Os avaliadores de tradução dentro e fora do seu elemento
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21814/diacritica.4900Palavras-chave:
Evaluación, Evaluación de la traducción, Perfiles profesionalesResumo
La evaluación de traducciones es una actividad presente en multitud de escenarios, cuya variabilidad la explica en parte la diversidad de sujetos que se enfrentan a ella. Los Estudios de Traducción se han ocupado de perfilar y comparar el comportamiento y el resultado de la evaluación llevada a cabo por distintos tipos de evaluadores. Este trabajo revisa dichas aportaciones pero yendo un paso más allá, al distinguir entre los escenarios en los que los evaluadores ejercen su labor habitual y otras situaciones menos paradigmáticas. El resultado es, por una parte, un compendio de las características que definen el perfil evaluador prototípico; por otra, una llamada de atención para investigadores, profesionales, estudiantes y docentes sobre las condiciones especiales que hacen de su evaluación algo diferente en según qué contextos. Se tratan por ejemplo fórmulas complejas caracterizadas por la colaboración de diversos tipos de evaluadores, así como la difícil categorización de los evaluadores, cuyo perfil a menudo no está definido por un solo rol. En síntesis, el trabajo puede servir de inspiración para que nuevas investigaciones que indaguen en los perfiles de evaluadores abran el foco y tengan en cuenta las circunstancias que pueden afectar a su supuesta actividad habitual.
Referências
Abihssira García, L. (2019). Rasgos de la personalidad y creatividad determinantes en la calidad y la creatividad en traducción [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Murcia.
Acuyo Verdejo, M. C. (2009). El portafolio en la evaluación de la traducción especializada: percepción del estudiantado. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics, 24, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.7203/qf.24.16304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/qf.24.16304
Anderman, G, & Rogers, M. (1997). What is that translation for? A functional view of translation assessment from a pedagogical perspective: A response to Hans G. Hönig. Current Issues in Language & Society, 4(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615479 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615479
Angelone, E. (2020). The impact of screen recording as a diagnostic process protocol on inter-rater consistency in translation assessment. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 34, 32–50.
Akrami, A, Ghonsooly, B., Yazdani, M., & Alami, P. M. (2018). Construction and validation of a computerized open-ended bi-functional translation assessment system. New Voices in Translation Studies, 18(1), 1–37.
Bazzocchi, G. (2019). Primeros pasos en traducción: Una propuesta didáctica para la adquisición de la competencia traductora. inTRAlinea Special Issue: Le ragioni del tradurre.
Benedek, E, Eszenyi, R., Csizmazia, E. F., Robin, E., & Seresi, M. (2021). Final examinations in distance mode. In M. Seresi, R. Eszenyi, & E. Robin (Eds.), distance education in translator and interpreter training. Methodological lessons during the Covid-19 pandemic (pp. 131–148).
Brunette, L. (2000). Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment. A comparison of TQA practices. The Translator, 6(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064
Conde Ruano, J. T. (2009). Proceso y resultado de la evaluación de traducciones [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Granada.
De Higes Andino, I, & Cerezo Merchán, B. (2018). Using evaluation criteria and rubrics as learning tools in subtitling for the D/deaf and the hard of hearing. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418809 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418809
De Sutter, G., Capelle, B., De Clercq, O., Loock, R., & Plevoets, K. (2018). Towards a corpus-based, statistical approach to translation quality: Measuring and visualizing linguistic deviance in student translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 16. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v16i0.440 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v16i0.440
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. Bloomsbury.
Eyckmans, J., Anckaert, P., & Segers, W. (2009). The perks of norm-referenced translation evaluation. In C. V. Angelelli, & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice (pp. 73–93). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.06eyc
Eyckmans, J., & Anckaert, P. (2018). Item-based assessment of translation competence: Chimera of objectivity versus prospect of reliable measurement. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v16i0.436 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v16i0.436
Galán-Mañas, A. (2016). Learning portfolio in translator training: The tool of choice for competence development and assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103108
Galán-Mañas, A., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2015). Competence assessment procedures in translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1010358 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1010358
Gardy, P. (2016). L’évaluation en didactique de la traduction : un état des lieux. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 26, 20–49.
Gile, D. (2001). L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation en cours de formation. Meta, 46(2), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.7202/002890ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/002890ar
Gummerus, E., & Paro, C. (2001). Translation quality. An organizational viewpoint. In Y. Gambier, & H. Gottlieb (Eds.), (Multi)Media translation. Concepts, practices, and research (pp. 133–143). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.34.16gum
Haiyan, L. (2006). Cultivating Translator Competence: Teaching & Testing. Translator Journal, 10(3).
