Translator Education

Translation Studies at a Crossroads

Educating translators in minor language communities—a key element in the language planning of modern Norwegian

by Maj-Britt Holljen

Introduction
E ven though Norway did not actually enter the European Union following the referendum in 1994, the consequences of extended international communication has not failed to affect the institutions offering education in the field of translation and interpretation. In November 1997 the first get-together was staged between the actors on this scene, and in February 1998 we met again in an attempt to coordinate the existing offers in the field of translation and interpretation studies. The University of Oslo concentrates on literary and general translation, Agder College on general and LSP (Language for Special Purposes) translation, and the two remaining institutions are concerned with foreign languages for special purposes mainly with a view to translation. What prompted the first meeting in November, was among other reasons, the EU requirement of a three-year education to support the national certificate for state-authorized translators. Up till now this has not been a requirement in Norway. The certificate examination is being conducted at the Norwegian School of Business, and virtually anyone has had the right to sit for this exam. Agder College, however, has been giving a three-year course since the late 1970s, but this course has not led directly up to the state authorization. The content of the vocational course at Agder is targeted at students who intend to become LSP translators. Candidates for the state authorization certificate exam in Bergen may on the other hand choose any relevant course on an academic level to qualify for the EU requirement, as it has now been defined in Norwegian terms.
   The education of translators must be adapted to the needs of the community at any given time. We are at a crossroads in Europe as regards translation and interpretation. The growth of internationalisation in general and the European Union in particular has spurred linguistic awareness in the minor national language communities of the western hemisphere, and the underlying motivation is the struggle for economic growth. Large EU-projects have recently been launched to meet the problems of multilingualism: the Multi Lingual Information Society project (MLIS), which includes the POS ¹ project aiming to establish the basis for a cross-European harmonisation of translator training standards. Globalisation of communications, economies and tenders leads us towards a monolingual society. All minor language communities find themselves dependent on the English language, in particular on the terminological level. In Scandinavia the expression ‘a language of prey’ has been used about the role of English, focusing on the imperialistic functions of the language on the global scale. By way of illustration of the reality behind such an expression, we may note that between 160,000 and 170,000 Norwegian students at the basic level of their university education have American English textbooks to prepare them for their professional life as economists, psychologists, etc. in Norway. For most non-English speaking nations, like Norway, the solution to this dilemma of internationalisation has been to choose a certain functional division linguistically speaking: using English as an international communication language within advanced research and development contexts, in other words in LSP environments, and using the national language as a ‘general language’ with a vocabulary covering the need for communication in other areas of life. The notion of choice in this context is not wholly unproblematic, though. Alistair Pennycook is problematizing this attitude to English as an international language when he asserts that the ‘wordliness of English’ entails cultural and political implications. If we look at the development of English as an international language from a diachronic point of departure, the changes in world policies during the last decades have had implications for the nature of the language. “The nature of English has shifted in accordance with other global changes, and has moved from a rhetoric of colonial expansion, through a rhetoric of development aid to a rhetoric of the international free market,” says Pennycook. ² It is crucial to fight the assumption that individuals and countries are somehow free of economic, political and ideological constraints when they apparently freely opt for English as their language of international communication. Within the framework of the EU it is maintained that the Community should support the creation of linguistic tools that cover all EU languages, for cultural, democratic, scientific as well as economic reasons. “Smaller linguistic areas in Europe suffer harmful consequences of a fast and exclusively market-driven development of language technology, both in economic and research terms. Some functions of these smaller languages—for example the scientific aspect—are doomed to disappear if not supported.” ³
   The scientific aspect of any language is dependent on the vocabulary of that language. The possibility must be retained for people to be able to express themselves in any given field in their mother tongue, no matter on which level of abstraction. Achieving this goal implies coining new terms for new concepts, which are constantly being developed within science and technology. The principal responsibility of translators coming from minor language communities in the world is therefore fundamentally one of practising language planning in relation to their mother tongue into which they normally translate. Having practised as a translator for a number of years and now teaching translation of LSP at an advanced level, I strongly feel the need for preparing the future LSP translators for the linguistic responsibility inherent in their professional ethical code. My centre of interest in this respect is computer terminology in a Norwegian context. This field illustrates in a brilliant manner the implications of globalisation and language pressure. The language of computing is in transition from being a language of experts to becoming a language for everyone. The implications are manifold, and there are several ways of approaching this problem. Mine is at the outset a sociolinguistic one, taking as my starting point the social function of the language on the part of its users. Knowing that Norway is today one of the countries of the world where the number of computers per inhabitant is among the largest, and given the prestige which information technology holds within modern society, it is no wonder that computer terminology bears a high prestige as a sociolinguistic variant and as such holds a strong position as lender of loan words to the Norwegian language. I am currently conducting a survey trying to map the extent to which English computer terminology terms are entering the everyday language of Norwegians, and also to find out who are the principal vehicles of this knowledge transfer process. In this context, however, I shall be referring to LSP as a general concept, which may be a dangerous task to undertake lightly, as I shall briefly comment on in the following.
   Limiting the scope of this article to treating ‘language for special purposes’—LSP—entails the scientific discussion of where to draw the line between general vocabulary (GL) and LSP in a sufficiently precise manner. For practical purposes the term LSP is defined rather loosely in an everyday context as the language used in science, business and industry. No LSP can do without a huge number of words and expressions from the GL, however, such as prepositions, personal pronouns, etc. So, what distinguishes LSP from the GL? LSP research has been operating with various models and methods to define the concept and distinguish it from the GL. Sager, Dungworth and McDonald assert in the introduction to their discussion ⁴ that they deliberately avoid the notions of English for general purposes (EGP) and English for special purposes (ESP), and instead speak of special languages as opposed to general language, even though they fully realise that both concepts yet have to be closely defined.
   In all attempts at defining the concepts, however, the conclusion seems to be that which partly distinguishes LSP from GL is the presence of a particular terminology. Terminology is in other words the nucleus of LSP: “the lexicon is the only aspect in common for LSP as a category: the presence of terminology, particular words and expressions alien to the general language.” ⁵ And terminology is at the heart of the cooperation under the umbrella of NORDTERM ⁶—when Nordic countries agree to work at making the Nordic languages suitable tools for modern technology. ⁷ Terminology is likewise the field where language planning has proved itself successful in the past with regards to standardisation, particularly in the LSP fields of medicine, aviation and the petroleum industry.

