Page 24 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 24
In this same vein, and with respect to translation, Muzii (2006:22) opines that
The best way to assess quality remains that of measuring the number and magnitude of defects; and when defects cannot be
physically removed, their features and scope must be specified.[... ] The first step, then, is to establish a model of definition of
quality, and translate it into a set of metrics that measure each of the elements of quality in it.
Despite the above viewpoints, there has been lack of any serious definition of quality or provision of any real metrics. However,
from the early 90s Baker (1992), Zlateva (1993), House (1997) and Schäffner (1998) veritably started talking invariably of
components, aspects and factors of quality such as accuracy, precision, correctness, faithfulness, etc. But metrics were certainly
judged inadequate, so came the turn of rubrics!
• Translation quality rubrics: Another attempt at resolving the problem of translation quality assurance and assessment has been
from the perspective of rubrics which Riazi (2003, in Khanmohammad & Osanloo 2009:131-153) describes as an attempt to delineate
consistent assessment criteria. He emphasizes that it allows teachers and students alike to assess criteria which are complex and
subjective and also provide grounds for self-evaluation, reflection, and peer review. Today, four existing rubrics include those by
Farahzad (1992), Waddington (2001), Sainz (1992), Beeby (2000), and Goff-kfouri (2005). From these, a detailed component-centred
rubric that takes into account different aspects of translation (comprehension, conveyance of sense and style, inter alia) has seen the
light of day, highlighting accuracy (30%); suitable word equivalence in target text (25%); target text’s genre, target language culture
(20%); grammar and style (15%); shifts (8%); and addition, omission and inventing equivalents (7%). For Khanmohammad & Osanloo
(2009:149) this is
an empirical rubric for translation quality assessment based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal
correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic equivalence, and lexico-syntactic properties […
and] can serve translation instructors in order to come up with a more objective assessment of students’ translation
works. Students majoring in translation can also benefit from the findings of this study too since they would certainly be
able to improve their translations if they were aware of the comprehensive criteria used to evaluate their translations.
• Translation quality models: Only those of House (1976-2001), Al-Qinai (2000), and Ali Darwish (2001) - amongst many are visited.
− House, 1976 - 2001: House is credited with the first effort to examine translation quality in depth through a model, inspired
by Nida (1964), Toury (1995), Venuti (1995), Catford (1965), Reiss (1971), Wills (1974), Baker (1992), Hatim & Mason (1997),
and Hickey (1998). House’s model (1997) is, properly speaking, Hallidayan systemic-functional theory-based, drawing much
from the Praque School, speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus-based distinction between spoken and
written language. House (1997:251) posits that
Translation criticism therefore “has two basic functions, an ideational function and an interpersonal function. These two
functions have their counterpart in two different methodological steps. The first and in my estimation, the primary one,
refers to linguistic-textual analysis, description explanation, and comparison, and it is based on empirical research and
professional knowledge of linguistic structures and norms of language use. The second step refers to value judgements,
social, interpersonal and ethical questions of socio-political and socio-psychological relevance, ideological stance or
individual persuasion. Without the first, the second is useless… we have to make explicit the grounds for our judgement
basing it on a theoretically sound and argued set of intersubjectively verifiable set of procedures.
However, despite the above intense intellectual exercise, House fails to pointedly name the “verifiable sets of procedures”. And
she is aware of this when she avers that “it seems unlikely that translation quality assessment can ever be objectified in the
manner of natural science”. This is why other models are necessary!
− Ali Darwish, 1999-2001: Ali Darwish considers translation and translation quality as a
rational objective-driven, result-focused process that yields a product meeting a set of specifications, implicit or explicit.
If translation is a haphazard activity, it falls outside the scope of quality assurance principles that are based on rationality
of process and consciousness of decision-making (Ali Darwish 2001:5).
− Al-Qinai 2000: For his part, Al-Qinai (2000:499) embarked on the search for a model of quality assurance and assessment
based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic
equivalence and lexico-syntactic properties. This eclectic practical model targets
textual/functional or pragmatic compatibility” (i.e. quality of linguistic conversion) rather than the logistics of management
and presentation (i.e. quality of service). After all, the ultimate end-users are interested in the quality of the product and
not the means sought to serve its creation (Al-Qinai 2000:499).
If one agrees with Muzii (2006) that “a comprehensive set of metrics must measure quality from several points during the production
process regardless of the model”, then the standpoints of House, Ali Darwish and Al-Qinai should be considered as being more
complementary than antagonistic. But with all said and done, the applicability of these metrics, rubrics and models to translation quality
24 | Translation Journal - July 2015
The best way to assess quality remains that of measuring the number and magnitude of defects; and when defects cannot be
physically removed, their features and scope must be specified.[... ] The first step, then, is to establish a model of definition of
quality, and translate it into a set of metrics that measure each of the elements of quality in it.
Despite the above viewpoints, there has been lack of any serious definition of quality or provision of any real metrics. However,
from the early 90s Baker (1992), Zlateva (1993), House (1997) and Schäffner (1998) veritably started talking invariably of
components, aspects and factors of quality such as accuracy, precision, correctness, faithfulness, etc. But metrics were certainly
judged inadequate, so came the turn of rubrics!
• Translation quality rubrics: Another attempt at resolving the problem of translation quality assurance and assessment has been
from the perspective of rubrics which Riazi (2003, in Khanmohammad & Osanloo 2009:131-153) describes as an attempt to delineate
consistent assessment criteria. He emphasizes that it allows teachers and students alike to assess criteria which are complex and
subjective and also provide grounds for self-evaluation, reflection, and peer review. Today, four existing rubrics include those by
Farahzad (1992), Waddington (2001), Sainz (1992), Beeby (2000), and Goff-kfouri (2005). From these, a detailed component-centred
rubric that takes into account different aspects of translation (comprehension, conveyance of sense and style, inter alia) has seen the
light of day, highlighting accuracy (30%); suitable word equivalence in target text (25%); target text’s genre, target language culture
(20%); grammar and style (15%); shifts (8%); and addition, omission and inventing equivalents (7%). For Khanmohammad & Osanloo
(2009:149) this is
an empirical rubric for translation quality assessment based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal
correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic equivalence, and lexico-syntactic properties […
and] can serve translation instructors in order to come up with a more objective assessment of students’ translation
works. Students majoring in translation can also benefit from the findings of this study too since they would certainly be
able to improve their translations if they were aware of the comprehensive criteria used to evaluate their translations.
• Translation quality models: Only those of House (1976-2001), Al-Qinai (2000), and Ali Darwish (2001) - amongst many are visited.
− House, 1976 - 2001: House is credited with the first effort to examine translation quality in depth through a model, inspired
by Nida (1964), Toury (1995), Venuti (1995), Catford (1965), Reiss (1971), Wills (1974), Baker (1992), Hatim & Mason (1997),
and Hickey (1998). House’s model (1997) is, properly speaking, Hallidayan systemic-functional theory-based, drawing much
from the Praque School, speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus-based distinction between spoken and
written language. House (1997:251) posits that
Translation criticism therefore “has two basic functions, an ideational function and an interpersonal function. These two
functions have their counterpart in two different methodological steps. The first and in my estimation, the primary one,
refers to linguistic-textual analysis, description explanation, and comparison, and it is based on empirical research and
professional knowledge of linguistic structures and norms of language use. The second step refers to value judgements,
social, interpersonal and ethical questions of socio-political and socio-psychological relevance, ideological stance or
individual persuasion. Without the first, the second is useless… we have to make explicit the grounds for our judgement
basing it on a theoretically sound and argued set of intersubjectively verifiable set of procedures.
However, despite the above intense intellectual exercise, House fails to pointedly name the “verifiable sets of procedures”. And
she is aware of this when she avers that “it seems unlikely that translation quality assessment can ever be objectified in the
manner of natural science”. This is why other models are necessary!
− Ali Darwish, 1999-2001: Ali Darwish considers translation and translation quality as a
rational objective-driven, result-focused process that yields a product meeting a set of specifications, implicit or explicit.
If translation is a haphazard activity, it falls outside the scope of quality assurance principles that are based on rationality
of process and consciousness of decision-making (Ali Darwish 2001:5).
− Al-Qinai 2000: For his part, Al-Qinai (2000:499) embarked on the search for a model of quality assurance and assessment
based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic
equivalence and lexico-syntactic properties. This eclectic practical model targets
textual/functional or pragmatic compatibility” (i.e. quality of linguistic conversion) rather than the logistics of management
and presentation (i.e. quality of service). After all, the ultimate end-users are interested in the quality of the product and
not the means sought to serve its creation (Al-Qinai 2000:499).
If one agrees with Muzii (2006) that “a comprehensive set of metrics must measure quality from several points during the production
process regardless of the model”, then the standpoints of House, Ali Darwish and Al-Qinai should be considered as being more
complementary than antagonistic. But with all said and done, the applicability of these metrics, rubrics and models to translation quality
24 | Translation Journal - July 2015
