TRANSLATION QUALITY

ASSESSMENT

GROUP 11
RULI (0203517013)
WIGATI MARTINA (0203517023)
RULIA IVA DHALINA (0203517053)
 The Overview of Translation
Quality Assessment

• According to Juliane House, translation is

the result of a linguistic-textual operation in
which a text in one language is re-
contextualized in another language.
• Equivalence is important in the result of
translation process
• Translation quality assessment (TQA) is
used to assess the equivalence in the
translation
 Approaches in Translation
Quality Assessment
Psycho-social Approaches
 Mentalist views
Mentalist views emphasize the belief that the quality of
translation depends largerly on the translation subjective
decisions.
Response-based Approaches
 Behavioristic Views
This view is based on the belief that a ‘good’ translation is
one leading to ‘equivalence of response’
 Functionalist, ‘skopos’-related views
This approach downplays ‘equivalence’ to a special form
of ‘adequacy’ or completely abandoned it.
 Text and Discourse-oriented Approaches
Descriptive Translation Studies
It emphasizes on the appropriateness of
the translation in the target culture.
Philosophical and socio-cultural, socio-
political approaches
it focuses on the ‘hidden persuaders’ in
texts whose ulterior, often power-related
motives are to be brought into the open.
 Linguistically oriented approaches
Linguistic approaches attempt to explicate
the relationship between the text or
features of it and how these are perceived
by authors, translators and readers.
 Some Specific Proposals for TQA
Katharina Reiss
For determining the quality of a translation it is first of all
necessary to determine its function and the text type of the
source text
Koller
He emphasizes the necessity of developing a
comprehensive, linguistic model of translation quality
assessment.
Wilss
For the objectification of translation quality assessment,
the norm of usage in a given language community with
reference to a given situation should be taken as a
yardstick
Van den Broeck
He proposes a tripartite procedure featuring a contrastive-
pragmatic analysis of source and translation text which is
then taken as the basis for the ensuing critical evaluation
of the translation.
 Larosee
The purpose of the translation is the
most important aspect for measuiring its
quality
Jamal Al-Qinai
He has set up an ‘eclectic’ approach to
translation quality assessment in which
he suggests a comprehensive textual
analysis, looking at source and target
texts as products.
 The Original House Model of TQA
• This model is based on theories of language use
• It is an eclectic model and it is based on the
pragmatic theory, Hallidayan SFL, register theory,
stylistic, discourse analysis, and the framework of
Prague school of language and linguistics.
• Equivalence is the core concept of TQA
• Equivalence here, is related to the two terms:
• Doubly constrained translation to the source text
and recipients’ communicative conditions
• The preservation of ‘meaning’ across two different
lingua-cultures. There are three aspects of this
meaning: semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect, and
textual aspect
• So, it can be concluded that, translation is the
replacement of text in source language by a
semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the
target language.
The Design of the Original House Model
of TQA
Dimensions of language user
1. Geographical origin
2. Social class
3. Time

Dimensions of language use

1. Medium: simple/complex
2. Participation: simple/complex
3. Social role relationship
4. Social attitude
5. Province
 The Revised House Model of TQA

Generally, the basic concept is similar with

the original house model of translation quality
assessment
translation is the replacement of text in source
language by a semantically and pragmatically
equivalent text in the target language.
The additional parameters to assess the
translation text. They are field, mode, and
tenor (theory of functional language by
Halliday)
The Design of the Revised House Model
of TQA
 The Criticism of the TQA by House

It is too subjective, because the evaluation

and interpretation of the TQA are controlled by
the assessor according to functional theory
It is difficult to achieve the ‘functional
equivalence’ in the translation, because of the
difference of sociocultural background of the
source and the target language audience
It seems like the comparison process of
register analysis
It is confusing and ‘scientific’
 Another Proposal for TQA
Mangatur Nababan (2004) has proposed
the system of translation quality
assessment. The system of Nababan’s
TQA is based on the parameters in
assessing the translation by Larson and
other translation experts. There are 3
parameters in TQA according to Nababan:
Accuracy
Acceptability
Readability
 Accuracy
The accuracy of translation means that whether
the translation text is equivalent with the text from
source language or not.
This term ‘equivalent’ is the equivalence of
meaning that consist in the source language and
target language.
High accuracy = high quality translation
The translation technique that can improve
accuracy:
Deletion
Addition
 Acceptability
The acceptability of translation means that whether the
norms and cultures in the translation text are suitable
with those in target language

Equivalence = Accuracy
Accuracy ≠ Acceptability
Equivalence ≠ acceptability

In TQA, high acceptability = high quality translation

 Readability
Nuttall (1989) states that the term “readability” is often used
to refer to the combination of structural and lexical difficulty.
It forces on the easiness with which a text can be read.

