(#6) TQA Synopsis

How do we know when a translation is good?
This simple question lies at the heart

of all concerns with editing. But not only that, in trying to assess the quality of a
translation one also addresses the heart of any theory of translation, i.e., the crucial
question of the nature of translation or, more specifically, the nature of the relationship
between a source text and its translation text. What is TQA (translation quality
assessment)?
TQA is a fast growing subfield of Translation Studies. It focuses on the evaluation
of relationships between the ST translated into TT. By extension, evaluation involves
asking a question that has challenged thinkers from time immemorial: Is a particular
thing good? Just like evaluation in the broad sense, TQA can be quantitative or
qualitative: it can be based on mathematical/statistical measurement (as in the case of
most academic instruments) or on reader response, interviews and questionnaires. TQA
can be diagnostic (determining areas for improvement at the outset of a course of study),
formative (measuring progress and giving feedback during a course of study) or
summative (measuring the results of learning).Whether our focus is on products,
performance or competence, we are essentially trying to determine degrees of goodness
when we perform TQA.
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN DESIGNING AND APPLYING TQA

a). The evaluator: Does the evaluator have the linguistic or subject-field
knowledge required? The client, whose knowledge may be limited, inevitably evaluates
the finished product too. Indeed, the client‘s assessment may be the only one. Further, a
number of translation researchers, including Hönig and other functionalists, Dyson
(1994) and Kingscott (1996) have implicitly or explicitly given precedence to the
reader’s response or requirements, not the translator‘s definition of an adequate
translation, as the yardstick for gauging quality.
b). Seriousness of errors of transfer: The same inconsistency is apparent in the
assessment of level of accuracy. Some evaluators will ignore minor shifts in meaning if
the core message is preserved in the translation, while others will insist on total "fidelity,"
even if an omission of a concept at one point is offset by its inclusion elsewhere in the
text. Reasons (b) and (c) underlie the frequent complaints about evaluator ―
subjectivity.
c). Sampling versus full-text analysis: TQA has traditionally been based on
intensive error detection and analysis and has therefore required a considerable
investment in human resources. It takes time. One means of obviating the problem has
been sampling — the analysis of samples of translations instead of whole texts. Yet this
approach has shortcomings. First, the evaluator may not take into account any
"compensatory" efforts that the translator has made in unsampled parts of the text.
Second, the evaluator may not have taken into account the co-text in order to grasp the
meaning of the text as a whole. Third, as Daniel Gouadec has pointed out, "There is
always a risk that the most serious errors may lie outside the samples. This is especially
true of the work of established translators, who are capable of dramatic, uncontrolled
deviations from the meaning of the source text.
d). Multiple levels of assessment: Many prominent scholars, including Nord
(1991) and House (1997), identify a number of parameters against which the quality of
a translation should be assessed: accuracy, target language quality, format (appearance
of text), register, situationality, etc. The problem is this: Assuming you can make a fair
assessment against each parameter, how do you then generate an overall quality rating
for the translation?
e). TQA purpose function: The required characteristics of a TQA tool built for
formative assessment in a university context may differ significantly from one developed
for predelivery quality control by a translation supplier. According to Hatim and Mason,
"Even within what has been published on the subject of evaluation, one must distinguish
between the activities of assessing the quality of translations [¼], translation criticism
and translation quality control on the one hand and those of assessing performance on
the other".
SKOPOS THEORY
Adherents of this approach (K. Reiss and H. Vermeer) claim that it is the “skopos”
or purpose of a translation that is of overriding importance in judging a translation’s
quality. The way target culture norms are heeded or flouted by a translation is the crucial
yardstick in evaluating a translation. It is the translator or more frequently the translation
brief he is given by the person(s) commissioning the translation that decides on the
function the translation is to fulfil in its new environment. The notion of “function,”
critical in this theory, is, however, never made explicit, let alone operationalized in any
satisfactory way. It seems to be something very similar to the real-world effect of a text.
How exactly one is to go about determining the (relative) equivalence and adequacy of
a translation, let alone how exactly one is to go about determining the linguistic
realization of the “skopos” of a translation, is not clear. Most importantly, however, it
naturally follows from the crucial role assigned to the “purpose” of a translation that the
original is reduced to a simple “offer of information,” with the word “offer” making it
immediately clear that this “information” can freely be accepted or rejected as the
translator sees fit. But since any translation is simultaneously bound to its source text and
to the presuppositions and conditions governing its reception in the new environment,
Skopos theory cannot be said to be an adequate theory when it comes to tackling the
evaluation of a translation in its fundamental bidirectionality. For K. Reiss text type
(expressive, informative, operative) to which the original belongs which, as the most
important invariant for a translation, predetermines all subsequent translational
decisions. Linguistic approaches take the relationship between source and translation text
seriously; they attempt to explicate the relationship between (features of) the text and
how these are perceived by authors, translators and readers, but they differ in their
capacity to provide detailed procedures for analysis and evaluation.
LINGUISTIC MODEL OF TQA BY J. HOUSE

J. House’s (1997) model of translation quality assessment is based on model by
M. Halliday which is a systematic – functional theory. This model is a systematic
comparison of an original and its translation on three different levels: the levels of
language/text, register (filed, tenor and mode) and genre.
Register is categorized into three parts: Filed refers to the subject matter and social
action, Tenor includes the participant relationship. It involves the author’s provenance
and stance, social role relationship and social attitude. The last one as a Mode relates to
channel and the degree of participation between addresser and addressee.
She believes that the fundamental criterion of translation quality is the
equivalence. The first requirement for this equivalence is the function. This function has
two components which she calls them ideational and interpersonal. She also uses the
other two terms for these components as referential and non – referential. The function
of a text can be determined through opening up the linguistic materials based on the
situational constraints.
House divided the category of situational dimensions into two sections:
dimensions of language user and dimensions of language use. For each part, she uses
several subcategories. There are geographical origin, social class and time features for
the dimensions of language user. Also she considers medium, participation, social role
relationship, social attitude and province features for the dimensions of language use. A
textual profile is obtained for the ST by using there situational dimensions, a textual
profile for TT is Gotten. There profiles act like a norm against which the quality of the
TT is to be measured and the function of ST and TT is matched. Any mismatch along
the dimensions is an error. There dimensional errors are called covertly erroneous errors.
There are also overtly erroneous errors which result from a mismatch of the denotative
meaning of ST and TT elements or from a divergence from the target language system.
House focuses on three aspects of the meaning that are important for translation:
a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. She believes that translation is
recontextualization of a text in L1 by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in
L2. House created a translation typology which she considered it is related more to the
translators of the texts we are rendering but, it is essential to know that what kind of
translation is suitable for the source text.
Individual textual function
Register Genre
(topic) (interconnection) (ways of expressing)

Field: Tenor: Mode:
 Subject matter  Author’s viewpoint  Medium (simple/complex)
 Social action  Social role  Participation
relationship (simple/complex)
 Social attitude
Language text
According to House, there are two types of translation, overt translation and it is
not the second original. The addresses of this translation text are not directly addressed.
The ST is culture – bound. It is tied to the source language community and culture. It is
ST – oriented. Readers know that they are reading a translation.
House believes that equivalence has to be chosen at the level of language and text,
register and genre. Text function can not be the same in TT and ST because the ST is
tied to a special historical event in the source culture or because of the special condition
that the ST has in the source culture. For having and adequate translation in overt
translation, TT should take a second level function. In overt translation, source text may
be divided into two types: overt historically linked STs as non – fictional texts which are
related to particular historical facts. These texts focus on specific source receptors in
specific occasion such as political discourse. Overt, timeless STs are the other type of
source text in overt translation which are fictional texts going higher than a particular
historical meaning. They are showing language user dimensions. There two types of STs
need overt translation and second level function because the function of ST and TT can
not be matched and the translator can not transfer the same function from ST and TT
because of the purpose of the STs. In overt translation, the work of the translator is
important and visible. It is the translator’s duty to give target members access to the
original text and its cultural impact on source culture members. The translator puts target
culture members in a position to observe this text from outside.
The second type of translation which proposes by house is covert translation. A
covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of and original ST in the target
culture. In fact, covert translation is not ST or TT. It is created in its own right. A covert
translation is a translation which is not tied to the source language community and
culture. In this translation, both ST and TT addressees are equally addressed. ST and TT
have equivalent purposes. The same function of ST is transferred to TT. However,
because these texts are not source – culture bound; in translation they need more attention
to the cultural translation and evaluation problems. To remove such difficulties in the
differences in the culture and evaluator’s duty is to find out whether the application of
such a filter is necessary and appropriate. The inappropriate use of a cultural filter leads
to the production of a covert version; however, special audiences.

(#6) TQA Synopsis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(#6) TQA Synopsis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(#6) TQA Synopsis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How do we know when a translation is good?

This simple question lies at the heart

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN DESIGNING AND APPLYING TQA

LINGUISTIC MODEL OF TQA BY J. HOUSE

(topic) (interconnection) (ways of expressing)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.