part of comprehension. Writers can’t make all the information explicit in a text. It is relied on reader to make necessary inferences in each case.
۲.۵.۱.۲. Critical Thinking about Points of View
Paul, Elder, and Bartell (1997) state that we recognize that critical thinking, by its very nature, requires that all reasoning occurs within points of view and frames of reference. Wright (2002) furthermore argues that a point of view leads us to frame questions and problems in particular ways. Our questions regarding critical thinking are influenced by our background in philosophy and social studies education; we must know how a question is framed by our point of view.
Having a point of view means having a particular goal as Wright (2002) maintains “for what purpose is our thinking directed” (p. 71).
Santrock (2008) states that critical thinking involves thinking reflectively and productively and also evaluating the evidence. The claims which are made by ourselves or others must be supported by sufficient evidence.
Wright (2002) argues that the fundamental to any point of view is a set of basic beliefs about the nature of the people, truth, morality, religion, and so on. Thus, we have to identify the fundamental beliefs that drive our own, and others’, point of view.
۲.۵.۱.۶. Conclusions and Decisions
According to Wright (2002) all points of view lead to the drawing of conclusions and as a result taking of actions.
So much of what we think, say, and do is based on assumptions about how the world should work and about what counts as appropriate, moral action. “Assumption is seemingly self-evident rules about the reality that we use to help us seek explanation, making judgments, or deciding on various actions” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 44). When we think critically, we start to research these assumptions for the evidence and experiences that inform them.
۲.۶. Evaluation of the Quality of Translation
In recent years, assessment has become an up and coming research topic within the field of translation studies (Garant, 2001,p.5).A number of studies on translation assessment theory (e.g. Newmark, 1988;Kussmaul, 1995; Wills, 1996; House,1997, cited in Garant, 2001) provide models for evaluating translation performance. Various terms have been used interchangeably to refer to the quality of translation, such asevaluation,assessment, criticism and analysis.According to McAlester(2000), the definition of translation assessment is generally regarded as a complex term for a threefold translation procedure: (a) translation evaluation (the placing of a value on a translation), (b)criticism (stating the appropriateness of a translation), and (c) translation analysis(a descriptive study of translation as a production or a translation as product).Munday (2001) says that translation quality assessment is an academically endeavor“where a more expert writer (a marker of a translation examiner or a reviser of a professional translation) addresses a less expert reader (usually a candidate for an examination or a junior professional translator)” (p. 30).
The concept of equivalence has always had a significant role in translation quality assessment (henceforth: TQA). Because of the subjective nature of translation, scholars have given different comments on TQA.
Van den Broeck (1985, cited in Guillermo, 2005, p.130) argues, “Translation assessment can be an objective account if it is based, at least implicitly, on systematic description”. Van den Broeck (1985, cited in Guillermo, 2005, p.130) furthermore e believes that “a complete description demands not only the text structures but also the systems of texts to be involved in the comparison”. In evaluating translations, the main problem is, according to William (1989, cited in Guillermo, 2005, p.130), “applying evaluation criteria consistently to an intellectual product that is often of uneven quality and heterogeneous in form and content may imply at some point making arbitrary choices”. Moreover, Farahzad (1992) believes that
Today translation courses are offered at many universities and institutions worldwide; course syllabuses are designed to help train efficient translators in a wide variety of fields, and there are excellent textbooks for such courses. Yet little work has been done in the field of assessing student’s (or trainee’s) achievements at the end of the courses, presumably because improvement is taken for granted. (p. 271)
Obviously great interest is paid to the contents to be thought in translation courses rather than theoretical studies to analysis the criteria used to evaluate the translations of texts. Newmark (1998) states that:
There are as many translations as there are of texts. But the fact that there is a small element of uncertainty and subjectivity in any judgment about a translation eliminates neither the necessity nor the usefulness of translation criticism, as an aid for raising translation standards and for reaching agreement about the nature of translation. (p.192)
Farahzad (1992) mentions that:
“Critics often judge translations in terms of personal taste, rather than concrete criteria. But this subjective approach cannot be used by a teacher of translation who has to evaluate and score student’s work on the basis of concrete criteria during a course and at the finals”. (p. 271)
The concern of all debates in translation studies is what should be held as the criterion for TQA. House (2001) believes that the question: what a good translation is?.should be “one of the most important questions to be asked in connection with translation” (p. 243). House believes that the answer to the question when a translation is good lies at the heart of all concerns with translation criticism, not only as a means to assess the quality of a translation but also as the main concern of any theory of translation, i.e. the crucial question of the nature of translation or, more specifically, the nature of the relationship between a source text and its translation text. She emphasizes that translation quality is a problematical concept if it is applied to the purpose of judgment only.
In other words, judgments of the quality of a translation depend on many factors that enter into any social evaluative statement. However, it must be stressed that despite all these external influences, translation is at its core a linguistic-textual phenomenon, and it can be legitimately described, analyzed, and evaluated as such. House (2001) maintains that linguistic description vs. social evaluation model forbids any facile generalization, simply because the achievement of functional equivalence varies from translation to translation. Moreover, Newmark (1998) in this regard claims that:
Translation criticism is an essential link between translation theory and its practice. Translation criticism is an essential component in a translation course: firstly, because it painlessly improves your competence as a translator; secondly, because it expands your knowledge and understanding of your own and the foreign options, it will help you to sort out your ideas about translation (pp.184-185).
Newmark (1998) maintains that there are various aspects of translation criticism; one can assess the translation by its standard of referential and pragmatic accuracy. Newmark (1998) emphasizes that, “the evaluation whether in the form of a critique or a graded assessment, is done by comparison between the original and the translation” (p.186).Newmark believes that the challenge in translation criticism is to state one’s own principles categorically but at the same time to elucidate the translator’s principles and even the principles s/he is reacting against (or following). Newmark maintains that now translation has become a profession. The introduction of a scientific method for testing of any hypothesis or generalization by a series of further data or translation examples tends not to eliminate but at least to reduce the range of choices, the extremes of ideology in translation. Furthermore, in text analysis, one assesses the quality of the language to determine the translator’s degree of license assuming for example that s/he can reduce clichés to natural in informative but not in authoritative texts. Finally, Newmark (1998) concludes that “standards are relative; however, much one tries to base them on criteria rather than norms. A good translation fulfills its intention”(p.192).
Halliday (2001, citedinZequan, 2002) argues that it is very difficult to say why, or even whether, something is a good translation. In this regard, House (2001) claims that “throughout translation studies, theorists have attempted to answer this question on the basis of a theory of translation and translation criticism” (p. 127). Nida