Exploring Havruta-based College Translation Course with Reference to RT: A Case Study

【Abstract】Figurative speech mirrors culture. It implies that translation is a tool for cultural and linguistic exchanges between the two languages. As time rolls on, modern society is interacting much faster than before, and college translation education also requires a new way of translation methodology that can reflect many social requirements. This research aims at finding an alternative method of translational education, and found efficacy and effects of the method. Therefore, Havruta-centered translation course with a team-oriented translation methodology can be an alternative that can produce equivalents that respond to original speech of figure in discourse.

【Key words】 Havruta; team-based learning; equivalent; social interaction; figurative speech

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】趙云翼(1969-)，韓國(guó)人，釜山外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)，教授，研究方向：應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)方向。

I. Introduction

As human cognition is nurtured with knowledge, frequency of human speech of figure is getting proportional. Figurative speech is basically a cultural representation in which linguistic elements are in conjunction with cultural and geographical properties. Among many methodologies, the Havruta-based teaching and learning method was applied to the figurative speech translation course. In line with this requirement, this study sought to find out how effective the Havruta-centered teaching method is. In addition, this research aimed at analyzing the translations produced by B-university college students with reference to the relevance translation theory.

2. Havruta and relevance standpoints

(1) Socratic dialogic method

College translation education faces three questions, “What is a Havruta? and how does its process proceed?” and “What abilities should college students be equipped with?” In line with these questions, what AMA answered was that they should develop 4Cs capability, i.e., critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity. Havruta, known as a paired Jewish study, is learning with partners. The basic principle of the Havruta learning method is to ask and answer questions with team members through discussions (Brown & Malkus, 2007; Holzer, 2006).

(2) Relevance-based translation

Irrespective of the proposition that the speaker has, the concept of interpretive resemblance depends on the context. This theory says that the interpretation of the original in translation is basically text-oriented. Translation should be distinguished from translating the paraphrase (Nida, 2002). In addition, this perspective stresses the concept of translation as a communication-based translation that takes precedence over the translation into the functional approach.

3. Team-based Havruta learning and translation

Translation is basically a means of meaning communication to target readers using language and cultural characteristics. In line with this perspective, college translation education has many in-class teaching and learning environmental conditions to succeed: The number of in-class participants, understanding of Havruta, speech of figure, and relevance theory should be met.

(1) Structure, method and translation

To apply the Havruta class, it takes five steps which are introduction, factual understanding, imaginational dialogue with peers, application, and meta Havruta that is a stage of organizing all. In terms of team structure, less than 4 students are grouped to conduct their translation activities. The definition of Havruta, speech of figure, and relevance translation theory are understood in their previous translation courses. Participants were given a variety of rhetorical expressions to be translated in the Havruta activity.

(2) Interpretive resemblance translation

In a large sense of figurative speech translation, the original is not carried out on the principle of the concept encoded; in other words, it is largely translated on that of actual contextual and conceptual meanings. In terms of this, Wilson (1993a) maintained, “a word which linguistically encodes a certain concept doesn’t necessarily communicate that concept.” Interestingly, the participants successfully translated editorial articles relating to general facts. It implies that they get used to literal translation such as ST1: Various multinational companies use interesting strategies to promote their products; ST2: Artificial intelligence-based products can boost unemployment.

(3) Figurative speech and translation

The original authors use figure of speech to convey their intention, clarity or expressive novelty or freshness to the target readers. Many distinctions and clarities are frequent not only in many areas of business, but also in everyday discourse. It implies that such figurative speech can often cause ambiguity between literal and rhetorical interpretations. Conclusively, figure of speech cannot be carried out just from a literal perspective because of social and geographical elements of the target culture embedded. For example, ST: You are a beaver. This sentence might not be directly translated into TT: You are a beaver.

(4) Relevance-based translation

Figurative speech comes daily in many varieties. It implies that many questions arise and lie in how to produce equivalents that can correspond to the originals encoded. As an in-class translation practice from Havruta team-based cooperative learning, many figurative sentences were given to the participants and practiced, and many figurative languages, metaphors, and similes were translated. For example, they were ST1: Time runs quicker than we think; ST2: Life is a play; ST3: You are eating like a bird; and ST4: Many college students think that they learn their ABC’s in College English Course.

4. Findings from the analysis

Literal translation skills were significant; however, figurative language was not met to expectation. Many analytical results indicate that: First, the degree of understanding of source and target culture has had a significant impact on figurative speech translation. As the team-centered Havruta learning method was applied, many problems were solved. In particular, it implied that pre-knowledge of the original and the target figurative language should precede the beginning of the rhetoric translation course. Away from their translation level, the Havruta-based translation class explicitly and implicitly informed many: It contributed much in this highly cognitive and cultural-oriented college translation course. Interestingly, participants performed mostly literal translations, as one-on-one equivalents or equivalent expressions corresponding to the originals did not exist in the target language (Cho, 2017). A good example word could be a beaver that does not exist in many geological belts. That is, the participants did not recognize the steps to analyze the semantic molecules that make up the explicit and implicit meaning of the word if the equivalent does not appear in the target language: A beaver could be translated into a cow in other target cultures.

5. Conclusion

In a large sense, language has both sides: implicature and explicature, mirroring cultural properties (Gee, 2005; Haroutunian-Gordon, 2009). Thus, college translation education should pay attention to both. To explore the effectiveness of the team-based Havruta learning method, it was applied to the figurative language translation course. In terms of the findings, the research found out how effective the learning method was: Participants actively participated in the learning method; this learning method was applicable to the translation course of figure of speech that requires in-depth cultural and cognitive background knowledge.

References：

[1]Brown, S and M. Malkus. Havruta as a Form of Cooperative Learning[J]. Journal of Jewish Education, 2007, 73(3).

[2]Cho, WI. A Gateway to Effectiveness in Translation Class: Flip Classes[J]. The Journal of Interpretation & Translation Education, 2017, 15(1),

[3]Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis[M]. New York: Routledge, 2005.

[4]Haroutunian-Gordon, S. Learning to Teach Through Discussion: The Art of Turning the Soul[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

[5]Holzer, E. What connects “good” teaching, text study and Havruta learning? A conceptual argument[J]. Journal of Jewish Education, 2006, 72.

[6]Nida, Eugene A. Contexts in Translating[M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002.

[7] Wilson, D. “Philosophy of Language” [M]. London: University College London, 1993a.