DIDACTICS OF SPECIALISED TRANSLATION – FROM MEMORISATION TO CONTEXTUAL LEARNING

Abstract

This paper examines persistent challenges in the teaching of specialised translation and argues for a pedagogical model that integrates theoretical knowledge, contextualised terminology acquisition, and corpus-informed practice. Although traditional approaches in undergraduate translator training often rely heavily on memorisation of isolated terms and glossary-based learning, these methods fail to address core linguistic and conceptual issues that arise in specialised domains, particularly polysemy, collocational behaviour, and the semantic structures characteristic of EU legal and institutional discourse. Consequently, students may recognise individual lexical items but struggle to interpret or translate them accurately in context, resulting in errors that undermine precision, appropriateness, and textual coherence. To investigate these challenges empirically, the study employs a multi-method approach combining comparative analysis, ATA-based error analysis, and corpus consultation. Student translations were examined segment by segment against original EU legal texts and official Evroteka equivalents. The ATA error framework served as a systematic tool for categorising errors related to meaning transfer, terminological choice, and target-language mechanics, while corpus evidence provided insight into authentic usage patterns, established collocations, and domain-specific phrasing. This triangulated methodology enabled both qualitative interpretation of students’ decision-making and quantitative identification of recurring problem types. The findings reveal a significant discrepancy between students’ perceived familiarity with specialised terminology and their actual ability to deploy such terminology appropriately. Frequent errors include literal translations of polysemous items, interference from false friends, inappropriate Serbian legal-administrative formulations, and misunderstandings of key EU concepts such as ‘competence,’ ‘powers,’ and ‘implementation.’ These issues point to a deeper pedagogical problem: recognition-based vocabulary learning does not foster the conceptual understanding required for accurate specialised translation. Moreover, students often lack awareness of genre conventions and stylistic expectations in Serbian legal discourse. The paper argues that more effective didactics must move beyond terminology lists toward an integrated model that connects theory, guided practice, and corpus exploration. Theoretical instruction, particularly regarding translation strategies, semantic fields, and functional equivalence, sharpens students’ analytical skills and helps them make informed choices. Transparent, theory-based evaluation criteria such as those used by the American Translators Association further strengthen students’ ability to understand expectations, interpret feedback, and self-assess their work. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that a pedagogy grounded in reflection, contextual sensitivity, and empirical evidence better prepares students for the complexities of specialised translation and aligns academic training more closely with the demands of professional practice.