東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back to Search results for [ null ]

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

An argumentation -centred approach t...

Williams, Malcolm.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment./
Author:	Williams, Malcolm.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2001,
Description:	452 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 64-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International64-03A.
Subject:	Linguistics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=NQ68013
ISBN:	9780612680135

An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment.
Williams, Malcolm.

An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001 - 452 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 64-03, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Ottawa (Canada), 2001.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Translation quality assessment (TQA) types may be divided into two main types: (1) models with a quantitative dimension, such as SEPT (1979), Sical (1986) and GTS (2000), and (2) non-quantitative, more textological models such as Nord (1991) and House (1997). Because it tends to focus on microtextual (lexical, syntactic) analysis, sampling and error counts, Type 1 suffers from major shortcomings. First, because of time constraints, it cannot assess, except on the basis of statistical probabilities, the acceptability of the content of the translation as discourse. Second, the microtextual analysis inevitably hinders any serious assessment of the content macrostructure of the translation. Third, the establishment of an acceptability threshold based on a specific number of errors is vulnerable to criticism both theoretically and in the marketplace. Type 2 cannot offer a cogent acceptability threshold either, precisely because it does not propose error weighting and quantification for individual texts. Another drawback of Type 2 is that it is applied almost exclusively to literary and advertising texts. What is needed is a model that combines the quantitative and textological dimensions, along the lines proposed by Bensoussan and Rosenhouse (1990) and Larose (1987, 1998), and targets instrumental (pragmatic) translations. The goal of this thesis is to develop an argumentation-centred model to meet this need. With Toulmin's argument macrostructure (1984) as a starting point, a set of argumentation parameters are developed: macrostructure, propositional functions (Widdowson 1978) and reasoning structure (Thomas 1986), conjunctives and inference indicators (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Roulet et al. 1985; and Thomas 1986), argument types (Corbett and Connors 1999), figures of speech, and narrative strategy (Ouellet 1992). These parameters provide a framework for assessing the degree to which translations preserve the argumentation, coherence and cohesion of the message of the source text, for determining critical passages for TQA, and for proposing a new breakdown of errors based on three levels of seriousness. A weighting grid is then added to the model to enable evaluators to take account of conventional parameters such as target-language errors. Finally, a new set of quality standards is proposed for instrumental texts produced by professionals and students alike.

ISBN: 9780612680135Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.

An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment.
LDR:03500nmm a2200325 4500 001 2206922
005 20190906083343.5
008 201008s2001 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780612680135
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAINQ68013
035 $a AAINQ68013
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Williams, Malcolm. $3 678206
245 1 3 $a An argumentation -centred approach to translation quality assessment.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2001
300 $a 452 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 64-03, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Brisset, Annie.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Ottawa (Canada), 2001.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
520 $a Translation quality assessment (TQA) types may be divided into two main types: (1) models with a quantitative dimension, such as SEPT (1979), Sical (1986) and GTS (2000), and (2) non-quantitative, more textological models such as Nord (1991) and House (1997). Because it tends to focus on microtextual (lexical, syntactic) analysis, sampling and error counts, Type 1 suffers from major shortcomings. First, because of time constraints, it cannot assess, except on the basis of statistical probabilities, the acceptability of the content of the translation as discourse. Second, the microtextual analysis inevitably hinders any serious assessment of the content macrostructure of the translation. Third, the establishment of an acceptability threshold based on a specific number of errors is vulnerable to criticism both theoretically and in the marketplace. Type 2 cannot offer a cogent acceptability threshold either, precisely because it does not propose error weighting and quantification for individual texts. Another drawback of Type 2 is that it is applied almost exclusively to literary and advertising texts. What is needed is a model that combines the quantitative and textological dimensions, along the lines proposed by Bensoussan and Rosenhouse (1990) and Larose (1987, 1998), and targets instrumental (pragmatic) translations. The goal of this thesis is to develop an argumentation-centred model to meet this need. With Toulmin's argument macrostructure (1984) as a starting point, a set of argumentation parameters are developed: macrostructure, propositional functions (Widdowson 1978) and reasoning structure (Thomas 1986), conjunctives and inference indicators (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Roulet et al. 1985; and Thomas 1986), argument types (Corbett and Connors 1999), figures of speech, and narrative strategy (Ouellet 1992). These parameters provide a framework for assessing the degree to which translations preserve the argumentation, coherence and cohesion of the message of the source text, for determining critical passages for TQA, and for proposing a new breakdown of errors based on three levels of seriousness. A weighting grid is then added to the model to enable evaluators to take account of conventional parameters such as target-language errors. Finally, a new set of quality standards is proposed for instrumental texts produced by professionals and students alike.
590 $a School code: 0918.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Information Systems. $3 769307
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0723
710 2 $a University of Ottawa (Canada). $3 1017488
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 64-03A.
790 $a 0918
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2001
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=NQ68013