Translation errors made by fourth year english major students in specialized translation course (lỗi dịch của sinh viên năm cuối chuyên ngành ngôn ngữ anh trong học phần biên dịch chuyên ngành)

Employing a mixed design and error analysis method, the study examined student translations using an adapted model of translation error analysis by Na 2005, which categorizes errors into

INTRODUCTION

Statement of research problems and rationale for the study

Due to the rapid growth of world-wide trade and international organizations as well as the greater demand for cultural exchange, translation and interpreting services have been pivotal than ever before This critical role of translation in the globalized world was underscored by Newmark (2003, p

55), who asserted that there would be “no global communication without translation” The 21st-century with the burgeoning integration among different countries and languages enables translators and interpreters to leave their footprints in a wide range of fields such as industrial technology, healthcare, education, tourism, etc While they benefit from precious educational and occupational opportunities, they also face huge challenges in enhancing professional competence and qualifications The challenges may include the breakneck pace of technological advancements, particularly in machine translation and AI-powered tools (Bowker & Buitrago Ciro, 2019), the need for deep subject matter expertise in addition to their linguistic skills (Neubert, 2000), and rapidly evolving cultural nuances and shifts in communication styles across different societies (Bassnett, 2013) Such circumstance has imposed a heavy burden on training institutes of translation and interpreting for generating high-skilled practitioners, especially in the context that most training procedures, from course design and management to teaching together with testing and assessment have not been implemented in a professional and systematic manner with a solid theoretical framework (Tiến 1 , 2017)

Error analysis has been widely recognized as a crucial method for enhancing translation competence, offering valuable insights into the challenges faced by translators and the cognitive processes involved in translation (Klaudy, 2010) This systematic approach to identifying, categorizing, and understanding translation errors not only highlights common mistakes but also reveals underlying patterns in error occurrence, thereby informing more effective teaching and learning strategies (Wongranu,

2017) As Pym (2010) argued, error analysis serves as a bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical application in translation studies, enabling translators to develop a more critical and reflective approach to their work Moreover, Kussmaul (1995) emphasized that by examining errors, translators can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of cross- linguistic transfer, leading to improved accuracy and quality in their translations Recent studies have further demonstrated that integrating error analysis into translation training programs significantly enhances students‟ awareness of potential pitfalls and fosters the development of problem- solving skills essential for professional translation practice (Gabr, 2007; (Albir & Olalla-Soler, 2016) Thus, error analysis emerges as a fundamental tool in boosting translation competence, contributing to the continuous improvement of both novice and experienced translators in an increasingly globalized and specialized translation market

1 In this thesis, all Vietnamese authors were cited using their first names with diacritical marks (e.g., Tiến (2021)) This deviates from the standard APA 7th edition guidelines, which recommend using the author‟s family name There are two main reasons for my choice Firstly, many Vietnamese individuals share the same family name, making it difficult to distinguish between different authors without consulting the reference list Secondly, retaining diacritical marks preserves the cultural integrity of Vietnamese names and ensures accurate pronunciation

The researched participants have undergone two years of boosting their language competence together with accumulating valuable knowledge of linguistics, literature, cross-cultural communication as well as necessary skills such as presentation, teamwork, debate and research Also, they have learned three translation courses including Translation, Advanced translation and Translation Theory in advance It means that they have been early equipped with both language proficiency as well as fundamental translation knowledge and skills However, they are still green to the professional world with specialized translation projects of great length and high difficulty level, which makes them more vulnerable to translation errors

In the light of such context, the researcher decided to conduct the study entitled “Translation errors made by fourth-year English-major students in

Significance of the study

Firstly, this research distinguishes itself from previous domestic studies by analyzing students‟ translation errors within the context of a translation project rather than a conventional translation test This approach offers a more authentic representation of the translation process, mirroring real-world conditions where translators have access to diverse resources and are not constrained by rigid time limitations Furthermore, it provides students with the opportunity to hone their teamwork skills and practice time and workload management, thereby better preparing them for their future professional endeavors

Secondly, this study aims to make a significant contribution to the enhancement of translator training That is, by identifying and categorizing errors, lecturers can pinpoint common pitfalls and challenging areas for translation students This knowledge forms the foundation for implementing targeted error correction activities and developing tailored learning strategies Moreover, understanding common error patterns can foster increased self- awareness and self-improvement among students, encouraging reflective practice and continuous learning Additionally, comprehending the root causes of errors facilitates the development of preventive measures, enabling students to anticipate and circumvent common mistakes proactively

Thirdly, the study is expected to contribute to the evolution and refinement of translation quality assessment models This assertion is supported by House

(2015), who contends that a nuanced understanding of errors enables the creation of more sophisticated, equitable, and context-sensitive evaluation frameworks

Fourthly, in an era characterized by rapidly advancing language technologies, the analysis of translation errors can inform and improve machine translation systems Popović and Ney (2011) argue that error patterns identified in human translations can guide the development and refinement of algorithms used in machine translation

Lastly, the study‟s outcomes can serve as a valuable resource for Unit 6 in Translation Theory course, which focuses on translation errors By incorporating real-world examples and data-driven insights from this research, the course can offer students a more practical and relevant understanding of error analysis within the Vietnamese-English translation context.

Research aims, objectives and research questions

Given this context, this study focuses on enhancing students‟ translation quality through the following objectives: firstly, examining the patterns of Vietnamese-English translation errors that emerge in students‟ specialized text translations, despite their strong general language competence; secondly, investigating the causes of these errors to propose recommendations for improving teaching activities and materials in the Specialized Translation course

In line with these objectives, the research seeks to answer the following two questions:

1, What are the common Vietnamese-English translation errors made by English-major students in a translation project during the Specialized Translation course?

2, What are the causes of these errors?

The two research questions in this study are designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of translation errors in Vietnamese-English translation projects, as translation errors are considered an important indicator of a subject‟s translation competence (Orozco, 2000) The first question aims to identify and categorize the types of errors that occur most frequently This question seeks to create a detailed taxonomy of errors, which can serve as a foundation for understanding the specific challenges faced by Vietnamese students when translating into English The second question delves deeper into the underlying factors contributing to these translation mistakes This question aims to explore a range of potential causes, including those related to language proficiency, cultural knowledge gaps, interference from the source language, limitations in subject matter expertise, and issues stemming from the translation process itself By investigating the root causes of errors, this question seeks to provide insights that go beyond surface-level corrections, enabling a more profound understanding of the cognitive and practical challenges in translation Together, these questions aim to create a holistic picture of translation errors, linking the observable mistakes to their underlying causes, and thus providing a robust basis for developing targeted interventions in translation pedagogy and practice.

Scope of the study

The study is limited to undergraduate students who have completed basic translation courses and are engaged in more complex, specialized translations The research also examines only the translation of a part of a psychological research paper from Vietnamese to English, not other text types In investigating the causes of errors, the study considers factors related to the translators themselves, their training, and the source text, but does not explore external factors such as work environment or client specifications The research is conducted within a single academic institution, providing a focused perspective on a specific educational context While the findings may have broader implications for Vietnamese-English translation pedagogy, the study does not aim to generalize across all translation contexts or language pairs The timeframe of the study is limited to one academic semester, allowing for a snapshot of student performance at a particular stage of their translation education.

Research methodology

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to comprehensively address the research questions

For Research Question 1, focusing on types of errors, the study adopted a primarily qualitative method The main instrument was the students‟ translations of the psychological research excerpt These translations underwent rigorous document analysis to identify, classify, and quantify errors Errors were meticulously categorized into the three main types (comprehension, linguistic, and transfer) and their respective sub-types This qualitative analysis was supplemented by quantitative data in the form of error frequency calculations

For Research Question 2, investigating the causes of errors, the research began with a qualitative review of findings from similar studies to establish a conceptual framework of potential error causes This framework, structured around source text, translator, and classroom context factors, guided the subsequent qualitative phase Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the student translators to explore and confirm the causes of their errors These interviews provided rich, in-depth data on students‟ perspectives and experiences The qualitative data from the interviews was then analyzed thematically, correlating with the error types identified in the first phase The percentages of various causes were also quantitatively calculated to identify the most common ones Based on this comprehensive analysis, the study presented suggestions to mitigate the identified errors

This mixed-methods approach allows for a nuanced understanding of both the nature and causes of translation errors It combines the depth of qualitative analysis in error categorization and exploration of causal factors with quantitative insights through the calculation of error frequencies and the prevalence of various causes This comprehensive methodology provides a rich, multifaceted perspective on the complexities of student translation errors and their underlying factors.

Design of the thesis

The study consists of 5 main chapters Chapter 1 – Introduction illustrates a big picture of the research problem, rationale, aims, and scope of the study Chapter 2, Literature Review, provides a theoretical framework, including all significant concepts of the research Chapter 3 – Methodology depicts the research design, answering how the data was collected and analyzed

In Chapter 4 – Data Analysis, Findings, and Discussion, the main findings of the research are presented and accompanied by the researcher‟s discussion The last chapter is Conclusion, grasping all the main points of the research, including its findings, limitations, and suggestions for further studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Error analysis

The concept of “error” has been a subject of extensive discussion in linguistic and pedagogical literature, with various scholars offering nuanced definitions Corder (1967) provides a foundational distinction between “errors”, which reflect gaps in a learner‟s underlying competence, and “mistakes”, which are performance-related slips that learners can self- correct This differentiation is crucial in error analysis, as it focuses attention on systematic errors rather than occasional lapses Brown (2000) defines an error as “a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker”, emphasizing the comparison to a standard linguistic norm Ellis (1994) broadens this view, describing errors as deviations from the norms of the target language, acknowledging that these norms may vary in different contexts

Ellis‟s (1994) definition stands out as the most appropriate for this study, given its flexibility and context-sensitive approach to error identification This definition allows for the consideration of various linguistic and communicative norms, which is particularly relevant when dealing with language use across different settings and purposes Moreover, it aligns well with the study‟s focus on identifying and analyzing systematic deviations in language production, while also acknowledging the potential variability in what constitutes an “error” depending on the specific context of language use

Error Analysis (EA) has emerged as a crucial field in second language acquisition research, offering valuable insights into learners‟ language development processes Various linguists have contributed to defining and shaping the understanding of EA over the years

James (1988) describes it as an influential theory in second language acquisition, focusing on analyzing errors made by L2 learners by comparing their acquired norms with target language norms and explaining these errors Crystal (1999, p 108) defines it in the context of language teaching and learning as the study of unacceptable forms produced by language learners, particularly in foreign language acquisition

Brown (as cited in Ridha, 2012, p 26) characterizes EA as a process of observing, analyzing, and classifying deviations from second language rules to reveal the systems used by learners AbiSamara (2003) provides a concise definition, viewing it as a linguistic analysis type that concentrates on learners‟ errors

Corder (1967) emphasizes the value of EA for multiple stakeholders: teachers gain insight into student progress, researchers obtain evidence about language acquisition processes, and learners acquire resources for learning

He further argues that EA involves investigating the language of second language learners One key objective of EA, according to Corder, is to assist teachers in more accurately assessing the remedial work necessary for English as a Second Language (ESL) students preparing for language tests

Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) describes EA as a set of procedures for identifying, describing and explaining learners‟ errors, emphasizing that it goes beyond mere identification to explain why errors are made They argue that the study of errors is part of the investigation of the language learning process, providing teachers with insights into a learner‟s linguistic development

These varied definitions collectively highlight EA as a multifaceted approach that not only identifies and categorizes errors but also seeks to understand their origins and implications for language learning and teaching Among the various perspectives on EA, this study adopts Ellis and Barkhuizen‟s (2005) definition Their comprehensive view, emphasis on explanatory power, connection to the learning process, and acknowledgment of practical teaching implications align closely with my research‟s objectives

2.1.3 The significance of error analysis

EA has great significance for education and research since it brings benefits to language learners, language teachers and researchers

Firstly, it contributes significantly to learners‟ linguistic development by providing evidence that they are “actively trying out and experimenting with linguistic structures in the foreign language” (Dodds, 1999, p 58) This process allows learners to identify their mistakes and refine their understanding Once errors are analyzed and corrected, they serve as valuable feedback on the hypotheses learners are formulating about the target language, as errors are believed to contain insights into the strategies employed in language acquisition (Richards, 1980; Dulay & Burt, 1982) Corder (1967) posited that a learner‟s errors are not random but systematic (contrasting with the unsystematic errors that occur in one's native language) Furthermore, he argues that these errors are not detrimental to learning the target language; rather, they represent a necessary, positive, and facilitative factor indispensable to the learning process, offering significant indications of individual learner strategies

Secondly, EA also yielded substantial benefits for language teachers Learners‟ errors provide teachers with insights into the learning process, highlighting areas that require improvement and enabling them to identify the causes of errors and implement appropriate pedagogical interventions These errors offer valuable information about the challenges that learners face during second language acquisition and illuminate their learning and developmental strategies The results of EA can inform teachers about the efficacy of their teaching materials and techniques, revealing which aspects of the syllabus have been inadequately learned or taught and require further attention (Corder, 1973) James (2013) suggestes that EA guides teachers in determining what to teach It can inform the teacher about “how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn” Thus, EA is an invaluable teaching tool that should be handled judiciously and with awareness (Khansir, 2012) By providing deep insights into learners‟ second language acquisition processes, EA helps language teachers identify problematic areas of language learning Through studying the evolution of errors in L2 learners‟ continuous learning process, teachers can anticipate likely errors and prepare instructional remedial materials accordingly

For researchers, EA serves as a valuable tool in advancing our understanding of language acquisition and use Corder (1967) argued that errors provide evidence of the learners‟ developing language system, offering insights into the strategies and processes involved in language learning This view is supported by Selinker (1972), who uses error analysis to explore the concept of interlanguage, shedding light on the systematic nature of learner errors Ellis (1994) emphasized how EA contributes to theoretical models of language learning, helping researchers refine hypotheses about language acquisition mechanisms Moreover, error analysis has played a crucial role in developing and testing linguistic theories As noted by Gass and Selinker

(2008), the study of errors has informed debates on universal grammar and the role of first language transfer in second language acquisition In the field of psycholinguistics, EA has been instrumental in investigating cognitive processes underlying language production and comprehension (Fromkin,

1973) Additionally, Spada & Lightbown (2006) highlighted how EA findings have influenced the development of language teaching methodologies, bridging the gap between theoretical research and practical applications Through these diverse applications, EA continues to be an indispensable research method, driving innovation in linguistics and applied language studies

2.1.4 Steps to conduct error analysis

Error analysis frameworks vary in their complexity and number of steps Pinker (1986) proposes a four-step model: (1) collecting appropriate language samples, (2) detecting errors in the sample, (3) identifying and describing errors, and (4) classifying errors based on their hypothesized cause Pinker notes that the third step presents significant challenges due to the lack of universally accepted criteria for linguistic error categorization, highlighting an academic gap in this area

Gass & Selinker (2008) offer a more detailed approach, encompassing: data collection (typically through compiling a learner corpus), error identification and classification, error quantification, source analysis (distinguishing between interference and developmental errors), and remediation, emphasizing the pedagogical goals of error analysis

This thesis adopts Corder‟s (1974) comprehensive six-step framework:

(1) data collection, (2) error identification, (3) description of identified errors,

Translation errors

The notion of translation has been conceptualized differently by various scholars in the field, with definitions evolving to encompass a more comprehensive understanding of the process

Catford (1965) initially conceptualizes translation as the replacement of textual material in one language with equivalent material in another Building on this linguistic approach, Nida and Taber (1974) emphasizes the importance of natural expression, defining translation as reproducing the Source Text (ST) in the Target Text (TT) using the closest natural equivalent in terms of meaning and style These early definitions laid the groundwork for understanding translation as more than a mere word-for-word substitution

Wilss (1982) broadens the scope by highlighting the multifaceted nature of translation, emphasizing that it requires syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic understanding and analytical processing of the source language Newmark (1988) focuses on the intentionality aspect, defining translation as rendering the meaning of a text into another language as intended by the original author

Ordudari (2007) provides a more inclusive definition, encompassing both written and spoken language transfer “translation typically has been used to transfer written or spoken SL texts to equivalent written or spoken TL texts.” This definition stands out as the most comprehensive and reasonable because it acknowledges that translation applies to both written and oral forms of communication, broadening the scope beyond earlier definitions that often focused primarily on written texts

While the term “error” is broadly defined as a mistake that potentially impacts outcomes (Oxford Learner‟s Dictionaries), the concept of “translation error” requires further scholarly exploration In the context of translation, viewed as the production of a TT from a ST, errors emerge from the intrinsic relationship between these two texts (Gambier & van Doorslaer, 2010) Essentially, translation errors manifest when the transfer process from ST to

TT is compromised These aberrations can take various forms, including factual inaccuracies, terminological or stylistic inconsistencies, misinterpretations of the translation brief or ST content, and failures to accurately convey the ST‟s meaning (Hansen, 2010)

The interpretation of translation errors is contingent upon prevailing translation theories and norms (Hansen, 2010) Nord (1997), adopting a functionalist approach, defines translation errors as elements that impede the fulfillment of a translation‟s specific function for its target audience Conversely, from an equivalence-based perspective, translation errors are conceptualized as instances of non-equivalence between ST and TT, or inadequacies in the TT (Dewi, 2015) Neubert & Shreve (1992, p.5) offered a nuanced view, suggesting that “What rightly appears to be linguistically equivalent may very frequently qualify as translationally nonequivalent”, highlighting the complex nature of translation fidelity beyond mere linguistic correspondence

Among the various interpretations of translation errors discussed, Nord‟s (1997) functionalist approach stands out as the most robust and all- encompassing because of three reasons First of all, it prioritizes the reader‟s experience, emphasizing how errors affect the intended audience and the overall communicative goal Secondly, it provides a practical benchmark for error identification: any element that compromises the translation‟s intended function Lastly, Nord‟s perspective extends beyond mere linguistic comparisons, considering the translation's broader objectives and cultural implications.

Translation error taxonomies

Besides the issue of definition, the classification of errors also draws a lot of attention from researchers It seems that there is an absence of unified framework for the division of translation errors due to their complex nature

Richards (1971) identifies three types of errors: a) interference errors generated by L1 transfer; b) intralingual errors resulting from incorrect (incomplete or overgeneralized) application of language rules; and c) developmental errors caused by the construction of faulty hypotheses in L2

Newmark (1988) proposes two types of translation errors: referential and linguistic He defines referential errors as those “about facts, the real world, propositions not words” [8: 189] Linguistic errors, on the other hand, stem from the translator‟s lack of competence in areas such as articles, prepositions, punctuation, tense, voice, subject-verb agreement, word choice, spelling, collocations, and idioms

Pym (1992) distinguishes between binary and non-binary errors Binary errors are clearly wrong mistakes, such as mistranslating “book” as “livre” in Spanish instead of “libro” Non-binary errors refer to varying degrees of translation inadequacy, for example, choosing “residence” instead of “home” when translating “maison” from French to English in a context where “home” would be more natural or appropriate

Nord (1997) suggests four types of translation problems: pragmatic, cultural, linguistic, and text-specific Pragmatic errors result from the translator‟s failure to solve problems related to latent messages in the source text Cultural errors occur due to mismatches between cultural issues in the source and target texts Linguistic errors stem from shortcomings in language structure translation Text-specific errors relate to the inappropriateness of the equivalent translation for target readers

Nowak (2006) divides translation errors into five categories: 1) Mistranslating terms and phraseological units; 2) Terminological errors; 3) Grammatical errors; 4) Inappropriate style; and 5) Punctuation errors Meanwhile, The American Translators Association (ATA, 2016) proposes a comprehensive list of 23 error types for evaluating translators‟ work, including addition, ambiguity, capitalization, cohesion, diacritical marks/accents, faithfulness, faux ami, grammar, illegibility, indecision, literalness, mistranslation, misunderstanding, omission, punctuation, register, spelling, style, syntax, terminology, unfinished work, usage, and word form/part of speech

While these taxonomies offer valuable insights into the categorization of translation errors, each of them has limitations Richards‟ (1971) model, though foundational, focuses primarily on language learning errors and may not fully capture the complexities of professional translation Newmark‟s binary division, while clear, might oversimplify the nuanced nature of translation errors Pym‟s (1992) binary/non-binary distinction, though useful, lacks specific categories for practical application Nord‟s (1997) model addresses cultural and pragmatic aspects but may not provide enough granularity for detailed error analysis Nowak‟s categorization, while more specific, might not cover all aspects of translation quality The ATA‟s extensive list, although comprehensive, could be unwieldy for quick assessments and may lead to inconsistencies in application due to potential overlap between categories

These models, while each contributing valuable perspectives, often lack a balanced approach that considers both the cognitive processes of translation and the linguistic manifestations of errors This gap underscores the need for a more integrated model that addresses both the causes and manifestations of translation errors, which will be revealed in the next section.

