Quality management e-module

Feedback form:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeKdesYDodfUHM_iOirgroGiU3mUGr9DNp29vWISlbzWwu3XA/viewform

Download the entire module: QUALITY MANAGEMENT e-Module

In this module you learn about quality management. The module consists of units and each unit deals with a different aspect of the topic (see table above). At the beginning of each unit you find the learning outcome to be reached after completing the learning activities. You also find information on the learning context, f.i. competences required for the specific content provided in the unit, technical and other requirements and your workload given in minutes. For your orientation an overview of the activities and their main characteristics (title, description, rationale etc.) are also provided. Afterwards you find the activities in a worksheet. At the end a reference for further reading is given.

Please feel free to add your own examples (own activities, best practices, used methods, assessment techniques etc.) to the list of units because not all aspects of quality management could be considered in this module.

Below you will find the module’s structure divided into units and indicating the topic to be dealt with.

Table of contents

UNIT 1: GENERAL CONCEPTS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT. 5

Activity 1. 11

Activity 2. 11

Activity 3. 12

QUALITY. 12

CLIENT. 12

TRANSLATOR.. 12

RECIPIENT. 12

Activity 4. 12

UNIT 2: ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION PRODUCT QUALITY. 14

Activity 1. 26

Activity 2. 26

Activity 3. 28

Activity 4. 29

Activity 5. 31

Activity 6. 32

UNIT 3: ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION PROCESS QUALITY. 33

Activity 1. 38

Activity 2. 39

Activity 3. 39

List of figures. 40

List of tables. 40

List of references. 40

Didactical background information for trainer

Structure of activities:

individual work / work in small groups → discussion in small groups / whole-class → evaluation in small groups / whole-class → evaluation by trainer.

This way learning occurs through: knowledge activation → knowledge extension → knowledge organisation → knowledge assessment.

Attention! We move from knowledge orientation (what) to competence orientation (how) through inquire based learning.

Inquire based learning:

• Problem-oriented: real-life problems of future translators are embedded into activities
• Research-based: trainees get as little instructions as possible, knowledge and competence will be acquired through searching (info-mining competence).
• Up-to-date: trainees do not learn to work with one specific tool (tools and their functions get obsolete!) rather they develop a toolkit to evaluate tools.
• Future-oriented: sharpening a sense of staying/keeping informed
• Fosters critical thinking through questioning, e.g. evaluation method:

1) evaluating according to own criteria (basic) –

2) evaluating according to guidelines (complex) – questioning own evaluation criteria

• Includes not only rational but also other aspects of real-life, e.g. emotions like fear/anxiety related to machine translation
• Fosters teamwork through steadily changing group-composition (at the beginning also place for individual study)
• Fosters communication through presentation in different teams and in whole-class
• Fosters communication through guidelines and toolkits (e.g. how to verbalise arguments regarding a translation choice / how to evaluate tools)
• Trainee-centred learning: trainer steps back and has a guiding role.

Transferability:

• Synergies can be transferred to other subjects: through links between modules / working collaboratively across subject boundaries → Cross-curricular working and close cooperation between lecturers are required
• Content is replaceable through other topics
• Languages can be replaced through others.
• Transferable skills are fostered through activities / linking activities to other modules. What has been learnt in one module will be required in another one and vice versa.
• Working with as many group members in peer or in small groups as possible fosters reflection and evaluation by giving and receiving feedback from others
• Connected to professional future: trainees get to know different tools e.g. through evaluation rather than learning to work with one specific tool which will be out-of-date/obsolete when they start working

Evaluation may include presentation in whole-class – trainer extends missing information (presence needed) or collects ideas in white board (distance learning – presence not needed).

In case of simultaneous work (e.g. Unit 1, Activity 4) it is better to use online tools to avoid redundancies.

For more information see the eTransFair Methodological Guide for Course Development.

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

Background information for trainer: 

Activity 1

The main idea of this activity is to activate trainees’ knowledge on the different aspects of quality in the field of translation.

Quality management

Quality assurance

Quality assessment

Quality assurance models

Quality assessment models

Quality (assurance / assessment) evaluators/systems

- human

- machine

- etc.

Quality assessment plans

Quality assurance plans

Quality control

Purpose/scope/objective of quality control can be:

- identifying the causes of defects

- discovering defects e.g. in products, processes

- maintaining quality standards

- etc.

Quality metrics

Quality standard

Dimensions of quality

Criteria of quality

Quality policy

Quality levels

Quality of the source text

Quality of the product (translation)

Quality of the service (e.g. communication)

Quality of the process

Quality manual/documentation/records

The quality manual contains procedures and guidance for implementing the quality system. The quality manual enables identification, collection, storage, and retrieval of quality records and facilitates the implementation of corrective actions. (ISO 9001:2000)

Biography

ISO 9001:2000

Activity 2

The main idea of this activity is to activate trainees’ knowledge on the multidimensional concept of quality.

Dimensions of quality:

1. product quality
2. process quality and
3. social quality

According to Jaaskelainen (2016)

1. “Product quality” is what we traditionally understand as translation quality and refers to the features of the produced text; its linguistic, textual, functional, etc., features.
2. “Process quality” refers to the translation process, including cognition and affect as well as the quality of the source text and the translation tools used/available. 
3. “Social quality” relates to issues such as who translates and in which kind of working conditions.

There is inevitable overlap between the three kinds of quality, since the translation product (product quality) is the outcome of the activity of translating (process quality) which in turn is the outcome of the translator’ s working conditions (social quality). To put it in a nutshell, social quality impacts process quality which in turn impacts product quality. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. The three dimensions of quality (Abdallah 2007)

Bibliography

Abdallah, Kristiina. (2007). „Tekstittamisen laatu – mita se oikein on? [Subtitling quality – what

is it?].” In Olennaisen äärellä. Johdatus audiovisuaaliseen kääntämiseen [Introduction to

audiovisual translation], ed. by R. Oittinen and T. Tuominen, 272–293. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.

Jaaskelainen, R. (2016). Quality and translation process research In: Reembedding Translation Process Research Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 89-106

Lauscher, Susanne. 2000. “Translation Quality-assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice

Meet?” The Translator 6 (2): 149–168.

Mertin, Elvira. 2006. Prozessorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement im Dienstleistungsbereich Übersetzen.

Leipzig: Peter Lang.

Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended Translation: A Socio-cognitive Research

Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45.

Activity 2

The main idea of this activity is to activate trainees’ knowledge on the various interpretation of quality.

- Most clients understand that a quality translation must be

1) accurate - it has to say the same thing as the original

2) free of errors (orthographic accuracy, completeness and grammatical correctness)

3) produced at the lowest cost

4) and in the shortest possible timeframe.

(economic treatment of quality assessment - demands on quality are often in conflict with the time and resources available)

But is a more or less accurate translation necessarily a high quality one? No. There is a difference between high quality and low quality in translation.

- Most translators understand that a translation must be of high quality.

1) The message of the source text is effectively communicated in a professional manner.

2) Clients’ and target readers’ expectations are taken into consideration for the success of a translation

etc.

 (“objective” treatment of quality assessment, “” since judgements are by nature subjective)

- Most recipients (readers) understand that a quality translation is

1) a sufficiently coherent text

2) with a natural flow and

3) one which does not read like one

(subjective and intuitive treatment of quality assessment).

Bibliography

Fleury, F. (2009). Was erwarten Kunden von Übersetzungsanbietern? Kundenanforderungen im Wandel [What do clients expect from translation providers? Client expectations in transformation]. In W. Baur & S. Kalina (Eds.), Übersetzen in die Zukunft. Herausforderungen der Globalisierung für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer [Translating into the future. Globalization and challenges for interpreters and translators] (pp. 60–65). Berlin, Germany: Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer.

Havumetsä, N. (2012). The client factor: A study of clients’ expectations concerning non-literary translators and the quality of non-literary translations (PhD thesis). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

House, Juliane (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tubingen: Narr

Preciso Language Services (2015). What is a “quality” translation? https://www.precisolanguage.com/2015/09/what-is-a-quality-translation/

Risku, Hanna; Pein-Weber, Christina & Milosevic, Jelena (2016). „The task of the translator”: Comparing the Views of the Client and the Translator. International Journal of Communication (IJoC), 989–1008.

