Scholarly article on topic 'Translation Competence: Aging Towards Modern Views'

Translation Competence: Aging Towards Modern Views Academic research paper on "Languages and literature"

Share paper
OECD Field of science
{Competence / "Translation Competence" / "Translation Competence Models"}

Abstract of research paper on Languages and literature, author of scientific article — Mohammad Reza Esfandiari, Tengku Sepora, Tengku Mahadi

Abstract The analysis of the required skills and knowledge for every field of study is of paramount importance specifically for interdisciplinary fields such as translation. These skills and knowledge are broadly termed as competence by scholars. As a complex term, the definition of translation competence as well as the categorization of its components has been subject to changes since its infancy. Some of the newer models viewed translation competence as a linguistic competence or as a supercompetence; while, in more recent models a multicomponential view is taken to identify the several competences included in translation competence. Consequently, the present paper seeks to provide a general review of the varying insights of the term and the numerous models provided by translation scholars.

Academic research paper on topic "Translation Competence: Aging Towards Modern Views"


Available online at


Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 44 - 53

2nd GLOBAL CONFERENCE on LINGUISTICS and FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING, LINELT-2014, Dubai - United Arab Emirates, December 11 - 13, 2014

Translation Competence: Aging Towards Modern Views

Mohammad Reza Esfandiaria*, Tengku Seporaa, Tengku Mahadia

aUniversity Sains Malaysia


The analysis of the required skills and knowledge for every field of study is of paramount importance specifically for interdisciplinary fields such as translation. These skills and knowledge are broadly termed as competence by scholars. As a complex term, the definition of translation competence as well as the categorization of its components has been subject to changes since its infancy. Some of the newer models viewed translation competence as a linguistic competence or as a supercompetence; while, in more recent models a multicomponential view is taken to identify the several competences included in translation competence. Consequently, the present paper seeks to provide a general review of the varying insights of the term and the numerous models provided by translation scholars.

© 2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center. Keywords: Competence, Translation Competence, Translation Competence Models

1.1. What is Competence?

While 'competence' is basically used in several disciplines and contexts, it is hard to find a definition that reconciles all different ways in which it is used. Moreover, it is believed that the term is still being developed (Albir, 2007). On the other hand, the interpretations of the term also depend on diverse circumstances such as cultural, linguistic, and national. For example, in some instances the term is used to describe the training processes of skills, but not axiomatically in professional development and higher cognitive areas (Schneckenberg & Wildt, 2006). As Norris (1991) suggests, competence definition has become complicated since the practical aspect of competence has been overshadowed by the theoretical confusion.

*Mohammad Reza Esfandiari Tel.: +7632728333 E-mail address:

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.007

Describing competence as an indistinct concept, Boon and van der (Klink 2002) admit that competence bridges the gap between education and occupation requirements. It is largely acknowledged that competence is the combination of abilities, skills, and knowledge manifested in specific actions in situations (Hansen, 1997). Also, competence is undoubtedly multidimensional and relevant to the requirements advocating professional and personal success in career. It encompasses personal components (knowledge, cognitive skills, motivation, attitudes, and emotions), socio-cultural components (understanding the contexts), and behaviours (actions, conducts, and initiatives) (p. 251). Attempting to bridge the gap between the psychological, pedagogical, and sociological aspects of 'competence', (Weinert 2001) defines competence in his article as "...a roughly specialized system of abilities, proficiencies, or skills that are necessary to reach a specific goal" (p. 45).

One of the most comprehensive definitions is expressed by (Lasnier,2000) "A competence is a complex know-how to act resulting from integration, mobilization and organization of a combination of capabilities and skills (which can be cognitive, affective, psycho-motor or social) and knowledge (declarative knowledge) used efficiently in situations with common characteristics". Analyzing Lasnier's definition, (Albir, 2007) refers to two significant concepts: know-how-to-act and integration. By "Know how to act" it is meant that competence is not primarily just know-how, and it is not restricted to operative knowledge. Secondly, it highlights that acquiring know-how is possible through practice. Thirdly, the concept emerges that it is important to apply know-how efficiently. In addition, competence is the integration of numerous types of abilities and skills as well as declarative knowledge (know what). Consequently, competence consists of "know (combination of specific discipline knowledge), know how (skills to solve practical problems), and know how to be (skills of an affective or social nature) (p. 167). In the same vein, (Gonzalez and Wagenaar, 2003) define competence as "a combination of set skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include disposition to learn as well as know-how" (p. 10).

1.1.1. Translation Competences

Over the years, several authors have attempted to describe the components of translation competence in various ways (Kiraly, 1995; Hansen, 1997; PACTE, 2000). 'Translation competence' is viewed and defined differently over the last thirty years. In its early stages of 1970s and before, it was reflected as a bilingualism mode (Pym, 2003, p.482). However, this view changed dramatically starting from 1980s due to various social, political and historical changes the climax of which was particularly at the beginning of 1990s which led to fundamental changes in market demands. Thenceforth, 'translation competence' has been regarded as a multi-componential competence which comprises of sets of technological, cultural, or linguistic skills. Thus, majority of the models proposed for translation competence by scholars (Lowe, 1987; Bell, 1991; Nord, 2005; Pym, 1993; Kiraly, 1995; Hatim and Mason, 1997; Hansen, 1997; Risku, 1998, cited in Lesznyak, cited in Pym, 2003; Neubert, 2000) emphasize the description of the component constituents of translation competence (Albir, 2007).

In face of its novelty as well as all the inconsistencies of the translation competence in Translation Studies, some translation researchers have attempted to define translation competence. For instance, according to Wilss (1982, p. 58) translation competence requires "an interlingual supercompetence" which is based on the respective inclusive SL and TL knowledge plus the text-pragmatic dimension, as well as the ability of assimilating the two competencies on an upper level. To Bell (1991, p. 43) translation competence includes the set of knowledge and skills possessed by the translator so as to perform a translation.

Nevertheless, the effort exerted by PACTE group (2000, 2003 & 2005) is the most evidently determined for defining the term. Through empirical-experimental research this team has aimed to eventually define the concept and its acquisition process for written translation. Thus, according to PACTE (2000) translation competence is "the underlying system of knowledge and skills needed to be able to translate" (p. 100). Four statements complete this definition. These include:

• The actualization of translation competence is different based on different situations

• It basically constitutes operative knowledge

• Strategies have significant roles in translation competence

• Most processes of translation competence are automatic just as any other kind of expert knowledge

Additionally, PACTE (2005) believes in four unique features for translation competence. First, not all bilinguals

have this knowledge and it is an expert knowledge. Second, it is basically procedural rather than declarative

knowledge. Third, it is composed of numerous interrelated sub-competencies; and the strategic component is central.

Having reviewed the various definitions of translation competence to date, Kelly (2005) proposes a definition which definitely emphasizes syllabus design and teaching and which is appropriate for the context of the present study. In her opinion:

Translation competence is the macrocompetence that comprises the different capacities, skills, knowledge and even attitudes that professional translators possess and which are involved in translation as an expert activity. It can be broken down into the following sub-competencies, which are all necessary for the success of the macrocompetence (p. 14-15).

Thus, it is concluded from the above discussion that translation competence is a mixture of different competences and it is not a feature of any bilingual. Different qualifications and categorizations of its sub-competences are proposed by several scholars of the field. Thus, these qualifications and other proposed competences required for translation will be elaborated on in this section.

