Upload
javier-puerto-benito
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
1/19
This article was downloaded by: [88.15.196.196]On: 09 October 2014, At: 05:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Perspectives: Studies in TranslatologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20
Quality assessment for the translation
of museum texts: application of a
systemic functional modelChengzhi Jiang
a
aCity University of Hong Kong, Department of Chinese,Translation and Linguistics , Kowloon, Hong Kong
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article:Chengzhi Jiang (2010) Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts:
application of a systemic functional model, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 18:2, 109-126,
DOI: 10.1080/09076761003678734
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps208/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
2/19
Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts: application of asystemic functional model
Chengzhi Jiang*
City University of Hong Kong, Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, Kowloon,Hong Kong
(Received 15 June 2009; final version received 5 November 2009)
This article seeks to explore the way in which the notions of systemic andfunctional can better serve for the application of a translation quality assessment(TQA) model to the studies on the translation of museum texts. Grounded in thetheoretical integration of translation studies and museum studies, the presentresearch has shown through the redesign of the assessment procedure for themodel that the judgment of the translation quality requires empirical analysesbased upon both interlingual and intertextual comparison. Our objective istwofold. First, through investigating the notions such as quality, assessment andsystemic in their own right, we are able to observe the weaknesses that previousmodels have. Second, we intend the model proposed here to be taken as a part ofthe effort to rethink the relationship between bilingual texts displayed in a museumenvironment, or in an online museum.
Keywords:translation quality assessment; systemic functional linguistics; museum
texts
Introduction
Complaints about the quality of translated texts in museums (e.g. Bal, 2001; Neather,
2005a; Zuo, 2003) have begun to highlight the need for research on translation
quality assessment (TQA),1 a sub-area of translation criticism whose aim is to
improve translation and evaluation practices. There are a number of influences that
have brought about this increased concern for quality. The most obvious influence is
that, the museum being an institution in the service of society,2 the translation
quality of museum texts naturally attracts much attention when most public serviceshave come under increased public scrutiny (Dickens, 1994, p. 1). Another influence,
the result of the appearance of changes in values, organizational structure and
operational methods over the past two decades in museum studies (Hooper-
Greenhill, 1994, pp. 137145), is that greater importance has been attached to the
concern for customer/end-user satisfaction. This is more or less conditioned by the
quality of translated texts, a crucial factor for a museum to fulfill its cross-cultural
role (Neather, 2005a, p. 2).
Considerations of the translation quality of museum texts first touch on the relation
between museums and texts, which has been understood on two levels. The first is that
*Email: [email protected].
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2010, 109126
ISSN 0907-676X print/ISSN 1747-6623 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09076761003678734
http://www.informaworld.com
http://www.informaworld.com/http://www.informaworld.com/8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
3/19
of texts in museums such as labels, extended texts, wall texts, catalogue entries and
brochure descriptions. Assuming their role as an intrinsic part of a museums
communication toolkit, they are the language produced by the institution for the
consumption of visitors. The second is that of museums as text: the museum as a whole
creates meaning and operates as a text, which communicates to and with its public.
Meanings produced on the two levels are called first-order meanings and second-
order meanings (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152). The former depends on the organization of a
verbal sign system, whereas the latter is, by nature, multisystem-oriented.
Against this background, Neather (2005b) is mainly concerned with the
translation quality of texts in museums in order to explore the interaction of
differing semiotic systems within the museum environment in general, and the
influence of such interaction upon the meaning-making procedure in particular.
Sturge (2007, p. 3), whose research focus is on how a museum functions as a
rendition/representation of reality, further argues that museum text as a genre of
ethnographic representation adds an important dimension to our understanding of
translation as a practice of representing other peoples words, lives and beliefs
(Sturge, 2007, p. 3). In other words, viewing museums as renditions/translations is not
a matter of evaluating faithfulness, but a matter of detecting their workings in the
world as text-like artefacts themselves, as well as their impacts back onto the places
where their artefacts were made (Sturge, 2007, p. 129).
Efforts made by the two scholars prove to be insightful. As the assessment
activity concerning museum as text has to involve non-verbal semiotic systems and
a variety of different aspects in museum studies, the present research only addresses
the issue of the translation quality of texts in museums, the level that mainly relies
on the use of language. It will first reflect on the defining properties of notions such
as quality and assessment, and approach problems that existing assessment modelsconfront. It then proceeds to focus in more detail on the way in which translation
quality may be appropriately assessed. Having suggested tentative solutions to the
problems of existing models, it seeks to propose a systemic functional TQA model,
which may be applied to evaluate the translation quality of museum text translation.
Literature review
Terms revisited
Quality is the first notion to be reflected upon. A pragmatic interpretation of quality
is the non-inferiority, superiority or usefulness of something. The definitions of quality
differ depending on the discipline taking interest in the concept and in the ultimate
beneficiary. In most general senses of user-based perspective, quality denotes meeting
the customer/end-user requirements (Oakland, 2004, p. 5). That is to say, quality
refers to fitness for purpose or use, or the totality of features and characteristics of
a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs (quoted
in Oakland, 2004, p. 5). Such a definition shows that quality per seis a relative notion,
having no specific meaning unless related to a specific function and/or object.
Quality being a perceptual, conditional and somewhat subjective attribute, the
sense of translation quality has developed over time. According to Hourguelin, in
the contemporary period the appreciation of translation quality has focused on asearch for more objective assessment models (discussed in Melis & Albir, 2001,
p. 273). The first volume worth noting is Quality in translation, the proceedings of the
110 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
4/19
1959 FIT Congress, in which translation quality is linked either to the effect the
translation is attempting to produce (Zilahy, 1963, p. 285) or to the purpose for which
the translation is intended (Kandler, 1963, p. 295). Fifty years later, translation
quality is now understood quite differently: Fan (1990, p. 43) advocates a statistical
method for making a quantitative assessment of the quality of a translation.
Lauscher (2000, p. 164) argues that: [T]ranslation quality assessment and the
judgment of translations are a matter of communication, co-operation and consent.
Colina (2008, p. 103) claims that a general comprehensive approach to evaluation
needs to address many components of quality. Among all these different
approaches, the context of specific situation has remained the only element that
gains wide emphasis in defining and assessing translation quality (Maier 2000,
p. 140). In the meanwhile, existing TQA models are often criticized either for
avoiding the subject of quality or for their inability to determine the nature of
quality (Lauscher, 2000, p. 150).
Therefore, it has been gradually accepted that translation quality is a function-
oriented notion on the one hand, and a conditional and complex reality on the other.It is function-oriented, because there are no absolute standards to measure
translation quality, but only more or less appropriate translations for the purpose
for which they are intended or expected. Appropriateness is therefore a function of
being able to interpret and understand the subtleties of a wide variety of socio-
cultural contexts. It is conditional and complex because what is translated, how a text
is translated and to what extent a translated text is appropriate or inappropriate
should be judged by members of a target society according to a set of prevailing
textual conventions and cultural norms within a specific field. Otherwise, the notion
is still vulnerable. For example, the functional approach holds that translation should
be commensurate with the value attached to an original which is used for the samepurpose and with the importance attributed to it in the process of communication
(Sager, 1996, p. 121). However, this idea is found problematic in news translation
because deviations from the source text (ST) content may occur according to ethics
and policies in the target environment. In many cases, the target text (TT) may not
have the same purpose or function as the ST does, but it may work well in current
society (Hajmohammadi, 2005, p. 216). Sometimes, this also holds true for the
translation of museum texts.
Another conceptual confusion is caused by scholars ignorance of the multi-
valence of function. What is neglected is the distinction between expected function
and realized function. The function of the TT may be either the one intended or
designed by the translator; or the one expected by the target reader. Thus the
function of the TT, if not properly defined, is in most cases uncertain and changeable.
Our research for the function of the TT aims to describe or explaine why a feature
survives selection and how it works in the target context. In other words, we are
interested in translation quality primarily in order to identify deviations and
similarities between the ST, the TT and texts of the same type in both source and
target languages, on the basis of lexico-grammatical and/or generic comparison. The
intertextual relations and the feature of the TT displayed in such intertextual
relations may be helpful to reveal the performance of translation (in the target
context), rather than the competence of the translator.
The last, yet not less important, notion to be revisited is assessment. Intranslation studies, assessment is simply regarded as an unavoidably subjective
(Maier, 2000, p. 137) matter of measuring in order to judge (Melis & Albir, 2001,
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 111
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
5/19
p. 275). Practically, assessment as a process of documenting (usually in measurable
terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs) is the purposive application of
evidence-based thinking to the definition and clarification of social problems, and to
the identification of what is needed to resolve them and of the way in which and the
extent to which problems have been resolved (DePoy & Gilson, 2003, p. 15). It
bridges the gap between theory and practice. In this article, assessing translations
refers to the activity of examining the TTs generalized characteristics and checking
its performance in the target context.
A brief review of existing models
Studies on TQA enjoy a long history with differing traditions. Heuristic and
atheoretical, earlier methods to assess translation quality are subject to the assessors
personal knowledge, intuitive impression, individual interest and artistic competence.
Literary or philosophical thoughts are often applied as a theoretical resource of
translation criticism and translation quality assessment, such as Bermans critique-productive model (1992, pp. 121128). With all the insights they can provide, they
nevertheless depend greatly on a literary/philosophical cognitive framework and
appear to be more or less subjective. With the development of translation as a
profession, the quantitative approach has caught the attention of scholars. Models of
this approach, especially those for management or business purposes (e.g. SICAL,
CTIC, J2450 and SEPT)3, generally focus on identifying and rating errors and
categorizing error seriousness. They are for the most part microtextual, with
assessment operating at the subsentence level (Williams, 2004, pp. 1718). Besides
these quantitative approaches, we also see criterion-referenced models. For example,
Larose pays more attention to the translators intention. However, they are deficientin criteria explicit and verified (e.g. Laroses teleological model and Nidas response-
oriented, behavioral approach). The complexity of translation has proved to be a
constant challenge for these models (see Williams, 2004).
In recent decades, increasing attempts have been made to incorporate the
Hallidayan theory into the area of translation criticism in general and TQA in
particular. Bensoussan and Rosenhouse (1990, p. 71) argue that mistranslations on the
word level do not automatically lead to misinterpretations of the frame or schema.
Such a view is echoed by van Leuven-Zwart (1990, pp. 228229), who points out
that the shift[s] in meaning accounting for many unsatisfactory ratings in
professional translation should perhaps not be considered as errors at all, given that
equivalence is not feasible. Baker (1992, pp. 171172) has suggested that translators
tend to resolve the tension between word order and communicative function in
translation by abandon[ing] the thematic organization of the source text in favor of
adhering to the syntactic constraints of the target text; her study naturally pays extra
attention to thematic, information structures and cohesion. Hatim and Mason (1997)
distinguish between pragmatic dimension and semiotic dimension and take into
account the translation of ideational and interpersonal functions (Munday, 2001,
p. 99). It is a top-down approach, theoretically valid, but more difficult to follow
(House, 1997, p. 20). Zhu (1996, p. 339) integrates functional grammar and speech act
theory to put translation comparison on a more definite as well as comprehensive
basis while offering adequate flexibility to meet diverse demands in particular cases.House states that her model (1977/1997/2001/2006) provides for the analysis and
comparison of an original and its translation on three different levels: the levels of
112 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
6/19
Language/Text, Register (Field, Mode and Tenor) and Genre (2001, p. 247). She
links context, text and word level through the concept of text function, a semantic-
pragmatic category, which can be identified by theme-rheme structure, linguistic
means of expressing coherence, etc. (Lauscher, 2000, p. 153; House, 1997, pp. 4345).
Functional, pragmatic equivalence in the model is most appropriate for describing
relations between original and translation because the model attempts to explicate
the way meaning can be reconstructed across two different contexts: its contextually
embedded source text and the (potential) recipients communicative-contextual
conditions (House, 2006, pp. 8889). In this sense, translation becomes the
recontextualization of a text in L1 by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent
text in L2 (House, 2001, p. 247). Similar to many philosophers and linguists (e.g.
Jakobson, 1960; Buhler, 1965; cited in House, 2006), House (2006, p. 89) holds that
text function is not identical with functions of language. It is the pragmatic
application of the text in a particular context, which is encapsulated in the text itself
since there is a systemic relationship between the social environment and the
functional organization of language-in-text (House, 2006, p. 89).
Problems and tentative solutions
Among all the reviewed models in the previous section, Houses research receives most
attention; however, discussions on her model often play down her basic concern: the
nature of translation, which involves the consequences views about these relationships
have for determining the borders between a translation and other textual operations
(House, 1997, p. 1). This point hints at delimitation between a translation and other
textual operations on the one hand, and leaves the criterion of such delimitation quite
vague on the other. The confusion makes it difficult to judge where translation endsand where non-translation begins, especially when her model is applied to a field such
as the translation of verbal texts in museums, where translation and non-translation
are sometimes subliminally integrated as a whole. To overcome such a problem, some
functional models define translation as any target text that can fulfill a function in the
target culture (Lauscher, 2000, p. 159). In our research, translation is understood in
association with bilingual writing or bilingual representation. Our analysis is mainly
based upon the translation of verbal texts in museums, with necessary consideration of
the interaction of semiotic signs in bilingual representation, such as media-supported
interlingual and genre-based intertextual translation.
A further thought from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics may
show that her model benefits from the notion of function by integrating it with
elements from text linguistics and discourse analysis, but what remains inadequate is
her exploration of language as system in her model in particular and in translation
studies in general. Methodologically speaking, systemic linguistics seeks verification
of its hypotheses by means of observations from texts and by means of statistical
techniques (Berry, 1975/77: 30). The notion systemic is not the same as systematic
(Halliday, 1969, p. 180). Even though her model provides a basis for systematic
comparison (Gutt, 2000, p. 13), Houses descriptive-explanatory quality statement
ultimately sounds like an impressionistic comment plus personal judgment. System in
systemic functional linguistics is a set of options with an entry condition, and the
system network is able to specify what are the possible combinations of choices thatcould be made (Halliday, 1969, pp. 180181). Working more closely with systemic
linguistics has to relate the actual choices of an individual user (i.e. translator) in
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 113
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
7/19
each linguistic performance to what s/he could have chosen (i.e. their potential
choices) in the same situation-conditioned process. Both actual choices and
potential choices constitute the linguistic resources retrievable and actually retrieved
from the users individual subsystem on that particular occasion (Zhu, 2002, p. 29).
In this sense, the translators actual combinations of choices are able to mirror both
interlingual and intertextual factors, yet Houses model does not pay enough
attention to the significance of intertextual influences upon the translation.
Here, we are interested in describing two dimensions of language use in translation.
On the first dimension, we describe the interlingual transfer of linguistic system to
show the choices translators can make. On the second, we describe, with reference
to intertextual factors, how translation functions in target social contexts. This
approach naturally raises a further question: how to describe? Failure to answer this
question will result in a lack of convincingness in the description concerned. Actually,
no matter in language studies or in translation studies, any linguistic theory itself is no
substitute for descriptive insight (Halliday, 1964, p. 39). Applicable description, on the
level of technique, can be acheived by using quantitative methods to test internal
predictions based on proportionality (Halliday, 2007, p. xxv). In this case, our
description will be based upon an STTT lexico-grammatical comparison and walk
down along the scale of delicacy to reach a depth of detail (Halliday, 2007, p. 41).
Inadequacies of the functional model are also discussed by Colina (2008, p. 102),
who points out that a difficulty with textual and pragmatic approaches (Houses
model included) is that they do not explicate how evaluation is to proceed after the
analysis of the source or the target text is completed or, in the case of functionalism,
after the function of the translation has been established as the guiding criteria in
making translation decisions. This brings to light once-ignored vulnerabilities in the
procedure of Houses assessment: first, the distinction between covert and overttranslation is in itself too rough to reflect the complexity and multiplicity of
translation phenomena in different concrete situations (e.g. Hatim, 1998, p. 95); and
second, neither register analysis nor function categorization is further supported by
detailed systemic data analysis.
Towards a systemic functional model: a proposal
Systemic functional linguistics: a juncture of museum studies and translation studies
In the present article, the proposed assessment model is designed to dispose of the
translation of texts in museums. We adopt Ravellis view to consider the meaning-
making mechanism in museums. Meaning-making accordingly occurs in museums on
two levels: first-order meanings and second-order meanings (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152).
The first-order meanings are those made through the systems of language and of a
range of design elements such as pathways, framing, placement, lighting and special
layout. The first-order meanings of language are located in three subcategories:
organizational meanings, interactional meanings and representative meanings.
Organizational meanings are realized through a selection of (grammatical) theme,
generic structure and details of language complexity. Interactional meanings are
realized through speech function, type of voice, address, mood and modality.
Representational meanings are realized through the selection and interrelation ofprocess type, participant role and circumstances (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152). They
perfectly match with the three language functions put forward by Halliday.
114 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
8/19
Figure 1 keeps its contents necessarily brief, but it is able to indicate the way in
which language studies and museum studies can combine and contribute to the
research at issue because the boxes in the table demonstrate the sort of features that
are closely relevant. The table remains partial.4 The left-hand column can be
extended to connect with second-order meanings, which match well with the level of
museum as text and are constructed in exhibitions and institutions as a whole. The
right-hand column can be extended to connect with the metafunction system of
the target text. Consequently, systemic functional linguistics becomes the juncture
between museum studies and translation studies. Considering this, the proposed
TQA model can be called a systemic functional model.
Assessment procedure
The value of systemic functional linguistics derives at once from its stress on
language function and its attempt to develop both a theory about language as social
process and an analytical methodology which permits the detailed and systemicdescription of language patterns (Eggins, 2004, p. 21; italics in original). Even
though the functional approach to a TQA model may better conform to the nature of
key notions such as quality and assessment, existing assessment models
illuminated by Hallidays functional grammar and/or German functionalist theory
fail to keep an appropriate balance between theoretical complexity and applicable
subtlety (Colina, 2008, p. 103). They usually emphasize the applicability of one aspect
First-order meanings as
resources
(towards second-order meanings
in museum studies)
Source text as
resource
(towards target
text in translation
studies)
Design (Source)
Language
Communication
framework in
museum
Metafunctions
in SFLa
(Source)
Language
Pathways
Framing
Placement
Generic structure
Theme
Complexity
Organizational
meaning
Textual
meaning
(mode)
Theme/rheme
system
Conjunctive
relations
Reference
Lexical relations
Interactive
potential
affect
Speech function
Voice, Address,
Mood, Modality
Interactional
meaning
Interpersonal
meaning
(tenor)
Mood and
modality
(modalization
and modulation)
Selection
Framing
Coding
orientation
aSystemic functional linguistics.
Process type
Participant roles
Circumstance
Representational
meaning
Ideational
meaning
(field)
Transitivity
system
Logical relation
Figure 1. Meaning-making system in museum studies and language studies.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 115
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
9/19
or subset of systemic functional linguistics, but ignore the significance of using
systemic functional linguistics as a whole.
To overcome this weakness, a systemic functional TQA model is expected to be
sophisticated enough to mirror the complexity of translation. In this case, an effective
application of such a model to museum translation is determined by two elements: a
specific view (on the relationship between the ST and the TT) and an analytical tool
(enabling the assessor to compare the ST and the TT) (Hulst, 1997, p. 102). The two
elements are also indispensable for a well-designed procedure (i.e. an assessment
procedure should be substantially reinforced by an appropriate attitude towards text
analysis).
From a systemic perspective, text analysis is not interpretive, but explanatory.
