MA Thesis June 2019

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES English language and translation

Martti Sakari Majanen

TRANSLATION COMPETENCE AND SPECIAL FIELD TRANSLATION A CASE STUDY OF E-SPORTS TRANSLATION BY STUDENTS

(2)

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Tiedekunta – Faculty

Philosophical Faculty Osasto – School School of Humanities Tekijät – Author

Martti Sakari Majanen Työn nimi – Title

Translation Competence and Special Field Translation: A Case Study of E-sports Translation by Students Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä –

Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages

English Language and Translation

Pro gradu -tutkielma x

5.6.2020 97 pages + Appendices Sivuainetutkielma

Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract

The study investigates the translation competence of students by using translations and translation comments of an e-sports news article as the main research material. The study focuses on strategic competence and subject knowledge competence as inspired primarily by the research of the PACTE group (2017) and Neubert (2000).

The research material of the study consists of the translations and translation comments of a ca. 340 word part of an e-sports news article on the game League of Legends. The participants of the study include eight students of University of Eastern Finland, six of whom are students of English Language and Translation and two of whom are students of English Language and Culture. The participants had a varying level of knowledge of the game League of Legends and the amount of years they had studied translation.

The analysis of the research material focuses first on looking at individual students’ strategic and subject knowledge competence based on their translation and translation comment. Second, the work of all of the participants is compared to form general observations.

The results of the study show that participants who had no formal education in translation used the most unsystematic strategies and lest expert-like terminology. Among the students that had formal education the students with the most prior knowledge on the subject of the source text, League of Legends, produced translations that could be regarded as most fitting the expectations of the target audience.

Avainsanat – Keywords

special field translation, special language, e-sports, translation competence, strategic competence, subject knowledge competence

(3)

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Tiedekunta – Faculty

Filosofinen tiedekunta Osasto – School Humanistinen osasto Tekijät – Author

Martti Sakari Majanen Työn nimi – Title

Translation Competence and Special Field Translation: A Case Study of E-sports Translation by: Students Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä –

Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages

Englannin kieli ja kääntäminen

Pro gradu -tutkielma x

5.5.2020 97 sivua + Liitteet Sivuainetutkielma

Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract

Tutkimuksen perustana on käännöskompetenssin tutkiminen käyttäen e-urheilusta kertovasta artikkelista tehtyjä käännöksiä ja käännöskommentteja. Tutkimus keskittyy strategiseen kompetenssiin ja

aihetuntemuskompetenssiin. Tämä perustuu PACTE ryhmän (2017) ja Neubertin (2000) aiempaan tutkimukseen.

Tutkimuksen pääaineistona koostuu n. 340 sanan pituisesta League of Legends -pelin e-urheilusta kertovasta uutisartikkelista tehdystä käännöksestä ja käännöskommentista. Tutkimuksen osallistujiin kuuluu kahdeksan Itä-Suomen Yliopiston oppilasta, joista kuusi opiskelee Englannin kieltä ja Kääntämistä ja kaksi jotka opiskelevat Englannin kieltä ja Kulttuuria. Osallistujien tuntemus League of Legends -pelistä ja heidän käännösopiskeluvuosiensa määrä vaihtelee.

Tutkimusmateriaalin analyysi keskittyy ensiksi katsomaan yksittäisten opiskelijoiden strategista ja

aihetuntemuskompetenssia perustuen heidän tekemiinsä käännöksiin ja käännöskommentteihin. Sen jälkeen kaikkien osallistujien töitä verrataan, muodostaen yleisiä huomioita.

Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että osallistujat joilla ei ollut muodollista koulutusta kääntämisessä käyttivät kaikkein epäsystemaattisimpia käännösstrategioita ja vähiten ammattilaismaista kieltä.. Koulutusta omaavien opiskelijoiden joukosta suurimman aihetuntemuksen omaavat oppilaat tuottivat käännöksiä joiden voidaan katsoa parhaiten vastaavan kohdeyleisön odotuksia.

Avainsanat – Keywords

erikoisalakääntäminen, erikoiskieli, e-urheilu, käännöskompetenssi, strateginen kompetenssi, aihetuntemuskompetenssi

(4)

The theoretical background of the study is centered on translation competence and competence models. The study focuses on two sub-competences of translation competence, namely strategic sub-competence and subject knowledge competence. The study does not use an existing framework of studying these sub-competences but instead takes inspiration from previous research including that of PACTE (2017), Göpferich (2009), Neubert (2000) and EMT (2017) .

The study also discusses the topic of special field translation. The translation of specialized texts has been given multiple names depending on the type of research that the term has been used in. Special field translation, specialized translation and special language translation have all been used to describe the act of translating a text that contains special language or language for special purposes (LSP). This study aims to make a connection between all of the abovementioned interlinked terms and to discuss the topic of special field translation through the previous research of, for example, Borja et al. (2009) and Gotti and Šarčević (2006).

The aims of this study are twofold. First, the study gives insight on whether the students display varying levels of translation competence according to their years of experience in translation. Second, the study shows how the students use the different aspects of translation competence to deal with translating a special-field text from a field that might be completely new to some or most of them.

(7)

The main part of the study consists of the analysis of translations and translation comments of an e-sports text detailing a match between two five-player teams in the prominent e-sports game League of Legends. The translations are made by students nearing the end of their education. The participants, six of whom are students of English language and translation and two of whom are students of English language, were given and asked to translate a ca. 340- word special field text. The main focus of this study is to analyze the translation and the attached translation comment of that special field text in the context of translation competence.

Previous studies on the subject of translation competence have looked at the translation competence in relation to the expertise of translators (Jääskeläinen 2010), or outlined models of dividing the concept of translation competence into several sub-competences, which can then be studied individually (Schäffner & Adab 2000; PACTE 2017a). This study discusses these competence models used in previous research and uses them to analyze the competence of translation students when tasked with a special field translation.

The study itself is divided into five chapters. The second chapter of the study is dedicated to highlighting and discussing the previous research related to the main topics of the study:

translation competence and special field study as well as making the link between these two subjects. In addition the topic of e-sports research will be highlighted and its connection to special language will be discussed. The third chapter of the study offers information about the methods of collecting the main research material of the study as well as the reasons behind the selection of the material and participants. This chapter highlights the reasons behind choosing a translation of an e-sports text as the research material, as well as why translation students were selected as the participants of the study. The third chapter will also detail the methods of analyzing translation competence with the data from the translation and the translation comment provided by the participating students. The fourth chapter is the analysis chapter that will analyze the main research material of the study, the translation of the e-sports text done by the participating students. Each of the translations will be analyzed and compared in the context of translation competence models, as well as previous research on translation competence and special field translation. The aim of this analysis is to see how translation students manifest the two main sub-competences that are highlighted in the study: strategic

(8)

competence and subject knowledge. The fifth and final chapter of the study is the conclusion chapter that will highlight the main findings of the analysis. This chapter concludes the study by detailing the main parts of the research process and discussing the main findings and implications of the results of the study, as well as the results of potential hypotheses. The conclusion will also highlight possibilities of further research and the usefulness of the study’s findings for the purposes of other studies on similar topics.

(9)

2 Theoretical background and previous research

The purpose of this chapter is the exploration and discussion of the vast amounts of previous research on the topics that are integral to this study. They include, as previously highlighted, translation competence and expertise, special field, special language and special purpose translation, as well as e-sports and video game translation. This chapter is divided into sub- sections by topic. The chapter starts with the topic of the skillset of a translator, translation competence and expertise, moves on to discuss special field translation and finishes with the discussion of video games and e-sports and how those specific fields are translated.

2.1 Translation competence

This section will cover the topic of translation competence and how it is relevant to the study.

Additionally it will discuss, through multiple sources, the nature and applications of translation competence and how it is related to the process of translation, especially when dealing with a special language text like the one used as material in this study.

2.1.1 What is translation competence?

As one of the terms central to the study, the term itself and the concept of what translation competence is must be explored. Schäffner and Adab (2000) do that through a collection of articles considering the topic. Elsewhere, Hurtado Albir (2017) details research on translation competence by the PACTE group. In addition, the work of Göpferich (2009) and Göpferich et al. (2011) is explored and finally the competence model of European Master’s in Translation (EMT, 2017) is discussed.

Kumpulainen (2016: 4) provides a very concise definition for translation competence (TC) (TT refers to target text): “TC is the ability to produce a TT on the basis of a text in a different language so that the produced TT meets the demands of the situation.”

(10)

Neubert (2000) summarizes the concept of translation competence to mean a configuration of easily distinguishable component competences, which are in most part related to skills and knowledge in the fields of text, culture and transfer. He adds that directing attention to the different aspects of translation competence is a great aid in teaching the subject of translation.

A more recent description of translation competence is offered by Hurtado Albir (2017: 12), who states that translation competence constitutes both the translators knowledge and abilities required for them to translate correctly as well as what enables them to perform the cognitive operations and tasks required in a professional setting. This competence is what separates translators from non-translators.

Neubert (2000: 5–6) states that the seven distinguishing features of translation competence are: complexity, heterogenity, approximation, open-endedness, creativity, situationality and historicity, which are all bound to each other. While he does call them features of translation competence, these features are more of a framework within which all professional translators operate under. He calls them secondary components of translation competence.

Neubert (2000) writes that an answer to the question of what translation competence is must take note of multiple varying features that span translation knowledge and skills. He continues that translating is distinguished from almost all other academic professions by multiple features. The first of these features are complexity and heterogeneity. Heterogeneity refers to the fact that translation often requires knowledge of multiple subjects that are in no way related to each other but he does not go into detail on what exactly his use of the word complexity refers to.

Neubert (2000: 4) continues that the nature of translation competence is by necessity approximate. This means that it is impossible for translators to be completely competent in all of their subject fields, but instead acquire the skill to approximate the subject areas in question in such a way that they can enable understanding for both average readers and experts. This results in competence being open-ended with translators being constantly on the lookout for new ways to say something, which in turn requires the translators to be creative. The last two features of translation competence proposed by Neubert (2000: 4) are the situationality and

(11)

historicity of translation. Even experienced translators have to deal with completely new situations. This leads to historicity, which means the changes to the ways translation has been approached through history.

Neubert (2000: 5–6) states that while translators develop their professional competence within the abovementioned seven-feature framework, there exist five more detailed parameters of translation competence that, while unevenly distributed between translators, are all still required, as one’s absence would make the translation unusable. These five parameters of translation competence, which he calls primary components of translation competence, are:

language competence, textual competence, subject competence, cultural competence, and finally, transfer competence. While this study handles translation competence as a whole, due to special language nature of the text used as the material of the study, the subject competence part of Neubert’s definition is expected to be highlighted in the results of the study. Neubert (2000: 6) concludes the introduction of these five parameters by saying that in a translator’s profession the dominant competence is transfer competence, or the skills to use cultural, textual and subject knowledge to fulfill the needs of a transfer. He states that transfer skills integrate all other parameters for the purposes of fulfilling a need for transfer, while noting that no competence can exist without thorough groundwork of all of the other four parameters.

Expanding on the topic of the parameters of translation competence Neubert (2000) discusses each individual parameter in further detail. Starting from language competence, he states that while translation is without a doubt more than a linguistic topic, it is crucial for the translator to have a near-perfect knowledge of the target and source languages of a translation. Neubert notes that the extreme value of thorough skill in one’s mother tongue is often greatly underestimated by translation students, clients and even professional translators. He ends with the statement: “In particular, a knowledge of the repertoires of the languages for special purposes, i.e. terminologies as well as preferred syntactic and morphological conventions, are part and parcel of linguistic competence” (Neubert 2000: 8). This last comment is especially relevant to this study, as it highlights the translators need to be knowledgeable in languages for special purposes.

