Application of j house’s model for translation quality assessment in assessing the english version of the novel “dumb luck” by vu trong phung

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
.....................o0o.....................

NGUYỄN THỊ NHUNG

APPLICATION OF J. HOUSE‟S MODEL FOR TRANSLATION
QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSING THE ENGLISH VERSION
OF THE NOVEL „DUMB LUCK‟ BY VU TRONG PHUNG
(Áp dụng mô hình đánh giá chất lượng bản dịch của J. House vào việc
đánh giá bản dịch tiếng Anh của tiểu thuyết “Số Đỏ”
của Vũ Trọng Phụng)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAM THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Lê Hùng Tiến

Hanoi, 2019


DECLARATION
I, Nguyen Thi Nhung, hereby declare that the work in this thesis is the result
of my own research. It is recognized that should this declaration be found to be
false, disciplinary actions could be taken and penalties could be imposed in
accordance with university policies and rules.
Hanoi, April 2019

Nguyễn Thị Nhung

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien, who inspired me to conduct this
research and spent his time giving me invaluable suggestions, corrections and
improvement, without which I would have been, no doubt, unable to finish the
thesis.
I also send my gratitude to my family, who have always been supporting me
during the completion of this study.
I also give sincere thanks to my friends and colleagues for their great support
and encouragement.
Without the help of those people, this study has not been completed.

ii


ABSTRACT
The study aims at evaluating the Vietnamese English translation of the book
„Dumb Luck” by Zinoman and Cam (2002) using House‘s (2015) model of
translation quality assessment. The study is designed to seek answers whether the
translation meets the standard of quality according to House‘s (2015) model and to
draw some implications from the translation. In the study, basic concepts of
translation theory in general and literary translation in particular were revealed.
House‘s (2015) model was introduced and applied to analyze and compare
Vietnamese source text and its English target text to assessing the quality of the
translation. Finally, conclusions on findings with some limitations as well as
recommendations for further research were proposed.

Keywords: translation, quality assessment, translation model, literary translation

iii


ABBREVIATIONS
SL

Source Language

TL

Target Language

TT

Target Translation

TE

Translation Equivelance

ST

Source Translation

TQA Translation Quality Assessment

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1. Rationale for the study ......................................................................................1
1.2. Purposes and significances of the study ...........................................................1
1.3. Method of study ................................................................................................1
1.4. Organization of the thesis .................................................................................2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................3
2.1. Translation theory .............................................................................................3
2.2. Translation Quality Assessment .....................................................................10
2.3. Previous studies applying House‘s models on translation quality assessment ....12
2.4. Literary translation ..........................................................................................15
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................18
3.1. The data...........................................................................................................18
3.2. Method ............................................................................................................20
3.3. Research Design .............................................................................................20
3.4. Analytical Framework ....................................................................................21
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................25
4.1. Source text analysis ........................................................................................25
4.1.1. Field ..........................................................................................................25
4.1.2. Tenor ........................................................................................................31
4.1.3. Mode .........................................................................................................35
4.1.4. Genre ........................................................................................................37
4.2. Statement of functions ....................................................................................37

v


4.3. Comparison of target text and source text ......................................................38
4.3.1. Covertly erroneous errors ........................................................................38
4.3.2. Overtly erroneous errors ..........................................................................45
4.4. Statement of quality ........................................................................................46
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...............................................................................47
5. 1. Key findings ...................................................................................................48
5.2. Implications ....................................................................................................50
5.3. Limitations and recommendations for further research ..................................50
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................51
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

vi


TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Table of reduplicative words in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck (See more in
Appendix 2)...............................................................................................25
Table 2: Figures of speech in ‗Số Đỏ‘ and Dumb Luck ...........................................26
Table 3: A world of characters in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck .......................................27
Table 4: Upper-class characters in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ......................................28
Table 5: Lexical cohesion in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ...............................................30
Table 6: Language of homeless people in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ..........................32
Table 7: Language of the impudentness in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck .........................32
Table 8: Fashionable language in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck .......................................33
Table 9: Administrative language in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ...................................33
Table 10: Miscellaneous words in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ......................................34

Table 11: Borrowing miscellaneous words in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ....................34
Table 12: Informal style in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ..................................................35
Table 13: Spoken language in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck .............................................36
Table 14: Syntactic means in Số Đỏ .........................................................................36
Table 15: Descriptive adjectives translation in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ...................38
Table 16: Reduplicatives translation in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ..............................38
Table 17: Figures of speech translation in Số Đỏ and Dumb Luck ..........................38
Table 18: Lexical mismatch ......................................................................................39
Table 19: Not-translated reduplicative words ...........................................................40
Table 20: Syntactic mismatch ...................................................................................40
Table 21: Textual mismatch ......................................................................................41
Table 22: Translation of proper names .....................................................................42
Table 23: Parody changing........................................................................................43
Table 24: Colloquial words .......................................................................................44
Table 25: Sharp words ..............................................................................................44
Table 26: Slight change in meaning ..........................................................................45
Table 27: Summary of ST and TT comparison .........................................................49

vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: V-diagram of Translation method (Newmark, 1988, p. 45) ........................6
Figure 2: House‘s (2015, p. 65) Model .....................................................................22

TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Comparison in ‗Số Đỏ‘ and Dumb luck ................................................. I
Appendix 2: Reduplicative words in Dumb Luck ................................................... IV

viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale for the study
There are various literary works which have been translated from English to
Vietnamese and vice versa. However, the quality of these translations seems not to
get much attention from linguistics and readers. In order to create a good literary
translation, the translator has to deal with many challenges such as finding
equivalences not just for lexis, syntax, or concepts, but also for features like style,
genre, figurative language, historical stylistic dimensions, polyvalence, connotations
as well as denotations, cultural items and culture-specific concepts and values.
Translation theorists developed their own models of translation quality
assessment. However, House‘s model is widely used for its applicability. This paper
is conducted based on her model to assess the English translation of the novel “Số
Đỏ” written by Phụng (1938). The English translation by Peter Zinoman and
Nguyễn Nguyệt Cầm was published in 2002 in the USA.
1.2. Purposes and significances of the study
The study aims at investigating the translation quality of the novel ―Dumb
luck‖ (Zinoman & Cầm, 2002) in full comparison with the source text, based on
House‘s (2015) model.
The study is designed to seek answers for the following research questions:
1. To what extend does the English version of the novel “Số Đỏ” meet the
standard of quality according to House‟s (2015) model?
2. What might be some implications from the translation to literary
translation in general?
1.3. Method of study
The method employed in the study is case study method, using the source
language (The Novel – ‗Số Đỏ‘) to support the whole procedure of translation
quality assessment. The researcher also combines both qualitative and descriptive
contrastive approaches, which is the key to analyze data and provide the readers

1


with deeper insights into the distinctions and value in the source translation (ST)
and target translation (TT). Some important conclusions can be drawn from these
analyses.
Qualitative method: This research is a qualitative evaluation; hence, the
source of data is documentary, and information is gathered by an analysis of
documents and materials. Data are categorized into patterns as the primary basis for
organizing and reporting results. Qualitative method allows the researcher to study
individual text closely. It also enables multiple analytic strategies (Creswell, 2013).
Descriptive and contrastive methods: In order to provide in-depth and
detailed descriptions of translation and evaluation, the study is descriptive and
contrastive in nature.
1.4. Organization of the thesis
The first chapter of the study will be Introduction with the research
questions, study methods as well as organization of the thesis.
The second chapter is Literature review in which some related concepts of
translation theory and typical models of translation quality assessment are
discussed. Also, in this chapter, characteristics and challenges of literary translation
will be mentioned. Besides, previous studies related to this research problem are
also reviewed in order to formulate the gaps and the research questions.
The third chapter is Research Methodolody. In this chapter, the data
collection procedure was discussed along side with the method employed in the
study. The research design and the analytical framework are presented in the two
last subsections of this chapter.
In the fourth chapter, the researcher applies House‘s (2015) model to analyze
and compare Vietnamese ST and its English TT to evaluate the quality of the
translation.

The last chapter is Conclusion. The researcher summarizes the findings of
the study; hence provide implications, some limitations as well as recommendations
for further research

2


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, section 1 presents the translation theory including definition,
procedures, method of translation and translation equivalence. Section 2 mentions
translation quality assessment. Section 3 describes the previous study applying
House‘s model on translation quality assessment. Section 4 discusses about literary
translation.
2.1. Translation theory
a. Definitions of translation
There have been many definitions of translation so far. One of the first
definitions of translation is presented in the book ―A Linguistic Theory of
Translation‖ by Catford (2005). He defines translation as ―the replacement of
textual material (SL) in one language by equivalent textual material in another
language (TL)‘ (Catford, 2005, p. 20)
In another work, Nida and Taber (1982) shares the view that 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.
Newmark (1988) defines 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.
According to Hatim and Mason (1990), translation deals with the signs and
attempts to preserve semiotic, as well other pragmatic and communicative,
properties which signs display.
House (1977, p. 29) defines translation specifically the written translation is

the ―replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and
pragmatically equivalent text in the target language‖.
Those definitions above though differ from their expressions. 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. As Vân

3


(2005) concludes in his book about the nature of translation, ―Translation is both an
art and a science. It is an art in the sense that it is performed by human beings and
human beings are creative. It is a science in the sense that it is a process going
through different stages: analysis, transfer and restructuring…‖
b. Translation procedures
Translation is the field of various procedures. In addition to word-for-word
and sense-for-sense procedures, the translator may use a variety of procedures that
differ in importance according to the contextual factors of both the ST and the TT.
According to Newmark (1988), there are fifteen translation procedures as
follows:
Transference

Componential analysis

Recognized translation

Naturalization

Synonymy

Compensation

Cultural equivalent

Through-translation

Paraphrase

Functional equivalent

Shifts or transpositions

Couplets

Descriptive equivalent

Modulation

Notes

- Transference: it is the procedure of deciding use an SL word in his TL text
because there is no appropriate term. This procedure is used in certain situations
such as names of all living and dead people, geographical and graphical names,
names of periodicals and newspapers, titles of literary works, plays, and films,
names of companies and institutions, street names, and addresses, etc.
- Naturalization: It adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation, then
to the normal morphology of the TL.
- Cultural equivalent: It is called an approximate translation where an SL
cultural word is translated by a TL cultural word. This procedure is used when a
brief explanation to readers who are ignorant of the relevant SL culture is needed.
- Functional equivalent: It is applied to culture words and requires the use of a

culture-free word, sometimes with a new specific term. It, therefore, neutralizes or
generalizes the SL word. This procedure, which is a cultural componential analysis,
is the most accurate way of translating.

4


- Descriptive equivalent: In this procedure the meaning of the original word is
explained in several TL words. It is often used with transference to translate a
cultural word or expression.
- Componential analysis: It means "comparing an SL word with a TL word
which has a similar meaning but is not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by
demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components."
- Synonymy: It is a "near TL equivalent." Here economy trumps accuracy.
- Through-translation: it is the literal translation of common collocations,
names of organizations, components of compounds and perhaps phrases. It is used
for already recognized terms. It is also called calque or loan translation.
- Shifts or transpositions: It involves a change in the grammar from SL to TL,
for instance, (i) change from singular to plural, (ii) the change required when a
specific SL structure does not exist in the TL, (iii) change of an SL verb to a TL
word, change of an SL noun group to a TL noun and so forth. It is used when a SL
grammatical structure does not exist in the TL or where literal translation is
grammatically possible but may not accord with natural usage in the TL.
- Modulation: It is a variation in the message when it is translated into a TL
due to a change in the point of view. It occurs when the translator reproduces the
message of the original text in the TL text in conformity with the current norms of
the TL, since the SL and the TL may appear dissimilar in terms of perspective.
- Recognized translation: it occurs when the translator "normally uses the
official or the generally accepted translation of any institutional term."
- Compensation: it occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a sentence is

compensated in another part.
- Paraphrase: in this procedure the meaning of the CBT is explained. Here the
explanation is much more detailed than that of descriptive equivalent
- Couplets: it occurs when the translator combines two different procedures to
deal with a single problem. It is common for cultural words, where transference
may be combined with a functional or cultural equivalent.

5


- Notes: notes are additional information in a translation.
As depicted by Nida (1964), translation procedures consist of two smaller
procedures: Technical procedures and Organizational procedures.
c. Translation methods
Concerning the translation methods, there are many different classifications.
Based on Newmark‘s (1988) classification, there are eight methods in translation
which are divided into two main groups named semantic translation and
communicative translation. They are put in the form of a flattened V diagram as
below:
SL emphasis

TL emphasis

Word-for-word translation

Adaptation

Literal translation

Free translation

Faithful translation

Idiomatic translation

Semantic translation

Communicative translation

Figure 1: V-diagram of Translation method (Newmark, 1988, p. 45)
- Word-for-word translation: The SL word-order is preserved and words
translated singly by their most common meaning, out of context. This method is
used to understand the mechanics of SL or to explain a difficult text as a pretranslation process.
- Literal translation: The SL grammatical constructions are converted to
their nearest TL equivalents but the lexical words are translated singly, out of
context. It is used to translate general styles texts with few cultural differences such
as manuals, news, etc. It is also called borrowing translation.
- Faithful translation: The translator attempts to reproduce the precise
contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical
structures. Cultural words are transferred but the degree of grammatical and lexical
abnormality is maintained in the translation.

6


- Semantic translation: This translation method is closer to the TL than
other method in the semantic group. It takes more account of the aesthetic value of
the SL text and does not rely on cultural equivalence and make small concessions to
the readership. Therefore, it is more flexible, allows for the translator‘s intuitive
empathy with the original.

- Communicative translation: The translation units dealt with are word,
paragraph, and text. The translator attempts to render exact contextual meaning of
the original. Both the content and the language are readily acceptable and
comprehensible to the reader.
- Idiomatic translation: This method deals with translation unit of sentence
and paragraph. It reproduces the ‗message‘ of the original but tends to distort
nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not
exist in the original. The outcome is a lively and natural translation.
- Free translation: It is used for translation unit of sentence and paragraph.
This method reproduces the matter without the manner and the content without the
form of the original. It is usually a paraphrase so the translation is much longer than
the original.
- Adaptation: The method is the freest form of translation and deals with
text unit. It is mainly used for plays, poetry, and songs. In adaptation, the themes,
characters, plots are preserved, and the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and
the text is rewritten. (Newmark, 1988: 45-7)
Among

all

above-mentioned

translation

methods,

semantic

and

communicative translations are the two most common ones which are often used in
literary translation by translators. Newmark (1988) stated that a semantic translation
is written at the author‘s linguistics level and used for ―expressive‖ texts, a
communicative translation at the readership‘s and used for informative and vocative
texts, therefore, they are able to fulfill the two main aims of translation, namely
accuracy and economy.

7


d. Translation equivalence
In translation theory, 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.
According to Vinay and Darbelnet (1995), equivalence is viewed as a
procedure in which the same situation is replicated as in the original but different
wording is used. They consider a necessary and sufficient condition for equivalent
expressions between language pairs to be acceptable to be listed in a bilingual
dictionary ―as full equivalents‖ (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1995, p. 255).
Jakobson (2000, p. 114) introduces the notion of ―equivalence in difference‖
and ―sameness in difference‖ (in other words: 'unity in diversity'). He states that
there can be no full equivalence between two words (Jakobson, 2000). He does not
propose that translation is impossible but rather pinpoints the differences in the
structure and terminology of languages. There are three kinds of translation:
intralingual, within one language, that is rewording or paraphrase; interlingual,
between two languages; intersemiotic, between sign systems. There are some
similarities between Vinay and Darbelnet‘s theory of translation.
Nida (1964) maintains that there are two basic types of equivalence: formal
equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Nida argues that in formal equivalence the

TT resembles very much the ST in both form and content whereas in dynamic
equivalence an effort is made to convey the ST message in the TT as naturally as
possible.
Lefevere (1993) holds that equivalence is still focused on the word-level
whereas Broeck (1978) wonders how it is possible to measure the equivalent effect
since no text can have the same effect or elicit the same response in two different
cultures in different periods of time.
Catford (2005) claims that translation equivalence (TE) occurs when SL and
TL texts or items are related to (at least some of) the same relevant features of

8


situation substance. Catford‘s main contribution in the field of translation studies
lies in the introduction of his idea of types and shifts of translation. Shifts refer to
the changes that take place during the translation process. Catford describes very
broad types of translation according to three criteria: full translation, partial
translation,

