Translation for the Classroom or Translation for Life

Translation for the Classroom or Translation for Life? That is the Question: On the Possibility of Teaching Translation “Functionally” in Egyptian Universities.

by: Samar Mahmoud Shehata Tulba (PhD) A lecturer at the Department of English Language & Literature. Faculty of Arts, Beni-suief University

Abstract The paper mainly addresses the possibility of adopting a functional translation approach to translation teaching in Egyptian universities to avoid the limitations of the traditional approaches. The functional translation approach to translation teaching is based on functional translation theories. It views translation as a human action based on social interaction and involving a client with certain needs which the translator has to satisfy. It is the purpose of translating and the function the target text is supposed to serve in its target-language context that determine the translation strategies to be followed when translating. Therefore, teaching translation “functionally” involves training the students to live up to the requirements of the translation task as defined in the “translation brief”. In order for this approach to be employed effectively in Egyptian universities students must learn to stop regarding translation as a purely linguistic process in which faithfulness to the source text is the yardstick. Besides, they must be exposed to the pragmatic and cultural aspects of translation much earlier before they are introduced to the functional approach to translation, which means that changes must be effected to the pre-university English curriculum in general.

Keywords: Translation- teaching – Functional approaches to translation.

1

Introduction: Researchers on translation and translation pedagogists have come to realise that traditional approaches to translation teaching are likely to produce inefficient translators, incapable of handling real-life translation, which, unlike translation in the traditional classroom, is a social process involving interaction among different parties and requiring skills more sophisticated than sheer linguistic transcoding. This awareness has given rise to translation teaching approaches which make use of functional translation theories. Although the functional approaches to translation teaching have been adopted in some Egyptian universities, either fully or partly, teachers adopting them are faced with the difficulty of changing the students’ traditional concepts about translation, implanted in them throughout pre-university phases. Therefore, in order for such approaches to bring about the desired outcomes changes have to be effected to the pre-university English curriculum with the aim of broadening the learners’ view of language in general and translation in particular. The present study explores the alternative, functional, approach to translation teaching, outlining its theoretical basis and highlighting some of the difficulties facing teachers trying to adopt it, demonstrated in the students’ actual performance which brings into focus the strong authority which the traditional concepts of translation and translating have. Finally, some changes to the pre-university English curriculum, primarily targeting the students’ view of translation in a way that is thought to prepare them for accepting the functional approach and its tenets and practices, are proposed.

The Case against Traditional Translation Teaching: Much of the literature on translation teaching has been dedicated to identifying the main features of a traditional translation class responsible for the inadequacy of

2

translation teaching and learning. Höing and Kussmaul, for example, sum up these features as follows: Students translate texts they do not understand for an addressee they do not know. And the product of their effort is often marked by a teacher who does not have any practical experience as a translator nor any theoretical knowledge in the field of translation studies. ( as cited in Goussard-Kunz, 2009, p.33)

Hönig and Kussmaul, among other researchers, address some of the most important problems resultant from following the traditional approach to translation teaching. One of these has to do with the material used; in traditional translation classroom students are often asked to translate decontextualised texts, or even parts of texts handling topics they practically know nothing about, and it is not uncommon that the teachers themselves lack knowledge on the topics of these texts. Teachers choose such texts with the best of intentions; their goal is to expose the students to as many kinds of texts as possible, but in the absence of the required specialised knowledge on the topics, notably in the case of technical texts where jargon is a main feature, the translation process is more than likely to be reduced into a process of linguistic transcoding where both teachers and students have some sort of a silent agreement to play it safe by opting for literal translation. The resultant text would be judged by the teacher as a successful translation if it is an equivalent of the original as far as the linguistic level, or the microstructure, is concerned. This maximising of the importance of the source text is no less harmful than maximising the role of the teacher as the one and only authority in translation assessment; both

3

encourage students to regard literal translation as the ideal translation and linguistic equivalence as the main criterion against which to evaluate translation. Entrusting the teacher with too much authority is naturally more dangerous when the teacher is simply not a translation authority, which is normally the case, as teaching translation does not usually require special training. As Nord (2005) puts it: So far, there is no institutional training for translator trainers …Teachers are trained in Modern Language Departments or Faculties of Second Language Acquisition, but persons applying for a position as a translator trainer in a Faculty of Translation and Interpreting need no particular formal qualification, and if they needed one, they would not know where to get it. (p.209)

Meanwhile, translation teachers organise their classes so that their version of the target text should occur, after the students contribute their own versions, as the ‘correct’ translation, where ‘correctness’ either means linguistic accuracy or reflects the teacher’s personal preferences. It has been reported that this teacher-centeredness negatively affects the students’ motivation, leading them to refrain from participating in the translation process. (Enns-Connoly, 1986, pp.2-3) In addition, traditional translation classes fall short of simulating real-life circumstances under which translators do their job in many other respects. Teachers sometimes ask their students to prepare the translations at home. This is usually meant as a time-saving strategy with which to overcome the limitedness of class time, but it

4

deprives the students of the opportunity to learn to work under pressure and to acquire the necessary time management skills. Nord explains that “professional practice means deadline pressure, working through nights and Sundays and having half a day off on Thursday, if you are lucky” (ibid, p.218) Traditional translation classes also reduce the translator’s task to a process of linguistic, and maybe cultural, transfer, as they ignore the pre-translation activities necessitated by the social context in which translation takes place. Real translators translate upon the request of a client who usually has certain expectations about the end product of the translation process, which may or may not be consistent with the translator’s notions, which results in negotiations between the two parties, not to mention the negotiations likely to arise concerning the deadlines and the fees. This is rarely, if ever, treated in the traditional translation classroom, though students have questions to ask about such issues. (1) Post-translation practices such as revising, editing, proofreading, etc., are also ignored, since the “tradition” is to deal with the text to be translated as separate sentences; the teacher usually listens to the different students’ suggestions about each sentence and then provides his/her own translation. As a result, the students are hardly exposed to the questions of cohesion and coherence, and, naturally, these are not regarded as criteria for translation assessment unless the students are asked to hand in a written version of their work. Nord states that: in modern translation practice, teamwork and management skills are qualifications required for any professional translator, whether she works for a translation agency or freelance (mostly in a group of colleagues) or for a company. In the traditional

5

translation classroom, these qualifications cannot be acquired. (ibid) Alternatives to the traditional approach to translation teaching has been mainly sought in the functional translation theory, which helps introduce the social aspects of the translation process and the translator’s job into translation teaching. The following section outlines the functional theory of translation, focusing on the work of Christiane Nord since Nord is mainly concerned with pedagogical applications of the theory.

The Functional Theories of Translation: An Overview: The functional theories of translation have occurred as a reaction to the growing awareness of the inadequacy of the traditional view of translation as a process of linguistic transcoding. They constitute a relatively more realistic and flexible basis for translation practice by introducing the social context of target text production and reception as an important criterion to be taken into consideration when devising translation strategies as well as when assessing translation. They also adopt a broader concept of translation by incorporating pre-translation processes, such as negotiating meaning or translation conditions between the translator and his/her “client” , and by viewing such practices as summarising, adapting and re-writing texts as translation as long as the end product of such practices satisfies the needs of the client, or, in other words, serves the purpose it is meant to serve. In fact, the word “purpose” is a keyword in this context, for one of the most influential functional theories is the skopos theory, or the purpose theory, whose main tenet is that, “like any other kind of human action, translation is determined by its skopos” (Schäffner, in Baker, 1998, p.236).

6

Perhaps one of the earliest functional theorists to treat translation as a kind of human action is Holtz-Mäntäri, who views translation as intercultural transfer rather than as linguistic transcoding, bringing into focus the different players involved in the translation process, or, to use Mäntäri’s term, the “translational action” (as cited in Munday, 2001,p.77). In Mäntäri’s work classical dichotomies, such as source text Vs. target text, or writer Vs. translator, etc are replaced with a broader, more realistic perspective incorporating other parties who have a say, one way or another, in the accomplishment of the translational action. These include the commissioner, who commissions the translator (be s/he the party that needs the translation, i.e. the initiator, or not), the target-text user, or the person supposed to use the target text for a certain purpose, as distinguished from the target-text receiver, or the one who will eventually receive, and benefit from, the target text (e.g. a teacher using the target text in teaching and the students who are to be taught through this translation respectively) (ibid) .Mäntäri re-defines the status of the source text, as faithfulness to it is no longer to be regarded as the criterion against which to judge the success of the translational action. As Munday puts it: Translational action focuses very much on producing a target text that is functionally communicative for the receiver. This means, for example, that the form and the genre of the target text must be guided by what is functionally suitable in the target text culture, rather than by merely copying the source text profile. (ibid)

