Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation
Sonia Colina | 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).
Keywords: quality, assessment, evaluation, rating, componential, functionalism, errors
Keywords: Mots-clés : qualité, test, évaluation, notation, componentiel, fonctionnalisme, erreurs
Published online: 16 December 2009
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.2.02col
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.2.02col
References
References
Bell, Roger T.
1991 Translation and Translating. London: Longman.
Bowker, Lynne
2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 345–364. 
Cao, Deborah
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.
Colina, Sonia
2003 Teaching 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.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun
2001 “Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 227–242.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997 The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.
Hönig, Hans
1997 “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Current issues in language and society 4:1. 6–34.
House, Julianne
1997 Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 243–257.
Lauscher, S.
2000 “Translation Quality-Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?”. The Translator 6:2. 149–168.
Neubert, Albrecht
1985 Text und Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Nida, Eugene
1964 Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber
[ p. 257 ]
1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, Christianne
1997 Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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.
Reiss, Katharina
1971 Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetungskritik. München: Hüber.
Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans
1984 Grundlegung 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.
Williams, Malcolm
2001 “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 46:2. 326–344.
2004 Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Cited by
Cited by other publications
No author info given
2017.
In Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations [Benjamins Translation Library, 131],
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.
In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],
► pp. 61 ff.
Amini, Mojtaba
2018. How to evaluate the TEFL students’ translations: through analytic, holistic or combined method?.
Language Testing in Asia 8:1
Casado Valenzuela, Alicia
2018. Towards a Japanese video game localization quality analysis model.
The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Colina, Sonia
2011.
In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 2],
► pp. 43 ff.
Colina, Sonia
2012.
In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Colina, Sonia, Nicole Marrone, Maia Ingram & Daisey Sánchez
2017. Translation Quality Assessment in Health Research: A Functionalist Alternative to Back-Translation.
Evaluation & the Health Professions 40:3 ► pp. 267 ff.
Depraetere, Ilse & Ilse Depraetere
2011.
In Perspectives on Translation Quality,
► pp. 1 ff.
Desjardins, Renée
2017.
In Translation and Social Media,
► pp. 95 ff.
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes.
English for Specific Purposes 37 ► pp. 112 ff.
Han, Chao
2020. Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review.
The Translator ► pp. 1 ff.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2017. How much would you like to pay? Reframing and expanding the notion of translation quality through crowdsourcing and volunteer approaches.
Perspectives 25:3 ► pp. 478 ff.
Kuznetsova, Irina Aleksandrovna
2019. VOLUNTEER TRANSLATION IN MODERN TRANSLATION ACTIVITY: STUDY OF <i>TED: OPEN TRANSLATION PROJECT</i>.
Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice :8 ► pp. 249 ff.
Leiva Rojo, Jorge & Peter Stanley Fosl
2018. Phraseology as indicator for translation quality assessment of museum texts: A corpus-based analysis.
Cogent Arts & Humanities 5:1
Martínez Mateo, Roberto, Silvia Montero Martínez & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro
2017. The Modular Assessment Pack: a new approach to translation quality assessment at the Directorate General for Translation.
Perspectives 25:1 ► pp. 18 ff.
Salmi, Leena & Tuija Kinnunen
2015. Training translators for accreditation in Finland.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9:2 ► pp. 229 ff.
Taylor, Rachel M., Nicola Crichton, Beki Moult & Faith Gibson
2015. A prospective observational study of machine translation software to overcome the challenge of including ethnic diversity in healthcare research.
Nursing Open 2:1 ► pp. 14 ff.
Ustaszewski, Michael
2014. An der Schnittstelle von Translations- und Interkomprehensionsdidaktik.
Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26:3 ► pp. 432 ff.
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Heidi Verplaetse, Iris Schrijver, Hendrik J. Kockaert, Winibert Segers, Jasper Pauwels, Bert Wylin & Henri Bloemen
2019.
In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ],
► pp. 26 ff.
van Rensburg, Alta, Cobus Snyman & Susan Lotz
2012. Applying Google Translate in a higher education environment: Translation products assessed.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30:4 ► pp. 511 ff.
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2015. I know languages, therefore, I can translate?.
Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:1 ► pp. 87 ff.
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2017.
In Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines [Benjamins Current Topics, 90],
► pp. 83 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.