(12)

On textual competence Neubert (2000: 8) writes that texts and, indeed, translations are systems that conform to certain norms of the text worlds of the target and source languages.

He continues that words and structures tend to follow certain patterns when featured in types or genres of text. He concludes that translator’s competence profiles are characterized largely by specialized proficiencies in particular textual domains that are mastered as the result of a career. While the participants in this study are certainly not professionals with long careers, it is to be expected that participants with more experience in the text type of the translation used as the study material might find it a boost to their competence.

Neubert (2000: 8–9) then talks about subject competence, or familiarity with the knowledge body of an area of which the translation is about. He notes that with the ever growing amount of texts being translated the specialization of those texts is rapidly increasing as well. While subject knowledge is not always active knowledge to translators, they must have the know- how and means to access the information when needed. He adds that while translators are not expected to be quite as proficient as an expert in a given subject, their knowledge still has to be sufficient enough to satisfy the specialists. Neubert ends with the notion that subject knowledge is by no means limited to specialist topics and the more general translators need subject competence just as much. In this study the subject competence of translation students is measured by both how much subject knowledge they have on the topic of e-sports and how well they can find information they are lacking.

Neubert (2000: 9–10) touches briefly on the topic of cultural competence with the notion that translators must attempt to efficiently operate between two distinct cultures, even when one of them is their own. He then moves on to the topic of transfer competence. Neubert (2000: 12) writes: “Transfer competence refers to the mental equipment that constitutes the translator’s unique cognitive set or ability of matching language, textual, subject and cultural competences.”

Similarly to Neubert (2000) Göpferich (2009) and Göpferich et al. (2011) state that while there is no clear consensus on translation competence itself, most research agrees that it consists of a number of sub-competences. According to them, three competences that are in

(13)

decisive roles are: communicative competence in both source and target language, domain competence and competence in tools and research (Göpferich et al., 2011: 58).

Göpferich et al. (2011: 59–61) go on to present the TransComp model of translation (Figure 1), which features six areas of translation competence. They note that out of the six competencies three are translation specific, meaning they separate translators from bilinguals.

These three distinct sub-competences are: Tools and research competence, translation routine activation competence and strategic competence.

Figure 1: TransComp translation competence model (Göpferich et al., 2011: 59)

Göpferich et al. (2011: 60) detail the three translation specific competences starting with tools and research competence. They states that the tools and research competence covers the ability to use tools specific to translation, including reference works, term banks, databases, parallel texts, etc. Next they detail the translation routine activation competence that covers the abilities and knowledge associated with recalling and applying transfer operations or what could be described as micro-strategies. The third competence Göpferich et al. (ibid.) detail is strategic competence. It is a meta-cognitive competence that controls the employment of other sub-competences. It establishes priorities and hierarchies between the other sub-competences

(14)

and leads to the development of a macro-level strategy and in ideal situations processes all decisions through this macro strategy.

Similarly to Neubert (2000) and Göpferich (2009), Göpferich et al. (2011), PACTE (2017a) present a model of translation competence that details what different sub-competences form together the whole of translation competence (Figure 2). According to PACTE, there were multiple tests and considerable revision to the model of translation competence, until the PACTE group finalized their version of their translation competence model that is comprised of five sub-competences: bilingual sub-competence, extralinguistic sub-competence, knowledge of translation sub-competence and instrumental sub-competence and strategic sub- competence.

Figure 2: Finalized PACTE Translation Competence model (PACTE, 2017a: 41)

(15)

Going into further detail on the five sub-competences PACTE (2017a: 39–40) describe each of them in turn. Starting from bilingual sub-competence, they state that it refers to mainly procedural knowledge that is needed to communicate between two languages. This includes specifically the ability to control interference when going from one language to another and back. It comprises many different kinds of knowledge in the two languages, namely pragmatic, textual, grammatical, socio-linguistic and lexical.

The next sub-competence discussed by PACTE (2017a: 40) is extralinguistic sub- competence. They describe it as mostly declarative knowledge about both the world in general, as well as specific areas. It is divided in 3 parts: bicultural knowledge, encyclopedic knowledge and subject knowledge.

The third sub-competence highlighted by PACTE (2017a: 40) is knowledge of translation sub-competence. According to them it means declarative knowledge about what translation is, as well as what the profession is. PACTE (ibid.) divide knowledge of translation sub- competence in two: “knowledge about how translation functions” and “knowledge related to professional translation practice”.

PACTE (2017a: 40) also briefly mention instrumental sub-competence. They describe it as mostly procedural knowledge that relates to the use of different kinds of resources and technologies applied to translation, specifically: different kinds of dictionaries, encyclopedias and grammars, style books, parallel texts, corpora and search engines, as well as other such tools.

The last of the five sub-competences highlighted by PACTE (2017a: 40) is strategic sub- competence. This, according to them means the translator’s knowledge required to guarantee efficient translation process, as well as solving any problems that may occur. This sub- competence is especially important according to PACTE, as it affects all other sub- competences by creating links between them when controlling the translation project. The state that strategic sub-competence has four main functions: planning the translation process, evaluating the process itself in relation to the final purpose, activating the other sub-

(16)

competences and identifying problems in the translation process and solving them accordingly. This description of strategic competence corresponds almost perfectly with the description of strategic competence by Göpferich et al. (2011: 60). This is mostly due to the fact that she used an earlier model of strategic competence by PACTE as a basis for her description.

Comparing the translation competence models by the PACTE group (2017) and Neubert (2000), it is clear that while they both use different terms when discussing translation competence, the core aspects of translation competence are still the same and present in both models, even when they are differently distributed between the five parts. Both Neubert and PACTE highlight the translator’s ability to produce an adequate translation in spite of any difficulties that may occur. This can be seen in the way that Neubert highlights what he calls transfer competence as the most important competence that compliments other competences, while PACTE calls strategic sub-competence especially important. In Neubert’s model, transfer competence is stated to mean the translator’s unique mental equipment in combining the other competences, while PACTE’s strategic sub-competence is said to create links between the other sub-competences and controlling the translation process.

While the model of sub-competences by the PACTE group (2017) is more modern and detailed, thus more useful to this study, it lacks at least one important notion that was present in Neubert’s model (2000), which is that the sub-competences, or parameters, of translation competence are unique to each translator in the sense that each individual translator has a varying amount of each competence, while some amount of every competence is required to produce a translation. The PACTE (2017b: 269–280) research does, however, note that in their study they found a group of top-ranking translators outperform a larger group of translators in every aspect of translation competence.

European master’s in translation, or EMT, (EMT, 2017: 4) uses a translator training-focused model of translation competence that identifies five main areas of competence: language and culture, translation, technology, personal and interpersonal and service provision. The current competence model by EMT (2017:4–7) uses translation competence as a sub-competence of translation service provision competence that covers the areas of strategic, methodological

(17)

and thematic competence. This is in contrast to the earlier model (Scarpa and Orlando, 2017) that saw translation service provision as a sub-competence to translation competence Out of these areas of competence the EMT (2017, 7–8) predominantly highlight translation competence. Translation competence encompasses the transfer between two languages and the strategic, thematic and methodological competences in all phases of the transfer. This model of translation competence has similar elements to both transfer competence by Neubert (2000) and the strategic competence of PACTE (2017) and Göpferich et al. (2011).

As the study centers on translations of an e-sports text, one of the aspects included in the study is the translation of video games, or localization. O’Hagan (2013) talks about translation competence in relation to video games, a topic which will be discussed in detail further on. She summarizes previous research on translation competence and video game localization and presents a table highlighting the key competence areas of video game localization (Table 1) (O’Hagan 2013: 254).

Table 1: O’Hagan’s table of translation competence in localization

In the table, we can see that the four main areas of competence highlighted by O’Hagan are personal qualities, translation skills, subject specific knowledge and professional skills. In

(18)

comparison to previously mentioned competence models like the PACTE model (2017a) this model does not mention translation strategy, at least not explicitly. PACTE highlights strategic competence as a sort of meta-competence that ties every other competence together and determines their use. O’Hagan’s model here presents the different parts of the whole competence as separate entities and leaves out their internal relations that PACTE’s strategic competence covers.

The next sections will cover the theoretical background of the two main sub-competences central to the study: strategic sub-competence and subject knowledge sub-competence.

2.1.2 Strategic sub-competence

Now that an assortment of previous research on what translation competence is has been discussed, it is time to move on to highlighting a topic that is even more relevant in terms of this study, how previous research has tackled the difficult topic of how to identify or measure a translator’s strategic sub-competence. As highlighted previously, the PACTE (2017a: 38–

41) model on translation competence (Figure 2) regards strategic competence as the central sub-competence that governs the use of the other sub-competences. This view of strategic competence ties in with the earlier ideas of Neubert (2000), who uses transfer competence as a unifying sub-competence much like strategic competence.

The PACTE group (2017c: 84) conducted extensive research on the topic of translation competence that spanned multiple years. Detailing the experiment design of their translation experiment conducted between 2005 and 2006 they highlighted the variables they used in order to analyze and compare the level of strategic sub-competence a translator has. They collected these variables into a list of operational hypotheses.

The four variables PACTE (2017c: 84) included in their operational hypotheses were translation project, identification and solution of translation problems, decision-making and efficacy of the translation project. In terms of this study, the methods used by the PACTE group cannot be used as-is, but instead they are used as a framework. The research prject went into great detail on each of the four variables that they used to determine a subject’s level of

(19)

strategic sub-competence. The most interesting part of the hypotheses was the explanations for the four variables related to strategic sub-competence.

Beginning with the first variable, translation project, the PACTE group (2017d: 153–154) uses the following definition:

The subject’s approach (dynamic or static) to the translation of a text and the units it comprises, within a specific context.

The variable relates to strategic sub-competence and provides data on how strategic competence functions in selecting an appropriate method of carrying out a translation task.

The next variable, identification and solution of difficulties when carrying out a translation task, was defined (PACTE, 2017e: 171–172) as follows:

Subjects’ identification and solution of difficulties when carrying out a translation task.

The variable relates to strategic sub-competence and knowledge of translation sub-competence. In terms of strategic sub-competence the variable gives data on three functions: translation problem identification, translation process evaluation and use of procedures to solve encountered problems.

The variable decision making was given the definition (PACTE, 2017f: 191–192):

Decisions made during the translation process, that involve the use of automatized and non-automatized cognitive resources (internal support) and the use of different sources of documentation (external support).

The variable relates to strategic sub-competence and provides data on the very important function of activating different sub-competences and compensating for lacks in other sub- competences.

The last of the four variables, efficacy of the translation process, was given the following definition (PACTE, 2017g: 211–212):

(20)

Relationship between time taken to complete a translation task, its distribution in stage, and the acceptability of solutions.

The variable relates to strategic sub-competence and compasses the time to complete a translation, the time used for each stage of the translation process and the acceptability of the solutions in the translation process.

As mention earlier, EMT (2017: 4) see translation competence as the heart of translation service provision competence. They highlight a list of abilities that students versed in translation competence have in the sub-areas of strategic, methodological and thematic competence. Some of these listed abilities correspond to the strategic competence variables highlighted by PACTE (2017c), including: identification of potential difficulties and deciding on an appropriate strategy that corresponds to communicative needs and analyzing and justifying the solutions used and choices made .

