Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 19 Февраля 2012 в 09:10, доклад
How do we know when a translation is good? This simple question lies at the heart of all concerns with translation criticism. But not only that, in trying to assess the quality of a translation one also addresses the heart of any theory of translation, i.e., the crucial question of the nature of translation or, more specifically, the nature of the relationship between a source text and its translation text. Given that translation is essentially an operation in which the meaning of linguistic units is to be kept equivalent across languages, one can distinguish at least three different views of meaning, each of which leads to different conceptions of translation evaluation.
Introduction
How do we know
when a translation is good? This simple question lies at the heart of
all concerns with translation criticism. But not only that, in trying
to assess the quality of a translation one also addresses the heart
of any theory of translation, i.e., the crucial question of the nature
of translation or, more specifically, the nature of the relationship
between a source text and its translation text. Given that translation
is essentially an operation in which the meaning of linguistic units
is to be kept equivalent across languages, one can distinguish at least
three different views of meaning, each of which leads to different conceptions
of translation evaluation. In a mentalist view of meaning as a concept
residing in language users’ heads, translation is likely to be intuitive
and interpretative. If meaning is seen as developing in, and resulting
from, an externally observable reaction, translation evaluation is likely
to involve response-based methods. And if meaning is seen as emerging
from larger textual stretches of language in use, involving both context
and (situational and cultural) context surrounding individual linguistic
units, a discourse approach is likely to be used in evaluating a translation.
The notion
of evaluation has long been the object of study in Education Science.
The field of evaluation has gradually broadened to the extent that it
now encompasses not only examinations but also the educational system
as a whole (students, teaching programs, curricula, etc.) and even extra-academic
areas (company evaluation, etc.).
Assessment
in Translation: Objects, Types, Functions, Means and Aims
Taking into
account the various contributions to research on assessment that we
have outlined above, it is possible to give a fuller picture of assessment
in translation: the various objects of study, the type of assessment
to be carried out, the function it is to perform, the means that can
be used and the objective to be pursued in each case. The following
chart shows this classification.
| PUBLISHED
TRANSLATION |
PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATION | TRANSLATION TEACHING | |
| OBJECT |
|
|
|
| TYPE |
|
|
|
| FUNCTION |
|
|
|
| AIM |
|
|
|
| MEANS |
|
|
|
Assessment
in Translation Studies
For centuries,
translations have been carried out on the basis of essentially stylistic
criteria or according to the translation method used (literal or free).
Historically, many of the texts on translation have been in the form
of commentaries by authors on translations performed by other authors;
the debate on the translation method used is a constant, in which the
dichotomy between literal translation, on the one hand, and free translation,
on the other, is absolutely central. Nowadays, and despite the enormous
advances in literary criticism, translation criticism is either non-existent
or, if practiced at all, is carried out in a subjective, undisciplined/ad
hoc fashion.
Three Areas of Evaluation
The Evaluation
of Published Translations
Translation evaluation is relevant in three areas of translation: the evaluation of published translations, the evaluation of professional translators’ work and evaluation in translation teaching.
We are referring to the translation of literary texts (poetry, novels, essays, etc.) and sacred texts, the field to which evaluation in translation has traditionally been confined. This may involve the evaluation of a single translation of a text or the comparison of several translations of an original text. The former is concerned with
translation criticism in the sense in which that term has generally been understood, while the latter is concerned with comparative translation study which may be synchronic (between translations done during the same period of time) or diachronic (translations carried out at different points in time) or multilingual (comparing translations into various languages of a single original text).
The aim of this type of evaluation is to judge a translation, to discuss its merits and demerits, and, sometimes, to propose solutions. In this case, the evaluation debate is closely linked to notions of fidelity and quality in translation): accordingly, evaluation criteria may change, depending on the period, aesthetic taste, literary conventions, the prevailing translation method (literal or free), and others.
Outside the academic context, the evaluation of published translations is generally carried out in the absence of any objective criteria of analysis and, sometimes without even a detailed comparison between the translation and the original text.
In some translation
prizes the jury takes only the translation into account, without consulting
the original text. However, in recent decades the academic world has
seen the gradual introduction of objective criteria into translation
evaluation; moreover, the progress seen in Translation Studies has led
to a better understanding of how translation works, as well as to the
proposal of analytical categories.
Evaluation
in Professional Translation Practice
This type of
evaluation deals with the evaluation of the individual translator for
professional reasons (the application for a post or membership of a
professional association, to assess the translator’s cost-effectiveness,
etc.) In this case, the translated texts are technical, economic, scientific,
legal, commercial, etc., and account for the vast majority of translations
in the world today. Obviously, these texts can also be evaluated for
the purpose of research or for pedagogical reasons in the academic or
teaching context. This type of translation evaluation is carried out
by translation agencies, companies, and international organizations.
When it comes to judging these translations, in addition to the criteria
of fidelity and quality, other factors such as effectiveness and profitability
come into play. In this context, scoring scales and surveys on quality
assessment are of great importance.
Bibliography