閱讀全文 | |
篇名 |
四種翻譯評量工具的比較
|
---|---|
並列篇名 | A Comparison of Four Assessment Tools for Translation Tests |
作者 | 賴慈芸 |
中文摘要 | 本研究比較下列四種翻譯評量工具的評分結果:根據國立編譯館「建立國家翻譯人才評鑑標準第二期研究」所提出的量表評分方法(「忠實」/「通順」各五分量表,獨立評分)、錯誤扣分法,以及兩種修正的量表評分方法。第一種修正方法是比例不變,但改為合併評分(「正確」/「表達」各五分量表,合併評分);第二種修正方法是加重訊息正確的比例(「訊息準確」六分,「表達風格」四分,合併評分)。研究者從前述研究中抽取30 份答卷作為評分樣本,共有12 位翻譯教師/ 專業譯者參與評分。研究結果發現,在英譯中組的部分,修正後的兩種量表評分法都與錯誤扣分法達到高度相關,但第二期研究的量表評分法與錯誤扣分法只有中度相關,表示合併評分的三種方法較為一致;其中「六/ 四評分法」的評分人間信度最高,與錯誤評分法的相關度也最高,可知為穩定而有效的工具。在中譯英組部分,「六/ 四評分法」的評分人間信度也是最高,但四種評分法的結果都達到高度相關,差異不大。 |
英文摘要 | This study compares four assessments used in translation tests: a scale-basedmethod proposed by Liu Minhua et al in “A Study on the Establishment ofNational Assessment Criteria of Translator and Interpreters, Phase II” (2005),the error-analysis-based method applied by most schools and institutions,and two modified assessments based on Liu's method. In the present study,twelve graders were invited to re-grade 30 papers in Liu's experiment by theother three methods. The result of the English-Chinese group showed that thetwo modified scale methods both reached a high correlation with the erroranalysismethod while Liu's scales only reached a medium correlation. Theinter-rater correlation of the 6/4 scale (6 grades for “Accuracy” and 4 gradesfor “Expression”) was the highest among all the methods used in the research.The correlation between the 6/4 scale and error-analysis method was also thehighest. It showed the 6/4 scale method was a reliable and valid assessmenttool. In the Chinese-English group, however, the results of the four methodswere similar, although the inter-rater correlation of the 6/4 scale was still thehighest among the four. |
起訖頁 | 71-91 |
關鍵詞 | 翻譯測驗、翻譯評量、評量工具、量表評分、錯誤扣分法、Translation test、Translation assessment、Assessment tools、Assessment scales、Error-analysis |
刊名 | 編譯論叢 |
期數 | 200809 (1:1期) |
出版單位 | 國家教育研究院 |
該期刊 上一篇
| 同步口譯與字幕翻譯之簡化原則 |
該期刊 下一篇
| 中譯英「說服性標記」的翻譯規範--中文母語與英文母語譯者社論型文章翻譯之比較 |