Quality Standards in Translation

Introduction 

The term standard may be defined as a document created by consensus and validated by a recognized body that offers guidelines, rules, or characteristics for projects or whose results are intended to attain the optimum degree of order in a particular context (Kis, 2011). Quality standards usually benefit consumers in various industries since they ensure that the services provided will meet a specific pre-established criteria. Quality standards establish a sense of confidence among consumers because they assure them of the provision of reliable and secure services. Translation and Interpretation Services may be defined as institutions that are primarily involved in the translation of written material and the interpretation of speech from one different language to another. Consumers mainly seek translation services due to their inability to communicate in a particular language (Kis, 2011). To ensure the efficacy of the translation services, certain translation standards have been instituted. The quality standards in translation aim to evaluate the quality of translation using an objective criteria which ensure that linguists possess the required qualifications, follow the appropriate procedures and practices and that the end product meets the pre-established criteria. There are various types of translation standards; they include provider-oriented standards, process-oriented standards, and product-oriented standards. Provider-oriented standards aim to regulate the individual linguists who carry out the translation procedure. Product-oriented standards often regulate the quality of deliverables. Process-oriented standards seek to regulate the tools, practices, and procedures incorporated in the translation process (Varga, 2011). This paper seeks to discuss in details various quality standards in Translation.

Provider-Oriented Quality Standards in Translation

In the U.S, majority of LSPs are individual translators as opposed to translation organizations. A study carried out by the United States Census Bureau in the year 2007 revealed that the language services industry in the U.S consisted of 38,075 self-employed establishments and 1,975 translation organizations (Gelbukh et. al ., 2009). Provider-oriented standards usually apply to individual linguists who perform the translation process regardless of his employment status. The objective of the provider-oriented quality standard in translation is to ensure that every linguist possesses language proficiency in the respective language and competencies in the subject-matter and in translation. Language competency relates to the mastery of the target and source language and this could be achieved by acquiring a degree in a foreign language or years of residency in a nation where the source or target language is spoken. Subject-matter competency relates to the level of education or professional experience required in a particular field to translate industry-specific contents with terminology and language suitable for a specific context. Lastly, translation competency relates to the cognizance of the translation procedures, technologies, and techniques; this could be acquired through earning a degree in translation or receiving training in translation techniques and tools (Gelbukh et. al ., 2009). 

Generally, provider-oriented quality standards in translation involve the certification of individual linguists by a professional institution, academic institution, or government body. Professional institutions that certify linguists include Canadian Translators, Terminologists, and Interpreters, Council, American Translators Association, and Charted Institute of Linguists in the U.K. Academic accreditation institutions consists of non-degree professional certifications, for instance, Arizona State University’s Certificate in Translation (Krach et. al., 2012). Government-issued certifications include the U.S Foreign Service Language Test. Other certifications may be obtained in university as a bachelor’s or master’s degree. In the U.S, ATA certification examination is a largely recognized provider-oriented quality standard certification. To acquire the ATA certificate, a translator is required to attain a pre-determined score in a test on standardized translation. Certification provides a professional and independent proof of professional proficiency in a particular language to both the customer and the translator. The ATA certification test evaluates language competency via a written translation exam in a particular language pair, it examines an individual’s translation competency with a precise criteria of accuracy, and it analyses one’s competency in subject matter using test passages from certain disciplines (Krach et. al., 2012).

Product-Oriented Quality Standards in Translation

Product-oriented quality standards evaluates the quality of the end product of translation through a statistical evaluation of the number of errors per a definite amount of text (Drugan, 2013). Product-oriented standards include LISA (Localization Industry Standards Association) QA Model, Society of Automotive Engineering’s Translation Quality Metric (SAE J2450), and Franco Zearo and Riccardo Schiffino’s Translation Quality Index (Pym, 2014). SAE J2450 is applicable to translations involving automotive service data and it could be effected regardless of the procedure of translation such as translation by machines, computer-aided translation, and translation by humans, and source language. However, the SAE J2450 standard doesn’t address issues regarding style and therefore, it is considered unsuitable for assessing translations that incorporates style as a significant factor; this includes marketing materials and automobile owners’ manuals. The LISA QA Model consists of forms, customizable template sets, and reports that contain a list of assignments to be done by reviewers, error categories, and a pre-defined listing of metrics, weights, and severity levels utilized to assign a Fail or Pass grade to contents that are localized. The LISA QA Model is largely utilized by clients and LSPs to handle the quality assurance of localization assignments (Pym, 2014). Research indicate that approximately twenty percent of all organizations that performed localized testing of products utilized the LISA QA Model in the year 2006; this made it a largely-utilized QA metric in the industry of localization at that time. However, the QA metric has since been rendered dissolved and insolvent leading to the need for an advanced mechanism in the assessment of localized content. 

Franco Zaero and Riccardo Schiaffino outline how the Translation Quality Index, a quantitative quality evaluation tool, could be utilized in the counting of errors in random sampling of a translation to find its quality measure (William, 2009). The Translation Quality Index by Zearo and Schiffino categorizes translation errors of compliance, errors of from, and errors of meaning. Errors of meaning relates to the mistranslations or inaccuracies that are detected through comparing target text with the source text which could be major if the outcome involves a translation that differs significantly or considerably from the source, or could be minor if the translation’s meaning slightly varies. Errors of form refers to inaccuracies in the target language which could be detected by reviewing the target text separately from the source. Errors of compliance relates to a failure to comply with terminology guidelines or the project-specific style. Here, deviations from the instructions of the project, for instance, requests to apply glossaries or style guides are classified as errors despite the fact that the translation may be correct. TQI allocates a weight to each of the three forms of errors and it could be utilized in the calculation of a score that recapitulates the quality of a specific translation in a single value.

Process-Oriented Quality Standard in Translation

Process-oriented standards mainly centers on the practices and processes that are required to generate quality translation, for instance, terminology management, formatting, translation, project specification, editing, post-project review, quality control, and proof-reading and this makes them the most effective standards for evaluating LSPs (Rasinger, 2013). Process-oriented quality standards include EU standard EN 15038:2006, Chinese Standard GB/T19363.1, German Standard DIN 2345, Canadian Standard CAN/CGSB-131.10-2008, U.S. Standard ASTM F2575-06, Australian Standard ONORM D1200 and D1201, Italian Standard UNI 10574, and International Standard ISO 9001 (Schopp, 2007).

International Standard ISO 9001

The ISO 9000 standard series were initially drafted by the British Standard Institute; the standard series was then assumed by the International Organization for Standardization in the year 1987 (Krach et al, 2017). ISO 9001 outlines specific guidelines for the systems of quality management for any institution that needs to demonstrate the capacity to generate a product that achieves specific requirements. Before 2006, there were no quality standards structured for the localization and translation industry, ISO 9001 was, therefore, the quality standard used primarily to regulate LSPS globally and to date, many translation companies in the U.S are ISO 9001 certified. However, various researchers argue that ISO 9001 is a generic standard that is effective in all service and manufacturing industries as opposed to the translation industry since it doesn’t address procedures specific to the translation industry, for example, defining a terminology management, translation project, and editing (Hansen et al, 2009). In addition, other studies denote that the application of ISO 9001 standard to the translation industry could be problematic mainly because it puts pressure on the language service industry to implement quality management procedures structured for manufacturing industries that may not be suitable for the creative industry. In spite of these arguments majority of LSPs continue to be impelled to acquire ISO 9001 certification either at the expense of their customers’ persistence or an attempt to enhance their competitiveness in the market (Mende, 2016).

European Standard EN 15038:2006

The European Standard was promulgated by the European Committee for Standardization (Comite` European de Normalisation) in June 2006 (Hubscher et al, 2012). The aim of the standard is to elucidate the European Language Service organization and to offer LSPs a set of requirements and procedures for the quality provision of translation services. The standard specifies the fundamental terms relevant to the European Language Service and it describes the customer-LSP relationship, technical and human resources, service procedures, and quality and project management (Gouadec, 2007). The specified requirements of EN 15038:2006 in line with the technical and human resources include the need for linguists to depict linguistic proficiency in the target language and source language, technical competence, translating competence, cultural competence, and research competence. Revisers are also required to possess competencies, similar to those of translators in addition to some experience in translation. With regards to technical resources, EN 15038:2006 requires LSPs in the European countries to have access to the essential equipment for the effective implementation of translation assignments; this include requisite equipment for the retrieval, storage, archiving, disposal, and the confidential and safe handling of data and documents, the required communication equipment, and the access to media and information sources. The requirements of EN 15038:2006 with reference to quality and project management include the need for European LSPs to possess a documented system of quality management and this involves a statement on the objectives of quality management, monitoring procedures, procedures for quality correction, and the procedure for managing all materials and data acquired from the client (Gerzymisch, 2009). 

European LSPs ought to possess documentation on the available systems for the management of translation projects and this includes preparation procedures, assigning revisers, assigning reviewers and translators, monitoring consistency, issuing instructions, monitoring deadlines, maintaining contacts with the involved parties, monitoring consistency, and giving final delivery approvals. With reference to the relationship between clients and LSPs, EN 15038:2006 requires LSPs to display their documented processes for attending to inquiries, preparing quotations, evaluating project feasibility, recording payments, engaging in service agreements, and invoicing (Gelbukh, 2014). European LSPs are also required to display documented service processes that entail the revision and translation procedures under EN 15038:2006. Lastly, under EN 15038:2006, translators are required to address grammar, terminology, lexis, locale, translation purpose, effectiveness of the target group, and formatting in their translation responsibilities (Gambier et al, 2009). The European standard specifies that a reviser should revise every translation to ensure consistency in terminology, style, and register. European LSPs may verify their compliance with EN 15038:2006 through either self-certification or third-party certification. Self-certification simply requires the LSP to demonstrate or show a commitment to abide to the standard. Third-party certification demands that an inspection be performed by a certified body prior to the issuance of a certificate the certified body.

U.S Standard ASTM F2575-06

The U.S. Standard Guideline for Quality Assurance in Translation was established in 2006 as the U.S. Language Service industry’s first official regulatory guideline (Costa-Jussa et al, 2015). The aim of ASTM F2575-06 is to offer clients a structure for the procurement of translation services. ASTM F2575-06 does so by effectively outlining an introduction to translation ad this includes fundamental concepts and terms in the Language Service industry and by providing recommendation in the selection of LSP and a description for the distinct phases involved in the translation project. The definitions section of the U.S. standard offers an exhaustive explanation of the fundamental terminology utilized in the United States Language Services industry together with the discussion of every term. The standard also offers an introduction to translation and this targets persons with little to zero experience in the language service industry. ASTM F2575-06 offers recommendations for the selection of an LSP that incorporate guidelines for customers to assess their own requirements and a set important proficiencies to be considered. ASTM F2575-06 also outlines a description of important project phases such as the specifications phase, the post-project review phase, and the production phase. The specifications phase is structured to help the LSP and the client to ascertain the most effective, efficient, and reliable solution for a project translation and to develop reasonable expectations. Project specifications involve the purpose of the translation, parameters of the source text such as format, locale, and subject, parameters of target text, such as the translation purpose, delivery medium, and target audience locale, and the procedural parameters, for instance, the utilization of reference materials, project deadlines, translation memories, style guides, or glossaries. The production phase entails the steps required to perform the translation project in accordance to the specifications of the project. The production phase may include terminology management, formatting, quality control, editing, terminology management, proof-reading, and specifications agreement (Drugan, 2013). Lastly, the post-project review phase seeks to compare the project’s outcome to the original specifications.

Provider-oriented quality standards in translation administered by academic institutions, government organizations, and professional organizations are a significant resource for validating individual linguists but have no significance beyond examining individual translators. For instance, ATA certification is a significant tool that ensures that the competency of the translator is recognized and valued. Product-oriented standards, for instance, the LISA QA Model, TQI by Zearo and Schiaffino, and SAE J2450 are significant in the determination of the existence of errors in the products of translation under particular circumstances. However, the quantitative error evaluation procedure of product-oriented standards renders them insignificant for general evaluations of LSPs for various reasons. First, the methodology presumes that quality is equal to the absence of errors; this could be disadvantageous in numerous situations. Second, the assessment of errors can never be employed under the truly objective criteria since the tasked with scoring and counting error severity will inevitably employ some level of subjectivity when ascertaining the composition of an error or how to analyze a given error’s severity. Lastly, the results achieved from this procedure may be considered unreliable if the size of the sample is considered extremely small. Process-oriented quality standards in translation, for example, ASTM F2575-06, EN 15038:2006, and ISO 9001 offer important guidelines and effective practices for the translation projects. However, there isn’t any process-oriented standard structured specifically for the certification of the LSPs in the United States. For instance, the ISO 9001 Standard which is an empirical guideline for generic quality management frameworks has been disputed by numerous researchers due to the ineffectiveness in the translation industry. 

Conclusion

Provider-oriented quality standards of translations, therefore, provide various mechanisms for validating individual translators. Product-oriented standards are considered effective in the assessment of products of quality translation under certain circumstances and lastly, process-oriented standards offer important European model and appropriate practices recommended for the U.S Language Service Industry (Drugan, 2013).

References

Costa-jussà, M. R., & Farús, M. (2015). Towards human linguistic machine translation evaluation. Digital Scholarship In The Humanities , 157-166. doi:10.1093/llc/fqt065

Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Gambier, Y. (2009). Competencies for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication . Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/external_relations/universities/documents/emt _competences_translators_en.pdf 

Gelbukh, A. (n.d.). 2014 Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing [recurso electrónico]: 15th International Conference, CICLing 2014, Kathmandu, Nepal, April 6- 12, 2014, Proceedings, Part I.

Gerzymisch-Arbogast. (2009). Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A tribute to Daniel Gile . Benjamins.

Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a Profession . John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hansen, G.  (2008).  The speck in your brother's eye - the beam in your own: Quality management in translation and revision . In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisc-Arbogast (Eds.),  Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile  (pp. 255-280). Philidelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Benjamins Translation Library, No. 80

Mende, C. (2016, March). The new standard for translation services. tcWorld . Retrieved from http://www.tcworld.info/rss/article/a-new-standard-for-translation-services/

Hubscher-Davidson, S., & Borodo, M. (2012). Global trends in translator and interpreter training: Mediation and culture . Continuum.

Krach, S. K., McCreery, M. P., & Guerard, J. (2017). Cultural-linguistic test adaptations: Guidelines for selection, alteration, use, and review. School Psychology International , 38(1), 3-21.

Pastor, G. C. (2007). European quality standards for translation services. Multilingual , 18(3), 65- 72.

Pym, A. (2014). Status of the translation profession in the European Union . Anthem Press.

Rasinger, S. M. (2013). Quantitative Research in Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Schopp, Jürgen F. (2007). The European Translation Standard EN 15038 and its 

Terminology — A Mirror of Missing Professionalism? Retrieved from http://www.eleto.gr/download/Conferences/6th%20Conference/6th_26 -14 SchoppJurgenPaper_V03. pdf

Williams, M. (2009). Translation Quality Assessment. Mutatis Mutandis , 2 (1), 3–23.