Task 3 (Translation 2) was taken from the 2011 MOE Chinese-to-English Translation Test D (see Appendix C). It is entitled〈節食能減重嗎? 〉(“Does Dieting Work?”) and is composed of 340 Chinese characters. It is similar in format to Task 2 and is general enough that it does not need to provide the test-taker with any
the most interesting and also generally considered it to be relatively easier than the other two tasks.
One noteworthy point regarding this task, which also had the potential to affect overall translation scores, was that two Chinese phrases in two different sentences were essentially the same. These were,「就是不要讓自己感到過度飢餓
」and「不要讓自己處在非常飢餓的狀態」, which can both be translated into
English as “Don’t let yourself become excessively hungry”. Many study participants simply cut and pasted their translation of the first phrase for the translation of the second. In cases where the first translation had mistakes, these errors counted doubly against the participants, thereby slightly lowering some scores. Of course, the reverse was true for participants who had successfully translated the first phrase. Thus, for future studies, a pilot study would first be necessary to ensure to suitability of the materials and to ensure there are no ambiguities or repetitions in the original text.
Instruments Error Typology
An error typology developed by the researcher was used to mark the errors on the translations performed by the study participants. (For more information regarding the development of the typology, please refer to “Chapter 4: Results & Discussion.”) The typology has two categories: style/rendition errors and language errors, seven and eight subcategories respectively, and a total of 15 error types. The purpose of the typology was to identify the types and frequencies of errors made by the research participants. All 60 of the participants’ translations (30 for Translation 1 and 30 for Translation 2) were hand coded by the researcher in Microsoft Word. After the
translations had been coded, the researcher re-checked each one to ensure that error marking was consistently applied. Once the coding was finished, the researcher tallied the errors and scored the translations using the scoring scale described in the
following section.
The researcher’s error typology for this study, in keeping with Pym’s non-binary and non-binary errors, has divided translation errors into two main categories:
style/rendition errors (non-binary) and language errors (binary). The subcategories borrow heavily from the ATA’s error categories, but have been combined or split when necessary in order to describe in a detailed manner the types of errors committed by study participants without being too broad or too specific.
Thus, the error typology for this study is as follows: Category 1:
style/rendition errors, with the subcategories of addition (1A), literalness (1B), mistranslation (1C), omission (1D), register (1E), terminology and cohesion (1F), miscellaneous (1G), and Category 2: language errors, with the subcategories of article usage (2A), preposition usage (2B), orthography (spelling, capitalization and
punctuation) (2C), syntax (2D), verb tense (2E), word form (2F), word usage (2G), and miscellaneous (2H). Please refer to Tables 2 and 3 for concise error descriptions.
Table 2
Error Typology Description for Category 1: Style/Rendition Errors Error
Code
Error Type Error Description
1A Addition
An addition error occurs when the translator introduces superfluous information, including lexemes and stylistic effects.
1B Literalness A literalness error occurs when a translation that follows the source text word for word results in awkward, unidiomatic, or incorrect renditions.
1C Mistranslation A mistranslation error occurs when the meaning of a segment of the original text is not conveyed properly in the target language.
1D Omission An omission error occurs when an element of information in the source text is left out of the target text or when the translator fails to include lexemes necessary in the target language according to target-language conventions.
1E Register A register error occurs when the language level or degree of formality produced in the target text is does not correspond to that of the source text.
Examples of register errors include using everyday words instead of medical terms in a text intended for a medical journal, translating a text intended to run as a newspaper editorial in legalese, using the familiar rather than the polite form of address, and using anachronistic or culturally inappropriate expressions.
1F Terminology &
Cohesion
A terminology error occurs when a term specific to a special subject field is not used when the
corresponding term is used in the source text. This type of error often involves terms used in various technical contexts. This also applies to legal and financial contexts where words often have very specific meanings. In more general texts, a
terminology error can occur when the candidate has not selected the most appropriate word among several that have similar (but not identical) meanings. A cohesion error occurs when a text is hard to follow because of inconsistent use of terminology or lexemes.
1G Miscellaneous A style or rendition error occurs that cannot be described by any of the other style/rendition error codes.
