new microsotranslation quality assessmentft office word document

7/17/2019 New MicrosoTranslation Quality Assessmentft Office Word Document

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-microsotranslation-quality-assessmentft-office-word-document 1/11

Translation quality assessment (TQA)

Also referred to as translation evaluation (TE), this branch of

translation studies is

concerned with the question, ‘what makes a “ood! translation"# This is, in

e$ect, an

attem%t at a theoretical shift towards %rescri%tive theories on translation

rather than descri%tive ones& Answerin this question is certainly touher

than it looks& As translation studies is a classic e'am%le of a %seudoscience

in the eyes of many, thereis no sur%rise that the biest challene faced by

theories on translation lies in attem%tin to convert the classical criteria

‘faithfulness to the *T# and ‘naturalness inthe T+# into falsiable and

ob-ective criticisms on the quality of translations& .ut the very notion of a

model for ‘translation quality assessment# may indeed be a misnomer& /ne

could always arue that a translation that fulls the descri%tions of these

theories will inevitably be a ‘ood# translation accordin to those %articular

theories, and that the di$erence between a theory and a model is that a

model is a functional re%resentation of a theory that is e'%ressed in

diarams with staes and %rocesses instead of words& This understandin is

ado%ted in this %a%er and re0ected in its aims and methods& 1evertheless,

there have been some translation theories that claim to focus only on the

evaluation of translations and are ty%ically classied se%arate from the

‘standard# theories on translation (Tudor 2345, 6eiss 7888, 9illiams 788:; cf&

<ouse 788=, for an overview of some a%%roaches)&

7&7&2& ‘Translation Quality Assessment> A model revisited# ?uliane <ouse

(2335)