Language planning within LSP in Norway today—a quick survey
The distinction between the English LSP of international communication and the Norwegian LSP of both national and international communication is not always easy to establish. Loan words have always been a vital part of the development of Norwegian, as of most other minor language communities. The power and prestige of the lending language are always strong factors of pressure with regards to terminology development within minor language communities. The sociolinguistic motivations and implications of the treatment of loan words and the coining of new terms have traditionally been left to the principal language planners of LSP in Norway: the Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology (NCTT). The council is a semi-governmental research group cooperating with the various professional communities of business and industry, and its objective is to work for clarity, unambiguity and conformity in an LSP which is suited to Norwegian conditions. It has specialised in terminology and multilingualism and publishes a newsletter three times a year along with its own database as a CD-ROM and as printed pamphlets. There is also the more general Norwegian Language Council which to a limited extent deals with LSP, especially in the field of computer terminology, where they have published a dictionary of Norwegian computer terms; the 6th revised edition appeared in 1996. On the Scandinavian or Nordic level there are several terminological institutions working to establish a common terminology practice in all the Nordic countries, with regards to practical terminology development work as well as to research in the field of terminology processing. ⁸ Under the Swedish terminology institution TNC has been established “Svenska datatermgruppen” (the Swedish computer terminology group): a cooperative unit working to establish common practice with respect to computer terms in circulation. Its members include linguists, computing professionals, terminologists, and language historians. The objective of the cooperation is a practical one: to achieve a standardized computer terminology in Sweden to be implemented by all users! The most crucial consideration in this process, however, is time. The earlier in the terminology development process this group takes up a term for discussion, the more probable is the implementation of the term as a standard among the various producers and end users.