The degree of how much each of these variables is useful or applicable in terms of this study is further discussed in chapter 4. However, these four variables form the base of analysis for this study.

2.1.3 Subject knowledge sub-competence

In addition to researching the strategic sub-competence, another major point of interest that can be analyzed from the research material of this study is the extralinguistic sub-knowledge and more specifically subject knowledge.

Previous research on translation competence has not had as great of an emphasis on subject knowledge as it has for strategic competence. In the PACTE model (2017a), for example, subject knowledge is only noted a part of the extra-linguistic sub-competence and it is not discussed in detail.

The base model of subject knowledge sub-competence used in this study is the model described by Neubert (2000: 8–9). He notes that translators must learn constantly, due to the nature of their work requiring them to constantly explore new areas. Translators do not need

(21)

to know everything, but they need to be able to search for and find anything. He concludes that translators need to be able to produce work that satisfies experts of a given field.

Göpferich (2009: 20–21) discusses domain competence that she describes as corresponding to PACTE’s extra-linguistic competence. It compasses general and domain-specific knowledge that is needed to understand the source text and to understand the level of need for information gathering. This description is closer to the aims of the study, as it is interested in the participants’ ability to understand the source text and to find relevant information sources.

Scarpa and Orlando (2017: 26–27) list thematic knowledge as one of the six main features of translation competence based on the competence model of the European Master’s in Translation (EMT) network. They highlight the features of thematic competence in the EMT model (2017:30–31) which include: information searching skills and the ability to quickly familiarize oneself with a specialist field, which corresponds to the ideas of Neubert (2000).

The model highlighted by Scarpa and Orlando is an earlier model by EMT from 2009, which no longer corresponds to the current model (EMT, 2017)

In their current model, EMT (2017: 8) specify the abilities of students related to strategic competence that includes thematic competence. The skills specified related to subject knowledge are: skills to translate domain-specific material and producing a translation that suits a certain purpose, skills to create texts of specific purposes while taking into account specific recipients and evaluating the relevance of sources in relation to translation needs.

2.2 Expertise and translation

The notion of translation expertise is closely related to translation competence. Jääskeläinen (2010) describes the evolution of the term and the research surrounding it, beginning with the recounting of earlier studies that led to the subject of expertise. According to Jääskeläinen (2010: 213), studies concerning translation processes moved from naïve translators, language students that were not specifically studying translation, to novice translators, actual students of translation and finally to professional translators. These studies showed that a number of

(22)

professional translators failed to provide quality products, which led to the need to redefine the notion of a professional translator.

Jääskeläinen (2010) states that not all professionals are experts, especially when expertise is defined as giving a consistently superior performance. Jääskeläinen also points out that another facet of expertise is specialization. She continues that while the concept of specialization in translation is often focused on specializing in one or two subjects, specialization can also occur in terms of a particular medium or way of translation.

Jääskeläinen adds that experts that are specialized in a particular field of translation may not be professional translators at all, while still fulfilling the requirement of a consistently superior performance.

Moving on to the actual definition of expertise, Jääskeläinen (2010: 217) notes that on a very basic level the term refers to the possession of a large amount of knowledge and skill. She then presents the division of expertise into absolute expertise and relative expertise. She states that absolute expertise refers to the expertise of individuals that apply their skills on the highest levels of the population, examples being top athletes or chess masters. She continues that relative expertise, then, refers to the expertise that can be observed when comparing novices and experts in a field where novices are able to reach the level of expert. Jääskeläinen concludes that in her experience, translation expertise is always relative expertise.

Jääskeläinen (2010: 217) goes on to discuss models of expertise that have been presented in previous studies. She presents first the model of expertise where achieving expertise requires at least 10,000 hours or ten years of constant and deliberate practice. Jääskeläinen notes that this model of expertise does not work well with translation, as it is hard to expect for professional translators to be presented adequate feedback of their work or for their working experience to satisfy the definition of deliberate practice. Jääskeläinen (2010: 218) then discusses a model of expertise where expertise is seen as a process. This model is based on research that shows that experts are actually working harder to produce their results in comparison to more inexperienced workers. According to her, even translation process research has shown that the most successful professionals put more effort into their translation process than novices or less successful professionals.

(23)

Martin (2014) discusses the topic of expertise in relation to research on translation studies and highlights the topic of situated translation and interpreting expertise, or STIE. Similarly to Jääskeläinen (2010), Martin defines expert as someone who consistently displays superior performance on a certain set of tasks. He continues that expertise can be defined as meaning

“the bulk of cognitive resources and skills leading to that superior performance” (Martin 2014: 3). Martin then notes that recently, competence is used as a synonym for expertise.

On quantifying expertise, Martin (2014) states that while expertise constructs of other fields define experience as a part of expertise it is not a certain predictor of success in performance in translation. This relates closely to the main point of Jääskeläinen (2011), which was that working as a professional translator and gaining experience that way did not directly lead to expertise in translation. Martin then states that in translation where no task is quite the same there is a need for adaptive expertise, which is “characterized by the ability to develop new strategies to cope with novel situations” (Martin 2014: 9). This is related closely to the models of translation competence presented in the previous section that highlighted strategic competence as perhaps the most important part of translation competence. Martin ends with the notion that experience is in fact a part of expertise development, instead of a defining dimension of expertise itself.

Martin (2014) proposed a set of five dimensions of translation expertise, namely: knowledge, adaptive psychophysiological traits, problem-solving skills, regulatory skills and the self- concept. He adds that the five are labeled as dimensions due to them being scopes into behavior, instead of separate mental activities.

