1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Babel
  4. Volume 64, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 64, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recently, there is a growing interest in the development of translation quality research programmes at different stages worldwide. Scholars and researchers have paid much attention to the quality of translation; however, there is a dearth of meta-analyses of studies and research in the field of translation quality research. In fact there has been no systematic review since 2000. The purpose of the current research paper is to design translation quality research through the construction of a database of 14 peer-reviewed journal publications during the period 2000 to 2017. A combination of thematic and methodological analyses, scientometric methods, and corpus tool were applied to analyse the extracted database. Also, top-down and bottom-up procedures were conducted to minimise the subjectivity of thematic analysis. The present research scrutinised the extracted database on the basis of four main criteria, namely theoretical importance, pertinence to empirical and non-empirical research, the size of readership, and geographical coverage including institutions and countries. Finally, this database aims at serving as a resource for researchers and scholars to become familiar with the most cutting edge information on developments in translation quality research, challenges within this field, and the possible trajectories for future research.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
2018-11-27
2024-10-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akbari, Alireza; and Winibert Segers
    2017a “Translation Difficulty: How to Measure and What to Measure”. Lebende Sprachen62 (1): 3–29. 10.1515/les‑2017‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2017-0002 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2017b “Translation Evaluation Methods and the End- Product: Which One Paves the Way for a More Reliable and Objective Assessment?” SKASE Journal of translation and interpretation11 (1): 2–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Kufaishi, Adil
    2011 “Obligatory translation shift as a sub-component of a model of quality assurance specifications and performance translator assessment”. Babel57 (2): 144–167. doi:  10.1075/babel.57.2.02kuf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.57.2.02kuf [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Qinai, Jamal
    2000 “Translation Quality Assessment. Strategies, Parametres and Procedures”. Meta45 (3): 497–519. 10.7202/001878ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/001878ar [Google Scholar]
  5. Anckaert, Philippe; June Eyckmans; and Winibert Segers
    2008 “Pour Une Évaluation Normative De La Compétence De Traduction”. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics155 (1): 53–76. doi:  10.2143/ITL.155.0.2032361
     https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.155.0.2032361 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bahameed, Adel Salem
    2016 “Applying assessment holistic method to the translation exam in Yemen”. Babel62 (1): 135–149. doi:  10.1075/babel.62.1.08bah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.08bah [Google Scholar]
  7. Biel, Łucja
    2011 “Professional Realism in the Legal Translation Classroom: Translation Competence and Translator Competence”. Meta56 (1): 162–178. 10.7202/1003515ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1003515ar [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowker, Lynne
    2000 “A Corpus-Based Approach to Evaluating Student Translations”. The Translator6 (2): 183–210. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2000.10799065
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799065 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta46 (2): 345–364. 10.7202/002135ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/002135ar [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunette, Louise
    2016 “Should Revision Trainees Think Aloud while Revising Somebody Else’s Translation? Insights from an Empirical Study with Professionals”. Meta61 (2): 320–345. 10.7202/002162ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/002162ar [Google Scholar]
  11. Bundgaard, Kristine; Tina Paulsen Christensen; and Anne Schjoldager
    2016 “Translator- computer interaction in action – an observational process study of computer-aided translation”. Journal of Specialized Translation25: 106–130.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Calvo, Elisa
    2015 “Scaffolding translation skills through situated training approaches: progressive and reflective methods”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer9 (3): 306–322. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103107
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103107 [Google Scholar]
  13. Caro, Marina Ramos
    2016 “Testing audio narration: the emotional impact of language in audio description”. Perspectives24 (4): 606–634. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clifford, Andrew
    2007 “Grading Scientific Translation: What’s a New Teacher to Do?” Meta52 (2): 376–389. 10.7202/016083ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/016083ar [Google Scholar]
  15. Colina, Sonia
    2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation”. The Translator14 (1): 97–134. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dastjerdi, Hossein; Vahid, Yasamin Khosravani; Masoud, Shokrollahi; and Nasim, Mohiman
    2011 “Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A Semiotic Model for Poetry Translation”. Lebende Sprachen56 (2): 338–361. 10.1515/les.2011.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/les.2011.021 [Google Scholar]
  17. Eyckmans, June; Philippe Anckaert; and Winibert Segers
    2009 “The perks of norm- referenced translation evaluation”. InTesting and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies, ed. byClaudia Angelelli; and Holly E. Jacobson, 73–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xiv.06eyc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.06eyc [Google Scholar]
  18. Eyckmans, June; Winibert Segers; and Philippe Anckaert
    2012 “Translation Assessment Methodology and the Prospects of European Collaboration”. InCollaboration in Language Testing and Assessment, ed. byDina Tsagari; and Ildikó Csépes, 171–184. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernandez, Francesc; and Marta Arumi Ribas
    2014 “Ongoingly redesigning metacognitive questionnaires helping trainees to self-evaluate their translating”. Babel60 (3): 371–396. doi:  10.1075/babel.60.3.06fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.60.3.06fer [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernández, Francesc; and Patrick Zabalbeascoa
    2012 “Correlating trainees’ translating performance with the quality of their metacognitive self-evaluation”. Perspectives20 (4): 463–478. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2011.629730
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.629730 [Google Scholar]
  21. Galán-Mañas, Anabel; and Amparo Hurtado Albir
    2015 “Competence assessment procedures in translator training”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer9 (1): 63–82. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2015.1010358
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1010358 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gao, Bin; and Mingjiong Chai
    2009 “A Bibliometric Analysis of New Developments in Simultaneous Interpreting Studies in the West”. Chinese Translators Journal2009 (2): 17–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gardy, Philippe
    2016 “L’évaluation en didactique de la traduction: un état des lieux”. Journal of Specialized Translation26: 20–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Garzone, Giuliana
    2000 “Textual analysis and interpreting research”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10: 69–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaspari, Federico; Hala Almaghout; and Stephen Doherty
    2015 “A survey of machine translation competences: Insights for translation technology educators and practitioners”. Perspectives23 (3): 333–358. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2014.979842
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.979842 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gile, Daniel
    1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting”. Target10 (1): 69–93. doi:  10.1075/target.10.1.04gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.04gil [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: A Scientometric Approach”. Target12 (2): 297–321. 10.1075/target.12.2.07gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.07gil [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature”. Forum3 (2): 85–103. 10.1075/forum.3.2.05gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.05gil [Google Scholar]
  29. 2009 “Interpreting Studies: A Critical View from Within”. MonTI1: 135–155. 10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6
     https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Grbić, Nadja; and Sonja Pöllabauer
    2008 “Counting what counts: Research on community interpreting in German-speaking countries – A scientometric study”. Target20 (2): 297–332. doi:  10.1075/target.20.2.06grb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20.2.06grb [Google Scholar]
  31. Hacken, Pius ten; and María Fernández Parra
    2008 “Terminology and Formulaic Language in Computer-Assisted Translation”. SKASE Journal of translation and interpretation3 (1): 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hague, Daryl. Alan Melby; and Wang Zheng
    2011 “Surveying Translation Quality Assessment”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer5 (2): 243–267. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2011.10798820
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798820 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hassani, Ghodrat
    2011 “A Corpus-Based Evaluation Approach to Translation Improvement”. Meta56 (2): 351–373. 10.7202/1006181ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1006181ar [Google Scholar]
  34. House, Juliane
    2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta46 (2): 243–257. 10.7202/003141ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar [Google Scholar]
  35. Jiang, Chengzhi
    2010 “Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts: application of a systemic functional model”. Perspectives18 (2): 109–126. doi:  10.1080/09076761003678734
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel
    2015 “Translation quality, use and dissemination in an internet era: Using single and multi-translation parallel corpora to research translation Quality on the web”. Journal of Specialized Translation23: 39–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
    2011 “From many one: Novel approaches to translation quality in a social network era”. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies10: 131–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Karoubi, Behrouz
    2016 “Translation quality assessment demystified”. Babel62 (2): 253–277. doi:  10.1075/babel.62.2.05kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.2.05kar [Google Scholar]
  39. Kelly, Dorothy
    2008 “Training the Trainers: Towards a Description of Translator Trainer Competence and Training Needs Analysis”. TTR21 (1): 99–125. 10.7202/029688ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/029688ar [Google Scholar]
  40. Kelly, Dorothy; and Catherine Way
    2007 “Editorial: On the Launch of ITT”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer1 (1): 1–13. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798747
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798747 [Google Scholar]
  41. Khanmohammad, Hajar; and Seyed Muhammed Hussein Mousavinasab
    2014 “Translation shifts in medical translation from English into Farsi”. SKASE Journal of translation and interpretation7 (1): 73–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, Ryonhee
    2006 “Use of Extralinguistic Knowledge in Translation”. Meta51 (2): 284–303. 10.7202/013257ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/013257ar [Google Scholar]
  43. Kockaert, Hendrik; and Winibert Segers
    2014 “Evaluation de la Traduction : La Méthode PIE (Preselected Items Evaluation)”. Turjuman23 (2): 232–250.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2017 “Evaluation of legal translations: PIE method (Preselected Items Evaluation)”. Journal of Specialized Translation27: 148–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kockaert, Hendrik; Winibert Segers; Bert Wylin; and Dirk Verbeke
    2016 “TranslationQ: Automated Translation and Evaluation Process with Real-time Feedback”. Presentation at CIUTI GA.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Krüger, Ralph
    2016 “Situated LSP Translation from a Cognitive Translational Perspective”. Lebende Sprachen61 (2): 297–332. 10.1515/les‑2016‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lai, Tzu-Yun
    2011 “Reliability and Validity of a Scale-based Assessment for Translation Tests”. Meta56 (3): 713–722. 10.7202/1008341ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1008341ar [Google Scholar]
  48. Lauscher, Susanne
    2000 “Translation Quality Assessment”. The Translator6 (2): 149–168. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2000.10799063
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799063 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, Jieun
    2008 “Rating Scales for Interpreting Performance Assessment”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer2 (2): 165–184. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lim, Lily
    2013 “Examining Students’ Perceptions of Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer7 (1): 71–89. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2013.10798844
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798844 [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, Hongwei; and Lei Mu
    2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China – A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011”. Foreign Language Education34 (2): 105–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Loock, Rudy
    2013 “Close encounters of the third code: Quantitative vs. Qualitative analyses in corpus-based translation studies”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics27 (1): 61–86. doi:  10.1075/bjl.27.04loo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.27.04loo [Google Scholar]
  53. Massey, Gary; and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
    2011 “Investigating information literacy: A growing priority in translation studies”. Across Languages and Cultures12 (2): 193–211. doi:  10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Miao, Jun; and André Salem
    2016 “L’autoévaluation appuyée sur l’outillage textométrique dans l’enseignement de la traduction”. Meta61 (2): 255–275. 10.7202/1037759ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1037759ar [Google Scholar]
  55. O’Brien, Sharon
    2012 “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation”. Journal of Specialized Translation17: 55–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Orlando, Marc
    2011 “Evaluation of Translations in the Training of Professional Translators”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer5 (2): 293–308. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2011.10798822
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798822 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ørsted, Jeannette
    2001 “Quality and Efficiency: Incompatible Elements in Translation Practice?” Meta46 (2): 438–447. 10.7202/003766ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003766ar [Google Scholar]
  58. PACTE
    PACTE 2009 “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision Making”. Across Languages and Cultures10 (2): 207–230. 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pan, Li
    2014 “Investigating institutional practice in news translation: An empirical study of a Chinese agency translating discourse on China”. Perspectives22 (4): 547–565. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2014.948888
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.948888 [Google Scholar]
  60. Phelan, Mary
    2017 “Analytical assessment of legal translation: a case study using the American Translators Association framework”. Journal of Specialized Translation27: 189–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pinto, María
    2001 “Quality Factors in Documentary Translation”. Meta46 (2): 288–300. 10.7202/003840ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003840ar [Google Scholar]
  62. Pöchhacker, Franz; and Miriam Shlesinger
    2002 The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Rabadán, Rosa; Belén Labrador; and Noelia Ramón
    2009 “Corpus-based contrastive analysis and -translation universals: A tool for translation quality assessment English – Spanish”. Babel55 (4): 303–328. doi:  10.1075/babel.55.4.01rab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.55.4.01rab [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson, Bryan J.; Clara I. López Rodríguez; and María I. Tercedor Sánchez
    2006 “Self- assessment in translator training”. Perspectives14 (2): 115–138. doi:  10.1080/09076760608669025
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760608669025 [Google Scholar]
  65. Salmi, Leena
    2002 “Computers, Documentation and Localisation”. Across Languages and Cultures3 (1): 83–90. doi:  10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.6
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sun, Sanjun
    2015 “Measuring translation difficulty: Theoretical and methodological considerations”. Across Languages and Cultures16 (1): 29–54. doi:  10.1556/084.2015.16.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tao, Youlan
    2012 “Towards a constructive model in training professional translators – a case study of MTI education program in China”. Babel58 (3): 289–308. doi:  10.1075/babel.58.3.03tao
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.58.3.03tao [Google Scholar]
  68. Temizöz, Özlem
    2016 “Counting or not Counting Recurring Errors in Translation Quality Evaluation”. SKASE Journal of translation and interpretation9 (1): 51–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Tercedor, Maribel
    2012 “Working with Words: Research Approaches to Translation- Oriented Lexicographic Practice1”. TTR25 (1): 181–214. 10.7202/1015352ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1015352ar [Google Scholar]
  70. Thelen, Marcel
    2002 “Relations between terms: a cognitive approach. The interaction between Terminology, Lexicology, Translation Studies and translation practice”. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies1: 193–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Vanderschelden, Isabelle
    2000 “Quality Assessment and Literary Translation in France”. The Translator6 (2): 271–293. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2000.10799069
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799069 [Google Scholar]
  72. Waddington, Christopher
    2001 “Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity”. Meta46 (2): 311–325. 10.7202/004583ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/004583ar [Google Scholar]
  73. 2006 “Measuring the effect of errors on translation quality”. Lebende Sprachen51 (2): 67–71. 10.1515/LES.2006.67
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LES.2006.67 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    2014 “Perspectives on role play: analysis, training and assessments”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3): 437–451. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2014.971486
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.971486 [Google Scholar]
  75. Williams, Jenny
    2013 Theories of Translation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137319388
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137319388 [Google Scholar]
  76. Williams, Jenny; and Andrew Chesterman
    2002 The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Xu, Mianjun; and Caiwen Wang
    2011 “Translation students’ use and evaluation of online resources for Chinese-English translation at the word level”. Translation and Interpreting Studies6 (1): 62–86. doi:  10.1075/tis.6.1.04xu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.6.1.04xu [Google Scholar]
  78. Yan, Jackie Xiu; Jun Pan; and Honghua Wang
    2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010)”. Perspectives21 (3): 446–473. 10.1080/0907676X.2012.746379
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.746379 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
Loading
Translation quality research
Babel 64, 548 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00051.akb
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): couverture géographique; geographical coverage; importance théorique; meta-analyses; méta-analyses; pertinence de la recherche empirique et non empirique; pertinence to empirical and non-empirical research; readership size; recherche sur la qualité des traductions; taille du lectorat; theoretical importance; translation quality research

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error