Features affecting readability are:

Prior knowledge
Reading skill
Motivation
interest

In TQA, high readability = high quality

translation
 An analysis of students Translation Quality
(Accuracy, readibility And Acceptability) in
translating an Informatif Text entitled YSEALI
to Indonesian

Yola Savitri, Ujang Suparman, Hery Yufrizal

University of Lampung

Jalan Sumantri Brojonegoro No 1, gedong Meneng, Bandar

Lampung
yolasavitri@gmail.com
 Introduction
 - Helping people who cannot
The advantages of
speak foreign language
translation • - Students have to translate in
oral and written text form

To explore the students’ translation

The objectives of quality in translating text entitled
the research YSEALI to Indonesian considering 3
aspect; accuracy, readability, and
acceptability

Subject of the • The sixth semester students of

English education study program
research

• Research • The translation quality of students

was undertermined; misstranslation
problems and untranslated words were found
 Methodology

The research is descriptive – qualitative

study
The instrument to collecting the data is a
translation text
The data analyzed by Nababan’s scale
The raters are the lecturers of English
Education Study programs
 Result

Accuracy
Table 1. The Accuracy level of Students’
translation Scale

Scale Category Subtotal Percentage

3 Accurate 256 47%

2 Less Accurate 258 48%

1 Inacurrate 26 5%
Total 540 100%
 Con’t

• From the table above, it can be seen that the

persentages of the accurate data and less accurate
data are in the similar number
• ( 47 accurate and 48 less accurate) meanwhile
inaccurate are 5%
• The problem was about misstranslation and words
selection.
• The translated text contained different idea than the
source text therefore It was less accurate.
• The resulted that the source language meaning is
less accurately conveyed in the target language
 Readability
Table 2. The readability level of students’
translations
Scale Category Subtotal Percentage
3 Readable 334 62%
2 Less Readable 202 37%
1 Unreadable 4 1%
Total 540 100%
 Con’t

Based on the table above, 62% data were readable,

37% data were less readable, 1% as unreadable
The result show that the readability aspect achieved
the higher than score compared to the accuracy
aspect.
Means that the ideas and meaning were not correctly
accurate but the syntac of target language met the
reader expectation.
 Acceptability

Table 3. The acceptability level of

students’s translation
Scale Category Subtotal Percentage
3 Acceptable 347 64%
2 Less acceptable 183 34%
1 Unacceptable 10 2%
Total 540 100%
 Con’t

Based on data above , it can be seen

64% data are acceptable, 34% data are
less acceptable and unacceptable only
2%.

This result indicated that most most of

the students followed the norms of
English in translating the text.
 DISCUSSION

The translation of quality assessment was fair, It was

not bad and it was not good
Quality in readability was good and translation quality
in acceptability aspect was good
The analysis of data showed that most of the accurate,
readable and acceptable data simple sentences.
Acceptability and readability was good however
accuracy was not good.
Fair is the best judment for the sixth semester students
of English Education Study program Universitas
Lampung
 Conclusion

The percentage of accurate data and

less accurate data was high ( 47%
accurate and 48% less accurate)
The translation quality in translating text
about Young Southeast Asian Leaders
Initiative (YSALI) was fair
 Suggestion

1. The students
They have to learn translation theory

2. For the lecturer

It is recommended to review and revised the
curriculum

3. For further researcher

It is recommended to conduct extend research by
including the methods and techniques of translation.
 The Weakness of The Journal

The researcher did not put some

examples of the translation text among
students

The researcher did not explained the

number of students as the participants
of the research
 TECHNIQUE AND QUALITY OF ENGLISH –
INDONESIAN TRANSLATION OF PUN IN
TOLKIEN’S THE HOBBIT

English Education Journal

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej

Rizky Yolanda & Issy Yuliasri

English Language Education Postgraduate Program
Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Introduction
• A novel is interesting when using pun.
BACKGROUND • Due to that, translation demands is increasing.
• Translating pun is very challenging.
• To find out the kinds of translation techniques used, and
to assess the quality of English – Indonesian translation
THE OBJECTIVES
English – Indonesian Tolkien‟s The Hobbit.
• The object of this study is
English - Indonesian pun translation of J.R.RTolkien‟s The Hobbit

• Pun is wordplay.
• Pun is textual phenomenon which is dependent on
DEFINITION structural characteristics of language as an abstract system
OF PUN • Puns may be neither horizontal or vertical.

• Winarti (2011) that is An Analysis of Pun Translation

PREVIOUS in the Animation Movie Madagascar II Escape to Africa.
STUDIES • Rushadi (2012) entitled A translation Analysis of
English Pun in the TV Serial “Ally Macbeal”.
 Wordplay or pun is a figure of speech which consists of
NOTION OF PUN
a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for
rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious.

KINDS OF PUN • Delabastita (1996: 128) proposes there are four

categories of pun: homonymy,homophony, homograph,
and paronymy.
• Yuan Chuandao (2005), he claims that the creation
of pun is connected not only to the meaning and
the homophony of a word, but also to the context,
manner of speech and logic.

Pun to Pun, Pun to Non Pun, Pun to Zero, Pun in

TECHNIQUES IN ST = Pun in TT, Pun = Related Rhetorical Device
TRANSLATING PUN (Punoid), Non Pun to Pun, Zero to Pun, and
Editorial Techniques.
TRANSLATION
QUALITY Translation is considered to be good when it meets
ASSESSMENT three criteria; those are accuracy, acceptability,
and readability.
METHOD
• A descriptive qualitative research.
• The source of the data were novel of The Hobbit or There and Back
Again by Tolkien, published by Houghton Mifflin Company-New York
in 2001 consists of 330 pages and its Indonesian translation The
Hobbit atau Pergi dan Kembali tranlated by A.Adiwiyoto,published by
PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama-Jakarta in 2002.
• The respondents are divided into two, they are expert raters (the
lecturers) and target readers (the teenager).
• Data collections: note taking, questionairs,in-depth interviews with
the expert readers.
• Data analysis: the data collected are analyzed by classifying kinds of
pun as well as translation techniques applied in translating pun in
J.R.R Tolkien‟sThe Hobbit, reducing the data which is not suitable.
Interpreting the data is also a part of data analysis, drawing an
inferences from the results of the analysis based on statement of the
problems and provide the suggestion.
FINDING AND DATA ANALYSIS
Kinds of Pun Translation Techniques
1.Homonymy 11 data/4.5% 1.Pun to Pun 12/4.8%
2.Homophony 1 data/0.4% 2.Pun to Non Pun
3.Paronymy 231 data/ 116/46.2%
95.1% 3.Pun rendered as other
Total 243 data/100% rhetorical device (Punoid)
113/45.0%
4.Pun to Zero 1/0.4%
5.Pun in ST = Pun in TT
1/0.4%
6.Non Pun to Pun 8/3.2%

Total 251/100%
 Scales
Dealing with accuracy level, the
writer uses this following scale:
• 3 = Pun is transferred accurately
into the target language and no
distortion of meaning (Accurate).
• 2 = Pun has been transferred
accurately into target language,
but there is a distortion of
meaning or double meaning or
eliminated meaning which disturb
the wholeness of the message
(Less Accurate).
• 1 = Pun is inaccurately
transferred into the target
languageor omitted (Inaccurate).
In this study, the scores that
represent the acceptability level
are given by four raters.
• 3 = Translation of pun is natural,it
is commonly familiar to the
readers and does not sound
strange (Acceptable).
• 2 = In general, translation of pun
already feels natural, but it is not
familiar to the reader and a bit
strange (Less Acceptable).
• 1 = Translation of pun is
unnatural, it is not familiar to the
reader and sounds very strange
(Inacceptable).
cont.

Translation Quality Readability

Accuracy High Readability 133/54,7%
Accurate 56/23% Sufficient Readability
Less Accurate 187/77% 110/45,3%
Total 243/100% Total 243/100%

Acceptability
Acceptable 116/47,7%
Less Acceptable 127/52,3%
Total 243 100%
CONCLUSION
• They are Paronymy, Homonymy and Homophony. Paronymy dominates in
95.1% with 231 data,Homonymy 4.5% with 11 data is in the second rank
followed by Homophony 0.4% with 1 datum.
• There are six techniques used namely Pun to Non Pun, Pun rendered as
other rhetorical device (Punoid), Pun to Pun, Non Pun to Pun, then Pun in
ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero. Pun to Non Pun technique
dominates in 116 times of use (46.2%), Pun rendered as other rhetorical
device (Punoid) is used 113 times (45.0%) is in the second rank followed by
Pun to Pun in 12 times of use (4.8%), Non Pun to Pun is used 8 times
(3.2%) is in the fourth rank, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun
to Zero each are used once (0.4%).
• The analysis on the translation quality shows that 56 translations (23%) are
considered to be accurate, and 187 translations (77%) are considered as
less accurate. In acceptability level, 116 translations are belong to
acceptable (47,7%), and 127 translations are belong to less acceptable
(52,3%). Readability level shows that 133 translations (54, 7%) are
categorized as high readability, and 110 translations (45,3%) are
categorized as sufficient readability.
SUGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

• It would be better if some samples are

included in every kinds of pun found in the
novel.
• It would be better to include some theories
before analyzing the data, for example in
making the scale.