7

Munday points out that according to Mäntäri deciding what is “functionally suitable in the target text culture” is the task of the translator, who is generally described in the functional framework as an expert. Mäntäri obviously minimises the importance of the source text; in the translational action theory the source text is only important in as much that its analysis shows how much departure from it is needed for accomplishing the translational action (ibid, p.78). Katharina Reiss also adopts a functional approach to translation, but she views the function of the source text as the yardstick in the translation process. She makes use of Karl Bühler’s classification of the functions of language (1934) in distinguishing text types and the optimal method for translating each, based on the main functions the text displays. Reiss identifies three main text types –namely, informative texts, where the main function is to provide the reader with information and the language is mainly referential, operative texts, where the language is persuasive as the purpose is to convince the reader to take some action, and expressive texts, where language is employed in expressing feelings and emotions and the aesthetic elements play a crucial part in delivering the message. (1977, in Chesterman,1989). According to Reiss, a successful translation is one that preserves the function of the original. For example, when translating an informative text the translator’s prime concern should be to produce an equally informative translation. It is noteworthy that Reiss is aware of situations where functional equivalence between the source text and the target text is not the goal, but she regards these as the exception to the rule: Intentional changes frequently occur in translating if the aims pursued in the translation are different from those of the

8

original; if, besides the language difference of the TL readers, there is a change of function in the act of communication, there is now no attempt any more to strive for a functional equivalence between the source text and the target text, but for adequacy of the reverbalization in accordance with the “foreign function” (2000, p.161) Reiss has also co-operated with Hans Vermeer in working on the skopos theory, a functional translation theory which naturally focuses on translation as a purposeful action and the social interaction among the different players to accomplish that action. Among the most important tenets of the skopos theory is that translation cannot take place without a commission, which Vermeer defines as: the instruction, given by oneself or by someone else, to carry out a given action- here: to translate…A commission comprises (or should comprise) as much detailed information as possible on the following: (1) the goal i.e. a specification of the aim of the commission… (2) the conditions under which the intended goal should be attained (naturally including practical matters such as deadline and fees). (,2000 , p.229) Vermeer displays more flexibility than Reiss as far as what can be considered translation is concerned, and perhaps this is why one of the most important criticisms of the skopos theory deals with the idea that there are significant differences between Reiss’s views and Vermeer’s views which makes it difficult to label them together as

9

constituting one theory. (Schäffner, in Baker, 1998, p. 237). While functional equivalence between the source text and the target text is the aim to be sought when translating according to Reiss, Vermeer believes that “a translatum [ i.e. a target text] is determined by its skopos” (in Munday,2001, p.79).The function of the source text is no longer a main factor in determining that of the target text. In fact, the source texts can be subjected to whatever changes as long as this will lead to the fulfillment of the skopos of the translation, and the function(s) underlying the target text can be completely different from the one(s) underlying the source text. Accordingly, translating literally, or, rather, relatively adhering to the source text, is only desirable if the skopos of the translation task is to produce a literal translation, or one that is highly faithful to the original. Vermeer states that part of the task of the translator is to: transform the form and meaning of the message on its object level into a target text in such a way as to make this target text fit the intended skopos. This may involve a thorough change of form and content-besides the normal change “from one language to another”. (in Snell-Hornby, 1994 ,p.11) The work of Vermeer, among that of other functional theorists, has provided a basis for the approach developed by Christiane Nord. However, Nord’s major contribution is probably consistent in pedagogical applications of the functional translation theories. Like Vermeer, Nord views the purpose of translation as the factor determining the nature of the target text, rejecting the primacy of the source text which has always dominated translation theory and practice. “The function of the target text”, she explains, “… is

10

specific to the target situation and it is an illusion that a target text should have automatically the “same” function as the original”. (in Trosborg, 1997,p.49) Neverthelss, it is noteworthy that the source text plays a relatively important role in her model (but more of this later). Nord also speaks about the translation commission, known in her model as the translation brief, as a central element in any translation job, especially when the translator is not experienced enough, or is a student: The TT function (skopos) is defined by the translation assignment given by the initiator or deduced by the (professional) translator from the conditions of the translation task, interpreted according to previous experience. Since trainee translators lack such previous experience, each translation task has to be accompanied by “a translation brief”, … from which the students can draw the necessary information on the expected TT functions. The translation brief, therefore, should contain (explicit or implicit) information about:1) the sender’s intention, 2) the addressee, 3) the (prospective) time and place of text reception, 4)the medium over which the text will be transmitted, 5) the motive for text production or reception. (ibid ,p.56) Though it is obvious that it is the conditions of the target situation that define the target text here, the function of the source text still figures as a guideline to be taken into consideration before beginning translating. Nord states that “while the function of the

