through fonnal training and instruction, e.g. language classes, linguistics classes ... will be a better mechanic despite the fact that it was only a matter of 'Better.
turjuman, 2000, 9 (I), p. 39- 49
THE TRAINING OF STUDENT TRANSLATORS
Mohamed Farghal
1. Introduction Translation programs at the postgraduate level and, to some extent, at the undergraduate level have become a common feature of Arab universities and academic institutes. This new development comes as an immediate consequence of the increasing demand for translation practitioners on the job market. Unfortunately, these institutions were caught off-guard in terms of the availability of competent translator trainers, with the inevitable decision to assign the task of translation training to bilingual academics specializing in literature and/or linguistics. As a result, we may find translation trainers who neither have sufficient theoretical background in translation studies nor do they have the interest and/or motivation to familiarize themselves with translation studies as an adequately-established sub-discipline of applied linguistics. To them, their formal training in literature and/or linguistics is self-sufficient for teaching translation. It is sad that such contexts and attitudes have led to the over-dependence on anecdotal expositions when it comes to translation training. At its extremity, one may cite the common belief by some translation trainers that translation activity is nothing more than using the bilingual dictionary effectively. To
-1-0 Mohan1..:J br ghal
give but one incident, the chariman of an English department where a graduate tr..mslation program is run once assertively banned the use of dictionaries by student translators silting for the Comprehensive Examination; he was wondering what would be left of the rest if the examinees were allowed to use dictionaries. The present intervention, which is based on my personal experience as a translator trainer, aims to offer a set of guidelines whose presence in translation training seems indispensable. First, it should be made clear that translation theory/theories is/are meant to perfect translation competence rather than create it, hence a distinction should be drawn between a theory of translating and a theory of translation. Second, it should be emphasized that translation activity is a multi-stage rather than a one-stage process. Third,
-1.7
\l.r may range from ltng,ul~IIC ttl interpretative features. ('illllp;tring transl.tttons uf the :.arne text \\llh eao..:h nther :-.hould he communicatinn-ha~etl, tlt.tl 1\, thL' tran-.lattun L'rltic '>huuld he ;p,vare of the questions of prinnty antl tl·k·v.tncc when pilling one tr:tn-.lattun 111 ;1 vancty of cuntl.'xts v.htch are diachronically antl ~ynnnn1cally itJ\taru-.ed. In particular. tran~lati1ll\ critiL':-. -.hnulJ Ji.'>tinguish between a lt,tn:-.latHHl mt'>lake ami a tran:-.llarional optum despite the fact that :Hlllther opt inn. probably .1 hener one. may he av:ulahle. In this way. rranslaltllll m1stakes operate within the dichutlHny nf right or wrong. while translalt•Hl L'rror-. maneu\·er wtthin :1 ;nultipliciry of putential version'>. A final putnt 111 the l"lllllL'Xl of translation as comnHmKa!Jon pertain~ ~rccifically to pr;Ktical tr;uning 111 Engli-..h intn :\r:1hic tran:-.latiun. The fact that many Arab tran..,[.ttor tr:uncr:-. ~1111 th1nk of Arabic 111 pre..,cnptive terms _cot\e'> ri:-.e tn dogmatic arg.ulnents regarding the _..,yntax anti lex1s nf the -\rahic tran~lat10n ( 1.e . thL' target language text). Such arguments often tgnure the rL·ality that tran'>latinn j.., a fnrm uf cnmmumcatiun in favor of prL'scriptive norms nf CtJITectnL'"" which :~etua!\y neither atld nor take .111ything away m term.~ of the cutnmtnlicatin:ne:-.s uf the translation. For lll'>tance. the Ar:1hic quanttfier ~·s. l'> prednmmantly u..;eJ a-. a pre modifier 111 :vtnJern Standard Arahic hut pre'>criptively claimed to be exclusively a pnst-modifier te.g. nnnpare _-.:o~_;.i.ll :i..5LS ~ .. Wi.:i.....')\ f.' \virh ~ .. ·~'1\,.::. _,..;.:._,;ill ~I.S.e). Similarly, the Arah1c verb .:.:& i:-. wtdely useJ thc:-.c days to 111ean 'tn :-.uffcr' tin the COilll'\t nf fightmgl. hut prescripttunists ha\e II that llnly the Arabic verh ..:.JlS can he employed for thi ... meaning (e.g. cnmpare :i...:....:\..3 _;~.......:;,. J..:a..ll iS::: wllh :i...:....:ll _;L..:.. 3..:....ll .:...:.S)_ While prescriptiomsts cannot be taken to he wrong 111 falhng, hack \1\ll'arli..::r t·onm of Arabic. they .Lre by no tnean:-. entitled to rule out the currcctness nf the other alternates. Further. the ~·xaggeration which is usually a'>\ociateJ \\ llh '>UL"h tnatter-. Joes mure harm than guod to tr~tn:-.l.ttUI' tr'>l'llCO.: .. tilll.'> to hrin~ nut the fact that tran:--lattng 1:-. cotnmunic~Jtl!lg.
