Translation Competence and Language Awareness

8

Lang uage Awar eness . E an memo rizing stuff, which is bad forlearnin g ;wa~. ach pup!l canan sweru sing . a be descri to s word own his {~aldily"interestinb'g. The Portu guese langu age classes ~e~;::~u~~~:.hl';,~ ;h~~e ~:a: Ig ueren ce etwee n these classes and th ::~:;se!~t~~:::b~~~~lised that these classes help to give a general idea of ~ly positive. She felt her pupils had lea~t~~~:!~~~~~:sessment was st.simila greater mtere Moreover, there were no probl ems with discipline.

th:

Summary This paper has repor ted on an investi ation f w?ys of devel oping an eman cipato ry discourse in Portu ese Ian ~ "'-ZIL As the pro!ect progressed, pupil s gradu ally b~ame s!;e~t: t~~c:gt'.:'a:. mg and learnm g . . process, entitled to speak their mind s and Th': teacher progressively allowed the pupil s to speak for th ta~e deciSIOns. dmgly reduc ed the exten t of her own oral contribution Ate:se v~ ~d accor eden o the school year, the class perfo rmed better than a comparable c.1ass use as a control group W . 1' . fr e must, as ever, be cautious about ge ~f one class in case th~ om Ismg : one school. Nevertheless, the results ro~~~ for furthe r basis ve positi very a P ls. projects in other schoo

°.

Note . d 1. A version of this paper was presented at the 'Thi1~96International Conference on ness, Trinity College Dublin, July Language Aware

References Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and ideo! . icaNsta 1 teLapftparatuses.!n L. Althusser (ed) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays · Lonodg ew e Books e on: A 1 MW n· Routled . (1990) Ideology and Curriculum Londo pp e; g. . d F . Par' Dire Veut Parler que Ce (1982) P. eu, Bourd~ . r '\·afa M and R lvanic N. ugh, Clark, R., Fairclo Laarm- ones, M. (1991) Critical langua ge awareness: Towards critical alt~m~t· ion 5, 41-54. Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992a) Critical Lan Ives. A nguage and Educat L?ngman. n: Londo ss. warene s;mge S and rse Discou Fairclough, N. (1992b) Press. Pohty bndge: .ksCam Gramsci, A. (1971) Selectwnfrom the p;;~tal f]:~ye . London: Lawrence & Wishart oo e o on II Criti (1992) R Janks, H. and lvanic · se. awareness and emanc1· patory d'!Scour ca angua ' · Critical Langua . 1ough (ed.) A ge In N . Fa~rc an. . London: Longm Orlandi, E. (1988) As formas do sil' .ge(Thwea;eness orms of silence). Campinas: Editora da encw UN!CAMP. · A 'Thiollent, M. (1985) Methodologia em Pesqutsafao (Methodology in action-research). Sao Paulo: Cortez.

Translation Competence and Language 1 Awareness Pamela Faber

da, Spain Faculty of Translation and Interpretation, University of Grana

learn is how to extract concep tual One of the most difficu lt things translators have to translations on reform ulatio ns of their base they that so texts, source meani ngs from res that codify them. This article structu or those meani ngs, rather than on the words in English and

of sound describes an exercise in lexical analysis, involving verbs ns of meaning which patter lying under er discov is to enable students to

Spanish, Its aim gh this type of activity, stuM are repres entati ve of lexicalMconceptual struCture. Throu while also increa sing their ht, thoug and ge langua dents explor e the relation betwe en ness. aware and diction ary skills

Introduction

sensitivity to and Language Awareness has been defined as 'a perso n's its role in huma n life' conscious awareness of the natur e of langu age and asset for any foreign (Donrnall, 1985: 7). Such awareness is obviously a major it is a vital necessity. langu age (FL) Ieamer, but for translation students, ing in langu age (in its Arguably, consciousness of under lying patterns of mean with which stude nts generic sense) stand s in direct relation to the relative ease acquire translation skills. erable amou nt Translation can be seen as a cognitive process involving a consid ss, when proce This of problem-solving and decision-making (Wilss, 1994). strictly leads which considered in its microcontextual or narro wer sense, is that wider a In text. age from source text analysis to the produ ction of the target langu they ons decisi the and or macrocontextual sense, the strategies translators use great a by nced influe make are oriented to the totality of the target text and thus ed purpo se of the variety of factors, of which the most impor tant is the intend Nevertheless, 1991). target text in the target cuiture (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984; Nord, lies the xtual, conte behin d the translation process, wheth er macro- or micro 19). 1991: ert, (Neub probl em of the genuine reconstruction of utterance meanings . ssfully succe ate transl One does not have to be explicitly aware of this to that ious consc being ut Evidently, peopl e can translate in different phase s witho ing for functional they are divid ing the text into translation-oriented units, search configuration rheme e/ equivalence, or organising the resulting text in a them are blissfully ators transl that similar to the original. In faCt, it is often the case process of the to d relate unaw are that any of the above even exist as concepts translating.

