scholarly journals Subtleties: Some Challenges in Achieving Second Language Fluency using Computer-Aided Translation Tools in Education

Author(s):  
Dianne Excell
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
Dianne Excell

At every level of education, from early years to postgraduate, students can arrive in the UK (or US) classroom with little or no English language ability. It is impossible for teachers to have knowledge of every first language that students bring into the classroom and thus they may rely on a computer-aided translation tool so that their students can have access to the English needed in all subjects across the curriculum. At the same time, students need to move from basic English skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing towards the subtleties of academic English which they must achieve in order to reach the UK government’s required standards in English at every level of assessment. Using her extensive knowledge of the challenges that students learning English as an Additional Language (EAL) and their teachers face in the classroom situation and the English needed in assessments, the author examines possible benefits of computer-aided translation tools such as Google Translate and Talking Pen and outlines some of the problems and drawbacks with such tools that create barriers to acquiring full academic fluency, thus posing challenges to future translation tool developers.


Author(s):  
Lynne Bowker ◽  
Gloria Corpas Pastor

In today’s market, the use of technology by translators is no longer a luxury but a necessity if they are to meet rising market demands for the quick delivery of high-quality texts in many languages. This chapter describes a selection of computer-aided translation tools, resources, and applications, most commonly employed by translators to help them increase productivity while maintaining high quality in their work. This chapter also considers some of the ways in which translation technology has influenced the practice and the product of translation, as well as translators’ professional competence and their preferences with regard to tools and resources.


Author(s):  
Parvaneh Tavakoli

AbstractThe study reported in this paper challenges current models of measuring second language fluency by comparing monologic versus dialogic task performance, and providing a novel insight into the measurement of the interactive aspects of dialogic performance. The data that constitute 35 monologic and dialogic task performances from second language learners were coded using a battery of established measures known to tap different aspects of fluency, and subjected to statistical analysis to test for overlaps or differences. Interactive aspects of fluency in dialogue, e. g. interruptions, overlap and unclaimed between turn pauses were also investigated to compare with common measures of monologic speech. While the results confirm previous research findings suggesting that performance is in general statistically more fluent in a dialogue in terms of speed, length of pause and repair measures, they indicate that performances in the two modes are not different in terms of number and location of pauses. The analysis of the dialogues indicates that the decisions researchers make about measuring the interactive aspects of fluency would have an impact on the outcome of measurements of fluency. These findings highlight the need for developing a more systematic and reliable approach to measuring second language (L2) fluency.


2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMANDA HUENSCH ◽  
NICOLE TRACY-VENTURA

ABSTRACTThis study examined the extent to which first language (L1) fluency behavior, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency can predict second language (L2) fluency behavior over time. English L1 Spanish (n= 24) and French (n= 25) majors completed a picture-based oral narrative in the L2 before and after 5 months residing abroad and later in the L1 after returning home. Data were coded for seven measures of speed, breakdown, and repair fluency. The results from multiple regressions indicated that L1 fluency behavior, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency differentially contributed to explaining L2 fluency behavior prior to and during immersion. These findings suggest that when investigating L1–L2 fluency relationships considerations of mitigating factors such as cross-linguistic differences are necessary, and it is worthwhile to focus on how the contributions of these factors shift during development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document