quality assessment translation museum texts (2010)

8/11/2019 Quality Assessment Translation Museum Texts (2010)

1/19

This article was downloaded by: [88.15.196.196]On: 09 October 2014, At: 05:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives: Studies in TranslatologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Quality assessment for the translation

of museum texts: application of a

systemic functional modelChengzhi Jiang

a

aCity University of Hong Kong, Department of Chinese,Translation and Linguistics , Kowloon, Hong Kong

Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article:Chengzhi Jiang (2010) Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts:

application of a systemic functional model, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 18:2, 109-126,

DOI: 10.1080/09076761003678734

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09076761003678734http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20


2/19

Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts: application of asystemic functional model

Chengzhi Jiang*

City University of Hong Kong, Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, Kowloon,Hong Kong

(Received 15 June 2009; final version received 5 November 2009)

This article seeks to explore the way in which the notions of systemic andfunctional can better serve for the application of a translation quality assessment(TQA) model to the studies on the translation of museum texts. Grounded in thetheoretical integration of translation studies and museum studies, the presentresearch has shown through the redesign of the assessment procedure for themodel that the judgment of the translation quality requires empirical analysesbased upon both interlingual and intertextual comparison. Our objective istwofold. First, through investigating the notions such as quality, assessment andsystemic in their own right, we are able to observe the weaknesses that previousmodels have. Second, we intend the model proposed here to be taken as a part ofthe effort to rethink the relationship between bilingual texts displayed in a museumenvironment, or in an online museum.

Keywords:translation quality assessment; systemic functional linguistics; museum

texts

Introduction

Complaints about the quality of translated texts in museums (e.g. Bal, 2001; Neather,

2005a; Zuo, 2003) have begun to highlight the need for research on translation

quality assessment (TQA),1 a sub-area of translation criticism whose aim is to

improve translation and evaluation practices. There are a number of influences that

have brought about this increased concern for quality. The most obvious influence is

that, the museum being an institution in the service of society,2 the translation

quality of museum texts naturally attracts much attention when most public serviceshave come under increased public scrutiny (Dickens, 1994, p. 1). Another influence,

the result of the appearance of changes in values, organizational structure and

operational methods over the past two decades in museum studies (Hooper-

Greenhill, 1994, pp. 137145), is that greater importance has been attached to the

concern for customer/end-user satisfaction. This is more or less conditioned by the

quality of translated texts, a crucial factor for a museum to fulfill its cross-cultural

role (Neather, 2005a, p. 2).

Considerations of the translation quality of museum texts first touch on the relation

between museums and texts, which has been understood on two levels. The first is that

*Email: [email protected].

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2010, 109126

ISSN 0907-676X print/ISSN 1747-6623 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09076761003678734

http://www.informaworld.com
http://www.informaworld.com/http://www.informaworld.com/


3/19

of texts in museums such as labels, extended texts, wall texts, catalogue entries and

brochure descriptions. Assuming their role as an intrinsic part of a museums

communication toolkit, they are the language produced by the institution for the

consumption of visitors. The second is that of museums as text: the museum as a whole

creates meaning and operates as a text, which communicates to and with its public.

Meanings produced on the two levels are called first-order meanings and second-

order meanings (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152). The former depends on the organization of a

verbal sign system, whereas the latter is, by nature, multisystem-oriented.

Against this background, Neather (2005b) is mainly concerned with the

translation quality of texts in museums in order to explore the interaction of

differing semiotic systems within the museum environment in general, and the

influence of such interaction upon the meaning-making procedure in particular.

Sturge (2007, p. 3), whose research focus is on how a museum functions as a

rendition/representation of reality, further argues that museum text as a genre of

ethnographic representation adds an important dimension to our understanding of

translation as a practice of representing other peoples words, lives and beliefs

(Sturge, 2007, p. 3). In other words, viewing museums as renditions/translations is not

a matter of evaluating faithfulness, but a matter of detecting their workings in the

world as text-like artefacts themselves, as well as their impacts back onto the places

where their artefacts were made (Sturge, 2007, p. 129).

Efforts made by the two scholars prove to be insightful. As the assessment

activity concerning museum as text has to involve non-verbal semiotic systems and

a variety of different aspects in museum studies, the present research only addresses

the issue of the translation quality of texts in museums, the level that mainly relies

on the use of language. It will first reflect on the defining properties of notions such

as quality and assessment, and approach problems that existing assessment modelsconfront. It then proceeds to focus in more detail on the way in which translation

quality may be appropriately assessed. Having suggested tentative solutions to the

problems of existing models, it seeks to propose a systemic functional TQA model,

which may be applied to evaluate the translation quality of museum text translation.

Literature review

Terms revisited

Quality is the first notion to be reflected upon. A pragmatic interpretation of quality

is the non-inferiority, superiority or usefulness of something. The definitions of quality

differ depending on the discipline taking interest in the concept and in the ultimate

beneficiary. In most general senses of user-based perspective, quality denotes meeting

the customer/end-user requirements (Oakland, 2004, p. 5). That is to say, quality

refers to fitness for purpose or use, or the totality of features and characteristics of

a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs (quoted

in Oakland, 2004, p. 5). Such a definition shows that quality per seis a relative notion,

having no specific meaning unless related to a specific function and/or object.

Quality being a perceptual, conditional and somewhat subjective attribute, the

sense of translation quality has developed over time. According to Hourguelin, in

the contemporary period the appreciation of translation quality has focused on asearch for more objective assessment models (discussed in Melis & Albir, 2001,

p. 273). The first volume worth noting is Quality in translation, the proceedings of the

110 C. Jiang


4/19

1959 FIT Congress, in which translation quality is linked either to the effect the

translation is attempting to produce (Zilahy, 1963, p. 285) or to the purpose for which

the translation is intended (Kandler, 1963, p. 295). Fifty years later, translation

quality is now understood quite differently: Fan (1990, p. 43) advocates a statistical

method for making a quantitative assessment of the quality of a translation.

Lauscher (2000, p. 164) argues that: [T]ranslation quality assessment and the

judgment of translations are a matter of communication, co-operation and consent.

Colina (2008, p. 103) claims that a general comprehensive approach to evaluation

needs to address many components of quality. Among all these different

approaches, the context of specific situation has remained the only element that

gains wide emphasis in defining and assessing translation quality (Maier 2000,

p. 140). In the meanwhile, existing TQA models are often criticized either for

avoiding the subject of quality or for their inability to determine the nature of

quality (Lauscher, 2000, p. 150).

Therefore, it has been gradually accepted that translation quality is a function-

oriented notion on the one hand, and a conditional and complex reality on the other.It is function-oriented, because there are no absolute standards to measure

translation quality, but only more or less appropriate translations for the purpose

for which they are intended or expected. Appropriateness is therefore a function of

being able to interpret and understand the subtleties of a wide variety of socio-

cultural contexts. It is conditional and complex because what is translated, how a text

is translated and to what extent a translated text is appropriate or inappropriate

should be judged by members of a target society according to a set of prevailing

textual conventions and cultural norms within a specific field. Otherwise, the notion

is still vulnerable. For example, the functional approach holds that translation should

be commensurate with the value attached to an original which is used for the samepurpose and with the importance attributed to it in the process of communication

(Sager, 1996, p. 121). However, this idea is found problematic in news translation

because deviations from the source text (ST) content may occur according to ethics

and policies in the target environment. In many cases, the target text (TT) may not

have the same purpose or function as the ST does, but it may work well in current

society (Hajmohammadi, 2005, p. 216). Sometimes, this also holds true for the

translation of museum texts.

Another conceptual confusion is caused by scholars ignorance of the multi-

valence of function. What is neglected is the distinction between expected function

and realized function. The function of the TT may be either the one intended or

designed by the translator; or the one expected by the target reader. Thus the

function of the TT, if not properly defined, is in most cases uncertain and changeable.

Our research for the function of the TT aims to describe or explaine why a feature

survives selection and how it works in the target context. In other words, we are

interested in translation quality primarily in order to identify deviations and

similarities between the ST, the TT and texts of the same type in both source and

target languages, on the basis of lexico-grammatical and/or generic comparison. The

intertextual relations and the feature of the TT displayed in such intertextual

relations may be helpful to reveal the performance of translation (in the target

context), rather than the competence of the translator.

The last, yet not less important, notion to be revisited is assessment. Intranslation studies, assessment is simply regarded as an unavoidably subjective

(Maier, 2000, p. 137) matter of measuring in order to judge (Melis & Albir, 2001,

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 111


5/19

p. 275). Practically, assessment as a process of documenting (usually in measurable

terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs) is the purposive application of

evidence-based thinking to the definition and clarification of social problems, and to

the identification of what is needed to resolve them and of the way in which and the

extent to which problems have been resolved (DePoy & Gilson, 2003, p. 15). It

bridges the gap between theory and practice. In this article, assessing translations

refers to the activity of examining the TTs generalized characteristics and checking

its performance in the target context.

A brief review of existing models

Studies on TQA enjoy a long history with differing traditions. Heuristic and

atheoretical, earlier methods to assess translation quality are subject to the assessors

personal knowledge, intuitive impression, individual interest and artistic competence.

Literary or philosophical thoughts are often applied as a theoretical resource of

translation criticism and translation quality assessment, such as Bermans critique-productive model (1992, pp. 121128). With all the insights they can provide, they

nevertheless depend greatly on a literary/philosophical cognitive framework and

appear to be more or less subjective. With the development of translation as a

profession, the quantitative approach has caught the attention of scholars. Models of

this approach, especially those for management or business purposes (e.g. SICAL,

CTIC, J2450 and SEPT)3, generally focus on identifying and rating errors and

categorizing error seriousness. They are for the most part microtextual, with

assessment operating at the subsentence level (Williams, 2004, pp. 1718). Besides

these quantitative approaches, we also see criterion-referenced models. For example,

Larose pays more attention to the translators intention. However, they are deficientin criteria explicit and verified (e.g. Laroses teleological model and Nidas response-

oriented, behavioral approach). The complexity of translation has proved to be a

constant challenge for these models (see Williams, 2004).

