NATURALNESS AS AN EVALUATION CRITERION OF SPECIALIZED TRANSLATION QUALITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/2520-6397.2025.2.04Keywords:
translation quality, quality evaluation, naturalness, specialized translationAbstract
Background. The development of small AI and technological advancement has necessitated approaches for objective quality evaluation in specialized translation. Within this framework, clearly defined evaluation criteria are essential. Among different criteria, naturalness stands out as particularly ambiguous. While numerous studies have explored naturalness in literary translation, research examining naturalness as an evaluation criterion for specialized translation remains scarce. This study aims to examine and systematize perspectives from translation studies on the criterion of naturalness and to define it specifically within the context of specialized translation quality evaluation.
Results. The concept of naturalness as a criterion first emerged within the linguistic paradigm. Scholars in this tradition associate naturalness with adherence to target language and cultural norms, as well as appropriateness to both the translation context and target audience needs. In the descriptive paradigm, researchers connect naturalness to target-oriented norms while acknowledging that translated texts rarely conform perfectly to these norms due to source text influence. As a result, translations often exhibit characteristics of an "interlanguage". Proponents of the action-theoretical paradigm take a more nuanced view, arguing that seemingly unnatural elements aren’t negative, as they may still serve the translation’s overarching purpose. Contemporary investigations conceptualize naturalness as simultaneously encompassing both adherence to formal language norms and alignment with various types of usage patterns.
Conclusions. Naturalness is an integral dynamic characteristic of translation that reflects the balance between conformity to usage and adherence to language norms, taking into account the pragmatic factors of the communicative situation and the content of the source text. To create a natural translation, it is necessary to avoid interference, take into account the context of the message, the audience, as well as the norms of the target language and culture, including the peculiarities of text-type usage. Deviation from these principles may be a conscious decision, determined by contextual factors. Essential for natural translation are knowledge of usage and intersubjectively verifiable decisions.
References
Beekman, J., & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the Word of God, with scripture and topical indexes. Zondervan Pub. House.
Bilodid, I., Buriachok, A., Hnatiuk, H. et al. (Eds.). (1977). Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: [in 11 vol.]. 8: П–Р. Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian]
Chesterman, A. (2011). Translation universals. In Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 175–179). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.tra12
Daems, J. (2016). A translation robot for each translator?: A comparative study of manual translation and post- editing of machine translations: Process, quality and translator attitude. doctoral dissertation. [PhD Thesis, Ghent University]. Universiteit Gent. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8058017
Dorofeeva, M. (2014). Nomen est omen? About The Content And The Title Of The Lecture Course "Genre Theories Of Translation". Topical Issues of Humanities, 10, 105–112.
Duff, A. (1981). The third language: recurrent problems of translation into english. Pergamon Press.
Frawley, W. (2000). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. The Translation Studies Reader. 250–264.
Gellerstam, M. (2005). Chapter 13. Fingerprints in Translation. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Ed..), In and Out of English (pp. 201–213). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597893-016
International Organization for Standardization. (2024). Translation services – Evaluation of translation output – General guidance (ISO Standard № 5060:2024). https://www.iso.org/standard/80701.html
Karaban, V. I. (2017). The role of usus in translation. Linguistic and conceptual worldviews. 1 (59). 76–82 [in Ukrainian].
Koptilov, V. V. (1982). Theory and practice of translation. Higher School [in Ukrainian].
Lai, H., Ploeger, E., van Noord, R., & Toral, A. (2024). Multi-perspective Alignment for Increasing Naturalness in Neural Machine Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08473. https://arxiv.org/html/2412.08473v1
McDonald, S. V. (2022). Accuracy, readability, and acceptability in translation. Applied Translation, 16 (2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.51708/apptrans.v14n2.1238
Newmark P. A. (1991). About Translation. Multilingual Matters.
Newmark, P. A. (1988). Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. E. J. BRILL.
Nida, E. A., & Taber C. R. (2003). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Koninklijke Brill NV.
Obeidat, A. M., Ayyad, G. R., & Sepora, T. M. (2020). The tension between naturalness and accuracy in translating lexical collocations in literary text. Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 17(8). 123–134.
Rementsova, M. V., & Rebrii, O. V. (2022). Naturalness as a factor in translation decisions. In Statu Nascendi. Current issues of translation studies, 1 (22), 186–192 [in Ukrainian].
Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (1997). Translation as intercultural communication – contact as conflict. In Benjamins Translation Library (p. 325). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.20.33sch
Selivanova, O. O. (2008). Modern Linguistics: Trends and Problems. Environment-K [in Ukrainian].
Stefurak, O., & Namestiuk, S. (2021). Ontological characteristics of translation as a "third code". International Humanitarian University Herald. Philology, 4 (48), 104–107 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.32841/2409-1154.2021.48-4.26
Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford University Press.
The MQM Error Typology – MQM (Multidimensional Quality Metrics). (б. д.). MQM (Multidimensional Quality Metrics) – The place to go to learn about MQM. https://themqm.org/error-types-2/typology/
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zahnitko, A. P. (2012). Dictionary of Modern Linguistics: Concepts and Terms. Vol. 2. DonNU [in Ukrainian].
Zasiekin, S., & Rosenhart, Y. (2018). Psycholinguistic Computerized Tools of Linguistic and Translation Studies Discourse Analysis. Psycholinguistics, 23 (2), 94–106 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1204994
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Linguistic and Conceptual Worldviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
