There were 3,087 micro-level translation errors, which referred to those regarding vocabulary and grammar, occupied for 91% of the total number of translation errors. Specially, both of them consisted of incorrect category and inappropriate one. Those errors, which were lexically and grammatically unacceptable, would go to the first category. The second category came up with those errors which were somewhat acceptable yet there was still a better choice (Deeb, 2005). And each category included its sub-categories. Normally, spelling errors are not categorized in either vocabulary or grammar; however, within this research it belonged to the incorrect vocabulary category because when a word was misspelled, it was considered wrong only. Both of two above-mentioned categories will now be discussed together below.
CATEGORIES
Incorrect Inappropriate
Grammatical errors
Vocabulary errors
Grammatical errors
Vocabulary errors
Number of errors 1,080 1,031 581 395
Total 2,111 976
% 68 % 32%
Table 4. 1 Average errors per texts per category
Table 4.1 recapitulates the average of the errors per category (incorrect category and inappropriate one) for all of the texts translated by all of the students.
According to the table, the total numbers of errors were sorted into two categories which were incorrect category and inappropriate one with the count of 2,111 errors and 976 ones in that order. The percentage was 68% for incorrect category and 32%
for inappropriate one. Moreover, each category was further divided into two types of errors which were grammatical errors and vocabulary ones. The count of grammatical errors for the incorrect category was 1,080 and that of vocabulary errors was 1,031. Meanwhile, the numbers of errors in the inappropriate category were 581 for grammar and 395 for vocabulary. One unanticipated finding was that the number of incorrect errors was twice as much as that of inappropriate ones. This finding is in accordance with the result of Deeb‟s study (2005). In fact, when a word or a piece of grammar is inappropriate, readers can partly understand the whole text in some aspects. By contrast, in case of incorrect errors in vocabulary and grammar, readers will be led to misunderstanding or even worse, failing to read the text up.
Furthermore, the quality of the translated texts will be considerably reduced. This result was quite consistent with some previous researches pertaining to vocabulary
and grammar errors. It is said that English grammar is too complicated for the students to grasp. Together with grammar, the diversity of vocabulary makes them confuse. Also, students‟ vocabulary retention is low. Therefore, they still make mistakes albeit they did learn it so many times at high school and in two first year at this university. So, it is might explain why they made to much incorrect errors. The finding also proved that, students‟ knowledge of grammar and vocabulary still was at low level because they had strong tendency to commit incorrect errors rather than inappropriate ones.
Chart 4.2 Proportion of micro-level translation errors
Chart 4.2 shows that grammatical errors slightly occupied the higher proportion (1661/3087, 54%) than vocabulary errors (1426/3087, 46%). This proved that grammatical errors were found more than lexical ones. This appears to be consistent with the study conducted by Dan Van Dao (2008). However, the result is not compatible with the result of Deeb‟s study (2005) and Othman‟s one (2013).
Errors of vocabulary were far more than that of grammar (9.2) in Deeb‟s study (2005). The number of vocabulary errors was 1.4 as much as that of grammatical ones in Othman‟s one. A possible explanation for these kinds of errors might be the
54% 46%
Micro-level translation errors
Vocabulary errors Grammatical errors
which means that language users only need to put meaningful words together then they have a meaningful sentence. On the contrary, English has a strict collection of grammatical rules, thus a meaningful sentence has to be syntactically correct (Luu Thi Mai Vy, 2016). This mother tongue interference significantly affects on second language vocabulary and grammatical acquisition and use. When translating a text, students recall all vocabulary and grammatical knowledge that they have learnt. If students cannot overcome mother tongue interference, they have strong tendency to make those errors. Hence, the students should be helped to avoid that. In sum, students‟ grammar and vocabulary knowledge is still the problem needed to be paid due consideration.
Vocabulary errors
In the current research, this category included errors of technical terms, proper nouns, compounds, collocations, word choice, synonyms, and word formation. Lexical items, whether in individual or in combination, are classified as incorrect category when they significantly depart from the meaning of the source text. They are inappropriate when they are not definitely incorrect in terms of meaning, but also "not right", "odd" in the context, or are not the most suitable solution (Deeb, 2005).
