The article concentrates on the criteria development problems related to assessing students’ translations in the process of their education; examines the methods of evaluation applied by various scholars. Many attempts have been made over the last fifty years to analyse and assess translation quality ranging from Naida and the analysis of the final product to Darbelnet’s identification of nine parameters according to which the quality of a translation should be assessed, and from Vermeer’s skopos theory to evaluation through discourse analysis by Bensoussan and Rosenhose. The article examines several models, which have been created by institutional organisations: the Canadian Language Quality Measurement System (Sical) developed by the Canadian government’s Translation Bureau, ATA (American Translators Association) has developed a scheme, which includes twenty-two error types , Blackjack, developed by the British translation agency ITR containing 21 error categories etc. The article deals with the problem of translation error classifications, the author reviews existing classifications and points out a challenging task of identifying error types in students’ imperfect translations works.
obuchenie ustnomu perevodu, kachestvo perevoda, perevodcheskie oshibki, kriterii ocenki
1. Alikina E. V. 2010. Vvedenie v teoriyu i praktiku ustnogo posledovatel'nogo perevoda. Moskva: Vostochnaya kniga.
2. Buzadzhi D. M., Gusev V. V., Lanchikov V. K., Psurcev D. V. 2009. Novyy vzglyad na klassifikaciyu perevodcheskih oshibok. Moskva: Vserossiyskiy Centr perevoda.
3. Garbovskiy N. K. 2004. Teoriya perevoda. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.
4. Latyshev, L. K., Semenov A. P. 2008. Perevod: Teoriya, praktika i metodika prepodavaniya. 4-e izdanie stereotipnoe. Moskva: Akademiya.
5. Nayda Yu. A. 1978. K nauke perevodit'. Principy sootvetstviy // Voprosy teorii perevoda v zarubezhnoy lingvistike: sbornik statey // Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 114-137.
6. Cvilling M. Ya. 2009. Nekotorye teoreticheskie i metodicheskie aspekty dvustoronnego perevoda // Sdobnikov V. V. (otv. red.). O perevode i perevodchikah: sbornik nauchnyh statey. Moskva: Vostochnaya kniga, 181-187.
7. Bensoussan M., Rosenhouse J. 1990. Evaluating student translations by discourse analysis // Babel 36(2), 65-84.
8. Darbelnet J. 1997. Niveaux de traduction // Babel 13(1), 6-16.
9. Framework for Standardized Error Marking. Explanation of Error Categories // http://www.atanet.org/ certification/ aboutexams_error.php (2016. 25 avg.)
10. Hurtado A. 1995. La didáctica de la traducción. Evolución y estado actual // Fernández P., Bravo J. M. (eds.). Perspectivas de la traduccion. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 49-74.
11. ITR announces breakthrough in translation evaluation technology // http://www.itr.co.uk/bulletins/itr-announces-breakthrough-translation-evaluation-technology (2016. 25 avg)
12. Malcolm W. 2004. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach // Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
13. Reiss K., Vermeer H. 2013. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Translated by Christiane Nord. New York & London: Routledge.
14. Séguinot C. 1989. Understanding Why Translators Make Mistakes // TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 2, 73-81.
