Dominique, as I said, I find that model a gross over-simplification. As I do the "if you can teach" chestnut. While i agree that tere are many models that are only useful if you run out of toilet paper, i do not believe that is reason for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The problem is that as long as professionals and academics fail to work together, both will suffer. The academics will suffer because the will go so far away from practice that their heads will become permanently dislodged up their own rear ends and the translators will suffer as it will become increasingly easy to become "stuck in a rut" as it were, becoming more and more used to old models. The old models might well work but what if they are not the best?

I would imagine that in the days before CAT we might have had much the same thoughts about computers halping us work. Oh come on, the "practical" people would have said, there is no way computers can ever be anything more than a place to store out work and add up our accounts. But then, theorists, programmers and a few translators found a way to do something useful and gradually people accept it. It might be the same in the future. There will come a time when theory becomes grounded once again and teaching is run on a practice + reflective theory model. It won't be just: here are your mistakes but here are your mistakes and a way of making sure they don't happen again. This is precisely why we need models and practical theory: for teaching, for explaining what we do to those who are not aware of what translation is and for explaining decisions to clients when they query them.

I am never likely to say to a client: I did this because a book told me so but armed with theory and I can say "I did this because in this context, this is more normal in English." Or "I changed the tone here because it makes your motto catchier." I might even say "I did this because it helpes yout translation work as a ..." It also means that i can explain to people why I will translate say a CV using different techniques than a contract or even a contract for someone to figure out their responsibilities differently from one which will be legalised.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 16, 2009 4:43 PM ...a dusty professor in his or her towers.

Originally written by dominique f. on March 16, 2009 5:00 PM theories mainly help theorists justify their "translatologist" salary as faculty members in academia or their fees as consultants (BTW, definition of a consultant: the guy who borrows your watch and then sells you the time of day).

I have to stress that in defending academia I was not referring to T&I programs but to my own good old days hinted at in:

Originally written by Jacek K. on January 19, 2009 1:38 PM healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished

It is practice that will put bread and butter on your table, but theories also help your brain grow...

Funnily enough, Maxi, my teachers were all seasoned translators and interpreters too. Also interestingly enough, theory has always had a big effect on translation whether it is realised or not. Luther's theories of translation affectd how he translated the Bible. The translators of the Authorised version in English also articulated their own theories, theories that they worked on and created while translating. In fact, the earliest theoreticiens were translators. Today, a great many theorists practice too. True, there are many who do not practice and suffer what I would call "brain in butt" syndrome. Unfortunately, academics are expected to write like academics and even the practical ones end up sounding like bored and boring theorists.

Most of the theory that I write and use on a daily basis was written by practitioners. Christiane Nord, currently the world leader in skopos theory, is a practicing translator and has written articles on using skopos in real translation. Hatim and Mason, arguably two of the world's top theorists of the text-linguistic and discourse analysis side of translation theory are themselves seasoned translators. Daniel Gile, Franz Pochhaker and Miriam Shlesinger, the big 3 of interpreting studies were all continuing to interpret, the last I checked, on top of their teaching duties. In fact the earliest interpreting theory (the "theorie du sens" theories) were written by some of the earliest simultaneous interpreters. I could go on to cite even more examples.

The point is that yes, there are still "philosopher-theorists" or psychologists who think they know about translation because they had to do some for an exam. There are still theorists whose books are as useful as matches in a gunpowder factory. My attitude to these theorists is the same as yours. However, really the question "did translators plying their craft have anything to do with theoreticiens" is moot. In many cases, they were the theoreticiens.

In answer to your teaching point, i must say that teaching implies some sort of theory. How else do you decide what is good and what is bad?

To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 4:38 AM Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 16, 2009 4:43 PM ...a dusty professor in his or her towers. Originally written by dominique f. on March 16, 2009 5:00 PM theories mainly help theorists justify their "translatologist" salary as faculty members in academia or their fees as consultants (BTW, definition of a consultant: the guy who borrows your watch and then sells you the time of day). I have to stress that in defending academia I was not referring to T&I programs but to my own good old days hinted at in: Originally written by Jacek K. on January 19, 2009 1:38 PM healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished It is practice that will put bread and butter on your table, but theories also help your brain grow...

Agreed Jacek!

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 4:38 PM To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.

Amen to this, I say.

Originally written by Catherine Gilsenan on March 16, 2009 8:09 AM Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 4:38 PM To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.  Thanks Catherine. However, as long as journals make academic terminology de rigeur, it will be a struggle. I might try "translating" some of it for more open and practical journals. Here's hoping I manage it. Amen to this, I say.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 10:47 AM There has to be a difference between academia and real life, so to speak, Maxi. I have been a part of both, so I understand both sides...

I have been always looking for the essence: this is why I like linguistic theories which are concerned more with the universal behind the language. This is why I have always loved Chomsky, hermeneutics and the philosophical aspect of linguistics. As for practical aspect, I think I use more my intuition as far as practical interpreting and translation are concerned, of course based on the knowledge of the languages being the subject of these processes.

The linguistic knowledge I have acquired is stored somewhere in the subconscious.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 16, 2009 11:57 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 10:47 AM There has to be a difference between academia and real life, so to speak, Maxi. I have been a part of both, so I understand both sides... I have been always looking for the essence: this is why I like linguistic theories which are concerned more with the universal behind the language. This is why I have always loved Chomsky, hermeneutics and the philosophical aspect of linguistics. As for practical aspect, I think I use more my intuition as far as practical interpreting and translation are concerned, of course based on the knowledge of the languages being the subject of these processes.   The linguistic knowledge I have acquired is stored somewhere in the subconscious.

I think that is why I love good theory: it aims to try and explain what goes on subconsciously so other can learn it.

An interesting link from one of the world's top translation theorists on the topic:

www.tinet.org/~apym/on-line/translation/humanize.html

Hello Jonathan,

One aspect of translators that is elusive is improvement over time. Time is measured and dissected in just about every discipline. I think that one becomes a better translator (it's a reasonable hypothesis) over time. In other words, one's knowledge increases over time and one is better able to formulate one's sentences, etc. This is closely related to speed, also.

Another critical issue I find is target language knowledge. I found that the more I could speak a source language, the better I could translate from it into my target. So efforts at boosting source knowledge, especially the spoken language, add to improving one's renditions in the target. Conversely, bookish knowledge (from reading) also helps improve both.

And in this day and age, many young people are non-readers, therefore they are exposed to fewer narratives. Both, say, in the novelistic sense as in the legal or business sense. What I mean is that all disciplines have their narratives.  And I would add here, these speaking/reading exercises that help improve translation needn't be performed in a translation setting. One might go spend six months in a country of the source language, for example, and during that time, eschew contact with target speakers. When one returns from such a sojourn, the effects are felt down the line time-wise. Judging from my years spent answering translation questions, the biggest issue I see in terms of knowledge is that translators often have not interiorized their the major structures of their source language.

Just a few thoughts...