A functional approach to translation quality assessment: Categorizing sources of translational distortion in medical abstracts
Keywords:TQA, functionalist approach, distortion in translation, medical LSP, conventional translation, post-editing
The translation of Cochrane Systematic Review abstracts plays an important role in ensuring the communication of medical research results to the non-English-speaking public. The presentation of results should, of course, be free of errors and as objective as possible. Translation, however, is a highly subjective activity requiring extensive interpretation and is prone to errors. Translated Cochrane abstracts therefore contain elements that could affect readers’ interpretation of the results of a Review, and that specifically could have an impact on the effectiveness of the intervention studied. Guided by the function of these translated texts, we have categorized such sources of distortion into a context-specific typology that will be used to measure translational distortion in Cochrane abstracts. Building on previous research and empirical corpus analysis, the typology accounts not only for translation errors with considerable potential impact, but also for biased translations of phraseological and modal structures that can markedly affect readers’ interpretation of the degree of certainty expressed by authors.
Alderson, P., & Chalmers, I. (2003). Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews. British Medical Journal, 326(7387), 475.
Alonso-Almeida, F., & Cruz-García, L. (2011). The value of may as an evidential and epistemic marker in English medical abstracts. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 46(3), 59–73.
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Vera-Badillo, F., Tannock, I., & Ravaud, P. (2014). Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: The SPIIN randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(36), 4120-4126.
Castagnoli, S., Ciobanu, D., Kunz, K., Kübler, N., & Volanschi, A. (2011). Designing a learner translator corpus for training purposes. In N. Kübler (Ed.), Corpora, Language, Teaching, and Resources: From Theory to Practice (Vol. 12, pp. 221-248). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Chuquet, H., & Paillard, M. (1987). Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais–français. Paris, France: Ophrys.
Cochrane Translation Annual Report (2016). Retrieved from http://community.cochrane.org/.
Cummings, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2012). Spin and boasting in research articles. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166(12), 1099–1100.
Depraetere, I. (Ed.). (2011). Perspectives on translation quality (Vol. 9). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Gledhill, C. (2011). A lexicogrammar approach to checking quality: Looking at one or two cases of comparative translation. In I. Depraetere (Ed.), Perspectives on translation quality (Vol. 9, pp. 71–97). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Gledhill, C., & Kübler, N. (2016). What can linguistic approaches bring to English for Specific Purposes? ASp. la revue du GERAS, 69, 65–95.
Glenton, C., Santesso, N., Rosenbaum, S., Nilsen, E. S., Rader, T., Ciapponi, A., & Dilkes, H. (2010). Presenting the results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study. Medical Decision Making, 30(5), 566–577.
Guillemin-Flescher, J. (1981). Syntaxe comparée du français et de l’anglais: Problèmes de traduction. Paris, France: Ophrys.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. London, England: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(3), 349–382.
Kilicoglu, H., & Bergler, S. (2008). Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: A linguistically motivated perspective. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(11), S10. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-S11-S10
Koby, G. S., & Champe, G. G. (2013). Welcome to the real world: Professional-level translator certification. Translation & Interpreting, 5(1), 156–173.
Koponen, M. (2016). Machine translation post-editing and effort: Empirical studies on the post-editing process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/. (Accession No. 160256)
Lacruz, I., Denkowski, M., & Lavie, A. (2014). Cognitive demand and cognitive effort in post-editing. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), AMTA Workshop, Vancouver, Canada, October 26 2014, 73-84. Retrieved from https://www.amtaweb.org/AMTA2014Proceedings/AMTA2014Proceedings_PEWorkshop_final.pdf.
Lazarus, C., Haneef, R., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2015). Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), 85. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
Martikainen, H., & Kübler, N. (2016). Ergonomie cognitive de la post-édition de traduction automatique: Enjeux pour la qualité des traductions. ILCEA, 27. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/ilcea/3863.
Martínez Melis, N., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta: Journal des traducteurs – Meta:/Translators’ Journal, 46(2), 272–287.
O’Brien, S. (2012). Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 17, 55–77.
Pilegaard, M. (1997). Translation of medical research articles. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation (pp. 159–184). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Reiss, K. (1981). Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. Poetics Today, 2(4), 121–131.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11(2), 93–113.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.
Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 223–247.
Schäffner, C. (1997). From ‘good’ to ‘functionally appropriate’: Assessing translation quality. Current Issues in Language & Society, 4(1), 1–5.
Secară, A. (2005). Translation evaluation: A state of the art survey. Proceedings of the eCoLoRe-Mellange Workshop, Resources and tools for e-learning in translation and localisation, Leeds 21–23 March 2005, 39–44. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.126.3654.
TAUS MT Post-Editing Guidelines (2010). Retrieved from https://www.taus.net/.
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177–200.
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171–190.
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219–237.
Vihla, M. (1999). Medical writing: Modality in focus. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87.
Williams, M. (2001). The application of argumentation theory to translation quality assessment. Meta: Journal des traducteurs – Meta:/Translators’ Journal, 46(2), 326–344.
Wisniewski, G., Kübler, N., & Yvon, F. (2014). A corpus of machine translation errors extracted from translation students exercises. Proceedings of LREC 2014, 3585-3588. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/1115_Paper.pdf.
Yang, A., Zheng, S. Y., & Ge, G. C. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1–10.
Yavchitz, A. (2015). Communication des résultats scientifiques dans les essais randomisés contrôlés et les revues systématiques (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from www.theses.fr. (Accession No. 2015USPCC272)
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).