The article “Generating a Valid Questionnaire Translation for Cross-Cultural Use” by Chia-Ting Su and L. Diane Parham contains a step-by-step description of cultural adaptation of the 184-item “Evaluation of Sensory Processing” questionnaire for use in Taiwan. The methodology includes: two forward translations followed by reconciliation, two backward translations, comparison of the back translations with the source by two independent reviewers, decentering, testing of the translated questionnaire on potential users, and final revisions of the translated questionnaire. For each step, the number of participants, their educational background and linguistic profiles are provided. At the end of the article, a summary table is provided; it features the number of revisions made in each section of the questionnaire during the adaptation process.
The report is preceded by a substantial theoretical piece, which discusses general issues of linguistic and cultural equivalence, and the essence of translation as a process. The theoretical piece contains controversies: for example, the idea of “cultural translation” is described in terms of “words” and “phrases”. I believe “words” and “phrases” are terms belonging primarily to the linguistic level of description; whereas the idea of “cultural translation” should be re-defined in terms of “concepts’. Also, it would be especially useful to know what the authors of the article eventually understand by “equivalence” between the source and the target item: that would help to appreciate the results of the reported case, especially the bits when the authors speak about “errors in translation”. Finally, it would be interesting to see examples of translation difficulties, or a list of English words that were difficult to translate, or concepts that were difficult to adopt for use in Taiwan. That would provide valuable material for comparisons with difficulties that researchers from of other linguistic communities experience in the process of translation/ adaptation of English questionnaires.

Continuing the started theme about the nitrogen and the translations
of these wondrous nitrogen chemical compound names, it would have been
interesting to draw the attention to possible translation variants of
the term “amino acid taurine” from English into Latvian and
Russian.
In almost any text, even in scientific literature, we can find some
clarification that this compound is classified as an amino acid,
however, both in Latvian and Russian the meaning of such explanation
is rather difficult to understand and may be even confusing. The
problem is that both in Latvian and Russian the term “amino acid” is
related to the compound that contains both an amino group (-NH2) and a
carboxyl group (-COOH) while taurine contains an amino group (-NH2)
and a sulfonate group (-SO3H), but it does not contain a carboxyl
group (-COOH). The problem could be solved by adding to the direct
translation of this term the following IUPAC (International Union of
Pure and Applied Chemistry) nomenclature term: 2-aminoethanesulfonic
acid (“2-аминоэтансульфоновая кислота” in Russian or “2-
aminoetānsulfonskābe” in Latvian, thus describing the chemical
structure of this compound – “aminoskābe taurīns (2-
aminoetānsulfonskābe)” in Latvian or “аминокислота таурин (2-
аминоэтансульфоновая кислота)” in Russian.

There is a famous saying in Latin: “Invia est in medicina via sine
lingua Latina”, which means: “There is no way into medicine without
the Latin language”.
A similar situation may often occur in medical translations for
healthcare specialists. Especially when it is difficult or almost
impossible to understand the meaning of the term, if the clarifying
anatomy terms in Latin are not added. For example, which option would
be optimal for the translation of the term “narrow angle glaucoma”
into Russian and Latvian? The translation of the word “glaucoma” could
not cause problems, but without any further explanation the meaning of
the phrase “narrow angle” is not clear and many questions could arise.
For example, which angle is narrow, what forms this angle, where it
could be found, what is the anatomic, functional, clinical, or any
other meaning of this angle? The solution could be the use of any
descriptive anatomical terminology in Latin, given the fact that such
terminology has many advantages such as simplicity and universalism -
medical and health care professionals can understand it without
problems and use it all over the world. This way, the term “narrow
angle glaucoma” could be translated in Russian as “узкоугольная
глаукома (angulus iridocornealis)”or in Latvian as “šaurā leņķa
glaukoma (angulus iridocornealis)” (in brackets the anatomical term in
Latin should be added as an explanation that the narrow angle relates
to the angle between the cornea and iris found in the eye).

The article raises a number of important issues in cross-cultural comparison of emotions. We fully agree that it is important to distinguish between the representational and linguistic level when we speak about emotions, and the medieval studies of universals provide an adequate theoretical ground for that. We also agree that none of the existing translation methodologies provides a ground for reliable comparison of emotion concepts across cultures.

However, while it is important to study emotion concepts in the wide context of a culture, it is also important to study what words denoting emotions refer to in individual study instruments. When used in study instruments, words denoting emotions do not refer to all aspects of meaning they potentially may refer to. The set of possible meanings is restricted by the target group, and by the linguistic context, which includes the context of response choices. As many leading survey researchers point out (see, for example, N. Schwartz “What Respondents Learn from Scales: the Informative Functions of Response Alternatives”. International Journal of Public Opinion Research (1990), 2(3): 274-285), however carefully the “label” denoting an emotion is selected for a questionnaire, respondents will use response options to determine the exact reference of the question. For example, in order to understand what exactly the author of a questionnaire means by “really irritated”, whether it refers to minor or major annoyances, respondents will consult the frequency scale provided for this question. If the scale contains such descriptions as “less than once a year”, “more than once a month”, the respondents will infer that the author is interested in rare, and hence major annoyances. If the scale contains higher frequencies:  “several times a day”, “once a day”, respondents will conclude that the author is interested in frequent, minor annoyances.

Therefore, for the purpose of cross-cultural research, it is important to study words denoting emotions not only as vocabulary units, but also as constituents of a conversation between the author of a questionnaire and the respondent. A study of this kind may be efficiently conducted through the method of cognitive debriefing, which is currently widely used in instrument development and translation.

S.Koudria 05 April 2012

Reference:

THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH ON EMOTION CONCEPTS (COMMENTARY ON CHOI & HAN)” by H. de Mendoza; 2008 International Journal for Dialogical Science, Vol.3 No.1 241-248

From time to time, while translating medical documents for clinical trials in neuropsychiatry, we come across the translation of the term “nitrous oxide”, where it is defined as a gaseous street drug or anesthesia causing matter.
In English, the term oxide can be attributed to a large number of two chemical element compounds with oxygen, one of which is nitrogen in this context. Such nitrogen oxides can have varied chemical composition, where the nitrogen has the following degrees of oxidation:
nitrous oxide (N2O) – nitrogen(I) oxide, where the nitrogen oxidation degree is +1;
nitric oxide (NO) – nitrogen(II) oxide, where the nitrogen oxidation degree  is +2;
dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), where the nitrogen oxidation degree is +3;
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) –  nitrogen(IV) oxide, where the nitrogen oxidation degree is +4; dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5)  - nitrogen(V) oxide, where the nitrogen oxidation degree is +5.

In order to characterize the nitrogen compound with oxygen, where the nitrogen oxidation degree is below the traditional value​​, the Latvian and the Russian languages ​​can use the term “оксидул” in Russian or „oksiduls” in Latvian, that does not exists in English to describe the lowest possible degree of oxidation for nitrogen in binary nitric combination with oxygen.
The translation of this term should be emphasized, since all other nitrogen oxides are toxic, that is why the medical texts should use the term “оксидул” in Russian and “oksiduls” in Latvian as the only possible option; where it is defined as a gaseous street drug or anesthesia causing substance.

It is also possible to use a descriptive translation of this term in Russian “веселящий газ” (the backward translation “laughing gas”); „Lachgas” in German (the backward translation „laugh gas”), „jautrības gāze” in Latvian (the backward translation “fun gas”).

It would be preferable both in Latvian and Russian to use a hybrid translation of the term by combining the terms describing chemical structure with the description of the effects of this gaseous substance as follows: “оксидул азота (веселящий газ)” in Russian and „slāpekļa oskiduls (jautrības gāze)” in Latvian.

How the term “nitrous oxide” is translated into other languages, in medical texts?

Here is the problem:

1. Some medical texts keep the original English phrase ON/OFF; the obvious disadvantage is that patients won’t understand it.

2. ON/OFF is sometimes translated as “период включения/выключения,” which can be back-translated (somewhat awkwardly) as “period of the switch being on/off.” I think the Russian translation of this commonly used term misses the point. Clearly, the primary meaning of the English term is “period when the patient is ON medication/OFF medication.” However, because the effect of medication is such that the patient becomes active and agile during the ON period and passive and immobile during the OFF period, the term acquires a second meaning in English, as if it were a pun. This double meaning is lost in the Russian translation. (I saw the same translation used in another language, French: allumé).

3. It also possible to use a descriptive construction: “период, когда лекарство действует/не действует,” which can be back-translated as “period when the medication has an effect/does not have an effect.” I like this translation because it is foolproof: the meaning is correct, and it is easy for patients to understand.

Which is the best solution? How would you translate this term into your language? How do we decide?

What does this mean for translators of questionnaires? How do we interpret the results meaningfully and how do we avoid making misleading conclusions? Importantly, the respondent’s first reaction does not actually show how they understand the translated item. It shows that the respondent feels uncomfortable having to explain a word/ expression that means different things to different people. Indeed, interpretation of generic concepts depends entirely on the respondent’s personal experience. Also, these concepts might be difficult to rephrase.  So I think it is not necessary to record verbatim what such a respondent says during a Cognitive Debriefing report; it is not informative for the developer. I think it is enough to record only the evidence of respondents’ actual understanding of a word/expression, for instance, the examples they provide.

There are several translation difficulties: first, the word “activity” has no direct equivalent in many languages; second, if we do find an equivalent (for example, something like “interacting with friends and others”) how do we make sure it covers the same range of activities as its English original?

For example, in the US, “social activities” include “volunteer work,” which is usually not the case in Russia and many other countries where most people might not have time to spare on volunteer work. How do we make sure that the translation accurately reflects the intended meaning?

We may study the context of the questionnaire – it is likely that we will need different solutions for different health conditions. Sometimes, the intended goal is to assess whether the respondent can communicate and maintain friendship with others. In that case, even chatting on the phone for hours is considered a social activity. Other questionnaires put emphasis on physical limitations. In this, the goal is to find out whether or not one is able to get around to engage in social activities such as going out, socializing with others outside one’s home, etc.

Please share with us your thoughts on this issue. What is the common perception of “social activities” in your culture?