In an era of increasing globalization and multilingual interactions, translation quality assessment has become crucial. Yet, a notable gap persists in contemporary research, especially regarding standardization and systematic exploration to the quantitative assessment of translation quality, an area that has not garnered significant scholarly focus. This research provides a thorough examination of the methods and standards utilized for assessing translation quality across educational, certification, and industrial domains. Emphasizing the pivotal role of translation quality assessment in ensuring the accuracy, fluency, coherence, and appropriateness of translated materials, this paper sheds light on the existing disparities in scoring methodologies prevalent within educational and certification settings. Furthermore, it also delves into the assessment frameworks employed in industry, revealing their complexity and the detailed evaluation criteria for both human and machine-translated texts. To improve teaching efficiency and translation quality, the study proposes integrating academic and industry assessment criteria. Moreover, it envisions the evolution of future translation quality assessment models, envisaging the incorporation of advanced functionalities such as automated error detection and instantaneous feedback mechanisms aimed at optimizing the translation output.
References
[1]
American Translators Association (n.d.). Framework for Standardized Error Marking. https://www.atanet.org/certification/how-the-exam-is-graded/error-marking/
[2]
Brunette, L. (2000). Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: A Comparison of TQA Practices. The Translator,6, 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064
[3]
BS EN-15038 European Quality Standard (n.d.). European Quality Standard EN-15038:2006. http://qualitystandard.bs.en-15038.com/
[4]
Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council (n.d.). Marking Scale. https://atio.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Marking-Scale-excerpt-EN.pdf
[5]
Chartered Institute of Linguistics (n.d.). For Language and Linguists. https://www.ciol.org.uk/
[6]
Chen, Y. (2016). An Examination of Rater Performance on the Chinese-to-English Translation Section of TEM8 in 2015. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, 171, 77-82.
[7]
China Accreditation Test for Translators and Interpreters (n.d.). Syllabus. https://www.catticenter.com/cattiyyksdg
[8]
Colina, S. (2008). Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach. The Translator, 14, 97-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251
[9]
Görög, A. (2014). Dynamic Quality Framework: Quantifying and Benchmarking Quality. TradumàticaTecnologies de la Traducció, No. 12, 443-454. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.66
[10]
Government of Canada (n.d.). Canada Language Quality Measurement System. https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2alpha/alpha-eng.html?lang=eng&i=1&index=alt&srchtxt=CANADIAN LANGUAG
[11]
Honig, H. G. (1997). Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment. Current Issues in Language and Society, 4, 6-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615477
[12]
House, J. (1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment (2nd ed.). Narr.
[13]
House, J. (2002). Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta, 46, 243-257. https://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar
[14]
Institute of Translation and Interpreting (n.d.). ITI Code of Professional Conduct. https://www.iti.org.uk/resource/iti-code-of-professional-conduct.html
[15]
Koby, G. S., & Baer, B. J. (2005). From Professional Certification to the Translator Training Classroom: Adapting the ATA Error Marking Scale. Translation Watch Quarterly, 1, 33-45.
[16]
Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument Translation Process: A Methods Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x
[17]
Medadian, G., & Mahabadi, D. N. (2015). A Summative Translation Quality Assessment Model for Undergraduate Student Translations: Objectivity versus Manageability. Studies about Languages, No. 26, 40-54. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.26.12421
[18]
Multidimensional Quality Metrics (n.d.). What Is MQM. https://themqm.org/
[19]
National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (n.d.). NAATI Certification System. https://www.naati.com.au/certification/
[20]
National Education Examination Authority (n.d.). College English Test—Band Four and Six (CET-4, CET-6) (Revised in 2016). https://cet.neea.edu.cn/res/Home/1704/55b02330ac17274664f06d9d3db8249d.pdf
[21]
National Public Service Platform for Standards Information (n.d.). Target Text Quality Requirements for Translation Services. https://std.samr.gov.cn/gb/search/gbDetailed?id=F159DFC2A8DD47EFE05397BE0A0AF334
[22]
Pym, A. (2010). Translation and Text Transfer—An Essay on the Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication (2nd ed.). Intercultural Studies Group.
[23]
Si, X. (2004). On the Research of Translation Quality Assessment Model from the Perspective of Functional Linguistics. Foreign Language Education, 25, 45-50. https://doi.org/10/gnnxxf
[24]
Si, X. (2008). A Re-Examination of the Quality Assessment Model for Translated Parts of Speech—A Functional Linguistic Approach. Chinese Translators Journal, 2, 57-60.
[25]
Society of Automotive Engineers (n.d.). SAE Standards. https://www.sae.org/standards
[26]
The Translation Automation User Society (n.d.). Dynamic Quality Framework. https://www.taus.net/resources/blog/category/dynamic-quality-framework
[27]
The World Wide Web Consortium (n.d.). The Operating Objectives and Activities of the Localisation IndustryStandards Association. https://ot2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/5-lisa-best-practice-guide.pdf
[28]
Turner, B., Lai, M., & Huang, N. (2010). Error Deduction and Descriptors—A Comparison of Two Methods of Translation Test Assessment. Translation & Interpreting, 2, 11-23.
[29]
Wang, J., & Zhu, Z. (2016). Development and Application of Automated Chinese-English Translation Scoring System. Journal of Yangzhou University (Humanities & Social Science), 20, 123-128. https://doi.org/10.19411/j.cnki.1007-7030.2016.02.018
[30]
Wu, G. (2007). Progress, Meta-Assessment and Direction of Development of Contemporary Models of Quality Assessment for Chinese and Western Translators. Foreign Language Research, 4, 123-128.
[31]
Yang, Z. (2012). Quantitative Assessment of Translation Quality: Models, Trends, and Implications. Foreign Language Research,No. 6, 65-69. https://doi.org/10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2012.06.013
[32]
Zhao, D., & Cai, Y. (2018). The Impact of the Translators’ Humanistic Knowledge on the Quality of Translation—In the Case of TEM8 Translation in 2018. Foreign Language Testing and Teaching,2, 20-24, 31.