In recent decades, increasing attempts have been made to incorporate the

Hallidayan theory into the area of translation criticism in general and TQA in

particular. Bensoussan and Rosenhouse (1990, p. 71) argue that mistranslations on the

word level do not automatically lead to misinterpretations of the frame or schema.

Such a view is echoed by van Leuven-Zwart (1990, pp. 228229), who points out

that the shift[s] in meaning accounting for many unsatisfactory ratings in

professional translation should perhaps not be considered as errors at all, given that

equivalence is not feasible. Baker (1992, pp. 171172) has suggested that translators

tend to resolve the tension between word order and communicative function in

translation by abandon[ing] the thematic organization of the source text in favor of

adhering to the syntactic constraints of the target text; her study naturally pays extra

attention to thematic, information structures and cohesion. Hatim and Mason (1997)

distinguish between pragmatic dimension and semiotic dimension and take into

account the translation of ideational and interpersonal functions (Munday, 2001,

p. 99). It is a top-down approach, theoretically valid, but more difficult to follow

(House, 1997, p. 20). Zhu (1996, p. 339) integrates functional grammar and speech act

theory to put translation comparison on a more definite as well as comprehensive

basis while offering adequate flexibility to meet diverse demands in particular cases.House states that her model (1977/1997/2001/2006) provides for the analysis and

comparison of an original and its translation on three different levels: the levels of

112 C. Jiang


6/19

Language/Text, Register (Field, Mode and Tenor) and Genre (2001, p. 247). She

links context, text and word level through the concept of text function, a semantic-

pragmatic category, which can be identified by theme-rheme structure, linguistic

means of expressing coherence, etc. (Lauscher, 2000, p. 153; House, 1997, pp. 4345).

Functional, pragmatic equivalence in the model is most appropriate for describing

relations between original and translation because the model attempts to explicate

the way meaning can be reconstructed across two different contexts: its contextually

embedded source text and the (potential) recipients communicative-contextual

conditions (House, 2006, pp. 8889). In this sense, translation becomes the

recontextualization of a text in L1 by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent

text in L2 (House, 2001, p. 247). Similar to many philosophers and linguists (e.g.

Jakobson, 1960; Buhler, 1965; cited in House, 2006), House (2006, p. 89) holds that

text function is not identical with functions of language. It is the pragmatic

application of the text in a particular context, which is encapsulated in the text itself

since there is a systemic relationship between the social environment and the

functional organization of language-in-text (House, 2006, p. 89).

Problems and tentative solutions

Among all the reviewed models in the previous section, Houses research receives most

attention; however, discussions on her model often play down her basic concern: the

nature of translation, which involves the consequences views about these relationships

have for determining the borders between a translation and other textual operations

(House, 1997, p. 1). This point hints at delimitation between a translation and other

textual operations on the one hand, and leaves the criterion of such delimitation quite

vague on the other. The confusion makes it difficult to judge where translation endsand where non-translation begins, especially when her model is applied to a field such

as the translation of verbal texts in museums, where translation and non-translation

are sometimes subliminally integrated as a whole. To overcome such a problem, some

functional models define translation as any target text that can fulfill a function in the

target culture (Lauscher, 2000, p. 159). In our research, translation is understood in

association with bilingual writing or bilingual representation. Our analysis is mainly

based upon the translation of verbal texts in museums, with necessary consideration of

the interaction of semiotic signs in bilingual representation, such as media-supported

interlingual and genre-based intertextual translation.

A further thought from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics may

show that her model benefits from the notion of function by integrating it with

elements from text linguistics and discourse analysis, but what remains inadequate is

her exploration of language as system in her model in particular and in translation

studies in general. Methodologically speaking, systemic linguistics seeks verification

of its hypotheses by means of observations from texts and by means of statistical

techniques (Berry, 1975/77: 30). The notion systemic is not the same as systematic

(Halliday, 1969, p. 180). Even though her model provides a basis for systematic

comparison (Gutt, 2000, p. 13), Houses descriptive-explanatory quality statement

ultimately sounds like an impressionistic comment plus personal judgment. System in

systemic functional linguistics is a set of options with an entry condition, and the

system network is able to specify what are the possible combinations of choices thatcould be made (Halliday, 1969, pp. 180181). Working more closely with systemic

linguistics has to relate the actual choices of an individual user (i.e. translator) in



7/19

each linguistic performance to what s/he could have chosen (i.e. their potential

choices) in the same situation-conditioned process. Both actual choices and

potential choices constitute the linguistic resources retrievable and actually retrieved

from the users individual subsystem on that particular occasion (Zhu, 2002, p. 29).

In this sense, the translators actual combinations of choices are able to mirror both

interlingual and intertextual factors, yet Houses model does not pay enough

attention to the significance of intertextual influences upon the translation.

Here, we are interested in describing two dimensions of language use in translation.

