<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=179992"><dc:title>Who does it better?</dc:title><dc:creator>Zlatnar Moe,	Marija	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Žigon,	Tanja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Mikolič Južnič,	Tamara	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>foreign language students</dc:subject><dc:subject>translation students</dc:subject><dc:subject>translation quality assessment</dc:subject><dc:subject>translation into L2</dc:subject><dc:subject>L1 competence</dc:subject><dc:description>The translation market is often characterised by a diverse group of translators, which includesthose withformal education in translationand those who study foreign languages. Foreign language study programmes in Slovenia have on occasion claimedto prepare students for the Slovenian translation market in a similar way to translation programmes;however,a previous study has shownthat this is not the case in translation from a foreign language into Slovenian. The study reported on here set out to uncover anydifferences in skills between the students of translation as opposed toforeign language programmes. The study focused ontheir ability to translate from Slovenian into a second language (L2), as this is an expected skill on the translation market. In the article, we first compare three foreign language study programmes and a translation study programmein terms oftranslation into an L2. Secondly, we present the results of translation quality assessment of translations from Slovenian into an L2 (English, German and Italian). The results show that thetwo groups ofstudents approached and performed the task differently, in several of the analysed categories, highlighting the role of translation training and enhancement of L1 competence for the development of translation competence.</dc:description><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-02-27 11:44:32</dc:date><dc:type>Članek v reviji</dc:type><dc:identifier>179992</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
