The Role of Textual Function in Translation quality assessment (TQA)

The essence of translation lies in the preservation of "meaning" across two languages. There are three aspects to this meaning: semantic, textual and pragmatic such that translation may be defined as the replacement of a text in the SL by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the TL. In this definition of translation the term "equivalent" is the key term, and the concept of equivalence is taken to be the fundamental criterion of translation quality. Thus an adequate translation text is a semantically and pragmatically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence it is posited that the translation text has a function equivalent to that of its source text.

Function can be divided into two main groups:

1) Cognitive-referential (also known as ideational or informative) which is content based and reveals facts about objects and realities.

2) Non-cognitive (also known as emotive-expressive, interaction- or person-oriented) which is form focused and adopts perspective of ST author.

The resultant two broad functional categories are useful for providing convenient labels for the two components of a text's function, which are always co-presented. The notions of "ideational" and "interpersonal" functions proposed by Halliday (1973) are also applied alternatively for these two branches. Considering the above classifications, the function of a text can be defined as the application or use which the text has in the context of a particular situation. In order to characterize the function precisely and establish functional equivalence between ST and TT, the ST has to be analyzed first in detail, such that the equivalence which is sought for TT can be stated clearly. The situational dimensions and linguistic materials (syntactic, lexical and textual) are then considered to be the means by which the text's function is determined or realized. By using situational dimensions for opening up the ST, a particular textual profile is obtained for the ST which characterizes the function of the text and a norm against which the quality of the text is to be measured. Therefore, the degree to which TT's textual profile and function match or don't match ST's is the degree to which TT is more or less adequate in quality.

To analyze the discussion of textual function as a necessary factor in TQA more clearly, it can be concluded from the above mentioned statements that TQA, like language itself, has two basic functions, an ideational and interpersonal function. The first, which is mostly regarded as the primary one, refers to linguistic-textual analysis, description, explanation, and comparison, and it is also based on empirical research and on professional knowledge of linguistic structures and norms of language use. The second one refers to value judgments, social, interpersonal and ethical questions of socio-political and socio-psychological relevance, ideological stance or individual persuasion. Without the first, the second is useless, in other words, to judge is easy, to understand less so. In other words, in TQA we have to make explicit the grounds for our judgment basing it on a theoretically sound and argued set of inter-subjectively verifiable set of procedures. A detailed analysis of the "hows" and the "whys" of a translated text (i.e., its linguistic forms and functions) in comparison with the original form from which it is derived, is the descriptive foundation for any valid, and argued assessment of whether, how, and to what degree a given translation can be taken to be more or less adequate in quality. Clearly, this means recognizing the inevitable subjective part of any TQA by a human evaluator. However, this recognition does not invalidate the objective part of the assessment; it merely reinforces its necessity.