Using translog to investigate self correctionsin translation
- 1. Using Translog to Investigate Self-Corrections in Translation: A Pilot Study on Translation Process 500 USING TRANSLOG TO INVESTIGATE SELF- CORRECTIONS IN TRANSLATION: A PILOT STUDY ON TRANSLATION PROCESS RUDY SOFYAN University of Sumatera Utara, Sumatera, Indonesia rudy_sofyan@yahoo.com RUSDI NOOR ROSA Universitas Negeri Padang, Sumatera, Indonesia rusdinoorrosa@yahoo.com Abstract This article is a pilot study using an exploratory case study (Berg, 2001) as a method to study the English into Indonesian translation process done by the student-translators. Translog software (Jakobsen, 1999; Jakobsen & Schou, 1999) was used as an instrument to investigate self-corrections during the translation process. This study takes two students of Master Degree Program of Linguistics Department majoring translation studies at University of Sumatera Utara without any professional experience on translation business. The participant selection criteria also consider linguistic competence including Test of Bahasa Indonesia proficiency (UKBI), Test of English proficiency (TOEFL), and Test of typing speed by using TQ (TypingQueen) typing test. The participants (the student translators) translated the English text of 310 words into Bahasa Indonesia (their native language). The translations processses are recorded by using
- 2. 15th International Conference on Translation (ICT15), Kuala Lumpur, 25-27 August 2015 501 Translog and the use of online dictionaries and resources is allowed. This study found seven types of self-corrections among which word deletion (WD) is the most frequently used. The finding of this pilot study is expected to give clues to the contribution of self-corrections to the quality of the translation product. Keywords: self-correction, translation process, translog. INTRODUCTION Since regarded as a field of study, translation studies – a name first proposed by James S. Holmes in 1972 – has grown and developed as an academic study in its own right (Munday, 2012: 41). A paramount factor in making Translation Studies (TS) an autonomous academic discipline is Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) which has been a dominant paradigm in TS since the 1980s (Scarpa, et al., 2009: 32). DTS focuses on three areas of research, namely product-, process- and function-oriented (Toury, 1995: 10). Translation product, the focus of interest in previous researches, often highlights different strategies, techniques, methods, or approaches in translating texts. Such researches tend to cause controversial issues as none of the translated texts is said to fulfill the criteria of a good translation for different techniques or methods used in the translation process. These phenomena imply that a good quality of translation can only be achieved when translated by the researchers themselves. Besides, it is quite ridiculous that we argue with a translation product without any knowledge who is behind the text, the translator. It is, therefore, worth studying what goes on in the translators‟ mind while translating, what happens in the “black box” (Toury, 1995). Studying what happens in the translator‟s mind is the concern of process-oriented translation research. In the last ten years, translation studies research shifted more to translation process research (TPR). Many see the translation activity as a cognitive process where creativity (Kussmaul, 2000) should be involved. Translation process research in 1980s concerned observational studies in transferring procedures, using Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) to gain a better understanding on a mental process of the translator (Kourouni, 2012; Krings, 1987). In the 1990s, keystroke logging program was developed mainly to obtain information on pausing and timing in text production (Alves and Goncalves, 2003; Dragsted, 2004; Hansen, 2006; Jakobsen, 2006). The mental processes were recorded by using Translog (Jakobsen and Schou, 1999; Jakobsen, 2006) to trace keyboard activity and pauses. With a rapid development of technology, such mental processes
- 3. Using Translog to Investigate Self-Corrections in Translation: A Pilot Study on Translation Process 502 were recorded and tracked using more various tools such as eye-tracking devices in addition to the keylogging. In this stage of research development, the study is not merely observing the mental processes in the translator‟s mind but also the model of typical reading, management of resources and translation behavior. One of the processes taking place while translating is self-correction (see Malkiel, 2009) or self-revision (see Carl et al., 2010; Carl and Kay, 2011). Self-correction is a personal correction during the translation process covering deleting words, substituting words, respelling, adjusting the meaning, etc. Malkiel (2009) reported on the self-corrections done by 16 translation students – 8 native English speakers translating two