Since different principles apply to different types of F-E and D-E translations, it is not easy to judge the relative merits of two or more translations. However, three fundamental criteria are basic to the evaluation of all translating, and in different ways help to determine the relative merit of particular translations. These are: (1) general efficiency of the communication process. (2) comprehension of intent, and (3) equivalence of response.

The efficiency of a translation can be judged in terms of the maximal reception for the minimum effort of decoding. In a sense, efficiency is closely related to Joos' "first law of semantics" (Joos, 1953), which may be stated simply: "That meaning is best which adds least to the total meaning of the context." In other words, the maximizing of redundancy reduces the work of decoding. At the same time, redundancy should not be so increased that the noise factor of boredom cuts down efficiency. Perhaps the factor of efficiency may be restated thus: "Other things being equal, the efficiency of the translation can be judged in terms of the maximal reception for the minimal effort in decoding.”Because of the diversities in linguistic form and cultural backgrounds. however, translations are more likely to be overloaded (and hence inefficient in terms of effort) than so redundant that boredom results.

The second criterion in judging translations, comprehension of the original intent (or, stated in other terms. the accuracy with which the meaning of the source-language message is represented in the translation), is oriented either toward the source culture (a formal-equivalence translation) or toward the receptor culture (a dynamic-equivalence translation). In an F-E translation, the comprehension of intent must be judged essentially in terms of the context in which the communication was first uttered; in a D-E translation this intent must be understood in terms of the receptor culture. The extent to which intent can be interpreted in a cultural context other than the one in which the message was first given is directly proportional to the universality of the message. Aristophanes' play The Clouds obviously does not lend itself so well to comprehension of intent in different cultures as does the Book of Job.

This criterion of "comprehension of original intent" is designed to cover what has often been traditionally spoken of as “accuracy,"“fidelity,”and "correctness.” Actually, one cannot speak of "accuracy" apart form comprehension by the receptor, for there is no way of treating accuracy сxcept in terms of the extent to which the message gets across (or should presumably get across) to the intended receptor. "Accuracy" is meaningless, if treated in isolation from actual decoding by individuals for which the message is intended. Accordingly, what may be "accurate" for one set of receptors may be "inaccurate" for another, for the level and manner of comprehension may be different for the two groups. Furthermore, comprehension itself must be analyzed in terms of comprehending the significance of a message as related to its possible settings, i.e. the original setting of the communication and the setting in which the receptors themselves exist. This second criterion (i.e. comprehension of intent)is in no sense designed to sidestep the issues of acсuracy and fidelity, but to place them in their right perspective--in terms of a total theory of communication.