How Successful Are Undergraduate Students in Revising and Justifying Different Types of Translation Decisions in Response to Instructor Feedback?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/MOaP.24.2018.42.04Keywords:
translation quality assessment, directionality, L1 and L2 translation, translation competence, revision and justification skillsAbstract
This article discusses a study which investigated undergraduate students’ skills in revising and justifying different types of translation decisions. Thirty-six students translated a text into the L1 or L2 using all available resources. The translations were assessed based on their functionality and other criteria related to preserving source text content and assuring target text adequacy; controversial translation decisions were marked with symbols denoting particular criteria. The students then revised or justified their translation decisions. The revisions, justifications, as well as instances where no action was taken were analysed in order to establish what actions the students performed regarding particular types of the instructor’s markings and how effective these actions were, both irrespective of and depending on directionality.
Downloads
References
Alves, F., Couto Vale, D. (2011), “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data”, Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition, 1, pp. 105-122.
View in Google Scholar
Antunović, G., Pavlović, N. (2011), “Moving On, Moving Back or Changing It Here and Now. Self-Revision in Student Translation Processes from L2 and L3”, Across Languages and Cultures, 12(2), pp. 213-234, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.5.
View in Google Scholar
Biel, Ł. (2011), “Training Translators or Translation Service Providers? EN 15038: 2006 Standard of Translation Services and Its Training Implications”, Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, pp. 61‑76, [on-line:] http://www.jostrans.org/issue16/art_biel.pdf – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Brunette, L. (2000), “Towards a Terminology for Translation”, The Translator, 6(2), pp. 169-182, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064.
View in Google Scholar
Brunette, L., Gagnon, C., Hine, J. (2005), “The GREVIS Project: Revise or Court Calamity”, Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), pp. 29-45, [online:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.3.
View in Google Scholar
Chodkiewicz, M. (2014), “Addressing the Challenges of Designing a General Translation Course for Undergraduate Students”, Intralinea, 16 (Special Issue: Challenges in Translation Pedagogy), [on-line:] http://www.intralinea.org/specials/articlethe_challenges_of_designing_a_general_translation_course_for_undergraduates – 20.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Chodkiewicz, M. (2015), “Undergraduate Students’ Use of External Sources in Revising and Justifying Their Translation Decisions Based on Instructor Feedback”, Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 39(2),
View in Google Scholar
pp. 124-141, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2015.39.2.124.
View in Google Scholar
Chodkiewicz, M. (2016), “What Types of Errors Do Undergraduate Students Make Depending on Directionality?”, in: Ł. Bogucki, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, M. Thelen (eds.), Translation and Meaning. New Series, vol. 2, pt. 2, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 191-208.
View in Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2009), “Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to Translation Quality Evaluation”, Target, 21(2), pp. 215-244, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.21.2.02col.
View in Google Scholar
Corder, G.W., Foreman, D.I. (2009), Nonparametric Statistics for Non-Statisticians: A Step-by-Step Approach, Wiley, Hoboken, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118165881.ch1.
View in Google Scholar
Dragsted, B., Carl, M. (2013), “Towards a Classification of Translator Profiles Based on Eye-Tracking and Keylogging Data”, Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), pp. 133-158, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.6.
View in Google Scholar
Dybiec-Gajer, J. (2013), “Zmierzyć przekład? Z metodologii oceniania w dydaktyce przekładu pisemnego”, Universitas, Kraków.
View in Google Scholar
Dybiec-Gajer, J. (2017), “Paradoksy profesjonalizacji”, Między Oryginałem a Przekładem, 38, pp. 35-53, [online:] https://dx.doi.org/10.12797/MOaP.23.2017.38.03.
View in Google Scholar
EMT expert group (2009), “Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multilingual and Multimedia Communication”, [on-line:] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
EN 15038 (2006), “Translation Services – Service Requirements”, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
View in Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2005), Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
View in Google Scholar
Gałuskina, K. (2016), “Tłumacz i tłumaczenie z perspektywy normy tłumaczeniowej (PN-EN 15038 oraz PN-EN ISO 17100)”, Między Oryginałem a Przekładem, 33, pp. 9-20, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.12797/MOaP.22.2016.33.02.
View in Google Scholar
Göpferich, S. (2009), “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and Its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp”, in: S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, I.M. Mees (eds.), Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 11-37.
View in Google Scholar
Göpferich, S. (2010), “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective: Novices and Professionals Compared”, in: S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, I.M. Mees (eds.), New Approaches in Translation Process Research, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 5-55.
View in Google Scholar
House, J. (1997), Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Narr, Tübingen.
View in Google Scholar
ISO 17100 (2015), “Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services”, International Organization for Standardization, [on-line:] http://iso17100.com/ – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
ITI, Institute of Translation and Interpreting (2015), “Exam Guide”, [online:] http://www.iti.org.uk/attachments/article/357/Exam Guide 2015.pdf – 20.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Kaźmierczak, B. (2010), personal communication.
View in Google Scholar
Koby, G.S., Champe, G.G. (2013), “Welcome to the Real World: Professional-Level Translator Certification”, Translation & Interpreting, 5(1), pp. 156-173.
View in Google Scholar
Künzli, A. (2006), “Teaching and Learning Translation Revision: Some Suggestions Based on Evidence from a Think-Aloud Protocol Study”, in: M. Garant (ed.), Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning, Helsinki University, Helsinki, pp. 9-24.
View in Google Scholar
Künzli, A. (2007), “The Ethical Dimension of Translation Revision. An Empirical Study”, Journal of Specialised Translation, 8, pp. 42-56, [on-line:] http://www.jostrans.org/issue08/art_kunzli.pdf – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Mossop, B. (2007), Revising and Editing for Translators, St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester.
View in Google Scholar
Nord, C. (1997), Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained, St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester.
View in Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. (2012), “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation”, The Journal of Specialised Translation, 17, pp. 55-77, [on-line:] http://www.jostrans.org /issue17 /_obrien.pdf – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
PACTE (2003), “Building a Translation Competence Model”, in: F. Alves (ed.), Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 43-66, [online:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.06pac.
View in Google Scholar
Piotrowska, M. (2007), Proces decyzyjny tłumacza: podstawy metodologii nauczania przekładu pisemnego, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej, Kraków.
View in Google Scholar
Reiss, K. (2000), “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in Translation”, in: L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 160-171.
View in Google Scholar
Robert, I.S., Remael, A., Ureel, J.J. (2016), “Towards a Model of Translation Revision Competence”, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(2), [online:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1198183.
View in Google Scholar
Robert, I.S., van Waes, L. (2014), “Selecting a Translation Revision Procedure: Do Common Sense and Statistics Agree?”, Perspectives. Studies in Translatology, 22(3), pp. 304-320, [on-line:] https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.871047.
View in Google Scholar
SDL (2011), LISA QA Metric, [on-line:] http://producthelp.sdl.com/SDL_TMS_2011/en/Creating_and_ Maintaining_Organizations/Managing_QA_Models/LISA_QA_Model.htm – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2009), “Translation Quality Assessment”, Mutatis Mutandis, 2(1), pp. 3-23.
View in Google Scholar
Zearo, F. (2005) “Measuring Language Quality With the TQI. A Real World Case Study of Language QA at Lionbridge”, [on-line:] http://www.translationquality.com/files/MeasuringLanguageQualityWithTQI.pdf – 2.03.2017.
View in Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Marta Chodkiewicz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
