Page 23 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 23
Translation quality assurance and assessment
After perceiving quality assurance (QA) as “the act of maintaining translation services to ensure conformance to customer
requirements or other specifications”, Gerasimov (2005:1) posits that it is implemented by the translation service provider. He continues
that “QC (quality control) is implemented by your customer after the translation is completed and delivered”. According to Muzii
(2006), quality control (QC) is “an integration of the features and characteristics that determine the extent to which output satisfies the
customer’s needs”.
Because translation quality today remains “marred by impressionistic and often paradoxical judgments based on elusive
aesthetics” (Al-Qinai 2000:497), Ali Darwish (2001:2) then clearly cautions that without well-defined assessment and evaluation
standards and processes, quality assessment and assurance “will always be haphazard and subject to the personal preferences and
whims of the individual assessor or the interpretive frameworks, bureaucratic perspectives and draconian measures of educators and
evaluators alike”. This is true, because translation is a highly constraint-ridden hermeneutic exercise!
6) Constraints to translation quality assurance and assessment
Ali Darwish (1999) asserts that the ultimate goal of any translation strategy is to manage to remove possible general and specific
constraints to translatability, and that appreciating not only how these constraints function but equally how they can be managed and
ideally removed within a model or framework of constraint management is of benefit to translation quality stakeholders.
• General theoretical translatability constraints: Bassnett opines that translation is very obstacle-ridden, irrespective of whether
it is the professional or amateur translator concerned. She further avers that
all kinds of different criteria come into play during the translation process and all necessarily involve shifts of expression as the
translator struggles to combine his own pragmatic reading with the dictates of the TL cultural system (Bassnett 1991:104).
From the perspective of pre-translation quality quest, Hatim & Mason (1994:3-20) outline general theoretical constraints
reflected by the following inexhaustive categories that must be seriously metered by the translator (the vital communicative
“problem-solver”), if s/he intends to attain acceptable quality. They include the process vs. product (Bell 1987, Hatim & Mason
1994:4); objectivity vs. subjectivity (Reiss 1971/77, House 1976, Wilss 1982); ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’ translation (Hatim & Mason 1994:5,
Newmark 1988:68-69); formal vs. dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964:160); form and style vs. content (Meschonnic 1973:349, Hatim
& Mason 1994:8, Nida 1964:169); redefining ‘style (Hatim & Mason 1994:9); meaning potential (Halliday 1978:109, Beaugrande
1978); ‘empathy’ and intent; translator’s motivation; translating ‘centre’; and conditions of production ( all in Hatim & Mason 1994).
• Specific translatability constraints: In addition to the above general theoretical considerations against which the translator’s
purpose, priorities, and output are judged, other specific constraints have also been identified. According to Boase-Beier & Holman
(1988) they include conceptual (1988:2); external (1988:10 & 72); phonological (1988:5-6); literary (1988:5); political and ideological
(1988:5), as well as syntactic and stylistic (1988:6) and personal:
Upbringing, education, knowledge, sensibilities, predilections and beliefs also contribute to the formation of the individual
personality of the translator, limiting, defining, and also facilitating the translation process, from the initial selection of the SL text
right the way through to the final release into the world of its TL progeny” [1988:8-9]);
Other scholars add the contextual and socio-cultural (Hatim & Mason 1990:37); textual (Kress 1985:12), Hatim & Mason 1998);
linguistic and formal (Hatim & Mason 1990:192, Saussure 1916); and conventional (Bassnett 1991:104).
In the face of all these constraints, metrics, rubrics and models have been fashioned in guise of frameworks to enhance quality
attainment.
7) Translation quality assurance frameworks
For Muzii (2006), the best way to assess quality is to measure the number and magnitude of defects whose features and scope
must be specified by metrics, rubrics and models.
Translation quality metrics: We agree with Sir William Thomson (1883, in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, [MUP], 1972)
that:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science.
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 23
After perceiving quality assurance (QA) as “the act of maintaining translation services to ensure conformance to customer
requirements or other specifications”, Gerasimov (2005:1) posits that it is implemented by the translation service provider. He continues
that “QC (quality control) is implemented by your customer after the translation is completed and delivered”. According to Muzii
(2006), quality control (QC) is “an integration of the features and characteristics that determine the extent to which output satisfies the
customer’s needs”.
Because translation quality today remains “marred by impressionistic and often paradoxical judgments based on elusive
aesthetics” (Al-Qinai 2000:497), Ali Darwish (2001:2) then clearly cautions that without well-defined assessment and evaluation
standards and processes, quality assessment and assurance “will always be haphazard and subject to the personal preferences and
whims of the individual assessor or the interpretive frameworks, bureaucratic perspectives and draconian measures of educators and
evaluators alike”. This is true, because translation is a highly constraint-ridden hermeneutic exercise!
6) Constraints to translation quality assurance and assessment
Ali Darwish (1999) asserts that the ultimate goal of any translation strategy is to manage to remove possible general and specific
constraints to translatability, and that appreciating not only how these constraints function but equally how they can be managed and
ideally removed within a model or framework of constraint management is of benefit to translation quality stakeholders.
• General theoretical translatability constraints: Bassnett opines that translation is very obstacle-ridden, irrespective of whether
it is the professional or amateur translator concerned. She further avers that
all kinds of different criteria come into play during the translation process and all necessarily involve shifts of expression as the
translator struggles to combine his own pragmatic reading with the dictates of the TL cultural system (Bassnett 1991:104).
From the perspective of pre-translation quality quest, Hatim & Mason (1994:3-20) outline general theoretical constraints
reflected by the following inexhaustive categories that must be seriously metered by the translator (the vital communicative
“problem-solver”), if s/he intends to attain acceptable quality. They include the process vs. product (Bell 1987, Hatim & Mason
1994:4); objectivity vs. subjectivity (Reiss 1971/77, House 1976, Wilss 1982); ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’ translation (Hatim & Mason 1994:5,
Newmark 1988:68-69); formal vs. dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964:160); form and style vs. content (Meschonnic 1973:349, Hatim
& Mason 1994:8, Nida 1964:169); redefining ‘style (Hatim & Mason 1994:9); meaning potential (Halliday 1978:109, Beaugrande
1978); ‘empathy’ and intent; translator’s motivation; translating ‘centre’; and conditions of production ( all in Hatim & Mason 1994).
• Specific translatability constraints: In addition to the above general theoretical considerations against which the translator’s
purpose, priorities, and output are judged, other specific constraints have also been identified. According to Boase-Beier & Holman
(1988) they include conceptual (1988:2); external (1988:10 & 72); phonological (1988:5-6); literary (1988:5); political and ideological
(1988:5), as well as syntactic and stylistic (1988:6) and personal:
Upbringing, education, knowledge, sensibilities, predilections and beliefs also contribute to the formation of the individual
personality of the translator, limiting, defining, and also facilitating the translation process, from the initial selection of the SL text
right the way through to the final release into the world of its TL progeny” [1988:8-9]);
Other scholars add the contextual and socio-cultural (Hatim & Mason 1990:37); textual (Kress 1985:12), Hatim & Mason 1998);
linguistic and formal (Hatim & Mason 1990:192, Saussure 1916); and conventional (Bassnett 1991:104).
In the face of all these constraints, metrics, rubrics and models have been fashioned in guise of frameworks to enhance quality
attainment.
7) Translation quality assurance frameworks
For Muzii (2006), the best way to assess quality is to measure the number and magnitude of defects whose features and scope
must be specified by metrics, rubrics and models.
Translation quality metrics: We agree with Sir William Thomson (1883, in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, [MUP], 1972)
that:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science.
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 23