distinguishes

between

rank-bound

translation

and

unbounded

translation. Catford was severely criticized for holding a largely linguistic theory of
translation. Snell-Hornby (1995) put forward the claim that linguistics should not be
considered as the only discipline which enables translation to take place, but that
cultural, situational and historical factors should also be taken into consideration.
Catford‘s definition of textual equivalence is ―circular‖, his reliance on bilingual
informants ―hopelessly inadequate‖ and his example sentences ―isolated and even
absurdly simplistic‖ (cited in Leonardi, 2007, p. 87)
Adopting pragmatic theories of language use, House (1997) has come up
with a translation model in which the basic requirement for equivalence of ST and
TT is that the original and translation should match one another in function.The
translation is only, therefore, considered to be adequate in quality if it matches the
―textual‟ profile and function of the original.
According to Koller (As cited in Panou, 2013), examination of the concept of
equivalence and its linked term correspondence involves the comparison of two
language systems where differences and similarities are described contrastively,
whereas equivalence deals with equivalent items in specific ST-TT pairs and
contexts. Koller distinguishes five different types of quivalence:
(a) Denotative equivalence involving the extralinguistic content of a text
(b) Connotative equivalence elating to lexical choices,
(c) Text-normative equivalence relating to text-types,
(d) Pragmatic equivalence involving the eceiver of the text or message,
(e) Formal equivalence relating to the form and aesthetics of the text.
Newmark (1988) replaces Nida‘s (1964) terms of formal and dynamic
equivalence with semantic and communicative translation respectively. The major

9


difference between the two types of translation proposed by Newmark (1988) is that

semantic translation focuses on meaning whereas communicative translation
concentrates on effect (Panou, 2013).
According to Baker (2011), issue of equivalence by adopting a more neutral
approach is a relative notion because it is influenced by a variety of linguistic and
cultural factors: grammatical, textual and pragmatic equivalence come up; a
distinction is made between word-level and above-word-level equivalence; adopting
a bottom-up approach.
Pym (2014) makes his own contribution to the concept of equivalence by
pointing out that there is no such thing as perfect equivalence between languages
and it is always assumed equivalence. Equivalence is a relation of ―equal value‖
between an ST segment and a TT segment and can be established on any linguistic
level from form to function (p.7). There is a difference between natural and
directional equivalence.
According to House (2015, p.6), equivalence means ‗of equal value‘ and that
it is not at all about sameness or, worse still, identity, but about approximately equal
value despite some unavoidable difference – a difference, that stems from the
(banal) fact that languages are different.
The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and
controversial areas in the field of translation theory. However, equivalence is the
relationship between a source text and a target text that allows the TT to be
considered as a translation of the ST (Baker, 1998). Equivalence is a relationship
between two texts in two languages, rather than between the languages themselves.
2.2. Translation Quality Assessment
There have been many researchers who attempted to work out criteria for
evaluating the translation quality.
In his book, Benjamin (2002, p.260) makes a rather abstract statement on the
characteristics of a ―real translation‖, which is ―transparent‖ and ―does not cover the

10

original, does not block its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforced
by its own medium, to shine upon the original all the more fully‖.
Newmark (1988, p.195) uses the term―translation criticism‖ for translation
quality accessment (TQA) and considers TQA as a link between translation theory
and practice and as the ―keystone of any course in comparative literature, or
literature in translation, and a component of any professional translation course with
the appropriate text-types as an exercise for criticism and discussion‖. According to
him, TQA is important because of three main reasons. Firstly, TQA helps
translators to improve themselves in terms of competences and professional
experiences. The second reason is to hold translator expand their knowledge and
understanding of linguistics. And TQA also contributes to sharpen translators‘
comprehension of translation theories.
According to Newmark (1988), a comprehensive TQA must cover 5 topics:
1. A brief analysis of the souce language (SL) text stressing its intention and
its functional aspects;
2. The translator‘s interpretation of the SL text‘s purpose, his translation
method and the translation‘s likely readership;
3. A selective but representative detailed comparison of the translation with
original;
4. An evaluation of the translation – in the translator‘s terms, - in the critic‘s
terms;
5. Where appropriate, an assessment of the likely place of the translation in
the target language (TL) culture of discipline.
His model has been evaluated as having practical basis and thus adopted
widely. However, it ‗is quite prescriptive than descriptive. It gives guidelines but is
not really a reliable tool to assess an exiting translation‘ (Aladwan, 2011, p.78).
Furthermore, Tiến (2006) notes that the theoretical background that Newmark‘s
model was established on is not as firm as in the case of House‘s (1997) model.

