Scribd
Upload
710 views

House's Model of Translation Quality Assessment

House's model of translation quality assessment is based on pragmatic theories of language use and functional and contextual views of language. It uses functional equivalence as the yardstick for an appropriate translation, achieved through genre and register parameters. The evaluation procedure consists of establishing source and target text profiles, comparing them, and providing a statement of quality listing matches, mismatches and translation strategy.

Uploaded by

yasameen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
710 views

House's Model of Translation Quality Assessment

House's model of translation quality assessment is based on pragmatic theories of language use and functional and contextual views of language. It uses functional equivalence as the yardstick for an appropriate translation, achieved through genre and register parameters. The evaluation procedure consists of establishing source and target text profiles, comparing them, and providing a statement of quality listing matches, mismatches and translation strategy.

Uploaded by

yasameen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

House’s model of translation quality

assessment
House’s (1977/1981 and1997) model of
translation quality assessment is based on
pragmatic theories of language use, specifically
speech act theory, and functional and contextual
views of language, and textual considerations.
Her functional equivalence serves as the
yardstick for a ‘good’, or ‘appro​priate
translation’, which is achieved through two
parameters: genre and register (House 1997: 31-
32

Following Halliday, House subdivides register


into field, tenor and mode and correlates it with
lexical, syntactic and textual elements (ibid 42).
Her evaluation procedure consists of: (1)
establishing a source text profile along the
operational-enabling parameters against which
the target text is measured; (2) establishing the
function of the source text; (3) comparing source
text profile with target text;

and (4) providing a statement of quality that lists,


in addition to errors, the matches and
mismatches along the param​eters of genre and
Loading…
register, and comments on the translation
strategy (ibid: 42).

In evaluating the relative match between ST and


TT, House makes a distinction between
dimensional mismatches or covertly erroneous
errors, and non-dimensional mismatches or
overtly erroneous errors, the latter type of errors
comprising both mismatches of the denotative
meanings of ST and TT elements and breaches of
the target language system.

On the basis of the results of her study, House


distinguishes between overt translation and
covert translation. An overt translation is called
for whenever anLoading…
ST is source-culture linked and
has independent status in the source language
community

A covert translation on the other hand is called


for whenever an ST is not source-culture linked,
and does not have independent status in the
source language community; a covert translation
is not marked pragmatically as a TT of an ST,
but might equally well have been created in its
own right (House 1981, 189-194).

In cases where functional equivalence cannot be


achieved, House suggests a second level function
to be posited as a criterion for adequate
translation.

However, Lauscher, (2000), quoting van Dijik


and Kintsch, states that House’s functional
equivalence seems problematic because
interpretation of texts is not only linguistic but is
also subject to influences which are cultural,
social and individual, and lie outside the text
(ibid: 154).

You might also like