Available at

First pattern: A + N 
The first pattern to be analysed is “A + N”, with 95 occurrences in the source 
speeches and 522 in the students’ interpretations. It includes three sub-patterns: 
- Adjective + noun: white noise, perfect prosthetic 
- Adjective + adjective + noun: round curvy shape, long white thing 
- Adverb + adjective + noun: very small lesion, quite common knowledge 
Table 17 – Renditions for the “A + N” pattern 
STU01 STU02 STU03 STU04 STU05 STU06 STU07 STU08 Total 
Close 53/95 
52/95 
26/47 
40/75 
32/47 
34/67 
34/68 
14/28 
54.75% 
Div.
19/95 
11/95 
4/47 
13/75 
7/47 
11/67 
10/68 
4/28 
14.72% 
Red.
14/95 
16/95 
6/47 
7/75 
5/47 
9/67 
10/68 
5/28 
13.79% 
Zero
5/95 
14/95 
7/47 
14/75 
2/47 
10/67 
10/68 
4/28 
12.72% 
Exp.
2/95 
/ 
3/47 
1/75 
/ 
1/67 
3/68 
1/28 
2.41% 
Summ. 2/95 
/ 
1/47 
/ 
1/47 
2/67 
1/68 
/ 
1.35% 
Subst. / 
1/95 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
0.13% 
Innov. / 
1/95 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
0.13% 
As Table 17 shows, close renditions account for slightly more than half of the 
occurrences, with 54.75% of the occurrences (see examples 52 and 53), and 
divergent renditions are the second most frequent type of rendition, with 14.72% of 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 73 
the occurrences (see examples 54 and 55). This percentage is lower than the 
average percentage of divergent renditions for all complex noun phrases 
considered (14.72% compared to 18.56%). 
(52) common denominator > dénominateur commun (Item #73 – IN01_STU08) 
(53) basic anatomy > anatomie de base (Item #64 – IN02_STU01) 
(54) artificial knees > genoux extérieurs (Item #18 – IN04_STU07) 
(55) hidden agenda > agenda caché (Item #4 – IN01_STU07) 
The two next most frequent types of rendition closely follow divergent renditions 
and are reduced renditions (13.79%) and zero renditions (12.72%). The latter 
percentage is higher than the average percentage of zero renditions for all NPs 
considered (12.72% to 9.07%). The least frequent types of renditions are 
expanded (2.41%), summarized (1.35%), substituted (0.13%), and innovative 
renditions (0.13%). 
It is worth noting individual variations as well. Concerning zero renditions, there is, 
on the one hand, a significant difference in their frequency between STU01 and 
STU02 (who interpreted the same number of “A + N” NPs). The percentage of 
zero renditions for STU02 is 14.74% (5 omissions) while STU01’s percentage of 
zero renditions is 5.26% (14 omissions). On the other hand, STU05 has the lowest 
percentage of zero renditions (4.30%), while STU04 has the highest (18.67%). 
There are other striking facts across students. Every student’s percentage of close 
rendition is at least 50% of all occurrences. However, STU05 stands out as close 
renditions account for 68.09% of all occurrences, which means that more than 
two-thirds of “A + N” NPs were correctly translated. In addition, STU02 is the only 
student to have invented a word. As the example below shows, STU02 did not 
know the translation of “synesthetic” and should have translated it as 
“synesthésique”. 
(56) cross-modal synesthetic abstraction > abstraction synesthésiste (Iteam #49 – 
IN01_STU02) 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 74