Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach

Introduction

INTRODUCTION The assessment of translator performance is an activity which, despite being widespread, is under-researched and underdiscussed . (Hatim and Mason1997) Translation quality assessment (TQA)is not a new field of inquiry. Moreover, it has the distinction of being one that interests a broad range of practitioners, researchers, and organizations, whether their focus is literary or instrumental (pragmatic)translation. Concern for excellence in translation or literary and religious works dates back centuries. Quality in instrumental translation as a subject of discussion is amore recent phenomenon,but as far back as 1959, at an international conference ofthe Federation Internationale des Traducteurson quality in Paris, E.Gary and others were already debating the requirementsof a good translation. Morerecently still, with the advent ofglobalization, the coming of age of translation as part of the language industries, and the concomitant emphasis on "total quality" and ISO certification in private industry in general, special issues of Circuit (1994) and Language International (1998) have been devoted to quality-assurance processes, professional standards, and accreditation; Austrian, German, and Italian standardization organizations have issued national translation standards; and a European standard is scheduled for approval in 2005. The reasons for the interest in quality and TQA have, of course, evolved: where they were once primarily aesthetic, religious, and political, they are now primarily pedagogical, administrative (e.g., evaluation of students), and economic and legal (e.g., pre-delivery quality control/assurance; post-delivery evaluation to ensure that terms of contracthave been met by supplier). Honig spells out why various groups need TQA: Users need it because they want to know whether they can trust the translators and rely on the quality of their products. XIV TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT Professional translators need it because there are so manyamateur translators who workfor very little moneythat professionaltranslators will only be able to sell their products if there is some proof of the superior quality of their work. Translatological research needs it because if it does not want to become academic and marginal in the eyes of practising translators it must establish criteria for quality control and assessment. Trainee translators need it because otherwise they will not know how to systematicallyimprove the qualityof their work. (1998:15) In short, the relevance of, and justification for, TQA is stronger than ever. Yetwhereas there is general agreement on the requirement for a translation to be "good," "satisfactory," or "acceptable," the definition of acceptability and of the means of determining it are matters of ongoing debate and there is precious little agreement on specifics. National translation standards may exist, but, as the organizers of a 1999 conference on translation quality in Leipzig, the Institut fur Angewandte Linguistik und Translatologie, noted, no generally accepted objective criteria currently exist for evaluating the qualityof translations. Even the national and international standards, DIN2345 and the ISO-9000 series, do not provide for evaluation of translation quality in specific contexts. The result is assessment chaos. What are the problems and issues that stand in the way of consensus and coherence in TQA?What do practitioners and theorists disagree about? First, many TQA models have been developed with literary, advertising, and journalistic translation in mind. The principles underlying them do not necessarily apply to other types of instrumental translation. Furthermore, the focus of the designers of a number of models has been on highlighting cultural differences reflected in translations and on showing how high-quality translation may be "literal" or "free," depending on the cultural and linguistic constraints involved. Discussion of errors caused by other factors (inadequate linguistic or encyclopedic knowledge, failure to use context) is overshadowed by the designers' interest in cultural issues of translation. Second, people disagree on whether, or to what extent, factors extraneous to the "absolute" quality of the translation—deadline, difficulty of source text,end use, competence ofevaluator, etc.—should INTRODUCTION XV affect the "absolute" assessment. In addition, the more criteria, or variables, that are incorporated into the measurement grid and process in order to "make allowances," the more complex the model and process are likely to become. Third, whose notion of quality should take precedence? The translation service's notion of quality may not match the requirements of the client/end user/reader, particularly regarding style,vocabulary, and level of language. For example, the use of standard French, or "le franc,ais universel," might well be considered inappropriate in a text for technicians with the Canadian Armed Forces, yet the standardlanguage translation could...