Advertisement

Translation Quality, Quality Management and Agency: Principles and Practice in the European Union Institutions

Chapter
Part of the Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications book series (MATRA, volume 1)

Abstract

Translation quality and translation quality management are key concerns for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation (DGT), and the European Union institutions more broadly. Translated texts are often legally binding, politically sensitive, confidential or important for the image of the institutions. For legislative texts, an important principle of EU law is that there is no ‘original’: all language versions are equivalent and equally authentic. Consistency in translation strategies and in the approach to quality is therefore critical.

In this contribution, we first outline the context in which translation takes place in the EU institutions, focusing on challenges for quality. We illustrate how translation quality is managed in practice, identifying two guiding principles: consistency of approach, and consistency of quality. We explain how DGT’s quality management policy defines quality and how it should be managed, then demonstrate why achieving ‘equivalent’ quality across all language versions, translators, and institutions is hard. We examine how translated texts are dealt with in the attempt to achieve this goal. Last, we widen the focus to consider what these challenges and the EU approach mean for translators and their status and agency. Issues of translation quality are also issues of ethics, power relations and professional values.

Keywords

Translation quality assessment Principles to practice European Union Legal translation Translation management Translation policy Translators Translation profession Translator status Translation ethics 

References

  1. Adam EE Jr, Corbett LM, Flores BE, Harrison NJ, Lee TS, Rho BH, Ribera J, Samson D, Westbrook R (1997) An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance. Int J Operat Prod Manag 17:842–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agus A, Abdullah M (2000) Total quality management practices in manufacturing companies in Malaysia: an exploratory analysis. Total Qual Manag 11(8):1041–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biel Ł (2011) Training translators or translation service providers? EN 15038:2006 standard of translation services and its training implications. JoSTrans 16:61–76Google Scholar
  4. Buzelin H (2011) Agents of translation. In: Gambier Y, van Doorslaer L (eds) Handbook of translation studies, vol 2. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corpas Pastor G (2009) Translation quality standards in Europe: an overview. In: Miyares Bermúdez E, Ruiz Miyares L (eds) Linguistics in the 21st century. Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, pp 47–58Google Scholar
  6. Correia R (2003) Translation of EU legal texts. In: Tosi A (ed) Crossing barriers and bridging cultures: the challenges of multilingual translation for the European Union. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp 38–44Google Scholar
  7. Dam HV, Korning Zethsen K (2008) Translator status. Translator 14(1):71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Directorate-General for Translation (2010) Study on lawmaking in the EU multilingual environment. Research report by Cielito Lindo Kommunikációs Szolgáltató Bt. Hungary. Available via: http://www.termcoord.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Study_on_lawmaking_in_the_EU_multilingual_environment.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
  9. Directorate-General for Translation (2014) DGT quality management framework, Ares(2014)799428Google Scholar
  10. Directorate-General for Translation (2015) DGT translation quality guidelines. Ares(2015)5389770Google Scholar
  11. Directorate-General for Translation (2016a) DGT guidelines for evaluation of outsourced translation. Ares(2016)3157529Google Scholar
  12. Directorate-General for Translation (2016b) DGT outsourcing framework 2016–2020. Ares(2016)2986797Google Scholar
  13. Directorate-General for Translation (2017) Report on domain competence management. Ares(2017) 552533Google Scholar
  14. Dollerup C (2001) Complexities of EU language work. Perspect Stud Translatol 9(4):271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drugan J (2013) Quality in professional translation. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2015) How to write clearly. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available via: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/725b7eb0-d92e-11e5-8fea-01aa75ed71a1. Accessed 20 Jan 2017
  17. Gouadec D (2010) Translation as a profession. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Interinstitutional Style Guide (2017) Available online at: http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000100.htm. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  19. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2015) ISO 17100:2015 translation services – requirements for translation servicesGoogle Scholar
  20. Joiner T (2007) Total quality management and performance: the role of organization support and co-worker support. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 24(6):617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joint Handbook for the Presentation and Drafting of Acts Subject to the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (2016) Available via: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/ordinary-legislative-procedure/#. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  22. Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union Legislation (2015) Available via: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/techleg/EN-legislative-drafting-guide.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2017
  23. Kaynak H (2003) The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. J Oper Manag 21:405–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinnunen T, Koskinen K (eds) (2010) Translators’ agency. Tampere University Press, Tampere. Available via: http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/65639/978-951-44-8082-9.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 20 Jun 2016
  25. Koskinen K (2008) Translating institutions: an ethnographic study of EU translation. St. Jerome, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee KY, Lazarus H (2007) Uses and criticisms of Total quality management. J Manag Dev 12(7):5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu N-C, Liu W-C (2012) The effects of quality management practices on employees’ well-being. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 25(11–12):1247–1261Google Scholar
  28. Martin T (2007) Managing risks and resources: a down-to-earth view of revision. JoSTrans 8:57–63Google Scholar
  29. Moorkens J (2017) Under pressure: translation in times of austerity. Perspect Stud Trans Theory Pract 25(3):464–477Google Scholar
  30. Mossop B (2007) Revising and editing for translators. St. Jerome, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  31. Nair A (2006) Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance – implications for quality management theory development. J Oper Manag 24:948–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pym A (2000) The European Union and its future languages. Questions for language policies and translation theories. Across Lang Cult 1(1):1–17Google Scholar
  33. Robertson C (2012) The problem of meaning in multilingual EU legal texts. Int J Law Lang Discourse 2(1):1–30MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Robertson C (2016) Multilingual law. A framework for analysis and understanding. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  35. Šarčević S (2001) Preserving multilingualism in an enlarged European Union. Terminologie et Traduction 2:34–49Google Scholar
  36. Strandvik I (2012) Legal harmonization through legal translation - texts that say the same thing? In: Baaij CJW (ed) The role of legal translation in legal harmonization. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 25–49Google Scholar
  37. Strandvik I (2014a) Is there scope for a more professional approach to EU multilingual lawmaking? Theory Pract Legis 2(2):211–228Google Scholar
  38. Strandvik I (2014b) On quality in EU multilingual lawmaking. In: Šarčević S (ed) Language and culture in EU law: multidisciplinary perspectives. Ashgate, London, pp 141–164Google Scholar
  39. Strandvik I (2018) What do we mean by quality and why does it matter? Towards a more structured approach to quality assurance. In: Prieto Ramos F (ed) Institutional translation for international governance: enhancing quality in multilingual legal communication. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Suojanen T, Koskinen K, Tuominen T (2014) User-centred translation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Tosi A (2003) Crossing barriers and bridging cultures: the challenges of multilingual translation for the European Union. Multilingual Matters, ClevedonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner E (2000) Quality of written communication in a multilingual organisation. Terminologie et Traduction 1:5–16Google Scholar
  43. Wagner E, Bech S, Martinez JM (2002) Translating for the European Union institutions. St Jerome, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  44. Xanthaki H (2001) The problem of quality in EU legislation: what on earth is really wrong? Common Mark Law Rev 38(3):651–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Drugan
    • 1
  • Ingemar Strandvik
    • 2
  • Erkka Vuorinen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Directorate-General for TranslationEuropean CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations