See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330134904

Translation competence

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

2 3,927

1 author:

Paulina Pietrzak
University of Lodz
32 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self-regulation in translator training View project

Duo Colloquium View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulina Pietrzak on 24 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Translation Competence

Paulina Pietrzak

University of Łódź

[email protected]

Abstract: The chapter will examine the concept of translation competence, its dependence
on and correlation with other factors with the benefit of the already functioning theories.
Various theoretical assumptions and approaches will be demonstrated in reference to the
nature of translators’ competence. The process of its development will also be analysed
with the aim of specifying how it develops and differentiating between its initial and
terminal stage. Translators learn not only the skill of rendering a text from one language
into another successfully, but also, simultaneously, acquire other subcompetences. A view
on market demands and professional qualifications shows that translator competence
changes over time because of technology or numerous social demands. Thus an attempt
will be made to define the basic features of the competence. Translation competence
development requires taking all the characteristic features of the competence into account.
Complex and difficult though it may seem, the aim of translation trainers is to provide their
trainees with as rich and thorough translation education as possible. Thus, however
challenging it appears to teach something that is described as open-ended and approximate,
what is crucial in any approach is the recognition of the complexity or the open-endedness
of the process of translation in any curricular model.

Keywords: translator competence, translation competence, bilingual competence, skill,

subcompetence, minimalistic approach, language competence, transfer competence, Think
Aloud Protocol (TAP), verbalization, cultural competence, performance

1. Introduction
The following chapter is an attempt at the specification of translation competence
which may plainly be described as the ability to translate. Its boundaries hard to
drawn, translation competence is an elusive notion. Translation scholars have
presented a vast array of conceptions and models of translation competence, all in

317
an attempt to establish an efficient method of defining what the competence is.
However, pre-defining the knowledge and skills necessary for translators is a
daunting challenge; it may perhaps suffice to note that it is the very plethora of
definitions of what knowledge actually is that serves as an example of
implausibility of arriving at a clear-cut conclusion; no more is it the case that
competing definitions simply replace one another, as it was with the foundational
perceptions of science all the way until the 1950s, but rather a number of theories
function at the same time. The same seems to be true in the case of the translator’s
knowledge inasmuch as the number of recognised notions of what it is has
proliferated greatly over the past several decades. No attempt will therefore be
made to redefine the concept of translation competence, but to demonstrate its
dependence on and correlation with other factors with the benefit of the already
functioning theories.
Chomsky differentiates between competence, an idealized capacity, and
performance, more ordinary and natural production; he shows that competence is a
kind of knowledge underlying the actual performance (1965: 3). However, if this is
the case, performance would not lie within the borders of the notion of competence
and such a statement seems difficult to maintain in regard to translation, bearing in
mind the importance of the translator’s performance in the overall concept of the
translator and his work. As Gilbert holistically describes it, “competence is a social
concept, a comparative judgment about the worth of performance” (2007: 29)
because we grasp the competence of one person only by comparing it or a part of it
with what is typical. The comparison of best performers of translation enables the
creation of a list of characteristics crucial to perform it successfully.
Thus, for instance, if an attempt was to be made to define what translation
competence is and where it comes from, a neutral and reasonable definition may be
repeated after Schäffner and Adab who declare that the competence “is clearly seen
as demanding expertise in various areas: these will include at least knowledge of
the languages, knowledge of the cultures and domain-specific knowledge” (2000:
ix). Its foundation may be provided in Fraser’s definition in which she considers the
term translation competence to be a “shorthand for the skills, expertise and
judgement that a professional translator develops from a combination of theoretical
training and practical experience” (2000: 53). Regrettably, apart from translation
education which is, as it is more often realised, necessary in the process of
acquiring and developing one’s translation competence, there is a prevailing
common view firstly stated by Harris (1977) who regards translation competence as
a skill developed naturally by bilinguals as they are ‘natural translators’.

318
 Although such theories were put forward not later than the 1980s, there has
been a sweeping generalization concerning translation which prevails in the society
that every person who knows languages of two different countries possesses the
natural ability to translate. Such a conjecture must be refuted as not every person
who knows the history of two different countries can become a politician and not
every person who knows legal systems of two different countries can become a
judge just like two legs are not enough to become a football player. Even more
absurdly, as it is pertinently observed by Marconi, “if a person can correctly
translate the text into another language, we say that she understood, but if she
cannot and yet does know the second language, we are inclined to say that she did
not understand” (1997: 133). Indeed, translation competence may be underpinned
by understanding, but not only the understanding of the meaning but also of the
whole range of knowledge-related aspects of translation. It is therefore the
understanding of a subject domain, the linguistic genre, the purpose of the source
text, time constraints and creativity.
The generally acknowledged conviction mentioned by Marconi may also be
caused by the fact that, indeed, as Neubert points out, “a near-perfect knowledge of
the niceties of the grammatical and the lexical systems of the source and target
language are basic ingredients of translation competence” (2000: 7). Yet, that will
not suffice as all the other sub-competences are not necessarily within the scope of
the competence of an ordinary user of a foreign language. As Kierzkowska aptly
puts it, “whether translation is an art or a craft, we all believe that everyone who
possesses even superficial knowledge of a language can easily translate it, ignoring
the fact that tailors and shoemakers teach their apprentices” (2004: 153, translation
mine). Thus it is this basic tenet that must be acknowledged by both translation
educators and translation students before they apply their efforts to translating.
Moreover, in an abyss of difficulty regarding translation education, this need
for the realization that even a perfect command of languages does not suffice falls
within the duty of those in charge of imparting the skill on the subject of
translation. Language skills must therefore be honed to perfection but in such a way
that students do not focus entirely on language only. Tricky as it may seem, this
must be incorporated into the course or the whole training programme of the studies
together with a wide range of other abilities translators are required to possess; the
abilities span such divergent fields as technical expertise and ethical concerns,
hence, what may serve as a departure point and a foundational framework in
planning the structure of a translation course which will include a training in the
necessary abilities is a closer look at what is really necessary for all future
translators, before they start working and specializing in particular types of

319
translation and interpreting in certain subject domains. There is simultaneously no
doubt that the needs are thoroughly contingent on the times, the level of
development of technology, the degree of globalization and the way it unfolds.
It may therefore be concluded that the demands of the market should
primarily be taken into consideration when designing a course aiming at developing
translation competence. However, although translation competence is the goal to be
attained in all translation courses, it cannot be mistaken for all the demands of the
market that translators face in a given period of time. It is far more than only
qualifications to be a translator since it is independent of social, cultural,
geographical or historical influence. Accordingly, Pym observes that it “cannot be
confused with questions of professional qualifications, no matter how much
teachers like myself might worry about training students for the workplace” (2003:
482). Similarly, Wills notes that translation competence “as a uniform qualification
for translation work is, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent and probably also
nondefinable” (1976: 119). Thus, it may be ventured that translation competence is
an invariable value which may be backed up by what Pym goes on to say that
“qualifications change with technology and social demands, bringing in bundles of
history that are simply too big for the eternal generalities of a science” (2003: 482).
Above all, it has been regulated by The International Federation of
Translators in The Translator’s Charter, approved by the Congress at Dubrovnik in
1963, and amended in Oslo on July 9, 1994, in Section 1(6) which reads: “the
translator shall possess a sound knowledge of the language from which he/she
translates and should, in particular, be a master of that into which he/she translates”
and continues in Section 1(7): “he/she must likewise have a broad general
knowledge and know sufficiently well the subject matter of the translation and
refrain from undertaking a translation in a field beyond his competence” (IFT 2010:
1). Moreover, the Polish version of The Translator’s Charter, passed in 1993 by The
Polish Translators Association, in Section 1(7) stipulates even more stringently that
translators “are obliged to continually upgrade their qualifications through the
development of language and translation skills and improve their general
knowledge” (STP 2005: 1, translation mine). Thus, not only is translation
competence nondefinable, but also, together with all its intrinsic components, it is
nearly non-achievable.

320
2. Approaches to Translation Competence
In order that the present chapter does not seek to redefine translation competence
and produce one more definition extending the long list of existing attempts, a
concise description of the main approaches to this notion developed throughout the
years will now be delineated. As posited by Pym in his essay from 2003 (481-497),
there have been four, widely divergent notions of translation competence that may
be distinguished since the 1970s:
 nonexistence of translation competence
 multicomponent idea of competence
 two-language summation model
 concept of supercompetence
Non-existence of translation competence may best be explained by sheer
impossibility to pin the concept down, reduce it to an unsatisfactory definition of a
simple ability to translate and enumerate its components. Numerous attempts have
been made to name the concept with terms like skills, proficiency or expertise.
More uncharacteristically, Lӧrscher (1991) would prefer to associate this term with
the very translation process rather than with the abilities so he refers to ‘strategies’
as a sufficient term; Shreve (1997) talks about translation competence in cognitive
terms and calls it ‘mapping abilities.’ Yet, he goes on to distinguish between
translation competence and translation expertise, positing that “translation
graduates may exhibit varying levels of translation competence but not translation
expertise” and ends by asserting that “a graduate translator could never accumulate
the requisite amount of deliberate practice to exhibit consistently superior
performance” (2008: 154). Therefore, is it likely that a concept is indeed
nonexistent if translation theory abounds in various terms and enunciations for it?
Thus, with all the attempts to name it and with all the ways of defining it, the
concept can be nondefinable but certainly not nonexistent.
However, the two-language-summation model seems highly debatable as
well and it has already been shown to be unviable. Harris (1977) together with
Sherwood (1978) advocate the idea of “natural translation” performed by bilinguals
without any special training for it. They list four features of this special disposition
of bilingual children to translate naturally which are: the pleasure that young
children derive from translating, a bilingual mental lexicon, a language-independent
semantic store and the ability to converse meaning across languages (1978: 168).
Indeed, these are the stages that translators undergo in their quest for translation
competence, similarly to a bilingual child in the developmental stages.
Interestingly, Harris and Sherwood treated translation competence as the third

321
competence in bilinguals, beside their competence in two languages. If therefore, it
is a separate competence developing parallel to language competence than not
every bilingual child must necessarily develop this additional competence. Hence,
this theory is contradictory and supports a broader view set forward by Lӧrscher
who states that “bilingualism is considered to be a necessary, but not a sufficient
precondition for the development of translation competence” (1997: 2006,
emphasis in the original). Controversies abound as for natural translation model,
since it cannot account for translation abilities of non-native bilinguals developed
during formal instruction. It stands to reason that a preliminary condition takes the
role of a foundational basis on which a more intricate structure, comprising inborn
transfer potential or interlingual proficiency, is necessarily to be erected.
As already hinted at, the multicomponent idea of translation competence
appears to be reasonably valid. If translation competence can be defined, the most
rational course of argument is to state that there are a lot of various skills that it
comprises. In the presence of so many lists of skills specified as the necessary
components of translation competence, we can choose from elaborate enumerations
and schemata. One of them is created by Hansen (2008: 274) who illustrates
translation competence as a combination of skills and abilities influenced by four
major factors, namely knowledge terminology, translation theories, language
cultures and translation technology. However, listing skills so elusive as courage or
attentiveness that supposedly represent a comprehensive framework within which
to identify an accomplished translator is infinitely ridden with controversy
insomuch as translation competence is not an absolute and therefore leaves a space
for a significant number of minor skills or sub-skills such as confidence or the
ability to work under pressure. Therefore, it may also be resolved that a
significantly more minimalistic approach to the notion of translation competence
may suffice. The one originated by Pym is defined as a system of two basic
abilities, where the first one is the ability to generate a series of more than one
viable target text (TT1, TT2 ... TTn) for a pertinent source text (ST) and the second
one is the ability to select only one viable TT from this series, quickly and with
justified confidence (2003: 489).
Whichever model of translation competence appears to be preferable, the
multicomponentiality assumes that the numerous skills must be achieved in order to
translate successfully. However, as it has already been mentioned in the previous
chapter when discussing the suitability of the term translation competences with the
emphasis on plurality, such approach suggests that even if one subcompetence is
missing, the translator possesses a wide range of other subcompetences so he/she
may still be regarded as a fully competent translator. In each model (for instance

