Abstract
This article follows Toury’s example, when he turned the lack of consensus on a definition of translation into his definition or theory of translation, by theorizing the lack of agreement on how to assess translations in translator education. On the basis of two principles of assessment, i.e., constructive alignment and the assessment construct, this article argues that a unified theory of assessment in translator education is not viable and that, furthermore, the variety of translation theories that are used to conceptualize translation further complicates the matter of assessment. The article then proposes a particular assessment instrument as a case study in the implications of the theoretical stance. The argument against a unified theory of assessment in translator education also applies to translator certification.
Highlights
A significant amount of work has been done on translation assessment1 over the last decades (Angelelli & Jacobson, 2009; González Davies, 2004; Kelly, 2005; Kussmaul, 1995; Malmkjaer, 2004; Nord, 1997; Tennant, 2005)
As indicated above, the level of difficulty or depth of learning differs in the various modules, as stipulated by the National Qualifications Framework in South Africa (South African Translators’ Institute, n.d.). These differences are reflected in differences in the brief provided with each source text, i.e., the difficulty of the translation process that students should be able to negotiate, as well as the level of difficulty of the category of text, and the levels of difficulty pertaining to decisions that are required from students
Rather than striving towards a unified assessment instrument for translation or unified conceptualizations with which to assess, I have argued that translation assessments have to be aligned constructively within a curriculum
Summary
A significant amount of work has been done on translation assessment over the last decades (Angelelli & Jacobson, 2009; González Davies, 2004; Kelly, 2005; Kussmaul, 1995; Malmkjaer, 2004; Nord, 1997; Tennant, 2005). In translation, as in most spheres of life, the Western, disciplinary approach to science has led to a schism between theory and practice This schism is extended to a schism between academic education and the requirements of industry, where, amongst others, the latter complains that the former is too theoretical and that universities do not provide students who “can do the job.”. The article aims, firstly, to problematize the issue by indicating why a universal method of translation assessment is not possible or even desirable (as claimed by, for example, Kim (2009)). This approach leads to a conceptualization that is more constructive than merely problematization of the issue. The article will work out the implications of the principle of constructive alignment in assessment in translator education
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
