Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professionaland Learner Translators
Sachiko Nakamura
Aichi Shukutoku University

Introduction
The history of translation studies in Japan is still very young. According to Mizuno(2006: 1), it was only in the 1990s when a handful of researchers started to publish what
was later regarded as translation studies. Most researchers work on studies on English to
Japanese translation of literary works as an academic discipline. Extensive andfull-scale studies on translation for practical purposes and those dealing with translationfrom Japanese to English, for that matter, have yet to be seen. Despite the slow progressin development of theories on both product-oriented and process-oriented translation,
demands for Japanese to English translation from industrial communities have been on
the rise in such fields as manufacturing, medical science, IT and numerous otherindustrial and commercial sectors, thus a category of translation as commercial products
has begun to grow and expand.
In Japan, education and training on translation has been offered primarily by non-formaltranslator training schools, where course participants are often advanced adult learnersof English. The foremost purpose of these schools is to foster professional translators
who can cater to growing commercial needs. Those who wish to become professionaltranslators reasonably knock on the doors of such schools. It is only with the beginningof the new millennium that Japanese universities have started to offer translation
programs at the undergraduate or graduate level as part of their English language
curriculum reform. More recently, some graduate courses have begun to organize
advanced specialist programs incorporating commercially-oriented translation andinterpretation education and training. It may now be safe to say that Japanese
universities are finally poised to pay attention to translation for practical purposes.
This paper focuses on a translation program offered as part of a graduate course
designed to train professional translators for commercial and technical fields.

147

翻訳研究への招待 2

1.

Aim of the research

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate differences of textual features,
specifically of syntactic and lexical choices between professional and learner translators,
thereby exploring factors affecting Japanese to English translation. Learner corpora arecompiled from texts translated from Japanese into English by learner translators.
Whether problems appearing in their renditions are common or not is judged bycomparing them with professional translators’ corpus as well as with a large-sized
corpus of the similar discourse texts.
2.

Hypothesis

As a preliminary hypothesis about characteristics of learner translator corpora(hereinafter referred to as LC) vis-à-vis those of professional translator corpus(hereinafter referred to as PC), I assume learner translator corpora would present someor all of following features:a. more explicit textual structuresb. more high frequency words than low frequency words
c. greater repetitiond. less lexical and syntactic variety
e. more literal translation
A concordancing software is used to analyze the followings in order to support myhypothesis:
1. Frequency of relatives: the frequency of which will be counted for both LC and PC. I
assume professional translators incorporate more diverse syntactic and lexical choicesin their rendition. They may use relatives to add detailed information but they will also
use participle phrases and appositions instead.
2. Type-token ratio: learner translators may repeat the same words in their rendition,
thus their lexical density would be lower than that of professionals. This may result inthe less colourfulness, less variety of the representation.
3.

Subjects

Subject learners are four advanced learners of English attending a Master’s program ofa university in Nagoya, Japan. The course participants are one high-school English

148

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

teacher, taking a one-year in-service recess, one housewife wishing to become aprofessional translator/interpreter, two immediate university graduates hoping to find afull-time position in the business community. All have the experience of studying
abroad or of staying some years overseas, so their English proficiency level is higher
than ordinary English language learners.
4.

Theoretical framework

It has been widely believed among researchers in translation studies that whatever the
language pair involved translated language tends to show greater cohesion andexplicitation (Blum-Kulka, 1986; Baker, 1992, 1995; Hatim and Munday, 2004).
Blum-Kulka suggests this “explicitation is a universal strategy inherent in the process oflanguage mediation, as practiced by language learners, non-professional translators andprofessional translators alike” (1986:21). Therefore, one might say that the greater thenumber of explicitation devices (e.g. connectives, conjunctions, etc.) in some translated
texts, the higher the degree of explicitation than others.
Halliday explains the meaning of a non-defining nominal relative which as follows:“A non-defining relative clause (abridged) adds a further characterization of somethingthat is taken to be already fully specific” (Halliday, 1994: 227). He also explains
defining which as an “embedded clause that functions as elaboration and expansion(op.cit. 243).” Although there are other cohesive devices such as appositions andparticiple phrases that function also to elaborate, expand and add, many learnertranslators tend to use the relative pronoun which for these purposes, sometimes
excessively. Because of the same recurring pattern, their translation products tend to be
monotonous, redundant and less colourful compared with those of professionals who
use other devices as well. Overuse of which functions as if it is a cohesive device, and it
might result in a higher degree of explicitation.
Concerning the idiosyncratic ways of using specific syntactic structures, Widdowson(1979: 44) suggests that there is a common characteristic found in the work oftranslators. According to him, such a tendency could represent the translator’s
individual behaviour. Overuse of which in learner translators’ texts of this study,
however, may suggest that it could be a problem common to Japanese learner translators,
and thus I shall regard this as a supra-individual idiolect, or a collective idiosyncrasy.

149

翻訳研究への招待 2

5.

Data analysis

5.1 Learner Translator Corpus (LC)Four learners (A, B, C, D) worked on following three different categories and the
corpus structure and tokens are shown in Table 1 below:
a. Journalism texts: magazine articles on Japanese sake bar and kabuki theatre, travel
guidebooks, corporate brochures
b. Newspaper editorialsc. Contract agreements
Sub-corpus 1

Sub-corpus 2

Sub-corpus 3

Learner A

1,435

1,210

243

Learner B

1,438

1,222

299

Learner C

1,312

1,156

301

Learner D

1,332

1,173

341

Table 1 Structure of learner sub-corpora and word counts

5.2 Professional translator corpus (PC)
Similarly, texts from the original magazines and brochures are named Professional
Translators Corpus (PC).

PC

Sub-corpus 1

Sub-corpus 2

Sub-corpus 3

1,302

1,300

307

Table 2 Structure of professional sub-corpora and word counts

5.3 A concordancing software and basic data
The text concordancing software used for this study is called KWIC Concordance forWindows version 4.7 created by Satoru Tsukamoto. First, each student’s translation
texts were categorised into three genres, saved as text files, concordanced, then, wordlists were produced. Each KWIC wordlist was respectively saved as KWIC files from
KWIC 1 to KWIC 4, and professional translator corpus was also concordanced and aword list was saved as KWIC 5 pro. Frequency of relatives (which, what, where, who,
when, whose, etc.) was counted and the type-token ratio was also calculated as shown in
Table 3.

150

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

KWIC1

KWIC2

KWIC3

KWIC4

KWIC5 pro

token

1,468

1,498

1,369

1,368

1,335

which

17

12

8

6

1

where

1

2

5

2

2

who

2

2

1

2

1

when

0

2

0

2

1

which ratio.0115803.008010.0058436.004329.0007490

occurrence
ratio

1/105 times

1/125

1/171

1/231

1/1,335

type/token
ratio.446866.442590.480643.432900.501124

Table 3 Frequency of relatives in corpora

The result suggests that the use of which is more salient in LC compared to PC.
In fact, which occurs more frequently in LC while it occurs only once in PC.
Furthermore, frequency of which ranges from once in every 105 words to 231 words in
LC, whereas once in every 1,335 words in PC. The use of other relatives does not show
striking differences as which does. Whether this seemingly too frequent appearance of
which is above average, thus regarded as a deviation from generally accepted usage, canbe judged by looking at the frequency of which appearing in large-sized corpora such as
BNC or Cobuild Bank of English. Unfortunately though, in Japan, these corpora are notreadily available at reasonable costs through the Internet or some other media to be usedby general practitioners such as learners and professional translators.
5.4 Target discourse community corpus
In order to cope with the shortcoming of unavailability of public corpora, and to help
out language users in respective target discourse community (TDC), I have compiled a
TDC corpus representing language used in specific target discourse communities
including journalism, politics, legalism, business, science and technology and havenamed it TDC Corpus. It contains some 1.2 million words of written texts (token). For
details of the corpus structures, refer to Nakamura (2002).
5.4.1 Which counts in TDC corpus
TDC corpus consists of three main categories – magazine, newspaper editorials andlegalism. The frequency of which is counted in the magazine category and the results
are shown in Table 4 below.
151

翻訳研究への招待 2

token

which countwhich ratio

occurrence

type-token

1,170,267

2,569.002195225

1/455.036876

Table 4 Frequency of which in TDC corpus – magazine category

The results show that which occurs 2,569 times out of total token of about 1.17 million
words, which is roughly translated into a frequency of one in every 455 words.
Compared to the results in Table 3, all LC corpora have higher frequency of which than
the TDC does. In the section to follow, I shall pick up some typical examples from LC
and PC in the category of magazine articles.
5.5 Examples from LC and PC corpora
Example 1 (Japanese sake bar)
LC1aPopular chopped gristle (only 220 yen each), which was picked up on NHK
cooking show, is one for each because it is precious.
LC1b“Nankotsu no tataki” or lightly chopped gristle costs only ¥220 per skewer,
which was introduced on NHK’s cooking show, is so popular and rare thata limit per person is one skewer.
LC1c
Famous dish 220 yen “nankotsu tataki” which is chopped gristle introducedin NHK cooking program, because its (sic.) so precious you can only order
one.
Pro1
The popular “nankotsu no tataki” or lightly roasted chopped chicken gristle(¥220/skewer), once introduced in NHK’s cooking show, is scarcity andlimited to one skewer per person.

In LC, three out of four learners insert which was and which is in the middle ofsubsequent clause. This type of usage is also seen in conversations (Long 1961:314),
suggesting it to be a more or less informal style and leading to possible redundancy. On
the other hand, Pro1 uses once introduced, a participle phrase, instead of which was.
The Pro1 is thus successful in presenting an articulated, concise journalistic style.
Following examples 2 to 7 show a repeated use of which in learner texts and no use inprofessional text.

152

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

Example 2 (Kabuki)
LC2
Countless stage settings were newly invented in Japan; for instance, “Mawari
Butai (Turning stage)”, designed for an instant change, and “Seri”, whichlifts a Kabuki actor from the bottom to the stage. Kabuki, which was in
the pursuit of the entertainment for the ordinary people, had created theworld of spectacles long before the Hollywood did.
Pro2
The revolving stage, a gimmick that changes scenes instantaneously, or seri,a lift that raises actors, making them appear from the understage, and othernumerous innovations were the spectacular world first brought about via
Kabuki. In effect, Kabuki was a pioneer in entertaining the public, a longtime before Hollywood.

This learner LC2 uses which twice in the text while Pro1 does not use it at all.
Instead, Pro1 uses an apposition and present participle constructions. Repetitive use ofnon-defining relative pronouns gives a somewhat colloquial and redundant impression
to readers. The Pro2 text develops from specific to general, a textual structure quite
different from LC. Furthermore, Pro2 text presents an articulated prosodic rhythm.
Example 3 (Travel guidebook)
LC3
Ueno Castle is known as a castle which Toudou Takatora, a great castle
constructor, expanded. The highest stone wall in Japan which is about 30
meters, double walled moat, and excessively robust castle tell you how hardtimes the Sengoku era was. You can visit nearby Ninjya residence and Ninjya
resource centre.
Pro3
Ueno Castle was expanded from its original form by master castle builder
Todo Takatora. Surrounding the castle are 30 m high stone walls – the tallest
in Japan – and double moats. The robust castle walls stand as a reminderof the turbulent warring states period. An Iga-style Ninja House and Ninja
Museum are nearby.

This is a typical description in a travel guidebook intended to be read by thegeneral public. Common characteristics of these documents are of lighter mood, faster153

翻訳研究への招待 2

pace, and often some fun elements embedded in the text. Repetitive use of which in LC3
presents rather heavier, slower, monotonous and even serious impression. Pro3 text, on
the contrary, keeps an airy mood and exhibits diversity. No complex structures being
used, Pro3’s effort is more reader-friendly.
Example 4 (Corporate brochure)
LC4
With our product development capability for vehicle installation which Auto
Networks Technologies have nurtured, we always are heading for one-up
society and create new possibilities to go ahead of the area of cutting-edge
technology, which is based on the fundamental research of Sumitomo ElectricIndustries and the evaluation level of Research & Evaluation Center.
Pro4
Basic research is conducted by Sumitomo Electric Industries, and testing
technologies are provided by the Research & Evaluation Center. Supportedby these basic technological research capabilities and automotive productdevelopment capabilities nurtured in Auto Networks Technologies, we create
new potential in many areas of cutting-edge technology.

This document is taken from a corporate brochure. The target readers of documentsof this kind could be visitors such as potential clients. So readers are not necessarily thegeneral public, but more often than not, are specialists sharing the same discourse
community knowledge and experience. Reader-friendliness still needs to be achieved.
Naturally some industry-specific terminology or jargon is found in these texts, however,they are not the issue here. What draws my attention is the length of sentences in LC4.
Because this learner translator adds extra information by connecting clauses with arelative pronoun which, the sentences result in longer and complex structures.
Example 5 (Travel guidebook)
LC5
A prestigious shrine where Amatsu Hikonenomikoto, a son of Amaterasu Omikami,
the ancestral goddess of the Imperial Family is worshipped. This shrine
is also well-known for the Horseback Climbing Ceremony in which horses are
ridden swiftly and attempt to climb a steep hill, forecasting abundanceor scarcity of agricultural harvests.
Pro5

154

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

This shrine worships Amatsu-Hikone-no-Mikoto, the Child of the Shinto sun
goddess Amaterasu Omikami. It is famous for a ceremony called Age Uma Shinji
in which the fortunes of the year’s crops – abundant or poor – can be
discovered depending on whether a horseback rider is able to climb a cliff.

Although in which is used at the same position in LC5 and Pro5, the subject insubsequent clauses differs. In LC5 subject is horses while in Pro5, it is fortunes of thisyear’s crops. Of course it is not the horses that perform forecasting, so LC5 translator
chose an incorrect subject. By the way, in which in Pro5 is the only one which occurredin the whole PC.
6.

Discussion

The purpose of this text genre – bar and restaurant information, cultural information,
travel guidebook and corporate brochure – is to be an advertisement to the outside
world. For those documents, reader-friendly textual style is preferred. Articulation,
conciseness, prosodic rhythm and other journalistic textual elements are required. Toomany use of which may run counter to the needs of such documents, because it may
generate lengthy, redundant impression. It appears that which in learner texts, in mostcases, is non-definitive usage, thus it serves as a conjunction, e.g. and, therefore, adding
extra information to the antecedent is the main function of such usage. In translation
examples above, learner translators almost always choose which for addition,
elaboration and expansion. Because of this overuse of which, learner translators
renditions tend to present a greater explicitation.
I suspect this tendency has something to do with their English education at thesecondary level. In the secondary education (junior-high and senior-high schools), much
longer time is spent on relative clause learning in grammar classes. For instance, muchtime is spent on such exercises as rewriting from a. to b.
a. A girl is standing by the window. She is Jane.
b. A girl who is standing by the window is Jane.
Connecting two sentences requires a higher level of syntactic knowledge andtechnique, so learners reasonably tend to consider b. as more advanced usage. Also therelationship with the antecedent can be more explicitly demonstrated. Even where a155

翻訳研究への招待 2

relative clause is unnecessary, learners tend to leave it to maintain the explicitness, andperhaps there is a psychological factor urging them to demonstrate their syntactic
knowledge as they were often so trained in their previous language learning experience.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate differences of textual features between
professional and learner translators. It was hypothesised that learner translator corpora
would present greater repetition which might result in more explicitness in theirrendition, while professional translators would incorporate more diverse syntactic andlexical choices. KWIC for Windows concordancing software was used to obtainstatistical data: type-token ratio and frequency count of which. The type-token ratios oflearner corpus were lower than that of professional corpus, suggesting that the syntactic
and lexical features of learner translators’ renditions have less colourfulness and variety.
The computational analytic results showed that learner texts involved higher frequencyof which, ranging from 6 times to 17 times higher than that of professional texts. A
tendency of overusing which was commonly found in the learner translators of thisstudy. Many instances showed that they did not opt for other cohesive devices but
almost always chose which for addition, elaboration and expansion. It is, thus, safe to
say that the results obtained from computational data as well as from the inductive data
both support the initial hypothesis.
However, in order to investigate whether the tendencies found among the learnertranslators under this study are problems common to other learner translators, I shouldlook into a learner translator corpus of a larger size. At the same time, in order to look
into the appropriateness of lexical choices by learner translators, I should investigate
lexical combinations and collocations. I would like to deal with them in my next
research project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------著者紹介： 中村幸子 (NAKAMURA Sachiko) 愛知淑徳大学文化創造学部非常勤講師。専門は Teaching English for Specific Purposes （目的・職業別英語教育）。主な論文に、「コンピュータ
教室を利用した通訳訓練法」（『JACET 中部支部紀要』第 4 号 51-61.2006 年）など。
連絡先: sachi@mse.biglobe.ne.jp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

156

Comparison of Features of Texts Translated by Professional and Learner Translators

References
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Oxon: Routledge.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Suggestions for
Future Research, Target 7 (2): 223-43.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House andBlum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse
and Cognition in translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar Second Edition. New
York: Arnold
Hatim, B and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman
Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation. Oxon: Routledge
Long, R.B. (1961). The Sentence and Its Parts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mizuno, A. (200７). Maegaki (Foreword) in Translation Studies Special Interest Group,
JAIS (Ed.) Honyaku kenkyu he no shotai (An Invitation to the Translation Studies inJapan), Tokyo: Japan Association of Interpreting Studies. 1-2.
Nakamura, S. (2002). A Study of Restrictive Collocational Relationships of Synonyms:
Synonym Grid as a Differentiation Tool. Master’s dissertation presented to Aston
University.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Exploration in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

157

翻訳研究への招待 2

158