A Translation Quality Assessment of Two English Translations of Nazm Hikmet's Poetry Written by Esmail Faghih, Morvarid Jaza'ei and Morvarid Jaza'ei ABSTRACTTranslation Quality Assessment (TQA) is a fast growing sub-field of Translation Studies. It focuses on the relationships between the source text (ST) translated into target text (TT). This study applied House's (1997) TQA model to two available English Translations of some Nazm Hikmet's poetry in order to evaluate the quality of these translations. The errors were identified, classified and the frequency of their occurrences was computed. As House has suggested the errors were categorized into covert and overt errors. Overt errors were further categorized into seven subcategories: 1) Not Translated; 2) Slight Change in Meaning; 3) Significant Change in Meaning; 4) Distortion of Meaning; 5) Breach of the Source Language System; 6) Creative Translation; and 7) Cultural Filtering. According to House's model, poetry has to be translated overtly and deviations will be considered as errors.The findings of the research, revealed that the first translation by Ruth Christie, Richard Mc Kane & Talat Sait Halman(2007), has fewer errors(95) in comparison with the second translation(123) by Randy Blasing & Mutlu Konuk(2002). Therefore, overall on the basis of the theoretical model utilized, it can be claimed that the quality of first translation is superior to that of the second one.KEY WORDSTranslation Quality Assessment, Register (Field, Tenor, Mode), Genre, Overt & Covert Translations. 1. IntroductionQuality of a translation is a serious concern for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) approaches. The main issue is how to measure and express this quality. There have been many attempts to find the way(s) in order to tackle these issues and evaluate the quality of a translated work. However, it seems that among these many approaches, only a few of them sound promising. One of the promising approaches was the model provided in (1996) by the German scholar Juliane House.House's assessment model is based on Hallidayan Systemic-Functional Theory (SFT), but it also draws eclectically on Prague School ideas, speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus-based distinctions between the spoken and written language. It provides the means for the analysis and comparison of an original text and its translation on three different levels: Language/Text, Register (Field, Mode and Tenor) and Genre.Thus, according to House, translation would be "the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language" (House, 1977). Here is an example:Source Text;Ben de kendi kendimle konuuyorum. Fakat ok can skc bulduumdan sohbetimi ark sylyorum karcm.Hem, ne dersin, o berbat, ayarsz sesim yle bir dokunuyor ki iime yreim paralanyor.Target Text;So I talk to myself. But I find my conversation so boring, my dear wife, that I sing songs.And what do you know, that awful, always off-key voice of mine touches me so that my heart breaks.2.Theoretical BackgroundTQA is a type of evaluation, but what is evaluation? Michael Scriven defines it as follows: Evaluation is taken to mean the determination of merit, worth, or significance (Scriven, 2007, p. 1, as cited in Williams, 2009). This definition itself presents a problem: How value or worth is to be defined, be it moral, aesthetic or utilitarian? By extension, evaluation involves asking a question that has challenged thinkers from the earliest time: Is a particular thing good? (Williams, 2009)Just like evaluation in the broad sense, TQA can be quantitative or qualitative: it can be based on mathematical/statistical measurement as in the case of most academic instruments or on readers responses, interviews and questionnaires (e.g. Nida,). TQA can be diagnostic determining areas for improvement at the beginning of a course of study, formative, measuring progress and giving feedback during a course of study or summative measuring the results of learning.In Williamss (2009) view, TQA cannot and should not be value-free: to be useful, it must be based on criteria of goodness. Before presenting her model, House explains the theoretical basis on which her model was developed. She starts by saying that it is the essence of translation that meaning be preserved across the two languages involved, and that meaning has three basic aspects: Semantic, Pragmatic and Textual aspect.The semantic aspect is the most easily accessible from the three aspects and has been given preference by evaluators. However, the pragmatic aspect, that is "the particular use of an expression on a specific occasion" (House, 1977, 27) is very important in translation because translation deals with language in use.The textual aspect has been frequently neglected though it is a very important aspect because all the references such as substitutions, anaphora, ellipses, etc. that make up the different ways of text functions account for the textual meaning that should be preserved in translation.According to House(1977), the equivalence sought should be an equivalence of function, that is both source and translated texts must present the same function and the text's function can only be made explicit through a detailed analysis of the text itself.This is the basis for the model, and what makes it different from other criteria for establishing equivalence is the fact that those criteria relied either on the writer's intention, an item that is not open to empirical investigation, or on the reader's responses, which present problems to be measured. The function of a text would then be "the application (cf. Lyons, 1969, 434) or use of what the text has in the particular context of a situation" (House, 1977, 37).Thus, each text is an individual text embedded in a unique situation, and in order to characterize the text's function it is necessary to refer the text to the situation. To accomplish this, the notion of situation has to be broken down into the following specific situational dimensions (register) analysis: (House, 1977, 45)A. Field,Subject Matter: It can be a Novel, Poem, Play, .Social Action: It can be Specific, General, Popular, .B. Tenor,Writer's or Translator's Provenance and Stance,Social Role Relationship: Symmetrical means the text contains features indicating solidarity and equality between addresser and addressees; and, Asymmetrical means the text contains features indicating authority relationship between addresser and addressees.Social Attitude: The text contains features indicating the degrees of social distance or proximity or in other words, five styles of formality: frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate.C. Mode,Medium: is Simple if it is written to be read and Complex if it is written to be heard.Participation: is Simple if it means monologue or Complex if it means addressing a large community; Function:According to "Longman Dictionary of Teaching and Applied Linguistics"(2010) language is often described as having the following major functions:A descriptive function(or ideational function, in Halliday's framework), which organizes a speaker's or writer's experience of the world and conveys information which can be stated or denied and in some cases tested.A social function(interpersonal function in Halliday's term), which is used to establish, maintain and signal relationship between people.An expressive function, through which speakers signal information about their opinions, prejudices, past experiences and so forth; andA textual function, for creating written and spoken texts.House also relies on her native speaker intuition and on the judgments of other native speakers, which are taken as presumptions. House (1977) believes that equivalence relations between two languages are not absolute but they fall on a scale of more or less equivalent items which runs from more to less probable. This degree of probability can only be judged by a subjective, hermeneutic element as the native speaker intuition.House suggests that researchers should prepare separate profiles for ST and TT; when the source text's and the translation text's profiles do not match, there is an error. House describes two types of errors:Covert errors: those which result from a mismatch of one situational dimension with a similar one in TT, andOvert errors: those which result from a non-dimensional mismatch. Such errors can be divided into seven categories of:Not TranslatedSlight change in meaning Significant change in meaningDistortion of meaningBreach of the SL systemCreative translationCultural filteringThe above section can be given through Tables 1, 2, and3

Figure 1.(House, 2009, p.35)

Figure 2.In the present research two English translations of some of Nazm Hikmet's poetry will be assessed through Juliane House's TQA(1996) model.This is an academic enquiry and we are trying to discover possible differences between two translations, using one of the best known theoretical models. We aimed to find out which translation is better. At the same time, this study provided a chance to test the feasibility of one of the well known theoretical models, i. e. House's model.2.1.Translation of PoetryWithin the field of literary translation, more time has been devoted to investigating the problems of translating poetry than any other literary mode. Many of the studies purposing to investigate these problems are either evaluations of different translations of a single work or personal statements by individual translators on how they have set about solving problems. Rarely do studies of poetry and translation try to discuss theoretical problems from a pragmatic perspective, and yet it is precisely that type of study that is most valuable and most needed.The pragmatic studies are favored by professional translators' while the theoretical models are the work of linguistics. The most important criteria which is stressed by professional translators is "the need constant reworking and the reassessment of the translated text in an attempt to make it correspond to the original text on all levels, or rather on as many levels as possible" (Baker, 2004, p. 172). Few theories can deal with the complexities of poetry translation involved in all levels which might provide good criteria for assessing such translations. Beaugrande(1978) states that "certainly the very uneven quality of much translated poetry suggest the pressing need for more definite and regular procedures" (cited in Baker, 2004, p. 172). In translation of poetry, various levels should be considered on the basis of poem's functions.Stylistic analysis of literary texts, especially in the case of poetry, is an essential factor as it distinguishes literary translation from other form of translation. In addition, literary works have specific values called the aesthetic and expressive values. The aesthetic function of the work shall emphasize the beauty of the words (diction), figurative language, metaphors, etc. While the expressive functions shall put writer's thoughts, emotion, etc (or process of them) forward. As one genre of translation, poetry has something special compared to the others. In a poem, the beauty is not only achieved with the choice of words and figurative language like in novels and short stories, but also with the creation of rhythm, rhyme, meter, and specific expressions and structures that may not conform to the daily language. In short, the translation of poetry needs 'something more' than translating other genres of literature.

