Translation-Quality-Assessment

Éruditestunconsortiuminteruniversitairesansbutlucratifcomposédel'UniversitédeMontréal,l'UniversitéLavaletl'UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal.Ilapourmissionlapromotionetlavalorisationdelarecherche.Éruditoffredesservicesd'éditionnumériquededocumentsscientifiquesdepuis1998.Pourcommuniqueraveclesresponsablesd'Érudit:[e-mail]a :journaldestraducteurs /Meta:Translators'Journal,vol.46,n°2,2001,p.243-257.Pourciterlaversionnumériquedecetarticle,utiliserl'adressesuivante::lesrèglesd'écrituredesréférencesbibliographiquespeuventvarierselonlesdifférentsdomainesdusavoir.Cedocumentestprotégéparlaloisurledroitd'auteur.L'utilisationdesservicesd'Érudit(ycomprislareproduction)estassujettieàsapolitiqued'utilisationquevouspouvezconsulteràl'URIéléchargéle 7octobre2009TranslationQualityAssessment:LinguisticDescriptionversusSocialEvaluationTranslationQualityAssessment:LinguisticDescriptionversusSocialEvaluationjulianehouseUniversityofHamburg,Hamburg,GermanyRÉSUMÉL’articleprésented’abordtroisapprochesdifférentesdel’évaluationdelatraduction,laquelleprendsourcedansdiversesnotionsduconceptde«sens»,etdesonrôleentraduction.Onpasseensuiteàladescriptiond’unmodèlefonctionnel-paradigmatiquedel’évaluationdelatraduction,lequeldistingueplusieurstypesdetraductionsetdeversionsetsoulignel’importancedel’emploid’un«filtreculturel»dansuncertaintypedetraduction.Ensuite,onprocèdeàl’examendel’influencedel’anglaisàtitredelinguafrancainternationalesurlesprocédéstraductionnelsavantdeterminerparunrappeldel’importantedistinctionàfaireentreanalyselinguistiqueetjugementsocialenévalua-tiondelatraductionainsiqueparl’énoncédeconclusionsutilesàlapratiquedel’éva-luationdelaqualitéentraduction.ABSTRACTThepaperfirstreportsonthreedifferentapproachestotranslationevaluationwhichemanatefromdifferentconceptsof“meaning”anditsroleintranslation.Secondly,afunctional-pragmaticmodeloftranslationevaluationisdescribed,whichfeaturesadistinc-tionbetweendifferenttypesoftranslationsandversions,andstressestheimportanceofusinga“culturalfilter”inoneparticulartypeoftranslation.Thirdly,theinfluenceofEnglishasaworldwidelinguafrancaontranslationprocessesisdiscussed,andfinallytheimportantdistinctionbetweenlinguisticanalysisandsocialjudgementintranslationevaluationisintroduced,andconclusionsforthepracticeofassessingthequalityofatranslationaredrawn.....MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDStranslationqualityassessment,meaning,functional-pragmaticmodel,influenceofEnglish,linguisticanalysisIntroductionHowdoweknowwhenatranslationisgood?Thissimplequestionliesattheheartofallconcernswithtranslationcriticism.Butnotonlythat,intryingtoassessthequalityofatranslationonealsoaddressestheheartofanytheoryoftranslation,i.e.,thecrucialquestionofthenatureoftranslationor,morespecifically,thenatureoftherelationshipbetweenasourcetextanditstranslationtext.Giventhattranslationisessentiallyanoperationinwhichthemeaningoflinguisticunitsistobekeptequivalentacrosslanguages,onecandistinguishatleastthreedifferentviewsofmeaning,eachofwhichleadstodifferentconceptionsoftranslationevaluation.Inamentalistviewofmeaningasaconceptresidinginlanguageusers’heads,translationislikelytobeintuitiveandinterpretative.Ifmeaningisseenasdevelopingin,andresultingfrom,anexternallyobservablereaction,translationevaluationislikelytoinvolveresponse-basedmethods.AndifmeaningisseenasemergingfromlargerMeta,XLVI,2,2001244Meta,XLVI,2,2001textualstretchesoflanguageinuse,involvingbothcontextand(situationalandcul-tural)contextsurroundingindividuallinguisticunits,adiscourseapproachislikelytobeusedinevaluatingatranslation.InthispaperIwanttofirstelaboratebrieflyonthesethreeapproachestotrans-lationevaluation;secondly,Iwillpresentmyownviewsonthematter,andthirdlyandmostimportantly,Iwilldiscusstheoftenblurreddistinctionbetweenlinguisticdescriptionandsocialevaluation.1.TranslationEvaluationinDifferentSchoolsofThought1.1.MentalistViewsSubjectiveandintuitiveevaluationsofatranslationhavebeenundertakensincetimeimmemorialbywriters,philosophers,andmanyothers,consistingmoreoftenthannotofglobaljudgementssuchas“thetranslationdoesjusticetotheoriginal”or“thetoneoftheoriginalislostinthetranslation”andsoforth.Inanewerguise,suchintuitiveassessmentsarebeingpropagatedbyneo-hermeneutictranslationscholarswhoregardtranslationasanindividualcreativeactdependingexclusivelyonsubjec-tiveinterpretationandtransferdecisions,artistic-literaryintuitionsandinterpretiveskillsandknowledge.Textshavenocoremeaningsatall,rathertheirmeaningschangedependingonindividualspeakers’positions.Iwillnotelaborateheremycritiqueofthehermeneuticposition(butseetherecentluciddiscussionbyBühler1998),sufficetosaythatsucharelativisingstance,andespeciallytherelativisationof“content”and“meaning”isparticularlyinappropriatefortheevaluativebusinessofmakingarguedstatementsaboutwhen,howandwhyatranslationisgood.1.2.Response-basedApproaches1.2.1.BehavioristicViewsAsopposedtosubjective-intuitiveapproachest