Detecting Mistranslations Based on Logical Judgement: The Case of English-Kurdish Translation Test at the University Level*
Dr.Sabir Hasan Rasul
Department of English - University of Human Development, KRG, Iraq
This paper explores the possibility of detecting mistranslations based on logical judgement. The paper examines translations carried out from English into Kurdish by translation trainees at the university level. The importance of this method of translation assessment is that the target text (TT) alone is sufficient for the purpose of identifying mistranslations based on logical judgement, without any reference to the source text (ST). The logical judgement can be based on an established fact, general knowledge or common sense. This model of translation assessment is particularly important in translation settings where the process of translation revision is carried out on the translation product alone due to time constraints, such as in the case of journalistic translation. The model can be crucial for translation students and translation examiners alike. On the one hand, it will help translation students to avoid mistranslations that run against logic. On the other hand, it will help translation examiners to detect such mistranslations if and when they occur in an actual translation.
Aranda, L. (2013). ‘Teaching Spanish-English Translation in Hawaii’. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning, 4, 3–11.
Berner, R. T. (2009). Writing Literary Features. New York and London: Routledge.
Collombat, I. (2006). ‘General Knowledge: A Basic Translation Problem Solving Tool’. Translation Studies in the New Millennium: An International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 4, 59–66.
Colina, Sonia (2008). ‘Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach’, The Translator 14(1), 97–134.
Delisle, J., Lee-Jahnke, H., Cormier, M. C. & Albrecht, J. (1999). Translation Terminology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gonzalez-Davies, M. (2004). Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom: Activities, Tasks and Project. John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Hansen, G. (2010). Translation ‘errors’. In Gambier, Y. & van Doorslaer, L. (Ed.) Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 385–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hogan, J. & Trumpbour, J. (2013). The Press and Political Processes in Contemporary Iraqi Kurdistan. The Law School at Harvard University. [Online]. [Accessed 20 April 2015]. Retrieved February 10, 2016 from: http://kurdishcongress.org/data/upimages/subfolders/PDF/hogan-trumpbour-2013-the-press-and-political-processes-in-contemporary-iraqi-kurdistan-final-report.pdf
House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. (3rd ed.) London and New York: Routledge.
Klaudy, K. (2009). Explicitation. In: Baker, M. & Saldanha, G. (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 104-108) (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Kretzmann, N. & Stump, E. (1988). The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts. Volume 1: Logic and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lauscher, S. (2000). ‘Translation Quality Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?’. The Translator 6(2), 149-168.
Nord, Christiane (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Popović, M. (2011). ‘Hjerson: An Open Source Tool for Automatic Error Classification of Machine Translation Output’. In The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 96, pp. 59-68.
Rasul, S. H. (2015). Procedures and Strategies in English-Kurdish Translation of Written Media Discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rothe-Neves, Rui (2002). ‘Translation Quality Assessment for Research Purposes: An Empirical Approach’, Cadernos de Tradução, 2, pp.113–31.
Soanes, C. & Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2011). Concise Oxford English Dictionary. (12th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waddington, C. (2001). ‘Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity’, Meta: Translators’ Journal 46(2): 311–325.
Williams, M. (2001). ‘The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment.’ Meta: Translators’ Journal 46(2): 326–44.
The websites from which the news reports were collected: