Advertisement

Assessing Textual Competence in Translation into a Second Language

  • Tamara KavytskaEmail author
  • Olga Kvasova
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

Assessing translation competence or its components is one of highly debatable issues of translation pedagogy. In the Ukrainian context, this issue has been particularly neglected despite considerable progress achieved in teaching vocational translation. As a result, conventional quantitative and error-based assessment schemes prevail in most national translation training environments. Thus, the objective of this article is to reconsider generally accepted approaches towards translation quality assessment and suggest the instruments for assessing the textual competence in translation from Ukrainian into English. This study relies on the experimental training of the first-year Translation Majors of the Master’s program (n = 33). Tools included a general language proficiency test, a pre- and post-training test in translation skills, assessment scales and the survey of translation teachers. The assessment procedure of the experimental training had a strong correlation (89%) with the expected learning outcomes and training objectives of the course. The research results indicate that the suggested instruments are effective in measuring the textual competence of Translation Majors in the classroom focused on translation as a process rather than a product. The experimental training has also revealed the impact of the trainer’s profile on the assessment procedure, which can become the object of further research.

Keywords

Translator competence Textual competence Translation into a foreign language Assessment instrument Assessment scale Translation majors 

References

  1. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, S. (1991). Towards a model of translation competence. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 36(2–3), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission. European Master’s in Translation (EMT) Strategy. (2009). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmesemt/key_documents/emt_strategy/.
  5. House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hurtado, A., & Martinez, N. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 46(2), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kashirina, N. (2005). Kriterii otsenki kachestva pismennyh perevodov kak metodicheskaya rabota. Lingvodidakticheskie osnovy prepodavaniya yazykov I kultur: sbornik statei pod redaktsiei I.A. Tsaturovoi. Taganrog: Izdatelstvo TRTU (pp. 48–56).Google Scholar
  9. Kavytska, T. (2015). Formuvannia tekstotvirnoi kompetentnosti maibutnih filologiv u pysmovomu perekladi z ukrainskoi movy na angliysku. Dysertatsia na zdobuttia naukovogo stupenia kandydata pedagogichnyh nauk. Kyiv: KNU.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, D. (2000). Diversity in unity: Translation into non-mother tongues in translator training in Spain. In M. Grosman et al. (Eds.), Translation into non-mother tongues in professional practice and training (pp. 185–191). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Kelly, D. (2002). Un modelo de competencia traductora: bases para el diseño curricular. Puentes. Hacia nuevas investigaciones en la mediación intercultural, 1, 9–20. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~greti/puentes/puentes1/02%20Kelly.pdf
  12. Kiraly, D. (2000). Translation into a non-mother tongue: From collaboration to competence. In M. Grosman et al. (Eds.), Translation into non-mother tongues in professional practice and training (pp. 117–123). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Komissarov, V. (1997). Teoreticheskie osnovy metodiki obucheniya perevodu. Moskva: Izdatelstvo REMA.Google Scholar
  14. Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackenzie, R. (2000). Resource research strategies: A key factor in teaching translation into the non-mother tongue. In M. Grosman et al. (Eds.), Translation into non-mother tongues in professional practice and training (pp. 125–131). Stauffenburg Verlag: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  16. Mansell, R. (2008). Optimality in translation. In A. Pym & A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation research projects (pp. 3–12). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.Google Scholar
  17. Montalt Ressurrecció, V., Ezpeleta Piorno, P., & García Izquierdo, I. (2008). The acquisition of translation competence through textual genre. Translation Journal, 12(4), 2–12.Google Scholar
  18. Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in language, in languages, and in translation. In A. Neubert, C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 3–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orozco, M., & Hurtado, A. (2002). Measuring translation competence acquisition. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 47(3), 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. PACTE. (2003). Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavlović, N. (2007). Directionality in collaborative translation process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Rovira I Virgili.Google Scholar
  22. Schäffner, C. (2000). Running before walking? Designing a translation programme at undergraduate level. In C. Schäffner & A. Beverly (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 143–156). John Benjamin: Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shevnin, А. (2009). Paranormativy v perevode: nesootvetstviya ekspressivnogo tipa. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gertsena, 117, 157–164.Google Scholar
  24. Stewart, D. (2008). Vocational translation training into a foreign language. Intralinea Online Translation Journal, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  25. Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 46(2), 331–325.Google Scholar
  26. Waddington, C. (2004). Should student translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? Lebende Sprachen, 49(1), 28–35.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, M. (1989). The Assessment of Professional Translation Quality: Creating Credibility out of Chaos. TTR, 2(2), 13–33.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, M. (2009). Translation quality assessment. Mutatis Mutandis, 2(1), 323.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, M. (2013). A holistic-componential model for assessing translation student performance and competency. Mutatis Mutandis, 6(2), 419–443.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilologyTaras Shevchenko National University of KyivKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations