This article was downloaded by: [British University in Egypt]

On: 07 November 2014, At: 22:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Translator
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20

Towards a Terminology for

Translation Quality Assessment
a
Louise Brunette
a
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Published online: 21 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Louise Brunette (2000) Towards a Terminology

for Translation Quality Assessment, The Translator, 6:2, 169-182, DOI:
10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014
 The Translator. Volume 6, Number 2 (2000), 169-182 ISBN 1-900650-31-2

Towards a Terminology for Translation

Quality Assessment
A Comparison of TQA Practices

LOUISE BRUNETTE
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

Abstract. Recent research on the revision and assessment of general

texts has revealed that the terms and concepts used in discussing
this process are somewhat confused, hence the need to map out
the terminology used in various evaluative practices. This article
offers an overview of translation assessment and attempts to de-
fine the key terms specific to this field, including subfields such as
translation management quality control (assessment; formative
revision) as well as revision theory (assessment criteria; purpose).
Each concept and term is discussed at length and exemplified. The
article focuses initially on various assessment procedures, including
pragmatic revision, translation quality assessment, quality control,
didactic revision, and ‘fresh look’. For these procedures to be
scientifically credible and ethically acceptable, they must be based
on clearly defined criteria. Thus, the second part of the article puts
forward criteria which have been delimited and duly tested in prior
research, namely: logic, context, purpose and language norm.

Since the time of Cicero and, for the French language, since 1635 when
Claude-Gaspar Bachet de Méziriac presented his Discours de la traduction
to the newly-formed French Academy,1 people have attempted to determine
what constitutes a good translation and to establish means of measuring an
ideal of quality. Over the ages, scholars and practitioners have sought to sys-
tematize their efforts in this respect. Today, determining and measuring
translation quality has come to be known as translation assessment, which
is distinct from translation process evaluation according to such standards as
DIN 2345 and ISO 9000.
The term ‘translation assessment’ has been interpreted in many different
ways depending on the trends and theories espoused by translation scholars
working on evaluation methods. There is nothing unusual about this: every
judgement has a subjective component, as the human sciences have amply
shown, and translation is no exception. Moreover, any attempts to achieve
absolute objectivity could revive old demons and raise the specter of one

ISSN 1355-6509 © St Jerome Publishing, Manchester

 170 A Comparison of TQA Practices

‘right’ translation of every text. Nonetheless, it would be extremely useful to

provide a sound basis for assessing translations in order to minimize subjec-
tivity insofar as possible. Accordingly, this article discusses the key concepts
specific to translation assessment and defines them from both a translational
and a terminological standpoint. On the basis of these definitions or another
similar framework (on whose content agreement would have to be reached),
it would still be necessary to establish relative values that could be adapted
to various assessment practices.
What does it mean to judge or evaluate a translation? In response to this
question, the first part of this article focuses on various assessment proce-
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

dures, including pragmatic revision, translation quality assessment, quality

control, didactic revision, and ‘fresh look’. For these procedures to be scien-
tifically credible and ethically acceptable, they must be based on clearly
defined criteria. Thus, the second part of this article puts forward criteria
which have been delimited and duly tested in prior research (Brunette 1997):
logic, context, purpose and language norm.
The definitions of translation assessment terms have been formulated on
the basis of research conducted since 1993, using exclusively pragmatic texts.
Pragmatic texts, or general texts, are any contemporary non-literary docu-
ments intended for readers who share certain common interests but not
necessarily specialized knowledge.2 General texts were chosen as a corpus
for the research because they appear to be most representative of the type of
text required of translators in Québec, and the most appropriate for teaching
non-literary translation and revision.
The research I have carried out to date has concentrated on English-to-
French translations. Of the four criteria developed, only purpose is associated
with a specific school: skopos theory. The definition of context, on which a
great deal has been written, has been drawn from social translation sources
(e.g. the work of Maurice Pergnier and the École de Paris meaning-oriented
theory), whereas that of logic is based on my own research and reflection.
The concept of language norm has been taken from time-honoured sources.

