1
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-***- LÊ MỸ HẠNH
Post-graduate Course: 16
A TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE
VIETNAMESE VERSION OF PART 7 “NIGHTMARE” IN THE
NOVEL “TWILIGHT” USING J.HOUSE’S MODEL

(ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG VIỆT PHẦN 7 “CƠN ÁC
MỘNG” TRONG CUỐN TIỂU THUYẾT “CHẠNG VẠNG”
ÁP DỤNG MÔ HÌNH CỦA J.HOUSE) MA MINOR THESIS

Field: English Linguistics

(ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG VIỆT PHẦN 7 “CƠN ÁC
MỘNG” TRONG CUỐN TIỂU THUYẾT “CHẠNG VẠNG”
ÁP DỤNG MÔ HÌNH CỦA J.HOUSE) MA MINOR THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Hùng Tiến

Hanoi, 2010

6 TABLES OF CONTENTS CONTENTS
Pages
Declaration…………………………………………………………….

1
2
2

3
3
3
3
7
9
10
12
13
13
14
16

7 Chapter 2 – APPLICATION OF HOUSE’S MODEL FOR
TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT
2.1.Overview of the model ………………………………………
2.2. Summary of the original text‘s content ……………………….
2.3. Analysis of the original text based on J. House‘s model……
2.3.1. Features of the Source Text in the light of Halliday‘s
functional grammar………………………………………….
2.3.2. Analysis of Source Text based on House‘s model……

Chapter 3 – DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ST – Source Text
TT – Translation Text
SL – Source Language
TL – Target Language
SLT – Source Language Text
TLT – Target Language Text
TQA - Translation Quality Assessment


- a young-adult vampire romance novel written by Stephenie Meyer).

2. Scope and Objectives of the study
 Scope and Objectives:
―Twilight‖ - a wildly popular series for young adults - is a novel consisting of twenty four
chapters. However, this study will only focus on analyzing chapter 7 ―Nightmare‖.
Accordingly, it aims to analyze ST and TT under House‘s model to discover how much
quality of the translation text, find out some problems of literary translation, and put forward
some suggestions for this field of translation.
When reading the Literature Review it is easy to see that there are different views and
models on translation quality assessment (TQA). Among them, yet, J. House‘s model which is
based on pragmatic theories of Language Use sounds the most proper to be applied in
10 assessing literary translation, specifically chapter 7 ―Nightmare‖ excerpting from the novel
―Twilight‖.

3. Research methodology
 Research Questions
The study aims at finding answers to the two following questions:
- How much is the quality of Translation Text according to House‘s model ?
- What are problems and implications for literary translation?
 Subjects of the study
The subjects of this study are English and Vietnamese literary texts, J. House‘s model
on translation quality assessment, M A K Halliday‘s functional grammar.
 Research method of the study
Qualitative analysis is employed to study individual texts closely. Moreover, since the
study is a descriptive-analytical one, descriptive and comparative techniques are used to
evaluate the translation text.

There have been many different definitions of translation so far. From the researcher‘s
point of view, however, 5 following definitions should be taken into consideration:
- Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or
statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language.
(Peter Newmark, 1988)
- Translation deals with the signs and attempts to preserve semiotic, as well other
pragmatic and communicative, properties which signs display. (Basil Hatim and Ian
Mason, 1990)
- Translation is the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and
pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. (J.House, 1977)
- Translation is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence to the
message of the source language, first in meaning and second in style. (Nida, 1975)
- Translation means the replacement of a text in one language (Source Language) by an
equivalent in another language (Target language). (Cartford, 1965)
The five definitions of Peter Newmark, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, J.House, Nida,
and Carford are expressed in different ways. However, they all share the same essence of
translation which lies in the preservation of semantic, pragmatic, and textual aspects of
meaning across two different languages.
1.1.2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods
12 As far as we know, translation is not a facial job. There is no problem to translate from
a source language to a target language if language is just a classification for a set of general or
universal concepts. But translation covers not only word for word translation but also many
other factors. The concepts of one language may differ radically from those of another. This is
because each language articulates or organizes the word in different way. The bigger the gap
between the SL and the TL gets, the more difficult the process of transfer will be. The
difference between the two languages and the difference in cultures makes the process of
translating a real challenge. Therefore, the translator is required to be thoroughly aware of

words, the translation interprets the exact contextual meaning of the original within the
constraints of the grammatical structures of the target language.
d. Semantic translation: According to the definition of semantic translation on website
Semantic translation is the process
of using semantic information to aid in the translation of data in one representation to
another representation. Semantic translation takes advantage of semantics that
associate meaning with individual data elements in one dictionary to create an
equivalent meaning in a second system. Actually, Semantic translation refers to that
type of translation which takes into account the aesthetic value of the source language
text.
e. Adaptation: This method refers to a type of translation which is used mainly for plays
and poems. The text is rewritten considering the source language culture which is
converted to the target language culture where the characters, themes, plots are usually
preserved.
f. Free translation: A free translation is a translation that reproduces the general meaning
of the original text. It may or may not closely follow the form or organization of the
original. According to P. Newmark, free translation reproduces the matter without the
manner, or the content without the form of the original.
g. Idiomatic translation: : It translates the message of the original text but tends to distort
the original meaning at times by preferring colloquialisms and idioms.
h. Communicative translation: This method displays the exact contextual meaning of the
original text in a manner where both content and language are easily acceptable and
comprehensible to the readers.
Among all above-mentioned translation methods, semantic and communicative
translation are the two most common ones which are often used in literary translation by
the translator. P. Newmark stated that a semantic translation is written at the author‘s
linguistic level and used for ―expressive‖ texts, a communicative translation at the
readership‘s and used for ―informative‖ and ―vocative‖ texts.
14


bases on to the characteristics of the target language to rewrite the ST.
i. Paraphrase: It is a procedure whereby the translator replaces a word in the source text
by a group of words or an expression in the target text
15 j. Compensation: In this procedure, the translator solves the problem of aspects of the
source text that cannot take the same form in the target language by replacing these
aspects with other elements or forms in the source text
In general, these procedures are used by translators to add information about a
culturally-bound word/expression, or a technical term that is related to a specific domain.

1.1.3. Translation equivalence
Obviously, translation is the process to transfer written or spoken source language texts
to equivalent written or spoken target language texts. In translation theory, therefore,
equivalence is regarded as a central concept. The domain of equivalents covers linguistic units
such as morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, idioms and proverbs. Hence, finding equivalents
is the most problematic stage of translation. However, it is not meant that the translator should
always find one-to-one categorically or structurally equivalent units in the two languages, that
is, sometimes two different linguistic units in different languages carry the same function. The
translator, after finding out the meaning of an source language linguistic form, should ask
himself / herself what the linguistic form is in another language—target language—for the
same meaning to be encoded by.
From Eugene Nida‘s view point, there are two typical equivalences, namely formal
equivalence and dynamic equivalence. The first one centers on the form and content of the
message of the ST while the later aims at complete naturalness of expression in the TT.
However, Nida is in more favour of the application of dynamic equivalence. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing
with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product
of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different

above equivalence, pragmatic equivalence refers to implicatures and strategies of avoidance
during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is
implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to
get the ST message across.
More specifically, Werner Koller acknowledges that equivalence may be ―denotative‖,
―connotative‖, ―text-normative‖, ―pragmatic‖, and ―formal‖. These five factors are also the
five types of equivalence introduced by W. Koller. According to the scholar, there are five
factors which can be argued to play a relevant role in the specification of equivalence types.
Firstly, the extralinguistic content transmitted by a text determines denotative equivalence
kind. Secondly, the connotations factor transmitted by means of the word choice with respect
to level of style (register), the social and geographic dimension, frequency determines
connotative equivalence type. Thirdly, the text and language norms factor for given text-type
specifies the text-normative equivalence which is concerned with text-type specific features.
17 Fourthly, the receiver (reader) to whom the translation is directed in order to achieve an
intended effect determines pragmatic equivalence type (commonly termed as communicative
equivalence). Fifthly, the factor of formal-aesthetic features of the source text relates formal
equivalence type (which is referred by the literature the expressive equivalence or artistic-
aesthetic equivalence).
Another linguist who is also concerned with the notion of equivalence is Juliance
House. She emphasizes that equivalence is the conceptual basis not only of translation but also
of translation criticism where equivalence is the fundamental criterion of translation quality. In
the book Text Translation Computational Processing by Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop in
2001, Juliance House wrote that views of equivalence as simply based on formal, syntactic,
and lexical similarities alone are multiply ambiguous. Further, purely formal definitions of
equivalence have long been revealed as deficient in that they can not explain appropriate use
in communicative performance. This is why functional, pragmatic equivalence has been a
concept accepted in contrastive linguistics for a long time, and it is this type of equivalence

abstract words such as advice, meaning, feeling, etc. This means that language is based on
conventions. Also, some theorists have realized that language is not just about structure – it is
also about the way language used in a given social context.
From all above consideration, it is easy to recognize that there is a close relationship
between culture and literary translation. Translation is regarded as a means of cultural
enrichment and so is literary translation. Literary works, rich in cultural elements, are
reflections and sublimation of society and life. Most people get an understanding other nations
through translated texts, of which literary translation has occupied a quite large proportion. It
can be said that, at the time when a nation witnesses a considerable importation of foreign
cultural elements, a vast number of translated texts serve as media, via which foreign ideas
and concepts are introduced into the culture of the recipient nation. Importation of this kind
implants heterogeneous elements into the target culture, enriches its development.
Furthermore, the target social and cultural system provides sources for the translator and has a
certain impact on the literary translation. Culture refers to all socially conditioned aspects of
human life. Translation, literary translation is no exception, is one part of culture and no
doubted affected and restrained by other factors of culture. As Lefevere remarks that any
culture and society is the environment of a literary system and all systems are open to and
interact with each other (Lefevere, 1992: 14). Moreover, because these systems are rooted
deeply in the target cultural context, the importance of the cultural context is made much
account of. Hence, a translated work is always made in a certain socio-cultural background
and the process of translating is a cultural bound activity. Literary translation is no exception,
19 which is influenced not only by the source culture at one end but also the target culture at the
other end.

1.1.5. Text types
In order to have a good translation, the translator is required to be a ware of text types.
With respect to the classification of text types, in Reiss‘s book (1977), the scholar


Religious Sermon Political Speech Moral Anecdote Comedy Dialogue

(Source: J.House, 1977: 66)
In general, basing on different linguistic scopes, the above linguists have given
different classifications of text types in translation. However, to some extent, their ideas of
the basic and typical types of text coincide with each other.

1.1.6. Two types of translation
House (1977) also discusses about the concept of two translation types: overt
translation and covert translation.
SOURCE TEXTS

Source culture-specific texts Texts which are not source-culture
having independent status specific, and do not have
independent status

addressees are addressees are addressees are addressees are
non-specific: specified: text non-specific: specified: text
text is not linked to is linked to a text is not linked to is linked to a
a specific historical specific historical a specific historical specific historical
occasion; text is occasion; text is occasion; text is occasion; text is
fictional non-fictional non-fictional non-fictional Moral Anecdote Political Speech Scientific Text Commercial
Comedy Dialogue Religious Sermon Tourist Information Text
Booklet Journalistic
Article


characteristics of literary language and typical problems of literary translation.

1.2.1. General characteristics of Literary Language
Literature is the use of well-chosen words to tell a story through narrative, involving
characters in conflict, or to express an emotion or idea through artfully arranged images. The
purpose of literature is to entertain and instruct (or to delight and enlighten) the reader through
22 the use of the imagination. Literature can also shock, amaze, or provide readers with an escape
from reality for a while.
As far as we know, literary language is a part of general linguistics. Thus, almost
linguistics features used in literary texts are taken from general linguistics. However, literary
language possesses some typical characteristics.
Literary language possesses all the features that help to realize the descriptive goal of
literary texts. As Peter Newmark (1995:13) states, there is ―an emphasis linking verbs,
adjectives, and adjectival nouns‖. Besides, literary texts consists of the linguistic
particularities relating to ―major topics as cohesion, manning patterns, modality and evaluation,
the structure of narratives, the recording of character speech and thought, clause possesses and
participants, the dynamics of dialogue, presupposition and textual revision‖ (Michael Toolan –
1998)
Literary texts, especially in poetry, also carry the metrical and para-metrical features of
language. This is an adaptation of the linguistic form which is called the prosodic
phonological form. A linguistic form which is also used in literary language is parallelism in
syntax, semantics, and lexis.
In the case of narrative, one of the aspects of narrative form which exists
independently of language is the macro-structure, or large-scale structure. As far as we know,
it seems generally agreed upon that the structure of stories cannot adequately be accounted for
in terms of their sentence structures alone. Notions such as plot, scheme, theme and plan have
been used, both in classical literary scholarship and in structural analysis of myths, folktales

aesthetic work of art.
There is still an argument on the best way to translate literary texts, especially poems
within their conceptual framework. Some questions relating to this problem has already raised
such as: Is the translation possible at all? Should translation be ―literal‘ or ―free‖? Should it
emphasize the content or the form? Can a faithful translation be beautiful? The answers to the
question range from one extreme to the other and usually end in some sort of a compromise.
The great writers and translators gave their well-known dictums about translations, which
reflected these traditional beliefs about it.
One of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the
differences between cultures. A translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing
that each language contains elements which are derived from its culture that every text is
anchored in a specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from
culture to culture. In deed, translation is as a form of intercultural communication which raises
the problems that are not merely at the verbal level or at the linguistic level. The awareness
that one does not look for merely verbal equivalents but also for cultural equivalents, if there
are any, goes a long way in helping the translator to decide the strategies he or she has to use.
24 Translation then is no longer a problem of merely finding verbal equivalents but also of
interpreting a text encoded in one semiotic system with the help of another. A literary text
would implicate not only other verbal texts but also other modes of signification like food,
fashion, local medicinal systems, metaphysical systems, traditional and conventional
narratives like myths, literary texts, legends as well as literary conventions like genres, literary
devices, and other symbolic structures. The whole enterprise of finding cultural equivalents
raises awareness of the difference and similarities between the cultures. It also brings into
focus the important question of cultural identity. Clearly, literary translation exerts great
influence on the target culture, and at the same time, the target culture has never stopped
restraining the process of literary translation. It is held that ―there is always a context in which
the translation takes place, always a history from which a text emerges and into which a text is

question: ―How do we know when a translation is good?‖. Responding to this question, from
Forster‘s viewpoint (1958:6), a good translation is one which fulfills the same purpose in the
new language as the original did, or according to Zilahy (1963:258), a translation is
considered good when it arouses in us the same effect as did the original. However,
determining whether the translation is good or not should be based on a specific model of
quality translation assessment. In the following part, hence, the researcher introduces some
outstanding quality translation assessment models.

1.3.1. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach
Before Nida, most scholars writing about translation applied a particular linguistic
approach to the topic, taking translation to be a type of applied linguistics. But Nida‘s concern
centered on a systematic approach to translation. Three criteria suggested by Nida (1964: 182)
for assessing quality of a translation are programmatic and general: general efficiency of the
communication process; comprehension of intent; equivalence of response. The third and most
important criterion is, of course, closely to Nida‘s well-known basic principle of ―Dynamic (or
Functional) Equivalence of a translation‖; the manner in which receptors of the translation text
respond to the translation text must be equivalent to the manner in which the receptors of the
source text respond to the source text. Nida and Taber (1969:173) suggested three similar
criteria: the correctness with which the receptors understand the message of the original, the
ease of comprehension and the involvement a person experiences as a result of the adequacy
of the form of the translation. Again, these behavioral criteria need to be further explained and
put to the practical tests.

1.3.2. Koller’s text-based studies
Koller (1974) acknowledges the importance of a linguistic model of translation quality
assessment. Three steps for TQA has been introduced by the scholar. The first step is to
26 consider the transferability of the original text. If the original text is transferable, we have the

4. An evaluation of the translation: in the translation‘s terms and in the critic‘s terms
27 5. An assessment of the likely place of the translation in the target language culture or
discipline
1.3.4. Juliane House’s functional-pragmatic approach
Juliane House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues
that ST and TT should match one another in function. The scholar suggests that it is possible
to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. In
fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which
has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. If the ST and the TT
differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the
translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that a translation text should not
only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to
achieve that function.
Juliane House gives a model for TQA which is based on pragmatic theories of
language. This model attempts to avoid anecdotalism, reductionism, programmatic statements
and intuitively implausible one-sided considerations of the ST and TT alone. In this model,
there is an analysis of linguistic-situational particularities of the source and target texts, a
comparison of the two texts, and an assessment of their relative match. The basic requirement
for equivalence is that the translation should have a function (consisting of an ideational and
an interpersonal functional component) which is equivalent to that of the original, and should
also employ equivalent pragmatic means for achieving that function. An initial analysis of the
original according to a set of situational dimensions for which linguistic correlates are
established will be made. Then, there will be a comparison of both the original‘s and the
translation‘s textual profiles and functions. In this comparison, some mismatches will occur.