Translation quality evaluation has been in the focus of interest of researchers for quite a long time, although empirical investigations were started only two decades ago. The general assumption is that the source language message should be ideally manifested in the target language, thus effective communication between the listeners (users) and the speaker is the priority of translation/interpretation. Effective communication is enabled by means of good quality interpretation. In the attempt aimed at quality description, apart from subjective impressions resulting from our perception of the features that good translation/interpretation and effective communication should have, we cannot ignore three basic factors, i.e., the interpreter (as the text author/ producer), the interpretation process and product which is the result of this process and involvement as well as competence on the part of the interpreter/translator. Quality criteria are largely fuzzy; their conceptual limits are not distinctive and, in the opinion of research subjects, are interrelated. Therefore, the specification of quality criteria that do not raise any doubts both on the part of users (e.g. listeners) and on the part of interpreters becomes problematic. The paradox of quality may emerge if the interpreter’s role is, on the one hand, to retain absolute fidelity to the original text and his/ her neutrality (or invisibility), and on the other to be a cultural mediator who controls communication, facilitates it and corrects the text to make it accurate, clear and coherent.
Poniższy artykuł jest próbą odpowiedzi na pytanie, czym jest jakość w przekładzie ustnym oraz jakie kryteria bierze się pod uwagę w procesie jej ewaluacji. Zaprezentowano wyniki znanych w literaturze przedmiotu badań empirycznych. Podkreślono kompleksowość zjawiska i trudność obiektywnej analizy, co prowadzić może do zaobserwowanego przez autorkę paradoksu związanego z rolą tłumacza w zapewnieniu przekładu odpowiedniej jakości.