Translation competence: Explaining development and stagnation from a dynamic systems perspective

Susanne Göpferich
Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Abstract

This article introduces Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) as a framework for the investigation of translation competence development. After a presentation of the basic concepts and assumptions underlying this theory, results from the longitudinal study TransComp will be discussed against the background of DST. TransComp is a three-year product- and process-oriented longitudinal study of the development of translation competence in 12 students of translation, whose translation products and processes were compared with those of 10 professional translators. The article outlines both the difficulties involved in the application of DST to the investigation of translation competence development and the added value that it promises for our understanding of developmental processes in translators, including the ways they can be fostered in translation training.

Keywords:
Table of contents

The investigation of translation competence development is a field of research that is still in its infancy. Only about a decade ago, Schäffner and Adab (2000, viii) deplored that there had not yet been “a specific research focus within Translation Studies on how translation competence can be defined and developed”. The situation has changed since then. Both individual researchers and research groups have launched projects investigating the development of translation competence (see the overview in Englund-Dimitrova 2005, 14–15; and Göpferich 2008, 168–178). Longitudinal studies in the strictest sense of the term, i.e., of the same individuals at regular intervals during their training and later professional careers, are rare. [ p. 62 ]Only such longitudinal studies, however, can provide us with insights into the development of translation competence in its continuity.

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

Angelone, Eric
2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Eric Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer-Hohenwarter, Gerrit
2011 “The Development of Creativity Analysed: A Plea for More Fine-grained Analyses in Translation Process Research.” Paper at the 2nd International Research Workshop “Methodology in Translation Process Research.” University of Giessen, 27–29 July, 2011.Google Scholar
2012 Translatorische Kreativität: Definition, Messung, Entwicklung. Tübingen: Narr. [Translationswissenschaft, 8.]Google Scholar
Bergen, David
2009 “The Role of Meta-Cognition and Cognitive Conflict in the Development of Translation Competence.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 231–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, Kees, Wander Lowrie, and Marjolijn Verspoor
2007 “A Dynamic Systems Theory Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1): 7–21.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Stuart E. Dreyfus
1986 Mind Over Machine. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Benjamins Translation Library, 64.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Walter Kintsch
1995 “Long-term Working Memory.” Psychological Review 102: 21–245.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelder, Tim
1989 “The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 615–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath, and Gregory M. Shreve, 196–214. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2008 Translationsprozessforschung: Stand — Methoden — Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr. [Translationswissenschaft, 4.]Google Scholar
2009 “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and Its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study ‘TransComp’.” In Behind the Mind: Methods. Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 37.]Google Scholar
2010 “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Fabio Alves, and Inger M. Mees, 5–55. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 39.]Google Scholar
2011 “From Multidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity: The Investigation of Competence Development as a Case in Point.” MikaEL Electronic Proceedings of the KäTu [ p. 76 ]Symposium on Translation and Interpreting Studies 5: 1–24.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, Gerrit Bayer-Hohenwarter, and Hubert Stigler
(eds) 2011 TransComp — The Development of Translation Competence. Corpus and Asset-Management-System for the Longitudinal Study TransComp. Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität. http://​gams​.uni​-graz​.at​/container:tc (last accessed 02 January, 2012).
Hönig, Hans G.
1995 Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [Studien zur Translation, 1.]Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2002 “Think-Aloud Protocol Studies into Translation: An Annotated Bibliography.” Target 14 (1): 107–136.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jungermann, Heinrich, Hans Rüdiger Pfister, and Katrin Fischer
2005 Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung. 2. Auflage. München: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T.
2008 “Training Writing Skills: A Cognitive Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Writing Research 1 (1): 1–26.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prassl, Friedrike
2010 “Translators’ Decision-Making Processes in Research and Knowledge Integration.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research, ed. by Göpferich Susanne, Fabio Alves, and Inger M. Mees, 57–81. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 37.]Google Scholar
Prassl, Friederike
In progress. Translatorische Recherche und Wissensintegration. (Dissertation). Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz/ITAT (status: June 2011).
Schäffner, Christina, and Beverly Adab
2000 “Developing Translation Competence: Introduction.” In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina Schäffner and Beverly Adab, vii–xvi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M.
1997 “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath, and Gregory M. Shreve, 20–136. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Thelen, Ester, and Linda B. Smith
1994 A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Kees de Bot, and Wander Lowie
2004 “Dynamic Systems Theory and Variation: A Case Study in L2 Writing.” In Words in their Places, ed. by Hendrik Aertsen, 407–421. Amsterdam: VU.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Wander Lowrie, and Marijn van Dijk
2008 “Variability in Second Language Development from a Dynamic Systems Perspective.” The Modern Language Journal 92 (2): 214–231.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar