Available at

DELIVERY RATE (DR): 
- Slow average delivery rate (< 130 w/m): 101.97 w/m for STU and 
103.66 w/m for IN 
- Average STU delivery rate < average IN delivery rate 
- STU delivery rate does not increase proportionally with the speaker’s 
delivery rate (Chernov, 2004) 
- Student profiles: STU01, STU03 and STU05 have the highest average 
delivery rate, whereas STU06 and STU08 have the lowest

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 67 
LEXICAL DENSITY (LD): 
- STU interpretations are as informative as source speeches (average LD 
score respectively being 52.35% and 54.96%) as the difference is not 
significant (Kajzer-Wietrzny, 2005; Sandrelli & Bendazzoli, 2005) 
- Lexical density scores are surprisingly almost similar across students, 
but, despite having the lowest DR and one of the lowest ER, STU08 
has the highest LD score (53.35%), which means that STU08 used 
fewer words but the interpretations were denser than the others 
EXPANSION RATE (ER): 
- Average expansion rate is lower than 1, little evidence of compression 
(Chernov, 2004) 
- Same tendencies across students than the ones observed for delivery 
rate: if the STU delivery rate is higher than the speaker’s, then the STU 
expansion rate is higher than 1 
- Student profiles: STU01, STU03 and STU05 are the only students to 
have a positive average expansion rate (> 1), whereas STU06 and 
STU08 have a negative average expansion rate (< 1) 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 68 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 69 
4.2 Data analysis 
In the remainder of this chapter, which is mainly devoted to the way students 
handled potential difficulties (four different linguistic items), I will answer my two 
research questions and try to determine whether the trends outlined in Section 
4.1.4 can be linked to students’ performances.