1.2. Review on Translation Competence Models and Categorization

The classification of translation competence is a controversial issue. Based on the content and components of competence, Pym (2003) proposes that translation competence should be categorized into four categories:

• Competence as no such thing

• Competence as a summation of linguistic competencies

• Competence as just one thing ( as a supercompenetce)

• Competence as multi-componential

However, some criticisms are made on this category by Lesznyak (2007). Lesznyak suggests that the third category as multi-componential has to be split into two sub-categories due to the heterogeneous nature of competences. Furthermore, Lesznyak believes that the first category as "competence as no such thing" must be eliminated as Pym does not clarify the meaning of this category clearly and in fact it does not consider the existence of such a competence. Moreover, Pym does not provide supportive examples for this issue and the scholars to whom he refers (Shreve, 1997; and Risku, 1998, cited in Lesznyak) try to define competence in terms of performance and expertise rather than eliminating the existence of translation competence. Thus, the first category will be eliminated and it is not credible for the field. In the following section, the three remaining categorizations and models of translation competence will be outlined according to Pym's classification (2003) as well as Lesznyak's 2007 modifications.

1.2.1. Translation Competence as a Summation of Linguistic Competencies

This category is mainly influenced by Chomskyan linguistics as a prevailing linguistic theory during 1970s when the translators were only expected to translate and no other activity was required of them. This category regards translation competence as simply comprised of L1 and L2 competences (Lesznyak, 2007). Translators must have the source language text-analytical competence as well as the equivalent target language text-reproductive competence (Wilss, 1976). According to Koller (1979, cited in Pym, 2003) translation competence is a specific competence type concerned with the authentic use of the language and it differs qualitatively from linguistic competence because speech varies from tongue; thus, translation competence is more tailored towards performance rather than competence in Chomskyan theory and it is the ability to match linguistic competences acquired in two languages.

Wills (1976), with reference to language summation and Chomskyan linguistics, uses the term translational competence instead and notes that for translational competence a translator requires to acquire eight competence ranges in two languages which is equal to sixteen competences that a language learner must acquire. Furthermore, translational competence is considered as a super-competence which is restricted to the four language skills. The sub-competences are the basis for translational competence while they have a complementary relation. However, competence will not provide an answer for the translators' professional qualification. Nonetheless, Wills is reluctant to define translation competence as he is skeptical about its existence and he has made several modifications of the

concept. In 1998, Wills considers translation competence as a framework of declarative and translation process knowledge; thus, the term "skills" is used while in 1992 competence is put aside and "proficiency" is used (Lesznyak, 2007).

Thus, during 1970s and 1980s scholars speculated about translation mainly from linguistic perspectives and do not pay any attention to how translators perform their job in the world. As Pym (2003, p. 483) mentions the above mentioned definitions keep "Translation Studies within Applied Linguistics, and Translator Training within language schools or Modern Language departments... [while] the dominant trend in academic politics, at least in the 1970s and 1980s was to seek greater power by becoming independent". Nonetheless, the idea of competence as a "summation of linguistic competences" did not last long as it could not satisfy institutional independence (Pym, 2003).

