TRANSLATION MEMORY SOFTWARE AND TRANSLATION
TEACHING
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education
By
Asep Suparman
1201147
TRANSLATION MEMORY SOFTWARE AND TRANSLATION
TEACHING
Oleh Asep Suparman
Sebuah tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat untuk memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) di Sekolah Pascasarjana, Program Studi
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
© Andrian Permadi 2015 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Januari 2015
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,
APPROVAL SHEET
TRANSLATION MEMORY SOFTWARE AND TRANSLATION TEACHING
APPROVED BY Supervisor
Yoyo Surjakusumah, Dr., H., Dipl. TEFL., M.Pd. NIDN. 9900003392
Co-supervisor
Odo Fadloeli, Dr., MA. NIP. 195408041977021001
Head of English Language Education Program
ABSTRACT
This research was concerned with the application of Translation Memory (TM) software to teaching translation at university level of education in Indonesia. This study employed quantitative and qualitative approach. Quantitative approach was intended to find out whether or not TM software improves students’ translation quality, and qualitative approach was applied to explore students' views on the classroom use of TM software. To find out whether or not TM software improves students’ translation, their translations were collected and analyzed quantitatively; and students’ views were analyzed from their journals and interviews. The results of the study offered an evidence that there was no significant difference between students who used TM software and those who did not. Even so, students viewed that TM software should be included into the process of translation teaching and learning activities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. DECLARATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... iiv
LIST OF TABLES ... vii
LIST OF CHARTS ... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ... iix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... x
ABSTRACT ... xxi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1Background of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Scope of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3 Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Purpose of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5 The Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6 The Clarification of the Term Translation Memory Software ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 Significance of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.8 The Structure of the Paper ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 The Nature of Translation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 Text Typology and Approach to TranslationError! Bookmark not defined.
v
2.6.1 The History of Translation Technology Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6.2 Types of Translation Systems ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.7Translation Memory Software ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.8Criticism of the Use of Translation in Language Classroom ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.9 Chapter Summary ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Setting and Participant ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Data Collection Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.1 Teaching and Learning Activities ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.2The Collection of Students’ TranslationError! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.3 Assessment Rurbric ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.4 Pretest and Posttest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.5 Students' Journals ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.6 Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4 Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5 Chapter Summary ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Analyses of Students’ Translations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Pretest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.1 Summary of Pretest Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2 Comparison between the Pretest Mean Scores of the Two Groups
Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 Posttest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.1 Summary of Posttest Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2 Progress Made by the Experimental Group ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
vi
4.5 Students' Views on the Classroom Use of TM SoftwareError! Bookmark not defined.
4.6 Chapter Summary ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1 Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2 Limitation of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.3 Recommendation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. REFERENCES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDICES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 1: Preliminary Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 2: Course Timeline ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 3: Sample of Lecture Material (PowerPoint)Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4: Informed Consent ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 5: Students’ Journal Format ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 6: Sample of Students’ Journals ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Assessment Rubric ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.1 Pretest Score Overview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.2 Summary of Pretest Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.3 Normality of Pretest Score Distribution Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.4 Homogeneity of Pretest Score Distribution ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.5 Summary of t-Test of Pretest Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.6 Posttest Score Overview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.7 Summary of Posttest Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.8 Normality of Posttest Score Distribution ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.9 Homogeneity of Posttest Score Distribution ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.10 Matched t-Test Summary of the Experimental Group Score ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF CHARTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ALPAC: Automated Language Processing Advisory Committee CALL: Computer-assisted language learning
CAT: Computer-assisted translation DE: German
EN: English
FAMT: Fully automatic machine translation HAMT: Human-aided machine translation HTML: Hypertext markup language ID: Indonesian
MAHT: Machine-aided human translation MT: Machine translation
NL: Dutch R: Researcher S01: Student one
SL: Source language Ss: Source segment St: Target segment ST: Source text SU: Sundanese TL: Target language TM: Translation Memory
TQA: Translation quality assessment TT: Target text
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter is composed of three sections. Section 5.1 presents the conclusion of the study, section 5.2 discusses limitations of the study, and section 5.3 puts forward some suggestions for future study that also serves as the last part of the report paper.
5.1 Conclusion
This study mainly seeks to investigate whether the use of Translation Memory software, namely Wordfast Classic (WFC), can improve the students' translation quality and to explore students' views on this computer software use during the translation course. To achieve these purposes, quantitative and qualitative approach were employed. The improvement of the students' translation quality was measured quantitatively, and qualitative analyses was applied to the students' views on the application of WFC in the translation course.
The results of this study indicate that students assigned to the experimental group who used WFC to complete their translation works made a statistically significant improvement in their translation quality; however, it is not safe to draw a conclusion that this improvement was made because of the use of WFC given students assigned to the control group who did not use the software also made an improvement in their translation quality. Phrased another way, those who use WFC did not do any better than those who did not. The improvement is unlikely to be triggered by the medium they used during the course, but is likely as a result of the teaching and learning process.
78
1. Wordfast Classic provides a comfortable working environment
Segmentation featured by WFC provides a comfortable working environment by parsing the text into smaller units and by keeping the source and target text in the same page, so students did not need to open two different documents while working.
2. Wordfast Classic avoids skipping text and makes revision easy
Segmentation also helps students not skip text and make the editing or revising process easy.
3. Wordfast Classic helps students maintain terminological and phraseological consistency
Students felt that Glossary database and concordance search featured by WFC helps them maintain the terminological and phraseological consistency.
4. Wordfast Classic makes workgroup activities easy
Translation Memory and Glossary sharing allows workgroups to share translations that were previously done by their partners, making group activities easy.
5. WFC leaves the text layout unchanged, no need to do DTP (desktop publishing)
79
with some scholars who suggest that computer technology should be included into translation course (e.g., Clark, 1994; Lewis, 1997; Somer, 2003b; Wältermann, 1994).
6. Wordfast Classic should be used in translation classroom
As students are facing the age of computerization, they thought that TM software should be introduced in translation course and that their institution was responsible for providing sufficient computer facilities. However, the last one is worthy of further consideration.
7. Wordfast Classic interface is confusing
The students felt that there were too many commands and shortcuts they had to remember. They thought the interface was confusing. However, they felt that this happened because they didn’t get used to it yet.
This view indicates that students’ computer literacy becomes a challenge when adopting TM software into a classroom environment.
5.2 Limitation of the Study
The findings of the study may lead to conclusion that students who used Translation Memory software did not do any better than those who did not and that generally students viewed the classroom use of this type of computer software in a positive manner; however, generalization cannot be made on the basis of what has been found in this study. This is particularly due to the fact that this study is context-specific and entails some limitations.
80
measurement was also not problem-free. There was a potential loss of reliability because students’ translation works were assessed by a single scorer. It was really hard to find and ask for help from volunteer translation instructors to involve in the scoring process.
During the course of the study, the researcher actively involved in the process of teaching and assessing students' works so that a potential loss of objectivity is very possible to take place in every stage of the research conduct. Another limitation is that students' journals that were only collected at the end of study may result in data that would otherwise be richer provided that they were collected after each session of the teaching and learning process.
The decision of taking out some students of the interview stage was also only upon the researcher’s interpretation of students' journals, where he himself was to decide who was and who was not necessary to be interviewed. This might have left out some necessary information.
Furthermore, the relationships between students and the researcher also may have influenced the results of this study. There is a risk for the students to try to please the researcher who served as an instructor by giving bias information during the interview and in the journals they wrote.
5.3 Recommendation
81
However, it should be well noted that computer is no more than teaching and learning aid; if a similar program this study has implemented is to be replicated, the focal point of the teaching process should still be on how to build students' translation competence, and it should be better to be tried out in various contexts and levels of education to see the effectiveness of using TM software to improve students' translation competence and quality from different perspectives and possibilities.
It is also recommended that a similar study measure the students’ productivity improvement and, if possible, involve at the very least one fellow researcher in the assessment process. This may reduce the potential loss of assessment reliability and validity.
REFERENCES
Adab, B. (2000). Evaluating translation competence. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 215-228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Allen, J. (2003). Post-editing. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation
(pp. 297-317). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Arnold, D. (2003). Why translation is difficult for computers. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation (pp. 119-142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. New York: Routledge.
Barrachina, S., Bender, O., Casacuberta, F., Civera, J., Cubel, E., Khadivi, S., Lagarda, A., Ney, H., Tomas, J., Vidal, E., Vilar, J.-M. (2008). Statistical approaches to computer-assisted translation. Computational Linguistics, 35(1), 3-28.
Barros, E. H. (2011). Collaborative learning in the translation classroom: Preliminary survey results. The Journal of Specialised Translation(16), 42-60.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bastin, G. L. (1998/2009). Adaptation. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), The Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed., pp. 5-8). Abingdon: Routledge.
83
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bowker, L. (2003). Terminology tools for translators. In H. L. Somers (Ed.),
Computers and translation (pp. 50-65). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brisset, A. (2000). The search for a native language: Translation and cultural identity. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (R. Gill, & R. Gannon, Trans., pp. 343-375). New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Carreres, A. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Translation and language teaching.
Retrieved April 22, 2013, from The Canadian Translators, Terminologists, and Interpreters Council: www.cttic.org/ACTI/2006/papers/Carreres.pdf Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied
linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Champollion, Y. (2012a). Wordfast training manual: Beginner level. 5. Wordfast LLC.
Champollion, Y. (2012b). Wordfast training manual: Intermediate level. 5. Wordfast LLC.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Clark, R. (1994). Computer-assisted translation: The state of the art. In C. Dollerup, & A. Lindergaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2 (pp. 301-308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cocci, L. (2009). CAT tools for beginners. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from Translation Journal: http://translationjournal.net/journal/50caten.htm Coelho, L. M., & Fujihara, A. K. (n.d.). Textual genres on discourse analysis and
84
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education
(6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Coladarci, T., Casey, D. C., Minium, E. W., & Clarke, R. B. (2011).
Fundamentals of statistical reasoning in education (3rd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. California: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitattive, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Davies, M. G. (2005). Minding the process, improving the product: Alternatives to traditional translator training. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium : Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 67-82). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dawson, C. (2007). A practical guide to research methods: A user-friendly manual for mastering research techniques and projects (3rd ed.). Oxford: How To Books.
de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics.
London: Longman.
DeCasaris, J. A. (1995). Computerized translation managers as teaching aids. In C. Dollerup, & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3
(pp. 263-270). Amsterdam & Philadelpheia: John Benjamins.
Dimitrova, B. E. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
85
Duff, A. (1989). Translation: Resource books for teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. (2006). CAT tools. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from Debbie Elliott Tanslation and Language Consulting Ltd: http://www.de-tlc.co.uk/GB/CAT.htm
Esselink, B. (2003). Localisation and translation. In H. L. Somers (Ed.),
Computers and translation (pp. 66-86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Field, P., & Morse, J. (1985). Interview techniques. In R. Wiseman (Ed.),
Research methodology 1: Issues and methods in research (Vol. Reader: Part 2, pp. 65-73). Melbourne: Deakin University.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frederking, R. E., & Taylor, K. B. (Eds.). (2005). Machine translation: From real users to research. 6th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the America, AMTA 2004. Washington DC: Springer. Gile, D. (1994). The process-oriented approach in translation training. In C.
Dollerup, & A. Lindergaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2 (pp. 107-120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training
(Rev. ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gillham, B. (2000a). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Gillham, B. (2000b). The research interview. London: Continuum.
Golden, J. M., Meiners, A., & Lewis, S. (1992). The Growth of Story Meaning.
Language Arts, 69(1), 22-27.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, London, and Tokyo: Newbury House Publishers. Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. New
York: Routlegde.
86
Hutchins, W. J. (2003). ALPAC: The ( in)famous report. In S. Nirenburg, H. L. Somers, & Y. Wilks (Eds.), Readings in machine translation (pp. 131-135). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hutchins, W. J. (2003b). Commercial systems: The state of art. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation (pp. 161-174). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hutchins, W. J., & Somers, H. L. (1992). An introduction to machine translation.
London: Academic Press.
Indarta, A. (2012, October 4). Preliminary questionnaire: The importance of TM software in translation industry. (A. Suparman, Interviewer)
Jaggia, S., & Kelly, A. (2013). Business statistics: Communicating with numbers.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kavaliauskienë, G., & Kaminskienë, L. (2007). Translation as a learning tool in English for specific purposes. Kalbotyra, 132-139.
Kurniasih, E. (2010). Translation proceduresused in translating Sundanese
cultural words: A descriptive study of translation ―pasini jangji di Muaraberes, carita Mundinglaya‖ into ―love dlooms in Muaraberes,
Mundinglaya story‖. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from UPI Digital
Repository: http://repository.upi.edu/.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
California: SAGE Publication.
Lagoudaki, E. (2006). Tanslation memory systems: Enlightening users' perspective. London: Imperial College.
Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Lederer, M. (2003). Translation: The interpretive model. (N. Larché, Trans.) New York: Routledge.
87
Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners' beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. RELC, 37(2), 191-215. doi:10.1177/0033688206067428 Littau, K. (2011). First steps towards a media history of translation. Translation
studies, 4(3), 261-281. doi:10.1080/14781700.2011.589651
Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. M. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicológica(25), 181-25. Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. M. (2009). Schema activation in translation and reading: A
paradoxical effect. Psikológica(30), 59-89.
Mann, H. B., & Wald, A. (1942). On the choice of the number of class Intervals in the application of the Chi Square test. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 13(3), 306-317.
Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE Publications.
Mason, I. (1998/2009). Communicative/ functional approaches. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), The Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies
(2nd ed., pp. 29-33). Abingdon: Routledge.
Mattioli, G. (2004). On native language intrusions and making do with words: Linguistically homogeneous classrooms and native language use. English Teaching Forums, 20-25.
Monteiro, L. (2013). Translators now and then: How technology has changed their trade. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from Proz.com: http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/2440/
Munday, J. (2001/2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and application (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in language, in languages, and in translation. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Newmark, P. (1982). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
88
Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nida, E. A. (2001). Contexts in translating. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation.
Leiden: Brill.
Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. UK: St Jerome Publishing.
Nord, C. (2005). Training functional translators. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium : Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 209-223). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nord, C. (2006). Translating as a purposeful activity: A prospective approach.
TEFLIN Journal, 17(2), 131-143. Retrieved January 4, 2014, from http://journal.teflin.org/index.php/teflin/article/view/108/96
Nurjanah, S. L. (2012). Analysis of translation strategies and meaning transfer in translating the four Bilingual children storybooks: Indonesia – English.
The School of Postgraduate, Indonesia University of Education, English Education Study Program. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from UPI Digital Repository: http://repository.upi.edu/.
O'Donoghue, T. (2007). Palnning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education. New York: Routledge. Palacz, B. (2003). A comparative study of CAT tools (MAHT workbenches) with
translation memory components. Adam Mickiewicz University, The School of English. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. New York: Routledge.
Planas, E. (2000). Extending translation memories. Japan: NTT Cyber Solutions Laboratories.
89 Trans., pp. 160-171). New York: Routledge.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. (2011). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 207-221). New York: Rouledge.
Roberts, R. P. (1988). Towards a typology of translations. Hieronymus Complutensis(1), 69-78. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from Centro Virtual Cervantes: http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/hieronymus/pdf/01/01_069.pdf Robinson, D. (1997/2003). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory
and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ross, N. J. (2000). Interference and intervention: Using translation in the EFL classroom. Modern English Teacher, 9(3), 61-66.
Rubens, P. (2012, March 6). Building babel: Lost in machine translation.
Retrieved June 12, 2013, from BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120306-lost-in-machine-translation/all Samson, R. (2005). Computer-assisted translation. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training
for the new millennium : Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sang, Z. (2011). An activity theory approach to translation for a pedagogical purpose. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 19(4), 291-306. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2011.590591
90
Schäffner, C. (2000). Running before walking? Designing a translation programme at undergraduate level. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds.),
Developing translation competence (pp. 143-156). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (2000). Developing translation competence: Introduction. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. vii-xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schulte, R. (2012). What is translation? Translation Review, 83(1), 1-4.
doi:10.1080/07374836.2012.703119
Shreve, G. M. (1997). Cognition and the evolution of translation competence. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (Vol. 3, pp. 120-136). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Shreve, G. M. (2002). Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging disciplinne (pp. 150-171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slocum, J. (1985, January-March). A survey of machine translation: Its history, current Status, and future prospects. Computational Linguistics, 11, 1-17. Somers, H. L. (2003a). Introduction. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and
translation (pp. 1-11). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Somers, H. L. (2003b). Machine translation in the classroom. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation (pp. 319-340). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Somers, H. L. (2003c). The translator's workstation. In H. L. Somers (Ed.),
Computers and translation (pp. 13-30). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Somers, H. L. (2003d). Translation memory system. In H. L. Somers (Ed.),
Computers and translation (pp. 31-47). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
91
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition
(2nd ed.). Oxford/Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Text typology: Register, genre and text type. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation (pp. 3-24). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tungesh, G. M. (2012). The use of media sources and authentic materials for language teaching in ESL classrooms. ELT Voices, 2(5), 104-115.
Turner, B., Lai, M., & Huang, N. (2010). Error deduction and descriptors: A comparison of two methods of translation test assessment. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(1), 11-23.
Ulrych, M. (2005). Training translators: Programmes, curricula, practices. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium : Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in plain English (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 195-208). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vauquois, B. (2003). Automatic translation—A survey of different approaches. In S. Nirenburg, H. L. Somers, & Y. Wilks (Eds.), Readings in machine translation (pp. 333-337). Massachussetts: The MIT Press.
Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, J. (2000). A methodology for translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (J. C. Sager, & M. -J. Hamel, Trans., pp. 84-93). London: Routledge.
92
Weaver, W. (2003). Translation. In S. Nirenburg, H. L. Somer, & Y. Wilks (Eds.),
Readings in machine translation (pp. 13-17). Massachussetts: The MIT Press.
White, J. S. (2003). How to evaluate machine translation. In H. L. Somers (Ed.),
Computers and translation (pp. 211-244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Whyman, E. K., & Somers, H. L. (1999). Evaluation metrics for a translation memory system. Software—Practice & Experience, 29(14), 1265-1284. Wilkins, D. A. (1977). Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to
foreign language curriculum development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, M. J., & Ross-Kerr, J. C. (2011). Basic steps in planning nursing research
(7th ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Woods, P. (2006). Successful writing for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Wordfast, LLC. (2012). Wordfast. Retrieved 5 8, 2012, from Wordfast Classic: The best translation memory solution for Microsoft Word: http://www.wordfast.com/products_wordfast.html
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Press.
Zakhir, M. (2008, October). Translation procedures. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from TranslationDirectory.Com:
http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1704.php#_edn16
