Quality perceptions and professional statusThe impact of extrinsic information on translation editing

  1. Tabea de Wille 1
  2. Montserrat Bermúdez Bausela 2
  1. 1 University of Limerick
    info

    University of Limerick

    Limerick, Irlanda

    ROR https://ror.org/00a0n9e72

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Journal:
LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

ISSN: 1133-1127

Year of publication: 2020

Issue Title: Investigar en Traducción e Interpretación: Nuevos Enfoques y Perspectivas

Volume: 26

Issue: 1

Pages: 84-107

Type: Article

DOI: 10.20420/RLFE.2020.315 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

Abstract

While there is a large body of knowledge on quality in translation and localisation, the question of how quality is perceived based on extrinsic factors has so far not been widely investigated. This paper provides some views on translation quality from different theoretical perspectives in the field of Translation Studies and focuses on how extrinsic information on the translators’ professional status influences the edits introduced by reviewers to translations in proofreading.This paper reports primarily on the second part of a two-stage study. In the first stage we found that participants were influenced by extrinsic information when asked to select their preferred translation. This correlation was stronger in participants with less expertise.In the second stage of the study, presented in this paper, we additionally asked participants to proofread and edit the translations they had selected. We then categorised the changes made (grammar, spelling, meaning, etc.) and conducted frequency analysis and cross-tabulation. Factors for cross-tabulations included for example the participants’ level of expertise, and the extrinsic information on the translator’s professional status.

Bibliographic References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
  • Al-Qinai, J. (2000). Translation Quality Assessment: Strategies, Parametres and Procedures. Meta, 45(3), 497-519.
  • Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Brunette, L. (2000). Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment. The Translator, 6(2), 169-182.
  • Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chesterman, A., & Wagner, E. (2002). Can Theory Help Translators? A dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome.
  • Dreyfus, S.E. & Dreyfus, H.L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Operations Research Center.
  • Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in Professional Translation. Assessment and Improvement. London & New York: Bloomsbury.
  • Dunne, K.J. (2006). Putting the cart behind the horse: Rethinking localization quality management. In K.J. Dunne (Ed.), Perspectives on Localization. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 95–117.
  • Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
  • García, I. (2014). Training Quality Evaluators. Revista Tradumàtica: tecnologies de la traducció, 12, 430–436.
  • Golder, P. N., Mitra, D., & Moorman, C. (2012). What Is Quality? An Integrative Framework of Processes and States. Journal of Marketing, 76, 1–23.
  • Hansen, G. (2010). Translation ‘errors’. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1 (pp. 385–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
  • Havumetsä, N. (2012). The Client Factor: A Study of Clients’ Expectations Regarding Non-Literary Translators and the Quality of Non-Literary Translations. Unpublished thesis, University of Helsinki.
  • Hermans, T. (1985). Translation Studies and a New Paradigm. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation (pp. 7–15). London: Croom Helm.
  • House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Jiménez Crespo, M.Á. (2011). From many one: Novel approaches to translation quality in a social network era. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series - Themes in Translation Studies: Translation as a Social Activity - community translation 2.0, 2, 131–152.
  • Kelly, N. & DePalma, D.A. (2008). Non-Standard Views on Industry Standards. Common Sense Advisory: Lowell, Massachusetts.
  • Kelly, N. & DePalma, D.A. (2009). Eliminating Roadblocks to Translation Quality: Practical Steps to Improve Translated Output. Common Sense Advisory: Lowell, Massachusetts.
  • Lambert, J., & Van Gorp, H. (1985). On Describing Translations. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation (pp. 42–53). London: Croom Helm.
  • Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Muñoz Martín, R. (2009). Expertise and environment in translation. Mutatis Mutandis, 2(June), 24–37.
  • Neubert, A., & Shreve, G. M. (1992). Translation as Text. Kent: Kent State University.
  • Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Nida, E. (1964). Towards a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
  • Nord, C. (2018). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
  • O’Brien, S. (2012). Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 17, 55–77.
  • Pérez-González, L. & Susam-Saraeva, Ş. (2012). Non-professionals Translating and Interpreting. The Translator, 18(2), 149–165.
  • Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism: The Potential and Limitations. (E.F. Rhodes, Trans). Manchester: St Jerome.
  • Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (2013). Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. (C. Nord, Trans.). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Shreve, G.M. (2002). Knowing translation: cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies. In A. Riccard (Ed.), Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, University Press: Cambridge, 150–171.
  • Txabarriaga, R. (2009). Best Practices for Client Review Processes. Common Sense Advisory: Lowell, Massachusetts.
  • Toury, G. (1978). The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation. In J. S. Holmes, J. Lambert & R. Van den Broeck (Eds.), Literature in Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies (pp. 83–100). Leuven: Acco.
  • Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique Comparée du Français et de L’Anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.
  • Williams, M. (2009). Translation Quality Assessment. Mutatis Mutandis, 8(1), 3-23.
  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Data source: Dialnet