Article published In:
TargetVol. 21:2 (2009) ► pp.235–264
Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation
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).
Keywords: quality, assessment, evaluation, rating, componential, functionalism, errors
Article outline
- 0.Introduction
- 1.Translation quality revisited
- 1.1Experiential approaches
- 1.2Theoretical approaches
- 1.2.1Reader-response approaches
- 1.2.2Textual and pragmatic approaches
- 1.3The functional-componential approach (Colina 2008)
- 2.Second phase of TQA testing: Methods and Results
- 2.1Methods
- 2.1.1Raters
- 2.1.2Texts
- 2.1.3Tool
- 2.1.4Rater Training
- 2.2Results
- 2.1Methods
- 3.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (22)
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating. London: Longman.
Bowker, Lynne. 2001. “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 345–364. 
Cao, Deborah. 1996. “A Model of Translation Proficiency”. Target 8:2. 325–340.
Carroll, John B. 1966. “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations”. Mechanical Translation 9:3–4. 55–66.
Colina, Sonia. 2003. Teaching 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.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 2001. “Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 227–242.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.
Hönig, Hans. 1997. “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Current issues in language and society 4:1. 6–34.
House, Julianne. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
. 2001. “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 243–257.
Lauscher, S. 2000. “Translation Quality-Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?”. The Translator 6:2. 149–168.
Neubert, Albrecht. 1985. Text und Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, Christianne. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
PACTE. 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.
Reiss, Katharina. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetungskritik. München: Hüber.
Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans. 1984. Grundlegung 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.
Williams, Malcolm. 2001. “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 46:2. 326–344.
. 2004. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Cited by (33)
Cited by 33 other publications
Akbari, Alireza & Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari
2024. Challenging the illusion of objectivity: an in-depth analysis of the preselected items evaluation (PIE) method in translation evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 
Van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Iris Schrijver, Heidi Verplaetse & Winibert Segers
2024. The impact of collaborative processes on target text quality in translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:3 ► pp. 486 ff.
Başer, Zeynep & Caner Çetİner
2023. Examining translation behaviour of Turkish student translators in scientific text translation with think-aloud protocols. Meta 67:2 ► pp. 274 ff.
Chen, Guangjiao, Xiangling Wang & Lyu Wang
2023. Developing assessment literacy among trainee translators: scaffolding self and peer assessment as an intervention. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 48:6 ► pp. 888 ff.
Gan, Yanning
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.
Han, Chao & Xiaoqi Shang
2023. An item-based, Rasch-calibrated approach to assessing translation quality. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:1 ► pp. 63 ff.
Han, Chao, Bei Hu, Qin Fan, Jing Duan & Xi Li
2022. Using computerised comparative judgement to assess translation. Across Languages and Cultures 23:1 ► pp. 56 ff.
Han, Tianyi, Dechao Li, Xingcheng Ma & Nan Hu
2022. Comparing product quality between translation and paraphrasing: Using NLP-assisted evaluation frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Han, Chao
2020. Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review. The Translator 26:3 ► pp. 257 ff.
Tang, Jun
2020. Graduate-level career preparation for Chinese translation students: a perspective of educational ergonomics. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 405 ff.
Kuznetsova, Irina Aleksandrovna
2019. VOLUNTEER TRANSLATION IN MODERN TRANSLATION ACTIVITY: STUDY OF TED: OPEN TRANSLATION PROJECT. Philology. Theory & Practice 12:8 ► pp. 249 ff.
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Heidi Verplaetse, Iris Schrijver, Hendrik J. Kockaert, Winibert Segers, Jasper Pauwels, Bert Wylin & Henri Bloemen
2019. How to Put the Translation Test to the Test?. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 26 ff.
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.
Amini, Mojtaba
2018. How to evaluate the TEFL students’ translations: through analytic, holistic or combined method?. Language Testing in Asia 8:1
Casado Valenzuela, Alicia
2018. Towards a Japanese video game localization quality analysis model. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Leiva Rojo, Jorge & Peter Stanley Fosl
2018. Phraseology as indicator for translation quality assessment of museum texts: A corpus-based analysis. Cogent Arts & Humanities 5:1
Colina, Sonia, Nicole Marrone, Maia Ingram & Daisey Sánchez
2017. Translation Quality Assessment in Health Research: A Functionalist Alternative to Back-Translation. Evaluation & the Health Professions 40:3 ► pp. 267 ff.
Desjardins, Renée
2017. Translation and Social Media: In Professional Practice. In Translation and Social Media, ► pp. 95 ff.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2017. How much would you like to pay? Reframing and expanding the notion of translation quality through crowdsourcing and volunteer approaches. Perspectives 25:3 ► pp. 478 ff.
Martínez Mateo, Roberto, Silvia Montero Martínez & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro
2017. The Modular Assessment Pack: a new approach to translation quality assessment at the Directorate General for Translation. Perspectives 25:1 ► pp. 18 ff.
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37 ► pp. 112 ff.
Salmi, Leena & Tuija Kinnunen
2015. Training translators for accreditation in Finland. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9:2 ► pp. 229 ff.
Taylor, Rachel M., Nicola Crichton, Beki Moult & Faith Gibson
2015. A prospective observational study of machine translation software to overcome the challenge of including ethnic diversity in healthcare research. Nursing Open 2:1 ► pp. 14 ff.
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2015. I know languages, therefore, I can translate?. Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:1 ► pp. 87 ff.
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2017. I know languages, therefore, I can translate?. In Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines [Benjamins Current Topics, 90], ► pp. 83 ff.
Ustaszewski, Michael
2014. An der Schnittstelle von Translations- und Interkomprehensionsdidaktik. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26:3 ► pp. 432 ff.
Williams, Malcolm
2013. Modelo modelo holístico y componencial para evaluar la competencia traductiva de los estudiantes de traducción. Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 6:2 ► pp. 419 ff.
van Rensburg, Alta, Cobus Snyman & Susan Lotz
2012. Applying Google Translate in a higher education environment: Translation products assessed. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30:4 ► pp. 511 ff.
Colina, Sonia
2011. Evaluation/Assessment. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 2], ► pp. 43 ff.
Colina, Sonia
2012. Assessment of Translation. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Depraetere, Ilse
2011. Introduction. In Perspectives on Translation Quality, ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.