On the first dimension, we describe the interlingual transfer of linguistic system to

show the choices translators can make. On the second, we describe, with reference

to intertextual factors, how translation functions in target social contexts. This

approach naturally raises a further question: how to describe? Failure to answer this

question will result in a lack of convincingness in the description concerned. Actually,

no matter in language studies or in translation studies, any linguistic theory itself is no

substitute for descriptive insight (Halliday, 1964, p. 39). Applicable description, on the

level of technique, can be acheived by using quantitative methods to test internal

predictions based on proportionality (Halliday, 2007, p. xxv). In this case, our

description will be based upon an STTT lexico-grammatical comparison and walk

down along the scale of delicacy to reach a depth of detail (Halliday, 2007, p. 41).

Inadequacies of the functional model are also discussed by Colina (2008, p. 102),

who points out that a difficulty with textual and pragmatic approaches (Houses

model included) is that they do not explicate how evaluation is to proceed after the

analysis of the source or the target text is completed or, in the case of functionalism,

after the function of the translation has been established as the guiding criteria in

making translation decisions. This brings to light once-ignored vulnerabilities in the

procedure of Houses assessment: first, the distinction between covert and overttranslation is in itself too rough to reflect the complexity and multiplicity of

translation phenomena in different concrete situations (e.g. Hatim, 1998, p. 95); and

second, neither register analysis nor function categorization is further supported by

detailed systemic data analysis.

Towards a systemic functional model: a proposal

Systemic functional linguistics: a juncture of museum studies and translation studies

In the present article, the proposed assessment model is designed to dispose of the

translation of texts in museums. We adopt Ravellis view to consider the meaning-

making mechanism in museums. Meaning-making accordingly occurs in museums on

two levels: first-order meanings and second-order meanings (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152).

The first-order meanings are those made through the systems of language and of a

range of design elements such as pathways, framing, placement, lighting and special

layout. The first-order meanings of language are located in three subcategories:

organizational meanings, interactional meanings and representative meanings.

Organizational meanings are realized through a selection of (grammatical) theme,

generic structure and details of language complexity. Interactional meanings are

realized through speech function, type of voice, address, mood and modality.

Representational meanings are realized through the selection and interrelation ofprocess type, participant role and circumstances (Ravelli, 2006, p. 152). They

perfectly match with the three language functions put forward by Halliday.

114 C. Jiang


8/19

Figure 1 keeps its contents necessarily brief, but it is able to indicate the way in

which language studies and museum studies can combine and contribute to the

research at issue because the boxes in the table demonstrate the sort of features that

are closely relevant. The table remains partial.4 The left-hand column can be

extended to connect with second-order meanings, which match well with the level of

museum as text and are constructed in exhibitions and institutions as a whole. The

right-hand column can be extended to connect with the metafunction system of

the target text. Consequently, systemic functional linguistics becomes the juncture

between museum studies and translation studies. Considering this, the proposed

TQA model can be called a systemic functional model.

Assessment procedure

The value of systemic functional linguistics derives at once from its stress on

language function and its attempt to develop both a theory about language as social

process and an analytical methodology which permits the detailed and systemicdescription of language patterns (Eggins, 2004, p. 21; italics in original). Even

though the functional approach to a TQA model may better conform to the nature of

key notions such as quality and assessment, existing assessment models

illuminated by Hallidays functional grammar and/or German functionalist theory

fail to keep an appropriate balance between theoretical complexity and applicable

subtlety (Colina, 2008, p. 103). They usually emphasize the applicability of one aspect

First-order meanings as

resources

(towards second-order meanings

in museum studies)

Source text as

resource

(towards target

text in translation

studies)

Design (Source)

Language

Communication

framework in

museum

Metafunctions

in SFLa

(Source)

Language

Pathways

Framing

Placement

Generic structure

Theme

Complexity

Organizational

meaning

Textual

meaning

(mode)

Theme/rheme

system

Conjunctive

relations

Reference

Lexical relations

Interactive

potential

affect

Speech function

Voice, Address,

Mood, Modality

Interactional

meaning

Interpersonal

meaning

(tenor)

Mood and

modality

(modalization

and modulation)

Selection

Framing

Coding

orientation

aSystemic functional linguistics.

Process type

Participant roles

Circumstance

Representational

meaning

Ideational

meaning

(field)

Transitivity

system

Logical relation

Figure 1. Meaning-making system in museum studies and language studies.



9/19

or subset of systemic functional linguistics, but ignore the significance of using

systemic functional linguistics as a whole.

To overcome this weakness, a systemic functional TQA model is expected to be

sophisticated enough to mirror the complexity of translation. In this case, an effective

application of such a model to museum translation is determined by two elements: a

specific view (on the relationship between the ST and the TT) and an analytical tool

(enabling the assessor to compare the ST and the TT) (Hulst, 1997, p. 102). The two

elements are also indispensable for a well-designed procedure (i.e. an assessment

procedure should be substantially reinforced by an appropriate attitude towards text

analysis).

From a systemic perspective, text analysis is not interpretive, but explanatory.

