Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 35:1 (2023) ► pp.34–62

Source language difficulties in learner translation

Evidence from an error-annotated corpus

ORCID logo | University of Wolverhampton
| University of Tyumen
| Lomonosov Moscow State University
| University of Wolverhampton
This study uses an error-annotated, mass-media subset of a sentence-aligned, multi-parallel learner translator corpus to reveal source-language items that are challenging in English–Russian translation. Our data includes multiple translations of the most challenging source sentences, drawn from a large collection of student translations on the basis of error statistics. This sample was subjected to manual contrastive-comparative analysis, which resulted in a list of English items that were difficult for students. The outcome of the analysis was compared to the topics discussed in translation textbooks that are recommended for BA and specialist-degree students in Russia. We discuss items that deserve more prominence in training as well as items that call for improvements to traditional learning activities. This study presents evidence that a more empirically motivated design of the practical translation syllabus as part of translator education is required.
Keywords: translator education, learner translator corpus, translation error analysis, multi-parallel corpus, error-prone source items, translation competence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
    • 2.1Error-annotated learner translator corpora
    • 2.2Error annotation for identification of error-prone SL items
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Textbooks on translation practice
    • 3.2Learner translations
      • 3.2.1Filtering
      • 3.2.2Error annotation
      • 3.2.3Downsizing to a non-random sample for manual analysis
  • 4.Method and results
    • 4.1Textbook analysis
    • 4.2Learner data: Manual analysis
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Observed SL-related problems underrepresented in textbooks
    • 5.2Cases of persistent problems: SL items inadequately learnt
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20189.kun
References (41)
References
Alfuraih, Reem F. 2020. “The Undergraduate Learner Translator Corpus: A New Resource for Translation Studies and Computational Linguistics.” Language Resources and Evaluation 54 (3): 801–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artstein, Ron, and Massimo Poesio. 2008. “Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics.” Computational Linguistics 34 (4): 555–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2011. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Lynne. 2001. “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation.” Meta 46 (2): 345–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, and Rudy Loock. 2017. “Typological Differences Shining Through: The Case of Phrasal Verbs in Translated English.” In Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, edited by Gert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, 235–264. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Matthias Buch-Kromann. 2010. “Correlating Translation Product and Translation Process Data of Professional and Student Translators.” In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 27–28 May 2010, Saint-Raphaël, France, edited by François Yvon and Viggo Hansen. Saint-Raphaël: European Association for Machine Translation.Google Scholar
Castagnoli, Sara, Dragos Ciobanu, Kerstin Kunz, Natalie Kübler, and Alexandra Volanschi. 2011. “Designing a Learner Translator Corpus for Training Purposes.” Corpora, Language, Teaching, and Resources: From Theory to Practice, edited by Natalie Kübler, 221–248. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2010. “Why Study Translation Universals?” In Kiasm, edited by Ritva Hartama-Heinonen and Pirjo Kukkonen, special issue of Acta Translatologica Helsingiensia 11: 38–48. Helsingfors: Helsingfors Universitet.Google Scholar
Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Lieve Macken. 2017. “Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-Editing with Students and Professional Translators.” Meta 62 (2): 245–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Bert Cappelle, Orphée de Clercq, Rudy Loock, and Koen Plevoets. 2017. “Towards a Corpus-Based, Statistical Approach to Translation Quality: Measuring and Visualizing Linguistic Deviance in Student Translations.” In Translator Quality – Translation Quality: Empirical Approaches to Assessment and Evaluation, edited by Geoffrey S. Koby and Isabel Lacruz, special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia 161: 25–39.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey. 2014. “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in Professional Translation.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Espunya, Anna. 2014. “The UPF Learner Translation Corpus as a Resource for Translator Training.” Language Resources and Evaluation 48 (1): 33–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fictumova, Jarmila, Adam Obrusnik, and Kristýna Štěpánková. 2017. “Teaching Specialized Translation: Error-Tagged Translation Learner Corpora.” Sendebar 281: 209–241.Google Scholar
Gledhill, Christopher. 2011. “A Lexicogrammar Approach to Checking Quality: Looking at One or Two Cases of Comparative Translation.” In Perspectives on Translation Quality, edited by Ilse Depraetere, 71–97. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2018. “The Translation-Oriented Annotation System: A Tripartite Annotation System for Translation Research.” In International Symposium on Parallel Corpora (ECETT – PaCor): Book of Abstracts, edited by Julia Lavid López, 61–63. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
Ilyushchenya, Tatyana. 2017. Начальный курс технологии перевода [Basic translation technology]. Undergraduate course in translation. Tyumen State University.Google Scholar
Kübler, Natalie, Alexandra Mestivier, and Mojca Pecman. 2018. “Teaching Specialised Translation Through Corpus Linguistics: Translation Quality Assessment and Methodology Evaluation and Enhancement by Experimental Approach.” Meta 63 (3): 807–825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunilovskaya, Maria. 2015. “How Far Do We Agree on the Quality of Translation?” English Studies at NBU 1 (1): 18–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunilovskaya, Maria, and Andrey Kutuzov. 2017. “Testing Target Text Fluency: A Machine Learning Approach to Detecting Syntactic Translationese in English–Russian Translation.” In New Perspectives on Cohesion and Coherence: Implications for Translation, edited by Katrin Menzel, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, and Kerstin Kunz, 75–104. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kunilovskaya, Maria, Natalia Morgoun, and Alexey Pariy. 2018. “Learner vs. Professional Translations into Russian: Lexical Profiles.” Translation and Interpreting 10 (1): 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunilovskaya, Maria. 2018. “Solving Translation Problems with Aranea”. In Proceedings of Aranea 2018: Web Corpora as a Language Training Tool, edited by Anna Butašová, Vladimír Benko, and Zuzana Puchovská, 49–61. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.Google Scholar
Kutuzov, Andrey, and Maria Kunilovskaya. 2014. “Russian Learner Translator Corpus: Design, Research Potential and Applications.” In Proceedings of Text, Speech and Dialogue: 17th International Conference, TSD 2014, Brno, Czech Republic, September 8–12, 2014, edited by Petr Sojka, Aleš Horák, Ivan Kopeček, and Karel Pala, 315–323. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina. 2013. “VARTRA: A Comparable Corpus for Analysis of Translation Variation.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora, August, Sofia, Bulgaria, edited by Serge Sharoff, Pierre Zweigenbaum, and Reinhard Rapp, 77–86. Stroudsburg: Association of Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lommel, Arle, Maja Popović, and Aljoscha Burchardt. 2014. “Assessing Inter-Annotator Agreement for Translation Error Annotation.” In MTE: Workshop on Automatic and Manual Metrics for Operational Translation Evaluation, edited by Keith J. Miller, Lucia Specia, Kim Harris, and Stacey Bailey, 31–37. Reykjavik: Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis [orig. Textanalyse und Übersetzen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse]. Translated by Christiane Nord and Penelope Sparrow. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikova, Irina, and Anna Pavlova. 2016. Переводческий билингвизм. По материалам ошибок письменного перевода [Translational bilinguism: Based on translation error analysis]. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka.Google Scholar
PACTE Group. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popović, Maja. 2017. “Comparing Language Related Issues for NMT and PBMT between German and English.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 108 (1): 209–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psurtsev, Dmitriy. 2013. Стратегия перевода. Пособие по письменному переводу с английского языка на русский для завершающего этапа обучения [Strategy in translation: A textbook on English–Russian translation for final year students]. 2nd ed. Moscow: R. Valent.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1992. “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching.” In The Teaching of Translation, edited by Cay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, 279–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “A Typology of Translation Solutions.” In Taking Stock and Audiovisual Translation, edited by Juan José Martínez Sierra, special issue of JoSTrans 301: 41–65.Google Scholar
Rabadán, Rosa, Belén Labrador, and Noelia Ramón. 2009. “Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis and Translation Universals: A Tool for Translation Quality Assessment English–Spanish.” Babel 55 (4): 303–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scarpa, Federica. 2006. “Corpus-Based Quality-Assessment of Specialist Translation: A Study Using Parallel and Comparable Corpora in English and Italian.” Insights into Specialized Translation, edited by Maurizio Gotti and Susan Šarčević, 155–172. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Secară, Alina. 2005. “Translation Evaluation: A State of the Art Survey.” In Proceedings of the ECoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, edited by Susan Armstrong, Toni Badia, Silvia Bernardini, Gerhard Budin, and Martin Thomas, 39–44. Leeds: Centre for Translation Studies, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Stenetorp, Pontus, Sampo Pyysalo, Goran Topić, Tomoko Ohta, Sophia Ananiadou, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2012. “brat: A Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation.” In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by Frédérique Segond, 102–107. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stepankova, Kristýna. 2014. Learner Translation Corpus: CELTraC (Czech–English Learner Translation Corpus). BA thesis. Masaryk University. [URL]
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verplaetse, Heidi, and An Lambrechts. 2019. “Translation Error Type in Medical and Legal Student Translations: Impact of Dictionary, CAT Tool and Corpus Use.” Dragoman: Journal of Translation Studies 8 (9): 64–76.Google Scholar
Wurm, Andrea. 2013. “Eigennamen und Realia in einem Korpus studentischer Übersetzungen (KOPTE) [Proper names and culture-specific items in a corpus of student translations (KOPTE)].” trans-kom 6 (2): 381–419.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Translation Quality in an Error-annotated Translation Learner Corpus.” In Translating and Comparing Languages: Corpus-Based Insights, edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer, 141–162. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Liu, Xiao & Ying Cui
2024. The impact of text type on Chinese-English translation effort: an investigation with reference to translation entropy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Granger, Sylviane & Marie-Aude Lefer
2023. Learner translation corpora. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Hong
2023. Application of Computer Technology in Translation Teaching. In Proceedings of the 2022 2nd International Conference on Education, Information Management and Service Science (EIMSS 2022), ► pp. 486 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.