An Analysis of Google Translate Use in Decoding Contextual Semanticity among EFL Learners

Asian Journal

of Research in

Social Sciences

and

Humanities Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 4, No. 9, September 2014, pp. 1-13.

ISSN 2249-7315

1

www.aijsh.org

Asian Research Consortium

An Analysis of Google Translate Use in Decoding Contextual Semanticity among EFL Learners

Paramaswari Jaganathan*; Maryam Hamzah**; Ilangko Subramaniam***

*Senior Lecturer,

School of Languages, Literacies and Translation,

Universiti Sains Malaysia

**Teacher,


Universiti Sains Malaysia.

***Senior Lecturer,


Universiti Sains Malaysia. DOI NUMBER:10.5958/2249-7315.2014.00962.9

Abstract

Many EFL students rely on Google Translator (GT) to perform tasks for their EFL class activities. However, limited vocabulary and little knowledge on language structure is a challenge for the EFL learners in identifying the accurate and appropriate contextual semanticity. This paper focuses on the perception of GT usage among EFL learners in decoding semanticity using GT in their learning environment. It aims at identifying the strategies taken by the EFL student in selecting entries from Google Translator to arrive at a specific meaning. This qualitative study is administered with the use of questionnaire and interview. The respondents in the study generally knew of GT use on their own or via peer and perceived GT as an important tool to assist in decoding semanticity in their language tasks. In using GT for class activities, speculation plays a bigger role compared to identifying the parts of speech and linking accurate meanings to situational context. Cultural context words provided strong clue in word selection and EFL students wgi understands the background of the language structure and situational context find it easier to select the accurate meaning from GT. In teaching semanticity of a language via GT, the EFL teacher should sensitize the students with the necessary structural and contextual aspect of L2 for effective use of Google Translate in EFL learning context.

Keywords: contextual semanticity, dictionary skill, EFL learning, Google Translate. ________________________________________________________________________________

Jaganathan et al. (2014). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,

Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

2

Introduction

One of the challenges faced by EFL learners is to comprehend the semanticity of words and to capture the intended meaning of a reading text. Semanticity, in short can be understood as the representation of any ideas, actions or objects that brings about an understanding of meaning. The lack and failure of transmitting meaning of a message impedes the communication process. So, if a language is to be understood, meaning is a sine qua non for the transmission of message. Meaning is central to all linguistic concerns (Langacker, 1987). However, EFL learners face difficulty in comprehending meanings of words, and this is one area that equally poses a great challenge to the EFL teachers (Lee.S, 2004). Coupled with the challenges of comprehending the nuances of the English language, identifying the accurate meaning from text is not easily achieved by new learners, as they need the depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge (Zhifa Shen, 2008). In addition, attaining such background within a short time frame is an arduous task for adult EFL learners as they have to acquire the different skills involved in the language learning as well. Reading skills, for one demands a great connection to understanding meaning. Borrowing Zhifa Shen’s (2008) proposition in understanding meaning, the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension is very complicating and EFL students sometimes do not have the prior vocabulary knowledge nor the background of the English language.With the infiltration of numerous translation tools and free translation websites, electronic dictionaries, online dictionaries or vocabulary glosses that are integrated into language learning software or web pages (Laufer & Hill, 2000; Roby, 1999), EFL learning experience becomes much faster, easier and contemporary. English proficiency also has a great demand for employment in the numerous countries and in the global network. As such, EFL courses and intensive English courses are sought after to add further credentials for workforce application. With the supply of numerouus tools and devices for language translation too, many students resort to online referencing for easy access of language learning resources. One of the popular tools used in English language learning is the use of Google Translate (GT). The use of GT by the EFL learners enable the learners to find the equivalents for the new vocabulary and grammatical concepts of the second language in the learners’ mother tongue. Although GT does not provide grammar rules for comprehension of words, it is still used extensively by students. Furthermore, the launch of web applications on the mobile gadgets contributes greatly to the use of GT among students who need to comprehend words and phrases given in their EFL course. Hence, a class with a group of international students who resort to GT referencing will be perceiving meanings in a varied way. This becomes much more challenging for the teacher who facilitates the diverse group of international students as they may be perceiving meanings in a varied way. Thus, this study aims to identify how the EFL students select the entry for words with multiple semanticity using the Google Translator. Specifically, the study aims to answer two main questions on:

1) How do the EFL learners decode the contextual semanticity of words using GT?

2) What strategies do the EFL learners employ in selecting the accurate words with semantic ambiguity?

Studies on the use of GT in language learning has also developed greatly in recent years. Generally, scholars are interested in asessing GT's accuracy in translation (Aiken, et al., 2009), problems faced


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

3

in the process of transfering meaning (Ahmed AlSheikh, 2012), comparing the translated product in different languages (Aiken and Balan, 2011; Kais et al., 2013); analysing the translation quality provided by different types of software (Kais et al., 2013) and several other areas of accuracy in translation of context and meanings. Aiken and Balan (2011) studied on GT use and compared the accuracy of GT translation of 2,550 language-pair combinations. Their study showed that the European languages are usually good, while those involving Asian languages are often relatively poor. However, it is pertinent to note that the study undertaken by Aiken and Balan (2011) only utilised a very limited text sample. Moreover, the nuances in various languages are elements that pose difficulty in the process of translating. Ahmed AlSyeikh (2012) study too highlighted this challenge and noted that a source language (SL) item has a particularly restricted range of meaning that it may not be possible to match to some restriction and exceptions that may be present in the target language (TL). The presence of ambiguity too poses problems as they may be associated to a variety of meanings that may not have the equivalence in the target language. The present trend of using machines to assist meaning comprehension is less feasible in the learning of new language as meanings can differ in context, concepts and structures.

Based on Kreidler’s (1998) definition of linguistic semantics, the study looks at how EFL learners organize and express meanings in the context of grammatical and lexical features of the sentence that is read. Words change its meanings based on the its inflectional function or the derivational function. As such, it will be interesting to explore how EFL learners are able to organize and relate meanings of words with the help of Google translate device. It has been proved that the grammatical and lexical changes in a sentence may impact the meaning of the words and the context of meaning varies. Leech (1974) noted that there are seven main types of meanings; conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, stylistics, reflected, affective, collocative as well as thematic meaning. Although the study does not dwell into details of the EFL learners comprehend various types of meanings, it is rewarding to identify how a group of international EFL learners derive at a selected meaning from reading a text based on the usage of Google translate. The knowledge of how meanings can be derived at and the various categorisation is pertinent to enable the respondents to comprehend the meanings as well as to select the accurate entries from GT. This is because machine use (as in GT) does not understand the meaning of the document (Vlasta Vitek, 2000). The technical terms used by a machine for example, will be correct as noted by Vlasta Vitek (2000); it functions as definitional but it is up to the reader to make sense of those words in order to identify its contextual meaning. In EFL learning, meanings are very subjective and can provide vast interpretations, unlike machine translations that are very rigid, systematic and tied to formulaic expressions. Thus, this study gives an insight into how EFL learners comprehend semanticity via GT usage in their learning activity and select the meanings to the words that they do not know. The study limits to EFL learners perception of GT use and how EFL learners make selection for words with semantic ambiguity. It does not however focus on the accuracy of GT in providing appropriate meanings in context.

Background to the Intensive English for EFL Learners

The main aim of this Intensive English Programme for the EFL respondents in the Universiti Sains Malaysia is to expose the four language skills that are necessary for effective basic communication in social contexts. The programme is designed to be carried out for a duration of eight weeks.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

4

Classes are conducted in two sessions; the morning slot is held from 9.30 a.m. to 12 noon while the evening slot runs for another two and a half hour from 2. p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Specifically, the students are expected to speak comprehensibly on common topics ranging from self and family, routines, food and health as well as general introduction of their country. The reading component aims at preparing the respondents to comprehend and respond appropriately to simple questions and statements and use the target vocabulary accurately in context. In addition, the respondents are also provided with writing task; ranging from writing simple to complex sentences with accurate grammatical structure for communicative purposes. The IEP for the EFL students is a sought after course in the School of Languages, Literacies and Translation and many international students take up this course to enhance their English language proficiency.

Research Method and Procedure

This study attempts to investigate the perception of EFL beginners in using GT in their EFL learning and comprehending semanticity using GT in their learning environment. The study focus on the methods used by the international EFL respondents in selecting the choice of entry for word meanings using Google Translator rather than measuring the GT choice accuracy of the meaning. In the context of machine translation, this approach may be equated to the word sense diambiguation process. However, this qualitative study merely seeks to identify how EFL respondents derive at meanings given in EFL activites from the GT use. This case study is administered with the use of questionnaire and interview. The study procedure was administered in two phases; written task activity and interview sessions.

Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents after the administration of the written activity. The respondents were given prior briefing and they participated with informed consent to complete a task- sheet for thirty minute. The task-sheet contained ten questions with five mutliple meaning words in each question. The words were randomly selected from the Week 6 Module on Everyday Task topic. The words selected are as stated below:

permit, seal, bend, well, fast

The questionnaire consisted of seven items on the use of Google Translate during lessons. The questions were simplified further for easier comprehension after the pilot test. Scores were given accordingly with [1-4 correct answers] as below average score; [5-7 correct answers] as average score while [8-10 correct answers] as good achievement. The interview sessions were focused on three open-ended questions; mainly on the respondents knowledge of Google Translate use; the use of other tools and materials in EFL learning and the method employed in selecting the meaning from the choice of entry that is provided by Google Translate.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Data and Respondent’s English Language Proficiency

The samples were taken from Intensive English Proficiency (IEP) for 2014 EFL respondents in the School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia. The respondents in this study consist of nine international respondents. Only one was a female and 78% of the samples in


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

5

this study were from the Middle East countries. This group represented the sample EFL population whereby respondents from Middle East countries comprised a majority population of the EFL learners in the IEP course and the male respondents consisted of a major population of the sample. A total of five respondents are high school graduates and four other respondents have various professional backgrounds as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Data of Respondents

Respondent Sex Country Origin Status Score

RI M Yemen Student Average R2 M Iraq Tutor Below average R3 M Yemen Lecturer Below average R4 M Yemen Student Below average R5 F Korean Government officer Below average R6 M Yemen Student Below average R7 M Sudan Student Below average R8 M Iraq Student Below average R9 M Korean Government officer Good

The respondents in the study comprised of a mixed age group respondents; with a majority in the 20-25 years and more than 30 years (Table 1). Both categories had a similar distribution with the 20-25 years age group representing slightly higher than half of the samples. There was only one female respondent in the study as seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Respondents Distribution by Age Groups.

<20 years 20 – 25 years 26-30 years Others

Male Nil 5 Nil 3 Female Nil Nil Nil 1

As for the respondent’s English Language Proficiency level, there was an equal distribution among the samples for the different levels of education (see Table 3). The others category consist of respondents with students who had attended English courses in college or university. The respondents with the primary and secondary language proficiency level participated less during spoken activities carried out during the lessons and one of the respondents (R7) rarely responded to oral questioning. (R7) only responded to non-verbal communications when prompted or obtained assistance from his peers.

Table 3: Respondent’s English Language Proficiency Level

Primary Secondary Others

Male 3 2 3 Female Nil 1 Nil


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

6

The use of GT among the EFL Respondents

The ten-item questionnaire provided options from the Likert scale ranging from 1 – 5 on the scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions range from the perception of the usefulness of Google Translate in the language class, the difficulty of understanding meanings and word in context. This is preceded by questions on the strategy used in deciding the selection of the entry from the GT.

Table 4: Perception of GT Usage amongst EFL Respondents

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Neu

tra

l

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

To

tal

1. GT is very useful to me in my language class.

2 7

9

2. I often translate my class activities using GT in order to understand them.

1 1 6 1 9

3. I always use GT to find the meanings of words.

2 1 1 5 9

4. I find words in English have many meanings.

1 3 5 9

5. It is difficult for me to choose the suitable meaning for the situation given.

6 1 2 9

6. When I have difficulty in understanding the meaning of a word, I use GT.

1 1 2 1 4 9

7. GT does not give me the exact meaning that I want.

1 4 2 1 1 9

8. When I translate a word, I look at the first meaning given in the column.

2 3 4 9

9. When I translate a word, I select from the parts of speech given [e.g: verb or adj]

1 2 1 5 9

10. When I translate, I also refer to the situation given in the text.

1 2 4 2 9

Based on the above table, most respondents showed a high dependency on Google Translate (GT) in completing tasks given in the classroom. 78% of the respondents use GT to translate words for their class activities in order to understand meanings. Very often they utilize GT to search for meanings due to the multiplicity of English semantics. All the respondents agreed that the multiple semanticity of the English words has become a serious strain for them to choose the most suitable meanings for the given situations. As a result, this has led them to depend highly on GT for equivalent terms. Only one respondent strongly disagreed of being dependent on GT to understand


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

7

meanings. This respondent had the highest score in the test. He further added that he is aware that GT does not provide the exact meaning; hence he counter checks with the other tools, particularly bilingual dictionary to refine his search.

Most respondents concured that they opt to select the first meaning given in the entry when they are given options of meanings. About 45% of the respondents noted that they sometimes refer to the parts of speech for their selection of meaning but majority of the respondents resorted to refering to the situation given in context when they need to find out the equivalent meaning of a word. Nevertheless, the study showed that one respondent (R7) did not make any reference to the parts of speech nor the situation to identify accurate meanings read from the text. Classroom observation showed that Respondent (R7) appeared to face difficulties throughout the English class and gained the lowest score in his test. He has low level of participation in class due to his low proficiency and is less-receptive to instructions given by the teacher in class. His responses are merely non-verbal communication such as nodding and refuting.

The following discussion will be based on the three questions used as guide to probe in the interview sessions.

1. How did you come to know of the use of Google Translate?

For the question on how respondents became aware of Google Translate use, a variety of responses was derived and categorised into four main channels as show in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Respondents’ Knowledge on GT use

Based on the figure above, it can be concluded that there are four main channels as to how the respondents acquainted with Google Translate namely; friends, family members, self-exposure and colleagues. A total of 67% of the respondent were introduced to Google Translate by friends or coursemates during their studies in the university or college. This shows that peer influence is essential in acquiring the knowledge of obtaining the referencing tools for language learning. Although there are many other tools and web-based search engines, GT was preferred as it was

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8

Colleagues

Self-exposure

Family

Friends


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

8

commonly downloaded onto their mobile devices by peers. Therefore the students are influenced to own the same apps so that they are able to share the common way of learning. In this case, the EFL learners associate with their peers for about six hours perday. Hence, the peer influence contributes to the choice of search engine for their references as they communicate much more easily with each other throughout the process of learning. Three of the respondents stated that they knew of GT via family members. Parents, in particular have been one of the main source in the family circe. It is noted that the parents come form various professional backgrounds such as an architect, engineer and a teacher. These parents who have English Language exposure too have prior knowledge to GT and have encouraged the respondents to utilise the GT. One of the respondent noted she ‘learned about’ GT from her 25 year-old daughter; a college student who is proficient in English. Besides referral from parents, work demands also influences the usage of GT in learning language. Two of the respondents (R2 and R3) noted that they frequently use GT to perform their task in their professional duties and personal tasks; therefore their work demand has direct influence for them to explore further on GT. Their work demand also contributed in knowledge-sharing with their colleagues about GT use for their task accomplishment in the EFL classroom. Respondent (R3) for example, asserts that GT helps him “to test his knowledge of the language” as in he would come across various parts of speech in the GT word list. One interesting response from respondent (R3) is that GT has functioned to provide a platform for him to self-assess his background knowledge of the English language learning. However, this feedback was not illustrated further.

2. What are the other tools/materials that you know that help you to understand meanings of

words/ sentences for your course?

Table 5: Tools and Materials used in Semanticity Decoding

Response

R1 I depend on teacher for Arabic-English translation. R2 Teacher will translate and do some drilling.

I use pictures and my coursebooks but I use GT for pronunciation. R3 I used dictionary before but prefers GT because of audio features. R4 I use electronic applications in my smartphone (GT and pre-installed dictionary

application) and electronic dictionary. Sometimes, I use books too. R5 I rely on electronic bilingual dictionary most of the time but still use search

software/websites (GT and other internet software) for difficult words. R6 I use English-Arabic interactive CDs and sometimes books. R7 I only use GT. R8 I use electronic dictionary, electronic bilingual dictionary but I sometimes use GT.

Despite various other tools available in the market such as printed dictionary, electronic bilingual dictionary, interactive CDs and DVDs, the respondents are more dependent on GT for EFL language learning. When probed on the options preferred besides GT, the response displayed two different trends; one preferring the conventional use of printed materials such as pictures, books and dictionaries while the younger group preferred the materials with gadget related audio features. Two of the respondents, however noted their dependency on the teachers, either for providing the translation or consolidating the comprehension of meaning via drilling.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

9

1 • Read the sentence and focus on types of part of speech.

2 • Try to suit words according to the context. If failed, will find the

equivalence.

3 • Guess meanings in sentences.

4 • Choose first option in the list provided by GT.

3. When there is more than one word shown in the entry, how do you make a selection on which

word is the most accurate choice?

To the question on making selection for the options provided, a general trend that is identified is illustrated in Figure 2. The procedures involved in identifying meanings among IEP learners can be categorized into four general stages. The respondents have a general tendency to focus on the types of part of speech and suit it into context or the nearest equivalent. If they fail to comprehend the semanticity further, then they resort to guess the meaning or choose the first entry provided in the list.

Figure 2: Procedure of Selecting Equivalent Semanticity based on Choices

Provided in GT Entry

In cases where an unfamiliar word or term is introduced to the respondents, one respondent (R4) stated that he focuses more on the grammar part of the word to identify the grammar parts- Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs or Adjectives. However, in the absence of the explanation on the grammatical aspect of the word, he would “refer to the teacher” for further explanation and examples. Likewise, two respondents (R2 and R3) prefer to “read the meanings provided by GT for each word and if they failed to comprehend the meaning, they would resort to find the equivalence”. These two respondents shared the same idea on the complexity of English semantics and they noted that merely focusing on the grammar part of the word would limit their possibility of selecting the equivalence options. If they are not able to obtain the meanings, they they would resort to “guessing meaning based on context”.

Feedback from the Respondents in Decoding the Semanticity of Words in

Sentences

As stated earlier the vocabulary list given for the exercise is shown in Table 6 and the same words was repeated in different sentences to portray a different meaning . The results showed that the words permit, fast and well seemed to be at comprehensible level based on the accurate answers given for these words. Likewise, the respondents provided inaccurate or wrong answers for the words bend and seal despite referring to GT.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

10

Table 6: List of Vocabulary used in Decoding the Semanticity of Words in

Sentences

Q Vocabulary Sentence

Q1 Permit a. My father goes to the Immigration Department to renew his work permit. b. I am afraid I could not permit you to smoke here.

Q2 Bend a. When cycling round a bend, remember to ring your bell. b. Although your mother is the head of the school, she will not bend the rules for you.

Q3 Fast a. We will have to walk really fast to catch up with the train. b. The Muslims fast in the month of Ramadhan for religious purpose.

Q4 Seal a. Remember to seal the envelope before posting the letter. b. The document must bear the company’s seal in order for it to be valid.

Q5 Well a. The girl sings really well. b. After the surgery, she needs a long rest to be well again.

The semanticity of the word Permit in (Q1) showed that the respondents had generally selected the correct entry as they noted that the word Immigration Department gave them the clues on “passport application”, “permission” and “country entry”. The respondents seem to have a background knowledge to the association of the word as they are all international students and they have had the experience in dealing with the Immigration Department or other agencies for passport and visa applications. Hence, the word permit was comprehended and decoded accurately. Likewise, the clues of negative modals such as “could not” and the verb “smoke” guided the respondents to select an entry related to the concept of prohibition. The association of meaning in context and previous experience contributes towards decoding the accurate semanticity of words. This is also evident in the word Fast in (Q3). Culturally-bound words meanings are also decoded much more easily due to the background knowledge. For example, the word “Ramadhan”, helped all the respondents from the Middle East to decode the accurate meaning for the context given easily. However, the result was contrary for respondent (R5) who is a Korean student. She faced difficulty in comprehending the word “Ramadhan.” It took her awhile to guess the meaning and she finally decided that she could not make out the meaning and “only selected the first entry given” in the GT.

The word bend (Q2) and seal (Q4) however had the least accurate answers in the list of words given. The respondents generally noted that the could understand the clue words such as cycling, bell, mother, school in (Q2) as well as envelope, letter, document company in Q4 but they found it difficult to interprete and associate the meaning in context to decode the semanticity of the words. The word well (Q5) given in the list, however was perceived to have an average level of comprehensibility by 78% of the respondents in the study and the feedback from the respondents revealed that simple words such as girl, sings and rest also provided a form of connection in decoding the semanticity of the words.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

11

Conclusion and Recommendation

It is evident that Google Translate is generally utilised as an important tool in language learning among international EFL students. Instant tapping on the mobile devices provides a fast access to translation and meanings in decoding the semanticity in language learning. Moreover, the influence of peers contributes further to the popularity of GT among EFL learners. The interactive function, fast and easy access of semanticity of words however, limits the EFL learners to think about the L2 language learning. In comprehending semanticity of words, for example students should proceed further than the surface structure of the meaning and be vary of the nuances of the language; particularly the language structure and context that contribute to the semanticity of words. Analysing and understanding the L2 features and structure will contribute towards the understanding of the linguistic diversity in language for a more meaningful learning. Only when the EFL learners begin to think about the language that they are learning, then they would be able to remember, comprehend, analyse, associate and compare the L2 with their own referral language in the GT. In other words, although the EFL may be highly dependent in the use of GT, thinking about the L2 is equally pertinent and the students should also be well versed of the limitation of the tools that they use in language learning so that meaningful and accurate learning takes place.

Although the study shows that GT has an important role in assisting EFL learners to decode semanticity and comprehend the meanings of words in their learning activity, it is important to note that a fast and quick response to obtaining the semanticity of words does not equate to the accurate and relevant meaning of words. Hence, the teachers of EFL students too need to guide and facilitate the use of GT in their EFL teaching. Moreover, learners still depend on their teachers despite the availability of modern language learning tools. Therefore, in teaching the semanticity aspect in EFL course, there are several recommendations that will be enable the teachers to carry out meaning usage of GT in EFL learning. Firstly, the teachers need to briefly introduce the L2 language structure and contrast it with other languages, particularly for the international learners who may come from different regions. It would be impossible for the teacher to provide specific comparisons with source and target language but the teacher can introduce the basic nuances of the L2 to give a better understanding of decoding the semanticity in L2 learning. Secondly, the learners too should be sensitized to the knowledge on the limitations that exist in the use of GT so that they do not quickly resort to guessing the meaning or selecting the first word provided in the GT. For meaningful learning to take place in an EFL classroom, the teaching process should be learner-centred and the learners must be taught the skills on identifying meaning using contextual clues, common language structure and cultural associations. Another aspect that looms largely in the EFL teaching is the awareness of generation gap among the EFL learners and the teaching strategies must be able to cater for both Gen-Y and Gen-X. Gen-Y showed more interest on acquiring immediate campus wifi services; the Gen-X learners still preferred conventional materials. As such, the blending of conventional and contemporary teaching in EFL classes should be varied to complement the EFL learning as well as effective usage of GT in EFL learning. In addition, the teachers who are teaching EFL course should also prepare themselves with some cultural knowledge of their EFL group to understand the conceptualisation of meaning in various cultures to facilitate semanticity decoding activities and lessons.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