Table 3
Error Typology Description for Category 2: Language Errors Error
Code
Error Type Error Description
2A Article usage An article usage error occurs when (1) the incorrect article is used, (2) when an article is needed, but none is used, or (3) when an article is not needed, but one is used.
2B Preposition usage A preposition usage error occurs when (1) the incorrect preposition is used, (2) when a preposition is needed, but none is used, or (3) when a preposition is not needed, but one is used.
2C Orthography
(Spelling,
Capitalization, &
Punctuation)
A spelling error occurs when a word in the translation is spelled incorrectly according to target-language conventions. A capitalization error occurs when the conventions of the target language concerning upper and lower case usage are not followed. A punctuation error occurs when the conventions of the target language regarding punctuation are not
followed, including those governing the use of quotation marks, commas, semicolons, and colons. Incorrect or unclear paragraphing and spacing is also counted as a punctuation error.
2D Syntax A syntax error occurs when the arrangement of words or other elements of a sentence does not conform to the syntactic rules of the target language. Errors in this category include unnatural word order and lack of agreement between subject and verb.
2E Tense A verb tense error occurs when the verb in the target language does not correctly indicate the time of the occurrence of an action in the source text.
2F Word form A word form error occurs when the root of the word is correct, but the form of the word is incorrect or nonexistent in the target language.
2G Word usage A word usage error occurs when a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction or interjection is used incorrectly according to target-language conventions.
2H Miscellaneous A language error occurs that cannot be described by any of the other language error codes.
Error Marking
All errors for Translations 1 and 2 were coded using the error typology developed by the researcher. If an error occurred at the level of a single word, the error code appears in bold immediately after that word. Take for example the following sentence from Student 1, Translation 1:
Original text:「台灣人能活到『七老八老』，主要歸功於社會經濟快速繁榮」
Student translation: “Taiwanese’2F long lifespan1F 2G mainly attributes2F to the burgeoning2G 1D economy.”
Since an apostrophe cannot be added to a word that ends in e without also adding s, the word Taiwanese’ is marked with the error code 2F to indicate that the word form (here, the suffix) is incorrect. The second error in the above example is more
complicated. First of all, the word lifespan should be plural, since it refers the lifespans of all Taiwanese. However, the word life expectancy is the correct term, since lifespan refers to the actual life from birth to death of an individual, while life expectancy is an average of the lifespans of the population. For the purposes of the study, words are only marked with one error code. In the case that a word has multiple errors, only the most serious error is marked. Since it was determined that the main error is that of incorrect terminology, and that the incorrect suffix is a secondary error, the word lifespan is marked with the code 1F. The third and final errors in the example are those of missing words. Clearly the word is should have been used in the first case, and social (「 社會」) should appear before economy because it is used in the original Chinese text. When a word or words should have been used, but were omitted, the error code appears bolded, underlined and standing alone to show the missing word or words, as in 2G and 1D above. In the case that
there are multiple words, if they are a lexical chunk, they are only counted once and not as separate errors. Similarly, if words that appear in the translation are a lexical chunk and also an error, the chunk is considered to be one error. Take for example the use of a lot of in Student 1’s Translation 1, paragraph 2 (see Appendix A). The
meaning of the phrase is correct, but the phrase itself is informal and not suited to the register of the translation. Therefore, the entire phrase is counted as one error and marked thusly: a lot of1E. Hence, all instances of underlined words signify that the phrase has been marked as one error. The only cases of double error coding occur with syntax. In such cases, individual words in the sentence were coded for errors, and the syntactic error was counted once and shown by underlining the sentence or phrase where it arose. After errors were coded, they were then recorded on the error totals chart and calculated (see Table 4).
