Directionality in translation and revision teaching: a case study of an A–B teacher working with B–A students

ABSTRACT

Directionality has seldom been discussed with regard to the profiles of translation teachers. At German universities, the target language is usually the teacher’s A language. By contrast, in countries whose languages are less widely spoken, it is more common for teachers to work into their B language along with their students. However, A–B teachers educating B–A students are, to my knowledge, very rare except in mixed groups where exchange students from the target culture are present. In this article, I shall report on two experimental translation and revision courses I have recently taught, where the target language was my B language but my students’ A language. I shall begin by setting out the assumptions about translation teaching/learning on which my experiment was based, and proceed to discuss the workings of this approach from both my own and my students’ perspectives. Methodologically, I shall draw on a first-person action inquiry framework with second-person triangulations. Action inquiry, as developed by William R. Torbert, includes a model for accessing the various aspects of a first-person perspective, which will enable me to analyse the experiential consonance and dissonance that characterised my perception of the two courses.

KEYWORDS:

• Directionality
• translation teaching
• facilitation
• action inquiry
• teacher’s emotions

Disclosure statement

No financial interest or benefit has arisen or is anticipated to arise from this research.

Notes

1. The fact that FTSK has separate departments for native and non-native speakers of German is unusual both in Germany and internationally.

2. Torbert’s terminology is sometimes vague. His phrase sensed behavior and feeling covers what we experience from the inside: ‘behavior, skills, pattern of activity, deeds, as sensed in the process of enactment’ (Torbert et al. 2004, 22). In speaking of feelings, I am following Heen (2005, 266): ‘I see feelings as a sense, which, like other senses, conveys information to the self. Our feeling tells us about our relationship to what is going on in the world and how we stand in relation to that’. Heen in turn takes her cue from Hochschild (1990, 118–119).

3. The translation and revision courses were both part of the mandatory MA module ‘Translation Competence 1’. The module comprises four translation-practice courses, each with 3 credit points and 90 minutes of scheduled contact time per week in a 14-week semester.

4. The extent of students’ exposure to translation is impossible to specify for the group as a whole because the structure of FTSK’s MA programme is very flexible. Students have considerable freedom to choose both the core elective modules/courses as such and the semester in which they will attend them. However, all students in my group had previously attended at least one translation course into English.

5. The survey moreover included three closed questions which concerned students’ general expectations for German – English and English – German translation courses, and for the role(s) of translation teachers. For reasons of space, I shall not discuss students’ answers here.

6. Question 3 concerned the workload, which seven students considered ‘just right’. Two said ‘I don’t know.’ Question 6 read: ‘How happy were you with the use the translators made of your revisions?’ Four students said they were ‘very happy’; four others were ‘moderately happy’, and one admitted that he or she ‘did not check the final versions’.

7. This is difficult to quantify without explaining at some length what I consider an error and what constitutes acceptance of a comment. However, to give an example, in a 591-word text, the two revisers overlooked seven errors that I would classify as very obvious (e.g. the use of the article in ‘the emission trading begins to be effective’ and of the singular form in ‘MCC researcher David Klenert and Linus Mattauch’). One of the revisers responded to my comments by saying: ‘There are no points listed that I disagree with’, and the other said: ‘The points brought up […] are all valid.’

8. The classification Could refers to the MoSCoW method of prioritisation.