12

This study is hoped to breach the gaps of decoding semanticity of words via the use of GT in EFL learning to generate a more effective L2 learning environment. Although the present study has revealed some insight into learners’ perception of GT usage in EFL learning and how the learners decode semanticity of words with the use of GT, some limitations need to be acknowledged. First of all, the study was conducted in seven weeks, a considerable short duration for such a study to gauge more information on GT use in EFL learning. Although the participants are international students, the group consist of a majority from the Middle-East countries while only a small number from the East-Asia region. This limits the comparison of respondents pattern of GT use for decoding semanticity in EFL learning. Hence, this study could be replicated within a longer span and be carried out on a larger population of EFL learners as well as teachers to provide more results on GT usage in EFL learning.

References

Ahmed El Shiekh (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): 56-69.

Aiken, M. and Ghosh, K. (2009). Automatic Translation in Multilingual Business Meetings. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 109(7): 916-925.

Aiken. M and Balan. S. (2011) Translation Journal. 16(2).

Retrieved from URL: http://translationjournal.net/journal/56google.htm

DianeLarsen-Freeman, (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 2ed., Oxford University Press. China. Retrieved from:

http://cristinaghedea.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/techniques-and-principles-in-language-teaching-_diane-larsen-freeman_oup_210-pp.pdf

Kais A. K, Luwaytha. S. H, Ahmad Arifin Sapar, Zaharah Hussin, Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah(2013). An Evaluation of Online Machine Translation of Arabic into English News Headlines: Implications on Respondents’ Learning Purposes. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 12 (2). 39-50

Larson, Mildred, L. 1984. Meaning based Translation. USA: University Press of America.

Lee, Seowon (2004). Teaching Lexis to EFL Students: A Review of Current Perspectives and Methods. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. Vol 1, 2004. Retrieved from

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/vol1_documents/Seowon/Seowon.htm

Leech, Geoffrey.N. (1974). Semantics. Penguin Books Ltd. Harmondsworth, Middlesex.


Vol. 4, No.9, pp. 1-13.

13

Lynch (2011). 20 English Language Learning Tools for EFL Respondents. Retrieved from:

http://bettereflteacher.blogspot.com/2009/07/20-english-language-learning-tools-for.html

Roby, W. B. (1999). What's in a gloss? Language Learning & Technology. 2(2): 94-101.

Speaks, Jeff (2011). "Theories of Meaning", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from: URL =

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/meaning/>.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What Lexical Information Do L2 Learners Select in a CALL Dictionary and How Does it Affect Word Retention? Language Learning & Technology. 3: 58-76.

Vlasta Vitek.S. (2000). Reflections of a Human Translator on Machine Translation. Will MT Become the "Deus Ex Machina" Rendering Humans Obsolete in an Age When "Deus Est Machina?" Translation Journal. 4(3).

Retrieved from: http://accurapid.com/journal/13mt.htm

Zhifa Shen (2008). The Roles of Depth and Breath of Vocabulary Knowledge in EFL Reading Performance. Asian Social Science. 4(12): 135 - 137

An Analysis of Google Translate Use in Decoding Contextual Semanticity among EFL Learners

Documents

Transcript of An Analysis of Google Translate Use in Decoding Contextual Semanticity among EFL Learners