CONTESTING MEANS OBSERVING. THEN, ANALYZING

The right to contest. But pertinently.

Just as texts can always be "improved" (they can also be involuntarily worsened). What are the objective criteria for evaluating the quality of a translation and defining its acceptability?
Of course here we refer to so-called pragmatic texts: commercial, technical and promotional. In the box, there are six simple evaluation criteria to back up any possible criticism with a view to questioning or contesting a translation. It seems obvious that as soon as we distance ourselves from the spelling criterion, linguistic evaluations can diverge considerably, even reaching a degree of sheer subjectivity when they involve stylistic quality.
This is how any criticism aimed at contesting the acceptability of a translated text, but that is not - directly or indirectly - defined in terms of those six criteria, risks falling into the inexorably unacceptable category of generic criticism ("the text is badly translated", "it’s a literal translation", "it wasn’t done by a native speaker", etc.).

The acceptability of a translation can be questioned if non-compliance with the contract can be demonstrated

We are aware of the problem. Anyone who knows how to write properly is tempted to rewrite the text submitted for a check. All the more so since the corrector on duty, entrusted by the client with proofreading a translation can contribute in a non-professional way.

a. They do not always know the obligations set out in the translation contract (they must therefore be careful not to question a non-contractual geo-style or terminological quality level: for example, has a technical glossary been ordered or provided? Has simple translation quality been agreed on or final "zero error" editing?).

b. They will often introduce author’s corrections (often without knowing it!) which, obviously, change the source text.

c. In their inevitable red pen rewriting frenzy, they risk using a myriad of synonyms, which tend to terrorize clients ignorant of the subjectivity of these often arbitrary contributions, but which have nonetheless brought an element of bloodshed to the "obviously contested" translation.


Linguistic quality is indeed prepared in advance, immediately after the contract is signed and all through the production and validation processes. The client’s technicians and correctors are meant to contribute to it. Through critical and mutually productive cooperation. That is why EUROLOGOS terminology and translation memories are at the center of its multilingual production. And if there is an error in translation, EUROLOGOS assumes its responsibilities. Clients are reassured, and also financially!