texts into English language and 8 native Hebrew speakers translating two texts into Hebrew language. The translog recorded 1,257 self-corrections among which word and phrase replacements with synonyms account for more than half of all self-corrections. In addition, Carl et al. (2010) compared the number of revisions performed by student-translators and professional translators. They found that the student-translators performed more revisions, on average one self-revision for every 6.5 word, than professional translators, performing self-revision for every 7.8 word. The length of the time spent by translators in doing self-correction does not indicate low quality of the translation product (Künzli, 2006); even professional translators spend more hours for revision than student translators (Carl et al., 2010; Rasmussen & Schjoldager, 2011). These findings suggest the unchangeable role of corrections or revisions in the translation process. Therefore, studying self-correction is always helpful for the development of theories, inventions, and innovations in translation studies. Carl et al. (2010) particularly suggest how their findings might be taken into account in the design of computer assisted translation tools. In relation to the role of self-correction in a translation process, this article is aimed at investigating self-corrections done by student translators while translating. The participants are two students of Master Degree Program of Linguistics Department majoring translation studies at the University of Sumatera Utara without any professional experience on translation business. They are selected under the consideration of their linguistic competence including Test of Bahasa Indonesia proficiency (UKBI), Test of English proficiency (TOEFL), and Test of typing speed by using TQ (TypingQueen) software. Both of the participants are in an excellent level of Bahasa Indonesia proficiency, holding a minimum TOEFL score of 500, and having a good typing skill (more than 27 wpm
- 4. 15th International Conference on Translation (ICT15), Kuala Lumpur, 25-27 August 2015 503 with more than 95% of accuracy). They were asked to translate the English text of 310 words (downloaded from Online Time Magazine) into Bahasa Indonesia (their native language). The translation processes are recorded using Translog and the use of online dictionaries and resources is allowed. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS As previously mentioned, this pilot study focuses only on finding the types of self-correction done by the two participants (the student translators) in translation process without examining whether the self-corrections contribute to the quality of the translated text. Based on the log, Student A spent 1 hour 55 minutes and 29 seconds in translating the text, while Student B spent 1 hour 51 minutes and 51 seconds. This finding shows that there is no significant difference in terms of time spent by both of the students in translating the text. Within this period of time, they did 308 times of self-corrections including word deletion (WD), word substitution (WS), spelling (S), grammar (G), meaning (M), return (R), and capitalization (C). The types of self-corrections and their frequency are presented in Table 1. No. Types of Self-Correction Frequency Percentage 1 Word Deletion (WD) 111 36.04% 2 Spelling (S) 78 25.32% 3 Word Substitution (WS) 58 18.83% 4 Return (R) 27 08.77% 5 Meaning (M) 17 05.52% 6 Capitalization (C) 9 02.92% 7 Grammar (G) 8 02.60% Total 308 100% Table 1 Frequency of Self-Corrections Word Deletion (WD) is the most frequent type of self-correction done by the participants (student translators). It happens when the student translators delete the unnecessary words or phrases. It includes not only the deletion of complete words or phrases but also the deletion of incomplete words and the repeated words. In the example from the log, the term “the tax payers” was firstly translated into “Para pembayar pajak”. The the student translator corrected it by deleting the first word “Para”. In Bahasa Indonesia, the terms “Para pembayar pajak” and “Pembayar pajak” refer to similar entity. The student firstly wrote “para” in order to show the term‟s plural meaning, however, considering that without using it, the term itself has included the plural meaning, the student self-corrected by deleting
- 5. Using Translog to Investigate Self-Corrections in Translation: A Pilot Study on Translation Process 504 it to make the translated version natural. Deleting words in the translation process basically aims at improving the translation quality; nevertheless, it does not mean that the translated works containing a number of word deletions result in a good translation. This finding supports Malkiel‟s (2009) findings showing that WD appears to be the most frequent type of self-corrections done by the student translators. Besides, WD was also involved in spelling correction, the second most frequent type of self-corrections done by the participants. The finding in Table 1 shows that the two students corrected the spelling 78 times or 25.32 % of the total self-corrections. This finding is quite surprising as, unlike English, Indonesian spelling and pronunciation are alike – the words are pronounced as they are spelled. The spelling correction is not a matter of insufficient knowledge of the target language‟s (TL) spelling system, but of the carelessness of the students as the TL is their L1. A correction on spelling errors contributes very much on the translation product since different spelling may result in different meaning. Galinskaya et al. (2014) reported that misspellings affect translation results more than other types of errors, and correction on spelling is the most profitable for improving the translation quality. In addition, WD is sometimes followed by word substitution (WS) – the deleted words substituted by other words. The finding shows that WS is the third most frequent type of self-correction. Based on the log data, the WS looked for the more common and correct diction and the source text (ST) language interference prevention. Based on the log, in the first chance, the student translated „should‟ with „harus‟ which means „must‟ in English. Then, the student self-corrected it with the word „seharusnya‟ (meaning „should‟ in English). Another example from the log, the students substituted the word „atau‟ with „maupun‟ (both written „or‟ in the ST) indicates their effort to prevent the interference of the SL in the translation. In addition to the three most frequent types of self-correction, the translators self-correct their translation by returning elsewhere in the text. A return in self-correction can be defined as returning to translate a particular part of the text (a phrase, a sentences, or a paragraph) which was, previously, left untranslated. The log shows that Student A, at the first chance, did not translate the last sentence of the first paragraph “Don‟t tax you, don‟t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree”; she „returned‟ and translated that sentence after she translated the last sentence of the text. Besides, the students sometimes did a return within a sentence. A return in the translation process is also related to the translator‟s decision making as
- 6. 15th International Conference on Translation (ICT15), Kuala Lumpur, 25-27 August 2015 505 Darwish (2008: 206) says that tactical decision is linear when the information pattern is simple and familiar and cursive for the complex and unfamiliar information pattern. So, a return shows the practice of cursive tactical decision because the log shows that the students return to the complex information pattern of the ST. The other three types of self-correction – meaning, grammar, and capitalization – were less frequent. This finding indicates their good knowledge on these three types. Meaning correction includes synonyms (menyatakan-mengungkapkan), actives to passives (menerima-diterima), modality (harus-seharusnya), and preposition addition (mendiskusikan- mendiskusikan tentang). Grammar correction includes affixes addition (masalah – permasalahan), word order changes (placing the transition „bagaimanapun juga/however‟ in the beginning of the sentence), and preposition addition (pajak orang itu – pajak dari orang itu). Capitalization includes the beginning of a sentence (terlebih-Terlebih) and abbreviation (Usd-USD). Meaning, undoubtedly, has the most important role in translation as translation is a matter of meaning transfer from SL to TL. Self-correcting the meaning means adjusting the meaning to decide which expression is more acceptable in the TL. Besides, self-correcting the meaning is done coincidently with both WD and WS because the selected word should have been deleted before its meaning is adjusted, and adjusting the meaning means substituting the word with another word. Deciding to use the expression „seharusnya‟ instead of „harus‟ is due to the meanings connected with degrees of modality. The student‟s decision to use „seharusnya‟ is motivated by the fact that the expression in the SL „Who should pay more in taxes?‟ does not contain any obligation meaning; instead, this expression implies the unexpected condition in tax payment has happened. In terms of grammar correction, the student‟s decision to move the position of the transition (however) to the beginning of the sentence is for its grammatical usage. Unlike English, transitions in the Indonesian structure cannot separate the subject from its predicate as they always precede the subject (Alwi et al., 1998). The use of transitions between the subject and its predicate in Indonesian sentences indicates the influence of a foreign language‟s structure. Another frequent grammar self-correction is related to derivation. The addition of confix „per-...-an‟ to self-correct the word „masalah‟ is one of the examples from the log how the students did a grammar correction.
