No category

پایان نامه با واژه های کلیدی the، of، and، a

original and its translation on three different levels: the levels of language/text, register (field, mode and tenor) and genre.
In an attempt to make a case for linguistics in translationtheory, equivalence is the fundamental criterion of translation quality. According to Ivir(1996, cited in House, 2001)equivalence is…relative and not absolute,…it emerges from the context of situation as defined by the interplay and has no existence outside that context, and in particular it is not stipulated in advance by an algorithm for the conversion of linguistic units of l1 into linguistic units of L2.
It is obvious that equivalence cannot be linked to formal, syntactic and lexicalsimilarities alone because any two linguistic items in two different languages aremultiply ambiguous, and because languages cut up reality in different ways.
۲.۷. Different Models of Evaluating Students’ Translations
Some scholars are concerned with developing models that can satisfy the needs of practitioners, thus an empting to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Others attempt to draw up objective translation assessment criteria by means of incorporating conventional frameworks of educational measurement, such as reliability, validity, and objectivity, into their overall structures. There are various theories and applications about the evaluation of students’ translations. It is claimed that the field of TQA is problematic, especially when the text is long.
۲۷.۱ Farahzad‘s Model of TQA
Farahzad (1992)maintains that there are two main features that are to be checked in scoring for each unit of translation and they are as follows:
۱. Accuracy: the translation should convey the information in the ST precisely i.e. the translation should be close to the ST norms.
۲. Appropriateness: the sentences should sound fluent and native and be correct in terms of structure (p.276).
Farahzad (1992) states that unnatural translations which convey the source text’s meaning receive half a score, whereas inaccurate translations receives no score, no matter how appropriate and natural the target texts sound. In error recognition items, one score is given for spotting the error, and another one for correcting it. Farahzad (1992, p. 277) believes that scoring the long text can be done in several ways:
A: it can be scored holistically: since the item assesses a wide, variety of competencies, the examiner may find it convenient to approach the text as the unit of translation and adopt this system, especially with a large number of students.
The examiner may, for instance, come up with the following scheme:
۱. Accuracy 20 percent
۲. Appropriateness 20 percent
۳.Naturalness 20 percent
۴.Cohesion 20 percent
۵. Style of discourse/choice of words 20 percent
B: Or it can be subjected to objectify scoring. In this system the target text must be read two times, first to check the accuracy and appropriateness, then for cohesion and style. Albeit time-consuming, this system is more reliable.
Farahzad (1992) suggests that sentence and clause might be the units of translation. Thus each verb in the source language text marks a score. The main clause receives one score and each sub-clause another score. So the accuracy and appropriateness are checked in each sentence and clause.RegardingCohesion, Farahzad (1992. P. 278) believes that:
Cohesion and style cannot be checked and scored at the sentence and clause level. The elements of cohesion (e.g. transitional, appropriate use of pronouns, linkages, etc.) are spread all over the text as are the elements which form the style of discourse (choice of words, grammatical structures, etc)… Ifthe source text is fairly neutral, one may allot a smaller number of points to it than in other cases where the preservation of style is important.
۲.۷.۲. Waddington‘s Model of TQA
Waddington (2001a) asserts that “to date, research in the field of translation quality assessment has been mainly theoretical and descriptive”(p. 311).
Waddington introduces four methods of assessment. The first method (method A) is more known than other methods and is functional in translation classes. Waddington takes this method from Hurtado (1995, cited in Waddington, 2001a, p. 313) and explains that this method is based on error analysis and possible mistakes are grouped under the following headings:
(i) Inappropriate renderings which affect the understanding of the source text; these are divided into eight categories: contresens, faux sens, nonsens, addition, omission, unresolved extralinguistic references, loss of meaning, and inappropriate linguistic variation (register, style, dialect, etc.).
(ii) Inappropriate renderings which affect expression in the target language; these are divided into five categories: spelling, grammar, lexical items, text and style.
(iii) Inadequate renderings which affect the transmission of either the main function or secondary functions of the source text. In each of the categories a distinction is made between serious errors (–۲ points) and minor errors (–۱ point). There is a fourth category which describes the plus points to be awarded for good (+1 point) or exceptionally good solutions (+2 points) to translation problems. In the case of the translation exam where this method was used, the sum of the negative points was subtracted from a total of 110 and then divided by 11 to reach a mark from 0 to 10 (which is the normal Spanish system). For example, if a student gets a total of –۶۶ points, his result would be calculated as follows: 110-66=44/11=4 (which fails to pass; the lowest pass mark is 5).
Waddington`s Method B takes into consideration “the negative effect of errors on the overall quality of the translations” (Waddington, 2001a, p. 314). Here, the examiner needs to decide first “whether each mistake is a translation mistakeor just a language mistake”. Waddington believes that this can be achieved
by deciding whether or not the mistake affects the transfer of meaning from the source to the target text; if it does not, it is a language error (and is penalized with –۱ point); if it does, it is a translation error (and is penalized with –۲ points).(2001a, p. 314)
Regarding the translation errors, Waddington (2001a, p. 314) maintain that the examiner needs to also “judge the importance of the negative effect that each one of these errors has on the translation, taking into consideration the objective and the target readerspecified in the instructions to the translator in the exam paper”.
In the Method B, the final mark for each translation is calculated like Method A:
The examiner fixes a total number of positive points (in the case of method B, this was 85), and then the corrector subtracts the total number of negative points from this figure, and dividesthe result by 8.5. For example, if a student is given –۳۰ points, histotal mark would be 6.5 (pass): (85-30 = 55)/8.5 = 6.5. (
Waddington`s Method Crepresents“a holistic method” based on the following principles. In his other paper, “Should Translations be Assessed Holistically orthroughError Analysis?” Waddington (2001b, p. 21), names the advantages of his method in the following wordings:
(۱) I decided to use a unitaryscale which treats the translation competence as a whole, ratherthan divide it into sub-scales reflecting different sub-competences (such as ST processing skills, transfer skills, TT processing skills).
(۲) It was important to write the descriptors in clear, simple languageand avoid terminology that presupposes specialist knowledge on the part of the correctors.
(۳) Toachieve acceptable levels of reliability, it was important to limitthe number of levels to a maximum of five. It was decided to include two marks within each level (for example 5and 6), so that the correctors could use the traditional Spanish system of marking (from 0 to 10). And, when it came to applying the method, the correctors themselves asked to use half points (5.5, 6.5),and they were allowed to do so, as it would then prove easier todetect possible differences by their applications of this method.
Waddington (2001, b, p. 23) believes that “the quality of a translation can be assessed more accurately if the method of assessment combines error analysis with a holistic appreciation”. Waddingtonmaintains that “methods based on error analysis provide a clear justification of the mark reached, which is greatly appreciated by the students. The system of penalties isclear and its application is apparently objective”. Waddington furthermore mentions two withdraws of the method first; it is subjective second it only takes into account the defaults and has no attention for positive points.
۲.۷.۳ Al-Qinai‘s Model of TQA
Al-Qinaidevelops an eclectic practicalmodel that can be empirically tested for analyzing the linguistic and situational

این فایل ها تست های آزمون آزمایشی کارشناسی ارشد انتشارات سنجش و دانش می باشد که با پاسخ های کاملا” تشریحی ارائه می شود. شما می توانید از منوی جستجو (بالای سایت سمت چپ ) تست های دروس دیگر را پیدا کرده و رایگان دانلود کنید

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *