peculiaritiesof ST and TT in the pre-translational phase and the post translationalassessment of TT quality. Among the parameters raised by Hatim and Mason (1990), House (1981, 1997), Newmark (1988), and Steiner, 1994); Al-Qinai (2000, p. 499) highlights the following:
۱. Textual Typology and Tenor: i.e. the linguistic and narrative structure of STand TT, textual function (e.g. didactic, informative, instructional, persuasive, evocative….).
۲. Formal Correspondence: overall textual volume and arrangement, paragraph division, punctuation, reproduction of headings, quotation, mottos, logos… etc.
۳. Coherence of Thematic Structure: degree of referential compatibility and thematic symmetry.
۴. Cohesion: Reference (co-reference, proforms, anaphora, cataphora), substitution, ellipsis,deixis and conjunctions.
۵. Text-Pragmatic (Dynamic) Equivalence: degree of proximity of TT to the intended effectof ST (i.e. fulfillment or violation of reader expectations) and the illocutionaryfunction of ST and TT.
۶. Lexical Properties (register): jargon, idioms, loanwords, catch phrases, collocations, paraphrases, connotations and emotive aspects of lexical meaning.
۷. Grammatical/ Syntactic Equivalence: word order, sentence structure, cleaving, number, gender and person (agreement), modality, tense and aspect.
Al-Qinai (2000) believes that:
The assessment of a translated text seeks to measure the degree of efficiency of the text with regard to the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic function of ST within the cultural frame and expressive potentials of both source language and target language. (p. 499)
Regarding the permissibility, Al-Qinai (2000) expresses opinion that
Unless motivated by linguistic or pragmatic variance, only minimal violations of the above parameters are permissible in translations which lend themselves to quality assessment. Yet, since no two languages are the same, either in meaning or in form, the best we can hope for is an approximation given the following variables: a) nature of ST message, b) purpose and intent of ST producer, c) type of audience.
۲.۷.۴. Sainz’s Model of TQA
Sainz (1992) discusses a student-centered approach to correction of translations. She believes that teachers must make it clear that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions, and that the students’ answers are going to be used only as feedback for discussion later on. The process which Sainz suggests entails a five-stage approach for correction of translations:
۱. Development is a stage during which it is intended to understand and anticipate students’ needs in order to those needs more efficiency.
۲. Implementation is a stage during which students get the correction chart on the following: Mistakes possible correction source type of mistake under mistakes students write the word, phrase or sentence which was understands as incorrect in their translation. Under possible correction they try to produce an error free version.
The source of the answer for students’ correction is entered under the column Source as: myself; peer; dictionary; teacher. The column type of mistake, filled in by the students, can become a good exercise to help students recognize what types of mistake they are making and consequently eliminate them.
۳. Monitoring is a stage during which teachers can monitor the process in order to make adjustments as the course unfolds, on the basis of the information they retrieve from the correction chart.
۴. Integration is a stage during which teachers can fill in their own chart of types of mistakes for a particular translation piece.
۵. Self-monitoring is a stage during which students can check their own progress in the course, at the same time, become critical about their learning.
At the bottom of the correction chart, students are asked to circle the figure, ranging from +3 to -3, which they think best matches their idea about their performance in that particular translation passage and to make any other comments.
A student-centered correction of translation is very useful in translation classes. By this careful system, the students are subject to constant revision and changes in order to be improved. Small changes can sometimes create great effects. This method depends on having a class.
This chapter has reviewed the relevant literature on CT and its relation with the quality of translation. It pointed out how critical abilities do work on the quality of translation .If translators apply these abilities and read the ST critically, they can better solve their problems and produce TT near to ST. Also the issues presented so far provided the necessary theoretical background for the purpose of this study.
This research is an experimental study and as mentioned in chapter I it was an attempt to investigate whether there is any causal relation between critical thinking application in translation and the quality of students’ translation. More precisely, the possible impact of critical thinking instruction on translation ability of translation students was investigated. Accordingly, the following research question and null hypothesis were raised:
۱. Does critical thinking have any significant effect on translation ability of translations students?
H (0): Critical thinking instruction does not have any significant effect on the translation ability of translation students.
This chapter describes all the information pertaining to the actual implementation of the study which followed certain methodology to answer
the research question raised at the outset.
First, the participants of this study and their selection process are described followed by all the instrumentation utilized throughout the work. Next, the researcher details each and every single step of the study in the procedure section. Then the data analysis mechanisms are described, and the design of the study is explained at the end of this chapter.
This study was conducted on75 male and female BA translation students at the7th semester Azad University, Shahr-e-Ghods branch. The participants were non-randomly selected on the basis of the scores they obtained on a Preliminarily English Test (PET) and a translation test before conducting the study. The PET was administered to three intact university translation classes, and the two classes that were shown not to be significantly different regarding their PET mean scores were selected to undergo the investigation. The two selected classes contained 42 students (21 in each class). Afterwards, their translation abilities were compared through a translation test to make sure that they were also homogeneous regarding their translation ability as the dependent variable. Due to factors out of the researcher’s control, however, subjects loss occurred by the end of the semester. The number of participants, was reduced to 36 at the time of posttest, each group comprising only 18 learners.
Before administering the PET and the translation test, a group of 30students with similar characteristics to the target sample were used for pilotingthePET.The writing part of PET was rated by two qualified raters.Both raters were teachers at Azad University, Shahr-e-Ghods branch. Later on, the inter-rater reliability was calculated to ensure the consistency of their scores. Since there was an acceptable consistency between the two raters, the researcher went through the same procedure for the main study. .
To ensure the two groups’ homogeneity regarding their translation ability at the outset, a translation test was administered to both groups. .The same teachers rated the translation test based on Farahzad’s (1992) model .Two university teachers at the same university rated the translation papers of the participants to ensure reliability of the test, and after guaranteeing the inter-rater reliability, the mean of the two raters’ scores for each participant was used for the final calculations.
To meet the purpose of this study, certain instruments including tests and instructional materials were used which are elaborately described below.
۳.۳.۱. Instructional Material
۳.۳.۲. Preliminary English Test (PET)
Before conducting the study, the researcher had to homogenize the participants with respect to their general English proficiency. So PET as one of the standardized tests among the series of Cambridge ESOL (see Appendix A) was used for that purpose. It is an exam for people who can use every day written and spoken English at an intermediate level. It covers all four language skills- reading, writing, listening and speaking. Only the reading and writing sections were used in this study.
Reading and writing: this section which