مطالب

Today technology is an integral part of professional translation; and it is generally assumed that translators’ attitudes toward translation technology tools influence their interaction with technology (Bundgaard, 2017). Therefore, the present two-phase study seeks to shed some light on what translation technology tools are and how professional translators feel toward them. The research method used is exploratory in nature, as it tends to discuss issues on which little research has been done and relies on secondary research for its data. The data required for answering the first question have been mined utilizing document analysis from language service providers’ (LSPs) websites, while the data for working out the answer to the second question have been obtained from ProZ.com Quick Polls. Based on our findings, translation technology tools fall into eight broad categories, of which the most commonly used are translation memory (TM) or computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools. In addition, it was found that most translators either do not have a love-hate relationship with technology or love it. This research is envisaged to form the basis of more detailed and conclusive studies.

Considering the paramount importance of writing logical arguments for college students, this study investigated the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) of Toulmin Model through teacher- and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and overall quality of argumentative essays of Iranian EFL university learners. In so doing, 45 male and female Iranian EFL learners taking part in the study were randomly assigned into three groups (two experimental groups including the teacher- and collective-scaffolding and one control group), each consisting of 15 learners. Toulmin Model of argumentation was used as an instructional tool in this research. The necessary data were collected through a pre- and post-test argumentative essay. During the experiment, the dynamic assessment groups wrote and revised their essays in response to teacher’s or peers’ supportive dialogue and zone of proximal development (ZPD) sensitive feedback on the argument structure of their essays; whereas, the control group did not receive such mediation and they were evaluated on their own independent performance. The results of statistical analyses carried out on post-test scores on argument structure and overall quality of the essays pointed out to the outperformance of the teacher- and collective-scaffolding groups on both variables. Furthermore, follow-up Post-hoc analyses revealed no significant difference between the teacher- and collective-scaffolding groups in terms of the overall quality of the argumentative essays. However, the statistically significant difference between the two experimental groups with regard to the argument structure indicated the outperformance of the teacher-scaffolding over the collective group. The obtained results support the fact that autonomy and improvement cannot be thrust upon learners, rather they need to be assisted wisely towards independence.