The results reported in section 9.5.1 hide considerable individual differences. In this section, the individual results of the four students are summarized.

 

 

In the case of student Luna (Table 9.8), an opposite trend can be observed. After semester three, she rendered sections with high information density flawlessly, while after semester four, her performance was the worst among the three semesters examined, with a rather high proportion of mistranslations.

 

 

In the case of student Matador (Table 9.9), a similar trend to Luna’s can be observed. His target language output after semesters two and four are quite similar concerning the proportion of correct renderings, the only shift is the shift towards omissions from mistranslations.

 

 

Student Senorita (Table 9.10) had the most constant performance during the three semesters in the light of correct renditions of high information density sections. All through the three semesters, she rendered about 68% of the high density sections’ problem triggers correctly and used the strategies of omission or generalization to make up for the lost information.

 

 

Second, the strategies used by students in the rendering of enumerations is examined.

 

The proportion of correctly rendered items is decreasing as student Estrella progresses in her training (Table 9.11), with the proportion of omissions increasing, and with some generalizations after semester three.

 

 

In the Hungarian target language texts of Student Luna (Table 9.12), a strong shift towards generalizations can be observed when rendering enumerations as she progresses in her training. This strategy gradually replaces omissions.

 

 

Student Matador (Table 9.13) seems to be rather consistent in his strategy use, with omissions and generalizations having a similar proportion in his target language output in the target texts recorded after semesters two and three, and a shift from generalizations towards omissions in the target language text recorded after semester four. The proportion of correctly rendered items in enumerations remained almost the same.

 

 

Student Senorita’s strategies (Table 9.14) concerning enumerations also included omissions and generalizations, and she was the only student who used the strategy of addition. As the proportions are given in comparison to the original number of items, additions appear as if an extra item were given to a list, hence values above 100% in Table 9.14 In Senorita’s case, the proportion of both omissions and generalizations increases as she progresses in her training.

 

 

In summary, we can say that as students progress in their training, they increasingly use the strategies of omission and generalization. In light of Albl-Mikasa’s (2012) results, this suggests that they know what they can omit, without serious consequences.