Understanding a text involves the use of linguistic analysis to show how and why

the text means what it does. However, understanding a text is different from

evaluating a text. Evaluation of a text requires that linguistic analysis enables one to

say why the text is, or is not, an effective text for its own purpose (i.e. in what respects

it succeeds and in what respects it fails, or is less successful) (Halliday, 1994, p. xv).Here, we design a three-phase procedure, in which each phase involves narrowing

down the grammatical areas or systems available to be compared between the ST and

the TT for the next phase according to the theoretical framework of systemic

functional linguistics. This allows us to start the assessment with a relatively extensive

dataset while continually reducing the dataset for the subsequent steps.

Phase 1: the ST register description and ST

TT genre contrastive analysis

In this phase, text analysis is related to the following questions:

(1) To what extent can source and target text be described as being of the same or

different genre?

(2) How is the generic structure of the target text different from, or similar to,

that of the source text?

Martin (1984, p. 25) explains genre as a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity

in which speakers engage as members of our culture; and more simply, as how

things get done, when language is used to accomplish them (Martin, 1985, p. 248). A

general description is required in this phase and a more detailed analytical

comparison will be made in the next phase. Generic (or schematic) structure analysis

is employed as an analytical tool here.

Phase 2: ST

TT function contrastive analysis (ideational, interpersonal and textual)

In this phase, text analysis is related to the following questions:

(1) In what respects are the ST and the TT texts alike, and in what respects are

they different?

(2) How can these similarities and differences be related to the register variables

of field, mode and tenor, and to genre?

Ideational meaning refers to language as representationthe semantic system as

expression of experience (Halliday, 1979, p. 198). It is composed of two subcategories:

116 C. Jiang


10/19


11/19

An example: Waiting for guests by lamplight (Bingzhu yeyou)

Our data come from two sources: 20 English catalogue entries for Chinese landscape

painting made by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and 20 pairs of

bilingual catalogue entries for Chinese landscape painting made by the National

Palace Museum, Taipei. They fall into three obvious groups: Group 1 is composed of20 English catalogue entries from New York, Group 2 has 20 Chinese catalogue

entries from Taipei, and Group 3 includes 20 English catalogue entries from Taipei.

Group 2 and Group 3 are parallel texts. Group 1 only serves as a reference, by

revealing characteristics of museum catalogue entries in the received context. Now we

start with the assessment procedure phase by phase, as stated in the previous section.

However, we select just one pair of parallel catalogue entries as an example to illustrate

the working of the three phases. Both the source text and the target text are made by

the National Palace Museum, Taipei. A back translation is made by the author of the

article to facilitate our discussion, and the painting itself is shown in Figure 2.

Source text (ST):

Figure 2. Waiting for guests by lamplight (Bingzhu yeyou). # National PalaceMuseum, Taiwan, Republic of China. Reproduced with permission.

118 C. Jiang


12/19

Back-translation (BT): Holding a candle for a night excursion

This painting draws its material from Su Shis poem on Chinese flowering crabapple:East wind is soft and slender, brushing against the flower under the moonlight. Mistsmells sweet, floating swift with the moonlight along the corridor. Being afraid that theflower sleeps late at night, I light candles to shine over her face. The painting depicts

the corridor loomed by the moonlight. In the vast expanse of night, candles are lit. Thecandlelight shines over the Chinese flowering crabapples in full blossom in the garden.

A scholar is sitting on an old-fashioned wooden armchair, savoring the fine momentand the nice scene of the peaceful moonlight night. Ma Lin has acute observation onnature. He is rather good at sketching. His landscape sketch seems executed with greatdelicacy, reflecting the layout of imperial buildings and gardens. His works arecharacterized by the neat styles of imperial school. They may have a delicate lastingeffect on the viewers emotions.

Target text (TT): Waiting for guests by lamplight

This work reflects the beautiful scenery of an imperial garden on a moonlit evening andshows the leisurely life of a member of the imperial family. Nevertheless, the interiordesign of the buildings is classical and simple. The host is sitting on a so-called generalschair with footrest and is wearing a plain, long robe. He appears to be appreciating thenumerous blossoms on the trees in the courtyard, enjoying the elegant silence of thewondrous scene from the hall. The torches burning on lamp stands extend in two rowsfrom the entrance to the building to add illumination to that of the moon hanging above.

To suggest the dim atmosphere of an evening scene, Ma Lin has applied washes oflight ink to the silk. This attention to atmospheric realism is one of the trademarksof Sung painting. In addition, inside and outside the front door, several attendants, all ofthem wearing caps, can be seen standing about. Since the figures are small in scale, thebrushwork describing the clothing is somewhat stiff, yet even the details and folds are

still clearly evident. Apparently, the figures were first outlined in light ink, then filled inwith colors, and finally outlined again in dark ink. Over the centuries, however, the lightcolors of the garments faded and flaked off. Ma Lin has presented the composition usinga high vantage point. By focusing the scene on the foreground elements at the expense ofthe background ones, the importance of the courtyard area can be emphasized. So,despite the small size of the painting, a great deal is portrayed. This work has the refinedand detailed characteristics of Sung court painting, but retains a lively and refreshingatmosphere.

Phase 1

The register description (Table 1) reveals that the ST and the TT belong to the samegenre. However, through the contrastive analysis of the generic structure, it can be

easily seen that the ST and the TT use a similar generic structure, but with different

organizational method to represent knowledge related to the painting. See the linear

description of their schematic structures:

ST: introductory poem ^ content composition 1 ^ content composition 2 ^ contentcomposition 3 // ^ content composition 4 ^ painters typical style ^ comment on paintersstyleTT:content composition 1^ artistic effect ^ content composition 4 ^ content composition3 // ^ painters technique 1 ^ significance of technique 1 ^ content composition 5 ^ technique

composition ^ development of painting technique ^ painters technique 2 ^ effect ofpainters technique 2 ^ comment on the painting.



13/19

This painting is inspired by one of Su Shis (AD 10371101) poems, which

won great popularity as early as in the Song dynasty (AD 9601279) with its delicate

use of language and faithful expression of emotion. But the poem is deleted in the

TT. Instead, the basic content of the painting is analyzed in detail. In the ST, content

compositions 1, 2 and 3 are introduced following the poem to highlight the poetic

atmosphere of what was painted. The language is concise, and elaborately made to

echo the poem. For example, the phrase (the corridor loomed

by the moonlight) sounds adapted from the first two sentences in the poem:

, (East wind is soft and slender, brushing against

the flower under the moonlight. Mist smells sweet, floating swift with the moonlight

along the corridor). They offer temporal (i.e. season and time) and environmental

(i.e. building structure) information. The clause complex ,

(In the vast expanse of night, candles are lit. The candlelight

shines over the flowers in full blossom in the garden) partly rephrases

, (Being afraid that the flower sleeps late at night,

I light candles to shine over her face). The poem is about the Chinese flowering

crabapple , so the description gives a particular end-focus to (Chinese

flowering crabapple in full blossom). In contrast, although most of those content

compositions also appear in the TT, the poetic beauty is gone. The Chinese flowering

crabapple is not even mentioned. Descriptive emphasis is given to the relationship

between content composition and technique-based information. For example, the

second half of the ST focuses on the artists style. However, the TT stresses

the relationships between content, technique and effect and does not represent the

aesthetic interaction between painting and poetry. This shows that both the ST and

the TT belong to the same genre. They may, however, activate different systems of

knowledge in different types of audience.

Phase 2

The lexico-grammatical analysis of the text is kept brief, simply to exhibit how the

assessment on this phase works. Figure 3 lists the results that can reveal the contrasts

between the ST and the TT.

(1) The dominance of full declaratives in both the ST and the TT may indicate

that their common focus is on the giving of information it is also the classic,

at the same time traditional, role a museum tends to take. However, there is a

sharp difference of the mood system between the ST and the TT, withreference to the use of modal adjuncts, which appear more frequently in the

TT than in the ST. These modal adjuncts help the speaker in adding his/her

Table 1. Register description.

Register variable Register description of the texts

Field Explaining how to appreciate the painting content and how artistic effectsare achieved through Chinese painting technique

Mode Written to be read, online, supported by pictureTenor Formal, unequal power between the institution and the audience

120 C. Jiang


14/19

judgment to a proposition. For example, in the TT, apparently reinforces but

somewhat softens the speakers voice, which leaves no trace in the ST.

(2) Both the ST and the TT use a high proportion of material processes (which

construe doings and happenings). The proportion of relational process, which

refers to the ways in which beingcan be expressed (Eggins, 2004, p. 239), is

slightly higher in the ST than that in the TT. This tendency is probably due to

the fact that the target audience is new to these objects, as well as to their

inherent cultural spirit. In other words, the TT needs to use more material

processes to explain the way pictorial objects are arranged and depicted

(especially by undertaking a set of technical actions) in the sense of painting a

landscape. Thus, the number of attributive relational process decreases in the

TT with the material processes increasing. In contrast, the ST tends to set up

the spatial relations between pictorial objects, and characterize the style of

the painting. A case in point is the re-presentation of the information

presented in the second paragraph of the ST. As for this part, the ST and the

TT are not equivalent in content. In the ST, there are eight processes, five of

which are relational processes characterizing Ma Lins artistic style andtechniques (see the ST and the BT). However, there are nineteen processes in

the TT, with only five of them using relational process. In the meanwhile,

Mood

Type of metafunctions Source Text Target Text

Adjunct

Type of adjunct Source Text Target Text

Circumstantial 4(80%) 12(54.55%)

Modal 1(20%) 10(45.45%)

Transitivity

Process type Source Text Target Text

material 9(47.37%) 17(60.71%)

mental 3(15.79%) 3(10.71%)

relational 7(36.84%) 8(28.57%)

Circumstances

Type Source Text Target text

location 4(66.67%) 7(53.85%)

extent 1(16.67%) 2(15.84%)

manner 1(16.67%) 3(23.08%)

quality 0 1(7.69%)

total 316

Theme

Category Source Text Target text

marked 96

dependent clause as theme 40

Total no. of processes 8291

Figure 3. Lexico-grammatical comparison.



