Revisiting translator competence in the age of artificial intelligence: the case of legal and institutional translation

Abstract

Multi-componential models of translation competence are widely used in translator training as a yardstick for curricular and syllabus design. These models must be adapted to reflect professional trends, such as the impact of artificial intelligence, and machine translation in particular, on working methods. This paper describes the process of adapting a pioneering model of legal translation competence to the broader scope of institutional translation in light of recent trends, as verified by triangulating information from multiple interviews, analyses of translation volumes and job descriptors and other professional inputs. The resulting revised descriptor was validated through a survey of 474 translation professionals from 24 international organisations of diverse sizes and domain specialisations. The suitability of the descriptor was corroborated across the board, but variations were found in perceptions of the relevance of sub-competences to ensure translation quality. Profiles with a stronger specialisation in legal translation or more experience in institutional translation showed higher awareness of the relevance of all the sub-competences, especially the core language, strategic and thematic competences, and even more so for translating texts of a legal or administrative nature. The implications of these findings for training purposes in particular are discussed.

The impact of specialised translator training and professional experience on legal translation quality assurance: an empirical study of revision performance

“…This can sometimes lead to inadequate adaptations, such as replacing ‘Reglamento de Procedimiento Civil’ with ‘Normas de Enjuiciamiento’ for ‘Civil Procedure Rules’, or overshadowing some semantic nuance of the source legal system, as illustrated by a reviser who mistakenly introduced ‘representante legal’ instead of ‘abogado’ for ‘attorney-at-law’. In turn, this type of error usually denotes insufficient proficiency of legal translation methodological or strategic sub-competence (see Prieto Ramos 2024 ), and, in particular, difficulty in applying comparative legal analysis and appropriate translation procedures to ensure TT communicative adequacy. This is precisely a key component of legal translation methodology developed through legal translator training.…”

“…As elicited by our research, insufficient specialisation can lead to a poor translation being regarded as acceptable if the reviser is not more competent than the original translator (or MT system), thus potentially damaging the reputation of a language service or an organisation, on top of the possible legal implications. The increasing integration of several forms of translation reuse in today’s workflows has accentuated the added value of specialisation and the need for translation excellence in institutional settings in particular (see Prieto Ramos 2024 ). Translator competence is the first pillar of any sound TQA policy and its efficient implementation, and, as proven by this study, specialised training is a determining factor in building the required translation expertise.…”