1. Assessment procedures

There are currently five types of assessment procedures used in evaluating

the translation of general texts: pragmatic revision, translation quality as-
sessment, quality control, didactic revision, and fresh look (sometimes called
quality assurance). The following comparison of these procedures will hope-
fully pinpoint their specificity and clarify their differences.
Pragmatic revisors, unlike didactic revisors, do not have contact with
the translator. This constitutes an essential difference between the two pro-
cedures. Pragmatic revisors are not required to justify the changes they make
to a text by citing authoritative sources and providing irrefutable examples;
 Louise Brunette 171

as a result, they do not have to work with the same rigour as didactic revisors.
The aptness of pragmatic revision therefore depends on the knowledge and
competence of the revisor, especially in the case of stylistic changes which
can be based on preference or intuition. So there is an arbitrary component to
pragmatic revision. Didactic revisors, however, must explain all changes they
make and prove that their amendments are superior. While the pragmatic
revisor focuses strictly on the text, the didactic revisor works with both trans-
lation and translator. Didactic revision and pragmatic revision do share certain
characteristics: both are performed on an entire nearly-final text; both are
aimed at improving the translation. However, didactic revision is also in-
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

tended to help translators hone their skills. Neither procedure involves

assignment of a numerical grade.
Didactic revision and translation quality assessment differ in many re-
spects. To begin with, they belong to different areas: didactic revision is part
of translation, whereas translation quality assessment comes under manage-
ment. While didactic revision and quality assessment are often assigned to
the same professionals, the two procedures differ in target audience and aim.3
The changes made to a translation in revision are intended for the translator,
since they are didactic in nature. Translation quality is not usually assessed
for the translator, but rather for the manager. Translation quality assessment
is generally used in hiring salaried translators, awarding contracts to free-
lance or independent translators and determining admittance to professional
associations or guilds.
One distinctive characteristic of translation assessment is that it is carried
out on a text considered final. The assessor receives a finished product from
the translator or evaluates a text already delivered to a client. Another dis-
tinctive characteristic of assessment is that it is not necessarily performed on
the entire translated text, but sometimes only on a sample. According to as-
sessors in the Canadian public service, a 400-word segment of a text is
sufficient for a reasonably accurate evaluation.
A translation is assessed according to supposedly objective criteria, using
grids of varying complexity. The work assessed is always graded or assigned
a rating determined according to the number and seriousness of the errors
found. After revision, the translator goes over the revised and annotated text;
after assessment, an evaluation report is given directly to administrators. On
the basis of the report, management calculates the quality/price ratio of
translations.
There are basic differences between quality control and quality assess-
ment. Quality control is always performed on only part of a text, a sample.
The sample may consist of a specified number of words in one section, or of
several sections, depending on the length of the text. Quality control may
simply be a reading or a ‘formal language check’ of the translated text, whereas
quality assessment is essentially comparative. When quality control is per-
formed on texts commissioned from independent translators, the client does
 172 A Comparison of TQA Practices

not fill out an assessment grid or assign a rating. At the translator’s request,
the target text can undergo a second check (in the form of an assessment),
with explanations of the corrections made. The purpose of such explanations
is more strategic than didactic; they are most frequently used in cases where
payment is contested.
Quality assurance, in the form of a fresh look at a translation, falls some-
where between didactic revision and quality control. The originality of the
fresh look method is that the revisor regards the translated text almost exclu-
sively from the target audience’s point of view. The revisor tries to determine
how the new text will be received by the target culture.4 Except under rare
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

circumstances, the revisor does not refer back to the original text. The trans-
lated text is considered an independent text and assessed according to the
standards of monolingual editing and writing. The procedure therefore goes
beyond a formal language check.
The similarities and differences between the five assessment procedures
can be summarized as follows:

Asse ssme nt Proce dure s

Asse ssme nt Pragmatic Quality Quality Didactic

Fresh Look
Proce dure Revision5 Assessment Control Revision

Status of Non-final
Final text Final text Final text Non-final text
targe t te xt text

Portion Sample or
Entire text Sample Entire text Entire text
asse sse d entire text

Grid and General

No Yes No No
grade criteria
Management
Re cipie nt Client Management and/or Translator Translator
translator

Explanations No No Upon request Upon request Yes

Administrative Administrative Qualitative

Aim Qualitative Qualitative
and decisional and strategic and didactic

Comparison
Yes Yes Yes or no No Yes
of ST and TT

This table highlights the specificity of didactic revision and the fresh look:
the interaction between revisor and translator. These two types of revision
differ from the other assessment procedures in terms of their recipient. Both
are specifically intended for the translator. The categories ‘Explanations’ and
‘Aim’ are interrelated and depend directly on the recipient. Why give trans-
lators their revision back unless it is to explain the changes made to their
 Louise Brunette 173

text? Why give translators evidence in support of such changes unless it is to

identify their strengths and weaknesses and thus orient their professional de-
velopment? In quality assessment, however, texts are never returned to the
translator. So assigning a numerical rating to professional translations and
giving a grade to student copies serve completely different purposes.
To conclude, here are some formal, i.e. terminological, definitions of the
assessment procedures discussed.

