Lesson 6:

Translation Quality Assessment

I. An overview
In a broad sense, TQA can be:
quantitative/qualitative.
diagnostic/formative/summative.
TQA models & procedures must pass the test of:
VALIDITY: the extent to which an evaluation measures what it is designed to
measure, such as translation skills
RELIABILITY: the extent to which an evaluation produces the same results when
administered repeatedly to the same population under the same conditions

II. Translation assessment approaches

1. TQA

Subjective & intuitive evaluations of a translation

Consisting more often than not of global judgements
E.g.1 "The translation does justice to the original text."
E.g.2 "The tone of the original is lost in the translation."
Propagated by translation scholars who regard translation as
an individual creative act depending on subjective
Mentalist interpretation & transfer decisions, artistic-literary intuitions,
interpretive skills & knowledge
Texts having no core meanings (their meanings changing
according to individual positions)
This relativizing stance: inappropriate for the evaluative
business of making statements about when, how & why a
translation is good

Aiming at a more "scientific" way of

evaluating translations
Influenced by American structuralism and
behaviorism
Associated with Nida's (1964) work:
Behavioristic a. readers' reactions to a translation =
views main yardstick for assessing its quality

Rachel Watson
 b. positing behavioral criteria: intelligibility
& informativeness
c. a "good" translation ⇨ "equivalence of
response"
Response-based The way target culture norms are heeded or
flouted by a translation: the yardstick in
evaluating its quality
Emphasizing the "skopos" of a translation
Emphasizing the crucial role assigned to the
purpose of a translation → the original text =
Functionalist simply an "offer of information" (this
views "information" can be accepted or rejected
by the translator)
However: Since any translation is bound to
both ST & the conditions governing its
reception in the new environment,
Skopostheorie cannot be an adequate
theory for TQA.

Oriented toward the translated text

Retrospective focus: from the translation to
the original
Evaluating a translation predominantly in
terms of its forms and functions inside the
system of the receiving culture & literature
Endeavoring to "neutrally" describe the
Literature-
characteristics of the text as they are
oriented
perceived on the basis of the receptor
approach
culture members' knowledge of
comparable texts in the same genre
However: How are we to judge whether one
text is a translation & another one is not?
What are the criteria for judging the merits
& weaknesses of a particular case? (House,
2001)

Examining translation from a psycho-

philosophical & socio-political stance
Aiming to make politically pertinent &
correct statements about the relationship
between features of ST & TT
Text & Discourse- Focusing on hidden forces that shape the
based process of selecting texts for translation &
Post-
Rachel Watson
 modernist & the procedures which result in the ways
Deconstructi original texts are bent
onist Explaining the influence translators can
approach exert through their translation on the
receiving literature
However: How can one differentiate
between a translation & any other texts
resulting from a textual operation which
can no longer claim to be in a translation
relationship with an original text? (House,
2001)

Widening the scope of translation studies

to include concerns with linguistics,
pragmatics, sociolinguistics, stylistics &
discourse analysis
Linguistically
Taking the relationship between ST & TT
-oriented
seriously
approach
Taking account of the interconnectedness
of context & text
Viewing translation as re-contextualization
⇨ A functional-pragmatic model of TQA

Text is viewed as the ultimate unit of translation since it operates in an interactive

environment.
The text typographical model offers the possibility of text variety. In translation, different
text types should be treated differently.
The ultimate aim of the TQA model by House (1981) is to obtain the functions of the SL &
TL texts through systematic analysis of both texts.
The function of a text is a composite of several interrelated factors, the most important
of which is the interplay of different aspects of meaning for the purpose of attaining the
ultimate aim behind writing a particular text.
Text is viewed as the ultimate unit of translation since it operates in an interactive
environment.
The text typographical model offers the possibility of text variety. In translation, different
text types should be treated differently.
The ultimate aim of the TQA model by House (1981) is to obtain the functions of the SL &
TL texts through systematic analysis of both texts.
The function of a text is a composite of several interrelated factors, the most important
of which is the interplay of different aspects of meaning for the purpose of attaining the
ultimate aim behind writing a particular text.
Meaning in translation: semantic/ pragmatic/ textual apsects
Language function vs. Text function

Rachel Watson
2. Meaning in translation

2.1. Semantic aspect

Translating the denotative aspect of a linguistic element may not be difficult. e.g. sách =
book = livre.
The referential aspect of meaning does not form an obstacle for translators.
The language system defines meanings of words & sentences. However, the same words &
sentences mean different things when used by different speakers in different contexts.
⇨ The understanding of words and sentences in a text is determined by contextual factors,
situational constraints, & the participants' intentionality.

2.2. Pragmatic aspect

When a speaker uses language, he / she does not use it in a vacuum. He/She intends to
produce a certain effect on his / her interlocutor(s).
Language is employed in situations which include both a linguistic and nonlinguistic
context.
Pragmatic meanings can be recovered through features such as inferences,
presuppositions and expectations.
⇨It is contextual features of a text that have to be considered & should be ideally
kept equivalent in translation. The author's intentions & the ultimate purpose of
the text are very important.

