Luận văn an english vietnamese translation quality assessment on the great gatsby by f scott fitzgerald

With the deep concerns about the issue, the researcher conducts a study entitled: “A Vietnamese-English translation quality assessment on the Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald.” This st

“THE GREAT GATSBY” BY F SCOTT FITZGERALD

DÁNH GIÁ CHẮT LƯỢNG BẢN DỊCTII ANII— VIỆT

TAC PTIAM “DAT GIA GATSBY”

CUA NTIA VAN F SCOTT FITZGERALD

M.A THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

HANOT - 2015

“TITE GREAT GATSBY” BY F SCOTT FITZGERALD

DÁNH GIÁ CHÁT TLƯỢNG BẢN DỊCTI ANII — VIỆT

TAC PITAM “DAI GIA GATSBY”

CUA NIIA VAN F SCOTT FITZGERALD

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

T cerlify that this thesis entitled) “An English-Viemamese Translation Quality

Assessment on The Groat Gatsby by F Seott Fitzgerald’ which is submitted in portial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, 1s the result

of my own work I have provided fully documented references to the works of others ‘The immaterial in this thesis has not been submitted for any other formal course of study

Signature

Date:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would nol, have been made possible without the guidance and the

support of individuals who contributed and extended their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study

I would like to sincerely express my innermost gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof D Lẻ Hùng Tiền who inflames fervent passion inside me towards research lopic and research progress Without his cominuously constructive feedback and overwhelming encouragement, the graduation paper could not come into being

Besides, | wish to thank iy wartm-hearled [amily for their immense tenderness,

deep empathy, inspiration and support to show me throughout upheavals and realize tremendous ambition I also wish to thank genuine companions and colleagues

always beside me.

ABSTRACT

Needless lo say, people today can approach innumerable foreign Bleralure works through their translations; however, the questions regarding the quality of a good translation still triggers ongoing debates With the deep concerns about the issue, the researcher conducts a study entitled: “A Vietnamese-English translation quality assessment on the Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald.”

This study firstly aims at reviewing different models for translation quality

assessment all over the world and indicating the comprehensive model for assessing the translation of literary works, which is the model proposed by House (1997)

Secondly, based on the model proposed by House (1997), the sludy assesses the

translation quality of “The Great Gatsby” — an American masterpiece translated into

a host of different languages including Vietnam

The major methods adopted throughout the study include beth qualitative and quantitative approaches, which enables the researcher to figure out the similarities

and differences belween the source text and the translation The findings reveal a umber of mismatches in comparison with the source text On the basis of such

findings, implications for literary translations are drawn out, Ilopefully, the study

proves beneficial to translators and researchers who share the same topic interest

ii

Statement of the problem a and rationale for the study

TI Signiieanee Of [he suudy «sec

IIL, Research aims and research quesions

IV Scope of the study

TV, Related studies and literature gaps .ccssesessensessusesesessnusesiasienassinasanetsien 33

1L Rescarch dcsigm se nerreireerree 36

2 Qualitative and quantitative approach - - - ce BB

Il Research questions

UL Analytical framework — Llouse’s model (1997)

1 Theorics underlying House's model (1997) 222

2 Operation of House’s model (1997) " 24

3 Translation typologics [ollowing Housc's modcl (1997) - 29

4, Advantages and shortcomings of Housc’s model (1997)

iv

IV, Data collection procedures and analysis 3

TH Comparison of Target Text and Source Text - 66

1 COveTtly erroneotis eIToTS sensi co 66

PART C: CONCLUSION ssssussiscnseneiienssssetaniete .88

1 Key findings

Some main approaches in The Great Gatsby

Alhteration m The Greal Galsby

Compound words in The Great Gatsby

Loan words in The Great Gatsby

Spoken language in The Greal Gatsby

Spoken language in The Great Gatsby

ST Profile

Texical mismatch m Ficld ditiension

Syntactic mismatch in Field dimension

Textual mismatch in Tield dimension Lexical mistmateh im Tenor dimension

‘Transference of proper names

Creative translations

Overtly crroneous errors

vii

PART A: INTRODUCTION:

L Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

‘The massive global integration has witnessed a proliferation of translating as

Munday (2001: 5) accentuates “Throughout history, written and spoken translations

have played a crucial role m interhuman communication” More notably, the 21"

century fosters nations around the world to come together in tremendous vigor to

promote socio-economic development; thus, transtalors have been entrusted with

the role of bridging the gap between people coming from various cultures

As a resull, a surging number of novels have been translated into different

languages Among those, “The Great Gatsby”, a ntasterpicce by F Scott Fitzgerald

first published in 1925, has also been made available for the readership all over the

world With a unique and original wriling style and profound insights ilo Arnerican

values, Fitzgerald has been greatly regarded as one of the most influential

representatives of American literature in the 1920s (Perkins, 200+) Ilis novel “The

Great Gatsby” has gained its recognition since the World War IL It is alsa widely

dmown as a literary classic and ranked among the greatest works of American

literature More strikingly, the Modern Library Dditorial Board voted it the 20"

century’s best, American novel in 1998

Tollowing its fame, the novel has also been translated into Vietnamese In fact,

there are Ilree Iranslaled versions of “The Great Gatsby”, wamely “Con ngiii hao

hoa” by Mic Để (1956), “Gatsby vi dai” by Hoàng Cường (1985), and the recent

“Dai gia Gatsby” by ‘Trinh La (2009), Among these three translated versions, the

tranalaHor of Trinh Tit (2009) has indeed aliracted a myriad of contending reviews

„ 2010)

from translators (Đỗ Phước 1

Moreover, there have been little agreement about how “good”, “satisfactory” or

“acceptable” of a translation is Ihe concept of acceptability in translation still

remains the issue of ongoing debate National and international translation standards now exist, but there are no generally accepted objective criteria for assessing the

quality of the translalions

All these aforementioned reasons have motivated the researcher to conduct the study entitled “A Vietnamese-English translation quality assessment on the Great Gatsby by # Scott Fitzgerald.”

IL Significance of the study

It is of great importance to be able to assess a translation as translation has become

a pivolal part in human civilization In Vietnam, English is a popular foreign

language, a tool of communication as well as a key to unlock human knowledge

‘The demand for knowledge has fostered the development of translation, however, it

scema Lhal many tion-professionals and semi-professional translators undertake the

task of translating This research serves as an useful source for both non-

professionals and professional translators to improve the quality of other literary

translated works in general Within the scape of this study, it is hoped to greatly enhance the translation of the masterpiece “Ibe Great Gatsby” Besides, the study

can be used as guidelines for other researchers to conduct further research with the

application of House's model (1997) in assessing Titerary banslation and other different genres,

IIL Research aims and research questions

‘The study firstly aims at providing a theoretical background on some issues relevant

to the topic of the study, which are Lmanstation, lilerary translation and TQA,

particularly @ model for TQA proposed by House (1997)

Secondly, based on a model for TQA proposed by House (1997) the study is to

assass the quality of the tanslation of “The Great Gatsby” — a popular American

novel translated into a host of different languages including Vietnam

‘These aims can be formulated into the following research questions

1 To what extent does the translation of “The Great Gatsby” achieve the dimensions of House’s model for 1QA?

Addressing the aforementioned issues is hoped to assist English translators in enhancing their awareness of TQA for lilerary works and improve their own translations ‘The study is also expected to be a beneficial reference to any Vietnamese readers who fancy romantic novel and are fans of “The Great Gatsby”

for a high-quality translation

LV Scope of the study

First, the theoretical background of the study limitedly focuses on some fundamental issues in translation theory of vital importance to the examined issue

including translation, lilerary translation and particularly TQA

Second, the study concentrates on the analytical scheme for TQA that is proposed

by House (1997) The analytical scheme proposed by House (1997) are employed to assess Lhe translation qualily of the whole novel “The Great Gatsby” (1993) by F Scott Fitzgerald of Wordsworth Fditions Publisher and its translation “Dai gia Gatshy” (2009) by Trinh L.tt of Nhá Nam Publisher

V Research methodology

In order to achicve the aims of he study, case study oi both qualitative and quantitative approach is employed ‘he researcher conducted the study in the procedure proposed by Munday (2001):

Phase 1: ST is analyzed in details to produce a profile of the ST register with the text-specific linguistic correlating to the situational dimensions (syntactic, lexical,

and textual means)

Phase 2: A description of the ST genre realized by the register is added

Phase 3: A statement of function of the ST is made, including the ideational and interpersonal component of that function

Phase 4: A similar profile and statement of function is made of the TT

Phase 5; ‘the IT profile is compared to the SI profile based on House’s model (1997) and a statement of “mismatches” is produced, categorized according to genre and lo the siluational dimensions of register and genre

Phase 6: A statement of quality is made of the translation

Phase 7: The translation is categorized into either overt translation or covert

translation

VL Design of the study

PART A —- INTRODUCTION identifics the central problems and main ais of the

study Research questions, scope, methodology and significance of the study are

also clearly stated im this part

PART B- DEVELOPMENT comprises three chapters

Chapter 1 — LITERATURE REVIEW represents fundamental theoretical

background that precedes and necessitates the formation of the research A bnef

overview on several previous studies is also indicated in this chapter

Chapter 2 — RESEARCII METIIODOLOGY covers the sources of data, research methods and analylical framework to collect and analyze Ihe data to [acllilate the

research progress

Chapter 3 —- FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION contains the analysis, presentation

and interpretation of the results

PART C— CONCLUSION draws important conclusions, yields implications and

proposes recommendations for further research

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter sheds light on fundamental concepts of translation theories and TOA approaches by analysing, synthesizing related-topic works and indicating their strengths and weaknesses

L Translation theory

1 Cancepts of translation

The concepis of “translation” have been thoroughly discussed by a tumber of

researchers in various publications

From linguistic upproach, Cat lord (1965: 20) indicated that banslation means “the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language” IIowever, this notion remains ambiguous conceming the type of equivalence in which culture had not been taken into account To a certain extent, the notion proposed by Catford (1965: 20) shares the same viewpoint with Lartman and Stork (1972: 713), Newmark (1981), Bell (1991), Landa (2006) They defined that translation ia a procedure of transferring a writlen text, inlo another langu

ge in

the way that the author aimed in the text Generally speaking, the notion of

translation from linguistic approach shares two main similarities Firstly, translation,

means rondering the meaning of a text into another language in the same way thal

the author intended in the ST Secondly, the translator has an obligation to seek for

the closet equivalent in the TL Nonetheless, there is no indication that culture is

taken into consideration

From cultural approach, Nida put strong, emphasis on cultural aspect in 1964 More specifically, translators pay sufficient attention to net only Iexical aspect but also cultural issues Differences between cultures may even cause more aching complications for the translators Since then, Toury (1978) considers translation as

“a kind of activity which inevitably involves at lcast two languages and two cultural traditions” Snell-Llomby (1988: 39), Larson (1994) shares the same viewpoint that

that, previous sludies approaching translation from linguistic aspect ignore

“extralinguistic reality” including culture, situation, context and so forth Therefore, the latter approach views language as an integral part of culture All in all, it can be witnessed thal the above-cited definitions, though dillered in wording, all agreed on the nature of translation, denoting it as the accuracy of the written transference of messages from one language into another and resolving problems relating to cultural differences

2 Translation methods and procedures

Tn “A textbook of translation” (1995), Newmark mentioned eight translation

methods In word-for-word translation, SL order is preserved, words are translated

by their most common meaning and out of context The SL grammatical structures

are converted Lo the nearest equivalent.in the TL in lZeral dramslation, bul words arc

still translated singly and out of text In faithful translation, words are translated in context but uncompromising to the TL Semantic translation is more flexible than faith(ul translation and greatly focuses on the avsthetiv beauly of the SL text

Communicative translation is freer than semantic translation and gives priority to

the effectiveness of the message to be communicated ree translation reproduces

the matter without the manner, or the content without the form of the original

Idiomatic translation reproduces the “message” of the original but tends to distort

nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not

exist in the original Adaptation is the “freest” form ol amstation and used mainly

for the translation of plays (comedies) and poetry

Newmark (1995) proposes 16 main types of translation procedures Transference

is the process of transferring an SL word to a TL text Naturalization adapts the SL

word firsL to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology of the TT

Cultural equivalent replaces a cultural word in the SL with a TL one Functional

equivalent requires the use of a culture-noutral word In descriptive equivalent, the meaning of the ST is explained in several words Componential analysis means

“comparing an SI word with a TL word which hes a similar meaning but is nol an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components.” Synonymy is a “near TL equivalent” Through- translation is the literal translation of common collocations, names of organizations and components of compounds Shift or transposition involves a change in the grammer from SL to TL Modulation means a change in perspective or thought

Recognised translation occurs when the translalor ‘normally uses the official or the generally accepted translation of any institutional term” Compensation occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a sentence is compensated in another part Paraphrase: in this procedure the meaning of the ST is explained Coupiets occur

when the translator combines two different procedures Footnotes are additional

information in a translation

3 Translation equivalence

Translation equivalence is undeniably the central issue of translation studies The definition, categorizalion aud applicabilily of equivalence lave beon discussed, analyzed, synthesized from different perspectives,

TJakobson (1959) introduced the notion of “equivalence in difference”, and on the

basis of his semiotic approach to language, he suggests three categories of

translation’ Intralingnal (within one language), interlingual (between two

languages), and iilerscmiotic (belweon sign systems) Tu his apmion, (hore is

ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units because the translator recodes and

transmits the message from another source Thus, translation involves two

equivalent messages in two different codes

Nida (1964) approaches the issue from function-based perspective From Nida’s viewpoint, cquivalence should be dynamic and formal typos Formal equivalence

focuses on the messagos itsclf in both form and content, and the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the

SL Dynamic equivalence 1s based on the principle of cquivalent effect where the receptor and message should be substantially the same at that which existed between the original receptors and the message

Koller (1979) utilizes meaning-based approach in order to classify equivalence into

five main groups including denctative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and

formal equivalence Denolalive equivalence means that both ST and TL words refer

to the same thing in the real world Connotative equivalence is achieved by the

translator's choices of words As for text-nommative categorization, both SL and TL

words arc used in the similar context in their respective languages Pragmatic

equivalence focuses on practical situations Formal equivalence creates an analogy

of form in the translation by their exploiting formal possibilities of TL

Equivalence can also be approached from form-based perspective proposed by Baker (1992) Equivalence can appear at word level and above word level when

translating from one language into another This means that the transtator should

pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as

number, gender and tense (Baker, 1992: 11) Textual equivalence means the

equivalence between the ST and the TT in terms of information and cohesion

In short, as various scholars have dissimilar methods of classifying, equivalence, there are many categorizations including form-based equivalence, meaning-based

equivalence and function-based equivalence

IL Literary translation

1 Definition

The definitions of literary translation have been discussed by many scholars Toury (1993), Venuti (1996), Holmes (1988), Jones (2009}, Berman (2000), Pilkington

(2000), Landers (2001), and Stockwell (2002), Most of literary definitions agree with the following definition proposed by Bush (1998: 127): “ Literary translation is the work of Hlerary translator [J The imaginative, intellectual and intuitive writing of the translator must not be lost to the disembodied abstraction often described as “translation”, In general, literary texts include all forms of literature wrillen in prose or poetry Reiss (1989) also indicated that literary texts belong to expressive text type in which the authors use the aesthetic dimension of language

In literary translation, the typical features of the source literary text not only need ta

‘be considered bul also are (he influential elements

When it comes to the work of a literary translation, Lamberts (1998: 130} considers

“a published anslation is the fruit of substamtial creative cfforl by the trauslalor,

”, He

who is the key agent in the subjeotive activity and social practice of translati

claims it is the literary translator who decides how to translate and gives the literary

translation ils existence uo qualter whai restraints of the nelwork of social and

cultural factors are To emphasize the challenges of the literary translation, Landers (2009:9) added: “ literary translation entails an unending skein of choices”

In general, defuutions of literary translation vary depending on the authors’

emphasis, While writers such as Bush, Lampert and Newmark emphasize the

subjective work of the translators, others focus on the degree of equivalence

between the ST and i'l No matter how different they are in their views of literary translation, no one can deny that literary is challenging The next part will discover prominent difficullics that translators have to eope with literary translation as

“when there is any kind of translation problem, literal translation is normally out of question” (Newmark, 1988:70)

2 Difficulties in literary translation

2.1 Cultural translation problems

It is apparent that the first challenge of literary translation lies in the differences

between cultures According to Calford (1965), instance of untranslatalnhty can

arise from two sources: one is culture; the other is linguistics Nida (1964) also mentioned that words have meanings only in terms of the total cultural setting

Seeing eye to cye with other scholars, Newmark (1995) defined the culture as the

way of life and manifestation that are peculiar to a community that uses a peculiar language as ils means of expression TL is widely known that Tanguage is an important aspect of culture Culture includes and affects language; it is the ground from which language grows and develops

According to Cui (2012), challonges pose literary translators can be material

culture, traditional culture, religious culture and historical culture Virst, different nations live in different places and will have different images for the same thing

For example, Vietnamese culture has "ảo dải, bảnh chưng, nhá sản” and so ơn Westem culture may have “pizza, sushi, continental breakfast” It would be a huge

challenge to deal with those cultwal materials Second, people live together in one

country or region and will form their own traditions, these traditions will pass from generation ta generation In other countries or regions, people may not have those

traditions, hus waking these traditions untranslatable Fer example in Quan Ho

Bac Ninh folk songs, there are some traditional customs such as “tục kết chạ, tục

ngủ bon” which exist only in Vietnamese oulture Third, the history of a nation is the record of social development Tdioma and legends provide ready support in this respeot An idiom or fixed expression may have no equivalent in the TL ‘the expression such as “Kangaroo Court” is an example that is difficult to translate into

Vicinamese

10

Newmark (1988) indicates the use of two translation procedures of two opposite

perspectives At one end, it is transference popular in literary text characterized by

local color and atmosphere in specialist texts that make it possible for readers to

identify the referent in other texts without difficulty However, brief and concise as

it is, transference may block comprehension for its emphasis on the culture and exclusion of the intended message Al the other end, it is componential analysis, the aost accurate translation procedure, which excludes the culture and highlights the message In componential analysis, one can acd extra contextual distinguishing

components in addilien to a component common to the source language and the

target language Unavoidably, a componential analysis is not as economical and

does not have the pragmatic impact of the original

In general, in the process of translating literary texts, there are problems in the translation of cultural words in a literary text due to the cultural gaps between the

SL and the TL Tois nol cnough for the translalor to krow what words are used in

the IL It is even more important for the translator to make the readership understand the sense as it is understood by the readership of the SL

2.2 Stylistic translation problems

Style is also a challenging problem of literary translation Style can be understood

as the way somothing is wrillen as distinc! from ils subject matter In a natural way,

each language has its own problem of style

For a technical text, for example, style is not a problem in that its informational

content remains from the ST to the I Landers (2001: 7) used the metaphor to

illustrate the importance of taking style into consideration in literary translation “In technical translation the arder of the cars is inconsequential if all the cargo arrives intact In literary translation, however, the order of the cars- which is to say the style

- can make the difference between a lively, highly readable translation and a stilted,

11

rigid, and artificial rondering that strips the original of its artistic and aesthetic

essence, even its very soul”

According to Landers (2001), “style” in a translator is an “oxymoron”, In order to perform his or her task well, it would be best if the translator strives to have no style

at all and disappears into and become indistinguishable from the style of the SL author Preferably, the translator should adapt to the style of eacl: author translated

‘ut always as faithful to the original as circumstance permit

2.3 Linguistic translation problems

Linguistic translation problems arise due to structural differences between the SL

and the TL Linguistically, cach language has its own metaphysics that determines the spirit of a nation and its behavioral norms It rejects the commonly held belief that all people of different countries have a common logical structure when processing with language independent of communication Instead, 1t emphasizes the influence of linguistic patterns on the way people perceive the world Consequently,

the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems

will result in basically different: worldview Since words or images may vary considerably from ane group to another, the translator need to pay attention to the

style, language and vocabnlary peculiar to the two languages in order to produce an

exact Iranslation of the SL text

UL Translation quality assessment

1, Definition of TOA

It can be seen that “the assessment of translator performance is an activity is under- researched and under-discussed despite being widespread” (Hatim and Mason 1997-199), For decades, TQA has teavived much atfention in the academic sphere (House 1997, Nord 1997, Lauscher 2000, Brunette 2000; Colina 2008; William 2009), House (1981:127) assumed that “What is a good translation?” should be

“one of the most important questions to be asked in connection with translation”

Llalliday (1994: 14) also shared the same viewpoint that “it is notorious to say why

or even whether, something is a good iranslation”

Although there have been little agreement about the need for a translation to be

“good”, “satisfactory” or “acceptable”, scholars reach a consensus that TQA is of great significance all the time Newmark (1995) and Schiaffino (2005) proposes

some benefits of TQA such as enhancing competence; improving language

proficierey, background knowledge and comprehensive understanding about

translation-related topic, reducing poor quality, incrcasing customer satisfaction and creating benchmarking, competitive advantages and so forth

2 Different appranches to TỌA

Approaches to ‘TQA have drawn numerous discussions from scholars ‘the

comprehensive lable below gives an overview on several main and outstanding

TQA approaches

Functionalist approach — Reiss (1971)

Skopos Theories (1991) F.Sleimer (1998)

Jamal Al-Qinai (2000) House (1977, 1986, 1997, 2000, 2006, 2009, 2015)

Steiner (1998)

‘Munday and Hatim (2004) Teich (2004)

Munday (2008) House (1977, 1986, 1997, 2000, 2006, 2009, 2015)

Belavioristic approach Nida(1964)

Nida and Taber (1969)

13,

Table 1, Same main approaches i TOA

Tn fact, mentalist views in TQA came into being long lime ago In mentalist views, the assessment of a translation is subjective and intuitive In the researcher's point

of view, this wend should be dismissed due to iis bias, and the translation

asscssinent depends on cach individual position

2.1 Behaviouristic approach

As opposed to mentalist views, behavioristic views give way for a more scientific way of translation assessment This tradition was influenced by American behaviourism, and it is associated with Nida (1964) and Nida and Taber (1969)

Nida (1964) suggested several behavioural tests to enable translation evaluators to

formulate more “objective” statements about the quality of a translation ‘The tests

used broad criteria such as “intelligibility” and “informativeness”, and they were based on the belief that a good translation is ơne leading to equivalence of response,

responses to a translation as measuring its quality

Nevertheless, these tests ultimately failed because they were wiable to capture something as intricate and complex as the “overall quality of a translation” (IIouse,

2009), Furthermore, the ST is largely ignored in such (exts which implies dat

14

nothing can be said about the relationship between the original and texts resulting, from different textual operations

2.2 Quantitative approach

The Canadian Government Translation Bureaw’s Quality Measurement System created a system for TQA known as Sical (1986) However, this system itsel! illustrates the limitations of quantitative approach to translation quality ‘he system was based on the quantification of errors; and there was a distinction between major and minor errors Texts were giver quality ratings following the number of major and minor errors in a 400-word passage: A: superior (0 major errors/maximum of 6 minor), B: fully acceptable (0/12), C: revisable (1/18); and D: unacceptable The tnajor crvor was defined as follows: The translation (ails lo render the incaning of a word or passage that contains an essential element of the message; mistranslation resulting in a contradiction or significant departure from the meaning of an essential clement of ihe message The language is incomprehensible, grossly incorrect language or rudimentary error in an essential element of the message (Williams

1989: 26)

Tlowever, the application of a quantified standard still sparks dissatisfaction among translators inside and outside the Bureau Working conditions, deadlines, level of difficulty of the SI and the “over-assessment” of the I'L errors were regularly cited

by the opponents of the system As a result, the “official” set of quantifiable quality ratings has been abandoned

Another model of quantitative approach is Systeme devaluation positive des

traduction named (SEPT) This model was developed [or the Translation Bureau by

Daniel Gouadec but never put into practice due to its complexity,

Waddington (2001) explored TQA in bis work Different, Methods of Evaluating

‘Translations in which he compared four different methods used at various universities around the world These methods are quantitative error analyses

Method A includes possible cirors divided into three categories, (1) Inappropriate translation which affects the understanding of the Si such as nonsense, addition, omission, ete (2) Trappropriaie translalion which affects the expression in the TT such as spelling, grammar, text and style; (3) Inadequate translation which affects the transmission of either the main function or secondary functions of the ST In cach calogory, the difference is made belween serious exors (~2 poinls) and minor errors (-1 point) ‘Ihe fourth category describes plus points for good (+1 point) and exceptionally good (+2 pomts) Method B is based on the work of Kussmaul (1995: 129) ancl Waddington (1997) The evaluator has to determine whether each mistake is language mistake (-1 point) or translation mistake (-2 points) ‘Translation mistakes affect the transfer of meaning from the ST to the TT The final mark for translation is calculated in the similar way wilh method A Method C is a holistic method of assessment The scale is unitary and treats the translation competence as

a whole, Method D is a combination of error analysis of method B and C in the proportion of 70/30 Tn other words, method B accourts for 70% of the tolal result and method C accounts for 30%

However, Waddinglon’s model (2001) was crilicized duc to four main reasons

Firstly, this model is highly academic, and it may not be applied to real cases outside academic contexts Secondly, this model ignores tanslation shifts

According to Catford (1965), translation shifts are “departures from formal

correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the ‘[L” Regarding textual

equivalence and particular the ST-TT pairs, there sometimes occurs a divergence

dbeiween the pairs of langnages; thus, translation shills are inevitable im translation Thirdly, the holistic method C is general and vague, causing the high subjectivity

during the translation assessment process In this method, the assessment depends

on the evaluator, and judgment is different from assessor to assessor Finally, the

critique falls upon the errors of addition in method A Klaudy (1996) indicated that

is essential to add some imformation Lo the concepts, even grammatical structures

16

to make them more understandable to the readership Therefore, addition can also

be a good way of conveying the desired meaning in some situations

2.3 Argumentation-Centered approach

The Argumentation-Conlored Theory by Williams (2009} alicmpis to combine a non-qualitative and qualitative approach to TQA The author states that “whatever

the speciality or purpose, a translation must reproduce the argument structure of ST

1o mect the minimum criteria of adequacy” (Wiliams, 2001, p.336) He then names

the specific parts of an argument: claim/ discovery, grounds, warrant, backing,

qualifier! modsliver, and rebuttal’ exception According to Williams, every ST

should be analyzed with respect to those categories (whether they are present or not) and compared to the I'l ‘The quantitative dimension of the theory rests in the number of arguments corcelly or imeorreelly rendered by a translator, and the qualitative one in analyzing the arguments and dividing them into smaller

components

Nonetheless, this approach is rather a macrostructural analysis disregarding the

mucro level and not every text must inevitably contain an argument (or such an argument on which the theory can be applied) Besides, Williams totally disregards

the context and culture-boundiness of the texts

2.4Functionalist approach

In the 1980s, following the “pragmatic turn” in linguistics, the functionalist paradigm shified the focus of translation studies towards a consideration of the

extralinguistic setting of translation ‘[he skopos or purpose is the most important

factor m translalion The onginal text is downgraded lo a mere offer of information,

and the translator is often scen as the “co-author”

According to Reiss (1971), the assessment of translations should start with the cstablishment of text types She claims that different text types have different

functions and therefore needed to be treated differently She distinguished three types including content-oriented text (news, scientific-technical texts), form-

oriented texts (poems and many other lypes of lilerary texts}, conalive lexis

(advertisements and texts of a rhetorical or polemical bent” and audiomedial texts (operas, songs) She claims that it is these text types which have to be kept equivalent in an adequate translation However, she did not, indicate how to

establish that the desired function is

Tn the context of unctionalis approach, Anunan (1990), closely follows Reiss and

Vermeer (1984: 139), adopts a strictly TT oricnted perspective on TQA The framework selected by Amman (1990) consists of five phases including (1)

determining the fimetion of the translation, (2) determing the ttratoxtual

coherence of the translation; (3) determining the function of the ST; (4) determining the intratextual coherence of the ST; (5) determining the intertextual coherence

between the translation and the ST However, two major weaknesses im this

approach indicated by House (2009) are the vagueness of the procedure for determining the functions of the ST and TT and even the greater vagueness

conveming what lappens in the heads of the readers

In Nord (1991)'s Shopos theorie model, translation is viewed as an intentional, interlingual and communicative action Therefore, she proposed an analytical framework based on the fimction and intention (skopos) of the TT in the target culture Nord’s model (1991: 166-167) comprises the following steps: (1) The TT analysis: the TT is analyzed in terns of inba-textual factors (suck as grammatical, lexical, stylistic normativity and semantic coherence) and in terms of extra-textual factors (such as the pragmatic dimensions of recipient, time, and place and so forth) (2) The ST analysis: the ST is analyzed based on the model of translation-relevanl text analysis, ‘The critic should pay sufficient attention to those factors which have been figured oul as “problematic” during TT assessment such as coherence deficiencies, inconsistent terminology, interferences in lexical or sentence structure,

18

ste (3) A comparison of the TT and ST to create a TT profile (4) A comparison of the TT profile and the ‘I

rrgardod ns limotionally adequate Nord (1991:166) stresses thal errors analysis is

If the TY profile congruent the T'T, the translation can be

insufficient: “It is the text as a whole whose functions and effects must be regarded

as the crucial criteria for translation criticisms” On the basis of a selection of relevant ST feature, the translator may climinaic ST Hers, rely more heavily on

implicatures or “compensate” for them in a different part of the text

Another essentially functionalist approach to evaluale a translalion — but with

respect to specialist texts that fulfill the same fumetion in source and targot cultures

is one suggested by D’Hulst (1997) She equates function with “text act” which

scoms lo be similar to Woeution, and further subdivides this inlo topic-centered and

luerarelueal text structure Text structure relates to text comectivity comprising macro- and micro- units The author assumes that text structures can be correlated

wilh text acls, such as a directive text act correlates with a hierarchical text

structure However, this theory goes against theories in previous decades such as speech act theory, discourse analysis, contrastive pragmatics and text linguistics (House, 2009)

Another approach ta TQA worth mentioning is proposed by Canadian scholar

Larose (1998) Like olher skopos theorists, Larose Cirmly believes (hat the purpose

of a translation is the most important aspect for measuring its quality Le

differentiates textual and extra-textual features His focus on textual features

includes three different levels: a microstrustural ong that relates lo graphic, Texieal

and syntactic expression forms at sentence and phrase level; a macrostructural level

that relates to the semantic structure of discourse content, and a superstructural level

relating lo the overall structure eluding narraliv

ad argumentative slructure

A more recent approach to TQA is that of Jamal AL-Qinai (2000) Al-Qinai (2000: 497) allompis to “develop an cmpirical model for TQA based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal correspondence, thematic coherence,

19

refercnoe eohesion pragmatic cquivalenco and lexical — syntactic propertics” The author elaborated a list of concrete parameters according to which the Sf and ‘IT

relative match should be tested Al-Qinai’s model is similar to the Nord’s model in

which it strives to be holistic

2.5 Linguistically oriented approach

In more recent times, many linguistically oriented works on TQA have appeared

such as Raker (1992), Hatim and Mason (1997), Steiner (1998), Munday and Hat

(2004), ‘Teich (2004) and Munday (2008) ‘They all widened the scope of translation studies to include speech act theory, discourse analysis, pragmalingrdstics and

soviopragmnalics

Steiner's approach (1998) is partly based on the systemic functional theory

propased by Halliday (1964, 1978) According to Steiner (1998, as cited in Hoang

Van Van, 2006: 147), a comprehensive assessment of a text should consider meta-

fimetional equivalence (the experiential, logical, interpersonal, textual meanings; tho pragmatic meanings and the situational environment im which the text is embedded) When assessing a translation, the assessor should compare the ‘I'l with

the ST regarding three register components: Field, tenor and mode (1) Field refers

to subject matter, goal orientation, social activities (ie production, exchange,

communication, reproduction, etc.) (2) ‘tenor refers to agentive roles, social roles, social distance (ie degrees of formality, degrees of politeness) and effects (3)

Mode refers to Janguage role, channel of discourse, and medium of discowse

Regarding House’s model (1997), House’s model generally draws on pragmatics, functional and systemic linguisties, register Iheury, stylistics, discourse analysis, the notion of equivalence and concepts developed in the Prague school of language and linguistics (House, 1996: 29) Tn particular, the model is based on Halliday’s (1973) view of the function of language as well as Crystal and Davy’s (1969) situational

20

dimensions of texts, The model proposed by House {1997} will be discussed in depth in the next chapter of the study

There are several models that do not belong to these aforementioned specific

approaches Some are illustrated as follows Newmark’s model of criticism (1988:

186) includes the analysis of SL text, a comparison between ST and the translation,

and comments about the translation’s potential role as translation ‘he five parts

of this comparative madel include: (1) A brief analysis of the SL text foousing an its

titention and its functional aspects, (2) The iranslator’s interpretation of the ST

text’s purpose, his translation methed and the translation’s possible readership; (3)

A selective but representative detailed comparison of the translation with the

origimal, (4) An evaluation of the translation: a) in the banslators terms, b) in the

critic's terms ($) Where appropriate, and the assessment of the possible place of the

translation in the TL culture or discipline However, Newmark’s model is only applicable Cor practitioners

Berman (1995) incorporates a positive assessment of literary translation Ie

introduces an assessment that demonstrates not only the shortcomings but also the qualities and originality of translation as work of art His design is then specialized

by a general procedure, of which choosing significant passages in the translation

thal encapsulates is essence and comparison of hese “somes significates” (1995:70)

with the original is the key point, ‘Then, the statement of “confrontation” may show

the differences between the ST and the TT text However, such differences in some

cases may be considered as slong points contributing lo the orginalily of the

translation, Nevertheless, Berman’s model is a closed system with no specific

assessment criteria His overarching purpose is to demonstrate the superiority of a

translation approach Ibial brings oul Ihe essence af Ihe original

21

3 Analytical framework — House’s model (1997)

Julian House is the president of [ATIS (International Association for Translation and Intercultural Studies) and one of the key figures in Translation Studies Her first important publication was her PhL) dissertation entitled “A Model for ‘Iranslation Quality Assessment and some Implications for Foreign Language Teaching” (1976) ‘the mode! that she developed in her thesis was revised in 1981 and then officially updated after 20 years in “Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited” (1997)

3.1 Theories underlying House’s model (1997)

Generally, [ouse’s model draws on pragmatics, functional and systemic linguistics, register theory, stylistics, discourse analysis, the notion of equivalence and concepts developed in the Prague schoot of language and linguistics (House, 1997: 29) Tn patticular, tke model is based on Halliday’s (1973) view of the function of language as well ax Crystal and Davy’s (1969) situational dimensions of texts

Llouse first introduced her model (1977) for situational-functional text analysis and

asscasmment of translalion by adapling and modifying Crystal and Davy’s (1969) scheme and coming up with the following model:

A Dimensions of language user

1 Geographical origin

2 Social class

we Time

B Dimonsions of language use

1 Medium: simple/ complex

k2 Panieipation: siuple/ complex

Social role relationship

Social attitude

5 Provmec

Ơn cach oŸ the situaHonal dưnensions, llouse differentiated syntacHe, lexieal and

texlual cans, although il may nol always be the case thal all three calegories are found to be operative on a particular dimension According to House (2015), the

importance in the conception of this model was the inclusion of textual means,

which were nol considered in Crystal and Davy’s approach, House also indicaicd that one of the more serious objections to the Crystal and Davy’s approach was that they were only concemed with breaking down stretches of language into their

constituent, linguishe elements without seeking to establish the meaning construed

via different ways of sentence connections, thematic movements and so ơn This objection was not valid for her own approach because she did take account of

textual devices

Therefore, House revised her model, and textual means were incorporated into the

model, The updated model for TQA was officially miroduced m 1997 House (1997) based her treatment of textual means of realizing a particular situational

fealure on Bukvist’s work on linguistic stylistics (1973), on work done in Prague

school on theme-zheme distribution and on the insightful work on texts im spoken

and written language by Soll (1974) as well as on Lidmondson’s work on discourse amalysis (1981)

Furthermore, Ilouse's model (1997) was based on [lalliday’s (1973) Systemic —

Functional Theory in terms of two functional components In House’s revised

anode! (1997), the Halliday register concepts of “Field”, “‘fenor” and “Mode” are used According to Halliday and Ilasan (1976), the functions of language include

the ideational, interpersonal and textual funclion Firstly, the ideational function

(Wield) is the “content function of language” (Llalliday, 2007: 183) It serves to represent situations and events in the world and entities, actions and processes

involved TL is in the ideational function thal texl-producers embodies in language

23

their experience of the phenomena of the real world (Halliday, 1973: 106), The ideational function has bvo sub-functions, namely Uxperiential and Logical ‘The experiential parl deals with the representation of experience, and the logical part is concemed with logical relations which are not directly drawn from experience (HHailiday and Hasan, 1976: 26) The second language function, the interpersonal (fanction (Tenor), relers to how we use language to communicate The interpersonal function is the “participatory function of language” (Halliday, 2007: 184) It allows the expression of a relation set up between the text-producer and the text-consumer (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999: 7) The textual function (Mode) of language is an enabling one (Ilalliday and Matthiessen, 2004), It is in the textual function that ideational and interpersonal meanings are actualized (Halliday, 2007: 184) The

textual function is realized im imformalion structure and cohesion,

3.2 Operation of House’s model (1997)

From Ilouse’s viewpoint (1997: 31), translation is “the replacement of a text in the

source Janguage by # scmantically and pragmatically cquivalent text in the target language” It can be revealed from this definition that House focused on three aspects including semantic, pragmatic and textual aspect

The semuntic aspect is the most easily accessible from the three aspecls and bas been given preference by the evaluators (Nascimento, 1996) On the other hand, the pragmatic aspect which is “the parlicular use of an expression on a specific occasion (House, 1981: 27) is of groat importance since translation deals with language in use The textual aspect, though, is highly important; it has been frequently neglevted because all the references such as substitutions, anaphora, ellipsis, etc that make up the different ways of text constitution account for textual meaning that should be preserved in translation

‘Therefore, from her viewpoint, equivalence should be functional and pragmatic and

be achieved for “meaning” to be preserved across two different languages In other

24

words, both the ST and TT must present the same function, and the function of the

text can only be made explicit via a thorough analysis of the text itself,

Moreover, the model for TQA of House is based on systemic-funetional theory by

Llalliday (1973) and aims at the analysis and comparison of an original and its

translation on three different levels: The levels of Language/ Text; Register (Field,

Mode and ‘fenor), and Genre ‘fhe House’s model is illustrated via the following

Participant vlationshi + Medium

Subject mater and social +author’s provenance and & ParieipanL »

(simple/complex)

† social role relationship { social attitude

Language ext

Diagram 1 House’s model for ‘lranslation Quality Assessment (1997)

Tn House’s revised model (1997) for TQA, the classic Hallidayat register concepts

of Field, ‘Penor and Mode are used.

Field capturcs subject matter, topic, social action or social activity with differentiations of degrees of generality, specificity or granularity in lexical items

according lo the rubrics of specialized, general and popular

Tenor captures the nature of the participants and the relationship between them in terms of social power and social distance as well as the degree of emotional charge, including the text producer's temporal, geographical and social provenance a3 well

as his intellectual, emotional or affective stance or his viewpoint

¥ Author's Provenance reveals his temporal, geographical and social

provenance and thus represents the former Dimensions of Language User

¥ Author's Stance indicates his intellectual, emotional and affective position

lowards the subject he presents and bis point of view

¥ Social Role Relationship is the relationship between addresser and

addressee It can be either symmetrical marked by the existence of solidarity

or equally or asymmetrical marked by the existence of some kind of authority In other words, symmetrical means the text contains features

indicating solidarity and equality between addresser and addressee

Asymmetrical means the text contains features indicating authority

relationship between addresser and addressee

¥ Social attitude mcans the degree of social distance or proximity indivatiny, formality and informality In other words, social attitude refers to different styles (formal, consultative and informal) Five styles of formality: frozen, formal, consultative, casnal and intimate

Mode captures Medium and Participation

¥ Medium: both chanmel of being either simple (writlen to be read) or complex (wnitten to be spoken), the degree of participation between the writer and the reader

26

¥ Participation: can also be “simple” such as a monologue with no addressee participation built into the text or “complex” with various addressees

involving linguistic mechanism characterizing the Loxl

Llowever, register analysis itself cannot directly lead to a statement of the individual

textual function Therefore, the concept of gevre is newly incorporated in the

analytic scheme for analyzing and comparing the original and the translation text Genre, the conventional text type associated with a specific commumicative

fimetion, enables lo refer any single text lo the class of texts sharing a common

purpose As House (2001: 248) stated, genre connects texts with the “macro- context” of the linguistic and cultural community in which texts are embedded,

Genre, Register and Language corrolates to cach other Genre is the contont-plane

of Register, which at the same time is the expression plane of Genre Lesides, Register is also the content-plane of Language while Language is its expression plane According to House (1997), Genre serves as a bridge connecting Register

and Function

The analysis of these situational dimensions can creafe the function of a exL As

stated above, “a translation text should not only match its ST in function, but

employ equivalent situational — dimensional means to achieve that function”

(House, 1981: 49)

Each of these situational dimensions is manifested through syntactic, lexical and

textual means

Lexical means refer to the choice and patterns of lexical items, collocations, co-

occurence, the use of onomatopoctic clemerits and so on Lexical cohesion is

divided into two main categories: reiteration and collocations

Syntactic means velor to the mature of (he verb phrases, mood, tenses, sentence

structures: simple, compound or complex, repetition, coordination or subordination;

structure of noun phrases, simple or complex with pre-modification or post-

modification, etc

Textual means was distinguished into three main textual aspects including theme dynamics, clausal linkage and iconic linkage According to Louse (1977), theme

recurs in texts (e.g repetition, anaphoric and cataphoric reference, preforms,

ellipsis, synonymy and near-synonymy) ‘theme refers to facts taken for granted, universally known or given from the context and therefore it does not or marginally

comfibule to the new information conveyed by the Lotal ullerance Rheme conlams

tho main new information conveyed by the utterance Word order is the primary

formal means of realizing the theme-rheme distribution: in normal, unmarked

speech, the there precedes the rheme, however, in emotive speech, the rheme

precedes the theme,

Clausal linkage is described by a sysiam of basieally logical relations between clauses and sentences in a text such as additive, adservative, alternative, causal,

explanatory or illative relations

Teonic Einkage ox structural parallolism occurs when two or more sonlonees ina text cohere because they are, at the surface level, isomorphic (louse, 1977) Based on Soll (1974) and Pike (1967), House distinguishes into emic and etic text An emic text is one which is solely determined by text-inmancnl criteria, and an efic fext is one which is determined through text-transcending means such as temporal,

personal, or local deiclie potting to various features of the situation enveloping, the

addresser and the addressee

A textual profile is established then for the ST under the form of a Statement of

Function The I'T is also analyzed using the same dimensions to create the textual profile of the TT The comparison of the two textual profiles reveals the degree to

which the translation text matches the ST, and a Statement of Quality is provided

28

3.3 Transtalion typologies fallawing House’s model (1997)

Overt translation

According ta House (2015), an overt translation is one in which the addressees of

the Inmslation text are “overly” not dircetly addressed Tw an overt translation, the

original is tied in a specific marmer to the SL community and its culture, and is often specifically directed at source culture addressees House divided overt translation into two groups The first is overt historically linked source texts such as those tied to a specific occasion in which a precisely specified SL audience is being addressed A political speech given in 1942 by Winston Churchill in Bradford is an cxample The sccond is overt timeless source texts such as those transcending as works of art and aesthetic creations a distinct a historical meaning while always necessarily displaying period — and cullure — specificity because of the status of the addresser who is a product of his time and culture “Ihe End of the Beginning” an excerpt from Sean O’Casey’s one-act play is an example This text is specific to the source culture begause (hey are marked on the language user dimensions and they have independent status in the language community

Covert translation

A covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source

tex i the target, culture The (ranslalion is covert because il is nat iarked

pragmatically as a translation text of ST but may conceivably have been created in its own right A covert translation is thus a translation whose S'I' is not specifically

addr

to a particular source cullure audiere

Some sample texts analyzed in

House’s model (1997) include a scientific text (an excerpt from a coursebook in

mathematics), a tourist information booklet (advertising brochure on Nuremberg),

an economic text (a letter written by the presidents of an intemational investment

company to the shareholders) and so on

29

In cvaluating a translation, it is csscntial that the differences between these two

types of translation be taken into account Overt and covert translations make

different, demands on vanslalion criticism According lo House (2015), the major difficulty in translating overtly is finding linguistic-cultural equivalents, particularly along the dimension of Tenor and its characterizations of the author’s temporal, sooinl and geographieal provenance Tn evalualing covert translations, il is necessary

to consider the application of a cultwal filter in order to be able to differentiate between a covert translation and a covert version Cultural filter is a term proposed

by House (1977) which is a means of capturing socio-cultural differences in

expectation norms and stylistic conventions between the source and target

linguistic-cultural communities

When the textual profile of the ST and TT do not match, there is an error Two types of errors were categorized

Covertly erroneous errors: those which result from a mismateli in one situational

dimension A covert translation is a translation that appears as if it produces in the

target culture The translation text aims at addressing their audiences in the same way that the ST addresses their source culture commmunity A ST and its covert T'T

are pragmatically of equal concem for source and target language addressees and

they have equivalent purposes: both are based on conlemporary, equivalent needs of

a comparable audience in the source and target language communities She then introduces the concept “cultural filter” to better adapt the translation to the target

culture Tn other words, a cultural {iter belween the ST and TT crables the TT audience to view the ST through the glasses of the target culture member

Overtly erroneous errors Ihose which result (rom non-dimensional mismatch Such

errors can be divided into: Not translated, Slight change in meaning; Significant change in meaning: Distortion of meaning; Breach of the language system: Creative translation, Culural fillering In overt wanslation, the cultural features of ST are purposefully retained In other words, texts do not directly address the target

30

audience of the translation as they are tight to culture and the language community

where they originate Thus, the function of the translation text cannot match with

that of the ST’s function “either because the ST is tied to a specific non-repeatable historic event in the source culture [ ] or because of the unique status (as a literary

text) that the ST has in the same culture” (House, 1997: 67)

Covert Errors: result from a

mismatch of one situational Overt Erroi Seu from a

dimension iii with a similar one in TT and can be divided into: ime

2 Slight Change in Meaning

3 Significant Change in Meaning

£Distortion of Meaning S-Breach of the SL System 6-Creative Translation 7-Cultural Filtering

Diagram 2 Translation Errors by House’s model (1997)

3.4 Advantages and shortcomings of House’s model (1997)

In order to guarantee the objectiveness in this study, both advantages and shortcomings of House’s TQA model (1997) are clearly indicated:

House’s model (1997) generally has four main advantages Firstly, House’s TOA

model can be applied to assess the translation quality of numerous text types

including scientific texts, commercial texts, journalistic articles, tourist information

booklets, fictional and non-fictional texts (House, 1997:67) In House (1981, 1997), the above model of TQA was put to an empirical test with a corpus of eight

authentic English and German textual pairs

31