Didactic revision (formative revision; training revision)

Stage in the translation process in which the entire translated text
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

and the original are carefully compared to ensure the translation com-
plies with previously defined methodological, theoretical, linguistic,
textual and contextual criteria. The changes made to the translation
are intended to improve the target text and help translators hone their
skills.
NOTE: Some authors (Thaon and Horguelin 1980) use formative
revision to refer to revision in a professional setting and didactic re-
vision to refer to revision in a classroom setting.

Translation quality assessment (TQA) (translation evaluation; quality

evaluation)
Management term. Determination of the quality of a translated text
or a check after the fact for management purposes, i.e. measuring the
productivity of translators and the quality/price ratio of translations.
A numerical rating is assigned.

Quality control
Management term. Verification to ensure that the product to be de-
livered or already delivered complies with requirements, language
norms and established criteria, with the ultimate goal of saving time
and resources.
NOTE: The quality control of a translation can range from a partial
monolingual reading to a bilingual revision of samples, depending
on the revisor.

Pragmatic revision
Careful comparison of the translated text with the original in order to
improve the translation, without consultation or other contact with
the translator.

Fresh look
Reading of the target text as an independent text to ensure it com-
plies with current writing standards and the explicit or implicit
requirements of the initiator. The person reviewing a text according
to this procedure plays the role of first reader.
 174 A Comparison of TQA Practices

2. Assessment criteria

The selection of assessment criteria is based on an in-depth study carried out

on grids established prior to 1992, including those of the Canadian Language
Quality Assessment System (How to Use Sical II 1978), Daniel Gouadec
(n.d.; 675 criteria), Jean Darbelnet and Paul Horguelin (Horguelin 1985),
Juliane House (1977, 1981), Christiane Nord (1991) and Werner Koller
(1979). The essential characteristics of these criteria were identified in the
course of this study.6 Assessment criteria, also called ‘assessment param-
eters’ or ‘evaluation standards’, should be easy to understand, practical, limited
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

in number, and verifiable, i.e. based on successful use of an assessment pro-

cedure. A detailed analysis and description of the use of each criterion would
greatly exceed the scope of this article. I will limit myself to a brief discus-
sion of each criterion and provide one or two examples from English-French
translations.

2.1 Logic

The translation quality assessor and pragmatic revisor are interested in the
logic of the target text alone. They review the translation from the point of
view of the target audience and are therefore not concerned with the coher-
ence of the source text. Professionals do not judge a translation on the basis
of the original text and generally recognize that the poor quality of the source
text can never be used to justify the poor quality of a translation.
Logic is the most important criterion. The first step in assessing it con-
sists in checking whether the translation is sufficiently well linked on a
semantic (coherence)7 and formal language (cohesion) level to constitute an
effective text (communication act) for the target language community.
This approach offers a practical advantage: as soon as serious problems
of logic are found in a text, the assessment does not have to go any further. In
fact, an incoherent piece of writing cannot be considered a ‘text’, because
significant discrepancies in logic result in what Horguelin (1985:40) calls
“zero transmission of message”. What would be the purpose of a translation
without comprehensible content? Incongruities in logic can take the form of
nonsense or an obvious break in meaning (anachronism, absurdity, contra-
diction, falsehood). Take the following examples:8

1. L’Ordre des psychologues recommande que votre université crée

des cours pour compenser les 12 unités de valeur ou crédits manquants
exigés pour exercer la psychologie clinique.

2. L’équipage de Columbia a accompli le principal objectif de sa

mission : éjecter le téléscope Chandra ... le plus gros téléscope à
rayon X du monde. “Ok! Et Chandra est en route pour ouvrir les
 Louise Brunette 175

yeux de l’astronomie à rayon X dans le monde”, a annoncé le com-

mandant Collins.

The first example is a good illustration of a contresens: how can missing

credits be required (crédits manquants exigés)? The syntax, which appears
to be correct, camouflages the absurdity of the statement. The second example
departs from French language norms and is little more than a meaningless
string of signs. What, in fact, does “ouvrir les yeux de l’astronomie à rayon
X dans le monde” (open the eyes of astronomy to X-ray in the world) mean?
These two examples contain discrepancies in logic which prevent a transla-
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

tion from being a viable text, and the revisor does not need to refer back to
the original text to draw this conclusion. Note that this type of assessment
should not be confused with revision, as it does not involve making
corrections.
Obviously, a text being assessed or revised or undergoing quality control
cannot be disqualified on the basis of a single breach in logic. The number of
instances must be considered and the established grid taken into account;
however, the recurrence of discrepancies in coherence is generally a reflec-
tion of the quality of a text.
Logic, coherence and cohesion can be defined as follows:

Logic
Quality of a text rigorously constructed in terms of form and content.
Logic depends on coherence and cohesion.

Coherence
Continuity of the meaning of a text from one idea to another and
plausibility of such meaning.

Cohesion
Linguistic means used to ensure continuity of the form and content
of a text.

2.2 Purpose

A growing number of theorists and practitioners consider the purpose of a

translated text to be the most important standard of quality. For some schol-
ars, including Jääskeläinen (1989:88), “the purpose for which a text is
translated ... forms the background against which the translation can be as-
sessed”. And as Sager (1989:97) puts it, “perhaps more importantly, translation
can be assessed in terms of the appropriateness for its intended purpose”.
Many other authors agree that the purpose of a text is a dominant factor in
the effective transmission of information.
 176 A Comparison of TQA Practices

Like logic, the criterion of purpose has two components: the intention of
the author and the effect on the reader. Assessors are responsible for measur-
ing a posteriori whether the effect produced by a translation is that intended
by the author of the original: assessors judge on the basis of their own reac-
tions whether the translation serves the same purpose as the original. The
effect of the translation on the assessor is thus the most important measure of
the extent to which the target text fulfils its purpose. This is true both when
the source and target texts have the same purpose and, in relatively rare cases,
when they do not.9 In other words, the persons responsible for judging a
translation generally compare their reaction to the source and target texts and
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

draw general conclusions about the intention of the original and the success
of the translation in fulfilling it.10 Consider the following statement in Eng-
lish and its French translation:

Air Canada’s new corporate image shows how the airline has evolved
into a global contender with a strong future.

Les couleurs d’Air Canada reflètent sa vitalité et sa confiance dans

de solides perspectives d’avenir.

There are two main discrepancies between the purposes served by the
English and French statements, which are headlines (and therefore have a
prominent position) in an article on the major Canadian airline. Only points
that are not compensated for in the body of the article will be discussed.
The French translation informs the reader of a current fact: Air Canada’s
vitality. The intention of the English is clearly to interest the reader in the
history of the company (how the airline has evolved). This progressive as-
pect has been overlooked in the French version, which does not have the
same catchy effect. The English subtitle draws the reader’s attention to the
scope of a company (global contender) with a very promising future (a strong
future). This gives readers the impression that they are dealing with an inter-
national carrier that is definitely ‘going places’. The French subtitle completely
omits the notion of large-scale company (what happened to global contender?)
and states simply that Air Canada has good future prospects (solides pers-
pectives d’avenir). The French translation suggests that if this vital little
company shows enough dynamism, it will surely carve a niche. The transla-
tion does not reflect the intention of the original and therefore does not produce
the effect which Air Canada desired on the reader. The following definition
clarifies the two components of purpose: intention and effect.

Intention
What is sought by the initiator of the work or the author of the origi-
nal, e.g. to announce, tell, inform, explain, discuss, recommend, show.
It is the ACTION aspect of communication.
 Louise Brunette 177

Effect
What the initiator of the translation wishes to produce on the target
audience, e.g. interest, astound, convince, move, as reflected in the
tone. It is the REACTION aspect of communication.
NOTE: Respecting the intention of the original requires taking the
target audience and the use of the text into account; this is an impor-
tant aspect of a faithful translation. The translation must recreate the
effect without explicitly stating the intention.

