 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Translation Quality Assessment: Bridge the Gap between Theory and Practice
WANG Jun-song
Full-Text PDF
XML 1613 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2017.10.023
Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China
Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) is a central concern for both academic research and translation practice. Yet consensus on the issue has almost never been reached among theorists and practitioners. In this paper, a detailed comparison between academic and professional assessment has been made mainly in terms of text type, assessment criteria and models. It is believed that a “one size fits all” model across academy and industry is neither possible nor necessary. However, the gaps in between could be narrowed down by increasing communication and cooperation between theorists and practitioners, who are advised to turn their focus to translator’s competence and evaluation process.
Translation Quality Assessment, gaps, theory and practice
Bowker, L. (2001). Towards a methodology for a corpus-based approach to translation evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 345.
Chesterman, A., & Wagner, E. (2002). Can theory help translators? A dialogue between the ivory tower and the wordface. Manchester: St Jerome.
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: TBL Verlag Gunter Narr.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Larose, R. (1987). Théories contemporaines de la traduction (Contemporary Translation Theories) (2nd edn.). Sillery, Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Lauscher, S. (2000). Translation quality assessment-where can theory and practice meet? The Translator, 6(2), 149-68.
Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and editing for translators. Manchester: St Jerome.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nord, C. (1996). Text type and translation method: An objective approach to translation criticism. The Translator, 2(1), 81-88.
O’Brien, S. (2012). Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. The Journal of Speicalised Translation, (17), 55-77.
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London/New York: Routledge.
Rasmussen, K. W., & Schjoldager, A. (2011). Revising translations: A survey of revision policies in Danish translation companies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (15), 87-120.
Reiss, K. (1983). Quality in translation oder wann ist eine übersetzung gut? (Quality in translation or what is a good translation?). Babel, 29(4), 198-208.
Reiss, K. (2000). Translation criticism: The potential and limitations (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.). Manchester: St Jerome.
Schäffner, C. (1998). Translation and quality. Clevedon: Multilingual.
Van den Broeck, R. (1985). Second thoughts on translation criticism: A model of its analytic function. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation (pp. 54-62). London & Sydney: Croom Helm.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos und translationsauftrag—aufsätze (Skopos and translationsauftrag—essays). Heidelberg: THW.
Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A skopos theory of translation: (Some arguments for and against). Heidelberg: Textcontext-Verlag.
Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: an argumentation-centered approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.