1.5.3. Waddington's Experiment
Christopher Waddington (2001) investigates the validity of
four methods of evaluating student translations, currently used in European and
Canadian translation faculties. The first and the second methods are
exclusively based on error analysis. In the first, errors are categorized. Each
error is attributed either one or two-point penalisation. Successful solutions
are awarded with either a one or two plus points. The second method
distinguishes between errors according to their impact on the transfer of
meaning. An error that has no impact on transfer is a language error, as
opposed to a translation error. As a result, it costs only one point.
Translation errors may be penalised with 2 to 12 depending on the seriousness
of the negative effect it has on meaning.
The third method adopts a holistic approach. It treats the
translation as a whole. It examines three different aspects: accuracy of
transfer of source text content, quality of expression in target language, and
degree of task completion. Task completion refers to how adequate the final
product is to the sought objectives of the translation. And the fourth one
is a combination of both approaches. These methods are
applied "to the correction of translations of part of an authentic text
done by students under exam conditions" (Waddington, 2001, p. 313).
Waddington studies the four methods' validity in relation to
17 external criteria. That is to say, the results obtained from the application
of the methods to 64 student translations are compared to the results obtained
by the students in seventeen different external evaluations. Waddington (2001)
explains:
"These criteria can be grouped under six headings:
(i) knowledge of languages; (ii) results in intelligence
tests; (iii) students' self-assessment; (iv) teachers' assessment of the
students; (v) students' average mark in their translation course
(Spanish-English); and (vi) marks in other translation exams."
(p. 317)
The translations are corrected using the four methods
separately. Results are compared with each other, and with those of the
external variables. The validity study reveals that all four methods proved to
be equally valid, in spite of the considerable differences that exist between
them. Waddington states that these results are explained by the care with which
each method is prepared and applied.
Conclusion
This chapter provided theoretical basis for the paper's concepts
as well as underlying assumptions. The first part addressed the translator's
linguistic and cultural knowledge as reflected in the literature. The second
presented a review of the main approaches to the term and the nature of
translation competence. The third part explored some aspects of translation as
an activity, like translation problems and responsibility. Then it attempted to
understand the interaction, if any, between the processes of language learning
and translation competence acquisition. The aim of these three parts has been
to analyse the needs of a translation course in order to gain awareness of its
real objectives.
The fourth part supplied an overview of some examples of foreign
translation faculties. The overview described their students' selection
systems. Then, views of some foreign translation teachers and scholars about
the selection issue were presented. The aim has been to look at the way foreign
faculties and teachers perceive the prerequisites of learning translation.
Finally, three models of measuring translation acquisition were
described. This has been an attempt to give an idea of a certain kind of
research tools, one of which has been used in this paper.
The next chapter exposes the methodology design and research
procedures of this study.
| 
