37.

Translator's / interpreter's competences

Introduction

In the mid 1960s, the concept of competence was, admittedly, first tackled by some
formal linguists whose main interest at that time was to define and classify linguistic
competence. In the past two decades, research into translation and interpretation
competence theories flourished manifestly. However, some features of this field are still
thrust and questionable, for instance, the optimal requisite competence for professional
translators and interpreters. Competence in the field of translation and interpretation is
crucial, since it mirrors the summation of translators and interpreters’ training, experience, as
well as their aptitude to embark on this profession. Many theorists have developed various
catalogues of translators and interpreters’ competences paying attention to the requirement
of professional translators and interpreters. This may raise two critical questions; is there a
fixed catalogue of professional translators and interpreters’ requisite competence? Is
translators and interpreters’ competence of a diachronic nature?

Pym maintains that translation competence may change to keep up with advancing
technology and social demands. This might explain the title he chose for his paper. Therefore,
translation and interpretation required competence may need to be redefined and remoulded
to keep up with any potential change in technologies and societies. In what follows, we report
on our research into professional translators and interpreters requisite competence. First, we
will present some salient definitions and classifications of translation competence, then; look
at some traditional and diachronic views in addition to some moot points among translation
and interpretation scholars on the models of professional translators and interpreters’
competence. Second, we describe and compare comparatively translation scholars,
interpretation scholars, and neurolinguists’ stands of competence. After that a synoptic mould
of professional translators and interpreters’ requisite competence will be put forward.

According to Kermis, translators’ competence training may contribute to interpreters’

competence; therefore, Kermis concluded that they can be investigated with each other,
since both of them experience the same field (interlingual communication). As a result, they
share some commonalities and distinct skills to accomplish their tasks. Kermis seems
consistent with Gile’s theory of interpretation sub-disciplinary which concludes that
interpretation is a sub-discipline of translation or in other words the oral version of
translation, therefore, any investigation of interpreters’ competence must bypass translation.
Therefore, Kermis proposes the following model of competences required for professional
translators and interpreters as an attempt to clarify how translators and interpreters’
competences are derived from the same root and share some unity ’interlangual
communication’: Professional Translators’ Competences:

Common

1) Linguistic Competence

2) Comprehension Competence

3) Production Competence

4) Subject Area Competence

5) Cultural Competence

Specific

1) Translational Competence
 2) Instrumental Competence

3) Attitudinal Competence

4) Communicative Competence

5) Assessment Competence

Professional Interpreters’ Competence

Common

1) Linguistic Competence

2) Comprehension Competence

3) Production Competence

4) Subject Area Competence

5) Cultural Competence

Specific

1) General Knowledge

2) Memory Skills

3) Public Speaking

4) Moral Competence

5) Stress Tolerance

This has been an undeniable ingenious attempt. However, Kermis mingled skills and
competences together. For instance, memory skills and stress tolerance have been subsumed
as competences though they are skills as stated by Kermis herself. They can be technically
grouped into cognitive and physical skills respectively. Even if other scholars will consider
them as competences rather than skills, they can be subsumed under the cognitive
competence and physical competence respectively. In addition, Kermis common competences
between professional translators and interpreters lack key competences required for both
translators and interpreters; for instance, strategic competence is iconic and fundamental
common competence between translators and interpreters. Another common competence
missed by the Kermis’ model is the ethical viability, as this issue is crucial in translation and
interpretation profession.

Based on the previously discussed and analyzed models and approaches of

competence, we can infer that it is not easy to have a clear cut definition or model for
competence, since it integrates many factors and perspectives. Interpreters’ competence can
not be discussed or examined apart from translators’ competence, and translators and
interpreters’ competence, on the other hand, cannot be analyzed apart from language
competence, since they all share the same interlingual communication realm. The following
brief developed comparison will almost mould and illustrate this debatable issue.
 Figure 3. A brief inclusive mould of professional translators and interpreters’
requisite competences.

6. Conclusion

Competence is a broad concept which denotes certain sorts of expertise and aptitude
that translators and interpreters need to master and control. Translators and interpreters
work within the realm of interlingual communication. Therefore, they share basic required
competences. Translation is the written version of interlingual communicative realm which
calls for grasping the mutual competences along with certain specialized skills for the
profession of translation, interpreting, on the other hand, is the oral version of translation
which requires the mutual competences with translators along with certain specialized skills
for the challenging profession of interpreting. In the current studies, the researchers
attempted to develop a new mould of translators and interpreters’ requisite competences
based on the aforementioned and compared views in an attempt to unify the previous
research into an inclusive stand of translators and interpreters’ required competences.
Besides, differentiating briefly between competences and skills.
 If we scrutinize the previous mould, we will realize how challenging it is to be in the
realm of translation and interpretation professions. Professional translators and interpreters’
requisite competences and skills can best be compared to anode and cathode currents
interaction for the current to follow. Meaning that, competences can only be activated and
presented through certain skills. As the previous brief mould necessitates, translators and
interpreters’ requisite competences are almost the same irrespective of dissimilar
terminologies used by some scholars. However, what distinguishes translators and
interpreters are the skills required to fulfil their communicative goals in the TL; translators
profession calls for certain skills along with the mutual competences, interpreters’
competence, on the other hand, requires different set of certain skills along with mutual
competences as illustrated previously. In other words, the mutual competences can be
activtivated only through distinctive skills of both professions. Moreover, we may infer that
many words or expressions may be coined and listed in dictionaries as a result of political,
economic, educational or societal phenomena or advancing technologies; consequently,
translation and interpretation requisite competence might be of a diachronic nature which, in
turn, calls translators and interpreters for following these new terminologies along with their
contextual features. Studies differentiating between competences and skills in the realm of
translation and interpretation are suggested for future research.