Readability and Comprehensibility in Translation Using Reading Ease and Grade Indices

Alpaslan Acar, Korkut Uluç İŞİSAĞ

Abstract


The study compared and contrasted the readability and comprehensibility levels of technical and scientific texts in English and their Turkish translations through Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, The Coleman-Liau Index, The SMOG Index, Automated Readability Index and Linsear Write Formula. Atesman Reading Ease Formula was employed to measure the reading ease of the translated texts in Turkish. To measure the comprehensibility levels of the source texts and target texts, a checklist consisting of source texts and corresponding questions were administered to 43 English lecturers. One text was translated through Google translation. The comprehensibility level ranges from 0 to 100. (for English text: Comprehensibility level = (total items scores *100)/11; for Turkish texts comprehensibility level = (total items scores *100) /12. If comprehensibility level is 0-20, comprehensibility is considered very low; 21-40 is low; 41-60 is intermediate; 61-80 is high; 81-100 is very high. Cronbach's alpha statistics showed the internal consistency is 0,768 for the English texts and 0,796 for the Turkish texts. T-test was used for independent samples. Wilcoxon test was used for two related samples.  The results showed that Flesh Reading Formula was compatible to Ateşman Reading Ease Formula. The comprehensibility levels of the source texts and the target texts were found higher than the readability of the texts.  The comprehensibility of the target texts was found higher than that of the source texts. A statistical difference was found between the readability and comprehensibility levels of the texts. Google translation had the lowest comprehensibility level.


Keywords


Technical Translation, Scientific Translation, Readability, Comprehensibility

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ateşman, E. (1997). Türkçe’de okunabilirliğin ölçülmesi. A.Ü. Tömer Dil Dergisi. 58,171-174.

Casagrande, J. B. (1954). The Ends Of Translation. International Journal of American Linguistics, (20) (4).

Çeviri Örnekleri (N.D). Retrieved March 17 from https://umitdural.wordpress.com/ceviri-ornekleri/

Crimes and Criminal Procedure (2012). Retrieved March 17 from https://Www.Law.Cornell.Edu/Uscode/Pdf/Uscode18/Lii_Usc_TI_18_PA_II_CH_203_SE_3041.Pdf

DuBay, W. (2008). The Principles Of Readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information, (949), 77. https://doi.org/10.1.1.91.4042

Fallah, S. (2016). Cohesive Devices In Translation : A Comparison Between The Readability Levels Of English Scientific Texts Translated Into Persian. Internatıonal Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. March Special Issue, 1299–1315.

Göpferich, S. (2009). Comprehensibility Assessment Using The Karlsruhe Comprehensibility Concept. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (11), 12–38. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_goepferich.pdf

Hönig, H. G. (1998). Positions, Power And Practice: Functionalist Approaches And Translation Quality Assessment. christina schäffner (Ed.) (1998). Translation and Quality. Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters, 6–34.

Jody, B. (2006). Technical Translation Usability Strategies For Translating Technical Documantation. dordrech: Springer.

Kolahi, S., & Shirvani, E. (2012). A Comparative Study Of The Readability Of English Textbooks Of Translation And Their Persian Translations. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i4.2737

Mujiyanto, Y. (2016). The Comprehensibility Of Readable English Texts And Their Back-Translations. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n2p21

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall.

Rezaee, A. A., & Norouzi, M. H. (2011). Readability Formulas And Cohesive Markers In Reading Comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(8), 1005–1010. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.8.1005-1010

Robinson, D. (2003). Becoming a Translator (Second Ed). London & New York: Rutledge.

Schriver, K. A. (1989). Evaluating text quality: the Continuum from Text-focused to Reader-focused Methods. IEEE

Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.44536

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Tabachnick, B. G.; Fidell, L. S., (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (Baloğlu, M., Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım

Ütopik Bilim İnsanı TESLA (N.D). Retrived March 17 from http://www.elektrikport.com/teknik-kutuphane/utopik-bilim-insani-tesla-(elektromanyetik-motor-patenti-turkcecevirisi)/8578?fb_comment_id =496392630440345_77647549#ad-image-0




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.5n.2p.47

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.