https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-2813
![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Multi-componential models of translation competence are widely used in translator training as a yardstick for curricular and syllabus design. These models must be adapted to reflect professional trends, such as the impact of artificial intelligence, and machine translation in particular, on working methods. This paper describes the process of adapting a pioneering model of legal translation competence to the broader scope of institutional translation in light of recent trends, as verified by triangulating information from multiple interviews, analyses of translation volumes and job descriptors and other professional inputs. The resulting revised descriptor was validated through a survey of 474 translation professionals from 24 international organisations of diverse sizes and domain specialisations. The suitability of the descriptor was corroborated across the board, but variations were found in perceptions of the relevance of sub-competences to ensure translation quality. Profiles with a stronger specialisation in legal translation or more experience in institutional translation showed higher awareness of the relevance of all the sub-competences, especially the core language, strategic and thematic competences, and even more so for translating texts of a legal or administrative nature. The implications of these findings for training purposes in particular are discussed.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Diego Guzmán for his valuable assistance with data processing, as well as all institutional informants for their kind cooperation in the framework of the LETRINT project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. For the sake of simplicity, ‘sub-competence’ and ‘competence’ will be used interchangeably to refer to the components of translator ‘competence’ as a ‘macro-competence’. Depending on the context or the approach, ‘translation competence’ may thus refer to this macrocompetence or to a core component or ‘sub-competence’ of overall translator competence.
2. ‘Legal Translation in International Institutional Settings: Scope, Strategies and Quality Markers’, led by the author (https://transius.unige.ch/letrint/).
3. This breakdown of competences differs from that of ISO 17100:2015 (Translation services – Requirements for translation services) in that the latter is not domain-specific and refers to ‘cultural competence’ and ‘domain competence’ more broadly (ISO Citation2015, 6).
4. Including 208 staff from international organisations and 129 from five national administrations in Europe, as opposed to over 1000 staff in the case of Lafeber (Citation2022).
5. ‘Acquire, develop and use thematic and domain-specific knowledge relevant to translation needs (mastering systems of concepts, methods of reasoning, presentation standards, terminology and phraseology, specialised sources etc.)’ (EMT Citation2017 and Citation2022, 7).
6. Personal correspondence and exchanges as part of discussions to update the framework within an EMT working group on translation competence in 2017 and 2022.
7. According to Popiołek (Citation2020, 21), ‘the EMT Citation2009 model was more structured and had a clearer distinction between competences which are frequently found in learning outcomes’. She criticises the fact that the 2017 framework amalgamates strategic, methodological and thematic sub-competences ‘to create a “super” translation competence, which does not allow for more detailed analysis and granularity’ (Popiołek Citation2020, 22). Esfandiari et al. (Citation2019) used the 2009 model in their survey of 456 freelance translators with a minimum of five years of professional experience. They found that ‘language competence’, ‘thematic competence’ and ‘intercultural competence’ were considered the most needed for professional practice, followed by ‘translation service provision competence’, ‘information mining competence’ and ‘technological competence’.
8. On revision and post-editing competences, see e.g. Koponen, Mossop, and Robert Citation2021; Rico and Torrejón Citation2012; Robert, Remael, and Ureel Citation2017.
9. For more information, see the results of the European Strategic Partnership EFFORT (‘European Framework for Translation’): https://www.effortproject.eu/.