What do we talk about when we talk about translation quality?

What do we mean when we talk about quality in translation? We asked ourselves this question and realised that it is by no means easy to answer. There is no single correct answer given the many factors that must be taken into account when we talk about quality. Let us start by saying that the idea of quality in translation can be applied to either the translation process or the final product. If we only consider the final product, we have to understand, in order to establish its quality, what kind of product we are dealing with. Is it a technical text explaining how to use equipment for a CT scan, an essay on the role of women in Francoist Spain, a museum audio guide or a subtitled documentary? The criteria we would use to assess the final quality thus change according to the type of product. For example, while in an essay or a literary text words may be long and sophisticated, lexical choices for a subtitled audiovisual product would be different. In fact, subtitles are subject to very strict space and time constraints, so shorter words must be chosen in order to save characters; for instance, when choosing between nowadays and now, the latter is the preferrable option. Subtitles represent the transition from oral to written dialogue, and we believe that they also exemplify the medium or channel through which translation goes, a fundamental aspect to consider when assessing quality. For example, when translating a text intended for an audio guide, words that are not too hard to pronounce should be used since they may pose difficulties to the speakers recording it.

A further indispensable aspect for assessing the quality of a translation is to understand why a text is translated, for which type of audience, where it is going to be used and how it is going to be distributed. Skopostheorie, developed by Vermeer in 1978, states that every text is made for a specific purpose and so are translations (cf. Reiß/Vermeer, 1984). Let us take, for example, a translation of a manual for a toaster. If the manual were to be translated for the general public, the translator would have to be very precise in explaining every single procedure well and in simple terms. If, on the other hand, the manual were to be translated for service technicians, the translator would not indulge in explaining every procedure in great detail (Byrne 2012, 12). In the end, we would have two very different translations despite the fact that the source text is the same. Precisely because we can obtain many translations from the same text, Skopostheorie also introduced the concept of the translation brief (Byrne 2012, 12), i.e. all the essential information to define a translation strategy that takes into account style, register and cultural references according to how the translation will be used.

During our studies, we realised that in order to assess quality in translation, it is also important to consider the power relations that are established during the translation activity, including the ideologies and interests of those commissioning a translation. For example, the relationship between hegemonic and subordinate cultures or certain translation choices imposed by publishing houses. In this regard, we want to reflect on the link between quality and fidelity in translation. To illustrate this idea, we could start from Venuti’s (1995, 14-17) observations on the domesticating tendency of Anglo-American culture, where foreign texts are flattened in order to deliver to the target readers a product that deviates as little as possible from their cultural reality. This, however, may lead to the omission of fundamental information on the source culture and the author’s overall intentions. The 1950 German translation of The Diary of a Young Girl offers a good example of this phenomenon. Lefevere (1992, 66-67) points out the sweetening or even omission of offensive remarks about Germans. Based on these references, we believe that the lack of fidelity to the original may have repercussions on the quality of the translation.

But could the opposite also be true? Could an excessive focus on fidelity be counterproductive to quality? As we found with our work on literary translation for our BA dissertations, this could well be the case. Our work focused on a poetic text in which one of the distinguishing features was the musicality provided by a particular rhyme scheme. Being aware of the priority the author gave to musicality, in order to produce a good translation, we had to try to render the rhyme scheme in question. However, considering the differences between the various languages, reproducing the musicality would have been a difficult task had we tried to render the content of the source text in its entirety. In our case, then, fidelity to the content of the source text was counterproductive since the desired effect (on which a qualitative judgement was to be based) operated at a higher level than mere words.

From these brief reflections, it becomes clear just how complex the question of quality in translation is.From text typology to the limitations of a chosen channel, to the intentions of the author of the original and the purpose for which the translation is made. Moreover, in an interconnected world that is changing increasingly faster, translation is also facing new challenges. Think of the galloping evolution of artificial intelligence or of certain trends such as cancel culture, resulting from a changing sensitivity in contemporary society. Where does translation stand in the face of these scenarios? How should quality be assessed in the face of rewriting processes that eliminate inconvenient aspects of our past history? And finally, who should assess quality in the case of translations commissioned ‘at source’ in countries driven by the desire to impose their own narratives of the world abroad?

References:

• Byrne, J. (2012): Scientific and Technical Translation Explained. Manchester & Kinderhook (NY): St. Jerome Publishing.
• Lefevere, A. (1992): Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London-New York: Routledge.
• Reiss, K., Vermeer, H. (1984): Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
• Venuti, L. (1995): The Translators Invisibility: A History of Translation. London-New York: Routledge.