The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

CONTENTS
No. Author Title of paper Page

1 Rochelle Irene G. Lucas Growth mindset, 1

motivation and language
attitude as precursors of
EFL lifelong learning

2 Bui Thi Hoa English-majored students’ 17

Nguyen Thi Quynh Nhu attitudes towards the use
of critical thinking
strategies in reading
practice

3 Chu Quang Phe Exploring different 39

Nguyen Hoang Trang factors affecting
economics majors’ success
in studying English

4 Dang Thi Thao Anh The acquisition of English 61

Doan Minh Kho articles by intermediate
Vietnamese learners

5 Dang Thi Van Di Language assessment 80

literacy: A problem-based
perspective at the Faculty
of English Linguistics and
Literature, USSH,
VNUHCM

6 Ho Van Tien Teachers’ perceptions of 96

professionalism at a
language center

7 Huynh Thi Hau An investigation into 111

Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu learners’ attitudes towards
training metacognitive
strategies in reading
comprehension

ix
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

8 Le Thi Thach Thao The effect of improving 139

Huynh Thi Thuy My working memory on
Nguyen Hoang Minh Anh interpreting process of
Truong Thi My Van English major students

9 Janpha Thadphoothon Wellness and ELT: 157

Implications of research
findings

10 Lam Yen Nhi An analysis of common 167

lexical errors in
translation from
Vietnamese into English

11 Le Hoang Kha A case study of 181

Mai Tan Phat implementing technology-
enhanced project-based
language teaching in a
teenager ESL writing
class

12 Le Hoang Kha Using technology in 198

Mai Tan Phat teaching EFL
pronunciation: an action
research in a young
Vietnamese learner class

13 Nguyen Dang Thi Cuc Huyen TOEIC listening 215

hindrances encountered
by EFL learners: A focus
on lexical features

14 Nguyen Duy Khoi The relationship between 236

Nguyen Thi Hoang Anh listening strategies and
intermediate learners’
IELTS listening
comprehension

x
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

15 Nguyen Ha Bao Quyen Attitudes of EFL learners 256

Nguyen Khanh Van at HCMC universities
towards autonomous
learning by English
learning mobile apps for
effective communicative
competence

16 Nguyen Hai Ha Presentations on zoom: 281

Students’ perception
towards an EMI course at
ULIS, VNU Hanoi

17 Nguyen Khanh Thao Di An action research on 295

Luu Thi Hong Nhung using short stories to
Pham Hung Thinh teach grammar to
elementary students

18 Nguyen Mai Tran The effects of 316

Nguyen Thu Huong Questioning-the-Author
strategy on EFL young
learners’ reading
comprehension

19 Nguyen Minh Quan Etymology in vocabulary 332

acquisition: a meta-
analysis

20 Nguyen Nhat Minh Chau The effects of indirect 349

Cao Thi Quynh Loan written corrective
feedback (WCF) on non-
English majored students’
improvements of
grammatical accuracy in
writing

21 Nguyen Thi Hoai Anh The effects of intrinsic 371

Mai Truong An motivation on students’
intentions of giving peer
feedback in writing

xi
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

22 Nguyen Thi Hoang Lan Motivation and 390

amotivation in English
speaking: An
investigation on learners’
interest in English and
home environment at
M.A.S English Center

23 Nguyen Thi Ngoc Dung Using conceptual 408

Bui Hong Uyen Trinh metaphor in phrasal verb
teaching:
A literature review

24 Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lan EFL teenagers’ attitudes 426

Nguyen Thu Huong towards ‘reading circles’:
A case study at a
language center

25 Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung Questions to check for 444

understanding in English
grammar teaching: A
survey into teachers’
beliefs and practices

26 Nguyen Thi Thanh Tra A study on second-year 460

Dang Thi Minh Ngoc students in speaking
Nguyen Duong Phuong Thao practice at People’s
Nguyen Thanh Thi Phuong Thao Security University

27 Nicholas Hugh Bishop The judicious balance 479

between pedagogical
proposals and principles
of second language
acquisition

28 Pham Ngoc Kim Tuyen Vietnamese students’ 491

perspectives on teachers’
using humor in EFL/ESL
classrooms

xii
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

29 Pham Thi Hong An An approach to English 509

teaching and learning in
light of the reader-
response criticism theory
in literature

30 Pham Thi Kim Anh The connection among 521

teacher, peer and self-
feedback in writing skill:
a theoretical synthesis

31 Pham Van Khanh Investigating students’ 538

Trinh Ngoc Thanh perception towards the
Nguyen Trung Hieu online teaching of
translation

32 Phan Nhut Khanh Using portfolios in 552

assessing writing of EFL
learners at the University
Of People’s Security
(UPS)

33 Phan Thanh Hung Common errors in 574

Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc international commercial
Le Hoang Anh Tuan contract translation and
solutions

34 Phan Thi Van Thanh Jumping into cold water: 591

Nguyen Thi Van managing large
Nguyen Ho Thanh Truc synchronous online EFL
Phan Thi Ngoc Thanh classes
Trinh Mai Phuong

35 Ta Huynh Xuan Nghi Blended learning during 607

social distancing at a
tertiary English
department: Provisional
solution, visionary
approach

xiii
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

36 Ta Le Minh Phuoc Beliefs and practices of 623

Vietnamese EFL teachers
at the faculty of English,
USSH, VNUHCM
regarding English
grammar teaching:
Explicit or implicit
instruction?

37 Tran Thi Thanh Mai Students’ attitudes 648

towards the application of
Microsoft Teams to
online learning at Van
Lang University

38 Tran Thi Thu Hien Causes of Vietnam USA 664

Society English Centers
(VUS) young learners’
anxiety in speaking
English in class

39 Tran Thi Van Hoai The shadow of Western 682

cultures and Vietnamese
culture on the use of
English and Vietnamese

40 Tran Uyen Phuong Transcreation as the next 697

step in translation
curriculum development

41 Van Thi Nha Truc Intercultural language 716

Nguyen Duy Mong Ha education: Concepts and
models

42 Vo Tu Phuong Solutions to improve 740

foreign language
proficiency for students
majoring in tourism and
hospitality: A case study
in Khanh Hoa Province

xiv
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

COMMON ERRORS IN INTERNATIONAL

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT TRANSLATION AND
SOLUTIONS

Phan Thanh Hung1

Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc2
Le Hoang Anh Tuan3

Abstract
Several errors have been found in students’ International Commercial
Contract Translation (ICCT) in practice and tests in the course of
Business Translation at the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature,
USSH, VNU-HCM, despite all the theories learned and instructions
received. This can lead to poor ICCT quality and low scores in the
course. This study aims to identify errors of which the students need to
be more mindful to increase their translation competence. A survey was
conducted on errors in 277 tests of students in eight courses from 2016
to 2020 to identify the frequency of translation errors in six categories:
contractual norm, business terminology, grammar, punctuation, format,
and others. The data analysis showed that the majority of errors were
related to contractual norm and business terminology. Thus, the students
need a heightened awareness of such errors to avoid them and enhance
the quality of their translations.
Keywords: International Commercial Contract Translation (ICTT),
translation error, translation quality, assessment

1
University of Social Sciences & Humanities, VNUHCM;
Email: phanthanhhung@hcmussh.edu.vn
2
University of Social Sciences & Humanities, VNUHCM;
Email: nhungoc@hcmussh.edu.vn
3
University of Social Sciences & Humanities, VNUHCM;
Email: anhtuan@hcmussh.edu.vn

574
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

1. Introduction
International Business is a decisive factor for a nation’s economic
growth. According to the World Trade Organization, the total value of
world merchandise trade in 2019 was $19.051 trillion ("World Trade
Statistical Review 2020", 2020). The value comprised 13.4% of the
global GDP in 2019 and has been increasing from year to year, indicating
that international merchandise trade plays an essential role in economic
development in every country in the world.
In international trade, an ICC (international commercial contract)
is essential for participants to commit their rights and obligations, where
English is used as the Lingua Franca (Nickerson, 2005) to communicate
with onshore native speaker customers (Forey & Lockwood, 2007;
Friginal, 2009). Therefore, translation of the ICC from LOTE
(Languages Other Than English) into English and vice versa becomes
essential in the international business community. As a result,
International Commercial Contract Translation (ICCT) has been
embedded into translation programs at tertiary level in most countries,
including Vietnam.
However, several errors in respect to ICCT have been found in the
practice and tests of students in the course of Business Translation at the
Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature, USSH, VNU-HCM
although the theories and instructions were carefully addressed, which
leads to poor ICCT quality and low scores in the course. This paper aims
to identify common errors and suggest some applicable solutions where
the students can take a special note thus increasing their translation
competence. The findings are supposed to be a useful reference for
teaching and learning ICCT at tertiary level.
2. Literature review
2.1. What is translation?
The English term “translation” came from the Latin with a
meaning of “carrying across” or “bringing across” in reference to the
process of “bringing” a text from one language to another (Kasparek,
1983). As a terminology, many scholars proposed different definitions

575
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

of translation.
One of the earliest definitions sees translation as “the interpretation
of verbal signs by means of some other language” (Jakobson, 1959) or
“the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent
textual material in another language (TL)” (Catford, 1965). Expanding
from the early concepts, Nida and Taber (1982) suggest that “translating
consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural
equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and
secondly in terms of style”. Their definition is more comprehensive with
the introduction of naturalness in both meaning and style (grammar or
structure) of the translated text. Meanwhile, Newmark (1981) defines
translation as “a craft consisting of the attempt to replace a written
message and/or statement in one language by the message and/or
statement in another language”. More recently, according to Munday
(2016), translation between two different written languages refers to the
process in which the translator’s role is to change the source text (TT) in
the SL to a target text (TT) in the TL.
Regardless of the differences in wording, most of the definitions
still share the similar ideas: (1) a process in which one language is
replaced by another language, (2) the original meaning must be
preserved, and (3) the TT must feature the closest equivalent ideas from
the ST. And the students’ papers in this paper are assessed based on these
three criteria.
2.2. Translation errors
According to Delisle et al. (1999), errors in translation are those
found in a TT and resulted either from the translator’s ignorance or
inadequate application of a translation technique or translation strategy.
In general, translation errors can be understood as inaccuracies in the
transfer of ST content or flawed choice of register, style, or other aspects
that cause the TT fails to meet the requirement of the translation task.
Traditionally, translation errors are categorized into incorrect
meaning, misinterpretation, and interference. These classifications,
despite their popularity in translator training, received much criticism

576
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

starting from the 70s because they focus mostly on faulty transfer of the
ST’s sense at different levels (Waddington, 2000) and, thus, ignore the
communicative aspect of translation (Gouadec, 1989).
House (1977, 1997) is among the first scholars who explicitly
attempted to look at translation errors from the functionalist perspective.
He proposes the distinction between covert error and overt error, which
respectively refer to the errors related to the terms of the given translation
task or a lack of cultural or linguistic competence. This notion is well
received and becomes popular in subsequent papers on translation
assessment and translation errors. Gouadec (1989) seconds this notion
and suggests a distinction between absolute errors, which result from a
violation of the cultural or linguistic norm rules, and relative errors,
which defy the requirements of a specific translation project.
Consequently, people have started viewing translation quality as a
relative concept. Translation evaluation is no longer based on just
absolute standards, but also considers the purpose of a translation or to a
particular aspect in consideration. Similarly, the severity of errors is now
assessed in relation to the importance of the faulty element within the
text as a whole (Kussmaul, 1995). Despite the countless publications on
Translation Quality Assessment, no common standard exists in the
industry or academia for this topic (Colina, 2016). However, two
significant models to classify translation errors are favored in the world.
The first classification model for translation errors is constructed
by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters
in Australia (NAATI). The NAATI model (2018) has eight criteria: (1)
Mistranslation, (2) Inappropriate vocabulary, (3) Incorrect punctuation,
(4) Incorrect grammar, (5) Incorrect spelling, (6) Distortion of meaning,
(7) Unidiomatic usage, (8) Stylistic infelicities.
The second one which is Framework for Standardized Error
Marking, composed by the American Translation Association (ATA)
(2017), is intended for identifying and classifying errors in professional
translations. This framework lists 22 types of translation errors: (1)
Unfinished, (2) Illegibility, (3) Indecision, (4) Addition, (5) Ambiguity,
(6) Cohesion, (7) Faithfulness, (8) Faux aim, (9) Literalness, (10)

577
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

Misunderstanding, (11) Omission, (12) Terminology, (13) Text Type,

(14) Verb Tense, (15) Grammar, (16) Syntax, (17) Word form / Part of
speech, (18) Punctuation, (19) Spelling, (20) Diacritical marks / Accents,
(21) Capitalization, and (22) Usage.
The ATA’s framework includes almost all possible types of errors
and focuses more on the linguistic aspects of the ICCT tasks in case of
this research. Therefore, the ATA’s framework was used to analyze the
translation errors in this study since it is more suitable for assessing in-
training translators who tend to focus more on the linguistic aspects of
the ICCT task.
2.3. Previous researches
Research on errors in translation from Vietnamese to English is
still limited in number, but there are still some notable attempts.
Na Pham (2005) investigated the effect of differences between
Vietnamese and English in the process of translating authentic
Vietnamese sentences into English through an error analysis of the
translations by Vietnamese EFL students. The research results suggest a
number of errors commonly made when Vietnamese EFL students
translate the topic-comment structure of Vietnamese into English. The
Guide Sheet for Linguistic Error Analysis proposed by Na Pham (2005)
was also used by Cuc Pham, Ninh Truong & Thin Nguyen (2019) in
another study, whose results suggest that, in the translations of English
major students in Hung Vuong University, syntactic errors occur the
most frequently, followed by collocation errors, then others.
Translation errors committed by Vietnamese EFL students in
general were also investigated by Cuc Pham (2018) but using the
taxonomy for translation error analysis used by Popescu (2013). The
findings of this study showed that in the students’ translation, errors
related to collocations, syntax, and lexical choice are the most frequent.
On the other hand, some researchers looked into specific aspects
of translation errors such as Structural Errors (Bui, 2018), Grammatical
Errors (Nhut, 2020), or Linguistic Errors (Pham et al., 2019), etc.
It can be seen that most of the previous studies revealed errors in

578
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

translation in respect to various aspects of translation, however, they only

investigated the translation errors in translation of general documents,
lacking focus on specific fields, especially business. Indeed, no research
on translation errors of international commercial contracts is found.
Therefore, this paper is hoped to make some further contribution to this
field.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research design
The research is an attempt to take a mixed approach, in which both
quantitative and descriptive research methods were implemented. The
research process included three steps: data collection based on a
retrospective survey, error identification and classification, and error
quantification. The second step employed the descriptive method so that
errors were identified and then classified into specific categories, while
the third step was quantitative so that the frequency of each category was
counted for a general picture of the students.
3.2. Data collection and analysis procedure
The retrospective survey was conducted on the midterm and final
tests in ICCT in business translation courses; and their translation errors
were categorized based on the lists of 22 errors by the ATA. An error is
considered common when its frequency takes at least twenty percent of
the total errors in the survey, and the category of an error is ONLY
counted one per test even though this error may appear several times in
the same test.
The main data collection instrument was indirect observation. The
population of the study was papers (including midterm and final tests) of
the third-year students. In the Business Translation course, the students
learn and practice translating ICC as part of their midterm and final tests.
To serve the purpose of the study, a randomly selected sample of 277
Vietnamese-English translations in the midterm and final tests in eight
Business Translation courses in the full-time program at the Faculty of
English Linguistics & Literature, USSH, VNU-HCM from 2016-2020
was collected for translation error analysis. In the midterm and final tests,

579
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

the students were required to translate two parts, and the length of one
part is about 200-250 words. One of them is an international commercial
contract. The students were only allowed to use paper dictionaries and
had 90 minutes to finish the two parts.
The analysis of translation errors was carried out and discussed for
a common agreement by all the three members in this research group;
they all have five-to-ten-year experience in the field of translation and
translation teaching. The researchers used the ATA’s Framework for
Standardized Error Marking. The framework addresses errors at word,
phrase, or sentence level across 22 categories with explanations for each
type provided with details on its website.
For more convenience and appropriateness in ICCT, the paper
writers decided to group the 22 types of translation errors in the ATA’s
framework, mentioned in section 2.2, into 6 major error categories as
follows.
Table 1. Error categories and their specific errors

No. Error category Specific errors

1 Contractual norm (6) Cohesion, (7) Faithfulness, (13) Text Type,
(9) Literalness, (10) Misunderstanding, (21)
Capitalization
2 Business (12) Terminology, (19) Spelling, (22) Usage
terminology
3 Grammar (4) Addition, (11) Omission, (14) Verb Tense,
(15) Grammar, (16) Syntax, (17) Word form/Part
of speech
4 Punctuation (18) Punctuation, (20) Diacritical marks/Accents
5 Format (1) Unfinished, (2) Illegibility, (8) Faux aim
6 Others (3) Indecision, (5) Ambiguity

580
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

4. Findings and discussions

In the table below, the total number of errors is 587 in the 227
midterm and final tests in ICCT. The most common ones are those in the
categories of contractual norm (or writing style) and business terms,
accounting for 34% and 33% respectively. The grammar error category
ranks third with 16.5%. The other two punctuation and format ones come
forth and fifth at 6.4% and 6.1%.
Table 2. The total of errors in the six categories found in the 227
midterm and final tests of the EF students in eight Business Translation
courses at the USSH, VNUHCM, in 2016-2020

No. Error category Frequency Percentage

1 Contractual norm 201 34%

2 Business terminology 193 33%

3 Grammar 97 16.5%

4 Punctuation 38 6.4%

5 Format 36 6.1%

6 Others 22 3.7%

Total 587 100%

In detail, more errors are related to contractual norm. There were

201 errors in 227 papers - i.e. 7.25 out of 10 students made such mistakes
during the tests. The students failed to write the ICC language. The fact
that over a third of the students committed this error shows most students
do not pay special attention to the ICC language. The problem may lead
to a poor quality of ICCT even though it is sometimes understandable to
participants. The lack of capitalization, inappropriate phrases, or word
for word translation shows a lack of translation skills while contractual
norms are standardized. This is an error that translators, especially those
of ICCT need to avoid improving translation quality. Table 3 shows
some typical writing style errors.

581
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

Table 3. Some typical contractual norm errors made by the EF

Students, USSH, VNUHCM, in 2016-2020

Source Target Errors Translation

Language Language Solution
(Vietnamese) (English)

Bên A: Công ty Party A: Kim Do -Capitalization Party A: Kim Do

Cổ phần Kim Đô, Stock Company, Stock/Shareholdin
-Language use/
sau đây được gọi so-called as g Company,
contractual norm
là Bên Mua buyer hereinafter
referred to as
“Buyer”

Bên Mua và Bên -The seller and -Capitalization -The Buyer and
Bán cùng đồng ý the buyer agree The Seller have
-Language use/
ký hợp đồng mua to sign the agreed to sign The
contractual norm
và bán gạo buying and Sales and Purchase
selling rice Contract of Rice
trên cơ sở điều
contract on the on the terms and
kiện như sau
following basis conditions as
follows/below

Bên Bán có trách The seller is - Capitalization The Seller shall

nhiệm thông báo responsible for inform The Buyer
-Use of SHALL
cho Bên Mua … informing the of …
buyer

Capitalization and use of certain words and phrases are

standardized in making contracts, especially in English. When
translating from Vietnamese into English, the learners should not only
transfer the meaning from the SL to TL, but also conform to contractual
norms. Correct capitalization and use of words and phrases will help the
learners to better their translations. Therefore, nouns and phrases such as
“Contract”, “The Sales and Purchase Contract”, “The Buyer” or “The
Seller” should be used instead of “contract”, “selling and buying party”,
and “on the following basis” replaced by “on the terms and conditions as
follows”.
The next group of common errors are using inappropriate or

582
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

incorrect business terminolohy to describe clauses of a contract. This

error category is so common that it appeared 193 times in 227 tests. That
means this error is found in the tests of seven out of ten students. It raises
a question whether the students really understand what the contract
means since the error can be easily avoided if they do. While contractual
norm errors may retain their meanings in a poor ICCT, inappropriate or
wrong use of terms might lead to misunderstanding or confusion for the
participants. Although the frequency of this error category (33%) is just
a little bit lower than that of the contractual writing style (34%), its
consequence is not less severe and requires much effort from the
participants to work it out. Some prominent terminology errors can be
seen in Table 4.
Table 4. Some typical business terminology errors found made by the
EF Students, USSH, VNUHCM, in 2016-2020

Source Language Target Errors Translation

(Vietnamese) Language Solution
(English)
5. Phạt Hợp đồng 5. Contract punishment 5. Penalty
punishment
Nếu bên Bán không If the seller Violation day Late day
giao hàng đúng hạn, doesn’t deliver
Bên Bán sẽ bị phạt on time, the
0.05% cho mỗi seller will pay
ngày vi phạm đó... 0.05% for each
violation day
7. Giải quyết tranh 7. Conflict Conflict 7. Disputes/
chấp solution Dispute
resolution
Các bên có quyền Both parties Responsibility Both Parties
và nghĩa vụ sau. have the shall have the
following rights rights and
and obligations
responsibilities below

583
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

The concept of “punishment” is quite different from “penalty”.

According to Cambridge Dictionary, punishment is a process of
punishing, imposing and/or applying a sanction while penalty is a legal
sentence defining a financial pay to those who break the contract.
Similarly, the concept of a late day and violation day is different. There
is no violation day but late day. When the seller delays delivery, they
commit a violation and each late day from the delivery time will lead to
a penalty, which is 0.05% of the contract price per late day in this
contract. Finally, dispute is a legal act when one party takes legal action
against another for a violation. Therefore, a dispute comes from a
conflict of interests or a conflict of interests leads to a dispute. Using
inappropriate terms will lead to very poor translations, leaving a bad
feeling about the translator’s competence. The learners must use correct
business terminologies in order to make a good translation and to
showcase their excellent legal knowledge.
The third most common error category is grammar-centered. If
using inappropriate terms in a contract makes readers question
competence of legal knowledge, grammatical errors make them question
the translator’s language competence because grammar is usually
considered a basic language factor. For any reason, the learners are
supposed to be correct in grammar, and revision is always an essential
step to produce a good ICCT. Luckily, only about 16.5% of the third year
English-majors made these mistakes and the majority of them are minor
ones.
Table 5. Some typical grammar errors made by the EF Students,
USSH, VNUHCM, in 2016-2020

Source Target Errors Translation

Language Language Solution
(Vietnamese) (English)
Nếu Bên Bán -If the seller did -Conditional If The Seller does
không giao hàng not deliver on sentence-type 2 not deliver on
đúng hạn, Bên time, the seller -If clause + time, The Seller
Bán sẽ bị phạt … would pay… Simple Present to shall pay…
-If the seller shall show future

584
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

not deliver etc... action

-If the seller fail -Verb
to delivery the conjugation
goods on time... -Should + do not
-Should the seller
do not delivery
the goods...
-If the goods shall
not be...
Trong trường hợp In case two party Plural noun In case where the
hai Bên không thể can not negotiate Spelling two Parties
thương lượng... by own theme cannot
etc... negotiate...
Hợp đồng có thể The contract can Active form Whereas agreed
chấm dứt nếu hai stop if both side Plural nouns by both Parties in
bên đồng ý bằng agree by writing a written form,
văn bản the Contract shall
be terminated.

Table 5 illustrates some typical examples of grammar errors in the

ICCT tests under research. They are all very basic grammatical mistakes
that should not have occurred. Errors in conditional sentences, singular
or plural nouns or use of modal verbs have been carefully taught in
language skill courses. For example, the first conditional sentence must
be used to express an action that can occur in the future. The contract
cannot stop itself as the parties of the contract will do it, and a passive
form is needed. The learners should have had better translations if they
had reviewed or been more careful to avoid such mistakes.
Punctuation comes in the fourth error category. For ICCT, this is
considered as a serious mistake as it may change the figures and content
of a contract. Often, the mistakes occurred when students faced time
pressure, leading to lack of or wrong punctuation especially with figures.
In 227 tests, 36 errors were found, making an average of 0.17 errors per
test. However, even though its population is not very high, professional
translators are supposed to master the language they translate to ensure
no punctuation errors.

585
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

Table 6. Some typical punctuation errors made by the EF Students,

USSH, VNUHCM, in 2016-2020

Source Language Target Errors Translation

(Vietnamese) Language Solution
(English)
-Giá FOB-HCM là -Price: 542 Punctuation -The unit price is
542 đô la Mỹ/tấn USD/ton 5.420.000.000 USD 542 per ton
-Tổng giá trị Hợp -The total FOB HCM
5420000000
đồng là value is -The total amount
5.420.000.000 đô 5.420.000.000 is 5,420,000,000
Mỹ USD US dollars
-The total
amount of the
contract is
5420000000
-Giá FOB-HCM: Price: 3,5 3,5 The unit price is
3,5 usd/pc usd/pc (FOB- 3.5 USD per piece
HCM) FOB-HCM

-Nếu Bên Bán If Party A does 0.05% If the Seller does

không giao hàng not deliver not deliver on
đúng hạn theo quy goods on time, time, the Seller
định của Hợp đồng the panel shall pay 0.05%
này thì sẽ bị phạt số money’s of the Contract
tiền 0,05 tổng giá trị amount will be price per late day.
Hợp đồng 0,05 percent
per 1 day in
violation

In Table 6, the punctuation errors reveal a habit of using

Vietnamese norms for English version. All the figures are written in
Vietnamese style for English contracts. It seems to be minor mistakes in
writing, but it may create huge disputes in performing the contract. The
contract price of about five million turns to just more than five dollars,
which is a drastic change, or the fine of 0.05 percent per day might be
understood as 5 percent as the translation reads 0,05 percent. This error
category can be avoided if the learners are more careful.
Additionally, other errors found in the ICCT tests include using

586
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

inappropriate format in the target language, failing to convey the whole

meaning from the SL into the TL, using plain English, using unnatural
equivalents in the TL and so on. All these errors (10%) also played a role
in undermining translation quality. So apart from the common errors, the
learners should take these mistakes into consideration in ICCT as well.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the ATA’s framework of error analysis has been
applied to uncover common errors in ICCT of the translation majors at
the EF students at the USSH, VNUHCM in the period 2016-2020. We
have gone through common errors with respect to 6 major categories,
namely contractual norm, business terminology, grammar, punctuation,
format, and others.
Surprisingly, over a third of the errors are related to contractual
norm and other third business terminology. It means that most of the
students need to be better equipped with background knowledge in
business in general and international commercial contracts in particular.
They should spend more time reviewing and studying ICC features to
get familiar with the ICC language and build up their own stock of
business terms. In addition, most of the errors in these two categories can
be easily avoided if the learners pay more attention in carefully reading
any ICC in the SL to identify its specific contents and language features
for thorough understanding before choosing a proper contractual norm
and accurate business terms.
Last but not least, grammar, punctuation, format and other errors
are considered intolerable in ICCT because they badly affect the
translation quality and lead to unexpected misunderstanding in their
participants. Obviously, both terminology and language use are
interrelated to the knowledge of legal aspects, i.e. the contract language
and the proficiency of the target language. In order to reach the target
proficiency, the learners should need more efforts to develop not only
the specialized knowledge in ICC but also improve their language
proficiency. Thus, it is crucial for the students to improve such errors to
have a good ICCT in both format and content.
The findings and analysis in this paper may serve as a useful source
for those who are interested in ICC and ICCT.

587
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

References

American Translation Association (2017). Framework for Standardized

Error Marking [PDF]. https://www.atanet.org/certification/
Framework_2017.pdf
Bui, T.K.P. (2018). Common Structural Errors in Vietnamese -English
Translation Made by English Majored Students at Duy Tan
University. Tạp chí Khoa học và Công nghệ Đại học Đà Nẵng,
8(129), 61-65.
Catford, J. (1965/2000). A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London:
Oxford University Press (1965).
Colina, S. (2016). Fundamentals of translation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Delisle, J., Cormier, M., & Lee-Jahnke, H. (1999). Translation
Terminology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Forey, G, Lockwood, J (2007) I’d love to put someone in jail for this: An
initial investigation of English needs in the business processing
outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purposes
26(3): 308–326.
Friginal (2009) 'The Language of Outsourced Call Centers: A Corpus-
based Study of Cross-Cultural Interaction'. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins
Gouadec, D. (1989), ‘Comprendre, évaluer, prévenir. Pratique,
enseignement et recherche face à l’erreur et à la faute en
traduction’, TTR, 2(2), pp. 35–54.Jakobson, R. (1959/2004). On
linguistic aspects of translation, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2004), pp. 138–
43.
House, J. (1977), A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.
Tübingen: Narr.
House, J. (1997), Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited.
Tübingen: Narr

588
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

Kasparek, C. (1983). The Translator's Endless Toil. The Polish

Review, 28(2), 83-87. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25777966
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge.
National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters in
Australia (2018). List of Error Categories for Candidates (LOTE
into English)[PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.naati.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/List-of-Error-Categories_LOTE-to-
English.pdf
Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation, Oxford and New York:
Pergamon.
Nguyen, T.T.H. & Trieu, T.H. (2015). Vietnamese -English Translation
Errors Made by Second Year Translation-Major Students: An
Initial Step towards Enhancing Translation Standards. Tạp chí
Khoa học ĐHQGHN: Nghiên cứu nước ngoài, 31(1), 22-32
Nhut, N. (2020). An Analysis of Grammatical Errors by Vietnamese
Learners of English. International Journal of Advanced Research
in Education and Society, 2(2), 23-34. Retrieved from
http://myjms.moe.gov.my/index.php/ijares/article/view/9652
Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a franca lingua in international business
contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 368-380
Nida, E. A. and C. R. Taber (1969) The Theory and Practice of
Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Palumbo, G. (2009). Key Terms in Translation Studies. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Pham, C. (2018). An Analysis of Translation Errors: A Case Study of
Vietnamese EFL Students.
Pham, C., Truong, N., & Nguyen, T. (2019). An Analysis of Linguistic
Errors Committed in Translation by English Major Students at
Hung Vuong University. Journal of Science and
Technology, 14(1). Retrieved from https://www.hvu.edu.vn/file/

589
 The 5th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT 2020)

1350440875/-s%e1%bb%91%201-14%20Ph%e1%ba%a1m%
20Th%e1%bb%8b%20Kim%20C%-c3%bac.pdf
Pham, P.Q.N. (2005). Error analysis in Vietnamese - English
translation: Pedagogical implications (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from https://researchdirect.westernsydney-
.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A2513/datastream/PDF/view
Popescu, T. (2013). A Corpus-based approach to translation error
analysis. A case-study of Romanian EFL learners. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 242-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.048
Waddington, C. (2000). Estudio comparativo de diferentes métodos de
evaluación de traducción general (inglés-español). Madrid:
Universidad Pontificia Comillas.
World Trade Organization. 2020. World Trade Statistical Review 2020.
Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/
statis_e/wts2020_e/wts20_toc_e.htm

Biodata
Dr. Phan Thanh Hung is currently a lecturer of Department of
Translation and Interpreting, EF, USSH, VNUHCM. His main research
interests are Translation Studies, International Business and Commercial
Law.
Dr. Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc is currently Chair of the Department
of Translation and Interpreting, EF, USSH, VNUHCM. Her main
research interests are Translation Studies, Comparative Linguistics, and
Intercultural Communication.
Mr. Le Hoang Anh Tuan holds an M.A. in Applied Linguistics
from School of Education, Curtin University, Australia. He currently
works as a lecturer in the University of Social Sciences and Humanities,
VNUHCM. He nurtures a keen interest in Translation Studies, Bilingual
Education, and EFL Teaching Methods.

590