Page 22 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 22
enough for another. This is extrapolatable to the broader cultural group, for after all culture is both individual and societal. This is
particularly problematic to translation (Attardo 1994:173-193, Antonopoulou 2002:195-220 and Vandaele 2002).
The translation of these traits calls for special attention at a time when the concept of translation itself remains very brain-bugging.
2) Translation: variegated difficult-to-define concept
Conceptualizing translation has been long, ink-spilling, and ostensibly inconclusive. But far beyond the platitude of reciting the entire
gamut of scholarly definitions of translation responsible for the difficulty of having a common definition, this article rather attempts to
appraise how far varied perspectives contribute to the translation quality assessment debate.
Vinay & Darbelnet (1959:20), Catford (1965:4), Tweney & Hoeman (1976:138), Brislin (1976), Ladmiral (1979:I), Crystal (1987:344),
Newmark (1981:7), Hewson & Martin (1991), Steiner (1992:253), and Snell-Hornby (1994:4-5) reveal that the different perceptions
about what translation really is have largely been a function of whether scholars perceive it as an art, discipline, process, product or
profession. Translation’s complexity is better expressed thus:
• the purposes of translation are so diverse and the texts so different and the receptors are so varied that one can readily
understand how and why many distinct formulations of principles of translation have been proposed (Nida, 1977:67);
• despite the numerous works on the subject, translation remains a complete obfuscation, something that requires the empirical
rigour of the linguist, the perspicacity of the literary critic and voraciousness of the philosopher all in combination in a single
proposed solution to the problem of translation (Frawley, 1984:11); or again
• translation is a widely diverging and frustratingly empirical issue, given that “theoretical reflection…appears plethoric, repetitive,
and generally unproductive”. (Hewson & Martin 1991:2). These scholars further question if there are “any specific reasons for
this confusion and for the breach between theory and practice?”
Beyond and above all controversies, Ali Darwish (1999/2001:13) thinks the fundamental issue in conceptualising translation remains
the quest for quality and the desire to “preserve original meaning” when it is conveyed or converted into the target language’s verbal
expression”. Yet, it is still common knowledge that preserving and keeping control of original meaning that ensures the integrity of
information is intrinsically difficult given that in the transformations of the translation process, there is inherent loss of information. How
then can quality be preserved when the tendency to lose control of original meaning is so real?
3) The issue of translation quality
The immense difficulty in defining translation undoubtedly directly impinges on the task of assuring and assessing quality. ISO 8402
(1994 3.1), amongst many stakeholders, avers that quality is “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. Muzii (2006) also sees quality as “an integration of the features and characteristics
that determine the extent to which output satisfies the customer’s needs”. Quality therefore implies the existence of “defects”, defined
by ISO (1994, 3.1) as the “non-fulfilment of intended usage requirements”. Defects can be minimised if little attention is paid to the
translation process itself.
4) The translation process and translation quality
Whereas Bell (1987) deplores the tendency to ignore the process involved in the act of translating, most translation scholars still
erroneously treat the translator’s competence, the translation process and the resultant quality, as disconnected entities. In the same
light, Ali Darwish (1999) laments that no study so far has really tackled the issue of process in a more pragmatic fashion. Reason why
despite the perplexity and intertwining between aspects of the translation process, Bell again concedes that
If we treat texts merely as a self-contained and self-generating entity, instead of as a decision-making procedure, and an
instance of communication between language users, our understanding of the nature of translating will be impaired…(Bell
1987:403-415).
Notwithstanding the important work done on the translation process - which constitutes i) evidence of a transaction, ii) a means of
retracing the pathways of the translator’s decision-making, and iii) an instance of communication between language users, the process
has unfortunately remained in dire want of delineation (Ali Darwish 2001:8). This, undoubtedly, affects discussions on what quality
assurance and assessment ought to be.
22 | Translation Journal - July 2015
particularly problematic to translation (Attardo 1994:173-193, Antonopoulou 2002:195-220 and Vandaele 2002).
The translation of these traits calls for special attention at a time when the concept of translation itself remains very brain-bugging.
2) Translation: variegated difficult-to-define concept
Conceptualizing translation has been long, ink-spilling, and ostensibly inconclusive. But far beyond the platitude of reciting the entire
gamut of scholarly definitions of translation responsible for the difficulty of having a common definition, this article rather attempts to
appraise how far varied perspectives contribute to the translation quality assessment debate.
Vinay & Darbelnet (1959:20), Catford (1965:4), Tweney & Hoeman (1976:138), Brislin (1976), Ladmiral (1979:I), Crystal (1987:344),
Newmark (1981:7), Hewson & Martin (1991), Steiner (1992:253), and Snell-Hornby (1994:4-5) reveal that the different perceptions
about what translation really is have largely been a function of whether scholars perceive it as an art, discipline, process, product or
profession. Translation’s complexity is better expressed thus:
• the purposes of translation are so diverse and the texts so different and the receptors are so varied that one can readily
understand how and why many distinct formulations of principles of translation have been proposed (Nida, 1977:67);
• despite the numerous works on the subject, translation remains a complete obfuscation, something that requires the empirical
rigour of the linguist, the perspicacity of the literary critic and voraciousness of the philosopher all in combination in a single
proposed solution to the problem of translation (Frawley, 1984:11); or again
• translation is a widely diverging and frustratingly empirical issue, given that “theoretical reflection…appears plethoric, repetitive,
and generally unproductive”. (Hewson & Martin 1991:2). These scholars further question if there are “any specific reasons for
this confusion and for the breach between theory and practice?”
Beyond and above all controversies, Ali Darwish (1999/2001:13) thinks the fundamental issue in conceptualising translation remains
the quest for quality and the desire to “preserve original meaning” when it is conveyed or converted into the target language’s verbal
expression”. Yet, it is still common knowledge that preserving and keeping control of original meaning that ensures the integrity of
information is intrinsically difficult given that in the transformations of the translation process, there is inherent loss of information. How
then can quality be preserved when the tendency to lose control of original meaning is so real?
3) The issue of translation quality
The immense difficulty in defining translation undoubtedly directly impinges on the task of assuring and assessing quality. ISO 8402
(1994 3.1), amongst many stakeholders, avers that quality is “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. Muzii (2006) also sees quality as “an integration of the features and characteristics
that determine the extent to which output satisfies the customer’s needs”. Quality therefore implies the existence of “defects”, defined
by ISO (1994, 3.1) as the “non-fulfilment of intended usage requirements”. Defects can be minimised if little attention is paid to the
translation process itself.
4) The translation process and translation quality
Whereas Bell (1987) deplores the tendency to ignore the process involved in the act of translating, most translation scholars still
erroneously treat the translator’s competence, the translation process and the resultant quality, as disconnected entities. In the same
light, Ali Darwish (1999) laments that no study so far has really tackled the issue of process in a more pragmatic fashion. Reason why
despite the perplexity and intertwining between aspects of the translation process, Bell again concedes that
If we treat texts merely as a self-contained and self-generating entity, instead of as a decision-making procedure, and an
instance of communication between language users, our understanding of the nature of translating will be impaired…(Bell
1987:403-415).
Notwithstanding the important work done on the translation process - which constitutes i) evidence of a transaction, ii) a means of
retracing the pathways of the translator’s decision-making, and iii) an instance of communication between language users, the process
has unfortunately remained in dire want of delineation (Ali Darwish 2001:8). This, undoubtedly, affects discussions on what quality
assurance and assessment ought to be.
22 | Translation Journal - July 2015
