















JAITS

ɨɗɅȹɦɟɦǏ Lecturerɩ

Abstract
This paper primarily aims to propose and report the theoretical framework, construct, and specificdesigns of a comprehensive rubric as a means of translation quality assessment. Particular emphasis
is placed on the development of learners’ problem-solving expertise in translation. The present
paper first discusses the ongoing issue of how students’ translation quality should be assessed inrelation to key developments of assessment approaches in Translation Studies. Building on researchfindings in my relevant empirical studies concerning novice-expert differences in problem solving
in the context of translation (Inoue, 2008; 2013), this paper will then illustrate conceptual andpractical framework underpinning the problem-based translation task and assessment approaches.
The construct and design of both tasks and the assessment method will be illustrated in details. This
paper concludes with the brief discussion of some pedagogical implications and limitations of thepresent model and the suggestions for future studies. This paper can be a useful reference
particularly for translation educators, professional translators, and learners currently undertaking
their studies in translation.

1. 1*2/ŭƑßűȑǳǰȌİȓŭƑƔ$ȩżǱċȔǦɇȾɉȓȜȐȣȁǦŭƑɂȾȶȟdȞȌǜŨ
ȑİǿǦȐǳǴȊ¨¤ȠľĻȟȑȨȆȥ.bȑǯȥǧǾǴǾǦŭƑßűȑÛȨȥůȎǾȌǦ
ǩȩǪǩȏȓȢǱȐyĢȍǪȄǾȌǩȏȓȢǱȐæęȍǪƔ$ȀȥșǶǴȑȊǰȌȔǦȑǛȩ¹țǼȦȥƝǞȍǯȉȆǧɗɅȹɦɟɦǏȓƴƑŭƑƝŌȔǦrƴƑŭƑůƙċǍȍǯȥ NAATI

1

ȓƙ[ßűċǍȍǯȤǦNAATI ȍȓĿÕYǣȑǦ`ȍȓƙƥĂX¯ȟ[ųȎȐȉȌǰȥǧ`)~ƝŌ 2 öľȓöøƕǣŢþǵ NAATI ƙX¯ȓ[cȑǶȐ©
ǘȩǲȥǺȎǴȣǦǉǷȄȓÔģȔ NAATI ÎȓƔ$æęȑĢÌȀȥ¨ȍżȨȦȌǶȆǧǾǴ
ǾǦ`æęȔ translation productɨȀȐȨȈ Target TextɩȓȜȩƤȎǾȆĠģæ¤ȍǯȤǦțȆƔ
$ƤǙľǳȢȗĠģȾȹȫȓɠɦɠȟƇ·ǳȢȗĭȓŭƑIȎȓǍƷ·ȓǖȍƝǞ
ǵǯȥǺȎȔcȞȐǰǧ®ȉȌǦöȩƴǾȌ`æęȩÔıȀȥǺȎȔǦŭƑIȑǳǸȥQÃBINOUE Izumi, “The Development and Implementation of Problem-Based Translation Tasks andAssessment Approach,” Invitation to Interpreting and Translation Studies, No.16, 2016. pages 66-83. © by
the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies

66kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥǡÂȓƇģǴȣŮǲȥȎǦM8ȎƋȨǽȥȩ¯ȐǰǧȓkǞǳȢȗƝǞǵǦm{fȀȥƓĻņŏȑyȋǷåȆȐŭƑƔ$æęȓǋĹɥ1ȓċȎȐȉȆǧ
2

ǥ ùŎȍȔǦƷȓƓĻņŏɨInoue,2008; 2013ɩȍêȣǴȑȐȉȆǦɔɢɥȫɗŭƑů ǌȓkǞƉĖȑǳǸȥơŀƽȑyȋǶǦŭƑȑǳǸȥkǞƉĖȍǃƃȎȜȐǼȦȆ2,ǖȩJdǾȆ
JÍĻɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȓ6ǦɈȻȭɤǦƏƌɔɢȿȾóı·ȑȊǰȌ{fǾǦƝǞȑȊǰ
ȌȟƊȦȥǺȎȎȀȥǧčǙȍȔǦǺȦțȍ Translation Studies ȓ8Ǆȍ×jǼȦȌǶȆ

ƃȐǍƷćµɥņŏȑȊǰȌƟȁȥǧ
2. 

"0-#%'2.1 Product /)+

"0

6#%'

Colina (2008)ǵÎÜȀȥȢǱȑǦTranslation Studies ȓ8ǄȍȔÄĻȐæęƟɨPƚȟǾǷȔ
ɇȴȾɉɡɕɠȓŔ$ćµȐȏɩȔtȀȥȟȓȓǦ ŭƑƔ$ȑǳǸȥŦĻȐÿŠȜȩĊŜǾ
ȌǰȥĐǑȇȎƋǲȥǧĩȑǦŭƑȓǩƦǪȩȏȓȢǱȑūǾÐǲȥșǶǴǦȐȣȗȑǩŷǰǪțȆ
ȔǩĔĢǪȑǯȥŭƑȎȔSȑȍǯȥǴȑȊǰȌȔǦƣƟǵżȨȦȌǰȥȟȓȓǦ÷ȇ
êŇȐæb·ȔƄǲȌǰȐǰ (Williams, 2001)ǧǺȦȣȓƝǞȑȢȤêŇȑ´ȀȥȍǦȄȓƤȩ translation process țȆȔ product ȓȏȈȣǴæȑȀșǶȍǯȥȓǴǦǯȥǰȔǦæȩ
Ɣ$ȀșǶȐȓǴĄƍȀȥ²ƃǵǯȧǱǧœůȓȾɂɤȾȔǦ­ůȍǯȥǧȎǰǱȓȟǦİȓɂȾȶȐȣȗȑɇȾɉȩƔ$Ȁȥ|_Ǧproduct ȓȜȍȔǦȏȓȢǱȐƻŌȩšȌǦȏȓȢǱȐāÌȍȆȎ
ǲȕ product ȓĩȓƑ7ȑŶȉȆȓǴȑȊǰȌĮƉȀȥǺȎǵoǕȍǯȥǴȣȍǯȥǧǼȣȑǦ
öȩƴǾȌȓƸÑĪėȩÆÙɥƔ$ȀȥǒȑǦproduct ȓȜȓƔ$ȍȔ Source Text (ST)ɥ
Target Text (TT)ħȑyȋǷƔ$ɨȑƋƚĻȐƇģɩȓȜȑǎǾȆȟȓȎȐȥ¸ȦǵǯȤǦ

ŭƑIȩXȤǷȄȓȓơŀɨɟȺɦɄBǦǍ%ɥȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȾȴɠȐȏɩȩťŪȀȥǺȎǵoǕȍǯȥǴȣȍǯȥǧ
2.2 

"0&6

'Turner et al. (2010) ȔǦĳ^uȍçǼȦȌǰȥ 24 ōǠȓƴƑŭƑƙɥƥĂ=£ȑǳǰȌǦȏȓȢǱȐƔ$æęǵÔıǼȦȌǰȥȓǴȑȊǰȌƞĀȩżȉȆǧȄȓŢþȑǳǰȌȔǦ;ȀȥȎȓ 3 ōǠǵtȀȥǺȎǵ:êǾȆǧ(1) ȯɞɦ8ýɥĠģę(2) yĢTħę(Criterion-referencing)Ȏ(1)ȓ

ı(3) yĢTħęȓȜ
ǥƎ(1)ȍȔǦÄȓȾȹȫȩġģȎǾǦƔ$ƤǙľȑǍȀȥȯɞɦȩĩǾȆȓȈǦȓɠɦɠɨȀȐȨȈĩȯɞɦǵģɗȭɋȾȐȓǴɩȑ>ȤĠģǾǦďǾȆȾȹȫȩòşŢþȎ
ȀȥæęȍǯȥǧæǦ(3)ȓyĢTħęȍȔǦ^Ɣ$Ǚľȑƴ 1-4 ȐǰǾ 5 ȓ scaleɨĐǑɩȩƏǾǦ^ĐǑǵɡɕɠȑǍȀȥ descriptorɨƛêɩȩTŮȑȄȦȅȦƔ$ȩżǱæęȍǯȥǧ
Ǝ(2)Ȕ(1)Ǧ(3)ȓğ_ȍǯȥȆȞǦ(1)ǳȢȗ(3)ȓȜȑȊǰȌȑƟǿȥǺȎȎȀȥǧ
67ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)ǥ țȁǦƎ 1)ȓȯɞɦ8ýɥĠģæęȍǯȥǵǦWilliams (2001), Hale et al. (2012)ǵÎÜȀȥ
ȢǱȑǦǺȦȔ®üǴȣtȀȥȟȓȍǦŭƑɏɒȰɦɗɤȾȩƔ$ȀȥȍǦǰțȇȑ
ȉȌǰȥȟȓȍǯȥǧ"ȍȔǦȱɦȾɉɞɟȫȑǳǰȌȔ NAATI ǵǺȓæęȩǉ

ĜȎȐÔıǾȌǰȥǧ

ǺȓɇȾɉȍȔǦproduct ȓȜȩƤȎǾǦÄȓȯɞɦō;ǳȢȗƅĠģàȓɠɦɠȑyȋǰȌĠģȩżǱǧKim (2009)ǦWilliams (2001)ǵÎÜȀȥȢǱȑǦĠģƤȎȐȥyĢȓ”too free,
too literal, unjustifiable omission, and mistranslation” (Kim, 2009:126)ȐȏȓūǵðíȍǯȤǦ
ƘŝȐȳȭɊɞȭɤȟČǾȌǰȥǺȎǵĶkƆǼȦȌǰȥǧêŇȐūɥȳȭɊɞȭɤǵČǾȌǰȥȎǰǱǺȎȔǦŢþĻȑÔģůȑȢȉȌȄȓƉǂȑǟźȐǵİǿǦÔģůǌȍƔ$ȑȕȣȊǶǵİǿȥ[ų·ǵǤǰȎǰǱƝǞǵtȀȥǧCǲȌǦƔ$ȑǳǰȌȯɞɦȓȜȩÎÜȀȥ
Ȅȓ·ƦǦŬůȓ¦ȜȑȊǰȌȔÎÜǵżǲȁǦțȆÞlȀșǶģȑȊǰȌȟŬůȑóıȐº{ɥɒȬɦɊɎɅȶǵM8ȑżǲȥȎȔƋǰǵȆǰ 3ǧǥ ŭƑƔ$ęȓåȆȐƕȜȎǾȌǦƎ 3) ȓyĢTħęȑǍȀȥƣƟɥ×jɨLee, 2005;ǥ
Angelelli, 2007; 2009; Jacobson, 2009 Ȑȏ)ǥ ǵưȐǼȦȞȌǰȥǧ`æęȔǦyĢȓȾȴɠȠųBǦŅƢɨȀȐȨȈŦŋǾȌ translator expertiseɩǵĭîģȍȏȓȢǱȐĔĢȑǯȥȓǴ
ȩĩȀȥǺȎȩľĻȎǾȌǰȥǧ`Ɣ$ęȑȔǦƎȓ<ģǵǯȥȎŮǲȣȦȥɨAngelelli,
2007; Hale et al., 2012ɩǧlJÍĻȐƤ

ǙȓƔ$ɨproductɥprocess ǖȓȜȐȣȁǦɇȾɉɥƝǞȍƔ$ǵ²ƃȐǯȣȡȥ,ǖȓJdǵ[ųɩlȢȤŚĻȐƔ$ȓĭlƔ$ƤůȓŭƑȑǳǸȥ¦ȜɥÞlģȓƔ$[lƔ$ƤůǳȢȗƂàȓÔģůǌȑĵƣǵİǿȆ|_ǦƔ$ŢþȓƛêɥĮĲ×ňǵȢȤëæǦǺȓǠȓƔ$ęȑȔƝǞțȆȔûȟtȀȥǧl

Test constructɨɇȾɉĈÂɩǵ¿ǃȑūɥ8ýǼȦǦȐǳǴȊƔ$ǙǵƓĻņŏȑyȋǷȟȓȍȐǸȦȕȐȣȐǰ
l

Descriptor ǵ6Ļȑ¿ǃǴȊƘŝȑƎƮǼȦȌǰȐǰǎȤǦĉȐƉǂǵİǿ
¯ȌǾțǱ

l

ĩȑĠģęȑȢȥÔģȑÀȦȌǰȥÔģůȓ|_ǦùæęȔȢȤ¡ŗȐƔ$ǙȩJdǾǦÔģæęǵțȉȆǷĵȐȥȆȞǦÔģůǵÀȦȥțȍîǌȎGBȩƃȀ
ȥ
ǥ 2.3' "-#%'Ǝ;ǾȌōǠȓŭƑƔ$æęȩƟǿȆǵǦŭƑƔ$ȑǳǰȌŮÁȀșǶǰțȊȓƇģȔǦȏȓȢǱȐ9ȤZǴȣŭƑƔ$ȩżǱǴȍǯȥǧŭƑƔ$ȑǍȀȥèņŏȩTħȀȥȎǦ
reader response ȫɔɢɦɄǦtextual and pragmatic-based ȫɔɢɦɄǦSystemic-functional
linguistics (SFL)ȫɔɢɦɄǵƃȐȟȓȎǾȌ×jǼȦȌǰȥɨColina, 2008ɩǧțȁǦReader

response ȫɔɢɦɄȔǦSource Language (SL)ȓƜůȑȢȥ ST ȘȓV´ȎǦTarget Language (TL)
68kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥȓƜůȑȢȥ TT ȑȀȥȄȦȎȓǌȑǦȏȓŌ£ȓ equivalence ɨŔ$ɩțȆȔǠ·ǵtȀȥǴȩƔ$Ȁȥȟȓȍǯȥ(" Nida and Taber, 1969)ǧŔ$ȓćµȎ`ǿǷǦǺȓȫɔɢɦɄȑȟĶkģǵtȀȥǧȀȐȨȈǦTL ƜůȓV´ȩȏȓȢǱȑÆÙȀșǶǴȎǰǱkǞȑCǲǦƜůȓ
V´ɨȀȐȨȈ TL ƜůȑȎȉȌȓƜȜȠȀǼɩǵǦĎŇ·ȚȏĕȞȣȦȌǰȐǰɂȾȶɥăɨ"ǥę¬âñɩȟǨǯȥģȍǯȥǧǺȓ¼gȍǦŭƑȓľĻȩǃƆȀȥ functionalist-based ȫɔɢɦɄȟ`ĉȓƝǞȩÉǲȥȎƋǲȥǧǼȣȑǦ`ȫɔɢɦɄȔǦŔ$ȎǰǱŭƑȓǎĻȐƇģȓȜ
ȩƤȎǾȆȟȓȍǯȥȆȞǦ²ĦĻȑƔ$ŢþȟǎĻȐȟȓȎȐȣǽȥȩ¯Ȑǰǧ2 ģľȓ
textual and pragmatic-based ȫɔɢɦɄȔǦPƚɥȿɤɇɤȾɡɕɠȑǳǸȥȯɞɦȓ`ǴȣǦɇȴȾɉ2ɥŭƑȓľĻȎǰǱȢȤJÍĻȐŭƑƔ$ȘȎæb·ȓƬØȩ×jǾȌǰȥǖȍǦ¼ūǯȥȟȓȎŮǲȣȦȥǧVǖǦŭƑƔ$ȓĭ|ȍȔ²ȁǾȟ¡ǷĞƳǾȌǰȥȎȔƋǲȐǰ,ǖȟǯȥǧǺȓȫɔɢɦɄȑȔ ST (Reiss 1971)țȆȔ TT (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984; Nord, 1997 Ȑȏǵ×jȀȥ’skopos’ȓćµȐȏ)ȘȓǦǯȥ¼gǃģǵĆőȐ.bȑǯȥǧHouse (1997, 2001)ȑȢȥ
functional pragmatic model ȔǦST-TT ǌȓƋƚĻɥâŴĻĩ°ȩēƭǾǦȏȓŌ£ǠģǵǯȥȓǴȩƔ$ȀȥȎǰǱȟȓȍǯȤǦɇȴȾɉēȎǰǱ¼gȍȔǦɎɞɤȾȓȎȦȆɚɈɠȎȔƋǲȥǧǾǴǾǦ#ĦȎǾȌ equivalence ȓćµȑyȋǰȆȟȓȍǯȤǦovert translation, covert
translation Ȑȏ House ǵıǰȥƃıƚȓ¼gȀȥȎǺȧǵêŇȍȔȐǰȎǰǱƝǞȟtȀȥǧțȆǦŀ·ȐȣȗȑǠ·ȩȑƔ$ƤȎȀȥǺȎȑȟǦĶkǵİǿȥǧȎǰǱȓȟǦȑȨȆȥŭƑăȩǈȜȥȎǦST ǵñǴȦȆľĻȎ TT ȩ²ƃȎȀȥľĻȐȣȗȑ TL Ɯůȓĩ°ǵǶǷĵȐȥǺȎȟȐǷȐǰǴȣȍǯȥǧǺȓȢǱȐ|_ȑȔĩȑǦ`ɚɈɠȓǎĳȩeǾȌǾțǱ¸ȦǵǯȥȨǸȍǯȥǧ3 ģľȓ SFL ȫɔɢɦɄȔǦœůȓƋƚĻȐƿÈǴȣİǿȥ¼gȩȢȤ¡ŗȐŉâKĈƶȑŚĻȑǍƷǸȥȎǰǱćµȑyȋǷȟȓȍǯȥǧ"ǲȕ Kim (2009)ȔǦ
SFL ȓćµȩıǰȆ meaning-oriented assessment criteria ȩ×jǾȌǰȥǧǺǺȍȔǦâŴɥĪėĻƃśɨɡȽȾɂɦǦtranslation brief ȐȏɩȩŮÁȑ1ȦȊȊ¼g¨¾ȑǳǸȥ translation shiftȓŌ£ȩ:äȀȥǺȎǵǃƆǼȦȌǰȥǧ`ɚɈɠȓǒȓƺıȑǳǰȌȔǦȐȃĠģęȩÔ
ıȀȥȓǴȎǰǱĮĲȑȊǰȌȔêȍǯȥǧțȆǦ`ɚɈɠȓ1­ NAATI _ĂĬǵźǾǷ
}CǾȆȎȓ{fȟȐǼȦȌǰȥȟȓȓǦƞĀƤȎȐȉȆİȓŲïȐȣȗȑȾȴɠɡɕɠȐȏȓơƃśȑǍȀȥƋUǵǎĻȍǯȤǦțȆǦNAATI ȓŢþǵŭƑIȑȏȓŌ£ĿŢȀȥȓǴȑȊǰȌǦĄƍȓuǵǯȥȎƋǲȥǧǥ Ǝ 3 ȫɔɢɦɄȩēȀȥȎǦćȒƔ$ƤȎȐȉȌǰȥȓȔǦproductɨTTɩȍǯȤǦprocessȘȓŮÁȐȣȗȑƔ$ǵȏȓŌ£ȐǼȦȌǰȥȓǴȔêȎƋȨǽȥȩ¯Ȑǰǧȑ product ȓȜȩƤȑǾȆȎǰǱ»ȍȟǦȄȓƔ$Ƥ

ǙȔ#ĦȎǾȌǎĻȍǯȤǦŭƑȓJÍĻƔ

$ȎǰǱƇģȍȔM8ȇȎƋǲȥǧȀȐȨȈǦŭƑȑǳǸȥkǞƉĖȩ

ŃȎȀȥœůȓņŏ

Ţþ (Inoue, 2008; 2013)ȍȔǦº{WǓǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȎȓȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȑǳǰȌȟǦɔɢɥȫɗŸéŭƑůǌȍǶȐŀƽǵȜȣȦȆǵǦƎǰȁȦȓæęȑǳǰȌȟǦȏȓŌ£ǺȦȣȓ,ǖȓƔ$ǵ[ųȐȓǴǴȍȔȐǰǧǼȣȑǦǀȓ functionalist ȫɔɢɦɄȩǐǶǦƎȓɚɈɠȑ3ƴȀȥȓǵǦɇȴȾɉɡɕɠȩǎȎǾȆƔ$ȎǰǱǎĳȍǯȥǧɇȾɉɥɂȾȶȩƤȎ
ǾȆƔ$ȓȜȑľĻȩÒǲȥȓȍȔȐǷǦİȓŬȑǳǸȥƸÑĪėȠǦĭîģȍŬůǵóȀȥ expertise ȎɔɢŭƑůȎǾȌĕȞȣȦȥ professional expertise ȎȓēǦǳȢȗŬůȓ
69ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)¦ȜȎ0ôȀșǶ,ǖȩ, ŭƑIȎǰǱǩĭǪȑħȣǾ_ȨȂȌƔ$ȀȥǺȎȩľĻȎȀȥȓ
ȍǯȦȕǦJÍĻǴȊȢȤŭƑIȑQǾȆƔ$ɚɈɠȩĈŘȀȥǺȎǵǃƃȍȔȐǰǴȎŮǲ
ȥǧțȆǦŭƑƔ$ęǳȢȗ4ĻȐƔ$ɆɦɠȩĈŘȀȥȍȓȟǱȖȎȊȓƝǞȔǦ
Waddington (2004), Anckaert & Eyckmans (2006), Anckaert et al. (2008) ȟÎÜȀȥȢǱȑǦƓņŏȑyȋǰȆæęɥɆɦɠȓǋĹȍǯȥǧǾǴǾĭĪȍȔǦƓņŏȢȤȟȝǾȧǦIšǣȑyȋǰȆƔ$ęǵÔıǼȦȌǳȤǦɇȾɉɥɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȓóH·ɥ(ǝ·ȑǍȀȥƓĻȐĄƓȟM8ȎȔƋǲȐǰȓǵĭĪȍǯȥǧȄȓŢþǦ

Ƈ·ȎǰǱƝǞȘȓ´ɥÞlǵ²ƃȎƋǲȥ (Ancaert et al., 2008)ǧ
3. !/,(.

5436"0ǥ ƱǾȆŭƑƔ$ęȓĭĪǳȢȗƝǞȩYǸȌǦùȿȶȼɝɤȍȔǦJÍĻȐŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ĈŘȓåȆȐƕȜȑȊǰȌ{fȀȥǧțȁǦƓņŏȎȓǍƷ·ȍǯȥǵǦɔɢɥȫɗŸéŭƑů
ǵĿǖȀȥŭƑȑǳǸȥkǞǳȢȗkǞƉĖæę (Inoue, 2008; 2013)ȩɇɦɗȎȀȥƦĻɥǅĻņŏȓŢþȑyȋǰȆǦŭƑɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȩĈŘȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧƎņŏȓƃŢþȩőĻȑƱșȥȎǦSTȓ6ɥƟĮĻȐĈÂȓĮƉǦƤƜůȑƾǾȆɟɦɃɐɟɇȬɨ[Ɯ·ɩȓ
ĭǦº{WǓǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȐȏŭƑIȑǍȀȥȾɇɦȶɖɠɃɦȎȓȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȓ48
ǄȍɔɢɥȫɗǌȓǟźȐŀƽǵȜȣȦȆǧǺȓŢþǦƎȓ4ģȩɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęĈŘȓy
ùR>ȎǾȆǧȐǳǦùæęȔǦƎņŏȓ­ŤņŏɨɂȾȶƇǦProblem-Based Learningȩı
ǰȆŭƑßÓę4ȐȏɩȍȓěıȓȜȐȣȁǦœůÄȓƴƑŭƑƝŌ2ǳȢȗœůŵƫȓŭ
Ƒßűȓĭ|ȑǳǰȌȟöȩƴǾȌÔıȀȥǺȎȩ@×ȎǾȆǧȢȉȌǦɇȾɉȑȜȣȦȥPĹĻ
Ɣ$ȎǰǱȢȤȔǦņŏTCůȐȣȗȑŬůȓtranslator expertiseȩţŤĻȑÆÙǾǦȄȓƸÑ
ȓDȎȀȥǺȎȩľĻȎǾȆȟȓȍǯȥǧ
lJÍĻȐŭƑɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$œůȓƓĻņŏȍȔǰȁȦȟǦŭƑȩkǞƉĖȓƇģǴȣȍǶ¯ȥǎȤJÍĻ
ȑ8ýɥƉêȀȥǺȎȩyùR>ȎǾȆȓȍǦɂȾȶɥƔ$ȑǳǰȌȟǦŬůȓkǞƉĖȑǳǸȥtranslator expertiseȩ[ųȐǎȤJÍĻȑÆÙȍǶȥģȩǃƃƆǾ
ȆǧlkǞɥƉĖęɥĮĲȓĎ§KŉȓŭƑȑǳǰȌȔǦǤ£ȐexpertiseȩĕȞȣȦȥȄȓǷȓǚxȎ`ĉȑǦŭƑIȑǳǰȌȟkǞƉĖBǵĆȞȌǃƃȐƃśȎŮǲȣȦȥǧ®ȉȌǦǺȓƇģȩ±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȓĈŘɥ1ȩżǱǺȎȎǾȆǧ4ĻȑȔǦĉȐkǞȓĩǦ^kǞȑȀȥƾ9ȐƉĖęǦUȗȄȓƉĖęȩƿÈ
ǾȆĮĲȩǰǴȑƾ9ȑĎ§KȍǶȥǴȑĥģȩ§ȌȆǧǺȓƃśȔǰȁȦȟǦ
ƱȓƓņŏǳȢȗǍƷâīȑǳǰȌɔɢɥȫɗǌȓŀƽǵǟźȑȜȣȦȆȟ
ȓȍǯȥǧlŭƑprocessǳȢȗproductǖȓƔ$ƱȓùæęĈŘȓľĻǳȢȗJÍ·ȎǰǱ·ĂǦŬůȓŭƑprocessɥ70kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥ

productǖȩƔ$ƤȑȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧĩȑŭƑprocessȑǳǰȌȔǦkǞɥƉĖęɥĮĲȓĎ§KȎǰǱƱȓƃśǵƔ$ȑǳǸȥǃƃȐº{ȎȐȥǧlŬůȓtranslator expertiseȓĭĪǳȢȗÞlģȓêňK
ƱȓǷǦùæęȔŬůȓtranslator expertiseȓţŤĻƇǳȢȗbȩȟľĻȎǾȆȟȓȍǯȥȆȞǦɂȾȶɥɇȾɉĒȑĭĪɥÞlģȩŬůǵêŇȑĮƉȍǶȥ¨ȍ×ňȀȥæęȩŮăȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ
3.1 ŭƑɂȾȶǥ ŭƑƔ$ȎžƀȩȐȀȓǵǦȏȓȢǱȐæǆȍŭƑɂȾȶȩĈŘȀȥǴȎǰǱģȍǯȥǧNAATIȑƄȣȦȥȢǱȐ®üwȓɇȾɉǳȢȗɂȾȶȑȔǦtranslation briefɨcf. Holz-Mӓnttӓri, 1984ɩȔǯȥȟȓȓǦĆȞȌǎȣȦȆº{ɨ"ǥ STȓ75ǦľĻɩȓȜǵƎƮǼȦȥ.bȑǯȥǧĩȑ`ɇȾɉȑǳǰȌŭƑȓľĻǳȢȗTTȍĕȞȣȦȥɇȴȾɉɂȭɔȔǦSTȓȄȦȎ`ĉȐȟȓȍǯȥȓ
ǵȍǯȥǧùɂȾȶȑǳǰȌȔǦȍǶ¯ȥǎȤIȑưǰɂȾȶƏȎȀȥȆȞȑǦƎ^ģȩťŪȀȥǦȢȤƘŝȐº{ȩȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȣȓÎňǙȎǰǱ¨ɨȀȐȨȈǦtranslation briefɩȍ×ňȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧȆȇǾǦƎº{ǵǀČŹȀȥȸɦȾȟĭĻȑǯȤ¯ȥȆȞǦº{ǵČŹǾȆ¨ȓɂȾȶȟ¼qĻȑƾƏȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧCǲȌǦœůȓ/żņŏ(ibid.)ȍĝǾȆǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȎȓȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȩȟƔ$ƤȎȀȥȆȞǦŬůȑȔəɦɠǳȢȗŭƑůƒȐȏ
ȓæęȍǦƾȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȩqȥǺȎȩFȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ5lùăɨȀȐȨȈɂȾȶɥɇȾɉɩȓľĻɨ»ǼȦȥƤƜůǦTTǵȓȆȞȑǦȏȓȢǱȐ¨ȍ!ıǼȦȥȓǴȐȏɩlȶɞȭȫɤɉȑǍȀȥº{ɨȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȣȓĿÕąI#ǝțȆȔŭƑŉšĲǴ
ȣȓ#ǝǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȓÄtuǦąȓ|_ȏȓȢǱȐąĳȓȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȐȏɩlȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȣȓÎň

ǙɨɒȰɦɗɅɉǦſǦžƎǦŭƑÝÚɆɦɠȩdȝÄȓɁɒɉǦȾɂȭɠǖȍȓÎȐȏɩǼȣȑǦŭƑprocessƔ$ȩJdȀȥȆȞǦTTȑCǲȌannotationɨĚƎɩȓ×7ȩĕȞȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ
ǺȓannotationȍȔǦ^ŬůǵƙƢǾȆkǞǳȢȗȄȓ8ýɨȀȐȨȈǦǵkǞȍǯȤǦȐȃ
ȄȦǵkǞȍǯȥȓǴɩǦ4ĻȐƉĖŕɨȏȓȢǱȐƉĖŕȩÔıȀȥȓǴɩǦȐȣȗȑƉĖŕȩ
ƿÈǾȆĮĲȓĎ§KɨĮƟɥƩĻȐƇģǴȣǦȐȃȄȓƉĖŕǵòlȐȟȓȐȓǴǦƉĖŕ
ȑŶȥțȍȓº{WǓȩdȝ2ɔɢȿȾȐȏɩȩkǞǻȎȑƛêȀȥæęȩÔıȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ
čȑǦąI2ȓƏɨȀȐȨȈ translation briefɩ ǳȢȗSTȓƿȑȊǰȌȍǯȥǵǦǺǺȍ
ĩȑĴ¼ǾȆȓǵǦȄȓǕë£ȩȏȓȢǱȑȞȥǴȍǯȥǧǺǺȍȔǦƎ`ĉǦĭĻȐŭƑIȑȍǶ¯ȥǎȤưǰǕë£ǦȀȐȨȈɔɢŭƑůǵIȍXȤŠȝǦǯȥŌ£ǊĻȐĩ°ȩ6JȀȥtranslation briefǳȢȗSTȩƿȀȥȢǱEȞȥǺȎȎǾȆǧǺȓā¢ȑȔǦauthenticityɨłĎ·ɩȎǰǱćµǵtȀȥǧAngelelli (2009)ǵƟǿȥȢǱȑǦauthenticityȓǖȍŭƑIȎɂȾȶǌȓá_·ǵǃƃȍǯȥǴȣȍǯȥǧțȆǦƙŅ±Įȓ8ǄȍWard et al. (2006) ǵÎÜȀȥȢǱȑǦłĎ·ǳȢȗĭ·ȩȗȆɂȾȶȩıǰȥǺȎȍǦŬůȓĭîģȍȓexpertiseȩȢȤ
71ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)ĻŇȑȎȣǲȥǺȎǵȍǶȥȎǰǱ<ģȟȄȓŲïȑǯȥǧȆȇǾǦƎłĎ·ɥĭ·ȓȜȍȔ4
·ȑČǸȥȆȞǦȢȤ4ĻȑȏȓȢǱȐtranslation briefǳȢȗSTȓǕë£ǳȢȗƋƚɥƚıĻ
ĩ°ȑ>ǾȆȟȓȎȀȥȓǴȩŮÁǾȆŢþǦéùȍɒɟɦɞɤȾȓɔɢŭƑůȎǾȌIȑÛȨȥǱǲȍƾıǼȦȥǺȎȓǰǦǩɉɞȭȫɠǪȩTħȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧɉɞȭȫɠȔǦȑŭƑŉȑɔɢŭƑůȎǾȌĺǇȀȥǒȑƝǼȦȥǦƋȨȕɇȾɉȍǯȥɨưŻ 2005ɩǧœůǵņŏɥßűƤȎȀȥŬůȔǦ

ȑéùƚȩđƚȎǾǦŬöǌȓş

­ȔéùȑȌɒɟɦɞɤȾțȆȔĎŉhȎ

ǾȌŭƑąIȑÛȨȥǺȎȩ³õȀȥůǵàȍǯȥǧ®ȉȌǦŬůȓĭĻȐȴɛɟȫɔɞɤȓǖǴȣȟǦɉɞȭȫɠȑĢÌǾȆǕë£ȓST6ȩƿȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧțȆǦɇȴȾɉɂȭɔȑȊǰȌȟǦȍǶȥǎȤ¡ŗȐȟȓȩťŪȀȥȆȞǦɐȽɍȾǦę¬ǦLĸǦIT, əɈȬȫǦĩƐȐȏȓ8Ǆ
ȎǾȆǧ6ȊȓST+ƁƿǳȢȗɂȾȶƏȓȓȈǦŸéŭƑIȓšǣɨéùȓȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȣ#ǝȓăȩdȝɩȩ5óȀȥɔɢŭƑů5aȩƤȑǦùĈ»ȓƛê­ɒȬɦɊɎɅȶȩĕȞȆǧǺǺȍȓɒȬɦɊɎɅȶȔǦɂȾȶƏɨƎtranslation briefȩdȝɩǳȢȗSTŵǵȏȓŌ£ƱȓûȩġȆȀȟȓǴȩ

±ȎǾȆȟȓȍǯȉȆǧŢþĻȑǦǰȁȦȓɂȾȶ+ƁȑǳǰȌ

ȟǦSTŵǳȢȗɂȾȶƏǖȍûȩġȆȀȎǰǱŰĻȐɒȬɦɊɎɅȶȩ¯ȥǺȎǵȍǶȆǧ
ǼȣȑǦ/żņŏ (Inoue, 2008; 2013) ȑǳǸȥSTȓĎŇȐĮƉȓ,ǖȍƂàȓɔɢŭƑůǴȣ
ÎÜǼȦȆǦSTǵ²ȁǾȟƋƚĻɥĮƟĻȑƾ9ȍȔȐǰ|_ǵȐǷȐǰȎǰǱģȩȟŮÁȑ1ȦȥǺȎȎǾȆǧȄȓŢþǦéŸŭƑIȩǊȎǾǦŸƚȩđƚȎȀȥɔɢŭƑů1aȑ#ǝǾǦƿSTȑƾǦƋƚĻɥĮƟĻȐįķȩ¼qĻȑJdǾȆɨ"ȎǾȌǦøƥãɪȩTħȓǺȎɩ¨ȍ)ĎȩCǲȆǧ
3.2 ŭƑƔ$ęƎȓyùæǆȑyȋǶǦùæęȍȔɠɦɓɟɅȶǦĩȑ8ýĻɠɦɓɟɅȶ(analytic rubric)ȩ
ɆɦɠȎǾȌıǰȆƔ$ȩżǱǺȎȎǾȆǧǺȓōȓɠɦɓɟɅȶȔǦƋƚƺıųBȓƔ$ȍǺȦțȍ¡ǷÔıǼȦȌǶȆæęȍǯȥ (Mertler, 2001)ǧƎȿȶȼɝɤ2ȎǃƂȀȥģȟǯȥǵǦùɆɦɠȓĩ°ȎǾȌƎȓơģǵÏǹȣȦȥǧțȁǦĩȓ,ǖȑȊǰȌŬůȓǉÄɥÞlģǖȩĩȍǶȥ (Huges, 2003)ȓǵǶȐ<ģȎƋǲȥǧĩȑǦÞlģȔŬůȓexpertisebȑǳǰȌ6Łȩ&ƸȀȥ¼gȍǃƃȐƃśȍǯȥȎƋǲȢǱǧǼȣȑǦȓɠɦɓɟɅȶ`ĉǦùɆɦɠȔƈĻȐ,ǖȓƔ$ǙȩJdȍǶȥȎǰǱ<ģȟǯȥɨAngerelli, 2009; Hale et al., 2012ɩǧȄȓŢþǦèȓŭƑƔ$ęȎȔĵȐȤǦprocessɥproductǖȓȜȐȣȁǦɇȴȾɉɡɕɠȩƨǲȆơ,ǖȩȟƔ$ȓƤȎȀȥǺȎǵ[ųȎȐȥȨǸȍǯȥǧǥ ɠɦɓɟɅȶȩ4ĻȑƏƌɥĈŘȀȥǒȓĴ¼ģȔǦćȒƎȓƴȤȍǯȥǧ^ģȎȟɂȾȶɥƔ$ȓľĻǳȢȗƤŗpȑȢȥȆȞǦȸɦȾɎȭȸɦȾȎȐȥǵǦùȍȔǦƱȓɂȾȶǳȢ
ȗƔ$ęĈŘȓyùR>ȩòȟƾ9ȑVìȍǶȥ¨¤ȩÔıȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ
l

Ɣ$ǙľàȩȏȓŌ£ȎȀȥǴŭƑprocessɥproduceǖȓƔ$ȐȣȗȑJÍĻȐŭƑȓƔ$ȎǰǱ·ƦǦÔģůȑȎȉȌȔĨǔȎ½ǿȣȦȥ¸ȦȔǯȥȟȓȓǦƓņŏȍĩǼȦȆ2,ǖȩťŪȀȥȆȞǦ13ȓƔ$ǙàȎȀȥǺȎȩĖȞȆǧ"ǲȕǦSTȓĎŇȐĮƉȩ
72kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥ

Ɣ$ȀȥȑǒǾȌȔǦSTɥTTȩēȀȥǺȎȑȢȤżǲȥæǦprocessȓƾ9·ȑȊǰȌȔannotationȩǦțȆǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȎȓȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȑȊǰȌȔǦȶɞȭȫɤɉȎȓəɦɠȓȠȤXȤǳȢȗŭƑůǢȩTħȑȀȥǺȎȍǦƔ$ǵżǲȥȟȓȎ:äǾȆǧl^Ɣ$ǙľȑȀȥscaleàȩȏǱȀȥǴǥ ɠɦɓɟɅȶȍȔƴǦ^Ɣ$ǙľȑǾȌǦƂàȓscaleǵıǰȣȦȥǧȆȇǾǦ
ȄȓscaleàȓĖȔǦɠɦɓɟɅȶƏƌůȓßűĻ(ûǳȢȗľĻȑQǾȆȟȓȎ
Ȑȥ.bȑǯȥǧùȍȔǦɪɬ4ȓ4ȊȓscaleȩÔıȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧǺȓ

ȍǦ1ɥ2ȑƗ§ȀȥscaleȔǦĩȓƔ$ǙľȍexpertiseǵM8ȎƙƢǼȦȥ|_ȍǯȤǦ1ǵ2ȑēșǦȢȤƾ9ȎȜȐǼȦȥȎǰǱǺȎȑȐȥǧæǦ3ȔvȩƨǲȥȸɦȾȍǦ4ǵòȟƃȩġȆȀɡɕɠȎǰǱǺȎȑȐȥǧɠɦɓɟɅȶȓ

ȑȔǦ5Ȋȓ

scaleȩƏǸǦ3ȩ[ȟȐǷ[ȟȐǾȎȀȥ"ȟtȀȥȟȓȓǦ`scaleǵàȎȐȉȆ|_ǦŬůȑȎȉȌȟßhȑȎȉȌȟǦprofessional expertiseȑǳǸȥŬůȓĭtȓŐȈũǵêńȑȐȥ¸ȦǵǯȥȆȞǦǺȓæęȔÔıǾȐǰǺȎȎǾ
ȆǧțȆǺȓ4ȊȓscaleȍȔǦ4ǵɔɢŭƑůȎ`ŔɡɕɠȎƏȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧǺȦ
ȑȢȤǦŬůȑȎȉȌɔɢŭƑůȑĕȞȣȦȥɡɕɠȎŵȣȓĭĪɡɕɠȓēǵêŇȑȐȥȎŮǲȆǺȎȑƧnȀȥǧ
l

DescriptorȩȏȓȢǱȑƎƮȀȥǴǥ ɠɦɓɟɅȶ<ıȑǒǾȌȔǦscaleȑCǲdescriptorȩ

ıȀȥǺȎǵǰ (Hale etal., 2012)ǧÔģůǵȏȓscaleȩƿÈȀȥǴȩ:äȀȥȍǃƃȐTŮº{ȎȐȤǦțȆŬůȑȎȉȌȟǦĩȓƔ$ǙľȑǳǸȥĭtȓŐȈũȐȣȗȑ¦ȜɥÞlģǵȢȤêŇȑȐȥȎǰǱ<ģǵǯȥǧ®ȉȌǦùƔ$ęȍȟdescriptorȩ^scaleȑlƎȀȥȎȎȟȑǦȍǶȥǎȤêŇǴȊƘŝȐº{ȩĽȤƯȝǺȎȎǾȆǧ

ƿǾȆscaleȎdescriptorȓ×ňȍǦßűĻȐľĻM8ǴcǴ
4 scaleȓǱȈ1ȊȩƿÈǾȌǦdescriptorȎȎȟȑ×ňȀȥǺȎȓȜȍǦȐȃĩȓ
Ɣ$ǙľȑȊǰȌȄȓ:äȎȐȉȆǴǵM8ȑƼȍǶȥǴȑǍǾȌȟĄƍȩżȉ
ȆǧŢþȎǾȌǦ²ƃȑ´ǿȌMicrosoft WordȓȹəɤɉċųȩıǰȌƲCȹəɤɉȩƎƮȀȥȎǰǱ¨¤ȩÔıǾȆǧ

l

òşƔ$ȩȏǱǰǱ¨ȍŖ7ȀȥǴöȓɂȾȶȐȣȗȑɇȾɉȘȓùƔ$ę1ȩ»ȀȥȎǦ^ɂȾȶɥɇȾɉȎȟòşƔ$ȩǅĻȑŖ7Ȁȥ²ƃ·ǵİǿȌǷȥǧùƔ$ęȍȔǦ^Ɣ$Ǚľȩ`ǿģàǁ8ɨȀȐȨȈ4ǵòǤģɩȎǾǦȄȓŦƌȩŖ7ǾȆȓȈǦŦƌȩ100ɧȑØŖȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧȐǳǦ2ǙľȓCǃȩ`ǿȑǾȆȓȔǦ@7ȓƓņŏŢþ
ȑǳǰȌǦǰȁȦȓ8Ǆȟ`ĉȑɔɢɥȫɗǌȑǳǸȥŀƽǵ`Ō£ȜȣȦȆǺȎ
ȑƧnȀȥǧ
ɠɦɓɟɅȶȓȜȐȣȁǰǴȐȥƔ$ęȑǳǰȌȟǦ1@ȑȄȓóH·ȩĄƓȀȥǺȎȔĆ
ȞȌǃƃȍǯȥǧǺǺȍȲȵȎȐȥȓǵǦvalidityȎreliabilityȎǰǱćµȍǯȥǧValidityɨ§·ɩ
73ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)ȔǦɂȾȶȓȾȹȫȢȤ¯ȣȦȥĩȓÖƤȑǳǸȥƾ9·ɥ¼ūɥóH·ȩÎȀ(Angelelli,2009)ȟȓȍǯȥǧɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ȓ§·ȩ'ƓȀȥȆȞȑȔǦ»ǼȦ¯ȥɎȭȫȾȩĄƓȀ
ȥ²ƃȟǯȥǧȀȐȨȈǦƔ$ȑǳǸȥȾȹȫǵɂȾȶȍūɥĩǼȦȥǼțǽțȐexpertiseȩVì
ǾȌǰȥǴcǴȩ:äȀȥǺȎǵǃƃȎȐȥǧùɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓvalidityȔǦƎȓ3ģȢȤĄƓȩ
żǱǺȎǵȍǶȥȎŮǲȥǧțȁǦɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȎȟɔɢɒȮɅȼɝɋɠȎǾȌȓŭƑIȎǰǱǩĭǪȩȍǶ¯ȥǎȤVìȀȥȢǱƏƌǼȦȌǰȥģǧ2ģľȎǾȌǦƈĻȐƓņŏŢþȩVìǾȆŢ
þǦƓĻȑƀǸȣȦȆ§·ɨempirically-underpinned validityɩǵĭǼȦȌǰȥ(Fulcher
and Davidson, 2007)ǺȎǧ3ģľȔǦƓņŏŢþȑyȋǶǦǼȣȑŒůɨȀȐȨȈƂàȓɔɢŭƑůɏɍɠɩȓƄƉɥ_¼ȩ¯ȆǺȎǧǺȦȣȓĮĲȑȢȤǦȓvalidityǵŇ'ǼȦȆȎŮǲȥǧǥ æǦreliability ((ǝ·)ȎȔőĻȑƱșȦȕǦǯȥƔ$ęȑǳǰȌȏȓŌ£Ɣ$ȑá_·ǵǯȥǴȩÎȀȟȓȍǯȥ (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996)ǧØƋȀȦȕǦ"ǲȕǯȥĩȓYǣůǵ`ɇȾɉȩ2mȓĵȐȥîöȑYǣǾȆǒȑǦȄȓŢþȑȏȓŌ£ȓǠ·ǵǯȥǴǦțȆǦƂàȓƔ$ůǵǯȥYǣůȓ`ɇȾɉȩÔģǾȆ|_ǦȄȓŢþǵȏȓŌ£ǠǾȌǰȥǴȐȏǵkȨȦȥȟȓȍǯȥǧĩȑǦ­ůȓǰȨȡȥ

nter-rater reliability’ (e.g. Bachman,

1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Angelelli, 2009)ȔǦĄƍȓ²ƃǵǯȥǃƃȐƃśȇȎƋǲȥǧȎ
ǰǱȓȟǦŭƑȓƦĻƔ$ȑǳǰȌȔǦȍǶ¯ȥǎȤƔ$ůȓƇ·ȩÇ=Ȁȥ²ƃǵǯȥǴȣȍ

ǯȥǧ®ȉȌǦǯȥŭƑƔ$ȑǳǰȌǦƂàȓƔ$ůǵƔ$ȩżǱǺȎȟǃƃȍǯȤǦǼȣȑǦƔ$ůǵzȑǾȌǦǯȥɂȾȶȓƔ$ȩ^ŵżȉȆȓȈǦ2hȍƍƣɥĄƓȀȥċȩƏǸȥǺȎ
ȑǶȐ¼ūǵǯȥ (Alderson et al., 1995; Weir, 2005)ǧùɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȑǳǰȌȟǦȄȓ1@
ȑǦ@7ȓɔɢŭƑůɏɍɠ2hȩËǶǦ`ĉȓɣɦȶȼɝɅɔȩǋ-ǾȆǧǺǺȍȔǦ2ȓɂȾȶȑ@ȑ4aȓŬůȓOBȓȟȎXȤŠȪȍȟȣǰǦȄȦȅȦȓŭƑprocessǳȢȗproductȩɣɦȶȼɝɅɔȓ^TCƔ$ůȑǦùɠɦɓɟɅȶɨøƥã2TħɩǳȢȗɠɦɓɟɅȶȍıǰȣȦȥ
ƃıƚȓƛêɨøƥã3TħɩȩıǰȌǦțȁȔ*;ȑƔ$ǾȌȟȣǱǺȎȎǾȆǧȄȓ­Ǧ2ȍȓɈȬȾȲɅȼɝɤȎǰǱ¨¤ȍ^Ɣ$ǙľȑǳǸȥscaleȓēƭǦȄȓĮĲǦǳȢȗùƔ$ęȍÞlȀșǶģȐȏȑȊǰȌƖǾ_ȉȆǧǺȦȑȢȤǦùƔ$ęȓȓreliabilityȩŇŐȍǶȆȎŮ
ǲȥǧ
4. 

0#%6



ǥ ùŎȍ{fǾȆǦkǞƉĖȩ

ŃȎȀȥŭƑɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȓǋĹȔǦƓņŏȓŢþȩ

VìǾȆȟȓȍǯȤǦțȆǦŭƑȎǰǱɔɢɒȮɅȼɝɋɠ8ǄȓȜȐȣȁǦĉȐ8Ǆȍ±ĻȐªAǵÎÜǼȦȌǰȥkǞƉĖȎǰǱ,ǖǴȣǦɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęȩĈŘȀȥåȆȐƕȜȍǯ
ȥģȑ¼ūǵǯȥȎŮǲȥǧǾǴǾǦ­XȤŠȝșǶƝǞȟtȀȥǧǥ țȁǦ`ɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹȓā¢ȑǯȥȓȔǦkǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑßÓę

(Task-Based Problem-Focused Learning)ȍǯȤǦŭƑȑǳǸȥkǞƉĖBǡÂȩĭȀȥǺȎȍ
ǯȉȆǧ®ȉȌǦ`æęȩıǰȆ|_ȓţŤĻǴȊǉöĻȐɨ"ǲȕɪȐǰǾɫǌɩŬɥßű

HþȩĄƓȀȥǺȎȓ²ƃ·ȩƙƢǾȌǰȥǧœůȔǦßÓęȓƕǣĻȐ1ȩƴǾȆņŏ
ɨInoue & Candlin, 2015ɩȐȣȗȑɗɅȹɦɟɦȑǳǰȌ`æęȩŭƑȓĮƟɥŬßŊȑ1ǾȆǵǦȄȓšǣ>ȓȜȐȣȁǦ­ȔǯȣȆȑƓĻņŏȩŮăǾǦçȀȥ²ƃǵǯȥȎ
74kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥŮǲȌǰȥɨ" ȓŬůȷɠɦɔȓƦĻɥǅĻȐƸÑƇǦ`æęȩıǰȆŬůȷɠɦɔɥıǰȐǰŬȷɠɦɔȑǳǸȥ translator expertise ȓēƭǦ`æęȩıǰȥŬ&ƸůȎǾȌȓœůŵƫȑȢȥȫȶȼɝɤɟȺɦɄǦßhȑȢȥɑȫɥȱɓȻɕɦȼɝɤUȗ×Ƌɩǧǥ čȑǦœůȓŭƑßűȑǳǸȥƤŬůȔǦćȒéùȩȔǿȞȎȀȥȫȽȫsȓİȍǯȥǺȎǴȣǦ`æęȩȔǿȞȎȀȥ learner-centred approachesɨŬůȓŬęɩȘȓš

ǣǵM8ȍȔȐǰǶȣǰǵǯȥǧțȆǦƎɪģľȓŬɥßűHþȓƇģȩȟdȞȌǦùæę
ȓ±ĻȐªAȩÊǱșǶŬůǵǦùæęȑȏȓȢǱȐV´ɥ´ȩňǾKȩeǾǦțȆŬůȺȭɊǴȣȏȓȢǱȐ×ƋǵtǾ¯ȥȓǴȑȊǰȌȟĄƓȀȥ²ƃǵǯȥǧţŤĻȐņŏȓ
"ȎǾȌȔǦƤŬůǴȣȓöɥţŤĻȐȽɛɦɋɠɥɃȭȫɟɦȓWǓɥ8ýǦƤŬů2hțȆȔƂàȷɠɦɔȑȢȥɒȰɦȲȾȷɠɦɔ¨¤ȍȓȭɤɂɐɜɦǵŮǲȣȦȥǧǥ ŒģľȓƝǞȔǦǰǴȑ¶ƵȑȩƹǹȥŉȑǳǸȥŭƑIȓƃȩÆÙǾǦù
æęȑVìǾȌǰǷǴȍǯȥǧȀȍȑǦIT ȩ±ȎǾȆÅŽǗåȓ©ǘȍǦɢɦȲɞȭɀɦȼɝɤ

ȐȏǦąĳȠȹɘɜɌɇȬǵĕȞȥŭƑůȓªAȑǶȐǵƄȣȦȌǰȥǧŬůȩŉȑǳǸȥkǞƉĖɥŭƑȓɔɢɒȮɅȼɝɋɠȎǾȌţŤĻȑěƪȍǶȥúȑűÂȀȥǱǲȍǦ
ǺȓȢǱȐKȩŭƑŬɥƔ$ęȑîȑ´ǿȌĽȤƯȪȍǰǷǺȎȟǦĆȞȌǃƃȇȎŮǲȥǧ
.................................................................................
ǭźůŞǮ Ę (INOUE Izumi) ȱɦȾɉɞɟȫɥɗɅȹɦɟɦǏƋƚǀ LecturerǧǊȔŭƑĮƟǦŭƑßűǦȯȶȾɏɦɉƟ.................................................................................
ǭĚǮǥ
1.

National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. ƘŝȔǦwww.natti.com.auȩTħȓǺȎǧ
2. ƎņŏȑǳǸȥɔɢŭƑůȓūȔǦNAATI ɔɢŭƑůƙƥĂȩ'óǾǦIŭƑšǣȩ 5óȀȥůȎǾȆǧæǦȫɗŭƑůȔǦ`ƥĂȩóǼȁǦȐǳǴȊIšǣǵļĤȍǦù
ņŏçîģȑǳǰȌǦȱɦȾɉɞɟȫȓȑȌƴƑŭƑƝŌȑtř ȓİȩÎȀǧùŎȍ
ıǰȣȦȥɔɢɥȫɗŭƑůȓūȟǰȁȦȟƎȑĢǿȥǧ
3. ȆȇǾǦNAATI ȓƠkɏɍɠȑȢȥǦɂȾȶǳȢȗƔ$ęÞlȑbǸȆXȤŠȜȔƸż ȍǯȥǧƘǾǷȔ Hale, et al. (2012)ȩTħȓǺȎǧ
4. ƘǾǷȔ Inoue & Candlin (2015)ȩTħȓǺȎǧ
5. əɦɠȍȓȹɘɜɌȸɦȼɝɤȍȔǦœůǵȶɞȭȫɤɉȎǾȌȓªAȩÊǰǦtranslation brief ȑǳǸȥȶɞȭȫɤɉɨŸƚțȆȔéùƚȩđƚȎȀȥɩȎǾȌ´ȀȥǺȎȎǾȆǧ

6.

(2005)

translation brief'ǭ¥ıâīǮǥǥ Ę (2008) ǩŸéŭƑůǵĿǖȀȥkǞģ―ŭƑŬůȎɔɢŭƑůȑȜȥĵȩǫŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬŒ 3 ]: 159-175.éùƴƑŭƑ
ưŻi\ (2005) ǫɉɞȭȫɠĭ|

ū!Ǭ

l

75

±ȑǪ

ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anckaert, P., & Eyckmans, J. (2006). Ijken en ijken is twee. Naar een normgerelateerde
ijkpuntenmethode om vertaalvaardigheid te evalueren. In C. v. d. Poel & W. Segers (Eds.),
Vertalingen objectief evalueren. Matrices en ijkpunten (pp. 53-67). Louvain: Voorburg: Acco.
Anckaert, P., Eyckmans, J., & Segers, W. (2008). Pour nen evaluation normative de la competence detraduction. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 155, 53-76.
Angelelli, C. V. (2007). Assessing Medical Interpreters: The Language and Interpreting Testing Project.
The Translator, 13(1), 63-82.
Angelelli, C. V. (2009a). Using a rubric to assess translation ability. Testing and Assessment inTranslation and Interpreting Studies: A Call For Dialogue Between Research and Practice, 14(13).
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation. The Translator, 14(1), 97-134.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. London and New York:
Routledge.
Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., KIm, M., Lai, M., Turner, B., & Slatyer, H. (2012). Improvement to
NAATI testing: Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing
and assessment. Retrieved from Sydney, Australia:
Holz-Mӓnttӓri, J. (1984). Translatorisches handeln: Theorie und methode, Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (2001). Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta,
46(2), 243-257.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inoue, I. (2013). Novice-expert differences in identifying and addressing translating challenges: thedevelopment of an effective pedagogical approach to translator education (Doctoral dissertation).
Macquarie University, Sydney.
Inoue, I. & C.N. Candlin (2015). Applying Task-Based Learning to translator education: assisting thedevelopment of novice translators’ expertise in identifying and addressing translating challenges[Special issue: T&I Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines]. Translation and Interpreting
Studies, 10 (1): 58-86.
Jacobson, H. (2009). Moving beyond words in assessing mediated interaction: measuring interactional
competence in healthcare settings. In C. V. Angelelli & H. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and Assessment
in Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, M. (2009). Meaning-oriented assessment of translations: SFL and its application for formative
assessment. In C. V. Angelelli & H. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation andinterpreting studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

76kǞƉĖȩ

±ȎǾȆŭƑɂȾȶɥƔ$ęȓǋĹǳȢȗçǥLee, J. (2005). Rating interpreter performance. (Unpublished Master's dissertation), Macquarie
University.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research &Evaluation, 7(25).
Nida, E. & Taber, C. (1974). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functional approaches explained, Manchester: St
Jerome.
Reiss. K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und grenzen der Űbersetzungskritik, Munich: M. Hueber.
Reiss, K. & H.J. Vermeer (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen translationstheorie, Tűbingen:
Niemeyer.
Turner, B., Lai, M., & Huang, N. (2010). Error deduction and descriptors–A comparison of two methodsof translation test assessment. Translation & Interpreting, 2(1), 11-23.
Waddington, C. (2004). Should student translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis?
Lebende Sprachen, 49(1), 28-35.
Ward, P., Willaims, A., & Hancock, P. (2006). Simulation for performance and training. In K. Ericsson,
N. Charness, P. Feltovich & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert
performance (pp.243-264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weir, C. (2005). Language testing and validation. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, M. (2001). The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment.
Meta, 46(2), 326-344.

$ 1 543Translation Brief: The following text was taken from a novel entitled “Cricket Kings” by William
McInnes. The client is an Australian publishing company.

A game of cricket, in its strictest sense of classical clichéd description, should ebb and flow like atide. There should be wings and roundabouts. You should take the good with the bad.
Ron Sparrow threw the ball to Christopher Andersen. Well, thought the old umpire, there
hadn’t been much ebbing and flowing. The swings had no roundabouts and from the YarravilleWest Fourths’ viewpoint there had been a grain of food to take with the sacks full of bad.
It was now very hot and that quiet, which is a characteristic of park cricket, began to fall.
Standing there in the middle of the oval on that hot summer afternoon, Ron Sparrowthought of how quiet it was out there. There was the talk and the noise of the players, but that was
only close in.

The slips and perhaps the cover fieldsmen. Yarra West always seemed to chatamongst themselves. It was to there in the outfield that the quiet would settle.
77ǫƴƑŭƑņŏȘȓË«ǬNo.16 (2016)

He look as Chris Andersen threw the ball to the chunky little right-armer called Matthew
Halley.
The new batsman was taking guard. He asked for middle and Ron Sparrow gave it to him.
The new batsman was the scorer for the Trinity team and so a new scorer had to be found amongst
the Trinity contingent.
If the new scorer had any sense he wouldn’t ask the name of the bowler. But most people
who have never scored before or who are relatively new to the whole idea of filling in the cryptic
sheets will cling to the set routine of the scorer’s guidelines.

Namely, to ask for the bowler’s namewhen the new over commences.
This should be a pretty straightforward system. Cricketers by and large are a relatively
conservative lot and closely adhere to what the appropriate behaviour should be. But there are someteams that, in a time-honoured tradition, will always give in to the temptation to, as the great
expression readily describes, take the piss. Though these same teams will remain deadly serious in
their endeavours on the field.
Ron Sparrow knew that Yarraville West Fourths were just this side. He called out to thebatsman, ‘Right an over, batsman.’
The batsman nodded. Matt Halley came and gave him his hat.
‘What are you bowling, Matthew?’ asked the old umpire. Matt Halley Smiled.

Helooked down at Livey. ‘What am I bowling, Livey?’
Lively snorted. ‘Give us a bit of the Kenny Loggins-cum-Kevin Bacon, mate.’
Word count: 315 words
Source: “Cricket Kings” by William McInnes[Ě]ǥ
lTranslation brief ȍȔǦȶɞȭȫɤɉǴȣȓÎňº{ȓNȩ¼qĻȑ?ǐǾȌǯȤțȀlƎ ST ȓɒȰɦɗɅɉȔǦRźȑ®ȉȆ¨ȑȐȉȌǳȤțȀ

lɔɢéŸŭƑůɏɍɠȎȓOƣȓŢþǦù ST ȑȔƋƚɥƟĮĻįķȩ¼qĻȑĽȤ
ƯȪȇǀ8ǵǻǽǰțȀɨŧǀTħɩ

78



 2Items
1) In referring to the student’s

4
The student reflected all#"!$

 

3

2

1

The student mostly reflected

The student did not reflect

The student could not reflecttranslation, how precisely did the the requirements given in

the requirements given inpart of the requirements given in

the requirements at all

student reflect instructions by

the translation brief

the translation brief

the translation brief

The student identified all

The student identified many of

The student did not identify

the client?
2) How well did the student
identify problems posed by thethe key problems posed by the task the key problems posed by the task the majority of the key problems

task as shown in the relevant

The student identified very
few or no key problems associatedposed by the taskwith the task

The student dealt with a few

The student did not deal withmaterials including theirannotations.?
3) How acceptably did the student
provide solutions for identified

The student dealt with all the

The student dealt with many of

key problems in an acceptable way the key problems in an acceptable

key problems derived from theway

key problems derived from the task any key problems derived fromin an acceptable way

the task in an acceptable waytask?
4) How accurately did the student The student accurately
comprehend the content of the

The student accurately comprehendedThe student did not accurately

comprehended all the part of the ST. most part of the ST

The student did not accurately

comprehend many parts of the ST comprehend most or all of the ST

ST?
5) How accurate was the

The student fully comprehended

The student mostly comprehended theThe student did not comprehend inThe student did not comprehend in

student’s translation in terms of

the logical argument of the ST

logical argument of the ST as amany parts of

the understanding of the

as a whole in an accurate mannerwhole in an accurate manner.

of the ST as a whole in an

logical argument of the ST as aaccurate manner.

whole in an accurate manner

the text as a whole?
6) How well did the students

the logical argumentthe majority or all the parts of the

The student demonstrated

The student demonstrated

The student demonstrated

The student demonstrated

maintain the stylistic features of masterful domain-specificproficient domain-specificweak domain-specific knowledge

poor domain-specific knowledge79

No.16 (2016)

the ST in TT where necessary?

knowledge of the TT whichknowledge of the TT whichof the TT with the result of manyof the TT with the result of mostresulted in achieving an

resulted in achieving anparts of the TT being

parts of the TT being

exceptionally readable translation

acceptably readable translation in

inappropriate in relation to

inappropriate in relation to readability

the TTreadability

The translation displayed

The translation displayed

The translation displayed frequently The translation displayed poor

satisfactory was the student’s

exceptional

ofacceptableofinappropriate command ofcommand of the TL?

LOTE/English

LOTE/English

LOTE/English

8) Overall, how acceptably did the

The student fully achieved

The student mostly achieved

The student did not achieve thestudent achieve readability inthe readability of the translation in

the readability of the translation inreadability of the translation in the TLreadability of the translation in the TL

the TT?

the TLthe TLand many parts of the translationand dominant portion of theposed difficulty in achievingtranslation posed difficulty inappropriate

achieving appropriate readability

1) 7) How grammaticallycommandcommandcommand of LOTE/English

The student did not achieve thereadability9) How adequately did theMost or all of the parts of the

Many parts of the translation did

Many parts of the translation

Most or all parts of thestudent achieve readability fortranslation did not pose difficulty

not pose difficulty in achieving

posed difficulty in achieving atranslation posed difficulty intarget readers in terms of thein achieving a coherent TT.

a coherent TT

coherent TT

achieving a coherent TT

The student very frequently

The student rarely achieved

The student did not achieve

the student try to communicate appropriate communication withachieved appropriate

appropriate communication withappropriate communication with

with the client?

the client

communication with the client

the client

the client at all

The student demonstrated a

The student demonstrated a

The student demonstrated a

The student did not justify any ofmasterful ability in attempting to

proficient ability in attempting to

weak ability in attempting totranslation decisions that weretranslation decisions in a form justify translation decisions to thejustify translation decisions to thejustify translation decisions tonecessary to do so for the clientof, for instance, translator’sclientthe client.

translation as a coherent
text?
10) Overall, how appropriately did The student fully achieved11) How effectively did thestudent attempt to justify

client80#"!$

notes?

12) How appropriate did the

All of the student’s solutions

Most of the student’s solutions

The student frequently failed

The student did notstudent addressin addressing culturally-in addressing culturally

to address culturally

address culturally-challenging

culturally-challenging problems

challenging problems-challenging problems-challenging problems inproblems at allin the translation task?

were appropriate

were appropriate

an appropriate manner13) Overall, how appropriately did The student demonstrated a

The student demonstrated a

The student did not use

The student did not use

the student use available resources masterful ability in using

proficient ability in using

available resources appropriately,

available resources appropriately,

to collect necessary information toavailable resources appropriately

and he/ she frequently depended

and he/ she very frequently

on his/her own decisions

depended on his/her own

without reference to resources

decisionsavailable resources appropriately

assist with the translation?

resources
/52=

/100

81

without

referenceto

No.16 (2016) 3 







An accurate comprehension of a ST: The extent to which a student comprehended a ST accurately. A failure to do so is
likely to result in a mistranslated translation which does not reflect the content of a ST in a precise manner.
Client: A person or an organisation who wish to offer translation jobs to a translator.

They can be an individual, company

or a translation agency.
Command of LOTE/English: a translator’s knowledge of LOTE/English and his/her ability to use such knowledge.
Communication with a client: ways in which the student attempted to communicate with a client. This would include
translator-client negotiation (e.g. concerning a deadline, and the stylistic features of a TT), confirmation (e.g. the meaning ofa term in abstract nature, client’s stylistic preferences, and information about proper nouns) and the methods ofcommunication (e.g. when and how the student communicated with the client). If such communication is failed, this is
likely to have harmful effects on translator-client relationships.
Comprehension of the logical argument: The extent to which a student precisely comprehended the logical argument of
an ST as a whole. The logical argument can be defined as logical relationships between sentences and paragraphs, forming a
logically coherent text as a whole. Failure to do so would result in the misrepresentation of the content of a ST in a TT.
Culturally-challenging problems: problems that are derived from cultural differences between an ST and a TT, and where
efforts are required to achieve the TT audience’s comprehension of the translation. Examples would include
culturally-specific terms (e.g. ‘mate’ in English) and culturally-specific concepts (e.g. wabi and sabi in Japanese). Failure tosolve such problems is likely to result in a situation where a translator cannot accurately comprehend culturally-specificinformation in the ST and target readers find such information difficult to understand in the TT.
Domain-specific knowledge: Specialised knowledge with which a translator is required to be familiar in order to achieve
the accurate understanding of the content of a ST and/or to achieve a translation which is legitimate for a specific kind oftarget reader. An example of domain-specific knowledge would be medical knowledge necessary in translating a ST in the
medical domain. Lack of such knowledge is likely to result in the miscomprehension of the content of the ST.
Instructions by the client: Usually, a client provides a translator with various instructions regarding the translation job at
the time of offering a job. Instructions would include a deadline, purposes of the translation job, kind of target readers, andformatting issues. In the case of assignments, students should be given a ‘translation brief’ for a task. If a student did notprecisely reflect the instructions regarding kind of target readers, for example, this may result in producing a TT that makes
it difficult for target readers to comprehend it easily.
Justification of translation decisions: providing a client with legitimate reasons and evidence of translator’s decisions intranslating.

Such decisions would be typically realised by the use of translator’s notes and/or emails and phone calls to the
82



#"!$

client. Failure to do so is likely to result in giving unreliable impression of a translator to the client due to failure to makereasonable efforts in reaching such decisions.
Problem: any matter in a translation job which can be explicitly identified as a challenge for a translator.

Unless asolution can be found, such a matter will remain, or deteriorate. In the context of translation, examples of such problems can
include: difficulty in achieving an accurate translation to the ST, a translator being unfamiliar with the domain of the ST
and/or TT, the content of a ST being contrary to translator’s beliefs, or socially-accepted norms, or where ST contains
culturally-specific references which do not exist in the TT culture.
Readability: The extent to which a TT can be read and understood by target audience naturally and easily. If target readers
are medical specialists, for example, terms used in the TT need to be suitable terms used by the specialists. Failure toachieve appropriate readability is likely to result in a situation where target readers find the TT difficult to understand or the
TT being unsuitable for expectations of readability held by target readers.
Stylistic feature: apart from the content of a text, its style is likely to provide readers with writer’s intentions.

Examplesof stylistic features would include the presentation of a text, choices of words, and the developments of the argument of the
text. Failure to maintain stylistic such features of a ST in a TT is likely to result in the misrepresentation of writer’s
intentions and therefore an inaccurate translation of a ST.
Use of available resources: any tool which provides a translator with useful information in gaining domain-specificknowledge required by an ST and/or a TT, and in finding appropriate equivalences between the ST and the TT.

Examplesof this would include a dictionary, Google search engine and various other websites (e.g. a company’s website). Failure touse available resources, where necessary, is likely to result in the inappropriate choices of equivalences and mistranslations.
Also, this could result in giving a negative impression of his/herself to the client.

83