2.2. Methods of Translation of PoetryRegarding the translating poetry, there are two main opposing groups: one that believes it is necessary to create interlingual translations of poems that will stand on their own as poems in the target culture (TC), and another that believes it is impossible to create a translation of a poem that within it holds the recognizable original, thus meaning that it is only possible to render the content literally in prose: "I want translations with copious footnotes, footnotes reaching up like skyscrapers to the top of this or that page so as to leave only the gleam of one textual line between commentary and eternity" (Nabokov, 1955, p. 83).It is paradoxical that if the goals of a poetry translator were to try to translate all the facets of the original, the task would be an impossible one, yet for the translator to attempt anything less than a complete rendering of the original in the target language would be an admittance of the impossibility of poetic translation.2.3. Theories Behind the ModelHouse's model draws on pragmatics, functional and systemic linguistics, register theory, stylistics, discourse analysis, the notion of equivalence and the concepts developed in the Prague school of language and linguistics (House, 1996, p. 29). In particular, the model draws on Halliday's (1973) view of the functions of language, as well as Crystal and Davy's (1969) situational dimensions of texts.In Halliday's (1973) Systemic- Functional Theory language is seen primarily as an act and social activity, and as such is dynamic in nature. A central part of this activity is linguistic selection, which is done at all levels of a language system. This means that at any given situation a group of expressions exist, which can be used to convey a meaning. From that group the language user chooses the expression which is the most appropriate in such situations. The choice is made on the basis of language user's experiences, values and beliefs. Furthermore, the situation affects the way meaning is expressed (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 28).According to Halliday and Hasan, the functions of language include "the ideational, interpersonal and textual function" (1976, pp. 26-27). Firstly, the ideational function deals mostly with denotation, and it refers to the way we use language: "how we talk about actions, happenings, feelings, beliefs, situations, states and so on, the people and things involved in them and the relevant circumstances of time, place, manner and so on" (Lock, 1996, p. 9). That is, it focuses on how the text represents the external/internal reality: a certain happening by a certain person at a certain situation in the reality. The ideational function has two subfunctions: a)Experiential and b)Logical. The experiential part deals with the representation of experience, and the logical part is concerned with logical relations which are not directly drawn from experience (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 26). The experiential part deals with ideas or content, whereas the logical part is concerned with logical relations between the ideas (Bloor and Bloor, 2001, p. 9).The second language function, the interpersonal function, refers to how we use language to communicate with other people. In other words, interpersonal meanings focus on the interactivity of the language and concerns the ways in which we act upon one another through language. In either spoken texts or written texts, an interlocutor expects to tell something to his listeners/readers via a text. It focuses on the relationship between a speaker and a listener. Finally, the textual function refers to the way language relates to the situation and the way language is used to connect things which are said or written in the real world. In other word, textual function deals with "the way in which a stretch of language is organized in relation to its context" (Lock, 1996, p.10). The textual function entails the resources language has for text creation, in the sense that the text is "operationally relevant and cohering within itself and with the context of situation" (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 27).Thus a thorough sentence and text analysis presupposes that all these three levels of language are taken into account. In grammatical description these three language functions are described by different terminology: transitivity system corresponds to the ideational function, modality system to the interpersonal function and thematic system to the textual function (Munday, 2001, p. 91).2.4. The Model for Translation Quality Assessment by House (1997)As mentioned before, the initial questions in House's (1996) model for translation quality assessment are in three issues that she considers important in translation evaluation. The first one is relationship between the source and target text. The second is the relationship between texts (or features of the texts) and the persons involved as regards how they perceive the texts. The third one is finding these relationships to determine which texts are translations and which ones are originals.House (1996) revised her model for translation quality assessment on the basis of her earlier model published in (1996) which was developed for situational functional text analysis and translation assessment. The model which will be used in the present study is the revised version, published in 1996. The revised model adopts some of Crystal and Davy's categories (situational dimensions), and some Hallidayan concepts (House, 1996, p. 107). The revised model aims at providing a statement of the functional equivalence between the source and the text, based on linguistic- pragmatic evidence. Before functional equivalence can be established, texts must be appropriately analyzed. House suggests that "the source text is analyzed prior to the translation" (1996, p. 37). The reason for this is that only the source text analysis can give a precise idea of the equivalence which is to be searched for in the translation. The source text analysis "results in a statement of the individual textual function of the text" (House, 1996, p. 110).2.5. The Complete ModelThe resultant revised model consists of four levels: "function of the individual text, genre, register and language/ text" (1996, p. 107). The summary of the complete model for translation quality assessment can be seen below in Fig.3. which shows the basic structure of the model. In sum, the model divides Language/Text into Field, Tenor and Mode, which together form the Register. Register and Genre in turn make up the Individual Textual Function.