Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language
    • English
    • Język Polski
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Submissions
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language:
  • English
  • Język Polski

Translation Journal

Quality criteria in interpreting evaluation
  • Home
  • /
  • Quality criteria in interpreting evaluation
  1. Home /
  2. Archives /
  3. No. 3/4 (2008) /
  4. Theory and practice of translation

Quality criteria in interpreting evaluation

Authors

  • Ewa Kościałkowska-Okońska Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12775/RP.2008.007

Keywords

oral translation, translation evaluation, quality of translation

Abstract

Translation quality evaluation has been in the focus of interest of researchers for quite a long time, although empirical investigations were started only two decades ago. The general assumption is that the source language message should be ideally manifested in the target language, thus effective communication between the listeners (users) and the speaker is the priority of translation/interpretation. Effective communication is enabled by means of good quality interpretation. In the attempt aimed at quality description, apart from subjective impressions resulting from our perception of the features that good translation/interpretation and effective communication should have, we cannot ignore three basic factors, i.e., the interpreter (as the text author/ producer), the interpretation process and product which is the result of this process and involvement as well as competence on the part of the interpreter/translator.

Quality criteria are largely fuzzy; their conceptual limits are not distinctive and, in the opinion of research subjects, are interrelated. Therefore, the specification of quality criteria that do not raise any doubts both on the part of users (e.g. listeners) and on the part of interpreters becomes problematic. The paradox of quality may emerge if the interpreter’s role is, on the one hand, to retain absolute fidelity to the original text and his/ her neutrality (or invisibility), and on the other to be a cultural mediator who controls communication, facilitates it and corrects the text to make it accurate, clear and coherent.

References

Buhler, H., 1986, „Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters”, Multilingua 5, 4, s. 231–235.

Bowen, D. i M. (red.), 1990, Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, American Translators Association, Vol. 4, Binghamton.

Chernov, G., 1994, „Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneous interpreting”, [w:] Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer, B. (red.), Amsterdam 1994, s. 139–153.

Dejean le Feal, K., 1990, „Some thoughts on the evaluation of simultaneous interpretation”, [w:] Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Bowen, D. i M. (red.), American Translators Association, Vol. 4, Binghamton 1990, s. 154–160.

Dollerup, C, Lindegaard, A., 1994, Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 – Insights, Aims, Visions, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.

Gile, D., 1995, Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.

Hung, E. (red.), 2002, Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 – Building Bridges, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.

Kadric, M., Kaindl, K., Pochhacker, F. (red.), 2000, Translationswissenschaft , Tubingen.

Kopczyński, A., 1994, „Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems”, [w:] Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer, B. (red.), Amsterdam 1994, s. 87–100.

Kopczyński, A., 1997, „Praktyka i teoria tłumaczenia ustnego”, Neofilolog, 14, s. 17–26.

Kurz, I., 1989, „Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”, [w:] Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, Hammond, D. L. (red.), Medford–New Jersey, s. 143–148.

Kurz, I., 1993, „Conference Interpretation: Expectations of different user groups”, The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5, s. 13–21.

Kussmaul, P., 1995, Training the Translator, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.

Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer., B. (red.), 1994, Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Amsterdam.

Marrone, S., 1993, „Quality: A Shared Objective”, The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5, s. 35–41.

Mesa, A.-M., 2000, „The Cultural Interpreter: An Appreciated Professional. Results of a Study on Interpreting Services: Client, Health Care Worker and Interpreter Points of View”, [w:] The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, s. 67–79.

Moser, P., 1995, „Simultanes Konferenzdolmetschen. Anforderungen und Erwartungen der Benutzer. Endbericht, im Auft rag von AIIC”, Wien.

Pochhacker, F., 1994, „Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting”, [w:] Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 – Insights, Aims, Visions, Dollerup, C., Lindegaard, A. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia 1994, s. 33–242.

Pochhacker, F., 2000, „The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views”, [w:] The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadephia, s. 49–65.

Pochhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (red.), 2002, The Interpreting Studies Reader, London–New York.

Riccardi, A., 2002, „Evaluation in interpretation”, [w:] Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 – Building Bridges, Hung, E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, s. 115–126.

Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), 1997, The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Amsterdam–Philadephia.

Snell-Hornby, M., Pochhacker, F., Kaindl, K. (red.), 1994, Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, Amsterdam.

Tryuk, M. 2006, Przekład ustny środowiskowy, Warszawa.

Viezzi, M., 1996, Aspetti della Qualita in Interpretazione, Trieste.

Wadensjo, C., 1998, Interpreting as Interaction, London–New York.

Translation Journal

Downloads

  • PDF (Język Polski)

Published

2008-12-01

Issue

No. 3/4 (2008)

Section

Theory and practice of translation

Stats

Number of views and downloads: 1312
Number of citations: 0

Search

Search

Browse

  • Browse Author Index
  • Issue archive

User

User

Current Issue

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Newsletter

Subscribe Unsubscribe

Language

  • English
  • Język Polski

Tags

Search using one of provided tags:

oral translation, translation evaluation, quality of translation
Up

Akademicka Platforma Czasopism

Najlepsze czasopisma naukowe i akademickie w jednym miejscu

apcz.umk.pl

Partners

  • Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
  • Akademickie Towarzystwo Andragogiczne
  • Fundacja Copernicus na rzecz Rozwoju Badań Naukowych
  • Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk
  • Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN
  • Instytut Tomistyczny
  • Karmelitański Instytut Duchowości w Krakowie
  • Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych w Krośnie
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych we Włocławku
  • Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Stanisława Pigonia w Krośnie
  • Polska Fundacja Przemysłu Kosmicznego
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze
  • Towarzystwo Miłośników Torunia
  • Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
  • Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
  • Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna - Książnica Kopernikańska
  • Wyższe Seminarium Duchowne w Pelplinie / Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne „Bernardinum" w Pelplinie

© 2021- Nicolaus Copernicus University Accessibility statement Shop