Translation Quality

Assessment
Juliane House
Quality of translation
• How to tell whether a translation is good or bad?

• Any statement you make on a translation requires a certain

conception/expectation/theory of translation

• Different theoretical approaches to translation lead to different

concepts of translation quality.
Quality of translation
• According to Juliane House, we can group these theoretical stances in
terms of 3 basic issues:

1) Relation between the ST and TT

2) Relationship between (features of) texts and the human agents
3) Distinction between translation and other secondary textual operations

These 3 issues are basic to any theory of translation.

Different approaches to TC
1) Anecdotal and subjective approaches/Mentalist views
• The most common criteria are:
• faithfulness to the original vs. the natural flow of the translation
• preservation of the spirit of the SL/author vs. the pleasure and delight of the reader of
the translation
• The criteria rely on personal judgment, subjective and unverifiable
statements.
• The quality of a translation is dependent on the translator.
• A common trend is that:
• Any effort to derive more general rules for evaluating a translation is denied
• The scholars list translation problems and their unexplained and inexplicable solutions
Different approaches to TC
• In more recent times, we see such a treatment in TS: neo-hermeneutic
approach
• If the translator is able to identify himself/herself with the text s/he is translating, it is a
good translation.
• The text’s meaning changes over time. The translator produces a version of the ST.
• According to House: an extreme relativisation of content.
• This approach can only shed light on the relationship between the translator and
(features of) the original text.
• What are ignored: the ST, the translation process, the relation between the ST & TT, the
expectations of the TT readers, the distinction between a translation and various types
of versions and adaptations.
 Different approaches to TC
2) Response-based, psycholinguistic approaches
2.1) Behavioristic views
• dynamic equivalence the manner in which receptors of the TT respond to it must be equivalent to the manner in which
receptors of the ST respond to it
• Eugene Nida took readers’ reaction to a translation as the main yardstick for assessing a translation’s quality.
• He postulated 3 criteria for an optimal translation:
1. general efficiency of the communicative process
2. comprehension of intent
3. equivalence of response

• To evaluate the quality of translation they implement cloze tests on the TL audience. However the results of these tests cannot
be equated with overall quality of a translation.

• These approaches only pay attention to the intelligibility of the translation, and thus to the recipients of the translation.

• The major weakness of response-based approaches is that the «black box» is not taken into account.

• What are ignored: the ST, the relation between ST & TT, distinction between translation and other secondary texts
Different approaches to TC
2) Response-based, psycholinguistic approaches
2.2) Functionalist, Skopos-related approach
* the way the TT is adopted to the TL and TC norms in accordance with its skopos is taken
as the yardstick for evaluating a translation.
* Reiss & Vermeer distinguish between equivalence and adequacy. Equivalence means
«same function». Adequacy means adequacy to the skopos of the translation.
* According to Reiss & Vermeer, it is up to the translator to decide on the function of
his/her translation.
• If we refer to the 3 issues, this approach is not concerned with the relationship between
ST & TT, the distinction between a translation and other secondary texts.
 Different approaches to TC
3) Text- and discourse-based approaches
3.1) Literature-oriented approaches, DTS
* the quality of translation is assessed according to the function of the translation in the system of
the target language literature.
* the hypothesis by Gideon Toury: «translations are facts of one system only», namely the literary
system of the TC. The TT is first criticized without reference to the ST, then specific
solutions of translation problems are analyzed by means of the «mediating functional-relational
notion of translation equivalence»
* Van den Broeck’s model of translation criticism and reviewing puts emphasis on the ST. This model
comprises a comparative analysis of the ST & TT taking into account : 1) the relations between the
ST and SS, 2) the relations between the TT and its readers, 3) the relations between the TT and
other translations of the same ST.
Different approaches to TC
3.1) Literature-oriented approaches, DTS
• The emphasis on the context of culture and reactions of the target
audience puts this approach near the response-based studies.
• With its emphasis on detailed micro- and macro-analyses of texts, this
approach shares the characteristics with textual-linguistic approach.
• In DTS approach, it is difficult to determine the object of study.
• In terms of 3 issues: the relationship between (features of) the text
and the human agents is the concern.
Different approaches to TC
3.2) Post-modernist and deconstructionist approach
• Scholars attempt to rethink translation from a philosophical, political, and socio-
psychological perspective. They try to unmask the power relations between languages and
cultures that are reflected in translations (e.g. the studies by feminists and post-colonialists).
• Post-structuralist thinkers have taken up Walter Benjamin’s famous essay «The Task of the
Translator». Derrida argues that if a text is worthy and valuable enough to be translated, it is
an original text. The original text may be completed by its translations (the concept of
«afterlife»)
• Venuti and Gentzler argue that an explicit comparison of ST &TT should be made. As a result,
we have access to unconscious manipulations in the translation.
• Critical theorists of translation are concerned with texts that call for an overt translation.
They examine the reasons for the elevated status of the original text, the invisibility of
translation, and the inferior status of translation.
• With respect to the 3 issues: the relation between ST & TT and the relation between
(features of) texts and human agents.
 Different approaches to TC
3.3) Linguistically-oriented approaches
• The ST, its linguistic and textual structure and its meaning at various levels are seen as the most
important factors in translation.
• Pairs of source and target texts are compared with a view to discovering syntactic, semantic, stylistic,
and pragmatic regularities of transfer.
• Reiss’ model of TC: she suggested that the most important invariant of translation is the text type of
ST.
• Koller’s model of TC (1979): ST criticism with a view to transferability into TL, comparison taking into
account of the methods used in the production of a given translation, translation evaluation on the
basis of native speaker metalinguistic judgments.
• Wills (1977) stresses the importance of textual analysis of «norms of usage» in 2 language
communities.
• The work of Leipzig School (Neubert)
• Peter Newmark’s model: applications of linguistic models to the analysis of translations
• Hatim and Mason (in the 1990s)
Juliane House’s Model of TC
Juliane House’s model
• Based on pragmatic theories of language use, this model provides for:
1. the analysis of linguistic-situational particularities of the ST & TT
2. a comparison of the 2 texts
3. the resultant assessment of their relative match
• Acc. to House, «equivalence» is the fundamental criterion of translation quality.
• The basic requirement for equivalence is that translation should have a function
which is equivalent to that of the original.
• A text’s function is defined pragmatically as the application or use of the text in
a particular situation. «Text» and «context of situation» should not be viewed as
separate entities.
Juliane House’s Model of TC
• The model involves initially an analysis of the ST according to a set of
situational dimensions:
1) the text’s author acc. to his/her temporal, geographical, social
situation
2) other dimensions related with language use
• The resulting textual profile of the ST characterizes its function, that is taken
as the norm against which the TT is measured.
• The TT is analyzed in the same way.
• The degree to which the textual profile and function of the TT match the
profile and function of the ST is the degree to which the TT is adequate in
quality.
Juliane House’s Model of TC
• Empirical work with this model has resulted in a distinction between 2
basic types of translation: overt vs. covert translation
• Overt translation is a case of «language mention». A ST that calls for
an overt translation is tied to the SL community and culture and has
an established worth in the SC.
• Covert translation is a case of «language use». A covert translation is
required when the ST is not SC-specific.
• A ST and its covert translation have equivalent purposes. Functional
equivalence is only possible in covert translation.
Juliane House’s Model of TC
• A covert translation may require the translator to apply a cultural
filter between original and translation.
• It is necessary to assess the quality of the cultural filters introduced in
translation, in order to be able to differentiate between a covert
translation and a covert version.
• Cultural transfer is only possible in the case of overt translation.
• Since translation is primarily a linguistic textual phenomenon, it can
be legitimately described, analyzed and evaluated as such.