Teaching English for Translation and Interpreting : A framework of reference for developing the translator’s bilingual sub-competence

. Even though the research on translator training explicitly advocates specific language training catering for translator and interpreter trainees’ needs, only a few, scattered attempts seem to have been made as regards the identification and provision of specific approaches guiding the teaching of such newly appointed branch of Languages for Specific Purposes. Drawing on previous studies on translator training and translation competence, this paper elaborates on the notion of the translator’s bilingual sub-competence and puts forward a framework of reference for teaching English for Translation and Interpreting , which can be used in materials analysis and development.


Introduction
Nowadays, there is widespread agreement that the cornerstone of translator training is the development of Translation Competence (henceforth TC), defined as the underlying system of knowledge, skills and attitudes required to be able to translate (PACTE 2003). It is expert knowledge and involves both declarative and procedural knowledge. Over time, numerous models accounting for its nature and components have been put forward (Beeby 1996;Bell 1991;Campbell 1991;Delisle 1980;Hurtado 1996Hurtado , 1999Hurtado , 2001Kelly 2002;Lowe 1987;Muñoz Martín 2014;Nord 1991;Neubert 2000;PACTE 2001PACTE , 2003PACTE , 2015Presas 2000;Pym 1992;Wilss 1976Wilss , 1982 among others), and even though its name is still being debated, it seems that all models agree that it is a macro-competence consisting of a set of competences that interact as they operate.
One of the most widely accepted and influential models is the one by PACTE (2003PACTE ( , 2015, a group conducting empirical-experimental research into written translation which maintains that TC is made up of five sub-competences (namely bilingual, extra-linguistic, instrumental, knowledge about translation, and strategic) and psycho-physiological components. The last three sub-competences have been acknowledged as the specific sub-competences within the overarching structure, since they constitute the distinguishing features which make TC different from the competence bilinguals have, i.e. bilingual competence alone (Hurtado 2017).
Notwithstanding this, the bilingual sub-competence is arguably the first and most important sub-competence to be developed (Li 2001), for it is the central element around which the other sub-competences -monitored by the strategic sub-competence-come into play. After all, translation is an activity between languages and thus finds many explanations at the linguistic level (Clouet 2010;Delisle 1980). Moreover, the deeper the translator's knowledge of the language systems, the more competent he or she will be (Clouet 2010).
Although this sub-competence is developed throughout the whole training (e.g. language, linguistics, translation and interpreting courses), it receives special attention in the language courses -especially in foreign language courses-which focus on students' communicative competence. However, these courses have also been identified as a perfect environment for developing more elements of TC, as they can also develop extra-linguistic, instrumental and strategic sub-competences (Clouet 2010 among others). Unfortunately, as Brehm (2004: 11) aptly notes, the teaching of foreign languages to translators has received insufficient attention, for " [w]hen it comes to publications specifically addressing the issue of translation-oriented foreign language teaching, only a few, scattered forays into the subject have been made". Today, Cerezo Herrero (2013Herrero ( , 2015 points out that this issue remains underresearched within the frameworks of both English Language Teaching and Translation Studies. As a result, a current hot debate in Translation Studies is the inadequate bilingual sub-competence of prospective translators and how it hampers the translator training process, as it makes trainers focus on foreign language teaching instead of translation-oriented issues. However, as Pym (1992: 288) rightly mentions, "if translators are to be trained, we cannot simply turn our backs on the teaching of foreign languages". In fact, "translation programmes should provide effective, tailor-made language courses for translation students" (Li 2001: 343). Unfortunately, this type of training seems to have been somehow neglected.
Numerous authors have advocated the specificity of language teaching in translator training (Andreu and Orero 2001;Argüeso 1998;Beeby 2003Beeby , 2004Berenguer 1996Berenguer , 1999Brehm and Hurtado 1999;Clouet 2010;Clouet and Wood 2007;Cruz García and Adams 2008;Hernández Guerra and Cruz García 2009;Mackenzie 1998;Möller 2001;Mulligan 2006;Pérez González 1999;Soriano 2004 among others), since the language and communication needs -and thus language training-of translators are different from those of mainstream language learners or even philologists. After all, "understanding translation requires a totally new way of looking at words, language and the world" (Malmkjaer 2004: 45). As a result, this language training has been acknowledged a type of Language for Specific Purposes (Berenguer 1996;Cerezo Herrero 2015;Clouet 2010;Huhta, Vogt, Johnson and Tulkki 2013;Nord 1991;Soriano 2004), which should be approached from the interface of this discipline and Translation Studies, so that the specific needs can be successfully identified (Berenguer 1996).
Despite the claims that foreign language teaching in translator training should be approached from an ESP perspective based on a thorough needs analysiscontemplating both their specific language needs and the ultimate development of TC-Hernández Guerra and Cruz García (2009) signal that the training provided in Faculties of Translation and Interpreting and Faculties of Philology is usually the same. Therefore, Hernández Guerra andCruz García (2009) andCerezo Herrero (2015) agree that the main problem of foreign language teaching in translator training has been its tendency to rely on English for General Purposes (EGP) approaches without taking into account the students' language needs as prospective translators and interpreters, which is mirrored in the scarcity of methodologies and teaching materials. According to Patrie (1994), this could also be the reason why there seems to be a "readiness-to-work-gap" in the translation market, which could be somehow sorted out by teaching translator trainees the contents that are needed for their future work.
By the same token, Huhta et al. (2013: 40) mention that Translation and Interpreting have often been excluded from the design of ESP courses, and thus corroborate that this is a significant oversight in that "[m]any professional communication situations call for some form of translation and interpretation, and so the need for this aspect of communication in ESP course design should clearly be investigated". Consequently, I fully agree with Malmkjaer (2004: 4) that there is a need to "mold language teaching in such a way that the needs of prospective translators are catered for directly", which translates into the "clear need to develop materials that reflect more accurately the linguistic needs of the (translation) students" (Cerezo Herrero 2015: 303).
In spite of the substantial progress of ESP in certain fields such as medicine or business, to my knowledge, no frameworks providing clear guidelines on the aspects that should be addressed and how they should be developed have been created. In this sense, the present paper aims to create such a specific framework for teaching English to translators and interpreters, which I will refer to as English for Translation and Interpreting (abbreviated to ETI). To do so, the key elements contributing to the development of such competence will be identified and examined so that the framework serves for both materials analysis and development.

Bridging the gap: the key elements of English for Translation and Interpreting
Considering that the ultimate goal of this language training is the development of TC, the models accounting for its nature and components need to be examined. More precisely, since this study focuses on the bilingual sub-competence -particularly on the foreign language-, special attention will be paid to the studies that have provided guidelines as regards the aspects that should be addressed in terms of language skills and communicative competences.

Translation competence models
Even though it is commonly acknowledged that TC is the set of skills and knowledge necessary to translate, its components appear to be somewhat blurred. In fact, the way these are to be developed is an issue that remains under-researched. In the following lines, I will endeavour to elucidate the notion of TC by presenting the most widely accepted and updated model: the one offered by PACTE (2003PACTE ( , 2015, which has been substantially influenced by the works of Hurtado (1996Hurtado ( , 1999Hurtado ( , 2001 and Kelly (2002).
PACTE has used empirical-experimental research to present their model of TC, which has developed over the years. Its basic premises are the following (PACTE 2003(PACTE , 2005: -TC is qualitatively different from bilingual competence.
-TC is the underlying system of knowledge needed to translate. -TC is expert knowledge, i.e. comprises declarative and procedural knowledge, the latter being predominant. -TC is made up of a system of sub-competences that are inter-related, hierarchical and subject to variations.
