Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 15, 2023
Published
May 17, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 102 Download : 75

Main Article Content

Abstract

Considering the importance of correction (post-drafting phase) in translation process, this study aims at finding the linearity and types of self-corrections done by student translators in completing their translation tasks. Three students majoring translation studies who, in this study, were called student translators, were selected as the participants using a purposive sampling method. They were selected based on their relatively homogeneous profile following their 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. In the process of data collection, they were asked to translate two texts from English into bahasa Indonesia. The translation process was recorded using Translog and screen recording (Camtasia Studio 8). In doing their tasks, they were allowed to use online dictionaries and resources. The results of this study show that eight types of self-corrections were done by the student translators, including deletion, word substitution, spelling, return, addition, meaning, capitalization, and grammar, among which word substitution was most frequently used. This study also found types of word deletion that include deleting (i) unnecessary words, (ii) unnecessarily added words, (iii) incomplete words, (iv) repeated words, (v) miscollocation, and (vi) redundancy.

Keywords

translation process post-drafting stage self-corrections student translator

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Rudy Sofyan, Rusdi Noor Rosa

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Author Biographies

Rudy Sofyan, Universitas Sumatera Utara

English Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Rusdi Noor Rosa, Universitas Negeri Padang

English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts

References

  1. Asadi, P. & Séguinot, C. (2005). Shortcuts, strategies and general patterns in a process study of nine professionals. Meta, 50(2), 522–547. https://doi.org/10.7202/010998ar
  2. Carl, M. & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta, 56(4), 952–975. https://doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar
  3. Carl, M., Kay, M., & Jensen, K. T. H. (2010). Long distance revisions in drafting and post-editing. Paper presented at CICLing-2010, Iasi, Romania. Available at https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58951800/LonDistRevision.pdf
  4. Chukwu, U. (1997). Collocations in translation: Personal textbases to the rescue of dictionaries. Recherches sur corpus en langue de spécialité, 15-18, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.2991
  5. Darwish, A. (2008). Optimality in translation. Writescope Publishers.
  6. Galinskaya, I., Gusev, V., Mescheryakova, E., & Shmatova, M. (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. Available at http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/708_Paper.pdf
  7. Ibarrola, A. L. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189–216.
  8. Jakobsen, A. L. (2002). Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students. In G. Hansen (ed.), Empirical translation studies: Process and product (pp. 191–204). Copenhagen Studies in Language Series 27. Samfundslitteratur.
  9. Jakobsen, A. L. (2006). Research methods in translation – translog. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (eds.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 95–105). Elsevier.
  10. Jakobsen, A. L. & Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation. In G. Hansen (ed.), Probing the process in translation: Methods and results (pp. 149–184). Samfundslitteratur.
  11. Kourouni, K. (2012). Translating under time constraints in an undergraduate context: A study of students’ products, processes and learning styles (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Universitat Rovira I Virgili.
  12. Logan, G. D. & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1998). Stroop-type interference: Congruity effects in color naming with typewritten responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 978–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.978
  13. Malkiel, B. (2009). From Antonia to My Antonia: Tracking self-corrections with Translog. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees (eds.), Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research (pp. 149–166). Samfundslitteratur Press.
  14. Maryanto, (2001). Tes UKBI dan pengajaran BIPA. Pusat Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
  15. Melby, A. K. & Foster, C. (2010). Context in translation: Definition, access and teamwork. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting, 2(2), 1–15.
  16. Mizón, M. I. & Diéguez, M. I. (1996). Self-correction in translation courses: A methodological tool. Meta, 41(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.7202/003654ar
  17. Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and editing for translators. St. Jerome.
  18. Munday, J. (2012). A translation studies perspective on the translation of political concepts. In M. Burke & M. Richter (eds.), Why concepts matter: Translating social and political thought (pp. 41-58). Brill Academic Publishers.
  19. Robert, I. (2008). Translation revision procedures: An explorative study. In P. Boulogne (ed.), Translation and Its Others: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007, pp. 1-22. Available at http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/Papers2007/Robert.pdf.
  20. Robert, I. & Brunette, L. (2014). Should revision trainees think aloud while revising somebody else’s translation? Insights from an empirical study with professionals. Presented at Third IATIS Regional Workshop – Western Balkans Translator and Interpreter Training. Serbia: University of Novi Sad, 25-26 September, 2014.
  21. Rosa, R. N., Amri, Z., & Zainil, Y. (2020). Developing self-revision oriented translation model: Promoting human’s role as a post-editor. Proceedings of the ICO-ASCNITY 2019, November 01-03, Padang, Indonesia. http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.1-11-2019.2293985
  22. Scarpa, F., Musacchio, M. T., & Palumbo, G. (2009). A foot in both camps: Redressing the balance between the ‘pure’ and applied branches of translation studies. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting. 1(2), 32–43.
  23. Sofyan, R., Silalahi, R., Setia, E., & Siregar, B. U. (2016). Identifying the use of online resources in doing self-corrections: A study of Indonesian student translators. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 2(2), 15-19.
  24. Sofyan, R. & Tarigan, B. (2017). Online resources management in self-corrections and translation quality. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 35(2), 212-224.
  25. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins.
  26. Yamada, M. (2009). A study of the translation process through translators’ interim products. Interpreting and Translation Studies, 9, 159–176.
  27. Yamaguchi, M., Crump, M. J. C., & Logan, G. D. (2013). Speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled typewriting: Decomposing the contributions of hierarchical control loops. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 678–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030512