15/19

material processes are frequently employed in this paragraph to show how

this landscape is done.

(3) The proportion of location (circumstances) in the ST is higher than that in

the TT. However, the proportion of manner (circumstances) in the TT is

higher than that in the ST. The occurrence of the phenomena is probably due

to the change of the generic structure in the transfer of the text from Chinese

into English. New elements are added into the TT and the TT thus forms its

own descriptive structure. The two phenomena are interrelated. First, only

one of the four locations (circumstances) appearing in the ST is translated in

the TT, namely, the phrase (on an old-fashioned wooden armchair).

Second, the proportion of location (circumstances) in the TT may remain low

so long as the locations added are fewer than the elements added. In reality,

in the second paragraph of the TT, manners (circumstances) are also used,

but they do not appear in the ST. Prime examples include in light ink, with

colors and by focusing the scene.

(4) The clause initial position is able to give prominence to elaborately chosenlinguistic elements. We revisit all clause initial positions in the ST and the TT,

and find that some of these positions in the TT are conjunctive adjuncts such

as nevertheless, in addition and so. Because they can relate the clause to

the preceding text, they are obviously used for the cohesion of the text.

However, process (verb) may take up the position in the ST. This is rare in

English. But in Chinese, clauses are allowed to do without subjects. A process

(a verb) can occupy the clause initial position. See the example below:

ST: . . .

Gloss: . . .

shine garden in the Chinese flowering crabapple blossomBT: . . .The candlelightshines over the Chinese flowering crabapples in full blossomin the garden.TT: He appears to be appreciating the numerous blossoms on the trees in thecourtyard, enjoying the elegant silence of the wondrous scene from the hall. Thetorches burning on lamp stands extend in two rows from the entrance to thebuilding to add illumination to that of the moon hanging above.

This example illustrates the gap between the ST and the TT. In the TT, the

Chinese original has no subject, and process appears in the clause initial

position. But when it is rendered into English, even though element-by-

element translation is applied, a subject must be added. In the BT, forexample, clauses bearing relevant information begin either with the pronoun

he or with the noun group the torches. Therefore, the subjectlessness in

Chinese shows that language difference also plays a role in the translation of

museum texts.

Phase 3

Based upon the above analysis, we may offer a quality description of the example.

In terms of acceptability and informativity, the imbalance of information between

the ST and the TT merits attention. For example, the deletion of the introductorypoem in the TT conceals the relevance of Chinese painting to Chinese poetics, which

is self-explanatory in the ST. Some elements, such as the description of several

122 C. Jiang


16/19


17/19

the convention governing the use of location (as a kind of circumstance) in the

received context. It may perform well to satisfy the target audiences expectation.

Conclusion

This article has sought to explore the way in which the notions of systemic and

functional can better serve for the application of a TQA model to the studies on the

translation of museum texts. Grounded in the theoretical integration of translation

studies and museum studies, the present research has shown through the redesign of

the assessment procedure for the model that the judgment of the translation quality

requires empirical analyses based upon both interlingual and intertextual compar-

ison. Our objective is twofold. First, by investigating the notions of quality,

assessment and systemic in their own right, we are able to observe the weaknesses

of previous models. Second, we intend for the model proposed here to be taken as a

part of the effort to rethink the relationship between bilingual texts displayed in the

museum environment, either physically or online.However, our current considerations are restricted to interlingual and intertextual

practice. The issue is not incorporated into our discussion regarding the ways in

which differing verbal and visual imperatives shape translation (Neather, 2008, p.

238). It will be our task at the next stage, where a semiotic-linguistic framework is to

be used, to focus on the interaction of semiotic sign systems in bilingual museum

texts.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Dr Zhu Chunshen for his insightful comments and suggestions on

the research. Also, the author is deeply indebted to Dr Robert Neather, who generously gavemuch of his time and expertise in reading and correcting early drafts of this study. Thanksshould go at the same time to the Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics and theNational Palace Museum, Taipei.

Notes

1. In this article, we use assessment and evaluation interchangeably. According to Maier(2000, p. 137), many [scholars], if not most, use the two interchangeably, often withoutindicating that they consider the terms synonymous.

2. A museum is defined as a permanent institution in the service of society and itsdevelopment, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and

exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for thepurposes of education, study and enjoyment. See http://icom.museum/statutes.html,accessed on April 29, 2008.

3. They are designed by and applied to different fields for the purpose of translation qualitycontrol or translation quality management.

4. The parts First-order meanings as resources and Communication framework inmuseum in the table are designed by Ravelli (2006, p. 152). The parts Metafunctions inSFL and Source text as resource are added to illustrate the relationship betweentranslation studies and museum studies.

5. The seven defining characteristics are: intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situa-tionality, intertextuality, coherence and cohesion. Coherence and cohesion will beconsidered in the second phase because they contribute to the making of textual function.

In this case, we do not mention these two. As to intentionality and situationality, they aremore or less associated with the translators intrusion in the course of process. However,our assessment model aims at how translated texts work in the target context. Therefore,we have excluded them both.

