ESP Learners' Use of Dictionaries Alone and Dictionaries Plus Google Translate for Vocabulary Development and Phraseology

محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه

Masoumeh Yazdani Moghadam ¹ , Houshang Khoshsima ² , منصور گنجی ³ , علی بیکیان ⁴

1 - PhD Candidate in TEFL, English Department, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Department, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
3 - دانشگاه دریانوردی و علوم دریایی
4 - Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Department, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/05/03 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/05/03 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/04/10

کلید واژه: Vocabulary Development, machine translation, ESP students, Google translate, Phraseology,

چکیده مقاله :

Millions of users worldwide nowadays use Machine Translation (MT) systems such as Google Translate (GT). The present study aimed at investigating the effects of using GT in class activities on the vocabulary development and phraseology of Iranian ESP learners. To this end, after assuring the homogeneity of the students, 60 ESP learners majoring in Persian Language and Literature and Physical Education and Sports Sciences were selected and randomly assigned to two experimental groups. After administering the pretest, the students in the first experimental group (Only-Dictionary) used available dictionaries but those in the second experimental group (Dictionary plus Google Translate) employed both GT and available dictionaries. As for homework, the participants were asked to translate a passage from their textbook for the following session. The students were given feedback on their translations so that they could understand their weaknesses and strong points. Ultimately, the posttest was administered which indicated that both groups improved in their vocabulary knowledge and equivalent-finding skill. However, the mean score for the Dictionary plus Google Translate group students was significantly higher than that of the Only-Dictionary group. As for phraseology, there was not a significant difference between the two groups.

چکیده انگلیسی:

امروزه، سیستم هایماشین ترجمه نظیر گوگل ترنسلیت در سراسر جهان مورد استفاده ی میلیونها کاربر قرار می گیرند. هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی تاثیر استفاده از گوگل ترنسلیت بر پیشرفت لغوی و عبارت پردازی فراگیران ایرانی انگلیسی برای اهداف خاص است. برای نیل به این هدف، بعد از حصول اطمینان از یکسان بودن سطح زبانی  دانشجویان، 60 دانشجوی فراگیر ایرانی انگلیسی برای اهداف خاص در رشته های زبان و ادبیات فارسی و تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی انتخاب شدند و بطور تصادفی به دو گروه آزمایش تقسیم شدند. بعد از اجرای پیش ازمون، دانشجویان گروه آزمایش اول فقط از فرهنگ لغت های موجود استفاده کردند اما دانشجویان گروه آزمایش دوم از فرهنگ لغت های موجود و گوگل ترنسلیت بطور همزمان استفاده کردند. متنی هم از کتابهای درسی دانشجویان بعنوان تکلیف به آنها داده شد تا برای جلسه بعد ترجمه کنند. بعد از بررسی ترجمه های آنها، بازخورد به دانشجویان داده شد تا نقاط ضعف و قوت خود را شناسایی کنند. سپس، پس آزمونها اجرا شد. نتایج نشان داد که  دانش لغوی و یافتن معادل تخصصی بر واژگان در هر دو گروه توسعه پیدا کرده است.  اما، میانگین نمرات گروه آزمایش دوم که بطور همزمان از گوگل ترنسلیت و فرهنگ لغات موجود در ترجمه هایشان استفاده کرده بودند بطور معناداری بیشتر از میانگین نمرات گروه آزمایش اول ( استفاده از فرهنگ لغات به تنهایی) بود. درخصوص بهبود عبارت پردازی هم تفاوت معناداری بین دو گروه مشاهده نشد.

منابع و مأخذ:

Afshin, H., & Alaeddini, M. A. (2016). A contrastive analysis of machine translation (Google Translate) and human translation: Efficacy in translating verb tense from English to Persian. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 40-48.

Allan, D. (2001). Oxford quick placement test.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Almufawez, J. A., & Maroof, N. (2018). Using Google Translate to Improve Junior Students' Translation. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(5), 116-123.

Azer, H. S., & Aghayi, M. B. (2015). An evaluation of output quality of machine translation (Padideh Software vs. Google Translate). Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 226-237.

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. ESL and applied linguistic professional Series. London and New Jersey: Eli Hinkel.

Beshaj, L. (2015). The growing importance of English for specific purposes in Albanian higher education. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(6), 10-13.

Birmingham, E. A. (2014). General academic or domain-specific vocabulary? The impact of word selection in high school biology. (PhD Thesis), the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Bozorgian, M., & Azadmanesh, N. (2015). A survey on the subject-verb agreement in Google machine translation. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(1), 51-62.

Cameron, L. (2001). Children learning a foreign language. In L. Cameron (Ed.), Teaching languages to young learners, (pp.1-20). Cambridge University Press.

Cook, G. (2010). Use of translation in language teaching. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies( 2^nd ed.), (pp. 112-115). New York/London: Routledge.

Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), phraseology in language learning and teaching (pp. 149-161). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Coxhead, A. (2013). Vocabulary and ESP. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 115-133). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Davies, M. G. (2004). Multiple voices in the translation classroom: Activities, tasks and projects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

ElShiekh, A. A. A. (2012). Google translate service: Transfer of meaning, distortion or simply a new creation? An investigation into the translation process & problems at google. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1), 56-68

Farhady, H. (2010). Research methods in applied linguistics1&2. Tehran: Payame Noor University.

Fauziati, E. (2010). Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.

Hinkel, E. (2017). Teaching Idiomatic Expressions and Phrases: Insights and Techniques. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 45-59.

Hunston, S. (2010). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York and London: Routledge.

Johnson, D. D. (2001). Vocabulary in elementary and middle school. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Karaolis, A., & Philippou, G. N. (2019). In M. S. Hannula, G. C. Leder, F. Morselli , M. Vollstedt, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Affect and mathematics education: Fresh perspectives on motivation, engagement, and identity (pp. 397-419). Cham: Springer.

Khanmohammad, H., & Osanloo, M. (2009). Moving toward objective scoring: A rubric for translation assessment. Journal of English Language Studies (JELS), 1(1), 131-153.

Khodeir, H. F. (2004). A framework for phrase based SMT in the technical translation domain.( MA thesis), American University in Cairo, Egypt.

Lai, Y.-L. (2005). Teaching vocabulary learning strategies: Awareness, beliefs, and practices. A survey of Taiwanese EFL senior high school teachers. (Unpublished MA thesis), University of Essex, England.

Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z. (2014). Comparison of Google translation with human translation. Paper presented at the The Twenty-Seventh International Flairs Conference. ( tarike va mahal)

Linse, C. T., & Nunan, D. (2005). Practical English language teaching: young learners. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mirzaeian, V. R. (2010). Challenges of machine translation in Persian, using Three MT systems. Translation Studies,7(28),73-90.

Nasr Esfahani, D., Pour Farahmand, B., & Soroush, S. (2014)). Preparation and application of teaching materials in physical education. Isfahan: Aseman Negar.

Nation, I. S. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2014). The handbook of English for specific purposes: West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Pawley, A. (2001). Phraseology, linguistics and the dictionary. International journal of lexicography, 14(2), 122-134.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge university press.

Rühlemann, C. (2007). Lexical grammar: the GET-passive as a case in point.International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME), 31(1), 111-127.

Saffari, M., Sajjadi, S., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). Evaluation of Machine Translation (Google Translate vs. Bing Translator) from English into Persian across Academic Fields. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 7(8), 429-442.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Shamisa, S. (2014). Stylistics in Poetry. Tehran: Mitra.

Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.

Wu, Y., & Pan, Q. (2013). On the development of translation technology. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2240-2244.

Xhaferi, B. (2009). Teaching and learnig ESP vocabulary. LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos16(15), 229-255.