1887
Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.20189.kun
2022-06-03
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfuraih, Reem F.
    2020 “The Undergraduate Learner Translator Corpus: A New Resource for Translation Studies and Computational Linguistics.” Language Resources and Evaluation54 (3): 801–830. 10.1007/s10579‑019‑09472‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09472-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Artstein, Ron, and Massimo Poesio
    2008 “Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics.” Computational Linguistics34 (4): 555–596. 10.1162/coli.07‑034‑R2
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mona
    2011In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 2nd ed.Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832929
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832929 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowker, Lynne
    2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation.” Meta46 (2): 345–364. 10.7202/002135ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002135ar [Google Scholar]
  5. Cappelle, Bert, and Rudy Loock
    2017 “Typological Differences Shining Through: The Case of Phrasal Verbs in Translated English.” InEmpirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, edited byGert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, 235–264. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110459586‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-009 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carl, Michael, and Matthias Buch-Kromann
    2010 “Correlating Translation Product and Translation Process Data of Professional and Student Translators.” InProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 27–28 May 2010, Saint-Raphaël, France, edited byFrançois Yvon and Viggo Hansen. Saint-Raphaël: European Association for Machine Translation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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 byNatalie Kübler, 221–248. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chesterman, Andrew
    2010 “Why Study Translation Universals?” InKiasm, edited byRitva Hartama-Heinonen and Pirjo Kukkonen, special issue ofActa Translatologica Helsingiensia11: 38–48. Helsingfors: Helsingfors Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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.” Meta62 (2): 245–270. 10.7202/1041023ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1041023ar [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.” InTranslator Quality – Translation Quality: Empirical Approaches to Assessment and Evaluation, edited byGeoffrey S. Koby and Isabel Lacruz, special issue ofLinguistica Antverpiensia161: 25–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
    2014 “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in Professional Translation.” InThe Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Espunya, Anna
    2014 “The UPF Learner Translation Corpus as a Resource for Translator Training.” Language Resources and Evaluation48 (1): 33–43. 10.1007/s10579‑013‑9260‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9260-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Firbas, Jan
    1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fictumova, Jarmila, Adam Obrusnik, and Kristýna Štěpánková
    2017 “Teaching Specialized Translation: Error-Tagged Translation Learner Corpora.” Sendebar281: 209–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gledhill, Christopher
    2011 “A Lexicogrammar Approach to Checking Quality: Looking at One or Two Cases of Comparative Translation.” InPerspectives on Translation Quality, edited byIlse Depraetere, 71–97. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110259889.71
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110259889.71 [Google Scholar]
  16. Granger, Sylviane, and Marie-Aude Lefer
    2018 “The Translation-Oriented Annotation System: A Tripartite Annotation System for Translation Research.” InInternational Symposium on Parallel Corpora (ECETT – PaCor): Book of Abstracts, edited byJulia Lavid López, 61–63. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ilyushchenya, Tatyana
    2017Начальный курс технологии перевода [Basic translation technology]. Undergraduate course in translation. Tyumen State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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.” Meta63 (3): 807–825. 10.7202/1060174ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1060174ar [Google Scholar]
  19. Kunilovskaya, Maria
    2015 “How Far Do We Agree on the Quality of Translation?” English Studies at NBU1 (1): 18–31. 10.33919/esnbu.15.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.15.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kunilovskaya, Maria, and Andrey Kutuzov
    2017 “Testing Target Text Fluency: A Machine Learning Approach to Detecting Syntactic Translationese in English–Russian Translation.” InNew Perspectives on Cohesion and Coherence: Implications for Translation, edited byKatrin Menzel, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, and Kerstin Kunz, 75–104. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kunilovskaya, Maria, Natalia Morgoun, and Alexey Pariy
    2018 “Learner vs. Professional Translations into Russian: Lexical Profiles.” Translation and Interpreting10 (1): 33–52. 10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a03
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a03 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kunilovskaya, Maria
    2018 “Solving Translation Problems with Aranea”. InProceedings of Aranea 2018: Web Corpora as a Language Training Tool, edited byAnna Butašová, Vladimír Benko, and Zuzana Puchovská, 49–61. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kutuzov, Andrey, and Maria Kunilovskaya
    2014 “Russian Learner Translator Corpus: Design, Research Potential and Applications.” InProceedings of Text, Speech and Dialogue: 17th International Conference, TSD 2014, Brno, Czech Republic, September 8–12, 2014, edited byPetr Sojka, Aleš Horák, Ivan Kopeček, and Karel Pala, 315–323. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑10816‑2_39
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10816-2_39 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina
    2013 “VARTRA: A Comparable Corpus for Analysis of Translation Variation.” InProceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora, August, Sofia, Bulgaria, edited bySerge Sharoff, Pierre Zweigenbaum, and Reinhard Rapp, 77–86. Stroudsburg: Association of Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lommel, Arle, Maja Popović, and Aljoscha Burchardt
    2014 “Assessing Inter-Annotator Agreement for Translation Error Annotation.” InMTE: Workshop on Automatic and Manual Metrics for Operational Translation Evaluation, edited byKeith J. Miller, Lucia Specia, Kim Harris, and Stacey Bailey, 31–37. Reykjavik: Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nord, Christiane
    1991Text 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 byChristiane Nord and Penelope Sparrow. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ovchinnikova, Irina, and Anna Pavlova
    2016Переводческий билингвизм. По материалам ошибок письменного перевода [Translational bilinguism: Based on translation error analysis]. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. PACTE Group
    PACTE Group 2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta50 (2): 609–619. 10.7202/011004ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011004ar [Google Scholar]
  29. Popović, Maja
    2017 “Comparing Language Related Issues for NMT and PBMT between German and English.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics108 (1): 209–220. 10.1515/pralin‑2017‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0021 [Google Scholar]
  30. Psurtsev, Dmitriy
    2013Стратегия 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]
  31. Pym, Anthony
    1992 “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching.” InThe Teaching of Translation, edited byCay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, 279–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.56.42pym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.42pym [Google Scholar]
  32. 2018 “A Typology of Translation Solutions.” InTaking Stock and Audiovisual Translation, edited byJuan José Martínez Sierra, special issue ofJoSTrans301: 41–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rabadán, Rosa, Belén Labrador, and Noelia Ramón
    2009 “Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis and Translation Universals: A Tool for Translation Quality Assessment English–Spanish.” Babel55 (4): 303–328. 10.1075/babel.55.4.01rab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.55.4.01rab [Google Scholar]
  34. 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 byMaurizio Gotti and Susan Šarčević, 155–172. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Secară, Alina
    2005 “Translation Evaluation: A State of the Art Survey.” InProceedings of the ECoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, edited bySusan Armstrong, Toni Badia, Silvia Bernardini, Gerhard Budin, and Martin Thomas, 39–44. Leeds: Centre for Translation Studies, University of Leeds.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 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.” InProceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited byFrédérique Segond, 102–107. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stepankova, Kristýna
    2014Learner Translation Corpus: CELTraC (Czech–English Learner Translation Corpus). BA thesis. Masaryk University. https://theses.cz/id/c6a8nz/?lang=en
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Toury, Gideon
    1995Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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 Studies8 (9): 64–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 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-kom6 (2): 381–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2020 “Translation Quality in an Error-annotated Translation Learner Corpus.” InTranslating and Comparing Languages: Corpus-Based Insights, edited bySylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer, 141–162. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.20189.kun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.20189.kun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error