6. Conclusion Tlm .u-ticlc :1rgues that tran:-.latm tranwrs -.huuld he in po:-.:-.e.'>SJ0\1 of an adequate knowkdge .. r tr:tlhLltiun ... tudi..::. a-. a ..;ub-di:-.c1pline in its U\Vn
48 Mohamed Farghal
right before they are entrusted with teaching translation classes. In particular, an importanl distinction is drawn between a theory of translating, which lurks in the subsconsciousness of translators, and a theory of translation, which is brought to the consciousness of translators via formal exposure and instruction. It is demonstrated that the awareness of a theory/theories of translation on the part of the translator trainer is indispensable. All the same, translation theory is argued to dynamize and perfect translational competence rather than create it. Further, it is shown that translation activity is a multi-stage rather than a one-stage process. While the translating stage constitutes the backbone of the process, the pre-translating stage and the re-translating stage are argued to be integral to the process if coherence and cohesion are to be secured in the translation. lt is of utmost importance, therefore, to introduce this procedural parameter into translation training. Equally important, the article clearly shows that translation is essentially a question of relevance and priority. It is argued that contextual factors are of paramount importance when it comes to deciding what is relevant and what is not. Regardless of differing translational decisions along the way, the fitness of a translation is gauged against a principle of communicativeness where translation is viewed as an act of communicating rather than act of prescribing. In this respect, a distinction should be made between translation mistakes, which are described in terms of right or wrong, and translation errors, which are critically analyzed in terms of potential target language versions.
References Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dagut, M. (1981). Semantic 'Voids' as a Problem in the Translation Process. Poetics Today 2(4): 61-71. Farghal, Mohammed. (1994). Ideational Equivalence in Translation. In: Beaugrande de, Robert, et a!. (Eds.). Language, Discourse und Translation in the West and Middle East. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 55-63. Ivir, Vladimir. (1977). Lexical Gaps: A Contrastive View. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 43: 167-176.
The Training of Student Transla!Ors -l9
(vir, Vladimir. ( 1991 ). Procedures and Strategies for the Translation of Cui~ lure. lntenwtimwl Journal ofTmaslation I &2: 4R-OO. Nida, Eugene. (\964). Toward a Science of Translating \Vith Special Reference to Principles and Procedures lnvulved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pym. Anthony. ( 1992). Tranilation & Text Tramfa. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Rabin, C. ( 1958). The Linguistics of Translation. In: Smith, A. H. (Ed.). 1\spect.\' of Translation. London: Seeker and Warburgy, \23145. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. (1986). Relemnce. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Stewart, Philip. (1981 ). Children of Gehe/awi (Translation of Mahfouz' s Awlaad Haaritna). London: Heinemann. Theroux, Peter, ( llJ87). Citit:s of Salt (Translation of mudini-l-malh). New York: Vintage International Waard de, Jan and Eugene A. Nit.la. (1986). From One language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Mohamed Farghal English Department Yarmouk University lrbid- Jordan
