i Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences & Humanities Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature ERRORS IN TRANSLATION OF SENTENCES FROM VIETNAMESE INTO ENGLIS[.]
Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences & Humanities Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature ERRORS IN TRANSLATION OF SENTENCES FROM VIETNAMESE INTO ENGLISH: A CASE STUDY AT AN ENGLISH FACULTY IN VIETNAM A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By Lâm Yến Nhi Supervised by Nguyễn Thị Như Ngọc, Ph.D Ho Chi Minh City, May 2021 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify that the thesis entitled: ERRORS IN TRANSLATION OF SENTENCES FROM VIETNAMESE INTO ENGLISH: A CASE STUDY AT AN ENGLISH FACULTY IN VIETNAM is my original work It is based on my own research to meet the requirements for the thesis in Master’s Program issued by the Higher Degree Committee All sources used by me have been documented No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement This thesis has not previously been submitted for assessment in this or any other subject or course at this university or elsewhere Ho Chi Minh City, May 2021 Lam Yen Nhi i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Lam Yen Nhi, being the candidate for the degree of Master in TESOL, accept the requirement of the university relating to the retention and use of the Master’s theses deposited in the university library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the university library should be accessible for the purposes of the studies and research, in accordance with the normal condition established by the library for care, loan, and reproduction of theses Ho Chi Minh City, May 2021 Lam Yen Nhi ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to those people who provided me with valuable advice and enthusiastic supports during the time I worked on this thesis I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc, for providing invaluable guidance throughout this research Her dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired me She has taught me the methodology to carry out the research and to present the research works as clearly as possible It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under her guidance I am extremely grateful for what she has offered me Beside my supervisor, I would like to thank all of the teachers at the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature at the University of Social Sciences & Humanities, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City for their interesting and informative lectures throughout my Master course in TESOL My sincere thanks also go to all of my friends in this Master course for their constant encouragement I am extremely grateful to my parents for their love, caring and sacrifices for educating and preparing me for my future I am very much thankful to my husband and my daughter for their love, understanding, whole-hearted encouragement and continuing support to complete this thesis My thanks go to all the people who have supported me to complete the thesis directly or indirectly iii TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix ABSTRACT x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1.6 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION 2.2 DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION ERROR 10 2.3 TRANSLATION ERROR TAXONOMY 11 2.3.1 The taxonomy of Dulay et al (1982) 11 2.3.2 The taxonomy of Pym (1992) 13 2.3.3 The taxonomy of Costa et al (2014) 14 2.4 TRANSLATION ERROR ANALYSIS 16 2.5 ERROR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 17 2.5.1 The procedure of Pinker (1986) 18 2.5.2 The procedure of Ellis (1994) 18 2.5.3 The procedure of Brown (2007) 19 2.6 HOLISTIC VERSUS ANALYTIC SCORING METHODS 20 2.6.1 Holistic scoring method 21 2.6.2 Analytic scoring method 22 iv 2.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES 24 2.7.1 Studies on translation errors 24 2.7.2 Studies on holistic and analytic scoring methods 26 2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 29 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 31 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 31 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 31 3.3 RESEARCH SITE 33 3.4 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES 34 3.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 35 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 37 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 42 4.1 ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION ERRORS 42 4.1.1 Substance 43 4.1.2 Lexis 46 4.1.3 Grammar 51 4.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLISTIC SCORING AND ANALYTIC SCORING 55 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 60 5.1 CONCLUSION 60 5.1.1 Translation errors 60 5.1.2 Holistic and analytic scoring methods 63 5.2 SUGGESTIONS 63 5.2.1 Suggestions for students 63 5.2.2 Suggestions for teachers 66 5.3 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 69 REFERENCES 71 APPENDIX A: COURSE SYLLABUS OF BASIC TRANSLATION 77 APPENDIX B: THE FUNCTIONAL HOLISTIC TQA MODEL DEVELOPED IN THE STUDY OF SOFYAN AND TARIGAN (2019) 86 v APPENDIX C: FINAL EXAMINATION 90 APPENDIX D: LETTER OF PERMISSION FOR DATA COLLECTION 93 APPENDIX E: THE SUGGESTED TRANSLATION FOR FINAL EXAMINATION 94 APPENDIX F: EXAMPLES OF THE HOLISTIC SCORING METHOD 96 APPENDIX G: SAMPLES OF TRANSLATION ERRORS EXTRACTED FROM STUDENTS’ FINAL PAPERS IN BASIC TRANSLATION 98 APPENDIX H: HOLISTIC SCORES AND ANALYTIC SCORES OF STUDENTS’ TRANSLATION PAPERS 103 APPENDIX I: VOCABULARY LEARNING CATEGORIES AND STRATEGIES 115 APPENDIX J: A TAXONOMY OF KINDS OF VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES 116 APPENDIX K: SOME SPECIAL PURPOSE DICTIONARIES USEFUL TO ENGLISH TRANSLATORS 117 APPENDIX L: ASSESSMENT TASKS 118 vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EF Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature EFL English as Foreign Language TQA Translation quality assessment USSH University of Social Sciences & Humanities VNUHCM Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Illustration of the Relationship and Relative Proportions of the Four Error Types in a Comparative Taxonomy 13 Figure 2.2 The Error Taxonomy of Costa et al (2014) 15 Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework of the Study 30 Figure 4.1 The Frequency of Students’ Translation Errors 42 Figure 4.2 The Frequency of Substance Errors 43 Figure 4.3 The Frequency of Lexis Errors 46 Figure 4.4 The Frequency of Grammar Errors 51 Figure 4.5 The Differences between Holistic and Analytic Scores 57 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Students’ Results in the Final Examination in the Course Basic Translation in the Academic Year 2017-2018 at the EF, USSH, VNUHCM Table 3.1 The Explanation of Translation Errors 36 Table 3.2 Holistic Scoring Rubrics 38 Table 3.3 Examples of the Analytic Scoring Method 39 Table 4.1 Examples of Substance Errors 44 Table 4.2 Examples of Lexis Errors 47 Table 4.3 Examples of Grammar Errors 52 Table 4.4 Examples of Holistic Scores and Analytic Scores 55 Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Holistic Score and Analytic Score 58 Table 4.6 Comparison between Holistic Score and Analytic Score 59 ix Papers 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Holistic scores 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 4.00 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.7 3.90 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.25 0.5 2.00 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.25 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.5 4.00 1 0.75 3.50 0.25 Analytic scores 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.8 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.8 3.5 0.9 0.7 0.4 3.4 0.8 106 Papers 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Holistic scores 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 2.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 2.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 2.75 0.75 Analytic scores 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.5 2.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 2.9 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 3.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.6 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 3.6 0.8 Papers 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Holistic scores 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 4.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.75 2.50 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.00 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.25 1.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 4.00 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.75 2.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 3.25 Analytic scores 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.8 3.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 4.2 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.8 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 2.8 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 3.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.7 3.5 0.7 107 Papers 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Holistic scores 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.50 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.6 3.00 0.5 Analytic scores 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 3.5 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 2.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 2.6 0.5 Papers 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Holistic scores 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 4.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.75 2.50 0.5 0.5 1 0.75 4.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.75 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 2.75 0.75 Analytic scores 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 3.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 3.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 2.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 3.1 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.5 3.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 3.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 2.4 0.7 108 Papers 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 Holistic scores 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 3.20 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 2.50 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 3.00 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.30 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 2.80 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.50 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 3.50 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.70 0.6 Analytic scores 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.5 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.2 0 0.7 0.8 0.6 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.2 Papers 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Holistic scores 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.00 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 2.00 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 2.75 0.75 Analytic scores 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 3.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 4.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 109 Papers 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Holistic scores 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.70 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.60 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 3.70 0.7 0.8 0.75 0.5 0.5 3.00 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 4.00 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.75 Analytic scores 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.5 0 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 3.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.4 2.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.9 0.6 0.7 2.6 0.6 Papers 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Holistic scores 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.5 2.00 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.75 2.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.00 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 2.50 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 3.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.75 1 0.5 2.25 0.25 Analytic scores 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 3.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 2.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 3.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.4 110 Papers 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Holistic scores 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 2.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.00 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 4.00 0.75 0.75 4.00 0.75 Analytic scores 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.4 0 0.3 0.8 0.5 2.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 3.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 4.1 0.8 Papers 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Holistic scores 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.75 2.75 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 2.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.25 0.75 0.5 0.5 3.50 0.5 Analytic scores 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.5 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 3.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.3 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 2.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 3.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 3.2 0.6 111 Papers 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Holistic scores 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 3.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 2.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 2.50 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.00 0.5 0.5 0.25 3.25 0.75 Analytic scores 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.7 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.5 2.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.5 Papers 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Holistic scores 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 2.50 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 3.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 2.50 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 2.25 0.5 Analytic scores 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 3.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 2.2 0.4 112 Papers 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 Holistic scores 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.00 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.75 3.50 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.75 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.5 4.00 0.75 1 0.75 4.50 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.25 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.25 2.25 0.75 Analytic scores 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.6 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.5 2.6 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.5 3.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 Papers 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Holistic scores 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 2.50 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 3.25 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 2.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.5 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.75 0.75 2.75 0.75 Analytic scores 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 2.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 2.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.1 0.9 113 Papers 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Holistic scores 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 1 4.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.50 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 4.50 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 4.00 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 3.50 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 2.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 4.00 0.75 1 4.00 Analytic scores 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.8 3.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.9 3.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.4 3.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 3.4 0.8 Papers 89 90 91 92 93 94 Holistic scores 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.75 2.00 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.50 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.75 1.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 3.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 3.00 0.5 0.75 Analytic scores 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.2 0.9 0.7 114 Papers 183 184 185 186 187 Holistic scores 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.75 3.25 0.5 0.75 1 4.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 3.75 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.5 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.50 0.5 Analytic scores 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 2.9 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 3.2 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 3.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 3.1 0.8 0.3 APPENDIX I: VOCABULARY LEARNING CATEGORIES AND STRATEGIES (Gu and Johnson, 1996) Beliefs About Vocabulary Words Should Be Memorized Learning Words Should Be Acquired in Context: Bottom-Up Words Should Be Studied and Put to Use: Top-Down Metacognitive Regulation Selective Attention Self-Initiation Guessing Strategies Using Background Knowledge/Wider Context Using Linguistic Cues/Immediate Context Dictionary Strategies Dictionary Strategies for Comprehension Extended Dictionary Strategies Looking-Up Strategies Note-Taking Strategies Meaning-Oriented Note-Taking Strategies Usage-Oriented Note-Taking Strategies Rehearsal Strategies Using Word Lists Oral Repetition Visual Repetition Encoding Strategies Association/Elaboration Imagery Visual Encoding Auditory Encoding Using Word-Structure Semantic Encoding Contextual Encoding Activation Strategies 115 APPENDIX J: A TAXONOMY OF KINDS OF VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES (Nation, 2001) General class of strategies Types of strategies Planning: choosing what to focus on Choosing words and when to focus on it Choosing the aspects of word knowledge Choosing strategies Planning repetition Sources: finding information about Analyzing the word words Using context Consulting a reference source in first language or second language Using parallels in first language and second language Processes: establishing knowledge Noticing Retrieving Generating 116 APPENDIX K: SOME SPECIAL PURPOSE DICTIONARIES USEFUL TO ENGLISH TRANSLATORS (Roberts, 1992) Dictionaries Use Learners’ Collins Cobuild English Language Verification of collocations dictionary Dictionary (London, Collins, 1988) Dictionary Collocations and of usage of The BBI Combinatory Dictionary Verification of collocations of English Eds M Benson et al when writing in or Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John translating into English Benjamins, 1986 Dictionary neologisms of The Longman Register of New Awareness of new Words Volume Two 1990 Ed meanings and new words John Ayto Harlow, Longman, 1990 England, in English; awareness of changes in English usage 117 APPENDIX L: ASSESSMENT TASKS (Hurtado and Pavani, 2018) Tasks Assessment tasks Identify the diversity of ➢ Fill in a questionnaire on prior knowledge about tourist genre tourist texts ➢ Recognize cultural references in Spanish tourist advertisements Describe tourist genres ➢ Identify the main characteristics of tourist texts ➢ Identify the main pragmatic, semiotic and lexical characteristics of three tourist guides ➢ Identify the main pragmatic, semiotic and lexical characteristics of three tourist leaflets specific ➢ Identify translation problems in a tourist text Identify ➢ Classify the translation problems found in a translation problems in tourist genres tourist text ➢ Select the most important translation problems and find a solution ➢ Carry out a gist translation (−25%) of an extract of tourist guide specific ➢ Identify translation errors in a published Italian Identify translation errors in tourist translation of a tourist leaflet ➢ Classify the translation errors found in a tourist genres leaflet ➢ Select the most important translation errors in a tourist leaflet and find potential alternatives ➢ Proofread and correct a tourist leaflet translation ➢ Compile a terminology glossary Solve problems report/blog in a travel ➢ Translate a travel report/blog and compile a glossary and a report on documentary resources 118 Tasks Solve Assessment tasks translation ➢ Identify cultural references in a tourist guide problems in a tourist guide ➢ Identify ten cultural translation problems and propose a solution ➢ Translate an extract of a tourist guide with a report on cultural references Solve translation ➢ Translate a tourist leaflet, and produce a report problems in a tourist leaflet Final task: tourist guide translate about the translation process a ➢ Translate a 300-word extract from a tourist guide in hours ➢ Compile the student portfolio: selection of formative tasks and summative tasks (including the revised versions after proofreading); learning assessment questionnaire; final self-assessment report ➢ Fill in a learning assessment questionnaire* ➢ Fill in a teaching assessment questionnaire** *Learning assessment questionnaire (1) Identify existing tourist genres and their main characteristics (2) Identify specific translation problems of tourist genres (3) Use documentary resources and appropriate tools to translate tourist genres from Spanish into Italian (4) Solve translation problems of tourist genres when translating from Spanish into Italian (5) How would you globally assess your learning? ** Teaching assessment questionnaire (1) The teaching unit met my expectations (2) The content progression was adequate and coherent 119 (3) The selected texts (to be analyzed or translated) were adequate (4) The materials (sheets and tables) were adequate (5) Which task did you find most interesting? (6) Which task did you find least interesting? (7) What did you think was missing? (content, tasks, materials, etc.) (8) What did you find unnecessary? (9) What changes would you introduce in the teaching unit? (10) How would you globally assess your learning? 120