Chosen error classification model

2.4.1 Error classification model by Na (2005)

Na (2005) proposes a comprehensive error classification model specifically tailored for analyzing Vietnamese-English translations, with a focus on topic-comment structures This model categorizes translation errors into three main types: comprehension errors, linguistic errors, and transfer errors

The model is based on the translation process consisting of three stages: (a) analysis of the source text, (b) transfer, and (c) synthesis of the target text (Nida, 1982; Nord, 1992) It also incorporates necessary competencies adapted from Nida (1982): (a) linguistic and comprehension competence in the source language, (b) transfer competence, and (c) cultural and linguistic competence in the target language Accordingly, comprehension errors are expected to be found at stage 1, linguistic errors at stage 2, and transfer errors at stage 3 (Na, 2005)

Figure 1 Model of translation error analysis (Na, 2005)

Comprehension errors occur when the translator misunderstands or fails to grasp the full meaning of the source text These errors can lead to significant mistranslations as they stem from a misinterpretation of the original message

Linguistic errors are related to incorrect usage of the target language

(English) in terms of grammar, vocabulary, or idioms This category is further subdivided into: a) Grammatical errors (mistakes in tense, aspect, voice, or agreement); b) Syntactical errors (issues with sentence structure or word order); c) Morphological errors: (incorrect word formation or inflection); d) Collocational errors: (improper word combinations or phrases); e) Inappropriate word form (using the wrong part of speech or word category)

Transfer errors arise when the translator inappropriately carries over structures or expressions from the source language (Vietnamese) into the target language These include: a) Pragmatic errors (failing to convey the intended meaning or tone); b) Omission (leaving out important information from the source text); c) Addition: (including unnecessary information not present in the source text); d) Inaccurate rendition of individual lexical items (mistranslating specific words or phrases); e) Distorted meaning of the source text (Altering the overall message of the original); f) Too free translation (Deviating too far from the source text‟s structure or content); g) Too literal translation (adhering too closely to the source text‟s structure, resulting in unnatural English); h) Wrong lexical choice (selecting inappropriate words or terms in the target language); i) Wrong focus of attention (emphasizing the wrong elements of the source text in the translation)

2.4.2 The adapted error classification model and justifications

The model for translation error analysis in this study is adapted from

Na (2005) because of several compelling reasons Primarily, this classification system stands out for its clarity, well-organized structure, and comprehensive approach Unlike the ATA (2016) model, which primarily focuses on linguistic competence, Na (2005)‟s model encompasses a broader range of translators‟ challenges, providing a more holistic view of translation errors

A key strength of this model lies in its reflection of the translation process itself By categorizing errors into comprehension, transfer, and production stages, it offers valuable insights into where students encounter the most significant difficulties This structure not only aids in pinpointing specific areas of struggle but also facilitates the development of targeted interventions in translation pedagogy

Furthermore, the hierarchical nature of Na (2005)‟s model enables systematic categorization of errors This systematic approach is instrumental in identifying patterns and trends in student mistakes, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of common error types and their potential causes

Notably, Na (2005) develops this model specifically for Vietnamese university students majoring in English This contextual alignment provides crucial cultural and linguistic relevance to my study By using a model tailored to Vietnamese learners, this research can more accurately capture and analyze the unique challenges faced by students in this specific educational and cultural context

Generally, the three main types of errors, namely comprehension errors, linguistic errors and translation errors are still remained but the number of subtypes has been reduced for easier analysis and avoidance of overlapping among these types

Figure 2 Adapted model of translation error analysis

Firstly, comprehension errors have been classified into

“misunderstanding of the syntax” and “misunderstanding of the lexis” By examining these distinct categories, the study aims to shed light on the underlying linguistic factors contributing to comprehension difficulties during translation

Secondly, within the group of linguistic errors, syntactical errors and inappropriate word form have been removed because they all belong to grammatical errors In addition, after reviewing students‟ translations, inconsistency, a new sub-type, has been added to this group Inconsistency occurs when a writer uses different words, terms, or phrasing to refer to the same concept or idea within the same text This can create confusion for the reader and undermine the coherence of the writing

Thirdly, “pragmatic errors”, “wrong lexical choice”, “wrong focus of attention” have been eliminated from the group of transfer errors In particular, the specific nature of the translation task in this study - a psychological research text - may not frequently elicit pragmatic errors due to its more formal and academic context The term “inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items” already encompasses the concept of selecting incorrect or inappropriate words, which is essentially what “wrong lexical choice” refers to To streamline the classification and avoid redundancy, it is reasonable to remove the specific category of “wrong lexical choice” “Wrong focus of attention” refers to errors that occur when the translator or language learner places emphasis or attention on the wrong elements or aspects of the source text, resulting in a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the intended meaning However, this category can often be subsumed under the existing categories of addition, omission, or distortion For example, if the wrong focus of attention leads to the addition of irrelevant information, it can be categorized as an addition error Similarly, if it leads to the omission of important details, it can be classified as an omission error If the wrong focus of attention distorts the meaning or alters the intended message, it can be considered a distortion error.

Previous studies

The field of translation studies has seen extensive research on translation errors, their types, causes, and potential remedies This section presents a comprehensive review of relevant studies conducted both in Vietnam and internationally These studies have examined various aspects of translation errors across different language pairs, with a particular focus on Vietnamese-English translation in the Vietnamese context The following table summarizes key findings from these studies, including the research instruments used, error classifications employed, most common error types identified, causes of errors, and recommendations for improvement By examining these studies collectively, the researcher can identify patterns, differences, and potential gaps in the current understanding of translation errors, providing a solid foundation f or the present research

Table 1 Overview of studies on translation errors

Author Instrument Classification of errors

Linguistic errors, comprehension errors, and translation errors grammatical errors and syntactic errors

Lack of practice or pressure of time, contextual misunderstanding, knowing the grammatical rule but failing to apply in rendering the structures from Vietnamese to English

Enhance teamwork or group discussion, provide students with well-defined strategies for translation, help students recognize errors themselves

Linguistic errors, comprehension errors, and translation errors

Linguistic errors (morphological and collocational errors); translation errors (lexical choice)

Insufficient linguistic knowledge, poor structural understanding

Incorporate collocational dictionaries, online resources, and lexical databases into translation tasks Hòa (2014) Vietnamese-

Linguistic errors (prepositions, verb tenses and word forms); translation errors (lexical choice)

The interference of mother tongue in the process of translating, lack of vocabulary and grammar, lack of knowledge of translation fields, insufficient translation skills and inappropriate translation methods

Practice translating, improve vocabulary, grammar, translation skills

Not available Not available - Enhance grammatical proficiency, focusing on the structural differences between English and Vietnamese

Author Instrument Classification of errors

- Expand exposure to diverse authentic materials to broaden contextual understanding

- Intensify collaborative proofreading and implement rigorous cross-verification processes Hằng &

Linguistic errors and translational errors

Within linguistic errors, lexical choice was the most serious problem; within translational errors, lengthy and awkward expressions are the most frequently committed, followed by misuse of terminologies

Influence of mother tongue, poor language competence, lack of motivation, lack of concentration, misuse of dictionary

Improve language competence, expose to authentic language, active discussion with lecturer, read more reference materials to enhance background knowledge

Rendition errors, language errors, miscellaneous errors

Time limitation of translation training, unique register of Islamic texts, and culture differences between Iran and English countries

Thai to English translation task

Syntactic errors, semantic errors and miscellaneous errors

Syntactic errors Translation procedures, carelessness, low self-confidence, and anxiety

More class time, more authentic translation text and group work to increase self- confidence and decrease anxiety Utami

Global errors, local errors, and other errors (fragment and unclear)

Local errors Generalize the structure of the target language, create their own structure due to their limited knowledge of the target language

Author Instrument Classification of errors

Not available Not available Their unawareness of the meaning conveyed in the original text, limited English proficiency, improper use of word-by-word translation technique, and lack of confidence in making sentence transformation

Improve learners‟ language proficiency and background knowledge

Linguistic errors, comprehension errors, and translation errors

Translation errors (inaccurate renditions of lexical item - the most common) and linguistic errors (syntax and collocations - most frequently committed)

Inter-lingual, intra- lingual interference, integration of the source and target language

- Pay attention to transfer competence, particularly lexical choice, and linguistic competence with syntax and word collocations

- Help students avoid the habit of mother tongue thinking in English and in translation

Lexical errors, morphological errors, syntactic errors

Syntactic errors - Translator: lack of knowledge, inability to compose correct grammar of the target language, not consulting with dictionary or employing translation machine

- Source text: bad quality of the source text, unclear sentences, and incoherent idea of the source text

26 errors according to ATA Framework for Standardized Error Making grammar, syntax, and faithfulness errors

Extratextual factors such as sender, intention, recipient, medium, time, motive, and text function

Practice translating, more peer check, understand English grammar rules

Tùng (2019) Language-related Unclear Limited language - Strengthen language

Author Instrument Classification of errors

Causes of errors Recommendations errors, personal experience- related errors, knowledge- related errors proficiency, lack of professional experience, lack of background knowledge skills

- Introduce sources for translation practice

Not available Grammatical issues, lexical choices, rhetorical problems, pragmatic problems, and cultural issues

Not available Lack of vocabularies, misinterpretation of an idiomatic expression, figurative language, and implicit meaning, dissimilarities among cultural references and terms, the influence of the first language, and misunderstanding of English structure rules

Grammatical errors, lexical errors, literal translation

Grammatical errors Students‟ insufficient cultural background, limited linguistic proficiency in English and Vietnamese, students‟ unsuitable translation tactics, Vietnamese interference, misunderstanding, and carelessness

- Focus on grammar (differences between Vietnamese and English structures)

- Improve specialized knowledge through seminars and talk shows with experts

Syntactic errors, semantic errors, pragmatic errors, translation- specific errors

Semantic errors and pragmatic errors

Linguistic inaccuracy, amateurism, and irresponsibility

Translation task Translational errors, linguistic errors

Linguistic errors Limited language proficiency, structural difference between English and Vietnamese

Word order, grammatical errors and lexical errors

Grammatical errors and lexical errors

Influence of mother tongue, lack of self- study time, lack of vocabulary (collocations), lack of cultural background

- More careful source text analysis, self- study, suitable translation strategies

Author Instrument Classification of errors

Thai to English translation task

Syntactic errors, semantic errors, miscellaneous errors

Syntactic errors Translation procedures, low self- confidence, carelessness, and anxiety

More class time, more authentic translation text and group work to increase self- confidence and decrease anxiety Dân (2023) Vietnamese-

Use of a word in the wrong context

Complex technical jargon in a specialized field, different meanings of words in varying contexts

Grammatical, lexical, and spelling errors

Grammatical errors The difference between English and Vietnamese, inadequate culture background, students‟ insufficient linguistic competence in English language and Vietnamese language, lack of cultural background knowledge, students‟ inappropriate translation strategies, interference of Vietnamese, misunderstanding, and students‟ carelessness

- Spend more time reviewing English grammar or practicing doing many exercises on grammar

- Read more texts/ articles or authentic resources in English to have better understanding of how the English words are used in specific contexts

Regarding research instruments, all previous research relied on translation tests or small translation tasks, rather than translation projects, as their primary instruments For instance, the studies conducted by Na (2005), Cúc (2018), Uyên et al (2022), and Koman et al (2019) all employed translation tests Other researchers like Hòa (2014), Dân (2023), Hà et al

(2015), and Dung & Ngọc (2023) used translation tasks, often involving translating sentences rather than complete texts The two instruments, while convenient, have significant drawbacks First of all, translation tests, typically conducted under time constraints in a controlled environment, may not accurately reflect the true competence of translators The artificial time pressure can lead to errors that might not occur in a real-world setting where translators have more time to research, revise, and refine their work Moreover, the test environment itself can induce anxiety or stress in participants, potentially causing errors that are more reflective of test conditions than actual translation ability Secondly, translation tasks often involve translating isolated sentences or short passages, failing to assess crucial translation skills such as maintaining consistency in terminology and style throughout a longer document, or handling text-level issues like cohesion and coherence As a result, the errors identified through translation tests or tasks may not provide a comprehensive or accurate picture of a translator‟s true capabilities or the challenges faced in professional translation work

