ما بعد الثنائي: نحو نموذج مُدمج لتقييم جودة الترجمة
الكلمات المفتاحية:
تقييم جودة الترجمة، تقييم الترجمة، تحليل الأخطاء، التقييم الشمولي، ذاتية التقييم، نموذج مدمج، دراسات الترجمةالملخص
يُعدّ تقييم جودة الترجمة من أكثر الجوانب إثارة للجدل في مجال دراسات الترجمة، يعلل هذا الجدل لعدة أسباب; منها أن أخطاء الترجمة لا تقع ضمن مقياس واضح وحاسم، كما هو الحال مع أنواع الأخطاء الأخرى. والسبب الآخر يعود إلى الطابع الذاتي لعملية التقييم فتحديد ما يمكن اعتباره ترجمة جيدة قد يختلف بالاستناد على وجهة نظر الأستاذ. من اجل حلحلت هذه المشكلة، اقترح عدد من المنظّرين والباحثين نماذج وأساليب مختلفة حول كيفية إجراء تقييم جودة الترجمة. تهدف هذه الدراسة إلي دمج أسلوبين تقييم جودة الترجمة: أسلوب Hurtado Albir's (1995) القائم على تحليل الأخطاء، وأسلوب Waddington’s (2001) الشمولي في التقييم، وذلك للتحقيق من كيفية مساهمة هذين الأسلوبين في الحد من الطابع الذاتي للتقييم، سعيا لدمج نقاط القوة فيهما لتطوير أسلوب مدمج يقع منتصف هذا الثنائي.
المراجع
Bowker, L. (2000). A corpus-based approach to evaluating student translations. The Translator, 6(2), 183–210.
Castilho, S., Doherty, S., Gaspari, F., Moorkens, J., & Way, A. (Eds.). (n.d.). Translation quality assessment: From principles to practice. Springer International Publishing.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. John Benjamins.
Conde, T. (2012). Quality and quantity in translation evaluation: A starting point. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 67–80.
Elmgrab, R. (2013). Evaluation of translation errors: Procedures and criteria. IPEDR, 62, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.7763/IPEDR.2013.V62.13
Garant, M. (2009). A case for holistic translation assessment. AFinLA-e: Soveltavan Kielitieteen Tutkimuksia, 1, 5–17.
Hague, D., Koby, G., Lommel, A., & Melby, A. (2014). Defining translation quality. Revista Tradumàtica: Tecnologies de la Traducció, 12(1), 413–420.
Halliday, M. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content (pp. 13–18). Mouton de Gruyter.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Gunter Narr Verlag.
House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 243–257.
House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford University Press.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Routledge.
Karwad, A. I. (2025). Challenges students encounter when translating idiomatic expression: A case study of Faculty of Education students. Journal of Libyan Academy Bani Walid, 1(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.61952/jlabw.v1i2.43
Khodabandeh, F. (2007). Analysis of students’ errors: The case of headlines. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(1), 6–21.
Khosravani, Y. (2019). Translation quality assessment (TQA) of subtitles. Peter Lang.
McAlester, G. (2000). The evaluation of translation into a foreign language. In C. Schäffner & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 229–241). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Medadian, G., & Nezhadansari, D. (2015). Translation quality assessment model for undergraduate student translations: Objectivity versus manageability. Kalbų Studijos / Studies About Languages, 26, 40–54.
Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Multilingual Matters.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill.
Nida, E. (1984). Signs, sense, translation. Bible Society of South Africa.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. St. Jerome.
Omar, H. S. (2026). Integrating digital technologies in teaching media translation in Libyan media programs: From passive reception to interactive learning. Journal of Libyan Academy Bani Walid, 2(1), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.61952/jlabw.v2i1.392
Reiss, K. (1971). Translation criticism: Potentials and limitations: Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. St. Jerome.
Riazi, A. M. (2003). The invisible in translation: The role of text structure in translation. Translation Journal, 7(2). Retrieved July 15, 2021, from https://translationjournal.net/journal/24structure.htm
Samir, A., & Tabatabaee-Yazdi, M. (2020). Translation quality assessment rubric: Model-based validation. International Journal of Language Testing, 10(2), 101–128.
Schäffner, C. (Ed.). (n.d.). Translation and norms. Multilingual Matters.
Shiyab, S. (2013). Translation quality assessment: A perspective on pedagogy. Arab World English Journal, 2, 42–50.
Stejskal, J. (2006). Quality assessment in translation. The ATA Chronicle. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from https://www.multilingual.com
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311–325.
Waddington, C. (2017). Should translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, 14(26), 15–37.
Zequan, L. (2003). Register analysis as a tool for translation quality assessment. Translation Journal, 7(3). Retrieved September 15, 2021, from http://accurapid.com/journal/25register.htm
Abdulmunam Ramadan Mohammed Swise. (2026). Metaphor Translation Challenges among Libyan EFL Students: A Case Study at the University of Gharyan. Libyan Journal of Educational Research and E-Learning (LJERE), 2(1), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.65417/ljere.v2i1.102
Fadia Al-Hashmi Al-Massri. (2026). A Comparative Study of Human vs. Generative AI Translation of English Poetry into Arabic: Assessing Stylistic Fidelity and Creative Nuance. Libyan Journal of Educational Research and E-Learning (LJERE), 2(1), 260-278. https://doi.org/10.65417/ljere.v2i1.84
Rima Subhi Husain Taher. (2025). The Effectiveness of AI-Driven Translation Technologies in Mediating Cultural Understanding: A Case Study of English Language Teaching Practices in Libyan Higher Education. Libyan Journal of Educational Research and E-Learning (LJERE), 1(2), 01-16. https://doi.org/10.65417/ljere.v1i2.8