The Language Planning Aspect of the Education of Translators
Within the framework of translator education in Norway, the language planning aspect has never been regarded as a central consideration. The objective of the existing education in this field is to provide vocational training targeted at translation/language processing jobs within the private and the public sector of business and industry.
Let us cast a quick glance at what is actually taught to translation students in Norway at the four university-level institutions involved in such programmes:

The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration—NHH:

One-year commercial language courses in English, French and German including LSP translation and a component of methodology with respect to LSP, terminology, and IOD (information and documentation).⁹

Østfold College:

commercial studies /English
commercial studies /French/German /international trade
(post-graduate)course /commercial English and European Studies
MA-equivalent studies /commercial German LSP
there is also a translatology programme, focusing on the methodology of translation.¹⁰

University of Oslo:

MA-equivalent studies in theoretical translatology with principal focus on GL;
literary translation as an optional topic for MA-equivalent studies in English
interpretation, qualifying course for authorization as an interpreter.¹¹

Agder College: 3-year programme including the following components:

Norwegian grammar and usage; translatology (2 years)
Practical LSP translation foreign language ¹² ® Norwegian (2 years)
Practical LSP translation Norwegian ® foreign language (2 years)
Practical GL translation foreign language ® Norwegian (2 years)
Practical GL translation Norwegian ® foreign language (2 years)
Foreign language grammar and usage; contrastive analysis (2 years)
Basic user skills in computer science for language students (one term)
Economics (one term)
Accounting (one term)
EU institutions and policies (one term)
Law for LSP translators (one term)
One year of studies abroad at university level in a native speaking area.
A post-graduate two-semester programme will be implemented from 1999/2000, enlarging the theoretical component of the current programme.¹³

LSP is the object of study in the better part of these study programmes. At Agder College the approach to translation is mainly a practical one, although the theoretical translatology aspect is inherent in the Norwegian course component. This practical approach has traditionally entailed the use of dictionaries and term collections of various kinds, and thus the students’ relation to the work of Norwegian lexicographers has been limited to the results of the lexicographical work published. The study programme at Agder also includes grammar and usage of the chosen language pair, and the theoretical aspects have been concerned with translatology and translation theories. Terminology has always been the underlying centre of interest, as the basic prerequisite of all LSP translation, but it has not been regarded as a separate subject set aside from the translation process. The coining of new unauthorised terms has even been regarded as one of the cardinal sins of LSP translators!
   The terminology development aspect has been left with the NCTT and the R&D departments of business and industry. The use of LSP terms has normally been restricted to the domain of each profession, and as such the NCTT publications have been used by professionals and translators. The need for access to LSP terms has been virtually non-existent for the users of the general language, and thus the LSP terms have only in exceptional cases found their way into the GL usage. It is not until the recently realised ‘electronic information age’ that the distinction between LSP terms and GL vocabulary has been blurred and at times impossible to maintain. The rate at which new terms enter the language of Norwegian speakers is beyond anyone’s formal control and so is the overview of who exerts this kind of influence. The impact of the Internet is unimaginable when it comes to the future of the Norwegian language. Translators find themselves in a situation where they have to invent Norwegian terms at the spur of the moment to meet the deadlines of the employers who want to publish their material on the Internet. They hardly take the trouble to relate to the basic rules for converting or treating loan words in Norwegian, or they find that their freedom of choice is efficiently curbed by the standardisation already imposed by the English language text authors, who advocate the blessings of English-speaking internationalisation. Time and money are the directing factors behind the increase of non-digested English loan words flooding the increasingly orally-styled written Norwegian language.
   As language planners the translators have never quite gained recognition. This rather lamentable fact is linked to the status of the LSP translators in Norway as that of the dillettante: is s/he an expert in language and culture of both countries or is s/he a professional in the field in question? Only this week a conference has been held on this omnipresent question of LSP translators, and the debate on this point probably never ought to abate among educators of LSP translation if we are to assure the quality of translation in the future. Traditionally in Norway, before any translation studies had been established, LSP translators were normally professionals in special fields who were interested in language in one way or another. One rather surprising effect of this way of thinking has been that translators in Norway have easily become tools for different interest groups. We seem to have been legitimising an art of negative language planning—or perhaps better, a lack of language planning—simply by the way we earlier chose to educate, or rather not to educate, translators. The linguistic influence of prestigious professional communities like the computer industry is linked to the way translators are regarded in this country: since the work of translators has been met with so little regard, there is often a lack of self confidence on the part of the translators in the way they regard their own ability to gain influence.
   However, the increased international cooperation on the political level during the last 25 years and the parallel electronification of business and industry have contributed to an enhanced awareness of the terminological aspect of translation and the highlighting of terminological planning and standardisation in LSP across the national borders of Europe. The implications for the national translation studies programmes have made us all meet at this crossroads of harmonization previously indicated. And from here only one course of action seems open to us, and that is the one with increased focus on terminology development and terminology management. There are two basic reasons for choosing this course of action:

The demand for standardisation prompts the need for enhancing the awareness of the terms in circulation, and also of the role that translators play in the development of the vocabulary of their mother tongue within the framework of international communication.
The electronic information society has become an integral part of the LSP translator’s everyday life, or perhaps rather the other way around, that the translator has become a full time member of the electronic information society, a position which requires fundamental theoretical and practical skills not only when consulting huge databases but also in order to construct such databases for personal and professional communication use.

In Sweden the actual EU entry seems to have changed the translators’ situation radically. After the entry into the EU, and very speedily too, university courses in translation have emerged. The courses resemble the one given in Norway, with the important addition of the focus on terminology development and management, and on facilitating the access to terminological databases for different groups of users within business and industry and public services.

Why? Didactic Reflections on the Focusing on Terminological Language Planning in the Teaching of LSP Translation
Ever since the 1970s and the gender awakening within linguistic studies, the consciousness of language as a tool for political and social power has been growing, perhaps more so in the GL than in LSP. Nevertheless, this aspect of LSP was revealed quite conspicuously in connection with the fairly recent EU agreement of Schengen, in which the Norwegian authorities desired Norway to take part. The translation of the Schengen agreement into Norwegian was done by the Foreign Office translators, and the process was an extremely difficult one as it touched exactly the sore spot of political manipulation by means of term choice. The political reactions from the Norwegian anti-EU camp were quickly rising and accusations of manipulation were heard. The role of the translators was thus focused upon in a manner which till then had been quite rare. Somewhere in the political process sits an army of translators who are virtually responsible for how individuals in the different countries are given essential political information of severe importance to the everyday lives of everybody. This liability on the part of translators should certainly be an inherent factor of their education, to make sure that they know the implications of the role they are designated in this process. If we put it strongly, we might even say that the responsibility extends to include the ultimate development of the language. And what is more: out of respect not only for the target language into which one normally translates, but also for the source language, the translators should be explicitly aware of the consequences of their work. Within the EU system, translators work only in the direction of their mother tongue. Norway, being a small language community, must produce translators who often have to work in both directions, and this fact expands the scope of linguistic responsibility. It also increases the need for working in close cooperation with professionals in the various fields. An essential aspect of a translator’s understanding of self is insight into one’s own limitations combined with knowledge of how to get at essential information. It is in other words a basic necessity to implement an attitude of problem-orientation towards the task of translating, rather than trying to simplify the process by means imposing a kind of practical advice. Translation is a task which involves the entire personality, the demands on the translator of social, political, and all aspects of communicative competence are huge, and should by no means be underestimated during their training period.
Some of these considerations are already part of the existing translation studies programmes in Norway. Focusing more explicitly on the language planning aspect of such an education, however, the terminology component offers interesting possibilities as to the combination of several factors. “Terminology is a semiotic science of cognitive and communicative organisation of knowledge,”¹⁴ says Johan Myking at the Norwegian Term Bank, the terminological institution responsible for the standardisation of the petroleum terminology used in the Norwegian offshore industry. The following characteristics may be used to describe the functions of terminology:

It is the basis of all knowledge of LSP, of the definition of the nature of LSP, of the properties of a term, in short of LSP as a tool of communication within specific fields.
It provides knowledge of how terms are formed and selected; on which basis new terms should be formed.
It secures a consistent use of terms, and provides the awareness of the difference between LSP and GL.
It introduces logical reasoning as part of the method not only of term formation but also of translation.
It implies analysis of new special fields.
It implies analysis and structuring of texts.
It enables the students to structure hypertexts and terminological databases, and in that way integrates the electronic knowledge transfer aspect into the translation studies proper and not only as an additional general course.
It implies the writing of definitions.
It implies the search for and the presentation of information.

   The amount of information or knowledge which is today produced, stored and distributed is beyond the scope of understanding for an average human mind. At the heart of this storage and communication of knowledge, however, are concepts represented by more or less familiar semiotic signals, like signs and terms. The creation of new concepts and corresponding terms draws on centuries of scientific research and experience within the various national language communities. The evolution of languages takes longer than the evolution of science and technology, but at the same time language is the communication tool for researchers and scientists and as such should be an adequate and precise means of expression. Introducing new concepts within the framework of an existing language structure is therefore one of the main challenges of today’s translators.
   This makes the terminology component of the education of translators of paramount importance in order to enhance the quality of their work to a level which is required in today’s international society.
   If we take the study programme at Agder College as our starting point, let us examine the implications of integrating terminological science as a course component with respect to the language planning aspect of translation. The programme includes, as we have outlined earlier, a foreign-language component, a mother-tongue component, general translation theories, grammar, semantics, stylistics, general linguistics, a pragmatic approach to LSP within relevant subject areas such as the petroleum industry, accounting, banking, etc. integrated in the course in practical LSP translation (needless to say, this aspect of the course is far from sufficient to make the students proficient in any special field), an introduction to computer science on a general-user level, term courses in economics, law and EU studies. The aim of the three-year course is to produce proficient translators, implying that the focus is on the transfer process of knowledge. As it is, the increased electronification of the translation process has not been given sufficient consideration in the programme. Translation software is in the process of being installed into the campus computer facilities of the translation students, but the students are hardly equipped with relevant technical knowledge of how to organise the linguistic information they are expected to deal with, either practically or theoretically. If we introduce terminology as the basic component of knowledge transfer, we may be able to fill the gaps currently existing in the programme with regard to adapting to an increasingly electronified and challenging reality for technical translators. Having a backbone as a terminologist, the translator would be skilled in communication science, in semiotics as the diverse representations of knowledge transfer, in multimedia communication and hypertextualisation directly aimed at the adaptation of computer science to the specific needs of translators, in short in dealing with LSP on all levels, in theory and in practice.

An attempt to look at the pivotal role of terminology science is illustrated in fig.1 below. There is an almost symbiotic relationship between terminology science and the other knowledge categories, a give-and-take relationship involving theoretical as well as practical aspects.

Theoretical Basis of Terminology Science
Products of terminology science

special fields
T

E

R
dictionaries, term banks, standards, classifications, thesauruses

semiotics (language + other semiotic systems)

M

I

N
terminographical products (professional communication, knowledge representation, terminological planning)

computer science
O

L

O
term banks, standardisation, terminological planning, technical text production, information management

knowledge engineering
G

Y

S

C
structuralised knowledge: concept knowledge, knowledge of relations, representational forms of knowledge

standardisation and terminological planning

I

E

standards, new terminologies

information and documentation

N

C
classifications; thesauruses, information management tools

science and cognition theory

E

Fig. 1. Adapted from Terminologi som vetenskapsgren (Laurén, Myking, Picht, 1997)