Regarding the classification of errors, there is considerable variation among the studies, reflecting the complexity of translation error analysis Firstly, a significant number of researchers, including Na (2005), Popescu

(2013), Dân (2023), Hà et al (2015), and Cúc (2018), favored a tripartite classification system comprising comprehension, linguistic, and translation errors This classification is widely adopted due to its comprehensive coverage of the translation process, including three stages: (a) analysis of the source text, (b) transfer, and (c) synthesis of the target text (Na, 2005) However, Hòa (2014), Hằng & Hằng (2015), and Dung et al (2021) narrowed down the classification to two types of errors: linguistic errors and translation errors This simplification might offer easier categorization but potentially at the cost of losing nuance in error analysis, particularly regarding comprehension issues Some researchers even expanded their classification to include four or more categories For instance, Syahrir & Hartina (2021) broadened their classification to include grammatical issues, lexical choices, rhetorical problems, pragmatic problems, and cultural issues, offering a more detailed breakdown of potential error sources Koman et al (2019) employed the American Translators Association (ATA) framework, which includes 26 error categories While this extensive categorization provides a highly detailed analysis, it may prove cumbersome in practice and could lead to overlapping categories Moreover, the framework primarily focuses on linguistic aspects, potentially overlooking other crucial elements of translation quality (Koby & Champe, 2013) As Secară (2005) pointed out, such detailed frameworks “can become difficult to manage in practice” (p 39), especially when dealing with large volumes of text or multiple translations

Regarding the most common types of errors, there is some consistency across studies Grammatical and lexical errors were frequently cited as the most prevalent Specifically, Na (2005), Dung & Ngọc (2023), Hoa (2021), and Uyên et al (2022) all found grammatical errors to be the most common The prevalence of grammatical errors across multiple studies suggests that linguistic accuracy remains a persistent challenge in translation, regardless of the specific language pair or context This consistency highlights the importance of strong grammatical foundations in both the source and target languages for effective translation Lexical errors, including inaccurate renditions of lexical items and inappropriate word choices, were also frequently cited as common errors (Hòa, 2014; Hằng & Hằng, 2015; Cúc, 2018; Uyên et al., 2022) The frequent occurrence of this kind of error underscores the complexity of finding appropriate equivalents across languages and cultures, which suggests that translator training should focus not only on language competence but also on developing strong transfer skills and strategies

The causes of errors showed significant overlap across studies

Common factors included mother tongue interference, lack of language competence, limited background knowledge, and inappropriate translation strategies (Hòa, 2014; Chi, 2018; Dung & Ngọc, 2023; Uyên et al., 2022) These findings were consistent across studies from different countries, suggesting some universal challenges in translation However, some studies highlighted unique factors For example, Kafipour & Jahanshahi (2015) noted the unique register of Islamic texts as a factor, while Ngọc et al (2021) mentioned amateurism and irresponsibility

Recommendations for mitigating errors were fairly consistent across studies Common suggestions included enhancing language proficiency, improving background knowledge, increasing translation practice, and implementing peer review processes However, the specificity of these recommendations varied For example, Cúc (2018) offered specific recommendations, emphasizing the need to pay attention to transfer competence, particularly lexical choice, and to help students avoid the habit of mother tongue thinking in English and in translation

Based on the review of previous studies, several research gaps have been identified which the present study aims to address Firstly, while existing research has predominantly relied on translation tasks or tests (Na, 2005; Hòa, 2014; Cúc, 2018; Dung & Ngọc, 2023), this study utilized a full translation project which can capture the multifaceted nature of translation competence (Kelly, 2005) That is because translation projects focus on the entire translation process including research, drafting, and revision while translation tests or tasks only assess the final product, overlooking crucial aspects of the translation process Secondly, while earlier scholarly works adopted different error classification systems, they often struggle to provide a clear, comprehensive, and process-oriented view of translation errors The reason is they may overemphasize certain aspects of translation (like linguistics) while underrepresenting others (like comprehension or transfer issues) This study, however, classified errors into three main categories: comprehension, linguistic, and transfer errors, aligning with the approaches of Na (2005), Dân

(2023), and Hà et al (2015) This classification directly corresponds to the stages of the translation process: understanding the source text, expressing in the target language, and transferring meaning between languages Finally, while previous research has presented causes of errors in various ways, this study aims to systematically categorize these causes into three distinct groups: source text-related, translator-related, and training-related factors This structured approach to error causation, not explicitly used in the reviewed studies, could offer a more comprehensive understanding of why errors occur and how they might be mitigated By addressing these gaps, the present study seeks to contribute a more holistic and nuanced understanding of translation errors in the Vietnamese-English context.

Conceptual framework for the causes of translation errors

While prior investigations have identified various causes of translation errors, existing literature lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework specifically addressing these causes In addition, the causes tend to be presented in an unstructured manner This study, therefore, proposes a more organized conceptual framework for understanding the factors contributing to translation problems

Based on previous findings and input from experienced lecturers teaching the Specialized Translation course, the causes of translation errors have been systematically categorized into three main groups: causes related to the source text, causes related to the translators, and causes related to classroom training

The framework not only offers a more nuanced understanding of the origins of translation errors but also informs targeted strategies for improving translation quality through text selection, translator skill development, or enhancements to training programs

Table 2 Causes related to the source text

No Causes related to the source text

Further descriptions (if any) Source

- High level of linguistic complexity -Specialized or technical vocabulary

2 Ambiguity - Unclear or vague phrasing in the source text

- Multiple possible interpretations of words or phrases

Silalahi, Rafli, and Rasyid (2018); Dân

- Highly specialized or technical content

Suggestion from other lecturers teaching the Specialized

- Vastly different grammatical structures (e.g., subject-verb-object vs subject-object-verb)

- Absence of grammatical features in one language that exist in the other (e.g., grammatical number, articles)

Na (2005); Hòa (2014); Hằng & Hằng (2015); Utami (2017); Cúc (2018); Syahrir & Hartina (2021); Hoa (2021); Uyên et al (2022); Dung & Ngọc

Table 3 Causes related to the translators

No Causes related to the translators

Further descriptions (if any) Source

- Insufficient mastery of English (target language)

- Limited vocabulary, especially in specialized fields

- Weak grasp of complex grammatical structures

Tùng (2019); Popescu (2013); Hằng & Hằng (2015); Chi

(2018), Silalahi, Rafli, and Rasyid (2018); Hoa (2021); Dung et al (2021); Dung & Ngọc (2023)

2 Lack of subject matter expertise

- Lack of specialized knowledge in particular fields (e.g., legal, medical, technical)

Difficulty comprehending complex concepts in the source text

Tùng (2019); Hòa (2014); Hoa (2021); Uyên et al

3 Limited research and resource utilization skills

- Ineffective use of dictionaries, glossaries, and other reference materials

- Poor ability to find and verify information on unfamiliar topics

4 Lack of attention to detail

- Carelessness or overlooking subtle nuances in the text

Wongranu (2017); Hoa (2021); Ngọc et al (2021); Duklim (2022); Dung & Ngọc

- Fatigue affecting concentration and performance

- Stress or anxiety impacting decision-making during translation

Hằng & Hằng (2015); Wongranu (2017); Chi (2018); Duklim

- Excessive dependence on machine translation without proper post-editing

Chi (2018); Silalahi, Rafli, and Rasyid (2018)

Table 4 Causes related to classroom training

No Causes related to classroom training

1 Insufficient practice and discussion time

- Limited hours dedicated to practice activities and discussion with the lecturer

- Lack of individualized feedback on translations

- Lack of in-class practice activities

- Lack of detailed guidelines on how to implement a translation project (source text analysis, translation methods, CAT tools, etc.)

- Limited training in identifying and correcting one's own translation errors, proofreading and editing skills

Suggestion from other lecturers teaching the Specialized

- Lack of related research in the psychological field, especially those in English

Suggestion from other lecturers teaching the Specialized

METHODOLOGY

Research questions

On the basis of three objectives mentioned in the Introduction, two research questions of the study are raised as follows:

- What are the common Vietnamese-English translation errors made by English-major students in a translation project during the Specialized translation course?

- What are the causes of these errors?

In formulating the research questions, careful consideration was given to their structure and scope to ensure they would yield comprehensive and meaningful results The choice of “what” questions for both inquiries was deliberate, aiming to facilitate an open-ended approach that allows for a rich exploration of both the types of translation errors and their underlying causes (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Pine, 2008) This open-ended nature provides room for emerging knowledge and unexpected findings, particularly crucial in the complex field of specialized translation The questions are designed to accommodate both qualitative and quantitative data, enabling a mixed- methods approach This methodological triangulation enhances the validity and objectivity of the results, a strategy widely recognized in research (Klein, 2012; McNiff, 2013) Furthermore, the questions were formulated with feasibility and practicality in mind, as suggested by Pine (2008) By specifically focusing on English-major students in a specific translation project within the Specialized Translation course, the research is contextualized within a manageable scope, allowing for an in-depth investigation within the confines of the researcher‟s academic environment This contextualization ensures that the research and its subsequent findings are directly relevant to the specific educational setting, rather than attempting to produce broadly generalizable results The dual focus on both the errors themselves and their causes also provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and potentially improving translation competence in specialized contexts.