The first model proposed by this group (PACTE 2000) consisted of the following components: communicative competence in two languages, extra-linguistic competence, instrumental-professional competence, psychophysiological competence, transfer competence and strategic competence. In this model, special attention was paid to the transfer and strategic sub-competence. The former was considered the central competence integrating the others in that it was "the ability to complete the transfer process from the source text (ST) to the target text (TT), i.e. to understand the ST and re-express it in the TL taking into account the translation's function and the characteristics of the receptor" (PACTE 2000: 102). The strategic competence also played a key role in this model, as it helped monitor the interaction of the others and compensate for possible deficiencies in any of them. These two competences were precisely the ones that would make TC unique and different from bilingual competence alone.
In 2001, the group presented another model, although no major changes were made. The most important one involved the communicative competence in two languages, which was re-named as bilingual competence in an attempt to account for the communicative competence needed in both the source and the target languages. Hurtado (2001), the group's lead researcher, expanded on this competence and listed the sub-competences included in it as follows: grammatical competence, textual competence, illocutive competence, and sociolinguistic competence.
In 2003, all the elements of the macro-competence were labelled as sub-competences. Other than that, the bilingual, extra-linguistic and strategic sub-competences remained the same, but the others did undergo significant variations. First, the psychophysiological competence was presented as a set of components, rather than as a competence. Second, the instrumental-professional competence was modified to include exclusively knowledge related to documentation resources and ICTs applied to translation, and it was re-named instrumental sub-competence. Consequently, knowledge about translation was extracted from this previous competence and classified as an independent one which comprised knowledge of translation techniques, strategies, associations and taxes. Finally, the most important modification was the removal of the transfer competence, which was somehow subsumed in the knowledge about translation and strategic sub-competences.
It could be argued that this transfer competence should not be removed from the model given the crucial role it plays. In previous models (see Beeby 1996;Hansen 1997;Hatim and Mason 1997;Hewson and Martin 1991;Hurtado 2001;Neubert 2000;Nord 1991) this competence is overtly stated, meaning that knowing two languages and having a sound knowledge of the subject-matter and the cultures does not guarantee that an individual can produce successful translations. The ability to understand the source language and re-express it in the target language considering the characteristics of the translation task (e.g. function, audience, and linguistic features) is essential and constitutes the critical aspect that separates the translator from a proficient L2 or bilingual user. Indeed, a translator "must have experience in switching from one language to the other, as well as the ability to do so" (Nida 2012: 148) in such a way that all the nuances are appropriately transferred. Nonetheless, what this model intends is to put forward the idea that TC is actually transfer competence in that it is the set of skills and knowledge necessary to translate, which evidently implies the combination of the aforementioned sub-competences, components and knowledge that lead up to the ability of rendering the message and function of the ST to the TT. Therefore, TC can be equated to transfer competence and thus be excluded from the model as an independent component. The resulting model is illustrated in figure 1: -The bilingual sub-competence is the underlying system of knowledge and skills necessary for communication in two languages, and more specifically, for comprehension in the source language and production in the target language. This competence involves linguistic, sociolinguistic, pragmatic, and discursive competences, mirroring communicative competence models (see Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel 1995;Council of Europe 2001;Hurtado 2001). -The extra-linguistic sub-competence includes encyclopaedic, bicultural and subject-specific knowledge. -The instrumental sub-competence includes knowledge of documentation resources and ICTs applied to translation. -The knowledge about translation sub-competence includes knowledge of translation techniques and strategies, and the work market, such as the code of ethics, taxes, etc. It also refers to the interpersonal abilities mentioned in Kelly (2002). -The strategic sub-competence includes the individual procedures used to control the translation process by activating and creating links between all the other sub-competences and solving the problems that may arise. -The psychophysiological components refer to the ability to use all the psychomotor mechanisms and cognitive and attitudinal resources that may play a role in the translation process.
Today, PACTE (2015) and Hurtado (2017) maintain that TC is essentially an operative knowledge in which strategies play a key role and in which automatic processes have much presence, as in any procedural knowledge. The model that is still being used is the one from 2003 (see figure 1 above) which shows how all competences and components interact as they operate. The strategic sub-competence is situated in the middle of the model showing its central role monitoring the other sub-competences, and the psycho-physiological components appear to be present during the whole process. This proposal appears to be the most thoroughly developed and is of particular interest for many reasons. First, it relies on empirical data; second, it includes psychophysiological components which have proved essential in all forms of expert knowledge; third, it includes a strategic sub-competence which accounts for the results obtained from Think-Aloud Protocol studies with a cognitive approach; moreover, it establishes relations among the sub-competences rather than only providing a list of them. Finally, it includes the types of knowledge, skills and competences that appear to take part in the translation process, making the strategic, knowledge about translation and instrumental sub-competences salient, for they constitute the distinguishing sub-competences of the overarching structure.

Previous studies on the translator's bilingual sub-competence
Numerous studies have examined the translator's bilingual sub-competence -essentially in the foreign language-and have offered some guidelines for approaching this allegedly new branch of ESP. Nonetheless, most of them appear to remain too vague to be operationalised in actual teaching. Additionally, they tend to focus on the translator's profile, disregarding the interpreter as a distinct professional who, while sharing many language needs, also has different ones. It is important to mention, too, that even though the literature on foreign languages for translation purposes is gaining momentum, to date the number of publications dealing with such a topic is still rather scarce. For this reason, I shall present the aspects proposed for developing both the first foreign language (called Language B in study programmes) and the second foreign language (called Language C in study programmes). The reason for this is that the labour market does not always make such a distinction -meaning that by the end of their studies students need to master both languages for the same purposes (Cerezo Herrero 2013). I am aware, however, that this apparent equality should be questioned since many students do not have the same previous knowledge of both foreign languages before entering university, and there is no compulsory inverse translation or interpreting into Language C, meaning that their mastery of both languages will not be the same (Möller 2001).
The aspects that should be addressed in the ETI classroom are as follows: Table 1. Aspects to be addressed in the ETI class according to the literature.

Oral and written communication and their conventions
Cerezo Herrero (2013), Nord (1997) Special uses of language: puns, metaphors, irony… Cerezo Herrero (2013), Nord (1997) Restructuring and paraphrasing Nord (1997) Thematic knowledge Brehm and Hurtado (1999), Mulligan (2006) Guessing words from co(n)text Brehm and Hurtado (1999) Writing skills (note-taking, drafting, composing) Beeby (1996), Brehm and Hurtado (1999) Oral skills (pronunciation and modulation) Brehm and Hurtado (1999), Cerezo Herrero (2013) Communication strategies Brehm and Hurtado (1999), Clouet (2010) Learner autonomy Clouet (2010), Möller (2001) Discourse analysis for translation purposes Alos (2015), Cerezo Herrero (2013), Schäffner (2002), Trosborg (2002) Team-work Soriano (2004) Problem-solving and decisionmaking Soriano (2004) General and specialised texts Clouet (2010), Mulligan (2006) Deep linguistic knowledge Cerezo Herrero (2013), Clouet (2010), Rojo (2009) Listening skills for interpreting purposes Cerezo Herrero (2013) Other than the aspects to be addressed in this learning context, many scholars have provided useful insights as to how this teaching should be approached. Berenguer (1996), for example, maintains that this instruction should start with general texts and move gradually to more specialised ones. The reason for this lies in the fact that most students have only been exposed to the language in secondary education and, as such, they will still need to develop some basic competences in the foreign language. This goes in line with Brehm (1996), who suggests that students should firstly be exposed to a general language in order to consolidate previous knowledge and then introduce a more specific approach to teaching the language whereby students' target needs are indeed met. In other words, students would first attain mastery in the language for general purposes and then they would put this knowledge at the service of the translation scenario by means of real tasks resembling the translation process. While this sequencing of contents and approaches may carry logic pedagogical implications, I agree with Cruz García and Mulligan (2004) and Cerezo Herrero (2015) that if there are too many linguistic constraints to use real (and sometimes) specialised texts, it can always be calibrated through the use of semi-specialised texts that can serve as a springboard for further study in subsequent courses (e.g. different text types and their distinguishing features and implications for translation). After all, as Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) aptly mention, ESP is not really about domain-specific language, but about situational communication which goes far beyond terminology and some language functions or speech acts. Instead, ESP is expected to train professionals to be able to communicate successfully in their corresponding contexts, which is inevitably achieved through specific language goals derived from specific language needs. Clouet (2010) puts forward a curriculum proposal, in which he succinctly describes the linguistic needs of translators within the ESP and the European Higher Education Area frameworks. He outlines the general and specific objectives of an English language course for Spanish-English Translators -based on the Libro Blanco del Grado en Traducción e Interpretación 2 by the ANECA and its relation with an English Civilisation and Culture course. After this, Clouet (2010) proposes a series of sample didactic units which are divided into five sections, namely central themes, specific objectives, language focus, CEF skills and activities, and cultural/professional focus. First, the topics and objectives that will be addressed in the unit are presented. Then, the type of language that will be practised is put forward, including grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and/or spelling. After this, the aspects that will be tackled and their relation to the CEF language skills are put forward. Finally, the cultural and professional value of the unit -which aims at developing other sub-competences specific to TC-are included. While this proposal constitutes one of the limited sources for this teaching, little information and very few guidelines provided: only the titles of the units -which somehow account for the contents to be addressed-are presented, but no actual objectives or contents for all of them are provided.
Rojo (2009) wrote a book on contrastive linguistics and translation that introduces students to the basics of linguistic analysis as applied to translation. As the author mentions, [t]he intention is to provide students with some necessary concepts and theoretical principles to help them identify the main translation problems that appear at the different levels of linguistic analysis and exploit the most common strategies to solve them (ibid.: 13).
Adopting a bottom-up approach, this manual comprises six chapters, starting at the level of words and finishing at the level of pragmatic context. Considering its linguistic approach to translation, we can say that this course can perfectly be used as a reference source in language, linguistics and translation courses. Nonetheless, Beeby (1996), following Delisle (1980), Hatim and Mason (1990) and Snell-Hornby (1988), advocates a top-down approach in that the aim is to teach the skill of translating and not linguistics. 2 This is a document envisaging the design of degree programmes for the European Higher Education Area. It has been written by Spanish universities and is supported by the ANECA (National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain), and it includes the contents and courses that students are supposed to be trained in.
From a discourse analysis perspective, Schäffner (2002) and Trosborg (2002) appear to be particularly influential for ETI. As Schäffner (2002) rightly indicates, systematic text analysis is acknowledged in many textbooks about translation; however, no actual methods, approaches or materials have been suggested. One of the reasons may be the fact that even though there is consensus that text analysis must be taught and practised in translator training courses, "there is less agreement as to the depth of analysis, and in relation to this, to the actual elements of the model of analysis" (Schäffner 2002: 2). Thus, the book edited by Schäffner (2002) appears to be the first to reflect upon the relevance of a thorough textual analysis before translating. The author presents the main reasons for such an analysis and how discourse analysis is a helpful tool for such an end. The book also puts forward a text analysis model developed by Trosborg, who addresses the key aspects of a translation-oriented, source-text analysis. She relies on the theoretical concepts from various linguistic disciplines and authors such as Halliday, Halliday and Hasan, and Bhatia and Swales to present an eclectic discourse analysis for translation model, whose aim is to "identify specific textual features which are relevant for the process of translation" (Schäffner 2002: 5).
The problem, as Schäffner (2002: 5) points out, is that "such an analysis needs to be fully understood as a translation-oriented analysis, and not as a text analysis in its own right." Trosborg's (2002) model has received much criticism in that it aims at a detailed linguistic analysis of the text but does not sufficiently account for the fact that it is an analysis for translation (Adab 2002;Millán-Valera 2002;Schäffner 2002). In this sense, the model appears to be too time-consuming and to lack focus. Accordingly, it might be pedagogically useful to focus initially more on text analysis and bring in translation focus in a second step, especially considering that students often want to (and actually do) start translating immediately. In doing this, we will raise awareness on the importance of such previous analysis and how this could be carried out.
