Advertisement

Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present

  • Juliane House
Part of the Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics book series (PADLL)

Abstract

In this chapter I first give a brief overview of different approaches to translation evaluation. Secondly, I sketch some ways of drawing on recent developments in the language sciences to improve translation evaluation procedures. Concretely, I suggest that translation quality assessment might benefit from contrastive pragmatic discourse studies involving many different lingua-cultures, corpus-linguistic approaches to validate translation evaluations by relating them to comparable and reference corpora, psycho-linguistic and socio-psychological approaches to complement corpus-based methods and integrate product-based and process-based approaches including accounts of translation in process via computer monitoring as well as recent neuro-linguistic and assessment work.

Keywords

Cultural Filter Multidisciplinary Approach Original Text Textual Function Source Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelelli, C. and H. Jacobson (2009) Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, M. (2011) In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgarten, N., J. House and J. Probst (2004) ‘English as lingua franca in covert translation processes’, The Translator 210:1. 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becher, V. (2011) Explicitation and implicitation in translation: A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. PhD Dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  5. Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. B. (1966) ‘An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations’, Mechanical Translation 9. 55–66.Google Scholar
  7. Catford, J. C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cicourel, A. (2007) ‘A personal, retrospective view of ecological validity’, Text & Talk 27. 735–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crystal, D. and D. Davy (1969) Investigating English Style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Doherty, M. (2002) Language Processing in Discourse: A Key to Felicitous Translation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmondson, W. J. (1981) Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Fairclough, N. (1985) ‘Critical and Descriptive Goals of Discourse Analysis’, Journal of Pragmatics 9:6. 739–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1989) Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen-Schirra, S., S. Neumann and E. Steiner (2007) ‘Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus’, Languages in Contrast 7. 241–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1997) The Translation as Communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hatim, B. and J. Munday (2004) Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. House, J. (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  19. House, J. (1997) Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  20. House, J. (2001) ‘How do we know when a translation is good?’ in E. Steiner and C. Yallop (eds) Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 127–160.Google Scholar
  21. House, J. (2006a) ‘Communicative styles in English and German’, European Journal of English Studies 10:3. 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. House, J. (2006b) ‘Text and context in translation’, Journal of Pragmatics 38:3. 338–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. House, J. (2010) ‘Discourse and dominance: Global English, language contact and language change’ in A. Dusczak, J. House and L. Kumiega (eds) Globalization, Discourse, Media. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press, 61–94.Google Scholar
  25. House, J. (2011) ‘Translation and bilingual cognition’ in V. Cook and B. Bassetti (eds) Language and Bilingual Cognition. New York: Psychology Press, 519–28.Google Scholar
  26. House, J. (2013). ‘Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies’, Target 25:1. 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. House, J. and J. Rehbein (eds) (2004) Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jääskelainen, R. (2011) ‘Back to basics: Designing a study to determine the validity and reliability of verbal report data in translation processes’ in S. O’Brien (ed.) Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: continuum, 15–29.Google Scholar
  29. Koller, W. (1995) ‘The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies’, Target 7. 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koller, W. (2011) Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, 8th ed. Heidelberg: Francke.Google Scholar
  31. Kranich, S., J. House and V. Becher (2012) ‘Changing conventions in English-German translations of popular scientific texts’ in K. Braunmüller and C. Gabriel (eds) Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neubert, A. (1968) ‘Pragmatische Aspekte der Übersetzung’ in A. Neubert (ed.) Grundfragen der Übersetzungwissenschaft. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie, 21–33.Google Scholar
  33. Nida, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  34. Nida, E. A. and C. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien, S. (2011) Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Paradis, M. (2004) A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiß, K. (1971) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
  38. Reiß, K. and H. J. Vermeer (1984) Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schleiermacher, F. (1973 [1813]) ‘Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens’ in H. J. Störig (ed.) Das Problem des Übersetzens, 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 38–70.Google Scholar
  40. Shreve, G. and E. Angelone (eds) (2010) Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. Steiner, E. (2004) Exploring Texts. Properties, Variants, Evaluations. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Stolze, R. (2003) Hermeneutisches Übersetzen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  43. Teich, E. (2004) Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tymoczko, M. (2000) ‘Translation and political engagement.’ The Translator 6:1. 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venuti, L. (2004) The Translator’s Invisibility. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Juliane House 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliane House

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations