Lamiae
Extrait du mémoire linguistic and cultural knowledge as prerequisites to learning professional written translation
a long and systematic exposure (Mounin, 1962) to all types of authentic material like films in the original version, novels reflecting as authentically as possible everyday life and discourse, and nonfiction documents sharing the same characteristics.
Chastain (1976) advances that in an academic context, for example a language class, teaching the culture of the language must be a fundamental and systematic component of the curriculum. The objectives should be made clear to learners, and material acquisition should be tested rigorously, just as the linguistic material is (pp. 388, 509). Because the language and its culture are interdependent, the culture of the language should be given a similar importance to that of the language itself, and be taught in relation to the corresponding linguistic items (p. 388). It follows that:
“Ideally, at the end of their studies, the students will have a functional knowledge of the second culture system as they have of the second language system” (Chastain, 1976, p. 388)
All the literature summed up thus far leads to believe that, in translator training, two conclusions can be drawn. First, learning to mediate between two languages and cultures whose boundaries are not yet clear in one’s mind seems to be of a questionable value.
Second, such a deep and subtle knowledge appears to be hard to achieve in such a relatively short time as a four-year translation course.
This suggests that unnecessary loss of time should, as far as possible, be avoided. This makes sense when we know that the course should include a number of other subjects to study and other competences to acquire.
This is the subject matter of the following sections.
1.2. Translation Competence
Translation Competence is a key issue in this study. It is a concept whose nature is generally misunderstood by common people, but also controversial to translation theorists. This is clearly felt when one examines relevant literature.
1.2.1. The Term Translation Competence
It should be noted that the definition of the concept is not the only fundamental issue that has not yet been established, the term indicating the concept as well. Pym (2002), Campbell (1991), Waddington (2001), F. Alves; J.L. Vila Real; R. Rothe-Neves (2001) and Orozco and Hurtado Albir (2002) use Translation Competence. Others have chosen different appellations. Orozco and Hurtado Albir (2002) mention some of them:
translation transfer (Nord, 1991, p.161), translational competence (Toury, 1995, pp.250-51; Hansen, 1997, p.205; Chesterman, 1997, p.147), translator competence (Kiraly, 1995, p.108), translation performance (Wilss, 1989, p.129), translation ability (Lowe, 1987, p.57), and translation skill (Lowe, 1987, p.57). All these denominations are, nevertheless, rarely accompanied with the researcher’s definition of the concept (Orozco and Hurtado Albir, 2002, p.375).
In this study “Translation Competence” is being used. On the one hand, we accept the concept “competence” as comprising all the other terms, namely ability, skill and knowledge. The definition the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000) suggests of the word competence is “the ability to do something well” (p. 260), which may entail a wide range of skills, abilities and types of knowledge. McClelland (1973), on the other hand, defines it as “appropriate use of specific abilities according to surrounding demands” (Alves; Vila Real; and Rothe-Neves, 2001). This definition fits the point of view this study adopts because we believe that the concept of appropriateness is central to Translation Competence.
On the other hand, the use of the term “translator competence” might include things that go beyond the concept. Indeed, it may imply all what a translator should know and be able to do including what may belong to other fields than translation, such as knowledge about specific subject matters. However, what we refer to by the term Translation
……..
Sommaire: Linguistic and cultural knowledge as prerequisites to learning professional written translation
INTRODUCTION
General Background
Research Questions
Hypotheses
Objectives
Scope of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Significance of the Study
Basic Assumptions
Terms Definition
Chapter One LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
12 1.1. Linguistic and Cultural Knowledge
1.1.1. Translation and Language
1.1.1.1. Difference between languages
1.1. 2. The Translator’s Linguistic Knowledge
1.1.2.1. Knowledge of the native language
1.1.2.2. Knowledge of the foreign language
1.1.2.3. Textual knowledge
1.1.2.4. Communicative competence
1.1.2.5. Controlled linguistic knowledge
1.1.3. Translation and Culture
1.1.4. The Translator’s Cultural Knowledge
1.1.5. Learning Culture
1.2. Translation Competence
1.2.1. The Term “Translation Competence”
1.2.2. Translation Competence Versus Linguistic Competence
1.2.3. Nature of Translation Competence
1.2.4. Translation Competence Acquisition and
Language Learning
1.3. Some Aspects of the Activity of Translation
1.3.1. Translation Problems
1.3.1.1. Translatability
1.3.1.2. Peeter Torop’s Scheme of Culture Translatability
1.3.2. Translation as Decision Making
1.3.3. Some Aspects of the Translator’s Responsibility
1.4. An Account for Admission Requirements in Some
Foreign Translation Schools
1.4.1. Institut de Traduction at Montreal University in 1967
1.4.2. L’Université du Québec en Outaouais in 2004
1.4.3. Ecole Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs at Paris
l’Université Paris III in 2004
1.4.4. Views of SomeTranslation Scholars and Teachers
1. 5. Measuring Translation Learning Progress
1.5.1. Campbell’s Developmental Scheme
1.5.2. Orozco and Hurtado Albir’s Model
1.5.3. Waddington’s Experiment
Conclusion
Chapter Two METHODOLOGY DESIGN
Introduction
2.1. The Ex Post Facto Study
2.1.1. Research Questions
2.1.2. Operational Definitions of Variables
2.1.3. Choice of Method
2.1.4. The Ex Post Facto Design
2.1.5. Sampling
2.1.6. Data Collection Procedures
2.1.7. Statistical Analysis
2.1.7.1. Means Comparison
2.1.7.2. Correlation
2.2. The Qualitative Study
2.2.1. Research Questions
2.2.2. First Year Students’ Knowledge
2.2.2.1. Objectives
2.2.2.2. Research Questions
2.2.2.3. Sampling
2.2.2.4. Data Gathering Procedures
2.2.2.4.1. English language test
2.2.2.4.2. Arabic language test
2.2.2.4.3. English and Arabic general culture tests
2.2.2.5. Data Analysis and Evaluation
2.2.2.5.1. English language test
– Qualitative description
– Quantitative description
2.2.2.5.2. Arabic language test
– Qualitative description
– Quantitative description
2.2.2.5.3. General culture tests
2.2.2.5.3.1. English culture test
– Quantitative description
– Qualitative description
2.2.2.5.3.2. Arabic culture test
– Quantitative description
– Qualitative description
2.2.3. Third Year Translations’ Evaluation
2.2.3.1. Objectives
2.2.3.2. Research Questions
2.2.3.3. Sampling
2.2.3.4. Tests Materials and Administration
2.2.3.5. Translations’ Evaluation
2.2.3.5.1. Arabic-English translations’ evaluation
– Qualitative description
– Quantitative description
2.2.3.5.2. English-Arabic translations’ evaluation
– Qualitative description
– Quantitative description
2.2.4. Results’ Summary
2.2.4.1. First Year Students’ Knowledge
2.2.4.1.1. Linguistic Competence
2.2.4.1.2. General Culture
2.2.4.2. Third Year Students’ Translation Competence
2.2.4.2.1. Arabic-English
2.2.4.2.2. English-Arabic
Conclusion
Chapter Three DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. Results’ Discussion and Interpretation
3.2. Recommendations
General Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendices
Si le lien ne fonctionne pas correctement, veuillez nous contacter (mentionner le lien dans votre message)Linguistic and cultural knowledge as prerequisites to learning professional written translation (720 KO) (Rapport PDF)
