Résumés
Abstract
The practice of translation/interpreting is guided by a diversity of theories and so is the instruction of translation/interpreting, though arguably to a lesser extent. Yet, pedagogical assessment of translation, especially in relation to the assessment of translation works by students, mostly seem to fall into one kind, one which is overwhelmingly based on an imagined standard and concerned with accurate and adequate comformity to the standard.
The author of this paper, while experimenting with game theory and problem-based learning in the teaching of translation and interpreting, has been rethinking the assessment process. As a result, he has developed what he sees as an alternative system of marking, one which he calls planbased assessment and which aims to mark a student’s work/performance against the specific plans formulated by the individual student in conjunction with the instructor rather than against the imagined singular homogeneous standard imposed by an authority. He believes that this system is more conducive than the conventional standard-based assessment to the teaching of translation/interpreting in liberal arts education as it facilitates the development of subjectivity, vision, different learning styles, creative/critical thinking power, and problem-identifying and -solving skills.
In this paper, he will discuss the characteristics of plan-based assessment system in comparison to those presumably comprising the conventional system. Comparison will also be made to the sort of assessment advocated by functional theories of translation as they inspired and informed the construction of plan-based assessment. The paper will conclude with a case study of the use of plan-based assessment.
Keywords/Mots-Clés:
- translation training,
- plan-based assessment,
- game theory & game planning,
- functional theories,
- skopos
Résumé
La diversité des théories guide la pratique en traduction et en interprétation, et il en est ainsi de l’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation mais dans de moindres proportions. L’évaluation pédagogique des traductions des étudiants se ramène à une catégorie qui s’appuie presque uniquement sur des standards imaginaires. Dans cet article, nous mettrons en lumière les caractéristiques d’un système d’évaluation qui se fonde sur une évaluation définie par une structure planifiée. La comparaison s’effectuera aussi sur le type d’évaluation proposé par les théories de la traduction fonctionnelle qui sont à l’origine de notre système d’évaluation. Nous conclurons avec une étude de cas utilisant la structure planifiée.
Parties annexes
References
- LEE-JAHNKE, H. (2005): "New Cognitive Approaches in Process-Oriented Translation Training", Meta 50-2, p. 359-377.
- MUNDAY, J (2001): Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, Routledge, London and New York.
- NAATI (1991): Guidelines for Obtaining Approval of a Course in Interpreting/Translation, revised edition, Canberra.
- NORD, C. (1997): Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained, St Jerome, Manchester.
- REISS, K. (1989): "Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment", in A. CHESTERMAN, (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory, Finn Lectura, Helsinki, p. 105-115.
- REISS, K. and H. J. VERMEER (1984): Grundlegung einer allgemeinen translationstheorie, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
- VERMEER, H. J (2000): "Skopos and Commission in Translational Action", in The Translation Studies Reader, L. VENUTI (ed.), Routledge, London and New York, p. 221-32.
- ZHONG, Y. (2005): "The Second Best Thing: Game Planning for a Mission Impossible or just for Enjoying the Process of the Work", Across Languages and Culture 6-1, p. 91-111.
- ZHONG, Y. (2006, to be published): "Let.s Talk Translation Economically: A Case Demonstration of Re-Articulating Translation through Economics Jargons", Across Languages and Culture.
10.7202/010942ar