Again within the realm of discourse analysis applied to translation, Alos (2015) argues that despite the central role of pragmatic competence in communication, it seems to be disregarded in foreign language curricula. The author conducts experimental research combining a quantitative approach to the translation product with a qualitative analysis of a think-aloud-protocol. In doing so, the author contributes to a fledging area of research applying SLA insights to translator training, a field that -as mentioned elsewhere-lacks empirical research.
Finally, Mackenzie (1998) and Cerezo Herrero (2015) maintain that language in translator training should be seen as a means to reach a further goal, but not an end in itself. In this sense, Cerezo Herrero (2015) suggests taking translation from both an academic and a professional perspective as a referent to determine its objectives and methodology. Even though I do not fully agree with the authors' claims that language is only a tool and not an object of study, it is true that the approach to language learning that needs to be adopted is not solely linguistic-oriented, but rather translation-oriented.

A framework of reference for teaching English for Translation and Interpreting
Once the main studies concerning the translator's bilingual sub-competence have been examined, it is necessary to create a more solid and comprehensive frame-work of reference including teaching objectives to be used in the ETI classroom. To do so, these have been conveniently arranged across skills, which seem to offer the most operative approach to teaching. Moreover, considering the fuzzy and integrative nature of many of the objectives presented above and the fact that the language-for-translator class is also an appropriate scenario for developing other sub-competences included in the model of TC, the framework includes the following general objectives: 1. To raise students' language awareness for translation-interpreting purposes. 2. To develop reading skills in accordance with the translation process. 3. To develop listening skills in accordance with the interpreting process. 4. To develop writing skills in accordance with the translation process. 5. To develop speaking skills in accordance with the interpreting process. 6. To develop extra-linguistic knowledge for translation-interpreting purposes. 7. To develop documentation skills for translation-interpreting purposes. 8. To develop professional skills.
As can be observed, the first five objectives are concerned with language-related issues, whereas the last three go beyond the borders of language and focus on world and cultural knowledge, the use of documentation sources and professional issues, i.e. the other sub-competences included in the overarching structure.
As regards the first objective, it is essential to clarify that what is meant by language awareness is the explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use (Ellis 2012). However, Carter (2003) warns that language awareness does not simply involve focusing on language itself to produce correct forms. Rather, language awareness is about eliciting learners' ability to reflect upon language and how particular forms function, which can be done by working on the foreign language or by contrasting it with the mother tongue, thus developing linguistic metacognition (Ellis 2012). Accordingly, language awareness is not only useful for learning the L2 in isolation, but also for fostering contrastive awareness between the L1 and L2, which is essentially one of the main aims of translator training. Therefore, the main goal of such an objective would be to raise students' language awareness at different levels, e.g. punctuation, spelling, morpho-syntax and pragmatics -be it (1) from a contrastive perspective (similarities and differences between the language pair) or (2) focusing on only one language-and make them aware of the main differences between written and oral language, for example. As can be observed, this objective draws on declarative knowledge, one of the cornerstones of the macro-competence.
While these objectives seem to cover the main aspects that need to be tackled in the ETI classroom, they are too general. In fact, the first objective can appear across skills (i.e. objectives 2 to 5). Consequently, I suggest breaking these general objectives down into the following specific objectives, which appear more functional:

General objectives Specific objectives
To develop reading skills in accordance with the translation process. 3 -To get the gist of the written text, i.e. topic identification (skimming).
-To locate specific pieces of information in the written text (scanning).
-To infer meaning from context in the written text.
-To infer meaning from co-text in the written text.
-To predict information from the written text.
-To identify the purpose and function of the written text.
-To identify the audience of the written text.
-To identify the thematic field of the written text. -To identify and understand speech acts and language functions in the oral text -To identify specific pieces of information in the oral text (scanning).