Understanding a text involves the use of linguistic analysis to show how and why
the text means what it does. However, understanding a text is different from
evaluating a text. Evaluation of a text requires that linguistic analysis enables one to
say why the text is, or is not, an effective text for its own purpose (i.e. in what respects
it succeeds and in what respects it fails, or is less successful) (Halliday, 1994, p. xv).Here, we design a three-phase procedure, in which each phase involves narrowing
down the grammatical areas or systems available to be compared between the ST and
the TT for the next phase according to the theoretical framework of systemic
functional linguistics. This allows us to start the assessment with a relatively extensive
dataset while continually reducing the dataset for the subsequent steps.
Phase 1: the ST register description and ST
TT genre contrastive analysis
In this phase, text analysis is related to the following questions:
(1) To what extent can source and target text be described as being of the same or
different genre?
(2) How is the generic structure of the target text different from, or similar to,
that of the source text?
Martin (1984, p. 25) explains genre as a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity
in which speakers engage as members of our culture; and more simply, as how
things get done, when language is used to accomplish them (Martin, 1985, p. 248). A
general description is required in this phase and a more detailed analytical
comparison will be made in the next phase. Generic (or schematic) structure analysis
is employed as an analytical tool here.
Phase 2: ST
TT function contrastive analysis (ideational, interpersonal and textual)
In this phase, text analysis is related to the following questions:
(1) In what respects are the ST and the TT texts alike, and in what respects are
they different?
(2) How can these similarities and differences be related to the register variables
of field, mode and tenor, and to genre?
Ideational meaning refers to language as representationthe semantic system as
expression of experience (Halliday, 1979, p. 198). It is composed of two subcategories:
116 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
10/19
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
11/19
An example: Waiting for guests by lamplight (Bingzhu yeyou)
Our data come from two sources: 20 English catalogue entries for Chinese landscape
painting made by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and 20 pairs of
bilingual catalogue entries for Chinese landscape painting made by the National
Palace Museum, Taipei. They fall into three obvious groups: Group 1 is composed of20 English catalogue entries from New York, Group 2 has 20 Chinese catalogue
entries from Taipei, and Group 3 includes 20 English catalogue entries from Taipei.
Group 2 and Group 3 are parallel texts. Group 1 only serves as a reference, by
revealing characteristics of museum catalogue entries in the received context. Now we
start with the assessment procedure phase by phase, as stated in the previous section.
However, we select just one pair of parallel catalogue entries as an example to illustrate
the working of the three phases. Both the source text and the target text are made by
the National Palace Museum, Taipei. A back translation is made by the author of the
article to facilitate our discussion, and the painting itself is shown in Figure 2.
Source text (ST):
Figure 2. Waiting for guests by lamplight (Bingzhu yeyou). # National PalaceMuseum, Taiwan, Republic of China. Reproduced with permission.
118 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
12/19
Back-translation (BT): Holding a candle for a night excursion
This painting draws its material from Su Shis poem on Chinese flowering crabapple:East wind is soft and slender, brushing against the flower under the moonlight. Mistsmells sweet, floating swift with the moonlight along the corridor. Being afraid that theflower sleeps late at night, I light candles to shine over her face. The painting depicts
the corridor loomed by the moonlight. In the vast expanse of night, candles are lit. Thecandlelight shines over the Chinese flowering crabapples in full blossom in the garden.
A scholar is sitting on an old-fashioned wooden armchair, savoring the fine momentand the nice scene of the peaceful moonlight night. Ma Lin has acute observation onnature. He is rather good at sketching. His landscape sketch seems executed with greatdelicacy, reflecting the layout of imperial buildings and gardens. His works arecharacterized by the neat styles of imperial school. They may have a delicate lastingeffect on the viewers emotions.
Target text (TT): Waiting for guests by lamplight
This work reflects the beautiful scenery of an imperial garden on a moonlit evening andshows the leisurely life of a member of the imperial family. Nevertheless, the interiordesign of the buildings is classical and simple. The host is sitting on a so-called generalschair with footrest and is wearing a plain, long robe. He appears to be appreciating thenumerous blossoms on the trees in the courtyard, enjoying the elegant silence of thewondrous scene from the hall. The torches burning on lamp stands extend in two rowsfrom the entrance to the building to add illumination to that of the moon hanging above.
To suggest the dim atmosphere of an evening scene, Ma Lin has applied washes oflight ink to the silk. This attention to atmospheric realism is one of the trademarksof Sung painting. In addition, inside and outside the front door, several attendants, all ofthem wearing caps, can be seen standing about. Since the figures are small in scale, thebrushwork describing the clothing is somewhat stiff, yet even the details and folds are
still clearly evident. Apparently, the figures were first outlined in light ink, then filled inwith colors, and finally outlined again in dark ink. Over the centuries, however, the lightcolors of the garments faded and flaked off. Ma Lin has presented the composition usinga high vantage point. By focusing the scene on the foreground elements at the expense ofthe background ones, the importance of the courtyard area can be emphasized. So,despite the small size of the painting, a great deal is portrayed. This work has the refinedand detailed characteristics of Sung court painting, but retains a lively and refreshingatmosphere.
