Popescu Teodora

CONCORDANCING FOR INCREASED LEARNER

INDEPENDENCE AND TRANSLATION SKILLS:
A PEDAGOGICAL EXPERIMENT

Teodora Popescu
teopopescu@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
Error Analysis has undoubtedly been an effective method in SLA1 research and practice,
providing essential information for teachers as to what needs to be emphasised in terms of
language proficiency development. This study will present a part of the results of a larger
pedagogical experiment that we carried out among a sample of 25 university students who
study English for Specific Purposes. The aim of our research was to analyse the possibility of
improving translation competence and self-correction techniques through the use of
electronic tools, such as electronic dictionaries, electronic databases and concordancers. For
the purposes of this study we only took into consideration the use of the VLC Web
Concordancer2.

KEY WORDS
concordancing, learner independence, translation competence

INTRODUCTION
Error Analysis became a scientific method in its own right in the 70’s, owing a lot to the
work of Corder (1967), Richards (1971) and Selinker (1972), who pointed out different
aspects of the second/foreign language learners’ own language system, which is neither the
L1 (mother tongue), nor the L2 (second/foreign language). The essential shift that their
studies brought about in linguistics is a reassessment of the importance of errors made by
ESL3/EFL4 learners. Thus, according to Corder (1967), a learner’s errors are not random, but
systematic (unsystematic errors occur in one’s native language) and they are not negative or
interfering with learning the Target Language, but on the contrary, they represent a necessary
positive, facilitative factor, indispensable to the learning process, highly indicative of
individual learner strategies. Further on, Richards (1971) identified three types of errors: a)
interference errors generated by L1 transfer; b) intralingual errors which result from incorrect

1
Second Language Acquisition
2
Available at: http://www.edict.com.hk/concordance/
3
English as a Second Language
4
English as a Foreign Language
(incomplete or overgeneralised) application of language rules; c) developmental errors caused
by the construction of faulty hypotheses in L2.

By the same token, Selinker (1972, and more recently, 1992) elaborated on the theory of
interlanguage, by which we mean a third language, with its own lexicon, grammar and
discourse structure, phonological traits, etc. The basic processes through which interlanguage
is created are: language transfer (negative transfer, positive transfer, avoidance, and overuse),
overgeneralization (at phonetic, grammatical, lexical, discourse level) and simplification (both
syntactic and semantic).

As our main focus was learners’ translation competence (from L1 into L2), we analysed
learner errors from a threefold perspective: linguistic errors (morphological, syntactic and
collocational), comprehension errors (misunderstanding of lexis or syntax) and translation
errors (distorted meaning, additions, omissions, inaccurate renditions of lexical items).

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.1. Research aims, objectives and hypothesis

Starting from the assumption that at any stage of the interlanguage continuum learners’
language competence may be improved by developing independent learning skills, we tried to
raise students’ awareness as to L2 naturally occurring structures. One of the tenets of the
learner-centred language learning theory is that students are able to correct their own errors
and subsequently avoid them.

Therefore, the premise of the present research, an extension of Popescu’s (2006) study on
learner autonomy, collocational knowledge and translation skills, was that EFL learners’
translation competence may be enhanced by empowering them to remedy their own errors by
using an Internet-based application (VLC Web Concordancer, which extracts concordances
from authentic corpora. Such a learning path may in the long run turn students into more
autonomous and implicitly, more competent L2 users.

The independent variable we introduced was therefore the use of an online concordancer
against which students corrected their translated texts from L1 into L2, whereas the
dependent variables were the natural L2 utterances (from a linguistic, semantic, syntactic,
etc. point of view).

Our working hypothesis was that EFL learners may reach a higher level of translation
competence by applying self-correction techniques.

The research objectives for the teacher were, as follows:

x To facilitate students’ awareness of L2 naturally-occurring structures;

x To manage the learning activities in an autonomy-conducive environment;

x To lay particular emphasis on learning strategies and study skills;

x To promote autonomous, student-centred language learning with a view to life-long

learning empowerment.
 As far as the students were concerned, the research objectives were:

x To discover and acquire L2 structures;

x To become aware of he efforts entailed by self-controlled, self-managed and self-

monitored learning processes.

1.2. Research strategy

The most important research method we used was the pedagogic experiment, along with
classroom observation and individual interviews with the students, inquiring them about their
personal reactions and feelings along and at the end of the experiment.

The experimental design was an intrasubject one, as it seemed more reasonable to

compare one student’s initial translation competence with his/her own post-experimental one,
after the introduction of the independent variable, since the focus of our endeavours was to
prove the efficiency of self-correction and hence, of autonomous learning. The second reason
why we did not choose to have an experimental group and a control one was that it would
have been unfair for the control group to be deprived of the experimental variable and
conditions.

We carried out the experiment among a group of 25, 2nd year students of economics and
social sciences, aged 20-24, at various levels of English proficiency. Students were
individually assigned translation tasks from L1 (Romanian) into L2 (English). The L1 texts
were chosen from current issues of national wide journals, each of approximately 500 words
in length. Students initially completed their tasks without recourse to any electronic tools.

The English Learner Translation Corpus that resulted (15,555 words, as seen in Fig.1) was
manually screened for errors by the teacher. Subsequently, errors were highlighted for the
students to do their own remedial work.
 Fig. 1 English Learner Translation Corpus frequency sort

Students then carried out their self-correction work in the university language laboratory,
on computers with Internet connection, under close supervision and direction. It was
important that at this stage students should not resort to other electronic tools, such as
dictionaries or lexical databases. These other two types of applications were to be the
independent variables of subsequent experiments as part of the larger research we spoke about
at the beginning of our paper. Students checked the highlighted errors against the VLC Web
Concordancer, using four corpora: Business and economy, the Times January 95, The Times
February 95 and The Times March 95.

2. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

2.1. Data collection and analysis

Data were collected by computing the number of errors for each subject after the pre-test
and after the post-test. In the following table we will present the overall interpretation of the
results obtained by the group of students after introducing the independent variable:

In conclusion, we could infer that the independent variable we applied throughout the
experiment was viable and clearly led to superior results among English learners. The results
presented in the table below, summarizing the occurrences of errors in the Learner Translation
Corpus, as well as the number of errors that were corrected by the end of the experiment
confirmed our initial hypothesis and revealed that the used of online electronic language
resources will contribute to learners’ better performance and increased proficiency.
 Type of error Example Before- After- Remedial
correction correction work
occurrences occurrences effectiveness
(%)
Morphological *… the news were positively 251 232 7.57
received…
… the news was positively received…
Linguistic errors

Syntactic * This is good, or this is bad? 16 15 6.25

Is this good or bad?

Collocational * In vacation … 377 294 22.02

On vacation …
* … the building gets into fire.
… the building catches fire.
Mis- * The music of all days is increases 15 13 13.33
understanding (also morph. error)
Comprehension errors

of lexis Our daily music is getting more

expensive

Mis- * The party cost that mines that parks, 13 12 7.70

understanding towns and vocations camps will be
of syntax taxed. (also morph. errors and
misunderstanding of lexis)
Entertainment is expensive, therefore
holiday camps, towns and villages will
be taxed.
Distorted * The owners achieve this thing and 27 25 7.40
meaning they started to endow the
pension…(also morph. error)
The owners have understood/realised
this, and …
Additions * This conclusion could be taken 19 15 21.05
taking a part of decision of Romanian
office …
Translation errors

One could reach this conclusion after

reading a decision of …
Omissions * …even talk by rig tows and 28 13 17.86
autovehicles in regime rent a car.
… not to mention harnesses, road or
low-bed trailers, motor vehicles, rented
on a rent-a-car basis.
Inaccurate * … want to benefice of … 108 99 8.33
renditions of … want to benefit from/take advantage
lexical items of …
* From the discussion haded with the
liders …(also morph. error)
From the discussion we had with the
leaders/officials …
Total Errors 854 718 15.93

Table 1 Occurrence of errors before and after using the VLC Web Concordancer
 2.2. Data interpretation
Although the results clearly showed an improved performance of our experimental group,
improvement was indisputably in the lexical area. Collocational errors were remedied to a
satisfactory percentage – 22.02, whereas errors assignable to misunderstanding of lexis were
improved to 13.33%. Another area of promising betterment was in the case of translation
errors, i.e. additions and omissions. We nevertheless ascribe this to the fact that students
might have simply corrected their mistakes once they were made aware of existing errors in
their translated text. Most self-corrected errors of collocational nature were of the following
pattern: V+Prep (participate in; change into, import from), Prepositional Phrases (on the
wane, at present, at a seminar), Adjective + Noun (domestic production, political game) etc.

We would like to provide some examples of successful (albeit partial) error correction by
dint of using the Web Concordancer:

1. *…can induce pressure on market…

…can put pressure on market…

Corrected error: put pressure on - collocational error

Residual errors: on the market - morphological error

…may put pressure - morphological error

Fig. 2 Pressure collocates

 Fig. 3 put + pressure in context

2. *…the production's division could balance the intern market…

…production division could balance the domestic market,

Corrected error: domestic market - collocational error

Residual errors: production segmentation - collocational error (!!! – this

particular occurrence was not to be found in any of the four corpora)

… would balance… - morphological error

Among other errors that could not be remedied we would also like to highlight a few:

1. *He still showed that,…, the European settlements, which at first of January will be
applied on us too, are foreseen that…

(suggested translation) He also showed that…European regulations, which starting with

January 1st will become enforceable in Romania as well, stipulate that…

Most of the errors in this case are due to misunderstanding of lexis, distorted meaning and
to some extent, limited linguistic (morphological) competence.

2. *…the price …is on a value of two times bigger that the price offered by local
producers.

(suggested translation) …the price is approximately two times higher/bigger than the price
offered by local producers. This example shows an instance of unnecessary addition, as well
as inadequate morphological knowledge.

Globally speaking, our results were indicative of the fact that a high percentage of
students’ errors were still not corrected by simply resorting to The VLC Web Concordancer.
The majority of non-remedied errors were grammatical (morphological and syntactic), as well
as comprehension and translation errors. It was apparent that students found it most difficult
to correct errors which were due to L1 transfer. E.g. *…to dispose of his reserves… instead of
…to manage/control its reserves…; *…the gas fields should be separately concessioned…
instead of …gas fields should nevertheless be separately leased, etc.

3. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
We are aware of the limitations of this study and we are committed to continuing this type
of research into error analysis; nonetheless we want to underline that our endeavours provided
a deeper insight into the efficiency of concordance-based error-correction techniques.
Undoubtedly, a student-centred, autonomy-facilitative approach to EFL learning may have
beneficial results for both teacher and students. Increased student awareness of the
interrelationships between L1 and L2, cognizance of own language proficiency, and
appropriate means to carry out remedial work will subsequently lead to enhanced learning
motivation and autonomy. A long-term objective of such an approach may be that of
internalising the L2 structures as well as the avoidance of error fossilization.

Another aspect that needs to be underscored is that our experiment was carried out in the
language laboratory, during regular English classes, under direct teacher supervision. Such
experimental conditions were needed in order to be able to ascertain the true pedagogical
value of concordancing. Development of similar autonomous learning skills (using electronic
or online dictionaries/thesauri or lexical databases) will have to be extended outside the
classroom setting.

4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The present study undertook to demonstrate the effectiveness of web-based concordancing
for doing remedial work upon translated texts. Apart from the free Internet application we
used (the VCL Web Concordancer), there are other concordancing tools, such as the British
National Corpus1, the Cobuild Concordance and Collocation Sampler2, etc. It might be a time
consuming endeavour to search all these tools for adequate collocates, but definitely
worthwhile.

As previously mentioned, further research is also required in order to demonstrate the

effectiveness of other software applications (such as web-based dictionaries, thesauri, lexical
databases, etc.).

Additionally, we will concentrate upon questions such as:

x Does a Concordancer provide more information for lexical errors than for grammatical
ones, as compared to a dictionary?

x Does a dictionary/ concordancer/ thesaurus/ lexical database solve the problem of

semantic/ stylistic transfer?

1
Available at http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk
2
Available at http://collins.co.uk/Corpus/CorpusSearch.aspx
 To conclude, researchers and practitioners alike may find useful as well as inspiring ideas
and motivation for further explorations in the field of foreign language acquisition.

REFERENCES
[1] CORDER, S.P. The Significance of Learners’ Errors. In International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5: p. 161-170. 1967.
[2] POPESCU, T. Encouraging Learner Independence through Teaching Collocations. In
Messages, Sages and Ages 2: p. 805-814. 2006.
[3] POPESCU, T. Teaching Translation to ESP Students. In Studii de traducere -
Retrospectivă úi perspective 1: p. 152-159. 2006.
[4] RICHARDS, J.C. A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error-Analysis. In English Language
Teaching, 25: p. 204-219. 1971.
[5] SELINKER, L.: Interlanguage. Error Analysis. Longman, London. 1972.
[6] SELINKER, L.: Rediscovering Interlanguage. Longman Inc., New York. 1992.