322
Wills 1976, Bell 1991, Toury 1995, Neubert 2000, Pym 2003, Beeby/PACTE 2000,
Schäffner 2000) the number of the nature of the subcompetences vary either
slightly or significantly so the notion is rather relevant and unstable. In the face of
such an abundance of divergent definitions and a great many subcompetences
mentioned in these definitions, one subcompetence more or one subcompetence
less begins to seemingly make no difference; if a translator possesses one
subcompetence less than defined in one of the definitions of translation
competence, he or she may still be considered to be competent enough.
For instance, in the multicomponential model, the differentiation between
performance and competence prevails; performance understood as general notion
defined by Chomsky as “the actual use of language in concrete situations” (1965:
4). Competence underlies performance just like linguistic competence underlies
translation competence; hence, as already established, linguistic competence can
function without translation competence but translation competence will not exist
without language competence; similarly, performance is also inextricable with
competence as the former cannot function without the latter. A question arises,
should it really be treated as separate elements in translation competence or
separate subcompetences? Can we still talk about partial translation competence
when one element is missing?
A detailed enumeration of subcompetences seems unattainable; it may be
caused by the fact observed by Neubert who stipulates that “translation involves
variable tasks that make specific demands on the cognitive system of the translator”
and he goes on to notice that “any attempt at defining competence must take into
account the sheer complexity of the demands that are made on the cognitive
faculties and skills of the translator” (2000: 3). The demands shall never be
thoroughly defined and that is why multicomponential expansions of translation
competence have no conceptual validity since, as Pym observes, “they will always
be one or two steps behind market demands” (2003: 481). Let alone the fact that-
translation studies being interdisciplinary- translation competence may be gaining
more and more components when more and more disciplines may be used as a
departure point for the analysis of translation competence.
Besides, defining translation competence should primarily serve
improving the level of translation education and satisfying the needs of the market
from the perspective of both those who commission a translation and those who are
commissioned. In order to supply such a valid definition of translation competence,
lists of all the subcompetences may be made and relentlessly updated in an attempt
to keep abreast of the recent technological, scientific and cultural advances. It
means nothing but constant modification of the assumptions underlying translation

323
competence and therefore also translation education whose aim is the development
of translation competence. This, in turn, means nothing but constant changes
introduced to the programmes constructed by translation educators. Obviously
enough, the programmes should be revised and adjusted even to each particular
group of translation trainees but enumerating necessary subcompetences is more
often than not devoid of any empirical research and instructions delineating how to
implement the detailed subskills into the programme and how to make translators
have them; in fact this is what the point of translation education is, not just the
realization that they are necessary. Regrettably, these lists of subcompetences
hardly refer to the very process of translation and may provide translation educators
with an idealised picture of a translator.
Here emerges an alternative to regard translation competence as one, unified
notion, possibly called supercompetence, as it is only then that the inextricable
nature of all its subcompetences is duly emphasised. As Pym observes, this
supercompetence approach means:
accepting that there is no neat definition of all the things that translators need to know
and will be called upon to do. Nor is there any reason to suppose that competence is at
all systematic, like the grammatical or phonological rules that once provided the term
with its archetypal content. (2003: 488)
No lists and systems can therefore serve the needs of translators, but only the
realization of the complexity of the process of translation. Competence is a
prerequisite for any undertaking; no attempt would ever be made without the basic
knowledge of at least the first principles of the task that one undertakes. The
fundamental principle is, above all, an awareness of the nature of the task. In other
words, one must know what it is that they are trying to do, to stand a chance of ever
doing it. The minimalist approach to translation competence that Pym offers,
namely the two abilities to generate possible equivalent phrases and then choose the
most suitable (1992, 2003) shall definitely suffice.

3. Characteristics of translation competence

The basic features of translation competence, listed by Neubert (2000: 5) are
complexity, heterogeneity, approximation, open-endedness, creativity, situationality
and historicity. Its complexity is best explained by the fact that translation is an
intricate process entailing a variety of subcompetences that are listed as intrinsic to
translation competence. Pertinent to this characteristic of translation competence,
Robinson’s thesis stipulates that “translation is intelligent activity involving
complex processes of conscious and unconscious learning” (2003: 49). Translators

324
learn not only the skill of rendering a text from one language into another
successfully, but also, simultaneously, acquire other subcompetences. Nord (1991:
146) explicates that translation practice helps to enrich not only translation
competence narrowly conceived, i.e. transfer competence but also other relevant
competences, such as:
 linguistic competence in the native language (L1) and in the foreign
language (L2) with regard to formal and semantic aspects of vocabulary
and grammar, language varieties, register and style, text-type
conventions, etc.,
 cultural competence (e.g. studies about the target culture ranging from
everyday life to social and political institutions),
 factual competence in sometimes highly specialized fields (e.g.
knowledge of matrimonial law, economic policies, balance of trade,
information technology, etc.),
 technical competence for documentation and research (use of
dictionaries, bibliographic methods, storage of information, etc.).
All these skills do not necessarily need to be practised separately but may be
incorporated in practical translation classes. However, the skills are very different
from each other, which is another feature characterising translation competence
listed by Neubert (2000: 5), namely heterogeneity. It specifies the skills required for
translation as not only complex but also divergent as they comprise the knowledge
possessed, technical abilities, cultural competence, linguistic skills and practical
experience, all of them differing by nature and combined together as inherent parts.
The vast array of these requirements explains another listed feature of
translation competence, i.e. approximation. Translators “cannot be fully competent
in all the fields” (Neubert 2000: 5) as the expertise in all of them is simply
unmanageable so they usually specialise in a limited number of core areas. Even
when it comes to the fields at which they are true experts, translators never cease to
search for new information or advice, which is another characteristic feature of
translation competence called open-endedness in the analysed list. Translators
never reach an absolute level of knowledge, however, they must never cease to
make attempts.
One more feature is creativity or rather guided creativity as their constant
researching includes also an incessant quest for equivalence; the reason why it may
be called guided creativity is that they are always stimulated to search and create
new ways of saying something by a source text. This creativity may sometimes
become inventiveness when translators try to find ways to differ from the source
text so as to better suit the needs of the target audience. Jääskeläinen comments that

325
“creativity in translation is relatively little researched area, although creative
problem-solving is an element of any kind of translating, not just the translation of
creative texts in literature” (2011: 131). However, creativity regarded as problem-
solving and decision-making necessitate great experience in translating, which is
essential to identify the problem in the first place. This ability may be subsumed
under Neubert’s term situationality as it indicates the translator’s need to recognise
an old and a new translational situation and draw from the experience gained on
previous translational occasions. The list ends with a feature called historicity
which stresses the fact that, although at different points in history the approaches to
translation were diverse and constantly changing, it may all be reduced to the need
for flexibility common for translators throughout the ages.
Translation competence development requires taking all the characteristic
features of the competence into account. Complex and difficult though it may seem,
the aim is to provide translation trainees with as rich and thorough translation
education as possible. Thus, however challenging it appears to teach something that
is described as open-ended and approximate, what is crucial in any approach is the
recognition of the complexity or the open-endedness of the process of translation in
any curricular model.

4. Translation competence development

In order to understand what the phenomenon involves, an attempt is made not only
to define translation competence but also to specify how it develops and
differentiate between its initial and terminal stage. The early manifestation of
translation competence from which it derives is unquestionably linguistic
competence. Taking into consideration the inevitability of a proficient command of
language in the work of translators, this prerequisite may be assumed a necessary
component of translation competence. It was Chomsky (1965: 4) who originated
the term linguistic competence to describe a speaker’s underlying ability to produce
(and recognize) grammatically correct expressions. All bilinguals have at least
some partial translational competence, if not innate then simply gained in the
process of learning a language.
The fact is that each individual has diverse skills and thus also different
mental structures of understanding. Bearing this universal truth in mind, Presas
declares that the development of translation competence consists basically of three
kinds of processes:

326
  the acquisition of previously non-existent competences;
 the restructuring of already existing competences in order to facilitate
transfer competence;
 the acquisition of strategic competence. (2000: 29)
It emphasizes the need to approach each translation trainee individually and take his
or her needs into consideration in the process of arranging and conducting the
translation course they attend. Robinson elucidates that “we all learn in different
ways, and institutional learning should therefore be as flexible and as complex and
rich as possible, so as to activate the channels through which each student learns
best” (2003: 49). Therefore, when translation educators, facing the multifarious
challenge of translation competence development, additionally take more personal
approach, the organization of translation class seems even more arduous. Bearing in
mind that each translation task requires and employs a different set of skills, a
combination of the universal competences crucial for novice translators must be
decided on. The delineation of the universal competences is an attempt to answer
the nagging question posed by Kiraly who wonders “what skills and knowledge are
common to all translators, regardless of context” (1995: 14).
As it has been established by Toury, translation competence is the ability
to translate which “presupposes the existence of two other, more basic abilities,
namely (a) to acquire more than one language, and (b) to establish similarities and
differences, on more than one level, between items and structures, if not full
utterances, pertinent to the languages that one has actually acquired” (1984: 189).
Hence, linguistic competence precedes and conditions translation competence.
These two competences are therefore interdependent and inextricably linked
but in no way can they be assumed to be equivalent or to be the same. The PACTE
group of translation scholars working on translation competence observe that “it is
postulated that translation competence is qualitatively different from bilingual
competence, the latter being one of the several components that make up translation
competence and that these competences are inter-related and there are hierarchies
amongst them” (2003: 47). What they also add to form the basic premises of the
holistic model of translation competence is that translation competence “is
considered to be expert knowledge and it is primarily procedural knowledge, where
strategies play a very important role and most processes are automatic” (2003: 47),
which corroborates the assumption that translation and linguistic competences are
mutually dependent but also separate, one of them being the beginning of the other
and the tool for the other; it may therefore be stated that linguistic competence is
the basis for translation competence.

327
 According to Malmkjær “within theoretical linguistics, the notion of
competence is the notion of a native speaker’s knowledge of their language, which
is sharply distinguished from their performance” (2008: 297) which is defined by
Chomsky as “the actual use of language in concrete situations” (1965: 4). From the
idealistic perspective of Chomskyan linguistics:
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely
homogenous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by
such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of
attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of
that language in actual performance.
(Chomsky 1965:3)

In the light of this theory, native speakers of a given language possess competence
which is internal and variations occur only within the scope of performance as it is
dependent on an array of factors. A reasonably pertinent comment is made by
Kenny who asserts that “Chomsky, like Saussure (2006) before him, bases his
linguistics on a dichotomy between an abstract system that underlies language use
(Chomsky’s competence; Saussure’s langue), and real-life language as used by real
people (performance; parole)” (2001:4). Performance, though compared to parole
(French term for word or speaking) implying only oral utterances, should stand for
any form (either spoken or written) of the usage of language, which serves the
expression of thought by means of language.
To form translation competence these two competences must be unified.
Since translators work to communicate the message encoded, they create
communicative acts; this approach appears to take translation competence on a par
with communicative competence, which is what Bӧrjars provides the foundations
for when observing that:

In the Chomskyan tradition, there is a strict dichotomy between, on the one hand, the
abstract internal language ability, referred to as I-language (I for internal or individual; a
similar, though not identical, concept in earlier versions of the theory was ‘competence’)
and, on the other, the physical and perceptible language, referred to as E-language (E for
external; in previous versions of the theory, ‘performance’ stood for a related concept).
The latter also involves the communicative and social aspects of language. (2006: 16)

However, not only linguistic factors matter here, but also a wide range of
interdisciplinary ones like extensive memory, code-switching, ability to control
interference, self-confidence in performance, communication skills, persistence in

328
problem solving and so forth. All the factors combined affect the choice of the
skills to be taught or developed in translation training.
Nonetheless, the question presents itself whether the necessary abilities
are at all feasible to be taught to a translation trainee. This uncertainty is what
undermines the validity of the innumerable inventories of the necessary skills to be
acquired. When the skills are analysed from the angle of the cognitive processes
and mechanisms regulating translation, it is worth reiterating the observation of
Shreve and Diamond:
the implication is that both bilingual abilities and translation are the result of the
complex integration of a variety of common cognitive mechanisms acting over specific
configurations of neural sites. The translator/interpreter is distinguished from the
nontranslating bilingual by the nature and development of the relevant LTM (long-term
memory) resources and the way they are activated in the different communicative tasks.
(Shreve and Diamond 1997: 246, 247)

It is this distinguishable principle between translators/interpreters and

nontranslating bilinguals that is in fact what is so necessary for translation. The
nature and development of the relevant LTM resources in both groups are of a
different character; since they are not typical or inherent in all users of two
languages, can it be assumed that the activation of certain resources may be
learnable? Be it so, the only legitimate assumption would be to attempt to sensitize
students and provide them with guidance rather than patterns of behaviour to
follow. Practice is therefore the very process whereby students establish their own
individual ways of dealing with translational problems by gradually activating the
relevant LTM resources thanks to natural processes of drawing conclusions, acting
and reacting on the basis of their experience. Instead of listing the skills to be
developed, it is more reasonable to focus on particular components of translation
competence which may be necessary for performing a planned translational task.
The task will in turn serve as a means of sensitizing the students to particular
problematic areas; while performing certain tasks involving the activation of the
existent but latent resources, the intended components of translation competence
are developed.
Gile observes that there are some components of translation competence that
are considered “prerequisites for admission into translation schools, but do not form
an objective or component of training, although training should improve the
subjects’ capacity to use them more fully” (2009: 5). Among the most vital
components of translation competence, there are unquestionably not only
translation and interpreting skills. As Piotrowska puts it, traditional roles of a
translator or a philologist have been changing, making way for graduates who act as

329
bilingual text editors, multimedia designers, IT specialists, cultural mediators,
localizers, terminologists and others (2007: 103, translation mine). Hence, to satisfy
the demand for specialists of this kind, there are also computer- and media-related
techniques in which translators should be well-versed to rise to the challenge of, for
instance, voice-over, subtitling, interviewing, interpreting performed on the Internet
or telephone and so forth.
Additionally, if the list of all the skills required for a successful completion
of a translation is to be enriched, it should also include such abilities as
proofreading, revising, editing and, last but definitely not least, self-assessment. It
all serves one purpose- attaining the goal of a job well done. Needless to say, apart
from the structure of a translated text, its content is what predetermines translation
competence as well. Not only does translation competence require the ability to
form a text with all the necessary devices used in the process of translation but also
a great deal of knowledge in the field the text is written in.
Bearing in mind all the skills needed to translate, a comprehensively
structured list should be provided at this point. However, from a less theoretical and
more pedagogical perspective, rather than attempting to formulate a holistically
binding list of the necessary skills, competences, subcomptences and the like, it is
perhaps most plausible to face the fact that translation education is a solution-
seeking process whereby the contingently arising problems are dealt with in an
equally contingent manner. Translators have some conceptual tools to use during
their work, such as strategies, methods and procedures. Their taxonomies differ, but
they all combine to represent the means to meet certain ends, whose application
during a translation process is a rather subconscious activity. As Kiraly sees it:
translation processing is probably a mix of conscious and subconscious processes- a mix
that may change as translators proceed through their training and become more
professional. The more automatic a process, the deeper inside the cognitive “black box” it
is. The automatic and conscious processes will respond to pedagogical intervention in
different ways- and the former only to the extent that they can be identified. (1995: 42)

This “black box” of a translator has been the focal point of numerous researches
and experiments but, try as translation scholars might, it is only its structure that
can successfully be described but, regrettably, not its content. Its interior parts
belong thoroughly to the translator and, however hard s/he tries, more often than
not it is virtually impossible to be revealed. However, the gravity of the
subconscious processes of translators and interpreters must not be disregarded only
because of the fact that they are indefinable. According to Kiraly, translation
educators must at least try “to address the question of the level and distribution of

330
translation processes” (1995: 41). Prior to venturing into educating the future
translators, the chances of success must therefore be estimated on the basis of the
amount of conscious and subconscious processes that the trainees are able to
undertake. However, although only conscious processes can be revealed and to
some extent measured, for instance by means of Think Aloud Protocols (TAP),
translation education cannot exclude the subconscious.
The subconscious is therefore an uncharted area, but at least it needs to be
recognized together with its impact on translators and the process of translation. To
come to this realisation, the question what exactly it is and why it is so inaccessible
must first be addressed. In simple terms, it may be seen as the mind of the translator
during the process of translation on the assumption that this is not “an isolable
process” but rather “a set of processes, a complex series of problem-solving and
decision-making processes conditioned by semantic, pragmatic, situation-specific
and culture-specific constraints operating on two ‘levels’- that of the source and
that of the target language” (House 2000: 150). Looking beyond translation
processes, Séguinot explains the phenomenon of the unexplored human mind by
putting a translator on a par with an ordinary language user, i.e. listener, reader,
speaker and writer who he or she actually is:
For one thing, it is perfectly natural for people to let their minds wander, drift in and out.
human beings rarely attend one hundred percent to the task at hand. Second, readers and
listeners hazard guesses based on the unfolding of the information they receive. And
third, readers and listeners with tasks to perform plan their interventions as they listen or
read. (2000: 145)

Inasmuch as there are limitations to human mind and the methods of its exploration,
the inaccessibility of the translator’s “black box” may be caused by the limitations
to the way through which these processes could be revealed. Namely, it could be
expressed and communicated only through verbalisation. Using the study of Krings
from 1987, Dimitrova notices that “an obligation to verbalise may blur the clear-cut
distinction between automated and non-automated parts of the translation process”
(2005: 72). Verbalising the thought is tremendously constrained by, for example,
time; this is because the thought is much quicker than the process of speech
production involving not only articulating the thought but also a hectic search for
words adequate enough to describe it.
The whole process appears to be so automatic on the part of translators
and interpreters that they would probably find it unfeasible to find the right words
for the explanation of the automated parts of the translation process. Moser-Mercer
uses the more apparent example of interpreters to draw the attention to the

331
encouraging aspects of this lack of insight into the interior parts of the
aforementioned “black box” when she observes that “automation is essential to
mastery of the interpreting skill as it allows the interpreter to bypass common
processing limitations and to make optimal use of available processing capacity”
(1997: 259). The quotation illustrates that these unconscious processes and
therefore the lack of constant conscious control over the activities the professional
translators perform, which causes the inability of the professionals to describe
them, may in fact be the reason why those particular people make good translators.

5. Terminological disambiguation
In the maze of theoretical dispute all the terms initially used by certain scholars
with time begin to develop unattended. The case may be that at one point
derivatives from those original terms should appear, which will inevitably become
conducive to further rendering the theoretical discussion equivocal. The notions of
translation competence, translator competence, translator’s competence or
translation competences have by now become so incorporated into the professional
jargon of theoreticians and teachers of translation that their meaning is frequently
taken as read. Yet, their respective meanings cannot at all times be used
interchangeably.
As regards the nominal part of each of these phrases, the term competence is
“often linked to other concepts and qualities seen to be requisite for the task of
translation, most prominently to the following: knowledge, skills, awareness,
expertise” (Schäffner 2000: x). The term is therefore linked or even constitutes
other concepts indispensable for translation, as noticed by Bell who states that
translation competence is the “knowledge and skills the translator must possess in
order to carry it out” (1991: 43). All the knowledge and skills form competence
which may be defined by Kelly as the set of knowledge, skills, attitudes and
aptitudes required to undertake professional activity in the field of translation
(2005: 162). This stance is adherent to those of many translation scholars such as
Kiraly (1995), Neubert (2000), Presas (2000), Gile (2009).
Interestingly enough, Anthony Pym, a staunch supporter and defender of a
minimalist approach denounces enlisting sub-competences and advocates the theory
of two-fold translation competence consisting of only two skills, the ability to
generate a series of more than one viable target text (TT1, TT2 ... TTn) for a
pertinent source text (ST) and the ability to select only one viable TT from this
series, quickly and with justified confidence (2003: 489). However, even this
standpoint corroborates the prevailing assumption that translation competence is

332
complex. No matter how many skills are encompassed in this concept, whether
there is a plethora of sub-competences or, according to Pym, only two skills, it can
still uphold the validity of the statement that translation competence is multi-
faceted. Hence, translation competence acts as a summative term encompassing a
raft of various abilities and assumptions. Consequently, quite a natural way of
referring to this, in a sense, “collective” noun covering a plurality of elements,
would be by indicating the plurality in the structure of the noun, so it may be
ventured that instead of translation competence it would be more adequate to use
the term translation competences? This term is used, for instance, by Kelly (2000),
though she uses it interchangeably with translator competence.
The reason why translators are expected to possess a great variety of
competences may be a great variety of problems encountered during the process of
translation. As stated in Albir, “the specific constraints of each translation modality
generate specific problems which require specific competences from translators or
interpreters, as well as the use of specific strategies and the development of specific
decision-making processes” (2009: 63). Indeed, translators are required to abound
in various abilities due to the abundance of challenges presented by every text,
sentence, phrase, word and even punctuation mark as it tends to differ significantly
in each language in terms of its usual position in a sentence. Nevertheless,
considering the suitability of the term translation competences from yet another
angle, it is mandatory to analyse how it functions in reality, for example to describe
the translator. A good translator should undoubtedly possess translation
competence, or rather, as suggested above, competences and then he or she is
competent and therefore suitable to perform the translation task. Hypothetically, if
one element out of this plurality of abilities encompassed by the term translation
competences is not exactly within the capacity of the translator, for instance the
translator lacks an inconspicuous skill of decision making or shows gross ignorance
of the target language rules, can we persist in considering the translator competent?
If one of the competences is missing, but he or she still has a variety of other
abilities, is it still what we mean by the suitability to work as a translator? Does it
still add up to form translation competence?
Dimitrova observes that translation competence is “usually seen as a
combination of various competences or sub-competences, and the professional
translator is generally assumed to have gone through a developmental process
affecting all these competences” (2005: 13). However, if the development ends in
failure which results in deficiencies in one sub-competence, the translator will no
longer be competent. A logical term to call such a translator would be incompetent
so if we refer to his abilities as to competences, is it still logical to discuss his