2.3 Context
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

Context, also called ‘text environment’ and ‘situational data’, is by far the
most difficult assessment criterion to pinpoint. It goes beyond language, pur-
pose (except target audience), logic and language norm. For those working
on pragmatic texts, it encompasses the target audience of a translation (their
knowledge and interests, and their relation to the target audience of the origi-
nal), the author (the author’s personality, history, habits and relation to the
target audience), the time and place in which the translation is used, the text
type (prestigious journal, flyer to be thrown away after reading), the socio-
linguistic situation (e.g. official bilingualism), the social backdrop (e.g. nature
of the relationship between the audience of the original and that of the trans-
lation), and ideological (political, religious) circumstances surrounding the
translation as a process and a result. This description does not include field
or subject matter because of the general nature of pragmatic texts, the focus
of this article. Nor does it consider the translator’s command of the languages
involved or competence in a given field, both of which are prerequisites in
professional translation. It should be noted that the various components of
the context are interdependent, which makes it difficult to develop a stable
definition.
To measure the appropriateness of a translation in light of the context, the
assessor analyzes the communication context of the ‘new’ text, since the trans-
lation is considered an original text and not the product of linguistic transfer.
The assessor regards the translated text from the target audience’s point of
view and is therefore less interested in situational data about the statement to
be translated than in the conditions under which the translation is produced –
conditions which the assessor as reader shares.
The application of this criterion to all the factors involved would require
considerable discussion and many more examples than I can provide here.
However, the complexity of context or text environment should in no way
prevent us from including it in graduated assessment scales. As Königs
(1985:39) suggests,

In contradistinction to ... a competence focussing primarily on the

surface of language ... we have to add knowledge about ‘text
 178 A Comparison of TQA Practices

environments’ and their influence on the text as a further constitutive

element of the translation process. ... It will be generally accepted ...
that a scientifically based criticism of translation should also refer to
text environment in a systematic form.

Consider the following example taken from a booklet prepared by the

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to accompany a videocassette
introducing Puccini’s La Bohème to 8- to 10-year old children:

Integrating timeless music with accessible English dialogue makes

Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

the opera meaningful for a modern audience.

L’intégration de la musique éternelle aux dialogues en anglais, plus

accessibles, [rend] l’opéra significatif pour un auditoire moderne.

The original English version can be used to examine the reactions of the
‘target society’ and some of the constraints and requirements of translation
in an officially bilingual context. In the translation, neither the sensibility of
the target culture nor the constraints of official bilingualism have been taken
into account. In the light of the sociopolitical context in Canada, an officially
bilingual country, with the tension inherent in that situation, the mention of
dialogues en anglais (English dialogue) in the French translation might not
be perceived as a mere oversight. In fact, the target Francophone audience
might well feel totally disregarded by the author and publisher of the transla-
tion. As indicated above, the translation was prepared by the CBC. The
mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation includes the legal and
political obligation to ensure equal broadcasting and promotion for the two
main language groups (French and English) in its territory. For the target
audience of the French translation – for whom the translator is invisible – it
is not a translation error, but a failure on the part of a government-owned
corporation to fulfil its mandate.
Given the crucial role of context in determining the quality of translated
texts and the target audience’s receptiveness to such communication, this
criterion must be included in any serious translation assessment grid.
Context (text environment; situational data) can be defined as follows:

Context
Non-linguistic circumstances surrounding the production of the dis-
course to be assessed. For assessors of general or pragmatic texts,
these circumstances include the end user of the target text (in its rela-
tion to that of the source text), the position of the end user, the author
(e.g. personality, experience, habits, relation to end user), the time
and place in which the translation will be used, the life span of the
translated text, the text type, the medium used to disseminate the
 Louise Brunette 179

text, the social situation (e.g. multilingualism) and ideological cir-

cumstances (e.g. political) surrounding the production of the target
text.

2.4 Language norm

As mentioned above, the translator’s command of the languages involved

and knowledge of the subject matter are a priori requirements for translation
quality. Why then include the language norm in assessment criteria?11 Lan-
guage norm urges professionals to consider awkward syntax, grammatical
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

errors, spelling mistakes, punctuation errors and inappropriate terminology

not simply as language errors, but as errors that compromise the success of a
communication act, communication being the sole reason for translating gen-
eral texts. Before we analyze the impact of language errors on communication,
it is important to specify the meaning of language norm as it is or should be
used in translation assessment.
Errors which can be detected and corrected by computerized tools should
not be included in quality assessment. These tools can be used by translators
to ensure their text is free of all the common technical language errors.
However, even the most advanced correction software cannot detect linguistic
interference, the most dangerous pitfall for translators. No one engaged in
the translation process in a bilingual context, or a situation in which specific
languages are in regular contact, is immune to the influence of the source
language forms and structures. In fact, the ability to keep two languages
separate when translating is a reflection of the translator’s competence. While
it is true that the focus of assessment procedures is generally the text and not
the translator, a lack of rigour regarding interference is certainly reflected in
the quality of a translation. For this reason, it is essential to include the criterion
of language norm in its restricted meaning of ‘absence of interference’.
Consider the following example of interference taken from the above-
mentioned booklet prepared by the CBC:

Puccini created what is sometimes called “a perfect opera” in La

Bohème. ... It is not so much a story as a series of episodes about the
Bohemians in Paris.

Avec La Bohême, Puccini a créé ce que l’on appelle parfois un «opéra

parfait». Ce n’est pas tant une histoire qu’une série d’épisodes sur
les bohémiens à Paris.

By ‘copying’ the source language, the translator has translated bohemians

in English (someone who leads a bohemian life) as bohémiens in French
(nomadic gypsies). Such interference can always be attributed to the transla-
tor’s cultural shortcomings (seemingly attested to by the spelling of La
 180 A Comparison of TQA Practices

Bohême). However, in this case, the translator translated bohemian as

bohémien because of the similarity of the English and French forms and dis-
regarded their difference in meaning. The assessor would note the impact of
the error and the fact that it is a serious faux sens, which jeopardizes compre-
hension of the text, rather than a language error.
For the purposes of this study, I have restricted the usual meaning of lan-
guage norm, which is defined in translation assessment as follows:

Language norm
The rules and conventions of a language set out in authoritative works
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

(e.g. grammar books, dictionaries of language difficulties, spelling

standards, standardization notices, style guides, writing handbooks).
NOTE: In translation assessment, language norm is applied almost
exclusively to language interference.

3. Conclusion

My objective in discussing concepts specific to translation assessment is by

no means to impose a terminology. Terminology practice has shown that
terminology cannot be dictated. Rather, it is created; terminologists simply
record it. The general guidelines for assessment procedures and criteria out-
lined here are offered in an effort to encourage translation scholars to develop,
adopt and use the same language. In order to define those guidelines further
and to make them useful to assessors in a paractical way, additional work is
needed. To that end, my current project is to devise a flexible numbering
system for the suggestions presented in this essay. If translation assessors
can agree on the terms proposed, we will have taken another step toward
meeting the need voiced by Hatim and Mason (1990:5): “A common set of
categories [parameters] is needed and a set of terms for referring to them, a
metalanguage for translation studies”.

LOUISE BRUNETTE
Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal,
Quebec, H3G 3M8, Canada. louiseb@alcor.concordia.ca

Notes

1. Translation historian Michel Ballard (in his introduction to Bachet de

Méziriac 1635, Ballard 1998:xxx) suggests that de Méziriac created the first
precedent for a scientific evaluation of translations in this essay; according
to him, the essay was not a mere indictment, but rather the first soundly
structured error analysis in the field.
2. General texts do not include specific text types, such as business letters,
financial reports, recipes, minutes, and so on.
 Louise Brunette 181

3. Even Ian Mason confuses these concepts. In his discussion of the assessment
of a published translation, he unfortunately put forward a non-numerical
error typology (1987:82). This is difficult to understand, because correction
grids are always weighted, as Kußmaul (1995:134) observes.
4. Obviously, the revisor cannot represent all readers, but there is currently
no scientific method of measuring receptiveness to a text; as Kirsten
Malmkjær (in Schäffner 1998:36) points out, “extensive research on reader
receptions of translations … is a neglected area of translation studies”.
5. Postediting of machine translation is considered a type of revision.
6. For an analysis of the grids, see Brunette (1997:103-127).
7. Kupsch-Losereit (1985:172), also cited by Nord (1997:73), took a similar
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

