translated at all.
In the twentieth century as Munday (2001), explains the contribution of many scholars from Nida (1960) to Holmes/Toury (1988, 2000).He refers linguistic-oriented “science” of translation has continued strongly in Germany, but the concept of equivalence associated with it has declined. Germany has been the rise of theories centered around text types and text purpose (the Skopos theory of Reiss and Vermeer), while the Hallidayan influence of discourse analysis and systemic functional grammar, which views language as a communicative act in a social cultural context, has been prominent over the past decades, especially in Australia and the UK; and has been applied to translation in a series of works by scholars such as Bell (1991, 1992) and Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997). The late 1970s and the 1980s also saw the rise of a descriptive approach that had its origins in comparative literature and Russian Formalism. A pioneering center has been Tel Aviv, where Itmar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury have pursued the idea of the literary polysystem, amongst other things compete for dominance. While translation was formerly studied as a language-learning methodology or as part of comparative literature, translation workshops, and contrastive linguistic curses; the new discipline owes much to the work of J. S. Holmes, whose ”The name and Nature of Translation Studies” proposed both a name and a structure for the field.
۲.۶.۲The Main Approaches toward TQA
According to House (2001), three different approaches to translation quality assessment exist which include mentalist view, response based approaches and text and discourse based approaches that focus on.
Subjective and intuitive evaluations of a translation have been undertaken since time immemorial by writers, philosophers, and many others, consisting more often than not of global judgments such as the translation does justice to the original or the tone of the original is lost in the translation and so forth. In a newer guise, such intuitive assessments are being propagated by neo-hermeneutic translation scholars who regard translation as an individual creative act depending exclusively on subjective interpretation and transfer decisions, artistic-literary intuitions and interpretive skills and knowledge. Texts have no core meanings at all, rather their meanings change depending on individual speakers’ positions.
۲.۶.۲.۲ Response Based Approaches
۲.۶.۲.۲.۱ Behaviorist Views
As opposed to subjective-intuitive approaches to translation evaluation, the behaviorist view aims at a more scientific way of evaluating translations, dismissing the translator’s mental actions as belonging to some in principle unknowable blackbox. This tradition, influenced by American structuralism and behaviorism, is most famously associated with Nida (1964, cited in House, 2001)’s pioneering work. Nida took readers’ reactions to a translation as the main yardstick for assessing a translation’s quality, positing global behavioral criteriasuch as intelligibility and informativeness and stating that agood translation is one leading to equivalence of response, a concept clearly linked to his principle of dynamic equivalence of translation, i.e. that the manner in which receptors of a translation respond to the translation should be equivalent to the manner in which the source text’s receptors respond to the original. Nida operationalized this equivalence as comprising equal informativeness and intelligibility. Assuming that it is true that a good translation should elicit a response equivalent to the response to its original, we must immediately ask whether it is possible to measure an “equivalent response”, let alone informativeness or intelligibility. If these phenomena cannot be measured, it is useless to postulate them as criteria for translation evaluation. And indeed, even the most imaginative tests designed to establish verifiable, observable responses a translation presumably.
۲.۶.۲.۳ Text and Discourse Based Approaches
In the1970s, text based approaches emerged to evaluate translations. According to House (2001), text based approaches to translation quality assessment can be divided into: (1) functionalist approaches, (2) literature oriented approaches, (3) postmodernist and deconstructionist approaches, and( 4) linguistically-oriented approaches.
۲.۶.۲.۴ Functionalist Approaches: Skopos Relate Approach
Adherents of this approach (Reiss and Vermeer 19884) claim that it is the “skopos”or purpose of a translation that is of overriding importance in judging a translation’s quality. The way target culture norms are heeded or flouted by a translation is the crucial yardstick in evaluating a translation. It is the translator or more frequently the translation brief he is given by the person(s) commissioning the translation that decides on the function the translation is to fulfill in its new environment.
۲.۶.۲.۵. Literature-oriented Approaches:
۲.۵.۲.۵.۱ Descriptive Translation Studies
This approach is oriented squarely towards the translation text. A translation isevaluated predominantly in terms of its forms and functions inside the system of the receiving culture and literature (Toury, 1995, cited in House, 2001). The original is of subordinateimportance, with the main focus beingactualtranslations and the textual phenomena that have come to be known in the target culture as translations.
۲.۶.۲.۵.۲ Post-Modernist and Deconstructionist Thinking
Scholars belonging to this approach (Venuti, 1995, cited in House, 2001) try to critically examinetranslation practices from a psycho-philosophical and socio-political stance in anattempt to unmask unequal power relations; this may appear as a certain skewingin the translation for making translations visible and revealing ideological and institutional manipulations. They focus on the hidden forces shaping the process of selecting, what gets translated in the first place, and the procedures that result in the ways original texts are bent and twisted in the interests of powerful individuals and groupspullingstringswhen choosing texts for translation and adopting particular strategies of re-textualization. However, if comparative analyses of original and translation focus primarily on the shifts and skewing stemming from ideologically motivated manipulations, and if an agenda is given priority which stresses the theoretical, critical, and textual means by which translations can be studied as loci of difference; one wonders how one can ever differentiate between a translation and any other text that may result from a textual operation which can no longer claim to be in a translation relationship with an original text.
۲.۶.۲.۶ Linguistically-Oriented Approaches
Pioneering linguistic work in translation evaluation includes the programmatic suggestions by Catford (1965, cited in House, 2001) the early suggestions of Reiss,(1971; Wilss, 1974;Koller, 1979, cited in House, 2001) and the works of the translation scholars of the Leipzig school. In these early works, however, no specific procedures for assessing the quality of a translation were offered. In more recent times, several linguistically oriented works on translation such as Baker (1992), Doherty (1993), Hickey (1998), Hatim and Mason (1997), Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Mudersbach (1998), and Steiner (1998, cited in House, 2001), who have made valuable contributions to evaluating a translation. The works of all these scholars although, even though not directly concerned with translation quality assessment, widened the scope of translation studies to include linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, stylistics, and discourse analytic concerns. Linguistic approaches consider the relationship between source and translation text closely, but they differ in their capacity to provide detailed procedures for analysis and evaluation. Most promising are approaches which explicitly take account of the interconnectedness of context and text because the inextricable link between language and the real world is both definitive in meaning and in translation. Such a view of translation as re-contextualization is the line taken by House in a functional-pragmatic evaluation model which she first developed some 25 years ago and has recently revised (House, 1981, 1997, cited in House 2001).
۲.۶.۲.۶.۱ A Functional Pragmatic Model of Translation Evaluation:
An Analytic Framework for Analyzing and Comparing Original and Translation Texts
The assessment model (House, 1997, cited in House ,2001.p247) is not only based on Hallidayan systemic-functionaltheory, but also draws eclectically on Prague school ideas, speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis, and corpus-based distinctions between spoken and written language. It provides for the analysis and comparison of an