- 7. Using Translog to Investigate Self-Corrections in Translation: A Pilot Study on Translation Process 506 Capitalization should not be taken lightly by translators. As technology develops, the incorrect use of capitalization at the beginning of a sentence is easy to recognize because the computer program, nowadays, can automatically identify it and provide the correction. However, translators must have a good knowledge of capitalization as it may appear in the middle of a sentence. Besides, the translators also have to be careful in capitalizing the words of a title because function words – articles, prepositions, conjunctions – are not capitalized. CONCLUSION The findings of this pilot study show the important role of self-correction in the translation process. It helps everybody understand that spending much time for correction is not a waste of time. Besides, it should be understood that identifying self-correction does not mean evaluating or judging the quality of translation; instead, it reveals what happened during the translation process. Self-correction is closely related to the translator‟s decision making whether to use a certain expression instead of others, to delete and or to substitute, etc. Using translog make it possible to identify any self-corrections done by the translators. This study only focuses on identifying self-corrections without any concern of its contribution to the translation quality; therefore, it is suggested for other researchers to do a study on whether less or more self-corrections influence the quality of the translation. REFERENCES Alves, Fabio & José Luiz V. R. Gonçalves. 2003. “A Relevance Theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation”. In Fabio Alves (Ed). Triangulation Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alwi, H., S. Dardjowidjojo, H. Lapolowa & A. M. Moeliono. 1998. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Fourth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Company. Carl, M., Martin K. & Kristian T. H. 2010. “Long Distance Revisions in Drafting and Post-editing”. In CICLing-2010, Iasi, Romania. Carl, M., & Kay, M. 2011. “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators”. Meta: Translators' Journal, 56(4), 952-975.
- 8. 15th International Conference on Translation (ICT15), Kuala Lumpur, 25-27 August 2015 507 Chesterman, A. 2009. “The Name and Nature of Translator Studies”. Hermes-Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 42, 13-22. Darwish, Ali. 2008. Optimality in Translation. Victoria: Writescope Pty Ltd. Dragsted, Barbara. 2004. Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems. An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. Faculty of Language, Communication and Cultural Studies. Copenhagen Business School. Galinskaya, I., V. Gusev, E. Mescheryakova & M. Shmatova. 2014. “Measuring the Impact of Spelling Errors on the Quality of Machine Translation”. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). pp. 2683-2689. Hansen, G. 2006. “Retrospection methods in translator training and translation research”. Journal of Specialised Translation, JoSTrans 5, www.jostrans.org, 2-40. Jakobsen, A. L. 1999. “Logging Target Text Production with Translog”. In Gyde Hansen (ed.), Probing the Process In Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. pp. 9-20. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2006. “Research Methods in Translation – Translog”. In Kirk P.H. Sullivan & Eva Lindgren (eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 95-105. Jakobsen, A. L., & Schou, L. 1999. “Translog Documentation”. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. pp. 149-184. Kourouni, Kyriaki. 2012. Translating Under Time Constraints in an Undergraduate Context: A Study of Students’ Products, Processes and Learning Styles. Tarragona: Doctoral Thesis, Universitat Rovira I Virgili. Künzli, Alexander. 2006. “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Technical Text.” In Maurizio Gotti and Susan Sarcevic (Eds), Insights into Specialised Translation. Peter Lang. pp. 193-211. Krings, H. P. 1987. The Use of Introspective Data in Translation.
- 9. Using Translog to Investigate Self-Corrections in Translation: A Pilot Study on Translation Process 508 Kussmaul, P. 2000. “Types of Creative Translating”. In A. Chesterman, N. G. S. Salvador & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Malkiel, B. 2009. “From Ántonia to My Ántonia: Tracking self-corrections with Translog”. In Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke & Jakobsen Inger M. Mees (Eds.), Behind the Mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. pp. 149-166. Martín, R. M. 2014. “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research”. MonTI Special Issue-Minding Translation. pp. 49- 84. Munday, J. 2012. “A Translation Studies Perspective on the Translation of Political Concepts”. In Martin Burke & Melvin Richter (Eds.), Why Concepts Matter: Translating Social and Political Thought. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 41-58. Rasmussen, K. W. & A. Schjoldager. 2011. “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies”. The Journal of Specialised Translation, JoSTrans. Issue 15, pp. 87-120. Scarpa, F., M. T. Musacchio & G. Palumbo. 2009. “A Foot in Both Camps: Redressing the Balance between the „Pure‟ and Applied Branches of Translation Studies”. Interpreting & Translation, 1(2), pp. 32-43. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.