3 Extensive reading -understood as reading for pleasure, which pays attention to content rather than formshould also be promoted in the ETI classroom. However, it has not been included in this table because an activity cannot foster this type of reading. Instead, an activity may arouse students' curiosity, thus making them want to read more for pleasure, but it is not something measurable. The same happens with extensive listening.

General objectives Specific objectives
To develop listening skills in accordance with the interpreting process.
-To identify and understand implicatures in the oral text.
-To recognise and understand irony, humour and puns in the oral text.
-To identify intra-textual factors such as cohesion and coherence mechanisms in the oral text. -To identify extra-textual factors such as place, time, context, social class in the oral text. -To listen for detailed information in the oral text.
-To identify and understand intertextuality in the oral text.
To develop writing skills in accordance with the translation process.
-To rewrite texts according to stylistic rules or instructions, e.g. for other audiences, media, places, etc. -To learn to paraphrase utterances in order to identify the differences in use and in the communicative effect in written texts. -To develop revision skills.
-To produce different texts and genres.
-To use punctuation correctly.
-To produce coherent written texts.
-To produce cohesive written texts.
-To express ideas clearly in a written text.
-To use orthography correctly.
-To produce sociolinguistically acceptable written texts.
-To produce pragmatically acceptable written texts.
To develop speaking skills in accordance with the interpreting process.
-To learn to paraphrase utterances in order to identify the differences in use and in the communicative effect in oral texts. -To produce coherent oral texts.
-To produce cohesive oral texts -To pronounce and modulate correctly.
-To express ideas clearly in an oral text. To develop professional skills.
-To promote teamwork and decision-making.
-To raise awareness about the translation process.
-To develop editing skills.
Other objectives might be included in the framework, e.g. to give a personal opinion of the oral/written text or to evaluate the oral/written text based on certain criteria. Nonetheless, because they are not especially relevant for translation purposes, they have been excluded. This does not mean, however, that they cannot be addressed in the ETI class, for they are valuable skills in any FLT context. The problem that would also arise then would be where to include these types of objectives: either in receptive or in productive skills given their integrative idiosyncrasy. This is also the case of the objective to extract the key points of an oral/written text. Arguably, it is a receptive skill in that a text needs to be read or listened to in order to understand it and extract the main ideas. However, productive skills may be used as well, since more often than not this summary is to be provided through writing or speaking. Nonetheless, it is also true that students' summarising skills may be assessed on the basis of multiple-choice activities, whereby students only have to select the option that they think best suits the content of the text, thus only requiring the use of receptive skills. In this sense, even though receptive skills are the ones sure to be used when summarising, the type of activity will determine whether or not there is integration of skills. Notwithstanding this, in my framework this objective has been included in receptive skills.

Conclusion
This paper has provided evidence that ETI has particular features which differ from other language teaching contexts because of how and for which purposes translators and interpreters use language. As a result, the teaching of English to translator and interpreter trainees must reflect the following basic tenets: 1) the development of TC; 2) the study of the L2 raising contrastive awareness with students' L1 (or any language applicable); 3) the promotion of professional skills mirroring the labour market; 4) a methodology that favours practice over theory; and 5) a learning context that reflects an ESP approach whereby the teaching-learning process is not a question of a specific area, but one of particular needs and objectives.
Despite the vast amount of studies acknowledging the unquestionable specific nature of the translator trainee's language training, there still seems to be a bibliographical void as regards specific guidelines operationalising this training. Drawing on the few, scattered forays carried out in this respect, the present paper has presented a framework of reference for teaching ETI, which includes a number of specific objectives that are formulated across skills and sub-competences. This framework is intended to be used in both materials analysis and development, serving as a guide for the aspects to be included in the materials used in this teaching context. Accordingly, future research could look into the extent to which these elements are reflected in currently used materials. Moreover, future studies could include the cognitive component in the framework so that teaching is appropriately approached (see Criado 2016Criado , 2017.