Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation
The University of Arizona
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).
Recent US federal mandates (e.g. White House Executive Order #13166), requiring health care providers who are recipients of federal funds to provide language translation and interpretation for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), have brought the long-standing issue of translation quality to a wider audience of health care professionals (e.g. managers, decision makers, industry stakeholders, private foundations), who generally feel unprepared to address the topic. A striking example of how challenging quality evaluation can be for health care organizations is illustrated by the experience of Hablamos Juntos, an initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to develop practical solutions to language barriers to health care.
Bell, Roger T.
1991Translation and Translating. London: Longman.
2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 345–364.
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.
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.
1964Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber
1969The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
[ p. 257 ]
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.