Lost in translation: contributions of editors to the meanings of text

Abstract

Background. Authors of scientific articles in one language are often required to provide abstracts of their papers in a second language, and they use a variety of ways to achieve this. Aims. The aims of our studies were (i) to assess the effects of using native English speakers to improve non-native speakers' translations of their abstracts, and (ii) to explore the variations in edits produced by different native speakers. Methods. In Study 1, a French abstract was translated into English by two French authors. Each of these English abstracts was then edited by two native speakers of English (leading to four abstracts altogether). Textual and stylistic analyses were made of these four abstracts. In Study 2, over 200 academics rated these four abstracts on a series of semantic-differential scales to see how readers judged each abstract and what discriminations they made between them. Results. Study 1 showed how the two English editors imposed their own particular styles of writing on to the anglicized French abstracts, and how each changed the meaning in different ways. Study 2 showed that readers did in fact evaluate these pairs of English abstracts differently, indicating that the two English editors wrote in recognizably different `voices', whilst ostensibly carrying out the same task. Comparing the results of Study 1 (using textual analyses) with those of Study 2 (using readers' judgements), it appeared that improving readability and changing style were independent skills, and each had differing effects on meaning and understanding. Conclusions . These data suggest that there are benefits from using native English speakers to edit translated abstracts, but that there will never be a `one-to-one' translation from one language to another, and that different measures may reveal different effects.

Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

“…In contrast, language and writing features are more likely to be judged subjectively because gatekeepers' expertise in this dimension varies widely. The latter is probably influenced by individual characteristics such as the reader's native language and culture, and personal preference for language and writing style [ 8 ]. As a result, feedback about the language and writing may be less likely to help authors improve their manuscripts than feedback about the specialized content.…”

The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts

“…In their study, these nine scales had loaded on three components or factors, and in the present study, we chose to use two from each factor; however, the three factors reported by Hartley et al (2007) did not emerge. Principal Components Analyses and Varimax Rotations with Kaiser normalization (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) showed that the scores on the first four subscales loaded on a single factor in all three studies, but that the scores on Subscales 5 and 6 either loaded on another factor (Studies 1 and 2) or another two factors (Study 3).…”

“…The six subscales used in this inquiry were chosen from nine scales initially used by Hartley, Branthwaite, Ganier, and Heurley (2007). In their study, these nine scales had loaded on three components or factors, and in the present study, we chose to use two from each factor; however, the three factors reported by Hartley et al (2007) did not emerge.…”

Let them write English

“…A study of abstracts written in French, translated into English by two French authors and then edited by two English native speakers found the editors imposed their own styles of writing and changed the original meaning in different ways. Furthermore readers recognized the abstracts as having different voices [13].…”