Available at

4.2.2.5 Interim conclusion 
Table 23 – Overview of renditions for all studied linguistic items 
Close
Divergent Zero
Reduced Expanded Substituted Innovative Summarized
Numbers 
78.86% 
9.63% 
8.71% 
1.01% 
1.72% 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Single-word terms
71.87% 
10.20% 
10.49% 5.35% 
/ 
/ 
0.52% 
/ 
Proper names 
68.66% 
12.29% 
14.21% 4.82% 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Complex noun phrases 50.84% 
18.56% 
9.07% 
16.80% 
2.63% 
0.99% 
0.40% 
0.7% 
A + N 
54.75% 
14.72% 
12.72% 13.79% 
2.41% 
0.13% 
0.13% 
1.35% 
N + prep + N 
52.49% 
16.54% 
10.30% 15.39% 
2.74% 
0.71% 
1.08% 
0.75% 
N + subclause 
45.28% 
24.42% 
4.18% 
21.23% 
2.75% 
2.13% 
/ 
/ 
Average 
67.56% 
12.67% 
10.62% 6.99% 
1.09% 
0.25% 
0.23% 
0.17% 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 83 
Summing up the trends outlined in the previous section, we can say that: 
Complex noun phrases: 
- On a more general note, just over half of NPs are correctly translated 
(50.84%) and almost a fifth of them are wrongly translated (18.56%) 
- Significant share of reduced renditions (16.80%) 
® use of interpreting 
strategies: compression 
- Three sub-patterns: 
o A + N: over half of the occurrences correctly translated (54.75%) 
§
Zero renditions: significant difference in the number of 
close renditions between STU01 and STU02 (5.26% vs. 
14.74%) 
o N + prep + N: over half of the occurrences correctly translated 
(52.49%) and almost as many reduced and divergent renditions 
(15.39% vs. 16.54%)