Digital Assessment of Italian-English Translations of COVID-19 Reports
Keywords:
COVID-19 terminology translations, accuracy, adequacy, FleschKincaid readability tests, SEO Tools, Grammarly, TAUS DQF system
Abstract
The present work is concerned with assessing the quality of the English language in official reports published by the Italian Higher Health Institute and released through its website during the COVID-19 pandemic. The reports are the result of a translation from Italian into English, on which a quantitative analysis was carried out to assess the total number of errors, as well as their accuracy, adequacy, and readability. A qualitative evaluation was also undertaken focusing on the cohesive, lexical, and syntactic features of the reports, thus highlighting mistranslations. The quantitative analysis, carried out using the TAUS DQF system, evidenced a mean accuracy of 3 and a mean adequacy of 2. The Grammarly software counted a mean number of 109 errors. The Flesch-Kincaid readability tests, calculated using the Content Analysis SEO Tool, yielded a mean reading ease of 38 and a mean school grade of 8. The publication of official health reports addressed to the general public should be committed to improving lives and increasing the social impact of science. On the other hand, official health reports that are aimed at a specialized medical audience should respond to all the rules and norms of that specific language community. In both cases, the reports assessed in the present investigation seem to fail in their communicative function due to their linguistic ineffectiveness.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
PlumX Statistics
References
1. Alotaibi H. (2015). The role of lexical cohesion in writing quality. International journal of applied linguistics and English literature, 4/1:261-259.
2. Ashby P. (2011). Understanding Phonetics, Understanding Language series. Routledge.
3. Avila E.C., Lavadia M.K.S., Sagun R.D. and Miraña A.E. (2020). Readability Analysis of College Student’s Written Outputs using Grammarly Premium and Flesch Kincaid Tools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1933, Virtual Conference on Engineering, Science and Technology (ViCEST) 2020, 12-13 August 2020, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4. Back A., Tulsky J.A. and Arnold R.M. (2020). Communication skills in the age of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med, 172:759–760.
5. Benjamin C.F.A. and Gaab N. (2012). “What’s the story? The tale of reading fluency told at speed”. Human Brain Mapping, 33:2572-2585. Wiley Online Library.
6. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). San Francisco State University: Pearson Education Limited.
7. Candel Mora, M. Á. (2022). Fine-tuning machine translation quality-rating scales for new digital genres: The case of user-generated content.
8. Carl M. (2021). Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation. In: Carl M. (eds) Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research. Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69777-8_5.
9. Casas-Tost H. (2012). Translating onomatopoeia from Chinese into Spanish: a corpus-based analysis. Perspectives. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 22/1:39-55. doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.712144.
10. Caselli T., Sprugnoli R. and Moretti G. (2021). Identifying communicative functions in discourse with content types. Lang Resources & Evaluation, 55/3. doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09554-4.
11. Castilho, S., Doherty, S., Gaspari, F., & Moorkens, J. (2018). Approaches to human and machine translation quality assessment. Translation quality assessment: From principles to practice, 9-38.
12. Catford J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
13. Chang D. (2021). Assisting Access to COVID-19 Information Through Deep Learning Based Machine Translation: Attention Mechanism Via Bidirectional GRU, American Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 6/1:9-15. doi: 10.11648/j.ajdmkd.20210601.12.
14. Chang N.F. (2011). In defence of polysystem theory. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 23/2:311–347. doi.org/10.1075/target.23.2.08cha.
15. Charniak E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, NAACL 2000: Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference: 132–139.
16. Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners ‘errors ‘, IRAL. Vol V/4. Reprinted in SP Corder (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage (pp. 19-27).
17. Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Delzendehrooy S. (2010). Adequacy or Acceptability? Toward Making the Style of the Author Known. Translation Studies Quarterly, 8/30.
19. do Carmo F. (2020). ‘Time is money’ and the value of translation. Translation Spaces, 9/1:35 – 57. doi.org/10.1075/ts.00020.car.
20. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Dye O.A. (1971). The Effects of Translation on Readability. Language and Speech, 14/4:392-397. doi.org/10.1177/002383097101400407.
22. Eastridge D. and Mozzoni, M.P. (2005). Fluency and functional motor skills following brain injury, Behavioral Interventions, 20:77-89. Wiley Online Library.
23. Ellender C. (2012). Free Online Translators: A Comparative Assessment of www.worldlingo.com, www.freetranslation.com, and www.translate.google.com, Translation Journal, 16.
24. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
25. Firat G. (2021). Uberization of translation. Impacts on working conditions. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization, 8/1:48–75. doi.org/10.1075/jial.20006.fir.
26. Flesch R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32:221–233.
27. Garner B.A. (2016). The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
29. Grammarly, www.grammarly.com (2020.
30. Hale S. and Campbell S. (2002). The Interaction between Text Difficulty and Translation Accuracy. Babel, 48/1:14-33. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.1.02hal.
31. Hamilton C. and Foltzer A.-S. (2021). On Euphemisms, Linguistic Creativity, and Humor. Lexis. Journal of English Lexicology, 17:1-22. doi.org/10.4000/lexis.5355.
32. Hatim B. and Mason I. (2005). The Translator as Communicator. Routledge, London.
33. Hatim B. and Mason I. (2014). Discourse and the Translator. Routledge, London.
34. Iedema R. (2012). Medical discourse. Wiley Online Library.
35. Iftitah N. and Kuswardani R. (2021). Experiences using google translate application for translation used by English department students. Journal of Research on English and Language Learning (J-REaLL), 3/1. doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v3i1.11408.
36. Istituto Superiore di Sanità, www.iss.it, 2020).
37. Jaccomard H., Almahasees Z. and Al-Taher M. (2021). Evaluation of Facebook Translation Service (FTS) in Translating Facebook Posts from English into Arabic in Terms of TAUS
38. Adequacy and Fluency during Covid-19. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 6/1:1241-1248.
39. Jakobson R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Harvard University Press.
40. Jakobson R. (2013). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. On Translation, edited by Reuben Arthur Brower, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press: 232-239. doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18.
41. Jakobson R. (2021). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. The Translation Studies. Routledge.
42. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: New York: Longman.
43. Karwacka W. (2021). Quality, readability and accessibility in medical translation. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Health. London: Routledge.
44. Kincaid J.P. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch. RBR-8-75.
45. Kirchner G. (2020). Insights from Gathering MT Productivity Metrics at Scale. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation: 353–362.
46. Larson M.L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. University Press of America.
47. Latif AMMM. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34/1:99-105. doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams073.
48. Lutz W. (1989). Doublespeak. Public Relations Quarterly; Rhinebeck, 33/4:35-30.
49. McCully C. 2009. The Sound Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Mikhailov M. (2021). “Mind the Source Data! Translation Equivalents and Translation Stimuli from Parallel Corpora”. In: Wang V.X., Lim L., Li D. (eds.) New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Singapore. doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4918-9_10.
51. Mintz D. (1992). What’s in a word: The distancing function of language in medicine. J Med Hum, 13:223–233. doi.org/10.1007/BF01137420.
52. Miyabe M. and Yoshino T. (2009). Accuracy evaluation of sentences translated to intermediate language in back translation. IUCS ‘09: Proceedings of the 3rd International Universal Communication Symposium. 30–35. doi.org/10.1145/1667780.1667787.
53. Musacchio M.T. (2006). “Quality in published Italian specialised translations”. In M. Gotti and S. Šarčević (eds.), Insights into Specialized translation. Bern: Peter Lang: 173-192.
54. Newmark P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall. Routledge, London.
55. Nguyen B.V. and Ngo T.C.T. (2021). Using the internet for self-study to improve translation for English-majored seniors at Van Lang University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1/2:110–147.
56. Nida E. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
57. Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and their Errors. London: The Macmillan Press, pp. 135, (Essential Language Teaching Series).
58. Orwell G. (1990). Nineteen Eighty-four. Penguin Books Ltd Paperback.
59. Pierini P. (2015). Translating English compound adjectives into Italian: Problems and strategies, Translation and Interpreting, 7/2:17-29. doi:10.12807/ti.107202.2015.a02.
60. Popel M., Tomkova M., Tomek J. et al. (2020). Transforming machine translation: a deep learning system reaches news translation quality comparable to human professionals. Nature Communication, 11:4381. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18073-9.
61. Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. The teaching of translation, 279-288.
62. Pym, A. (2023). Exploring translation theories. Routledge.
63. Reddy B.V. and Gupta A.J. (2020). Importance of effective communication during COVID-19 infodemic. Family Med Prim Care, 9/8:3793-3796.
64. Robbins B.D. (2018). “Dehumanization in Modern Medicine and Science”. In: The Medicalized Body and Anesthetic Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
65. doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95356-1_7.
66. Robinson D. (2012). Becoming a Translator – an Introduction to the Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
67. Ross B. (1983). Windyfoggery and Bureaucratese. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 62:53–66. doi.org/10.1075/itl.62.03bea.
68. Salager-Meyer F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse English for Specific Purposes, 13/2:149-170.
69. Schumann, J. and Stenson, N. (eds.). (1976). New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House
70. SEO, www.seoscout.com, 2020.
71. Sipayung K.T. (2018). The Impact of Translation Shift and Method on Translation Accuracy Found at Bilingual History Textbook. Humaniora, 30/1:58-66. doi.org/10.22146/jh.27754.
72. Snover M., Madnani N., Dorr B.J. and Schwartz R. (2009). Fluency, Adequacy, or HTER? Exploring Different Human Judgments with a Tunable MT Metric. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation: 259–268, Athens, Greece, 30 March – 31 March. c 2009 Association for Computational Linguistics.
73. Somers H. (2012). “Machine translation: history, development, and limitations”. In:
74. Malmkjær K. and Windle K. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford.
75. Sutaryo S., Asrul A. and Hasan N. (2021). The Use Of ‘Grammarly’ Application As Electronic Feedback On Students’ Writing Of English Thesis At Universities In Ternate City. Jurnal Bilingual, Beranda, 11:1.
76. Taavitsainen I. and Pahta P. (2000). Conventions of professional writing: The medical case
77. report in a historical perspective. J. Engl. Linguist, 28/1:60-76.
78. Tabrizi A.R.N. and Etemad P. (2021). Check the grammar of your translation: The usefulness of WhiteSmoke as an automated feedback program, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36/2:411–420, doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa013.
79. Tanskanen S-K. (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical cohesion in English Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
80. TAUS - The Language Data Networks. (2017). Quality evaluation using adequacy and/or fluency approaches, TAUS Signature Editions. https://www.taus.net/academy/best-practices/evaluate-best practices/adequacy-fluency-guidelines.
81. Taleghani M. and Pazouki E. (2018). Free online translators: a comparative assessment in terms of idioms and phrasal verbs. Int. J. Engl. Lang. Transl. Stud., 6/1:15-19.
82. Toury G. (1981). Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-Oriented Approach to Literary Translation. Poetics Today, 2/4:9–27. doi.org/10.2307/1772482.
83. Toury G. (2004). Los estudios descriptivos de traduccio´n y ma´s alla´. Metodologı´a en estudios de traduccio´n. Madrid: Ca´tedra.
84. Valdez S. and Vandepitte S. (2020). “Exploring a Two-Way Street. Revisers’ and translators’ attitudes and expectations about each other in biomedical translation”. In: Translation Revision and Post-Editing, 1-17. Routledge.
85. Venuti L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference. Routledge, London/New York.
86. Vieira L.N., O’Hagan M., and O’Sullivan C. (2021). Understanding the societal impacts of machine translation: a critical review of the literature on medical and legal use cases. Information, Communication & Society, 24/11. doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776370.
87. Vinay J.P. and Darbelnet J. (1958/1972). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction [Comparative stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation]. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée. Didier, Paris.
88. Wang W., Knight K. and Marcu D. (2007). Binarizing Syntax Trees to Improve Syntax-Based Machine Translation Accuracy. Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning: 746–754, Prague. 2007 Association for Computational Linguistics.
89. Watson R.P. and Lynch T.D. (1998). Plain English and Public Administration. Public Policy and Administration, 13/1:107-114. doi:10.1177/095207679801300108.
90. Willis J. (2008). Teaching the brain to read: Strategies for improving fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Virginia, U.S.A.
91. Zaky M.M. (2000). Translation and meaning. Translation Journal, 4/8:1.
2. Ashby P. (2011). Understanding Phonetics, Understanding Language series. Routledge.
3. Avila E.C., Lavadia M.K.S., Sagun R.D. and Miraña A.E. (2020). Readability Analysis of College Student’s Written Outputs using Grammarly Premium and Flesch Kincaid Tools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1933, Virtual Conference on Engineering, Science and Technology (ViCEST) 2020, 12-13 August 2020, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4. Back A., Tulsky J.A. and Arnold R.M. (2020). Communication skills in the age of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med, 172:759–760.
5. Benjamin C.F.A. and Gaab N. (2012). “What’s the story? The tale of reading fluency told at speed”. Human Brain Mapping, 33:2572-2585. Wiley Online Library.
6. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). San Francisco State University: Pearson Education Limited.
7. Candel Mora, M. Á. (2022). Fine-tuning machine translation quality-rating scales for new digital genres: The case of user-generated content.
8. Carl M. (2021). Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation. In: Carl M. (eds) Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research. Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69777-8_5.
9. Casas-Tost H. (2012). Translating onomatopoeia from Chinese into Spanish: a corpus-based analysis. Perspectives. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 22/1:39-55. doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.712144.
10. Caselli T., Sprugnoli R. and Moretti G. (2021). Identifying communicative functions in discourse with content types. Lang Resources & Evaluation, 55/3. doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09554-4.
11. Castilho, S., Doherty, S., Gaspari, F., & Moorkens, J. (2018). Approaches to human and machine translation quality assessment. Translation quality assessment: From principles to practice, 9-38.
12. Catford J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
13. Chang D. (2021). Assisting Access to COVID-19 Information Through Deep Learning Based Machine Translation: Attention Mechanism Via Bidirectional GRU, American Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 6/1:9-15. doi: 10.11648/j.ajdmkd.20210601.12.
14. Chang N.F. (2011). In defence of polysystem theory. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 23/2:311–347. doi.org/10.1075/target.23.2.08cha.
15. Charniak E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, NAACL 2000: Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference: 132–139.
16. Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners ‘errors ‘, IRAL. Vol V/4. Reprinted in SP Corder (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage (pp. 19-27).
17. Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Delzendehrooy S. (2010). Adequacy or Acceptability? Toward Making the Style of the Author Known. Translation Studies Quarterly, 8/30.
19. do Carmo F. (2020). ‘Time is money’ and the value of translation. Translation Spaces, 9/1:35 – 57. doi.org/10.1075/ts.00020.car.
20. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Dye O.A. (1971). The Effects of Translation on Readability. Language and Speech, 14/4:392-397. doi.org/10.1177/002383097101400407.
22. Eastridge D. and Mozzoni, M.P. (2005). Fluency and functional motor skills following brain injury, Behavioral Interventions, 20:77-89. Wiley Online Library.
23. Ellender C. (2012). Free Online Translators: A Comparative Assessment of www.worldlingo.com, www.freetranslation.com, and www.translate.google.com, Translation Journal, 16.
24. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
25. Firat G. (2021). Uberization of translation. Impacts on working conditions. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization, 8/1:48–75. doi.org/10.1075/jial.20006.fir.
26. Flesch R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32:221–233.
27. Garner B.A. (2016). The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
29. Grammarly, www.grammarly.com (2020.
30. Hale S. and Campbell S. (2002). The Interaction between Text Difficulty and Translation Accuracy. Babel, 48/1:14-33. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.1.02hal.
31. Hamilton C. and Foltzer A.-S. (2021). On Euphemisms, Linguistic Creativity, and Humor. Lexis. Journal of English Lexicology, 17:1-22. doi.org/10.4000/lexis.5355.
32. Hatim B. and Mason I. (2005). The Translator as Communicator. Routledge, London.
33. Hatim B. and Mason I. (2014). Discourse and the Translator. Routledge, London.
34. Iedema R. (2012). Medical discourse. Wiley Online Library.
35. Iftitah N. and Kuswardani R. (2021). Experiences using google translate application for translation used by English department students. Journal of Research on English and Language Learning (J-REaLL), 3/1. doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v3i1.11408.
36. Istituto Superiore di Sanità, www.iss.it, 2020).
37. Jaccomard H., Almahasees Z. and Al-Taher M. (2021). Evaluation of Facebook Translation Service (FTS) in Translating Facebook Posts from English into Arabic in Terms of TAUS
38. Adequacy and Fluency during Covid-19. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 6/1:1241-1248.
39. Jakobson R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Harvard University Press.
40. Jakobson R. (2013). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. On Translation, edited by Reuben Arthur Brower, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press: 232-239. doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18.
41. Jakobson R. (2021). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. The Translation Studies. Routledge.
42. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: New York: Longman.
43. Karwacka W. (2021). Quality, readability and accessibility in medical translation. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Health. London: Routledge.
44. Kincaid J.P. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch. RBR-8-75.
45. Kirchner G. (2020). Insights from Gathering MT Productivity Metrics at Scale. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation: 353–362.
46. Larson M.L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. University Press of America.
47. Latif AMMM. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34/1:99-105. doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams073.
48. Lutz W. (1989). Doublespeak. Public Relations Quarterly; Rhinebeck, 33/4:35-30.
49. McCully C. 2009. The Sound Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Mikhailov M. (2021). “Mind the Source Data! Translation Equivalents and Translation Stimuli from Parallel Corpora”. In: Wang V.X., Lim L., Li D. (eds.) New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Singapore. doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4918-9_10.
51. Mintz D. (1992). What’s in a word: The distancing function of language in medicine. J Med Hum, 13:223–233. doi.org/10.1007/BF01137420.
52. Miyabe M. and Yoshino T. (2009). Accuracy evaluation of sentences translated to intermediate language in back translation. IUCS ‘09: Proceedings of the 3rd International Universal Communication Symposium. 30–35. doi.org/10.1145/1667780.1667787.
53. Musacchio M.T. (2006). “Quality in published Italian specialised translations”. In M. Gotti and S. Šarčević (eds.), Insights into Specialized translation. Bern: Peter Lang: 173-192.
54. Newmark P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall. Routledge, London.
55. Nguyen B.V. and Ngo T.C.T. (2021). Using the internet for self-study to improve translation for English-majored seniors at Van Lang University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1/2:110–147.
56. Nida E. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
57. Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and their Errors. London: The Macmillan Press, pp. 135, (Essential Language Teaching Series).
58. Orwell G. (1990). Nineteen Eighty-four. Penguin Books Ltd Paperback.
59. Pierini P. (2015). Translating English compound adjectives into Italian: Problems and strategies, Translation and Interpreting, 7/2:17-29. doi:10.12807/ti.107202.2015.a02.
60. Popel M., Tomkova M., Tomek J. et al. (2020). Transforming machine translation: a deep learning system reaches news translation quality comparable to human professionals. Nature Communication, 11:4381. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18073-9.
61. Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. The teaching of translation, 279-288.
62. Pym, A. (2023). Exploring translation theories. Routledge.
63. Reddy B.V. and Gupta A.J. (2020). Importance of effective communication during COVID-19 infodemic. Family Med Prim Care, 9/8:3793-3796.
64. Robbins B.D. (2018). “Dehumanization in Modern Medicine and Science”. In: The Medicalized Body and Anesthetic Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
65. doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95356-1_7.
66. Robinson D. (2012). Becoming a Translator – an Introduction to the Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
67. Ross B. (1983). Windyfoggery and Bureaucratese. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 62:53–66. doi.org/10.1075/itl.62.03bea.
68. Salager-Meyer F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse English for Specific Purposes, 13/2:149-170.
69. Schumann, J. and Stenson, N. (eds.). (1976). New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House
70. SEO, www.seoscout.com, 2020.
71. Sipayung K.T. (2018). The Impact of Translation Shift and Method on Translation Accuracy Found at Bilingual History Textbook. Humaniora, 30/1:58-66. doi.org/10.22146/jh.27754.
72. Snover M., Madnani N., Dorr B.J. and Schwartz R. (2009). Fluency, Adequacy, or HTER? Exploring Different Human Judgments with a Tunable MT Metric. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation: 259–268, Athens, Greece, 30 March – 31 March. c 2009 Association for Computational Linguistics.
73. Somers H. (2012). “Machine translation: history, development, and limitations”. In:
74. Malmkjær K. and Windle K. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford.
75. Sutaryo S., Asrul A. and Hasan N. (2021). The Use Of ‘Grammarly’ Application As Electronic Feedback On Students’ Writing Of English Thesis At Universities In Ternate City. Jurnal Bilingual, Beranda, 11:1.
76. Taavitsainen I. and Pahta P. (2000). Conventions of professional writing: The medical case
77. report in a historical perspective. J. Engl. Linguist, 28/1:60-76.
78. Tabrizi A.R.N. and Etemad P. (2021). Check the grammar of your translation: The usefulness of WhiteSmoke as an automated feedback program, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36/2:411–420, doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa013.
79. Tanskanen S-K. (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical cohesion in English Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
80. TAUS - The Language Data Networks. (2017). Quality evaluation using adequacy and/or fluency approaches, TAUS Signature Editions. https://www.taus.net/academy/best-practices/evaluate-best practices/adequacy-fluency-guidelines.
81. Taleghani M. and Pazouki E. (2018). Free online translators: a comparative assessment in terms of idioms and phrasal verbs. Int. J. Engl. Lang. Transl. Stud., 6/1:15-19.
82. Toury G. (1981). Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-Oriented Approach to Literary Translation. Poetics Today, 2/4:9–27. doi.org/10.2307/1772482.
83. Toury G. (2004). Los estudios descriptivos de traduccio´n y ma´s alla´. Metodologı´a en estudios de traduccio´n. Madrid: Ca´tedra.
84. Valdez S. and Vandepitte S. (2020). “Exploring a Two-Way Street. Revisers’ and translators’ attitudes and expectations about each other in biomedical translation”. In: Translation Revision and Post-Editing, 1-17. Routledge.
85. Venuti L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference. Routledge, London/New York.
86. Vieira L.N., O’Hagan M., and O’Sullivan C. (2021). Understanding the societal impacts of machine translation: a critical review of the literature on medical and legal use cases. Information, Communication & Society, 24/11. doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776370.
87. Vinay J.P. and Darbelnet J. (1958/1972). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction [Comparative stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation]. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée. Didier, Paris.
88. Wang W., Knight K. and Marcu D. (2007). Binarizing Syntax Trees to Improve Syntax-Based Machine Translation Accuracy. Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning: 746–754, Prague. 2007 Association for Computational Linguistics.
89. Watson R.P. and Lynch T.D. (1998). Plain English and Public Administration. Public Policy and Administration, 13/1:107-114. doi:10.1177/095207679801300108.
90. Willis J. (2008). Teaching the brain to read: Strategies for improving fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Virginia, U.S.A.
91. Zaky M.M. (2000). Translation and meaning. Translation Journal, 4/8:1.
Published
2025-03-31
How to Cite
Daniele, F. (2025). Digital Assessment of Italian-English Translations of COVID-19 Reports. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 21(8), 192. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2025.v21n8p192
Section
ESJ Humanities
Copyright (c) 2025 Franca Daniele
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
