台灣成人英語學習者之中譯英錯誤分析

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文. Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University. 台灣成人英語學習者之中譯英錯誤分析 Error Analysis of Chinese-to-English Translations by Adult Taiwanese EFL Students by Nicole Steeby. 指導教授：廖柏森博士 Advisor: Dr. Posen Liao 中華民國 104 年 6 月 June 2015.

(2) Abstract This study employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the Chinese-to-English translation errors of 30 adult Taiwanese EFL students in Taipei. The two translations were sourced from Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations. Translation data were collected via email and students received feedback on their performances. Retrospective interviews were then held to ascertain the translation techniques of the students with the top five and bottom five translation scores. Voluntary biographical surveys were then emailed to the participants. Next, an error typology based on that of the American Translators Association (ATA) and the work of Pym (1992) was developed. Errors were categorized as either stylistic/rendition errors or language errors and were equally weighted. The translations were hand coded for errors and assigned scores based on a rating scale. Statistical analyses, including paired t-tests, were conducted using SPSS and Prism to determine the frequency and significance of errors. The results of the study clearly indicate that the majority of student scores improved significantly from the first translation to the second. The data also reveal a marked decrease in the number of both stylistic/rendition and language errors in almost every category for the second translation. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the total percentage of language errors increased in the second translation and language errors accounted for the first, second, third, and fifth most frequent types of errors overall. It is hoped that the results of this study can be used as a basis for further research, as well as offer preliminary insight into the types of errors most common to adult Taiwanese language school students. Key words: adult Taiwanese EFL students, error analysis, Chinese-to-English translation.

(3) 摘要本研究採用量性和質性兩種方法對 30 位本地語言學校以英語為第二外學的成年學生進行中英翻譯錯誤的研究。本研究中受測學生所採用的兩個翻譯試題係來自臺灣教育部（MOE）中英文翻譯能力檢定考試。受測學生的翻譯樣本資料係透過電子郵件蒐集。每回施測完成的中英翻譯，受測學生會獲得對他們的翻譯成果的回饋，並實施回顧性訪談，確認表現最佳和最差的名學生所使用的翻譯策略。研究者透過電子郵件發送自願參與歷程研究的訊息給所有的參與者。當研究者收到所有 60 個研究翻譯樣本，即以美國翻譯協會（ATA）和皮姆的著作（1992）翻譯錯誤類型學為基礎，發展出一翻譯錯誤的類型。錯誤被歸類為文體/詮解錯誤或語言錯誤，皆占有相同的比重。受測的翻譯樣本係基於評分表以人工評定錯誤的分數。並使用 SPSS 和(可靠度預估方法). 來進行統計分析包. 含配對 t 檢驗，以評定錯誤的頻率和顯著性。本研究的結果顯示，多數受測學生的翻譯成績在前後兩次施測樣本中有顯著改善。研究數據亦顯示了第二次施測中，風格/詮解和語言的翻譯錯誤的有顯著降低。出人意料地，語言錯誤的總百分比在第二次施測時增加，且為比例最高的錯誤類型。以整體而言，排名第二、第三和第五種最常見的錯誤類型都是語言錯誤。研究者希望此項研究的成果可以作為日後更進一步研究的基礎，並針對臺灣語言學校成人學生最常見的中英翻譯錯誤類型提供初步的觀察與瞭解。關鍵詞: 台灣成人英語學習者, 錯誤分析, 中英翻譯.

(4) Acknowledgements This thesis could not have been completed without the assistance and support of the exceptional professors and staff members who have guided me along the way. First and foremost, I am especially grateful to my outstanding advisor Dr. Posen Liao (廖柏森博士), who has been instrumental in helping me narrow down a topic, offering valuable feedback and finding time to advise me, even with the numerous other demands on his time. Without his support, this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to express the sincerest gratitude to my committee members Dr. Tze-Wei Chen (陳子瑋博士) and Dr. Chia-Chien Chang (張嘉倩博士) for taking time out of their busy schedules to serve on my committee. Their insights and feedback have proven valuable in shaping and improving the final draft. Additionally, I am deeply appreciative of the astute advice and discerning comments provided by Dr. Guan-Yu Ou (歐冠宇博士) during the 2015 National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Student Research Day seminar. I have incorporated many of the suggested changes into the current thesis. Finally, a heartfelt thanks goes out to Ms. 張容嫣 and Ms. 李秋慧 for their encouragement, support, and patience over the past three years. Each of them makes GITI warm and welcoming and they are always graciously there to lend a helping hand or answer any questions..

(5) Table of Contents. List of Tables .............................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Research Background and Motivation ......................................................................... 1 Research Purposes and Research Questions ................................................................ 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................... 11 Error Analysis in Language Teaching ........................................................................ 11 Student Translations and Error Analysis .................................................................... 13 Student Compositions and Error Analysis ................................................................. 15 Error Analysis for Testing and Certification .............................................................. 18 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ............................................................................. 21 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 21 Participants ................................................................................................................. 22 Materials ..................................................................................................................... 23 Task 1 (Translation 1) ............................................................................................. 24 Task 2 ...................................................................................................................... 26 Task 3 (Translation 2) ............................................................................................. 27 Instruments ................................................................................................................. 28 Error Typology ........................................................................................................ 28 Error Marking ................................................................................................. 32 Translation Scoring Scale ........................................................................................ 33 Data Collection Procedure ......................................................................................... 35 Chapter 4: Results & Discussion ................................................................................ 38 Development of the Error Typology .......................................................................... 38 The Error Typology Prototype ................................................................................ 38 The Finalized Error Typology ................................................................................. 42 Error Typology Definitions & Explanations .............................................................. 45 Category 1: Style/Rendition Errors ......................................................................... 45 1A: Addition ................................................................................................... 45 1B: Literalness ................................................................................................ 45 1C: Mistranslation .......................................................................................... 45 1D: Omission ................................................................................................. 46 1E: Register .................................................................................................... 46 1F: Terminology & Cohesion ........................................................................ 47 1G: Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 47 Category 2: Language Errors .................................................................................. 48 2A: Article usage ............................................................................................ 48 2B: Preposition usage ..................................................................................... 48 2C: Orthography ............................................................................................. 48 2D: Syntax ...................................................................................................... 49 2E: Tense ........................................................................................................ 49 2F: Word form ................................................................................................ 50 2G: Word usage .............................................................................................. 50 2H: Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 50 Results of the Quantitative Research ......................................................................... 51 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... 51. i.