?uliane <ouse (2355, 2335) ca%itali@ed on the contem%oraneous

develo%ments in *ystemic unctional +inuistics to develo% a model for

evaluatin the adequacy of translations& The term ‘reister# ained currency

in the 23=8s and was ado%ted for <alliday#s irthianin0uenced theory that

attem%ts to amalamate lanuae form with lanuae function, or te't with

conte't& .y the 2348s, there were at least seven theories on the functions of

lanuae (%& B7B=)& <ouse also used work by Crystal and Davy(23=3) in her

earlier model& *he also cites s%eech act theory, raue *chool +inuistics,

and other discourse analysis methods as contributors to the analytical ste%s

of her model (2335> :B)& <ouse#s model shifted to a com%lete ado%tion of

<allidayan linuistics in the second, revisited model (2335), which allowed

the model to ‘%iyback# o$ the %o%ularity of reister theory&.y the end of

the millennium, unctional Frammar had radually become increasinly

%o%ular in 9ritten Discourse Analysis and Translation *tudies& *ubscribers to

this *chool in translation studies included <atim and Gason (2338), .aker

(2337), and .ell (2332)& Ht was no sur%rise, then, that <ouse#s model became

the %rotaonist in the lonely domain of translation evaluation& Ht is her later

model that will be used in this thesis& The assum%tion that lanuae evolves

with the needs of lanuae users and situations is the %remise on which

<alliday built his functional rammar (cf& <alliday 788:> :5)&

‘6eister# re%resents the ‘conte't of situation# ,a tri%artite system animated

by three values of discourse> eld, tenor and mode& These three cateories

corres%ond to <alliday#s three metafunctions of lanuae> the ideational

metafunction is overned by the eld , while the inter%ersonal and te'tual

metafunctions are overned by the tenor and mode, res%ectively&



Armed with these discourse analysis tools, <ouse#s a%%roach to translation

evaluation focuses on, and is restricted to, *TTT com%arisons& Hn %ursuit of

this, the a%%lication of her model ty%ically forms nine ste%s>

2& a statement about the reister

of the *T7& a statement about the enre of the *TB& a statement about th

e function of the *T:& a statement about the reister

of the TTI& a statement about the enre of the TT=& a statement about th

e function of the TT5& a statement about mismatches between the *T

and TT, which are either dimensional (%ramatic errors) or nondimensional

(denotative errors)4& a statement about the quality of the translation

(includin a listin of both covertly and overtly erroneous

errors)3& a statement about whether the translation is overt or covert

‘Fenre# was one of the additions to <ouse#s revisited model& There has been

some discussion on the relationshi% of enre t

o reister& Althouh <ouse#s confusin formattin, on %aes 27I, 273 and

2BI, a%%ears to mere enre under reister by discussin the term besides

mode, tenor and eld, <ouse clearly distinuishes the terms in her schema

(%& 284)& <er account of the disareement amon systemic functional

linuists is interestin; she claims that, while <alliday a%%arently

distinuishes the terms ‘reister# and ‘enre#, <asan does not (%& 28I)& A

con0ictin account, indicatin <alliday#s a%%arent dissentin refusal to

distinuish between reister and enre, and <asan#s coalition with the likes

of Gartin advocatin the o%%osite, is +eckieTarry (233B> BI, B5)&This

suests that the reister variables are not intended to re%resent linuistic

%arameters; an attem%t is even made to move away from a %urely



le'icorammar em%hasis on reister towards a more semantic one (<alliday

2354> 228222)& <owever, +eckieTarry (233B) arues that the common

understandin of the term reister ‘has become identied in the minds of

many lanuae s%ecialists as bein involved %rimarily with linuistic

characteristics rather than on the conte'ts which enerate them# (233B>B7)&

Althouh im%ressed by the ‘unfailinly interestin# results %roduced by

reister analysis methods, <oey also reconises the ‘thorny theoretical

questions reardin the relationshi% of enre to reister and lanuae that

are unresolved in the *ystemic tradition# (7882> 4)&

Accordin to 9iddowson (234B), reister analysis ‘does not reveal how

lanuae is used in the discour se %rocess# (234B> 74), and instead s%eaks of

‘enre analysis# (cf& 28728B)&

9here, then, does enre t into this relationshi% between lanuae form and

function"

Gartin sees lanuae as the ‘%honoloy of reister and reister the

%honoloy of enre# (in +eckie Tarry, 233B> B5)& Thom%son#s (788:)

meta%hor claries this %ro%osition> ‘see reister as cloth and enre as

arment> the arment is made u% of an a%%ro%riate ty%e of cloth or cloths,

cut and sha%ed in conventional ways to t %articular %ur%oses#

(788:>:B)& This %a%er will aree with se%aratin enre and reister&

Another ma-or shift in her revisited model is her reali@ation that ‘there is

however clearly some relation between source te't ty%e and translation

ty%e# (<ouse 2335> ==)&

6eali@in that not all translations can, or intend to be, functionally equivalent,

<ouse introduces the



overt translation ty%e& Hf a TT is considered an overt translation, the *T and

TT ‘te't function# statements (ste%s B and =) do not need to match& or most

TQA %ur%oses, the second te't function statement does not need to be

conducted, unless one is interested in how an overt TT functions& Hnstead,

what <ouse calls ‘second Jlevel function# (%& 227) should be investiated&

This includes lanuaeKte't, reister and enre& A covert translation is one

that does not corru%t the TT#s ability to function as the *T& Hn %ursuit of this,

an attem%t is made to ‘recreate an equivalent s%eech event# (%& 22:)&<ouse

introduces the conce%t of a ‘cultural lter# that a translator uses to transform

cultures%ecic elements in the *T into more taretculturea%%ro%riate

content& Hn the TQA %rocess, <ouse evaluates a covert TT for functional

equivalence& <ouse says ‘the

5

choice of an overt or a covert translation de%ends not only on the translator

himself, or

on the te't or on the translator#s %ersonal inter%retation of the te't, but also,

and to a

considerable e'tent, on the reasons for translation, on the im%lied readers,

on

%ublishin and marketin %olicies&# (%& 224)&

Gismatches between the TT and *T that are ‘on the dimensions# are errors if

the aim of

the translation is to %roduce a

covert



TT (%& :I)& These errors are called covertlyerroneous errors and are identied

by the dee% discourse analyses of the two te'ts&

‘1on

dimensional# mismatches

variance in the denotative meanins or breaches of thetaret lanuae

system

are called overtly erroneous errors& .aker, however, %oints toan interestin

case where even breaches of the taret lanuae system can sometimesbe

creatively sanctioned in the TT (.aker 7822> 7=27)&

<ouse#s model can also be used to com%are multi%le TTs of a sinle

*Tsimultaneously& This activity requires a ‘weihtin# system for the

classication of errors

so that TTs can be com%ared& <ouse says that this can be arrived at after

considerin

the s%ecic ‘individual situational dimensions# (%& 5=)& An e'am%le <ouse

%rovides is for

te'ts whose dominant orientation is the ideational function; for te'ts such as

these thatrely on an accurate transfer of information, the nondimensional

overtly erroneous errorsare more detrimental to the quality of the TT (%& 5=

55)& A%art from the odd e'am%le,<ouse deleates the task of classifyin the

relative weihtin of each error to thediscretion of the individual translation

evaluator& H will therefore be at liberty to decidethese variables in this thesis&