2.3. Textual aspect

The textual aspect of meaning concerns the way in which individual components of a text
relate to each other & to the rest of the text in order to form a cohesive entirety.
A text should be coherent, cohesive, informative and intent-oriented. The ways in which
these expectations interact with each other form the meaning of a text.
⇨ Textual meaning comprises semantic & pragmatic meanings in the process of
intralingual interaction.
⇨ The integration of semantic informativeness & pragmatic action in an active
stretch of connected language constitutes the textual meaning.
3 major factors contributing to the well-formedness of a text:
✓syntactic well-formedness
✓ grammatical & conceptual dependencies (i.e. cohesion & coherence)
✓ contextual dependency
Think about some logical relations in which clauses / sentences within a text can be
connected to each other: additive (and) ; adversative (but); alternative (or) ; explanatory
(that is); illative (therefore) ; illustrative (for example); causal (for) ; initial sentence in a
paragraph.

3. Text function vs. Language function

Rachel Watson
3.1. Language function (Contextual features that are realized by the functional components
of the semantic system (Halliday, 1985)

The FIELD of discourse (what the discourse is about) capturing social activity & topic with
differentiations of generality, specificity or granularity in lexis
The TENOR of discourse (role relationship between addresser & addressee) concerning
the nature of participants & the relationships between them in terms of social power,
distance & emotional charge
The MODE of discourse (medium of the interactive process of language) referring to both
channels (spoken or written) & the degree to which potential or real participation is
allowed for between writer & reader (which can be simple or complex)

3.2. Text function (According to House (1981)

a text = an occurrence taking place in a situation considered to be unique

The function of a text.
✓ the application or use which the text has in the particular context of situation
✓the sum total of all the linguistic & non-linguistic components that enter into the
production & reception of the text
A thorough analysis of a text along with specific dimensions of situation can display the
functional characteristics of that text.
→ a yardstick for assessing the quality of TT
2 types of translation as the result of different strategies of recontextualization (House,
2006): Overt translation & Covert translation

Overt Covert

The receptors of the translation are A covert translation is a translation

quite 'overtly' not being directly which enjoys the status of an original
addressed. source text in the target culture.
Overt translation is not a 'second The translation is not marked
original'. pragmatically as a translation of a
The work of the translator is important source text but may, conceivably, have
and visible. been created in its own right.
An overt translation is a case of The translator is here clearly less
language mention. visible, if not totally absent from view.
Since it is the translator's task to give A covert translation is a case of
target culture members access to the language use.
original text and its cultural impact on The translator attempts to re- create
source culture members, the as far as possible an equivalent
translator enables target culture speech event.
members to observe and/or judge this It is the translator's express task to
text 'from outside'. 'betray' the original and as it were hide
behind its transformation.

Rachel Watson
 An original and its overt translation Since true functional equivalence is
are to be equivalent at the level of aimed at, the original may be
Language/Text and Register as well as legitimately manipulated at the levels
Genre. of Language/Text and Register via the
use of a cultural filter

4. House's TQA model

Based on Hallidayan systemic-functional theory, speech act theory, pragmatics,

discourse analysis...
The analysis & comparison between ST & TT on 3 levels:
LANGUAGE/TEXT
REGISTER (field + mode + tenor): capturing the connection between texts & their
"microcontext"
GENRE: connecting texts with the "macrocontext" of the linguistic & cultural
community where texts are embedded
EQUIVALENCE = the fundamental criterion of translation quality
Analyzing the situational dimensions of ST & looking at TT to find if there is any mismatch
along the dimensions
2 kinds of errors:
covertly erroneous errors: mismatch between the provenance &stance of the writer &
that of the translator
overtly erroneous errors:
not translated
slight change in meaning
significant change in meaning
distortion of meaning
breaches of the TL norms (dear ungrammaticality/dubious acceptability)
Scheme for analyzing and comparing ST & TT (House, 2006)

Rachel Watson
 Translation quality assessment using House's model undergoes the following steps:
i. Doing a register analysis to get the source text profile;
ii. Describing source text genre realized in register;
iii. Giving a statement of function to the source text related with ideational and
interpersonal meaning;
iv. Treating the target text in the same way as the source text was treated above;
v. Comparing the two text profiles to produce a statement of "in-equivalence" which is
categorized according to the genre and the situational dimension of the genre and
register. The errors found are categorized into "covertly erroneous errors" and "overtly
erroneous errors";
vi. Providing a statement of quality with reference to the translation result; and
vii. Categorizing the translation result into two kinds: overt translation and covert
translation.
Source/ Target text profile:

Subject matter Social action

Field
Short fiction General and popular

Temporal, geographical, social

provenances
Author's provenance and stance
Intellectual , emotional, affective
stance (personal viewpoint)

Tenor Symmetrical
Social role relationship
Asymmetrical

Formal
Social attitude Consultative (neutral)
Informal

Medium Participation

Mode
Simple (spoken/ written) Simple (in a monolog with no
Complex (written to be spoken) addressee participation)
Complex

Source/ Genre Function

Target
text Short fiction Ideational

Source text and target text profiles side-by-side comparison:

Rachel Watson
 Source Text Profile Target Text Profile

Field Subject matter ✅❎ Field Social attitude ✅❎

Social action ✅❎ Social action ✅❎

Author's ✅❎ Author's ✅❎
provenance and provenance and
stance: Writer stance: Writer
Tenor Tenor
Social role ✅❎ Social role ✅❎
relationship relationship

Social attitude ✅❎ Social attitude ✅❎

Mode Medium ✅❎ Mode Medium ✅❎

Participation Participation

Genre ✅❎ Genre ✅❎

Function ✅❎ Function ✅❎

Rachel Watson