(6) Main Error Types & Frequencies ............................................................................ 51 Category1: Style/Rendition Errors .................................................................. 52 1A: Addition ................................................................................................ 60 1B: Literalness ............................................................................................. 62 1C: Mistranslation ....................................................................................... 63 1D: Omission ............................................................................................... 65 1E: Register ................................................................................................. 66 1F: Terminology & Cohesion ...................................................................... 66 1G:Miscellaneous ........................................................................................ 67 Category2: Language Errors ….......................................................................... 67 2A: Article usage ........................................................................................ 67 2B: Preposition usage ................................................................................. 67 2C: Orthography ......................................................................................... 68 2D: Syntax .................................................................................................. 68 2E: Tense .................................................................................................... 69 2F: Word form ............................................................................................ 69 2G: Word usage .......................................................................................... 70 2H: Miscellaneous ...................................................................................... 71 Student Scores ......................................................................................................... 71 Results of Qualitative Research ................................................................................. 73 Participant Retrospective Interviews .................................................................... 73 Characteristics and Techniques of the Bottom-Five Study Participants ........ 74 Beliefs and Attitudes of the Bottom Five Study Participants ......................... 78 Characteristics and Techniques of the Top Five Study Participants .............. 79 Beliefs and Attitudes of the Top Five Study Participants .............................. 82 Recommendations for Translation Pedagogy ......................................................... 83 Chapter 5: Conclusion ………………………............................................................ 84 Review of the Research Findings ............................................................................... 84 Implications and Applications of the Current Study .................................................. 86 Limitations of the Current Study ................................................................................ 89 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 90 References .................................................................................................................. 92 Appendix A: Task 1 (Translation 1) .......................................................................... 99 Appendix B: Task 2 .................................................................................................. 100 Appendix C: Task 3 (Translation 2) ......................................................................... 101 Appendix D: Retrospective Interview Questions ..................................................... 102 Appendix E: Biographical Survey ............................................................................ 103 Appendix F: Translation 1: Error-Coded Translations ............................................ 107 Appendix G: Translation 2: Error-Coded Translations ........................................... 137. ii.

(7) List of Tables. Table 1. Participants’ Ages & Length of English Study …........................................ 23 Table 2. Error Typology Description for Category 1: Style/Rendition Errors ........... 30 Table 3. Error Typology Description for Category 2: Language Errors .................... 31 Table 4. Example of Student 1’s error-coded Translation 1 ….................................. 33 Table 5. Translation scoring scale .............................................................................. 34 Table 6. Error Typology Prototype ............................................................................ 40 Table 7. Error Typology for Category 1: Style/Rendition Errors .............................. 43 Table 8. Error Typology for Category 2: Language Errors ........................................ 44 Table 9. Translations 1 & 2 Word Count & Errors .................................................... 52 Table 10. Translations 1 & 2 Total Error Frequency Ranking …………………....... 53 Table 11. Translation 1 Error Frequency ……………............................................... 58 Table 12. Translation 2 Error Frequency ………….................................................. 59 Table 13. Translations 1 & 2 Total Errors …............................................................. 60. iii.

(8) List of Figures. Figure 1. Data collection procedure for translation error analysis ............................. 37 Figure 2. Total number of errors for Translations 1 and 2 ........................................ 54 Figure 3. Error comparison for Translations 1 and 2 ................................................. 55 Figure 4. Error comparison for Translation 1 (top 5 vs. bottom 5) ............................ 56 Figure 5. Error comparison for Translation 2 (top 5 vs. bottom 5) ………................ 57 Figure 6. Study participants’ scores for Translations 1 and 2 …................................ 72. iv.

(9) 1.

(10) Chapter 1: Introduction. Research Background and Motivation In an increasingly globalized world, the need and demand for English proficiency and translation is continuously growing. Pangeanic (2014), an international translation company, cites research done by Common Sense Advisory, a translation industry think tank, which estimated the size of the translation industry at $33.5 billion in 2012. According to Pangeanic, the United States represents the largest single market for translation services, while Europe is a close second and Asia is the largest growth area. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014), the U.S. translation industry is expected to grow by 46% from 2012 to 2022, and the most important reason for this growth is globalization. Because English is in high demand, millions of people around the world study English as a Foreign Language (EFL) knowing that their chances of being accepted to top universities or of landing high-paying jobs may hinge on their English ability. Unfortunately, although many students worldwide begin their study of English as early as primary school, this does not guarantee mastery, or even proficiency, in the language – especially if English teaching is largely test-oriented, as it is in much of Asia. Thus, a student who tests well may seem to be fluent in English on paper, but may have poor oral and written communication skills in real-life situations. To further exacerbate this problem, upon graduation, students with high levels of English proficiency are often called upon to translate documents for their employers, as bosses unfamiliar with the field of translation often do not recognize it as a specialized field of study with its own theories and skill sets, and instead may see English translation as an extension of the English language learning itself or perhaps simply a subfield.. 1.