7&B&

6esearch on Qur#Ln translation

The structure of QT as a focus of research is very com%le'& There are three

mainsources of information> the ulema,

linuists and translation scholars, and Qur#Ln

translators& 9hat com%licates the matter further is the a%%arent

disenaementbetween these three %arties& The most %rodiious disconnect

is between the rst and

second rou%s> the ulema#s detachment from mo

dern translation theory, at times, madetheir literature abstruse and

un%ramatic& /n the other hand, translation studies e'%erts

make minimal reference to the Qur#Ln, raisin questions on whether their

theories caneven be a%%lied to QT& ?uliane <ouse#s m

odel is no e'ce%tion; not a sinle reference to

4

the Qur#Ln can be found in her work& An absence of u% to date theories on

Qur#Ln

translation means that the fatwas on the to%ic risk becomin outdated&/f

course, there are e'ce%tions to this observation> Qur

#Ln translator G&A&*& Abdel

<aleem lectures in translation studies and has received a formal Hslamic

education from AlA@har Mniversity, while ickthall (2335> vii)

liaised closely with then rector of alA@har al



GarLhN, durin his translation of the <oly Qur#Ln& <owever, these e'am%les

have

not led to a unied eld of research and most resources available on the to%ic

do notmake reference to all three rou%s& H also feel that those translation

scholars who areinterested in QT have failed to identify

a %resence for the Qur#Ln in translation

studiesthat can rival what 1ida has accom%lished in .ible translation& The

third rou% are

translators of the Qur#Ln& /ne of the most infamous %roblems

here is that many of theirworks have been tainted by Christian missionary

interests, sinister motives (such as thetranslations of *ale 237B and 6odwell

235:) and sectarian bias (such as the translation

of arNd 23=3)& This means that translations are %ro

duced for di$erent %ur%oses and tofull di$erent roles and functions, makin

it diOcult to discuss multi%le translations underone theory& This thesis

attem%ts to take on the mammoth task of bindin the three areas

of QT toether& <ouse#s model was c

hosen because it directly addresses the question,

‘what makes a ‘ood# translation"#, and is therefore the easiest to link to the

literature of

the ulema&Gost modern research on QT in the Arab world has been aimed at

ndin mistakes intranslations and su%%ortin the views rst introduced by

al

ParqLnN that are aainst QT

(discussed in de%th in section :&2&2&2)&



<owever

,

research of this ty%e is of limited useto the eld, %articularly to those who

%refer a more realistic and %ramatic a%%roach toQT& T

he rand fact is that there are hundreds of ‘translation# attem%ts that claim

to

achieve di$erent feats and fulll di$erent %ur%oses (cf& .inark 234=), and,

therefore, theissue of translation ty%es, amon others, is of reater

im%ortance, in my o%inion&

Hn the 9est, most focus is on com%arin di$erent translations of %articular

Qur#Lnic

themes or linuistic %atterns& <owever, the criteria these criticisms are based

on areoften undened (AlGalik 233I> =), ad hoc (Pahri 2338> 75; 1assimi

7828), restricted(<announa 7828> 2), or are a fu@@y mi'ture of di$erent

translation and linuistic theories(1a-im 7828> BB)& Hn their research,

Gaysoon Pahri and Daoud 1assimi seem to hint on

the idea of a unique model for Qur#Ln translation quality assessment (QTQA

)& H found

Pahri#s %a%er %articularly ins%irin& *he claims to have ada%ted <ouse#s

(2335) andCrystal and Davy#s (23=3) criteria in order to evaluate translations

of Qur#Lnic

meta%hors& *adly, details of this model are not informative enouh and the

reader is leftto work out how e$ective this ad hoc model is for the task of

QTQA& 1assimi %rovides



even less information about the model he ‘develo%s# and admittedly refers to

the mainbulk of its o%eration as a ‘eneral review %rocess# (1assimi 7884>

3:), a

far cry from astructured theory on QT& urthermore, his bibliora%hy indicates

that he had no interestin e'istent theoretical models for TQA at all& inally,

these %a%ers have not enaedwith the detailed discussions of the ulema on

this sub-ect&There are also countless %a%ers and articles on

Qur#Ln

translation by many di$erent9estern contributors& /ne e'am%le is .arnes

(7822)& or him, the %rocess of QT is less

28

com%le' than .ible translation (%& B5)& <owever, this thesis casts

considerable doubt onthat assum%tion and it is ho%ed that the eclecticism of

this research will %ortray themacrocosm of QT in a more realistic manner

than before& <e also believes that the

e'istence of translations undermines the ‘inimitability# of the Qur#Ln

ic discourse because

some translations convey ‘somethin of the style of the Arabic oriinal# (%&

:5)& This

thesis will discuss this common misconce%tion in reat de%th and show that

this notionis a misunderstandin of the

Qur#Ln

ic challene and a nave %erce%tion of what a

‘translation# of the Qur#Ln



has actually accom%lished& .arnes also feels that most work

conducted on QT does not e$ectively ‘interact# with translation theory and

that ‘further

coo%eration alon these lines Rbetween Guslim and 9estern scholarsS is

much to be

desired# (7822> :4)& H stronly aree with .arnes#

nal observation and this thesis aimsat buildin momentum for more

structured and linuistically founded a%%roaches to atheory on QT&

new microsotranslation quality assessmentft office word document

Documents