Incorrect vocabulary
Incorrect vocabulary included technical terms, proper nouns, compounds, collocations and word choice. The main source of error in the students‟ translations is their tendency to translate the text literally. It can be seen from the data in chart 4.3 that the most predominant errors of incorrect vocabulary came under the word choice errors, representing some 56% (= 577 errors) of errors in this category.
Collocation errors came second with 19% (= 199 errors). Following this, proper noun errors accounted for 12% (= 121 errors). Besides, spelling ones occupied 6%
(=61 errors), adjective and noun compound errors came next with 5% (= 55 errors)
while there was a small number of errors, only 2% (= 18 errors) that was made in the category of technical terms.
Chart 4.3 Incorrect vocabulary
It is apparent from this chart that errors of word choice remarkably outnumbered any other sub-categories. It accounted for more than half (577/1,031, 56%) of the total. It means that the most common lexical errors were how to choose the correct word for the correct situation. This appears to be consistent with the study conducted by Nguyen Thi Thu Hang and Trieu Thu Hang (2015). As an example, when translating the word “điểm đến” in the phrase “ba quốc gia, một điểm đến” (in text 6) into English, many students used “arrival” instead of
“destination”. “Điểm đến”, in this case, is a noun which means the place where someone is going, thereby it quite different from “arrival”, which is the fact of arriving somewhere. There were possibly two reasons for this: first, the students did not fully understand the texts so they picked up the wrong words for their misunderstanding ideas; second, they might understand the text but their vocabulary bank was too limited to withdraw the correct word that they wish.
Errors of collocation accounted nearly for one fifth of the total (199/1,031, 19%). Similar to the finding from Dweik and Shakra (2011), the students faced with difficulties in lexical and semantic collocations. However, this result is contrary to the remarks of Deeb (2005) in his study that students had no a particular difficulty in dealing with collocation. As mentioned in the literature review, English collocations which involve the way English words are tightly linked to each other;
however, it is problematic for students to guess those ways of combinations. Also, they usually translate literally and do not pay much attention to which words collocated together in English. To illustrate this point, in English, the word
“integration” does not go with “deeper” but “further”. However, 100% of the students used “deeper integration” instead of “further integration” when translating the phrase “hội nhập sâu rộng” (in test 4). It is interesting to note that the students followed the line of thoughts rather than the line of words when translating. They thought that “hội nhập” collocates with “sâu rộng” in Vietnamese then
“integration” will collocate with “deeper” in English. Thus, mother tongue interference also leads to this type of error. Notwithstanding its effect on the meaning of the translated version, it did not completely reduce the meaning of the text. However, collocations should be used correctly in order for the translated text to be as equivalent as the original text as possible. Also, using correct collocations made translation more natural.
The lack of practical experience in translation led the students to errors of proper nouns, which accounted for 12% (=121 errors). They failed to translate names of organizations, business projects, and names of countries. Especially, the number of those errors was 63 in text six and 42 in test 4. It was in coincidence with the researcher‟s expectations because these two tests included many proper nouns.
In some SL texts, an abbreviation of such organizations was also available; however, the students were unable to give the correct and full names. The following example extracted from the students‟ translation paper illustrates this type of error.
Vietname source text (in test 6)
“Theo Sở Văn hóa – Thể thao & Du lịch TP. HCM, trong khuôn khổ Triển lãm Quốc tế Du lịch TP. HCM 2009 (ITE HCMC 2009, từ ngày 1 đến 3-10), đơn vị này sẽ phối hợp với Cục Đầu tư nước ngoài (Bộ Kế hoạch – Đầu tư), Sở Kế hoạch – Đầu tư TP. HCM và Trung tâm Xúc tiến Thương mại Đầu tư TP. HCM tổ chức hội nghị quốc tế đầu tư du lịch VN – Lào – Campuchia.”
In this sentence, there are a lot of proper nouns which can cause difficulties for students to translate it into English. For example, some words such as “sở”, “cục”
might make students confuse. Additionally, the name “Trung tâm Xúc tiến Thương mại Đầu tư” may sound dissimilar to the students. Similar to this thought, the result revealed that most of students failed to translate these proper nouns. The pursuing students‟ translation is an example.