Hegrenæs, C., & Simonnæs, I. (2020). Using rubrics for translation assessment: The case of the national translator accreditation exam in Norway. Translatologia, 1. http://www.translatologia.ukf.sk/2020/02/using-rubrics-for-translation-assessment-the-case-of-the-national-translator-accreditation-exam-in-norway/
Hönig, H. G. (1997). Positions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. Current Issues in Language and Society, 4(1), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615477 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615477
Huertas-Barros, E., & Vine, J. (2019a). Constructing standards in communities: Tutors' and students' perceptions of assessment practices on an MA translation course. In E. Huertas-Barros, S. Vandepitte, & E. Iglesias-Fernández (Eds.), Quality assurance and assessment practices in translation and interpreting (pp. 245–269). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch011
Huertas-Barros, E., & Vine, J. (2019b). Training the trainers in embedding assessment literacy into module design: a case study of a collaborative transcreation project. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13 (3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.16589582019b DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.1658958
Huertas-Barros, E., & Vine, J. (2016). Translators trainers’ perceptions of assessment: An empirical study. In M. Thelen, G. W. van Egdom, D. Verbeeck, & L. Bogucki (Eds.), Translation and meaning, new series. Vol. 41 (pp. 29–39). Peter Lang.
Hurtado Albir, A., & Olalla-Soler, C. (2016). Procedures for assessing the acquisition of cultural competence in translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 318–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236561 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236561
Hurtado Albir, A., & Pavani, S. (2018). An empirical study on multidimensional summative assessment in translation teaching. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1420131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1420131
Kamal, S. (2005). Translation quality. The ATA Chronicle, 34(8), 11–18.
Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook or Translator Trainers. St. Jerome.
Kim, H. (2020). How interpreter-translators are assessed and hired in the market. A case study of South Korea’s recruiting process of interpreter-translators. Babel, 66(4/5), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00184.kim DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00184.kim
Klimkowski, K. (2019). Assessment as a communicative activity in the translation classroom. inTRAlinea Special Issue: New Insights into Translator Training.
Konttinen, K. (2021). A self-efficacy scale for measuring student progress in translation company simulations. Across Languages and Cultures, 22(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2021.00004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2021.00004
Jia, Y., Carl, M., & Wang, X. (2019). How does the post-editing of neural machine translation compare with from-scratch translation? A product and process study. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 60–86.
Li, D. (2006). Making translation testing more teaching-oriented: A case study of translation testing in China. Meta, 51(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.7202/012994ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/012994ar
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Routledge.
Muzii, L. (2006). Quality assessment and economic sustainability of translation. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione, 9, 15–38. http://hdl.handle.net/10077/2891
Orfale, A. G., Araújo, P. M., Ferraz, M. B., & Natour, J. (2005). Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 38, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-879x2005000200018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2005000200018
Orrego-Carmona, D. (2019). A holistic approach to non-professional subtitling from a functional quality perspective. Translation Studies, 12(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1686414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1686414
Peng, K. C. (2006). The development of coherence and quality of performance in conference interpreter training [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Leeds.
Pietrzak, P. (2019). An integrated approach to assessment in translator training: The value of self-reflection. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.) Contacts and contrasts in educational contexts and translation (pp. 105–115). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04978-2_7
Pietrzak, P. (2018). The effects of students’ self-regulation on translation quality. Babel, 64(5/6), 819–839. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00064.pie DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00064.pie
Pinto, M. (2001). Quality factors in documentary translation. Meta, 46(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.7202/003840ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/003840ar
Rica Peromingo, J. P. (2019). El corpus CALING: Docencia e investigación en traducción audiovisual y accesibilidad lingüística. TRANS: Revista de Traductología, 23, 257–286. https://doi.org/10.24310/TRANS.2019.v0i23.4990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24310/TRANS.2019.v0i23.4990
Shih, C. Y. (2018). Translation commentary re-examined in the eyes of translator educators at British universities. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 30, 291–311.
Shuttleworth, M. (1997). Preparing professionals: A response to Hans G. Hönig. Current Issues in Language and Society, 4(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529709615483
Sirén, S., & Hakkrarainen, K. (2002). Expertise in translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 3(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.5
Sirovec, S. (2020). Achieving quality in outsourcing. Babel, 66(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00160.sir DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00160.sir
Suojanen, T., Koskinen, K., & Tuominen, T. (2015). Usability as a focus of multiprofessional collaboration. A teaching case study on user-centered translation. Connexions. International Professional Communication Journal, 3(2), 147–166.
Suokas, J. (2020). Testing usability methods in translation courses. Personas and heuristic evaluation. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 7, 4–38. https://doi.org/10.51287/cttl_e_2020_2_juho_suokas DOI: https://doi.org/10.51287/cttl_e_2020_2_juho_suokas
Szarkowska, A. (2020). A project-based approach to subtitler training. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 18. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v18i0.511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v18i0.511
Vam Egdom, G. W., & Pluymaekers, M. (2019). Why go the extra mile? How different degrees of post-editing affect perceptions of texts, senders and products among end users. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.7202/004583ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/004583ar
Wang, L. (2020). How to evaluate literary translations in the classroom context: Through error analysis or scale-based method? Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 7, 276–313.
Way, C. (2008). Systematic assessment of translator competence: In search of Achilles’ Heel. In J. Kearns (Ed.), Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates (pp. 89–103). Continuum.
Zappatore, M. (2020). Lifecycle design and effectiveness evaluation for simulated translation agencies. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 7, 118–166.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2024 José Tomás Conde Ruano
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0.