11

original is defined with regard to its own referent and situation, the function of the translation has to be first defined with regard to the source text.” (ibid, p.51) This is particularly important in the case of “instrumental translation”, where the target text is intended to have the status of an original in the target language and culture (as opposed to documentary translation, where the target text is meant be perceived as a translation); comparing the ST function with the TT function, as pre-determined in the translation brief, helps the translator find out whether the translation needed is “equifunctional”, i.e. similar in function to the ST, or “heterofunctional”, i.e. different in function from the ST. Nord points out that equifunctionality is usually sought when translating technical texts (e.g. user guides, etc), while the impossibility of reproducing the function of the original, or of conforming to the hierarchy of ST functions when translating, makes it necessary to seek a heterofunctional translation. (ibid, p.53). Nord also states that the comparison can help the translator identify the kind of translation problems likely to arise during the translation process, so that solutions can be proposed (ibid, p.58). It is noteworthy that Nord views translation as a top-down process, which is in line with her functionalist orientation. Identifying the function(s) intended for the target text influences the decision making process on both the macrostructure level and the microstructure level: A functional translation process should start on the pragmatic level by deciding on the (intended, assigned) function of the translation. … This decision marks the way for the next stage [-namely,] which functional elements of the ST will have to

12

be reproduced “as such” and which should be adapted to the addressee’s background knowledge, expectations, communicative needs, to medium restrictions, deixis requirements, etc. The chosen translation type then determines whether the translated text should conform to source- culture or target-culture conventions, both with regard to translation…and style. Only then, if at all necessary, will the differences in language system come into play. … If there is still more than one possible solution at this point, contextual aspects…or even-in less conventionalized or unconventional texts, i.e. literary texts-the translator’s own personal preferences, always with due respect to the function of the translation, will determine the ultimate decision. (ibid, p.64-65) Nord even goes further, handling the specifics of translation teaching and proposing a functional curriculum to be adopted in the translation classroom. As the “purpose” of teaching translation is to produce translators able to employ the functional approach in overcoming translation problems, Nord advocates training the would-be translators to identify the features of the different text types as the first step to translation. This can be achieved through focusing on analysing different source texts, representing different text varieties(2) and consequently identifying the features of the text types they belong to. This process has to be repeated for texts originally written in the target language, to be followed by a stage in which students compare source texts and target texts to spot the differences and similarities between text types (and text varieties) in the source and the target languages i.e. for example, to find out in what ways typical American

13

advertisements differ from Egyptian advertisements, etc. In these pre-translation stages the student translators are introduced to the idea of the text being determined by its purpose in a practical way; students, Nord explains, should be instructed to re-write different texts so that they can be used by a different reading public (e.g. to re-write an advertisement to be published as a news story in a news website, or to re-write a short story for adults so that it can be read by children, etc.). This, Nord states, helps translators develop “their active and passive text competence both in the native and the foreign languages.” ( in Tennent, 2005, p.33) Once linguistic, cultural and text competence are acquired during the aforementioned stages students are supposed to begin practicing translation themselves, i.e. is meant doing a series of translation tasks and projects, simulating, as much as possible, the reallife translation tasks and the conditions in which translators do their jobs. Although the texts to be translated should be authentic, Nord stresses that they also should be chosen so as to suit the students’ level of competence and gradually introduce them to different levels of difficulty: Each translation task must be designed in such a way that it does not raise too many or too complicated translation problems. From the second translation task onward, the proportion of “familiar” translation problems should be larger than, or at least equal to, the proportion of “new” translation problems. (ibid, p. 36)

14

Nord emphasises the importance of texts being long enough to be similar to the texts which translators usually have to deal with in real life. (ibid). Furthermore, she is also aware of the role doing projects can play in teaching translation efficiently: In modern translation practice, team work and management skills are qualifications required of any professional translator, whether she works for a translation agency or freelance (mostly in a group of colleagues) or for a company. In the traditional translation classroom, these qualifications cannot be acquired . Therefore, translation practice during training should- at least in part- be organized in projects where each student has the chance to play various roles: that of client, or revisor, of terminologist, of documentation assistant, of free-lancer, of an in-house translator working for a translation company, etc. The teacher’s role is that of a monitor and fire brigade, but students learn to manage their translation projects autonomously, and, to a certain degree, they may even learn how to negotiate working conditions, fees or deadlines… One advantage of project teaching is that source texts may be longer (and thus more realistic) than those dealt with in a classroom setting. (ibid, pp. 39-40) Nord is also concerned with translation assessment as part of the curriculum. She stresses that students should be familiar with real-life evaluation practices as well as with what to look for when assessing translations themselves. The criteria she proposes are

