Review of the Research Findings
The purpose of this study was to utilize two previous MOE Mandarin
Chinese-to-English translation exams in conjunction with an error typology developed by the researcher in an attempt to categorize both stylistic/rendition and linguistic errors committed by a group of 30 adult Taiwanese advanced EFL learners during a three-month semi-longitudinal study. It was hoped that by pinpointing problem areas in the translations, the study findings could both provide self-study recommendations as to how Taiwanese students and test-takers can improve their English translations as well as offer preliminary recommendations to English teachers on how Taiwanese translation pedagogy can be improved.
The first research question was: How to develop an error typology for Chinese-to-English translation that will accurately detect and sufficiently describe student translation errors? It is hoped that the error typology developed for this study is capable of accurately and objectively describing translation errors. The typology differs from existing ones in that it not only describes language errors in detail (as most error typologies do), it is also capable of objectively describing a number of style and rendition errors, which are often thought to be rather subjective and harder to quantify.
The second research question was: What are the main types of errors most commonly made by students and what is the frequency of these errors? It was found that the number of language errors was approximately double that of style/rendition errors. For Translations 1 and 2 combined, there were a total of 60 translations with 1,956 style/rendition errors and 3,384 language errors, for a grand total of 5,340 errors
for all translations. Overall, of the 15 error categories, the top five in terms of total percentage of mistakes were: word usage (2G) at 15.13%, word form (2F) at 13.33%, orthography (2C) at 10.45%, register (1E) at 9.04% and article usage (2A) at 7.83%.
Of these five categories, it is important to note that four of them are categorized under language errors, while only one is considered a style or rendition error. Thus, it is recommended that educators focus on helping students improve grammar (especially from the categories above) and impress upon students the differences in register between spoken (often less formal) and written (typically more formal) English.
The third research question was: Do translation scores largely improve with practice and feedback from the first translation to the second? The scores did
improve, and quite significantly in some cases. Overall, although Category 1:
Style/rendition scores remained almost the same at 66.866% and 67.933% for Translations 1 and 2 respectively, Category 2: Language improved drastically from 32.333% in Translation 1 to 54.333% in Translation 2. Total scores also surged, with the average total score of Translation 1 rather low at 49.600%, while the average for Translation 2 rose to 61.133%. One reason for this may be that Translation 2 was arguably less difficult than Translation 1. However, these results also suggest that by targeting problematic language in the classroom, students will pay attention to problem areas, and with practice, this can lead to significant improvement in performance and the mastery of Chinese to English translation.
The fourth research question was: What are some commonalities among general translation strategies utilized by the highest and lowest performing students?
The top five participants shared numerous common techniques, including reading the original Chinese text at least twice before beginning, translating sentence-by-sentence (or lexical chunk-by-lexical chunk) rather than word-for-word, connecting the
translation with transition and time words to improve readability and cohesion, utilizing English-to-English dictionaries or corpora (mainly Google search), and re-reading and revising their translations at least once.
The bottom five study participants’ verbal and written abilities tended to be weaker than those of the top five. The majority of them only read the original Chinese text once or not at all, some of them reading as they translated. Instead of attempting to connect sentences and paragraphs, they focused on an almost literal word-for-word translation, often aided by low-quality online translators and dictionaries.
Furthermore, they showed a tendency to omit challenging grammar and vocabulary.
Implications and Applications of the Current Study
The first implication of the current research regards using translation exams to test language skills. Malmkjær (2010) maintains that Lado (1964), Gatenby (1967), and Malmkjær (1998) believed translation to be “independent of and radically different from the four skills which define language competence: reading, writing, speaking, and listening” (p. 187). While this researcher does not find translation to be
“radically different” from the four skills, translation could certainly be considered the fifth skill, which is built upon the foundation of the four skills. Indeed, Orozco (2008) argues that the main component of translation competence is transfer competence, which itself can be divided into the four sub-categories of communicative competence (similar to the four skills), extra-linguistic competence (world and specialist
knowledge), instrumental-professional competence (new technology, professional ethics, etc.) and psycho-physiological competence (including memory, attention span, logical reasoning, and perseverance) (pp. 199-201). Thus, the four skills are just the starting point, and translation competence is exceedingly more complex than many
people realize. Therefore, we must ask ourselves why students in Taiwan are tested on translation, but never taught translation skills in the classroom. Educators must come to see translation for what it is—a highly-specialized, complex skill set that requires years of training, and not a word-by-word transfer from L1 to L2. Since many of the current language exams in Taiwan include translation components, students are being required to employ translation skills they have never learned. Not only is this unfair, it puts undue pressure on them and the scores are most probably not a good reflection of students’ actual English abilities concerning the four skills.
The second implication of this study deals with the types of errors being made by students and how the translation scoring scale ultimately affects students’ scores on translation tests. The GSAT, the AST and the GEPT intermediate and high intermediate seem to employ similar error deduction methods that focus mainly on language and are less concerned with style. On the other hand, the Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations score translations sentence-by-sentence, employing the 60/40 (Accuracy/Expression) scale developed by Lai (2011). One reason for the 60/40 scale is that Expression errors are more subjective and much harder to quantify than Accuracy errors; thus Lai found the 60/40 scale to be more valid and reliable than a 50/50 scale for the same two categories.
However, for Taiwanese high school and college student testing, perhaps a 50/50 scale would be a better fit since the students are not professional translators.
The current study, as well as numerous other studies including Chiang (1981), Lim (1995), Horney (1998), Kao (1999), and Zhang and Wang (2011), has found that students make significantly more language errors than style/rendition errors. If
educators focus too much on language and ignore style, students might be unfairly penalized.
The error typology developed for this study is ideal for classroom teaching and testing because, unlike previous typologies, it gives language and style/rendition equal weighting, while simultaneously parsing style/rendition errors into the more objective categories of: Addition, Literalness, Mistranslation, Omission, Register, and Terminology & Cohesion. Thus, it is hoped that by giving evaluators a more detailed and objective scale for scoring style/rendition errors, a 50/50 (language/style)
translation scoring might be considered to increase testing fairness and to avoid over-penalizing test-takers for language errors in the classroom.
The final implication of the current study is that translation can and should be used as a complement to EFL pedagogy because it may induce different and/or an increased number of errors compared to compositions (free writing). Although studies comparing student translation and composition errors are somewhat scarce, Källkvist (1998), Uzawa (1996), and Schjoldager (2003) have all demonstrated error induction caused by translation, which differed from free writing error patterns and frequencies.
Uzawa also discovered that “The participants’ attention patterns were unexpectedly very similar in the Ll and L2 writing tasks, but significantly different in the translation task. Every participant paid significantly more attention to language use in the
translation” (284). Perhaps this can, in part, explain the surprisingly low frequency of verb errors found in the current study. Moreover, it may encourage educators to introduce translation into the classroom, instead of simply relying on it as a method for testing grammar and vocabulary.
For teachers who wish to incorporate Chinese-to-English translation into their EFL pedagogy, it is recommended that translation be implemented as a process.
Stibbard (1998) asserts,
... translation must be grounded in a sound understanding of the principles which should underlie all translation activity. If there is no such understanding of the many factors which influence the translation process, then translation will not be a useful pedagogical tool (p. 69).
At the very least, translations used as teaching tools should be complete with first and second drafts and teacher feedback. After students translate draft 1, the teacher should provide direct feedback for errors students have learned and indirect feedback for errors above the students’ level. Students should then be required to revise to the teacher’s satisfaction. Meyer (2008) agrees, stating “...by an
identification of the most prominent errors in translations between specific language pairs, and by calling students’ attention to them systematically, these errors can be eradicated” (131-132).
However, it’s important for students and teachers to focus on the main
problems, and not be concerned with perfection, especially at lower levels. Errors are an indication that students are learning and progressing and, thus, should be allowed to some degree. It’s frustrating and unnecessary for students who commit excessive errors to correct all of them. Not only will students not remember all of the
corrections, this method decreases students’ motivation and desire to learn.
Limitations of the Current Study
While the researcher attempted to be as thorough as possible, there still remain various limitations to the current study. Firstly, there is a paucity of research
regarding the error analysis of Chinese-to-English learner translations. More studies are needed so that results can be compared and more substantial conclusions drawn.
Additionally, the sample size and duration of the current study is quite limited—
involving only 30 participants and 60 texts translated over the course of three months.
Ideally, a longitudinal study with hundreds or thousands of error-coded student translations would be needed to be able to generalize the results with more certainty.
Moreover, since the researcher personally knew all of the participants and also coded and scored their translations, this opens up the possibility of rater bias. Although the rater spot-checked translations three months after the initial scoring in an effort to decrease rater bias, employing two or three raters and blind scoring would be preferable. Finally, the scope of the research is limited by the text type, which is considered to be non-specialist and informative. It is unclear how the results would differ using other text types, such as literary, narrative, logical reasoning, or dialogue.
Recommendations for Future Research
It is this researcher’s belief that technology, in conjunction with learner corpora, can and will breathe new life into the field of error analysis. Granger (2002) highlights the importance of analyzing corpora, stating:
Frequency is an aspect of language of which we have very little intuitive awareness but one that plays a major part in many linguistic applications which require a knowledge not only of what is possible in language but what is likely to occur. The major obvious strength of the computer corpus
methodology lies in its suitability for conducting quantitative analyses. (2002, p.4)
Error coding student translations is a laborious, time-consuming process subject to human error and bias. Machine-aided coding and scoring with a focus on both language and style would help minimize some of these problems while, at the same time, lessen the burdens on researchers. Moreover, since larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies are needed to generalize data regarding Taiwanese EFL learner translations, computer assistance is the only logical solution. Thus, it is hoped that in the coming decade error analysis will experience an unprecedented resurgence, resuscitated by a growing interest in corpora and the technological capabilities to better analyze data.
References
American Translators Association (ATA). (2015). Framework for standardized error marking: Explanation of error categories. Retrieved from
https://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_error.php
Carroll, John. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. In J.
Pierce (Ed.), Language and machines: Computers in translation and linguistics (pp. 67-75). Washington: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.
Chen, C.-c. (1979). An error analysis of English compositions written by Chinese college students in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Chen, L.-l. (2006). The effect of the use of L1 in a multimedia tutorial on grammar learning: An error analysis of Taiwanese beginning EFL learners’ English essays. The Asian EFL Journal, 8(2), 76-110.
Chen, S.-j. (1999). How error analysis can be used in translation class. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 4, 51-80. Taipei: Taiwan Association of Translation and Interpretation.
Chiang, T.-h. (1981). Error Analysis: A Study of Errors Made in Written English by Chinese Learners (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, 1981.
Taipei: The Crane.
Chou, C. & Bartz, K. (2007). The effectiveness of Chinese NNESTs in teaching English syntax. Proceedings from the CATESOL State Conference, California.
College Entrance Examination Center (CEEC), Taiwan. (2015). Tests by discipline ( 學科能力測驗). Retrieved from
http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamPaper/104SAT_Paper/104S AT_PaperIndex.htm
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.
Dollerup, C. (1993). Systematic feedback in teaching translation. In C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2 (pp. 121-132).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Elite English Language Institute of Testing and Education. (2015, May 10). Retrieved from
http://www.gept-english.com.tw/edm/gept.html?utm_source=google_
cpc&utm_medium=gept_en&utm_content=text_1&utm_campaign=
gept_edm&gclid=CP6j253k5sUCFYqCvQoddksAhg
Focus Taiwan. (2014, Feb. 27). Results of the 2013 Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations. Retrieved from
http://www.cna.com.tw/postwrite/Detail/143027.aspx#.U50pqY2Syyd GEPT Statistical Report for 2013 (102 年 GEPT 成績統計報告). (2015, May 10).
Retrieved from
https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/102%E5%B9%B4 GEPT%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%28%E4%
B8%AD%29.pdf
GEPT Statistical Report for 2014 (103 年 GEPT 成績統計報告). (2015, May 10).
Retrieved from
https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/103%E5%B9%B4 GEPT%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%28%E4%
B8%AD%29.pdf
Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language
acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Her, E. (1997). Binary error analysis of sight interpretation from English into Chinese and its pedagogical implications. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 2,111-135. Taipei: Taiwan Association of Translation and Interpretation.
Horney, J. E. (1998). An error analysis of English composition written by Taiwanese students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Huang, J. (2002). Error analysis in English teaching: A review of studies. Journal of Chung-San Girls’ Senior High School, 1(2), 19–34.
Item Analysis of GSAT. (2014, May 10). Retrieved from
http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research2/doc_031028/C%E5%AD%B8103- 2.pdf
Källkvist, M. (1998). How different are the results of translation tasks? In K.
Malmkjær (Ed.), Translation and language teaching (pp. 77-87). Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Kao, C. C. (1999). An Investigation into lexical, grammatical, and semantic errors in English compositions of college students in Taiwan. Fu Hsing Kang Journal, 67, 1-32.
Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-34.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lai, T.-y. (2011). Reliability and validity of a scale-based assessment for translation tests. Meta, 56(3), 713-722.
Lai, T.-y. (2009). Translator training: Translation teaching, assessment, and criticism.
Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation.
Liu, M., Chang, W., Lin, S., et al. (2005). A study on the establishment of national assessment criteria of translators and interpreters. Taipei: National Institute of Compilation and Translation.
Language Training & Testing Center, The (LTTC), Taiwan. (2015, May 10). GEPT advanced-intermediate test (中高級測驗). Retrieved from
https://www.gept.org.tw/Exam_Intro/t03_introduction.asp#寫作口說能力測
驗分數說明
Language Training & Testing Center, The (LTTC), Taiwan. (2015). (2015, May 10). Results of the 2014 Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations (103 年「中英文翻譯能力檢定考試」成績揭曉).
Retrieved from
https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/TranslationExam/103SRnews.pdf
Lee, C. (2012). The evolution and vision of Taiwan’s English education. Taiwan
Education Review, 674, 35-44.
Liao, P. (2010). An analysis of English-Chinese translation errors and its pedagogical applications. Compilation and Translation Review, 3,101-128. National Academy for Educational Research.
Lim, T. C. (1995). Language teaching and translating. In S.-w. Chan & D. E. Pollard (Eds.), An encyclopaedia of translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese (pp. 476-486). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Malmkjær, K. (2010). Language learning and translation. In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (Eds.) Handbook of translation studies (pp. 185-190).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Meyer, I. (2008). A translation-specific writing program: Justification and description.
In P.W. Krawutschke (Ed.), Translator and interpreter training and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 119-131). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2009). Results of the 2009 Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/990204-2009list.pdf
Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2012). MOE press release: The Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/0629%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%
A8%BF.pdf
Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2014, Apr. 24). The history of Ministry of Education: Main educational policies. Retrieved from
http://history.moe.gov.tw/policy.asp?id=2
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Orozco, M. (2000). Building a measuring instrument for the acquisition of translation competence in trainee translators. In C. Scähffner and B. Adab (Eds.),
Developing translation competence (pp. 199-214). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Pan, Y. –c. (2011). Teaching translation to Taiwanese EFL students. Bulletin of National Pingtung Institute of Commerce (國屏東商業技術學院學報), 13, 1-14.
Pangeanic. (2014). What is the size of the translation industry? Retrieved from http://www.pangeanic.com/knowledge_center/size-translation-industry/#
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching.
In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting:
training, talent, and experience (pp. 279-288). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching
& applied linguistics. Essax: Longman.
Schjoldager, A. (2003). Translation for language purposes: Preliminary results of an experimental study of translation and picture verbalization. Hermes: Journal of linguistics, 30, 199-213.
Seah, H. G. (1980). Contrastive analysis, error analysis and interlanguage in relation to adult Chinese speakers learning English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 201-231.
Stibbard, R. (2010). The principled use of oral translation in foreign language teaching. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), Translation and language teaching (pp. 77- 87). Manchester: St. Jerome.
U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. (2014, Jan. 8). Occupational outlook handbook: Interpreters and translators. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-translators.htm
Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners' processes of L1 writing, L2
writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271-294.
Wu, S.-j. (2003). A comparison of learner’s beliefs about writing in their first and second language: Taiwanese junior college business-major students studying English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Wu, Y. –z. (2014). A study of senior high school students’ errors and difficulty in Chinese-English translation (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Yang, W.-h. (2006). An analysis of written errors in Taiwanese high school students’ compositions. Taipei: Showwe Information Co., Ltd.
Zhang, Y. & Wang, B. (2011). A feasibility study of error analysis on the teaching of Chinese-English translation—A case study of non-English major freshmen in BUPT. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 170-177.
Appendix A: Task 1 (Translation 1)
Appendix B: Task 2
Appendix C: Task 3 (Translation 2)