1.2.2. Translation Competence as One Supercompetence

Some scholars in translation studies (Krings, 1986; Pym, 2003; Shreve, 1997; Toury, 1995; Wilss, 1976) imply that there is one supercompetence above other linguistic subcompetences which is the translation competence through which the minimalist definitions of translation developed later. Toury (1995) opposes the concept of 'natural translation' proposed by Harris and suggests the term ' native translator' to emphasize more on 'transfer competence' rather than simply focusing on the possession of a 'bilingual competence' and highlighting linguistic competence. Thus, Toury believes that 'transfer competence' is an outcome of socialization process and is characterized by certain forms of norm-governed and learned behaviour. Following the same line of thought, to define translation competence, Krings (1986) establishes a typology of translation problems which are attributed to source text comprehension, target language skills, as well as the interlingual question. Later, he labels the third group as translation competence problems or reception-production problems. Koller (1992, as cited in Pym, 2003) also stresses the role of creativity in discovering and picking among the equivalents and the skill of text production besides the importance of linguistic knowledge in two languages for a successful translation. Similarly, to expound translation competence as a specialized competence, Shreve (1997) used cognitive psychology findings. Rejecting the view which considers translation as an innate competence, he proposed that translation competence is a distinctive form of communicative competence which contains both declarative and procedural knowledge. He further clarifies translation competence as a set of abilities that can naturally develop from bilingualism. Nevertheless, Shreve does not provide a clarification of the nature and the definition of these abilities. Moreover, he uses such terms like 'the ability to do mapping' which are driven from cognitive psychology and neurolinguistic. These terms are unfortunately unfamiliar for the community of Translation researchers. Pym (2003) is another translation scholar who discusses in favour of a minimalist approach for defining translation competence. He classifies this competence in terms of the ability to generate a series of more than one viable term (TT1, TT2, .TTn) for a pertinent source text and the ability to select only one viable TT from the series, quickly and with justified confidence (Pym, 2003, p. 489). Thus, Pym believes that these skills are translation-specific and they merely characterize translation competence rather than any other competences. Furthermore, Pym asserts that a minimalist definition of translation competence isolates the essence of translation from other variables and competences such as linguistic competence and world knowledge which is an advantage of this definition. As Lesznyak (2007) remarks, Pym's definition is undeniably insightful and grasps the essence of translation competence. This definition also assists the translator trainers in determining translator training and translation curriculum objectives. Conversely, this definition does not mention what exactly has to be developed, evaluated, or investigated; hence, this model of competence is not viable to be used by curriculum designers, translation assessment models / instruments, and psycholinguistic research designs. Pym (2003) himself also admits that these competences require a large number of other skills, but he does not point to them.

1.2.3. Multicomponential Models of Translation Competence

As Translation Studies developed as an interdisciplinary field, it was inspired by other related disciplines such as discourse analysis, text linguistics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, cultural studies and information technology. Moreover, several diverse activities are involved in the translation business and translation market

recently; consequently, translators are required to carry out other activities over and above translation including documentation, terminology, rewriting, and activities associated with localization industry. Thus, various activities can be categorized under the label of translation competence.

Multicomponential models employ research in second language acquisition and performance in linguistics (Pym, 2003). These models assume that translation competence is composed of an array of several linguistic and extra-linguistic subcomponents. As Lesznyak (2007) remarks, these models primarily attempt to classify procedural components and independent psychological components. The former are the actions a translator performs in the translation process (e.g. source text processing skills, transfer, and target text processing skills in Hatim and Mason, 1997) while the latter refers to the prerequisites for individual procedures in translation itself (e.g. communicative competence in two languages PACTE model). Hence, these models can be classified as procedural models and prerequisite models. The following subheadings are devoted to the explanation of the multicomponential models proposed by translation studies' scholars.

a) Hatim and Mason's Set of Translation Ability

Basing their description of translator abilities on Bachman's 1990 analysis of communicative language ability model, Hatim and Mason (1997) discuss about translator abilities. Bachman's model recognizes three sets of knowledge and skills including organization competence, pragmatic competence and sociolinguistic competence. They differentiate three stages for the translation process as source text processing, transfer processing and target text processing. Similarly, they assign different skills to each stage which interact during the translation process. They finally conclude a set of translator abilities through combining Bachman's model and translation-specific elements (Table 1).

Table 1 Translator abilities (Hatim and Mason, 1997)

Source text Transfer skills Target text

Processing skills Processing skills

*Recognizing intertextuality *Strategic renegotiation by adjusting: *Establishing intertextuality

(genre/dis cours e/text) effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance (genre/discourse/text)

*Locating situationality (register) *to: audience design task (brief, *Establishing situationality (register, etc.)

