Errors in translating english relative clauses into vietnamese by third year english majors at can tho university

CAN THO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

***

ERRORS IN TRANSLATING ENGLISH
RELATIVE CLAUSES INTO VIETNAMESE BY
THIRD-YEAR ENGLISH MAJORS
AT CANTHO UNIVERSITY
B.A Thesis
Supervisor

Researcher

Truong Nguyen Quynh Nhu, MA

Tran Thi Ngoc Vien
Student ID: 7062935
Class: NN0652A1
Course: 32

Can Tho, May 2010


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my great gratitude and appreciation to
my supervisor, Ms. Truong Nguyen Quynh Nhu who gave me valuable instructions,
advice and feedback on the drafts of chapters in my study. Actually, I could not finish
my thesis without her assistance. She always gave me encouragement and
recommended references me relating to translation field. Thank to these references, I

have discovered new ideas to make my research more enjoyable.
My deep gratitude goes to Ms. Truong Thi Ngoc Diep for allowing me to
administer the test in her classes and also helping me deliver and collect the test
responses. I gratefully thank for her great support and assistance.
I also would like to thank Ms. Ngo Thi Trang Thao for her useful help with
performing descriptive statistical analysis in Statistics Package for the Social Science
(SPSS)
I sincerely would like to thank all of the students from two classes of Translation
and Interpretation in Practice 2, for their help and contribution in my research. I
would like to thank all of my friends for all of their advice as well as their generous
support and assistance. They were always with me so as to encourage me when I faced
troubles while doing this thesis.
My deep thanks go to my parents, my sisters and brother who always offered me
deep encouragement during the time I conducted the thesis.
I would like to send my special thanks to all the teachers of English Education
Department, School of Education, CanTho University who created the opportunity
and supported my work on my thesis.


CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE.………………..……….……………........iv
ABSTRACT ... ……………. ………………………………………………..….v
TÓM LƯỢC……………….. …………………………………………….......vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………….……………………….......... 1
1.1 Rationale……………..…………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Research aims………..…………………………………………….. 2
1.3 Significance of the research…………...………………………… 2
1.4 Organization of the research…………..…………………………… 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………….………... 4

2.1 Translation……………………………………..…………………... 4
2.1.1 Definition of translation………………………………… 4
2.1.2 Translation process………………………….................... 5
2.1.3 Translation methods………………………….................. 6
2.1.4 Translation errors……………………………………….. 7
2.2 English Relative Clauses…………………………………................ 8
2.2.1 Types of relative clauses…………………………..........10
2.2.2 Punctuating relative clauses………………………….... 11
2.3 Related studies…………………………………………………… 11
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………... ……………....13
3.1 Research questions…………………………………….. …………13
3.2 Hypotheses…………………………………………….. …………13
3.3 Research design………………………………………….. ………13
3.4 Participants………………………………………………. ……….14
3.5 Research Instrument……………………………….......... ………14
3.6 Procedures………………………………………………….. …….14
3.6.1 Test development………………………………..……...14
3.6.2 Test administration..........…………………………… …16
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS……………………………………... ...……………17
4.1 Type 1 error: incomplete sentence…………………........... ………19
4.2 Type 2 error: misunderstanding of the original sentence…………. 20
4.3 Type 3 error: mistranslation………………………………………. 20
4.4 Type 4 error: addition………………………………...................... 21
4.5 Type 5 error: omission……………………………………………. 21
4.6 Type 6 error: word choice………………………………................ 22
4.7 Type 7 error: too freely translated………………………................ 22


4.8 Type 8 error: too literal, word for word translation……................. 23
4.9 Type 9 error: ambiguity………………………………….... ...……23

4.10 Type 10 error: grammatical structure………................................. 24
4.11 Type 11 error: using "mà"……………………………………….. 24
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS…… …………………..…….................................................25
5.1 Discussions……………………………………………………….. 25
5.2 Recommendations………………………………………………… 26
5.2.1 Clause Splitting…………………………… …….…......26
5.2.2 Using compound sentences……………………............. 26
5.2.3 Using noun apposition…………………………………. 27
5.2.4 Translating the relative clause as an adjective…….. ..…27
5.2.5 The appropriate use of discourse marker ―mà‖……..…………...27
5.2.6 Using communicative translation……………………... 27
5.3 Pedagogical Implications.....……………..……………………… 28
CHAPTER 6: LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH…………………………………………………………………. 30
6.1 Limitations………………………………………………............... 30
6.2 Suggestions for further research………………………………… 30
6.3 Conclusions………………………………………………………. 31
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….. 32
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………….. 35


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2.2.1 The functions, forms and uses of relative pronouns
Table 4 Criteria for marking errors
Table 4.1 Frequencies of marking errors
Table 4.1.1 Frequencies of type 1 error: incomplete sentence
Table 4.1.2 Frequencies of type 2 error: misunderstanding the original text
Table 4.1.3 Frequencies of type 3 error: mistranslation
Table 4.1.4 Frequencies of type 4 error: addition

Table 4.1.5 Frequencies of type 5 error: omission
Table 4.1.6 Frequencies of type 6 error: word choice
Table 4.1.7 Frequencies of type 7 error: too freely translated
Table 4.1.8 Frequencies of type 8 error: too literal, word for word translation
Table 4.1.9 Frequencies of type 9 error: ambiguity
Table 4.1.10 Frequencies of type 10 error: grammatical structure.
Table 4.1.11 Frequencies of type 11 error: using "mà”
Figure 1 Nida‘s model of translation process


ABSTRACT
This thesis deals with the English – Vietnamese translation in terms of English
relative clauses. The research is conducted to investigate the errors that students made
in translating sentences with relative clauses, to come up with suggestion of some
ways to avoid these errors and to suggest that students should pay attention to
translating sentences with relative clauses. The participants of the study are 50
students from a course of Translation and Interpretation in Practice 2 at Can Tho
University. The data was collected from a translation test consisting of 20 singlesentence items. This is a descriptive, qualitative and quantitative research, in which
the data were treated by Statistics Package for the Social Science (SPSS). The
statistical results showed that students made all of the following translation errors: (1)
incomplete sentences, (2) misunderstanding of the original text, (3) mistranslation, (4)
addition, (5) omission, (6) word choice, (7) too freely translated, (8) too literal, wordfor-word translation, (9) ambiguity, (10) grammatical structure, (11) using ―mà‖.
Among these, 86% of the students made Type 2 error: misunderstanding of the
original text and 84% of the students made Type 10 error: grammatical structure. 14%
of the students made Type 9 error: ambiguity. On the basis of the findings, the
researcher proposed suggestions to help student translators to improve these errors.
The suggestions include: (1) clause splitting, (2) using compound sentences (3) using
noun apposition, (4) translating the relative clause as an adjective and (5) using
communicative translation.

1


TÓM LƯỢC
Luận văn này nghiên cứu vấn đề dịch mệnh đề quan hệ từ tiếng Anh sang tiếng
Việt. Nghiên cứu được tiến hành nhằm chỉ ra những lỗi dịch thuật mà học sinh mắc
phải trong khi dịch câu có chứa mệnh đề quan hệ, hướng đến đề nghị một số cách
khắc phục những lỗi trên cũng như đề nghị sinh viên nên chú ý khi dịch những câu có
chứa mệnh đề quan hệ. Đối tượng nghiên cứu là 50 sinh viên đến từ lớp Dịch thực
hành 2 tại trường Đại học Cần Thơ. Số liệu nghiên cứu được thu thập thông qua bài
dịch kiểm tra bao gồm 20 câu đơn lẻ. Bằng hình thức mô tả kết hợp với phương pháp
định tính và định lượng, số liệu đựợc xử lí bằng SPSS. Kết quả phân tích số liệu cho
thấy sinh viên mắc các lỗi sau đây: (1) không hoàn thành câu dịch (incomplete
sentences), (2) hiểu sai bản văn nguồn (misunderstanding of the original text), (3) dịch
sai (mistranslation), (4) thêm lời văn (addition), (5) dịch thiếu (omission), (6) cách
dùng từ (word choice), (7) dịch thoát (too freely translated), (8) dịch từng từ (too
literal, word-for-word translation), (9) tối nghĩa (ambiguity), (10) về cấu trúc ngữ
pháp (grammatical structure), (11) sử dụng từ ―mà‖ (using ―mà‖). Trong những lỗi
này, 86% sinh viên mắc lỗi hiểu sai bản văn nguồn và 84% sinh viên phạm lỗi về cấu
trúc ngữ pháp, trong khi đó chỉ có 14% sinh viên mắc lỗi đa nghĩa. Dựa trên kết quả
nghiên cứu, tác giả đưa ra một số đề nghị nhằm giúp người dịch là sinh viên cải thiện
những lỗi này như sau: (1) tách câu (clause splitting), (2) sử dụng câu phức (using
compound sentence), (3) sử dụng danh từ bổ nghĩa (using noun apposition), (4) dịch
mệnh đề quan hệ như tính từ (translating the relative clause as an adjective) và (5) sử
dụng phương pháp dịch giao tiếp (using communicative translation).

2


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
This chapter will present rationale and the aims of the research. Significance and
organizations of the research are also included in the chapter.

1.1 Rationale
Communicating with people from different countries is becoming more and more
important. Overcoming the language barrier is thus becoming one of the most critical
issues of current time. In this context, translation serves as a universal effective means
of communication (Newmark, 1988). No one can deny the importance of translation in
human‘s communication system at the present era of globalization, except those who
are interested in learning to use a foreign language rather than understanding the
intention of the communication through an apparent translation. However, it is
impossible for one to learn all of different languages in use because there are a great
number of languages in the world.
Translation is a demanding and challenging task; it requires the translator‘s
linguistic knowledge of both the source language and the target language, the
appropriate choice of translation method, professional translation skills, cross-culture
perspectives and translation evaluation skills (Newmark, 2001). Translation would be
a far more difficult task in the context in which source language and target language
do not share similar grammar and syntax. This is the case of English Vietnamese
translation.
In English grammar, relative clauses are very complex and have many principles
to follow. Also, both Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999) state that the
acquisition of relative clauses are important because of their complex form and
function, high frequency in both spoken and written texts. Conversely, relative clauses
are non-existent in Vietnamese. There are even no specific concepts of relative clauses
in Vietnamese grammar. According to Nguyễn (1999), a relative clause is defined as
―một tổ hợp gồm hai trung tâm nối liền với nhau bằng quan hệ tường thuật”(p.148) (a
group consisting of two parts connected in terms of the descriptive relation).

Similarly, Đinh (2001) describes a relative clause “mệnh đề quan hệ chỉ là từ loại của
các từ có chức năng thay thế”(p.199) (relative clauses are a kind of words having the
function of replacement). Also, Bùi Ý (1980) indicates that relative pronouns are
rarely seen in Vietnamese grammar. Instead, a clause connector or conjunction
(i.e.―mà‖, “nhưng”, “vì”, mặc dù”, “cho nên”, “song”) is used in the place of a
relative pronoun. For instance: The boy whom you see at the door is his brother
3


(p.111) (Đứa bé mà anh trông thấy ở cửa là em anh ta đấy.) In the Vietnamese
sentence, ―mà” is used to indicate ―đứa bé”
In brief, due to the non-existence of relative clauses in Vietnamese grammar,
Vietnamese translators may face many difficulties in translating sentences containing
English relative clauses. In other word, they may commit translation errors concerning
grammatical structures, lexical inadequacies and mistranslations. Nonetheless, the
success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent response (Nida
1964, as cited in Munday, 2001). On the basic of these potential problems in
translation of English relative clauses, the research was conducted to investigate
common translation errors in translating English relative clauses into Vietnamese
made by third-year English majors at Can Tho University.
1.2 Research aims
The research has two aims. First, the research aims to investigate translation errors,
which third-year English majors make in translating English relative clauses into
Vietnamese. Second, on the basis of the findings, possible strategies to minimize and
improve these translation errors are provided.
1.3 Significance of the research
The study is an early attempt at investigating common errors in English relative
clauses translation. The findings of the study, first of all, are of value in terms of
insights into translation practices at CTU. Second, the study raises awareness among
teachers and students of English at CTU of translation errors resulting from nonexistence or non-equivalence between the source language (i.e., English) and the

target language (i.e., Vietnamese). Third, suggestions to improve the quality of
translation can serve as a useful reference for English students, as well as novice
translators.
1.4 Organization of the research
The thesis consists of 6 main chapters.
Chapter 1 Introduction provides the rationale, aims, hypothesis and organization
of the research.
Chapter 2 Literature review covers the theory of translation consisting of
definition of translation, translation process, translation methods and translation
errors. Besides, theory of English relative clauses and an overview of research studies
are also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 3 Research methodology reports the research method employed in my
study including the descriptions of research questions, research design, research
instruments, participants and procedures.
Chapter 4 Results presents summaries of data collected from the test and
analyzes the statistic results.
4


Chapter 5 Discussions, Recommendations and Pedagogical implications discusses
findings to the two research questions. Suggestions to improve translation errors and
pedagogical implications also reported in this chapter.
Chapter 6 Limitations and Suggestions for further research addresses limitations
of the study and suggestions for the further research.

5


CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes definitions of translation, translation process, translation methods,
translation errors and definitions of English relative clauses.

2.1 Translation
2.1.1 Definition of translation
Translation is defined variously in the literature. Catford (1965), for instance,
defines translation as the act of replacing text material in the source language by an
equivalent text in the target language. Pinchuck (1975) simply states that translation
is “the transfer of meanings” (p.35). Newmark (1981) discribes translation as a craft
consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one
language by the same message or statement in another language. Dubois (1973 , as
cited in Newmark, 1995) also shares the same viewpoint when defining translation
as the representation in target language of a text or a message in source
language providing that semantic and stylistic equivalences are preserved.
Additionally, Newmark (1995) emphasizes on the importance of preserving
the author‘s intention when translating his text from one language to another.
Regardless of the differences of definitions, there is an agreement on the basic
principle: meaning should be the most important consideration in translation so that
the intention (i.e., message) of the original text is conveyed accurately. According to
Larson (1984), translation is basically a change of form, and transferring the meaning
of the source language into the receptor language is done by going from the form of
the first language to the form of the second language by way of semantic structure.
Translation, then, consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure,
communication situation, and cultural context of the source language text, analyzing it
in order to determine its meaning, and then reconstructing this same meaning using
the lexicon and grammatical structure, which are appropriate in the receptor language
and its cultural context. However, he also shows that translators hardly think about the
fact that the grammatical form and the lexical choices are so difficult.
Besides, David Crystal (1965) presents a widely accepted point of view, a

translation is adequate when equivalence is set up between two sets of forms from
different languages, which are sentences and structural adjustment in a sentence is
another important strategy for achieving equivalence. Similarly, Bell (1991) states that

6


to shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the forms. The
alteration of form may mean changes of categories, word classes, and word orders.
In addition, structural adjustment that is also called shift (Catford, 1965) or
transposition (Vinay & Darbellnet, 1977) or alteration (Newmark, 1988) refers to a
change in the grammar from source language to target language (Newmark, 1988).
Structural adjustment, according to Nida (1964), has various purposes, including: 1) to
permit adjustment of the form of the message to the requirements of structure of the
receptor language, 2) to produce semantically equivalent structures, 3) to provide
equivalent stylistic appropriateness, and 4) to carry an equivalent communication load.
In summary, from these views, it can be concluded that translation is not simply
to rewrite the source language text into the target language text. In the process of
translation, such linguistic elements as lexicon communication situation, cultural
context and grammatical structure may affect the translation. Therefore, transferring
meaning in translation is an extremely important task. In order to produce a good
translation, translators should find appropriate equivalences ranging from
lexical level, sentence level to the level of discourse. Besides, correspondence in
meaning can be given the priority over correspondence in form (Munday,2001).
2.1.2 Translation process
Nida (1964) and Suryawinata (1982) consider the translation process as consisting of
three types of activity: 1) the analysis of the source language text, 2) the transfer of
content, meaning or message, and 3) the restructuring in the target language.
Figure 1 Nida‟s model of translation process

(Nida and Taber, 1969:33)
The translation process begins with the analysis of the source language text
(Zabalbeascoa, 2000). Ideally, translators read the text two or three times to get a
general idea of the original text and to identify possible problems. This will lead them
to decide what translation method they should employ. The next stage of the
translation process is transferring. Transferring is the process of going from the
semantic structure analysis to the initial draft of the translation (Larson, 1984).
Translators may fully understand the intention of the original language text but then
may face problems of how to convey it into target sentences. The last stage of the
translation process is the restructuring of the translation. This is the stage where the
7


translators check for grammatical errors and consistency in using technical terms. It is
also the stage where the translators take into account the stylistic form that conforms
to the norm and culture of the target language and reading ability of target readers.
According to Mason (1988), the process of translation consists of 4 stages. The
first step is to find the lexicon and grammatical structures in the target language to
convey the message and to make changes required in the target language. In the
second step, the translator will consider the genre of the text and use the appropriate
grammatical sequence in the translation. The third step is to apply the rules of the
genre in the target language into the translation. The final step is to correct any
miscommunication that may occur to ensure that the communication from the source
language text to the target language text is explicit.
Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995) divide the translation process into two types of
activity: understanding a source text and formulating a target text.
However, when translating, translators not only are engaged in a translation
process but also employ appropriate translation.
2.1.3 Translation methods
Newmark (1988) mentions the difference between translation methods and translation

procedures. He writes that translation methods relate to whole texts but translation
procedures are used for sentences and the smaller units of language. He suggests 8
methods of translation as follows:
 Word-for-word translation: in which the SL word order is preserved and the
words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context.
 Literal translation: in which the SL grammatical constructions are converted to
their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are again translated singly,
out of context.
 Faithful translation: attempting to produce the precise contextual meaning of
the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures.
 Semantic translation: differing from 'faithful translation' only in as far as it
must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL text.
 Adaptation: being the freest form of translation, and is used mainly for plays
(comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the
SL culture is converted to the TL culture and the text is rewritten.
 Free translation: producing the TL text without the style, form, or content of
the original.
 Idiomatic translation: reproducing the 'message' of the original but tends to
distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where
these do not exist in the original.

8




Communicative translation: attempting to render the exact contextual meaning
of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily
acceptable and comprehensible to the readership
Among these translation methods, semantic and communicative are assumed as

two effective translation methods. While semantic translation attempts to render, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of second language allow, the exact
contextual meaning of original, communicative translation attempts to produce on its
readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original
(Newmark, 1981). Besides, Newmark also identifies semantic translation is personal
and individual; it follows the thought processes of the author, tends to over-translate,
pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order to reproduce pragmatic
impact. Communicative translation concentrates on the message and the main force of
the text, tends to under-translate, and is always written in a natural and resourceful
style. Therefore, it is simple, clear and brief. On the other hand, Munday (2001)
indicates that one basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a
conflict, communicative must emphasize the ―force‖ rather than the content of the
message. Thus for ―coi chừng chó dữ”, the communicative translation Beware of the
dog! is mandatory, semantic translations (‗dog that bites‟, „savage dog‟) would be
more informative but less effective. Generally, a semantic translation is normally
inferior to its original, as there is both cognitive and pragmatic loss; a communicative
translation is often better than its original. To conclude, a semantic translation has to
interpret, a communicative translation to explain.
Then we must consider that literal translation and word-for-word translation is
not much different. In both methods, the lexical words are translated singly, out of
context. Therefore, a combination of these two methods into ―the literal word-for
word translation‖ proves a more effective translation method as Newmark (1981)
explains that the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best; it is a basic and
necessary method of translation.
In short, among the 8 translation methods, communicative is considered as the
best one. A communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more
direct and conventional, conforming to a particular register of language, tending to
under translate, i.e. to use more genetic, hold-all terms in difficult passages compared
with semantic translation (Newmark, 1981).
2.1.4 Translation errors