Research design

This study employs a mixed methods research design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches to address the research questions comprehensively Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) define mixed methods research as a methodology that involves collecting, analyzing, and integrating both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies to gain a more complete understanding of a research problem The quantitative component typically involves numerical data collection and statistical analysis, providing breadth and generalizability to the findings (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) In contrast, the qualitative aspect focuses on in-depth exploration of participants' experiences and perspectives, often through interviews, observations, or document analysis, offering rich, contextual insights (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011)

The integration of these two approaches in mixed methods research offers several advantages First of all, it allows for triangulation of data, enhancing the validity and reliability of results (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,

1989) Additionally, it provides a more comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena, compensating for the limitations of each individual method (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) This approach is particularly valuable in educational research, where the complexity of learning environments and processes often requires multiple perspectives to be fully understood and explained (Johnson & Christensen, 2014)

For the first research question, which explored different types of translation errors, document analysis was utilized as a qualitative method (Bowen, 2009) This allowed for an in-depth examination of translated texts, identifying and categorizing various error types Complementing this qualitative approach, a quantitative analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of errors, expressed as percentages, providing a clear statistical representation of error distribution

The second research question, focusing on the causes of translation errors, primarily relied on interviews as a qualitative method (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015) These interviews offered rich, contextual data on factors contributing to translation errors Subsequently, a quantitative analysis of the interview data was performed to establish the frequency of different causes, allowing for a numerical representation of the most common error sources

The first research question in this study was primarily addressed through the document analysis Within this method, error analysis was employed as a specific analytical technique for examining students‟ translations Document analysis involves finding, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing data contained in documents (O‟Leary, 2014) This technique is popular among scholars, firstly, because of its cost-effectiveness and availability, as it often utilizes existing data that does not require extensive fieldwork (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) Secondly, the technique provides stable data that can be reviewed repeatedly without being altered by the research process or the researcher‟s influence (Yin, 2018) Thirdly, it works well in combination with other qualitative research methods Specifically, it can be used to triangulate findings from interviews or observations, enhancing the credibility of a study (Patton, 2015)

Interviews are conceptualized as purposeful conversations aimed at collecting detailed descriptions of the interviewee‟s experiences and perspectives Kvale (1996: 174) describes an interview as a dialogue intended to gather accounts of the interviewee‟s life-world, with a focus on interpreting the meanings of the described phenomena

Interviews can be categorized into four main types Firstly, structured interviews are characterized by predetermined questions requiring brief, often yes/no responses, offering little flexibility to both interviewer and interviewee (Berg, 2007) In contrast, open-ended or unstructured interviews provide greater freedom in content and question organization, allowing interviewers to pursue interesting developments and interviewees to elaborate on various issues (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002; Dửrnyei, 2007) The third type, semi- structured interviews, strikes a balance between the two, offering flexibility while maintaining focus This approach allows for in-depth probing within the study‟s parameters, often guided by a basic checklist (Rubin & Rubin, 2005; Berg, 2007) Lastly, focus group interviews involve a purposive sample of participants discussing a specific topic, though not necessarily representative of the entire population (Barbour & Schostak, 2005)

To address the second research question about the causes of translation errors, semi-structured interviews were employed This method is favored due to its balance of structure and flexibility Specifically, it allows researchers to address specific topics of interest while remaining open to unexpected insights and participant perspectives (Galletta, 2013) Kallio et al (2016) highlighted that semi-structured interviews enable researchers to delve deeper into complex issues, providing rich, detailed data that can capture the nuances of participants‟ experiences The in-depth talk‟s flexibility permits interviewers to adapt their questioning based on the participants‟ responses, exploring emerging themes in real-time (Brinkmann, 2014)

In this study, the researcher conducted semi-structured group interviews with five groups, each consisting of 7-8 students For each group, 3-4 students were selected for the interview This selection was deemed sufficient as all students had previously engaged in cross-checking and reviewing each other‟s work during the project, ensuring familiarity with the entire translation even if they hadn‟t translated every section personally Each group interview lasted approximately 30-40 minutes and was audio-recorded for later analysis The interview protocol included both open-ended and close- ended questions to explore the causes of translation errors comprehensively During the interview, the researcher presented each type of error, accompanied by typical examples from the students‟ work Students were asked to explain their thought processes behind these translations In cases where students struggled to determine causes, they were presented with a pre- prepared list of potential causes to choose from (Chapter 2, Section 2.6), ensuring that all possible factors were considered Importantly, when students mentioned a new cause not on the prepared list, it was added to the list of causes This dynamic approach allowed for the capture of unforeseen factors contributing to translation errors

Following the discussions, the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim The researcher utilized the search function (Ctrl+F) in Microsoft Word on the transcribed text for frequency calculation of each cause and identify the most common causes of translation errors This quantitative aspect complemented the qualitative insights gathered during the interviews, providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the quality of students‟ translations

The researched university is a prestigious institution renowned for its excellence in language education, translation, and interpreting As a top institution for translation and interpreting, it plays a crucial role in developing skilled linguists and cultural mediators who contribute significantly to Vietnam‟s growing integration into the global community The university‟s graduates are highly sought after in various sectors requiring language expertise, including diplomacy, international business, education, and media

The Specialized Translation course is a comprehensive 15-week program designed to develop students‟ skills in translating complex, field- specific texts Throughout the course, students engage in six distinct translation projects, working collaboratively in groups of 7-8 members The course structure emphasizes a hands-on, project-based approach to learning For each project, students participate in a series of activities designed to enhance their translation competencies such as: forming specialized glossaries relevant to the project‟s subject matter; explicating specialized terms and acquiring necessary background knowledge; engaging in group discussions to analyze the source text and identify potential translation problems; collaboratively developing strategies to address identified translation challenges; and conducting peer reviews and providing feedback on each other‟s work

In each project, the lecturer plays the role of an instructor or mentor to guide learners through phases of the project; an advisor to help learners address challenges related to background knowledge underpinning the source texts and jargons; a controller of translation quality by giving feedback and evaluation on learners‟ translated texts Students, on the other hand, are at the center of the course, proactively planning for the implementation of the translation projects, time management, and other activities related to the projects, and reporting to the lecturer about project progress

However, there is one problem regarding the choice of translation projects That is, rather than relying on a standard coursebook, translation projects are selected by the lecturer-in-charge for each class On the one hand, this approach allows for customization of content to meet specific class needs and interests However, it also means that projects may vary between different classes Given this variability, lecturers are required to carefully select projects that align with the course objectives This ensures that despite differences in specific texts or topics, all students achieve the intended learning outcomes of the course The selection process demands that lecturers balance the need for challenging, relevant content with the overarching goals of developing specialized translation skills applicable across various fields

Data collection procedures

Error analysis was adopted as the primary analytical technique for this study based on its significant benefits, as discussed in Section 2.1.3 of Chapter 2 As highlighted in that section, error analysis offers crucial insights into the language learning process and the specific challenges faced by learners In the context of translation studies, this approach enables a systematic examination of translation errors, providing valuable data on students‟ translation competence and the areas where they struggle most

The study adopted Corder‟s (1974) error analysis framework which provides a systematic approach to identifying and analyzing translation errors This procedure consists of six key steps: collection of a sample of learner language, identification of errors, description of errors, explanation of errors, evaluation of errors and correction of errors (Figure 3) However, while the original sixth step involves error correction, this research instead provides suggestions for error mitigation as part of the findings and recommendations This adaptation maintains the pedagogical intent of Corder‟s framework while aligning with the research design, which did not include direct classroom intervention

Figure 3 Error analysis procedures (modified from Corder’s (1974) model)

In the pre-collection phase, students formed 5 groups, each including 7-

8 members, based on their personal preferences This approach was chosen to enhance emotional comfort, which potentially leads to more effective collaboration The students were provided with instructions on how to carry out the project, including source text analysis, creation of glossaries, peer review, etc They were also informed of comprehensive information about the project, including deadline for submission, required length of the translation, genre of the text, target reader, expected stylistic effect in the target language and some reference materials and resources

In the collection phase, a corpus of language was gathered, which in this case would be 5 translations from 5 groups Each translation represented the collaborative effort of 7-8 students working together on the same source text

The next phase involves a careful, systematic examination of each group‟s translation, comparing it with the source text to identify any discrepancies that can be classified as errors The researcher implemented multiple readings of each translation alongside the source text and marked each instance where the translation deviates from the source text‟s meaning, style, or intent by using “comment” and “highlighting” features in Microsoft Word

In the phase “Description of errors”, error analysis technique was used to categorize the identified errors according to the model adapted from Na (2005)‟s framework To ensure reliability and validity in error classification, a lecturer with 5 years of experience in translation was invited to collaborate The lecturer and I discussed and reached an agreement on the classification of errors The research also quantified the occurrence of each error type by using Excel to find out the most common errors committed by the students

The explanation stage is crucial as it attempts to account for why the errors occurred, considering factors related to the source text, the translators and the in-class training I first formed a list of translation causes based on related research‟s findings and discussions with other lecturers who also teach this course Then semi-structured interviews were employed with selected students from each translation group The interviews were designed to elicit students‟ reflections on their translation processes, challenges encountered, and rationales behind specific translation choices I presented students with examples of errors from their translations and encouraged them to explain their thought processes and any difficulties they faced The interview data was then analyzed thematically, identifying recurring patterns and common explanations across different students and error types Additionally, the causes of errors were counted for frequency, allowing for a quantitative assessment of the most common reasons behind translation problems

The fifth step focuses on assessing both errors and their causes based on their respective frequencies That is, errors that appeared more frequently were considered more significant, as they represent common challenges for students Similarly, causes that were more prevalent were identified as key areas for pedagogical intervention While this method is different from the traditional evaluation of errors which involves developing a scale to rate the severity of errors or evaluating how each error affects the overall quality of the translation, it aligns closely with the research questions and overall objectives of the study, providing actionable insights for enhancing specialized translation teaching and learning

Regarding the final step of Corder‟s error analysis framework, this study adopts a modified approach to error correction, as presented in section 2.1.4 Specifically, instead of providing immediate corrections to students in the classroom setting, the study shifts the focus to presenting comprehensive recommendations in the implications section The adaptation maintains the pedagogical intent of Corder‟s framework while aligning more closely with the research design of this study, which emphasizes analysis over immediate intervention It also reflects the study‟s aim to contribute to broader pedagogical strategies in specialized translation education, rather than focusing on individual error correction.

Data analysis procedures

For the error analysis of students‟ translations, document analysis was employed as the primary method, with error analysis serving as a specific analytical technique This approach allowed for a comprehensive examination of the translations, focusing on both content and error patterns An adapted model of error classification based on Na (2005) was utilized (Figure 2), providing a structured framework for identifying and categorizing translation errors

The analysis process began with a thorough comparison of each translation to its source text Errors were identified by noting instances where the translations deviated from the source text‟s meaning, failed to convey the original message accurately, or contained linguistic issues in the target language Each identified error was then categorized and coded using a numerical system (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) corresponding to specific error types in the adapted model The Microsoft Word “comment” feature was utilized to mark these errors directly in the text, ensuring easy reference and retrieval Each comment contained the error code and the correct translation, facilitating a clear comparison between the error and its resolution This digital annotation process not only facilitated the error analysis but also enhanced the document analysis by allowing for multiple reviews and cross-referencing of the translations The coding process served dual purposes: qualitatively, it provided insights into the nature and context of each error; quantitatively, it enabled the calculation of error frequencies, revealing patterns and the most common types of errors across the corpus of translations

Figure 4 An example of coding for translation errors

To enhance the validity and reliability of the error classification process, I worked with another lecturer with 5 years of experience in translation, who also teaches the Specialized Translation course We independently classified errors in the translations and engaged in thorough discussions to reach agreement on the categorization of each error This collaborative process helped to mitigate individual biases and ensure a more objective and comprehensive error classification

After reaching consensus on the error classifications, the frequency of each error type was determined using the search function (Ctrl+F) in Microsoft Word to locate specific error codes (e.g., 1.2) The occurrences of each error type were then counted, and percentages were calculated to identify the most common types of errors across the corpus of translations

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students to explore the causes of the identified errors During these interviews, the researcher presented students with typical examples of errors from their translations which were carefully selected to represent each error type identified in the first phase of the study Importantly, when presenting these examples, the researcher did not disclose the specific error type or provide corrections This aims to avoid leading the students and to encourage genuine reflection on their translation process

Students were asked open-ended questions about why they translated some sentences in the way they did, for example, “Can you walk me through your thought process when you translated this section?” This allowed students to articulate their reasoning and challenges without being influenced by predetermined categories of errors or causes