*Inferring intentionality initiator, etc.) *Creating intentionality

*Organizing texture (lexical choice, syntactic *in fulfillment of a: rhetorical purpose *Organizing texture (lexical choice,

arrangement, cohesion) and structure (plan, goal) syntactic arrangement, cohesion) and

*Judging informativity (static/dynamic) in structure

terms of estimated impact on: source text *Balancing informativity (static/dynamic)

readership in terms of estimated impact on: target text


b) Hoing's Model of the Ideal translation Process In another model of the ideal translation process proposed by Honig 1991, the translator's first language competence is of major significance as it determines the comprehension of the source text which will consequently affect the translation process (Honig 1991, p. 85). This approach to translation is comparable to Harris' natural approach in which an ideal translation process necessitates the translator's understanding of the source language at the level of discourse, and making use of innate transfer ability or the associative competence to produce the target text. This approach adopts the development of automaticity that is related to the transfer competence as an innate ability, and which is linked to the development of translator's self-confidence constituting an intrinsic share of translation competence. Thus, this model focuses on monitoring strategies and automatic processing which is governed by macro-strategies (strategies performed at discourse level) to balance the processes made at the micro level. Aiming at building a theory and teaching translation, Honig states that teachers and students must be aware of those mental processes that are involved in translation. That is why Honig believes that "we have to teach students to develop self-confidence as translators through an awareness of their mental reality" (p. 87). Hence, Honig's work considers language competence at the discourse and style level as an instinctive bilingual competence. It also highlights acquiring macrostrategies to develop automaticity in the behavior of the translator as well as the mental

underlying processes in translation tasks.

c) Bell's Model of translation Process

Bell's 1991 model considers three approaches in describing translation competence. The first approach is the concept of ideal bilingual competence resulting from Chomsky's proposals of the competence for the 'ideal speaker-listener'. The second concept is a translator expert system. Accordingly, translation competence is defined in terms of generalizations derived from the translator's performance observation. This system embraces two basic components (p. 40):

(1) A knowledge base consisting of:

(a) Source and target language knowledge: syntactic rules, lexicon and semantics, and text- creating systems

(b) Text-type knowledge

(c) Domain knowledge

(d) Contrastive knowledge of each of the above

(2) An inference mechanism which permits:

(a) The decoding of texts: reading and understanding source texts

(b) The encoding of texts: writing target texts

As Bell emphasizes, a translator requires the linguistic competence of the source and target languages as well as the communicative competence in both language cultures comprising the rules knowledge of codes that govern usage and knowledge and also the ability of utilizing the conventions of use; and the knowledge of the available options for expressing the three language macrofunctions as well as the ability to use these options based on community ground-rules to produce and interpret communicative acts (Bell, 1991 p. 42).

d) Stolze's Model

Emphasizing the role of linguistics in translation, Stolze (1992, as cited in Lesznyak, 2007) classifies her thoughts on translation competence into competence to comprehend and competence to communicate. As a conscious process of handling text, Stolze believes that translation competence involves text comprehension and text meaning communication. These two competence types are maintained through a fixed knowledge base including procedural and declarative knowledge of language, culture, and the specialized fields. Translation strategies, professional experience, and metacognition are all influential for comprehension and communication. However, while this approach is outstanding due to stressing the role of metalinguistic knowledge or skills and metacognition, it is incomplete since it does not explain transfer competence and it does not specify the skills or abilities that comprise the basics of translation competence.

e) Kiraly's Model

Kiraly's 1995 model as an integrated model of translator competence is based on psycholinguistic model of translation processes. First, the information source component includes:

• Long-term memory which contains world knowledge, knowledge of source and target cultures, and knowledge of lexicosemantic elements and morpho-syntactic patterns in both the source and the target language. It also holds knowledge of translation: norms, learned strategies, criteria for self-assessment, and the possible sources of errors and experience with similar texts;

• Source text inputs which are the morphemes, words, phrases, sentences, sentence groups (the signs and sign configurations) processed by the translator as he/she reads and rereads the text. These signs trigger structures or frames stored in long-term memory;

• External resources (reference books, dictionaries, parallel texts, experts in the field, data bases) which are additional information not available from the source text input or the long-term memory;

• The relatively uncontrolled workspace, which is mostly intuitive and subconscious; and

• The relatively controlled workspace, which involves strategies and is conscious.

Second, the built-in workplace which is a controlled processing center is a part of translator's mind in which data is driven from the long-term memory and combined with information from the input (source text) and external sources. The two products resulting from this fusion are: the tentative translation elements and the translation problems. The tentative translation elements either avoid the controlled processing center or continue to one of the two types of monitoring (target language and textual monitoring) (p. 104). Three types of skill and knowledge result from this integrated model: the knowledge to recognize the situational factors involved in translation; the translation

knowledge including linguistic and cultural knowledge of the two languages and the specialized knowledge in the field being translated; and finally, the ability of initiating suitable controlled and spontaneous psycholinguistic processes for formulating the target text and controlling its adequacy.

f) Beeby's Ideal Translator communicative Competence

According to Beeby's 1996 model, the ideal communicative competence for a translator has four competences. The first competence as the grammatical competence includes the Knowledge of linguistic rules such as word formation or sentence structure for both languages. This knowledge helps in understanding the literal meanings. The second competence is the sociolinguistic competence which is the knowledge and ability of understanding and producing the suitable language based on the context of use in both cultures. Some of this knowledge includes the status of the participants, the interaction purpose, the mode, or the field, etc. the third competence is discourse competence which is the ability to associate form and meaning to result in a unified text of various genres in two languages. This entails such techniques like cohesion, coherence, and grammatical linkage to ease comprehension of texts. The last competence is the transfer competence which includes using communication strategies to compensate for communication breakdowns while communicating meaning from the source to the target language.

g) Risku 's Model

Integrating cognitive psychology and communication theory and learning theory, Risku (1998, cited in Lesznyak, 2007) constructs her model based on two theories including action theory of translation and cognitive science. Her model is the only model which does not concentrate on the linguistic aspect of translation and focuses only on the social reality of the situation and the translator's ability to manage it. Regarding action theory it is believed that translation is an expert activity and it is only possessed by experts. Several factors are numerated by Risku which will distinguish a novice from a translation expert. The first factor is having the ability of creating the macrostrategies to handle the translation situation. The second factor entails the integration of information. The third factor includes decision making and action planning. The last factor is self-management through reflection, responsibility, etc. as a comprehensive model, Risku's model includes not only the skills and abilities mentioned within other models, but it also includes processes such as management, evaluation or organization of such knowledge or abilities. However, the shortcoming for this model is its lack of empirical practicality and thus its validation is questionable.

h) Albrecht Neubert's Tripartite Model

According to Neubert (2000), translation practice requires one single competence which constitutes an integration of a set of competences. In order to be able to find the constituents of translation competence, Neubert believes it is necessary to consider the contextual factors which underlie skills and knowledge essential for translators such as the complex, heterogeneous, and approximate nature of translators' expert knowledge as it would be impossible for translators to have the knowledge of the whole array of aspects or even the field within the area they work in. Thus, their knowledge of translation embraces the acquisition of the capacity to understand a subject matter and facilitate its understanding for experts who belong to other cultures and who possess different languages. As a result, it can be argued that due to the approximate nature of translators' knowledge, translation competence can never be finitely acquired and translators need to continually build on their knowledge and be creative. Moreover, attainting the desired results would be impossible unless the translators become attentive to the ever-changing situation of translation and adapt themselves to these situations. The above-mentioned factors are closely linked in the translation process while they can vary or develop based on the requirements or competencies. Neubert proposes five interacting parameters which comprise translation competence as: language, textual, subject, cultural, and transfer.

i) The Holistic Model of PACTE Group

The research group called PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation), was established in 1997 with the aim of investigating the translation competence acquisition in written translation. The goal of the group was to unify the pedagogical criteria for translation training (translation competence acquisition) and define the professional translators' characteristics (translation competence).They studied translation as a communicative activity and viewed translation competence from two perspectives using both qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate data. The first perspective was the translation process which was investigated by collecting and analyzing data about the mental processes involved in translation and the abilities and competencies which were required in experimental studies. The second perspective involved translation product which was

investigated through the collection and analysis of data from an electronic corpus which included the translated texts (PACTE, 2003). Their model was introduced in 1998 which made a distinction between competence as the underlying knowledge system and performance as the act of translation. Thus, they concluded that translation competence and bilingual competence are qualitatively distinct as bilingual competence is only one of the several components that constitute translation (PACTE, 2003).

Translation competence was considered as expert knowledge which was called procedural knowledge while some strategies are involved and most of the processes are automatic. Consequently, based on the findings of the empirical studies two other components were added which were strategic and the psycho-physiological competences. PACTE also categorized the translation competence sub-competences as follows:

Bilingual sub-competence

This competence is the procedural knowledge needed for communication in the two languages. It also embraces interference control interchanging between the two languages. The components are Pragmatic knowledge, Socio-linguistic knowledge, Textual knowledge, and Grammatical-lexical knowledge.

Extra-linguistic sub-competence:

This competence is mainly implicit and explicit declarative knowledge about special areas and the world. It is comprised of bicultural knowledge, encyclopedic knowledge, and subject knowledge.

Knowledge about translation sub-competence:

This competence is mainly implicit and explicit declarative knowledge about the profession of translation and its aspects. It includes the knowledge of translation functions such as translation unit types, required processes, methods or procedures, as well as problems. The other type of knowledge relates to the practice of professional translation such as the knowledge of translation market for example clients, briefs, audiences, etc.

Instrumental sub-competence:

As a type of procedural knowledge it relates to the use of documentation sources and the information and communication technologies used for translation such as dictionaries, encyclopaedias, style books, parallel texts, electronic corpora, searchers, etc. (p. 52).

Strategic sub-competence:

As a type of procedural knowledge this type guarantees the effectiveness of translation process and solves the encountered problems. This competence is the one which establishes the inter-relations among other competences and controls the translation process.

Psycho-physiological competence:

This competence is a mixture of cognitive and attitudinal components types and psycho-motor mechanisms.

In PACTE's model, the transfer sub-competence as the dominant competence is defined as the capacity of completing the transfer process which starts from the source text and ends to the target text. It entails understanding source text and "re-express" the same idea in the target text (PACTE, 2000). According to this model, any variation in translation competence may take place based on such features like directionality, specialization, language combinations, and experiences of the translator.

j) Gopferich's Model of Translation Competence Acquisition

Representing an ideal process for translation, Gopferich's 2007 translation competence acquisition model is based on PACTE group and Honig's model. In this model language competence is considered as a subcomponent of the translation competence in line with the PACTE model which considers the use of particular learning strategies in the translation acquisition process while the restructuring of knowledge is taking place. Gopferich's model is mainly developed to study the acquisition of translation competence. Conducting a three-year longitudinal study, Gopferich believes that it is possible to study the students' psychological disposition (p. 22). Furthermore, this model adds the competence called "translation routine activation" which is a matching competence founded on transcoding. This competence permits a translator for capturing creativity in translator competence (p. 21). k) Campbell's Model

Campbell (1998) investigated translation process from L1 into L2 to construct a translation competence model and introduced two completely different competences for translation competence including:

• Disposition which covers translators' attitude and psychological qualities such as risk-taking or persistency

• Proficiency which includes such bilingual skills as lexical coding, lexical transfer, or global target language competence

The disposition component refers to translation stylistics and justifies variety in translators' translating such as the creativity element. On the other hand, proficiency refers to the static language knowledge. A later modification of his model was also provided by him in 1998 which included the following competences in 1998 which contains the following competences:

• Target language textual competence, as a substitute for proficiency, which is classified as substandard, pre-textual and textual.

• Monitoring competence, added later as a new component, is the awareness degree for the quality of editing strategies and input.

• Disposition, is the translator's behaviour along two dimensions of risk-taking and persistence. While Campbell primarily states that these components are not interdependent, the performance of the

participants in his study indicated the existence of an ideal combination of the model's components. Thus, he concludes that successful translation involves the possession of high textual competence by the translator who is a risk-taker and the same time persistent.

Campbell's model is valuable due to its originality driven from empirical research as a special model of L1 into L2 translation. Furthermore, including the "disposition" item is exclusive to this model which is according to the recent cognitive competence models.

2. Conclusion Remarks

Having reviewed the several models proposed by translation scholars it is implied that the newer models are more comprehensive. Unlike the primary models, the modern models focus on the experimental and empirical results of studies conducted on the translation process rather than basing their conclusions on the theoretical models of linguistics. Moreover, they frame the competences while investigating the target situation level in which the translation business is conducted. Thus, having focused on the practice of translation, the modern views are process and cognitive-oriented.


Beeby, A. (1996). Teaching translation from Spanish to English. Ottawa: Ottawa University Press. Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and translating. London: Longman.

Boon, J. & van der Klink, M. (2002). Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. proceedings of academy of human resource development

annual conference,Vol.1, (pp. 327-334). Honolulu. Gonzalez, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning educational structures in Europe. Inform final. Fase 1, Universidades de Deusto i Groningen. Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. London and New York: Longman.

Gopferich, S. (2007). Research project TransComp: The development of translation competence. Retrieved from Hansen, G. (1997). Success in Translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 5(2), 201- 210. Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1997). The translator as communicator. London & New York: Routledge.

Honig, H, G. 1991. Holmes' mapping theory and the landscape of mental translation processes. In K. van Leuven-Zwart, & T. Naajkens, (Eds.), Translation studies: The state of the art (pp. 77-89). Proceedings from the First James S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi

Hurtado Albir, A. (2007). Competence-based curriculum design for training translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 163-195.

Kelly, D. (2005). A handbook for translator trainers. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Kiraly, D. C. (1995). Pathways to translation: pedagogy and process: Kent State University Press.

Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In J. House et al. (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication; discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 263-276). Narr.

Lasnier, F. (2000). Reussir la formation par competences. Montreal: Guerin.

Lesznyák , M. (2007). Conceptualizing translation competence. Across languages and cultures, 8 (2), 167-194.

Lowe, P. (1987). Revising the ACTFL/ETS scales for a new purpose: Rating skill in translating. In M.G. Rose (ed.), Translation excellence:

Assessment, achievement, maintenance (pp. 53-61). American Translators Association Series, vol. 1. New York: SUNY Binghamton Press. Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis: Rodopi.

Norris, N. (1991). The trouble with competence. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(3), 1-11.

Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in language, in languages, and in translation. In C. Schaffner, and B.Adab, Developing translation competence

(pp. 3-18). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

PACTE (2000). Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems in a research project. In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger & M. Presas (eds.), Investigating translation (pp. 99-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

PACTE (2003). Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves (ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

PACTE (2005). Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta: Translator's Journal, 50 (2), 609-619.

Pym, A. (1993). On the market as a factor in the training of translators. Koine. Quaderni di ricerca e didattica sulla traduzione e l'interpretazione, 109-121.

Pym, A. (2003). Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. Defense oof a Minimalist Approach, Meta, 48(4), 481-497.

Schneckenberg, D. & Wildt, J. (2006). Understanding the concept of competence for academic staff. In I. Mac Labhrainn et al. (Eds.), The challenge of ecompetence in academic staff development (pp. 26-43). Galway: CELT.

Shreve, M. (1997). Cognition and evolution of translation competence. In H. Danks (eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 120-136).

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In S. Rychen, & H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competences (pp. 45-65). Seattle: Hogrefe ans Huber Publishers.

Wilss, W. (1976). Perspectives and limitations of a didactic framework for the teaching of translation. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation applications and research (pp. 117-137). New York: Gardner.

Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.