The Thorny Problem of Translation and Interpreting Quality


  • Geoffrey S. Koby Kent State University
  • Isabel Lacruz Kent State University



translation quality, translation assessment, revision assessment, machine translation assessment, post-editing assessment, interlingual live subtitling, interpreting quality, interpreting assessment.


Judging quality in translation and interpreting and in the associated task of revision has a long and controversial history. We briefly comment on some aspects of this history to provide context for the contemporary perspectives on and investigations into quality assessment that are represented in this volume of Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies. A fundamental obstacle to progress is the lack of consensus about how to characterize high-quality translation or interpreting, let alone the identification of broadly accepted models for measuring translation or interpreting quality or the ability of translators or interpreters. The advent of machine translation and post-editing has focused attention on the very nature of quality: Is it proximity to a “gold standard” of perfection or is it characteristic of a product that simply serves its purpose well enough to satisfy the needs of the consumer? In other words, is quality something that should be measured and judged in absolute terms or in relative terms? Different philosophies of quality assessment reflect these dichotomies, with the absolutists seeking objective assessments based on detailed analyses of taxonomies of errors, whereas the relativists prefer a more holistic approach that is more sympathetic to subjective judgements. The contributors to this volume present a broad range of approaches to quality assessment in a variety of contexts. We describe their achievements and provide brief analyses through the lens of the framework above. 

Author Biographies

Geoffrey S. Koby, Kent State University

Professor of German and Translation Studies

Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies

Isabel Lacruz, Kent State University

Assistant Professor of Spanish and Translation Studies

Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies


AAngelelli, C. V., & Jacobson, H. E. (2009). Introduction. Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice. 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. 1–10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baroni, M., & Bernardini, S. (2006). A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21(3), 259–274.

Carey, E., & Jumpelt, R. W. (Eds.). (1963). Quality in translation: Proceedings of the IIIrd Congress of the International Federation of Translators (FIT), Bad Godesberg, 1959. Oxford: Pergamon.

Gaddis Rose, M. (Ed.). (1987). Translation excellence: Assessment, achievement, maintenance. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series 1. Binghamton, NY: State University of New York.

Koby, G. S., & Champe, G. G. (2013). Welcome to the real world: Professional-level translator certification. Translation & Interpreting, 5(1), 156–173.

Koby, G. S., Fields, P., Hague, D., Lommel, A., & Melby, A. (2014). Defining translation quality. Revista Tradumàtica: tecnologies de la traducció [Online], 12, 413–420. Available from: [Accessed 14 November 2017].

Luther, M. (1530). Ein Sendbrieff, von Dolmetschen, vnd Fürbitte der Heiligen. Wittenberg: Georg Rhau.

Luther, M. (2017). Ein Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen / An Open Letter on Translating. Translated by Howard Jones Treasures of the Taylorian: Reformation Pamphlets. Taylor Institution Library, Oxford.

Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. Munich: Hueber.

Reiss, K. (2000). Translation criticism, the potentials and limitations: Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. Translated by E. F. Rhodes. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

Schwartz, L. (2014). Monolingual post-editing by a domain expert is highly effective for translation triage. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice, pp. 34–44.

Snover, M., Dorr, B., Schwartz, R., Micciulla, L., & Makhoul, J. (2006). A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pp. 223–231.

Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.




How to Cite

Koby, G. S., & Lacruz, I. (2018). The Thorny Problem of Translation and Interpreting Quality. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 16.