Individual Differences in the Translation Process:

Differences in the act of translation between two groups of ESL Japanese

students
by Atsushi Iida
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in translation processes between
Japanese students who have less experience and those who have the experience of having lived
in the United States. In order to achieve this goal, participants who were six Japanese students
at Indiana University of Pennsylvania were asked to translate a short passage from Japanese to
English and then interviewed as to their translation processes. This study lastly discusses the
difference in translation process among Japanese students and the relationship between their
word choices and their translations.
Introduction
The Grammar-Translation method has been widely applied to EFL Japanese contexts.
Thus, Japanese students are quite familiar with translation. These students are expected to
translate English sentences into Japanese word by word, so that translation is one of the
necessary approaches in their language learning. In addition, translation is the only way for
middle and high school students to understand 'English' because they are taught to do so by
teachers and at the same time, it is a shortcut to getting high scores in exams or to passing the
entrance examinations. For that reason, many students tend to misidentify successful language
learners as those who are able properly to translate English texts into Japanese. In contrast, the
fact is that a test-based approach has provided situations in which students have to cram as much
English as possible. More specifically, these students are required to memorize not only
vocabulary items but also grammatical aspects of the English language. As a result, students
must be dependent on the strategy, which is 'memorization.' One of the main problems in this
approach is that students must translate the given texts on the basis of literal meanings of words,
ignoring the perspective as to how these words are used in English-speaking countries. In other
words, they do not study English in practical terms. Overall, all students are expected to translate
the English texts in the same way as their classmates do.
However, the fact is that, even though translators translate the same source text from L1
to L2, the produced documents vary, primarily due to individual differences (Coba, 2007),
including genders, translators' L1 and L2 aptitudes, L1 and L2 proficiencies, cultural
backgrounds or learning styles. With these differences, how do second language translators
negotiate the given texts? How do they choose words appropriate for the texts? Ultimately, what
factors determine their translation? This study will examine the differences among Japanese
students when translating a Japanese text into English. It will also address whether there are,
among interviewees, any specific translation strategies described by Howell (2001): foreignizing
or naturalizing translation; and linguistically-oriented or culturallly-oriented translation.
Previous Studies in Second Language Translation

Translation Studies have been conducted since the 1950s, but it is the past thirty years
when there has been a noteworthy movement away from a prescriptive approach towards more
objective research so as to better understand the concept of translation (Matrat, 1992).
Translation Studies have developed since then, but translation theories which all translators can
apply to their own practices have not been found yet. For that reason, Translation Studies have
been controversial from various viewpoints: what is the exact meaning of 'translation' and what
is a 'good' translation (Matrat, 1992); two completely different aspects of studies which are the
translation process and the translation product (Aly, 2004); problematizing translation between
two languages (Muller, 2007); and the concept of equivalence (Pym, 2007).
From a general perspective, similar to the process of second language learning, the
translation process varies according to translators. More specifically, their individual differences
which can affect their translation include: gender; L1 and L2 aptitudes; L1 and L2 proficiencies;
cultural background; and learning styles (Coba, 2007). Especially, cultural sensitivities are one
of the important factors translators need to consider.
Translation and Cultural Significance
Muller's (2007) study emphasized the significance of cultural awareness in translation.
This study reported on the relationship between language and politics in translation and
discussed that the act in translating is not just a neutral medium of communication but strictly
connected with politics. A crucial consideration in translation is to accept the imperfection and
recognize the impossibility of meaning equivalence, because there exist more or fewer both
cultural and linguistic differences. The argument of the study is that translation is "a conscious
ethical-political choice" (p.212) and this feature determines the language use in producing
translation. Cultural sensitiveness, therefore, is the key factor in translation.
William's (2005) study also indicated the cultural significance in the act of translation.
The study defined culture as life itself, neither simply as knowledge nor as manner. From this
viewpoint, translation referred to the action of negotiating cultural and linguistic codes, and the
perspective supported Kramsch's theory: "nature, culture and language are interrelated" (p.24).
In short, William's study indicates that a lack of cultural knowledge can cause misusage or
misunderstanding of language, and the feature negatively affects the performance of translation.
McCleanahen (1995) mentioned the importance of cultural correctness and linguistic
accuracy necessary for translation. His perspective of translation is not simply language
conversion but a cultural phenomenon which is more important than just customs or traditions.
Freeman discussed that translators should "be aware that people may perceive words in very
different ways because of their cultural background" (as cited in McCleanahen, 1995, p.19). In
this way, cultural significance is the one of the important factors which translators need to keep
in mind.
Translation and Equivalence
From a more specific point of view, the primary concern in Translation Studies is
'equivalence.' Pym (2007) reported on the concept of natural and directional equivalence in
translation theories. The concept of equivalence has been the assumption that "a source text and
a translation can share the same value (equi-valence) on some level (p.272). Natural equivalence
consists of "two-way of equivalence: 'natural,' at least in the sense that the correspondence exists
in some way prior to the act of translation" (p.278), while directional equivalence refers to nonnatural translation in that translators go straight from a source text to the target one. Pym's study

