, 63 text-specific translation problem 311, 312, 347, 379 text type 32, 66, 89, 151, 152, 192, 194, 195, 200, 207, 250 theoretical competence 45, 46, 50 Theory1/ 2 100, 101, 110 think-aloud (TA) method 162 protocol 81, 135, 157, 161, 163, 174, 211, 254, 309, 310, 316, 317, 319, 320, 326, 331, 343 session 153, 154, 155, 161, 163, 326, 359, 360, 364 time pressure 44, 63, 82 time requirement 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 141, 145, 244, 251, 253, 273, 310 TransComp 39, 77, 92, 124, 133, 136, 137, 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 161, 163, 164, 172, 206, 246, 250, 258, 268, 300, 352, 420 transcription 254, 255 transfer competence 25, 28, 31, 33, 350 transfer problem 269, 270, 272, 273, 278, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 296, 298, 304, 306, 307, 308, 380 Transkulturelle Kommunikation (Bachelor) 11, 133, 136, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 172 translation agency 91, 104, 111, 113, 114 translation brief 38, 80, 92, 106, 152, 192, 200, 204, 264, 311, 313, 319, 320, 322, 389, 420 translation competence 13 acquisition 27, 29, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 64, 72, 77, 78, 86, 87, 97, 106, 109, 110, 116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 136, 139, 166, 174, 248, 250, 252, 322, 348, 374, 378, 384, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391 definition definition_TC 23 emergence 56, 58 sub-competences interrelatedness 32, 33, 36, 40, 56, 57, 62 sub-competences subcomptences 34 translation competence: acquisition 55, 378 translation difficulty 75, 76, 80 translation-does-not-get-easier phenomenon 76, 83, 94 translation history 63, 72, 107, 114 translation market 11, 38, 104, 107, 114, 127, 390 translation norms 43, 190 translation problem definition 76, 169 439 Index <?page no="440"?> individual (ITP) 168, 169, 254, 255, 257, 258, 262, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 298, 299, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 317, 322, 350, 351, 367, 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 380, 386 task-inherent (TTP) 168, 169, 254, 299, 305, 306, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 360, 363, 364, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 386 translation process research (TPR) 12, 14, 16, 18, 63, 64, 65, 73, 80, 82, 83, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 125, 135, 151, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 206, 252, 254, 265, 390 translation quality assessment (TQA) 9, 92, 93, 112, 152, 203, 205, 206, 400 translation routine activation competence 41, 42, 43, 62, 165, 169, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 373, 376, 378, 380 translation strategy 45, 46, 47, 88, 166, 169, 170 translation teaching 26, 51, 95, 103, 105, 106, 115, 117, 119, 127, 384, 387, 389, 390 translation unit 38, 173, 207, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 268, 269, 366, 367 translation universals 329 translatory moment 56, 57 Translog 162, 172, 266, 267 triangulation 161, 165, 173, 309, 310 Übersetzen (Bachelor) 132, 133, 134, 143, 144, 145, 154, 155, 172, 388, 418 undergraduate program 11, 13, 54, 72, 124, 126, 136, 143, 144, 248, 391 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 126 University of Graz 11, 39, 124, 133, 136, 145, 146, 172 University of Mainz 50, 104 vocational 11, 13, 98, 100, 114, 116, 132, 172, 383, 390, 391 wordplay 339 world knowledge 50, 80, 81, 85 440 Index <?page no="441"?> ISBN 978-3-8233-8161-7 Translation study programs have always been torn between the expectations placed on them to provide students with a comprehensive education at an academic level but at the same time to prepare them for the demands of the professional translation market. There is, furthermore, an ongoing debate about a supposed gap between translation theory and practice. Several, often opposing claims have been put forward concerning the usefulness of theory to professionals and students and how and when to best implement theoretical courses in translation curricula. The aim of this book is to provide an overview of the different opinions and expectations that have been put forward in the literature and to test some of these claims empirically on student subjects who have been trained with either a practical or a theoretical focus on translation. It thus gives insights into the role of both theoretical and practical aspects in translator training and the ways in which each of them can contribute to the development of translation competence.