Neubert & Shreve (1995) depict translation errors in the following statement:
―What rightly appears to be linguistically equivalent may very frequently qualify as
'translationally' nonequivalent. This is so because the complex demands on
adequacy in translation involve subject factors and transfer conventions that typically
9


run counter to considerations about 'surface' linguistic equivalence.
This statement partially describes the complication and difficulty in defining and
identifying translation errors. Translation errors are different from errors that would
occur in spontaneous native language production. In translation, working with a
source text induces errors under the influence of source language morphology,
whereas in spontaneous second language production, native morphological system of
language learner tends to interfere with knowledge of the second language system. In
the case of second language learners, identifying translation errors is tricky as
translation errors may be mixed up with linguistic errors.
Gile (1992, as cited in Melis and Albir, 2001) assumes errors in translation
are made due to three main causes: lack of knowledge (extra-linguistic, in the SL and
the TL); lack of methodology; and lack of motivation. However, how to classify
translation errors remains controversial for there is no unified framework of error
classification until now.
Newmark (1995) simply classifies most of the ‗mistakes‘ into two types:
referential and linguistic. In his classification, referential mistakes refer to all mistakes
relating to facts or information in the real world. Linguistic mistakes, on the other
hand, result from the translator‘s lack of proficiency in the foreign language.
Linguistic mistakes include words, collocations, and idioms.
Meanwhile, American Translation Association (ATA) suggests a list of 22 types
of errors that should be used as criteria for marking errors and evaluating work done
by professional translators:
1) Incomplete passage, 2) Illegible handwriting, 3) Misunderstanding of the original

text, 4) Mistranslation, 5) Addition or omission, 6) Terminology, word choice, 7)
Register, 8) Too freely translated, 9) Too literal, word-for-word translation, 10) False
cognate, 11) Indecision in word choice, 12) Inconsistent, 13) Ambiguity, 14)
Grammar, 15) Syntax, 16) Punctuation, 17) Spelling, 18) Accents and other
diacritical marks, 19) Case (upper case/lower case), 20) Word form, 21) Usage and
22) Style
It‘s obvious that the framework covers all different types of possible errors that
translators might encounter. However, the list focuses more on linguistic aspect of the
translation tasks. Moreover, it also concentrates more on sentence-level errors rather
than text-level errors.
2.2 English Relative Clause
Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999) define relative clauses as ―a type of complex
postnominal adjectival modifier that is used in both written and spoken English‖.
They further explain ―Relative clauses give a means to encode complex adjectival
modifiers that are easier to produce than complex attributive structures and that are
less wordy than two independent clauses‖. Therefore, a relative clause is formed based
10


on the relationship of more than one sentence, where the relationship is the result of
―embedding‖ or the creation of one clause within another higher-order Clause. In the
following example, the relative clause is embedded within the noun phrase and
functions as an adjective to modify it:
The book has arrived. You ordered it last month
The book [which you ordered last month] has arrived.
(Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985).

In simpler terms, a relative or adjective clause is a subordinate clause that
modifies a noun or pronoun (noun phrase) that precedes it in the main clause. The
noun phrase is referred to as the antecedent (Dart, 1982) or head noun (Celce-Murcia

& Larsen Freeman, 1999). An adjective clause is introduced or marked by a relative
pronoun, which can function as the subject, direct object, indirect object, object of the
preposition, predicate noun or possessive determiner of the adjective clause and has
coreference to the antecedent (Quirk et al., 1985). Celce-Mucia and Larsen-Freemen
(1999) call this ―relative pronoun substitution or relativization‖. Relative pronouns
are critical to the formation and usage of relative clauses. Quirk et al. (1985) define
relative pronouns as ―having the double role of referring to the antecedent (which
determines the gender selection, e.g. who/which) and of functioning as all of, or part
of, an element in the relative clause (which determines the case form for those items
that have case distinction, e.g. who/whom.)‖
Quirk et al. (1985) also divide relative pronouns into two series:
 wh-pronouns: who, whom, whose, which. This series contrasts between people
(who) and things (which). It also contrasts case depending on the function in
the clause: subject (who), object and object of a preposition (whom), and
possession (whose).
 that and zero (deletion or omission of the relative pronoun). That, omission of a
relative pronoun, and which do not contrast number or between people and
things.
I‟d like to see the car [which, that, Ø] you bought last week

Quirk et al. (1985) summarizes the functions of the relative pronouns as well as the
forms and uses of the two series in the following table

11


Table 2.2 The functions, forms, uses of the relative pronouns
Function in Relative Human
Clause
Subject Noun Phrase

Who, that

Nonhuman

Object Noun Phrase
- Direct Object
- Indirect Object
- Object of Preposition
Possessive Noun Phrase

Whom, that, (zero)

Which, that, (zero)

Whose

Whose

Which, that

(Quirk et al, 1985:366)
2.2.1 Types of relative clauses
Graver (1997) and Thomson, Martinet (2003) classified relative clauses into two basic
types: Defining relative clauses and Non-defining relative clauses. Similarly, Garant
(1991) presented there are two main types of Relative clauses: Restrictive relative
clause and Non-restrictive relative clauses. Although there are different names for two
types of relative clauses, Non-defining relative clauses and Non-restrictive relative
clauses are the same type. Similarly, Defining relative clauses and Restrictive relative
clauses are also the same type.
2.2.1.1 Restrictive relative clauses

Restrictive relative clauses provide a post modifier, which is essential for the
identification of the antecedent. If it were omitted, the addressee might well ask
―which girl?‖ Such clauses are called ‗restrictive‘ because they restrict the referent of
the antecedent noun. The following is an example of restrictive relative clauses:
The girl that you met yesterday is my younger sister. (Garnant, 1991)
2.2.1.2 Non-restrictive relative clauses
The relative clauses give additional information, which is not essential for the
identification of the NP. The referent is already identifiable on other grounds. Such
classes are called ‗non-restrictive‘. Non-restrictive relative clauses are typically
(though not necessarily) used with nouns with an anaphoric definite article, nouns
with (contextually) unique referents, and proper nouns. The example below illustrates
the case:
The Prime Minister, who is usually very calm and self-assured, seemed to be
embarrassed on that occasion. (Garnant, 1991)

12


2.2.2 Punctuating relative clauses
English learners find it difficult to decide when to use a comma before a relative
clause and when this is unnecessary, but the rule is really rather simple.
If a relative clause defines or identifies the noun it modifies, no comma is
required as in the following sentence:
The woman who is sitting next to me wants to ask a question.

In this sentence, the clause who is sitting next to me identifies a particular woman
(the one sitting next to me).
If the relative clause adds additional information or facts about the noun, then the
clause must be set off from the rest of the sentence by commas.
2.3 Related studies

Extensive studies have been conducted in a variety of translation field. However,
research on translation of sentences with English relative clauses is limited.
A case of study on the translation of English sentences with relative clauses and
some ways to avoid unnaturalness in the Vietnamese version was conducted by Mai
(n.d.). The results of the study showed that most of errors were linguistic errors, which
were divided into three levels: word level, phrase level and sentence level . Basing on
the findings, the author suggested some ways to avoid the mistakes when translating
sentences with relative clauses into Vietnamese.
Similarly, Nguyen (n.d.) undertook a descriptive research about translation relative
clauses from English into Vietnamese. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate
some mistakes in the translation of relative clauses from English into Vietnamese. In
this research, the only mistake using ―người (mà)‖, ― cái (mà)‖, ―người (đó)‖, ―cái
(đó)‖, ―(cái) của (người)(vật)…‖ was examined. The author found that these words
were repeatedly used and became clichés and the translation actually became
monotonous and gloomy.
On the basing of the findings, the two studies presented three ways to avoid
unnaturalness: (1) Splitting, (2) using hyphen ―-‖ for explanation and (3) translating
relative clauses basing on the context style.
Le (2006) conducted a descriptive research titled ―Unnaturalness in English –
Vietnamese translation: causes and cures‖. The study aims to work out some of the
major causes of unnaturalness in English – Vietnamese translations by students of
English. In this study, one error of unnaturalness, that was, the overuse of “mà”, “khi
mà”, rằng” to signal a relative clause in a sentence. The study showed that the
overuse of these words in translating English relative clauses into Vietnamese without
reasonable modification may spoil the outcome in term of unnaturalness

13


In summary, this chapter has reviewed the theory of translation including definition

of translation, translation process, translation methods and translation errors. Besides,
theory of English relative clauses and three related studies were also presented in the
chapter.

14


CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, details of how the study was conducted are described. The description aims
to prove the appropriateness of the research method used and the reliability and the validity
of the study‟s findings. There are five parts in this chapter: research questions, research
design, participants, research instruments, and procedure.

3.1 Research questions
In this research the researcher investigate and answer two questions:
1. Do third-year English majors make errors in translating English relative clauses
into Vietnamese?
2. What types of translation error are made by these students?

3.2 Hypotheses
Basing on the related literature and the research questions, the researcher
hypothesized that (1) the third-year English majors at Can Tho University would make
errors in translation of sentences with English relative clauses into Vietnamese and (2)
these errors would include syntactic structures (i.e., relative clauses), the structure and
function of relative clauses, naturalness (i.e., lexical inadequacies) and
misinterpretations.
3.3 Research design
In this study, the researcher conducted two research activities: (a) designing a

translation test for third-year undergraduate English majors who are attending a course
of Translation and Interpretation in Practice 2 (reported in section 3.4.1 of this
chapter) and (b) analyzing the data gained from the translation test using Statistics
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) to explore the frequencies of errors in
translating English relative clauses (reported in chapter 4 and 5).
With the aim of investigating the errors in translating English relative clauses into
Vietnamese, the researcher conducted a descriptive research in which both qualitative
and quantitative approaches to collect and analyze the data were employed. That is to
say, the data were analyzed first qualitatively to discover and describe the translation
errors. Then, these errors were quantified as statistics in terms of frequencies.

15


3.4 Participants
The participants in the research are 50 students majoring in English Language Studies
from Course 33. These students have completed the modules of Translation, Theory of
Translation, Translation and Interpretation in Practice 1, and English Grammar In
Use. They are currently taking the course of Translation and Interpretation in
Practice 2. The participants were chosen on 3 principal reasons:
1. They have studied the form, meaning and use of relative clause in English.
2. They have been trained in translation in terms of translation process, translation
methods and translation skills.
3. They are currently taking the course of Translation and Interpretation in
Practice2, which is relevant to the context of the study (i.e., translation analysis).
3.5 Research Instruments
In order to answer two research questions, the researcher developed and administered
a translation test. The translation test is useful for collecting data in descriptive
research; it is used to assess aspects such as comprehension, written production,
lexicon, grammar and transfer from source language into target language (Seliger &

Shohamy, 2000). The data gained from the test responses of 50 participants were
analyzed using descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies to investigate how often
certain types of translation errors occur basing on counting the number of translation
error occurrences.
3.6 Procedure
3.6.1 Test development
Test structure
The translation test was designed with 20 single items that require students to
translate these sentences from English into Vietnamese. All of 20 items contained
relative clauses. In particular, there were 11 items (1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
17) with restrictive relative clauses and 9 items with non-restrictive relative clauses (4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 18, 19, 20). They were randomly ordered in the test.
The testing items were chosen from several Grammar reference books which are
available in CTU Learning Resource Centre. To be specific, the testing items were
chosen based on three criteria: (a) They were presented in the chapter of relative
clauses in the Grammar reference books, (b) They contain 8 types of Relative
Clauses: that, who, whom, whose, which, where, when, and why and (c) They have
reliable resources and illustrated in literature review (see Appendix 1 for testing).
Twenty items were categorized into eleven clusters of designed aspects (partly
adapted from American Translation Association (ATA) and Newmark, 1995): (1)
incomplete sentences, (2) misunderstanding of the original text, (3) mistranslation, (4)
16


addition, (5) omission, (6) word choice, (7) too freely translated, (8) too literal, wordfor-word translation, (9) ambiguity, (10) grammatical structure, (11) using ―mà”(see
Appendix 1 for the translation test).
Scoring method
Determining procedures for scoring the responses is the final step in the test
development. The responses were scored either right or wrong (i.e., right/wrong
scoring) or in terms of degrees of correctness (i.e., partial credit scoring). Instead, the

responses were analyzed using descriptive statistic to characterize the quantitative
characteristics of the test responses. Instead, the test responses were carefully
examined to sort out the translation errors. To do this, the researcher employed the
criteria for identifying and marking translation errors which were partly adapted from
American Translation Association (ATA) and Newmark (1995).
Several improvements have been made to the original criteria in other that the
adapted criteria could be best used in the context of the study. First, since the study is
about translation of separate sentences, the criterion –incomplete passage was
transformed into incomplete sentence. Second, register, style, inconsistent were not
considered; these criteria are applied to longer texts than single sentences. Next,
spelling and illegible handwriting, punctuation, case (upper/lower) were not counted
as major errors for the following reasons: (a) translation text was written in student‘s
native language (i.e, Vietnamese), (b) the form or formation of relative clauses in
English and Vietnamese are completely different; punctuation in English relative
clauses may not be presented in the equal Vietnamese equivalence and (c) according
to Newmark‘s (1995) classification of translation errors, errors relating to facts or
information in the real world (i.e., referential) and resulting from the translator‘s lack
of proficiency in the foreign language (i.e., linguistic) are treated as grave or very
serious errors, so errors concerning the form of translation text are not important.
In addition, the testing items were designed without any terminology or terms
used in specific fields; terminology was not attended to. Indecision in word choice
and word choice were clustered into one criterion; grammar, usage, word form and
syntax were also grouped into grammatical structure. Addition and omission were
delivered into two different clusters (i.e., two different errors). As the focus of the
study is on translation not interpretation, accents and other diacritical marks are
completely unnecessary. Finally, in communicative translation whenever translators
translate an information text, ―unnaturalness‖ is supposed to be acquired in translation
text (Newmark, 2001). Besides, Le (2006) stated that overuse “mà” in translating
Eglish relative clauses into Vietnamese made the translation become unnatural.
Therefore, using “mà” resulting in unnaturalness was employed in the criteria for

