Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation

Sonia Colina

Abstract

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
Table of contents

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.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bell, Roger T.
1991Translation and Translating. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 345–364.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Deborah
1996 “A Model of Translation Proficiency”. Target 8:2. 325–340.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John B.
1966 “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations”. Mechanical Translation 9:3–4. 55–66.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia
2003Teaching Translation: From Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical evidence for a Functionalist Approach”. The Translator 14:1. 97–134.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun
2001 “Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 227–242.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans
1997 “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Current issues in language and society 4:1. 6–34.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
House, Julianne
1997Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 243–257.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lauscher, S.
2000 “Translation Quality-Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?”. The Translator 6:2. 149–168.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1985Text und Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene
1964Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber
1969The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
[ p. 257 ]
Nord, Christianne
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetungskritik. München: Hüber.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-Theorie. Tübingen: Niemayer.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Williams, Malcolm
2001 “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 46:2. 326–344.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 258 ]