revealed that perfect equivalence between languages never exists and it is always assumed
equivalence.
The study of natural and directional equivalence (Pym, 2007) is closely related with the
concept of a semantic-pragmatic framework. Vendepitte (2007) examined, from a Dutch
translation of an English text, how the semantic and pragmatic framework works and it affects
translation products. The study reported on the necessity of both semantic and pragmatic
approaches in translation and at the same time, it emphasized the importance of a semanticpragmatic framework to gain awareness of the concept of equivalence in Translation Studies.
The study of Pym (2007) and Vendepitte (2007) has provided two distinct implications: there
are natural (pragmatic) and directional (semantic) meanings necessary for the translation, but
these meanings are not associated with the concept of equivalence; and a semantic-pragmatic
framework is prerequisite in producing translation, and its framework can heighten the degree
of equivalence.
Translation Process
In addition to the topic of equivalence, Translation Studies have been focused on
identifying the differences in translation processes between experienced or novice translators or
between high and low proficiencies of bilinguals. Groot and Poot's (1997) study has reported on
the relationship between translation process and bilinguals (L1 is Dutch, and L2 is English) with
different proficiency levels. This study indicated that less fluent bilinguals greatly depended on
word association translation which is based on a semantic approach and that bilinguals of various
L2 fluency levels accessed and applied conceptual memory representations into their translation
most of the time. Malkiel (2006) examined the following four features in translation generated
by both experienced and novice translators (L1 is Hebrew, and L2 is English): interference,
lexicalization, false cognates, and difficulties. Malkiel's study revealed that trained and
experienced translators produced higher-quality of translations and better performance than
untrained and inexperienced translators, but that translation process became neither easier nor
faster even in the case of trained and experienced translators.
Method
Participants
Participants were six Japanese students whose majors were Education, Business,
International Politics and MA TESOL at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. All participants
had similar educational backgrounds in English language learning. They had learned English
based on Grammar Translation Method in middle and high schools in Japan. They did not have
any working experiences relevant to translation either in Japan or the United States.
The six students were divided into two groups by the length of time they had attended college
in the United States. The first was the 'less experienced group' which consisted of three students
(two male and one female) who were exchange students from Kansai Gaikokugo University in
Kyoto, Japan. Seven months had passed since they arrived in the United States, and it was the
second semester for them to attend the class. The remaining three were the 'experienced group.'
These three students who were all male had been in the United States for more than one year.
Two students had lived in the United States for one year and eight months and one had lived
here for more than three years.

Data Collection
Data were collected from the following three sources. First of all, all participants were
given a source text which they were asked to translate from L1 (Japanese) into L2 (English).
The source text was chosen from a short passage (four sentences long, and 184 words total) in
Talking about Japan--Q&A. The text was about the explanation about typical Japanese
behaviors in the society, which were related to the concept of 'bending the truth.' In doing their
translation, the participants were allowed to use everything they needed, such as electronic and
online dictionaries, laptop, etc. In addition, time spent on a series of translation procedures was
measured.
Next, in order to examine participants' translation process, a questionnaire was
administered soon after the participants finished translating the source text. The questionnaire
consisted of the reflection on their process, their strategy used, their word choice, their approach
to the translation. All participants were given the option to answer the questions using either
Japanese or English.
Finally, based on both the translated text and the questionnaire, an interview was
conducted. The main purpose of the interview was to understand more about the problems they
encountered and the difficulties they had to translate from Japanese into English.
Data Analysis
In order to examine how the experience of having studied abroad in the United States
affects their translation, participants were divided into two groups depending on how long they
have lived there: less experienced and experienced groups. Data were analyzed quantitatively to
explore the difference in translation processes between the two groups, their strategy use and the
relationship between their word choices and their translation.
Results
Time Spent and Word Counts
The following tables indicate how much time the two groups of subjects spent on
translating and how many words they used in their translations. The experienced group devoted
less time than the less-experienced group did. However, there was no significant difference in
the number of English words used for the translation between two groups.
<Less-experienced Group>
Student

Gender

Term

Major

Time Spent

Words

A.

Male

7 months

Education

20 min.

79

B.

Male

7 months

Business

23 min.

81

C.

Female

7 months

Business

22 min.

71

<Experienced Group>
Student

Gender

Term

Major

Time Spent

Words

D.

Male

3 and 3 months

Politics

17 min.

83

E.

Male

1 and 8 months

MA.TESOL

19 min.

79

F.

Male

1 and 8 months

MA.TESOL

15 min.

71

Translation Process
All subjects in both the less-experienced and experienced group used a similar translation
process, though there were some differences in the points of grammar to which they paid
attention in translating (i.e. trying not to use the passive forms, clarifying the framework of each
sentence). All participants translated the text from Japanese to English in the following
sequence.
1. read through the source text.
2. interpret the content of the text.
3. think about what each sentence means.
4. translate each sentence (using dictionaries, if necessary).
5. check the translated sentences (and to fix them, if necessary).
All students, except for student D, paid attention to the rhetorical differences between
Japanese and English especially in starting to work on translation (in procedures 3 and 4). In
contrast, Student D tried to find and apply to his translation similar sentences, which he had
practically used in the United States. As for translation strategies, all participants used
dictionaries to a greater or lesser degree. However, the use of dictionaries between the two
groups was different. The experienced group used a bilingual English-Japanese dictionary only
to check the usage of vocabulary, not to get literal meaning of words. They also used a bilingual
Japanese-English dictionary to look up unfamiliar expressions, but they never used the words
the dictionary mentioned, because these words are different from what they wanted in their
translations. Their approach is based on pragmatics which refers to their practical language use
in the United States. On the other hand, the less-experienced group used both English-Japanese
and Japanese-English dictionaries in order to check the spelling as well as to get the literal
meaning of difficult words. As a result, the translated text turned out a word for word translation.
In this way, these results indicate that, though all participants took the same sequence in
producing translations, the expressed group was inclined to use a pragmatic approach while the
inexperienced group depended on semantic translations.
Word Choices
Regardless of the participants' level of experience, various factors influenced their word
choices in translating. Their word choices varied depending on how difficult were the words
used in the source text. For easier and more familiar words, all the participants could choose
intuitively, so that they didn't need much time to think about their word choices, nor did they
encounter any problems. In contrast, once they encountered difficult or unfamiliar expressions
in the source text, they first guessed what word could be the most appropriate for the context
and then checked whether the word fit into the sentence. Dictionaries, especially JapaneseEnglish dictionaries were used in the following situations: they had no idea as to what English
word could be applied to describe a specific Japanese expression in the source text, although
they were familiar with a basic English structure to be used; they did not come up with the
possible choices immediately after seeing a sentence in the source text. The decision of whether
they applied an English word found in Japanese-English dictionaries to the target text varied
according to the participants.
These results demonstrate that individual differences affected the participants' word
choices including the use of dictionaries in the process of translation. What kinds of dictionaries
each of the participants use varies depending on their preferences. In addition, one participant's
perception of the degree of difficulty of the words used in the source text is completely different

from the others', and the perception is related to each participant's language proficiency. In this
way, individual differences are the key factor to choose words in translating.
Factors to Enhance the Quality of Translation
As for the interview question of what factors affect the quality of the translation, the less
experienced group argued the significance of grammatical points including vocabulary items,
more specifically the meaning of English words. The more English words they had learned, the
higher the quality of translation they could produce. In contrast, the experienced group
highlighted the importance of 'experience' of using English in English-speaking countries rather
than just memorizing the meaning of English words. The more 'authentic' English, i.e., the
language actually used in English-speaking countries, they had learned, the more nuances they
could express in their translations. One of the common features in this group was that they had
learned English in terms of language use. In addition, the experienced group insisted on the
necessity to understand the L2 cultural background in translating.
Discussion
One of the findings is that, similar to second-language learning, all participants are
inclined to use their own approaches in translating. Each participant's translation process was a
distinct process, different from that of the others.
The earlier chart, which reports on the relationship between the time spent and word
counts in the two groups, indicates that experience does not necessarily make translation easier
and faster. This result supports Gerloff's hypothesis of translation process: "Translation Does
Not Get Easier" (as cited in Malkiel, 2006, p.356), even though professional translators or
bilinguals work on it. All participants felt that this translation from the source text into the target
text was not easy (nobody checked 'very easy' nor 'quite easy' in the questionnaire). Along with
that, five participants were dissatisfied with their product (only student E checked 'quite
satisfied,' while others checked 'somewhat dissatisfied.') Furthermore, student F answered, in
the interview, that the reason why he spent only 15 minutes on his translation was not because
he had long-term experience of living in the United States but simply because he was familiar
with the topic of the source text. These results imply that a long-term experience of living in the
United States is not the only component to make translation easier and faster. Rather, the longterm staying in the country does not affect the time spent and word count.
However, experience influences the translation process, including what approach is used
or what translation strategy is applied to the translation. The primary difference between the
less-experienced and experienced groups was whether a semantic or pragmatic approach was
used in translation.
The less-experienced group translated the source text word for word while the
experienced group translated in terms of pragmatics. In other words, the translated document
produced by the less-experienced group is less natural than that of the experienced group. This
result is similar to Groot and Poot's (1997) study which discussed that less fluent bilinguals used
'word-associated' translation, which is based on the direct connection between the corresponding
L1 and L2 word-form representations, so that they cannot use the natural approach in their
translation. From this point of view, one of the crucial elements to enhance the quality of
translation is knowledge of pragmatics, more specifically when, how, and in what situation the
target language is used in the society. All participants in this study confirmed that both L2
linguistic and cultural knowledge gained through the experience of having lived in the United

States is necessary for better performance, and that it is required to go beyond the concept of
'word-associated' translation to enhance the quality of translation.
This idea is associated with Bruner's (1986) theory of world creation in that the nature
of transaction consists of syntax, referring, meaning, and constitutiveness. Especially
constitutiveness plays an important role in connecting inner idea to outer notion, and the feature
can allow us to situate ourselves in a world of shared reality. His statement, "learning how to
use language involves both learning the culture and learning how to express intentions in
congruence with the culture" (p.65) is fundamental in thinking how language use shapes
thinking. His central perspective is that world creation occurs through the process of negotiating
meaning and culture, more specifically cultural or social facts provide people with the pattern
of human action, growth, and understanding. Bruner's theory is associated with the concept of
cultural awareness in the act of translation. It is, therefore, vital for translators to understand how
L2 culture is different from L1 culture and how the use of L2 is different from that of L1.
Vygotsky's (1989) theory can also be applied to Bruner's perspective. Vygotsky's main
idea is that inner speech always develops from external speech, and the dynamic process
involved in the transformation from inner to external speech. More concretely, our life is always
bound by context, and contextual significance becomes the key factor for us to combine our
thoughts with words. The process of connecting the two factors can allow our thoughts to have
meanings, which can be shared with others in a specific context.
Both Bruner's and Vygotsky's theories include an important implication for Translation
Studies. The fact is that there are many cases in which the translation does not make sense even
though the source text is literally translated word for word. It occurs because of lack of cultural
significance. From this viewpoint, a natural approach which is based on pragmatics is more
important than a directional method in terms of using expressions to be more appropriate for the
target (L2) text. The difference in translation between less-experienced and experienced group
is the level of practical L2 use proficiency. Hence, even though participants in the lessexperienced group attempted to translate the source text naturally, a lack of pragmatic
knowledge resulted in a word-associated translation.
This constraint affects translators' strategy use and word choice. For instance, the use of
a dictionary is a major strategy in both the less-experienced and experienced group. However,
what dictionary and how it is used varied depending on the groups. A finding gained through
the interview is that participants in the experienced group tried not to use any dictionary,
especially a Japanese-English dictionary. It is because they had realized, from their experience
of second-language learning, that the meaning of words provided in the dictionary is not always
appropriate. As a result, they attempted to organize the text and produce a better result using
some expressions they had actually used in their life in the United States. On the other hand,
participants in the less-experienced group struggled with the use of a Japanese-English
dictionary, but they had to rely on the meaning found in the dictionary because of a lack of
pragmatic knowledge.
Word choices in the act of translation seem to depend on the participants' experiences.
A few participants mentioned that intuition determined word choices, but those who were in the
less-experienced group tried to translate the source text using the literal meaning of each word.
On the other hand, participants in the experienced group attempted to do so within their
knowledge which they had already gained through their experience of studying in the United
States, and arrange the source (Japanese) text to be most appropriate for the English expressions.
Even when an English word they chose did not have exactly the same meaning as the Japanese

word, they regarded their translation as being fine because the translated sentence made sense
in the given context. In other words, participants are inclined to choose words appropriate for
the text which needs to be translated.
Conclusion
From a qualitative analysis, this study has reported on individual differences in
translation process. As for the first research question, "what are the differences in the translation
process among Japanese students," each of the Japanese students is inclined to use
fundamentally a process like the following: reading through the source text; interpreting the
content of the source text; thinking about what each sentence means; translating each sentence;
and finally, checking and revising the translated sentences. However, the translation approach
and the strategy used, including the use of dictionaries, vary depending on students. In addition,
each student tends to choose different L2 words. This result is related to the second research
question, what is the relationship between word choices and translation. The act of translation is
affected by various factors, but one of the most important ones is 'experience.' Experience refers
to learning L2 in a country where the language is actually used. Along with that, it includes a
greater understanding of L2 culture through experience. It affects both process and product in
translating. The less experience translators have, the more directional and word-associated
translation they produce, while the more experience they have, the more natural meaning they
can generate. Overall, individual differences in translation come from experience.
There are some limitations in this study. First of all, the number of participants was small.
For that reason, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other contexts. Second, this study
focused only on the translation from L1 (Japanese) to L2 (English), but the opposite process
which refers to the translation from L2 (English) to L1 (Japanese) was not researched. From this
viewpoint, the study just reported on one side of the act of translating. Previous studies (e.g. Aly,
2004) have indicated that translation from L2 to L1 is more difficult than that of L1 to L2. Hence,
conducting research on the translation from L2 to L1 could provide more valid outcomes.
Nevertheless, this study is meaningful in terms of experience affecting the act of
translating. As discussed, it highlights the significance of having 'experience' of actually living
in a country where the target language is used. Translation reflects two linguistic systems, as
well as two cultures (Matrat, 1992). Hence, a significant consideration is for translators to
develop not only their L2 usage proficiency but also their cultural awareness. Learning both the
target language and its culture is the key to produce better performance and can allow translators
to access a pragmatic approach and make their translation more natural. Translation is not just
language negotiation, but also a cultural phenomenon (McCleanahen, 1995). It is essential,
therefore, to translate the source text with a greater understanding of the differences between the
two languages and cultures. Likewise, translated documents should be produced from the
perspective of appropriateness in both linguistic and cultural features by going beyond the notion
of literal translation through which the words found in dictionaries are thoughtlessly applied to
the target text.
This study has implications for second and foreign language teaching. A suggestion is
that it is necessary for language teachers to have students become culturally sensitive in language
learning. Culture and language are inseparable, so it is not efficient to learn the target language
from just one aspect, which is the semantic approach. Hence, teachers should try to teach the
target language from the viewpoint of how the language is used in the culture. A pragmatic
approach, which is another suggestion in this study, should be applied in language teaching.

From the pragmatic aspect, language teachers should keep in mind that the concept of
appropriateness in language use is crucial. Concentrating on 'appropriateness' can provide
students with freedom to produce the target language in their way, and enable them to develop
their language usage proficiency. More importantly, students don't have to be afraid of making
mistakes in the context, because the main focus of the approach is not on grammatical accuracy
but on communicative fluency. The situation will decrease the anxiety in language learning and
ultimately students will feel more comfortable to generate output of the target language. To sum
up, cultural sensitiveness, pragmatic approaches, and the concept of appropriateness are the key
factors in developing students' communication skills in both ESL and EFL contexts.

References
Aly, M. A. (2004). Translation strategies of EFL student teachers: A think aloud
protocol-based case study. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/00000
19b/80/1b/c0/b7.pdf
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Coba, N. C. (2007). The Latina Values Scale: Translation and cultural adaptation. The
State University of New Jersey. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation].
Groot, A, M. B., & Poot, R. (1997). Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a
second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language
Learning, 47 (2), 215-264.
Howell, P. (2001). Strategy and style in English and French translations of Japanese
comic books. Edinburgh working papers in Applied Linguistics, 11, 59-66.
Matrat, C. (1992). Investigating the translation process: Thinking-aloud versus joint
activity. University of Delaware [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation].
Malkiel, B. (2006). The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty. Target,
18 (2), 337-366.
McClenahen, J. S. (1995). How can you possibly say that? Industry Week, 17-19.
Muller, M. (2007). What's in a word? Problematizing translation between languages.
Area, 39 (2), 206-213.
Pym, A. (2007). Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation. Target,
19 (2), 271-294.
Vandepitte, S. (2007). Semantic and pragmatic meanings in translation. Belgian Journal
of Linguistics, 21 (1), 185-200.
Vygotsky, L. (1989). Thought and language. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Williams, D. S. (2005). The belief systems of cultural brokers in three minority
communities in America. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. [Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation].