This document provides an outline of the general course structure for a scientific and technical translation course in English over 15 weeks. It includes the following key points: - Weeks 1-2 cover introductions to translation and research article structure. - Week 3 focuses on hands-on introduction to electronic translation tools. - Weeks 4-5 involve translating research articles and building glossaries. - Weeks 6-7 include midterm assessments and feedback. - Weeks 8-11 focus on new assignments, continued assignments, and more feedback. - Weeks 12-13 include group presentations. - Week 14 is the final exam. - Week 15 is for final

1. Scientific and Technical
Translation in English: Week 3
Dr. Ron Martinez

2. General course outline
• Week 1: Introduction to translation and CAPA
• Week 2: Research article structure, common discourse problems
• Week 3: Hands-on introduction to electronic tools
• Week 4: Translation of research articles (1st assignment on e-folio)
• Week 5: Disciplinary specificity; glossary building (e-folio)
• Week 6: Review of 1st assignment, feedback from Writing V
• Week 7: Midterm assessment (in-class)
• Week 8: New teams, new “live” assignments
• Week 9: Assignments continued
• Week 10: Feedback from Writing V
• Week 11: Completion of final translations
• Week 12: Group presentations
• Week 13: Group presentations
• Week 14: Final exam (in-class)
• Week 15: Final polishing of e-Portfolios

4. Discuss the article
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION
“A misplaced preposition or poor choice
of verb can ruin a convincing narrative,
reducing the probability of publication in
a top international journal and limiting
the impact of the research.”
Do you agree? Is it possible to avoid?
How?
“(M)any foreign scientists spend precious
research funds on private translation
services. But standard translators may not
understand the science, the structure of
scientific papers or the technical
language.”
Does such knowledge of “science” and
the “structure of scientific papers” really
make a difference?
“(W)e suggest that university
departments in non-anglophone
countries could hire professional
translators with a science background…”
What do you think about this solution?

5. Some comments from readers:
But there is a third skill that may well be
overlooked in the rush to find someone who
knows the languages and the subject area in
sufficient depth. While mastery of two or
more languages and an understanding of the
science are two key elements, the act of
translation itself is also a skill that must be
learned and honed over many years of
experience.

6. They often work closely with authors
to ensure the accuracy of their work,
and provide added value
[…].Moreover, ITI’s members must all
adhere to a Code of Professional
Conduct…

11. Research Article Structure

13. Research Articles: A Look Inside
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

14. Research Articles: A Look Inside
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

15. Research Articles: A Look Inside
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

16. Research Articles: IMRaD
Introduction
Method
Results
and
Discussion
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

17. Research Articles: IMRaD
Introduction
Method
Results
and
Discussion
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

18. Quick Survey:
According to research, which two IMRaD
sections are usually the most difficult for non-
native speakers of English to write in English?
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

19. Research Articles: IMRaD
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

20. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

21. “C.A.R.S.” (John Swales)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

22. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

23. ESTABLISHING
TERRITORY
ESTABLISHING
NICHE
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

24. “C.A.R.S.” (John Swales)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR
PRESENT SIMPLE
PRESENT PERFECT
PRESENT SIMPLE
PRESENT
SIMPLE/PERFECT
PRESENT SIMPLE

25. C.A.R.S.- In IMRaD Abstracts
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

26. Abstracts: C.A.R.S. in IMRaD
I
M
R
DProf. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

27. Abstract-Intro Connections (article
online)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

28. Cohesion!
TITLE
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

29. Always think:
OK, so what’s
the story
here?

30. What about in Portuguese?
• Online: Identify “CARS”

31. ‘Claiming centrality’

32. Move 2?

34. Typical CARS problems

35. Homework
• Identify C.A.R.S. in 3 engineering articles (online)
• Read the Eliana Hirano article on Brazilian
introductions (online)
• Are you confident enough to suggest changes to
an article? Read the introduction to the “Corpus
Linguistics” article. Any problems? Make notes
on what you would tell the author; bring the
suggestions to class.
• Read the Doherty article on translation
technologies (online)

36. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

37. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

38. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

39. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

40. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

41. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

43. Discuss with a classmate:
1. What was Eliano Hirano trying find out?
2. What did she find?
3. In her opinion, what is the explanation for
the differences she found?
4. Do you agree with her opinion? Is there
perhaps (also) another explanation?

44. “Despite the fact that the CARS model has been
used to analyze RAIs in languages other than
English, to my knowledge, no study has used the
model to investigate RAIs in Brazilian
Portuguese.”

45. Table 3 – Move structure of RAIs

47. Hirano (2009)
• “In summary, RAIs in The ESPecialist do not
seem to follow a pattern in the organization of
their rhetorical moves although there seems to
be a preference for the M1–M3 type. In this
type of structural organization, the authors
establish a territory (by making topic
generalizations and giving background
information, for example) and then present
their current study…” (p. 244)

48. What about in Portuguese?
• Online: Identify “CARS”

49. ‘Claiming centrality’

50. Move 2?

52. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

53. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

54. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

55. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

58. Hirano (2009)
“A possibility that appears more plausible for the present
study regards solidarity with the local research community,
as discussed in Taylor and Chen (1991), who compared
Anglo-American and Chinese RAIs. These authors explain
that Chinese scholars are not comfortable identifying gaps
and shortcomings in previous research. Likewise, Jogthong
(2001) claims that Thai writers tend ‘‘to avoid direct
criticism on the work of others” (p. 72). de Rezende and
Hemais (2004), going in the same direction, posit that
Brazilian writers may avoid the strategy of establishing a
niche for one’s research because doing so exposes a state of
ignorance on the part of the scientific community, which
may invoke a negative attitude from other researchers.” (p.
245)

60. Hirano (2009)
“Besides the possible explanations discussed above, it
is important to recall the ‘‘rather simpler and more
prosaic explanation” put forward by Taylor and Chen
(1991, p. 332). They refer to the access researchers
have (or do not) to bibliographic resources. […] Among
other reasons, Salager-Meyer (2008) mentions the cost
of scientific publications. In my own personal
experience doing research in Brazil from 2001 to 2003, I
remember having to go through hard copies of
journals, most of which were local, and reading each
individual abstract to find articles that would be
relevant to my study.” (p. 246)

61. Hirano (2009)
“Besides the possible explanations discussed above, it
is important to recall the ‘‘rather simpler and more
prosaic explanation” put forward by Taylor and Chen
(1991, p. 332). They refer to the access researchers
have (or do not) to bibliographic resources. […] Among
other reasons, Salager-Meyer (2008) mentions the cost
of scientific publications. In my own personal
experience doing research in Brazil from 2001 to 2003, I
remember having to go through hard copies of
journals, most of which were local, and reading each
individual abstract to find articles that would be
relevant to my study.” (p. 246)

62. What about Brazilians writing in
English?
“There were only three (articles written in English by a
Brazilian). One had a 1–2–1–2–1–2–1–3 move
structure and the other two had a M1–M3 pattern. The
latter two introductions, then, employed the rhetorical
conventions that were found to be the most popular in
the BESP subcorpus, with an occurrence of 40%. It is
arguable that these authors transferred the rhetorical
organization they would use in Portuguese to their
articles in English. The resulting effect, an introduction
without a clear gap statement, might have difficulty
getting accepted in a journal like English for Specific
Purposes, considering the results of the present study.”
(Hirano, 2009, p. 246).

63. What about Brazilians writing in
English?
“There were only three (articles written in English by a
Brazilian). One had a 1–2–1–2–1–2–1–3 move
structure and the other two had a M1–M3 pattern. The
latter two introductions, then, employed the rhetorical
conventions that were found to be the most popular in
the BESP subcorpus, with an occurrence of 40%. It is
arguable that these authors transferred the rhetorical
organization they would use in Portuguese to their
articles in English. The resulting effect, an introduction
without a clear gap statement, might have difficulty
getting accepted in a journal like English for Specific
Purposes, considering the results of the present study.”
(Hirano, 2009, p. 246).

64. Homework
• Identify C.A.R.S. in 3 engineering articles (online)
• Read the Eliana Hirano article on Brazilian
introductions (online)
• Are you confident enough to suggest changes to
an article? Read the introduction to the “Corpus
Linguistics” article. Any problems? Make notes
on what you would tell the author; bring the
suggestions to class.
• Read the Doherty article on translation
technologies (online)

65. Typical CARS problems

66. Abstracts: C.A.R.S. in IMRaD
I
M
R
DProf. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

68. Cohesion!
TITLE
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

69. Cohesion!
TITLE
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br

73. Always think:
OK, so what’s
the story
here?

76. But what does all this have to do with
translation?
• Cohesion
• Coherence
• Identify the root of misunderstandings
• Alert author(s) and recommend changes
• We are not translating for sake of translation –
but as “literacy brokers” (people who have a
role in the path to publication)

77. Research Articles: IMRaD
Introduction
Method
Results
and
Discussion
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

78. Research Articles: IMRaD
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

79. An example: (though clearly not
enough...)

80. But what does all this have to do with
translation?
• Cohesion
• Coherence
• Identify the root of misunderstandings
• Alert author(s) and recommend changes
• We are not translating for sake of translation –
but as “literacy brokers” (people who have a
role in the path to publication)

81. LEVELS OF PUBLICATIONS SUCCESS (or
rejection)
Language (vocabulary, grammar, etc.)
Discourse (cohesion, organization,
clarity)
Research
(relevant theme, appropriate
method, etc.)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

82. DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE!
Language
(vocabulary,
grammar, etc.)
Discourse (clarity,
organization)
Research
(appropriate method, etc.)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

83. 83Ron Martinez

84. MAIN ISSUE NOT ‘ENGLISH’
84Ron Martinez

87. You try!
1. Do the translation.
2. Keep track of all the steps you take and tools you use.
3. When finished, compare with a partner. Also compare steps taken.

88. Is Google Translate(and Bing, etc.) a
good thing?

98. Homework
• Identify C.A.R.S. in 3 engineering articles (online)
• Read the Eliana Hirano article on Brazilian
introductions (online)
• Are you confident enough to suggest changes to
an article? Read the introduction to the “Corpus
Linguistics” article. Any problems? Make notes
on what you would tell the author; bring the
suggestions to class.
• Read the Doherty article on translation
technologies (online)

99. Exercise: “Can you tell the difference?”
1. Go to the exercise on our class webpage
(“Which one did Google do?”).
2. When finished, discuss with a classmate.

100. Doherty (2016)

101. Doherty (2016)

102. HOMEWORK FOR NEXT WEEK
1. Download the Site Translation text (online).
2. If you are assigned number “1”: translate the
text manually (no MT). TIME YOURSELF.
Note the time, bring printed version of
translation to next class.
3. If you are assigned number “2”: Use MT (e.g.
Google Translate) and post-edit the text.
TIME YOURSELF. Note the time, bring
printed version of translation to next class.

103. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
ronmartinez@ufpr.br