15

primarily functional; assessment is, expectedly, a top-down process where the success or otherwise of the translator’s moves on the microstructure level is determined in the light of the effect they have on the overall objective of translating-namely, fulfilling the skopos of the translation task: Monitoring takes various forms in the different stages of the learning process. Using a top-down strategy which proceeds from situational macrostructures to linguistic microstructures, pragmatic adequacy is more important than linguistic correctness in the introductory phase, whereas violations of stylistic and linguistic conventions and norms will carry more weight in the advanced phases of the training programme. The grading of cultural and linguistic errors depends on the influences they have on the function of the target text… If a missing comma or a spelling mistake leads to an inadequate interpretation of any of the intended functions, it is no longer a mere deviation from a linguistic norm but has pragmatic consequences… In a translation where the referential function is predominant, the information given in the source text would have priority over any other function or sub-function. But in a translation where the appellative function is predominant, one may be justified playing down or even omitting certain information if it obstructs the intended appellative function. (ibid, pp. 40-41)

16

Much can be said about applying Nord’s approach to translation teaching in Egyptian universities. The following section deals with some of the difficulties facing teachers who try to apply it. In fact, it focuses on concepts fossilised in students’ minds which are not easy to replace with the concepts of the functional approach. The strength of these fossilised concepts and the influence they exert on the students’ performance have been strongly witnessed in the classes taught by the present researcher. Therefore, the following section shall begin with a brief description of the present researcher’s approach to translation teaching as applied in her classes, to be followed by an investigation of the difficulties facing the application of it as manifested in the students’ actual translations. Besides, certain suggestions concerning the way translation is treated in the preuniversity curriculum shall be made, which are thought to be useful in facilitating using the functional approach in teaching translation.

Teaching Translation Functionally in the Egyptian Classroom: It is probably useful to point out that the curriculum in the English departments of Egyptian universities treats translation as an independent topic that students have to study for at least three years before they can graduate. However, three years of learning translation, or even four, are not enough to help students adopt a view of translation different from the one “installed” in them during the relatively long pre-university phase. Translation is never actually taught at schools; it is only there in the form of exercises which students have to deal with to acquire linguistic competence. Students naturally tend to translate as literally as possible, and are sometimes directed, by their teachers, to be flexible and try not to think literally once they come across a word that is not in their linguistic repertoire. This, together with the grammar-translation method generally

17

followed in teaching English, leads students to think of translation as a process of linguistic transcoding, where faithfulness to the original is the one and only goal. Texts for translation in this pre-university phase are usually “designed” so as not to raise any questions about cultural differences and how to handle them when translating, simply because it is the students’ knowledge of grammar and vocabulary that must be developed. Therefore, it is no surprise that when students of the present researcher are asked, in the first lecture of the translation course, to define translation they answer saying that translation is changing sentences from one language into another. Translation is obviously reduced to a purely linguistic process and is never regarded as a real-life activity involving different social and cultural issues. In the light of the foregoing, the present researcher starts the translation course with a brief theoretical background so that the students can know what they are supposed to do before embarking on translating. Discussion of the students’ translation naturally necessitates that more theoretical details be highlighted throughout the course. This approach in which theory and practice take turns is advocated by Nord as the ideal approach to teaching translation functionally: There is often a debate on whether to start with theory (in a kind of land drill) or with practice (in a kind of swimor-sink procedure). Personally, I am in favour of what I call “a pig-tail method”: starting out with a small portion of theory, which is then applied to practice, where the need of more theory becomes obvious, which is then satisfied by another portion of theory, and so on. The land-drill procedure

18

soon becomes sterile because when the students start practicing they will have forgotten what they have learnt in theory, and the swim-or-sink procedure has the great disadvantage of risking that the students acquire bad translation habits which have to be cured afterwards. (in Tennent, 2005, p.215) However, the theoretical background is often taught through exercises that can help students see for themselves and arrive at the concepts of the functional translation theory without being spoon-fed. One of those exercises is the following: Answer the following question: The best translation for “After I had done my homework, I watched TV” is: .‫بعد أن أنجزت واجبي المنزلي شاهدت التلفاز‬-1 .‫عملت الواجب وبعدين اتفرجت ع التلفزيون‬-2