identifying and marking errors in the study.
17


3.6.2 Test administration

With the assistance of the instructor of Translation and Interpretation in Practice 2,
the translation test was administered in a formal classroom testing. In order for test
taker to have opportunities to perform at their best, I provided them with clear
instructions on the test to let them know exactly what they are expected to do before
they did the test (Bachman& Palmer, 1997). The instructions informed test takers of:
(a) the purposes of the test (i.e. to collect data on errors in translating sentences with
relative clauses, (b) the exact nature of the testing procedure and the testing task (i.e.,
sentence translation), (c) how they were responded to the task, (d) what time limit was
allowed, (e) how their responses were evaluated.
The test lasted approximately 30 minutes. The test responses were then collected
on time and served as the raw data in the study.

18


CHAPTER 4

RESULTS
This chapter reports summary of data collected from the test responses and analysis of
statistical frequencies of errors on translation of sentences with relative clauses.

An English – Vietnamese translation test was delivered to 50 participants; 50 test
responses were collected for data analysis. Each response was carefully studied to
identify the participants‘ errors in translating sentences with relative clauses.

As reported in chapter 3, the errors on translation of sentences with relative
clauses were investigated via a twenty-item test. The responses were not scored either
right or wrong (i.e., right/wrong scoring) or in terms of degrees of correctness (i.e.,
partial credit scoring). Instead, the responses were analyzed using descriptive statistic
to characterize the quantitative characteristics of the test responses.
The criteria for marking errors were partly adapted from ATA and Newmark
(1995) including 11 errors: (1) incomplete sentences, (2) misunderstanding of the
original text, (3) mistranslation, (4) addition, (5) omission, (6) word choice, (7) too
freely translated, (8) too literal, word-for-word translation, (9) ambiguity, (10)
grammatical structure, (11) using ―mà‖. The researcher employed these criteria to
identify translation errors in the test responses. Table 4 below describes types of
errors, together with the description of these errors.
Table 4 Criteria for marking errors
Types of errors
incomplete
sentence
misunderstanding
of the original text
mistranslation

addition
omission

description
including sentences which were not completely translated or relative clauses
were not translated in the sentences.
misreading a word or mistranslating the syntax of a sentence. In other words,
the result is wrong because the translation was based on a misunderstood
source sentences.
the meaning of the original sentence is not conveyed properly in the target

language. For example, a term in the translated sentences might be much
more general or more specific than the original term.
something is inserted that is not clearly expressed in the original sentences.
The tendency to insert ―clarifying‖ material should generally be resisted.
something essential to the meaning is left out. It is permissible to shorten the
ponderous modes of expression that are common in some source sentences,
so long as the meaning does not suffer.

19


word choice

in more general texts, the participants might not have selected the most
appropriate word among several that have similar (but not identical)
meanings. Graders will not choose the right word for the participants. Even if
both options are correct, an error will be marked.
Too
freely participants are asked to translate the meaning and intent of the source
translated
sentences, not to rewrite it or improve upon it. The grader will carefully
compare the translation to the source sentences. If a ―creative‖ rendition
changes the meaning, an error will be marked. If recasting a sentence—i.e.,
altering the order of its major elements—destroys the flow, changes the
emphasis, or obscures the author‘s intent, an error may be marked.
too literal,
translations that follow the source sentences exactly may result in awkward,
word-for-word
often incorrect renditions. Translate literally when it works, but not at the
translation

expense of clarity and natural syntax.
ambiguity
if the meaning is clear in the source sentences but ambiguous in the
translation, an error may be marked. The reader should not have to puzzle out
the meaning.
Grammatical
the arrangement of words or other elements of a sentence should conform to
structure
the rules of the target language. Errors in this category include sentence
fragments, improper modification, lack of parallelism, and unnatural word
order. If incorrect syntax changes or obscures the meaning, the error is more
serious.
using “mà”:
in the Vietnamese versions, the participants used these words: ―mà‖, ―người
mà‖, ―cái mà‖…which caused unnaturalness in the sentences.

The data obtained from the test responses were subjected to Statistics Package for
the Social Science (SPSS) for data analysis. In order to have an overall look at how
often the students made errors when translating sentences with relative clauses, the
researcher ran Frequencies Statistics test. ―x‖ was used as a sign for marking errors of.
The frequencies percentage of ―x‖ for each of eleven clusters presented how often the
errors occurred. The results of the Frequency Statistics tests are reported in the
following tables

20