Explicating the implicit: an empirical investigation into pragmatic competence in translator training

Abstract

The present study is an investigation into the role of text-analysis training in developing the pragmatic competence of English–Arabic trainee translators, as represented by their inferential ability to interpret implied discourse relations in an English source text. Drawing on research into second language pragmatics acquisition, the study employs a think-aloud protocol (TAP) to monitor the participants’ translation process. Based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analyses, different patterns of inferential processing are identified as regards the interpretation of discourse relations. The results both demonstrate the problematic nature of this aspect of translation competence and highlight the role of classroom instruction in the development of trainee translators’ pragmatic abilities. A cross-disciplinary investigation, this study brings an empirical angle to a fledgling area of research, concerned with the application of second language acquisition concepts to translator training.

Keywords:

• English–Arabic translation
• discourse markers
• text analysis
• pragmatic competence
• empirical classroom research

Notes

1. Examples of pragmatic universals include sociopragmatic notions such as the knowledge that conversations follow a definite turn-taking pattern, that communicative actions vary according to social power and psychological distance, that pragmatic intentions are often indirectly conveyed and that they can be recovered by making use of contextual information (Kasper 1997).

2. In contrast with implicit teaching methods where a given pragmatic feature is embedded in contexts of use and reinforced through practical activities.

3. Alternative translation competence models view transfer competence as a combination of all other sub-competencies (bilingual, extra-linguistic, knowledge about translation, instrumental and strategic) (PACTE 2009).

4. DMs are also referred to in the literature as ‘pragmatic markers’ (Fraser 1996), ‘discourse connectives’ (Blakemore 1992) and ‘discourse particles’ (Fischer 2006). Examples include ‘after all, again, all in all, all the same, alright, also, alternatively, although’ (Fraser 1990, 388).

5. Focusing on Chinese–English translation, Dong and Lan (2010) posit the appropriate use of what they refer to as ‘cohesion devices’ as indicative of an advanced level of translator competence.

6. Alves and Gonçalves (2013) argue that procedurally encoded information places greater processing demands on translators, compared to conceptually encoded information.

7. Fa, an Arabic DM which has no exact equivalent in English, is commonly used to introduce a cause that accounts for what is presented in a preceding statement (Saeed and Fareh 2006). In the interest of accuracy, fa is presented here without translation.

8. This problem is not exclusive to the English–Arabic language pair. However, given the distinctive discrepancy in DM use between these two languages, using Arabic in this type of research may highlight deficiencies in pragmatic awareness better than closer language pairs.