The contribution of the special fields to terminology science is the subject-specific content, dependent on the research development in the field, which must be carried out by the field professionals. In a programme like the one at Agder, only slight knowledge of this kind can be conveyed, but what may very well be taught is the knowledge of who are the experts and as such natural cooperation partners for the translators. Terminological products of the special fields, however, like terminologies, both descriptive and prescriptive in various forms, are among the students’ most essential tools during their studies. Semiotics is the science of communicative signs, mainly language signs, but not exclusively so. Theoretical aspects contribute to the terminology science in the form of cognition within lexicology, semantics, lexicography, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics, and all these aspects should in some way and to a varying degree be integrated in the programme. Terminological products are professional text productions in the form of LSP translations and interpretations—in other words the core of the existing teaching of practical translation, but in addition, verbal knowledge representation forms like definitions and explanations, and finally language and terminology planning, ought to be included in the curriculum. The role of computer science we have already touched upon, not only as the means of immediate accessibility of terms to the user, but also as the means of increasing the amount of stored knowledge by means of terminographical products like term banks. Other products of the terminology-related research in computer technology are the integrated systems uniting such term banks, text production and information search, the so-called advanced translation tools (MultiTerm, Translation Manager etc.) When it comes to the question of standardisation and terminology planning, the students should be given the possibility to familiarise themselves with the extensive work of harmonization and normalisation which is currently going on in the fields of medicine, the petroleum industry etc., aiming at a more unified and adequate means of communication between the experts and the public by means of the mediator: the translator.
Terminology is in other words the central discipline or the common denominator for all the aspects of a translator’s work, be it the theoretical foundation of it or the actual practical translation work. None of the disciplines inherent in the model in fig. 1 can exclusively solve professional communication problems on their own. They must all be involved in the project of dealing with LSP in one way or another. And since the task of a translator in an increasingly internationalised world demands an equally increasing awareness of language planning, the need for integrating the aspect of terminology science is obvious. For experienced translators who have been around in the profession for many years without any translator-specific education, the connection between the various aspects of terminology science and their everyday work comes more or less as a revelation. As one of the experienced technical translators participating at a NORDTERM terminology conference last summer thoughtfully uttered one evening: “I have never realised that I in fact was a terminologist until this week!”

References:

Andersen, Øivin. 1994. Fagspråk som forskningsdisiplin: Norske språkdata nr. 21. Bergen University, Norwegian Term Bank.

Ljung, Magnus. 1988. Skinheads, hackers & lama ankor: Engelskan i 80-talets svenska. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Trevi, 1988.

Laurén, Christer, Myking, Johan, Picht, Heribert (eds).1997. Terminologi som vetenskapsgren. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1997.

Pennycooke, Alistair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London and New York: Longman, 1994.

Sager, Juan C., Dungworth, David, McDonald, Peter F. 1980 English Special Languages: Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag KG, 1980.

¹ POSI is a German acronym meaning “practice-oriented course content in the training of translators and interpreters.”

² Pennycook, Alistair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, p. 6.

³ The presentation of the MLIS project on the Internet: http://www2.echo.lu/mlis

⁴ Sager, Dungworth & McDonald. 1980. English Special Languages: Principles and practice in science and technology, p. 1-12.

⁵ Andersen, Øivin. 1994. Fagspråk som forskningsdisiplin, p.8.

⁶ NORDTERM is a body of cooperation between the following six terminological institutions in Scandinavia: Islansk m�lnefnd, Iceland, the Norwegian Council for Technical terminology, Tekniikan Sanastokeskus ry, Finland, Tekniska nomenklaturcentralen, Sweden, Terminologigruppen, Denmark, and the Nordic Sami Institute, Norway. The aim of NORDTERM is to constitute a network with focus both on the theoretical and the practical aspects of terminology.

⁷ A common terminological record format has been worked out for the central terminology institutions in Finland, Norway and Sweden. This format is called “Nordic Terminological Record Format,” abbreviated NTRF.

⁸ The Nordic Language Secretariat, affiliated with the Nordic Language Councils, intergovernmental research organisation with public financing; and the previously mentioned NORDTERM cooperation.

⁹ More detailed information on the study programmes may be found at the website http://www.nhh.no/adm/studadm/english/programs/index.htm.

¹⁰ Detailed information of the various courses at the website http://www.hiof.no/english/avd/business.html

¹¹ More information on the translation courses of University of Oslo at the website http://www.uio.no/www-adm/inta/ects/arts/linguistics.html

¹² The programme includes English, French, and German as foreign-language components, and Norwegian as the mother-tongue component.

¹³ The English-language website of Agder College is currently under construction, which is why I have chosen to convey fairly detailed information in my survey.

¹⁴ Myking, Johan. 1997. 'Terminologiske teiknmodellar', in Laur�n, Myking and Picht. 1997. Terminologi som vetenskapsgren. Lund: Studentlitteratur. 1997.