A pre-established conceptual framework of causes (Table 1,2,3), developed based on previous studies and expert input, was used as the initial coding scheme Interview transcripts were carefully read and coded using this framework Each relevant statement was assigned a code corresponding to a specific cause When students struggled to identify causes, they were presented with the framework to choose from, ensuring comprehensive coverage of potential factors Any new causes emerging from the interviews were assigned new codes and incorporated into the framework This coding process allowed for the systematic categorization of students‟ responses while remaining open to new insights

Figure 5 An example of coding for causes of translation errors

3.4.3 Integrated analysis of both translation errors and causes

I have combined error identification and cause classification in a single Excel file, which allows for efficient synthesis and analysis of error patterns The Excel file is structured with columns for groups, source text, translation, correct version, error type, and cause categories

To categorize causes, a multi-tiered coding system was implemented The primary categories (A, B, C) represent broad cause areas: A for source text-related causes, B for translator-related causes, and C for translator training-related causes Within each primary category, subcategories (1-5) were also established to provide more specific cause classifications Based on interview results and analysis, new subcategories (e.g., A6, B6, C6) were added to capture causes not initially anticipated

Table 6 Translation error and cause matrix

The Excel file enables me to record both the error and its potential causes side-by-side, using selection boxes for quick cause assignment It also allows for easy expansion of the classification system as new patterns emerge, and facilitates quantitative analysis of error frequencies and cause distributions By integrating all this information into a single file, I think I created an effective tool for identifying trends, correlating error types with specific causes, and generating insights to improve translation quality and translator training

In the final stage of my analysis, a streamlined table was developed, focusing on the essential elements of the error-cause relationship in translation This condensed table retains the error categories and sub- categories from the previous version, alongside the causes and their corresponding percentages The refined format aims to enhance the readability and immediate comprehension of the data It allows for quicker recognition of significant patterns and trends in translation errors and their underlying causes

Table 7 Translation error and cause distribution matrix

To enhance the reliability and robustness of the analysis, I asked for the support and verification from a data analyst with over 7 years of experience This expert provided guidance on statistical methods, verified the accuracy of the quantitative analysis, and offered critical feedback on the interpretation of results However, it is important to note that as the primary researcher, I made all final decisions, interpretations, and conclusions.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Addressing Research Question 1: The most common translation errors 54 1 Comprehension errors

The analysis of translation errors in the students‟ work revealed a total of 222 errors across three main categories: Comprehension errors, Linguistic errors, and Transfer errors (Table 8) These categories were further divided into subcategories to provide a more nuanced understanding of the errors Notably, Transfer errors accounted for the largest portion of mistakes

(52.7%), followed closely by Linguistic errors (29.73%), while Comprehension errors were less frequent (17.57%) but still present

In particular, within the Comprehension errors category, misunderstanding of the lexis was the primary issue, accounting for 17.12% of all errors In contrast, misunderstanding of the syntax was rare, with only one instance observed (0.45% of total errors) This distribution suggests that students generally grasp sentence structures but struggle more with interpreting individual word meanings in context

Examining the breakdown of language-related mistakes, grammatical errors were the most prevalent (20.27%), followed by inconsistency (8.11%)

This reinforces the research outcomes of Na (2005), Hoa (2021), Uyên et al

(2022), and Dung & Ngọc (2023), who consistently identified grammatical accuracy as a persistent challenge for student translators across various Vietnamese educational contexts Collocational errors were less common

(1.35%), and notably, no morphological errors were observed This distribution indicates that while students have a good grasp of word forms, they face significant challenges with grammar and maintaining consistency in their translations

Transfer errors dominated the error landscape, accounting for more than half of all identified errors The subcategory “Inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items” was the most common overall, accounting for

29.73% of total errors This aligns with findings from Popescu (2013), Hòa

(2014), Hằng & Hằng (2015), and Cúc (2018), who also found lexical errors to be predominant in students‟ translations “Too literal translation” was also a significant issue (16.67%), while addition (3.15%), distortion (1.80%), and omission (1.35%) were less frequent Interestingly, no instances of “Too free translation” were observed

Table 8 Frequency and distribution of translation errors

Comprehension errors in translation occur when the translator misunderstands or misinterprets the source text, leading to inaccuracies in the target text These errors can be identified by comparing the source text with the translated version and noting discrepancies in meaning that cannot be attributed to transfer choices or target language constraints (Pym, 1992) These errors are particularly crucial to identify as they often lead to significant distortions of the original message, potentially altering the entire meaning of a passage or concept being translated Unlike linguistic or transfer errors, which occur in later stages of the translation process, comprehension errors reflect challenges in the initial understanding of the source text, highlighting the importance of thorough source text analysis and strong source language competence (Gile, 2009)

In this study, comprehension errors were categorized into two main types: misunderstanding of the syntax and misunderstanding of the lexis

Syntactic misunderstandings involve incorrectly interpreting the grammatical structure or relationships between elements in a sentence, while lexical misunderstandings relate to misinterpreting the meaning of individual words or phrases (Wongranu, 2017)

Misunderstanding of the syntax, accounting for a mere 0.45% of the total errors, was the least frequent type of comprehension error observed in the students‟ translations This type of error was extremely rare, with only one occurrence out of 222 total errors The low frequency suggests that students generally had a good grasp of the syntactical structures in the source text which was written by an expert in the psychology field The well-constructed sentences with proper academic syntax in the original text likely contributed to the students‟ minimal errors in comprehending sentence structures

ST: Người mẹ đủ tốt cho phép trẻ có thể phát triển cảm giác, tri giác tuyệt đối Điều này sẽ mất đi khi trẻ trưởng thành

TT: A “good enough mother” enables the infant to develop his absolute feelings and perceptions, and they will disappear when the infant grows up

Explanation: The original translation uses the pronoun “they”, which, while intended to refer to the entire preceding clause, creates ambiguity The reader might mistakenly interpret “they” as referring only to “absolute feelings and perceptions” Meanwhile, “Điều này” (this thing) refers to the whole concept of the mother enabling the infant‟s development of absolute feelings and perceptions The correction replaces “and they” with “which”, creating a relative clause that clearly refers to the entire preceding statement

Misunderstanding of the lexis accounted for 17.12% of total errors, with 38 occurrences This high frequency of lexical misunderstandings indicates a significant challenge for students in accurately interpreting the meaning of words and phrases in the source text

ST: Từ khi sinh ra, trẻ đã ở trong một môi trường mang tính người đặc trưng, được đánh dấu bởi sự rút lui toàn bộ năng lượng tính dục vào bản thân người mẹ, một trạng thái mà Winnicott gọi là mối bận tâm nguyên phát của mẹ

TT: Since birth, infants are in a characteristically human environment, which is marked by the retreat of all sexual energy into the mother herself, a state that Winnicott calls the mother‟s primary preoccupation

Correction: sexual energy => libidinal energy or libido

Explanation: The student mistook “năng lượng tính dục” (libidinal energy/ libido) for “tình dục” (sexual energy) However, according to Winnicott‟s theory, libido is not solely focused on sexual desires or instincts but encompasses a wider spectrum of human experiences and expressions

ST: Trên cơ sở đó, rút ra một số căn nguyên của sự chậm trễ ngôn ngữ ở trường hợp này và đề xuất phương hướng can thiệp cho trẻ

TT: Based on that, the research will draw some fundamental causes of language delay in this case and suggest directions of treatment for children

Explanation: This is a case study about a boy named Th., so the implications should be for him only, not children in general

Linguistic errors refer to mistakes or deviations from the accepted norms, rules, or conventions of a particular language These errors can occur in various aspects of language, including grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, syntax, semantics, and discourse

This subcategory represents the most frequent type of linguistic error

According to the research‟s findings, students encountered some problems related to subject-verb agreement, preposition usage, sentence fragments, parts of speech, plural and singular forms, punctuation, linking devices and tenses

ST: Ông cho rằng để trẻ có thể phát triển tốt, khỏe mạnh, người mẹ phải

TT: He believes that for the sake of children to develop well and be healthy, the mother must be "good enough"…

Explanation: After certain prepositions or prepositional phrases like "for the sake of," a gerund (verb + -ing) is typically required rather than an infinitive (to + verb)

ST: Để chống lại những lo hãi này, để che giấu sự lo hãi bị chia tách khỏi mẹ, đứa trẻ dùng đến các cơ chế phòng vệ, mà phổ biến là sự dồn nén và chối bỏ

TT: To fight these fears and to hide the fear of separation from the mother, the child activates defense mechanisms, which repression and denial are the most common

Addressing Research Question 2: The causes of translation errors

4.2.1 Classification and frequency of error causes

The conceptual framework for error causes, as outlined in section 2.6, initially categorized the causes of translator errors into three main groups: source text-related (Group A), translator-related (Group B), and translator training-related (Group C) However, analysis of student interviews revealed additional subcategories: “unfamiliar text type or genre”; “limited teamwork skills” and “insufficient contextual analysis”; and “tight deadlines” which were added to Groups A, B, and C, respectively To facilitate systematic cause tracking, all subcategories were assigned alphanumeric codes: A1-A5, B1-B8, and C1-C4 This refined categorization provides a more comprehensive and nuanced framework for analyzing the causes of translation errors, incorporating both pre-established categories and new insights gleaned from student experiences

A Causes related to the source text

No Causes related to the source text

A1 Unfamiliar text type or genre

A2 Text complexity - High level of linguistic complexity

- Complex syntactic structures A3 Ambiguity - Unclear or vague phrasing in the source text

- Multiple possible interpretations of words or phrases A4 Subject matter difficulty - Highly specialized or technical content

- Unfamiliar concepts or terminology A5 Vietnamese-English linguistic differences

- Vastly different grammatical structures (e.g., subject-verb-object vs subject-object- verb)

- Absence of grammatical features in one language that exist in the other (e.g., grammatical number, articles)

B Causes related to the translators

No Causes related to the translators

- Insufficient mastery of English (target language)

- Limited vocabulary, especially in specialized fields

- Weak grasp of complex grammatical structures

B2 Lack of subject matter expertise

- Lack of specialized knowledge in particular fields (e.g., legal, medical, technical)

Difficulty comprehending complex concepts in the source text B3 Limited research and resource utilization skills

- Ineffective use of dictionaries, glossaries, and other reference materials

- Poor ability to find and verify information on unfamiliar topics B4 Lack of attention to detail - Carelessness or overlooking subtle nuances in the text B5 Cognitive problems - Fatigue affecting concentration and performance

- Stress or anxiety impacting decision- making during translation

- Excessive dependence on machine translation without proper post-editing

B7 Limited teamwork skills - Lack of peer review

- Difficulty in reaching a consensus on a single translation choice among different members

- Improper work allocation B8 Insufficient contextual analysis

- Failure to thoroughly read and understand the broader context of the text

- Tendency to translate at word or sentence level without considering the overall meaning

- Lack of attention to textual coherence and cohesion

- Overlooking important contextual clues that influence translation choices

C Causes related to classroom training

No Causes related to classroom training

C1 Tight deadlines - Insufficient time for translation, peer review and final check C2 Insufficient practice and discussion time

- Limited hours dedicated to practice activities and discussion with the lecturer C3 Ineffective teaching method

- Lack of individualized feedback on translations

- Lack of in-class practice activities

- Lack of detailed guidelines on how to implement a translation project (source text analysis, translation methods, CAT tools, etc.)

