Services
The translation acceptability concept
Click on the book to download it free of charge in PDF format or on the language to download the book in English, French or Spanish.
As a text can always be improved upon (it can also inadvertently be worsened), what are the objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a translation and define its acceptability?
Of course, here one must refer to so-called pragmatic texts (commercial, technical, and promotional). For poetic and literary texts, an entirely different critical approach must obviously be taken. This involves parameters, more complex than those discussed in our book "Translation, Adaptation, and Multilingual Editing".
Below, we will limit ourselves to examining the texts typical of "industrial or institutional documentation".
Here are six very intelligible evaluation criteria to back up - if not to justify - any possible criticism aimed at evaluating, questioning, or contesting a translation.
Linguistic criteria for the evaluation of a translated text
Level of disputability
1. Spelling
With spelling, the range of possible evaluations is minimal or non-existent.
2. Syntax
With syntax, the range of legitimate evaluation is still quite limited.
3. Semantic coherence
The range of evaluation in the field of semantic reconstruction is larger (metaphors, circumlocutory phraseology, translative profusion, etc.).
4. Terminological pertinence and precision
The terminological pertinence and the precision of the technolect specific to the area of the translated text owe much to the availability of previously validated glossaries (contestability increases).
5. Reconstruction of geo-style and socio-style
As geo-styles tend to diverge across continents, time and social classes, the range in evaluation can be of the utmost importance.
6. Stylistic and idiolectic quality of translation
Finally, the eventual stylistic and idiolectic quality of a text can be the object of infinite discussion: even Proust and Joyce had terrible difficulties getting published.
See table
Syntax (as with spelling, the syntax must respect widely established rules of grammar).
Semantic Fidelity (the total reconstitution of meaning, neither lack nor excess: the possibility of evaluations diverging multiply as a result of problems of “translatability”, among others).
Terminology (the lexicon's relevance and precision relate to the question of the specific technolects to be used and their prior validation; compiling technical glossaries and idiomatic expressions).
Geo- and socio-style (the language of the readers and of the geographical target market has to be defined preliminarily, especially for socio-economic correspondence).
Stylistic quality (the clarity and beauty of language, which depend on the style of the source language and on the peculiarities of the individual idiolect: maximum distance from evaluative subjectivity).
It seems obvious that as soon as we stray from the strict spelling criterion, linguistic evaluation may tend to diverge to the point of a high level of subjectivity based on stylistic quality. Hence any criticism contesting the acceptability of a translated text, but that cannot be - directly or indirectly - defined with regard to those six criteria, is likely to fall into the category of generic criticism, which is inevitably unacceptable ("the text is badly translated", "it's a literal translation", "the translator is not a native speaker", etc.).
Click on the book to download it free of charge in PDF format or on the language to download the book in English, French or Spanish.
As a text can always be improved upon (it can also inadvertently be worsened), what are the objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a translation and define its acceptability?
Of course, here one must refer to so-called pragmatic texts (commercial, technical, and promotional). For poetic and literary texts, an entirely different critical approach must obviously be taken. This involves parameters, more complex than those discussed in our book "Translation, Adaptation, and Multilingual Editing".
Below, we will limit ourselves to examining the texts typical of "industrial or institutional documentation".
Here are six very intelligible evaluation criteria to back up - if not to justify - any possible criticism aimed at evaluating, questioning, or contesting a translation.
Linguistic criteria for the evaluation of a translated text
Level of disputability
1. Spelling
With spelling, the range of possible evaluations is minimal or non-existent.
2. Syntax
With syntax, the range of legitimate evaluation is still quite limited.
3. Semantic coherence
The range of evaluation in the field of semantic reconstruction is larger (metaphors, circumlocutory phraseology, translative profusion, etc.).
4. Terminological pertinence and precision
The terminological pertinence and the precision of the technolect specific to the area of the translated text owe much to the availability of previously validated glossaries (contestability increases).
5. Reconstruction of geo-style and socio-style
As geo-styles tend to diverge across continents, time and social classes, the range in evaluation can be of the utmost importance.
6. Stylistic and idiolectic quality of translation
Finally, the eventual stylistic and idiolectic quality of a text can be the object of infinite discussion: even Proust and Joyce had terrible difficulties getting published.
See table
Do everything for the excellence of the final text
Spelling (almost always an objective linguistic criterion).Syntax (as with spelling, the syntax must respect widely established rules of grammar).
Semantic Fidelity (the total reconstitution of meaning, neither lack nor excess: the possibility of evaluations diverging multiply as a result of problems of “translatability”, among others).
Terminology (the lexicon's relevance and precision relate to the question of the specific technolects to be used and their prior validation; compiling technical glossaries and idiomatic expressions).
Geo- and socio-style (the language of the readers and of the geographical target market has to be defined preliminarily, especially for socio-economic correspondence).
Stylistic quality (the clarity and beauty of language, which depend on the style of the source language and on the peculiarities of the individual idiolect: maximum distance from evaluative subjectivity).
It seems obvious that as soon as we stray from the strict spelling criterion, linguistic evaluation may tend to diverge to the point of a high level of subjectivity based on stylistic quality. Hence any criticism contesting the acceptability of a translated text, but that cannot be - directly or indirectly - defined with regard to those six criteria, is likely to fall into the category of generic criticism, which is inevitably unacceptable ("the text is badly translated", "it's a literal translation", "the translator is not a native speaker", etc.).
){kind=link}