approach to translation errors, stating that “a translation error [is] an of-

fence against: ... the function of the translation ... the coherence of the text
(my emphasis) ... the text type and text form ... linguistic conventions ...”.
8. Cited out of context, these isolated examples may not seem unarguable;
however, I hope that the rigour of the research outlined here may offset
any shortcomings inherent in this type of citation.
9. Despite the repeated claims of theorists that the purpose of a text often
changes after translation into another language, this is rarely true of gen-
eral texts.
10. To deal with the subjectivity inherent in this method, I provided certain
methodological tools, such as a lexical-semantic analysis of the text and a
thorough analysis of the client’s mandate, in Contribution à la pédagogie
de la révision (Brunette 1997).
11. Is my interest in the language norm a reflection of my Francophone situa-
tion or my status as citizen of a bilingual country? As Jean-Pierre Mailhac,
quoted in Schäffner (1998:54), says, “the average French[-speaking] per-
son would be very sensitive to language issues, this is deeply rooted in the
French approach to language”. A highly reputed Canadian translator has
claimed that French-speaking people in Canada are born translators. We
have to accept and express what we are, even in science.

References

Bachet de Méziriac, Claude-Gaspar De la traduction (1635) [About translation].

Introduction and bibliography by Michel Ballard, 1998, Arras (France): Artois
Presses Université.
Brunette, Louise (1997) Contribution à la pédagogie de la révision en pays
bilingue : le cas du Canada [Towards a Pedagogy of Revision in a Bilingual
Context: Canada, a Case Study], Villeneuve d’Ascq (France): Éditions du
Septentrion.
------ and Paul A. Horguelin (1998) Pratique de la révision [Practicing Revi-
sion], Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.
Fan, Shouyi (1990) ‘Statistical Method of Translation Quality Assessment’, Target
2(1): 43.
Gouadec, Daniel (n.d.) Système d’évaluation positive des traductions [A Posi-
tive Translation Quality Assessment System], Translation Bureau, Secretary
 182 A Comparison of TQA Practices

of State, Government of Canada.

Graham, John D. (1989) ‘Checking, Revision and Editing’, in Catriona Picken
(ed) The Translator’s Handbook, London: ASLIB.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator, New York:
Longman.
Horguelin, Paul A. (1985) Pratique de la révision [Practising Revision], Montréal:
Linguatech, 2nd edition.
House, Juliane (1977) ‘A Model for Assessing Translation Quality’, Meta 22(2):
103-109.
------ (1981) ‘A Model for Translation Quality Assessment’, Tübingen: Narr,
2nd edition.
Downloaded by [British University in Egypt] at 22:04 07 November 2014

How to Use Sical II (1978) Ottawa: Translation Bureau, Language Quality

Division.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta (1989) ‘Translation Assignment in Professional vs. Non-
professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study’, in Candace Séguinot
(ed) The Translation Process, Toronto: York University School of Translation.
Koller, Werner (1979/1989) ‘Equivalence in Translation Theory’, in Andrew
Chesterman (ed) Readings in Translation Theory, Helsinki, Oy Finn Lectura,
99-104; reprint of Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, Heidelberg/
Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer, 186-91.
Königs, Frank G. (1985) ‘Translation Inside and Outside the Teaching Context:
The Text as a Starting Point’, in C. Titford and A. E. Hieke (eds) Translation
in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing, Tübingen: Narr.
Kußmaul, Paul (1995) Training the Translator, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Kupsch-Losereit, Sigrid (1985) ‘The Problem of Translation Error Evaluation’,
in C. Titford and A. E. Hieke (eds) Translation in Foreign Language Teach-
ing and Testing, Tübingen: Narr.
Larose, Robert (1998) ‘Méthodologie de l’évaluation des traductions’ [A Method
for Assessing Translation Quality], Meta 43(2): 163-86.
Mason, Ian (1987) ‘A Text Linguistic Approach to Translation Assessment’, in
Translation in the Modern Languages Degree; Proceedings of a Conference
Held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 5-7 January 1986, London: Centre
for Information on Language Teaching and Research, 79-87.
Nord, Christiane (1991) Text Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Didactic Ap-
plication of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis; translated from
German by C. Nord and P. Sparrow. Atlanta: Rodopi.
Nord, Christiane (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Appproaches Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Picken, Catriona (ed) (1986) Translation and the Computer 7, London: ASLIB.
Sager, Juan C. (1989) ‘Quality and Standards – The Evaluation of Translations’,
in Catriona Picken (ed) The Translator’s Handbook, London: ASLIB.
Schäffner, Christina (ed) (1998) Translation and Quality, Clevedon & Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
Thaon, Brenda and P.A. Horguelin (1980) A Practical Guide to Bilingual Revi-
sion, Montréal: Linguatech.