(11) The current academic and employment situation in Taiwan reflects the global trends outlined above. According to Wu (2003), Because of the ever-increasing social and economic growth in Taiwan, the learning of English as a foreign language has become of increasing importance. Tse’s (1985) survey, for instance, revealed that English is regarded by Taiwanese society as an essential tool in expanding foreign trade, developing technological skills, and increasing international communication and cultural exchange. In Taiwan, English is the sole required foreign language. (p.14) The globalization of English puts ever-increasing pressure on Taiwanese students and employees to continually better their English ability. Competition for places at the best universities and positions in coveted international companies is fierce and often it is one’s English ability that ultimately determines success or failure. However, while the study of English is compulsory in Taiwan and the education system continues to improve, it nonetheless still leaves much to be desired in terms of quality and results. The first phase of English teaching in Taiwan, from 1949 to 1955, employed the grammar translation method at the senior-high school level. The second phase, from 1955 to 1968, began including English in the junior high curriculum, and practiced an audio-lingual approach. Since 1968, English language textbooks have been standardized across Taiwan. Textbooks can now be subdivided into four main pedagogical categories: listening and speaking, direct method, cognitive approach, and communicative approach (Lee, 2012). Beginning in the second half of 2004, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) made English language learning compulsory for all students, starting in the third grade of elementary school (MOE, 2014).. 2.

(12) Although Taiwan’s English language education has improved drastically in the past 60 years, the teaching methodology at most public schools remains rather traditional. The vast majority of teachers simply require students to memorize vocabulary lists and grammar rules for written tests. Wu (2003) states: In many Asian countries like Taiwan, for instance, the primary goal of teaching high school English in the past few decades has aimed at preparing students to pass university entrance examinations. Thus, the focus for students has been on analyzing English rather than increasing communicative competence. As a result, English education in these settings tends to promote academic success in formal classrooms (rather than in real life) and most of their EFL learners are instrumentally motivated to learn English. (p.14) The main reason that teachers focus on grammar and testing rather than communication is almost certainly due to the large class sizes (about 45 students per class) and the facility with which teachers can assign definite right or wrong marks to vocabulary and grammar exercises and exams. Fortunately, there does seem to be a trend toward emphasizing communication ability (especially oral), but due to class size and time constraints, only so much progress can be expected. In my own experience, the area least addressed in public classrooms in Taiwan is English writing. This is no doubt owing to the reasons mentioned above, in addition to the difficulty of correcting student essays and time constraints. It is also likely due to the fact that many Taiwanese English teachers themselves, not being native English speakers, are not familiar enough with English writing style to teach it. This is unfortunate, as a high-level of English writing ability lends itself to better English translations. As Peter Newmark (1988) explains:. 3.

(13) The idea that translators, particularly of non-literary texts, have to write well is far from generally accepted—many believe that where facts are concerned, style takes second place. But the truth is, it is the style that ensures that the facts are effectively presented…Whilst mistakes of truth and language are graver than mistakes of usage, it is skilled usage that ensures successful transmission. (p.190) When Taiwanese students do write in English, they often approach writing as a translation task, attempting to translate their ideas from Chinese into English—often word-by-word. Wu (2003) agrees, asserting: …according to my teaching experience of these business student writers at a junior college, they often translate directly from Chinese into English, that is, they tend to write in a Chinese way. Their difficulty in English writing is not simply a syntactic problem, but rather it seems more like a problem resulting from different rhetorical styles between their L1 (Chinese) and FL (English). (p.23) Moreover, Wu (2003) found that 68% of the participants in her study considered translating from Chinese to English to be a moderately effective writing strategy and that when writing in English, students tended to directly translate their Chinese ideas into English, thereby requiring them to rely heavily on dictionaries when performing translations. This suggests then that, at least in Taiwan, student composition errors and translation errors will share some similarities. However, in order to translate well, one must be able to write well in the target language. Since the writing of English essays or reports is largely neglected in the classroom, even at the university level, most adult students write very poorly in English. Many do not even have a basic understanding of the organization of texts in. 4.

(14) English, which makes writing, and by extension, translation, summarily difficult. Furthermore, most Taiwanese students’ only experience with ‘translation,’ if it may be called such, is translating single Chinese sentences into English for the purposes of compulsory education homework and exams. Because translating sentences eliminates the need to understand writing organization and transitional phrases, most Taiwanese students and teachers approach translation as a simple vocabulary and grammar activity, failing to realize the linguistic demands that real translation requires. Nevertheless, high school and college students are expected to perform translations for standardized exams in Taiwan. The General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT, 大學學科能力測驗), Taiwan’s national college entrance exam, was taken by 145,575 students in 2014 and tested five categories: Chinese, English, math, social sciences and natural sciences (“Item Analysis,” 2014). Thus, English accounts for a full one-fifth of the total score. Of this, an English composition is 20% of the English score, while translation is 8%. However, if as mentioned above, most students approach writing as a translation task, translation becomes a still more significant deciding factor in student scores. Even if the composition is not factored in, the translation section of GSAT causes serious problems for students and can negatively impact their chances of being accepted to the university of their choice. There are only two sentences in the section. These are worth 4% each, for a total of 8%. The instructions ask students to translate the Chinese text into “correct, fluent, and expressive English” (“正確、通順、達意的英文”) (“Item Analysis,” 2014). Although these categories are somewhat subjective, the scoring system is fairly straightforward—one-half point is deducted for. 5.

(15) each error. Thus, there is no scoring scale differentiating stylistic and language errors, possibly because all errors are assumed to be related to language and punctuation. The following two Chinese sentences appeared on the 2014 GSAT. The English translations are those suggested by the GSAT, of which there are numerous versions: 1. 有些年輕人辭掉都市裡的高薪工作，返回家鄉種植有機蔬菜。 1. Some young people in the city have quit their high-paying jobs and returned to their hometowns to grow organic vegetables. 2. 藉由決心與努力，很多人成功了，不但獲利更多，還過著更健康的生活。 2. Through their determination and hard work, many of them have succeeded. They have not only made more profits, but also lived a healthier life. (“Item Analysis,” 2014) Of a possible 8%, the average score for the translation section of the GSAT was 3.73% in 2014, 3.43% in 2013, and 2.81% in 2012. Of the 145,575 students who took the exam in 2014, only 1.4% scored an 8/8 on the translation section, while a total of 11.0% scored a 0/8 (“Item Analysis,” 2014). Because high school students are being tested on translation, and the results of the college entrance exams have serious ramifications for students’ futures, both students and teachers would benefit from knowing the types of errors common to non-specialized Chinese-to-English translations. Translation plays an even larger role in the intermediate and advancedintermediate levels of the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), which is administered by The Language Training & Testing Center (LTTC). This test is. 6.

(16) required when applying to numerous universities, and a large number of companies employ it to partially determine job candidates’ English proficiency during the hiring process, or they require their employees to pass it in order to obtain promotions and raises (Elite English, 2015). Roughly 300,000 people take the GEPT each year, yet the vast majority of them have no formal translation experience. However, for the intermediate and high-intermediate levels of the GEPT, translating a paragraph accounts for 40% of the total writing score (writing a composition accounts for the other 60%). In order to receive the full 40% for the Chinese-to-English translation section, participants must completely express the content of the original Chinese text in English, the English text must have very good structure and coherence, and diction, grammar, spelling, punctuation and capitalization must be almost all correct (“內容能充分表達題意，文段(text)結構及連貫性甚佳；用字遣詞、文法、拼字、標點及大小寫幾乎無誤。”) (LTTC, 2015). This is no doubt a very tall order for students who have no translation experience and who have been trained from an early age to approach translation as vocabulary and grammar exercises. The pass rates for the GEPT translation sections have not been made public. However, the pass rates for the second stage of the GEPT intermediate and highintermediate, which includes, speaking, translation, and writing, have. In 2013, approximately 310,000 people took the GEPT. Of these, 190,000 were eligible to sit for the second stage of the test (writing and speaking). The intermediate level accounted for 34% of these test takers, the pass rate (second stage) was 31%, the average age of test taker was 17.8 years, and 72% held a middle or high school diploma. The high-intermediate level comprised 7% of test takers, the pass rate (second stage) was 26%, the average age of test taker was 21.0 years, and 42% held a. 7.

(17) high school diploma, while 36% had graduated from university (GEPT Statistical Report). The total number of test takers for the 2014 GEPT has not been released, but the percentages and averages have. They are nearly identical to those of 2013, with the exception that the average age of test taker has fallen slightly from 17.8 years to 17.6 years for the intermediate level and from 21.0 years to 20.6 years for the highintermediate level. The pass rates also rose slightly in 2014, from 31% to 32% for the intermediate level and from 26% to 31% for the high-intermediate level (GEPT Statistical Report). While the GSAT and the GEPT are the most commonly-taken tests with translation components, a smaller percentage of Taiwanese sat for the Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations (中英文翻譯能力檢定考試), which were held annually by Taiwan’s MOE from 2007 to 2011. The pass rate for the first stage of the Chinese-to-English written exam was 2.09% and 12.23% for 2009 and 2011, respectively (data for the remaining years is unavailable) (MOE). In 2010, the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) was commissioned by the MOE to begin preparations to administer the Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations. The exam was cancelled in 2012, and the LTTC began administering the exam in 2013 (MOE, 2012). The pass rate for the Chinese-to-English translation section of the 2013 exam was a mere 2.38% (Focus Taiwan, 2014). In 2014, the test had a total of 518 test takers. Of these, 49 passed the English-to-Chinese translation test, and 12 passed the Chinese-to-English portion (LTTC, 2015). Evidently translation tests, even for skilled professionals, are no easy task. How then can we ask high school and college students to go blindly into exams with translation components?. 8.

(18) Clearly, professional translation necessitates native or near-native competence in both the source and target languages, in addition to requiring superior written communication skills in the target language and a profound understanding of both source and target language cultures. Translation is a daunting task and should be approached with a degree of both respect and awe. Regrettably, most schools and employers fail to realize the true demands of translation and assume that a person who tests well in English can similarly translate well into English. Therefore, when Taiwanese students enter university or the workforce, it should come as no surprise that they are ill-equipped to perform Chinese-to-English translation, regardless of the number of years they have spent learning English or how high they score on standardized English tests. Since Chinese-to-English translation (and by proxy, English writing) plays such a crucial role in Taiwan’s standardized testing, and since the stakes for these tests are so high, it is critical that teachers know what types of problems students are likely to encounter when translating and what the most common types of errors are. In this way, teachers can help students focus on high-frequency errors, while sidelining less problematic ones. Until the current study, however, there has been little research categorizing the types of errors nonprofessional translators are likely to commit when performing Chinese-to-English translations.. Research Purposes and Research Questions Therefore, the purpose of this study is 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 and linguistic errors committed by a group of 30 advanced adult Taiwanese English learners during a. 9.

(19) three-month semi-longitudinal study. It is hoped that by pinpointing problem areas in the translations, the study findings can both provide self-study recommendations as to how Taiwanese students and test-takers can improve their English translations and also offer preliminary recommendations to English teachers on how Taiwanese translation pedagogy can be improved. Toward the ultimate goal of contributing in some small way to research in the field of translation pedagogy in Taiwan, the main research questions to be addressed are as follows: (1) How to develop an error typology for Chinese-to-English translation that will accurately detect and sufficiently describe student translation errors? (2) What are the main types of errors most commonly made by students and what is the frequency of these errors? (3) Do translation scores largely improve with practice and feedback from the first translation to the second? (4) What are some commonalities among general translation techniques utilized by the highest and lowest performing students?. 10.

(20) Chapter 2: Literature Review. Error Analysis in Language Teaching Lado's (1957) Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, which became popular in applied linguistics during the 1960s, applied structural linguistics to language teaching and hypothesized that second language learners’ difficulties arose from interference from their native language. It was thought that if the two languages could be compared and analyzed, learners’ errors could be predicted and clarified. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, contrastive analysis began to fall out of favor with linguists and those in the field of second language acquisition due to the fact that the theory could not account for, explain, or predict many errors made by second language learners (Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992). In response to this problem, Corder (1967), in his seminal paper, “The Significance of Learners’ Errors,” proposed the basis for what would become the field of error analysis. One of the most important contributions of the paper was his differentiation of the terms error and mistake, defining “errors of performance as mistakes [and] reserving the term error to refer to the systemic errors of the learner from which we are to reconstruct his knowledge of the language…” (Corder, 1967, p. 167). Before this important distinction was made, errors and mistakes were seen as interchangeable and were to be avoided at all costs. Equally important, Corder delineated the value of learners’ errors. He noted that errors are significant to the teacher because they give him a benchmark by which to measure students’ progress, to the researcher, for errors provide him with “evidence of how language is learned or acquired” and to the learner, who can use. 11.

(21) errors to improve his language ability by testing his hypotheses regarding the new language and then adjusting them accordingly (Corder, 1967, p. 167). Another important early contribution to the field of error analysis was made by Selinker (1972) in his influential paper entitled “Interlanguage,” where he theorized that there exists a “psychological structure… latent in the brain, [which is] activated when one attempts to learn a second language”. (Selinker, 1972, p. 211) Starting from this “latent psychological structure”, Selinker notes that target language utterances of non-native speakers are generally different from those of native speakers. He therefore posits that separate linguistic systems are at work when adults attempt to produce a second language (p. 214). If true, this has a direct bearing on error analysis in translation, as learners with the same native language should produce similar, predictable errors in the target language. Selinker further postulates the concept of interlanguage, claiming that approximately 95% of learners speak an imperfect intermediary language with characteristics of both their native (L1) and the foreign language (L2) they are trying to learn. At any point in the process of language acquisition, learners may fossilize errors, backslide into incorrect renditions when new material is introduced, overgeneralize language rules they have learned, develop their own (incorrect) rules, and even cease learning. Selinker asserts that, “Many IL linguistic structures are never really eradicated for most second-language learners…” (Selinker, 1972, p. 221). Assuming this is the case, identifying specific errors for specific groups of students should be immensely beneficial to both teachers and students. Although error analysis has contributed much to the fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition, it has also been criticized for its imprecision. In the words of Huang (2002), “…very often classes of errors overlap,. 12.

(22) and occasionally some errors simply do not lend themselves to a clear-cut categorization. There seems to be no ideal model of classification… All models leak, in one way or another” (p. 29). Although there is no perfect error typology, researchers must still strive to develop an error classification system for their working language that is both feasible and objective. Various error classification systems for translation have been proposed. Pym (1992) states “errors may be attributed to numerous causes… located on numerous levels…[and] the terms often employed to describe such errors…lack commonly agreed distinctions or fixed points of reference” (p. 282). Pym therefore developed a distinction between errors, categorizing them as binary and non-binary. Pym writes, “For binarism, there is only right and wrong; for non-binarism there are at least two right answers and then the wrong ones” (1992, p. 282). This important distinction has been incorporated into the current study, which begins by categorizing student translation errors as either stylistic or linguistic errors. Renowned Taiwanese studies involving English-to-Chinese error analyses of translations, including Chen (1999), Her (1997), Lai (2009) and Liao (2010), typically use Pym’s error taxonomy as a starting point, and then fine-tune the error categories according to their needs. Unfortunately, there have been few studies done concerning translation error analysis of Chinese-to-English texts, especially in Taiwan and with regard to English language pedagogy. The most relevant ones are outlined below.. Student Translations and Error Analysis Lim (1995) analyzed 200 Chinese-English translation exercises done by highschool students of Ethnic Chinese origin in Singapore. Errors were classified into three categories: 1. syntactic errors, 2. vocabulary errors and 3. semantic errors.. 13.

(23) Syntactic errors were found to be the most problematic at 55.84%, and the main problems were misuse (53.98%), omission (25.74%), awkwardness (11.24%), and redundancy (9.04%). Semantic errors accounted for 22.25%, with the main errors consisting of misinterpretation (56.72%) and modified or partially misinterpreted meanings (43.28%). Vocabulary errors ranked last at 21.91%, with nearly all errors being inappropriate word usage (97.28%). (pp. 477-8) Chen (1999) conducted a preliminary study which examined a variety of student translation errors, including: referential meaning, specificational meaning, relational meaning, collocation, diction, variety, mood, style, ambiguity, figurative meaning, tone, and language interference. Chen concludes with suggestions as to how students can improve their translations. Pan (2011) recommends that student translations pass through two stages: first, the comprehension phase, where students focus on breaking the text into logical parts and identifying subjects and verbs, and then the reformulation phase, where students utilize the English structure and vocabulary to perform their translations. A 2011 study at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications analyzed the English translation errors of two groups of students—a control group and an experimental group. Errors were classified into 14 distinct categories. The experimental group was made aware of their errors, while the control group was not. For the control group’s final assignment, the top three types of errors committed were vocabulary misuse (15.52%), verb tense errors (13.79%), and article errors (12.93%). The experimental group’s most common errors were verb tense errors (14.86%), vocabulary misuse (14.19%) and Chinglish (12.84%) (Zhang & Wang). This study suggests, then, that giving students feedback and making them aware of their errors can improve translation performance and help eliminate at least some common. 14.

(24) mistakes. It therefore appears that individualized feedback is ideal in the translation classroom. Wu (2014) analyzed the translations of 68 high school students from New Taipei City. A total of 16 sentences, 8 from the GSAT (大學學科能力測驗) and 8. from the Advanced Subjects Test (入學指定科目考試), were used. Wu found that students encountered problems with the present perfect, article use, the suffix –s, and prepositions. Wu also discovered that some of the challenges affecting high-scoring students were: stressful test conditions, lack of collocation knowledge, and the use of word-for-word translation strategies.. Student Compositions and Error Analysis Although Chinese-to-English translation and English writing may produce slightly different errors, due to the fact that there have been so few studies conducted concerning error analysis in Chinese-to-English student translations, and because Taiwanese students often equate writing in English with translating their Chinese thoughts into English, it is worth examining the many error analysis studies of English compositions written by Taiwanese students. Chen (1979) studied 80 randomly selected English compositions from a collection of 632. The students in the study were all English majors studying at Kaohsiung Teacher’s College. Chen divided errors into three main categories: local (7 subcategories) global (7 subcategories) and miscellaneous errors. He found that the most common types of errors were: verb errors (22.86%), noun errors (18.20%), determiner errors (11.36%), preposition errors (8.24%), and adjective errors (6.71%).. 15.

(25) Seah (1980) analyzed the errors from the compositions of Vancouver Community College students studying at the English Language Training Department. A total of 27 Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking students participated; 9 each were chosen from the elementary, intermediate and advanced English classes. Seah categorized errors into four categories and found that verbs (23.3%) were the most common error type, followed by articles (16.4%), prepositions (16.1%) and word order (5.7%). Chiang (1981) collected 1, 589 essays from 732 students enrolled in the English Department at National Taiwan Normal University. Twenty compositions were collected from each year of the day division students, while ten compositions were collected from each year of the evening division students, for a total of 120 compositions. The sampling rate was 7.55% (p.31). The compositions were then analyzed according to four main error categories: 1. Lexical errors (3 subcategories) accounted for 4.76% of total errors, 2. Grammatical/syntactic errors (30 subcategories) accounted for 80.64%, 3. Semantic errors (15 subcategories) accounted for 13.09%, and 4. Miscellaneous errors made up 1.5% of the total number of errors. Of these error types, verb use errors (lexemes) were the most problematic at 9.55%, followed by article usage at 7.64%, prepositions and particles at 7.10%, verb tense at 6.84%, and nouns (number and countability) at 5.82%. Horney (1998) analyzed the errors of 80 English compositions written by Taiwanese students in Taipei and Kaohsiung who had achieved a minimum score of 500 on the TOEFL. He divided errors into three main categories: local (7 subcategories) global (7 subcategories) and other errors (9 subcategories). He discovered that articles accounted for the greatest number of errors at 11%. Interestingly, he also found that students tended to omit “a” and use “the” when no. 16.

(26) article was necessary. Moreover, “the” was used instead of “a” at a rate of 94%. Article errors were followed by preposition errors and verb usage errors, which corresponded to 9% each. Noun errors and pronoun errors were also equal at 5%. Kao (1999) analyzed the errors of 169 compositions written by 53 students majoring in English in Taipei, Taiwan. Of the participants, 22 studied at Soochow University and 31 were enrolled at Fu Hsing Kang College. Kao divided errors into three main categories: lexical errors (4 subcategories), grammatical errors (26 subcategories), and semantic errors (2 subcategories). The five most common error types in order of frequency were: verb tense, rhetoric, spelling, punctuation, and number and countability of nouns. Chen’s 2006 error analysis study of Taiwanese beginning English learner compositions examined the impact a multimedia tutorial would have on learning grammar. For both the control group and the experimental group, Chen found that the top five error types were: verb usage, punctuation, lexicon, syntax, and capitalization. Verb usage and punctuation errors ranked first and second respectively for both groups. Verbs (4.59%), punctuation (3.73%) and lexicon (2.52%) troubled the control group the most, while verbs (5.44%), lexicon (3.61%), and punctuation (3.41%) proved most difficult for the experimental group. Research conducted in southern Taiwan by Yang (2006) employed error analysis to explore the differences in English compositions among 113 freshman, junior, and senior high school students. There were five main categories: lexical errors (9.5%), grammatical errors (64.8%), noun errors (12%), semantic errors (24.9%), and miscellaneous errors (0.7%). These five main categories were then parsed into 31 subcategories. Since there were only two subcategories for semantic errors, rhetoric errors (13.5%) and stylistic errors (11.4%), these two ranked as the. 17.

(27) first and second most common error type. Grammatical errors, on the other hand, were divided into 29 different subcategories, resulting in much lower percentages for each error. The top five grammatical errors were: conjunction errors (7.1%), number and countability of nouns errors (6%), spelling errors (5.7%), and tense errors equal with adjective errors (5.5%). A 2007 study in California analyzed the essays of native Mandarin Chinese speakers. The 27 participants were all graduate students at Azusa Pacific University and the majority of them were from Taiwan. The study classified errors into 19 different categories. The most significant finding was that the main errors committed—conjunctions (13.1%), articles (11.4%) and prepositions (11.2%)—were all related to Mandarin Chinese interference specifically (Chou & Bartz). Although the manner in which the researcher classifies and defines error categories will ultimately have some bearing on the final outcome of a study, based on the findings above, it seems reasonable to assume that the current study will find that the Taiwanese participants also have difficulties with verb tense, articles, prepositions, vocabulary use, noun declension and conjunctions. It also seems reasonable to hypothesize that individualized feedback will improve translation scores over the course of the study.. Error Analysis for Testing and Certification The American Translators Association (ATA) Framework for Standardized Error Marking Explanation of Error Categories lists 23 different errors: addition, ambiguity, capitalization, cohesion, diacritical marks/accents, faithfulness, faux ami, grammar, illegibility, indecision, literalness, mistranslation, misunderstanding, omission, punctuation, register, spelling, style, syntax, terminology, unfinished, usage,. 18.

(28) and word form/part of speech (ATA, 2015). The ATA uses an error-deduction method that ranges from 2 to 16 points and a complicated flowchart to score professional translations. Lai (2011) in “Reliability and Validity of a Scale-based Assessment for Translation Tests” reports on previous scales used and offers a justification for the scoring scale used by the MOE for the Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations (中英文翻譯能力檢定考試) from 2007 to 2011. According to Lai, the study on the scoring scale started with research by Liu (2005), who adapted her scale from Carroll (1966). Both scales took the sentence, and not the entire text, as the unit of measurement. Liu employed two 5-point scales (5/5 scales): readability and fidelity. Each sentence was assigned a score out of five for both categories, and then the results were tallied. However, Liu found that the readability scale was not as reliable as the one for fidelity (p. 714). In Lai’s study, Liu’s papers were re-analyzed, and scored four different ways: with Liu’s scales, with error analysis, with 5/5 scales, and with 6/4 (accuracy and expression) scales. Lai concluded that “accuracy was the more valid measure of translation ability,” and that for the correlations between accuracy and expression “both 5/5 scales (0.724) and 6/4 scales (0.751) were high than Liu’s scales (0.486)”. Furthermore, Lai found that the pass rate for the translations used in Liu’s studies were 0% for Liu’s scales, 16.7% for error analysis, 16.7% for 5/5 scales, and 13.3% for 6/4 scales (p. 719). Lai also discovered that the highest inter-rater correlation for both English-Chinese and Chinese-English translations was between raters using the 6/4 scales (p.721). While considerable research has been conducted regarding error analysis with respect to second language acquisition, English writing, and learner corpora, there is still insufficient study of error analysis in student Chinese-to-English translations—. 19.

(29) especially with regard to Taiwan. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to attempt to analyze and identify errors commonly committed by adult Taiwanese students. It is hoped this will improve translation pedagogical methods in Taiwan by allowing teachers to hone in on typical problem areas, that it will give students themselves an awareness of frequent mistakes, thereby helping them to improve their English ability and study habits, and that it will contribute to the current study of error analysis in Chinese-to-English student translations and suggest opportunities for further research.. 20.

(30) Chapter 3: Research Methodology. Research Design This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the Chinese-to-English translations of 30 adult Taiwanese English language school students in Taipei, Taiwan who did not have any professional translation experience. First, students were recruited for the study and three Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations (中英文翻譯能力檢定考試) from the Ministry of Education (MOE) were chosen and administered in order of the year they had been held (2007, 2010, and 2011). Then Task 1 (Translation 1) was sent to the study participants, who were given one month to complete it and email it to the researcher. Once the first set of translations had been collected, the researcher used the comment feature of Microsoft Word to provide the participants with direct feedback and corrections. These steps were repeated for Tasks 2 and 3. As soon as all the data had been collected, the top five and bottom five translators for Tasks 1 and 3 (Translations 1 and 2) were invited to partake in retrospective interviews. After the interviews were over, a voluntary biographical questionnaire was sent to the participants, the majority of whom completed it and returned to the researcher via Google Forms. Next, an error typology was developed, tested, modified and finalized. The translations were then hand coded in Microsoft Word using the error tags from the error typology. Once this was complete, a scoring scale was developed, tested, modified and finalized. Scores for each translation were calculated using the scoring scale. Finally, the error codes and translation scores were statistically analyzed.. 21.

(31) Participants The current study consisted of 30 adults (22 females and 8 males). They were a homogenous group in that they were all adults (18 or older), all born in Taiwan, all (but one) spoke Mandarin Chinese as their first language, all had passed the advanced-level English placement test at the language center where they were studying, and were all recruited from the researcher’s upper-division English classes. The study participants were asked to fill out a voluntary biographical questionnaire, and 21 responded. The respondents had backgrounds in various professional (non-English related) fields, such as information technology, government, finance, medicine and law. Education levels encompassed everything from vocational college to Ph.D. studies. Reported ages for the group ranged from 21 to 63 years of age (average reported age: 37.6 years {see Table 1}). Although none had formal training in translation, 11 reported experience translating from Chinese to English or English to Chinese for work or academic purposes and 11 had taken at least one English writing class. Exposure to English varied widely, with some students reporting having studied English for merely 1-2 years, while others said they had studied for 40 years (average reported time of English study: 17.6 years {see Table 1}). Only 4 students reported having studied English overseas for any length of time. It was found that all of the survey respondents habitually use English at least sometimes in their daily lives. The English-use categories Rarely (1-29%) and Sometimes (30-49%) received 6 responses each, while Often (50-69%) and Frequently (70-89%) each received 4, and Always (90-100%) received 1 response. The type of daily English usage ranged from travel abroad, to work, to leisure, with 11 of the respondents saying they used English mainly for work.. 22.

(32) Table 1 Participants’ Ages & Length of English Study. Materials From 2007 to 2011, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) held annual Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations (中英文翻譯能力檢定考試). The Chinese-to-English translations used in the current study were selected from this exam. The reasoning behind this was threefold. Firstly, the participants in the study all have advanced English abilities. Thus, a college entrance exam such as the GSAT or an intermediate or high-intermediate translation test such as the GEPT would be too simple for the participants—particularly since they were told they could use grammar books and dictionaries. Secondly, the texts of the other available Taiwanese tests with translation components are too short. Taiwan’s college entrance exams include only two sentences for translation. The GEPT’s high23.

(33) intermediate text is longer, at approximately 130 words per test, but due to its simplicity and length, it still might not be long enough to elicit a broad range of errors from advanced-level students. However, each MOE test was approximately 350 Chinese characters in length, and therefore long enough to offer insight into a wide variety of errors and to provide opportunities for students to commit multiple errors from the same category. This, in turn, provided the researcher with an increased amount of data concerning both error type and frequency. Finally, although the MOE Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations were typically taken by translators, interpreters and other professionals, this need not be the case, as the texts which appeared on the exams are general and not discipline specific. There is no complicated terminology or underlying theory that would present problems for the students translating the texts. In general, the MOE tests are fairly straightforward. The administration of the official MOE test and that of the tests in the current study varied somewhat. The test time given by the MOE for completion of each Chinese-to-English translation was 60 minutes. However, the suggested completion time for the research participants was 60 to 120 minutes because they were not professional translations and had no prior formal translation experience. Furthermore, the MOE test takers were not allowed any translation aids, but the study participants were encouraged to use dictionaries and grammar books. They were, however, asked not to solicit outside help or use the Internet or electronic translators.. Task 1 (Translation 1) Task 1 (Translation 1) was a non-specialized text from the Taiwanese magazine Business Weekly (《商業周刊》), which corresponds to the 2007 MOE Chinese-to-English Translation Test D (see Appendix A). The article is composed of. 24.

(34) 373 Chinese characters and addresses the impacts of healthcare and socio-economic status on Taiwan’s life expectancy. No title is provided. Although this text was considered non-specialized, most of the study participants interviewed believed many of the terms and phrases required some specialized knowledge. The article opens with a reference to the song (and poem) 《渡台悲歌》 (“The Sorrowful Song of Crossing the Taiwan Strait”). Although four lines of lyrics are provided at the end of the article, in retrospective interviews, it was found that some students did not understand that it was a song. When asked what《渡台悲歌》was, answers ranged from “a book,” “a song,” “a poem,” “a saying,” and even “a general situation,” while other interviewees stated simply, “I don’t know.” The participants were also generally at loss as to how to render the song’s name in English, with one participant not translating it at all and inserting Chinese characters into the English version. This difficult beginning aside, many participants felt that the economic and demographic lexicon needed to complete the translation was too specialized. The majority of complications arose from the following terms: 醫療 (health care or medical care), 平均壽命 (life expectancy), 社會經濟 (socioeconomic), 貧富差距 (the gap between the rich and the poor, the wealth gap), 健康人權 (the human right to health), and 死亡率 (the mortality rate). However, most of the problems occurred when students used poor-quality Chinese-to-English dictionaries. Many of the top performers (who also used English-to-English dictionaries or searched for the English terms on the Internet) were able to translate these terms. 25.

(35) correctly. Most importantly, all of the students were able to finish the translation and the scores for the majority of participants were similar. Task 2 Task 2 is sourced from the 2010 MOE Chinese-to-English Translation Test C (see Appendix B). The title of the passage is〈魔術與科學都從神秘開始〉(“Magic and Science both Start from Mystery”). This text differs from Task 1 (Translation 1) in that it contains less figurative language and specialized terminology, and typically employs shorter and less complicated sentence structure. It also provides the English translation of six names to aid the test-taker. Unfortunately, however, this text was determined by the researcher to be invalid for the purposes of this study. The reason for this is that there are two instances in which the Chinese text is ambiguous and, in one case, knowledge of a location (not given in the text) is needed to complete the translation. In the first example, it seems the original Chinese text is incorrect, or at least misleading. Task 2 reads, 「又因為自尊心強，所以決定成為魔術師後，除了心理學、理化、光學、色彩學等魔術專業，還拼了命的念語文、出國比賽、做國際交流」。(“After becoming a magician, in a never-ending quest for knowledge, he dedicated himself to the study of fields related to magic, such as psychology, physics, chemistry, optics, chromatology and foreign languages, which enabled him to better participate in international competitions and act as a cultural ambassador.”) The researcher has translated 「等魔術專業」 as “fields related to magic,” but a translation more faithful to the original Chinese might be “other magic subjects.” I think most people would agree that fields such as physics, chemistry and optics are. 26.

(36) much more closely related to science than to magic. Therefore, the confusing nature of the Chinese meaning made it almost impossible for study participants to translate this sentence into meaningful English. In the second instance, both the location and number are uncertain. Task 2 reads, 「…不但連續兩年收繳在北京的春節晚會表演，更是第一位踏上美國拉斯維加期、好萊塢，在魔術表演聖地『魔術城堡』演出的華人魔術師。」 (“[Lu] was also invited to perform at the CCTV New Year’s Gala in Beijing two years in a row, and was the first Chinese magician to perform in Las Vegas and Hollywood at the world-renowned Magic Castle.”) It is unclear from the Chinese text if there is a Magic Castle in both Las Vegas and Hollywood, or only one in Hollywood. Since the study participants were asked not to utilize the Internet, and because the professional translator who was consulted could not definitively render either example of unclear Chinese into English, this text has been deemed invalid by the researcher and removed from the data analysis of the current study. Feedback, however, was still given to the participants, as it was hoped that the corrections would help them with their English and also improve their scores for Task 3 (Translation 2).. Task 3 (Translation 2) 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 specialized English vocabulary. The students interviewed tended to find this article. 27.

(37) 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. 28.

(38) 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 nonbinary and 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.. 29.

(39) Table 2 Error Typology Description for Category 1: Style/Rendition Errors Error Error Type Error Description Code An addition error occurs when the translator 1A Addition introduces superfluous information, including lexemes and stylistic effects. A literalness error occurs when a translation that 1B Literalness follows the source text word for word results in awkward, unidiomatic, or incorrect renditions. A mistranslation error occurs when the meaning of a 1C Mistranslation segment of the original text is not conveyed properly in the target language. An omission error occurs when an element of 1D Omission 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 targetlanguage conventions. A register error occurs when the language level or 1E Register 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 & A terminology error occurs when a term specific to a special subject field is not used when the Cohesion 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. A style or rendition error occurs that cannot be 1G Miscellaneous described by any of the other style/rendition error codes.. 30.

(40) Table 3 Error Typology Description for Category 2: Language Errors Error Error Type Error Description Code An article usage error occurs when (1) the 2A Article usage 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. A preposition usage error occurs when (1) the 2B Preposition usage 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. A spelling error occurs when a word in the 2C Orthography translation is spelled incorrectly according to (Spelling, target-language conventions. A capitalization Capitalization, & error occurs when the conventions of the target Punctuation) 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. A syntax error occurs when the arrangement of 2D Syntax 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. A verb tense error occurs when the verb in the 2E Tense target language does not correctly indicate the time of the occurrence of an action in the source text. A word form error occurs when the root of the 2F Word form word is correct, but the form of the word is incorrect or nonexistent in the target language. A word usage error occurs when a verb, noun, 2G Word usage adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction or interjection is used incorrectly according to target-language conventions. A language error occurs that cannot be 2H Miscellaneous described by any of the other language error codes.. 31.

(41) 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. 32.

(42) 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 1A: Addition 1B: Literalness 1C: Mistranslation 1D: Omission 1E: Register 1F: Terminology/Cohesion 1G: Miscellaneous Style total. # of Errors. 2. Language Errors. # of Errors. 4 5 5 5 8 8 2. 2A: Article usage 2B: Preposition usage 2C: Orthography 2D: Syntax 2E: Tense 2F: Word form 2G: Word usage 2H: Miscellaneous Language total. 5 9 2 1 1 8 10 0 36. 37. 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. 33.

(43) 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. Points subtotal Style + language score Percentage score. Style/rendition (50%) (100 points) /100 /200 %. Language Usage (50%) (100 points) /100. 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. 34.