Student 10’s translation
“According to Culture - Sport & Tourism Ho Chi Minh city, in framework of Exhibition International Tourism Ho Chi Minh 2009 (ITE HCMC since 1 to 3 october), this unit will combine with the Department of Foreign Investment (Ministry of Planning- Investment), Ministry of Planning – Investment Ho Chi Minh city and Trade Promotion investment Center Ho Chi Minh city organize international conference tourism investment VN- Laos – Cambodia.”
From the extract above, we can see that the student made some errors when translating proper nouns. Firstly, “Sở Văn hóa – Thể thao & Du lịch TP. HCM”
was translated into “Culture- Sport & Tourism Ho Chi Minh city” instead of
“HCMC Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism”. The next is “Triển lãm Quốc tế Du lịch TP. HCM 2009”, notwithstanding the suggestion for its abbreviation, ITE HCMC 2009 provided; the student used “Exhibition International Tourism Ho Chi Minh 2009” instead of the correct name “International Tourism Exhibition of HCMC 2009”. Additionally, three other proper nouns including “Cục Đầu tư nước ngoài”, “Sở Kế hoạch – Đầu tư TP. HCM” and “Trung tâm Xúc tiến Thương mại
Đầu tư TP. HCM” were incorrectly translated into “Department of Foreign Investment” (instead of Foreign Investment Agency), “Ministry of Planning – Investment Ho Chi Minh city” (instead of HCMC Department Planning &
Investment) and “Trade Promotion investment Center Ho Chi Minh city” (instead of HCMC Trade and Investment Promotion Centre). Generally speaking, only the most familiar proper nouns posed no problems to students while others caused difficulties to students.
The remaining errors were not very considerable. They were spelling (61/1,031, 6%), compounds (55/1,031, 5%) and technical terms (18/1,031, 2%).
Source texts did not include many technical terms and those technical terms were not extremely difficult, so those might explain why only 2% of incorrect vocabulary category was related to technical terms. For that reason, the result is not compatible with the result of Qassem‟s study (2014) which was mentioned in chapter two. In terms of compounds, similar to the finding from Deeb (2005), “the difficulty of compounds often lies in the lengthy grammatical structure, usually constituting strings of adjectives, as many of those underlined happened to be long complicated stretches of language”. In terms of errors of spelling, a possible explanation for might be the carelessness of students. Another possible explanation for this is that with 60 minutes for each test, students did not have enough time to double-check their papers before submitting. Besides, spelling errors could occur under the influence of students‟ ability of vocabulary recollection and retention.
Inappropriate vocabulary
As mentioned in chapter two, inappropriate vocabulary, which included synonyms and word form, referred to items that were not totally wrong but other available alternatives were preferable.
37%
63%
Inappropriate vocabulary
Synonym errors
Chart 4.4 Inappropriate vocabulary
Chart 4.4 compares the proportion of synonym errors (145/395, 37%) with word form ones (250/395, 63%). What is interesting in this data is that word form errors was almost twice as much as that of synonym ones. The result is likely to be related to word families in English. For errors of synonyms, the students are familiar with using words habitually (usually used in spoken language rather than written language) without considering the meaning of those words in the context of the text. As discussed in chapter two, Newmark (1988) claims that translators should use formal English for an educated readership. However, students do not often spend much time deciding if the words should be formally or informally used.
For instance, “tìm đúng người, trao đúng việc” (in test 2) was translated into “find the right guys, give the right work” instead of “find the right person for the right job”. Firstly, the word “guys” is spoken language; hence it is not suitable for a business email. This finding is in accordance with Huynh Huu Tai‟s conclusion (2016) which is most of students use spoken language in their translation. Secondly, although “work” and “job” are synonyms, “job” is more appropriate as it refers to
“a paid position of regular employment”. For word form errors, there are two reasons which cause errors. The first is that the students did not know or remember exactly a word and its word family. The second is that they did not identify what
part of speech ought to be used in such cases. For example, in the phrase “suối khoáng nóng thiên nhiên” of text one, the words “nóng” and “thiên nhiên”
described for “suối khoáng” and both of them have adjective form in English;
therefore, English version of this phrase should be “natural hot spring”. However, some students used “nature hot spring”. Since “nature” is a noun, its adjective
“natural” is more appropriate in this case.