Students are also asked to justify their choice. Most students go for the first translation because, according to them, it is both literal and sounds “more correct” than the Egyptian- Arabic version . Needless to say, the students’ choice reflects a rather limited concept of translation, but significant changes occur when a scenario (later to be called a translation brief) is introduced; when the students are told that the target reader is an American who lives in Egypt and has almost no knowledge of Modern Standard Arabic they change their minds and decide on the second translation. This is followed by a discussion of the importance of the target reader’s profile, to use Nord’s term, and the purpose of translation. During the discussion the concepts of the functional theory are highlighted, particularly “skopos”, “client”, and “translation brief”.

19

The concept of text type is then introduced through tasks in which the students analyse texts representing the different text types in terms of their use of language. Students are also asked to compare texts representing different text types in order for them to grasp the distinct features of each type (and, of course, of each variety). They begin by dealing with texts originally written in their first language, then texts originally written in the would-be target language are introduced. This is simply because the students will have naturally been exposed to different kinds of texts written in their first language throughout their lives, and so spotting the textual features would be easier if they are trained first in their own language. During this phase the students are familiarised with the different functions of language as displayed in the different text types through comparing typical texts, or ones displaying the features expected of a certain text type, with less typical ones which violate one’s expectations about the text type to which they belong. (e.g. an advertisement which uses positive, attitudinal and even manipulative language Vs. an informative advertisement that depends on factual, neutral description). Following this relatively receptive phase ,translation finally occurs in the form of tasks to be done in the light of well-defined translation briefs. In groups, students interpret the translation brief for each task, in order to make a plan for translating, informed by the translation brief as well as by their knowledge of text types and varieties (3)

. The translations produced by the different groups of students are then discussed and

evaluated, by the students themselves as well as by the teacher, depending on the extent to which they have succeeded in fulfilling the requirements of the translation brief. Representatives of each group are invited to justify their decisions, while the teacher and

20

the rest of the class act as clients who the translators have to convince, and the concept of “negotiation” is thus highlighted through actual negotiations. It is by no means easy, however, to get students to give up their traditional view of translation, and much effort has to be exerted before the functional approach to teaching translation can bear fruit. A teacher who chooses to adopt such an approach has to fight against certain concepts fossilised, as mentioned before, in the students’ minds. Among the most important of these is the idea that the source text enjoys a certain “holiness” that makes faithfulness to it a must, which consequently means that literal translation will be always seen as the ideal translation strategy. Though the pre-translation phase is supposed to change this attitude, students often seem reluctant to depart radically from the source text even though this is the only thing that can lead to the fulfillment of the translation brief. This reluctance is particularly noticed when the fulfillment of the translation brief entails that parts of the source text be omitted, and also when additions are necessary. For instance, some of the present researcher’s students were asked to translate into Arabic an English advertisement which was atypical in the sense that it was overwhelmingly informative and almost utterly lacking in appellative elements. The students were supposed to tailor the advertisement to the requirements of the translation brief, which specified that the translation should conform to the Egyptian traditions of advertising. This meant that the students should do away with much, if not most, of the information found in the advertisement and give it a boost by adding appellative elements. However, what happened is that many students translated the advertisement literally, and most students kept asking whether they can translate literally, and, when asked about the reason for their insistence on literalness, they explained that they just do

21

not feel that it is right to change the text in translation. Much negotiation was needed before they could finally translate functionally, not literally. Sometimes students fail to practically make use of their knowledge about differences between text types when translating, again because of the authority that literal translation enjoys. For instance, many of the present researcher’s students opt for an SVO structure when translating news from English into Arabic though they already know that it is the VSO structure that is typical of Arabic news and that though an SVO structure is grammatically correct it is functionally incorrect as far as translating news into Arabic is concerned. They keep producing such translations as ‫وزير الخارجية األمريكي جون كيري صرح‬ ‫ بأن خفض المساعدات األمريكية لمصر ال يعني قطع عالقة واشنطن بها‬as, though they are aware of the rules of translating news, they still tend to adhere to the original, which, being in English, can not permit of a VSO structure. Another strong tendency that the teacher has to fight is the students’ tendency to fail to perceive translation as a real-life activity. Despite the fact that in a functional translation class the teacher makes sure that the translation task is as life-like as possible many students continue to see these tasks merely as classroom tasks to be corrected by the teacher, and so they resort to what can be called “exam-passing” strategies instead of translation strategies. This is particularly obvious in many students’ tendency to “juxtapose” near synonyms when translating a single word when they are not sure about the exact meaning of it, either using the conjunction ‫ و‬to connect the synonyms or, even worse, putting the “alternative” between brackets, such as in the following examples: ST: Kerry said Thursday that the Obama administration…will stay engaged with [Egypt’s] interim leaders.

