University of Rome III - Degree in Languages & International Communication - Convener: Patrick Boylan - Academic year   2007-08

COURSE:        English II for English minors , curriculum OCI
 
TASK N° _3_    Due date: __/__/__    Group Leader: _________________    <Use BLOCK LETTERS

Group:     A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J     K     L     M     N       <Circle a letter

Evaluation Sheet (Criteri per giudicare la ethnographic report in fondo)
 
GROUP LEADERS: WRITE NAMES USING BLOCK LETTERS.

WRITE STUDENTS' NAMES ON LINE, CIRCLE POINTS FOR EACH CATEGORY, GIVE TOTAL.

1. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

2. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

3. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

4. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________

5. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

6. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

Group Leader's signature________________________________

INSTRUCTIONS

NOTE: WHEN YOU RETURN THE EVALUATION SHEET TO THE TEACHER,
DO NOT INCLUDE THIS SHEET: KEEP IT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

The purpose of this task is to see if students can apply everything you learned during this very short course to a concrete act of translation – in this case, audiovisual translation (for dubbing). Read the complete instructions under “Task 3” in the TASKS part of the class home page.

FORM:

0 = No indications of student, course, date, assignment etc. on top and/or tiny margins and/or difficult-to-read handwriting and/or lots of spelling and punctuation and grammar mistakes.
1= The opposite of the above. If one element is missing, the student does not get the point.

CONTENT

The extract in English:

    3 = was well translated (and followed instructions). The extract contained a compliment translated as Bruti might and slang translated as Mattiello might. It conveyed a communicative intent analogous to the one generally perceived in the original film, while reproducing the Weltanschauung (in other words, the translation must correspond, on the 4-point-scale Evaluation of translations discussed in class, to at least an adaptation, better yet a slight rewriting, even better a close translation that is also communicative). Finally, there were no (or few) lexical or grammatical mistakes in the English version.
    0 = was poorly translated (and/or followed instructions only partially). There was no compliment or it was not translated as Bruti might and/or the same for slang as Mattiello might have translated it. In addition (or, alternatively) the communicative intent expressed in the dubbed version was, in the opinion of the Group Leader, different from the original, as generally perceived by an Italian public. Or the student stopped at a certain level on the 4-point-scale when, in reality, s/he could have gone a step further. Or, finally, there were several lexical or grammatical mistakes in the English version.
 
 
    2 = conveyed the same micro senses. Almost all the semantic fields are the same throughout the text, even the prosody and phraseology sound similar: it's like hearing the original sound track, semantically and communicatively.
    0 = conveyed different micro senses. The semantic fields, prosody, phraseology etc. are frequently different: it's like hearing a sound track close to the original, with the same Weltanschauung and communicative intent, but a translation nonetheless: the author did not manage to get to Level 4,
 
 
    2 = was well directed. The actors' prosodic and paralinguistic traits contributed to establishing their character's persona and also contributed to rendering the communicative intent of the excerpt.
    0 = was poorly directed. The actors' prosodic and paralinguistic traits were not coherent or authentic enough to establish their character's persona and/or did not contribute to rendering the communicative intent of the excerpt.
 
 
    2 = was professionally dubbed. The dubbing followed the indications furnished by Bruti and that touch on sync, genre, etc.
    0 = was an amateur dubbing job . The dubbing was unrealistic and distracted from grasping the utterances.