Asquerino, Laura

Galán-Mañas, Anabel

Hurtado Albir, Amparo

Kuznik, Anna

Olalla-Soler, Christian

Rodríguez-Inés, Patricia

Romero, Lupe

English

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB

Speakers: Amparo Hurtado Albir, Patricia Rodríguez-InésTowards a European frameworkof translation competence levels. Results of the PACTE group’s NACT ProjectResearch project (2015-2018):“Establishing Competence Levels in the Acquisition of Translation Competence (Written Translation)”Spain's Ministry of the Economy and Competitiveness (FFI2013-42522-P)Amparo Hurtado Albir (principal investigator)Research team (in alphabetical order):Laura Asquerino, Anabel Galán-Mañas, Anna Kuznik, Christian Olalla-Soler, Patricia Rodríguez-Inés, Lupe RomeroOBJECTIVETo describe performance levels in translation competence acquisitionTo advance towards developing a common European framework ofreference for use in translator training and professional translationDefinition of descriptor scales with performance levels(progression) written translationprofessional translationRESEARCH STAGESStage 1 (2015 - 2017): Production of a first proposal of leveldescriptors. Participants: 23 European translator training centres from 15 countries.Stage 2 (2017 - 2018): Verification of proposed level descriptors (based on judgement of experts from the academic and professional translation fields, by means of a questionnaire). Stage 3 (2018): Analysis of questionnaire results and production of a second/reviewed proposal.DOCUMENT CONTAINING LEVEL DESCRIPTORSPACTE (2017) Establishing competence levels in translation. Proposal 1 (revised) [19/6/2017] It includes a 3-level scale and 5 descriptive categoriesFIRST PROPOSAL (2017)TRANSLATION LEVELS PROPOSED- Translation level C: Competences corresponding to eachprofessional profile (described only in general terms)- Translation level B: Basic specialized translation competences- Translation level A: Basic translation competencesFIRST PROPOSAL (2017)DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES• Language competence• Cultural, world knowledge and thematic competence• Instrumental competence• Translation service provision competence• Translation problem solving competenceIt also includes: A Global scale Three Annexes with examples of: - text genres liable to be translated at each level- cultural and world knowledge- technological tools and functionsFIRST PROPOSAL (2017)Language comp.Cultural, world knowledge and thematic comp.Instrumental comp.Translationserviceprovisioncomp.Translationproblemsolving comp.Translation C levelTranslation B2 levelTranslation B1 levelTranslation A2 levelTranslation A1 levelFIRST PROPOSAL (2017)DESCRIPTORS 10 descriptors for language competence 11 descriptors for cultural competence, world knowledge and thematic competence 18 descriptors for instrumental competence 20 descriptors for translation service provision competence 26 descriptors for translation problem solving competenceFIRST PROPOSAL (2017)FIRST PROPOSAL EVALUATION: EXPERT JUDGEMENTQuestionnaire (Nov 2017 - Jan 2018)PART I: Questions about the characteristics of the proposal- relevance of the categories and levels proposed, and their labels- convenience of using text genres and their progression- label and content of level CConcluding remarks on Part I PART II: Evaluation of the proposed descriptors for each competence- suitability of each descriptor- its clarity- its adequacy to the levelPlus evaluation of the 3 annexesPART III: Global scale- suitability of each descriptor- its clarity- its adequacy to the levelFinal comments on the questionnaireFIRST PROPOSAL EVALUATION: EXPERT JUDGEMENTQuestionnaire included closed-ended and open-ended questions(quantitative and qualitative data).Proposal has been evaluated by 99 academic and professional translationexperts from 16 countries:- 65 translation teachers- representatives of 11 associations of professional translators- 23 professional translatorsMAIN RESULTS OF THE EVALUATIONPROPOSED LEVELSYes (%)Are they relevant?90,9Is there any category you would add? 13,1Is there any category you would omit? 22,2Are the namesappropriate? 81,8TEXTS LIABLE TO BE TRANSLATED (ANNEX 1)YES (%)Do you think using text genres to define levels is useful? 72,7Do you think this progression is right?87,5Do you think a greater distinction between the levels could be achieved by adding “simple” and “complex”? 58,3Should other areas of genres be added?26,4Do you think the proposed progression of genres is suitable for all the language combinations you work with?95,8Yes (%)Are they relevant?98,0Is there any category you would add? 18,2Is there any category you would omit? 11,1Are the namesappropriate? 76,8DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES EMPLOYEDCOMPETENCE DESCRIPTORSMean of affirmative answers (in %) Global meanLanguage comp.Cultural, worldknowledge and thematic comp.Instru-mental comp.Serviceprovisioncomp.Problemsolvingcomp.Do you think the descriptor is suitable for describing this competence?82,9 89,3 91,6 93,9 93,2 90,2Do you think the descriptor is clearly worded? 86,1 82,1 91,4 91,6 90,8 88,4Do you think the descriptor is appropriate to this level?89 94 95,7 92,1 94,2 93,0Sí (%)Do you think the annex of examplesof cultural and world knowledge is suitable?78,8Is any type of knowledge vital to being able to translate missing at anylevel?13,1EXAMPLES OF CULTURAL AND WORLD KNOWLEDGE (ANNEX 2)EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS AND FUNCTIONS (ANNEX 3)Sí (%)Do you think the annex of examplesof technological tools and functionsis suitable?82,8Is any type of tool vital to being ableto translate missing at any level? 15,2GLOBAL SCALEMean of affirmative answers (in %) Global meanTC TB2 TB1 TA2 TA1Do you think the descriptor defines this level well?93,2 95,4 90,4 93,3 91,2 92,7Do you think the descriptor is clearly worded? 90,2 91,1 89,2 91,6 89,9 90,4Do you think the descriptor is appropriate to this level?97,5 96,6 94,5 95,3 92,9 95,4NACT SECOND PROPOSALMAIN CHANGES MADEMAIN CHANGES MADE A major effort has been made to clarify all the concepts involved An in-depth review of terminology has been carried out to standardizethe use of terms and the concepts The descriptors’ wording has been thoroughly revised to make it clearerMAIN CHANGES MADETranslation level names and content1. Change in the name of translation level B (“generalist translator” in the 2017 proposal) → “non-specialist translator”2. Limitation to written translation → - all references to modalities of translation other than purely written translation (i.e. to audiovisual translation, accessibility and localization) have been removed from level C (Annex 1)- the tasks of revision and post-editing have also been removed3. Revision of the areas of professional specialization in translation → the “non-literary publishing” (level B) and “literary” (level C) areas of professional specialization have both been renamed “humanistic”MAIN CHANGES MADEUse of texts to distinguish between levels1. Distinction between the general difficulty of text genres and the specific difficulty of texts2. Definition of the difficulty of texts3. Definition of specialized, semi-specialized and non-specialized texts4. Distinction between simple and complex semi-specialized texts5. Revision of the annex of examples of text genres liable to be translatedMAIN CHANGES MADECompetence namesCultural, world knowledge and thematic competence → “extralinguistic competence”Translation service provision competence →“service provision competence” MAIN CHANGES MADECompetences- Described in more detail- Specific characteristics, more clear- Concepts pertaining to each competence, better defined- Progression, modified in some cases- Descriptors, modified:• Reworded to enhance clarity• Merged when related• Eliminated when implicit in other competences• Added new onesMAIN CHANGES MADEGlobal scale- Including a global descriptor for each competence, one clearly differentfrom the other descriptors. The wording of each such descriptorincorporates the changes made when each competence was revised- Putting the descriptors related to translation problem solving competence first in each list, as a means of immediately specifying the translation problems a person must be capable of solving at each levelMAIN CHANGES MADEAnnexesEach of the three Annex has been modified to some degree:- Annex 1: Examples of text genres liable to be translated- Annex 2: Examples of cultural and world knowledge- Annex 3: Examples of documentation resources and technologicalresourcesMAIN CHANGES MADEInclusion of a glossaryIt has 38 entries, in which 75 concepts are defined, organized into 7sections:- General concepts- Concepts related to :• establishing text levels• language competence• extralinguistic competence• instrumental competence• service provision competence• translation problem solving competenceNACT SECOND PROPOSALMAIN CHARACTERISTICSMAIN CHARACTERISTICS(1) It focuses on written translation(2) It refers to professional written translation(3) It is intended to be of use to both the academic and professionalarenas(4) It is independent of language combinations, directionality, stages of education (degree, master’s degree) and professional contexts (5) The progression established in each descriptive category is accumulativeMAIN CHARACTERISTICS(6) As the descriptors refer to competences, they describe capabilities to act. They are all therefore formulated in terms of capability to act (can do) and entail the application of knowledge(7) An effort has been made to word the level descriptors clearly, straightforwardly and in such a way as to ensure they are easily observable, to facilitate their use in different academic and professional contexts and by all potential users of the scales (translation students and lecturers, translators and employers) → there are no indicators of a more cognitive nature, which are more difficult to observe. (8) All the descriptive categories are interrelatedMAIN CHARACTERISTICS(9) The proposal does not describe the different areas of professional specialization in translation corresponding to level C, which is only described in general terms(10) The proposal does not include transversal sub-competences (11) The proposal does not specify degrees of translation quality for each level(12) The proposal does not describe learning outcomes. Likewise, it does not establish or describe learning tasks suited to each level MAIN CHARACTERISTICSPossible differences in level and in the relative importance of competencesThe level at which a person performs in translation may differ on the basis of:- Each competence- Language combination- Directionality- Area of professional specialization in translationAdditionally, the relative importance of competences can differ depending on the area of professional specialization in translation involved NACT project: a first step Need to seek wider consensusTo do:▪ Validate our proposal on a large scale▪ Describe Translation C level▪ Create evaluation instruments for every levelEFFORT project (Towards a European Framework of Reference for Translation): https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects/eplus-project-details/#project/2020-1-ES01-KA203-082579EACT project (Evaluation in the Acquisition of Translation Competence): https://pagines.uab.cat/eact/enThanks!  http://grupsderecerca.uab.cat/pacte/es/proyectonacthttps://www.facebook.com/didtrad.pacte- PACTE. 2018. “Competence levels in translation: working towards a European framework”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12(2): 111-131.- PACTE. 2019. “Establecimiento de niveles de competencias en traducción. Primeros resultados del proyecto NACT”. Onomázein 43: 1-25.- Hurtado Albir, A.; Rodríguez-Inés, P. (eds.) Submitted. Hacia un marco europeo de niveles de competencias en traducción. El proyecto NACT del grupo PACTE. MonTI.

Towards a European framework of translation competence levels. Results of the PACTE group's NACT Project

https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/presentacions/2021/264768/NACT_IATIS_2021_140921.pdf

Towards a European framework of translation competence levels. Results of the PACTE group's NACT Project

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB