Colina (2008) proposes a componential-functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation and reports on the results of a pilot test of a tool designed according to that approach. The results show good inter-rater reliability and justify further testing. The current article presents an experiment designed to test the approach and tool. Data was collected during two rounds of testing. A total of 30 raters, consisting of Spanish, Chinese and Russian translators and teachers, were asked to rate 4–5 translated texts (depending on the language). Results show that the tool exhibits good inter-rater reliability for all language groups and texts except Russian and suggest that the low reliability of the Russian raters’ scores is unrelated to the tool itself. The findings are in line with those of Colina (2008).
1966 “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations”. Mechanical Translation 9:3–4. 55–66.
2003Teaching Translation: From Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill.
2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical evidence for a Functionalist Approach”. The Translator 14:1. 97–134.
2001 “Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 227–242.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.
1997 “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Current issues in language and society 4:1. 6–34.
1997Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 243–257.
2000 “Translation Quality-Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?”. The Translator 6:2. 149–168.
1985Text und Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
1964Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber
1969The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
2008 “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge of Translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the Translation Process”. John Kearns, ed. Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates. London and New York: Continuum 2008 104–126.
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetungskritik. München: Hüber.
Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-Theorie. Tübingen: Niemayer.
Van den Broeck, Raymond
1985 “Second Thoughts on Translation Criticism. A Model of its Analytic Function”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm 1985 54–62.
2001 “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 46:2. 326–344.
2004Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Cited by 30 other publications
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 61 ff.
2018. How to evaluate the TEFL students’ translations: through analytic, holistic or combined method?. Language Testing in Asia 8:1
Başer, Zeynep & Caner Çetİner
2022. Examining translation behaviour of Turkish student translators in scientific text translation with think-aloud protocols. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 67:2 ► pp. 274 ff.
2017. Translation Quality Assessment in Health Research: A Functionalist Alternative to Back-Translation. Evaluation & the Health Professions 40:3 ► pp. 267 ff.
2011. Introduction. In Perspectives on Translation Quality, ► pp. 1 ff.
2017. Translation and Social Media: In Professional Practice. In Translation and Social Media, ► pp. 95 ff.
2023. The Translation of Humor in Animated Feature Film: The Case of Kung Fu Panda. In Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Conference on Literature, Art and Human Development (ICLAHD 2022), ► pp. 1029 ff.
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37 ► pp. 112 ff.
2020. Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review. The Translator 26:3 ► pp. 257 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 september 2023. 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.