Sobotka, E. (2000). Translationsaufträge aus Kundensicht [Translation assignments from the client perspective]. In M. Kadric, K. Kaindl, & F. Pöchhacker (Eds.), Übersetzungswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag [Translation studies. Commemorative publication in honor of Mary Snell-Hornby on her 60th birthday] (pp. 353–362). Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.

Straub, D. (2012). Studie Einkauf von Übersetzungsdienstleistungen [Translation services purchasing study]. Retrieved from http://www.tekom.de/upload/alg/tekom_Studie_Uebersetzungsqualitaet.pdf

Activity 4

Different authors offer various definitions of translation quality. Quality is a complex matter and an all-embracing definition is non-existent. (Martínez-Mateo 2014)

Quality can be observed from diverse angles. Therefore, there is a call for a multifaceted view:

- From the academic point of view: a quality translation is one which fits its purpose (Nord 1997; O’Brien 2012) In the centre of this concept is the functional sense, considering quality to be the appropriateness of a translated text to fulfil a communicative purpose.

- From industrial sectors: quality translation is “the ability to fulfil a client-defined set of parameters” (Jiménez-Crespo 2009)

- etc.

Quality is dynamic and context dependent.

Translation quality assessment

Example for a definition:

“Determination of the quality of a translated text or a check after the fact for management purposes, i.e. measuring the productivity of translators and the quality/price ratio of translations. A numerical rating is assigned.” Brunette 2000:173

Problems:

In order to assess “translation quality” at least following steps should be taken:

1. Quality must be defined

There is no consensus about the definition, since it is a complex issue. E.g. quality can be defined from different point of views.

2. The methodology must be set.

Attention has to be paid to quality assessment methods enabling measurement with explicit and

applicable correction scales. You can assess what you can measure.

These steps (among others) affect the definition of “translation quality assessment”. Different determination of the dynamic term “quality translation” influences the concept of “translation quality assessment”

In the definition of Brunette process and product assessment can be traced. What about the remaining aspects? (For further reading see Gouadec 2010, Martínez-Mateo 2014, Lommel 2018, Secâra 2005 and Unit 1 Activity 1)

Bibliography

Gouadec, D. (2010). Quality in translation. In Y. Gambier, L. van Doorslaer (eds.) Handbook of Translation Studies, volume 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lommel A. (2018). Translation Quality Standards In: Proceedings of AMTA 2018 Workshop: The Role of Authoritative Standards in the MT Environment. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W18-2005 

Louise Brunette (2000). Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment, The Translator, 6:2, 169-182

Jiménez Crespo, Miguel Angel. 2009. “The Evaluation of Pragmatic and Functionalist Aspects in Localization: Towards a Holistic Approach to Quality Assurance”. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 1: 60-93.

Martínez-Mateo, R. (2014). A deeper look into metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A case study. Miscelanea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 49, 73-93.

Nord, Christiane. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

O’Brien, Sharon. (2012). “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation”. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation 17. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue17/art_obrien.php

Secâra, Alina. (2005). Translation Evaluation – a State of the Art Survey. eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop Proceedings. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds Press: 39-44.

WORKSHEET

Activity 1 Collocations of “quality”

Carry out research with the aim to find out with which collocations the expression QUALITY is used and how in the field of translation.

Make notes about the findings of your research:

-

Activity 2 Concepts in quality

Discuss in small groups (2-3) what kind of dimensions exists in translation quality. Create together a mind-map or a picture.

Activity 3 Views on quality

Discuss in small groups (2-3) how quality is interpreted by the stakeholders (client vs. translator vs. recipient). Make notes in the table.

Activity 4 Terms in quality

Choose and fulfil one (A or B) of the following assignments:

1. Define the term[2] “translation quality”.

2. Define the term[3] “translation quality assessment”.

Compare your solutions with another pair – try to find the most adequate and precise definitions together. Share the results of your discussion with the whole group.

List the problems you faced while trying to find the most adequate and precise definitions of both terms, “translation quality” and “translation quality assessment”

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

Background for lecturer

Activity 1

According to Gouadec (2010) translation quality is both the quality of an end-product (the translated material) and the quality of the service provided.

The quality of the translation product is both extrinsic and intrinsic.

Extrinsic quality relates to the way a translation satisfies the requirements of the applicable situation:

1. in terms of public (readers, viewers, browsers, listeners, etc.)
2. objectives and purposes,
3. medium or media,
4. code,
5. and further relevant external parameters.

In addition the translation must be adequate from the point of view of

6. economics (cost),
7. functionality (performance),
8. accessibility (readability, usability, ergonomy) and
9. efficiency (sometimes extending beyond what the original provided).

The consequence is that a quality translation must be adequate in terms of

1. content

- quantity of content,

- the variety of language and

- the degree of finish

2. and form of content.

Meaning that the translator translated whatever content satisfied the particular needs of the particular “situation“ and put it in a perfectly satisfactory form (and format, and medium).

Additional information to the quality of the service provided by Gouadec (2010)

The prerequisites for quality in providing the commercial service of delivering a translation:

– Clear and fully detailed specifications

– Constructive negotiation of price and time fences

– Certified (if possible) quality of the material to be translated– either intrinsically or as the result of upgrading

– Availability of all required resources

– Availability of all skills required, possibly from the same person, by the various operations that make up the service: commercial transacting, data-retrieval, terminology, translating, plus, as the case may be, revising or doing the infographics

– Availability and validity of any material for re-use in the translation (translation memory, in-house terminology, and related documents)

– Adequacy of the process work flow (covering planning and management, lot allocation, resource allocation, skills requirements, time fences, float and overlap, and critical paths)

– Adequacy of the translation service provision model underlying performance and assessment at all stages

– Adequacy of task-fulfillment procedures with respect to productivity/quality ratios

– Adequacy of communication/interaction between provider and providee as well as between provider and specialist correspondents and partners

– Relevance, thoroughness and efficiency of quality checks and quality control

– Application, by both partners, of a rolling wave process of validation plus feedback and analysis feeding into an ongoing review process.

GRADES

The best way to describe the various quality grades is to refer to the market. The simplest way is to distinguish three grades:

(1) rough-cut,

(2) fit-for-delivery (but still requiring minor improvements or not yet fit for its broadcast medium), and

(3) fit-for-broadcast translation (accurate, efficient, and ergonomic).

Bibliography

Angelelli, Holly E (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability - Defining the construct IN : Claudia V. Angelelli, Holly E. Jacobson (eds.) (2009). Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XIV. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 386 pp.

Colina, Sonia. (2011). “Evaluation/Assessment.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2, ed. by

Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 43–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dróth J. (2011). Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában, FORDÍTÁSTUDOMÁNY 13: (2) pp. 5-36.

Gouadec, D. (2010). Quality in translation. In Y. Gambier, L. van Doorslaer (eds.) Handbook of Translation Studies, volume 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

House, Juliane. (2001). “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description Versus Social Evaluation.”Meta 46 (2): 149–68.

Jaaskelainen, R. (2016). Quality and translation process research In: Reembedding Translation Process Research Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 89-106

Martínez-Mateo, R. (2014). A deeper look into metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A case study. Miscelanea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 49, 73-93.

Suokas, Juho. (2014). “Nothing freeze-dried.” Testing Usability Evaluation Methods with the Finnish

Translation of The Guitar Handbook. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Eastern

Finland, English language and translation.

Zachar V. (2011). A képesítőfordítások értékelési szempontjai – ELTE BTK Fordító és Tolmácsképző Tanszék. Elhangzott: Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában. Szent István Egyetem, Gödöllő, 2011. január 21.

Activity 2

Following error correction criteria has been introduced by Hurtado Albir (2015).

ERRORS RELATED TO THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT

Opposite sense (OS)

Wrong sense (WS)

Nonsense (NS)

Slightly different sense (SDS)

Addition of unnecessary information (AD)

Omission of necessary information (OM)

Poorly resolved extralinguistic reference (EXT)

Inappropriate register (REG)

• ERRORS RELATED TO EXPRESSION IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE

Orthographic and typographic (OT)

Morphosyntactic (MP)

Lexical (LEX)

Textual (T)

Stylistic (ST)

• PRAGMATIC ERRORS (PR)

And, following error types exist in specialised translation:

Table 1: List of metrics, error types and features (Martínez-Mateo 2014)

Following main categories and abbreviations for corrections are used by SAE J2450:

Table 2: SAE J2450 Translation Quality Metric. © SAE J2450, Committee

SAE J 2450 (applicable to translations of automotive service information) has been adapted by Schmitt 2016 for university context / assessment for technical translation.

An example:

Biography

Angelelli, Holly E (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability - Defining the construct

IN : Claudia V. Angelelli, Holly E. Jacobson (eds.) (2009). Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XIV. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 386 pp.

Dróth J. (2011). Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában, FORDÍTÁSTUDOMÁNY 13: (2) pp. 5-36.
 

Hurtado Albir, A. (2015). The Acquisition of Translation Competence. Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Translator Training. Meta, 60(2), 256–280.

Martínez-Mateo, R. (2014). A deeper look into metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A case study. Miscelanea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 49, 73-93.

SAE J2450 Translation Quality Metric

Schmitt, Peter A. (2016). Handbuch Technisches Übersetzen. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.

Schmitt, Peter A. (2017). Handbuch Technisches Übersetzen. Zweite, aktualisierte Auflage. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.

Zachar V. (2011). A képesítőfordítások értékelési szempontjai – ELTE BTK Fordító- és Tolmácsképző Tanszék. Elhangzott: Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában. Szent István Egyetem, Gödöllő, 2011. január 21.

Activity 3

Before the quality assessment: Which model/tool to use?

There is still no universally accepted evaluation model in the translation world: there are no generally accepted objective criteria for evaluating the quality of translations.

Solution in sight:

“ISO/AWI 21999 Translation quality assurance and assessment - Models and metrics” is under development and will be a general framework for translation quality, where

- Quality-related terms will be defined.

- Criteria for the different aspects of translation quality will set up.

- A process for quality assessment of translation will be established.

- Assessment methods/models will be discussed.

Etc.

During the quality assessment:

How many changes to make?

How big might be the change(s)?

What to do when I am not sure?

What do I do with the spelling and typographical errors in the source text?

The tool does not recognise typographical errors in the source text. What do I do?

What if I can not justify my solutions/recommendations?

Etc.

For some answers see e.g. Mossop 2014

After the quality assessment:

What happens with my changes?

What if the translator does not accept my changes?

What do I do with the spelling and typographical errors in the source text?

Will be payed also the corrections in the source text?

When and how should I communicate errors and changes in the source text?

Etc.

Bibliography

ISO/AWI 21999 Translation quality assurance and assessment - Models and metrics

Mossop, Brian (2014). Revising and editing for translators. Routledge.

Soloviev, Kirill (2017) Quality as a Tool and Tools for Quality (EU Translation Workshop) https://ec.europa.eu/estonia/sites/estonia/files/kirill_soloviev_quality_as_a_tool_and_tools_for_quality.pdf

Translation Quality Assurance Tools © Copyright by Technolex Translation Studio: 

https://www.technolex-translations.com/articles/instrumenty-kontrolya-kachestva-perevoda.html   

Activity 4

Possible solution for good enough quality:

Possible solution for quality similar to human translation:

Bibliography

Koponen, M. (2015). "How to teach machine translation post-editing? Experiences from a post-editing course." Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP4), 2-15.

Activity 5

According to TAUS (2010) “good enough” quality is defined as

1. comprehensible (i.e. the message is understandable),
2. accurate (i.e. it communicates the same meaning as the source text),
3. but as not being grammatically and stylistically compelling (i.e. unusual syntax, not perfect grammar).
4. The text may sound like it was generated by a computer.

According to TAUS (2010) “quality similar or equal to human translation” is defined as being

1. comprehensible (i.e. an end user perfectly understands the content of the message),
2. accurate (i.e. it communicates the same meaning as the source text),
3. stylistically fine, (i.e. the style may not be as good as that achieved by a native-speaker human translator).
4. Syntax is normal, grammar and punctuation are correct.

TAUS’s guidelines for achieving good enough quality:

• Aim for semantically correct translation.
• Ensure that no information has been accidentally added or omitted.
• Edit any offensive, inappropriate or culturally unacceptable content.
• Use as much of the raw MT output as possible.
• Basic rules regarding spelling apply.
• No need to implement corrections that are of a stylistic nature only.
• No need to restructure sentences solely to improve the natural flow of the text.

TAUS’s guidelines for achieving quality similar or equal to human translation:

• Aim for grammatically, syntactically and semantically correct translation.
• Ensure that key terminology is correctly translated and that untranslated terms belong to the client’s list of “Do Not Translate” terms”.
• Ensure that no information has been accidentally added or omitted.
• Edit any offensive, inappropriate or culturally unacceptable content.
• Use as much of the raw MT output as possible.
• Basic rules regarding spelling, punctuation and hyphenation apply.
• Ensure that formatting is correct.

Bibliography

Koponen, M. (2015). "How to teach machine translation post-editing? Experiences from a post-editing course." Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP4), 2-15.

TAUS (2010). MT Post-editing guidelines

Activity 6

The advantages of machine translation

• Many free tools are readily available (Google Translate, Skype Translator, etc.)
• Quick turnaround time                                                                  
• You can translate between multiple languages using one tool
• Translation technology is constantly improving
• Translation is free of charge

The disadvantages of machine translation

• Level of accuracy can be very low                    
• Accuracy is also very inconsistent across different languages
• Machines can’t translate context                                            
• Mistakes are sometimes costly                                              
• Sometimes translation simply doesn’t work
• Can not capture the same meaning
• Can not transcreate

https://www.translateplus.com/blog/machine-vs-human-translation-pros-cons-use/

WORKSHEET

Activity 1 Quality indicators

Carry out research with the aim to define translation quality indicators. Compile a list of indicators in the table below. Compare your results in small groups (3-4). Based on the insights, complete your list!

Activity 2 Translation quality assessment

Compare the translation with the source text from the product quality point of view.

Analyse and assess the different product quality indicators of both texts. Present and discuss the results in your group!

Activity 3 Tools for translation quality assessment

And now use a translation quality assurance tool for the same assignment (activity 2: comparison of the translation with the source text! Discuss in groups (3-4) about the problems you faced before / during / after the process of quality analysis and assessment (human vs. computer assisted quality assurance). List the discussion’s results in keywords.

Discussion’s results:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Activity 4 Quality assessment of machine translations

Analyse the mistakes in the machine translated text. Try to divide them according to their seriousness into optional and compulsory to edit. Use different marks/symbols/colours![4]

Post-edit the machine translated text according to the guidelines of TAUS (2010) for “good enough” quality AND for “human translation quality”

Activity 5 Interpretation of quality level indicators

Compare in groups (2-3) the post edited texts and discuss the problems you faced while interpreting the quality levels’ indicators of TAUS (2010). List the problems according to the quality level indicators. Share the results of your discussion with the whole group.

Activity 6 Pros and cons of MT

Make a list of pros and cons of applying Machine Translation (MT) from the quality management point of view.

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

Background for lecturer

Activity 1 & 2

For general information about quality management activities see ISO 9001:2015(E)

For the specific steps and actions involved in translation project see Mertin, Elvira (2006) Prozessorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement im Dienstleistungsbereich Übersetzen.  Leipziger Studien zur angewandten Linguistik und  Translatologie. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. (pp. 259-349).

The analysis (and comparison) of both general and translation specific actions and practices is under construction – in form of a master’s thesis.

The time when quality management activities are carried out will depend on the complexity of the project and various other factors.

According to ISO 9001:2015, quality management includes following activities:

1. Plan: establish the objectives of the system and its processes, and the resources needed to deliver results in accordance with customers’ requirements and the organization’s policies, and identify and address risks and opportunities;
2. Do: implement what was planned;
3. Check: monitor and (where applicable) measure processes and the resulting products and services against policies, objectives, requirements and planned activities, and report the results;
4. Act: take actions to improve performance, as necessary.

Table 3 Checklist for quality assurance (Matis 2011)

Bibliograpy

Matis, Nancy (2011) Quality Assurance in the translation workflow – A professional’s testimony In: Ilse Depraetere (Ed.), Perspectives on Translation Quality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 147-159.

Mertin, Elvira (2006) Prozessorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement im Dienstleistungsbereich Übersetzen.  Leipziger Studien zur angewandten Linguistik und  Translatologie. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. (pp. 259-349)

ISO 9001:2015(E)

Activity 3

The project manager should also draw a quality assurance (QA) plan, which consists in ‘evaluating overall project performance on a regular basis to provide confidence that the project will satisfy the relevant quality standards’ (PMI, 2000: 190). These standards differ from one client to another and even from one project to another, so the project manager has to ensure she draws a quality plan that is consistent with clients’ definition of quality (what is a critical error for them, for example) and that addresses their needs.

WORKSHEET

Activity 1 Quality management activities

Discuss in small groups (2-3) where and how quality management activities take place in the stages of the translation workflow[5] (Table 1). List the activities and their intended results in Table 2 (Quality management activities).

Figure 2: Translation workflow (© ISO17100, 2015)

Table: Quality Management Activities and Results

Activity 2 Validation of quality management activities

Carry out research with the aim to validate your hypothesis about the quality management activities and their results (Table 2). Correct the statements in the table above according to the results of your research.

Activity 3 Quality management plan

Draw in small groups (2-3) a quality assurance plan for the following translation request: A client wants his/her website to be translated into English, which should be delivered in 20 days.

Discuss / compare your quality management plan with another group – share the results of your discussion with the whole group.

Figure 1. The three dimensions of quality (Abdallah 2007) 5

Figure 2: Translation workflow (© ISO17100, 2015) 33

List of tables

Table 1: List of metrics, error types and features (Martínez-Mateo 2014) 16

Table 2: SAE J2450 Translation Quality Metric. © SAE J2450, Committee. 16

Table 3 Checklist for quality assurance (Matis 2011) 32

Abdallah, Kristiina. (2007). „Tekstittamisen laatu – mita se oikein on? [Subtitling quality – what

is it?].” In Olennaisen äärellä. Johdatus audiovisuaaliseen kääntämiseen [Introduction to

audiovisual translation], ed. by R. Oittinen and T. Tuominen, 272–293. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.

Abdallah, K. (2012). Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on Agency, Quality and Ethics. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.

Angelelli, Holly E (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability - Defining the construct IN : Claudia V. Angelelli, Holly E. Jacobson (eds.) (2009). Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XIV. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 386 pp.

Colina, S. (2009). “Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to Translation Quality Evaluation.” Target 21 (2): 235-264

Colina, S. (2008). “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach.” The Translator 14 (1): 97–134.

Conde Ruano, T. (2012). “Quality and Quantity in Translation Evaluation: A Starting Point.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 67–80.

Dróth J. (2011). Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában, FORDÍTÁSTUDOMÁNY 13: (2) pp. 5-36.

Dunne, K. J. (2011). From vicious to virtuous cycle: Customer-focused translation quality management using ISO 9001 principles and Agile methodologies. In: Translation and Localization Project Management: The Art of the Possible, edited by Keiran J. Dunne and Elena S. Dunne, 153–187. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dunne, K. J. (2012). The industrialization of translation: Causes, consequences and challenges. In:  Translation Spaces 1 (1): 143-168 (26)

Fleury, F. (2009). Was erwarten Kunden von Übersetzungsanbietern? Kundenanforderungen im Wandel [What do clients expect from translation providers? Client expectations in transformation]. In W. Baur & S. Kalina (Eds.), Übersetzen in die Zukunft. Herausforderungen der Globalisierung für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer [Translating into the future. Globalization and challenges for interpreters and translators] (pp. 60–65). Berlin, Germany: Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer.

Gouadec, D. (2010). Quality in translation. In Y. Gambier, L. van Doorslaer (eds.) Handbook of Translation Studies, volume 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gouadec, D. (2010). “Quality in Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 270–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Havumetsä, N. (2012). The client factor: A study of clients’ expectations concerning non-literary translators and the quality of non-literary translations (PhD thesis). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tubingen: Narr.

House, J. (2001). “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description Versus Social Evaluation.”

Meta 46 (2): 149–68.

Hurtado Albir, A. (2015). The Acquisition of Translation Competence. Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Translator Training. Meta, 60(2), 256–280.

ISO/AWI 21999 Translation quality assurance and assessment - Models and metrics

ISO 9100: 2015 Quality management systems ― Requirements

ISO 17100:2015 Translation services — Requirements for translation services

Jaaskelainen, R. (2016). Quality and translation process research In: Reembedding Translation Process Research Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 89-106

Jiménez Crespo, Miguel Angel. 2009. “The Evaluation of Pragmatic and Functionalist Aspects in Localization: Towards a Holistic Approach to Quality Assurance”. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 1: 60-93.

Koponen, M. (2015). "How to teach machine translation post-editing? Experiences from a post-editing course." Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP4), 2-15.

Lauscher, S. (2000). “Translation Quality-assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?” The Translator 6 (2): 149–168.

Lommel A. (2018). Translation Quality Standards In: Proceedings of AMTA 2018 Workshop: The Role of Authoritative Standards in the MT Environment. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W18-2005 

Louise Brunette (2000). Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment, The Translator, 6:2, 169-182

Martínez-Mateo, R. (2014). A deeper look into metrics for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA): A case study. Miscelanea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 49, 73-93.

Matis, Nancy (2011) Quality Assurance in the translation workflow – A professional’s testimony In: Ilse Depraetere (Ed.), Perspectives on Translation Quality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 147-159.

Mertin, Elvira. 2006. Prozessorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement im Dienstleistungsbereich Übersetzen.

Leipzig: Peter Lang.

Mossop, Brian (2014). Revising and editing for translators. Routledge.

Muñoz, M., R. (Ed). (2016). Reembedding translation process research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Nord, Christiane. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

O’Brien, Sharon. (2012). “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation”. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation 17. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue17/art_obrien.php

Preciso Language Services (2015). What is a “quality” translation? https://www.precisolanguage.com/2015/09/what-is-a-quality-translation/

Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended Translation: A Socio-cognitive Research

Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45.

Risku, Hanna; Pein-Weber, Christina & Milosevic, Jelena (2016). „The task of the translator”: Comparing the Views of the Client and the Translator. International Journal of Communication (IJoC), 989–1008.

SAE J2450 Translation Quality Metric

Schaffner, C. (2001). Translation and Quality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Schmitt, Peter A. (2016). Handbuch Technisches Übersetzen. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.

Schmitt, Peter A. (2017). Handbuch Technisches Übersetzen. Zweite, aktualisierte Auflage. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.

Secâra, Alina. (2005). Translation Evaluation – a State of the Art Survey. eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop Proceedings. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds Press: 39-44.

Sobotka, E. (2000). Translationsaufträge aus Kundensicht [Translation assignments from the client perspective]. In M. Kadric, K. Kaindl, & F. Pöchhacker (Eds.), Übersetzungswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag [Translation studies. Commemorative publication in honor of Mary Snell-Hornby on her 60th birthday] (pp. 353–362). Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.

Soloviev, Kirill (2017) Quality as a Tool and Tools for Quality (EU Translation Workshop) https://ec.europa.eu/estonia/sites/estonia/files/kirill_soloviev_quality_as_a_tool_and_tools_for_quality.pdf

Suokas, Juho. (2014). “Nothing freeze-dried.” Testing Usability Evaluation Methods with the Finnish

Translation of The Guitar Handbook. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Eastern

Finland, English language and translation.

Straub, D. (2012). Studie Einkauf von Übersetzungsdienstleistungen [Translation services purchasing study]. Retrieved from http://www.tekom.de/upload/alg/tekom_Studie_Uebersetzungsqualitaet.pdf

TAUS (2010). MT Post-editing Guidelines https://www.taus.net/academy/best-practices/postedit-best-practices/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines  

Translation Quality Assurance Tools © Copyright by Technolex Translation Studio: 

https://www.technolex-translations.com/articles/instrumenty-kontrolya-kachestva-perevoda.html  

Zachar V. (2011). A képesítőfordítások értékelési szempontjai – ELTE BTK Fordító és Tolmácsképző Tanszék. Elhangzott: Fordítások értékelése a szakfordítóképzésben és a fordítói munka világában. Szent István Egyetem, Gödöllő, 2011. január 21.