Understanding Quality Assurance in Translation

In translation, "Quality Assurance" (QA) is a familiar but complex term. Gabriel Fairman explores what QA means and the challenges it poses in modern translation.

What Does QA Mean?

QA broadly ensures translation accuracy. However, interpretations of QA vary:

• General QA: This is about verifying overall quality. Fairman describes it as answering, “How do you ensure quality?”
• Process-Specific QA: Here, QA refers to specific checks at the end of a translation. It involves spotting errors, both syntactical (e.g., missing periods) and semantic (e.g., changes in meaning).

But as Fairman notes, mechanical QA often results in tedious manual reviews that may not improve actual quality.

“In theory, all that work should have been done during the translation process if it was well executed.”

The Drawbacks of Mechanical QA

Mechanical QA frequently uses software to scan for errors, but this process can be "highly imprecise" and “highly unreliable,” according to Fairman. Issues include:

• False Positives: Minor variations often trigger unnecessary flags.
• Manual Effort: The volume of flagged issues can lead to exhaustive reviews that don’t enhance the text.

LQA and Its Pitfalls

Linguistic Quality Assurance (LQA) assesses deeper text elements but can become overly focused on minor technicalities.

"Maybe there's a comma that's missing, but that might not be the end of the world."

Rethinking Quality

Fairman challenges traditional views of quality, especially with machine translation in the mix. He asserts that machine translation, when well-executed, can lead to high-quality outcomes.

Today, quality should be tied to engagement rather than technical accuracy alone. As Fairman puts it:

"It doesn't matter if the content was technically well-written. If nobody stays on the page, the quality sucks."

Quality as a Tool for Impact

Ultimately, Fairman suggests quality should be measured by effectiveness.

"Language is a way of getting things done,” he says, citing Wittgenstein’s view that language is action-oriented.

Embracing this view of quality as an enabler of engagement and impact may be challenging, but Fairman believes it’s essential for the future of translation.

Final Thoughts

Fairman encourages the translation community to reflect on the meaning of quality. Is it about technical accuracy, or does it lie in engaging and resonating with audiences?

Share your thoughts in the comments, and don’t forget to like and subscribe!