Translation competence The concept of Translation Competence

(TC) can be under stood in terms of 1990: 32f; Bybee, 1996: know ledge necessary to translate well (Hatim & Mason, h it were a celestial thoug as to ed referr 91f). Howe ver, in the past, it has often been

©1998 P. Faber Vol. 7,No.l , 1998

0965-8416/98/01 0009-13 $10.00/0 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

9

70

Langua ge Awareness

gift that certain people are miraculously endowed with, and which converts the translator into some sort of latter-day textual alchemist with the magical power to transform a source language text into a target language text (Toury, 1980; Seleskovitch & Lederer, 1984). But if we accept such an explanation of the ability to arrive at interlinguistic textual correspondence, then no rational analysis is possible. On the other hand, TC defined as 'the knowledge need to translate well' is itself too general. It is more productive to divide knowledge into different subtypes. Bell (1991: 36) defines TC in terms of five types of knowledge: target language knowledge, text-type knowledge, source language knowledge, realworld knowledge, and contrastive knowledge. A similar set of components is proposed by Nord (1991: 146). TC means having these different types of knowledge at one's disposal, and being able to use them to solve problems and make appropriate decisions. All these types of knowledge are undoubtedly important, but this article focuses on contrastive knowledge (which corresponds to a subtype of 'transfer competence, in Nord's list referred to above) because the process oflearn inghow to translate can be considerably enhanced by making students conscious of the degree to which languages coincide and differ. This type of language awareness for translators has much in common with the new type of contrastive analysis advocated by James & Garrett (1991b: 6): This [language awareness aimed at foreign language learners] suggests scope for a new type of Contrastive Analysis (CA), not CA of the classical sort done by linguists and then made over to textbook writers, but CA done by pupils as FL learners themselves, to gain linguistic awareness of the contrasts and similarities holding between the structures of the MT [mother tongue] and the FL. This variety of CA, then, does not mean a detailed contrastive study, but rather activities which develop an awareness in students of patterns of meaning common to many languages. Translation is much more than this, of course, and accordingly, the exercise described here is not a translation method, but rather a consciousness-raising activity for student translators. Translation students differ from FL learners in that the former should already possess a native-like command of at least two languages when they begin their studies. However, it is well-known that bilinguals are not necessarily competent translators. Knowledge of two languages is only part of the knowledge that is necessary for translating well. An important perception for translators to acquire, either consciously or intuitively, is that language structure (both paradigmatic and syntagmatic) is a representation of conceptual structure.

Dictionaries and lnterlinguistic Correspondence Exercises in lexical analysis enable translation students to discern the patterns underlying meaning. Their value lies in the fact that one of the most difficult things translators have to learn is how to extract conceptual meaning from a source text, and to base their translation on a reformulation of that meaning, not on the words or structures that codify it. The aim of such exercises is for students

Translation Compe tence and Langua ge Awareness

.

77 .

a e and thought. At the same time, this

!~~~~~ ~:rt~:e~=:~:~~d~7;':~y ~)~!~:::~I:~~c:;:~=~~~~f~!a~~~a~~ two languages 1

have alrea y acqurr.e . t 'ff tI age communities have mterpre e d reality. In certain basic . how d1 eren angu ill. . 'd 'th their primary vocabulary, wh!le areas of meaning, languages w come•. e WI th ill be important differences. in other areas . ere w . the obvious lace to go is the dictionary, an

extr~~;:~~;~ :~"::t~r

inpgeneral.:~~~;:~~~st~::~~~~

translators most likely to be looked up tend tfotbhenot:ti~~::nature of meaning. It is o e . d are w ell-known ' on account f I t' hmve both dictionary skills an awareness. 0 important that ~tudents tra; ~~~~ff:rent dictionaries since there is no sin?le Translators ne to use a ran information necessary about word meanmg dic:/onary t~~: c:!~:~~ti~~orrespondences. Indeed, Nida (1996: 85) states an or pos~I .e . . d uate and based on quite wrong concepts about that many dictionan~s are:~ :;at billng>ml dictionaries are often even less the nature of meanmg, all ide only a list. of glosses and have no satisfactory because they usu Y prov

defrr;!~~:;;',~less when they start off, students naively regard dictionaries (bot~

N . 'd bilingual) with exaggerated veneration, and cons1de; th mono1mgua1 an . th t b invariably reliable. definitions and interlinguistic correspondences m e';'. o e I f lexicaThis is evident in their readiness to accept evenf ~:i~~=~=:=~~~ exercise graphic practice as sacred scnptudre. ~ ex;mp : ~he Translation Faculty of the below in which first-year un ergra ua es . . . University of Granada were given the followmg question. . . Does the lexical entry below offer sufficier:t informatio~? In your oprmon, why are there so many correspondences g>ven for bawl. bawl v. intr. gritar, chillar, vocear, rugir. vociferar, desgafutarse' Answers to this question included assertions such as the following: . Bawl has many 'def'rm'ti'ons' in Spanish' and almost any of them will do. Exact translation is seldom possible. Language varies according to specific socio-cultural contexts. Certain words are more difficult to translate than others. which By looking at the text, the translator will automatically know correspondence is the best one. S . h . richer Bawl has so many correspondences in Spanish because paniS IS a (f) language than English with a grea:er variety of possible nuances , and a translator must inevitably accept this. This exercise was given as part of an Applied Linguistics course: designed to familiarise students with basic linguistic concepts us~ful in.tr~la~~h:;;: ~:~:

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

w~ co;:~ s;~:e~~~~~t;;~~ec~:'!~~~~~~ ~~l{;:'l'acc~ptable fluenc~

':'a ve p in assed the university entrance exam, as well as a .seco!' m English, ha~f' g p o1ven at the Faculty. About 20% possessed native-like lang>mge-speci IC exam 0 -

l

72

Langua ge Awareness

fluency because they had either Jived abroad and/ or one of their parents was English-speaking. Even though none of the student s had any background in lexicography or semantics, one might have expected a greater awareness of the differences in meanin g in the Spanish equivalents offered for bawl. However, the student s seemed to feel that the authority of the dictionary was greater than their own as languag e users. Moreover, not one noticed the most obvious problem with the above entry: namely, that among the six possible correspondences given (itself an excessive number even for bilingual dictionaries of this type), there is no mention of berrear, which is arguably the 'best aU-purpose' equivalent. Nor did anyone remark upon the fact that bawl could have different meanings, depend ing on whethe r the agent is a drill sergeant (shouting), a baby (crying), or a tone-de af singer (singing). Although in answer (c), sociocultural contexts were mentioned, nobody showed any clear expectation that the dictionary might offer an explanation of the meaning differences between the various correspondences on the basis of different contexts. This result is indicative of the fact that until then, student s had not reflected either on the importance of dictionaries, or on the different types of information a useful dictionary for translators might contain. Given the incomplete and occasionaiiy inaccurate information offered in certain bilingual dictionaries, a useful technique to increase dictionary skiiis and awareness is for student s to learn how to establish interlinguistic correspondences by using the information found in monolingual dictionaries. An activity which opens many student s' eyes to the relationship between languag e and the mind is the use of dictionary information to map out an area of the lexicon in two languages, or to construct paraiiel representations of part of a semantic field.

Mapping Out Semantic Space3 Although in one respect beginner translation student s hold dictionaries in great awe, in quite another, they do not give them the importance they deserve . Standar d dictionaries contain the body of knowledge gathered by lexicographic tradition and their definitions have the status of referential authori ty for users of the language in question. Moreover, it invariably comes as a revelation to student s that anythin g so mundan e as a dictionary definition is in one sense a translation of perceptions of reality, and thus encodes how the dictionary makers perceive and categorise the world. in fact, each dictionary definition can be considered an example of a micro-knowledge representation, because definitional structure is iconic with how subjects and events are categorised on the basis of sensory data. bawl to sing badly in a very loud voice warble to sing pleasantly in a high-pitched voice with trills (like a bird). For example, in the preceding definitions, we can see, that both bawl and warble are ways of singing. The fact that they share the same nuclear term or classifie r (sing) locates them in a subdimension of the lexical field of verbs of SOUND. In both cases, the adverbial modification of sing in their respective definitions, encodes features which differentiate them from each other, as well as from the

73

Translation Compe tence and Langua ge Awareness

Figurel Meanmgcomponents for bawl and warble Meanin:< component Classifier (indicating field membership) · Mannerl Instrument Manner2

bawl

Pragmatic information (world knowledge)

(negatively evaluated by the perceiver)

SING (to make a musical

warble SING (to make a musical

sound) loudly

sound) pleasantlY

voice

voice

badly

high-pitched, with trills like a bird

. Th . d finitions can thus be divided other verbs with the same nuclear meanm g. elr e into the compon ents!" Figu:e \; same semantic field are sing, hum, croon, yodd, Other lexemes which fail m.t ~eld. defined here as 'the set of all lexical uruts chant, carol and troll: A sem~tk IS n-trivial semantic compon ent' (Mel' cuk, that share an explic;tly dlstu;gul~h~::au follows that a semantic field can be 1988: 170). From this def~~on, It ll flichsh arethes amenu clearm eaning . conceived as a hierarchy 0 exen:e~ a ~ ry covered by a specific field and thus The classifier marks th~ semantic. em~ ld membership. This is also in consobecomes the factor which dete':;:'m~ in~iple which stipulates that the definitio n nancewithMel'cuk'sDecomposz zan r th t emantic allysim plertha nitself of a lexical unit must contam only terms a a:e s. (Mel'cuk, 1988: 170). Wierzbicka (1992: 11) wntes. . . . ll plex words to cally Explicating involves reducmg se~anticad y c:'expl ication aresemanti not selected simple words, and hen.ce the wor s use mds and a correct definition will at random: there IS a hierarchy among wor ' reflect this hierarchy. . . of the field they belong to in different LexThemes sp~c:fy a~Ji~~~~:;;'u"::~nt are the basis upon which the lexemes ways. ese mmnn d. t eaningful configurations in the same area are interrelated and structure m o m of sBemru:tic ~p:~~~ty of dictionaries as texts that embody our shar~dknowl~dge Yusmg t t e the definitions gJVen about words, student s are asked to con ras and. compar In this way they extract the for verbs within the same general are~f m~ru;re~tional anal~sis, identify the meanin g components of each lexeme rou h . d d1 how to construct t e1r own efini·tions on the basis type of c~n:~onent: an. e~m . . For this type of analysis, three or more of this mzru-mvestigation mto meanmb. g nsus of the meaning components dictionaries' are used in order too tam a conse for each term. h for the initial group of verbs. However, A thesaur us can be used as t e source rs of . g relationships among these lexemes are specifie d ' the membe h as therneanm . h. h may vary somew a.t the lexical set which ~aiiy appeabr : :~e ~==gyarea in question, each term is To justify the mcluswn of aver e

74

Language Awareness

lexically decomposed so that its definition consists of a nuclear word (or a prevwusly defined non-nuclear one), and one or more features which differentia~e 1t fr?m the preceding. members of the hierarchy. For example in the lexical ~unens1on, to ~ake a mustcal sound, the nuclear word, sing, is the superordinate m. te;ms of W~l"!'. all the other words are defined. The adverbial modification wtthm the defint~or:s encode features (semes) which differentiate the lexemes from each other Within each meaning area. Lexemes are distinguished from each other by on: seme o; n;inimal distinctive feature. The various kinds of features of semantic dtfferentiation show us the divisions and distinctions th t ch I k"h aea ~~age ma es m t e semantic continuum (Faber, 1994; Faber & Mairal, 1994;

1

.For.example: in the case of bawl, definitional analysis would be carried out by usmg information from the following dictionaries: bawl

to shout in a loud, rough voice; to cry noisily (Longman Dictionary of

bawl bawl

to shout or cry loudly (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). If you bawl, you shout or sing something very loudly and rather harshly. If a child i~ bawling, it is crying loudly (Collins Cobuild). to shout or smg m a very loud voice; to cry loudly (Cambridge

Engltsh Language and Culture).

bawl

International Dictionary of English).

bawl

to cry .or sob loudly; wail; to cry out loudly and vehemently; shout

(Amertcan Herztage).

Once it is ascertained, that bawl is in reality not one lexeme, but three, the students w~uld then pr?c.e~d to insert sense components (derived from the precedmg dictionary definitions) as showri in Figure 2. Figure 2 Activity Sheet 1 Oassifier Mannerl instrument Manner2 Pragmatic information

bawl1

bawl2

bawl3

shout loudly

sin~

loudly

cry very loudlv

voice

voice

voice

harshlv (indicative of speaker authority and/or strong emotion)

badly (negatively evaluated by the

unoleasantlv of children

Translation Competence and Language Awareness

15

definitions, and thus differ from componential analysis (Nida, 1975). In componential analysis, the meaning of a word is the sum of the binary features it possesses, such as +I -human, +I -male, +I -concrete, etc. When componential analysis was most popular in the 1950s, linguists hoped that it would enable them to arrive at the set of universal semantic features. However, it soon became clear that this type of analysis is only applicable to a small sector of vocabulary (e.g. kinship), and that word meaning is much too complex to be expressed purely in terms of binary oppositions. Varieties of componential analysis have been proposed by various authors both as an ald to translation (Newr_nark, 1981; 198.8) and vocabulary learning (Rudzka et al., 1981, 1985). However, m translation, 1ts use has always been somewhat limited because the translator must inevitably give priority to correspondence at higher levels of the text, and words must be considered in context. Nevertheless, the elaboration of lexical hierarchies is a valuable exercise because it more generally helps students acquire dictionary skills and awareness, and more specifically shows them how the polysemy of lexemes such as bawl can be resolved. The next step after elaborating the definitions for each verb in the Figure 3 Activity Sheet 2

Within each of the following meaning dimensions, arrange the verbs listed in lexical hierarchies in terms of their definitional structure. y-ERBS OF SOUND sound to make a particular noise. SQUNDS PROD! !CED BY Hl !MANS To make a sound by speaking T Q make a !Qud sQund hy !!Peaking

bawll, roar, shout, shriek, bark, holler, whoop, scream, bellow, howll, yell, vociferate, screech, cry out

Ta mak~ a ~a:uud fX.llr~~siug: unha~b:u~~~ cry1, cry2, moan, whine, groan, whimper, bawl2, yowl, sob, weep, wail, blubber, howl2

perceiver)

To produce musical sounds

sing, bawl3, hum, troll, croon, yodel, warble, chant, carol The components in Figure 2 allow them to construct new definitions, something like the following: bawl1 bawl2 bawl3

to shout loudly and harshly to sing badly in a very loud voice. to cry very loudly in an unpleasant way (of children).

The meaning components used are natural language phrases found in

lexical set is to specify their relationship with other lexemes. Figure 3 shows the activity sheet given to students for this task. When completed, the hierarchies would be similar to the ones in Figure 4. As can be observed, within verbs of SOUND, bawl would appear in three different subdimensions, depending on the type of agent producing the sound. The completed version of Activity Sheet 2 shows that bawl falls in three different areas of meaning, and as such, is related to three different sets of

Languag e Awareness

16

17

Translation Compet ence and Languag e Awareness

An example of the definitional analysis of berrear (the Spanish equivale nt of bawl) can be seen in Figure 5. Figure 6 is an example of the compari son of the definitio nal compone nts of bawl3/berrear3.

Figure 4: Activity Sheet 2 (completed version) VERBS OF SOUND

sound to make a particular noise.

Figure 5 Activity Sheet 3 (completed)

SO! TNQS PRODTJCED BY BIJMAN$

To make a sound by speaking To make a loud sound by speaking

Dar berridos los becerros u otros anirnales. 2. Llorar o gritar desafora damente un ni.ft.o. 3. fig. Gritar o cantar desenton adament e las personas (Diccionario de Ia Real Academia Espanola). berrear Dar berridos los becerros u otros anirnales. fig. Gritar o cantarde sentonad amente. (Diccionario ideolgico de Ia lengua espanola). (1) Emitir su voz propia un becerro u otro animal que Ia tenga berrear semejante. (2) (desp.) Emitir gritos estridentes; por ejemplo, una criatura cuando !lora. Se aplica hiperb6l icamente a !a acci6n de cantar con estridencia y desafinaci6n. (Marfa Moliner). berrear3 berrear2 berrear1 llorar tar can l~ritar Classifier fuerte sonido mucho haciendo fuerte sonido Mannerl

berrear

shout to speak loudly yell to shout loudly (because of excitement, anger, pain). whoop to shout loudly (because of excitement, happiness). cry to shout (because of excitement, surprise, fear). ;cre)am to cry out loudly in a high-pitched tone (because of great exdtement, anger, pain, ear. shriek to scream very sharply and loudly. screech to sluiek disagreeably and continuously.

Ibawl(l) to sbout loudly and harsblyj

roar to shout loudly and continuously in a very deep voice. · bellow to shout in a loud deep voice.

To make a sound expressing unhqppine ss

w~e to make a long, hi~-pit