124 C. Jiang
http://icom.museum/statutes.htmlhttp://icom.museum/statutes.html


18/19

References

Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.Bal, M. (2001). Looking in: The art of viewing. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.Bensoussan, M., & Rosenhouse, J. (1990). Evaluating student translations by discourse

analysis. Babel, 36(2), 65

84.Berman, A. (1992). The experience of the foreign (S. Heyvaert, Trans.). New York: State

University of New York Press.Berry, M. (1975/1977). An introduction to systemic linguistics. London: B.T. Batsford.Briessen, F. (1998). The way of the brush: Painting techniques of China and Japan. Boston:

Tuttle.Bruntette, L. (2000). Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment: A comparison

of TQA practices. The Translator, 6(2), 169182.Christie, F. (1984). Children writing: A reader. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist

approach. The Translator, 14(1), 97134.DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. (2003). Evaluation practice: Thinking and action principles for social

work practice. Toronto: Brooks/Cole.Dickens, P. (1994). Quality and excellence in human services. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Dodson, B. (1985). Keys to drawing. Ohio: North Light.Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. New York: Continuum.Fan, S. (1990). A statistical method for translation quality assessment. Target, 2(1), 4367.Gutt, E. (2000). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Hajmohammadi, A. (2005). Translation evaluation in a news agency. Perspectives: Studies in

Translatology, 13(3), 215223.Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Syntax and the consumer (1964). In J. Webster (Ed.), On language

and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). A brief sketch of systemic grammar (1969). In J. Webster (Ed.), On

language and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammaticalstructure and their determination by different semantic functions (1979). In J. Webster(Ed.), On grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: EdwardArnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Introduction: Towards an appliable description of the grammar ofa language. In J. Webster (Ed.), Studies in English language. Beijing: Peking UniversityPress.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar

(3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.Hatim, B. (1998). Translation quality assessment: Setting and maintaining a trend. The

Translator, 4(1), 91

100.Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Learning from learning theory in museums. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of the museum. London: Routledge.

House, J. (1977/1997). Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tubingen: Narr.House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social

evaluation.Meta, 46(2), 243257.House, J. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between text and context in translation. Journal

of Translation Studies, 9(1), 77103.Hulst, J. (1997). Focus on the target text: Towards a functional model for translation quality

assessment. In K. Kohn (Ed.), Transferre necesse est: Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalConference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting. Budapest:Scholastica.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.),Style in language

. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Kandler, G. (1963). On the problem of quality in translation: Basic considerations. In E. Cary,& R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in translation. New York: Pergamon.



19/19

Lauscher, S. (2000). Translation quality assessment: Where can theory and practice meet? TheTranslator, 6(2), 149168.

Maier, C. (2000). Introduction. The Translator, 6(2), 137148.Martin J.R. (Ed.) (1984). Language, register and genre. In Children writing: A reader (pp. 21

29). Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Martin, J.R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of semiosis. In J.D. Benson, & W.S.N.

Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, vol. 1: Selected theoretical papers fromthe 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Melis, N.M., & Albir, A.H. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta,46(2), 272287.

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. London: Routledge.Neather, R. (2005a). Translation quality in the museum: Towards a greater awareness of end-

user needs. Translation Quarterly, 38, 124.Neather, R. (2005b). Translating the museum: On translation and (cross-)cultural presentation

in contemporary China. In J. House, M.R.M. Ruano, & N. Baumgearten (Eds.),Translation and the construction of identity. Seoul: IATIS.

Neather, R. (2008). Translating tea: On the semiotics of interlingual practice. Meta, 53(1),216240.

Neubert, A., & Shreve, G.M. (1992). Translation as text. Ohio: The Kent State UniversityPress.

Oakland, J.S. (2004). Oakland on quality management. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ravelli, L.J. (2006). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. London: Routledge.Rogers, M. (2006). Structuring information in English: A specialist translation perspective on

sentence beginnings. The Translator, 12(1), 2964.Sager, J.C. (1996). Quality and standards: The evaluation of translation. In R. Owens (Ed.),

The translators handbook. London: Aslib.Sturge, K. (2007). Representing others: Translation, ethnography and the museum. Manchester:

St. Jerome.van Leuven-Zwart, K. (1990). Shifts in meaning in translation: Dos and donts? In

M. Thelen, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.),Translation and meaning 1. Maastricht:Rijkshogeschool.Williams, M. (1989). The assessment of professional translation quality: Creating credibility

out of chaos. TTR, 2(2), 1333.Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach.

Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Zhu, C. (1996). From functional grammar and speech-act theory to structure of meaning: A

three-dimensional perspective on translating. Meta, 49(3), 338355.Zhu, C. (2002). Translation: Theories, practice and teaching. In Eva Hung (Ed.), Teaching

translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Zilahy, S.P. (1963). Quality in translation. In E. Cary, & R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in

translation. New York: Pergamon.. (2003). . 5(46), 8588 [Zuo, Y. (2003). On the

translation in museums. Journal of National Museum of Chinese History, 5(46), 85

88].

126 C. Jiang

quality assessment translation museum texts (2010)

Documents