22

‫سوف تبقي مرتبطة وعلي اتصال بالقادة المؤقتين للبالد‬... ‫صرح كيري الخميس الماضي بأن إدارة أوباما‬:TT ST: ‫ قد تقدم باستقالته‬،‫ الرجل الثاني في الوزارة‬،‫أعلن تشاك هيجل وزير الدفاع األمريكي أن أشتون كارتر‬ TT: Chuck Hagel said (announced) that Ashton Carter, the second man in the department, resigned.

Such a recurrent “draft-like” feature shows those students’ inability to see the translation task as a real-life task that should result in a target text as authentic and fluent as possible. The students here are unable to think of the end user of the translation as a client who they should work hard to satisfy; to them, the end user of the translation will always be the teacher, who is supposed to be correcting them by choosing the best translation from the alternatives they are suggesting. Some students find it difficult to accept the functional approach to translation teaching in the first place. This is noticed during the pre-translation phase; some students do not seem convinced with the importance of doing anything other than translation in a translation class, and keep asking questions about the use of doing the analysis exercises and whether this has anything to do with translation. Much work is needed if we really want the students to give up their traditional notions about translation and translating, but it must be noted that not much success is expected unless the pre-university English curriculum is seriously re-considered. The following section deals with the status quo of the pre-university English curriculum and how it contributes to the fossilisation of the traditional view of translation in the students’

23

minds, proposing changes that need to be considered in order for teaching translation functionally in universities to be successful.

Translation and the Pre-university English Curriculum: The grammar-translation method followed in teaching English in most Egyptian schools is responsible, to a great extent, for students’ failure to adopt the notions of functional translation later on in their educational life. It leads students to think that language is all about vocabulary and grammar by focusing on these while ignoring actual communication. Students are rarely, if ever, exposed to the concepts of cultural difference, idiomaticity and pragmatic concepts necessary for the effective, realistic use of language. It is a pity that the part of the pre-university English curriculum supposed to be dedicated to the communicative use of language is taught “uncommunicatively”. In secondary-school English, for example, students are exposed to a portion of situational English, and the exam usually includes a question where they are asked to respond to certain “situations”. However, neither the method of teaching nor that of assessment is useful in developing the students’ communicative abilities or introducing them to the pragmatic aspects of language use. The portion of the situational English in each unit of the English book is reduced to a handful of formulas that the student has to learn by heart in order to answer the question. There is hardly any information about the register, or the contextual background for each of these formulas (e.g. formal Vs. informal uses, etc). It would not be an exaggeration to say that the teachers themselves lack such information most of the time; consequently, they often encourage the students to use the different options available in a certain situation interchangeably. Besides, the marks allocated to the so-called “situations” question are much less than those allocated to questions

24

measuring the students’ grammatical or lexical competence ( four marks for the situations question Vs. fourteen for the vocabulary and structure part), and teachers generally tend to consider an answer to a situation question correct if it is grammatical. In addition, a tendency to limit the already limited share of “language in context” in the curriculum has been noted; some of the so-called situations are designed to illicit an answer that solely reflects the students’ grammatical and lexical competence, or, rather, the students’ ability to use the rules of grammar and “retrieve” the long vocabulary lists they memorise(4)Therefore, the pre-university English curriculum should seek to develop competences in the students other than the purely linguistic; in addition to linguistic competence, cultural and pragmatic competences have to be addressed. Translation also needs to be treated differently in the pre-university English curriculum. The very fact that translation is never actually taught during the preuniversity phase ruins the students’ chance to see translation as something other than mere linguistic transcoding. Teachers and curriculum designers may be justified if they maintain that not much can be done in this respect since pre-university translation is but a means serving the end of English teaching, but it is not impossible to use translation as a means and, meanwhile, effect changes that would prepare the students for a more specialised study of translation. This can be achieved through choosing texts for translation likely to raise questions about culture specificity and text specificity and lead the students to re-consider their views of literal translation. Better results are expected if the texts to be translated are contextualised; for instance, translating a short conversation between a child and a senior can be useful in highlighting differences between English