11


2.3. Previous studies applying House‟s models on translation quality
assessment
According to House (1977, p. 28), translation would be "the replacement of a
text in the source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in
the target language‖. This type of equivalent, an underlying concept in House‘s
model, is related to the preservation of meaning across two different languages and
cultures. The model proposed by House (1977) is applied to decide whether a
translation text has a function equivalent to that of its source text. The function
mentioned here consists of ideational and interpersonal functional component and it
is defined as the application or use of the text in a particular context of situation or
situational dimensions. Functions of texts vary from languages to languages. So, a
translation is functionally equivalent to its source text if it does not only match its
source text in function, but also employs equivalent situational-dimensional means
to achieve that function.
House‘s model (1997), for its plausibility, can be found in a number of
studies of TQA. A brief summary of such works is as follows.
Almeida, L. & Nascimento, S. (1996) tested the applicability of House‘s
(1988) model to the translation of legal contracts and verified the usefulness of the
model in the assessment of different translations of the same source text. The
application of the model to the corpus of this study revealed that it proved useful in
the assessment of contract translations from English into Portuguese although the
utilization of the model had some shortcomings.
Nazhand and Mohebbipur (2011) applied House‘s model to evaluate the
Persian translation of William Faulkner‘s ―The Sound and the Fury.‖ The
conclusion drawn was that the translator wrongly translated some parts of the
deemed sentences while the possible method for this work's translation. The
findings supported the claim that House‘s model (1997) was capable of predicting

the types of errors which were covertly and overtly erroneous errors.

12


Another study by Jun and Yan (2011) based on House‘s model (1997) and its
procedure of operation was conducted to analyze and assess Zhang Peiji's translation of
―The Sight of Father's Back‖ by Zhu Ziqing. Through the analysis and assessment, it
was indicated that the translation is overt translation with a few overt and covert
inappropriateness which have no influence on the entire function of this text. The
authors, hence, came to conclusion that the translation text corresponded to the source
text to a great extent. Accordingly, the quality of the translation text was quite high.
In Vietnam, on her thesis, Hạnh (2013) evaluated the Vietnamese version
of the book ‗Chicken soup for mother and daughter soul‘ by Jack Candifield and
Mark Victor Hasen using House‘s model (1997). She concludes that the
translation is an overt translation, which complies with the theory of House (1997)
although there are still a number of overtly erroneous errors.
Lan (2007) employed House‘s model (1997) to assess the translation quality
of the English version of the Law on Investment 2005 of Vietnam. It was found out
that there are mismatches between the two texts on eight parameters of House‘s
model (1997) and that the translation text was of poor quality because it did not
completely match the ST‘s functions as well as failed to employ similar means to
perform the two functions of the text. Luong also proposed four implications for
translating Vietnamese legal documents into English.
House‘s model (1997) is also found in a study of the translation quality of
the travel guidebook ―Du lich Ha Long‖ by Yên (2007). The results of the study
indicated that though there were some mismatches between the ST and TT, the TT
meet the requirements for equivalence of the ST and it had a function consisting of
an ideational and interpersonal functional component.
Another work based on House‘s model (1997) was conducted by Hạnh

(2010). The findings stated that both covertly and overtly erroneous errors are found
in the TT; however, the TT was claimed to convey both the ideational and
interpersonal features of the ST. At the end of the study, several implications for
literary translation are put forward.

13


In another work, Hằng (2012) applied House‘s model (1997) to assess the
Vietnamese translation of Mark Twain‘s ―The adventures of Huckleberry Finn‖Chapter XX by Xuan Oanh. On her thesis, she found out that the Vietnamese
translation in overall has conveyed accurately the author‘s intention by means of
brief and concise target language of an experienced translator. However, there still
exist some shortcomings that affect the quality of the translation. It is the mismatch
on dimension of FIELD and TENOR and a considerable number of overt errors
which influence the ideational function of the translation text.
Hoà (2014) on her thesis evaluated English translation of the short story ―The
general retires‖ by Nguyen Huy Thiep based on House‘s model (1997). She found out
that the translation contains both covertly and overtly erroneous errors, resulted in the
reduction of original‘s textual functions that are expected to perform fairly.
In another work by Hằng (2015), she conducted a study named ‗A
Vietnamese-English translation quality assessment on the Great Gatsby by F. Scoot
Fitzgerald,‘ in which she applied House‘s model (1997). The major methods used
in the study were both quality and quantitative approaches, which was designed
under case study method. The findings showed a number of mismatches in
comparison with the source text.
In her lastest model of Translation Quality Assessment (House, 2015), she
modifies her classification of approaches to TQA and recognizes them as follows:
psycho-social approaches, response-based approaches, text and discourse-oriented
approaches. This is also a new integrative model that emphasizes on contrastive
pragmatics and globalization in her awareness of cultural filtering and of cognition