Table 4
Example of Student 1’s error-coded Translation 1 Error totals
1. Style/Rendition Errors
# of Errors 2. Language Errors # of Errors
1A: Addition 4 2A: Article usage 5
1B: Literalness 5 2B: Preposition usage 9
1C: Mistranslation 5 2C: Orthography 2
1D: Omission 5 2D: Syntax 1
1E: Register 8 2E: Tense 1
1F: Terminology/Cohesion 8 2F: Word form 8
1G: Miscellaneous 2 2G: Word usage 10
2H: Miscellaneous 0
Style total 37 Language total 36
Translation Scoring Scale
In order to make comparisons between Translations 1 and 2, and in order to make comparisons among all study participants’ translations, the researcher
developed a 200 point scoring scale in which style/rendition and language usage are weighted equally at 100 points each (see Table 5). The reasoning behind this was twofold. Firstly, the researcher wanted to be able to make meaningful comparisons between the two main categories and, by weighting them equally, this was more easily accomplished. Secondly, the researcher believes that style/rendition and language usage both play an equally important part in high-quality translations and this is represented in the scoring method.
Table 5
Translation scoring scale
Style/rendition (50%) (100 points)
Language Usage (50%) (100 points)
Points subtotal /100 /100
Style + language score /200
Percentage score %
In order to apply the scoring scale to the study participants’ translations, it was necessary for Translation 1 to be divided into ten sentences (from its original nine).
Translation 2 presented no problems as it was already divided into ten sentences.
Thus, each sentence in Translations 1 and 2 was awarded a total of ten points for Category 1: Style/rendition and ten points for Category 2: Language usage, for a total of 20 points per sentence. A one-point penalty was assessed for each error, with the maximum possible deduction of ten points per sentence per category. The maximum possible deduction was 20 points per sentence, regardless of the actual number of errors committed. Thus, if ten errors were made from both Categories 1 and 2, the participant received a score of zero for that sentence. However, if 11 errors were made from both Categories 1 and 2, the participant still received a score of zero for that sentence and was not further penalized. This scoring scale allowed the researcher
to compare and rank the study participants’ translations and to assign each one a score based on the percentage of correct translations per sentence.
Data Collection Procedure
In November 2013, research participants were recruited from among the researcher’s students. Data collection was carried out over a three-month period from December 1, 2013, to March 1, 2014. Due to time and space constraints and for the sake of convenience, the research participants were allowed to perform the
translations at home. At the beginning of each month of the study, the students
received, in chronological order, a translation from previous translation exams held by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE). The students then had a month to complete the translation (although the suggested time for completion was one to two hours) and were told dictionaries and grammar books could be used, but were asked not to request outside help or use online translators or the Internet. The reasoning behind this, and the reason communicated to the students, was so that their real results could be detected and analyzed in order to help them avoid similar mistakes in the future.
Students were intentionally not given any specific instructions on translation
methodology before the first translation. This aspect of the project was left ambiguous in order to determine what type of techniques students would use and to ascertain which were most successful.
After a student submitted a translation, the researcher corrected their errors and provided other feedback, such as general comments and suggestions on how to improve, via email. This served a dual purpose. Firstly, it was hoped that the feedback would encourage students to continue the project and help them learn from their
translations. Additionally, this gave the researcher the chance to compare Translation 1 with Translation 2 and analyze how much, if at all, students had improved.
Once the translations were complete, the participants with the five highest and five lowest scores (evaluated on a preliminary global basis by the researcher) were then selected and invited to partake in personal interviews. The interviews were scheduled at the participants’ convenience and took place in the relaxed atmosphere of a coffee shop. Before the interviews, participants received a list of ten questions in English and were asked to prepare answers beforehand. The interview itself consisted of two parts. During the first part, the researcher asked the participant the ten
questions (see Appendix D). In the second half of the interview, the researcher went over the students’ translations with them and asked about any special features or asked for clarification about students’ motivations for translation choices. The flowchart for the data collection procedure is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Data collection procedure for translation error analysis.
Errors and scores for Translations 1 & 2 were statistically analyzed The scoring scale was designed, tested, modified and finalized
Translations 1 & 2 were error coded
The error typology was designed, tested, modified and finalized Research participants completed a voluntary online biographical
questionnaire
Mar. 1 - Apr. 31, 2014: Retrospective interviews were conducted Feb. 1 - 28, 2014: Participants completed Task 3 (Translation 2) & received
feedback
Jan. 1 - 31, 2014: Participants completed Task 2 & received feedback Dec. 1 - 31, 2013: Participants completed Task 1 (Translation 1) & received
feedback
Nov. 2013: Research participants were recruited
Dec. 1, 2013: Task 1 (Translation 1) was sent to participants via email