Translation curriculum and pedagogy: Views of administrators of translation services

Li Defeng

Abstract

Following an earlier study on professional translators which appears in Target 2000, and another on translation students in Meta 2002, this article reports on an empirical study, based on both quantitative and qualitative data, on how administrators of translation/language services perceive translation training in Hong Kong. It will seek to answer questions such as the usual practice of and major considerations in recruitment of new translators; the major challenges the newly recruited face and methods and strategies they use to cope with them; the difficulties translators have in general as seen through the eyes of administrators, and the methods and strategies they use to cope with them; assistance translation agencies usually provide to help them deal with the challenges and difficulties; changes that need to be made to improve translator training. A comparison is made with my earlier projects on professional translators and translation students and pedagogical implications are also drawn in relation to some of the focal issues in translator training.

Keywords:
Table of contents

There has been an increasing interest in the relationship between translator training and market demands (see for example Durban et al. 2003; Li 2000, 2001, 2003; Pym 1993; Ulrych 1996; Vienne 1994). While all seem to agree that translation teaching cannot and should not be entirely separate from market forces, opinions differ as to how and to what extent translation training programs should relate to the real world of professional translation. Some scholars have argued vehemently against simulated professional training in the school environment, holding that translation programs should be aimed at development of student translators’ [ p. 106 ]reflective practice and problem-solving abilities whereas the part of professional translation should be taken care of at the workplace. For instance, Mossop (1999) believes that it is, and will always be, unrealistic to expect translation graduates to arrive at the workplace able to translate quickly and well, and therefore classroom training should be focused on reflection on translation problems and methods of translation, rather than simulated professional translation.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bogdan, Robert and Sari Knopp Biklen
1992Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cao, Debra
1996 “On translational language competence”. Babel 42:4. 231–238.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Civil Service Bureau. Official Languages Officer, Simultaneous Interpreter Calligraphist Grades: Grade Structure and Establishment
Delisle, Jean
1980L’Analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction. Ottawa: Éditions de l’université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
1981L’Enseignement de l’interprétation et de la traduction. Ottawa: Éditions de l’université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Durban, Chris Tim Martin, Brian Mossop, Ros Schwartz and Courtney Searls-Ridge
2003 “Translator training & the real world: Concrete suggestions for bridging the gap”. Translation journal 7:1. 1–35.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Maurice
1997Literary translation in Russia: A cultural history. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gémar, Jean-Claude
1983 “De la pratique à la théorie, l’apport des praticiens à la théorie générale de la traduction”. Meta 28:4. 323–333.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, J.P. and M.D. LeCompte
1984Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Juhel, Denis
1985 “La Place de la Réflexion Théorique dans l’enseignement de la Traduction”. Meta 30:3. 292–295.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lang, M.
1992 “The problem of mother tongue competence in the training of translators”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1992 395–400.Google Scholar
Larose, Robert
1985 “La théorie de la traduction: à quoi ça sert?Meta 30:4. 405–406.Google Scholar
Larson, Mildred L.
1991Translation: Theory and practice—Tension and interdependence. New York: State University of New York at Binghamton.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Defeng
2000 “Tailoring translation programmes to social needs: A survey of professional translators”. Target 12:1. 127–149.[ p. 128 ]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001a “Needs assessment in translation teaching: Making translator training more responsive to social needs”. Babel 46:4. 289–299.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b “A curricular investigation of specialized translation in Hong Kong tertiary institutions: A proposal”. RGC Earmarked Grant, HKSAR.Google Scholar
2001c “Language teaching in translator training. Babel 47:4. 343–354.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Translator training: What translation students have to say”. Meta 47:4. 513–531.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba
1986Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, R.
1998 “The place of language teaching in a quality oriented translators’ training programme”. Malmkjær 1998 . 15–20.Google Scholar
Malmkjær Kirsten
ed. 1998Translation and language teaching. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian
1999 “What should be taught at translation school?Innovation in translator and interpreter training. http://​www​.fut​.es​/~apym​/symp​/mossop​.html Retrieved on Nov 25 2005.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1995 “Competence in translation: A complex skill—How to study and how to teach it”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1992 411–420.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1993 “On the market as a factor in the training of translators”. Koiné 3. 109–121.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark
2001 “The rôle of theory in translator training: Some observations about syllabus design”. Meta 44:3. 497–506.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita
1996 “Real-world criteria in translation pedagogy”. Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting 3. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1996 251–259.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio
1994 “Theory and professional development: Or admonishing translators to be good”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, eds. Teaching rranslation and interpreting 2. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 97–105.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vienne, Jean
1994 “Towards a pedagogy of ‘translation in situation’”. Perspectives: Studies in translatology 1. 51–59.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul
1991 “Translation in theory and practice”. Mildred L. Larson, ed. Translation: Theory and practice—Tension and interdependence. New York: State University of New York at Binghamton 1991 157–171   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiersma, William
1995Research methods in education: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.[ p. 129 ]Google Scholar