- Limited training in identifying and correcting one‟s own translation errors, proofreading and editing skills

- Lack of related research in the psychological field, especially those in English

The insights into the distribution of translation error causes across three main categories: source text-related (A), translator-related (B), and translator training-related (C) were presented in Table 9

Table 9 Distribution of causes of translation errors

According to the table, translator-related causes (B) emerged as the predominant source of errors, accounting for 239 instances or 65.8% of all identified causes This suggests that focusing on enhancing translator skills, knowledge, and practices could probably yield the most significant improvements in translation quality

Source text-related causes (A) represented the second most frequent category, with 108 occurrences or 29.8% of the total While less prevalent than translator-related causes, the significant presence of source text-related issues highlights the importance of comprehensive text analysis and preparation in the translation process

Interestingly, causes related to translator training (C) appeared relatively infrequently, with only 16 instances or 4.4% of the total This low percentage suggests that, in this particular context, issues stemming from the educational or training environment have a minimal direct impact on translation errors compared to the other two categories

The data clearly shows that the main causes of translation errors stem from factors related to the translator and the source text, with translator- related causes being more than twice as frequent as source text-related causes

This stark contrast (65.8% vs 29.8%) emphasizes the paramount importance of translator competence and performance in determining translation quality

4.2.2 Correlation between categories of translation errors and their causes

Understanding the relationship between translation errors and their underlying causes is crucial for improving translation quality and translator training (Pym, 2012; Hansen, 2010) While previous research has often focused on identifying the frequency of different error types or the general distribution of causes (Cúc, 2018; Hoa, 2021; Uyên et al., 2022), it has typically fallen short of establishing clear connections between specific errors and their origins By investigating the correlation between error categories and their causes, the study gained deeper insights into the translation process, identified targeted areas for improvement, and developed more effective strategies for error prevention

According to Table 10, comprehension errors were primarily attributed to source text complexity at 61%, while translator-related issues accounted for a substantial 39% This distribution suggests that the majority of comprehension errors stem from the inherent challenges in the source text However, the significant percentage (39%) of translator-related causes indicates that students still face considerable challenges in accurately interpreting the source text, as shared by one student “I didn’t really get that term wrong because the text was bad or anything It’s more like I didn’t pay enough attention to the whole paragraph around it, so I missed the context.”

(student 2, group 5) This dual nature of comprehension errors highlights the need to tackle complex source texts and enhance training to boost students‟ interpretative capabilities

In contrast, linguistic and transfer errors predominantly originated from the translators, at 79% and 70% respectively These high percentages underscore the pivotal role of the translator in determining the quality of the final product This aligns with Pym‟s (2009) assertion that translator competence is the primary factor in translation quality and Nord (2014) who also argues, while source text complexity can pose challenges, it is ultimately the translator‟s responsibility to navigate these difficulties and produce an accurate, coherent target text

Notably, the data revealed remarkably low error rates attributable to classroom training, with only 7% for linguistic errors and 5% for transfer errors These single-digit percentages likely reflect the effectiveness of the in- class activities and teaching methods employed during classroom training sessions However, even these small percentages are worth careful consideration, as they indicate there is still room for improvement in the implementation of the course

Table 10 Correlation between error categories and their causes

4.2.3 Correlation between sub-categories of translation errors and their causes

While the initial analysis of main categories of translation errors and their causes provided valuable insights, it became apparent that a more granular examination was necessary to fully understand the nuances of translation challenges Therefore, there is a need to delve into the correlation between sub-categories of errors and their causes This deeper level of analysis allows for a more precise identification of problem areas in the translation process and enables the development of more effective error prevention and quality assurance measures

Table 11 reveals several notable patterns in the distribution of translation error causes First of all, the sub-categories 1.1 (misunderstanding of the syntax), 1.2 (misunderstanding of the lexis), and 2.2 (grammatical errors) showed a distribution of causes similar to their respective main categories This consistency suggests that these sub-categories are representative of the broader error types they fall under

Another striking observation is that errors 2.3 (collocational error), 2.4 (inconsistency), 3.1 (omission), 3.2 (addition), and 3.5 (too literal translation) were entirely attributed to translator-related causes (100% in column B) This indicates that these specific error types are primarily issues of translator competence or decision-making, rather than stemming from source text problems or training issues

In addition, errors 3.3 (inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items) and 3.4 (distortion) presented a unique pattern within the transfer errors category Both have a similar percentage of translator-related causes (about 55%), but differ significantly in their secondary causes That is, error 3.3 shows a substantial influence from the source text (39.8% in column A), while error 3.4 has a large proportion attributed to the translation environment or training (42.9% in column C) This divergence within the same main category highlights the complex nature of transfer errors and suggests that different sub-types may require distinct approaches for prevention and correction

Table 11 Correlation between error sub-categories and their causes

It is important to note that these observations, particularly regarding errors 3.3 and 3.4, should be interpreted cautiously due to the potentially limited data set Further investigation with a larger sample size would be beneficial to confirm these patterns and draw more definitive conclusions about the relationships between specific error types and their causes

4.2.4 Matrix of translation errors and their causes

CONCLUSION

Key findings

This research examines the translation errors commonly made by senior English majors during a project in their Specialized Translation course The primary objectives were to identify the most frequent types of translation errors and uncover their underlying causes The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, incorporating error analysis techniques Student translations were evaluated using a modified version of Na (2005)‟s translation error analysis model, which classifies errors into three main categories: comprehension, linguistic, and transfer errors This study‟s findings revealed significant insights into common translation errors and their causes

First and foremost, regarding the most common translation errors, transfer errors emerged as the most prevalent (52.7%), followed closely by linguistic errors (29.73%), with comprehension errors being less frequent but still notable (17.57%) Specifically, inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items were the most common error overall, while misunderstanding of lexis dominated comprehension errors, and grammatical errors were the most frequent linguistic issue These results align with previous research by Na

(2005), Hoa (2021), Uyên et al (2022), and Dung & Ngọc (2023)

Regarding error causes, the study expanded the initial conceptual framework of source text-related (A), translator-related (B), and translator training-related (C) causes Analysis of student interviews led to the addition of new subcategories: “unfamiliar text type or genre” (A), “limited teamwork skills” and “insufficient contextual analysis” (B), and “tight deadlines” (C)

Translator-related causes were found to be the primary source of errors, leading predominantly to linguistic and transfer errors Source text-related causes were the second most frequent (29.8%), mainly resulting in comprehension errors Notably, translator training-related causes were relatively infrequent (4.4%), suggesting the effectiveness of classroom instruction

Among specific causes, ambiguity (A3) and subject matter difficulty

(A4) were the most common source text-related issues A3 primarily led to misunderstanding of lexis, while A4 resulted in inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items In translator-related causes, lack of attention to detail

(B4) was most frequent, mainly contributing to grammatical errors A second tier of causes, including lack of subject matter expertise (B2), overreliance on machine translation (B6), limited teamwork skills (B7), and insufficient contextual analysis (B8), each occurred about 38 times but affected different error types For instance, B2 exclusively led to inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items, B6 led to too literal translations, B8 primarily caused misunderstanding of lexis, and B7 impacted multiple errors, especially grammatical errors and inconsistency.

Implications

Drawing from the comprehensive research findings, I, in my dual role as both researcher and lecturer of the class, along with consultations from colleagues teaching the same course, have formulated several recommendations to mitigate translation errors These proposed solutions aim to address the most prevalent issues identified in the study, while also taking into account the less frequent but significant challenges faced by students

Within the group of transfer errors, to mitigate inaccurate renditions of individual lexical items which were caused mainly by the lack of subject matter expertise and unfamiliar text type, a two-pronged approach is recommended Firstly, to address the lack of subject matter expertise, students should be encouraged to engage in extensive background reading on the topics they are translating This could involve creating subject-specific reading lists and allocating time for guided research before beginning the translation process Secondly, to familiarize students with various text types, the course should incorporate a diverse range of genres and styles in translation exercises Regular analysis of different text types, focusing on their unique features and translation challenges, should be integrated into the course

It is also crucial to address too literal translation resulting from overreliance on machine translation That is, workshops on the effective use of machine translation tools, emphasizing post-editing techniques and the limitations of automated translations, should be implemented Students should be trained to use machine translation as a supportive tool rather than a primary resource, encouraging them to apply their linguistic knowledge and cultural understanding to refine machine-generated translations

In terms of linguistic errors, addressing grammatical mistakes caused by lack of attention to detail, requires enhancing students‟ proofreading and self-editing skills Introducing more thorough peer review sessions and dedicated editing workshops can help students develop a more critical eye for grammatical issues Additionally, there is a need to teach students to use advanced grammar checking tools effectively, while still relying on their own knowledge, in order to catch errors that might be overlooked

In addition, to tackle inconsistency issues stemming from limited teamwork skills, group translation projects should be structured to foster better collaboration This could involve assigning specific roles within teams (e.g., translator, editor, proofreader, terminology manager), rotating these roles for different projects, and providing guidance on effective communication and task distribution within teams Workshops on collaborative translation tools and project management techniques should also be incorporated into the course

Regarding comprehension errors, particularly misunderstanding of lexis due to ambiguity in the source text and insufficient contextual analysis, several strategies can be employed To address ambiguity, exercises focusing on identifying and resolving ambiguous language should be introduced, teaching students techniques to clarify meaning through context or by consulting with the hypothetical client or author To improve contextual analysis skills, students should be trained in thorough text analysis techniques, including identifying key themes, understanding the author‟s intent, and recognizing cultural nuances that might affect translation choices

Lastly, although they contribute to a smaller percentage of errors, the challenges of tight deadlines and limited reference materials highlighted by students are still worthy of consideration Specifically, the course structure could be adjusted to include more realistic time management scenarios and training on efficient research techniques This could involve breaking larger projects into manageable milestones, teaching students how to create and adhere to project timelines, and providing guidance on quickly finding and evaluating relevant resources, including strategies for using non-English sources when English materials are scarce

By implementing these targeted recommendations, the course can address the specific error types and their underlying causes identified in the research, ultimately improving students‟ translation skills and preparing them more effectively for professional translation challenges.

Limitations and recommendations for further research

Despite generating valuable insights into translation errors and their causes, this research contains several notable limitations Firstly, the scope of the research was confined to a single translation project focusing solely on the Vietnamese-English language pair This narrow focus limits the generalizability of the findings to other language combinations or diverse translation contexts Secondly, the study was conducted with only one class of students, rather than a broader sample of two or three classes, which could have provided a more comprehensive dataset and potentially more robust results Another limitation is that the research methodology did not include designed activities for students to identify errors and self-correct This absence may have missed opportunities to observe how students‟ awareness and ability to rectify their own mistakes could impact the overall translation quality

Furthermore, the error classification process would have benefited from the involvement of multiple experts, as opposed to relying solely on one lecturer with five years of translation experience, which may have limited the validity of the error categorization Regarding the investigation of translation error causes, the results relied solely on student interviews While some open- ended questions offered valuable insights into students‟ thoughts and helped identify causes, the subsequent presentation of a pre-prepared list of causes when students struggled may have influenced their responses and affected the reliability of the results

Lastly, the study primarily focused on quantifying translation errors through frequency and percentage calculations, without delving into the severity or impact of these errors This approach, while informative, may not fully capture the nuanced differences in overall translation quality, as two translations with an equal number of errors could differ significantly in their effectiveness and readability

To address these limitations and expand upon the current findings, several recommendations for future research can be proposed Firstly, broadening the scope to include multiple language pairs and various types of translation projects would provide a more comprehensive understanding of translation errors across different linguistic and contextual settings Secondly, conducting the study across multiple classes or institutions would yield a larger and more diverse dataset, potentially revealing patterns or insights not apparent in a single-class study Future research should also consider incorporating activities designed for students to identify and self-correct errors, which could offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of self- assessment in translation training

To enhance the methodological rigor in investigating error causes, future studies should implement intensive scaffolding techniques during student interviews Through guided discovery, students would independently identify and articulate translation error causes, eliminating the potential bias introduced by the pre-prepared list Additionally, establishing a panel of experienced translation experts for error classification would strengthen the validity and reliability of the findings This could involve multiple reviewers with diverse backgrounds in translation practice and pedagogy to ensure a more comprehensive and objective assessment of translation errors

Additionally, investigating the severity and impact of translation errors, rather than just their frequency, would provide a more nuanced understanding of translation quality This could involve developing a weighted error scoring system or conducting surveys to assess readers‟ perceptions of different types of errors Such an approach would help distinguish between minor mistakes and more serious errors that significantly affect the overall quality of the translation

By addressing these aspects in future studies, researchers can build upon the current findings to develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of translation errors, their causes, and effective strategies for their prevention in educational settings

AbiSamra, N (2003) An analysis of errors in Arabic speakers‟ English writings Investigating writing problems among Palestinian students studying English as a foreign language Unpublished doctoral dissertation, P5

Albir, A H., & Olalla-Soler, C (2016) Procedures for assessing the acquisition of cultural competence in translator training The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 318-342 https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236561

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J (2013) Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research: Sage

Angelelli, C V (2009) Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct In C V

Barbour, R & Schostak, J F (2005) Interviewing and Focus Groups In: B

Somekh & C Lewin, (eds.) Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp 41-48) London: Sage

Barriball, K L., & While, A (1994) Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328-

Bassnett, S (2013) Translation studies (4th ed.) Routledge

Berg, B L (2007) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

Bowen, G A (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method

Bowker, L., & Buitrago Ciro, J (2019) Machine translation and global research: Towards improved machine translation literacy in the scholarly community Emerald Publishing Limited

Brinkmann, S (2014) Interview In T Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical

Brown, H D (2014) Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition Pearson

Catford, J C (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation; an Essay in Applied

Linguistics: By JC Catford Oxford UP

Chi, Đ N (2018) Problems in Translation Facing Vietnamese EFL College

Learners Translation Journal Received from https://translationjournal net/July-2018/problemsin-translation-facing-vietnamese-efl- collegelearners html

Corder, S P (1967) The significance of learner's errors International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161-170

Corder, S P (1974) Error analysis The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics, 3(1), 122-131

Creswell, J W., & Plano Clark, V L (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.) Sage Publications

Creswell, J W., & Plano Clark, V L (2018) Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.) SAGE Publications

Cúc, P T K (2018) An analysis of translation errors: A case study of

Vietnamese EFL students International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 22-29

Dân, T C (2023) English majored students‟ common translation mistakes and their solutions: voices from students European Journal of

Denzin, N K., & Lincoln, Y S (2011) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research Sage Publications

Dewi, H D (2015) Comparing two translation assessment models:

Correlating student revisions and perspectives Ph.D dissertation, Kent

Dodds, J (1999) Friends, False Friends and Foes or Back to Basics in L1-L2

Duklim, B (2022) Translation Errors Made by Thai University Students: A

Study on Types and Causes Reflections, 29(2), 344-360

Dung, D T B., Lành, L V., & Ngọc, N H (2021) Problems in Vietnamese-

English translation of relative clauses for English-majored juniors at Tay Do University, Vietnam European Journal of English Language

Dung, D T M & Ngọc, T N (2023) “An investigation into common errors in

Vietnamese-English translation made by college freshmen: A case study at Foreign Trade University - Ho Chi Minh Campus.” Thu Dau Mot University Journal of Science, vol 5, no 4, 2023, pp 482-501

Ellis, R & Barkhuizen, G 2005 Analyzing Learner Language New York:

Fromkin, V (1973) Speech errors as linguistic evidence The Hague: Mouton

Gabr, M (2007) A TQM approach to translator training: Balancing stakeholders' needs and responsibilities The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(1), 65-77 https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798751 Galletta, A (2013) Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond:

From research design to analysis and publication New York University Press

Gambier, Y., & Van Doorslaer, L (2010) Handbook of translation studies

Gass, S M., & Selinker, L (2008) Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.) Routledge

Greene, J C., Caracelli, V J., & Graham, W F (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274

Gubrium, J F & Holstein, J A (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of Interview

Research: Context and Method Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Hà, N H., Mi C T H, & Ngọc T T B (2015) Các lỗi thường gặp trong bài dịch của sinh viên: Nghiên cứu trường hợp tại khoa sư phạm tiếng Anh, Đại học Ngoại Ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội

Hằng, N T T., & Hằng, T T (2015) Vietnamese – English Translation

Errors Made by Second Year Translation-Major Students: An Initial Step towards Enhancing Translation Standards 31(1)

Hansen, G (2010) Translation "Errors" In Y Gambier, & L v Doorslaer

(Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol 1, pp 385–388)

Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Harliani, S (2019) The World of Translation OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa Dan

Sastra, 13(1), 121 https://doi.org/10.19105/ojbs.v13i1.2272

Hartono, R., & Priyatmojo, A S (2016) Translation errors of soft drink product labels from Indonesian into English PROSIDING PRASASTI,

Hòa, Đ T (2014) “Common errors in Vietnamese-English translation made by English translator trainees at Nui Phao Mining Company Limited” Master‟s thesis, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Hoa, N T B (2021, August 14) A Study on Common Errors in Vietnamese -

English Transl tion by English majors Students at Ho Chi Minh

University of Food Industry (HUFI) https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uyr6a

Jahanshahi, M., & Kafipour, R (2015) Error analysis of English translation of Islamic texts by Iranian translators Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(3), 238-252

Johnson, R B., & Christensen, L (2014) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.) Sage Publications

Johnson, R B., & Onwuegbuzie, A J (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26

Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965

Khansir, A A (2012) Error analysis and second language acquisition Theory and practice in language studies, 2(5), 1027-1032 Klaudy, K (2010) Specification and generalisation of meaning in translation

In B Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & M Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (pp 85-105) Peter Lang

Klein, S (2012) Action research methods: Plain and simple: Springer

Koman, H., Hartono, R., & Yuliasri, I (2019) Translation Errors in Students'

Indonesian-English Translation Practice English Education Journal, 9(2), 206-218 https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v9i2.29372

Kussmaul, P (1995) Training the translator John Benjamins

Kvale, S (1996) InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S (2015) InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.) SAGE Publications

McNiff, J (2013) Action research: Principles and practice: Routledge

Merriam, S B., & Tisdell, E J (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.) Jossey-Bass

Na, P P Q (2005) Errors in the translation of topic-comment structures of

Vietnamese into English Australia: The University of Sydney

Neubert, A (2000) Competence in Language, in Languages, and in

Newmark, P (1988) A textbook of translation (Vol 66) Prentice hall New

Newmark, P (2003) No global communication without translation

Translation today: Trends and perspectives, 55-67

December) An Analysis on Translation Errors in Online Vietnamese- English Menus In 18th International Conference of the Asia

Association of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (AsiaCALL–2-

Nguyễn, T T H., & Triệu, T H (2015) Vietnamese–English Translation errors made by second year translation-major students: An initial step towards enhancing translation standards VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 31(1)

Nida, E A., & Taber, C R (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation

Nord, C (1997) Functionalist approaches explained St Jerome, Manchester Nord, C (1997) Translating as a purposeful activity Manchester: St

Translating as a purposeful activity Manchester: St Jerome publishing

O‟Leary, Z (2014) The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.) SAGE Publications

Ordudari, M (2007) Translation procedures, strategies and methods Translation journal, 11(3), 8

Orozco, M (2000) Building a measuring instrument for the acquisition of translation competence in trainee translators Benjamins Translation

Patton, M Q (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.) SAGE Publications

Pine, G J (2008) Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies: Sage

Popescu, T (2013) A Corpus-based approach to translation error analysis A case-study of Romanian EFL learners Procedia Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 83, 242-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.048

Presada, D., & Badea, M (2014) The effectiveness of error analysis in translation classes A pilot study

Pym, A (1992) Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching In C Dollerup & A Loddegaard (Eds.), The Teaching of Translation (pp 279-288) Amsterdam: John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.42pym

Pym, A (2010) Exploring translation theories Routledge

Pym, A (2011) Training translators In K Malmkjổr & K Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies (pp 475-489) Oxford University Press

Richards, J (1971) Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies

Richards, J C (1980) Second language acquisition: Error analysis Annual

Selinker, L (1972) Interlanguage International Review of Applied

Silalahi, M., Rafli, Z., & Rasyid, Y (2018) The analysis of errors in translation of scientific text from English to Indonesian Language Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 23-27 Spada, N., & Lightbown, P M (2006) How languages are learned Oxford

Syahrir, S., & Hartina, S (2021) The Analysis of Short Story Translation

Errors (A Case Study of Types and Causes) IDEAS: Journal on

English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C (2010) Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.) Sage Publications

Tiến, L H (2017) Về cơ sở lý luận đào tạo biên phiên dịch ở Việt Nam VNU

Tùng, N V (2019) Common mistakes made by students in written translation and solution HUBT Journal, 05E, 52-56

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

Uyên, P T M., Hằng, N T T., & Linh, N H (2022) Some common errors in Vietnamese-English translation of English-major juniors at Tay Do University, Vietnam European Journal of English Language

Waddington, C (2001) Different methods of evaluating student translations:

The question of validity Meta, 46(2), 311-325

Wang, B (2009) Translating publicity texts in the light of the skopos theory:

Problems and suggestions Translation journal, 13(1)

Warwal, S S (2014) Translation process and problem of translation in world classics Indian Scholar, 1(1)

Epidemiology of medical error BMJ, 320(7237), 774-777

Wilss, W (1982) The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods Gunter

Wongranu, P (2017) Errors in translation made by English major students: A study on types and causes Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 117-122 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.11.003

Yin, R K (2018) Case study research and applications: Design and methods

1 An example of the source text

2 An example of commenting students’ translation