Phase 1
The register description (Table 1) reveals that the ST and the TT belong to the samegenre. However, through the contrastive analysis of the generic structure, it can be
easily seen that the ST and the TT use a similar generic structure, but with different
organizational method to represent knowledge related to the painting. See the linear
description of their schematic structures:
ST: introductory poem ^ content composition 1 ^ content composition 2 ^ contentcomposition 3 // ^ content composition 4 ^ painters typical style ^ comment on paintersstyleTT:content composition 1^ artistic effect ^ content composition 4 ^ content composition3 // ^ painters technique 1 ^ significance of technique 1 ^ content composition 5 ^ technique
composition ^ development of painting technique ^ painters technique 2 ^ effect ofpainters technique 2 ^ comment on the painting.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 119
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
13/19
This painting is inspired by one of Su Shis (AD 10371101) poems, which
won great popularity as early as in the Song dynasty (AD 9601279) with its delicate
use of language and faithful expression of emotion. But the poem is deleted in the
TT. Instead, the basic content of the painting is analyzed in detail. In the ST, content
compositions 1, 2 and 3 are introduced following the poem to highlight the poetic
atmosphere of what was painted. The language is concise, and elaborately made to
echo the poem. For example, the phrase (the corridor loomed
by the moonlight) sounds adapted from the first two sentences in the poem:
, (East wind is soft and slender, brushing against
the flower under the moonlight. Mist smells sweet, floating swift with the moonlight
along the corridor). They offer temporal (i.e. season and time) and environmental
(i.e. building structure) information. The clause complex ,
(In the vast expanse of night, candles are lit. The candlelight
shines over the flowers in full blossom in the garden) partly rephrases
, (Being afraid that the flower sleeps late at night,
I light candles to shine over her face). The poem is about the Chinese flowering
crabapple , so the description gives a particular end-focus to (Chinese
flowering crabapple in full blossom). In contrast, although most of those content
compositions also appear in the TT, the poetic beauty is gone. The Chinese flowering
crabapple is not even mentioned. Descriptive emphasis is given to the relationship
between content composition and technique-based information. For example, the
second half of the ST focuses on the artists style. However, the TT stresses
the relationships between content, technique and effect and does not represent the
aesthetic interaction between painting and poetry. This shows that both the ST and
the TT belong to the same genre. They may, however, activate different systems of
knowledge in different types of audience.
Phase 2
The lexico-grammatical analysis of the text is kept brief, simply to exhibit how the
assessment on this phase works. Figure 3 lists the results that can reveal the contrasts
between the ST and the TT.
(1) The dominance of full declaratives in both the ST and the TT may indicate
that their common focus is on the giving of information it is also the classic,
at the same time traditional, role a museum tends to take. However, there is a
sharp difference of the mood system between the ST and the TT, withreference to the use of modal adjuncts, which appear more frequently in the
TT than in the ST. These modal adjuncts help the speaker in adding his/her
Table 1. Register description.
Register variable Register description of the texts
Field Explaining how to appreciate the painting content and how artistic effectsare achieved through Chinese painting technique
Mode Written to be read, online, supported by pictureTenor Formal, unequal power between the institution and the audience
120 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
14/19
judgment to a proposition. For example, in the TT, apparently reinforces but
somewhat softens the speakers voice, which leaves no trace in the ST.
(2) Both the ST and the TT use a high proportion of material processes (which
construe doings and happenings). The proportion of relational process, which
refers to the ways in which beingcan be expressed (Eggins, 2004, p. 239), is
slightly higher in the ST than that in the TT. This tendency is probably due to
the fact that the target audience is new to these objects, as well as to their
inherent cultural spirit. In other words, the TT needs to use more material
processes to explain the way pictorial objects are arranged and depicted
(especially by undertaking a set of technical actions) in the sense of painting a
landscape. Thus, the number of attributive relational process decreases in the
TT with the material processes increasing. In contrast, the ST tends to set up
the spatial relations between pictorial objects, and characterize the style of
the painting. A case in point is the re-presentation of the information
presented in the second paragraph of the ST. As for this part, the ST and the
TT are not equivalent in content. In the ST, there are eight processes, five of
which are relational processes characterizing Ma Lins artistic style andtechniques (see the ST and the BT). However, there are nineteen processes in
the TT, with only five of them using relational process. In the meanwhile,
Mood
Type of metafunctions Source Text Target Text
Adjunct
Type of adjunct Source Text Target Text
Circumstantial 4(80%) 12(54.55%)
Modal 1(20%) 10(45.45%)
Transitivity
Process type Source Text Target Text
material 9(47.37%) 17(60.71%)
mental 3(15.79%) 3(10.71%)
relational 7(36.84%) 8(28.57%)
Circumstances
Type Source Text Target text
location 4(66.67%) 7(53.85%)
extent 1(16.67%) 2(15.84%)
manner 1(16.67%) 3(23.08%)
quality 0 1(7.69%)
total 316
Theme
Category Source Text Target text
marked 96
dependent clause as theme 40
Total no. of processes 8291
Figure 3. Lexico-grammatical comparison.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 121
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
15/19
material processes are frequently employed in this paragraph to show how
this landscape is done.
(3) The proportion of location (circumstances) in the ST is higher than that in
the TT. However, the proportion of manner (circumstances) in the TT is
higher than that in the ST. The occurrence of the phenomena is probably due
to the change of the generic structure in the transfer of the text from Chinese
into English. New elements are added into the TT and the TT thus forms its
own descriptive structure. The two phenomena are interrelated. First, only
one of the four locations (circumstances) appearing in the ST is translated in
the TT, namely, the phrase (on an old-fashioned wooden armchair).
Second, the proportion of location (circumstances) in the TT may remain low
so long as the locations added are fewer than the elements added. In reality,
in the second paragraph of the TT, manners (circumstances) are also used,
but they do not appear in the ST. Prime examples include in light ink, with
colors and by focusing the scene.
(4) The clause initial position is able to give prominence to elaborately chosenlinguistic elements. We revisit all clause initial positions in the ST and the TT,
and find that some of these positions in the TT are conjunctive adjuncts such
as nevertheless, in addition and so. Because they can relate the clause to
the preceding text, they are obviously used for the cohesion of the text.
However, process (verb) may take up the position in the ST. This is rare in
English. But in Chinese, clauses are allowed to do without subjects. A process
(a verb) can occupy the clause initial position. See the example below:
ST: . . .
Gloss: . . .
shine garden in the Chinese flowering crabapple blossomBT: . . .The candlelightshines over the Chinese flowering crabapples in full blossomin the garden.TT: He appears to be appreciating the numerous blossoms on the trees in thecourtyard, enjoying the elegant silence of the wondrous scene from the hall. Thetorches burning on lamp stands extend in two rows from the entrance to thebuilding to add illumination to that of the moon hanging above.
This example illustrates the gap between the ST and the TT. In the TT, the
Chinese original has no subject, and process appears in the clause initial
position. But when it is rendered into English, even though element-by-
element translation is applied, a subject must be added. In the BT, forexample, clauses bearing relevant information begin either with the pronoun
he or with the noun group the torches. Therefore, the subjectlessness in
Chinese shows that language difference also plays a role in the translation of
museum texts.
Phase 3
Based upon the above analysis, we may offer a quality description of the example.
In terms of acceptability and informativity, the imbalance of information between
the ST and the TT merits attention. For example, the deletion of the introductorypoem in the TT conceals the relevance of Chinese painting to Chinese poetics, which
is self-explanatory in the ST. Some elements, such as the description of several
122 C. Jiang
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
16/19
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
17/19
the convention governing the use of location (as a kind of circumstance) in the
received context. It may perform well to satisfy the target audiences expectation.
Conclusion
This article has sought to explore the way in which the notions of systemic and
functional can better serve for the application of a TQA model to the studies on the
translation of museum texts. Grounded in the theoretical integration of translation
studies and museum studies, the present research has shown through the redesign of
the assessment procedure for the model that the judgment of the translation quality
requires empirical analyses based upon both interlingual and intertextual compar-
ison. Our objective is twofold. First, by investigating the notions of quality,
assessment and systemic in their own right, we are able to observe the weaknesses
of previous models. Second, we intend for the model proposed here to be taken as a
part of the effort to rethink the relationship between bilingual texts displayed in the
museum environment, either physically or online.However, our current considerations are restricted to interlingual and intertextual
practice. The issue is not incorporated into our discussion regarding the ways in
which differing verbal and visual imperatives shape translation (Neather, 2008, p.
238). It will be our task at the next stage, where a semiotic-linguistic framework is to
be used, to focus on the interaction of semiotic sign systems in bilingual museum
texts.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Dr Zhu Chunshen for his insightful comments and suggestions on
the research. Also, the author is deeply indebted to Dr Robert Neather, who generously gavemuch of his time and expertise in reading and correcting early drafts of this study. Thanksshould go at the same time to the Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics and theNational Palace Museum, Taipei.
Notes
1. In this article, we use assessment and evaluation interchangeably. According to Maier(2000, p. 137), many [scholars], if not most, use the two interchangeably, often withoutindicating that they consider the terms synonymous.
2. A museum is defined as a permanent institution in the service of society and itsdevelopment, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and
exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for thepurposes of education, study and enjoyment. See http://icom.museum/statutes.html,accessed on April 29, 2008.
3. They are designed by and applied to different fields for the purpose of translation qualitycontrol or translation quality management.
4. The parts First-order meanings as resources and Communication framework inmuseum in the table are designed by Ravelli (2006, p. 152). The parts Metafunctions inSFL and Source text as resource are added to illustrate the relationship betweentranslation studies and museum studies.
5. The seven defining characteristics are: intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situa-tionality, intertextuality, coherence and cohesion. Coherence and cohesion will beconsidered in the second phase because they contribute to the making of textual function.
In this case, we do not mention these two. As to intentionality and situationality, they aremore or less associated with the translators intrusion in the course of process. However,our assessment model aims at how translated texts work in the target context. Therefore,we have excluded them both.
