The Formation of a Modern Translation Competence in Translator Training
The chapter examines the new paradigm in the formation of translation competence—pragmatic competence within the political discourse. It analyses the pragmatic effects caused by specific translation solution; studies the processes by which information is transferred via translation to another culture; identifies the linguistic means of parainforming and metainforming in translation process. Pragmatic competence formation is closely connected with the linguistic competence skills, in order to precisely identify and select such lexical units as euphemisms and dysphemisms. The outcomes imply that in translation the political events are mainly euphemized, while the subjects of politics are dysphemized. Euphemisms may perform concealing and manipulative functions through the cognitive mechanism of abstraction. Euphemisms act as a tool for political participants to hide scandals, disguise the truth, and to guide public opinion when discussing social issues or events. Dysphemisms perform pejorative and discreditable functions through the cognitive mechanism of highlighting. Pragmatic competence formation reveals double pragmatic orientation. On the one hand, it is realized within inner lingual communication. On the other hand, translation is a concrete speech act that is pragmatically oriented to a certain recipient. Present linguistic research aims to point out textually where and in what ways source and target language political texts were not equivalent. The new concept of translation competence, based on the pragmatics, can help orient translator training in times of rapid technological, globalization, political changes.
KeywordsPragmatics Pragmatics of translation Pragmatic competence Translation strategies
- Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1988). Euphemism, dysphemism cross-varietal synonymy. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 1–16. http://arrow.latrobe.edu. Accessed October 25, 2016.
- Baker, M. (2001). The pragmatics of cross-cultural contact and some false dichotomies in translation studies. In M. Olochan (Ed.), CTIS occasional papers (pp. 7–20). UMIST: Manchester: Centre for Translation & Intercultural Studies.Google Scholar
- Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict. A narrative account. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Baker, P., & Ellece, S. (2011). Key terms in discourse analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Bell, R. (1997). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Chilton, P. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2) (pp. 206–230). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (2002). Introduction: themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schaffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytical approaches to political discourse (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gackowski, Z. (2011). Informing for operations: Framework, model, and the first principles. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press.Google Scholar
- Holder, R. W. (2008). Dictionary of euphemisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kautz, U. (2002). Handbuch Didaktik des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens. München: Goethe Institut.Google Scholar
- Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/. Accessed October 25, 2016.
- Kiraly, D. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
- Lutz, W. (1996). The new doublespeak. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
- MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2008). MacMillan Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Targowski, A. (2016). Informing and civilization. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press.Google Scholar
- Van Dijk, T. (2002). Political discourse and ideology. In C. U. Lorda & M. Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs politic (pp. 15–34). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
- Van Dijk, T. (2004). Discourse, knowledge and ideology. In M. Pütz, J. Neff, & T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Communicating ideologies. Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse and social practice (pp. 5–38). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
- Wiezhbitska, F. (1988). Semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Language in Society, 14, 491–514.Google Scholar