333
incompetences? Hence, the notion of competence is rather not “gradational” or
distributable; all the variables that translation competence consists of do not exist in
isolation (Cao 2007: 50) and, similarly, when one variable is isolated the rest is no
longer complete.
Consequently, competences is not a suitable term when it comes to the
difficult, “nondefinable concept” (Wills 1976) comprising all the necessary skills
that translators are obliged to have so as to deserve to be called competent or
proficient. The plural term competences may, however, be used to describe all these
skills as components of the concept behind this term. The components cannot be
separated and it should be reflected in the term chosen to delineate the concept. The
uniformity and inseparability may best be expressed by a term equally uniform and
inseparable, though complex, so definitely by a singular, holistic term.
Having peremptorily elucidated the notion of competence, the time is ripe
for discussing the difference between and the validity of the abovementioned
attributives to the word competence: translation, translator and translator’s. These
three terms are often used interchangeably, for instance by Kiraly (1995), but some
scholars tend to confine to one of them, like Bell (1991) or Kelly (2000), Way
(2008) who decide to use the term translator competence or Alves and Goncalves
(2003) and Chesterman (2012) who refer to it as translator’s competence. Others,
like Shreve (1997) or Pym (2003) favour the term translation competence, although
in 1991 Pym chose to call it translational competence which is the term also used
by Toury (1995) or Chesterman (1997). One more term to describe this competence
is transfer competence, used for instance by Nord (1991) and interestingly, some
scholars use a range of such comparable terms to describe one notion but at various
level of advancement. This is the case with, for instance, Dimitrova who declares
that “translation ability can develop into translator competence, through formal
learning and training and/or through gaining practical professional experience.
Translator competence can develop into translation expertise” and elucidates
further that “these are relative concepts, of a prototypical nature, consisting of
clusters of qualities and characteristics that are typical to a higher or lower degree
for a given category” (2005: 19).
So again, there is no need to opt for and stick to only one of these terms but
the difference, slight as it may seem, should be emphasized here. Dimitrova
believes that “translator competence is usually seen as a combination of various
competences or sub-competences, and the professional translator is generally
assumed to have gone through a developmental process affecting competences”
(2005: 13) so all the competences need to be considered through the translator
persona. This brings these two terms to an even wider discrepancy since assuming

334
that the competence is perceived through the translator and calling it translator
competence implies that it has already been acquired and the translator possesses it;
whereas the competence seen as a general notion described by the term translation
competence apparently stands for a set of subcompetences that are characteristic
and required for translation but, from such a perspective, they still need to be
acquired. More generally, the term translation competence is process-oriented since
it refers to the process of translation and skills used in this process, as opposed to
the term translator competence which favours the product, i.e. the translator, at least
from the perspective of translation education- together with the individual skills,
background, education, experience, needs or progress (Pietrzak 2013). Kiraly
(1995, 2000) who applied Socio Constructivist principles to translation education
pioneered a student-centered approach which places responsibility on students and
focuses on developing their competence through engaging in authentic translations,
problem-based and collaborative learning. Such a pedagogical approach favours
the term translator competence to stress the importance of individual professional
performance and shift the focus to the translator as well as the process-oriented
research of translation. Insignificant as the difference may seem, it is hopefully now
clear and allows the reader to use both terms interchangeably but with full
awareness of the slight change in the way and perspective from which the abilities
encompassed by these terms are perceived.

References

Albir, A.H., Alves, F. (2009) “Translation as a Cognitive Activity”, in Munday, J. (ed.) The
Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. Revised edition, New York: Routledge, pp. 54-
73.
Alves, F., Gonçalves, J.L. (2003) “A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential
processes in translation”, in: Alves, F. (ed.) Triangulating translation: perspectives in
process oriented research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 11-34.
Beeby, A. et al. (PACTE) (2000) “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and
Metodological Problems of a Research Project”, in Beeby, A., Ensinger, D. and Presas, M.
(eds.) Investigating Translation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 99-106.
Bell, R.T. (1991) Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice, London and New York:
Longman.
Bӧrjars, K. (2006) “Description and Theory”, in Aarts, B., McMahon, A. The Handbook of English
Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 9-32.
Cao, D. (2007) Translating Law, Topics in Translation: 33, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chesterman, A. (1997) Memes of Translation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

335
Chesterman, A. (2012) “Models in Translation Studies”, in: Gambier, Y., Doorslaer, L. (eds)
Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 108-114.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Dimitrova, B.E. (2005) Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Fraser, J. (2000) “The Broader View: How Freelance Translators Define Translation Competence”,
in Developing Translation Competence, Schäffner, C. and Adab, B. (eds.)
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 51-62.
Gilbert, T.F. (2007) Human Competence, San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Gile, D. (1995/2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Hansen, G. (2008) “The Speck in Your Brother’s Eye- the Beam in Your Own: Quality
Management in Translation and Revision”, in Gile, D., Hansen, G., Chesterman, A. and
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (eds.) Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation
Research: a tribute to Daniel Gile, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 255-280.
Harris, B. (1977) “The Importance of Natural Translation”, in Working Papers on Bilingualism 12,
pp. 96-114.
House, J. (2000) “Consciousness and the Strategic Use of Aids in Translation,” in Tirkkonen-
Condit, S., Jääskeläinen, R. (eds.) Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and
Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 149-
162.
IFT. (2010) The Translator’s Charter, International Federation of Translators, [Online], Available:
http://www.fit-ift.org/?p=251 [2 Jan 2014]
Jääskeläinen, R. (2011) “Studying the Translation Process”, in Malmkjaer, L. and Windle, K. (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-135.
Kelly, D. (2000) “Text Selection for Developing Translator Competence: Why Texts from the
Tourist Sector Constitute Suitable Material”, in Schäffner, Ch., Adab, B. (eds.) Developing
Translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 157-167.
Kelly, D. (2005) A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to Reflective Practice, Manchester:
St. Jerome Publishing.
Kenny, D. (2001) Lexis and Creativity in Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Kierzkowska, D. (2004) „Cierniowa droga tłumacza do szkoły”, in: Kropiwiec, U., Filipowicz-
Rudek, M. and Konieczna-Twardzikowa, J. (eds.) Między oryginałem a przekładem IX,
Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, pp. 153-163.
Kiraly, D. (1995) Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State University
Press.
Kiraly, D. (2000) A Social Constructivist Approach to Translation Education: Empowerment from
Theory to Practice, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

336
Lörscher, W. (1991) Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A
Psycholinguistic Investigation, Tübingen: Narr.
Lörscher, W. (1997) “Translation Process analysis and Implications for Translation Teaching”, in
Hickey, R., Fisiak, J. and Puppel, S. (eds.) Language history and Linguistic Modelling: a
festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, vol. 2, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Malmkjær, K. (2008) “Translation Competence and the Aesthetic Attitude”, in Pym, A., Shlesinger,
M. and Simeoni, D. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: investigations in homage to
Gideon Toury, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 293-310.
Marconi, D. (1997) Lexical Competence, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1997) “The Expert-Novice Paradigm in Interpreting Research” in Fleischmann,
E., Kutz, W. and Schmitt, P.A. Translationsdidaktik, Tübingen: Narr, pp. 255-267.
Neubert, A. (2000) “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation”, in Schäffner, Ch.,
Adab, B. (eds.) Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,
pp. 3-18.
Nord, C. (1991/2005) Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application
of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
PACTE (2003) “Building a Translation Competence Model”, in Alves, F. (ed.) Triangulating
Translation: Perspectives in process oriented research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,
pp. 43-66.
Pietrzak, P. (2013) “Teaching, Training, Educating? Terminological Ambiguity in Translator
Education Theory”, in: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. and M. Thelen (eds.), Translation and
Meaning Part 10. Maastricht: Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting, Zuyd
University of Applied Sciences, 245-251.
Piotrowska, M. (2007) Proces Decyzyjny Tłumacza; Podstawy Metodologii Nauczania Przekładu
Pisemnego, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.
Presas, M. (2000) “Bilingual competence and Translation Competence”, in Schäffner, Ch., Adab, B.
(eds.) Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 19-31.
Pym, A. (1992) “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”, in Dollerup,
C. and Loddegaard, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and
Experience, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 279-288.
Pym, A. (2003) “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age: In Defence of a
Minimalist Approach”, in Clas, A. (ed.) Meta: Translators’ Journal vol. 48, no. 4, Dec, pp.
481-497.
Robinson, D. (2003) Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of
Translation, Oxon: Routledge.
Schäffner, Ch. (2000) “Running Before Walking? Designing a Translation Programme at
Undergraduate Level”, in Schäffner, Ch., Adab, B. (eds.) Developing Translation
Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 143-156.
Schäffner, Ch., Adab, B. (eds.) (2000) Developing Translation Competence,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Séguinot, C. (2000) “Management Issues in the Translation Process,” in Tirkkonen-Condit, S.,
Jääskeläinen, R. (eds.) Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting:
Outlooks on Empirical Research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 143-148.
Sherwood, B., Harris, B. (1978) “Translating as an Innate Skill,” in Gerver, D., Sinaiko, H.W. (eds.)
Language, Interpretation and Communication, New York/London: Plenum, pp. 155-170.

337
 Shreve, G. M. (1997) “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence,” in Danks, J.H. et
al. (eds.) Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, London: Sage.
Shreve, G. M. (2008) “Knowing Translation: Cognitive and Experiential Aspects of Traslation
Expertise from the Perspective of Expertise Studies”, in Riccardi, A. (ed.) Translation
Studies; Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 150-171.
Shreve, G. M., Diamond, B. J. (1997) “A Heuristic for Research in the cognitive Processes of
Translation and Interpreting” in Danks, J. H. et al. (eds.) Cognitive Processes in Translation
and Interpreting, Sage: London, pp. 233-250.
STP (2005) Karta Tłumacza Polskiego, Stowarzyszenie Tłumaczy Polskich [Online], Available:
http://stp.org.pl/Regulaminy/Karta-Tlumacza-Polskiego_n89 [2 Jan 2014]
Toury, G. (1984) “The notion of ‘Native Translator’ and Translation Teaching”, in Wills, W.,
Thome, G. (eds.) Die Theorie de Übersetzens und ihr Aufschluβwert für die Übersetzungs-
und Dolmetschdidaktik. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 186-195.
Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Way, Ch. (2008) “Systematic Assessment of Translator Competence: In Search of Achilles’ Heel”,
in: Kearns, J. Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, London:
Continuum, 88-102.
Wills, W. (1976) “Perspectives and Limitations of a Didactic Framework for the Teaching of
Translation”, in Brislin, R.W. (ed.) Translation. Applications and Research, New York:
Gardner Press, pp. 117-137.

338

View publication stats