scholarly journals Error Analysis in Korean-English Translation-with Special Reference to The Ropewalker by Yi Chong Jun

Author(s):  
 Flourish Kamei
Jurnal KATA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Utami

<p>This research aimed to identify types of translation errors and to find out the sources of errors (interlingual and intralingual errors) in Indonesian-English translation written by the students. The type of this research was descriptive research which used Error Analysis procedures to identify and analyze the students’ error. The findings showed that the types of grammatical errors made by the students in their translation were three types, namely global errors, local errors, and other errors. The most frequent error made by the students was local errors and the fewest error made by the students was other errors.  Then, this research revealed that mostly errors occurred in students’ translation were caused by intralingual error. Meanwhile, only few errors were caused by interlingual error. The errors occured due students’ incomplete knowledge of the target language.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadis Ghasemi ◽  
Mahmood Hashemian

<p>Both lack of time and the need to translate texts for numerous reasons brought about an increase in studying machine translation with a history spanning over 65 years. During the last decades, Google Translate, as a statistical machine translation (SMT), was in the center of attention for supporting 90 languages. Although there are many studies on Google Translate, few researchers have considered Persian-English translation pairs. This study used Keshavarzʼs (1999) model of error analysis to carry out a comparison study between the raw English-Persian translations and Persian-English translations from Google Translate. Based on the criteria presented in the model, 100 systematically selected sentences from an interpreter app called Motarjem Hamrah were translated by Google Translate and then evaluated and brought in different tables. Results of analyzing and tabulating the frequencies of the errors together with conducting a chi-square test showed no significant differences between the qualities of Google Translate from English to Persian and Persian to English. In addition, lexicosemantic and active/passive voice errors were the most and least frequent errors, respectively. Directions for future research are recognized in the paper for the improvements of the system.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ilani ◽  
Hossein Barati

<p>Translating journalistic text has been one of the major courses in Iranian universities. The challenges hidden in translating journalistic texts motivated the present study to investigate the translation of such texts. Thus, this research makes an attempt to identify and categorize the probable errors and to distinguish the most frequent ones. Furthermore, it tries to find whether there is a pattern among the errors committed by students in their translations. To this end, a translation test of Persian journalistic texts was developed. Forty students studying English translation were recruited for this study. In order to analyze collected data, Keshavarz’s Model (1997) and ATA were used for error analysis. The current study found that there is not a pattern among errors committed by students. The most frequent errors were categorized as (i) grammar, (ii) terminology, and (iii) misunderstanding of original text.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-142
Author(s):  
Wei Du ◽  
Teeraporn Saeheaw

AbstractTranslation teachers have long experimented with various methods to help students improve their translation competence. This study approaches the issue by developing an assessment framework based on error analysis and a translation grading system, with the aim of identifying the most common and frequent errors committed by students in their translation works. One group of translation students in Ningxia University, China served as the target group of the study. The errors identified in their renditions were classified, with text-level errors the most prominent, followed by translation errors and substance errors. Possible causes of the errors were analyzed, and suggestions were proposed for future teaching.


The German geographer Voeltzkow, although he only spent something over a month on Aldabra during April to May 1895, made the first known collection of Entomostraca from the atoll. His lively account includes mention of four species of Ostracoda and also records the occurrence of daphnid cladocerans (Voeltzkow 1897, p. 67; English translation p. 21). Voeltzkow’s collection was described by G. W. Muller, who added another ostracode, a Centrocypris species which he did not describe because of scanty material, to Voeltzkow’s list (Muller 1898, pp. 275- 283). Ostracodes and cladocerans were also recorded by the Bristol University expeditions of 1964 and 1965 but not collected (R. Gaymer, personal communication 1967). The next additions to the known fauna were made by G. A. Wright of the British Museum (Natural History) who cultured ostracodes, an anostracan, Streptocephalus sp. and the conchostracan, Eulimnadia sp., from mud samples obtained during a September 1966 reconnaissance visit (Stoddart & Wright 1967, p. 1175). Further collections of dried mud from Aldabra were made by J. F. Peake of the British Museum (Natural History) during phase I (August to September 1967) of the Royal Society Expedition to Aldabra. One of these, from a pool between Croix Blanc and Anse Cèdres (the locality of sample 8, see appendix A) has been cultured since 5 December 1967 (see §8 ( d )).


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Haru Deliana Dewi ◽  
Rahayu Surtiati Hidayat

<p><em>Research on translation assessment on English to Indonesian translation results using two dissimilar rubrics and a quantitative approach is rarely conducted by Indonesian scholars. This present study investigated the effectiveness between two assessment models, which are very different, one using a holistic approach (the LBI Bandscale) and the other using the error analysis approach (the ATA Framework). The research has been conducted on several language pairs, including the Indonesian-English translation, but it has never been done on the English-Indonesian translation. The research aims to discover whether there is a substantial improvement using both assessment models and whether one model is more effective than the other. The study was conducted in the Introduction to Translation (DDPU) classes of the English Studies Program of the Faculty of Humanities (FIB), Universitas Indonesia (UI) for undergraduate students of Semester 6. The respondents were asked to do translation in class, and then within three weeks, their works were returned with feedback based on both models. After that, they were asked to do revisions of their translation results. The outcome of the analysis shows that there is a great improvement in the translation results because of the two assessment models, but there is no significant difference in the effectiveness between those models. </em></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document