in translation quality assessment.
In her 2015 edition, House (2015) focuses on the test case using the 1997
model: an English children‘s book translated into German, and applies her new
model onto: Excerpt from Ulilever Annual Report. Prominantly, she revises the
‗unnecessary overlaps‘ of the categories of field, tenor and mode, which are found
as a result of extensive research and she describes her modifications: ‗within Field

14


the analysis now focuses only on lexis, the granularity of lexis, lexical fields and
Hallidayan processes (Material, Mental, Relational). Within Tenor, only lexical and
syntactic choices are examined along the subcategories of Stance, Social Role
Relationship, Social Attitude and Participation. And along Mode, the analysis will
focus as before Medium (spokenness versus writtenness), Theme – Rheme and
Connectivity (Coherenceand Cohesion) (House, 2015, p. 126).
Applying House‘s model (2015), Anari and Varmazyari (2016) aimed at
pinpointing the developments in the revised model and applying it to a Persian
translation of Chomskey‘s Media Control to test its viability. The findings show
that the translation has fallen short of fulfiling the functions of the source text and
that this new model is practical in assessing political translation.
2.4. Literary translation
a. Characteristics of literary translation
According to Reiss (1989), literary texts belong to expressive text type in
which the authors use the aesthetic dimension of language. In literary translation,
the typical features of the source literary text not only need to be considered
carefully but also are the influential elements. In Jone‘s (2009) summary of a wide
range of viewpoints from Stockwell (2002), Venuti (1996), Pilkington (2000), and
Berman (2000), a set of typical features of literary text are indicated. As in the
scholars‘ viewpoints, literary texts are in written-form, although sometimes they can

be spoken. Besides, they fulfill affective or aesthetic function rather than
transactional or informational function. They focus on the expression of emotions
and entertain rather than influence or giving information. Moreover, they are
considered to be fictional. Whether being fact-based or not, they feature words,
images, etc. with ambiguous or indeterminable meanings. Last but not least, they
are characterized by poetic language use.
Recognizing the characteristics in a literary text will enable the translator to be at
least partly qualified to fulfill his task with much more accuracy. The first characteristic
of literary translation is rhetorical and aesthetic value which distinguishes a literary text

15


from a non-literary one and is the essence expected to be captured and maintained in a
literary translation. Literary works are created artistically by increasing the difficulty and
length of perception, which leads to defamiliarization (Shklovsky, 1917, as cited in
Pilkington, 2000, p.18). Once the defamiliarization is comprehended by the translators or
readers, a unique sensation is created. Moreover, in literary translation, the form connects
with the content meanwhile in non-literary translation the content may be considered
detachable from the form or structure. In poetry, devices such as assonance, alliteration,
onomatopoeia, rhythm, verse, metre, and rhyme are sometimes used to achieve musical
or incantatory effects. Likewise, in prose a certain linguistic feature or level can also have
a certain textual function. Another characteristic of literary translation is that literary
translators‘ choices of wording highly depend on the TL and target culture. Therefore,
literal translation may be unacceptable because of linguistic or cultural differences.
What‘s more, in literary translation, target audiences are taken into consideration.
Literary translation always has a readership which is likely to be quite different from the
one the writer originally had in mind. So, a good translation of any text from any period
will, to some extent, only be good in the context of a particular audience at a particular
time and place. Finally, there is no definite correct translation in literary translation.

However, there is still a proper or an appropriate translation according to certain criteria
or from a certain perspective.
b. Challenges in literary translation
Literary translation is challenging to any translators due to special
characteristic of literary texts. The first challenge of literary translation lies in the
differences between cultures. Literary translation bridges the delicate emotional
connections between cultures and languages and furthers the understanding of
human beings across national borders. In the act of literary translation, the soul of
another culture becomes transparent, and the translator recreates the refined
sensibilities of foreign countries and their people through the linguistic, musical,
rhythmic, and visual possibilities of the new language. In the process of translating
literary texts, there are problems in the translation of cultural words in a literary text

16