Starting on knowledge, Martin (2014: 18–21) states that the dimension of knowledge refers to both memory and the ability of translators to access task-relevant knowledge swiftly and reliably while not needing to devote additional resources on maintaining that knowledge active during translation. Knowledge can be activated in varying degrees and ways to analyze and give meaning to inputs, which according to him makes activated knowledge synonymous to context. This perspective, according to him, means that there is no need to divide knowledge into sub-categories; instead it is a single construct. This single construct is

(24)

knowledge-in-use where task performance is the basis which identifies which aspects of knowledge are relevant. This notion of knowledge seems to directly contrast the notion of competence by Neubert (2000) who sees different aspects of knowledge, e.g. subject knowledge as integral parts of translation competence.

According to Martin (2014: 21–22), adaptive psychophysiological traits refer to behavioral procedures that lead to a more efficient task completion, or skills. Repeated exposure to environmental stimuli will over time start to activate the appropriate response directly, so that eventually conscious awareness is no longer needed, thus becoming a habit, or, trait. Skills important to translators, such as touch typing, become these traits through repetition.

Automated routines, while unconscious, are goal-directed behaviors.

Martin (2014: 23–25) discusses the dimension of problem-solving skills. Problem solving refers to “a set of goal-oriented mental activities to reach a desired outcome for which an individual has no ready-made strategy or routine” (Martin 2014, 23). He states that while problem solving is usually associated with conscious and effortful processing, or rational thinking, this is not often the case when it comes to translation. Translation problems are often unstructured or inadequately defined, which leads to them being often solved through intuitive means, such as creativity or insight.

Martin (2014: 25–28) discusses regulatory skills, which he states to be a part of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. He mentions that the results of previous research show that translation experts apply high metacognitive skills to translation, while novice translators seem to lack these skills while also poorly allocating their mental efforts.

Metacognition involves both knowledge of mental processes and the regulation of those mental processes. In addition, regulation is further split into monitoring and control, where monitoring comprises error detection and control refers to processes like planning and resource allocation. Martin (ibid.) states that while metacognitive processes can be referred to as strategic behavior there is a distinction between his notion of regulatory skills and the strategic competence highlighted in section 2.1.1. According to him, this difference lies in the fact that that the PACTE (2017c) model of strategic competence is related to metacognition in

(25)

general, whereas his model of regulatory skills only includes conscious and intentional metacognitive activities of control and monitoring.

The fifth and last dimension discussed by Martin (2014: 28–34) is self-concept. According to him, the self is “a complex, organized and dynamic set of images, cognitions, learned beliefs, and evaluations about the self” (Martin 2014: 28). However, only a part of this whole is activated at a given time resulting in a working self-concept. The self-concept creates situated selves and those situated selves create the motivation to behave in a certain way. He then narrows the view of the self-concept into three components: self-awareness, situation awareness and self-efficacy. Martin (ibid.) states that self-awareness refers to the individual’s ability of self-analysis in relative objectivity, while maintaining a degree of subjectivity. Next, he defines situation awareness to mean the understanding required to function in a dynamic environment. Lastly, Martin (ibid.) defines self-efficacy through a quote of Wood and Bandura (1989: 408): “belief in one’s capability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands”.

In short, both Jääskeläinen (2010) and Martin (2014) see translation expertise as a collection of skills that separate skilled translators from the bulk of all translators. Both of them put emphasis on translation expertise as something that is manifested in a constantly superior performance, as opposed to stagnation.

2.3 Special language and translation

The term “special field translation” is often encountered in an educational setting. At the University of Eastern Finland, for example, English translation students must pass two special field translation courses in order to graduate. These courses revolve around the translation of texts from a multitude of fields, which each require knowledge or research of a specific field that may or may not be familiar to the student. This chapter focuses on highlighting and discussing previous research that is relevant to special field translation, as well as making a connection between all of the closely related terms that refer to special fields, specialized texts or special language, first beginning with a look into the concept of language being special.

(26)

2.3.1 Different types of special language

It is necessary to first begin with a concept of what special language is before discussing how special languages are translated. There is a clear interest from multiple viewpoints in researching language and texts that are not part of general language. The term “general language” (Fin. yleiskieli) as defined by The Helsinki Term Bank for the Arts and Sciences refers to language that does not contain any special language content. Looking at research on any kind of special translation, it becomes clear that there is no agreed term for the discussion of language that is particular to a certain field, group or purpose. The Helsinki Term Bank for the Arts and Sciences defines the term “special language” (Fin. erikoiskieli) as language used in a scientific, professional or hobby setting that differs from general language. On the other hand, the term LSP, or language for specific/special purposes, has been used mostly in language teaching to separate general language learning from language teaching focused on specific areas like trade or medicine; indeed, Long (2017) notes that the focus of LSP is on meeting the communicative needs of a specific professional area like medicine, business or law. Even though the concept of LSP is closely related to education, the term is sometimes used interchangeably with special language or specialized language. A fitting example of this is the book titled Researching specialized languages by Bathia, Hernández and Pérez-Paredes (2011), which is entirely focused on LSP research.

Faber (2012: 2) writes about the links between specialized language and terminology and uses a very LSP-like definition for the term specialized language:

specialized language is undoubtedly language, and thus possesses many of the same features as general language, it also can be said to have distinctive characteristics because of the semantic load of terminological units, which designate entities and processes within a scientific or technical field.

Faber prefers the term “specialized language” over the term “language for specific purposes”, as the latter is too general according to her. She then discusses the terminology of specialized text by stating that specialized text are terminology-rich due to the amount of specialized language units within the texts. According to Faber (2012: 3), the understanding of terminology-rich texts requires knowledge of all aspects of the text, including the domain of the text and the relations between the concepts within the domain. In order to write, analyze

(27)

or translate specialized texts there is a need to acquire the skills necessary to work with the terminology that stores expert knowledge in the given specialized field.

Continuing on the topic of specialized language and its relationship with terminology, Faber and López Rodríguez (2012: 9‒31) begin by stating that today’s society’s emphasis on science and technology has put the naming and translation of specialized knowledge concepts into the limelight. They discuss the skills required to translate a text from a special subject field and conclude that both language and translation skills as well knowledge in the subject field is required as the absence of either results in an inadequate translation.

2.3.2 Specialized translation

In the introduction to their book, Gotti and Šarčević (2006) discuss the phenomenon of specialized translation. According to them, the term refers to the translation of specialist subject fields that can be considered non-literary translation. They make the connection between earlier translation theories and state that the term “LSP translation”, which was used previously, has in recent years matured into the term “specialized translation” through shifting the emphasis onto the transfer of specialist knowledge (Gotti and Šarčević 2006: 9). Even though they point out that the term LSP is being replaced by the term specialized language, we can see through multiple sources like Bathia, Hernández and Pérez-Paredes (2011) and Dobnik (2019) that both of the terms are still very much in use and even used interchangeably.

The use of the term “specialized translation” as a term for the translation of a text from any non-literary field can be seen in the case study of specialized translation teaching in Slovakia by Biloveský and Laš (2018). They start by noting that both specialized and technical texts dominate the field of contemporary translation and the need for literary translation is on the decline. They state that these facts need to be reflected in the translator training of universities. This, according to Biloveský and Laš (2018: 267), can be seen in the specialized translation courses in the Matej Bel University, as they teach students the particularities,

(28)

history and terminology of specialized language, as well as skills like mining and verifying terminology.

Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015: 1195‒1196) use a very similar tone when discussing the needs of translator training. They start with the notion that due to the increase in the translation of specialized texts, the training of future translators should reflect it. They define specialized translation to mean the translation of specialized texts, where specialized text refers to a text from an area off specialization or a particular activity. This definition closely resembles the definition by Gotti and Šarčević (2006). Popescu & Cohen-Vida continue that specialized text characteristically have a topic from within a specialized field and contain specific vocabulary and phraseology. As later shown in section 3 of this study, the e-sports text used as research material for this study perfectly fits this definition of a specialized text.

Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015: 1196‒1197) describe in detail their view of the ideal process of a translation student translating a special field text. They begin by noting that it is the text itself that guides how it should be approached terminologically and documentarily and not the special field itself that the text belongs to. Popescu & Cohen-Vida’s description of an ideal translation process begins with the first stage of understanding the text that is being translated.

The ideal way is for a translation student is to read the whole text but allow that in the case of long documents this is sometimes impossible. They state that the first reading is imperative for the translator to gain an understanding on not only the subject field but the precise subject matter of the text.

The next stage of the process suggested by Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015: 1196–1197) is the selection of the tools of information that will enable the student to translate the text they have been tasked to translate. They recommend students to use lexicographical sources in both the source and the target language, but concede that most lexicographical works in specialty areas are at best incomplete, which leaves students to making terminological connections between two monolingual sources. The depth of research should depend on the translator’s level of knowledge where the less knowledge a translator has the deeper and broader their documentary research should be.

(29)

Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015: 1197–1198) continue on to the third stage of their ideal process of specialized translation. The third stage involves detailed content analysis of the source text. The aim of this analysis is to determine the meaning of the text that is being translated and the terminological units it contains. In the likely case that reliable bilingual documentation does not exist, the translator must rely on the use of para-lexicographical documents in the source language. Popescu & Cohen-Vida especially mention terminology as one of the things that should be noted in the translation process, which relates to the research of Faber and López Rodríguez (2012: 9‒31) that states that understanding and translating a specialized language text requires the translator to have the skills necessary to deal with the terminology of the specialized text.

Continuing on the topic of specialized language teaching, Postolea and Ghivirigâ (2016) highlight the use of corpora for the purposes of specialized language training. Their study focuses on the use of corpora as a tool to aid students in learning specialized translation.

Postolea and Ghivirigâ state that both research and translator training of specialized language have the tendency of focusing on one-word or multi-word terms. This type of focus leaves out an important part of specialized texts, the collocations. Collocations, according to Postolea and Ghivirigâ, act as a kind of a buffer zone between the areas of general language and the terms of a particular domain. They suggest that helping translation students acquire competence in identifying and processing collocates should be an objective in classes teaching specialized language translation.

Postolea and Ghivirigâ (2016, 59–60) state that learning to identify and correctly use collocations is an important skill for translation students. Learning how to use collocations in languages for specific purposes (LSP) is especially important, as the identification and correct use of collocations is an essential competence in preserving the style and register of the source text. They note that the use of corpora offers an easy way of learning the collocations of a specialized context.

Setting out to reveal a link between LSP and specialized translation, Pisanski Peterlin (2019) writes about the commonalities between LSP pedagogy and specialized translation. She begins with the notion that LSP research can be relevant to both LSP educators and translators

(30)

of specialized texts. She particularly highlights corpus linguistic studies using multilingual corpora as useful for researchers of either or both of the two fields. While in some areas the links between the two fields are not as apparent, one area where the links have been especially clear to experts of both fields is language for academic purposes. The highlighting of corpus linguistic studies is related to the aforementioned study by Postolea and Ghivirigâ (2016).

While collocations are not explicitly mentioned, it is clear that authors of both articles see the usefulness of corpora in the aid of specialized language translation training.

Beginning with the motivations for conducting research on the links between LSP pedagogy and specialized translation, Pisanski Peterlin (2019) notes that the lack of translation training in the teaching of academic language is questionable, as it often happens that scholars have to self-translate foreign language research for the purposes of their own research. She also points out the usefulness of academic language translation in translator training, as it provides experience solving rhetorical, terminological and content-related problems. While both trainee translators and academic-language learners have differing needs, both groups benefit from a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic view on academic language as it highlights different conventions in both rhetoric and genre.

Nadja Dobnik (2019) continues on the topic of the importance of LSP in translator training.

She states that both LSP and technical terminology are very important in developing the professional competence of trainee translators. Dobnik explored this in her study of Slovakian translation students’ translation of a French text on wines. The main focus of Dobnik’s study was on the translation issues that the student translators had with the text. The results of her study look at the most common issues and their cause. Dobnik states in her conclusion (2019:

67–68) that the most common translation issues in the translations made by the students were related to specialized and culture-specific terms in the source text. Most notably, the results show that students who did not recognize special language terms made the most translation errors regarding the terms. Students who did recognize the special terms spent more time researching the correct translations and made less errors. These findings coincide with the research of Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015) on specialized language teaching who noted in their study that apprentice translators should spent considerable amounts of effort on the

(31)

documentary research of special field texts in order to aid the identification and translation of unknown terminological units.

As can be seen from multiple sources like Pisanski Peterlin (2019) or Dobnik (2019) regarding specialized translation, the term LSP (languages for specific/special purposes) is closely related to specialized translation.

Faber and Gómez-Moreno (2012: 73–92) look at specialized translation from the point of view of cognitive linguistics. They point out that both cognitive linguistics and translation focus on conceptual meaning. In specialized language translation the core of the translation process also includes understanding and structuring of the specialized knowledge units and how they correspond between different languages. They continue that these knowledge units can be both words and phrases. The difference between specialized language translation and general language translation lies in the fact that specialized language text are aimed at a limited group of text recipients who are already familiar with the terminology and subject field used in the specialized domain. They note that specialized language translation requires more than terminological correspondence between languages. The first example of this, according to Faber and Gómez-Moreno, is that special language terms often appear with specific collocates that depend on the special field and text type. This ties in with the research of Postolea and Ghivirigâ (2016), who recognized the importance of collocates in specialized translation and offered corpora as a tool to help identify and use collocation. Faber and Gómez-Moreno emphasize that translators need to have the necessary skills for acquiring knowledge and managing terminology in order to produce effective translations.

2.3.4 LSP translation

Taylor (2006) writes about the relations between languages for specific purposes (LSP) and translation strategies. He makes attempts to partially limit the scope of the LSP term and notes that while individual contributions have widened the scope of subjects of LSP, the related literature has usually concentrated on a limited number of areas, mainly science, technology, medicine, law and economics. Taylor concedes that in the widest sense of the term LSP could cover areas like basketball or stamp collecting, there is a limited range of conventionally

(32)

accepted LSP texts. In contrast, according to the aforementioned chapter by Gotti and Šarčević (2006: 9–11), the term LSP has gradually been replaced with the term “specialized translation”, which for the purposes of this study is a more fitting term, as the term LSP, as Taylor (2006: 27–28) points out, conventionally has a limited scope. A contrasting point to this is offered by Faber (2012: 1), who states in a footnote that she prefers to use the term specialized language as she sees the term LSP to be too general.

Continuing on the topic of LSP in the same volume, Sandrini (2006: 107) writes an article about the changes globalization has made on LSP translation. As he points out, through globalization LSP settings have become increasingly multilingual. In the context of this study the statement holds especially true, as playing, watching and discussing e-sports is a truly global phenomenon.

Sandrini (2006: 107–110) begins his article with a description of LSP translation. According to him, the first point of a definition for LSP translation is linked to the skopos theory.

Sandrini briefly explains the theory through a citation by Nord (1997: 29), which states that all texts are produced to serve a specific purpose. Texts should be translated in a way that allows them to fulfill the desired purpose in a desired way. According to Sandrini, the first assumption for defining LSP translation is that the translations are governed by skopos, though he does not mention whether this differs in comparison to general translation. Sandrini expands this concept by stating that translation is a part of a certain discipline’s global communication. This leads to the requirement of taking into account both the communicative framework of a certain discipline, which is linked to the discipline’s methodology, and the fact that experts of the discipline convey information in ways specific to the disciplines norms.

Sandrini (2006: 109–110) presents his definition of LSP translation, which he claims to combine elements of both translation and specialized communication:

LSP translation shall be the 1. exteriorisation of

2. specialised knowledge systems and cognitive processes

3. weighed and selected from an information offer (interiorisation)

4. with the objective of disseminating them in another linguistic (interlingual) and 5. cultural context (transcultural)

(33)

6. governed by skopos.

While this type of definition of LSP translation seems to fit the concept of translating an e- sports text, it should be remembered that, akin to Taylor (2006), Sandrini uses the quite dated concept of LSP, which, even in his text, is limited to a few specific disciplines like law or medicine. This, however, proves the point of Gotti and Šarčević (2006), who note that the fairly limited concept of LSP has been gradually replaced by more open terms like specialized translation.

Writing an article about the topic of LSP translation, Archibald (2016) focuses on the topic of translating political discourse. Specifically, he focuses on the difficulties a translator can face when translating these politically sensitive texts. Archibald (2016: 2) introduces the term

“politeme”, which he defines to mean a “politically laden term”. He claims that for the translator working on a text of a political nature, the understanding of the political lexicon and the typology as well as the narrative of the text are especially important. Continuing on the concept of politemes, Archibald explains that politemes are politically laden terms that can be understood in differing ways depending on the political disposition of the reader. He notes that it is the translator’s duty to understand both the ideology and the intent of a given political text and its politemes. This ties in with what previous sources like Faber (2012) or Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015) have said regarding the translator needing to be able to understand the special subject field of a given text and to recognize terminological units within said text.

Deviating slightly from talking about LSPs and their translation, Sandrini (2006: 112–113) writes a chapter about cultures and subject fields. While talking about disciplines, he again works with the limitations of the concept of LSPs. Sandrini states that every discipline has a distinct culture due to the specific values and norms being embedded in the ideology and methodology of a specific discipline. These cultures generate special text types, which leads to translators needing to master these specific text types both actively and passively.

According to Sandrini, most disciplines that exist globally also have globalized their internal cultures, as all of their characteristics apply worldwide. He uses medicine as an example, which has broad global consensus on concepts like ethics of practice.

MA Thesis June 2019

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical background and previous research