Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey of the Great Divide

This paper is the result of a global survey carried out this year to around 1000 translators and interpreters, the majority of whom had university training in the area. The object of the survey was to investigate the habitus of the translator and to compare it with the academic belief in functionalism and the empowerment of the translator either as a mediator or as a social agent. The replies indicated strong responsibility towards the original text, and very little towards the reader or the wider community. Also, while the scholars appear to be convinced that their theories support the professional translator, in practice it would seem that university trained translators (and interpreters) rate theory very low on their list of ideal university training.Literature regarding the term “profession” is discussed as is what distinguishes an occupation from a profession. Classic trait theory suggests that a profession requires a number of minimum requisites, such as a well-grounded school of theory, influential professional bodies and professional exams. The ‘professional’ translators and interpreters were asked to explain in their own words what makes translating a profession. They also replied to questions on status.As a result of the replies it was possible to identify a large homogeneous yet scattered cottage industry. Their ‘professionality’ lies in their individually honed competencies in the field. They are dedicated and mainly satisfied wordsmiths, who take pride in their job. They decry “the cowboys” (from secretaries to students) while realising the seriousness of the competition due mainly to the very low status accredited to translators worldwide. Interpreters, on the other hand, saw themselves – and were seen by translators – as having a relatively high professional autonomy. Interestingly, relatively few of the respondents had only one “main role”. Gender is seen here as an important factor in this grouping.Finally, as a result of the replies, it is asked whether we (academics/translation trainers) are providing the theory and the training that will encourage the development of the profession – if indeed it can be defined as one