Divergent goals: Teaching language for general and translation purposes in contrast

Abstract

Although the use of translation in the language classroom was severely criticized in the 1970s and 1980s as at that time the prevailing functional approach did not favour focusing on the exact equivalence, it may without hesitation be stated after Pym that “translation is and will continue to be used as a way of learning foreign languages” (1992: 280). Inversely, following on from this statement, can the foreign language be used as a way of developing translation competence? Despite many voices against mistaking the translation classroom with the language classroom, foreign language development is undeniably present in the process of translation because translation practice develops “not only translation competence in the narrow sense, i.e. transfer competence, but also, whenever necessary, other translation relevant competences, such as […] linguistic competence in the native language (L1) and in the foreign language (L2) with regard to formal and semantic aspects of vocabulary and grammar, language varieties, register and style, text-type conventions, etc.” (Nord 1991: 146). The question arises whether language should additionally be practised in the translation classroom and as to the aspects in which language practice for translation purpose should be different from language practice for general purpose. Although professional translators also need constant development of language skills, the focus will be laid on students of translation programmes who must be assisted and taught how to foster this development. Clearly, a translation programme should not include teaching basic skills of how to use a language but only make sure it does not go rusty by constant honing it to perfection. Bearing in mind the comment of Newmark that in language teaching translation “has an essentially supportive role only” (1993: 59), language should also be just a supportive component of a basic translation course.