RT list: Cognitive effort and effects and translation quality

I know these were two different threads, but they seem related, so here are
two bits from me.

Well, relevance - or cognitive effects over effort - seems to me to be a
much richer and more fruitful concept to replace traditional criteria like
'readability', or 'functionality in the target culture', although I think it
Is more promising for assessing (oral) interpreting quality*, since
reception of a written text is so unconstrained (you can go back and read
the sentence again, which can't necessarily be counted against the quality
of the translation, or of any text, depending on its poetic qualities,
density etc. in other words, problems).

And for translation, we would need to complement it with some check for
equivalence of content, to eliminate 'accidental relevance' effects (e.g. in
the notorious case of the very engaging and eloquent but over-imaginative
interpreter).

Measurement is only a problem if we want to quantify the 'absolute'
relevance of a specific communication to a specific individual (to whatever
end) To assess the quality of a translation or interpretation we could use
the easier methods than electrodes - questionnaires, tests for content
assimilated? to compare the effects/effort in the initial audience and the
receivers of the translation. Similar methods could probably be developed
for other applications.

There might be some more ideas in the paper, let me know if you want a copy.

Best,

Robin

* as proposed at some length in a couple of my papers, eg 2005. Pointing to
contexts: a relevance-theoretic approach to assessing quality and difficulty
in interpreting. In Dam Helle V., Jan Engberg and Heidrun
Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Knowledge Systems and Translation, 275-312.
Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Robin Setton

Prof. of Interpretation

ETI, University of Geneva (Staff)

GIIT, Shanghai International Studies University (Visiting)

 
Received on Sun Oct 15 11:45:48 2006