124 C. Jiang
http://icom.museum/statutes.htmlhttp://icom.museum/statutes.html8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
18/19
References
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.Bal, M. (2001). Looking in: The art of viewing. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.Bensoussan, M., & Rosenhouse, J. (1990). Evaluating student translations by discourse
analysis. Babel, 36(2), 65
84.Berman, A. (1992). The experience of the foreign (S. Heyvaert, Trans.). New York: State
University of New York Press.Berry, M. (1975/1977). An introduction to systemic linguistics. London: B.T. Batsford.Briessen, F. (1998). The way of the brush: Painting techniques of China and Japan. Boston:
Tuttle.Bruntette, L. (2000). Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment: A comparison
of TQA practices. The Translator, 6(2), 169182.Christie, F. (1984). Children writing: A reader. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist
approach. The Translator, 14(1), 97134.DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. (2003). Evaluation practice: Thinking and action principles for social
work practice. Toronto: Brooks/Cole.Dickens, P. (1994). Quality and excellence in human services. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Dodson, B. (1985). Keys to drawing. Ohio: North Light.Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. New York: Continuum.Fan, S. (1990). A statistical method for translation quality assessment. Target, 2(1), 4367.Gutt, E. (2000). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Hajmohammadi, A. (2005). Translation evaluation in a news agency. Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology, 13(3), 215223.Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Syntax and the consumer (1964). In J. Webster (Ed.), On language
and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). A brief sketch of systemic grammar (1969). In J. Webster (Ed.), On
language and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammaticalstructure and their determination by different semantic functions (1979). In J. Webster(Ed.), On grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: EdwardArnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Introduction: Towards an appliable description of the grammar ofa language. In J. Webster (Ed.), Studies in English language. Beijing: Peking UniversityPress.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar
(3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.Hatim, B. (1998). Translation quality assessment: Setting and maintaining a trend. The
Translator, 4(1), 91
100.Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Learning from learning theory in museums. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of the museum. London: Routledge.
House, J. (1977/1997). Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tubingen: Narr.House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social
evaluation.Meta, 46(2), 243257.House, J. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between text and context in translation. Journal
of Translation Studies, 9(1), 77103.Hulst, J. (1997). Focus on the target text: Towards a functional model for translation quality
assessment. In K. Kohn (Ed.), Transferre necesse est: Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalConference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting. Budapest:Scholastica.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.),Style in language
. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Kandler, G. (1963). On the problem of quality in translation: Basic considerations. In E. Cary,& R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in translation. New York: Pergamon.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 125
8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)
19/19
Lauscher, S. (2000). Translation quality assessment: Where can theory and practice meet? TheTranslator, 6(2), 149168.
Maier, C. (2000). Introduction. The Translator, 6(2), 137148.Martin J.R. (Ed.) (1984). Language, register and genre. In Children writing: A reader (pp. 21
29). Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Martin, J.R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of semiosis. In J.D. Benson, & W.S.N.
Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, vol. 1: Selected theoretical papers fromthe 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Melis, N.M., & Albir, A.H. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta,46(2), 272287.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. London: Routledge.Neather, R. (2005a). Translation quality in the museum: Towards a greater awareness of end-
user needs. Translation Quarterly, 38, 124.Neather, R. (2005b). Translating the museum: On translation and (cross-)cultural presentation
in contemporary China. In J. House, M.R.M. Ruano, & N. Baumgearten (Eds.),Translation and the construction of identity. Seoul: IATIS.
Neather, R. (2008). Translating tea: On the semiotics of interlingual practice. Meta, 53(1),216240.
Neubert, A., & Shreve, G.M. (1992). Translation as text. Ohio: The Kent State UniversityPress.
Oakland, J.S. (2004). Oakland on quality management. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ravelli, L.J. (2006). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. London: Routledge.Rogers, M. (2006). Structuring information in English: A specialist translation perspective on
sentence beginnings. The Translator, 12(1), 2964.Sager, J.C. (1996). Quality and standards: The evaluation of translation. In R. Owens (Ed.),
The translators handbook. London: Aslib.Sturge, K. (2007). Representing others: Translation, ethnography and the museum. Manchester:
St. Jerome.van Leuven-Zwart, K. (1990). Shifts in meaning in translation: Dos and donts? In
M. Thelen, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.),Translation and meaning 1. Maastricht:Rijkshogeschool.Williams, M. (1989). The assessment of professional translation quality: Creating credibility
out of chaos. TTR, 2(2), 1333.Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Zhu, C. (1996). From functional grammar and speech-act theory to structure of meaning: A
three-dimensional perspective on translating. Meta, 49(3), 338355.Zhu, C. (2002). Translation: Theories, practice and teaching. In Eva Hung (Ed.), Teaching
translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Zilahy, S.P. (1963). Quality in translation. In E. Cary, & R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in
translation. New York: Pergamon.. (2003). . 5(46), 8588 [Zuo, Y. (2003). On the
translation in museums. Journal of National Museum of Chinese History, 5(46), 85
88].
126 C. Jiang