Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marianne Lederer
Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle (ESIT), France
This title is a clear reference to Chesterman and Wagner’s book Can Theory Help Transla-
tors? (2002), since the question may well be asked for translation trainers and trainees.
embraces both, and the conclusions drawn should also apply, beyond the
restricted field of translation and interpretation, to discourse comprehension
and production in general. I shall therefore use the hypernym ‘translation’
throughout, on the understanding that the word also applies to interpreting.
Whenever the need arises to mention one or the other specifically, I shall
say so explicitly.
Second, as Nord rightly argues, “linguistic and cultural competence both
on the source and the target side … is the main prerequisite of translation
activity” (1992:47). It is also a prerequisite for learning translation. For
various reasons, a number of schools admit students just out of secondary
schooling and therefore have to concentrate on language enhancement and
subject area courses. Translation proper is taught later. My comments will
bear on the advanced part (Master’s level) of the training process.
the literary speech forms, in the wide sense, which ask and promise most”
(1975:252). The study of literary translation still attracts numerous translation
scholars; but today, much empirical and experimental work is being done on
pragmatic texts which, we now realize, also promise a lot. Pragmatic texts
generally also provide the basis for teaching translation. The need for translat-
ing general, economic, legal, technical and scientific texts is enormous today,
compared with the volume of literary translation. And since as a profession
the latter does not pay, it is not usually included in the curriculum of transla-
tion schools, or if it is taught at all, it only makes up a very marginal part of
the curriculum. The difference between these two types of text in the context
of teaching translation is reflected in the emphasis placed on one or the other
of the two stages of translation, namely understanding and reformulating.
What about teaching and teachers? The time of the ‘nature versus nurture’
controversy is long past. Today, it is widely recognized that translation not
only can but should be taught. Whether state-run or private, most training
institutions (which I henceforth call ‘schools’) aim to produce translators
who meet market needs and expectations and who can find jobs at the end
of their studies.
Just as the word translation may mean several things (the product or the
process, translation for language learning purposes or professional transla-
tion, i.e. translation proper) so do the words translation teacher. A number
of schools still hire language teachers to teach translation, naïvely assum-
ing that anyone who knows a foreign language can translate and also teach
translation. This is clearly problematic, because in order for someone to teach
procedural knowledge he or she has to master the know-how themselves. To
teach translation, one has to be an expert practitioner; practice provides an
understanding (not always a theory) of translation and its problems, as well as
an understanding of what is expected from translators in the work market.
Not all expert translators, however, are endowed with pedagogical skill,
which is one of the reasons why language teachers who have received training
in pedagogy feel they might be better than translators at teaching translation.
I would suggest, however, that it is easier and quicker for expert translators
to acquire some theoretical principles to help them teach a skill they master,
than for language teachers to become expert translators.
Very few translators are able to live off literary translation; most work as teachers or as
technical translators and do literary translation on the side.
18 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
not all translation teachers are aware of their own theoretical assumptions, a
few explicit theories compete in the field of translation training.
The question is well worth asking: in the late 90s, the European Commission’s
Joint Interpreting and Conference Service (JICS), wishing to improve the
quality, and therefore the training, of future interpreters in Europe, undertook
to set up a European Masters in Conference Interpreting. At their initiative,
the Heads of a few recognized schools met in Brussels and agreed on a set of
common rules (entry requirements, who should teach and what, the order in
which consecutive and simultaneous modes ought to be taught, final diploma
requirements, etc.). A course on theory was introduced in the curriculum.
However, the content of such a course could not be decided on. Each one
of the schools’ representatives had their own view as to what the content of
the course should be: for some it was merely ethics, for others linguistics, or
a given theory of translation. Still others were of the opinion that students
should be exposed to a number of translation theories, leaving it up to students
to decide which they felt was most helpful. However interesting (and useful
for advanced students in translation research), this view ignores the fact that
the aim of training courses is to avoid would-be translators having to learn
slowly by trial and error while looking for the most adequate strategies, and
to offer them shortcuts to competence. Leaving aside the question of whether
a course on theory is necessary or not in a translator training curriculum, I
would suggest that one theory – and only one, irrespective of which – should
be chosen as a basis for translation teaching in a given context.
Expert translators who devote some of their time to training future transla-
tors should be given enough training in translation theory and neighbouring
fields to qualify them for teaching the skill they master. Does this mean that
translation trainers need to become translation scholars?
Suppose a school chooses to focus its teaching of theory on the psycho-
logical aspects of the translating process. Cognitive psychology is far from
having developed a unified view of mental operations. Let us, for example,
look at two influential books, Comprehension – a Paradigm for Cognition
by Walter Kintsch, published in 1998, and The Way We Think – Conceptual
Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities by Fauconnier and Turner,
published in 2002. The models developed by the authors are based on
different assumptions, they explore different avenues; both contribute to
knowledge, but a good part of their theories is still at the speculative stage.
Should translation teachers be required to delve into the details of cognitive
Marianne Lederer 19
At ESIT, for instance, there are 11 full-time teachers/researchers compared to about a
hundred part-time translators/teachers who give one or two courses a week (translation
is taught in about thirty language combinations).
20 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
Darbelnet told me personally years ago that when he and Vinay started writing their
book, they did not intend it at all as a “methodology for translation”. The subtitle was
imposed upon them by the publisher, who clearly had good marketing sense!
Marianne Lederer 21
restores the source text “to, at least, part of its former influence, although not
necessarily as far as its surface qualities are concerned” (1992:41). The posi-
tive aspect of this theory is that text analysis is not restricted to intratextual
factors but extends to extratextual elements which are analyzed before read-
ing the text “since the situation normally precedes textual communication”
(ibid.:43). The translator compares the result of his or her analysis of the
original text “with the result of his analysis of the translation scopos. Compar-
ing both results, the translator is able to decide whether and in what respect
the source text ‘material’ has to be adapted to the target situation and what
procedures of adaptation will produce an adequate target text” (1997:45).
This theory has been and continues to be extensively applied in German
schools. Its novelty is that it situates translation at all stages not only within a
communicative framework but more precisely in the middle of market forces.
Students are made to realize from the start that translation is not done in a
vacuum, that its aim is to be of use to people who need it and who may have
their own requirements. Perhaps, however, the emphasis is being put too much
on these external factors (which are certainly an important element in the
strategies applied to translation, but one element only amongst others) and not
quite enough on the psychological stages of the translation process itself.
Information processing models have also been developed, though they
have been restricted to simultaneous interpretation and have involved “com-
plex multi-stage serial accounts” (Setton 1999:34). Some aspects are being
applied to training interpreters (see Moser 1978), but to my knowledge no
theory applicable to translation training in general has yet been developed.
The interpretive theory of translation is yet another theory “which [has]
been developed with an orientation toward translator training, and this is
still one of the main fields in which [it is] most useful”, if I may borrow
this sentence as applied by Nord (1997:39) to functionalist approaches. The
interpretive theory takes into account the general psychological processes of
the understanding and production of discourse and the function of both source
and target texts, and underscores the role played by translators in carrying
sense across language barriers. This, plus the methodology for succeeding
in the task, is what the interpretive theory tries to impart to trainees.
In fact, looking at the theories sketched above one is struck by the fact that
sense is never mentioned. It is absent in the early linguistic theories which are
concerned with finding fixed correspondences for words or set expressions
across languages. Sense may not be totally absent but it is largely implicit in
the textlinguistic theory which compares rhetorical structures and pragmatic
aspects of text development in two languages. It is also, at least nominally,
difficult to discern in functionalist theories, which focus more on external
factors than on what is meant by the authors of texts.
Since deconstructionism, it is fashionable to question the possibility of
establishing the sense of a text with any degree of certainty. This view is the
22 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
For a discussion of the treatment of ‘sense’ in the interpretive theory of translation, see
Lederer (2005).
What Relevance Theory calls “cognitive environment”, see Gutt (1991:96).
I have also had to leave aside the question of a course on theory in translator training,
and whether a school should have a unified theory or should leave each trainer free to
teach on the basis of his or her own theoretical principles.
For more information on the origins and development of the theory, see Israël and
Lederer (2005).
Marianne Lederer 23
in its own right. It was considered part of applied linguistics. Our trainers
examined the linguistics of the time, but they found that it offered them little
help. Despite the convictions of the people they were working for (“don’t try
to understand” meaning “you won’t be able to”, so “just translate”), practice
had convinced them of the importance of understanding sense, and they
wanted to see how various disciplines explained the process. They finally
found convincing explanations (for the most part verified and elaborated by
modern cognitive psychology) of how the mind works in Piaget’s work on
developmental psychology, and later in the neuropsychologist J. Barbizet’s
findings on the brain, which were largely confirmed later by research done
with more sophisticated tools than existed at the time. ESIT trainers felt they
were thus able to offer their students a few basic principles.
4.1 Understanding
The two stages of the translating process generally discussed in the literature
are understanding the text to be translated and reformulating the results of
this understanding (i.e. sense) in the other language. Understanding means
converting graphic signs into sense. Cognitive inputs of several kinds make
this possible.
Cognitive Inputs
Native listeners and readers are usually not aware of the way in which cog-
nitive inputs shape our understanding. Language alone seems to be present,
but situational, contextual and world knowledge come into play quite
naturally. In every day conversation, when listening to each other, the part
played by knowledge of language is difficult to distinguish from that played
by background information. However, we sometimes realize we lack some
knowledge other than that of language in order to understand fully what we
are reading. This is of course also true for the translator. A text to be translated
is not just made of words on paper. It cannot be translated word for word
because isolated words, words in dictionaries, have potential meanings but
their relevant meaning in texts is assigned to them on the basis of extra-
linguistic knowledge. Thus background knowledge associated with language
plays a role in understanding discourse.
Background knowledge is a blanket expression covering a number of
‘cognitive inputs’ that are necessary for understanding acts of speech. In ad-
dition to language proper, these include knowledge of the world, of time and
place, of the circumstances out of which a speech or a text arises, memory of
For an account of this process, see Lederer (1994).
24 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
things said previously, knowing who is the speaker or the author and who are
the listeners or readers to whom the text is addressed. When the following
sentence is given out of context
It was the middle of December and exactly the middle of the century
readers may understand each word of it but they will not get its sense, i.e.
the exact date. Put back in its context, where it appears on the first page of A
Christmas Visitor, a novel by Anne Perry (2004), the temporal reference can
be interpreted. Readers do not only understand the English word, they add
to it the knowledge that the author specializes in novels set in the Victorian
era. Moreover, the first lines of the novel mention a pony trap waiting for a
passenger at a railway station. Railways and a horse carriage can only mean a
nineteenth-century setting. Though not mentioned explicitly, the exact date is
easily inferred as 1850. The words “the middle of the century” in themselves
carry a linguistic meaning and nothing else. Embedded in a text, they take
on a relevant pragmatic meaning which is inferred by readers on the basis
of extralinguistic knowledge.
While graphic signs taken in isolation are interpreted into concepts, signs in a
text are interpreted into sense. Translators are faced not with mere concepts,
but with interrelated things, facts, arguments, emotions.
Because sense is based on the cognitive inputs of individual readers or
translators, it is to some degree an individual matter; its depth will vary ac-
cording to the knowledge and the world experience of each person. Whatever
its individual features, however, the sense intended and understood by each of
the communication partners overlaps to a great extent, so that communication
usually proceeds fairly smoothly. Translators, acting as mediators between
authors who want to communicate and readers who want to understand
them, operate in this area of overlap. Their readers bring their own cognitive
complements to the translated text. The translators’ rendering enables them
to discover the text according to their own relevant knowledge and motiva-
tions, superficially or deeply, in the same way as readers of the original.
Understanding a text is universal, the translator’s understanding is only a
specific case of the universal process. The difference between translators and
ordinary readers is that readers are free to interpret the sense of the text any
way they like, whereas translators, using all the knowledge relevant to the
text and remaining within the limits allowed by this text, must cling to the
speakers’ meaning, the aim being to put their own readers in a position to
give the text as many interpretations as readers of the original were able to
entertain. Texts may at times be experienced as ambiguous. This is usually
due either to lack of relevant knowledge on the part of readers, or lack of
Marianne Lederer 25
What happens when sense emerges? Having delivered the notional and/or
emotional message in conjunction with relevant extralinguistic knowledge,
linguistic signs become irrelevant and can vanish with no consequences. Easily
detected in interpreting, their disappearance is more difficult to observe in
written translation. Deverbalization is not as obvious because the original text
is there, the graphic signs endure, they do not disappear as do the sounds of
oral speech. Deverbalization is a natural feature of interpretation but requires
an effort on the part of the translator. It is nevertheless present in the form
of translators’ awareness of what an author means in a given passage and is
a prerequisite for producing idiomatic language in the target text. It can be
given different labels, such as ‘dissociation of languages’ or ‘mental repre-
sentation’ in the mind, which is then verbalized in the other language.
Chesterman (in Chesterman and Wagner 2002:9-10) explains the phe-
nomenon as follows:
Having deverbalized, in other words having left aside the words and struc-
ture of the source-language text, translators proceed to express a sense that
they have internalized, as they would in monolingual communication when
26 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
Word Correspondences
When comparing any given translation with its original, a lot of words are
found that match across the two languages. This may partly explain the
misconception that translating is equal to transcoding. It does not mean that
the translator worked word for word. Any translation is in fact a mixture of
word correspondences and discourse equivalents. Let us take as an example an
extract from the text Delisle uses in his Analyse du discours comme méthode
de traduction/Translation: an Interpretive Approach (1980/1988), the first
large-scale attempt at a methodology for translator training.
To place the segment in context, here is the first sentence:
After the removal of her left breast because of cancer in 1970, Mrs.
Joan Dawson, 54, of New York City, spent the next three years bat-
tling depression and a sense of loss.
10
‘Sense’, in the terminology of the interpretive theory.
Marianne Lederer 27
Un beau jour, elle décide d’agir. La plupart des femmes, en pareil cas,
vont s’en remettre à un psychiatre, mais Mme Dawson, elle, retourne
chez son médecin pour qu’il lui refasse un sein.
[One beautiful day, she decides to act. Most women, in such a case,
give themselves up to a psychiatrist. But Mrs. Dawson, she goes back
to her doctor for him to remake a breast for her.]
Two ‘technical’ terms (‘psychiatrist’ and ‘breast’11) and one proper name
(Mrs. Dawson) are matched to the corresponding terms in French, because in
context these matches are obligatory. All texts, but particularly technical and
scientific texts, contain a number of words whose meanings are not modified
by the context: technical terms, figures, proper names, words in lists, etc. A
technical term refers, both in language and in texts, to a well defined object
or notion. The lexical correspondence established between two languages
to designate the same object remains valid in texts (which does not mean
that the correspondence will always be easy to find). In a given specialized
domain, the correspondence will hold whatever the context.
The remaining matches (‘she decided’, ‘most women’, ‘her doctor’) are
also transcoded, but here transcoding is not compulsory. The translator could
have found different ways of expressing the same thing but did not choose
to do so. Note, however, that these words are embedded in formulations that
do not match the original word for word.
11
‘Breast’, actualized in the context of cancer as it is here, becomes a technical term and
cannot be translated by ‘poitrine’, as it might well be in a different context.
28 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
Then she decided to do something about it. Un beau jour, elle décide d’agir.
Most women in the same situation turn to La plupart des femmes, en pareil
a psychiatrist. cas, vont s’en remettre à un psy-
Mrs Dawson went to her doctor and chiatre, mais Mme Dawson, elle,
asked him to rebuild her missing breast. retourne chez son médecin pour
qu’il lui refasse un sein.
For brevity’s sake, let us confine ourselves to the last sentence: “Mrs. Daw-
son went to her doctor and asked him to rebuild her missing breast”. This
is translated as “mais Mme Dawson, elle, retourne chez son médecin pour
qu’il lui refasse un sein”. We have here an equivalence between two chunks
of text but very few corresponding words. The surface structure of the text
is quite different; sense is kept intact in a different form.
have to be explicitly stated in one but can or even should remain elliptic in
another, or vice versa, is vital for translation. So is the fact that the readers
of the translation do not always have the same (cultural) knowledge as those
of the original, which again means that information that can be left unsaid
in one language has to be made explicit in the other.
Translating texts is not the same as translating languages; words in texts take
on meanings that can be quite different from those they have out of context.
Instructors aware of this basic linguistic principle will be able to explain why
literal translation is dangerous. They will warn trainees against launching into
translating a text before having read the whole of it. They will also explain
why the use of bilingual dictionaries can lead translators astray: they provide
correspondences of isolated concepts. Verbal context contributes to reducing
the number of potential meanings, but although dictionaries may give a few
verbal contexts for a given item they will never list all the possible contexts
in which these concepts can be used in a text.
them their sense. So, after a first reading of the text, trainees try
to answer questions such as: Who wrote this text? For whom?
When? What for? Do we know enough about the subject to un-
derstand the author’s meaning? If not, where are we to look for
further information? Students often find fault with texts when
they do not understand them. Instructors can show them that by
filling the gaps in their relevant knowledge, texts will become
more intelligible. The need for thorough documentary research
for specific texts will become evident.
Deverbalizing
When the sense of the text has become sufficiently clear, and the original
wording is forgotten, new questions will have to be answered: For whom
12
For obvious reasons, intratextual analysis is only applicable to written translation.
13
Though he does not use the word ‘deverbalization’, Kussmaul (2005) recommends
visualization as one technique for achieving ‘creative translation’.
Marianne Lederer 31
14
Suggested grading of speeches for interpreter training: narrative speeches on a familiar
topic, argumentative speeches on a familiar topic, narrative speeches on a new topic,
argumentative speeches on a new topic, stylistically sophisticated speeches on a familiar
topic, stylistically sophisticated speeches on a new topic, topic requiring preparation,
descriptive speeches requiring terminological preparation, rhetorical speeches.
15
In terms of content, ‘difficult’ means that documentary research and/or arduous reasoning
will be necessary. In terms of form, ‘easy’ means that the target text linguistic structure
32 Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees?
Trainers have one more important task to perform, namely assessing students’
work. In doing so, when following the interpretive theory, they will be guided
by three questions (Blondy-Mauchand 2004):
Having assessed the translation on that basis, instructors will not reproach
trainees for their errors nor correct them themselves. Rather they will point
to the reasons for those errors before asking trainees to amend their text and,
if necessary, remedy their shortcomings.
6. Conclusion
Moser-Mercer (1996:201) writes that
may follow rather closely that of the source text, and ‘difficult’ that restructuring will
be necessary.
Marianne Lederer 33
been just as satisfactory. When teaching, they will not impose upon trainees
the teacher’s own ‘official’ version of a text. On the contrary, they will en-
courage trainees to be creative.
Komissarov (1985:208) states that “translation theory is not supposed to
provide the translator with ready-made solutions of his problems. Theory
is no substitute for proper thinking or decision-making”. This also applies
to the way trainers make use of theoretical principles in their teaching. To
produce expert translators, having trainees translate a lot is not sufficient.
Translation is a complex operation and theory helps in generalizing and sys-
tematizing problems. Within its general frame, trainees are able to take some
distance from specific details and assign their respective roles to the text, its
content, loyalty, the translator’s initiatives, etc. As a result, their approach
to translation problems will become more self-assured. Theory is certainly
no substitute for proper thinking or decision-making, but it can be used by
trainers to point trainees in the direction of productive thinking and supply
them with a few principles that can aid them in their decision-making.
MARIANNE LEDERER
ESIT, Centre Universitaire Dauphine, 75116 Paris, France.
marlederer@wanadoo.fr
References
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2002) The Way We Think – Conceptual
Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books.
Gutt, Ernst-August (1991) Translation and Relevance – Cognition and Context,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1997) The Translator as Communicator, London:
Routledge.
Israël, Fortunato and Marianne Lederer (2005) La Théorie Interprétative de la Tra-
duction, Vol. 1– Genèse et développement, Caen: lettres modernes minard.
Jakobson, Roman (1958/1971) ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’, Selected
Writings II, The Hague: Mouton, 260-266.
Kintsch, Walter (1998) Comprehension – A Paradigm for Cognition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Komissarov, Vilen (1985) ‘The Practical Value of Translation Theory’, Babel
31(4): 208-12.
Kussmaul, Paul (1995) Training the Translator, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
------ (2005) ‘Translation through Visualization’, Meta 50(2): 378-91.
Lavault, Elisabeth (1999) ‘Eléments pour une didactique raisonnée de la traduc-
tion’, in Henri Awaiss and Jarjoura Hardane (eds) Traduction: approches et
théories, Beyrouth: Sources-Cibles, Université Saint-Joseph, 121-36.
Lederer, Marianne (1994) La traduction aujourd’hui – le modèle interprétatif,
Paris: Hachette; trans. by Larché Ninon as Translation – the Interpretive
Model, Manchester: St Jerome, 2003.
------ (1998) ‘La place de la théorie dans l’enseignement de la traduction et de
l’interprétation’, in Fortunato Israël (ed.) Quelle formation pour le traducteur
de l’an 2000, Paris: Didier Erudition, 17-26.
------ (2005) ‘Défense et illustration de la Théorie Interprétative de la Traduction’,
in Fortunato Israël and Marianne Lederer (eds) La Théorie Interprétative
de la Traduction, Vol. 1: Genèse et développement, Caen: lettres modernes
minard, 89-140.
Mason, Ian (1998) ‘A Text-linguistic Perspective on Translator Training’, in
Fortunato Israël (ed.) Quelle formation pour le traducteur de l’an 2000?,
Paris: Didier Erudition, 57-68.
Moser, Barbara (1978) ‘Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and
its Practical Application’, in David Gerver and Wallace H. Sinaiko (eds)
Language Interpretation and Communication, New York: Plenum Press,
353-68.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara (1996) ‘Teaching Theory or Teaching Theory’, Paral-
lèles 18: 199-203.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nord, Christiane (1992) ‘Text Analysis in Translator Training’, in Cay Dollerup
and Anne Loddegaard (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting – Train-
ing, Talent and Experience, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
39-48.
------ (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity – Functionalist Approaches
Marianne Lederer 35