The Translation of Lexical Collocations in Undergraduate Students’ Theses’ Abstract: Students Versus Google Translate

Authors

  • Clara Herlina Karjo Bina Nusantara University
  • Ecclesia Metta Bina Nusantara University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.6067

Keywords:

Google Translate, lexical collocations, translation error, students’ translation

Abstract

This research intended to compare the translations of lexical collocations found in the abstract section of students’ theses. The purposes were to find out the errors in translating lexical collocation either by Google Translate or student translator. The data were taken from twenty working papers of English Literature students at Binus University. The abstracts of these theses (in English and Indonesian) were then processed with Google Translate. Thus, there were four sets of data to analyze: (1) Students’ Text in Indonesian (STI), (2) Google Translate of STI in English (GTE), (3) Students’ Text in English (STE), and (4) Google Translate of STE in Indonesian (GTI). From the data, samples of collocations were taken and categorized based on Hill’s classification of lexical collocations. The lexical collocations found in the four sets of data were scrutinized, compared, and analyzed to find the errors in forms and meaning as well as in the translation. The results reveal that errors in translating collocations are mostly made by Google Translate rather than the students. This research implies that Google Translate still needs improvement in translating collocations, but it is also possible that translation errors occur because of students’ misuse of collocation.

Dimensions

Plum Analytics

Author Biographies

Clara Herlina Karjo, Bina Nusantara University

English Department, Faculty of Humanities

Ecclesia Metta, Bina Nusantara University

English Department, Faculty of Humanities

References

Agah, M., & Soori, A. (2015). Comparative study of collocation among the languages. Language in India, 15(1), 527–537.

Aiken, M. (2019). An updated evaluation of Google Translate accuracy. Studies in Linguistics and Literature, 3(3), 253–260. http://doi.org/10.22158/sll.v3n3p253.

Aiken, M., & Balan, S. (2011). An analysis of Google Translate accuracy. Translation Journal, 16(2), 25–32.

Al-Khresheh, M. H. (2016). A review study of contrastive analysis theory. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6), 49–59. http://doi.org/10.20474/jahss-2.6.5.

Allue, B. R. (2017). The reliability and limitations of Google Translate: A bilingual, bidirectional, and genre-based evaluation. Entreculturas, 9, 67–80.

Ambawani, S. (2014). Grammatical errors on Indonesian-English translation by Google Translate. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Aplikasi Sains & Teknologi. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. pp. 333–338.

Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translatoin (Third Edition). London: Routledge.

Dhakar, B. S., Sinha, S. K., & Pandey, K. K. (2013). A survey of translation quality of English to Hindi online translation systems (Google and Bing). International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(1), 2250–3153.

Ghasemi, H., & Hashemian, M. (2016). A comparative study of Google Translate translations: An error analysis of English-to-Persian and Persian-to-English translations. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 13–17. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p13.

Haghighi, H. (2018). A multifaceted approach to the translation of collocations from English to Persian. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(2), 8–25. http://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2018.03511.

Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach (p. 245). London: LTP.

House, J. (2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 241–264. http://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025487_13.

Ismail, A., & Hartono, R. (2016). Errors made in Google Translate in the Indonesian to English translation of news items texts. Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(2), 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v5i2.11228.

Jabak, O. O., Abdullah, S., & Mustapha, N. F. (2016). The difficulty of translating collocations from Arabic into English encountered by a sample of Arab students. SSRN, 3(1), 1-10.

Karami, O. (2014). The brief view on Google Translate machine. In Artificial Intelligence on Natural Language. Vienna: Vienna University of Technology.

Karjo, C. H. (2015). Toward a better use of Google Translate. Jakarta: Atma Jaya University.

Karjo, C. H. (2016). IT-based translation: How accurate are they? In KIMLI. Denpasar: MLI. pp. 128–131.

Koponen, M., & Salmi, L. (2015). On the correctness of machine translation: A machine translation post-editing task. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 23(23), 118–136.

Medvedev, G. (2016). Google Translate in teaching English. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 4(1), 181–193.

Napitupulu, S. (2017). Analysing Indonesian-English abstract translation errors by Google Translate. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 5(2), 15–23.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pârlog, H., & Punga, L. (2017). Difficulties of translating English collocations into Romanian. B.A.S. British and American Studies, 23, 255–274.

Raza, M. A., & Nor, F. M. (2018). Google Translate in EFL classroom. International Journal of Translation, 30(1), 7–21.

Setiawan, Y. (2014). English Translation errors in abstract of educational administration student of post graduate school of State University in Medan. Journal of Education, 7(1), 67–71.

Turovsky, B. (2016). Found in translation: More accurate, fluent sentences in Google Translate. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-

accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/.

Utami, S. (2017). The source of errors in Indonesian-English translation. Jurnal KATA, 1(2), 192–202.

Downloads

Published

2019-12-10
Abstract 1320  .
PDF downloaded 738  .