测试翻译审查:基于共识的审查小组讨论过程和翻译错误检测研究

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Xueyu Zhao, Guillermo Solano-Flores
{"title":"测试翻译审查:基于共识的审查小组讨论过程和翻译错误检测研究","authors":"Xueyu Zhao, Guillermo Solano-Flores","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2023.1303617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examined the discussion processes through which two independent consensus-based review panels detected errors in the same sample of items from an international test translated from English to Chinese. The discussion processes were defined according to four events: (1) identifying a potential error; and (2) agreeing with, (3) disagreeing with, and (4) elaborating an opinion expressed by other panelists. We found that, while the two panels had similar error detection rates, only half of the errors detected by the two panels altogether were detected by both panels. In addition, of the errors detected by the two panels, more than half were detected by the panels through different discussion processes. No discussion process occurred substantially more frequently or less frequently for any translation error dimension. We conclude that the unique combination of backgrounds, skills, and communication styles of panel members and the unique combination of textual features in each item shape which errors each panel is capable of detecting. While panels can be highly effective in detecting errors, one single panel may not be sufficient to detect all possible errors in a given set of translated items. Consensus-based translation error review panels should not be assumed to be exchangeable.","PeriodicalId":52290,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"27 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test translation review: a study on discussion processes and translation error detection in consensus-based review panels\",\"authors\":\"Xueyu Zhao, Guillermo Solano-Flores\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/feduc.2023.1303617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examined the discussion processes through which two independent consensus-based review panels detected errors in the same sample of items from an international test translated from English to Chinese. The discussion processes were defined according to four events: (1) identifying a potential error; and (2) agreeing with, (3) disagreeing with, and (4) elaborating an opinion expressed by other panelists. We found that, while the two panels had similar error detection rates, only half of the errors detected by the two panels altogether were detected by both panels. In addition, of the errors detected by the two panels, more than half were detected by the panels through different discussion processes. No discussion process occurred substantially more frequently or less frequently for any translation error dimension. We conclude that the unique combination of backgrounds, skills, and communication styles of panel members and the unique combination of textual features in each item shape which errors each panel is capable of detecting. While panels can be highly effective in detecting errors, one single panel may not be sufficient to detect all possible errors in a given set of translated items. Consensus-based translation error review panels should not be assumed to be exchangeable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"volume\":\"27 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1303617\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1303617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了两个以共识为基础的独立审查小组在一次从英文翻译成中文的国际测试中发现同一样本项目错误的讨论过程。讨论过程根据四个事件进行定义:(1) 发现潜在错误;(2) 同意、(3) 不同意、(4) 阐述其他小组成员表达的意见。我们发现,虽然两个小组的错误检出率相似,但在两个小组检出的错误中,只有一半是两个小组都检出的。此外,在两个小组发现的错误中,有一半以上是两个小组通过不同的讨论过程发现的。在任何一个翻译错误维度上,讨论过程的出现频率都没有大幅提高或降低。我们的结论是,小组成员的背景、技能和交流风格的独特组合,以及每个项目中文本特征的独特组合,决定了每个小组能够检测出哪些错误。虽然专家小组能非常有效地发现错误,但一个单一的专家小组可能不足以发现特定翻译项目中所有可能的错误。不应假定基于共识的翻译错误审查小组是可以交换的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Test translation review: a study on discussion processes and translation error detection in consensus-based review panels
We examined the discussion processes through which two independent consensus-based review panels detected errors in the same sample of items from an international test translated from English to Chinese. The discussion processes were defined according to four events: (1) identifying a potential error; and (2) agreeing with, (3) disagreeing with, and (4) elaborating an opinion expressed by other panelists. We found that, while the two panels had similar error detection rates, only half of the errors detected by the two panels altogether were detected by both panels. In addition, of the errors detected by the two panels, more than half were detected by the panels through different discussion processes. No discussion process occurred substantially more frequently or less frequently for any translation error dimension. We conclude that the unique combination of backgrounds, skills, and communication styles of panel members and the unique combination of textual features in each item shape which errors each panel is capable of detecting. While panels can be highly effective in detecting errors, one single panel may not be sufficient to detect all possible errors in a given set of translated items. Consensus-based translation error review panels should not be assumed to be exchangeable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Education
Frontiers in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
887
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信