25

and Arabic in address terms and politeness formulas; translating a telegram would help students realise differences in text type conventions between Arabic and English, etc. The aforementioned changes can be made on gradual basis. As the students naturally know about their language and culture more than what they know about English and its culture, these changes can first occur in translation from English into Arabic. In this way, the students will be surer about what they are doing since they will have a model to model their translation after- a real-life conversation or a telegram that was actually sent them. Furthermore, exposure to English texts as such would help them get a sense of the features of the English text types and the general cultural and pragmatic differences between English and Arabic. This would gradually prepare them to begin translating functionally, in a more advanced stage, the other way round (i.e. from Arabic into English).

Conclusion: Though the functional translation theories can serve as a useful basis for teaching translation in Egyptian universities, functional approaches to translation teaching are not expected to result in much success if the students are not prepared for them during the pre-university phase. The required preparation may not necessarily take the form of radical changes to be effected to the pre-university English curriculum; it does not, for instance, necessitate that too much time be allocated to translating at schools. In fact, it is qualitative, not quantitative, change that is needed. Students can learn to translate effectively without spending extra time translating if the pre-university English curriculum is designed in such a way that it develops the students’ awareness of the inevitable differences between the culture of English and the culture of Arabic through

26

focusing on the pragmatic dimension of language and stressing the fact that grammaticality does not necessarily mean appropriateness.

27

Notes: (1) From the present researcher’s personal experience as a translation teacher. (2) The term “text variety” is often used interchangeably with the term “text genre” to refer to the “immediate” type to which the text belongs, as opposed to the term “text type” which refers to the broader, functional category encompassing different text varieties, or genres. (3) The present researcher’s students are even given tasks where they need to change one text type into another while translating; for example, they were once asked to translate a mobile phone advertisement as a news story about the launching of that new phone. They had, consequently, to do away with most of the “appellative” language used by the phone producers in advertising it and focus on the actual information given in the advertisement about the phone. (4) Following are some examples, from a book of exercises for secondary school: a) Your friend wants to know what your plans are after finishing school. b) You want to know the number of countries which use nuclear power. c) Ask your teacher advice about how to keep fit. d) Someone asks you why the pyramids were built.

28

References Baker, M. & Malmkjær, K. (Eds.) (1998) Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.

Chesterman, A. (Ed.) (1989) Readings in translation theory. Helsinki. Oy Finn Lectura Ab. Enns-Connoly, T. (1986/1995). Translation as an interpretive act: A narrative study of translation in university level foreign language teaching, doctoral dissertation., University of Toronto. In D. Kiraly. (Ed.) (1995), Pathways to translation: pedagogy and process, pp.7–8. Kent, Ohio & London: The Kent State University Press. Goussard-Kunz, I. (2009) Facilitating African language translation in the South African department of defence. An Unpublished MA dissertation. Kiraly, D. (Ed.) (1995) Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, Ohio & London: The Kent State University Press. Munday, J. (2001) Introducing translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.

Nord, C. A functional typology of translation, in A. Trosborg (Ed.), (1997). Text typology and translation. pp.43-66 . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nord, C. Training functional translators. In M. Tennent (Ed.) (2005) Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. pp. 209225. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Reiss, K. (1977/1989) Text-types, translation types and translation

29

assessment, (trans by Andrew Chesterman) In E. Chesterman Readings in translation theory. (Ed.) ( 1989), pp. 105-15. Helsinki. Oy Finn Lectura Ab. Reiss, K. Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. (trans. by Susan Kitron). In L. Venuti (Ed.) (2000),pp.160-171 Routledge: London & New York. Schäffner, C. Skopos theory, in M.,Baker & K. Malmkjær (Eds.) (1998) Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. pp. 235-238.London & New York: Routledge.

Snell-Hornby, M. Pöchhacker F., & Kaindl, K. (Eds.) (1994) Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tennent, M. (Ed.) (2005) Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trosborg, A. (Ed.) (1997).Text typology and translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Venuti, L. (Ed.) (2000). The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge. Vermeer, H. (1989) Skopos and commission in translational action, trans. by Andrew Chesterman, in L. Venuti. (Ed.) (2000), pp.221-232. London & New York: Routledge. Vermeer, H. Translation today :Old and new problems, in M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.) (1994), pp. 3-17 Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

30