Cover not available
Article published In:
Babel
Vol. 60:1 (2014) ► pp.35–51

The development of an error typology to assess translation from English into Korean in class

| Macquarie University, Australia
| Macquarie University, Australia
One of the urgent issues in translation studies is how to identify a good translation, which is inevitably related to its assessment. Various approaches have been introduced to deal with these issues, and while all of them should be considered as important variables, it would be impossible to use all of them in developing an assessment method, which can be applied to all types of translation.<p>Under these circumstances, this paper is designed to show the procedure of the development of an error typology to assess translations from English into Korean for students in translation programs. To do this, studies done in translation assessment and error typologies until now have been presented, and an error typology consisting of four categories: (a) causes of errors, (b) types of errors; (c) results of errors; (d) significance of errors has been developed. Since it is an on-going project, the next step will be to apply it to data to verify its effectiveness.<p>
Keywords: translation assessment, translation from English into Korean, translation teaching, error typology, translation
Published online: 24 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.60.1.03lee
References (12)
Bowker, Lynne. 2001. "Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation." Meta 46 (2): 345–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. viii + 103 pp.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. xiv + 258 pp.Google Scholar
Honig, Hans. G. 1997. "Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment." Current Issues in Language and Society 4 (1): 6–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. viii + 207 pp.Google Scholar
. 2001. "Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation." Meta XLVI (2): 233–257.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene Albert, and Charles Russell Taber. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. vii + 218 pp.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthoy. 1995. "European Translation Studies, Une Science Qui Derange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t be a Dirty Word." TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 8 (1): 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Katharina. 1981. "Type, Kind and Individuality of Text." Poetics Today 2 (4): 121–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Secară, Alina. 2005. "Translation Evaluation-a State of the Art Survey". Paper presented at the eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop Proceedings . 39–44
Toury, Gideon. 1981. "Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance." Poetics Today 2 (4): 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waddington, Christoper. 2001. "Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity." Meta 46 (2): 311–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Akbari, Alireza & Winibert Segers
2017. Evaluation of Translation through the Proposal of Error Typology: An Explanatory Attempt. Lebende Sprachen 62:2 ► pp. 408 ff. DOI logo
Dewi, Haru Deliana
2017. Translation and language errors in the Indonesian–English translation. Journal of World Languages 4:3 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.