Grammatical errors
Grammatical errors were also divided into two categories including incorrect category and inappropriate one. Incorrect grammar concerned errors of nouns, verbs, S-V agreement, articles, prepositions, tenses, sentence structures while inappropriate grammar included word order, passive voice, and redundancy. As shown in table 4.1, the number of errors in incorrect grammar category was 1,080 while that of inappropriate grammar was 581. The result is not compatible with the result of Deeb‟s study (2005). This is because the number of errors related to word order and passive forms in his study were extremely high while in this study, the proportion of preposition, article and tense errors were overwhelming.
Incorrect grammar
Chart 4.5 Proportion of incorrect grammar
Chart 4.5 presents that in terms of incorrect grammar, preposition errors occupied the largest part with 31% (=337 errors), articles accounted for 23% (=251 errors), tenses came up with 19% (=208 errors) and sentence structures presented 13% (=134 errors). The other sub-categories are all below 10%: nouns (79/1,080, 7%), subject-verb agreement (41/1,080, 4%), and verbs 31/1,080, 3%).
7%
3%
23%
31% 13%
4%
19%
Incorrect grammar
Noun errors
Verb errors
Article errors
Sentence structure errors
Preposition errors
S-V agreement errors
Tense errors
The chart shows that nearly one third of errors fell to prepositions. The students often used incorrect preposition (for example, “in” instead of “at”) or they did not insert a preposition where necessary. It seems possible that these results are due to a wide range of prepositions in English and many of them do not have a fixed rule to be used. For that reason, students are often unsure of which preposition to take for the case. It shows that preposition can pose real problems for students in Vietnamese-English translation.
In comparison with preposition errors, article ones only accounted for nearly one fourth of the total. Those errors included misuse, using the preposition where unnecessary or forgetting to use articles where necessary, for example, when translating the noun phrase “Núi Phú Sĩ – biểu tượng của đất nước Nhật Bản” (in test 1), students made two article errors. Firstly, according to Martinet and Thomson (2010), “the” is used before chains of mountain not a single mountain; however, the students tended to use “the” before “Fuji Mountain”. Secondly, they did not use
“the” before “symbol of Japan”. This result may be explained by the fact that there are so many rules of articles that they could not remember them all.
Another category which also largely accounted was tenses (about one fifth of the total). There are about thirteen tenses in English as discussed in chapter two;
however, there are only three tenses in Vietnamese. And once again, as mentioned in chapter two, one other challenge is that English has its verbs to indicate tenses while Vietnamese uses adverbial words or phrases to indicate tenses. Furthermore, it is the tense forms that cause the students to make errors. They might know the usage of the present perfect, for instance, however, they did not know how to form this tense (have/has + past participle). Or they did not remember regular and irregular forms of verb.
Besides, errors in sentence structures made up for 13%. Most of those errors were related to relative clauses and “the comparative, the comparative” structure.
translation. For “the comparative, the comparative” structure, there were 29 students (out of 30 ones) used wrong structure when translating the sentence (in test 2) as below.
“Quy trình tuyển dụng càng bắt đầu sớm, quý công ty càng nhanh chóng tuyển dụng được đúng nhân tài.”
The following sentence of a student is an example.
“The sooner begin of application process, the quicker your company can find right talents.”
As can be seen, in this sentence, the student did not use correctly the structure “The + comparative adjective + subject + verb” in the first clause. The correct one should be “The sooner the process starts”. A possible explanation for these results may be that students forgot how to use the structure “The + comparative adjective + subject + verb, the + comparative adjective + subject + verb.”
The remaining three categories (noun, subject-verb agreement, and verb errors) totally accounted for nearly one fifth. As the students were in their third year and have been learning English since they were at primary school; therefore, they made less errors related to subject-verb agreement than most of the others. The students found it difficult to make use of singular and plural nouns, or countable nouns and uncountable nouns. As a result, they took a singular noun instead of a plural one (for example, issue instead of issues in test 5) and vice versa or they even added an „-s‟ to an uncountable noun (for example, luggages). In terms of verbs, they mixed the three verb forms of V-ing, to Verb, and bare Verb up. And in subject-verb agreement, they did not pay attention to subject (either singular or plural, countable or uncountable) and grasp the rules of subject verb agreement; for that reason, they failed to pick up the correct verbs for the subject. To illustrate this point, many students committed the error “ACE cooperate with Amadeus Vietnam”
(in test 5) in their translation. In this case, “ACE” is treated as singular and takes a