بایگانی شهریور ۱۳۹۲

مقالات مجله ترجمه

Translation Studies at a Crossroads

Educating translators in minor language communities—a key element in the language planning of modern Norwegian

by Maj-Britt Holljen

Introduction

E ven though Norway did not actually enter the European Union following the referendum in 1994, the consequences of extended international communication has not failed to affect the institutions offering education in the field of translation and interpretation. In November 1997 the first get-together was staged between the actors on this scene, and in February 1998 we met again in an attempt to coordinate the existing offers in the field of translation and interpretation studies. The University of Oslo concentrates on literary and general translation, Agder College on general and LSP (Language for Special Purposes) translation, and the two remaining institutions are concerned with foreign languages for special purposes mainly with a view to translation. What prompted the first meeting in November, was among other reasons, the EU requirement of a three-year education to support the national certificate for state-authorized translators. Up till now this has not been a requirement in Norway. The certificate examination is being conducted at the Norwegian School of Business, and virtually anyone has had the right to sit for this exam. Agder College, however, has been giving a three-year course since the late 1970s, but this course has not led directly up to the state authorization. The content of the vocational course at Agder is targeted at students who intend to become LSP translators. Candidates for the state authorization certificate exam in Bergen may on the other hand choose any relevant course on an academic level to qualify for the EU requirement, as it has now been defined in Norwegian terms.

The education of translators must be adapted to the needs of the community at any given time. We are at a crossroads in Europe as regards translation and interpretation. The growth of internationalisation in general and the European Union in particular has spurred linguistic awareness in the minor national language communities of the western hemisphere, and the underlying motivation is the struggle for economic growth. Large EU-projects have recently been launched to meet the problems of multilingualism: the Multi Lingual Information Society project (MLIS), which includes the POS ¹ project aiming to establish the basis for a cross-European harmonisation of translator training standards. Globalisation of communications, economies and tenders leads us towards a monolingual society. All minor language communities find themselves dependent on the English language, in particular on the terminological level. In Scandinavia the expression ‘a language of prey’ has been used about the role of English, focusing on the imperialistic functions of the language on the global scale. By way of illustration of the reality behind such an expression, we may note that between 160,000 and 170,000 Norwegian students at the basic level of their university education have American English textbooks to prepare them for their professional life as economists, psychologists, etc. in Norway. For most non-English speaking nations, like Norway, the solution to this dilemma of internationalisation has been to choose a certain functional division linguistically speaking: using English as an international communication language within advanced research and development contexts, in other words in LSP environments, and using the national language as a ‘general language’ with a vocabulary covering the need for communication in other areas of life. The notion of choice in this context is not wholly unproblematic, though. Alistair Pennycook is problematizing this attitude to English as an international language when he asserts that the ‘wordliness of English’ entails cultural and political implications. If we look at the development of English as an international language from a diachronic point of departure, the changes in world policies during the last decades have had implications for the nature of the language. “The nature of English has shifted in accordance with other global changes, and has moved from a rhetoric of colonial expansion, through a rhetoric of development aid to a rhetoric of the international free market,” says Pennycook. ² It is crucial to fight the assumption that individuals and countries are somehow free of economic, political and ideological constraints when they apparently freely opt for English as their language of international communication. Within the framework of the EU it is maintained that the Community should support the creation of linguistic tools that cover all EU languages, for cultural, democratic, scientific as well as economic reasons. “Smaller linguistic areas in Europe suffer harmful consequences of a fast and exclusively market-driven development of language technology, both in economic and research terms. Some functions of these smaller languages—for example the scientific aspect—are doomed to disappear if not supported.” ³
   The scientific aspect of any language is dependent on the vocabulary of that language. The possibility must be retained for people to be able to express themselves in any given field in their mother tongue, no matter on which level of abstraction. Achieving this goal implies coining new terms for new concepts, which are constantly being developed within science and technology. The principal responsibility of translators coming from minor language communities in the world is therefore fundamentally one of practising language planning in relation to their mother tongue into which they normally translate. Having practised as a translator for a number of years and now teaching translation of LSP at an advanced level, I strongly feel the need for preparing the future LSP translators for the linguistic responsibility inherent in their professional ethical code. My centre of interest in this respect is computer terminology in a Norwegian context. This field illustrates in a brilliant manner the implications of globalisation and language pressure. The language of computing is in transition from being a language of experts to becoming a language for everyone. The implications are manifold, and there are several ways of approaching this problem. Mine is at the outset a sociolinguistic one, taking as my starting point the social function of the language on the part of its users. Knowing that Norway is today one of the countries of the world where the number of computers per inhabitant is among the largest, and given the prestige which information technology holds within modern society, it is no wonder that computer terminology bears a high prestige as a sociolinguistic variant and as such holds a strong position as lender of loan words to the Norwegian language. I am currently conducting a survey trying to map the extent to which English computer terminology terms are entering the everyday language of Norwegians, and also to find out who are the principal vehicles of this knowledge transfer process. In this context, however, I shall be referring to LSP as a general concept, which may be a dangerous task to undertake lightly, as I shall briefly comment on in the following.
   Limiting the scope of this article to treating ‘language for special purposes’—LSP—entails the scientific discussion of where to draw the line between general vocabulary (GL) and LSP in a sufficiently precise manner. For practical purposes the term LSP is defined rather loosely in an everyday context as the language used in science, business and industry. No LSP can do without a huge number of words and expressions from the GL, however, such as prepositions, personal pronouns, etc. So, what distinguishes LSP from the GL? LSP research has been operating with various models and methods to define the concept and distinguish it from the GL. Sager, Dungworth and McDonald assert in the introduction to their discussion ⁴ that they deliberately avoid the notions of English for general purposes (EGP) and English for special purposes (ESP), and instead speak of special languages as opposed to general language, even though they fully realise that both concepts yet have to be closely defined.
   In all attempts at defining the concepts, however, the conclusion seems to be that which partly distinguishes LSP from GL is the presence of a particular terminology. Terminology is in other words the nucleus of LSP: “the lexicon is the only aspect in common for LSP as a category: the presence of terminology, particular words and expressions alien to the general language.” ⁵ And terminology is at the heart of the cooperation under the umbrella of NORDTERM ⁶—when Nordic countries agree to work at making the Nordic languages suitable tools for modern technology. ⁷Terminology is likewise the field where language planning has proved itself successful in the past with regards to standardisation, particularly in the LSP fields of medicine, aviation and the petroleum industry.

Language planning within LSP in Norway today—a quick survey
The distinction between the English LSP of international communication and the Norwegian LSP of both national and international communication is not always easy to establish. Loan words have always been a vital part of the development of Norwegian, as of most other minor language communities. The power and prestige of the lending language are always strong factors of pressure with regards to terminology development within minor language communities. The sociolinguistic motivations and implications of the treatment of loan words and the coining of new terms have traditionally been left to the principal language planners of LSP in Norway: the Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology (NCTT). The council is a semi-governmental research group cooperating with the various professional communities of business and industry, and its objective is to work for clarity, unambiguity and conformity in an LSP which is suited to Norwegian conditions. It has specialised in terminology and multilingualism and publishes a newsletter three times a year along with its own database as a CD-ROM and as printed pamphlets. There is also the more general Norwegian Language Council which to a limited extent deals with LSP, especially in the field of computer terminology, where they have published a dictionary of Norwegian computer terms; the 6th revised edition appeared in 1996. On the Scandinavian or Nordic level there are several terminological institutions working to establish a common terminology practice in all the Nordic countries, with regards to practical terminology development work as well as to research in the field of terminology processing. ⁸ Under the Swedish terminology institution TNC has been established “Svenska datatermgruppen” (the Swedish computer terminology group): a cooperative unit working to establish common practice with respect to computer terms in circulation. Its members include linguists, computing professionals, terminologists, and language historians. The objective of the cooperation is a practical one: to achieve a standardized computer terminology in Sweden to be implemented by all users! The most crucial consideration in this process, however, is time. The earlier in the terminology development process this group takes up a term for discussion, the more probable is the implementation of the term as a standard among the various producers and end users.

The Language Planning Aspect of the Education of Translators

Within the framework of translator education in Norway, the language planning aspect has never been regarded as a central consideration. The objective of the existing education in this field is to provide vocational training targeted at translation/language processing jobs within the private and the public sector of business and industry.
Let us cast a quick glance at what is actually taught to translation students in Norway at the four university-level institutions involved in such programmes:

The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration—NHH

One-year commercial language courses in English, French and German including LSP translation and a component of methodology with respect to LSP, terminology, and IOD (information and documentation).⁹

Østfold College

commercial studies /English
commercial studies /French/German /international trade
(post-graduate)course /commercial English and European Studies
MA-equivalent studies /commercial German LSP
there is also a translatology programme, focusing on the methodology of translation.¹⁰

University of Oslo

MA-equivalent studies in theoretical translatology with principal focus on GL;
literary translation as an optional topic for MA-equivalent studies in English
interpretation, qualifying course for authorization as an interpreter.¹¹

Agder College: 3-year programme including the following components

Norwegian grammar and usage; translatology (2 years)
Practical LSP translation foreign language ¹² ®Norwegian (2 years)
Practical LSP translation Norwegian ®foreign language (2 years)
Practical GL translation foreign language ®Norwegian (2 years)
Practical GL translation Norwegian ®foreign language (2 years)
Foreign language grammar and usage; contrastive analysis (2 years)
Basic user skills in computer science for language students (one term)
Economics (one term)
Accounting (one term)
EU institutions and policies (one term)
Law for LSP translators (one term)
One year of studies abroad at university level in a native speaking area.
A post-graduate two-semester programme will be implemented from 1999/2000, enlarging the theoretical component of the current programme.¹³

LSP is the object of study in the better part of these study programmes. At Agder College the approach to translation is mainly a practical one, although the theoretical translatology aspect is inherent in the Norwegian course component. This practical approach has traditionally entailed the use of dictionaries and term collections of various kinds, and thus the students’ relation to the work of Norwegian lexicographers has been limited to the results of the lexicographical work published. The study programme at Agder also includes grammar and usage of the chosen language pair, and the theoretical aspects have been concerned with translatology and translation theories. Terminology has always been the underlying centre of interest, as the basic prerequisite of all LSP translation, but it has not been regarded as a separate subject set aside from the translation process. The coining of new unauthorised terms has even been regarded as one of the cardinal sins of LSP translators!

۰ نظر
۰ ۰

سمانه

Example question:	Write an essay discussing the three types of government in Canada.
Introduction:	Give background information about government in Canada.
Supporting paragraphs:	1. Define and describe federal government.
	2. Define and describe provincial governments.
	3. Define and describe municipal governments.
Summary paragraph:	Summarize government in Canada.

k

k

مسیر زندگی من

Health

کارهایی که میشه انجام داد

Money

Knowledge, Skills, Expertise

Languages

تافل بین الملل

ارشد

مقدماتی

Speaking

Writting

زبان‌شناسی

اصول و مبانی نظری ترجمه

واژه شناسی

بررسی مقابله‌ای ساخت جمله

مهارت در ترجمه

Networking

Creativity

۴ مطلب در شهریور ۱۳۹۲ ثبت شده است

آنچه باید در صحبت توجه داشت

مقالات مجله ترجمه

Translation Studies at a Crossroads

حروف اضافه در زبان فارسی

مقاله نویسی

Writing Essays

Classification Essay